2017 25th International Conference on Systems Engineering
Fish Robotic Research Platform for Swarms
Tharuka Jayadewa Govinda Waduge, Matthew Joordens
School of Engineering
Deakin University
Waurn Ponds, Australia
majoor@deakin.edu.au
Abstract—Underwater swarm robotics is one of the more
complicated autonomous control systems especially with the
problems in underwater communications. This paper examines
a platform designed to overcome the problem of
communications by removing the need for it! The platform also
addresses ease of use by ensuring that both charge charging and
programming are done wirelessly, thus the robot never was to
be opened greatly improving the efficiency of prototyping.
Keywords—Robotic Fish; Swarm; Bio-inspired
I. INTRODUCTION
There are various bioinspired fish robots that do a
reasonable job of moving in a fish like manner.[1-3] These
fish are all well designed for their particular application. The
robotic platform attempts to take the best features of the
current generation of robotic fish and added more features.
The robot platform is to be used to enable the research of
underwater swarm robotics. To do so the researchers began by
considering the problems inherent in underwater robotics. The
largest problem is the lack of reliable, large bandwidth
communications.[4]
Most underwater communications uses sonar, but this is a
slow method. Radio is just as bad with only low frequencies
being useful. The control of swarm robotics is helped by the
use of communications between the robots, even if it is just to
share the robots locations with each other.
But is communications needed? Whilst it certainly makes
control a swarm easier is it a must? What if we could remove
the need for communications in controlling the swarm?
To give an example for how swarm control may be
possible without communications, let us consider a football
team. The team has the common aim of getting a ball to one
end of a field. To do so each member evaluates the positions
of the other members he can see and the ball position and
decides the best place for him to be. Communications during
play is limited to getting the attention of the other team
members. Each member is evaluating the state of play by
evaluating what he sees.
This then may be a solution to underwater swarm control;
remove the communications! To do this means that the robot
must be as self-sufficient as possible and be able to evaluate
its surroundings.
978-1-5386-0610-0/17 $31.00 © 2017 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICSEng.2017.22
To do this a sensor arrangement was developed to be the
fish eyes. This consisted for 4 IR Tx/Rx’s for each fish eye to
tell the robot if objects are above or below, forward or behind
and the distance away from the robot. This would be used to
allow the robot to follow other robot fish and so to swarm.
With this sensor in place, the robotic fish was developed.
As it was to be as fish like as possible the motion of fish was
examined.
II. FISH LOCOMOTION
It is in nature that we see the refinement of kinematics and
dynamics of motion. Fishes and other aquatic animals are
able to follow trajectories, stabilise themselves in the
presence of external influences and create less wakes than
would any traditional underwater vehicle [5]. Hence it was
understood that it is by mimicking these biological
mechanisms that the most efficient and least invasive
machines can be produced.
Fish locomotion mechanism is mainly controlled by its
caudal fin and the paired pectoral fins [5]. However, most fish
show preference of using one of these methods for propulsion
over the other; some bend their bodies and/or caudal fins
(BCF) while other fish use their median or paired fins (MPF).
Both these can be further subcategorised into their nature of
propulsion, being undulatory or oscillatory[6], though both
methods intend to utilise the viscous and/or inertial forces
available to generate thrust. The four main types of
undulatory BCF are anguilliform, subcarangiform,
carangiform and thunniform, each with decreasing bodily
undulations than its former, as seen in Figure 1. Anguilliform
motion refers to full-body eel-like motion where a wave of
increasing amplitude propagating along the body produces
the motion, whereas thunniform refers to the horizontal
beating of the caudal fin as seen in a tuna with a minimal
body-wave. However, a fifth type of BCF, ostraciiform,
exists, where propagation involves no bodily undulations but
creates thrust by rapid oscillations of the caudal fin[6]. The
ratio between the viscous forces and inertial forces is assessed
by the Reynolds number (Re)[7].
202
212
In nature, nevertheless, it is signified that it is the adaptation
of a species to the specific attributes of its endemic
environments that has given rise to these variations overtime.
For example, [7] states that at hatching, larvae, which are
only a few millimetres in length needs use the anguilliform
method to overcome the viscous forces of the corresponding
flow regime (Re<100). This is due to increase in viscosity of
media requiring greater wave amplitude from the body
anterior[8]. However, during growth, fish shift from a viscous
to an intermediate regime (Re>300) and therefrom to an
inertial regime (Re>1000) [7].
Figure 1 Types of fish with BCF propulsion [5]
In his paper, Tzeranis[3] details a comprehensive comparison
on the robotic implementation of the BCF motions for small
robotic vehicles. The three approaches are shown in the
Figure 2.
Figure 2 Various ways of implementation of BCF modes in robots [6]
It discusses that the complexity of the robot increases with
the level of the undulations needed to be reproduced, but with
an increase in cost depending on the method of actuation and
quantity of actuators. However it should be noted that
complexity alone does not promise the best design, but rather
the inclusiveness of all factors such as the size of the robot,
213
203
the regime it operates in and the type of material used to
design it and etc. Therefore a compromise needs to be
achieved.
III. CHASSIS
Aesthetics of the robot were a main concern. Hence it was
decided to have the segments of the fish 3d-printed to allow
for versatility of design. This also allowed for one file of
complex design to be easily duplicated with very less need
for manual labour and be fast enough to implement a swarm
of them.
A. Body
The design for the body was extended from the previous
design of an oscillating fin layout into an oscillating wing
layout [2]. The new fish would have a rigid section that would
carry its centre of mass; connected to three more tail segments
each controlled with servos to allow for undulatory
locomotion see Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5. Due to the
use of certain off-the-shelf electronics and space
requirements and also the need to be waterproofed as have
been later detailed in this paper, the model was finished at an
approximate frame of 50cm x 18cm x 14cm. This size also
meant that this design would model a carangiform fish
swimming in the inertial regime, which also meant that the
compromise of complexity of motion by having only the
caudal fin to propagate with servos was well paid off [7].
Water was allowed through the fish, with the electronics and
the servos being fully waterproofed.
B. Print material
The decision to 3D print the chassis had its own benefits. Due
to low-cost nature of robot and the necessity to swarm with
multiple fish, it was decided to use either the readily available
PLA or ABS. This was extremely beneficial as the total print
material of a single fish approximating to about 400g meant
that a single fish chassis could be produced at an average
price of 30 AUD (highly dependent of the chosen specifics of
the type of PLA or ABS used). The light weight of the choice
of the possible material meant that electronics and other
objects with a considerable amount of density could be
incorporated without compromising the achievement of
neutral buoyancy. However, the applications of the print
further played into the choice of material.
Both PolyLactic Acid (PLA, a biopolymer) and Acrylonitrile-
butadiene Styrene (ABS) are thermoplastics. However,
unlike ABS, PLA is biodegradable. Material properties also
suggest that ABS is a robust choice for objects of regular
usage or wear and tear.

