PRE2023 3 Group11
Storm Wilms - 1839993
Tessa Groeneveld - 1738941
Abel Galambos - 1846647
Elektra Katsikis - 1826654
Romans Sinickis - 1748939
Tessa Cuijpers - 1836927
Problem Statement
A fire in a residential building is a common and critical emergency in any big urban area. Apart from the damage it does to the building, there are often people stuck inside whose lives depend on how quickly they are found and rescued by the firefighters. Sometimes, when the emergency services arrive at the scene, the entry to the building is already blocked by fire. The first question that a firefighting crew has, is how many people are inside and where they are. If the entry is blocked, or there are other complications, the search and rescue procedures can only be started after it is safe to enter the building. This delays the rescue and decreases the chances of people trapped inside surviving with every second. Often this leads to either firefighters entering the house even when it is still dangerous, or people not getting rescued in time.
Our solution is to come up with a robot (or another suitable system) that helps to locate survivors/people inside a building on fire. This would be a tool used by firefighting crews, that would decrease the total time it takes to rescue a person and decrease the risks for firefighters themselves. Therefore, the robot must be heat and fire resistant to be deployed as soon as emergency services are on the scene, without spending time on decreasing the severity of fire, before beginning the search and rescue operation.
Objectives
This project will focus on designing a robot that can be used in a fire to find and help rescue people. At the end, the robot should have the following design features:
- The robot must be sturdy and fire resistant to endure the harsh environment during its operation.
- The robot needs a navigation system to find a way through the desired area.
- The robot needs multiple sensors that give intel about the environment in order to find trapped people inside.
- The robot must use a way of transportation that is suited for fires. It should be able to step over or avoid fallen debris that is produced by the fire.
- The robot must be easy for firefighters to use.
- The robot should be as small as possible for it to travel through all locations in a fire.
Given the purpose of the robot as well as its objectives, this project will focus on the design. Additional prototypes could be developed but is not the focus for now.
Users
The users are mostly the firefighters using the robots to locate people in a burning building. They need to be able to quickly and easily understand where the robot has found people. The stakes will be high and time is very much of the essence. Another user group is the people who are in need of saving. If they are still conscious, they need to understand the robot is trying to help them, they should remain in the place where the robot found them as long as possible for the firefighter to easily find them. Other helpful tips like stay low to the ground to avoid breathing in smoke can be given to the people in need.
What do the users require
The firefighters require, as mentioned, an easy to understand system. They cannot waste precious time on trying to figure out the cues the robot is giving because this will only interfere with the saving process instead of expedite it. They also need a product that is robust and will not break down in time of crisis, because that would again be wasting time. Another important factor is of course that the robot should not overlook people that can still be saved and should make clear that the firefighters should still keep their eyes peeled for potential victims it might have missed to avoid a mistake that would cost a life.
Furthermore the professionals need to be properly trained in the use of any given robot, but also in the use of robots in general. An idea proposed in the (now quite old) [After Action Report to the Joint Program Office: Center for the Robotic Assisted Search and Rescue (CRASAR) Related Efforts at the World Trade Center, section 4.3] is to provide a prototype that the personnel can train with, thus both giving them a head start in training and granting valuable feedback to the designers of the robot.
According to [Frauke Driewer et al, 2005 TODO] some of the most important jobs of a robot for firefighters are:
· Exploring and going into dangerous places
· Detecting the location of people
· Detecting dangerous areas and hazardous materials
· Sending information from the scene
And the most desired features to be included were
· Data transfer
· Working efficiently at high temperatures
· Climbing stairs
But Moving and acting without exact instructions and Interacting with the rescue team on the scene were rated as less important features.
In [Harbers et al, 2017 TODO] we can see some of the most important ethical dilemmas that were derived based on conversations/workshops with professionals (in the field of SAR):
1. “Should SAR robots be employed when they might help saving lives, but their application might also lead to casualties?
2. Should one develop SAR technology that is intended for peaceful purposes even when it has clear military potential?
3. Should one replace infield workers by robots if that leads to suboptimal performance?
4. To what extent should information collected by robots be processed to make it more digestible, at the risk of losing or misrepresenting information?
5. Should one deploy robots, knowing that this may raise false expectations and runs the risk of degraded performance?
6. Should one deploy robots that may yield responsibility assignment problems?”
Thus for a robot to be deployed in a live situation it is almost necessary that the developer resolves these dilemmas, either generally or at least for the special case of the robot. Or else the users (specifically firefighters) might not be able to use the robot in good conscience.
The people in need of saving need a robot that does not scare them. It should be immediately be clear the robot is their friend and if instructions are given to these people it should be very clear for them to understand even if they cannot see or hear which is quite likely in a burning building.
Milestones & Deliverables
Materials & Fire resistance (Responsible: Roman):
Week 2 - Week 3: Look into different materials/ways to make the robot fire-resistant and decide which method is most appropriate for our design
1) What are the protection requirements for a robot operating in a firefight?
Just like humans, some parts of a robot are very vulnerable to high temperatures and open flames. As of now the component with the least temperature tolerance is a battery. According to [1] lithium-ion batteries (LIB) are optimal choice for electric vehicles, including a firefighting robot, due to their high energy density and long life cycle. However, LIB, like other batteries, is very vulnerable to temperatures outside its safe range. This range is from -20 to 55 Celsius degrees, but an ideal working range, to avoid fast degradation of LIBs, is from 20 to 45 Celsius degrees [2]. Therefore, this specific temperature range is set as a goal temperature, at which robot’s electronics must be kept.
Another key characteristic is non-flammability. Some electronic parts, especially the chemicals that batteries consist of, are indeed highly flammable, and as a result exposure of inner components to fire can lead to the immediate loss of the robot. Hence, outer components of the robot must be non-flammable.
Lastly, the robot exterior must be stiff and rigid to withstand potential physical damage by the debris.
2) How much heat would a robot experience in a firefight? How much heat would robot experience standing directly in a fire?
An accurate estimation was carried out by the article [3] of what temperatures and heat flux firefighters experience on firefighting duty. It is wise to base our robot heat-resistance requirements on this table, depending on the usage of the robot (In particular what level of exposure to fire will the robot experience). The data from the discussed article is in the following table:
3) How do these requirements translate into components?
First, these requirements directly translate to requirements for the robot protecting cover. This protecting cover must encapsulate all vulnerable parts of the robot, like batteries, to keep them from fire, heat, and physical damage. A composite cover is optimal for this, as it allows the utilize of different properties of different materials simultaneously. Rigid physical strong layer – most likely a metal cover, like galvanized steel, non-flammable isolation layer, heat insulating layer (air/graphite/silicon aerogel).
Second, while direct flames and physical damage can be stopped by exterior protection, there can be no 100% efficient heat insulation, so the heat is going to accumulate within the robot over time. One way to deal with it is to have an active cooling system, which solves the problem, but is hard to achieve.
Another way is to have the rate of inner heating decreased to the point where the time required for heat accumulation to become dangerous would exceed the regular time of operation of the robot. While this seems to be ignoring the problem and requires more complex cover design, this simplifies the whole robot by removing active cooling system. It is obvious that any simplification of a system, especially a system operating in extreme conditions, leads to better reliability. (In other words, failure in cooling system = complete failure of the robot. Find a way to exclude cooling system = one less critical failure possible.)
Week 4: Figure out how to implement this and check if it is in agreement with the other design elements
Deliverables: Implementation plan and explanation
Week 5: Potentially check budgeting for the method, testing materials or any other part that is left unfinished
Deliverables: Update budget sheet, produce test report
Week 6: Set up a concrete proposal on the method of creating fire resistance, why this is the preferred method and what steps need to be taken to implement it.
