PRE2022 3 Group5

Group members

Name	Student id	Role
Vincent van Haaren	1626736	Human Interaction Specialist
Jelmer Lap	1569570	LIDAR & Environment mapping Specialist
Wouter Litjens	1751808	Chassis & Drivetrain Specialist
Boril Minkov	1564889	Data Processing Specialist
Jelmer Schuttert	1480731	Robotic Motion Tracking Specialist
Joaquim Zweers	1734504	Actuation and Locomotive Systems Specialist

Research question

How should Robots navigate through crowded pedestrian spaces while guiding visual impaired users? With a focus on smooth navigation through crowds.

Introduction

In this project we’ve been allowed to pursue a self-defined project. Of course the focus should be on USE; user, society, and Enterprise. Our chosen project is the design of a product. Taking inspiration from our personal experiences we’ve chosen to find a solution to solve the navigation problems we encounter in the campus buildings in the TU/e. After some research about the topic and contacting TU/e Real estatement department we found out that guidance robots for people with visual impairment had demand. This was thus chosen as our topic. More specifically defined, the problem statement is: ‘Visually impaired people have ineffective means of navigating through the, at times, confusing pathways of campus buildings.’. When researching state-of-the-art electronic travel aids, we found 3 distinct solutions: Robotic Navigation Aids, Smartphone solutions, wearable attachments. The pros and cons are described in the table below:

Types of ETA	Implementation	Advantages	Negatives
Robotic Navigation Aids	Smart Cane	Offers portability and can be used as a normal white cane should the electronics cease to function	Needs to be compact and lightweight Lacks obstacle information because of restricted sensing ability offers little information on wayfinding and navigation purposes as it requires bigger and bulkier hardware
Robotic Navigation Aids	Robotic guide dog/mobile robot	The system gives room for larger hardware, as it does not require a user to carry it	Complicated mechanicals while maneuvering through stairs and terrain
Robotic Navigation Aids	Robotic Wheelchair	Suitable for the elderly and people who have a physical limitation provides navigation and mobility assistance for elderly visually impaired who cannot walk on their own, multi-handicapped, or people who have more than one disabling condition	Safety remains an issue as user mobility fully depends on the robotic wheelchair navigation, road-crossing and stair climbing are difficult circumstances where the reliability of the wheelchair is of extreme necessity
Smartphone solutions	Android apps Maps Image Processing	Mobility/portability No load or invasive factor as the only device is the smartphone	The system depends on sensors available on the smartphone. May communicate with an outer sensor such as beacon or external server but then it limits the usage for indoor requires certain orientation for image processing or internet signal for online maps
Wearable Attachments	Eyeglasses Glove Belt Headgear Backpack	Gives a natural appearance to the visually impaired user when navigating outdoor	Too much attention is required, thus giving a cognitive load to the user These devices are intrusive as they cover ears and involve the use of hands users are burdened with the system’s weight. Requires a long period of training

Sourced from https://www.beei.org/index.php/EEI/article/view/3055/2219

Furthermore, another state-of-the-art solution for guiding devices was found; a device which would use electronic waypoints installed in the building, to localise the user and relay directions and information about the surroundings.

A previous attempt was made at the TU/e (our case study) to use this method. But because it required infrastructure to be created in all the buildings in which it would work, it was never implemented. Therefore we’ve decided to discard all solutions which would require such infrastructure.

Wearable attachments have been discarded as it is inherently invasive meaning the user will have to equip it themselves. Furthermore larger attachments with many sensors are made impossible due to weight-limits, and lastly wearing such a device in extended meetings is impractical. Any such device will require some prior knowledge on how to operate it. Due to all these reasons we’ve chosen not to pursue wearable attachments.

We’ve decided against smartphone solutions because it would be difficult to make a one-size-fits-all solution due to differing phones and sensors. A slightly more biassed reason is that half of our group members are not at all adept at creating such applications and have no interest in the field. We also worried that we would struggle creating a practical app due to the limitations of the phone hardware.

Robotic wheelchair was decided against due to its invasive nature and concerns for the user’s autonomy. Furthermore this solution would be very bulky which makes it unsuited for crowded spaces. The user base which will most likely consist of furthermore well-abled students which do not need such support and might feel uncomfortable using such a device.

A Smart Cane is not well-suited to guide the user due to the small form factor and weight requirement which would make inside-out localisation difficult.

The mobile platform guide robot has a few problems besides its price. The most important one is that it has trouble navigating stairs and rough terrain. Luckily the robot will (for now) only be operating indoors in TU/e buildings. The presented use case of the TU/e campus, has walk bridges connecting buildings and elevators in (almost) all buildings which mitigates most of the solution’s downsides. These factors make it the perfect place to implement such a guidance robot.

In summary we chose a robotic guide due to its user accessibility and potential for future improvements. It is a good way for people (with visual impairment or not) to be navigated through buildings.

RPCs

Creating RPC criteria

Setting requirements

The most important thing in building a robot operating in public spaces is to make it complete its tasks in a safe manner; not harming bystanders or the user themselves. Most hazards in robot-human interactions (or vice versa) in pedestrian spaces are derived from physical contact. This problem is even more present when working in crowded spaces where physical contact is impractical to or cannot be avoided. Therefor the robot has to be made physically safe; typical touch, swipes, and collisions are made non-hazardous. This term ‘physically safe’ will be abbreviated to ‘touch safe’ to make its meaning more apparent.

If the robot somehow exhibits unsafe behavior the user or bystanders should be able to easily stop the robot with an emergency stop button. Because the robot is able to make physical contact and apply substantial force, it becomes even more paramount that rogue behavior is easily stopped if it occurs.

When interacting with the user it should make them feel safe and thus allow trust in the robot. If the user feels they cannot trust the robot they might become unnecessarily anxious or stressed and avoid its services. Besides this the users might display unpredictable or counter-productive behavior; e.g. walking excessively slow, not following the robot, etc.. To this end the robot should be able to communicate its intent to the user so that they won’t have to be on-edge all the time.

To complete its task it should of course at minimum be able to reach a target specified by the (guided) user, since this is the function the robot is to accomplish. For this a way for the robot to receive feedback or information from the user (a.k.a. human-robot interaction) should be installed. When working with people with visual impairment the robot should avoid miscommunication in the name of (users perceived) safety. To this end the robot should follow established guidance rules where applicable.

For its navigation system cooperative planning is a necessity due to the limited room for movement in crowded spaces.

For the robot to be viable in practice there are some restrictions like making the robot relatively cheap since the budget is not unlimited and competing solutions like human guides exist for a set price; too large of a price would make robot guides obsolete. Our use-case also has restrictions on infra-structural modifications to the campus building of the TU/e as a previous solution was rejected due to this reason; installing waypoints all over the buildings was too much of an investment.

Setting preferences

The robot should not slow down its user when avoidable, so an average speed of 1 m/s (average walking speed of adult humans)  would be a good goal.

For the robot to reach its goal efficiently it should avoid stopping for people. Even more reasons to avoid stopping is to make the user able to walk a constant speed, requiring less mental strain on its user, as well as avoiding hazards which occur due to stopping in pedestrian spaces like surprising and hitting the person behind the user.

Setting constraints

For the robot to operate in our specified use case it should be able to navigate campus. This involves being able to navigate narrow walk bridges or hallways as well as somehow traverse doorways and elevators. Stairs can be circumvented due to the campus already being well-accessible through the placement of elevators or ramps.

RPC-list

Requirements

• Safety
  • Touch proof
  • Does not harm bystanders or the user
  • Installed emergency stop
• Guidance
  • Robot should reach user-specified target
  • Robot should follow established guiding rules
    • Example taken from guide dogs
• User feedback/interaction
  • Should give feedback about intentions to user
  • Robot must be able to receive feedback and information from user
  • Handler should feel safe based on interaction with robot
• Pathfinding must use cooperative planning
• Implementable
  • Relatively cheap
  • No infrastructural changes in buildings

Preferences

• 1 m/s (3.6 km/h) walking speed should be reached
• Does not stop for people unnecessarily

Constraints

• Environment
  • Narrow walk bridges/hallways
  • Doors
  • Elevators

Solutions

Requirment	Solution
Safety
Touch proof(does not harm people in environment when bumping)	Making the robot move with a speed that will not allow it to hurt someone/something when bumping into it. Due to low speed it should be doable that with round edges and high quality plastics not a lot of pain is caused by bumping. To increase safety soft material can be added on places were the chance of a bump is higher (corners for example).
Does not harm the user	Part of the solution is the same as the above. When guiding the robot will travel in-front and to the side of the user, so that it does not encumber the movements of the user.
Needs emergency stop (accessible to guided)	An emergency break system can be implemented to immediately stop the movement of the wheels/tracks. This emergency break system will be triggered with the press of a button on the side of the handle of the robot so that the user can grab and hold the handle, without worrying that they will press the break button by mistake. The first CAD design iteration of the handle are already made: First iteration of handle design with red stop button
Guidance
Robot should reach target given by user	The user will use voice recognition software to detect the target that the user wants to reach. After the robot has received the command, it will use a combination of a in-built map of the layout of the environment as well as dynamic obstacle detection and avoidance via methods such as LiDAR scanning. The process of choosing a destination can also be implemented via a phone app.
Robot should follow clear and basic guiding rules	It is hard to find guidance rules of dogs but it is decided that these guidance rules are out of the scope of this project as navigating through crowds with bumping is hard enough.
User feedback/interaction
Should give feedback about intentions to user	The robot shall use a combination of haptic feedback in the handle as well as .... to show its intentions to the user. The vibrations shall be encoded in a way that will be intuitive to the user without the need of extensive training.
Robot must be able to receive feedback from user	Solution
Handler should feel safe based on interaction with robot	The robot shall move at a speed that is not too fast for the user. It shall also allow the user to change this speed via buttons near the handle. The rest of the solution is the same as the solution to requirement 1 and 2.
Pathfinding must use cooperative planning	A cooperative planning algorithm shall be implemented.
Implementable	Just be realistic innit?
Relatively cheap	Solution
No big changes in buildings (i.e. sensors needing to be put up in buildings)	The robot's functionality shall depend completely on itself (once given a map of the layout of the building). This will be accomplished via the usage different robot naviagtion techniques (SLAM) combined with the use of sensors, that allow the robot to sense the environment around it. For power supply the robot will have its own battery, which it will be able to recharge at a small charging station.

Project planning

Week	Description
1	Group formation
2	Tasks: Create/do user survey study Research stair climbing mechanisms and create list of hardware Expand upon mapping technologies for this purpose (finding/navigating environment) and create a list of hardware Do some research on existing concepts and research for guiding robots (Try to find previous project) Goals at the end of the week: Prototype components have a detailed plan (sketch) and bill of materials Order components/find and reserve them in robotica-lab
break	Carnaval Break
3	Monday: Split into sub-teams work started on prototypes for LIDAR, Locomotion and Navigation
4	Thursday: Start of integration of all prototypes into robot demonstrator
5	Thursday: First iteration of robot prototype done [MILESTONE]
6	Buffer week - expected troubles with integration
7	Environment & User testing started [MILESTONE]
8	Iteration upon design based upon test results
9	Monday: Final prototype done [MILESTONE] & presentation
10	Examination

scenario's: Behavior description in crowd navigation

The robot will come into contact with many different situations and our solution, according to [SOURCE] makes navigation in general faster. To determine how this system can exactly (safely) interact with crowds it was decided to zoom into a few hand-picked scenario's which demonstrate the applications and uses of our system.

Lopez scenario's

To get a better view of robot movement through crowds a meeting was held with assistant professor Cesar Lopez who specifies on this subject. Lopez's first tip was to focus on where you can go instead of where you cannot go. Basically, go where the point cloud generated by the LIDAR is not. He also told us about the robot working with three different types of crowd flows; uniform walking direction, Opposing walking direction, and crossing the flow. It is important to note that this talks about mostly laminar crowd flow, as random chaotic flows are out of the scope of this project. However, bidirectional crowd flows end up becoming divided into lanes of uniform walking directions. This means that chaotic flows are rare as there is some self organisation in pedestrian flows.

Uniform Walking direction

In this scenario the robot uses its LIDAR technology to follow a moving point cloud(i.e. the lead) in front of it. This point cloud could be one person or even a whole group. After this point cloud space always opens up where the robot can go. The robot cannot see the difference between one person or a group, this will make the robot more robust as when people move in or out of the group the robot still follows the group. A negative is that the movement might be less predictable, as some persons that are not distinct from the group by the LIDAR might make a weird movement. This is seen as the easiest scenario.

Opposing flow

This is slightly harder as while moving through an opposing flow the robot is dependent on people moving out of the way. Otherwise no space might open up where the robot can go. Here a robot that is programmed to not touch people might stall if there is a high enough crowd density. This is where light bumping comes in handy. If people do not go fully out of the way they will get a light touch.

Cross flow

This is the hardest scenario. It might be hard for positions to open up where the robot can go. This due to people coming from the side, and the social implications that come with that. Does the robot give space, or will it walk on? Research has found that people find robots more social, and better if they let people pass first, but this has a problem of the robot stalling.

Uniform flow scenario's

As one can see these scenarios described by Lopez have all their different problems, and should be tackled differently. That is why, on recommendation of Lopez, only work has been done on the scenario of the robot walking in a uniform walking direction. This also is the best case because most flows in the TUE are of this calibre. As described earlier most bidirectional flows end up organising that for the robot only uniform walking is relevant. In these scenarios joining, and leaving are also very different, where other information is needed and therefore will not be considered in detail. For the reason that the idea of moving through crowds with touch might help in other scenarios, later some other scenarios are given where bumping can be useful.

Scenario 1: Cut off

While in the standard scenario (unidirectional walking), someone or something starts to insert itself in between the guide and the previously thought of leading cloud. This has multiple different sub-scenario’s will be discussed. In this scenario we will consider a crowded space [INSERT CROWD DENSITY], where the people move alongside each other. Since the third person is inserting from the side it may not be assumed that only the feelers of the robot make contact. This means more severe consequences may follow.

Decision making criteria

The decision making of the guide should depend on the intentions of the third person, the effects of their actions on the guide(d), and the effects on themselves.

By far the most difficult thing is to determine the intentions of the third person. Are they trying to inserting themselves in front of the robot or are they simply drifting in front. Since their mind cannot be read it seems reasonable to base the decision purely on the latter 2 decisive factors, namely; the effects on the guide(d) and the effects on the person inserting themselves.

Guide’s options

There are 3 options the robot can take in any given scenario:

Effects        Action ->	Bump	Make way	Move to the side
Effects on the guide(d)	- Little to no travel delay - Depending on the severity of the impact it might result in the robot having a sudden change in speed, inconveniencing the guided.	- The robot might have to slow down temporarily which might inconvenience the guided. - The robot might have to slow down permanently due to a change in the leads’ walking speed leading to a higher travel time. - Other people might also try to slip in front leading to multiple delays.	- The guided might incur a travel delay due to the perpendicular movement. - Too much side-to-side movement might lead to sporadic guidance to the guided. - The guide will have to make accurate decisions when sliding in front of someone else which might lead to unexpected problems or delays.
Effects on the person inserting themselves	- They make physical contact with the robot resulting in a risk of injury depending on the severity. - They might be surprised by the robot resulting in unpredictable scenario’s. - They might not be able to return to their original spot in the crowd resulting in unpredictable consequences.	- None	- None

Scenario variables

It can be seen that the effects of any action is very much context dependent and as such a well-made decision will only be possible if the guide is well-informed. Assuming this is the case for now we can set up 4 factors which will determine the way the robot should act:

1.   The relative normal speed of the third person

2.   Their relative perpendicular speed

3.   The third person’s space to act

4.   The robot’s space to act

From this, 4 behavioral tables can be set up:

Scenario 1: expected behavior

The following scenarios might seem excessive since the robot will most likely not be a rule-based reflex-agent. This detailed model should however be of importance when informing our decision making process in the design of the robot as well as the evaluation of the simulation.

The third person and the robot are capable of making way

	Low perpendicular speed	Medium perpendicular speed	High perpendicular speed
Smaller forward speed	Make way	Make way	Make way
Same forward speed	Make way	Make way	Make way
Larger forward speed	Robot does not make way	Robot does not make way	Robot does not make way

This is based on if the robot is slower or the same speed it lets someone pas on basic human perception that shows that the robot has 'manners'

Depiction of a third person inserting themselves between the guide and the lead.

Only the third person is capable of making way (see figure to the right)

	Low perpendicular speed	Medium perpendicular speed	High perpendicular speed
Smaller forward speed
Same forward speed
Larger forward speed

Only the robot is capable of making way

	Low perpendicular speed	medium perpendicular speed	High perpendicular speed
Smaller forward speed
Same forward speed
Larger forward speed

Neither are capable of making way

	Low perpendicular speed	Medium perpendicular speed	High perpendicular speed
Smaller forward speed
Same forward speed
Larger forward speed

Scenario 2: Stalled lead

While in the standard scenario the lead has stopped moving. The guide may avoid the lead, or nudge them. The guide is moving unidirectionally with the lead, and it is therefor assumed all impact will occur at the front of the guide.

Guide options

The decision making of the robot should depend on the effects on the guide(d) and on the leads. The robot may in all situations attempt the following options:

Effects        Action ->	Try alternative route	Robot nudges using feelers	Stops
Effects on the guide(d)	- The robot has to make side-to-side movement which results in a more sporadic pathing. This might inconvenience the guided. - Moving aside in a crowded space may result in the guide, or worse guided, to be pushed by other people. - Behavior requires more complex observational methods and behavior.	- Does not always resolve the problem which leads to more delay.	- Guide stops. significant time delay. - People behind guided may walk into, or push them.
Effects on the stalled lead	- None	- Person may have to step aside or start moving. - Person might be uncomfortable with being nudged or pushed.	- None

Scenario variables

The main variables are the following:

1. Space to act for guide

2. Space to act for lead

Scenario 2: expected behavior

Due to the great low-risk results of nudging using the feelers this will in all cases be the first action.

If the attempt fails however it must be decided if the guide should try to path around the now blocked path or to stop. If it can be seen that the lead ahead is stopping out of its own volition (There is free space in front of the lead), the robot should try to navigate around the lead in most cases. If the lead is expected to start moving in a reasonable timeframe, depending on the amount of time rerouting would take, the guide should stop. Something which hasn’t been taken into account yet is the actual freedom of the guide; a dense surrounding, or a fast moving crowd could stop the guide being able to safely step aside. In these cases the specifics and safety of the cross-flow-behavior are of importance.

Assuming the cross-flow-behavior to be only safe in the limited case of a sparse, normal moving crowd, the following behavioral table can be made:

	Normal moving crowd	Fast moving crowd
Sparse crowd	Try alternative route	Stop
Dense crowd	Stop	Stop

If the guide has stopped for a while and sees an opportunity for the lead to move, it should play a message asking for the lead to move. This also notifies the guided of the situation.

Scenario 3: Integrating

Integrating into a crowd is a behavior which for this research falls outside of the scope of the paper. Inside the TUE, crowd densities of [INSERT MAX CROWD DENSITY] are assumed to occur only scarcely in the span of a year. In less dense crowds the guide should be able to integrate into the flow without hitting other people. However, in the scenario that crowds are to be very dense, the guide should be able to act in a more assertive manner due to the increase in safety measures preventing harmful human-robot collisions.

Generalisation

The following scenarios pertain to a situation where the guide navigates along side a unidirectional crowd flow. In this behavior first is talked about how it should behave in a flow the guide moves with. Later there is talked about other scenario's such as joining and leaving the lead it follows. This due to this being out of the scope of the simulated scenario, but it is still important to think about how the robot should act, and what the bumping mechanism could do to add to these scenario's

UNUSED SCENARIO'S

Scenario 3: Finding lead

The robot guide is not following a lead currently but is in the middle of the crowd. It should move to a new lead while not disrupting the crowd. It is assumed a suitable lead can be found within 3 meters in front or back if they exist.

Decision making criteria

Broadly speaking, the robot guide should base its decisions on the effects on the guide(d), the effects on any given third person(s), and the effects on the new lead.

More specifically:

Effects on the guide

The robot should be able to follow a new lead as soon as possible. It should also keep its surroundings as predictable as possible. This entails that the guide should avoid disturbing the crowd as much as possible. This should cause the robot to avoid close proximity with third persons whenever possible/practical.

Effects on the guided

The travel time should be minimized and the comfort of the guided should also be kept in mind. This translates to the new lead having a relative speed as close as possible to the preferred speed of the guided. A minor preference should also be given to a potential lead if they are closer to the goal. This should be of more importance if the goal is nearer.

Effects on any third person(s)

The surrounding people should not be disturbed by the guide too much. This means that if they are walking within a group, the guide should avoid splitting them up. The guide should also avoid cutting of bystanders. This includes stalling.

Effects on the new lead

They should be considered as third persons. Special considerations might be given when long-term disturbances are expected. Such as a group being permanently disturbed instead of temporarily.

Scenario variables

1.   Number of potential leads

2.   Crowd density

3.   Position of potential leads

4.   Grouping of people

5.   Relative speed of potential leads

Scenario 3: expected behavior

Because the behavior is strongly dependent on exact positioning of people, it would be impractical to specify specific scenario’s. Therefor the behavior will only be described in a general manner.

First the most likely scenario will be briefly mentioned; the case where a lead is clearly present in front. The expected behavior would then be to follow them.

When multiple leads are available the decision should be made in accordance with the following criteria in decreasing order of importance:

• The relative travel speed of the lead is approximately the same as the preferred speed of the guided
• New lead is not permanently cut off from related people
• The new lead is closer to the goal, significantly reducing travel time when compared to other leads
• Time until the new lead is followed is short
• The surroundings are expected to be predictable if the new lead is chosen
• Third person(s) are not split off from related people
• Third person(s) are not cut off
• Third person(s) are not bumped
• The robot does not come in close proximity with other people

Another situation is when no guide can be found. This might happen if there is free space in front of the guide. In this case the robot should navigate autonomously towards the goal until it finds a lead. While autonomously navigating it should naturally avoid cutting of other people.

Yet another situation in which no suitable lead can be found is when the crowd is too dense. There are 2 actions which can be taken in such a situation. First is to bump someone to reach a new potential lead. This should be done in a similar manner as in scenario 4 ‘cut off’. Alternatively if in that scenario the preferred option is to ‘make way’, the robot should stall and wait for another suitable lead to be reachable. The robot will then proceed to behave as described in scenario 9: ‘Stranded guide’.

Scenario 5: Lost lead

While in the standard scenario the lead is lost because the guide could not follow them. This scenario has 2 sub-scenarios which should be discussed. In this scenario we will consider the same assumptions as in scenario 3; a crowded space [INSERT CROWD DENSITY] where the parallel lanes move at the same speed. The lead can be lost due to multiple factors. The following possibilities are considered:

1. Sensor inadequacies (The sensor is not good enough to follow the lead)

2. The lead changes route (It has an other target and/or route)

3. The lead gets lost in the crowd due to people integrating/cutting off

Scenario 5.1: New lead is found immediately

A new lead might appear in front of the robot due to the following factors:

1. New person in front

2. New person integrating

The robot finds this lead not particularly 'consciously' (Not indicating the robot is conscious but there is a difference between searching for a new lead, and just a new lead appearing).

Scenario 5.2: New lead cannot be found immediately -> Scenario 2

The robot start following scenario 3 again.

Scenario 8: Stranded robot

The robot has lost its lead and is stalled in the middle of a crowd.

User scenario's

Physical contact through crowded spaces

Jack is partially sighted and can see only a small part of what is in front of him. He has recently been helping out fellow students with their field tests which tests a robot guide. Last month he worked with a robot called Visior which helps steer him through his surroundings. Visior is a robot which is inspired and shares its physical features with CaBot.

When Jack used Visior to get to the library to pick up a print request he had to pass through a mediumly-crowded Atlas building since there was an event going on. This went mostly as expected; not too fast and having to stop semi-periodically because of people walking or stopping in front of Visior. The robot was strictly disallowed to purposely make physical contact with other humans. Jack knows this so he learned to step up in these situations and try to kindly ask for the people in front to make way. This used to happen less when he uses his white cane since people would easily identify him and his needs. After Jack arrived at printing room in MetaForum he picked up his print request. He handily put his batch of paper on top of his guiding robot so he didn’t have to carry it himself.

On his way back he almost fell over his guiding robot when it suddenly stopped when a hurried student ran by. Luckily he did not get hurt. When Jack came home after this errand he crashed on his couch after an exhausting trip of anticipating the robot’s quirky behavior.

The next day the researchers and developers of Visior came to ask about his experiences. Jack told them about his experience with Visior and their trip to the library. The developers thanked him for his feedback and started working on improving Visior.

This week they came back with the now new and improved Visior-robot. This version has been installed with a softer exterior and now rides in front of Jack instead of by his side. The developers have made it capable of safely bumping into people without causing harm. They also made it capable of communicating with Jack if it thinks it might have to stop suddenly to make Jack a bit more at ease when traveling together.

