You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A review on robotic fish enabled by ionic polymer–metal composite artificial muscles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Robotics and Biomimetics, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40638-017-0081-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zheng Chen |
| Abstract |
A novel actuating material, which is lightweight, soft, and capable of generating large flapping motion under electrical stimuli, is highly desirable to build energy-efficient and maneuverable bio-inspired underwater robots. Ionic polymer-metal composites are important category of electroactive polymers, since they can generate large bending motions under low actuation voltages. IPMCs are ideal artificial muscles for small-scale and bio-inspired robots. This paper takes a system perspective to review the recent work on IPMC-enabled underwater robots, from modeling, fabrication, and bio-inspired design perspectives. First, a physics-based and control-oriented model of IPMC actuator will be reviewed. Second, a bio-inspired robotic fish propelled by IPMC caudal fin will be presented and a steady-state speed model of the fish will be demonstrated. Third, a novel fabrication process for 3D actuating membrane will be introduced and a bio-inspired robotic manta ray propelled by two IPMC pectoral fins will be demonstrated. Fourth, a 2D maneuverable robotic fish propelled by multiple IPMC fin will be presented. Last, advantages and challenges of using IPMC artificial muscles in bio-inspired robots will be concluded. |
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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Researcher | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 29 | 40% |
| Materials Science | 4 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 27 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,370,803
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Robotics and Biomimetics
#14
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,339
of 440,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Robotics and Biomimetics
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 25 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 440,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.