MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085736147 · doi:10.3390/act9030086

Optimal Force Allocation and Position Control of Hybrid Pneumatic–Electric Linear Actuators

2020· article· en· W3085736147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActuators · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)ActuatorPneumatic actuatorModel predictive controlBenchmark (surveying)Control engineeringController (irrigation)Computer sciencePosition (finance)Tracking errorEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid pneumatic–electric actuators (HPEAs) are redundant actuators that combine the large force, low bandwidth characteristics of pneumatic actuators with the large bandwidth, small force characteristics of electric actuators. It has been shown that HPEAs can provide both accurate position control and high inherent safety, due to their low mechanical impedance, making them a suitable choice for driving the joints of assistive, collaborative, and service robots. If these characteristics are mathematically modeled, input allocation techniques can improve the HPEA’s performance by distributing the required input (force or torque) between the redundant actuators in accordance with each actuator’s advantages and limitations. In this paper, after developing a model for a HPEA-driven system, three novel model-predictive control (MPC) approaches are designed that solve the position tracking and input allocation problem using convex optimization. MPC is utilized since the input allocation can be embedded within the motion controller design as a single optimization problem. A fourth approach based on conventional linear controllers is included as a comparison benchmark. The first MPC approach uses a model that includes the dynamics of the payload and pneumatics; and performs the motion control using a single loop. The latter methods simplify the MPC law by separating the position and pressure controllers. Although the linear controller was the most computationally efficient, it was inferior to the MPC-based controllers in position tracking and force allocation performance. The third MPC-based controller design demonstrated the best position tracking with RMSE of 46%, 20%, and 55% smaller than the other three approaches. It also demonstrated sufficient speed for real-time operation.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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