# Coverage Path Planning with Semantic Segmentation for UAV in PV Plants
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Results of the CPP Method
#### 3.2.2 The Last Three Experiments with 3 DR Iris UAV  
The last three CPP experiments were conducted with a 3 DR Iris UAV, varying the CPP width between 1 and 20 m, depending on the PV plant covered. For example, in the first and second PV plants, Unioeste 1 and Arak, respectively, the CPP widths were varied between 8 and 20 m; in the third PV plant, CSUSL, the width was varied between 1 and 8 m, due to the restrictions of the method requiring it be run in small areas with a large width. Then, in each of these experiments, the resulting metrics were annotated in tables, as shown in Appendix C.  
As in the previous chapter, the recorded metrics were used to create bar and line graphs for Experiments 4, 5 and 6, which are those conducted with the 3 DR Iris UAV, to highlight the most important information and to determine correlations among the metrics. In these graphs, the vertical and horizontal axes were scaled logarithmically and labeled in the same manner as above, with the aim of visualizing the correlations between flight time, number of maneuvers and path length covered, with regard to energy consumption by each CPP method, as shown in Figure 13-15. Furthermore, the relationship between the redundancy metric and CPP width is identified, showing behavior similar to the previous UAV's data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**PV Plant**}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Unioeste 1 (35,975 m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Arak (25,056 m\({}^{2}\))**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CSUSL (1344 m\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **ECD** & **GBSTC** & **GBWC** & **BED** & **GBSTC** & **GBWC** & **BED** & **GBSTC** & **GBWC** \\ \hline
1 & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & 35\% & 47\% & 43\% \\ \hline
2 & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & 20\% & 23\% & 24\% \\ \hline
3 & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & 14\% & 15\% & 15\% \\ \hline
4 & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & 11\% & 12\% & 12\% \\ \hline
5 & 98\% & 100\% & 100\% & 80\% & 94\% & 94\% & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) \\ \hline
6 & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & 9\% & 8\% & 8\% \\ \hline
8 & 74\% & 85\% & 88\% & 52\% & 62\% & 63\% & 7\% & 6\% & 5\% \\ \hline
10 & 56\% & 62\% & 63\% & 41.5\% & 45\% & 43\% & 5\% & \(N/A\) & 5\% \\ \hline
12 & 47\% & 54\% & 55\% & 36\% & 37\% & 35\% & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) \\ \hline
15 & 38\% & 43\% & 45\% & 27\% & 29\% & 26\% & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) \\ \hline
20 & 29\% & 32\% & 31\% & 21\% & 20\% & 19\% & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) & \(N/A\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of three CPP methods with regard to CPP width, for a simulated Typhoon UAV at three PV plants. Figure 12: Performance test of Typhoon UAV varying the CPP width. The UAV energy consumption and CPP widths were obtained from the energy consumption results logs, then a new Table 2 was established, in which three large columns correspond to the PV plants, where each PV plant column contains three CPPs with their respective values of consumed energy, and the rows of the table contain the CPP widths in an increasing direction from top to bottom. Here it can be observed, as in the last table, that the energy consumption of the two CPPs is higher than that of the other CPPs. Figure 14: Performance metrics of 3 DR Iris UAV on Arak PV plants (Experiment 5). Figure 13: Performance metrics of 3 DR Iris UAV on Unioeste PV plants (Experiment 4). Figure 15: Performance metrics of 3 DR Iris UAV on CSUSL PV plants (Experiment 6). some parameters' values, such as the energy consumption by CPP width, are due to the size of the RoI. It can also be observed that the greater the CPP width, the lower the energy consumption, as seen in the columns of Table 2. For example, using BECD at Unioeste 1 with a width of 10 m, the percentage of energy consumed was 100%, while for a width of 20 m, the energy consumed was 48%.