1.1 本测试方法适用于在复杂、非结构化且通常危险的环境中操作的远程地面机器人。它规定了测量机器人在平行轨道上移动时对齐其接地触点的能力所需的设备、程序和性能指标。该测试方法是可用于评估整体系统能力的几个相关机动测试之一。 1.2 机器人系统包括控制大多数功能的远程操作员，因此通常需要车载摄像机和远程操作员显示器。该测试方法可用于评估旨在提高远程操作系统的有效性或效率的辅助或自主行为。 1.3 不同的用户群体可以在该测试方法中为各种任务需求设置自己的可接受性能阈值。 1.4 执行位置- 本试验方法可在任何可实施规定装置和环境条件的地方进行。 1.5 单位- 本文件使用国际单位制（又称国际单位制）和美国惯用单位（又称英制单位）。它们不是数学转换。相反，它们是每个单位制中的近似等价物，以便在不同国家使用现成的材料。为了比较试验方法结果，每个单元系统中规定尺寸之间的差异无关紧要，因此每个单元系统在本试验方法中单独视为标准。 1.6 本标准并非旨在解决与其使用相关的所有安全问题（如有）。本标准的用户有责任在使用前制定适当的安全、健康和环境实践，并确定监管限制的适用性。 1.7 本国际标准是根据世界贸易组织技术性贸易壁垒（TBT）委员会发布的《关于制定国际标准、指南和建议的原则的决定》中确立的国际公认标准化原则制定的。 ====意义和用途====== 5.1 该测试方法是一整套相关测试方法的一部分，这些测试方法提供了机器人系统操纵和远程操作员熟练程度的可重复测量。 平行轨道对齐地面接触测试挑战机器人系统移动、操作员控制、有效的摄像机定位、底盘形状变化（如果可用）和操作员的远程态势感知。因此，平行轨道对齐地面接触测试可用于表示机器人必须避免环境中路径周围的危险（例如碎片、水坑）的情况，强调操作员在控制机器人时的情景感知需求。 5.2 装置的规模可以不同，以提供代表典型预期部署环境的不同约束。例如，这三种配置可以代表无障碍环境（开放配置）、车与车之间有空间的相对开放停车场（矩形限制配置）、公共汽车、火车或飞机通道内或有走廊和门口的住宅（方形限制配置）的可重复复杂性。 5.3 测试设备成本低，易于制造，因此可以广泛复制。该程序也很简单。这简化了不同测试位置和日期之间的比较，以确定最佳系统和操作员。 5.4 评估- 该测试方法可在受控环境中用于测量基线能力。平行轨道装置也可以嵌入操作训练场景中，以测量由于照明、天气、无线电通信、GPS精度等不可控变量而导致的退化。 5.5 采购- 该测试方法可用于确定系统中的固有能力权衡，做出明智的采购决策，并在验收测试期间验证性能。 这使需求规范和用户期望与现有的能力限制保持一致。 5.6 培训- 该测试方法可用于将操作员培训作为可重复的实践任务或培训场景中的嵌入式任务。由此产生的远程操作员熟练程度测量可以跟踪随时间变化的易逝技能，以及跨团队、区域或国家平均水平的绩效比较。 5.7 创新- 该测试方法可用于激发技术创新，演示突破能力，并测量在整个任务序列中执行特定任务的系统的可靠性。组合或排序多种测试方法可以指导制造商实现执行基本任务所需的能力组合。

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 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 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 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 operator proficiency enable tracking of perishable skills over time, along with comparisons of performance across squads, regions, or national averages. 5.7 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.