Research & Technical Content

• 1: Functional Specifications for Drone Docks

1 - Functional Specifications for Drone Docks

Introduction

Drone docks, also known as “drone-in-a-box” systems, are emerging as transformative technology in various sectors, including utility substations. These systems typically integrate a drone with protective housing, embedded charging, wireless connectivity, and remote or automated flight command and control. Drone docks serve as landing and charging stations for drones, providing a secure and convenient location for them to land and recharge their batteries without requiring manual intervention by an operator. They are particularly valuable for applications such as aerial inspection, enhancing the efficiency and safety of drone operations while reducing the need for manual intervention and enabling drones to operate autonomously for extended periods. In substations, these systems offer hardware that utilities could deploy and leave in place, potentially enhancing utility situational awareness in remote or high-priority environments.

EPRI, along with its project members, is investigating the feasibility of deploying drone docks in and around substations for asset and security inspections. As part of this process, EPRI conducted scouting by engaging with various vendors to understand the available state features and functionalities. It is crucial to thoroughly evaluate their applications in substations; hence, EPRI and its members developed a list of functional specifications, which will be discussed in the next section.

Functional Specifications

This section outlines the functional specifications for a drone dock ecosystem designed to minimize human involvement while ensuring substation inspection and with maximum safety standards. This entails a comprehensive analysis of both the software and hardware components of the drone dock ecosystem.

EPRI’s Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and utility researchers have collaboratively developed functional specifications encompassing both essential and desired attributes for a drone dock platform, aiming to enable autonomous and teleoperated operations with minimal human intervention. These attributes are categorized into 7 sections, comprising a total of 118 features, some of which require descriptive and categorical responses. Among these, 22 are descriptive features, while 96 are categorical. Originally, the functional specifications comprised 81 features, but with the incorporation of member feedback, an additional 37 features were integrated, resulting in a total of 118 features. The distribution of these features, both descriptive and categorical, is depicted in the figure below.

Let’s take a closer look at the 7 sections outlined in the functional specifications:

• Hardware - Dock: Focuses on the hardware capabilities of the dock module. It is vital to understand parameters like the environment in which the dock can be deployed, visual & auditory alerts for safety purposes, and security monitoring of the environment.
• Hardware - Drone: For the drone to adequately perform its tasks, a few nice hardware features for the drone would be having as little downtime as possible, having necessary safety measures, and having onboard data processing.
• Hardware - Drone Payloads: Since the drone’s foremost task is to perform inspections, it must have a decent array of payloads. Sensors like various cameras, with digital and optical zoom or the ability to interface custom payloads, are desirable.
• Drone Navigation: This category looks at the ability of the drone to understand and navigate in its deployment environment. Navigating in various lighting conditions, avoiding general & specific objects, understanding the local weather conditions and being aware of its global positioning are key features.
• Operations and Controls: This category aims to determine the teleoperation & autonomous operation of the drone. It includes features like mission planning, real-time telemetry, loss link scenario and remote operation of the dock.
• Software and Visualization: These are all the application layer interfaces that the operator requires to interact with the dock ecosystem. Visualization of the drone’s payloads, battery management and access control are a few of the parameters included.
• Other: This category includes miscellaneous features like SDK/API support, maintenance support and regulatory compliance.

For a more detailed explanation for each feature, please refer to the spreadsheet Functional Specification Document, or use the interactive plot below. Hover over each category to access explanations for each feature.

Member Ratings

Upon receiving the functional specification document, each utility lead was tasked with rating each feature or technology according to the provided rating system illustrated in Table 1 below:

Research/Pilot phase	Rating System
I know I need that	4
I think I'm going to need this	3
I may want this	2
I don't think I need this	1
I know I don't need it	0

Each utility lead, along with their team, provided their input based on this rating system. The ratings were then averaged across all utility responses. The figure below shows the utility rating for each categorical feature rated between 0 and 4 as per the member ratings table (Table 1).

Each utility lead, alongside their team, contributed their input based on this rating system. Subsequently, the ratings were averaged across all utility responses. The resulting average ratings for each categorical feature, ranging between 0 and 4, are depicted in below Figure.

Later, these ratings were further classified into three priority levels based on the following criteria outlined in the table below:

Ratings	Priority
3 <=	High
2> & <3	Medium
2 >=	Low

Among the 118 features, which comprised both descriptive and categorical elements, 95 were categorical. Utility members rated 58 of these as high priority (required features), 27 as medium priority (desired features), and 10 as low priority (not required). The final categorization based on priority was color-coded and presented in the interactive plot depicted in the Figure below.

Vendor Ratings

EPRI conducted interviews with six different vendors from around the world, including DJI, Skydio, Hextronics, Strix Drones, Percepto, and Volatus. Throughout these interviews, in-depth discussions were held regarding the capabilities of the drones and docks. Subsequently, vendors were requested to assess their drone dock capabilities for each feature utilizing the rating system outlined in the table below. Out of the six vendors approached, EPRI received responses from four.

Response	Rating
This feature is available in our software, and we could demo it	Fully implemented
This feature is beta stage, and we could demo this feacture as beta version	In development
Thies feature in not available in our software, and it is part of our road map	Planned
This feature in not available or not in our road map but can be customized	Needs customization
We do not have this feature and are not planning tp have it in future	Not applicable/not supported

These vendor ratings offer valuable insights into the availability and developmental stage of various features within their software and hardware offerings. Utilize the interactive plot below, which allows you to hover over each vendor ID to view their respective Vendor Ratings, color-coded and displayed for clarity.

Evaluation

EPRI utilized a specific approach to evaluate the vendor responses alongside member ratings. The vendor ratings, originally provided as qualitative responses, were translated into numerical values as follows: Fully Implemented – 4, In development – 3, Planned – 2, Needs customization – 1, Not applicable/Not supported – 0.

EPRI employed a systematic approach to assess vendor responses in conjunction with member ratings. Initially provided as qualitative responses, vendor ratings were translated into numerical values to facilitate analysis. Ratings were assigned as follows: Fully Implemented – 4, In development – 3, Planned – 2, Needs customization – 1, Not applicable/Not supported – 0.

Rating	Rating System
Fully implemented	4
In development	3
Planned	2
Needs customization	1
Not applicable/not supported	0

For the evaluation, only the high and medium priority features were considered based on member ratings. Certain Q/A features such as “Any other applications?”, “Ease of software use”, “Type of data processing”, and “Software vs. Browser-based” were removed, resulting in a total of 47 features for evaluation.

To calculate the final evaluation scores, both member and vendor ratings were multiplied by the average member rating for each category, employing the following formula:

These evaluation scores were then plotted in an interactive graph, enabling users to hover over each vendor ID to access their respective ratings. To enhance clarity, scores were color-coded for ease of interpretation.

The table below displays the finalized evaluation scores for the vendors across various categories, including Drone Navigation, Hardware - Dock, Hardware - Drone, Hardware - Drone Payloads, Operations & Controls, Other, Software & Visualization, and the overall Total.

These scores provide a comprehensive overview of each vendor's performance across different aspects of drone dock functionalities, aiding in informed decision-making during vendor selection processes.