Deliverables: Proposal with justification
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Sensors & Image recognition (Responsible: Tessa C.):
When looking into different ways of detecting survivors, one specific method seems to pop up most frequently. These are UWB sensors, UWB standing for ultra-wideband. It is a form of radar sensing, using a different range of frequencies than normal radar sensors do. RADARS, short for Radio Detection and Ranging Systems, send out electromagnetic pulses. These pulses are reflected by objects and transmitted back to the sensor. This way the system can detect where the objects are [4].
Usually, these operate on a rather narrow frequency range with a high energy output, whereas UWB radars use a much broader range of frequencies and produce a lower energy output. This broader bandwidth and lower output energy lead to more accurate detection and higher resistance to multiple types of interferences. The operating range is rather small though, as the maximum reach of these systems is usually around 10-15 meters [4].
However, this type of sensor has one major advantage over other ways of detecting potential survivors, namely that it is immune to obstacles. When using AI image detection or any other type of visual-based detection method, obstacles or walls will prevent the system from detecting survivors, as it cannot see the survivors. This is either a huge limitation, as it does not find all persons, or a poses a big challenge for the robot to go to each place in the building to make sure no one is missed. As for infrared detection, the heat from the fire obviously makes it almost impossible to detect where humans are. UWB on the other hand, detects movements, even as small as respiration movements. Furthermore, this motion detection can even sense these small movements behind walls or other objects. Through testing it shows that this method is quite accurate (93%<) for presence testing, as well as for no presence testing (89<%) depending on the distance from the object. [4].
There have been multiple other papers concluding that UWB is successful for detecting humans in complex environments [5] or behind walls [6], even with more low-cost, light-weight applications [7].
A possible drawback for this method might be the temperature range in which it can operate, but it is extremely hard to find information on this topic. Therefore, more research should be done on this.
A different method might be the use of search algorithms to find potential survivors. Despite not going into the building, these search strategies show promising results in determining the locations of possible survivors if the map of the site is known [8]. This method might be less accurate than UWB, but it does not have to deal with high temperatures as it does not have to enter the building. The map of the site could be determined by getting footage from a drone.
Week 3:
From the meeting, it was concluded that the robot would need multiple sensors for different purposes.
- UWB sensor: uses radar to detect motion, even as small as the breathing of a human. By comparing data on the general breathing pattern of humans with the found signal, a conclusion can be made on if there is a survivor near or not. This sensor can usually go through any material except for metals.
- Camera: as it was concluded that the robot needs to be controlled, a camera can be used for the operator of the robot to get a clearer picture of where to go. Obviously, this is very limited due to things like smoke, but can definitely help at times.
- Ultrasonic sensor: As the UWB sensor is capable of detecting through walls, it cannot detect the walls itself. In order to detect any obstacles/walls for navigation, the camera has been installed. However, when vision is obstructed this obviously does not work. Therefore an ultrasonic sensor can be used to sense where walls or any obstacles are, so that they can be avoided.
- Temperature sensor: As creating a perfect heat shield is impossible and there are limits to what the electronics of the robot can handle, a temperature sensor can come in handy. The current temperature detected will be visible on the interface of the operator. So if the operator sees that the temperature keeps increasing as they proceed to go in a certain direction, the person controlling the robot knows to go a different way to protect the robot from unnecessary damage.
In order to properly implement these sensors, some things need to be known. The temperature range, power consumption, weight, and some other things are important. It’s very hard to find specifics for the general sensors, as the variables change per type/brand of sensor. Some research was done to find some specific sensors that seem suitable and they are presented with their properties below.
UWB sensor:
- Qorvo DWM1001C: In many papers, UWB sensors are tested in static conditions. However, the robot will move, thus a sensor that has been researched/tested under dynamic conditions is the DWM1001C [7]. It’s a low budget option for about 50 euros. According to the data-sheet, it has a operating temperature range of -40 up until 85 degrees Celsius, needs an input of 2.8-3.6V and has dimensions of 19.1 x 26.2 x 2.6 mm. The exact operating range is hard to find, besides the minimum of 10cm, but it will most likely be similar to that of other UWB sensors (10-15 meters). The weight is not listed in the data-sheet, but will most likely not be an issue when considering it’s size.
- Novelda X4: This sensor comes in at a slightly higher price of about 80 euros. However, this is at a minimum quantity of a 1000 units, whereas the Qorvo can be ordered singularly. It has an operating range of about 10 meters maximum, dimensions similar to the Qorvo, voltage input of 1.8-3.3V and a temperature range of -40 up until 85 degrees Celsius.
(Research one other sensors has been done, but not yet completed).
Week 2: Look into different sensors for recognizing potential survivors
Deliverables: List of sensors with summaries/ pros and cons
Week 3: Look into image detection for recognizing potential survivors
Deliverables: List of image detection methods and pros and cons
Week 4: Decide which of the two is most appropriate for our design and why
Deliverables: Concrete decision with written justification
Week 5: Check current capabilities of the method and check what could improve
Deliverables: Report on capabilities with reflection
Week 6: Figure out how this needs to be implemented
Deliverables: Report on implementation with methodology
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 2&3: Research algorithms and software for navigating through unknown terrains
Deliverables: List of possible algorithms and/or software with summary and pros and cons
From the interview conducted it is crystal clear that the robot should not be autonomous, but should instead be controlled by a human operator. As such three concrete methods of manual control were decided on by the team. In order of importance these methods are:
- Full manual control
- PointCom aka ‘Google maps street view’
- Draw on map
Full manual control was deemed the most important control method as it is guaranteed to be an acceptable method for the users, and it is the simplest both to implement and to understand. With this method the operator can directly tell the robot to move forward/backward or to turn etc. (Think FPS control from videogames)
Pros:
- Tried and tested.
- Most everyone is familiar with at least the concept.
- Easy to implement.
- Greatest level of human control (and thus ability and responsibility are inherited from operator).
Cons:
- High mental load for operator.
PointCom was determined as the second most important control method. This method involves the operator clicking on a point (presumably on the ground) in the robot’s FOV and the robot autonomously going to that point. (Think google street view)
Pros:
- Robust against input lag.
- Reduced mental load for operator.
- Preferred method by users[12].
- Easy to learn[12].
- Already shown to work well on real outdoor-robot[13].
Cons:
- Hard to implement (needs good image processing[13]).
- Impacted by low visibility.
Draw on map was chosen as the final method that could be implemented, it involves the operator drawing the path the robot should take on a map of the environment, after which the robot will follow the path.
Pros:
- Robust against input lag.
- Reduced mental load for operator.
- Can plan ahead.
- Already have been proven to work (though in a much simpler environment)[11].
Cons:
- Needs a map of the area.
- Needs accurate location of the robot. (though this might be needed anyways for locating victims)
For both options 2 and 3 the robot would need to be aware of potential obstacles in its path. While this is a potentially challenging task, it is also an issue that has already been solved numerous times through numerous means[14][19][20]. Furthermore it has been demonstrated that such an algorithm can serve as a tool for mapping and determining position too[14].
In case of low visibility there may be a need to use alternative method of obstacle detection, such as ultrasound sensors, this needs to be further investigated in knowledge of the capabilities of the chosen sensors.
The final challenge that was investigated (mostly before it was determined that the robot should not be autonomous) is the issue of self-guided navigation in an unknown terrain. For both of the chosen semi-autonomous navigation techniques we will need some path planning to be done by the robot. While there are many proposed solutions available for this issue[15][16][17][18], I recommend using D* or D* Lite[15] as this is the same algorithm mentioned by reference[13], and it has a detailed, well analysed and well explained (fairly simple) algorithm in reference[15].
Week 4: Decide which method is most appropriate for our design
Deliverables: Concrete decision with justification
Week 5&6: Figure out how this needs to be implemented in the design
Deliverables: Report on implementation with methodology
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Transportation (Responsible: Storm):
Week 2: Research transportation methods for the robot
Deliverables: List of transportation methods with summaries/ pros and cons
The robot that is going to be designed in this project needs a way of transportation. Robots in general have a lot of ways to transport like walking, rolling or a snake like movement. To determine what is best in the case of a fire rescue robot, pros and cons of each transportation method are needed to evaluate the best possible option. It is also important to keep in mind the environment that the robot operates in, since the robot needs to be able to face a challenges in encounters, such as fire and falling debris.
Walking
A robot can achieve a walking motion if it is equipped with legs. Examples of such robots can be seen below and are developed by Boston dynamics. These robots use either two or four legs, depending on the application. But there also exist robot with more than four legs, to increase stability.
Pros:
- A walking robot can be quite fast and versatile, which enables the robot to navigate efficiently through the burning environment.
- Legs can be made from strong and durable materials that are fire resistant.
- Having a walking motion makes adapting to the environment quite easy. Stepping over falling debris is possible as well as walking over direct burning surfaces.
- The body of the robot is raised above the ground by the legs, protecting the important electronics and equipment on board from burning surfaces.
Cons:
- Creating a walking motion in a robot is quite hard on both a mechanical and electrical level.
- The legs of the robot come with certain dimensions that could make the robot bigger than desired. It will be hard for firefighters to carry such a robot to the scene.
- A leg could get damaged in the action, making the robot potentially completely unable to move.
- Development of a walking robot will be more costly.
- Weight distribution is incredibly important and it could bring risks of falling over. This would need to be perfect in order for the robot to do its job without problems.
Rolling
Other than walking, a lot of robots use wheels to transport. There are mainly two ways to do this, namely with wheels or tracks. Having wheels makes the robot able to move very fast, like a remote control car. It is needless to say that this way of transportation is quite efficient, fast and applicable in many situations. In the figure below a robot can be seen that was already designed to do similar tasks that this project requires, which shows that wheels can be a feasible transportation method. Besides wheels, a robot could have tracks. This is similar to vehicles like a tank. Tracks can support a lot of weight and can travel on a lot of different surfaces. Implementing a rolling like way of transportation has a lot of room for innovation and can be achieved in a lot of different ways.
Pros:
- Rolling can be fast and reliable.
- Using the right materials, wheels or tracks could be able to withstand burning surfaces, thus being able to drive through direct fires.
- Rolling is very versatile and can get the robot all over the area very fast.
Cons:
- Having wheels would bring difficulty with clearing big obstacles, like fallen debris. It could get stuck or unable to move a certain direction since it is blocked. Tracks could be better to solve this problem.
- Wheels and tracks are prone to wear and tear, which would increase maintenance.
- Such a system requires a lot of energy, so the longer the robot needs to operate, the bigger the battery it would need on board.
Snake like movement
Another way that a robot can move itself is by recreating the movement of snake or worm. This way, the robot can be designed to reach narrow places. Although this method is less common that the previous two methods, there is still a lot of research involving this transportation system.
Pros:
- It can reach small and narrow places that are potentially obstructed by the environment, which other robots/firefighters would not be able to get to.
- Can easily adapt to the rescue area, going over fallen debris or navigating around obstructed paths.
- The size of the robot can be changed quite easily to fit the given fire hazard, by connecting multiple robots together. (If this is feature that the robot has).
Cons:
- This is hard to design since it is less commonly used in robots.
- It would require a lot energy, posing the same problem with have a rolling system explained earlier.
- The robot will be fully on the ground, therefore, the robot must be well protected from direct fires and should be able to be in a fire for longer periods of time.
Flying
Another method that can be considered is a robot that does not drive or walk, but can fly. A drone could potentially be used to fly through the area searching for people. Drones are becoming more and more popular in all kinds of applications, therefore, a lot of different drones already exist and there is a lot to choose from. Drones are already being developed to assist firefighters. One drone could withstand 200 degrees Celsius for ten minutes without losing any functionality (https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/a-heat-resistant-drone-that-can-fly-into-fires/). This is of course not enough, but shows that heat resistance can be achieved in a drone. However, flying with drones in an enclosed burning area can bring some problems with it, as can be seen in the pros and cons below.
Pros:
- Drones are fast and versatile.
- Drones can avoid flying through direct fires because of its mobility.
- With drones, locating people can be a bit easier since they approach the scene from above.
- A drone can enter a building from many entry points, like doors and windows.
- Drones can also fly over the burning area, assisting firefighters to locate fires all around the perimeter. So a drone is not only for rescue, also for general intel.
Cons:
- Drones are usually not fire resistant, so different materials have to be used, especially for the propellors.
- Flying a drone inside for instance a house can be very hard and precise movements need to be made to avoid hitting something. Either an automated system would need to be developed or it can be remote controlled, but firefighters would need to be trained to fly a drone.
- The effects of the propellors that come from flying with a drone can either be good or bad. The wind could calm down the fire right below the drone or it could enhance the fire. More research/experiments would need to be done for this.
Transporting the robot
Before it was seen in what way a robot can move itself, but that is not the only thing that needs transportation. The actual robot needs to be delivered to the designated area, thus needing transportation. Firefighters bring a lot of equipment to the scene and have big trucks to store al their stuff. It is only the question if there is space left for this robot (This will become more clear after the interview). Therefore, it is important to keep the size of the robot as compact as possible to be easily transported and carried by the fire department.
If we take a look into other applications of robots, like the police department, a lot can be learned from them. Bomb detecting robots are commonly used to protect police officers against dangers. These robots are part of a special division inside the department known as bomb squads. The robots are brought on scene in an extra vehicle with more equipment. It can be seen that this is not particular efficient for the fire department. If they would need an extra vehicle to transport this robot, more people and money is needed for more operations. Thus, a solution is needed that figures out how a robot can be deployed when it is needed.
Conclusion
There are a few different ways a robot can move itself, like walking, rolling, slithering or flying. Each of these methods has its ups and downs and can be considered in the design. It is a matter of discussing which method would be the best fit for our requirements and how this method influences the other components of the project. A solution for deploying the robot by the fire department is also needed.
Week 3: Decide which method is most appropriate for our design
Deliverables: Concrete decision with justification
Multiple transportation methods have been discussed and their pros and cons have been analyzed. It is now time to choose one main method that is going to be implemented in the design of the robot. The way this is done is by looking at what the robot needs to be able to do and what is best for the user. An interview was conducted with the fire department of the TU/e which gave more insides into what is expected from this robot.
Before the findings of the interview are used into the decision of transportation method, it was already decided that the method was either going to be driving or flying. These methods are most commonly used in robots and are thus familiar to a lot of people. Furthermore, these methods are also the most convenient in the environment that they need to operate in, because of their high mobility. The other methods, namely walking or crawling, were disregarded because of their difficulty to design and operate. They could be effective but given the time for this project as well as the other features that need to be developed, it is a little bit outside the scope of this project.