The next day Jack used it to again make a trip to the printing space in MetaForum to compare the experience. When passing through the crowded Atlas again (there somehow always seems to be an event there) he was pleasantly surprised. He found it easier to trust Visior now that it was able to communicate the points in the trip where Visior thought they might have to stop or bump into other pedestrians. For example when they came across a slightly more crowded space Visior had guided Jack to walk alongside a flow of other pedestrians. Jack was made aware of the slightly unknown nature of their surroundings by Visior. Then when student suddenly tried to cross their path without looking Visior had unfortunately bumped into their side. Visior gradually slowed their pace down to a halt. Jack obviously felt the bump but was easily able to stay stable due to the prior warning and the less drastic decrease in speed. The student who was now naturally aware of the something moving in their blind spot immediately stepped out of the way and looked at Jack and Visior; seeing the sticker stating that Jack was visually impaired. Jack asked them if they were alright, to which they responded with saying they were fine after which they both went on their way. After picking up his print he went back home. On his way back he had to pass through the small bridge between MetaForum and Atlas in which a group of people were now talking; blocking a large part of the walking space. Visior guided Jack to a small traversable path open besides the group; taking the risk that the person there would slightly move and come onto their path. Visior and Jack could luckily squeeze by without any trouble and their way back home was further uneventful.

When the Developers of Visior came back the next day to check up on him Jack told them the experience was leagues better then before. He told them he found walking with Visior less exhausting then it had been before and found the behavior of it more human-like making it easier to work with.

Familiar guidance advantage

Meet Mark from Croatia He is a Minor Student following Mathematics courses, and lives on (or near) campus Mark is severely near-sighted, being born with the condition he has never seen very well. Mark is optimistic but chaotic. Mark likes his study, and likes playing piano.

Notable details: Mark makes use of a white cain and audio-visual aids to assist with his near-sightedness. He just transferred to TU/e for a minor, and doesn't know many people yet. Mark will only be here a short time for his minor. He has a service dog at home, but does not have the resources, time or connections to provide for it here, and so he left it at home.

Indoors, mark finds it hard to use his cane because of crowded hallways and he dislikes apologizing when hitting someone with his stick, or being an inconvenience to his fellow students. Mark can read and write English fine, but still feels the language barrier.

In a world without our robot mark might have to navigate like this: Mark has just arrived for his 2nd day of lectures. And will be going to the wide lecture hall at Atlas -0.820. Mark again managed to walk to Atlas (as we will not be tackling exterior navigation), and uses his cane and experience to navigate the stairs and rotary door of Atlas, using it to determine the speed and size of the revolving element to get in, and using the cane to determine the position of the doors and opening (https://youtu.be/mh5L3l_7FqE).

Once inside, he is greeted by a fellow student who has noticed him navigating the door. Mark had already started concealing the use of his cane, as he doesn't like the attention and so the university staff didn't notice him. Luckly, his fellow student is more than willing to help him get to his lecture hall. Unfortunately, the student is not well versed in guiding visually impaired around, and it has gotten busy with students changing rooms.

Mark is dragged along to the lecture hall by his fellow student, bumping into other students who don't notice he cannot see them, as his guider is hastily pulling him past the students. Mark almost loses his balance when his guide slips past some other students, narrowly avoiding the trashcan while dragging mark by his arm. Mark didn't see the trashcan, which is not at eye level, and collides with the metal frame while trying to copy the movement of his guider to dodge the other students. He is luckily unharmed, and manages to follow his guide again, until he is finally able to sit in the lecture hall, ready to listen for another day.

With our robot however: Mark arrives inside Atlas, and is greeted by a fellow student, who noticed him struggling with the door. The student knows there are guidance robots at this building, and helps Mark to a guidance robot clearly waiting by the entrance. He helps mark enter his destination in the interface, and leaves him to go to his own lecture.

The robot greets mark, and tells him instructions in order to follow him. The robot tells him to extend his arm slowly at belly level, until he can feel the robot. The textured design alongside the specifically shaped exterior naturally guide Mark's hand to the specially designated handhold. The robot tells him to grab the hold, using touch technology to confirm this action, the robot proceeds by demonstrating the different haptic and kinetic indicators mark could pay attention to, in order to know the situation around him, as sensed by the robot.

Then, the robot starts the task of getting mark to the lecture hall. It starts moving, its next intended speed and direction through the feedback in the handle. As a result, Mark can anticipate the route the robot will take, similar as to how a guide would apply force to Mark's hand to change direction (find that video again).

The robot has reached the crowd of students moving through the busy part of Atlas. It's primary objective is to get Mark through this, and even though many students notice the robot going through, it still uses clear audio indications to warn students it will be moving through, and notifies mark it goes into some alternate mode through the handle. Mark notices, and thus becomes alert as he also feels that the robot reduces the number of turns it makes, Navigating through the crowd in the most straightforward route it can take. Mark likes this, it is making it easy for him to follow it, and also for others to avoid them.

Still, a sleepy student bumps into the robot as it is crossing. Luckily the robot is designed to contact other students, and it's rounded shape, enclosed wheels (or other moving parts) and softened bumpers prevent harm. The robot does however slightly reduce its pace, and makes an audible noise to let the sleepy student know it touched the robot too hard. Mark also notices the collision, partially because the bump makes the robot shake a little and loose a bit of pace, but mainly because his handle clearly and alarmingly notifies him, Mark also knows the robot will still continue, as the feedback of the handle indicates to him that it is not stopping.

After the robot made a straight line through the crowd, it makes it to the lecture hall. It parks just in front of the door, and tells mark to extend his free hand slightly above hip level, telling him they arrived at a closed door that opens towards them swinging to his right, similarly to how a guide would, so mark can grab the door handle, and with support of the robot open the door. The robot preceeds mark slowly into the space, it goes a bit too fast though, and mark applies force to the handle, pulling it slightly in his direction. The robot notices this, and waits for mark.

After they enter the lecture hall, the robot asks the lecturer to guide mark to an empty seat (and may provide instructions on how to do so). When mark is seated, the robot returns to its spot near the entrance, waiting for the next person.

Users

Guide dog research

This text is based on multiple papers with the communication between robot and handler being central. The most sought after results were: Selecting method of steering guided: (how to indicate sharpness of turns/what kind of obstacles/indicate confidence of free path)

For this research I mainly looked at the function of guide dogs. This being that other options such as humans can communicate clearer with the person with impaired vision. The tasks of a guide dog are:

• Walk centrally along the pavement whilst avoiding (dynamic) obstacles on the route
• Maintain a steady pace
• Not turn corners unless told so
• Stop at kerbs and steps
• Find doors, crossings and places which are visited regularly
• Bring the handler to elevator buttons
• Judge height and width so you do not bump your head or shoulder
• Help keep you straight when crossing a road - but it is up to you to decide where and when to cross safely
• Move on command, but obediently ignore when dangerous

Dogs obey commands using hand and vocal signals. On our importance of communication for sharpness of turns, what kind of obstacles, and confidence of free path the following answers are provided.

Indicating sharp corners

Nothing really useful has been found on turning sharp corners. Basically dogs guide their handlers by going through first and staying close to the handlers side. That is how the handler goes to go a little bit left or right. An important note is that guide dogs should not turn unless the handler says so. This is important for a guide robot because the handler does not know how to turn. Therefore this should be neglected but communication can be the other way round. Such as the robot saying or using vibrations to show it is about to turn left or right. However it is to be researched if this communication is necessary or the robot simply turning before the blind is enough.

Indicating (dynamic) obstacles

Guide dogs already are told to stop at different static obstacles such as: kerbs, stairs, and lifts. Therefore are protocols and they can be copied. Dynamic obstacles, dogs probably can avoid just like humans. So, it is hard to really say how dogs do it or how they communicate it apart from simply steering.

Indicate confidence of free path

Guide dogs do not really indicate its confidence that the path is free, they simply make sure as well as possible that dynamic objects do not hit their handler. So it is not clear if the robot guide should indicate this. It may have an adverse effect.

Basically, when indicating corners and static obstacles. There is no free wiggle room because some things are already in place with guide dogs. They however can be replaced with other ways but keep this in mind. An important thing for corners is that guide dogs are trained not to take corners unless told so. In the CaBot the robot uses vibration interval to show the sharpness of the turn. With dynamic obstacles and indicating confidence free path (which is kind of the same as dynamic obstacles), there is a lot to play with indicating this to the handler. The guide dog would simply walk around this.

However information on how guide dogs exactly guide is sparse on the internet. It mostly shows a list of what guide dogs are trained to do. So therefore it is not yet clear of what visually impaired people find important when guided. Therefore I would reach out to Visio. There is also some literature I (Wouter) found, but did not had time to reach about guide robots.

State of the Art and relevant technology

The current state of the art tools for the visually impaired are the white cane and the guide dog. The white cane is used to navigate and identify. With its help these people get tactile information about their environment, allowing the visually impaired to explore their surroundings and detect obstacles. However the use of this can be cumbersome, as it can get stuck in cracks, or tiny spaces. Its efficiency is also limited in the event of bad weather conditions or a crowd. The guide dog on the other hand can guide the user through familiar paths, while also avoiding obstacles. They can also assist with locating steps, curbs and even elevator buttons. They can also keep their user centered, when crossing sidewalks for example. There are a couple of issues with guide dogs however. They can only work for 6 to 8 years and have a very high cost of training. They also require constant work on maintaining that training. The dog can also get sick. Another potential issue is bystanders that pet or take interest in the dog while it is working, which is a detriment to the handler.

None of these tools can efficiently assist the person in navigating to a specific landmark in an unknown environment, which is why currently for that a human assistant is need. In regards to the technological means there is currently no robot that is capable of efficiently performing such a task, especially is the environment is a crowded building. However there are multiple robots that have implemented parts of this function. In the following paragraph we have divided them into their own sections for ease of reading.

Tour-guide robots

We first begin with the tour-guide robots. These robots are used in places such as museums, university campuses, work places and more. The objective of these robots is to guide a user to a destination. Once at the destination these robots will most often relay information about the object, exhibition or room of the destination. In terms of implementation, these robot use a predefined map of the environment, where digital beacons are placed to mark the landmarks and points of interest. These robots also often make use of ways to detect and avoid obstacles such as using laser scanners(such as LiDAR), RGB cameras, kinetic cameras or sonars. This research paper goes in depth on the advances in this field in the recent 20 years, the most notable of which are "Cate", "Konard and Suse". As our goal is to guide visually-impaired people throughout the TU/e campus, this field of robotics is of upmost importance for the navigation system of our design.

Aid technology for the visually impaired=

This section is split into two. First we cover guidance robots for the visually impaired, after which we cover other technological aids that have been created for this user group.

Guidance robots

Blind people guidance robots are very similar to the tour guide robots. They often use much the same technology to navigate through the environment (predefined map with landmarks and obstacle detection and avoidance). What differentiates these robots from the tour-guide robots is the adaptation of the shape and functionality of the robots to better suit the needs of the visually impaired. The robots have handles, or leashes, which the visually impaired can hold, much the same as a guide dog or a white cane. As the user can not see, the designs incorporate ways of communicating the intent of the robot to the user as well as ways of guiding the user around obstacles together with the robot. Examples of such designs are the Cabot- a suitcase shaped robot, that stands in front of the user. It uses a LiDAR to analyse its environment and incorporates haptic feedback to inform the user of its intended movement pattern. Another possible design is the quadruped robot guide dog, which based on Spot could be used as a robotic guide dog, given some adjustments. Finally there is also this design of a portable indoor guide robot, which is a low-cost guidance robot, which also alerts the user of obstacles in the air.

Crowd-navigation robots

As our design has the objective of guiding the user through a university campus it is reasonable to expect that there will be crowds of students at certain times of the day. For our design to be helpful, it needs to handle such situations in an efficient ways. Thus we took inspiration from the minor field of crown-navigation of robotics. The goal of these robots is exactly that- enabling the robot to continue moving through a crowd, rather than freeze up, every time there is an obstacle in front of it. Some relevant research are these papers "Unfreezing the Robot: Navigation in Dense, Interacting Crowds", a robot that can navigate crowds with deep reinforcement learning

CAD Design

In this chapter the design process of the CAD model is documented. First, the handle is designed because the emergency button was already clear. Buttons and vibrating pads for the user interface can be added later in the model. This is a preliminary result that was visible earlier:

First iteration of handle design with red stop button

Further, for the design of the rest of the robot the main inspiration should be the CaBot. This is basically a type of suitcase design (rectangular box with 4 motorized wheels), with in the rectangular box al its hardware. Interestingly it also has a sensor on its handle for vision(for extra height. This design is rather simple, and the easy flat terrain on the TU/e campus should be no problem for the wheels.

The hardware space and sensors needed for our application (using touch to navigate through crowds), still needs to be discussed, and be made into a list including constraints per part. After this the hardware can be correctly packaged.

There are a few requirements, as specified above, that the robot should be able to do. For this section, the focus will be on three things; an emergency brake, provide intentions to the user and speed control. These aspects will all be incorporated into the handle of the robot, that is held by the user. This allows for clear and easy communication and a direct control over the robot.

Handle design

As the robots behavior is focused on traversing through crowds of people, there is an important function also part of it. How to communicate this direction to its user? Any audible direction will quickly interfere with the sounds from the surroundings, which can result in missing the entire message or allow for confusion. Although a headset might allow for clearer communication, this is still not ideal. Therefore, the easiest way to provide feedback to the user is through the handle. The robot has a few functions that it needs to be able to communicate with the user or be able to be controlled by the user:

• Speed
  • Setting a faster or slower speed
  • Communicating slowing down or accelerating
  • Emergency stop

• Direction
  • Turning left
  • Turning right

All of these functions can be placed inside the handle, while designing for minimal strain on the users active control. The average breadth of a male adult hand is 8.9 cm, which means that the handle needs to be big enough to allow people to hold on while also incorporating the different sensors and actuators. For white canes, the WHO has presented a draft product specification where the handle should have a diameter of 2.5cm. Which will be used for the handle of the robot as well. Since the robot can be seen as functioning similar to a guide dog, the handle will have a design similar to harnesses used for blind dogs, meaning a perpendicular, although not curved, handle that will still in place if released. To be able to comfortable accommodate the controls and sensors described below, the total size of the handle will be 20 cm.

The handle, which is connected to the robot, will provide automatic directional cues, without additional sensors or actuators. This will simplify the robot and act more similar to a guide dog. As for the matter of speed, there are three systems that would be implemented. The emergency stop, feedback about the acceleration and deceleration of the robot and the speed control of the user. The emergency stop can be a simple sensor in the handle that detects if the handle is currently being hold, if not, the robot will automatically stop moving and stay in place. The speed can be regulated via a switch-like control as visible on the sketch. When walking with a guide dog, the selected walking speed is about 1 m/s for visually impaired people, which means that with five settings, ranging from 0 m/s, 0.5 m/s, 0.75 m/s, 1.0 m/s and 1.25 m/s, the user can set their own speed preference. In order to give feedback about its current setting, the different numbers will be added in braille, as well as that the turning of the knob to a different setting will encounter some resistance and a feelable ‘click’ instead of being a smooth transition. The user can, at any times, use their thumb, or any other finger, to quickly check the position of the device and determine the speed setting. The ‘click’ provides extra security that the speed will not be accidentally adjusted without the user being aware of it.

Lastly, the robot might, for whatever reason have to slow down while walking through the crowd. Either for obstacles, other people, or in order to go properly with the flow of the crowd. Since this falls outside the speed setting, the user must be made aware of the robots actions. A simple piezo haptic actuator can do the trick. By placing it in the middle of the handle, it will be easily detected. A code for slowing down, for example a pulsating rhythm, and a code for speeding up, a continuous vibration, will convey the actions of the robot. Of course, this is in addition to the physical feel that the user has via the pull on the handle via the arm. However, because trust is so important in human-robot interactions, this is just an additional feedback from the part of the robot to increase the confidence of the user when using the robot.

Arm design

Front view of the arm design of the guide robot to which the guided can grab on. Interface utilities have not been added yet.

Back view of the arm design of the guide robot to which the guided can grab on. Interface utilities have not been added yet.

3 sketches of different designs of an arm for a guidance robot

Multiple designs were considered. One thing we wanted to add was suspension so that the movements of the robot would not jerk the arm of the guided if it were to suddenly change speeds.

The first design was a straight pole from the robot body to the guided arm (as can be seen in the top sketch in the figure to the right). A problem we could see was that if the robot were to stop suddenly, it would push the arm slighly up instead of compressing the suspension. To solve this problem a joint was introduced in the middle of the arm (as can be seen in the middle sketch in the figure to the right). An alternative solution was to have the suspension only act horizontally and internalize it (as can be seen in the bottom sketch). This would allow the pole to have the same design as the first sketch without compromising on the suspension behaviour. Another plus would be that the pole would be marginally lighter due to this suspension being moved inwards.

We have chosen for the second design as it had the intended suspension behavior while comprising of off-the-self parts.

Body Design

For the body three main designs were considered: A square, a cylindrical form, and a cylinder witch changes diameter over its height. The square was neglected on instant while the more cylindrical shapes could more easily slide through public and has les chance to hit people hard on the front (it more slides off, instead of stopping it). Then the choice was between a normal cylinder, a cylinder wide at the bottom, and a cylinder wide at the top.

A bottom heavy design would help with balance; If the robot would bump it would hit at the lowest point, meaning more stability. However, it may surprise people when it hits as they do not see the wide bottom. The Wide tops hits people around their waist/lower back area. This is for people a better place to be lightly nudged to get out the way. per contra, the robot is touched higher and has a higher chance at tipping over. That is why in the design the best of both worlds is chosen. The body has a big diameter lower with a big bumper to not tip over, and has 'whiskers' of soft material on top at the front to softly touch people if they are in the way.

This cad design shows the oval body shape of the design. It has its biggest diameter at 30 cm high, and whiskers at 120 cm from the ground.

The pole on this design is not finalized yet, but it is there to become visible for other people, and to maybe place come overview sensors at the top. It is 100 cm long, making the whole guide stand at 220 cm tall. Dimension still can be changed.

Literature Research

Overview

Paper Title	Reference	Reader
Modelling an accelerometer for robot position estimation		Jelmer S
An introduction to inertial navigation		Jelmer S
Position estimation for mobile robot using in-plane 3-axis IMU and active beacon		Jelmer S
Stepper motors: fundamentals, applications and design		Joaquim
Incremental Visual-Inertial 3D Mesh Generation with Structural Regularities		Jelmer L
Keyframe-Based Visual-Inertial SLAM Using Nonlinear Optimization		Jelmer L
Balancing the Budget: Feature Selection and Tracking for Multi-Camera Visual-Inertial Odometry		Jelmer L
Optical 3D laser measurement system for navigation of autonomous mobile robot		Boril
A mobile robot based system for fully automated thermal 3D mapping		Boril
A review of 3D reconstruction techniques in civil engineering and their applications		Boril
2D LiDAR and Camera Fusion in 3D Modeling of Indoor Environment		Boril
A Review of Multi-Sensor Fusion SLAM Systems Based on 3D LIDAR		Jelmer L
An information-based exploration strategy for environment mapping with mobile robots		Jelmer S
Mobile robot localization using landmarks		Jelmer S
The Fuzzy Control Approach for a Quadruped Robot Guide Dog		Wouter
Design of a Portable Indoor Guide Robot for Blind People		Wouter
Guiding visually impaired people in the exhibition		Joaquim
CaBot: Designing and Evaluating an Autonomous Navigation Robot for Blind People		Boril
Tour-Guide Robot		Boril
Review of Autonomous Campus and Tour Guiding Robots with Navigation Techniques		Boril
Review of Autonomous Campus and Tour Guiding Robots with Navigation Techniques		Boril

Modelling an accelerometer for robot position estimation

The paper discusses the need for high-precision models of location and rotation sensors in specific robot and imaging use-cases, specifically highlighting SLAM systems (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping systems).

It highlight sensors that we may also need: " In this system the orientation data rely on inertial sensors. Magnetometer, accelerometer and gyroscope placed on a single board are used to determine the actual rotation of an object. "

It mentions that, in order to derive position data from acceleration, it needs to be doubly integrated, which tents to yield great inaccuracy.

drawback: the robot needs to stop after a short time (to re-calibrate) when using double-integration to minimize error-accumulation: “Double integration of an acceleration error of 0.1g would mean a position error of more than 350 m at the end of the test”.

An issue in modelling the sensors is that rotation is measured by gravity, which is not influenced by for example yaw, and gets more complicated under linear acceleration. The paper modelled acceleration, and rotation according to various lengthy math equations and matrices, and applied noise and other real-word modifiers to the generated data.

It notably uses cartesian and homogeneous coordinates in order to seperate and combine different components of their final model, such as rotation and translation. These components are shown in matrix form and are derived from specification of real-world sensors, known and common effects, and mathematical derivations of the latter two.

The proposed model can be used to test code for our robot's position computations.

An introduction to inertial navigation

This paper (as report) is meant to be a guide towards determining positional and other navigation data from interia based sensors like gyroscopes, accelerometers and IMU's in general.

It starts by explaining the inner workings of a general IMU, and gives an overview of an algorithm used to determine position from said sensors' readings using integration, showing what intermitted values represent using pictograms.

It then proceeds to discuss various types of gyroscopes, their ways of measuring rotation (such as light inference), and resulting effects on measurements, which are neatly summarized in equations and tables. It takes a similar for Linear acceleration measurement devices.

In the latter half the paper, concepts and methods relevant to processing the introduced signals are explained, and most importantly it is discussed how to partially account for some of the errors of such sensors. It starts by explaining how to account for noise using allan variance, and shows how this effects the values from a gyroscope.

Next, the paper introduces the theory behind tracking orientation, velocity and position. It talks about how errors in previous steps propagate through the process, resulting in the infamously dangerous accumulation of inaccuracy that plagues such systems.

Lastly, it shows how to simulate data from the earlier discussed sensors. Notably though the previous paper already discussed a more accurate and recent algorithm (building on this paper).

Position estimation for mobile robot using in-plane 3-axis IMU and active beacon

The paper highlights 2 types of positioning determination: Absolute (does not depend on previous location) and Relative (does depend on previous location). It goes on to highlight advantages and disadvantages of several location determination systems. It then proposes a navigation system that mitigates as much of the flaws as possible.

The paper continues by describing the sensors used to construct the in plane 3 axis IMU: - x/y accelerometer, - z-axis gyroscope

Then, the ABS is described. It consists of 4 beacons mounted to the ceiling, and 2 ultrasonic sensors attached to the robot. The technique essentially uses radio frequency triangulation to determine the absolute position of the robot. The last sensor described is an odometer, which needs no further explanation.

Then, the paper discusses the model used to represent the system in code. Most notably the system is somewhat easier to understand, as the in-plane measurements mean that much of the robot position's complexity is restricted to 2 dimensions. The paper also discusses the used filtering and processing techniques such as a karman filter to combat noise and drift. The final processing pipeline discussed is immensely complex due to the inclusion of bounce, collision and beacon-failure handling.

Lastly, the paper discusses the result of their tests on the accuracy of the system, which shown a very accurate system, even when the beacon is lost.

Stepper motors: fundamentals, applications and design

This book goes over what stepper motors are, variations of stepper motors as well as their make-up. Furthermore it goes in-depth about how they are controlled.

Incremental Visual-Inertial 3D Mesh Generation with Structural Regularities

According to the authors advances in Visual-Inertial odometry (VIO), which is the process of determining pose and velocity (state) of an agent using the input of cameras has opened up a range of applications like AR drone navigation. Most of VIO systems use point clouds and to provide real-time estimates of the agent’s state they create sparse maps of the surroundings using power heavy GPU operations. In the paper the authors propose a method to incrementally create 3D mesh of the VIO optimization while bounding memory and computational power.

The authors approach is by creating a 2d Delaunay triangulation from tracked keypoints, and then projecting this into 3d, this projection can have some issues where points are close in 2d but not in 3d, this is solved by geometric filters. Some algorithms update a mesh for every frame but the authors try to maintain a mesh over multiple frames to reduce computational complexity, capture more of the scene and capture structural regularities.     Using the triangular faces of the mesh they are able to extract geometry non-iteratively.

In the next part of the paper they talk about optimizing the optimization problem derived from the previously mentioned specifications.

Finally the authors share some benchmarking results on the EuRoC dataset which are promising as in environments with regularities like walls and floors it performs optimally. The pipeline proposed in this paper provides increased accuracy at the cost of some calculation time.

Keyframe-Based Visual-Inertial SLAM Using Nonlinear Optimization

In the robotics community visual and inertial cues have long been used together with filtering however this requires linearity while non-linear optimization for visual SLAM increases quality, performance and reduces computational complexity.

The contributions the authors claim to bring are constructing a pose graph without expressing global pose uncertainty, provide a fully probabilistic derivation of IMU error terms and develop both hardware and software for accurate real-time slam.

The paper describes in high detail how the optimization objectives were reached and how the non-linear SLAM can be integrated with the IMU using a chi-square test instead of a ransac computation.

Finally they show results of a test with their developed prototype which shows that tightly integrating the IMU with a visual SLAM system really improves performance and decreases the deviation from the ground truth to close to zero percent after 90m distance travelled.

Balancing the Budget: Feature Selection and Tracking for Multi-Camera Visual-Inertial Odometry

The authors from this paper propose an algorithm that fuses feature tracks from any amount of cameras along with IMU measurements into a single optimization process, handles feature tracking on cameras with overlapping fovs, a subroutine to select the best landmarks for optimization reducing computational time and results from extensive testing.

