MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cascade Terminal Sliding Mode Control of a Deployable Cable Driven Robot

2019· article· en· W3010949428 on OpenAlexaff
S. A. Khalilpour, R. Khorrambakht, M. J. Harandi, Hamid D. Taghirad, Philippe Cardou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Inner loopCascadeActuatorController (irrigation)Sliding mode controlKinematicsComputer scienceRobust controlLyapunov functionRobotNonlinear systemPID controllerControl engineeringControl systemEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most control systems used for cable-driven parallel manipulators employ a simple inner control loop for controlling the driving force of the actuators. By this means the effects of some nonlinear uncertainties of the actuator and power transmission systems are significantly reduced, and in turn, this helps the outer user-specified position control loop to perform more accurately. However, this positive impact on performance relies on non achievable assumptions that the inner control loop is fast and accurate enough, and its dynamics can be totally ignored. The main contribution of this paper is to analyze the stability of the system as a whole, considering both inner and outer loop controllers. The outer loop controller proposed in here is a finite time robust sliding mode whose stability is analyzed through the Lyapunov direct method. A deployable cable-driven parallel robot, as the case study, is also considered in this paper, which is characterized by several intrinsic kinematic and dynamic uncertainties. Finally, the performance and effectiveness of the proposed robust controller is evaluated through some simulations and experiments in order to verify the effectiveness and the characteristics of the cascade controller structure in practice.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207