Decision Process of Autonomous Drones for

Environmental Monitoring
Ömür Yıldırım
Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering
Yildiz Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Email: omur.yildirim@tum.de
Klaus Diepold
Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Technical University of Munich
Munich, Germany
Email: kldi@tum.de
Revna Acar Vural
Department of Electronics and
Communication Engineering
Yildiz Technical University
Istanbul, Turkey
Email: racar@yildiz.edu.tr

Abstract—Environmental monitoring has a key role to reduce
the human effect on nature and wildlife. Due to intense tracking
and observation tasks, environmental monitoring is an expensive
solution. Autonomous observation is an open discussion to raise
the efficiency of environmental monitoring and reduce the cost
of operation. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are possible
candidates with their proven success in monitoring and tracking.
Thus, we are offering a decision process for the autonomy
of drones in monitoring tasks. Our system is capable to fly
autonomously, e.g., covering a given area, and able to perform
certain tasks, e.g., identifying bottles. Our simulation results
prove that autonomous drones can be used for a large variety of
environmental monitoring tasks.
Index Terms—target detection, environmental monitoring,
UAV, decision making, autonomous navigation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Environmental monitoring described as persistent system-
atic studies in which the environmental conditions are unveiled
with the purpose of appraising the progress made to accom-
plish given environmental targets, also to facilitate the detec-
tion of new environmental circumstances. It is being used to
monitor and manage natural resources, track species at risk and
save protected areas. Autonomy for environmental monitoring
has been researched and developed instrumentally recently
[1–3]. However, robust environmental monitoring, especially
in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), remains a challenging
task due to high-level observation, periodical or continuous
tracking, tracking several data sources correspondingly, big
size of fields and access to uncivilized areas. In this article,
we present an autonomous system design to resolve these
challenges. We structured the components of our system into
layers to support modular functionality. We use a static path
planning approach to determine the mission’s road-map. To
serve safe navigation through outdoor fields, we use both laser
sensor and global positioning system (GPS). Navigation inside
the planned path is supported by a module that detects and
clusters target object(s) in the environment. To support safety
for UAV, environment and to ensure continuity of mission, we
used a module that tracks several sensors and data sources to
978-1-7281-1862-8/19/$31.00
2019
c IEEE
detect emergencies. The monitoring capability of the system
is validated in simulation experiments, using a rotary-wing
aircraft.
Many autonomous monitoring approaches in the literature
have acquired promising tracking and observation perfor-
mance. Applications for autonomous environmental monitor-
ing problems gather around two approaches [1]. The first
approach was network from sensors, where each sensor col-
lected measurements and exchanged measurements with each
other, in order to track the environment and estimate the
location of the event. This localization approach required the
use of reference points (known locations), thus expensive and
time-consuming deployment and standardization. Furthermore,
this strategy limited the coverage area. The second approach
contains the use of vehicle(s) equipped with an appropriate
sensor(s), that moves towards the defined area. Usage of
robotic systems [2, 4, 5] supported more dynamic and flexible
system which was suitable for localization. Yet, in wild or
urban environments it is very challenging to perform consistent
operations with robotic systems due to many crucial technical
issues such as planning, navigation and endurance.
However, to date, the persistent performance of robotic
systems operating in an urban environment is very challenging,
even with a low degree of human intervention where stable
broadband radio link cannot be guaranteed in such environ-
ments. The limited availability of computing resources and
low-weight sensors operating in harsh environments for mobile
systems pose a great challenge in achieving autonomy.
Our research goal is to develop a decision process for a UAV
which is capable of accomplishing a variety of monitoring
missions without human intervention. Autonomy for environ-
mental monitoring missions brings requirements on the system
operating. Differences between missions demands system to
be adaptable in terms of processing data sources and planning
ability. UAV should be able to operate in uncontrolled outdoor
environments, such as forests or urban areas. Therefore, the
system has to ensure from powerful control of UAV since safe
conditions can not be guaranteed. In respect to these demands,
solution for fully autonomous environmental monitoring is to
plan and control mission with on-board resources.
