E54.09 - Response Robots

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 pilot proficiency. The operational endurance of a 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. The outdoor and indoor movement tests flight path chosen for endurance testing specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, flight system to maintain position, and remote situational awareness by the remote pilot. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor flight or indoor flight within confined areas. The indoor hovering and dwelling tests similarly challenge these capabilities, but for remaining stationary in air within an outdoor or confined indoor area. 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 flight paths or continuous use, or both.  
5.2 The indoor tests with containment walls represent repeatable complexity within commercial spaces and residential dwellings with hallways and doorways, or warehouses.  
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 remote pilots.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The endurance test apparatus can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variab...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated aerial response robots (that is, unmanned aerial systems [UAS], drones, unmanned aircrafts) operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the mission endurance of an aerial robot while either station keeping or following an approximate flight path defined by obstacles or boundaries, or both, intended to induce repeated cyclical movement. This test method is one of several robot tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote pilot in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote pilot 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. Flying unmanned aircraft without a comprehensive understanding of the laws and regulations enforced by the relevant jurisdiction poses significant safety and legal risks. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in accidents, injuries, property damage, and legal consequences. Users of this standard are strongly advised to review and adhere to all applicable ASTM Committee F38 standards and to ensure full compliance with the authorities holding jurisdiction.  
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 ava...

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 dexterously inspect objects of interest in the environment at various heights, depths, orientations, and confinement. This test method is one of several related dexterity 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 (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (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 in accordance with inter...

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.

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...

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 ...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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 ...

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...

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 ...

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...

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 negotiate various types of obstacles, including the specified one, 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 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.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within 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 th...
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 traversing stairs with landings 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. Stairs with landings are 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.
FIG. 1 Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Stairs/Landings Apparatuses  
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 stairs/landings 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 mobil...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method corresponds to the requirements as specified by U.S. emergency responders and additional constituents. A robot’s performance in this test is indicative of its capabilities needed in such operations as emergency responses. To have the successfully tested robots available to the emergency operations is consistent with the National Response Framework.  
5.2 Although these test methods were developed first for emergency response robots, they may be applicable to other operational domains, such as law enforcement and military. They can also be used to ascertain operator proficiencies during training or serve as practice tasks that exercise robot actuators, sensors, and OCUs.  
5.3 The standard apparatus is specified to be easily assembled to facilitate robotic developers’ self evaluation of the robots and facilitate the emergency responders’ and other users’ proficiency training in applying the robotic tools.  
5.4 The objective of using robots in emergency response operations is to enhance the emergency responder’s capability of operating in hazardous or hard-to-reach environments. The testing results of the candidate robot shall describe, in a statistically significant way, how reliably the robot is able to traverse the obstacle, thus enabling emergency responders to determine the applicability of the robot.
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s towing capability with the task of grasping loads and traversing a specified route on a flat and paved surface.  
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including towing, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. This capability would be required to perform such emergency response-related tasks as delivering critical supplies, moving victims to safe locations, or transporting suspected packages away from humans.  
1.1.3 Emergency response ground robots shall be able to handle many types of obstacles and terrains. 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.  
1.1.4 ASTM Task Group E54.08.01 specifies a mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This towing-by-grasping 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.  
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot emergency response applications. As such, the test suite should be used collectively to represent a ground robot’s overall mobility performance.
Note 1: Additional test methods within the suite are anticipated to be developed to address additional or advanced robotic mobility capability requirements, including newly identified requirements and even for new application domains.  
1.2 Performing Location—This test method shall be performed in a testing laboratory or the field where the specified apparatus and environmental conditions are implemented.  
1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
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, hea...

