2D and 3D A* Algorithm Comparison for UAS Traffic Management Systems

被引：0

作者：

Potter Neto, Carlos Augusto ^{[1
]}

Bertoli, Gustavo de Carvalho ^{[1
]}

Saotome, Osamu ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Technol Inst Aeronaut, Elect Engn Div, Sao Jose Dos Campos, Brazil

来源：

2020 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (ICUAS'20) | 2020年

关键词：

Path Planning; Airspace Management; Simulation; Autonomy; Navigation;

D O I：

10.1109/icuas48674.2020.9214028

中图分类号：

TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];

学科分类号：

0812 ;

摘要：

In this work, we propose to implement a path planning algorithm for simulating an UAS Traffic Management system using ROS and Gazebo environment. From the 3D model generated for the simulation, both two-dimensional and three-dimensional node grids were extracted in order to allow the application of the search algorithm in both scenarios. After selecting the A* algorithm for this application, a preliminary efficiency analysis was carried out, considering the distance to be covered by the drone and the execution time of the route planning method, aiming to support the choice of the algorithm based on the environment in which it will be applied. As a result of the tradeoff analysis between distance and execution time for small maps (200m x 200m x 120m), the routes generated by the 2D algorithm are about 6% longer compared to the 3D approach, but with the execution time nine times lower, on average.

引用

页码：72 / 76

页数：5

共 50 条

[1] A comparison of the RKKY interaction for the 2D and 3D systems and thin films
Balcerzak, Tadeusz
[J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS, 2007, 310 (02) : 1651 - 1653
[2] Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses
Pulliam, Kiley B.
Huang, Jessie Y.
Howell, Rebecca M.
Followill, David
Bosca, Ryan
O'Daniel, Jennifer
Kry, Stephen F.
[J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (02) : 021710
[3] Comparison of a 2D and 3D Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model for Lake Systems
Al-Zubaidi, Hussein A. M.
Wells, Scott A.
[J]. WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL AND WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS 2018: WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE, AND WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, : 74 - 84
[4] A fast 2D/3D algorithm for georegistration and targeting
Merritt, Scott A.
[J]. AUTOMATIC TARGET RECOGNITION XVIII, 2008, 6967
[5] An ASEKF Algorithm for 2D and 3D Radar Registration
Liu Jianfeng
Zuo Yan
Xue Anke
[J]. 2013 32ND CHINESE CONTROL CONFERENCE (CCC), 2013, : 4758 - 4761
[6] 2D/3D registration algorithm for lung brachytherapy
Zvonarev, P. S.
Farrell, T. J.
Hunter, R.
Wierzbicki, M.
Hayward, J. E.
Sur, R. K.
[J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (02)
[7] 2D or 3D?
Mills, R
[J]. COMPUTER-AIDED ENGINEERING, 1996, 15 (08): : 4 - 4
[8] A comparison of 2D and 3D simulations of the River Blackwater
Barrett, Lawrence
Wright, Nigel G.
Sterling, Mark
[J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-ENGINEERING AND COMPUTATIONAL MECHANICS, 2011, 164 (04) : 217 - 232
[9] Comparison of 2D and 3D images of fractures in a Vertisol
Moreau, E
Velde, B
Terribile, F
[J]. GEODERMA, 1999, 92 (1-2) : 55 - 72
[10] Comparison between 3D and 2D Cephalometric Analyses
Bholsithi, W.
Sinthanayothin, C.
Chintakanon, K.
Komolpis, R.
Tharanon, W.
[J]. 4TH KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2008, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2008, 21 (1-2): : 540 - +

← 1 2 3 4 5 →