Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:37:15.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design and prototype of mobile robots for rescue operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2008

E. Faruk Kececi
E. Faruk Kececi*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Izmir 35430, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: farukkececi@iyte.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study concerns the design and prototype of four different mobile robot platforms for rescue robot operations after an earthquake. At first, a test field is constructed to represent a mildly damaged earthquake zone. The test field consists of eight different sections: sand, gravel, ditch, water, bridge, incline, decline, and turn. The mechanical structure, electronics, software, communication, and possible sensory systems are explained. After the robots are manufactured, they are physically tested for their performance in the test field for 18 different parameters. The test results show the effective body structure. Challenges of the rescue robot design are explained and future expectations are given.

Keywords

All terrainPrototype robot designRescue robotics
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , September 2009 , pp. 729 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Schlenoff, C. and Messina, E., “A Robot Ontology for Urban Search and Rescue,” Workshop on Research in Knowledge, Bremen, Germany (2005) pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
2. Matthies, L., Xiong, Y., Hogg, R., Zhu, D., Rankin, A., Kennedy, B., Hebert, M., Maclachlan, R., Won, C., Frost, T., Sukhatme, G., McHenry, M. and Goldberg, S., “A portable, autonomous, urban reconnaissance robot,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 40, 163–172 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Matsuno, F. and Tadokoro, S., “Rescue Robots and Systems in Japan,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Shenyang, Liaoning, China (2004) pp. 12–20.Google Scholar
4. Kadous, M. W., Sheh, R. K. and Sammut, C., “CASTER: A Robot for Urban Search and Rescue,” Proceedings of the 2005 Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sydney, Australia (2005) pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
5. Tadokoro, S., Takamori, T., Osuka, K. and Tsurutani, S., “Investigation Report of the Rescue Problem at Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in Kobe,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Takamatsu, Japan (2000) pp. 1880–1885.Google Scholar
6. Ruangpayoongsak, N., Roth, H. and Chudoba, J., “Mobile Robots for Search and Rescue,” IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe, Japan (2005) pp. 212–217.Google Scholar
7. Tadokoro, S., Matsuno, F., Onosato, M. and Asama, H., “Japan National Special Project for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation in Urban Areas,” Workshop on Synthetic Simulation and Robotics to Mitigate Earthquake Disaster, Padova, Italy (2003) pp. 22–27.Google Scholar
8. Takahashı, T. and Tadokoro, S., “Working with Robots in Disasters,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine (2002) pp. 34–39.Google Scholar
9. Yanco, H. A. and Balch, T. R., “The AAAI-2002 mobile robot competition and exhibition,” AI Mag. 24 (1), 45–50 (2003).Google Scholar
10. Casper, J. and Micire, M., “The AAAI-2002 robot rescue,” AI Mag. 24 (1), 51–60 (2003).Google Scholar
11. Osuka, K., Murphy, R. and Schultz, A. C., “USAR competitions for physically situated robots,” IEEE Rob. Automat. Mag. 9 (3), 26–33 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Carlson, J. and Murphy, R. R., “How UGVs physically fail in the field,” IEEE Trans. Rob. 21 (3), 423–437 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Murphy, R. R., “Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernet., Part C 34 (2), 138–153 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Weston, J., “A safer way to search disaster sites”, IEEE Rob. Automat. Mag. 7 (3), 56–57 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Erkmen, I., Erkmen, A. M., Matsuno, F., Chatterjee, R. and Kamegawa, T., “Snake robots to the rescue!,” IEEE Rob. Automat. Mag. 9 (3), 17–25, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Murphy, R. R., “Marsupial and shape-shifting robots for urban search and rescue,” IEEE Intell. Syst. Their Appl. 15 (2), 14–19 (2000).Google Scholar
17. Lacagnina, M., Muscato, G. and Sinatra, R., “Kinematics, dynamics and control of a hybrid robot wheeleg,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 45, 161–180 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Siegwart, R., Lamon, P., Estier, T., Lauria, M. and Piguet, R., “Innovative design for wheeled locomotion in rough terrain,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 40, 151–162 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Yang, Z., Ito, K., Hirotsune, K., Saijo, K., Gofuku, A. and Matsuno, F., “A Mechanical Intelligence in Assisting the Navigation by a Force Feedback Steering Wheel for a Snake Rescue Robot,” IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan (2004) pp. 113–118.Google Scholar
20. Zhixiao, Y., Kazuyuki, I., Kazuyuki, H., Kazuhiko, S. and Akio, G., “A Mechanical Intelligence in Assisting the Navigation by a Force Feedback Steering Wheel for a Snake Rescue Robot,” IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan (2004) pp. 113–118.Google Scholar
21. Crespi, A., Badertscher, A., Guignard, A. and Ijspeert, A. J., “AmphiBot I: An amphibious snake-like robot,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 50, 163–175 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Inoue, K. Kenji, Yamamoto, M. Masato, Mae, Y. Yasushi, Takubo, T. Tomohito and Arai, T., “Design of Search Balls with Wide Field of View for Searching Inside of Rubble,” IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe, Japan (2005) pp. 170–175.Google Scholar
23. Voyles, R. M., Larson, A. C., Bae, J. and Lapoint, M., “Core-Bored Search-and-Rescue Applications for an Agile Limbed Robot,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan (2004) pp. 58–63.Google Scholar
24. Tabata, K., Inaba, A. and Amano, H., “Development of a Transformational Mobile Robot to Search Victims Under Debris and Rubble – 2nd Report: Improvement of Mechanism and Interface,” IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe, Japan (2005) pp. 19–24.Google Scholar
25. Himoto, A., Aoyama, H. and Fuchiwaki, O., “Development of Micro Rescue Robot–Human Detection,” IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, Taipei, Taiwan (2005) pp. 526–531.Google Scholar
26. Sugihara, T., Yamamoto, K. and Nakamura, Y., “Hardware design of high performance miniature anthropomorphic robots,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 56, 82–94 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Chiu, Y., Shiroma, N., Igarashi, H., Sato, N., Inami, M. and Matsuno, F., “FUMA: Environment information Gathering Wheeled Rescue Robot with One-DOF Arm,” IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe, Japan (2005) pp. 81–86.Google Scholar
28. Davids, A., “Urban search and rescue robots: from tragedy to technology,” IEEE Intell. Syst. 17 (2), 81–83 (2002).Google Scholar
29. Murphy, R. R., “Trial by Fire,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine (2004) pp. 50–61.Google Scholar
30. Castillo, C. and Chang, C., “A Method to Detect Victims in Search and Rescue Operations Using Template Matching,” IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics, Kobe, Japan (2005) pp. 201–206.Google Scholar
31. Chatterjee, R. and Matsuno, F., “Use of single side reflex for autonomous navigation of mobile robots in unknown environments,” Rob. Autonom. Syst. 35, 77–96 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar