Traversability-Aware Cooperative Path Planning for Human-UGV Casualty Evacuation
Authors: Kristian Dalland, Prithvi Poddar, Souma Chowdhury, Karthik Dantu, Ehsan T. Esfahani
Organizations: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, NY 14260, USA · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
Heterogeneous multi-robot path planning is a well-studied problem in which agents with disparate kinematic and dynamic models must coordinate to achieve shared objectives. These formulations, however, treat all agents as robotic-their cost models are mechanical and their traversability is sensor-derived. In human-robot teaming, the human partner remains relegated to command and supervisory roles rather than being modeled as a physical co-navigator with distinct mobility constraints and dynamic energy reserves. This work investigates joint path planning for a two-agent human-UGV team in search-and-rescue casualty retrieval scenarios. We model the human agent using the Pandolf-Santee metabolic cost model with fatigue-modulated speed, and the UGV using a rolling-resistance energy model with terrain-dependent speed limits. By exploiting the complementary traversability of each agent-the human's ability to traverse dense vegetation and shallow water versus the UGV's superior speed on open terrain and roads-we optimize casualty transfer locations, termed switch points, to minimize total mission time. Evaluated across multiple synthetic 1km2 environments with procedurally generated elevation and land-cover data, the optimized strategy reduces mean mission time by 5.3% relative to a human-only baseline and by 7.0% relative to a naive human-UGV strategy without switch point optimization, while reducing human energy expenditure by 17.8% relative to baseline. Notably, the naive strategy reduces human energy expenditure by a larger margin (22.4%) but incurs a 2% increase in mission time relative to baseline, illustrating that switch point optimization is necessary to realize time savings from human-UGV teaming.
Figures & tables
Variable
Description
Unit
Type
P
Metabolic rate
W
Output
η
Terrain factor
-
Input
M
Body mass
kg
Input
L
External load
kg
Input
V
Walking speed
m/s
Input
G
Slope
% grade
Input
TABLE I: Pandolf equation variables.
Constraint
Human
UGV (Warthog)
Water (depth ≤1.2m )
Passable
Impassable
Water (depth >1.2m )
Impassable
Impassable
Dense forest
Passable
Impassable
Slope, unloaded ( ∣g%∣>45% )
Impassable
Impassable
Slope, loaded ( ∣g%∣>20% )
Impassable
Impassable
TABLE II: Agent-specific passability constraints.
Fig. 1: Case 1. Synthetic environment overview. From left to right: (a) terrain gradient map showing percent grade across the environment; (b) human terrain factor ( η ) distribution derived from land-cover classification; (c) composite land-cover map with start position, global goal, and effective UGV goal-the closest traversable cell to the global goal reachable by the Warthog platform.
Land-Cover Class
η
Source
Paved road
1.00
[ 21 ] , Table 11
Dirt / gravel road
1.20
[ 21 ] , Table 11
Tundra
1.30
[ 21 ] , Table 11
Grassland
1.40
[ 21 ] , Table 11
Heavy brush / forest
1.50
[ 22 ] via [ 21 ]
Mud / bog
2.50
Interpolated *
TABLE III: Terrain factor ( η ) assignments by land-cover class.
Surface Type
NALCMS
Crr
vterrain (m/s)
Paved road
-
0.015
4.0
Dirt / gravel road
-
0.06
2.5
Wetland
14
0.10
1.5
Grassland
10
0.12
1.8
Cropland
15
0.18
1.2
Shrubland
8
0.20
1.0
TABLE IV: UGV surface coefficients by NALCMS land-cover class.
Fig. 2: Optimized human-UGV collaborative routing for Case 2. The human carries the casualty through a short region impassable to the UGV while the UGV simultaneously routes around the obstacle, demonstrating how joint path optimization exploits complementary traversal capabilities to reduce total evacuation time.
Fig. 3: Total mission time per Case for the human-only baseline, naive human-UGV, and optimized human-UGV strategies. The optimized strategy achieves the shortest mission time in every scenario.
Fig. 4: Percentage change relative to the human-only baseline for naive and optimized human–UGV strategies. (Top) Mission time: optimized reduces time by 5.3% on average, while naive increases it by 2.0%. (Bottom) Human energy: naive achieves larger reductions (22.4%) than optimized (17.8%), illustrating the time–energy trade-off.