Design of a Clip-On Modular Tactile Sensing Attachment Based on Fiber Bragg Gratings: Theoretical Modeling and Experimental Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite widespread modular tooling in robots and automated systems, tactile sensing lags behind, constrained by custom and non-interchangeable sensors. To close this gap, we developed a clip-on cylindrical tactile module that combines a snap-fit Clip-on Cap (CC) with a plug-in Sensor Core (PSC) hosting an array of force sensing and temperature-reference fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs). An opto-mechanical model relates Bragg wavelength shifts to external forces through parameterized dimensions and remains applicable across varied module sizes. Two loading configurations are examined: Case I, a PSC fitted with a compliant PSC-solid insert, and Case II, a hollow PSC. Experiments across both configurations validate the model, with prediction errors below 8%. Case II offers up to twice the force sensitivity of Case I, whereas Case I maintains slightly higher linearity (R2 > 0.95). We propose a metric, Q, for assessing the trade-off among sensitivity, linearity, and dynamic lag; analyses with this metric establish that softer solid inserts enhance tactile force perception. The CC–PSC pair can be rapidly swapped or detached to meet diverse application needs. These results provide a transferable design and modeling framework for equipping robots—or other automated systems—with universally deployable, clip-on tactile perception.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".