International Journal of Advanced Robotic SystemsVolume 14, Issue 3, May-June 2017

© The Author(s) 2017, Article Reuse Guidelines

https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881417710457

Mobile Robots and Multi-Robot Systems - Review Article

Current trends in reconfigurable modular robots design

Alberto Brunete[1], Avinash Ranganath[2], Sergio Segovia[1], Javier Perez de Frutos[1], Miguel Hernando[1], and Ernesto Gambao[1]

Abstract

This article presents a review on trends in modular reconfigurable robots, comparing the evolution of the features of the most significant robots over the years and focusing on the latest designs. These features are reconfiguration, docking, degrees of freedom, locomotion, control, communications, size, and powering. For each feature, some of the most relevant designs are presented and the current trends in the design are discussed.

Keywords

Review, modular robot, reconfigurable, mobile

1Centre for Automation and Robotics (CAR UPM-CSIC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

2Robotics Lab, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Corresponding author(s):

Alberto Brunete, Centre for Automation and Robotics (CAR UPM-CSIC), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ronda de Valencia 3, Madrid 28012, Spain. Email: alberto.brunete@upm.es

Topic: Mobile Robots and Multi-Robot Systems

Topic Editor: Lino Marques

Introduction

A module can be defined as a piece or a set of pieces that are repeated in a construction of any kind to make it easier, regular, and economic. Thus, a robotic module is a “module that performs, totally or partially, typical tasks of a robot, and that has the ability to interact with other modules.”[1] Consequently, a modular robot is a robot composed of modules, that is, “a robot composed of parts that have independent functionalities but are able to interact with each other in one or more ways, resulting in an entity with new capabilities.”[1]

Some of the main advantages of using modular robots are to provide the system with versatility and configurability (either through manual or autonomous reconfigurability), to increase fault tolerance, to make the system scalable, and to reduce the production cost as only one or few module types need to be mass produced and therefore eliminating the need for assembly between parts.

The origins of modular multiconfigurable robots are known to have started in 1990 with CEBOT (Cellular Robotic System),[2] from Nagoya University. CEBOT is a dynamically configurable robot that has the capability of self-organization, self-evolution, and functional amplification (ability of a system to coordinate together to accomplish tasks that cannot be achieved by individual units by themselves). The history of modular robots goes even back to 1972, when active cord mechanism (ACM)[3] was created. It was the first robot to use principles of serpentine locomotion, mimicking gait of an actual snake. Although in its origin version, ACM cannot be classified as a modular multiconfigurable robot, it was a milestone during its development. Subsequent versions of ACM (ACM-R2 to ACM-R5) are examples of chain-type modular robots.

Since then many modular robots have been built: Fracta,[4] Molecule,[5] Crystalline,[6] Polybot,[7] M-TRAN,[8] CONRO,9,10 Telecube,[11] Atron,[12] YaMoR,[13] Superbot,[14] Molecube,[15] CHOBIE,[16] Y1,[17] Roombots,[18] iMOBOT,[19] Sambot,[20] Pebbles,[21] THOR,[22] Ubot,23,24 Cross-ball and Cross-cube,[25] Symbricator (Symbrion + Replicator),[26] Microtub,[27] SMORES,[28] Transmote,[29]M^3Express,[30] CoSMO,[31] M-Blocks,[32] Kairo-3,[33] the educational versions Mobot and Linkbot,[34] PetRo,[35] ReBis,[36] ModRED,[37] Hinged-Tetro,[38] Alligator,[39] and Fable II.[40]

Modular robotics is a research field widely studied at the moment. It has been extensible reviewed in many publications.41–44 Most reviews present the most important features of modular robots in a linear manner. The goal of this article is to (a) describe in detail some common features of most modular robots, (b) review how they have evolved over the years, and (c) show current trends. In this article, we focus on individual features in modular robotics such as reconfiguration, docking, degrees of freedom (DoF), locomotion, control, communications, size, and powering. We have analyzed these features from the dawn of the field of modular robotics but focusing on the more recent prototypes (up to 2015).

This article is organized as follows. Reconfigurability of a modular robotic system, categorized into self-reconfiguration and manual-reconfiguration, is presented in the second section, followed by a review on various docking mechanisms in the third section. The fourth section reviews DoF in unit modules, and the fifth section presents an overview on different modes of locomotion and different kinds of gaits commonly seen in modular robots. A review on controllers in modular robotics is presented in the sixth section, categorizing controllers based on type, homogeneity, and scalability. Communication systems and protocols commonly used in modular robotics, both intramodule and intermodule communication, are reviewed in the seventh section, while features such as size and commonly used and potential power-source for modular robots are reviewed in and the eighth and ninth sections, respectively. Each section has a subsection called “Trends summary” showing the trends in each feature. Finally, content of the article is summarized, and key points presented in the article are highlighted in the tenth section.

Reconfiguration

Reconfigurability refers to the property of a system to be configured in different ways, without considering the means of reconfiguration. Modular robots can be generally classified based on their configurable capabilities into manually configurable and self-reconfigurable (auto-configurable) systems.[45] Self-reconfigurable modular robots (SRMR) are those that are able to change their configuration on their own, while in manually-configurable modular robots, reconfiguration has to be done externally (i.e. by an operator).

Self-reconfigurable

Modular robots are usually classified into chain-type, lattice-type, or hybrid-type architectures.[41] Chain-type architectures consist of modules that are connected together in a linear or tree topology. This structure can fold-up to become space filling, but the underlying architecture is serial.

From the very beginning of modular robotics, there has been a clear tendency to build chain-type modular robots that are able to autonomously change their configuration into wheel, quadrupeds, snake, worm, and so on. Polybot7,46 M-TRAN I, II, and III8,47,48 Superbot,[14] iMOBOT,[19] Ubot23,24 SMORES,[28] Transmote,[29] CoSMO[31], and the educational versions Mobot and Linkbot[34] are examples of chain-type systems. Modular robots which are designed to navigate in different and unknown environments (e.g., in rescue or space exploration missions), where a modular robot needs to change its configuration to avoid obstacles, to climb up or down steep slopes, to pass through narrow openings, and so on, follow the chain-type architecture.

A lattice-type robot has modules that are arranged in a regular three-dimensional (3D) pattern, such as a cubical or hexagonal grid. Lattice-type modular robots are inherently self-reconfigurable because reconfiguration is their only means of locomotion. From Molecube,[15] Crystalline[6] and Molecule,[5] Telecube,[11] CHOBIE I and II 16, Atron12,49 Cross-ball and Cross-cube,[25] and M-Blocks,[32] we find a clear tendency in these modular robots to find the optimal reconfiguration algorithms to increase speed of reconfiguration. A special use of lattice-type modular robots as self-reconfigurable furniture is presented in Bonardi et al.[50] with Roombots.

Hybrid-type architectures have features of both lattice-type and chain-type architectures. Some modular robot can be classified as hybrid-type because they can be configured both as chain and as lattice structures. M-TRAN8,47,48 Superbot,[14] SMORES[28], and Roombots[50] are examples of hybrid-type modular robots.

Some modules have the ability to move independently (micro-locomotion): An Atron module can use its module hemispheres as wheels. CoSMO modules have the ability to independently locomote in all main direction. An M-Blocks module is not only able to move to an adjacent position in the grid structure, but it can jump and connect to modules that are at several modules distance away in the structure.

Subcategories under SRMR are metamorphic robots, self-replicating robots, and nested reconfigurations, which are explained in the following subsections.

Metamorphic A metamorphic robot is a system that “consists of multiple identical robotic cells in an underlying lattice structure which can disconnect/reconnect with adjacent neighbors, and slide, pivot, or otherwise locomote to neighboring lattice points following prescribed rules to change the global shape of the system.”[51] The first metamorphic robot was developed in 1994.[52] Generally speaking, most self-reconfigurable robots are metamorphic. They can change their configuration into wheel, quadruped, snake, worm, and so on.Self-replicating A physical system is self-replicating if it can construct a detached, functional copy of itself (provided they have the necessary modules). Self-replication differs from self-assembly, in which the resulting system is not able to make, catalyze, or in some other way induce more copies of itself. The term self-replicating was coined along with the development of Molecube modular robotic system[53] but has not been used ever since.Nested reconfiguration Nested reconfiguration is an emerging research area in modular robotics. This design concept utilizes individual robot modules with distinctive reconfiguration characteristics (intrareconfigurability), which are capable of combining with other homogeneous/heterogeneous robots (interreconfigurability). The objective of this approach is to generate more complex morphologies for performing specific tasks that are far from the capabilities of a single module or to respond to programmable assembly requirements.[38]

Hinged-Tetro[38] is a mobile robot that is able to transform itself into one of any seven one-sided tetrominoes (i.e., the Tetris pieces) in a straightforward way and combine with other modules.

Manually configurable

Manually configurable modular robots are modular robots that have to be assembled by the operator. They present the advantage that the docking mechanism can be much simpler (not autonomous). In some applications, like pipe inspection, it is not useful to have self-reconfiguration because it is not possible to do so due to the lack of space. Although tendency in modular robots has been toward self-reconfiguration, several manually configurable robot designs have appeared in the past decade or so. Examples of these types are CONRO,[10] Microtub,54,27 Fable II,[40] PetRo,[35] and Alligator.[39]

The Fable II[40] robot consists of two types of modules (active and passive) that users can assemble into different morphologies. Active modules hold the microcontroller, onboard power, and a radio device for wireless communication with the PC. Passive modules are plastic moulds used to give robot a structure. Morphologies ranging from a robotic arm to quadrupeds can be achieved through manual configuration.

PetRo (which stands for Pet Robot[35]) is a tetrapod modular throwable, self-assembling, and reconfigurable pet robot for use as a companion pet and for search and rescue operations. Each module can move independently (rotation and translation), and several modules together can perform dog-, horse-, and -ike locomotion.

The Alligator-inspired modular robot[39] is a system composed of 14 modules and has a fixed configuration. Thanks to a dissembling system, small robots can be automatically released from the larger robot frame and swim around with independent actuation system.

Snake-like modular robots (usually chain-type) are robots that mimic serpent locomotion and are composed of one or two types of repeated modules. In this system, it is possible to change position of modules, usually through manual-reconfiguration, but the configuration remains the same. Among snake-like robots, we find ACM I to V3,55,56,57 Wormbot,[58] KAIRO-3,[33] ReBiS,[36] Modular Amphibious Snake-like Robot,[59] and Lola-OP.[60]

KAIRO-3[33] is the latest version of the KAIRO series, which are biologically inspired by inchworm and snake organisms. KAIRO-3 can be classified as a heterogeneous modular robot because it consists of two fundamentally different types of modules: drive modules and joint modules. ReBis[36] is a modular robots capable of switching between serpent-like and bipedal gaits.

Reconfiguration trends

Since the beginning of modular robotics, there has been a clear trend toward build self-configurable systems. Only some systems like CONRO and Microtub were designed for manually reconfigurable. But in the past few years, both design options have been equally chosen. Kairo3, PetRo, FableII, and Alligator on the manual configuration side and Hinged-Tetro, Mobot/Linkbot, M-Blocks, and CoSMO on the self-reconfiguration side show that both design choices have been equally opted for nowadays. Table 1 provides a summary on reconfigurability in modular robotics.

Docking

A docking element is one of the most important parts of a modular robot. It allows a module to physically connect to two or more modules, resulting in the formation of a larger robotic configuration for performing a certain task. Some docking systems also facilitate communication and power transmission between modules. Based on the level of autonomy of the connecting mechanism, a modular robotic system can be classified as either manually configurable or self-reconfigurable.

It is widely agreed upon that a good and reliable docking system would possess several of the following properties61,62,63:

1.

Size: A connector should be as small and thin as possible so that a module can house several of them, which in turn increase the possible number of configuration of the system.

2.

