Dynamic model and input shaping control of a flexible link parallel manipulator considering the exact boundary conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In this paper, a rigid–flexible planar parallel manipulator (PPM) actuated by three linear ultrasonic motors for high-accuracy positioning is proposed. Based on the extended Hamilton's principle, a rigid–flexible dynamic model of the proposed PPM is developed utilizing exact boundary conditions. To derive an appropriate low-order dynamic model for the design of the controller, the assumed modes method is employed to discretize elastic motion. Then to investigate the interaction between the rigid and elastic motions, a proportional derivative feedback controller combined with a feed-forward-computed torque controller is developed to achieve motion tracking while attenuating the residual vibration. Then the controller is extended to incorporate an input shaper for the further suppression of residual vibration of flexible linkages. Computer simulations are presented as well as experimental results to verify the proposed dynamic model and controller. The input shaping method is verified to be effective in attenuating residual vibration in a highly coupled rigid–flexible PPM. The procedure employed for dynamic modeling and control analysis provides a valuable contribution into the vibration suppression of such a PPM.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".