| Title |
Comparison of different soft grippers for lunch box packaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Robotics and Biomimetics, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40638-017-0067-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhongkui Wang, Mingzhu Zhu, Sadao Kawamura, Shinichi Hirai |
| Abstract |
Automating the lunch box packaging is a challenging task due to the high deformability and large individual differences in shape and physical property of food materials. Soft robotic grippers showed potentials to perform such tasks. In this paper, we presented four pneumatic soft actuators made of different materials and different fabrication methods and compared their performances through a series of tests. We found that the actuators fabricated by 3D printing showed better linearity and less individual differences, but showed low durability compared to actuators fabricated by traditional casting process. Robotic grippers were assembled using the soft actuators, and grasping tests were performed on soft paper containers filled with food materials. Results suggested that grippers with softer actuators required lower air pressure to lift up the same weight and generated less deformation on the soft container. The actuator made of casting process with Dragon Skin 10 material lifted the most weight among different actuators. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 36 | 51% |
| Design | 2 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 1% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,451,228
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Robotics and Biomimetics
#35
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,904
of 329,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Robotics and Biomimetics
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one scored the same or higher as 4 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.