Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:53:22.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Collision avoidance within flight dynamics constraints for UAV applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

R. W. Penney*
Affiliation:
QinetiQ, Malvern, UK

Abstract

Avoiding collisions with other aircraft is an absolutely fundamental capability for semi-autonomous UAVs. However, an aircraft avoiding moving obstacles requires an evasive tactic that is simultaneously very quick to compute, compatible with the platform’s flight dynamics, and deals with the subtle spatio-temporal features of the threat.

We will give an overview of a novel prototype method of rapidly generating smooth flight-paths constrained to avoid moving obstacles, using an efficient trajectory-optimisation technique. Obstacles are described in terms of simple geometrical shapes, such as ellipsoids, whose centres and shapes can vary with time. The technique generates a spatio-temporal trajectory which offers a high likelihood of avoiding the volume in space-time excluded by the predicted motion of each of the known obstacles. Such a flight-path could then be passed to the aircraft’s flight-control systems to negotiate the threat posed by the obstacles. Results from a demonstration implementation of the collision-avoidance technique will be discussed, including non-trivial scenarios handled well within 100ms on a 300MHz processor.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lake, M.F.. Collision avoidance – a pilot’s perspective, Proceedings 17th International Conference on UAV Systems, 2002, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
2. Lopez, R.. Avoiding Collisions in the age of UAVs, Aerospace America, 27, June 2002.Google Scholar
3. Kuchar, J.K. and Yang, L.C.. Review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods, IEEE trans Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2000, 1, (4), pp 179189.Google Scholar
4. Barfield, A.F., Probert, J. and Browning, D.. All terrain ground collision avoidance and maneuvering terrain following for automated low level night attach, IEEE Aerospace and Electrical Systems Magazine, 1993, 8, (3), pp 4047.Google Scholar
5. CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy; Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance, 2004, Civil Aviation Authority, CAP722.Google Scholar
6. Williamson, T. and Spencer, N.A.. Development and operation of the traffic alert and collision avoidance system, Proceedings of IEEE, 1989, 77, (11), pp 17351744.Google Scholar
7. Bar-Shalom, Y. and Fortmann, T.E., Tracking and Data Association, 1988, Academic Press.Google Scholar
8. Cook, M.V., Flight Dynamics Principles, 1997, Butterworth Heinemann.Google Scholar
9. Hu, J., Prandini, M., Nilim, A. and Sastry, S.. Optimal coordinated maneuvers for three dimensional aircraft conflict resolution, 2001, Proceedings of AIAA conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control, Montreal.Google Scholar
10. Bokadia, S. and Valasek, J.. Severe weather avoidance using informed heueristic search, 2001, Proceedings of AIAA conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control, Montreal.Google Scholar
11. Fletcher, R., Practical Methods of Optimization, 1987, Wiley.Google Scholar
12. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery, B.P., Numerical Recipes in C, 1992, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar