SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.

242–249, July 2015

Special Issue on The 19th Robotics Symposia

Study on Geotechnical Tests with a Lunar Subsurface Explorer Robot

Using a Peristaltic Crawling Mechanism

Asuka MIZUSHINA ∗ , Hayato OMORI ∗ , Hiroyuki KITAMOTO ∗ ,

Taro NAKAMURA ∗∗ , Hisashi OSUMI ∗∗ , and Takashi KUBOTA ∗∗∗
Abstract : Recently, planetary investigations have accumulated basic data through various aerospace explorations. How-
ever, the investigations of underground such as moonquakes, heat, and conditions of the soil have not revealed much.
Therefore, the authors have developed a novel, small planetary subsurface excavation robot that uses the peristaltic
crawling of an earthworm as its underground propulsion method. In this study, the authors focused on two types of
geotechnical tests: pressure meter and shearing tests using the excavation robot. These tests were conducted by measur-
ing displacement and force in the radial and vertical directions inside the soil, using the excavation robot’s own hardware
system. This paper describes these geotechnical tests, which used the propulsion unit of the robot and measured the soil
parameters, e.g., internal friction angle, adhesibility, and elastic constant. From the experiments, the authors evaluated
and discussed results by comparing with reference data. The authors confirmed that the propulsion unit could measure
the soil parameters and propel itself underground at the same time.

Key Words : excavation robot, peristaltic crawling, geotechnical test, pressure meter test, shearing test

1. Introduction and is equipped with a hammering system, has successfully

Recently, various planetary explorations have been con-
ducted with the aim of elucidating the planet’s history and dis-
covering new resources. However, subsurface investigations of
the Moon and planets to discover phenomena such as moon-
quakes, heat distribution, and underground conditions have re-
ceived little attention. Subsurface investigation that is the set-
ting of a seismometer and the sampling of lunar soil, could not
only explain the origins of the planet but also aid in the devel-
opment of planetary workstations [1]. Currently, elucidation of
the lunar crustal structure becomes a priority for future lunar
explorations. Hence, robots that can undertake these missions
are essential.
Soil excavation on Earth is typically performed by boring
machines [2]. However, these machines tend to be large, be-
cause the length of the drill is the same length as the target exca-
vation depth, and this requires a large and heavy base to restrain
the excavating reaction force. Therefore, a small, lightweight
excavation robot is ideal for planetary investigations.
Small, unmanned subsurface excavation robots have been de-
veloped, e.g., PLUTO [3], percussive heat flow probe [4], mole-
type drilling robot [5], autonomous burrowing screw robot [6],
and a robot that uses a self-turning screw mechanism [7].
PLUTO, which is equipped with a spring-loaded hammer and
a sampling device on its top, can excavate to a depth of about
2000 mm but it contains insufficient space for a seismometer.
Percussive heat flow probe, which has a diameter of 25 mm
∗
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University, 1-13-27
Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
∗∗
Chuo University, 1-13-27 Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
∗∗∗
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), Sagamihara,
Japan
E-mail: a mizushina@bio.mech.chuo-u.ac.jp
(Received June 18, 2014)
(Revised February 18, 2015)
excavated to a depth of about 900 mm. However, it was re-
ported that the probe had difficulties controlling the drill-hole
diameter. Mole type drilling robot and autonomous burrow-
ing screw robot are sensitive to earth pressure and shift while
contacting the surrounding soil. In addition, their excavation
depth is rather limited, because of disadvantages in discharging
soil. The robot that uses a self-turning screw mechanism has
difficulty sampling lunar soil and consumes large amounts of
power.
To resolve these problems, we adopted the peristaltic crawl-
ing of the earthworm as a robotic locomotion mechanism. This
locomotion enabled a robot to move stably and sustain its posi-
tion against excavation reaction forces. We applied this mech-
anism to a planetary subsurface excavation robot. It consisted
of two units: a propulsion unit, which made it possible to move
vertically inside a hole by peristaltic crawling, and an excava-
tion unit, which made a hole in front of itself using an earth
auger. Previously, we had demonstrated the potential of the
robot as an excavation robot [8].
In this paper, we propose geotechnical testing using an exca-
vation robot with peristaltic crawling in order to execute exca-
vation that considers the underground environment. This robot
pushes the wall of the hole by the propulsion unit and supports
its body. Therefore, we think the maximum coefficient of fric-
tion that is calculated from the test can derive the appropriate
pushing force.
Geotechnical tests in the ground are commonly conducted by
large testing machines [9]. However, many such machines can-
not excavate a hole. We therefore suggest our robot as a testing
machine that can excavate a hole and also survey underground.
The divergence of the propulsion actuators enables the robot to
measure the approximate soil parameters. First, we conducted
a fundamental experiment with one of three subunits that com-