One of the most important things that were found from the interview was in what degree the robot should be autonomous. It became clear that the fire department wants a robot that can be completely controlled by hand. The robot should be fully under control and do the things that the firefighters want, to not waste any time. Thus, the robot will be fully under control by the firefighters. The best transportation method for this would be driving. A drivable robot can easily be operated by anyone without much training. Many people have had a remote control car in their youth for example. Flying on the other hand, is way more difficult. Properly flying a drone for instance is not a piece of cake. Therefore, firefighters would need special training to be able to fly the robot which requires more work and money.
Another problem with flying is the environment. Flying a drone inside a building has a high risk of bumping into walls and other stuff, disabling the robot during its employment. Such a risk is not desired. Also, during a fire the air quality significantly changes very fast inside a building. A drone will then have a harder time to stay in the air. As operating a drone becomes more challenging, it raises doubts about whether a drone would remain feasible for this robot.
It was also mentioned during the interview that firefighters keep doors and windows closed until the fire is extinguished. If a robot needs to get inside, a door can be opened very fast to get the robot in but that is all. A drivable robot could easily be put inside the building in seconds, but a drone will be much harder to get inside that fast.
All in all, it seems that a drone is way harder to design and use by the fire department. Although a drone has a very high mobility and can fly over fallen debris, a drivable robot is more reliable and easy to use. That is why a drivable robot will be the main focus in this project.
Driving: How?
Driving a robot has a lot of advantages that already have been discussed earlier. It is easy, reliable and effective. The major concern that driving a robot has is what happens when it faces a obstruction. In a building in general, there could be stairs and other height differences. When that building is on fire, more debris can fall down and will obstruct the robot even more. When possible, the robot should drive around the obstructions. But when that is not an option, the robot should definitely drive over it. The transportation method should thus be able to reflect that.
To create a robot that can go over obstacles, a connection was made to other machines that could do that. A military tank came to mind. Its tracks are designed to not only support the weight of the tank, but also enable the vehicle to drive on rough terrain. These tracks are very effective in clearing obstacles. Another advantage about these tracks is that there is a wide material choice for them. They can be made out of steel or rubber. Therefore, these tracks can be made out of material that is fire resistant.
Conclusion
All transportation methods were put under a microscope and it was quickly discovered that the robot would either fly or drive. Flying a robot inside a building is quite a risk, especially if the pilot is not experienced. Because of this risk and complication, driving will be the main transportation method. In more detail, tracks are going to be used to drive. Tracks are durable and able to drive over obstacles. The next step is to realize this transportation method.
Week 4: Change of plans
In the meeting it was discussed that choices have to be made in order to narrow down the scope of this project and actually create some deliverables. Initially it was planned to design a full robot with its software, but that will take too long. Instead, existing robots could be used as a base where additional hardware can be installed on.
In the previous research to what transportation method was best to use, a conclusion was made to design a driving robot. It has a lot of advantages but faces problems when it comes to clearing obstacles. The best way to clear an obstacle with a robot on the ground would be to step over it, not drive over it. However, a walking robot was disregarded before because of its complexity to design. A walking robot is favorable in a lot of ways in comparison to the other transportation methods and would be the chosen method if not for its complexity. But with this new approach to the project, an existing walking robot can actually be used as a base for the robot. This means that the transportation method will be changed to walking and an existing robot has to be found.
What walking robot should be used?
When it comes to commercially available walking robots, there is one model that really stands out: Spot from Boston Dynamics. This quadruped robot is designed to help in all kinds of situations: Monitor and collect data, safety and security, industrial automation and rescue missions. Spot is a highly mobile robot with a top speed of 1.6 m/s. It can climb stairs and walk on very rough terrain without tipping over. If it does happen to lose balance and tip over, Spot can get itself back on its feet. Overall, Spot is highly versatile and a very good candidate as a base for a rescue robot.
Furthermore, Spot is designed to allow add-ons to its body and software. More sensors can be installed on the robot to create more functionalities. That means that a radar sensor could be added for the search of people in burning buildings. Spot is also equipped with mounting rails on its back to carry payloads up to 14 kg. This means that more hardware could be added, as well as fire resistant materials. These fire resistant materials are definitely needed since the operating temperature of Spot is only 20-45 degrees Celsius.
To conclude, the focus of this project has steered into the materials and fire resistance of the system. That means that more research will go into how a robot can be protected in a harsh environment like a burning building. The findings from this research can than be used to improve a robot like Spot in order to perform rescue operation alongside the firefighters.
Week 5: What algorithms are needed for this method
Deliverables: Report with explanation and link to algorithm section
Week 6: Figure out how this needs to be implemented in the design
Deliverables: Report on implementation with methodology
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Users & Ethical considerations (Responsible: Tessa G.):
Week 2: Further investigate different users and their needs
Deliverables: Report outlining user group & their needs
Week 3: Brainstorm ethical considerations
Deliverables: Report on ethical issues regarding user group and product
Week 4: Set up interviews with potential users (schedule them, make questions and consent forms)
Deliverables: Question sheets & consent forms
Week 5: Hold interviews and work these out in a way the results are clear
Deliverables: Interview transcripts and analysis
Week 6: Figure out how this needs to be implemented in the design
Deliverables: Report on implementation of issue considerations
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Communication Method (Responsible: Elektra):
Week 2: Look into different ways of communication with the firefighters
Deliverables: Report on methods, possibly pros/cons
A firefighting robot needs to be able to communicate the information it is collecting back to firefighters that are either offsite or outside the fire environment. Research needs to be done on how to effectively and safely allow this communication to occur.
The communication between the robot and the firefighters needs to allow data, possibly video and audio data, to be sent from the robot to a computer wirelessly. This one way communication is the bare minimum for our prototype to function, however depending on how autonomous we decide to make our robot it may be necessary to also send commands back to the robot, instructing it what actions to perform and how and where to move.
Below are a variety of researched and analyzed methods and a corresponding article showing an example of how the technology is used in a similar system. One of the following will be chosen as the most appropriate method for our prototype.
TCP/IP: [21]
Bluetooth: [22]
ZigBee: [23]
MQTT: [24]
ROS: [25]
Week 3: Decide which method is most appropriate for our design & researching communication delay
Deliverables: Concrete decision with justification
Following our user study consisting of an interview with a firefighter, we narrowed down the scope of our robot considerably. The firefighter had informed us that they would not want the robot to be autonomous, but rather remotely controlled. Additionally, they requested visual feedback from the robot on a tablet operated by a fireman outside of the fire.
With this additional information, we can narrow down the communication systems to be put in place in our prototype.
When considering wireless communication between a drone and a tablet in a highly dangerous environment, communication delay is an important factor. The off-site firefighter will be remotely ensuring the drone not only moves to where they desire, but also ensuring the drone can avoid flames, navigate gusts of steam, and dodge falling debris. For this to go smoothly communication delay must be at a minimum.
Researching how to minimize delay lead to the conclusions that the most important factors are a low latency connection, minimizing data transmission, using real time operating systems, and optimizing control algorithms.
After reading multiple scientific articles I’ve excluded Bluetooth and decided radio transmitter data-links are the preferable method both to control the drone and to stream video data back to the firefighter controlling the drone.