First the authors give the optimization objective after which they give the factor graph formulation with residuals and covariances of the IMU and visual factors. Then they explain how they approach cross camera feature tracking. This is done by projecting the location from 1 camera to the other using either stereo camera depth or IMU estimation, then the it is refined by matching it with to the closest image feature in the camera projected to using Euclidian distance. After this it is explained how feature selection is done, this is done by computing a jacobian matrix and then finding a submatrix that preserves the spectral distribution best.

Finally experimental results show that with their system is closer to the ground truth than other similar systems.

Optical 3D laser measurement system for navigation of autonomous mobile robot

This paper presents an autonomous mobile robot, which using a 3D laser navigation system can detect and avoid obstacles in its path to a goal. The paper starts by describing in high detail the navigation system- TVS. The system uses a rotatable laser and scanning aperture to form laser light triangles, which are formed due to the reflected light of the obstacle. Using this method the authors were able to obtain the information necessary to calculate the 3D coordinates. For the robot base, the authors used Pioneer 3-AT, four-wheel, four-motor ski-steer robotics platform.

After this the authors go in-depth on how the robot avoids obstacles. Via the usage of optical encoders on the wheels and a 3-axis accelerometer, the robot keeps track of its travelled distance and orientation. Via IR sensors the robot can detect obstacles that are a certain distance in front of it, after which it performs a TVS scan to avoid the obstacle. The trajectory the robot follows to avoid the obstacle is calculated using 50 points in the space in front of it, which are used to form a curve, which the robot then follows. Thus after the robot starts-up, it calculates an initial trajectory to the goal location, after which it recalculates the trajectory, whenever it encounters an obstacle. Finally the authors go over their results from simulating this robot in Mathlab as well as analyse its performance.

A mobile robot based system for fully automated thermal 3D mapping

This paper showcases a fully autonomous robot, which can create 3D thermal models of rooms. The authors begin by describing what components the robot uses, as well as how the 3d sensor (a Riegl VZ-400 laser scanner from terrestrial laser scanning) and the thermal camera (optris PI160) are mutually calibrated. Both cameras are mounted on top of the robot, together with a Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 webcam. After acquiring the 3D data, it is merged with the thermal and digital image via geometric camera calibration. After that the authors explain the sensor placement. The approach of the paper to the memory-intensive issue of 3 planning is to combine 2D and 3D planning- the robot would start off by only using 2D measurements, once it detects an enclosed space however it would switch to 3D NBV (next best view) planning. The 2d NBV algorithm starts off with a blank map, and explores based on the initial scan, where all inputs are range values parallel to the floor, distributed on the 360 degree field of view. A grid map is used to store the static and dynamic obstacle information. A polygonal representation of the environment stores the environment edges (walls, obstacles). This NBV process is composed of three consecutive steps- vectorization (obtaining line segments from input range data), creation of exploration polygon, selection of the NBV sensor position- choosing the next goal. The room detection is grounded in the detection of closed spaces in the 2D map of the environment. Finally the authors showcase their results from their experiments with the robot, showcasing 2D and 3D thermal maps of building floors. The 3D reconstruction of which is done using Marching Cubes algorithm.

A review of 3D reconstruction techniques in civil engineering and their applications

This paper presents and reviews techniques to create 3D reconstructions of objects from the outputs of data collection equipment. First the authors researched the currently most used equipment for getting the 3D data- laser scanners (LiDAR), monocular and binocular cameras, video cameras, which is also the equipment that the paper focuses on. From this they classify two categories for 3D reconstruction based on cameras- point-based and line-based. Furthermore 3D reconstruction techniques are divided into two steps in the paper - generating point clouds and processing those point clouds. For generating the point clouds: For monocular images - feature extraction, feature matching, camera motion estimation, sparse 3D reconstruction, model parameters correction, absolute scale recovery and dense 3D reconstruction feature extraction- gaining feature points, which reflect the initial structure of the scene. Algorithms used for this are Feature point detectors and feature point descriptors. Feature matching- matching feature points of each image pair. Camera motion estimation is used to find out the camera parameters of each image. The Sparse 3D reconstruction step is to compute the 3D location of points using the feature points and camera parameters, generating a point cloud. This is done via the triangulation algorithm. Then the model parameters correction step is to correct the camera parameters of each image. This step leads to precise 3D locations of points in the point cloud. Absolute scale recovery aims to determine the absolute scale of the sparse point cloud by using the dimensions/points of absolute scale in the sparse point cloud. Finally using all of the above is used to generate a dense point cloud. For stereo images, the camera motion estimation and absolute scale recovery steps are skipped, and instead we need to calibrate the camera before feature extraction. After this the authors explain how to generate point clouds from video images. in Techniques for processing data, the authors showcase a couple of algorithms for data data processing. For point cloud processing they use ICP. For Mesh reconstruction- PSR, for point cloud segmentation- they divide the algorithms into two categories- feature-based segmentation (region growth and clustering, K-means clustering) and model-based segmentation (Hough transform and RANSAC). After this the authors go in depth on applications of 3D reconstruction in civil engineering such as reconstructing construction sites and reconstructing pipelines of MEP systems. Finally the authors go over the issues and challenges of 3D reconstruction.

2D LiDAR and Camera Fusion in 3D Modelling of Indoor Environment

This paper goes over how to effectively fuse data from multiple sensors in order to create a 3D model. An entry level camera is used for color and texture information, while a 2D LiDAR is used as the range sensor. To calibrate the correspondences between the camera and LiDAR, a planar checkerboard pattern is used to extract corners from the camera image and intensity image of the 2D LiDAR. Thus the authors rely of 2D-2D correspondences. A pinhole camera model is applied to project 3D point clouds to 2D planes. RANSAC is used to estimate the point-to-point correspondence. Using transformation matrices the authors match the color images of the digital camera to with the intensity images. B aligning a 3D color point cloud in different location, the authors generate the 3D model of the environment. Via a turret widow X servo, the 2D LiDAR is moved in vertical direction for a 180 degree horizontal field of view. The digital camera rotates in both vertical and horizontal directions, to generate panoramas by stitching series of images. In the third paragraph the authors go over how they calibrated the two image sources. To determine the rigid transformation between camera images and 3D points cloud a fidual target is used, RANSAC is used to estimate outliers during calibration process and a checkerboard with 7x9 squares is employed to find correspondences between LiDAR and camera. Finally the authors go over their results.

A Review of Multi-Sensor Fusion SLAM Systems Based on 3D LIDAR

This paper is a review of multiple SLAM systems from which their main vision component is a 3D LiDAR which is integrated with other sensors. LiDAR, camera and IMU are the 3 most used components and all have their advantages and disadvantages. The paper discusses LiDAR-IMU coupled systems and Visual-LiDAR-IMU coupled system, both tightly and loosely coupled.

Most loosely coupled systems are based on the original LOAM algorithm by J. Zhang et all, these systems are new in terms of that the paper by Zhang is from 2014, but there have been many advancements in this technology. The LiDAR-IMU systems often use the IMU to increase the accuracy of the LiDAR measurements and new developments involve speeding up to ICP algorithm to combine point clouds with clever tricks and/or GPU acceleration. The LiDAR-Visual-IMU systems use the complementary properties of LiDAR and camera’s, LiDAR needs textured environments while visions sensors lack the ability to perceive depth, thus the cameras are used for feature tracking and together with LiDAR data allow for more accurate pose estimation.

In contrast to the speed and low computational complexity of loosely coupled systems, tightly coupled systems sacrifice some of this for greater accuracy. One of the main points of these systems is a derivation of the error term and pre-integration formula for the IMU, this can be used to increase accuracy of the IMU measurements by estimating the IMU bias and noise. For LiDAR-IMU systems this derivation is used for removing distortion in LiDAR scans, optimizing both measurements and many different approached to couple the 2 devices to obtain greater accuracy and computation speed. The LiDAR-Visual-IMU use strong correlation between images and point clouds to produce more accurate pose detection.

The authors then do performance comparisons on SLAM datasets where most recent SLAM systems appear to estimate pose really close to the ground truth even over distances of several 100 meters.

An information-based exploration strategy for environment mapping with mobile robots

This paper proposes a mathematically oriented way of mapping environments. Based on relative entropy, the authors evaluate a mathematical way to produce a planar map of an environment, using a laser range finder to generate local point-based maps that are compiled to a global map of the environment. Notably the paper also discusses how to localize the robot in the produced global map.

The generated map is a continuous curve that represents the boundary between navigable spaces and obstacles. The curve is defined by a large set of control points which are obtained from the range finder. The proposed method involves the robot generating and moving to a set of observation points, at which it takes a 360 degree snapshot of the environment using the range finder, finding a set of points several specified degrees apart, with some distance from the sensor. The measured points form a local map, which is also characterised by the given uncertainty of the measurements. Each local map is then integrated into the global map (a combination of all local maps), which is then used to determine the next observation point and position of the robot in global space.

The researches go on to describe how the quality of the proposal is measured, namely in the distance traveled and uncertainty of the map. The uncertainty is a function of the uncertainty in the robot's current position, and the accuracy of the range finder. The robot has a pre-computed expected position of each point, and a post-measurement position of each point, which is then evaluated through relative entropy to compute the increment of the point-information. This and similar equations for the robot's position data are used to select the optimal points for observing the environment. Lastly, the points of each observation point are combined into one map, by using the robot's position data.

Mobile Robot Localization Using Landmarks

The paper discusses a method to determine a robot's position using landmarks as reference points. This is a more absolute system than just inertia based localization. The paper assumes that the robot can identify landmarks and measure their position relative to each other. Like other papers, it highlights its importance due to error accumulation on relative methods.

It highlights the robot's capability to: - Find landmarks - Associate landmarks with points on a map - Use this data to compute its position.

It uses triangulation between 3 landmarks to find its position, with low error. The paper also discusses how to re-identify landmarks that were misjudged with new data. The robot takes 2 images (using a reflective ball to create a 360 image), and solves the correspondence problem (identifying an object from 2 angles) to find its location. In the paper, the technique is tested in an office environment.

The paper discusses how to perform triangulation using an external coordinate system and the localisation of the robot. The vectors to the landmark are compared and using their angle and magnitude the position can be computed. Next, the paper discusses the same technique, adjusted for noisy data. The paper uses Least-Squares to derive an estimation that can be used, evaluating the robot's rotation relative to at least 2 landmarks. The paper then evaluates the expected distribution in angle-error and position on each axis, to correct for the noise, using the method described above.

The Fuzzy Control Approach for a Quadruped Robot Guide Dog

This basically makes a robot guide dog. Think of Spot from Boston Dynamics with a leash that is trained to guide blind people. A good thing for this is that spot has proven to be able to walk stairs so it should be fast. Problem is that it is hard to guide blind people. This is their design:

How the robot dog looks with mechanical components. image from

The paper also gives a ‘fuzzy’ control process which makes sure that variation in road surfaces would not affect the dog. The rest of the paper shows how this controller can be designed, it does not show how to guide a blind person.

Their conclusion on what they did shows that their fuzzy algorithm improved how smooth the dog walked.

Design of a Portable Indoor Guide Robot for Blind People

This design takes the guide dog replacement differently. By not replacing it with a dog quadruped robot. This design is mainly aimed at indoors. This paper also did some research on what blind people need. A survey conducted for example says that 90% of people worry about obstacles in the air while travelling. This is the design they came up with:

All hardware parts of the guide robot dog. Image from

This robot is foldable and has an unfolded height of 700 mm. Further the mechanical design is well explained. This design has no real stair walking capabilities.

Sensor vision of the robot dog. Image from

This image shows how the robot should be controlled. And they give a whole framework on path planning with cost functions and testing on the traction.

The conclusion stated that the robot did well and it was a low cost, convenient-to-carry, and strong perception blind guide robot.

Guiding visually impaired people in the exhibition

This paper talks about a robotic guide used to help (partially) blind people navigate an exhibition (a noisy, crowded (4 square meters/person), unfamiliar environment). These people are often faced with the challenge of maintaining spatial orientation; ‘the ability to establish awareness of space position relative to landmarks in the surrounding environment’. The paper proposes that supporting functional independence of these people can thus be achieved by ‘providing references and sorts of landmarks to enhance awareness of the surroundings’.

The technology used by this paper to achieve this is a handheld device capable of radio-frequency localization. To prepare the environment a RFID sensor was placed for each 300 square meters (~17x17 m area) at points of interest, services and major areas. The paper does not go into the details of how the localization is done but an educated guess would be that the guiding devices carried by the guided persons are scanned by these fixed sensors which then communicate to calculate the position of the guided. Keep in mind this exhibition took place in 2006, but they found a resolution of 5 meters (minimal distance between distinguishable tags).

The interface of the device makes use of hardware buttons, which they find a solution suited for visually impaired people. Apart from standard navigation and audio control buttons, the device was also equipped with a button which gives quick access to an emergency number.

