Proceedings of the Dynamic 

Measurement and Control

for Autonomous

Manufacturing Workshop

Edited by: 

Tsai Hong 

Roger Eastman 

Roger Bostelman 

Hui-Min Huang

U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Intelligent Systems Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

and 

Brian McNorris 

SICK, Inc.

NISTIR 7575
 

NISTIR 7575

Proceedings of the Dynamic 

Measurement and Control

for Autonomous

Manufacturing Workshop

Edited by: 

Tsai Hong 

Roger Eastman 

Roger Bostelman 

Hui-Min Huang

U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Intelligent Systems Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8230 

and 

Brian McNorris 

SICK, Inc

May 2009

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Gary Locke, Secretary 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Patrick Gallagher, Acting Director
 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DYNAMIC 

MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL FOR 

AUTONOMOUS MANUFACTURING 

WORKSHOP 

Edited by: 

Tsai Hong, Roger Eastman, Roger Bostelman, Hui-Min Huang 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Brian McMorris 

SICK, Inc. 

Dates: 

October 10 - 11, 2007 

Location: 

Loyola College of Maryland 

Columbia, Maryland 

Sponsors: 

NIST, Loyola College in Maryland, and SICK, Inc. 
1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

DISCLAIMER ........................................................................................................................... 2 

POLICY ..................................................................................................................................... 2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 3 

1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5 

2. WORKSHOP INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 6 

2.1 Participating Organizations ..................................................................................... 6 

2.2 Workshop Agenda ................................................................................................... 7 

3. WORKSHOP RESULTS ................................................................................................. 10 

3.1 Day 1 Breakout Sessions Outcome ....................................................................... 10 

A. Requirements for dynamic 6DOF metrology for automated general assembly .... 10 

B. Control and perception needs for automated guided vehicles (AGVs) ................. 13 

C. Information needs for real-time process monitoring and control ......................... 15 

D. Automated manipulators, their subcomponents and controls needed for dynamic 

manufacturing ................................................................................................................... 17 

3.2 Day 2 Wrap-up Discussion and Results ................................................................ 20 

A. Needs identified during the workshop: .................................................................. 20 

B. Action Items and Associated Volunteers ............................................................... 20 

4. INITIAL ACTION ITEMS RESULTS ............................................................................ 22 

4.1 Formulating New Projects for Identified Critical Needs ....................................... 22 

4.2 Further Investigation on Industrial Needs ............................................................. 22 

4.3 Identification of Current Standards ....................................................................... 23 

4.3.1. Terminology and system characteristics ........................................................... 23 

4.3.2. Safety and performance .................................................................................... 24 

4.3.3. 3D metrology .................................................................................................... 25 

5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 27 

APPENDIX: WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS .................................................................... 28 
2 

DISCLAIMER 

Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text or identified in certain 

illustrations. When permissions for publication were provided to National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), the presentations of the participating companies or 

products are included in the Appendix to facilitate communications among the participants. 

In no case does such an identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the NIST, 

nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

The opinions expressed in this Workshop Report are those of the workshop participants’ and 

are not the official opinions of NIST. 

POLICY 

It is NIST’s policy to us e the International System of Units (SI). However, som e of the units 

used in the workshop presentations and papers are in U.S. custom ary units because of the 

intended audience. Conversions from the U. S. customary units to SI have been m ade where 

possible. 
3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Dynamic Measurement and Control for Autonomous Manufacturing workshop was held 

on October 10 - 11, 2007 at the Columbia Graduate Center of Loyola College in Maryland. 

Forty-eight people attended the one and one-half day event which was moderated by Roger 

Bostelman and Tsai Hong of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with 

assistance from Roger Eastman of Loyola and cosponsored by Brian McMorris of SICK, Inc. 

Attendees included current and potential users of autonomous manufacturing equipment, 

manufacturers of general assembly equipment, robotic arms and automated guided vehicles, 

and of machine vision and three-dimensional (3D) sensors, system integrators, government 

representatives from NIST and National Science Foundation (NSF), and academics with 

research specialties in computer vision and robotics. 

The workshop was a part of an effort by NIST Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) 

to assist industry in articulating the general requirements for advanced automation in 

manufacturing. The stated goal of the workshop was: 

"To collect community input on requirements for the operation of next generation 

manufacturing robots, automated guided vehicles (AGVs), and intelligent assist devices in 

dynamic, changing environments. Specific topics to be considered are perception needs for 

dynamic visual servoing in autonomous assembly and requirements for the safe and effective 

operation of robot arms and AGVs in dynamic environments." 

Current robot and AGV installations are generally rigid, sensor-poor and expensive to 

reconfigure. Standards, metrics, and measures are required to assist general assembly 

manufacturers in introducing new technologies and deploying flexible, sensor-rich systems 

suitable for dynamic operating environments. These new systems could enable equipment reuse, fewer dedicated installations, and faster and more flexible plant reconfiguration, resulting 

in significant cost savings and higher productivity. Industry, academia, and government 

research institute input and collaboration will enable NIST to articulate requirements and to 

explore methodologies to assist the manufacturers in evaluating and validating new 

technologies. 

The first morning of the workshop consisted of a series of presentations given by 

manufacturers highlighting their needs, by academics on the state of current research in 

relevant areas, and by sensor vendors on the relevant capabilities. Also presented was the 

status of ASTM E57 3D Imaging System standards development efforts. In the afternoon, the 

attendees participated in four breakout sessions on particular challenges before reassembling 

to share the results. The focuses of the break out groups are 

A. dynamic metrology and perception on the assembly line, 

B. needs for enhanced robot control systems to operate in dynamic environments, 

C. the requirements for advanced AGV use in dynamic environments, and 

D. real-time sensing to validate and update virtual simulations. 
4 

Most of these topics originally arose in the Fall 2006 Smart Assembly Workshop held at 

NIST. Workshop discussions continued the next morning in a plenary setting to summarize 

and to develop action items. The results are summarized below: 

1. Perception systems for automation in dynamic environments must be comprehensive, 

pervasive and redundant. In scenarios such as a robot grasping a moving part off an assembly 

line, a single, narrowly focused sensor will not be sufficient. A single sensor may fail, may 

not be robust enough for the task, may not sense other objects that could become obstacles, 

may not be able to adequately sense humans in the workspace to prevent accidents, may have 

the wrong wavelength or modality to be useful in a task, or may have a fixed resolution while 

the task requires sensing at multiple resolutions. Perception for such scenarios will require 

sensor fusion and control logic to facilitate arbitration between multiple subsystems. Sensory 

modeling must be improved so that the performance can be compared and evaluated. 

