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.








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
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
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
Desrochers M, Laporte G (1991) Improvements and extensions to the Miller-Tucker-Zemlin Subtour elimination constraints. Oper Res Lett 10:27–36
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
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
Köksalan M, Lokman B (2009) Approximating the nondominated frontiers of multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. Naval Res Logist 56:191–198
Köksalan M, Soylu B (2010) Bicriteria p-Hub location problems and evolutionary algorithms. INFORMS J Comput 22:499–654
Köksalan M, Tezcaner Öztürk D (2017) An evolutionary approach to generalized biobjective traveling salesperson problem. Comput Oper Res 79:304–313
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Tezcaner Öztürk D, Köksalan M (2016) An interactive approach for biobjective integer programs under quasiconvex preference functions. Ann Oper Res 244(2):677–696
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
Türeci H (2017) Interactive approaches for bi-objective UAV route planning in continuous space. Middle East Technical University, Ankara
Venkatachalam S, Sundar K, Rathinam S (2018) A two-stage approach for routing multiple unmanned aerial vehicles with stochastic fuel consumption. Sensors 18:3756
Yao M, Zhao M (2015) Unmanned aerial vehicle dynamic path planning in an uncertain environment. Robotica 33(3):1–11
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
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
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
Corresponding author
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.
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 \(C=\frac{{P}_{t}{G}_{t}^{2}{\lambda }^{2}\sigma }{{\left(4\pi \right)}^{3}K{T}_{s}{B}_{n}{L}_{s} }.\)
We then find the detection probability at a point \((x,y)\) using Equation 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.
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.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-023-00715-1