4.2 Article

DESIGN AND FIELD EVALUATION OF A ROBOTIC APPLE HARVESTING SYSTEM WITH A 3D-PRINTED SOFT-ROBOTIC END-EFFECTOR

Journal

TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE
Volume 62, Issue 2, Pages 405-414

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRICULTURAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.13031/trans.12986

Keywords

Apple catching; Apples; Automated harvesting; Field experimentation; Harvesting robot; Soft-robotic gripper

Funding

  1. USDA Hatch and Multistate Project Funds [1005756, 1001246]
  2. USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture competitive grant [1000339]
  3. Washington State University (WSU) Agricultural Research Center (ARC)
  4. National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF) [121477-005]
  5. Allan Brothers, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fresh market apple harvesting is a difficult task that relies entirely on manual labor. Much research has been done on the development of mechanical harvesting techniques. Several selective harvesting robots have been developed for research studies, but there are no commercially available robotic systems. This article discusses the design and development of a novel pneumatic 3D-printed soft-robotic end-effector to facilitate apple separation. The end-effector was integrated into a robotic system with five degrees of freedom that was designed to simplify the picking sequence and reduce costs compared to previous versions. Apples were successfully harvested using the low-cost robotic system in a commercial orchard during the fall 2017 harvest. A detachment success rate on attempted apples of 67% was achieved, with an average time of 7.3 s per fruit from separation to storage bin. By conducting this study in an orchard where problematic apples were not removed to increase the detachment success rate, current pruning and thinning practices were assessed to help lay the foundation for future studies and develop strategies for successfully harvesting apples that are difficult to detach.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available