2. While most participants agreed on the general nature and need for next generation robots 

and perception systems, the group wanted to see more specifically defined and challenging 

scenarios to focus future discussions and to direct future research, much as the DARPA Grand 

Challenge does for mobile robotics. This issue was established as a follow-up action item for 

this group. Related to this issue, common themes in the breakout session discussions were the 

need for terminology standards, high level robot control vocabularies; common interfaces that 

support operations in dynamic environments, and articulation of requirements to identify 

standard useful tasks. 

3. The need for performance standards and measurement techniques for localization was 

echoed by multiple breakout session groups. Dynamic metrology is required to provide 

reference measurements so that the performance of the perception systems can be evaluated 

for safety, for AGV navigation, and for moving part manipulation in changing environments. 

To judge whether an AGV or a robot arm can perform a task which involves motion with 

respect to a second moving object, we need techniques for calibrating and measuring absolute 

and relative motions. 

4. Moving to next generation robotics with safe and reliable performance in dynamic 

environments will require the development of an entire cycle of commercial interests that can 

produce the components to be integrated into next generation assembly lines. As such, 

system integrators and standard specifications are needed for the purposes of component 

interfacing and test and evaluation. This concept and technology, in its entirety, is young and 

evolving, therefore, may take time to mature. Also hindering the progress is a chicken-andegg problem with new technology, because few companies can afford to invest in research or 

the application of a technology until the technology has been demonstrated as successful. To 

alleviate the dilemma, participants proposed to use testbeds and high fidelity simulation 

systems so that the technology can be validated before commercialization should begin. 

5. Software is an important element of the perception systems for the control the motion of 

robots, AGVs and other automation devices. Capabilities are required to validate the software 

to ensure safety and to achieve reliable performance. 
5 

1. BACKGROUND 

In most manufacturing assembly and material transport environments, parts are delivered on 

moving lines to be picked up and attached to the base assemblies, which are usually also 

moving. Currently, an automated facility must be equipped with expensive, custom designed 

mechanisms, such as specific bowl feeders and conveyances and fixtures to control the 

motion and the positioning of the parts. Systems that are customized for certain current needs 

are typically not scalable enough to handle next generation manufacturing that features 

unstructured and dynamic environment. Such a new environment requires systems that are 

real-time controllable, agile, adaptable, flexible, and reconfigurable. Also required are nextgeneration safety technologies that advance human-robot collaboration to a new level. 

New technologies, including advanced perception and advanced planning and motion control 

are required to achieve this next generation manufacturing capability. It is key to have sensor 

technology that can perceive the position of a part under unconstrained motion and either 

inspect the part or direct a robot to manipulate it while still in motion. The technology must 

also be able to perceive possibly co-existent humans and other moving objects and generate 

corresponding safety actions. To enable this functionality, a method is needed to 

continuously measure the six-degree of freedom (6DOF) location and orientation of an 

unconstrained moving object. Existing affordable pose measurement systems are too 

inaccurate, brittle and slow. No standards exist to evaluate the accuracy of such systems or to 

guide users in their adoption. There are a number of candidate non-contact technologies with 

good potential including stereo cameras, laser triangulation, structured light, interferometry, 

scanning ladar, flash ladar and monocular geometric matching smart cameras, but there is a 

lack of common terminology and common vendor accuracy measurements leading to 

confusion in user comparisons and marketplace hurdles. As a result, few are in use and many 

manufacturing tasks are not automated or make use of humans and assistive devices. A 

reference standard for dynamic 6DOF pose measurement would advance the technology by 

establishing metrics for the evaluation of these systems and techniques. In addition to 

automated assembly tasks on a traditional line, advanced perception systems would be useful 

in material transport and other industrial tasks associated with manufacturing. 

Terminology standardization is recognized as a means of facilitating next generation dynamic 

manufacturing. Given the size, rich history, and ongoing research and development efforts of 

manufacturing industry, there is abundant vocabulary that is either existent or evolving. For 

example, practitioners begin to use such terms as Next Generation Robots, but with different 

meanings. Some use the term to mean robots with the capabilities of higher payloads or 

inherent safety design. Standardization can be beneficial. In addition, there are terms that are 

developed in the defense and homeland security unmanned systems (UMS) community that 

can be explored for the manufacturing automation purposes as the industry is moving more 

and more toward autonomous operations and intelligent manufacturing for the sake of safety 

and productivity. The Terminology part of the NIST Autonomy Levels for Unmanned 

Systems (ALFUS) Framework [B.h.1] presents these opportunities that should be worthy of 

exploration. 

The ability to measure the positions and orientations of components as they move would 
6 

result in considerable cost savings in applications such as automobile manufacturing by 

replacing expensive fixed installations with more intelligent combinations of sensing and 

automation. The ability would also enable greater flexibility and adaptability for U.S. 

manufacturers and better enable them to compete with foreign firms where greater 

investments have been made recently in robotic technology. There would be substantial, 

immediate benefits in industry segments like automotive and airplane assembly, but the 

technology is fundamental and could be widely applied. A reference standard would also 

assist the academic community in establishing clear performance metrics for research systems 

and algorithms. 

2. WORKSHOP INFORMATION 

2.1 Participating Organizations 

Sponsoring Organizations 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Loyola College in Maryland 

SICK, Inc. 

