MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404194673 · doi:10.1017/s0263574724001486

Reconfigurable cable-driven parallel mechanism design: physical constraints and control

2024· article· en· W4404194673 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Khoshbin, Martin J.-D. Otis, Ramy Meziane

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCegep de Sept IlesUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Control (management)Computer scienceMechanism designControl engineeringComputer architectureEngineeringArtificial intelligencePhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The cable-driven parallel mechanism (CDPM) is known as an interesting application in industry to pick and place objects owing to its advantages such as large workspaces. In addition to the advantages of this mechanism, there are some challenges to improving performance by considering constraints in different components, such as the behavior of cables, shape, size of the end effector and base, and model of pulleys and actuators. Moreover, the impact of online geometry reconfiguration must be analyzed. This paper demonstrates the impact of these constraints on the performance of reconfigurable CDPM. The methodology is based on the systematic review and meta-analysis guidelines to report the results. The databases used to find the papers are extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar, using related keywords. As a result, the impact of physical constraints on system performance is discussed. A total of 90 and 37 articles are selected, respectively. After removing duplicates and unrelated papers, 88 studies that met the inclusion criteria are selected for review. Even when considering the physical constraints in modeling the mechanism, simplifications in designing a model for the reconfigurable CDPM generate errors. There is a gap in designing high-performance controllers to track desired trajectories while reconfiguring the geometry, and the satisfaction of physical constraints needs to be satisfied. In conclusion, this review presents several constraints in designing a controller to track desired trajectories and improve performance in future work. This paper presents an integrated controller architecture that includes physical constraints and predictive control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoboticaSame topicRobotic Mechanisms and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207