Mobile robots in mine rescue and recovery

IEEE Robotics & Automation MagazineJUNE 2009 1070-9932/09/$25.00ª2009 IEEE 91

Novel Application of Robotics

Mobile Robots in MineRescue and Recovery

Mining accidents have occurred since the earlydays of mining. There were a total of 525 min-ing disasters (incidents with five or more fatal-ities) in both coal and metal/nonmetal minesfrom 1900 through 2007 in the United States,

resulting in 12,823 fatalities [1]. Most of these disasters involvemine rescue teams, which are specially trained to performsearch and rescue operations in extremely hostile environ-ments. Robots have a great potential to assist in these under-ground operations, searching ahead of rescue teams andreporting conditions that may be hazardous to the teams.When explosive conditions exist or when heavy smoke orunstable ground conditions prevent team members fromentering a mine, robots can become an invaluable tool.

As summarized in Table 1, four models of robots have beenused to assist in nine responses in the United States since 2001.Four of these responses were mine rescues, where the robotswere attempting to find victims. The remaining five responses

are referred to as mine recovery operations, where the robotwas being used to help bring the mine back into operation,either by confirming safe conditions or identifying potentiallyhazardous conditions for mine rescue teams. During some ofthese operations, the robot was used to manipulate fan doors,push aside obstacles, and send back video, mine gas, andtemperature readings. The operating conditions in each ofthese responses fall into one of the three deployment scenarios,surface entry (SE), borehole entry (BE), and void entry (VE),each of which are detailed later in this article. The SE and BEscenarios are expected to be the most common, with VE beinga rarity. Although mine robots have not found any survivors todate, they have already proven to be a valuable asset for minerescue teams by providing video and atmospheric monitoringinformation at several emergency and recovery sites. At theExcel mine fire recovery, mine rescue teams found the infor-mation to be extremely important, providing them with avideo record of conditions they would encounter before theyactually entered the mine. When they implemented the recov-ery, they were well prepared to handle the hostile conditions andDigital Object Identifier 10.1109/MRA.2009.932521

BY ROBIN R. MURPHY, JEFFERY KRAVITZ, SAMUEL L. STOVER, AND RAHMAT SHOURESHI

© MSHA

inhospitable atmosphere. At the Storm Decline exploration, therobot provided the information about an inherently dangerousatmosphere without risking the lives of human team members.

These responses provide an extensive learning experiencerelative to the advantages and limitations of robots for under-ground mine rescue and form a basis for capturing the require-ments for robots built specifically for mine rescue. This articlesummarizes the experiences and findings reported in anunpublished, much more comprehensive study of emergingmine rescue and communications technology conducted forthe Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA). The article begins with the domainof underground mine rescue. The domain theory provides afoundation to review the literature on subterranean robotics inthe ‘‘Related Work’’ section. The ‘‘Surface Entry,’’ ‘‘BoreholeEntry,’’ and ‘‘Void Entry’’ sections describe the scenario, therobots and deployments, and the physical challenges for eachof the three scenarios. The lessons learned from the nineresponses are grouped into a requirements matrix, ranking 33features for each of the three deployment scenarios (see the‘‘Requirements and Priorities’’ section). The article concludeswith a ‘‘Summary and Recommendations’’ section. We expectthat the article will contribute to the historical record of theuse of mobile robots, define the domain of underground minerescue for the robotics community, and provide a foundationfor researchers and manufacturers to develop more effectivemine rescue robot systems. Capturing the demands of minerescue and problems with the deployments is also expected tocontribute to mobile robots in general.

Domain TheoryThe description, or domain theory, of underground minerescue can be divided into the characteristics of the domain,the tasks that need to be accomplished, the roles and neededcompetencies of the workers, and the socioorganizationalculture. Underground mine rescue is different from urbansearch and rescue in that it has a stronger focus on propertyrecovery and requires manipulation, but it shares the sameproblems in the use of tethers and belays for operating onslopes and down shafts. Mine rescue robot needs are mostsimilar to law enforcement and bomb squads; however, minerescue appears to require less manipulation overall.

Underground Mine RescueUnderground mine rescue is conducted by mine rescue teamscomposed of miners for whom mine rescue is an extra job andnot a primary or full-time responsibility. Each mine has a team,and there are training events and competitions with other teams,which help facilitate the absorption of other teams into a majorincident. However, mine rescue teams do not appear to be asbroadly trained or as technologically oriented as urban searchand rescue teams. This suggests human–robot interaction(HRI) issues of interfaces and training will be significant. Themining community does not appear resistive to robots in princi-ple, evincing an expectation that mobile robots will eventuallybe commonplace in mine rescue.

Characteristics of an Underground MineThe primary characteristics of the underground mine rescuefor robots are time, type of mine, and operating conditions.Since maps of working mines are required by U.S. law, they aregenerally available and accurate. The Quecreek Mine disasteroccurred when a working mine breeched an abandoned minethat was not accurately mapped, not because the working minemap was wrong [2]. A robot may be deployed from eitherwithin the mine or from above ground. The location affectsthe availability of power and general logistics. Operatingwithin a coal mine, a robot system would have to be self-suffi-cient. All equipment would have to be transported severalmiles by truck, cart, or even hand-carried. Even above ground,transportation, logistics, and access to support equipment maybe difficult. For example, the boreholes drilled at the CrandallCanyon mine disaster were from the top of a mountain,requiring two hours of travel by four-wheel drive vehicles.Regardless of the point of deployment, the robot will be oper-ating beyond the line of sight of the users.

Underground mine rescue, as with all search and rescueendeavors, is a race against time. In general, the first fewhours are the most critical, as that is when the larger enter-prise becomes aware of the incident, victims can self-rescueor workers already in the mines can assist, and critical deci-sions which set the tone of the response are made. For victimswith serious injuries, the first hour is critical. For search andrescue in general, the first 8–12 hours are reactive, wheremanagement is trying to collect information and gather

appropriate resources. After the first24 h, the mortality rate for trappedvictims who survived beyond the firsthour begins to increase.

The type of mine, coal or metal/nonmetal, determines whether robotsystems must be mine permissible.Coal mines require mine-permissible(essentially, explosion-proof) equip-ment, because they potentiallyproduce methane, coal dust is easilyignited, and the mine itself is flamma-ble. Exceptions or waivers to mine per-missibility are generally not permittedand would be unlikely to be obtained

Table 1. Summary of robot-assisted mine responsesin the United States.

Mine Year Activity Robot SE BE VE

Jim Walter No. 5 2001 Rescue Wolverine X

Barrick 2002 Recovery Wolverine X

Brown’s Fork 2004 Recovery Wolverine X

Excel No. 3 2004 Recovery Wolverine X

DR No. 1 2005 Recovery Wolverine X

McClane Canyon 2005 Recovery Wolverine X

Sago Mine 2006 Rescue Wolverine X

Midas 2007 Rescue Allen-Vanguard Inuktun X

Crandall Canyon 2007 Rescue Inuktun X

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine92 JUNE 2009

in the critical first 24 hours. Metal/nonmetal mines generallyare not explosive.

The operating conditions impact mobility and especiallyvisibility, which is the key function of rescue robots. The robotmust be able to sense in complete darkness, with the possibilityof smoke and dust suspended in air.

