The well arranged and instructivee business plan is the basic part of every business project.. Currently is very often used the lean canvas model of the business plan. This model shows us very istructively all the factors influencing the project realisation. The dissertation is divided into the two basic parts. In the thoretical were compared the essential forms of the business plan with their differences. The practical part consists of creating the lean canvas model for the progressive company using the UAV and the MAIA application, monitoring the flight of the UAV. The economic data were analyzed and the structured scheme of the project, with the prediction was realized. The lean canvas model was very useful and optimal for this company and it´s project.

This Master´s Thesis Usage of drones in the Logistics of the company SKODA AUTO a.s. reacts to the current trend of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) which are being used in many areas. Aim of this thesis is to analyse laws which regulate the operation of drones in selected countries, to assess suitability of drones for specific process of inventory of empty containers in the company SKODA AUTO a.s. and to suggest an alternative solution for this process. Thesis investigates usage of drones in the Logistics mainly for goods delivery and stock inventory. Mass drone delivery is currently not feasible due to many problems and challenges. Stock inventory has become a reality. Analysis of legislation is focused on EU, Czech Republic, Germany and China. Technology for inventory of empty containers using drones in SKODA AUTO a.s. has a long payback period (21 years) and author does not recommend drones for this process based on this criterion. As an alternative solution, the technology designed at AUDI company is recommended (camera placed on forklift and software for automated container identification).

Idag blir användningen av drönare allt mer vanlig för dokumentation av markytor. Det är ett billigare alternativ för att dokumentera små och otillgängliga områden. Genom tekniken går det bland annat att framställa olika digitala modeller som representerar jordens yta. En sådan modell kan vara en terrängmodell (DTM) som är en modell av markytan exklusive vegetation, hus eller annat som befinner sig på marken. Modeller kan framställas genom flygdata såsom laserskannad (LiDAR-data) eller flygfotograferade data (flygbilder). För att framställa en digital modell från rådata används olika programvaror. Den här studien utvärderar två olika programvarors förmåga att framställa digitala terrängmodeller från flygbilder. Främst undersöks levererade osäkerheter och användarvänligheten i programmen. Referensdata som användes i denna studie tillhandahölls av Norconsult och samlades in vid ett projekt över Hammarbyhöjdsskogen i Stockholm, hösten 2018. Den data som erhölls från projektet till denna studie var flygbilder samt terrestra detaljmätningar. Programmen som studien utvärderar är UAS Master som både använder datorseende och fotogrammetriska metoder och SURE Aerial som använder datorseende. Genom studien visade det sig att fler än de ursprungliga programvarorna behövdes för att framställa de digitala terrängmodellerna och vidare jämföra dessa. En orsak var att UAS Master saknade förmågor att redigera och visa punktmoln i 3D-vy och vidare skapa en DTM. Detta resulterade i att använda Trimble Business Center för slutarbetet. En annan orsak var att SURE Aerial visade sig vara avsett för framställning av digitala ytmodeller (representation av den faktiska, synliga ytan). För att framställa en DTM av punktmolnet användes både Cloud Compare och Agisoft Photoscan (numera Metashape). Geo användes sedan för att ta ut höjdavvikelserna från modellen. Två slutsatser som kunde dras utifrån denna studie var: 1) trots de olika tillvägagångssätten erhölls snarlika resultat för marktypernas lägesosäkerheter för respektive programvara (asfalt: 0,039 m; grus: ca 0,040 m; gräs: ca 0,048 m), varpå alla blev godkända enligt HMK – Flygfotografering 2017; 2) SURE Aerial är ett enklare och snabbbare program men med UAS Master har man som användare bättre förståelse över processerna och erhåller bättre dokumentation. / Drones have become a more and more frequent tool to document the surface of the ground, especially in smaller areas that otherwise are too expensive to observe by other means. This technology makes it possible to create digital terrain models (DTM) that represents the surface of the ground excluding vegetation, houses or other objects on the ground. These models can be created by laser scanned data (LiDAR-data) or aerial photogrammetry (aerial photos).  In order to create a digital model from raw data are various software needed. This study aims to test two software’s ability to create digital terrain models from UAS photos. The software were evaluated by the uncertainties of the models, as well as the user-friendliness of each software. All data used in this study was collected by Norconsult for another project in 2018 and consist of UAS photos and data from terrestrial measurements.  The softwares used in this study for comparison are UAS Master (using both computer vision and photogrammetric methods) and SURE Aerial (using computer vision). It turned out that additional use of software were needed to create DTMs that were comparable. UAS Master could not show or edit point clouds in 3D, because of this the software Trimble Business Centre had to be used. This program was also used to obtain height deviations. SURE Aerial on the other hand turned out to only be able to create digital surface models (models of the visible ground). The software Cloud Compare and Agisoft Photoscan (nowadays Metashape) were therefore used to create the DTM from the point cloud. The height deviations from the ladder DTM were obtained from the software Geo. Two conclusions could be drawn from this study: 1) the uncertainties of the different surface types were similar in the software despite the different ways to create the DTMs (asphalt: 0.039 m; gravel: 0.040 m; grass: 0.048 m). All of which meet the requirements according to HMK – Flygfotografering 2017; 2) SURE Aerial is a lot easier and quicker to work with but UAS Master give the user a lot more feedback in the way of documentation throughout the different processes.

