Changes for page h. Test SFT1: System baseline test
Last modified by Rosa Van Tuijn on 2026/04/13 12:47
From version 2.3
edited by Rosa Van Tuijn
on 2026/03/24 16:12
on 2026/03/24 16:12
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 1.6
edited by Tjalling Haije
on 2026/03/23 13:57
on 2026/03/23 13:57
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 : System baseline test1 +h. Test SFT1 - Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. RosaVanTuijn1 +XWiki.TjallingHaije - Content
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ 1 1 **Experiment title** 2 -S ystembaseline test2 +[Short, descriptive title] 3 3 4 4 5 5 **2. Objective / Research Question** 6 -Do the SYNERGISE technologies together improve the SYNERGISE [[Objectives>>2\. Specification.Objectives.WebHome]] (stated below) without negative effects?6 +Do the SYNERGISE technologies together improve the below SYNERGISE [[Objectives>>2\. Specification.Objectives.WebHome]] without negative effects? 7 7 8 8 1. Mission effectiveness 9 9 1. Mission efficiency ... ... @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ 10 10 1. FR Health 11 11 1. FR and victim safety 12 12 13 + 13 13 **3. Hypotheses / Expectations (optional)** 14 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: 15 15 ... ... @@ -21,25 +21,19 @@ 21 21 * CL06: improved FR health 22 22 * CL07: degraded mission efficiency 23 23 25 + 24 24 **4. Scenario / Context** 25 -ASR3: Detailed indoor exploration 27 +[Short description of the operational or simulated scenario in which the experiment runs] 28 + 26 26 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 - 35 35 **5. Participants** 36 36 37 -* FR team ROBOT:32 +* FR team 1: 38 38 ** 1x Squad leaders 39 39 ** 1x Robot operator 40 40 ** 1x Robot analyst 41 41 ** 2x First responder 42 -* FR team HUMAN:37 +* FR team 2: 43 43 ** 1x Squad leaders 44 44 ** 2x First reponder 45 45 * Base of Operations: ... ... @@ -51,35 +51,11 @@ 51 51 52 52 **6. System(s) Under Test** 53 53 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 -))) 49 +* Hardware / robot / software: [Describe system(s)] 50 +* Version / configuration: [Describe] 51 +* Relevant capabilities and limitations: [Overview] 52 + 80 80 81 - 82 - 83 83 **7. Tasks** 84 84 85 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]] ... ... @@ -88,167 +88,48 @@ 88 88 89 89 90 90 **8. Experimental Conditions / Variants** 62 +[Condition A vs B, baseline vs intervention, with/without transparency, etc.] 91 91 92 -Two buildings: 93 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 - 107 107 **9. Measurements** 108 108 109 -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. 67 +* Objective measures: [E.g., task completion time, errors, navigation metrics] 68 +* Subjective measures: [E.g., trust, workload, clarity, usability questionnaires] 69 +* Logs / sensors: [E.g., robot logs, video, physiological sensors] 110 110 111 -|**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 -))) 123 123 124 -|**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 -))) 72 +**10. Procedure (Step-by-Step)** 131 131 132 -|**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 74 +1. [Describe preparation] 75 +1. [Briefing] 76 +1. [Execution] 77 +1. [Debrief / Hotwash] 137 137 138 -((( 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 146 146 147 -((( 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 -))) 80 +**~11. Materials / Setup Components** 81 +[List equipment, environment layout, props, simulation assets] 156 156 157 -|**Claim: Situation Awareness**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test ** 158 -| |((( 159 - 160 -)))|((( 161 - 162 -))) 163 -| |((( 164 - 165 -)))|((( 166 - 167 -))) 168 -| |((( 169 - 170 -)))| 171 171 84 +**12. Safety & Ethical Considerations** 172 172 86 +* Risks: [Describe] 87 +* Mitigations: [Describe] 88 +* Informed consent: [Yes/No + method] 89 +* Data handling: [Describe] 173 173 174 -**10. Procedure (Step-by-Step)** 175 175 176 -1. __Team preparation__: 177 -11. FR team ROBOT is trained in operating the robot, analysing the camera stream, and pinning information on C3I 178 -11. Squad leader and BoO are trained for both teams in interpreting the health and location sensor data. 179 -11. Experiment leader knows where hazards and victims are in both buildings. 180 -11. Anymal robot is tested with network in target buildings for experiment (without FR themselves seeing building!) 181 -1. __Experiment preparation:__ 182 -11. Building is prepped with victims, hazards, etc. 183 -1. __Briefing:__ 184 -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. 185 -11. One person is notified that their health sensor will be triggered during the Building B (difficult building) situation. 186 -1. __Execution:__ 187 -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]] 188 -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]] 189 -11. During execution of both teams, performance will be measured by experiment leader: 190 -111. Mission completion time 191 -111. Health indicators stay within acceptable range 192 -111. Time for tackling any health alerts 193 -111. Track FR path 194 -1. __Hotwash__: 195 -11. Questions (specified per role, couple questions per topic) on: 196 -111. Near-incident report 197 -111. Path inside 198 -111. FR location and status of hazards, victims, and layout 199 -111. Mission effectiveness: e.g. self reported effectiveness of decisions 200 -111. Self-reported workload 201 -111. Trust survey 202 -11. Group discussion with feedback 92 +**13. Location & Duration** 203 203 204 -**~11. Planning:** 94 +* Location: [Where does it take place?] 95 +* Duration: [Total time per run + preparation] 205 205 206 -* Team preparation: Day before. 1 hour. 207 -* Trial 1: 208 -** Setup scenario: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30 209 -** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30 210 -** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 09:00 - 09:30 211 -** Mission execution: Test day 1. 09:30 - 10:30 212 -** Hot wash: Test day 1. 10:30-11:00 213 -** Scenario reset: test day 1. 10:30-11:00 214 -* Teams switch location: Test day 1. 11:00-11:15 215 -* Trial 2: 216 -** (Setup scenario: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00) 217 -** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00 218 -** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 12:30 - 13:00 219 -** Mission execution: Test day 1. 13:00 - 14:00 220 -** Hot wash: Test day 1. 14:00-14:30 221 -* Cleanup area and store tech. 14:00-14:30 222 222 98 +**14. Dependencies** 99 +[Other WPs, required assets, system availability, permissions] 223 223 224 224 225 -**12. Materials** 102 +**15. Success Criteria** 103 +[How do you know the experiment worked as intended?] 226 226 227 -* For FRs: 228 -** 1x Anymal with teleop setup and networking 229 -** 2x Tablet with C3I for squad leader (one spare) 230 -** 1x Base of Operations with computer with C3I 231 -** 4x Health sensors 232 -** 4x Location sensors 233 -** 8x walky talky with two channels (?) (for FR team and BoO). 234 -* For usecase: 235 -** 2x training building (~~100m2?) 236 -** Enviromental challenges: smoke machine, obstacles, etc. 237 -** ~~8x Actors or dummies for victims. 238 -* 8x Clipboards with papers and pens for hotwash and questionnaires 239 239 240 -**13. Dependencies** 241 - 242 -* Availability of materials 243 -* Availability and functioning of ANYmal robot with teleoperation and network in target buildings 244 -* Availability of functioning network between robot, FRs, and BoO. 245 -* Availability of: 246 -** Experiment participants 247 -** People willing to play victim 248 -** Experiment leaders 249 - 250 -**14. Success Criteria** 251 -When mission(s) completed by both teams, and we can compare their performance using the metrics. 252 - 253 - 254 254