**3.2 Path planning is effective in professional point of view**

Previously it has been clarified that the purpose of patrol is to detect an incident or phenomenon earlier than it would be performing by other sources. Professional efficiency does not count with anything else, just to make the signal faster with a new system than without it. If the average signals performed by autonomous system are faster than without it, then the autonomous system is efficient from a professional point of view.

It is logical that, with increasing number of people present in a given area, the frequency and quickness of the report will increase statistically. The dispersion of signals from the larger population over time is broader; however, only one of the extreme values of the scatter is required, which is manifested by faster detection. Recognizing this, it can be concluded that the quickness of the report depends both on the number of people present and the population density of the area; moreover, both of them increase proportionally.

It is easy to see that in case of random but large number of event or phenomena, the average detection time of the autonomous system is equal to half of the patrolling cycle time (2). It is logical that with the increase in the density of the potential observers in the observed area, the advantage of patrol decreases. It happens because the standard deviation of the reports given by external persons decreases the amount of efficiency (3). This statement can be accepted as a logical conclusion:

$$\overline{\mathbf{t}}^{\prime}\_{\text{Autonomous\\_report}} = \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{t}\_{\text{Autonomous\\_partol}} \tag{2}$$

$$
\vec{\mathbf{f}}\_{\text{Automomus\\_report}} < \vec{\mathbf{f}}\_{\text{Cilvil\\_report}} \tag{3}
$$


Based on the above, it can be concluded that, in the event of the occurrence of random but regular phenomena, the effectiveness of patrol in densely populated areas decreases, while in less populated areas, it increases. The rarer the population density of an area, the higher the effectiveness of patrol and vice versa: the more densely populated the area, the lower the effectiveness of patrol.

It can be concluded that patrolling can be advantageous or not advantageous, depending on the attendance and the population density of the area. Similarly, it means also the professional effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Till the average deviation of the signals given by external persons is higher than the average detection time of the autonomous systems during observations, the method is professionally effective, but no longer.

#### **3.3 Path planning is effective in economic point of view**

Economic effectiveness can be proven by counting the costs of patrolling and comparing the expected benefits of the application. In this case it is natural that the professional aspects—discussed in the previous point—are fulfilled. As a result, it is required to fulfill the professional efficiency, but this is not a sufficient condition to achieve economic effectiveness.

In case of forest fires, the response with and without patrolling had to be demonstrable in the difference of the damage caused by fire and the saved value. As a result of the previous indication, the damage is reduced to such an extent (4), which at least reaches but rather exceeds all costs of autonomous system patrol. We can approach this statement even from the opposite site that is saved value: it should expand to such an extent, which at least reaches, but rather exceeds, all costs of autonomous systems used for patrol (5). In this case, the advantageous of patrol exists not only in professional but even in economic view. The economically advantageous response also means fulfilling the condition of the national economy in broader interpretation:

$$
\Delta K\_{damage} > \Sigma \, C\_{natural} \tag{4}
$$

$$
\Delta M\_{saved\\_value} > \Sigma \, \mathbf{C}\_{partol} \tag{5}
$$

**107**

non-observed area.

*Path Planning Optimization with Flexible Remote Sensing Application*

• ΔKdamage: damage difference between patrolling response and non-patrolling

• ΔMsaved\_value: the difference of the rescued value between patrolling and

The operating costs of autonomous systems can only be paying back from an economic point of view if significant reductions in damage are detected by perceptions. Therefore, the total number of the perceptions during patrolling reaches or exceeds a certain level. This rate is due to the frequency of observations. The result is that a quicker detection also makes a quicker response; thus, the damage decreases, or the saved value increases, because of the escalation of the event. The total loss of damage must reach or exceed the total cost of the patrolling. The use of

The criterion of the efficiency is to get information about the change we want to detect as quickly as possible. On the one hand, this can prevent the occurrence of unwanted change (e.g. surveillance of the security area for crime prevention), and on the other hand, it can reduce the extent of change, such as the amount of

The negative effect caused by the phenomenon is minimal if it is detected immediately. In some cases, this may mean immediate detection (e.g. crime), while in others it is more time-consuming (e.g. forest fire detection). In this latter mentioned case, e.g. the author's experience and other sources [25–27] accept that detection within 15 min of the occurrence of a fire can be called effective. Apart from the extreme fire spread possibilities, the extent of the fire still allows for safe

For the purpose of path planning, we can create a large number of routes on the responsible area which should be followed by the staff during the patrol. Optimization requires the shortest route during the patrol with the same rate of observation time per a pixel of the given area. It can be observed that in ideal case pathway cannot cross itself during a cycle. Depending on the scale of the responsible area and the size of the observed pixel at the same time made by the autonomous systems, we can create many

When judging the effectiveness of patrolling, the basic question is how fast the autonomous system can do a report on the detection of a problem at any location. Patrolling can be divided into a period of one cycle for a specific area of under "observation" and "non-observation". The "blind area" can also be used for the

In the following, a sample area will be presented. Its parameters can be changed, so it can be adapted for other tasks as well. The area is a regular quadrilateral whose terrain condition does not limit the effectiveness of observation from the side. So it can be considered as a flat surface for the examination. The size of the examined

According to the assumption, the autonomous system, which makes the patrolling, can run at different speeds on any route because of the nature of the area. It means the detection is done in two dimensions. An additional assumption is that the device installed on board of the autonomous system provides an angle of view that

.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86500*

• ΣCpatrol: total cost of patrolling

response

non-patrolling

limited resources is efficient.

**3.4 Description of the example area**

resources needed for liquidation (e.g. flood management).

path configurations with the equivalent value as shown in **Figure 4**.

area is 24 km × 24 km, making the whole area of 576 km2

allows the simultaneous viewing of a 3 km × 3 km area at a given time.

firefighting by using minimal power and tools.


*Path Planning for Autonomous Vehicles - Ensuring Reliable Driverless Navigation...*

¯*Autonomous*\_*report* <sup>=</sup> \_1

¯*Autonomous*\_*report* < *t*

• *tAutonomous\_patrol*: full time of the patrol, made by autonomous system

• *tCivil\_report*: average time of reports, given by civilians

densely populated the area, the lower the effectiveness of patrol.

**3.3 Path planning is effective in economic point of view**

• *tAutonomous\_report*: average time of the report given by the autonomous system

Based on the above, it can be concluded that, in the event of the occurrence of random but regular phenomena, the effectiveness of patrol in densely populated areas decreases, while in less populated areas, it increases. The rarer the population density of an area, the higher the effectiveness of patrol and vice versa: the more

It can be concluded that patrolling can be advantageous or not advantageous, depending on the attendance and the population density of the area. Similarly, it means also the professional effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Till the average deviation of the signals given by external persons is higher than the average detection time of the autonomous systems during observations, the method is professionally

Economic effectiveness can be proven by counting the costs of patrolling and comparing the expected benefits of the application. In this case it is natural that the professional aspects—discussed in the previous point—are fulfilled. As a result, it is required to fulfill the professional efficiency, but this is not a sufficient condition to

In case of forest fires, the response with and without patrolling had to be demonstrable in the difference of the damage caused by fire and the saved value. As a result of the previous indication, the damage is reduced to such an extent (4), which at least reaches but rather exceeds all costs of autonomous system patrol. We can approach this statement even from the opposite site that is saved value: it should expand to such an extent, which at least reaches, but rather exceeds, all costs of autonomous systems used for patrol (5). In this case, the advantageous of patrol exists not only in professional but even in economic view. The economically advantageous response also means fulfilling the condition of the national economy

Δ*Kdamage* > Σ*Cpatrol* (4)

Δ*Msaved*\_*value* > Σ*Cpatrol* (5)

*t*

*t*

effective, but no longer.

achieve economic effectiveness.

in broader interpretation:

It is easy to see that in case of random but large number of event or phenomena, the average detection time of the autonomous system is equal to half of the patrolling cycle time (2). It is logical that with the increase in the density of the potential observers in the observed area, the advantage of patrol decreases. It happens because the standard deviation of the reports given by external persons decreases the amount of efficiency (3). This statement can be accepted as a logical conclusion:

<sup>2</sup> *tAutonomous*\_*patrol* (2)

¯*Civil*\_*report* (3)

**106**

• ΔMsaved\_value: the difference of the rescued value between patrolling and non-patrolling

The operating costs of autonomous systems can only be paying back from an economic point of view if significant reductions in damage are detected by perceptions. Therefore, the total number of the perceptions during patrolling reaches or exceeds a certain level. This rate is due to the frequency of observations. The result is that a quicker detection also makes a quicker response; thus, the damage decreases, or the saved value increases, because of the escalation of the event. The total loss of damage must reach or exceed the total cost of the patrolling. The use of limited resources is efficient.
