Advanced Hovercraft to Travel on Surface and Water

Abstract

The small autonomous vehicles of the future will have to navigate close to obstacles in highly unpredictable environments. Risky tasks of this kind may require novel sensors and control methods that differ from conventional approaches. Recent ethological findings have shown that complex navigation tasks such as obstacle avoidance and speed control are performed by flying insects on the basis of optic flow (OF) cues, although insects' compound eyes have a very poor spatial resolution. The present paper deals with the implementation of an optic flow-based autopilot on a fully autonomous hovercraft. Tests were performed on this small (878-gram) innovative robotic platform in straight and tapered corridors lined with natural panoramas. A bilateral OF regulator controls the robot's forward speed (up to 0.8m/s), while a unilateral OF regulator controls the robot's clearance from the two walls. A micro-gyrometer and a tiny magnetic compass ensure that the hovercraft travels forward in the corridor without yawing. The lateral OFs are measured by two minimalist eyes mounted sideways opposite to each other. For the first time, the hovercraft was found to be capable of adjusting both its forward speed and its clearance from the walls, in both straight and tapered corridors, without requiring any distance or speed measurements, that is, without any need for on-board rangefinders or tachometers.

Country : India

1 Umin Inamdar2 Swaranjali Pawar3 Prof. Mrs. Shilpa Sonawane

  1. Student, Electronics and Telecommunication, JSPM'S Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, Pune, Maharashtra, India
  2. Student, Electronics and Telecommunication, JSPM'S Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, Pune, Maharashtra, India
  3. Professor, Electronics and Telecommunication, JSPM'S Rajarshi Shahu College of Engineering, Pune, Maharashtra, India

IRJIET, Volume 6, Issue 4, April 2022 pp. 136-138

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2022.604032

References

  1. T. Collett, “Some operating rules for the optomotor system of a hoverfly during voluntary fligh,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A, vol. 138, pp. 271–282, 1980.
  2. H. Wagner, “Flow-field variables trigger landing in flies,” Nature, vol. 297, no. 5862, pp. 147–148, May 1982.
  3. M. Srinivasan, M. Lehrer, W. Kirchner, and S. Zhang, “Range perception through apparent image speed in freely flying honeybees,” Visual neuroscience, vol. 6(5), pp. 519–535, 1991.
  4. L. F. Tammero and M. H. Dickinson, “The influence of visual landscape on the free flight behavior of the fruit fly drosophila melanogaster,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 205(3), pp. 327– 343, 2002.
  5. J. Serres, G. Masson, F. Ruffier, and N. Franceschini, “A bee in the corridor: centering and wall-following,” Naturwissenschaften, vol. 95, pp. 1181–1187, 2008.
  6. E. Baird, M. Srinivasan, S. Zhang, R. Lamont, and A. Cowling, “Visual control of flight speed and height in the honeybee,” From Animals to Animats 9, pp. 40–51, 2006.
  7. G. Portelli, F. Ruffier, and N. Franceschini, “Honeybees change their height to restore their optic flow,” Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, vol. 196(4), pp. 307–313, 2010.
  8. M. Srinivasan, S. Zhang, M. Lehrer, and T. Collett, “Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: visual flight control and odometry,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 199(1), pp. 237–44, 1996.
  9. E. Baird, T. Kornfeldt, and M. Dacke, “Minimum viewing angle for visually guided ground speed control in bumblebees,” Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 213(10), pp. 1625–1632, 2010.