Kinematic Analysis and Design of Kinematically Redundant Parallel Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the singularity analysis and the design of three new types of kinematically redundant parallel mechanisms, i.e., the four-degree-of-freedom planar and spherical parallel mechanisms and the seven-degree-of-freedom spatial Stewart platform. The main idea in the design of these parallel manipulators is the addition of one redundant degree of freedom in one of the kinematic chains of the nonredundant manipulator. Such manipulators can be used to avoid the singularities inside the workspace of nonredundant manipulators. After describing the geometry of the manipulators, the velocity equations are derived and the expressions for the Jacobian matrices are obtained. Then, the singularity conditions are discussed. Finally, the expressions of the singularity loci of the kinematically redundant mechanisms are obtained and the singularity loci of the nonredundant and redundant manipulators are compared. It is shown here that the conditions for the singularity of the redundant manipulators are reduced drastically relative to the nonredundant ones. As a result, the proposed kinematically redundant parallel manipulators may be of great interest in several applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".