Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision & Control
12
Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel
San Diego, CA, USA, December 13-15, 2006
A Novel 3D Geometric Algorithm for Aircraft Autonomous
Collision Avoidance
C. Carbone, U. Ciniglio, F. Corraro and S. Luongo
Abstract-This paper presents a novel decision-making
algorithm for pair wise non-cooperative aircraft mid-air
collision avoidance. An analytical solution for this control
problem, based on a three dimensional geometric approach, is
derived. It does not require the solution of any programming
problem, thus resulting suitable for real-time applications.
Moreover, the availability of an analytical solution allows the
application of well assessed control analysis and synthesis
techniques in order to improve stability and performance
robustness. The proposed algorithm performs optimal
avoidance maneuvers, both in the horizontal and vertical plane,
by minimizing aircraft deviation from its nominal trajectory. Its
effectiveness has been proved via numerical simulations, in
proper conflict scenarios which take into account aircraft
dynamics and on-board sensors limitations.
I.INTRODUCTION
AIRCRAFT mid-air collision is still an unresolved
problem, as available mishap data [1] show. This
situation is anticipated to become worse with the increasing
emerging traffic of small business aircraft, Very Light
Aircraft (VLA) operating from and to secondary airports. On
the other hand, in order to increase aircraft capacity in the
airspace, with the expected increase of civil Unmanned
Aircraft Vehicles (UAVs) a robust autonomous collision
avoidance (ACA) system must be designed, developed and
put in place [3]. Notice that an ACA system works on a
short-term time horizon (less than one minute) and it is
considered as an emergency function autonomously engaged,
at close ranges [2].
In general, it is composed of on-board detection sensors
and decision-making algorithms. This paper focuses only on
the decision-making algorithm part.
A comprehensive survey of conflict detection and
resolution approaches is provided in [4]. It is worthwhile
noticing that most of the methods presented in literature are
not suitable for real-time applications, because of the non-
deterministic computational time needed for taking a
decision. In [5] authors solve the problem of two aircraft
conflict-prone as a two-person zero-sum dynamic game of
the pursuer-evader variety, by computing reachable sets
defining regions of guaranteed safety. The main
disadvantage of this approach is that the algorithm takes
Manuscript received February 27, 2006.
All authors are with the Flight Systems Department of CIRA (Italian
Aerospace Research Centre), Via Maiorise, 81043 Capua (CE), Italy.
Consider C. Carbone as corresponding author (phone: +39-0823-
623309; fax: +39-0823-623521; e-mail: c.carbone@cira.it).
1-4244-0171-2/06/$20.00 ©2006 IEEE.
WeIP3.
several minutes to compute the safe region with a simplified
planar cinematic aircraft model having only three states. In
[6] an analytical solution is presented for the planar motion
of a single UAV by applying a geometric approach to the
backwards reachable set computation.
Genetic algorithms and programming techniques have
been also used for solving conflict resolution problems
[7][8][9]. In these methods, conflict resolution is formulated
as a constrained optimization problem, with the aim of
finding trajectories which minimize a proper cost function.
The main drawback is that computation time is not
predictable and the convergence to a solution is not ensured
in a finite and deterministic time interval, as required by a
real-time control system.
In force field methods, each aircraft is treated as a charged
particle and modified electrostatic equations are used to
generate conflict resolution maneuvers [10]. The problem
with this approach is that the computed solutions are not
guaranteed to be feasible, once aircraft dynamic limitations
have been assigned.
This paper presents a novel decision-making algorithm for
pair wise non-cooperative aircraft collision avoidance. Non-
cooperative means that aircraft do not collaborate in
resolving the conflict, because either one of them is not
equipped with sophisticated avionics, or communication
between aircraft fails. In general, one aircraft is considered
as an intruder whereas the other one is assumed to be
equipped with an ACA system, capable of detecting and
avoiding the intruder without knowing its intentions.
Furthermore, it shall be noted that the considered scenario
does not involve an antagonist adversary at work, usually
domain of game theory.
The starting point in devising the algorithm of this paper
has been a geometric approach (collision cone based) used in
planar mobile robotics [11] [12]. This approach has been
extended to the 3D case and applied to aircraft. Usually, the
problem of designing an autonomous collision avoidance
algorithm is more critical when applied to aircraft, since they
must maintain a minimum airspeed to guarantee a sufficient
lift to remain aloft; moreover, lateral and vertical aircraft
dynamic limit maneuvering capabilities of the system.
Actually, an analytical geometric approach to the problem
of collision between two aircraft is also presented in [13], for
a planar scenario, and in [14] for a 3D environment using a
mixed geometric and collision cone approach; in this latter
paper, analytical results are obtained for certain special cases
1 580
45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, USA, Dec. 13-15, 2006 WelP3.1 2