In the very beginning, we have developed a modular frame-
work for autonomous UAVs in monitoring missions. The con-
structed framework supports the asynchronous development
of modules. It enables a static path planning, a robust flight
and navigation in urban and wild outdoor environments and
serves a platform for high-level target monitoring such as
the perception of bottles and a safe process of mission. We
implemented algorithms for modules and tested our framework
on a simulation. Our implementations for control of UAV
developed for a quad-rotor due to the fact that we have a
quad-rotor platform to make real-world experiments in future
and relatively easier control in comparison with a fixed wing
UAV.
Recently, similar researches have been released to exe-
cute various monitoring missions. High proportion of re-
searches have concentrated to high altitude imagery with
an autonomous aerial vehicle to map environments, such as
detecting Black poplar response to drought thermal imaging Fig. 1: Framework of the proposed system.
[6] or soil erosion monitoring [7]. Disaster monitoring and
management have been another popular topic for autonomous
UAV applications. These operations surveyed damaged areas,
mission and runs a specific algorithm. In this work, we will
for example after Hurricane Wilma at Florida researchers used
focus on the decision-making modules of our system.
unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicles to detect
damages [8] and in [9] researchers achieved management
and monitoring of infrastructure development after a disaster.
Because of these applications need to collect and process big A. Autonomous System for Environmental Monitoring
sized data, they need huge computational power which is not
available on-board. Researchers propose to send collected data An autonomous system for environmental monitoring is
to a base station and process data after monitoring finished. constructed upon two intercommunicating layers, cognition
There are two main differences between our work and and vision. Each layer consists of a modular structure. The
previous works. First, we investigate small individual targets vision layer receives raw camera data as input and publishes
rather than processing aerial view of a group of targets. This the estimation of a possible target and identified target infor-
requires low altitude flights with target oriented maneuvers mation as output. In our simulation, an estimator based on
and this enables target specific data gathering. Second, we probability is used to imitate the vision layer. Outputs of the
process real-time data with on-board sensors and processors. vision layer feed the cognition layer which is responsible for
This brings a reaction capability for complete autonomy. decision-making and taking real time actions. The cognition
layer should control UAV with a chain of actions depending
on the output of the vision layer and should track events in
II. E NVIRONMENTAL M ONITORING F RAMEWORK
the environment, e.g., collision.
Maintaining an environmental monitoring process au- For finding an effective and efficient solution, monitoring
tonomously is an intense task which demands powerful and ro- tasks can be divided into levels. In the first level of monitoring,
bust decision-making architecture. Further, an autonomous ve- the observer should be certain to not overlook any part of field.
hicle must have metrics for awareness because it requires self- This level is often called path planning and path tracking. In
control according to the environment. In regard to awareness, the next level of monitoring, the definition of environment
an autonomous vehicle should be able to track various data, and recognition of targets should be done. Recognition is
such as surroundings, position, targets, events of environment subjective in a manner of quality of inspection, e.g., image
and self condition. Yet, a permanent solution for environmental observation may be effected from angle of camera or daylight.
monitoring is not realistic, due to awareness metrics for a In the last level of monitoring, the system should track self
certain monitoring task may not be sufficient for another conditions and environment to avoid potential harm and be
monitoring task, e.g., the difference between monitoring trees sure to the continuity of the mission. In respect to levels of
and monitoring deer tracks. monitoring, our system for autonomous monitoring is designed
In this work, we tested our proposed autonomous monitor- to act in three decision states; path tracking, target acquisition
ing system in a scenario where the task is identifying left-over and emergency. To handle each decision state cognition layer is
beer bottles inside a university campus. To be able to perform a separated into three modules; coverage module, investigation
monitoring task and to design an adaptable system for different module and safety module. While each module has separated
environmental monitoring tasks, we divided our system into action and decision logic, each module is in effect of other
modules, each of which is responsible for a certain part of the modules for their actions-decisions as in Figure 1.
