https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2012.

p0620
Chi, W. and Low, K. H.

Paper:

Review and Fin Structure Design for

Robotic Manta Ray (RoMan IV)
Wanchao Chi and Kin Huat Low
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University
50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
E-mail: wchi1@e.ntu.edu.sg
[Received December 30, 2011; accepted May 17, 2012]

Manta ray generates thrust by flapping two pectoral
fins, which inspires the fin structure design for a
robotic manta ray. An effective and efficient struc-
ture of the fin will significantly enhance the swimming
performance of the robotic manta ray. In this paper,
the biomechanics of manta ray’s swimming is first re-
viewed. Then the existing designs of robotic manta
ray are introduced in detail, with their tradeoffs and
limitations discussed. One specific structure, Fin Ray
Effect,
R is further investigated for the potential de-
sign of our own robotic manta ray, RoMan IV. The
characteristics of the structure are derived analyti-
cally. Both its advantages and shortcomings as the fin
structure are discussed.
Keywords: manta ray, robots, fin structure, Fin Ray
Effect
R tributions of fin design done by other researchers in Sec-
1. Introduction
The manta ray is one of the largest existing species of
rays that has a remarkable size of 7.6 meters and weight
of 1300 kilograms [a]. Manta rays have unique character-
istics that attract many researchers. One of these charac-
teristics is its classification as an efficient swimmer that
could reach up to a swimming speed of 7 mph [b]. The
manta ray is energy-efficient in its flapping as it has the
ability to glide in long distance travelling. Another unique
characteristic is its pectoral fins that are close to the center
of gravity of its body and therefore enhances the stability
of locomotion.
With the increase in development of Autonomous Un-
derwater Vehicles (AUVs), great effort has been made on
fish-like propulsion methods to achieve high efficiency
and maneuverability. The body shapes and swimming
modes of fishes provide researchers with ideal locomo-
tion patterns that are energy-efficient and highly maneu-
verable [1–5]. Since fin structure plays an important role
in both of these two aspects, investigation on fin structure
design for AUVs is deemed as rather valuable by the au-
thors.
Incorporating the studies on manta rays and the AUVs
leads to the development of robotic manta ray. Recently
progress can be found in the work of Parson et al. [6] and
Moored et al. [7]. Parson et al. studied the turning per-
formance of batoids, including manta rays, while Moored
investigated a tensegrity-based pectoral fin model. The
research team at Nanyang Technological University has
developed a series of robotic manta ray (RoMan). The
prototypes of RoMan I to III focus on system integration
and functions implementation, and therefore only simple-
structured pectoral fins actuated by cantilever beams are
utilized [8, 9].
Evolving into RoMan IV, the new prototype now fo-
cuses on the design of the fin structure. To create the
fin curvature which is determined by parameters such as
wavelength, wave number and swimming speed, the fin
structure is supposed to be of sufficient flexibility. In this
paper, we first make great effort to review the biomechan-
ics of fish swimming in Section 2 and the specific con-
tion 3. Tradeoffs and limitations of these existing fin de-
signs are concluded. One promising design of fin struc-
ture for our RoMan IV based on the Fin Ray Effect R is
investigated thoroughly later in Section 4, with both ad-
vantages and disadvantages discussed. Conclusions are
finally drawn in Section 5.
2. Biomechanics of Fish Swimming
2.1. General Fish Swimming Type
Fishes utilize their fins to exert forces against the sur-
rounding water to perform swimming motion in different
directions. This is normally achieved by fish contracting
and expanding its muscles and controlling fins in order to
generate waves of flexion that travel along its body.
In 1979, Blake classified oscillation of the pectoral
fins into two main categories: rowing action (drag-
based mode) and flapping action (lift-based mode) [8, 10].
Manta ray is a kind of fish that uses the lift-based mode
(flapping action), which has a high efficiency when cruis-
ing.
Swimming modes of aquatic locomotion can be classi-
fied as Body/Caudal Fin (BCF) mode and Median/Paired
Fin (MPF) mode, according to propulsive structures on
fish body for thrust generation. BCF propulsion is often

620 Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012

© Fuji Technology Press Ltd. Creative Commons CC BY-ND: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/).

