Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 463–477 | Cite as

Biogeography-based combinatorial strategy for efficient autonomous underwater vehicle motion planning and task-time management

  • S. M. Zadeh
  • D. M. W. Powers
  • K. Sammut
  • A. M. Yazdani


Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are capable of spending long periods of time for carrying out various underwater missions and marine tasks. In this paper, a novel conflict-free motion planning framework is introduced to enhance underwater vehicle’s mission performance by completing maximum number of highest priority tasks in a limited time through a large scale waypoint cluttered operating field, and ensuring safe deployment during the mission. The proposed combinatorial route-path planner model takes the advantages of the Biogeography-Based Optimization (BBO) algorithm toward satisfying objectives of both higher-lower level motion planners and guarantees maximization of the mission productivity for a single vehicle operation. The performance of the model is investigated under different scenarios including the particular cost constraints in time-varying operating fields. To show the reliability of the proposed model, performance of each motion planner assessed separately and then statistical analysis is undertaken to evaluate the total performance of the entire model. The simulation results indicate the stability of the contributed model and its feasible application for real experiments.


autonomous vehicles underwater missions evolutionary algorithms biogeography-based optimization route planning· computational intelligence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carroll KP, McClaran SR, Nelson EL, Barnett DM, Friesen DK, Williams GN, 1992. AUV path planning: an A* approach to path planning with consideration of variable vehicle speeds and multiple, overlapping, time-dependent exclusion zones. IEEE Conference of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Technology. DOI: 10.1109/AUV.1992.225191Google Scholar
  2. Geisberger R, 2011. Advanced route planning in transportation networks. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, 1–227.Google Scholar
  3. Jan GE, Chang KY, Parberry I, 2008. Optimal path planning for mobile robot navigation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 13(4), 451–460. DOI: 10.1109/TMECH.2008.2000822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ji M, Yu X, Yong Y, Nan X, Yu W, 2012. Collision-avoiding aware routing based on real-time hybrid traffic information. Journal of Advanced Materials Research, 396-398, 2511–2514.Google Scholar
  5. Karimanzira D, Jacobi M, Pfuetzenreuter T, Rauschenbach T, Eichhorn M, Taubert R, Ament C, 2014. First testing of an AUV mission planning and guidance system for water quality monitoring and fish behavior observation in net cage fish farming. Information Processing in Agriculture, 1(2), 131–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.inpa.2014.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Koay TB, Chitre M, 2013. Energy-efficient path planning for fully propelled AUVs in congested coastal waters. IEEE OCEANS'13 Bergen, Bergen. DOI: 10.1109/OCEANS-Bergen.2013.6608168Google Scholar
  7. Kladis GP, Economou JT, Knowles K, Lauber J, Guerra TM (2011). Energy conservation based fuzzy tracking for unmanned aerial vehicle missions under a priori known wind information. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24(2), 278–294.Google Scholar
  8. Kruger D, Stolkin R, Blum A, Briganti J, 2007. Optimal AUV path planning for extended missions in complex, fast flowing estuarine environments. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Roma. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.364135Google Scholar
  9. Zadeh S, Powers D, Sammut K, Lammas A, Yazdani AM, 2015. Optimal route planning with prioritized task scheduling for AUV missions. IEEE International Symposium on Robotics and Intelligent Sensors, Langkawi, 7–15.Google Scholar
  10. M.Zadeh S, Powers D, Yazdani AM, 2016a. A novel efficient task-assign route planning method for AUV guidance in a dynamic cluttered environment. IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Vancouver.Google Scholar
  11. M.Zadeh S, Powers MWD, Sammut K, Yazdani AM, 2016b. Differential evolution for efficient AUV path planning in time variant uncertain underwater environment. arXiv:1604.02523Google Scholar
  12. M.Zadeh S, Yazdani A, Sammut K, Powers DMW, 2016c. AUV rendezvous online path planning in a highly cluttered undersea environment using evolutionary algorithms. robotics (cs.RO). arXiv:1604.07002Google Scholar
  13. M.Zadeh S, Powers DMW, Sammut K, Yazdani A, 2016d. Toward efficient task assignment and motion planning for large scale underwater mission. Robotics (cs.RO).arXiv:1604.04854Google Scholar
  14. Nikolos IK, Valavanis KP, Tsourveloudis NC, Kostaras AN, 2003. Evolutionary algorithm based offline/online path planner for UAV navigation. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. B, Cybern. 33(6), 898–912. DOI: 10.1109/tsmcb.2002.804370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simon D, 2008. Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Transaction on Evolutionary Computation, 12, 702–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tam C, Bucknall R, Greig A, 2009. Review of collision avoidance and path planning methods for ships in close range encounters. Journal of Navigation, 62(3), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Volf P, Sislak D, Pechoucek M, 2011. Large-scale high-fidelity agent based simulation in air traffic domain. Cybernetics and Systems, 42(7), 502–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Warren CW, 1990. Technique for autonomous underwater vehicle route planning. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 15(3), 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Willms AR, Yang SX, 2006. An efficient dynamic system for real-time robot-path planning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 36(4), 755–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yilmaz NK, Evangelinos C, Lermusiaux PFJ, Patrikalakis NM, 2008. Path planning of autonomous underwater vehicles for adaptive sampling using mixed integer linear programming. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 33(4), 522–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhu W, Duan H, 2014. Chaotic predator–prey biogeography-based optimization approach for UCAV path planning. Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology, 32(1), 153–161. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2013.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zou L, Xu J, Zhu L, 2007. Application of genetic algorithm in dynamic route guidance system. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 7(3), 45–48. DOI: 10.1016/S1570-6672(07)60021-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Zadeh
    • 1
  • D. M. W. Powers
    • 1
  • K. Sammut
    • 1
  • A. M. Yazdani
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Maritime Engineering, Control and Imaging, School of Computer Science, Engineering and MathematicsFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations