Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Feb 25:7:18.
doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.00018. eCollection 2020.

A Survey on Swarming With Micro Air Vehicles: Fundamental Challenges and Constraints

Affiliations
Review

A Survey on Swarming With Micro Air Vehicles: Fundamental Challenges and Constraints

Mario Coppola et al. Front Robot AI. .

Abstract

This work presents a review and discussion of the challenges that must be solved in order to successfully develop swarms of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs) for real world operations. From the discussion, we extract constraints and links that relate the local level MAV capabilities to the global operations of the swarm. These should be taken into account when designing swarm behaviors in order to maximize the utility of the group. At the lowest level, each MAV should operate safely. Robustness is often hailed as a pillar of swarm robotics, and a minimum level of local reliability is needed for it to propagate to the global level. An MAV must be capable of autonomous navigation within an environment with sufficient trustworthiness before the system can be scaled up. Once the operations of the single MAV are sufficiently secured for a task, the subsequent challenge is to allow the MAVs to sense one another within a neighborhood of interest. Relative localization of neighbors is a fundamental part of self-organizing robotic systems, enabling behaviors ranging from basic relative collision avoidance to higher level coordination. This ability, at times taken for granted, also must be sufficiently reliable. Moreover, herein lies a constraint: the design choice of the relative localization sensor has a direct link to the behaviors that the swarm can (and should) perform. Vision-based systems, for instance, force MAVs to fly within the field of view of their camera. Range or communication-based solutions, alternatively, provide omni-directional relative localization, yet can be victim to unobservable conditions under certain flight behaviors, such as parallel flight, and require constant relative excitation. At the swarm level, the final outcome is thus intrinsically influenced by the on-board abilities and sensors of the individual. The real-world behavior and operations of an MAV swarm intrinsically follow in a bottom-up fashion as a result of the local level limitations in cognition, relative knowledge, communication, power, and safety. Taking these local limitations into account when designing a global swarm behavior is key in order to take full advantage of the system, enabling local limitations to become true strengths of the swarm.

Keywords: MAV; autonomous; challenges; drones; micro air vehicles; review; robustness; swarm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scatter plot of the number of MAVs that have been flown in sampled state of the art studies discussed in this paper. The combination of centralized planning/control with external positioning has allowed to fly significantly larger swarms. The numbers are lower for the works featuring decentralized control with external positioning, or centralized control with local sensing. The works that use both decentralized control and do not rely on external positioning can be seen to feature the fewest MAVs due to the increased complexity of the control and perception task.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Generalized depiction of the flow of requirements and constraints for the design of MAV swarms. The lower level design choices create constraints on the higher level properties of the swarm. Higher level design choices create requirements for the lower levels, down to the physical design of the MAV. Note that, for the specific case, the flow of requirements and constraints is likely to be more intricate than this picture makes it out to be. However, the general idea remains.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abeywardena D., Kodagoda S., Dissanayake G., Munasinghe R. (2013). Improved state estimation in quadrotor MAVs: a novel drift-free velocity estimator. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 20, 32–39. 10.1109/MRA.2012.2225472 - DOI
    1. Achtelik M., Achtelik M., Brunet Y., Chli M., Chatzichristofis S., Decotignie J., et al. (2012). SFly: swarm of micro flying robots, in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (Vilamoura: ), 2649–2650. 10.1109/IROS.2012.6386281 - DOI
    1. Achtelik M. W., Weiss S., Chli M., Dellaerty F., Siegwart R. (2011). Collaborative stereo, in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (San Francisco, CA: ), 2242–2248. 10.1109/IROS.2011.6094866 - DOI
    1. Afzal M. H., Renaudin V., Lachapelle G. (2011). Magnetic field based heading estimation for pedestrian navigation environments, in 2011 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (Guimaraes: ), 1–10. 10.1109/IPIN.2011.6071947 - DOI
    1. Aguilar W. G., Casaliglla V. P., Pólit J. L. (2017). Obstacle avoidance for low-cost UAVs, in 2017 IEEE 11th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC) (San Diego, CA: ), 503–508. 10.1109/ICSC.2017.96 - DOI