1、Designation: E2992/E2992M 17Standard Test Method forEvaluating Response Robot Mobility: Traverse Sand Terrain1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2992/E2992M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the yearof original adoption or, in the case of revision, the yea
2、r 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.INTRODUCTIONThe robotics community needs ways to measure whether a particular robot is capable of performingspecific missions
3、 in unstructured and often hazardous environments. These missions decompose intoelemental robot tasks represented individually as standard test methods and practices. The associatedtest apparatuses and performance metrics provide a tangible language to communicate varying missionrequirements. They a
4、lso enable repeatable testing to establish the reliability of essential robotcapabilities.The ASTM International Standards Committee on Homeland Security Applications (E54) specifiesstandard test methods and practices for evaluating such robot capabilities. These standards facilitatecomparisons acro
5、ss diverse models or multiple configurations of a single model. They support robotresearchers, manufacturers, and user organizations in different ways. Researchers use the standards tounderstand mission requirements, encourage innovation, and demonstrate break-through capabilities.Manufacturers use
6、the standards to evaluate design decisions, integrate emerging technologies, andharden developed systems. User organizations leverage the resulting robot capabilities data to guidepurchasing decisions, align deployment objectives, and focus training with standard measures ofoperator proficiency. Ass
7、ociated usage guides describe how such standards can be applied to supportthese various objectives.The overall suite of standards addresses critical subsystems of remotely operated response robots,including maneuvering, mobility, dexterity, sensing, energy, communications, durability, proficiency,au
8、tonomy, logistics, safety, and terminology. This test method addresses the robotic mobility on sandterrain.1. Scope1.1 The purpose of this test method is to specify theapparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary toquantitatively measure a teleoperated ground robots capabilityof traver
9、sing sand terrain. The primary performance metric forthis test method shall be a robots possession of such acapability with a specified statistical significance level.1.2 Average rate of advance over the specified terrain shallbe the secondary performance metric for this test method. Themeasure shal
10、l be calculated only when a robot under test hascompleted a statistically-significant number of repetitions.1.3 This test method can also be used to measure theoperator proficiency in performing the specified task. Thecorresponding performance metric may be the number ofcompleted task repetitions pe
11、r minute over an assigned timeperiod ranging from 10 to 30 minutes.1.4 This test method is a part of the mobility suite of groundresponse robot test methods, but this test method is stand-aloneand complete. This test method applies to ground systemsoperated remotely from a standoff distance appropri
12、ate for theintended mission. The system includes a remote operator incontrol of all functionality and any assistive features orautonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or effi-ciency of the overall system.1.5 The apparatus, specified in Section 6, can only test alimited range of a robots
13、capabilities. When the robot has beentested through the limit or limits of the apparatus, a note shallbe associated with the results indicating that the robots actualcapability may be outside of the limit or limits imposed by thetest apparatus. For example, the size of the sand terrain testapparatus
14、 could possibly affect the acceleration of the robotunder test and, in turn, the resulting average rate of advance.1This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E54 onHomeland Security Applications and is the direct responsibility of SubcommitteeE54.09 on Response Robots.Current edit
15、ion approved Sept. 1, 2017. Published October 2017. DOI: 10.1520/E2992_E2992M-17.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesThis international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on stan