TasksThe tasks associated with underground mine rescue fall into threecategories: nominal search and rescue, mine recovery, and deploy-ment. The search and rescue task involves both visual inspectionand air quality sampling to determine human safety and the stateof the mine. Mine recovery focuses on both ascertaining the stateof the mine and conducting any necessary remediation in order tosave or reopen the mine, including manipulation of the environ-ment by moving debris, opening doors or fans, etc., to facilitatethe reconditioning of the mine. The deployment task is implicit,but critical, as rescue robot deployment delays have led to robotsbeing deployed later in the incident timeline than desired. Onedeployment task is transportation and logistics. A second deploy-ment task is the construction or modification of site-specific sys-tems, such as the lowering systems designed and built on-site atthe Midas (see the ‘‘Void Entry’’ section) and Crandall Canyonmine (see the ‘‘Borehole Entry’’ section) incidents.

Work EnvelopeThe work envelope for the robot can be described by two attrib-utes: the type of entry and the environment. There are threetypes of entry, SE, VE, and BE, each of which are described indetail in the following sections. The mine may be a few hundredfeet or a few thousand feet underneath the surface. The robotmay need to travel several miles in a mine to reach the affectedarea. There is no fixed width and height of a mine, and thedimensions typically depend on the seam being worked. Thegeneral range of mine heights is 24–73 in; therefore, robots thatcan operate with ceiling heights of 4 ft is good, and 3 ft better.The width is in the order of 10 ft wide, even though some minescan be as wide as 20–24 ft. However, the space may be occupiedby machinery, leaving only enough space for a worker to squeezeby. The roof of the mine may be covered with metal fencing toprevent rock falls, and conduits may also be overhead or on the

side. Water may be pouring in. In terms of layout, a roof and pil-lar type of mine will be generally be drilled as a regular grid ofperpendicular tunnels, leaving pillars of material on the order of80–100 yd wide. The floor of the mine will almost certainly havea narrow gage rail system for transporting workers, equipment,and material. The rail may be elevated in portions leading todrop-offs. The floor itself may have a slope of 15–18�, havestanding or flowing water, and may be cluttered with miningequipment, conveyors, and carts. Small boulders may havesloughed over time from the walls, making the sides of the corri-dor between the rail line and the wall difficult to navigate. Com-munication in working mines is limited. There may be a fewphones placed strategically in the mine, but in general, there isno physical communication or wireless infrastructure. Therefore,a robot system cannot count on a communication infrastructurebeing in place or being easily repaired.

The workspace in the affected portion of the mine can besubdivided into three categories. One of these workspaces mayappear in a disaster or all; in general, a robot may be expected tofirst encounter lightly deconstructed areas, then either denserubble or dense pancake. An example of a lightly deconstructedarea is shown in Figure 1(a). In these areas, a robot would beexpected to be able to avoid, or go around, obstacles. Denserubble, shown in Figure 1(b), requires the robot to negotiatethe obstacle, either by going over or under it. A robot must gothrough dense pancake, shown in Figure 1(c). In dense pan-cake, the robot has small vertical and horizontal clearances.

Related WorkTo frame the discussion in underground mine rescue robots, it isuseful to review numerous subterranean applications for robots,the types of robots proposed for such applications, and their levelof autonomy. The literature has identified only one robot intendedspecifically for underground mine rescue, the Numbat [3].

NumbatThe Numbat [3] is a mine reconnaissance vehicle designed in the1990s by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization (CSIRO). Using the terminology intro-duced in the ‘‘Domain Theory’’ section, Numbat is intended forsearch and rescue tasks (visual inspection, air quality sampling) in

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. Examples of the three categories of workspaces in damaged areas of the mine taken from the Excel No. 3 mine.(a) Lightly deconstructed. (b) Dense rubble. (c) Dense pancake. (Courtesy MSHA.)

IEEE Robotics & Automation MagazineJUNE 2009 93

lighted, deconstructed SE scenarios. Numbat has never beenused for an actual disaster, but has been on standby while servingas a research tool. The robot looks like a small armored personnelcarrier with eight wheels, a footprint is 6.8 3 5.4 ft (2.5 3 1.65 m),and a velocity of 1.24 mi (2 km/h). It is teleoperated through agraphical user interface, and commands are transmitted througha fiber-optic cable. The robot is powered by batteries with 8 hbetween charges. Numbat is waterproof, and all electronics aresealed and compartments flooded with nitrogen, mitigating thepossibility of initiating an explosion.

Subterranean ApplicationsRobots have been proposed or used for at least six subterra-nean applications: underground tank cleaning or hazardouswaste removal [4]–[8], subway cleaning [9], sewer inspection[10], [11] smaller pipeline inspection [12]–[18], undergroundcable inspection [19], [20], and exploration and mapping ofunderground structures [2], [21], [22] including flooded mines[23], [24] and burrowing [25]–[28]. In addition, automation ofexisting equipment such as continuous miners [29], [30] andload haul dump trucks [31], [32] have been explored but arenot relevant for underground mine rescue.

Of these applications, sewer and pipeline inspection andexploration and mapping robots are most closely related tounderground mine rescue. Underground tank and subwaycleaning are specialized applications requiring dexterousmanipulation, which is not a prime attribute of undergroundmine rescue but does occur. Underground cable inspection ishighly specialized, where a robot travels on the exterior of acable or cable tray; there is no obvious analog for undergroundmine rescue. Burrowing to survivors is unlikely because of thedepths and rock properties.

Types of Subterranean RobotsTypes of robots proposed for underground applications fallinto five broad categories, arranged in decreasing order oftechnical maturity. Tracked or wheeled crawlers have beendemonstrated in mines and appear the most mature form ofmobility. Snake robots overcome the limitations of pipecrawlers for borehole-based mine rescue and, along with leg-ged robots, constitute an important future direction.

Tracked or wheeled robots ranged in size from the Carne-gie Mellon University (CMU) Groundhog robot [2], [22] thatis slightly smaller than a golf cart (also referred to as a maxi-sized robot) to systems designed to fit through pipes. Trackedor wheeled crawlers appear the best fit for rubble, even thoughthe Groundhog robot experienced difficulties in a lightlydeconstructed abandoned mine [2].

Pipe crawlers differ from small tracked or wheeled robots inthat the tracks or wheels press against the inner walls of thepipe. Pipe crawlers do not fit any scenario as they cannot oper-ate on the mine floor and only in a borehole.

Swimmers, such as the prototype Minefish [23], are eitherboat-like or submarine-like robots for exploring flood orunderwater voids. Swimmers are interesting, because portionsof a mine are likely to be wet. But swimmers are not relevant,because it is not expected that a rescue robot would go through

totally submersed conditions and that the robot would have tobe amphibious.

Small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been proposedfor flying in underground structures depending on clearance [21].Miniature UAVs such as helicopters or planes have been demon-strated flying inside large buildings. In theory, UAVs could beused for the SE scenario, though in practice, how these could becontrolled over long distances and how they could operate in totaldarkness and avoid protrusions from the roof are unansweredquestions. VEs are likely to be too small to permit UAVs.

Snake robots are multijoint, highly flexible robots. Snakescan travel on floors as well as in pipes. Although they can presslinks against the inner wall of a pipe for mobility, their abilityto move in unconfined spaces separates them from multilinkpipe crawlers. Snake robots are suitable for BEs and VEs.

Legged robots can step over rubble or cable trays [19]. Leg-ged robots are promising for VE and possible for BE scenario ifthe legs are folded, but the power demands on legs do not favorthe long travel distances expected in the SE scenario.