Mechanical strength: Must be strong enough to withstand any impact or motion in the foreseeable application of the system such that the overall configuration stays intact at all times. Mechanical strength of a configuration is said to be the weakest strength between two modules in the configuration.

3.

Communication: To function autonomously and for the purpose of self-reconfiguration, connected modules in a configuration need to be able to communicate with each other directly, without having to rely on an external source.

4.

Power sharing: Power sharing mechanism between modules in a configuration prolongs operation time of the entire system by transferring power from low-functional modules to high-functional modules in the configuration. In heterogeneous systems, where primary function of some modules would be to store and disperse power among other connected modules, a reliable power sharing mechanism is mandatory.

5.

Reversibility and repeatability: Self-reconfiguration does not only require easy connection between modules but also ability to easily disconnect. This process should be repeatable for several cycles.

6.

Connection and disconnection speed: Medium to complex reconfiguration tasks would need several steps of connection and disconnection between modules. Hence speed of doing so is an important factor.

7.

Tolerance to misalignment: There exists a trade-off between designing a modular robot that accurately aligns itself for docking and a docking system that is tolerant to misalignment.

8.

Power consumption: Docking and undocking process should be as energy efficient as possible, as available power in a module is usually limited.

9.

Gender and orientation: Modular robotic systems with gendered and orientation-dependent docking systems limit the possible number of configurations. So an ideal docking system is genderless and orientation independent.

10.

Unilateral connection/disconnection: A docking mechanism that allows a module to connect to and disconnect from other modules independently and ensure that the module and/or the configuration continues to operate in case one of the connectedmodules fail.

A summary of these properties is shown in Table 2.

Magnetic

Modules of M-TRAN I[8] and M-TRAN II[64] systems employ permanent magnets as connection mechanism, while shape memory alloy (SMA) coils and a nonlinear spring is used for expelling a connected module. In Fracta modules,[4] a layer of electromagnet, sandwiched in between two layers of permanent magnets, are used as connection mechanism. Each layer has three magnets, arranged in 120° intervals. The two permanent magnet layers are arranged parallel to each other, while the middle electromagnetic layer is offset by 60°. IR transmitter/receiver pairs are embedded in the magnets, along with a serial asynchronous protocol, and are used for communication between Fracta modules.

Telecube modules[11] feature pairs of switching permanent magnetic device and magnetic metal plate, placed diagonally, as connection mechanism. Criss-cross-shaped SMA wire and springs are used for undocking. In this docking system, connecting and disconnecting can be achieved unilaterally. The docking surface also holds two pairs of IR transmitters and sensors for communication between connected modules, three electrical contact switch, and PCBs. Positional misalignment of up to 3 mm is reported to be tolerated in this docking system.

SMORES[28] modules employ four magnets (two north-pole and two south-pole) arranged alternatingly around the docking face, at an interval of 90° from each other. Each SMORES module has three active connectors and one passive connector. Active connectors have one continuous rotational DoF, which they can align themselves to coincide with the opposing connector for establishing a connection. A mechanical “key” system is used to undock a module from its neighboring connector unilaterally. Undocking is achieved by inserting the “key” into the connected modules’ docking port, holding it in place, while rotating its connector at the same time to break the magnetic force. Energy is needed only for undocking.

In lattice-type M-Blocks system,[32] cube-shaped modules employ 2 diametrically polarized cylindrical magnets on each of the 12 edges, in addition to 8 axially polarized disk magnets on each of the 6 faces. The edge magnets can rotate freely, allowing two modules to pivot around the connected edge, while face magnets aid in correcting misalignment between connected modules. Face magnets are arranged in a eight-way symmetrical pattern, making the connection mechanism genderless. An inertial actuator within the module facilitates module undocking for reconfiguration.

Fable II modular robot[40] presents a genderless docking system that is 90° symmetric. Two different (small and medium) size connectors, which are cross-compatible, are used in this system. The connector uses a pair of (north and south pole) magnets, a flange, and a groove per 90° segment of the circular connector. An additional ring of magnets is used in the medium size connector to ensure compatibility between different size connectors. Only manual disconnection between modules is possible in this system.

Electromagnetic

Electromagnetic connectors are similar to magnetic connectors, except that electrical power is needed to create and maintain the magnetic field, which can be energy inefficient compared to magnetic connectors. An obvious advantage is that the polarity of an electromagnet can be interchanged, meaning that connection between any two docking units can be established without having to reorient the docking surface. Also, unlike with a magnetic connectors, an additional mechanism for undocking or repelling a connected module is not needed.

Fracta modules use a combination of magnetic and electromagnetic connectors, but Molecule[5] modules were one of the first to feature electromagnetic only connectors, where each module has five connectors, and the electromagnets used are powerful enough to support the weight of a connected module.

Four custom-fabricated electro-permanent magnets are used per Robot pebble modules[65] as connection mechanism. The connection mechanism provides four-way rotational symmetry, and electric-current is only used for switching polarity of the electro-permanent magnets, for docking and undocking, respectively, and not for maintaining the connection. Electro-permanent magnets are also used for communication and power-transmission between connected modules.

Electrostatic

In electrostatic type of connectors, electrodes made up of flexible aluminum foil and coated with dielectric film are used,[66] and docking systems are composed of electrodes glued to plastic panels and laid into multiple columns on the face of the module. Connection between modules is established by applying voltage to the face of the module. According to Karagozler et al.,[66] power-transmission and communication between connected modules is achievable in this kind of docking system, albeit not currently efficient.

Electromechanical

Electromechanical connection mechanism is used in PolyBot G2 modules.[67] The connector is composed of (a) electrical connection components; (b) pins and holes, for establishing connection between modules; (c) SMA wires actuated retracting spring system for breaking the connection; and (d) IR transceivers for communication between modules. An important feature of this connector system is that it requires energy only during the process of connection and disconnection and does not consume any energy while in connected state.

CONRO modules utilize a similar connection mechanism,68,69 where each module has one active connector consisting of two holes and a latching system actuated by a spring for making and holding a connection, and three passive connectors consisting of two pins each that can penetrate the holes of a female connector of another module. Unilateral disconnection is possible in this connection mechanism which in Sproewitz et al.[70] is described as a capability of the system to self-heal.

Another example of SMA actuated disconnection mechanism is found in Alligator-inspired modular robotic system.[39] Here, two locking blocks are used for connecting a head and tail of a module to the larger robot frame. Lubricating grease is used to reduce friction while operating in water, as well as to waterproof SMA, so as to reduce its power consumption while actuated in water.

According to Kurokawa et al.,[64] SMA wires-based docking systems are time consuming and energy intensive. So docking systems in M-TRAN III modules were designed to be gendered, utilizing motorized hooks for connecting two modules. This docking system also carried IR transceivers for communication between connected modules. The docking system is designed to overcome positional misalignment between modules, and electrical power is needed only during connecting and disconnecting process and not while in connected state.

A similar type of connector is the active connection mechanism (ACM),[70] which is a genderless docking system containing both motorized hooks and holes. ACMs are designed to both connect and disconnect actively and features a 90° symmetry. This docking system is designed for relatively larger and heavier robot modules and so features high load capacity, force and torque, and can also overcome large misalignment between connecting modules but at the cost of increased complexity and size of the docking system. A modified version of ACM is implemented in the Roombots modules,[18] which feature fewer number of motorized hooks, resulting in decreased load capacity compared to the original version. In both version of ACM, electrical power is needed only during connecting and disconnecting process and not while in connected state.

Worm-driven docking hooks are used as connection mechanism in Sambot modules.[20] Embedded IR transceivers and mechanical docking touch switches in the docking system are used for finding, aligning, docking, and locking process for self-assembly between two Sambot modules.

A similar docking mechanism with worm-driven motorized hooks is featured in ATRON modules.[71] The connection mechanism is gendered with three active hooks that can connect and hold on to two passive stainless steal bars, which are rigidly integrated onto the surface of an ATRON module. The authors describe this connection mechanism as point-to-point connection system, in contrast to surface-to-surface connection system, which is generally featured in most modular robotics systems.

Liedker et al. [72] present a genderless docking system called Cone Bolt Locking Device (CoBoLD), used in Symbrion and Replicator[73] robot modules. This docking system features four cone-shaped bolts and four holes per docking unit, in addition to a locking wheel to hold cone bolts in place. It is an active docking system that features a 90° symmetry and can handle positional and orientation misalignment of up to 5 mm and 20°, respectively. The docking system also holds pressure sensors and nine electrical contact points, which are 90° symmetric as well, for power transmission and communication between connected modules.

SINGO connectors used in SuperBot modules[74] feature a connection mechanism composed of four locking “jaws” that can move linearly back and forth (or outward and inward) on sliding rails, from the center to the edge of the docking face. Each “jaw” is shaped like an arrow head (i.e. with a pointed head and an inverted “V” shaped tail) and arranged with a 90° symmetry such that the head of the jaws point to the center. Connection between two such connectors can be established when (a) either the heads of the first connector’s “jaws” clinch the tails of the second connector’s “jaws,” moving inward or when (b) the tails of the first connector’s “jaws” clinch the heads of the second connector’s “jaws,” moving outward. This connector is genderless, does not consume energy while in connected state, and can operate bilaterally as well as unilaterally to both establish and disengage connection with another module, giving self-assembling and self-healing capabilities to the modular robotic system.

M^3Express[30] features a hybrid docking system that carries a pair of permanent magnets and a pair of steal screws for magnetic connection, in addition to four spring loaded tapered pins and four holes, arranged in pairs at 90° from each other, for mechanical connection. Tapered pins and steal screws, actuated by a miniature RC servo, can move in and out of the docking surface for establishing and breaking connection with the opposing connector, respectively. The connector is genderless, 180° symmetric, and does not consume power while in connected state.

Docking trends

Docking system is one of the most important feature in a modular robotic system. Some of the most common types of docking mechanisms used in modular robotics have been presented in this section. Magnetic and electronmagnetic connectors were featured in some of the earliest modular robotic systems. Most of the recent systems feature magnetic- and electromechanical-based docking systems. Magnetic-based docking systems are common among manually configurable systems like Fable II[40] and M^3Express,[30] while electromechanical-based docking systems are used in self-reconfigurable systems like Symbricator and Roombots. A summary of the features of connectors in self-reconfiguring modular robots is shown in Table 3.

Degrees of freedom

Mobility and adaptability are desired features for any robot to overcome challenges that may arise during normal operation. These characteristics are mostly determined by the DoF of the complete system. The more DoF it has, the more suitable the mechanism is to adapt its shape to different environments and to perform complex motions. But also, complicating the mechanical, electrical, and control design of the robot. Owing to the ease a modular robot has to change its configuration by adding or subtracting modules, it is unreasonable to speak about the overall DoF of a modular robot. Therefore, this section will focus instead on the DoF of the modules or basic units that form these mechatronic systems.

Two approaches or trends can be observed in recent designs of modules, which will be reviewed in the following subsections. Chain-type modular robots are designed to be light-weight, mechanically simple, easy to control, and to be connected in a tree structure. On the other hand, lattice-type modules can be combined to create 3D structures with high degrees of movement but with a drawback in terms of weight and power consumption.

Chain-type modules

Chain-type modules typically have one or two DoF. A single module by itself cannot perform many tasks. But when combined with other modules, the resulting structure can perform complicated movements and tasks. The strategy behind the design of these elements is the combined effort of all the modules to achieve the goals. By implementing a small number of DoF in each element, the control of the module remains simple, the design can be reduced, and so be easily replicated. Moreover, the control software can manage a great number of these modules due to the simplicity of the electromechanical design, and power consumption of each module can be optimized more easily. This trend can found in chain-type modular robots.

