An exact coverage path planning algorithm for UAV-based search and rescue operations
Sina Kazemdehbashi, Yanchao Liu
TL;DR
This work tackles wind-aware coverage path planning for multiple UAVs in SAR, discretizing the search region into an $n\times m$ grid and formulating the problem as a MIP baseline. It introduces a provable lower bound, LB, with $\text{LB} = (n-1)T_s + (\lceil nm/q \rceil - n)T_p$, and a constructive Near-Optimal Path Planning (NOPP) algorithm that guarantees solutions in {LB, LB+Tp} through a four-phase process. The approach extends to Moore neighborhood connectivity and demonstrates strong scalability, achieving near-optimal solutions for large instances (up to 10,000 cells) with negligible relative gaps while dramatically reducing computation compared to the baseline MIP. The practical impact lies in providing SAR teams with a fast, reliable method to coordinate UAV swarms under wind, enabling timely discovery and safer, more efficient missions.
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly utilized in global search and rescue efforts, enhancing operational efficiency. In these missions, a coordinated swarm of UAVs is deployed to efficiently cover expansive areas by capturing and analyzing aerial imagery and footage. Rapid coverage is paramount in these scenarios, as swift discovery can mean the difference between life and death for those in peril. This paper focuses on optimizing flight path planning for multiple UAVs in windy conditions to efficiently cover rectangular search areas in minimal time. We address this challenge by dividing the search area into a grid network and formulating it as a mixed-integer program (MIP). Our research introduces a precise lower bound for the objective function and an exact algorithm capable of finding either the optimal solution or a near-optimal solution with a constant absolute gap to optimality. Notably, as the problem complexity increases, our solution exhibits a diminishing relative optimality gap while maintaining negligible computational costs compared to the MIP approach.