JCMSI 0004/15/0804–0242 
c 2014 SICE
 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015 243

prised the propulsion unit. Next we demonstrated geotechnical

tests with the propulsion unit and three subunits in order to eval-
uate the robot as a geotechnical testing machine. In the experi-
ment, two tests, a pressure meter test and a shearing test, which
are known as common geotechnical tests, were conducted with
the subunit. We examined the possibility of geotechnical test-
ing by the proposed method, using our robot.

2. Peristaltic Crawling
The earthworm moves by peristaltic crawling [10],[11],
which is accomplished by extension and contraction of nu- Fig. 3 Excavation unit.
merous body segments, as shown in Fig. 1. At the start of
peristalsis, the anterior segments are contracted and extended,
propagating the contraction to the next segment. The contrac-
tion/extension mechanism progresses as a wave from front to
back segments. The friction between the segments and the
ground is sensed by the surrounding bristles of the contracting
segments, providing a reaction force that propels the extended
segments forward.
The advantages of peristaltic crawling are threefold: it re-
quires less space than other locomotion methods, the large soil
contact area ensures stable movement, and the excavated soil
can be backward-discharged by ingestion. All of these features
are incorporated into our planetary subsurface excavation robot.

Fig. 4 Developed excavation robot.

Table 1 Specifications of the excavation robot.

