The Effect of Model Errors on Laser Ranging Residuals

1990 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
M. Carpino ◽  
A. de Haan ◽  
F. Migliaccio ◽  
F. Sansò
Keyword(s):  
Laser Ranging ◽  
Model Errors

Localization of test/analysis structural model errors

1989 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHAUR-MING CHOU ◽  
JOHN O'CALLAHAN ◽  
CHI-HSING WU
Keyword(s):  
Structural Model ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Test Analysis

Effects of Dynamic Model Errors in Task-Priority Operational Space Control

Robotica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Paolo Di Lillo ◽  
Gianluca Antonelli ◽  
Ciro Natale
Keyword(s):  
Inverse Kinematics ◽  
Degrees Of Freedom ◽  
Inverse Dynamics ◽  
Null Space ◽  
Control Algorithms ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Operational Space ◽  
Dynamic Level ◽  
Concurrent Tasks ◽  
Modeling Errors

SUMMARY Control algorithms of many Degrees-of-Freedom (DOFs) systems based on Inverse Kinematics (IK) or Inverse Dynamics (ID) approaches are two well-known topics of research in robotics. The large number of DOFs allows the design of many concurrent tasks arranged in priorities, that can be solved either at kinematic or dynamic level. This paper investigates the effects of modeling errors in operational space control algorithms with respect to uncertainties affecting knowledge of the dynamic parameters. The effects on the null-space projections and the sources of steady-state errors are investigated. Numerical simulations with on-purpose injected errors are used to validate the thoughts.

scholarly journals Detection of hidden model errors by combining single and multi-criteria calibration

2021 ◽  
pp. 146218
Author(s):  
T. Houska ◽  
P. Kraft ◽  
F. Jehn ◽  
K. Bestian ◽  
D. Kraus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Model Errors

scholarly journals Evaluation of GRACE/GRACE Follow-On Time-Variable Gravity Field Models for Earthquake Detection above Mw8.0s in Spectral Domain

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 3075
Author(s):  
Ming Xu ◽  
Xiaoyun Wan ◽  
Runjing Chen ◽  
Yunlong Wu ◽  
Wenbing Wang
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Time Variable ◽  
Model Errors ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Time Variable Gravity ◽  
Earthquake Detection ◽  
Gravity Fields ◽  
Variable Gravity ◽  
Gravity Recovery ◽  
Gravity Field Models

This study compares the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment (GRACE)/GRACE Follow-On (GFO) errors with the coseismic gravity variations generated by earthquakes above Mw8.0s that occurred during April 2002~June 2017 and evaluates the influence of monthly model errors on the coseismic signal detection. The results show that the precision of GFO monthly models is approximately 38% higher than that of the GRACE monthly model and all the detected earthquakes have signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) larger than 1.8. The study concludes that the precision of the time-variable gravity fields should be improved by at least one order in order to detect all the coseismic gravity signals of earthquakes with M ≥ 8.0. By comparing the spectral intensity distribution of the GFO stack errors and the 2019 Mw8.0 Peru earthquake, it is found that the precision of the current GFO monthly model meets the requirement to detect the coseismic signal of the earthquake. However, due to the limited time length of the observations and the interference of the hydrological signal, the coseismic signals are, in practice, difficult to extract currently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document