Application of an adapted FMEA framework for robot-inclusivity of built environments

Abstract

Mobile robots are deployed in the built environment at increasing rates. However, lack of considerations for a robot-inclusive planning has led to physical spaces that would potentially pose hazards to robots, and contribute to an overall productivity decline for mobile service robots. This research proposes the use of an adapted Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) as a structured tool to evaluate a building’s level of robot-inclusivity and safety for service robot deployments. This Robot-Inclusive FMEA (RIFMEA) framework, is used to identify failures in the built environment that compromise the workflow of service robots, assess their effects and causes, and provide recommended actions to alleviate these problems. The method was supported with a case study of deploying telepresence robots in a university campus. The study concluded that common failures were related to poor furniture design, a lack of clearance and hazard indicators, and sub-optimal interior planning.

FMEA‐Based Coverage‐Path‐Planning Strategy for Floor‐Cleaning Robots

“…In this study, the site inspection and hazard map creation were conducted based on the robot-inclusive FMEA method introduced by ref. [19]. Subsequently, the generated map, which indicates the types and locations of hazards, can be utilized to pre-generate a path plan for a cleaning robot that does not possess high-level perception capabilities.…”

“…[30] More recently, there have been instances where FMEA techniques have been utilized to analyze robot failures. [19] The FMEA approach analyzes failure causes, failure modes, and their associated effects in a process, resulting in the determination of an RPN. The RPN represents the likelihood of a specific failure mode occurring due to a particular cause and resulting in a specific effect.…”

“…In the existing literature, a limited number of studies have specifically examined the safety of service robots from the perspective of the robot itself. [19,[21][22][23][24] These studies provide valuable insights into establishing and maintaining the safety of robots throughout their operation. One notable approach is the development of a safety-driven control system by Woodman et al [21] This system evaluates sensory data and incorporates predefined safety policies to directly control the robot's locomotion.…”

“…Furthermore, there have been occasional references in the literature to the concept of robot inclusivity, also known as the friendliness of an environment toward robots. [19,23,27,28] These research papers suggest that environments with lower robot inclusivity require a higher level of autonomy from the robot to minimize failure rates. [23] Moreover, they provide guidelines for developing robot spaces in a manner that promotes inclusivity.…”

“…These failures can result in various levels of effects, ranging from minor performance reductions to irreversible damages. [ 19 ] In past years, there have been frequent involvements in analyzing the safety of humans in collaborative human–robot environments, where robots work alongside humans. [ 20 ] These studies primarily address the reliability and safety of manipulative robots operating in controlled environments with fewer uncertainties.…”