16、dardization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.11.6 Performing LocationThis test method may be per-formed anywhere the specified apparat
17、uses and environmentalconditions can be implemented.1.7 UnitsThe values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. Thevalues stated in each system may not be exact equivalents;therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other.Combining valu
18、es from the two systems may result in noncon-formance with the standard. Both units are referenced tofacilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimizefabrication costs.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is there
19、sponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accor-dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
20、ization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recom-mendations issued by the World Trade Organization TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2C144 Specification for Aggregate for Masonry Morta
21、rD5821 Test Method for Determining the Percentage ofFractured Particles in Coarse AggregateE2521 Terminology for Evaluating Response Robot Capa-bilitiesE2592 Practice for Evaluating Response Robot Capabilities:Logistics: Packaging for Urban Search and Rescue TaskForce Equipment CachesE2803 Test Meth
22、od for Evaluating Emergency ResponseRobot Capabilities: Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles:Inclined Planes3. Terminology3.1 Definitions:3.1.1 The following terms are used in this test method andare defined in Terminology E2521: abstain, administrator ortest administrator, emergency response robot or
23、response robot,fault condition, operator, operator station, remote control,repetition, robot, teleoperation, test event or event, test form,test sponsor, test suite, testing target or target, testing task ortask, and trial or test trial.3.1.2 The following terms are used in this test method andare d
24、efined in ALFUS Framework Volume I:3autonomous,autonomy, level of autonomy, operator control unit (OCU), andsemi-autonomous.4. Summary of Test Method4.1 A robot under test traverses from one end of the sandterrain to the other and back while alternating left and rightturns around the pylons to compl
25、ete a figure-8 path. The robotis credited with a fixed forward distance for each completedfigure-8 path repetition.5. Significance and Use5.1 Traversing on terrains with fine aggregate, such asspecified in Specification C144, could pose problems forground robots because the aggregate may become incr
26、emen-tally packed into the locomotion subsystems (such as drivingsprockets, belts, chains, tire treads, or track pads) leading tojamming, slippage, or other failures, and thus adversely affect-ing a robots mobility. This test method addresses aforemen-tioned issues of mobility.NOTE 1Larger-sized agg
27、regate might not be as easily packed intorobotic locomotion subsystems but might present different types ofmobility challenges such as angular, rough, sharp, or broken aggregatepieces interfering with wheels, tracks, or other types of locomotionmechanisms. These issues are out of the scope of this t
28、est method.5.1.1 Sand based terrains are non-rigid in nature and couldcause a robot to turn-in-place or dig-in when the robot isnegotiating a tight turn. Certain robotic locomotion mecha-nisms might be designed for other mobility purposes and mightnot create sufficient traction against the specified
29、 sand terrain.As such, extensive testing within this type of terrain mayexpose robot design or reliability issues and lead to fieldmaintenance or repair.5.1.2 The sand traverse capabilities could be affected byadditional factors such as the weight and its distribution,ground contact areas, and contr
30、ol schemes for the robot. Assuch, extensive testing within this type of terrain may also leadto innovations in robot design.5.2 Key features of response robots are that they areremotely operated from safe standoff distances, deployable atoperational tempos, capable of operating in complexenvironment
31、s, sufficiently hardened against harshenvironments, reliable and field serviceable, durable or cost-effectively disposable, and equipped with operational safe-guards. As such, a major advantage of using robots in responseoperations is to enhance the safety and effectiveness ofresponders or soldiers.
