Autonomous Scene Understanding, Motion Planning, and Task Execution for Geometrically Adaptive Robotized Construction Work

The construction industry suffers from such problems as high cost, poor quality, prolonged duration, and substandard safety. Robots have the potential to help alleviate such problems by becoming construction co-workers, yet they are seldom found operating on today’s construction sites. This is primarily due to the industry’s unstructured nature, substantial scale, and loose tolerances, which present additional challenges for robot operation. To help construction robots overcome such challenges and begin functioning as useful partners in human-robot construction teams, this research focuses on advancing two fundamental capabilities: enabling a robot to determine where it is located as it moves about a construction site, and enabling it to determine the actual pose and geometry of its workpieces so it can adapt its work plan and perform work. Specifically, this research first explores the use of a camera-marker sensor system for construction robot localization. To provide a mobile construction robot with the ability to estimate its own pose, a camera-marker sensor system was developed that is affordable, reconfigurable, and functional in GNSS-denied locations, such as urban areas and indoors. Excavation was used as a case study construction activity, where bucket tooth pose served as the key point of interest. The sensor system underwent several iterations of design and testing, and was found capable of estimating bucket tooth position with centimeter-level accuracy. This research also explores a framework to enable a construction robot to leverage its sensors and Building Information Model (BIM) to perceive and autonomously model the actual pose and geometry of its workpieces. Autonomous motion planning and execution methods were also developed and incorporated into the adaptive framework to enable a robot to adapt its work plan to the circumstances it encounters and perform work. The adaptive framework was implemented on a real robot and evaluated using joint filling as a case study construction task. The robot was found capable of identifying the true pose and geometry of a construction joint with an accuracy of 0.11 millimeters and 1.1 degrees. The robot also demonstrated the ability to autonomously adapt its work plan and successfully fill the joint. In all, this research is expected to serve as a basis for enabling robots to function more effectively in challenging construction environments. In particular, this work focuses on enabling robots to operate with greater functionality and versatility using methods that are generalizable to a range of construction activities. This research establishes the foundational blocks needed for humans and robots to leverage their respective strengths and function together as effective construction partners, which will lead to ubiquitous collaborative human-robot teams operating on actual construction sites, and ultimately bring the industry closer to realizing the extensive benefits of robotics.PHDCivil EngineeringUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149785/1/klundeen_1.pd

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used