基于STPA法的空中加油软管甩鞭安全性分析

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.02.021

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为定量评价空中加油软管甩鞭(HWP)现象的安全性,使用系统理论过程分析(STPA)法查找出相关系统级危险、不安全控制行为和致因因素共计46条,确定与之对应的44项安全对接约束条件;依据空中加油飞行试验数据,定义可量化的安全检查点,依据安全检查点将安全约束条件分为17类,确定各检查点的安全区间和权重;根据飞行数据确定HWP的安全量化区间,使用量化区间及其权重,对形成软管重度甩鞭、中度甩鞭、安全对接的实例进行安全性评分。结果表明:使用STPA识别安全风险并量化评分的方法能够表征空中加油对接中的安全水平,其中,软管重度甩鞭下的对接安全性水平最差。

关键词: 系统理论过程分析(STPA), 空中加油, 软管甩鞭 (HWP), 对接安全性, 安全约束条件, 安全检查点

Abstract:

In order to quantitatively evaluate safety of HWP in aerial refueling, a total of 46 items which included relevant system-level hazards, unsafe control behaviors and causative factors were found by using STPA method, and 44 corresponding safety constraints were determined. Then, quantifiable safety checkpoints were defined based on air refueling flight data, safety constraints were divided into 17 categories, and safety intervals and weight of each checkpoint were determined. Finally, quantification interval of HWP was decided according to flight data, and together with its weight, was used to score safety of instances of heavy whip, moderate whip, and safe docking. The results show that using STPA method to identify and quantify safety risks could characterize safety level of aerial refueling docking, and it exhibits lowest safety level under heavy whip of the hoses.

Key words: system theoretic process analysis (STPA), aerial refueling, hose whipping phenomenon (HWP), docking safety, safety constraints, safety checkpoints

吕旭飞, 姚尚宏, 权家乐. 基于STPA法的空中加油软管甩鞭安全性分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 152-157.

LYU Xufei, YAO Shanghong, QUAN Jiale. Safety analysis on HWP in aerial refueling based on STPA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 152-157.

图/表 6

图1

表1

图2

表2

图3

表3

参考文献 17

[1]	董新民, 徐跃鉴, 陈博. 自动空中加油技术研究进展与关键问题[J]. 空军工程大学学报:自然科学版, 2008, 9(6): 1-5.
	DONG Xinmin, XU Yuejian, CHEN Bo. Progress and challenges in automatic aerial refueling[J]. Journal of Air Force Engineering University: Natural Science Edition, 2008, 9(6): 1-5.
[2]	全权, 魏子博, 高俊, 等. 软管式自主空中加油对接阶段中的建模与控制综述[J]. 航空学报, 2014, 35(9):2390-2410. doi: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2014.0092
	QUAN Quan, WEI Zibo, GAO Jun, et al. A survey on modeling and control problems for probe & drogue autonomous aerial docking[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2014, 35(9):2390-2410. doi: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2014.0092
[3]	ZHU Zhenghong, MEGUID S A. Elastodynamic analysis of aerial refueling hose using curved beam element[J]. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44(6):1317-1324. doi: 10.2514/1.17311
[4]	王海涛, 董新民, 郭军, 等. 空中加油软管锥套组合体甩鞭现象动力学建模与分析[J]. 航空学报, 2015, 36(9):3116-3127. doi: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2014.0343
	WANG Haitao, DONG Xinmin, GUO Jun, et al. Dynamics modeling and analysis of hose whipping phenomenon of aerial refueling hose-drogue assembly[J]. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica, 2015, 36(9): 3116-3127. doi: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2014.0343
[5]	喻振华, 周倩, 李伟. 空中加油电驱动响应技术研究[J]. 航空科学技术, 2016, 27(12):18-22.
	YU Zhenghua, ZHOU Qian, LI Wei. Reasearch on electric drive technology under the response condition of aerial refueling[J]. Aeronautical Science & Technology, 2016, 27(12):18-22.
[6]	闵强. 空中加油软管甩鞭现象建模与载荷计算[J]. 四川轻化工大学学报:自然科学版, 2020, 33(5):81-87.
	MIN Qiang. Dynamic modeling and load calculation of hose whipping phenomenon of aerial refueling hose-drogue assembly[J]. Journal of Sichuan University of Science & Engineering:Natural Science Edition, 2020, 33(5):81-87.
[7]	STYUART A, GASTON R, YAMASHIRO H, et al. Numerical simulation of hose whip phenomenon in aerial refueling[C]. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,2011: DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-6211. doi: 10.2514/6.2011-6211
[8]	胡剑波, 李俊, 郑磊, 等. 复杂系统安全性建模、分析、控制与仿真研究[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2018, 43(7):1-9.
	HU Jianbo, LI Jun, ZHENG Lei, et al. Research summary on safety model,analysis,control and simulate for complex systems[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2018, 43(7):1-9.
[9]	王洁宁, 李保燊, 冀姗姗. 基于STPA和模糊BN的AIDC移交人误研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9): 27-35. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.005
	WANG Jiening, LI Baoshen, JI Shanshan. Study on human error in AIDC transfer based on STPA and fuzzy BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(9): 27-35. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.005
[10]	李京生, 赵林, 王阳, 等. CRES的危害因素识别方法:以EETD为例[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1): 106-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.018
	LI Jingsheng, ZHAO Lin, WANG Yang, et al. Study on method for identifying hazardous factors in CRES: EETD taken as an example[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(1): 106-111. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.01.018
[11]	REJZEK M, HILBES C. Use of STPA as a diverse analysis method for optimization and design verification of digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2018, 331: 125-135. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.02.030
[12]	王瑛, 郭之俊, 孙贇, 等. 基于IDAC-STPA模型的战机飞行安全性分析与评价[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41(5): 1056-1062.
	WANG Ying, GUO Zhijun, SUN Yun, et al. Aircraft flight safety analysis and simulation based on IDAC-STPA model[J]. System Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41(5): 1056-1062.
[13]	HU Jianbo, ZHENG Lei, XU Shukui. Safety analysis of wheel brake system based on STAMP/STPA and Monte Carlo simulation[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2018, 29(6): 1327-1339. doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2018.06.20
[14]	王洁宁, 孙晓萌. 基于STPA空管运行系统安全分析方法研究[J]. 武汉理工大学学报, 2017, 39(12): 54-60.
	WANG Jiening, SUN Xiaomeng. Research on safety analysis of air traffic control system based on STPA[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology, 2017, 39(12): 54-60.
[15]	KRAUSS S S, REJZEK M, HILBES C. Tool qualification considerations for tools supporting STPA[J]. Procedia Engineering, 2015, 128: 15-24. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.500
[16]	LONGJI D A, EMILIA V. System safety assessment based on STPA and model checking[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 109:130-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.009
[17]	丛继平, 崔利杰, 陈浩然, 等. 空中加油“甩鞭”现象安全性分析与仿真验证[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2020, 46(10):1958-1965.
	CONG Jiping, CUI Lijie, CHEN Haoran, et al. Research on safety analysis and simulation validation of HWP in air refueling[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2020, 46(10):1958-1965.

控制行为	未控制	错误控制	行为过早、过晚或顺序错误	行为结束太早或太晚
CA-1 受油机速度控制	UCA-1未进行速度控制	UCA-2 对接时,油门过大或过小,姿态角超限	UCA-5 对接成功后未及时控制油门和操纵杆使飞机减速	UCA-7加油未结束,停止速度保持
		UCA-3 输油时,受油机操作不柔和	UCA-6 输油过程中滥用控制,导致PIO
		UCA-4软管甩动时,受油机未保持
CA-2 受油机位置控制	UCA-8 未进行位置控制	UCA-9 对接成功后,受油机未能保持高度	UCA-12 未按照先水平赶距离,后垂直减高度接近锥套	UCA-14 加油未结束便停止位置保持
		UCA-10 对接时,追逐锥套	UCA-13 对接成功后未及时保持在加油区
		UCA-11 未按软管延长线对接
CA-3软管锥套状态控制	UCA-15 未进行软管状态控制	—	UCA-16对接后,软管未及时回绕	—
CA-3软管锥套状态控制	UCA-15 未进行软管状态控制	—	UCA-17对接时,软管过早回绕	—
CA-4空空通话	UCA-18 两机飞行员未进行空空通话	UCA-19 空空通话不规范	UCA-20 软管甩动幅度增大未及时沟通	UCA-21 加油未结束停止空空通话

安全约束条件	关联的危险/不安全控制行为/致因因素	安全检查点
软管拖曳回绕次数SC1	H-1	软管拖曳回绕次数CP1
受油机速度控制SC2	H-5,UCA-1,UCA-2,UCA-6, UCA-10,UCA-16,RE-16,RE-17	受油机相对加油机速度CP2
安全约束条件	关联的危险/不安全控制行为/致因因素	安全检查点
受油机位置控制SC3	H-2,H-5,UCA-2,UCA-3,UCA-5, UCA-7,UCA-9,UCA-10,UCA-13, UCA-17,RE-2	受油机相对加油机位置CP3
受油机姿态控制SC4	H-5,UCA-2,UCA-3,UCA-9, UCA-17,RE-2,RE-16	受油机姿态角CP4
插头断裂后的状态SC5	H-3,RE-15	受油插头与受油机之间是否有锁链连接CP5
受油机飞行员是否有参考基准SC6	UCA-10,UCA-17,RE-16	受油机飞行员是否有参考基准CP6
是否进行空中加油模拟器训练SC7	UCA-11,UCA-12	空中加油模拟器训练时长CP7
加油系统故障SC8	UCA-15,RE-12,RE-13,RE-14	过去10次对接中是否发生系统故障或产生HWP CP8
保持空空通话SC9	UCA-18,UCA-20,UCA-21,RE-6,	是否持续保持空空通话CP9
空空通话是否标准SC10	UCA-19,RE-7,RE-20	空空通话是否标准CP10
是否设置第二飞行员SC11	UCA-20,UCA-21,RE-6,RE-19	是否设置第二飞行员CP11
超密集编队飞行训练SC12	RE-1	是否完成2机超密集编队飞行CP12
应急脱离训练SC13	H-5,RE-1,RE-5,RE-15	是否完成应急脱离训练CP13
受油机飞行员疲劳程度SC14	RE-3,RE-4	该次对接前飞行时长CP14
加受油任务相关人机功效SC15	RE-4,RE-18	人机功效评分是否大于8分CP15
受油机空中加油品质SC16	H-4,RE-15	受油机有空中受油模态CP16
天气状况SC17	RE-17	对接前,锥套摆动距离是否大于其直径CP17