Fig. 1. Illustration of manta ray’s locomotion [11]. As the
manta ray flaps its fins (left to right, descending) it uses verti-
cal undulations to generate thrust with flexible pectoral fins.
used in long distance and high speed cruising, while MPF
propulsion is often used in low speed and turning swim-
ming.
2.2. Manta Ray Swimming Type
Manta ray is classified under Order Rajiformes as it ex-
hibits MPF Rajiform mode during its swimming, which is
like a bird’s flying. Thrust generation involves the passing
of vertical undulations along the flexible pectorals. The
undulation amplitudes increase from the anterior part to
fin apex and then taper again toward the posterior.
Figure 1 shows Klausewitz’s illustration of manta ray
locomotion [11]. When the movements of the two fins
are in the same phase, the manta ray swims straight for-
ward. It performs turning motion when the movements
of its two fins are out-of-phase. Manta rays usually swim
slowly, whilst they can swim at high speed and even leap
out of the water. The rear two fifths of the body are used
to control vertical movements and perform somersaults.
The pectoral fin structure of manta ray can be divided
into basal and distal parts. Basal part is the first third part
adjacent to the body, and distal part is the rest of the fin.
Basal part is relatively more rigid, while the distal part is
relatively flexible.
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that during locomotion, the
entire pectoral fin does not flap as a rigid single part. The
basal and distal parts may exhibit different movements at
any given moment. When the basal part is moving up-
ward, the distal part may point down under the resistance
of water and vice versa.
Flapping of both pectoral fins is the main propulsion
of manta ray to swim, but the flapping movement is diffi-
cult to be described accurately. Through flapping, manta
ray generates traveling wave, which has been observed to
be approximately sinusoidal wave. According to research
by Brower [12], the frequency of the flapping motion for
manta ray is approximately 0.5 Hz. Fig. 2 shows the wave
travelling backward on the pectoral fin. The white curves
indicate the sinusoidal wave along the pectoral fin while
gray ones refer to chord length of the fin of manta ray.
Manta ray is able to glide with the help of the buoyancy
control capability. Gliding locomotion, which does not
Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012
Review and Fin Structure Design for Robotic Manta Ray
Fig. 2. Travelling wave on the fin of manta ray [12].
Fig. 3. Gliding locomotion of manta ray in the ocean [8].
have motions of flapping of pectoral fins, is usually not as
fast as any other swimming motion but it consumes much
less energy. Hence, this kind of locomotion pattern is fit
for long distance travelling in the ocean. Fig. 3 illustrates
the gliding locomotion of a manta ray in submerging and
rising stage in water [8].
It can also be found from Fig. 3 that lifting force L is
always generated in the direction that supports forward
swimming. Once it can balance the drag force D, the
manta ray could swim with pure gliding.
3. Review on Existing Robotic Manta Ray
Designs
Many researchers and engineers use manta ray as a
model for developing underwater robots because of its
highly maneuverable and efficient swimming locomotion.
Some robotic manta rays developed are reviewed as fol-
lows.
3.1. Brower’s Four-Bar Linkage Fin Design
In order to mimic the flapping motion of manta ray,
Brower designed a mechanism using 4-bar linkage. Two
skeletal actuators were located at the front edge of the fin
and near the back of the fin. The skeleton was used to rep-
resent the basal and distal parts of manta ray’s pectoral fin.
Brower chose pneumatic actuator for actuation due to its
similarity to actual muscle and simplicity for design. As a
result the design was able to generate flapping motion, but
the profile of the flapping is not perfectly close to those of
real manta rays and the system is too complex and bulky.
Fig. 4 shows the design of Brower’s mechanism [12].
621
Chi, W. and Low, K. H.

Fig. 4. Brower’s fin design using 4-bar linkage [12].

Fig. 6. Moored’s experiment setup and fin mechanism [14].

Fig. 5. Koichi Suzumori’s manta ray robot using pneumatic

rubber actuators [13].

3.2. Suzumori’s Bending Pneumatic Rubber Fin

Design
A project, “Application of Flexible Micro actuator for
Fig. 7. Cai’s Robo-ray II design and locomotion [15].
an Underwater Vehicle,” aimed to build robotic manta ray
of soft body using pneumatic rubber as actuator [13]. The
rubber has 1 degree of freedom and is able to bend if pres-
sure is applied. Based on the bending, flapping motion is
generated to provide thrust. Since the robot is made only
of rubber, it manifests very good water resistance, sim-
ple structure, light weight, and soft body. However this
robot requires pressure source which is too bulky to be
integrated inside the robot. The robot’s swimming loco-
motion is shown in Fig. 5.

