Deliver

Links:

Canva Poster: https://www.canva.com/design/DAD8Ryilsi8/pm1aWaYu7aSHBBFke_m6sQ/view?utm_content=DAD8Ryilsi8&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=sharebutton

Full Research Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EtVzJBBR3boQ4w7bBxjJ7DoexVSzsNBgoA-nbsF0V5c/edit?usp=sharing

CAPS Talk: https://prezi.com/v/_utb1eqljw1o/

Introduction

As disasters occur, the way we deal with them has remained the same. This means that we are left in an unfortunate situation where the technology to deal with disasters exists but it is not being used. With the help of autonomous and driver-controlled robots, we can improve the world by removing the need for humans to do tasks that can lead to immediate injuries, as well as long term injuries. Right now lives are being risked in disaster situations in order to save other lives. Often times this works out and lives are saved, but in some cases, the outcome is more negative than positive in the sense that more lives are lost than could have been saved. Unfortunately, there is a stigma around trusting robots in both the workplace and with human lives. However, as the technology develops, robots will improve and people will learn to trust robots more. The methods used today may have been the most efficient and safe ones available at one point, but as our world develops, these options become less viable, and new ones will surface.

Beginning in 7th grade, I participated in a science project called eCybermission, which propelled me into the world of engineering with a humanitarian motivation. In high school, I joined the Andover Robotics club as a freshman. For the past three years, I have been able to experience engineering in a way that allowed me to develop my innovative skills and be part of a community of engineers with similar interests and personalities as me. Along with my engineering exposure, I have also taken Scouts BSA’s core value to heart. As an Eagle Scout, for the past 13 years, helping others has been a part of my identity. Because of my combined background in robotics and Scouts BSA, I have taken an interest in creating technology to be used to help people. If I can use these skills to the best of my ability, I think that I can make a difference in this world and make it safer for the people who live in it.

The question I hope to answer through this project is: How can autonomous or human-controlled robots make critical and dangerous situations, like burning buildings, or warzones, safer, and more efficient? Robots have been seen to accomplish extraordinary tasks like space exploration or bomb disposal, but the robots are still not advanced enough to be used in tasks where the human body has the ideal amount of mobility and precision. Within this broad topic, I will be looking into how can we reduce the need to risk the lives of people in order to save others? Currently, I believe that we are unnecessarily risking and even losing too many lives in order to save others. With the proper research and development, I predict that the need to send humans into dangerous situations will greatly decrease and robots will play an integral role in the safety and efficiency of potentially hazardous situations.

Review of Literature

Disaster robotics is a broad term that encases a wide array of sub-topics. One of these sub-topics is rescue robotics. Murphy (2014) defines a rescue robot as a robot whose purpose is to allow a person to “sense and act” (pp. 1) upon a dangerous situation from a distance. If there is evidence to prove the need for such robots, they can be used in situations to both save lives, and prevent risking the lives of first responders. Currently, there are numerous examples of rescue robots that have been used and proved effective in the real world. Often times robots are able to see things that humans cannot, which makes them better than humans in many disaster situations because everything has to happen quickly, and a person making decisions without being able to see and evaluate the entire situation can be catastrophic. This paper will look into what makes a robot effective in making critical situations safer and more efficient, as well as their effect on the population.

If robots are to fit into our world and work alongside humans, they first need to be able to achieve a level of standards pertaining to their performance. First and foremost, there needs to be evidence to prove the need for them. Once there is sufficient proof for their need, an evaluation why humans should trust them must be done. Then the abilities of such robots must be taken into account. This includes how a robot interacts with both its environment and the operators must be made, as well as the flaws and limitations of robots. Each of these aspects must be taken into account when determining how a robot could be used to make a dangerous situation safer and more efficient, while also recognizing the efficacy of such a robot.

Proofs of Concept

The United States Department of Defense provides examples of robots currently being used to help with patient evacuation under enemy fire. The authors of the paper, Gilbert and Beebe (2010) describe what the current robots can do, as well as what they should be able to do in the future. CNN reporter, Shadbolt (2015), provides an example of a robotic firefighter to be used on navy ships. The article describes the reasons why fighting fires on ships are vastly different from fighting fires on land. On land, firefighters can give up trying to save the structure, instead of preventing any spread, while on a ship that is not an option. It also describes why humanoid robots are much better suited for working on a ship due to the structure of the ship. An American trade company called Robotic Industries Association describes a few possible ways that robots can be used in a few different fields in order to reduce the need to risk human injury. For example, they give the Sandia Laboratory’s "robotic swarm" technology as "one of the most promising developments" in the field of disaster response (2016). Matthews showcases some of the already built robots and descriptions of how they are already reducing the human risk of many dangerous tasks. With each example that she gives, from herding cows to fighting fires, she makes sure to explain that the robots would not completely replace the need for humans, only put the robot in harm's way rather than the human (Matthews, n.d.). Cubber et al. (2013) report on the ICARUS project. They provide detailed descriptions of three main environments where unmanned search and rescue operations would take place, aerial, ground, and maritime. It also provides descriptions of the types of robots that would be ideal in each situation. A paper by Alhawas, Sabha, and Alhmiedat (2017) reports on a description of a prototype firefighting system to be used with human firefighters. The prototype utilizes Lego Mindstorms to provide data. The system uses sensors and wireless communication to present the safest path as well as various data points to make the human firefighters' jobs easier and safer. Sandia Laboratories (2000) reports on an avalanche that happened in Albuquerque, Minnesota. During the avalanche, skiers and snowboarders were left stranded under the snow. They explain how using humans to search for the trapped survivors is ineffective and how Sandia's software could be used with a swarm of robots to find the survivors up to four times faster. The fact that it is from 2000 means that the technology has been around for almost 20 years now and has not been incorporated into other rescue missions.

This grouping of literature not only proves that disaster robots are possible, but it demonstrates that already exist and are being used effectively. The literature here gives examples of tasks that robots have already been successful in, helping to support the need for, and ability of robots. The research also proves that although the technology exists, it is not being utilized to its full potential.

Why Do We Need Robots

Currently, when there is a critical situation with stranded victims unable to get to safety, first responders are sent into danger in order to retrieve the victims. This ends up risking both the lives of the victims trapped as well as the lives of the first responders. The following research shows that this should not, and does not have to be the case. Robots can be utilized in order to save lives without risking more lives in the process.

Driewer, Baier, & Schilling (2004) present research to support the need for robots to be used in search and rescue operations. They evaluate the results of a survey given to first responders polling their interest in using teleoperated robots in their place. They present the design and implementation of the software and hardware that needs to be used in order to create an intuitive and efficient system of robots and humans. Habib & Baudoin (2010) highlight the need for the use of service robots, and how they can benefit the people currently working in search and rescue, as well as other fields. They also present examples of situations where robots would help, such as "demining, search and rescue, surveillance, reconnaissance, risk assessment, evacuation assistance, intrusion/victim detection, and assessment, etc". In addition, they include evidence about how robots can be used not only for the previously listed tasks but also as disaster prevention and early detection machines.

Through surveys and prototypes, the research shows that integrating robots into the current response to disasters is greatly needed and would decrease the number of lives lost in such situations. The research also helps to develop a timeline, it shows that since 2004, the need, and want, for robots in disasters has been prevalent and that it continues to exist through 2010. This is important to note because in a field such as disaster robotics where advancements are being made very rapidly, few major changes to the way disasters are dealt with have been made.

Trusting Robots (Or Not)

One of the major points that will decide if the use of robots is a good idea is how much the population trusts robots. The following research evaluates what trust is when it comes to robots, what factors influence trust, and why trust is essential to the use of robots. According to Robinette et al. (2017), one of the largest factors of trust is the initial performance of a robot. Similar to the idea of judging a book by its cover, humans are wired to trust things that perform better on the first try. One of the other factors of trust is appearance. Masahiro Mori had a theory (Becker, 2017) that he researched and concluded that humans have a general distrust of things that act like us, but are not us. This leads to a general distrust of robots, no matter how helpful they can be.