only, while numerical optimization techniques are employed two aircraft shall be detected, determining if their future
to search for solutions in the most general cases. positions, after a certain amount of time, experience a loss of
The algorithm presented in this paper, on the other hand, minimum separation (i.e., A/CA trajectory enters the safety
offers an analytical solution to the collision avoidance bubble surrounding A/CB); in such a case, the trajectory of
problem and does not require the solution of any numerical the aircraft with the ACA module on-board (A/CA) has to be
optimization problem, thus resulting very suitable for replanned by solving a conflict resolution problem.
real-time applications. This analytical solution opens the way
to the application of assessed non-linear control analysis and
VA =
(VA, VAY, VA ) = (VA cos A cos XA, VA cos rA sin XA, VA sin r ) V
synthesis techniques for a-priori performance and stability B
robustness evaluations. The algorithm effectiveness has been VB =
(VBX VBY, VBZ ) = (VB cos 7B cos XB, VB cos 7, sin XB, - VB sin 7, ) .xR
proved via numerical simulations, in proper conflict r =
(rx, ry, r,) = PB -PA
scenarios which take into account aircraft dynamic and on-
board sensors limitations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: the collision A>
avoidance problem is formulated as a two stage process: / NED~~~~XE
conflict detection and conflict resolution (Section II); °/ ~~~~NED
necessary and sufficient conditions for conflict detection are /~~~~~~~~~~~P XNED
stated in Section III, followed by the derivation of analytical
expressions for conflict resolution (Section IV); finally,
Section V presents numerical simulation results for the YNED
ZNED
validation of the collision avoidance decision-making Fig. 2. Collision geometry between a point of mass A and a sphere B
algorithm. with radius R.

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION III. CONFLICT DETECTION

Fig. 1 shows ACA module within the closed-loop control
system. Its core is represented by a decision-making
algorithm, having as input speed and position of the intruder
(1PB, VB ) and own aircraft (PA, VA). The outputs of the
decision making algorithm are reference signals to the
autopilot, in terms of demanded speed module (Vd), slope
angle (Yd) and track angle (Xd).
The relative velocity vector VAB =VA- VB transforms a
dynamic collision avoidance problem into a static problem:
conflict geometry defined in Fig. 2 is equivalent to a
situation where sphere B is stationary and point of mass A
moves with relative velocity VAB (see Fig. 3).

,v Vd Yd

r=P -P

ACA system PA, VA VI

A

Fig. 1. ACA module within the closed-loop control system.

Conflict detection and resolution is addressed in a 3D r=P -P

environment using information of current positions and
instantaneous speed vectors.
Fig. 2 shows the geometry which has been adopted for a A VAB = VA VB
collision situation between two aircraft in the 3D North-East-
Down (NED) reference frame: the aircraft with ACA module Fig. 3. Definition of minimum separation distance vector dAB .
on-board (A/CA) is modeled as a point of mass - with a 3
Let dAB be a vector defined as the minimum separation
Degree Of Freedom (DOF) dynamic - having velocity VA,
whereas the other aircraft (A/CB, considered as an intruder) distance experienced between aircraft, after a certain time
is modeled as a sphere with radius R (safety bubble) having horizon. It can be calculated as follows (see Fig. 3):
velocity VB.
d = r V BV-
Given the above described geometry, a collision AB' ABV
2 VAB
(1)
avoidance can be formulated as a two stage problem: in the VAB

first stage, conflict detection, a potential conflict between

1581
45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, USA, Dec. 13-15, 2006 WelP3.1 2

