A comparative study on the accuracy & repeatability of mobile robotic platforms for the delivery of precision NDE measurement
arXiv:2609.03794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mobile robotic platforms offer a flexible alternative to fixed manipulators for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of large aerospace structures, but their base-positioning accuracy and how that accuracy should inform deployment have not been assessed under a common, externally referenced protocol. This work presents a laser tracker-based evaluation workflow (ground truth approximately 6 micrometers) that measures the static and segmented trajectory
Overview
arXiv:2609.03794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mobile robotic platforms offer a flexible alternative to fixed manipulators for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) of large aerospace structures, but their base-positioning accuracy and how that accuracy should inform deployment have not been assessed under a common, externally referenced protocol. This work presents a laser tracker-based evaluation workflow (ground truth approximately 6 micrometers) that measures the static and segmented trajectory positioning accuracy of five commercial mobile platforms (KUKA KMP-1500, KUKA KMR, MiR250, Boston Dynamics Spot, Clearpath Husky) under a common protocol. A coupled multi-corner calibration recovers the laser-to-robot transformation and reflector offsets; ordinary least squares over all poses is used, with robust estimation retained only as a blunder check. Static positioning accuracy ranged from a median of 8.2 mm (KMP-1500) to 63.5 mm (Spot), with the wheel-odometry-only Husky uncalibratable. Dynamic path following was characterised by cross-track error; the component was insensitive to temporal alignment, which ranged from 6.9 mm (KMP-1500) to 112.1 mm (Spot). Both accuracy and calibratability tracked localisation capability, from the newest LiDAR SLAM platform to map-free visual odometry. No configuration meets the 0.2 to 1.0 mm aerospace NDE tolerance from the base alone; the results are framed as a design input that sizes the supplementary sensing each platform requires: roughly one order of magnitude for the best platform and nearly two for the worst, providing a reproducible basis for platform selection rather than a feasibility claim.
Source
Originally published at arxiv.org.
Related Articles
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03794
