iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E2801-11

(Test Method)

Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps

Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
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 negotiate the specified types of obstacles, and thus provide emergency responders sufficiently high levels of confidence to determine the applicability of the robot.
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 performance 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.  
This test apparatus is scalable to constrain robot maneuverability during task performance for a range of robot sizes in confined areas associated with emergency response operations. Variants of the apparatus provide minimum lateral clearance of 2.4 m (8 ft) for robots expected to operate around the environments such as cluttered city streets, parking lots, and building lobbies; minimum lateral clearance of 1.2 m (4 ft) for robots expected to operate in and around the environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within the environments such as dwellings and work spaces, buses and airplanes, and semi-collapsed structures; minimum lateral clearance of less than 0.6 m (2 ft) with a minimum vertical clearance adjustable from 0.6 m (2 ft) to 10 cm (4 in.) for robots expected to deploy through breeches and operat...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of crossing horizontal gaps in confined areas.
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including negotiating obstacles, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. A horizontal gap with an unknown edge condition is a type of obstacle that exists in emergency response and other environments. These environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. This test method specifies apparatuses, procedures, and metrics to standardize this testing.
1.1.3 The test apparatuses are scalable to provide a range of lateral dimensions to constrain the robotic mobility during task performance. Fig. 1 shows three apparatus sizes to test robots intended for different emergency response scenarios.  
1.1.4 Emergency response ground robots shall be able to handle many types of obstacles and terrain complexities. The required mobility capabilities include traversing gaps, hurdles, stairs, slopes, various types of floor surfaces or terrains, and confined passageways. Yet additional mobility requirements include sustained speeds and towing capabilities. Standard test methods are required to evaluate whether candidate robots meet these requirements.
1.1.5 ASTM Task Group E54.08.01 on Robotics specifies a mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This confined area gap test method is a part of the mobility 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.  
1.1.6 The mobility test suite quantifies elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robots intended for emergency re...

General Information

Status
Historical
Publication Date
30-Jun-2011
ICS
13.200 - Accident and disaster control
Technical Committee
E54 - Homeland Security Applications
Drafting Committee
E54.09 - Response Robots
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Replaced By
ASTM E2801-11(2020) - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps
Effective Date
01-Jan-2020

Buy Standard

ASTM E2801-11 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: GapsASTM E2801-11 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps
PreviousNext
Standard
ASTM E2801-11 - Standard Test Method for Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps
English language
10 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation:E2801 −11
Standard Test Method for
Evaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities:
1
Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2801; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year 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.
1. Scope entire suite or a subset based on their particular performance
requirements. Users are also allowed to weight particular test
1.1 Purpose:
methods or particular metrics within a test method differently
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method is to quantitatively
based on their specific performance requirements. The testing
evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology
results should collectively represent an emergency response
E2521) capability of crossing horizontal gaps in confined
ground robot’s overall mobility performance. These perfor-
areas.
mance data can be used to guide procurement specifications
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility
and acceptance testing for robots intended for emergency
capabilities, including negotiating obstacles, to suit critical
response applications.
operations such as emergency responses.Ahorizontal gap with
an unknown edge condition is a type of obstacle that exists in
NOTE 1—Additional test methods within the suite are anticipated to be
developed to address additional or advanced robotic mobility capability
emergency response and other environments. These environ-
requirements, including newly identified requirements and even for new
ments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various
application domains.
degrees. This test method specifies apparatuses, procedures,
1.2 Performing Location—This test method shall be per-
and metrics to standardize this testing.
formed in a testing laboratory or the field where the specified
1.1.3 The test apparatuses are scalable to provide a range of
apparatus and environmental conditions are implemented.
lateral dimensions to constrain the robotic mobility during task
performance. Fig. 1 shows three apparatus sizes to test robots
1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded
intended for different emergency response scenarios.
as the standard.The values given in parentheses are not precise
1.1.4 Emergency response ground robots shall be able to
mathematical conversions to inch-pound units. They are close
handle many types of obstacles and terrain complexities. The
approximate equivalents for the purpose of specifying material
required mobility capabilities include traversing gaps, hurdles,
dimensions or quantities that are readily available to avoid
stairs, slopes, various types of floor surfaces or terrains, and
excessive fabrication costs of test apparatuses while maintain-
confined passageways. Yet additional mobility requirements
ing repeatability and reproducibility of the test method results.
include sustained speeds and towing capabilities. Standard test
These values given in parentheses are provided for information
methods are required to evaluate whether candidate robots
only but are not considered standard.
meet these requirements.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the
1.1.5 ASTM Task Group E54.08.01 on Robotics specifies a
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This con-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
fined area gap test method is a part of the mobility test suite.
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
The apparatuses associated with the test methods challenge
specific robot capabilities in repeatable ways to facilitate
2. Referenced Documents
comparison of different robot models as well as particular
2
2.1 ASTM Standards:
configurations of similar robot models.
E2521 Terminology for Evaluating Response Robot Capa-
1.1.6 The mobility test suite quantifies elemental mobility
bilities
capabilities necessary for ground robots intended for emer-
E2592 Practice for Evaluating Response Robot Capabilities:
gency response applications. As such, users can use either the
Logistics: Packaging for Urban Search and Rescue Task
1
This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 on
2
Homeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
E54.09 on Response Robots. contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Current edition approved July 1, 2011. Published O
...

