| Literature DB >> 36236386 |
Yansheng Liu1, Junyi You1, Haibo Du1, Shuai Chang1, Shuiqing Xu1.
Abstract
With the development of robot technology and the extensive application of robots, the research on special robots for some complex working environments has gradually become a hot topic. As a special robot applied to transmission towers, the climbing robot can replace humans to work at high altitudes to complete bolt tightening, detection, and other tasks, which improves the efficiency of transmission tower maintenance and ensures personal safety. However, it is mostly the ability to autonomously locate in the complex environment of the transmission tower that limits the industrial applications of the transmission tower climbing robot. This paper proposes an intelligent positioning method that integrates the three-dimensional information model of transmission tower and visual sensor data, which can assist the robot in climbing and adjusting to the designated working area to guarantee the working accuracy of the climbing robots. The experimental results show that the positioning accuracy of the method is within 1 cm.Entities:
Keywords: climbing robot; positioning method; transmission tower
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236386 PMCID: PMC9570776 DOI: 10.3390/s22197288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Transmission tower.
Figure 2Analysis of the 3D information model of a transmission tower.
Figure 3Coordinate information of the bolt vertices.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the robot pose solution.
Figure 5RGB image.
Figure 6Grayscale image.
Figure 7Denoising effect.
Figure 8Image enhancement effect.
Figure 9Edge detection result.
Figure 10Edge feature extraction.
Figure 11Schematic diagram of the PnP problem.
Figure 12Positioning flow chart.
Figure 13Transmission tower experimental environment.
Figure 14Positioning experiment platform.
Figure 15Acquisition of image information.
Figure 16Bolt edge feature extraction.
Results of positioning experiments.
| Position (Height) | Value | X Deviation (cm) | Y Deviation (cm) | Z Deviation (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 cm | Maximum value | 0.716 | 0.734 | 0.661 |
| Average value | 0.636 | 0.625 | 0.581 | |
| 130 cm | Maximum value | 0.695 | 0.656 | 0.624 |
| Average value | 0.642 | 0.584 | 0.587 | |
| 180 cm | Maximum value | 0.732 | 0.691 | 0.683 |
| Average value | 0.675 | 0.637 | 0.615 |
Relative deviation comparison results.
| SGI | VRL | CVIS | Ours | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum relative deviation | 2.8% | 1.5% | 6.0% | 0.61% |
| Mean relative deviation | 1.4% | 0.63% | 3.6% | 0.54% |