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 traverse the specified types of terrains 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 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.  
5.3 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 and establish operator proficiency.  
5.4 Although the test method was developed first for emergency response robots, it may be applicable to other operational domains.
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) sustained maneuvering speed on paved surfaces.  
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including maneuvering, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. The environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. Being able to maneuver effectively for extended distances is essential for deployment down-range during emergency responses. This test method specifies apparatuses to standardize this maneuvering task for testing.  
1.1.3 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.  
1.1.4 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 sustained speed 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.  
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot intended for emergency response applications. As such, users of this standard can use either the entire suite or a subset based on their particular performance requirements. Users are also allowed to weight particular test methods or particular metrics within a test method differently based on their specific performance requirements. The testing results should collectively represent an emergency response ground robot’s overall mobility performance as required. These performance data can be used to guide procurement specifications and acceptance testing for robots intended for emergency response applications.
Note 1: Additional test methods within the suite are anticipated to be developed to addres...

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 negotiate the specified types of obstacles, 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 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.  
5.3 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 breech...
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.  
FIG. 1 Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Gaps Apparatuses  
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...

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 negotiate various types of obstacles, including the specified one, 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 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.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are scalable to constrain robot maneuverability during task performance for a range of robot sizes in confined areas associated with emergency response operations. (See 6.1 for specified incline sizes.)  
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 that exercise robot actuators, sensors, and operator interfaces. The standard apparatus can also be used to support operator training and establish operator proficiency.  
5.5 Although the test method was developed first for emergency response robots, it may be applicable to other operational domains.
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 traversing inclined planes 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. An inclined slope 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 obstacle for testing.  
1.1.3 The test apparatuses are scalable to provide a range of dimensions to constrain the robotic mobility during task performance. Fig. 1 shows three apparatus sizes to test robots intended for different emergency response scenarios.
FIG. 1 Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Inclined Planes Apparatuses  
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 specifies a mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This inclined-plane-traversing 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 test suite quantifies elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot intended for emergency response applications. As such, users of this standard can use either the entire suite or a subset based on their particular performance requirements...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 These basic requirements for response robots that help enhance the safety and effectiveness of responders or soldiers include: the robots are designed to be 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.  
5.2 This practice aligns user expectations with actual capabilities to understand the inherent trade-offs in deployable systems at any given cost. For example, a design issue of the number of batteries to be packed on a robot could affect the desired weight, endurance, or cost. Appropriate levels of understanding can help ensure that requirement specifications are articulated within the limit of current capabilities.  
5.3 This practice provides a tangible representation of essential robot capabilities with quantifiable measures of performance. It facilitates communication among communities of robot users and manufacturers. As such, this practice can be used to help:  
5.3.1 Inspire technical innovation and guide developers toward implementing the combinations of capabilities necessary to perform essential mission tasks.  
5.3.2 Measure and compare essential robot capabilities. This practice can help establish the reliability of the system to perform specified tasks, highlight break-through capabilities, and encourage hardening of developmental systems.  
5.3.3 Inform purchasing decisions, conduct acceptance testing, and align deployment objectives with statistically significant robot capabilities data captured through repeated testing and comparison of quantitative results.  
5.3.4 Focus operator training and measure proficiency as a repeatable practice task that exercises actuators, sensors, and operator interfaces. The practice can help capture and compare quantitative scores even within uncontrolled environmen...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice, as a part of the response robot logistics test suite, specifies the requirements of identifying and documenting the configuration of a robot system under test as well as the associated processes for doing it. The aspects to be included in such a configuration practice are the key dimensions and weights, the existent subsystems and key components, as well as the key timing requirements for setting up and maintaining the system.  
1.2 This practice applies to ground, aerial, and aquatic response robot systems controlled remotely by an operator from a standoff distance appropriate for the intended missions. Such robot systems may further possess certain assistive features or autonomous behaviors.  
1.3 Performing Location—This practice may be performed anywhere the specific apparatuses are implemented and environmental conditions are met.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard. Both units are referenced to facilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimize fabrication costs.  
1.5 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.  
1.6 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.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Various levels of visual acuity are essential when remotely operating robots in unstructured and often hazardous environments. Missions typically include establishing situational awareness, finding available paths, maneuvering through obstacles, identifying objects of interest, and performing detailed inspections. This test method measures robot system far-field and near-field visual acuity which are applicable to virtually every mission. These quantitative measures of performance provide a common language that allows robot users to better understand and express their own requirements and improve the way visual sensing capabilities are specified.  
5.2 Multiple cameras could be incorporated into remotely operated robotic systems since a single camera is unlikely to be effective for all aspects of a mission. For example, cameras with zoom lenses are often used for far-field tasks. Cameras with close focus capabilities are often used for near-field tasks. Wide-angle lenses are often used for driving and obstacle avoidance. This test method characterizes each onboard camera to understand overall system capabilities.  
5.3 This test method provides a way to unambiguously specify robot requirements in terms of the related measures of visual acuity and field of view. This helps quantify the trade-offs and general usefulness of optical versus digital zoom cameras and fixed versus variable focus lenses. The visual acuity charts can also help provide quantitative measures of performance within other test methods and training scenarios. See Figs. 2-4 for illustrations.
FIG. 2 This Baseline Image is Used for Purposes of Comparisons Below
FIG. 3 Three Images of the Same Scene with the Same Image Resolution. Top Row Shows Field of View Increasing from Left to Right (the image “zooms out”) While Bottom Row Shows Acuity Decreasing (features of the same size become harder to clearly observe)
FIG. 4 Three Images of the Same Scene with the Same Field of View. The Top Row ...
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this test method is to specify the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to quantitatively measure a robot’s visual acuity as displayed to a remote operator or vision algorithm. 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 Secondary performance metrics are the robot’s field of view and aspect ratio.  
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 sensing suite of response robot test methods, but this test method is stand-alone and complete. This test method applies to 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 robot could exceed the capabilities of the printing process used to create the charts used in the apparatus.  
1.6 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.7 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; the...

