MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000770871 · doi:10.1115/esda2004-58476

Performance Evaluation of the Optimal Control of a Gantry Crane

2004· article· en· W2000770871 on OpenAlexaff
Zhonghua Wang, Brian Surgenor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)Gantry craneControl theory (sociology)Robustness (evolution)SwingController (irrigation)Computer scienceOptimal controlCartControl engineeringEngineeringMathematicsControl (management)Mathematical optimizationMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a gantry crane, optimal control of the crane motion requires that the speed of the cart be maximized, and the swing of the hanging payload be minimized. The problem lends itself naturally to optimal linear quadratic (LQ) controllers. This paper examines the performance of four different approaches to the design of an LQ controller, including two optimization approaches as based on: 1) minimal energy of cart and payload and 2) integrated absolute error of payload angle. Both simulation and experimental results are presented. A demonstration is also given as to how the results taken from laboratory scale gantry crane experiments must be treated with caution. Laboratory based studies have generally worked with systems where the moving cart mass is much larger than the suspended payload mass. In the case of industrial scale gantry cranes, the reverse can be true. This has implications with respective to the robustness of the controller. In the case where the cart mass is much greater than the payload mass, the effect of the payload on the cart is correctly neglected. However, there are stability implications if this is not the case. The implications with respect to the tuning of LQ controllers for this application are discussed.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDynamics and Control of Mechanical SystemsFrench-language works237,207