Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T16:33:12.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

High-accuracy multi-cameras calibration in constrained assembly spaces: application to wing-fuselage docking of large aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2025

X. Tian
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang, China
Y. Zhu*
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang, China
D. Li
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang, China
W. Jiang
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang, China
B. Hou
Affiliation:
AVIC Changhe Aircraft Industry (Group) Corporation Ltd, Jingdezhen, China
*
Corresponding author: Y. Zhu; Email: zhuyongguo_2003@163.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the process of utilising machine vision-assisted large aircraft component docking assembly, due to the occlusion induced by process equipment such as assembly tooling, the features on the calibration board cannot be extracted by each camera at the same time, resulting in calibration difficulties or calibration failure. This paper aims to propose a stereo calibration method for multi-cameras in large aircraft component assembly to improve calibration accuracy. Firstly, the sub-pixel edge extraction method based on Canny-Zernike is proposed to accurately extract the circular edges and circle centres of the calibration board, and the Zernike moment model is improved. The circle centre sorting method based on the triangular markers is introduced to realise the sorting of circle centres on the calibration board. Secondly, the intrinsic and extrinsic parameter models of multi-cameras and the visual parameter models between cameras are constructed, and Zhang’s calibration method and indirect calibration method are integrated to solve the parameters. Subsequently, the distortion correction model is optimised by Levenberg-Marquardt. Finally, experiments are performed to test the proposed method. The results show that the proposed method, compared with uncalibration and Zhang’s calibration method, the proposed method achieves stereo calibration of the multi-cameras under complex working conditions, enhances the calibration accuracy and improves the quality of the large aircraft component docking assembly.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Fork-ear docking assembly deviation detection system.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Multi-cameras overlapping field of view.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Step-edge model and ramp-edge model.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Circle centre location and sorting.

Figure 4

Figure 5. The coordinate system of multi-cameras.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Visual parameters between camera coordinate systems.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Multi-cameras calibration.

Figure 7

Figure 8. Calibration board.

Figure 8

Figure 9. Multi-cameras calibration.

Figure 9

Table 1. Intrinsic parameters of multi-cameras detection system

Figure 10

Table 2. Extrinsic and vision parameters of multi-parameters

Figure 11

Figure 10. The camera 1 captures photos of the calibration board.

Figure 12

Table 3. Average reprojection error of the multi-cameras detection system (mm)

Figure 13

Figure 11. Comparison of fitting effects. (a) Canny is applied to calibration board 1. (b) Canny-Zernike is applied to calibration board 1. (c) Canny is applied to calibration board 5. (d) Canny-Zernike is applied to calibration board 5.

Figure 14

Figure 12. The platform construction of the fork-ear docking assembly deviation detection system.

Figure 15

Figure 13. Position of fuselage-wing fork-ear before assembly.

Figure 16

Figure 14. The fork-ear hole centre coordinate before assembly.

Figure 17

Figure 15. Fork-ears coaxiality error during the assembly. (a) Fork-ear 1 coaxiality error. (b) Fork-ear 2 coaxiality error.

Figure 18

Table 4. Fork-ears1and 2 coaxiality error during assembly (mm)

Figure 19

Figure 16. Pre-assembly position and results after assembly. (a) Fork-ear position before assembly. (b) Fork-ear position after assembly.

Figure 20

Figure 17. Fork-ear hole centre X, Y, Z direction error. (a) The range of the average error in the X-direction of the fork-ear hole centre. (b) The range of the average error in the Y-direction of the fork-ear hole centre. (c) The range of the average error in the Z-direction of the fork-ear hole centre.

Figure 21

Figure 18. Results comparison of fork-ear posture deviation detection. (a) Deviation range comparison of ${x_g}$-axis. (b) Deviation range comparison of ${y_g}$-axis. (c) Deviation range comparison of ${z_g}$-axis. (d) Deviation range comparison of roll angle $\varphi $. (e) Deviation range comparison of roll angle $\theta $. (f) Deviation range comparison of yawing angle $\psi $.