Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-criteria metric to evaluate motion planners for underwater intervention

  • Published:
Autonomous Robots Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Underwater autonomous manipulation is the capability of a mobile robot to perform intervention tasks that require physical contact with unstructured environments without continuous human supervision. Being difficult to assess the behaviour of existing motion planner algorithms, this research proposes a new planner evaluation metric to identify well-behaved planners for specialized tasks of inspection and monitoring of man-made underwater structures. This metric is named NEMU and combines three different performance indicators: effectiveness, safety and adaptability. NEMU deals with the randomization of sampling-based motion planners. Moreover, this article presents a benchmark of multiple planners applied to a 6 DoF manipulator operating underwater. Results conducted in real scenarios show that different planners are better suited for different tasks. Experiments demonstrate that the NEMU metric can be used to distinguish the performance of planners for particular movement conditions. Moreover, it identifies the most promising planner for collision-free motion planning, being a valuable contribution for the inspection of maritime structures, as well as for the manipulation procedures of autonomous underwater vehicles during close range operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Ioan A. Sucan and Sachin Chitta,“MoveIt”, [Online] Available at moveit.ros.org.

  2. \(\beta \) values for MPP 1, MPP 2 and MPP 3 are 10000, 900 and 600, respectively.

  3. “Qualisys | MotionCaptureSystems.”[Online]. Available:https://www.qualisys.com/

References

  • Barbalata, C., Dunnigan, M. W., & Petillot, Y. (2018). Position/force operational space control for underwater manipulation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 100, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlin, R., & Kavraki, L. (2000). Path planning using lazy PRM. In: Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065), vol 1, pp. 521–528 vol.1, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844107

  • Bonin-Font, F., Oliver, G., Wirth, S., Massot, M., Lluis Negre, P., & Beltran, J. P. (2015). Visual sensing for autonomous underwater exploration and intervention tasks. Ocean Engineering, 93, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cieslak, P., Ridao, P., & Giergiel, M. (2015). Autonomous underwater panel operation by girona500 UVMS: A practical approach to autonomous underwater manipulation. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 529–536, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139230

  • Cieślak, P., Simoni, R., Ridao Rodríguez, P., & Youakim, D. (2020). Practical formulation of obstacle avoidance in the task-priority framework for use in robotic inspection and intervention scenarios. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 124, 103396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.103396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman David, T. (2014). Reducing the barrier to entry of complex robotic software: A moveit! case study. https://doi.org/10.6092/JOSER_2014_05_01_P3

  • Devaurs, D., Siméon, T., & Cortés, J. (2013). Enhancing the transition-based rrt to deal with complex cost spaces. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 4120–4125, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6631158

  • Dobson, A., & Bekris, K. E. (2013). Improving sparse roadmap spanners. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 4106–4111, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6631156

  • Dobson, A., Krontiris, A., & Bekris, K. E. (2013). Sparse roadmap spanners. In E. Frazzoli, T. Lozano-Perez, N. Roy, & D. Rus (Eds.), Algorithmic foundations of robotics X (pp. 279–296). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, T. (2019). Autonomous systems in O &M removing the barriers to bvlos operations Tech. rep., University of Hull.

  • Gipson, B., Moll, M., & Kavraki, L. E. (2013). Resolution independent density estimation for motion planning in high-dimensional spaces. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp. 2437–2443, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630908

  • Hauser, K. (2015). Lazy collision checking in asymptotically-optimal motion planning. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 2951–2957, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2015.7139603

  • Heshmati-Alamdari, S., Bechlioulis, C. P., Karras, G. C., Nikou, A., Dimarogonas, D. V., & Kyriakopoulos, K. J. (2018). A robust interaction control approach for underwater vehicle manipulator systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 46, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2018.10.003.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Heshmati-Alamdari, S., Karras, G.C., & Kyriakopoulos, K. J. (2019). A distributed predictive control approach for cooperative manipulation of multiple underwater vehicle manipulator systems. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 4626–4632, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793476.

  • Hsu, D., Latombe, J. C., & Motwani, R. (1997). Path planning in expansive configuration spaces. In: Proceedings of international conference on robotics and automation, vol 3, pp. 2719–2726, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1997.619371

  • Janson, L., Schmerling, E., Clark, A., & Pavone, M. (2015). Fast marching tree: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion planning in many dimensions. 1306.3532

  • Karaman, S., & Frazzoli, E. (2011). Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7), 846–894. https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364911406761.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kavraki, L., Svestka, P., Latombe, J. C., & Overmars, M. (1996). Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 12(4), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1109/70.508439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuffner, J., & LaValle, S. (2000). Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. In: Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065), vol 2, pp. 995–1001 vol.2, https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844730

  • Ladd, A. M., & Kavraki, L. (2005). Motion planning in the presence of drift, underactuation and discrete system changes. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (pp. 233–241). Boston: MIT Press.

  • LaValle, S. (1998). Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning. The annual research report

  • Meijer, J., Lei, Q., Wisse, M. (2017). Performance study of single-query motion planning for grasp execution using various manipulators. In: 2017 18th international conference on advanced robotics (ICAR), pp. 450–457, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAR.2017.8023648

  • Pinto, A. M., & Matos, A. C. (2020). Maresye: A hybrid imaging system for underwater robotic applications. Information Fusion, 55, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.07.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salzman, O., & Halperin, D. (2016). Asymptotically near-optimal RRT for fast, high-quality motion planning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 32(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2016.2539377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, G., & Latombe, J. C. (2003). A single-query bi-directional probabilistic roadmap planner with lazy collision checking. In R. A. Jarvis & A. Zelinsky (Eds.), Robotics Research (pp. 403–417). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simetti, E., Casalino, G., Torelli, S., Sperindé, A., & Turetta, A. (2014). Floating underwater manipulation: Developed control methodology and experimental validation within the trident project. Journal of Field Robotics, 31(3), 364–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şucan, I. A., & Kavraki, L. E. (2010). Kinodynamic motion planning by interior-exterior cell exploration (pp. 449–464). Heidelberg: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Youakim, D., Ridao, P., Palomeras, N., Spadafora, F., Ribas, D., & Muzzupappa, M. (2017). Moveit!: Autonomous underwater free-floating manipulation. IEEE Robotics Automation Magazine, 24(3), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2636369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering Technology and Science, Porto, Portugal

    Renato Silva

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto and INESCTEC, Porto, Portugal

    Aníbal Matos & Andry Maykol Pinto

Authors
  1. Renato Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aníbal Matos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andry Maykol Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renato Silva.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This research has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 - The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2014–2020, under grant agreement No. 871571. This work is co-financed by the ERDF - European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation - COMPETE 2020 under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, and through the Portuguese National Innovation Agency (ANI) as a part of project NESSIE: POCI-01-0247-FEDER-039817. The work of Renato Silva was supported in part by the Portuguese Government through the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) by the Ph.D. Grant under Grant 2020.08349.BD.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (mp4 313670 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silva, R., Matos, A. & Pinto, A.M. Multi-criteria metric to evaluate motion planners for underwater intervention. Auton Robot 46, 971–983 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-022-10060-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-022-10060-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation