Development and Evaluation of a Friction Model for Tendon-Driven Soft Robotic Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Capstan formula is a common theoretical model that has been widely used to characterize friction between tendons and sheaths in tendon-driven transmission systems. Although several factors affect the friction in these systems, only two factors, the friction coefficient and the curvature angle of the sheaths, are taken into account in this theoretical model. Thus, understanding friction behavior still remains a significant limitation of control system performance for robotic systems that use tendon-driven mechanisms. This study aims to develop an improved friction model to more accurately determine the friction in tendon-driven systems. It considers the physical properties of the tendons and the sheaths by calculating the contact area and the adhesion force between them. The proposed friction model was verified by simulation and benchtop experiments, and compared with the Capstan formula. The results demonstrate that the error is reduced between 45% and 95% depending on the tendon angle and the sheath curvature. Thus, the proposed friction model can be used to characterize the friction between the tendons and sheaths in tendon-driven wearable devices, which could result in improved accuracy and better control of these devices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".