WIXLIB

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.18392000Robotics for Law Enforcement:Beyond ExplosiveOrdnanceDisposalH. G. NguyenJ. P. BottApproved for public release;distribution is unlimited.SSC San Diego0303003T'"

iii!!lIIIlIIII!I!!

III!III/% 4#TECHNICAL REPORT 1839November 2000Robotics for Law Enforcement:Beyond Explosive OrdnanceDisposalH. G. NguyenJ. R BottIIiIIIIiIII1PROPERTY OFNational CriminalJustice ReferenceService (NCJRS)Box 6000r4ocKvlie, MD 20849-6000Approved for public release;distribution is unlimited.@SPA WARSystems CenterSan D/egoSSC San DiegoSan Diego, CA 92152-5001

IiSSC SAN DIEGOSan Diego, California 92152-5001Ernest L. Valdes, CAPT, USNCommanding OfficerR. C. KolbExecutive DirectorI! ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATIONThe work described in this report was performed for the National Institute of Justice's Office ofScience and Technology by the SSC San Diego Adaptive Systems Branch (D371).Released byR. T. Laird, HeadAdaptive Systems BranchUnder authority ofC. D. Metz, HeadAdvanced SystemsDivisionDISCLAIMERWith respect to information provided in this document, neither the United States Government norany of its employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Further, neither the United States Government nor any of its employees assume any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed.Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade name,trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement orrecommendation of the United States Government.!i III!lggSBiaa

IIIIi,IiIIIIIIIIIIIIEXECUTIVE SUMMARYMobile robotics has matured quickly in the past decade, with more and more robots enteringpractical field service. The two most active application areas for mobile robots so far have beenmilitary and law enforcement. For law enforcement, most activities to date have been in the area ofexplosive ordnance disposal (EOD), where robots are used to keep the human bomb disposal expertout of harm's way. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice (N/J) funded the Battelle MemorialInstitute to perform a survey on the desired attributes of an EOD robot. In addition, NIJ funded theSpace and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego), to assess law-enforcementneeds for robots beyond EOD and identify technologies from Department of Defense (DoD) roboticsprojects that can help meet those needs.To establish law-enforcement needs for non-EOD robots, we conducted a web-based survey over aperiod of 8 weeks, hosted on our SSC San Diego Robotics web site. The survey addressed scenariosand tasks where a robot would be used if available, and the tools, features, and parameters deemedmost important to carry out those tasks. It also solicited respondents' experiences with currentlyavailable robots. The survey was publicized by electronic mail to over 200 state and local lawenforcement agencies.To identify DoD robotics technologies that could contribute to the development of lawenforcement robots, we conducted face-to-face, telephone, and e-mail interviews with personnelfrom the Unmanned Ground Vehicles/Systems Joint Project Office (UGVS/JPO) and the DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). With leads from these funding and programmanagement agencies, we contacted various DoD robotics research and development activities andtheir contractors.We presented results from the two surveys. In particular, we found that the law-enforcementcommunity placed the most emphasis on having robots perform the functions of small-item delivery,passive remote communication, and remote surveillance. Features of a robot that were viewed asmost important include stair-climbing ability, a robust communication link, low cost, and longerbattery life. Most of these requirements are being addressed by the DoD activities surveyed.Solutions for other requirements can be found in the commercial sector or are being sought by thescientific community for applications outside robotics.We concluded that there would be no single robot that would meet all the demands of lawenforcement beyond EOD, and recommended the development of two classes of robots, separated bysize. Each robot should be modular, with application-specific mission packages or tool sets that canbe tailored to the needs of a specific user. We also outlined a proven, user-centric, phased, rapidprototyping approach for a successful robotics development program. Finally, we recommended thatNIJ personnel continue to maintain close liaison with DARPA and the Joint Robotics Program (JRP),and obtain input from JRP in the technology assessment, source selection, and development ofrobotics assets.iii

, [lHIt

CONTENTS1. B A C K G R O U N D .2. L A W - E N F O R C E M E N T1N E E D S . 32.1 S U R V E Y P R O C E D U R E . 32.2 S U R V E Y R E S U L T S .32.2.1 S p e c i a l t i e s .42.2.2 Robotics E x p e r i e n c e .52.2.3 S c e n a r i o s .52.2.4 T a s k s .62.2.5 T o o l s .102.2.6 F e a t u r e s .112.2.7 Mobility .162.2.8 G e n e r a l F e a t u r e s .162.2.9 Past E x p e r i e n c e .202.2.10 G e n e r a l Interests .202.3 D I F F E R E N T I A T I O N BY R O B O T I C S E X P E R I E N C E . 203. D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E E F F O R T S . 233.1 J O I N T R O B O T I C S P R O G R A M ( J R P ) . 233.2 U G V / S J P O . 233.2.13.2.23.2.33.2.4M a n - P o r t a b l e Robotic S y s t e m ( M P R S ) .23S P I K E .25M A T I L D A .26O t h e r R o b o t - M o u n t e d W e a p o n s and T o o l s . 273.3 D E F E N S E A D V A N C E D R E S E A R C H P R O J E C T S A G E N C Y ( D A R P A ) . 283.3.1 T a c t i c a l M o b i l e Robotics (TMR) .283.3.2 Distributed Robotics (DR) . . . .303.3.3 Micro U n a t t e n d e d Mobility S y s t e m ( M U M S II) . 304. C O R R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N L A W - E N F O R C E M E N T5. R E C O M M E N D A T I O NN E E D S a n d D o D E F F O R T S . 31.336. R E F E R E N C E S .35APPENDICESA: S U R V E Y Q U E S T I O N N A I R E .B: T A B U L A T E D R E S U L T S , E N T I R E D A T A S E T .C: T A B U L A T E D R E S U L T S , R E S P O N D E N T S R E P O R T I N G P R I O R R O B O T I C SE X P E R I E N C E .D: T A B U L A T E D R E S U L T S , R E S P O N D E N T S R E P O R T I N G N O R O B O T I C SE X P E R I E N C E .A-1B-IC-ID-1

