Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Comparison between traditional and in-field manufacturing of soft manipulators.

The ability to iterate the design and fabricate actuators in-field is key to enable adaptations to specific and unanticipated challenges found in unstructured, remote environments (indicated by the blue background).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Research vessel and the remotely operated underwater vehicle.

A: R/V Falkor. B: ROV SuBastian.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Soft manipulator setup on the ROV.

A: The soft manipulators are installed on the retractable tray of the ROV. B: The manifold, pump, control bottle, and accumulator are installed on the port rear side. These were developed as part of a previous study [9].

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Full schematic of the soft manipulator setup.

Hydraulic (solid black line) and electrical connections (dashed red lines) are represented. This setup is similar to the one used in [9].

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

A traditionally laboratory-fabricated soft manipulator.

A: Open/deflated configuration. B: Closed/inflated configuration.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

3D printing soft actuators.

Example of printing a soft bellows out of TPU.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Fully 3D printed soft manipulator.

The orange and blue parts are printed with (flexible) TPU, black parts are printed with (hard) PLA.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Modified three fingers soft manipulator.

Modified three-finger soft manipulator converted to a two-finger version to allow pinch and power grasps.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Various types of grasping and comparison with a human hand.

A & C: A power grasp allows to pick up large objects. B & D: Pinch grasp allows more dexterity to pick up small objects.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

A challenging grasping situation.

An aplacophoran mollusc at the base of a delicate coral was difficult to grasp without damaging the coral.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Challenges when grasping brittle specimens with hard bodied manipulators.

A: Coral rubble (depth: 616m, S1 Video). B: Enallopsammia sp. coral (depth: 434m).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Examples of grasping sea cucumber (Holothuria).

A: On a sandy substrate (depth: 2224m). B: On a rocky substrate (depth: 1282m).

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Fig 13.

Difficulties in grasping.

Example of orienting the manipulator horizontally or perpendicularly from a deep-sea mushroom coral (Anthomastus sp., depth: 1282m).

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Sampling with a 3D printed soft manipulator designed and constructed on-board the ship.

A & B: a goniasterid (depth: 1162m). C & D: a holothurian (depth: 843m).

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

The multi-mode gripper could be used successfully for sampling several sea creatures.

A & B: pinch grasp on a holothurian (depth: 843m). C & D: a power grasp on a hexactinellid sponge (depth: 1361m).

More »

Fig 15 Expand