Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Duawlfin: A Drone with Unified Actuation for Wheeled Locomotion and Flight Operation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Duawlfin claims that four standard quadrotor motors, one-way bearings, and differentials can both fly a drone and drive it bidirectionally, with ground turning power under 15 W.

desk verdict Nice mechanical trick, believable ground-mode efficiency, but the 'minimal flight trade-off' rests on an unmeasured rotor-braking assumption and a radius/diameter inconsistency that must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13836 v1 pith:WSOSZKXY submitted 2025-05-20 cs.RO

Jerry Tang , Ruiqi Zhang , Kaan Beyduz , Yiwei Jiang , Cody Wiebe , Haoyu Zhang , Osaruese Asoro , Mark W. Mueller This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords hybridaerial-groundrobotone-waybearingdifferentialdrivetrainunifiedactuationquadrotorgroundlocomotionmodetransitionmultimodal
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Duawlfin is a quadrotor that tries to show one set of four motors can do two jobs: fly the drone and drive it on the ground, with no extra motors and no propeller blast used for rolling. The design mounts each propeller on a one-way bearing and couples pairs of opposing motors to a differential drivetrain, so forward spin lifts, reverse spin drives the wheels, and the propellers freewheel during ground travel. If the claim holds, hybrid aerial–ground robots can be lighter, simpler, and dramatically more energy-efficient on the ground, and can switch modes by simply reversing motor direction. Measured ground-mode circular power drops to 3.9–14.9 W versus 124.6–188.8 W in flight, while flight tracking stays comparable to a conventional quadrotor.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of one-way bearings and belt-driven differentials. Each 8-inch propeller is press-fitted around a one-way bearing on its motor shaft, so forward motor rotation engages the propeller for thrust while reverse rotation lets it freewheel; simultaneously, small pulleys on the motor shafts turn belts that feed two miniature differentials, whose outputs are the ground wheels. Because each differential sums the inputs of two opposing motors, equal motor speeds leave the wheel still, and only the speed difference rotates it, which gives bidirectional drive and also lets both motors run at a fixed idle speed, bypassing the poor low-speed startup behavior of sensorless brushless DC motors. The differentials remain engaged during flight, but the one-way bearings isolate the propellers from reverse torque, so no active clutch or extra actuator is needed.

What would settle it

Command a rapid rotor-speed decrease during a demanding flight maneuver, such as a sharp yaw reversal after a high-thrust hover, and compare rotor deceleration time and attitude tracking error against a baseline drone whose propellers are fixed to the shafts. If deceleration is markedly slower or tracking error grows well beyond the paper's reported small penalty, the minimal-trade-off conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a standard quadrotor, without any added ground actuators and without using propeller thrust to roll, can still achieve stable bidirectional driving by exploiting the directional asymmetry of its motors and propellers. One-way bearings in the propeller hubs lock during forward rotation, so the motors produce thrust for flight, and release during reverse rotation, so the same motors drive belts and differentials that turn the wheels; the differentials convert the relative speed of paired motors into forward, reverse, and turning motion. The authors report that this unified actuation preserves conventional quadrotor flight quality, with a figure-8 tracking root-mean-square error of 9.74 cm and about 3.23 percent higher power than a baseline vehicle, while ground mode uses one to two orders of magnitude less power for tight circular maneuvers, climbs slopes up to $30^\circ$, and produces lateral accelerations approaching $g$.

