Article

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems

and Structures
0(0) 1–18
Design optimization of a shape Ó The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
memory alloy–actuated robotic sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X12436738

catheter jim.sagepub.com

John H Crews and Gregory D Buckner

Abstract
In this article, we present a method for optimizing the design of a shape memory alloy–actuated robotic catheter. Highly
maneuverable robotic catheters have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of cardiac diseases such as atrial fibril-
lation. To operate effectively, the catheter must navigate within the confined spaces of the heart, motivating the need for
a tight bending radius. The design process is complicated by the shape memory alloy’s hysteretic relationships between
strain, stress, and temperature. This article addresses the modeling and optimization of both a single-tendon and antago-
nistic tendon robotic catheter using COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling and Simulation software. Several design variables
that affect the actuator behavior are considered; these include the shape memory alloy tendon radius and its prestrain,
the shape memory alloy tendon offset from the neutral axis of the flexible beam, the flexible beam radius and elastic
modulus, and the thermal boundary condition between the shape memory alloy tendon and the beam. A genetic algo-
rithm is used to optimize the radius of curvature of the two catheter designs. Both a single-crystal and polycrystalline
models are implemented in COMSOL and are experimentally validated.

Keywords
actuator, optimization, shape memory

Introduction procedures including angiography, angioplasty, electro-

Shape memory alloys (SMAs) are unique ‘‘smart mate-
rials’’ that have the potential to revolutionize robotic
actuation in biomedical applications. SMAs feature
high energy densities (105–107 J/m3), impressive strain
recovery characteristics (up to 10%), and biocompat-
ibility with human tissue. To date, biomedical applica-
tions have largely utilized the superelastic properties of
SMA (Deurig et al., 1999); commercially available tech-
nologies include coronary stents, eyeglass frames, and
orthodontic wires (Auricchio et al., 1997). The shape
memory effect, which allows SMAs to contract by over
4% upon heating, has yet to make a significant com-
mercial impact in biomedical technologies. Current
research and development are focused on SMA actua-
tion in cardiac catheters (Veeramani et al., 2008a),
annuloplasty bands (Purser et al., 2009), and smart
inhaler systems for aerosol drug delivery (Paulsey and
Seelecke, 2008). The design and control of SMA-actu-
ated technologies are complicated by hysteretic depen-
dencies between strain, stress, and temperature.
In this article, we focus on the design optimization of
a SMA-actuated cardiac catheter. Cardiac catheters are
used in a number of investigational and interventional
physiology, and endocardial ablation. Commercially
available catheters are manually steerable in a bidirec-
tional sense (Figure 1) and utilize internal pull wires
that run the length of the catheter. Their limited maneu-
verability makes certain procedures tedious and time
consuming, increasing risks associated with prolonged
anesthesia and fluoroscopy exposure. Furthermore,
maintaining continuous contact with cardiac tissue
(important for procedures such as endocardial ablation
(Calkins et al., 2007)) is challenging. Robotic catheters
have the potential to revolutionize such procedures with
increased maneuverability and computer-controlled
motion.
To date, published research involving SMA-actuated
systems has focused primarily on specific modeling and
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Corresponding author:
Gregory D Buckner, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7910, Raleigh,
NC 27695, USA.
Email: greg_buckner@ncsu.edu

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

2 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

Figure 1. Conventional steerable ablation catheter from Boston Scientific (Natick, MA): (a) catheter tip and handle; (b) planar
bending.

