POINT CLOUD PROCESSING ON 3D LIDAR DATA FOR UNMANNED SURFACE VEHICLES NAVIGATION IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/JISTM.1144015Keywords:
Clustering, DBSCAN, LiDAR, Maritime Navigation, Point Cloud Processing, Statistical Outlier Removal, Unmanned Surface VehicleAbstract
Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) require reliable autonomous navigation systems in dynamic maritime environments. LiDAR sensors, while effective for obstacle detection, are susceptible to noise and distortion from wave oscillations and water surface absorption, generating false positives and negatives in point cloud data. Most existing preprocessing-clustering evaluations are confined to terrestrial or simulated settings, with limited benchmarking under real maritime conditions marked by wave-induced motion, surface reflections, and sparse returns. This study addresses that gap through one of the first systematic evaluations of preprocessing-clustering combinations using real harbour LiDAR data collected under genuine environmental disturbance. A Velodyne HDL-32E LiDAR sensor was deployed at Klang Harbour, Malaysia, to collect real-world point cloud datasets. Three preprocessing techniques — Voxel Grid Downsampling, Statistical Outlier Removal (SOR), and Radius Outlier Removal (ROR) — were evaluated with two clustering algorithms chosen for their contrasting noise-handling strategies: Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) and Euclidean Cluster Extraction (ECE). Performance was assessed using precision and accuracy against manually annotated ground truth. DBSCAN combined with SOR achieved the highest performance, with peak accuracy of 57% (ε = 1.0 m) and peak precision of 62% (ε = 2.0 m), as SOR removes wave-induced outliers while preserving obstacle geometry, enabling DBSCAN's density criterion to isolate genuine clusters more reliably. ROR consistently degraded performance by over-removing genuine sparse returns, while ECE underperformed across all configurations due to its lack of native noise handling. The overall pipeline reached approximately 60% accuracy, a modest ceiling reflecting persistent wave motion, surface reflections, sparse long-range returns, and moving vessels that geometry-based clustering alone cannot resolve. This study contributes a methodological benchmark for preprocessing-clustering pipeline selection in maritime LiDAR processing, and practical guidance for selecting efficient, noise-robust configurations for real-time USV obstacle detection. Future work should incorporate model-based object detection and multi-sensor fusion to improve classification capability and system reliability.
Downloads
References
Ahmed, A., Ahmad, I., Hussain, T., Qin, Z., & Bhatt, C. M. (2023). A comprehensive review of advances, applications, and challenges in autonomous surface vehicles. *Robotics*, 12(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics12020046
Balta, H., Velagic, J., Bosschaerts, W., De Cubber, G., & Siciliano, B. (2018). Fast statistical outlier removal based method for large 3D point clouds of outdoor environments. *IFAC-PapersOnLine*, 51(22), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.566
Benjamin, M. R., Schmidt, H., Newman, P. M., & Leonard, J. J. (2010). Nested autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with MOOS-IvP. *Journal of Field Robotics*, 27(6), 834–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20370
Bovcon, B., Muhoč, J., Pers, J., & Kristan, M. (2021). MODS: A USV-oriented obstacle detection benchmark. *IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems*, 22(3), 1513–1523. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2019.2963537
Damodaran, B., Nair, B. B., & Akhilraj, N. (2023). Challenges of LiDAR and camera fusion for water surface detection in autonomous maritime navigation. *Ocean Engineering*, 284, 115263.
Feng, Q., Cheng, S., & Meng, Y. (2020). A survey on autonomous surface vehicles: Control, perception, navigation, and safety. *IEEE Access*, 8, 221208–221233.
Hacinecipoglu, A. (2022). Point cloud-based human pose estimation using voxel grid downsampling. *Applied Sciences*, 12(9), 4559. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12094559
Jin, Y., Duan, Z., & Li, Z. (2019). Distance and velocity measurement of coherent LiDAR based on chirp pulse compression. *Sensors*, 19(10), 2313. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19102313
Li, Q., Chen, L., Li, M., Shaw, S. L., & Nüchter, A. (2014). A sensor-fusion drivable-region and lane-detection system for autonomous vehicle navigation in challenging road scenarios. *IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology*, 63(2), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2013.2281366
Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Yu, X., & Yuan, C. (2016). Unmanned surface vehicles: An overview of developments and challenges. *Annual Reviews in Control*, 41, 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.04.018
Manley, J. E. (2008). Unmanned surface vehicles: 15 years of development. *Proceedings of OCEANS 2008*. https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2008.5152052
Rhinal, P., Dhoot, S., Gupta, R., & Shah, K. (2020). A systematic review of LiDAR sensors technology: Principles and challenges. *International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology*, 11(6), 1–20.
Szutor, V., & Zichar, M. (2023). Comparative analysis of point cloud outlier removal methods. *Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences*, 70(1), 1–14.
Talpur, A. H., Nawaz, M., Bhutto, A. H., & Lohano, S. (2025). Domain shift challenges in maritime perception: A survey. *Ocean Engineering*, 301, 117500.
Yu Cao, Z., Zhang, Y., & Li, R. (2021). Are we ready for unmanned surface vehicles in inland waterways? The USVInland multisensor dataset and benchmark. *IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters*, 6(2), 3964–3971. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3067271
Zhou, B., He, Y., Qian, K., Ma, X., & Li, X. (2021). S4-SLAM: A real-time 3D LiDAR SLAM system for ground/water surface multi-scene outdoor applications. *Autonomous Robots*, 45(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-020-09948-3
