A Methodology for Macroscopic Airspace Traffic Risk Modeling and Assessment under Manned-unmanned Integrated Operations
-
摘要: 有人与无人驾驶航空器融合运行为空域安全评估带来了全新挑战。现有风险评估研究主要聚焦于基于轨迹推演的战术级碰撞风险评估，缺乏面向空域规划设计的战略级系统层面风险评估。为全面评估空域安全水平，确保大型无人机规模化安全融入管制空域，研究了有人无人融合运行下空域宏观交通风险建模与评估方法。从航路与交叉点结构特征入手，构建了基于几何形态与冲突临界断面的空域静态风险指标；基于交通流运行特性，从水平和垂直这2个维度提出了空域动态风险指标；通过将静态复杂度与动态冲突风险进行耦合，建立了综合反映空域结构静态特征与航空器运行动态特征的融合空域交通风险评估模型。在此基础上，以上海4个区域扇区为例，进行有人机运行场景下风险评估分析，以此验证模型的可行性和有效性并获取空域目标安全水平；进而设计仿真实验，探究融合运行下异质交通流速度差、间隔、混合比3个参数对风险的影响机理；并以不超过空域目标安全水平为准则，进行等效风险下有人无人融合运行判定，评估各有人机航路允许引入的无人机架次。结果表明：①速度差和间隔是风险的核心驱动因素，混合比对空域交通风险的影响与间隔值设定有关，当有人无人间的最小安全间隔远大于有人机间的最小安全间隔、无人机间的最小安全间隔时，无人机占比为50%左右时风险最高；②速度差、间隔和混合比3个参数间存在复杂协同作用，无额外高阶耦合效应；③高初始风险时段不利于引入无人机融合运行。Abstract: Integrating manned and unmanned aircraft into shared airspace presents significant challenges to airspace safety assessment. Existing risk assessment studies primarily focus on tactical collision risk evaluation based on trajectory prediction, while strategic-level systematic risk assessment for airspace planning and design remains underdeveloped. To comprehensively evaluate airspace safety levels and support the safe large-scale integration of unmanned aircraft into controlled airspace, this study investigates a macroscopic traffic risk modeling and assessment method for integrated operations. Static risk indicators are constructed based on the structural characteristics of routes and intersections, incorporating geometric morphology and conflict-prone profiles. Dynamic risk indicators are proposed in both horizontal and vertical dimensions, based on traffic flow characteristics. By coupling static complexity with dynamic conflict risks, an integrated airspace traffic risk assessment model is established, reflecting both the static features of the airspace structure and the dynamic characteristics of aircraft operations. Using four sector areas in Shanghai as an example, a risk assessment is conducted under manned aircraft operational scenarios to validate the model's feasibility and effectiveness, and to determine the target safety level for the airspace. Simulation experiments are designed to explore the influence mechanism of the three parameters, speed difference, separation, and mix ratio, on risk under integrated operation. Based on the criterion of not exceeding the target safety level, an equivalent risk assessment approach is adopted to determine the feasibility of manned-unmanned integrated operations. The allowable number of unmanned aircraft that can be introduced into each manned route is evaluated. The results show that: ①Speed difference and separation are the core driving factors of risk. The influence of mix ratio on airspace traffic risk depends on the separation setting. When the minimum safety separation between manned and unmanned aircraft is significantly larger than that between manned aircraft or between unmanned aircraft, the risk peaks when unmanned aircraft account for about50% of the traffic mix. ②Complex interactions are observed among speed difference, separation, and mix ratio, with no additional higher-order coupling effects detected. ③High -risk initial periods are not conducive to the introduction of unmanned aircraft.
