Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 119–139 | Cite as

Towards Small Robot Aided Victim Manipulation

  • Mark YimEmail author
  • Jedtsada Laucharoen
Article

Abstract

Robotic manipulation of human victims is a problem typically avoided by the robotics community primarily for fear of injuring victims further, though large robotic human transportation is more prevalent. This paper presents the issues that would need to be addressed in order to have small man-portable robots aiding the transport of incapacitated victims. Focusing on the manipulation of victims in preparation for transport, the primary design specifications are the forces that a small robot would need to be capable of applying. Data and analysis is presented for human limb manipulation, in terms of limb pose statistics and the forces required for appropriate limb motions. Descriptions of a robotic solution include a wristlet mechanism that can be robotically deployed as well as a novel head protection and cervical spine immobilization method using rapidly expanding foam.

Keywords

Foam stabilization Victim manipulation Robot rescue Automated harness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheung, Z., Delizo, M.Z.: Confined Space Guide, Cal/OSHA, California Dept. of Education (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilbert, G., Turner, T., Marchessault, R.: Army medical robotics research. Rev. Int. Serv. Santé Forces Armées 78, 105–112 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilbert, G.R.: Robotic Combat Casualty Extraction, Army STTR FY2010A - Topic A10a-T028 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hadley, M., Walters, B., Grabb, P., et al.: Joint section on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries. Neurosurgery 50(3), S85–S99 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamilton, R., Pons, P.: The efficacy and comfort of full-body vacuum splints for cervical-spine immobilization. J. Emerg. Med. 14(5), 553–559 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogan, D., Burstein, J.: Disaster Medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Howell, J., Burrow, R., Dumontier, C., Hillyard, A.: A practical radiographic comparison of short board technique and Kendrick extrication device. Ann. Emerg. Med. 18(9), 943–946 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iwano, Y., Osuka, K., Amano, H.: Development of stretcher component robots for rescue activity. In: Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Rob, Autom. and Mechatronics, vol. 2, pp. 915–920 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iwano, Y., Osuka, K., Amano, H.: Experimental study of traction robot system for rescue against nuclear disaster. In: Proc. of IEEE Intl. Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics Workshop, pp. 93–98 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwano, Y., Osuka, K., Amano, H.: Posture manipulation for rescue activity via small traction robots. In: Proc. of IEEE Intl. Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics Workshop, pp. 87–92 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iwano, Y., Osuka, K., Amano, H.: Development of stretcher component robots for rescue against nuclear disaster. J. Robotics Soc. Japan 24(3), 80 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iwano, Y., Osuka, K., Amano, H., Kikuchi, T.: On motion planning for rescue activity via small traction robots—construction and implementation of human body attitude manipulation algorithm. In: Proc. of RSJ/JSME/SICE 8th Robotics Symposia, pp. 301–306 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwan, I., Bunn, F.: Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects. Prehosp. Disaster Med. 20(1), 47–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Limmer, D., Okeefe, M., Grant, H., Murray, R., Bergeron, J.: Brady Emergency Care. Prentice-Hall (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Messina, E., Jacoff, A.: Performance standards for urban search and rescue robots. ASTM Standard. News 34(8), 27 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mondada, F., Gambardella, L., Floreano, D., Nolfi, S., Deneubourg, J., Dorigo, M.: The cooperation of swarm-bots. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 12(2), 21 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murphy, R., Riddle, D., Rasmussen, E.: Robot-assisted medical reachback: a survey of how medical personnel expect to interact with rescue robots. In: Proc. of IEEE Intl. Workshop on Rob. Human Interactive Comm, ROMAN, pp. 301–306 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park, M., Chitta, S., Teichman, A., Yim, M.: Automatic configuration recognition methods in modular robots. Int. J. Rob. Res. 27(3–4), 403–421 (2008). doi: 10.1177/0278364907089350. http://ijr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3-4/403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shafer, J.S., Naunheim, R.S.: Cervical spine motion during extrication: a pilot study. West. J. Emerg. Med. 10(2), 143–150 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shah, B., Choset, H.: Survey on urban search and rescue robots. J. Robotics Soc. Japan 22(5), 40–44 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yim, M. (Rus, D. (ed.)): Planetary contingency: a competition educating graduate students in reconfigurable robotics. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag. 15(4), 14–16 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics DepartmentUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations