Embodied intelligence (intelligence that requires and leverages a physical body) is a well-known paradigm in soft robotics, but its mathematical description and consequent computational modelling remain elusive, with a need for models that can be used for design and control purposes. We argue that filling this gap will enable full uptake of embodied intelligence in soft robots. We provide a concise guide to the main mathematical modelling approaches, and consequent computational modelling strategies, that can be used to describe soft robots and their physical interactions with the surrounding environment, including fluid and solid media. We aim to convey the challenges and opportunities within the context of modelling the physical interactions underpinning embodied intelligence. We emphasize that interdisciplinary work is required, especially in the context of fully coupled robot–environment interaction modelling. Promoting this dialogue across disciplines is a necessary step to further advance the field of soft robotics.
Embodied intelligence is one of the main motivations for soft robotics.
Body compliance enables embodied intelligence and helps to simplify the control of robots for achieving the required tasks in complex environments.
A full mathematical description of the deformations of a soft robot, given by its internal interactions with actuators and by the external interactions with the surrounding environment, can be the tool for mastering body compliance and embodied intelligence.
Relevant modelling and computational techniques are within grasp, in an interdisciplinary effort.
Soft robotics can transition to a model-informed discipline, with embodied-intelligence-based design and control, that can pave the way towards soft-robot digital twins.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Kim, S., Laschi, C. & Trimmer, B. Soft robotics: a bioinspired evolution in robotics. Trends Biotechnol. 31, 287–294 (2013).
Pfeifer, R., Lungarella, M. & Iida, F. Self-organization, embodiment, and biologically inspired robotics. Science 318, 1088–1093 (2007).
Blickhan, R. et al. Intelligence by mechanics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 199–220 (2007).
Niederer, S. A., Sacks, M. S., Girolami, M. & Willcox, K. Scaling digital twins from the artisanal to the industrial. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 313–320 (2021).
Brunton, S. L. et al. Data-driven aerospace engineering: reframing the industry with machine learning. AIAA J. 59, 2820–2847 (2021).
Xavier, M. S., Fleming, A. J. & Yong, Y. K. Finite element modeling of soft fluidic actuators: overview and recent developments. Adv. Intell. Syst. 3, 2000187 (2021).
Vanneste, F., Goury, O. & Duriez, C. in 2021 IEEE 4th Int. Conf. Soft Robot. 636–642 (IEEE, 2021).
Duriez, C. & Bieze, T. in Soft Robotics: Trends, Applications and Challenges (eds Laschi, C. et al.) 103–109 (Springer, 2017).
Goury, O. & Duriez, C. Fast, generic, and reliable control and simulation of soft robots using model order reduction. IEEE Trans. Robot. 34, 1565–1576 (2018).
Hu, Y. et al. in 2019 Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 6265–6271 (IEEE, 2019).
Hiller, J. & Lipson, H. Dynamic simulation of soft multimaterial 3D-printed objects. Soft Robot. 1, 88–101 (2014).
Cheney, N., MacCurdy, R., Clune, J. & Lipson, H. Unshackling evolution: evolving soft robots with multiple materials and a powerful generative encoding. ACM SIGEVOlution 7, 11–23 (2014).
Dassault Systemes. Abaqus Unified FEA. 3DS https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/abaqus/ (2021).
Ansys. Ansys software. Ansys https://www.ansys.com (2021).
COMSOL. COMSOL software. COMSOL https://www.comsol.com (2021).
Altair. Altair software. Altair https://www.altair.com (2021).
Turner, M., Peiró, J. & Moxey, D. Curvilinear mesh generation using a variational framework. Comput. Aided Des. 103, 73–91 (2018).
Mengaldo, G. et al. Industry-relevant implicit large-eddy simulation of a high-performance road car via spectral/hp element methods. SIAM Rev. 63, 723–755 (2021).
Cottrell, J. A., Hughes, T. J. & Bazilevs, Y. Isogeometric Analysis: Toward Integration of CAD and FEA (Wiley, 2009).
Hoshyari, S., Xu, H., Knoop, E., Coros, S. & Bächer, M. Vibration-minimizing motion retargeting for robotic characters. ACM Trans. Graph. 38, 102 (2019).
Adagolodjo, Y., Renda, F. & Duriez, C. Coupling numerical deformable models in global and reduced coordinates for the simulation of the direct and the inverse kinematics of soft robots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 6, 3910–3917 (2021).
Antman, S. Nonlinear Problems of Elasticity (Springer, 2006).
Meier, C., Popp, A. & Wall, W. A. Geometrically exact finite element formulations for slender beams: Kirchhoff–Love theory versus Simo–Reissner theory. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 26, 163–243 (2019).
Shabana, A. A. Continuum-based geometry/analysis approach for flexible and soft robotic systems. Soft Robot. 5, 613–621 (2018).