Load-bearing premise

The flight-performance claim depends on the assumption that when a motor must slow down in flight, aerodynamic drag on the propeller alone slows it fast enough for attitude control, because the one-way bearing blocks reverse torque that would otherwise brake the propeller.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid drones can gain bidirectional ground mobility without adding wheel motors, clutches, or propeller-based rolling, reducing mass and complexity.
  • Ground operation cuts power for short-range, tight maneuvers by more than an order of magnitude, so missions that mix driving with short hops can extend battery endurance.
  • Mode transitions reduce to reversing motor spin direction, enabling fast, smooth switching without mechanical reconfiguration.
  • The design's flight penalty is small, about 3.23 percent more power and comparable tracking error, so the added drivetrain does not degrade conventional quadrotor use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the drivetrain stays engaged in flight and the added inertia is constant, the same flight controller gains should transfer to other vehicles using this architecture; the paper's open-sourced models make that a direct test.
  • The differential's idle-speed trick suggests a broader design pattern for sensorless brushless DC vehicles: keep motors in a well-characterized speed regime and encode actuation in speed differences rather than absolute speed.
  • The paper measures power at steady speeds and slopes but does not isolate peak start-up torque or the transient cost of a full drive-to-fly-to-drive cycle; instrumenting one complete cycle would show where real endurance gains and motor thermal loads land.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents Duawlfin, a quadrotor-based hybrid aerial-ground robot that uses one-way bearings and a differential belt drivetrain to let its four existing motors drive wheels in reverse while decoupling the propellers during ground operation. The manuscript describes the mechanical design, a mode-switched control framework, and experimental tests. Ground-mode results report circular-motion power of 3.9-14.9 W versus 124.6-188.8 W in flight, slope climbing up to 30 degrees, and agile turning; flight tests report hover and figure-8 performance comparable to a baseline without the drivetrain, with about 3.2 percent higher power and comparable tracking RMSE. The authors conclude that the design achieves efficient bidirectional ground mobility and minimal flight performance trade-off without additional actuators.