B. Complete Coverage Path Planning
Complete coverage path planning produces a road-map to
ensure the sweeping of the free space of the defined area. Path
planning approaches can be characterized by requirements.
As in [10], algorithms required initial knowledge of the
environment that describes the blocked and free space. As in
[11], algorithms tried to resolve an unknown environment by a
dynamic approach. For dynamic approaches, it is not definite
to provide a criterion for optimal path(s). Still, during cover-
age of unknown environments, avoiding repeated coverage is
important.
Another separation between path planning algorithms is the
dimension of paths. There are robotic applications such as
cleaning robots, autonomous underwater covering vehicles,
painter robots, lawn mowers, agricultural crop harvesting
equipment which required a special type of path planning
in a two-dimensional (2D) environment. Planning a three-
dimensional (3D) path can be impractical for such applications
since the task is sweeping the surface. Yet, in 3D planning, task
is usually travelling. In this work, we implement a static 2D
approach for path planning. As in [10], we use an algorithm
based on vertical cell decomposition.
Path planning within 2D space can be achieved by the
construction of a graph G with a set of vertices V and edges
E. Graph ensures complete coverage of field in consideration
of target detection specifications. In section III we explain
specifications of our implementation. Vertical cell decomposi-
tion algorithms construct a finite data structure that completely
encodes a solution for a path within a given area and obstacles.
Algorithms divide free space Cf ree into a finite set of regions
often called cells. Then adjacency information of cells is
extracted to build the graph from start to endpoints. Finally,
based on the plane-sweep(line-sweep) principle each cell is
decomposed to lines.
In this work, we extend the vertical decomposition algo-
rithm to solve position issues where two points along Cobstacle
lie on a vertical line that slices through Cf ree and one of the
edges of Cobstacle is vertical. To achieve this we use vertical
lines as a collection of interest points rather than single vertex
information.
To be able to track total coverage as in Figure 2, UAV
first calculates the total target detection area Adetection . It is a
complete circle as in equation (1):
Adetection = πtan2 (α)r2detection εaltitude
where rdetection is target detection range, α is the angle
of view, εaltitude is error rate of altitude sensor. After, UAV
calculates complete coverage Ccoverage as in equation (2):
Ccoverage = πtan2 (α)r2detection εaltitude + ∆tVεacclrm
where ∆t is travel time, V is the velocity of vehicle and
εacclrm is error rate of the accelerometer. Yet, movement
during the inspection is not included complete coverage cal-
culation. Because UAV can return to a position that is already
covered.
Algorithm 1 Extended vertical cellular decomposition
Input: vertices V
Output: cells C, graph G, decomposition of cells DC
Vlines ← calculate vertical lines(V)
Ladaptive ← []
for line in Vlines do
Ladaptive ← f ind adaptive lines(line, V)
end for
Vlines ← merge lines(Vlines , Ladaptive )
for line in Vlines do
C ← f ind cell(line, V)
end for
G ← f ind graph(C)
DC ← decompose(C)
Algorithm 1 describes the method, which searches for
vertical lines and creates cells by separating spaces between
vertical lines and searches for a possible graph along with cells
and plans a path according to the graph.
C. Autonomous Inspection
Inspection tasks demand high-level decision processes and
intensive labor. Approaches can use machines, tools, human
labor and/or other suitable items for inspecting objects. One of
the issues is that inspection systems need to solve continuous
or periodic data which needed to detect and monitor the
condition of objects. Furthermore, inspection tasks can be at
fields that are difficult to reach. Autonomous approaches are
advantageous compared to manual approaches in respect to the
demands of inspection tasks. In [5], an autonomous drone was
used for search and rescue task. They used a stereo camera to
localize drone and to detect and inspect targets. The drone flew
autonomously until it detects a target or gathers an emergency
exception. In another study [4], an autonomous inspection
(1)
(2)
Fig. 2: Calculation of complete coverage in simulation, area
highlighted as green represents the covered area.
system was proposed to detect emergencies. They created a
multi-UAV application to provide real-time data from ongoing
fires to officers.
