International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 915–922 | Cite as

Development of an Operability Evaluation Framework for Remotely Controlled Ground Combat Vehicles in a Simulated Environment

  • Ji Hyun Yang
  • Sang Yeong Choi
  • Kang Park


This paper proposes a systematic framework for operability evaluation of remotely controlled ground combat systems (RGCS) in a simulated environment. The popular human-robot interaction metric used in unmanned vehicle systems is called fan-out (FO) and represents the maximum number of robots/vehicles that could be controlled by a single human operator. However, FO is inappropriate for systems with a lower level of automation where vehicles are remotely controlled by a human, such as RGCS. The theoretical background of the suggested framework is based on McRuer’s crossover model that was initially developed in the aviation domain for explaining pilot handling issues. In this study, an evaluation/analysis software prototype was developed, known as the RGCS operability evaluation tool in a simulated environment (ROPES). The ROPES was designed to be a simple tool for use by officers or researchers who only have intuitive understanding on the human adaptability. The ROPES includes two sub-modules; 1) an interactive interface for the configuration of the RGCS dynamic parameters and user interfaces and 2) a time-varying graphical display of system and human performance. Examples case studies demonstrate the advantage of the ROPES, and improvement points were identified for future development.

Key words

Operability Human-robot interaction Remotely controlled Simulation Crossover model 





interaction time


lethal aerial matrix


national highway traffic safety administration


neglect time


remotely controlled ground combat system


RGCS operability evaluation tool in a simulated environment


unmanned vehicle


wait time


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Crandall, J. W. and Cummings, M. L. (2007a). Developing performance metrics for the supervisory control of multiple robot. Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. Human-Robot Interaction, Virginia, USA, 33–40.Google Scholar
  2. Crandall, J. W. and Cummings, M. L. (2007b). Identifying predictive metrics for supervisory control of multiple robots. IEEE Trans. Robotics 23, 5, 942–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummings, M. L. and Mitchell, P. J. (2008). Predicting controller capacity in supervisory control of multiple UAVs. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 38, 2, 451–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cummings, M. L., Nehme, C. E., Crandall, J. W. and Mitchell, P. (2007). Innovations in Intelligent Machines-1. Springer. Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Defense Agency for Technology and Quality (2013). Defense Agency for Technology and Quality Report.Google Scholar
  6. Driels, M. R. (2004). Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness (AIAA Education Series). 1st edn. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Reston, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Egelund, N. (1982). Spectral analysis of heart rate variability as an indicator of driver fatigue. Ergonomics 25, 7, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McRuer, D. T. and Jex, H. R. (1967). A review of quasilinear pilot models. IEEE Trans. Human Factors in Electronics 8, 3, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Murphy, R. and Shields, J. (2012). The Role of Autonomy in DoD Systems. Defense Science Board Task Force Report.Google Scholar
  10. NHTSA (2013). Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report. Google Scholar
  11. Nehme, C. E. (2009). Modeling Human Supervisory Control in Heterogeneous Unmanned Vehicle Systems. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Olsen, D. R. and Woods, S. B. (2004). Fan-out: Measuring human control of multiple robots. Proc. SIGCHI Conf., Vienna, Austria, 231–238.Google Scholar
  13. Patel, M., Lal, S. K., Kavanagh, D. and Rossiter, P. (2011). Applying neural network analysis on heart rate variability data to assess driver fatigue. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 6, 7235–7242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Qing, W., BingXi, S., Bin, X. and Junjie, Z. (2010). A PERCLOS-based driver fatigue recognition application for smart vehicle space. Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Information Processing (ISIP), Qingdao, China, 437–441.Google Scholar
  15. Schwalm, M., Keinath, A. and Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within a simulated driving task. Human Factors for Assistance and Automation, 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. Weir, D. H. and McRuer, D. T. (1972). A Computer Simulation of Headlamp Variables and Drivers Sight Distances: Operating Instructions. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Report. CR-2019.Google Scholar
  17. Wickens, C. D. and Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Automotive EngineeringKookmin UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMyongji UniversityGyeonggiKorea

Personalised recommendations