End Users – Presentation Topics 

General Motors – Autonomous Assembly 

Washington Post - Newspaper Manufacturer 

US Postal Service - Distribution 

General Dynamics Electric Boat – Shipbuilding 

SICK, Inc. - Next Generation Robots 

Ford Motor Company – Process Modeling 

Academics and Government – Presentation Topics 

Carnegie Mellon University – AGV Control 

Purdue University - Dynamic Visual Servoing 

SRI International – Visual Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (VSLAM) 

NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory - 3D Imaging Systems Standards 

 

Sensor, Robot and AGV Manufacturers – Current and New Products 

Sensors: 

 SICK, Inc. – Non-Contact Measurement 

 Automated Precision, Inc. – 6 Degrees of Freedom (DOF) Measurement 

 TYZX – Stereo Imaging 

 Shafi (USA) – Stereo Imaging 

 Mesa Imaging – Range Camera 

 

Robot Arms: 

 Barrett – WAM Robot Arm 

 FANUC Robotics 

 Vecna – Bear Robot 
7 

Automated Guided Vehicles:

 Egemin Automation – Automated Guided Vehicles 

 FMC – Automated Guided Vehicles 

 

Demonstrations of Products 

 Mesa Imaging – Range Camera 

 API - 6D measurement system 

 SICK - laser measurement 

 TYZX – 3D Stereo Vision Platform 

 Barret - robot arm 

2.2 Workshop Agenda 

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

8:00-8:20 AM Welcoming Remarks (5 min. each) – Room 230/210 

Opening Remarks: Roger Eastman, Professor 

Loyola College in Maryland 

NIST, Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL), Intelligent Systems Division 

Overview: Al Wavering, Acting Deputy Director, MEL 

Overview: Roger Bostelman, Manager 

Intelligent Control of Mobility Systems Program 

8:20 – 10:00 AM End Users (15 min. each + 5 min. Q/A, set-up) 

What are the main, prioritized manufacturing issues? 

 End User 1 – Automobile Manufacturer 

Roland Menassa, General Motors – Autonomous Assembly 

 End User 2 – Newspaper Manufacturer 

 Conrad Rehill, Washington Post 

 End User 3 – Distribution 

 Joyce Guthrie, USPS 

 End User 4 – Shipbuilding 

Ken Fast, GDEB (presented by Roger Bostelman, NIST) 

 End User/Facilitator 5 – Next Generation Robots 

 Brian McMorris, SICK, Inc. 

10:00 - 10:20 AM Q&A / Discussion 

10:20 – 10:30 AM Break 
8 

10:30 – 11:10 AM Academia and Government (10 min. each) 

Past / present research 

 Carnegie Mellon University, George Kantor – AGV Control 

 Purdue University, Avi Kak - Dynamic Visual Servoing 

 SRI International, Moti Agrawal - VSLAM 

 NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Alan Lytle - Standards 

11:10 – 11:30 AM Q&A / Discussion 

11:30 – 12:15 PM Sensors, Robots and AGV’s - (3-5 min. each) 

Current/New Products to Support Dynamic Measurement and Control 

for Autonomous Manufacturing 

 Sensors: 

 SICK, Brian McMorris 

 Automated Precision, Inc., Tom McLean 

 TYZX, Gaile G. Gordon 

 Shaf i (USA), Adil Shafi 

 Mesa Imaging – Range Camera, Peter Hunt 

 Robot Arms: Barrett, FANUC Robotics and Vecna, Claude Dinsmoor 

 Automated Guided Vehicles: Egemin Automation and FMC 

12:15 - 1:45 PM Lunch and Exhibits – Room 230/210 

 Demos of products: – Rooms 208, 251 

- Mesa Imaging – Range Camera 

- API - 6D measurement system 

- SICK - laser measurement 

- TYZX – 3D Stereo Vision Platform 

- Barret - robot arm 

1:45 AM – 1:55 PM Charge to Breakouts Groups 

Roger Eastman, Breakout information 

2:00 – 3:45 PM Breakouts 

Breakout Groups to Deliberate and Draft Research Recommendations and Performance 

Metrics Requirements 

A. Requirements for dynamic 6DOF metrology for automated general assembly 

 Moderators: Roger Eastman, Loyola University and Tsai Hong, NIST 

 Room : 262 

B. Control and perception needs for automated guided vehicles 

 Moderators: Roger Bostelman and Stephen Balakirsky, NIST 

 Room : 270 
9 

C. Perception needs for real-time process monitoring and control 

 Moderators: Mike Shneier and Hui-Min Huang, NIST 

 Room: 280 

D. Robot arms, their subcomponents and controls needed for dynamic 

 m anufacturing 

 Moderators: Fred Proctor and John Horst, NIST 

 Room: 272 

3:45 – 4:00 PM Break 

4:00 – 5:00 PM Plenary Session – Room 230/210 

 Breakout groups to present summaries 

Thursday, October 11, 2007

8:15 - 8:30 AM Welcoming Remarks 

Roger Bostelman, NIST 

8:30 - 9:00 AM End User 6 – Automobile Manufacturer 

Dimitar Filev, Ford – Process modeling 

9:00 – 10:30 AM End User Panel Discussion: 

Where To Go From Here: Standards and Technology Roadmap 

10:30 – 10:45 AM Break 

10:45 – 11:45 AM Academic Panel Discussion: 

Where To Go From Here: Research Roadmap 

11:45 – 12:00 AM Wrap-up Summary 

Tsai Hong, NIST 

Where to go from here: Report and other follow on activities 

12:00 PM Adjourn 
10 

3. WORKSHOP RESULTS 

3.1 Day 1 Breakout Sessions Outcome 

The workshop organizers identified the following critical issues to be addressed by the 

participants: 

A. dynamic metrology and perception on the assembly line, 

B. needs for enhanced robot control systems to operation in dynamic environments, 

C. the requirements for advanced AGV use in dynamic environments, and 

D. real-time sensing to validate and update virtual simulations. 

Four breakout groups were formed correspondingly. Each was assigned a central theme that 

highlighted a key issue in the envisioned dynamic manufacturing environment. Also provided 

were a corresponding vision and a preliminary information statement intended to foster 

discussions. Participants were assigned to the groups according to their affiliations. The 

objective is to have vendors, users, and developers evenly distributed in the breakout sessions 

to facilitate well-rounded viewpoints of the issues. Note that the actual participations were 

different from the assigned as some participants felt that they had contributions to offer for the 

other groups and attended multiple sessions. 

The group activities and results were described in the following sections. 

