Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T01:38:16.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quality inspection and error correction of fork-ear type wing-fuselage docking assembly based on multi-camera stereo vision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2024

Y.G. Zhu*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang HangKong University, Nanchang, China
D. Li
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang HangKong University, Nanchang, China
Y. Wan
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang HangKong University, Nanchang, China
Y.F. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang HangKong University, Nanchang, China
Z.Z. Bai
Affiliation:
AVIC Shanxi Aircraft Industry Corporation LTD, Hanzhong, China
W. Cui
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang HangKong University, Nanchang, China
*
Corresponding author: Y.G. Zhu; Email: zhuyongguo_2003@163.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the automatic docking assembly of aircraft wing-fuselage, using monocular camera or dual-camera to monitor the docking stage of the fork-ear will result in an incomplete identification of the fork-ear pose-position and an inaccurate description of the deviation in the intersection holes’ position coordinates. To address this, a quality inspection and error correction method is proposed for the fork-ear docking assembly based on multi-camera stereo vision. Initially, a multi-camera stereo vision detection system is established to inspect the quality of fork-ear docking assembly. Subsequently, a spatial position solution mathematical model of the fork-ear feature points is developed, and a spatial pose determination mathematical model of fork-ear is established by utilised the elliptical cone. Finally, an enhanced artificial fish swarm particle filter algorithm is proposed to track and estimate the coordinate of the fork-ear feature points. An adaptive weighted fusion algorithm is employed to fuse the detection data from the multi-camera and the laser tracker, and a wing pose-position fine-tuning error correction model is constructed. Experimental results demonstrate that the method enhances the effect of the assembly quality inspection and effectively improves the wing-fuselage docking assembly accuracy of the fork-ear type aircraft.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Construction of fork-ear type wing-fuselage assembly quality inspection system.

Figure 1

Figure 2. The multi-camera stereo vision system.

Figure 2

Figure 3. The detailed content of the fork-ear assembly quality inspection.

Figure 3

Figure 4. The general layout of the multi-camera stereo vision system.

Figure 4

Figure 5. The spatial position detection coordinate system of fork-ear feature points.

Figure 5

Figure 6. The spatial circular projection of the intersection holes of the fork-ear.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Error correction process based on LAFSA-PF and AWFA.

Figure 7

Figure 8. The platform construction of the fork-ear docking assembly quality detection system.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Detection effect of EDLines.

Figure 9

Figure 10. Detection effect of EDCircles.

Figure 10

Table 1. Comparison of different number of particles

Figure 11

Figure 11. Influence of the number of particles on the error correction results: (a) xg direction deviation, (b) yg direction deviation, (c) zg direction deviation, (d) pitch-angle deviation $\varphi $, (e) rolling-angle deviation $\theta $, and (f) deflection-angle deviation $\psi $.

Figure 12

Table 2. Comparison of different number of iterations

Figure 13

Figure 12. Influence of the number of iterations on the error correction results: (a) xg direction deviation, (b) yg direction deviation, (c) zg direction deviation, (d) pitch-angle deviation $\varphi $, (e) rolling-angle deviation $\theta $, and (f) deflection-angle deviation$\psi $.

Figure 14

Figure 13. Comparison of inspection results between dual-camera and multi-camera: (a) xg direction deviation, (b) yg direction deviation, (c) zg direction deviation, (d) pitch-angle deviation $\varphi $, (e) rolling-angle deviation $\theta $, and (f) deflection-angle deviation $\psi $.

Figure 15

Figure 14. Comparison of inspection results: None, LAFSA-PF,AWFA, AWFA&LAFSA-PF: (a) xg direction deviation, (b) yg direction deviation, (c) zg direction deviation, (d) pitch-angle deviation $\varphi $, (e) rolling-angle deviation $\theta $, and (f) deflection-angle deviation $\psi $.