MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093830561 · doi:10.3390/s20205919

New Method and Portable Measurement Device for the Calibration of Industrial Robots

2020· article· en· W3093830561 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLaser trackerRobotCalibrationRobot end effectorGeodetic datumComputer visionArtificial intelligenceIndustrial robotRobot calibrationPosition (finance)EngineeringComputer scienceSimulationLaserRobot kinematicsMobile robotMathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an automated calibration method for industrial robots, based on the use of (1) a novel, low-cost, wireless, 3D measuring device mounted on the robot end-effector and (2) a portable 3D ball artifact fixed with respect to the robot base. The new device, called TriCal, is essentially a fixture holding three digital indicators (plunger style), the axes of which are orthogonal and intersect at one point, considered to be the robot tool center point (TCP). The artifact contains four 1-inch datum balls, each mounted on a stem, with precisely known relative positions measured on a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The measurement procedure with the TriCal is fully automated and consists of the robot moving its end-effector in such as a way as to perfectly align its TCP with the center of each of the four datum balls, with multiple end-effector orientations. The calibration method and hardware were tested on a six-axis industrial robot (KUKA KR6 R700 sixx). The calibration model included all kinematic and joint stiffness parameters, which were identified using the least-squares method. The efficiency of the new calibration system was validated by measuring the accuracy of the robot after calibration in 500 nearly random end-effector poses using a laser tracker. The same validation was performed after the robot was calibrated using measurements from the laser tracker only. Results show that both measurement methods lead to similar accuracy improvements, with the TriCal yielding maximum position errors of 0.624 mm and mean position errors of 0.326 mm.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.180 · 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