-
图 1 航路i上存在潜在冲突的临界断面示意图
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of critical sections with potential conflicts on route i
图 2 存在潜在冲突的单位临界断面示意图
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of unit critical section with potential conflicts
图 3 交叉点n处存在潜在冲突的临界断面示意图
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of critical sections with potential conflicts at intersection n
图 4 航路中仅有2种类型航空器时运行示意图
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of operations with only two aircraft types in the route
图 6 4个扇区2019年11月1日—7日的空域交通风险结果
Figure 6. Airspace traffic risk results of four sectors from November 1 to 7, 2019
图 7 空域交通风险指标与流量指标相关性分析
Figure 7. Correlation analysis between airspace traffic risk indicators and traffic flow indicators
图 8 10 km间隔、10%混合比下速度差与空域交通风险关系图
Figure 8. Relationship diagram of speed difference and airspace traffic risk under 10 km separation and 10% mix ratio conditions
图 9 10%混合比、600 km/h速度差下间隔与空域交通风险关系图
Figure 9. Relationship diagram of separation and airspace traffic risk under 10% mix ratio and 600 km/h speed difference conditions
图 10 10 km间隔、600 km/h速度差下混合比与空域交通风险关系图
Figure 10. Relationship diagram of mix ratio and airspace traffic risk under 10 km separation and 600 km/h speed difference conditions
图 11 速度差-间隔-混合比与空域交通风险关系图
Figure 11. Relationship diagram of speed difference-separation-mix ratio and airspace traffic risk
图 12 等效风险下的有人无人融合运行判定结果
Figure 12. Determination results of manned aircraft and UAV integrated operations under equivalent risk
表 1 扇区航路数据示例
Table 1. Example of sector route data
扇区名称 航路名称 航路点名称 经度/（°） 纬度/（°） x y 顺序号 备注 ZSSSAR07 A326 DOPNO 123.405 28 35 13 737 412.68 4 163 881.145 0 原始点 ZSSSAR07 A326 IVPIP 123.420 56 34.820 28 13 739 113.4 4 139 484.355 1 原始点 ZSSSAR07 A326 IKADI 123.483 33 34.091 67 13 746 101.79 4 041 117.272 2 原始点 ZSSSAR07 A326 7TO33 13 746 721.72 3 835 606.778 3 与边界交点 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ZSSSAR10 X149 P509 116.325 56 24.892 50 12 949 301.61 2 862 546.437 0 原始点 ZSSSAR10 X149 OUT10 ⋮ ⋮ 12 956 903.24 2 807 045.762 1 与边界交点 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 扇区内ADS-B航迹数据示例
Table 2. Example of ADS-B track data in sector
扇区名称 航班号 机型 时间戳 经度/（°） 纬度/（°） 高度/m 速度/（km/h） x y 航路名称 高度层 ZSSSAR07 CDG2226 B738 2019/11/1 00:10:01 121.614 04 33.265 82 7 498.08 692.648 13 538 013.006 3 930 640.510 B221 7 200 ZSSSAR07 CDG2226 B738 2019/11/1 00:10:12 121.607 06 33.279 97 7 498.08 694.5 13 537 236.996 3 932 524.534 B221 7 200 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ZSSSAR10 CQH8668 A320 2019/11/7 00:15:02 115.528 75 24.758 44 10 081.26 959.336 12 860 601.622 2 846 103.461 H22 10 100 ZSSSAR10 CQH8668 A320 2019/11/7 00:15:11 115.545 91 24.770 45 10 088.88 959.336 12 862 511.864 2 847 575.809 H22 10 100 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 4个扇区的航路结构特性及空域静态风险指标
Table 3. Route structure characteristics and airspace static risk indicators of four sectors
扇区 交叉点n /交叉角$\alpha_{i, j} /$交叉点复杂度$\gamma_{n}$ 航路j 航路长度Li /km 航路复杂度βi ZSSSAR
07航路
iA326 B221 W108 W113 X187 A326 4/76°或80°/3.065 3/57°/3.574 328.582 0.135 B221 1/81°/4.046 263.384 0.077 W108 2/82°/14.774 2/75°/14.774 263.343 0.155 W113 4/76°或80°/3.065 1/81°/4.046 2/82°/14.774 2/23°/14.774 340.292 0.298 X187 3/57°/3.574 2/75°/14.774 2/23°/14.774 246.963 0.193 ZSSSAR
08B591 W13 W67 X11 B591 121.132 0 W13 1/85°或81°/14.1921/26°或40°/14.192 304.277 0.192 W67 1/85°或81°/14.192 1/58°/14.192 45.861 0.476 X11 1/26°或40°/14.192 1/58°/14.192 264.529 0.233 ZSSSAR
09H18 H2 H22 X72 H18 1/30°或43°/40.242 1/80°/40.242 1/86°/40.242 130.621 0.288 H2 1/30°或43°/40.242 1/71°或57°/40.2421/60°或47°/40.242 238.626 0.347 H22 1/80°/40.242 1/71°或57°/40.242 1/10°或21°/40.242 164.586 0.850 X72 1/86°/40.242 1/60°或47°/40.2421/10°或21°/40.242 296.417 0.480 ZSSSAR
10H22 H98 X149 X72 H22 1/72°/4.196 3/57°/4.759 258.063 0.174 H98 1/72°/4.196 2/47°/4.084 4/49°/3.982 175.779 0.425 X149 2/47°/4.084 56.019 0.243 X72 3/57°/4.759 4/49°/3.982 199.132 0.186
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 ZSSSAR07扇区2019年11月3日水平冲突风险指标
Table 4. Horizontal conflict risk indicator for ZSSSAR07 sector on November 3, 2019
