UAV Operations Safety Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review

IF 28 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS ACM Computing Surveys Pub Date : 2025-03-16 DOI:10.1145/3723871
Omid Asghari, Naghmeh Ivaki, Henrique Madeira
{"title":"UAV Operations Safety Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Omid Asghari, Naghmeh Ivaki, Henrique Madeira","doi":"10.1145/3723871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The significant increase in urban UAVs, due to their benefits and commercial potential, will increase drone density and collision risks. To manage this, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM), European implementation of UTM (U-space), and Air Traffic Management (ATM) are being developed for safe integration with other air traffic. Nonetheless, thorough safety assessments remain essential for ensuring UAV operation safety. In this study, we conducted a two-phase systematic literature review. First, we analyzed existing reviews on UAV operation safety assessments. Second, we examined primary studies with the goal of identifying i) safety assessment approaches, ii) employed methods/techniques, iii) defined and utilized safety metrics, iv) common tools/simulators, and v) stages of safety assessment addressed by each technique in the reviewed studies. As a result, we categorized safety assessment approaches into five groups: 1) Model-based, 2) Analytical-based, 3) Data-driven, 4) Experimental-based, and 5) Hybrid approaches. We found that Monte Carlo simulation and Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) are the most commonly used methods for safety assessment. We identified 42 metrics and classified them into four groups: 1) Collision, 2) Performance, 3) Communication, and 4) Reliability Metrics. Additionally, we identified ten tools/simulators used for safety assessment. Finally, we observed that Stage 5 (safety risk evaluation) of the safety assessment process is the most frequently covered in the studies reviewed.","PeriodicalId":50926,"journal":{"name":"ACM Computing Surveys","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Computing Surveys","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3723871","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The significant increase in urban UAVs, due to their benefits and commercial potential, will increase drone density and collision risks. To manage this, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management (UTM), European implementation of UTM (U-space), and Air Traffic Management (ATM) are being developed for safe integration with other air traffic. Nonetheless, thorough safety assessments remain essential for ensuring UAV operation safety. In this study, we conducted a two-phase systematic literature review. First, we analyzed existing reviews on UAV operation safety assessments. Second, we examined primary studies with the goal of identifying i) safety assessment approaches, ii) employed methods/techniques, iii) defined and utilized safety metrics, iv) common tools/simulators, and v) stages of safety assessment addressed by each technique in the reviewed studies. As a result, we categorized safety assessment approaches into five groups: 1) Model-based, 2) Analytical-based, 3) Data-driven, 4) Experimental-based, and 5) Hybrid approaches. We found that Monte Carlo simulation and Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) are the most commonly used methods for safety assessment. We identified 42 metrics and classified them into four groups: 1) Collision, 2) Performance, 3) Communication, and 4) Reliability Metrics. Additionally, we identified ten tools/simulators used for safety assessment. Finally, we observed that Stage 5 (safety risk evaluation) of the safety assessment process is the most frequently covered in the studies reviewed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无人机作业安全评估:系统文献综述
由于其效益和商业潜力,城市无人机的显著增加将增加无人机密度和碰撞风险。为了管理这一点,无人机系统交通管理(UTM)、欧洲实施的UTM (U-space)和空中交通管理(ATM)正在开发中,以便与其他空中交通安全集成。尽管如此,彻底的安全评估仍然是确保无人机操作安全的必要条件。在本研究中,我们进行了两阶段的系统文献综述。首先,分析了现有无人机运行安全评价综述。其次,我们检查了初步研究,目的是确定i)安全评估方法,ii)采用的方法/技术,iii)定义和使用的安全指标,iv)常用工具/模拟器,以及v)在所审查的研究中每种技术所涉及的安全评估阶段。因此,我们将安全评估方法分为五类:1)基于模型的方法,2)基于分析的方法,3)数据驱动的方法,4)基于实验的方法和5)混合方法。我们发现蒙特卡罗模拟和特定操作风险评估(SORA)是最常用的安全评估方法。我们确定了42个度量标准,并将它们分为四组:1)碰撞,2)性能,3)通信和4)可靠性度量标准。此外,我们确定了用于安全评估的10个工具/模拟器。最后,我们观察到安全评估过程的第5阶段(安全风险评估)是所审查的研究中最常涉及的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Computing Surveys
ACM Computing Surveys 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
33.20
自引率
0.60%
发文量
372
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: ACM Computing Surveys is an academic journal that focuses on publishing surveys and tutorials on various areas of computing research and practice. The journal aims to provide comprehensive and easily understandable articles that guide readers through the literature and help them understand topics outside their specialties. In terms of impact, CSUR has a high reputation with a 2022 Impact Factor of 16.6. It is ranked 3rd out of 111 journals in the field of Computer Science Theory & Methods. ACM Computing Surveys is indexed and abstracted in various services, including AI2 Semantic Scholar, Baidu, Clarivate/ISI: JCR, CNKI, DeepDyve, DTU, EBSCO: EDS/HOST, and IET Inspec, among others.
期刊最新文献
Utilizing Internet of Things in Human-Building Interaction to Support Sustainable Built Environments Few-Shot Learning in Video and 3D Object Detection: A Survey Crypto-Ransomware and Their Defenses: In-Depth Behavioral Characterization, Discussion of Deployability, and New Insights Prompting Frameworks for Large Language Models: A Survey A Systematic Review on Human Roles, Solutions, and Methodological Approaches to Address Bias in AI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1