Die Sensordatenfusion ist eine allgegenwärtige Aufgabe im Bereich der mobilen Robotik und darüber hinaus. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird das typischerweise verwendete Verfahren zur Sensordatenfusion in der Robotik in Frage gestellt und anhand von neuartigen Algorithmen, basierend auf einem Faktorgraphen, gelöst sowie mit einer korrespondierenden Extended-Kalman-Filter-Implementierung verglichen. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei das technische sowie algorithmische Sensorkonzept für die Navigation eines Flugroboters im Innenbereich. Ausführliche Experimente zeigen die Qualitätssteigerung unter Verwendung der neuen Variante der Sensordatenfusion, aber auch Einschränkungen und Beispiele mit nahezu identischen Ergebnissen beider Varianten der Sensordatenfusion. Neben Experimenten anhand einer hardwarenahen Simulation wird die Funktionsweise auch anhand von realen Hardwaredaten evaluiert.

The omnicopter is a small unmanned aerial vehicle capable of executing decoupled translational and rotational motion (six degree of freedom, 6DOF, motion). The development of controllers for various 6DOF controllable multirotors has been much more limited than development for quadrotors, which makes selecting a controller for a 6DOF multirotor difficult. The omnicopter is subject to various uncertainties and disturbances from hardware changes, structural dynamics, and airflow, making adaptive controllers particularly interesting to investigate. The goal of this research is to design and evaluate the performance of various position and attitude controller combinations for the omnicopter, specifically focusing on adaptive controllers. Simulations are first used to compare combinations of three position controllers, PID, model reference adaptive control, augmented model reference adaptive control (aMRAC), and four attitude controllers, PI/feedback linearization (PIFL), augmented model reference adaptive control, backstepping, and adaptive backstepping (aBack). For the simulations, the omnicopter is commanded to point at and track a stationary aim point as it travels along a $C^0$ continuous trajectory and a trajectory that is $C^1$ continuous. The controllers are stressed by random disturbances and the addition of an unaccounted for suspended mass. The augmented model reference adaptive controller for position control paired with the adaptive backstepping controller for attitude control is shown to be the best controller combination for tracking various trajectories while subject to disturbances. Based on the simulation results, the PID/PIFL and aMRAC/aBack controllers are selected to be compared during three different flight tests. The first flight test is on a $C^1$ continuous trajectory while the omnicopter is commanded to point at and track a stationary aim point. The second flight test is a hover with an unmodeled added weight, and the third is a circular trajectory with a broken blade. As with the simulation results, the adaptive controller is shown to yield better performance than the nonadaptive controller for all scenarios, particularly for position tracking. With an added weight or a broken propeller, the adaptive attitude controller struggles to return to level flight, but is capable of maintaining steady flight when the nonadaptive controller tends to fail. Finally, while model reference adaptive controllers are shown to be effective, their nonlinearity can make them difficult to tune and certify via standard certification methods, such as gain and phase margin. A method for using time delay margin estimates, a potential certification metric, to tune the adaptive parameter tuning gain matrix is shown to be useful when applied to an augmented MRAC controller for a quadrotor. / Doctor of Philosophy / The omnicopter is a small unmanned aerial vehicle capable of executing decoupled translational and rotational motion. The development of controllers for these types of vehicles has been limited, making controller selection difficult. The omnicopter is subject to variations in hardware and airflow, making adaptive controllers particularly interesting to investigate. The goal of this research is to design and compare the performance of various position and attitude controller combinations for the omnicopter, specifically focusing on adaptive controllers. Simulations are first used to compare combinations of several position and attitude controllers on various trajectories and disturbances. Simulation results showed that a fully adaptive controller combination produced the best trajectory tracking while subject to disturbances. As with the simulation results, flight tests showed the adaptive controller yields better performance than the nonadaptive controller for all scenarios, particularly for position tracking. Finally, while the adaptive position controller was shown to be effective, it is difficult to tune and certify for widespread use. A method for using time delay margin estimates, a potential certification metric, to tune the adaptive controller is shown to be useful when applied to an adaptive controller for a quadrotor.