KR20230053088A - Performance evaluation methods for response robot - Google Patents

Abstract

An embodiment of the present invention disclosed in the present specification relates to a method for evaluating a performance test of a disaster response robot. An embodiment of the present invention relates to the method for evaluating a performance test of a robot comprises: a setting step of determining whether a robot to be tested is placed within a predesignated position of an evaluation section; a task evaluation step of determining the position reaching number (N) where the robot to be tested to start from the designated position and arrives the designated position again; and a step of evaluating reliability of the robot to be tested when the position reaching number (N) is at least the predesignated critical number (M).

Description

Disaster response robot performance test evaluation method {PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METHODS FOR RESPONSE ROBOT}

The present invention relates to a method for evaluating the performance test of a disaster response robot.

Disaster situations such as fires, floods, and landslides require very important responses and situation judgments every moment.

In such a disaster situation, highly trained ground personnel such as firefighters or police officers are directly dispatched to identify the situation at the site and take appropriate measures. Responding robots are being used.

The disaster response robot may be manufactured with various specifications, but in general, a ground-running robot having the ability to observe or work in a disaster situation while driving on the ground, or a ground-running robot capable of observing or working in a disaster situation while flying in the air A flying robot such as a drone with the ability can be used. These disaster response robots can be operated and controlled remotely by a controller.

In such a disaster situation, coping with the situation through the above-described disaster response robot depends on the appropriate control capability or disaster response capability of the controller. In addition, since the disaster response robot can be manufactured with various specifications, the ability to perform missions through the disaster response robot in the current disaster situation depends on the control ability of the controller.

In other words, in the event of a disaster, appropriate control and disaster response capabilities are required for the controller's disaster response robot, but an evaluation system for training and evaluating the disaster response robot operation capability and disaster response capability of the person concerned or an evaluation system with various specifications The quantitative performance test evaluation of disaster response robots is mainly limited to training and evaluating the operator's ability to operate in a virtual environment.

Therefore, when operating disaster response robots with various specifications, it is required to prepare a method that can train the ability to cope with various disaster situations or quantitatively evaluate the performance test of disaster response robots.

Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to solve the above problems.

One of the various tasks of the present invention is to provide a method for quantitatively evaluating the performance test of a disaster response robot having various specifications.

One of the various tasks of the present invention is to provide an evaluation section that implements disaster situations in various environments for the disaster response robot to perform its mission.

One of the various tasks of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating the ability of a disaster response robot to perform missions in various evaluation sections.

One of the various tasks of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating the mission performance reliability of a disaster response robot.

Various embodiments for solving the problems of the present invention are a method for evaluating a performance test of a robot, a setting step of determining whether a test target robot is within a predetermined position in an evaluation section, and the test target robot departing from the designated position. A task evaluation step of determining the number of times N of reaching the designated position by doing the same again, and a step of evaluating the reliability of the robot to be tested when the number of times of reaching the position N is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold number M. Provides a performance test evaluation method for disaster response robots including

In the task evaluation step, the robot under test may reach the designated position after passing through sections created by a plurality of different environments.

The method may include selecting at least one section among the plurality of sections before the robot under test departs from the designated location.

At least one section among the plurality of sections may include a ramp.

In the task evaluation step, a required time for the robot under test to start from the designated position and reach the designated position may be determined.

The task evaluation step may include calculating an effective speed of the test target robot based on the required time and the distance of the evaluation section.

The task evaluation step may further include comparing the calculated effective speed with a preset average effective speed of the test target robot.

If the calculated effective speed is smaller than the average effective speed of the robot under test, it may be determined whether the robot under test corresponds to a failure condition.

In the case of the failure condition, it may be determined whether the robot under test can travel to the designated location.

When the calculated effective speed is greater than the average effective speed of the robot under test, the number of reaching the position (N) and the threshold number (M) may be compared.