Conflict detection stage is based on the following r

(Vrr+V0rF') rVVrVoV
AR
rj
d V2 'IVj2V
0~~~~~~~
rr= + 2
r V
r

Theorem 1: A point of mass A and a sphere B with radius

R which are moving in a 3D environment with constant
velocities, respectively VA and VB, are headed for a
AB
=r °V2
Finally,
collision if and only if the following conditions are satisfied: 2~ (
dAB <R2 # r2VV2<.2v+vR)r
2
dAB <R
V

dAB <R and r<0. (2)

Remark: Constant velocity vectors assumption in
theorem 1 is not restricting, since conflict detection
Proof: Let fTbe the plane on which lie vectors VAB and r .
conditions (2) can be evaluated continuously, with proper
This plane cuts sphere B determining a circle 6 having radius update rate l/Ts, according to the Nyquist-Shannon
R, as shown in Fig. 3. Consider this plane, highlighted also in sampling theorem. Consequently, reference signals to the
Fig. 4. Point of mass A and sphere B are headed for a autopilot are generated with sampling time Ts.
collision if and only if point of mass A - assumed to move
with velocity VAB in plane z - is headed for a collision with IV. CONFLICT RESOLUTION
circle 6, assumed to be stationary. With respect to versors r Consider the following collision cone definition:
and r', it is possible to write the following expressions:
%AB(R)-{VA(VA]7A*A) IVA ( El I2 I2
O, >d7YA
VAB =vgr+v6r0VO r
VAB =
Vr = r, Vo = rf. (3) (6)
r<Oj,dAB (VA )
r
*A] z,1r] < R}

According to theorem 1, all vectors VA belonging to the

Plane iv B collision cone CAB(R) are such that a collision is certain to
happen. This definition is purely geometric and does not take
into account aircraft dynamic limitations. The set of
avoidance solutions, compatible with aircraft dynamic
B~~~~A
limitations, can be computed as follows

A r
=f(Vd rdXd )E 31I Vd E [V v dE

(7)
d
,~~~~~~jl(V
*Ad E]-z,z], r>0 or dARA KA,Z
2'
A
R
Fig. 4. Plane zon which lie vectors VAB and F.

Notice that any solution of set Y works well, but the

In plane z the following theorem (proved in [11]) can be
tangential solution - which moves relative speed vector
applied:
If a point and a circle are moving with constant velocities VAB such that its projection line in time is tangent to the
such that their initial conditions satisfy sphere (see Fig. 3) - will result in an optimal conflict
r22RV < 2 Vr2 + V02) and Vr < O (4)
resolution maneuver. "Optimal" means that deviation from
the nominal trajectory is minimized, under the assumption of
then they are headedfor a collision. The above conditions straight trajectories and that a single step change in velocity
are both necessary and sufficientfor a collision to occur. vector can solve the conflict [13]. In order to find tangential
solutions it is possible to consider the following equation
Condition Vr = r<0 simply means that aircraft are 2
(|
|r _
AB)2
R2
approaching. In order to prove (2), it remains to prove the jAB
=
-~2 (8)
following equivalence VAB

dAB <
jAB <
R X r2V2
rV0 < R 2(V2 +V2) (5)
# Since in a conflict situation F VAB= |r|AB|cosj > 0,
At this aim, observe that expression (8) can be rewritten as follows
r =rr, VARVr+VBr
V r VA = rV
r VA =rVB +VAB F2 R2,
Hence, (9)
VAB= VVA +VB 2VAVBcos(fZVA, VB ).
1582
45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, USA, Dec. 13-15, 2006 WelP3.1 2

Considering vector components of VA, VBR and r, shown polynomial, as explained in appendix.
in Fig. 2, and equation (10),
COS(ZVA, VB ) VA VB = COS YA COS XA COS YB COS XB +
(0
VAVB
+ cos Asin XA cos YB sin XB+ sin YAsin rYB
After some trivial algebraic manipulations, (9) results in
the following equation

(rx cos Y cos A + ry cos YAsin *A- rz sin YA )2 +

2 VB (rx COS YA COS*A + ry COS YA sinA rz sin YA)
VA A.g
(1 1) A'/1
2 [VA + VB 2VA (VBX COS rA COS *A +
ff I,
Zfe .7

VB
A~~~~~~V

Equation (11) can be interpreted as follows: given F, VB
and R, find all (VA,v,A ZA) corresponding to tangential
solutions in set Y. It can be solved numerically, but this is
computationally expensive for real-time applications. In
order to derive analytical solutions, this paper focuses on the
investigation of three different conflict resolution strategies,
each one involving a single control variable: % (lateral-
directional control), y (longitudinal control) or V (speed
control). It shall be noted that the optimality of the solution
is here considered with respect to the adopted single control
command.
A. Lateral-Directional Control Strategy
In this control strategy, all avoidance maneuvers involving
control variable %A are searched. In particular, VA and YA are
kept constant in (11), assuming as unknown only *A. In other
words, one searches for all solutions Xd such that velocity
vector VA is moved towards the collision cone border. By
defining
jjq2 R2
Cy COSYA4 Ys = sinIYA 7H VA
equation (11) can be rearranged as follows
al1 cos %A + a2,sin %A + a3% cOS %A s
+ a4X coS *A+ a5sinf*A X=
bv
where
a,, rXc, a2= ryc7,
= a3 =2r
Fig. 5. Backward and forward collision cones for lateral-directional
control.
In a conflict situation, it can be proved that two real
solutions always exist (N.2). They correspond to the border
of a forward collision cone, as shown in Fig. 5. When all
four solutions are real (N=4), a backward collision cone is
also present. In order to explain its meaning, consider a
conflict scenario in which intruder speed VB is greater than
VA. In such a case, even though A/CA was able to turn back
instantaneously with its speed vector within the backward
collision cone, a collision would be inevitable.
Once the roots of (12) have been computed, the minimum
deviation of the aircraft speed vector - in terms of track
angle - with respect to the nominal trajectory, is calculated
as follows
AXd + min({ %A I1N) (13)
Let i be the index of the angle *' such that
{ x, -*AI N is minimized: Ad is chosen positive if
*i > ZA, negative otherwise.
K
VA
B
B. Longitudinal Control Strategy
This control strategy, on the other hand, searches for all
avoidance maneuvers involving control variable YA. In
A+ (12) particular, VA and %A are kept constant in (11), assuming as
unknown only yAd . By defining
CXr cCOS *A=,
Sin cAx + ry, ',=VBX CX+VBYSXv

a4X =2HVAVBXcY 2rxrZc7s7 2KrxC7, equation (11) can be rearranged as follows

a5, =2HVAVBYCY-2ry r cYsY- 2KrycY,
al. cos2 YA + a2, sin2 YA + a3, cos YA sin YA +
b,' H(V2AR)
=
HAVBZs7 r2s2
+V2)+2HVV -2Krzs - 2.
ZyZy. (14)
+ a4, cos YA + a5 sin YA by7,
Roots of (12) can be obtained by solving a fourth order where

