Robotic picking of citrus

Harrell, R. C.; Adsit, Phillip D.; Munilla, R.; Slaughter, David C.

doi:10.1017/s0263574700000308

Cited by 54 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cycle time achieved was a factor of 12 too long (124 s) and clearly shows that a gap must be bridged. For orange harvesting, comparing cycle time was possible for only one project: 3 s required (Harrell, ) vs 3–7 s achieved (Harrell et al., ), i.e., a factor of about 2 too long. Although this gap is smaller, all performance indicators are required for a more conclusive analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting Robots for High‐value Crops: State‐of‐the‐art Review and Challenges Ahead

Bac

Henten

Hemming

et al. 2014

Journal of Field Robotics

492

351

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article analyzes state-of-the-art and future perspectives for harvesting robots in high-value crops. The objectives were to characterize the crop environment relevant for robotic harvesting, to perform a literature review on the state-of-the-art of harvesting robots using quantitative measures, and to reflect on the crop environment and literature review to formulate challenges and directions for future research and development. Harvesting robots were reviewed regarding the crop harvested in a production environment, performance indicators, design process techniques used, hardware design decisions, and algorithm characteristics. On average, localization success was 85%, detachment success was 75%, harvest success was 66%, fruit damage was 5%, peduncle damage was 45%, and cycle time was 33 s. A kiwi harvesting robot achieved the shortest cycle time of 1 s. Moreover, the performance of harvesting robots did not improve in the past three decades, and none of these 50 robots was commercialized. Four future challenges with R&D directions were identified to realize a positive trend in performance and to successfully implement harvesting robots in practice: (1) simplifying the task, (2) enhancing the robot, (3) defining requirements and measuring performance, and (4) considering additional requirements for successful implementation. This review article may provide new directions for future automation projects in high-value crops. C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harvesting Robots for High‐value Crops: State‐of‐the‐art Review and Challenges Ahead

Bac

Henten

Hemming

et al. 2014

Journal of Field Robotics

492

351

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The major challenges in localizing fruit are the displacement of fruit by wind or other factors during imaging, and occlusion of fruit (Sarig, 1993). Numerous studies have been carried out to locate fruit in tree canopies with reasonable successes (Harrell et al, , 1990Slaughter and Harrell, 1989;Whittaker et al, 1987;Kondo and Kawamura, 1983;Mehta and Burks, 2014;Font et al, 2014). The sensors and methods used in the past for fruit localization in the agricultural environment are critically reviewed in the following sub-sections.…”

Section: Sensors and Systems For Fruit Localizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensors and systems for fruit detection and localization: A review

Gongal

Amatya

Karkee

et al. 2015

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

450

244

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Robot joint motion could be controlled based on feedback from the position of a target fruit in an image. Vision servo was accomplished by controlling the velocities of each joint according to the vertical and horizontal offsets of a fruit's image position from the image center (Harrell et al, 1990). Moreover, the closed-loop bandwidths of vision controllers could be varied from 1.0 to 1.1 Hz.…”

Section: Visual Servo Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%