Advertisement

Fuzzy Greedy RRT Path Planning Algorithm in a Complex Configuration Space

  • Ehsan Taheri
  • Mohammad Hossein Ferdowsi
  • Mohammad Danesh
Regular Papers Intelligent Control and Applications
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

A randomized sampling-based path planning algorithm for holonomic mobile robots in complex configuration spaces is proposed in this article. A complex configuration space for path planning algorithms may cause different environmental constraints including the convex/concave obstacles, narrow passages, maze-like spaces and cluttered obstacles. The number of vertices and edges of a search tree for path planning in these configuration spaces would increase through the conventional randomized sampling-based algorithm leading to exacerbation of computational complexity and required runtime. The proposed path planning algorithm is named fuzzy greedy rapidly-exploring random tree (FG-RRT). The FG-RRT is equipped with a fuzzy inference system (FIS) consisting of two inputs, one output and nine rules. The first input is a Euclidean function applied in evaluating the quantity of selected parent vertex. The second input is a metaheuristic function applied in evaluating the quality of selected parent vertex. The output indicates the competency of the selected parent vertex for generating a random offspring vertex. This algorithm controls the tree edges growth direction and density in different places of the configuration space concurrently. The proposed method is implemented on a Single Board Computer (SBC) through the xPC Target to evaluate this algorithm. For this purpose four test-cases are designed with different complexity. The results of the Processor-in-the-Loop (PIL) tests indicate that FG-RRT algorithm reduces the required runtime and computational complexity in comparison with the conventional and greedy RRT through fewer number of vertices in planning an initial path in significant manner.

