Actuators for Improving Robotic Arm Safety While Maintaining Performance: A Comparison Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since robotic arms operating close to people are becoming increasingly common, there is a need to better understand how they can be made safe when unintended contact occurs, while still providing the required performance. Several actuators and methods for improving robot safety are studied and compared in this paper. A robotic arm moving its end effector horizontally and colliding with a person’s head is simulated. The use of a conventional electric actuator (CEA), series elastic actuator (SEA), pneumatic actuator (PA) and hybrid pneumatic electric actuator (HPEA) with model-based controllers are studied. The addition of a compliant covering to the arm and the use of collision detection and reaction strategies are also studied. The simulations include sensor noise and modeling error to improve their realism. A systematic method for tuning the controllers fairly is proposed. The motion control performance and safety of the robot are quantified using root mean square error (RMSE) between the desired and actual joint angle trajectories and maximum impact force (MIF), respectively. The results show that the RMSE values are similar when the CEA, SEA, and HPEA drive the robot’s first joint. Regarding safety, using the PA or HPEA with a compliant covering can reduce the MIF below the safety limit established by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). To satisfy this ISO safety limit with the CEA and SEA, a collision detection and reaction strategy must be used in addition to the compliant covering. The influences of the compliant covering’s stiffness and the detection delay are also studied.
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.
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 it