AutonomyThe primary research focus appears to be on achieving fullyautonomous operations, with the notable exceptions of semi-autonomous work mentioned in [20], [33]–[35], whichacknowledge that human recognition capabilities are likely tobe required. Most work in autonomy has concentrated onmapping; [34]–[38] attempted some form of two-dimensional(2-D) or graph representation (i.e., topological), while [39]and [40] constructed or maintained a metric map. The usuallyimplicit motivation for autonomy appears to be the fear thatunderground mine communications would prevent any typeof human supervisory control or real-time transmission ofimages [23]. However, as seen with Groundhog, teleoperationwas needed to recover the robot when it became stuck in amine [2]. Therefore, semiautonomy in the form of autono-mous navigation coupled with human-assisted perceptionappears to be a more reasonable goal.

Surface EntryThe SE scenario has been the most frequent type of robot-assisted underground mine rescue mission, representing sevenof the nine deployments in the United States, and it is expectedto continue in importance and relevance. The robot isexpected to operate in human-navigable spaces; however, thedeployments show that even benign conditions pose difficul-ties for the MSHA robot.

ScenarioIn all mine disasters, rescue teams attempt to assess conditionsby physically entering the mine through one of the portals onthe surface. The portals would be either along a slope, a drift(horizontal), or a shaft (vertical elevator) (see Figure 2). Therescuers must wear restrictive protective clothing and use self-contained breathing apparatus, enter an area, sample air qualityand inspect conditions, and set up a fresh air station. They mayneed to manipulate doors and fans. Additional personnel andmine-permissible equipment can then be moved to the fresh


air station. The rescuers may only move 1,000 ft beyond thestation and are constrained by having to carry an air supply.

The motivation for the SE scenario is that a robot(s)replaces the human and is able to move faster and fartherfrom the fresh air station, thereby speeding up the generaloperations. The robot would ostensibly be controlled fromthe fresh air station, even though the sensor output couldbe routed for real-time viewing at the command centerabove the ground.

Physical ChallengesThe physical challenges (versus the sensory or HRI challenges)posed by the SE scenario are illustrated by Figure 2 and are asfollows.

1) A lowering system may be required for a slope entry,introducing a mechanical vulnerability and a tanglinghazard.

2) Reliable communications between the robot andoperators (who will be normally stationed in the freshair station). Tethered communications have not provedreliable, with fiber-optic cables susceptible to tangling,breakage, and being run over by the robot, but wire-less communications have been unreliable as well.

3) Dexterous manipulation is needed to open or closedoors or fans, or even to remove rubble.

4) The robot might have to maneuver on/around a railline such as seen in Figure 3.

5) The robot might have to travel through standing orflowing water and maneuver around mining equip-ment and low ceilings low coal with protruding roofsupports, plumbing, and wiring.

Robots and DeploymentsMSHA has deployed a modified Remotec Wolverine robot toseven mines to assist with two rescues and five mine recoveryoperations following a SE scenario. In four cases, the robotcompleted its primary mission, though in two of these, therobot had to be manually recovered. In three cases, the roboteither could not enter the mine or affected area or perform thetask satisfactorily. The experiences suggest that the use offiber-optic cables for communications between the robot andoperator is not viable even for short distances, and wireless sol-utions are needed. The deployments highlighted that manipu-lation was needed in three out of the six actual mine entries,but the robot technology is not mature enough to enable dex-terous manipulation tasks. Finally, it suggests that customizing

a commercially available robot to be mine permissible may notproduce satisfactory solutions.

The MSHA mine-permissible Remotec Wolverine variantcalled the V-2 is shown in Figure 4, similar but smaller than theNumbat. The Wolverine class of robot is a traditional bombsquad robot with a manipulator arm. It is controlled via afiber-optic cable with an autonomous spooling reel. MSHAcustomized the robot for mine permissibility and added a gassensor input for continuous sampling. The customizationnearly doubled the weight of the robot from 800 to 1,200 lband expanded the width from 28 to 30 in. The modified robotis estimated to be worth US$280,000.

The V-2 Wolverine deployed initially for mine rescue tothe Jim Walter No. 5 Mine in 2001 to assist with the incidentkilled 13 miners. However, the robot was not inserted, as itwas not mine permissible at that time.

The robot was deployed in November 2002 for a minerecovery operation at the Storm Decline at Barrick Gold DeeMine in Elko, Nevada. Two mine rescue team members hadbeen killed that October during a training exercise on minerecovery operations. V-2 was deployed from the surface

Figure 3. Rails in the McClure Mine as seen through the V-2robot (photo courtesy of MSHA).

Figure 4. MSHA’s modified Wolverine robot, named V-2(courtesy of MSHA).

12

3

4 5

Figure 2. Physical challenges emerging from a SE (slope entryis shown).


down a 16� slope. It was able to navigate and to take continu-ous gas samples.

V-2 was deployed in August 2004 at the Brown’s Fork minefor a mine recovery task to recover a continuous miner. Therobot was operated from the surface but was only able to pene-trate 15–20 ft into the affected area because its profile was toohigh to get under the 50 in high wall. The robot was able tomove some debris with its effector. Afterward, the robot wasmodified to be reconfigurable to 35 in high in order to ensurethat it could enter mine areas 42–48 in high.

V-2 was deployed for a mine recovery in December 2004 atthe Alliance Resources’ Partners Excel No. 3 coal mine inPikesville, Kentucky, after a mine fire broke out. The robotwas operated from the surface with remote viewing via a bigscreen. Because of the 15� slope of the mine and the ice fromusing liquid nitrogen to suppress the mine fire, the robotrequired a safety rope and winch for entry and return. Oncemodified, the robot was able to penetrate 750 ft into the mineand successfully completed the objective of providing anassessment of the situation. Unfortunately, the robot droveover and broke its fiber-optic cable approximately halfwayback on the return. This error was due to the focus on thesafety cable and losing awareness of the fiber-optic cable.

In January 2005, the Wolverine was deployed to the DRNo. 1 Dixon-Russell in McClure, Virginia, formerly theMcClure No. 1 mine, where an explosion had killed sevenminers in 1983, for the purpose of mine recovery. The robotwas operated from the surface and was able to penetrate amaximum distance of 700–800 ft into the mine. The slope ofthe mine floor was 18�. As with the Excel No. 3, the DR No.1 deployment highlighted the need for manipulation as therobot arm was used to move and realign ceiling supports toprogress into the mine. The robot executed two runs. Run 1was aborted, because as the robot entered the mine, the debrisfrom the roof fell in the safety guard on the fiber-optic cablereel, severing the cable. Run 2 was completed successfully;however, while exiting the mine, the fiber-optic cable wassevered by abrasion with the safety cable. In response to the les-sons learned at the DR No. 1 mine and the Excel No. 3, therobot was modified to add a rear camera for observing thetether and cable and also the cable guard was modified to pre-vent debris from falling into the device.

In November 2005, the Wolverine was operated into theMcClane Canyon Mine, Grand Junction, Colorado, toexperiment with its functionality for mine recovery. In thiscase, the robot was tasked to close five doors and pull out tim-bers holding up a mine fan. The robot closed all outside doorsbut was generally unsuccessful with the timbers, and a cable forpulling out the timbers became wrapped round the robot andeventually cut the fiber-optic cable. The robot could not betried with the inside doors.

In January 2006, the Wolverine participated in the SagoMine disaster in West Virginia to assist with the rescue effortsfor 13 missing miners. The robot was initially controlled by anoperator walking alongside from the surface to approximately5,000 ft into the mine. Once at the fresh air station, the robotwas deployed beyond the station into the affected area. The

robot traveled along a 42 in rail. After moving approximately600 ft beyond the fresh air station, it ran off the rail onto a 30 indrop on either side of the rail as it bridged a dip in the minefloor. The rail detracked the left tread of the robot, and the leftrear wheel deflated. The Sago Mine deployment was the firstexemplar of operating from the fresh air station. It was also nota-ble because it failed because of HRI, as a single operator couldnot keep up with where the robot was and keep on looking.

