https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=S169967&feedformat=atomControl Systems Technology Group - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T16:54:58ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.39.5https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_interface_and_communication_model&diff=59592User interface and communication model2018-06-17T12:26:11Z<p>S169967: /* Problem Description */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Now armed with the best mechanism for seeding from the [[Designing the robot]] section and the lessons learned from the [[Case studies]] we can talk real robot operation. However, we still need to specify how the robots will know what to do, before they can be deployed. It is already clear how they will go about their job, as it was concluded a drill mechanism would be best for the planting of seeds. This page will be dedicated to placing the ground works for a dedicated interface in which the park rangers can specify the details of the reforestation mission to the robot and how a fleet robots would be able to communicate progress with each other. <br><br />
General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Envisioned working principles of the interface ==<br />
After a forest fire has raged through a national park it will have left an a priori known area devastated which requires reforestation. The parameters defining this area, primarily its location, shape and edges can be inquired from the observations of the fire fighters or using satellite images of the area from during the forest fire. Park rangers will know the history of the national park and hence also the composition of the vegetation species in the burnt areas. The goal of the robot is not only to reforest the area but also to restore the biodiversity which was previously present in the burnt area, with the preference that the newly reforested area resembles the lost one as closely as possible. <br />
<br />
In order for the robot, or fleet of robots, to operate in such a manner that the above goal can be accomplished, the park rangers will have to communicate the appropriate parameters such as area size and shape, type of seeds, desired species composition, etc.. The easiest way to implement the biodiversity requirement would be to employ a fleet or swarm of robots, each with a reservoir filled with only a specific type of seeds. The park ranger would then only have to specify to each robot what type of seed they carry, so that the robots could infer from an internal database the properties belonging to those seeds (e.g. diameter, seeding depth, etc.) in order to know exactly how to plant the seeds. <br />
<br />
Now one non-trivial case still remains, the robot needs to know where to plant the seeds in order for the reforestation operation to be a success. We cannot just let the robots run amok and spread the seeds with complete randomness, as this will most likely result in segments of the new forest which are underseeded and only partly recover, or segments which are overseeded and lead to a high degree of competition between the tree species which also reduces total turnover. These two effects do not yet include the mutual interference the robots will have: it is quite possible that a robot will run over a previously seeded area, possibly disturbing the already sown seeds, or even worse drilling through a previously planted seed and completely destroying it. Also the robots could possibly damage each other by crashing into each other if no path planning is taken into account, further delaying the operation. The short error-analysis above reveals two crucial components which are required to solve the where question. Each robot needs to be given precise orders as to which locations it must plant its seeds, and each robots needs to able to communicate with the rest of the collective, to prevent mutual obstruction.<br />
<br />
The problem of knowing which seeds to sow where requires human intervention, as the target area, the relative occupation of the tree species, and the formation of tree colonies need to be specified. Luckily two of these parameters can be obtained from the park rangers, using thermal satellite images or mapping of the fire done by fire departments the park rangers can outline the area on a map in need of reforestation. The most user-friendly way of providing this information to the fleet of robots would be a graphical user interface (GUI) where a park ranger could click on points of the map to define the edges of the area in need of reforestation. Then the relative percentage of seeding per area have to be defined, which has to mimic the previously existing biodiversity. If the new area would have to be seeded non-uniformly or with a variable tree occupation, a next step in the GUI would be to provide the option to the park ranger to define partitions in the target area and define it into sub-areas, or grid elements as we’ll call them from now on. These element will be polygon shaped as to get the best fit to near the edges of the perimeter of the total area. Then for each element, the park ranger can specify the vegetation composition more in detail, by deselecting the plants present in the overall area selection. Then once the desired level of refinement in the map by division into elements has been reached, a computer algorithm suited for optimisation can calculate the geometrical distribution of tree species within each element, to create a point cloud representation of the elements, color coded for each tree species such that the park ranger can confirm that this computed distribution is indeed the desired one. <br><br />
However, for this method to work this requires the robots to know their exact position on the map, seeds will in general not be larger than a few centimeters, hence high planting densities could arise for some species (e.g. grasses or flowers) which would then require a high degree of precision and exhibit a great need for control. Intuitively one would say to use GPS. However standard civilian equipment GPS, that is GPS equipment which is within the price range of the budget National Parks have to acquire a fleet or reforestation robots, is only accurate up to a few meters. This is mostly because of the blocking and back scattering of GPS signals, which cannot be filtered out by most GPS software. Some GPS software exists which can filter out these effect, however they require a sophisticated antenna costing a few thousand USD (Patel, 2015) <ref> Patel, P. (2015). “Cheap Centimeter-Precision GPS For Cars, Drones, Virtual Reality”. IEEE spectrum. Retrieved from: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/transportation/self-driving/cheap-centimeterprecision-gps-for-cars-and-drones. Accessed at 11-06-2018. </ref>. Especially in a forest area, a lot of back scattering of the signal will happen because of the vegetation, which does usually does not influence precision, but accuracy. An alternative solution to this, which would also immediately tackle the problem for how communication between robots of the collective would have to occur, is to deploy beacons. A set of special beacons can be deployed at the edges of the problem in order to effectively let the robots know they should not venture beyond these beacons and allow for the operation to be contained in an area. If then another set of beacons is placed with a fixed distance between them, in the inside of this perimeter defined by the set of special beacons, they can be used to accurately triangulate the position of each robot if the beacon density (#beacons/m^2) is adequate. However, the installation of beacons is then again cost and time intensive. The most promising GPS alternative is BeiDou, which has a public accuracy of 10cm in the Asian-Pacific region. It is currently in its last developmental stage and will start releasing in 2020. As it most likely that it will take some years beyond the release, say 2025, until the technology is widespread available and accurate all over the world. Given our technology would still need some time to develop, the beacons can be used during the developing and testing stage, such that it can later be updated to the new GPS technology. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next if these beacons and not only equipped with a radio receiver/transmitter for position triangulation, but also provided with the appropriate communication protocols and antennas, they can be used for the robot collective to provide updates on the progress of individual robots. Suppose robot A has finished its job in element E4, it will then send a message to the beacon to inquire the other robots in the vicinity, which still have to do their seeding operation in element E4, that the area is currently vacant. Robot B which has been idle and waiting to plant its seeds can then enter element E4 and proceed with its seeding plan, whilst avoiding to move through the area previously seeded by robot A to not distort the seeds which were only just planted. Because of the position triangulation with the beacons, this can be done by means of path planning algorithm within the element E4. Of course this example is a simplification, where it is assumed that only 1 robot is operating in 1 element at a time to prevent the robots from interfering with each other’s task, which will most likely not happen in a real planting situation, but which will suffice for building a prototype of the GUI. <br />
<br />
The above example describes a fairly sophisticated level of autonomy of the robots which can intercommunicate to make decisions on which element to seed next. It is however most likely that unanticipated obstacles will be present during the planting operation. For example, a burnt tree could have fallen down and impede the robot from planting its seeds. If such a situation would occur the robot would have to obtain new orders about what to do; in the simplest case it could either continue its current planting operation in an element to the best extent possible, by avoiding the obstacle or it could completely abandon it and cease the planting operation. In such a case it is probably best if the park ranger made this decision, as they will have to arrange for the obstacle to be removed anyway, so it is best if they know about the obstacle’s existence as soon as possible so that they can start the appropriate countermeasures. Therefore is such a situation were to arise, the robot should send a message to the park ranger which will pop up in the GUI, asking the park ranger to select from a list of options (again in the simplest case, the options are to abort or continue the seeding operation in a particular element). If the obstacle does not require immediate action, the robot can be allowed to continue, but if the obstacle does require immediate action (e.g. in the case of a small remaining fire seat, which might still be smoldering after the forest fire) the instruction could be given to abort the operation and let the robot leave the current element. In the latter case, once the option for abandoning has been chosen, other robots which still have to seed in the same element will most likely also come across this obstacle, creating a potential clutter of incoming requests from the robots to the park rangers. To prevent this, again, the beacon system can be used to propagate this information and telling the robots that the particular cell with the obstacle is now off-limits.<br />
<br />
== Development of the interface ==<br />
From the envisioned workings of the interface the problem description, the user group and a list of design requirements for the interface is made. This is done taken into account the limited time left for the project course (2 weeks) and the desire to leave something behind which can be picked up and further developed by someone else.<br />
<br />
===Problem Description===<br />
To quickly restore the forest after a forest fire, the design of a robot was discussed to plant the seeds. The robot however needs to know where to plant what seed. This should be decided by the foresters since the foresters know what ratios of species was originally present in what area. It can not be expected that the forester is able to directly communicate with the robot due to their lack of knowledge. The goal of this interface is to bridge the communication between the foresters and the robots.<br />
<br />
===Target user group===<br />
The target group for the interface are foresters in national parks where the reforesting robots will be used. They will be in charge of the reforestation after a forest fire, which means that they should be able to fully control the robots as necessary. Since they don’t need to be adept in using technology and robotics, the interface needs to be intuitive and take care of most technical aspects below the surface. In this case the foresters only have to enter the biological and planning aspect of the reforestation. After the forester has entered what species needs to be planted in what specific area. The program behind the interface will calculate how many robots are needed for certain species and how long it will take to finish the reforestation. Via the interface the forester can check the progress of reseeding the area. <br />
<br />
===Functional Requirements===<br />
*The interface must display an area that can be selected by the user<br />
*The interface must provide the user a way to select an area within the displayed area as planting area<br />
*The interface must provide a way for the user to define the ratios of plants in the aforementioned area<br />
*The interface must provide the user with an overview of the robot division on the tasks<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to redefine the robot divisions.<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to select subdivisions in the area to edit on a smaller level<br />
*The interface should provide a confirmation screen showcasing the areas and their plans<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing area<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing subdivisions<br />
<br />
<br />
== Time estimation model ==<br />
During one of the final steps of the GUI, an estimated time for completion is given. This time is obtained by a calculation based on a couple of assumptions and model parameters which will be listed below.<br />
<br />
List of assumptions:<br />
* The robot has a constant drilling speed<br />
* The robot has a constant travelling speed<br />
* The time to retract drill from hole is 20% of time needed to make hole. This difference is caused because drill has to exert a great force to make the hole, but is free to move upwards once the hole is made.<br />
* The battery charge provides a constant work time.<br />
* There is an average time (average taken over all positions of the grid) required for the robot to drive back to the station for refilling the seeds and swapping a new battery.<br />
* There are sufficient reserve batteries to switch in between, such that robots are not taken out of the process for charging, and batteries do not deplete before a reserve battery is charged.<br />
* The robot can move in a straight line between planting positions. <br />
* The robot will detect when its battery depletes and return automatically, such that no time recovering a dead robot from site by park rangers is lost.<br />
* The refilling of seed reservoir, swapping of battery pack and the event of dropping a seed happen instantaneously.<br />
<br />
List of parameters for time calculation model:<br />
* Travel velocity of the robot; <math> v </math> [ms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Drilling rate of the robot; <math> \gamma </math> [mms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Seeding depth for species <math> j </math>; <math> h_j </math> [cm].<br />
* Average distance between planting sites of species <math> j </math>; <math> r_j </math> [m].<br />
* Total number of robots <math> N </math> [-].<br />
* Number of robots planting species <math> j </math>; <math> N_j </math> [-].<br />
* Number of seeds of species <math>j </math> to be planted; <math>\sigma_j </math> [-].<br />
* Battery life time; <math>T_{bat} </math> [h].<br />
* Seed reservoir capacity for species <math> j</math>; <math>C_j </math> [-].<br />
* Average travel time back to station; <math> \tau </math> [min]<br />
<br />
The method of calculating the time is based on calculating the time contributions of each singular task for a species <math> j </math>, as they are carried out independently, and summing over them to obtain the total time for species <math>j </math>. Next this total time is divided by the number of robots assigned to seeding species <math> j </math>, such that the real operating time is found. Lastly, the longest of these times will determine the total time for the seeding operation. Or in formulae;<br />
<br />
# Number of required refills for species <math> j</math>; <math> \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where <math> \lceil x \rceil </math> is the ceiling function applied to <math>x </math>, which rounds <math>x </math> up to the next integer, since only an integer number of refills can be made, and rounding down would result in too few seeds planted. The total time spent refilling for species <math>j </math> is then: <math> t_{ref,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where the factor 2 arises from the trip from the target reforestation area to the station and back again. <br />
# Time to drill one hole for species <math>j </math>; <math>1.2 \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. Such that the total time spent planting the seeds of species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{plant,j} = 1.2 \sigma_j \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. <br />
# The time spent travelling between consecutive seeding sites of species <math>j </math>; <math>\frac{r_j}{v} </math>, such that the total time spent travelling for species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{trav,j} = \left (\sigma_j - 1 \right ) \frac{r_j}{v} </math>, where the -1 factor comes from an additional assumption that a robot will always be able to start at some edge of the map where a seed needs to be planted, which considering our biodiversity requirement is fairly reasonable.<br />
# The total projected time for species <math>j </math>, that is the time if battery life would be taken into account is then; <math> \textstyle t_{proj,j} = \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k= ref,plant,trav </math>.<br />
# The total number of required battery recharges for species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math> \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>, where the ceiling function again takes into account only an integer number of recharges can be done. The total time spent recharging is then; <math>t_{ch,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>.<br />
# The total accumulated time for the seeding of species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math>t_j = \textstyle \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k=ref,plant,trav,ch </math>.<br />
# The actual time required for the seeding of species <math>j</math>, taking into account multiple robots assigned to one species is then; <math>T_j = \frac{t_j}{N_j}</math>.<br />
# For the entire reforestation operation this gives a set of actual times <math> \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>, where the time for the complete reforestation operation will be the maximum of this set; <math>T_{real} = \max \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>.<br />
<br />
An example matlab script, showing database information of 6 species, and calculating required time for a reforestation operation for 4 of these species is made available at:<br />
[[File:Matlabscripttimecalculation.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Of course the resulting time should not be interpreted as the physical real time for the planting operation. The time calculation model is based on some assumptions to simplify the calculation and make the algorithm generalisable for any situation. Some limiting factors of this model include the assumed flat geometry of the seeding area, the constant travel and drilling speeds, the constant battery life and the constant seed capacity. For a real life forest the geometry will most definitively not be flat, but include bumps, inclinations, curved paths due to obstacles, etc. The drilling and travelling speed will not be constant, but rather in- and decrease gradually once of these functions starts/ends, because accelerations and decelerations are needed for this, travel and drilling times will be somewhat longer. Furthermore the constant drilling speed is only true for a homogenous soil type, if the soil consists of multiple layers with each their own material properties, drilling speeds will vary between these layers. The constant battery life assumption is should be interpreted as an average battery life, as battery life will be dependent on the function the robot is performing. In general it can be stated that drilling will require significantly more power than driving, as much large forces are required to overcome the resistance of the soil to stay in its current state. Therefore robots which spent a lot of time drilling, will have their batteries depleted sooner than robots which spent a lot of time driving. Perhaps the least influential assumption is that of the constant seed capacity, although seed dispensers will be designed for a certain capacity, because the diameters of most seeds are extremely small and refilling will be done by the park rangers, it is very plausible that a refilled container will have slightly less or slightly more seeds than described. Overall these deviations from the complex situation in reality indicate that the calculated time for reforestation should be interpreted as an absolute minimum time which will be achieved only in an optimal situation.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_interface_and_communication_model&diff=59591User interface and communication model2018-06-17T12:25:39Z<p>S169967: /* Development of the interface */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Now armed with the best mechanism for seeding from the [[Designing the robot]] section and the lessons learned from the [[Case studies]] we can talk real robot operation. However, we still need to specify how the robots will know what to do, before they can be deployed. It is already clear how they will go about their job, as it was concluded a drill mechanism would be best for the planting of seeds. This page will be dedicated to placing the ground works for a dedicated interface in which the park rangers can specify the details of the reforestation mission to the robot and how a fleet robots would be able to communicate progress with each other. <br><br />
General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Envisioned working principles of the interface ==<br />
After a forest fire has raged through a national park it will have left an a priori known area devastated which requires reforestation. The parameters defining this area, primarily its location, shape and edges can be inquired from the observations of the fire fighters or using satellite images of the area from during the forest fire. Park rangers will know the history of the national park and hence also the composition of the vegetation species in the burnt areas. The goal of the robot is not only to reforest the area but also to restore the biodiversity which was previously present in the burnt area, with the preference that the newly reforested area resembles the lost one as closely as possible. <br />
<br />
In order for the robot, or fleet of robots, to operate in such a manner that the above goal can be accomplished, the park rangers will have to communicate the appropriate parameters such as area size and shape, type of seeds, desired species composition, etc.. The easiest way to implement the biodiversity requirement would be to employ a fleet or swarm of robots, each with a reservoir filled with only a specific type of seeds. The park ranger would then only have to specify to each robot what type of seed they carry, so that the robots could infer from an internal database the properties belonging to those seeds (e.g. diameter, seeding depth, etc.) in order to know exactly how to plant the seeds. <br />
<br />
Now one non-trivial case still remains, the robot needs to know where to plant the seeds in order for the reforestation operation to be a success. We cannot just let the robots run amok and spread the seeds with complete randomness, as this will most likely result in segments of the new forest which are underseeded and only partly recover, or segments which are overseeded and lead to a high degree of competition between the tree species which also reduces total turnover. These two effects do not yet include the mutual interference the robots will have: it is quite possible that a robot will run over a previously seeded area, possibly disturbing the already sown seeds, or even worse drilling through a previously planted seed and completely destroying it. Also the robots could possibly damage each other by crashing into each other if no path planning is taken into account, further delaying the operation. The short error-analysis above reveals two crucial components which are required to solve the where question. Each robot needs to be given precise orders as to which locations it must plant its seeds, and each robots needs to able to communicate with the rest of the collective, to prevent mutual obstruction.<br />
<br />
The problem of knowing which seeds to sow where requires human intervention, as the target area, the relative occupation of the tree species, and the formation of tree colonies need to be specified. Luckily two of these parameters can be obtained from the park rangers, using thermal satellite images or mapping of the fire done by fire departments the park rangers can outline the area on a map in need of reforestation. The most user-friendly way of providing this information to the fleet of robots would be a graphical user interface (GUI) where a park ranger could click on points of the map to define the edges of the area in need of reforestation. Then the relative percentage of seeding per area have to be defined, which has to mimic the previously existing biodiversity. If the new area would have to be seeded non-uniformly or with a variable tree occupation, a next step in the GUI would be to provide the option to the park ranger to define partitions in the target area and define it into sub-areas, or grid elements as we’ll call them from now on. These element will be polygon shaped as to get the best fit to near the edges of the perimeter of the total area. Then for each element, the park ranger can specify the vegetation composition more in detail, by deselecting the plants present in the overall area selection. Then once the desired level of refinement in the map by division into elements has been reached, a computer algorithm suited for optimisation can calculate the geometrical distribution of tree species within each element, to create a point cloud representation of the elements, color coded for each tree species such that the park ranger can confirm that this computed distribution is indeed the desired one. <br><br />
However, for this method to work this requires the robots to know their exact position on the map, seeds will in general not be larger than a few centimeters, hence high planting densities could arise for some species (e.g. grasses or flowers) which would then require a high degree of precision and exhibit a great need for control. Intuitively one would say to use GPS. However standard civilian equipment GPS, that is GPS equipment which is within the price range of the budget National Parks have to acquire a fleet or reforestation robots, is only accurate up to a few meters. This is mostly because of the blocking and back scattering of GPS signals, which cannot be filtered out by most GPS software. Some GPS software exists which can filter out these effect, however they require a sophisticated antenna costing a few thousand USD (Patel, 2015) <ref> Patel, P. (2015). “Cheap Centimeter-Precision GPS For Cars, Drones, Virtual Reality”. IEEE spectrum. Retrieved from: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/transportation/self-driving/cheap-centimeterprecision-gps-for-cars-and-drones. Accessed at 11-06-2018. </ref>. Especially in a forest area, a lot of back scattering of the signal will happen because of the vegetation, which does usually does not influence precision, but accuracy. An alternative solution to this, which would also immediately tackle the problem for how communication between robots of the collective would have to occur, is to deploy beacons. A set of special beacons can be deployed at the edges of the problem in order to effectively let the robots know they should not venture beyond these beacons and allow for the operation to be contained in an area. If then another set of beacons is placed with a fixed distance between them, in the inside of this perimeter defined by the set of special beacons, they can be used to accurately triangulate the position of each robot if the beacon density (#beacons/m^2) is adequate. However, the installation of beacons is then again cost and time intensive. The most promising GPS alternative is BeiDou, which has a public accuracy of 10cm in the Asian-Pacific region. It is currently in its last developmental stage and will start releasing in 2020. As it most likely that it will take some years beyond the release, say 2025, until the technology is widespread available and accurate all over the world. Given our technology would still need some time to develop, the beacons can be used during the developing and testing stage, such that it can later be updated to the new GPS technology. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next if these beacons and not only equipped with a radio receiver/transmitter for position triangulation, but also provided with the appropriate communication protocols and antennas, they can be used for the robot collective to provide updates on the progress of individual robots. Suppose robot A has finished its job in element E4, it will then send a message to the beacon to inquire the other robots in the vicinity, which still have to do their seeding operation in element E4, that the area is currently vacant. Robot B which has been idle and waiting to plant its seeds can then enter element E4 and proceed with its seeding plan, whilst avoiding to move through the area previously seeded by robot A to not distort the seeds which were only just planted. Because of the position triangulation with the beacons, this can be done by means of path planning algorithm within the element E4. Of course this example is a simplification, where it is assumed that only 1 robot is operating in 1 element at a time to prevent the robots from interfering with each other’s task, which will most likely not happen in a real planting situation, but which will suffice for building a prototype of the GUI. <br />
<br />
The above example describes a fairly sophisticated level of autonomy of the robots which can intercommunicate to make decisions on which element to seed next. It is however most likely that unanticipated obstacles will be present during the planting operation. For example, a burnt tree could have fallen down and impede the robot from planting its seeds. If such a situation would occur the robot would have to obtain new orders about what to do; in the simplest case it could either continue its current planting operation in an element to the best extent possible, by avoiding the obstacle or it could completely abandon it and cease the planting operation. In such a case it is probably best if the park ranger made this decision, as they will have to arrange for the obstacle to be removed anyway, so it is best if they know about the obstacle’s existence as soon as possible so that they can start the appropriate countermeasures. Therefore is such a situation were to arise, the robot should send a message to the park ranger which will pop up in the GUI, asking the park ranger to select from a list of options (again in the simplest case, the options are to abort or continue the seeding operation in a particular element). If the obstacle does not require immediate action, the robot can be allowed to continue, but if the obstacle does require immediate action (e.g. in the case of a small remaining fire seat, which might still be smoldering after the forest fire) the instruction could be given to abort the operation and let the robot leave the current element. In the latter case, once the option for abandoning has been chosen, other robots which still have to seed in the same element will most likely also come across this obstacle, creating a potential clutter of incoming requests from the robots to the park rangers. To prevent this, again, the beacon system can be used to propagate this information and telling the robots that the particular cell with the obstacle is now off-limits.<br />
<br />
== Development of the interface ==<br />
From the envisioned workings of the interface the problem description, the user group and a list of design requirements for the interface is made. This is done taken into account the limited time left for the project course (2 weeks) and the desire to leave something behind which can be picked up and further developed by someone else.<br />
<br />
===Problem Description===<br />
To quickly restore the forest after a forest fire the design of a robot was discussed to plant the seeds. The robot however needs to know where to plant what seed. This should be decided by the foresters since the foresters know what ratios of species was originally present in what area. It can not be expected that the forester is able to directly communicate with the robot due to their lack of knowledge. The goal of this interface is to bridge the communication between the foresters and the robots. <br />
<br />
===Target user group===<br />
The target group for the interface are foresters in national parks where the reforesting robots will be used. They will be in charge of the reforestation after a forest fire, which means that they should be able to fully control the robots as necessary. Since they don’t need to be adept in using technology and robotics, the interface needs to be intuitive and take care of most technical aspects below the surface. In this case the foresters only have to enter the biological and planning aspect of the reforestation. After the forester has entered what species needs to be planted in what specific area. The program behind the interface will calculate how many robots are needed for certain species and how long it will take to finish the reforestation. Via the interface the forester can check the progress of reseeding the area. <br />
<br />
===Functional Requirements===<br />
*The interface must display an area that can be selected by the user<br />
*The interface must provide the user a way to select an area within the displayed area as planting area<br />
*The interface must provide a way for the user to define the ratios of plants in the aforementioned area<br />
*The interface must provide the user with an overview of the robot division on the tasks<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to redefine the robot divisions.<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to select subdivisions in the area to edit on a smaller level<br />
*The interface should provide a confirmation screen showcasing the areas and their plans<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing area<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing subdivisions<br />
<br />
<br />
== Time estimation model ==<br />
During one of the final steps of the GUI, an estimated time for completion is given. This time is obtained by a calculation based on a couple of assumptions and model parameters which will be listed below.<br />
<br />
List of assumptions:<br />
* The robot has a constant drilling speed<br />
* The robot has a constant travelling speed<br />
* The time to retract drill from hole is 20% of time needed to make hole. This difference is caused because drill has to exert a great force to make the hole, but is free to move upwards once the hole is made.<br />
* The battery charge provides a constant work time.<br />
* There is an average time (average taken over all positions of the grid) required for the robot to drive back to the station for refilling the seeds and swapping a new battery.<br />
* There are sufficient reserve batteries to switch in between, such that robots are not taken out of the process for charging, and batteries do not deplete before a reserve battery is charged.<br />
* The robot can move in a straight line between planting positions. <br />
* The robot will detect when its battery depletes and return automatically, such that no time recovering a dead robot from site by park rangers is lost.<br />
* The refilling of seed reservoir, swapping of battery pack and the event of dropping a seed happen instantaneously.<br />
<br />
List of parameters for time calculation model:<br />
* Travel velocity of the robot; <math> v </math> [ms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Drilling rate of the robot; <math> \gamma </math> [mms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Seeding depth for species <math> j </math>; <math> h_j </math> [cm].<br />
* Average distance between planting sites of species <math> j </math>; <math> r_j </math> [m].<br />
* Total number of robots <math> N </math> [-].<br />
* Number of robots planting species <math> j </math>; <math> N_j </math> [-].<br />
* Number of seeds of species <math>j </math> to be planted; <math>\sigma_j </math> [-].<br />
* Battery life time; <math>T_{bat} </math> [h].<br />
* Seed reservoir capacity for species <math> j</math>; <math>C_j </math> [-].<br />
* Average travel time back to station; <math> \tau </math> [min]<br />
<br />
The method of calculating the time is based on calculating the time contributions of each singular task for a species <math> j </math>, as they are carried out independently, and summing over them to obtain the total time for species <math>j </math>. Next this total time is divided by the number of robots assigned to seeding species <math> j </math>, such that the real operating time is found. Lastly, the longest of these times will determine the total time for the seeding operation. Or in formulae;<br />
<br />
# Number of required refills for species <math> j</math>; <math> \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where <math> \lceil x \rceil </math> is the ceiling function applied to <math>x </math>, which rounds <math>x </math> up to the next integer, since only an integer number of refills can be made, and rounding down would result in too few seeds planted. The total time spent refilling for species <math>j </math> is then: <math> t_{ref,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where the factor 2 arises from the trip from the target reforestation area to the station and back again. <br />
# Time to drill one hole for species <math>j </math>; <math>1.2 \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. Such that the total time spent planting the seeds of species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{plant,j} = 1.2 \sigma_j \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. <br />
# The time spent travelling between consecutive seeding sites of species <math>j </math>; <math>\frac{r_j}{v} </math>, such that the total time spent travelling for species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{trav,j} = \left (\sigma_j - 1 \right ) \frac{r_j}{v} </math>, where the -1 factor comes from an additional assumption that a robot will always be able to start at some edge of the map where a seed needs to be planted, which considering our biodiversity requirement is fairly reasonable.<br />
# The total projected time for species <math>j </math>, that is the time if battery life would be taken into account is then; <math> \textstyle t_{proj,j} = \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k= ref,plant,trav </math>.<br />
# The total number of required battery recharges for species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math> \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>, where the ceiling function again takes into account only an integer number of recharges can be done. The total time spent recharging is then; <math>t_{ch,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>.<br />
# The total accumulated time for the seeding of species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math>t_j = \textstyle \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k=ref,plant,trav,ch </math>.<br />
# The actual time required for the seeding of species <math>j</math>, taking into account multiple robots assigned to one species is then; <math>T_j = \frac{t_j}{N_j}</math>.<br />
# For the entire reforestation operation this gives a set of actual times <math> \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>, where the time for the complete reforestation operation will be the maximum of this set; <math>T_{real} = \max \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>.<br />
<br />
An example matlab script, showing database information of 6 species, and calculating required time for a reforestation operation for 4 of these species is made available at:<br />
[[File:Matlabscripttimecalculation.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Of course the resulting time should not be interpreted as the physical real time for the planting operation. The time calculation model is based on some assumptions to simplify the calculation and make the algorithm generalisable for any situation. Some limiting factors of this model include the assumed flat geometry of the seeding area, the constant travel and drilling speeds, the constant battery life and the constant seed capacity. For a real life forest the geometry will most definitively not be flat, but include bumps, inclinations, curved paths due to obstacles, etc. The drilling and travelling speed will not be constant, but rather in- and decrease gradually once of these functions starts/ends, because accelerations and decelerations are needed for this, travel and drilling times will be somewhat longer. Furthermore the constant drilling speed is only true for a homogenous soil type, if the soil consists of multiple layers with each their own material properties, drilling speeds will vary between these layers. The constant battery life assumption is should be interpreted as an average battery life, as battery life will be dependent on the function the robot is performing. In general it can be stated that drilling will require significantly more power than driving, as much large forces are required to overcome the resistance of the soil to stay in its current state. Therefore robots which spent a lot of time drilling, will have their batteries depleted sooner than robots which spent a lot of time driving. Perhaps the least influential assumption is that of the constant seed capacity, although seed dispensers will be designed for a certain capacity, because the diameters of most seeds are extremely small and refilling will be done by the park rangers, it is very plausible that a refilled container will have slightly less or slightly more seeds than described. Overall these deviations from the complex situation in reality indicate that the calculated time for reforestation should be interpreted as an absolute minimum time which will be achieved only in an optimal situation.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_interface_and_communication_model&diff=59590User interface and communication model2018-06-17T12:23:52Z<p>S169967: /* The interface for reforestation robots */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Now armed with the best mechanism for seeding from the [[Designing the robot]] section and the lessons learned from the [[Case studies]] we can talk real robot operation. However, we still need to specify how the robots will know what to do, before they can be deployed. It is already clear how they will go about their job, as it was concluded a drill mechanism would be best for the planting of seeds. This page will be dedicated to placing the ground works for a dedicated interface in which the park rangers can specify the details of the reforestation mission to the robot and how a fleet robots would be able to communicate progress with each other. <br><br />
General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Envisioned working principles of the interface ==<br />
After a forest fire has raged through a national park it will have left an a priori known area devastated which requires reforestation. The parameters defining this area, primarily its location, shape and edges can be inquired from the observations of the fire fighters or using satellite images of the area from during the forest fire. Park rangers will know the history of the national park and hence also the composition of the vegetation species in the burnt areas. The goal of the robot is not only to reforest the area but also to restore the biodiversity which was previously present in the burnt area, with the preference that the newly reforested area resembles the lost one as closely as possible. <br />
<br />
In order for the robot, or fleet of robots, to operate in such a manner that the above goal can be accomplished, the park rangers will have to communicate the appropriate parameters such as area size and shape, type of seeds, desired species composition, etc.. The easiest way to implement the biodiversity requirement would be to employ a fleet or swarm of robots, each with a reservoir filled with only a specific type of seeds. The park ranger would then only have to specify to each robot what type of seed they carry, so that the robots could infer from an internal database the properties belonging to those seeds (e.g. diameter, seeding depth, etc.) in order to know exactly how to plant the seeds. <br />
<br />
Now one non-trivial case still remains, the robot needs to know where to plant the seeds in order for the reforestation operation to be a success. We cannot just let the robots run amok and spread the seeds with complete randomness, as this will most likely result in segments of the new forest which are underseeded and only partly recover, or segments which are overseeded and lead to a high degree of competition between the tree species which also reduces total turnover. These two effects do not yet include the mutual interference the robots will have: it is quite possible that a robot will run over a previously seeded area, possibly disturbing the already sown seeds, or even worse drilling through a previously planted seed and completely destroying it. Also the robots could possibly damage each other by crashing into each other if no path planning is taken into account, further delaying the operation. The short error-analysis above reveals two crucial components which are required to solve the where question. Each robot needs to be given precise orders as to which locations it must plant its seeds, and each robots needs to able to communicate with the rest of the collective, to prevent mutual obstruction.<br />
<br />
The problem of knowing which seeds to sow where requires human intervention, as the target area, the relative occupation of the tree species, and the formation of tree colonies need to be specified. Luckily two of these parameters can be obtained from the park rangers, using thermal satellite images or mapping of the fire done by fire departments the park rangers can outline the area on a map in need of reforestation. The most user-friendly way of providing this information to the fleet of robots would be a graphical user interface (GUI) where a park ranger could click on points of the map to define the edges of the area in need of reforestation. Then the relative percentage of seeding per area have to be defined, which has to mimic the previously existing biodiversity. If the new area would have to be seeded non-uniformly or with a variable tree occupation, a next step in the GUI would be to provide the option to the park ranger to define partitions in the target area and define it into sub-areas, or grid elements as we’ll call them from now on. These element will be polygon shaped as to get the best fit to near the edges of the perimeter of the total area. Then for each element, the park ranger can specify the vegetation composition more in detail, by deselecting the plants present in the overall area selection. Then once the desired level of refinement in the map by division into elements has been reached, a computer algorithm suited for optimisation can calculate the geometrical distribution of tree species within each element, to create a point cloud representation of the elements, color coded for each tree species such that the park ranger can confirm that this computed distribution is indeed the desired one. <br><br />
However, for this method to work this requires the robots to know their exact position on the map, seeds will in general not be larger than a few centimeters, hence high planting densities could arise for some species (e.g. grasses or flowers) which would then require a high degree of precision and exhibit a great need for control. Intuitively one would say to use GPS. However standard civilian equipment GPS, that is GPS equipment which is within the price range of the budget National Parks have to acquire a fleet or reforestation robots, is only accurate up to a few meters. This is mostly because of the blocking and back scattering of GPS signals, which cannot be filtered out by most GPS software. Some GPS software exists which can filter out these effect, however they require a sophisticated antenna costing a few thousand USD (Patel, 2015) <ref> Patel, P. (2015). “Cheap Centimeter-Precision GPS For Cars, Drones, Virtual Reality”. IEEE spectrum. Retrieved from: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/transportation/self-driving/cheap-centimeterprecision-gps-for-cars-and-drones. Accessed at 11-06-2018. </ref>. Especially in a forest area, a lot of back scattering of the signal will happen because of the vegetation, which does usually does not influence precision, but accuracy. An alternative solution to this, which would also immediately tackle the problem for how communication between robots of the collective would have to occur, is to deploy beacons. A set of special beacons can be deployed at the edges of the problem in order to effectively let the robots know they should not venture beyond these beacons and allow for the operation to be contained in an area. If then another set of beacons is placed with a fixed distance between them, in the inside of this perimeter defined by the set of special beacons, they can be used to accurately triangulate the position of each robot if the beacon density (#beacons/m^2) is adequate. However, the installation of beacons is then again cost and time intensive. The most promising GPS alternative is BeiDou, which has a public accuracy of 10cm in the Asian-Pacific region. It is currently in its last developmental stage and will start releasing in 2020. As it most likely that it will take some years beyond the release, say 2025, until the technology is widespread available and accurate all over the world. Given our technology would still need some time to develop, the beacons can be used during the developing and testing stage, such that it can later be updated to the new GPS technology. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next if these beacons and not only equipped with a radio receiver/transmitter for position triangulation, but also provided with the appropriate communication protocols and antennas, they can be used for the robot collective to provide updates on the progress of individual robots. Suppose robot A has finished its job in element E4, it will then send a message to the beacon to inquire the other robots in the vicinity, which still have to do their seeding operation in element E4, that the area is currently vacant. Robot B which has been idle and waiting to plant its seeds can then enter element E4 and proceed with its seeding plan, whilst avoiding to move through the area previously seeded by robot A to not distort the seeds which were only just planted. Because of the position triangulation with the beacons, this can be done by means of path planning algorithm within the element E4. Of course this example is a simplification, where it is assumed that only 1 robot is operating in 1 element at a time to prevent the robots from interfering with each other’s task, which will most likely not happen in a real planting situation, but which will suffice for building a prototype of the GUI. <br />
<br />
The above example describes a fairly sophisticated level of autonomy of the robots which can intercommunicate to make decisions on which element to seed next. It is however most likely that unanticipated obstacles will be present during the planting operation. For example, a burnt tree could have fallen down and impede the robot from planting its seeds. If such a situation would occur the robot would have to obtain new orders about what to do; in the simplest case it could either continue its current planting operation in an element to the best extent possible, by avoiding the obstacle or it could completely abandon it and cease the planting operation. In such a case it is probably best if the park ranger made this decision, as they will have to arrange for the obstacle to be removed anyway, so it is best if they know about the obstacle’s existence as soon as possible so that they can start the appropriate countermeasures. Therefore is such a situation were to arise, the robot should send a message to the park ranger which will pop up in the GUI, asking the park ranger to select from a list of options (again in the simplest case, the options are to abort or continue the seeding operation in a particular element). If the obstacle does not require immediate action, the robot can be allowed to continue, but if the obstacle does require immediate action (e.g. in the case of a small remaining fire seat, which might still be smoldering after the forest fire) the instruction could be given to abort the operation and let the robot leave the current element. In the latter case, once the option for abandoning has been chosen, other robots which still have to seed in the same element will most likely also come across this obstacle, creating a potential clutter of incoming requests from the robots to the park rangers. To prevent this, again, the beacon system can be used to propagate this information and telling the robots that the particular cell with the obstacle is now off-limits.<br />
<br />
== Development of the interface ==<br />
From the envisioned workings of the interface a list of design requirements and preferences for the interface is made. This is done taken into account the limited time left for the project course (2 weeks) and the desire to leave something behind which can be picked up and further developed by someone else.<br />
<br />
During one of the final steps of the GUI, an estimated time for completion is given. This time is obtained by a calculation based on a couple of assumptions and model parameters which will be listed below.<br />
<br />
List of assumptions:<br />
* The robot has a constant drilling speed<br />
* The robot has a constant travelling speed<br />
