Admittance Control for Robotic Loading: Design and Experiments with a 1‐Tonne Loader and a 14‐Tonne Load‐Haul‐Dump Machine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the design, tuning, and extensive field testing of an admittance‐based autonomous loading controller (ALC) for robotic excavation. Several iterations of the ALC were tuned and tested in fragmented rock piles—similar to those found in operating mines—by using both a robotic 1‐tonne capacity Kubota R520S diesel‐hydraulic surface loader and a 14‐tonne capacity Atlas Copco ST14 underground load‐haul‐dump (LHD) machine. On the R520S loader, the ALC increased payload by 18% with greater consistency, although with more energy expended and longer dig times when compared with digging at maximum actuator velocity. On the ST14 LHD, the ALC took 61% less time to load 39% more payload when compared to a single manual operator. The manual operator made 28 dig attempts by using three different digging strategies, and had one failed dig. The tuned ALC made 26 dig attempts at 10 and 11 MN target force levels. All 10 11 MN digs succeeded while 6 of the 16 10 MN digs failed. The results presented in this paper suggest that the admittance‐based ALC is more productive and consistent than manual operators, but that care should be taken when detecting entry into the rock pile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".