Solutions - Group 4 - 2018/2019, Semester B, Quartile 3

<link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://www.tue.nl/favicon-64.ico" type="image/x-icon"> <link rel=http://cstwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_3_Group4&action=edit"stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css">

1. Root
2. Notes
3. Initial ideas
4. State of the Art
5. Project setup
6. Present situation
7. Solutions

Solutions

In this section, we consider the requirements of solutions for the problem proposed in the specific problem description, all possible solutions, and both the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.

Categories

When considering the state of the art research presented in the relevant Section, we can distinguish multiple categories in which the presented solutions might fall. In this Section, we further elaborate on these different categories, and as such provide a better overview and allow for more a more specific formulation of requirements. Firstly, different anti-UAV systems serve different purposes. For our study, we differentiate between the following purposes:

Purposes

UAV Detection

These systems serve to detect the presence of UAVs in unwanted airspaces. They often also locate the UAV in question, and sometimes include the possibility of continuous location tracking to assist systems categorized under the other purposes.

UAV Identification

Systems from this category serve to identify UAVs, obtaining more information about the UAV than simply its location. This information might include simple statistics, such as the average size of the drone which can often be observed by a human, given that the UAV is present in their field of view. More complicated statistics might also be obtained, such as a serial tracking number to identify commercial UAVs.

UAV Neutralisation

Drone neutralisation systems serve to neutralise a drone. This is the main topic of our study, since UAV presence in the airspace above an airport introduces various risks, discussed in other Sections, that have to be neutralised in order to maintain public and societal security.

Categories

Preventative solutions

This category encompasses all solutions that serve to prevent the problem from occurring. More specifically, entries of this category focus on keeping UAVs away from airspace belonging to airports. An example might include the geofencing system that was described previously, and will be elaborated on further in the following sections.

Corrective solutions

Solutions from this category focus on solving the problem of UAV presence in the airspace over airports, specifically when said UAV is already present in that airspace. These solutions attempt to do so with minimal damage to the parties involved, an example might consist of a procedure where the control of the drone is overridden, either automatically or by a human, before the drone is removed from the airspace by landing or flight and after which control could be passed back to the pilot.

Destructive solutions

These solutions have the same area of focus as the previous category of corrective solutions, namely the minimizing of further risk to air traffic above airports after a UAV has entered the airspace. The main difference is that, while corrective solutions attempt to do so in a non-destructive way, this limitation does not apply to destructive solutions. Sub-systems of a UAV or the UAV as a whole may be destroyed or permanently disabled. A coarse example consists of taking down unwanted UAVs with firearms, causing damage to the UAV and rendering it unable to continue operations.

This division into categories is not entirely black on white, however. Consider an abstract example system that temporarily incapacitates a UAV in flight, causing it to cease operation and enter a free fall towards the ground. This might result in the complete destruction of the drone, given the collision with the ground. We have found a grey area in our division into subcategories and as such, we further define destructive solutions as those solutions, where the incapacitation of the drone follows from the destruction, and not the other way around. We also require the destruction to be an integral part of the solution, if we want it to count as a destructive solution. In this example, the destruction is not guaranteed nor does the incapacitation follow from the destruction, rather the destruction might follow from the incapacitation, dependent on other circumstances. Therefore, this specific example counts as a preventative or corrective solution, based on where the UAV in question is located. Note however, that this is based on the keywords 'temporarily incapacitates'. If the incapacitation of the UAV or one of its subsystems was permanent, the destruction would be guaranteed since it does not depend on how hard the UAV hits the ground anymore. In this case, it would count as a destructive solution.

Requirements

A solution to the specific problem described will have to adhere to requirements. These requirements are not simply capabilities the solution has to provide in the form of functional requirements, but they should also cover constraints posed on the solution. The constraints can be on the design of the solution in order to meet specified levels of quality, on the environment and technology of the system, and on the project plan and development methods.

While providing these requirements, we need to make sure they are atomic. Furthermore, they need to be clearly identified, sufficiently precise and unambiguous, sufficiently verifiable, and prioritised. We use the MoSCoW model for the prioritisation of the requirements. This model considers must have, should have, could have, and won't have, which indicate the priority of a requirement.

Furthermore, these requirements might serve as a basic framework for further development of solutions to similar problems, thereby widening the scope to other problem spaces involving UAVs as well.

The functional requirements (capabilities) of the solution are as follows:

• The solution should be able to take down any type of drone effectively.
• The solution should not endanger any humans with any of its actions.

The non-functional requirements of the solution are as follows:

• The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `New Rules' subsection in the `Present situation' section.
• The solution should adhere to the new rules proposed in the `Limitations' subsection in the `Present situation' section.

Possible solutions

• Describe all possible solutions possible within the next 20 years or so.

• Radar system for detecting the location and height of an object in the air.
• Identification of any specific aircraft can be done by broadcasting a coded signal, which is decoded by air traffic control towers. Such that allies and enemies can be identified and to avoid targeting a friendly aircraft. As a result, all aircraft where radar service is provided should require systems that are able to broadcast coded signals for identification.
• Air to air missiles to shoot down drones.
• Lasers to neutralize drones.
• Electromagnetic attacks to interfere with the GPS signals of the drone to make the drone uncontrollable to the pilot.
• Spoofing the GPS signals of the drone to take control of the drone.
• A Wi-Fi receiver can be used to detect a drone based on the signature of the signal reflected from the propellers of a drone. Similar to a radar, a transmitter broadcasts signals and a receiver captures reflected signals that bounce of a drone.
• Detect a drone by listening to the communication channel between the drone and its controller using a wireless receiver. Usually, drones communicate with their controllers a few times per second to update their status and to receive commands from the controller. A system could collect wireless samples and observes the signal, analyse them and can then detect a drone's presence.
• Catch a drone using an bigger drone and giant net.
• A bazooka with an intelligent locking system to aid the controller to hit the drone succesfully, that shoots a net to capture a drone.
• For identification of drones, employing a 2D antenna and appropriate signal processing to create a multibeam, 3D, wide area overcomes the weakness of scanning radars and achieves high detection sensitivity. A decision tree based classifier can be used to identify the difference between drones and other moving objects. Where it rejects non-drone targets, decreasing the number of false positives and increases true positives. Such that when neutralizing such a moving object in the air, with high probability, it will be a drone instead of for example a flying bird.
• Transmitting geo-fence coordinates, avoidance commands or disruption of radio communication in order to avoid UAV's entering no-fly zone.
• Detection of drones by other drones flying around the airports.

Advantages and disadvantages

• Advantages and disadvantages based on the requirements of a solution (feasibility of actually making it and jurisdiction).

---

Back to the root page.