MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082938611 · doi:10.1109/iros.2005.1545023

A planar parallel manipulator - dynamics revisited and controller design

2005· article· en· W2082938611 on OpenAlexaff
Ke Fu, James K. Mills

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Robustness (evolution)Parallel manipulatorNonlinear systemComputer scienceSystem dynamicsKinematicsOpen-loop controllerControl engineeringRobust controlClosed loopEngineeringRobotControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the dynamic modelling and control design of a planar parallel manipulator used as a pick-and-place machine, is addressed. First, in a departure from standard modelling techniques utilized for planar parallel mechanisms, it is demonstrated that since the translational axes of the manipulator are driven by DC motors through industry standard ball screws, the nonlinear dynamics and coupling effects of the nonlinear dynamics of the manipulator are greatly reduced by a very large effective gear ratio factor, in this case, 1.097 xlO6. The dynamics of the driving motors thus become the dominant dynamics in the system. Hence, the dynamics of the entire system can be approximated as a set of three identical linear dynamic equations, each of which represents the dynamics of one kinematic chain, with constraints representing the coupling of these axes. Then a robust closed-loop controller designed with a Convex Integrated Design (CID) method is determined, such that multiple closed-loop performance specifications, together with a robustness specification, are simultaneously satisfied. The robustness of the closed-loop controller thus guarantees that the controller, although determined based on a simplified linear model, performs as expected on the practical system, i.e., the manipulator, hence results in satisfactory closed-loop performance. Both simulation and experiments conducted demonstrate that the multiple simultaneous closed-loop performance specifications are satisfied thus validating the simplified modeling strategy and verifying the effectiveness of the control design approach.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207