Biobjective UAV routing for a mission to visit multiple mobile targets | OR Spectrum Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Biobjective UAV routing for a mission to visit multiple mobile targets

  • Original Article
  • Published:
OR Spectrum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We address the route planning problem of an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) that operates in a two-dimensional hostile terrain monitored with radars. In this terrain, there are a number of targets that are planned to be visited to collect intelligence. We consider a setting where a UAV starts from a base, visits the targets, and returns to the base. Targets may move during the UAV’s mission and their movement directions are unpredictable in advance. We consider two objectives: to minimize distance and to minimize radar detection threat. These objectives are conflicting in the regions monitored by radars. The constructed routes comprise the visiting order to the targets and the trajectories used between the visited pairs of targets. There are many efficient trajectories between the target pairs and many efficient visiting orders of the targets due to the two conflicting objectives. As a result, there are many efficient routes that are combinations of efficient trajectories and efficient orders of visits. Due to the dynamic nature of the problem, there is a need to select the route to follow in real time. To respond to these challenges, we develop an algorithm that finds a preferred route of a route planner (RP) quickly. We characterize the efficient trajectories between target pairs approximately and utilize the RP’s preferences to choose the preferred efficient trajectories and to construct a preferred route. During the flight of the UAV, targets keep moving. We update the route every time the UAV reaches a new target. We also develop a heuristic approach in case the problem needs to be solved faster. We demonstrate our algorithms on 5, 9, and 15-target problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Besada-Portas E, de la Torre L, de la Cruz JM, Andres-Toro B (2010) Evolutionary trajectory planner for multiple UAVs in realistic scenarios. IEEE Trans Rob 26(4):619–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Xu G (2016) The path planning algorithm studying about UAV attacks multiple moving targets based on Voronoi diagram. Int J Control Autom 9(1):281–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasdemir E, Köksalan M, Tezcaner Öztürk D (2020) A flexible reference point-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm: an application to the UAV route planning problem. Comput Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2019.104811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrochers M, Laporte G (1991) Improvements and extensions to the Miller-Tucker-Zemlin Subtour elimination constraints. Oper Res Lett 10:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolicanin E, Fetahovic I, Tuba E, Capor-Hrosik R, Tuba M (2018) Unmanned combat aerial vehicle path planning by brain storm optimization algorithm. Stud Inform Control 27(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glade D (2000). Unmanned aerial vehicles: implications for military operations. Technical Report. DTIC Document

  • Gudaitis MS (1994). Multi criteria mission route planning using a parallel A* Search. Master's thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology

  • Jayaweera HMPC, Hanoun S (2022) Path planning of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in windy environments. Drones 6:101. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6050101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köksalan M, Lokman B (2009) Approximating the nondominated frontiers of multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. Naval Res Logist 56:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köksalan M, Soylu B (2010) Bicriteria p-Hub location problems and evolutionary algorithms. INFORMS J Comput 22:499–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köksalan M, Tezcaner Öztürk D (2017) An evolutionary approach to generalized biobjective traveling salesperson problem. Comput Oper Res 79:304–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Xiuxia S, & Xu Y (2006). Particle swarm optimization for route planning of unmanned aerial vehicles. In: IEEE International conference on information acquisition (pp. 1213–1218). Weihai: IEEE

  • Miller CE, Tucker AW, Zemlin RA (1960) Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman problems. J Assoc Comput Mach 7(4):326–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mufalli F, Batta R, Nagi R (2012) Simultaneous sensor selection and routing of unmanned aerial vehicles for complex mission plans. Comput Oper Res 39(11):2787–2799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natalizio E, Zema NR, Yanmaz E, Pugliese LDP, Guerriero F (2020) Take the field from your smartphone: leveraging UAVs for event filming. IEEE Trans Mob Comput 19(8):1971–1983

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng X, Yang S, Xu D, Gao X (2013) Evolutionary algorithms for the multiple unmanned aerial combat vehicles anti-ground attack problem in dynamic environments. In: Yang S, Yao X (eds) Evolutionary computation for dynamic optimization problems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 403–431

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer B, Batta R, Klamroth K, Nagi R (2009) Path planning for UAVS in the presence of threat zones using probabilistic modelling. In: Badiru AB, Thomas MU (eds) Handbook of military industrial engineering. CRC Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Qu Z, & Xi X (2010) Cooperative UAV trajectory planning with multiple dynamic targets. In: Guidance, navigation, and control conference. Ontario: AIAA

  • Rojas Viloria D, Solano-Charris EL, Muñoz-Villamizar A, Montoya-Torres JR (2021) Unmanned aerial vehicles/drones in vehicle routing problems: a literature review". Int Trans Oper Res 28:1626–1657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santin R, Assis L, Vivas A, Pimenta LCA (2021) Matheuristics for multi-UAV routing and recharge station location for complete area coverage. Sensors 21(5):1705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swartzentruber L, Foo JL, & Winer EH (2009). Three-Dimensional Multi-Objective UAV Path Planner Using Terrain Information. In: The 50th structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Palm Springs: AIAA

  • Tezcaner D, Köksalan M (2011) An Interactive algorithm for multi-objective route planning. J Optim Theory Appl 150:379–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tezcaner Öztürk D, Köksalan M (2016) An interactive approach for biobjective integer programs under quasiconvex preference functions. Ann Oper Res 244(2):677–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tezcaner Öztürk D, Köksalan M (2023) Biobjective route planning of an unmanned air vehicle in continuous space. Transp Res Part B: Methodol 168:151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Türeci H (2017) Interactive approaches for bi-objective UAV route planning in continuous space. Middle East Technical University, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam S, Sundar K, Rathinam S (2018) A two-stage approach for routing multiple unmanned aerial vehicles with stochastic fuel consumption. Sensors 18:3756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao M, Zhao M (2015) Unmanned aerial vehicle dynamic path planning in an uncertain environment. Robotica 33(3):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng C, Li L, Xu F, Sun F, Ding M (2005) Evolutionary route planner for unmanned air vehicles. IEEE Trans Rob 21(4):609–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhenhua W, Weiguo Z, Jingping S, & Ying H (2008). UAV route planning using multiobjective ant colony system. In: IEEE Conference on cybernetics and intelligent systems (pp. 797-800). Chengdu: IEEE

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-16-1-0333.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diclehan Tezcaner Öztürk.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Radar detection threat measure

We use the radar detection threat measure as in Tezcaner Öztürk and Köksalan (2023). Equation A.1 computes the detection threat of a trajectory between two targets located at Cartesian coordinates \(({x}_{a},{y}_{a})\) and \(({x}_{b},{y}_{b})\). We integrate the detection probabilities along the trajectory of the UAV in order to come up with the detection threat measure.

$$RDT=\underset{({x}_{a},{y}_{a})}{\overset{({x}_{b},{y}_{b}) }{\int }}{pd}_{(x,y)}ds$$
(A.1)

The detection probability is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio, which depends on the characteristics of the radar and the UAV and is inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance between them. In Equation A.2, \({R}_{(x,y)}\) is the distance between point \((x,y)\) and the radar and all terms except \({R}_{(x,y)}\) are constant. We can thus write this ratio using the term \(C=\frac{{P}_{t}{G}_{t}^{2}{\lambda }^{2}\sigma }{{\left(4\pi \right)}^{3}K{T}_{s}{B}_{n}{L}_{s} }.\)

$${S/N}_{\left(x,y\right)}=\frac{{P}_{t}{G}_{t}^{2}{\lambda }^{2}\sigma }{{\left(4\pi \right)}^{3}K{T}_{s}{B}_{n}{L}_{s} {{R}_{(x,y)}}^{4}}=\frac{C}{ {{R}_{(x,y)}}^{4}}$$
(A.2)

We then find the detection probability at a point \((x,y)\) using Equation A.3.

$${pd}_{\left(x,y\right)}=\left\{\begin{array}{l}1 \quad \text{if }\,10\,{\mathrm\,{log}}_{10}\left({S/N}_{\left(x,y\right)}\right)>{\mathrm{UB}}_{S/N}\\ \frac{10\,{\mathrm\,{log}}_{10}\left({S/N}_{\left(x,y\right)}\right)-{\mathrm{LB}}_{S/N}}{{\mathrm{UB}}_{S/N}-{\mathrm{LB}}_{S/N}} \quad \text{if}\, {\mathrm{LB}}_{S/N}<10\,{\mathrm\,{log}}_{10}\left({S/N}_{\left(x,y\right)}\right)\le {\mathrm{UB}}_{S/N}\\ 0 \quad \text{if}\, 10\,{\mathrm\,{log}}_{10}\left({S/N}_{\left(x,y\right)}\right)\le {\mathrm{LB}}_{S/N}\end{array}\right.$$
(A.3)

We present an example that shows the signal-to-noise ratios and the detection probabilities of two points, A and B, in the radar’s effective area in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Two points (A and B) in the effective regions of the radar

Here, \({R}_{A}=1.4\) and \({R}_{B}=2.6.\) For \(C=2270, { \mathrm{LB}}_{S/N}=15, {\mathrm{UB}}_{S/N}=30,\) the signal-to-noise ratios of the two points are \({S/N}_{\left(A\right)}=590.90\) and \({S/N}_{\left(B\right)}=49.67,\) yielding \({\mathrm{pd}}_{\left(A\right)}=0.85\) and \({\mathrm{pd}}_{\left(B\right)}=0.13\).

The radar detection threat measure is not a probability. It is rather the integration of the detection probabilities along the trajectory of the UAV.

If there are multiple radars on the trajectory, the radar that poses the highest risk is considered as effective as in Tezcaner Öztürk and Köksalan (2023).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karabay, N., Köksalan, M. & Tezcaner Öztürk, D. Biobjective UAV routing for a mission to visit multiple mobile targets. OR Spectrum 45, 925–954 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-023-00715-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-023-00715-1

Keywords