* The time to retract drill from hole is 20% of time needed to make hole. This difference is caused because drill has to exert a great force to make the hole, but is free to move upwards once the hole is made.<br />
* The battery charge provides a constant work time.<br />
* There is an average time (average taken over all positions of the grid) required for the robot to drive back to the station for refilling the seeds and swapping a new battery.<br />
* There are sufficient reserve batteries to switch in between, such that robots are not taken out of the process for charging, and batteries do not deplete before a reserve battery is charged.<br />
* The robot can move in a straight line between planting positions. <br />
* The robot will detect when its battery depletes and return automatically, such that no time recovering a dead robot from site by park rangers is lost.<br />
* The refilling of seed reservoir, swapping of battery pack and the event of dropping a seed happen instantaneously.<br />
<br />
List of parameters for time calculation model:<br />
* Travel velocity of the robot; <math> v </math> [ms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Drilling rate of the robot; <math> \gamma </math> [mms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Seeding depth for species <math> j </math>; <math> h_j </math> [cm].<br />
* Average distance between planting sites of species <math> j </math>; <math> r_j </math> [m].<br />
* Total number of robots <math> N </math> [-].<br />
* Number of robots planting species <math> j </math>; <math> N_j </math> [-].<br />
* Number of seeds of species <math>j </math> to be planted; <math>\sigma_j </math> [-].<br />
* Battery life time; <math>T_{bat} </math> [h].<br />
* Seed reservoir capacity for species <math> j</math>; <math>C_j </math> [-].<br />
* Average travel time back to station; <math> \tau </math> [min]<br />
<br />
The method of calculating the time is based on calculating the time contributions of each singular task for a species <math> j </math>, as they are carried out independently, and summing over them to obtain the total time for species <math>j </math>. Next this total time is divided by the number of robots assigned to seeding species <math> j </math>, such that the real operating time is found. Lastly, the longest of these times will determine the total time for the seeding operation. Or in formulae;<br />
<br />
# Number of required refills for species <math> j</math>; <math> \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where <math> \lceil x \rceil </math> is the ceiling function applied to <math>x </math>, which rounds <math>x </math> up to the next integer, since only an integer number of refills can be made, and rounding down would result in too few seeds planted. The total time spent refilling for species <math>j </math> is then: <math> t_{ref,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where the factor 2 arises from the trip from the target reforestation area to the station and back again. <br />
# Time to drill one hole for species <math>j </math>; <math>1.2 \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. Such that the total time spent planting the seeds of species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{plant,j} = 1.2 \sigma_j \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. <br />
# The time spent travelling between consecutive seeding sites of species <math>j </math>; <math>\frac{r_j}{v} </math>, such that the total time spent travelling for species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{trav,j} = \left (\sigma_j - 1 \right ) \frac{r_j}{v} </math>, where the -1 factor comes from an additional assumption that a robot will always be able to start at some edge of the map where a seed needs to be planted, which considering our biodiversity requirement is fairly reasonable.<br />
# The total projected time for species <math>j </math>, that is the time if battery life would be taken into account is then; <math> \textstyle t_{proj,j} = \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k= ref,plant,trav </math>.<br />
# The total number of required battery recharges for species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math> \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>, where the ceiling function again takes into account only an integer number of recharges can be done. The total time spent recharging is then; <math>t_{ch,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>.<br />
# The total accumulated time for the seeding of species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math>t_j = \textstyle \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k=ref,plant,trav,ch </math>.<br />
# The actual time required for the seeding of species <math>j</math>, taking into account multiple robots assigned to one species is then; <math>T_j = \frac{t_j}{N_j}</math>.<br />
# For the entire reforestation operation this gives a set of actual times <math> \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>, where the time for the complete reforestation operation will be the maximum of this set; <math>T_{real} = \max \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>.<br />
<br />
An example matlab script, showing database information of 6 species, and calculating required time for a reforestation operation for 4 of these species is made available at:<br />
[[File:Matlabscripttimecalculation.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Of course the resulting time should not be interpreted as the physical real time for the planting operation. The time calculation model is based on some assumptions to simplify the calculation and make the algorithm generalisable for any situation. Some limiting factors of this model include the assumed flat geometry of the seeding area, the constant travel and drilling speeds, the constant battery life and the constant seed capacity. For a real life forest the geometry will most definitively not be flat, but include bumps, inclinations, curved paths due to obstacles, etc. The drilling and travelling speed will not be constant, but rather in- and decrease gradually once of these functions starts/ends, because accelerations and decelerations are needed for this, travel and drilling times will be somewhat longer. Furthermore the constant drilling speed is only true for a homogenous soil type, if the soil consists of multiple layers with each their own material properties, drilling speeds will vary between these layers. The constant battery life assumption is should be interpreted as an average battery life, as battery life will be dependent on the function the robot is performing. In general it can be stated that drilling will require significantly more power than driving, as much large forces are required to overcome the resistance of the soil to stay in its current state. Therefore robots which spent a lot of time drilling, will have their batteries depleted sooner than robots which spent a lot of time driving. Perhaps the least influential assumption is that of the constant seed capacity, although seed dispensers will be designed for a certain capacity, because the diameters of most seeds are extremely small and refilling will be done by the park rangers, it is very plausible that a refilled container will have slightly less or slightly more seeds than described. Overall these deviations from the complex situation in reality indicate that the calculated time for reforestation should be interpreted as an absolute minimum time which will be achieved only in an optimal situation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_interface_and_communication_model&diff=59589User interface and communication model2018-06-17T12:14:42Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Now armed with the best mechanism for seeding from the [[Designing the robot]] section and the lessons learned from the [[Case studies]] we can talk real robot operation. However, we still need to specify how the robots will know what to do, before they can be deployed. It is already clear how they will go about their job, as it was concluded a drill mechanism would be best for the planting of seeds. This page will be dedicated to placing the ground works for a dedicated interface in which the park rangers can specify the details of the reforestation mission to the robot and how a fleet robots would be able to communicate progress with each other. <br><br />
General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==The interface for reforestation robots==<br />
<br />
===Problem Description===<br />
To quickly restore the forest after a forest fire the design of a robot was discussed to plant the seeds. The robot however needs to know where to plant what seed. This should be decided by the foresters since the foresters know what ratios of species was originally present in what area. It can not be expected that the forester is able to directly communicate with the robot due to their lack of knowledge. The goal of this interface is to bridge the communication between the foresters and the robots. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Target user group===<br />
The target group for the interface are foresters in national parks where the reforesting robots will be used. They will be in charge of the reforestation after a forest fire, which means that they should be able to fully control the robots as necessary. Since they don’t need to be adept in using technology and robotics, the interface needs to be intuitive and take care of most technical aspects below the surface. In this case the foresters only have to enter the biological and planning aspect of the reforestation. After the forester has entered what species needs to be planted in what specific area. The program behind the interface will calculate how many robots are needed for certain species and how long it will take to finish the reforestation. Via the interface the forester can check the progress of reseeding the area. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Functional Requirements===<br />
*The interface must display an area that can be selected by the user<br />
*The interface must provide the user a way to select an area within the displayed area as planting area<br />
*The interface must provide a way for the user to define the ratios of plants in the aforementioned area<br />
*The interface must provide the user with an overview of the robot division on the tasks<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to redefine the robot divisions.<br />
*The interface should provide the a way to select subdivisions in the area to edit on a smaller level<br />
*The interface should provide a confirmation screen showcasing the areas and their plans<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing area<br />
*The interface should provide a way to edit the existing subdivisions<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Envisioned working principles of the interface ==<br />
After a forest fire has raged through a national park it will have left an a priori known area devastated which requires reforestation. The parameters defining this area, primarily its location, shape and edges can be inquired from the observations of the fire fighters or using satellite images of the area from during the forest fire. Park rangers will know the history of the national park and hence also the composition of the vegetation species in the burnt areas. The goal of the robot is not only to reforest the area but also to restore the biodiversity which was previously present in the burnt area, with the preference that the newly reforested area resembles the lost one as closely as possible. <br />
<br />
In order for the robot, or fleet of robots, to operate in such a manner that the above goal can be accomplished, the park rangers will have to communicate the appropriate parameters such as area size and shape, type of seeds, desired species composition, etc.. The easiest way to implement the biodiversity requirement would be to employ a fleet or swarm of robots, each with a reservoir filled with only a specific type of seeds. The park ranger would then only have to specify to each robot what type of seed they carry, so that the robots could infer from an internal database the properties belonging to those seeds (e.g. diameter, seeding depth, etc.) in order to know exactly how to plant the seeds. <br />
<br />
Now one non-trivial case still remains, the robot needs to know where to plant the seeds in order for the reforestation operation to be a success. We cannot just let the robots run amok and spread the seeds with complete randomness, as this will most likely result in segments of the new forest which are underseeded and only partly recover, or segments which are overseeded and lead to a high degree of competition between the tree species which also reduces total turnover. These two effects do not yet include the mutual interference the robots will have: it is quite possible that a robot will run over a previously seeded area, possibly disturbing the already sown seeds, or even worse drilling through a previously planted seed and completely destroying it. Also the robots could possibly damage each other by crashing into each other if no path planning is taken into account, further delaying the operation. The short error-analysis above reveals two crucial components which are required to solve the where question. Each robot needs to be given precise orders as to which locations it must plant its seeds, and each robots needs to able to communicate with the rest of the collective, to prevent mutual obstruction.<br />
<br />
The problem of knowing which seeds to sow where requires human intervention, as the target area, the relative occupation of the tree species, and the formation of tree colonies need to be specified. Luckily two of these parameters can be obtained from the park rangers, using thermal satellite images or mapping of the fire done by fire departments the park rangers can outline the area on a map in need of reforestation. The most user-friendly way of providing this information to the fleet of robots would be a graphical user interface (GUI) where a park ranger could click on points of the map to define the edges of the area in need of reforestation. Then the relative percentage of seeding per area have to be defined, which has to mimic the previously existing biodiversity. If the new area would have to be seeded non-uniformly or with a variable tree occupation, a next step in the GUI would be to provide the option to the park ranger to define partitions in the target area and define it into sub-areas, or grid elements as we’ll call them from now on. These element will be polygon shaped as to get the best fit to near the edges of the perimeter of the total area. Then for each element, the park ranger can specify the vegetation composition more in detail, by deselecting the plants present in the overall area selection. Then once the desired level of refinement in the map by division into elements has been reached, a computer algorithm suited for optimisation can calculate the geometrical distribution of tree species within each element, to create a point cloud representation of the elements, color coded for each tree species such that the park ranger can confirm that this computed distribution is indeed the desired one. <br><br />
However, for this method to work this requires the robots to know their exact position on the map, seeds will in general not be larger than a few centimeters, hence high planting densities could arise for some species (e.g. grasses or flowers) which would then require a high degree of precision and exhibit a great need for control. Intuitively one would say to use GPS. However standard civilian equipment GPS, that is GPS equipment which is within the price range of the budget National Parks have to acquire a fleet or reforestation robots, is only accurate up to a few meters. This is mostly because of the blocking and back scattering of GPS signals, which cannot be filtered out by most GPS software. Some GPS software exists which can filter out these effect, however they require a sophisticated antenna costing a few thousand USD (Patel, 2015) <ref> Patel, P. (2015). “Cheap Centimeter-Precision GPS For Cars, Drones, Virtual Reality”. IEEE spectrum. Retrieved from: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/transportation/self-driving/cheap-centimeterprecision-gps-for-cars-and-drones. Accessed at 11-06-2018. </ref>. Especially in a forest area, a lot of back scattering of the signal will happen because of the vegetation, which does usually does not influence precision, but accuracy. An alternative solution to this, which would also immediately tackle the problem for how communication between robots of the collective would have to occur, is to deploy beacons. A set of special beacons can be deployed at the edges of the problem in order to effectively let the robots know they should not venture beyond these beacons and allow for the operation to be contained in an area. If then another set of beacons is placed with a fixed distance between them, in the inside of this perimeter defined by the set of special beacons, they can be used to accurately triangulate the position of each robot if the beacon density (#beacons/m^2) is adequate. However, the installation of beacons is then again cost and time intensive. The most promising GPS alternative is BeiDou, which has a public accuracy of 10cm in the Asian-Pacific region. It is currently in its last developmental stage and will start releasing in 2020. As it most likely that it will take some years beyond the release, say 2025, until the technology is widespread available and accurate all over the world. Given our technology would still need some time to develop, the beacons can be used during the developing and testing stage, such that it can later be updated to the new GPS technology. <br />
<br />
<br />
Next if these beacons and not only equipped with a radio receiver/transmitter for position triangulation, but also provided with the appropriate communication protocols and antennas, they can be used for the robot collective to provide updates on the progress of individual robots. Suppose robot A has finished its job in element E4, it will then send a message to the beacon to inquire the other robots in the vicinity, which still have to do their seeding operation in element E4, that the area is currently vacant. Robot B which has been idle and waiting to plant its seeds can then enter element E4 and proceed with its seeding plan, whilst avoiding to move through the area previously seeded by robot A to not distort the seeds which were only just planted. Because of the position triangulation with the beacons, this can be done by means of path planning algorithm within the element E4. Of course this example is a simplification, where it is assumed that only 1 robot is operating in 1 element at a time to prevent the robots from interfering with each other’s task, which will most likely not happen in a real planting situation, but which will suffice for building a prototype of the GUI. <br />
<br />
The above example describes a fairly sophisticated level of autonomy of the robots which can intercommunicate to make decisions on which element to seed next. It is however most likely that unanticipated obstacles will be present during the planting operation. For example, a burnt tree could have fallen down and impede the robot from planting its seeds. If such a situation would occur the robot would have to obtain new orders about what to do; in the simplest case it could either continue its current planting operation in an element to the best extent possible, by avoiding the obstacle or it could completely abandon it and cease the planting operation. In such a case it is probably best if the park ranger made this decision, as they will have to arrange for the obstacle to be removed anyway, so it is best if they know about the obstacle’s existence as soon as possible so that they can start the appropriate countermeasures. Therefore is such a situation were to arise, the robot should send a message to the park ranger which will pop up in the GUI, asking the park ranger to select from a list of options (again in the simplest case, the options are to abort or continue the seeding operation in a particular element). If the obstacle does not require immediate action, the robot can be allowed to continue, but if the obstacle does require immediate action (e.g. in the case of a small remaining fire seat, which might still be smoldering after the forest fire) the instruction could be given to abort the operation and let the robot leave the current element. In the latter case, once the option for abandoning has been chosen, other robots which still have to seed in the same element will most likely also come across this obstacle, creating a potential clutter of incoming requests from the robots to the park rangers. To prevent this, again, the beacon system can be used to propagate this information and telling the robots that the particular cell with the obstacle is now off-limits.<br />
<br />
== Development of the interface ==<br />
From the envisioned workings of the interface a list of design requirements and preferences for the interface is made. This is done taken into account the limited time left for the project course (2 weeks) and the desire to leave something behind which can be picked up and further developed by someone else.<br />
<br />
During one of the final steps of the GUI, an estimated time for completion is given. This time is obtained by a calculation based on a couple of assumptions and model parameters which will be listed below.<br />
<br />
List of assumptions:<br />
* The robot has a constant drilling speed<br />
* The robot has a constant travelling speed<br />
* The time to retract drill from hole is 20% of time needed to make hole. This difference is caused because drill has to exert a great force to make the hole, but is free to move upwards once the hole is made.<br />
* The battery charge provides a constant work time.<br />
* There is an average time (average taken over all positions of the grid) required for the robot to drive back to the station for refilling the seeds and swapping a new battery.<br />
* There are sufficient reserve batteries to switch in between, such that robots are not taken out of the process for charging, and batteries do not deplete before a reserve battery is charged.<br />
* The robot can move in a straight line between planting positions. <br />
* The robot will detect when its battery depletes and return automatically, such that no time recovering a dead robot from site by park rangers is lost.<br />
* The refilling of seed reservoir, swapping of battery pack and the event of dropping a seed happen instantaneously.<br />
<br />
List of parameters for time calculation model:<br />
* Travel velocity of the robot; <math> v </math> [ms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Drilling rate of the robot; <math> \gamma </math> [mms<sup>-1</sup>].<br />
* Seeding depth for species <math> j </math>; <math> h_j </math> [cm].<br />
* Average distance between planting sites of species <math> j </math>; <math> r_j </math> [m].<br />
* Total number of robots <math> N </math> [-].<br />
* Number of robots planting species <math> j </math>; <math> N_j </math> [-].<br />
* Number of seeds of species <math>j </math> to be planted; <math>\sigma_j </math> [-].<br />
* Battery life time; <math>T_{bat} </math> [h].<br />
* Seed reservoir capacity for species <math> j</math>; <math>C_j </math> [-].<br />
* Average travel time back to station; <math> \tau </math> [min]<br />
<br />
The method of calculating the time is based on calculating the time contributions of each singular task for a species <math> j </math>, as they are carried out independently, and summing over them to obtain the total time for species <math>j </math>. Next this total time is divided by the number of robots assigned to seeding species <math> j </math>, such that the real operating time is found. Lastly, the longest of these times will determine the total time for the seeding operation. Or in formulae;<br />
<br />
# Number of required refills for species <math> j</math>; <math> \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where <math> \lceil x \rceil </math> is the ceiling function applied to <math>x </math>, which rounds <math>x </math> up to the next integer, since only an integer number of refills can be made, and rounding down would result in too few seeds planted. The total time spent refilling for species <math>j </math> is then: <math> t_{ref,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{\sigma_j}{C_j} \rceil </math>, where the factor 2 arises from the trip from the target reforestation area to the station and back again. <br />
# Time to drill one hole for species <math>j </math>; <math>1.2 \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. Such that the total time spent planting the seeds of species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{plant,j} = 1.2 \sigma_j \frac{h_j}{\lambda} </math>. <br />
# The time spent travelling between consecutive seeding sites of species <math>j </math>; <math>\frac{r_j}{v} </math>, such that the total time spent travelling for species <math>j </math> is; <math>t_{trav,j} = \left (\sigma_j - 1 \right ) \frac{r_j}{v} </math>, where the -1 factor comes from an additional assumption that a robot will always be able to start at some edge of the map where a seed needs to be planted, which considering our biodiversity requirement is fairly reasonable.<br />
# The total projected time for species <math>j </math>, that is the time if battery life would be taken into account is then; <math> \textstyle t_{proj,j} = \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k= ref,plant,trav </math>.<br />
# The total number of required battery recharges for species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math> \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>, where the ceiling function again takes into account only an integer number of recharges can be done. The total time spent recharging is then; <math>t_{ch,j} = 2 \tau \lceil \frac{t_{proj,j}}{T_{bat}} \rceil</math>.<br />
# The total accumulated time for the seeding of species <math>j </math> is then given by; <math>t_j = \textstyle \sum_k t_{k,j} </math> where <math>k=ref,plant,trav,ch </math>.<br />
# The actual time required for the seeding of species <math>j</math>, taking into account multiple robots assigned to one species is then; <math>T_j = \frac{t_j}{N_j}</math>.<br />
# For the entire reforestation operation this gives a set of actual times <math> \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>, where the time for the complete reforestation operation will be the maximum of this set; <math>T_{real} = \max \big\{ T_j \big\} </math>.<br />
<br />
An example matlab script, showing database information of 6 species, and calculating required time for a reforestation operation for 4 of these species is made available at:<br />
[[File:Matlabscripttimecalculation.pdf]]<br />
<br />
Of course the resulting time should not be interpreted as the physical real time for the planting operation. The time calculation model is based on some assumptions to simplify the calculation and make the algorithm generalisable for any situation. Some limiting factors of this model include the assumed flat geometry of the seeding area, the constant travel and drilling speeds, the constant battery life and the constant seed capacity. For a real life forest the geometry will most definitively not be flat, but include bumps, inclinations, curved paths due to obstacles, etc. The drilling and travelling speed will not be constant, but rather in- and decrease gradually once of these functions starts/ends, because accelerations and decelerations are needed for this, travel and drilling times will be somewhat longer. Furthermore the constant drilling speed is only true for a homogenous soil type, if the soil consists of multiple layers with each their own material properties, drilling speeds will vary between these layers. The constant battery life assumption is should be interpreted as an average battery life, as battery life will be dependent on the function the robot is performing. In general it can be stated that drilling will require significantly more power than driving, as much large forces are required to overcome the resistance of the soil to stay in its current state. Therefore robots which spent a lot of time drilling, will have their batteries depleted sooner than robots which spent a lot of time driving. Perhaps the least influential assumption is that of the constant seed capacity, although seed dispensers will be designed for a certain capacity, because the diameters of most seeds are extremely small and refilling will be done by the park rangers, it is very plausible that a refilled container will have slightly less or slightly more seeds than described. Overall these deviations from the complex situation in reality indicate that the calculated time for reforestation should be interpreted as an absolute minimum time which will be achieved only in an optimal situation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Project_documentation&diff=59588Project documentation2018-06-17T12:01:18Z<p>S169967: /* Week 8 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
At this wiki page, the process of the group during the weeks of the project will be described. The goal of this wiki page is to illustrate the progress of the group and to show the development of the project from the beginning until the final deliverable, to explain what different paths were chosen and why those paths were chosen. This will be detailed week per week. This progress will be reflected upon at [[Project reflection]]. <br><br />
General information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Progress by week ==<br />
<br />
=== Week 1 === <br />
In the first week of the project, there was no tutor meeting but there was an introductory lecture about the project. During this meeting the group was constructed and the first ideas about topics for the project were discussed. After the first lecture, the group gathered and brainstormed more about interesting and original topics for this project. Topics that were discussed were a deforestation and/or pollination robot, a surgical robot, an AED robot, a robot to aid elderly at a crosswalk, cybernetic enhancements and a public service robot. The group decided to divide three of the most interesting and feasible topics, being the deforestation/pollination robot, the AED robot and the public service robot, in order to figure out which would be most interesting to investigate and at which topic the group could contribute to the technology. The AED robot was not chosen, because it turned out that drones carrying an AED device already exist, which very closely resembles our idea. Next it was deemed that a deforestation robot would be better to investigate because it is coupled to a societal issue, whereas a public service robot to make inquiries is not very much so. On Thursday the group decided that the project would focus on deforestation since we thought this would be something different compared to previous groups and a lot of interesting literature was found about deforestation and reforestation. Since the course is also a USE course, the topic should of course have a societal impact somewhere and deforestation is a huge problem in society the last few years and in the years to come. Next, the group thought of interesting topics regarding deforestation that could help us define our final deliverable more and to get some more insight in the state of the art. Every group member got a topic to find literature about. We decided that we want to deliver a wiki with some literature review, a prototype of the final robot design and a model to calculate important values of variables. <br />
<br />
=== Week 2 ===<br />
In week two the group started to focus on which users could be defined for the prototype. This was perhaps a bit too early in the process since the exact form of the prototype was not clear yet. During the tutor meeting on Monday the feedback from the tutors was to further narrow the problem to gain a better understandings in the working conditions for the robot, as deforestation in general is too broad of a subject. For example a National park or a forest that is owned by a logging company, since it is important to know what the exact environment of your prototype is before you can design a prototype and define a user group. We thus needed to further specify the situation in which the prototype will work and also what the exact work of the prototype will be. To investigate this we came up with three possible work environments for the robot: forest fire in National park, reforestation of nature reserves and deforestation in a forest of a logging company and did more literature review to find out what scenario is most common and which scenario is mostly benefited by a robot. We decided to choose the forest fire in a National park scenario since this scenario occurs often, which makes sure the prototype will be used often, and the problem to check whether the ground is fertile and whether the ground is not being burned down for other purposes is avoided, which might have introduced user conflicts. Next we thought of possible users and user requirements, we further elaborated the state-of-the-art articles and started thinking about concepts for the robot prototype with preferences, requirements and constraints. The focus regarding the prototype was on the seeding mechanism, for other parts of the prototype, e.g. moving, are already existing functioning mechanisms. <br />
<br />
=== Week 3 ===<br />
In week three we first presented all our new literature review to the tutors and also presented three possible seeding mechanisms and asked feedback on our work. The question that was raised by the tutors was why exactly a robot was necessary for the reforestation in a National park and why an airplane or natural reforestation were not efficient or good enough. This was an interesting question and our group had not focused on that enough. Therefore the prototypes and their designs were put on hold and we did more literature review on the existing reforestation methods: natural reforestation, aerial reforestation and manual reforestation. We investigated which level control was necessary for reforestation of a national park and what the flaws of current reforestation methods are and where a robot would be a better solution. <br />
<br />
=== Week 4 ===<br />
During the tutor meeting of week four we presented the results of our extended literature review about why the current reforestation methods can be improved when using a robot and why this would benefit National parks. At this point it became clear that the focus of our robot is to rehabilitate the biodiversity in a National park after a forest fire. This week the exact purpose of the robot thus became clear and the previously described users, user requirements, prototype objectives and requirements, constraints and preferences of the prototype design can be revised and adjusted to the purpose of the prototype. This resulted in the wiki page ‘user and product analysis’ In this week the group decided to redesign the wiki to make the wiki clearer. The current reforestation methods were typed out and a conclusion was written where the most useful reforestation method for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park was chosen. On the basis of this reforestation method and its flaws the very beginning of the prototype of the robot can be explained. Also the initial state-of-the-art literature was adjusted to the needs of our current subject. <br />
<br />
=== Week 5 ===<br />
In week five we had come to the realisation that we had already passed the halfway point of the course duration and have yet to start with the prototype. Even though we had some solid ground as to why a robot prototype would be a desirable deliverable of the project, it was deemed better to put some extra focus at the literature and eventually make a recommendation for a robot design, as building a robot in three weeks would never result in a prototype of academic quality. This resulted in the objective and planning of the project that needed to be adjusted. The new deliverable of the project is an advise of a reforestation robot. With the previous literature review, we found out what is the current best reforestation method. This week, this information was used to write out three possible seeding mechanisms with the revised requirements in mind: a gritter, drill and plough. Furthermore, we thought it would be interesting to do a few case studies to learn about reforestation strategies and to implement interesting features in the robot. We searched for interesting literature for case studies in order to write two case studies in week 6. <br />
<br />
=== Week 6 ===<br />
In week 6 We did an analysis on the three seeding mechanisms which we created last week with respect to the user and product analysis. This analysis resulted in the conclusion that the drill is the best mechanism to use for our prototype. This week, we also worked out two use cases. These use cases resulted in some extra preferences for the prototype and the product analysis wiki page is adjusted with these extra preferences. During the tutor meeting of week six, the tutors had the feedback that we need more technical implementation to make sure our project would not terminate at an artist impression. On Thursday we did a brainstorm session on how we can implement more technical aspects in the project. We came up with two ideas: design an interface where the forester can communicate with the reforestation robot and make a model for the drill to calculate different quantities. The first ideas of what the interface should look like and what options should be available were thought of during the brainstorm session and these ideas were written down to further elaborate on during the weekend. For the model of the drill useful literature was searched. This week the group also made technical 3D drawings of the three seeding mechanisms to give an idea of how the mechanisms will look like. <br />
<br />
=== Week 7 ===<br />
During the tutor meeting of week seven we presented our ideas about how to integrate more technical aspects in our report: the model of the drill and the user interface. The feedback was that the drill would not be a logical continuation of what we worked on the past few weeks. The mechanism of the drill is ages old and does not contribute anything new to the main purpose of the project; restoring biodiversity. The user interface was however a logical continuation of the project. Therefore, we decided that we would not work out a model of the drill and focus on the user interface. The feedback on the user interface was that we need to think about the level of autonomy that the robot will receive. After the tutor meeting we decided on the level of autonomy of the robot, what information the forester needs to implement in the system and what the output of the interface will be. In week 7, the group focused on further elaborating this user interface since this will be an important aspect of the final report. Furthermore, this week all the references were checked on correctness and adjusted where necessary. <br />
<br />
=== Week 8 ===<br />
In week eight, the group was still focusing on the user interface. New features were implemented in the interface and a section was written about the communication between the robot and the interface. When the interface was finished, we documented it in the wiki. In this week, the group also wrote a reflection about the project since this is the last week of the project. A spelling check of the wiki was done and the final presentation of the project was prepared. This week, the group also decided to write a short matlab script about the time a robot needs to plant seeds. This script is used in the user interface to calculate the amount of time that is needed to reforest the destroyed area.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=59033PRE2017 4 Groep62018-06-13T11:53:59Z<p>S169967: /* Group members */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages;<br />
<br />
* [[General Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Case studies]]<br />
* [[User and product analysis]]<br />
* [[Designing the robot]]<br />
* [[User interface and communication model]]<br />
* [[Project documentation]]<br />
* [[Project reflection]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project, i.e. problem statement, goal, planning, etc..<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the probability of wildfires to occur. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while potentially still having an extremely fertile soil containing all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate the natural process which accounts for the regrowth of the forests. This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. <br><br />
<br />
This project investigates the possibility and potential of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. In order to investigate this possibility, a thorough analysis on different methods of reforestation is made first. By comparing methods of reforestation a great deal can be learnt about which negative aspects of the current reforestation methods should be enhanced by a new reforestation robot. Also, this analysis will explore if a new method of reforestation is needed at all. Beyond this, two case studies are investigated. These case studies show how reforestation and forest fires are currently being handled. The case help studies help to get a better understanding of what the robot should be able to do and what it ought not to be able to do and thus help to define design criteria. <br><br />
<br />
Finally, multiple preliminary designs are made for the seeding mechanism of the robot which would accomplish all necessities found during the analysis of the different reforestation methods and which follows all the criteria discovered in the case studies. Out of these designs, the one ranking highest on the criteria unraveled during the literature review and case studies is chosen to be the best suitable seeding mechanism for the future robot. Additionally, a design is made for a user interface that will allow the staff of a national park to control a swarm of robot in a user friendly and non time-consuming way. Lastly some suggestions for future research are given, in the topics of what other crucial functionalities the robot requires, how the robots would be able to communicate among themselves during operation, and how the robots would be able to communicate with the user in case of unforeseen circumstances. To conclude, this project aims to assess the necessity of a robot to rebuild a forest in a national park after a forest fire, discover the functionalities such a robot must have and design a user interface to control such robots based on the gained information.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere.<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Final project planning after revision problem statement and goals'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person assigned<br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research different application sectors for reforestation to narrow problem statement: <br><br />
# Reforestation in logging industry <br><br />
# Reforestation in national parks after forest fires <br><br />
# Reforestation in nature reserves and rain forests <br><br />
| All divided into categories: <br><br />
# Adine & Maikel <br><br />
# David & Gerben <br><br />
# Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make preliminary robot designs for the following seeding mechanisms:<br />
# Drilling robot <br><br />
# Sprinkler robot <br><br />
# Plow robot <br><br />
| Divided into:<br />
# David <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review and narrowing of problem statement<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Extended literature review on specific subject of reforestation: <br><br />
# Biodiversity and need for control <br><br />
# Natural reforestation versus artificial reforestation <br><br />
# Direct seeding (manual seeding) <br><br />
# Aerial seeding <br><br />
| All divided into the following categories: <br><br />
# Collaborative effort of all group members during own research <br><br />
# David & Adine <br><br />
# Luc & Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite problem statement<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review users for narrowed problem<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Edit the general literature review on wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research the costs of reforestation methods: <br><br />
# Natural reforestation <br><br />
# Aerial reforestation <br><br />
# Manual reforestation <br><br />
| Divided by: <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite segment of need for control and biodiversity into one introductory segement<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making 3D skechtes of preliminary designs<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Document wiki on extended literature review page <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start keeping a log of the research and design process<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Look for case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Remake planning to fit new goal of the project<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Redefine objectives to fit new goal of project<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Rewrite drilling mechanism section<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish a first 3D model<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue 3D modelling<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Elaborate and extend upon current preliminary designs (including sketch)<br />
| Maikel, Gerben & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write wiki page for case studies<br />
| Luc & Maikel <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate designs using criteria from literature study <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile an overview of project progress by week<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start building a user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate the project and analyse pitfalls<br />
| Maikel & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making the presentation<br />
| David & Adine<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Start an editorial run over the entire wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Continue making user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish writing last segments for the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Adine, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish editorial run over wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by means of a design question. What would be the best design for an effective seeding mechanism which can be used in a mobile robot deployed in a reforestation operation, and how would this robot be controlled? The gross of the project is carried out sequentially as each subject builds further upon the conclusion reached during the last subject, which is represented in the structure of this Wiki consisting of several subpages corresponding to these subjects. Albeit that the project is carried out sequentially, within each sequence several tasks are divided such that they can be carried out in parallel by different group members. During the last phase of the project, when the major milestones have been finished, the project wrap up consists of several small independent task which will allow us to abandon the sequential structure which was necessary during the other phases and carry out these tasks in parallel to gain in time.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| Have problem narrowed down<br />
|-<br />
| 17-05-2018<br />
| Finish collecting data about reforestation techniques<br />
|-<br />
| 24-05-2018<br />
| Have case studies finished<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have preliminary designs including 3D model and pick winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have analysis of communication requirements and control sequence<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Finish user interface<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 21-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=59032PRE2017 4 Groep62018-06-13T11:52:41Z<p>S169967: /* Group members */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages;<br />
<br />
* [[General Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Case studies]]<br />
* [[User and product analysis]]<br />
* [[Designing the robot]]<br />
* [[User interface and communication model]]<br />
* [[Project documentation]]<br />
* [[Project reflection]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project, i.e. problem statement, goal, planning, etc..<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the probability of wildfires to occur. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while potentially still having an extremely fertile soil containing all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate the natural process which accounts for the regrowth of the forests. This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. <br><br />
<br />
This project investigates the possibility and potential of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. In order to investigate this possibility, a thorough analysis on different methods of reforestation is made first. By comparing methods of reforestation a great deal can be learnt about which negative aspects of the current reforestation methods should be enhanced by a new reforestation robot. Also, this analysis will explore if a new method of reforestation is needed at all. Beyond this, two case studies are investigated. These case studies show how reforestation and forest fires are currently being handled. The case help studies help to get a better understanding of what the robot should be able to do and what it ought not to be able to do and thus help to define design criteria. <br><br />
<br />
Finally, multiple preliminary designs are made for the seeding mechanism of the robot which would accomplish all necessities found during the analysis of the different reforestation methods and which follows all the criteria discovered in the case studies. Out of these designs, the one ranking highest on the criteria unraveled during the literature review and case studies is chosen to be the best suitable seeding mechanism for the future robot. Additionally, a design is made for a user interface that will allow the staff of a national park to control a swarm of robot in a user friendly and non time-consuming way. Lastly some suggestions for future research are given, in the topics of what other crucial functionalities the robot requires, how the robots would be able to communicate among themselves during operation, and how the robots would be able to communicate with the user in case of unforeseen circumstances. To conclude, this project aims to assess the necessity of a robot to rebuild a forest in a national park after a forest fire, discover the functionalities such a robot must have and design a user interface to control such robots based on the gained information.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere.<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Final project planning after revision problem statement and goals'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person assigned<br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research different application sectors for reforestation to narrow problem statement: <br><br />
# Reforestation in logging industry <br><br />
# Reforestation in national parks after forest fires <br><br />
# Reforestation in nature reserves and rain forests <br><br />
| All divided into categories: <br><br />
# Adine & Maikel <br><br />
# David & Gerben <br><br />
# Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make preliminary robot designs for the following seeding mechanisms:<br />
# Drilling robot <br><br />
# Sprinkler robot <br><br />
# Plow robot <br><br />
| Divided into:<br />
# David <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review and narrowing of problem statement<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Extended literature review on specific subject of reforestation: <br><br />
# Biodiversity and need for control <br><br />
# Natural reforestation versus artificial reforestation <br><br />
# Direct seeding (manual seeding) <br><br />
# Aerial seeding <br><br />
| All divided into the following categories: <br><br />
# Collaborative effort of all group members during own research <br><br />
# David & Adine <br><br />
# Luc & Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite problem statement<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review users for narrowed problem<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Edit the general literature review on wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research the costs of reforestation methods: <br><br />
# Natural reforestation <br><br />
# Aerial reforestation <br><br />
# Manual reforestation <br><br />
| Divided by: <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite segment of need for control and biodiversity into one introductory segement<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making 3D skechtes of preliminary designs<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Document wiki on extended literature review page <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start keeping a log of the research and design process<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Look for case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Remake planning to fit new goal of the project<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Redefine objectives to fit new goal of project<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Rewrite drilling mechanism section<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish a first 3D model<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue 3D modelling<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Elaborate and extend upon current preliminary designs (including sketch)<br />
| Maikel, Gerben & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write wiki page for case studies<br />
| Luc & Maikel <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate designs using criteria from literature study <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile an overview of project progress by week<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start building a user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate the project and analyse pitfalls<br />
| Maikel & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making the presentation<br />
