MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016727646 · doi:10.1177/0278364920913926

Modeling and analysis of soft robotic fingers using the fin ray effect

2020· article· en· W3016727646 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaowei Shan, Lionel Birglen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGRASPGrippersComputer scienceStiffnessObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceSimulationEngineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft grasping of random objects in unstructured environments has been a research topic of predilection both in academia and in industry because of its complexity but great practical relevance. However, accurate modeling of soft hands and fingers has proven a difficult challenge to tackle. Focusing on this issue, this article presents a detailed mathematical modeling and performance analysis of parallel grippers equipped with soft fingers taking advantage of the fin ray effect (FRE). The FRE, based on biomimetic principles, is most commonly found in the design of grasping soft fingers, but despite their popularity, finding a convenient model to assess the grasp capabilities of these fingers is challenging. This article aims at solving this issue by providing an analytic tool to better understand and ultimately design this type of soft fingers. First, a kinetostatic model of a general multi-crossbeam finger is established. This model will allow for a fast yet accurate estimation of the contact forces generated when the fingers grasp an arbitrarily shaped object. The obtained mathematical model will be subsequently validated by numerically to ensure the estimations of the overall grasp strength and individual contact forces are indeed accurate. Physical experiments conducted with 3D-printed fingers of the most common architecture of FRE fingers will also be presented and shown to support the proposed model. Finally, the impact of the relative stiffness between different areas of the fingers will be evaluated to provide insight into further refinement and optimization of these fingers.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
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

Citations107
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207