Microtub[54] is composed of modules of up to two DoF, and thus these are a good examples of the chain-type modules. Individual module cannot function on their own, but when combined with other modules, the resulting chain-type robot can perform complicated tasks such as inspection of and navigation inside pipes and locomotion on open 2D surface. Also, the possibility of different combinations of modules provides the system with great versatility to overcome different challenges as explained in Brunete.[84]

ReBis[36] is another example, designed by Rohan Thakker et al. Modules are connected sequentially forming a chain. These are designed with only one ±120° revolute DoF. However, despite the apparent simplicity of the design, ReBiS is flexible enough to produce both a serpentine gait and a bipedal gait.

Typically, these modules implement a rotational joints. Compared to linear joints, rotational joints have been proven to provide a highest rate of mobility versus the weight of the required equipment. Also, volume of joint actuators are smaller, reducing in size of the module. In addition, these are mechanically easier to implement, as they only require a motor to provide the turning movement, and a gear box to adjust the generated torque, while other joint types would need additional equipment to transform rotational motion into other types of movement. Depending on the design, this joint can either be 360° in range or limited to a certain angle.

For example, previously mentioned ReBis modules use a single revolution joint per module. However, if modules are connected in such a way the rotational axis of consecutive modules are orthogonal, the robot is able to reach any point in 3D space.[36]

Lattice-type modules

These modules are capable of connecting simultaneously with more than two modules to form complex structures with a high DoF. These systems are intended to be able to adapt to a wider range of scenarios compared to chain-type modules and so they are used in lattice-type and hybrid-type modular robots.

To achieve this level of flexibility and adaptability, lattice-type modules are normally equipped with more than one DoF. However, THOR[22] and CoSMOS[31] modules, which have a single DoF, are exceptions. Another characteristic feature of lattice-type modules is the greater number of docking systems, embedded on several faces of of a module. This feature allows a module to be attached to multiple neighboring modules at the same time. Nonetheless, the final design of these modules is heavier and mechanically more complex than the chain-type modules. Also, the control software implemented requires more powerful microprocessor, and thus more power consuming, to carryout processor-intensive algorithms to control all the elements.

To this end, heterogeneous systems are being explored to provide advantages of a homogeneous lattice-type module, by combining several simpler and less demanding modules with many different types of functionality. However, this field of research is not as studied as homogeneous systems as shown in Table 5.

Comparing between Tables 4 and 5, it could be noted that the focus in the recent years has been on lattice-type and hybrid-type modular robotic systems, as most of the recently developed modular robots fall under this category. Recent trends point toward developing lattice-type or hybrid-type systems with two or three DoF modules, and independent locomotion (micro-locomotion) capability, and also to build highly adaptable modular robots with the ability to programmatically assemble and disassemble.

The above holds true in the case of M^3Express (Modular Mobile Multirobot)[30] by Kevin C. Wolfe et al., which is a hybrid-type robot that is capable of self-assembling to form into either chain-type or lattice-type structures. A M^3Express module has three wheels that serve both as a docking unit and as a micro-locomotion system. With three DoF, a module can operate and locomote independently and self-assemble to form flexible polyhedral structures.

However, there are lattice-type systems with only one DoF per module. CoSMOS[31] (Colletive Self-Configurable Modular Robot) by Jens Liedke et al., at the Karlsruhe institute of Technology, is an example. Each module is composed of two halves that can bend over each other by ±90°, and because of the docking units embedded on four of the six faces of the modules, these can be assembled to either form a chain or a grid structure.

Robot Pebbles[21] by Kyle Gilpin et al. is a lattice-type modular robot and needs to be highlighted here, as modules in this system have no DoF. Each cube-shaped module can attach to each other through custom-designed electropermanent magnets. Through self-disassembly, they can adopt to any kind of shape easily. Each module is 12 mm in size, about 3.75 times smaller than its predecessor Miche.[42] However, unlike its predecessor, Plebbes does not have disassembly capability given by the rotating magnet of Miche.

Similar to chain-type modules, lattice-type modules are also mainly equipped with rotational joints. Typically, the DoF are located in the docking systems as seen in Cross-ball system.[25] Nonetheless, other designs like iMobot[19] change the shape of the module by means of joints that connect the two halves of the unit.

DoF trends

The DoF of the modules or basic units of recently presented modular robot have been analyzed in this section. Two main trends have been presented: chain-type and lattice-type designs. Chain-type modules tend to have one or at most two DoF, with adaptability in the system coming as a result of aggregated DoF of multiple modules in the configuration. On the other hand, lattice-type modules tend to have as many DoF per module as possible, giving it the abilities to easily adapt to the environment, to move autonomously, and to self-reconfigure.

Locomotion

In modular robots, locomotion is achieved through coordinated action of individual modules. In chain-type modular robots, locomotion is achieved through continuous actuation of its motorized DoF, whereas in lattice-type, locomotion comes about as a result of continuous self-reconfiguration. Gait produced by a modular robotic configuration depends on the morphology of the configuration.

Limbless locomotion

Caterpillar Caterpillar gait is the most common gait in chain-type modular robots. It has been implemented in virtually all the modular robotic platforms discussed in this article M-TRAN,[47] CONRO,[87] Y1,88,17 Micritub,[27] etc. It is a 1D gait inspired by crawling locomotion of a biological caterpillar. The robot can move either in forward or backward directions on a straight line, and it is commonly implemented in linear configurations. The gait is achieved by oscillating only the pitch-axis actuator(s) of connected modules, with consistent phase-shift in oscillation between consecutive modules. This produces a traveling wave along the length of the configuration, which results in propelling the robot forward in the direction of the traveling wave.Lateral-shift This is a 2D gait and can be implemented in linear configurations with alternating pitch-axis and yaw-axis actuators, along the length of the configurations. The gait is inspired by and replicates locomotion of sidewinder snake species. The gait is achieved when adjacent pitch-axis actuators in the configuration oscillate with consistent phase difference between them, while adjacent yaw-axis actuators do so as well, although phase-shift relation between the two sets of pitch-axis and yaw-axis actuators is independent of each other. Amplitude, offset, and phase-shift parameters of individual oscillations determine the shape, size, direction, and orientation of the gait. Lateral-shift gait is demonstrated in CONRO,[87] Microtub,[27] and Y1.[17]Inchworm Inchworm gait is achieved in linear configurations by contracting and elongating the length of the configuration. In Brunete et al.,[27] inchworm gait inside pipes of varying diameters has been implemented in the heterogeneous multiconfigurable modular robot Microtub, using two kinds of modules: support module and extension module. A support module, the outer surface of which is partially rubber, when actuated expands outward, firmly holding the module to the inner-surface of the pipe. An extension module, which has a linear actuator, when actuated can both extend and rotate in the yaw-axis. Inchworm gait can be achieved in a configuration which has at least two support modules with one extension module in between them. The gait is achieved by repeating cycles of actuating front and rear support modules alternatively, holding and realizing the module to the pipe, while contracting and elongating the extension module, propelling the robot forward.

Wang et al.[89] have studied the gait kinematics of a biological inchworm and replicated the same on a linear modular robotic configuration with suction cups. Two kinds of modules are used: joint module with 1DoF actuator in pitch-axis and attachment module with an active suction cup for attaching the module to vertical surface. A linear configuration is formed by connecting three joint modules serially, along with two attachment modules at either end. Inchworm gait on a vertical surface has been successfully demonstrated in this work.

In Russo et al.,[90] inchworm gait has also been achieved in a linear configuration containing three Scout modules. The gait is achieved by repeating cycles of contraction and elongation of the body length of a linear configuration, through coordinated actuation of module’s DoF actuators. Here, unlike in the previous two cases, the gait has been demonstrated on horizontal surface, in open air.

Walking locomotion

2D walker In Ranganath et al.,[88] a six-module 2D quadruped configuration, with each limb having only 1 DoF, is presented (Figure 1). The four limb modules oscillate in the pitch-axis, while the two spine modules oscillate in the yaw-axis. The robot can walk forward, backward, move on an arc, rotate on its axis, and move laterally left or right. When diagonal pairs of limbs (e.g., Limb_1 and Limb_3) oscillate in phase, while maintaining a phase difference between the two pairs of limbs (i.e., ), with the spine modules oscillating with a phase difference of 180° between them, the robot produces a lizard-like walking gait. On the other hand, if the limb modules on the same side oscillate in phase, while maintaining a phase difference between the two pairs (i.e., ), with the spine modules oscillating in phase, this produces a lateral walking gait.

Figure 1. 2D quadruped configuration with four Limb modules and two Spine modules.

Another example of a 2D quadruped configuration is presented in Russo et al.[90] Five Scout modules are used in this configuration, where four modules form limbs of the quadruped, while the fifth module is the torso module, holding the rest of the modules together. Locomotion in any direction on a 2D plain is achievable in this configuration, and the authors have experimentally proven its ability to climb over obstacles 5 cm high and at a slope of 90°.

3D walker 3D quadruped configurations modules have been presented in[91] (CONRO) and[92] (Roombots), where each limb has two DoF. Each limb has one hip joint (oscillating in pitch-axis) and one knee-joint (oscillating in roll-axis). Here, each limb needs to coordinate with other limbs in the configuration (inter-limb coordination), as well as joints within a limb (hip joint and knee joint) need to coordinate with each other (intra-limb coordination), to produce a walking gait. The spine module(s) in these configuration oscillate in yaw-axis, enhancing the produced gait. In[91] an hexapod configuration is created by appending the quadruped configuration with an extra-spine module and two limb modules. Similar to the 2D walker, walking gait is achieved in these configurations when diagonal set of limbs oscillate in phase while maintaining a phase difference between two sets of limbs.

A H-Walker is a 3D quadruped with multiple DoF limbs presented in[64] (M-TRAN II) and[93] (Superbot). Here the spine module is static, used only for connecting the limb modules together.

Rolling/Wheel-based locomotion

Rolling-track Rolling-track gait can be achieved in a loop configuration, which is formed by connecting the two end modules of a linear configuration to each other, closing the loop. Experiments on this gait have been done in Støy et al.[87] (CONRO), Shen et al.,[93] and Chiu et al.[94] (Superbot) with loop configurations of varying length. Loop configurations, depending on the number of modules, can take the shape ranging from an hexagon to a circle. Locomotion in this configuration is achieved by continuously changing the shape of the configuration by squeezing and realizing the shape of the loop. In Chiu et al.,[94] steep slope climbing with a loop configuration has been demonstrated, where the loop is collapsed to maintain a low center of gravity.Helicoidal In Brunete et al.,[27] authors have described experimenting with helicoidal gait on the heterogeneous chained robot Mictotub. The gait is achieved in linear configuration with a special module. This module has two parts (a rotating head and a body), and when the head of the modules is continuously rotated, it pushes the body of the robot forward in a helicoidal motion. This gait has been tested inside vertical and horizontal narrow pipes and in open air. This gait is very fast, but only locomotion in 1D is possible.Differential drive Differential drive is a two-wheeled drive system, where each wheel is actuated independently. Direction and rotation of locomotion comes about as a result of speed and direction of rotation of the two independently controlled wheels. In Kernbach et al.,[95] track-based, screw drive-based, and omnidirection-wheel-based differential drive locomotion has been implemented in Symbricator modules Scout, Backbone, and Active Wheel, respectively, which gives independent locomotion capability for individual modules (micro-locomotion) as well as macro-locomotion as part of a larger robotic organism.

A Scout module has two independently driven tracks on either sides (left and right) of its quasi-cubical shaped chassis, which gives it the ability to move forward, backward, turn right, turn left, and to rotate on its own axis. In a Backbone module, two cylindrical screw drives placed in the front-bottom and rear-bottom side of its quasi-cubic chassis, and independently controlled by two motors, are used by the module to move in forward, reverse, left, and right directions as well as to turn left and right. An Active Wheel module has two pairs of omnidirection-wheels, placed perpendicular to each other, with four motors independently controlling the wheels. This gives the module ability to independently move forward, backward, right, left, turn right and left, rotate on its own axis, move on a arc, and also move in complex trajectories on a 2D plane through accurately controlling the four independent motors.

