Advertisement

Risk Areas Determination for Autonomous- and Semi-autonomous Aerial Systems Considering Run-Time Technical Reliability Assessment

Requirements, Concept, and Tests
  • Georg HägeleEmail author
  • Dirk Söffker
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Autonomous or semi-autonomous aerial systems are used in different application domains to simplify or assist humans tasks. In this context, their behavior has to be verifiably safe. Here safe behavior denotes system’s interaction with the environment with freedom from unacceptable risk for the environment and the system itself. Traditionally, run-time technical reliability assessment is not considered for risk areas determination. Run-time definition and online control of risk areas based on current technical reliability may be used as a function to assure safe behavior of autonomous or semi-autonomous aerial systems. This contribution introduces a novel technique for the definition and control of risk areas considering system’s behavior as well as it’s technical reliability during run-time. The technique is used to separate the space around an autonomous aerial system into risk-related areas. On this basis, the safety unit can realize emergency actions to ensure system’s safe behavior if necessary. The introduction of the novel technique is realized in the context of the safety unit description and run-time technical reliability assessment. For the run-time technical reliability assessment, a novel technique is introduced, inspired by the functional safety standard IEC 61508. Simulation results demonstrate the successful use of the introduced approach.

Keywords

Run-time reliability assessment Autonomous or semi-autonomous aerial systems Risk areas 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Aven, T.: What is safety science? Saf. Sci. 67, 15–20 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    United States Department of Defense: MIL-STD-882E Department of Defence Standard Practice: System Safety (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Electrotechnical Commission: Iec 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saleh, J.H., Marais, K.B., Favaró, F.M.: System safety principles: A multidisciplinary engineering perspective. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29, 283–294 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sorokos, I., Azevedo, L.P., Papadopoulos, Y., Walker, M., Parker, D.J.: Comparing automatic allocation of safety integrity levels in the aerospace and automotive domains. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(3), 184–190 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ericson, C.A.: Concise Encyclopedia of System Safety. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    US Air Force: Air Force System Safety Handbook. Air Force Safety Agency, Kirtland (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones-Lee, M., Aven, T.: ALARP–what does it really mean? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 96(8), 877–882 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ale, B., Hartford, D., Slater, D.: ALARP and CBA all in the same game. Saf. Sci. 76, 90–100 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saxena, A., Roychoudhury, I., Lin, W., Goebel, K.: Towards requirements in systems engineering for aerospace IVHM design. In: Proceedings of the AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roemer, M., Tang, L.: Integrated vehicle health and fault contingency management for UAVs. In: Valavanis, K.P., Vachtsevanos, G.J. (eds.) Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, pp 999–1025. Springer, Netherlands (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang, L., Kacprzynski, G., Goebel, K., Saxena, A., Saha, B., Vachtsevanos, G.: Prognostics-enhanced automated contingency management for advanced autonomous systems. In: International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management, 2008. PHM 2008, pp. 1–9 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Federal Aviation Administration: Sense and avoid (SAA) for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). In: Second Caucus Workshop Repor, Federal Aviation Administration (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, X., Zhang, Y.: Sense and avoid technologies with applications to unmanned aircraft systems: Review and prospects. Progress Aerosp. Sci. 74, 152–166 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clothier, R., Williams, B., Washington, A.: Development of a template safety case for unmanned aircraft operations over populous areas. In: SAE Technical Paper. Number 2015-01-2469, SAE International (09) (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lum, C.W., Waggoner, B.: A risk based paradigm and model for unmanned aerial vehicles in the national airspace. Infotech@ Aerospace 2011, 2011–1424 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Weibel, R.E., Edwards, M.W., Fernandes, C.S.: Establishing a risk-based separation standard for unmanned aircraft self separation. In: Proceedings of the ninth USA/Europe air traffic management research & development seminar. Eurocontrol/FAA, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grzonka, S., Grisetti, G., Burgard, W.: A fully autonomous indoor quadrotor. IEEE Trans. Robot. 28 (1), 90–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang, F., Cui, J., Phang, S.K., Chen, B., Lee, T.: A mono-camera and scanning laser range finder based UAV indoor navigation system. In: 2013 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 694–701 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tomic, T., Schmid, K., Lutz, P., Domel, A., Kassecker, M., Mair, E., Grixa, I., Ruess, F., Suppa, M., Burschka, D.: Toward a fully autonomous UAV: Research platform for indoor and outdoor urban search and rescue. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(3), 46–56 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lippiello, V., Ruggiero, F., Serra, D.: Emergency landing for a quadrotor in case of a propeller failure: A PID based approach. In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), pp. 1–7 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rudnick-Cohen, E., Herrmann, J.W., Azarm, S.: Risk-based path planning optimization methods for UAVs over inhabited areas. In: 35th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Number 57045 (2015) V01AT02A004Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Sylvain, B., Raballand, N., Viguier, F., Muller, F.: Ground risk assessment for long-range inspection missions of railways by UAVs. In: 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 1343–1351 (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Filippis, L., Guglieri, G., Quagliotti, F.: A minimum risk approach for path planning of UAVs. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 61(1), 203–219 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hägele, G., Söffker, D.: A simplified situational environment risk and system reliability assessment for behavior assurance of autonomous and semi-autonomous aerial systems: A simulation study. In: The 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, pp. 951–960 (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hägele, G., Söffker, D.: Strictly formalized situation-operator-modeling technique for fall-back layer modeling for autonomous or semi-autonomous systems requiring software-based fail-safe behavior. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 886–891 (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hägele, G., Söffker, D.: Fall-back layer concept for autonomous or semi-autonomous systems and processes: requirements, concepts, and first tests. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 916–921 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hägele, G.: Contribution to realization and test of a fall-back layer for safe, autonomous, and action-flexible systems. PhD thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giese, S., Carr, D., Chahl, J.: Implications for unmanned systems research of military UAV mishap statistics. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2013 IEEE, pp. 1191–1196 (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Belcastro, C.M., Klyde, D.H., Logan, M.J., Newman, R.L., Foster, J.V.: Experimental flight testing for assessing the safety of unmanned aircraft system safety-critical operations. AIAA AVIATION Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, pp. 3274–3328 (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prats, X., Delgado, L., Ramirez, J., Royo, P., Pastor, E.: Requirements, issues, and challenges for sense and avoid in unmanned aircraft systems. J. Aircraft 49(3), 677–687 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cook, S.P., Brooks, D., Cole, R., Hackenberg, M.D., Raska, M.V.: Defining well clear for unmanned aircraft systems. In: Proceedings of AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace. AIAA, 481 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rajamani, R., Saxena, A., Kramer, F., Augustin, M., Schroeder, J.B., Goebel, K., Shao, G., Roychoudhury, I., Lin, W.: Developing IVHM requirements for aerospace systems. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Benedettini, O., Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Greenough, R.M.: State-of-the-art in integrated vehicle health management. Proc. Institut. Mech. Eng. Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng. 223(2), 157–170 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: J. Human Factors Ergon. Soc. 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu, P.P., Clothier, R.A.: The development of ground impact models for the analysis of the risks associated with unmanned aircraft operations over inhabited areas. In: 11th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM11) and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2012) (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ancel, E., Capristan, F.M., Foster, J.V., Condotta, R.C.: Real-time risk assessment framework for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) traffic management (UTM). AIAA AVIATION Forum American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roberge, V., Tarbouchi, M., Labonte, G.: Comparison of parallel genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for real-time UAV path planning. IEEE Trans. Indus. Inf. 9(1), 132–141 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goerzen, C., Kong, Z., Mettler, B.: A survey of motion planning algorithms from the perspective of autonomous UAV guidance. In: Valavanis, K., Beard, R., Oh, P., Ollero, A., Piegl, L., Shim, H. (eds.) Selected Papers from the 2nd International Symposium on UAVs, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A. June 8-10, 2009, pp 65–100. Springer, Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang, F., Cui, J.Q., Chen, B.M., Lee, T.H.: A comprehensive UAV indoor navigation system based on vision optical flow and laser fastslam. Acta Automatica Sinica 39(11), 1889–1899 (2013)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lippiello, V., Ruggiero, F., Serra, D.: Emergency landing for a quadrotor in case of a propeller failure: A backstepping approach. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), pp. 4782–4788 (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fang, B., Chen, T.: Research on UAV collision avoidance strategy considering threat levels. In: Wen, Z., Li, T. (eds.) Practical Applications of Intelligent Systems. Volume 279 of Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp 887–897. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lioulemes, A., Galatas, G., Metsis, V., Mariottini, G.L., Makedon, F.: Safety challenges in using AR.Drone to collaborate with humans in indoor environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, vol. 33, pp. 1–33:4 (2014)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mori, T., Scherer, S.: First results in detecting and avoiding frontal obstacles from a monocular camera for micro unmanned aerial vehicles. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1750–1757 (2013)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gageik, N., Benz, P., Montenegro, S.: Obstacle detection and collision avoidance for a UAV with complementary low-cost sensors. Access, IEEE 3, 599–609 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gupta, N., Makkar, J., Pandey, P.: Obstacle detection and collision avoidance using ultrasonic sensors for RC multirotors. In: 2015 International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication (ICSC), pp. 419–423 (2015)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Müller, J., Ruiz, A., Wieser, I.: Safe & sound: A robust collision avoidance layer for aerial robots based on acoustic sensors. In: 2014 IEEE/ION on Position, Location and Navigation Symposium - PLANS 2014, pp. 1197–1202 (2014)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nieuwenhuisen, M., Droeschel, D., Schneider, J., Holz, D., Labe, T., Behnke, S.: Multimodal obstacle detection and collision avoidance for micro aerial vehicles. In: 2013 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), pp. 7–12 (2013)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hägele, G., Söffker, D.: System safety surveillance and control system concept for autonomous or semi-autonomous systems fall-back layer realization. In: ASME 2016 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2016) V002T29A003Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Söffker, D.: Interaction of intelligent and autonomous systems - part i: Qualitative structuring of interaction. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. 14(4), 303–318 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rohmer, E., Singh, S.P.N., Freese, M.: V-Rep: A versatile and scalable robot simulation framework. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1321–1326 (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chamseddine, A., Theilliol, D., Zhang, Y., Join, C., Rabbath, C.: Active fault-tolerant control system design with trajectory re-planning against actuator faults and saturation: Application to a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 29(1), 1–23 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitat Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations