iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E2992/E2992M-17

(Test Method)

Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain

Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Traversing on terrains with fine aggregate, such as specified in Specification C144, could pose problems for ground robots because the aggregate may become incrementally packed into the locomotion subsystems (such as driving sprockets, belts, chains, tire treads, or track pads) leading to jamming, slippage, or other failures, and thus adversely affecting a robot’s mobility. This test method addresses aforementioned issues of mobility.
Note 1: Larger-sized aggregate might not be as easily packed into robotic locomotion subsystems but might present different types of mobility challenges such as angular, rough, sharp, or broken aggregate pieces interfering with wheels, tracks, or other types of locomotion mechanisms. These issues are out of the scope of this test method.  
5.1.1 Sand based terrains are non-rigid in nature and could cause a robot to turn-in-place or dig-in when the robot is negotiating a tight turn. Certain robotic locomotion mechanisms might be designed for other mobility purposes and might not create sufficient traction against the specified sand terrain. As such, extensive testing within this type of terrain may expose robot design or reliability issues and lead to field maintenance or repair.  
5.1.2 The sand traverse capabilities could be affected by additional factors such as the weight and its distribution, ground contact areas, and control schemes for the robot. As such, extensive testing within this type of terrain may also lead to innovations in robot design.  
5.2 Key features of response robots are that they are remotely operated from safe standoff distances, deployable at operational tempos, capable of operating in complex environments, sufficiently hardened against harsh environments, reliable and field serviceable, durable or cost-effectively disposable, and equipped with operational safeguards. As such, a major advantage of using robots in response operations is to enhance the safety and effectiveness of responders or soldiers. ...
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to specify the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to quantitatively measure a teleoperated ground robot’s capability of traversing sand terrain. The primary performance metric for this test method shall be a robot’s possession of such a capability with a specified statistical significance level.  
1.2 Average rate of advance over the specified terrain shall be the secondary performance metric for this test method. The measure shall be calculated only when a robot under test has completed a statistically-significant number of repetitions.  
1.3 This test method can also be used to measure the operator proficiency in performing the specified task. The corresponding performance metric may be the number of completed task repetitions per minute over an assigned time period ranging from 10 to 30 minutes.  
1.4 This test method is a part of the mobility suite of ground response robot test methods, but this test method is stand-alone and complete. This test method applies to ground systems operated remotely from a standoff distance appropriate for the intended mission. The system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality and any assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system.  
1.5 The apparatus, specified in Section 6, can only test a limited range of a robot’s capabilities. When the robot has been tested through the limit or limits of the apparatus, a note shall be associated with the results indicating that the robot’s actual capability may be outside of the limit or limits imposed by the test apparatus. For example, the size of the sand terrain test apparatus could possibly affect the acceleration of the robot under test and, in turn, the resulting average rate of advance.  
1.6 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environme...

General Information

Status
Published
Publication Date
31-Aug-2017
ICS
25.040.30 - Industrial robots. Manipulators
Technical Committee
E54 - Homeland Security Applications
Drafting Committee
E54.09 - Response Robots
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Refers
ASTM E2592-16 - Standard Practice for Evaluating Response Robot Capabilities: Logistics: Packaging for Urban Search and Rescue Task Force Equipment Caches
Effective Date
01-Jan-2016
Refers
ASTM C144-17 - Standard Specification for Aggregate for Masonry Mortar
Effective Date
15-Dec-2017
Refers
ASTM E2803-11(2020) - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Inclined Planes
Effective Date
01-Jan-2020
Referred By
ASTM E2853/E2853M-22 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Response Robot Capabilities: Search Tasks
Effective Date
01-Sep-2017
Referred By
ASTM E3380/E3380M-23 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Response Robot Endurance Using Reproducible Terrains
Effective Date
01-Sep-2017

Buy Standard

ASTM E2992/E2992M-17 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand TerrainASTM E2992/E2992M-17 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain
PreviousNext
Standard
ASTM E2992/E2992M-17 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain
English language
13 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E2992/E2992M − 17
Standard Test Method for
1
Evaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain
ThisstandardisissuedunderthefixeddesignationE2992/E2992M;thenumberimmediatelyfollowingthedesignationindicatestheyear
of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.
A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
The robotics community needs ways to measure whether a particular robot is capable of performing
specific missions in unstructured and often hazardous environments. These missions decompose into
elemental robot tasks represented individually as standard test methods and practices. The associated
testapparatusesandperformancemetricsprovideatangiblelanguagetocommunicatevaryingmission
requirements. They also enable repeatable testing to establish the reliability of essential robot
capabilities.
TheASTM International Standards Committee on Homeland SecurityApplications (E54) specifies
standard test methods and practices for evaluating such robot capabilities. These standards facilitate
comparisons across diverse models or multiple configurations of a single model. They support robot
researchers, manufacturers, and user organizations in different ways. Researchers use the standards to
understand mission requirements, encourage innovation, and demonstrate break-through capabilities.
Manufacturers use the standards to evaluate design decisions, integrate emerging technologies, and
harden developed systems. User organizations leverage the resulting robot capabilities data to guide
purchasing decisions, align deployment objectives, and focus training with standard measures of
operator proficiency. Associated usage guides describe how such standards can be applied to support
these various objectives.
The overall suite of standards addresses critical subsystems of remotely operated response robots,
including maneuvering, mobility, dexterity, sensing, energy, communications, durability, proficiency,
autonomy, logistics, safety, and terminology. This test method addresses the robotic mobility on sand
terrain.
1. Scope corresponding performance metric may be the number of
completed task repetitions per minute over an assigned time
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to specify the
period ranging from 10 to 30 minutes.
apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to
1.4 This test method is a part of the mobility suite of ground
quantitatively measure a teleoperated ground robot’s capability
of traversing sand terrain. The primary performance metric for response robot test methods, but this test method is stand-alone
and complete. This test method applies to ground systems
this test method shall be a robot’s possession of such a
capability with a specified statistical significance level. operated remotely from a standoff distance appropriate for the
intended mission. The system includes a remote operator in
1.2 Average rate of advance over the specified terrain shall
control of all functionality and any assistive features or
be the secondary performance metric for this test method. The
autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or effi-
measure shall be calculated only when a robot under test has
ciency of the overall system.
completed a statistically-significant number of repetitions.
1.5 The apparatus, specified in Section 6, can only test a
1.3 This test method can also be used to measure the
limitedrangeofarobot’scapabilities.Whentherobothasbeen
operator proficiency in performing the specified task. The
tested through the limit or limits of the apparatus, a note shall
be associated with the results indicating that the robot’s actual
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 on
capability may be outside of the limit or limits imposed by the
Homeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee
test apparatus. For example, the size of the sand terrain test
E54.09 on Response Robots.
apparatus could possibly affect the acceleration of the robot
Current edition approved Sept. 1, 2017. Published October 2017. DOI: 10.1520/
E2992_E2992M-17. under test and, in turn, the resulting average rate of advance.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
1

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
E2992/E2992M − 17
1.6 Performing Location—This test method may be per- 4. Summary of Test Method
formed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental
4.1 A robot under test traverses from one end of
...

Questions, Comments and Discussion

Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.