In Davey et al.,[28] the authors have implemented a wheel-based differential drive system in SMORES modular robot for modules to move independently on relatively flat surfaces. The wheels, which also hold docking ports on its surface, are on the right and left sides of the cubic shape chassis of the module. Each module can move forward, reverse, turn left and right, and rotate on its own axis. This locomotion is necessary for modules to aggregate and align for self-assembly.

Self-reconfiguration-based locomotion

In lattice-type modular robots, locomotion is achieved through continuous self-reconfiguration. In a lattice structure, when modules at one end of the grid, by continuously connecting to and disconnecting with other modules on the outer edge of the structure, move to the other end of the grid, this results in the displacement of the entire structure. This kind of locomotion gives the notion of modules flowing on the ground, which is visually similar to locomotion of an amoeba or to that of a puddle of water flowing on a flat surface.

In Meng and Jin,[96] lattice-type modular robot Cross-cube modules are continuously reconfigured to produce flowing locomotion. An advantage of this locomotion is that a configuration can morph its shape to avoid obstacles or to move through narrow passage.

In Bonardi et al.,[50] a Roombots module moves on a 2D grid, from an initial position to the goal position on the grid, through self-reconfiguration. Modules connect to the 2D grid surface, where each grid cell has a connector (ACM) similar to those on the module. A module connected to a grid cell, through its DoF motor actuation, can reach its neighboring cell, then connect to that cell, and disconnect from the previous cell. In this way, a module can move from cell to cell on a grid, moving from an initial to the goal location. Locomotion on a 3D grid surface has also been demonstrated in this work.

Locomotion trends

In the literature, a large variety of gaits ranging from simple creeping and crawling gaits, achievable in limbless modular robotic configurations, to walking and rolling gaits achievable in more complex 2D and 3D configurations, and locomotion through self-reconfiguration, exists. A clear trend in recent gaits in modular robots reflects on micro-locomotion aspect of the gaits, which provide independent locomotion capability to unit modules. Also, wheel-based locomotion for both micro- and macro-locomotion is a trend seen among more recent (post-2010) modular robotic systems like Symbricator,[95] Microtub,[27]M^3Express,[30] and SMORES.[28]Table 6 compares all the gaits discussed in this section based on the dimension of locomotion, and the ability of a single module to achieve this gait in micro-locomotion mode.

Control

As per the literature, controllers in modular robotics are generally used for controlling locomotion and self-reconfiguration. These controllers can be broadly classified into Central Control (CC) type and Distributed Control (DC) type. In a CC-type controller, individual modules in a configuration receive high-level control signals from either a master module or an external source. On the contrary, in a DC-type controller, each module computes its own control signal based on its sensor readings and intermodule communication. Homogeneity is another aspect of controllers in modular robotics. If all the modules in a modular robotic configuration has the exact same controller (including identical parameters), then it is called as homogeneous controller and nonhomogeneous or heterogeneous otherwise. Scalability of a controller determines its ability to continue to function without any modifications, as the number of modules in the configuration grows.

Locomotion controllers

One of the earliest locomotion controllers for modular robots includes the gait table controller proposed by Yim et al.,[7] where each column of the table contains a set of actions for a module in the configuration. The controller is homogeneous, since all the modules would have the entire gait table. A master module communicates with the rest of the modules in the configuration to synchronize transition from one row to the next, making it a central controller. The controller is not scalable.

A distributed, homogeneous and scalable locomotion controller for CONRO,9,10 modular robots is proposed by Stoy et al.87,91 It is a role-based controller, where a module decides/modifies its action, based on (a) its location in the configuration and (b) action of connected modules, facilitated by direct-local-communication among connected modules.

Digital hormone controller Digital hormone method (DHM)97,98 is a biologically inspired adaptive communication method developed by Shen et al., through which modules in a configuration can communicate state information with each other. Based on such communication, modules can decide/choose their action from a predefined gait table, and this in turn results in the emerged gait. If there is a failure of one or some modules in the configuration, or a change in configuration of the robotic organism, through adaptive communication such changes are taken into consideration locally, and the gait is adapted accordingly to suit the change in configuration. Locomotion in several CONRO configurations9,10 and Superbot configurations[14] have been implemented successfully with DHM. In this control model, there is no central master module, so it is a DC. Also, the controller is homogeneous and scalable.Sinusoidal controller In Gonzalez-Gomez and Boemo,[99] simple phase-differed sinusoidal oscillators are used as locomotion controllers for two and three module configurations by Gonzalez-Gomez et al. Here, each module has 1 DoF, and so according to the authors, these are the simplest possible modular robotic configurations for producing 1D and 2D gaits, respectively. In Zhang et al.,[100] two kinds of caterpillar gaits have been studied from a kinematic perspective and then replicated on linear modular robotic configuration, using phase-differed sinusoidal oscillators. The controller here is distributed but without any communication between modules for coordination. So time synchronization between modules is achieved by the internal clock of the module’s computing unit, and so the user needs to ensure booting all the modules at the same time. The controller is scalable, but it is not homogeneous since control parameters are preprogrammed based on the position of a module in a given configuration.Central pattern generator In vertebrates, locomotion is produced by a set of specialized neurons called central pattern generators (CPGs)[101] found in the spinal cord. These neurons have the ability to produce rhythmic output without neither central input from the brain nor rhythmic sensory input. Ijspreet et al.[102] and Pouya et al.[92] have used CPGs as locomotion controllers for configurations based on YaMoR[13] and Roombots[103] modular robots, respectively. In Roombots-based configurations, CPGs are used for producing both rotation and oscillatory motion of DoF motors. Each module is controlled distributively by its own CPG controller, the mathematical model of which usually consists of one or two neurons (nonlinear oscillator) per module. Modules are, based on the topology of the configuration, coupled in different ways with similar neurons of other modules in a given configuration.

A CPG-based controller is of DC type, as there isn’t a single module responsible for coordination among modules, but modules synchronize their actions based on other connected modules’ actions in a distributed manner. An important aspect of CPG-based controllers is how CPG of one module is coupled with CPGs of other modules in a given configuration. These couplings are based on the morphology of the configuration, so it is fixed and predetermined. The control parameters of a CPG differ from module to module, based on the module’s position in the configuration. So this controller is neither homogeneous nor scalable.

Heterogeneous layered controller Brunete et al[104] have developed a multilayered control architecture for the heterogeneous multi-configurable modular robot Microtub. The control architecture consists of three layers, which are (1) high-level central controller (CC), (2) low-level behavior-based embedded controller, and (3) middle-level heterogeneous interpreter connecting the high-level and low-level controllers. The CC is behavior-based as well and controls the modular robotic configuration as a single entity, collecting sensory information from modules, processing it, and sending situation and action commands to modules. It also acts as a planner and helps modules synchronize their actions. The CC can either be off-board on an external PC, as it was in,[104] or be on-board as a part of one of the modules.

Low-level controller is a set of individual behaviors, which allows a module to react in real time, independent of the CC. Examples of low-level behavior control include sensing and acting on external and internal stimuli, controlling module’s actuator for producing locomotion, communicating with connected modules, and so on.

Control commands sent by the CC are identical to all the modules (which are heterogeneous themselves). So interpretation between the CC and the low-level controller is carried out by the heterogeneous middle-level layer. When a module receives a high-level command by the CC, it is first processed by its middle-level interpreter, which translates the command into module specific instructions. Similarly, when a module needs to send a message to the CC or other modules, this is handled by the middle-level interpreter.

This layered control model is semidistributed, as some low-level actions can be taken by the module in real time, independent of the CC, but high-level control commands and synchronization are still controlled by the CC. It is heterogeneous because middle-level and low-level controllers are module specific but scalable because of the semidistributed and layered architecture.

Morphology-dependent controller Physically connected modules in a modular robotic configuration exert force on each other when actuated due to the embodiment of the robot. When force is applied to one of the module’s actuators, effects of it can be observed on other connected module’s actuators. This phenomena is termed intra-configuration force (ICF) and can be seen as implicit communication among modules and used for coordination among modules in a distributed manner. Ranganath et al.[88] have proposed a morphology-based distributed locomotion controller for modular robots.

The controller consists of a neural-oscillator component for producing periodic control signals for the module’s actuator and a phase-modulator component that, based on the state of the module’s actuator, modulates the generated control signal. The rate of rotation of an oscillating module’s actuator is dynamically influenced as a result of ICF, and this is captured by the phase-modulator component to adjust the generated control signal accordingly. Gaits for five different configurations (morphologies) are evolved independently by optimizing control parameters, including synaptic weights of the neural-oscillator, using genetic algorithm.

In his control model, all the modules, irrespective of their location in the configuration, have identical controllers, making it a homogeneous controller. The controller is of DC type, as there is neither a central master module responsible for synchronization, nor do modules communicate with each other explicitly. Coordination among modules comes about as a result of indirect local interaction between connected modules and between modules and the environment. The authors have successfully cross-evaluated controller optimized for a simple two-module linear configuration on a four-module 2D configuration, proving the scalability of the controller.

Self-reconfiguration controllers

Self-reconfiguration is an important aspect of SRMR, which gives it the ability to change its morphology to suite its environment or current task. In lattice-type and hybrid-type SRMR, locomotion is achieved through the process of self-reconfiguration.

Morphogenesis-inspired controller Meng et al.[96] have proposed an hybrid hierarchical-layered controller for self-reconfiguration, inspired by biological multicellular morphogenesis. Morphogenesis is a biological process during the stage of embryonic development, through which shape of an organism is determined by the means of production and intracellular or intercellular protein diffusion.

The controller consists of three layers: pattern generation layer, pattern formation layer, and low-level hardware dependent layer. The first layer, which is responsible for generating the pattern (modular robotic configuration), is a rule-based controller, where a pattern is represented as a 3D grid occupancy graph and encoded as a look-up-table. Based on environmental constraints and task at hand, by following a set of rules, modules can modify this table to bring about a change in the pattern. For example, when an individual module senses an obstacle in the environment through its local sensor, it can diffuse this information in the network through communication, to bring about a global change in the pattern.

Once a target pattern is set or adapted in the look-up table, modules can then act independently to converge to the global pattern. By setting any of the modules as the origin in the occupancy graph, modules can then localize themselves in the configuration through local communication. Based on the relative position and the desired target pattern, modules can then produce and diffuse different kinds of proteins through local communication. This is the pattern formation, second layer of the hierarchical controller. A module can produce and diffuse positive proteins to attract modules to occupy one of its empty neighboring space in the grid or negative proteins to empty one of its neighboring space. The third layer is hardware specific and controls the module’s actuator and connectors for self-reconfiguration.

The proposed controller has successfully been tested on the Cross-cube[105] modular robots in a physics-based simulator. The controller is distributed, as modules decide their action independently based on their sensory information and through local communication with neighboring modules. It is homogeneous, as all the modules have the exact same controller. In the article, the authors have experimentally proven the scalability of the controller by successfully testing it on varying size configurations.

Motor primitives-based controller Bonardi et al[50] have proposed a locomotion controller for the Roombots18,103 modular robot, achieved through self-reconfiguration. Locomotion in this context refers to the process of a Roombots module moving from an initial position to a goal position on a 2D grid. Each grid position contains an ACM connector, similar to the ones on the Roombots module.

Each module has three continuos rotational DoF, through which a module can translate by a distance of one unit on the grid. Each such action leading a module to translate by one grid unit is termed as an atomic motor primitive (AMP). Due to the kinematic constraints of the module, a module can translate to only two out of eight possible neighboring positions on the grid. So, to move to any of the eight possible neighboring grid positions, a module needs to perform a set of AMPs, and a concatenation of one or more such AMPs is termed composed motor primitive (CMP).

D* algorithm is used as a high-level planner for planning a path for the module to travel between the initial and the goal position on the grid. A low-level planner is proposed which, based on the path found by the D* algorithm, decomposes the path into a set of CMPs to traverse the path. Both the high- and the low-level controllers take static obstacles (e.g., other modules) into consideration while planning. The proposed planner, due to the kinematic constrains of the module, does not have a solution for every possible grid-world configuration, containing obstacles. If the planner finds a set of CMPs, it is not necessarily optimal either.

The authors have successfully tested the controller both in simulation and on the real robot. In simulation, fixed size grid-world with fixed and random size and number of obstacles, along with random initial and goal positions, were generated. Of 300 total experiments, the authors report a 70% success rate in the planner finding a path from the initial to the goal position. All the experiments in the article have been performed with a single Roombots module, and so it cannot be determined if the controller is distributed or central, homogeneous or heterogeneous, and if it is scalable.

Control trends

One of the earliest controllers in modular robotics, gait table controller,[7] is of CC type and not scalable. Latest trend in controllers for modular robots reflects on controllers that are (a) distributed or semidistributed, (b) layered and hierarchical, (c) morphology dependent and/or bio-inspired, and (d) scalable. Controllers such as gait table controller,[7] DHM,[97] Role-based controller,[91] and sinusoidal controller[99] feature simplicity at the level of individual controller, while complexity arises when modules in a given configuration operate together. On the contrary, controllers in recent years, such as morphogenesis inspired controller,[96] heterogeneous layered controller,[104] and motor primitives-based controller,[50] all feature more than one layer, increasing the complexity of the controller and with it extending the adaptability and scalibility of the controller.

Table 7 presents a comparison between different controllers discussed in this section, based on the type of control, controller similarity between modules in a configuration, and controller scalability.

Communications

Intramodule communications

Communications within a module are less frequent than communication among different modules, because most modules have a single microcontroller, and all devices (sensors and actuators) are connected to it. Among modules using intramodule communications, I^2C protocol is the most common.

Atron[12] modules use I^2C within an hemisphere and RS-485 between the two hemispheres. M-Blocks[32] uses I^2C to connect PCBs. CoSMO[31] uses I^2C as a backup communication between MCUs. Superbot[14] uses I^2C for master–slave communication.

Serial communication is used by Molecube (RS-232), RS-485 by ATRON, and SPI by Ubot.

Intermodule communications

Intermodule communications refers to communication between two modules. Most typical modes of communications are optical (IR) and wired (CAN bus and I^2C). Some prototypes have started using wireless communications (Wifi, Bluetooth, and Zigbee) in the past few years.

Regarding wired communication, the CAN bus (CAN, or CAN-bus) is the most classic bus. It is used by Polybot,[7] M-TRAN II,[48] and Kairo3.[33]I^2C is used by Microtub,[54] while serial communication is used by M-TRAN I48,8 Superbot (SPI),[14] Ubot, M-Blocks, and Hinged-Tetro (UART).[38] Molecube uses the 1-wire protocol.

Ethernet communication, although not common, is used by CoSMO[31] due to its high data rate. Compared to other modular robotic platforms, CoSMO needs a large communication bandwidth between connected modules because it has high computational capabilities. This is achieved through a 100Mbit full-duplex Ethernet bus system, which is scalable and much faster (around 100 times) than a CAN bus. CoSMO is also ready to use IR, Zigbee, and Bluetooth communications.

In Microtub,54,104 a one-wire synchronism line communication bus between adjacent modules is implemented. This communication is intended to know which are the neighboring modules. A single wire initialization signal is used to identify the topological order of modules in KAIRO-3 as well. Telecube modules show the use of contact sensor faces as a communication mechanism and to know if there are other modules connected very similar to the concept of Microtub’s synchronism line. A similar concept is also found in CHOBIE, which presents a control algorithm in which a leader (that controls the transformation phase) is determined by local communication and changed after every transformation. ACM robot also uses a communication line to know the configuration of the chained robot. This module to module line is shown as M2 M in Table 8.

Infrared communication (IR) offers a low data rate, but it is perfect for modular robots because it does not need a connector between modules. IR (LED+photodiode) is used for sending messages between modules and as a mechanism to guide docking process. It is used by Polybot v3 uses v4[7] for intermodule communications. CONRO modules[9] communicate with each other using IR transceivers. The IR transceivers can also be used as proximity sensors for guiding two modules during the docking phase. M^3Express uses optical communications through diffuser rings, so both the emitter and the receiver modules can turn around. Other robots using IR are Crystalline,[6] Telecube,[11] Atron,[12] Superbot,[14] CHOBIE,[16] iMOBOT,[19]M^3Express,[30] M-Blocks[32] (expected to be used in future versions), and PetRo.[35]

Regarding wireless communication, FableII[40] uses proprietary 2.4Ghz wireless communication. Modules communicate with each other through a PC. Although radio communication has a master–slave architecture, it can also work as a P2P (peer-to-peer) network, if properly configured. Zigbee is used by Transmote,[29] Mobot and Linkbot,[34] and SMORES (xbee module). Transmote modules communicate with each other using ZigBee-compliant protocols and “can build emergency communication and monitoring networks when deployed in areas without communication infrastructures.”[29] Mobot and Linkbot are educational modular robots that also use Zigbee. M-TRAN III and M^3Express[106] use Bluetooth. M^3Express uses Bluetooth mainly for the communication with the off-board controller, but it is ready to be used for module to module Bluetooth communication as well.

Control and programming communications

Robot–user and Robot–PC communication are used to program and control modular robots (if teleoperated). Most of these communications are similar to the intermodule communications. CoSMOS uses Ethernet, while Transmote, Mobot, and Linkbot use Zigbee. Hinged-Tetro uses serial communication, Superbot uses Wireless 2.4 GHz proprietary communication, M-TRAN III and M^3Express[106] use Bluetooth, etc.

Many robots use a converter from the intermodule protocol to USB, like Microtub and Fable II. In Fable II, the PC (with the control application) and the modules are connected through a 2-Mbit wireless link provided by a dongle connected to the PC. Modules are addressed using the ID and module type. Microtub uses a I^2C to USB converter.

Previous versions of M-TRAN (I and II) also used LonWorks and RS485 for global communications.[47]

Communication trends

Table 8 shows a comparison in communication protocols. The trend has usually been to use wired protocols (I^2C, CAN, Serial), but wireless protocols seem to be leading the chart in the recent years: Fable II, Mobot/Linkbot, M^3Express, Transmote, and SMORES use WiFi, Bluetooth, and Zigbee protocols. Wireless protocols have the great advantage of avoiding physical connections, simplifying the design of docking mechanism.

Another trend is the use of the same communication protocol for both communication between modules, and between module(s) and the controller (programmer), especially in those robots using wireless communications.

Size

Although most of the recent modular robots focus on building robots as small as possible, this goal is sometimes not so easy to reach. It is a fact that the size of the modules is highly dependent on the final application. The traditional trend was to build small, tough, and light-weight modules. One such lattice-type modular robot is UBot,[23] which is a 80 mm cubic module, that has two rotational DoF and weights 350 g. Overlooking the tasks for which the robot is being designed, the main determining factors of the size of the module are energy source and the actuators implemented. With an external power-source, the designer will have more room to optimize the size of the module due to the great area that batteries tend to occupy. Nonetheless, as explained in the niinth section, lithium batteries overcome this issue, thanks to its high rate of power over size. So modules can be powered without increasing the total volume of the module.

On the other hand are the actuators that drive the mechanical parts of the system. In the case of lattice-type modules, with a larger number of DoF, several actuators may be required, and thus more space is needed to hold all the components inside the module, which also affects the weight of the system. Brushless DC motors can provide high values and be small sized actuators compared to classical DC motors, despite larger power consumption. This is the reason these types of motors are widely used in mobile robots and small robotic systems. Not only the motor but the gear box is also needed to get the required torque might require a larger space than the motor itself. Planetary gears can prove to be a better solution, providing high ratios in a smaller space than classical gear trains.

Table 9 shows the size of some of the recently presented modules since 2010. Regarding the heterogeneous robots THOR[22] and Microtub,[84] only the smallest module is presented in this table. In case of cylindrical bodies, the diameter length is marked with the Greek letter Phi (Φ).

Since Microtub robot[84] is meant for pipe inspection tasks, it does not require high power to carry on its duties, so the actuators implemented can be few tenths of a millimeters, like CS-101 and LS-3.0 built by Cirrus,[84] which measure 15.5 × 10.9 × 19.1 mm and 21.1 × 13.0 × 8.9 mm, respectively. In addition, it uses an external power source which allows to further reduce the dimension of the modules, reaching values shown in Table 9.

Other systems, like Roombots,[103] which are meant for heavy-duty tasks such as reconfigurable furniture, need stronger actuators. Thus, Roombots modules use two brushed motors with big gear boxes, which provide a stall torque of 0.048 Nm and 0.08 Nm.[18] Therefore, each module measures more than five times a Microtub module, as it can be seen in Table 9.

Size trends

Size of recently presented basic units design of modular robots has been studied in this section. And, as a result, it can be stated that the actual trend, regarding size, reflects a preference on cuboid or spherical-shaped modules of 100 mm to 150 mm long. Although, for more specific applications (e.g., pipe inspection or search and rescue tasks), smaller robots are required to deal with unstructured environments, such as Microtub.[84] To ease the mechanical design so that the center of gravity is well defined, actuators and electronics are correctly located, and the final robot integrity is not threatened, regular shapes such as cubes or spheres are used as basic model, for example, Robot Plebbes,[42] Ubot,[23] and CoSMOS.[31]

Powering

Generally, DoF motors and docking systems are the most electrical power consuming subsystems of a modular robot, along with power needed for the computation system. So, power source is an import design factor that needs to be considered from the early phase of a modular robotic design. Following are some important features that need to be considered while choosing the right power-source for a modular robot:

1.

Size: The volume of the power source, which is usually housed inside a modular robot, should be as small as possible to keep the overall size of a robot module small.

2.

Weight: Robot modules, especially in lattice-type architecture, need to carry the weight of other connected modules. So the weight of the power source should be as light as possible.

3.

Energy density: This is the ration between amount of energy stored per unit of mass and volume of the power source. This should be as high as possible.

4.

Power density: The amount of power (time rate of energy transfer) per unit volume. This should be as high as possible as well.

5.

Price: One of the central ideas of a modular robotic system is the cost of production of unit modules. So the cost of power source should be as low as possible to lower the unit cost of modules.

6.

Maintenance: It should be easy and fast to install, replace, and recharge the power-source.

7.

Placement: The power-source should ideally be part of the module, without having to rely on an external source, so that mobility and reconfigurability of the modular robotic system is not impeded.

Following are the most commonly used power sources in modular robotics:

1.

Batteries: An electrochemical device that can provide electrical energy by converting chemical energy stored within it. Following are the main types of batteries commonly used:

a.

Lithium-polymer

b.

Lithium-ion

c.

Alkaline

Lithium batteries offer the highest values of energy density and power density, compared to other battery types, and so is the most commonly used power source in modular robotics. Lithium-polymer (LiPo) and lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are used in Crystalline,[6] M-TRAN,[8] CONRO,[9] Atron,[12] YaMoR,[13] Superbot,[14] Chobie,[16] Roombots,[18] Symbricator,[26]M^3Express,[30] M-Blocks,[32] Kairo-3,[33] ModRED,[37] and Fable II.[40] In Y1 module,[17] alkaline batteries are used as power source.

1.

Tethers: A physical cable connected to robot modules at one end, and a power supply unit at the other end, is another power-source option widely seen in the literature. This greatly reduces the size and weight of robot modules and provides uninterrupted power for long duration but at the cost of hindering mobility and reconfigurability on the system. Tethered power supply is used as the main source of power in Polybot,[7] Microtub,[27] Molecube,[15] Pebbles,[21] THOR,[22] PetRo,[35] ReBis,[36] and Hinged-Tetro.[38] During development stage, most systems rely on a tethered power source for experimentation. This is confirmed in CONRO[9] and Kairo-3[33] systems.

2.