ber (i.e., three) is employed for the purpose of reducing size

Fig. 1 Pattern of earthworm locomotion with peristaltic crawling.
3. Concept of the Excavation Robot
3.1 Composition of the Excavation Robot
Our excavation robot consists of two units: the propulsion
and excavation unit. Figures 2 and 3 show the propulsion and
excavation unit, respectively. Figure 4 shows the developed ex-
cavation robot, and Table 1 lists its specifications. The propul-
sion unit is simulated peristaltic crawling by actuating the ex-
pansion and contraction of three subunits. Although peristaltic
crawling requires more than three subunits, the minimum num-
Fig. 2 Propulsion unit.
and weight. The excavation unit excavates, conveys, and dis-
charges the soil by means of an earth auger. Because the head
of the earth auger makes space for the propulsion and transport
part fitte inside the robot, the drilling diameter tapers from front
to rear.
3.2 Procedure of the Excavation with Excavation Robot
Figure 5 shows the excavation procedure used by our robot.
First, in the phase (a) there is an initial state, in which all sub-
units contract. Next, in the phase (b) the forehead subunit ex-
tends in the downward direction. The earth auger rotates during
the phases (a) and (b). In these phases, the robot moves down-
ward while excavating the soil in front of it. The middle and
rear subunits maintain their position against the maximum ex-
cavation reaction forces. In any case, the extending subunit is
not influenced by the friction between the subunit and the wall
of the hole, because it does not contact the surroundings. Then
the robot ejects the excavated soil by the earth auger conveying
it rearward of the robot during the phases (b) through (d). The
propulsion unit propagates a wave of extension from front to
rear subunits. Finally, the robot can return to the initial state
by the rear subunit contracting between the phases (d) and (a).
This process repeats, so that the robot can excavate a hole.
 244 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015
Fig. 5 Motion of the excavation robot.
4. Estimate the Pushing Force of the Propulsion Sub-
unit
4.1 Mechanism of the Propulsion Subunit
The propulsion subunit consists of a DC motor, two ball
screws, expansion plates, and a dual-pantograph mechanism,
as shown in Fig. 6. Table 2 shows its specifications. The mech-
anism converts the contraction force W of the subunit into the
pushing force F, on the surface of wall. Equation (1) relates
the contraction force W to the pushing force F, and θ is the arm
angle of the dual-pantograph mechanism:
W
F= . (1)
tan θ
This equation is used to estimate the pushing force that is
used for geotechnical testing.
Fig. 6 Dual-pantograph mechanism.
Table 2 Specifications of the excavation robot.
4.2 Estimate of the Pushing Force of a Subunit
We need to investigate the pushing force against a wall,
which is generated by a propulsion unit in order to conduct a
geotechnical test. In this section, we carry out a study on the
method for estimating the pushing force. The force is estimated
by using a DC motor and an encoder mounted on the propul-
sion subunit, without any pressure or force sensors. Reduc-
ing the number of mounted devices makes the robot lighter and
the measurement simpler. First, we explain the relationship be-
tween the motor current I, the contraction force W, and pushing
force F. The thrust force Fa is given as (2), when torque T is
supplied to the subunit:
2πηT
Fa = . (2)
l
T: Motor torque
η: Efficiency of a ball screw
l: Lead of a ball screw
The contraction force W is simply the force in the opposite di-
rection to the thrust force due to the ball screw mechanisms.
The contraction force W is proportional to the current I from
(2), since the torque increases proportionally with the current.
We therefore conducted measurement experiments of the con-
traction force with a view to finding out the actual relationship
between the contraction force W and the current I. Figure 7 (a)
shows the setup of the contraction test. First, the contraction
force W per constant current values is measured thrice. Next,
the force-current relationship is derived by approximating the
average by means of the least-square method. Figure 8 shows
the results of the experiment. We confirmed that the contraction
force W increased relative to the current I.
Then we used the relationship to estimate the pushing force
of the propulsion subunit against surface wall. Figure 7 (b)
shows the setup of the expansion test. The model equation of
the contraction force W can be expressed as (3) from (2):
W = a 1 I + b1 . (3)
