Reduced Cartesian Kinetostatics for Tendon-Driven Continuum Robots: Residual-Stabilized Full-Shape Propagation

Ke Wu Fangju Yang Xiaohui Zhang Zhengqiang Zhang Jingang Yi Jian S. Dai

Abstract

Many planning and control tasks for tendon-driven continuum robots (TDCRs) require the complete Cartesian backbone geometry. We present a reduced Cartesian framework for planar, axially compressible TDCRs that propagates equilibrium configurations along prescribed tendon-force and tendon-displacement trajectories. The backbone is represented by two global position fields. Following exact variation, a Taylor–Galerkin reduction condenses prescribed spatial properties and distributed loads into offline moment vectors, yielding analytic reduced residuals and Jacobians without online spatial quadrature or numerical differentiation. Analytical differentiation and residual correction yield first-order rate systems requiring one fixed-dimensional linear solve per rate evaluation after initial equilibrium alignment on a regular branch. Across four simulated cases covering variable tendon routing, nonuniform geometry, axial compression, and their combined effects, the propagated Cartesian shapes and distributed strains closely match pointwise geometric variable-strain (GVS) equilibrium solutions. Residual correction suppresses propagation drift across the tested step sizes while adding only about $0.98\,\%$ to the mean update time of uncorrected Euler. The proposed method requires $0.508\,\mathrm{ms}$ per update on average, approximately $11$ times faster than pointwise GVS solves. Displacement-driven experiments yield a maximum normalized mean backbone position error of $1.02\,\%$ and a maximum end-effector position error of $0.28\,\%$ . These results support efficient and accurate Cartesian full-shape prediction along prescribed actuation paths.

I Introduction

Forward kinetostatics is fundamental to the design [1, 2], planning [3], and model-based control [4] of tendon-driven continuum robots (TDCRs). It characterizes how tendon actuation and external loading determine the equilibrium configuration and, consequently, the robot’s workspace and task performance [5, 6, 1]. Unlike rigid-link mechanisms, continuum robots deform continuously along their backbones, making the choice of configuration variables central to the formulation of their equilibrium mechanics [7, 8]. Existing kinetostatic models therefore differ substantially in how they represent the backbone configuration.

At the kinematic level, piecewise-constant-curvature (PCC) models represent each section by a few arc variables and recover the backbone pose geometrically [9, 10]. Mechanics-based models instead take rotation, strain, or Cartesian position fields as their primary unknowns. Wu et al. [11] parameterize the cross-sectional rotation field and derive closed-form kinetostatic solutions. Cosserat rod models parameterize distributed strain fields [6, 12], while geometric variable-strain models approximate them in finite bases whose coefficients serve as generalized coordinates [13]. These fields naturally express rod constitutive laws and elastic energy but require spatial integration to recover the Cartesian backbone. Cartesian formulations instead choose global position or displacement fields as unknowns and derive strains from their spatial derivatives. Spline, finite-element, and absolute-state models respectively use Cartesian NURBS control points [14], nodal displacements [15], and Cartesian nodal positions augmented by orientation variables [16]. Thus, strain coordinates align with rod mechanics, whereas Cartesian position coordinates place task-level geometry directly in the equilibrium solution.

The chosen representation changes the form of the equations, but geometric nonlinearity generally leaves a nonlinear equilibrium problem [17]. Cosserat formulations solve nonlinear spatial equations subject to boundary conditions [6]; geometric variable-strain formulations reduce the distributed mechanics to nonlinear equilibrium equations in strain coordinates [13]; and finite-element formulations solve projected nodal systems through constrained numerical optimization [15]. Computational benchmarks show that solution time and convergence depend on the model resolution and initial guess; during deployment or trajectory tracking, the preceding shape can therefore be reused to initialize the next equilibrium solve [1]. Quasistatic Jacobian methods further differentiate implicit equilibrium conditions to obtain local actuation-to-configuration sensitivities for continuum-robot motion planning [18]. Continuation methods have also been used to trace equilibrium branches of magnetically actuated continuum robots [19]. Recent quasi-static planning characterizes stable continuum-robot configurations as a smooth implicit manifold and constructs local tangent charts, while projecting each sampled configuration onto equilibrium through a direct-shooting boundary-value solve [3]. Together, these studies expose the differential structure of continuum-robot equilibrium sets through local sensitivity analysis, branch continuation, and tangent-chart construction.

Motivated by these observations, this paper recasts TDCR forward kinetostatics from successive nonlinear equilibrium solves into residual-stabilized tracking of the complete Cartesian backbone along actuation-parameterized equilibrium branches. The main contributions are summarized as follows:

1.

Task-aligned Cartesian kinetostatics. We formulate the planar, axially compressible kinetostatic problem in the two global Cartesian components of the backbone position field, making the complete equilibrium shape a direct Cartesian output of the kinetostatic model.
2.

Offline-precomputable Galerkin reduction. We develop a post-variational Taylor–Galerkin reduction that projects the continuous spatial equilibrium problem onto a compact polynomial coefficient space and condenses prescribed spatial properties and load profiles into offline moment vectors, retaining their distributed effects while improving computational efficiency.
3.

Explicit residual-stabilized kinetostatic propagation. We analytically differentiate the reduced equilibrium equations and incorporate residual correction to obtain explicit first-order rate systems for Cartesian full-shape propagation along regular equilibrium branches, requiring one fixed-dimensional linear solve per rate evaluation. Predictions closely match pointwise geometric variable-strain (GVS) solutions, while experiments yield a maximum normalized mean backbone position error of $1.02\%$ and a maximum normalized end-effector position error of $0.28\%$ . The method requires $0.508~\mathrm{ms}$ per update on average, approximately $11\times$ faster than pointwise GVS solves, while suppressing the residual drift observed with uncorrected Euler propagation.

II Problem Statement

II-A The studied Manipulator

Refer to caption — Fig. 1: The studied tendon-driven continuum robot.

As shown in Fig. 1, we consider a planar, axially compressible tendon-driven continuum robot with a straight and stress-free reference configuration. Let $s\in[0,L]$ denote the reference arc-length coordinate of the backbone. Two tendons are routed longitudinally on opposite sides of the backbone. With tendon friction neglected, the prescribed actuation inputs are either the spatially uniform tendon tensions $F_{1}(t),F_{2}(t)\geq 0$ or the tendon displacements $\overline{\Delta l}_{1}(t),\overline{\Delta l}_{2}(t)$ . The prescribed axial and bending stiffnesses $EA(s)$ and $EI(s)$ , together with the tendon-routing diameter $W(s)$ , may vary along the backbone. The robot may also be subjected to prescribed signed distributed loads $q_{x}(s)$ and $q_{y}(s)$ , defined per unit reference length and acting in the fixed global Cartesian directions.

II-B Objective

The objective is to establish a computationally efficient Cartesian kinetostatic model that continuously propagates the complete equilibrium configuration along prescribed tendon-force or tendon-displacement trajectories while accounting for axial compression, bending, external loading, and spatially varying mechanical and geometric properties.

III Methodology

III-A Cartesian Variational Formulation

Let $\mathcal{F}=\{O;\hat{\mathbf{x}},\hat{\mathbf{y}}\}$ denote a fixed global Cartesian frame. The origin $O$ is placed at the robot base, $\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ is aligned with the stress-free backbone, and $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ defines the transverse direction. The backbone centerline expressed in $\mathcal{F}$ is $[x(s),y(s)]^{\mathbf{T}}$ . The clamped-base conditions are

\displaystyle x(0)

\displaystyle=0,

\displaystyle y(0)

\displaystyle=0,

\displaystyle y_{s}(0)

\displaystyle=0.

(1)

A subscript $s$ denotes differentiation with respect to $s$ . Admissible configurations satisfy $x_{s}^{2}+y_{s}^{2}>0$ over $s\in[0,L]$ , with $x_{s}(0)>0$ . Define the geometric scalar $\chi=x_{s}y_{ss}-y_{s}x_{ss}$ . The axial stretch ratio and bending strain are

\lambda=\sqrt{x_{s}^{2}+y_{s}^{2}},\ \ \kappa=\frac{\chi}{\lambda^{2}}.

(2)

In particular, $\kappa$ is the rotation gradient per unit reference length. Following the approximate tendon-displacement formulation in [20], the two tendon displacements are

	$\displaystyle\Delta l_{1}$	$\displaystyle=-\int_{0}^{L}\left(\lambda-1-\frac{W(s)}{2}\kappa\right)\mathrm{d}s,$		(3)
	$\displaystyle\Delta l_{2}$	$\displaystyle=-\int_{0}^{L}\left(\lambda-1+\frac{W(s)}{2}\kappa\right)\mathrm{d}s.$		(3)

For prescribed tendon forces, combining the tendon-induced potential work with the axial and bending energies and the distributed-load potentials gives the total potential energy

$\displaystyle\Pi[x,y]=$	$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Bigg[\frac{EA(s)}{2}(\lambda-1)^{2}+\frac{EI(s)}{2}\kappa^{2}$	(4)
	$\displaystyle+(F_{1}+F_{2})(\lambda-1)-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\kappa$
	$\displaystyle-q_{x}(s)(x-s)-q_{y}(s)y\Bigg]\mathrm{d}s.$

The equilibrium configuration follows from the stationarity condition $\delta\Pi=0$ . The variations of the two strain measures required to evaluate this condition are

$\displaystyle\delta\lambda$	$\displaystyle=\frac{x_{s}\delta x_{s}+y_{s}\delta y_{s}}{\lambda},$	(5)
$\displaystyle\delta\kappa$	$\displaystyle=\frac{y_{ss}\delta x_{s}-x_{ss}\delta y_{s}-y_{s}\delta x_{ss}+x_{s}\delta y_{ss}}{\lambda^{2}}$
	$\displaystyle-\frac{2\kappa}{\lambda^{2}}\left(x_{s}\delta x_{s}+y_{s}\delta y_{s}\right).$

Substituting these expressions into the variation of (4) yields

$\displaystyle\delta\Pi=$	$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Bigg\{\left[EA(s)(\lambda-1)+F_{1}+F_{2}\right]\delta\lambda$	(6)
	$\displaystyle+\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]\delta\kappa$
	$\displaystyle-q_{x}(s)\delta x-q_{y}(s)\delta y\Bigg\}\mathrm{d}s.$

For compactness, let $\psi$ denote the integrand of (4). Collecting the coefficients of $\delta x_{s}$ , $\delta y_{s}$ , $\delta x_{ss}$ , and $\delta y_{ss}$ gives

$\displaystyle\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{s}}={}$	$\displaystyle\left[EA(s)(\lambda-1)+F_{1}+F_{2}\right]\frac{x_{s}}{\lambda}$	(7)
	$\displaystyle+\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]\frac{y_{ss}-2\kappa x_{s}}{\lambda^{2}},$
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{s}}={}$	$\displaystyle\left[EA(s)(\lambda-1)+F_{1}+F_{2}\right]\frac{y_{s}}{\lambda}$
	$\displaystyle-\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]\frac{x_{ss}+2\kappa y_{s}}{\lambda^{2}},$
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{ss}}={}$	$\displaystyle-\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]\frac{y_{s}}{\lambda^{2}},$
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{ss}}={}$	$\displaystyle\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]\frac{x_{s}}{\lambda^{2}}.$

Integrating the first-derivative terms once and the second-derivative terms twice transfers all spatial derivatives from the admissible variations. Since the interior variations $\delta x$ and $\delta y$ are arbitrary, $\delta\Pi=0$ gives

	$\displaystyle\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{s}}\right)-\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}}{\mathrm{d}s^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{ss}}\right)+q_{x}(s)$	$\displaystyle=0,$		(8)
	$\displaystyle\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{s}}\right)-\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}}{\mathrm{d}s^{2}}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{ss}}\right)+q_{y}(s)$	$\displaystyle=0.$		(8)

The boundary terms generated by the same integration-by-parts operation provide the natural conditions. Then, the free-tip force boundary conditions are

\displaystyle\left[\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{s}}-\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x_{ss}}\right)\right]_{s=L}=0,\ \left[\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{s}}-\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y_{ss}}\right)\right]_{s=L}=0.

(9)

The two boundary terms associated with the tip slope variations are linearly dependent and reduce to the single moment condition

\displaystyle\left[EI(s)\kappa-\frac{W(s)}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})\right]_{s=L}

\displaystyle=0.

(10)

At the base, the only unconstrained slope variation is $\delta x_{s}(0)$ . Its boundary term vanishes identically because $y_{s}(0)=0$ implies $\left.\partial\psi/\partial x_{ss}\right|_{s=0}=0$ .

III-B Post-Variational Galerkin Reduction

Substitution of (2) into (7) introduces the non-polynomial metric factors $\lambda^{-2m}$ . These factors retain the unknown coefficients inside reciprocal powers, preventing their separation from the Galerkin integrals. Therefore, after obtaining the exact field equations and boundary conditions, we approximate

\displaystyle\lambda^{-2m}\approx\mathcal{T}_{m}^{(P)}=\sum_{p=0}^{P}\binom{-m}{p}\left(\lambda^{2}-1\right)^{p},\ m\in\left\{\frac{1}{2},1,2,3\right\}.

(11)

The expansion is centered at the stress-free metric. Since only nondegenerate axial compression is considered,

0<\lambda\leq 1\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\left|\lambda^{2}-1\right|=1-\lambda^{2}<1.

(12)

The continuation is restricted to configurations satisfying $0<\lambda(s)\leq 1$ over $s\in[0,L]$ . Hence, the underlying binomial series converges throughout the considered compressive regime, while the finite-order approximation becomes less accurate as the compression increases. The same order $P$ is used in the field equations and natural boundary conditions. For polynomial order $n$ , the centerline is approximated by

	$\displaystyle x(s)\approx s+\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}s^{i},\ y(s)\approx\sum_{i=2}^{n}b_{i}s^{i},$		(13)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{c}=\begin{bmatrix}a_{1},\ldots,a_{n},b_{2},\ldots,b_{n}\end{bmatrix}^{\mathbf{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{2n-1}.$		(13)

Together, the finite Taylor truncation and the Cartesian polynomial ansatz render the variational terms polynomial in $s$ , enabling coefficient separation and spatial precomputation. The geometric quantity $\lambda^{2}-1$ has the polynomial expansions

	$\displaystyle\lambda^{2}-1\approx{}$	$\displaystyle 2\sum_{i=1}^{n}ia_{i}s^{i-1}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}ij\,a_{i}a_{j}s^{i+j-2}$		(14)
		$\displaystyle+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\sum_{j=2}^{n}ij\,b_{i}b_{j}s^{i+j-2},$		(14)

and similarly $\chi$ has the following

\displaystyle\chi\approx{}\sum_{j=2}^{n}j(j-1)b_{j}s^{j-2}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=2}^{n}ij(j-i)a_{i}b_{j}s^{i+j-3}.

(15)

To retain the origin of each physical contribution, collect the known spatial functions as $\mathbf{f}(s)=\begin{bmatrix}EA(s)&EI(s)&1&W(s)\end{bmatrix}^{\mathbf{T}}$ . The four entries correspond, respectively, to axial elasticity, bending elasticity, common tendon actuation, and differential tendon actuation. The truncated variational derivatives can then be written uniformly as

\displaystyle\left[\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\zeta}\right]_{P}

\displaystyle=\mathbf{f}^{\mathbf{T}}(s)\mathbf{g}_{\zeta}^{(P)}\left(s;\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2}\right),\ \zeta\in\left\{x_{s},y_{s},x_{ss},y_{ss}\right\}.

(16)

The complete polynomial functions associated with the $x$ direction are

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{g}_{x_{s}}^{(P)}={}$	$\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}x_{s}\left(1-\mathcal{T}_{1/2}^{(P)}\right)\\ \chi y_{ss}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}-2\chi^{2}x_{s}\mathcal{T}_{3}^{(P)}\\ (F_{1}+F_{2})x_{s}\mathcal{T}_{1/2}^{(P)}\\ (F_{1}-F_{2})\left[-\dfrac{1}{2}y_{ss}\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}+\chi x_{s}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}\right]\end{bmatrix},$		(17)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{g}_{x_{ss}}^{(P)}={}$	$\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}0\\ -\chi y_{s}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}\\ 0\\ \dfrac{1}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})y_{s}\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}\end{bmatrix}.$		(17)

Similarly, the $y$ -direction functions are

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{g}_{y_{s}}^{(P)}={}$	$\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}y_{s}\left(1-\mathcal{T}_{1/2}^{(P)}\right)\\ -\chi x_{ss}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}-2\chi^{2}y_{s}\mathcal{T}_{3}^{(P)}\\ (F_{1}+F_{2})y_{s}\mathcal{T}_{1/2}^{(P)}\\ (F_{1}-F_{2})\left[\dfrac{1}{2}x_{ss}\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}+\chi y_{s}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}\right]\end{bmatrix},$		(18)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{g}_{y_{ss}}^{(P)}={}$	$\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}0\\ \chi x_{s}\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}\\ 0\\ -\dfrac{1}{2}(F_{1}-F_{2})x_{s}\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}\end{bmatrix}.$		(18)

Thus, $\mathcal{T}_{1/2}^{(P)}$ , $\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}$ , $\mathcal{T}_{2}^{(P)}$ , and $\mathcal{T}_{3}^{(P)}$ are used explicitly in the axial, tendon, and bending contributions. After substituting (13), each $\mathbf{g}_{\zeta}^{(P)}$ is a finite polynomial in $s$ :

\displaystyle\mathbf{g}_{\zeta}^{(P)}\left(s;\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2}\right)

\displaystyle=\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\mathbf{g}_{\zeta,\ell}^{(P)}\left(\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2}\right)s^{\ell},

(19)

where only finitely many coefficient vectors $\mathbf{g}_{\zeta,\ell}^{(P)}$ are nonzero. These vectors are polynomial in $\mathbf{c}$ , affine in $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ , and independent of $s$ . All structural- and actuation-related spatial integrations are collected into the precomputed moment vectors

\displaystyle\mathbf{C}_{k}

\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{L}\mathbf{f}(s)s^{k}\,\mathrm{d}s=\begin{bmatrix}\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}EA(s)s^{k}\,\mathrm{d}s\\[2.84526pt] \displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}EI(s)s^{k}\,\mathrm{d}s\\[2.84526pt] \displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}s^{k}\,\mathrm{d}s\\[2.84526pt] \displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}W(s)s^{k}\,\mathrm{d}s\end{bmatrix}.

(20)

For prescribed robot properties, the required moment vectors $\mathbf{C}_{k}$ are computed once offline. For the reduction, we use the post-variationally truncated virtual-work form corresponding to the exact equilibrium equations. Substituting the admissible variations $\delta x=s^{r}\delta a_{r}$ and $\delta y=s^{r}\delta b_{r}$ yields the Bubnov–Galerkin residuals

$\displaystyle R_{a_{r}}={}$	$\displaystyle r\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\left(\mathbf{g}_{x_{s},\ell}^{(P)}\right)^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{C}_{r+\ell-1}$	(21)
	$\displaystyle+r(r-1)\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\left(\mathbf{g}_{x_{ss},\ell}^{(P)}\right)^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{C}_{r+\ell-2}-\int_{0}^{L}q_{x}(s)s^{r}\,\mathrm{d}s=0,$
	$\displaystyle r=1,\ldots,n,$
$\displaystyle R_{b_{r}}={}$	$\displaystyle r\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\left(\mathbf{g}_{y_{s},\ell}^{(P)}\right)^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{C}_{r+\ell-1}$
	$\displaystyle+r(r-1)\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\left(\mathbf{g}_{y_{ss},\ell}^{(P)}\right)^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{C}_{r+\ell-2}-\int_{0}^{L}q_{y}(s)s^{r}\,\mathrm{d}s=0,$
	$\displaystyle r=2,\ldots,n.$

For $r=1$ , the second sum in $R_{a_{r}}$ is omitted. Eq. (21) shows that the coefficient functions are taken outside the spatial integrals. Since $q_{x}(s)$ and $q_{y}(s)$ are prescribed, their Galerkin moments are likewise computed once offline. Collecting the $2n-1$ equations gives

\displaystyle\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2})

\displaystyle=\begin{bmatrix}R_{a_{1}},\ldots,R_{a_{n}},R_{b_{2}},\ldots,R_{b_{n}}\end{bmatrix}^{\mathbf{T}}

(22)

III-C Explicit Residual-Stabilized Kinetostatic Propagation

Let $t$ parameterize a differentiable prescribed actuation path, let $\mathbf{c}=\mathbf{c}(t)$ , and let overdots denote differentiation with respect to $t$ . Inertial and rate-dependent effects are excluded.

III-C1 Tendon-Force-Driven Kinetostatics

Since the precomputed vectors $\mathbf{C}_{k}$ are independent of $\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2}$ , differentiation of (21) acts only on the coefficient vectors. Hence,

\displaystyle\mathbf{J}=\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}}{\partial\mathbf{c}}\in\mathbb{R}^{(2n-1)\times(2n-1)},\ \mathbf{R}_{F_{i}}=\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}}{\partial F_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{2n-1},\ i=1,2,

are evaluated analytically without online spatial quadrature or numerical differentiation. Let $F_{1}(t)$ and $F_{2}(t)$ be differentiable prescribed tendon-force trajectories. Since $\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{c},F_{1},F_{2})$ ,

\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{R}}=\mathbf{J}\dot{\mathbf{c}}+\mathbf{R}_{F_{1}}\dot{F}_{1}+\mathbf{R}_{F_{2}}\dot{F}_{2}.

The algebraic condition $(\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{0})$ defines the reduced equilibrium manifold. To correct residual drift during propagation, we impose $\dot{\mathbf{R}}+\gamma\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{0},\ \gamma>0,$ where $\gamma$ specifies the residual-correction rate. On a regular equilibrium branch satisfying $\operatorname{rank}(\mathbf{J})=2n-1$ , the Jacobian is nonsingular. Combining this total derivative with the above correction gives

\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{c}}=-\mathbf{J}^{-1}\left(\mathbf{R}_{F_{1}}\dot{F}_{1}+\mathbf{R}_{F_{2}}\dot{F}_{2}+\gamma\mathbf{R}\right).

(23)

The initial coefficients are aligned with the complete loading condition by enforcing

\displaystyle\mathbf{R}\left(\mathbf{c}(0),F_{1}(0),F_{2}(0)\right)

\displaystyle=\mathbf{0}.

(24)

With exact initial alignment, the continuous-time rate system preserves $\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{0}$ . The correction term vanishes on the equilibrium manifold and acts only when the propagated reduced state has a nonzero residual. For zero initial tendon forces and zero distributed loads, the stress-free initialization is $\mathbf{c}(0)=\mathbf{0}$ . If tendon pretension or distributed loads are initially present, $\mathbf{c}(0)$ is obtained from (24) under the corresponding initial loading condition. Eq. (23) is integrated to update $\mathbf{c}$ . The residual is then reevaluated from (22), and the updated coefficients are substituted directly into (13) to recover the Cartesian equilibrium configuration.

III-C2 Tendon-Displacement-Driven Kinetostatics

The preceding formulation treats the tendon forces as prescribed inputs. We now consider the alternative case in which $\overline{\Delta l}_{1}(t)$ and $\overline{\Delta l}_{2}(t)$ are differentiable prescribed tendon-displacement trajectories. Since the actuation is imposed kinematically, the tendon-force potential is removed, leaving

	$\displaystyle\Pi_{0}[x,y]=$	$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{L}\Bigg[\frac{EA(s)}{2}(\lambda-1)^{2}+\frac{EI(s)}{2}\kappa^{2}$
		$\displaystyle-q_{x}(s)(x-s)-q_{y}(s)y\Bigg]\mathrm{d}s.$

Using the tendon displacements in (3), the prescribed inputs define the tendon-displacement constraints

	$\displaystyle h_{1}[x,y;\overline{\Delta l}_{1}]$	$\displaystyle=\Delta l_{1}[x,y]-\overline{\Delta l}_{1}=0,$		(25)
	$\displaystyle h_{2}[x,y;\overline{\Delta l}_{2}]$	$\displaystyle=\Delta l_{2}[x,y]-\overline{\Delta l}_{2}=0.$		(25)

For compactness, the dependence of $h_{i}$ and $\mathbf{h}$ on the prescribed tendon displacements is suppressed below. Introducing two auxiliary scalar multipliers $\eta_{1}$ and $\eta_{2}$ , the constrained functional is

\displaystyle\widetilde{\Pi}[x,y,\eta_{1},\eta_{2}]=\Pi_{0}[x,y]+\eta_{1}h_{1}[x,y]+\eta_{2}h_{2}[x,y].

(26)

The multipliers enforce the constrained stationarity and are treated as auxiliary unknowns. The exact first variation is

\displaystyle\delta\widetilde{\Pi}=\delta\Pi_{0}+\eta_{1}\delta h_{1}+\eta_{2}\delta h_{2}+h_{1}\delta\eta_{1}+h_{2}\delta\eta_{2}=0.

(27)

Since the prescribed tendon displacements are fixed under variations of $x$ and $y$ , the corresponding constraint variations are

	$\displaystyle\delta h_{1}$	$\displaystyle=-\int_{0}^{L}\left(\delta\lambda-\frac{W(s)}{2}\delta\kappa\right)\mathrm{d}s,$		(28)
	$\displaystyle\delta h_{2}$	$\displaystyle=-\int_{0}^{L}\left(\delta\lambda+\frac{W(s)}{2}\delta\kappa\right)\mathrm{d}s.$		(28)

Thus, variations with respect to $x$ and $y$ yield the exact constrained mechanical virtual work, whereas the arbitrary variations $\delta\eta_{1}$ and $\delta\eta_{2}$ recover the constraints $h_{1}=0$ and $h_{2}=0$ . Only after establishing this constrained variation do we apply the post-variation Taylor truncation and Cartesian polynomial approximation introduced in Section III-B. For the constraint equations obtained from the multiplier variations, the required truncated quantities are

\displaystyle{}_{P}=\sum_{p=1}^{P}\binom{1/2}{p}\left(\lambda^{2}-1\right)^{p},\ [\kappa]_{P}=\chi\mathcal{T}_{1}^{(P)}.

(29)

Substituting the Cartesian polynomial approximation (13) gives the truncated displacement constraints

	$\displaystyle h_{1}^{(P)}(\mathbf{c})={}$	$\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{L}\left[[\lambda-1]_{P}-\frac{W(s)}{2}[\kappa]_{P}\right]\mathrm{d}s-\overline{\Delta l}_{1},$		(30)
	$\displaystyle h_{2}^{(P)}(\mathbf{c})={}$	$\displaystyle-\int_{0}^{L}\left[[\lambda-1]_{P}+\frac{W(s)}{2}[\kappa]_{P}\right]\mathrm{d}s-\overline{\Delta l}_{2}.$		(30)

These are global scalar constraints and therefore require no additional Galerkin weighting. Collecting them gives

\displaystyle\mathbf{h}(\mathbf{c})=\begin{bmatrix}h_{1}^{(P)}(\mathbf{c})\\ h_{2}^{(P)}(\mathbf{c})\end{bmatrix}.

For the mechanical virtual work, the Taylor kernels are applied directly to the exact expressions $\delta\Pi_{0}$ , $\delta h_{1}$ , and $\delta h_{2}$ . Substitution of the Cartesian polynomial and its admissible coefficient variations then gives the Bubnov–Galerkin reductions

\displaystyle\left[\delta\Pi_{0}\right]_{P}=\delta\mathbf{c}^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{R}_{0}(\mathbf{c}),\ \mathbf{R}_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{2n-1},

and

	$\displaystyle\left[\delta h_{1}\right]_{P}$	$\displaystyle=\delta\mathbf{c}^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{B}_{1}(\mathbf{c}),\ \left[\delta h_{2}\right]_{P}=\delta\mathbf{c}^{\mathbf{T}}\mathbf{B}_{2}(\mathbf{c}),$		(31)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{c})$	$\displaystyle=\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{B}_{1}(\mathbf{c})&\mathbf{B}_{2}(\mathbf{c})\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{R}^{(2n-1)\times 2}.$		(31)

Here, $\mathbf{R}_{0}$ contains the elastic and prescribed distributed-load contributions, while the columns of $\mathbf{B}$ represent the coefficient-space variations of the two exact tendon-displacement constraints. After the polynomial substitution, all integrands become finite polynomials in $s$ . The displacement constraints require only the moments $\int_{0}^{L}s^{k}\mathrm{d}s$ and $\int_{0}^{L}W(s)s^{k}\mathrm{d}s$ , already contained in the third and fourth entries of $\mathbf{C}_{k}$ in (20). Hence, the displacement-driven formulation introduces neither online spatial quadrature nor an additional precomputation structure. Let $\boldsymbol{\eta}(t)=[\eta_{1}(t)\ \eta_{2}(t)]^{\mathbf{T}}$ . Collecting the independently truncated mechanical and displacement constraint equations gives

\displaystyle\mathbf{R}_{0}(\mathbf{c})+\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{c})\boldsymbol{\eta}

\displaystyle=\mathbf{0},\ \mathbf{h}(\mathbf{c})=\mathbf{0}.

(32)

For the subsequent continuation, define the Jacobian of the truncated constraint values as

\displaystyle\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{c})=\frac{\partial\mathbf{h}}{\partial\mathbf{c}}\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times(2n-1)}.

At finite Taylor order, $\mathbf{B}$ is intentionally kept distinct from $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbf{T}}$ . The former follows from truncating the exact constraint variations after variation, whereas the latter is obtained by differentiating the independently truncated constraint values. Define the constrained tangent matrix

\displaystyle\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{c},\boldsymbol{\eta})=\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathbf{c}}\left[\mathbf{R}_{0}(\mathbf{c})+\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{c})\boldsymbol{\eta}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{(2n-1)\times(2n-1)}.

Using the analytic residual rates, the mechanical and displacement residuals are stabilized simultaneously by imposing

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}\dot{\mathbf{c}}+\mathbf{B}\dot{\boldsymbol{\eta}}+\gamma\left(\mathbf{R}_{0}+\mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\eta}\right)$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{0},$		(33)
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{H}\dot{\mathbf{c}}-\begin{bmatrix}\dot{\overline{\Delta l}}_{1}\\ \dot{\overline{\Delta l}}_{2}\end{bmatrix}+\gamma\mathbf{h}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{0},\qquad\gamma>0.$		(33)

Assuming that the bordered matrix below is nonsingular, rearranging (33) yields

\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}\dot{\mathbf{c}}\\ \dot{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf{A}&\mathbf{B}\\ \mathbf{H}&\mathbf{0}_{2\times 2}\end{bmatrix}^{-1}\begin{bmatrix}-\gamma\left(\mathbf{R}_{0}+\mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\eta}\right)\\[2.84526pt] \begin{bmatrix}\dot{\overline{\Delta l}}_{1}\\ \dot{\overline{\Delta l}}_{2}\end{bmatrix}-\gamma\mathbf{h}\end{bmatrix}.

(34)

This nonsingularity condition defines a regular constrained branch and necessarily requires $\operatorname{rank}\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{c})=\operatorname{rank}\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{c})=2$ . Both rates are propagated internally, while only $\mathbf{c}$ is used to reconstruct the robot centerline. The initial coefficients and auxiliary multipliers are obtained jointly by enforcing

\displaystyle\mathbf{R}_{0}(\mathbf{c}(0))+\mathbf{B}(\mathbf{c}(0))\boldsymbol{\eta}(0)=\mathbf{0},\ \mathbf{h}(\mathbf{c}(0))=\mathbf{0}.

(35)

Under this regularity condition, the updated coefficients are substituted into (13) to recover the displacement-driven equilibrium configuration. Comparison of the tendon-dependent part of (4) with (26) shows that $-\eta_{i}$ is the corresponding tendon tension. Hence, physical admissibility requires $\eta_{i}\leq 0$ , $i=1,2$ ; a positive multiplier would require compressive tendon action and therefore lies outside the present formulation.

IV Numerical Simulation and Model Validation

The numerical study evaluates the Cartesian equilibrium-shape accuracy, distributed strain accuracy along the propagation path, residual control, and online computational performance of the proposed formulation against pointwise geometric variable-strain method (GVS) equilibrium solves [21].

IV-A Simulation Setup

TABLE I: Simulation Parameters, Numerical Settings, and Validation Cases

Parameter	Symbol	Value or profile	Unit
Backbone length	$L$	$0.40$	m
Young’s modulus	$E$	$2\times 10^{9}$	Pa
Diameter profile	$D(s)$	Case-dependent	m
Area profile	$A(s)$	$\pi D^{2}(s)/4$	$\mathrm{m^{2}}$
Second-moment profile	$I(s)$	$\pi D^{4}(s)/64$	$\mathrm{m^{4}}$
Tendon-routing diameter	$W(s)$	Case-dependent	m
Mass density	$\rho$	11970	$\mathrm{kg/m^{3}}$
X-axis distributed load	$q_{x}(s)$	$0$	$\mathrm{N/m}$
Y-axis distributed load	$q_{y}(s)$	$-\rho gA(s)$	$\mathrm{N/m}$
Effective axial stiffness	$K_{A}(s)$	$0.007EA(s)$ for Cases 3, 4	$\mathrm{N}$
Polynomial order	$n$	10	–
Taylor order	$P$	6	–
Propagation step	$\Delta t$	$5\times 10^{-4}$	s
Path duration	$T$	20	s
Residual-correction rate	$\gamma$	100	$\mathrm{s^{-1}}$
Spatial integration nodes	–	Adaptive	–
Computing platform	–	Intel Core i9-14900HX	–

Case	Primary feature	$\boldsymbol{D(s)}\,[\mathrm{m}]$	$\boldsymbol{W(s)}\,[\mathrm{m}]$
1	Varying routing	$D_{0}=0.004$	$W_{1}(s)=0.020-0.015(s/L)^{3}$
2	Nonuniform geometry	$D_{1}(s)=0.006-0.003(s/L)$	$W_{0}=0.02$
3	Axial deformation	$D_{0}=0.004$	$W_{0}=0.02$
4	Combined effects	$D_{1}(s)=0.006-0.003(s/L)$	$W_{1}(s)=0.020-0.015(s/L)^{3}$

Case	Primary feature	$\boldsymbol{F_{1}(t)}\,[N]$	$\boldsymbol{F_{2}(t)}\,[N]$
1	Varying routing	$1.6t$	$0$
2	Nonuniform geometry	$2.6t$	$1t$
3	Axial deformation	$2.0t$	$0.4t$
4	Combined effects	$2.0t$	$0.4t$

Table I lists the four cases, numerical settings, and tendon-force profiles over $0\leq t\leq T$ . Both models use identical physical parameters, gravitational loading $q_{y}(s)=-\rho gA(s)$ , force samples, and initial equilibria. In Cases 3 and 4, $K_{A}(s)=0.007EA(s)$ replaces $EA(s)$ as the effective axial stiffness. For the GVS reference, the strain field is approximated using fifth-order polynomial basis functions, with a residual acceptance threshold of $10^{-7}$ ; each load step is warm-started from the converged solution of the preceding step to improve numerical robustness.