Week 4: What physical elements are needed for this method
Deliverables: Materials list with explanation
Week 5: What algorithms are needed for this method
Deliverables: Decision with justification
Week 6: Figure out how this needs to be implemented in the design
Deliverables: Report on implementation with methodology
Week 7: Finish this subject and finalize the full design with all elements
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Week 8: Finishing touches + prepare for presentation
Deliverables: Final wikipage
Interview:
Introduction interview:
Thank you so much for participating in this interview. Have you had time to read and understand the informed consent form? Great, this interview will last for about 15-30 minutes and it will help us get a better understanding of our user group. We can stop the interview at any time and you can quit your participation at any time. All the answers will be analysed completely anonomously and nothing can be traced back to you as an individual. Please feel free to elaborate on your answers and we are open to any suggestions that you have.
With your consent, I would like to record only the audio of this interview, we will transcibe the audio completely anonomously and delete the audio immediately after the transcription is done and no one will hear it except me and my group member to transcribe it, is this okay with you?
The product we are designing is meant to assist firefighters, it will do this by going into a burning building and locating any people still in there after this it will report these locations to the firefighters so they can rescue them more efficiently. The way this will all work is something we are working on now and your input will be very useful in this process. Are there any questions before we start?
Dutch: Heel erg bedankt dat u mee doet aan dit onderzoek. Heeft u de tijd gehad om de consent form te lezen en begrijpen? Fijn, dit interview gaat 15-30 minuten duren en gaat ons helpen om onze gebruikersgroep beter te begrijpen. We kunnen dit interview stoppen op elk moment en u kunt stoppen met meedoen aan dit onderzoek op elk moment. Alle antwoorden zullen compleet anoniem geanalyseerd worden en niets kan naar u terug geleid worden als individu. Voel u alstublieft vrij om uit te breiden op uw antwoorden en we staan open voor alle suggesties.
Met uw toestemming, zou ik graag de audio van dit interview willen opnemen, we zullen deze audio zonder namen te noemen overschrijven en het bestand daarna verwijderen. niemand zal deze audio horen naast ons groepje om het over te schrijven. Geeft u hier toestemming voor?
Het product dat we aan het ontwerpen zijn is bedoeld om brandweermannen en vrouwen te helpen, dat gaat het doen door mensen te vinden in een brandend gebouw en dit rapporteren aan de brandweer zodat ze hen gerichter kunnen redden. De manier waarop dit precies gaat werken, is waar we nu mee bezig zijn en uw input gaat heel belangrijk zijn in dit proces. Zijn er nog vragen voordat we beginnen?
Questions:
- What is the protocol for finding people in a burning building? Please talk me through how this process works.
- Wat is het protocol voor mensen vinden in een brandend gebouw? Neem me alsjeblieft mee in hoe dit process werk.
- What is the most time-consuming process in search and rescue during a fire in a building? ( In the sense like – is it lowering the fire intensity/searching for people/carrying them out of the building that is the most time-consuming? )
- Welk onderdeel van het proces duurt het langst tijdens het zoeken en redden van mensen in een brandend gebouw?
- Around what temperatures are you usually dealing with when there is a house on fire? What about if it is a special lab facility or chemical factory?
- Met welke temperaturen moeten jullie meestal werken in een brandend huis? En welke temperaturen in een lab of chemische fabriek?
- Do you think a robot that helps firefighters locate people in a burning building could be useful to you?
- Denkt u dat een robot die u helpt door mensen te zoeken in een brandend gebouw voor u nuttig zou zijn? Waarom?
- Do you have a vision of what a perfect version of robot like this would look like? Explain?
- Heeft u een beeld van hoe een perfecte versie van deze robot eruit zou zien? Leg uit?
- Would you rather have a robot that finds people on its own or that is controlled by someone outside the building? Why
- Zou u liever een robot zien die uit zichzelf rijdt en mensen zoekt of eentje die door iemand buiten het gebouw wordt bestuurd? Waarom?
- If there is a robot that can find out the exact location of people trapped inside a house on fire before you enter it, how would you want the robot to tell this information to you – map the people on the floor map, or lead you to the people, or You have another idea?
- Als er een robot bestaat die zelfstandig mensen voor jullie vindt in een brandend gebouw, hoe zouden jullie de informatie over de locatie van die mensen graag willen ontvangen van een robot? (Denk aan een plattegrond of dat de robot je ernaartoe leidt)
- Do you already know of products that help you find people in a burning building?
- Kent u al andere producten die jullie helpen met mensen vinden in een brandend gebouw?
- Are there any ristrictions in terms of size and shape for the robot?
- Zijn er ristricties in de maat en vorm voor de robot?
Closing interview:
Thank you for answering all our questions, this will really help us to design a robot that will be as useful as it can be. If you have any further questions, do not hestitate to contact me. This is the end of the interview. (and I will end the recording now)
Dutch: Dankuwel voor het beantwoorden van onze vragen, dit gaat ons erg helpen met het ontwerpen van een robot die zo nuttig is als hij kan zijn. Als u nog meer vragen heeft, twijfel niet om me te benaderen. Dit is het einde van het interview. (en ik ga de opname nu stopzetten)
Summary/findings:
The main and most important finding from the interview was that the interviewee had a clear preference for a man controlled robot. He said it would also help them understand the situation inside better if it was controlled and the robot would have a camera to show the operator what it can see. This would improve their situational awareness in addition to finding people. He said this was preferred over autonom even if the people outside operating it were already quite busy. Another important finding was that this robot could be very useful since the firefighters currently do not actively look for people while the fire is not completely controlled/gone. He said this is the first priority and once this is done they will start looking, which leaves a gab for the robot to look for people while everyone else is busy inside. He also mentioned they often have the evacuation floorplans you see hanging in big buildings at their disposal before they enter a building. This not include most residential buildings of course, they usually do not have a floor plan or anything like it for houses.
The firedepartment also currently uses heat cameras to assist in the search of people but mostly the core of the fire. In addition to that bigger departments also have a drone team, however these drones mainly focus on flying around the perimeters of the building and do not actually go inside.
Literature:
[1] - V. Etacheri, R. Marom, R. Elazari, G. Salitra, and D. Aurbach, “Challenges in the development of advanced Li-ion batteries: a review,” Energy Environ Sci, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 3243–3262, Aug. 2011, doi: 10.1039/C1EE01598B.
[2] - Z. Y. Jiang, H. B. Li, Z. G. Qu, and J. F. Zhang, “Recent progress in lithium-ion battery thermal management for a wide range of temperature and abuse conditions,” Int J Hydrogen Energy, vol. 47, no. 15, pp. 9428–9459, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2022.01.008.
[3] - Udayraj, Prabal Talukdar, Apurba Das, Ramasamy Alagirusamy, “Heat and mass transfer through thermal protective clothing – A review”, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, Volume 106, 2016, Pages 32-56, ISSN 1290-0729, doi: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.03.006.
[8] A method to accelerate the rescue of fire-stricken victims - ScienceDirect
[9] Implementation of survivor detection strategies using drones - ScienceDirect
[11] X. Hou et al., "A Novel Mobile Robot Navigation Method Based on Hand-Drawn Paths," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 11660-11673, 1 Oct.1, 2020, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2020.2997055.
[12] Baker, Greg, et al. "Towards an immersive user interface for waypoint navigation of a mobile robot." arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.12772 (2020).
[13] Rohde, Mitchell M., et al. "PointCom: semi-autonomous UGV control with intuitive interface." Unmanned Systems Technology X. Vol. 6962. SPIE, 2008.
[14] J. Kim and S. Sukkarieh, "Autonomous airborne navigation in unknown terrain environments," in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1031-1045, July 2004, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2004.1337472.
[15] S. Koenig and M. Likhachev, "Fast replanning for navigation in unknown terrain," in IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 354-363, June 2005, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2004.838026.