Keywords

Holonomic robot processor-in-the-loop test rapidly-exploring random tree sampling-based path planning single board computer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. Finn and S. Scheding, Developments and Challenges for Autonomous Unmanned Vehicles, Springer, Berlin, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. C. Insaurralde, Intelligent Autonomy for Unmanned Marine Vehicles, Springer, Switzerland, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    T. T. Mac, C. Copot, D. T. Tran, and R. D. Keyser, “Heuristic approaches in robot path planning: a survey,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 86, pp. 13–28, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Grabowski, “Big picture for autonomy research in DoD,” Soft and Secure Systems and Software and SW Symposium, 2015.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    T. L. Perez and M. A. Wesley, “An algorithm for planning collision-free paths among polyhedral obstacles,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 560–570, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Tang, W. Khaksar, N. Ismail, and M. Ariffin, “A review on robot motion planning approaches,” Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E. Masehian and D. Sedighizadeh, “Classic and heuristic approaches in robot motion planning-a chronological review,” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 101–106, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Y. Quinonez, F. Barrera, I. Bugueno, and J. B. Calfa, “Simulation and path planning for quadcopter obstacle avoidance in indoor environments using the ROS framework,” Proc. of the International Conf. Software Process Improvement, pp. 295–304, 2017.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Candeloro, A. M. Lekkas, and A. J. Sorensen, “A voronoi-diagram-based dynamic path-planning system for underactuated marine vessels,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 61, pp. 41–54, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Masehian and M. R. A. Naseri, “A voronoi diagramvisibility graph-potential field compound algorithm for robot path planning,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 275–300, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Gonzalez, M. Kloetzer, and C. Mahulea, “Comparative study of trajectories resulted from cell decomposition path planning approaches,” Proc. of the 21st International Conf. System Theory, Control and Computing, pp. 49–54, 2017.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Y. Chen, G. Luo, Y. Mei, J. Yu, and X. Su, “UAV path planning using artificial potential field method updated by optimal control theory,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1407–1420, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. T. Schwartz, and M. Sharir, “On the piano movers’ problem I. The case of a two-dimensional rigid polygonal body moving amidst polygonal barriers,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 345–398, 1983.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. E Kavraki, P. Svestka, J. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, “Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in highdimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 566–580, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. M. Lavalle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: a new tool for path planning,” Citeseer, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Yang, Y. Kang, and S. Sukkarieh, “Adaptive nonlinear model predictive path-following control for a fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicl,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 65–74, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. C. Kim and J.B. Song, “Informed RRT* with improved converging rate by adopting wrapping procedure,” Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 53–60, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    I. Noreen, A. Khan, and Z. Habib, “A comparison of RRT, RRT* and RRT*-smart path planning algorithms,” International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 20–27, 2016.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    A. Perez, R. Platt, G. Konidaris, L. Kaelbling, and T. L. Perez, “LQR-RRT*: Optimal sampling-based motion planning with automatically derived extension heuristics,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 2537–2542, 2012.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. J. Kuffner and S. M. LaValle, “RRT-connect: an efficient approach to single-query path planning,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 995–1001, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    D. Schneider, E. Schomerr, and N. Wolpert, “Completely randomized RRT-connect: a case study on 3D rigid body motion planning,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 2944–2950, 2015.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. J. Webb and J. V. D. Berg, “Kinodynamic RRT*: asymptotically optimal motion planning for robots with linear dynamics,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 5054–5061, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. C. Luo and C. Huang, “Anytime dynamic exploring rapid random tree approach in higher dimension search space for non-holonomic robotics,” Proc. of the International Conf. Advanced Robotics and Intelligent Systems, pp. 1–6, 2016.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Y. Dong, E. Camci, and E. Kayacan, “Faster RRT-based nonholonomic path planning in 2D building environments using skeleton-constrained path biasing,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 89, pp. 387–401, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    L. Palmieri, S. Koenig, and K. Arras, “RRT-based nonholonomic motion planning using any-angle path biasing,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 2775–2781, 2016.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    F. Burget, M. Bennewitz, and W. Burgard, “BI2RRT*: An efcient sampling-based path planning framework for taskconstrained mobile manipulation,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3714–3721, 2016.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    D. Kim, J. Lee, and S. Yoon, “Cloud RRT*: Sampling cloud based RRT*,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 2519–2526, 2014.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Elbanhawi, M. Simic, and R. Jazar, “Randomized bidirectional b-spline parameterization motion planning,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 406–419, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    I. Noreen, A. Khan, H. Ryu, N. L. Doh, and Z. Habib, “Optimal path planning in cluttered environment using RRT*-AB,” Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 41–52, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. Cui, Y. Li, and W. Yan, “Mutual information based multi-AUV path planning for scalar field sampling using multidimensional RRT*,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 993–1004, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    O. Salzman and D. Halperin, “Asymptotically near-optimal RRT for fast, high-quality motion planning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 473–483, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    D. Devaurs, T. Simeon, and J. Cortes, “A multi-tree extension of the transition-based RRT: application to orderingand-pathfinding problems in continuous cost spaces,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2991–2996, 2014.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    W. Y. Shin, J. J. Shin, B. Kim, and K. Jeong, “Line segment selection method for fast path planning,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1322–1331, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    C. H. Kim and S. Sugano, “Closed loop trajectory optimization based on reverse time tree,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1404–1412, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    K. Yang, “Anytime synchronized-biased-greedy rapidlyexploring random tree path planning in two dimensional complex environments,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 750–758, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    C. Moon and W. Chung, “Kinodynamic planner dual-tree RRT (DT-RRT) for two-wheeled mobile robots using the rapidly exploring random tree,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 1080–1090, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    L. Palmieri and K. Arras, “Distance metric learning for RRT-based motion planning with constant-time inference,” Proc. of the IEEE International Conf. Robotics and Automation, pp. 637–643, 2015.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    S. Khanmohammadi and A. Mahdizadeh, “Density avoided sampling: an intelligent sampling technique for rapidlyexploring random trees,” Proc. of the Eighth International Conf. Hybrid Intelligent Systems, pp. 672–677, 2008.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    S. Lee, H. Bang, and D. Lee, “Predictive ground collision avoidance system for UAV applications: PGCAS design for fixed-wing UAVs and processor in the loop simulation,” Proc. of the International Conf. Unmanned Aircraft Systems, pp. 1287–1292, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems and The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ehsan Taheri
    • 1
  • Mohammad Hossein Ferdowsi
    • 1
  • Mohammad Danesh
    • 2
  1. 1.Control Group, Electrical Engineering DepartmentMalek-Ashtar University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations