MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995033092 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0190

Preliminary design of a revolute to prismatic morphing compliant joint

2019· article· en· W2995033092 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicolas Mouazé, Lionel Birglen

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPiezoelectric Actuators and Control
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingRevolute jointSoftware portabilityCompliant mechanismHingeWorkspaceComputer scienceActuatorAerospaceFinite element methodTopology (electrical circuits)EngineeringControl engineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringRobotArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduction of weight and size of mechanisms are important and difficult challenges considering portability, energy efficiency, and simplicity of fabrication. One of the solutions to address these issues consists of mechanisms with variable topology for which the mobility of the output is a succession of several simpler elementary motions. This change of mobility allows for achieving complex motions without necessitating a complicated design where many actuators or types of mechanical transmissions are required. Indeed, these variable topology mechanisms, also referred to as morphing mechanisms, have the ability to change their output motion throughout their workspace. Hand tools, medical devices, and aerospace robotic end-effectors are potential applications of this technology. In this paper, conceptual designs of such a revolute to prismatic morphing joint and its implementation using compliant hinges are proposed. Additionally, performance indexes pertaining to the desired output motion are proposed. First, a pseudo-rigid body model of a design candidate is presented, and simulations of this model are compared with finite element analyses to ensure accuracy. Then, several design features are quantitatively evaluated to propose improvements for future versions of the design. Finally, an early prototype illustrates the potential and feasibility of the proposed design as well as a possible application. Video

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicPiezoelectric Actuators and ControlFrench-language works237,207