MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048231269 · doi:10.1109/tmech.2020.3014804

Thermal Modeling and Characterization of Twisted Coiled Actuators for Upper Limb Wearable Devices

2020· article· en· W3048231269 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandon P.R. Edmonds, Christopher T. DeGroot, Ana Luisa Trejos

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation
KeywordsActuatorBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceThermalWearable computerPower (physics)Mechanical engineeringSimulationEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key issue with wearable technology today is the popular use of stiff electrical motors to actuate the joints. Although their performance is ideal in terms of power, bandwidth, accuracy, and speed, they do not have the inherent ability to replicate many key biological properties. This includes the ability to modulate compliance, produce linear actuation, and provide high power-to-weight ratios. The solutions to replicating these properties usually include complex mechanisms in the form of gear boxes, parallel spring mechanisms, and control algorithms, making these devices costly, heavy, and large. As an alternative, the twisted coiled actuator (TCA) is flexible, soft, and can provide large strain and high power outputs when thermally activated. This article provides a new solution to modeling the thermal behavior of TCAs within an active air cooled enclosure. The thermal models were validated against multiple inner tube diameters, heating powers, cooling pressures, and TCA sizes, and predicted the temperature to within 8.16 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">°</sup> C during heating, and 4.33 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">°</sup> C during cooling, corresponding to 92.7% and 94.5% accuracy, respectively. After model validation, the sensitivity of the input design parameters to performance characteristics, such as system bandwidth and efficiency, were investigated to provide specific use cases on model optimization techniques.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ASME Transactions on MechatronicsSame topicAdvanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting MaterialsFrench-language works237,207