Kinematic Analysis and Design of Planar Parallel Mechanisms Actuated With Cables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we present a general and systematic analysis of planar parallel mechanisms actuated with cables. The equations for the velocities are derived, and the forces in the cables are obtained by the principle of virtual work. Then, a detailed analysis of the workspace is performed and an analytical method for the determination of the boundaries of an x-y two-dimensional subset is proposed. The new notion of dynamic workspace is denned, as its shape depends on the accelerations of the end-effector. We demonstrate that any subset of the workspace can be considered as a combination of three-cable sub-workspaces, with boundaries being of two kinds: two-cable equilibrium loci and three-cable singularity loci. By using a parametric representation, we see that for the x-y workspace of a simple no-spring mechanism, the two-cable equilibrium loci represent a hyperbolic section, degenerating, in some particular cases, to one or two linear segments. Examples of such loci are presented. We use quadratic programming to choose which sections of the curves constitute the boundaries of the workspace for any particular dynamic state. A detailed example of workspace determination is included for a six-cable mechanism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".