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 E2601-23(Practice)
Standard Practice for Radiological and Nuclear Emergency Response

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 It is essential for response agency personnel to plan, develop, implement, and train on standardized guidelines that encompass policy, strategy, operations, and tactical decisions prior to responding to a radiological or nuclear incident. Use of this practice is recommended for all levels of the response structure.  
5.2 Documents developed from this practice should be reviewed and revised as necessary on a two-year cycle or according to each jurisdiction’s normal practices. The review should consider new and updated requirements and guidance, technologies, and other information or equipment that might have a significant impact on the management and outcome of radiological incidents.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides decision-making considerations for response to both accidental and intentional incidents that involve radioactive material. It provides information and guidance for what to include in response planning and what activities to conduct during a response. It also encompasses the practices to respond to any situation complicated by radiation in conjunction with the associated guidance for the specific type of incident.  
1.1.1 The intended audience for the standard includes planners as well as emergency responders, incident commanders, and other emergency workers who should be protected from radiation.  
1.1.2 The scope of this practice applies to all types of radiological emergencies. While it does not fully consider response to an NPP accident,3 an explosive RDD, or nuclear detonation, detailed guidance to respond to such incidents is provided in other documents, such as those cited in the introduction. With respect to the guidance documents, this practice provides the general principles that apply to the broad range of incidents and associated planning goals but relies on the AHJ to apply and tailor their response planning based on those documents as well as the limitation of the personnel and equipment resources in the jurisdiction. In addition, the AHJ should use those documents to identify improvements to planning and resources to be better prepared for the more complex emergencies.  
1.1.3 This practice does not expressly address emergency response to contamination of food or water supplies.  
1.1.4 The Emergency Response Guide (ERG) published by the Department of Transportation provides valuable information for response to traffic accidents involving radioactive materials. For other radiological or nuclear incidents, however, the ERG may not provide adequate information on appropriate protective measures and should not be the sole resource used.  
1.2 This practice applies to those emergency response agencies that have a role in the response to an accidental or intentional radiological or nuclear incident. It should be used by emergency response organizations such as law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical services, and emergency management.  
1.3 This practice assumes that implementation begins with the recognition of a radiological or nuclear incident and ends when emergency response actions cease or the response is supported by specialized regional, state, or federal response assets.  
1.4 AHJs using this practice should identify hazards, develop a plan, acquire and track equipment, and provide training consistent with the descriptions provided in Section 6.  
1.5 While response to radiological hazards is the focus of this practice, responders must consider all hazards during a response; it is possible that non-radiological hazards may present a greater danger at an incident, particularly in incidents with wide area dispersion.  
1.5.1 This practice does not fully address assessing the risks from airborne radioactivity. Equipment to determine this potential hazard is not widely available in emergency responder communities. Like other responses to unknown hazards, respiratory protection commonly used by responders is required until a complete hazard i...

  • Standard
    48 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    48 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2521-23(Terminology)
Standard Terminology for Evaluating Response Robot Capabilities

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology identifies and precisely defines terms as used in the standard test methods, practices, and guides for evaluating response robots intended for hazardous environments. Further discussions of the terms can be found within the standards in which the terms appear.  
1.2 The term definitions address response robots, including ground, aquatic, and aerial systems. Some key features of such systems 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.  
1.3 Units—Values stated in either the International System of Units (metric) or U.S. Customary units (inch-pound) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Both units are referenced to facilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimize fabrication costs. Tests conducted using either system maintain repeatability and reproducibility of the test method and results are comparable.  
1.4 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.

  • Standard
    4 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    4 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2542-08(2022)(Specification)
Standard Specification for Portable Water Heaters Used at Personnel Decontamination Stations

ABSTRACT
This specification is used to standardize the portable water heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated water for as long as they are needed during the emergency. The heater materials of construction shall be easily cleaned of surface mud and grime with no degradation of the unit's ability to perform its function. The performance requirements for portable water heaters are presented in details. The rotometer test method, and ASTM test method shall be performed to meet the requirements prescribed. The water heater unit's water flow shall be measured, and recorded. The water heater unit's cold water inlet and warm water output temperature shall be measured and recorded. The water heater unit's water supply and outlet pressures shall be measured and recorded.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
12.1 The use of these acceptance tests will insure that organizations buying portable heaters will be assured the heaters meet certain performance requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification is used to standardize the portable water heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated water for as long as they are needed during the emergency.
Note 1: These heaters are not intended to be used for the decontamination for any other surface or material. Also, these heaters are intended to be portable and easy to use by first responders during a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) event.  
1.2 This specification contains a specification section and a test methods section so users need to refer to the section applicable to their needs when using this standard specification.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
Note 2: The U.S. first responder personnel using the equipment manufactured under this standard are not likely to be familiar with SI units so English units need to be included as part of the system documentation and shown on control panels for any equipment sold to U.S. organizations.  
1.4 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.  
1.5 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.

  • Technical specification
    4 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2543-08(2022)(Specification)
Standard Specification for Portable Air Heaters Used at Personnel Decontamination Stations and Shelters

ABSTRACT
This specification is used to standardize the portable air heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated air for personnel comfort before, during, and after the decontamination for as long as they are needed during the emergency. The heater materials of construction shall be easily cleaned of surface mud and grime with no degradation of the unit’s ability to perform its function. The preferred fuels for the heater section of the portable air heater are diesel fuel, gasoline, or bottled propane gas. Measurement of the air heater unit’s air flow and input and output temperatures shall be performed.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
11.1 The use of these acceptance tests will insure that organizations buying portable heaters will be assured the heaters meet certain performance requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification is used to standardize the portable air heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated air for personnel comfort before, during, and after the decontamination for as long as they are needed during the emergency.
Note 1: These heaters are not intended to be used for the decontamination for any other surface or material. Also, these heaters are intended to be portable and easy to use by first responders during a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) event.  
1.2 This specification contains a specification section and a test methods section so users need to refer to the section applicable to their needs when using this standard specification.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
Note 2: The U.S. first responder personnel using the equipment manufactured under this standard are not likely to be familiar with SI units so English units need to be included as part of the system documentation and shown on control panels for any equipment sold to U.S. organizations.  
1.4 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.  
1.5 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.

  • Technical specification
    3 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2853/E2853M-22(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Ground Response Robot Capabilities: Search Tasks

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of human-system interaction capability including robotic system mobility, dexterity, inspection, remote operator proficiency, and situational awareness. In particular, the operator control unit (OCU) design and interface features may impact the operator’s ability to perform movement and inspection tasks with the robot.  
5.2 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, dates, and times to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.3 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.  
5.4 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. The resulting measures of remote operator proficiency enable tracking of perishable skills over time, along with comparisons of performance across squads, regions, or national averages.  
5.6 Innovation—This test method can be used to inspire technical innovation, demonstrate break-through capabilities, and measure the reliability of systems performing specific tasks within an overall mission sequence. Combining or sequencing multiple test methods can guide manufacturers toward implementing the combinations of capabilities necessary to perform essential mission tasks.
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 maneuver and search throughout an environment to inspect objects of interest while negotiating complex terrain. This test method is one of several related human-system interaction tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system typically 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 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 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 test method. 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 i...

  • Standard
    26 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    26 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 E2915-13(2020)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Management

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coordination of response and recovery support cannot be performed well if the EOC team lacks an appropriate operating environment. An operating environment that increases stress in staff or hinders the ability to perform basic tasks will ultimately degrade the effectiveness of the EOC team. EOC management must be accomplished in parallel with incident management support and should be transparent to the EOC team. EOC management must also be consistent with and support the incident management system used by the EOC team (for example, the Incident Command System mandated for use in the United States under the National Incident Management System). Effective EOC management can be attributed to good preplanning and related training. This guide provides the emergency management community with practical concepts and approaches for effective EOC management.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides general guidelines for the management of an emergency operations center (EOC) prior to, during, and after activation for emergency or disaster support.  
1.2 An EOC is where the coordination of response and recovery support is performed, but the EOC is also a physical location that generates its own demands. For the EOC team to perform effectively, the physical and organizational demands of the EOC as a facility must be met. EOC management is distinct from the operational management of the incident.  
1.3 This guide may also serve as a foundation for management of a smaller facility such as a department operations center (DOC), larger facilities such as a regional operations center (ROC), or state operations center (SOC) with a broader area of responsibility and more extensive need to communicate and coordinate with others.  
1.4 This guide applies to fixed facilities and does not specifically address portable or field-deployable EOCs at temporary locations, virtual EOCs using communications technology to link geographically separated participants, or EOC relocation under a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). However, elements within this document will apply to these situations.  
1.5 This guide is the second in a series regarding the EOC. For the Standard Guide for EOC Development, see Guide E2668.  
1.6 This document includes some references and terminology specific to the United States of America but may be adapted for use elsewhere.  
1.7 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.  
1.8 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.

  • Guide
    7 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