MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581743178 · doi:10.1109/iccas.2016.7832301

A tension distribution algorithm for cable-driven parallel robots operating beyond their wrench-feasible workspace

2016· article· en· W2581743178 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Fortin Cote, Philippe Cardou, Clément Gosselin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspaceWrenchParallel manipulatorRobotComputer scienceParallelogramControl theory (sociology)Mechanism (biology)Robot end effectorTension (geology)Quadratic programmingControl engineeringAlgorithmSimulationEngineeringMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceControl (management)MathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main concerns in the control of over-constrained cable driven parallel mechanisms is the handling of the tension distribution, which is crucial to the proper mechanism behaviour. For example, it dictates the power consumption and stiffness of the mechanism. One problem that remains to be addressed is the handling of cable tensions when the end-effector moves beyond its wrench-feasible workspace, a situation that can arise when the robot is used as a haptic interface. Most existing algorithms are capable of determining whether a specified wrench is unfeasible, but cannot return a suitable second-best tension distribution in such situations. This paper presents an algorithm based on quadratic programming that is capable of handling these situations in real time. The algorithm provides the exact tension distribution for exerting the prescribed wrench when the end-effector is inside the robot workspace. Moreover, when the end-effector is outside of the robot workspace, the algorithm returns a tension distribution that approximately generates the prescribed wrench. The effectiveness of the algorithm is first illustrated using the simulation of a simple cable-driven parallel robot (CDPR). Experimental results are then provided for an eight-cable six-degree-of-freedom CDPR using a real-time implementation.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207