MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889691926 · doi:10.1115/1.4041382

Four-Quadrant Analysis and System Design for Single-Rod Hydrostatic Actuators

2018· article· en· W2889691926 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Koury Costa, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrant (abdomen)ActuatorHydrostatic equilibriumCylinderHydraulic cylinderCompensation (psychology)Control theory (sociology)Flow (mathematics)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMechanicsElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a novel design for single-rod hydrostatic actuators that produces a stable response in all operation quadrants. The new design, which can have different embodiments, is built upon compensating for the differential flows coming in and out of single-rod actuators, by alternately connecting cap and rod sides of the cylinder to a flow source in accordance with the energy flow direction between the circuit and the load. We show that previous quadrant division definitions result in either geometric quadrants that do not coincide with motoring and pumping operation, or misrepresentations of the actual energy exchange between the load and the cylinder. The proposed quadrant representation gives the exact information about the right operation of compensating flow valves. The efficacy of the new design has been tested on an instrumented John Deere JD-48 backhoe. Precise redirection of the compensation flow allowed for nonoscillatory motions in all quadrants of operation and various loading conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and ControlSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207