Operating surface: In Fracta modular system,[4] the surface on which the modules operate on is designed as electrical terminal for supplying cordless power to unlimited number of modules. Four ball casters on the modules act as contact points, and the operating plane is divided into alternating Voltage and Ground zones in such a way that continuous power supply to a module is ensured irrespective of its position and orientation of the plane. This powering option is not suitable for tackling real-world tasks.

Powering trends

Table 10 provides a summary of different power-source used in modular robotic systems in the past decade and a half. In the early years, both LiPo and Li-ion batters were used in on-board power source systems, but LiPo batteries have dominated in similar systems since the past 5 years. Several of the newer systems (Pebbles,[21] THOR,[22] PetRo,[35] ReBis,[36] and Hinged-Tetro[38]) have opted for tether as their main power source.

Conclusions

The design trends of modular reconfigurable robots in terms of docking, powering, reconfiguration, communications, locomotion, DoF, size, and control have been analyzed, reaching some common conclusions that are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Regarding reconfiguration, it has been shown that although the trends have usually been to build self-reconfigurable robots, in the last years many manually configurable robots have also appeared. Although self-reconfigurable robots seem to have general purposes, manually configurable robots are usually task specific.

Communications have two clear trends: one is to use intramodule communication protocols because the module complexity is increasing and there is a growing need to interconnect several devices (mainly micro-controllers and dedicated controllers) inside the module. The second one is to use wireless protocols (WiFi, BlueTooth, and even Zigbee) for communication between modules and external controllers. The use of wireless controllers simplifies the docking design and allows free movements (no cable dependency). The drawback is that it is not possible to power the robot through a cable.

Regarding the size feature, it highly depends on the design of the power-source and the actuators used, overlooking the tasks for which the robot is being designed. While external power source can help in reducing the size of modules, the use of LiPo batteries can also derive in autonomous modules of tenths of centimeters large. Brushless motors are being intensively used to provide modules with actuated joints, without compromising the weight and size but with the drawback of the power consumption. The designs presented in the last 15 years tend to be cubic or spherical of 100–150 mm large. However, this feature is utterly established based on the tasks meant for the robotic system which may not follow the previous statement.

In docking, powering and DoF use, there seems to be no clear trends. Docking presents no clear trend in the design, and nowadays there are several technologies used: permanent magnets, magnetic, electromagnetic, mechanical, electromechanical, and so on. It is the same case in powering, where most robots seem to use a tether to power the system, but it is not usually pointed out in the published papers. Modular robots that use batteries use different types: lead acid, NiCd, Lithium, and so on. About the use of DoF, trend in chain-type modules remains stable, using one or at most two DoF at the most. But recent lattice-type modules show higher flexibility with higher degree of connectivity and autonomy.

In terms of locomotion, micro-locomotion for module autonomy is a trend seen in recent chain-type and hybrid-type modular robots. Wheel-based locomotion for both micro- and macro-locomotion is also a new trend in chain- and hybrid-type modular robots. Locomotion through self-reconfiguration in lattice-type systems has remained unchanged, although some recent hybrid-type systems have demonstrated locomotion capability of individual modules on 2D and 3D surfaces, embedded with docking units.

In the early days of modular robotics, controllers tend to be more central and less scalable. In the recent years, the focus has been to develop highly distributed and scalable controllers. Controllers have always been highly dependent on intermodule communication for synchronization and coordination among modules. A recent trend in controllers also reflects on biologically inspired control models.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research leading to these results has received funding from the Robohealth Project supported by the Spanish National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation, DPI2013-47944-C4-2-R.

Note

Author note  Author Avinash Ranganath is now affiliated to Robotics, Perception and Learning lab, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

References

1.  Brunete A, Torres JE, Hernando M, et al. Arquitectura para robots modulares multiconfigurables heterogéneos de tipo cadena. In: Arquitecturas de Control Para Robots, Sección de publicaciones de la Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales (ETSII), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), February 2007, pp. 151–167.

2.  Fukuda T, Kawauchi Y. Cellular robotic system(cebot) as one of the realization of self-organizing intelligent universal manipulator. In: Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1990, pp. 662–667. Crossref.

3.  Hirose S. Biologically inspired robots: snake-like locomotors and manipulators. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993.

4.  Murata S, Kurokawa H, Kokaji S. Self-assembling machine. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, San Diego, CA, 1994, Vol. 1, pp. 441–448. IEEE. Crossref.

5.  Kotay K, Rus D, Vona M, et al. The self-reconfiguring robotic molecule. In: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1998, pp. 424–431. Crossref.

6.  Rus D, Vona M. A physical implementation of the self-reconfiguring crystalline robot. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2000, pp. 1726–1733. Crossref.

7.  Yim M, Duff D, Roufas K. Polybot: a modular reconfigurable robot. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2000, pp. 514–520. Crossref.

8.  Murata S, Yoshida E, Kamimura A, et al. M-tran: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2002; 7(4): 431–441. Crossref. ISI.

9.  Castano A, Shen WM, Will P. CONRO: towards deployable robots with inter-robots metamorphic capabilities. Auton Robot 2000; 8(3): 309–324. Crossref. ISI.

10.  Castano A, Behar A, Will P. The Conro modules for reconfigurable robots. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2002; 7(4): 403–409. Crossref. ISI.

11.  Suh JW, Homans SB, Yim M. Telecubes: mechanical design of a module for self-reconfigurable robotics. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 4095–4101. Crossref.

12.  Jorgensen MW, Ostergaard EH, Lund HH. Modular atron: modules for a self-reconfigurable robot. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Japan, September-October 2004.

13.  Moeckel R, Jaquier C, Drapel K, et al. Yamor and bluemove - an autonomous modular robot with bluetooth interface for exploring adaptive locomotion. In: CLAWAR, 2005, pp. 685–692.

14.  Salemi B, Moll M, Shen WM. Superbot: a deployable, multi-functional, and modular self-reconfigurable robotic system. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2006, pp. 3636–3641. Crossref.

15.  Zykov V, Chan A, Lipson H. Molecubes: an open-source modular robotics kit. In: IROS workshop on self-reconfigurable robots & systems and applications, San Diego, CA, USA, March 2007.

16.  Suzuki Y, Inou N, Kimura H, et al. Reconfigurable group robots adaptively transforming a mechanical structure-crawl motion and adaptive transformation with new algorithms. In:2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2006, pp. 2200–2205. IEEE. Crossref.

17.  Gonzalez-Gomez J. Modular robotics and locomotion: application to limbless robots. PhD Thesis, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 2008.

18.  Sproewitz A, Billard A, Dillenbourg P, et al. Roombots-mechanical design of self-reconfiguring modular robots for adaptive furniture. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, 2009, pp. 4259–4264. IEEE. Crossref.

19.  Ryland GG, Cheng HH. Design of imobot, an intelligent reconfigurable mobile robot with novel locomotion. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, AK, 2010, pp. 60–65. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2010.5509359. Crossref.

20.  Wei H, Cai Y, Li H, et al. Sambot: a self-assembly modular robot for swarm robot. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, AK, 2010, pp. 66–71. IEEE.

21.  Rus D, Gilpin K, Knaian A. Robot pebbles: one centimeter modules for programmable matter through self-disassembly. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Anchorage Convention District, 2010.

22.  Stoy K, Lyder A, Franco R, et al. Genderless connection mechanism for modular robots introducing torque transmission between modules. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation workshop on modular robots: state of the art, 2010, pp. 77–81.

23.  Zhao J, Cui X, Zhu Y, et al. A new self-reconfigurable modular robotic system Ubot: Multi-mode locomotion and self-reconfiguration. In: Robotics and automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, May 2011, pp. 1020–1025.

24.  Zhu Y, Zhao J, Cui X, et al. Design and implementation of Ubot: A modular self-reconfigurable robot. In: Mechatronics and automation (ICMA), 2013 IEEE international conference on, August 2013, pp. 1217–1222.

25.  Meng Y, Zhang Y, Sampath A, et al. Cross-ball: a new morphogenetic self-reconfigurable modular robot. In: Robotics and automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE international conference on, May 2011, pp. 267–272.

26.  Kernbach S, Schlachter F, Humza R, et al. Heterogeneity for increasing performance and reliability of self-reconfigurable multi-robot organisms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.2288 2011.

27.  Brunete A, Torres JE, Hernando M, et al. Heterogeneous multi-configurable chained micro-robot for exploration of small cavities. Autom Constr Magaz 2012; 21: 184–198. Crossref. ISI.

28.  Davey J, Kwok N, Yim M. Emulating self-reconfigurable robots – design of the smores system. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vilamoura, 2012, pp. 4464–4469. Crossref.

29.  Qiao G, Song G, Zhang J, et al. Design of transmote: a modular self-reconfigurable robot with versatile transformation capabilities. In: Robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO), 2012 IEEE international conference on, December 2012, pp. 1331–1336.

30.  Wolfe KC, Moses MS, Kutzer MDM, et al. M^3express: a low-cost independently-mobile reconfigurable modular robot. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Saint Paul, MN, 2012, pp. 2704–2710. Crossref.

31.  Liedke J, Matthias R, Winkler LJ, et al. The collective self-reconfigurable modular organism (CoSMOS). In: Advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM), 2013 IEEE/ASME international conference on, July 2013, pp. 1–6.

32.  Romanishin JW, Gilpin K, Rus D. M-blocks: momentum-driven, magnetic modular robots. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Tokyo, November 2013, pp. 4288–4295.

33.  Pfotzer L, Ruehl S, Heppner G, et al. Kairo 3: a modular reconfigurable robot for search and rescue field missions. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO 2014), Bali, 2014, pp. 205–210. Crossref.

34.  Gucwa KJ, Cheng HH. Robosim: a simulated environment for programming modular robots. In: Mechatronic and embedded systems and applications (MESA), 2014 IEEE/ASME 10th international conference on, September 2014, pp. 1–7.

35.  Salem B. Petro: development of a modular pet robot. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, Edinburgh, 2014, pp. 483–488. Crossref.

36.  Thakker R, Kamat A, Bharambe S, et al. Rebis – reconfigurable bipedal snake robot. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Chicago, IL, 2014, pp. 309–314. Crossref.

37.  Baca J, Hossain SGM, Dasgupta P, et al. Modred: hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration. Robot Auton Syst 2014; 62(7): 1002–1015. Crossref. ISI.

38.  Kee V, Rojas N, Elara MR, et al. Hinged-tetro: a self-reconfigurable module for nested reconfiguration. In: 2014 IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics, Besacon, 2014, pp. 1539–1546. Crossref.

39.  Jia X, Frenger M, Chen Z, et al. An alligator inspired modular robot. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, 2015, pp. 1949–1954. Crossref.

40.  Pacheco M, Fogh R, Lund HH, et al. Fable ii: design of a modular robot for creative learning. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, 2015, pp. 6134–6139. Crossref.

41.  Yim M, Shen WM, Salemi B, et al. Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot Autom Magaz 2007; 14(1): 43–52. Crossref. ISI.

42.  Gilpin K, Rus D. Modular robot systems. IEEE Robot Autom Magaz 2010; 17(3): 38–55. Crossref. ISI.

43.  Stoy K, Christensen DJ, Brandt D. Self-reconfigurable robots: an introduction. London, UK: MIT Press, 2010.

44.  Murata S, Kurokawa H. Self-organizing robots, Volume 77 of Springer tracts in advanced robotics. NewYork, USA: Springer, 2012. Crossref.

45.  Stoy K, Brandt D, Christensen DJ, et al. Self-reconfigurable robots: an introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2010.

46.  Yim M, Duff D, Roufas K. Evolution of polybot: a modular reconfigurable robot. In: 2001 COE/Super-mechano-systems workshop, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.

47.  Kurokawa H, Kamimura A, Yoshida E, et al. M-tran ii: metamorphosis from a four-legged walker to a caterpillar. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vol. 3, 2003, pp. 2454–2459.

