| Literature DB >> 32326647 |
Chengbin Chen1, YaoYuan Tian1, Liang Lin1, SiFan Chen1, HanWen Li1, YuXin Wang2, KaiXiong Su1.
Abstract
GNSS information is vulnerable to external interference and causes failure when unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are in a fully autonomous flight in complex environments such as high-rise parks and dense forests. This paper presents a pan-tilt-based visual servoing (PBVS) method for obtaining world coordinate information. The system is equipped with an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an air pressure sensor, a magnetometer, and a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera. In this paper, we explain the physical model and the application method of the PBVS system, which can be briefly summarized as follows. We track the operation target with a UAV carrying a camera and output the information about the UAV's position and the angle between the PTZ and the anchor point. In this way, we can obtain the current absolute position information of the UAV with its absolute altitude collected by the height sensing unit and absolute geographic coordinate information and altitude information of the tracked target. We set up an actual UAV experimental environment. To meet the calculation requirements, some sensor data will be sent to the cloud through the network. Through the field tests, it can be concluded that the systematic deviation of the overall solution is less than the error of GNSS sensor equipment, and it can provide navigation coordinate information for the UAV in complex environments. Compared with traditional visual navigation systems, our scheme has the advantage of obtaining absolute, continuous, accurate, and efficient navigation information at a short distance (within 15 m from the target). This system can be used in scenarios that require autonomous cruise, such as self-powered inspections of UAVs, patrols in parks, etc.Entities:
Keywords: cloud computing; navigation coordinate information; pan-tilt-based visual servoing (PBVS); track; unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
Year: 2020 PMID: 32326647 PMCID: PMC7218882 DOI: 10.3390/s20082241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the PBVS model.
Figure 2Pinhole camera model.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of the spatial geometric relationship between the UAV and target object.
Figure 4UAV PTZ-camera schematic.
Figure 5The experimental setup on multi-rotor UAVs.
Figure 6The architecture of the PBVS system for the multi-rotor UAVs.
Figure 7Method for identifying and obtaining the feature point coordinates.
Figure 8PTZ control system schematic diagram.
Figure 9Simulation environment based on Microsoft AirSim.
Figure 10The flight simulation: (a) 3D trajectory of UAV; (b) the localization results in the X coordinate; (c) the localization results in the Y coordinate; (d) the trajectory error.
Experimental platform models and parameters.
| Hardware | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Camera | GoPro 1920*1080HD, 117 g |
| Image Transmission Equipment | Frequency range 750 MHz, average delay 300 ms |
| Data Transmission Equipment | The communication distance is 1 km, the highest data transmission rate 3300 B/s, and the average delay 5–10 ms |
| PTZ Controller | Self-made (STM32F103,72 MHz) |
| IMU:MPU6500 | |
| Camera Attitude Measurement Unit | Magnetometer:LSM303D |
| Barometer:MS5611 | |
| Battery Type | LIPO/22.2 V/12000 mAh/30 C |
| Ground Station | Intel XEON E5-2678 V3/RTX2080TI |
| RTK | 10 Hz |
| Wheelbase | 680 mm |
| Motors’ Max. Current | 30 A |
| Brushless Motors | X4110S 340 KV |
| Brushless ECS | 40 A |
| PTZ | 3 axis |
| Autopilot | Self-made( STM32F407,168 MHz) |
| Payload Capability | 5.5 KG |
| Hover Time | 13 min |
Figure 11Outdoor experimental environment.
Figure 12Image processing frame rate and PTZ response speed curve.
Figure 13Rotation angles’ diagram: (a) Y-axis offset error and PTZ pitch angle; (b) X-axis offset error and PTZ yaw angle.
Figure 14Actual UAV flight experiment: (a) flight three-dimensional diagram; (b) latitude diagram; (c) longitude diagram; (d) velocity diagram; and (e) error diagram.
Box chart data in the simulation and actual environment.
| Environment | Category | Mean Value | Median | 75th Percentile | 25th Percentile | Max | Min | Outliers | RMSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offset X | 0.0804 | 0.0864 | 0.1061 | 0.0604 | 0.1478 | 0.0009 | N/a | 0.0882 | |
| Simulate | Offset Y | 0.074 | 0.0888 | 0.1019 | 0.0391 | 0.1268 | 0.0008 | N/a | 0.0831 |
| Error Radius | 0.1103 | 0.1268 | 0.1502 | 0.0729 | 0.1789 | 0.0011 | N/a | 0.1211 | |
| Offset Latitude | 0.587 | 0.4718 | 0.9879 | 0.1499 | 1.8759 | 0.0111 | N/a | 0.7677 | |
| Actual | Offset Longitude | 0.5457 | 0.3297 | 0.8841 | 0.1199 | 1.8781 | 0.01 | 2.3377 | 0.7577 |
| Error Radius | 0.8744 | 0.8282 | 1.427 | 0.2428 | 2.3541 | 0.0149 | N/a | 1.0786 |
The performance of the different schemes.
| Source | Accuracy (m) | Maximum Altitude (m) | Flight Speed (m/s) | Outdoor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPS-based | 1–3 | N/a | N/a | Yes |
| Ours/outdoor | 0.87 | 15 | 2 | Yes |
| Ours/simulated | 0.11 | 18 | 2–3 | No |
| Wubben et al. [ | 1.2 | 20 | 0.1 | Yes |
| Kim et al. [ | 5 | 140 | 15 | Yes |