The multi-objective genetic algorithm(MOGA) is proposed to calibrate the non-linear camera model of a space manipulator to improve its locational accuracy. This algorithm can optimize the camera model by dynamic balan...The multi-objective genetic algorithm(MOGA) is proposed to calibrate the non-linear camera model of a space manipulator to improve its locational accuracy. This algorithm can optimize the camera model by dynamic balancing its model weight and multi-parametric distributions to the required accuracy. A novel measuring instrument of space manipulator is designed to orbital simulative motion and locational accuracy test. The camera system of space manipulator, calibrated by MOGA algorithm, is used to locational accuracy test in this measuring instrument. The experimental result shows that the absolute errors are [0.07, 1.75] mm for MOGA calibrating model, [2.88, 5.95] mm for MN method, and [1.19, 4.83] mm for LM method. Besides, the composite errors both of LM method and MN method are approximately seven times higher that of MOGA calibrating model. It is suggested that the MOGA calibrating model is superior both to LM method and MN method.展开更多
基金Project(J132012C001)supported by Technological Foundation of ChinaProject(2011YQ04013606)supported by National Major Scientific Instrument & Equipment Developing Projects,China
文摘The multi-objective genetic algorithm(MOGA) is proposed to calibrate the non-linear camera model of a space manipulator to improve its locational accuracy. This algorithm can optimize the camera model by dynamic balancing its model weight and multi-parametric distributions to the required accuracy. A novel measuring instrument of space manipulator is designed to orbital simulative motion and locational accuracy test. The camera system of space manipulator, calibrated by MOGA algorithm, is used to locational accuracy test in this measuring instrument. The experimental result shows that the absolute errors are [0.07, 1.75] mm for MOGA calibrating model, [2.88, 5.95] mm for MN method, and [1.19, 4.83] mm for LM method. Besides, the composite errors both of LM method and MN method are approximately seven times higher that of MOGA calibrating model. It is suggested that the MOGA calibrating model is superior both to LM method and MN method.