48.  Kurokawa H, Tomita K, Kamimura A, et al. Distributed self-reconfiguration control of modular robot m-tran. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation, Vol. 1, July 2005, pp. 254–259.

49.  Shokri A, Masehian E. A meta-module approach for cluster flow locomotion of modular robots. In: 2015 3rd RSI international conference on robotics and mechatronics (ICROM), Tehran, 2015, pp. 425–431. doi: 10.1109/ICRoM.2015.7367822. Crossref.

50.  Bonardi S, Moeckel R, Sproewitz A, et al. Locomotion through reconfiguration based on motor primitives for roombots self-reconfigurable modular robots. In: ROBOTIK 2012; 7th german conference on robotics, Munich, Germany, 2012, pp. 1–6.

51.  Abrams A, Ghrist R. State complexes for metamorphic robots. Int J Robot Res 1990; 23: 2004.

52.  Chirikjian GS. Kinematics of a metamorphic robotic system. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 1994, pp. 449–455. Crossref.

53.  Zykov V, Mytilinaios E, Adams B, et al. Self-reproducing machines. Nature 2005; 435: 163–164. Crossref. PubMed. ISI.

54.  Brunete A, Hernando M, Gambao E. Modular multiconfigurable architecture for low diameter pipe inspection microrobots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Barcelona, Spain, April 2005.

55.  Yamada H, Hirose S. Study of a 2-dof joint for the small active cord mechanism. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, 2009, pp. 3827–3832. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152837. Crossref.

56.  Suzuki K, Nakano A, Endo G, et al. Development of multi-wheeled snake-like rescue robots with active elastic trunk. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vilamoura, 2012, pp. 4602–4607. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2012.6385757. Crossref.

57.  Yamada H, Chigisaki S, Mori M, et al. Development of amphibious snake-like robot acm-r5. In : Proc. of 36th Int. symposium on robotics TH3C4, 2005.

58.  Conradt J, Varshavskaya P. Distributed central pattern generator control for a serpentine robot. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on artificial neural networks (ICANN), Istanbul, Turkey, 2003, pp. 338–341.

59.  Yang B, Han L, Li G, et al. A modular amphibious snake-like robot: design, modeling and simulation. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics (ROBIO), December 2015, pp. 1924–1929.

60.  Vespignani M, Melo K, Bonardi S, et al. Role of compliance on the locomotion of a reconfigurable modular snake robot. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), Hamburg, 2015, pp. 2238–2245. Crossref.

61.  Nilsson M. Why snake robots need torsion-free joints and how to design them. In: roceedings. 1998 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (Cat. No.98CH36146), Leuven, 1998, Vol. 1, pp. 412–417. Crossref.

62.  Rus D, Butler Z, Kotay K, et al. Self-reconfiguring robots. Commun ACM 2002; 45(3): 39–45. Crossref. ISI.

63.  Spröwitz A, Moeckel R, Vespignani M, et al. Roombots: a hardware perspective on 3d self-reconfiguration and locomotion with a homogeneous modular robot. Robot Auton Syst 2014; 62(7): 1016–1033. Crossref. ISI.

64.  Kurokawa H, Kamimura A, Yoshida E, et al. M-tran ii: metamorphosis from a four-legged walker to a caterpillar. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453), 2003, Vol. 3, pp. 2454–2459. IEEE. Crossref.

65.  Gilpin K, Knaian A, Rus D. Robot pebbles: one centimeter modules for programmable matter through self-disassembly. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, AK, 2010, pp. 2485–2492. IEEE. Crossref.

66.  Karagozler ME, Campbell JD, Fedder GK, et al. Electrostatic latching for inter-module adhesion, power transfer, and communication in modular robots. In: 2007 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, San Diego, CA, 2007, pp. 2779–2786. IEEE. Crossref.

67.  Yim M, Zhang Y, Duff D. Modular robots. Spect IEEE 2002; 39(2): 30–34. Crossref. ISI.

68.  Castano A, Will P. Mechanical design of a module for reconfigurable robots. In: Proceedings. 2000 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2000) (Cat. No.00CH37113), Takamatsu, 2000, Vol. 3, pp. 2203–2209. IEEE. Crossref.

69.  Khoshnevis B, Kovac R, Shen WM, et al. Reconnectable joints for self-reconfigurable robots. In: Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. expanding the societal role of robotics in the the next millennium (Cat. No.01CH37180), Maui, HI, 2001, Vol. 1, pp. 584–589. IEEE. Crossref.

70.  Sproewitz A, Asadpour M, Bourquin Y, et al. An active connection mechanism for modular self-reconfigurable robotic systems based on physical latching. In: 2008 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Pasadena, CA, 2008, pp. 3508–3513. IEEE. Crossref.

71.  Jorgensen MW, Ostergaard EH, Lund HH. Modular atron: modules for a self-reconfigurable robot. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37566), 2004, Vol. 2, pp. 2068–2073. Crossref.

72.  Liedke J, Wörn H. CoBoLD - A bonding mechanism for modular self-reconfigurable mobile robots. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics, Karon Beach, Phuket, 2011, pp. 2025–2030. Crossref.

73.  Kernbach S, Meister E, Schlachter F, et al. Symbiotic robot organisms: replicator and symbrion projects. In: Proceedings of the 8th workshop on performance metrics for intelligent systems, 2008, pp. 62–69. ACM. Crossref.

74.  Shen WM, Kovac R, Rubenstein M. Singo: a single-end-operative and genderless connector for self-reconfiguration, self-assembly and self-healing. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Kobe, 2009, pp. 4253–4258. IEEE. Crossref.

75.  Fu G, Menciassi A, Dario P. Development of a genderless and fail-safe connection system for autonomous modular robots. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics, Karon Beach, Phuket, 2011, pp. 877–882. doi: 10.1109/ROBIO.2011.6181398. Crossref.

76.  Murata S, Yoshida E, Kamimura A, et al. M-tran: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2002; 7(4): 431–441. Crossref. ISI.

77.  White PJ, Yim M. Scalable modular self-reconfigurable robots using external actuation. In: 2007 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, San Diego, CA, 2007, pp. 2773–2778. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2007.4399606. Crossref.

78.  Wolfe KC, Moses MS, Kutzer MDM, et al. M^3express: a low-cost independently-mobile reconfigurable modular robot. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Saint Paul, MN, 2012, pp. 2704–2710. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2012.6224971. Crossref.

79.  Davey J, Kwok N, Yim M. Emulating self-reconfigurable robots-design of the smores system. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vilamoura, 2012, pp. 4464–4469. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2012.6385845. Crossref.

80.  Neubert J, Rost A, Lipson H. Self-soldering connectors for modular robots. IEEE Trans Robot 2014; 30(6): 1344–1357. Crossref. ISI.

81.  Parrott C, Dodd TJ, Gross R. Higen: a high-speed genderless mechanical connection mechanism with single-sided disconnect for self-reconfigurable modular robots. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Chicago, IL, 2014, pp. 3926–3932. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2014.6943114. Crossref.

82.  Winhler L, Liedke J, Matthias R, et al. The collective self-reconfigurable modular organism (cosmo). In: International conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics, 2013.

83.  Kernbach S, Liedke J, Matthias R, et al. Heterogeneity of autonomous robotic modules for the reliability of a self-reconfigurable multi-robot organisms. In: IROS 2011 workshop on reconfigurable modular robotics: challenges of mechatronic and bio-chemo-hybrid systems, 2011.

84.  Brunete A. Design and control of intelligent heterogeneous multi-configurable chained microrobotic modular systems. PhD Thesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, 2010.

85.  Aracil R, Baca J, Ferre M. A heterogeneous modular robotic design for fast response to a diversity of tasks. Robot Auton Syst 2012; (60): 522–531.

86.  Wei H, Chen Y, Tan J, et al. Sambot: a self-assembly modular robot system. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2011; 16: 745–757. Crossref. ISI.

87.  Støy K, Shen WM, Will PM. A simple approach to the control of locomotion in self-reconfigurable robots. Robot Auton Syst 2003; 44(3–4): 191–199. Crossref. ISI.

88.  Ranganath A, Gonzalez-Gomez J, Lorente LM. Morphology dependent distributed controller for locomotion in modular robots. In: Post-graduate conference on robotics and development of cognition, 2012, p. 44. Citeseer.

89.  Wang W, Wang K, Zhang H. Crawling gait realization of the mini-modular climbing caterpillar robot. Prog Natural Sci 2009; 19(12): 1821–1829. Crossref. ISI.

90.  Russo S, Harada K, Ranzani T, et al. Design of a robotic module for autonomous exploration and multimode locomotion. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2012; PP(99): 1–10.

91.  Stoy K, Shen WM, Will PM. Using role-based control to produce locomotion in chain-type self-reconfigurable robots. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech 2002; 7(4): 410–417. Crossref. ISI.

92.  Pouya S, van den Kieboom J, Spröwitz A, et al. Automatic gait generation in modular robots: “to oscillate or to rotate; that is the question”. In: IROS, 2010, pp. 514–520. Crossref.

93.  Shen WM, Krivokon M, Chiu H, et al. Multimode locomotion for reconfigurable robots. Auton Robot 2006; 20(2): 165–177. Crossref. ISI.

94.  Chiu H, Rubenstein M, Shen WM. Multifunctional superbot with rolling track configuration. In: IROS 2007 workshop on self-reconfigurable robots, systems and applications, San Diego, CA, November 2007.

95.  Kernbach S, Scholz O, Harada K, et al. Multi-robot organisms: state of the art. arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.5543 2011.

96.  Meng Y, Jin Y. Morphogenetic self-reconfiguration of modular robots. In: Meng Y, Jin Y (eds) Bio-inspired self-organizing robotic systems, volume 355 of studies in computational intelligence. Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 143–171. Crossref.

97.  Shen WM, Lu Y, Will P.Hormone-based control for self-reconfigurable robots. In: Proceedings of the 2000 international conference on autonomous agents, Barcelona, Spain, 2000. Crossref.

98.  Shen WM, Salemi B, Will P. Hormone-inspired adaptive communication and distributed control for CONRO self-reconfigurable robots. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 2002; 18(5): 700–712. Crossref.

99.  Gonzalez-Gomez J, Boemo EI.Motion of minimal configurations of a modular robot: sinusoidal, lateral rolling and lateral shift. In: CLAWAR, 2005, pp. 667–674.

100.  Zhang H, Gonzalez-Gomez J, Zhang J. A new application of modular robots on analysis of caterpillar-like locomotion. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE international conference on mechatronics, April 2009, pp. 1–6.

101.  Ijspeert AJ.Central pattern generators for locomotion control in animals and robots: a review. Neural Netw 2008; 21(4): 642–653. Crossref. PubMed. ISI.

102.  Spröwitz A, Moeckel R, Maye J, et al. Learning to move in modular robots using central pattern generators and online optimization. I J Robot Res 2008; 27(3–4): 423–443. Crossref. ISI.

103.  Spröwitz A. Roombots: design and implementation of a modular robot for reconfiguration and locomotion. PhD Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2010.

104.  Brunete A, Hernando M, Gambao E, et al. A behaviour-based control architecture for heterogeneous modular, multi-configurable, chained micro-robots. Robot Auton Syst 2012; 60(12): 1607–1624. Crossref. ISI.

105.  Meng Y, Zhang Y, Jin Y. A morphogenetic approach to self- reconfigurable modular robots using a hybrid hierarchical gene regulatory network. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems (ALIFE XII), 2010.

106.  Murata S, Kakomura K, Kurokawa H. Toward a scalable modular robotic system – navigation, docking, and integration of m-tran. IEEE Robot Autom Magaz 2008; 14–4: 56–63.

107.  Kutzer MDM, Moses MS, Brown CY, et al. Design of a new independently-mobile reconfigurable modular robot. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2010. Crossref.