An article by Joffrey Becker (2017) presents the rationale behind the distrust of robots. Becker presents Masahiro Mori's theory behind the distrust, which essentially states that humans have a general distrust of things that act like us but are not human. He also provides the results of an experiment regarding the social interactions between humans and robots. The experiments that Becker provides caused the experimenters to conclude that while there is a general distrust, there is also a fascination for what the robots can do. Stormont (2008) presents a discussion of the term trust, and how it relates to autonomous robots. He discusses how in dangerous situations, trusting robots is essential to the outcome of the scenario. He also hints at the necessity of robotic assistance in the future. A research paper about initial performance by Robinette et al. (2017) presents the results of an experiment they conducted in order to analyze the trust placed on robots. It specifically analyzes the trust based on the first performance of the robot. The results we clear: better initial performance leads to greater trust. A journalist named Nick Bilton presents concerns about entrusting robots to take care of the elderly. He presents statistics that show the increasing amount of elderly and the decreasing amount of people to take care of them. He mentions that the trust aspect is directly related to the appearance of the robot which claims that different tasks require different appearances to seem trustworthy (2013).

According to the research, trust is vital to the success of a robot. The research also introduces the concept of a first impression. It generates a conclusion that if a robot performs poorly in its first trial, it will be less trusted. This piece of information is important to keep in mind because it means that many of today’s robots may not be trusted as the technology is not fully developed and mistakes happen. However, this also implies that if robots are to be used in disasters, they need to be working with minimal mistakes and trusted by all parties.

The Robot’s perception of a disaster situation

According to Murphy (2014), a robot must be able to observe and process data collected from the environment using sensors, as well as relay that same information with the human operators. He claims that in order to successfully interact with its environment, a robot must be able to collect a large amount of data with far fewer sensors than a human. In order to successfully interact with humans, it must be able to process this data in a timely manner and relay it to the human operators.

Shildt, Rottman, and Wolf (2013) attempt to solve one of the current problems with robotic firefighters: communication. Their proposed solution is a series of "dropboxes" which would allow for information to be shared with each individual robot. These “dropboxes” allow for robots to dump information to be processed and transmitted to other robots as well as human operators. Willhelm, Bohme, and Gross (2002) present findings of how robots can use different systems in order to create their own virtual environments. The authors explain two types of sensors, vision-based and sonar. They summarize how each one works as well as how the two can be used in unison to create an accurate virtual environment. The creators of the DAvinCi software, Arumugam et al. (2010), look into the effect of service robots. They propose a solution to a problem that arises when using service robots: communication. They claim that communication between robots in large environments is critical to successful task completion. The proposed solution is software, developed by the writers, which provides a cloud-based framework that each robot can be used to transfer information. Oborn, Barrett, and Darzi (2011) present a description of how robots in healthcare interact with humans and the social relationships between robots and humans. They go over how service robots use service logic, or logic based on the user’s best interest, to operate and interact with humans. They provide the opinion that service robots have to be developed with a strong emphasis on human-machine interaction. A written by Wichert and Lawitzky (2001) and published by Siemens presents the "role, importance, and implementation" of robots in different scenarios, specifically the navigation of cleaning robots, and household assistance. It goes in-depth into the interaction between man and machine. They describe different user interfaces to make the use and interaction much more intuitive.

This grouping of research shows not only that communication between robots and both their environment and human operators is necessary for a successful scenario, but it also demonstrates that there are a number of different ways for the robot to for this communication. Although the technology is not perfect yet, there is considerable evidence that there are workarounds to data processing like cloud-based computing which would allow for this communication to work efficiently.

Flaws and Limitations of Robots

An article from Greenhaven Press by Sylvia Engdahl presents the concern that robots may hurt people. The first point the author makes is an example of a factory worker getting killed because of a robot malfunction. Engdahl further describes a few other possible scenarios where robots can be harmful (2008). An article from AllAfrica (2014) presents the challenge of data processing. According to the article, robots can greatly improve the outcome of a dangerous situation, however, the operators need more training and need to be able to use the robots more efficiently. One of the concerns is that the robots collect so much data that the human operators cannot process it all in time to make decisions to save lives. The United States Navy provides a discussion, written by Blackburn et al. (2002), of the limitations of service robots at the time that the paper was published, which was soon after the events of 9/11/2001. The authors discuss how the robots at the time only showed the operator what was in the field of view of the robot so if there was something critical outside of that field of view, it would be missed.

Robots have many flaws, and kinks to work out. This includes limitations in all of the categories explored in this review of literature. The research shows that some of the main problems are with data processing and collection. This proves ground for new technology to be developed, with faster computers and better sensors, the robots could eliminate a few limitations. That being said, there is little chance that robots will be perfect and there will always be a margin of error that must be weighed against the benefits of using the robots.

Conclusion

Currently, the field of disaster robotics takes into account both the theoretical evaluation of robots, as well as the realistic evaluation of robots, however, it does not evaluate the effect of widespread robot use, neither in the real world nor in a theoretical sense. This literature intends to evaluate the need for, effectiveness, and the ethics of the use of robots.

The literature produces a strong proof of concept with examples of robots being used in order to make critical situations safer and more efficient. It also provides a strong evaluation of the ethics of using robots in critical situations. It focuses on the need and trust of robots and explains the impact that robots will have on the workforce. The research does not take into account the fact that the scope of natural and unnatural disasters is far too large to design any universal robot to be able to handle all situations.

The literature is incomplete without taking into account how the population would feel about robots either taking jobs or being the entity that the human may end up entrusting with their lives. It is difficult for an engineer to decide whether a robot can beat the intuition or insight of a first responder, so the literature lacks an opinion from first responders and the people that these robots would replace.

The next step would be to survey first responders to get a sense for how they feel in critical situations, and how they would feel about using a robot to do the “heavy lifting” for them. The survey would ask questions that distinguish between a robot that takes over for the first responder and leaves the first responder with nothing to do other than monitoring the operation of the robot, and intervene if necessary, and a robot which the first responder controls in order to keep them safe and allow them to keep their job.

Primary Research

Abstract

In addition to the secondary research conducted, it is important to look at how the data may have shifted in recent times. This includes a variety of data collection methods including interviews, prototyping, and a survey. Each method of the primary research process had a different purpose. Each contributed to the data set in a unique way which helps to create a well-rounded picture. The focus of the primary research was to gain an understanding of how a sample of a population trusts robots, as well as how feasible it is to use robots as a tool in disaster situations.

Feasibility of a Robot in a Disaster Situation

In order to evaluate the feasibility of a disaster robot. Julia Zhao was interviewed. This interview was conducted in order to obtain data about senor design and mechanical limits. The goal of this interview was to help predict the possible points of failure of a complex robot design and identify possible roadblocks that may be encountered in the prototype phase as well as how to manage these problems. The interview also provided strategies to prevent these problems. One question asked in the interview was “When you work with mechanical design, what are some common problems that occur often with your projects?”. This question was asked to help identify some common problems that might arise during the prototype phase.

Opinions of a First Responder

One of the first steps of the primary research was to gain an understanding of what it is that a first responder does. The Chief of the Andover Fire Department, Michael Mansfield, was interviewed. Mansfield has been working in fire service for 40 years and provides an experienced view on the topic. The goal of this interview was to gather data on the routine and non-routine tasks of a firefighter and to gather information on how first responders would feel about using robots as tools to help get their job done. One of the questions asked was “How would you feel about sending a humanoid robot in that would be controlled by you into any dangerous situation instead of you? This would allow your judgment, and instinct to be used while keeping you out of bodily harm.”. The purpose of this question was to understand the position of a person who is exposed to the types of dangerous situations on a regular basis about using robots as a tool to alleviate the dangers placed on the first responders.

Survey of Andover High School

In addition to one on one interviews, a survey was sent to both students and faculty at Andover High School. The sample for this survey was the Andover High School students and faculty. The survey was conducted based on the assumption that the recipients would only take the survey if they were comfortable doing so. Overall, 315 recipients responded. Of those 315 respondents, 26% were male, 73% were female. In addition, data about age group was also collected. Of the 315 total respondents, 5.4% were over the age of 55, 7.0% were aged 39-54, 5.4% were aged 19-38, 37.8% were aged 17-18, 39.0% were aged 15-16, 5.7% were aged 13-14.

This survey was conducted in order to identify trends concerning who trusts robots, what type of robot they trust, and to do what tasks. The survey first gathered information about the respondent such as their age group, and gender. Next, the respondents were asked three questions concerning robots. The first question gave options for the respondent to check off based on if they would trust a robot to do a certain task such as clean their room or drive their car. This question provides a spectrum of data points to be compared. The next question presented a hypothetical situation in which the respondent was the victim in a dangerous situation and they were asked to decide if they would trust a first responder-controlled robot to rescue them. This provides a valuable data point about a life or death situation and whether or not the respondent would entrust their life to a robot. The final question concerns Masahiro Mori’s theory that humans tend to distrust things that are human-like, but not human.

Prototyping

In order to create a proof of concept for a disaster robot, a prototype hand was created. The concept behind the hand was to be controlled by a wearable glove in order to mimic the motions of a human hand. A hand was chosen because it provides a strong example of dexterity that would be required of a disaster robot, while also being simple enough to prototype. The prototype was created using 3D printed parts as well as two Arduino Nanos and various other electronic actuators and sensors. The prototype produced a number of possible improvements as well as possible problems that may be encountered in future designs. The goal of the prototype was to do just that, identify possible problems with control, dexterity, or other unforseen problems, and invite improvements to be made in future designs. The prototype was created to test the mechanical possibility of the design but did not account for the environmental stresses that the final design may encounter such as temperature.

Discussion of Results

With the conclusion of the data collection, the next step is to analyze the results. The interview with Michael Mansfield agreed with some of the secondary research, however, there were some discrepancies as well. The same was true for the survey, some questions agreed with the secondary research, while other questions filled holes that were found in the secondary research. In addition to comparing the primary research with the secondary research, the survey and the interview yielded similar results. The prototype provided evidence of a proof of concept of which many were found in the secondary research.

Interview with Michael Mansfield

Michael Mansfield provided a viewpoint from the eyes of a first responder. As the chief of the Andover Fire Department and 40 years of experience as a firefighter, he was able to provide insight into the tasks and risks of a firefighter. One question asked was “Do you think a victim of a dangerous situation like a burning building, would trust a first-responder controlled robot to save their life?”. His response was “A person in distress doesn’t care. Any help is better than no help”. This response agrees with the general trend of the survey question “In a hypothetical situation in which you are the victim of a dangerous situation (i.e. trapped in a burning building; trapped in an avalanche) would you trust a first responder-controlled robot to rescue you?” to which the response was not an overwhelming yes, however, 60% of the respondents said they would trust the robot. His responses to other questions also agreed with the secondary research in that there needs to be significant testing and research. He responded to a question asking about how he feels about sending a robot in as a tool by saying that there needs to be a lot of research and testing and that there is a significant learning curve associated with using robots in these situations, however, he does believe it is possible. From this interview, it can be concluded that in the eyes of a firefighter, using robots as a tool in disaster situations could be a good idea, provided ample development and testing are completed.

