MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075072922 · doi:10.1115/imece2007-41618

An Artificial Neural Network Approach to Payload Estimation in Four Wheel Drive Loaders

2007· article· en· W2075072922 on OpenAlexaff
Jahmy Hindman, Richard Burton, Greg Schoenau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoaderPayload (computing)Linkage (software)ExcavatorReducerMachine toolHydraulic cylinderKinematicsEngineeringArtificial neural networkMachiningComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of the manipulated payload mass in off-highway machines is made non-trivial by the nonlinearities associated with the hydraulic systems used to actuate the linkage of the machine in addition to the nonlinearity of the kinematics of the linkage itself. Hydraulic cylinder friction, hydraulic conduit compressibility, linkage machining variation and linkage joint friction all make this a complex task under even ideal (machine static) conditions. This problem is made even more difficult when the linkage is mobile as is often the case with off-highway equipment such as four-wheel-drive loaders, cranes, and excavators. The rigid body motion of this type of equipment affects the gravitational loads seen in the linkage and impacts the payload estimate. The commercially available state-of-the-art load estimation solutions rely on the mobile machine becoming pseudo-static in order to maintain accuracy. This requirement increases the time required to move the material and decreases the productivity of the machine. An artificial neural network solution to this problem that enables the machine to remain dynamic and still accurately estimate the payload is discussed in this paper. Development and implementation on an actual four-wheel-drive loader is shown.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207