Skip to Content
Last modified by Rosa Van Tuijn on 2026/04/13 12:47
From version 6.1
edited by Rosa Van Tuijn
on 2026/04/13 12:47
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.1
edited by Tjalling Haije
on 2026/03/23 13:19
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -h. Test SFT1: System baseline test
1 +h. Test SFT1
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.RosaVanTuijn
1 +XWiki.TjallingHaije
Content
... ... @@ -1,288 +1,0 @@
1 -**Experiment title**
2 -System baseline test
3 -
4 -
5 -**2. Objective / Research Question**
6 -Do the SYNERGISE technologies together improve the SYNERGISE [[Objectives>>2\. Specification.Objectives.WebHome]] (stated below) without negative effects?
7 -
8 -1. Mission effectiveness
9 -1. Mission efficiency
10 -1. FR Health
11 -1. FR and victim safety
12 -
13 -**3. Hypotheses / Expectations (optional)**
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 -
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 -
24 -**4. Scenario / Context**
25 -ASR3: Detailed indoor exploration
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 -**5. Participants**
36 -
37 -* FR team ROBOT:
38 -** 1x Squad leaders
39 -** 1x Robot operator
40 -** 1x Robot analyst
41 -** 2x First responder
42 -* FR team HUMAN:
43 -** 1x Squad leaders
44 -** 2x First reponder
45 -* Base of Operations:
46 -** 1x Safety officer / medical specialist
47 -** Team lead
48 -
49 -Number of participants: 9 
50 -
51 -
52 -**6. System(s) Under Test**
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 -)))
80 -
81 -
82 -
83 -**7. Tasks**
84 -
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 -
90 -**8. Experimental Conditions / Variants**
91 -
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 -
107 -**9. Measurements**
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. See [[j. SFT1 evaluation templates >>3\. Evaluation.g\. Prototype .WebHome]] for more details about the measurements during a test.
110 -
111 -|**Claim: Safety [CL01]**|**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: Situation Awareness [CL02]**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test **
125 -|Before entry |(((
126 -Correctness of reported hazards, victims, layout
127 -)))|(((
128 -* 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
129 -
130 -(((
131 -
132 -)))
133 -)))
134 -|During entry|(((
135 -FR path logs
136 -)))|(((
137 -* 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
138 -
139 -(((
140 -
141 -)))
142 -)))
143 -|After mission|(((
144 -Correctness of reported hazards, victims, layout
145 -)))|(((
146 -* Repeat sketching/mapping or descriptive task and compare the outcomes (improvement/ deterioration vs pre-entry)
147 -)))
148 -
149 -|**Claim: Mission effectiveness [CL03] [CL04] [CL05]**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test **
150 -|(((
151 -Acceptable workload
152 -)))|(((
153 -
154 -
155 -NASA-TLX
156 -)))|(((
157 -* Shortened post-trial NASA-TLX questionnaire and analyze score (discuss if these with experts to check if these are "acceptable")
158 -
159 -(((
160 -
161 -)))
162 -)))
163 -|(((
164 -Appropriate trust
165 -)))|(((
166 -
167 -
168 -Trust survey / interviews
169 -)))|(((
170 -*
171 -)))
172 -|(((
173 -Decision confidence
174 -)))|(((
175 -
176 -
177 -Retrospective decision quality rating
178 -)))|
179 -
180 -|**Claim: Health [CL06]**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test **
181 -|(((
182 -Health remains acceptable
183 -)))|(((
184 -
185 -
186 -Health indicators
187 -)))|(((
188 -* Define acceptable ranges (e.g. HR, temperature, etc.) beforehand and log these ranges
189 -)))
190 -|(((
191 -Issues handled in time
192 -)))|(((
193 -
194 -
195 -Health issues tackled in acceptable time
196 -)))|(((
197 -* Timestamp when acceptable ranges are breached till moment detection and intervention moment (compare this with predefined response thresholds)
198 -)))
199 -
200 -|**Claim: Mission Efficiency [CL07]**|**Measurment(s)**|**How to test **
201 -|Faster mission execution|Total mission completion time|(((
202 -* Timestamp of start (after briefing) till all located victims have been extracted
203 -)))
204 -|Faster inside performance|First responder time inside|(((
205 -* Timestamp of entry building till exist building (last located victim is exstracted)
206 -)))
207 -
208 -**10. Procedure (Step-by-Step)**
209 -
210 -1. __Team preparation__:
211 -11. FR team ROBOT is trained in operating the robot, analysing the camera stream, and pinning information on C3I
212 -11. Squad leader and BoO are trained for both teams in interpreting the health and location sensor data.
