MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1716533031 · doi:10.1109/isic.1996.556240

Speed control of a DC motor using a feedforward computed torque control scheme

2002· article· en· W1716533031 on OpenAlexafffund
Nasser A.M. Barakat, R. Rajagopalan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Feed forwardTorqueDC motorAccelerationInverse dynamicsElectronic speed controlEngineeringAmplifierComputer scienceControl engineeringControl (management)Electronic engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a feedforward control scheme using an inverse dynamic model of a DC motor for speed control in the presence of changes in dynamics during motion. Conventional velocity control schemes perform well for nominal operating conditions of the motor as the gains are tuned for such operating conditions. Some of the operating conditions considered are the changes in damping torque as speed changes, the vertical load which results in frictional load when the motor is used to drive a wheeled mobile robot or automated guided vehicles, and gravity loading and centrifugal effects when the motor is used as an actuator for robot joints. The gains and the acceleration values of conventional velocity control schemes need to be retuned in order to achieve a satisfactory performance under such circumstances. Further, the amplifiers used for conventional velocity control schemes operate in voltage mode and the current output of the amplifiers is not limited. The feedforward control scheme proposed in this paper predicts the current requirement based on the changes in the dynamics of the motor and the operating environment and limits the current drawn by the motor instead of simply adjusting the voltage. The amplifier provides as much voltage needed to achieve the desired speed while the current drawn by the motor is limited to the value allowed by the inverse dynamic model. Experimental results indicate that the proposed feedforward control scheme exhibits good speed control compared to the conventional velocity control scheme.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207