Localization and mapping performance of two LiDAR systems in unstructured environments

For autonomous systems and vehicles to be able to traverse and path plan in their environment, location needs to be known. To determine location, two items are required, a map and a localization method. The purpose of this paper is to determine the differences and benefits between two low cost off the shelf Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) units in an unstructured environment for mapping and localization. The LiDAR units angularly sample the environment in a full 360-degree horizontal view, each with a varying sample density. The first has more vertical samples and a broader vertical field of view, where the other has fewer vertical samples and smaller vertical field of view but higher angular resolution. Also, both LiDAR units produce similar orders of magnitude of points per second. The two LiDAR units are compared with a simulation model of the test vehicle and LiDAR units as well as real world testing. The results of the experiments show that that mapping with a higher vertical resolution LiDAR unit appears to produce a better map, whereas localization with the higher angular resolution LiDAR unit produces more consistent results overall but runs considerably slower.

[1]  Toivo Vajakas,et al.  Performance analysis of a compact and low-cost mapping-grade mobile laser scanning system , 2017 .

[2]  Karsten Berns,et al.  Intelligent Autonomous Systems 13 - Proceedings of the 13th International Conference IAS-13, Padova, Italy, July 15-18, 2014 , 2016, IAS.

[3]  François Goulette,et al.  Simulation-based comparative analysis for the design of Laser Terrestrial Mobile Mapping Systems , 2008 .

[4]  Sarah Smith-Voysey,et al.  Geometric validation of a ground-based mobile laser scanning system , 2008 .

[5]  Tim L. Webster,et al.  LIDAR Validation Using GIS: A Case Study Comparison between Two LIDAR Collection Methods , 2005 .

[6]  N. Haala,et al.  Mobile LiDAR mapping for 3D point cloud collecation in urban areas : a performance test , 2008 .

[7]  Tully Foote,et al.  tf: The transform library , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA).

[8]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  Lighting‐invariant Adaptive Route Following Using Iterative Closest Point Matching , 2015, J. Field Robotics.

[9]  Thomas Moore,et al.  A Generalized Extended Kalman Filter Implementation for the Robot Operating System , 2014, IAS.

[10]  Robert C. Bolles,et al.  Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography , 1981, CACM.

[11]  Matthew Doude,et al.  Enabling Off-Road Autonomous Navigation-Simulation of LIDAR in Dense Vegetation , 2018, Electronics.

[12]  Timothy McCarthy,et al.  MIMIC: Mobile mapping point density calculator , 2012, COM.Geo '12.

[13]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[14]  T. Başar,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2001 .