Submitted:
03 September 2024
Posted:
03 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Analysis of various flagellum designs, which differ from each other in mass distribution and elasticity;
- Evaluation of these designs according to different performance indices; and
- Recommendation of guidelines for the optimal design of a small-dimensional bacterial flagellum-type swimmer.
2. Traveling Waves
- By distributed actuation, so that each point on the flagellum is excited by a sinusoidal signal, with amplitude and phase matched so that the composition of all of them gives the desired progressive waveform.
- By means of standing waves generated by excitation of two points of the flagellum in the following way: the first actuator generates a vibration on the flagellum whose reflected waves are compensated by the vibration generated by the second actuator, excited with different spatial and temporal phase. That is, assuming that the voltage applied to each actuator is and , where is the excitation frequency and is the phase shift, where and , with . The wavelength of the generated progressive wave will be , where d is the distance between the actuators.
- By exciting the flagellum at a single point, the reflected waves are eliminated by means of an element located at the end of it that acts as an absorber of the mechanical vibration, such as a piezoelectric that dissipates its energy through an electrical circuit formed by a resistance and an inductance connected in series with the same [18].
3. Swimmer Modeling
3.1. Microswimmer Body
- The material chosen for the flagellum is EcoFlex 00-30, a very strong and flexible vulcanized rubber with a Young’s modulus of MPa and a density of kg/m3 [20]. These physical properties were added to the “half beam” blocks to simulate the flexible behavior of the flagellum).
- In the simulations, the value of k and the mass distribution are varied in different flagellum geometries, keeping all other model parameters constant.
- In choosing the number of rigid elements that make up the swimmer flagellum, it was considered that the model must have enough segments to see the effect of the parameter k in the simulations. And second, the study of the motion of a zebrafish pup reported in [3], in which 5 segments with different stiffness are proposed, i.e., changes in k occur at points located at %, %, %, and % of the total length of the flagellum. After an iterative process, it was concluded that 11 rigid elements and 10 junctions were sufficient to achieve a reasonable compromise between computational cost and fidelity of results. Figure 5 shows the comparison between our choice and the one proposed in [12].
3.2. Viscous Environment
3.3. Motion Analysis
4. Propulsion Performance
4.1. Preliminary Considerations
- Four different mass distributions were chosen (Figure 7): cylindrical flagellum, conical flagellum, conical flagellum with a spherical mass at the end of the flagellum, and flat flagellum with a rectangular cross section. All four distributions have an identical mass, g, while the length of the flagellum has been adjusted for each geometry to accommodate the same amount of mass: mm for the cylindrical and flat shape, while the flagellum is longer in its cylindrical and cylindrical with spherical mass reaching mm and mm, respectively.
- Four different excitation frequencies are considered within the so-called ’biologically relevant frequency range’ [21], i.e., frequencies used by most living organisms to propel themselves in a liquid medium: 30, 50, 70 and 90 Hz.
-
The reference stiffness distribution is the uniform one, where the value of k varies in the interval N·m depending on the shape of the flagellum according to eq. (2). In addition, other stiffness distributions characterized by variations of k are considered below:
- Group 1: ascending and descending logarithmic and linear distributions. With this first group of k distributions, it is intended to broadly study the effects of different distributions on the flagellum, as well as the effects of further variation of k within each distribution.
- Group 2: a descending exponential distribution defined bywhere and are the stiffness and length of each flagellar segment, respectively, and a is the uniformity factor, which allows to increase or decrease the difference in stiffness between two consecutive flagellar segments. This expression is inspired by the natural stiffness distribution of a zebrafish (Danio Rerio) along its tail [12]. This second set of distributions aims to study smaller k variations between flagellar segments, which in turn are more realistic distributions due to their inspiration from the zebrafish body.
- To evaluate and compare the results obtained in the simulations, four performance indexes are used: the forward speed (measured in mm/s), the thrust force (measured in N), the efficiency , defined as the ratio between the mechanical power developed by the flagellum and the electrical power supplied by the motor, and the transport cost per unit mass (CoTm), measured in W/m and defined as the quotient between the electrical power supplied to the DC motor and the distance traveled in the forward direction for a given time. The first two quantities are calculated by the motion analysis block described above and are used to quantify the robot forward motion. Efficiency and CoTm, on the other hand, allow us to evaluate the robot design in terms of load versus power consumption.
