Sensors & Actuators: A.

Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/sensors-and-actuators-a-physical

Modelling of soft fiber-reinforced bending actuators through transfer

learning from a machine learning algorithm trained from FEM data
Yongkai Ye a, Rob B.N. Scharff b, Sifang Long a, Chaoyue Han a, Dongdong Du a, c, *
a
College of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, PR China
b
Division of Integrative Systems and Design, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
c
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Equipment and Robotics for Agriculture of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310058, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A soft fiber-reinforced bending actuator (SFRBA) is a multi-material system that plays a crucial role in robotics
Soft fiber-reinforced bending actuators applications due to its high output force and robust bending motion. However, the multi-material composition of
Nonlinear modeling SFRBAs causes significant structural nonlinearity. This nonlinear behavior is difficult to capture using traditional
Finite element method
analytical models. This study presents a method for modeling the SFRBA using finite element method (FEM) and
Machine learning algorithms
Transfer learning
nonlinear machine learning algorithms (MLAs). First, the key structural parameters of the SFRBA are defined and
selected as input variables for the method. An accurate FEM, considering varying actuation pressure, is then
employed to generate a simulation training dataset. Subsequently, three nonlinear MLAs, including polynomial
regression (PLR), extreme gradient boosting regression (XGBoostR), and normalized multilayer perceptron
regression (NMLPR), are developed to model the bending angle of the SFRBA. Moreover, transfer learning is
deployed to improve the accuracy and convergence speed of the optimal NMLPR. Experimental measurements
are conducted to validate the established MLAs, and the results demonstrate that the refined NMLPR outperforms
the other models, yielding an average Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 7.935◦ and Mean Absolute Percentage
Error (MAPE) of 6.45%. Furthermore, the refined NMLPR is implemented in a feedback control loop to showcase
its real-time ability to convert actuation pressure information into bending angles. The results exhibit excellent
control performance, with an average MAPE of less than 6% and a low time delay of 0.0875 s. This work ex­
emplifies a methodology that combines FEM and MLAs for modeling SFRBAs, paving the way for their further
development and practical application.

1. Introduction
Soft pneumatic bending actuators (SPBAs) are functional units that
transfer the input of air pressure into the output of bending motion,
which play a critical role in soft robots such as soft grippers and wear­
able rehabilitation gloves [1,2]. Among SPBAs, soft fiber-reinforced
bending actuators (SFRBAs), which integrate inextensible materials
(fabrics and fibers) into a single elastomeric tube, have been extensively
studied owing to their high output force and robust bending motion [3].
However, the multi-material composition increases the structural
nonlinearity of SFRBAs, making their modeling a challenging task [4,5].
Traditionally, the modeling of SFRBAs is conducted through math­
ematical methods, mapping the structural parameters and actuation
pressure to the bending angle. Considering the nonlinear behavior of
soft materials, Polygerinos et al. proposed a quasi-static planar
analytical model to characterize the inverse kinetics of the SFRBAs based
on the Neo-Hookean material model and moment balance theory [6].
Furthermore, Cacucciolo et al. extended the quasi-static analytical
model to a continuum 3D form [7]. However, these models did not
consider the effect of gravity on the bending motion. In practice, gravity
generates an initial bending angle [8]. As a result, these analytical
models show significant errors in bending angle prediction, especially
for low bending angles. To overcome the limitations, Wang et al.
modeled the SFRBA based on the Lagrange equation and considered the
effect of gravity by introducing the gravitational potential energy in the
equation [9]. Similarly, Gharavi et al. presented a continuum nonlinear
model for the dynamic response of SFRBAs by including Rayleigh’s
dissipative function and gravitational potential energy [10]. However,
both approaches failed to capture most of the nonlinear essence with a
response error of over 9%. Existing analytical models of SFRBAs neglect

