AN INTERVAL ANALYSIS METHOD FOR WRENCH WORKSPACE DETERMINATION OF PARALLEL MANIPULATOR ARCHITECTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the wrench workspace (WW) determination of parallel manipulators. The WW is the set of end-effector poses (positions and orientations) for which the active joints are able to balance a set of external wrenches acting at the end-effector. The determination of the WW is important when selecting an appropriate manipulator design since the size and shape of the WW are dependent on the manipulator’s geometry (design) and selected actuators. Algorithms for the determination of the reachable workspace and the WW are presented. The algorithms are applicable to manipulator architectures utilizing actuators with positive and negative limits on the force/torque they can generate, as well as cable-driven parallel manipulator architectures which require nonnegative actuator limits to maintain positive cable tensions. The developed algorithms are demonstrated in case studies applied to a cable-driven parallel manipulator with 2-degrees-of-freedom and three cables and to a 3-RRR parallel manipulator. The approaches used in this paper provide guaranteed results and are based on methods utilizing interval analysis techniques for the representation of end-effector poses and design parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".