Layout Optimization of the Six‐Axis Industrial Robot Based on an Improved Whale Algorithm for Reducing Energy Consumption in Industry 5.0
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
In the advent of Industry 5.0, the harmonious integration of human ingenuity and robotic precision in complex work environments is pivotal for sustainable industrial growth. The six-axis industrial robot, as an essential part of carrying out cyclic pick-and-place tasks in Industry 5.0, usually works in an extremely complex working environment. This intricate working environment makes the six-axis industrial robot difficult to reach the task points effectively, resulting in a lot of energy consumption. This not only impacts productivity but also leads to excessive energy consumption, which stands at odds with the Industry 5.0 principles of resource conservation. To solve this problem, a novel method to optimize the layout scheme of the six-axis industrial robot with the goal of minimizing the energy loss is creatively proposed in this paper. First, the reachable workspace and feasible workspace under constraints are mathematically modeled and then obtained. Second, the operability and the minimum singular value are utilized to evaluate the energy loss of the feasible workspace. Third, the whale algorithm is designed and improved to obtain the optimal layout scheme of the six-axis industrial robot. Finally, a case of the recliner's production line with the six-axis industrial robot (IRB140; ABB) is provided to validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The results show that after optimization, the optimal layout scheme has been successfully obtained, and the energy loss has reduced from 0.2917 to 0.2309, a decrease of 20.84%, proving that the proposed method can obtain the optimal layout scheme with lower energy consumption.
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