* Corresponding author at: College of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, PR China.
E-mail address: dudd@zju.edu.cn (D. Du).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2024.115095
Received 26 November 2023; Received in revised form 29 January 2024; Accepted 30 January 2024
Available online 3 February 2024
0924-4247/© 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Ye et al.
the effect of radial bulging, which inevitably occurs when using inex­
tensible materials to limit radial expansion [11] and significantly affects
the performance of SFRBA. The capturing of the nonlinear effects caused
by radial bulging in SFRBA models remains an open challenge.
Machine learning is a cutting-edge technique and performs remark­
able efficiency in solving nonlinear issues in various fields, including soft
robotics [12]. Jung et al. developed a proprioceptive sensing model of a
soft pneumatic actuator based on the Gaussian process regression. Then,
a nonlinear control strategy was established for state estimation and
sliding control by incorporating an extended Kalman filtering method
[13]. Thuruthel et al. employed recurrent neural networks to model the
contact forces and bending motion of soft pneumatic actuators based on
embedded resistive sensors [14]. Scharff et al. proposed a novel pro­
prioception method for soft pneumatic actuators during real-time
interaction with unstructured environments based on a feed-forward
neural network [15]. To obtain a good performance, machine learning
algorithms (MLAs) require large amounts of data for training [12,16].
Current studies use experimental measurements to generate the training
datasets, which is labor intensive and introduces errors caused by
imperfect manufacturing into the model or high feedback noise levels
borne during the data acquisition [17]. The finite element method
(FEM) is a numerical method that can capture the nonlinear effects of
gravity and radial bulging and generate large amounts of accurate
training data for MLAs [18]. The main drawback of this method is its
computational cost. Runge et al. proposed a method for learning the
kinematic model of a soft pneumatic actuator by combining FEM,
piecewise constant curvature kinematics, and MLAs [19]. Kinematic
parameters are extracted from the generated FEM data and subsequently
used as training data for learning the kinematic model. The main
advantage of the modeling concept is that it provides an end-to-end
solution to the kinematics problem without complicated formulas
[20]. Combining multilayer perceptron regression with FEM, Zolfa­
gharian et al. presented a nonlinear model for the bending angle of
4D-printed soft pneumatic networks [21]. Combining support vector
regression with FEM, Demir et al. proposed a nonlinear model for
3D-printed soft pneumatic actuators [22]. Both studies achieved suffi­
cient agreement with experimental measurements, but discrepancies
between the learned models and experiments may arise as a result of
synthetic simulation effects [23]. Transfer learning is an efficient
method that can eliminate the synthetic simulation effects, which is
proposed to extend and improve the FEM-based machine learning
method while minimizing the collection of experimental data [24].
Good results were achieved for soft pneumatic actuators composed of a
single material or single structure, but few investigations were carried
out on multi-material SFRBAs. Hence, it is necessary to develop a robust
MLAs-based framework for modeling SFRBAs, solving the issues of high
structural nonlinearity.
This article aims to provide a robust method for modeling the
bending angle of multi-material SFRBA. To this end, the compositions
and structural parameters of SFRBA are first described. Then, the FEM is
used to generate the training data, and the MLAs are employed for
modeling. The optimal MLA is further refined by transfer learning for
more accurate results. Finally, the FEM-based MLAs are validated by
experimental measurements, and the best MLA is used in the close-loop
control test for a real-time control demonstration. Our work provides a
useful approach to solving the issues of soft actuator modeling with high
nonlinearity, which is beneficial for real-time kinematic control in
practical applications of SFRBAs.
2. Actuator description and fabrication
2.1. Compositions and structural parameters
In this study, the SFRBA with a semicircular cross section is selected
as the targeted one because of its representativeness in various types of
SFRBAs [7] (The details are shown in Supplementary Material 1). The
2
Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095
selected SFRBA is made of multiple materials, including silicone rubber,
fiber reinforcements, and a strain-limiting layer. The fiber re­
inforcements are winded to the silicone rubber in a double helix to limit
the radial expansion and promote the linear extension of the rubber. The
strain-limiting layer is merged with the bottom flat surface to restrict its
linear extension. With this design, the SFRBA will bend towards the
strain-limiting layer and form a circular shape with a bending angle θ
upon pressurization (Fig. 1(a)). The relationship between bending angle
and actuation pressure is extremely nonlinear, determined by various
structural parameters, including the length of the single tubular air
chamber l, the radius of the single tubular air chamber r, top semi­
circular wall thickness t, bottom rectangular wall thickness b, fiber re­
inforcements winding angle ϕ, distal cap length lc , diameter of fiber
reinforcements dfr , and thickness of strain-limiting layer tsl . The selected
fiber reinforcements (Kevlar fibers, DuPont, China) and strain-limiting
layer (S2–120, USComposites, USA) have a fixed diameter dfr and
thickness tsl , of 0.28 mm and 0.1 mm, respectively. Thus, in this article,
the structural parameters of SFRBAs are expressed as a vector (l, r,t,b, ϕ,
lc ).
2.2. Fabrication
To ensure the repeatability of the outcomes, the SFRBA is fabricated
by a standard multi-step mold casting procedure (see Fig. 1(b)). This
procedure comprises five steps: (I) Two components (Part A and Part B)
of silicone rubber (Dragon Skin 30, Smooth On, Inc, Easton, Pennsyl­
vania) are mixed with a 1 A:1B ratio, and the flesh pigment (Silc Pig®,
Smooth On, Inc, Easton, Pennsylvania) with a weight of 1% of the sili­
cone rubber is then added. (II) After stirring at 2000 RPM for 30 s and
vacuuming for 2 mins in the vacuuming box to remove air bubbles, the
silicone rubber is poured into the assembled molds slowly and heated for
fast curing to form a single tubular structure with one capped end. The
fiber path is obtained on the tubular surface by using the reverse molds
with path features. It should be noted that before curing, it should take
1 min to help let out the extra air bubbles. (III) The strain-limiting layer
(0.1-mm thickness fiberglass) is glued to the bottom flat surface of the
tubular structure using. (IV) The fiber reinforcements (Kevlar fibers with
0.28-mm diameter) are winded along the fiber path in a double helix
pattern. (V) After feeding the air hose tail through the capped end and
wrapping the Teflon tape around the other end, two ends of the single
tubular structure are capped and the SFRBA is completed. It is noted that
all the molds for SFRBAs are 3D printed by a Prusa i3 MK3S+ printer
using PLA materials.
3. Data acquisition
3.1. Finite element method-based data generation method
The finite element method (FEM) is a powerful numerical compu­
tation tool that is commonly used to describe the nonlinear response of
soft robots. In this article, FEM is applied to characterize the SFRBA
through integrating the 3D CAD model into ABAQUS/Standard. To get a
suitable material model, Neo Hookean, Yeoh, and Arruda Boyce
constitutive models are implemented to fit the uniaxial tensile test data
of Dragon Skin 30 from the literature [25]. The coefficient of determi­
nation (R2 ) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) are utilized to assess
the performance of the models. The results in Fig. 2(a) highlight the
superior performance of the Yeoh model as compared to the other
models with R2 = 0.9982 and RMSE = 0.0204 MPa in a large defor­
mation range [26].
Consequently, the Yeoh material model is applied, with a strain en­
∑
ergy potential defined asW = 3i=1 Ci0 (I1 − 3)i . Furthermore, the mate­
rial parameters are predetermined with C10 = 0.11 MPa, C20 =
0.003 MPa, and C30 = 0 MPa. The Yeoh material model is also applied
for the strain-limiting layer with parameters C10 = 7.9 MPa,
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Fig. 1. Description and fabrication of the SFRBA. (a) Compositions and structural parameters of the SFRBA. The part marked by a red arc is the backbone path of the
pressurized SFRBA, which is used to calculate the bending angle. (b) Fabrication steps of the SFRBA. (Appear in color online only).

