IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v13y2025i8p1323-d1637209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Design and Assessment of Robust Persistent Drone-Based Circular-Trajectory Surveillance Systems

Author

Listed:
  • José Luis Andrade-Pineda

    (Robotics, Vision and Control Group, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • David Canca

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, School of Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • Marcos Calle

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, School of Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • José Miguel León-Blanco

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, School of Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • Pedro Luis González-R

    (Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, School of Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Seville, Spain)

Abstract

We study the use of a homogeneous fleet of drones to design an unattended persistent drone-based patrolling system for vast circular areas. The drones follow flight missions supported by auxiliary on-ground charging stations, whose location and number must be determined. To this end, we first present a mixed integer non-linear programming model for defining cyclic schedules of drone flights considering the selection of the drone model from a set of candidate drone platforms. By imposing a minimum acceptable time between consecutive visits to any perimeter point, the objective consists of minimizing the total surveillance system deployment cost. The solution provides the best platform, the location of base stations, and the number of drones needed to monitor the perimeter, as well as the flight mission for each drone. We test five commercial platforms in six different scenarios whose radios vary between 1196 and 1696 m. In five of them, the MD4-100 Microdrones model achieves the lower cost solution, with values of EUR 66,800 and 83,500 for Scenarios 1 and 2 and EUR 116,900 for Scenarios 3, 4 and 5, improving its rivals in average percentages that vary between 8.46% and 70.40%. In Scenario number 6, the lower cost solution is provided by the TARTOT-500 model, with a total cost of EUR 168,000, improving by 20% the solution provided by the MD4-100. After obtaining the optimal solution, to evaluate the system robustness, we propose a discrete event simulation model incorporating uncertain flight times taking into account the possibility of accelerated depletion of drones’ Lithium-Ion polymer (Li-Po) batteries. Overall, our research investigates how various factors—such as the number of drones in the fleet and the division of the perimeter into sectors—impact the reliability of the system. Using Scenario number 3, our tests demonstrate that under a risk of battery failures of 2.5% and three UAVs per station, the surveillance system reaches a global percentage of punctually patrolled sectors of 92.6% and limits the number of delayed sectors (the relay UAV reaches the perimeter slightly above the required time, but it positively re-establishes the cyclic pattern for patrolling) to only a 5.6%. Our findings provide valuable insights for designing more robust and cost-effective drone patrol systems capable of operating autonomously over large planning horizons.

Suggested Citation

  • José Luis Andrade-Pineda & David Canca & Marcos Calle & José Miguel León-Blanco & Pedro Luis González-R, 2025. "Design and Assessment of Robust Persistent Drone-Based Circular-Trajectory Surveillance Systems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-39, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:8:p:1323-:d:1637209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/8/1323/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/8/1323/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelelli, Enrico & Grazia Speranza, Maria, 2002. "The periodic vehicle routing problem with intermediate facilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 233-247, March.
    2. Schneider, M. & Stenger, A. & Hof, J., 2015. "An Adaptive VNS Algorithm for Vehicle Routing Problems with Intermediate Stops," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 63500, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    3. Oleg Burdakov & Jonas Kvarnström & Patrick Doherty, 2017. "Optimal scheduling for replacing perimeter guarding unmanned aerial vehicles," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 249(1), pages 163-174, February.
    4. Asma Troudi & Sid-Ali Addouche & Sofiene Dellagi & Abderrahman El Mhamedi, 2018. "Sizing of the Drone Delivery Fleet Considering Energy Autonomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Maria Fleischer Fauske & Carlo Mannino & Paolo Ventura, 2020. "Generalized Periodic Vehicle Routing and Maritime Surveillance," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 164-183, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markov, Iliya & Varone, Sacha & Bierlaire, Michel, 2016. "Integrating a heterogeneous fixed fleet and a flexible assignment of destination depots in the waste collection VRP with intermediate facilities," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 256-273.
    2. Tânia Rodrigues Pereira Ramos & Maria Isabel Gomes & Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa, 2020. "A new matheuristic approach for the multi-depot vehicle routing problem with inter-depot routes," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 42(1), pages 75-110, March.
    3. Sohrabi, Somayeh & Ziarati, Koorush & Keshtkaran, Morteza, 2020. "A Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure for the Orienteering Problem with Hotel Selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(2), pages 426-440.
    4. Maximilian Schiffer & Grit Walther, 2018. "An Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search for the Location-routing Problem with Intra-route Facilities," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 331-352, March.
    5. Schiffer, Maximilian & Schneider, Michael & Laporte, Gilbert, 2018. "Designing sustainable mid-haul logistics networks with intra-route multi-resource facilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 517-532.
    6. Cheng, Chun & Adulyasak, Yossiri & Rousseau, Louis-Martin, 2020. "Drone routing with energy function: Formulation and exact algorithm," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 364-387.
    7. Jeffrey W. Ohlmann & Michael J. Fry & Barrett W. Thomas, 2008. "Route Design for Lean Production Systems," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(3), pages 352-370, August.
    8. Yang Xia & Wenjia Zeng & Xinjie Xing & Yuanzhu Zhan & Kim Hua Tan & Ajay Kumar, 2023. "Joint optimisation of drone routing and battery wear for sustainable supply chain development: a mixed-integer programming model based on blockchain-enabled fleet sharing," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 327(1), pages 89-127, August.
    9. Gitae Kim, 2024. "Electric Vehicle Routing Problem with States of Charging Stations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Wan, Yuchun & He, Zhenggang & Gao, Yufan & Xue, Yujia, 2024. "Long-haul truck charging planning problem considering time flexibility and energy flexibility," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    11. Cortés-Murcia, David L. & Prodhon, Caroline & Murat Afsar, H., 2019. "The electric vehicle routing problem with time windows, partial recharges and satellite customers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 184-206.
    12. Gläser, Sina, 2022. "A waste collection problem with service type option," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1216-1230.
    13. Maximilian Schiffer & Michael Schneider & Grit Walther & Gilbert Laporte, 2019. "Vehicle Routing and Location Routing with Intermediate Stops: A Review," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 319-343, March.
    14. Hendri Sutrisno & Chao-Lung Yang, 2023. "A two-echelon location routing problem with mobile satellites for last-mile delivery: mathematical formulation and clustering-based heuristic method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 203-228, April.
    15. CASTRO, Marco & SÖRENSEN, Kenneth & VANSTEENWEGEN, Pieter & GOOS, Peter, 2012. "A simple GRASP+VND for the travelling salesperson problem with hotel selection," Working Papers 2012024, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    16. Davis, Lauren B. & Sengul, Irem & Ivy, Julie S. & Brock, Luther G. & Miles, Lastella, 2014. "Scheduling food bank collections and deliveries to ensure food safety and improve access," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 175-188.
    17. Amine Masmoudi, M. & Mancini, Simona & Baldacci, Roberto & Kuo, Yong-Hong, 2022. "Vehicle routing problems with drones equipped with multi-package payload compartments," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    18. Aksen, Deniz & Kaya, Onur & Sibel Salman, F. & Tüncel, Özge, 2014. "An adaptive large neighborhood search algorithm for a selective and periodic inventory routing problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 413-426.
    19. Lin, Yen-Hung & Batta, Rajan & Rogerson, Peter A. & Blatt, Alan & Flanigan, Marie, 2011. "A logistics model for emergency supply of critical items in the aftermath of a disaster," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 132-145, December.
    20. Koyuncu, Işıl & Yavuz, Mesut, 2019. "Duplicating nodes or arcs in green vehicle routing: A computational comparison of two formulations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 605-623.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:13:y:2025:i:8:p:1323-:d:1637209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.