Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Dynamic Parameter Identification of a Curtain Wall Installation Robotic Arm

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims its composite rigid-body plus hydraulic-cylinder dynamic model, identified from optimized Fourier excitation trajectories by hierarchical least squares, reproduces the measured joint torques of a curtain wall installation…

desk verdict Competent application of standard dynamic identification to a new hydraulic curtain-wall arm, but the headline sub-0.4 Nm validation is in-sample and the RSD formula is mislabeled, so the central claim needs out-of-sample evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17136 v1 pith:AUEHYOXP submitted 2025-07-23 cs.RO

Xiao Liu , Yunxiao Cheng , Weijun Wang , Tianlun Huang , Wei Feng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords dynamicparameteridentificationcurtainwallinstallationrobothydrauliccylinderdynamicsStribeckfrictionmodelFourierexcitationtrajectoriesleastsquaresestimationminimalinertiasetresidualstandarddeviation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to make a hydraulically driven robotic arm for curtain wall installation usable for model-based control by identifying its dynamic parameters from experiments. It builds a Denavit–Hartenberg rigid-body model of the arm and couples it with a hydraulic-cylinder dynamics model whose friction is described by a linearized Stribeck term. Fourier-series trajectories are designed to excite the minimal 18-parameter inertia set while respecting joint limits, and a two-stage least-squares procedure first identifies friction, then inertia parameters. The claimed outcome is a model whose predicted joint torques match sensor measurements with residual standard deviations below 0.4 Nm for all six joints. This matters because a trustworthy dynamic model is what would let controllers compensate for the robot's own dynamics and lets designers simulate the arm before building it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite parametric dynamic model $\tau = Y(q,\dot q,\ddot q) X$ for the arm, coupled with the hydraulic-cylinder force balance $m\ddot x + c\dot x + Kx + f_c\,\mathrm{sgn}(\dot x) + f_v\dot x + f_s \dot x^{1/3} = p_1A_1 - p_2A_2 - F$, in which the Stribeck friction model, which captures static, transition, and fluid-dynamic lubrication zones, is linearized so that all unknowns enter affinely. The cylinder and arm parameters are identified in two stages: first the friction and stiffness parameters of each cylinder from pressure and displacement data, then the 18-parameter minimal inertia set of the arm by least squares with the observation matrix built from Fourier-series excitation trajectories that respect joint limits. The reduction from 78 to 18 parameters, generated with a symbolic dynamics toolbox, is what makes the second-stage least squares well-conditioned.

What would settle it

Collect a fresh dataset from a trajectory whose Fourier coefficients differ from those in Table 3 (or from a manually guided motion), compute the joint torques predicted by the identified parameters, and compare them with measured torques; if the residual standard deviations exceed 0.4 Nm, the high-precision claim would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the proposed hierarchical identification framework delivers high-precision dynamic parameters for this hydraulically actuated arm on a real platform. The composite model treats the hydraulic cylinder force balance and the rigid-body arm dynamics as one parametric system: the cylinder model contributes mass, stiffness, Coulomb, viscous, and Stribeck friction parameters, and the arm model is reduced from 78 to 18 independent inertia parameters using a symbolic minimal-set derivation. Excitation trajectories are Fourier series whose coefficients are selected to keep the motion within joint position, velocity, and acceleration bounds and to minimize the condition number of the observation matrix. Least-squares estimates from the measured data yield torque predictions whose residuals, expressed as a normalized standard deviation, stay under 0.4 Nm for every joint; the paper reads this as confirmation that the identified parameters describe the robot's dynamics accurately enough for control and simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The validation residuals are presented without stating whether the test trajectories were the same ones used for identification, so the sub-0.4 Nm numbers may reflect how well the least-squares fit matches its own training data rather than how well the model predicts new motions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Model-based controllers can use the identified parameters for feedforward torque compensation and computed-torque control of this curtain wall robot.
  • The reported sub-0.4 Nm residuals indicate the minimal 18-parameter model captures the dominant rigid-body and friction dynamics of the arm, supporting its use in simulation.
  • The separation of cylinder friction identification from rigid-body inertia identification, followed by joint calibration, provides a template for other hydraulic manipulators.
  • The Fourier excitation trajectory design with joint constraints can be reused for re-identifying parameters after maintenance or payload changes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the validation used the same trajectories as identification, the residual standard deviations only attest to fitting quality; a hold-out trajectory test would reveal whether the model predicts novel motions.
  • The pipeline could transfer to other hydraulically driven construction equipment, such as excavators or aerial lifts, since the cylinder model and excitation design do not depend on the specific arm geometry.
  • Because the paper tabulates piston masses, friction parameters, and the 18 inertia parameters, a reader could reconstruct a complete simulation model of the arm without access to the hardware.
  • If one wanted to push accuracy further, the linearized Stribeck term $\dot x^{1/3}$ could be replaced by the full exponential Stribeck or a LuGre model and the change in residuals measured; the paper's reported residuals provide a baseline.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a holistic dynamic parameter identification framework for a six-degree-of-freedom hydraulically driven curtain wall installation robot. The authors construct a Denavit-Hartenberg model from measured structural parameters, integrate a linearized Stribeck friction model for hydraulic cylinders, design Fourier-series excitation trajectories under joint constraints, and identify cylinder friction and rigid-body minimal inertial parameters through a hierarchical least-squares procedure. Full-scale experiments are reported, and the paper claims residual standard deviations below 0.4 Nm between theoretical and measured joint torques (Table 7), which is presented as evidence of high-precision identification.

Significance. If the validation claim were properly supported, the work would be practically valuable: it provides a complete pipeline for identifying physically interpretable dynamic parameters for a non-standard hydraulically actuated manipulator, which is needed for model-based control and simulation. The paper has strengths: it performs separate cylinder friction identification before rigid-body identification, uses a minimal parameter set via SymPyBotics, and reports full-scale experiments on all six joints. However, the central validation is currently in-sample, the stated error metric is mis-specified, and several unit and consistency issues affect the quantitative claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [V.C, Eq. (24)] Section V.C states only that "actual position, velocity, and acceleration data were input into the observation matrix" and compared with measured torques; it does not state that these data come from a trajectory separate from the one used to form H and Γ in Eq. (24). Since Eq. (24) minimizes ∥ρ∥² over exactly the data used for validation, Table 7 reports fitting residuals, not out-of-sample prediction errors. The sub-0.4 Nm values therefore do not, by themselves, support the abstract's "high-precision" claim. Please add a hold-out validation trajectory (or a cross-validation analysis) and report residuals on data not used in the least-squares estimate.
  2. [Eq. (28), Table 7] Equation (28) defines ξ_RSD as sqrt(Σ(τ_ik−τ′_ik)² / Σ τ_ik²), which is a dimensionless normalized RMS error, not a residual standard deviation in Nm. Table 7 labels the column ξ_RSD(Nm) and the conclusion states "below 0.4 Nm". Either the formula is missing a factor of 1/K and the square root of the mean squared residual, or the reported numbers are relative errors (0.18–0.38, i.e., 18–38%), which would not support the stated accuracy. The authors should correct the formula, the units, and the numerical claim accordingly.
  3. [Eq. (11)] The recursive least-squares gain in Eq. (11) is written K_k = P_{k−1}λ_k (λ_k^T P_{k−1}λ_k − 1)^{-1}. In standard RLS the denominator is λ_k^T P_{k−1}λ_k + 1 (or a variant with a forgetting factor), and the minus sign can make the gain singular or negative for small λ_k^T P_{k−1}λ_k. As the recursive update is the basis for the cylinder friction identification in Section IV.A, the authors should verify the equation and, if it is a typo, correct it and state whether the implemented algorithm uses the printed form.
  4. [Tables 2, 3; Eq. (25)] There are unit inconsistencies in the trajectory data. In Table 3, a_i^l, b_i^l and q_i,0 are given without units; if they are radians or rad/s, values such as a_1^1 = −8.996 and b_1^1 = 8.600 produce joint excursions far outside the limits in Table 2 (e.g., joint 1 limit is [−0.0523, 1.0472] rad), while if they are degrees, Eq. (27) and the frequency terms in Eq. (25) are not in consistent units. Additionally, the nominal θ_i values in Table 1 (130° for joint 2, −60° for joint 3) lie outside the corresponding limits in Table 2. Please clarify the units and verify the consistency of the numerical values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The name "Strubeck" is used in Section IV.A and in the Figure 7 caption; the correct spelling is "Stribeck".
  2. [Table 5] The friction parameters f_c, f_v, f_s in Eq. (4) appear as forces in the hydraulic cylinder force balance Eq. (5), but Table 5 lists units of N·m; clarify whether these are forces or joint torques.
  3. [Eq. (16)] Equation (16), the parallel axis theorem, is garbled: the coordinate-frame notation is inconsistent and the equation contains duplicated or misplaced terms. Please rewrite it cleanly.
  4. [References] Reference [26] is cited as the source of the SymPyBotics tool package, but the reference is a paper on autonomous construction robots; provide the correct citation for SymPyBotics.
  5. [Section IV.B] The text preceding Eq. (24) says "Equation (24) can be expressed in the form of a least squares estimate," but Eq. (24) is the least-squares estimate itself; please rephrase to avoid circular wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation is in-sample: Table 7 residuals are least-squares fitting residuals, not out-of-sample predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V.C, Eqs. (24) and (28), Table 7]
    "After obtaining the dynamic parameters of the robotic arm, the actual position, velocity, and acceleration data were input into the observation matrix to calculate the theoretical torque values for each joint. These theoretical torques were then compared with the measured torques."

