Autonomous systems, including airborne, land-based, marine, and underwater vehicles, are increasingly present in the world. One important aspect of autonomy is the capability to process information and to make independent decisions for achieving a mission goal. Information on the level of risk related to the operation may improve the decision-making process of autonomous systems. This article describes the integration of risk analysis methods with the control system of autonomous and highly automated systems that are evaluated during operation. Four main areas of implementation are identified; (i) risk models used to directly make decisions, (ii) use of the output of risk models as input to decision-making and optimization algorithms, (iii) the output of risk models may be used as a constraint in or modifying constraints of algorithms, and (iv) the output of risk models may be used to inform representations or maps of the environment to be used in path planning. A case study on a dynamic positioning controller of an offshore supply vessel exemplifies the concepts described in this article. In addition, it demonstrates how risk model output may be used within a hybrid controller.
VagiaMTransethAAFjerdingenSA. A literature review on the levels of automation during the years. What are the different taxonomies that have been proposed?Appl Ergon2016; 53 Pt A: 190–202.
5.
RamosMThiemeCAUtneIB. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on autonomous systems safety. In: RamosMAThiemeCAUtneIB, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on autonomous systems safety. Trondheim, Norway: NTNU, 2019, pp.128.
6.
UtneIBRoksethBSørensenAJ, et al. Towards supervisory risk control of autonomous ships. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 196: 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.106757
7.
ISO. ISO 31000 risk management - principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization2018; ISO 31000: 34.
PereiraAABinneyJJonesBH, et al. Toward risk aware mission planning for autonomous underwater vehicles. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011, pp.3147–3153. IEEE.
10.
PereiraAABinneyJHollingerGA, et al. Risk-aware path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles using predictive ocean models. J Field Robot2013; 30: 741–762.
11.
LefebvreNSchjølbergIUtneIB. Integration of risk in hierarchical path planning of underwater vehicles. IFAC-PapersOnLine2016; 49: 226–231.
12.
JohansenTAPerezTCristofaroA. Ship collision avoidance and COLREGS compliance using simulation-based control behavior selection with predictive hazard assessment. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst2016; 17: 3407–3422.
13.
BrekkeEFWilthilEFEriksenBOH, et al. The Autosea project: developing closed-loop target tracking and collision avoidance systems. J Phys Conf Ser2019; 1357: 1–12. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1357/1/012020
14.
BremnesJENorgrenPSorensenAJ, et al. Intelligent risk-based under-ice altitude control for autonomous underwater vehicles. In: OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE, Seattle, WA, USA, 27–31 October 2019. IEEE.
15.
BremnesJEThiemeCASørensenAJ, et al. A Bayesian approach to supervisory risk control of AUVs applied to under-ice operations. Mar Technol Soc J2020; 54: 16–39.
16.
HobbsC. Embedded software development for safety-critical systems. 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2019.
UtneIBSørensenAJSchjølbergI. Risk Management of Autonomous Marine Systems and Operations. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, OMAE 2017. Trondheim, Norway. 2017, pp. 1–10. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
19.
SørensenAJ. Structural issues in the design and operation of marine control systems. Annu Rev Control2005; 29: 125–149.
20.
PendletonSAndersenHDuX, et al. Perception, planning, control, and coordination for autonomous vehicles. Machines2017; 5: 6. DOI: 10.3390/machines5010006
21.
BlankeMKinnaertMLunzeJ, et al. Diagnosis and fault-tolerant control. 3rd ed.Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2016.
22.
ŠabanovićAOhnishiK. Motion control systems. Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia), 2011.
23.
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC 61508: functional safety of E/E/PES safety related systems. Geneva, Switzerland: International Electrotechnical Commission.
24.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 26262:2018 - road vehicles – functional safety. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization
25.
EN. EN 50128: railway applications - communication, signalling, and processing systems. Software for railway control and protection systems; EN50128:20.
26.
HannahBDanielDAndrewG, et al. Route planning in transportation networks. In: SandersKL (ed.) Algorithm Engineering, Cham: Springer, 2016. pp. 19–80.
GoebelRSanfeliceRGTeelAR. The solution concept. In: GoebelRSanfeliceRGTeelAR (eds.) Hybrid dynamical systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012, pp. 25–42.
29.
KaramanSFrazzoliE. Incremental sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. Int J Rob Res2010; 30: 846–894.
30.
LaValleSM.Planning algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
31.
Kress-GazitHFainekosGEPappasGJ. Temporal-logic-based reactive mission and motion planning. IEEE Trans Robot2009; 25: 1370–1381.
32.
KapinskiJDeshmukhJVJinX, et al. Simulation-based approaches for verification of embedded control systems: an overview of traditional and advanced modeling, testing, and verification techniques. IEEE Control Syst2016; 36: 45–64.
33.
WilkieDVan Den BergJManochaD. Generalized velocity obstacles. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, St. Louis, MO, USA, 10–15 October 2009, pp.5573–5578. IEEE.
34.
Ben-AriMMondadaFBen-AriM, et al. Finite state machines. In: Ben-AriMMondadaF (eds) Elements of robotics. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp.55–61.
35.
Doshi-VelezF. The infinite partially observable Markov decision process. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on neural information processing systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2009, pp.477–485.
