| Literature DB >> 30013001 |
Kai Yang1, Jianping Peng2, Chaozhe Jiang3, Xi Jiang4, Longfei Xiao5, Bangping Wang6, Xiaorong Gao7, Liming Xie8, Hua Peng9.
Abstract
As an important part of the electric locomotive in railway transportation, the sensing and inspection of the pantograph has a significant effect on the safe operation of the train. In general, the pantograph carbon slip detection items include slide wear detection, slip strip crack detection, carbon slip fall-block detection and slip strip wear detection. The emergence and development of structured light measurement technology with 3D sensors provide new technical means for the acquisition of spatial 3D information. The three-dimensional data can not only obtain more information but also reduce the data deviation, thereby improving the measurement accuracy and work efficiency. At present, few studies have been conducted on the slide block and partial wear of the carbon slide. Therefore, this paper studies the detection of the pantograph slide block based on 3D sensor measurement technology. The experimental results indicate that it is feasible to adopt 3D measurement technology to detect the fall-block of the pantograph slide. In addition, a sound detection effect can also be obtained.Entities:
Keywords: 3D optical sensor; image processing; pantograph; surface defect
Year: 2018 PMID: 30013001 PMCID: PMC6069041 DOI: 10.3390/s18072305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Traditional detection method.
Figure 2The principle of the ultrasonic measuring device.
Figure 3(a)The principle of the monitoring system; (b) the left picture captured by the left camera; (c) the right picture captured by the right camera.
Figure 4The Principle of Structured Light 3D Detection.
Figure 5The Fall-block of the Slider.
Figure 6(a) System Layout 1; (b) System Layout 2; (c) The Mechanical Drawing Diagram.
Figure 7Structure Diagram.
Figure 8(a) The Sketch Map of the Optical Layout; (b) The Camera Field.
Figure 9Pantograph.
Figure 10(a)Measured Object 1; (b) Measured Object 2.
Figure 11(a) Experiment 2D Data; (b) Experiment 3D Data.
Figure 12(a) 2D Data of Object 1; (b) 2D Data of Object 2; (c) 3D Data of Object 1; (d) 3D Data of Object 2.
Figure 13Simulated Defects.
Figure 143D Results.
Figure 15All Defects.
Error Analysis.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Actual value (mm) | 1.9 | 1.9 | 8.5 | 4.1 |
| Detection value (mm) | 2.05 | 2.4 | 8.7 | 4.3 |
| Error | +0.15 | +0.5 | +0.2 | +0.2 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Actual value (mm) | 3.8 | 1.9 | 4.1 | 4 |
| Detection value (mm) | 3.9 | 2.1 | 4 | 3.6 |
| Error | +0.1 | +0.2 | −0.1 | −0.4 |
|
|
|
| ||
| Actual value (mm) | 9.2 | 6 | 6 | |
| Detection value (mm) | 9.5 | 6.1 | 6.1 | |
| Error | +0.3 | +0.1 | +0.1 |
Figure 16Strength images.