An Analysis of Airborne Collision Risk During UAV Approach Phase
-
摘要: 无人机起降架次不断增加，合理设定进场阶段的最小安全间隔对于提升容量和效率至关重要。为了提高无人机空中交通管理效率，保障飞行安全，推进无人机在复杂空域条件下安全应用，聚焦于多旋翼物流无人机进场阶段的空中碰撞风险建模。现有研究存在3个方面的不足：①研究对象多局限于开放类无人机，而特定类物流无人机的运行风险研究不足；②研究内容集中于巡航阶段，缺乏对进场阶段的针对性分析；③评估方法多沿用有人机模型，未充分考虑无人机在机动性和控制特性方面的差异。基于主流物流无人机企业的2种典型进场方式：水平进场垂直下降、沿斜线进近，通过改进传统位置误差概率模型，引入动态闭环控制反馈机制，将定位采样间隔与速度调整的实时性纳入风险计算，针对物流无人机特性调整定位误差和速度误差参数，建立适用于进场阶段的碰撞风险评估框架，并根据安全目标水平计算出最小安全间隔。结果表明，随着2架无人机初始间隔的增大，碰撞风险呈现降低的趋势，将安全目标水平设为1×10-7次事故/飞行小时，并考虑整个进场阶段的初始间隔应满足安全目标水平，得到水平进场垂直下降进场方式的最小安全间隔为21 m，沿斜线进近进场方式的最小安全间隔为26 m，为无人机进场阶段的空中碰撞风险构建了可量化的安全评价指标体系。Abstract: As the number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) takeoff and landing operations continues to grow, determining a minimum safe separation during the approach phase is critical for enhancing airspace capacity and operational efficiency. To improve the efficiency of unmanned aerial traffic management, ensure flight safety, and facilitate the safe application of UAVs in complex airspace environments, this study focuses on modeling airborne collision risks during the approach phase of multirotor logistics drones. Current research has three main limitations:First, most studies focus on open-category UAVs, with insufficient attention to the operational risks of specific-category logistics drones. Second, the existing literature emphasizes the cruise phase and lacks targeted analysis of theapproach phase. Third, many assessment models are adapted from manned aviation without adequately accountingfor the unique maneuverability and control characteristics of UAVs. Based on two typical entry methods of mainstream logistics unmanned aerial vehicles: horizontal entry with vertical descent and diagonal approach, this studyimproves the traditional probability model of position error and introduces a dynamic closed-loop control feedbackmechanism. The real-time characteristics of positioning sampling interval and speed adjustment are incorporated into the risk calculation. According to the characteristics of logistics unmanned aerial vehicles, the positioning errorand speed error parameters are adjusted, and a collision risk assessment framework applicable to the entry stage isestablished. Based on the safety target level, the minimum safe interval is calculated. The calculation results showthat as the initial interval between the two unmanned aerial vehicles increases, the collision risk shows a decreasingtrend. By setting the safety target level to 1 × 10-7 accidents per flight hour and requiring that the initial intervalthroughout the entry stage meets the target level, the minimum safe interval is 21 m for the horizontal entry with vertical descent method and 26 m for the diagonal approach. This establishes a quantifiable safety evaluation framework for the air collision risk during the entry stage of unmanned aerial vehicles.