A. Requirements for dynamic 6DOF metrology for automated general 

assembly 

Moderators: Roger Eastman, Loyola College in Maryland and Tsai Hong, NIST 

Group Assignments: 

Name Organization 

Jane Shi General Motors (GM) 

Jonathan St. Clair Boeing 

Peyush Jain Goddard Space Flight Center 

Steve Freedman SICK 

Peter Kamp SICK Germany 

Kam Lau Automated Precision, Inc 

Zaifeng Chen Automated Precision, Inc 

Dave Strzegowski General Dynamics Robotic Systems (GDRS) 

Jamie Nichol Vecna Technologies 

Roger Eastman Loyola Univ. 

Avi Kak Purdue University 

Tsai Hong NIST 

Daniel Dementhon National Science Foundation 
11 

Information Provided Prior to the Workshop 

Vision

To achieve flexible and reconfigurable automation of manufacturing processes through 

sensor technology that can perceive the poses of a part in motion by dynamic 6DOF pose 

measurement. 

Preliminary information to foster discussion:

In many manufacturing assembly environments, parts are delivered on moving lines and 

must be picked up and attached to the corresponding part being manufactured, which is 

also moving. Current technology typically requires the line to stop while an action is 

performed or a measurement taken. To achieve flexible and reconfigurable automation of 

assembly processes, it would help to have sensor technology that can dynamically 

perceive the pose of a part, in 6DOF. What issues may be involved in using improved or 

advanced sensor technologies to achieve accurate and robust 6DOF measurements? Are 

current sensor technologies up to the task? Where are technological advances needed? In 

new sensors? In the improvement of current sensors through factors such as advanced 

resolution and frame rate? In improved algorithms for motion and pose analysis? Will the 

solution require the fusion of data from multiple sensors? 

Results of 6 DOF Metrology Group Discussions 

During their discussion, the workshop participants listed the following elements as important 

to the development and success of the envisioned new technology. 

Roadblocks and Challenges 

These elements were determined to be problems faced by the new technology: 

 Advanced 6DOF perception is a young technology, in its initial phases and with 

maturity perhaps 10 years away, and will face a question of economic viability. 

 An entire commercial ecosystem will be required, involving sensor manufacturers, 

system integrations, robots manufacturers, standards organizations, and others. 

 A successful system will need to exhibit continuous adaptation to changing conditions, 

as such, the system will have to be very complex, hence very difficult and expensive 

to develop. 

 A successful system will need to be robust and have clearly specified capabilities and 

limitations. The extremely large numbers of possible parts that may be needed and 

situations that may occur in the envisioned dynamic and unstructured manufacturing 

environments will make this new technology difficult to achieve. 

Concrete Scenarios

The participants put together a few cases of interest to manufacturers for the phased 

development and evaluation of 6DOF sensors. The scenarios are listed in order of difficulty: 

1. First case: mating of two rigid parts under dynamic conditions, as typically 

encountered in automotive general assembly. 

2. Second case: mating of a flexible part, such as a hose, to a moving rigid part. 
12 

3. Third case: mating of parts, rigid or not, that would involve complex path planning, 

such as an attachment inside a vehicle or base assembly. 

4. Fourth case: manipulation of non-rigid attachments associated with parts, such as an 

electronic automotive part with a number of wiring leads attached. 

Solutions

The group listed the following characteristics as important to a successful advanced 

perception solution: 

 A successful 6DOF perception system should be comprehensive, pervasive, 

redundant, multi-level and multi-resolution. Such a system can perceive an entire 

scene, sense the position of a part over a wide range of distances, and be robust against 

the isolated failure of components or sensors. 

 A successful sensor system that is faster and more accurate might be a substitute for 

more intelligence, as better information about the world can reduce the requirements 

for reasoning. 

 A successful perception system should be a part of an overall solution, balanced with 

other concerns. For example, the need for more accurate sensing during a robotic pickup operation may be mitigated by improving the compliance of the grippers, allowing 

less precise sensing. 

What types of sensors?

The group produced an initial listing of the categories of sensors that are likely to be used in a 

solution, shown below: 

 Single camera 

 Multiple cameras (stereo) 

 Range sensors 

 Structured light 

 Laser scanning 

 Flash ladar 

 Force/torque sensors 

Research needs

The group considered areas in which new research will be required to solve the problem. The 

following are its findings: 

 Research should be conducted in the use of multiple, heterogeneous sensors, including 

fusing sensor data, enabling cooperation among sensors, and arbitrating between 

sensors with conflicting data. 

 Research should be conducted in the modeling of sensor performance in static and 

dynamic environments. Research should also be conducted in the subsequent 

estimation methods of the sensory measurement confidence levels. 

Sensor Requirements/Metrics

While the number of possible manufacturing applications is very large and hard to easily 

characterize, the group made some initial progress in the area of spatial and temporal 

tolerances, as described below: 

 For general assembly, the position of an object should be measured to about 0.32cm 
13 

(1/8 in). 

 For specialized assembly tasks, these tolerances may be tightened to 1/4000cm 

(1/1000 in). 

 The latency of the sensor system should be minimal, ideally near 0. All things equal, a 

higher sampling rate is better. 

 The performance of a sensor system should be commensurate with the motion 

statistics of the manufacturing environment, taking into account range, velocity and 

accelerations. 

Standards Needs

 The pose of a part needs to be measured with a specified standard deviation with 

respect to each of the 6 degrees of freedom when the line is moving at a given speed 

with specified statistical properties. 

B. Control and perception needs for automated guided vehicles (AGVs) 

Moderators: Roger Bostelman and Stephen Balakirsky, NIST 

Group Assignments: 

Name Organization 

James Wells GM 

Joyce Guthrie USPS 

Brian McMorris SICK 

Peter Hunt Mesa Imaging 

Joe Stanford Automated Precision, Inc 

Gaile G. Gordon TYZX 

William T. Townsend Barrett Technology 

Mark Longacre FMC 

Brad Byle Egemin Automation 

Andreas Hofmann Vecna Technologies 

Moti Agrawal SRI International 

George Kantor CMU 

Roger Bostelman NIST 

Steve Balakirsky NIST 

Information Provided Prior to the Workshop 

Vision

To achieve improved AGVs that can be more rapidly deployed and can operate in 

dynamic, unstructured environments 

Preliminary information to foster discussion:

In their current form, AGVs are useful but limited on the tasks that they can perform. 

They are not able to access all unstructured areas of a plant, may require particular plant 

floor design to accommodate them, and may need special fixtures for loading and 

unloading. The problems become more difficult when people, parts and a mixture of 

AGVs are moving in the environment. What issues must be solved before the technology 
14 

is universal, flexible and robust enough to support dynamic manufacturing? What are the 

issues in drive systems, in absolute and dynamic positioning systems, and in AGV–

coordination among themselves, with central systems, and with humans? What are the 

issues in modeling and simulation, such as simulating the simultaneous motions of a fleet 

of AGVs to achieve high factory efficiencies? Are new, radical designs needed to perform 

required tasks, such as motion in spaces design primarily for humans or in carrying 

manipulators for tasks like installing a wiper blade on a moving automotive assembly 

line? 

Results of 6 DOF Metrology Group Discussions 

During their discussion, the workshop participants listed the following elements as important 

to the development and success of the technology: 

Roadblocks

The following elements were determined to be problems and questions faced by the new 

technology: 

 A useful AGV must be capable of localization, finding its location relative to a map 

well. Questions related to localization were determined to be: 

o What is the best use of an internal GPS for absolute positioning and mapping? 

o What is the process to find a vehicle location with respect to a known point 

(localization)? 

o What tolerance is needed for the dynamic measurements? Would an accuracy or 

repeatability of 10 mm be adequate? 

o Will localization be achieved with multiple sensors or one “magic” sensor? 

o Is there a need for retrofitting current facilities with localization capabilities to 

enable them to handle unstructured environments? For example, is there a need to 

convert from a rigid set of markers/tracks, installed on the floor or at other places, 

to a flexible AGV system with dynamic localization capabilities? If so, what 

would be the cost? 

 Advanced AGVs will need to have functionality that meets user demand and costs that 

are affordable. Questions are: 

o What’s keeping users from using more AGV’s, AGC’s (smart-carts), and 

forklifts/tuggers? Is there a chicken-and-egg problem, where apparent lack of 

demand is holding back development? 

o What are the infrastructural costs to supporting an intelligent AGV? 

o Is there a demand for robot arms on vehicles? 

o What would be the advanced safety standards for mobile robots? There is a lack 

of clear definitions for safe operation of an AGV. 

o Can AGVs be made taller to have a higher work volume, yet are still stable? 

o Can they be made faster, yet still safe and have adequate stopping distances? 

o Can they be made easy to use and flexible, so they can be quickly brought across 

assembly lines? 

o Can they be made scalable, from low to high volume, and manual to autonomous 

in operation? 

 Other technical issues in AGV development and acceptance: 

o From the perspectives of real time control and scheduling, should the control be 
15 

integrated on the vehicle or distributed in the workplace? 

o Are there low cost sensors that are robust enough, come with adequate support, yet 

meet the new needs in safety and performance? 

o Is battery technology holding back AGV performance? 

o Are there adequate standards for AGVs and military vehicles, along the lines of 

TRL (Technology Readiness Level) or ALFUS, for commercial use? 

Required solutions and research needs

 We need to develop better standards, performance metrics, and system specification 

methodology related to: 

o Safety standards for AGVs to categorize and quantify risks to humans. 

o Collaborative AGVs that work together on tasks. 

o Capabilities of arms on vehicles that enable mobile manipulation. 

o Specifications of plans, standard task vocabularies and levels of autonomy 

(ALFUS) to enable easier descriptions of vehicle capabilities. 

o Criteria for ease and intuitiveness of AGV programming, including 

 Better high-level programming languages, 

 Improved user interfaces for direct teaching modes. 

o Performance under varying environmental conditions, such as lighting. 

o Localization and mapping, including 

 How accurate must a vehicle be to safely navigate and tow objects, 

parts trays, and carts? 

 How accurate is a map produced by sensors? 

 How accurately can an AGV localize itself? 

 We need lower cost and better vehicular technology for: 

o Brake locks that can fully support both emergency and protective stops. 

o Suspension and intelligent compensation technology that can accommodate 

variations in suspension. For example, soft suspension can lead to localization 

problems related to dead reckoning. 

o Mobile manipulation with integrated arm(s) on vehicle. 

o Coordinated control and planning for single or multiple AGVs. 

o Sensors for functionality and safety. 

C. Information needs for real-time process monitoring and control 

Moderators: Mike Shneier and Hui-Min Huang, NIST 

Group Assignments: 

Name Organization 

Conrad Rehill Washington Post 

Jacqueline LeMoigne-Stewart Goddard Space Flight Center 

Stephan Schmitz SICK Germany 

Clarence Burns Automated Precision, Inc 

Jay Li Automated Precision, Inc 

Adil Shafi Shafi (USA) 

Eric Beaudoin GDRS 
16 

James Albus NIST Fellow 

Jeremy Zoss Southwest Research Institute 

Rama Chellappa University of Maryland 

German Londono Purdue University 

Mike Shneier NIST 

Hui-Min Huang NIST 

Information Provided Prior to the Workshop 

Vision

To achieve manufacturing line efficiency and quality improvement by better acquisition 

and use of on-line (perception-based) and a priori (model-based) information. 

Preliminary information to foster discussion:

Knowledge of the current state of the assembly line can be critical in achieving efficiency, 

in avoiding bottlenecks and quality problems, in planning for higher efficiencies or line 

redesign, and in keeping virtual line simulation coordinated with the real-world. Advanced 

sensors may be able to play a role in monitoring the assembly line and performing 

dynamic metrology on parts in motion, advancing the current field of machine vision to 

better adapt to unstructured environments. What information do users need from 

perception systems to manage and control their process? What does the virtual assembly 

information contribute to the process? What are the dynamic metrology capabilities in 

perception systems that improve process control in unstructured environments? 

Results of 6 DOF Metrology Group Discussions 

Roadblocks

 The vision statement was found to be in line with the industrial problems and no 

adjustments were made. 

Problems:

 The labor force has a shortage of workers skilled in automated machine operation. 

 It is difficult to integrate new technology (machine vision, etc.) into existing systems. 

 Intelligent equipment is expensive and hard to evaluate. 

 Knowledge acquisition and representation are difficult problems for automated 

manufacturing. 

 It is difficult for automated systems to detect and identify critical events from current 

information sources. 