The variables a1 and b1 are the parameters of the unit proper-
ties obtained by measuring the contraction force. We calculated
a1 = 1.1242 and b1 = −141.69 from the graph in Fig. 8. Using
(1) and (3), the pushing force F is expressed as (4). Losses in
the mechanism of the unit occur when the contraction force W
is converted to the pushing force F:
a 2 I + b2
F= . (4)
tan θ
The variables a2 and b2 , which are values in consideration of
the losses, are the parameters of the unit properties obtained
by measuring the pushing force. Therefore, we calculated
a2 = 0.9842, and b2 = −141.69. Figure 9 shows a graph that
compares the calculated and measured values. The calculated
values are developed from the relational expression of the con-
traction force and the model equation of the dual-pantograph
mechanism. We can estimate the pushing force using a propul-
sion subunit, because we show almost the same tendencies from
a relational expression.
5. Method of Geotechnical Measurement
5.1 Method of the Pressure Meter Test in Borehole
In this section, we describe the application method of the
pressure meter test on the robot. The pressure meter test is one
of the more common geotechnical tests. In this test, the testing
machine that expands in the radial direction is set inside a bore-
hole. Then, the elastic constant is measured by determining the
stress–displacement diagram, which is obtained by measuring
the reaction force against the wall surface and the expansion
displacement when the machine expands [12]. Figure 10 shows
the method of the pressure meter test with the excavation robot.
 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015
Fig. 7 View of the contraction and the expansion test.
Fig. 8 Result of the contraction test.
Fig. 9 The calculated data and measured values of pushing forces.
The properties of the surrounding soil can be measured by ex-
tending subunit 1 while subunit 3 expands and holds the posi-
tion of the robot. First, the displacement in the radial direction
is measured by the encoder of subunit 1 as it expands. Then,
the elastic constant can be investigated by measuring the force
exerted on the wall surface by using the relationship between
the current value of the motor and the encoder.
Fig. 10 Pressure meter test (Measurement of the pushing force and dis-
placement of subunit 1).
245
5.2 Method of the Shearing Test in a Borehole
In the shearing test, the wall surface of the soil is sheared by
vertically lifting an expanded testing machine. We then mea-
sure the shearing force and calculated the strength parameter:
the internal friction angle φ and the adhesibility c from the
Coulomb failure criterion formula. Figure 11 shows the method
of the shearing test with the excavation robot. In this test, sub-
unit 1 is lifted by contraction of subunit 2 after the pressure
meter test described in the previous section. We then measure
the shearing force by investigating the motor load of subunit
2 from its current value and confirm the strength parameter of
the soil. A shearing subunit is determined from the difference
of the pushing forces between subunits, when the friction co-
efficient of the soil wall surface along the total length of the
propulsion unit is to be considered as approximately uniform.
Subunit 3 can sustain the robot’s position without slipping and
sheared subunit 1 when the pushing force of subunit 3 is larger
than that of subunit 1. Using this difference, we can conduct
the shearing test in a borehole, with the excavation robot.
Fig. 11 Shearing test (measurement of the pushing force of subunit 1 and
the contraction force of subunit 2).
6. Geotechnical Measurement with a Propulsion Unit
6.1 Geotechnical Test with a Propulsion Subunit
6.1.1 Pressuremeter test in borehole
In this section, we assumes the motion of only subunit 1
shown in Fig. 10 and conducts geotechnical testing with a
propulsion subunit. Soil in a hole with a diameter of 130 mm is
used for an initial experiment. First, we describe how to make
the hole. Acrylic pipe with a 130 mm outside diameter is set
in the center of the container. Reddish soil is placed around the
acrylic pipe 1 cm at a time, and the outside of the container is
continuously struck in order to pack the soil by vibration. The
soil surface is then rammed down by a weight of approximately
1 kg. This procedure is repeated until the height of the soil is
level with that of propulsion subunit. Finally, the acrylic pipe is
withdrawn from the soil. Figure 12 shows the formed hole by
the procedure. In this experiment, we consider the hole as an
excavation hole and measure the pushing force by setting the