时段 高度层hk/m 航路占用率$\delta_{i, h_k}$ 水平冲突风险指标$\tau_{n, h_k}$ A326 B221 W108 W113 X187 交叉点1 交叉点2 交叉点3 交叉点4 00:00:00 6 600 0 0.012 499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00:00:00 8 400 0 0.005 931 0 0.012 384 0 7.345×10-5 0 0 0 00:00:00 9 200 0.012 705 0.012 645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00:15:00 8 400 0 0 0 0.014 713 0.014 889 0 2.191×10-4 0 0 00:30:00 9 200 0 0.001 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00:45:00 * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 08:00:00 7 200 0 0.035 613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 7 800 0 0.002 908 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 8 100 0 0 0.018 644 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 8 400 0 0 0 0 0.013 881 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 9 200 0 0.024 707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 9 500 0 0 0.023 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00:00 10 400 0 0.012 616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 23:45:00 8 400 0.013 499 0.012 244 0 0.013 774 0 1.687×10-4 0 0 1.859×10-4 23:45:00 9 200 0 0.012 470 0 0.013 774 0 1.718×10-4 0 0 0 23:45:00 9 500 0.011 738 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 注：*表示统计时段内无航空器运行。
下载: 导出CSV
表 5 ZSSSAR07扇区2019年11月3日垂直冲突风险指标
Table 5. Vertical conflict risk indicator for ZSSSAR07 sector on November 3, 2019
时段 航路$i$ 原始高度层$h_{g} / \mathrm{m}$ 高度层$h_{g}$ 上的航路$i$ 占用率$\delta_{i, h_{g}}$ 穿越的高度层$h_{k} / \mathrm{m}$ 高度层$h_{k}$ 上的航路$i$ 占用率$\delta_{i, h_{k}}$ 垂直变化率$\eta_{i, h_{g} h_{k}}$ 垂直冲突风险指标$\varepsilon_{i, h_{k}}$ 00:00:00 B221 8 400 0.005 931 8 100 0 1 0 00:00:00 B221 8 400 0.005 931 7 800 0 1 0 00:15:00 * * * * * * 0 00:30:00 B221 9 200 0.001 567 8 900 0 1 0 00:30:00 B221 9 200 0.001 567 8 400 0 1 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 08:00:00 B221 7 800 0.002 908 7 500 0 1 0 08:00:00 B221 7 800 0.002 908 7 200 0.035 613 1 1.036×10-4 08:00:00 W108 8 100 0.018 644 7 800 0 0.333 333 0 08:00:00 W108 8 100 0.018 644 7 500 0 0.333 333 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 23:45:00 * * * * * * 0 注：*表示统计时段内无航空器变换高度层。
下载: 导出CSV
表 6 参数调整范围
Table 6. Parameter adjustment range
参数 调整范围 无人机速度/（km/h） 200~800 有人无人间的最小安全间隔/km 5，10，15，20，25，30，35，40，45，50 无人机占比 0~100%
下载: 导出CSV
表 7 多因素方差分析表
Table 7. Multivariate analysis of variance
效应类型 方差来源 空域综合水平冲突风险 空域综合垂直冲突风险 平方和 自由度 F统计量 p值 显著性 平方和 自由度 F统计量 p值 显著性 主效应 速度差 1.078 5 349.665 1.153×10-315 极显著 4.2×10-5 5 243.040 1.765×10-229 极显著 间隔 1.112 9 200.385 1.768×10-319 极显著 6.2×10-5 9 199.319 5.196×10-318 极显著 混合比 0.421 10 68.279 6.435×10-130 显著 3.0×10-5 10 86.800 1.086×10-163 显著 二阶交互作用 速度差×间隔 0.355 45 12.794 1.042×10-86 显著 2.0×10-5 45 12.859 3.161×10-87 显著 速度差×混合比 0.620 50 20.111 3.645×10-158 显著 4.0×10-5 50 23.147 2.201×10-183 显著 混合比×间隔 0.229 90 4.127 5.820×10-34 显著 1.9×10-5 90 6.108 3.118×10-62 显著 三阶交互作用 速度差×间隔×混合比 0.302 450 1.088 0.107 不显著 1.7×10-5 450 1.093 0.096 不显著 残差 2.676 4 340 1.5×10-4 4 340 总和 6.793 4 999 3.8×10-4 4 999
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] ICAO. Aviation system block upgrades[EB/OL]. (2016-07) [2024-12-16]. https://www.icao.int/airnavigation/Documents/ASBU_2016-FINAL.pdf .[2] EASA. Advance NPA 2015-10: Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones[EB/OL]. (2015-07-31)[2025-01-16]. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amendment/npa-2015-10 .[3] FAA. Order 8130.34D-Airworthiness certification of unmanned aircraft systems and optionally piloted aircraft[EB/ OL]. (2017-09-08)[2024-12-16]. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_8130.34d.pdf .[4] CORDÓN R R, NIETO F J S, REJADO C C. RPAS integration in non-segregated airspace: the SESAR approach system interfaces needed for integration[J]. Fourth SESAR Innovation Days, 2014: 25-27. [5] PÉREZ-CASTÁN J A, GÓMEZ COMENDADOR F, ARNALDO-VALDÉS R M, et al. Conflict-resolution algorithms for separation minima definition of RPAS in a non-segregated airspace[C]. 7th EASN International Conference, Warsaw, Poland: Warsaw University of Technology, 2017. [6] 刘厚荣. 固定翼无人机与通航飞机低空融合运行间隔与容量研究[D]. 广汉: 中国民用航空飞行学院, 2024.LIU H R. Research on the low-altitude fusion operation interval and capacity of fixed-wing UAV and general aviation aircraft[D]. Guanghan: Civil Aviation Flight University of China, 2024. (in Chinese) [7] 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) [8] ARAD B A. The controller load and sector design[J]. Journal of Air Traffic Control, 1964, (5): 12-31. [9] PEJOVIC T, NATJASOV F, CRNOGORAC D. Relationship between air traffic demand, safety and complexity in high density airspace in Europe[C]. ICSC-ISATECH Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University of Applied Science, 2020. [10] MOGFORD R H, GUTTMAN J A, MORROW S L, et al. The complexity construct in air traffic control: a review and synthesis of the literature, DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/22[R]. Springfield, Virginia: FAA, 1995. [11] 吴哲. 基于复杂度的空域繁忙等级划分研究[D]. 南京: 南京航空航天大学, 2019.WU Z. Research on busy level classification of airspace based on complexity[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2019. (in Chinese) [12] ZHANG Z Y, ZHANG J, WANG P, et al. Research on operation of UAVs in non-isolated airspace[J]. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2018, 57(1): 151-166. [13] 杨敏. 无人机与民航客机碰撞安全风险评估[D]. 广汉: 中国民用航空飞行学院, 2019.YANG M. Safety risk assessment of collision between UAV and civil aircraft[D]. Guanghan: Civil Aviation Flight University of China, 2019. (in Chinese) [14] 艾毅, 万琪峰, 韩珣, 等. 面向复杂空域的多航空器交互风险评估方法[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2024, 42(3): 1-10. doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2024.03.001AI Y, WAN Q F, HAN X, et al. A risk assessment method of multi-aircraft interaction for complex airspace[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2024, 42(3): 1-10. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2024.03.001 [15] 杨锦, 杭旭, 王艳军. 机场管制空域内无人机运行安全风险评估[J]. 航空学报, 2025, 46(11): 418-431.YANG J, HANG X, WANG Y J. Safety risk assessment of UAVs operations in airport controlled airspace[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2025, 46(11): 418-431. (in Chinese) [16] ZHANG N, LIU H, NG B F, et al. Collision probability between intruding drone and commercial aircraft in airport restricted area based on collision-course trajectory planning[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2020, 120: 102736. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102736 [17] 童亮, 甘旭升, 张宏宏, 等. 考虑多因素影响的无人机碰撞风险评估[J]. 兵器装备工程学报, 2023, 44(4): 282-289.TONG L, GAN X S, ZHANG H H, et al. Risk assessment of UAV collision considering multiple factors[J]. Journal of Ordnance Equipment Engineering, 2023, 44(4): 282-289. (in Chinese) [18] NETJASOV F. Framework for airspace planning and design based on conflict risk assessment: Part 1: Conflict risk assessment model for airspace strategic planning[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2012, 24: 190-212. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2012.03.002 [19] PÉREZ-CASTÁN J A, GÓMEZ COMENDADOR F, RODRÍGUEZ-SANZ A, et al. RPAS conflict-risk assessment in non-segregated airspace[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 111: 7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.018 [20] PÉREZ-CASTÁN J A, RODRÍGUEZ-SANZ A. Risk Assessment in air traffic management[M]. London: IntechOpen, 2020. [21] YANG L, HAN K, BORST C, et al. Impact of aircraft speed heterogeneity on contingent flow control in 4D en-route operation[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2020, 119: 102746. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102746 [22] YANG L, HUANG J, GAO Q, et al. Dynamic boundary optimization of free route airspace sectors[J]. Aerospace, 2022, 9 (12): 832-861. doi: 10.3390/aerospace9120832 [23] 郭萍. 有交互影响的三因素方差分析的应用及MATLAB实现[J]. 沈阳大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 31(3): 252-256.GUO P. Application of Three-Factor ANOVA with interaction and MATLAB implementation[J]. Journal of Shenyang University(Natural Science), 2019, 31(3): 252-256. (in Chinese) -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 5
- HTML全文浏览量: 3
- PDF下载量: 0
- 被引次数: 0