IV-B Numerical Results and Analysis

IV-B1 Cartesian Shape and Distributed Strain Accuracy

The first row of Fig. 2 shows close agreement between the propagated Cartesian backbones and pointwise GVS solutions across all four cases. The signed strain errors are $e_{\kappa}(s,t)=\kappa_{\mathrm{prop}}(s,t)-\kappa_{\mathrm{GVS}}(s,t)$ and $e_{\lambda}(s,t)=\lambda_{\mathrm{prop}}(s,t)-\lambda_{\mathrm{GVS}}(s,t)$ . Their distributions along the backbone and force path appear in the second row. The maximum absolute bending-strain errors $\max_{s,t}|e_{\kappa}(s,t)|$ in Cases 1–4 are $0.969$ , $0.662$ , $0.244$ , and $0.221\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ , respectively. The maximum absolute axial-stretch-ratio errors $\max_{s,t}|e_{\lambda}(s,t)|$ in Cases 3 and 4 are $5.303\times 10^{-3}$ and $3.033\times 10^{-3}$ . These results demonstrate that the proposed model also accurately captures the GVS baseline responses in strain space.

IV-B2 Residual Control and Computational Performance

Residual control and step-size sensitivity are evaluated using $\Delta t\in\{5.0\times 10^{-4},1.0\times 10^{-3},5.0\times 10^{-3}\}\mathrm{s}$ . At each propagation step, the proposed residual-corrected propagation is compared with its uncorrected explicit-Euler counterpart. Both methods start from the same aligned initial equilibrium. The equilibrium residual along each propagated trajectory is measured directly as $\mathcal{E}_{R}(t;\Delta t)=\left\|\mathbf{R}\right\|_{\infty}.$ The third row of Fig. 2 shows the resulting equilibrium-residual histories for the tested propagation steps. Across the four cases, the proposed method suppresses accumulated equilibrium-residual drift and maintains substantially lower residuals across the tested step sizes, whereas uncorrected explicit Euler (UEE) exhibits larger, step-size-dependent residual drift during propagation. Let $\overline{t}_{\mathrm{upd},m}$ denote the average update time of method $m$ . Its runtime relative to the proposed method is $\Gamma_{m}=\frac{\overline{t}_{\mathrm{upd},m}}{\overline{t}_{\mathrm{upd,prop}}},$ where $\Gamma_{m}>1$ indicates a longer update time than the proposed method.

TABLE II: Online Per-Update Computation Times and Relative Runtime Ratios

Method	Case 1	Case 2	Case 3	Case 4	Mean	$\boldsymbol{\Gamma_{m}}$
Proposed	0.107	0.153	0.332	1.440	0.508	$1.000$
GVS	5.347	4.160	4.790	8.045	5.586	$10.996$
Uncorrected Euler	0.107	0.153	0.328	1.425	0.503	$0.990$

Note: All computation times are in milliseconds (ms); $\Gamma_{m}$ is dimensionless.

As shown in Table II, the proposed method achieves a mean update time of $0.508\,\mathrm{ms}$ , compared with $5.586\,\mathrm{ms}$ for pointwise GVS equilibrium solves, corresponding to an approximately $11$ -fold acceleration. Residual correction adds only about $0.98\,\%$ to the mean update cost of uncorrected Euler, providing substantially improved equilibrium tracking with minimal computational overhead.

V Experimental Validation

The experiment validates displacement-driven prediction of the backbone shape and end-effector motion along a linear tendon-displacement path, considering the complete backbone-shape trajectory, its distributed Cartesian error, and the corresponding end-effector trajectory.

V-A Experimental Setup

The platform in Fig. 3 uses two antagonistic motor-driven tendons and an RGB-D camera tracking seven backbone markers. Table III lists the robot parameters and linear input profile. Axial deformation is negligible over the tested range, with $\lambda(s)\approx 1$ , and the commanded tendon displacements satisfy $\overline{\Delta l}(t)=\overline{\Delta l_{1}}(t)=-\overline{\Delta l_{2}}(t)$ .

TABLE III: Experimental Parameters and Tendon-Displacement Input

Parameter	Symbol	Value or profile	Unit
Backbone length	$L$	0.4	m
Cross-sectional diameter	$D$	0.004	m
Young’s modulus	$E$	$2\times 10^{9}$	Pa
Tendon-routing diameter	$W$	0.11	m
Cross-sectional area	$A$	$1.26\times 10^{-5}$	$\mathrm{m^{2}}$
Second moment of area	$I$	$1.26\times 10^{-11}$	$\mathrm{m^{4}}$
Mass density	$\rho$	11970	$\mathrm{kg/m^{3}}$
Tendon-displacement input	$\overline{\Delta l}(t)$	$\frac{80}{9}t,0\leq t\leq 9$	mm

V-B Experimental Results and Analysis

Let $\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{pred}}(s,t)$ and $\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{exp}}(s,t)$ denote the predicted and measured backbone positions, respectively:

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{pred}}(s,t)$	$\displaystyle=\bigl[x_{\mathrm{pred}}(s,t),\,y_{\mathrm{pred}}(s,t)\bigr]^{\mathrm{T}},$
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{exp}}(s,t)$	$\displaystyle=\bigl[x_{\mathrm{exp}}(s,t),\,y_{\mathrm{exp}}(s,t)\bigr]^{\mathrm{T}}.$

Define the normalized pointwise error as $e_{p}(s,t)=\|\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{pred}}(s,t)-\mathbf{p}_{\mathrm{exp}}(s,t)\|_{2}/L\times 100\%$ , the normalized mean backbone error as $e_{\mathrm{B}}(t)=\int_{0}^{L}e_{p}(s,t)\,\mathrm{d}s/L\times 100\%$ , and the normalized Euclidean tip error as $e_{x}(t)=x_{\mathrm{pred}}(L,t)-x_{\mathrm{exp}}(L,t)$ , $e_{y}(t)=y_{\mathrm{pred}}(L,t)-y_{\mathrm{exp}}(L,t)$ . All position-error statistics are normalized by $L$ and reported as percentages. Fig. 4 compares the backbone shapes, distributed errors, and end-effector trajectories.

