Intervention decision-making in MAV/UAV cooperative engagement based on human factors engineering

doi:10.21629/JSEE.2018.03.10

Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics ›› 2018, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 530-538.doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.03.10

• Systems Engineering • Previous Articles Next Articles

Intervention decision-making in MAV/UAV cooperative engagement based on human factors engineering

Yun ZHONG^1,*(), Peiyang YAO¹(), Lujun WAN²(), Juan YANG³()

¹ Information and Navigation College, Air Force Engineering University, Xi’an 710077, China
² Air Traffic Control and Navigation College, Air Force Engineering University, Xi’an 710051, China
³ Unit 93010 of the PLA, Shenyang 110015, China

Received:2017-02-23 Online:2018-06-28 Published:2018-07-02
Contact: Yun ZHONG E-mail:718227697@qq.com;ypy_664@163.com;pandawlj@126.com;369201141@qq.com
About author:ZHONG Yun was born in 1990. He is currently a Ph.D. student of Air Force Engineering University. He received his B.S. degree in network engineering, M.S. degree in communication and information system from Air Force Engineering University, in 2012 and 2014, respectively. His research interests include decision support system and MAV/UAV cooperative engagement. E-mail: 718227697@qq.com|YAO Peiyang was born in 1960. He is currently a professor of Air Force Engineering University. His research interests include command information system and combat modeling. E-mail: ypy_664@163.com|WAN Lujun was born in 1986. He is currently a lecturer of Air Force Engineering University. His research interests include operational organization design and air traffic control. E-mail: pandawlj@126.com|YANG Juan was born in 1990. She is currently an assistant engineer in Unit 93010 of the PLA. Her research interest is mission planning technique. E-mail: 369201141@qq.com
Supported by:
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(61573017);the Doctoral Foundation of Air Force Engineering University(KGD08101604);This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61573017), and the Doctoral Foundation of Air Force Engineering University (KGD08101604)

Abstract

Abstract:

Aiming at the intervention decision-making problem in manned/unmanned aerial vehicle (MAV/UAV) cooperative engagement, this paper carries out a research on allocation strategy of emergency discretion based on human factors engineering (HFE). Firstly, based on the brief review of research status of HFE, it gives structural description to emergency in the process of cooperative engagement and analyzes intervention of commanders. After that, constraint conditions of intervention decision-making of commanders based on HFE (IDMCBHFE) are given, and the mathematical model, which takes the overall efficiency value of handling emergencies as the objective function, is established. Then, through combining K-best and variable neighborhood search (VNS) algorithm, a K-best optimization variable neighborhood search mixed algorithm (KBOVNSMA) is designed to solve the model. Finally, through three groups of simulation experiments, effectiveness and superiority of the proposed algorithm are verified.

Key words: manned/unmanned aerial vehicle (MAV/UAV), intervention decision-making, human factors engineering, structural description, K-best algorithm, variable neighborhood search algorithm

Yun ZHONG, Peiyang YAO, Lujun WAN, Juan YANG. Intervention decision-making in MAV/UAV cooperative engagement based on human factors engineering[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(3): 530-538.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Fig 1

