Obviously rescue robots should be light enough to be carried by rescue personnel to the disaster zones. US Center for Robot Assisted Search And Rescue (CRASAR) emphasizes on the usage of man-packable and more specifically “shoe box size” robots in Urban Search And Rescue (USAR) missions.
However the existing rules of RoboCup Rescue Robot League (RC RRL) do not encourage participants to develop small size and light weight robots. If you take a close look at the participating teams of RC RLL, you will hardly find man-packable robots. In my opinion, this is only due to the lack of “reward/penalty” mechanism for such a crucial parameter.
Certainly the size and weight of a robot can only be decreased at a cost of decreasing its electromechanical capabilities (i.e. mobility, manipulation and victim detection) or increasing its final price but why we should pay this high price?! Unfortunately I haven’t found the answer in the RC RRL rules yet; even worse, heavier robots sometimes have potentially better performance in RC RRL (note that the robots of iRap-Pro – the first place award winning team of RC09 and RC10 – are definitely heavier than 30 Kg.).
If we accept that the performance of a mobile robot is proportional to its weight, it cannot be right to evaluate a 30 Kg robot with an over 50 Kg. one. Considering the very tight schedule of RoboCup competitions, it won’t be possible to have several weight-class based (e.g. light weight, heavy weight etc.) evaluations. On the other hand having weight-classified evaluations may not encourage participating teams to work on reducing the weight of their robots.
My suggestion is to utilize “dynamic elements” in the arena so that the difficulty of traversing them changes based on the passing weight. An example of such an element is shown in the top of this post. This element is just like a simple 45 deg slope but it is connected to the elevated floor using a pair of sprung joints instead of hinges. Now, the distance between top end of this ramp and the elevated floor will change based on the amount of mass on it. As it’s shown in the picture, the robot with mass “M” will face a gap with length “D” which is larger than the distance “d” caused by the robot with mass “m”. This means that a robot should have greater mobility if it is heavier!
However the existing rules of RoboCup Rescue Robot League (RC RRL) do not encourage participants to develop small size and light weight robots. If you take a close look at the participating teams of RC RLL, you will hardly find man-packable robots. In my opinion, this is only due to the lack of “reward/penalty” mechanism for such a crucial parameter.
Certainly the size and weight of a robot can only be decreased at a cost of decreasing its electromechanical capabilities (i.e. mobility, manipulation and victim detection) or increasing its final price but why we should pay this high price?! Unfortunately I haven’t found the answer in the RC RRL rules yet; even worse, heavier robots sometimes have potentially better performance in RC RRL (note that the robots of iRap-Pro – the first place award winning team of RC09 and RC10 – are definitely heavier than 30 Kg.).
If we accept that the performance of a mobile robot is proportional to its weight, it cannot be right to evaluate a 30 Kg robot with an over 50 Kg. one. Considering the very tight schedule of RoboCup competitions, it won’t be possible to have several weight-class based (e.g. light weight, heavy weight etc.) evaluations. On the other hand having weight-classified evaluations may not encourage participating teams to work on reducing the weight of their robots.
My suggestion is to utilize “dynamic elements” in the arena so that the difficulty of traversing them changes based on the passing weight. An example of such an element is shown in the top of this post. This element is just like a simple 45 deg slope but it is connected to the elevated floor using a pair of sprung joints instead of hinges. Now, the distance between top end of this ramp and the elevated floor will change based on the amount of mass on it. As it’s shown in the picture, the robot with mass “M” will face a gap with length “D” which is larger than the distance “d” caused by the robot with mass “m”. This means that a robot should have greater mobility if it is heavier!
First of all, Try to decrease ur robot weight. Coz it heavy also.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it's a good idea to motivate the teams to make a small size robot and it's will be better if the RRL has one more rule with the weight limited.
In general: yes, good idea if you want to work faster towards bringing the robots into real disaster sites.
ReplyDeleteBut on the other hand, if teams are required to put much efforts and money into reducing size and weight, they'll lose this time they could have spent on developing software or other creative, innovative ideas.
In my opinion, most robots at RoboCup are far away from being fieldable, and I don't consider this a bad thing, because it's research after all, and usually a team focusses on developing new stuff for few aspects. Bringing these ideas into real systems is the next step, that probably should be done better outside universities.
more lightweight come with more cost.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a lot money for that. man, I'm student.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI came across your great forum, and have decided to put my two cents in......
ReplyDeleteIn real USAR roles, compact, light weight, tethered robots define utility. At 9-11, several groups responded sending robots. Many never were fielded. Of the four that were, the Foster Miller Solomon had one deployment in to large spaces (parking area, coffee shop etc.). All other deployments were either the Inuktun Versatrax or the VGTV-micro.
The VGTV weighs only 14 lbs, has the capability to change its shape to adapt to the demands of its immediate surroundings, and is waterproof to 100 feet (NASA tested a VGTV at their Aquarius Habitat off Florida).
A great deal of the size constraints on most robot designs are self imposed by the almost exclusive focus on building untethered robots. While there have been several reasons proposed for this singular focus, practicality has consistently demonstrated that untethered robots are significantly disadvantaged in real USAR scenarios.
Keep thinking small......it will lead to big things.
J. Plant
President, R2i2
Slight correction...it was the iRobot Packbot, not the F.M. Solomon that was also deployed.
Delete