Industrial Robot Positioning System Based on the Guidance of the Structured-Light Vision

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 1015001 ◽  
Author(s):  
解则晓 Xie Zexiao ◽  
陈文柱 Chen Wenzhu ◽  
迟书凯 Chi Shukai ◽  
牟楠 Mu Nan
Robotics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Roberto Pagani ◽  
Cristina Nuzzi ◽  
Marco Ghidelli ◽  
Alberto Borboni ◽  
Matteo Lancini ◽  
...  

Since cobots are designed to be flexible, they are frequently repositioned to change the production line according to the needs; hence, their working area (user frame) needs to be often calibrated. Therefore, it is important to adopt a fast and intuitive user frame calibration method that allows even non-expert users to perform the procedure effectively, reducing the possible mistakes that may arise in such contexts. The aim of this work was to quantitatively assess the performance of different user frame calibration procedures in terms of accuracy, complexity, and calibration time, to allow a reliable choice of which calibration method to adopt and the number of calibration points to use, given the requirements of the specific application. This has been done by first analyzing the performances of a Rethink Robotics Sawyer robot built-in user frame calibration method (Robot Positioning System, RPS) based on the analysis of a fiducial marker distortion obtained from the image acquired by the wrist camera. This resulted in a quantitative analysis of the limitations of this approach that only computes local calibration planes, highlighting the reduction of performances observed. Hence, the analysis focused on the comparison between two traditional calibration methods involving rigid markers to determine the best number of calibration points to adopt to achieve good repeatability performances. The analysis shows that, among the three methods, the RPS one resulted in very poor repeatability performances (1.42 mm), while the three and five points calibration methods achieve lower values (0.33 mm and 0.12 mm, respectively) which are closer to the reference repeatability (0.08 mm). Moreover, comparing the overall calibration times achieved by the three methods, it is shown that, incrementing the number of calibration points to more than five, it is not suggested since it could lead to a plateau in the performances, while increasing the overall calibration time.


2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (23) ◽  
pp. 29896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Liu ◽  
Xiaojing Li ◽  
Yang Yin

Sensors ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 19750-19767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siyuan Liu ◽  
Qingchang Tan ◽  
Yachao Zhang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document