Xia, P; Xu, F; Zhou, T and Du, J (2022) Benchmarking human versus robot performance in emergency structural inspection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(8): 04022070, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Human-robot collaboration (HRC) has gained significant momentum in various civil engineering applications. A representative application is robot-Assisted emergency structural inspection, i.e., a human-robot partnered on-site investigation of structural damage and possible causes after any human-caused or natural incidents. Human experts are good at making informed decisions that reflect structural failure patterns, whereas robots can help in searching larger areas and in hazardous places. An effective HRC team would leverage the advantages of human and robot agents. However, deeper insights and direct evidence are still needed to build a baseline model, and in particular to identify the relative advantages and limitations of human and robot agents in emergency structural inspections. To establish a basis for efficient HRC emergency inspection team design, this paper presents a benchmark to compare human and robot performance in a simulated emergency structural inspection task following an earthquake disaster. The total amount of identified structural damage, inspection time, and route patterns of humans and robots are compared. The results show that humans outperformed autonomous robots in most inspection metrics, possibly owing to prior knowledge about the patterns of structural failure, and presented a different but more efficient route pattern. The findings are expected to inspire better HRC team design for emergency structural inspection tasks and other relevant knowledge-based HRC tasks.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building inspection; human-robot collaboration; robot operating system; simultaneous localization and mapping; virtual reality |
| Index terms: | mapping, relative advantage, agent, virtual reality, benchmarking, inspection, collaboration, evidence, localization, earthquake, site investigation |
| Subjects: | spatial and geospatial analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, environmental hazards, performance measurement, management, innovation studies, urban planning, virtual reality, practitioner, geotechnical engineering, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Governance, Business Strategy, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here