In this particular use-case the device guided people using an event-system which would ask the user if they wanted to hear a description of their environment. This event would trigger when the handheld device would recognize signals from local sensors. This description would include:

• an extended title

• the description of the point of interest

• one or more extended descriptions

• descriptions to invite and spatially guide the user near the featured flowers and plants.

The device would also describe near points of interest such as crossroads, entrances, exits, restaurants, toilets etc. such that the user can create their own mental map of their surroundings allowing them to build and follow their own path; being unconstrained by the predefined path.

To overcome noise the user was provided with headphones. Another problem was that some users were frustrated with the silence of the device when they were not at a point of interest. This was solved by providing a message stating this.

The device was recognized by the visually impaired users to allow them a large degree of freedom which traditional (fixed) guides do not.

The authors end with saying the experience would probably be significantly improved with a better localization technology.

CaBot: Designing and Evaluating an Autonomous Navigation Robot for Blind People

This paper goes over the design of an autonomous navigation robot for blind people in unfamiliar environments. The paper also includes the results of a user study done for this product. The robot uses a floorplan with relevant Points-of-Interest, a LiDAR and a stereo camera with convolutional neural networks for localisation, path planning and obstacle avoidance.

Design

Moves as a differential steered system. Motors controlled by a RoboClaw controller. Allows users to manually push/pull the robot. Uses a LiDAR and stereo camera (ZED). Implemented with ROS (Robot Operating System). It is shaped like a suitcase, so that it ca blend-in with the environment, as well as like this it can simulate a guide dog, being held on the left side, standing slightly in-front of the user. This allows the robot to protect the user from collisions. For Mapping the robot relies on a floorplan map with the location of points of interest. Via the LiDAR, that is placed on the frontal edge of the robot, the map environment is mapped beforehand. Localisation- using wheel odometry and LiDAR scanning it estimates the current location. Compares the real-time scannings and map to previously generated using Monte Carlo localisation (AMCL) package of ROS. In addition odometry information can be computed using the LiDAR and stereo camera. Path Planning- path on the LiDAR map is planned based on the user's starting point and destination. To avoid obstacles, and to navigate a dynamic environment local, low-level pathing is implemented using the navigation packages of ROS. The robot also considers the space that is occupied both by it and the user in its path-finding. This is done via a custom algorithm. The robot also provides haptic feedback. The authors use vibro-tactile feedback(different vibration locations and patterns) on the handle to convey the intent of the robot to the user. Via buttons on the handle one can change the speed of the robot. After this explanation, the paper goes over the conducted user study and its results.

Tour-Guide Robot

This paper introduces a tour-guide robot using Kinect technology. The robot follows tourists wherever they go, avoiding obstacles and providing information. The paper begins by naming some previous implementations of such tour guide robots. Such robots are Rhino, Minerva, Asimo, Tawabo, Toyota tour guide robot, Skycall. Using Kinsect to determine gestures and spoken commands as well as facial recognition. Main parts- RGB camera, 3D depth sensing system, multi array microphone. The platform of the robot has ultrasonic sensors to detect obstacles. RFID is used to detect the RFID cards around the museum to correctly identify item and play the corresponding audio file. Base robot platform- Eddie.

Review of Autonomous Campus and Tour Guiding Robots with Navigation Techniques

This paper reviews of existing autonomous campus and tour guiding robots. SLAM as the most-often used technique, building a map of the environment and guiding the robot to the goal position. Common techniques for robot navigation- human-machine interface, speech synthesis, obstacle avoidance, 3D mapping. ROS- open-source, popular framework to operate autonomous robots. It provides services designed for a heterogeneus computer cluster. SLAM is achieved via laser scanners (LiDAR) or RGBD cameras. The paper names some popular such robots: TurtleBot2- low cost, ROS-enabled autonomous robot, using a Microsoft Kinect camera (RGBD camera). TurtleBot 3 is the upgraded version, which uses LiDAR instead. Pepper robot- service robot used for assisting people in public places like malls, museums, hotels. Uses wheels to move REEM-C- ROS-enabled autonomous humanoid robot, using RGBD camera for 3D mapping. The paper contains useful tables containing information about these robots, as well as popular ROS computing platforms and mapping sensors. The authors propose the use of lidar measurements on a road's surface to detect road boundaries. based on multiple model method the existence of cubs is determined. The authors propose the usage of a Kinect v2 sensor, rather than range finders such as 2-D LiDAR, as using it dense and robust maps of the environment can be created. It is based on time-of-flight measurement principle and can be used outdoors. The paper also introduces noise models for the Kinect v2 sensor for calibration in both axial and lateral directions. The models take the measurement distance, angle and sunlight incidence into account. As an example of a tour guide robot, the paper presents Nao, which provides tours of a laboratory. This robot is more focused on the human interaction and thus can perform and detect gestures. NTU-1- autonomous tour guide robot that guides o the campus of the National University of Taiwan. It is a big robot, weighting around 80 kg, with a two-wheel differential actuated by a DC brushless motor. It uses multiple sensing technologies such DGPS, dead reckoning and a digital compass, which are all fused by the way of Extended Kalman Filtering. For obstacle avoidance and shortest path planning, 12 ultra-sonic sensors are used, allowing the robot to detect objects withing a range of 3 meters. Another robot that is explored in the paper is an intelligent robot for guiding the visually impaired in urban environments. It uses two Laser Range Finders, GPS, camera, and a compass. Other touring robots explored in the ppaper are ASKA, Urbano, Indigo, LeBlanc, Konard and Suse

On Campus Navigation Assistance Robot: User interview

After feedback in week 1, we decided to explore additional options. One of these options was an on-campus navigation robot, that would guide you to your room. For this, we decided to determine if there is enough precedence to develop such an idea further by interviewing students of the campus as well as consulting Real Estate.

For the student interview, the following enquete was created: Unfortunately, spreading such an enquete to sufficient students is not easy. As such we send an email to the board of GEWIS, asking them for assistance, however so far (Week 2, 26th of February), there is no response.

Additionally, the Real Estate department of TU/e has also been send an email asking about there findings. The email thread is available below. The response yielded many items to consider, which can be discussed during the next meeting.

Lastly, a draft email is ready to optionally send to companies, to ask them about their experiences in this field as well, the goal being to find which challenges large public spaces have to solve when it comes to navigation, and where our robot could fit in.

Simulation

Explanation

We are planning to perform a simulation into the behaviour of the robot, when dealing with large crowds that behave in a social way.

Goal:

To show that the robot can safely navigate crowded environments. To measure this safety, we measure the collisions and make the reasonable assumption that this is the primary source of harm our robot can afflict. The simulation will gather data about the frequency of collisions, and statistics on the forces applied to the person and robot during the collision. As a performance measure, we consider the maximum force applied in a collision during the duration of the simulation.

This data can inform the design of the robot, as it can test various form factors, and navigation algorithms to optimize. In the end the simulation results act as assistance in design iteration, should it be operable in time, and ultimately inform us about the viability of the robot in crowds.

Why a simulation:

Testing which techniques have an impact require a setting with a lot of people to form a crowd, that can be controlled precise enough to eliminate outside or 'luck' factors. The performance needs to be function of measurable starting conditions, and the behaviour of the robot. When using a real robot, we would need to work in an iterative approach, where we can alternate the appearance and workings of the robot after each simulation, to simulate different scenario's. This would require re-building the robot each time, which is something we simply don't have time for. Additionally, obtain a large enough crowd (think of more than a 100 students) would become tricky in such a short notice. Using a real world crowd (by going to the buildings in-between lectures) would present the most accurate situation, but is not controllable and not reproducible. There is also the ethical dilemma of testing a potentially hazardous robot in a real crowd, and logistically, organizing a controlled experiment with a crowd of students in not an option.

Simulation Scenario

The real world would have the robot guide a blind person through a busy crowded area, to a goal. This situation can broadly be dissected as:

• Performance Measure: The maximum force applied during collision with a person.
• Environment: Dynamic, partially unknown interior room, designed for human navigation.
• Actuators: Unknown at this time, but will at least include a motion system such as wheels or tracks.
• Sensors: LIDAR & Camera, abstracted to General purpose vision and environment mapping sensors, but are assumed to be limited range and accuracy, systems capable of deducing depth, position and dynamic- or static obstacles.

The environment is assumed to be:

• Partially Observable
• Stochastic
• Competitive and Collaborative (humans aid each other in navigation, but are also their own obstacles)
• Multi-agent
• Dynamic
• Sequential
• Unknown

However, for obtain reproducible simulation results, we would rather have different attributes associated with our environment to better asses the quality of our system. We do not wish to wait for a specific scenario to occur for example. Even though we as builders of the simulation do know the environment, the robot will still see the environment as described above.

Simulation: Crowd implementation

Talk about the implementation and capabilities of the social force model

Simulation: Robot agent

Talk about the implemented navigation method, and most importantly the sensor package interface with the enviroment

Simulation: Enviroment

The enviroment is a 3D geometry based replica of the first floor of the ATLAS building in terms of large collision parameters. It has been constructed by tracing the publicly available map of the ATLAS building with geometry. Link to be inserted! This brought a couple of issues, first of all the scaling of the floor plan is omitted, so the model is not correctly scaled in 3d space. Secondly, the publicly available map of ATLAS has various shapes, color indicators and movable object placed on it. This created the problem of imprecise definition of walls, windows, doors and blocking obstacles. This has lead to an estimated error of roughly up to 10 percent points in proportions between collision objects. E.g. A stair might be 1.10x real life dimensions, but the bathrooms are 1.20x real life dimensions. These errors are considered to be acceptable, as they are not expected to influence the behaviour and flow of the crowd significantly enough, to impact the performance measure.

Currently, the map is undergoing improvement to reduce error, after a more detailed map with proportions have been provided by the Real Estate Department:

Gezien je naam, vermoed ik dat ik je mail ook in het Nederlands kan beantwoorden. Ik heb je vragen kort hieronder herhaald en proberen zo duidelijk mogelijk te beantwoorden.

- Is er data of onderzoek gedaan over de routing van mensen, etc. op de begane grond? Dit heb ik nagevraagd bij een collega. Er is wel ooit iets aan onderzoek verricht door/voor een studententeam die met iets soortgelijks bezig was. Mijn collega gaat kijken of dit nog ergens terug gevonden kan worden.

- Was de begane grond ontworpen met een groep mensen ingedachten? Wat is de limiet dat Atlas aankan? Is er rekening gehouden met de inrichting om opstopping te voorkomen? Bij evenementen; Hoeveel bezoek kan Atlas aan voordat het onveilig wordt? Er is een maximaal aantal mensen dat veilig in Atlas kan zijn op hetzelfde moment. Dit nummer kijkt niet alleen naar de begane grond, maar naar het gebouw in totaal. Volgens het integrale plan brandveiligheid mogen er maximaal 5000 mensen tegelijk in Atlas zijn. Dit is dan de som van de werknemers, studenten en bezoekers. De begane grond wordt hierbij gezien als een gebied met een hoge personen dichtheid. De vloeren 2 t/m 9 zijn ingericht om 3500 mensen te huisvesten, waardoor er dus 1500 over blijft voor de verdiepingen 0, 1 en de kelder. Hier moet dus ook rekening mee gehouden als er een evenement wordt georganiseerd. Ook het plaatsen van objecten tijdens evenementen moet gedaan worden met de brandveiligheid in gedachten. Er moet altijd een vrij pad naar een vluchtroute zijn en je moet binnen 30 minuten buiten kunnen staan. Bij het ontwerp is ervoor gezorgd dat je vanaf elk punt op de begane grond je maximaal 25-30 meter van een uitgang bevindt. Om die reden heeft de begane grond ook meerdere (nood)uitgangen. Nabij de vluchttrappen, zal nooit iets neer worden gezet omdat dit voor belemmering zorgt in geval van nood. Voor het plaatsen van objecten tijdens evenementen wordt echt alleen de centrale hal gebruikt.

Considered Simulation Design variants.

Simulating the robot may take various shapes, each with their own advantages. When considering the type of simulation we will make, we considered the following aspects: Environment Model:

• Mathematical: Building a model of the environment, purely based on mathematical expressions of the real world.
• Geometrical: Building a 3d version of the environment, using a 3d virtual representation of the environment.
• 2D: The environment does not consider depth
• 3D: The environment does consider depth

Robot Behaviour Model:

• Global awareness: The robot model has access to all information across the entire environment.
• Sensory awareness: Observing the Simulated environment with virtual (imperfect) sensors. The robot only has access to the observed information.
• Mechanics simulation: The detail at which the robot's body is modelled. Factors include whether the precise shape is considered, the accuracy of actuators and other systems, and delay between command and response.

