Collision Avoidance Maneuver Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current collision avoidance maneuvers for objects in conjunction often result in significant negative side effects, such as disrupting activities or expending finite energy reserves, due to the need for large maneuver parameters to ensure collision avoidance, which can be minimized while maintaining effectiveness.

Innovation Solution

A method to determine a collision avoidance maneuver by generating preliminary maneuvers with minimized delta velocity vector magnitude or burn duration, optimizing them using an objective function to adhere to constraints, ensuring the maneuver is effective in reducing collision risk while minimizing negative impacts.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If large maneuver parameters are used to ensure collision avoidance, then collision risk is reduced, but negative side effects such as disruptions and energy expenditure increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision avoidance effectivenessVSAvoidenergy expenditure
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent optimizes maneuver parameters (delta velocity vector magnitude, burn duration, epoch, thrust direction) to find the minimum values that still satisfy collision avoidance constraints. This involves changing the parameters from large conservative values to precisely calculated minimum values that achieve the same safety level with reduced energy expenditure and minimal disruption to normal operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If large maneuver parameters are used to ensure collision avoidance, then collision risk is reduced, but disruptions to activities increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision avoidance effectivenessVSAvoiddisruptions to activities
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent optimizes maneuver parameters (delta velocity vector magnitude, burn duration, epoch, thrust direction) to find the minimum values that still satisfy collision avoidance constraints. This involves changing the parameters from large conservative values to precisely calculated minimum values that achieve the same safety level with reduced energy expenditure and minimal disruption to normal operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Use of energy by moving object

If maneuver parameters are minimized to reduce negative side effects, then energy expenditure and disruptions are reduced, but collision avoidance effectiveness may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveenergy expenditureVSAvoidcollision avoidance effectiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Use of energy by moving objectVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs an iterative optimization process where preliminary maneuvers are generated, evaluated against collision avoidance constraints, and refined based on feedback from constraint satisfaction analysis. The numerical optimizer uses gradient-based methods to adjust parameters and find the minimum values that still meet all safety constraints, ensuring effectiveness is not compromised.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent generates multiple preliminary maneuvers with initially conservative parameter values, then systematically reduces them to the minimum necessary values. This approach allows the system to start with guaranteed effective maneuvers and progressively optimize them, ensuring that the final maneuver maintains sufficient collision avoidance capability while minimizing parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Use of energy by moving object

If maneuver parameters are minimized to reduce negative side effects, then disruptions and energy expenditure are reduced, but collision avoidance effectiveness may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveenergy expenditureVSAvoidcollision avoidance effectiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Use of energy by moving objectVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent employs an iterative optimization process where preliminary maneuvers are generated, evaluated against collision avoidance constraints, and refined based on feedback from constraint satisfaction analysis. The numerical optimizer uses gradient-based methods to adjust parameters and find the minimum values that still meet all safety constraints, ensuring effectiveness is not compromised.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent generates multiple preliminary maneuvers with initially conservative parameter values, then systematically reduces them to the minimum necessary values. This approach allows the system to start with guaranteed effective maneuvers and progressively optimize them, ensuring that the final maneuver maintains sufficient collision avoidance capability while minimizing parameters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP2074006B1Method of determining a collision avoidance maneuver
Publication Date: 2013.03.06 RAYTHEON CO
  • EP2074006B1 patent drawingFigure 1~6
  • EP2074006B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2074006B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A method of determining a collision avoidance maneuver (fig. 4) includes obtaining initial state data (402; fig. 4) for a first object (100) and a second object (102; fig. 1). A plurality of preliminary maneuvers (404) satisfying a first set of constraints are generated using the initial state data. A best preliminary maneuver (406) is selected from the plurality of preliminary maneuvers and the best preliminary maneuver is optimized (410) according to an objective function to provide a final maneuver. The optimization adheres to a provided second set of constraints (408).