Cooperative sUAV Collision Avoidance Based on Satisficing Theory

  • Namwoo Kim
  • Yoonjin YoonEmail author
Original Paper


The recent growth in small unmanned aerial vehicle (sUAV) applications in public and private sectors has generated a greater interest in effective collision avoidance strategies. This paper presents a cooperative collision avoidance approach for sUAV in the low-altitude uncontrolled airspace based on satisficing game theory. By incorporating both the self and cooperative preferences in making individual heading decision, satisficing framework provides a collision avoidance strategy that increases throughput while decreasing unnecessary collisions. A total of 4356 chokepoint scenarios are simulated with varying satisficing parameters, including number of sUAV agents, minimum separation, action angle, and dual utility parameters of raw preference and negotiation index. Simulation-based sensitivity analysis is conducted to find the combined effect of such parameters. The results show that performance of satisficing framework is dependent on traffic density primarily. Except for the very light traffic scenario, the minimum separation and degree of action angle affected the system efficiency the most, while dual utility parameters played crucial roles in highly conflicted scenarios. In conclusion, sUAV traffic and collision rules require an adaptive approach in regard to the traffic density, and satisficing framework can provide an effective collision avoidance strategy in a medium- to high-density traffic environment.


Small unmanned aerial vehicles (sUAV) Collision avoidance Satisficing theory UAS traffic management 


\( U = \left\{ {u_{i} :i = 1,2 \ldots ,N} \right\} \)

Set of N sUAV agents

\( K \)

Detection range

\( R_{\text{s }} \)

Minimum separation

\( O_{i} \)

Origin of \( u_{i} \)

\( D_{i} \)

Destination of \( u_{i} \)

\( \varvec{\varTheta}= \left\{ {\theta :\theta^{o} ,\theta^{ + } ,\theta^{ - } } \right\} \)

Set of action angle, \( \theta^{o} : \) keep current heading, \( \theta^{ + } \): turn right by \( \theta \), \( \theta^{ - } : \) turn left by θ

\( d_{i,j}^{ *} \)

Distance between agents \( u_{i} \) and \( u_{j} \) at their closest approach

\( d_{i,j} \)

Distance between agents \( u_{i} \) and \( u_{j} \)

\( C_{i} = \{ u_{j} : u_{j} \in U, u_{j} \ne u_{i} , d_{i,j} \le K , d_{i,j}^{ *} \le R_{\text{s}} \} \)

Collision set of \( u_{i} \)

\( p\left( {u_{i} } \right) \)

Priority of \( u_{i} \)

\( \gamma \)

Raw preference

\( q \)

Negotiation index



This research was supported in part by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government under Grant 17USTR-B127901-01.


  1. 1.
    Austin R (2011) Unmanned aircraft systems: UAVS design, development and deployment, vol 54. Wiley, Honoken, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tomlin C, Pappas GJ, Sastry S (1998) Conflict resolution for air traffic management: a study in multiagent hybrid systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 43(4):509–521MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eby MS, Kelly WE (1999) Free flight separation assurance using distributed algorithms. In: Aerospace conference, 1999. Proceedings IEEE, pp 429–441Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eby MS (1994) A self-organisational approach for resolving air traffic conflicts. Linc Lab J 7(2):239–254Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pallottino L, Feron EM, Bicchi A (2002) Conflict resolution problems for air traffic management systems solved with mixed integer programming. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 3(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tang J, Piera MA, Guasch T (2016) Coloured Petri net-based traffic collision avoidance system encounter model for the analysis of potential induced collisions. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 67:357–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruiz S, Piera MA, Nosedal J, Ranieri A (2014) Strategic de-confliction in the presence of a large number of 4D trajectories using a causal modeling approach. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 39:129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qian X, Mao J, Chen C-H, Chen S, Yang C (2017) Coordinated multi-aircraft 4D trajectories planning considering buffer safety distance and fuel consumption optimization via pure-strategy game. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 81:18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopardekar P, Rios J, Prevot T, Johnson M, Jung J, Robinson J (2016) Unmanned aircraft system traffic management (UTM) concept of operations. In: AIAA aviation forumGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carbone C, Ciniglio U, Corraro F, Luongo S (2006) A novel 3D geometric algorithm for aircraft autonomous collision avoidance. In: Decision and control, 2006 45th IEEE conference, pp 1580–1585Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nieuwenhuisen M, Schadler M, Behnke S (2013) Predictive potential field-based collision avoidance for multicopters. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spatial Inf Sci 1(2):293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun J, Tang J, Lao S (2017) Collision avoidance for cooperative UAVs with optimized artificial potential field algorithm. IEEE Access 5:18382–18390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Temizer S, Kochenderfer M, Kaelbling L, Lozano-Pérez T, Kuchar J (2010) Collision avoidance for unmanned aircraft using Markov decision processes. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, p 8040Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bai H, Hsu D, Kochenderfer MJ, Lee WS (2012) Unmanned aircraft collision avoidance using continuous-state POMDPs. Robot Sci Syst VII 1:1–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richards A, How JP (2002) Aircraft trajectory planning with collision avoidance using mixed integer linear programming. In: American control conference, 2002. Proceedings of the IEEE, pp 1936–1941Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cui P, Yan W, Wang Y (2017) Reactive path planning approach for docking robots in unknown environment. J Adv Transport 2017:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson F, Hill J, Archibald J, Frost R, Stirling W (2005) A satisficing approach to free flight. In: Networking, sensing and control, 2005. Proceedings IEEE, pp 123–128Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hill J, Archibald J, Stirling W, Frost R (2005) A multi-agent system architecture for distributed air traffic control. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, p 6049Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Archibald JK, Hill JC, Jepsen NA, Stirling WC, Frost RL (2008) A satisficing approach to aircraft conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C (Applications and Reviews) 38(4):510–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stirling WC, Goodrich MA (1999) Satisficing games. Inf Sci 114(1–4):255–280MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stirling WC, Goodrich MA, Packard DJ (2002) Satisficing equilibria. In: Parsons S, Gmytrasiewicz P, Wooldridge M (eds) Game theory and decision theory in agent-based systems. Multiagent systems, artificial societies, and simulated organizations, vol 5. Springer, Boston, pp 235–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stirling WC (2003) Satisficing games and decision making: with applications to engineering and computer science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xiaohui J, Xuejun Z, Xiangmin G (2012) A collision avoidance method based on satisficing game theory. In: 2012 4th international conference on intelligent human-machine systems and cyberneticsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bellomi F, Bonato R, Tedeschi A, Nanni V (2008) Satisficing game theory for conflict resolution and traffic optimization. Air Traffic Control Q 16(3):211–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taurino D, Frau G, Beato V, Tedeschi A (2011) ADS-B based separation support for general aviation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on application and theory of automation in command and control systems. IRIT Press, ToulouseGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society for Aeronautical & Space Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations