1、Designation: E2854 12Standard Test Method forEvaluating Emergency Response Robot Capabilities: RadioCommunication: Line-of-Sight Range1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2854; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of
2、 revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 Purpose:1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite ofradio communication test
3、methods, is to quantitatively evaluatea teleoperated robots (see Terminology E2521) capability toperform maneuvering and inspection tasks in a line-of-sightenvironment.1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of radio communi-cation capabilities, including performing maneuvering andinspection tasks
4、in a line-of-sight environment, to suit criticaloperations for emergency responses. The capability for a robotto perform these types of tasks in unobstructed areas downrange is critical for emergency response operations. This testmethod specifies a standard set of apparatuses, procedures, andmetrics
5、 to evaluate the robot/operator capabilities for perform-ing these tasks.1.1.3 Emergency response robots shall be able to operateremotely using the equipped radios in line-of-sight (LOS)environments, in non-line-of-sight (NLOS) environments, andfor signal penetration through such impediments as buil
6、dings,rubbles, and tunnels. Additional capabilities include operatingin the presence of electromagnetic interference and providinglink security and data logging. Standard test methods arerequired to evaluate whether candidate robots meet theserequirements.1.1.4 ASTM E54.08.01 Task Group on Robotics
7、specifies aradio communication test suite, which consists of a set of testmethods for evaluating these communication capabilities. Thisline-of-sight range test method is a part of the radio commu-nication test suite. The apparatuses associated with the testmethods challenge specific robot capabiliti
8、es in repeatableways to facilitate comparison of different robot models as wellas 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 stat
9、ion and thetesting robot in a line-of-sight environment. These linksinclude the command and control channel(s) and video, audio,and other sensor data telemetry.1.1.6 This test method is intended to apply to ground basedrobotic systems and small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS)capable of hovering to pe
10、rform maneuvering and inspectiontasks down range for emergency response applications.1.1.7 This test method specifies an apparatus that is anessentially clear radio frequency channel for testing. Fig. 1provides an illustration.NOTE 1Frequency coordination and interoperability are not addressedin thi
11、s standard. These issues should be resolved by the affected agencies(Fire, Police, and Urban Search and Rescue) and written into the StandardOperating Procedures (SOPs) that guide the responses to emergencysituations.1.1.8 The radio communication test suite quantifies elemen-tal radio communication
12、capabilities necessary for robotsintended for emergency response applications. As such, basedon their particular capability requirements, users of this testsuite can select only the applicable test methods and canindividually weight particular test methods or particular met-rics within a test method
13、. The testing results should collec-tively represent a ground robots overall radio communicationcapability. These test results can be used to guide procurementspecifications and acceptance testing for robots intended foremergency response applications.NOTE 2As robotic systems are more widely applied
14、, emergencyresponders might identify additional or advanced robotic radio commu-nication capability requirements to help them respond to emergencysituations. They might also desire to use robots with higher levels ofautonomy, beyond teleoperation to help reduce their workloadsee NISTSpecial Publicat
15、ion 1011-II-1.0. Further, emergency responders in ex-panded emergency response domains might also desire to apply robotictechnologies to their situations, a source for new sets of requirements. Asa result, additional standards within the suite would be developed. Thisstandard is, nevertheless, stand
16、alone and complete.1.2 Performing LocationThis test method shall be per-formed in a testing laboratory or the field where the specifiedapparatus and environmental conditions are implemented.1.3 UnitsThe values stated in SI units shall be thestandard. The values given in parentheses are not precisema
17、thematical conversions to inch-pound units. They are closeapproximate equivalents for the purpose of specifying material1This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 onHomeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeE54.08 on Operational Equipment.C
18、urrent edition approved Feb. 1, 2012. Published April 2012. DOI: 10.1520/E2854-12.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.dimensions or quantities that are readily available to avoidexcessive fabrication costs of test apparat
19、uses while maintain-ing repeatability and reproducibility of the test method results.These values given in parentheses facilitate testing but are notconsidered standard.1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility o
20、f the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E2521 Terminology for Urban Search and Rescue RoboticOperationsE2592 Practice for Evaluating Cache Pack
21、aged Weight andVolume of Robots for Urban Search and Rescue2.2 Additional Documents:National Response Framework, U.S. Department of Home-land Security3NIST Special Publication 1011-I-2.0 Autonomy Levels forUnmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework Volume I: Ter-minology, Version 2.04NIST Special Publicatio
22、n 1011-II-1.0 Autonomy Levels forUnmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework Volume II:Framework Models, Version 1.043. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 abstain, vthe action of the manufacturer or desig-nated operator of the testing robot choosing not to enter thetest. Any decision to take such an action sha
23、ll be conveyed tothe administrator before the test begins. The test form shall beclearly marked as such, indicating that the manufactureracknowledges the omission of the performance data while thetest method was available at the test time.3.1.1.1 DiscussionAbstentions may occur when the robotconfigu
24、ration is neither designed nor equipped to perform thetasks as specified in the test method. Practices within the testapparatus prior to testing should allow for establishing theapplicability of the test method for the given robot.3.1.2 administrator, nperson who conducts the testTheadministrator sh
25、all ensure the readiness of the apparatus, thetest form, and any required measuring devices such as stop-watch and light meter; the administrator shall ensure that thespecified or required environmental conditions are met; theadministrator shall notify the operator when the safety belay isavailable
26、and ensure that the operator has either decided not touse it or assigned a person to handle; and the administratorshall call the operator to start the test and record the perfor-mance data and any notable observations during the test.3.1.3 emergency response robot, or response robot, naremotely depl
