MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971183307 · doi:10.1115/1.1514667

Identification of Friction Coefficient for Constrained Robotic Tasks

2002· article· en· W1971183307 on OpenAlexaff
Inna Sharf, Gabriele Gilardi, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsControl theory (sociology)Contact dynamicsContact forceIdentification (biology)Friction coefficientComputer scienceRobotInterface (matter)SimulationControl engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMathematical optimizationPhysicsClassical mechanicsMaterials scienceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correct modeling of friction forces during constrained robotic operations is critical to high-fidelity contact dynamics simulation. Such simulations are particularly important for the development, mission planning and operations analysis of space robotic systems. Most existing friction models employ the coefficient of friction to capture the relationship between the friction force and the normal load. Hence, accurate identification of this parameter is prerequisite to accurate simulation. This issue is particularly important for space robotic operations since friction characteristics of materials are very different in space. In this manuscript, the problem of identification of the coefficient of friction is investigated experimentally and numerically. The motivating application being space manipulator systems, our principal objective is to develop a practical off-line identification algorithm, requiring minimum number of measurements from sensors available on space robots. To this end, a strategy is proposed to determine the coefficient of friction by using only the measured end-effector forces. The key idea behind the method is that during one-point contact, these forces represent the contact force and hence, can be directly used to calculate the coefficient of friction. The proposed approach is tested with the experimental data from peg insertion experiments conducted on a planar robotics test-bed with a specially designed contact interface. The algorithm is generalized to arbitrary complex geometries and applied to identify the coefficient of friction for a simulated battery drop test.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicSpace Satellite Systems and ControlFrench-language works237,207