Figure 3 Side view
Figure 4 Front view
Figure 5 Fish Robot body
Comparing the two choices, the higher glass-transition
temperature of ABS at 1050 seemed more favourable than
that of PLA which has a glass-transition temperature of 600-
650. This meant that ABS has a better stable temperature
range that would keep the design unaltered by environmental
factors. This was important for storage purposes. ABS being
more chemically resistant was another upside. Furthermore,
ABS also has a higher slumping temperature, and melting
temperature. Considering the mechanical and physical
properties, ABS was a more elastic alternative to the more
brittle PLA, and could not be smoothed using acetone. FDM
printing of ABS at its temperature also exhibits a better layer
bond, and makes the object more impact and abrasion
resistant. Such objects are better if weatherproofing is a
214
204
necessity. Also, ABS was the better material for the fin
designs where its elastic nature was seen favourable for
motion, especially for the undulations of the caudal fin, where
a more brittle material would have snapped if designed very
thin. Hence, due to the many reasons, ABS was selected over
PLA. However, warping of the material posed an issue for
ABS, but this was resolved by printing the object on a raft.[9]
C. Density calculations
Due to reasons of complete submersion, the achievement of
neutral buoyancy was important. A value for the density of
ABS could not be used off a datasheet as FDM printing does
a pattern of material. Therefore it was necessary to
compensate for the difference in density between the ABS
print pattern and water. A simple experiment was run to
determine this value which was compensated by the addition
of cut lead weights.
First, a rectangular cuboid of the dimensions 40mm x 20mm
x 20mm was printed in solid print setting at a 0.15mm
resolution as per Figure 6. This was because all parts of the
fish would also be printed solid to allow for a dense and
strong print at the finest resolution for dimensional accuracy.
Second, a bath was designed and printed for the above cuboid
with walls of 2mm thickness. This was also printed solid and
at 0.15mm to maintain consistency. However this had no
influence on the calculations.
Figure 6 Cuboid and bath for density calculations
The mass of the cuboid was first measured and recorded. The
mass of the dry bath was measured and recorded.
Then, carefully, tap water was poured into the bath with the
help of a syringe. The bath was slanted to avoid residual air
bubbles against the plastic wall. Water was poured until the
water had reached the rim of the bath, but had also formed a
gentle lower meniscus down the middle. The new mass was
measured, and the poured mass determined. Using a 5ml
syringe, water was further added until an upper meniscus was
formed under surface tension. The new mass was measured
and the poured mass determined. This was to obtain an
average mass of water that would fill into the volume when
completely submerged in water, and no clear meniscus would
be available. The calculations were as follows;
Table 1 Collected data for density calculations heterocercal fin was implemented. This also encourages lift-
based propulsion in carangiform fish [11]. The dimensions
Mass of cuboid (g): 10.28 were assigned such that the full area of the print bed was used,
Mass of bath (g): 6.925 while also ensuring that the ventral lobe was at the same level
Mass of bath with cold water (L. meniscus) (g): 23.18 as the resting base of the body from the horizontal mid-plane
Mass of bath with cold water (U. meniscus) (g): 23.35 of the fish.
Average mass of cold water (g): 16.34
(23.35+23.18)/2 – 6.925
Volume of cuboid (cm3) 16.00
Density of cuboid ( g/cm3) 0.6425
Density of water (g/cm3) 1.00

Mass needed per gram of solid ABS;

ሺ௠௔௦௦௧௢௔ௗௗሻ
= ሺ௠௔௦௦௢௙஺஻ௌሻ
(1)
ଵ଺Ǥଷସିଵ଴Ǥଶ଼
= (2)
ଵ଴Ǥଶ଼

= ͲǤͷͺͻ݃Ȁ݃‫ܵܤܣ݈݀݅݋ݏ݂݋‬ (3) Figure 7 Height of the caudal fin

However as the pattern replicated may vary, a better
assumption of having 50% added mass per part mass was
generalised.
D. Design
It was ensured that each part contained the least amount of
material needed to support its design features and fit its
objectives. This was a save on print cost and time. The print-
bed of the UP 2.0 printer having a workable maximum print
volume of 140mm3 was an added constraint.
The implementation of the model was decided to take on a
similar appearance to a carangiform fish - it would have a
long and respectively slender body. A total of 11 different
designs were modelled in SolidWorks.
The face was modelled after a Permit fish. This helped to
reduce the size of the part and the length of the fish, by having
a flat nose. The rest of the body was modelled close to a
Barramundi, but with flat abdomen resembling more of a
Sturgeon. The flat base of this design allowed the fish to rest
upright outside water, and also be stable atop of the flat
charging base.
E. Fin designs
1) Caudal fin
The design of the fins played a major role connected to the
direct stability and manoeuvrability of the fish. Hence, it was
essential do implement a design for the caudal fin that would
have a high lift-drag ratio. This was to reduce the effort the
servos would need to exert during changing of speed or
direction. However, the lift-drag ratio can be related to the
aspect ratio of the caudal fin, which is governed by the
௛మ
equation: ‫ ܣ‬ൌ ௦ (where h is the height of the caudal fin, and
s is the surface area of the fin, see Figure 7) [10]. Therefore a
2) Pectoral fin
It was predetermined at the design stage that the fish should
employ two pectoral fins each controlled individually by a
servo. However, this design considered the pectoral fins to
only provide pitch and yaw control, and no forward motion
and hence was created to only have a single degree of
freedom per fin. The model followed was protruding and
broad, similar to those of many types of sturgeon. A reason
why this was followed was to have a structure that will
generate lift while also balancing the lift produced by the
heterocercal caudal fin [12, 13]. Attempts to have a more
complex form of fins was neglected as such was outside the
project scope of swarming a school of fully submerged,
autonomous fish.
F. Buoyancy
Neutral buoyancy was achieved by adding 50% mass per part
mass of ABS. However, due to the addition of other parts, a
method for fine tuning this needed to be implemented.
Therefore, two sections were added in front of the main hull
and behind with 3D printed screws to hold in lead shot. This
concentration of mass meant that the centre of mass was very
close to the middle of the fish, and therefore would have high
stability during motion. Also, having a heavy bottom
(addition of lead weights) and a light top mechanically added
a self-correcting feature to the parts’ orientation.
IV. CONTROL SYSTEM
As the robot is to operate underwater there was the
requirement to keep the electronic control system, the sensors
and actuators dry. This created two options: either waterproof
the whole fish or make all the components waterproof. To
waterproof the whole fish would require making a waterproof
skin to cover everything. This would create a large air filled
void which would need a large amount of weight to submerge
the robot.

215
205
The approach selected was to waterproof individual elements
and to let the water flow through the robot body.
The control system was housed inside a water proof box.
External to the box was the servo motors that drive to control
surfaces and the fish eye sensors.
A. Waterproof servos
The robot uses 5 mini servos which are waterproofed with the
judicious placement of an o-ring and o-ring grease around the
shaft inside the casing and a blob of sealant inside the lower
section. This method will adequately waterproof these cheap
servos for several metres in depth. It is of course possible to
obtain already waterproofed servo but the cost is far greater.
B. External Sensors

Figure 9 Control box wired to robot fish

Figure 8 Fish Eye Sensor

As described before, and as seen in Figure 8, the fish eye

sensor comprises 4 IR LED/ receiver pairs that allow the fish
to see objects on each side on the fish and follow them to keep
in a school of robotic fish. This sensor is at the heart of the
control method and what the fish robot was designed to carry.
This sensor and its arrangement of LEDs enables the fish to
remove the need for communications.
The Fish Eye sensors are the only sensor that is external to
the waterproof box that houses the electronics. They are
potted in clear resin to be waterproof and use I2C
communications to simplify wiring.
A pressure sensor that sample the water pressure through a
gland in the control box is used to determine the depth of the
robot. A hall effect sensor inside the box detects movement
of a magnet attached to the movable head to detect when the
robot bumps into an object. Neither of these are required for
the basic operation of swarming but add flexibility to the
robot.
Figure 10 Internals of the control box
C. Internal sensors
Inside the control box there is a nine axis Inertial Motion Unit
(IMU) with a 3 axis accelerometer, a 3 axis gyro and a 3 axis
magnometer. This can be used to aid in basic position and
direction measurements.
D. Wiring
There are two 9 core cables that penetrate the control box
through waterproof glands. The option was to then used
waterproof connectors to connect the external servos and fish
eyes. This would be quite expensive and so cables were
soldered together with a layer of sealant on then heat shrink.
See Figure 9.
E. Control Box
There are several features designed to keep the box
waterproof. One of the worst thing to happen to a waterproof
box is to continually open and close it to change batteries or
to program the microcontroller. This constant breaking of the
underproof seal means that each time there is a danger of not