Survey of Andover High School Students and Faculty

The survey conducted on the population of Andover High School yields results that agree with the secondary research in some questions, and in others, it disagrees. The survey agrees with Masahiro Mori’s theory that humans tend to distrust things that act like humans but are not human. Overall, only 34.3% of respondents would trust a robot that looks almost human. While the other 65.7% would trust a robot that looks nothing like a human. In addition to appearance, respondents were asked about which tasks they would trust a robot to do. The trend that respondents trust a robot to do tasks that have less of an effect on their safety than they do for tasks that directly affect their safety manifested. While 82.9% of respondents would trust a robot to deliver a package to their door, only 21.6% of respondents would trust a robot to conduct surgery on them. In addition to analyzing the similarities to the secondary research, it is also important to analyze trends in the data. One such trends are that in all of the questions, the male respondents tended to be more trusting than the female respondents. The results of the survey also yielded an unexpected result: through all of the tasks, there was very little discrepancy between the age groups, however, when it came down to trusting a robot to save their life much more discrepancy surfaced. From this data, the following conclusions can be made: first is that there is a general distrust when it comes to trusting a robot to do anything that can directly impact the safety of a person. Secondly, there is a rift in trusting robots between men and women.

Prototype Results

Next is analyzing the results of the prototype hand. This prototype yielded results that were consistent with the secondary research. The prototype that was built, was far from perfect, however, the results were that a humanoid robot controlled by the actions of a human is possible, and needs to be refined. The secondary research provides similar results in that there are many prototypes of robots to be used in disaster situations, however they are still in the prototype phase. In addition, the prototype also yielded results about the control scheme. The prototype demonstrates that the process of a humanoid robot mimicking a human’s actions provides significant control and dexterity. These two things are often key in disaster situations. From this prototype, it can be concluded that the possibility of robots being used as a tool in disaster situations is very real, however, research, development, testing, and time are essential to the success of such robots.

Conclusion

As I conclude my project, I look back on how I, as a person and a researcher, have developed. I look back to the very beginning when I chose to embark on this journey. I chose to work on this project because it is a way for me to learn more about something that I am passionate about. It is also a way to develop my skills as a researcher and presenter. I quickly learned that I would need to put more effort into this project than many other school projects that I have done. Once I realized this, I threw myself into the project and became more invested in it than I had already been. I spent time reading research papers written by other, more experienced scholars and educated myself on the topic of disaster robotics. In addition to learning how to properly research, I learned how to express the new knowledge that I now possess. By writing a review of literature I learned how to take the most important information and put it on paper in order to supplement my own ideas.

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most of my prototyping was unable to be completed. Only one version was able to be built, however much of the electronic components were unable to be properly incorporated. The finished result is a partially working prototype that shows strong agreement that current disaster robotics need to be refined before they can be deployed in the field. While the prototype is unfinished, I learned a valuable lesson from the process, which is that I have to leave adequate time to not only build a prototype, but also to troubleshoot problems that will undoubtedly arise.

In addition to prototyping, I was also able to conduct a few interviews. This process of reaching out to people who I would benefit from talking to was intimidating at first. I was hesitant to reach out to strangers and ask them if they would be willing to sit down and talk to me about my research. However, after reaching out to and interviewing my first interviewee, Michael Mansfield, I felt much more comfortable reaching out to the other two. I discovered that at least with the people that I spoke to, talking to people outside of the people that I know can provide a new point of view that I may otherwise not have seen.

The third form of research that I used was a survey. In the process of writing survey questions, I discovered that I knew nothing about how to write an unbiased question, and how to make sure that my survey was not too long or too short. By talking to a statistics teacher, I was able to tweak my survey to make sure that I got the information that I needed without leading my respondents to the answer I wanted. At the end of the survey process, I noticed trends I was not expecting and saw that the trends I was expecting were not there.

After completing all of my research and analyzing the results I realized that my position had changed slightly. While I still think that disaster robots are the answer, I realized two things: the population is not ready for significant changes to be made to the way we handle disaster situations and the technology is not ready to be implemented in a way that the positive outcome would outweigh the risks.

In the future, I hope to continue learning about the field of robotics, and how I can make an impact in furthering the research that needs to be done in order to implement disaster robots to save lives. I would also like to finish my first prototype of a robotic hand that mimics the movements of a human hand. While I am happy with the prototype that I have created, I think there are significant improvements to be made. In conclusion, I hope to take the lessons I learned in CAPStone, and use them to shape any and all research I do in the future.