Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
To address the challenges of manual apple harvesting and the limitations of existing devices—such as constrained workspace, low efficiency, and limited flexibility—a two-stage, sub-region harvesting device was developed. The design, informed by the fruit distribution characteristics in densely planted dwarf apple orchards, integrates a positioning mechanism and a fruit-picking mechanism, enabling multiple pickings within a single positioning operation to enhance workspace coverage. A forward kinematics model was established using the Denavit–Hartenberg (D–H) parameter method. An improved Monte Carlo simulation based on a hybrid Beta distribution estimated the maximum reachable distances of the fruit-picking reference point in the X, Y, and Z directions as 2146 mm, 2169 mm, and 2165 mm, respectively—adequately covering the target harvesting domain. Incorporating a translational axis structure further expanded the harvesting volume by 1.165 m3, a 42.40% improvement over the conventional 3R configuration. To support adaptive control, a random point–geometry fusion method was proposed to solve for joint variables based on harvesting postures, and an automatic fruit-picking control system was implemented. Experimental validation, including reference point tracking and harvesting tests, demonstrated maximum positioning errors of 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm, a fruit-picking success rate of 76.53%, and an average picking time of 7.24 s per fruit—marking a 4.6% improvement compared to existing devices reported in previous studies. This study provides a comprehensive technical framework and practical reference for advancing mechanized apple harvesting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: