MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058401431 · doi:10.4271/2015-01-0497

Kinematic Analysis of a 6DOF Gantry Machine

2015· article· en· W2058401431 on OpenAlexaff
Monika Filiposka, Ana Djuric, Waguih ElMaraghy

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gantry robots are mainly employed for applications requiring large workspace, with limited higher manipulability in one direction than the others. The Gantries offer very good mechanical stiffness and constant positioning accuracy, but low dexterity. Common gantries are CNC machines with three translational joints XYZ (3DOF) and usually with an attached wrist (+3DOF). The translational joints are used to move the tool in any position in the 3D workspace. The wrist is used to orient the tool by rotation about X, Y and Z axis. This standard kinematic structure (3T3R) produces a rectangular workspace. In this paper a full kinematic model for a 6DOF general CNC (gantry) machine is presented, along with the Jacobian matrix and singularity analysis. Using Denavit-Hartenberg convention, firstly, the general kinematic structure is presented, in order to assign frames at each link. The forward kinematic problem is solved using Maple 17 software. Differential kinematics describes the analytical relationship between the joint motion and the end-effector motion in terms of velocities, through the manipulator Jacobian matrix. The configuration at which the manipulator Jacobian matrix drops rank is called singular configuration. In this paper the Jacobian matrix is derived using the vector cross multiplication method. The singularity conditions are examined and validated. The fully reachable workspace is plotted with Matlab tools using specified joint limits. The presented solutions are expressed in parametric manner and can be used for analysis of the existing gantry type machine as well as a design tool for new machines.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207