In the step of evaluating the reliability, an effective speed is calculated using the distance of the evaluation section and the time required for the robot under test to reach the designated position from the designated position for each position arrival number N, Reliability may be evaluated by comparing the average effective speed of the robot under test, which is set in advance for each threshold number M corresponding to the number of arrivals N.

Various embodiments for solving the problems of the present invention are a method for evaluating a performance test of a robot, the step of determining whether a robot to be tested is within a predetermined position of an evaluation section, and the robot to be tested starts from the designated position Again, calculating the effective speed of the test target robot based on the time required to reach the designated position and the distance of the evaluation section, and comparing the calculated effective speed with the preset average effective speed of the test target robot Provides a performance test evaluation method of a disaster response robot including the step of evaluating the reliability of the test target robot.

When the calculated effective speed is greater than or equal to the preset average effective speed, the number of times the robot under test arrives at the designated position after starting from the designated position (N) may be compared with a predetermined threshold number (M). there is.

When the calculated effective speed is less than the preset average effective speed, it may be determined whether the test target robot corresponds to a failure condition.

The evaluation section may include sections created by a plurality of different environments.

Each feature of the above-described embodiments may be implemented in combination in other embodiments unless inconsistent with or exclusive of the other embodiments.

According to various embodiments of the present invention, performance tests of disaster response robots manufactured with various specifications can be quantitatively evaluated.

According to various embodiments of the present invention, the ability of the disaster response robot to perform missions may be evaluated through various evaluation environments.

According to various embodiments of the present invention, it is possible to quantitatively evaluate the task performance capability of the disaster response robot through the completion capability of various evaluation environments.

According to various embodiments of the present invention, the reliability of the disaster response robot may be evaluated by comparing the effective speed required for the disaster response robot to complete various evaluation environments with a preset average effective speed of the disaster response robot.

According to various embodiments of the present invention, a performance test of a disaster response robot having various specifications can be evaluated in consideration of the completion capability and required time of the evaluation environment, and the unique average effective speed of the disaster response robot.

Effects of the present invention are not limited to those described above, and other effects not mentioned will be clearly recognized by those skilled in the art from the description below.

1 is a diagram showing the configuration of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an embodiment of the operation of the disaster response robot of FIG. 1 .
3 is a diagram showing an evaluation section for performance test evaluation of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention.
FIG. 4 is a view showing first and sixth sections of FIG. 3 .
FIG. 5 is a view showing a second section of FIG. 3 .
FIG. 6 is a view showing a third section of FIG. 3 .
FIG. 7 is a view showing a fourth section of FIG. 3 .
FIG. 8 is a view showing a fifth section of FIG. 3 .
9 is a diagram showing a performance test evaluation method of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention.
10 and 11 are diagrams showing a performance test evaluation method of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention.

Hereinafter, specific embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings. The detailed descriptions that follow are provided to provide a comprehensive understanding of the methods, devices and/or systems described herein. However, this is only an example and the present invention is not limited thereto.

In describing the embodiments of the present invention, if it is determined that the detailed description of the known technology related to the present invention may unnecessarily obscure the subject matter of the present invention, the detailed description will be omitted. In addition, terms to be described later are terms defined in consideration of functions in the present invention, which may vary according to the intention or custom of a user or operator. Therefore, the definition should be made based on the contents throughout this specification. Terminology used in the detailed description is only for describing the embodiments of the present invention and should in no way be limiting. Unless expressly used otherwise, singular forms of expression include plural forms. In this description, expressions such as "comprising" or "comprising" are intended to indicate any characteristic, number, step, operation, element, portion or combination thereof, one or more other than those described. It should not be construed to exclude the existence or possibility of any other feature, number, step, operation, element, part or combination thereof.

Also, terms such as first, second, A, B, (a), and (b) may be used in describing the components of the embodiment of the present invention. These terms are only used to distinguish the component from other components, and the nature, order, or order of the corresponding component is not limited by the term.