Fig 2

Table 2

Table 3

Fig 3

Fig 4

Table 4

References 22

1	SCHOUWENAARS T, VALENTI M J, FERON E. Linear programming & language processing for human-unmanned aerial vehicle team missions. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2006, 29 (2): 303- 313.
2	DAI H. Innovation of command & control theory: network enabled C2. Journal of Command and Control, 2015, 1 (1): 99- 106.
3	REN W. Consensus seeking in multi-vehicle systems with a time-varying reference state. Proc. of the American Control Conference, 2007: 717-722.
4	ZHONG Y, YAO P Y, SUN Y, et al. Research on command and control of MAV/UAV engagement from the cooperative perspective. Proc. of the International Conference on Information System and Artificial Intelligence, 2016: 38-44.
5	MURRAY C, PARK W. Incorporating human factor consideration in unmanned aerial vehicle routing. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Systems, 2013, 43(4): 860-874.
6	MOORE K L, LUCARELLI D. Decentralized adaptive scheduling using consensus variables. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2007, 17 (10/11): 921- 940.
7	CHEN J, XU J, DING L, et al. Limited intervention collaborative decision-making of MAV/UAV team based on FCM. Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Signal Processing, Communications and Computing, 2016: 233-238.
8	KETAN S, TOM T, EMILIO F. Human-in-the-loop vehicle routing policies for dynamic environment. Proc. of the 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2008: 1145-1150.
9	KETAN S, EMILIO F. A dynamical queue approach to intelligent task management for human operators. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2010, 100 (3): 672- 686.
10	CRÉVITS I, DEBERNARD S, DENECKER P. Model building for air-traffic controllers’ workload regulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 136 (2): 324- 332.
11	ZHAO N, LI L, DU Y H. Multi-stage man-machine cooperated scheduling method for steel-making & continuous casting. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2014, 20 (7): 1675- 1683.
12	LIU W P, NIE J F, JIN Y, et al. Research on evaluation method of armored vehicle crew’s mental workload based on tasknetwork model. Acta Armamentarii, 2015, 36 (9): 1805- 1810.
13	ALTAY N, GREEN W G. OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research, 2006, 175 (1): 475- 493.
14	ZHANG Y X, ZHANG A, SUN H Y. Research on modeling and simulation of formation cooperation under air early warning command and guidance on the sea battles. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38 (1): 90- 95.
15	JR E J, GEIGER C D, JIANG X C. Taxonomy for integrating scheduling theory and human factors: review and research opportunities. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2009, 39 (1): 39- 51. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.05.001
16	NORMAN D A, BOBROW D G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7 (1): 44- 64. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(75)90004-3
17	GORE B F, HOOEY B L, WICKENS C D, et al. A computational implementation of human attention guiding mechanism in MIDAS v5. Proc. of the International Conference on Digital Human Modeling, 2009: 237-246.
18	RUBINSTEIN J S, MEYER D, EVANS J. Executive control of cognitive process in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2001, 27 (4): 763- 797. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763
19	JESSIE Y C. Concurrent performance of military tasks and robotics tasks: effects of automation unreliability and individual differences. Proc. of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2009: 181-188.
20	RICHARD K, BARNHART S, HOTTMAN D, et al. Introduction to unmanned aircrafts systems. Florida: CRC Press, 2012.
21	BURKE E K, KENDALL G. Search methodologies introductory tutorials in optimization and decision support techniques. Berlin: Springer, 2013.
22	LI H, ZHANG L, JIAO Y C. Solution for integer linear bilevel programming problems using orthogonal genetic algorithm. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2014, 25 (3): 443- 451.

Intervention	Workload
1	$c^{PD, 1} = 1.75$
2	$c^{PD, 2} = 1.5$
3	$c^{PT, 1} = 1.25$
4	$c^{PT, 2} = 1$
5	$c^{PT, 3} = 0.95$
6	$c^{PI, 1} = 0.9$
7	$c^{PI, 2} = 0.85$
8	$c^{PI, 3} = 0.75$
9	$c^{PI, 4} = 0.6$

$K$	$K$-best		KBOVNSMA
$K$	Objective	CPU time/s	Objective	CPU time/s
1	155.571 4	0.584 4	262.767 1	2.732 8
3	165.254 0	1.555 6	269.797 9	4.800 7
5	175.381 0	2.350 0	271.355 7	5.842 7

$\gamma $	$K$-best		KBOVNSMA
$\gamma $	Objective	CPU time/s	Objective	CPU time/s
1	95	1.154 3	132.750 0	4.867 4
2	126.571 4	1.162 0	212.626 0	4.730 4
3	153.682 5	1.264 3	249.951 4	4.224 3
4	165.254 0	1.284 8	253.307 1	4.421 7

Parameter	KBOVNSMA	GA
Objective	269.797 9	233.488 9
CPU time/s	4.725 7	24.629 5

Intervention decision-making in MAV/UAV cooperative engagement based on human factors engineering

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

Share this article

Figures/Tables 8

References 22

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments