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 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 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 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 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 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.