C20 = 0 MPa, and C30 = 0 MPa [6]. Kevlar fibers are modeled as linear
elastic materials with a Young’s modulus of E= 31076 MPa, and a Poi­
son’s ratio of ν= 0.36. Taking the gravity effects into account, the
density of Dragon Skin 30, fiberglass, and Kevlar fibers are set at
1.08 g/cm3, 2.40 g/cm3, and 1.67 g/cm3, respectively. All the parts
made of Dragon Skin 30 are meshed with solid tetrahedral quadratic
hybrid elements (C3D10H elements with 2 mm). Three-node triangular
general-purpose shell elements (S3 elements with 2 mm) with 0.1 mm
thickness are used to mesh the strain-limiting layer. The fiber re­
inforcements are meshed through the quadratic beam elements (B32
elements with 1 mm) with a 0.07 mm radius, which is connected to the
whole system by tie constraints. It is noteworthy that the radius of the
beam elements is reduced by a factor of 2 to decrease the modeled
stiffness from the beam elements [6]. The quasi-static analysis is finished
with an analysis time of 1 s and the initial, minimum, and maximum
increments for the step size are 10− 2 s, 10− 7 s, and 10− 2 s, respectively.
Finally, the actuation pressure and gravity load with the gravitational
acceleration (9.8 mm/s2) are applied. Specifically, the whole internal
walls of the SFRBA are subjected to the actuation pressure. One end of
the SFRBA is fixed with the encastre boundary conditions.
The simulation results for an SFRBA with the arbitrary structural
parameters (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) = (100, 6, 2, 2, 5, 10) under the actuation

3
Y. Ye et al.
Fig. 2. Pre-processing and post-processing of the FEM. (a) Fitting results of Dragon Skin 30 using three material models. (b) Deformation of the SFRBA at pressures
ranging from 0 MPa to 0.17 MPa. (c) Curve fitting results of the backbone path. (Appear in color online only).
pressures ranging from 0 MPa to 0.17 MPa are shown in Fig. 2(b). The
backbone path is then extracted to calculate the bending angle. As seen
in Fig. 2(c), the backbone path is imported into MATLAB via the Python-
MATLAB interface. Next, to approximate the deformation backbone
path, a curve fitting method using a piecewise constant curvature is
employed in MATLAB. Finally, the bending angle is calculated by the
radian formula θ = Rl , where R is the average radius of curvature of the
fitting curve.
3.2. Method evaluation
To verify the accuracy of the established FEM, a customized platform
(Fig. 3(a)) is developed to test the SFRBA and record its bending angle.
The fixed end of the SFRBA is clamped to the frame by a rigid fixture,
while the other parts are free to bend. An air compressor with a
maximum air pressure of 0.8 MPa is applied to provide the actuation
pressure. The pressure ranged from 0 MPa to 0.17 MPa and was applied
with increments of 0.01 MPa by regulating the reducing valve. The
bending motion is captured by a digital-eye camera (24 FPS) aligned
with a 25 mm-spacing checkerboard background when the SFRBA is in a
4
Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095
stable state. Experimental markers are plotted on the SFRBA side surface
(Fig. 3(b)), which are processed to obtain the bending angles by an open-
source software (Tracker 6.1.3). We then selected and fabricated the
SFRBA with structural parameters (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) = (100, 6, 2, 2, 5, 10) to
validate the FEM, and the SFRBA prototype was tested in three cycles of
inflation and deflation. The results shown in Fig. 3(c) show similar re­
sponses in bending angle to the applied air pressure across the three
cycles, which illustrates the high nonlinearity of the SFRBA. The Hys­
teresis Error (HE) of the experimental measurements is less than 5%,
indicating a reliable and repeatable response. The average values of the
three experimental measurements are calculated and compared with the
FEM results. The results in Fig. 3(d) show that the experimental curve is
highly coincident with the FEM curve, with a Mean Absolute Percentage
Error (MAPE) of less than 5.5%. All results demonstrate that the estab­
lished FEM model captures the nonlinear response of the SFRBAs with
high accuracy and is thus suitable for generating a training dataset.
3.3. Data generation and preliminary analysis
The training data are generated by the above FEM-based approach
with the arbitrary inputs of structural parameters (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) and
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Fig. 3. Accuracy verification of FEM simulation. (a) Experimental platform. 1-SFRBA, 2-Reducing Valve, 3-Dynamometer, 4-Checkerboard, 5-Digital Eye, 6-PLC, 7-
Power Supply, 8-Air Compressor, and 9-Rigid Fixture. (b) Experimental results of the bent SFRBA with the pressure ranging from 0 MPa to 0.17 MPa. (c) Hysteresis
characteristic curves of the SFRBA for three cycles of inflation and deflation. (d) Comparison of the FEM simulation and the experimental measurements. (Appear in
color online only).

actuation pressure Pact . Considering the main application scenarios in correlation analysis is conducted, and the outcomes are given in Fig. 4
rehabilitation gloves and other soft robots [11,27,28], the input vari­ (a).
ables of the SFRBAs are specified as shown in Table 1. It is noted that the The findings demonstrate that b and lc have a relatively weak cor­
maximum pressure is set as 0.5 MPa and the simulations are conducted relation with θ, which aligns with the findings from [21]. This is because
till the convergence error occurs. Finally, 972 FEM models are estab­ the bottom rectangular wall shows almost no deformation during the
lished and a total of 29577 sets of synthetic simulation data with varied bending motion. The bending angle and actuation pressure are most
actuation pressure are obtained as the training data for machine strongly correlated. Then, multiple linear regression analysis is carried
learning algorithms. Each FEM simulation takes nearly 5 min to run on a out for more accurate and detailed results. The standardized regression
workstation (12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7–12700 2.10 GHz). coefficient, whose absolute value establishes the relevance of the
The generated simulation data is preliminarily analyzed to find the dependent value, is applied to evaluate the effects that the structural
correlations among structural parameters, actuation pressure, and parameters and actuation pressure have on the bending angle. The T-test
bending angle to identify the significant input parameters. First, the results, shown in Fig. 4(b), demonstrate that all the input variables are
capable of correctly predicting the variation in the bending angle. Ac­
cording to the loading results, Pact with 0.832 loading plays the domi­
Table 1 nant influence, followed by t with − 0.369 loading while b with − 0.005
Variables and their value ranges for FEM simulations. loading has the least influence, supporting the correlation analysis re­
Variable Minimum Maximum Interval sults. For the fitting results in Fig. 4(c), the coefficient of determination
R2 is 0.8893 with F − value = 33935.8, which illustrates an excellent
Length of single tubular air chamber l (mm) 100 160 20
Radius of single tubular air chamber r (mm) 6 10 2 consistency with a highly significant difference. However, the MAPE is
Top semicircular wall thickness t (mm) 2 4 1 as high as 42.3%, reflecting the poor nonlinear fitting ability. Generally,
Bottom rectangular wall thickness b (mm) 2 4 1 the SFRBA’s bending angle, structural parameters, and actuation pres­
Fiber reinforcements winding angle ϕ (◦ ) 5 15 5
sure are always related nonlinearly. Therefore, more high-performing
Cap length lc (mm) 8 12 2
Actuation pressure Pact (MPa) 0 0.5 0.005
nonlinear regression algorithms are investigated in Section 4.

5
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Fig. 4. Preliminary analysis of the FEM-generated data. (a) Correlation analysis of structural parameters, actuation pressure, and bending angle. (b) Standardized
regression coefficient of multiple linear regression (Loading). (c) Fitting results of multiple linear regression analysis. Note, * , significance marking (* p < =0.05,
difference, ** p < =0.01, significant difference *** p < =0.001, highly significant difference). (Appear in color online only).

4. Machine learning-based modeling
In this Section, the generated simulation data is trained by three
MLAs, where the input variables are l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc , and Pact while the
output variable is θ. It is noted that the gravity effects and radial bugling
could be implicitly considered in the MLAs thanks to the nonlinear FEM
simulations. Besides, the optimal hyperparameter group of each MLA is
identified via grid search and five-fold cross-validation [29], and the
average inference time (IT), R2 , and MAPE in the test process are
employed to evaluate the performance of the MLAs. After optimizing the
algorithms, transfer learning is used to further improve the accuracy of
the optimal MLA. Finally, the performance of each MLA is compared
with the analytical model and experimental measurements.
4.1. Machine learning algorithms and optimization
Polynomial regression (PLR) is an algorithm that generates nonlinear
equations by employing polynomial functions as independent variables,
which has the benefit of allowing the measured point to be approxi­
mated by simply raising the order. Previous studies have proven that
when the structural parameters are determined, the bending angle be­
comes a quadratic function [9,30]. Therefore, multivariate polynomial
regression of more than two orders is applied. For time-saving, poly­
nomials with orders ranging from 2 to 10 are established, and the results
demonstrate that the fourth-order polynomial outperforms the other
models with an average IT of 0.02239 s, R2 of 0.9986, and MAPE of
1.8%.
Extreme gradient boosting regression (XGBoostR) is a typical
ensemble learning algorithm that has attracted widespread attention
due to its excellent training speed and superior accuracy. The central
idea of this algorithm is to fit the residuals between the predicted and
true values in the last round. The maximum tree depth for base learners
and learning rate are two hyperparameters, which vary from 1 to 20 and
from 0.1 to 1, respectively. Considering the balance between time cost
and accuracy, the best fitting result is achieved in the hyperparameter
group of max depth = 9 and learning rate = 0.2 with an average IT of
0.05377 s, R2 of 0.9995, and MAPE of 0.8%.
Multilayer perceptron regression (MLPR) is a typical artificial neural
network for regression, including one input layer, one output layer, and
multiple hidden layers. Due to the adequate nonlinear learning capa­
bility, a two-hidden-layer MLPR is selected. The two hidden layers
possess the ‘tanh’ activation function while the input and output layers
possess the ‘linear’ activation function. The structural parameters and
actuation pressure are normalized before entering the input layer to
improve the performance of the MLPR. This pipeline is also known as a
normalized multilayer perceptron regression (NMLPR). The Adam
optimizer with a learning rate of 6e-4 and the Mean Square Error (MSE)
loss function is utilized to compile the NMLPR. The batch size and

6
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

training epochs are 1024 and 1000, respectively. The two hyper­
parameters of the NMLPR are the number of the two hidden layers,
which range from 55 to 65, and the optimal result happens in the
hyperparameter group of hidden layers = (63, 65) with an average IT of
0.01299 s, R2 of 0.9991, and MAPE of 0.89%.
The fitting results of five-fold cross-validation using PLR, XGBoostR,
and NMLPR based on the optimal hyperparameter groups are visually
represented in Fig. 5(a), (c), and (e), respectively. The results show that
almost all the data points of bending angles are uniformly distributed on
the two sides of curve y = x, which demonstrates the reliability of the
constructed models. All the MLAs present a good fitting performance
with R2 of more than 0.99. The XGBoostR outperforms the other two
models with a MAPE of 0.8%, but its IT is larger than the other two
models with 0.05337 s. The NMLPR outperforms the other two models

Fig. 5. Modeling by MLAs with the optimal hyperparameter groups. The predicted bending angle versus true bending angle based on (a) PLR, (c) XGBoostR, and (e)
NMLPR. The sample distribution of bending angle based on (b) PLR, (d) XGBoostR, and (f) NMLPR. (Appear in color online only).

7
Y. Ye et al.
with the fastest IT of 0.01299 s. Compared to PLR and XGBoostR, the
NMLPR shows more concentrated data distribution, especially in the low
bending angle zone. Fig. 5(b), (d), and (f) show the error distribution of
bending angles for the optimized PLR, XGBoostR, and NMLPR. The re­
sults suggest that all the models have low errors in almost all samples
and a strong generalization ability. However, three large errors occur at
the same position (Samples number = 15293) for the three MLAs, which
could be a singular value caused by the FEM result. For the XGBoostR,
there are some large fluctuations at the position of the Number of
samples = 8000. After removing the singular values and evaluating the
maximum percentage error of the rest samples, the NMLPR outperforms
the other two models with a maximum percentage error of less than
15%. Among the three MLAs, NMLPR could be regarded as the best one
by the consideration of time and accuracy.
4.2. Refinement for models based on transfer learning
Transfer learning is a method that transfers a previously investigated
source work to a new and similar target task by introducing a small
amount of new target data [31]. One promising application is training
the machine learning algorithms using synthetic data from FEM simu­
lations and refining the algorithms through a small number of experi­
mental measurements. The advantage is the training data can be
generated in a relatively time-saving manner, thereby eliminating the
need for gathering an extensive quantity of real-world data [32].
Transfer learning is applied for the NMLPR that has been trained with
the simulation data from FEM, which may deviate from the actual
behavior of the SFRBAs. Here, the NMLPR trained by FEM simulations is
further trained by experimental measurements (Refined NMLPR). To
evaluate the benefits of transfer learning, another scenario, where a
randomly initialized NMLPR is trained from scratch using only the
experimental measurements (Experimental NMLPR), is investigated as
well. To acquire some experimental measurements for transfer training,
seven fabricated SFRBAs with the structural parameters as indicated
Fig. 7 are used for experiments. A total of 139 experimental measure­
ments are taken by incrementally increasing the actuation pressure on
the aforementioned platform.
The loss curves of the three NMLPRs (Fig. 6) show that the MSE of
NMLPR after convergence is 4.8124 while the MSE of the refined
◦
Fig. 6. Loss curves of NMLPR, Refined NMLPR, and Experimental NMLPR. (Appear in color online only).
8
Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095
NMLPR after convergence is 0.1631 after 1000 training epochs, which
◦
is almost the same as the experimental NMLP after 15000 training
epochs. It is worth mentioning that the experimental NMLPR does not
reach convergence status after 1000 training epochs. Compared with the
other two NMLPRs, the convergence epoch of the refined NMLPR is
greatly shortened while the training accuracy can be guaranteed, which
confirms that transfer learning is more precise and time-efficient than
MLAs trained directly from experimental data [24].
4.3. Performance evaluation
To demonstrate the performance of all MLAs, experimental mea­
surements are obtained for seven SFRBAs with varied structural pa­
rameters (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) and actuation pressure (Fig. 7(a)). It is worth
mentioning that the refined and experimental NMLPR employed in each
configuration only applies the training data from the other six config­
urations of SFRBA to avoid data leakage and the experimental NMLPR is
trained for 15000 training epochs. An analytical model for bending
angle from the literature [6] is used for comparison, and the details are
explained in Supplementary Material 1 (Equation A67) for better
understanding.
Fig. 7(b)-(h) shows the results of the analytical model and the MLAs
for the seven fabricated SFRBAs. The analytical model achieves the
worst performance in the evaluation and always shows a lower bending
angle than the others, which may be attributed to the absence of gravity
effects and radial bulging. Specifically, the discrepancies between the
analytical and experimental results are most obvious at the 0 MPa
actuation pressure point with a MAPE of 100%, where all the bending
angle is caused by the gravity effects. The PLR, XGBoostR, and NMLPR
exhibit high agreement in low actuation pressure, but the discrepancies
become larger as the pressure increases. The magnitude of the error
mainly depends on the accuracy of the established FEM, where a slight
deviation could result in substantial differences between the developed
MLAs and the experimental measurements [33]. The experimental
NMLPR achieves good performance in the four SFRBAs with configu­
rations of (l,r,t,b,ϕ,lc ) = (120,6,2,2,5,8), (l,r,t,b,ϕ,lc ) = (100,6,2,3,5,
8), (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) = (100, 6, 2, 2, 10, 8), and (l, r, t, b, ϕ, lc ) = (100, 6, 2, 2, 5,
10). However, the experimental NMLPR shows large differences in the
other SFRBAs. Especially in Fig. 7(e), the RMSE and MAPE are more than
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Fig. 7. Model validation. (a) Schematic diagram of the structural parameters and bending angle of the SFRBA. Bending angle results versus actuation pressure when
(l,r,t,b,ϕ,lc )is equal to (b) (100,6,2,2,5,8), (c) (120,6,2,2,5,8), (d) (100,8,2,2,5,8), (e) (100,6,3,2,5,8), (f) (100,6,2,3,5,8), (g) (100,6,2,2,10,8), and (h) (100,6,2,2,
5, 10). (Appear in color online only).

