Real‐time trajectory resolution for a two‐manipulator machining system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent research has considered robotic machining as an alternative to traditional computer numerical control machining, particularly for prototyping applications. However, unlike traditional machine tools, robots are subject to relatively larger dynamic disturbances and operate closer to their torque limits. Combined with inaccurate models of the manipulators and the machining process, joint actuators can often saturate during operation. Once a joint is saturated, tool‐path tracking may not be possible and the blank and/or tool may be damaged. This paper presents a real‐time trajectory planner designed to mitigate the effect of unmodeled disturbances, thus avoiding controller saturation and potential tool/blank damage. The forces acting on the end effectors are monitored to identify the onset of a disturbance so that the system can be slowed down before saturation actually occurs. In response to disturbances, a time‐scaling method reduces the tool speed, thereby reducing the demand on the joint torques and allowing the precomputed process plan to continue. When there is sufficient torque available, the tool speed is returned to its planned magnitude. The effectiveness of the proposed time‐scaling algorithm has been demonstrated with simulations. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".