Boyer, F., Lebastard, V., Candelier, F. & Renda, F. Dynamics of continuum and soft robots: a strain parameterization based approach. IEEE Trans. Robot. 37, 847–863 (2020).
Boyer, F. & Renda, F. Poincaré’s equations for cosserat media: application to shells. J. Nonlinear Sci. 27, 1–44 (2017).
Renda, F. & Seneviratne, L. in 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 1567–1574 (IEEE, 2018).
Gazzola, M., Dudte, L., McCormick, A. & Mahadevan, L. Forward and inverse problems in the mechanics of soft filaments. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171628 (2018).
Mathew, A. T., Hmida, I. B., Armanini, C., Boyer, F. & Renda, F. SoRoSim: a MATLAB toolbox for soft robotics based on the geometric variable-strain approach. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.05494 (2021).
Fu, Q. et al. Lateral oscillation and body compliance help snakes and snake robots stably traverse large, smooth obstacles. Integr. Comp. Biol. 60, 171–179 (2020).
Chirikjian, G. S. & Burdick, J. W. A modal approach to hyper-redundant manipulator kinematics. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 10, 343–354 (1994).
Kim, B., Ha, J., Park, F. C. & Dupont, P. E. in 2014 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 5374–5379 (IEEE, 2014).
Suzumori, K., Iikura, S. & Tanaka, H. in Proc. 1991 IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 1622–1623 (IEEE, 1991).
Webster III, R. J. & Jones, B. A. Design and kinematic modeling of constant curvature continuum robots: a review. Int. J. Robot. Res. 29, 1661–1683 (2010).
George Thuruthel, T., Ansari, Y., Falotico, E. & Laschi, C. Control strategies for soft robotic manipulators: a survey. Soft Robot. 5, 149–163 (2018).
Kim, D. et al. Review of machine learning methods in soft robotics. PLoS ONE 16, e0246102 (2021).
Wang, X., Li, Y. & Kwok, K.-W. A survey for machine learning-based control of continuum robots. Front. Robot. AI 8, 730330 (2021).
Giorelli, M. et al. Neural network and Jacobian method for solving the inverse statics of a cable-driven soft arm with nonconstant curvature. IEEE Trans. Robot. 31, 823–834 (2015).
Juang, J. N. Applied System Identification (Prentice Hall, 1994).
Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Benner, P., Gugercin, S. & Willcox, K. A survey of projection-based model reduction methods for parametric dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 57, 483–531 (2015).
Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Data-driven operator inference for nonintrusive projection-based model reduction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 306, 196–215 (2016).
Brunton, S. L., Proctor, J. L. & Kutz, J. N. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932–3937 (2016).
Loiseau, J.-C. & Brunton, S. L. Constrained sparse Galerkin regression. J. Fluid Mech. 838, 42–67 (2018).
Qian, E., Kramer, B., Peherstorfer, B. & Willcox, K. Lift & learn: physics-informed machine learning for large-scale nonlinear dynamical systems. Physica D 406, 132401 (2020).
Dowell, E. H. & Hall, K. C. Modeling of fluid-structure interaction. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 33, 445–490 (2001).
Hou, G., Wang, J. & Layton, A. Numerical methods for fluid-structure interaction — a review. Commun. Comput. Phys. 12, 337–377 (2012).
Souli, M. & Benson, D. J. Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian and Fluid–Structure Interaction: Numerical Simulation (Wiley, 2013).
Mittal, R. & Iaccarino, G. Immersed boundary methods. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 37, 239–261 (2005).
Taira, K. & Colonius, T. The immersed boundary method: a projection approach. J. Comput. Phys. 225, 2118–2137 (2007).
Goza, A. & Colonius, T. A strongly-coupled immersed-boundary formulation for thin elastic structures. J. Comput. Phys. 336, 401–411 (2017).
Dickinson, M. H. et al. How animals move: an integrative view. Science 288, 100–106 (2000).
Lauder, G. V. Fish locomotion: recent advances and new directions. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 521–545 (2015).
FLOW-3D. FLOW-3D software. FLOW-3D https://www.flow3d.com/products/flow-3d/ (2021).
ADINA. ADINA software. ADINA http://www.adina.com (2021).
Weller, H. G., Tabor, G., Jasak, H. & Fureby, C. A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques. Comput. Phys. 12, 620–631 (1998).
Renda, F. et al. A unified multi-soft-body dynamic model for underwater soft robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 37, 648–666 (2018).
Armanini, C. et al. Flagellate underwater robotics at macroscale: design, modeling, and characterization. IEEE Trans. Robot. 38, 731–747 (2021).
Duraisamy, K., Iaccarino, G. & Xiao, H. Turbulence modeling in the age of data. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357–377 (2019).
Brunton, S. L., Noack, B. R. & Koumoutsakos, P. Machine learning for fluid mechanics. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477–508 (2020).
Vinuesa, R. & Brunton, S. L. The potential of machine learning to enhance computational fluid dynamics. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.02085 (2021).
Bar-Sinai, Y., Hoyer, S., Hickey, J. & Brenner, M. P. Learning data-driven discretizations for partial differential equations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15344–15349 (2019).
Kochkov, D. et al. Machine learning accelerated computational fluid dynamics. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01010 (2021).
Wang, R., Walters, R. & Yu, R. Incorporating symmetry into deep dynamics models for improved generalization. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.03061 (2020).
Li, Z. et al. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08895 (2020).
Ling, J., Kurzawski, A. & Templeton, J. Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance. J. Fluid Mech. 807, 155–166 (2016).
Maulik, R., San, O., Rasheed, A. & Vedula, P. Subgrid modelling for two-dimensional turbulence using neural networks. J. Fluid Mech. 858, 122–144 (2019).
Novati, G., de Laroussilhe, H. L. & Koumoutsakos, P. Automating turbulence modelling by multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 87–96 (2021).
Beetham, S. & Capecelatro, J. Formulating turbulence closures using sparse regression with embedded form invariance. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084611 (2020).
Beetham, S., Fox, R. O. & Capecelatro, J. Sparse identification of multiphase turbulence closures for coupled fluid–particle flows. J. Fluid Mech. 914, A11 (2021).
Taira, K. et al. Modal analysis of fluid flows: an overview. AIAA J. 55, 4013–4041 (2017).
Loiseau, J.-C., Noack, B. R. & Brunton, S. L. Sparse reduced-order modeling: sensor-based dynamics to full-state estimation. J. Fluid Mech. 844, 459–490 (2018).
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzynski, M. & Pastur, L. R. Low-order model for successive bifurcations of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 884, A37 (2020).
Deng, N., Noack, B. R., Morzyński, M. & Pastur, L. R. Galerkin force model for transient and post-transient dynamics of the fluidic pinball. J. Fluid Mech. 918, A4 (2021).
Lee, K. & Carlberg, K. T. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. J. Comput. Phys. 404, 108973 (2020).
Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. Physics-informed neural networks: a deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 378, 686–707 (2019).
Lu, L., Jin, P., Pang, G., Zhang, Z. & Karniadakis, G. E. Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 218–229 (2021).
Shi, G. et al. in 2019 Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. 9784–9790 (IEEE, 2019).
Johnson, K. L. & Johnson, K. L. Contact Mechanics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).
Vakis, A. I. et al. Modeling and simulation in tribology across scales: an overview. Tribol. Int. 125, 169–199 (2018).
Dalvi, S. et al. Linking energy loss in soft adhesion to surface roughness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 25484–25490 (2019).
Studer, C. & Glocker, C. Simulation of non-smooth mechanical systems with many unilateral constraints 1597–1606 (Eindhoven Univ., 2005).
Acary, V. Projected event-capturing time-stepping schemes for nonsmooth mechanical systems with unilateral contact and Coulomb’s friction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 256, 224–250 (2013).
Coevoet, E., Escande, A. & Duriez, C. Optimization-based inverse model of soft robots with contact handling. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2, 1413–1419 (2017).
Collins, J., Chand, S., Vanderkop, A. & Howard, D. A review of physics simulators for robotic applications. IEEE Access 9, 51416–51431 (2021).
Simulation Open Framework Architecture. SOFA framework. SOFA https://www.sofa-framework.org (2021).
Xu, J., Aykut, T., Ma, D. & Steinbach, E. 6DLS: modeling nonplanar frictional surface contacts for grasping using 6-D limit surfaces. IEEE Trans. Robot. 37, 2099–2116 (2021).
Xydas, N. & Kao, I. Modeling of contact mechanics and friction limit surfaces for soft fingers in robotics, with experimental results. Int. J. Robot. Res. 18, 941–950 (1999).
Majidi, C., Shepherd, R. F., Kramer, R. K., Whitesides, G. M. & Wood, R. J. Influence of surface traction on soft robot undulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 32, 1577–1584 (2013).
Todorov, E., Erez, T. & Tassa, Y. in 2012 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. 5026–5033 (IEEE, 2012).
Deimel, R. & Brock, O. A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping. Int. J. Robot. Res. 35, 161–185 (2016).
Lipson, H. & Pollack, J. B. Automatic design and manufacture of robotic lifeforms. Nature 406, 974–978 (2000).
Hiller, J. & Lipson, H. Automatic design and manufacture of soft robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28, 457–466 (2011).
Coevoet, E., Escande, A. & Duriez, C. in 2019 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. Soft Robot. 739–745 (IEEE, 2019).
Hwangbo, J. et al. Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots. Sci. Robot. 4 (2019).
Golemo, F., Taiga, A. A., Courville, A. & Oudeyer, P.-Y. in Conf. Robot Learn. 817–828 (PMLR, 2018).
Battaglia, P. et al. Interaction networks for learning about objects, relations and physics. Adv. Neural Inf. Proc. Syst. 29 (2016).
Jiang, Y., et al. in Learn. Dyn. Control Conf. 378–390 (PMLR, 2022).
Sundaram, S. et al. Learning the signatures of the human grasp using a scalable tactile glove. Nature 569, 698–702 (2019).
Lipson, H. Challenges and opportunities for design, simulation, and fabrication of soft robots. Soft Robot. 1, 21–27 (2014).
Calisti, M. & Laschi, C. Morphological and control criteria for self-stable underwater hopping. Bioinspir. Biomim. 13, 016001 (2017).
Chenevier, J., González, D., Aguado, J. V., Chinesta, F. & Cueto, E. Reduced-order modeling of soft robots. PLoS ONE 13, e0192052 (2018).
Full, R. J. & Koditschek, D. E. Templates and anchors: neuromechanical hypotheses of legged locomotion on land. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 3325–3332 (1999).
Picardi, G. et al. Bioinspired underwater legged robot for seabed exploration with low environmental disturbance. Sci. Robot. 5 (2020).
Bujard, T., Giorgio-Serchi, F. & Weymouth, G. D. A resonant squid-inspired robot unlocks biological propulsive efficiency. Sci. Robot. 6, eabd2971 (2021).
Renda, F., Boyer, F., Dias, J. & Seneviratne, L. Discrete Cosserat approach for multisection soft manipulator dynamics. IEEE Trans. Robot. 34, 1518–1533 (2018).
Renda, F., Cianchetti, M., Giorelli, M., Arienti, A. & Laschi, C. A 3D steady-state model of a tendon-driven continuum soft manipulator inspired by the octopus arm. Bioinspir. Biomim. 7, 025006 (2012).
Navarro, S. E. et al. A model-based sensor fusion approach for force and shape estimation in soft robotics. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5, 5621–5628 (2020).
G.M. acknowledges NUS support through his start-up grant (R-265-000-A36-133). G.S.C. acknowledges MOE Tier 1 grant (R-265-000-655-114). C.L. acknowledges NUS support through her start-up grant (R-265-000-A31-133 and R-265-000-A31-731). Part of this research is supported by the National Research Foundation, Singapore, under its Medium Sized Centre Programme — Centre for Advanced Robotics Technology Innovation (CARTIN). G.M., G.S.C. and C.L. acknowledge MOE Tier 2 grant ‘REBOT’. This work was supported in part by the US Office of Naval Research Global under grant N62909-21-1-2033 and Khalifa University of Science and Technology under grants CIRA-2020-074 and RC1-2018-KUCARS.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Physics thanks Ellen Roche, Josie Hughes, Nana Obayashi, Kai Junge and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
- Soft robotics
The RoboSoft Community defines soft robots as “soft robots/devices that can actively interact with the environment and can undergo ‘large’ deformations relying on inherent or structural compliance”.
- Embodied intelligence
Part of control and intelligence contributed by the physical body and its interaction with the environment and the task.
Hyperelastic materials are models of material that have a nonlinear elastic response. They are commonly used to approximate soft tissues exhibiting large deformations, including rubber material and biological tissues.
- Lagrange multipliers
A method to solve a constrained optimization problem, that is, to find the minima or maxima of a function under equality constraints. The method can be generalized to inequality constraints by the Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions.
The property of exhibiting different characteristics along different directions.
- Finite element method
(FEM). A popular numerical method to solve partial differential equations. It reduces the original differential system into a solvable algebraic system by discretizing the domain of interest (time and space) into finite elements.
- Lie group
A mathematical set that is differentiable and closed under a product operation. The Lie groups of 3D rotations (SO(3)) and 3D rigid motions (SE(3)) are particularly important here.
- Euler angles
A triplet of angles that parametrize a 3D rotation. Each angle represents an elementary rotation around the x, y or z axis.
- Non-Newtonian fluids
A fluid whose viscosity depends on stress, thereby breaking Newton’s law of viscosity.
- Open-loop control
A control is called open-loop (or feedforward) when the controller operates independently from the output of the system. An example is a heating system controlled only by a timer to switch on or off. Conversely, control is closed-loop (or feedback) when the controller operates by using the output of the system as input to determine its behaviour. An example is a heating system using a controller that senses the temperature of the room.
About this article
Cite this article
Mengaldo, G., Renda, F., Brunton, S.L. et al. A concise guide to modelling the physics of embodied intelligence in soft robotics. Nat Rev Phys 4, 595–610 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-022-00481-z