[16] Wang, Y., Mulvaney, D., Sillitoe, I. et al. Robot Navigation by Waypoints. J Intell Robot Syst 52, 175–207 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-008-9209-6
[17] F. Niroui, B. Sprenger and G. Nejat, "Robot exploration in unknown cluttered environments when dealing with uncertainty," 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors (IRIS), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017, pp. 224-229, doi: 10.1109/IRIS.2017.8250126.
[18] P. Saeedi, S. -A. Sorensen and S. Hailes, "Performance-aware exploration algorithm for search and rescue robots," 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Safety, Security & Rescue Robotics (SSRR 2009), Denver, CO, USA, 2009, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/SSRR.2009.5424168.
[19] Ball, David, et al. "Vision‐based obstacle detection and navigation for an agricultural robot." Journal of field robotics 33.8 (2016): 1107-1130.
[20] Huh, Kunsoo, et al. "A stereo vision-based obstacle detection system in vehicles." Optics and Lasers in engineering 46.2 (2008): 168-178.
[26] Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Networking Protocols
[27] Minimizing End‑to‑End Delay on Real‑Time Applications
State of the art review:
Summary/Relevance to topic:
A big issue for firefighting robots is the heat radiated by the fire. There are existing ways for increasing the resistance to heat, used for example with water cannon robots. However, the current method requires a lot of water, increasing the weight of the robot by a lot. This obviously reduces the mobility of the robot a lot. This paper aims to find another way to make these robots heat resistant, using much less water, by implementing an exterior cover. This paper goes into the design specifics of this cover. Even though the aim of our robot is not to assist in the firefighting itself, but rather locating potential survivors, this robot obviously still needs to be heat resistant. Therefore, this design proposal might also be valuable for our robot design.
Robot-aided human evacuation optimal path planning for fire drill in buildings - ScienceDirect
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper researches algorithms to assist humans with evacuating, by calculating the fastest routes out. In our robot design, we would like to implement not only the locating of potential survivors, but also a fastest route for the firefighters to reach this person. A similar algorithm as that discussed in the paper can be implemented in our design as well.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
Here, rather than the use of for example heat sensors, AI deep learning and machine vision is used top detect fires. This already works with a very high accuracy. Extending this, the machine vision could potentially also be used to differentiate between fire and potential survivors. This might be more accurate than using merely heat and motion sensors to locate people, thus improving how well our design would work.
A Robot Swarm Assisting a Human Fire-Fighter: Advanced Robotics: Vol 25, No 1-2 (tandfonline.com)
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper goes into the GUARDIANS robot swarm, which is designed to assist firefighters in searching big warehouses for survivors to save. This is very similar to what our design aims to do, although we would like to apply this in housefires/other smaller fires as well, not just large warehouses. However. a lot of the technologies discussed in this paper, such as the wireless communication system, are very relevant to our design.
The role of robots in firefighting | Emerald Insight
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper goes into the state of the art, as robotics in firefighting is a fairly new technology. So far, the most prevalent technologies include: all-terrain vehicles to assist the actual fire-fighters with getting to and operating at dangerous locations, also giving the firefighters a better overview of the situation by using sensors, and drones that are either equipped with fire extinguishing materials, can hold up a hose (both used for high up buildings), or to again create more awareness of the situation for the firefighters. This state of the art review can help assessing what elements of our design already exist, what needs to be improved, and what is still missing.
Automatic Fire Detection System Using Adaptive Fusion Algorithm for Fire Fighting Robot
Summary/Relevance to topic:
In this paper the authors describe a firefighting robot they have created, listing the materials and systems used to make the robot fire-resistant and robust and to allow it to detect fire and navigate the area. From this paper we can see what worked well to help us decide how to build our robot.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
In order to identify humans in a burning building we need software and sensors that can recognize human bodies despite the very hot temperatures that may stop traditional infrared detection from working well. This paper provides an alternative system using deep learning.
Internet of Robotic Things Based Autonomous Fire Fighting Mobile Robot
Summary/Relevance to topic:
Prevention is also important in firefighting; robot assistance can be in place before a fire starts to alert firefighters and monitor the situation allowing for early intervention. This paper outlines such a robot, which provides inspiration if we decide our robot should be more preventative.
Design of a cooling system for an all-terrain electric vehicle for firefighting
Summary/Relevance to topic:
A firefighting robot will contain electronic components in order to control the vehicle, and run navigational and fire detection software. The robot must be able to keep these electronics cool under extremely high temperatures to remain function. This article proposes a cooling system to accomplish this.
Present status and problems of fire fighting robots
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper summarizes the current state of firefighting and rescue robots, mentioning variables to consider when designing such a robot such as size and weight, and cost and performance.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
The text highlights the development of fire detection and extinguishing robots, their components, and testing procedures. The focus is on locally available materials and Arduino-based control systems. Sensitivity tests for flame sensors and LM35 (Temperature) sensors are conducted at different times and distances from fire sources. The robot is able to detect and extinguish small fires and shows promising results for the future of firefighting. However, the robot functions better in darker places due to sunlight disrupting the output values.
Portable Fire Evacuation Guide Robot System.
Summary/Relevance:
The text describes the development of a portable fire evacuation guide robot system. This system is designed to gather environmental data and locate people. It features a compact, cylindrical design with various sensors, a camera, and a microphone for communication. The robot is lightweight, remotely controlled and designed to withstand high temperatures and impacts. Firefighters are able to carry and throw this robot in various places to assist them during a fire.
Human–Robot Interaction in Rescue Robotics.
Summary/Relevance:
This paper analyzes human-robot interaction that is involved in rescue robotics. It emphasizes that rescue robots complement, rather than replace human efforts, highlighting the importance of teamwork in rescue operations. The current state involves operations with a 2:1 human to robot ratio. The paper identifies key human-robot interaction research questions and emphasizes the need for human-centered advances to ensure effective rescue operations.
The Application of Multi-agent Robotic Systems for Earthquake Rescue.
Summary/Relevance:
Rescue robots are used in a variety of situations, which include earthquakes. In relation to fire rescue robots, a lot can be learned from earthquakes since the environment is very similar. This paper covers various aspects of a rescue robot, such as the structure of multi-agent control systems, methods for searching victims, path planning and search algorithms. Many of these aspects can come in handy for the future of rescue robotics.
Thermal and structural analyses of firefighting robot.
Summary/Relevance:
A robot that has to endure harsh environments as well as rapid environmental changes requires materials that are well suited for these situations. The paper goes over a structural and thermal analysis that evaluates the performance of a robot that can be used in, for instance, a big house fire. The robot was designed with materials like galvanized steel as the main plate, cubic boron nitride coating for non-flammability and silica aerogel for thermal insulation. Results show that that after 1800 seconds, the inside of the robot only had a temperature change of 2 degrees. It can be concluded that these materials are very well suited for its application and can make sure that all systems on board of the robot can operate under harsh conditions.
Flying dragon robot used to help extinguish fires | frontiers
Summary/Relevance:
This paper delves into research about making a remotely controllabe firefighting robot. The idea is of course that less human fire fighters have to go into the dangerous fire and to instead send robots. How to let the robot move, what the optimal nozzle size is for the best water thrust, new waterproofing techniques, and a larger movable range of the nozzle unit are discussed. These things are relevant to our robot especially if we are able to encoorporate a water tank to help locally extinguish fire around a person, which would of course improve the functionality of the robot.
Ethical concerns about search and rescue (SAR) robots
Summary/Relevance:
This paper considers some ethical concerns surrounding SAR robots. Issues like the level of robot autonomy, laws surrounding robot design and behavior, but issues with the human response to the robots and who is responsible for the actions of the robot.
Improving the SAR robots feedback and interface
Summary/Relevance:
This paper summaries four studies done on what type of feedback and interface a SAR robot should give/have to be the most trusted and best understood. This is very important because having a robot that no one understands or trusts is virtually useless and will only add confusion and fear to an already terrifying situation. The main finding is that multi-sensory interfaces (having e.g., visual, olfactory, and audio feedback) can be very beneficial and have minor effects on the cognitive load. Or in other words you should exploit the redundancy gain.
Robot competition (RoboCup) to locate victims
Summary/Relevance:
This paper shows the results of a robot building competition that had the main goal of building a robot that locates victims and determines their health status. It discusses how the different teams tackled this challenge and the outcomes of their strategies. It gives an overview of a lot of different and unique ways to locate victims in a maze situation (which is similar to corridors in for instance a hospital) and how effective it was. We could use this to help inform and get inspiration about our decisions about building a robot that locates people in a building.
Process of human behavior in fires
Summary/Relevance:
This paper aims to give an overview of the behavior people display during a fire. It does this by breaking the process down into phases and describes what factors are relevant for an individuals response. For our robots design it is important to understand how people respond in a fire to antipate the interaction the human robot interaction.
Human Presence Detection using Ultra Wide Band Signal for Fire Extinguishing Robot | IEEE
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper describes a remote controlled, 4-wheeled fire extinguishing robot, that is capable of detecting various environmental factors such as temperature and smoke, and it can also detect human presence using something known as “ultra-wide band radar”. This appears to be quite similar to the system we are considering.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This is a paper written as part of a cooperation between multiple universities, and provides some information about a humanoid fire-rescue robot that was designed. The scope of the project seems comparable to ours (though still larger), and thus it may be relevant despite being light on real-world applicability.
Ethical concerns in rescue robotics: a scoping review | Springer
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This is a somewhat fresh (2021) literature review about the ethics surrounding rescue robotics. While this source may not be relevant to any design activities that we would like to perform, it could serve as a great starting point for analysing any ethical aspects.
Exploring the Ethical Landscape of Robot-Assisted Search and Rescue | Springer
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper identifies ethical concerns and value conflicts that arises from the use of SAR robots. The paper mainly focuses on Values Assessment Workshops whose participants were professional (Italian) firefighters. The paper thus details concerns and dilemmas regarding SAR robots, it is meant as a ‘conversation starter’ and not as an answer.
Robot–human rescue teams: a user requirements analysis | tandfonline.com
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This paper is about the needs of professionals from the field of SAR. The paper includes the end-user requirements of these professionals, as well as some guidelines for rescue systems. This could help guide our endeavours if we want to design a human-robot interface.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This article focuses on indoors firefighting robots. It is valuable for the project, as it discusses in detail the complexity of indoor fire environment and proposes a way for a robot to deal with high temperatures, smoke, and the complex geometry of a building. Moreover, it discusses SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping) which should be used by our robot as well.
A High-Temperature Resistant Robot for Fixed-Point Firefighting | Springer
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This article is relevant as it has a design of a thermal protection structure which covers the robots and assures the normal operation of internal components. This design might be useful for our project as a ready solution or an inspiration source.
Research on Heat Transfer through a Double-Walled Heat Shield of a Firefighting Robot | MDPI
Summary/Relevance to topic:
This article provides another insight into heat resistance for robots and how it behaves. This article is a good source for preparing a test plan for our robot’s thermal-protective shield/cover. Not only a heat shield is designed, but it is also tested, and these tests are what makes this article so valuable within this project.
Summary/Relevance to topic:
The article gives a good insight into Vine Robots being used in search and rescue operations. The design proposed in the article can be used within our project, if we choose to base our robot on Vine Robot model. However, a lot of work still needs to be done to make the design fit for extreme thermal conditions (if it is possible).
An Arduino Uno Controlled Fire Fighting Robot for Fires in Enclosed Spaces | IEEE
Summary/Relevance to topic:
The article contains a basic design of a low-budget firefighting robot. If we decide to make a prototype of our robot, this article will be useful, as the Arduino system is indeed affordable and firefighting-robot mentioned in the article shares a lot of properties with a SOR robot for fires, that we have in mind.
A paper about how to integrate ethics into robot design. "The approach for including ethics in the design process of care robots used in this paper is called the Care‐Centered Value Sensitive Design (CCVSD) approach. [...] In this paper, this approach's utility and prospective methodology are illustrated by proposing a novel care robot, the “wee‐bot”, for the collection and testing of urine samples in a hospital context."
Appendix
Appendix A
Time Spent Table
| Week 1 | ||
| Person | Time spent | Task |
| Tessa G. | 10 hours | Meeting deciding on subject and dividing roles (4 hrs) literature review and adding sources (4 hrs) , wrote on users and what do the users require (2 hrs) |
| Tessa C. | 12 hours | Meeting deciding on subject and dividing roles (4 hrs), literature review/ finding 5 suitable source (4 hrs), dividing subjects of the design (1 hr), milestones for each subject per week (3 hrs) |
| Storm | 9 hours | Meeting deciding on subject and dividing roles (4 hrs), literature review and adding sources (3.5 hrs), writing problem statement and objectives with Roman(1.5 hrs) |
| Abel | 10 hours | Meeting deciding on subject and dividing roles (4 hrs) literature review and adding sources (3 hrs) , wrote on users and what do the users require (3 hrs) |
| Roman | 9 hours | Group meeting for choosing the subject of our project (4 hrs), literature study (3 hrs), writing problem statement and objectives with Storm(1.5 hr), minor edits of the wiki page(0.5 hr) |
| Elektra | 9 hours | Group meeting on subject and dividing roles (4 hrs) literature research (3 hrs), writing about milestones and deliverables (2 hrs) |
For weeks 2-7 refer here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G5tPp-6NsQBCDB8bOLenNYROfXyhWo69ukwcyu0_uLk/edit?usp=sharing
Appendix B
Previous idea was a product for elderly. Related notes are stored here (for now)
Potential sources :
Training the Elderly in the Use of Electronic Devices | SpringerLink
Innovation and technology for the elderly: Systematic literature review - ScienceDirect
Different subjects to focus on (for technology):
communication apps (eg. make contact with (grand)children easier)
entertainment (eg. the reading thing mentioned earlier)
services that are getting more and more digitalized (such as physical banks disappearing)
general approach to helping with technology (probably hard to realize)
rather than thinking of some device to help the problem, we could potentially also just focus on writing a paper on the issues that come with this, reasons for it, possible benefits of elders using tech etc. (as there are a lot of studies available for this)
assistive technologies (ones that for example improve healthcare)
Appendix C
Transcript interview:
Interviewer: The product we are designing is intended to help firefighters and firefighters and it is going to do that by finding people find people in a building that is on fire and report that so they can search more specifically. Exactly how this is going to work we are working on now and for that your answers are very important. Do you have any further questions?
Fireman: No, it's just about searching people so?
Interviewer: Yes, he will go into the building at least that is how it looks now, and find people there and tell them that. The first question is what is currently the protocol for searching people in a burning building?
Fireman: When we arrive with our fire engine, we always do an outside reconnaissance first. So around the building. There are six of us, so one couple goes one way and the other goes the other way. We always keep the doors closed as much as possible, we used to throw up all the doors right away and throw in all the windows but now we don't do that any more.