Hereinafter, the robot may be referred to as a disaster response robot in terms of carrying out missions in a disaster situation. And, the description from the viewpoint of evaluating the performance test of the robot may be referred to as the robot under test. That is, the disaster response robot described in this specification and the robot under test may be referred to differently depending on the point of view, but the essence of the description may be understood to be the same.

1 is a diagram showing the configuration of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 2 is a diagram showing an embodiment of an operation of the disaster response robot of FIG. 1 .

It will be described with reference to FIGS. 1 and 2 below.

The disaster response robot 1 of this embodiment is defined as a robot capable of preventing the spread of disasters, minimizing damage, and rapidly responding to disaster situations in situations such as natural disasters such as typhoons or earthquakes or human and social disasters. can Therefore, the robot 1 described in FIG. 1 is one of disaster response robots that can be manufactured in various shapes according to structure, function, purpose, etc., and the disaster response robot of this embodiment is limited to the structure of the robot represented in FIG. 1. It is not to be interpreted as being

The test robot described in the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot below may also be interpreted in the same way as described above.

The disaster response robot 1 may include a housing 10 , a driving part 20 , a first working part 30 and a second working part 50 .

The housing 10 forms an accommodating space, and in the accommodating space, equipment for performing missions of the electronic disaster response robot for controlling the disaster response robot, and a water tank for storing water sprayed through the second work unit 50 etc. may be provided. The housing 10 is made of a heat-resistant structure and heat-resistant material to protect the above-described structures in a disaster field situation so that the disaster response robot 1 can fully perform its mission.

As a heat-resistant structure, it is possible to improve heat resistance performance by forming the surface of the housing 10 that is heat-resistant by spraying or attaching material components into which the reinforced liquid fire extinguishing agent is injected to the housing 10, or a composite lightweight material, It is made of heat-resistant materials such as PPS (Polyphenylene Sulfide) composite material, so heat resistance can be improved.

As described above, by improving the heat resistance of the housing 10, it is possible not only to protect internal electric components, but also to prevent heat from being transferred to the water storage space (water tank) provided inside the housing 10, thereby preventing high temperatures. It is possible to prevent water to be sprayed through the second work unit 50 from evaporating in the environment.

The driving unit 20 is installed on both edges of the disaster response robot 1 to enable smooth driving and to easily pass through obstacles. Forming a wheel 21 and a rotational axis of the wheel 21 In addition, it may include a shaft 23 connected to the housing 10 to change the height of the wheel 21.

That is, it is possible to minimize the influence of the driving performance of the disaster response robot 1 on the ground through the wheel 21 in the form of an endless track and the shaft 23 capable of changing the height of the wheel 21, and It is possible to improve the passing performance of obstacles located in the traveling section of the corresponding robot 1.

The caterpillar wheel 21 is composed of track shoes connected in a chain shape and rotates in contact with the ground to advance the disaster response robot 1. , track rollers that evenly distribute the weight of the robot on the ground.

The first work unit 30 may include a first arm 31 , a connection member 32 , and a second arm 33 . The first work unit 30 may be installed on the front of the housing 10 facing the driving direction of the disaster response robot 1 . The first work unit 30 may be provided in the form of an articulated robot arm, and may perform various functions for performing the mission of the disaster response robot 1 through the control unit 35 on the front side.

As an example, the position of an obstacle located on the driving route of the disaster response robot 1 may be moved through the first work unit 30, or a structure at a disaster site may be picked up or other debris, obstacles, stones, etc. may be moved. may be moved And the operation unit 35 of the first work unit may be provided interchangeably. Since the manipulation unit 35 is compatible with various types, it can perform various tasks.

The first arm 31 may be connected to the front surface of the housing 10 and rotatably provided based on the first axis. The first axis may refer to a longitudinal direction of the first arm 31 . That is, the first arm 31 may be provided to rotate 360 degrees based on a direction perpendicular to the driving direction of the disaster response robot 10 . Of course, the rotation radius of the first arm 31 may be limited according to the connection structure and location of the second arm 33 .