3.3. Moored’s Pulley and String Fin Design
In order to study the oscillatory motion of manta ray,
Moored designed a mechanism using 3 hinged plates to
mimic the pectoral fin of real manta rays [14]. Three
pulleys were attached to the plates respectively and con-
nected to actuators by stainless steel strings. The actua-
tors were installed in the body. By doing this, Moored
was able to reduce the weight of the fin. This mechanism
was only utilized to demonstrate the flapping motion and
was not implemented as locomotion system for underwa-
ter robot. The figure of Moored’s fin design is illustrated
in Fig. 6.
3.4. Cai’s Artificial Muscle Fin Design
Yueri Cai et al. at Beihang University designed a
flapping-foil robotic fish mimicking cow-nosed ray [15].
The robot consisted of soft body, pneumatic artificial mus-
cles and flexible ribs. When the artificial muscles are ac-
tuated the flexible ribs are pulled to flap upward. After
actuation the flexible ribs then return to initial position by
Fig. 8. Punning’ electro-active polymer robot prototype and
EAP bent movement [16].
the elasticity of the material. A smooth locomotion was
achieved by this method. However it is not similar to lo-
comotion of real cow-nosed rays since the robot is only
able to flap upward. Fig. 7 shows the locomotion and the
design of Robo-ray II.
3.5. Punning’s Electro-Active Polymer Pectoral Fin
Design
Punning designed a robot with ray-like pectoral fin
using electro-active polymer as actuators [16]. Electro-
active polymers are materials able to change their geom-
etry whenever there is electricity applied. Eight electro-
active polymer muscles were utilized to generate undulat-
ing motion and to propel the robot. However, the speed is
considerably low. The prototype with electro-active poly-
mer is depicted in Fig. 8.

622 Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012


Fig. 9. Prototype of Cownosed Ray-1 [17].
Fig. 10. Design and locomotion of Wang’s manta ray robot [18].
3.6. Yang’s Cownosed Ray-1
Cownosed Ray-1 is a robot developed by Yang
et al. [17]. It consists of a rigid body, two lateral fins and
no tail. The robot employed 4 servo motors on each fin,
and was actuated with phase lag to create 0.4 propulsive
wave on the fins. The robot achieved 0.13 m/s forward
swimming velocity and 0.15 m/s backward swimming ve-
locity. The robot had similar appearance and mechanisms
with our RoMan. However 8 servo motors are a little
redundant in terms of sinusoidal wave generation. The
Cownosed Ray-1 is displayed in Fig. 9.
3.7. Wang’s Shape Memory Alloy Fin Design
Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) is an alloy able to re-
member its original cold-forged shape and return to its
pre-deformed shape by heating. Wang et al. used the
SMA as fins for their micro biomimetic manta ray robot
fish [18]. The SMA is able to maintain good stability and
the robot was suitable for investigations in narrow space
due to its small size. However, the swimming speed is
only at 0.057 m/s, and its swimming locomotion is differ-
ent from that of real manta rays. Fig. 10 demonstrates the
design and locomotion of this robot.
Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012
Review and Fin Structure Design for Robotic Manta Ray
Fig. 11. Fin structure of FESTO Air ray [c].
Fig. 12. Servo mounted at the tip of the central spar (FESTO
Air ray).
3.8. Festo’s Air ray
Air ray is a flying robot in the shape of manta ray in-
vented by the German company FESTO. Air ray is able to
fly in the air with the driving force produced by flapping
the fins. Fig. 11 shows the structure of Fin Ray Effect R
that is used for the fins of Air ray.
Instead of using two elastic struts at the flanks, the
structure of Fin Ray Effect R in Air ray uses a resilient
central spar which allows both bending and torsion defor-
mation. Two cables at the flanks are connected by ribs
running through the central spar. A servo is mounted at
the base of the structure. As the servo rotates, it exerts
tensile force on one of the flanks and the structure bends
accordingly. If lateral force is applied on the flank during
the flapping motion, the structure bends to the opposite
direction of the force. Since only one structure of Fin Ray
Effect R is driven by the servo unit, the travelling wave on
the fin in the swimming direction along body axis cannot
be formed. The fin is driven to rotate about the longitu-
dinal axis of the central spar by another servo mounted at
the tip of the central spar, which is shown in Fig. 12.
However during the real operation of Air ray, there
is no obvious additional bending deformation of the fin
structure described by Fin Ray Effect R due to the lateral
pressure. The reason may be that the lateral reaction force
(resistance force) by the air is not large enough to cause
the local bending deformation. Therefore the bending of
the fin is almost purely driven by the servo with little con-
tribution from the lateral air resistance.
623
Chi, W. and Low, K. H.
Fig. 13. Fin structure of FESTO Aqua ray [d].
3.9. FESTO’s Aqua ray
Innovated by the German company FESTO, Aqua ray
is an underwater swimming robot in the shape of manta
ray, which is similar to Air ray but has different fin struc-
ture design and actuation method. The structure of Fin
Ray Effect R used for the Aqua ray’s fin is shown in
Fig. 13, with different positions of the fin indicated.
The structure of Fin Ray Effect R in Aqua ray con-
sists of two elastic struts at the flanks connected by a
group of airfoil shaped ribs. A fluidic muscle produced
by FESTO is used as the driving unit. The artificial ten-
don ‘Dyneema’ R transfers the contraction force from the
fluidic tendon to the fin flanks. As one of the flanks is
pulled, bending occurs on both struts. Instead of actively
driving the fin to rotate about the longitudinal axis of the
struts as what Air ray does, the attack angle of the fin is
the resultant of the positions of the airfoil shaped ribs in-
side the fin. Only one structure of Fin Ray Effect R is
used to actuate the fin, and the cross section profile of the
fin is rigidly defined by the airfoil rib. Therefore the trav-
elling wave on the fin along body axis cannot be formed
during the flapping motion. By observing the swimming
behavior of Aqua ray, we find that the additional bending
effect due to lateral reaction force is present but only at
a small extent. And it occurs clearly only when the flap-
ping speed is high with large water resistant force. The
lack of the additional bending effect may result from the
mechanical properties of the struts. The struts are a pair
of polypropylene sheets with the mechanical properties
comparable to glass reinforced composite [19], and the
enhanced flexural strength will make the struts hard to be
bent locally under lateral forces [20].
4. Structure Under Investigations For Fins of
RoMan IV
Based on the literature reviewed above, our robotic fish
team at Nanyang Technological University is currently in-
vestigating a structure for the fin of our robotic manta ray,
RoMan IV, named Fin Ray Effect. R The characteris-
tics of the structure are analyzed and the potential design
based on it is presented.
4.1. Fin Ray Effect R the kinematics of the structure. However, only the shape
The structure of Fin Ray Effect R is one of the can-
didate fin structures to be applied to RoMan IV. The ba-
624
Fig. 14. An example of structure of Fin Ray Effect
R [f].
Fig. 15. Bending caused by lateral pressure on strut [g].
sic idea of Fin Ray Effect R was derived by Leif Kniese
and it is now a brand of the German company EvoLogics
GmbH. The principle of Fin Ray Effect R was inspired by
the tail fin of fish. The structure of Fin Ray Effect R can
have many variations depending on applications. How-
ever, a basic structure of Fin Ray Effect R consists of two
elastic struts with their tips joined together and several
ribs connecting the struts [e]. With both ends joined on
the struts, the ribs give restrictions to the struts’ defor-
mation and hence define the shape of the structure when
load is applied. A typical structure of Fin Ray Effect R is
shown in Fig. 14.
The motion of the structure of Fin Ray Effect R can be
actuated in two ways. One is that the bases of the struts
are subjected to axial forces in opposite directions, result-
ing in the bending of the structure. The forces and the
bending effect are illustrated in Fig. 14. The other way is
that lateral pressure exerts on one of the struts; instead of
bending towards the direction of the lateral loading, the
structure forms a bulge with the tip of the structure bend-
ing towards the opposite direction, while the bases of the
two struts don’t move, as illustrated in Fig. 15.
The bulging and bending effect under lateral loading
gives the structure a strong ability to deform in the oppo-
site direction of the force. Therefore if the structure of
Fin Ray Effect R is used as the fin structure of the robotic
manta ray, the curvature of the fin during flapping can be
produced by the interaction between water and the struc-
ture.
4.2. Biomechanics of Fin Ray Effect R
Before applying the structure of Fin Ray Effect R to
RoMan IV, it is necessary to carry out some analysis on
and the deflection behavior of the structure are discussed
at the current stage, dynamics analysis has yet been done.
Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012
 Review and Fin Structure Design for Robotic Manta Ray

Fig. 16. Model structure of Fin Ray Effect

R to be analyzed.

Fig. 18. Structure with only the base rib connected to the
frame (lateral force is absent).
ߠସ

ߠଷ
ߠଶ ߠଵ

Fig. 17. Angular displacements of ribs in bent structure.

Actuator design and material selection will be carried out

only after the dimension and motion of the structure can
be tuned to meet the design requirement of RoMan IV.
The structure of Fin Ray Effect R investigated for Ro-
Man IV has the basic configuration shown in Fig. 16. The
configuration can be varied accordingly in the future, but
for now it is used as the model for kinematics analysis.
Two elastic struts at the flanks are connected by a group
of ribs which are hinged at both ends onto the struts. Rota-
tion of ribs about the hinge is allowed, which is indicated
by small circles at the ends of ribs. Bending the structure
up and down alternatively leads to the flapping motion of
the fin.
The base rib of the structure is assumed to be mounted
on the body frame. For simplicity, it is assumed that no
lateral force is applied onto the flanks. Bending of the
structure occurs only when the angular displacement of
the base rib relative to the frame is transferred to the other
ribs simultaneously, with magnitudes of these angular dis-
placements increasing successively from the base rib to-
wards the tip. As illustrated in Fig. 17 the angular dis-
placements of ribs have the relationship θ4 >θ3 >θ2 >θ1 .
It is assumed that the base rib is driven by a servo mo-
tor fixed at the frame as shown in Fig. 18, while no lateral
force is applied to the flanks. If the base rib is the only
part of the structure that is connected to the servo mo-
tor, the angular displacement of the base rib driven by the
servo will be transferred to all the other ribs with an equal
magnitude. In this case, the entire structure will display
a rigid-body rotation without bending in the struts. Such
motion is not desired in the fin design of RoMan IV.
If more ribs are connected to the frame, however, the
bending effect described by Fin Ray Effect R will be
present and the curvature on the fin surface can be formed.
This situation is illustrated in Fig. 19. When the base rib
is driven away from the neutral position by the servo, it
exerts tension on one strut and compression on the other.
The difference in the deformation of the upper and lower
strut leads to the difference in angular displacements of
Fig. 19. Structure with two ribs connected to the frame
(lateral force is absent).
Fig. 20. Four-bar linkage model for a unit of the fin structure.
successive ribs, hence the bending occurs. Since the cur-
vature on the fin surface is desired for RoMan IV, connect-
ing at least two ribs to the servo motor should be adopted
into the design of fin structure.
Due to the accumulative effect of the angular displace-
ment of ribs as mentioned above, small rotation of the
base rib can cause large curvature along the strut. Hence
it is necessary to find the factor that affects the increasing
rate of ribs’ angular displacement most significantly in or-
der to design a fin structure with desired curvature during
flapping. A unit structure is separated for kinematic anal-
ysis, as depicted in Fig. 20. We neglect the elasticity of
the struts and approximate the unit structure as a four-bar
linkage.
We assume that the actuating rib rotates about its cen-
tre with a small angle so that the other rib can be deemed
as rotating about its centre too. Thus only the upper half
of the unit structure is needed for analysis, with the two
centers of the ribs as fixed points. The dimensions and po-
sitions of the four-bar linkage before and after the angular
displacement are sketched in Fig. 21.

Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012 625

Chi, W. and Low, K. H.

