Decentralized Three Dimensional Formation Building Algorithms for a Team of Nonholonomic Mobile Agents

  • Valimohammad NazarzehiEmail author
  • Andrey V. Savkin


This article studies 3D formation building in three dimensional spaces by a team of mobile robotic sensors. The multi-agent system consists of mobile robotic sensors defined by the three degrees of freedom kinematics equations with the constraints on their linear and angular velocities. First, we propose a distributed consensus-based control algorithm for the mobile agents which result in forming a desired geometric configuration in 3D environments. Then, we present a decentralized random motion coordination law for the mobile robotic sensors for the case when the agents are unaware of their positions in the configuration in three dimensional environments. The proposed algorithms use some simple consensus rules for motion coordination and building desired geometric patterns. Convergence of the mobile agents to the given configurations are shown by extensive simulations. Moreover, performance of the proposed control laws have been proved mathematically.


Decentralized control mobile robots multi-agents systems robot navigation 3D formation building 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    K. Sakurama, Y. Kosaka, and S. Nishida, “Formation control of swarm robots with multiple proximity distance sensors,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 16–26, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Y. Liu and R. Bucknall, “A survey of formation control and motion planning of multiple unmanned vehicles,” Robotica, pp. 1–29, 2018.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    V. Nazarzehi and A. V. Savkin, “Distributed selfdeployment of mobile wireless 3d robotic sensor networks for complete sensing coverage and forming specific shapes,” Robotica, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    K.-K. Oh and H.-S. Ahn, “Leader-follower type distancebased formation control of a group of autonomous agents,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 1738–1745, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Z. Peng, G. Wen, A. Rahmani, and Y. Yu, “Distributed consensus-based formation control for multiple nonholonomic mobile robots with a specified reference trajectory,” International Journal of Systems Science, pp. 1–11, 2013.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    T. Nguyen, H. M. La, T. D. Le, and M. Jafari, “Formation control and obstacle avoidance of multiple rectangular agents with limited communication ranges,” IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 680–691, Dec 2017.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Jin and N. Gans, “Collision-free formation and heading consensus of nonholonomic robots as a pose regulation problem,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 95, pp. 25–36, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. Xie, B. Ma, T. Fernando, and H. H.-C. Iu, “A new formation control of multiple underactuated surface vessels,” International Journal of Control, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1011–1022, 2018.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. V. Savkin, C. Wang, A. Baranzadeh, Z. Xi, and H. T. Nguyen, “Distributed formation building algorithms for groups of wheeled mobile robots,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 75, pp. 463–474, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Liu, H. Ma, X. Ren, T. Shi, P. Li, and X. Ma, “The continuous-discrete pso algorithm for shape formation problem of multiple agents in two and three dimensional space,” Applied Soft Computing, 2018.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    N. Moshtagh and A. Jadbabaie, “Distributed geodesic control laws for flocking of nonholonomic agents,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 681–686, 2007.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Nazarzehi had and A. V. Savkin, “Decentralized navigation of nonholonomic robots for 3d formation building,” Proc., of the 2014.IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, IEEE, 2014.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Roussos, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “3d navigation and collision avoidance for nonholonomic aircraft-like vehicles,” International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 900–920, 2010.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Wang, A. V. Savkin, and M. Garratt, “A strategy for safe 3d navigation of non-holonomic robots among moving obstacles,” Robotica, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 275–297, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. S. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 988–1001, 2003.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. V. Savkin, “Coordinated collective motion of groups of autonomous mobile robots: analysis of Vicsek’s model,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 981–983, 2004.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    H. Teimoori and A. V. Savkin, “Equiangular navigation and guidance of a wheeled mobile robot based on rangeonly measurements,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 203–215, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. V. Savkin and R. J. Evans, Hybrid Dynamical Systems: Controller and Sensor Switching Problems, Birkhauser, Boston, 2002.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICROS, KIEE and Springer 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chabahar Maritime and Marine UniversityChabaharIran
  2. 2.School of Electrical Engineering and TelecommunicationsThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations