Advances in Mobile Robotics 2008
DOI: 10.1142/9789812835772_0025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inspirat – Towards a Biologically Inspired Climbing Robot for the Inspection of Linear Structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding the mechanical structure of these robots, two main groups can be distinguished -inchworm-type robots [1][2][3] which usually consist of two grippers and an arm in between; and wheeled pole-climbing robots [4][5][6] which usually combine a passive clamping mechanisms for convex structures with motorized wheels at one or several contact points. Specific types of poles can also be climbed with other mechanisms such as penetration with spines 2 (Spinybot II [7], for trees) or magnetic adhesion (MagneBike [8], for steel towers).…”
Section: Overview On the Basic Groups Of Pole-climbing Robotsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the mechanical structure of these robots, two main groups can be distinguished -inchworm-type robots [1][2][3] which usually consist of two grippers and an arm in between; and wheeled pole-climbing robots [4][5][6] which usually combine a passive clamping mechanisms for convex structures with motorized wheels at one or several contact points. Specific types of poles can also be climbed with other mechanisms such as penetration with spines 2 (Spinybot II [7], for trees) or magnetic adhesion (MagneBike [8], for steel towers).…”
Section: Overview On the Basic Groups Of Pole-climbing Robotsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The alternative of using magnets in the structure instead of magnetic wheels [5], which is slightly more dirt-resistant than magnetic wheels, had to be rejected as well, as these robots usually do not achieve the required mobility for the difficult topology that is formed by the uneven surface of several tubes and the specific geometry of the coal nozzles. Alternatives locomotion and adhesion-principles have been considered as well: Legged [6] or inchworm-type-robots [7][8][9], feet that grasp on features [8,9], spines [10] or other principles for adhesion. However, they were not analyzed into more detail, as the typical speed of these robots is relatively slow; and robust industrial solutions are not commercially available yet.…”
Section: Drawbacks Of Using Classical Climbing Robotsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both the steps towards controlling the micro-helicopter for this operation and the final changes on the magnetic foot are currently under development. Apart from this application, a slightly modified version of the here presented magnetic foot could be used in classical climbing robots with legged or inchworm locomotion [6][7][8][9][10] as well -taking advantage of the excellent ratio between adhesion-force and mass, the simple control and the good scalability of the system.…”
Section: Conclusion and Outlook To Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the space requirements of control hardware, energy source, and communication devices, rigid body constructions were made. But zoological studies show that the locomotion of vertebrates is mainly driven by a flexible trunk [4,6,15].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This locomotion principle can be observed in rats as well as in caterpillars. Therefore, the model was reduced to two functional elements: driving elements (locomotion, trunk) and grasping elements (to define contacts between the system and the substrate) [11].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%