Optimal Design of Safe Planar Manipulators Using Passive Torque Limiters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a synthesis approach to build safe planar serial robotic mechanisms for applications in human–robot cooperation. The basic concept consists in using torque limiting devices that slip when a prescribed torque is exceeded so that the maximum force and the maximum power that the robot can apply to its environment are limited. In order to alleviate the effect of the change of pose of the robot on the joint to Cartesian force mapping, it is proposed to include more torque limiters than actuated joints. The design of isotropic force modules is addressed in order to produce proper force capabilities while ensuring safety. The proposed isotropic module of torque limiting devices leads to such characteristics. In addition to modeling the contact forces at the end-effector, the forces that can be applied by the robot to its environment when contact is taking place elsewhere along its links are also analyzed as well as the power of potential collisions. Examples of manipulator architectures and their static analysis are given. Finally, the design of a spatial serial manipulator using the isotropic planar force modules developed in the paper is illustrated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".