Collaborative Vehicle Control Using Human and Automated Inputs

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Human operators face limitations in performing complex construction tasks due to the high physical and cognitive demands, and automated systems fail to fully utilize the knowledge and perceptual capabilities of human operators, leading to suboptimal performance in tasks like bucket filling.

Innovation Solution

A method and apparatus that integrate human operator control inputs with automated system control inputs to collaboratively control vehicles, such as loaders, by comparing and selecting between the two inputs to optimize task performance, using a processor unit and sensors to determine the most effective control signals for controlling the vehicle.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If human operators control vehicles to perform construction tasks, then psychomotor skills and perceptual capabilities are utilized, but physical and cognitive demands lead to operator fatigue and limitations

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveoperator workloadVSAvoidtask performance

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges human operator control inputs with automated controller control inputs into a unified control system. The processor unit combines signals from both the human operator controller and automated controller, allowing the vehicle to benefit from both human perceptual capabilities and automated system consistency, thereby reducing operator fatigue while maintaining high task performance.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

2Reliability

If automated systems control vehicles, then consistency and reliability are improved, but human knowledge and perceptual capabilities are not fully utilized

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecontrol consistencyVSAvoidutilization of human capabilities

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The processor unit acts as an intermediary that receives control inputs from both the automated controller and human operator, processes these inputs, and determines the optimal control signal. This intermediary mechanism allows the system to maintain automated consistency while incorporating human perceptual capabilities and knowledge when beneficial.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Productivity

If collaborative control integrating human and automated inputs is implemented, then task performance and efficiency are enhanced, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetask performanceVSAvoidcontrol system architecture

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system is segmented into distinct functional modules: a human operator controller for manual input, an automated controller for sensor-based control, and a processor unit for integrating and selecting between the two control inputs. This segmentation allows each component to perform its specific function independently, simplifying the overall system architecture despite the collaborative nature of the control approach.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS9464410B2Collaborative vehicle control using both human operator and automated controller input

Publication Date: 2016.10.11 DEERE & CO

AI summary

Control of a vehicle to perform a task employs first control input provided by a human operator and second control input provided by an automated controller. A relationship between the first control input and the second control input is determined. Either the first control input or the second control input is used to control the vehicle to perform the task based on the determined relationship. An indicator may be used to indicate to the operator when the control input provided by the human operator is being used to control the vehicle.