4.2. Effects of Excitation Frequencies
4.3. Effects of Stiffness Distributions
- In the first group of distributions, it can be seen that the ascending distribution of stiffness is largely inferior to the rest. This is reflected in the results with the worst values for all established performance indexes. The descending distributions generally give the best performance indexes results for the conical and cylindrical flagella, while their conical and flat counterparts generally give better results with a uniform k distribution. This can be seen in Figure 8(b).
- The behavior of the first two geometries can be found in nature. Most fish and aquatic animals have tails and fins that become more elastic as one approaches the tip [22]. In the case of the conical flagellum with ball, it can be deduced that uniform stiffness allows better tracking of the motion generated at the origin of the flagellum by the rest of the body. On the other hand, if the stiffness is reduced in the body approaching the sphere, the mass concentration in the sphere will be too great for the rest of the flagellum to pull, so the sphere will not move too far from its initial position, which would interfere with the wave motion.
- In the case of the flat-section flagellum, the explanation can be found in a higher pulling force than in the other geometries. As a flat section flagellum, this less hydrodynamic design generates a higher drag force than the other three types of flagellum, which prevents it from moving easily, so when the stiffness is reduced as the end is approached, there are difficulties found in reproducing the wave motion. What is described for the geometries can be observed in Figure 8(c).
- Regarding the second group of distributions, it can be seen how it gets better overall results as the non-uniformity of the stiffness along the flagellum is increased. There is only one scenario where it can be useful to have a uniform k distribution, and that is for high frequencies if the objective is to get better results in both the efficiency and transportation cost indexes.
- As also shown in [12], for low frequencies the transport cost is lower for a non-uniform distribution than for a uniform one. However, the opposite is the case at high frequencies, where uniform distributions have lower transportation costs than non-uniform ones. In the current study, this behavior was replicated for all geometries except the planar geometry. This is likely due to the previously mentioned drag coefficients for the planar geometry. This behavior can be seen in Figure 8(d).
4.4. Effects of mass distributions
5. Guidelines for microswimmer optimal design
5.1. Results comparison
5.2. Recommendations
- Priority has been given to achieving better results in both travel speed and transportation cost. This is due to the fact that, in the design of a microrobot, the travel speed is considered a more important indicator than the propulsion power, since it is important to know how fast it moves in the environment. On the other hand, transportation cost is considered a more interesting performance indicator than efficiency, since it represents the energy that must be supplied to the robot to travel a given distance.
- These guidelines should only be taken into consideration when designing a microrobot with dimensions similar to those of the one under study. While the mass distribution and geometry of the flagellum are the primary factors influencing the microrobot performance, modifying the length or width of the flagellum could result in enhanced performance with a different stiffness distribution than that recommended here.
- To replicate the varying stiffness values across the five segments of the flagellum, which is entirely made of Ecoflex, it is essential to focus on the stiffness distribution given by eq. (2). Since both the Young’s modulus, E, and the flagellum length, l, are fixed values and cannot be altered, the only way to adjust stiffness is through manipulation of the area moment of inertia (). This parameter depends on the dimensions of the cross-section. Accordingly, to attain the requisite stiffness, gaps can be incorporated along the length of the flagellum, thereby facilitating modification of the cross-sectional dimensions. A detailed explanation of this method can be found in [12].