propulsion subunit into the hole.
The pushing force and displacement of the expansion plate
are calculated using the current value of the motor and the out-
put value of the encoder, respectively. The surface area of the
expansion plates is considered, and a stress–displacement dia-
gram is made. In this experiment, the pushing forces were mea-
sured every 10 N. The maximum current value of the motor was
fixed at 350 mA based on the relationship of the motor torque
rating. We calculated the coefficient of subgrade reaction from
 246 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015
this diagram and confirmed the transition of the elastic, yield,
and fracture regions.
Figure 13 shows the stress–displacement diagram from the
experiments. The elastic constant of the soil is calculated us-
ing the gradient of the straight section of the diagram and the
equation established in the exploration of ground issued by the
Japanese Geotechnical Society [12]. Equation (5) is for com-
putation of the elastic constant. This equation is used for a C-
type; a structure form assuming a part of the cylindrical surface
as stacking plate:
d cally lifts the propulsion unit with the constant force measured
E= Φ(ν, β)k. (5)
2
d: Initial diameter of the borehole
ν: Poisson’s ratio
β: Curvature of the plate
φ(ν, β) : Constant fixed by ν and β
k: Coefficient of subgrade reaction
The stress for the displacement of the expansion plate
changes in the stages between (a) and (b) is shown in Fig. 13.
It is thought that this was because the soil condition alternated
between yield and fracture. In this result, the coefficient of sub-
grade reaction is defined as the gradient of the elastic region
(b) shown in Fig. 13 because this region (a) is narrow. At that
time, the coefficient of subgrade reaction k equals 0.0305, and
the curvature of the plate β is 90 degrees from the construction
of the unit. It is difficult to define Poisson’s ratio because the
soil cannot be identified as undrained shear. Therefore, Pois-
son’s ratio is equal to 0.33 or 0.3, and the elastic constant is
calculated [12]. In this experiment, Poisson’s ratio ν is defined
as 0.3. We calculate the elastic constant E with typical constant
φ(ν, β) = 1.040. Table 3 shows the parameters used for the cal-
culation. By putting these values into (5), the elastic constant E
is 2.06E + 3 kN/m2 .
Fig. 12 Preparation of the pressuremeter test.
Fig. 13 Stress–displacement diagram (metal subunit).
6.1.2 Shearing test in a borehole
We conduct the shearing test when the expanding propulsion
subunit is lifted vertically in the hole after the pressure meter
Table 3 Parameters of the pressure meter test (metal subunit).
test described in the previous section. Figure 14 shows exper-
imental setup. The elevation of the slider is controlled by the
DC motor. The load cell is fixed on the slider, and the wire con-
nects the load cell and the subunit. Therefore, the slider verti-
by the load cell. In this experiment, the maximum coefficient of
static friction μ is obtained from the shear stress when the sub-
unit is lifted. The strength parameter, the internal friction angle
φ, and the adhesibility c are then calculated from the value and
(6) derived from the Coulomb failure criterion equation:
τ = σ tan φ + c. (6)
τ: Shearing force
σ: Normal stress
tan φ : Maximum coefficient of static friction
In this experiment, the pushing forces corresponding to mo-
tor currents of 160, 170, 180, and 190 mA were measured, and
the propulsion subunit was vertically lifted.
Figure 15 shows the graph of shearing stress vs. each nor-
mal stress. It is obtained, through the experiments, from the
pushing force F and the shearing force τ. Considered the resis-
tance force from contact (except the expansion plate) when the
subunit was lifted vertically, the internal friction angle φ was
48.5 degrees, and the adhesibility c was 5.83 kN/m2 from the
graph and (6). According to Lundgren’s calculation method for
the internal friction angle of the soil [13], the indication of the
angle of the reddish soil used in the experiments was between
36 degrees and 43 degrees. The value of the angle acquired
from the experiment was slightly high. The adhesibility tended
to change drastically with the compaction and moisture condi-
tions of the soil. It is thought that the measured value is higher
than the reference value because the soil is compacted to nearly
the maximum density, and the aluminum cylindrical container
is small for the subunit in this experiment.
Fig. 14 Set up of the shearing test.
 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015 247

Table 4 Parameters of the pressure meter test.

Fig. 15 Result of the shearing test (metal subunit).

Fig. 16 Propulsion unit with aluminum.

Fig. 17 Overview of the geo-technical test with propulsion unit. Fig. 18 Stress–displacement diagram with a propulsion unit.

6.2 Geotechnical test with the Propulsion unit Table 5 Results of the pressure meter test.

6.2.1 Pressure meter test in borehole

In this section, we describe the geotechnical test with a
propulsion unit consisting of three propulsion subunits. We al-
ternately conduct the pressure meter test and the shearing test.
In this subsection, the experimental results are described from
the pressure meter test.
Figure 16 shows the propulsion unit of three subunits used as
a testing robot, and Fig. 17 shows the experimental setup. A
hole having the same diameter as the unit diameter is used, and
the robot is set inside it. A wire sensor above the robot mea-
sures the distance, which indicated the vertical displacement of
the robot throughout the experiments. We change the pushing
force every 5 N within the range of 40 to 100 N and every 10 N
in the range of from 100 to 150 N. We conduct the test based confirmed in the range from 40 to 130 N. Conversely, the stress
on the method described in the exploration of the ground. The for displacement of the expansion plate changes in stages, and
stress–displacement diagram is then made using the same pro- the two regions that would be the elastic region were confirmed
cedure as in the previous section. The equation used in this in Fig. 18 (b). It is thought that this was because the soil wall
experiment is C-type. Table 4 shows the parameters used in the was reformed after it yielded and fractured from the pushing,
computations. We calculate the coefficient of subgrade reac- and the elastic region changed into the plastic region. Figure 19
tion from this diagram and confirm the transition of the elastic, shows the graph comparing this test with an already-known uni-
yield, and fracture regions. axial compression test. The elastic coefficient measured in this
Figure 18 shows the stress–displacement diagram when the test is slightly higher than a value for reddish soil measured in
pushing forces were 50 and 140 N, as examples of the experi- the uniaxial compression test. However, we confirm that the
mental results. Table 5 shows each average, maximum, mini- value is substantially coincident with the known value estab-
mum, variance, and standard deviation of the coefficient of the lished by the uniaxial compression test.
subgrade reaction k, which were calculated from the measured 6.2.2 Shearing test in a borehole
results and the elastic constant E, which was calculated from In this subsection, we describe the experimental results of the
the value. In Fig. 18 (a), the yield and fracture regions were shearing test with a propulsion unit. The strength parameters:
 248 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015
Fig. 19 Comparison of the elastic coefficient.
Fig. 20 Result of the shearing test (metal subunit).
internal friction angle φ and adhesibility c are calculated using
the same procedure as in the previous section.
In this experiment, subunit 2 vertically lifted subunit 1 af-
ter the expansion of subunit 1. We confirmed the fixing of the
robot by using a wire sensor. Figure 20 shows the graph of
pushing stress σ vs. shearing force τ graph obtained from the
experiment. The internal friction angle φ of 25.2 degrees was
from the graph and equation (6). This value was slightly lower
than the references: from 36 to 43 degrees of the soil angle by
Lundgren’s calculation [13]. The adhesibility c could not be
accurately calculated because the value was negative. It was
thought that this was because the load was applied to subunit
2 in the vertical downward direction when only subunit 1 was
contracted in the pressure meter test, as shown in Fig. 10. To
solve this problem, we thought that subunit 2 should be extend-
ing when the subunit 1 was contracting, so that the load would
not be added to subunit 2. Additionally, we also considered that
the small soil container for the testing robot affected the inter-
nal friction angle and adhesibility. As the results of this and the
previous sections have shown, the geotechnical tests need to be
conducted in a larger land area having even density to some ex-
tent, to confirm validity of the values. However, in these exper-
iments, we confirmed that the excavation robot could measure
the approximate properties of soil.
7. Conclusion and Future Work
In this study, we performed geotechnical tests using an ex-
cavation robot. The utility of our robot as an excavator was
confirmed in the conventional research results. Then the pos-
sibilities for the geotechnical testing were shown in these ex-
periments without adding any hardware, such as a force sensor.
The results are summarized below:
1) The methods of two geotechnical tests were proposed: pres-
sure meter and shearing tests using the excavation robot with
peristaltic crawling.
2) The pushing force of the propulsion subunit to measure the
loading stress and displacement necessary for geotechnical tests
was estimated.
3) The elastic constant and the strength parameter were calcu-
lated using a propulsion subunit and a propulsion unit during
the geotechnical tests.
In the future, we will conduct the basic geotechnical tests in
larger land areas and discuss the reliability of the results. We
will improve the accuracy of the geotechnical test and aim to
realize an excavation robot that can excavate a hole and explore
the ground.
References
[1] M. Oda and T. Kubota: Roadmap for Space development and
Exploration in Japan, Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan,
Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 2–9, 2009.
[2] J. Soumela, G. Visentin, and T. Ylikorpi: Robotic deep driller
for exobiology, Proc. of the 6th International Symposium on
Artificial Intelligence and Robotics & Automation in Space,
2001.
[3] L. Richter et al.: Development and testing of subsurface sam-
pling devices for the Beagle 2 lander, Planet. Space Sci,
Vol. 50, pp. 903–913, Aug. 2002.
[4] E. Mumm et al.: Heat flow probes for small lunar lander, Proc.
of the 41st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 2010.
[5] K. Watanabe, S. Shimoda, T. Kubota, and I. Nakatani: A mole-
type drilling robot for lunar subsurface exploration, Proc. of
the 7th Int. Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robot. and
Autom. in Space, 2003.
[6] K. Nagaoka, T. Kubota, and M. Otsuki: Experimental study
on autonomous burrowing screw robot for subsurface explo-
ration on the Moon, Proc. of IEEE Int. Conference on Intelli-
gent Robots and Sys., pp. 4104–4109, 2008.
[7] S. Yasuda, K. Komatsu, and S. Tanaka: Self-turning screw
mechanism for burying geophysical sensors under regolith,
Proc. of the Int. Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robot.
and Autom. in Space, 2009.
[8] H. Omori, T. Murakami, H. Nagai, T. Nakamura, and T. Kub-
ota: Planetary subsurface explorer robot with propulsion units
for peristaltic crawling, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.,
pp. 694–654, May 2011.
[9] K. Daito, H. Lee, and K. Ueshita: Estimating method of shear-
ing resistance parameters of compacted gravelly soils in field
by laboratory tests, Journal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers,
No. 493, pp. 31–37, 1994, (in Japanese).
[10] H. Sugi: Evolution of Muscle Motion, The University of Tokyo
Press, 1977, (in Japanese).
[11] R.M. Alexander: Exploring Biomechanics, Animals in Motion,
pp. 77–79, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1992.
[12] Japanese Geotechnical Society: Exploration of Ground,
pp. 249–257, 1995 (in Japanese).
[13] Y. Moroto: Angles of internal friction for sand and gravel, Soil
and basic, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp. 5–10, 1983 (in Japanese).
 SICE JCMSI, Vol. 8, No. 4, July 2015 249