Borehole EntryThe BE scenario was implemented as part of the Crandall Can-yon Mine (Utah) response in 2007 and is expected to become amore frequently used approach because it takes advantages of theroutine practice of drilling boreholes drilled areas where minersare expected to be trapped. The use of a robot at Crandall Can-yon illustrated the current states of BE: commercially availablepipe inspection platforms do exist but are not tailored for theparticular needs of the underground mine rescue domain, sensorplacement and self-cleaning are topics that need to be addressedby the community, and HRI is a serious concern. It also showedthat deployment activities such as transportation, lowering, andcrew organization are important considerations.

ScenarioIt is common during a mine disaster to drill small boreholes(on the order of 3–12 in OD) into the mine into what isexpected to be the affected area to determine air quality andinsert borehole cameras. The borehole cameras are limited toline of sight and may not be large enough to carry sufficientlighting to see beyond a hundred feet. The idea in the boreholescenario is to insert a small robot into the boreholes, drop therobot to the floor, and explore the affected area. The advan-tages are that the robot that starts in the neighborhood of thepresumed incident would not have to open doors and can con-serve onboard power by starting close to the point of interest.

Physical ChallengesThe physical challenges associated with the BE are shown inFigure 5 and are enumerated as follows:

1) a lowering system is required for entry2) the robot might become jammed due to small clear-

ance, losing the robot but also preventing any furtheruse of the borehole for air sampling or cameradeployments

3) falling rock may damage the robot if being operated inan uncased hole

4) drilling foam, water, and debris may coat the cameralens, restricting visibility

5) the robot might spin while hanging and thus be unableto control its transition to the mine floor

6) the mesh roof supports may interfere with hole exitand reentry, as well as tangle the tether, preventing therobot to be able to advance on the mine floor

7) the robot must be able to transition from verticalmobility to operating on the mine floor

8) the robot will have to traverse soft drill tailings and foam,or even equipment, before reaching the mine floor.


Robot and DeploymentThere has been one deployment of a robot under the BEscenario; this was at the 2007 Crandall Canyon, Utah, a coalmine disaster where six miners were lost underground follow-ing a mine collapse.

The depth of the mine from the surface meant that a robotwould have to transit through approximately 2,000 ft beforereaching the mine void, then drop 8 ft to the floor, and finallybegin searching up to 1,000 ft beyond the opening. The diam-eter and lack of casing of the borehole was another problem.The borehole diameter was a nominal 87=8 in, but since thehole was uncased (i.e., a smooth sleeve was not inserted), it wasirregular and could be less than 87=8 in. Once on the mine floor,the robot had to be waterproof given groundwater, seepage,and drilling foam/debris as well as have sufficient traction.Because of the complete darkness and deconstructed nature ofa disaster, a pan-tilt-zoom camera with as much lighting aspossible was considered essential.

The robot selected was the mine cavern crawler (MCC)shown in Figure 6, built by Inuktun Services, Ltd., in three daysbased on their waterproof and powerful Versatrack system.Given the years of experience with waterproof robots and pipe-line inspection, coupled with the generally positive perform-ance of Inuktun platforms at the World Trade Center (WTC)[41] and Midas Gold Mine disasters, there was high confidencethat the robots would be mechanically sufficient. The analogMCC was only able to work for 300 ft, it was integrated on-sitewith PipeEye International’s long-range digital system for deep-penetrating pipe inspection system providing a mile of tether.

The MCC compromised maneuverability with fittingthrough the borehole. The robot was designed with 3/8 inclearance, being approximately 8 in wide. It was 19.5 in long,with an additional 14.5 in for the tether control arm, or saddle,intended to prevent the vehicle from running over the tether.The robot essentially consisted of two pieces: 1) the main plat-form consisting of two VersaTracks with a crystal camera andlight unit mounted in front and 2) a Spectrum 90 pan-tilt-zoom camera with a motorized raise mechanism. The mecha-nism and Spectrum 90 camera had to be stowed behind thevehicle during borehole transit, in a protective saddle. Whenthe vehicle was safely on the mine floor, the camera could beraised to a vertical position for panoramic viewing. The

Custom Saddle

CustomConfiguration

COTVersaTracks

COT Spectrum90 PTZ withFour 50-W Lights

COT Crystal Cameraand Lights

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Inkutun Mine crawler robot with Spectrum 90payload. (a) Insertion in Borehole 3 at the Crandall Canyonmine. (b) MCC with Spectrum 90 payload partially raisedand key components labeled.

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

Figure 5. Physical challenges emerging from a BE.

Underground mine rescue is

conducted by mine rescue teams

composed of miners for whom mine

rescue is an extra job and not a

primary or full-time responsibility.


platform was carried by a pair of brass Versatrac tractors, pro-viding the pulling power for 1,000 ft of tether and eachcontributing 27 lb of weight, giving the 70 lb vehicle a lowand stable center of gravity. A second, fixed camera was locatedbetween the tracks toward the front for viewing the descentdown the borehole and, if not covered in mud upon landing,was to aid in navigation on the mine floor. All components arebuilt to work in muddy, underwater conditions up to 100 ftdeep, making them suitable without modification for use inthe harsh environment described earlier.

Four runs were conducted with the rescue robot, of whichonly one entered the mine. PipeEye personnel piloted the robotbecause of their extensive experience with this class of robot.

On 26 August, the robot entered Borehole 3. The loweringsystem failed, disconnecting electronics inside the canister hous-ing the mating between the PipeEye controller and the robot.The robot was removed, repaired, and then reinserted on 27August. It reached 1,410 ft, 10 ft from the exit, before encoun-tering a blockage in the borehole. After more than 40 min ofeffort, the robot could not get around the blockage and the runwas ended. On 30 August, the robot entered Borehole 4. It wenta few hundred feet before it was removed to clean the lens fromthe buildup of water, debris, and drilling foam. The robot wasimmediately reinserted, and this time it was able to exit the bore-hole into the mine void and then onto the mine floor.

At Borehole 4, the robot was able to move about 7 ft intothe mine, sliding on a mound of drilling tailings under a low-hanging mesh. The search showed the walls had blown out,and the floor was littered with chunks of coal at least 2 ft high.The decision was made to bring the robot backed out; how-ever, the robot was trapped by the mesh and could not be

freed. The team left the robot overnight under a fairly clearstream of groundwater to try to clear the Spectrum 90 camera.

The team returned in the morning and was able at that timeto untangle it from the mesh and to reenter the borehole. Therobot moved smoothly up the borehole until about 52 ft fromthe surface, whereupon the canister encountered severe wash-out and large boulders, as the borehole was actively eroding.After two days of removal efforts, the robot was lost when thetether finally broke.

Void EntryThe VE scenario is expected to be the least common mode ofdeployment for underground mine rescue, as such collapsesare rare. A robot has been deployed once for this situation atthe Newmont Midas Gold Mine (Nevada) in 2007 to searchfor a missing worker. The predominately vertical mode ofoperation poses significant mobility challenges for a robot.

ScenarioThe VE scenario is one in which the robot enters highly con-fined and irregular spaces that a human cannot. The void isgenerally a hole that is not straight down, and as a result, theremay be outcroppings or ledges where a victim may be hangingfrom. The robot may be rappelling down or may be hangingwith no contact. Because the spaces have a strong verticalcomponent, the robot must be on belay. This scenario requiressmall, lightweight robot that can be easily lowered into a voidand is small enough to penetrate through narrow passages. AVE scenario poses two primary tasks for the robots: to searchthe ledges and the mine floor for the victim. A third task, possi-bly unique to the Newmont Midas Gold Mine incident, is toobserve the area of active muck removal for signs of the victimin order to prevent the remotely operated front loaders fromdismembering or missing the presence of the victim.

Physical ChallengesThe physical challenges posed by the VE scenario are illus-trated by Figure 7 and include the following.

1) A lowering system is required for a slope entry, intro-ducing mechanical and control vulnerabilities. If thebelay line is separate from the communications tether,the two can get tangled or abrade each other to thepoint of snapping. If the belay line is not maintained,the weight of the robot may be transferred to thetether, breaking it.

2) Falling rock may damage the robot.3) The robot may damage or destroy the ledges, endan-

gering a victim trapped on a ledge.4) The robot might spin while hanging and thus be

unable to survey the sides of the void.5) The ledges may prevent navigation and may prevent a

robot that uses its body to pan the camera to adequatelysurvey the area.

6) The robot must be able to transition from verticalmobility to operating on the mine floor.

7) Once on the mine floor, the robot might have totravel through mixed rubble and soft soils.

1

5

3

2

4

6

7

Figure 7. Physical challenges emerging from a void entry.


Robots and DeploymentA robot-assisted search of a void has occurred once in theUnited States in response to the 19 June 2007 accident at theNewmont Midas gold mine in Midas, Nevada, where aworker in loader fell over 150 ft into a void that had openedwithin the mine floor. Three robots were brought to the site(a Allen-Vanguard, a Inuktun ASR VGTV Extreme, and aniRobot Packbot), of which the former two were used. TheAllen-Vanguard robot penetrated 70 ft and was able to providephotographs of the loader embedded in debris but no sign ofthe victim. The VGTV Extreme was capable of traversing theentire depth of the void but was suspended at 120 ft (about30 ft from the working floor) in order to stay out of the way ofmachinery being used to extract rubble.

Because the mine was a metal/nonmetal mine with nohistory or sign of methane production, rescue equipment didnot have to be mine permissible. At the request of the owners,the Newmont Mining Company, the Naval Air Station Fallon,at nearby Fallon, Nevada, deployed a Allen-Vanguard man-portable bomb squad robot for vertical entry into the void fromthe 5,600 ft level within the mine. The robot was able to see partof the void and locate the equipment but was unable to locatethe victim. At the request of both MSHA and the NewmontMining Company, the Center for Robot-Assisted Search andRescue (CRASAR) was invited to field robots. On 27 June,CRASAR arrived on-site with two robots borrowed from thesmall mobile robot pool maintained by SPAWAR, San Diego.The Inuktun VGTV Extreme robot was deployed but unsuc-cessful in locating the victim because of lack of lighting in optics.On 30 June 2007, the victim was located using an infraredcamera inserted into a borehole drilled directly into the sus-pected location of the victim. The robots are shown in Figure 8.

Three criteria were used in selecting a robot for the mine res-cue: history of use in similar extreme environments, expectedtravel distance, and suitability for operations on belay. The verti-cal VE at the Newmont Midas Gold Mine shared significantattributes of urban search and rescue deployments, particularly atthe 2001 WTC disaster [41] and also the 2005 La Conchita, Cal-ifornia, mudslide response [42]. The robot had to have a reasona-ble expectation of traveling at least 150 ft, i.e., be able to transitthe void and provide visual inspection. Ideally, the robot wouldbe able to travel an additional 100 ft onthe void floor if necessary. These twoattributes eliminated pipe crawlers thatpress against the inner diameter of a pipe.The robot also must be light enough andsmall enough to be lowered by a rope sys-tem. At the WTC and La Conchita disas-ters, tethers had served as a rope system.

Requirements and PrioritiesThe experiences with deploying robotsleads to an understanding of what fea-tures will likely be of importance for arobot in each of the three scenarios.Thirty-three features have been identi-fied, spanning eight categories (mobility,

manipulation, sensors, control, communications, power, phys-ical properties, and HRI). A subset of 11 of these requirementsform the priorities for underground mine rescue robots for thenear term (0–3 years). Many of these requirements are unique tounderground mine rescue and are unlikely to exploit a dual usewith search and rescue, bomb squad, or military robots. Explic-itly enumerating requirements are a first step in the standardiza-tion of subterranean rescue robots and provide candidates forfurther discussion or modification by the community.

Requirements MatrixTable 2 shows the requirements matrix that captures the cate-gories of features and the importance of potential features ofthe overall system for each scenario given the current state ofdevelopment. The first six categories are the subsystems associ-ated with any robot. The latter two categories represent thedomain constraints such as environment and price (physicalproperties) and general operation considerations (HRI). Therating is subjective.

Mobility for an underground mine rescue robot is the funda-mental capability; if it cannot move, it cannot provide moreinformation than a probe. The minimum mobility attributes arethat it must be able to move forward, backward, turn left/rightin all environmental conditions, including vertical ascents/descents. Tethers may impede or support mobility and areviewed as an engineering decision, not a capability. In general,robots that can handle favorable terrain exist, reflecting humantraversal but do not appear to be reliable for rubble and confinedspaces or well designed to transition from vertical to horizontalmobility. The ability of a robot to move at high speeds is gener-ally not a high-value characteristic. Lowering systems areimportant for two of the three scenarios but as a matter of engi-neering do not reflect any fundamental gap in technology.

Manipulation is needed in the SE scenario. As seen at theMcClane Canyon Mine (the ‘‘Surface Entry’’ section), a robotneeds dextrous manipulation capabilities in order to grasp doorsand cables. However, it does not appear that the arm must becapable of pulling or pushing objects, such as removing rubble.

As captured in the requirements matrix, the desirable charac-teristics for sensing were for the robot to carry: chemical sensingfor basic air quality detection, vision capable of functioning in

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Robots used at Midas: (a) Allen-Vanguard (photo courtesy of R. Gust) and(b) Inuktun VGTV Extreme.


total darkness, video with pan-tilt-zoom, and two-way audio.It would be desirable to have a sensor mast to provide addi-tional viewing angles, and the experiences at the Midas andCrandall Cranyon mines strongly argue for self-cleaning sen-sors for both dust and liquids. Interchangeable payloads arealso highly desirable so that platforms can be adapted tounforeseen conditions.

The control of a platform is synonymous with the softwareand general intelligence of the robot. Rescue robots fall intothe remote presence class of operations, where a humanremains in the control loop for at least two reasons. First, ahuman is needed to interpret imagery and redirect the search;the inability to predict the outcome of a disaster means that it isunlikely to automate any of the visual sensor interpretation

tasks. Second, fully autonomous tasking of a robot, i.e.,where the robot is sent out and then returns with areport, means that if the robot fails, the information col-lected to that point would be lost. Given the high likeli-hood of failing, a rescue robot needs to continuouslyprovide the responders with sensor data. Thus, teleop-eration is more important than autonomous navigation,though semiautonomy for both navigation and imageinterpretation would be desirable. Self-localization andmapping would be helpful, but given the regular struc-ture of mines and a priori maps, this requirement is notthe most important attribute of a useful robot.

The communication between the robot and theoperators is essential for supervisory control and forreal-time data collection. The real question is whetherwireless communications is appropriate, and what isthe most beneficial arrangement when it is necessary.Wireless communications is often presumed to be thedesired end state but is not necessarily true for all sce-narios. Regardless of communication mechanism, thenetwork must have sufficiently high bandwidth to sup-port concurrent video, infrared, and possibly laser illu-mination feeds. In the SE and BE scenarios, theexpected long transit distances suggests that antennas orrepeaters will be needed to support a wireless network.It would be desirable for the robot to be connected toabove ground communications, such as a local area net-work or satellite Internet to transmit incoming infor-mation to the larger mine rescue enterprise.

