Automated Unmanned Refuse Collection (AURC)
by
Stanley
D. Pebsworth
Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University
October
2015
An Application Project submitted to
the Worldwide Campus in partial fulfillment of the requirements for course UNSY
501, Application of Unmanned Systems
Abstract
This application project aims to address the
idea of unmanned refuse collection.
Refuse collection is a process that requires coordinated efforts to both
timely collect and properly transport refuse to a disposal site. These coordinated efforts, if not done
properly, result in late routes, personnel overtime, as well as safety concerns. This project will assess the need for
Automated Unmanned Refuse Collection (AURC) and evaluate the implications of
its use. This project will address the
technological, social, environmental, and political ramifications of AURC. It will also address contributing factors and
effects that will show just cause for this solution. Legal, ethical, and safety concerns will be addressed
and a specific research strategy will be proposed.
Keywords: automation, unmanned systems,
refuse collection, waste management
Automated
Unmanned Refuse Collection
Routing
of refuse collection to allow for scheduled and timely delivery back to the landfill
is a timely and costly effort. The human
interface in these systems results in missed routes, late departures and
arrivals, as well as congestion during refuse drop off. There is also the inherent risk involved in
refuse collection. By removing the human
factor in refuse collection, we can better route collection vehicles,
coordinate departures and arrivals, practically eliminate congestion during
refuse drop off and reduce safety related accidents in the workplace.
It
is time for a change in the current model of refuse collection. For many years the collection process has
gone relatively unchanged. Cities are
growing and the amount of refuse grows with them. Money is being thrown away due to poor route
management and non-optimization of vehicles on collection routes. This must come to a stop. We must improve routing and optimize the use
of collection vehicles through automated systems.
Problem Statement
So
how can we improve on our current refuse collection procedures? What methods are available to address our
issues? Several methods have been
proposed to combat these issues. The
most popular of which is the use of
automated unmanned refuse collection vehicles. These trucks can be routed and controlled
though a central facility that will manage all aspects of the refuse collection
and disposal. Other methods have
included simply automating routing and maintaining the manned collection
vehicles. This method will not remove
the very cause of our issues; the human interface.
We
must look for alternatives that will be safe, save time, and provide customers
with better service. The problems we
face today in refuse collection is scheduling of refuse collection vehicles as
efficiently as possible. When a refuse
collection truck returns half full, it costs the same amount of money to your
company as if it were completely full.
So how do we address this issue?
How do we make the most of every trip our refuse collection vehicles
make?
Background
Refuse
management is a mandatory and essential service provided by municipal
authorities in order to keep our streets clean.
Today’s systems for refuse collection are unscientific, outdated and
inefficient. As our populations grow, we
are faced with managing the challenges of efficiency, increased rates of refuse
generation, high collection costs and fewer financial resources (Huang, Lin,
2015).
Seadon
(2010) says that in order to move to a more sustainable society, it is required
that we develop greater sophistication to manage waste. He also states that our traditional
reductionist approach is not sustainable because it has no flexibility or
future development. We must develop a
waste collection system that is more adaptable and has plans for future development.
Waste is a result of inadequate thinking.
The traditional approaches to waste management of “flame, flush or fling” are outmoded
customs which have resulted in an unsustainable society. In the USA the total
annual wastes exceed 115 billion tons, of which 80% is wastewater. Of that amount
less than 2% is recycled. Emitting waste into the environment resulted in
nearly 40% of all USA waters being too polluted to support their designated
functions and more than 45% of the USA population live in areas where air
quality was unhealthy at times because of high levels of air pollutants (Seadon,
2010).
In 2010 garbage collection
was rated as the seventh most dangerous job in the United States. The mortality rate for waste collection
workers in 2010 was 3 in 10,000. In
Canada, a 2010 report stated that garbage collection was “one of the most
hazardous jobs.” It was also stated that
injuries had affected 35% of workers for that same year in Canada. In order to combat these safety issues,
companies normally require refuse collection workers to wear leather gloves,
long pants and heavy steel-toed boots (Tibbetts, 2013).
Waste collection has
contributed greatly to human health issues in the United States as well. In a 1998 report from the United States
Bureau of Labor and Statistics reported that U.S. waste collectors died due to
work related issues at a rate of 49 per 100,000 workers and nonfatal accidents
were at a rate of 95 per 1,000. This
report also ranked U.S. waste collection as the seventh most hazardous job in
the U.S. The most identifiable hazards
to waste collectors were items such as dust, endotoxins, bacteria and
fungi. These hazards resulted in acute
issues such as respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, hepatitis, HIV,
and syphilis. (Kuijer, P., Frings-sen,
M., & Sluiter, J. (2010).
Kuijer, P. et al. (2010)
further reported that in a 2008 study, nearly 38% of waste collection workers
reported an on the job injury. The
causes of these injuries happened mainly away from the collection
facility. Workers were hit by goods or a
vehicle, fell from a high elevation or stepped on or fell on a sharp
object. When waste is collected
manually, specific consideration should be taken as to the increased risk for
hearing loss, respiratory issues, gastrointestinal problems, and back injuries.
In
2014 research was conducted in order to determine the driving cost of refuse
collection. It was determined that the
main contributing factors were vehicle use and wages. It was also determined that an increase in
the amount of refuse collected often results in a reduction in operating cost. It was determined that an increase of waste
collection of 1% resulted in a decrease in cost of 0.2% per inhabitant. In other words, the faster refuse can be
collected on any given shift will reduce the costs associated with refuse
collection. This study highlights that
efficiency is a critical factor in cost management (Greco, G., Allegrini, M.,
Del Lungo, C., Gori Savellini, P., & Gabellini, L., 2014).
Greco,
G. et al. (2014) also addressed an interesting finding in their study. It was determined that the collection of
undifferentiated waste has a higher cost advantage over that of differentiated
waste. Therefore, an increase in waste
production has an economic incentive to collect only undifferentiated
waste. In order to limit this incentive,
the waste collection process needs to be more efficient therefore limiting the
incentive to collect only undifferentiated waste.
Recommended Solution
In order to correct the issues
we have today with our waste management and collection we must address two
issues, hazards and efficiency. Hazards
are causing a large amount of reported on the job injuries costing our waste
management systems both time and money.
The efficiency of our collection routes are not optimizing the full
capabilities of our waste collection vehicles which again results in lost time
and money. We must immediately address
these issues because as our population grows, they will only get worse.
First
we can address the hazard issues. By eliminating
the waste collection worker from the vehicle, we will practically eliminate the
reports of on the job injuries. We can
do this by modifying our current waste collection vehicles with equipment and
software that has been developed for autonomous transport vehicles. In an article by Andreasson, H., Bouguerra,
A., Cirillo, M., Dimitrov, D. N., Driankov, D., Karlsson, L., Stoyanov, T.
(2015), they researched a system known as Safe Autonomous Navigation (SAUNA). SAUNA has the capability to perceive its
environment, allocate tasks with other vehicle in the system, plan motion and
coordination, as well as provide predictive collision avoidance. This system could create a completely
autonomous environment for all collection vehicles within a system that would
eliminate the need for workers to be exposed to the hazards of the waste
collection process and potentially reduce injury reports by as much as 38% as
reported by Kuijer, P. et al. (2010).
Further
studies have been done to address the mathematical computation required for
such an autonomous system of vehicles.
In a study by Xidias, E., & Azariadis, P. (2011), it was concluded
that multiple vehicles can work together in solving the same unique problem
while at the same time avoiding collision with obstacles and each other during
the process. Martínez-Barberá, H., &
Herrero-Pérez, D. (2010) conducted a similar study and stated that the
development of a flexible and easily configurable and commanded autonomous
ground vehicle could be easily adapted into any management system.
Next
we must address the issues of efficiency.
There are several studies that have been conducted that address topics
such as demand responsive operations (Oyatoye, E., & J A O Magbagbeola,
2010), periodic vehicle routing (Campbell, A., & Wilson, J. 2014),
inventory routing (Schutten, M., Pérez Rivera, A., & Mes, M., 2014), and
simply re-evaluating vehicle route scheduling (Huang, S., & Lin, P., 2015).
In the past, solid waste collection was
carried out without analyzing demand and the construction of the routes was
left to the drivers. Cities, however, continue to expand. Because of this
ongoing urbanization, the importance of an efficient collection system only
increases. Optimally, there should be a method that tries to maximize the
general acceptance of a solution. However, as this is hard to realize,
different methods have been developed that focus on route length, costs, number
of collection vehicles, etc. (Belien, J., De, L., & Van, J. (2014).
Another
efficiency issue is the number of vehicles that are used for collection. In the current model of manned vehicles, it
is required to have more vehicles that necessary to collect on any given day in
order to eliminate overtime pay of employees (Belien, J. et al., 2014). By eliminating the waste collection worker
from the equation we can in turn reduce the amount of collection vehicles
required since these vehicle can collect essentially twenty-four hours a day.
In
a study by Benjamin, A., & Beasley, J. (2010), research was conducted that
mathematically attempted to minimize the number of vehicles required for waste
collection. It is realized that having
the ability for a vehicle to collect until full and then another vehicle be dispatched
to continue collection could potentially reduce the number of waste collection
vehicles required. The issue with the
idea is that in a manned vehicle scenario, it is nearly impossible to manage
worker schedules. Therefore, by
implementing the unmanned waste collection vehicle, both a reduction in
vehicles and more efficient collection could be maximized.
