Advertisement

Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 628–635 | Cite as

Distributed model predictive consensus control for robotic swarm system

Local subsystem regulator approach
  • Toru Murayama
Original Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes a distributed model predictive control method for a consensus of robotic swarm systems. The proposed method is free from any precomputed trajectories, contrast to previous studies. This is huge advantages in cases the system do not work as previously predicted, communication topology changes frequently, and the communication is unreliable. I introduce a concept of local subsystem regulator first, and then the distributed control method and its design concept are described. I also analyze stability of the proposed method and introduce how to handle constraints such as a mutual collision avoidance into the proposed method. Computer simulations are demonstrated to show effectivity of our method.

Keywords

Distributed model predictive control Consensus Formation control Flocking 

References

  1. 1.
    Olfati-Saber R, Fax JA, Murray RM (2007) Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proc IEEE 95(1):215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fukushima H, Kon K, Matsuno F (2005), Distributed model predictive control for multi-vehicle formation with collision avoidance constraints. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision Control, pp 5480–5485Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunbar WB, Murray RM (2006) Distributed receding horizon control for multi-vehicle formation stabilization. Automatica 42(4):549–558MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keviczky T, Borrelli F, Fregene K et al (2008) Decentralized receding horizon control and coordination of autonomous vehicle formations. IEEE Trans Control Syst Tech 16(1):19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuriki Y, Namerikawa T (2015) Formation control with collision avoidance for a multi-UAV system using decentralized MPC and consensus-based control. SICE J Control Meas Syst Integr 8(4):285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van den Berg J, Guy SJ, Lin M, Manocha D (2008) Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on robotics and automation, pp 1928–1935Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Murayama T (2016) Distributed velocity constraints for multi-agent system to preserve communication range. In: Proceedings on 2016 IEEE/SICE international symposium on system integration, pp 532–537Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mattingley J, Boyd S (2012) CVXGEN: a code generator for embedded convex optimization. Optim Eng 13(1):1–27MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung F (1997) Spectral graph theory. American mathematical society, ProvidencezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayne DQ, Rawlings JB, Rao CV, Scokaert POM (2000) Constrained model predictive control: stability and optimality. Automatica 36:789–814MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimm G, Messina MJ, Tuna SE, Teel AR (2005) Model predictive control: for want of a local control Lyapunov function, all is not lost. IEEE Trans Autom 50(5):546–558MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAROB 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GoboJapan

Personalised recommendations