Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Various exterior wall cleaning robots (a) Tito [8] (b) IPC EAGLE [9, 10] (c) SKYPRO [11, 12] (d) Gecko [1215].

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Configuration of winch-mounted wall-climbing robot [39, 40].

The robot largely consists of three parts: a propeller thrust unit, winch unit, and cleaning and frame unit. The cleaning unit is placed at the bottom of the robot considering water leakage. a) Overview of winch-mounted wall-climbing robot (b) Assembly of the winch unit and cleaning and frame unit.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

A flat-type nozzle displays good spray uniformity.

In terms of impact efficiency, it displays higher cleaning performance than those of hollow-cone- or full-cone-type of nozzle. (a)–(c) are flat nozzle tips. Their spray angles are 15°, 25°, and 40° respectively, (d) spray angle of 40° at 6 bar [35, 36].

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Control parameters (a–c) and a user condition (d). a) Nozzle inlet pressure, b) Spray distance, c) Spray angle. d) Cleaning speed of the robot [29, 37].

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Table 1.

Control parameters and user condition for optimization of the cleaning device.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 5.

Device setup for the image data measurement and conversion to image data from the test results.

a) Device setup to capture photographs for the image data, b) A test result photograph after cleaning, c) Image data converted from the photographs [29, 38].

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

L9(33) orthogonal array and evaluation results of image data.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

The test bench consists of two parts: A cleaning performance evaluation unit for investigating spray characteristics and a nozzle spray unit for implementing movement of the robot for cleaning.

Each unit has a load cell to measure the reaction force and impact force. (a) Overall schematic of test bench and that of (b) the water spray unit.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Experimental test bench setup for evaluating the cleaning performance.

a) Test scenario with high-pressure water cleaning, b) Cleaning performance evaluation unit and transfer devices in two directions (X, Y). c) Water-spray-unit assembly. Specifications of main parts: Pump: 8905-902-290(SHURflo), Pressure sensor: GP-M025, (KENYCE), Load cell: BCA-5(CAS), Nozzle: Flat type, HM_V5 (Hanmi Nozzle.co.Ltd) [35].

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Sensitivity analysis results of the control parameters based on Eq (2).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Test results for the highest and lowest cleaning performances.

The highest performance results were those of Exp.#7 (Table 2) for the user condition of 3 m/min, as shown in a)–c). d)–f) display the results for 6 m/min. The worst performance result was for Exp. #6 under both the user conditions (3 mm/s and 6 mm/s).

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

The results of verification test performed under the optimal conditions.

Nozzle inlet pressure: 8 bar; spray distance: 0.2 m; injection angle: 40°. Image data results: 74.8% (average).

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Reaction force on nozzle and impact force on panel under the condition of 8 bar, 0.3 m, 15°.

More »

Fig 11 Expand