32、5.3 This test method aligns user expectations with actualcapabilities to understand the inherent capability trade-offs indeployable systems at any given cost. For example, a designissue of the number of batteries to be packed on a robot couldaffect desired weight, endurance, or cost. Appropriate lev
33、els ofunderstanding can help ensure that requirement specificationsare articulated within the limit of current capabilities.5.4 This test method provides a tangible representation ofessential robot capabilities with quantifiable measures of per-formance. When considered with other related test metho
34、ds inthe suite, it facilitates communication among communities ofrobot users and manufacturers.As such, this test method can beused to:2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume inf
35、ormation, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.3NIST Special Publication 1011-I-2.0 Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems(ALFUS) Framework Volume I: Terminology, Version 2.0. Available from NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 1070,Gait
36、hersburg, MD 20899-1070, http:/www.nist.gov.E2992/E2992M 1725.4.1 Inspire technical innovation and guide manufacturerstoward implementing combinations of capabilities necessary toperform essential mission tasks.5.4.2 Measure and compare essential robot capabilities.This test method can establish the
37、 reliability of the system toperform specified tasks, highlight break-through capabilities,and encourage hardening of developmental systems.5.4.3 Inform purchasing decisions, conduct acceptancetesting, and align deployment objectives with statisticallysignificant robot capabilities data captured thr
38、ough repeatedtesting and comparison of quantitative results.5.4.4 Focus operator training and measure proficiency as arepeatable practice task that exercises actuators, sensors, andoperator interfaces. The test method can be embedded intotraining scenarios to capture and compare quantitative scorese
39、ven within uncontrolled environmental variables. This canhelp develop, maintain, measure, and track very perishableskills over time and enable comparisons across squads, regions,or national averages.5.4.5 Although this test method was developed for responserobots, it may be applicable to other domai
40、ns. Different usercommunities can set their own thresholds of acceptable per-formance within the test method for various mission require-ments.5.5 It is recommended that users of this test method con-sider their particular robot requirements when interpreting thetest results. The capability evaluate
41、d in this test method aloneshall be interpreted according to the scope of this test methodand shall not be considered as an overall indication of thecapability of the robots mobility subsystem nor of the entirerobotic system.Asingle test method only captures the specifiedsingle aspect of a robots ca
42、pabilities. A more completecharacterization of a robots capabilities requires test resultsfrom a wider set of test methods.6. Apparatus6.1 The test apparatus is a fixed-size sand terrain throughwhich the robot has to traverse (see Figs. 1 and 2 forillustrations).6.1.1 The terrain size may be scaled
43、to provide for variouslevels of mobility constraints for robots under test dependingon testing requirements. Three typical terrain sizes are nomi-nally 3.6 m 12 ft long by 1.2 m 4 ft wide, 7.2 m 24 ft longby 2.4 m 8 ft wide, and 14.4 m 48 ft long by 4.8 m 16 ftwide, respectively. A test sponsor is a
44、uthorized to specify othertest apparatus sizes to suit particular deployment requirements.NOTE 2Test Method E2803 and this test apparatus can be combinedto form a sand test terrain on an incline.6.1.2 Each of the terrains is fully covered with packedNumber 8 aggregate (with nominal size of 2.36 to 9
45、.5 mm, or0.09 to 0.37 in.), as specified in Specification C144, for aminimal depth of 15 cm 6 in., and evenly spread throughoutthe apparatus floor. The sand shall be dry, both visibly and tothe touch within the entire apparatus, including from thesurface through the bottom.6.1.3 Each terrain is reco
46、mmended to be fully surroundedby walls that are nominally 1.2 m 4 ft tall and are typicallybuilt out of plywood or oriented strand boards (OSB). Lumberwith a nominal cross-section of 5 by 25 cm 2 by 10 in. couldalso be used to surround the terrain and help further contain thesand.6.1.4 The ends of e
47、ach of the terrains have end zones thatare half as long as the width of the terrain and feature wallscompletely painted with alternating black-and-white, vertical,and nominally 30 cm 12 in. wide stripes.6.1.5 Four pylons define a figure-8 traverse path (see Fig. 2).The two inner pylons are placed at
48、 a distance from each otherequal to the width of the terrain and centered between the endFIG. 1 Confined Area Terrains: Sand; Three SizesE2992/E2992M 173zones and between the sidewalls. The two outer pylons areplaced at the edge of each end zone and centered between thesidewalls. Pylons that are typ
49、ically used for general trafficguidance and have nominal heights of at least 30 cm 1 ft andnominal cross-section diameters of at most 30 cm 1 ft shall beacceptable for use in this test method.6.1.6 A gate that opens on a sidewall or an end zone is alsoimplemented for general purpose access to the apparatus.6.2 In terms of lighting, the lit test condition is specified asindoors (with furnished lighting), typically measured at nomi-nally 150 to 300 lux or outdoors (in the daylight), typicallymeasured at up to 1000 lux, nominally. The dark test cond