    The parameters are estimated by least squares in Eq. (24), beta_hat = (H^T H)^{-1} H^T Gamma, which minimizes the squared residual between the theoretical and measured torques on the identification data. The validation in Section V.C uses 'actual position, velocity, and acceleration data' without stating that these data come from a trajectory different from the one used to build H and Gamma. Therefore the residual standard deviations in Table 7 are the minimized fitting residuals, not out-of-sample prediction errors. Small residuals of 0.2-0.4 Nm are expected for an in-sample least-squares fit with 18 inertia parameters plus per-joint friction terms, so they do not by themselves demonstrate predictive accuracy or 'high-precision dynamic parameter identification'.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is that 'experimental validation on a robotic arm platform demonstrates residual standard deviations below 0.4 Nm between theoretical and measured joint torques, confirming high-precision dynamic parameter identification.' The validation step, however, compares measured torques with torques reconstructed from parameters fitted by least squares to the same measured data. Equation (24) explicitly minimizes the squared difference between measured torque and theoretical torque, and Eq. (28) computes the residual over the sampled data. The paper never states that a separate validation trajectory was used. Thus the reported sub-0.4 Nm residuals are in-sample fitting residuals, making the main validation circular. The separate hydraulic-cylinder friction identification does provide a partially independent component, and the Fourier excitation trajectory design is conventional, but these do not rescue the central validation claim. In addition, Eq. (28) as printed is normalized by sum_k tau_ik^2, making xi dimensionless, while Table 7 labels the values in Nm; this is a correctness concern that further weakens the reported metric, though it is not itself circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found. Overall, the paper's core prediction claim reduces by construction to its fitting procedure, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on many fitted values (18 inertial, 18 friction, plus K and c) and on an in-sample validation. The ad hoc Stribeck linearization and the unknown condition number of the regressor add further untested assumptions. The paper does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Hydraulic cylinder friction parameters fc,i, fv,i, fs,i for joints 1 to 6 = Table 5 values; e.g., joint 1: 20.77, 7.83, -15.15 N.m
    Fitted to pressure and displacement data in Section V.B and treated as known when identifying robot inertial parameters.
  • Hydraulic cylinder stiffness K for each joint = Not reported in the paper
    Eq. (5) includes K as an estimated parameter, but no identified value is given, leaving the cylinder model incomplete.
  • Damping coefficient c = c = 2 (set by hand)
    Section V.B fixes the viscous coefficient without justification or sensitivity analysis.
  • Minimal inertial parameters beta (18 values) = Table 6 values
    Fitted to joint torque data via least squares in Eq. (24); these constitute the main identified model output.
  • Fourier excitation coefficients a_i^l, b_i^l, q_i0 (42 values) = Table 3 values
    Optimized to minimize the regressor condition number, but the optimization algorithm and achieved condition number are not reported; units (degrees vs radians) are unclear.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The robotic links are rigid bodies and hydraulic compressibility is a linear spring with stiffness K
    Eq. (2) and Eq. (15) ignore link flexibility and nonlinear oil compressibility; no check is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The cube-root linearized Stribeck model is a valid approximation of the exponential Stribeck curve over the operating velocity range
    Eq. (4) substitutes a cube-root term for the exponential without derivation or validity limits.
  • domain assumption The three-harmonic Fourier trajectory excites all 18 minimal parameters with a well-conditioned regressor
    Section IV.C says the trajectory minimizes condition number, but no condition number or rank test is reported.
  • domain assumption Friction parameters measured on unloaded cylinders remain valid under loaded robot motion
    Section V.B identifies friction with all joints unloaded, but robot-level validation involves gravity loads; pressure dependence of friction is not studied.
  • domain assumption Joint torque is accurately obtained from pressure and displacement measurements
    The conversion from cylinder force to joint torque is not described, and sensor accuracy is not given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Parameter Identification of a Curtain Wall Installation Robotic Arm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUEHYOXP

@misc{pith2026250717136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Parameter Identification of a Curtain Wall Installation Robotic Arm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUEHYOXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17136}
}
read the original abstract

In the construction industry, traditional methods fail to meet the modern demands for efficiency and quality. The curtain wall installation is a critical component of construction projects. We design a hydraulically driven robotic arm for curtain wall installation and a dynamic parameter identification method. We establish a Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) model based on measured robotic arm structural parameters and integrate hydraulic cylinder dynamics to construct a composite parametric system driven by a Stribeck friction model. By designing high-signal-to-noise ratio displacement excitation signals for hydraulic cylinders and combining Fourier series to construct optimal excitation trajectories that satisfy joint constraints, this method effectively excites the characteristics of each parameter in the minimal parameter set of the dynamic model of the robotic arm. On this basis, a hierarchical progressive parameter identification strategy is proposed: least squares estimation is employed to separately identify and jointly calibrate the dynamic parameters of both the hydraulic cylinder and the robotic arm, yielding Stribeck model curves for each joint. Experimental validation on a robotic arm platform demonstrates residual standard deviations below 0.4 Nm between theoretical and measured joint torques, confirming high-precision dynamic parameter identification for the hydraulic-driven curtain wall installation robotic arm. This significantly contributes to enhancing the intelligence level of curtain wall installation operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Glass Curtain Wall Installation Robotic Arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Robotic Arm Model and Link Coordinate Systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dynamics Parameter Identification Flow A. Friction Model Identification The actuation of the robotic arm is via hydraulic cylinders, whose dynamic models are more significantly affected by friction forces compared to motor-driven systems. Therefore, we first perform a separate identification of the friction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hydraulic Cylinder Displacement Curve and displacement velocity signals are: x = 6sin(0.05t) x˙ = 0.3cos(0.05t) (14) Positive displacement signals indicate movement towards the rodless chamber, negative signals indicate movement towards the chamber with the rod [PITH_…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excitation Parameter Trajectories of Each Joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stirbeck Model Curves of Each Joint the fitted values from the constructed model reveals a high degree of conformity. Joints four, five, and six show signif￾icant deviations in Stribeck model curves despite identical configurations, primarily due to manufacturing toler…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental Platform and Key Components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of Theoretical and Measured Torques for Each Joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sopra: Fabrication & dynamical modeling of a scalable soft continuum robotic arm with integrated proprioceptive sensing,

    Y . Toshimitsu, K. W. Wong, and T. Buchner, “Sopra: Fabrication & dynamical modeling of a scalable soft continuum robotic arm with integrated proprioceptive sensing,” in Proc. 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2021, pp. 653–660

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Terminal force soft sensing of hydraulic manipulator based on the parameter identification,

    R. Ding, X. Mu, and M. Cheng, “Terminal force soft sensing of hydraulic manipulator based on the parameter identification,” Measure- ment, vol. 200, p. 111551, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Model identification and parametric adaptive control of hydraulic manipulator with neighborhood field optimization,

    Q. Guo, Z. Chen, and Y . Shi, “Model identification and parametric adaptive control of hydraulic manipulator with neighborhood field optimization,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 1599–1614, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A novel explicit canonical dynamic modeling method for multi-rigid-body mechanisms considering joint friction,

    Z. Guo, H. Ju, and K. Wang, “A novel explicit canonical dynamic modeling method for multi-rigid-body mechanisms considering joint friction,” Aerospace, vol. 11, no. 5, p. 368, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Dynamic parameter identification of modular robot manipulators based on hybrid optimization strategy: Genetic algorithm and least squares method,

    Z. Lu, C. Wei, and D. Ni, “Dynamic parameter identification of modular robot manipulators based on hybrid optimization strategy: Genetic algorithm and least squares method,” Soft Computing, vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 9991–10005, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Lie-theory-based dynamic model identification of serial robots considering nonlinear friction and optimal excitation trajectory,

    R. Luo, J. Yuan, and Z. Hu, “Lie-theory-based dynamic model identification of serial robots considering nonlinear friction and optimal excitation trajectory,” Robotica, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 3552–3569, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    An offset-free explicit model predictive pressure controller for integrated braking system,

    Z. Chen, C. Huang, and Z. Liu, “An offset-free explicit model predictive pressure controller for integrated braking system,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Dynamics of luffing motion of a hydraulically driven shell manipulator with revolute clearance joints,

    Z.-Q. Chen, Q.-F. Lin, and G.-S. Chen, “Dynamics of luffing motion of a hydraulically driven shell manipulator with revolute clearance joints,” Defence Technology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 689–708, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Research on adaptive friction compensation of digital hydraulic cylinder based on LuGre friction model,

    S. Jiang, K. Zhang, and H. Wang, “Research on adaptive friction compensation of digital hydraulic cylinder based on LuGre friction model,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2021, p. 8854424, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Solving the kinematics and dynamics of a modular spatial hyper- redundant manipulator by means of screw theory,

    J. Gallardo-Alvarado, C. R. Aguilar-N ´ajera, and L. Casique-Rosas, “Solving the kinematics and dynamics of a modular spatial hyper- redundant manipulator by means of screw theory,” Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 20, pp. 307–325, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Modeling and control of a two-axis stabilized gimbal based on Kane method,

    Q. Huang, J. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Modeling and control of a two-axis stabilized gimbal based on Kane method,” Sensors, vol. 24, no. 11, p. 3615, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Dynamic modeling method of multibody system of 6-DOF robot based on screw theory,

    J. Cheng, S. Bi, and C. Yuan, “Dynamic modeling method of multibody system of 6-DOF robot based on screw theory,” Machines, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 499, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Compliant gripper design, prototyping, and modeling using screw theory formulation,

    I. Hussain, M. Malvezzi, and D. Gan, “Compliant gripper design, prototyping, and modeling using screw theory formulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 55–71, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    A digital twin-based intelligent robotic measurement system for freeform surface parts,

    Y . Tang, Y . Wang, and H. Tan, “A digital twin-based intelligent robotic measurement system for freeform surface parts,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dynamic modeling and design of a 5-DOF hybrid robot for machining,

    C. Dong, H. Liu, and J. Xiao, “Dynamic modeling and design of a 5-DOF hybrid robot for machining,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 165, p. 104438, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Physical feasibility of robot base inertial parameter identification: A linear matrix inequality approach,

    C. D. Sousa and R. Cortes ˜ao, “Physical feasibility of robot base inertial parameter identification: A linear matrix inequality approach,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 931–944, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Dynamic parameter estimation utilizing optimized trajectories,

    A. Tika, J. Ulmen, and N. Bajcinca, “Dynamic parameter estimation utilizing optimized trajectories,” in Proc. 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2020, pp. 7300–7307

    2020

  10. [18]

    Identification of dynamic parameters for rigid robots based on polynomial approximation,

    A. Lomakin and J. Deutscher, “Identification of dynamic parameters for rigid robots based on polynomial approximation,” in Proc. 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), IEEE, 2020, pp. 7271–7278

    2020

  11. [19]

    Design, simulation, comparison and evaluation of parameter identification methods for an industrial robot,

    C. Urrea and J. Pascal, “Design, simulation, comparison and evaluation of parameter identification methods for an industrial robot,” Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 67, pp. 791–806, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Design and validation of a dynamic parameter identification model for industrial manipulator robots,

    C. Urrea and J. Pascal, “Design and validation of a dynamic parameter identification model for industrial manipulator robots,” Archive of Applied Mechanics, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1981–2007, 2021

    1981

  13. [21]

    Dynamic parameter identification of collaborative robot based on WLS-RWPSO algorithm,

    M. Tang, Y . Yan, and B. An, “Dynamic parameter identification of collaborative robot based on WLS-RWPSO algorithm,” Machines, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 316, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Modeling of dynamic friction behaviors of hydraulic cylinders,

    X. B. Tran, N. Hafizah, and H. Yanada, “Modeling of dynamic friction behaviors of hydraulic cylinders,” Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 65–75, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Review and comparison of dry friction force models,

    E. Pennestr`ı, V . Rossi, and P. Salvini, “Review and comparison of dry friction force models,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 83, pp. 1785–1801, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Friction and rigid body identification of robot dynamics,

    M. Grotjahn, M. Daemi, and B. Heimann, “Friction and rigid body identification of robot dynamics,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, vol. 38, no. 10–13, pp. 1889–1902, 2001

    1902

  17. [25]

    An improved parameter identification algorithm for the friction model of electro-hydraulic servo systems,

    J. Liao, F. Zhou, and J. Zheng, “An improved parameter identification algorithm for the friction model of electro-hydraulic servo systems,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 2076, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    On-site autonomous construction robots: Towards unsupervised building,

    N. Melenbrink, J. Werfel, and A. Menges, “On-site autonomous construction robots: Towards unsupervised building,” Automation in Construction, vol. 119, p. 103312, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.