Adaptive Differential Evolution-based Receding Horizon Control Design for Multi-UAV Formation Reconfiguration
- 25 Downloads
The complicated and constrained reconfiguration optimisation for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is a challenge, particularly when multi-mission requirements are taken into account. In this study, we evaluate the use of the adaptive differential evolution-based centralised receding horizon control approach to achieve the formation reconfiguration along a given formation group trajectory for multiple unmanned aerial vehicles in a three-dimensional (3D) environment. A rolling optimisation approach which combines the receding horizon control method with the adaptive differential evolution algorithm is proposed, where the receding horizon control method divides the global control problem into a series of local optimisations and each local optimisation problem is solved by an adaptive differential evolution algorithm. Furthermore, a novel quadratic reconfiguration cost function with the topology information of UAVs is presented, and the asymptotic convergence of the rolling optimisation is analysed. Finally, simulation examples are provided to illustrate the validity of the proposed control structure.
KeywordsAdaptive differential evolution (DE) algorithm formation reconfiguration multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) receding horizon control (RHC) rolling optimization
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- V. Sherstjukl, M. Zharikova, and I. Sokol, “Forest fire-fighting monitoring system based on UAV team and remote sensing,” Proc. of the 38th Conf. Electronics and Nanotechnology, pp. 663–668, 2018.Google Scholar
- X. Li, Z. Li, B. Fu, B. Wu, and Y. Liu, “A mini consumer grade unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for small scale terrace detection,” Proc. of the 37th Conf. International Geo-science and Remote Sensing Symposium, pp. 3349–3352, 2017.Google Scholar
- R. Khanna, M. Moller, J. Pfeifer, F. Liebisch, A. Walter, and R. Siegwart, “Beyond point clouds- 3D mapping and field parameter measurements using UAVs,” Proc. of the 20th Conf. Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation, pp. 1–4, 2015.Google Scholar
- Z. Zheng and H. Yi, “Backstepping control design for UAV formation with input saturation constraint and model uncertainty,” Proc. of the 36th Conf. Chinese Control, pp. 6056–6060, 2017.Google Scholar
- P. Li, K. Qin, and H. Pu, “Distributed robust time-varying formation control for multiple unmanned aerial vehicles systems with time-delay,” Proc. of the 56th Conf. Chinese Control and Decision, pp. 1539–1544, 2017.Google Scholar
- Y. Li, G. Zhou, W. Chen, and S. Zhang, “Design of UAV close formation controller based on sliding mode variable structure,” Proc. of the 1st Conf. Information Technology and Intelligent Trans-portation Systems, pp. 463–476, 2015.Google Scholar
- X. Zhang, H. Duan, and C. Yang, “Pigeon-inspired optimization approach to multiple UAVs formation reconfiguration controller design,” Proc. of the 6th Conf. Chinese Guidance, Navigation and Control, pp. 2707–2712, 2014.Google Scholar
- M. Zhang, “PSO&PID controller design of UAV formation flight,” Proc. of the 8th Conf. Chinese Guidance, Navigation and Control, pp. 592–596, 2016.Google Scholar
- J. Wang and M. Xin, “Multi-agent consensus algorithm with obstacle avoidance via optimal control approach,” Proc. of the 30th Conf. American Control, pp. 2783–2788, 2011.Google Scholar
- R. Knobloch, J. Mlynek, and R. Srb, “The classic differential evolution algorithm and its convergence properties,” Applications of Mathematics, vol. 62 no. 2, pp. 197–208, March 2017.Google Scholar
- H. A. Abbass, “The self-adaptive pareto differential evolution algorithm,” Proc. of the 4th Conf. Evolutionary Computation., pp. 831–836, 2002.Google Scholar