An Optimal Algorithm for Changing from Latitudinal to Longitudinal Formation of Autonomous Aircraft Squadrons

This work presents an algorithm for changing from latitudinal to longitudinal formation of autonomous aircraft squadrons. The maneuvers are defined dynamically by using a predefined set of 3D basic maneuvers. This formation changing is necessary when the squadron has to perform tasks which demand both formations, such as lift off, georeferencing, obstacle avoidance and landing. Simulations show that the formation changing is made without collision. The time complexity analysis of the transformation algorithm reveals that its efficiency is optimal, and the proof of correction ensures its longitudinal formation features.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
POST COMMENT

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Authors

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

11/08/2020

Swarm Formation Morphing for Congestion Aware Collision Avoidance

The focus of this work is to present a novel methodology for optimal dis...
03/03/2021

Cellular Formation Maintenance and Collision Avoidance Using Centroid-Based Point Set Registration in a Swarm of Drones

This work focuses on low-energy collision avoidance and formation mainte...
09/05/2021

A drl based distributed formation control scheme with stream based collision avoidance

Formation and collision avoidance abilities are essential for multi-agen...
03/25/2019

Endogenous Coalition Formation in Policy Debates

Political actors form coalitions around their joint policy beliefs in or...
01/15/2019

An Algorithm for Bounding the Probability of r-core Formation in k-uniform Random Hypergraphs

We present an algorithm for bounding the probability of r-core formation...
07/04/2018

Bachelor of informatics competence in programming

Based on the analysis of approaches to the definition of professional co...
10/29/2020

Dynamic Formation Reshaping Based on Point Set Registration in a Swarm of Drones

This work focuses on the formation reshaping in an optimized manner in a...
This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

111Published in: XI Simpósio Brasileiro de Automação Inteligente, October, 2013. Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. ID: 3822.

Recently, it has been possible to see a growing interest in the development of autonomous aircraft that can cooperate with police and other organizations in the solution of public security problems. The basic motivations are: the autonomous agents can deal with dangerous or unhealthy problems, like fires, violence monitoring, inspection of nuclear areas, deforestation monitoring and monitoring of areas with armed conflict, without exposing humans to the risks.

When several agents are used in the solution of these problems, some advantages arise: a) distributed systems are usually more robust than the centralized ones, and b) it is possible to make a better use of sensors, since they can be shared by the network. As an additional example, when autonomous aircraft squadrons are used in georeferencing, the visual field of the cameras increases, as showed in Figure 1, and the captured images can be mosaicked. Besides, autonomous aircraft typically fly at low heights, hence good quality images can be captured.

Figura 1: The visual field of the aircraft is increased by using squadrons, enabling larger mosaics.

The latitudinal formation presented in Figure 2 is an attractive formation to deal with the georeferencing problem, since better area coverage can be achieved. However, obstacles can appear during the flight, and it may be necessary to change the squadron formation to avoid them. For example, the squadron can assume the longitudinal formation presented in Figure 3 for collision avoidance. Thus, if the first aircraft succeeds in avoiding the collision, all other aircraft in the squadron can also avoid the obstacle by using the same behavior.

Figura 2: The latitudinal formation. It is possible to achieve good area coverage with it.
Figura 3: The longitudinal formation. It can be used for collision avoidance, landing and lift off.

The longitudinal formation is also necessary when the squadron is landing and doing lift off. Therefore, if the same squadron needs to perform georeferencing, landing, lift off and obstacle avoidance, it will eventually be necessary for the squadron to change between its latitudinal and longitudinal formations.

Therefore, the problem considered in this work is: assuming that there are aircraft in latitudinal formation, equally spaced by meters, we want to develop an algorithm that changes the squadron to the longitudinal formation, where the aircraft will also be equally spaced by meters, without collision among them.

This problem involves aircraft formation, trajectory generation and control. The nonlinear model predictive control approach of [Chao] and the leader-follower approach of [You] and [Gu] deal with the formation problem, but changing between well defined geometric formations is not considered. Trajectory generation made by using optimization algorithms are usually found in the literature. Some examples are the works of [Cheng] and [Xu]

, but works like these do not focus on well defined geometric formations. Other techniques are also used in the trajectory definition, like the geometric moments, controlled via nonlinear gradient

[Morbidi], the modern matrix analysis used by [Coker], the combination of the hybrid navigation architecture with the local obstacle avoidance methodology and with the model predictive control [Jansen], the navigation functions [Roussos], and the variation of rapidly-exploring random trees [Neto]

. But they also do not consider the changing between well defined geometric formations during the flight. Control techniques, like the reinforcement learning

[Santos] do not focus on the changing of formation.