control aspects; little attention has been paid to design 2004), smart inhalers (Paulsey and Seelecke, 2008), and
optimization. The design of SMA actuators is often smart dampers (Moallem, 2003).
iterative and complicated by the material’s complex The remainder of this article is organized as follows:
thermomechanical behavior. The limited work on SMA section ‘‘System model’’ presents the modeling of
design optimization has either focused on the material’s robotic catheters actuated by single and antagonistic
superelastic behavior (Masuda and Noori, 2002) or is SMA tendons. The SMA constitutive model and struc-
based on empirical models (Dumont and Kuhl, 2005; tural bending models are derived and implemented in
Lu et al., 2001). Masuda and Noori (2002) investigate COMSOL. Section ‘‘Design optimization’’ describes the
optimal hysteresis loop shapes in SMA-based energy design optimization problem, including objective func-
dissipation devices, which requires modifying the tions, design variables, and GA implementation. The
material’s chemical and physical properties (Sato experimental setup for validating the bending model is
et al., 1984). In Lu et al. (2001), the authors optimize presented in section 4.The model validation and design
the mass of an SMA-actuated corrugated plate sub- optimization results are presented in section ‘‘Results.’’
ject to specific performance constraints. Dumont and Conclusions are presented in section ‘‘Conclusion.’’
Kuhl (2005) optimize SMA spring actuators using an
empirical model (Ikuta, 1990) featuring an exponen-
tial function for the phase fractions. The spring geo- System model
metry is optimized, but the authors note that there is The robotic catheter uses SMA tendons for internal
no analytic function that quantifies the actuator’s actuation. Each bending segment features three main
capabilities. components: an axially stiff, laterally compliant central
In this article, we present a method for optimizing structure, one or more SMA tendons, and regularly
the design of a SMA-actuated catheter. The SMA’s spaced collets (Figure 2). The collets hold each SMA
thermomechanical behavior is modeled using
COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling and Simulation soft-
ware (COMSOL Inc., Burlington, MA), a finite ele-
ment analysis (FEA) software package that interfaces
with a genetic algorithm (GA) running in MATLAB
(The Mathworks, Natick, MA). The GA is used to
optimize the catheter’s radius of curvature, a measure
of the device’s maneuverability. GAs are ideally suited
to the optimization of smart material actuators, where
Jacobian’s models are difficult or impossible to
obtain.The GA is coded in MATLAB and uses stress
and strain estimates from the COMSOL model to eval-
uate a design objective function (the catheter’s radius
of curvature). While the focus here is on improving the
maneuverability of a robotic catheter for cardiac proce-
dures, the methods and results can be extended to a Figure 2. Robotic catheter prototype: (a) solid model and (b)
variety of applications including robotic hands (Lan photograph.
and Yang, 2009), fish actuators (Shinjo and Swain, SMA: shape memory alloy.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews
Figure 3. Flexible catheter segment actuated by SMA: (a)
single-tendon actuation and (b) dual-tendon (antagonistic)
actuation.
SMA: shape memory alloy.
tendon a fixed distance from the neutral axis of the cen-
tral structure, creating a constant moment over the
active beam length as the tendons contract.
Each catheter bending segment has two degrees of
freedom (it can bend in two orthogonal planes), and the
motion can be decoupled into two planar bending prob-
lems. The bending angle u can be decoupled into uxz (the
bending angle projection in the XZ plane) and uyz (the
projection in the YZ plane). More details regarding this
kinematic decoupling and its utilization in control synth-
esis are provided in Veeramani et al. (2008b). Here, the
goal is to model and optimize the planar design, resulting
in optimal bending performance for each catheter seg-
ment. Furthermore, we analyze two separate planar cases:
a single SMA actuator and antagonistic SMA actuators.
Schematics of both cases are shown in Figure 3.
A fully maneuverable robotic catheter requires
antagonistic actuation; however, the single-tendon
actuation case is presented first to isolate the essential
complexities encountered in SMA actuation. The opti-
mization methods presented here can be easily extended
to other single-tendon applications (like those found in
Zhou and Lloyd (2009) and Yang and Gu (2002) or
designs requiring antagonistic actuation for increased
maneuverability and bandwidth (Han et al., 2003;
Moallem, 2003; Peirs et al., 1998). Antagonistic actua-
tion adds to the complexity of modeling and control-
ling SMA-actuated systems by introducing additional
nonlinearities. When one SMA tendon (the protago-
nist) is actuated, the antagonistic (inactive) tendon
strains, increasing the system’s bending stiffness. When
the protagonist is deactivated, slack may develop in the
antagonistic tendon. This slack must first be recovered
before the beam will bend in the antagonistic direction.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
3
Figure 4. Thermomechanical coupling of SMA crystalline
phases.
SMA: shape memory alloy.
Veeramani (2009) discusses the issues of antagonistic
slack in greater detail.
SMA constitutive model
The nonlinear, hysteretic behavior of SMA is due to the
presence of three crystalline phases: one austenite (A)
and two martensite variants (M + and M ). Austenite is
induced at high temperatures, while the martensite
phases are stress induced. M + occurs under tensile
stresses, and M occurs under compressive stresses.
Because an SMA tendon cannot experience compres-
sive forces, its low-temperature phases are assumed to
be detwinned martensite at high stresses (M + ) and
twinned martensite at low stresses (M + = , a blend of
both martensite phases). At high temperatures, the
SMA tendon exists entirely in its austenite phase
(Figure 4).
Constitutive models of SMA can be categorized into
physical models and empirical (phenomenological)
models. Physical SMA models (often referred to as free
energy models) date back to Muller and Wilmanski
(1980) and Achenbach (1989) with further work by
Seelecke and coauthors (Heintze et al., 2003; Heintze
and Seelecke, 2005; Muller and Seelecke, 2001;
Seelecke, 2002; Seelecke and Muller, 2004) and Huo
(1989). Smith et al. have done extensive work on the
efficient implementation of polycrystalline (PC) ver-
sions of these models, known as homogenized energy
models (Smith and Braun, 2006; Smith and Massad,
2005). Free energy models determine the equilibrium
states of phase fractions based on the Gibb’s energy
landscape. Empirical models, like those developed by
Liang and Rogers (1990) and Brinson (1993),
4 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

frequently use trigonometric or exponential functions the latent heat of phase transformation, and j(t) is the
to represent the crystalline phases. Joule heating input.
While empirical models provide greater computa- Equations (1) to (5) completely describe the constitu-
tional efficiency compared to physical models, they tive behavior of an SMA tendon and can be simulated
require a series of conditional statements to capture using COMSOL (Li, 2006). The resulting COMSOL
hysteretic behavior. Furthermore, these models do not models can serve as objective function calls from
capture the rate dependence of phase fractions. Recent MATLAB optimization algorithms. COMSOL is capa-
increases in the computational power of ordinary PCs ble of solving partial differential equations of the gen-
have enhanced the suitability of free energy models for eral form
optimization problems; the associated ordinary differ-
ential equations (ODEs) and algebraic equations can be ∂2 u ∂u
ea + da + rG = F ð6Þ
readily implemented into multiphysics FEA packages ∂t2 ∂t
such as COMSOL. For this reason, the free energy where ea is considered the mass matrix, da is the damp-
model described in Heintze and Seelecke (2005) is ing matrix, G is the flux matrix, and F is the source
utilized. term. By appropriately specifying the coefficient
The free energy model of SMA uses phase frac- matrices (ea , da , G, and F), the COMSOL model (6)
tions x (0 < x < 1) for each of the three crystalline can be used to represent the SMA phase fractions (1)
phases: xA is the austenite phase fraction, xM + is the and (2), its constitutive relationship (4), as well its heat
tension-induced martensite phase fraction, and xM is transfer dynamics (5). After converting the constitutive
the compression-induced martensite phase fraction. relationships into specific volume form, the coefficient
The dynamics of the xM + phase fraction are governed matrices are
by
ea = 0 ð7Þ
x_ M + ðtÞ =  p + A xM + ðtÞ + pA + xA ðtÞ ð1Þ 2 3
0 0 0 0
and the xM phase fraction is governed by 60 1 0 0 7
6
da = 4 7 ð8Þ
0 0 1 0 5
x_ M ðtÞ =  pA xM ðtÞ + pA xA ðtÞ ð2Þ 0 rsma H rsma H rsma cv
2 3
Since the sum of all three phase fractions is unity, s ðt Þ 0 0 0
the austenite phase fraction is given by 6 0 0 0 0 7
G=6
4 0
7 ð9Þ
0 0 0 5
xA ðtÞ = 1  xM + ðtÞ  xM ðtÞ ð3Þ 0 0 0 kT ðtÞ
The phase transition probabilities pij are determined and
from barriers in the Gibb’s energy landscape; these are
2 3
described in greater detail in Heintze (2004) and Smith 0
(2005). 6 p + A xM + ðtÞ + pA + xA ðtÞ 7
6 7
Due to the presence of these crystalline phases, the F =6 pA xM ðtÞ + pA xA ðtÞ 7 ð10Þ
4 1 5
stress–strain relationship is nonlinear ðhAs ðT ðtÞ  T‘ Þ + jðtÞÞ
Ac Lsma
eðtÞ  eT ðxM + ðtÞ  xM ðtÞÞ
s ðt Þ = xA ðtÞ xM + ðtÞ + xM ðtÞ
ð4Þ The state variables in equation (6) are
EA + EM
u = ½ ux ð t Þ xM + ðtÞ xM ðtÞ T ðt Þ  T ð11Þ
where s(t) represents stress in the SMA tendon and e(t)
is its strain. EA is the elastic (Young’s) modulus of the In these matrices, ux (t) represents axial displacement
austenite phase, and EM is the modulus of the marten- of the SMA tendon, k is its conduction heat transfer
site phases. coefficient, Ac is its cross-sectional area, and rsma is its
The thermodynamic behavior is described using a density. The tendon stress s(t) is given by the constitu-
first-order, lumped parameter model tive model (4).
In addition to these model equations, appropriate
mcT_ ðtÞ =  hAs ðT ðtÞ  T‘ Þ + H x_ M + ðtÞ + H x_ M ðtÞ + jðtÞ boundary conditions must be specified in COMSOL.
ð5Þ For the mechanical boundary conditions, one end of
the SMA tendon is fixed (a Dirichlet boundary condi-
Here m is the mass of the SMA tendon, c is its spe- tion, which specifies the value of the state variable at
cific heat, h is the convective heat transfer coefficient the boundary) while the other end is free. The thermal
between the SMA tendon and ambient air at tempera- boundary condition can either be isothermal (Dirichlet)
ture T‘ , As is the surface area of the SMA tendon, H is or adiabatic (a Neumann boundary condition, which

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews 5

specifies the derivative of a state variable). Boundary

conditions for the phase fractions are unnecessary, since
the phase fractions depend only on time.
Both single-crystal (SC) and PC SMA models can be
utilized for design optimization. The PC model is a
direct extension of the SC model, where the contribu-
tions from multiple (N) SC models are summed. The
SC model exhibits superior computational efficiency,
an important consideration in optimization algorithms,
while the PC model exhibits superior accuracy.

Single-tendon actuation catheter model

The catheter bending mechanics are described using a
‘‘circular arc bending model’’ (so called because the Figure 5. Simplified one-dimensional model of a flexible
catheter’s tip follows a circular arc during activation); a catheter actuated by a SMA tendon.
SMA: shape memory alloy.
complete derivation is presented in Veeramani et al.
(2008a). Two important variables related to cardiac
catheter bending performance are its tip bending angle
change in length. Relating equations (15) to (17), the
u and radius of curvature r. For a catheter subject to
stress–strain relationship for a SMA actuator attached
an applied moment M, the radius of curvature is
to a beam is
Ebeam Ibeam
r= ð12Þ Ebeam Ibeam
M ssma = ðeP  eðtÞÞ ð18Þ
a 2 Ac
where Ebeam is the beam’s elastic modulus and Ibeam is
its area moment of inertia. For the specific case of an Equation (18) converts the two-dimensional planar
offset SMA actuator creating this applied moment, the bending to a one-dimensional problem (a SMA tendon
moment is related to tendon stress by in parallel with a linear spring, Figure 5), further
improving the model’s computational efficiency. The
M = aPsma = aAc ssma ð13Þ effective spring stiffness is given by

where Psma is the force produced by the SMA actuator, Ebeam Ibeam
a is its offset from the neutral axis of the beam, and Kbeam = ð19Þ
a 2 Ac
ssma is its stress. The bending radius is related to the tip
bending angle by The COMSOL model for a spring-coupled SMA
actuator is similar to the model previously presented.
L0 The state variables (equation (11)) remain unchanged,
u= ð14Þ
r while the only difference in the coefficient matrices is
where L0 is the length of the flexible beam experiencing found in the flux term
the applied moment. Combining (12) and (13), the tip 2 3
~ ðt Þ
s 0 0 0
bending angle becomes 6 0 0 0 0 7
G=6
4 0
7 ð20Þ
aAc L0 ssma 0 0 0 5
u= ð15Þ 0 0 0 kT ðtÞ
Ebeam Ibeam
Alternatively, the bending angle can be determined ~ (t) relates the equivalent stiffness of
where the stress s
geometrically by the beam (18) to the constitutive model for SMA (4)

DL eðtÞ  eT ðxM + ðtÞ  xM ðtÞÞ

u= ð16Þ ~ ðt Þ =
s  Kbeam ðeP  eðtÞÞ
a xA ðtÞ xM + ðtÞ + xM ðtÞ
+
EA EM
where DL is the change in the length of the SMA
tendon ð21Þ

DL = ðeP  eðtÞÞL0 ð17Þ The radius of curvature is calculated using strain

and the equivalent spring stiffness, the former being
In equation (17), a contraction in the SMA tendon determined by the displacement at the end of the ten-
(or recovering strain) is considered to be a positive don u(L0 ). The displacement at the end of the tendon

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

6 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

accounts for the difference in temperature distribution

for the adiabatic and isothermal cases. The stress is
 
uðL0 Þ
sðtÞ = Kbeam eP  ð22Þ
L0

and the radius of curvature is given by

Ebeam Ibeam
r= ð23Þ
aAc sðtÞ

Antagonistic actuation catheter model

Figure 7. One-dimensional COMSOL model for antagonistic
The catheter bending model associated with antagonis-
actuation.
tic actuation is analogous to the single-actuator case.
Similar simplifications reduce the model to a one-
dimensional problem. However, the antagonistic model
where stress s(t) is the constitutive model for SMA (4)
includes two SMA tendons, one in parallel and the
other in series with a linear spring (Figure 6). eðtÞ  eT ðxM + ðtÞ  xM ðtÞÞ
The COMSOL model of antagonistic actuation con- s ðt Þ = xA ðtÞ xM + ðtÞ + xM ðtÞ
ð26Þ
tains dual one-dimensional geometries (Geometry 1 EA + EM
and Geometry 2), each representing a fixed-length
The flux term for Geometry 2 is the same as the
SMA tendon (Figure 7). Note that the length is largely
single-tendon case
arbitrary as the radius of curvature does not depend on
the SMA tendon (or catheter) length. The model con- 2 3
~ ðt Þ
s 0 0 0
tains three boundaries with associated conditions, one 6 0 0 0 0 7
at each end of the tendon and the other at their G2 = 6
4 0
7 ð27Þ
0 0 0 5
junction.
0 0 0 kT ðtÞ
The state variables for both geometries are
~ (t) is the same as the single-actuator case,
where stress s
u1 = u2 = ½ ux ðtÞ xM + ðtÞ xM ðtÞ T ðtÞ T ð24Þ relating the equivalent stiffness of the flexible beam to
the SMA constitutive model
and the coefficient matrices are nearly identical. The
mass, damping, and source matrices for both are given eðtÞ  eT ðxM + ðtÞ  xM ðtÞÞ
by (7), (8), and (10), respectively. The only difference is ~ ðt Þ =
s xA ðtÞ x M + ð t Þ + xM  ð t Þ
 Kbeam ðeP  eðtÞÞ
again in the flux term, which for Geometry 1 is EA + EM

2 3 ð28Þ
s ðt Þ 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 7 The thermal boundary condition can be either iso-
G1 = 6
4 0
7 ð25Þ
0 0 0 5 thermal or adiabatic. The displacement condition at
0 0 0 kT ðtÞ Boundary 1 is the Dirichlet condition

u1 ð0Þ = 0 ð29Þ

and the displacement condition at Boundary 2 is a

Neumann condition that sets the stress gradient to zero

∂
s ðL 0 Þ = 0 ð30Þ
∂x
The final displacement condition at Boundary 3
depends on the prestrain in the SMA tendons and fixes
the displacement at a distance

u2 ðL0 Þ = 2eP L0 ð31Þ

Figure 6. Simplified one-dimensional model of a flexible In contrast to the single-tendon case, the radius of
catheter actuated by antagonistic SMA tendons. curvature is determined from the stress difference at the
SMA: shape memory alloy. midpoints of each tendon

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews
Ebeam Ibeam
r=
aAc ðs2 ð0:5L0 Þ  s1 ð0:5L0 ÞÞ
In order to validate the SMA constitutive model,
material parameters for the COMSOL model are either
determined from the experimental data or taken from
published values (Li, 2006). Isothermal stress–strain
experiments were conducted by Veeramani et al. on a
0.127-mm-diameter FLEXINOL actuator tendon. The
details of these experimental measurements are avail-
able in Veeramani et al. (2008a).
Design optimization
Optimization problem
The general form of an optimization problem is
min F ð~xÞ
subject to gj ð~
xÞ < 0 j = 1 . . . m
hk ð~
xÞ = 0 k = 1 . . . l
where ~x are the design variables, F(~ x) is the objective
function (or cost function), gj (~x) are the inequality con-
straints, and hk (~
x) are the equality constraints.
The optimal solution ~ x to a single-objective design
optimization problem (assuming a feasible design
solution exists) will either be unique or be a set of
multiple solutions with the same optimal objective
function magnitude. While the literature is replete
with algorithms and techniques for solving such opti-
mization problem, the form of the objective function
and constraints often determine which algorithm is
best suited. Bertsimas and Tsitsiklis’s study (1997) is
an excellent introduction to linear programming
(solving optimization problems with a linear objective
function and constraints). Bazaraa et al. (2006) pro-
vide an overview of nonlinear programming, and
Vanderplaats (2007) provides a general overview of
design optimization.
GAs
GAs are powerful optimization methods based on the
principles of natural selection. These algorithms seek to
minimize (or maximize) one or more objective func-
tions. GAs use techniques often associated with biolo-
gical reproduction, such as selection, crossover, and
mutation. By simultaneously evaluating multiple indi-
viduals (or designs), these algorithms seek optimal solu-
tions by creating new individuals from the fittest ones,
where fitness is often measured by one or more objec-
tive functions. An excellent overview of GAs is pro-
vided in Srinivas and Patnaik (1994).
GAs have been used in a number of interesting
applications, including bankruptcy prediction (Shi and
Lee, 2002), cryptanalysis (Matthews, 1993), and sche-
duling problems (Shaw et al., 1999). Additionally, GAs
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
7
have been used in the optimization of smart materials
ð32Þ
(Dumont and Kuhl, 2005). GAs are ideally suited to
the optimization of smart material actuators, where
model Jacobians are difficult or impossible to obtain.
Furthermore, they are capable of finding solutions to
multimodal problems and can be designed to maintain
feasibility without the use of penalty methods.
The first step in designing a GA is to specify its
encoding: either binary or real valued. Binary encoding
more closely mimics evolution and allows the GA to
evaluate more schemata (Srinivas and Patnaik, 1994).
After specifying the encoding, the population is ran-
domly initialized. At each generation, convergence is
checked. If the convergence criterion has not been met,
then the population is sorted based on fitness. After
sorting the population, the genetic operators, crossover
and mutation, are performed. In crossover, parents are
selected and swapped in a systematic way. For exam-
ð33Þ ple, in single point crossover for binary encoding, a
point on the string is randomly selected and the par-
ents’ information is switched
Pki = 011011j0101 Cmk = 0110111101
)
Pkj = 111010j1101 Cnk = 1110100101
ð34Þ
"
crossover point
In equation (34), Pki refers to the ith parent at genera-
tion k, and Cmk refers to the mth child. Another possible
crossover operation is uniform crossover. In uniform
crossover, a random number between 0 and 1 is gener-
ated for each point on the string. If the number is
greater than 0.5, then crossover is performed on the bit.
If it is less than 0.5, the two bits are not crossed. For
real-valued encoding, one type of crossover is arith-
metic crossover, where the children are the weighted
sum of the parents.
After choosing the parents and creating the children,
mutation is performed on the population. The mutation
rate is generally low (i.e. a relatively small percentage of
the population undergoes mutation) (Srinivas and
Patnaik, 1994). As in crossover operations, mutation
operations can be either single point or uniform. In sin-
gle point mutation, a point on the string is randomly
selected and the bit is flipped (or the value is randomly
replaced if real-valued encoding is used). In uniform
mutation, every point on the string has a chance of being
mutated. The final design step for a GA is the choice of
convergence criteria: these may be based on the overall
population fitness, the fitness of the best individual, the
gradient of the population fitness, or a generation limit.
Design optimization of the robotic catheter
The design variables and their associated bounds are
listed in Table 1. The thermal boundary condition refers
8 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

Table 1. Design variables and bounds. are permitted for the flexible beam, yielding the area
moment of inertia that appears in equation (35).
Variable Description Lower Upper Units
bound bound
Experimental setup
Ebeam Beam elastic modulus 10 137 GPa
rbeam Beam radius 0.05 1.0 mm A single-tendon test rig (Figure 8) was designed and fab-
rsma SMA actuator radius 0.02 1.0 mm ricated to validate the bending model (equation (23)). It
a Actuator offset from 0.37 3.9 mm consists of a 0.457-mm-diameter superelastic Nitinol wire
neutral axis as the central flexible beam and a 0.127-mm-diameter
eP SMA actuator 0.5 5.3 %
prestrain FLEXINOL wire (Dynalloy Inc., Tustin, CA) as the
b Thermal boundary 0 1 — actuator. The SMA tendon is secured at a fixed distance
condition from the neutral axis with collets fabricated from acrylic
plastic (rapid prototyping). The locations of the catheter
SMA: shape memory alloy.
tip and base (distal and proximal locations, respectively)
are measured using a trakSTAR DC magnetic tracking
system (Ascension Technology Corporation, Burlington,
to equation (5). This boundary can either be adiabatic VT). Current is applied to the SMA actuator using a
(0) or be isothermal (1), and it only applies to the ends programmable power supply (Agilent E3615A, Agilent
of the actuator, as the length of the actuator experiences Technologies, Santa Clara, CA).
convective cooling. The test rig is capable of measuring the radius of
The radius of curvature curvature for four different SMA tendon offsets
 4  (0.64, 1.05, 1.42, and 1.92 mm) and eleven different
Ebeam prbeam prestrains (0.5%–5.5% in 0.5% increments). The off-
F ð~
xÞ = r =   ð35Þ
2
4a prsma ssma set distance is controlled by inserting pins into the
collets that hold the actuator a fixed distance from
is used for the objective function because it adequat- the neutral axis (Figure 8(b)), and the prestrain is
ely quantifies the catheter’s tip maneuverability. controlled by adjusting a tensioning bolt at the prox-
Manipulators such as endoscopes and catheters often imal end of the catheter.
have to navigate in confined spaces, where a tight radius The test rig used to validate the antagonistic actuation
of curvature is necessary. Similarly, large bending angles model (Figure 9) is similar to the one used for single-
can be achieved by increasing the length of the structure. tendon actuation. However, since both tendons need to
In equation (35), the stress is found using COMSOL and be held at fixed distances from the neutral axis, four dif-
the models presented in section ‘System model’. The con- ferent test rigs are built, each utilizing fixed collets (for
straints are automatically satisfied, as the COMSOL each SMA tendon offset: 0.8, 1.05, 1.42, and 1.92 mm).
models automatically handle the constitutive behavior Because of nonlinear issues such as tendon slack,
and boundary conditions. Only circular cross sections all antagonistic actuation experiments involve three

Figure 8. Experimental test rig: (a) photograph of entire setup and (b) illustration of collets showing slots to control actuator
offset from the neutral axis.
SMA: shape memory alloy.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews
Figure 9. Antagonistic experimental test rig.
SMA: shape memory alloy.
distinct phases. Tendon 1 is actuated first for 30 s to
remove any slack it may have developed during pre-
straining. Tendon 2 is then actuated for 30 s and the
radius of curvature is recorded. Finally, Tendon 1 is
actuated again for 30 s and the radius of curvature in
that direction is recorded. In this manner, the bending
responses in both directions are considered. Typical
experimental transient responses are shown in Figure
10. The bending angle is shown for the transient
response since a zero bending angle produces an infi-
nite radius of curvature.
Results
SMA model validation
A comparison between the SC simulation and experi-
mental data is presented in Figure 11 for four different
Figure 10. Transient response of the antagonistic test rig: (a) input current and (b) bending angle.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
9
temperatures: 24°C, 45°C, 75°C, and 95°C. For these
simulations, one end of the SMA tendon is strained to
8% and then released. The SC model captures the
major transition points and the hysteresis, but as
expected, it fails to completely capture the nonlinear
behavior of the PC material.
For the PC model, the SMA parameters are ran-
domly initialized from a normal distribution. For the
PC model, N = 25 crystals provide sufficient accuracy.
A comparison between the PC simulation for N = 25
and the experimental data is provided in Figure 12. In
this figure, the PC model is more accurate at high tem-
peratures, the primary operating region for SMA
actuators.
Catheter model validation
Single-tendon actuation. Five separate tests were con-
ducted to determine the mean and standard deviation
for each radius of curvature. Figure 13 shows how
radius of curvature varies with prestrain for each of the
actuator offsets and compares the results for the SC
model, PC model, and experimental data. The mean
and two standard deviations are plotted for the experi-
mental data.
These simulated and experimental results reveal a
number of important trends. As expected, higher pre-
strains result in lower radii of curvature, since the SMA
actuator is able to recover more strain. Furthermore,
the PC model always predicts a higher radius of curva-
ture compared to the SC model, and both models are
more accurate at higher prestrains. The standard devia-
tion of the experimental data is also much lower at
higher prestrains, likely due to less error in determining
zero prestrain and less effect from the measurement
error. For more explanation of differences in model
and experimental results, see Crews (2011). Based on
10
Figure 11. Stress–strain validation for a the SC model: (a) 24°C, (b) 45°C, (c) 75°C, and (d) 95°C.
SC: single crystal.
simulations and experimental data, the optimal pre-
strain is the maximum recoverable strain eT .
Figure 14 highlights the dependence of radius of cur-
vature on actuator offset from the neutral axis. The
mean and two standard deviations are again shown for
the experimental data.
The dependence on actuator offset is nonlinear, and
the optimal actuator offset for the test rig is between
the two extremes of the simulated and experimental
data. Furthermore, for lower prestrains, the PC and SC
models predict slightly different optimal offsets (as
determined by the minima of the curves in Figure 14).
This nonlinear behavior is one reason why design opti-
mization is necessary for smart materials such as SMA.
Both the SC model and PC capture the trends observed
experimentally. Furthermore, the models lie within two
standard deviations of the experimental data and are
more accurate at higher prestrains, which is the likely
operating region for single-tendon actuators.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)
Antagonistic actuation. A comparison between the antag-
onistic actuation model and experimental data is
presented in Figure 15. The SC model, the PC model,
and the experimental data are shown for the four val-
ues of the offset a. The mean and two standard
deviations are indicated on each graph. Like the
single-actuator test results, the experimental data
more closely match the models at higher prestrains,
likely due to inaccuracies in determining zero
prestrain.
The main difference between these antagonistic ten-
don actuation results and the single-tendon results
(Figure 14) is that the optimal prestrain is no longer
the maximum recoverable eT . A high prestrain can be
detrimental to performance, and the effect is more pro-
nounced for larger offsets. Close-ups of the models and
experimental data for the 1.42 and 1.92 mm offsets are
shown in Figure 16. For these larger offsets, the experi-
ments and models indicate an optimal prestrain of
Buckner and Crews
Figure 12. Stress–strain validation for a the PC model (N = 25): (a) 24°C, (b) 45°C, (c) 75°C, and (d) 95°C.
PC: polycrystalline.
approximately 3.5%–4.5%, as measured by the minima
of the curves.
The same experimental data are presented in Figure
17 to show the dependence of radius of curvature on
the offset a.
Similar to the single-tendon case, the results in
Figure 17 indicate that the optimal offset is somewhere
between the extremes for the offsets investigated. The
dependence is similar to the single-tendon model, and
the optimal value varies with prestrain but is around 1
mm, as determined by the experimental data and the
PC model.
Design optimization results
For the optimization of SMA actuators, the GA uses
both the SC model and the PC model (N = 25). The SC
model is used to quickly find an optimal design, at
which point the PC model is used for enhanced
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
11
accuracy. The GA is randomly initialized with 60 indi-
viduals. Binary encoding is used for the designs, and
uniform crossover is performed on the population with
a crossover rate of 90%. For crossover, one parent is
chosen randomly from the top 30% of the population,
and the other parent is chosen randomly from the top
50%. Single point mutation is used, where the rate
is 5%.
The convergence criteria for the SC model consist
of a homogeneity criterion (the population has the
same fitness throughout) and a generation limit (50),
whichever comes first. After the GA converges
using the SC simulation, the population number is
decreased due to increases in computational time
of the PC model; furthermore, the population is
slightly perturbed to introduce new design informa-
tion. The convergence criteria for the PC simulation
are the same, except the generation limit is reduced
to 10.
12 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

Figure 13. Single-tendon actuation comparison between the radius of curvature for the SC model, PC model, and the
experimental data for four actuator offsets: (a) 0.67, (b) 1.05, (c) 1.42, and (d) 1.92 mm.
SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline.

Single-tendon actuation. The optimization results for
single-tendon actuation are shown in Figure 18. The
average fitness of the population is shown in Figure
18(a), and the fittest individual in the population is
shown in Figure 18(b). The SC simulation is used dur-
ing the first 21 generations, at which point the optimi-
zation algorithm switches to the PC model for four
generations.
Based on the fact that the SC simulation terminates
after 21 generations, the homogeneity criterion is
reached. At this point, the population number is
reduced, the population is slightly perturbed, and the
GA switches to the PC model. The PC simulation
increases both the average fitness and the fitness of the
best individual in the population, an outcome seen in
the model validation section.
When the SC simulation terminates, the optimal
radius of curvature is 7.0 mm; this value increases to
7.6 mm after the PC simulation. The design variables
for these two designs are listed in Table 2. It is interest-
ing to note that the SC and PC models produce the
same optimal design; the only difference is the radius of
curvature associated with the design. These results sug-
gest that the PC model may be unnecessary for the opti-
mization algorithm and only necessary for determining
the performance of the optimal design.
Comparing the optimal design (Table 2) to the
bounds on the design variables (Table 1) reveals that
the stiffness of the flexible beam lies on the lower bound
(as determined by elastic modulus and radius). The
results demonstrate the inherent trade-off between
bending flexibility (trackability) and axial stiffness (a
characteristic closely related to the ‘‘pushability’’ of
catheters (Bloss et al., 2003)), and motivate the need for
multiobjective optimization that addresses these trade-
offs. Both the radius of the SMA tendon and the offset

