MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895213532 · doi:10.1108/ir-05-2015-0088

A comparative evaluation of three industrial robots using three reference measuring techniques

2015· article· en· W1895213532 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Robot the international journal of robotics research and application · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotCartesian coordinate systemInterferometryLaser trackerComputer scienceDisplacement (psychology)SimulationOvershoot (microwave communication)TrajectoryLaserComputer visionArtificial intelligenceOpticsMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a technique for assessing and comparing the static and dynamic performance of three different models of small six-axis industrial robots using a Renishaw XL80 laser interferometer system, a FARO ION laser tracker and a Renishaw QC20-W telescoping ballbar. Design/methodology/approach – Specific test methods are proposed in this work, and each robot has been measured in a similar area of its working envelope. The laser interferometer measurement instrument is used to assess the static positioning performance along three linear and orthogonal paths. The laser tracker is used to assess the contouring performance at different tool center point (TCP) speeds along a triangular tool path, whereas the telescoping ballbar is used to assess the dynamic positioning performance for circular paths at different TCP speeds and trajectory radii. Findings – It is found that the tested robots behave differently, and that the static accuracy of these non-calibrated robots varies between 0.5 and 2.3 mm. On the other hand, results show that these three robots can provide acceptable corner tracking at low TCP speeds. However, a significant overshoot at the corner is observed at high TCP speed for all the robots tested. It was also found that the smallest increment of Cartesian displacement (Cartesian resolution) that can be taken by the tested robots is approximately 50 μm. Practical implications – The technique used in this paper allows extremely accurate diagnosis of the robot performance, which makes it possible for the robot user to determine whether the robot is in good or bad condition. It can also help the decision-maker to select the most suitable industrial robot to achieve the desired task with minimum cost and specific application ability. Originality/value – This paper proposed a new method based on the performance verification approach for solving the robot selection problem for flexible manufacturing systems. Furthermore, despite their importance, bidirectional repeatability and Cartesian resolution are never specified by the manufacturers of industrial robots nor are they described in the ISO 9283:1998 guide, and they are rarely the object of performance assessments. In this work, specific tests are performed to check and quantify the bidirectional repeatability and the Cartesian resolution of each robot.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.665
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.209 · 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