9
Y. Ye et al.
47.88◦ and 35.9%, respectively. The discrepancies may come from the
tailing effects of the ‘tanh’ activation function when the actuation
pressure exceeds 0.2 MPa. The refined NMLPR outperforms the other
models with an average RMSE of 7.935 and MAPE of 6.45%. The refined
◦
NMLPR performs the worst in the SFRBA depicted in Fig. 7(c) with a
RMSE 19.58 and MAPE of 11.24%. The reason is that the refined
◦
NMLPR is likely impacted by the tailing phenomenon that occurs in the
NMLPR. This phenomenon results from the employment of the ‘tanh’
activation function, which has a non-linear ‘S′ curve. The phenomenon
could be reduced by augmenting training experimental measurements
and adjusting the network structure of the NMLPR. Overall, the refined
NMLP is the most appropriate MLA to model the bending angle within
diverse SFRBAs.
5. Demonstration of real-time control for the SFRBA
A feedback control loop, as shown in Fig. 8, was implemented to
further demonstrate the ability of the refined NMLPR to use actuation
pressure information to estimate the actual bending angle θe in real time.
The control loop was built based on the experimental platform in Section
3.2, with an air compressor, a reducing valve, a programmable logic
controller (PLC), two pneumatic two-way valves (inlet and outlet), two
flow-control valves, a pressure sensor, a high-speed camera, and a
computer. The two pneumatic two-way valves were connected to the
SFRBA where the inlet was in line with the reducing valve and the outlet
was in line with the air exhaust. The flow-control valves were also
connected with the reducing valve and air exhaust to control the flow
rate for positive and negative pressure. The actuation pressure of the soft
actuator was measured by the pressure sensor, and the data was
returned to the computer in time by the RS485 communication protocol.
Then, the actuation pressure information was converted into the pre­
dicted bending angle θp by implementing the refined NMLPR in the
computer.
According to the bending angle signal error θd (the signal difference
between the reference bending angle signal θr and the predicted bending
angle θp ), the PLC was controlled to drive the two-way valves with a
sampling rate of 100 Hz. A positive angle error θd indicates that the
SFRBA is not bent enough and thus enables the PLC to open the inlet
valve and close the outlet valve, and vice versa. The angle filter of the
feedback loop was able to introduce a deadzone at the PLC to reduce the
undesired frequent switching of the two-way valves. The deadzone
Fig. 8. Feedback control loop scheme with the machine learning algorithm and the angle filter to calculate the actuator bending angle from the measured actuation
pressure. θr , θd , θp , θe , and Pact are reference, error, predicted, and actual bending angle, and actuation pressure of the SFRBA. (Appear in color online only).
10
Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095
created boundaries around the reference bending angle signal θr that
allowed the state of the valves to remain unchanged until the input was
changed adequately [6]. This was expressed as,
θDeadzone = ±0.05θr (1)
Where a larger θDeadzone value indicates the programmable logic
controller is more tolerant to signal noise, but also less agile to changes
of θr , thereby reducing its tracking performance, and vice versa. It is
noted that the actual bending angle θe is recorded by the high-speed
camera.
The feedback control loop was tested in a step response experiment
(see Supplementary Video 1) and a triangular curve tracking experiment
at a frequency of 0.2 Hz. For both signal forms, the MAPE is evaluated
for the system to follow the reference bending angle signal. In the step
response test, as shown in Fig. 9(a), the actual bending angle can follow
the reference signal with an average convergence time of 0.7 s and a
MAPE of 5.5%.
Supplementary material related to this article can be found online at
doi:10.1016/j.sna.2024.115095.
It is noted that the exhaust of the outlet valve is directly connected to
the environment resulting in the large oscillation of the system and thus
the long convergence time. The maximum angle error occurs in the
mutational site of a square wave with an average rise time of 0.104 s. In
the triangular curve experiment (Fig. 9(b)), the actual bending angle
follows the reference bending angle with a MAPE of 5.3% and an
average tracking delay of 0.0875 s. However, the oscillations of the
system are significant, which is attributed to the frequent switching of
the two-way valves. Overall, most of the difference between the
measured response and the MLA predicted response remains small and
acceptable during the dynamical response process. These results in­
dicates that the FEM-based machine learning method is successfully
used in the real-time control of soft actuators, which can be considered a
extension in the applications of control of the previous work [21].
6. Conclusion
This study highlights a method for modeling SFRBAs using FEM and
nonlinear MLAs. The structural parameters of the SFRBA are deter­
mined, and an accurate FEM model is then established to generate a
synthetic training dataset. The initial analysis of the simulation data
reveals that actuation pressure has the strongest correlation with the
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Fig. 9. Feedback control loop performance. (a) Step response and (b) triangular curve tracking performance of the actual signal (θe ), reference signal (θr ), and error
(θd ) are shown with the deadzone. (Appear in color online only).