The expected output from the autonomous inspection is
to gather reliable information about the detected target. De-
pending on the application, conditions for better data quality
differs, for example, while identifying bark beetle damage on
trees [2], vehicle required high altitude flight and for chemical
source localization in a small controlled aquatic environment
[12], vehicle required a direct approach to the source. In our
work, we need to identify beer bottles. We used a policy-
based approach to get a better perspective of the detected
bottle as in Figure 3. The decision for a certain policy is
taken by consideration of target position and visual identifier
feedback. As explained in section III, the controller ensures
the optimum distance between the detected bottle and UAV.
If identification of the bottle is not achieved from optimum
distance to target then UAV takes a circular route around the
target with optimum detection distance as diameter.
(a) Target detection circle is blue (b) Target detection circle be-
during target search comes green once a target de-
tected
Fig. 3: UAV and targets in the simulation of the TUM map.
D. Emergencies and Safety
The goal of safety is avoiding or reducing possible harm to
UAV and the environment. There are many flight regulations
and safety regulations for autonomous vehicles determined by
governments. Further, to protect equipment and maintaining
the mission, detection of emergencies is required. To identify
emergencies we use a set of rules. Each rule depends on
certain sensor measurements as sufficient as the threshold. In
general, rules are produced from the collection of previous
experiences, standards of autonomous flights and health merits
of mechanical parts of UAV.
We track and detect collision, power need to finish task,
damage on mechanics (e.g., broken propeller), loss of localiza-
tion, optimal daylight to process camera input, adverse weather
conditions. To detect emergencies, we use several data sources;
Laser Imaging, Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) for collision
calculations, forecast tracking to detect potential instabilities
for flight such as strong winds or rainstorms, a photo-diode
to detect the quality of daylight. To ensure safety, we apply
two policies to solve a security violation. If an emergency is a
collision, UAV tries to avoid collision and continue to the task.
In case of other emergencies, UAV breaks monitoring tasks
and tries to get a safe position (e.g., return to base station).
III. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUP
A. Implementation
We implemented our simulation based on certain target
features. Depending on these features we determined certain
parameters for target detection. These parameters are used for
algorithms of path planning and inspection. In this section
details of target and algorithms are provided.
1) Target details: In our mission, we have tried to col-
lect information of beer bottles inside Technische Universität
München (TUM) campus. Beer bottles differ on size but
roughly they have 0.25 meter height, 0.07 meter diameter.
2) Target detection details: During complete coverage UAV
has an aerial view of field. To be able to detect target, in respect
to our target size optimum distance from the target have set
to 2.5 meter. To be able to identify bottle type and brand we
have set 0.75 meter as optimum identification range.
3) Path planning details: For our path planning algorithm
we have used an algorithm based on vertical cell decomposi-
tion principal. For decomposing constructed cells C to road-
maps DC, we have used back and forth motion lines. Distance
between motion lines is set to optimum target detection range
which is also the altitude of UAV during complete coverage.
To solve the position issues of obstacles, we have used
the adaptive line concept. Adaptive lines have used in the
calculation of cells to divide spaces accordingly.
4) Inspection details: After target detection during com-
plete coverage, UAV tries to increase the accuracy of detection.
For successful identification UAV approaches through the
target with optimum identification range. If identification ac-
curacy is under the threshold, UAV does a circular movement
around the target with diameter as optimum identification
range.
We calculated target detection precision Ptarget during
simulation with Gaussian distribution as in equation (3);
100 −(x−µ)2 /2σ2
P (x) = √ e (3)
σ 2π
where µ is 0.75 meter, x is the parametric distance between
UAV and target, σ is 1 meter. Further, we applied a random
function using python’s random uniform function which re-
turns a value between 0 and 100. This random number is
compared with complementary of target detection precision
to 100.
Algorithm 2 describes the method, which calculates if a
target is detected or not detected. Calculation detection preci-
sion is based on the Gaussian probability of target distance.
