Robot Technology to Improve Emergency Response - Research Paper Example

How has Robot Technology improved emergency response and will this technology impact the future of search and rescue? Kevin D. Jones of Maryland University College Dr. Marjorie Windelberg Business Continuity: Disaster Recovery, Planning, and Response HSMN630 15 July 2012 Abstract In any crisis, search and rescue teams are placed in extreme situations, where their performance is imperative to the lives of others. Inclement weather, radiation and hazardous chemicals not only delay time of rescue efforts, but also jeopardize the safety of responders and the victims. Applying robot technology in crisis management situations reduces the risk of injury or harm to the people and increases the speed and efficiency of rescue operations. Robots are designed for working in extreme and strenuous conditions. They are manipulative and have the capability to oblige and perform activities spontaneously or semi-independently. This paper will describe how robot technology has improved emergency response capabilities and how this technology will influence the future of emergency management, as well as search and rescue operations. Contents Abstract 2 Contents 3 1.Introduction 4 2.Nature of Emergencies and Search and Rescue Operations involving Robotics 5 2.1.Operation of Robots in Emergency Situations 6 2.2.Human Responders versus Robot Deployment Considerations 7 2.3.Advantages Offered by Robots 9 2.4.State of Current Robots for Search and Rescue Operations 10 2.5.Limitations of Robots in Emergencies 13 2.6.Future of Robotics in Search and Rescue Operations 14 3.Conclusion 15 4.References 16 1. Introduction In the modern world there is an imminent need for humanitarian operations ranging from small disasters to humanitarian tragedies. Some of these emergencies can be classified as natural disasters while others are human made or human induced. The typical emergency situation can also be a combination of any three of the elements listed above. In such situations, the general approach is to utilise search and rescue (SAR) teams and systems. It has to be kept in mind that the budgets being spent on emergency relief efforts especially for search and rescue efforts is increasing manifold every year. For example, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) spent some 958.7 million Swiss Francs in the year 2005 while it registered a 16% increase in its overall budget since 2000. This is comparable to the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) who saw a budgetary increase of 13% between the years 2000 and 2004 (Ko & Lau, 2009). With these budgetary increases it must also be seen that most search and rescue efforts feature human beings trying to resolve situations that may be out of their control. With the rapid advances in technology especially robotics, it is ironic that most search and rescue operations still feature dogs on leashes guiding human handlers to save lives. The very nature of emergency response is precarious to say the least. The advances in technology have been unable to feature heavily in these scenarios except for the isolated use of positioning systems, communication systems and camera mounted probing systems. The dangerous nature of these operations requires scapegoats that can tread not only further but also faster into emergency areas. It has been suggested that the most appropriate form of these scapegoats is robots that are designed for the situation. The extended use of robotics for search and rescue operations is suggested to not only lower costs in the longer run but to also increase the overall efficiency of the process. Another major advantage offered by robotics is the decrease in human loss both by removing human rescuers from dangerous zones and by rescuing victims as early as possible (Ko & Lau, 2009). This is not to indicate that robots are not employed for search and rescue operations in emergencies but to indicate that the use of robots is limited as yet. The scope of robotics employed in emergencies can be improved given the emergence of new technologies and research in this field. 2. Nature of Emergencies and Search and Rescue Operations involving Robotics The nature of improvement that has been derived so far from robot technology in disaster response is wide and diverse. In essence, robots have the ability to do what humans cannot do conveniently. Moreover, robots are faster and more effective. Robots are extremely useful, particularly when dealing with risky environments that are hazardous to humans. As mentioned before, emergencies come in a variety of shapes and sizes depending on the nature of the disaster. Emergencies in the modern world may encompass chemical, radiological, explosive, structural failure, biological and nuclear incidents. The nature of the corresponding emergency response program tends to depend on the nature of the hazardous material(s) release, the duration of the response as well as the size of the incident (Humphrey & Adams, 2009). 2.1. Operation of Robots in Emergency Situations Currently the application of robotics in emergency response and search and rescues is pervasive. Robots allow for a number of tasks where they can take over the tasks of human responders. Among other things robots can aid humans to plan the situation, to maintain and enhance situational awareness, augment feedback from the disaster site by providing real time information, removing human responders from the emergency site and to create maps of the emergency site. It must also be recognised that robots can enhance the acquisition of information thereby speeding up the decision making process. Robots are also capable of reducing the physical stress on human responders which in turn boosts their performance and reduces the amount of risks they face during a search and rescue attempt (Humphrey & Adams, 2009). Owing to its increasing importance, robotics will be of considerable relevance in the future of search and rescue because of its immense capacity to react to emergencies. To this point in time robots of various capabilities have been employed in a number of emergency situations. The major deployments available for scrutiny include urban search and rescue efforts (Casper & Murphy, 2003), wilderness search and rescue efforts (Goodrich, et al., 2008) as well as natural disasters (Murphy & Stover, 2008). Within the domain of these search and rescue activities, one of the most commonly encountered situations is collapsed buildings in urban environments. To date the largest natural and human induced disasters have taken a heavy death toll due to collapsed structures especially buildings (Birsel, 2005). 2.2. Human Responders versus Robot Deployment Considerations Emergencies often require combing through the urban jungle in order to save human lives and to minimize the overall human death toll. Ranging from natural disasters such as the Oakland Hills Firestorm and the Indian Ocean Earthquake to human induced disasters such as 9/11, a large part of search and rescue efforts is directed at removing people from collapsed or partially collapsed buildings. Buildings could collapse due to a number of reasons including (but not limited to) earthquakes, tornados, disastrous explosions, typhoons, use of weapons and the like. Typically, the destruction caused by the phenomenon listed above is massive and involves more than one building at one location. The resulting emergency typically has a large amount of unstable structures that are partially collapsed. These unstable structures may collapse anytime they are put under strain so working in and around them represents unique challenges (Hnatko, 2007). For one thing, it is not possible to employ heavy machinery in order to clear the rubble to look for survivors. These structures being unstable may trigger a collapse anytime machines come close enough (Collins, 2006). The normal approach to deal with these collapses is to use human responders along with teams of dogs (Ferworn, Ostrom, Barnum, Dallaire, Harkness, & Dolderman, 2008) and intrusive surveillance equipment such as cameras and listening devices. Though these techniques have been practiced for decades but they serve several limitations that undermine their efficacy (Ko & Lau, 2009). For one thing, search dogs are limited in their ability to search for human beings who are trapped in caved sections of a partially collapsed building. This is all the more true for human beings who are trapped towards the inner core of the building. Moreover, a dog can only indicate where a human being is but cannot describe the environment where the person is stuck. In order to discover what kind of conditions the stuck person is in, it is often necessary to use other equipment such as camera mounted probes. It is standard practice to use camera mounted probes in areas where there is little possibility of access by both humans and canines. These probes are inserted into the debris in order to locate the person inside often indicated by a canine. These probes also carry lights with them to make identification of the circumstances easier. However, the most severe limitation of these probes is their total effective range that is no more than two to four meters. Moreover, these probes can only be used in near straight lines within the debris structure or within the structure of the partially collapsed building. The manner in which debris is arranged does not always allow for discovering people who are stuck in more complicated crevices inside a partially collapsed building structure. These efforts are augmented with the use of listening devices that tend to pick up very feeble human voices within the wreckage and debris. However, listening devices can only prove that a human being exists in the debris but cannot locate the person exactly within the collapsed building structure (Ko & Lau, 2009). The conventional search and rescue efforts conducted by teams of canines and human handlers have other limitations as well. The use of canines in these situations means that the presence of human handlers has to be ensured at all times. Another limitation emanates from the use of camera probes and listening devices since they require full time operators to deal with their output. The use of too many human responders at the emergency site is not a recommended practice since every new human responder working near the debris may cause the unstable structure to collapse. This is all the more true for human responders who are working towards the core of the collapsed structure on the rubble. This means that the amount of human beings who can be safely employed to conduct search and rescue missions on the rubble is limited. Generally this is limited enough to support little human intervention that is directed towards the core of the collapsed structure. Standard practice is to work from the outside of the building towards its core to discover human beings. Similarly, the human responders must always work from the highest layer of the rubble towards the lowest layer of the rubble. These factors put together mean that help often arrives too late for human beings trapped towards the core of the collapsed structure. 2.3. Advantages Offered by Robots In contrast to these limitations, the employment of robots to deal with such emergencies produces significant benefits. For one thing, the size of robots makes them far more favorable than either dogs or human beings for navigating inside debris. The size of robots is much smaller than that of dogs and human beings and makes them suitably sized to move through the small openings in debris to pick up traces of human beings. In addition, the modern robots being used for search and rescue purposes are equipped with several kinds of sensors in order to detect human presence. Typically, these sensors are of the chemical type and tend to detect human presence that can be investigated further to reveal the location of the distressed person. At this point in time a number of different robot types are being employed in order to conduct search and rescue tasks. The current practice is to employ robots that have sensors as well as a camera for a head to rummage through the rubble to look for survivors. The small size of the robots means that they can easily enter small crevices and cave ins towards the core of the building to identify possible survivors. One example of such a robot is SPIDAR1 that tends to enhance search and rescue efforts and provides a baseline for future development in this field. 2.4. State of Current Robots for Search and Rescue Operations Schempf (2009) has listed the ideal capabilities required by a robot for search and rescue use. These are: small size and light footprint at the emergency site; extended deployment time at least up to 12 hours; capable of carrying small sensors (chemical, sound, visual etc.) and small cargo (such as cellular phones); capable of climbing and navigating confined spaces as well as convoluted regions; provides real time control of buried area up to a total distance of 30 meters; simple for use by any lightly trained person or handler and should include a user friendly graphical user interface (GUI); should be rugged; should cost reasonably so a large amount can be procured for training and simultaneous deployment. When a robot such as SPIDAR is looked into, it becomes clear that the entire package is designed for rapid deployment for extended periods in emergency situations. The vehicle itself is capable of folding its chassis into various configurations to traverse any kinds of terrain offered. The head of the vehicle contains three different cameras and lighting to provide a clear image of where the vehicle is headed inside the debris. Figure 1 - SPIDAR package including the vehicle, the anchor, the OCU (control unit) and the generator sourced from (Schempf, 2009) Tracking of the vehicle is carried out real time using wireless networks and distributed wireless networks. The vehicle provides not only a clear image of where it is heading but also its exact global positioning satellite (GPS) location. Once it tracks down a human being, the vehicle can then mark the location on a map in order to facilitate the rescuers. Additionally the vehicle contains a tethering arrangement that allows it to move up to 30 meters without hindrance. The tethering arrangement ensures that if the vehicle gets stuck somewhere in the debris, the operator could simply tug it to help it out. The operator can also retrieve the vehicle using the tethering arrangement if required. One thing to take into notice is that the SPIDAR platform is not the only robotics arrangement that is offering these advantages to emergency teams. Instead, the current research and development platforms such as IRobot, Innuktun, Foster Miller and Remotec amongst others provide similar features (Schempf, 2001) (Murphy R. R., 2004). Figure 2 - The entire SPIDAR package has been configured for rapid deployment and extended use, sourced from (Schempf, 2009) When robots are compared to their human and canine counterparts on a one to one basis, it becomes clear that robots have a clear advantage in terms of navigation. In fact, it would not be untrue to say that robots have a separate advantage in a diversity of settings including situations where human entry is difficult, unreasonable or dangerous. This is compounded by the fact that robots can work for extended periods of time unlike canines without being stressed out by the workload. The same can be said of human beings who would be stressed out easily given the nature of the situation and the stress involved. However, with the advantages offered by robots there are certain drawbacks as well. The current robotics platforms for search and rescue operations need a human operator in order to be utilized. The human operator such as the one shown in the Figure 2 need to deploy and maneuver the robot in the debris and rubble. The information collected by the robot in real time also needs to be tagged by the human operator. The robot can only suggest that human beings are present inside the rubble using sensors but the human operator needs to double check this. The concept of an autonomous robot capable of carrying out search and rescue operations without human interference is still a long way off from current reality (Schempf, 2009). Another major advantage allowed by robots in an emergency scenario is the remote deployment. This ensures that human beings are not exposed to the dangers of collapsing buildings or to exposure from harmful chemicals or radiation. The human responder can work safely at a distance while the robot is used as a scapegoat to investigate the actual scenario. Also, a number of robots can be used simultaneously for disaster management compared to a limited number of human beings. Human exposure to chemical spills or radioactive fallouts has to be minimized to the least by keeping human interaction with these issues as low as possible. Robots allow the human responders to stay a safe distance away from the actual problem area but to interact just as effectively. As new human tragedies occur, there are even more chances for learning especially as per the limitations of robots. A recent eye opener in this regard has been the Fukushima Daiichi reactor incident where robots were employed for remote search and rescue operations. 