Changes for page h. Test SFT1: System baseline test
Last modified by Rosa Van Tuijn on 2026/04/13 12:47
From version 1.5
edited by Tjalling Haije
on 2026/03/23 13:48
on 2026/03/23 13:48
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 2.4
edited by Rosa Van Tuijn
on 2026/03/24 16:16
on 2026/03/24 16:16
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (3 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -h. Test SFT1 1 +h. Test SFT1: System baseline test - Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. TjallingHaije1 +XWiki.RosaVanTuijn - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,77 +1,259 @@ 1 -** ~1. Title of theExperiment**2 - [Short, descriptive title]1 +**Experiment title** 2 +System baseline test 3 3 4 + 4 4 **2. Objective / Research Question** 5 - [Whatareyoutrying tolearn,test,orcompare?]6 +Do the SYNERGISE technologies together improve the SYNERGISE [[Objectives>>2\. Specification.Objectives.WebHome]] (stated below) without negative effects? 6 6 8 +1. Mission effectiveness 9 +1. Mission efficiency 10 +1. FR Health 11 +1. FR and victim safety 12 + 7 7 **3. Hypotheses / Expectations (optional)** 8 - [If applicable,what doyouexpect toobserve?]14 +See the claims from [[UC04.3: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR).WebHome]], being: 9 9 16 +* CL01: Improve safety for responders 17 +* CL02: Increased SA 18 +* CL03: Improved mission effectiveness 19 +* CL04: acceptable workload 20 +* CL05: trustworthy SA 21 +* CL06: improved FR health 22 +* CL07: degraded mission efficiency 23 + 10 10 **4. Scenario / Context** 11 - [Short description of the operationalor simulatedscenarioin which theexperiment runs]25 +ASR3: Detailed indoor exploration 12 12 27 +Preconditions from [[UC04.3: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR).WebHome]] : 28 + 29 +* Structure is flagged as (relatively?) **safe for direct human entry**; sector/ worksite allocated. 30 +* **FRs wearables** distributed, connected, and calibrated. 31 +* Specific to scenario with ANYmal: 32 +** **ANYmal **is mission-ready (battery, controls, and payload checked). 33 +** **C3I is online**, role-based views are configurated (Operator/ Analyst/ Team leader/ Safety officer); **5G pods** are installed for connection. 34 + 13 13 **5. Participants** 14 14 15 -* FR team 1:37 +* FR team ROBOT: 16 16 ** 1x Squad leaders 17 17 ** 1x Robot operator 18 18 ** 1x Robot analyst 19 19 ** 2x First responder 20 -* FR team: 42 +* FR team HUMAN: 21 21 ** 1x Squad leaders 22 22 ** 2x First reponder 23 23 * Base of Operations: 24 -** 1x Safety officer 46 +** 1x Safety officer / medical specialist 25 25 ** Team lead 26 - 27 27 28 -Number of participants: 9 49 +Number of participants: 9 50 + 29 29 30 30 **6. System(s) Under Test** 31 31 32 -* Hardware / robot / software: [Describe system(s)] 33 -* Version / configuration: [Describe] 34 -* Relevant capabilities and limitations: [Overview] 54 +|(% style="width:267px" %)Technology|(% style="width:1250px" %)Description 55 +|(% style="width:267px" %)ANYmal|(% style="width:1250px" %)((( 56 +* Robust mobility over uneven terrain (stairs, debris, slopes). 57 +* Multi-sensor payload (video, LIDAR, thermal??) 58 +* Reliable wireless communication/ connection in degraded environments. 59 +* Support for tele‑operation with clear operator feedback. 60 +* Link with C3I, such as adding victims as pin on map. 61 +* NO autonomy. 62 +))) 63 +|(% style="width:267px" %)C3I (BoO and tablet version)|(% style="width:1250px" %)((( 64 +* Interoperability with health and location sensors. 65 +* Robust operation under limited connectivity (sync when possible). 66 +* Usable tablet interface for field conditions (gloves, stress, time pressure). 67 +))) 68 +|(% style="width:267px" %)Health sensors|(% style="width:1250px" %)((( 69 +* Accurate and reliable physiological sensing (e.g. heart rate, exertion proxies). 70 +* Comfortable, non‑intrusive form factor suitable for long missions. 71 +* Secure wireless data transmission to C3I systems. 72 +* Real‑time alerting and trend monitoring. 73 +))) 74 +|(% style="width:267px" %)Location sensors|(% style="width:1250px" %)((( 75 +* Indoor and outdoor localisation capability. 76 +* Sufficient accuracy and update rate for safety‑critical use. 77 +* Integration with C3I and mapping systems. 78 +* Robustness to environmental interference (dust, debris, structures, height differences). 79 +))) 35 35 81 + 82 + 36 36 **7. Tasks** 37 -[List the tasks participants must perform and their sequence] 38 38 85 +[[UC04.3: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR).WebHome]] 86 + 87 +[[UC04.4: Detailed indoor exploration without ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYmal (USAR).WebHome]] 88 + 89 + 39 39 **8. Experimental Conditions / Variants** 40 -[Condition A vs B, baseline vs intervention, with/without transparency, etc.] 41 41 92 +Two buildings: 93 + 94 +* Building A: Easier location, obstacles and environmental conditions. (clear visibility, ..) 95 +* Building B: Challenging location, obstacles and environmental conditions for humans and robots (e.g. smoke and obstacles). 96 + 97 +Trial 1: 98 + 99 +* FR Team ROBOT does Building A 100 +* FR team HUMAN does Building B 101 + 102 +Trial 2: 103 + 104 +* FR Team ROBOT does Building B 105 +* FR team HUMAN does Building A 106 + 42 42 **9. Measurements** 43 43 44 -* Objective measures: [E.g., task completion time, errors, navigation metrics] 45 -* Subjective measures: [E.g., trust, workload, clarity, usability questionnaires] 46 -* Logs / sensors: [E.g., robot logs, video, physiological sensors] 109 +See the measurements from [[UC04.3: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR).WebHome]]. Compare outcomes between the two conditions teams if applicable. 47 47 111 +|**Claim: Safety**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test ** 112 +|Safer decision before entry|Safe path chosen|((( 113 +* Define ground-truth safe path(s) beforehand so that they can be compared to chosen entry path during the trial 114 +* Score paths beforehand: safe/ suboptimal/ unsafe 115 +))) 116 +|Better decision overall|"How good were you decisions looking back?"|((( 117 +* Hotwash reflection question (likert + open) 118 +* Observations of errors (e.g. near-incidents, unsafe choices) 119 +))) 120 +|Fewer dangerous situations|Near-incident reports|((( 121 +* Define hazards in buildings beforehand and check (with observations of during hotwash) if these hazards are avoided or not 122 +))) 123 + 124 +|**Claim: Efficiency**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test ** 125 +|Faster mission execution|Total mission completion time|((( 126 +* Timestamp of start (after briefing) till all located victims have been extracted 127 +))) 128 +|Faster inside performance|First responder time inside|((( 129 +* Timestamp of entry building till exist building (last located victim is exstracted) 130 +))) 131 + 132 +|**Claim: Situation Awareness**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test ** 133 +|Before entry |((( 134 +Correctness of reported hazards, victims, layout 135 +)))|((( 136 +* Before entry let squad leader and entry team (seperatly) sketch/map or describe inside of building (harzards, victims, layout) > compare these with the ground-truth 137 + 138 +((( 139 + 140 +))) 141 +))) 142 +|During entry|((( 143 +FR path logs 144 +)))|((( 145 +* Compare plannend vs. executed path (how many or how big were the deviations? and were they acceptable?) and identify detours caused by misjudgment or new information 146 + 147 +((( 148 + 149 +))) 150 +))) 151 +|After mission|((( 152 +Correctness of reported hazards, victims, layout 153 +)))|((( 154 +* Repeat sketching/mapping or descriptive task and compare the outcomes (improvement/ deterioration vs pre-entry) 155 +))) 156 + 157 +|**Claim: Health**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test ** 158 +|((( 159 +Health remains acceptable 160 +)))|((( 161 + 162 + 163 +Health indicators 164 +)))|((( 165 +* Define acceptable ranges (e.g. HR, temperature, etc.) beforehand and log these parapeter ranges 166 +))) 167 +|((( 168 +Issues handled in time 169 +)))|((( 170 + 171 + 172 +Health issues tackled in acceptable time 173 +)))|((( 174 +* Log when 175 +))) 176 + 177 + 178 + 48 48 **10. Procedure (Step-by-Step)** 49 49 50 -1. [Describe preparation] 51 -1. [Briefing] 52 -1. [Execution] 53 -1. [Debrief / Hotwash] 181 +1. __Team preparation__: 182 +11. FR team ROBOT is trained in operating the robot, analysing the camera stream, and pinning information on C3I 183 +11. Squad leader and BoO are trained for both teams in interpreting the health and location sensor data. 184 +11. Experiment leader knows where hazards and victims are in both buildings. 185 +11. Anymal robot is tested with network in target buildings for experiment (without FR themselves seeing building!) 186 +1. __Experiment preparation:__ 187 +11. Building is prepped with victims, hazards, etc. 188 +1. __Briefing:__ 189 +11. Same for both teams for both building types: Building has been inspected from outside and is estimated safe for entry. Situation inside unknown. Victims possibly present. Goal: find, assess, and extract victims while avoiding and mapping hazards. 190 +11. One person is notified that their health sensor will be triggered during the Building B (difficult building) situation. 191 +1. __Execution:__ 192 +11. For FR team ROBOT, see: [[UC04.3: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYMAL (USAR).WebHome]] 193 +11. For FR team HUMAN, see: [[UC04.4: Detailed indoor exploration without ANYMAL (USAR)>>2\. Specification.b\. Use Cases.UC04\.0\: Detailed indoor exploration.UC04\.3\: Detailed indoor exploration with ANYmal (USAR).WebHome]] 194 +11. During execution of both teams, performance will be measured by experiment leader: 195 +111. Mission completion time 196 +111. Health indicators stay within acceptable range 197 +111. Time for tackling any health alerts 198 +111. Track FR path 199 +1. __Hotwash__: 200 +11. Questions (specified per role, couple questions per topic) on: 201 +111. Near-incident report 202 +111. Path inside 203 +111. FR location and status of hazards, victims, and layout 204 +111. Mission effectiveness: e.g. self reported effectiveness of decisions 205 +111. Self-reported workload 206 +111. Trust survey 207 +11. Group discussion with feedback 54 54 55 -**~11. Materials / Setup Components** 56 -[List equipment, environment layout, props, simulation assets] 209 +**~11. Planning:** 57 57 58 -**12. Safety & Ethical Considerations** 211 +* Team preparation: Day before. 1 hour. 212 +* Trial 1: 213 +** Setup scenario: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30 214 +** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30 215 +** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 09:00 - 09:30 216 +** Mission execution: Test day 1. 09:30 - 10:30 217 +** Hot wash: Test day 1. 10:30-11:00 218 +** Scenario reset: test day 1. 10:30-11:00 219 +* Teams switch location: Test day 1. 11:00-11:15 220 +* Trial 2: 221 +** (Setup scenario: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00) 222 +** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00 223 +** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 12:30 - 13:00 224 +** Mission execution: Test day 1. 13:00 - 14:00 225 +** Hot wash: Test day 1. 14:00-14:30 226 +* Cleanup area and store tech. 14:00-14:30 59 59 60 -* Risks: [Describe] 61 -* Mitigations: [Describe] 62 -* Informed consent: [Yes/No + method] 63 -* Data handling: [Describe] 64 64 65 -**13. Location & Duration** 66 66 67 -* Location: [Where does it take place?] 68 -* Duration: [Total time per run + preparation] 230 +**12. Materials** 69 69 70 -**14. Dependencies** 71 -[Other WPs, required assets, system availability, permissions] 232 +* For FRs: 233 +** 1x Anymal with teleop setup and networking 234 +** 2x Tablet with C3I for squad leader (one spare) 235 +** 1x Base of Operations with computer with C3I 236 +** 4x Health sensors 237 +** 4x Location sensors 238 +** 8x walky talky with two channels (?) (for FR team and BoO). 239 +* For usecase: 240 +** 2x training building (~~100m2?) 241 +** Enviromental challenges: smoke machine, obstacles, etc. 242 +** ~~8x Actors or dummies for victims. 243 +* 8x Clipboards with papers and pens for hotwash and questionnaires 72 72 73 -**15. Success Criteria** 74 -[How do you know the experiment worked as intended?] 245 +**13. Dependencies** 75 75 247 +* Availability of materials 248 +* Availability and functioning of ANYmal robot with teleoperation and network in target buildings 249 +* Availability of functioning network between robot, FRs, and BoO. 250 +* Availability of: 251 +** Experiment participants 252 +** People willing to play victim 253 +** Experiment leaders 76 76 255 +**14. Success Criteria** 256 +When mission(s) completed by both teams, and we can compare their performance using the metrics. 257 + 258 + 77 77