Complementary of detection precision is being compared with
a randomly generated number which is between 0 and 100. If
the random number is bigger then complementary of detection
precision then the target is marked as detected.
Algorithm 2 Determination of target detection
Input: target precision Ptarget
Output: detection D
possibility ← random.unif orm(0, 100)
compP ← 100 − Ptarget
if possibility >compP then
D ← T rue
else
D ← F alse
end if
B. Simulation
Simulations for two maps were conducted to show and
compare the effectiveness of the monitoring system in simple
and complex areas. Table I shows the results for the small map
and Table II shows the results for the big map (TUM campus).
In both scenarios, we considered a random placement of 10
bottles (0.25 meter height, 0.07 meter diameter) which stand
vertically. Further, we placed a quad-rotor rotary wing UAV
with a 4500 milliampere hour battery and a LIDAR sensor
with 10 meter sensitivity. We assumed the limit speed of UAV
as 10 meter/second and constant acceleration 5 meter/second2 .
For the small map, we placed a single obstacle to the center
of field as in Figure 4. The big map had 4 obstacles which
represent buildings of TUM campus as in Figure 2 and 5.
IV. R ESULTS
The following data is collected during simulations: detected
bottle count, identified bottle labels, identified bottle locations,
total travel distance, total mission time, total power consump-
tion and total interruption by emergencies.
For the small map, we ran simulation two times to calcu-
late the mean performance of the system. UAV successfully
completed the mission on both simulation runs without inter-
ruption. During simulations of the first map, system identified
19 of 20 placed bottles with 94% average position precision.
Average travel distance per 1% battery usage was 87.82
meter. Results for first map showed that our system is able
to conduct autonomous monitoring in an environment with
smooth weather conditions and without unknown obstacles.
For the first simulation run of the TUM campus, UAV de-
clared an emergency due to critical battery level and returned
Fig. 4: 3D rendered simple obstacle map.
Fig. 5: TUM campus from aerial view.
TABLE I
Results of Simple Obstacle Map Simulation
1st 2nd
Detected target count 9 10
Labeled target count 9 10
Location precision 97% 91%
Travel distance (meter) 1849 1822
Mission time (minutes) 7.20 7.31
Battery 79.9% 78.3%
Emergency interruption? no no
to the defined base location. To finish whole coverage, UAV
restarted the mission for 7 times and it finished monitoring
mission in 8 attempts. Because of field size, certain parts of the
campus doesn’t contain bottles. During runs 1, 2 and 3, system
faced with 9 bottles of 10 placed bottles. After these three runs,
only 1 bottle left in the field. For runs 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th,
system didn’t detect any target. Because of lack of target, these
runs don’t contain any precision results in Table II. During the
simulation of the TUM campus, system detected 9 targets and
identified 8 targets with 94.625% average position precision.
Average travel distance per 1% battery usage was 180.5 meter.
Simulation results in Tables I and II, shows that average
target detection rate was 93.3%. 94.7% of Detected targets
are labeled successfully. Drone covered 326.08 square meter
per 1% battery usage. The average flight time of drone was
22 minutes 57 seconds with complete battery usage.
As explained in section III-B, estimation for target detection
and target position depend on the probabilistic function. Thus,
results for estimations have been unable to demonstrate a
ground truth for consistency of identification module. How-
ever, 93.3% target detection and 94.7% labelling precision
rates suggest that the system has the robustness to find and
investigate targets due to the fact that our estimations depend
on the view perspective of target by UAV, which poses a
requirement for a realistic approach to the target.
Results for two maps differ in average coverage to energy
consumption rate and total break count. During the TUM
 TABLE II
Results of TUM Main Campus Simulation

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Detected target count 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 0
Labeled target count 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
Location precision 96% 93% 91% - 0% - - -
Travel distance (meter) 12.1 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.3 2.5
Mission time (minutes) 22.95 22.95 22.95 22.95 22.95 22.95 22.95 4.78
Battery 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 79%
Emergency interruption? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

campus simulation, UAV travelled nearly twice as much as R EFERENCES

what it travelled in the small map simulation. In consideration
of placed bottle counts were same on both maps, results
suggest that the system becomes inefficient with increasing
count of detected targets per square meter. This finding, while
preliminary, suggests that the system can be improved by a
better sense of target, for example supporting image cluster
with LIDAR based shape extractor. During the TUM campus
simulation, the mission interrupted 7 times due to the low
battery of UAV. In respect to the average recharge time
of battery (4 hours), the system faced 28 hours of break.