WarrenCW. Global path planning using artificial potential fields. In: Proceedings, 1989 international conference on robotics and automation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 14–19 May 1989, pp.316–321. IEEE.
38.
MeyerPJCooganSArcakM. Sampled-data reachability analysis using sensitivity and mixed-monotonicity. IEEE Control Syst Lett2018; 2: 761–766.
39.
AurenhammerF. Voronoi diagrams—a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure. ACM Comput Surv1991; 23: 345–405.
40.
FossenTI. Handbook of marine craft hydrodynamics and motion control. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
41.
NausGJLPloegJVan De MolengraftMJG, et al. A model predictive control approach to design a parameterized adaptive cruise control. In: del ReLAllgöwerFGlielmoL (eds) Lecture notes in control and information Sciences. London: Springer, 2010, pp.273–284.
42.
HarneforsLSaarakkalaSEHinkkanenM. Speed control of electrical drives using classical control methods. IEEE Trans Ind Appl2013; 49: 889–898.
43.
SciaviccoLSicilianoB. Modelling and control of robot manipulators. 2nd ed.London: Springer London, 2000.
44.
BrodtkorbAH. Hybrid control of marine vessels. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2017.
BalchenJGJenssenNAMathisenE, et al. A dynamic positioning system based on Kalman filtering and optimal control. Model Identification Control1980; 1: 135–163.
47.
FossenTIStrandJP. Passive nonlinear observer design for ships using Lyapunov methods: full-scale experiments with a supply vessel. Automatica1999; 35: 3–16.
48.
RoksethBUtneIBVinnemJE. A systems approach to risk analysis of maritime operations. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2017; 231: 53–68.
49.
KaplanSGarrickBJ. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal1981; 1: 11–27.
50.
AvenT. On how to define, understand and describe risk. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2010; 95: 623–631.
51.
AvenT. The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2012; 99: 33–44.
GuarroSBYauMKOzgunerU, et al. Formal framework and models for validation and verification of software-intensive aerospace systems. In: AIAA information systems-AIAA infotech at aerospace, 2017, Grapevine, TX, USA.
55.
AldemirTGuarroSMandelliD, et al. Probabilistic risk assessment modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems using two dynamic methodologies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2010; 95: 1011–1039.
56.
International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61165: application of Markov techniques. IEC Standards Online; IEC61165:2.
57.
RausandM. Reliability of safety-critical systems: theory and applications. 1st ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons Inc, 2014.
58.
NEK-EN IEC. NEK-EN IEC 62551: analysis techniques for dependability - Petri net techniques. 2012; NEK-EN IEC: 1–70.
59.
ØienK. Remote operation in environmentally sensitive areas: development of early warning indicators. J Risk Res2013; 16: 323–336.
60.
ThiemeCAUtneIB. A risk model for autonomous marine systems and operation focusing on human–autonomy collaboration. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2017; 231: 446–464. DOI: 10.1177/1748006x17709377
61.
JensenFVNielsenTD. Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Statistics for engineering and information science. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
62.
FentonNNeilM. Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian Networks. In: NeilM (ed.) Risk Assessment and Decision Analysis with Bayesian Networks. Chapman and Hall: CRC, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1201/b21982
63.
AndrewsJDPrescottDRRemenyte-PrescottR. A systems reliability approach to decision making in autonomous multi-platform systems operating a phased mission. In: 2008 annual reliability and maintainability symposium, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 28–31 January 2008. IEEE.
64.
PrescottDRAndrewsJDDownesCG. Multiplatform phased mission reliability modelling for mission planning. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2009; 223: 27–39.
65.
Remenyte-PrescottRAndrewsJDChungPW. An efficient phased mission reliability analysis for autonomous vehicles. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2010; 95: 226–235.
66.
GuarroSYauM. Dynamic Flowgraph Methodology (DFM) modeling of nuclear and advanced technology system risk and reliability scenarios. Adv Concepts Nucl Energy Risk Assess Manag2018; 425: 353–426.
67.
GuarroSYauMKOzgunerU, et al. Formal framework and models for validation and verification of software-intensive aerospace systems. AIAA Inf Syst Infotech Aerospace2017; 2017: 1–10.
68.
SwustePTheunissenJSchmitzP, et al. Process safety indicators, a review of literature. J Loss Prev Process Ind2016; 40: 162–173.
ThoratLSkjetneR. Load-dependent start-stop of gensets modeled as a hybrid dynamical system. IFAC-PapersOnLine2017; 50: 9321–9328.
71.
RoksethBUtneIBVinnemJE. Deriving verification objectives and scenarios for maritime systems using the systems-theoretic process analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 169: 18–31.
72.
ØienK. Risk indicators as a tool for risk control. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2001; 74: 129–145.
73.
HaddaraMRGuedes SoaresC. Wind loads on marine structures. Mar Struct1999; 12: 199–209.
74.
BrodtkorbAHNielsenUDSørensenAJ. Sea state estimation using vessel response in dynamic positioning. Appl Ocean Res2018; 70: 76–86.
75.
MoslehA. PRA: a perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements. Nucl Eng Technol2014; 46: 1–10.