The second arm 33 may be connected to the first arm 31 through a joint structure. More specifically, the second arm 33 may be connected to the first arm 31 through a connecting member 32, and within a predetermined range based on a second axis different from the first axis through the connecting member 32. It may be provided rotatably. Therefore, when the second arm 33 is located side by side in the longitudinal direction of the first arm 31, the second arm 33 will not act as an obstacle to the rotation radius of the first arm 31.

The second work unit 50 may include a connection member 51 and a spray member 53 . The connecting member 51 may be formed on the top of the housing 10 . The injection member 53 may be rotatably connected to the housing 10 through the connecting member 51 . More specifically, the spray member 53 is connected to a water tank provided inside the housing 10 to receive water from the water tank and spray it to the outside, and is not limited to the location of the disaster response robot 1 and sprays water. In order to secure a radius, it may be provided to rotate 360 degrees relative to the height direction of the disaster response robot 1.

As shown in FIG. 2 , the spray member 53 can receive water from the water tank as well as receive water from the outside through the hose 60 and spray the water.

A light emitting unit 41 may be provided on the front surface of the first housing 10 . As described above, the front surface of the first housing 10 means a surface facing the driving direction of the first housing 10, and may be defined as a surface on which the first work part 30 of the present embodiment is formed. That is, it is preferable that the light emitting unit 41 is formed in the same direction as the first working unit 30 so as to increase the efficiency of the first working unit 30 in performing its duties in various environments. On the other hand, the light emitting unit 41 may be provided on the front, rear and left and right sides of the housing 10 to illuminate a certain radius around the disaster response robot 1, of course.

In addition, on the front side of the first housing 10, a member 11 serving as a foothold for easy maintenance of the first work unit 30 and the second work unit 50 by the manager of the disaster response robot is provided. may be provided.

On the other hand, the disaster response robot 1 of the present embodiment may further include an agricultural visualization sensor. Through the smoke visualization sensor, it is possible to secure a visible distance so that a survivor can be identified or a main heat source can be seen even in a situation where it is difficult to secure a field of vision due to thick smoke caused by a fire or explosion.

3 is a diagram showing an evaluation section for performance test evaluation of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention.

It will be described with reference to FIG. 3 below.

The disaster response robot is referred to as a test robot as a target robot of the performance test evaluation method of the present embodiment.

The evaluation section for performance test evaluation of the disaster response robot of this embodiment may include the first section to the sixth section. Each section may be created by different environments, and at least one section among a plurality of sections may include a ramp.

The performance test evaluation of the robot may be based on whether or not the robot to be tested starts from a pre-specified location, passes through the plurality of sections, and then reaches the pre-specified location again or the time required to reach the pre-specified location.

In the performance test evaluation of the disaster response robot of this embodiment, the robot to be tested starts from a pre-specified location and runs along the driving direction 100a in the first section 111, the second section 130, the third section 150, and the second section 150. After passing through the 4th section 170, the 5th section 160, and the 6th section 113, it may end by arriving at a pre-designated location again. However, in this embodiment, driving to pass the first section 111 to the sixth section 113 may be performed a plurality of times for more accurate performance test evaluation of the test target robot.

Therefore, the first section 111 may be defined as the first section of the robot performance test evaluation method, the sixth section 113 may be defined as the last section of the robot performance test evaluation method, and the first section ( 111) and the sixth section 113 may be formed by the structure 110.

In the performance test evaluation method of the robot, each evaluation section may be selectively arranged in consideration of various specifications of the robot under test, or the arrangement order of structures in each evaluation section may be changed along the driving direction 100a of the robot under test.

FIG. 4 is a view showing the first and sixth sections of FIG. 3, FIG. 5 is a view showing the second section of FIG. 3, FIG. 6 is a view showing the third section of FIG. 3, and FIG. 7 is a view of FIG. 3 A diagram showing a fourth section of , and FIG. 8 is a diagram showing a fifth section of FIG. 3 .