The formation reconfiguration is studied by [Venkataramanan], where the aircraft move their position inside a formation, and the same formation is considered before and after the reconfiguration. The autonomous decision-making architecture [Knoll] also considers this problem, but neither [Venkataramanan] nor [Knoll] consider the transition between different formations. After exhaustive literature searching, it was not found an algorithm that deals with the problem considered here. Thus, the main contributions of this work are:

  1. An algorithm for changing from the latitudinal to the longitudinal formation of the squadron. The time complexity analysis of the proposed algorithm shows its efficiency is optimal.

  2. A proof of correction of the proposed algorithm, that ensures its longitudinal formation features.

  3. The simulation results by considering a case study, in which the aircraft do not collide.

These contributions are described in the next sections, namely: 2 - Methodology, 3 - Simulation Results, 4 - Theoretical Analysis and 5 - Conclusion.

2 Methodology

The proposed algorithm needs to create references to be followed by the aircraft. To do this, a set of maneuvers is specified.

2.1 The Maneuver Schemes

The proposed algorithm employs two 3D basic maneuver schemes, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. For details see [Giacomin-cobem]. Algorithms are used to create the references by using the specifications presented in these figures. Here they are called FW and C to implement the go forward and to turn maneuvers, respectively. The go forward interface is FW(, , , , , ) and the to turn interface is C(, , , , , , , ), where is the initial position ,

is a vector time to be filled with time intervals, and the other parameters are shown in Figures

4 and 5. These algorithms are used by the transition algorithm described at Subsection 2.2.

Figura 4: Go forward maneuver: two angles, a point and a distance are specified, with , and .
(a) Part a
(b) Part b
Figura 5: To turn maneuver: four angles, a 3D point and a radius need to be specified.

2.2 The Transition Algorithm

The transition algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1. It is called FLATLO due to the initial characters that describe its function: From Latitudinal To Longitudinal formation. It basically performs the maneuvers presented in Figure 6 by each aircraft on the left of the squadron, and the equivalent mirrored one for each aircraft on the right of the squadron.

1:procedure FLATLO(, , , , , , )
2:     
3:     
4:     
5:     
6:     
7:     
8:     if  then
9:         
10:     else
11:         
12:     end if
13:     
14:     while  do
15:         if  then
16:              
17:              
18:              
19:              
20:              
21:         else
22:              
23:              
24:         end if
25:         if  then
26:              if  then
27:                  
28:              else
29:                  
30:              end if
31:         else if  then
32:              if  then
33:                  
34:              else
35:                  if  then
36:                       
37:                  else
38:                       
39:                  end if
40:              end if
41:              
42:              
43:         else if  then
44:              if  then
45:                  
46:              else
47:                  
48:                  
49:              end if
50:         else
51:              
52:         end if
53:         
54:         
55:     end while
56:     return
57:end procedure
Algorithm 1 The transition algorithm
1:procedure move_forward(, )
2:     if  then
3:         if  then
4:              
5:              
6:         else
7:              
8:         end if
9:     else
10:         if  then
11:              
12:         else
13:              
14:              
15:         end if
16:     end if
17:     return
18:end procedure
Algorithm 2 The advancing algorithm
Figura 6: An aircraft goes to the middle of squadron when it assumes the longitudinal formation.

The interface of the transition algorithm is FLATLO(, , , , , , ), where is the aircraft index shown in Figures 2 and 3, is the aircraft airspeed, is the radius of the to turn maneuvers used by the transition algorithm, and are shown in Figure 5a, and is the aircraft initial position .

Algorithm 1 is executed by each aircraft processor, in parallel. For all aircraft, except the last one, it is calculated the forward displacement, called , at Line 4. See Algorithm 2 for details. Thereafter, each aircraft executes four maneuvers. The values that are determined between Lines 15 and 24 are used to fit each maneuver with the next one.

Each aircraft moves in direction to the longitudinal line of the squadron between Lines 26 and 30. At Line 42, the aircraft goes forward in direction to the longitudinal line. Between Lines 44 and 49, the aircraft moves to enter smoothly on the longitudinal line. Finally, the aircraft flies over the longitudinal line at Line 51.