Significance. If the results hold, the design offers a low-mass way to add efficient ground locomotion to a standard quadrotor without dedicated ground actuators or propeller wash in ground mode. The ground-mode power numbers are striking (roughly 30 times lower than flight), and the slope-climbing and turning data support ground utility. The kinematic ground-speed mapping in Equations (13)-(16) is derived from drivetrain geometry and an idle speed setpoint rather than fitted, which is a strength, and the open-sourcing of 3D models and demonstration video aids reproducibility. The main risk to the central flight-performance claim is the unmeasured rotor-braking assumption, discussed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A / Table II] The text in Section IV-A states that circular paths with a radius of 1 meter were tested, but Table II is titled "1-METER DIAMETER". The reported lateral accelerations are only consistent with a radius of 0.5 m; for example, at 2.0 m/s the centripetal acceleration is v^2/r = 8 m/s^2 = 0.82g for r = 0.5 m, not for r = 1 m. This is not merely a wording issue: it directly affects the "approaching 1g lateral acceleration" claim, which would be false for the stated 1 m radius. Please correct the radius/diameter description and ensure that all derived quantities are consistent with the actual test geometry.
  2. [Section IV-C] The conclusion that the added drivetrain and one-way bearings impose a minimal flight performance trade-off rests on the argument that "propeller drag alone suffices to slow the rotors at an acceptable rate." This is asserted, not measured. Because the one-way bearings prevent active braking and the drivetrain remains engaged in flight, the rotor deceleration dynamics differ from a standard quadrotor. The hover and figure-8 tests (at 2 m/s) are moderate maneuvers and do not demand rapid large thrust reductions, and the 0.1 s mode transition demonstrates motor reversal from ground to flight, not a closed-loop step-down from high forward thrust. To support the central flight claim, please include a direct measurement of rotor speed (or thrust) response to a large step-down command and/or an aggressive maneuver (e.g., a large pitch or roll step, or a rapid descent) compared with the baseline vehicle.
  3. [Section IV-C baseline description] The description of the baseline vehicle as "a modified Duawlfin with the same propellers but without the one-way bearings and with its ground drivetrain disconnected" conflicts with the statement that "all other parameters remain identical." Removing the one-way bearings and disconnecting or removing the drivetrain changes the total mass and rotor inertia, so the 3.23% power delta and the RMSE comparison do not alone isolate the effect of drivetrain friction and rotor loading as claimed. Please specify exactly what was removed, quantify the mass and inertia differences, or run the comparison with a baseline carrying equivalent ballast and rotor inertia.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 6 caption] The Figure 6 caption appears to contain duplicated and placeholder entries, including "(d) Mid-Air Docking", "(c) Slope Climbing Test (d) Figure-8 Flight Test", and "Figure-8 Placeholder". Please revise the caption to list the actual panels.
  2. [Equations (7) and (9)] The operators ⊘ and V in Equations (7) and (9) are not defined; please clarify the notation, e.g., element-wise division and the rotation-vector mapping, respectively.
  3. [Abstract / Figure 1 caption] The abstract claims the design "prevents the disturbance caused by propellers spinning near the ground," but the Figure 1 caption notes that in ground mode the propellers still turn at low speed because of friction in the one-way bearings' free mode. Consider softening the claim to reflect that the disturbance is greatly reduced but not fully eliminated.
  4. [Section IV experiments] The power, RMSE, and slope-climbing data are reported without error bars, standard deviations, or the number of repeated trials. Please report the trial count and variability for each measurement.
  5. [Section II-C] The text mentions the total vehicle weight (about 800 g) but provides no mass breakdown of the added drivetrain components. A table of component masses would help readers judge the mass penalty of the proposed mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's ground-mode mapping is a kinematic command law and the headline results are direct measurements against a baseline vehicle.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters and then present them as predictions. Equations 13-16 define a commanded mapping from desired planar velocities to motor speeds through wheel radius, lateral offset, belt reduction, and an idle-speed offset; it is a control law, not a derived claim about observed performance, and the observed driving behavior is reported as measured data (Tables II-III). The flight comparison in Table IV is a direct measurement: Duawlfin is compared with a baseline vehicle obtained by removing the one-way bearings and disconnecting the ground drivetrain, and the 3.23% power increase and 9.74 cm RMSE are read from experiments, not generated by the model. The standard quadrotor mixer (Eq. 12) and controller gains are conventional and do not encode the paper's conclusions. The one load-bearing assumption the paper itself flags, Section IV-C's argument that propeller aerodynamic drag alone slows the rotors acceptably because active braking is blocked by the one-way bearings, is an unmeasured physical assumption and therefore a correctness risk, but it is not circular: it is not derived from, nor equivalent to, the experimental results it is used to explain. Self-citations [1] and [6] are background references from the same laboratory group and are not used to justify the central mechanical-design or performance claims. No equation reduces to its input by construction, and no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental system paper. Its central claim rests on standard differential kinematics, off-the-shelf one-way bearing behavior, and a small set of unmeasured mechanical and electrical assumptions, all listed above. No new physical entity, force, or conserved quantity is introduced. The only hand-chosen quantities are the idle motor speed, the controller gains, and the kinematic constants, which are design and tuning values rather than fitted to force agreement with the headline energy numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Idle motor speed w_i = not stated
    Hand-chosen minimum motor speed in ground mode, used in Equations 14 to 16 to keep sensorless BLDC motors out of their poor startup region. It affects all ground-mode motor commands but is not fitted to match the reported power results.
  • Attitude control gains (omega_nat, zeta, tau_att, tau_omega) = Table I
    Chosen by the authors for the cascaded quadrotor controller. They are standard tuning values rather than fitted to predict the experimental outcomes.
  • Ground-drive kinematic constants k1, k2, k3 = not stated
    Determined by geometry in Equations 13 and 14: inverse wheel radius, wheel lateral offset, and pulley reduction ratio. They are design constants, not fit to data, but their values are needed to reproduce ground motion.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Differential gearboxes combine two motor inputs so wheel speed depends on their speed difference, enabling bidirectional rotation from unidirectional reverse motor spin.
    Invoked in Section II-B and Figure 3. The paper relies on standard differential kinematics to obtain forward and reverse wheel motion from motors that all spin in the reverse direction during ground mode.
  • domain assumption One-way bearings lock when the motor spins forward (flight) and freewheel when it spins reverse (ground), decoupling the propellers without active switching.
    Assumed in Section II-B and II-C. The paper does not characterize bearing behavior at the prototype's speeds and loads beyond operational observation.
  • domain assumption Sensorless BLDC motors have poor startup behavior at low speeds, so an idle speed must be maintained.
    Motivates the differential idle-speed scheme in Section II-B and Equations 15 to 16. No motor bench data is provided to quantify the startup region.
  • domain assumption Rotor aerodynamic drag slows the propellers fast enough to maintain attitude control without active braking, since one-way bearings block reverse torque transmission.
    Argued in Section IV-C rather than directly measured. The hover and figure-8 flight tests provide indirect evidence that the assumption holds for the tested maneuvers.
  • domain assumption The always-engaged belt and differential drivetrain adds only minor inertia and friction in flight.
    Supported indirectly by the 3% hover-power increase and comparable figure-8 RMSE in Table IV, but not by direct measurement of the drivetrain load on each rotor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Duawlfin: A Drone with Unified Actuation for Wheeled Locomotion and Flight Operation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSOSZKXY

@misc{pith2026250513836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Duawlfin: A Drone with Unified Actuation for Wheeled Locomotion and Flight Operation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSOSZKXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13836}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents Duawlfin, a drone with unified actuation for wheeled locomotion and flight operation that achieves efficient, bidirectional ground mobility. Unlike existing hybrid designs, Duawlfin eliminates the need for additional actuators or propeller-driven ground propulsion by leveraging only its standard quadrotor motors and introducing a differential drivetrain with one-way bearings. This innovation simplifies the mechanical system, significantly reduces energy usage, and prevents the disturbance caused by propellers spinning near the ground, such as dust interference with sensors. Besides, the one-way bearings minimize the power transfer from motors to propellers in the ground mode, which enables the vehicle to operate safely near humans. We provide a detailed mechanical design, present control strategies for rapid and smooth mode transitions, and validate the concept through extensive experimental testing. Flight-mode tests confirm stable aerial performance comparable to conventional quadcopters, while ground-mode experiments demonstrate efficient slope climbing (up to 30{\deg}) and agile turning maneuvers approaching 1g lateral acceleration. The seamless transitions between aerial and ground modes further underscore the practicality and effectiveness of our approach for applications like urban logistics and indoor navigation. All the materials including 3-D model files, demonstration video and other assets are open-sourced at https://sites.google.com/view/Duawlfin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Duawlfin is in aerial mode. Bottom: Duawlfin is runing on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): Top-side view of Duawlfin. It shows its aerial propulsion system. The vehicle features four A2212 1400 kv motors driving 8-inch (8045) propellers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Motor directions for drive and flight modes. In the flight mode, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The diagram of the two-mode control framework. In aerial mode, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Motor speed profiles for a complete square-path maneuver in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time-lapse pictures of experiments. To test the power consumption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Figure-8 flight test: the actual path (solid) of Duawlfin closely follows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The demonstration of outdoor multi-terrain test. Stage 1: Duawlfin is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Autonomous Exploration with Terrestrial-Aerial Bimodal Vehicles

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A bimodal (drive-and-fly) robot explores unknown environments by using a Monte Carlo Tree Search planner that selects both the next viewpoint and the locomotion mode under energy and time limits.

  2. UAVs Meet Agentic AI: A Multidomain Survey of Autonomous Aerial Intelligence and Agentic UAVs

    cs.RO 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A narrative survey defines 'agentic UAVs' as drones with perception, cognition, control, and communication layers and catalogs applications and challenges across eight domains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Design and control of drones,

    M. W. Mueller, S. J. Lee, and R. D’Andrea, “Design and control of drones,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 161–177, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Quadrotors in the present era: a review,

    R. Thusoo, S. Jain, and S. Bangia, “Quadrotors in the present era: a review,” Information Technology in Industry , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 164–178, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Mul- timodal autonomous last-mile delivery system design and application,

    F. Samouh, V . Gluza, S. Djavadian, S. Meshkani, and B. Farooq, “Mul- timodal autonomous last-mile delivery system design and application,” in 2020 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) , pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Drone routing for drone-based delivery systems: A review of trajectory planning, charging, and security,

    A. M. Raivi, S. A. Huda, M. M. Alam, and S. Moh, “Drone routing for drone-based delivery systems: A review of trajectory planning, charging, and security,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 1463, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Remote sensing of multimodal transportation assets using drones,

    R. Bridgelall, T. Askarzadeh, D. Tolliver, M.-P. Consortium, et al. , “Remote sensing of multimodal transportation assets using drones,” tech. rep., Mountain-Plains Consortium, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Staging energy sources to extend flight time of a multirotor uav,