| David & Adine<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Start an editorial run over the entire wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Continue making user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish writing last segments for the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Adine, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish editorial run over wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by means of a design question. What would be the best design for an effective seeding mechanism which can be used in a mobile robot deployed in a reforestation operation, and how would this robot be controlled? The gross of the project is carried out sequentially as each subject builds further upon the conclusion reached during the last subject, which is represented in the structure of this Wiki consisting of several subpages corresponding to these subjects. Albeit that the project is carried out sequentially, within each sequence several tasks are divided such that they can be carried out in parallel by different group members. During the last phase of the project, when the major milestones have been finished, the project wrap up consists of several small independent task which will allow us to abandon the sequential structure which was necessary during the other phases and carry out these tasks in parallel to gain in time.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| Have problem narrowed down<br />
|-<br />
| 17-05-2018<br />
| Finish collecting data about reforestation techniques<br />
|-<br />
| 24-05-2018<br />
| Have case studies finished<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have preliminary designs including 3D model and pick winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have analysis of communication requirements and control sequence<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Finish user interface<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 21-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=59031PRE2017 4 Groep62018-06-13T11:52:26Z<p>S169967: /* Group members */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages;<br />
<br />
* [[General Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Case studies]]<br />
* [[User and product analysis]]<br />
* [[Designing the robot]]<br />
* [[User interface and communication model]]<br />
* [[Project documentation]]<br />
* [[Project reflection]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project, i.e. problem statement, goal, planning, etc..<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the probability of wildfires to occur. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while potentially still having an extremely fertile soil containing all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate the natural process which accounts for the regrowth of the forests. This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. <br><br />
<br />
This project investigates the possibility and potential of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. In order to investigate this possibility, a thorough analysis on different methods of reforestation is made first. By comparing methods of reforestation a great deal can be learnt about which negative aspects of the current reforestation methods should be enhanced by a new reforestation robot. Also, this analysis will explore if a new method of reforestation is needed at all. Beyond this, two case studies are investigated. These case studies show how reforestation and forest fires are currently being handled. The case help studies help to get a better understanding of what the robot should be able to do and what it ought not to be able to do and thus help to define design criteria. <br><br />
<br />
Finally, multiple preliminary designs are made for the seeding mechanism of the robot which would accomplish all necessities found during the analysis of the different reforestation methods and which follows all the criteria discovered in the case studies. Out of these designs, the one ranking highest on the criteria unraveled during the literature review and case studies is chosen to be the best suitable seeding mechanism for the future robot. Additionally, a design is made for a user interface that will allow the staff of a national park to control a swarm of robot in a user friendly and non time-consuming way. Lastly some suggestions for future research are given, in the topics of what other crucial functionalities the robot requires, how the robots would be able to communicate among themselves during operation, and how the robots would be able to communicate with the user in case of unforeseen circumstances. To conclude, this project aims to assess the necessity of a robot to rebuild a forest in a national park after a forest fire, discover the functionalities such a robot must have and design a user interface to control such robots based on the gained information.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere.<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Final project planning after revision problem statement and goals'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person assigned<br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research different application sectors for reforestation to narrow problem statement: <br><br />
# Reforestation in logging industry <br><br />
# Reforestation in national parks after forest fires <br><br />
# Reforestation in nature reserves and rain forests <br><br />
| All divided into categories: <br><br />
# Adine & Maikel <br><br />
# David & Gerben <br><br />
# Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make preliminary robot designs for the following seeding mechanisms:<br />
# Drilling robot <br><br />
# Sprinkler robot <br><br />
# Plow robot <br><br />
| Divided into:<br />
# David <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review and narrowing of problem statement<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Extended literature review on specific subject of reforestation: <br><br />
# Biodiversity and need for control <br><br />
# Natural reforestation versus artificial reforestation <br><br />
# Direct seeding (manual seeding) <br><br />
# Aerial seeding <br><br />
| All divided into the following categories: <br><br />
# Collaborative effort of all group members during own research <br><br />
# David & Adine <br><br />
# Luc & Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite problem statement<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review users for narrowed problem<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Edit the general literature review on wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research the costs of reforestation methods: <br><br />
# Natural reforestation <br><br />
# Aerial reforestation <br><br />
# Manual reforestation <br><br />
| Divided by: <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite segment of need for control and biodiversity into one introductory segement<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making 3D skechtes of preliminary designs<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Document wiki on extended literature review page <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start keeping a log of the research and design process<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Look for case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Remake planning to fit new goal of the project<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Redefine objectives to fit new goal of project<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Rewrite drilling mechanism section<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish a first 3D model<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue 3D modelling<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Elaborate and extend upon current preliminary designs (including sketch)<br />
| Maikel, Gerben & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write wiki page for case studies<br />
| Luc & Maikel <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate designs using criteria from literature study <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile an overview of project progress by week<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start building a user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate the project and analyse pitfalls<br />
| Maikel & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making the presentation<br />
| David & Adine<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Start an editorial run over the entire wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Continue making user interface<br />
| Luc & Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish writing last segments for the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Adine, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Finish editorial run over wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by means of a design question. What would be the best design for an effective seeding mechanism which can be used in a mobile robot deployed in a reforestation operation, and how would this robot be controlled? The gross of the project is carried out sequentially as each subject builds further upon the conclusion reached during the last subject, which is represented in the structure of this Wiki consisting of several subpages corresponding to these subjects. Albeit that the project is carried out sequentially, within each sequence several tasks are divided such that they can be carried out in parallel by different group members. During the last phase of the project, when the major milestones have been finished, the project wrap up consists of several small independent task which will allow us to abandon the sequential structure which was necessary during the other phases and carry out these tasks in parallel to gain in time.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| Have problem narrowed down<br />
|-<br />
| 17-05-2018<br />
| Finish collecting data about reforestation techniques<br />
|-<br />
| 24-05-2018<br />
| Have case studies finished<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have preliminary designs including 3D model and pick winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have analysis of communication requirements and control sequence<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Finish user interface<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 21-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Project_reflection&diff=59017Project reflection2018-06-13T08:28:43Z<p>S169967: /* Reflection */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
As mentioned earlier about halfway through the project a paradigm shift occurred in which the goal of the project switched from designing a prototype to obtaining a more in depth knowledge about the dynamics and parameters of the reforestation process such that the need for a robotic solution could indeed be confirmed. After this confirmation, the group worked on developing a user interface which can be used to control the robots and specify the desired reforestation parameters. This page gives further details about the pitfalls we encountered during the first stage of the project and lead to this paradigm shift. Furthermore, an identification of errors in judgement which were made during the project is described such that they can be avoided during future projects<br />
<br />
The general information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Old formulation of the project ==<br />
<br />
=== Old planning ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 4: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old problem approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old milestones & deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 5: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Reflection ==<br />
From the very first brainstorm about what the topic of our research would be, to the final presentation, this project has taken roughly nine weeks. During those nine weeks, a lot of research, 3-D modelling and interface design has been done. All this work was done based on certain decisions that have been made by the group members. The decision to no longer make a prototype, but focus on research instead, and the decision to scope in on the user interface instead of keeping the project zoomed out at the entire robot are two examples that spring to mind.<br />
By taking a look at the difficulties that arose during this project, we might improve the way we make decision for future projects. <br />
<br />
===The Necessity of the Project===<br />
One of the first steps in a project should always be a state of the art research, which fulfills two purposes. It reveals a retrospective overview of the level of technological sophistication on the related topics and it might provide hints as to what can yet be achieved. This latter purpose is of utmost importance, because there is usually a reason why something has not yet been researched. The first question one should ask themselves when the state of the art research returns that no research has been done in their topic of interest is: “Is my research going to be useful?” In other words,”would the end-product I have in mind be a desirable artifact in the real world?” If the answer to these questions is ‘no’, it means that there is no necessity for the project, meaning that it would be futile to carry out the project in the first place, as it will not contribute to society. <br />
During our project, this question sprang to mind a couple of times, even when we were already well over half-way with our research. Even though it was eventually unraveled that the robot would indeed have practical applications beyond the possibilities provided by current reforestation methods, this should have been a larger focus point during the outset of the project. Now, we investigated the necessity of the robot in parallel with setting up requirements for the robot and defining its context (users), additionally, when the latter was done, some preliminary designs were initialised, even though it was not yet confirmed that the prototype robot would indeed necessary. If the research into the usefulness of the robot had shown that the robot would not have any practical applications, all work on the preliminary designs would have been wasted. <br />
This means that for future projects the question ‘Is my research going to be useful?’ should be answered fully before starting research that is not needed to answer this first question.<br />
<br />
===The Focus of the Project===<br />
Right from the start, our ambition was to build a functioning prototype robot which could preferably drive, sample the soil and plant seeds. Over the first few weeks it became clear to us that this was way too ambitious for the few weeks this project would last, considering that research on the necessity of the robot had to be done before actually building it. Only in week six did we come to the conclusion that focusing on the user interface, and how the rangers would communicate with the robots, would be the best logical follow up of our in depth literature study, considering that building a complete prototype would no longer be achievable within the remaining time. Furthermore, it would be highly likely that if we had stuck to developing a prototype we would eventually have had to build an interface to control them, therefore building the interface is still very closely related to the goal of developing a reforestation robot for national parks. The lesson learned from this is that when designing, a concrete focus on one part or mechanism is more effective than a broad focus on the bigger picture, this is because developing a single component will result in a product with higher level of sophistication. If, on the other hand, a complete interacting end result is made consisting of multiple components, these individual components will not be as sophisticated and have a higher chance for failures to occur. Taking into the account that the final product would consist of the interplay of these components, a propagation of errors and failures due to the low-level sophisticated components would result in an end product of mediocre quality at most. Furthermore, in most literature research, things are only being developed one at a time, indicating that this is the best way to go. This, however, does not mean that the picture is to be disregarded when designing the one specific mechanism. You should still keep the bigger picture in mind, otherwise the combination of the designed mechanism with the rest might be a miss-match.<br />
<br />
===Deliverables and Milestones===<br />
As already highlighted, the initial goal of the project was far too ambitious for the given timespan, forcing us to adapt overtime and rethink what we truly wanted to deliver. A way this could have been prevented is by setting clearer milestones for ourselves. If we had made a planning which would specify what we wanted to be done each week, in combination with the time this would cost, we might have noticed that we had taken too much on our plate. <br />
Additionally, after we had recapped our final deliverable, from a prototype to a user interface, a clearer planning with deadlines per week would have been a useful addition. The last weeks most deadlines were set one week beforehand, meaning there was no clear path for the project to follow once a task had been accomplished, creating uncertainty. A clearer and more specific formulation of project milestones in the future would result in a more realisable deliverable.<br />
<br />
=== Decision making errors ===<br />
<br />
During many stages in the project decisions were made, which influence the direction and end target of the project. During the decision making process, many factors can cloud rational judgement and hence lead to a (rationally) inferior option being chosen over a better alternative (Robbins, Judge and Campbell, 2016) <ref>S.P. Robbins, T.A. Judge, & T.T. Campbell. (2016). Organizational Behavior, 2nd European edition. Pearson. ISBN 9781292016559. </ref>. Some of the noteworthy ones which are of relevant to our project are the halo effect, anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and risk aversion, which will be elaborated on below. <br><br />
<br />
The halo effect, is the phenomena of taking a single characteristic of an individual and using that characteristic as the sole criterion to evaluate that individual. This cognitive bias was profoundly present during the first stage of the project, where we judged the capabilities of our groups solely on the composition of our majors. Comprising of students from software science, psychology & technology, mechanical engineering and applied physics, we thought this was an ideal team to build a prototype robot, hence influencing our initial decision for making a prototype. This bias can be overcome in future projects by compiling a list of team member competencies during the first meeting. In this way everyone of the group will know the strengths and weaknesses of the other and this can be used to make a better task division. By doing so some biases caused by the halo effect can be overturned. For example, if a student electrical engineering would say he is good at signal processing but horrible at calculating electrical circuits, it would be wise, if a prototype would be made as deliverable, to hand over this task to someone else. If no list of competencies would have been compiled, it would be most likely that said hypothetical electrical engineering student would have ended up getting the task of calculating and designing the required electrical circuit. <br><br />
<br />
The anchoring bias is the tendency to rely on initial information when making decisions at a later point in time. This bias is for our project indirectly linked with the halo effect, as the halo effect caused us to opt for building a prototype, whereas the anchoring bias caused us to keeping this project goal even though it was unclear whether a robot was really necessary to solve the reforestation problem at hand. Therefore it was only after more than half of the project time had passed that we decided on abandoning this idea due to time constraints. For future projects it would be wise to appoint one group member as ‘the devil’s advocate’, who is to criticise any decision made unanimously, such that any decision is thought over twice before being implemented, therefore reducing the odds of an anchoring bias to have severe negative long lasting effects, as was in our case. Some of these critical questions to be asked would include: ‘What are the other reforestation methods?’; ‘Why would these not be sufficient?; ‘If so, would there be other alternatives besides a robot which could also improve on the current methods?’ <br><br />
<br />
The confirmation bias is the tendency to search for data which supports your claim, or to interpret data such that it supports your claim. In any decision making process like the one of “Is a robot really necessary or is it redundant?” one will tend to look for information which confirms that a robot is indeed necessary if one’s goal is to build a robot. Although eventually objective conclusions are reached based on criteria of biodiversity, degree of control, time consumption, resource intensivity, and economic costs, the initial search for information was subconsciously guided by the belief that robots are an omni-potential platform capable of outperforming humans in just about anything, albeit technology is yet to realise this potential. In future project this bias can be overcome by putting one group member in charge of independently evaluating the quality of the results that the other group members acquired, and where appropriately put doubts into words. In this way, any fact is double checked which increases objectivity of results and will hence reduce the magnitude of the confirmation bias. Also in case of scientific articles, a threshold value for the h-index could be agreed upon, such that is ensured that the article is from a reputable author. <br><br />
<br />
Lastly risk aversion is the tendency of individuals to opt for a situation with lowest uncertainty, even if the situation with higher uncertainty could have a higher pay-off. The most intuitive example would be a choice between a guaranteed €10 or tossing a coin for €30. Even though the mathematical pay off of the coin toss is higher, most people would opt for the guaranteed €10 because it is a 100% probability of occuring. This effect was partly the reason as to why the weekly feedback was followed and indeed intensive research was done to verify if a robot was desired. If the feedback had not been followed and a prototype would have been built whereas it would have turned out that having a robot is redundant, we would have ended up with a failed project (yes, the prototype may have worked, but this is still a USE course so if the prototype has no place in the world, it is just a useless chunk of metal). This cognitive bias is probably most noteworthy because it can safely be said that it is the only one which had a positive contribution to our project. Although risk aversion is probably the least dangerous of all the biases, since it is made to lower the risk involved in decisions, and even to lead to a positive contribution of our project, its effects should preferably be contained to some extent. Risk aversion may have prevented us from being too ambitious with our project, but in the later stages of the project it may have also inhibited us in performance. Once it was established that a robot was a desirable artifact only 3 weeks were left. Although it would have most likely been possible to produce a physically working prototype with some primitive functionings, the choice was made to develop an interface. This is because many things could have gone wrong in developing the prototype, whereas the only issues arising from developing the interface are software/programming errors, which also certainly would have been the case when designing a prototype, besides mechanical and electronic failures.<br />
<br />
To conclude, although some biases did influence our initial decision making processes and thereby the course of our project, these were eventually overcome as objective arguments were used to reach conclusions and formulate the next stage in the project. The only bias which was constantly present during the project was risk aversion. At times decisions were made not purely based on conclusions, but also based on the impeding time constraint of the nearing deadline. The most notable example of this being the switch from developing a prototype once it was established that a prototype is desirable to the aim of developing a user interface for the operation of the to-be-designed robots.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Project_reflection&diff=59016Project reflection2018-06-13T08:28:07Z<p>S169967: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
As mentioned earlier about halfway through the project a paradigm shift occurred in which the goal of the project switched from designing a prototype to obtaining a more in depth knowledge about the dynamics and parameters of the reforestation process such that the need for a robotic solution could indeed be confirmed. After this confirmation, the group worked on developing a user interface which can be used to control the robots and specify the desired reforestation parameters. This page gives further details about the pitfalls we encountered during the first stage of the project and lead to this paradigm shift. Furthermore, an identification of errors in judgement which were made during the project is described such that they can be avoided during future projects<br />
<br />
The general information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Old formulation of the project ==<br />
<br />
=== Old planning ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 4: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old problem approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old milestones & deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 5: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Reflection ==<br />
From the very first brainstorm about what the topic of our research would be, to the final presentation, this project has taken roughly nine weeks. During those nine weeks, a lot of research, and even some 3-D modelling and interface design has been done. All this work was done based on certain decisions that have been made by the group members. The decision to no longer make a prototype, but focus on research instead, and the decision to scope in on the user interface instead of keeping the project zoomed out at the entire robot are two examples that spring to mind.<br />
By taking a look at the difficulties that arose during this project, we might improve the way we make decision for future projects. <br />
<br />
===The Necessity of the Project===<br />
One of the first steps in a project should always be a state of the art research, which fulfills two purposes. It reveals a retrospective overview of the level of technological sophistication on the related topics and it might provide hints as to what can yet be achieved. This latter purpose is of utmost importance, because there is usually a reason why something has not yet been researched. The first question one should ask themselves when the state of the art research returns that no research has been done in their topic of interest is: “Is my research going to be useful?” In other words,”would the end-product I have in mind be a desirable artifact in the real world?” If the answer to these questions is ‘no’, it means that there is no necessity for the project, meaning that it would be futile to carry out the project in the first place, as it will not contribute to society. <br />
During our project, this question sprang to mind a couple of times, even when we were already well over half-way with our research. Even though it was eventually unraveled that the robot would indeed have practical applications beyond the possibilities provided by current reforestation methods, this should have been a larger focus point during the outset of the project. Now, we investigated the necessity of the robot in parallel with setting up requirements for the robot and defining its context (users), additionally, when the latter was done, some preliminary designs were initialised, even though it was not yet confirmed that the prototype robot would indeed necessary. If the research into the usefulness of the robot had shown that the robot would not have any practical applications, all work on the preliminary designs would have been wasted. <br />
This means that for future projects the question ‘Is my research going to be useful?’ should be answered fully before starting research that is not needed to answer this first question.<br />
<br />
===The Focus of the Project===<br />
Right from the start, our ambition was to build a functioning prototype robot which could preferably drive, sample the soil and plant seeds. Over the first few weeks it became clear to us that this was way too ambitious for the few weeks this project would last, considering that research on the necessity of the robot had to be done before actually building it. Only in week six did we come to the conclusion that focusing on the user interface, and how the rangers would communicate with the robots, would be the best logical follow up of our in depth literature study, considering that building a complete prototype would no longer be achievable within the remaining time. Furthermore, it would be highly likely that if we had stuck to developing a prototype we would eventually have had to build an interface to control them, therefore building the interface is still very closely related to the goal of developing a reforestation robot for national parks. The lesson learned from this is that when designing, a concrete focus on one part or mechanism is more effective than a broad focus on the bigger picture, this is because developing a single component will result in a product with higher level of sophistication. If, on the other hand, a complete interacting end result is made consisting of multiple components, these individual components will not be as sophisticated and have a higher chance for failures to occur. Taking into the account that the final product would consist of the interplay of these components, a propagation of errors and failures due to the low-level sophisticated components would result in an end product of mediocre quality at most. Furthermore, in most literature research, things are only being developed one at a time, indicating that this is the best way to go. This, however, does not mean that the picture is to be disregarded when designing the one specific mechanism. You should still keep the bigger picture in mind, otherwise the combination of the designed mechanism with the rest might be a miss-match.<br />
<br />
===Deliverables and Milestones===<br />
As already highlighted, the initial goal of the project was far too ambitious for the given timespan, forcing us to adapt overtime and rethink what we truly wanted to deliver. A way this could have been prevented is by setting clearer milestones for ourselves. If we had made a planning which would specify what we wanted to be done each week, in combination with the time this would cost, we might have noticed that we had taken too much on our plate. <br />
Additionally, after we had recapped our final deliverable, from a prototype to a user interface, a clearer planning with deadlines per week would have been a useful addition. The last weeks most deadlines were set one week beforehand, meaning there was no clear path for the project to follow once a task had been accomplished, creating uncertainty. A clearer and more specific formulation of project milestones in the future would result in a more realisable deliverable.<br />
<br />
=== Decision making errors ===<br />
<br />
During many stages in the project decisions were made, which influence the direction and end target of the project. During the decision making process, many factors can cloud rational judgement and hence lead to a (rationally) inferior option being chosen over a better alternative (Robbins, Judge and Campbell, 2016) <ref>S.P. Robbins, T.A. Judge, & T.T. Campbell. (2016). Organizational Behavior, 2nd European edition. Pearson. ISBN 9781292016559. </ref>. Some of the noteworthy ones which are of relevant to our project are the halo effect, anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and risk aversion, which will be elaborated on below. <br><br />
<br />
The halo effect, is the phenomena of taking a single characteristic of an individual and using that characteristic as the sole criterion to evaluate that individual. This cognitive bias was profoundly present during the first stage of the project, where we judged the capabilities of our groups solely on the composition of our majors. Comprising of students from software science, psychology & technology, mechanical engineering and applied physics, we thought this was an ideal team to build a prototype robot, hence influencing our initial decision for making a prototype. This bias can be overcome in future projects by compiling a list of team member competencies during the first meeting. In this way everyone of the group will know the strengths and weaknesses of the other and this can be used to make a better task division. By doing so some biases caused by the halo effect can be overturned. For example, if a student electrical engineering would say he is good at signal processing but horrible at calculating electrical circuits, it would be wise, if a prototype would be made as deliverable, to hand over this task to someone else. If no list of competencies would have been compiled, it would be most likely that said hypothetical electrical engineering student would have ended up getting the task of calculating and designing the required electrical circuit. <br><br />
<br />
The anchoring bias is the tendency to rely on initial information when making decisions at a later point in time. This bias is for our project indirectly linked with the halo effect, as the halo effect caused us to opt for building a prototype, whereas the anchoring bias caused us to keeping this project goal even though it was unclear whether a robot was really necessary to solve the reforestation problem at hand. Therefore it was only after more than half of the project time had passed that we decided on abandoning this idea due to time constraints. For future projects it would be wise to appoint one group member as ‘the devil’s advocate’, who is to criticise any decision made unanimously, such that any decision is thought over twice before being implemented, therefore reducing the odds of an anchoring bias to have severe negative long lasting effects, as was in our case. Some of these critical questions to be asked would include: ‘What are the other reforestation methods?’; ‘Why would these not be sufficient?; ‘If so, would there be other alternatives besides a robot which could also improve on the current methods?’ <br><br />
<br />
The confirmation bias is the tendency to search for data which supports your claim, or to interpret data such that it supports your claim. In any decision making process like the one of “Is a robot really necessary or is it redundant?” one will tend to look for information which confirms that a robot is indeed necessary if one’s goal is to build a robot. Although eventually objective conclusions are reached based on criteria of biodiversity, degree of control, time consumption, resource intensivity, and economic costs, the initial search for information was subconsciously guided by the belief that robots are an omni-potential platform capable of outperforming humans in just about anything, albeit technology is yet to realise this potential. In future project this bias can be overcome by putting one group member in charge of independently evaluating the quality of the results that the other group members acquired, and where appropriately put doubts into words. In this way, any fact is double checked which increases objectivity of results and will hence reduce the magnitude of the confirmation bias. Also in case of scientific articles, a threshold value for the h-index could be agreed upon, such that is ensured that the article is from a reputable author. <br><br />
<br />
Lastly risk aversion is the tendency of individuals to opt for a situation with lowest uncertainty, even if the situation with higher uncertainty could have a higher pay-off. The most intuitive example would be a choice between a guaranteed €10 or tossing a coin for €30. Even though the mathematical pay off of the coin toss is higher, most people would opt for the guaranteed €10 because it is a 100% probability of occuring. This effect was partly the reason as to why the weekly feedback was followed and indeed intensive research was done to verify if a robot was desired. If the feedback had not been followed and a prototype would have been built whereas it would have turned out that having a robot is redundant, we would have ended up with a failed project (yes, the prototype may have worked, but this is still a USE course so if the prototype has no place in the world, it is just a useless chunk of metal). This cognitive bias is probably most noteworthy because it can safely be said that it is the only one which had a positive contribution to our project. Although risk aversion is probably the least dangerous of all the biases, since it is made to lower the risk involved in decisions, and even to lead to a positive contribution of our project, its effects should preferably be contained to some extent. Risk aversion may have prevented us from being too ambitious with our project, but in the later stages of the project it may have also inhibited us in performance. Once it was established that a robot was a desirable artifact only 3 weeks were left. Although it would have most likely been possible to produce a physically working prototype with some primitive functionings, the choice was made to develop an interface. This is because many things could have gone wrong in developing the prototype, whereas the only issues arising from developing the interface are software/programming errors, which also certainly would have been the case when designing a prototype, besides mechanical and electronic failures.<br />
<br />
To conclude, although some biases did influence our initial decision making processes and thereby the course of our project, these were eventually overcome as objective arguments were used to reach conclusions and formulate the next stage in the project. The only bias which was constantly present during the project was risk aversion. At times decisions were made not purely based on conclusions, but also based on the impeding time constraint of the nearing deadline. The most notable example of this being the switch from developing a prototype once it was established that a prototype is desirable to the aim of developing a user interface for the operation of the to-be-designed robots.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=59015Designing the robot2018-06-13T08:24:26Z<p>S169967: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
*High percentage of seeds planted do sprout succesfully<br />
*Not many extra seeds needed<br />
*Precise, provides much control over where seeds are planted<br />
*Seeds planted in the ground are safe from animals/wheather<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
*Drill sticks out when driving, less stable<br />
*Not as fast as other mechanisms<br />
*Relatively big risk that the drill might break/get stuck<br />
<br />
[[file:augerSW.png]]<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
[[File:gritterSE.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
[[file:plow_notfinal.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different contexts, as every National park has different needs. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy to use and profitable. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and the best design is considered for application in the reforestation robot. <br><br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br><br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter is the worst design for this preference, since it more closely resembles natural reforestation, rather than manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground as the only changeable parameters of the gritter are the type of seeds that can be dispersed, their relative occupation and seeding rate. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option is ruled out of being suitable for this situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a decent amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br><br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are able to restore biodiversity because both mechanisms are able to plant different seeds at their ideal depth which optimizes the survival rate of all species. This enlarges the opportunity for full recovery of the biodiversity, as is explained in in the [[Extended Literature Review]]. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill is mechanically less complicated to produce. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore more profitable for companies to develop. This is an important factor since if there are no companies wanting to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. When looking at the efficiency at which these methods are able to restore biodiversity, the drill is approximately four times slower than a plough, however, the survival rate of seeds when planted with a drill is higher than when planted with the plough (Preece, Oosterzee and Lawes, 2013)<ref>Preece, N. D., Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management & Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/emr.12017 </ref>. Since it is deemed more important to restore biodiversity in an efficient way rather than seeding as swift as possible, the drill mechanism is considered the best mechanism to restore biodiversity. <br><br />
<br />
Additionally, the drill design has more inherent freedom than the plough design, this is because the plough is geometrically constrained to be at the back end of the robot, to reduce frictional forces as earlier explained. This means that the drilling mechanism can be incorporated anywhere on the robot. This gives the extra of building a small scoop at the back end of the drilling robot, which will serve to use some of the top layer soil to plug the hole made by the drilling robot, such the seed is truly buried and protected. <br><br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not yet been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the required versatility of the robot to be able to satisfy the variable needs for different contexts. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other based on these two parameters. <br><br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control, promotes the highest survival rates for the newly planted seeds and has the highest probability of being profitable for companies. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=58517Extended Literature Review2018-06-09T09:06:14Z<p>S169967: /* General */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged parks before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017) <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas. Retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html. Accessed at 14-05-2018.<br />
</ref>.<br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act. Retrieved from: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm. Accessed at 14-05-2018.<br />
</ref>.<br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. The latter include, but are not limited to, typhoons, droughts, floods and fires. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover. <br><br />
<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not as heavily influenced as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a handful of species living there. This shows that the biodiversity is of vital importance for the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a transformation of its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being. Retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm. Accessed at 16-05-2018.<br />
</ref><br />
The substantial dependence of natural scenery on the ecosystem and of the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br><br />
<br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the propagation speed it will wreak havoc over a large area of the national park which has disastrous consequences on all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be referred to as reforestation from now on. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom, and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plant's location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Hence, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used methods for reforestation are aerial, manual and natural reforestation, which will be further elaborated on below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees (North Carolina Forestry Association, 2017) <ref name="NCFA">North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Retrieved: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/. Accessed at 18-05-2018.</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be adequate living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area whilst other species that were also located at this area are either all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow, endangering them to vanishing from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page, in order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one or a few species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case for a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, e.g. weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br><br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It is obvious that this situation cannot be achieved by means of natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation (Lukaszewicz, 2002)<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0323-B1.HTM. Accessed at 16-05-2018. </ref>. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <br><br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival (North Carolina Forestry Association, 2017) <ref name="NCFA"/>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation, which is exactly what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction (United States Department of Agriculure, 2014) <ref> United States Department of Agriculure, Forest Service, Northern Research Station,2014. Retrieved from: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/docs/mn/Reforestation.pdf. Accessed at 18-05-2018.</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD (Engel and Parrotta, 2001) <ref name = "manual"> Engel, V. L., & Parrotta, J. A. (2001). An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central Sao Paulo state, Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management, 152(1-3), 169-181., https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00600-9 </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD in the first 2 years only (Engel and Parrotta, 2001)<ref name = "manual"/>. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks to the workforce (Finlay et al., 2012) <ref name = "health"> Finlay, S. E., Moffat, A., Gazzard, R., Baker, D., & Murray, V. (2012). Health impacts of wildfires. PLoS currents, 4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2F4f959951cce2c </ref>. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate (Finlay et al., 2012) <ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site (Waldrop, 1998) <ref name = "conference"> Waldrop, T. A. (1998). Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 628 p., 20. https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-GTR-20</ref>. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high compared to the other primary replanting methods (Waldrop, 1998) <ref name = "conference"/>. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling, machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds (Waldrop, 1998) <ref name = "conference"/>. Subsoiling also provides the option for placing the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. https://doi.org/10.1139/x82-052 </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f6061748 </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the above findings (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model" /> (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5350e/x5350e03.htm. Accessed at 20-05-2018. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018) <ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed at 16-05-2018. </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well (Canadian Silviculture, 2005) <ref> Canadian Silviculture, spring 2005. pp 9-13. Retrieved from: https://http://www.silviculturemagazine.com/issues/spring-2005. Accessed at 16-05-2018. </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. Retrieved from: http://vc.bridgew.edu/grad_rev/vol2/iss1/7/. Accessed at 18-05-2018. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes (Anderson, 2016) <ref> John Anderson, New Atlas, (2016, september).Retrieved from: https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/ .Accessed at 17-05-2018. </ref> (Bustamante, 2015) <ref>Bustamante, L.A.E. ,KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES). Retrieved from: http://intecral-project.web.th-koeln.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Thesis_Luis_Esquivel_021215_2.pdf. Accessed at 20-05-2018.</ref>.<br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
In the conclusion, a decision will be made on which current method of reforestation is most effective. This decision will be based on several factors which the research group considers important. The factors are: <br />
<br />
* Effectivity with respect to time<br />
* Costs <br />
* Labour intensity <br />
* Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
* Effectivity with respect to resource<br />
* Level of control <br />
<br />
The three methods will each get one of the four rankings per factor (--, -, +, ++). The ranking they get will be based on the literature review that is done per reforestation method. The reforestation method that has the best score is considered the best reforestation method in the case of a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
Natural reforestation and Aerial reforestation both receive one + with respect to biodiversity, this is because they have the ability to regrow several different species but the more dominant species will take over and the natural scenery will not recover. Manual reforestation receives two + because with manual reforestation, complete recovery of the natural scenery is possible. <br />
Manual reforestation receives one + with respect to the time effectivity, this is because a forest recovers faster when seeds are planted. Aerial and natural reforestation get a - and a -- respectively because aerial reforestation is only beneficial with respect to time in a non-fertile area and natural reforestation is very slow. <br />
Natural reforestation receives two + with respect to effectivity with resources because natural reforestation uses no resources and thus also has no waste. Manual reforestation receives one + because different seeds can be planted in the correct environment and therefore minimal seeds don’t grow. Aerial reforestation receives two - because the seed-tree ratio is extremely high. <br />
Because this high ratio and much fuel costs aerial reforestation receives two - with respect to costs. Manual reforestation also gets one - for costs because manual labour is always very expensive. Natural reforestation is free and therefore gets two +. <br />
Because manual labour is so intensive, manual reforestation receives two - when looking at the factor of labour intensity. With natural reforestation no labor is needed, thus this method receives two +. Aerial reforestation involves labor, this is however less intensive than with manual reforestation, the area that can be covered in a small amount of time is very big and this method therefore receives one +. <br />
Nobody manages the reforestation when it is done with natural reforestation, this method scores two - when looking at the level of control that can be fulfilled. Because with manual reforestation the location of each species can be determined you can exert a good level of control and this method thus receives two +. Aerial reforestation receives one + because you can determine the area at which you want to plant trees but you cannot control it per centimeter.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Evaluation of the reforestation methods'''<br />
! <br />
! Natural reforestation<br />
! Manual reforestation<br />
! Aerial reforestation<br />
|-<br />
| Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
| +<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Effectivity with respect to time<br />
| --<br />
| +<br />
| -<br />
|-<br />
| Effectivity with respect to resources<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
| --<br />
|-<br />
| Costs<br />
| ++<br />
| -<br />
| --<br />
|-<br />
| Labour intensity<br />
| ++<br />
| --<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Level of control<br />
| --<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Result<br />
| 3<br />
| 3<br />
| -2<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
The result shows that natural reforestation and manual reforestation both end up with 3 points and can thus be considered equally good for reforestation after a forest fire with respect to the factors the group considers important. However, the factor ‘ability to restore biodiversity’ is very important in the context of a National park, as can be read in the introduction of this wiki page. Because manual reforestation has a higher score on this factor, manual reforestation is the best option for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
This conclusion is interesting when a prototype of a robot, that combats deforestation as a result of forest fires in National parks, is designed. This robot must follow the main design of manual reforestation since this method is considered most efficient. However, as can be seen in the table, there are also some improvement points for this method. Manual reforestation is very labour intensive and it is expensive as well. When a prototype for a reforestation robot is made, the robot must improve the way manual reforestation is done now with respect to labour intensiveness and costs but the robot must be able to restore biodiversity and have a good level of control as well as manual reforestation is able now. A robot is therefore a very good way to improve manual reforestation since a robot is a good manner to decrease the labor intensiveness of a job.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=58516Designing the robot2018-06-09T09:05:31Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
*High percentage of seeds planted do sprout succesfully<br />
*Not many extra seeds needed<br />
*Precise, provides much control over where seeds are planted<br />
*Seeds planted in the ground are safe from animals/wheather<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
*Drill sticks out when driving, less stable<br />
*Not as fast as other mechanisms<br />
*Relatively big risk that the drill might break/get stuck<br />
<br />
[[file:augerSW.png]]<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
[[File:gritterSE.png]]<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
