Low-Level Force-Control of MR-Hydrostatic Actuators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precise and high-fidelity force control is critical for new generations of robots that interact with humans and unknown environments. Mobile robots, such as wearable devices and legged robots, must also be lightweight to accomplish their function. Hydrostatic transmissions have been proposed as a promising strategy for meeting these two challenging requirements. In previous publications, it was shown that using magnetorheological (MR) actuators coupled with hydrostatic transmissions provides high power density and great open-loop human-robot interactions. Still, the open-loop force fidelity at low and high frequencies are decreased by the transmission's dynamics and by nonlinear friction. This letter compares control strategies for MR-hydrostatic actuator systems to increase its torque fidelity, defined as the bandwidth (measured vs desired torque reference) and transparency (minimizing the undesired forces reflected to the end effector when backdriving the robot). Four control approaches are developed and compared experimentally: (1) Open-loop control with friction compensation; (2) non-collocated pressure feedback; (3) collocated pressure feedback; (4) LQGI state feedback. A dither strategy is also implemented to smoothen ball screw friction. Results show that approaches (1), (2) and (3) can increase the performances but are facing compromises, while approach (4) can simultaneously improve all metrics. These results show the potential of using control schemes for improving the force control performance of robots using tethered architectures, addressing issues such as transmission dynamics and friction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".