This May Also Interest You

ASTM
ASTM E3380/E3380M-23(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Response Robot Endurance Using Reproducible Terrains

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The operational endurance of a ground robot significantly impacts the performance of the robot during a variety of tasks. Robot endurance is a complex function of robot design, control scheme design, and energy storage selection. This test method evaluates the endurance of a robot through continuous operation on a complex surface. The continuous pitch/roll ramp terrain chosen for endurance testing specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas. The endurance test standard provides a method in which the operational endurance of a large variety of robot sizes and locomotion system designs may be compared. The test provides both a measure of the endurance of the robot and a measure of the reliability of the robot when operating continuously for extended periods of time on complex terrains.  
5.2 The scale of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used i...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the mission endurance of a robot while traversing complex terrains in the form of continuous pitch/roll ramps or other standard terrains in the terrain suite. This test method is one of several ground robot tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was develo...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E3349/E3349M-22(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Robot Capabilities and Remote Operator Proficiency: Terrains: K-Rails

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. This k-rail terrain specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest to challenging (when the cross-over slope configuration is used) outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas.  
5.2 The overall size of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within traini...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to traverse complex terrains in the form of k-rails. This test method is one of several related Terrain tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. This avoids excessive purchasing and fabrication costs. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in ...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E3311/E3311M-22(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Robot Capabilities and Remote Operator Proficiency: Obstacles: Variable Height Rails

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The variable height rail obstacle challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, high-centering tendencies, self-righting (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the variable height rail obstacle can be used to represent obstacles in the environment, such as railroad tracks, curbs, and debris.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical obstacle spacing in the intended deployment environment. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed obstacles (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The variable height rail obstacle can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to negotiate an obstacle in the form of variable height rail. This test method is one of several related obstacle tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance wit...

  • Standard
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E3310/E3310M-22(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Robot Capabilities and Remote Operator Proficiency: Maneuvering: Align Ground Contacts with Parallel Rails

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system maneuvering and remote operator proficiency. The align ground contacts with parallel rails test challenges robotic system locomotion, operator control, effective camera positioning, chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the align ground contacts with parallel rails test can be used to represent situations where hazards must be avoided by the robot (for example, debris, puddles) surrounding a path in the environment, highlighting situational awareness demands on the operator while controlling the robot.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical intended deployment environments. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed environments (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The parallel rails apparatus can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with ex...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to align its ground contacts while maneuvering across parallel rails. This test method is one of several related maneuvering tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in acc...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2802/E2802M-21e1(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility Using Variable Hurdle Obstacles

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The variable hurdle obstacle as described challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the variable hurdle obstacle can be used to represent obstacles in the environment, such as railroad tracks, curbs, and debris.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical obstacle spacing in the intended deployment environment. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed obstacles (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The variable hurdle obstacle can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repea...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to negotiate an obstacle in the form of hurdles. This test method is one of several related mobility tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internation...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2854/E2854M-21(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Radio Communications Line-of-Sight Range

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related tests that provide reproducible measures of radio communications for remotely operated robots. It measures the maximum line-of-sight radio communications range between a robot and its remote operator interface using omnidirectional robot maneuvering and visual acuity tasks to evaluate the degradation of essential mission capabilities due to communications latency and loss.  
5.2 This test method is inexpensive, easy to fabricate, and simple to conduct so it can be replicated widely. This enables comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class system capabilities and remote operator proficiency.  
5.3 Evaluations—This test method can be conducted in a controlled environment with no radio frequency interference and minimal radio propagation effects to measure baseline capabilities that can be compared widely across robotic systems. It also can be embedded into any operational training scenario as a practical measure of line-of-sight radio communications range with additional degradation due to uncontrolled variables such as radio frequency interference, weather, etc. The results of these scenario tests can be compared across robotic systems only when conducted in the same environment in similar conditions. However, the results cannot be compared reliably to results from other venues or environmental conditions due to the uncontrolled variables.  
5.4 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.5 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. Operators can learn system behaviors during radio communication degradation and refine techniques to mit...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots using radio communications to transmit real-time data between a robot and its remote operator interface. This test method measures the maximum line-of-sight radio communications distance at which a robot can maintain omnidirectional steering, speed control, precise stopping, visual acuity, and other functionality. This test method is one of several related radio communication tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 A remote operator is in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors may improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method to address various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable the use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in ...

  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    12 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2855-12(2021)(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Radio Communication: Non-Line-of-Sight Range

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 A main purpose of using robots in emergency response operations is to enhance the safety and effectiveness of emergency responders operating in hazardous or inaccessible environments. The testing results of the candidate robot shall describe, in a statistically significant way, how reliably the robot is able to perform the specified types of tasks and thus provide emergency responders sufficiently high levels of confidence to determine the applicability of the robot.  
5.2 This test method addresses robot performance requirements expressed by emergency responders and representatives from other interested organizations. The performance data captured within this test method are indicative of the testing robot’s capabilities. Having available a roster of successfully tested robots with associated capabilities data to guide procurement and deployment decisions for emergency responders is consistent with the guideline of “Governments at all levels have a responsibility to develop detailed, robust, all-hazards response plans” as stated in National Response Framework.  
5.3 This test method is part of a test suite and is intended to provide a capability baseline for the robotic communications systems based on the identified needs of the emergency response community. Adequate testing performance will not ensure successful operation in all emergency response environments due to possible extreme communications difficulties. Rather, this standard is intended to provide a common comparison that can aid in choosing appropriate systems. This standard is also intended to encourage development of improved and innovative communications systems for use on emergency response robots.  
5.4 The standard apparatus is specified to be easily fabricated to facilitate self-evaluation by robot developers and provide practice tasks for emergency responders to exercise robot actuators, sensors, and operator interfaces. The standard apparatus can also be used to support operator training ...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of radio communication test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability to perform maneuvering and inspection tasks in a non-line-of-sight environment.  
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of radio communication capabilities, including performing maneuvering and inspection tasks in a non-line-of-sight environment, to suit critical operations for emergency responses. The capability for a robot to perform these types of tasks in obstructed areas down range is critical for emergency response operations. This test method specifies a standard set of apparatuses, procedures, and metrics to evaluate the robot/operator capabilities for performing these tasks.  
1.1.3 Emergency response robots shall be able to operate remotely using the equipped radios in line-of-sight environments, in non-line-of-sight environments, and for signal penetration through such impediments as buildings, rubbles, and tunnels. Additional capabilities include operating in the presence of electromagnetic interference and providing link security and data logging. Standard test methods are required to evaluate whether candidate robots meet these requirements.  
1.1.4 ASTM E54.08.01 Task Group on Robotics specifies a radio communication test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these communication capabilities. This non-line-of-sight range test method is a part of the radio communication test suite. The apparatuses associated with the test methods challenge specific robot capabilities in repeatable ways to facilitate comparison of different robot models as well as particular configurations of similar robot models.  
1.1.5 This test method establishes procedures, apparatuses, and metrics for specifying and testing the capability of radio (wireless) links used between the operator station and the t...

  • Standard
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2827/E2827M-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility Using Crossing Pitch/Roll Ramp Terrains

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. This crossing (discontinuous) pitch/roll ramp terrain specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas.  
5.2 The overall size of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. The resulting mea...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to traverse complex terrains in the form of crossing (discontinuous) pitch/roll ramps. This test method is one of several related mobility tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. This avoids excessive purchasing and fabrication costs. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international stand...

  • Standard
    10 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    10 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2826/E2826M-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility Using Continuous Pitch/Roll Ramp Terrains

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. This continuous pitch/roll ramp terrain specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas.  
5.2 The overall size of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. The resulting measures of remot...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to traverse complex terrains in the form of continuous pitch/roll ramps. This test method is one of several related mobility tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. This avoids excessive purchasing and fabrication costs. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was develo...

  • Standard
    10 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    10 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2828/E2828M-20(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Response Robot Mobility Using Symmetric Stepfields Terrains

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. This symmetric stepfield terrain specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas.  
5.2 The overall size of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. The resulting measures of remote opera...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to traverse complex terrains in the form of symmetric stepfields. This test method is one of several related mobility tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. This avoids excessive purchasing and fabrication costs. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in ...

  • Standard
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    11 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off