Conclusion
Waste management is one of the major
issues of urban engineering. Today, the
total amount of waste generated annually worldwide (municipal, industrial,
hazardous) is more than 4 billion tons. Almost 45% of these are considered as
municipal solid waste, while the rest is industrial waste, including hazardous one
(Nakou, D., Benardos, A., & Kaliampakos, D. 2014).
Further
analysis must also be conducted into the future of selective waste collection
(recycling). By reducing the amount of
waste being sent to landfills and in turn supplying the recycling industry, we
can avoid the further degradation of our environment. Other countries besides the U.S. have legal
provisions that require residents to separate waste prior to disposal (da Silva
Carvalho, M., Rosa, L., Bufoni, A., & de Sousa Ferreira, Araceli Cristina.,
2011). The U.S. must also look into the
feasibility of adopting the same types of laws in order to improve our
environment futures sake.
The
reductionist approach is unsustainable for the future of waste collection. We must therefore adopt a more sustainable
systems approach with the inclusion of Automated Unmanned Refuse Collection
(AURC). A sustainable waste management
systems is one that is not dependent on expansion, focusses of the processes
and not the products, organizational structures need to be adaptable and
multipurpose, linking of transportation works to a mutual advantage, and
feedback that effects system change (Seadon, 2010). With the use of AURC, our waste management
solutions will take us safely and economically into the future.
References
Andreasson, H.,
Bouguerra, A., Cirillo, M., Dimitrov, D. N., Driankov, D., Karlsson, L., Stoyanov,
T. (2015). Autonomous transport vehicles: Where we are and what is missing.
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 22(1), 64-75.
doi:10.1109/MRA.2014.2381357
Belien, J., De, L.,
& Van, J. (2014). Municipal solid waste collection and management problems:
A literature review. Transportation Science, 48(1), 78-102.
doi:10.1287/trsc.1120.0448
Benjamin, A. M., &
Beasley, J. E. (2010). Metaheuristics for the waste collection vehicle routing
problem with time windows, driver rest period and multiple disposal facilities.
Computers and Operations Research, 37(12), 2270-2280.
doi:10.1016/j.cor.2010.03.019
Campbell, A. M., &
Wilson, J. H. (2014). Forty years of periodic vehicle routing. Networks, 63(1),
2-15. doi:10.1002/net.21527
da Silva Carvalho, M.,
Rosa, L. P., Bufoni, A. L., & de Sousa Ferreira, Araceli Cristina. (2011).
The issue of sustainability and disclosure. A case study of selective garbage
collection by the urban cleaning service of the city of rio de janeiro, brazil
– COMLURB. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55(11), 1030-1038.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.015
Greco, G., Allegrini,
M., Del Lungo, C., Gori Savellini, P., & Gabellini, L. (2014). Drivers of
solid waste collection costs. empirical evidence from italy. Journal of Cleaner Production,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.011
Huang, S., & Lin,
P. (2015). Vehicle routing–scheduling for municipal waste collection system
under the “Keep trash off the ground” policy. Omega, 55, 24-37. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.02.004
Kuijer, P. P. F. M.,
Frings-sen, M. H. W., & Sluiter, J. K. (2010). Health and safety in waste
collection: Towards evidence-based worker health surveillance. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(10), 1040-1064.
Martínez-Barberá, H.,
& Herrero-Pérez, D. (2010). Autonomous navigation of an automated guided
vehicle in industrial environments. Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 26(4), 296-311. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2009.10.003
Oyatoye, E. O., &
J A O Magbagbeola. (2010). A transportation model for demand responsive fleet
operation in A manufacturing firm. The International Business &
Economics Research Journal, 9(8), 29.
Schutten, M., Pérez
Rivera, A., & Mes, M. (2014). Inventory routing for dynamic waste
collection. Waste Management, 34(9), 1564-1576.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.011
Seadon, J. K. (2010).
Sustainable waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(16),
1639-1651. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.009
Tibbetts, J. (2013). Garbage
collection is "one of the most hazardous jobs". CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal, 185(7), 554.
doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-4443
Nakou, D., Benardos,
A., & Kaliampakos, D. (2014). Assessing the financial and environmental
performance of underground automated vacuum waste collection systems.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 41, 263.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2013.12.005
Xidias, E. K., &
Azariadis, P. N. (2011). Mission design for a group of autonomous guided
vehicles. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 59(1), 34-43.
doi:10.1016/j.robot.2010.10.003
No comments:
Post a Comment