MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083165668 · doi:10.1081/sme-120017108

Stabilization of Constraints of Multibody System Dynamics

2003· article· en· W2083165668 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanics Based Design of Structures and Machines · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsMultibody systemConstraint (computer-aided design)Nonlinear systemMathematicsReduction (mathematics)Algebraic equationApplied mathematicsDifferential equationMathematical optimizationControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Numerical algorithms for the solution of nonlinear algebraic equation systems are discussed. Special application to the mechanism and multibody system kinematic analysis, as well as to the problems of constraint stabilization during dynamics simulation is regarded. Special attention is paid to the approaches of a separate solution of the differential equations and constraint stabilization. Numerical procedures that are effective additions to the well-known algorithms based on the Newton-Raphson method are presented. The problems of loss of precision and achievement of large unreal increments of the varying parameters are discussed. The traditional Newton-Raphson method is modified by applying a step reduction procedure that is developed numerically for the symbolic form of kinematic and dynamic equations. An optimization method for stabilization of constraints using the mass matrix of dynamic equations is suggested. According to the objective function defined the stabilization procedure provides minimal deviations of the parameters and their velocities with respect to the solution of the differential equations. No generalized coordinate partitioning is required either for solution of the dynamic equations or for stabilization of the constraints. Several examples of kinematic analysis of single and four contour plane mechanisms and constraint stabilization are solved, and the results are compared. The advantages of the algorithms developed are tested with a high-degree of initial deviation from the real solution. It is also shown that the step correction algorithm could provide admissible solution even when, in many cases, the classical approaches are not reliable. An example of the direct and inverse kinematic problem solutions of the four-degrees-of-freedom spatial platform is presented.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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