The measured and predicted backbone shapes in Fig. 4a agree closely throughout the actuation path. The maximum normalized mean backbone error is $\max_{t}e_{\mathrm{B}}(t)=1.02\%$ , and the pointwise errors in Fig. 4b remain small along the backbone. The measured and predicted $x$ - and $y$ -tip trajectories in Fig. 4c also agree closely, with a maximum normalized Euclidean error of $\max_{t}|e_{x}(t)|=0.062\%,\max_{t}|e_{y}(t)|=0.092\%$ . These results support accurate Cartesian full-shape prediction under tendon-displacement actuation.

VI Conclusion

This paper presents a reduced Cartesian formulation that propagates the complete equilibrium shape of planar TDCRs along prescribed actuation paths. Offline spatial moments and analytic residual derivatives enable force- and displacement-driven updates with one fixed-dimensional linear solve per rate evaluation after initial equilibrium alignment on a regular branch. Across four simulated mechanical cases, the propagated Cartesian configurations and distributed strains closely match GVS, while residual correction suppresses the drift observed with uncorrected Euler. The mean update time is $0.508\,\mathrm{ms}$ , approximately $11$ times faster than pointwise GVS equilibrium solves, with only about $0.98\%$ additional cost relative to uncorrected Euler. Displacement-driven experiments yield a maximum normalized mean backbone position error of $1.02\,\%$ and maximum normalized end-effector errors of $0.062\%$ and $0.092\%$ in the x and y axes. Together, these results support efficient and accurate Cartesian full-shape prediction with controlled residual drift along the tested actuation paths. Future work will address three-dimensional deformation, tendon friction, and material hysteresis.

References

[1] P. Rao, Q. Peyron, S. Lilge, and J. Burgner-Kahrs, “How to model tendon-driven continuum robots and benchmark modelling performance,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 7, p. 630245, 2021.
[2] K. Cao, R. Kang, D. T. Branson III, S. Geng, Z. Song, and J. S. Dai, “Workspace analysis of tendon-driven continuum robots based on mechanical interference identification,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 139, no. 6, p. 062303, 2017.
[3] Y. Wang and Y. Chen, “Quasi-static path planning for continuum robots by sampling on implicit manifold,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 8728–8734.
[4] C. Della Santina, C. Duriez, and D. Rus, “Model-based control of soft robots: A survey of the state of the art and open challenges,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 30–65, 2023.
[5] D. B. Camarillo, C. F. Milne, C. R. Carlson, M. R. Zinn, and J. K. Salisbury, “Mechanics modeling of tendon-driven continuum manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1262–1273, 2008.
[6] D. C. Rucker and R. J. Webster III, “Statics and dynamics of continuum robots with general tendon routing and external loading,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1033–1044, 2011.
[7] C. Armanini, F. Boyer, A. T. Mathew, C. Duriez, and F. Renda, “Soft robots modeling: A structured overview,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1728–1748, 2023.
[8] H. Liu and J. Dai, “An approach to carton-folding trajectory planning using dual robotic fingers,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 47–63, 2003.
[9] R. J. Webster III and B. A. Jones, “Design and kinematic modeling of constant curvature continuum robots: A review,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 1661–1683, 2010.
[10] B. A. Jones and I. D. Walker, “Kinematics for multisection continuum robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 2006.
[11] K. Wu, Y. Wang, K. Henry, C. Stefanini, and G. Zheng, “Lightweight kinematic and static modeling of cable-driven continuum robots via actuation-space energy formulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026.
[12] E. Rodriguez Leal and J. S. Dai, “From origami to a new class of centralized 3-dof parallel mechanisms,” in International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, vol. 48094, 2007, pp. 1183–1193.
[13] F. Renda, C. Armanini, V. Lebastard, F. Candelier, and F. Boyer, “A geometric variable-strain approach for static modeling of soft manipulators with tendon and fluidic actuation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4006–4013, 2020.
[14] S. Luo, M. Edmonds, J. Yi, X. Zhou, and Y. Shen, “Spline-based modeling and control of soft robots,” in 2020 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, 2020, pp. 482–487.
[15] T. M. Bieze, F. Largilliere, A. Kruszewski, Z. Zhang, R. Merzouki, and C. Duriez, “Finite element method-based kinematics and closed-loop control of soft, continuum manipulators,” Soft Robotics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 348–364, 2018.
[16] S. Sadati, A. Shiva, S. E. Naghibi, D. C. Rucker, L. Renson, C. Bergeles, K. Althoefer, D. T. Nanayakkara, H. Hauser, and I. D. Walker, “Reduced order vs. discretized lumped system models with absolute and relative states for continuum manipulators.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, vol. 10, no. 10.15607, 2019.
[17] H. B. Gilbert, “On the mathematical modeling of slender biomedical continuum robots,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 732643, 2021.
[18] T. Greigarn, N. L. Poirot, X. Xu, and M. C. Çavuşoğlu, “Jacobian-based task-space motion planning for MRI-actuated continuum robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 145–152, 2019.
[19] Q. Peyron, Q. Boehler, K. Rabenorosoa, B. J. Nelson, P. Renaud, and N. Andreff, “Kinematic analysis of magnetic continuum robots using continuation method and bifurcation analysis,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3646–3653, 2018.
[20] F. Yang, H. Yang, I. Alsarraj, Y. Wang, and K. Wu, “Lightweight dynamic modeling of cable-driven continuum robots based on actuation-space energy formulation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026.
[21] A. T. Mathew, D. Feliu-Talegon, A. Y. Alkayas, F. Boyer, and F. Renda, “Reduced order modeling of hybrid soft-rigid robots using global, local, and state-dependent strain parameterization,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 129–154, 2025.