1583
45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, USA, Dec. 13-15, 2006
a,, =a
a2 = r2
a3, = -2arz
a4, =2(HVA/ - Ka)
a5y =2(Krz HVAVBZ)
by = H(V2+V2)- K2.
Also in this case, roots of (14) can be computed by solving
a quarter equation, as explained in appendix. Expression (13)
can be rewritten for the longitudinal control strategy, by
replacing % with and similar conclusions can be derived.
,
V. NUMERICAL VALIDATION OF THE COLLISION AVOIDANCE
ALGORITHM
Algorithm validation has been carried out via numerical
simulations, by defining proper collision scenarios, as shown
in Fig. 6. These test scenarios have been designed according
to standard specification given in [15]. It is assumed that
onboard detection sensors can search from ±1 10° in azimuth
and ±15° in elevation.
Conditions (2) also offer an analytical criterion to find
initial positions of the two aircraft and their velocity vectors
such that a collision situation is certain to happen, so to
drastically reduce the amount of collision geometries to be
analyzed.
In each conflict scenario it is assumed that intruder speed
vector is initially constant and such that a collision will
certainly happen: Fig. 6 shows - for a given intruder (A/CB)
initial position - a "cone" of speed vectors that guarantee a
collision with A/CA, if a collision avoidance maneuver is not
performed.
The proposed scenario foresees 2500 starting points
(r,P,O) for the intruder, chosen in a random way, with
uniform distribution:
r = 2.5 n mi, 'P U[- 10°, 1 10°], E) U[- 150, 15° ].
-
Simulations have been carried out under the following
hypotheses:
i. Safety bubble radius: R = 152.4 m (500 ft)
ii. A/CA is of class VLA and modeled by a detailed
6DOF aircraft model
W. A/CA speed module constant: VA = 45 m/s
iv. A/CB speed module random: VB U[45 mls, 90 m/s]
V. After time tB U[5 s, 10 S], A/CB changes randomly
its track angle of I%B U[-20°, 20°]
-
Vi. On-board navigation sensors have been considered
with a realistic uncertainty model
vii. On-board detection sensors data-rate: 5 Hz
Viii. On-board detection sensors can search from ±110° in
azimuth and ±15° in elevation (Field Of Regard,
FOR) [2].
1584
WelP3.1 2
Fig. 6. 3D test scenarios definition.
Fig. 7 shows the results of a set of simulations which have
been run starting from the proposed scenarios, adopting
Lateral-directional Control. Each point of the figure
corresponds to a specific scenario and represents
quantityS = min(r(t) - R), i.e. the minimum distance
between A/CA trajectory and intruder safety bubble. S < 0
means collision. As shown in Fig. 7, the proposed algorithm
has proved its effectiveness in all considered scenarios: S is
always positive. By adopting the same scenario, simulations
have also been run using Longitudinal Control strategy.
Results are summarized in Table I.
Table I
COMPARISON OF CONTROL STRATEGIES
Control Strategy Number of Collisions
Lateral-directional 0
Longitudinal 5
Speed 135
Collisions met during Longitudinal Control strategy are
due to the aircraft dynamic limits, saturation constraints and
a FOR limited to ±15° in elevation.
Actually, a Speed Control strategy has also been
investigated for this scenario. For the same reasons explained
in Longitudinal Control strategy, a large number of
collisions has been encountered; in addition, there exist some
conflict geometries such that collision avoidance is
impossible by acting only on the speed module (e.g., a head
on conflict).
These results lead to the conclusion that Lateral-
directional strategy is the best single-command control in the
considered scenario.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper a novel decision-making algorithm for pair
wise non-cooperative aircraft collision avoidance has been
presented. It has been derived on the basis of a three
dimensional geometric approach, with the aim of using it for
real-time applications.
The proposed algorithm offers an analytical solution to the
control problem of aircraft collision avoidance. This opens
the way to the application of assessed non-linear control
analysis and synthesis techniques for a-priori stability
robustness evaluations and performance improvement. In this
45th IEEE CDC, San Diego, USA, Dec. 13-15, 2006 WelP3.1 2