This finding suggests that the system may reach to increased
capability for real-time monitoring of big fields. Therefore,
fixed wing drones can be suggested to improve the on-air
capacity of the system. The system provided highly successful
identification rate (90%) which suggests that the system is able
to collect reliable information from targets while protecting
itself from hazardous conditions.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a modular software framework for the decision
process of autonomous UAVs in environmental monitoring
missions is presented. Implementation of the system is tested
in different simulations. Presented test results show that the
system provides a seamless planning, control and navigation
execution for a quad-rotor UAV. Furthermore, the structure of
the system gives opportunity for adjustments. The proposed
investigation module enables high performance for collecting
target information. The identification rate was 90% in the first
run of small map simulation, 100% in the second run of small
map simulation and 80% in TUM campus simulation. High
precision of investigation module is shown by an average
90% identification rate of placed targets. In addition to highly
promising monitoring performance, system executed missions
with excellent safety level.
[10]
At present, the implementation of the suggested system is
tested with simulations. To consolidate our findings, we will
focus on hardware integration of current software implementa-
[11]
tion. Further, to resolve mission breaks on losing GPS signal,
an on-board odometry solution may be developed, such as
laser or visual odometry.
[12]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the ABBY-Net for provid-
ing the idea of environmental monitoring project.
[1] B. Bayat et al. “Environmental monitoring using au-
tonomous vehicles: a survey of recent searching tech-
niques”. In: Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 45 (2017), pp. 76–
84.
[2] R. Näsi et al. “Using UAV-based photogrammetry and
hyperspectral imaging for mapping bark beetle damage
at tree-level”. In: Remote Sens. 7.11 (2015), pp. 15467–
15493.
[3] S. Manfreda et al. “On the use of unmanned aerial sys-
tems for environmental monitoring”. In: Remote Sens.
10.4 (2018), p. 641.
[4] M. Quaritsch et al. “Fast aerial image acquisition and
mosaicking for emergency response operations by col-
laborative UAVs”. In: Proc. Int. ISCRAM Conf. 2011,
pp. 1–5.
[5] T. Tomic et al. “Toward a fully autonomous UAV:
Research platform for indoor and outdoor urban search
and rescue”. In: IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 19.3 (2012),
pp. 46–56.
[6] R. Ludovisi et al. “UAV-based thermal imaging for
high-throughput field phenotyping of black poplar re-
sponse to drought”. In: Front. Plant Sci. 8 (2017),
p. 1681.
[7] S. d’Oleire Oltmanns et al. “Unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) for monitoring soil erosion in Morocco”. In:
Remote Sens. 4.11 (2012), pp. 3390–3416.
[8] R. R. Murphy et al. “Cooperative use of unmanned sea
surface and micro aerial vehicles at Hurricane Wilma”.
In: J Field Robot. 25.3 (2008), pp. 164–180.
[9] C. A. F. Ezequiel et al. “UAV aerial imaging applica-
tions for post-disaster assessment, environmental man-
agement and infrastructure development”. In: ICUAS
Int. Conf. IEEE. 2014, pp. 274–283.
E. U. Acar et al. “Morse decompositions for coverage
tasks”. In: Int. J. Robotics Res. 21.4 (2002), pp. 331–
344.
S. X. Yang and C. Luo. “A neural network approach to
complete coverage path planning”. In: IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man. Cybern. B Cybern. 34.1 (2004), pp. 718–724.
M. Ohashi et al. “Crayfish robot that generates flow
field to enhance chemical reception”. In: J. Sens. Tech.
2.04 (2012), p. 185.