IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2012 - 48

minimize volcanologists' exposure to areas with high
volcanic hazards. At the same time, we wanted to get
significant data to be used for volcanic monitoring, in particular, during an unrest crisis of dormant volcanoes.

Figure 10. The Etna SE Crater viewed from the IR camera
onboard ROBOVOLC. Clearer zones indicate higher temperatures.

Gas Sampling and Analysis
During several tests performed in the laboratory and on the
Island of Vulcano, the sampling system showed results
comparable with those obtained by using the typical manual
sampling procedure performed by volcanologists. From these
performed tests, it can be concluded that the sampling system
designed for ROBOVOLC is able to provide reliable chemical
and isotopic data on the fumarolic gases of interest for
volcano monitoring. However, as yet, it has not been possible
to test the system onboard the robot while on a real volcano.
Doppler Radar
Doppler radar speed sensors were theoretically able to
measure lava and fumaroles' gas speed. Nevertheless, during several tests performed on flowing lava and gas on
Etna, the first sensor we installed did not perform the
requested measures. This was mainly due to the low speed
of lava flow and the low radar backscattering of volcanic
gas and particles produced during the explosive activity. A
new Doppler radar speed sensor with better performance
was then set up. With this sensor, it was possible to
measure lava speed; however, it needed to be precisely
located with respect to the lava river, and the obtained
measurements required some further filtering and processing to be adopted. The processing of video images was then
considered more reliable for the measurement of lava
speed, and the Doppler radar was not therefore installed.
Rock Collecting
The collection of rocks during the trial tests on Mt. Etna performed with the manipulator arm using its three-finger gripper
proved to have effective results. The gripper was able to collect
samples from the eruptive activity of interest for volcanologists
and store up to three samples in a basket located in front of the
robot platform, thus avoiding the mingling of samples collected at different sites. These activities, in part, were performed
autonomously, with a high degree of efficiency, to reduce the
amount of time the robot would be in dangerous sites.
Analysis of the volcanic products emitted by ongoing
volcanic activity and collected close to active vents allowed
us to reach the primary goal of the project, which was to
48

IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE

MARCH 2012

Conclusions
The adoption of robotics in volcanology is still in its
infancy, since only few prototypes have been realized, and
most of the research activity needs further investigation
and resources. Despite this, robots have shown to be quite
useful for environmental measurements and, in general,
for taking measurements in dangerous locations.
The performed research activity in the development of
robots for volcanic measurement and exploration allowed
us to better understand and solve problems related to the
adoption of robots in extreme environments, as well as in
other contexts such as search and rescue along with operations in other hazardous situations and areas.
From our experience, we believe that robots used to obtain
scientific data will help to further increase the quality and
quantity of information needed for a clearer understanding
of volcanoes and also serve to reduce risks for volcanologists.
The Volcan UAV, the U-Go robot, and the ROBOVOLC system are maintained operative and are now useful
tools for the volcanologists of INGV, being used each year
in several missions, both to perform measurements and to
further develop robotic strategies.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the work performed by all the
partners of the ROBOVOLC Project. Particularly, they also
thank M. Coltelli, G. Giudice, S. Gurrieri, and G. Puglisi of
INGV, the past Ph.D. students S. Guccione, M. Prestifilippo, G. Spampinato, D. Caltabiano, S. Sessa, and A. Pennisi, and the entire master's students who have greatly
contributed to achieving the obtained results.
References
[1] S. Guccione, G. Muscato, G. Nunnari, G. S. Virk, A. K. M. Azad, A.
Semerano, M. Ghrissi, T. White, and C. Glazebrook, "Robots for volcanos: The state of the art," in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Climbing and Walking
Robots (CLAWAR), Madrid, Spain, Oct. 2-4, 2000, pp. 777-788.
[2] D. Wettergreen, H. Pangels, and J. Bares, "Behaviour based gait execution for the DANTE II walking robot," in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems: Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative
Robots, 1995, vol. 3, pp. 274-279.
[3] D. Apostolopoulos and J. Bares, "Locomotion configuration of a
robust rappelling robot," in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots
and Systems: Human Robot Interaction and Cooperative Robots, 1995,
vol. 3, pp. 280-284.
[4] M. Krishna, J. Bares, and E. Mutschler, "Tethering system design for
Dante II," in Proc. 1997 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, vol. 2,
pp. 1100-1105.
[5] J. Bares and D. Wettergreen, "Dante II: Technical description,
results and lessons learned," Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 621-
649, July 1999.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine - March 2012