[[file:plow_notfinal.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different contexts, as every National park has different needs. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy to use and profitable. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and the best design is considered for application in the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter is the worst design for this preference, since it more closely resembles natural reforestation, rather than manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground as the only changeable parameters of the gritter are the type of seeds that can be dispersed, their relative occupation and seeding rate. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option is ruled out of being suitable for this situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a decent amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are able to restore biodiversity because both mechanisms are able to plant different seeds at their ideal depth which optimizes the survival rate of all species. This enlarges the opportunity for full recovery of the biodiversity, as is explained in the extended literature. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill is mechanically less complicated to produce. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore more profitable for companies to develop. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. When looking at the efficiency at which these methods are able to restore biodiversity, the drill is approximately four times slower than a plough. However, the survival rate of seeds when planted with a drill is higher than when planted with the plough. Literature supported this can be reviewed in the literature review page [[General Literature Review]] . Since it is more important to restore biodiversity in an efficient way than to fastly plant all the seeds, the drill mechanism is considered the best mechanism to restore biodiverisity <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not yet been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the required versatility of the robot to be able to satisfy the variable needs for different contexts. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other based on these two parameters. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control, promotes the highest survival rates for the newly planted seeds and has the highest probability of being profitable for companies. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=57788PRE2017 4 Groep62018-06-01T11:15:01Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages<br />
<br />
* [[General Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Case studies]]<br />
* [[User and product analysis]]<br />
* [[Designing the robot]]<br />
* [[Project conclusion]]<br />
* [[Project reflection]]<br />
* [[Trial formule]]<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the possibility of wildfires. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times over a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while potentially still having an extremely fertile soil with all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate the natural process which accounts for the regrowth of the forests. This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. This project investigates the possibility and potential of utilizing robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. In order to investigate this possibility, a thorough analysis on different methods of deforestation is made first. By comparing methods of reforestation a lot can be learnt about what aspects the reforestation-robot should be an improvement on compared to older reforestation methods. Also, this analysis will explore if a new method of reforestation is needed at all. Beyond this, two case studies are investigated. These case studies show how reforestation and forest fires are currently being handled. The case help studies help to get a better understanding of what the robot should be able to do and what it ought not to be able to do and thus help to define design criteria. Finally, a design is made of the robot which would accomplish all necessities found during the analysis of the different reforestation methods and which follows all the criteria discovered in the case studies. Multiple preliminary designs regarding different seeding mechanism were made, one of which was chosen based on the criteria emerging from the literature review and case studies, and is resolved in further detail. Lastly some suggestions for future research are given, mainly in the topic of what possibilities exist for the other crucial functionalities of the robot, and how they would merge into one final product capable of doing what should be done. To conclude, this project aims to assess the necessity of a robot to rebuild a forest in a national park after a forest fire. Discover the functionalities such a robot must have and make a potential design based on the gained information.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere.<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Final project planning after revision problem statement and goals'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person assigned<br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research different application sectors for reforestation to narrow problem statement: <br><br />
# Reforestation in logging industry <br><br />
# Reforestation in national parks after forest fires <br><br />
# Reforestation in nature reserves and rain forests <br><br />
| All divided into categories: <br><br />
# Adine & Maikel <br><br />
# David & Gerben <br><br />
# Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make preliminary robot designs for the following seeding mechanisms:<br />
# Drilling robot <br><br />
# Sprinkler robot <br><br />
# Plow robot <br><br />
| Divided into:<br />
# David <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review and narrowing of problem statement<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Extended literature review on specific subject of reforestation: <br><br />
# Biodiversity and need for control <br><br />
# Natural reforestation versus artificial reforestation <br><br />
# Direct seeding (manual seeding) <br><br />
# Aerial seeding <br><br />
| All divided into the following categories: <br><br />
# Collaborative effort of all group members during own research <br><br />
# David & Adine <br><br />
# Luc & Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite problem statement<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review users for narrowed problem<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Edit the general literature review on wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research the costs of reforestation methods: <br><br />
# Natural reforestation <br><br />
# Aerial reforestation <br><br />
# Manual reforestation <br><br />
| Divided by: <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite segment of need for control and biodiversity into one introductory segement<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making 3D skechtes of preliminary designs<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Document wiki on extended literature review page <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start keeping a log of the research and design process<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Look for case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Remake planning to fit new goal of the project<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Redefine objectives to fit new goal of project<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Rewrite drilling mechanism section<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish a first 3D model<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue 3D modelling<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Elaborate and extend upon current preliminary designs (including sketch)<br />
| Maikel, Gerben & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write wiki page for case studies<br />
| Luc & Maikel <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate designs using criteria from literature study <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a concept for fully functional robot and report on the wiki<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Reflect on project<br />
| David & Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| David & Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Reach and write overall project conclusion<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Adine, David & Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approach by means of a design. What would be the best design for an effective seeding mechanism which can be used in a mobile robot deployed in a reforestation operation? The gross of the project is carried out sequentially as each subject builds further upon the conclusion reached during the last subject, which is represented in the structure of this Wiki consisting of several subpages corresponding to these subjects. Albeit that the project is carried out sequentially, within each sequence several tasks are divided such that they can be carried out in parallel by different group members. During the last phase of the project, when the major milestones have been finished, the project wrap up consists of several small independent task will allow us to abandon the sequential structure which was necessary during the other phases and carry out these tasks in parallel to gain in time.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| Have problem narrowed down<br />
|-<br />
| 17-05-2018<br />
| Finish collecting data about reforestation techniques<br />
|-<br />
| 24-05-2018<br />
| Have case studies finished<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have preliminary designs including 3D model and pick winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have detailed physical analysis of winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have concept for full robot recommendation finished<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Project_reflection&diff=57787Project reflection2018-06-01T11:10:22Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
As mentioned earlier about halfway through the project a paradigm shift occurred in which the goal of the project switched from designing a prototype to obtaining a more in depth knowledge about the dynamics and parameters of the reforestation process such that a recommendation for a robotic solution could be made in terms of a design. This page gives further details about the differences between the first and second phases of the project and as to why this was necessary as well as an identification of error in judgement which were made during the project such that they may help for future projects. <br />
<br />
The general information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Old formulation of the project ==<br />
<br />
=== Old planning ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old problem approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Old milestones & deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Differences between project phases ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Reflection ==<br />
Heel handig om te mentionen --> anchoring bias!</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57786Designing the robot2018-06-01T11:09:39Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different environments, since every National park has a different scenery. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy and cheap to produce. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and a final design will be picked for further analysis for the final design of the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter the worst design for this preference, since is resembles more to natural reforestation than to manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option can be considered not suitable for the situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are thus able to restore biodiversity. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill has a much easier mechanism. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore also cheaper to produce. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the ability to adapt to different sceneries. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control and the mechanism is relatively easy and cheap to produce. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57785Designing the robot2018-06-01T11:09:27Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different environments, since every National park has a different scenery. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy and cheap to produce. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and a final design will be picked for further analysis for the final design of the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter the worst design for this preference, since is resembles more to natural reforestation than to manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option can be considered not suitable for the situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are thus able to restore biodiversity. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill has a much easier mechanism. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore also cheaper to produce. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the ability to adapt to different sceneries. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control and the mechanism is relatively easy and cheap to produce. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57784Designing the robot2018-06-01T11:08:49Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different environments, since every National park has a different scenery. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy and cheap to produce. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and a final design will be picked for further analysis for the final design of the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter the worst design for this preference, since is resembles more to natural reforestation than to manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option can be considered not suitable for the situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are thus able to restore biodiversity. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill has a much easier mechanism. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore also cheaper to produce. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the ability to adapt to different sceneries. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control and the mechanism is relatively easy and cheap to produce. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_and_product_analysis&diff=57783User and product analysis2018-06-01T11:07:41Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
As concluded previously, manual artificial reforestation is at the moment the most effective way for a National Park to regrow the plants of its original natural scenery, but the use of robots would make this method even better<br />
Even though this makes it seem like the plans for the to-be-designed robot are clear cut, a broader analysis should first be made. This analysis should put the to-be-designed product in the broader picture that is the world, and it should investigate the robots influences on it. Beyond this, the robot is also influenced by many factors and actors, which also need to be investigated.<br />
In order to keep this analysis compact and effective, it has been narrowed down to the robots interaction with three groups. The National Park, being the main owner of the product, the companies selling and developing the robot, to be referred to as enterprise, and society as a whole.<br />
<br />
This wiki page will explain the above mentioned relations and analyse their effects.<br />
General information regarding the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
Deforestation due to fires is an international problem with huge and devastating consequences which includes but not limits to soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions (Cook, 2018)<ref> Cook, M. (2018, April 19). Four consequences of Deforestation. retrieved from Sciencing: https://sciencing.com/four-consequences-deforestation-7622.html</ref>. This results in a loss of biodiversity and will also influence human lives. Greenhouse gas emissions for example contributes to global climate changes. As national parks span a significant part of natural forest worldwide (NPS, 2017) <ref> NPS (2017), national reports retrieved from: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/National </ref> a reduction in their area by forest fires would result in these consequences happening in and around the National Park. When no actions are taken against deforestation, the problems arising are getting bigger and bigger over the years. Society is currently looking for solutions to these problems (Greenpeace 2018) <ref> Greenpeace (2018) Solutions to deforestation retrieved from: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/solutions-to-deforestation/ </ref> but no clear cut solution without drawbacks, has been found yet. The development of the to-be-designed robot offers new perspectives on how to handle reforestation efficiently, getting society closer to a solution to solve the problem of deforestation. Even though the to-be-designed robot has the potential to be received enthusiastically by people, there are also a lot of expectations enforced on the robot by society. These expectations range from not being made by slave-children to not polluting the air while planting new trees and having a carbon neutral production process and far beyond these. The first one is a tad extreme, but it does show that in developing a new technology, attention has to be paid to what society considers ‘normal’. A better example might be that during the production of the robot waste materials should be recycled, as this is a standard within society at present day. Many of those expectations from society apply to the production of the robot, and not to its design specifically. Regardless, it is wise to keep society’s heavy bias and influence in mind when designing new technology. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== The National Parks ===<br />
Probably the most obvious group to be related to the to-be-designed robot is the National Parks. It is them who will eventually buy and use the robots, which should therefore be built to fulfill the parks wishes as completely as possible. Within societal and financial limits, the development of the robot should focus mostly on what the National Parks want from the robot, which is restoring biodiversity in an effective and non-disruptive manner. On the other hand, the robot, once finished completely, will have a big influence on National Parks. As the robot is made to solve one of the National Parks main problems.<br />
A totally different influence the National Parks have on the robot design, is the idea that the national Parks will want to robot to be easy to handle. After all, it are their rangers (or whomever they decide to put in charge of reforestation) that will have to tell the robots where to plant. This means that the rangers need to have an understanding of how the robot can be controlled, demanding an ‘easy to control’ robot. <br />
In order to further study the influence the parks have on the robot, a list of requirements is made, consisting of everything the robot needs to be able to do for it to conform to what the park needs from the final product.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
The companies building, selling and developing the robots naturally have a big say in the development of the robot. Usually, the influence between the product and the producing company is one of financial origin. Beyond requiring the product to be designed cheaper rather than more expensive, a company will allow a product to be designed as long as it has sufficient demand, profitability and a strong position among rivaling technologies.<br />
As of yet there are already several businesses involved in the reforestation business. For example BioCarbon Engineering, who uses specialized drones to replant trees in remote areas, or Komaza, Kenya’s largest tree planting company. These companies make more and more money every year, showing that the reforestation business can be a very beneficial one. (Khalamayzer, A. 2018) <ref>Khalamayzer, A. (2018, January 25). These 14 businesses are growing money on trees. Retrieved from: GreenBiz: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/these-14-businesses-are-growing-money-trees</ref>. This shows that the to-be-designed robot has promising applications in the reforestation sector. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==User Requirements==<br />
<br />
===The National Parks===<br />
*The technology needs to be usable by the National Park staff<br />
*The technology needs to require little to no necessary training<br />
*The technology cannot be labour extensive<br />
*The technology needs to be fast enough to overwhelm influences by natural reforestation<br />
*The technology needs to be harmless to existing wildlife<br />
*The technology should be able to report anything out of the ordinary to the controlling personnel<br />
<br />
<br />
===Society===<br />
*The technology needs to do more environmental good than harm<br />
*The technology should also take into account park elements, like keeping waterflows intact, into account while re-establishing biodiversity<br />
<br />
<br />
===Enterprise===<br />
*The technology needs to make profit<br />
<br />
<br />
==Product analysis==<br />
All previous research has clarified the problem extensively and has provided us with a lot of insights on how a robot could handle this problem. In order to start designing the robot, all previously gathered information should be combined, to get a clear idea of what the envisioned robot needs to become. <br />
The extended literature came to the conclusion that manual labour is currently the best method to regrow a forest, as it excels in restoring the biodiversity, gives a lot of control as to where what is planted and is fairly effective with respect to both time and resources. Thus, to be a desirable product, the envisioned robot needs to do at least as good as manual reforestation. To really make a difference, the robot should not be labour intensive or not too expensive. This will mainly be achieved by making the robot easy to control, so that a few National park rangers could be in charge of the reforestation as a whole.<br />
The case studies tell about the desire to make forest fireproof by adding rows of certain trees at certain places. Even though this is a solution that is specific to every different park, as every parks geography is different, this does require the robot to be very adaptable. Every park is different and will want to use the robot in a slightly different way, this should be within the robots capacity. This should, however, not translate into a robot which is to difficult to control for park rangers. <br />
Beyond this, the user analysis shows that society requires the robot to be made and used in an environmentally harmless way, this includes wasting as little as possible resources and not polluting the air in the National Park. Also, the enterprises investing in the development, and eventually, the production of the robot will want to make profit from it, even though this is hard to incorporate into the current design, it should not be overlooked. <br />
Using all these requirements, a clear picture of our robots functionalities is established and a design can be created.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Case_studies&diff=57782Case studies2018-06-01T11:05:37Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
From the results of the general literature review and the extended literature review, found respectively at [[General Literature Review]] and [[General Literature Review]], it was revealed that forest fires can be either advantageous or detrimental for a forest, however the effects mainly depend on fire severity and intensity. The most basic consequence of a forest fire is the incineration of organic matter, however even such a simple consequence brings about changes in the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of the forest soil, which forms the basis of the forest ecosystem. Nonetheless, forest fires form an important component in the upkeep of forests by altering the composition of a forest. Secondary effects of a forest fire can be found in the animal kingdom, since most animals require a specific ecosystem to optimally sustain themselves and thus a forest fire can severely impact the population dynamics of animals living in these areas. To combat the negative effects of the aftermath of forest fire, several methods exist, including but not limited to: natural reforestation, manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. However, each of these methods come with their own advantages and drawbacks.<br />
<br />
To gain better insights in what strategies are used in real life reforestation plans and which pitfalls come along with them, some case studies are investigated. These case studies are considered with the goal of revealing crucial elements from reforestation strategies of the past which determine the succes or failure of a method. Since the conclusion of the extended literature revealed that a robotic solution could be desirable if it can cut down on the labour intensity and costs of manual reforestation, which was deemed as the best currently available option, additionally, these case studies are also carried out with the hope of revealing what a robotic solution for reforestation should be able to do and what it definitively shouldn't do to achieve this.<br />
<br />
The general information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Case studies ==<br />
<br />
=== Case study: the Mediterranean ===<br />
The Mediterranean region has been plagued by forest fires for centuries. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy experience a multitude of wildfires of various sizes and intensities every year. While the Mediterranean region was already prone to wildfires, climate changes across the region have lead to an increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires. An irregular weather pattern also contributes to devastating wildfires. Drought periods can last up to 6 months at a time, significantly disturbing the flora and fauna with increased risks of wildfires.<br />
<br />
Dependant on the type of wildfire, a significant shift of the scenery can be found after natural restoration of the forest. While a large interval between fires promotes tree plant communities, a shorter interval primarily promotes shrubs and bushes <ref name = “study” >Ana Cristina Gonçalves and Adélia M.O. Sousa, The Fire in the Mediterranean Region: A Case Study of Forest Fires in Portugal, 2017,<br />
https://www.intechopen.com/books/mediterranean-identities-environment-society-culture/the-fire-in-the-mediterranean-region-a-case-study-of-forest-fires-in-portugal </ref>. This can result in an imbalance of the biological hierarchy within the forest, meaning that other plants and animals will become a dominating factor. The Mediterranean region is especially vulnerable to this. A wildfire almost always causes the biological composition of the forest to change dramatically after natural restoration.<br />
<br />
Fires in these regions do not only affect the landscape and composition of the forest, but can also have devastating economical effects for the surrounding areas. While small fires often to not pose a significant threat, the few fires that destroy large areas filled with flora and fauna can affect a multitude of sectors, most importantly the tourism sector.<br />
<br />
The Mediterranean region consists of countries that have relatively large tourism sectors. Countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy facilitate a significant amount of national and international tourists. National parks and the general scenery of the area attract a gigantic amount of tourists throughout the year. Larger wildfires can affect this sector in three ways:<br />
* Evacuation of surrounding areas. When a large fire occurs, the first and foremost priority is the safety of people. A significant area around the fire will be evacuated based on the intensity, wind direction and size. This can severely disrupt tourism in the region for the duration of the fire and during the aftermath. Depending on the size, intensity and material loss after the fire. The region could have long lasting negative effects in the tourism sector and on a social level.<br />
* Transportation and health risks, a large fire generates a lot of dangerous particles in the air. Both dangerous for humans as for machines. Nano-particles in the air can pose a serious threat for airplanes. This often results in a lockdown of the surrounding airspace and various airports. Large fires can thus disrupt a significant amount of international tourism in an extremely large area. Other particles can also pose significant health risks for people in the area. Governments often advice citizens and tourists to stay indoors and keep the windows shut.<br />
* Loss of biodiversity. Tourists are attracted to the region by the gorgeous scenery and wildlife, but large wildfires can severely change the composition of the forest. This can result in areas where the flora and fauna is severely damaged. If a national park or forest has sustained a significant amount of damage, the area could transform in a barren wasteland for a long time. It is in the interest of national parks to restore the original and healthy ecosystem, since the original ecosystem attracted a lot of tourism.<br />
<br />
Of the Southern countries, Portugal faces the most wildfires. However, in terms of area lost to wildfires, Spain has lost significantly more land compared to Portugal <ref name= “EU” >JRC_ICS, forest fires in Europe, 2006, http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/cms_page_media/40/02-forest-fires-in-europe-2006.pdf </ref> . This is partly due to an aged legislation on fire prevention and suppression <ref name= “Spain” >Spanish government rushes to reform “out of date” rules before forest fire season begins, 2018, https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/04/02/inenglish/1522669694_530467.html </ref>. This ineffective legislation has even caused fires to be abandoned or being suppressed at later times due to regulations preventing the fire department from working efficiently.<br />
<br />
Wildfires do not discriminate between forests and national parks, however, national parks often have greater financial reserves and their income depends on the fitness of the forest the park encapsulates. Last year, wildfires ravaged forests and national parks around Rome, Naples and the national park around mount Vesuvius.<ref name= “parks”> Wildfires Roar Across Southern Europe, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/world/europe/france-split-italy-fires.html </ref> This resulted in a significantly reduced revenue, due to severe damage to the national parks and tourists staying away.<br />
Robotics could provide a relatively cheap solution to these national parks. While monitoring and suppressing wildfires is still done by fire departments, robots could help the forests and national parks with the restoration of the original ecosystem. Robots would enable national parks to restore the original biodiversity, which is not always an option with natural reforestation or other conventional methods. It is therefore in the interest of the national parks to look at solutions robotics can provide, which has a number of benefits over conventional reforestation methods.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Case study: South Korea ===<br />
South Korea is an interesting topic for a case study since the country has a rich history of reforestation management techniques due to the revolution of socio-economical events in the 20th century. Furthermore South Korea hosts a wide variety of national parks, ranging from mountainous parks, to marine and coastal parks and even an historical national park, totalling at 22 parks covering 6.7% of the nation’s area <ref>http://english.knps.or.kr/Knp/AboutNP.aspx?MenuNum=1&Submenu=AboutNP. Retrieved: 27-05-2018 </ref>.<br />
Special care is given to the specific case of reforestation campaigns which have been launched due to the consequences of raging wildfires. This segment primarily adapts a review of the historic developments of South Korean forest management strategies and the development of a new post-fire restoration plan for sustainable forests as conducted by Ryu et al. in 2017<br />
<ref> Ryu, S. R., Choi, H. T., Lim, J. H., Lee, I. K., & Ahn, Y. S. (2017). Post-Fire Restoration Plan for Sustainable Forest Management in South Korea. Forests, 8(6), 188. </ref>.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the 20th century forests on the Korean peninsula were depraved under the Japanese colonial rule, lasting from 1910-1945. After the first Korean government was established, some policies were adopted to counter illegal logging and combat further deprivation of the Korean forests, however due to the Korean War during 1950-1953 hardly any of these policies were adhered to and the war was also a source of additional deforestation. At the end of the war South Korea merely had 4.1 million hectare of forested land <br />
<ref name="forest history"> Korea Forest Service. Available online: http://english.forest.go.kr/newkfsweb/html/EngHtmlPage.do?pg=/esh/koforest/UI_KFS_0101_010100.html&mn=ENG_01_01_01. Retrieved 27-05-2018. </ref><br />
as opposed to the 16.1 million hectare that were present at the end of the Japanese rule<br />
<ref> National Archives of Korea. In The Department of Agriculture, Forestry, Ocean and Fishery. Available online: www.archives.go.kr/english/index.jsp </ref>.<br />
Only after the 1960’s when socio-political conditions were finally calmed down some real measures were taken to protect and restore the forests and artificial planting methods were adapted. The responsibilities for these measures were put at the local governments to ensure a minimisation of human impacts on the forests by locals. The economical revolution of the 1970’s severely reduced the nation’s wood consumption as fossil fuels were now primarily used as an energy source. Due to efforts of artificial reforestation 83% of the total forest land in South Korea was indeed covered by trees again in 2000 <ref name="forest history" />.<br />
<br />
South Korea not only has to deal with the problem of regular forest fires, but also with the problems of extreme climate conditions, such as the windy season which can cause landslides and soil erosion in barren patches of land which result from a forest fire, and a dry season which facilitates conditions for forest fires to occur. <br />
In recent years, however, some larger forest fires have emerged, the most noteworthy being the Dongehaean forest fire in 2000 which burned an area of almost 24 thousand hectares <ref> Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2015). Civic ecology: Adaptation and transformation from the ground up. MIT Press. </ref>. These larger fires are primarily the results of poor forest management strategies during the earlier reforestation projects which made these replanted forests more prone to forest fires due the high fuel load of the planted trees. <br />
<br />
Armed with this experience from the past, new post fire forest management plans take into account the economic, ecological and social values of the forest as well as the six fundamental functions of the forest; timber production, water conservation, disaster prevention, natural environment conservation, ecosystem conservation and recreation. Additionally, in each reforestation plan the original land use laws are adhered to if the problem permits this degree of freedom. The goal of new reforestation plans is to create a sustainable long-term forest management trajectory, however if an area is deemed at risk of soil erosion and debris flow an urgent intervention is taken to prevent any secondary damage. These long-term plans allow for the maximisation of the inherent economic, ecological, scenic and environmental values of the forest. Overall these plans include many elements involving the six fundamental functions, however we will limit our discussion only to the topics which are relevant for our problem, which constitutes of reforestation in national parks.<br />
Forests which are targeted for water conservation are given a reforestation program which involves the planting of both deep-rooted and shallow-rooted hardwood to create a “natural alloy” of roots for optimal water balancing to create a water reservoir, which enables natural waterways to maintain their shape. Forests which are targeted for natural environment conservation are treated with a plan for passive restoration which prioritises the regeneration of remaining seeds and sprouts to assist national reforestation. Forests which are targeted for ecosystem conservation and recreational use are restored by a combination of passive reforestation, erosion control, and active reforestation, which includes the introduction of new species and careful planning of positioning, allowing the improvement of the six forest functions and gives room for local priorities (In South Korea pine mushrooms form a valuable resource for the local population, which gives rise to the local priority of restoring as much of the pine forest as possible (Youn, 2000)<br />
<ref> Youn, Y. C. (2000). Assessment of social costs of forest fire: Case of forest fire of spring 2000 in the east coast area of South Korea. Korean Journal of Forest Economics, 8, 72-81. </ref>).<br />
<br />
Overall 2 different planting strategies exist: row planting and group planting. In row planting trees are planted in straight lines with some distance between them to create a more or less uniform and homogeneous distribution, resulting in a crown layer (the top layer of leaves) which is beneficial for natural pruning. In group planting larger seedlings and saplings are planted with wider spacing than in row plating, with some preassigned number of additional trees which serve to control ground vegetation and can thus prevent dormant unwanted tree seedlings to start growing which originally survived the forest fire. Overall group planting is preferable over row planting for an ensemble of reasons; due to the forest fires and erosion nutrients tend to be harder to find for plants resulting in lower growth rates for trees, the turnover fraction of trees which can be harvested is relatively low for row planting, due to the homogeneity almost no promotion for the growth of other tree species exist for row planting, whereas group planting allows for the natural regeneration of extraneous tree species in between the planted groups which results in greater biodiversity. <br />
To measure the success of restoration the recovery rate of the 6 major functions of the forest can be monitored. However, success rate measurements alone are not enough, a restored site needs continuous monitoring to evaluate the efficiency of the forest management process as well as collecting data about possible mistakes for future forest management programs. If it turns out an area is poorly restored, auxiliary restoration operations will be launched. An additional way to measure the success of the reforestation process is by counting the number of certain beetle species, as members of the Curculionidae family of beetles are predominantly present in burned forests where they attack weaker trees, whereas a healthy forest will house more beetles of the Collembola family which only feed on top soil vegetation (Ahn et al., 2014)<br />
<ref> Ahn, Y. S., Ryu, S. R., Lim, J., Lee, C. H., Shin, J. H., Choi, W. I., ... & Seo, J. I. (2014). Effects of forest fires on forest ecosystems in eastern coastal areas of Korea and an overview of restoration projects. Landscape and ecological engineering, 10(1), 229-237. </ref>. <br />
<br />
In general two species of trees are considered for planting: pine trees and oak trees. Pine trees have the advantage of producing high quality timber and giving rise to the valuable pine mushrooms. However pine trees have big disadvantages: they are very susceptible to fire, therefore making reforestation with pure pine stands an undesirable result. Oak trees on the other hand are natural candidate for reforestation: they can regrow from leftover intact floor level vegetation, making them an ideal candidate when tree mortality rates in the reforestation process are estimated to be high and oak trees have low heat yield making them a natural fire break. Furthermore, oak trees are a deep-rooted species which gives them soil stabilising features. Nevertheless, an option of a forest purely consisting of species x is not a desirable result either. In the new plan it is therefore recommended to make use of group planting with mixed groups of oak and pine trees. In this way a fire barrier can be made with oak trees to protect the more valuable pine trees. With the inclusion of oak trees natural regeneration processes for other species is also promoted resulting in a more diverse forest. Albeit the exact mix between oak and pine trees will be a resulting factor of the natural fire regime of a certain area; fire regime parameters include fire frequency, fire intensity and fuel consumption patterns. <br />
In areas which have a high probability for the occurrence of landslides, swift restoration is of critical importance to prevent secondary damages to the forest. The probability for landslides to occur is directly related to the topological configuration of the area, making this a topic which might need assessment in a reforestation plan for a national park, depending on the national park of interest. Burned down forests can surprisingly be beneficial to undertake countermeasures for landslides. Burned or fallen trees can be used to build terraces on a hill, creating a cascade of barriers to stop landslides. After a forest fire, there will most likely be an abundance of trees to use for this counter measure, therefore eliminating the need for additional resources which allows for immediate emergency restoration activities to commence as soon as an area has been cleared by the fire department. Another contingency reforestation method is seed spraying: in this method small seeds are sprayed onto a slope from which fast growing grasses can emerge to provide slope stability. <br />
<br />
From this case study it can be concluded that post-fire management for a reforestation process includes a wide range of stakeholders and evaluation parameters. Because the way in which restoration is executed and the environmental context have substantial influence on the success rate of the reforestation a thorough understanding of these parameters is needed before a reforestation plan can be constructed. To assure that reforestation programs do not interfere with the local land usage laws and do not impair the economical position of the local population any reforestation project has to be carried out in synergy between the local and central governing bodies. Special attention should be given to fire prevention in the new forest after the reforestation process is done by means of timely pruning of the crown layer and incorporation of oak trees to prevent unnecessary damage from future wildfires. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusions from case studies ==<br />
The above case studies revealed several elements which are critical successfulness of a reforestation operation which remained uncovered in the extended literature review. In summary these can be characterised as;<br />
<br />
# Strong interplay between involved parties. During a reforestation operation it is important that all involved parties are cooperating and their interest are well represented. From the Mediterranean case it became clear that the central government played an inhibiting role due to dated legislation, whereas the South Korea case revealed that the local community of a forest required pine mushrooms to thrive, thus influencing the decision of which trees need to be planted. All in all, this will lead to a different reforestation plan each particular case, since the context for each particular case will differ.<br />
# Not only an adequate reforestation plan is required, but this progress also needs to be adequately monitored. The case studies revealed that some initially good reforestation plans can turn out to be not as good as expected or carried out poorly. In such cases usually auxiliary methods need to be employed to restore or correct these plans, which introduce unnecessary costs and time loss.<br />
# The planting method used significantly affects the outcome. The row planting method will result in a forest with higher quality timber wood, however will also produce a forest more susceptible to disasters such as forest fires and diseases because of the homogeneous conditions of the resulting forest. Group planting methods on the other hand results in a mixed species forest which promotes biodiversity and can stimulate the growth of other species in the patches in between these groups.<br />
# Certain tree species can increase fire resistance. Oak trees can form a natural fire break because of their low heat yield, which means that the planting of a cluster of oak trees near the edges of a forest area could either help to quarantine a fire originating from this area or could help to protect this area from external fire. <br />
<br />
In terms of a potential robotic solution this means that a robot ought to: respect the interest of all involved parties, e.g. if a certain plant species is deemed of paramount importance for the local population the activities of the robot should stimulate the existence and growth of this species and definitively not be maleficent to this species; the robot should be able to handle the planting of multiple plant species both for the sake of biodiversity, as for incorporate group planting and for the sake of creating a more fire resistant forest; have an incorporated mechanism to measure the progress and success of the reforestation operation. If a robotic solution can be made which satisfies these additional conditions to the ones already present from the extended literature review (have lower costs and labour intensity w.r.t. manual reforestation) then this solution would be beneficial and desirable for national parks to have. Hence the case for designing a robotic solution for reforestation is made solid.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=57781Extended Literature Review2018-06-01T11:01:26Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
In the conclusion, a decision will be made on which current method of reforestation is most effective. This decision will be based on several factors which the research group considers important. The factors are: <br />
<br />
* Effectivity with respect to time<br />
* Costs <br />
* Labour intensity <br />
* Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
* Effectivity with respect to resource<br />
* Level of control <br />
<br />
The three methods will each get one of the four rankings per factor (--, -, +, ++). The ranking they get will be based on the literature review that is done per reforestation method. The reforestation method that has the best score is considered the best reforestation method in the case of a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
Natural reforestation and Aerial reforestation both receive one + with respect to biodiversity, this is because they have the ability to regrow several different species but the more dominant species will take over and the natural scenery will not recover. Manual reforestation receives two + because with manual reforestation, complete recovery of the natural scenery is possible. <br />
Manual reforestation receives one + with respect to the time effectivity, this is because a forest recovers faster when seeds are planted. Aerial and natural reforestation get a - and a -- respectively because aerial reforestation is only beneficial with respect to time in a non-fertile area and natural reforestation is very slow. <br />
Natural reforestation receives two + with respect to effectivity with resources because natural reforestation uses no resources and thus also has no waste. Manual reforestation receives one + because different seeds can be planted in the correct environment and therefore minimal seeds don’t grow. Aerial reforestation receives two - because the seed-tree ratio is extremely high. <br />
Because this high ratio and much fuel costs aerial reforestation receives two - with respect to costs. Manual reforestation also gets one - for costs because manual labour is always very expensive. Natural reforestation is free and therefore gets two +. <br />
Because manual labour is so intensive, manual reforestation receives two - when looking at the factor of labour intensity. With natural reforestation no labor is needed, thus this method receives two +. Aerial reforestation involves labor, this is however less intensive than with manual reforestation, the area that can be covered in a small amount of time is very big and this method therefore receives one +. <br />
Nobody manages the reforestation when it is done with natural reforestation, this method scores two - when looking at the level of control that can be fulfilled. Because with manual reforestation the location of each species can be determined you can exert a good level of control and this method thus receives two +. Aerial reforestation receives one + because you can determine the area at which you want to plant trees but you cannot control it per centimeter.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Evaluation of the reforestation methods'''<br />
! <br />
! Natural reforestation<br />
! Manual reforestation<br />
! Aerial reforestation<br />
|-<br />
| Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
| +<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Effectivity with respect to time<br />
| --<br />
| +<br />
| -<br />
|-<br />
| Effectivity with respect to resources<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
| --<br />
|-<br />
| Costs<br />
| ++<br />
| -<br />
| --<br />
|-<br />
| Labour intensity<br />
| ++<br />
| --<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Level of control<br />
| --<br />
| ++<br />
| +<br />
|-<br />
| Result<br />
| 3<br />
| 3<br />
| -2<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
The result shows that natural reforestation and manual reforestation both end up with 3 points and can thus be considered equally good for reforestation after a forest fire with respect to the factors the group considers important. However, the factor ‘ability to restore biodiversity’ is very important in the context of a National park, as can be read in the introduction of this wiki page. Because manual reforestation has a higher score on this factor, manual reforestation is the best option for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
This conclusion is interesting when a prototype of a robot, that combats deforestation as a result of forest fires in National parks, is designed. This robot must follow the main design of manual reforestation since this method is considered most efficient. However, as can be seen in the table, there are also some improvement points for this method. Manual reforestation is very labour intensive and it is expensive as well. When a prototype for a reforestation robot is made, the robot must improve the way manual reforestation is done now with respect to labour intensiveness and costs but the robot must be able to restore biodiversity and have a good level of control as well as manual reforestation is able now. A robot is therefore a very good way to improve manual reforestation since a robot is a good manner to decrease the labor intensiveness of a job.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=General_Literature_Review&diff=57780General Literature Review2018-06-01T11:00:25Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review is divided in two branches: one general literature review concerning itself with robotics technology and current methods used for reforestation and an extended literature review. The latter was held to zoom in on the specific case of reforestation methods, their effectiveness and evaluation parameters, with the goal of obtaining clear cut criteria for assessing the need for a robot. And if it turns out such a need arises to obtain insights into what functionalities the robot ought to have to outperform the current methods. This extended literature review can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Available robotic technologies ==<br />
Initially our artifact-to-be-designed was envisioned as a mobile (semi-)autonomous mobile robot which would cover terrain in need of reforestation, evaluating the ground using sensors to obtain parameters which give information about the fertility of the ground (e.g. humidity, acidity, bacteria presence, etc.) and a planting mechanism to plant the seeds if the environmental conditions are deemed favorable. Preferably the artifact-to-be-designed would be a modular robot, consisting of a basic chassis upon which modules could be placed to add or interchange functionalities such that it can also be used in other areas besides reforestation. The results of these researched items can be found below. <br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
A good description of the working of remote control systems is given by the patent on remote control systems, which is granted to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. by the US government (Hashimoto et al., 1996) <ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref>. This patent lists all the essential components for a remote-control system such as movement detector sensor, a transmitter and receiver unit, a display device to function as the user interface, etc.<br />
<br />
Elon Musk, CEO of amongst others SpaceX and Tesla, leader in electrical and (semi-)autonomous vehicles, describes in his vision of the autonomous car in 2016, where software updates will dominate the improvement in functionality and degree in autonomy, whereas repairs by an actual mechanic will severely reduce. There is even the potential for turning non autonomous cars into autonomous cars by means of a software update (if the non-autonomous car has software capabilities). However, there may be some legal challenges involved in this method (Kessler, 2015) <ref>Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref>.<br />
Another option for mobility, in the case of failure to implement a fully autonomous vehicle, would be remote control. An operational remote control robot is actually more closely related to a remote controlled toy car than an actual remote control car due to its size. The active patent for this is owned by Matsuhiro and shows the state of the art for these machines, which do not differ much from the state of the art for autonomous cars, considering a transmitter and receiver unit is the main component <ref>Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf</ref>.<br />
<br />
An important aspect in autonomous vehicle is the path planning to get from A to B. An ambitious project, albeit one with high potential is to set up a communication network between other (autonomous) vehicles to share information regarding traffic densities, traffic jams and unforeseen obstacles due to accidents to get additional information for optimal path planning <ref> Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 </ref>.<br />
<br />
