1 / 18

Analysis of intrersecting flows of agents

Analysis of intrersecting flows of agents. Eric Feron & David Dugail Mini MURI 03/02/02. Research motivation & goals. Analyses of conflict resolution usually involve pairs or a finite number of aircraft Need to address the fear of domino effect

larsond
Download Presentation

Analysis of intrersecting flows of agents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Analysis of intrersecting flows of agents Eric Feron & David Dugail Mini MURI 03/02/02

  2. Research motivation & goals • Analyses of conflict resolution usually involve pairs or a finite number of aircraft • Need to address the fear of domino effect • one conflict resolution triggers a new conflict elsewhere possibly leading to divergence in the system • Analysis of aircraft flows • worst-case standpoint • Stability & performance • simulations for insight on the system dynamics • analytical proofs

  3. Background • A very rich literature on management of conflicts involving 2,3 or more but finite number of aircraft - Erzberger, Krozel, Kuchar, Niedringhaus, Sastry, Tomlin, Zeghal …. • An equally rich literature on conflict management with aircraft flows - eg gas models - Bakker, Blom, Simpson… Open-loop probabilistic models. • Very little available from current robotics literature (Recent research by Ruspini, Devasia, Meyer,…otherwise computational complexity results, eg Reif & Sharir) • How does one prove stability, and bound required aircraft deviations, for conflict resolution over a class of closed-loop aircraft interactions in a deterministic setting?

  4. A "Control Volume" approach • Motivation: Infinite # of aircraft flow in and out • Analysis of completely random aircraft flows is difficult • Need to structure the flows & flow behaviors

  5. A control volume approach 2-D Structured converging flows pre-determined points of entry regular or random entry Aircraft make 1 maneuver when entering maneuver is minimal offset, heading change maneuvers N

  6. w Position after conflict resolution Original position Original heading a Heading after conflict resolution W Conflict area Conflict area Conflict area Heading Change vs. Offset Maneuver Models

  7. 2 successive heading changes Proof by contradiction Upper bound on lateral displacement dsep : min. separation dist. N Offset maneuver (2/2) (2 flows, decentralized)

  8. Conflict geometry • 2-D • Structured converging flows • pre-determined points of entry • regular or random entry • Aircraft make 1 maneuver when entering • maneuver is minimal • offset, heading change maneuvers

  9. Conflicting flows Distribution of deviations

  10. Conflict analysis Deviation angle is bounded by T: where d=Dsep/R

  11. Other results • Bounds on lateral displacements for arbitrary encounter angle, speed, distance to conflict. Define: q : Encounter angle, m = v2/v1 Then lateral displacement maneuver amplitude for stream 1 is less than with • Bounds on displacement for longitudinal/lateral maneuvers (Independent utility functions for each aircraft)

  12. N Three flows (1/4) • Centralized resolution (using mixed integer programming) • stable • exhibits particular structure • Decentralized resolution • diverges

  13. Three flows (2/4) • Idea • create a control structure • independent of flow • optimize it to decrease lateral distance from original flight path • Concept • three-flow compatible • aircraft are assigned conflict free spots

  14. Three flows (3/4) • a systematic way to deal with conflicts • only 30% higher deviation compared with MIP Mixed Integer Prog. solution Structured solution Results

  15. Three flows (4/4) • Control structure • flow independent • optimized

  16. Flow management : a 3-D approach How geometry and flow management merge ?

  17. Analysis of robustness • Maneuver imprecision • leads to divergence in some scenarios • Aircraft position uncertainties • 3-D geometrical tool may help

  18. Towards Free Flight... • Limited information • Situation is obtained by onboard device (radar) • control volume is attached to each aircraft • events happen anytime • Stability & performance ?

More Related