It will be described with reference to FIGS. 4 to 8 below. The numerical limitations described in each section do not determine the limits of each section, and the numerical limitations may be set differently depending on the specifications, performance, conditions, etc. of the robot under test.

4 is a view showing a structure 110 forming a first section 111 and a sixth section 113, the horizontal width 1101 of the structure 110 may be formed to be about 14 m, and the structure 110 The vertical width 1103 of ) may be formed to be about 12.5 m, and the highest height of the structure 110 may be formed to be about 17 m.

A first section 111 may be formed on one side of the central portion of the structure 110, and a sixth section 113 may be formed on the other side. The first section 111 and the sixth section 113 may be formed at different ramp angles toward the central portion of the structure.

Therefore, the degree of inclination of the robot under test when passing through the ramp formed in the first section 111 and the degree of inclination when passing through the ramp formed in the sixth section 113 are different from each other.

More specifically, the structure 110 may have the above-described highest height (about 17 m) formed in the central portion, and a predetermined slope may be formed along both directions in the central portion. An inclination angle formed from the central portion toward the first section 111 may be about 15 degrees, and an inclination angle formed from the central portion toward the sixth section 113 may be formed to be about 31 degrees.

5 is a view showing a structure forming a second section 130, and the second section 130 is a section for evaluating a performance test when the robot under test runs on sand. The horizontal width of the structure for creating the sand-covered environment may be formed to be about 4 m and the vertical width may be formed to be about 10 m. The depth of the sand covered on the structure may be greater than or equal to about 50 mm, and the diameter of particles constituting the sand may be less than about 2 mm.

6 is a view showing a structure forming a third section 150, and the third section 150 is a section for evaluating a performance test when a robot under test drives on a rock. The horizontal width of the structure for creating the rock-covered environment may be formed to be about 4 m and the vertical width may be formed to be about 10 m. The depth of the rock covered by the structure may be formed to be about 50 mm or more, and the diameter of the particles constituting the rock may be formed within a range of 100 mm to 200 mm.

That is, the second section 130 and the third section 130 may create different environments for performance test evaluation of the robot in rough terrain environments.

7 is a view showing a structure forming a fourth section 170, and the fourth section 170 is a section for evaluating a performance test when the robot under test travels on water. The horizontal width of the structure for creating the environment of the running section submerged in water may be formed to be about 4 m and the vertical width may be formed to be about 10 m.

The depth of the water contained in the structure may be formed between 0.2 m and 0.5 m, the highest depth of the water may be formed in the central portion of the structure, and the maximum depth may be formed at about 0.5 m.

A downhill path may be formed with a predetermined inclination angle from one end of the structure where the fourth section 170 starts along the driving direction of the robot under test toward the central part of the structure where the maximum depth is formed. An uphill length may be formed forming a predetermined inclination angle from the central portion of the structure to be formed toward the other end of the structure where the fourth section 170 ends.

8 is a view showing a structure forming a fifth section 190, the fifth section 190 is for evaluating the performance test when the robot under test ascends stairs (upward stairs) or descends stairs (downward stairs). is a section

The horizontal width of the structure for creating the environment of the stair running section can be formed to be about 4m, the vertical width can be formed to about 10m, the highest height of the structure can be formed in the central part, and the highest height is formed to about 1.4m. It can be.

In the central part of the structure where the highest height is formed, an upward stairs section and a downward stairs section may be formed along the driving direction of the robot under test.

The height of each step forming the fifth section 190 may be in the range of 0.16m to 0.18m, and the depth may be in the range of 0.26m to 0.3m. The depth of the stairs may mean the width of the stairs in a vertical direction.

9 is a diagram showing a performance test evaluation method of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIGS. 10 and 11 are diagrams showing a performance test evaluation method of a disaster response robot according to an embodiment of the present invention. .

It will be described with reference to FIGS. 9 to 11 below.

Referring to FIG. 9 , the performance evaluation method of the disaster response robot according to the present embodiment may include an initial setting step (S10), a mobility evaluation step (S30), and a reliability evaluation step (S50).

The initial setting step (S10) is a step of determining whether the robot to be tested is located at a pre-specified position, and the pre-specified position may mean a position for starting performance evaluation and a position for ending performance evaluation. That is, in this embodiment, the performance evaluation can be completed by starting from the predetermined position, passing through the above-mentioned sections, and then returning to the predetermined position. Driving starting from a location, passing through a plurality of sections, and then returning to a pre-designated location may be performed a plurality of times.

In the mobility evaluation step (S30), whether or not the robot to be tested has passed each section, the effective speed after the robot to be tested has passed through the sections is calculated, and then the result is compared with the average effective speed set during manufacturing of the robot to be tested, and a predetermined It may mean a step of evaluating the task of the robot under test by comparing the number of reaching the position (N), which means the number of times of returning to the designated position after passing through the sections in the position, and the number of predetermined thresholds (M). there is.

The above-described average effective speed and the predetermined threshold number of times (M) may be set differently according to the specifications, performance, conditions, etc. of the robot to be tested.

In the reliability evaluation step (S50), the effective speed calculated in the mobility evaluation step (S30) is compared with the preset average effective speed of the test target robot for each critical number of times (M) corresponding to the number of arrivals (N), thereby performing performance that is performed multiple times. At each round of the test, the ability of the robot to be tested can be evaluated.

Referring to FIG. 10 in more detail, the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot according to the present embodiment may be preceded by a step of defining a robot to be tested (S11). The step (S11) can be defined as a step of presetting the robot to be tested because it can be manufactured with various specifications, performances, and conditions due to its characteristics. As an example, the average effective speed of the robot to be tested may be set in this step (S11).

After setting the specifications, performance, conditions, etc. of the test target robot (S11), setting a section of the test target environment (S13) may be performed.

In the step S13, an evaluation section for performance test evaluation of the robot under test may be selected. More specifically, in this embodiment, at least one of the sections (first to sixth sections) created by a plurality of different environments may be set for performance test evaluation of the robot under test. The selection of the above-described section may be set in consideration of environments necessary for the robot under test to perform its mission.

After setting the section of the test environment (S13), a setting step (S15) of determining whether or not the test target robot is within a pre-specified location may be performed.

In the setting step (S15), the predetermined location may mean a point where the robot under test is located to perform a performance test and a point where the robot under test returns after passing through all sections. That is, as described above, the test target robot returns to its original position after passing through a plurality of sections prepared for the performance test, and the performance test ends or the performance test of the next round proceeds. It may mean a position where the performance test of the robot starts and a position where the performance test of the robot to be tested ends.

In the setting step (S15), if the test target robot is not within the pre-specified location, the step of setting the test target robot's environment section (S13) may be performed, and only when the test target robot is located at the pre-specified location, the test target The performance test of the robot may proceed.

In the setting step (S15), when the test target robot is in a predetermined position, a performance test of the test target robot is performed, and a step (S31) of evaluating the mobility of the test target robot may be performed. In the step (S31), the robot under test may start from a pre-specified location and drive the sections set in the section setting step (S13) of the environment.

After the mobility evaluation step (S31) is performed, a task evaluation step (S33) may be performed.

In the task evaluation step (S33), the number of times N that the robot under test arrives at the designated position after starting from the designated position may be determined. That is, in order to evaluate the performance test of the robot under test, the robot under test may run a course consisting of at least one or more evaluation sections multiple times, and in this step, it may be determined whether or not the robot under test has completed the Nth course. . That is, in this step, it may be determined whether or not the robot to be tested has passed the Nth evaluation section.

In the task evaluation step (S33), the robot under test may pass through sections created by a plurality of different environments and then repeatedly perform course driving to reach the designated position. At least one of the sections created by the different environments may include a ramp.