Crowd Behaviour Model:

• Boid: Boids are a common method of simulating herd behaviour in animals (particularly fish)
• Social Forces: The desire to approach a goal and avoid and follow the crowd is captured in vectors, which determine the velocity of each agent in the crowd.

Simulation Design Goals

To adhere to the set environment the simulation must:

• Simulate sensors (partially observable)
• Run continuously (the next simulation step must be non-deterministic w.r.t. to previous)
• Allow for awareness between crowd members, and between them and the robot. (cooperative and competitive)
• Be dynamic (which is given)
• Have a crowd (which is given)

To obtain proper results, we must:

• Have control over the initial simulation environment
• Have control over the initial simulation and crowd state
• Have control over the initial robot state
• Have control over the goal state
• Have changeable robot behaviour
• Have changeable crowd behaviour

To additionally simulate the crow social dynamics:

• The crowd must be influenced by social crowd dynamics as researched

emails

email	file
to board of GEWIS
to/from Real Estate
[draft] to companies

EMAILS HAVE BEEN PASTED BELOW AS A TEMPORARY SOLLUTION INSTEAD:

Hello Board of GEWIS,

Currently we are taking the Project Robots Everywhere course, for which we need to do a bit of user study to validate our idea of building a robot for assistance in guiding student to locations in campus buildings.

Of course, GEWIS students are the best users for this, so we want to ask students what they think through a small survey.

Can you help us? We would love to send the following message to some of the GEWIS group chats to spread the survey:

“”

Hello, as part of the Robot’s Everywhere project we are designing a robot for on campus navigation. As part of our research we would like to know how confusing (or organised) you believe the campus to be. So we’ve created a short survey that will help us understand what you think. It takes about a minute or 2, and we’d of course be very grateful!

https://willthiswork.limesurvey.net/367636?lang=en

“”

We could use your help!

Have a nice day,

Jelmer Schuttert

[[1]]

Hello Mr. Verheijen,

First of all thank you for your response to our mail, its nice to hear that there is interest in this direction!

I’ve shared our correspondence with the rest of the group, and our quick discussion online was very enthusiastic.

I can’t answer for the group just yet, as we still need to discuss yours and other’s feedback in more detail.

We’ll be discussing everything Monday, so I’ll be able to tell you more about our decisions by then!

Thank you again for your responses.

Kindly,

Jelmer Schuttert

on behalf of Group 5 Project Robot’s Everywhere

[[2]]

From: [Bert]

Sent: 21 February 2023 09:46

To: [Jelmer]

Cc: [de Boer]

Subject: RE: campus navigation Project Robot's Everywhere

Hello Jelmer,

This morning I spoke to Mrs. Frouck de Boer of the company Visio www.visio.org. For you may be interesting they are developing indoor navigation systems for people with visual impairments. They find the idea of a robot that shows the way very interesting and would like to get in touch with you. The e-mail address is indicated in the attachment.

Question: For TU/e we want to do an inspection in the Flux building on 4 or 5 October with regard to accessibility. And prior to this, in the morning, a meeting for colleagues from universities and colleges involved in the accessibility component, hold a symposium in Eindhoven. The main theme here is visual impairment, in which indoor navigation certainly comes up. It would be nice if you could show what you are doing in terms of research. If you are interested in this, please let me know.

Kind regards,

Bert Verheijen.

Van: Verheijen, Bert

Verzonden: Monday, 20 February 2023 09:48

Aan: Schuttert, Jelmer <j.schuttert@student.tue.nl>

CC: RE Secretariat <REsecretariat@tue.nl>

Onderwerp: FW: campus navigation Project Robot's Everywhere

Hello Jelmer,

The development of a robot that supports interior navigation is very welcome for people with disabilities, both students and employees/visitors. Especially people with a visual impairment can then report to a secretariat, where the robot will guide them to the desired location.

In the past we have made attempts with interior navigation, but the tu/e had to install relays for this, which made the system too expensive. Currently there are other systems, where the navigation can also be designed internally based on "google street view" with 360-degree photos.

A robot as guidance has not yet been considered, that is new. The indoor navigation system as I mentioned above does.

We (TU/e) strive to make all areas accessible on the Campus, so that the accessibility of areas for the robot should not pose any problems. As indicated, I see the support of a robot in particular as an aid for people with a visual impairment.

At the Faculty of BE, Mrs. Masi Mohammadi holds the chair of empathic living environment and she may also be interested in this development.

Kind regards,

Bert Verheijen

From: Schuttert, Jelmer <[[3]]>

Sent: Friday, 17 February 2023 13:03

To: RE Secretariat <[[4]]>

Subject: campus navigation Project Robot's Everywhere

Dear Real Estate department of TU/e,

As part of the Robot's Everywhere Course, we are looking into developing a robot oriented solution to interior navigation.

We are focussing our efforts on creating a prototype robot for navigation of the TU/e campus.

Our current idea can be summarized as “a robot that will guide students and visitors to their destination. “ Users would follow the robot while it would navigate to the correct room.

Via our lecturer, we were pointed to this department for further information and decisions about such campus-related matters as navigation.

We were wondering if such an robot or system was ever considered before as a system for the campus, and if there are any resources and insights that you could provide us with in regards to such a system.

Furthermore we are wondering if you could think of any obstacles that the robot would need to overcome, or requirements that such a robot would need to match, in order for it to be viable.

Lastly, we are wonder if there are any previous projects that were implemented on campus, in order to improve navigation. We'd love to know which aspects have previously been the focus of attention.

We'd love to hear from you,

Sincerely,

Jelmer Schuttert

on behalf of Group 5 Project Robot’s Everywhere

[[5]]

Dear {company name}/{department name}, I'm writing to you on behalf of a student robotics project group of the TU Eindhoven. This quartile our group is tasked with developing a robotics project for navigation in public spaces, and thus we are currently researching the requirements and challenges of such systems. To this end, I was hoping to get your opinion and experience on public navigation. In your market, making your buildings navigable for clients and visitors is obviously a concern, and we were wondering how public flow is managed? We are looking into developing a solution for guiding small groups and individuals through complex to navigate environments, and thus are wondering about what makes a space easier to navigate. Having been inside your establishments, we are wondering what considerations had to be made to make your available space so easy to navigate. First of we are curious to your experience with the intuition of your environment. Do you believe that it is easy to navigate to a desired location in your building without needing many indicators such as signs, directions or arrows? We are also interested in how effective you perceive signs to be. Do you believe that adding signs to a space makes it easier to navigate? Though we do believe this to be the case, we are specifically interested in how effective the sings are in guiding users to a space. So despite there being visual instructions on how to get to a location, do you feel like users still require directions to easily reach that location? Then, as we are developing a robotics oriented solution to spatial navigation, we are wonder how users experience being guided to a location. We are wondering if users of your environment would rather spend more time to figure out the route themselves, or if they would rather be guided to a location. To close up, we are also curious if your company ever considered using robots to guide users to a specific location. We are specifically interested in which problems and/or advantages you believe an autonomous guidance robot would need to overcome/have to be a viable addition to the navigability of your establishments. We would appreciate any and all feedback and insights you could give us. Sincerely Jelmer Schuttert, Student Eindhoven University of Technology j.schuttert@student.tue.nl

Old stuff

Old scenarios

Scenario 7: Switching lanes

While in the standard scenario the lead wants to switch lanes. This scenario has 2 sub scenario’s.

Scenario 7.1: Urgent switch

The robot has to switch lanes lest they stop flow or bump into someone unnecessarily. First check scenario 6 'stalled lead'. Further the best assumption is that the lead should also maneuver around objects. Therefore the biggest problem should be if something comes up between the guide and the lead.

Guide options

Effects        Action ->	Bump into people while changing lane	Bump while holding lane	Robot follows lead changing lane without problem	Stops
Effects on the guide(d)	- Little to no travel delay - Depending on the severity of the impact it might result in the robot having a sudden change in speed, inconveniencing the guided.	- Depending on the severity of the impact it might result in the robot having a sudden change in speed, inconveniencing the guided. -Path might stay blocked, so robot needs to stop (Look at column 'stop').	- None	- Guide stops. significant time delay - Back to scenario 3 'Integrating'

Scenario 7.2: Faster lane

The Lane it wants to move into reduces travel time due to faster traffic, alternatively, the lane is closer to the end destination. This switch is not urgent.

Decision makin criteria

To make the right decision of switching lane it should scan the sides for possible new leads passing the guide at higher speeds. If the new lead is chosen, it should switch correctly to the new lane. This is done by following scenario 3, but now it is in a moving scenario.

Problem statement

Crawl spaces are home to a number of possible dangers and problems for home inspectors. These include animals, toxins, debris, mold, live wiring or even simply height. The use robots to help inspect crawl spaces, is already something that is being done. However, there are still some reasons why they are not fully being used. Robots might get stuck due to wires, pipes or ledges, or it might be difficult to control the robot remotely. Lastly, there is the argument that a human is still better equiped to do the inspection, as feel mind tell more than a camera view.

To elimante the problem of control, the robot should be an autonomous one, capapble of traversing the crawlspace by itself, without getting stuck or trapped. The overall goal of the robot is to reduce possible harm the a human, which it will dor by creating a 3Dmap of the environment. Because a human inspector needs to enter a crawlspace themselves eventually, they know what they can expect from the crawlspace and beforehand prepare for any dangers or problems.

Requirements

There are a few function that the robot must able to do, in order to work as a general crawlspace robot. Additionally, since we are improving current models that rely on cameras and human control, there are some other requirements too.

Firstly, it should be able to enter the crawlspaces based on its size. In the US, crawlspace typically range from between 18in to 6ft (around 45cm to 180m) , in the BENELUX (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg), the average lies between 40cm and 80cm , but sometimes even being smaller than 35cm. Entrances are of course even smaller.

The robot must also be protected from the dangers of the environment. Protective casing, protection against live wires, reasonably waterproof (the robot is not designed to work under water, but humidity or leaks should not shut it down) and a way to be save from animals.

Next, it must also be able to traverse the space, regardless of pipes, or small sets of debris.

Following from that, it must also be able to travel autonomously, while keeping track of its position, to make sure it has been through the entire crawlspace.

Lastly, the most important added feature, it must be able to complete a 3D mapping of the environment.

To be able to perform these tasks, there are some technical requirements.

The robot must have enough data storage or a way to transmit it quickly, to handle the 3D modelling.

Next, it must have enough processing power to navigate through the environment at a reasonable speed.

It must have a power supply strong enough to make sure it can complete the mapping of a full crawlspace.

Lastly, it must have

Current crawlers

As mentioned before, there are some robots already in use to help inspectors with their job.

First, we have inspectioncrawlers, where different crawler robots can be bought. All of their robots have basic specifications, consisting of at least hours of runtime, high quality cameras, protective covers, wireless (distant) control, waterproof electronics and good lighting. The main advantage of these robots are that they are capable of providing an almost 360 camera view of their surroundings which allows an inspector to see most of the environment. However, control is still necessary by the a human operator.

Three different crawler robots by Inspectioncrawlers.

Next there is the GPK-32 Tracked Inspection Robot from SupderDroid Robots. With dimensions of only 32cm by 24cm and height of 19cm (12.5" X 9.5" X 7.25"), it can easily fit in most crawlspaces. Included are several different protective items such as a Wheelie Bar to protect from flipping, a Roll Cage to protect the camera and a Debris Deflector. Their biggest disadvantage is the fact that they require line of sight or proximity in order to wirelessly control the robot.

The GPK-32 Tracked Inspection Robot by SuperDroid Robots.

Lastly, there is a tethered inspection robot from SupderDroid Robots. The entire system is waterproof, has a longer runtime and the camer allows for a 360° pan with a -10°/+90° tilt, which allows for a clear visioni. There are two main disadvantages, one being its size and the other the fact that it requires tethering to be able to be controlled. With dimensions of 48cm by 80cm and a height of 40cm (18.9" X 31.2" X 15.7"), it is a bit big to be used in some crawl spaces, which might cause it to get stuck easier. Lastly, the fact that it is tethered means that the cable can also easily be stuck and that the robot requires more precise control.

The LT2-F-W Watertight Tethered Inspection Robot by SuperDroid Robots.

Old literature

Overview

Paper Title	Reference	Reader
Mapping and localization module in a mobile robot for insulating building crawl spaces		Jelmer L
A review of locomotion mechanisms of urban search and rescue robot		Joaquim
Variable Geometry Tracked Vehicle, description, model and behavior		Joaquim
Design and basic experiments of a transformable wheel-track robot with self-adaptive mobile mechanism		Wouter
Rough terrain motion planning for actuated, Tracked robots		Wouter
Realization of a Modular Reconfigurable Robot for Rough Terrain		Wouter
Analysis and optimization of geometry of 3D printer part cooling fan duct		Wouter
A Staircase and Slope Accessing Reconfigurable Cleaning Robot and its Validation		Wouter
Dynamics and stability analysis on stairs climbing of wheel–track mobile robot		Joaquim
Research on Dynamics and Stability in the Stairs-climbing of a Tracked Mobile Robot		Joaquim

Mapping and localization module in a mobile robot for insulating building crawl spaces

This paper describes a possible use case of the system we are trying to develop. According to studies referenced by the authors the crawl spaces in many european buildings can be a key factor in heat loss in houses. Therefore a good solution would be to insulate below floor to increase the energy efficiency of these buildings. However this is a daunting task since it requires to open up the entire floor and applying rolls of insulation. The authors then propose the creation of a robotic vehicle that can autonomously drive around the voids between floors and spray on foam insulation. There already exist human operated forms of this product, however the authors suggest an autonomous vehicle can save time and costs. A big problem with the Simultanious localization and mapping (SLAM) problem in underfloor environments according to the authors is the presence of dust, sand, poor illumination and shadows, this makes the mapping very complex according to the authors.

A proposed way to solve the complex mapping problem is by using both camera and laser vision combined to create accurate maps of the environment. The authors also describe the 3 reference frames of the robot, they consist of the robot frame, the laser frame and the camera frame. The laser provides a distance and with known angles 3d points can be created which can then be transformed into the robot frame. The paper also describes a way of mapping the color data of the camera onto the points

The authors continue to explain how the point clouds generated from different locations can be fit together into a single point cloud with an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. The point clouds generated by the laser are too dense for good performance on the ICP algorithm. Therefore the algorithm is divided in 3 steps, point selection, registration and calidation. During point selection the amount of points is drastically reduced, by downsampling and removing floor and ceiling. Registration is done by running an existing ICP algorithm on different rotations of the environment. This ICP algorithm returns a transformation matrix that forms the relation between two poses and one that maximizes an optimization function is considered to be the best. The validation step checks if the proposed solution for alignment of the clouds is considered good enough. Finally the calculation of the pose is made depending on the results of the previous 3 steps.

Lastly, the paper discusses the results of some expirements which show very promising results in building a map of the environment

A review of locomotion mechanisms of urban search and rescue robot

This paper investigates/compiles different locomotion methods for urban search and resque robots. These include:

Tracks

A subgroup of track-based robots are variable geometry tracked (VGT) vehicles. These robots are able to change the shape of the tracks to anything from flat to triangle-shaped, to bend tracks. This is useful to traverse irregular terrain. Some VGT-vehicles which use a single pair of tracks are able to loosen the tension on the track to allow it to adjust its morphology to the terrain (e.g. allow the track to completely cover a half-sphere surface). An example of such a can be seen below.

Single tracked variable geometry tracked vehicle 2B2P

There also exist track based robots which make use of multiple tracks on each side such as the one illustrated below. It is a very robust system making use of its smaller ‘flipper’ to get over higher obstacles. Such an example is seen in the figure below.

VGTV Packbot manufactured by Irobot. Can be seen to have an extra pair of 'flipper' tracks

Wheels

The paper also describes multiple wheel based systems. One of which is a hybrid of wheel and legs working like some sort of human-pulled rickshaw. This system however is complicated since it will need to continuously map its environment and adjust its actions accordingly.

Furthermore the paper details a wheel-based robot capable of directly grasping a human arm and carrying it to safety.

A vehicle using a rover-like configuration as shown below is also discussed. The front wheel makes use of a spring to ensure contact and the middle wheels are mounted on bogies to allow it to passively adhere to the surface. This kind of setup could traverse obstacles as large as 2 times its wheel diameter.

Robot designed for search and rescue work. Uses a bogie system to adhere and traverse rough terrain

Gap creeping robots

I took the liberty of skipping this since it was mainly focussed on robots purely able to move through pipes, vents etc. which is not applicable for our purposes.

Serpentine robots

The first robot which is explored is a multiple degrees of freedom mechanical arm which is capable of holding small objects with the front and has a small camera attached there also. This being a mechanical arm means it is not truly capable of locomotion but it still has its uses in rescue work which has a fragile and sometimes small environment which a small cross section could help with. The robot is controlled using wires which run throughout the body which are actuated at its base.

Leg based systems

The paper describes a few leg based designs. First of which was created for rescue work after the Chernobyl disaster. This robot-like design spans almost 1 metre and is able to climb vertically using the suction cups on its 8 legs. While doing so, it is able to carry up to 25 kg of load. It can also handle transitions between horizontal and vertical terrain. Furthermore it is able to traverse concave surfaces with a minimum radius of 0.5 metres.

Conclusion

This paper concludes by evaluating all prior robots and their real life application in search and rescue work. This however is not relevant for autonomous crawl space scanning. Except it may indicate why none of the prior robots would be suitable for search and rescue work due to the unstructured environment and the limitations of its autonomous workings.

====Variable Geometry Tracked Vehicle, description, model and behavior==== This paper presents a prototype of an unmanned, grounded, variable geometry tracked vehicle (VGTV) called B2P2. The remote controlled vehicle was designed to venture through unstructured environments with rough terrain. The robot is able to adapt its shape to increase its clearing capabilities. Different from traditional tracked vehicles the tracks are actively controlled which allows it more easily clear some obstacles.

The paper starts off with stating that robots capable of traversing dangerous environments are useful. Particularly ones which are able to clear a wide variety of obstacles. It states that to pass through small passages a modest form factor would be preferable. B2P2 is a tracked vehicle making use of an actuated chassis as seen in a prior image.

The paper states that the localization of the centre of gravity is useful for overcoming obstacles. However, since the shape of the robot isn’t fixed, a model of the robot is a necessity to find it as a function of its actuators. Furthermore the paper explains how the robot geometry is controlled which consists of the angle at the middle and the tension-keeping actuator between the middle and last axes. These are both explained using a closed-loop control diagram.

Approaching the end of the paper multiple obstacles are discussed and the associated clearing strategy. I would suggest skimming through the paper to view these as they use multiple images. To keep it brief they discuss how to clear: a curb, staircase, and a bumper. The takeaway is that being able to un-tension the track allows it to have more control over its centre of gravity and allows increasing friction on protruding ground elements (avoiding the typical seesaw-like motion associated with more rigid track-based vehicles).

In my own opinion these obstacles highlight 2 problems:

• The desired tension on the tracks is extremely situationally dependent. There are 3 situations in which it could be desirable to lower the tension, first is if it allows the robot to avoid flipping over by controlling its centre of gravity (seen in the curb example). Secondly it could allow the robot to more smoothly traverse pointy obstacles (e.g. stairs such as shown in the example). Thirdly, having less tension in the tracks could allow the robot to increase traction by increasing its contact area with the ground. This context-dependent tension requirement to me makes it seem that fully autonomous control is a complex problem which most likely falls outside of the scope of our application and this course.

• The second problem is that releasing tension could allow the tracks to derail. This problem however could be partially remedied by adding some guide rails/wheels on the front and back. This would confine the problem to only the middle wheels.

The last thing I would want to note is that if the sensor to map the room is attached to the second axis, it would be possible to alter the sensor’s altitude to create different viewpoints.

Design and basic experiments of a transformable wheel-track robot with self-adaptive mobile mechanism

This paper shows the design process of one fully mechanical track powered by one servo. The mechanism is quite complicated but the design process shows a lot of information on designing for rough terrain. This paper is focused on efficiency so less motors are needed, which is important while the robot can then be smaller.

The robot has an adaptive drive system which when moving over rough terrain its mobile mechanism gets constraint force information directly instead of using sensors. This information can be used to move efficiently by changing locomotion mode.

Design diagram delivered by the paper

The concept design with wheel and track on each side

Basically it is composed of a transformable track and a drive wheel mechanism. With the following modes:

The three different ways in which the track can drive and will switch to based on mechanisms

After this they mainly showed the mechanical details on how their design works. With formulas and CAD models.

They used three experiments Moving on the Even and Uneven Road Overcoming Obstacle by Track Overcoming Obstacle with Different Heights by Wheels It was able to overcome obstacles of 120 mm height while having itself a max height of 146 mm.

Conclusion

Basic experiments have proven that the robot is adaptable over different terrain. The full mechanical design shows promise for our work and goals.

Rough terrain motion planning for actuated, Tracked robots

This paper proposes a two step path planning for moving over rough terrain. Firstly consider the robot’s operating limits for a quick initial path. Refine segments that are identified to be through rough areas.

Schematic overview on how path planning for rough terrain can be achieved

The terrain is seen by using a camera with image processing. Something cannot be overcome if the hill is too high or inclination is too steep. The first path search uses a roughness quantification to prefer less risky routes and is mainly based on different weights. The more detailed planning is done by splitting paths into segments with flat spots and rough spots. After this it uses environmental risk with system safety in a formula to give it a weight.

Further the paper gives a roadmap (based on A*) and RRT* planner.

Realization of a Modular Reconfigurable Robot for Rough Terrain

This paper has a robot for rough terrain to use multiple modular reconfigurable robots. Basically a robot with multiple modules that can be disconnected from each other. Using different modules can make the robot do different tasks better. It looks like this:

Different modules connected

It can be used for steps like this:

How a robot with multiple modules would climb the stairs

The joint between the robots can move and rotate in basically all directions which makes it able to traverse a lot of terrains.

This picture show the possibilities of the joint quite nicely

Analysis and optimization of geometry of 3D printer part cooling fan duct

This paper researched fan ducts for 3D printers and how to optimise it for maximum airflow. Of Course we are not making a 3D printer but the principles of airflow are mostly the same. The paper analysis it based on inlet, outlet and throat length. And concludes optimised inlet angle of 40 degrees, outlet angle of 20 degrees with a 3 mm throat length. It optimised the fan with 23% more airflow.

Important is that this fan used in this research was 27 mm, which seems feasible for an as small as possible crawler.

Here are the results processed in ANSYS 2021 R1 cfd. First the outlet was done then throat length and finally inlet, because outlet has the biggest impact based on their prior research.

graph for outlet angle to flowrate of air

Throat length influence on flowrate

Flowrate to inflow angle

A Staircase and Slope Accessing Reconfigurable Cleaning Robot and its Validation | IEEE Journals & Magazine

This mechanism is made for cleaning robots but could also be used for a guide robot. It basically drives on 4 wheels with each wheel having a motor. The front and back can go linear straight up and down. This makes it more stable to ascend for robots with large dimensions because it can stay mostly straight up, and it can descend staircases as shown in the figure below:

Shows the locomotion of this robot type. Picture from

The locomotion mechanism is holonomic, so it can move in any direction. The robot however descends backwards. So basically when moving up or down it has the same rotation in comparison to the floor. As the front is for moving up and the back is for moving down.

All Hardware and details about the mechanical design is given.

During the experiments the robot was very stable. It has still to improve mainly with a feedback controller. They however did not give the velocity of climbing stairs or slopes.

Dynamics and stability analysis on stairs climbing of wheel–track mobile robot

This robot is capable of switching between more compact wheel-based locomotion and track-based locomotion (intended for stair climbing). The robot is depicted in the figure below. As seen it is quite a complicated mechanism.

A wheel-track based vehicle capable of transforming between 2 modes of travel (a). An explosive view of the components (b).

The wheeled-mode allows it to safe battery while maintaining the advantage of rough-surface/stair traversal capabilities of tracked vehicles. The figure to the right shows its stair-climbing capabilities. The paper also goes in detail about how the mechanisms interact and their purposes. I think the largest problem with this design is actually the expansion of the track itself. The robot in the paper solves this by creating a spring-based track which can also be seen in a figure to the right.

Drawing of the wheel-track vehicle climbing stairs

Wheel made out of a spring which when expanded puts the folded track under tension

This seems to be quite a finicky part which not only has to work smoothly but will also require special care in how it is driven. The robot in the paper makes use of the re component which is driven by the internal teeth. It has a sloped groove over its surface which I assume will jam the spring to increase friction and allowing the tracks to be driven.

The finishing note on the mechanical design is the tail rod, the purpose of which is to allow the robot some extra stability when folded down which is seen in action in some actual photos which show the prototype climbing a staircase.

The rest of the paper goes in-depth about dynamic analyses of the kinematic model and how the robot is controlled.

Research on Dynamics and Stability in the Stairs-climbing of a Tracked Mobile Robot

This paper goes over the dynamics of a simple tracked vehicle and it’s stability. The paper’s most applicable part according to me (for our objective of creating a prototype) is the 3 conditions they set for a robot to be able to climb stairs:

The geometric condition

The robot is capable of touching the stair edge and drive over the edge.

The traction condition

The motor should have enough traction on the track to drive it.

The friction condition

The robot should not slide on the stairs.

The paper goes very in-depth in how to evaluate stability but this would mostly fall outside of the scope of this assignment.