Leveraging Connectivity for Coverage in Drone Networks for Target Detection

Year 2019, Volume: 7 Issue: 3, 218 - 225, 30.07.2019

Evsen Yanmaz Adam

https://doi.org/10.17694/bajece.503818

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Target or event detection is one of the main applications
of drone networks. Several cooperative search algorithms
have been proposed for teams of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), where the goal is to minimize search time or
maximize detection probability. In these works, connectivity often
is considered a constraint in enabling cooperation. In this paper,
we approach the target detection problem in drone networks
from both detection and connectivity viewpoints. Our goal is not
only to find a stationary target but also to inform the ground
personnel (e.g., a rescue team) about the status of the target over
a multi-hop communication chain. We analyze the performance
of our coverage-based and connectivity-based path planning
algorithms in terms of probability and time of detection as well as
notification. We show that there is a trade-off between coverage
and connectivity and with limited number of drones both aspects
need to be considered for successful mission completion.

Keywords

target detection, monitoring, swarms, networking, drones

References

• [1] D. Cole, A. Goktogan, P. Thompson, and S. Sukkarieh, “Mapping and tracking,” IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 22–34, June 2009.
• [2] S. Hayat, E. Yanmaz, and R. Muzaffar, “Survey on unmanned aerial vehicle networks for civil applications: A communications viewpoint,”IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2624–2661, Fourthquarter 2016.
• [3] M. Erdelj, E. Natalizio, K. R. Chowdhury, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Help from the sky: Leveraging UAVs for disaster management,” IEEE PervasiveComputing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–32, Jan 2017.
• [4] A. Khan, E. Yanmaz, and B. Rinner, “Information Exchange and Decision Making in Micro Aerial Vehicle Networks for CooperativeSearch,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 335–347, 2015.
• [5] E. Yanmaz, “Connectivity versus area coverage in unmanned aerial vehicle networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications (ICC), 2012.
• [6] S. Hayat, E. Yanmaz, T. Brown, and C. Bettstetter, “Multi-objective uav path planning for search and rescue,” in Proc. Intl. Conf. Robotics andAutomation, ser. ICRA ’17, 2017.
• [7] E. Yanmaz and H. Guclu, “Stationary and mobile target detection using mobile wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on ComputerCommunications (INFOCOM), Mar. 2010, pp. 1 –5.
• [8] I. Bekmezci, O. K. Sahingoz, and C. Temel, “Flying Ad-Hoc Networks (FANETs): A Survey,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1254–1270, May. 2013.
• [9] X. Wang, G. Xing, Y. Zhang, C. Lu, R. Pless, and C. Gill, “Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in wireless sensor networks,” inProc. Int’s. Conf. Emb. Net. Sens. Sys. (SenSys’03), 2003, pp. 28–39.
• [10] B. Liu and D. Towsley, “A study of the coverage of large-scale sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int’l. Conf. Mob. Ad hoc Sens. Sys. (IEEE MASS’04), Oct. 2004, pp. 475–483.
• [11] S. Megerian, F. Koushanfar, M. Potkonjak, and M. B. Srivastava, “Worst and best-case coverage in sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Mob. Comp.,vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 84–92, Jan./Feb. 2005.
• [12] M. Grossglauser and D. N. C. Tse, “Mobility increases the capacity of ad hoc wireless networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking, vol. 10, no. 4,pp. 477–486, Aug. 2002.
• [13] B. Liu, P. Brass, O. Dousse, P. Nain, and D. Towsley, “Mobility improves coverage of sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM Intl. Symp. Mobile Ad hocNetworking and Computing (MobiHoc ’05), 2005, pp. 300–308.
• [14] S. Poduri and G. S. Sukhatme, “Constrained coverage for mobile sensor networks,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2004,pp. 165–172.
• [15] P. Vincent and I. Rubin, “A framework and analysis for cooperative search using UAV swarms,” in Proc. ACM Symp. Applied Computing, 2004, pp. 79–86.[16] Y. Jin, Y. Liao, M. M. Polycarpou, and A. A. Minai, “Balancing search and target response in cooperative unmanned vehicle teams,” IEEETrans. on Sys., Man and Cybernetics, vol. 36, pp. 571–587, 2006.
• [17] E. W. Frew and T. X. Brown, “Airborne communication networks for small unmanned aircraft systems,” Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 96, no. 12, 2008.
• [18] H. Choset, “Coverage for robotics – a survey of recent results,” Annals of Math. and Artificial Intel., vol. 31, no. 1-4, pp. 113–126, 2001.
• [19] S. Hauert, S. Leven, J.-C. Zufferey, and D. Floreano, “Communicationbased swarming for flying robots,” in Proc. Intl. Conf. Robotics andAutomation Workshop on Network Science and Systems, 2010.
• [20] Y. Mostofi, “Communication-aware motion planning in fading environments,” in Proc. Intl. Conf. Robotics and Automation, 2008, pp. 3169–3174.
• [21] E. F. Flushing, M. Kudelski, L. M. Gambardella, and G. A. D. Caro, “Connectivity-aware planning of search and rescue missions,” in Proc.IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), Oct 2013, pp. 1–8.
• [22] E. Frazzoli, M. Dahleh, and E. Feron, “Real-time motion planning for agile autonomous vehicles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 25, pp. 116–129, 2002.
• [23] J.-C. Latombe, Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer, 1991.
• [24] S. Waharte and N. Trigoni, “Supporting search and rescue operations with UAVs,” in Proc. International Conference on Emerging SecurityTechnologies (EST), October 2010, pp. 142–147.
• [25] L. Lin and M. A. Goodrich, “UAV intelligent path planning for wilderness search and rescue,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference onIntelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct 2009, pp. 709–714.