In the task evaluation step (S33), if the robot to be tested fails to pass the Nth evaluation section, that is, if it does not reach a pre-specified position, it may be determined whether the robot to be tested corresponds to a failure condition (S34). The failure conditions include various conditions in which the robot under test does not pass at least one or more of the above-described evaluation sections.

In the above step (S34), if the robot under test falls under the failure condition, it is determined whether mobility evaluation can be performed (S36). After elements such as the continued time are stored (S37, time-stamped note), the mobility evaluation of the robot under test (S31) may be performed again. The starting point of the mobility evaluation (S31), which proceeds again, may be set to a section in which a failure condition occurs or the predetermined location (starting point and ending point) may be set.

On the other hand, if the test target robot does not fall under the failure condition in the step of determining whether or not it corresponds to the failure condition (S34), it may be processed as a waiver (S75) of the standard evaluation test. This is because in this case, the robot to be tested did not complete the evaluation section even though it did not fall under the failure condition.

In addition, even if the mobility evaluation of the test target robot cannot be performed in the step of determining whether mobility evaluation can be performed (S36), the standard evaluation test can be treated as withdrawal (S75). This is because in this case, the test subject robot cannot complete the evaluation section any longer because it corresponds to the case in which the mission performance (passing of the evaluation section) of the test target robot is no longer possible due to the above-mentioned failure condition.

On the other hand, in the task evaluation step (S33), when the robot to be tested passes the Nth evaluation section, determining whether the number of passes (N, number of position arrivals) in all sections is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold number (M) ( S35) may be performed.

This step (S35) is a step of setting the end point of the evaluation of the task. It may be set in consideration of specifications, performance, conditions, etc. of the test target robot set in the target robot definition step (S11).

Therefore, in this step (S35), if the number of arrivals (N) is less than the threshold number (M), the step (S31) of evaluating the mobility of the robot under test may be performed again, and the above steps may be repeatedly performed. .

In addition, when the number of arrivals at the position (N) is greater than or equal to the threshold number (M) in the step S35, reliability evaluation steps (S51 and S53) may be performed to evaluate the reliability of the task performance. In the reliability evaluation steps (S51, S53), the effective speed is calculated using the distance of the evaluation section for each position arrival number (N) and the time required for the test robot to start from the designated position and reach the designated position ( In step S51), the reliability of the task performance capability of the robot under test may be evaluated by comparing the average effective speed of the robot under test set in advance for each critical number of times M corresponding to the number of arrivals N in step S53. In the reliability evaluation step, the reliability may be evaluated based on the time considering the above-described average effective speed, and furthermore, the reliability may be evaluated based on other factors such as the safety of posture and work performance capability in addition to time.

As described above, the average effective speed of the robot to be tested is set by the specification, performance, condition, etc. of the robot to be tested after being considered when manufacturing the robot to be tested, and may be preset in the step of defining the robot to be tested (S11). there is.

As described above, in the reliability evaluation steps (S51 and S53), the criterion for evaluating the reliability of the task performance ability of the test target robot is the effective speed, which is the driving distance including the sections set in the section setting (S13) of the test object environment. After calculating the expected speed of the robot under test through and the average effective speed, the measured speed is calculated through the actual time taken for each number of times (N) of the robot under test to reach the position and the traveling distance including the plurality of sections, By comparing (S53), the reliability of the robot to be tested can be evaluated.

That is, it is determined whether the evaluated reliability value (calculated effective speed) falls within the preset range (error range including the preset average effective speed) (S53), and if the reliability value falls within the preset range, the standard evaluation test is passed. (S71) processing is performed, and when the reliability value does not fall within a preset range, a standard evaluation test failure (S73) processing is performed.

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing the task evaluation step (S33) of FIG. 10 in more detail, and will be described with reference to FIG. 11 below.

The task evaluation step (S33) of this embodiment includes the step of determining whether the test target robot has reached a designated position (S331), the step of calculating the effective speed of the test target robot (S333), and the calculated effective speed of the test target robot It may include a step of comparing with the average effective speed of (S335).

The step (S331) may be performed after the mobility evaluation step (S31) of the robot under test, and is a step of determining whether the robot under test has returned after passing through all the sections from the starting point of the mobility evaluation, this step If the robot to be tested does not reach the designated position in (S331), the mobility evaluation of the robot to be tested (S31) continues, and if the robot to be tested reaches the designated position in this step (S331), the robot to be tested The effective speed of can be calculated (S333)

In the above step (S333), the effective speed of the robot to be tested is the distance of the evaluation section for each number of arrivals (N) of each position of the robot to be tested, and the time required for the robot to be tested from the designated position to reach the designated position can be calculated using

In addition, the effective speed calculated in step S333 is compared with the average effective speed of the robot to be tested (S335) to evaluate the ability of the robot to perform tasks for each course.

Although various embodiments of the present invention have been described in detail above, those skilled in the art will understand that various modifications are possible to the above-described embodiments without departing from the scope of the present invention. . Therefore, the scope of the present invention should not be limited to the described embodiments and should not be defined, and should be defined by not only the claims to be described later, but also those equivalent to these claims.

Claims (15)

In the method of evaluating the performance test of the robot,
A setting step of determining whether the robot to be tested is within a pre-specified position of the evaluation section;
a task evaluation step of determining the number of times (N) of arrival of the robot under test starting from the designated position and reaching the designated position again; and
Evaluating reliability of the test target robot when the number of arrivals at the position (N) is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold number (M); According to claim 1,
In the task evaluation step, the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that the test target robot reaches the designated position after passing through sections created by a plurality of different environments. According to claim 2,
Before the test target robot departs from the designated location, selecting at least one section among the plurality of sections; Performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot comprising a. According to claim 3,
The performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that at least one section of the plurality of sections includes a ramp. According to claim 2,
In the task evaluation step, the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that for determining the required time for the robot under test to start from the designated position and reach the designated position. According to claim 5,
The task evaluation step is a step of calculating the effective speed of the test target robot based on the required time and the distance of the evaluation section; performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that it comprises. According to claim 6,
The task evaluation step is a step of comparing the calculated effective speed with a preset average effective speed of the test target robot; the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that it further comprises. According to claim 7,
If the calculated effective speed is smaller than the average effective speed of the robot under test, it is determined whether it corresponds to a failure condition of the robot under test. According to claim 8,
In the case of the failure condition, the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that for determining whether the robot under test can travel to the designated location. According to claim 7,
When the calculated effective speed is greater than the average effective speed of the robot under test, the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that for comparing the number of arrivals to the position (N) and the threshold number (M). According to claim 1,
The step of evaluating the reliability is,
An effective speed is calculated using the distance of the evaluation section and the time required for the robot under test to reach the designated position starting from the designated position for each position arrival number (N);
The performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that for evaluating reliability by comparing the average effective speed of the test target robot set for each threshold number of times (M) corresponding to the number of arrivals (N). In the method of evaluating the performance test of the robot,
Determining whether the robot to be tested is within a predetermined position of the evaluation section;
calculating an effective speed of the robot to be tested based on the time required for the robot to be tested to start from the designated position and reach the designated position again and the distance of the evaluation section; and
Evaluating the reliability of the robot to be tested by comparing the calculated effective speed with the preset average effective speed of the robot to be tested; According to claim 12,
When the calculated effective speed is equal to or greater than the preset average effective speed, comparing the number of times the robot under test arrives at the designated position after departing from the designated position (N) with a predetermined threshold number of times (M) Characterized in that the performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot. According to claim 12,
When the calculated effective speed is smaller than the preset average effective speed, it is determined whether the test target robot corresponds to a failure condition. According to claim 12,
The evaluation section is a performance test evaluation method of the disaster response robot, characterized in that it includes sections created by a plurality of different environments.

Images