<!-- A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/</ref>.<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics) <ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html</ref>.<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref>.--><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
In order for to robot to be effective it should not waste time, energy and seeds by planting them in infertile soil, as after all the fertility of the soil will be the dominant factor determining the survival rate of the seeds and hence determines the effectiveness of the employment of our robot. Therefore, our robot-to-be-designed would severely benefit from sensors which can prospect the soil to some degree, at least to get a sufficient reading of the parameters determining fertility to rationally decide whether or not to commence the planting operation at a certain location. <br />
<br />
Current technology allows the conditions of the soil to be inferred by a multitude of sensors. The simplest of them being a sensor which monitors a plant <ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determines whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture. However the application of this type of sensor would be inefficient and not desirable for our robot for two reasons: 1. It takes a lot of time to monitor a plant and get sufficient data on its growth to be statistically significant, and 2. Our robot will be used for reforestation after forest fire, therefore most vegetation will have been destroyed by the wild fire, thus rendering next to no plants for measurements<br />
<br />
An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow, however water needs not be present in abundance as that could also be detrimental for plants.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds, as the presence of bio-mass and micro-organisms indicate the existence of an micro ecosystem in which the plant can exchange nutrients for its growth. Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil, as nitrogen is an important nutrient for plants.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds. The temperature sensor seems redundant as the average seasonal temperature will in general be known for a certain geographical area, and replanted trees will be growing in the same area as they used to grow thus we know that the climate is suitable, however it may give some important information about any and all remnants of the forest fire. If a small fire source remains which may not be visible with aerial/thermal imaging the robot can detects these fire seats and drive clear from them to prevent damage to the robot. Additionally it will be wise not to plant seeds near a still burning fire as the chances for survival will be low as it is most likely the seed will burn. A final benefit of employing a temperature is related to tertiary users; the robot could send an alarm to the fire department if a remnant of the fire is detected so that they can extinguish it before it can spread and turn into a second wild fire.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in areas where the fertility is more or less predetermined, as some factors allow for an estimation of high or low fertility. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough for the deployment of our robot without the need of inquiring information through dedicated sensors, which could potentially save a lot of processing time and hence make the operation of the robot more effecient.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
There are a lot of variants to keep in mind about the seeding mechanisms.<br />
One thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
Seedlings are often used as to plant trees, but is not viable to do on big scales. Due to both the fact that seeds are easier to transport, handle and plant than seedlings this should make up for the loss on the success rates.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Setting and or measuring whether the ground variables are within acceptable ranges will also greatly benefit the results.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. Conventional methods simplify soil cutting to mass points, which is not conform reality. Other parameters such as soild pressure variability over the screw haft and the spiral angle also can affect the force distribution. The model described in Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> gives a good insight in the forces. While the model is written for lunar soil changing the parameters to earth soil counterparts will make it true for earthly soil<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Contemporary considerations regarding reforestation == <br />
Next a branch of the general literature review focused on the problem (reforestation) instead of the possibilities for the product (robot). Inquiries were made into the scale for the need for reforestation, the involved methodologies and conditions, and lastly the employment of robotics technology in reforestation practices to assess whether there is potential for improvement of the current technologies or if there even are any current technologies at all. The results of this research can be found below.<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Forest fires can be a pain in the ass for national parks such as the Yellowstone National Park. A wild fire will always cause a change in vegetation between the pre- and post-fire situation, which is expressed as the burn severity. Preferably for the regrowth of a forest in a national park the burn severity should be as low as possible. However, for some species the burn severity is much higher than for others, this Is the mainly the case for vascular species, as freshly burned areas create a situation ideal for the growth of pine seedlings and can hence create a paradigm shift in the decomposition of the forest after a wild fire occurred. Another important factor is the size of the wildfire, as a larger burned area gives a bigger potential for tree seedlings of a certain type for which the conditions are favourable to sprout, which will lower the overall species diversity. Hence not every forest fire will generate the same biotic reaction (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>. <!-- Wat bedoel je met “The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem.”? --><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean. Then again, a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing changes in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered, leaving only a net loss of 180 thousand km^2 of forest. Considering the eminent dependence of woody vegetation on the dynamics of deforestation and reforestation, these processes which are each other counterparts need to be regulated more extensively (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that has a less healthy ecosystem which might even spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity, thus contaminating the rest of the forest. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate than the species which consisted the original vegetation in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref> as to eliminate any potential hostile takeover of the vegetation population since the goal of reforestation in most National Parks is restoration of the pre-fire situation as best as possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The robot-to-be-designed will be focussed on reforestation, with preferably some potential for modularity to increase the number of fields it could be employed in. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
However, there is not one clear-cut way to tackle reforestation, as many methods exists and the choice for which method will be used is largely dependent on the context of the problem (e.g. scale, budget, type of forest, etc.) (David, 2015) <ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref>. Almost all methods have in common that they are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: this is known as direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person performing physical labour in the planting process is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes, helicopters and more recently even drones <ref> https://www.biocarbonengineering.com/ </ref> <ref>https://www.droneseed.co/ </ref>. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. <br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
Reforestation also allows for augmenting the composition of the forest, as species can be either suppressed or promoted in the new area. This can result in a healthier forest and allow for a more beneficial ecosystem for animals, but if done wrong it could also be disastrous by introducing a fast-growing unwanted species, such as weed. Thus, some degree of precision is required when replanting the forest along with a degree of vigilance not to include the wrong seeds in the batch of seeds which will be dispersed, as a new composition might result in a new dominant species and therefore a different forest as before. Hence precision is needed to assure certain plants might (not) dominate the forest in certain areas. <ref>JingYao, Xingyuan He, Hongshi He, WeiChen, Limin Dai, Bernard J. Lewis & LizhongYu, The long-term effects of planting and harvesting on secondary forest dynamics under climate change in northeastern China, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698755/pdf/srep18490.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
<br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General conclusions ==<br />
From the conducted general literature review some general conclusions can be made. Deforestation is global phenomena with drastic consequences for mankind and nature, however there exist effective methods to combat this such as reforestation. Within reforestation different applications exist to get the job done, however these application differentiate in costs, effectiveness and time consumption. Robotics technology is hardly used in this area and is still in its infancy, leaving much room for innovation and improvement. <br />
Within robotics technology a promising solution for this problem would be a mobile seeding robot, which equipped with sensors can determine the fertility of the ground and plant the seeds most optimally for regrowth. Preferably this robot would be able to operate autonomously so that it can cover an area (which will be predetermined due to the fire) without the need of supervision of forest rangers which will be busy in the periods after a wildfire. Additionally a preference would be for this robot to be modular so that there is no need to develop a completely new robot for a different task, as it is most likely National Parks will have the need for a robot which can carry out other tasks for the reforestation process such as the removal of seeds of surviving species which might become dominant after a forest fire. However, room for debate still exists upon which mechanism would be best to plant seeds and whether a robotics technology is indeed a desired solution when compared to the contemporary alternatives.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=General_Literature_Review&diff=57779General Literature Review2018-06-01T10:59:56Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review is divided in two branches: one general literature review concerning itself with robotics technology and current methods used for reforestation and an extended literature review. The latter was held to zoom in on the specific case of reforestation methods, their effectiveness and evaluation parameters, with the goal of obtaining clear cut criteria for assessing the need for a robot. And if it turns out such a need arises to obtain insights into what functionalities the robot ought to have to outperform the current methods. This extended literature review can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Available robotic technologies ==<br />
Initially our artifact-to-be-designed was envisioned as a mobile (semi-)autonomous mobile robot which would cover terrain in need of reforestation, evaluating the ground using sensors to obtain parameters which give information about the fertility of the ground (e.g. humidity, acidity, bacteria presence, etc.) and a planting mechanism to plant the seeds if the environmental conditions are deemed favorable. Preferably the artifact-to-be-designed would be a modular robot, consisting of a basic chassis upon which modules could be placed to add or interchange functionalities such that it can also be used in other areas besides reforestation. The results of these researched items can be found below. <br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
A good description of the working of remote control systems is given by the patent on remote control systems, which is granted to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. by the US government (Hashimoto et al., 1996) <ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref>. This patent lists all the essential components for a remote-control system such as movement detector sensor, a transmitter and receiver unit, a display device to function as the user interface, etc.<br />
<br />
Elon Musk, CEO of amongst others SpaceX and Tesla, leader in electrical and (semi-)autonomous vehicles, describes in his vision of the autonomous car in 2016, where software updates will dominate the improvement in functionality and degree in autonomy, whereas repairs by an actual mechanic will severely reduce. There is even the potential for turning non autonomous cars into autonomous cars by means of a software update (if the non-autonomous car has software capabilities). However, there may be some legal challenges involved in this method (Kessler, 2015) <ref>Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref>.<br />
Another option for mobility, in the case of failure to implement a fully autonomous vehicle, would be remote control. An operational remote control robot is actually more closely related to a remote controlled toy car than an actual remote control car due to its size. The active patent for this is owned by Matsuhiro and shows the state of the art for these machines, which do not differ much from the state of the art for autonomous cars, considering a transmitter and receiver unit is the main component <ref>Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf</ref>.<br />
<br />
An important aspect in autonomous vehicle is the path planning to get from A to B. An ambitious project, albeit one with high potential is to set up a communication network between other (autonomous) vehicles to share information regarding traffic densities, traffic jams and unforeseen obstacles due to accidents to get additional information for optimal path planning <ref> Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 </ref>.<br />
<br />
<!-- A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/</ref>.<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics) <ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html</ref>.<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref>.--><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
In order for to robot to be effective it should not waste time, energy and seeds by planting them in infertile soil, as after all the fertility of the soil will be the dominant factor determining the survival rate of the seeds and hence determines the effectiveness of the employment of our robot. Therefore, our robot-to-be-designed would severely benefit from sensors which can prospect the soil to some degree, at least to get a sufficient reading of the parameters determining fertility to rationally decide whether or not to commence the planting operation at a certain location. <br />
<br />
Current technology allows the conditions of the soil to be inferred by a multitude of sensors. The simplest of them being a sensor which monitors a plant <ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determines whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture. However the application of this type of sensor would be inefficient and not desirable for our robot for two reasons: 1. It takes a lot of time to monitor a plant and get sufficient data on its growth to be statistically significant, and 2. Our robot will be used for reforestation after forest fire, therefore most vegetation will have been destroyed by the wild fire, thus rendering next to no plants for measurements<br />
<br />
An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow, however water needs not be present in abundance as that could also be detrimental for plants.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds, as the presence of bio-mass and micro-organisms indicate the existence of an micro ecosystem in which the plant can exchange nutrients for its growth. Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil, as nitrogen is an important nutrient for plants.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds. The temperature sensor seems redundant as the average seasonal temperature will in general be known for a certain geographical area, and replanted trees will be growing in the same area as they used to grow thus we know that the climate is suitable, however it may give some important information about any and all remnants of the forest fire. If a small fire source remains which may not be visible with aerial/thermal imaging the robot can detects these fire seats and drive clear from them to prevent damage to the robot. Additionally it will be wise not to plant seeds near a still burning fire as the chances for survival will be low as it is most likely the seed will burn. A final benefit of employing a temperature is related to tertiary users; the robot could send an alarm to the fire department if a remnant of the fire is detected so that they can extinguish it before it can spread and turn into a second wild fire.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in areas where the fertility is more or less predetermined, as some factors allow for an estimation of high or low fertility. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough for the deployment of our robot without the need of inquiring information through dedicated sensors, which could potentially save a lot of processing time and hence make the operation of the robot more effecient.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
There are a lot of variants to keep in mind about the seeding mechanisms.<br />
One thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
Seedlings are often used as to plant trees, but is not viable to do on big scales. Due to both the fact that seeds are easier to transport, handle and plant than seedlings this should make up for the loss on the success rates.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Setting and or measuring whether the ground variables are within acceptable ranges will also greatly benefit the results.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. Conventional methods simplify soil cutting to mass points, which is not conform reality. Other parameters such as soild pressure variability over the screw haft and the spiral angle also can affect the force distribution. The model described in Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> gives a good insight in the forces. While the model is written for lunar soil changing the parameters to earth soil counterparts will make it true for earthly soil<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Contemporary considerations regarding reforestation == <br />
Next a branch of the general literature review focused on the problem (reforestation) instead of the possibilities for the product (robot). Inquiries were made into the scale for the need for reforestation, the involved methodologies and conditions, and lastly the employment of robotics technology in reforestation practices to assess whether there is potential for improvement of the current technologies or if there even are any current technologies at all. The results of this research can be found below.<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Forest fires can be a pain in the ass for national parks such as the Yellowstone National Park. A wild fire will always cause a change in vegetation between the pre- and post-fire situation, which is expressed as the burn severity. Preferably for the regrowth of a forest in a national park the burn severity should be as low as possible. However, for some species the burn severity is much higher than for others, this Is the mainly the case for vascular species, as freshly burned areas create a situation ideal for the growth of pine seedlings and can hence create a paradigm shift in the decomposition of the forest after a wild fire occurred. Another important factor is the size of the wildfire, as a larger burned area gives a bigger potential for tree seedlings of a certain type for which the conditions are favourable to sprout, which will lower the overall species diversity. Hence not every forest fire will generate the same biotic reaction (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>. <!-- Wat bedoel je met “The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem.”? --><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean. Then again, a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing changes in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered, leaving only a net loss of 180 thousand km^2 of forest. Considering the eminent dependence of woody vegetation on the dynamics of deforestation and reforestation, these processes which are each other counterparts need to be regulated more extensively (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that has a less healthy ecosystem which might even spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity, thus contaminating the rest of the forest. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate than the species which consisted the original vegetation in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref> as to eliminate any potential hostile takeover of the vegetation population since the goal of reforestation in most National Parks is restoration of the pre-fire situation as best as possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The robot-to-be-designed will be focussed on reforestation, with preferably some potential for modularity to increase the number of fields it could be employed in. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
However, there is not one clear-cut way to tackle reforestation, as many methods exists and the choice for which method will be used is largely dependent on the context of the problem (e.g. scale, budget, type of forest, etc.) (David, 2015) <ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref>. Almost all methods have in common that they are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: this is known as direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person performing physical labour in the planting process is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes, helicopters and more recently even drones <ref> https://www.biocarbonengineering.com/ </ref> <ref>https://www.droneseed.co/ </ref>. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. <br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
Reforestation also allows for augmenting the composition of the forest, as species can be either suppressed or promoted in the new area. This can result in a healthier forest and allow for a more beneficial ecosystem for animals, but if done wrong it could also be disastrous by introducing a fast-growing unwanted species, such as weed. Thus, some degree of precision is required when replanting the forest along with a degree of vigilance not to include the wrong seeds in the batch of seeds which will be dispersed, as a new composition might result in a new dominant species and therefore a different forest as before. Hence precision is needed to assure certain plants might (not) dominate the forest in certain areas. <ref>JingYao, Xingyuan He, Hongshi He, WeiChen, Limin Dai, Bernard J. Lewis & LizhongYu, The long-term effects of planting and harvesting on secondary forest dynamics under climate change in northeastern China, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698755/pdf/srep18490.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
<br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General conclusions ==<br />
From the conducted general literature review some general conclusions can be made. Deforestation is global phenomena with drastic consequences for mankind and nature, however there exist effective methods to combat this such as reforestation. Within reforestation different applications exist to get the job done, however these application differentiate in costs, effectiveness and time consumption. Robotics technology is hardly used in this area and is still in its infancy, leaving much room for innovation and improvement. <br />
Within robotics technology a promising solution for this problem would be a mobile seeding robot, which equipped with sensors can determine the fertility of the ground and plant the seeds most optimally for regrowth. Preferably this robot would be able to operate autonomously so that it can cover an area (which will be predetermined due to the fire) without the need of supervision of forest rangers which will be busy in the periods after a wildfire. Additionally a preference would be for this robot to be modular so that there is no need to develop a completely new robot for a different task, as it is most likely National Parks will have the need for a robot which can carry out other tasks for the reforestation process such as the removal of seeds of surviving species which might become dominant after a forest fire. However, room for debate still exists upon which mechanism would be best to plant seeds and whether a robotics technology is indeed a desired solution when compared to the contemporary alternatives.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=General_Literature_Review&diff=57778General Literature Review2018-06-01T10:58:56Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review is divided in two branches: one general literature review concerning itself with robotics technology and current methods used for reforestation and an extended literature review. The latter was held to zoom in on the specific case of reforestation methods, their effectiveness and evaluation parameters, with the goal of obtaining clear cut criteria for assessing the need for a robot. And if it turns out such a need arises to obtain insights into what functionalities the robot ought to have to outperform the current methods. This extended literature review can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found in [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Available robotic technologies ==<br />
Initially our artifact-to-be-designed was envisioned as a mobile (semi-)autonomous mobile robot which would cover terrain in need of reforestation, evaluating the ground using sensors to obtain parameters which give information about the fertility of the ground (e.g. humidity, acidity, bacteria presence, etc.) and a planting mechanism to plant the seeds if the environmental conditions are deemed favorable. Preferably the artifact-to-be-designed would be a modular robot, consisting of a basic chassis upon which modules could be placed to add or interchange functionalities such that it can also be used in other areas besides reforestation. The results of these researched items can be found below. <br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
A good description of the working of remote control systems is given by the patent on remote control systems, which is granted to Mitsubishi Electric Corp. by the US government (Hashimoto et al., 1996) <ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref>. This patent lists all the essential components for a remote-control system such as movement detector sensor, a transmitter and receiver unit, a display device to function as the user interface, etc.<br />
<br />
Elon Musk, CEO of amongst others SpaceX and Tesla, leader in electrical and (semi-)autonomous vehicles, describes in his vision of the autonomous car in 2016, where software updates will dominate the improvement in functionality and degree in autonomy, whereas repairs by an actual mechanic will severely reduce. There is even the potential for turning non autonomous cars into autonomous cars by means of a software update (if the non-autonomous car has software capabilities). However, there may be some legal challenges involved in this method (Kessler, 2015) <ref>Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref>.<br />
Another option for mobility, in the case of failure to implement a fully autonomous vehicle, would be remote control. An operational remote control robot is actually more closely related to a remote controlled toy car than an actual remote control car due to its size. The active patent for this is owned by Matsuhiro and shows the state of the art for these machines, which do not differ much from the state of the art for autonomous cars, considering a transmitter and receiver unit is the main component <ref>Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf</ref>.<br />
<br />
An important aspect in autonomous vehicle is the path planning to get from A to B. An ambitious project, albeit one with high potential is to set up a communication network between other (autonomous) vehicles to share information regarding traffic densities, traffic jams and unforeseen obstacles due to accidents to get additional information for optimal path planning <ref> Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 </ref>.<br />
<br />
<!-- A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/</ref>.<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics) <ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html</ref>.<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref>.--><br />
<br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
In order for to robot to be effective it should not waste time, energy and seeds by planting them in infertile soil, as after all the fertility of the soil will be the dominant factor determining the survival rate of the seeds and hence determines the effectiveness of the employment of our robot. Therefore, our robot-to-be-designed would severely benefit from sensors which can prospect the soil to some degree, at least to get a sufficient reading of the parameters determining fertility to rationally decide whether or not to commence the planting operation at a certain location. <br />
<br />
Current technology allows the conditions of the soil to be inferred by a multitude of sensors. The simplest of them being a sensor which monitors a plant <ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determines whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture. However the application of this type of sensor would be inefficient and not desirable for our robot for two reasons: 1. It takes a lot of time to monitor a plant and get sufficient data on its growth to be statistically significant, and 2. Our robot will be used for reforestation after forest fire, therefore most vegetation will have been destroyed by the wild fire, thus rendering next to no plants for measurements<br />
<br />
An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow, however water needs not be present in abundance as that could also be detrimental for plants.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds, as the presence of bio-mass and micro-organisms indicate the existence of an micro ecosystem in which the plant can exchange nutrients for its growth. Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil, as nitrogen is an important nutrient for plants.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds. The temperature sensor seems redundant as the average seasonal temperature will in general be known for a certain geographical area, and replanted trees will be growing in the same area as they used to grow thus we know that the climate is suitable, however it may give some important information about any and all remnants of the forest fire. If a small fire source remains which may not be visible with aerial/thermal imaging the robot can detects these fire seats and drive clear from them to prevent damage to the robot. Additionally it will be wise not to plant seeds near a still burning fire as the chances for survival will be low as it is most likely the seed will burn. A final benefit of employing a temperature is related to tertiary users; the robot could send an alarm to the fire department if a remnant of the fire is detected so that they can extinguish it before it can spread and turn into a second wild fire.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in areas where the fertility is more or less predetermined, as some factors allow for an estimation of high or low fertility. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough for the deployment of our robot without the need of inquiring information through dedicated sensors, which could potentially save a lot of processing time and hence make the operation of the robot more effecient.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
There are a lot of variants to keep in mind about the seeding mechanisms.<br />
One thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
Seedlings are often used as to plant trees, but is not viable to do on big scales. Due to both the fact that seeds are easier to transport, handle and plant than seedlings this should make up for the loss on the success rates.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Setting and or measuring whether the ground variables are within acceptable ranges will also greatly benefit the results.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. Conventional methods simplify soil cutting to mass points, which is not conform reality. Other parameters such as soild pressure variability over the screw haft and the spiral angle also can affect the force distribution. The model described in Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> gives a good insight in the forces. While the model is written for lunar soil changing the parameters to earth soil counterparts will make it true for earthly soil<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Contemporary considerations regarding reforestation == <br />
Next a branch of the general literature review focused on the problem (reforestation) instead of the possibilities for the product (robot). Inquiries were made into the scale for the need for reforestation, the involved methodologies and conditions, and lastly the employment of robotics technology in reforestation practices to assess whether there is potential for improvement of the current technologies or if there even are any current technologies at all. The results of this research can be found below.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Forest fires can be a pain in the ass for national parks such as the Yellowstone National Park. A wild fire will always cause a change in vegetation between the pre- and post-fire situation, which is expressed as the burn severity. Preferably for the regrowth of a forest in a national park the burn severity should be as low as possible. However, for some species the burn severity is much higher than for others, this Is the mainly the case for vascular species, as freshly burned areas create a situation ideal for the growth of pine seedlings and can hence create a paradigm shift in the decomposition of the forest after a wild fire occurred. Another important factor is the size of the wildfire, as a larger burned area gives a bigger potential for tree seedlings of a certain type for which the conditions are favourable to sprout, which will lower the overall species diversity. Hence not every forest fire will generate the same biotic reaction (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>. <!-- Wat bedoel je met “The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem.”? --><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean. Then again, a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing changes in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered, leaving only a net loss of 180 thousand km^2 of forest. Considering the eminent dependence of woody vegetation on the dynamics of deforestation and reforestation, these processes which are each other counterparts need to be regulated more extensively (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that has a less healthy ecosystem which might even spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity, thus contaminating the rest of the forest. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate than the species which consisted the original vegetation in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref> as to eliminate any potential hostile takeover of the vegetation population since the goal of reforestation in most National Parks is restoration of the pre-fire situation as best as possible.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The robot-to-be-designed will be focussed on reforestation, with preferably some potential for modularity to increase the number of fields it could be employed in. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
However, there is not one clear-cut way to tackle reforestation, as many methods exists and the choice for which method will be used is largely dependent on the context of the problem (e.g. scale, budget, type of forest, etc.) (David, 2015) <ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref>. Almost all methods have in common that they are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: this is known as direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person performing physical labour in the planting process is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes, helicopters and more recently even drones <ref> https://www.biocarbonengineering.com/ </ref> <ref>https://www.droneseed.co/ </ref>. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. <br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
Reforestation also allows for augmenting the composition of the forest, as species can be either suppressed or promoted in the new area. This can result in a healthier forest and allow for a more beneficial ecosystem for animals, but if done wrong it could also be disastrous by introducing a fast-growing unwanted species, such as weed. Thus, some degree of precision is required when replanting the forest along with a degree of vigilance not to include the wrong seeds in the batch of seeds which will be dispersed, as a new composition might result in a new dominant species and therefore a different forest as before. Hence precision is needed to assure certain plants might (not) dominate the forest in certain areas. <ref>JingYao, Xingyuan He, Hongshi He, WeiChen, Limin Dai, Bernard J. Lewis & LizhongYu, The long-term effects of planting and harvesting on secondary forest dynamics under climate change in northeastern China, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698755/pdf/srep18490.pdf </ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
<br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== General conclusions ==<br />
From the conducted general literature review some general conclusions can be made. Deforestation is global phenomena with drastic consequences for mankind and nature, however there exist effective methods to combat this such as reforestation. Within reforestation different applications exist to get the job done, however these application differentiate in costs, effectiveness and time consumption. Robotics technology is hardly used in this area and is still in its infancy, leaving much room for innovation and improvement. <br />
Within robotics technology a promising solution for this problem would be a mobile seeding robot, which equipped with sensors can determine the fertility of the ground and plant the seeds most optimally for regrowth. Preferably this robot would be able to operate autonomously so that it can cover an area (which will be predetermined due to the fire) without the need of supervision of forest rangers which will be busy in the periods after a wildfire. Additionally a preference would be for this robot to be modular so that there is no need to develop a completely new robot for a different task, as it is most likely National Parks will have the need for a robot which can carry out other tasks for the reforestation process such as the removal of seeds of surviving species which might become dominant after a forest fire. However, room for debate still exists upon which mechanism would be best to plant seeds and whether a robotics technology is indeed a desired solution when compared to the contemporary alternatives.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=57777PRE2017 4 Groep62018-06-01T10:57:11Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages<br />
<br />
* [[General Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Case studies]]<br />
* [[User and product analysis]]<br />
* [[Designing the robot]]<br />
* [[Project conclusion]]<br />
* [[Project reflection]]<br />
* [[Trial formule]]<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project.<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the possibility of wildfires. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times over a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while potentially still having an extremely fertile soil with all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate the natural process which accounts for the regrowth of the forests. This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. This project investigates the possibility and potential of utilizing robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. In order to investigate this possibility, a thorough analysis on different methods of deforestation is made first. By comparing methods of reforestation a lot can be learnt about what aspects the reforestation-robot should be an improvement on compared to older reforestation methods. Also, this analysis will explore if a new method of reforestation is needed at all. Beyond this, two case studies are investigated. These case studies show how reforestation and forest fires are currently being handled. The case help studies help to get a better understanding of what the robot should be able to do and what it ought not to be able to do and thus help to define design criteria. Finally, a design is made of the robot which would accomplish all necessities found during the analysis of the different reforestation methods and which follows all the criteria discovered in the case studies. Multiple preliminary designs regarding different seeding mechanism were made, one of which was chosen based on the criteria emerging from the literature review and case studies, and is resolved in further detail. Lastly some suggestions for future research are given, mainly in the topic of what possibilities exist for the other crucial functionalities of the robot, and how they would merge into one final product capable of doing what should be done. To conclude, this project aims to assess the necessity of a robot to rebuild a forest in a national park after a forest fire. Discover the functionalities such a robot must have and make a potential design based on the gained information.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere.<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Final project planning after revision problem statement and goals'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person assigned<br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research different application sectors for reforestation to narrow problem statement: <br><br />
# Reforestation in logging industry <br><br />
# Reforestation in national parks after forest fires <br><br />
# Reforestation in nature reserves and rain forests <br><br />
| All divided into categories: <br><br />
# Adine & Maikel <br><br />
# David & Gerben <br><br />
# Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make preliminary robot designs for the following seeding mechanisms:<br />
# Drilling robot <br><br />
# Sprinkler robot <br><br />
# Plow robot <br><br />
| Divided into:<br />
# David <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review and narrowing of problem statement<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Extended literature review on specific subject of reforestation: <br><br />
# Biodiversity and need for control <br><br />
# Natural reforestation versus artificial reforestation <br><br />
# Direct seeding (manual seeding) <br><br />
# Aerial seeding <br><br />
| All divided into the following categories: <br><br />
# Collaborative effort of all group members during own research <br><br />
# David & Adine <br><br />
# Luc & Gerben <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite problem statement<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review users for narrowed problem<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Edit the general literature review on wiki<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Research the costs of reforestation methods: <br><br />
# Natural reforestation <br><br />
# Aerial reforestation <br><br />
# Manual reforestation <br><br />
| Divided by: <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rewrite segment of need for control and biodiversity into one introductory segement<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start making 3D skechtes of preliminary designs<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Document wiki on extended literature review page <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start keeping a log of the research and design process<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Look for case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write case studies<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Remake planning to fit new goal of the project<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Redefine objectives to fit new goal of project<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
| Rewrite drilling mechanism section<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish a first 3D model<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue 3D modelling<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Elaborate and extend upon current preliminary designs (including sketch)<br />
| Maikel, Gerben & David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Write wiki page for case studies<br />
| Luc & Maikel <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Evaluate designs using criteria from literature study <br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a concept for fully functional robot and report on the wiki<br />
| Maikel & Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Reflect on project<br />
| David & Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| David & Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Reach and write overall project conclusion<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Adine, David & Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approach by means of a design. What would be the best design for an effective seeding mechanism which can be used in a mobile robot deployed in a reforestation operation? The gross of the project is carried out sequentially as each subject builds further upon the conclusion reached during the last subject, which is represented in the structure of this Wiki consisting of several subpages corresponding to these subjects. Albeit that the project is carried out sequentially, within each sequence several tasks are divided such that they can be carried out in parallel by different group members. During the last phase of the project, when the major milestones have been finished, the project wrap up consists of several small independent task will allow us to abandon the sequential structure which was necessary during the other phases and carry out these tasks in parallel to gain in time.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| Have problem narrowed down<br />
|-<br />
| 17-05-2018<br />
| Finish collecting data about reforestation techniques<br />
|-<br />
| 24-05-2018<br />
| Have case studies finished<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have preliminary designs including 3D model and pick winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have detailed physical analysis of winner design<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Have concept for full robot recommendation finished<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57772Designing the robot2018-06-01T10:02:00Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different environments, since every National park has a different scenery. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy and cheap to produce. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and a final design will be picked for further analysis for the final design of the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter the worst design for this preference, since is resembles more to natural reforestation than to manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option can be considered not suitable for the situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are thus able to restore biodiversity. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill has a much easier mechanism. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore also cheaper to produce. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the ability to adapt to different sceneries. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control and the mechanism is relatively easy and cheap to produce. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57771Designing the robot2018-06-01T10:01:03Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
From the literature analysis it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. In this section several preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different, mostly used options for the seeding mechanism. After the different possibilities of seeding mechanisms are discussed, an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development looking at the different requirements, preferences and constraints that can be drawn from the literature review, case studies and product analysis.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Advantages<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.<br />
<br />
== Conclusion ==<br />
<br />
When looking back at the desired features of a reforestation robot, the robot must be cheaper than current manual reforestation, the robot must be less labour intensive and must exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity as good as possible. The case study further showed that the robot must be adaptable to work in different environments, since every National park has a different scenery. The user analysis exposed the preference of the robot being as harmless as possible for the environment and the robot being easy and cheap to produce. On the basis of these preferences, the preliminary designs will be judged and a final design will be picked for further analysis for the final design of the reforestation robot. <br />
<br />
Since this part only focuses on the seeding mechanism of the robot, several preferences are not applicable on this preliminary design. All three seeding mechanisms do not require extra labour and all these three designs thus make sure the work is less labour intensive, the reason why a reforestation robot will be designed in the first place. The analysis will therefore focus on the other preferences. <br />
<br />
One important preference is the ability to restore biodiversity in a National park. This preference can be considered most important since this is the main goal of the robot. The gritter the worst design for this preference, since is resembles more to natural reforestation than to manual reforestation. When using the gritter, it is not able to exert a lot of control on what seeds will be planted where and also the seeds cannot be planted into the ground, they can only be distributed on the ground. This results in several species that are unable to grow and thus is biodiversity not completely restored. Because the gritter has low levels of control and is unable to restore biodiversity this option can be considered not suitable for the situation. The drill and the plough are, however, able to exert a good amount of control in order to restore biodiversity. Therefore, the focus will from now on be on the drill and the plough. <br />
<br />
Both the drill and the plough are thus able to restore biodiversity. One main advantage of the drill over the plough is that the drill has a much easier mechanism. This not only means that it is easier to produce, but has the extra benefit that it is therefore also cheaper to produce. This is an important factor since if there are no companies that want to invest in the reforestation robot, no reforestation robot will be developed. <br />
<br />
Further preferences that have not been discussed are that the robot is harmless for the environment and the ability to adapt to different sceneries. Both the drill and the plough have the same qualities regarding these preferences and there is no real preference for one mechanism over the other. <br />
<br />
Concluding, the drill satisfies most preferences of the design. The mechanism is able to restore biodiversity by exerting a good level of control and the mechanism is relatively easy and cheap to produce. Therefore, this mechanism is chosen as the seeding mechanism for the final design of the reforestation robot. Further analysis of the mechanism will be done in the coming sections.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Designing_the_robot&diff=57696Designing the robot2018-05-31T11:03:20Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
<br />
From the literature review it became evident that robotics technology used for reforestation is still in its infancy, rendering us a plethora of options to design a new robot or improve on an existing model. For this project, we've decided to focus on designing a seeding mechanism for the robot, as this is ultimately the primary functionality of the robot. Some preliminary designs have been developed conceptually focusing on different options for the seeding mechanism. Besides this a list of requirements, preferences and constraints is made upon which the designs can be judged. Using these designs and requirements, preferences and constraints an informed decision is made as to which seeding mechanism(s) will seriously be considered for actual physical development.<br />
<br />
General information about the project can be found over at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Preliminary Designs ==<br />
=== Drill ===<br />
For many seeds, being planted into the ground, at a certain depth, is beneficial for their growth chances. To this extend, a drill would work great. Either the drill could be made hollow, so it could drill a hole and drop the seed instantly, or a separate drill and seed dispenser could be made. By assembling the drill in the middle of the vehicle, and thus most likely with a hole in the base of the vehicle, the most force could be asserted onto the drill. <br />
Even though a hollow drill would be the best functioning mechanism, it would be hard to make in practice with the limited time given, which is why two separate mechanisms seem like the obvious choice. This would mean one drill, being assembles at the middle of the vehicle, and one seed dispenser, assembled at the back of the vehicle.<br />