݀ߚ Servo

Servo

݀ߙ ܿ
ߚ Servo
b
a
ߙ

L
L
L’
Fig. 21. Geometry of the simplified four-bar linkage before
(solid) and after (dashed) angular displacement.
In Fig. 21, a and b are the lengths of the successive ribs
while α and β are the initial angular displacements of the
ribs at t = 0. After the ribs have undergone angular dis-
placements d α and d β respectively, the projected length
of the coupler of absolute length c has changed from L to
L . The length L and L can be calculated using:

L = c2 −(b cos β − a cos α )2 . . . . . . . (1)
 4.3. Fin Structure Design in RoMan IV Based on

L = c2 − [b cos (β + d β ) −a cos(α + d α )]2 . (2)
Since both d α and d β are very small (d α , d β → 0), the
following approximation can be made:
cos (d α ) ≈ 1, cos (d β ) ≈ 1;
sin (d α ) ≈ d α , sin(d β ) ≈ d β ; . . . . . . (3)
cos (α + d α ) = cos α cos (d α ) − sin β sin (d α )
≈ cos α . . . . . . . . . . (4)
cos (β + d β ) = cos β cos (d β ) − sin β sin (d β )
≈ cos β . . . . . . . . . . (5)
Substituting Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (2), it can be
found that:


L ≈ c2 −(b cos β − a cos α )2 = L. . . . . (6)
The difference between L and L can be expressed as:
L −L = a (d α ) cos α − b (d β ) cos β ≈ 0. . . (7)
Hence:
   the shape (as fin structure of Air ray shown in Fig. 11).
dα b cos β
= . . . . . . . . . (8)
dβ a cos α
Therefore at any moment in the flapping motion of the
fin when angular displacements of a pair of successive
ribs are α and β respectively, the ratio of the differen-
tial increments of successive rib’s angular displacements
is directly proportional to the ratio of the ribs’ lengths. In
other words, larger difference in the lengths of successive
ribs leads to larger increasing rate of ribs’ angular dis-
placements. When the fin structure design is considered,
Fig. 22. Configuration of fin structure for RoMan IV.
it can be foreseen that a structure with steeper strut slope
will have larger local curvature in flapping motion.
If lateral forces exerted on one strut are taken into ac-
count in flapping motion, additional bending effect will
occur. However, the principle about ribs’ angular dis-
placement derived above is still valid. The lateral force
can be considered as a second actuation input besides the
drive unit at the fin base, introducing larger local defor-
mation of the structure.
Fin Ray Effect R
Based on the analysis performed above, advantages of
applying a structure of Fin Ray Effect R in the fin design
of RoMan IV are summarized as below.
Firstly, a small amount of angular displacement of the
fin base can lead to a large vertical displacement at the
fin tip, due to the accumulative increment of angular dis-
placements. Hence large flapping amplitude of the fin
resulting in a high swimming speed [20] can be readily
achieved.
Secondly, by tuning the steepness of the strut slope of
the fin structure, the local curvature at different position
along the fin can be adjusted according to design require-
ments.
Thirdly, additional bending effect can be produced by
lateral forces (water resistance) during flapping motion.
This additional bending effect will increase the fin curva-
ture as well as the displacement at the tip (fin beat ampli-
tude) which in turn increases the swimming speed.
Finally, structure of Fin Ray Effect R can also help
maintain the cross-section profile of the fin, by mounting
additional structures on the ribs which are used to define
In the design of fin structure for RoMan IV, three struc-
tures of Fin Ray Effect R driven by three servo motors are
used to generate the flapping motion. The general config-
uration of the fin is illustrated in Fig. 22.
The three structures have different dimensions, includ-
ing strut length, rib length and steepness of the strut slope.
Therefore the maximum vertical displacements and cur-
vature of the fin are different at different positions along
the swimming direction, which is close to the locomotion
of real manta ray’s fins. With such design, RoMan IV can

626 Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012


Seg.III
Seg. II Manta ray body
Seg. I
Fig. 23. Simplified front view of manta ray fin.
Part III Part II
Part I
Fig. 24. Fin structure with three parts of different slopes.
have travelling wave formed on its fin in the swimming
direction by actuating the three structures with phase lag,
which is better than some other manta ray shaped robots
such as FESTO Air ray and Aqua ray. The wavelength
can be altered by adjusting the phase difference between
adjacent fin rays [20].
By observing the flapping motion of the fin of real
manta rays, it can be found that the fin can be divided
into three parts based on the curvature of the fin [21]. A
simplified front view of a manta ray’s fin in Fig. 23 shows
the three segments.
From Fig. 23 we can see that the curvature of Seg. II is
apparently larger than that of Seg. I and Seg. III. The fin
of RoMan IV should also display these three parts during
flapping. A potential design of the fin structure with vary-
ing strut slope is illustrated in Fig. 24. The middle part
(Part II) of the fin structure is steeper than the other two
so that the desired curvature can be obtained.
The fin configuration shown in Fig. 23 with each fin
structure in the shape shown in Fig. 24 is the basic idea
for fin design of RoMan IV. The additional bending effect
due to lateral forces (water resistance) can be reinforced
by selecting an appropriate material for the struts. A ma-
terial with smaller flexural strength can be bent locally by
lateral force more easily [19]. Therefore the additional
bending effect described by Fin Ray Effect R can be dis-
played more apparently if a material with small flexural
strength is selected for struts.
4.4. Problems and Future Work
Apart from the advantages mentioned above, the struc-
ture of Fin Ray Effect R also has some problems requiring
further investigations.
First, the force analysis for the fin structure has yet been
done, but it is crucial for the fin design or selection of
the drive unit. Therefore a more comprehensive analysis
Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012
Review and Fin Structure Design for Robotic Manta Ray
should be conducted in the future when fabricating the
prototype.
Second, part of the energy will be consumed by the
bending process of the fin structure instead of generat-
ing thrust. Therefore design optimization is required to
increase energy efficiency.
Third, phase difference between the operations of the
three servos needs to be calculated and tested, in order to
generate desired travelling wave on the fin.
In addition, materials for both skeletal structure and the
skin of the fin have to be selected properly to yield satis-
factory flapping performance.
5. Conclusions
Manta rays in the real world are of graceful motion
of swimming, motivating researchers to mimic it with
a robotic one. To do that, the structural design of the
fin plays an important role. The various designs of the
fin available now have manifested the broad range of re-
searchers’ imagination and the specific depth of their in-
vestigations. In this paper the authors introduce the back-
ground of fin designs for robotic manta ray, by means
of reviewing the biomechanics of manta rays’ swimming
and other researchers’ work. After having analyzed and
summarized the various designs, a promising structure of
Fin Ray Effect R is investigated in depth. Their charac-
teristics in motion are revealed through kinematic analy-
sis, and the potential design for our RoMan IV with such
structure is also presented. Both appealing advantages
and undesirable shortcomings are discussed.
References:
[1] N. Kato et al., “Biology-inspired precision maneuvering of under-
water vehicles (part 4),” Int. J. of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Vol.16, pp. 195-201, 2006.
[2] M. Nakashima, T. Tsubaki, and K. Ono, “Three-dimensional move-
ment in water of the dolphin robot – control between two positions
by roll and pitch combination,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics,
Vol.18, No.3, 2006.
[3] A. M. Bertetto and M. Ruggiu, “Tail-actuator propulsion device
for aquatic robot,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.18, No.1,
2006.
[4] S. Kobayashi, K. Fujii, T. Yamaura, and H. Morikawa, “Bio-
inspired omnidirectional multilink propulsion mechanism in fluid,”
J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.23, No.6, 2011.
[5] Y. Nagashima, N. Taguchi, T. Ishimatsu, and H. Inoue, “Develop-
ment of a compact automonous underwater vehicle using varivec
propeller,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 112-
117, 2002.
[6] J. M. Parson, F. E. Fish, and A. J. Nicastro, “Turning performance
of batoids: Limitations of a rigid body,” J. of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology, Vol.402, pp. 12-18, 2011.
[7] K. W. Moored, T. H. Kemp, N. E. Houle, and H. Bart-Smith,
“Analytical predictions, optimization, and design of a tensegrity-
based artificial pectoral fin,” Int. J. of Solids and Structures, Vol.48,
pp. 3142-3159, 2011.
[8] C. Zhou and K. H. Low, “Better endurance and load capacity: An
improved design of manta ray robot (RoMan-II),” J. of Bionic En-
gineering, Vol.7, pp. 137-144, 2010.
[9] C. Zhou and K. H. Low, “Design and Locomotion Control
of a Biomimetic Underwater Vehicle With Fin Propulsion,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. on Mechatronics, Vol.17, No.1, 2012.
[10] R. W. Blake, “The mechanics of labriform locomotion. I. Labriform
locomotion in the angelfish (Pterophyllum eimekei): an analysis of
the power stroke,” J. Exp. Biol., Vol.82, pp. 255-271, 1979.
627
 Chi, W. and Low, K. H.

[11] W. Klausewitz, “Der lokomotionsmodus der flugelrochen (mylio-

batoidei),” Natur-Museum und Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Name:
pp. 111-117, 1963. Wanchao Chi
[12] T. P. L. Brower, “Design of a manta ray inspired underwater propul-
sive mechanism for long range, low power operation,” Tufts Univer-
sity, 2006. Affiliation:
[13] K. Suzumori, S. Endo, T. Kanda, N. Kato, and H. Suzuki, “A bend- Ph.D. Student, Robotics Research Centre,
ing pneumatic rubber actuator realizing soft-bodied manta swim- School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer-
ming robot,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Roma, ing, Nanyang Technological University
Italy, April 10-14, 2007, pp. 4975-4980, 2007.
[14] K. W. Moored and H. Bart-Smith, “Myliobatoid-inspired flapping
fin: Qualitative flow structure,” University of Virginia, 2008.
[15] Y. Cai, S. Bi, and L. Zheng, “Design and Experiments of a Robotic
Fish Imitating Cow-Nosed Ray,” J. of Bionic Engineering, Vol.7, Address:
pp. 120-126, 2010. N3-01a-01, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
[16] A. Punning, M. Anton, M. Kruusmaa, and A. Aabloo, “An engi- Brief Biographical History:
neering approach to reduced power consumption of IPMC (Ion- 2005- Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China
Polymer Metal Composite) actuators,” 2005 Int. Conf. on Advanced 2011- Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Robotics, ICAR ’05, Proc., pp. 856-863, 2005. Main Works:
[17] Y. Shaobo, H. Xiaoyun, Z. Daibing, and Q. Jing, “Design and devel- • structural dynamics, perching mechanism design
opment of a new kind of pectoral oscillation propulsion robot fish,”
Robot, Vol.30, No.6, pp. 508-515, 2008.
[18] W. Zhenlong, W. Yangwei, L. Jian, and H. Guanrong, “A micro
biomimetic manta ray robot fish actuated by SMA,” 2009 IEEE Int.
Conf. on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO 2009), pp. 1809-1813,
2009.
[19] S. Mishra et al., “Studies on mechanical performance of biofi-
bre/glass reinforced polyester hybrid composites,” Composites Sci- Name:
ence and Technology, Vol.63, pp. 1377-1385, 2003. Kin Huat Low
[20] S.-b. Yang et al., “Kinematics Modeling and Experiments of Pec-
toral Oscillation Propulsion Robotic Fish,” J. of Bionic Engineer-
ing, Vol.6, pp. 174-179, 2009. Affiliation:
Professor, School of Mechanical and Aerospace
[21] L. J. Rosenberger, “Pectoral Fin Locomotion in Batoid Fishes:
Undulation versus Oscillation,” The J. of Experimental Biology, Engineering, Nanyang Technological University
Vol.204, pp. 379-394, 2001.

Supporting Online Materials:

[a] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manta ray [cited October 2011]
[b] Pacific Manta Ray Manta hamiltoni.
http://www.thebigzoo.com/Animals/Pacific Manta Ray.asp
[cited October 2011]
[c] http://www.festo.com/cms/en corp/9789 10409.htm#id 10409
[cited October 2011]
[d] http://www.festo.com/cms/en corp/9786.htm
[cited October 2011]
[e] http://www.festo.com/cms/nl-be be/16394.htm
[cited October 2011]
[f] http://dimastero.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/
the-fin-ray-effect%C2%AE-for-lego/fin-ray-effect-movement/
[cited October 2011]
[g] http://www.hardmood.info/2008/05/23/prototypen-%E2%80%
93-bionik-und-der-blick-in-die-natur/fin-ray-effect 03/
[cited October 2011]
Address:
50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore
Brief Biographical History:
1986- University of Waterloo, Canada
1988- Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Main Works:
• robotics, vibrations, impacts, machines, mechanisms, exoskeleton
systems and mechatronics design
Membership in Academic Societies:
• The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
• International Federation for the Promotion of Mechanism and Machine
Science (IFToMM)
• Singapore Committee for the Technologies of Machines and
Mechanisms (SiCToMM)
• Singapore Industrial Automation Association (SIAA)

628 Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics Vol.24 No.4, 2012

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)