213 -11. Experiment leader knows where hazards and victims are in both buildings.
214 -11. Anymal robot is tested with network in target buildings for experiment (without FR themselves seeing building!)
215 -1. __Experiment preparation:__
216 -11. Building is prepped with victims, hazards, etc.
217 -1. __Briefing:__
218 -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.
219 -11. One person is notified that their health sensor will be triggered during the Building B (difficult building) situation.
220 -1. __Execution:__
221 -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]]
222 -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]]
223 -11. During execution of both teams, performance will be measured by experiment leader:
224 -111. Mission completion time
225 -111. Health indicators stay within acceptable range
226 -111. Time for tackling any health alerts
227 -111. Track FR path
228 -1. __Hotwash__:
229 -11. Questions (specified per role, couple questions per topic) on:
230 -111. Near-incident report
231 -111. Path inside
232 -111. FR location and status of hazards, victims, and layout
233 -111. Mission effectiveness: e.g. self reported effectiveness of decisions
234 -111. Self-reported workload
235 -111. Trust survey
236 -11. Group discussion with feedback
237 -
238 -**~11. Planning:**
239 -
240 -* Team preparation: Day before. 1 hour.
241 -* Trial 1:
242 -** Setup scenario: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30
243 -** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 09:00 - 09:30
244 -** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 09:00 - 09:30
245 -** Mission execution: Test day 1. 09:30 - 10:30
246 -** Hot wash: Test day 1. 10:30-11:00
247 -** Scenario reset: test day 1. 10:30-11:00
248 -* Teams switch location: Test day 1. 11:00-11:15
249 -* Trial 2: 
250 -** (Setup scenario: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00)
251 -** Setup tech and perform checks: Test day 1. 12:30 - 13:00
252 -** Briefing of each team individually (outside building): Test day 1: 12:30 - 13:00
253 -** Mission execution: Test day 1. 13:00 - 14:00
254 -** Hot wash: Test day 1. 14:00-14:30
255 -* Cleanup area and store tech. 14:00-14:30
256 -
257 -
258 -
259 -**12. Materials**
260 -
261 -* For FRs:
262 -** 1x Anymal with teleop setup and networking
263 -** 2x Tablet with C3I for squad leader (one spare)
264 -** 1x Base of Operations with computer with C3I
265 -** 4x Health sensors
266 -** 4x Location sensors
267 -** 8x walky talky with two channels (?) (for FR team and BoO).
268 -* For usecase:
269 -** 2x training building (~~100m2?)
270 -** Enviromental challenges: smoke machine, obstacles, etc.
271 -** ~~8x Actors or dummies for victims.
272 -* 8x Clipboards with papers and pens for hotwash and questionnaires
273 -
274 -**13. Dependencies**
275 -
276 -* Availability of materials
277 -* Availability and functioning of ANYmal robot with teleoperation and network in target buildings
278 -* Availability of functioning network between robot, FRs, and BoO.
279 -* Availability of:
280 -** Experiment participants
281 -** People willing to play victim
282 -** Experiment leaders
283 -
284 -**14. Success Criteria**
285 -When mission(s) completed by both teams, and we can compare their performance using the metrics.
286 -
287 -
288 -