Actuators for Improving Robotic Arm Safety While Maintaining Performance: A Comparison Study
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".