Manipulator Comparative Testing Program: Final report

Technical Report · Sun Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 1987

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/6826194· OSTI ID:6826194

Draper, J. V.; Handel, S. J.; Sundstrom, E.; Herndon, J. N; Fujita, Y.; Maeda, M.

The manipulator systems tested included the Meidensha BILARM 83A, the Central Research Laboratories Model M-2, and the GCA PaR Systems Model 6000. Six manipulator and control mode combinations were evaluated: (1) the BILARM in master/slave mode without force reflection, (2) the BILARM in master/slave mode with force reflection, (3) the Model M-2 in master/slave mode without force reflection, (4) the Model M-2 in master/slave mode with force reflection, (5) the BILARM with switchbox controls, and (6) the PaR 6000 with switchbox controls. The experiments examined differences between master/slave systems with and without force reflection and differences between master/slave systems and switchbox-controlled systems. A fourth experiment examined the relative contributions of the remote viewing system and the manipulator system to the performance of remote handling tasks. Results of the experiments showed that operators using the Model M-2 in master/slave mode had significantly faster times to completion than operators using the BILARM in master/slave mode, with about the same error rate per trial. Operators were slower using the BILARM with force reflection than without it, and they committed more errors. There was no statistically significant difference between force-reflection and nonforce-reflection conditions for the M-2 manipulator for any of the performance criteria. Tasks and procedures used in this testing were not sensitive to differences within any single system. No inferences about the effect of force reflection on remote task performance should be made from these data. The two manipulator systems in switchbox mode had significantly slower times to completion than any system in master/slave mode, with approximately the same error rate per trial. There were no significant differences between the BILARM in switchbox mode and the PaR arm.

• Research Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
• DOE Contract Number: AC05-84OR21400
• OSTI ID: 6826194
• Report Number(s): ORNL/TM-10109; ON: DE87006026
• Resource Relation: Other Information: Portions of this document are illegible in microfiche products. Original copy available until stock is exhausted
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS
42 ENGINEERING
MANIPULATORS
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
PERFORMANCE TESTING
REMOTE HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
REMOTE HANDLING EQUIPMENT
TESTING
050800* - Nuclear Fuels- Spent Fuels Reprocessing
420203 - Engineering- Handling Equipment & Procedures