 Current safety requirements can hinder human operations in robotic environments – 

there is a need to clearly identify what happens and take actions to mitigate the effect. 

For example, having humans nearby should not necessarily shut the robots down. 

 Small batch jobs and customized orders exemplify the problem of the variety of things 

to be measured. These point to the need for automation. 

 Equipment can malfunction in dirty environments. Examples include simple 

situations like dust on sensors and uneven floors that interfere with AGV dead 

reckoning. 

 There are many sources of errors and exceptions. For example, error models can 
17 

become ineffective. 

 It is important, but difficult to, have post-operation verification—make sure that the 

operation succeeds what is supposed to be done, especially in safety related issues. 

 With the contributions of a representative of the newspaper industry, the discussion 

yielded a number of fruitful items specific to that industry. They are: 

o Inserts of newspapers count as a significant portion of a newspaper company’s 

revenue. An important requirement is to deliver them to where the advertisers 

want, according to zip codes, streets, or other demographic concerns. 

o Heavy time constraints exist to identify particular pallets for inserts, followed by 

their loading and delivery. 

o There is a need to label particular bundles for accurate tracking. Currently need to 

produce 700,000 copies daily. 

o Vision systems may be a good technology to identify and retain knowledge about 

the bundles. 

o Bundles may break in the process and mess up the counting system. 

o Current accuracy rate is about 98.6% for the Washington Post AGV operation. 

Solutions

 Need to understand and model the full operation of AGVs. All the possible exceptions 

must be listed and programmed into the systems to become parts of the model. 

 Need metrics to evaluate the robustness/costs/performance of the implemented 

algorithms. 

Research needs

(Did not get to this topic.) 

Requirements/Metrics

(Did not get to this topic.) 

Standards

(Did not get to this topic.) 

D. Automated manipulators, their subcomponents and controls needed for 

dynamic manufacturing 

Moderators: Fred Proctor and John Horst, NIST 

Group Assignments: 

Name Organization 

Maravas, Michael USPS 

Theodore Bugtong Goddard Space Flight Center 

Wolfgang Bay SICK Germany 

Yuanqun Liu Automated Precision, Inc 

Tom McLean Automated Precision, Inc 

Mark Bankard GDRS 
18 

Brian Zenowich Barrett Technology 

Claude Dinsmoor GE Fanuc 

Daniel Theobald Vecna Technologies 

Johnny Park Purdue 

John Horst NIST 

Fred Proctor NIST 

Information Provided Prior to the Workshop 

Vision

 To achieve better flexibility and ease of deployment and operation of automated 

manipulators in dynamic environments 

 Customers: domain experts, not technology experts, need assistance in technology 

choices. 

 Deployment benefits accrue mostly for one-of-a-kind installations; operation benefits 

accrue for everyone. 

 Dynamic: everything can change: environment, process, product 

Preliminary information to foster discussion:

To achieve better flexibility and ease of deployment, robot arms, intelligent assist devices 

and other programmable devices for automated handling of material will need to operate 

more and more in dynamic environments where people, parts, conveyers and AGVs are 

moving. In the advanced case, robot arms will be mounted on AGVs or humanoid 

platforms and operating in a dynamic environment where they will be interacting with 

people. What issues are there in advancing the technology so this can be accomplished 

safely and efficiently? Are there issues in arm design, in programmability, or in 

standardization of interface between robot controller and other system elements such as 

PLCs and sensors? Are there issues in underlying control theory or calibration and 

validation of system performance? What elements of the systems will need to be enhanced 

to take advantage of advanced 3D sensors? 

Results of 6 DOF Metrology Group Discussions 

Roadblocks 

The group voted to prioritize the identified roadblocks. Participants could vote for multiple 

items. The size of a vote (following each item) represents a measure of group consensus 

towards prioritization. The ones without a vote were seen as either lower priority or not 

common issues across the entire industry. 

 Achieving safe and flexible robotics and enabling collaboration with humans--

resulting in new applications: 14 

 Improving software-based safety chain, including possibly revisions to the existent 

standards. This step would enable the achievement of the other roadblocks on this list: 

7 

 Making AGVs with robot arms easy to use and to set up, including deployment and 

development: 8 

 Enabling conformance tests, performance tests, and verification against a 

specification: 8 
19 

 Eliminating incompatibility, e.g., issues with data exchange, connectors, programming 

languages: 5 

 Dealing with obsolescence of AGVs. 

 Hardening systems for work in dirty environments. 

The highest-ranking requirements are further elaborated as below: 

R1: Achieving safe and flexible robotics: enabling collaboration

o Technologies needed: better collision sensing and avoidance. 

o Metrics needed: what is damaging to a person? For example, the head injury 

criteria from auto industry might be applicable. 

o Standards needed: software-based safety chain. 

o Research needed: what constitutes safe behaviors (varies widely across 

applications and robot types); what are effective ways for robots and humans to 

collaborate? 

R2: Ease of use, setup, including deployment and development 

o Technologies needed: application development techniques that domain experts are 

familiar with. 

o Standards needed: interface to robotic functions that support operations in a 

dynamic environment. 

R3: Conformance tests, performance tests, verification against a specification 

o Metrics needed: performance for the identified range of human-robot interactions; 

trust or perception of safety. 

o Standards needed (other than the safety standard): motion detection, frame rates, 

reaction bandwidth, or any that supplements the current Robotic Industries 

Association (RIA) standards. 

o Research needed: trust and perception of safety, risk assessment. 
20 

3.2 Day 2 Wrap-up Discussion and Results 

Participants engaged in a discussion that summarized the first day’s findings and looked to 

follow-up actions. The following are the results: 

A. Needs identified during the workshop: 

a. Better and more complete standards in the areas of: 

 Interfaces for equipment and software interconnection 

 Terminology –lists of common tasks and commonly used terms 

 Evaluation metrics and methods for sensor, AGV, robot and overall system 

performance 

The development efforts should be synchronized with the defense industry 

activities. 

b. More use of scenarios and competitions to drive development: 

 Industry associations could pool resources to establish challenges. 

 Establish a list of the challenges and competitions for researchers to study. 

 Simulation challenges are much easier to be set up. NIST runs one on a 

simulated AGV. 

c. Manufacturers need to provide more information on automation issues and 

impacts: 

 Form consortia to collect general issues and observations on challenges 

faced. 

