MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053891081 · doi:10.1115/1.1471529

Kinetostatic Analysis and Design Optimization of the Tricept Machine Tool Family

2002· article· en· W2053891081 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Zhang, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine toolFlexibility (engineering)Mechanism (biology)KinematicsStiffnessComputer scienceActuatorGenetic algorithmSet (abstract data type)Control engineeringLink (geometry)Base (topology)Control theory (sociology)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringMathematicsControl (management)Machine learningStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selecting a mechanism for a machine tool that will best suit the needs of a forecast set of rigidities can be a difficult and costly exercise. This problem can now be addressed using a kinetostatic modeling method. In this paper, a kinetostatic model for the Tricept machine tool family is established based on lumped flexibilities. This model can be used to analyze the effect of link flexibility on the machine tool’s global stiffness and the platform positioning precision. The Tricept machine tool is a new type of parallel mechanism with prismatic actuators whose degree of freedom is dependent on a passive constraining leg connecting the base and the platform. The geometric model and the mechanical design of the Tricept machine tool is first recalled. Then, a lumped kinetostatic model is proposed in order to account for joint and link compliances. It is shown that the link flexibility has a significant effect on the machine tool’s precision and that it is necessary to take the link flexibility into account. Additionally, the inverse kinematics and velocity equations are given for both rigid-link and flexible-link mechanisms. Finally, the optimization of the stiffness is addressed using a genetic algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207