There are many hostile working environments which present a significant risk to the health and safety of people who are performing sophisticated tasks such as the building of structures or the use of tools. Examples of these hazardous environments are found in sectors like Nuclear Decommissioning; Oil and Gas; Mining; and Space systems. A problem, which is common to these environments, is the extreme difficulty in effectively deploying technologies and equipment that can replace, protect, or augment human workers.
These industries have characteristics including: remote location, adverse weather conditions, hazardous chemicals and toxic and/or contaminated objects or materials, including radiation risks.
Robots can be used to replace human workers in these environments.
Robots can make decommissioning of hazardous sites more achievable by enabling tasks to be performed quickly, effectively, and safely: thereby saving time and reducing cost.
Current robots, however, have some key issues in that they:
- Rely on electronically controlled actuators,
- Struggle to perform crucial tasks,
- Are prone to electronic failure of the controls in radiation zones, and
- Present a risk of spark in explosive environments.
Tasks such as retrieving waste, or cutting and removing heavy objects in decommissioning nuclear sites – for example – require robots that use an architecture which is similar to that found in heavy construction equipment: they are controlled and powered using hydraulics.
Some key issues with electronically controlled robots are: 1.) the solid state electronics have a low mean-time to failure (especially in high radiation environments), and 2.) the power to weight ratio provided by electronic actuators is limited when compared to hydraulic actuators.
The last resort when systems fail can be to send in a human wearing significant PPE. No amount of PPE affords the human the same level of protection as being outwith the environment, operating a robotic system remotely.
We are developing systems that do not use electronics at the hazardous end of the system, by making robots that are controlled and operated using only fluids: we call this techology Fluidic Logic.
As part of our InnovateUK ICURe journey, we are seeking input and feedback (via the form below) on two questions:
1.) If there was a way to control industrial robots or to perform remote operations which guaranteed a significantly higher time-to-failure, and enabled longer, safer operations as compared to electronic control of remote machines, would this technology be of significant interest?
And,
2.) Are industrial employers ready to employ a low level but effective way of controlling remote machines to save human workforce from such hazardous environments?
Your comments and thoughts are much appreciated and will help us to shape our thinking and strategy in bringing Fluidic Logic to market.
Hi
An interesting concept.
Are you working with industry to support a challenge case?
Good work!
Regards
Yes