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...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Traversing on terrains with small aggregate (such as Number 8 or smaller gravel, per Specification C33/C33M) 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 gravel 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 Small gravel 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 gravel 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 gravel 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 effectiv...
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 gravel 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 gravel 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 envir...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Introduction of robots to the responder's cache for use in urban search and rescue missions may have an impact on the logistical planning for the response teams. Additional volume and weight shall be stored and transported to the response site. Additional preparation time shall be allotted to ready the robot for deployment. The tools that are taken to the field may need to be augmented to service the robots. Once the robot is ready for deployment, it shall be transported from the base of operations to the mission zone. Responders may have to carry the robot and its controller or may have to provide some other transportation mechanism if it is too heavy.  
5.2 This practice is designed to appraise the impact in terms of logistical considerations for a response organization.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the requirement that urban search and rescue robots and all necessary associated components or equipment (for example, operator control station, power sources, spare parts, sensors, manipulators, tools, and so forth) shall complement the response organization’s cache packaging and transportation systems.  
1.2 Shipment by ground, air, or marine should be considered.  
1.3 Volume, weight, shipping classification, and deployability of the robots and associated components are considered in this practice.  
1.3.1 The deployability is considered through the determination of:
1.3.1.1 The length of time required to prepare the robot system for deployment, and
1.3.1.2 The types of tools required for servicing the robot system in the field.  
1.3.2 Associated components or equipment include not only all the onboard sensors, tethers, and operator control station, but also any spare parts and specialized tools needed for assembly, disassembly, and field servicing.  
1.3.3 Associated components also include power equipment necessary for the operation of the system, such as batteries, chargers, and power converters. Gasoline, diesel, or other types of liquid fuel are not included.  
1.4 The packaged items shall support the operational availability of the robot during a deployment of up to ten days. There shall be no resupply within the first 72 h of deployment.  
1.5 No such standards currently exist except for those relevant to shipping (for example, CFR Title 49 and International Air Transport Association (IATA) documents).  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

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 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 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 existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test metho...
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 across parallel rails. 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 internationally recognize...

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 diagonal 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 diagonal 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 diagonal 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...
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 diagonal rail. 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 w...

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...