-
图 1 水平进场垂直下降的进场方式示意图
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the horizontal approach and vertical descent method
图 2 沿斜线进近的进场方式的起降场俯视布局
Figure 2. Top-down layout of the takeoff and landing area for the diagonal approach method
图 5 水平进场垂直下降进场方式的模型运行结果
Figure 5. Model results of the entry method of entering horizontally and then descending vertically
图 6 水平进场垂直下降进场方式下碰撞风险随时间变化情况
Figure 6. Variation of collision risk over time for the horizontal approach and vertical descent method
图 7 沿斜线进近进场方式的模型运行结果
Figure 7. Model results of the approach method for approaching along the diagonal line
图 8 沿斜线进近的进场方式下碰撞风险随时间的变化情况
Figure 8. Variation of collision risk over time for the diagonal approach method
表 1 无人机相关参数
Table 1. Drone-related parameters
参数 取值 参数 取值 $\mu_{\text {icy }}$ 0 $\sigma_{\text {iyv }}$ 0.2398 $\mu_{\text {icz }}$ 0 $\sigma_{\text {izv }}$ 0.2398 $\sigma_{\text {icy }}$ 2.5 $l_{x}$ 1.24 $\sigma_{\text {icz }}$ 2.5 $l_{y}$ 1.24 $\mu_{\text {iyv }}$ 0 $l_{z}$ 0.45 $\mu_{\text {izv }}$ 0 target＿CR $1 \times 10^{-7}$ 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 水平进场垂直下降的进场方式计算结果
Table 2. Calculation results of the horizontal approach and vertical descent method
水平进场阶段 垂直下降阶段 2个阶段交叉点处 间隔/m 碰撞风险 间隔/m 碰撞风险 距离/m 碰撞风险 16 $1.1462 \times 10^{-6}$ 11 $0.4538 \times 10^{-3}$ 16 $6.3877 \times 10^{-5}$ 17 $1.9225 \times 10^{-7}$ 12 $0.1248 \times 10^{-3}$ 17 $1.7955 \times 10^{-5}$ 18 $2.8876 \times 10^{-8}$ 13 $3.0646 \times 10^{-5}$ 18 $4.6691 \times 10^{-6}$ 19 $3.8833 \times 10^{-9}$ 14 $6.729 \times 10^{-6}$ 19 $1.1231 \times 10^{-6}$ 20 $4.675 \times 10^{-10}$ 15 $1.3205 \times 10^{-6}$ 20 $2.4985 \times 10^{-7}$ 21 $5.0372 \times 10^{-11}$ 16 $2.3159 \times 10^{-7}$ 21 $5.1406 \times 10^{-8}$ 22 $4.8571 \times 10^{-12}$ 17 $3.6299 \times 10^{-8}$ 22 $9.7803 \times 10^{-9}$
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 水平进场垂直下降进场方式下及最小初始安全间隔（21 m）下最大碰撞风险随时间变化情况
Table 3. Variation of maximum collision risk over time under horizontal and vertical descent approach with minimum initial safety interval (21 m)
时间/s 碰撞风险 0 5.140 6×10-8 1.010 1 5.960 9×10-8 2.020 2 9.146 9×10-8
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 沿斜线进近阶段的计算结果
Table 4. Calculation results for the diagonal approach phase
沿斜线进近阶段 水平进场与沿斜线进近交叉点处 沿斜线进近与垂直下降交叉点处 间隔/m 碰撞风险 距离/m 碰撞风险 距离/m 碰撞风险 21 $3.2226 \times 10^{-6}$ 21 $1.7302 \times 10^{-5}$ 21 $3.9667 \times 10^{-6}$ 22 $9.55 \times 10^{-7}$ 22 $5.7767 \times 10^{-6}$ 22 $1.2703 \times 10^{-6}$ 23 $2.6745 \times 10^{-7}$ 23 $1.8313 \times 10^{-6}$ 23 $3.8579 \times 10^{-7}$ 24 $7.0779 \times 10^{-8}$ 24 $5.5115 \times 10^{-7}$ 24 $1.1112 \times 10^{-7}$ 25 $1.7701 \times 10^{-8}$ 25 $1.5748 \times 10^{-7}$ 25 $3.0353 \times 10^{-8}$ 26 $4.1834 \times 10^{-9}$ 26 $4.2712 \times 10^{-8}$ 26 $7.8633 \times 10^{-9}$
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 沿斜线进近进场方式下及最小安全间隔（26 m）下最大碰撞风险随时间变化情况
Table 5. Changes in maximum collision risk over time under diagonal approach method with minimum safety separation (26 m)
时间/s 碰撞风险 0 4.271 2×10-8 1.010 1 4.961 9×10-8 2.020 2 7.654 8×10-8
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 闫超, 涂良辉, 王聿豪, 等. 无人机在我国民用领域应用综述[J]. 飞行力学, 2022, 40(3): 1-6, 12.YAN C, TU L H, WANG Y H, et al. Applica-tion of unmanned aerial vehicle in civil field in China[J]. Flight Dynamics, 2022, 40(3): 1-6, 12. (in Chinese) [2] TYAGI A, ZHANG Y, TOUSSAINT S, et al. Strategies to model system risk using UAS saf-ety analysis model (USAM)[C]. 16th AIAA Av-iation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, Dallas, USA: AIAA, 2016. [3] MCFADYEN A, MARTIN T, PEREZ T. Low level collision risk modelling for unmanned aircraft integration and management[C]. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Montana, USA: IEEE, 2018. [4] 赵建华. 考虑无人机运行的航空安全风险分析研究[D]. 南京: 南京航空航天大学, 2020.ZHAO J H. Risk analysis of aviation safety c-onsidering UAV operation[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2020. (in Chiness) [5] ZOU Y Y, ZHANG H H, ZHONG G, et al. Collision probability estimation for small unma-nned aircraft systems[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021, 213: 1-16. [6] 王莉莉, 阳杰. 基于位置误差概率模型的物流无人机安全间隔评估方法研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18 (3): 184-192.WANG L L, YANG J. Research on assessment method of safety separation for logistics UAV-s based on position error probability model[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(3): 184-192. (in Chiness) [7] 王兴隆, 王友杰. 面向城市低空的多机型eVTOL安全间隔评估[J]. 航空学报, 2025, 46(1): 275-290.WANG X L, WANG Y J. Multi-aircraft eVTO-L safety interval evaluation for urban low altit-ude[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2025, 46(1): 275-290. (in Chinese) [8] 李楠, 孙廪实, 焦庆宇, 等. 无人机安全间隔的确定方法[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2024, 24(26): 11463-11472.LI N, SUN L S, JIAO Q Y, et al. The method for determining the safety separation of unmanned aerial vehicles[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2024, 24(26): 11463-11472. (in Chinese) [9] 赵嶷飞, 袁一凡. 小型多旋翼城市物流无人机进场航线设计方法研究[J]. 飞行力学, 2024, 42(4): 78-87.ZHAO Y F, YUAN Y F. Research on approach flight route design method of small multirotor urban logistics UAVs[J]. Flight Dynamics, 2024, 42(4): 78-87. (in Chinese) [10] 王思禹. 基于EVENT模型的飞机进近阶段碰撞风险研究[D]. 四川广汉: 中国民用航空飞行学院, 2021.WANG S Y. Research on the collision risk of aireraft in approach phase based on EVENTmodel[D]. Guanghan, Sichuan: Civil Aviation Flight University of China, 2021. (in Chiness) [11] 卢飞, 张健, 赵二丽. 基于模糊贝叶斯和事件树的配对进近碰撞风险研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(12): 64-73.LU F, ZHANG J, ZHAO E L. Research on collision risk of paired approach based on fuzzy Bayesian and event tree[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(12): 64-73. (in Chine-se) [12] 卢飞, 赵二丽, 梁献匀. 定位误差影响下的配对进近纵向碰撞风险研究[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2023, 41(4): 24-32. doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2023.04.003LU F, ZHAO E L, LIANG X Y. A study on longitudinal collision risk of airplanes during paired approach under the influence of positioning error[J]. Journal of Transport Informatin and Safety, 2023, 41(4): 24-32. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2023.04.003 [13] SESAR. BUBBLES D2.1 concept Formulation: BUBBLES D2.1[S]. Brussels: EU, Single European Sky ATM Research, 2022. [14] PRADEEP P, WEI P. Heuristic approach for Arrival sequencing and scheduling for eVTOL aircraft in on-demand urban air mobility[C]. 2018 IEEE/AIAA 37th Digital Avionics Systems Conference(DASC), London, UK: IEEE, 2018. [15] KLEINBEKMAN I C, MITICI M A, WEI P. eVTOL arrival sequencing and scheduling for on de-mand urban air mobility[C]. 2018 IEEE/AIAA 37th Digit al Avionics Systems Conference(DASC), London, UK: IEEE, 2018. [16] ROYAL N. Safety targets for UAM vehicles[EB/OL]. (2021-08-18)[2025-01-03]. https://reports.nlr.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/bc9bce31-b1ae-45e4-80e4-313789163459/content .[17] JARUS. JARUS guidelines on specific operations risk assessment (SORA)[EB/OL]. (2019-03-06) [2025-01-03]. http://jarus-rpas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/jar_doc_06_jarus_sora_v2.0.pdf .[18] 张兆宁, 王莉莉, 李冬宾. 飞行间隔安全评估引论[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009.ZHANG Z N, WANG L L, LI D B. Introdu-ction to flight interval safety evaluation[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2009. (in Chinese) [19] 王兴隆, 王友杰. 基于改进Event模型的多旋翼型eVTOL垂直间隔安全评估方法[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2024, 42(1): 19-27.WANG X L, W Y J. A safety evaluation of vertical separation for multirotor eVTOL based on an improved event model[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2024, 42(1): 19-27. (in Chinese) [20] 卢飞, 张兆宁, 魏志强, 等. 近距平行跑道配对进近纵向碰撞风险安全评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(8): 108-113.LU F, ZHANG Z N, WEI Z Q, et al. Longitud inal collision risk safety assessment of paired approach to closed spaced parallel runways[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2013, 23(8): 108-113. (in Chinese) -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 27
- HTML全文浏览量: 10
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0