27、oyed device intended to perform operationaltasks at operational tempos to assist the operators to handle adisaster.3.1.3.1 DiscussionA response robot is designed to serveas an extension of the operator for gaining improved remotesituational awareness and for accomplishing the tasks remotelythrough t
28、he equipped capabilities. The use of a robot isdesigned to reduce risk to the operator while improvingeffectiveness and efficiency of the mission. The desired fea-tures of a response robot include: rapid deployment; remoteoperation from an appropriate standoff distance; mobile incomplex environments
29、; sufficiently hardened against harshenvironments; reliable and field serviceable; durable and/orcost effectively disposable; and equipped with operationalsafeguards.2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual B
30、ook of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3Available from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), P.O. Box10055, Hyattsville, MD 20782-8055, http:/www.fema.gov/emergency/nrf/.4Available from National Institute of Standards and Techno
31、logy (NIST), 100Bureau Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, http:/www.nist.gov/el/isd/ks/autonomy_levels.cfm.Left: The line-of-sight range test method uses an airstrip or paved road with robot test stations placed every 100 m (330 ft) along the centerline. Right: Robot test stationsare proto
32、typed with targets on the barrels for visual inspection tasks and circular paths for maneuvering tasks.FIG. 1 Test Fabrication at An Air StripE2854 1223.1.4 fault condition, na certain situation or occurrenceduring testing whereby the robot either cannot continue with-out human intervention or has p
33、erformed some defined rulesinfraction.3.1.4.1 DiscussionFault conditions include robotic sys-tem malfunctions such as de-tracking, task execution problemssuch as excessive deviation from a specified path, or uncon-trolled behaviors and other safety violations which requireadministrative intervention
34、.3.1.5 human-scale, adjused to indicate that the objects,terrains, or tasks specified in this test method are in a scaleconsistent with the environments and structures typicallynegotiated by humans, although possibly compromised orcollapsed enough to limit human access.Also, that the responserobots
35、considered in this context are in a volumetric and weightscale appropriate for operation within these environments.3.1.5.1 DiscussionNo precise size and weight ranges arespecified for this term. The test apparatus constrains theenvironment in which the tasks are performed. Such con-straints, in turn
36、, limit the types of robots to be consideredapplicable to emergency response operations.3.1.6 line-of-sight communications, npropagating electro-magnetic energy with a direct path between a transmittingradio antenna and a receiving radio antenna which are in visualcontact with each other with no obs
37、tructions between them. Inthe ideal case, the only paths that the radio waves can take inthe line-of-sight case are the direct path either between thetransmitter and receiver or a path that corresponds to a singlereflection of the radio wave off of the ground before itencounters the receiving antenn
38、a.3.1.7 non-line-of-sight communications, npropagatingelectromagnetic energy with no direct path between a trans-mitting radio antenna and a receiving radio antenna which arenot in visual contact with each other due to obstructionsbetween them. Radio waves propagate between the transmit-ting and the
39、 receiving antennas via reflections off structures,diffraction around structures, and/or passage through structureswith attenuation.3.1.8 operator, nperson who controls the robot to performthe tasks as specified in the test method; she/he shall ensure thereadiness of all the applicable subsystems of
40、 the robot; she/hethrough a designated second shall be responsible for the use ofa safety belay; and she/he shall also determine whether toabstain the test.3.1.8.1 DiscussionAn emergency responder would be atypical operator in emergency response situations.3.1.9 operator station, napparatus for host
41、ing the opera-tor and her/his operator control unit (OCU, see NIST SpecialPublication 1011-I-2.0) to teleoperate (see TerminologyE2521) the robot. The operator station shall be positioned insuch a manner as to insulate the operator from the sights andsounds generated at the test apparatuses.3.1.10 r
42、adio interference, nadverse effect on the transferof data when unrelated external signals are received by a robotreceiver or an operator station receiver.3.1.10.1 DiscussionIn licensed frequency bands such asthose used by the public safety community, each radio trans-mitter and receiver is assigned
43、a unique frequency channeltypically with limits on power emissions. Some radio systemsare designed to work effectively when multiple systems operatein the same frequency band at the same time. Many of thesesystems can be found in the unlicensed Industrial, Scientific,and Medical (ISM) frequency band
44、s.3.1.11 repetition, nrobots completion of the task asspecified in the test method and readiness for repeating thesame task when required.3.1.11.1 DiscussionIn a traversing task, the entire mobil-ity mechanism shall be behind the START point before thetraverse and shall pass the END point to complet
45、e a repetition.A test method can specify returning to the START point tocomplete the task. Multiple repetitions, performed in the sametest condition, may be used to establish the tested capability toa certain degree of statistical significance as specified by thetest sponsor.3.1.12 test event, or ev
46、ent, na set of testing activities thatare planned and organized by the test sponsor to be held at theone or multiple designated test site(s).3.1.13 test form, na collection of data fields or graphicsused to record the testing results along with the associatedinformation. A single test form shall not
47、 be used to record theresults of multiple trials.3.1.14 test sponsor, nan organization or individual thatcommissions a particular test event and receives the corre-sponding test results.3.1.15 test suite, na designed collection of test methodsthat are used collectively to evaluate the performance of
48、 arobots particular subsystem or functionality, including mobil-ity, manipulation, sensors, energy/power, communications,human-system interaction (HSI), logistics, safety and operatingenvironment, and aerial or aquatic maneuvering.3.1.16 testing target, or target, na designed physicalfeature to be u
49、sed by the testing robotic subsystem forevaluating the subsystem capabilities. The feature may be anoperationally relevant object, a notional object, or one designedspecifically for exercising the subsystem features to its fullextent.3.1.17 testing task, or task, na set of activities welldefined in a test method for testing robots and the operators toperform in order for the systems capabilities to be evaluatedaccording to the corresponding metric(s). A test method mayspecify multiple tasks. A task corresponds to the associatedmetric(s).3.1.18 tria
