Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:19:05.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A constraint-based approach for planning unmanned aerial vehicle activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2017

Christophe Guettier  and
François Lucas
Christophe Guettier
Affiliation:
SAFRAN Electronics and Defense, 100 Avenue de Paris, 91344 Massy, France e-mail: [email protected]
François Lucas
Affiliation:
EPEX SPOT, 5 Boulevard Montmartre, 75002 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) represent a major advantage in defense, disaster relief and first responder applications. UAV may provide valuable information on the environment if their Command and Control (C2) is shared by different operators. In a C2 networking system, any operator may request and use the UAV to perform a remote sensing operation. These requests have to be scheduled in time and a consistent navigation plan must be defined for the UAV. Moreover, maximizing UAV utilization is a key challenge for user acceptance and operational efficiency. The global planning problem is constrained by the environment, targets to observe, user availability, mission duration and on-board resources. This problem follows previous research works on automatic mission Planning & Scheduling for defense applications. The paper presents a full constraint-based approach to simultaneously satisfy observation requests, and resolve navigation plans.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Special Issue 5: Constraint Satisfaction for Planning and Scheduling , November 2016 , pp. 486 - 497
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, E. & Lenstra, J. 1997. Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Abramson, M., Kim, P. & Williams, B. 2001. Executing reactive, model-based programs through graph-based temporal planning. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).Google Scholar
Ajili, F. & Wallace, M. 2004. Hybrid problem solving in ECLiPSe. In Constraint and Integer Programming Toward a Unified Methodology, volume 27 of Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series, Chapter 6. Springer, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botea, A., Mller, M. & Schaeffer, J. 2004. Near optimal hierarchical path-finding. Journal of Game Development 1(1), 7–28.Google Scholar
Cerny, V. 1985. A thermodynamical approach to the travelling salesman problem: an efficient simulation algorithm. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 45, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorigo, M. & Gambardella, L. 1997. Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. & Long, D. 2000. Automatic synthesis and use of generic types in planning. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence Planning System, AAAI Press, 196–205.Google Scholar
Fox, M. & Long, D. 2003. PDDL 2.1: an extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Goldman, R., Haigh, K., Musliner, D. & Pelican, M. 2002. MACBeth: a multi-agent constraint-based planner. In Proceedings of the 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2, 7E3:1–8.Google Scholar
Gondran, M. & Minoux, M. 1995. Graphes et Algorithmes. Editions Eyrolles.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. & Zhou, R. 2007. Anytime heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 28, 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, P., Nilsson, N. & Raphael, B. 1968. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Science and Cybernetics 4(2), 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentenryck, P. Van, Saraswat, V. A. & Deville, Y. 1998. Design, implementation, and evaluation of the constraint language CC(FD). The Journal of Logic Programming 37(1–3), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, S., Sun, X. & Yeoh, W. 2009. Dynamic Fringe-Saving A*. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), 2, 891–898.Google Scholar
Laborie, P. & Ghallab, M. 1995. Planning with Sharable Resource Constraints. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI).Google Scholar
Lucas, F. & Guettier, C. 2010. Automatic vehicle navigation with bandwidth constraints. In Proceedings of MILCOM 2010, November.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, F. & Guettier, C. 2012. Hybrid solving technique for vehicle planning. In Proceedings of Military Communication Conference (MILCOM).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, F., Guettier, C., Siarry, P., de La Fortelle, A. & Milcent, A.-M. 2010. Constrained navigation with mandatory waypoints in uncertain environment. International Journal of Information Sciences and Computer Engineering (IJISCE) 1, 75–85.Google Scholar
Meuleau, N., Plaunt, C., Smith, D. & Smith, T. 2009. Emergency landing planning for damaged aircraft. In Proceedings of the 21st Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference.Google Scholar
Meuleau, N., Neukom, C., Plaunt, C., Smith, D. E. & Smithy, T. 2011. The emergency landing planner experiment. In 21st International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling.Google Scholar
Muscettola, N. 1993. HSTS: integrating planning and scheduling. In Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-93-05, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Sakkout, H. E. & Wallace, M. 2000. Probe backtrack search for minimal perturbations in dynamic scheduling. Constraints Journal 5(4), 359–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar