4.6 Article

A Fuzzy-Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under-Ice Missions

期刊

RISK ANALYSIS
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 2744-2765

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/risa.13376

关键词

Autonomous underwater vehicle; fuzzy set theory; risk assessment; under ice

资金

  1. Australian Research Council's Special Research Initiative under the Antarctic Gateway Partnership [IF SR140300001]
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) for various scientific, commercial, and military applications has become more common with maturing technology and improved accessibility. One relatively new development lies in the use of AUVs for under-ice marine science research in the Antarctic. The extreme environment, ice cover, and inaccessibility as compared to open-water missions can result in a higher risk of loss. Therefore, having an effective assessment of risks before undertaking any Antarctic under-ice missions is crucial to ensure an AUV's survival. Existing risk assessment approaches predominantly focused on the use of historical fault log data of an AUV and elicitation of experts' opinions for probabilistic quantification. However, an AUV program in its early phases lacks historical data and any assessment of risk may be vague and ambiguous. In this article, a fuzzy-based risk assessment framework is proposed for quantifying the risk of AUV loss under ice. The framework uses the knowledge, prior experience of available subject matter experts, and the widely used semiquantitative risk assessment matrix, albeit in a new form. A well-developed example based on an upcoming mission by an ISE-explorer class AUV is presented to demonstrate the application and effectiveness of the proposed framework. The example demonstrates that the proposed fuzzy-based risk assessment framework is pragmatically useful for future under-ice AUV deployments. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates the validity of the proposed method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据