<br />
This dispenser could either truly put the seeds in the ground, by for example putting the seed on the end of a stick and pushing this stick into the ground. Or, it could drop the seed into the pre-drilled hole. The latter of these two options would be easier to produce, as the location of the hole can easily be found, (using the relative positions of the drill and dispenser) and it would save an entire part going into the ground, which is deemed a difficult part. The main advantage of the method truly putting the seed in the ground is that it minimizes falling trauma for the seed, as it is gently inserted into the ground. This, however, should not be a problem for the seed, as most seeds are used to being carried by the wind, and thus falling from far bigger heights than the ones talked about here.<br />
The main advantage of using a drilling mechanism is also one of its biggest drawbacks. Using a drill, you can very specifically control where the drill is used, and thus the upcoming forest can be planned down to the centimeter (assuming all seeds do sprout). This is great, as it can make sure that all species are there in the desired ratio’s, and everything can be planted as closely as possible to the desired location. But it does add the difficulty of navigation. It is very hard for the robot to find out exactly where it is right now, and thus where it should plant. As, when a planning is made for which seed to be placed where, down to the centimeter, the robot should also be able to find its own location, down to the centimeter.<br />
This necessary feature for the robot when a drill mechanism is used, is one that is difficult to get functioning precise enough, which is why it is not the focus point of this project. If the option for a drilling robot is chosen, the navigation issue will be left for further research.<br />
<br />
An issue that should be dealt with is the one of the drill exerting a lot of force on the vehicle. In order for the drill to truly make a hole, a lot of force needs to be applied. Even if the ground is fairly ‘soft’, the robot is not envisioned to be either very large or very heavy, meaning that the force is big, relative to the robots size. This means that if the drilling mechanism is chosen, clear attention should be paid to the force it takes to drill this hole, and what the robots weight needs to be for this not to be a problem. <br />
<br />
An advantage this mechanism has over other mechanisms, is that it puts the seeds at a pre-determined depth into the ground, meaning that an appropriate depth can be chosen for whichever species of seed is being planted. This can be beneficial for the seeds future prospects. <br />
<br />
A difficulty this mechanism shows is the fact that if the drill is not being used, so when the vehicles is driving, the drill sticks out at the top. This means that the vehicle is bigger than it has to be (as it has an x cm drill sticking out of it). This decreases the vehicles mobility significantly. Beyond this, the vehicle also needs to drive fairly stable, as the drill cannot fall over. This cannot be fixed by attaching anything to the drill to hold it stable, as the drill still needs to go into the ground.<br />
<br />
===Gritter===<br />
For rapid deployment of seeds, a gritter like structure could be used to distribute the seeds over large areas. The gritter would give a natural feel to the newly planted seeds, since there is no mechanism that determines the position of each seed with great accuracy. This would result in a ‘natural’ feel to the newly created ecosystem. The most important factor of the gritter would be the composition of the seeds, since it is random what seed is placed at which position. <br />
Multiple storage units could be used, each with a different composition of seeds, to facilitate a variance in compositions that is not totally based upon probability. An example would be a distinction between types of plants. Container 1 could primarily contain grass type plants, while container 2 mostly contains shrubs and bushes and container 3 consists of various types of trees. This creates a multitude of different areas each with a slightly different composition. So in terms of biodiversity, a gritter could place the seeds in such a way that the artificial forest does not show any differences compared to the original forest. The containers would be placed above the gritter and would feed into a funnel to provide the gritter with the desired seeds.<br />
Growth enhancers can also be easily added to the mix to help speed the process of creating a new forest. The growth enhancer can be directly added into the mix in the container and no extra process is needed, since everything goes through the same gritter from the containers.<br />
<br />
However, the gritter system also has serious disadvantages to consider. Since all seeds are basically placed on top of the soil in all cases, seed may not have a high germination rate for species that require seeds to be position underneath the ground. This can be a direct result from the species itself, as well as external factors. Animals would not have a hard time picking up the seeds from the ground and eating them and weather like rain could potentially wash the seeds away from the area where they are needed. Furthermore, this makes the robot unsuitable for steep hills and areas that have a lot of height differences within them. Rain would wash everything to the lower points within the forest, resulting in a few places that are extremely dense in terms of plants and a lot of places devoid of plants. This also directly affects the resource management of the robot. While the robot could be extremely fast compared to the other preliminary designs, the robot also wastes a lot of resources that could have been used for other areas where they are needed.<br />
<br />
In terms of stress on the robot, the gritter requires a low amount of energy compared to the other designs. The system is not directly in contact with the soil and gravity does most of the work to distribute the seeds. The biggest issue would be overall weight of the robot, since a lot of seeds have to be distributed to compensate for the low germination rate. So most of the energy that is needed for this system would go into transporting large amount of seeds in potentially multiple containers. The containers also have to be placed at a higher point in the robot than the gritter itself, meaning that the center of gravity could be relatively high. This could result in an unstable robot, so a robot with a relatively high width and length would be needed to stabilise it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Pro’s<br />
* Relatively fast compared to other preliminary designs.<br />
* Possibility for high diversity in seeds.<br />
* Easy to add growth enhancers (e.g. compost).<br />
* High variability to keep “natural” looks.<br />
<br />
Cons<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for animals.<br />
* Seeds vulnerable for weather effects.<br />
* Low hatching rate due to seeds being placed in suboptimal places.<br />
* Low resource efficiency in terms of seeds.<br />
<br />
=== Plough robot ===<br />
For seeds to develop properly, they have to be implanted into the soil to receive the necessary nutrients to develop into a tree, therefore some holes or pits need to be present or made. One such possibility for creation holes is by means of ploughing, albeit a traditional plough will turn over soil in one long uniform stretch and hence create some sort a ditch in which seeds can be sown into en masse, usually by means of machinery. Obviously, a traditional plough will not be a desired method for tree planting considering grown trees (the desired end-product of the robot operation) will take up a considerable amount of space. This method will consequently create a uniform and homogenous forest, not only hurting the biodiversity but also completely distorting the natural look of the surrounding area. Therefore, albeit a traditional plough is a very useful tool in the agriculture sector, for the purpose of a reforestation operation after a forest fire in a national park, a variation of the traditional plough will be considered. <br />
The envisioned plough will consist of a cylinder which is powered by high acceleration variable torque servos, such that the force applied to the soil can quickly be altered as to create a custom hole for every type of seed. This will result in a complex control system, however from the literature review it is evident that each seed has its own optimal sowing depth, making this a beneficial feature for the seeding mechanism to have. To promote a semi-random seeding pattern the plough will have conjugated pairs of sickles attached to the cylinder which smash the ground to locally create a hole for seeding. The sickles are in conjugated pairs in the sense that they will operate mirrored to each other, i.e. if one blade is about the smash the ground the other will be lift up in the air. Since we desired a hole to be made locally, the sickles will not be made to perfectly fit the cylinder by cutting out a circle in them as this implies the turning of the cylinder will still create strokes of ploughed land which is exactly what we do not want to accomplish. Instead an elliptical hole will be cut out from the sickles such that when they hit the ground and the robot continues to move, the cylinder will just move in the empty space left in the ellipse causing the blade to remain stationary, until the cylinder reaches the back-end of the ellipse, pulling the blade back up from the ground and leaving a hole. This method of ploughing, albeit mechanically complex also has a mechanical advantage; as halve of the total amount of sickles is suspended in the air during the total operating cycle and the sickles which strike the ground will not be pulled along it which severely reduces frictional forces and hence stresses on the materials of the robot. Because of the elliptical nature of the trajectories of the sickles around the cylinder and the steady turning rate of the cylinder <math> \omega </math> a characteristic time <math> \tau </math> exists between the events of the first sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground and the second sickle of the conjugated pair striking the ground. This characteristic time along with the velocity <math> v </math> and the horizontal distance between sickles of a conjugated pair <math> x </math> gives the distance between every successively planted trees <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau v)}^{2}} </math>. Due to the horizontal distance <math> x </math> between the conjugated pairs of sickles, a linear tree pattern is eliminated as the trees will be planted in a 2D geometry. As the biodiversity requirement needs to be fulfilled, a variable turning rate <math> \omega </math> is required to increase the torque and hence the force the sickle exerts on the ground to ensure different depths. However a turning rate increase can be done discretely such that <math display="inline"> r = \sqrt {x^{2} + {(\tau_{j} v)}^{2}} </math> still holds for the all tree species, albeit the characteristic time <math> \tau_{j} </math> is now a parameter of the tree species which is being planted <math> j </math>. Using such a plough a pattern of trees can be planted without disrupting an entire haul of forest floor.<br />
<br />
The seeding mechanism can either be made separately from the plough or in affiliation with it. If the seeding mechanism is made separately from the plough the robot is required to make a second run over the terrain to sprinkle the seeds in the holes or a seeding mechanism would have to made behind the plough. This is because the holes first need to have been dug before the seeds can be planted, and pulling significantly reduces the friction force the robot experiences from ploughing than pulling. Although the new design of the plough will probably allow the plough to be placed in front of the robot since pulling drag will be considerably reduced compared to a traditional plough, even though drag forces will still be present to some degree since a perfect sickle cycle will not be achievable. In the latter case the plough can be put in front of the robot and the seed dispenser in the back of the robot. If the seeding mechanism is made in conjunction with the ploughing mechanism, a seed dispenser could release a flow of seeds in between the conjugated single sickles to ensure they fall in the holes that were made just prior to the seed dropping. This method has got some disadvantages as well since allowing the seeds to flow between rotating sickles increases the odds of damaging the seeds and small imperfections in the terrain such as bumps could offset the direction in which the seeds fall on the ground, rendering them vulnerable on the unploughed soil if they fall next to the holes. A third option would be to lift the ploughing mechanism up and protrude a seeding mechanism out of the robot. Then, if this process can be made fast enough, this lifting, protruding, seeding and retracting of the seeding mechanism could take placing during the characteristic time <math> \tau </math> such that only one run is needed to seed an area. Alternatively, the cylinder could be turned off in this process and resumed once the plough is withdrawn from the robot again. In summary: <br><br />
<br />
Advantages <br />
* Reduction of linear pattern of tree planting to maintain natural look. <br />
*The plough is placed behind the robot, so any holes made will not be affected by the motion of the robot, i.e. if the plough were placed in front the robot might drive over some of the holes which were made just momentarily, which could potentially close or damage the holes and hence the seeds if they are already dispersed <br />
*See the first disadvantage, if the sickle mechanism will be made such that it can be flipped, which implies a modular design approach as the plough module is required to be detachable to make any changes to it, then if one side of the sickles is damaged or become dull the segment can be flipped such that the sickle at the other side can be used. Alternatively, the sickle can be made attachable to the segment spinning around the cylinder, such that a broken part can easily be taken off and a replacement can be inserted. If the robot is made modular it could potentially be reused for other functionalities if the right modules exist. <br><br />
<br />
Disadvantages<br />
* Mechanical wear and tear will be an issue for the sickles, since they will be exerting a large force during a small time period to the ground, causing lots of stresses in the material. However, as mentioned in the third advantage by making the sickle segment flipable it could increase the lifetime of the mechanical part twofold. <br />
* Considering the seeding mechanism has either the option of being at the back of the robot at the expensive of the plough being in front, which could cause damage to the holes if the robot drives over them, or being swappable with the plough mechanism at the back, which would require a longer operation time of the robot to seed a given area, this method is most likely not the most efficient.<br />
* Of all the proposed methods in this section, this will be mechanically the most complex system to design, if not mechanically impossible.</div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=57314Extended Literature Review2018-05-26T15:15:08Z<p>S169967: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
In the conclusion, a decision will be made on which current method of reforestation is most effective. This decision will be based on several factors which the research group considers important. The factors are: <br />
- Effectivity with respect to time<br />
- Costs <br />
- Labour intensity <br />
- Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
- Effectivity with respect to resource<br />
- Level of control <br />
<br />
The three methods will each get one of the four rankings per factor (--, -, +, ++). The ranking they get will be based on the literature review that is done per reforestation method. The reforestation method that has the best score is considered the best reforestation method in the case of a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
Natural reforestation and Aerial reforestation both receive one + with respect to biodiversity, this is because they have the ability to regrow several different species but the more dominant species will take over and the natural scenery will not recover. Manual reforestation receives two + because with manual reforestation, complete recovery of the natural scenery is possible. <br />
Manual reforestation receives one + with respect to the time effectivity, this is because a forest recovers faster when seeds are planted. Aerial and natural reforestation get a - and a -- respectively because aerial reforestation is only beneficial with respect to time in a non-fertile area and natural reforestation is very slow. <br />
Natural reforestation receives two + with respect to effectivity with resources because natural reforestation uses no resources and thus also has no waste. Manual reforestation receives one + because different seeds can be planted in the correct environment and therefore minimal seeds don’t grow. Aerial reforestation receives two - because the seed-tree ratio is extremely high. <br />
Because this high ratio and much fuel costs aerial reforestation receives two - with respect to costs. Manual reforestation also gets one - for costs because manual labour is always very expensive. Natural reforestation is free and therefore gets two +. <br />
Because manual labour is so intensive, manual reforestation receives two - when looking at the factor of labour intensity. With natural reforestation no labor is needed, thus this method receives two +. Aerial reforestation involves labor, this is however less intensive than with manual reforestation, the area that can be covered in a small amount of time is very big and this method therefore receives one +. <br />
Nobody manages the reforestation when it is done with natural reforestation, this method scores two - when looking at the level of control that can be fulfilled. Because with manual reforestation the location of each species can be determined you can exert a good level of control and this method thus receives two +. Aerial reforestation receives one + because you can determine the area at which you want to plant trees but you cannot control it per centimeter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
TABEL<br />
<br />
<br />
The result shows that natural reforestation and manual reforestation both end up with 3 points and can thus be considered equally good for reforestation after a forest fire with respect to the factors the group considers important. However, the factor ‘ability to restore biodiversity’ is very important in the context of a National park, as can be read in the introduction of this wiki page. Because manual reforestation has a higher score on this factor, manual reforestation is the best option for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
This conclusion is interesting when a prototype of a robot, that combats deforestation as a result of forest fires in National parks, is designed. This robot must follow the main design of manual reforestation since this method is considered most efficient. However, as can be seen in the table, there are also some improvement points for this method. Manual reforestation is very labour intensive and it is expensive as well. When a prototype for a reforestation robot is made, the robot must improve the way manual reforestation is done now with respect to labour intensiveness and costs but the robot must be able to restore biodiversity and have a good level of control as well as manual reforestation is able now. A robot is therefore a very good way to improve manual reforestation since a robot is a good manner to decrease the labor intensiveness of a job.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=57313Extended Literature Review2018-05-26T15:14:46Z<p>S169967: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
In the conclusion, a decision will be made on which current method of reforestation is most effective. This decision will be based on several factors which the research group considers important. The factors are: <br />
- Effectivity with respect to time<br />
- Costs <br />
- Labour intensity <br />
- Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
- Effectivity with respect to resource<br />
- Level of control <br />
<br />
The three methods will each get one of the four rankings per factor (--, -, +, ++). The ranking they get will be based on the literature review that is done per reforestation method. The reforestation method that has the best score is considered the best reforestation method in the case of a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
Natural reforestation and Aerial reforestation both receive one + with respect to biodiversity, this is because they have the ability to regrow several different species but the more dominant species will take over and the natural scenery will not recover. Manual reforestation receives two + because with manual reforestation, complete recovery of the natural scenery is possible. <br />
Manual reforestation receives one + with respect to the time effectivity, this is because a forest recovers faster when seeds are planted. Aerial and natural reforestation get a - and a -- respectively because aerial reforestation is only beneficial with respect to time in a non-fertile area and natural reforestation is very slow. <br />
Natural reforestation receives two + with respect to effectivity with resources because natural reforestation uses no resources and thus also has no waste. Manual reforestation receives one + because different seeds can be planted in the correct environment and therefore minimal seeds don’t grow. Aerial reforestation receives two - because the seed-tree ratio is extremely high. <br />
Because this high ratio and much fuel costs aerial reforestation receives two - with respect to costs. Manual reforestation also gets one - for costs because manual labour is always very expensive. Natural reforestation is free and therefore gets two +. <br />
Because manual labour is so intensive, manual reforestation receives two - when looking at the factor of labour intensity. With natural reforestation no labor is needed, thus this method receives two +. Aerial reforestation involves labor, this is however less intensive than with manual reforestation, the area that can be covered in a small amount of time is very big and this method therefore receives one +. <br />
Nobody manages the reforestation when it is done with natural reforestation, this method scores two - when looking at the level of control that can be fulfilled. Because with manual reforestation the location of each species can be determined you can exert a good level of control and this method thus receives two +. Aerial reforestation receives one + because you can determine the area at which you want to plant trees but you cannot control it per centimeter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
TABEL<br />
<br />
<br />
The result shows that natural reforestation and manual reforestation both end up with 3 points and can thus be considered equally good for reforestation after a forest fire with respect to the factors the group considers important. However, the factor ‘ability to restore biodiversity’ is very important in the context of a National park, as can be read in the introduction of this wiki page. Because manual reforestation has a higher score on this factor, manual reforestation is the best option for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
This conclusion is interesting when a prototype of a robot, that combats deforestation as a result of forest fires in National parks, is designed. This robot must follow the main design of manual reforestation since this method is considered most efficient. However, as can be seen in the table, there are also some improvement points for this method. Manual reforestation is very labour intensive and it is expensive as well. When a prototype for a reforestation robot is made, the robot must improve the way manual reforestation is done now with respect to labour intensiveness and costs but the robot must be able to restore biodiversity and have a good level of control as well as manual reforestation is able now. A robot is therefore a very good way to improve manual reforestation since a robot is a good manner to decrease the labor intensiveness of a job.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=57312Extended Literature Review2018-05-26T15:14:14Z<p>S169967: /* Conclusion */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
<br />
In the conclusion, a decision will be made on which current method of reforestation is most effective. This decision will be based on several factors which the research group considers important. The factors are: <br />
- Effectivity with respect to time<br />
- Costs <br />
- Labour intensity <br />
- Ability to restore biodiversity<br />
- Effectivity with respect to resource<br />
- Level of control <br />
<br />
The three methods will each get one of the four rankings per factor (--, -, +, ++). The ranking they get will be based on the literature review that is done per reforestation method. The reforestation method that has the best score is considered the best reforestation method in the case of a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
Natural reforestation and Aerial reforestation both receive one + with respect to biodiversity, this is because they have the ability to regrow several different species but the more dominant species will take over and the natural scenery will not recover. Manual reforestation receives two + because with manual reforestation, complete recovery of the natural scenery is possible. <br />
Manual reforestation receives one + with respect to the time effectivity, this is because a forest recovers faster when seeds are planted. Aerial and natural reforestation get a - and a -- respectively because aerial reforestation is only beneficial with respect to time in a non-fertile area and natural reforestation is very slow. <br />
Natural reforestation receives two + with respect to effectivity with resources because natural reforestation uses no resources and thus also has no waste. Manual reforestation receives one + because different seeds can be planted in the correct environment and therefore minimal seeds don’t grow. Aerial reforestation receives two - because the seed-tree ratio is extremely high. <br />
Because this high ratio and much fuel costs aerial reforestation receives two - with respect to costs. Manual reforestation also gets one - for costs because manual labour is always very expensive. Natural reforestation is free and therefore gets two +. <br />
Because manual labour is so intensive, manual reforestation receives two - when looking at the factor of labour intensity. With natural reforestation no labor is needed, thus this method receives two +. Aerial reforestation involves labor, this is however less intensive than with manual reforestation, the area that can be covered in a small amount of time is very big and this method therefore receives one +. <br />
Nobody manages the reforestation when it is done with natural reforestation, this method scores two - when looking at the level of control that can be fulfilled. Because with manual reforestation the location of each species can be determined you can exert a good level of control and this method thus receives two +. Aerial reforestation receives one + because you can determine the area at which you want to plant trees but you cannot control it per centimeter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
TABEL<br />
<br />
<br />
The result shows that natural reforestation and manual reforestation both end up with 3 points and can thus be considered equally good for reforestation after a forest fire with respect to the factors the group considers important. However, the factor ‘ability to restore biodiversity’ is very important in the context of a National park, as can be read in the introduction of this wiki page. Because manual reforestation has a higher score on this factor, manual reforestation is the best option for reforestation after a forest fire in a National park. <br />
<br />
This conclusion is interesting when a prototype of a robot, that combats deforestation as a result of forest fires in National parks, is designed. This robot must follow the main design of manual reforestation since this method is considered most efficient. However, as can be seen in the table, there are also some improvement points for this method. Manual reforestation is very labour intensive and it is expensive as well. When a prototype for a reforestation robot is made, the robot must improve the way manual reforestation is done now with respect to labour intensiveness and costs but the robot must be able to restore biodiversity and have a good level of control as well as manual reforestation is able now. A robot is therefore a very good way to improve manual reforestation since a robot is a good manner to decrease the labor intensiveness of a job.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56688Extended Literature Review2018-05-20T10:12:32Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Conclusion==<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56687Extended Literature Review2018-05-20T10:11:58Z<p>S169967: /* Aerial reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56686Extended Literature Review2018-05-20T10:11:31Z<p>S169967: /* Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56685Extended Literature Review2018-05-20T10:11:02Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
==Biodiversity & Need for Control in National Parks==<br />
National Parks are located in most countries spread all over the world. In only the United States, the 59 acknowledged before 2018 span well over 400 thousand squared kilometer (Sawe, B.E. 2017). <br />
<ref><br />
Sawe Benjamin Elisha (2017) How many national parks are there in the United States, World Atlas, retrieved from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-many-national-parks-are-there-in-the-united-states.html<br />
</ref><br />
Even though National Parks are most commonly known as a touristic attraction, the reason they have originally been established is ‘’to conserve the scenery, natural and cultural resources, and other values of the park in a way that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.’’ (The NPS Organic Act 1916)<br />
<ref><br />
National Park Service (1916) the NPS Organic Act Retrieved From: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/npsresponsibilities.htm<br />
</ref><br />
Meaning that, only taking the natural factors into account, the National Parks have to keep the wildlife as intact as possible. Thereby protecting it not only from human influences, but also from certain natural ones. For the later natural phenomena like typhoons, droughts, floods and fires are good examples. Even though these phenomena are considered things that happen every once in a while and which are part of nature, their effect on a National Park is usually catastrophic. Usually, after one of these events, big parts of the park are destroyed entirely, meaning that the wildlife needs to recover.<br />
This paper will be limited to the phenomena of a forest fire originated by natural causes and the recovery of the National Park afterwards. <br />
In order to recover a National Parks ‘natural scenery’, a clear definition of this must first be found. The natural scenery can be divided into three categories, being animals, plants and non-living elements. This latter category spans the general topography of the Park, for example rivers, lakes and mountains. <br />
Together these three categories form what is commonly known as an ecosystem. Which is a term describing the relation between organisms and the physical environment they live in. Therefore, to conserve the natural scenery can also be reformulated into conserving the current ecosystem. As the non-living elements are usually not influenced as heavily as the other two categories, they are from now on ignored in this analysis of the recovery of the National Park.<br />
Another concept linked to the conservation of nature is biodiversity. Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, within and between species. The degree of biodiversity shapes the ecosystem, if there are many different species living in the park, they interact in another way with each other and their physical environment than when there are only a few different species living there. This shows that the biodiversity has a vital importance on the ecosystem, and that a change in the parks biodiversity will result in a change in its ecosystem. (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
<\ref><br />
The heavy dependence from natural scenery on the ecosystem and from the ecosystem on the biodiversity states that for a National Park to conserve its natural scenery, at least the biodiversity cannot change by any significant factor. It is, however, not claimed that this is enough for a park to conserve the natural scenery. It could be argued that other factors, like noise or horizon pollution mean that the natural scenery is not conserved, but this is not discussed in this paper. Only the contribution of the biodiversity is taken into account. <br />
Coming back to the recovery after a natural catastrophe, to say that a forest fire has a significant effect on the parks biodiversity is an understatement. Depending on the fire’s size, temperature and the speed at which it spreads it will destroy big parts of the park and all wildlife within the area. In order to get the park back to its original level of biodiversity a certain degree of control is needed, as the original ratios of species should be established once again. Regaining this biodiversity is divided in both the animal and plant life, and can be done in multiple ways. This paper will be limited to the methods of regrowing the plant life, to be called reforestation. In order for reforestation to be effective, it needs to give all species a fair chance to return to their original population. This also needs to take into account the species specific growth preferences, meaning factors such as temperature, nutrition, amount of freedom and exposure to sunlight. All these factors are heavily dependent on the plants location, and thus on the location where the initial seed starts to sprout after the fire. Thus, the location of the seeds is of vital importance for reforestation. The three currently most used are aerial, manual and natural reforestation. These three will be discussed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
===Natural Reforestation===<br />
<br />
One method of reforestation is natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this returning of trees can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. This already leads to the first constraint of natural reforestation; there must be enough living trees and animals around to enable natural reforestation. If there are no trees in the entire environment, there is no possibility that seeds can be dropped on the area. However, this study is concerned about returning an forest after a forest fire in a National park, in most cases the fire is eliminated after a while due to human interference and this results in enough living trees left to drop seeds. <br />
<br />
In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, there is absolutely no control in natural reforestation. This means that the most dominant species, or the species that have not been destroyed by the fire, will regrow on the devastated area and other species that were also located at this area but are all destroyed by the fire or take much longer to regrow will vanish from the National park since they cannot spread their seeds anymore. As is stated in the introduction from this wiki page. In order to rehabilitate the Natural park the biodiversity must stay in its original state as much as possible. This may happen with natural reforestation when the National park only consisted of one species. However, when the National park consisted of many different species, which is often the case to create a nice scenery, natural reforestation provides no control and thus no guarantee that the old ratio of species will regrow. It can be said that the natural reforestation will always be good since the nature can do what she wants, this is however not the case in a National park. Some species will always be dominant over other species, think about weeds in your own backyard. These dominant species are however not the (only) species you want to have in a National park. In order to recreate the original ratios of species in the National park, some level of control is needed which cannot be created with natural reforestation.<br />
<br />
The benefit of natural reforestation is that the costs are extremely low. Because natural reforestation happens without the interference of humans, technology or other materials, there is also no money invested in the reforestation. <br />
<br />
In the introduction it is also stated that in order to achieve the preferred ratios of species, the different seeds need to be planted at different depths in the soil. It can speak for itself that this cannot be achieved with natural reforestation. Because most natural reforestation happens with seeds that are dropped by mature trees, these seeds will all end up on the ground and none will be buried. The level of control that is thus needed to recreate a National park cannot be obtained with natural reforestation. <br />
<br />
Another source confirms this conclusion and states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems. <ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>.<br />
<br />
Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. This is what is necessary to recreate the National park as is stated in the introduction. <ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Two main methods of artificial reforestation are manual reforestation and aerial reforestation. These two methods will now be discussed. <br />
<br />
<br />
===Manual reforestation===<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce on-site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals. Seedlings and young trees can also be planted instead of seeds only to kickstart the growth of the forest. This method bypasses danger of the seed just lying on the ground. However, seedlings and saplings more expensive and are harder than seeds to move on-site. Recent advancements in seed quality also makes a seeds only method more beneficial, both in terms of costs and survival rate.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Aerial reforestation===<br />
<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in execution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural deposits of seeds are scarce, aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. <br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56672Extended Literature Review2018-05-19T08:44:09Z<p>S169967: /* Aerial seeding */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
Biodiversity is the measure of variability of living organisms. For a national park, this is to be interpreted as the number of different trees, plants, animals and all other living organisms that can be found there. A park’s biodiversity forms the foundation of the ecosystem of the park, (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
implying that a vast alteration in biodiversity would result in a large variation of the ecosystem of the park, which will also come with its consequences. The goal of a national park is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, which cannot be done if the ecosystem changes drastically. This leads to the conclusion that for a national park to fulfill its purpose, a drastic change in the ecosystem, and thus in the biodiversity, has to be avoided.<br />
To this extend, natural reforestation is not sufficient regrowth method. When a forest fire occurs, the ground is covered in ashes and everything has been heated to arbitrary high temperatures. Even though some forest fires are beneficial for the fertility of the area, forest fires which are too hot have the reverse effect. Different kinds of plants are more suited to deal with those problems than others, meaning that those plants have a clear advantage during natural reforestation. <br />
Beyond this, the fire’s size has impact on the way reforestation occurs. As some plants, take lodgepole pines for example, are more effective at spreading their seeds over farther distances, these will start to recolonise the centre of the burned area fairly soon, while other plants, mostly smaller ones, take longer to get to the centre of the burned area, perhaps even multiple generations(Turner, M.G. et al. 1997) <ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>. This phenomenon is the reason that the larger the fire, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the less vascular species get the possibility to grow, causing a decrease in the general species variety in the regrown part of the forest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few centimeters deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface<ref>Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty</ref>. In the case of two extreme situations, in which either all the seeds are burried deep or all the seeds are not burried at all, one species will always result being dominant over the other. In order to have biodiversity levels which is preferred for a certain area, the seeds of different species need to be planted at different levels and at sufficient distances to create an optimal growing environment for every species. This can only be done with a level of control that cannot be obtained with aerial seeding. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. <br />
<br />
As discussed previously, a National Park’s goal is to conserve the scenery of the area, meaning that if a fire occurs, the National Parks aim to restore the park back to its original state. This cannot be done by means of natural reforestation, as this does not provide all the species which used to live in the burned down area with sufficiently favorable conditions for regrowth, as their ecosystem is destroyed leaving the opportunity for invading species for which the new ecosystem is favorable to move in, thus this method does not conserve the scenery. This means that the method of natural reforestation has insufficient means of control to be a useful solution to the problem at hand.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below.<br />
<br />
===Viability of direct seeding===<br />
While direct seeding has been a valid option for reforestation for centuries, over the last 5 decades the quality of seedlings has improved rapidly. This caused seedlings to be chosen more often over direct seeding since seedlings have a higher establish rate.<br />
Worldwide forest restoration programs, of which a few have started recently, will favor direct seeding again since direct seeding uses less labor hours and the seeds are cheaper and easier to produce then seedlings. To increase the established rate of direct seeding one has to consider that seeding is more than delivering seeds to the site:<br />
The time of seeding for different seeds impacts the establish rates, the quality of the seeds and the soil also should be inspected. Lastly managing competitive vegetation should also improve establish rates <ref>Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V (2017) Direct Seeding in Reforestation – A Field Performance Review. Reforesta 4: 94-142. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Broadcasting the seeds by hand is a valid way of reforestation, but has some drawbacks. The seed establishment rates are very low, mostly around 20%. This can be improved however by different methods, such as manually cultivating the ground or using straw mulching. The effect of such methods differ heavily between kinds of vegetation. The aforementioned methods have been tested on 3 species of plants in Greece <ref>Brofas, G., & Karetsos, G. (2002). Revegetation of mining spoils by seeding of woody species on ghiona mountain, central greece. Land Degradation and Development, 13(6), 461-467. doi:10.1002/ldr.529</ref>.<br />
<br />
Since the research shows that the effects are not consistent this means research will have to be done on all plants in the region of reforestation in order to use the broadcasting of seeds to achieve an acceptable result.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in excecution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural natural deposits for seeds are scarce aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce present at the site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56671Extended Literature Review2018-05-19T08:42:22Z<p>S169967: /* Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current and the costs of current methods. The general literature review concerning itself with the possibilities of robotics technology and the contemporary issues involving reforestation can be found in [[General Literature Review]]. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
Biodiversity is the measure of variability of living organisms. For a national park, this is to be interpreted as the number of different trees, plants, animals and all other living organisms that can be found there. A park’s biodiversity forms the foundation of the ecosystem of the park, (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
implying that a vast alteration in biodiversity would result in a large variation of the ecosystem of the park, which will also come with its consequences. The goal of a national park is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, which cannot be done if the ecosystem changes drastically. This leads to the conclusion that for a national park to fulfill its purpose, a drastic change in the ecosystem, and thus in the biodiversity, has to be avoided.<br />
To this extend, natural reforestation is not sufficient regrowth method. When a forest fire occurs, the ground is covered in ashes and everything has been heated to arbitrary high temperatures. Even though some forest fires are beneficial for the fertility of the area, forest fires which are too hot have the reverse effect. Different kinds of plants are more suited to deal with those problems than others, meaning that those plants have a clear advantage during natural reforestation. <br />
Beyond this, the fire’s size has impact on the way reforestation occurs. As some plants, take lodgepole pines for example, are more effective at spreading their seeds over farther distances, these will start to recolonise the centre of the burned area fairly soon, while other plants, mostly smaller ones, take longer to get to the centre of the burned area, perhaps even multiple generations(Turner, M.G. et al. 1997) <ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>. This phenomenon is the reason that the larger the fire, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the less vascular species get the possibility to grow, causing a decrease in the general species variety in the regrown part of the forest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few centimeters deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface<ref>Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty</ref>. In the case of two extreme situations, in which either all the seeds are burried deep or all the seeds are not burried at all, one species will always result being dominant over the other. In order to have biodiversity levels which is preferred for a certain area, the seeds of different species need to be planted at different levels and at sufficient distances to create an optimal growing environment for every species. This can only be done with a level of control that cannot be obtained with aerial seeding. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. <br />
<br />
As discussed previously, a National Park’s goal is to conserve the scenery of the area, meaning that if a fire occurs, the National Parks aim to restore the park back to its original state. This cannot be done by means of natural reforestation, as this does not provide all the species which used to live in the burned down area with sufficiently favorable conditions for regrowth, as their ecosystem is destroyed leaving the opportunity for invading species for which the new ecosystem is favorable to move in, thus this method does not conserve the scenery. This means that the method of natural reforestation has insufficient means of control to be a useful solution to the problem at hand.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below.<br />
<br />
===Viability of direct seeding===<br />
While direct seeding has been a valid option for reforestation for centuries, over the last 5 decades the quality of seedlings has improved rapidly. This caused seedlings to be chosen more often over direct seeding since seedlings have a higher establish rate.<br />
Worldwide forest restoration programs, of which a few have started recently, will favor direct seeding again since direct seeding uses less labor hours and the seeds are cheaper and easier to produce then seedlings. To increase the established rate of direct seeding one has to consider that seeding is more than delivering seeds to the site:<br />
The time of seeding for different seeds impacts the establish rates, the quality of the seeds and the soil also should be inspected. Lastly managing competitive vegetation should also improve establish rates <ref>Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V (2017) Direct Seeding in Reforestation – A Field Performance Review. Reforesta 4: 94-142. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Broadcasting the seeds by hand is a valid way of reforestation, but has some drawbacks. The seed establishment rates are very low, mostly around 20%. This can be improved however by different methods, such as manually cultivating the ground or using straw mulching. The effect of such methods differ heavily between kinds of vegetation. The aforementioned methods have been tested on 3 species of plants in Greece <ref>Brofas, G., & Karetsos, G. (2002). Revegetation of mining spoils by seeding of woody species on ghiona mountain, central greece. Land Degradation and Development, 13(6), 461-467. doi:10.1002/ldr.529</ref>.<br />
<br />
Since the research shows that the effects are not consistent this means research will have to be done on all plants in the region of reforestation in order to use the broadcasting of seeds to achieve an acceptable result.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" /> and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in excecution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural natural deposits for seeds are scarce aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together as each seed will have a different optimal depth and nutritional needs, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. In terms of costs however, a study of the Society of American Foresters conducted in 1948 revealed that the costs of aerial seeding would be $7.25 per hectare (Westveld, 1949) <ref> Westveld, M. (1949). Airplane seeding: A new venture in reforestation. Unasylva, 3(3), 95-99. </ref>, so taking into account inflation this would yield a cost of $75.39 <ref> https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. More recent sources report a cost of $60 per hectare for aerial seeding process only, with a whopping $630 per hectare if site preparations are taken into account as well <ref> www.silviculturemagazine.com/sites/default/files/sites/silviculturemagazine.com/files/issues/2011062307/spring2005.pdf, retrieved at 16-05-2018 </ref>. The discrepancy between the values obtained by means of inflation and the more recent value is most likely caused by technological improvements making the process cheaper and more efficient, thus countering the inflation. All in all it can thus be concluded that in the case of a forest fire a robot can certainly be a proper solution as it gives a decent level of control if the resolution of the actuators is big enough and will certainly be an incentive for National Parks to switch to this novel technology if it can operate at a cost of less than $630 per hectare.<br />
A popular novel alternative method for aerial seeding is by the employment of drones. Although this technique has a lot of potential, in its current state it is rather limited; communication technologies only allow a maximum distance of a couple of hundred meters for commands to be received by the drone (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>, and even if the drones are build to be autonomous to overcome this distance limitation due to communication problems, they are still severely limited by their battery capacity which usually allows operation for somewhere between 30-90 minutes <ref> https://newatlas.com/tree-planting-drones-droneseed/45259/, retrieved at 17-05-2018 </ref> (Köln, 2015) <ref> KÖLN, T. Forest Monitoring with Drones: Application Strategies for Protected Riverine Forest Ecosystems in the Atlantic Forest of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES).</ref><br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
Manual reforestation is the oldest and most well-known method of replanting areas devastated by wildfires and in general. However, manual reforestation is also a very slow method. It requires a lot of workforce and costs can go up quickly. It is estimated that manual reforestation can cost up to 62,000 USD<ref name = "manual"> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref> for the initial replanting only in a 1 by 1 km area. Maintenance is also required in the following years to make sure the forest grows as it is expected to be. This can cost up to 120,000 USD<ref name = "manual"/> in the first 2 years only. This is a significant investment for national parks or other involved parties and other methods might be more cost efficient. More than 182,000 USD has to be spent on workforce and material. This is by far the most expensive and most labour intensive method and therefore not the most wanted solution.<br />
<br />
This method of reforestation also poses significant health risks<ref name = "health"> Sarah Elise Finlay, Andrew Moffat, Rob Gazzard, David Baker, and Virginia Murray, Health Impacts of Wildfires, 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492003/</ref> to the workforce. Our focus lies on wildfires in national parks, there are high pollution rates for soil, air and water in these areas. Ashes and toxic residues are often found in these in and near the devastated areas. There is an increase in mortality rate and a symptomes related to the lungs occur at a significant higher rate<ref name = "health"/> . This is perhaps the most important factor when deciding which method is to be used to replant an area after a wildfire.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation also has some benefits over the other primary replanting methods. This methods is more precise compared to the other methods. Seeds can be planted at a more optimal depth<ref name = "conference"> Thomas A. Waldrop, Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Southern Silvicultural / Research Conference, Clemson, 1998, https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs020.pdf#page=282</ref> and invasive and other unwanted species can be easily removed by the workforce present at the site. This means that the destroyed forest can be changed to a more healthy ecosystem by having the workforce suppress and promote certain species. The germination rate is therefore also relatively high<ref name = "conference"/> compared to the other primary replanting methods. However, this rate also depends on other factors like seed quality and differs per species. Seeds are also less prone to animals that use them as food, they are planted directly into the ground and are not easily accessible by animals.<br />
