Control of Double Link Flexible Robotic Manipulator System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexible manipulator is widely used in the implementation of industial robotic due to its advantages such as low weight, low power consumption, higher load capacity, high-speed operation, small actuators and low production costs. However, the position and speed of flexible manipulator system are very difficult to control due to the tip vibration that result in degradation of performance. Modelling and control of a double-link flexible robot manipulator are presented in this study. Controlling the movement of a double-link manipulator, on the other hand, has proven to be a challenging task, especially when a flexible framework is used. Moreover, most double-link flexible manipulator system models are not developed based on real hardware. Hence, this project aims to develop a Solidworks design for double link flexible robotics manipulator (DLFRM) as well as a real hardware prototype. The control position performance of DLFRM was analyzed, and the controllers were tested on a hardware prototype. This project started with a simulation of both controllers, which are PID and FLC. The simulation was designed in Solidworks and exported to Simulink and then converted as Simscape. Then, the hardware for each controller was validated using the control parameter in the simulation. The joints for the robot manipulator were designed in Solidwork and built using 3D printing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".