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews
Figure 14. Single-tendon actuation comparison between the radius of curvature for the SC model, PC model, and the
experimental data for four prestrains: (a) 4.0%, (b) 4.5%, (c) 5.0%, and (d) 5.5%.
SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline.
from the neutral axis lie on the lower bound, while the
prestrain is on the upper bound, as expected.
Antagonistic actuation. The single-objective optimization
results for antagonistic actuation are shown in Figure
19. The average population fitness is shown in Figure
19(a), and the fitness of the top individual is shown in
Figure 19(b). Unlike the single-tendon results, the SC
simulation reaches the generation limit (50) before the
optimization algorithm switches to the PC simulation.
The PC simulation reaches the time limit (24 h) in nine
generations.
The optimal design variables (based on the SC and
PC models) are listed in Table 3. In the single-actuator
results, the design variables are exactly the same; only
the predicted radius of curvature changes. In the PC
results, the design variables are identical except for the
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
13
prestrain. The optimal prestrain is lower (3.56% versus
4.01%) based on the PC model than the SC model.
This is also lower than the 5.3% optimal prestrain for
the single actuator, but it is not half that value as might
be intuitively expected.
The results of the antagonistic actuation case again
highlight the trade-offs in bending flexibility, as the
beam elastic modulus and radius are at the lower
bounds. Ultimately, the design variable bounds may
have to be refined based on observed experimental
results. Furthermore, material availability and cost
were not considered when determining the design vari-
able bounds.
Conclusion
This article demonstrates the use of COMSOL and
MATLAB to model and optimize the design of SMA
14 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

Figure 15. Antagonistic actuation comparison between the radius of curvature for the SC model, PC model, and the experimental
data for four actuator offsets: (a) 0.8, (b) 1.05, (c) 1.42, and (d) 1.92 mm.
SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline.

Figure 16. Close-up of the radius of curvature for two offsets: (a) 1.42 and (b) 1.92 mm.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews 15

Figure 17. Antagonistic actuation comparison between the radius of curvature for the SC model, PC model, and the experimental
data for four prestrains: (a) 2.3%, (b) 2.74%, (c) 3.62%, and (d) 4.06%.
SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline.

Figure 18. GA results for the single-objective optimization of a single SMA actuator: (a) average fitness of the population and (b)
fitness of the best individual in the population.
GA: genetic algorithm; SMA: shape memory alloy.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

16 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)

Figure 19. GA results for the single-objective optimization of antagonistic SMA actuation: (a) average fitness of the population and
(b) fitness of the best individual in the population.
GA: genetic algorithm; SMA: shape memory alloy.

Table 2. Optimal design variables and objective function for Table 3. Optimal design variables and objective function for
the single-objective optimization of a single-tendon catheter. the single-objective optimization of antagonistic actuation.

Variable SC optimal value PC optimal value Units Variable SC optimal value PC optimal value Units

Ebeam 10 10 GPa Ebeam 10 10 GPa

 
rbeam 0.05 0.05 mm rbeam 0.05 0.05 mm
 
rsma 0.02 0.02 mm rsma 0.02 0.02 mm
a 0.37 0.37 mm a 0.37 0.37 mm
eP 5.3 5.3 % eP 4.01 3.56 %
b 0 0 — b 1 1 —
F 7.0 7.6 mm F 11.4 15.2 mm

SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline. SC: single crystal; PC: polycrystalline.

actuators. Specifically, the article concentrates on the
use of SMA actuators as bending actuators for flexible
robotic structures, where the design objective is mini-
mum radius of curvature. The constitutive model of
SMA exhibits nonlinear, hysteretic dependence on
stress and temperature, which complicates the design
process. The optimization methods presented have the
potential to greatly expedite the design process by iden-
tifying suitable parameters through simulation. While
the goal here is improved articulation of a robotic
catheter for cardiac procedures, the methods and results
can easily be extended to other systems utilizing SMA
actuators.
Both SC and PC SMA models are presented and
experimentally validated for two different cases: single-
tendon and antagonistic actuation. The PC model con-
sistently predicts a larger (lower performance) radius of
curvature than the SC model. Furthermore, the optimi-
zation results for the single-tendon case reveal that the
optimal design does not change for the SC and PC
model; only the predicted radius of curvature changes.
However, the optimal antagonistic actuator design
changes for the SC and PC model, with the PC model
predicting a slightly lower prestrain.
The optimization results indicate that axial stiffness
needs to be considered, as the optimal designs lie at the
lower bound of stiffness. In fact, ‘‘pushability’’ is an
important characteristic of cardiac catheters. Future
work will focus on quantifying and optimizing ‘‘push-
ability’’ using multiobjective optimization.
Funding
This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung and
Blood Institution (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), grant number 5 R44 HL095227-03.
References
Achenbach M (1989) A model for an alloy with shape mem-
ory. International Journal of Plasticity 5: 371–395.
Auricchio F, Taylor R and Lubliner J (1997) Shape-memory
alloys: macromodelling and numerical simulations of the