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. Robot performance data captured within this test method are indicative of the robotic system’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.  
5.3 This test method is part of a test suite and is intended to provide a capability baseline for the robotic HSI subsystems based on the identified needs of the emergency response community. Adequate performance using this test suite will not ensure successful operation in all emergency response situations due to possible extreme operational difficulties. Rather, this test method is intended to provide a common comparison of technologies against a reasonable simulation of emergency response environments and to provide quantitative performance data to emergency response organizations to 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...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of human-system interactions (HSI) test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of searching in a maze.  
1.1.2 Teleoperated robots shall possess a certain set of HSI capabilities to suit critical operations such as emergency responses, including enabling the operators to search for required targets. A passage that forms on complex terrains and possesses complex and visually similar branches is a type of environments that exists in emergency response and other robotically applicable situations. The complexity often poses challenges for the operators to teleoperate the robots to conduct searches. This test method is based on a standard maze and specifies metrics and a procedure for testing the search capability.  
1.1.3 Emergency response robots shall enable the operator to handle many types of tasks. The required HSI capabilities include search and navigation on different types of terrains, passages, and confined spaces. 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 HSI test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these HSI capability requirements. This random maze searching test method is a part of the HSI 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. (See Fig. 1.)
FIG. 1 HSI: Search Tasks: Random Maze Illustration  
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental HSI capabilities necessary for ground robots intended for emergency response applications. As such, based on their particular capability requirements, users of this test suite can select only the applicable tes...

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 negotiate the specified types of obstacles 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 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.  
5.3 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within environments such as dwellings and workspaces, 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 operate...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of traversing vertical obstacles 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 vertical step 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 obstacle for 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.  
FIG. 1 Mobility: Confined Area Obstacles: Hurdles Apparatuses  
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 hurdle 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...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Responder-defined requirements for these test methods are documented in a preliminary document entitled “Statement of Requirements for Urban Search and Rescue Robot Performance Standards.”2  
4.2 Field of View is important in terms of the ability of the operator to drive the robot. Looking at the world through a zoom lens is like “looking through a soda straw.” Looking with a 30 or 40° field of view lens is like “driving with blinders on.” On the other hand, using a very wide field of view lens (with a field of view of 120 or 150°), the operator’s use of optic flow to cue depth perception is severely degraded and navigating in a tight environment is very difficult. Multiple cameras are recommended, with one providing a very wide field of view or all together providing a very wide field of view.  
4.3 Far Vision Visual Acuity is important for both unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) and ground vehicles for wide area survey. Zoom is required for ground vehicles for wide area survey.  
4.4 Near Vision Visual Acuity is important for ground vehicles for wide area survey in examining objects at close range and also for small robots which operate in constrained spaces.  
4.5 Testing in the dark is important for small robots since they must sometimes operate in spaces with no ambient lighting.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of several key parameters of video systems for remote operations. It is initially intended for applications of robots for Urban Search and Rescue but is sufficiently general to be used for marine or other remote platforms. Those parameters are (1) field of view of the camera system, (2) visual acuity at far distances with both ambient lighting and lighting on-board the robot, (3) visual acuity at near distances, again in both light and dark environments, and (4), if available, visual acuity in both light and dark environments with zoom lens capability.  
1.2 These tests measure only end-to-end capability, that is, they determine the resolution of the images on the display screen at the operator control unit since that is the important issue for the user.  
1.3 This test method is intended to be used for writing procurement specifications and for acceptance testing for robots for urban search and rescue applications.  
1.4 This test method will use the Snellen fraction to report visual acuity; readers may wish to convert to decimal notation to improve intuitive understanding if they are more familiar with that notation. Distances will be given in metres with English units in parentheses following.  
1.5 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

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.

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 perform the specified types of tasks 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 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.
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.
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 to establish opera...
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 test...

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 perform the specified types of tasks 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. Robot performance data captured within this test method are indicative of the robotic system’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 method is part of a test suite and is intended to provide a capability baseline for the robotic HSI subsystems based on the identified needs of the emergency response community. Adequate performance using this test suite will not ensure successful operation in all emergency response situations due to possible extreme operational difficulties. Rather, this test method is intended to provide a common comparison of technologies against a reasonable simulation of emergency response environments and to provide quantitative performance data to emergency response organizations to 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.  
The standard apparatus is specified to be easily fabricated to facilitate self-evaluation by robot developers and provide practice tasks for emergen...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of human-system interactions (HSI) test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of searching in a maze.
1.1.2 Teleoperated robots shall possess a certain set of HSI capabilities to suit critical operations such as emergency responses, including enabling the operators to search for required targets. A passage that forms on complex terrains and possesses complex and visually similar branches is a type of environments that exists in emergency response and other robotically applicable situations. The complexity often poses challenges for the operators to teleoperate the robots to conduct searches. This test method is based on a standard maze and specifies metrics and a procedure for testing the search capability.
1.1.3 Emergency response robots shall enable the operator to handle many types of tasks. The required HSI capabilities include search and navigation on different types of terrains, passages, and confined spaces. 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 HSI test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these HSI capability requirements. This random maze searching test method is a part of the HSI 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. (See Fig. 1.)
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental HSI capabilities necessary for ground robots intended for emergency response applications. As such, based on their particular capability requirements, users of this test suite can select only the applicable test methods and can individually weight particular test met...

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 perform the specified types of tasks 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 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.
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.
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 and to establish o...
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 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 line-of-sight environment, to suit critical operations for emergency responses. The capability for a robot to perform these types of tasks in unobstructed 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 (LOS) environments, in non-line-of-sight (NLOS) 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 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 ...

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 various types of obstacles, including the specified one, 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.
The test apparatuses are 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within 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 breeche...
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 traversing stairs with landings 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. Stairs with landings are 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 stairs/landings 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 robot intended for emergency response a...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This test method corresponds to the requirements as specified by U.S. emergency responders and additional constituents. A robot’s performance in this test is indicative of its capabilities needed in such operations as emergency responses. To have the successfully tested robots available to the emergency operations is consistent with the National Response Framework.
Although these test methods were developed first for emergency response robots, they may be applicable to other operational domains, such as law enforcement and military. They can also be used to ascertain operator proficiencies during training or serve as practice tasks that exercise robot actuators, sensors, and OCUs.
The standard apparatus is specified to be easily assembled to facilitate robotic developers’ self evaluation of the robots and facilitate the emergency responders’ and other users’ proficiency training in applying the robotic tools.
The objective of using robots in emergency response operations is to enhance the emergency responder’s capability of operating in hazardous or hard-to-reach environments. The testing results of the candidate robot shall describe, in a statistically significant way, how reliably the robot is able to traverse the obstacle, thus enabling emergency responders to determine the applicability of the robot.
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s towing capability with the task of grasping loads and traversing a specified route on a flat and paved surface.
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including towing, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. This capability would be required to perform such emergency response-related tasks as delivering critical supplies, moving victims to safe locations, or transporting suspected packages away from humans.
1.1.3 Emergency response ground robots shall be able to handle many types of obstacles and terrains. 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.
1.1.4 ASTM Task Group E54.08.01 specifies a mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This towing-by-grasping 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.
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot emergency response applications. As such, the test suite should be used collectively to represent a ground robot’s overall mobility performance.
Note 1—Additional test methods within the suite are anticipated to be developed to address additional or advanced robotic mobility capability requirements, including newly identified requirements and even for new application domains.
1.2 Performing Location—This test method shall be performed in a testing laboratory or the field where the specified apparatus and environmental conditions are implemented.
1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.
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 and health practices and dete...

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...

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 traverse the specified types of terrains 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.
The test apparatuses are 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within environments such as dwellings and workspaces, 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 operate within sub-hu...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of traversing complex terrain composed of symmetric stepfields in confined areas.  
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including negotiating complex terrains, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. A part of the complexity is that the environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. This test method specifies apparatuses to standardize a confined areas terrain that is composed of symmetric stepfields and that notionally represents types of terrains containing extensive discontinuities, existent in emergency response and other environments. This test method also specifies procedures and metrics to standardize testing using the apparatus.
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 terrains. 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 terrain with symmetric stepfields is a part of the mobility test suite. Fig. 2 shows examples of other confined area terrains, along with the traversin...

