Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems

, Volume 65, Issue 1–4, pp 219–231 | Cite as

Optimization-Based Safety Analysis of Obstacle Avoidance Systems for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

  • Sivaranjini Srikanthakumar
  • Cunjia Liu
  • Wen Hua Chen
Article

Abstract

The integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in airspace requires new methods to certify collision avoidance systems. This paper presents a safety clearance process for obstacle avoidance systems, where worst case analysis is performed using simulation based optimization in the presence of all possible parameter variations. The clearance criterion for the UAV obstacle avoidance system is defined as the minimum distance from the aircraft to the obstacle during the collision avoidance maneuver. Local and global optimization based verification processes are developed to automatically search the worst combinations of the parameters and the worst-case distance between the UAV and an obstacle under all possible variations and uncertainties. Based on a 6 Degree of Freedom (6DoF) kinematic and dynamic model of a UAV, the path planning and collision avoidance algorithms are developed in 3D space. The artificial potential field method is chosen as a path planning and obstacle avoidance candidate technique for verification study as it is a simple and widely used method. Different optimization algorithms are applied and compared in terms of the reliability and efficiency.

Keywords

Clearance process Obstacle avoidance Optimization Potential field method Unmanned aerial vehicle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fielding, C., Varga, A., Bennai, S., Selier, M. (Eds). Advanced techniques for clearance of flight control laws. Springer LNCIS.283, pp. 3–33, 107–117. Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheol Min, B., Kwon, H.Y., Kim, D.: Path planning algorithm for VTOL type UAVs based on the methods of ray tracing and limit cycle. In: Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation (CIRA), IEEE International Symposium, pp. 296–301, 15–18 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Griffiths, S., Saunders, J., Curtis, A., McLain, T.: Obstacle and terrain avoidance for miniature aerial vehicles. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 13(3), 34–43 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pettersson, P.O., Doherty, P.: Probabilistic roadmap based path planning for an autonomous unmanned helicopter. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 17(4), 395–405 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bortoff, S.A.: Path planning for UAVs. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 1, pp. 364–368 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lapp, T., Singh, L.: Model predictive control based trajectory optimization for nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flight including obstacle avoidance. In: Proceeding of the 2004 American Control Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, 30 June–2 July 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roussos, G.P., Dimarogonas, D.V., Kyriakopoulos, K.J.: 3D navigation and collision avoidance for a non-holonomic vehicle. In: American Control Conference 2008, Washington, USA, 11–13 June 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paul, T., Krogstadm, T.R., Gravdahl, J.T.: UAV formation flight using 3D potential field. Ibn: Control and Automation 2008, 16th Mediterranean Conference on. pp. 1240–1245. 25–27 June 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    James, K.K.: Safety analysis methodology for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) collision avoidance systems, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA, United States Air Force, #F19628-00-C-0002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snooke, N., Price, C., Downes, C., Aspey, C.: Automated failure effect analysis for PHM of UAV. In: Proceedings of the International System Safety and Reliability Conference (ISSRC 2008), ISBN: 978-981-08-0446-6, April (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roland, E.W., John Hansman, R.: Safety Considerations for Operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the National Airspace System. MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lutz, R., Nelson, S., Patterson-Hine, A., Frost, C.R., Tal, D.: Identifying contingency requirements using obstacle analysis. In: Proceedings 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 263–272, 29 Aug–2 Sept (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Temizer, S., Kochenderfer, M.J, Kaelbing, L.P., Perez, T.L., Kuchar, J.K.: Collision avoidance for unmanned aircraft using Markov decision processes. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Toronto, Ontario, 2–5 Aug (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schouwenaars, T., How, J., Feron, E.: Decentralized cooperative trajectory planning of multiple aircraft with hard safety guarantees. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 16–19, Providence, Rhode Island, August (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srikanthakumar, S., Chen, W.H.: Optimisation-based clearance process for obstacle avoidance systems. International Conference on Automation and Computing, Birmingham, 11th September (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carona, R., Aguiar, A.P., Gaspar, J.: Control of Unicycle Type Robots Tracking, Path Following and Point Stabilization, pp. 180–185. International Proceeding of IV Electronics and Telecommunications, Lisbon (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luca, A.D., Oriolo, G.: Local Incremental Planning for Nonholonomic Mobile Robots, pp. 104–110. Proceeding of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA, 8–13 May (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paw, Y.C.: Synthesis and validation of Flight control for UAV, A dissertation, The faculty of the graduate school, The University of Minnesota, December (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khatib, O.: Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. Int. J. Rob. Res. 5(N0-1), 90–99 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribeiro, M.I.: Obstacle avoidance, Instituto de Sistemas e Robotica, Nov 2005. http://users.isr.ist.utl.pt/~mir/
  21. 21.
    Costa e Silva, E., Bicho, E., Erlhagen, W.: The potential field method and the nonlinear attractor dynamics approach: what are the difference?, 7th Portuguese Conference on Automatic Control”, CONTROLO (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holland, J.: Adaption in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bates, D., Hagstrom, M.: Nonlinear Analysis and Synthesis Techniques for Aircraft Control, pp. 259–300. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arora, J.S.: Introduction to Optimum Design, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rand, W.M.: Controlled observations of the Genetic algorithm in a changing environment: case studies using the Shaky ladder hyperplane-defined functions, Thesis, The University of Michigan (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Csendes, T. et al.: The GLOBAL optimisation method revisited. University of Szeged, Hungary (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones, D.: DIRECT Global Optimization Algorithm, Encyclopedi of Optimization, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Finkel, D.E., Kelley, C.T.: Convergence analysis of the direct algorithm. North Carolina State University, (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finkel, D.E.: DIRECT optimization algorithm user guide. Center for Research in Scientific Computation, North Carolina State University, 2 March (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sivaranjini Srikanthakumar
    • 1
  • Cunjia Liu
    • 1
  • Wen Hua Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aeronautical and Automotive EngineeringLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations