Selection of The Most Proper Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Transportation in Emergency Operations by Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Abstract

Today rapid development on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technologies continues to evolve and expand its use as a tool that can be used in many fields. The most communal areas for the use of UAV are mapping, assessing, and supporting damage assessments, and search and rescue activities, respectively. However, the application of transporting light and important cargoes that have become widespread recently accessing to the difficult areas is also becoming a new sector in the usage areas of UAV. Lightweight, user-friendly designs of UAVs and flight systems managed by automated workflows giving a convenience for this field application. In this study, two different flight platforms (3 fixed-wing and 3 multi-rotor) of flight parameters evaluated by selecting the sales catalogue. Brand knowledge of the UAVs has not given in consideration of the belief that it may adversely affect commercial competition. The sample modelled as a multi-criteria decision-making problem consisting of quantitative and qualitative criteria, and the analytic hierarchy process (AHS), which clearly reveals the decision-makers' views for such problems. Priorities for the criteria of each alternative for the payload, UAV weight, maximum altitude, maximum speed, flight time and controller range criteria with numerical performance values in order to maintain the consistency problem in the AHS method were figured out by direct assignment. The impact of each criterion in the choice and coherence analysis to determine the effect of each alternative criteria were performed using Expert Choice v2000 software. Because of the analysis made, it is seen that multi-rotor UAVs are the predominant choice for fixed-winged UAVs, among which the UAV_4 flight platform is the most appropriate vehicle for emergency transport with an overall weight of 0.2530. When UAV_4 is compared with other alternative flight platforms, it is seen to be in the foreground according to the criteria of maximum altitude, maximum ground speed, landing field and ease of use. As seen in the analysis of 2-dimensional alternatives at the end of the example, analysis of UAV to be used in emergency transport according to landing field and ease of use criteria revealed that multi-rotor UAVs (UAV_4, UAV_5, UAV_6) have more dominant results than fixed-wing UAVs (UAV_1, UAV_2, UAV_3). Although most of the UAV models being developed are still in prototypes, with the rapid development in the field of technology and the industrial knowledge in these applications, further progress can be expected in the future projects.

Keywords

• Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
• Emergency Operations
• Expert Choice
• Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

References

1. Al-Ahmari, A. M. A. (2008). A methodology for selection and evaluation of advanced manufacturing technologies. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing. doi: 10.1080/09511920701678825
2. Al-Harbi, K. M. A. S. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00038-1
3. Clarke, R. (2014). Understanding the drone epidemic. Computer Law and Security Review. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2014.03.002
4. Colomina, I., Molina, P. (2014). Unmanned aerial systems for photogrammetry and remote sensing: A review. In ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.02.013
5. Eisenbeiss, H. (2009). UAV Photogrammetry. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
6. Elkarmi, F., Mustafa, I. (1993). Increasing the utilization of solar energy technologies (SET) in Jordan. Analytic hierarchy process. Energy Policy. doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(93)90186-J
7. Enyinda, C. I. (2017). Quantitative Risk Analysis for International Project Management and Programs in an Emerging Economy. R. Benlamri & M. Sparer (Eds.), Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy (pp. 769–780). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
8. FAA. (2016). United States Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Hand Book. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/17_phak_ch15.pdf

9. FSD. (2016). Drone in Humanitarian Action: A Guide to the Use of Airborne Systems in Humanitarian Crises. Swiss Foundation for Mine Action (FSD). Retrieved from https://drones.fsd.ch/en/4296/
10. Hajeeh, M., Lairi, S. (2009). Marriage partner selection in Kuwait: An analytical hierarchy process approach. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. doi: 10.1080/00222500902953620
11. Hansen, R. L. (2016). Traffic monitoring using UAV Technology. American Surveyor. Retrieved from http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Hansen-TrafficMonitoringWithUAV_June2016.pdf
12. Herwitz, S. R., Leung, J. G., Higgins, R. G., Dunagan, S. E. (2002). Remote command-and-control of imaging payloads using commercial off-the-shelf technology. IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 5, 2726–2728 vol.5. doi: 10.1109/IGARSS.2002.1026755
13. Ishizaka, A., Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. In Expert Systems with Applications. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
14. Kablan, M. M. (2004). Decision support for energy conservation promotion: An analytic hierarchy process approach. Energy Policy. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00078-8
15. LEE, H. S. (2017). Priority Analysis of Subscription Attributes for High-Speed Internet Service: Application of AHP Technique. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 22(1), 1–18.
16. Luege, T. (2016). Mapping Rapid Damage Assessments of Tabarre and Surrounding Communities in Haiti following Hurricane Sandy. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/innov-aid/blog/case-study-no-6-mapping-rapid-damage-assessments-tabarre-and-surrounding-communities-haiti-foll#_ftn11
17. Mizrahi, S. (2017). A Framework for Strategic Performance Management for the Public Sector Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Public Policy and Performance Management in Democratic Systems (pp. 99–126). Springer.
18. Ossadnik, W., Kaspar, R. (2013). Evaluation of AHP software from a management accounting perspective. Journal of Modelling in Management. doi: 10.1108/JM2-01-2011-0007
19. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L. (2000). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications.
20. Saaty, T L. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2), 557–570. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&_origin=CONTENTS&_method=citationSearch&_piikey=S037722170400311X&_version=1&md5=a83ce74da0354aa600130a222b6ddd21
21. Saaty, T. L. (1988). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (Revised ed). Pittsburgh: The University of Pitssburgh.
22. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
23. Saaty, T. L. (2005). Theory and applications of analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Pittsburg: RWS Publications.
24. Schmidt, K., Aumann, I., Hollander, I., Damm, K., Von Der Schulenburg, J. M. G. (2015). Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting. In BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. doi: 10.1186/s12911-015-0234-7
25. Segui-Gasco, P., Al-Rihani, Y., Shin, H. S., Savvaris, A. (2014). A novel actuation concept for a multi rotor UAV. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications. doi: 10.1007/s10846-013-9987-3
26. Silvagni, M., Tonoli, A., Zenerino, E., Chiaberge, M. (2017). Multipurpose UAV for search and rescue operations in mountain avalanche events. In Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk. doi: 10.1080/19475705.2016.1238852
27. Stam, A., Duarte Silva, A. P. (2003). On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00228-X
28. Thamm, H. P., Judex, M. (2006). The “low-cost drone”-an interesting tool for process monitoring in a high spatial and temporal resolution. ISPRS Mid-Term Symposium, 8–11.
29. Tiwari, M. K., Banerjee, R. (2001). A decision support system for the selection of a casting process using analytic hierarchy process. Production Planning & Control, 12(7), 689–694. doi: 10.1080/09537280010016783
30. van Blyenburgh, P. (1999). UAVs: an overview. Air & Space Europe. doi: 10.1016/S1290-0958(00)88869-3
31. Waharte, S., Trigoni, N. (2010). Supporting search and rescue operations with UAVs. Proceedings - EST 2010 - 2010 International Conference on Emerging Security Technologies, ROBOSEC 2010 - Robots and Security, LAB-RS 2010 - Learning and Adaptive Behavior in Robotic Systems. doi: 10.1109/EST.2010.31
32. Zakarian, A., Kusiak, A. (1999). Forming teams: an analytical approach. IIE Transactions (Institute of Industrial Engineers). doi: 10.1080/07408179908969808