2.5. Limitations of Robots in Emergencies Robots were employed near the Fukushima Daiichi reactors that were producing radioactive fallout. After a few hours of operation, the robots tended to malfunction especially robots that were employed in areas with radiation levels of more than 200 Gy. This response from robots had been previously tested in the aftermath of the tsunami and earthquake. The laboratory findings were corroborated in the field as components failed one after another as the dosage of radiation increased. The laboratory testing revealed that the central processing units (CPUs) of the devices were able to perform their job even in areas with radiation levels of 200 Gy. These results stood in contrast to previous thinking on the matter that predicted a failure of all electronic components in areas with high radiation exposure. However, supporting components such as cameras and sensors kept failing after an exposure with lower doses of radiation. Testing conclusively proved that continuous radiation exposure with small amounts of radiation is enough to destroy electronic components such as cameras and sensors. Sensors tended to fail about three hours from their deployment in radiation levels of 124 Gy while cameras failed about four hours from their deployment in radiation levels of 169 Gy. The range sensors also malfunctioned by producing noise spikes as soon as they were exposed to radiation (Nagatani, et al., 2011). These results clearly indicate that there is imminent need to improve robotics designed to deal emergencies especially to create larger experiments in order to discover robot behavior in various situations. Only the large scale testing of robots in the laboratory and the actual emergency site can ensure that issues such as radiation failures can be detected well before time and resolved accordingly. The tested robot for the Fukushima Daiichi reactor nuclear fallout known as Quince is already under improvement (Nagatani, et al., Redesign of rescue mobile robot Quince, 2011). 2.6. Future of Robotics in Search and Rescue Operations This indicates that the interest in search and rescue robots is high in terms of research and development. This belief is also confirmed by the increase in funding as well as the increased attention being paid to robotics for search and rescue functions. Research organizations such as Defense Advanced Research and Projects Authority (DARPA) as well as private researchers such as the Rescue Robot League, the RoboCup competition and the like are investing their time and energies in order to develop better robotics to deal with emergencies. The future of robotics for emergencies holds autonomous hoards of search and rescue robots that are capable of deploying and managing themselves with minimal human input. The use of wireless sensor networks and more efficient batteries is also on the agenda along with greater flexibility of sensor use. It could be said that the future of robotics for search and rescue operations is ambitious yet achievable. 3. Conclusion The ground rules for the nature of the cooperation between robots and individuals are currently being formulated. The extent to which human responders are satisfied with developments in robot sovereignty will tend to vary with the purpose and the function as well as the environment in which these robots operate. In the future with regard to extreme disaster situations, it is expected that robots will be able to take over most functions currently being performed by humans and canines. It is also expected that in the future robots will be able to remove human beings from debris and rubble as well as from a host of other disastrous situations. At this point in time, the capabilities of deployed robots such as SPIDAR offer clear advantages when compared to human beings and canines. Based on current trends and future developments, it could be expected that robotics will take up a significant place in search and rescue operations that might lead to the near displacement of human operators and canines. 4. References Birsel, R. (2005, October 10). Pakistan: Frantic search as Pakistani quake toll tops 20,000 . Retrieved July 12, 2012, from Reuters: http://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-frantic-search-pakistani-quake-toll-tops-20000 Casper, J., & Murphy, R. (2003). Human-robot interaction during the robot-assisted urban search and rescue response at the World Trade Center. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part B, 33 , 367-385. Collins, L. (2006). Assessing structural collapse from acts of terror. Fire Engineering 159(11) , 55-66. Ferworn, A., Ostrom, D., Barnum, K., Dallaire, M., Harkness, D., & Dolderman, M. (2008). Canine Remote Deployment System for Urban Search and Rescue. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 5(1) , 1-8. Goodrich, M., Morse, B., Gerhardt, D., Cooper, J., Adams, J. A., Humphrey, C., et al. (2008). Supporting wilderness search and rescue using a camera-equipped mini-UAV. Journal of Field Robotics 25 , 89-110. Hnatko, B. (2007). Building breakdown: Key concepts & tactics in responding to a structural collapse. Fire Rescue Magazine 25(1) , 66-68. Humphrey, C. M., & Adams, J. A. (2009). Robotic Tasks for CBRNE Incident Response. Advanced Robotics , 1-14. Ko, A. W., & Lau, H. Y. (2009). Intelligent Robot Assisted Humanitarian Search and Rescue System. International Advanced Robotic Systems 6(2) , 121-128. Murphy, R. R. (2004). NSF Summer Field Institute for Rescue Robots for Research and Response (R4). AI Magazine 25(1) . Murphy, R., & Stover, S. (2008). Rescue robots for mudslides: A descriptive study of the 2005 La Conchita mudslide response. Journal of Field Robotics , 3-16. Nagatani, K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Otake, K., Yoshida, K., Tadokoro, S., et al. (2011). Gamma ray irradiation test of electric components of resuce mobile robot Quince. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics (pp. 56-60). Kyoto: IEEE. Nagatani, K., Kiribayashi, S., Okada, Y., Tadokoro, S., Nishimura, T., Yoshida, T., et al. (2011). Redesign of rescue mobile robot Quince. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics (pp. 13-18). Kyoto: IEEE. Schempf, H. (2001). Less is More: AURORA - an example of minimalistic design for tracked locomotion. ISSR 2001. Lorne, Australia: ISSR. Schempf, H. (2009). Self-rappelling Robot System for Inspection and Reconnaissance in Search and Rescue Applications. Advanced Robotics 23(9) , 1-30. Read More