The references created by the Algorithm 1 were tested by using the aircraft model presented at Subsection 2.3.

2.3 The Aircraft Model

The simple and well-tested aircraft state space model, [Anderson], is employed, and is given by

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

where the state variables are: airspeed (V), flight path angle (), flight path heading (), and the position variables (x, y, h).

A control scheme is presented in [Giacomin-cobem] by using the above aircraft model. Here, the references created by Algorithm 1 are submitted to this control scheme.

3 Simulation Results

The Algorithm 1 is programmed in parallel by using the C++ programming language and the GNU Message Passing Interface (MPI) Compiler. It is allocated one processor for each aircraft. The graphics are plotted by using the software Gnuplot.

The initial condition for all aircraft are: height: meters, airspeed: m/s, meters, assuming the latitudinal formation. The references are created by Algorithm 1 by using radius of meters, and different airspeeds for each aircraft, that allow all aircraft to arrive on longitudinal formation at the same time instant. The simulation is made by using the Runge-Kutta-4 algorithm. The results are shown in Figures 7, 8 and 9.

Figura 7: The aircraft references. The marks are used in the aircraft crossing analysis.
Figura 8: The aircraft trajectories. The aircraft succeed in following the references.

The marks shown in Figures 7 and 8 are used to analyze the aircraft crossing. When the aircraft number zero is flying over the third mark, the aircraft number one is ahead, and when aircraft number tree is flying over fourth mark, the aircraft number two is ahead. An automatic verification did show that the minimum distance between aircraft and and between aircraft and was km and km, respectively. Therefore, there is no collision.

The simulation is made by considering a noise of for airspeed, heading and gamma angles. From Figures 7, 8 and 9 it is possible to conclude that Algorithm 1 creates the references correctly and that the aircraft succeed in following the references.

Figura 9: All aircraft velocities.

It remains to analyze the time complexity of the Algorithm 1 and to prove its correction. This is made in Section 4.

4 Theoretical Analysis

The theoretical analysis of Algorithm 1 is divided into two parts: its time complexity analysis and its proof of correction.

4.1 The Time Complexity Analysis

The go forward and to turn functions are executed over a fixed number of maneuvers, and all other functions used in Algorithm 1 have constant time complexity. Let be the set of maneuvers, and let be the set of references, with , and the function ref be implemented by using the functions FW or C in the Algorithm 1. Then, is a set of sets, and is the references quantity for each maneuver . The time complexity of Algorithm 1 is

where represents the total time steps for each aircraft trajectory. Since this is also the lower bound for the problem, it is concluded that the FLATLO algorithm is optimal with regard to the time complexity [Cormen].

4.2 The Proof of Correction

The proof of correction takes into account that the maneuvers executed by Algorithm 1 are basically described in Figure 6, except the first one, that is created by Algorithm 2.

Note that when an aircraft on latitudinal formation advances the distance before executing the trajectory of Figure 6, advances on its longitudinal formation. This information is used in the proof of the next theorem.

Let assume a set of aircraft initially flying in latitudinal formation, with each aircraft equally spaced by from its neighbors. Then, if the FLATLO algorithm is executed by each aircraft, the longitudinal formation, with spacing between its neighbors, is achieved.

Demonstração.

It is considered aircraft in the squadron. Clearly, if is even and is even, it can be concluded by analyzing Algorithm 2 that . Then

that is the obvious case where the two aircraft and are mirrored by the middle line. If

is odd, it follows, by analyzing Algorithm

2, that . Then

On the other hand, if is odd and is even, it follows, by analyzing Algorithm 2, that , that is the same case that happens when is even and is odd. If is odd and is odd, then it follows, by analyzing Algorithm 2, that , which has the same result obtained when is even and is even. Therefore, for every and for every .

Similar reasoning can be applied to . Lines 32 to 40 show that , for every and every . Then, if is even

and if if odd it follows that

and therefore, for every and for every . Since this same reasoning can be made for other coordinate system bases, and since all aircraft arrive on longitudinal formation at the same time instant, then the proof follows. ∎

5 Conclusion

An algorithm for changing from latitudinal to longitudinal formation for autonomous aircraft squadrons is proposed in this paper. Despite the relevance of this problem, extensive literature review did not produce relevant results.