Sections

1. Abstract

2. Introduction

3. Reconfiguration

1. Self-reconfigurable

2. Manually configurable

3. Reconfiguration trends

4. Docking

1. Magnetic

2. Electromagnetic

3. Electrostatic

4. Electromechanical

5. Docking trends

5. Degrees of freedom

1. Chain-type modules

2. Lattice-type modules

3. DoF trends

6. Locomotion

1. Limbless locomotion

2. Walking locomotion

3. Rolling/Wheel-based locomotion

4. Self-reconfiguration-based locomotion

5. Locomotion trends

7. Control

1. Locomotion controllers

2. Self-reconfiguration controllers

3. Control trends

8. Communications

1. Intramodule communications

2. Intermodule communications

3. Control and programming communications

4. Communication trends

9. Size

1. Size trends

10. Powering

1. Powering trends

11. Conclusions

12. Declaration of conflicting interests

13. Funding

14. Note

15. References

Guide

1. List of Sections

2. List of Illustrations

3. Frontmatter

4. Abstract

5. Keywords

6. Bodymatter

7. Backmatter

8. Note

9. References

List of Illustrations

1. Figure 1

Figure 1. 2D quadruped configuration with four Limb modules and two Spine modules.

Table 1. Reconfiguration summary.

Robot

Year

Self reconfig.

Manually reconfig.

Polybot [7]

2000

X

Crystalline [6]

2000

X

CONRO [10]

2002

X

M-TRAN [8]

2002

X

Telecube [11]

2002

X

ATRON [12]

2004

X

Microtub [54]

2005

X

Superbot [14]

2006

X

CHOBIE [16]

2007

X

Molecube [15]

2007

X

iMOBOT [19]

2010

X

Ubot [23]

2011

X

Crossball [25]

2011

X

SMORES [28]

2012

X

Transmote [29]

2012

X

M^3Express [30]

2012

X

CoSMO [31]

2013

X

M-Blocks [32]

2013

X

Mobot, Linkbot [34]

2014

X

Kairo 3 [33]

2014

X

Hinged-Tetro [38]

2014

X

PetRo [35]

2014

X

Fable II [40]

2015

X

Alligator [39]

2015

X

Table 2. Properties of an ideal connector.

Properties

Ideal value

Size

As small as possible

Mechanical strength

High strength

Information transmission capability

Ability to transmit

Power-transmission capability

Ability to transmit

Reversibility and repeatability

Should be reversible and repeatable

Speed of connection/disconnection

As fast as possible in both procedures

Tolerance to misalignment

Should be high

Power consumption

As little as possible to no power consumption

Gender and orientation

Should be genderless and orientation-invariant

Unilateral actuation

Should be unilaterally actuatable

Table 3. Features of connectors in self-reconfiguring modular robots.

Name

Year

Type

Actuation

Genderless

Transmits power

Transmits signal

Size (mm)

XBot [75]

2007

Perm.Mag

SMA

Yes

No

No

–

MTRAN-III [4]

2008

Hooks

DC motor

No

Yes

No

65 × 65 × 130

Roombots [76]

2010

Hooks

DC motor

Yes

No

Yes

220 × 110 × 110

ModRED [77]

2010

Latch

Solenoid

Yes

No

No

368 × 114 × 1190

Pebbles [21]

2010

Electro.Perm.Mag

Current pulse

Yes

No

No

12 × 12 × 12

THOR [22]

2010

Perm.Mag

–

Yes

Yes

Yes

D:70 × 5

GENFA [75]

2011

Electro.Perm.Mag

DC motor

Yes

Yes

Yes

50 × 40 × 15

M^3Express [78]

2012

Perm.Mag

DC motor

Yes

No

No

–

SMORES [79]

2012

Perm.Mag

DC motor

Yes

No

No

100 × 100 × 90

CoSMO [72]

2013

Key-Lock

DC motor

Yes

Yes

Yes

105 × 105 × 105

M-Blocks [32]

2013

Perm.Mag

–

Yes

No

No

–

Soldercubes [80]

2014

Binder mat

Heat

Yes

Yes

Yes

55 × 55 × 55

HiGen [81]

2014

Hooks—Perm.Mag

DC motor

Yes

Yes

Yes

–

Table 4. DoF of chain-type modules.

Name

Year

DoF

Module-type

Microtub [27]

2010

1–3

Homogeneous

Symbrion [83]

2011

1–3

Heterogeneous

Ubot [23]

2011

2

Homogeneous

ReBis [36]

2014

1

Homogeneous

KAIRO-3 [33]

2014

3

Heterogeneous

DOF: degree of freedom.

Table 5. DoF of lattice-type modules.

Name

Year

DoF

Module type

THOR [22]

2010

1

Heterogeneous

Cross-ball [25]

2010

2

Homogeneous

M^3

2010

3

Homogeneous

iMobot [19]

2010

4

Homogeneous

Robot Pebbles [21]

2010

0

Homogeneous

SMART [85]

2011

0–3

Heterogeneous

Sambot [86]

2011

4

Homogeneous

Ubot [23]

2011

2

Homogeneous

M^3Express [30]

2012

3

Homogeneous

SMORES [28]

2012

4

Homogeneous

CoSMOS [82]

2013

1

Homogeneous

DOF: degree of freedom.

Table 6. A comparison between gaits based on locomotion dimension and micro-locomotion (M-L) capability.

Gait

Year(s)

Dimension

M-L

Rolling-track 87,93,94

1994–2007

1D/2D

No

Caterpillar 47,87,88,17,27

1994–2012

1D

Yes

Self-reconfiguration (normal) [96]

1998–2015

2D

No

Hexapod [91]

2002

2D

No

3D Quadruped 91,92

2002–2010

2D

No

H-Walker 64,93

2003–2006

2D

No

Lateral-shift 87,27,17

2003–2012

2D

Yes

Inchworm 27,89,90

2009–2012

1D/2D

No

Differential drive 95,28

2011–2012

2D

Yes

Helicoidal [27]

2012

1D

Yes

2D Quadruped [88]

2012

2D

No

Self-reconfiguration (grid) [50]

2012

3D

Yes

Table 7. A comparison between controllers based on type, similarity, and scalability.

Controller

Year

Type

Similarity

Scalable

Gait table [7]

2000

CC

Homo

No

DHM [97]

2000

DC

Homo

Yes

Role based [91]

2002

DC

Homo

Yes

Sinusoidal [99]

2005

DC

Hetero

Yes

CPG [102]

2008

DC

Hetero

No

Morphogenesis inspired [96]

2011

DC

Homo

Yes

Heterogeneous layered [104]

2012

CC/DC

Hetero

Yes

Morphology dependent [88]

2012

DC

Homo

Yes

Motor primitives based [50]

2012

–

–

–

Table 8. A summary of intramodule (Intra-Mod) and intermodule (Inter-Mod) communications systems used in modular robotics.

Robot

Year

Intra-Mod

Inter-Mod

Protocol

ACM [3]

1978

–

M2 M

Polybot [7]

2000

–

CAN, IR (v2, v3)

RS232 (v1)

Crystalline [6]

2000

IR

Serial

CONRO [10]

2002

–

IR

Serial

M-TRAN [8]

2002

–

Lon (v2), CAN (v3), Bluetooth (v3)

UART (V1), Lon (v2), CAN (v3), Bluetooth (v3)

Telecube [11]

2002

–

IR, M2M

ATRON [12]

2004

I^2C , RS-485

IR

RS-485

Microtub [54]

2005

–

I^2C , M2M

USB

Superbot [14]

2006

I^2C

SPI, IR

SPI

CHOBIE [16]

2007

–

IR, M2M

Molecube [15]

2007

RS232

1-wire

USB, wireless, bluetooth

iMOBOT [19]

2010

–

IR

Ubot [23]

2011

SPI

Serial

Wireless

SMORES [28]

2012

–

Wireless (x-bee)

Wireless (x-bee)

Transmote [29]

2012

–

Zigbee

Zigbee

M^3Express [30]

2012

Bluetooth ready

Bluetooth

CoSMO [31]

2013

I^2C

Ethernet

Ethernet

M-Blocks [32]

2013

I^2C

IR, Serial

Serial

Mobot, Linkbot [34]

2014

–

Zigbee

Zigbee

Kairo 3 [33]

2014

–

CAN, M2M

Wireless, Ethernet

Hinged-Tetro [38]

2014

–

UART

UART

PetRo [35]

2014

–

IR

TBD

Fable II [40]

2015

–

2.4 GHz wireless

2.4 GHz wireless

Table 9. Size of recently presented module designs.

Name

Year

Size (mm)

Architecture

iMobot [19]

2010

67 × 67 × 162

Lattice oriented

THOR [22]

2010

Φ 72 × 36

Lattice oriented

Microtub [84]

2010

Φ 27 × 25

Chain oriented

Robot Pebbles [42]

2010

12 × 12 × 12

Lattice oriented

M_3 [107]

2010

63.5 × 63.5 × 127

Lattice oriented

Roombots 50,103

2010

110 × 110 × 220

Lattice oriented

Sambot [86]

2011

80 × 80 × 102

Lattice oriented

Ubot [23]

2011

80 × 80 × 80

Lattice oriented

M^3Express [30]

2012

63.5 × 63.5 × 127

Lattice oriented

CoSMOS [31]

2013

105 × 105 × 105

Lattice oriented

Table 10. A summary of power source used in modular robots.

System

Year

Type

Power source

Fracta [4]

1994

Operating surface

–

Crystalline [6]

2000

On-board

Four 3 V Lithium

Polybot [7]

2000

Tether

6V

M-TRAN [8]

2002

On-board

Li-ion

CONRO [9]

2002

On-board

6 V and 3 V 160 mAh Lipo

Atron [12]

2004

On-board

Two 3.6 V 980 mAh Li-ion

YaMoR [13]

2005

On-board

Li-ion

Microtub [27]

2005

Tether

–

Superbot [14]

2006

On-board

7.4 V 1600 mAh LiPo

Molecube [15]

2007

Tether

12-24 V DC

Chobie [16]

2007

On-board

Two Li-ion

Y1 [17]

2007

On-board

Four alkaline

Roombots [18]

2009

On-board 4-cell

910 mAh LiPo

Sambot [26]

2010

On-board

–

Pebbles [21]

2010

Tether

Capacitor

THOR [22]

2010

Tether

12V

Ubot [23]

2011

On-board

–

Symbricator [26]

2011

On-board

22.2 V 1400 mAh LiPo

SMORES [28]

2012

On-board

–

Transmote [29]

2012

On-board

–

M^3Express [30]

2012

On-board

7.4 V 1500 mAh LiPo

CoSMO [31]

2013

On-board

22.2 V 1400 mAh

M-Blocks [32]

2013

On-board

Three 3.7 V 125 mAh LiPo

Kairo-3 [33]

2014

On-board

Two 4000 mAh LiPo

PetRo [35]

2014

Tether

–

ReBis [36]

2014

Tether

12v 2000 mAh DC

ModRED [37]

2014

On-board

3.7 V LiPo

Hinged-Tetro [38]

2014

Tether

5 V USB cable

Fable II [40]

2015

On-board

11.1 V 1000 mAh LiPo

LiPO: Lithium-polymer (LiPo); Li-ion:lithium-ion.

Table of Contents

Abstract

Introduction

Reconfiguration

Self-reconfigurable

Manually configurable

Reconfiguration trends

Docking

Magnetic

Electromagnetic

Electrostatic

Electromechanical

Docking trends

Degrees of freedom

Chain-type modules

Lattice-type modules

DoF trends

Locomotion

Limbless locomotion

Walking locomotion

Rolling/Wheel-based locomotion

Self-reconfiguration-based locomotion

Locomotion trends

Control

Locomotion controllers

Self-reconfiguration controllers

Control trends

Communications

Intramodule communications

Intermodule communications

Control and programming communications

Communication trends

Size

Size trends

Powering

Powering trends

Conclusions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Note

References