Power requirements vary significantly by scenario. Theneed for a robot capable of traveling long distances resultsin a requirement for onboard power, as the experiences atthe Excel No. 3, DR No. 1, and McClane Canyon haveshown that tethers are unacceptable for long distances.

In addition to the general categories of mobility, sen-sors, control, communications, and power, an under-ground mine rescue robot may have additional physicalrequirements that impact the design, manufacture, orselection of a robot. A robot needs to balance cost versusfunctionality, have appropriate size and weight for theenvironmental conditions as well as being transportable,and meet the operational expectations and proceduresfor using mine equipment (i.e., mine permissibility,waterproofing, and decontamination). It must be able tosurvive minor rockfalls. Self-righting is of interest asdense rubble increases the risk of the robot flipping over.

Appropriate HRI is necessary for the reliable opera-tion of robots and accomplishment of the mission.Without good HRI, the robot may roll past signs ofsurvivors or imminent hazards. HRI goes beyond good

Table 2. Requirements matrix showing the relativeimportance of system components for each scenario.

System Design

Requirements

Overall Importance SE BE VE

1 = Low; 3 = Medium; 5 = High

Mobility 3 5 5

Handle favorable terrain 5 5 5 5

Handle unfavorable terrain 3 3 5 5

Support vertical through

horizontal mobility

5 3 5 5

Operate at high speeds 3 3 1 1

Engage lowering systems 5 1 5 5

Manipulation 5 1 1

Grasp doors, cables 3 5 1 1

Pull or push objects 1 3 1 1

Sensors 5 5 5

Chemical 3 5 3 3

Vision in total darkness 5 5 5 5

Video pan-tilt-zoom 5 5 5 5

Two-way audio 5 5 5 5

Sensor mast 5 5 5 3

Self-cleaning (dry) 5 5 5 5

Self-cleaning (wet) 5 3 5 3

Interchangeable payloads 5 5 5 5

Control 3 3 3

Teleoperation 5 5 5 5

Autonomous navigation 1 1 1 1

Self-localization and

mapping

3 3 3 3

Communications 5 3 1

Wireless 3 5 3 1

High bandwidth 5 5 5 5

Need antennas or repeaters 3 5 3 1

Need to connect to above

ground comms.

3 3 3 3

Power 5 3 1

Onboard 3 5 3 1

Long duration 3 5 3 1

Physical properties 5 5 3

Cost 3 3 3 3

Size/weight 5 3 5 5

Survivability to falls, rocks 5 3 5 5

Self-righting 5 5 5 1

Decontaminations 5 5 5 5

Waterproofing 5 5 5 5

Mine permissible 5 5 3 3

HRI 5 5 5

Minimize number of people 3 5 1 3

Proprioceptive displays 5 5 5 5

Exproprioceptive displays 5 5 5 5

Training 5 5 5 5


interfaces, though that is an important component andincludes general human factors and training. This robot–operator relationship is fundamental for overall performanceand relies on 40 years of prior research in teleoperation. HRIfor underground mine rescue is presumed to concentrate onthe relationship between the robot operators and the robot;thus, the matrix ignores the HRI needed for the potentialinteractions between the robot and a survivor or robot andhuman team members.

Near-Term PrioritiesWhile the aforementioned matrix captures the knownrequirements for the perfect underground mine rescue robotfor each scenario for the long term, it is useful to identify thesubset of requirements for the near term, 0–3 years. In the nearterm, the goal to create a rescue robot capability that can bereliably fielded within 12 hours of an incident. These robotswill likely be retrofits of existing platforms from the impro-vised explosive device (IED) and pipeline inspection industryto provide minimal competence. There will not be a one-size-fits-all robot; instead, these first-generation robots wouldreflect a variety of platforms and configurations to providecoverage of expected events. The platforms will require cus-tomization for the addition of sensor and communicationspayloads, which will add to the acquisition cost.

However, it should be possible within three years to have aset of robots that have at least the properties below and havevalidated crew organization, protocols, and training. It shouldbe noted that such a robot would exceed the current capabil-ities of urban search and rescue robots [43] and would likely beuseful for military and law enforcement applications. At thistime, no known robot has the needed capabilities as follows:

u man portable (lightweight and small size)u reliable lowering systemsu video sensor pan-tilt-zoom with self-cleaning capabilitiesu two-way audiou attachment for atmospheric sensor or laser illuminator

sensoru combined tether/belay cable for tethered robotsu ability to drop off wireless repeaters if wireless robotu capable of 2–3 h missionsu waterproofu mine permissibleu provide proprioceptive (pose) and exproprioceptive

(relationship of robot to environment) displays.

Unique Needs of Underground Mine RescueAlthough underground mine rescue robots are likely to share agreat deal in common with platforms for search and rescue,bomb squads, and military operations, it may be worth sum-marizing the aspects that are unique to underground mine res-cue. These are mine permissibility, sensor self-cleaning, powerprofiles, and HRI in general. Sensor self-cleaning merits addi-tional discussion. It is a capability needed in theory by allmobile robots. However, applications such as IED disposalhave been able to work around the lack of such an ability,primarily because their applications can be performed by a

human. If the robot does not work, a human can do the job,though at risk. For two of the three mine rescue scenarios, ahuman and robot are not interchangeable. Therefore, a minerescue robot must be more reliable and, thus, have more reli-able video.

Summary and RecommendationsMobile robots have been used experimentally for mine rescuein the United States since 2001, having been deployed to fourrescues and five mine recovery operations. The robots werevariants of the Remotec Wolverine, Allen-Vanguard, InuktunASRVGTV Extreme, and Inuktun versatrax platforms. How-ever, the application of robots to underground mine rescue hasbeen limited by the available technology and the fact that,given the uniqueness of the environment and operating condi-tions in a mine, robots from other market areas cannot be usedfor mine rescue without significant modifications.

Underground mine rescue presents a novel application ofrobotics. It is different from urban search and rescue in that ithas a stronger focus on property recovery and requires manip-ulation, but it shares the same problems in the use of tethersand belays for operating on slopes and down voids. Mine res-cue robot needs are most similar to law enforcement andbomb squad robots; however, mine rescue appears to requireless manipulation overall. The most common type of subter-ranean robots, pipe crawlers, are too specialized for the diversemine missions.

The general conditions under which the robot is expected tooperate are very important. These conditions include locationof deployment, beyond line-of-sight operations, real-time dataacquisition, visibility, work envelope, and communications.Since 2001, three underground mine rescue robot scenarioshave emerged: SE, VE, and BE. The challenges posed by the SEscenario include reliable communications between the robotand operators, dexterous manipulation, benign navigationalhazards, and HRIs. The VE and BE scenarios pose further chal-lenges. Those challenges imposed by the VE scenario includethe suitability of the robot for vertical and horizontal navigationand the lowering system. The challenges associated with the BEare numerous: the robot must function in two different operat-ing environments, the distance of operation, and sensor posi-tioning. The distinct needs of each scenario strongly suggeststhat there is no one-size-fits-all platform.

Thirty-three requirements have been identified and ranked byimportance to each of the three scenarios. Based on these require-ments and the current state of the robotics, it is recommended thatinvestments be made in technology transfer of platforms fromIED, pipeline, and general military domains to the undergroundmine rescue domain. The robot platforms will have to be modi-fied to become mine permissible, and configurations may have tobe modified to fit size and mobility constraints. Furthermore,major R&D investment is required in the sensor technology,including new modalities or configurations for increased visibilityand miniaturization of sensors and especially self-cleaning capabil-ities. Any enhancement in communication technology wouldimprove robotics application in mine rescue. As mine rescue is aremote presence application, the HRI needs are considerable.


We hope that in the long term, focused research will lead toa second generation of robots that will be engineered specifi-cally for the scenarios and exploit lessons learned with the firstgeneration, new advances in related fields, and general experi-ence with underground mine rescue robots. These robots willbe more rugged, permit general payload exchanges, and incor-porate autonomous navigation, localization, and mappingcapabilities. Alternative forms of mobility, especially hyper-redundant snakes and legged robots, should be available.

AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported in part by a cooperative agreementbetween the Department of Labor and the National ScienceFoundation. The authors would like to thank the anonymousreviewers, Dr. Peter Corke for his discussion of the Numbat,and Kevin Pratt for his assistance in the preparation of thismanuscript. Portions of this work were conducted while thefirst author, Robin R. Murphy, was at the University ofSouth Florida.

KeywordsRescue robot, intelligent robots, mining industry, robot-sens-ing systems.

References[1] (2008, Apr. 18). Mining disaster incidents and fatalities, 1900–2007

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)[Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/statistics/pdfs/disall.pdf

[2] C. Baker, A. Morris, D. Ferguson, S. Thayer, C. Whittaker, Z. Omo-hundro, C. Reverte, W. Whittaker, D. Hahnel, and S. Thrun, ‘‘A cam-paign in autonomous mine mapping,’’ in Proc. 2004 IEEE Int. Conf.Robotics and Automation (ICRA’04), vol. 2, pp. 2004–2009.

[3] D. Hainsworth, ‘‘Teleoperation user interfaces for mining robotics,’’Autonom. Robot., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 19–29, 2001.

[4] B. Christensen, W. Drotning, and S. Thunborg, ‘‘Model based, sensordirected remediation of underground storage tanks,’’ in Proc. 1991 IEEEInt. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, 1991, pp. 1377–

1383.[5] B. Christensen, W. Drotning, S. Thunborg, and R. W. Harrigan,

‘‘Model-based, sensor-directed remediation of underground storagetanks,’’ in Proc. 5th IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent Control, Philadelphia, PA,1990, pp. 444–456.

[6] W. Drotning, B. Christensen, and S. Thunborg, ‘‘Graphical model basedcontrol of intelligent robot systems,’’ IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 12,no. 4, pp. 13–18, 1992.

[7] R. J. Anderson and B. Davies, ‘‘Using virtual objects to aid under-ground storage tank teleoperation,’’ in Proc. 1994 IEEE Int. Conf.Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA, 1994, pp. 1421–1426.

[8] M. Anil, K. Mangesh, H. Ronald, and A. Sam, ‘‘Robot cleaning ofunderground liquid storage tanks: Feasibility and design considerations,’’Robot. Autonom. Syst., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 49–60, 1997.

[9] B. Gantois, J. Gounon, and G. Leclavier, ‘‘Autonomous guiding systemwith absolute referencing for Paris underground cleaning robots,’’ inProc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Workshop on Autonomous Mobile Robots and Its Appli-cations, Intelligent Robots and Systems ’89 (IROS’89), pp. 527–532.

[10] N. Elkmann, H. Althoff, S. Kutzner, T. Stuerze, J. Saenz, andB. Reimann, ‘‘Development of fully automatic inspection systems forlarge underground concrete pipes partially filled with wastewater,’’ inProc. 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Roma, 2007,pp. 130–135.

[11] N. Elkmann, S. Kutzner, J. Saenz, B. Reimann, F. Schultke, andH. Althoff, ‘‘Fully automatic inspection systems for large underground

concrete pipes partially filled with wastewater,’’ in Proc. 2006 IEEE/RSJInt. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, 2006, pp. 4234–4238.

[12] S. G. Roh, S. M. Ryew, J. H. Yang, and H. R. Choi, ‘‘Actively steer-able in-pipe inspection robots for underground urban gas pipelines,’’ inProc. 2001 ICRA IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, vol. 1,pp. 761–766.

[13] R. Segon and C. HyoukRyeol, ‘‘Differential-drive in-pipe robot formoving inside urban gas pipelines,’’ IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat.,vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2005.

[14] Y. Zhang and G. Yan, ‘‘In-pipe inspection robot with active pipe-diameter adaptability and automatic tractive force adjusting,’’ Mech.Mach. Theor., vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1618–1631, 2007.

[15] A. Kuwada, K. Tsujino, K. Suzumori, and T. Kanda, ‘‘Intelligentactuators realizing snake-like small robot for pipe inspection,’’ in Proc.2006 Int. Symp. Micro-NanoMechatronics and Human Science, Nagoya,pp. 2006–2011.

[16] S. M. Ryew, S. H. Baik, S. W. Ryu, K. M. Jung, S. G. Roh, andH. R. Choi, ‘‘In-pipe inspection robot system with active steeringmechanism,’’ in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems2000 (IROS 2000), Takamatsu, vol. 3, pp. 1652–1657.

[17] H. R. Chol and S. M. Ryew, ‘‘Robotic system with active steeringcapability for internal inspection of urban gas pipelines,’’ Mechatronics,vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 713–736, 2002.

[18] Y. Qingmei and S. Jianmin, ‘‘On a new detecting robot in sewer pipe,’’in Proc. Chinese Control Conf. 2007 (CCC 2007), Zhangjiajie, China,July 26–31, 2007, pp. 189–192.

[19] B. Jiang, P. Stuart, M. Raymond, D. Villa, and A. V. Mamishev,‘‘Robotic platform for monitoring underground cable systems,’’ in Proc.Asia Pacific IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conf. Exhibition,vol. 2, pp. 1105–1109, Oct. 6–10, 2002.

[20] B. Jiang, A. P. Sample, R. M. Wistort, and A. V. Mamishev, ‘‘Autono-mous robotic monitoring of underground cable systems,’’ in Proc. 12thInt. Conf. Advanced Robotics, 2005 (ICAR ’05), Seattle, WA, pp. 673–679.

[21] W. E. Green and P. Y. Oh, ‘‘An aerial robot prototype for situationalawareness in closed quarters,’’ in Proc. 2003 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelli-gent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003), vol. 1, pp. 61–66.

[22] A. Morris, D. Silver, D. Ferguson, and S. Thayer, ‘‘Towards topologicalexploration of abandoned mines,’’ in Proc. 2005 IEEE Int. Conf. Roboticsand Automation (ICRA 2005), pp. 2117–2123.

[23] D. M. Bradley, D. Silver, and S. M. Thayer, ‘‘A regional point descrip-tor for global topological localization in flooded subterranean environ-ments,’’ in Proc. 2004 IEEE Conf. Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics,vol. 1, pp. 673–678.

[24] D. Silver, D. Bradley, and S. Thayer, ‘‘Scan matching for flooded sub-terranean voids,’’ in Proc. 2004 IEEE Conf. Robotics, Automation andMechatronics, vol. 1, pp. 422–427.

[25] V. A. Gauss and J. S. Bay, ‘‘A fuzzy logic solution for navigation of anautonomous subsurface planetary exploration robot,’’ in Proc. 1998 IEEEInt. Symp. Intelligent Control (ISIC) and IEEE Int. Symp. ComputationalIntelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA), Intelligent Systems andSemiotics (ISAS), Gaithersburg, MD, 1998, pp. 559–564.

[26] T. Takeshi and M. Tetsuya, ‘‘Electromagnetic system navigating tunnel-ing robots,’’ Robot. Autonom Syst., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 229–230, 2002.