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016

Buckner and Crews
superelastic behavior. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 146: 281–312.
Bazaraa M, Sherali H and Shetty C (2006) Nonlinear Pro-
gramming: Theory and Algorithms. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Interscience.
Bertsimas D and Tsitsiklis J (1997) Introduction to Linear
Optimization. Belmont, CA: Athena Scientific.
Bloss P, Rothe W, Wünsche P, et al. (2003) Investigations of
the pushability behavior of cardiovascular angiographic
catheters. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering 13: 327–
343.
Brinson L (1993) One-dimensional constitutive behavior of
shape memory alloys: thermomechanical derivation with
non-constant material functions and redefined martensite
internal variable. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 4: 229–242.
Calkins H, Bruguda J, Packer DL, et al. (2007) Expert con-
sensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial
fibrillation: recommendations for personnel, policy, proce-
dures, and follow-up. Europace 9: 335–379.
Crews J (2011) Development of a shape memory alloy actuated
robotic catheter for endocardial ablaton: modeling, design
optimization, and control. Doctoral Dissertation, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Deurig T, Pelton A and Stockel D (1999) An overview of niti-
nol medical applications. Materials Science and Engineer-
ing A 273–275: 149–160.
Dumont G and Kuhl C (2005) Finite element simulation for
design optimisation of shape memory alloy spring actua-
tors. Engineering Computations: International Journal
for Computer-Aided Engineering and Software 22(7): 835–
848.
Han Y, Park C and Choi S (2003) End-point position control
of a single-link arm using shape memory alloy actuators.
Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 217(8): 871–
882.
Heintze O (2004) A computationally efficient free energy model
for shape memory alloys—experiments and theory. Doctoral
Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC.
Heintze O and Seelecke S (2005) A free energy model for the
inner loop behavior of pseudoelastic shape memory alloys.
In: Proceedings of materials research society symposium,
vol. 881, pp. CC1.6.1–12. Cambridge University Press.
Heintze O, Seelecke S and Buskens C (2003) Modeling and
optimal control of microscale SMA actuators. In: Proceed-
ings of the SPIE, smart structures and materials 2003: mod-
eling, signal processing, and control, San Diego, CA, 3
March 2003, vol. 5049, pp.495–505.
Huo Y (1989) A mathematical model for the hysteresis in
shape memory alloys. Continuum Mechanics and Thermo-
dynamics 1: 283–303.
Ikuta K (1990) Micro/miniature shape memory alloy actua-
tor. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
robotics and automation, Cincinnati, OH, 13–18 May 1990,
vol. 3, pp.2156–2161.
Lan C-C and Yang Y-N (2009) A computational design
method for a shape memory alloy actuated compliant fin-
ger. Journal of Mechanical Design 131: 21009-1–21009-9.
Li Q (2006) Modeling and finite element analysis of smart
materials. Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
17
Liang C and Rogers C (1990) One-dimensional constitutive
relations for shape memory materials. Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures 1: 207–234.
Lu T, Hutchinson J and Evans A (2001) Optimal design of a
flexural actuator. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids 49: 2071–2093.
Masuda A and Noori M (2002) Optimization of hysteretic
characteristics of damping devices based on pseudoelastic
shape memory alloys. International Journal of Non-Linear
Mechanics 37: 1375–1386.
Matthews R (1993) The use of genetic algorithms in cryptana-
lysis. Cryptologia 17(2): 187–201.
Moallem M (2003) Deflection control of a flexible beam using
shape memory alloy actuators. Smart Materials and Struc-
tures 12: 1023–1027.
Muller I and Seelecke S (2001) Thermodynamic aspects of
shape memory alloys. Mathematical and Computer Model-
ling 34: 1307–1355.
Muller I and Wilmanski K (1980) A model for a pseudoelastic
body. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica B 57:
283–318.
Paulsey M and Seelecke S (2008) Multifunctional SMA-based
smart inhaler system for improved aerosol drug delivery—
design and fabrication. In: Proceedings of the SPIE confer-
ence on active and passive smart structures and integrated
systems, San Diego, CA, 10 March 2008, vol. 6928,
p.69280T.
Peirs J, Reynaerts D and Van Brussel H (1998) Design of a
shape memory actuated endoscopic tip. Sensors and Actua-
tors A: Physical 70: 135–140.
Purser MF, Richards AL, Cook RC, et al. (2009) Evaluation
of a shape memory alloy reinforced annuloplasty band for
minimally invasive mitral valve repair. The Annals of Thor-
acic Surgery 88(4): 1312–1316.
Sato A, Chishima E, Yamaji Y, et al. (1984) Orientation and
composition dependencies of shape memory effect in
Fe–Mn–Si alloys. Acta Metallurgica 32(4): 539–547.
Seelecke S (2002) Modeling the dynamic behavior of shape
memory alloys. Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 37:
1363–1374.
Seelecke S and Muller I (2004) Shape memory alloy actuators
in smart structures: modeling and simulation. Applied
Mechanics Reviews 57(1): 23–46.
Shaw K, Nortcliffe AL, Thompson M, et al. (1999) Assessing the
performance of multiobjective genetic algorithms for optimi-
zation of a batch process scheduling problem. In: Proceedings
of the congress on evolutionary computation, Washington, DC,
6 July 1999 to 09 July 1999, vol. 1, pp.37–45.
Shi K-S and Lee Y-J (2002) A genetic algorithm application
in bankruptcy prediction modeling. Expert Systems with
Applications 23(3): 321–328.
Shinjo N and Swain G (2004) Use of a shape memory alloy
for the design of an oscillatory propulsion system. IEEE
Journal of Ocean Engineering 29(3): 750–755.
Smith R (2005) Smart Material Systems: Model Development.
Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
Smith R and Braun T (2006) Efficient implementation algo-
rithms for homogenized energy models. Continuum
Mechanics and Thermodynamics 18(3): 137–155.
Smith R and Massad J (2005) A homogenized free energy
model for hysteresis in thin-film shape memory alloys.
Thin Solid Films 489(1–2): 266–290.
18
Srinivas M and Patnaik L (1994) Genetic algorithms: a
survey. Computer 27(6): 17–26.
Vanderplaats G (2007) Multidiscipline Design Optimization.
Monterey, CA: Vanderplaats Research and Development,
Inc.
Veeramani A (2009) A transformative tool for minimally inva-
sive procedures: design, modeling and real-time control of a
polycrystalline shape memory alloy actuated robotic cathe-
ter. Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Raleigh, NC.
Veeramani A, Buckner GD, Owen SB, et al. (2008a) Model-
ing the dynamic behavior of a shape memory alloy actu-
ated catheter. Smart Materials and Structures 19(1): 1–14.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on October 5, 2016
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 0(0)
Veeramani A, Crews J and Buckner G (2008b) Design and
control of a shape memory alloy actuated robotic catheter.
In: Proceedings of the ASME 2008 dynamic systems and
control conference, Ann Arbor, MI, 20–22 October 2008,
pp.1131–1138.
Yang K and Gu C (2002) A novel robot hand with embedded
shape memory alloy actuators. Proceedings of the Institu-
tion of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechani-
cal Engineering Science 216(7): 737–745.
Zhou G and Lloyd P (2009) Design, manufacture and evalua-
tion of bending behaviour of composite beams embedded
with SMA wires. Composites Science and Technology
69(13): 2034–2041.