<br />
Manual reforestation is also already augmented by utilising machines, by preparing the ground beforehand by means of subsoiling<ref name = "conference"/> , machines can increase the growth rate and survival rate of the seeds. Subsoiling also provides the option place the seeds even deeper into the ground, which can be beneficial for certain species. However, planting is still a labour intensive practice and these large machines for subsoiling, often used in agriculture, can not be used in all areas in national parks. Without machines, manual reforestation can still reach hill and mountain like areas that are normally not easily accessible for large machines<br />
<br />
A small robot could significantly decrease overall costs while still being able to a reach difficult areas. There are also no extra health risks for the human workforce, since they can perform their function off-site. If high precision can be achieved without a significant loss of speed and a high germination rate, then small robot might provide an elegant, cheap and fast solution to the given problem<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56408Extended Literature Review2018-05-14T08:00:30Z<p>S169967: /* Current methods of reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
===Viability of direct seeding===<br />
While direct seeding has been a valid option for reforestation for centuries, over the last 5 decades the quality of seedlings has improved rapidly. This caused seedlings to be chosen more often over direct seeding since seedlings have a higher establish rate.<br />
Worldwide forest restoration programs, of which a few have started recently, will favor direct seeding again since direct seeding uses less labor hours and the seeds are cheaper and easier to produce then seedlings. To increase the establish rate of direct seeding one has to consider that seeding is more than delivering seeds to the site:<br />
The time of seeding for different seeds impacts the establish rates, the quality of the seeds and the soil also should be inspected. lastly managing competitive vegetation should also improve establish rates. <ref>Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V (2017) Direct Seeding in Reforestation – A Field Performance Review. Reforesta 4: 94-142. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Broadcasting the seeds by hand is a valid way of reforestation, but has some drawbacks. The seed establish rates are very low, mostly around 20%. This can be improved however by different methods, such as manually cultivating the ground or using straw mulching. The effect of such methods differ heavily between kinds of vegetation. The aforementioned methods have been tested on 3 species of plants in Greece.<ref>Brofas, G., & Karetsos, G. (2002). Revegetation of mining spoils by seeding of woody species on ghiona mountain, central greece. Land Degradation and Development, 13(6), 461-467. doi:10.1002/ldr.529</ref> <br />
<br />
Since the research shows that the effects are not consistent this means research will have to be done on all plants in the region of reforestation in order to use the broadcasting of seeds to achieve an acceptable result.<br />
<br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" />and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in excecution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural natural deposits for seeds are scarce aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. <br />
<br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
Manual reforestation is an ineffective method. The cost of replanting a 1 km by 1 km field can cost up to 62,000 usd. This is not a small investment, and maintenance can further increase these costs. Manual reforestation also require a significant amount of workers, it might not be feasible to get sufficient manpower. Robotics might provide a cheaper and more efficient alternative, maintenance costs can be lower than the labour costs of human workers, this has been shown in various other sectors within our industry.<ref> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
Biodiversity is the measure of variability of living organisms. For a national park, this is to be interpreted as the amount of different trees, plants, animals and all other living organisms that can be found there. A parks biodiversity forms the foundation of a parks ecosystem, (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
meaning that a big chance in biodiversity would result in a big impact in the parks ecosystem. The goal of a national park is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, which cannot be done if the ecosystem changes drastically. This leads to the conclusion that for a national park to fulfill its purpose, a drastic change in the ecosystem, and thus in the biodiversity, has to be avoided.<br />
To this extend, natural reforestation is not sufficient regrowth method. When a forest fire occurs, the ground is covered in ashes and everything has been heated to arbitrary high temperatures. Even though some forest fires are beneficial for the fertility of the area, those which are too hot are not. Different kinds of plants are more suited to deal with those problems than others, meaning that those plants have a clear advantage during natural reforestation. <br />
Beyond this, the fire’s size has impact on the way reforestation occurs. As some plants, take lodgepole pines for example, are more effective at spreading their seeds over farther distances, these will start to recolonize the middle of the burned area fairly soon, while other plants, mostly smaller ones, take longer to get to the middle of the burned area, perhaps even multiple generations.(Turner, M.G. et al. 1997) <ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>This phenomenon is the reason that the bigger the fire is, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the less vascular species get the change to grow, causing a decrease in the general species variety in the regrown part of the forest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface<ref>Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty</ref>.. This means that if the seeds are all buried at the same depth or not buried at all, one species will be at the perfect level to grow and will dominate the other species. In order to have the biodiversity that is preferred for the area, the seeds of different species need to be planted at different levels to create a good growing environment for every species. This can only be done with a level of control that cannot be obtained with aerial seeding. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. <br />
<br />
As discussed previously, a National Parks goal is to conserve the scenery of the area, meaning that if a fire occurs, the National Parks aims to get the park back to its original state. This can not be done by means of natural reforestation, as this does not give all species which used to live in the burned down area a big enough chance to ensure the conservation of the scenery. This means that the method of natural reforestation has insufficient means of control to be a useful solution to the problem at hand.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=56407PRE2017 4 Groep62018-05-14T07:59:42Z<p>S169967: /* Viability of direct seeding */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages<br />
<br />
* [[User analysis]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Desinging the robot]]<br />
* [[Building the model]]<br />
* [[Model]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project.<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the possibility of wildfires. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times over a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while still having an extremely fertile soil with all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate this natural process.<br />
This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. This project investigates the possibility of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. This project investigates whether the robotics could be used to effectively to this extend. To accomplish this we envision a robotic vehicle which at least the following 3 technological aspects:<br />
<br />
<br />
I. A way to check whether or not the soil is fertile, and thus fit to plant a new forest. This is needed since it is possible for the soil to become infertile when rain washes all the biomass away.<br />
<br />
II. A device capable of planting the seeds deep enough in the ground to ensure good growing chances for the seed.<br />
<br />
III. A way to transport itself around, which will most likely result in wheels, as this is the most achievable option within this course.<br />
<br />
<br />
This envisioned robot leads to the first and main objective of this project: a prototype. This prototype will feature the before mentioned technological aspects, with the main focus being on aspects I and II, as these are technologies more specific to our envisioned robot. Beyond this, we aim to make a model based around the physics working on the robot, which can help us gain more theoretical insight in the working of the robot. Whilst doing this, we want to do research considering this robots influence on society, and how society can stimulate the development of this technology, considering both society as a whole, and the governments influence separately. Also, the relation between this product and the enterprises interested in it has to be research, as most of the technology will have to come from them, and they might be a big investor.<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review was divided into 5 subcategories, the results of which will be extended below. An extended version of the literature review for the specific case of reforestation after fores fires can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
The patent on remote control systems granted to Mitsubishi Electric Crop. By the US government. This document is a thorough description of how remote control systems work, listing the necessary parts with the movement detector sensor, transmitter, receiver and a potential display device being the main important ones. (Hashimoto et al., 1996)<br />
<ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
In this article Elon Musk describes his vision for the autonomous car in 2016, even though this year has already passed, it still shows the vision of one of the main developers of autonomous cars. Elon Musk describes certain aspects of autonomous cars, like the mileage on one charge and the way current non-autonomous cars can be turned into autonomous cars by using a software update only. (Kessler, 2015) <ref><br />
Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: <br />
http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
To get our car driving smoothly, we will probably utilize a remote control, meaning that it will be very closely related to a remote controlled toy car, to which this doc. is the current active patent. It shows the state of the art radio controlled toy car technology currently available. (Matsushiro, 1984)<br />
<ref> Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
One aspect of the autonomous cars is the intelligent pathing. Using communication with other vehicles, a map of dense traffic places can be made, resulting in an optimal route for the car to take. Obstacles are also communicated between different vehicles. (Bagloee, 2016)<br />
<ref><br />
Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 <br />
</ref><br />
<br />
A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit. <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/ </ref><br />
<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics, )<ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html </ref><br />
<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got. <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref><br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
Evaluating the soil the robot is on can be the defining factor whether it is worth it to plant new seeds in the ground, since an infertile soil will not create a new healthy forest. The design of the robot would benefit from such sensors, since it can utilize this information to determine where to plant the seeds.<br />
<br />
Currently the soil can be read with a multitude of sensors. The most simple, but ineffective for our robot, sensor would be to use a simple plant<ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determine whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture.<br />
<br />
This is however very inefficient and not desirable for our robot. An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds.<br />
<br />
Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in predetermined areas. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough to deploy our robot on.<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
A thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
This article shows how direct seeding is viable and what parameters have effect.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Using the appropriate sensors to measure these parameters would greatly benefit the project.<br />
<br />
A kinematic analyses of an auger system<ref>Bogdanof, G. C., Moise, V., Visan, A. L., & Ciobanu, G. V. (2017). Kinematic analysis of soil drilling mechanism used in afforestation. Paper presented at the Engineering for Rural Development, , 16 653-658. doi:10.22616/ERDev2017.16.N131 Retrieved from www.scopus.com</ref> can be of great help when developing the seeding system for this project.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. A mechanical analysis of the auger<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> could help in selecting the right parts for the job. This analysis has been done for bigger scale work on the moon, but is still relevant due to the use of variables which can be evaluated for their earth counterpart.<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Fires in the Yellowstone National Park cause burn severities around the Park. Fires of different sizes cause different ecological responses. The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem. Severely burned areas mainly know pine seedlings while having less vascular species than before the fire. The bigger the burned down area, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the lower the general species diversity is. (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occured in Latin America and the Caribbean. But a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing change in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered. As woody vegetation depends so heavily on deforestation and reforestation these need to be controlled more extensively. (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that as a less healthy ecosystem that might spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate then the original species in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire. <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The prototype will focus on reforestation. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
This website reviews many different ways for reforestation. Almost all methods are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person physically being where the seed is planted is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes and helicopters. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. (David, 2015)<ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref><br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
Reforestation also allows for augmenting the composition of the forest, species can be either suppressed or promoted in the new area. This can result in a healthier forest and allow for a more beneficial ecosystem for animals. This requires some degree of precision when replanting the forest, a new composition might result in a new dominant species. Hence precision is needed to assure certain plants might dominate the forest in certain areas. <ref>JingYao, Xingyuan He, Hongshi He, WeiChen, Limin Dai, Bernard J. Lewis & LizhongYu, The long-term effects of planting and harvesting on secondary forest dynamics under climate change in northeastern China, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698755/pdf/srep18490.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=56405PRE2017 4 Groep62018-05-14T07:58:12Z<p>S169967: /* Current deforestation and combat methods */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages<br />
<br />
* [[User analysis]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Desinging the robot]]<br />
* [[Building the model]]<br />
* [[Model]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project.<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the possibility of wildfires. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times over a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while still having an extremely fertile soil with all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate this natural process.<br />
This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. This project investigates the possibility of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. This project investigates whether the robotics could be used to effectively to this extend. To accomplish this we envision a robotic vehicle which at least the following 3 technological aspects:<br />
<br />
<br />
I. A way to check whether or not the soil is fertile, and thus fit to plant a new forest. This is needed since it is possible for the soil to become infertile when rain washes all the biomass away.<br />
<br />
II. A device capable of planting the seeds deep enough in the ground to ensure good growing chances for the seed.<br />
<br />
III. A way to transport itself around, which will most likely result in wheels, as this is the most achievable option within this course.<br />
<br />
<br />
This envisioned robot leads to the first and main objective of this project: a prototype. This prototype will feature the before mentioned technological aspects, with the main focus being on aspects I and II, as these are technologies more specific to our envisioned robot. Beyond this, we aim to make a model based around the physics working on the robot, which can help us gain more theoretical insight in the working of the robot. Whilst doing this, we want to do research considering this robots influence on society, and how society can stimulate the development of this technology, considering both society as a whole, and the governments influence separately. Also, the relation between this product and the enterprises interested in it has to be research, as most of the technology will have to come from them, and they might be a big investor.<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review was divided into 5 subcategories, the results of which will be extended below. An extended version of the literature review for the specific case of reforestation after fores fires can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
The patent on remote control systems granted to Mitsubishi Electric Crop. By the US government. This document is a thorough description of how remote control systems work, listing the necessary parts with the movement detector sensor, transmitter, receiver and a potential display device being the main important ones. (Hashimoto et al., 1996)<br />
<ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
In this article Elon Musk describes his vision for the autonomous car in 2016, even though this year has already passed, it still shows the vision of one of the main developers of autonomous cars. Elon Musk describes certain aspects of autonomous cars, like the mileage on one charge and the way current non-autonomous cars can be turned into autonomous cars by using a software update only. (Kessler, 2015) <ref><br />
Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: <br />
http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
To get our car driving smoothly, we will probably utilize a remote control, meaning that it will be very closely related to a remote controlled toy car, to which this doc. is the current active patent. It shows the state of the art radio controlled toy car technology currently available. (Matsushiro, 1984)<br />
<ref> Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
One aspect of the autonomous cars is the intelligent pathing. Using communication with other vehicles, a map of dense traffic places can be made, resulting in an optimal route for the car to take. Obstacles are also communicated between different vehicles. (Bagloee, 2016)<br />
<ref><br />
Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 <br />
</ref><br />
<br />
A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit. <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/ </ref><br />
<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics, )<ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html </ref><br />
<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got. <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref><br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
Evaluating the soil the robot is on can be the defining factor whether it is worth it to plant new seeds in the ground, since an infertile soil will not create a new healthy forest. The design of the robot would benefit from such sensors, since it can utilize this information to determine where to plant the seeds.<br />
<br />
Currently the soil can be read with a multitude of sensors. The most simple, but ineffective for our robot, sensor would be to use a simple plant<ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determine whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture.<br />
<br />
This is however very inefficient and not desirable for our robot. An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds.<br />
<br />
Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in predetermined areas. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough to deploy our robot on.<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
A thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
This article shows how direct seeding is viable and what parameters have effect.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Using the appropriate sensors to measure these parameters would greatly benefit the project.<br />
<br />
A kinematic analyses of an auger system<ref>Bogdanof, G. C., Moise, V., Visan, A. L., & Ciobanu, G. V. (2017). Kinematic analysis of soil drilling mechanism used in afforestation. Paper presented at the Engineering for Rural Development, , 16 653-658. doi:10.22616/ERDev2017.16.N131 Retrieved from www.scopus.com</ref> can be of great help when developing the seeding system for this project.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. A mechanical analysis of the auger<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> could help in selecting the right parts for the job. This analysis has been done for bigger scale work on the moon, but is still relevant due to the use of variables which can be evaluated for their earth counterpart.<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Fires in the Yellowstone National Park cause burn severities around the Park. Fires of different sizes cause different ecological responses. The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem. Severely burned areas mainly know pine seedlings while having less vascular species than before the fire. The bigger the burned down area, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the lower the general species diversity is. (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occured in Latin America and the Caribbean. But a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing change in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered. As woody vegetation depends so heavily on deforestation and reforestation these need to be controlled more extensively. (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that as a less healthy ecosystem that might spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate then the original species in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire. <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The prototype will focus on reforestation. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
This website reviews many different ways for reforestation. Almost all methods are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person physically being where the seed is planted is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes and helicopters. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. (David, 2015)<ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref><br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
Reforestation also allows for augmenting the composition of the forest, species can be either suppressed or promoted in the new area. This can result in a healthier forest and allow for a more beneficial ecosystem for animals. This requires some degree of precision when replanting the forest, a new composition might result in a new dominant species. Hence precision is needed to assure certain plants might dominate the forest in certain areas. <ref>JingYao, Xingyuan He, Hongshi He, WeiChen, Limin Dai, Bernard J. Lewis & LizhongYu, The long-term effects of planting and harvesting on secondary forest dynamics under climate change in northeastern China, 2016.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698755/pdf/srep18490.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
===Viability of direct seeding===<br />
While direct seeding has been a valid option for reforestation for centuries, over the last 5 decades the quality of seedlings has improved rapidly. This caused seedlings to be chosen more often over direct seeding since seedlings have a higher establish rate.<br />
Worldwide forest restoration programs, of which a few have started recently, will favor direct seeding again since direct seeding uses less labor hours and the seeds are cheaper and easier to produce then seedlings. To increase the establish rate of direct seeding one has to consider that seeding is more than delivering seeds to the site:<br />
The time of seeding for different seeds impacts the establish rates, the quality of the seeds and the soil also should be inspected. lastly managing competitive vegetation should also improve establish rates. <ref>Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V (2017) Direct Seeding in Reforestation – A Field Performance Review. Reforesta 4: 94-142. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Broadcasting the seeds by hand is a valid way of reforestation, but has some drawbacks. The seed establish rates are very low, mostly around 20%. This can be improved however by different methods, such as manually cultivating the ground or using straw mulching. The effect of such methods differ heavily between kinds of vegetation. The aforementioned methods have been tested on 3 species of plants in Greece.<ref>Brofas, G., & Karetsos, G. (2002). Revegetation of mining spoils by seeding of woody species on ghiona mountain, central greece. Land Degradation and Development, 13(6), 461-467. doi:10.1002/ldr.529</ref> <br />
<br />
Since the research shows that the effects are not consistent this means research will have to be done on all plants in the region of reforestation in order to use the broadcasting of seeds to achieve an acceptable result.<br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2017_4_Groep6&diff=56404PRE2017 4 Groep62018-05-14T07:57:40Z<p>S169967: /* Current deforestation and combat methods */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Group members ==<br />
* David van den Beld, 1001770<br />
* Gerben Erens, 0997906<br />
* Luc Kleinman, 1008097<br />
* Maikel Morren, 1002099<br />
* Adine van Wier, 0999813<br />
<br />
== Project pages ==<br />
For all the branches of the project diverging from the initial set-up and planning, please see their respective pages<br />
<br />
* [[User analysis]]<br />
* [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
* [[Desinging the robot]]<br />
* [[Building the model]]<br />
* [[Model]]<br />
<br />
This page itself is dedicated to general information about the project.<br />
<br />
== Project ==<br />
<br />
=== Project Statement ===<br />
Wildfires are occurring throughout the world at an increasing rate. Great droughts in various regions across the globe are increasing the possibility of wildfires. National parks deal with major wildfires multiple times over a year. Areas devastated by wildfires are mostly devoid of life, while still having an extremely fertile soil with all the biomass left after the fire. Artificial reforestation can accelerate this natural process.<br />
This process might be enhanced by means of technology, for example by deploying robots that plant seeds of saplings in these areas. This project investigates the possibility of utilising robots to restore these devastated areas to their former glory. This project investigates whether the robotics could be used to effectively to this extend. To accomplish this we envision a robotic vehicle which at least the following 3 technological aspects:<br />
<br />
<br />
I. A way to check whether or not the soil is fertile, and thus fit to plant a new forest. This is needed since it is possible for the soil to become infertile when rain washes all the biomass away.<br />
<br />
II. A device capable of planting the seeds deep enough in the ground to ensure good growing chances for the seed.<br />
<br />
III. A way to transport itself around, which will most likely result in wheels, as this is the most achievable option within this course.<br />
<br />
<br />
This envisioned robot leads to the first and main objective of this project: a prototype. This prototype will feature the before mentioned technological aspects, with the main focus being on aspects I and II, as these are technologies more specific to our envisioned robot. Beyond this, we aim to make a model based around the physics working on the robot, which can help us gain more theoretical insight in the working of the robot. Whilst doing this, we want to do research considering this robots influence on society, and how society can stimulate the development of this technology, considering both society as a whole, and the governments influence separately. Also, the relation between this product and the enterprises interested in it has to be research, as most of the technology will have to come from them, and they might be a big investor.<br />
<br />
=== Planning ===<br />
<br />
Below follows the planning for the project for the upcoming 9 weeks constituting the course 0LAUK0 Project: Robots Everywhere<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 1: Preliminary planning for the project'''<br />
! Week number<br />
! Task<br />
! Person<sup>*</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 1<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Choose definitive subject<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define problem statement and objectives<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define users<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Obtain user requirements<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Work out typical use cases<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the milestones and deliverables<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define the approach of the problem<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Search for relevant state-of-the-art (SotA) sources, categories: <br> <br />
# Modularity <br> <br />
# (Semi-) Autonomous cars <br> <br />
# Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground <br><br />
# Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism <br><br />
# Current Forestation combat methods <br><br />
| All divided into the subcategories: <br><br />
# Maikel <br><br />
# David <br><br />
# Luc <br><br />
# Gerben <br><br />
# Adine <br><br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make project planning<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 2<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Review user requirements and use cases<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish collecting SotA articles and write SotA section<br />
| Each member for their respective subcategory<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Compile list of potential robot designs<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make some concept design sketches<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a preliminary list of required parts<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Define embedded software environment<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Preliminary elimination session for designs based on user requirements<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start compiling list of design preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| David<br />
|-<br />
| 3<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish list of preferences/requirements/constraints<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Further eliminate designs due to constraints<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Rank remaining designs and select a winner<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Develop a building plan/schemata for the winner design<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start acquiring physical quantities for modelling design<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start with a simple model of some system parameters<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| 4<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Commence robot assembly according to highest priority of building schemata<br />
| Gerben, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Start coding robot functionalities<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Adine<br />
|-<br />
| 5<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, David, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Catch up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 6<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Continue robot assembly and coding<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish modelling/simulating<br />
| Maikel, David<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish catching up on documenting the wiki<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 7<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish robot assembly<br />
| Gerben<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make concept designs for possible modules<br />
| Luc<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Make a draft for final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Test the first (few) finished sub-system(s) of the robot.<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| 8<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Buffer time<br />
| Collaborative effort of all members<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Finish final presentation<br />
| Maikel, David, Adine<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Complete wiki<br />
| Gerben, Luc<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<sup>*</sup> The current division of task is a rough estimate for the next 7 weeks. New tasks may pop up or task division may be rotated, and is hence subject to change during the progress of the course.<br />
<br />
=== Approach ===<br />
The problem will be approached by a design question. What is the best design for a robot to combat deforestation which will be build modular so that it can be implemented for other purposes with minor changes. The first 2 weeks the approach will primarily be sequential, as user analysis, use cases and requirements/preferences/constraints need to be done sequentially before the rest of the project can start. Once this is over, the project will run in a parallel fashion where building and modelling will happen simultaneously. <br />
<br />
=== Milestones and Deliverables ===<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; color: black; border:1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1"<br />
|+ '''Table 2: Milestones'''<br />
|-<br />
! Date<br />
! Accomplished <br />
|-<br />
| 30-04-2018<br />
| SotA research done<br />
|-<br />
| 03-05-2018<br />
| User analysis/use cases done<br />
|-<br />
| 07-05-2018<br />
| Have a partially eliminated list of designs<br />
|-<br />
| 10-05-2018<br />
| Pick final “winner” design<br />
|-<br />
| 21-05-2018<br />
| Have the first working subsystem<br />
|-<br />
| 25-05-2018<br />
| Finish modelling<br />
|-<br />
| 31-05-2018<br />
| Have an operational prototype running <br> with at least 2 subsystems<br />
|-<br />
| 07-06-2018<br />
| Made several concepts for modules<br />
|-<br />
| 11-06-2018<br />
| Presentation is finished<br />
|-<br />
| 14-06-2018<br />
| Wiki is completely updated<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Literature Review ==<br />
The literature review was divided into 5 subcategories, the results of which will be extended below. An extended version of the literature review for the specific case of reforestation after fores fires can be found in [[Extended Literature Review]]<br />
<br />
=== Modularity === <br />
Modular robotics is a useful tool in the design of robots for in-field applications, as building a functional specialised robot from scratch is a time-consuming and cost-intensive process. If a modular design approach is taken, the costs of designing a robot could be severely reduced as one general robotic platform with some general functionalities would serve as the starting point, upon which modules can be placed to give the end-product the desired capabilities. A drawback of this modular design method, however, is that the design space will expand explosively due to the seemingly limitless possible configurations the robot could have (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot"> Farritor, S. & Dubowsky, S.. Autonomous Robots (2001) Volume 10, pp57-65. “On Modular Design of Field Robotic Systems”. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026596403167 </ref>. However, this design space can be brought to proportions by severely reducing it, by placing the constraints which arise from the task to be completed by the robot onto the possible configurations (Farritor & Dubowsky, 2001) <ref name= "Mod Robot" />. By doing so any and all designs with but a singular deviation which would compromise the execution of the task are immediately discarded in the earlier stages of development. <br />
<br />
Some examples of robots which implemented a modular design and with similar environmental working conditions as our to-be-designed seeding robot include the Small Robotic Farm Vehicle (Bawden et al., 2014) <ref> Bawden, O., Ball, D., Kulk, J., Perez, T., & Russell, R.. Australian Conference on Robotics and Automation (2014). “A lightweight, modular robotic vehicle for the sustainable intensification of agriculture.” </ref>, the 4-wheel steering weed detection robot of Bak and Jakobsen (Back & Jakobsen, 2004) <ref> Bak, T., & Jakobsen, H.. Biosystems Engineering (2004), Volume 87, pp 125-136. "Agricultural robotic platform with four wheel steering for weed detection.". https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.10.009 </ref>, the Amphibious Locomotion Robot of Li, Urbina, Zhang and Gomez (Li et al., 2017) <ref> Li, G., Urbina, R., Zhang, H., & Gomez, J. G.. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS) (2017), pp 145-150. “Concept design and simulation of a water proofing modular robot for amphibious locomotion.”. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2017.8316566 </ref> and the Reconfigurable Integrated Multi-Robot Exploration System (RIMRES) <ref> Cordes, F., Bindel, D., Lange, C., & Kirchner, F.. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (iSAIRAS’10) (2010), pp. 38-45. “Towards a modular reconfigurable heterogenous multi-robot exploration system.”</ref>. These robots have in common that they are mostly based on a singular platform, suspended by wheels for locomotion, upon which several modules (e.g. sensors, mechatronic arms, pay-loads, other deployable robots, etc.) can be placed to increase functionality.<br />
<br />
A special class of modular robots are the so-called self-reconfigurable modular robots which can change their shape to comply with dynamic environmental constraints and task requirements. Some examples of these self-reconfigurable robots include the I(CES) cubes (Unsal, Kiliccote and Khosla, 1999) <ref> Unsal, C., Kiliccote, H., & Khosla, P. K. (1999, August). “I (CES)-cubes: a modular self-reconfigurable bipartite robotic system.”. In Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems II (Vol. 3839, pp. 258-270). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.360346 </ref>, M-TRAN (Murata et al., 2002) <ref> Murata, S., Yoshida, E., Kamimura, A., Kurokawa, H., Tomita, K., & Kokaji, S. (2002). “M-TRAN: Self-reconfigurable modular robotic system.” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, Volume 7, pp431-441. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2002.806220 </ref>, ATRON (Jorgensen, Ostergaard & Lund, 2004) <ref> Jorgensen, M. W., Ostergaard, E. H., & Lund, H. H. (2004, September). “Modular ATRON: Modules for a self-reconfigurable robot.”. Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2004.(IROS 2004). Proceedings. 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 2068-2073). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389702 </ref>, Modular Robot for Exploration and Discovery (ModRED) (Baca et al., 2014) <ref> Baca, J., Hossain, S. G. M., Dasgupta, P., Nelson, C. A., & Dutta, A. (2014). “Modred: Hardware design and reconfiguration planning for a high dexterity modular self-reconfigurable robot for extra-terrestrial exploration.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 62, pp 1002-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.08.008</ref>, Polybot (Yim et al., 2003) <ref> Yim, M., Roufas, K., Duff, D., Zhang, Y., Eldershaw, C., & Homans, S. (2003). “Modular reconfigurable robots in space applications.”. Autonomous Robots, Volume 14, pp 225-237. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022287820808 </ref>. Albeit this is an interesting topic of research, for our problem at hand it will not be a feasible solution, since most of these systems are on a mesoscale application, whereas the to-be-designed deforestation robot will be a macroscale prototype. <br />
<br />
=== (Semi)-Autonomous Cars ===<br />
The patent on remote control systems granted to Mitsubishi Electric Crop. By the US government. This document is a thorough description of how remote control systems work, listing the necessary parts with the movement detector sensor, transmitter, receiver and a potential display device being the main important ones. (Hashimoto et al., 1996)<br />
<ref> Hashimoto et al. (1996). United States Patent 5554980 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/4b/ce/ba560b94ae5c1a/US5554980.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
In this article Elon Musk describes his vision for the autonomous car in 2016, even though this year has already passed, it still shows the vision of one of the main developers of autonomous cars. Elon Musk describes certain aspects of autonomous cars, like the mileage on one charge and the way current non-autonomous cars can be turned into autonomous cars by using a software update only. (Kessler, 2015) <ref><br />
Kessler, A.M. (2015) Elon Musk Says Self-Driving Tesla Cars Will Be in the U.S. by Summer, Retrieved from: <br />
http://www.oharas.com/ET/elonmusk.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
To get our car driving smoothly, we will probably utilize a remote control, meaning that it will be very closely related to a remote controlled toy car, to which this doc. is the current active patent. It shows the state of the art radio controlled toy car technology currently available. (Matsushiro, 1984)<br />
<ref> Matsushiro. (1984). United States Patent 4457101 Retrieved from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/14/b4/e5/e0e06d46e4cf44/US4457101.pdf<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
One aspect of the autonomous cars is the intelligent pathing. Using communication with other vehicles, a map of dense traffic places can be made, resulting in an optimal route for the car to take. Obstacles are also communicated between different vehicles. (Bagloee, 2016)<br />
<ref><br />
Bagloee, S.A. et al. (2016). Autonomous vehicles: challenges, oppurtunities and future implications for transportation policies. Journal of Modern Transportation, Vol 24, Issue 4, page 283-303 section 6 Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40534-016-0117-3 <br />
</ref><br />
<br />
A guide to help us control a servo motor with our computer, as a servo motor is the most likely option if we want our car to drive without outside help. It shows how to program and control a servo motor and how to implement one in the electronic circuit. <ref> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Dynamically-control-a-servo-or-motor-throug/ </ref><br />
<br />
A short article on the workings of servo motors, the main two interesting reads are the control of the servo and the different types, as we will have to choose one if we opt to use servo’s to drive our car around. (Jameco Electronics, )<ref> Jameco Electronics, Retrieved from: https://www.jameco.com/jameco/workshop/howitworks/how-servo-motors-work.html </ref><br />
<br />
Even though this site is a webshop, and not a scientific article, it shows what technology we can buy within a respectable price range and thus shows what we do not need to make ourselves. Before we start thinking about how to make a part of our robot, lets first check what this shop has got. <ref> https://www.tinytronics.nl/shop/nl </ref><br />
<br />
=== Sensors for prospecting/evaluating ground ===<br />
Evaluating the soil the robot is on can be the defining factor whether it is worth it to plant new seeds in the ground, since an infertile soil will not create a new healthy forest. The design of the robot would benefit from such sensors, since it can utilize this information to determine where to plant the seeds.<br />
<br />
Currently the soil can be read with a multitude of sensors. The most simple, but ineffective for our robot, sensor would be to use a simple plant<ref name= "plant Sensor"> Edward M. Barnes, Kenneth A. Sudduth, John W. Hummel, Scott M. Lesch, Dennis L. Corwin, Chenghai Yang, Craig S.T. Daughtry, and Walter C. Bausch, “Remote- and Ground-Based Sensor Techniques to Map Soil Properties”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asprs/pers/2003/00000069/00000006/art00002#<br />
</ref> and determine whether the plant shows sufficient growth. A lot of information can be obtained from the plant, like the salinity, nutrients and available soil moisture.<br />
<br />
This is however very inefficient and not desirable for our robot. An alternative would be to use moisture sensors<ref name= "moistureSensor">Boyan Kuang, “On-line Measurement of Some Selected Soil Properties for Controlled Input Crop Management Systems” (2012), https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/7939/Boyan_Kuang_Thesis_2012.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y </ref> to determine the amount of water in the ground, since water is a critical component for a plant to grow.<br />
Further sensors include NIR reflectance sensors. These sensors can accurately measure the organic matter within the soil. This leads to an accurate picture whether the soil is fertile enough to plant seeds.<br />
<br />
Vis-NIR sensors can also determine the amount of nitrogen and moisture in the soil. Which leads to an even more complete picture of the soil.<br />
<br />
Humidity in the air can also help determine whether the area is suitable. An RH sensor<ref name = "humid sensor">Sandra F. H. Correia, Paulo Antunes, Edison Pecoraro, Patrícia P. Lima, Humberto Varum, Luis D. Carlos, Rute A. S. Ferreira, and Paulo S. André, “Optical Fiber Relative Humidity Sensor Based on a FBG with a Di-Ureasil Coating” (2012), http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/12/7/8847<br />
</ref> based on a Bragg grating can determine the relative humidity accurately. The optical fiber used to determine this can also house temperature, pH, pressure and more sensors. This results in a quite complete picture of the environment above the soil and can help determine the suitability for planting the seeds.<br />
<br />
The robot can also be used in predetermined areas. Forest fires<ref name= "forest fire">L.M. Zavara, R. De Celis, A. Jordán, “How wildfires affect soil properties. A brief review”(2014), https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4847440.pdf<br />
</ref>, for example, increase the nitrogen in the soil and in most cases the amount of carbon is also increased. This results in a soil that is suitable and fertile enough to deploy our robot on.<br />
<br />
=== Drilling/plowing/seeding mechanism ===<br />
A thing to keep in mind is the cost-effectiveness of the planting method. this article analyses the usage of an auger against the usage of spades.<ref>Preece, N. D., van Oosterzee, P., & Lawes, M. J. (2013). Planting methods matter for cost-effective rainforest restoration. Ecological Management and Restoration, 14(1), 63-66. doi:10.1111/emr.12017</ref> While the article concludes that spades are more cost-efficient, the easier development and the lower priority of manhours would still make the auger a better option for this project.<br />
<br />
This article shows how direct seeding is viable and what parameters have effect.<ref>Atondo-Bueno, E. J., López-Barrera, F., Bonilla-Moheno, M., Williams-Linera, G., & Ramírez-Marcial, N. (2016). Direct seeding of oreomunnea mexicana, a threatened tree species from southeastern mexico. New Forests, 47(6), 845-860. doi:10.1007/s11056-016-9548-2</ref> Using the appropriate sensors to measure these parameters would greatly benefit the project.<br />
<br />
A kinematic analyses of an auger system<ref>Bogdanof, G. C., Moise, V., Visan, A. L., & Ciobanu, G. V. (2017). Kinematic analysis of soil drilling mechanism used in afforestation. Paper presented at the Engineering for Rural Development, , 16 653-658. doi:10.22616/ERDev2017.16.N131 Retrieved from www.scopus.com</ref> can be of great help when developing the seeding system for this project.<br />
<br />
Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism<ref>Zong, W. Y., Wang, J. L., Huang, X. M., Yu, D., Zhao, Y. B., & Graham, S. (2016). Development of a mobile powered hole digger for orchard tree cultivation using a slider-crank feed mechanism. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 9(3), 48-56. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20160903.1784</ref> gives another example of the design of an auger design, which doesn't straight up work for this case but gives some insights and can be used in this design.<br />
<br />
An auger experiences certain loads during drilling. A mechanical analysis of the auger<ref>Cheng, Wei & Wang, Hongliu & Liu, Tianxi. (2013). Mechanical model of hollow-external-screw drill rod for lunar soil particle vertical conveying. IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation, ICCA. 1240-1245. 10.1109/ICCA.2013.6565063.</ref> could help in selecting the right parts for the job. This analysis has been done for bigger scale work on the moon, but is still relevant due to the use of variables which can be evaluated for their earth counterpart.<br />
<br />
=== Reforestation and Forest Fires ===<br />
Fires in the Yellowstone National Park cause burn severities around the Park. Fires of different sizes cause different ecological responses. The location of the fire has the biggest influence on the biotic response of the ecosystem. Severely burned areas mainly know pine seedlings while having less vascular species than before the fire. The bigger the burned down area, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the lower the general species diversity is. (Turner, M.G. et al. 1997)<br />
<ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
In recent years a lot of deforestation has occured in Latin America and the Caribbean. But a lot of forest recovery has also sprouted, partly caused by demographic and socio-economic change. This is the main factor influencing change in wood growth. Woody vegetation change was dominated by deforestation in 2001-2010 (-542 thousand km^2), but 362 thousand km^2 was recovered. As woody vegetation depends so heavily on deforestation and reforestation these need to be controlled more extensively. (Aide, T.M. et al. 2013)<br />
<ref><br />
Aide, T.M. et al. (2013), Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) BIOTROPICA 45(2): 262-271 Retrieved from: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2012.00908.x<br />
</ref><br />
<br />
It is also possible for invasive species to become the dominant factor in forests after a wildfire, this results in a new kind of forest that as a less healthy ecosystem that might spread to unaffected areas in its vicinity. In general, invasive species have a higher survival rate then the original species in the area. Invasive species reproduce faster and their seeds are carried to areas less affected by wildfires. Since the survival rate is relatively high, it is beneficial to remove the leftover seeds that survived the wildfire. <ref> Kristin Zouhar, Jane Kapler Smith, Steve Sutherland, Effects of Fire on Nonnative Invasive Plants and Invasibility of Wildland Ecosystems, 2008. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6/rmrs_gtr042_6_007_032.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
=== Current deforestation and combat methods ===<br />
Deforestation is clearing Earth’s forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of land. The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at current rate of deforestation. Consequences of deforestation are the loss of habitat for millions of species and climate changes. The most feasible solution to deforestation is to carefully manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forest environments remain intact. The cutting that does occur should be balanced by planting young trees to replace older trees felled. The number of new tree plantations is growing each year, but their total still equals a tiny fraction of the Earth’s forested land. (Geographic, 2015) <ref> National Geographic. (2015, April). Deforestation. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/ </ref><br />
<br />