Asuka MIZUSHINA
She received her B.S. degree in precision mechanics
from Chuo University, Japan, in 2013, respectively. In
2013, she joined Chuo University, where she is currently
a M.S. student. Her research interests include biomecha-
tronics, robotics, and excavating technologies.
Hayato OMORI
He received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in pre-
cision mechanics from Chuo University, Japan, in 2008,
2010, and 2014, respectively. He is currently with the
F&P Robotics AG, Switzerland. His research interests
include biomechatronics, robotics, and mechatronics. He
is a member of IEEE, the Robotics Society of Japan,
the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Japanese
Society for Design Engineering and the Japan Society for Aeronautical
and Space Sciences. He received the Industrial Robot Innovation Award
Highly Commended Award at the International Conference on Climbing
and Walking Robots in 2008 and Young Investigator Award, Excellent Pa-
per at 57th Conference of JSASS in 2013.
Takashi KUBOTA
He received the B.E. degree in electronic engineering
and the M.E. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering
from The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, in 1986,
1988, and 1991, respectively. From 1991 to 1993, he was
involved in the Myway Project at Fujitsu Laboratories
Ltd. 1993, he joined the Institute of Space and Astronau-
tical Science (ISAS), Japan, where he was an Associate
Professor. He was a Visiting Scientist in Jet Propulsion Laboratory in 1997
and 1998. He is currently a professor at the ISAS, Japan Aerospace Explo-
ration Agency, Sagamihara, Japan. He is also a Professor in the Graduate
School of The University of Tokyo. He is Co-Chair of the Space Education
and Awareness Working Group, Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Fo-
rum. He was in charge of guidance, navigation, and control of the asteroid
exploration mission HAYABUSA. His research interests include artificial
intelligence in space, robotics, and image-based navigation. He is a mem-
ber of the Robotics Society of Japan.

Hiroyuki KITAMOTO
He received his B.S., and M.S. degrees in preci-
sion mechanics from Chuo University, Japan, in 2012,
and 2014, respectively. His research interests include
biomechatronics, robotics, and mechatronics.

Taro NAKAMURA (Member)

He received the Ph.D. degree from Shinshu University,
Japan. From 1999 to 2004, he was an Assistant Profes-
sor at Akita Prefectural University. In 2004, he became a
Lecturer in the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo
University, Tokyo, Japan, where he became an Associate
Professor in 2006. He is currently Professor at the Chuo
University, Japan. He is a visiting Professor at EPFL,
Switzerland, from 2012 to 2013. His research interests include applications
of smart material devices such as artificial muscle or magneto-rheological
fluid, bio-inspired robotics and mechatronics. He won the Industrial Robot
Innovation Award and the Highly Commended Award in 2008, the 2009
Young Investigation Excellence Award from RSJ, the 2010 JSME Young
Engineers Award, and the Young Scientists’ Prize for Science and Tech-
nology from the Minister of Education, Science and Technology. He is a
member of the IEEE, RSJ and JSME.

Hisashi OSUMI (Member)

He was Research Associate at Faculty of Engineering,
The University of Tokyo in 1987. Lecturer, The Univer-
sity of Tokyo in 1991. Associate Professor, The Univer-
sity of Tokyo in 1993. Associate Professor, Chuo Univer-
sity in 1994. Professor, Chuo University in 2001. Visit-
ing Researcher, École Polytechnique Fédéral de Lau-
sanne (EPFL) in 2002. He is amember of the JSME, RSJ,
JSPE, HIJ and IEEE.