[27] Z. Zhonglin, M. Qingxin, W. Liquan, and W. Hua, ‘‘The constructiondesigning and analyzing on turning device of ’dragon of puncturingmud’ robot,’’ in Proc. 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Mechatronics and Automation,Luoyang, Henan, pp. 614–640.

[28] B. Bergeron, ‘‘Physics-based animation for qualitative assessment ofbiomimetic subterranean burrowing behaviors,’’ in Proc. Int. Symp. Com-putational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA 2007), Jackson-ville, FL, pp. 85–89.

[29] G. Shaffer and A. Stentz, ‘‘A robotic system for underground coal mining,’’in Proc. 1992 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Nice, pp. 633–638.

[30] J. A. Horst and A. J. Barbera, ‘‘Coal extraction using RCS,’’ in Proc.1993 IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent Control, Chicago, IL, pp. 207–212.

[31] S. Scheding, G. Dissanayake, E. M. Nebot, and H. D. Whyte, ‘‘Anexperiment in autonomous navigation of an underground mining vehi-cle,’’ IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 85–95, 1999.


[32] R. Madhavan, G. Dissanayake, and H. D. Whyte, ‘‘Map-building andmap-based localization in an underground-mine by statistical patternmatching,’’ in Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Brisbane, Qld.,1998, vol. 2, p. 1744.

[33] L. E. Banta, R. S. Nutter, and Y. Xia, ‘‘Mode-based navigation forautonomous mine vehicles,’’ IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 28,pp. 161–185, 1992.

[34] J. N. Bakambu, V. Polotski, and P. Cohen, ‘‘Autonomous system forexploration and navigation in drift networks,’’ in Proc. 2004 IEEE Intelli-gent Vehicles Symp, pp. 212–217.

[35] J. N. Bakambu, ‘‘Integrated autonomous system for exploration andnavigation in underground mines,’’ in Proc. 2006 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf.Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, pp. 2308–2313.

[36] D. Silver, D. Ferguson, A. Morris, and S. Thayer, ‘‘Feature extractionfor topological mine maps,’’ in Proc. 2004 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. IntelligentRobots and Systems (IROS 2004), vol. 1, pp. 773–779.

[37] P. Debanne, J. V. Herve, and P. Cohen, ‘‘Global self-localization of arobot in underground mines,’’ in Proc. 1997 IEEE Int. Conf. Systems,Man, and Cybernetics (Computational Cybernetics and Simulation), Orlando,FL, vol. 5, pp. 4400–4405.

[38] V. Beranger and J. Y. Herve, ‘‘Recognition of intersections in corridorenvironments,’’ in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, Vienna, 1996,vol. 4, pp. 133–137.

[39] S. Thrun, D. Hahnel, D. Ferguson, M. Montemerlo, R. Triebel, W.Burgard, C. Baker, Z. Omohundro, S. Thayer, and W. Whittaker, ‘‘Asystem for volumetric robotic mapping of abandoned mines,’’ in Proc.IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation (ICRA ’03), 2003, vol. 3,pp. 4270–4275.

[40] S. Thrun, S. Thayer, W. Whittaker, C. Baker, W. Burgard, D. Ferguson,D. Hahnel, D. Montemerlo, A. Morris, Z. Omohundro, C. Reverte, andW. Whittaker, ‘‘Autonomous exploration and mapping of abandonedmines,’’ IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 79–91, 2004.

[41] R. Murphy, ‘‘Trial by fire,’’ IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag., vol. 11, no. 3,pp. 50–61, 2004.

[42] R. R. Murphy and S. Stover, ‘‘Rescue robots for mudslides: Adescriptive study of the 2005 la conchita mudslide response: Fieldreports,’’ J. Field Robot. (Special Issue on Search and Rescue Robots),vol. 25, no. 1-2, pp. 3–16, 2008.

[43] ——, ‘‘Gaps analysis for rescue robots,’’ in Proc. ANS 2006: SharingSolutions for Emergencies and Hazardous Environments.

Robin R. Murphy received her B.M.E. degree in mechani-cal engineering and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in computerscience in 1980, 1989, and 1992, respectively, from GeorgiaTech, where she was a Rockwell international doctoral fellow.She was at the University of South Florida (1998–2008) as aprofessor and director of the Institute for Safety Security Res-cue Technology and the Colorado School of Mines (1992–

1992). She joined Texas A&M as the Raytheon professor ofcomputer science and engineering in 2008. In 2008, she wasawarded the Al Aube Outstanding Contributor award by theAUVSI Foundation for her insertion of ground, air, and searobots for urban search and rescue (US&R) at the 9/11World Trade Center disaster, Katrina and Charley hurricanes,and the Crandall Canyon Utah mine collapse. She is an asso-ciate editor for IEEE Intelligent Systems, a distinguishedspeaker for the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, andhas served on numerous boards including the Defense ScienceBoard, U.S. Air Force (USAF) Scientific Advisory Board,NSF CISE Advisory Council, and DARPA ISAT. Herresearch interests include artificial intelligence, HRI, andheterogeneous teams of robots. She is a Member of the IEEE.

Jeffery Kravitz received his B.S.E.E. degree from IllinoisInstitute of Technology and M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees fromthe University of Pittsburgh. He is a registered professionalengineer (PE) in Pennsylvania and a certified mine safetyprofessional (CMSP). He is the chief of Scientific Develop-ment for MSHA Technical Support. He has worked for theBureau of Mines, MESA, and MSHA for 34 years. He isresponsible for seeking out and developing new technologyfor mine emergency operations and assists in the leadershipof MSHA’s mine emergency operations program. This in-cludes the operation and maintenance of MSHA’s mine emer-gency operations equipment and resources. He is responsiblefor the development and implementation of other specialprojects, including the National SCSR Inventory, and devel-opment of permissible robots for mine rescue/recoveryoperations. He is a member of the Mine Safety and HealthResearch Advisory Committee and has been appointed tobe the MSHA representative for the Miner Act InteragencyWorking Group.

Samuel L. Stover is currently a search team manager withthe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Federal Emer-gency Management Agency (FEMA) US&R Indiana TaskForce 1 (IN-TF 1), with 14 years experience and multipledeployments such as hurricanes, terrorist events, and minecollapses. He has been actively involved in technology evalu-ation or application with the University of South Floridasince 2001.

Rahmat Shoureshi received his M.S. and Ph.D. degreesat Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1981.He was on the faculty of Purdue University (1983–1994)and was the G.A. Dobelman distinguished chair professorand director of two NSF centers at the Colorado School ofMines (1994–2003). He joined DU in September 2003 asdean of the School of Engineering and Computer Science,where he has pioneered several new research thrusts andnew educational disciplines and degrees including mecha-tronics systems engineering, nanoscience and engineering,game development, and bioengineering. He has receivedseveral awards, including AACC Eckman Award, andASME-DSC leadership award, and has given more than100 keynotes and seminars internationally and has pub-lished more than 200 technical and archival papers. He is afellow of ASME, Senior Member of the IEEE, and mem-ber of the European Academy of Sciences. He supervisedmore than 80 Ph.D. and M.S. students, and holds severalpatents. His areas of research interests include biomecha-tronics, bioinspired systems, automation and robotics, bio-medical engineering, smart structures, intelligent sensorand actuator systems, and advanced monitoring and diag-nostic systems.

Address for Correspondence: Robin R. Murphy, Departmentof Computer Science, Texas A&M, College Station, TX77843, USA. E-mail: [email protected].


Documents

Mobile robots in mine rescue and recovery