paper three different conflict resolution strategies have been P4 a, -a4- b, p3 = 2(a5 -a3) P2 = 2(2a2 -a1 - b)
investigated, each one involving a single control variable - * P1 2(a3+ a5 ), po a, +a4 -b.
(lateral-directional control), y (longitudinal control) or V
(speed control) - and a comparison among these strategies There exists a classical method (due to L. Ferrari, in 1540)
has been carried out. The effectiveness of the proposed for calculating analytically the roots of a quartic equation
approach has been proved via numerical simulations, in (here omitted for the sake of brevity).
proper conflict scenarios which take into account aircraft Note that tg (x/2) can be inverted if
dynamics and on-board sensors limitations. The algorithm
has proved its validity in all considered scenarios, -z/2<x/2<z/2, 9-z<x<z; hence, it can always be
performing optimal avoidance maneuvers. Real-time inverted for ZA and YA.
hardware in the loop simulations and flight tests on a VLA
flying test bed have been scheduled and are in progress. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Currently, a new geometric algorithm - which uses all This work was supported by TECVOL, an internal CIRA
control variables at the same time (track, slope and speed) - project, and IFATS (Innovative Future Air Transport
is under development. The analytical tangential solution is System) project, under contract No. AST3-CT-2004-
searched directly on the 7t-plane, yielding a 3D optimal 503019-IFATS.
collision avoidance maneuver.
Moreover, an extension of this approach to REFERENCES
multiple-aircraft is being researching. [1] FAA Aviation Safety Data, FAA website
[2] W.Z. Chen, T.J. Molnar, "Autonomous Hight Control Sensing
Lateral-Directional Control Strategy N19 :0 Technologies - Capability Goals and Sensing Requirements", AFRL-
collsion VA-WP-TP-2002-309, 2002.
r =d. *1 ... =i= .4. [3] 25 Nations for an Aerospace Breakthrough - "European Civil UAV
Roadmap" - Final Report, Thematic Network on European Civil UAV
I uu .±..~..................... .. ..........
[4]
FP5 R&D, 2005.
J. K. Kuchar and L. C. Yang, "A Review of Conflict Detection and
Resolution Modelling Methods", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
0 Transportation Systems, vol. 1, No. 4, December 2000.
[5] C. Tomlin, G. J. Pappas, and S. Sastry, "Conflict Resolution for Air
0 Traffic Management: A Study in Multiagent Hybrid Systems," IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 43, pp. 509-521, April
E -50 -_ 1998.
[6] E. Frew and R. Sengupta, "Obstacle Avoidance with Sensor
M
-166l Uncertainty for Small Unmanned Aircraft", 43rd IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, Bahamas, December, 2004.
[7] L. Pallottino, E. M. Feron and A. Bicchi, "Conflict Resolution
Problems for Air Traffic Management Systems Solved with Mixed
5 W0 1666 1566 2000 Integer Programming", IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Scenarios Transportation Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2002.
Fig. 7. Lateral-directional control testing: each point corresponds to [8] J.-M. Alliot, H. Gruber, G. Joly and M. Schoenauer, "Genetic
a specific scenario and represents S = min( r(t) - R) [m]. Algorithms for Solving Air Traffic Control Conflicts", Artificial
Intelligence for Applications, 1993. Proceedings, Ninth Conference
on, 1-5 March 1993, Pages: 338-344.
APPENDIX [9] E. Frazzoli, Z.-H. Mao, J.-H. Oh, and E. Feron, "Resolution of
In order to solve (12) and (14), consider the following Conflicts Involving Many Aircraft via Semidefinite Programming",
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 1,
generic equation January-February 2001.
[10] R. Ghosh and C. Tomlin, "Maneuver design for multiple aircraft
a cos2 x+a2 sin x+a3 cosxsinx+a4 cosx+a5 sinx =b. conflict resolution", American Control Conference. Proceedings of
the 2000, Vol. 1, Issue: 6, 28-30 June 2000, Pages: 672-676.
[11] A. Chakravarthy and D. Ghose, "Obstacle Avoidance in a Dynamic
Substituting Environment: A Collision Cone Approach", IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol.
I-t2
28, No. 5, September 1998.
x
2t2
sin X = 7 COS X: : t2 '
t = tg2
~2 [12] P. Fiorini and Z. Shiller, "Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments
using Velocity Obstacles", Int. Journal of Robotics Research, Vol.17,
and simplifying, the following quartic equation is derived No.7, pp.760-772, July 1998.
[13] K.-D. Bilimoria, "A Geometric Optimization Approach to Aircraft
Conflict Resolution", AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
p4t4 + p3t3 + p2t2 + plt + Po =0. (15) Conference, August 2000, Denver, Colorado.
[14] J. Gross, R. Rajvanshi and K. Subbarao, "Aircraft Conflict Detection
and Resolution using Mixed Geometric and Collision Cone
Where, its coefficients are as follows, Approaches", AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference
and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island, 2004.
[15] "Standard Specification for Design and Performance of an Airborne
Sense-and-Avoid System (F2411-04)", ASTM International, 2004.

1585