bending angle, followed by the top semicircular wall thickness. Based on
the simulation data, three optimized nonlinear MLAs, including PLR,
XGBoostR, and NMLPR, are utilized to predict the bending angle of the
SFRBA. Additionally, the optimal NMLPR model is further refined
through transfer learning to improve its ability to map the relationship
among the structural parameters, actuation pressure, and bending angle.
To evaluate the performance of the optimized MLAs, seven SFRBAs with
varying structural parameters are fabricated. The results demonstrate
that the refined NMLPR model outperforms the other models, achieving
an average RMSE of 7.935 and MAPE of 6.45%. Furthermore, the
◦
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ye Yongkai: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation,
Conceptualization. Scharff Rob B.N.: Writing – review & editing. Long
Sifang: Conceptualization. Han Chaoyue: Writing – review & editing.
Du Dongdong: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding
acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of Competing Interest

feedback control loop results indicate that the refined NMLPR model
successfully captures the dynamical response of the SFRBA. However, The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
blocking force [6,21] is not taken into account in this study, which is an interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
important indicator of the soft actuators and impacts the grasping per­ the work reported in this paper.
formance of soft grippers and restoration performance of wearable
rehabilitation gloves. Our forthcoming research will concentrate on Data Availability
examining the efficiency of MLAs on SFRBAs composed of other silicone
rubbers as well as analyzing the blocking force by considering the The authors do not have permission to share data.
contact characteristics. Additionally, MLA-based controllers will be
developed to facilitate specific tasks such as assisting agricultural robots Acknowledgments
in grasping and supporting rehabilitation gloves in recovering human
movement. We thank Ph.D. student Dongfang Li for the help with the
conceptualization.
Funding
Appendix A. Supporting information
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant Number 32301709), the Natural Science Foundation of Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
Zhejiang Province (Grant Number Q21C130037), and the Zhejiang online version at doi:10.1016/j.sna.2024.115095.
Agricultural Cooperation Agreement (Grant Number 2023SNJF047).

11
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

References Mater. Struct. 30 (2021) 125029, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/ac3403/

meta.
[28] A. Manuello Bertetto, M. Ruggiu, Characterization and modeling of air muscles,
[1] J. Shintake, V. Cacucciolo, D. Floreano, H. Shea, Soft robotic grippers, Adv. Mater.
Mech. Res. Commun. 31 (2004) 185–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-6413
30 (2018) 1707035, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201707035.
(03)00088-0.
[2] A. Zolfagharian, A. Kaynak, A. Kouzani, Closed-loop 4D-printed soft robots, Mater.
[29] J. Bergstra, Y. Bengio, Random search for hyper-parameter optimization, J. Mach.
Des. 188 (2020) 108411, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108411.
Learn. Res. 13 (2012) 281–305, https://doi.org/10.5555/2188385.2188395.
[3] P. Polygerinos, S. Lyne, Z. Wang, L.F. Nicolini, B. Mosadegh, G.M. Whitesides,
[30] M.H. Namdar Ghalati, H. Ghafarirad, A.A. Suratgar, M. Zareinejad, M.A. Ahmadi-
et al., Towards a soft pneumatic glove for hand rehabilitation, 2013 IEEE/RSJ
Pajouh, Static modeling of soft reinforced bending actuator considering external
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (2013) 1512–7. 10
force constraints, Soft Robot. 9 (2022) 776–787, https://doi.org/10.1089/
.1109/IROS.2013.6696549.
soro.2021.0010.
[4] D. Hu, J. Zhang, Y. Yang, Q. Li, D. Li, J. Hong, A Novel Soft Robotic Glove with
[31] S.J. Pan, Q. Yang, A survey on transfer learning, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 22
Positive-negative Pneumatic Actuator for Hand Rehabilitation, 2020 IEEE/ASME
(2010) 1345–1359, https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2009.191.
International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), (2020)
[32] A. Mendizabal E. Tagliabue T. Hoellinger J.-N. Brunet S. Nikolaev S. Cotin Data-
1840–7. 10.1109/AIM43001.2020.9158826.
driven simulation for augmented surgery Dev. Nov. Approaches Biomech.
[5] L. Liu, J. Zhang, G. Liu, Z. Zhu, Q. Hu, P. Li, Three-fingered soft pneumatic gripper
Metamaterials 2020 71 96 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-50464-9_5.
integrating joint-tuning capability, Soft Robot. 9 (2022) 948–959, https://doi.org/
[33] G.B. Runge, M. Wiese, A. Raatz, FEM-based training of artificial neural networks
10.1089/soro.2021.0082.
for modular soft robots, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
[6] P. Polygerinos, Z. Wang, J.T. Overvelde, K.C. Galloway, R.J. Wood, K. Bertoldi, et
Biomimetics (ROBIO), (2017) 385–92. 10.1109/ROBIO.2017.8324448.
al., Modeling of soft fiber-reinforced bending actuators, IEEE Trans. Robot. 31
(2015) 778–789, https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2015.2428504.
[7] V. Cacucciolo, F. Renda, E. Poccia, C. Laschi, M. Cianchetti, Modelling the
nonlinear response of fibre-reinforced bending fluidic actuators, Smart Mater. Yongkai Ye received his B.Eng. degree in College of Mechan­
Struct. 25 (2016) 105020, https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/25/10/105020. ical and Electronic Engineering, Northwest A&F University,
[8] L. Gharavi, M. Zareinejad, A. Ohadi, Dynamic finite-element analysis of a soft Yangling, PR China, in 2022. He is currently working toward
bending actuator, Mechatronics 81 (2022) 102690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. the M.Sc. degree at College of Biosystems Engineering and
mechatronics.2021.102690. Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China. His
[9] T. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhu, S. Zhu, A computationally efficient dynamical model of research interests include soft actuator, finite element analysis,
fluidic soft actuators and its experimental verification, Mechatronics 58 (2019) and machine learning.
1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.11.012.
[10] L. Gharavi, M. Zareinejad, A. Ohadi, Continuum analysis of a soft bending actuator
dynamics, Mechatronics 83 (2022) 102739, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mechatronics.2022.102739.
[11] Z. Wang, P. Polygerinos, J.T. Overvelde, K.C. Galloway, K. Bertoldi, C.J. Walsh,
Interaction forces of soft fiber reinforced bending actuators, IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron. 22 (2016) 717–727, https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2016.2638468.
[12] A. Sedal, A. Wineman, R.B. Gillespie, C.D. Remy, Comparison and experimental
validation of predictive models for soft, fiber-reinforced actuators, Int. J. Robot.
Res. 40 (2021) 119–135, https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364919879493. Rob B.N. Scharff received the B.Sc. degree in industrial design
[13] J. Jung, M. Park, D. Kim, Y.L. Park, Optically sensorized elastomer air chamber for engineering, and the M.Sc. degree in integrated product design
proprioceptive sensing of soft pneumatic actuators, IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5 from the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft, The
(2020) 2333–2340, https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2970984. Netherlands, in 2012 and 2015 respectively. He received the
[14] T.G. Thuruthel, B. Shih, C. Laschi, M.T. Tolley, Soft robot perception using Ph.D. degree from the Materializing Futures Section, Delft
embedded soft sensors and recurrent neural networks, Sci. Robot. 4 (2019) University of Technology, in 2021. He is currently an assistant
eaav1488, https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aav1488. professor with the Division of Integrative Systems and Design
[15] R.B.N. Scharff, R.M. Doornbusch, E.L. Doubrovski, J. Wu, J.M.P. Geraedts, C.C. of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong
L. Wang, Color-based proprioception of soft actuators interacting with objects, Kong, PR China. His research interests include soft robotics,
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 24 (2019) 1964–1973, https://doi.org/10.1109/ with an emphasis on soft pneumatic actuators with proprio­
TMECH.2019.2929818. ception, and digital manufacturing.
[16] R.B.N. Scharff, G. Fang, Y. Tian, J. Wu, J.M.P. Geraedts, C.C.L. Wang, Sensing and
reconstruction of 3-D deformation on pneumatic soft robots, IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron. 26 (2021) 1877–1885, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TMECH.2021.3078263.
[17] A. Zolfagharian, M.A.P. Mahmud, S. Gharaie, M. Bodaghi, A.Z. Kouzani, A. Kaynak,
3D/4D-printed bending-type soft pneumatic actuators: fabrication, modelling, and Sifang Long received his B.Eng. degree in Mechanical and
control, Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 15 (2020) 373–402, https://doi.org/10.1080/ Electrical Engineering Department, Yuncheng University,
17452759.2020.1795209. Yuncheng, PR China, in 2018 and M.Sc. degree from the Col­
[18] N.W. Bartlett, M.T. Tolley, J.T.B. Overvelde, J.C. Weaver, B. Mosadegh, K. Bertoldi, lege of Mechatronical & Electrical Engineering, Hebei Agri­
et al., A 3D-printed, functionally graded soft robot powered by combustion, culture University, Baoding, PR China, in 2021. He is currently
Science 349 (2015) 161–165, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0129. working toward a Ph.D. degree at the College of Biosystems
[19] G. Runge, A. Raatz, A framework for the automated design and modelling of soft Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou,
robotic systems, CIRP Ann. 66 (2017) 9–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. PR China. His research interests include discrete element
cirp.2017.04.104. analysis and deep learning.
[20] K. Elgeneidy, N. Lohse, M. Jackson, Bending angle prediction and control of soft
pneumatic actuators with embedded flex sensors–a data-driven approach,
Mechatronics 50 (2018) 234–247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mechatronics.2017.10.005.
[21] A. Zolfagharian, L. Durran, S. Gharaie, B. Rolfe, A. Kaynak, M. Bodaghi, 4D
printing soft robots guided by machine learning and finite element models, Sens.
Actuators A: Phys. 328 (2021) 112774, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Chaoyue Han received his B.Eng. degree in College of Me­
sna.2021.112774.
chanical and Electronic Engineering, Northwest A&F Univer­
[22] K.G. Demir, Z. Zhang, J. Yang, G. Gu, Computational and experimental design
sity, Yangling, PR China, in 2023. He is currently working
exploration of 3D-printed soft pneumatic actuators, Adv. Intell. Syst. 2 (2020)
toward the M.Sc. degree at College of Biosystems Engineering
2000013, https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202000013.
and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China.
[23] Z. Zhang, Z. Jin, G.X. Gu, Efficient pneumatic actuation modeling using hybrid
His research interests include visual tactile sensors, manipu­
physics-based and data-driven framework, Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 3 (2022) 100842,
lator control and machine learning.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2022.100842.
[24] M. Wiese, G. Runge-Borchert, B.-H. Cao, A. Raatz, Transfer learning for accurate
modeling and control of soft actuators, 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on
Soft Robotics (RoboSoft), (2021) 51–7. 10.1109/RoboSoft51838.2021.9479300.
[25] L. Marechal, L. Lindenroth, LucMarechal/Soft-Robotics-Materials-Database: Soft
Robotics Materials Database V2.0.beta, (2020). 10.5281/zenodo.3931808.
[26] D. Huri, T. Mankovits, Comparison of the material models in rubber finite element
analysis, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 393(2018)
012018. 10.1088/1757–899X/393/1/012018.
[27] S. Liu, J. Jiao, W. Kong, H. Huang, T. Mei, F. Meng, et al., Modeling of a bio-
inspired soft arm with semicircular cross section for underwater grasping, Smart

12
Y. Ye et al. Sensors and Actuators: A. Physical 368 (2024) 115095

Dongdong Du received his B.Eng. degree in College of Me­

chanical Engineering, Zhejiang University of Technology,
Hangzhou, PR China, in 2012 and Ph.D. degree in College of
Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou, PR China, in 2017. He is currently an associate
researcher with the College of Biosystems Engineering and
Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, PR China. His
research interests include soft robotics and agricultural robots.

13