.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.Geographic orgin of survey responses .4Specialties of respondents .4Robotics experience among respondents .5Frequency of robot use (if available) in various scenarios . 6Explosive breaching .7Shattering windows .7Opening doors .7Observation/visual surveillance .8Listening/audio surveillance .8Delivery of small items .8Passive remote communication (by speaker and microphone) . 9Delivering chemical agents .9Retrieving small objects .9Robot-mounted weapons .10Video cameras .10Other sensors and effectors .11Maximum and most useful speeds . 11Most appropriate weight .12Most appropriate size .12Maximum reach .13Operating/stand-off distance .13Mission duration .13Manipulator lift capability .14Reasonable procurement cost .14Reasonable initial training time .15Reasonable maintenance time per month . 15Reasonable annual maintenance cost. excluding in-house labor . 15Importance of being able to traverse various outdoor terrain . 16Importance of being able to traverse various indoor terrain features . 17Importance of various communication links . 17Importance of various video interfaces . 18Importance of various self-defense mechanisms . 18Importance of various advanced features . 19Importance of various standard features . 19Law-enforcement interests in various types of mobile robots . 20URBOT (MPRS) with operator control equipment . 24SPIKE robot .25MATILDA robot (left) and MATILDA with breaching mechanism (right) . 26S A R G E robot with Foster-Miller less-lethal weapon launcher . 27Mini-Flail .28Lemming robot with less-lethal weapon launcher (left) and breaching saw (right) . 29SAIC's SuBot .29Scout robot .30Tables1. Correlation between law-enforcement needs and DoD effortsvi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .311,1IIiII!iIIiI!II!

IIImiIi,' iIIIiiIiIII1. BACKGROUNDMobile robotics has matured quickly in the past decade, with more and more robots enteringpractical field service. The two most active application areas for mobile robots so far have beenmilitary and law enforcement. For law enforcement, most robotic activities to date have been in thearea of explosive ordnance disposal (EOD), where robots are used to keep the human bomb disposalexpert out of harm's way. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the BattelleMemorial Institute to perform a survey on the desired attributes of an EOD robot (reference 1). Inaddition, NIJ funded the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego (SSC San Diego), toassess law-enforcement needs for robots beyond EOD and identify technologies from Department ofDefense robotics projects that can help meet those needs. This report presents the results.

IImJ!1iil ilII111iiIIIB11

2. LAW-ENFORCEMENT NEEDS2.1 SURVEY PROCEDURETo establish law-enforcement needs for non-EOD robots, we developed a questionnaire in earlyMay 2000. We then met with members of the Los Angeles Sheriff Department's SpecialEnforcement Bureau (LASD-SEB) to discuss this questionnaire. From the feedback we received, wedecided to convert this questionnaire into a web-based survey. Participants used radio buttons andcheck boxes to answer most questions, which helped the response process.We let the web-based survey run for 8 weeks, hosted on our SSC San Diego Robotics web site(reference 2). The survey was publicized by electronic mail to over 200 state and local lawenforcement agencies whose e-mail addresses were found at various law-enforcement web sites(references 3 through 6). The National Tactical Officers Association also posted a link to our surveyon their web site (reference 7).Responses were converted to text messages by a Perl-script program residing on the web serverand were forwarded to another computer for storage. When the survey was completed, a C programcombed through the stored messages, tallied up the responses to each question and generatedsummary tables. These tables were then entered into an Excel spreadsheet, which generated thecharts in this report. The individual messages were also printed out and examined to extract manuallyentered information (from the "other information" or "notes" and "comments" fields), and to gaininsight into unusual answers or unexpected groupings.The survey has five parts. Part 1 establishes the respondent's background. We were interested inknowing how a respondent's familiarity with law-enforcement robots correlates with the actualresponses. This hopefully will help us separate long-term desires and goals from more practical,short-term needs as would be reflected in the responses from those with more experience with robots.Part 2 examines scenarios where robots would be used, the tasks they would perform, and the toolsrequired to accomplish those tasks. Part 3 discusses the features and parameters considered importanton the corresponding robots, and part 4 solicits experiences with currently available robots. Part 5asks a short question to establish the law-enforcement community's interests in various types ofmobile robots.2.2 SURVEY RESULTSWe received 65 responses from our web survey. Some were direct responses from lawenforcement agencies to our e-mail solicitations, others were from law-enforcement officers whofound links to our survey at various web sites. Figure 1 shows the geographic origin of the responsessuperimposed on a U.S. population density map.I,II3