Experimental Evaluation of Multi- and Single-Drone Systems with 1D LiDAR Sensors for Stockpile Volume Estimation
This study examines the application of low-cost 1D LiDAR sensors in drone-based stockpile volume estimation, with a focus on indoor environments. Three approaches were experimentally investigated: (i) a multi-drone system equipped with static, downward-facing 1D LiDAR sensors combined with an adapti...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Aerospace |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/12/3/189 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | This study examines the application of low-cost 1D LiDAR sensors in drone-based stockpile volume estimation, with a focus on indoor environments. Three approaches were experimentally investigated: (i) a multi-drone system equipped with static, downward-facing 1D LiDAR sensors combined with an adaptive formation control algorithm; (ii) a single drone with a static, downward-facing 1D LiDAR following a zigzag trajectory; and (iii) a single drone with an actuated 1D LiDAR in an oscillatory fashion to enhance scanning coverage while following a shorter trajectory. The adaptive formation control algorithm, newly developed in this study, synchronises the drones’ waypoint arrivals and facilitates smooth transitions between dynamic formation shapes. Real-world experiments conducted in a motion-tracking indoor facility confirmed the effectiveness of all three approaches in accurately completing scanning tasks, as per intended waypoints allocation. A trapezoidal prism stockpile was scanned, and the volume estimation accuracy of each approach was compared. The multi-drone system achieved an average volumetric error of 1.3%, similar to the single drone with a static sensor, but with less than half the flight time. Meanwhile, the actuated LiDAR system required shorter paths but experienced a higher volumetric error of 4.4%, primarily due to surface reconstruction outliers and common LiDAR bias when scanning at non-vertical angles. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2226-4310 |