Comparison of 3D Versus 4D Path Planning for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

This research compares 3D versus 4D (three spatial dimensions and the time dimension) multi-objective and multi-criteria path-planning for unmanned aerial vehicles in complex dynamic environments. In this study, we empirically analyse the performances of 3D and 4D path planning approaches. Using the empirical data, we show that the 4D approach is superior over the 3D approach especially in complex dynamic environments. The research model consisting of flight objectives and criteria is developed based on interviews with an experienced military UAV pilot and mission planner to establish realism and relevancy in  unmanned aerial vehicle flight planning. Furthermore, this study incorporates one of the most comprehensive set of criteria identified during our literature search. The simulation results clearly show that the 4D path planning approach is able to provide solutions in complex dynamic environments in which the 3D approach could not find a solution

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Domain: Areas of Research

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) domain has seen rapid developments in recent years. As the number of UAVs increases and as the missions involving UAVs vary, new research issues surface. An overview of the existing research areas in the UAV domain has been presented including the nature of the work categorised under different groups. These research areas are divided into two main streams: Technological and operational research areas. The research areas in technology are divided into onboard and ground technologies. The research areas in operations are divided into organization level, brigade level, user level, standards and certifications, regulations and legal, moral, and ethical issues. This overview is intended to serve as a starting point for fellow researchers new to the domain, to help researchers in positioning their research, identifying related research areas, and focusing on the right issues.Defence Science Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4, July 2015, pp. 319-329, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/dsj.65.863