    K. P. Jain, J. Tang, K. Sreenath, and M. W. Mueller, “Staging energy sources to extend flight time of a multirotor uav,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 1132–1139, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Drivocopter: A concept hybrid aerial/ground vehicle for long-endurance mobility,

    A. Kalantari, T. Touma, L. Kim, R. Jitosho, K. Strickland, B. T. Lopez, and A.-A. Agha-Mohammadi, “Drivocopter: A concept hybrid aerial/ground vehicle for long-endurance mobility,” in Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference , pp. 1–10, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Hybrid aerial-ground locomotion with a single passive wheel,

    Y . Qin, Y . Li, X. Wei, and F. Zhang, “Hybrid aerial-ground locomotion with a single passive wheel,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 1371–1376, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Design and control of delta: Deformable multilinked multirotor with rolling loco- motion ability in terrestrial domain,

    K. Sugihara, M. Zhao, T. Nishio, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Design and control of delta: Deformable multilinked multirotor with rolling loco- motion ability in terrestrial domain,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06636 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The quadroller: Modeling of a uav/ugv hybrid quadrotor,

    J. R. Page and P. E. I. Pounds, “The quadroller: Modeling of a uav/ugv hybrid quadrotor,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pp. 4834–4841, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Rollocopter: An energy-aware hybrid aerial-ground mobility for extreme terrains,

    S. Sabet, A.-A. Agha-Mohammadi, A. Tagliabue, D. S. Elliott, and P. E. Nikravesh, “Rollocopter: An energy-aware hybrid aerial-ground mobility for extreme terrains,” in 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference , pp. 1–8, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A study on development of a hybrid aerial / terrestrial robot system for avoiding ground obstacles by flight,

    C. Premachandra, M. Otsuka, R. Gohara, T. Ninomiya, and K. Kato, “A study on development of a hybrid aerial / terrestrial robot system for avoiding ground obstacles by flight,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 327–336, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Skywalker: A compact and agile air-ground omnidirectional vehicle,

    N. Pan, J. Jiang, R. Zhang, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Skywalker: A compact and agile air-ground omnidirectional vehicle,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2534–2541, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Model-based planning and control for terrestrial-aerial bimodal vehicles with passive wheels,

    R. Zhang, J. Lin, Y . Wu, Y . Gao, C. Wang, C. Xu, Y . Cao, and F. Gao, “Model-based planning and control for terrestrial-aerial bimodal vehicles with passive wheels,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 1070–1077, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Skater: A novel bi-modal bi-copter robot for adaptive locomotion in air and diverse terrain,

    J. Lin, R. Zhang, N. Pan, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Skater: A novel bi-modal bi-copter robot for adaptive locomotion in air and diverse terrain,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 6392–6399, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Heat transfer models and measurements of brushless dc motors for small uass,

    F. Saemi, A. Whitson, and M. Benedict, “Heat transfer models and measurements of brushless dc motors for small uass,”Aerospace, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 401, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    A small hybrid ground-air vehicle concept,

    S. Morton and N. Papanikolopoulos, “A small hybrid ground-air vehicle concept,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 5149–5154, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Design, modeling, and control of a quadruped robot spidar: Spherically vectorable and distributed rotors assisted air-ground quadruped robot,

    M. Zhao, T. Anzai, and T. Nishio, “Design, modeling, and control of a quadruped robot spidar: Spherically vectorable and distributed rotors assisted air-ground quadruped robot,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3923–3930, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Design and control of a small humanoid equipped with flight unit and wheels for multimodal locomotion,

    K. Sugihara, M. Zhao, T. Nishio, T. Makabe, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, “Design and control of a small humanoid equipped with flight unit and wheels for multimodal locomotion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5608–5615, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Multi-terrain multi-utility robot,

    A. R S and m. m. Dharmana, “Multi-terrain multi-utility robot,” Proce- dia Computer Science , vol. 133, pp. 651–659, 01 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Multi-modal mobility morphobot (m4) with appendage repurposing for locomotion plasticity enhancement,

    E. Sihite, A. Kalantari, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, “Multi-modal mobility morphobot (m4) with appendage repurposing for locomotion plasticity enhancement,” Nature communications , vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3323, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.