Cross-industry standard test method developments: from manufacturing to wearable robots



Manufacturing robotics is moving towards human-robot collaboration with light duty robots being used side by side with workers. Similarly, exoskeletons that are both passive (spring and counterbalance forces) and active (motor forces) are worn by humans and used to move body parts. Exoskeletons are also called ‘wearable robots’ when they are actively controlled using a computer and integrated sensing. Safety standards now allow, through risk assessment, both manufacturing and wearable robots to be used. However, performance standards for both systems are still lacking. Ongoing research to develop standard test methods to assess the performance of manufacturing robots and emergency response robots can inspire similar test methods for exoskeletons. This paper describes recent research on performance standards for manufacturing robots as well as search and rescue robots. It also discusses how the performance of wearable robots could benefit from using the same test methods.


Wearable robot Exoskeleton Cross-industry Artifact Standards Grasping 

CLC number



  1. Asín-Prieto, G., Shimoda, S., González, J., et al., 2015. Testing the generation of speed-dependent gait trajectories to control a 6DoF overground exoskeleton. LNCS, 9245: 495–501. Scholar
  2. Bostelman, R.V., 2010. International standards efforts towards safe accessibility technology for persons with disabilities: cross-industry activities. Stand. Eng.Google Scholar
  3. Bostelman, R.V., Falco, J.A., 2012. Survey of industrial ma-nipulation technologies for autonomous assembly appli-cations. NISTIR 7844, Intelligent Systems Division, Na-tional Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostelman, R.V., Hong, T.H., Messina, E.R., 2015. Intelli-gence level performance standards research for autono-mous vehicles. Int. Robot Systems Workshop, p.48–54.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, P., 2007. Revolutionizing Prosthetics 2009 Team Delivers First DARPA Limb Prototype. Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University. Scholar
  6. Dale, B., 2014. A New Industry Flexes its Servos. Scholar
  7. Falco, J.A., van Wyk, K., Messina, E., 2013. Performance Metrics and Benchmarks to Advance the State of Robotic Grasping. Scholar
  8. Falco, J.A., Marvel, J.A., Messina, E.R., 2014. A Roadmap to Advance Measurement Science in Robot Dexterity and Manipulation. NISTIR 7993, Intelligent Systems Divi-sion, Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA. Scholar
  9. Falco, J.A., van Wyk, K., Liu, S., et al., 2015. Grasping the performance: facilitating replicable performance measures via benchmarking and standardized methodol-ogies. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., 22(4): 125–136. Scholar
  10. Favetto, A., Ambrosio, E.P., Appendino, S., et al., 2012. Embedding an exoskeleton hand in the astronaut’s EVA glove: feasibility and ideas. Int. J. Aerosp. Sci., 1(4): 68–76. Scholar
  11. Fryman, J., Matthias, B., 2012. Safety of industrial robots: from conventional to collaborative applications. Proc. 7th German Conf. on Robotics, p.1–5.Google Scholar
  12. Guo, Q., Zhang, X.G., Jiang, D., et al., 2012. Hydraulic pres-sure control system simulation and performance test of lower extremity exoskeleton. LNCS, 7621: 612–620. Scholar
  13. Herr, H., 2009. Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 6: 21. Scholar
  14. Jacoff, A., 2013. Robotics Test Facility. Scholar
  15. Jacoff, A.S., Messina, E.R., Evans, J., 2001. Experiences in deploying test arenas for mobile autonomous robots. Performance Measurement for Intelligent Measurement Systems Workshop, p.1–8.Google Scholar
  16. Leber, J., 2014. A Wearable Robot Suit That Will Add Power to Your Step. Scholar
  17. Liu, X.P., Low, K.H., Yu, H.Y., 2004. Development of a lower extremity exoskeleton for human performance enhance-ment. Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, p.3889–3894. Scholar
  18. Maciejasz, P., Eschweiler, J., Gerlach-Hahn, K., et al., 2014. A survey on robotic devices for upper limb rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 11: 3. Scholar
  19. Marvel, J., Bostelman, R.V., Bagchi, S., et al., 2014. Perfor-mance of Collaborative Robot Systems Project. Scholar
  20. McDonald, G., 2014. ‘Aliens’-Style Exoskeleton Gives Shipbuilders a Boost. Scholar
  21. Messina, E., Jacoff, A., Scholtz, J., et al., 2005. Statement of Requirements for Urban Search and Rescue Robot Per-formance Standards. Scholar
  22. Repperger, D.W., Remis, S.J., Merrill, G., 1990. Performance measures of teleoperation using an exoskeleton device. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation. p.552–557. Scholar
  23. Sarakoglou, I., Kousidou, S., Tsagarakis, N.G., et al., 2007. Exoskeleton-based exercisers for the disabilities of the upper arm and hand. In: Kommu, S.S. (Ed.), Rehabilita-tion Robotics. InTech, London, UK. Scholar
  24. Schabowsky, C.N., Godfrey, S.B., Holley, R.J., et al., 2010. Development and pilot testing of HEXORR: Hand EX-Oskeleton Rehabilitation Robot. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 7: 36. Scholar
  25. Stinson, L., 2014. Navy’s Exoskeleton Could Make Workers 20 Times More Productive. Scholar
  26. Szondy, D., 2015. Harmony Rehab Robot Guides Recovery. Scholar
  27. Tucker, P., 2015. The Very Real Future of Iron Man Suits for the Navy. Scholar
  28. Wolff, J., Parker, C., Borisoff, J., et al., 2014. A survey of stakeholder perspectives on exoskeleton technology. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 11: 169. Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA
  2. 2.Le2i, Université de BourgogneDijonFrance
  3. 3.College of EngineeringQatar UniversityDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations