Comparison of Eulerian and Hamiltonian circuits for evolutionary-based path planning of an autonomous surface vehicle for monitoring Ypacarai Lake
- 45 Downloads
An evolutionary-based path planning is designed for an autonomous surface vehicle (ASV) used in environmental monitoring tasks. The main objective is that the ASV covers the maximum area of a large mass of water such as the Ypacarai Lake while taking water samples for sensing pollution conditions. Such coverage problem is transformed into a path planning optimization problem through the placement of a set of data beacons located at the shore of the lake and considering the relationship between the distance traveled by the ASV and the area of the lake covered. The optimal set of beacons to be visited by the ASV has been modeled through two different approaches such as Hamiltonian and Eulerian circuits. When Hamiltonian circuits are used, all the beacons should be visited only once. In the case of Eulerian circuits, the only limitation is that repeated routes cannot exist between two beacons. Both models have important implications on the possible trajectories of ASV throughout the lake. In this paper, we compare the application of both models for the optimization of the proposed evolutionary-based path planning. Due to the complexity of the optimization problem, a metaheuristic technique like a Genetic Algorithm (GA) is used to obtain quasi-optimal solutions in both models. The models have been compared by simulation and the results reveal that the Eulerian circuit approach can achieve an improvement of 2% when comparing to the Hamiltonian circuit approach.
KeywordsAutonomous surface vehicle Coverage path planning Eulerian circuits Hamiltonian circuits Genetic algorithm
The authors would like to thank Fundación Carolina and its PhD scholarships program. The authors would like to thank Mónica Díaz López for her help in proofreading the manuscript.
- Arzamendia M. (2017) https://github.com/Mariuspy/ASVPathPlanningGA. Accesed 5 June 2018.Google Scholar
- Arzamendia M, Gregor D, Reina DG, Toral SL, Gregor R (2016) Evolutionary path planning of an autonomous surface vehicle for water quality monitoring. In: IEEE 9th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), 2016, pp 245–250.Google Scholar
- Brownlee J (2011) Clever algorithms: nature-inspired programming recipes. Jason BrownleeGoogle Scholar
- Miller BN, Ranum DL (2011) Problem solving with algorithms and data structures using python Second Edition. Franklin, Beedle & Associates Inc, PortlandGoogle Scholar
- Pham TH, Bestaoui Y, Mammar S (2017) Aerial robot coverage path planning approach with concave obstacles in precision agriculture. In: IEEE workshop on research, education and development of unmanned aerial systems (RED-UAS), 2017, pp 43–48Google Scholar
- Ryerson AF, Zhang Q (2007) Vehicle path planning for complete field coverage using genetic algorithms. CIGR J, Agric Eng Int 9:1–11Google Scholar
- Sastry K, Goldberg DE, Kendall G (2014) Genetic algorithms. In: Burke EK, Kendall G (eds) Search methodologies. Springer, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
- Schäfle TR, Mohamed S, Uchiyama N, Sawodny O (2016) Coverage path planning for mobile robots using genetic algorithm with energy optimization. In: Electronics Symposium (IES), 2016 International, IEEE, pp 99–104Google Scholar
- Su S, Zhao S (2017) A hierarchical hybrid of genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for distributed clustering in large-scale wireless sensor networks. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput:1–11Google Scholar