Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 93, Issue 1–2, pp 367–384 | Cite as

Quantifying Risk of Ground Impact Fatalities for Small Unmanned Aircraft

  • Anders la Cour-HarboEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

One of the major challenges of conducting operations of unmanned aircraft, especially operations beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS), is to make a realistic and sufficiently detailed risk assessment. An important part of such an assessment is to identify the risk of fatalities, preferably in a quantitative way since this allows for comparison with manned aviation to determine whether an equivalent level of safety is achievable. This work presents a method for quantifying the probability of fatalities resulting from an uncontrolled descent of an unmanned aircraft conducting a BVLOS flight. The method is based on a standard stochastic model, and employs a parameterized high fidelity ground impact distribution model that accounts for both aircraft specifications, parameter uncertainties, and wind. The method also samples the flight path to create an almost continuous quantification of the risk as a function of mission flight time. The methodology is exemplified with a 180 km flight in Danish airspace with a Penguin C aircraft.

Keywords

Unmanned aircraft Aviation safety Stochastic modeling Ground impact Probability of fatality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the BVLOS FastTrack project between the Danish Transport Construction and Housing Authority, University of Southern Denmark, Aalborg University, UAS Test Center Denmark, and Heliscope. We wish to thank the partners for providing information and data for this work.

A short version of this paper was presented in ICUAS 2017 [21].

References

  1. 1.
    Scale, A.A.A.M.: (AIS) abbreviated injury manual. Technical report, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arterburn, D., Ewing, M., Prabhu, R., Zhu, F., Francis, D.: FAA UAS center of excellence task A4: UAS ground collision severity evaluation. Technical report, ASSURE (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkins, E.M., Portillo, I.A., Strube, M.J.: Emergency flight planning applied to total loss of thrust. J. Aircr. 43(4), 1205–1216 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertrand, S, Raballand, N, Viguier, F, Muller, F: Ground risk assessment for long-range inspection missions of railways by UAVs. In: proceedings of ICUAS 2017, pp. 1343–1351 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bir, C.A., Viano, D.C.: Design and injury assessment criteria for blunt ballistic impacts. J. Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 57, 1218–1224 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clare, V.R., Mickiewicz, A.P., Lewis, J.H., Sturdiven, L.M.: Blunt trauma data correlation technical report report may EB-TR-75016 Edgewood Arsenal (1975)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clothier, R., Walker, R., Fulton, N., Campbell, D.: A casualty risk analysis for unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations over inhabited areas. In: 2nd Australasian unmanned air vehicle conference, pp. 1–15 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clothier, R., Williams, B., Washington, A.: Development of a Template Safety Case for Unmanned Aircraft Operations Over Populous Areas. In: SAE 2015 AeroTech Congress & Exhibition, pp. 10 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clothier, R.A., Walker, R.A.: The safety risk management of unmanned aircraft systems. In: Valavanis, K.P., Vachtsevanos, G.J. (eds.) Handbook of unmanned aerial vehicles, p 37. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Dordrecht (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clothier, R.A., Williams, B.P., Fulton, N.L.: Structuring the safety case for unmanned aircraft system operations in non-segregated airspace. Saf. Sci. 79, 213–228 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coombes, M., Chen, W.-H., Render, P.: Landing site reachability in a forced landing of unmanned aircraft in wind journal of aircraft, pp. 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K.P., Piegl, L.A.: On unmanned aircraft systems issues, challenges and operational restrictions preventing integration into the national airspace system. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44(7-8), 503–519 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Denney, E., Pai, G.: Architecting a safety case for UAS flight operations. In: 34th international system safety conference, pp. 12 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denney, E., Pai, G., Habli, I.: Perspectives on software safety case development for unmanned aircraft Proceedings of the international conference on dependable systems and networks (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, P., Gary J Balas.: Actuation failure modes effects analysis for a small UAV. In: actuation failure American control conference, pp. 1292–1297. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman, P.M.: Reliability assessment for low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles. PhD thesis, University of Minneota (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guglieri, G., Ristorto, G.: Safety assessment for light remotely piloted aircraft systems. In: 2016 INAIR - international conference on air transport, pp. 1–7 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    King, D.W., Bertapelle, A., Moses, C.: UAV failure rate criteria for equivalent level of safety. In: International helicopter safety symposium, pp. 9, Montreal (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    la Cour-Harbo, A.: Ground impact probability distribution for small unmanned aircraft in ballistic descent. Reliability engineering and system safety Submitted (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    la Cour-Harbo, A.: Mass threshold for ’harmless’ drones. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles, pp. 11 (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    la Cour-Harbo, A.: Quantifying risk of ground impact fatalities of power line inspection BVLOS flight with small unmanned aircraft. In: 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 1352–1360 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, X., Fulton, N.L., Horn, M.E.T.: Quantification of high level safety criteria for civil unmanned aircraft systems. In: IEEE aerospace conference proceedings, pp. 13 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murtha, J.F.: An evidence theoretic approach to design of reliable low-cost UAVs. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Office of the Secretary of Defence: Unmanned aerial vehicle reliability study. Technical report february, Department of defense (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Radi, A.: Human injury model for small unmanned aircraft impacts. Technical report, Civil aviation safety authority, Australia (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reimann, S., Amos, J., Bergquist, E., Cole, J., Phillips, J., Shuster, S.: UAV for reliability technical report december AEM 4331 aerospace vehicle design (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reimann, S., Amos, J., Bergquist, E., Cole, J., Phillips, J., Shuster, S.: UAV for Reliability Build. University of Minnesota, Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larry, M., Viano, S.C., Champion, H.R.: Analysis of injury criteria to assess chest and abdominal injury risks in blunt and ballistic impacts. J. Trauma 56(3), 651–663 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Twisdale, L.A., Vickery, P.J.: Comparison of debris trajectory models for explosive safety hazard analysis. In: 25th DoD Explosive Safety Seminar Anaheim, California, pp. 513–526 (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venkataraman, R.: Reliability assessment of actuator architectures for unmanned aircraft. University of Minnesota, PhD thesis (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Venkataraman, R., Lukȧtsi, M., Vanek, B., Seiler, P.: Reliability assessment of actuator architectures for unmanned aircraft. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48(21), 398–403 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Viano, D.C., Lau, I.A.N.V.: A viscous tolerance criterion for soft tissue injury assessment. J. Biomech. 21(5), 387–399 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Warren, M., Mejias, L., Kok, J., Yang, X., Gonzalez, F., Upcroft, Ben: An automated emergency landing system for fixed-wing aircraft: Planning and control. J. Field Rob. 32(8), 1114–1140 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warren, M., Mejias, L., Yang, X., Arain, B., Gonzalez, F., Ben Upcroft.: Enabling aircraft emergency landings using active visual site detection. In: Field and Service Robotics, pp. 167–181 Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, pp. 105 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Paul, W.U., Clothier, R.: The development of ground impact models for the analysis of the risks associated with unmanned aircraft operations over inhabited areas: Inproceedings of the 11th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM11) and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2012), pp. 14 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark

Personalised recommendations