216
206
correctly resealing the box. As with most similar prototypes
batteries and programming need constant attention. This
system used here avoids any need to open the box. See Figure
10
The heart of the control system is an Arduino mini pro. It is
programmed wirelessly via a Bluetooth module. All
communication with it is also via the Bluetooth module.
The battery is a LiPo 3.7V 4000mAh. It is recharged via a
charge pad. These two features remove the need to open the
box.
There is also a pair of water contacts that poke through the
side of the box. These are used to turn on the battery power
when the robot fish is placed in the water. Out of the water
they can still be used to turn of the unit.
To determine the state of power of the battery there are some
LEDs on the side of the box. The legs of the LEDs penetrate
the box side and are sealed.
Finally, there is a read switch inside the box that can be
operated with a magnet that can be used to initiate special
operations such as sensor calibration routines.
V. DISCUSSION
The heart of this robot fish is the central control box. This
houses most of the electronics. Along with the controller it
contains the internal sensor such as the 9 axis IMU. More
importantly it contains the battery and the battery
management system, including wireless charging. It also has
the ability to switch on when it touches water. Add to this the
Bluetooth unit which allow wireless programming and one
haves a unit that does not need to be opened on a regular
basis. This is a boon to researchers as the most time
consuming part of development is always having to open the
unit to program it and then closing, resealing and rechecking
that it is still water proof which can happen many time per
day.
There are two cables that leave the control box; one is for
controlling up to 6 servo motors and one is for I2C
communications. This requires the use of waterproof servos
which are easy to obtain or, for cheaper servos, easy to
waterproof. The I2C means that any sensors or devices that
use I2C can be added to the robot as long as they are water
proofed. Thus the main body of the robot can be changed for
different robot types and sensor systems and the main body
does not have to be waterproofed. Hence the designer is much
freer in the design of body shape and function.
217
207
VI. CONCLUSION
The robotic fish described here is especially design for
research into bio-inspired underwater swarm robotics. It
carries the special Fish Eye sensor that enable it to perform
swarming operations without the need of underwater
communication.
Its wireless programming and wireless battery charging allow
the robot to remain as one, intact unit, thus keeping it
waterproof at all times.
REFERENCES
[1] Hu, H. Biologically inspired design of autonomous robotic fish
at Essex. in IEEE SMC UK-RI Chapter Conference, on
Advances in Cybernetic Systems. 2006. Citeseer.
[2] Kiebert, L. and M. Joordens. Autonomous robotic fish for a
swarm environment. in 2016 11th System of Systems
Engineering Conference (SoSE). 2016.
[3] Tzeranis, D., E. Papadopoulos, and G. Triantafyllou. On the
design of an autonomous robot fish. in Proc. of the 11th IEEE
Mediterranean Conf. on Control and Automation. 2003.
[4] Joordens, M.A. and M. Jamshidi, Consensus control for a
system of underwater swarm robots. IEEE Systems Journal,
2010. 4(1): p. 65-73.
[5] Sitorus, P.E., et al., Design and Implementation of Paired
Pectoral Fins Locomotion of Labriform Fish Applied to a Fish
Robot. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2009. 6(1): p. 37-45.
[6] Liu, J.-D. and H. Hu, Biologically inspired behaviour design for
autonomous robotic fish. International Journal of Automation
and Computing, 2006. 3(4): p. 336-347.
[7] Olivier, D., et al., Kinematic analysis of swimming ontogeny in
seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Belgian Journal of Zoology,
2013.
[8] Horner, A.M. and B.C. Jayne, The effects of viscosity on the
axial motor pattern and kinematics of the African lungfish
(<em>Protopterus annectens</em>) during lateral undulatory
swimming. Journal of Experimental Biology, 2008. 211(10): p.
1612-1622.
[9] Grieser, F. PLA vs ABS: Filaments for 3D Printing Explained &
Compared. 2016 4/1/2016 6/2/2017]; Available from:
https://all3dp.com/pla-abs-3d-printer-filaments-compared/.
[10] Sambilay Jr, V.C., Interrelationships between swimming speed,
caudal fin aspect ratio and body length of fishes. Fishbyte,
1990. 8(3): p. 16-20.
[11] Borazjani, I. and M. Daghooghi. The fish tail motion forms an
attached leading edge vortex. in Proc. R. Soc. B. 2013. The
Royal Society.
[12] Wilga, C. and G. Lauder, Locomotion in sturgeon: function of
the pectoral fins. Journal of Experimental Biology, 1999.
202(18): p. 2413-2432.
[13] Lauder, G.V. and E.G. Drucker, Morphology and experimental
hydrodynamics of fish fin control surfaces. IEEE Journal of
Oceanic Engineering, 2004. 29(3): p. 556-571.