The Journal of Supercomputing

, Volume 73, Issue 1, pp 557–575 | Cite as

Landing sites detection using LiDAR data on manycore systems

  • Oscar G. LorenzoEmail author
  • Jorge Martínez
  • David L. Vilariño
  • Tomás F. Pena
  • José C. Cabaleiro
  • Francisco F. Rivera


Helicopters are widely used in emergency situations, where knowing if a geographical location is adequate for landing is a critical issue, and it is far from being a straightforward task. In this work, we present a method to detect and classify landing sites from LiDAR data in parallel on multi- and manycore systems using OpenMP. Load balancing was identified as the main cause of poor performance because the computational cost depends mainly on the input data. Results for a set of LiDAR point clouds that represent different real scenarios were used as case studies in this work. Balancing strategies for three different multi- and manycore systems were analyzed. The proposed load balancing techniques increase performance up to three times from the unbalanced case.


LiDAR Landing zone detection Load balancing Xeon Phi 



This work has been partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under project TIN2013-41129-P and Xunta de Galicia under projects GRC2014/008 and GRC GI-1638. It has been developed in the framework of the European network HiPEAC-2, the Spanish network CAPAP-H, the Galician network under the Consolidation Program of Competitive Research Units (TLIX Network ref. R2014/049). This work is also a result of a collaboration with INAER and the Laborate group of the University of Santiago de Compostela.


  1. 1.
    Dagum L, Enon R (1998) OpenMP: an industry standard API for shared-memory programming. Comput Sci Eng IEEE 5(1):46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gong J, Lee HJ, Cho G (2008) Parallel algorithm for object extraction from ranging data., technical Report, online. Accessed Nov 2016
  3. 3.
    Hodgson ME, Bresnahan P (2004) Accuracy of airborne lidar-derived elevation. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70(3):331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISPRS (2016) ISPRS test project on urban classification, 3D building reconstruction and semantic labeling. Accessed Nov 2016
  5. 5.
    Johnson AE, Klumpp AR, Collier JB, Wolf AA (2002) LiDAR-based hazard avoidance for safe landing on Mars. J Guide Control Dyn 25(6):1091–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung JH, Crawford MM, Lee SH (2009) Complexity estimation based work load balancing for a parallel LiDAR waveform decomposition algorithm. Korean J Remote Sens 25(6):547–557Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li J, Lee HJ, Cho GS (2008) Parallel algorithm for road points extraction from massive LiDAR data. In: Parallel and distributed processing with applications, 2008. ISPA’08. International symposium on, IEEE, pp 308–315Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lorenzo OG, Martínez J, Vilariño DL, Pena TF, Cabaleiro JC, Rivera FF (2016) Parallel landing sites detection using LiDAR data on manycore systems. In: 16th International Conference on Computational and Mathematical Methods in Science and Engineering, CMMSE, pp 805–816Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maturana D, Scherer S (2015) 3D convolutional neural networks for landing zone detection from LiDAR. In: Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, pp 3471–3478Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moravec H, Elfes A (1985) High resolution maps from wide angle sonar. In: Robotics and Automation, Proceedings of 1985 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, vol 2, pp 116–121Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mosa ASM, Schön B, Bertolotto M, Laefer DF (2012) Evaluating the benefits of octree-based indexing for LiDAR data. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 78(9):927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OpenTopography (2016) LiDAR point cloud data distribution and processing. Accessed Nov 2016
  13. 13.
    Peason K (1901) On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of point in space. Philos Magn 2:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramachandran A, Vienne J, Van Der Wijngaart R, Koesterke L, Sharapov I (2013) Performance evaluation of NAS parallel benchmarks on intel Xeon Phi. In: Parallel Processing (ICPP), 2013 42nd International Conference on, IEEE, pp 736–743Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scherer S, Chamberlain L, Singh S (2012) Autonomous landing at unprepared sites by a full-scale helicopter. Robot Auton Syst 60(12):1545–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidl D, Cramer T, Wienke S, Terboven C, Müller MS (2013) Assessing the performance of openmp programs on the intel xeon phi. In: European Conference on Parallel Processing, Springer, pp 547–558Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shan J, Toth CK (2008) Topographic laser ranging and scanning: principles and processing. CRC Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whalley M, Takahashi M, Tsenkov P, Schulein G, Goerzen C (2009) Field-testing of a helicopter UAV obstacle field navigation and landing system. In: 65th Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society, Grapevine, TXGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang T, Li J (2015) Online task scheduling for LiDAR data preprocessing on hybrid GPU/CPU devices: a reinforcement learning approach. IEEE J Select Topic Appl Earth Obser Remote Sens 8(1):386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CiTIUS Centro Singular de Investigación en Tecnoloxías da InformaciónUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaGaliciaSpain

Personalised recommendations