How UGVs physically fail in the field
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed look at how unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) fail in the field using information from 10 studies and 15 different models in Urban Search and Rescue or military field applications. One explores failures encountered in a limited amount of time in a real crisis (World Trade Center rescue response). Another covers regular use of 13 robots over two years. The remaining eight studies are field tests of robots performed by the Test and Evaluation Coordination Office at Fort Leonard Wood. A novel taxonomy of UGV failures is presented which categorizes failures based on the cause (physical or human), its impact, and its repairability. Important statistics are derived and illustrative examples of physical failures are examined using this taxonomy. Reliability in field environments is low, between 6 and 20 hours mean time between failures. For example, during the PANTHER study (F. Cook, 1997) 35 failures occurred in 32 days. The primary cause varies: one study showed 50% of failures caused by effectors; another study showed 54% of failures occurred in the control system. Common causes are: unstable control systems, platforms designed for a narrow range of conditions, limited wireless communication range, and insufficient bandwidth for video-based feedback.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Failure classifications often come with severity rankings, for example Carlson and Murphy's classification.
“Failure classifications often come with severity rankings, such as the failure classification by Carlson and Murphy [10].”
From Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies (2020) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Norman, D. A. (2016) · Vahlen eBooks · doi:10.15358/9783800648108 · Cited by 6,390 · see citing works
Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. J. (2002) · Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) · Cited by 1,843 · see citing works
Murphy, R. R. (2001) · Industrial Robot the international journal of robotics research and application · doi:10.1108/ir.2001.28.3.266.1 · Cited by 1,060 · see citing works
Self-citationKurniawan, S. (2003) · ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · doi:10.1145/967199.967218 · Cited by 524 · see citing works
ASCENT: Adaptive Self-Configuring sEnsor Networks Topologies
Cerpa, A., & Estrin, D. L. (2003) · Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infcom.2002.1019378 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
DEPENDABLE COMPUTING AND FAULT TOLERANCE : CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
Laprie, J.-C. (2005) · Twenty-Fifth International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 1995, ' Highlights from Twenty-Five Years'. · doi:10.1109/ftcsh.1995.532603 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
MURPHY, M. (2004) · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Cerpa, A., & Estrin, D. L. (2002) · ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review · doi:10.1145/510726.510736 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Burke, J. L., Murphy, R. R., Coovert, M. D., & Riddle, D. L. (2004) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_5 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Self-citationThe mobot museum robot installations: a five year experiment
Nourbakhsh, I., Kunz, C., & Willeke, T. (2004) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2003.1249720 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Reliability analysis of mobile robots
Carlson, J., & Murphy, R. R. (2004) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/robot.2003.1241608 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationFollow-up analysis of mobile robot failures
Carlson, J., Murphy, R. R., & Nelson, A. (2004) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/robot.2004.1302508 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Self-citationIssues in intelligent robots for search and rescue
Casper, J. L., Micire, M. J., & Murphy, R. R. (2000) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.391640 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Self-citationTowards automatic verification of autonomous systems
Simmons, R. G., Pecheur, C., & Srinivasan, G. R. (2002) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros.2000.893218 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Autonomous mobile communication relays
Nguyen, H. G., Everett, H. R., Manouk, N., et al. (2002) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.474472 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Ramaswamy, S., & Valavanis, K. P. (1996) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · doi:10.1109/3477.484450 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
A review of experimental studies on human‐robot system situations and their design implications
Beauchamp, Y., & Stobbe, T. J. (1995) · International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing · doi:10.1002/hfm.4530050306 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Design and System Integration for the Expo.02 Robot
Tomatis, N., Terrien, G., Piguet, R., et al. (2002) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · doi:10.3929/ethz-a-010091180 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Kokkinaki, A. I., & Valavanis, K. P. (1996) · IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications · doi:10.1049/ip-cta:19960768 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Failure analysis of mature robots in automated production
Starr, A. G., Wynne, R. J., & Kennedy, I. (1999) · Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · doi:10.1243/0954405991517245 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Adaptive mobility for rescue robots
Blitch, J. G. (2003) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.503975 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Reliability analysis using Bayesian networks
Tchangani, A. P. (2001) · Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (University of Toulouse) · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Reliability prediction of distributed embedded fault-tolerant systems
Sheldon, F. T., Mei, H., & Yang, S. (2002) · doi:10.1109/issre.1993.624278 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Influences of robot maintenance and failures in the performance of a multirobot system
González, J. L., Mediavilla, M., Fraile, J. C., et al. (2003) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/irds.2002.1041694 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Robots that can adapt like animals
Cully, A., Clune, J., Tarapore, D., & Mouret, J.-B. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14422 · Cited by 979 · see citing works
Murphy, R. R., Tadokoro, S., Nardi, D., Jacoff, A., Fiorini, P., Choset, H., & Erkmen, A. M. (2008) · Springer Handbook of Robotics · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_51 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Self-citationHonig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
“Moreover, the (Carlson and Murphy, 2005) taxonomy doesn’t consider uncertainties in the interaction that result from varying environments and other agents.”
BackgroundA Taxonomy of Social Errors in Human-Robot Interaction
Tian, L., & Oviatt, S. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3439720 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Trust-Relevant Failures and Mitigation Strategies
Tolmeijer, S., Weiss, A., Hanheide, M., Lindner, F., Powers, T. M., Dixon, C., & Tielman, M. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3319502.3374793 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Analysis of reactions towards failures and recovery strategies for autonomous robots
Brooks, D. J., Begum, M., & Yanco, H. A. (2016) · 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/roman.2016.7745162 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Bots on the ground: an impending UGV revolution in military affairs?
Rossiter, A. (2020) · Small Wars & Insurgencies · doi:10.1080/09592318.2020.1743484 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Carlson, J., & Murphy, R. R.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- ORCID
- Murphy, R.R.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Robotics
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 423-437
- ISSN
- 1552-3098 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2134911466
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 27.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Robotics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotics and Automated Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control and Dynamics of Mobile Robots
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Reliability and Maintenance Optimization
- Keywords
- unmanned ground vehicles, field testing, reliability, mean time between failures, failure taxonomy, urban search and rescue, military robots, effectors, control system failure, wireless communication range
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