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 traverse the specified types of terrains 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.
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 and establish operator proficiency.
Although the test method was developed first for emergency response robots, it may be applicable to other operational domains.
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) sustained maneuvering speed on paved surfaces.
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including maneuvering, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. The environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. Being able to maneuver effectively for extended distances is essential for deployment down-range during emergency responses. This test method specifies apparatuses to standardize this maneuvering task for testing.
1.1.3 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.
1.1.4 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 sustained speed 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.
1.1.5 The test methods quantify elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot intended for emergency response applications. As such, users of this standard can use either the entire suite or a subset based on their particular performance requirements. Users are also allowed to weight particular test methods or particular metrics within a test method differently based on their specific performance requirements. The testing results should collectively represent an emergency response ground robot’s overall mobility performance as required. These performance data can be used to guide procurement specifications and acceptance testing for robots intended for emergency response applications.
Note 1—Additional test methods within the suite are anticipated to be developed to address additional or advanc...

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 various types of obstacles, including the specified one, 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.
The test apparatuses are scalable to constrain robot maneuverability during task performance for a range of robot sizes in confined areas associated with emergency response operations. (See 6.1 for specified incline sizes.)
The standard apparatus is specified to be easily fabricated to facilitate self-evaluation by robot developers and provide practice tasks for emergency responders that exercise robot actuators, sensors, and operator interfaces. The standard apparatus can also be used to support operator training and establish operator proficiency.  
Although the test method was developed first for emergency response robots, it may be applicable to other operational domains.
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 traversing inclined planes 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. An inclined slope 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 obstacle for testing.
1.1.3 The test apparatuses are scalable to provide a range of 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 specifies a mobility test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these mobility capability requirements. This inclined-plane-traversing 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 test suite quantifies elemental mobility capabilities necessary for ground robot intended for emergency response applications. As such, users of this standard can use either the entire suite or a subset based on their particular performance requirements. Users are also allowed to weight particular test methods or particular metrics within a test meth...

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 traverse the specified types of terrains 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 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within 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 operate within sub-huma...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of traversing complex terrain composed of crossing pitch/roll ramps in confined areas.
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including negotiating complex terrains, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. A part of the complexity is that the environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. This test method specifies apparatuses to standardize a confined areas terrain that is composed of crossing pitch/roll ramps and that notionally represents types of terrains containing moderate discontinuities, existent in emergency response and other environments. This test method also specifies procedures and metrics to standardize testing using the apparatus.
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 ground robots shall be able to handle many types of obstacles and terrains. 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 terrain with crossing pitch/roll ramps is a part of the mobility test suite. Fig. 2 shows examples of other confined area terrains, along with the trave...

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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within environments such as dwellings and workspaces, 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 operate within sub-h...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of traversing vertical obstacles 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 vertical step 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 obstacle for 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 hurdle 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 mobilit...

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 traverse the specified types of terrains, thus providing 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.
The test apparatuses are 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 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 environments such as large buildings, stairwells, and urban sidewalks; minimum lateral clearance of 0.6 m (2 ft) for robots expected to operate within 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 operate within sub-hu...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of mobility test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated ground robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability of traversing complex terrain composed of continuous pitch/roll ramps in confined areas.
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of mobility capabilities, including negotiating complex terrains, to suit critical operations such as emergency responses. A part of the complexity is that the environments often pose constraints to robotic mobility to various degrees. This test method specifies apparatuses to standardize a confined areas terrain that is composed of continuous pitch/roll ramps and that notionally represents types of terrains containing undulating slopes, existent in emergency response and other environments. This test method also specifies procedures and metrics to standardize testing using the apparatus.
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 terrains. 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 continuous pitch/roll ramps terrain traversing test method is a part of the mobility test suite. Fig. 2 shows examples of other confined area terrains, along wi...