Long‐term study of a portable field robot in urban terrain

Abstract

The armed forces have a considerable amount of experience in using robots for bomb removal and mine clearing. Emerging technology also enables the targeting of other applications. To evaluate if real deployment of new technology is justified, tactical advantages gained have to be compared to drawbacks imposed. Evaluation calls for realistic tests which in turn require methods dictating how to deploy the new features. The present study has had two objectives: first, to gain a comprehensive view of a potential user of man-portable robots; second, to embed a robot system with users for assessment of present technology in real deployment. In this project we investigated an army company specialized in urban operations performing their tasks with the support of the iRobot Packbot Scout. The robot was integrated and deployed as an ordinary piece of equipment which required modifying and retraining a number of standard behaviors. The reported results were acquired through a long-term test ranging over a period of six months. This paper focuses on the characteristics of the users and their current ways of operation; how the robot was implemented and deployed. Additionally, this paper describes benefits and drawbacks from the users' perspective. A number of limitations in current robot technology are also identified. The findings show that the military relies on precise and thoroughly trained actions that can be executed with a minimum of ambiguity. To make use of robots, new behavioral schemes, which call for tactical optimization over several years, are needed. The most common application during the trials was reconnaissance inside buildings with uncertain enemy presence when time was not critical. Deploying the robot took more time than completing the task by traditional means, but in return kept the soldiers out of harm's way and enabled them to decrease weapon deployment. The range of the radio link, limited video feedback, and the bulky operator control unit were the features constraining the system's overall performance the most. On the other hand, did properties of the system, such as ruggedness, size, weight, terrain ability, and endurance, prove to match the application. The users were of the opinion that robots such as the Packbot Scout would be a valuable standard feature in urban intervention.

RETRACTED: An autonomous all terrain robotic system for field demining missions

“…In alternative to complete robotic systems for mine clearance such as the aforementioned ones, some research groups have focused on modular payload units for existing military robots such as the Niitek Minestalker, the iRobot Packbot or the Foster-Miller Talon [19], [20], [21] reportedly with successful field deployment. Following a modular approach, these payloads can be deployed across multiple robots and extend the native abilities of existing robotic platforms without substantial re-engineering efforts.…”

Using mixed-initiative human-robot interaction to bound performance in a search task

“…Casper and Murphy also presented lessons learned and observations from the use of teleoperated robots in a real, un-staged rescue response to the attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001 [7]. Lundberg, Christensen, and Reinhold discussed observations, benefits, and limitations of using a teleoperated robot with an army company that specialized in urban operations [14]. These examples explore how currently available, teleoperated robots could be integrated into a particular domain and used by domain experts.…”

Characterization of Load Uncertainty in Unstructured Terrains and Applications to Battery Remaining Run‐time Prediction

“…In addition to general hotel (idling) power requirements, teleoperated/fully autonomous field robotics utilize an array of sensors and actuators all of which draw power from the local energy storage mechanism during operation. Commonly, field robotic sensors include a combination of cameras (visible spectrum and infrared), light detection and ranging (LIDAR), GPS, locomotion encoders, proprioceptive sensors, Hall effect sensors, temperature gages, and accelerometers (Brooks and Iagnemma, ; Lundberg et al, ; Ray et al, ). Actuators typically required are locomotion drives, which are commonly electromechanical actuators, but also potentially hydraulic or pneumatic.…”

“…Actuators typically required are locomotion drives, which are commonly electromechanical actuators, but also potentially hydraulic or pneumatic. Other common actuators include articulated manipulators (Lundberg et al, ). Depending on the current terrain and mission requirements, certain sensors or actuators, or a combination thereof, might activate via user command or autonomous action.…”

“…The deficiency of such reliable statistically based prognostic methods mandates conservative operation (Doerffel and Sharkh, ; Saha and Goebel, ) by control algorithms or robot teleoperators (Lundberg et al, ). Conservative operation can result in mission time limitation, such as the preemptive charging of the Mars Exploration Rovers during a limited (24 h) communication time frame (Brooks and Iagnemma, ) or anticipatory replacement of battery packs (Lundberg et al, ). Consequently, improvement of run‐time prediction capabilities provides for increased operator confidence, allowing for extended mission time without explicitly upgrading hardware.…”