The proposed FLATLO algorithm time complexity is equal to the problem lower bound, hence it is optimal [Cormen].

It was proved that if the squadron is initially on latitudinal formation, with each aircraft equally spaced from its neighbors by distance , then the proposed algorithm makes the squadron to change its formation to longitudinal one, keeping the same distance from each aircraft and its neighbors.

The theoretical analysis was confirmed by the simulations, by showing that the aircraft do not collide during the formation transition, and that the references were created correctly by the proposed algorithm, such that they could be followed by a control scheme. Additionally, since the aircraft use different velocities, the number of aircraft has to be limited, and the velocities have to be verified at design time, for security reasons.

Referências

  • [1] Anderson  Robbins1998Anderson Anderson, M. R.  Robbins, A. C. 1998. Formation flight as a cooperative game, Collection of Technical AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit 10(12): 244–251.
  • [2] [Chao et al.]Chao, Zhou, Ming  Zhang2012Chao Chao, Z., Zhou, S.-L., Ming, L.  Zhang, W.-G. 2012. Uav formation flight based on nonlinear model predictive control, Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2012(261367): 1–15.
  • [3] Cheng  Leung2012Cheng Cheng, C.  Leung, H. 2012.

    A genetic algorithm-inspired uuv path planner based on dynamic programming,

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews 42(6): 1128–1134.
  • [4] Coker  Tewfik2011Coker Coker, J.  Tewfik, A. 2011. Performance synthesis of uav trajectories in multistatic sar, Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on 47(2): 848–863.
  • [5] [Cormen et al.]Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest  Stein2009Cormen Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L.  Stein, C. 2009. Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press.
  • [6] Giacomin  Hemerly2013Giacomin-cobem Giacomin, P. A. S.  Hemerly, E. M. 2013. Parallel simulation for autonomous aircrafts squadrons using virtual structure and a 3d maneuvers scheme, 22nd International Congress of Mechanical Engineering, Submitted.
  • [7] [Gu et al.]Gu, Campa  Seanor2009Gu Gu, Y., Campa, G.  Seanor, B. 2009. Aherial Vehicles, InTech, chapter Autonomous formation flight - desing and experiments, pp. 235–257.
  • [8] Jansen  Ramirez-Serrano2011Jansen Jansen, F.  Ramirez-Serrano, A. 2011. Agile unmanned vehicle navigation in highly confined environments, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, p. 2381–2386.
  • [9] Knoll  Beck2006Knoll Knoll, A.  Beck, J. 2006. Autonomous decision-making applied onto uav formation flight, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit.
  • [10] [Morbidi et al.]Morbidi, Freeman  Lynch2011Morbidi Morbidi, F., Freeman, R.  Lynch, K. 2011. Estimation and control of uav swarms for distributed monitoring tasks, American Control Conference (ACC), 2011, pp. 1069–1075.
  • [11] [Neto et al.]Neto, Macharet  Campos2010Neto Neto, A. A., Macharet, D. G.  Campos, M. F. 2010. On the generation of trajectories for multiple uavs in environments with obstacles, J. Intell. Robotics Syst. 57(1-4): 123–141.
  • [12] Roussos  Kyriakopoulos2012Roussos Roussos, G.  Kyriakopoulos, K. J. 2012. Decentralized navigation and conflict avoidance for aircraft in 3-d space, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 20(6): 1622 – 1629.
  • [13] [Santos et al.]Santos, Givigi  Nascimento Junior2012Santos Santos, S. B. d., Givigi, S.  Nascimento Junior, C. 2012. An experimental validation of reinforcement learning applied to the position control of uavs, Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 2796–2802.
  • [14] Venkataramanan  Dogan2004Venkataramanan Venkataramanan, S.  Dogan, A. 2004. A multi-uav simulation for formation reconfiguration, AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit.
  • [15] [Xu et al.]Xu, Kang, Cai  Chen2012Xu Xu, N., Kang, W., Cai, G.  Chen, B. M. 2012. Minimum-time trajectory planning for helicopter uavs using computational dynamic optimization, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 2732–2737.
  • [16] You  Shim2011You You, D. I.  Shim, D. H. 2011. Autonomous formation flight test of multi-micro aerial vehicles, J Intell Robot Syst 61(1-4): 321–337.
  • [17]