 Establish individual research on specific industry needs. 

d. Better supporting technologies: 

 Establish the capability to seamlessly run tests from virtual to real. 

 Develop techniques to monitor the automation progress based on 

requirements and metrics. 

B. Action Items and Associated Volunteers 

a. Overarching goal: develop standards for interfaces, performance, metrics, and 

terminology, e.g., robot safety and software components. 

b. Become involved in RIA standard processes: 

 Jim Wells, Roger Bostelman, and Brian McMorris will begin looking into 

how to start process of developing future standards. The types of standards 

lab tests that can be beneficial to the industry include: feasibility, 

conformance, and performance. 

 Hui-Min Huang will look into terminology standards: identify 

manufacturing terms, look for existing standards. 

c. Create well-defined challenge scenarios: 

 Joyce Guthrie, Jane Shi, Roger Bostelman, and Stephen Balakirsky. 

 Non-rigid components, e.g., carpets, cable harnesses, hoses are to be 

included. 

d. Develop cooperation with industry associations and systems integrators to 

target research on “needs:” 
21 

 Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), Mechanical Contractors 

Association of America (MCAA), Material Handling Industry of America

(MHIA), RIA, and Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) are among 

the relevant associations. 

 Jim Wells has experience in this and should be a lead. 

 Names of systems integrators can be forwarded to Jim Wells and Roger 

Bostelman. 

e. There seems to be no trade organizations that focus on systems integrators. 

f. Set up Workshop mail group: 

 Fred Proctor 

g. Complete workshop report: 

 Workshop organizers 

h. Next workshops/meetings and other interesting forums – 

 Combine need-focused meetings with major conferences. 

 Robot Industry Forum, Orlando, Nov. 2007 

 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR, 

which tends to be academic), International Manufacturing Technology 

Show (IMTS, September 2010), International Robots, Vision & Motion 

Control Show hosted by RIA (June 2009) [2, 3, 4]. 
22 

4. INITIAL ACTION ITEMS RESULTS 

As of this report date, work has already begun on the identified action items and the results 

are described in the following sections. 

4.1 Formulating New Projects for Identified Critical Needs 

To address a key sensory requirement for dynamic manufacturing, NIST has embarked on a 

dynamic 6DOF pose measurement project. The goal is to devise a method to continuously 

measure the locations and orientations of an unconstrained moving object. Current automated 

assembly systems typically measure the pose of an object only in highly constrained 

situations, such as parts moving at a fixed speed in a rigid conveyance, or by stopping the 

assembly line to sense the precise position of the part. Locating and tracking an arbitrary 

object under unconstrained motion is very difficult as majors issues exist for most of the 

sensing technologies. For example, optical camera-related technology may involve loss of 3D 

information through projection. The 6DOF related technology must require the pose to be 

reconstructed from the data in real-time for which the equations and algorithms are not yet 

fully understood. A reference standard for dynamic 6DOF pose measurement would advance 

the technology by establishing metrics for the evaluation of these systems and techniques. 

The project will develop methods for continuous measurement for manufacturing applications 

such as automobile manufacturing and for evaluating the sources of error in the 

measurements, including finding out how to minimize the errors. This will require techniques 

to calibrate the reference and test systems, to synchronize measurements for comparisons, to 

evaluate the raw sensor data that is used to compute 6DOF pose, and to track the contribution 

and propagation of errors in subsystems. 

The ability to measure the positions and orientations of components as they move would 

result in considerable cost savings in applications such as automobile manufacturing. The 

ability will allow expensive fixed installations to be replaced with more intelligent 

combinations of sensing and automation, and, thus, better enable US manufacturers to 

compete with foreign firms where greater investments have been made recently in robotic 

technology. Although our current focus is on the substantial, immediate benefits in industry 

segments like automotive and airplane assembly, the technology is fundamental and could be 

widely applied. A reference standard would also assist the academic community in 

establishing clear performance metrics for research systems and algorithms. 

Roger Bostelman and Stephen Balakirsky began coordinating space allocation with the NIST 

machine shop and designing a testbed for a NIST exploratory project on vehicle navigation 

through unstructured environments. The testbed will include a robot arm mounted on 

overhead rail to enable a number of automation scenarios. This testbed will serve as a 

beginning for well-defined scenario testing as they arise. 

4.2 Further Investigation on Industrial Needs 

This workshop and its proposed future standards development effort were discussed in the 

15th Annual Robotics Industry Forum that Roger Bostelman, Brian McMorris, and Jim Wells 
23 

attended in Orlando on November 7-9, 2007. 

Jim Wells discussed with RIA participants at the Orlando Robotics Industry Forum about 

research on “needs.” 

4.3 Identification of Current Standards 

Hui-Min Huang took an action item of researching the current robotic standards in the areas 

of vocabulary for tasks and systems. The results include a collection of ISO, ANSI, and RIA 

standards that mostly deal with low level devices, coordinate systems, geometry/kinematics, 

programming, and limited performance evaluation. They are summarized later in this section. 

This finding points to a possible broad-scope structure for robotic standards that may 

encompass multiple levels of abstraction for the knowledge. Aspects of task structures, a 

general purpose unmanned systems terminology, and ontology may all be covered in the 

structure. It would be interesting to find out how the concept of autonomy levels can be 

applied in the manufacturing domain. Corresponding terms like Unmanned Flexible 

Manufacturing System (UFMS), and Unmanned Workstation (UWS) might be explored to 

embed various levels of operator interactions. 

4.3.1. Terminology and system characteristics 

The following standards are identified and are listed according to the publishing 

organizations. 

ISO 

ISO 14539: 2000

Manipulating industrial robots -- Object handling with grasp-type grippers -- Vocabulary 

and presentation of characteristics 

Categories: types of handling, grasps, coordinate systems and sensing in object handling, 

types of grasp-type grippers, types of end effectors, elements of grasp-type grippers, types 

of grasp-type grippers, types of fingers, finger control, clamping elements, robot 

interfaces, safety in grasps and grasping 

ISO 9787: 1999

Manipulating industrial robots -- Coordinate systems and motion nomenclatures 

Content: world, base, mechanical interface, and tool coordinate systems, robot motion, 

robot axes 

ISO 9946: 1999

Manipulating industrial robots -- Presentation of characteristics 

Manufacturer shall provide: application, power source, mechanical structure, working 

space, coordinate system, external dimension and mass, base mounting surface, 

mechanical interface (how end effectors are mounted on robotic wrists), control, task 

programming and program loading, environment, velocity, resolution, performance 

criteria, safety 

ISO 11593: 1996

Manipulating industrial robots -- Automatic end effector exchange systems -- Vocabulary 
24 

and presentation of characteristics 

Categories: external shape, main dimension, position and orientation in coupling 

procedure, coupling and releasing forces, load, magazine interface, tool exchange time 

ISO 8373: 1994/1996

Manipulating industrial robots - Vocabulary 

An amendment ISO 8373:1994/Amd 1:1996 and a corrigendum ISO 8373/Cor.1:1996

followed. 

Categories: general terms, mechanical structure, geometry and kinematics, programming 

and control, performance 

AIAA: 

R-103: 2004

AIAA Recommended Practice: Terminology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and 

Remotely Operated Aircraft 

AIAA S-066

Standard Vocabulary for Space Automation and Robotics (1995) 

ASTM: 

E 2521 – 07a

Standard Terminology for Urban Search and Rescue Robotic Operation 

E 2544

Standard Terminology for Three-Dimensional (3D) Imaging Systems 

IEEE: 

IEEE 100-2000

The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (Seventh Edition, 2000) 

NIST: 

NIST SP 1011-I-2.0

Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems Framework, Volume I: Terminology, Version 

2.0 

4.3.2. Safety and performance 

ISO: 

ISO 10218-1, -2: 2006

Robots for industrial environments — Safety requirements 

ISO 9409-1, -2, -3: 2004

Manipulating industrial robots — Mechanical interfaces 

ISO 9506-1, -2: 2003

Industrial automation systems — Manufacturing Message Specification 
25 

ISO 9283: 1998

Manipulating industrial robots - Performance criteria and related test methods 

ANSI/RIA 

ANSI/RIA Rl5.05-1: 1990

Point-to-Point and Static Performance Characteristics - Evaluation 

ANSI/RIA Rl5.05-2: 1992

Path-Related and Dynamic Performance Characteristics - Evaluation 

ANSI/RIA Rl5.05-3: 1992

Reliability Acceptance Testing - Guidelines 

NIST: 

NIST SP 1011-I-2.0

Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems Framework, Volume II: Framework Models, 

Version 1.0 

4.3.3. 3D metrology 

Existing standards for 3D metrology, useful in defining terminology, artifacts and protocols 

that might be relevant to this effort exist [6]. In addition, there are ongoing efforts for 

developing performance standards for imaging systems. Below list three of these efforts: 

• ASTM: 3D imaging sensors [7] 

The ASTM Committee E57 on 3D Imaging Systems has been investigating standards for 3D 

imaging sensors, with the Building and Fire Research Lab (BRFL) at NIST taking a 

leadership role. The BRFL conducted workshops with sensor vendors and other interested 

parties in 2003, 2005 and 2006, and has done work to define terminology and initial 

protocols. The current focus is on static, large-scale metrology. 

• IACMM: Non-contact metrology 

The International Association of Coordinate Measurement Machine Manufacturers (IACMM) 

is supporting work on Optical Sensor Interface Standard (OSIS). This standard is intended to 

aid the integration of non-contact sensor technologies into traditional contact coordinate 

measurement machines. The standard has three elements on physical interfaces, software 

interfaces, and calibration. The latter effort covers accuracy specification and validation for 

the 3D data from non-contact sensors. The scope of this effort may cover 3D imaging systems 

of interest and dynamic and 6DOF performance is not emphasized. NIST participates in this 

project. 

• EMVA: Machine vision sensor performance 

The European Machine Vision Association (EMVA) has the 1288 standard effort, 

“Standard for Measurement and Presentation of Specifications for Machine Vision Sensors 

and Cameras.” The scope of the standard currently covers monochrome digital area scan 

cameras and should be extended to line and color cameras. The format could be a model for 
26 

reporting 3D imaging performance. The standard is developed in a modular fashion, with each 

module defining a physical sensor model for characterizing sensor response, a protocol for 

testing the characteristics, and a format for presenting and analyzing the results. 
27 

5. REFERENCES 

1. Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) Framework, Volume II: Framework 

Models Version 1.0, NIST Special Publication 1011-II-1.0, Huang, H., Ed., National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, December 2007 

2. http://www.cvpr.org/

3. http://www.imts.com/

4. http://www.robotics.org/ 

5. Hong, T.S., et al., Dynamic metrology: Evaluation of 3D Imaging Systems for Dynamic 

Sensing Applications in Manufacturing, NIST Draft Report, January 2009 

6. Proceedings of the LADAR Calibration Facility Workshop June 12 – 13, 2003, NIST 

Internal Report, NISTIR 7054, Cheok, G., Ed., October 2003 

7. http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/E57.htm 
28 

APPENDIX: WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS 

Overview: Roger Bostelman, Manager 

 Intelligent Control of Mobility Systems Program ................................... 29 

End Users 

Automobile Manufacturer 

 Jane Shi, et al., General Motors – Autonomous Assembly ......................... 34 

Newspaper Manufacturer 

 Conrad Rehill, Washington Post ....................................................... 41 

Distribution 

 Joyce Guthrie, USPS ..................................................................... 48 

Shipbuilding 

 Ken Fast, GDEB – presented by Roger Bostelman, NIST .................................. 51 

Next Generation Robots 

 Brian McMorris, SICK, Inc.............................................................................. 57 

Academics and Government 

Carnegie Mellon University, George Kantor – AGV Control ....... ................... 68 

Purdue University, Avi Kak - Dynamic Visual Servoing ...................................... 75 

SRI International, Moti Agrawal – VSLAM ........................................... 88 

NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Alan Lytle – Standards .................... 97 

Sensors, Robots and AGV’s 

SICK, Brian McMorris ...................................................................................... 111 

TYZX, Gaile G. Gordon ......................................................................................... 134 

Shafi (USA), Adil Shafi ........................................................................................... 140 

API, Kam Lau .......................................................................................................... 146
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179