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ahmad, B.; Gauthier, M.; Laurent, G.J.; Bolopion, A. Mobile Microrobots for In Vitro Biomedical Applications: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2022, 38, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Bian, Q.; Wang, R.; Gao, J. Micro/nanorobots for precise drug delivery via targeted transport andtriggered release: A review. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 2022, 616, 121551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, B.; Kostarelos, K.; Nelson, B.J.; Zhang, L. Trends in micro-/nanorobotics: Materials development, actuation, localization, and system integration for biomedical applications. Advanced Materials 2021, 33, 2002047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, B.; Wood, G.; Miyashita, S. Milestones for autonomous in vivo microrobots in medical applications. Surgery 2021, 169, 755–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ceylan, H.; Yasa, I.C.; Kilic, U.; Hu, W.; Sitti, M. Translational prospects of untethered medical microrobots. Progress in Biomedical Engineering 2019, 1, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Esteban-Fernández de Ávila, B.; Gao, W.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J. Micro/nanorobots for biomedicine: Delivery, surgery, sensing, and detoxification. Science Robotics 2017, 2, eaam6431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sitti, M.; Ceylan, H.; Hu, W.; Giltinan, J.; Turan, M.; Yim, S.; Diller, E. Biomedical applications of untethered mobile milli/microrobots. Proceedings of the IEEE 2015, 103, 205–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, T.; Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Chang, X.; Song, W.; Hu, Y.; Shao, G.; Sandraz, E.; Zhang, G.; Li, L.; Wang, J. Magnetically Propelled Fish-Like Nanoswimmers. Small 2016, 12, 6098–6105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xia, N.; Jin, B.; Jin, D.; Yang, Z.; Pan, C.; Wang, Q.; Ji, F.; Iacovacci, V.; Majidi, C.; Ding, Y.; Zhang, L. Decoupling and Reprogramming the Wiggling Motion of Midge Larvae Using a Soft Robotic Platform. Advanced Materials 2022, 34, 2109126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, H.W.; Uslu, F.E.; Katsamba, P.; Lauga, E.; Sakar, M.S.; Nelson, B.J. Adaptive locomotion of artificial microswimmers. Science Advances 2019, 5, eaau1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miao, J.; Li, X.; Liang, B.; Wang, J.; Xu, X. Enhancing Swimming Performance by Optimizing Structure of Helical Swimmers. Sensors 2021, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, T.; Ren, Z.; Hu, W.; Li, M.; Sitti, M. Effect of body stiffness distribution on larval fish–like efficient undulatory swimming. Science Advances 2021, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gray, J.; Hancock, G.J. The Propulsion of Sea-Urchin Spermatozoa. Journal of Experimental Biology 1955, 32, 802–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chudnovsky, V.; Kennedy, D.; Mukherjee, A.; Wendlandt, J. Modeling Flexible Bodies in SimMechanics and Simulink, 2006.
- Traver, J.E.; Tejado, I.; Nuevo-Gallardo, C.; López, M.A.; Vinagre, B.M. Performance study of propulsion of N-link artificial Eukaryotic flagellum swimming microrobot within a fractional order approach: From simulations to hardware-in-the-loop experiments. European Journal of Control 2021, 58, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, M.A.; Prieto, J.; Traver, J.E.; Tejado, I.; Vinagre, B.M.; Petrás, I. Testing non reciprocal motion of a swimming flexible small robot with single actuation. 19th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC2018), 2018, pp. 312–317. [CrossRef]
- Alberts, B.; Bray, D.; Hopkin, K.; Johnson, A.; Lewis, J.; Raff, M.; Roberts, K.; Walter, P. Essential Cell Biology, fourth ed.; Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.
- Hariri, H.; Bernard, Y.; Razek, A. A traveling wave piezoelectric beam robot. Smart Materials and Structures 2013, 26, 2577–2590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, T.S.; Lauga, E.; Hosoi, A.E. Experimental investigations of elastic tail propulsion at low Reynolds number. Physics of Fluids 2006, 18, 091701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecoflex 00-30 Product Information Smooth-On Inc.
- J.L van Leuuwen, C.J. Voesenek, U.M. How body torque and Strouhal number change with swimming speed and developmental stage in larval zebrafish. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2015, 12, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sfakiotakis, M.; Lane, D.; Davies, J. Review of fish swimming modes for aquatic locomotion. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 1999, 24, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Parameter (Unit) | Value |
|---|---|
| Inertia (kg·m2) | |
| Damping (N·m/(rad/s)) | |
| Electromotive force constant (V/(rad/s)) | |
| Stator resistance () | |
| Stator inductance (H) |
| Group 1 | Group 2 |
|---|---|
| Forward velocity | Forward velocity |
| k uniform, conical flagellum with mass | k exponential with , flat flagellum |
| Propulsion force | Propulsion force |
| k uniform, conical flagellum with mass | k exponential with , flat flagellum |
| Efficiency | Efficiency |
| k uniform, flat flagellun | k exponential with , flat flagellum |
| CoTm | CoTm |
| k uniform, conical flagellum | k exponential with , conical flagellum with mass |
| Desired properties | Recommended stiffness distribution |
|
|---|---|---|
| Mass distribution | Performance | |
| Cylindrical | Forward velocity and propulsion force |
Descending linear ( and ) |
| Efficiency and CoTm | Exponential with ( and ) |
|
| Conical | Forward velocity and propulsion force |
Logarithmic descending ( and ) |
| Efficiency and CoTm | Exponential with ( and ) |
|
| Conical with spherical mass |
Forward velocity and propulsion force |
Exponential with ( and ) |
| Efficiency and CoTm | Exponential with ( and ) |
|
| Flat | Forward velocity and propulsion force |
Exponential with ( and ) |
| Efficiency and CoTm | Exponential with ( and ) |
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).