Interviewer: Is that for the oxygen
Fireman: Yes, and then we look for the shortest route of attack. Then, first of all, we get to the fire faster, because it's important that we put it out quickly, provided we come across casualties, then we will rescue them.
Interviewer: So if I understand correctly, the focus is mainly finding the fire and getting to it?
Fireman: Yes.
Interviewer: So there are not necessarily people who are going to look for victims?
Fireman: Not initially, we always try as much as possible to extinguish first and then rescue. It didn't used to be, then it was always search for people first, but when you put out fire the worst danger is gone. Once the fire is out, the windows and doors are immediately opened so that the smoke can escape and then we also have more visibility, which makes it easier to search for victims. And we also always make a decision first about whether to go inside or stay outside. You can imagine that if it's a spreading fire that the fire is so big that we can't actually go inside because then we put ourselves in danger. So we either have a defensive or an offensive outside deployment. Either we are going to extinguish to make it smaller, or we are going to try to preserve the buildings next to it and that is defensive. And we also have those for an indoor deployment, so also an offensive or a defensive indoor deployment.
Interviewer: And inside is then either extinguishing as much as possible or saving as much of the rest of the building as possible?
Fireman: Yes, so those are the four options we have. Often in the case of a spreading fire or if we know that the building too far gone and there are no victims inside then we will go for an offensive outside deployment and if there are buildings right up against it we will also do something about the defensive side have to do. So that is actually the tactic we have in firefighting. That's a fairly new method, only one and a half/two years or so I think. So that.
Interviewer: Okay that's clear. And which part of this process takes the most effort, or takes the longest, takes the most energy?
Fireman: What takes the longest if it's a very big building or a commercial building you can imagine a lot of time goes into that, if it's a small fire we can go in and put that out. If it's a complicated fire so with toxic substances it often takes the longest.
Interviewer: Okay, and what temperatures do you usually have to work with?
Fireman: That varies, sometimes it's not hot when you extinguish it steam comes off and then it gets hotter, then sometimes it can get up to the 5/600 degrees.
Interviewer: Okay, that's hotter than I would like.
Fireman: Those are really just short moments, so if we go out and we use a lot of water and there's a lot of steam coming off then you do have really hot moment for a second of 10 -20 and then that does cool down again.
Interviewer: Okay, do you guys ever have floor plans before you go into buildings?
Fireman: Yes sometimes we have evacuation plans that we then use or in the Mooi, which is a system of the fire brigade that sometimes has floor plans in it.
Interviewer: Okay, and are there floor plans of houses in there? Or only of large properties?
Fireman: Yes, usually only of large commercial buildings, but sometimes we don't have them and then we have to form our own picture of what a house is like.
Interviewer: Okay, and an evacuation plan is that one of those pictures you sometimes see hanging in buildings with the escape routes?
Fireman: Yes, that is one of those maps, and there is often a FAFS response team walking outside when they have an evacuation and we can make good use of them.
Interviewer: Okay, and do you think a robot that searches for people in a burning building could be useful for you or for your organisation?
Fireman: Yes I think so, because we are already working with thermal imaging camera, where we can see places in a building, so where we can use it to find fire or victims or a fluorescent tank that is overheated. So we are already using that.
Interviewer: Okay, and is that someone walking through the building with that camera?
Fireman: We take that with us as standard, that's just a kind of camera we take with us as standard.
Interviewer: Okay, and that's then something you just use with in hand?
Fireman: Yes.
Interviewer: Okay that already sounds useful at least. And do you have an idea of how this robot could be most useful?
Fireman: I think if it could send those images to someone outside, a commanding officer or an officer on duty, who would then have a tablet in his hands where he could look at it, that would be the easiest.
Interviewer: Do you mean camera images?
Fireman: Yes, because we already have a drone team in the fire service who do that as well.
Interviewer: Drones that film?
Fireman: Yes.
Interviewer: Also those that film inside?
Fireman: No, I don't think so, at gemlot (maybe just a different spelling) they have a drone team like that, you'd have to see what that's like, but I don't think they film from inside, only from outside.
Interviewer: Okay then we will definitely take a look at that. Would you rather see a robot driving or flying around from within itself, or someone controlling it from outside?
Fireman: I think it's easy if the person outside can control the robot. I think it would be smart to do that not with joysticks but with a finger movement over a tablet.
Interviewer: Okay and then is there someone free to do that? Or does that require an extra person?
Fireman: Yes maybe an extra person, or a pump operator.
Interview: Okay so that will be okay then probably?
Fireman: Well the commanding officer outside is usually pretty busy too.
Interviewer: Okay but then still it's nicer for someone to drive it themselves? It's worth it then, isn't it?
Fireman: I think the ones inside are very busy, so I don't think that's smart.
Interviewer: Okay, so the one driving it stays outside?
Fireman: Yes, two people stay outside either the commanding officer or the pump operator.
Interviewer: Okay, so if it were autonomous it would fly around all by itself and so nobody would have to drive it, it would just send images or locations. But so that's less convenient anyway?
Fireman: Yes, but then what do you see? Then you would have to send him voice commands.
Interviewer: Okay so it is also important that he gives a certain picture of the situation?
Fireman: Yes I think so yes, that you do have to let a robot drive somewhere you think is important, so not that it just drives aimlessly through a room.
Interviewer: Okay, if there is a robot that finds people in a building, how would you like to receive that location?
Fireman: On a map. With a little doll in it (jokingly).
Interviewer: Okay, and you mentioned that one of the first things you guys do is find the core of the fire, is that something that goes fairly "easy" or would it be nice if the robot helped with that.
Fireman: Yes usually we find the core pretty quickly, because we also have that thermal imaging camera. So if we are in another room and we shine that space camera around we can see the wall which is hot even if the fire is on the other side. So we can estimate pretty quickly where the core is. Also the flow of smoke always helps us find where the fire is because the smoke always flows away from the fire because of the oxygen migrating towards it. If you are trained a bit well, you can know pretty quickly which corner of the building the fire is in.
Interviewer: Okay, so it's not necessarily worth having the robot help there?
Fireman: No.
Interviewer: Okay, we've talked a bit about this too, but do you know of any other products that do a bit of the same thing?
Fireman: Well a few years ago there was a group of students who wanted a face mask, so one of those masks that we have on, they wanted to make a map in the visor there. I think MSA, which is a supplier of breathing apparatus, they were working on that to make that, but I don't know how that turned out. Well drones we have, those heat cameras every fire engine has at least 1 usually two actually. I think that's about it in terms of materials.
Interviewer: Okay, and is there any particular restriction of how big the robot can be to transport it?
Fireman: Yes it has to be small. As flat and narrow as it can be. It has to be stable because it probably has to drive over uneven ground. Bumps.
Interviewer: And is it more convenient if it's flat and long or more square?
Fireman: I would keep it small, flat and low. The previous group talked about throwing it through the window, well then the window is broken. Which we didn't want. So somewhere we have to open a door quickly, robot in and quickly close the door again. If we have kept a fire small for a long time by smothering the fire, making it smaller by admitting less oxygen, there are dangers for us there too because then we can get a backdraft. These are unburnt smoke particles that can spontaneously catch fire when the temperature gets high.
Interviewer: And how do you prevent that?
Fireman: By keeping the doors closed and by cooling smoke gases with water. We can counteract those smoke gases, that smoke hanging from the ceiling, we can cool it with water and then we won't get a backdraft if all goes well.
Interviewer: Okay that's fine. That was basically all the questions we had prepared. Again thank you very much and I will now turn off the recording.