Rehabilitation of deforestation areas can have different steps. It can include anti-erosion works, projects for slope formation and protection and reforestation. The prototype will focus on reforestation. The forest service takes into account the type of vegetation that has been burned, the success potential of natural regeneration of trees and the general conditions, and, accordingly, shall proceed, or not, to artificial reforestation of burnt areas using native species. The purpose of reforestation is the creation of new forests, the renewal of mature forests and the recovery of degraded forest ecosystems while ensuring natural regeneration or artificial intervention (seeding or planting) for production purposes and the protection of soils. The cost of reforestation in the last 8 years was enormous due to many manhours. (Christopoulou, 2011) <ref> Christopoulou, O. (2011). Deforestation/ reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The Case of Greece. Soil Erosion Studies, 3-30. </ref><br />
<br />
This website reviews many different ways for reforestation. Almost all methods are based on man work, people are physically present and are planting the seeds themselves: direct seeding. One method that is currently used that does not involve a person physically being where the seed is planted is called aerial seeding. This method plants new seeds using planes and helicopters. This method is much more efficient than being physically present on the ground but is generally outside the budget of most reforestation projects. (David, 2015)<ref> David. (2015, January ). Reforestation Methods Reforestation Projects. Retrieved from Reforestation: https://reforestation.me/reforestation-methods/ </ref><br />
<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. If seeds of one species, or a mixture of seeds of different species with different needs are randomly mixed in a larger seed ball, at least some of the seeds should be in the optimal position for germination. This optimizes reforestation. (Goosem & Tucker, 2013)<ref> Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty. </ref><br />
<br />
===Viability of direct seeding===<br />
While direct seeding has been a valid option for reforestation for centuries, over the last 5 decades the quality of seedlings has improved rapidly. This caused seedlings to be chosen more often over direct seeding since seedlings have a higher establish rate.<br />
Worldwide forest restoration programs, of which a few have started recently, will favor direct seeding again since direct seeding uses less labor hours and the seeds are cheaper and easier to produce then seedlings. To increase the establish rate of direct seeding one has to consider that seeding is more than delivering seeds to the site:<br />
The time of seeding for different seeds impacts the establish rates, the quality of the seeds and the soil also should be inspected. lastly managing competitive vegetation should also improve establish rates. <ref>Grossnickle SC, Ivetić V (2017) Direct Seeding in Reforestation – A Field Performance Review. Reforesta 4: 94-142. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.07.46</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
Broadcasting the seeds by hand is a valid way of reforestation, but has some drawbacks. The seed establish rates are very low, mostly around 20%. This can be improved however by different methods, such as manually cultivating the ground or using straw mulching. The effect of such methods differ heavily between kinds of vegetation. The aforementioned methods have been tested on 3 species of plants in Greece.<ref>Brofas, G., & Karetsos, G. (2002). Revegetation of mining spoils by seeding of woody species on ghiona mountain, central greece. Land Degradation and Development, 13(6), 461-467. doi:10.1002/ldr.529</ref> <br />
<br />
Since the research shows that the effects are not consistent this means research will have to be done on all plants in the region of reforestation in order to use the broadcasting of seeds to achieve an acceptable result.<br />
<br />
=== Current use of Robotics Technology in seeding/reforestation activities ===<br />
<br />
The use of machinery in agriculture, the logging industry and nature upkeep is commonplace, however the application of autonomous robotic technology is still rather in its infancy. Some robotics solutions exist in these field, which are primarily categorised in 2 classes: a mobile robotic class and a drone class. Examples in the mobile robotic class include the R-Stepps project to combat desertification (Mohamed, Flavien & Pierre, 2015) <ref> Mohamed, Z., Flavien, V., & Pierre, B. (2015, October). Mobile robotics for restoring degraded ecosystems. In Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2015 IEEE (pp. 273-278). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2015.7343984 </ref> and the Agribot to plant seeds on farming land (Pavan et al., 2017) <ref> Pavan, T. V., Suresh, R., Prakash, K. R., & Mallikarjuna, C. (2017). Design and Development of Agribot for Seeding. </ref>. Examples in the drone class include the Treek'lam (Sinalkar & Phade, 2016) <ref> Sinalkar, S., & Phade, G. (2016, December). Treek'lam. In Global Trends in Signal Processing, Information Computing and Communication (ICGTSPICC), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 611-614). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGTSPICC.2016.7955373 </ref> and the quadcopter designed by Fortes (Fortes, 2017) <ref> Fortes, E. P. (2017). Seed Plant Drone for Reforestation. The Graduate Review, 2(1), 13-26. </ref>. <br />
Overall this leaves us with almost countless possibilities for either designing a new robot or improving the existing version of the mobile robot and/or drone.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56403Extended Literature Review2018-05-14T07:57:09Z<p>S169967: /* Manual reforestation (Volunteering) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, a second study in China comparing growth rates and carbon stock levels (equivalent for biomass) of both aerial seeded forests and naturally regenerated forests showed differences effectiveness between the two methods, with aerially seeded forests needing longer time to completely develop and hence always following behind naturally regenerated forests (Xiao et al., 2015) <ref name="Chinabois"> Xiao, X., Wei, X., Liu, Y., Ouyang, X., Li, Q., & Ning, J. (2015). Aerial seeding: an effective forest restoration method in highly degraded forest landscapes of sub-tropic regions. Forests, 6(6), 1748-1762. </ref>. This study was performed using the same tree species in previously highly naturally degraded areas. In the early years (10-20 years) of the new forests the naturally regenerated forests seem to do better in terms of overall carbon stock, with an eventual conversion of the carbon stock values for the aerially seeded forest to carbon stock values of the naturally regrown forests for elder forests (50+ years). This faster growth rate of naturally regenerated forests is most likely caused by the self-capacity of natural forests to sustain themselves, which can only kick in at a later stage for an artificially planted forest by means of aerial seeding and by a higher occupation of carbon stock of the forest floor litter layer in the natural forests which provide many nutrients for trees. Thus overall, aerially seeded forests will eventually over time reach a state where the difference in their carbon stock is no longer statistically significant, however this approach in carbon stock is always from below. <br />
<br />
Hence taking into account the findings of both Régnière <ref name="probability model" />and Xiao et al. <ref name="Chinabois" /> it is safe to conclude that aerial seeding can possibly be an effective method for reforestation, however it is largely context dependent on the problem. Considering one needs a pre-prepared area to increase survivability of seeds and the airplane needs to make very tightly spaced runs to create a somewhat universally spread forest, the process becomes very time intensive in excecution, whereas the main appeal of aerial seeding would be the simplicity in saving time as compared to manual seeding. In situation where natural natural deposits for seeds are scarce aerial seeding would be an optimal solution, since it simply would take nature too long to naturally recover the forest, even though the growth rate of natural forests are higher. However, considering we are dealing with forests fires this last situation is not very likely, as most often due to human intervention forests do not completely vanish due to wildfires, rendering plenty of natural seed deposit left. In terms of control aerial seeding gives little opportunities unless one chooses to specifically seed only one species of plant, as for any other desired degree of control a mixture of seeds has to be spread, for which different survival rates exists. Albeit, if one desires empty patches of land in the forest this could be done by severely increasing the spacing of airplane runs. In terms of biodiversity a similar conclusion can be drawn. Some level of biodiversity can be reached by mixing seeds from differents trees and plants together for the airplane to drop, however this increases the difficulty of pre-preparing the site for different types of trees/plants to coexist together, whereas such an situation would also eventually be reached by nature. <br />
<br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
Manual reforestation is an ineffective method. The cost of replanting a 1 km by 1 km field can cost up to 62,000 usd. This is not a small investment, and maintenance can further increase these costs. Manual reforestation also require a significant amount of workers, it might not be feasible to get sufficient manpower. Robotics might provide a cheaper and more efficient alternative, maintenance costs can be lower than the labour costs of human workers, this has been shown in various other sectors within our industry.<ref> Vera Lex Engel, John A. Parrotta, An evaluation of direct seeding for reforestation of degraded lands in central São Paulo State, Brazil, 2001, https://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/misc/78142-2001-Foreco-Engel-Parrotta.pdf </ref><br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
Biodiversity is the measure of variability of living organisms. For a national park, this is to be interpreted as the amount of different trees, plants, animals and all other living organisms that can be found there. A parks biodiversity forms the foundation of a parks ecosystem, (Greenfacts, 2018)<br />
<ref><br />
Greenfacts (2018) Biodiversity and Human Well-being retrieved from: https://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/l-3/1-define-biodiversity.htm<br />
</ref><br />
meaning that a big chance in biodiversity would result in a big impact in the parks ecosystem. The goal of a national park is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, which cannot be done if the ecosystem changes drastically. This leads to the conclusion that for a national park to fulfill its purpose, a drastic change in the ecosystem, and thus in the biodiversity, has to be avoided.<br />
To this extend, natural reforestation is not sufficient regrowth method. When a forest fire occurs, the ground is covered in ashes and everything has been heated to arbitrary high temperatures. Even though some forest fires are beneficial for the fertility of the area, those which are too hot are not. Different kinds of plants are more suited to deal with those problems than others, meaning that those plants have a clear advantage during natural reforestation. <br />
Beyond this, the fire’s size has impact on the way reforestation occurs. As some plants, take lodgepole pines for example, are more effective at spreading their seeds over farther distances, these will start to recolonize the middle of the burned area fairly soon, while other plants, mostly smaller ones, take longer to get to the middle of the burned area, perhaps even multiple generations.(Turner, M.G. et al. 1997) <ref><br />
Turner, M.G. et al. (1997). Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park, Ecological Monographs 67(4) pp. 411-433 Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1997)067[0411:EOFSAP]2.0.CO;2<br />
</ref>This phenomenon is the reason that the bigger the fire is, the more tree seedlings sprout, and the less vascular species get the change to grow, causing a decrease in the general species variety in the regrown part of the forest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface<ref>Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty</ref>.. This means that if the seeds are all buried at the same depth or not buried at all, one species will be at the perfect level to grow and will dominate the other species. In order to have the biodiversity that is preferred for the area, the seeds of different species need to be planted at different levels to create a good growing environment for every species. This can only be done with a level of control that cannot be obtained with aerial seeding. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. <br />
<br />
As discussed previously, a National Parks goal is to conserve the scenery of the area, meaning that if a fire occurs, the National Parks aims to get the park back to its original state. This can not be done by means of natural reforestation, as this does not give all species which used to live in the burned down area a big enough chance to ensure the conservation of the scenery. This means that the method of natural reforestation has insufficient means of control to be a useful solution to the problem at hand.<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56263Extended Literature Review2018-05-12T11:37:45Z<p>S169967: </p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
Seeds of different species have different optimal depths for sowing, with some growing best if they are buried a few inches deep in the soil, while others, including many grasses and herbs, need exposure to light to germinate and so need to be on the surface<ref>Goosem, S., & Tucker, N. (2013). Repairing the Rainforest . Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority and Biotropica Australia Pty</ref>.. This means that if the seeds are all buried at the same depth or not buried at all, one species will be at the perfect level to grow and will dominate the other species. In order to have the biodiversity that is preferred for the area, the seeds of different species need to be planted at different levels to create a good growing environment for every species. This can only be done with a level of control that cannot be obtained with aerial seeding. A rule of thumb when growing vegetables and grains is to sow the seed at a depth of one to two times the width of the seed. <br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56262Extended Literature Review2018-05-12T10:20:42Z<p>S169967: /* Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. Another source states that only 7.9% of reforestation is done with natural reforestation. This number is so low because Where natural methods of natural regeneration fail or are unrealistic, artificial planting ensures the attainment of the main goal - sustainability of forest ecosystems<ref>Jan Lukaszewicz, W. K. (2002). THE ROLE OF ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL REGENERATION IN INCREASING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST ECOSYSTEMS IN POLAND. </ref>. Therefore it can be concluded that artificial reforestation is preferred over natural reforestation. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56261Extended Literature Review2018-05-12T10:13:27Z<p>S169967: /* Current methods of reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation vs Artificial reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
==== Aerial seeding ====<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
==== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ====<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=Extended_Literature_Review&diff=56260Extended Literature Review2018-05-12T10:12:42Z<p>S169967: /* Current methods of reforestation */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General ==<br />
In this section a more in depth literature review on the specific subject of reforestation after forest fires is done to assess whether or not a robot is a desirable artifact to be created for such a purpose. Several aspects are investigated including but not limited to biodiversity, need for controlled seeding, effectiveness of current methods, costs of current methods. General information about the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]].<br />
<br />
== Biodiversity ==<br />
<br />
== Need for control ==<br />
<br />
== Current methods of reforestation ==<br />
<br />
=== Natural reforestation ===<br />
A forest can be recreated with natural reforestation. Natural reforestation relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind, transported or buried by animals or that are dropped by mature trees<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. In contrast to artificial deforestation, natural reforestation happens without the help of humans or machines. Artificial reforestation has certain important benefits why it is often preferred over natural reforestation. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds or seedlings, and a higher rate of tree survival<ref>North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/</ref>. It can be summarized that when using artificial reforestation, the reforestation can be better managed than with natural reforestation. Why is it preferred to have more control over reforestation? Reforestation guidelines help minimize exposure to mineral soil, and thus decrease the impact on the nutrient balance of the site and provide the flexibility to successfully regenerate certain desired species. Reforestation guidelines encourage approaches to regeneration of deforested areas that result in tree species diversity, appropriate species selection for a particular site and maintenance of habitat structure. Artificial reforestation thus has benefits for wildlife habitat and forest soils<ref>nrs fs fed. (2014). Reforestation</ref>. There are different methods of artificial reforestation. The two most common ones will be further explained below. <br />
<br />
=== Aerial seeding ===<br />
Aerial seeding is perhaps the most novel method for reforestation among the other options, which have generally existed for many centuries. Its main premise is a reduction in labour, as seeds can be sown at a much higher rate than manual seeding could ever produce and time-effectiveness, as an airplane can easily cover an area of several hectares at a much quicker rate than manual seeding using volunteers. However the question remains if this method is truly beneficial in case of actual saplings it produces and the costs it inherently carries, considering an aircraft of several metric tons needs to be lifted in the air burning kerosine and enormous amounts of seeds are spread. <br />
Contrary to intuitive belief aerial seeding is in most cases not a standalone method, in order to be effective more often than not some preliminary ground work is required to prepare the area to be seeded (in terms of boosting the receptiveness of the ground to the dropped seeds) (Régnière, 1982) <ref name="probability model"> Régnière, J. (1982). A probabilistic model relating stocking to degree of scarification and aerial seeding rate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 12(2), 362-367. </ref>. A very crude probabilistic model, taking into account two classes of possible areas (highly receptive due to site preparation or natural levels) and a constant occupation of highly receptive area per unit of area exists <ref name="probability model" />, which reveals that higher seeding rates do in general lead to more saplings, however the relation is only linear in the case of pure natural occupation. If the site is prepared and occupation rates become higher, the relation between the number of saplings per unit approaches more or less rooted relationships. This model further reveals that the variance of the pattern in saplings per unit area severely depend on the width between airplane runs, with lowest variance only occurring at 1 meter distances. However, for each and every combination of width between airplane runs and seeding density a minimum in variance exists to create an optimal balance between the two. Using a purely random (obtained by uniform seeding density created by narrow spacing) seed distribution as a measure for maximum obtainable sapling rate, it was found that the efficiency of a real process with a limited spacing decreases rapidly as the spacing becomes larger, although there is a compensating effect for higher seeding rates, albeit the amplitude of this compensation is much smaller than the amplitude of the decrease in efficiency at wider spacing. Very counterintuitive, for equal spacing between the airplane runs, the efficiency of the process first drops to a minimum of 88% after which it slowly increases for larger seeding drop densities, meaning that more does not necessarily mean better, unless ridiculous amounts of seeds are used. <br />
<br />
=== Manual reforestation (Volunteering) ===<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references /></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_analysis&diff=55674User analysis2018-05-05T14:44:08Z<p>S169967: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Forests are an important part of our state’s environment and economy. Forests provide clear air and water, great biodiversity, places for recreation and is used to produce products we use to live<ref> North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/ </ref> . It can be concluded that life without forests is unimaginable and it is important to manage the forests well. However, in the past time deforestation has destroyed too many trees, an estimate of 1,3 million square kilometer per decade.<ref> Pimm, S. L. (2016, February). Deforestation. Opgehaald van Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/deforestation </ref> Deforestation has important global consequences; soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation happens to create land for agriculture and cattle or to use the trees for wood products. It can however also occur as a consequence of wild fires. On average, more than 100.000 wildfires clear 4 to 5 million acres of land in the united states every year.<ref> National Geographic. (2017, March). Learn more about wildfires. Opgehaald van National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/wildfires/</ref> Wildfires can thus be considered as an important cause of deforestation and change forest structures dramatically. Although wildfires are often harmful to humans and animals, they return nutrients to the soil by burning dead or decaying matter. This means that the area of the wildfire is very fertile and new forests grow easier. This project will focus on deforestation that happened because of wildfires. The benefit of focusing on this type of deforestation is that the prototype does not have to check whether the ground is fertile since this is definitely the case as a result of the wildfire. Because deforestation happened due to wildfires, the ground is not destined for other purposes as cattle or agriculture, as is often the case with artificial deforestation. This means that the area can be reforested without intervening with others plans. The project thus focuses on wildfires that happen by accident and not planned wildfires. <br />
<br />
To combat the consequences of deforestation the project focuses on reforestation. There are two main methods of reforestation: natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind or transported or buried by animals. Artificial regeneration involves human intervention in sowing seeds or planting seedlings. Artificial reforestation has multiple advantages over the natural manner. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds and a higher rate of tree survival. Artificial reforestation is thus preferred over natural reforestation to create a higher success rate of creating new forests<ref>Yale school of forestry and environmental studies. (2018, April). Forest Restoration & Reforestation. Opgehaald van Global forest atlas: http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/our-partners</ref>. <br />
<br />
There are already several businesses involved in the reforestation business. For example BioCarbon Engineering, who uses specialized drones to replant trees in remote areas<ref>Khalamayzer, A. (2018, January 25). These 14 businesses are growing money on trees. Opgehaald van GreenBiz: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/these-14-businesses-are-growing-money-trees</ref>. The prototype from our research stands out since it focuses especially on reforestation after a wildfire. Also the seeding mechanism will be new compared to other prototypes. According to a report from the World Resources Institute shows that businesses in the forestry sectors are making money from planting trees, with sales growing up to 10 times per year. This shows that there is a huge ask from society for companies and prototypes like this one. <br />
<br />
On this wiki page information about the USE aspects and User requirements can be found<br />
<br />
<br />
General information regarding the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]]<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
Much influence from the prototype will be noticed by society. Deforestation is an international problem with huge and devastating consequences which includes but not limits to soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions (Cook, 2018)<ref> Cook, M. (2018, April 19). Four consequences of Deforestation. retrieved from Sciencing: https://sciencing.com/four-consequences-deforestation-7622.html</ref>. This results in a loss of biodiversity and will also influence human lives. Greenhouse gas emissions for example contributes to global climate changes. Deforestation thus has great influences on the society in ways that cannot be imagined. When no actions are taken against deforestation, the problems arising are getting bigger and bigger with the years. The society is currently looking for solutions to these problems. The prototype is created to combat deforestation and therefore the consequences of deforestation. If deforestation is reduced, the society will benefit from this since the prototype makes reforestation much easier and cheaper. It is more efficient than current ways of reforestation and is therefore a better solution to decrease the consequences of deforestation. <br />
<br />
=== Users ===<br />
Apart from the society users is another group to consider. Users can be divided into three groups: primarily users, secondary users and tertiarily users. Primary users are those persons who actually use the artifact; secondary users are those who will occasionally use the artifact or those who use it through an intermediary; and tertiary users are persons who will be affected by the use of the artifact or make decisions about its purchase (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004)[2]. The primary users of our prototype will be people who rebuild the forest after a wildfire, most likely foresters. Foresters are going to use the prototype to replant new trees and the prototype helps them to plant more seeds in less time compared to planting them with no help of smart technology. Next to the foresters other users will be influenced by the technology as well. Secondary users are companies that are involved in the maintenance and production of the prototype and the government, more details on this can be read in the enterprise and government section. Tertiary users of the prototype are in principle all living residents of the world. The consequences of deforestation will eventually influence everybody and the prototype will decrease these consequences and thus each living individual will benefit from the prototype.<br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
Enterprise would benefit from these robots since, as is mentioned in the introduction, there is a huge ask for companies in the forestry sector and the company that produces the prototype would have success in their business. The robot is not labour intensive and can operate autonomous thus making the work for users of the prototype easier. Other solutions might be more expensive or less efficient. It is also a major factor for the company image. It is almost free advertising, since being green is rising in popularity for the consumers.<br />
<br />
=== Government ===<br />
The government is obliged to protect their citizens, so investing in these robots and utilizing them is beneficial for them since they help alleviate a problem future generations will come in contact with. It is a solution that will help the sustainability for future generations. While they might not directly be involved, subsidy can be an incentive for both enterprise as NGOs to deploy these robots in various location and situations.<br />
<br />
Besides the actual impact the robot can have, it also has the same indirect benefits as enterprise. It is a great image boost for the government. A green campaign will most likely have a positive effect on the opinion of the current ruling party.<br />
<br />
===User Requirements===<br />
====Primary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be easy to use by people who are not tech savvy<br />
*The technology needs to have little to no necessary training<br />
*The technology needs to be either faster or longer sustainable than current forestation methods<br />
*The technology needs to be harmless to existing forestation<br />
====Secondary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be able to rival current technologies in price<br />
*The technology needs to be easily maintainable<br />
====Tertiary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to have a net positive influence on the environment<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_analysis&diff=55673User analysis2018-05-05T14:43:26Z<p>S169967: /* Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Forests are an important part of our state’s environment and economy. Forests provide clear air and water, great biodiversity, places for recreation and is used to produce products we use to live<ref> North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/ </ref> . It can be concluded that life without forests is unimaginable and it is important to manage the forests well. However, in the past time deforestation has destroyed too many trees, an estimate of 1,3 million square kilometer per decade.<ref> Pimm, S. L. (2016, February). Deforestation. Opgehaald van Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/deforestation </ref> Deforestation has important global consequences; soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation happens to create land for agriculture and cattle or to use the trees for wood products. It can however also occur as a consequence of wild fires. On average, more than 100.000 wildfires clear 4 to 5 million acres of land in the united states every year.<ref> National Geographic. (2017, March). Learn more about wildfires. Opgehaald van National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/wildfires/</ref> Wildfires can thus be considered as an important cause of deforestation and change forest structures dramatically. Although wildfires are often harmful to humans and animals, they return nutrients to the soil by burning dead or decaying matter. This means that the area of the wildfire is very fertile and new forests grow easier. This project will focus on deforestation that happened because of wildfires. The benefit of focusing on this type of deforestation is that the prototype does not have to check whether the ground is fertile since this is definitely the case as a result of the wildfire. Because deforestation happened due to wildfires, the ground is not destined for other purposes as cattle or agriculture, as is often the case with artificial deforestation. This means that the area can be reforested without intervening with others plans. The project thus focuses on wildfires that happen by accident and not planned wildfires. <br />
<br />
To combat the consequences of deforestation the project focuses on reforestation. There are two main methods of reforestation: natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind or transported or buried by animals. Artificial regeneration involves human intervention in sowing seeds or planting seedlings. Artificial reforestation has multiple advantages over the natural manner. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds and a higher rate of tree survival. Artificial reforestation is thus preferred over natural reforestation to create a higher success rate of creating new forests<ref>Yale school of forestry and environmental studies. (2018, April). Forest Restoration & Reforestation. Opgehaald van Global forest atlas: http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/our-partners</ref>. <br />
<br />
There are already several businesses involved in the reforestation business. For example BioCarbon Engineering, who uses specialized drones to replant trees in remote areas<ref>Khalamayzer, A. (2018, January 25). These 14 businesses are growing money on trees. Opgehaald van GreenBiz: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/these-14-businesses-are-growing-money-trees<br />
National Geographic. (2017, March). Learn more about wildfires. Opgehaald van National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/wildfires/<br />
North Carolina Forestry Association. (2017, February). Forest Management Basics. Opgehaald van North Carolina Forestry: https://www.ncforestry.org/teachers/forest-management-basics/<br />
Pimm, S. L. (2016, February). Deforestation. Opgehaald van Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/deforestation<br />
Yale school of forestry and environmental studies. (2018, April). Forest Restoration & Reforestation. Opgehaald van Global forest atlas: http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/our-partners<br />
<br />
</ref>. The prototype from our research stands out since it focuses especially on reforestation after a wildfire. Also the seeding mechanism will be new compared to other prototypes. According to a report from the World Resources Institute shows that businesses in the forestry sectors are making money from planting trees, with sales growing up to 10 times per year. This shows that there is a huge ask from society for companies and prototypes like this one. <br />
<br />
On this wiki page information about the USE aspects and User requirements can be found<br />
<br />
<br />
General information regarding the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]]<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
Much influence from the prototype will be noticed by society. Deforestation is an international problem with huge and devastating consequences which includes but not limits to soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions (Cook, 2018)<ref> Cook, M. (2018, April 19). Four consequences of Deforestation. retrieved from Sciencing: https://sciencing.com/four-consequences-deforestation-7622.html</ref>. This results in a loss of biodiversity and will also influence human lives. Greenhouse gas emissions for example contributes to global climate changes. Deforestation thus has great influences on the society in ways that cannot be imagined. When no actions are taken against deforestation, the problems arising are getting bigger and bigger with the years. The society is currently looking for solutions to these problems. The prototype is created to combat deforestation and therefore the consequences of deforestation. If deforestation is reduced, the society will benefit from this since the prototype makes reforestation much easier and cheaper. It is more efficient than current ways of reforestation and is therefore a better solution to decrease the consequences of deforestation. <br />
<br />
=== Users ===<br />
Apart from the society users is another group to consider. Users can be divided into three groups: primarily users, secondary users and tertiarily users. Primary users are those persons who actually use the artifact; secondary users are those who will occasionally use the artifact or those who use it through an intermediary; and tertiary users are persons who will be affected by the use of the artifact or make decisions about its purchase (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004)[2]. The primary users of our prototype will be people who rebuild the forest after a wildfire, most likely foresters. Foresters are going to use the prototype to replant new trees and the prototype helps them to plant more seeds in less time compared to planting them with no help of smart technology. Next to the foresters other users will be influenced by the technology as well. Secondary users are companies that are involved in the maintenance and production of the prototype and the government, more details on this can be read in the enterprise and government section. Tertiary users of the prototype are in principle all living residents of the world. The consequences of deforestation will eventually influence everybody and the prototype will decrease these consequences and thus each living individual will benefit from the prototype.<br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
Enterprise would benefit from these robots since, as is mentioned in the introduction, there is a huge ask for companies in the forestry sector and the company that produces the prototype would have success in their business. The robot is not labour intensive and can operate autonomous thus making the work for users of the prototype easier. Other solutions might be more expensive or less efficient. It is also a major factor for the company image. It is almost free advertising, since being green is rising in popularity for the consumers.<br />
<br />
=== Government ===<br />
The government is obliged to protect their citizens, so investing in these robots and utilizing them is beneficial for them since they help alleviate a problem future generations will come in contact with. It is a solution that will help the sustainability for future generations. While they might not directly be involved, subsidy can be an incentive for both enterprise as NGOs to deploy these robots in various location and situations.<br />
<br />
Besides the actual impact the robot can have, it also has the same indirect benefits as enterprise. It is a great image boost for the government. A green campaign will most likely have a positive effect on the opinion of the current ruling party.<br />
<br />
===User Requirements===<br />
====Primary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be easy to use by people who are not tech savvy<br />
*The technology needs to have little to no necessary training<br />
*The technology needs to be either faster or longer sustainable than current forestation methods<br />
*The technology needs to be harmless to existing forestation<br />
====Secondary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be able to rival current technologies in price<br />
*The technology needs to be easily maintainable<br />
====Tertiary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to have a net positive influence on the environment<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_analysis&diff=55655User analysis2018-05-05T12:26:29Z<p>S169967: /* Users */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Forests are an important part of our state’s environment and economy. Forests provide clear air and water, great biodiversity, places for recreation and is used to produce products we use to live. It can be concluded that life without forests is unimaginable and it is important to manage the forests well. However, in the past time deforestation has destroyed too many trees, an estimate of 1,3 million square kilometer per decade. Deforestation has important global consequences; soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation happens to create land for agriculture and cattle or to use the trees for wood products. It can however also occur as a consequence of wild fires. On average, more than 100.000 wildfires clear 4 to 5 million acres of land in the united states every year. Wildfires can thus be considered as an important cause of deforestation and change forest structures dramatically. Although wildfires are often harmful to humans and animals, they return nutrients to the soil by burning dead or decaying matter. This means that the area of the wildfire is very fertile and new forests grow easier. This project will focus on deforestation that happened because of wildfires. The benefit of focusing on this type of deforestation is that the prototype does not have to check whether the ground is fertile since this is definitely the case as a result of the wildfire. Because deforestation happened due to wildfires, the ground is not destined for other purposes as cattle or agriculture, as is often the case with artificial deforestation. This means that the area can be reforested without intervening with others plans. The project thus focuses on wildfires that happen by accident and not planned wildfires. <br />
<br />
To combat the consequences of deforestation the project focuses on reforestation. There are two main methods of reforestation: natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind or transported or buried by animals. Artificial regeneration involves human intervention in sowing seeds or planting seedlings. Artificial reforestation has multiple advantages over the natural manner. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds and a higher rate of tree survival. Artificial reforestation is thus preferred over natural reforestation to create a higher success rate of creating new forests. <br />
<br />
There are already several businesses involved in the reforestation business. For example BioCarbon Engineering, who uses specialized drones to replant trees in remote areas. The prototype from our research stands out since it focuses especially on reforestation after a wildfire. Also the seeding mechanism will be new compared to other prototypes. According to a report from the World Resources Institute shows that businesses in the forestry sectors are making money from planting trees, with sales growing up to 10 times per year. This shows that there is a huge ask from society for companies and prototypes like this one. <br />
<br />
On this wiki page information about the USE aspects and User requirements can be found<br />
<br />
<br />
General information regarding the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]]<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
Much influence from the prototype will be noticed by society. Deforestation is an international problem with huge and devastating consequences which includes but not limits to soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions (Cook, 2018)<ref> Cook, M. (2018, April 19). Four consequences of Deforestation. retrieved from Sciencing: https://sciencing.com/four-consequences-deforestation-7622.html</ref>. This results in a loss of biodiversity and will also influence human lives. Greenhouse gas emissions for example contributes to global climate changes. Deforestation thus has great influences on the society in ways that cannot be imagined. When no actions are taken against deforestation, the problems arising are getting bigger and bigger with the years. The society is currently looking for solutions to these problems. The prototype is created to combat deforestation and therefore the consequences of deforestation. If deforestation is reduced, the society will benefit from this since the prototype makes reforestation much easier and cheaper. It is more efficient than current ways of reforestation and is therefore a better solution to decrease the consequences of deforestation. <br />
<br />
=== Users ===<br />
Apart from the society users is another group to consider. Users can be divided into three groups: primarily users, secondary users and tertiarily users. Primary users are those persons who actually use the artifact; secondary users are those who will occasionally use the artifact or those who use it through an intermediary; and tertiary users are persons who will be affected by the use of the artifact or make decisions about its purchase (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004)[2]. The primary users of our prototype will be people who rebuild the forest after a wildfire, most likely foresters. Foresters are going to use the prototype to replant new trees and the prototype helps them to plant more seeds in less time compared to planting them with no help of smart technology. Next to the foresters other users will be influenced by the technology as well. Secondary users are companies that are involved in the maintenance and production of the prototype and the government, more details on this can be read in the enterprise and government section. Tertiary users of the prototype are in principle all living residents of the world. The consequences of deforestation will eventually influence everybody and the prototype will decrease these consequences and thus each living individual will benefit from the prototype.<br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
Enterprise would benefit from these robots since, as is mentioned in the introduction, there is a huge ask for companies in the forestry sector and the company that produces the prototype would have success in their business. The robot is not labour intensive and can operate autonomous thus making the work for users of the prototype easier. Other solutions might be more expensive or less efficient. It is also a major factor for the company image. It is almost free advertising, since being green is rising in popularity for the consumers.<br />
<br />
=== Government ===<br />
The government is obliged to protect their citizens, so investing in these robots and utilizing them is beneficial for them since they help alleviate a problem future generations will come in contact with. It is a solution that will help the sustainability for future generations. While they might not directly be involved, subsidy can be an incentive for both enterprise as NGOs to deploy these robots in various location and situations.<br />
<br />
Besides the actual impact the robot can have, it also has the same indirect benefits as enterprise. It is a great image boost for the government. A green campaign will most likely have a positive effect on the opinion of the current ruling party.<br />
<br />
===User Requirements===<br />
====Primary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be easy to use by people who are not tech savvy<br />
*The technology needs to have little to no necessary training<br />
*The technology needs to be either faster or longer sustainable than current forestation methods<br />
*The technology needs to be harmless to existing forestation<br />
====Secondary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be able to rival current technologies in price<br />
*The technology needs to be easily maintainable<br />
====Tertiary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to have a net positive influence on the environment<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967https://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=User_analysis&diff=55654User analysis2018-05-05T12:26:11Z<p>S169967: /* Enterprise */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Introduction ==<br />
Forests are an important part of our state’s environment and economy. Forests provide clear air and water, great biodiversity, places for recreation and is used to produce products we use to live. It can be concluded that life without forests is unimaginable and it is important to manage the forests well. However, in the past time deforestation has destroyed too many trees, an estimate of 1,3 million square kilometer per decade. Deforestation has important global consequences; soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation happens to create land for agriculture and cattle or to use the trees for wood products. It can however also occur as a consequence of wild fires. On average, more than 100.000 wildfires clear 4 to 5 million acres of land in the united states every year. Wildfires can thus be considered as an important cause of deforestation and change forest structures dramatically. Although wildfires are often harmful to humans and animals, they return nutrients to the soil by burning dead or decaying matter. This means that the area of the wildfire is very fertile and new forests grow easier. This project will focus on deforestation that happened because of wildfires. The benefit of focusing on this type of deforestation is that the prototype does not have to check whether the ground is fertile since this is definitely the case as a result of the wildfire. Because deforestation happened due to wildfires, the ground is not destined for other purposes as cattle or agriculture, as is often the case with artificial deforestation. This means that the area can be reforested without intervening with others plans. The project thus focuses on wildfires that happen by accident and not planned wildfires. <br />
<br />
To combat the consequences of deforestation the project focuses on reforestation. There are two main methods of reforestation: natural regeneration and artificial regeneration. Natural regeneration relies on nature to return an area to forestland after the area is deforested, this can happen through seeds that are carried by the wind or transported or buried by animals. Artificial regeneration involves human intervention in sowing seeds or planting seedlings. Artificial reforestation has multiple advantages over the natural manner. It provides better control over tree spacing, more control over the species present in the new forest, the opportunity to plant genetically improved seeds and a higher rate of tree survival. Artificial reforestation is thus preferred over natural reforestation to create a higher success rate of creating new forests. <br />
<br />
There are already several businesses involved in the reforestation business. For example BioCarbon Engineering, who uses specialized drones to replant trees in remote areas. The prototype from our research stands out since it focuses especially on reforestation after a wildfire. Also the seeding mechanism will be new compared to other prototypes. According to a report from the World Resources Institute shows that businesses in the forestry sectors are making money from planting trees, with sales growing up to 10 times per year. This shows that there is a huge ask from society for companies and prototypes like this one. <br />
<br />
On this wiki page information about the USE aspects and User requirements can be found<br />
<br />
<br />
General information regarding the project can be found at [[PRE2017 4 Groep6]]<br />
<br />
== USE aspects ==<br />
<br />
=== Society ===<br />
Much influence from the prototype will be noticed by society. Deforestation is an international problem with huge and devastating consequences which includes but not limits to soil erosion, water cycle disruption and greenhouse gas emissions (Cook, 2018)<ref> Cook, M. (2018, April 19). Four consequences of Deforestation. retrieved from Sciencing: https://sciencing.com/four-consequences-deforestation-7622.html</ref>. This results in a loss of biodiversity and will also influence human lives. Greenhouse gas emissions for example contributes to global climate changes. Deforestation thus has great influences on the society in ways that cannot be imagined. When no actions are taken against deforestation, the problems arising are getting bigger and bigger with the years. The society is currently looking for solutions to these problems. The prototype is created to combat deforestation and therefore the consequences of deforestation. If deforestation is reduced, the society will benefit from this since the prototype makes reforestation much easier and cheaper. It is more efficient than current ways of reforestation and is therefore a better solution to decrease the consequences of deforestation. <br />
<br />
=== Users ===<br />
Apart from the society, which will mostly be influenced by our prototype. Users is another group to consider. Users can be divided into three groups: primarily users, secondary users and tertiarily users. Primary users are those persons who actually use the artifact; secondary users are those who will occasionally use the artifact or those who use it through an intermediary; and tertiary users are persons who will be affected by the use of the artifact or make decisions about its purchase (Abras, Maloney-Krichmar, & Preece, 2004)<ref> Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-Centered Design. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-10. </ref>. The primary users of our prototype will be foresters. Foresters are going to use the prototype to combat deforestation and the prototype helps them to plant more seeds in less time compared to planting them with no help of smart technology. Next to the foresters other users will be influenced by the technology as well. Secondary users are companies that are involved in the maintenance and production of the prototype and the government, more details on this can be read in the enterprise and government section. Tertiary users of the prototype are in principle all living residents of the world. The consequences of deforestation will eventually influence everybody and the prototype will decrease these consequences and thus each living individual will benefit from the prototype. <br />
<br />
=== Enterprise ===<br />
Enterprise would benefit from these robots since, as is mentioned in the introduction, there is a huge ask for companies in the forestry sector and the company that produces the prototype would have success in their business. The robot is not labour intensive and can operate autonomous thus making the work for users of the prototype easier. Other solutions might be more expensive or less efficient. It is also a major factor for the company image. It is almost free advertising, since being green is rising in popularity for the consumers.<br />
<br />
=== Government ===<br />
The government is obliged to protect their citizens, so investing in these robots and utilizing them is beneficial for them since they help alleviate a problem future generations will come in contact with. It is a solution that will help the sustainability for future generations. While they might not directly be involved, subsidy can be an incentive for both enterprise as NGOs to deploy these robots in various location and situations.<br />
<br />
Besides the actual impact the robot can have, it also has the same indirect benefits as enterprise. It is a great image boost for the government. A green campaign will most likely have a positive effect on the opinion of the current ruling party.<br />
<br />
===User Requirements===<br />
====Primary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be easy to use by people who are not tech savvy<br />
*The technology needs to have little to no necessary training<br />
*The technology needs to be either faster or longer sustainable than current forestation methods<br />
*The technology needs to be harmless to existing forestation<br />
====Secondary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to be able to rival current technologies in price<br />
*The technology needs to be easily maintainable<br />
====Tertiary Users====<br />
*The technology needs to have a net positive influence on the environment<br />
<br />
== Bibliography ==<br />
<references/></div>S169967