Advertisement

A Stable Switched-System Approach to Collision-Free Wheeled Mobile Robot Navigation

  • Jingfu Jin
  • YoonGu Kim
  • SungGil Wee
  • DongHa Lee
  • Nicholas GansEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a novel switched-system approach for obstacle avoidance by mobile robots. This approach does not suffer from common drawbacks of existing methods, such as needing prior knowledge of obstacles, or local minima or chattering in control laws. We define an attractive and an avoidance vector in obstacle-free and obstacle-avoidance regions, respectively. Next, we define an unified velocity vector, which represents either the attractive vector or the avoidance vector, and drives the robot away from the obstacle and ultimately towards the goal. The avoidance vector differs from the repulsive vector commonly used in potential field approaches, rather it is defined always perpendicular to such a repulsive vector and projects positively onto the attractive vector. The unified velocity vector enables the use of a common Lyapunov function in analyzing the stability of the system under arbitrary switching. Novel switching rules are proposed for obstacles that can be well bounded by a circle in the local subset of SE(2). To better handle large, non-circular obstacles, a separate switching signal is proposed. Through the choice of switching rule, we investigate the chattering problem that can hinder some switching controllers. We present two control laws, one with bounded inputs and one with no bounds on inputs. We prove both control schemes are asymptotically stable and guide the robot to the goal while avoiding obstacles. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach, as well as compare the control laws and switching rules, several simulations and experiments have been conducted.

Keywords

Obstacle avoidance Mobile robots Switched system control Nonholonomic systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

(MP4 17.5 MB)

(MP4 7.30 MB)

(MP4 7.24 MB)

(MP4 7.74 MB)

References

  1. 1.
    Khatib, O.: Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. The International Journal of Robotics Research 5(1), 90–98 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin, R.C.: Motor schema-based mobile robot navigation. The International Journal of Robotics Research 8(4), 92–112 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koren, Y., Borenstein, J.: Potential field methods and their inherent limitations for mobile robot navigation. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 1398–1404 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ge, S.S., Cui, Y.J.: New potential functions for mobile robot path planning. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 16(5), 615–620 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shimoda, S., Kuroda, Y., Iagnemma, K.: Potential field navigation of high speed unmanned ground vehicles on uneven terrain. In: IEEE Internation Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 2828–2833 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fahimi, F., Nataraj, C., Ashrafiuon, H.: Real-time obstacle avoidance for multiple mobile robots. Robotica 27(2), 189–198 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindemann, S.R., LaValle, S.M.: Simple and efficient algorithms for computing smooth, collision-free feedback laws over given cell decompositions. The International Journal of Robotics Research 28(5), 600–621 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dietrich, A., Albu-Schaffer, A., Hirzinger, G.: On continuous null space projections for torque-based, hierarchical, multi-objective manipulation. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 2978–2985 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shiller, Z., Sharma, S., Stern, I., Stern, A.: Online obstacle avoidance at high speeds. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32(9-10), 1030–1047 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ge, S., Cui, Y.: Dynamic motion planning for mobile robots using potential field method. Auton. Robot. 13, 207–222 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karagoz, C., Bozma, H., Koditschek, D.: Coordinated navigation of multiple independent disk-shaped robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 30(6), 1289–1304 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma, Y., Zheng, G., Perruquetti, W., Qiu, Z.: Motion planning for non-holonomic mobile robots using the i-pid controller and potential field. In: IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Connolly, C.I., Burns, J., Weiss, R.: Path planning using laplace’s equation. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 2102–2106. IEEE (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Panagou, D., Tanner, H.G., Kyriakopoulos, K.J.: Control of nonholonomic systems using reference vector fields. In: the 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control, pp 2831–2836 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ren, J., McIsaac, K., Patel, R.: Modified newtons method applied to potential field based navigation for nonholonomic robots in dynamic environments. Robotica 26, 285–294 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welzl, E.: Constructing the visibility graph for n-line segments in o (n2) time. Inf. Process. Lett. 20(4), 167–171 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aurenhammer, F.: Voronoi diagramsa survey of a fundamental geometric data structure. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 23(3), 345–405 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amato, N.M., Wu, Y.: A randomized roadmap method for path and manipulation planning. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp 113–120 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amato, N.M., Bayazit, O.B., Dale, L. K., Jones, C., Vallejo, D.: Choosing good distance metrics and local planners for probabilistic roadmap methods. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp 630–637 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garrido, S., Moreno, L., Blanco, D., Jurewicz, P.: Path planning for mobile robot navigation using voronoi diagram and fast marching. Int. J. Robot. Autom. 2(1), 42–64 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    LaValle, S.M., Kuffner, J.J.: Randomized kinodynamic planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research 20(5), 378–400 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arkin, R.C.: Behavior-based robot navigation for extended domains. Adaptove Behavior 1(2), 201–225 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Egerstedt, M., Johansson, K., Lygeros, J., Sastry, S.: Behavior based robotics using regularized hybrid automata. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 4, pp 3400–3405 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bennett, A.A., Leonard, J.J.: A behavior-based approach to adaptive feature detection and following with autonomous underwater vehicles. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 25(2), 213–226 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li, S., Li, Y., Lu, H.: Mobile robot collision avoidance algorithm based on hybrid zeno behavior automaton. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, pp 474–479 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Droge, G., Egerstedt, M.: Adaptive look-ahead for robotic navigation in unknown environments. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp 1134–1139 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sgorbissa, A., Zaccaria, R.: Planning and obstacle avoidance in mobile robotics. Robot. Auton. Syst. 60(4), 628–638 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arrichiello, F., Chiaverini, S., Indiveri, G., Pedone, P.: The null-space-based behavioral control for mobile robots with velocity actuator saturations. The International Journal of Robotics Research 29(10), 1317–1337 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Flacco, F., Luca, A.D., Khatib, O.: Motion control of redundant robots under joint constraints: Saturation in the null space. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 285–292 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Egerstedt, M.: Behavior based robotics using hybrid automata, pp 103–116. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lamiraux, F., Bonnafous, D., Lefebvre, O.: Reactive path deformation for nonholonomic mobile robots. IEEE Trans. Robot. 20(6), 967–977 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Minguez, J., Montano, L., Santos-Victor, J.: Abstracting vehicle shape and kinematic constraints from obstacle avoidance methods. Auton. Robot. 20(1), 43–59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khansari-Zadeh, S., Billard, A.: A dynamical system approach to realtime obstacle avoidance. Auton. Robot. 32(4), 433–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klancar, G., Skrjanc, I.: Tracking-error model-based predictive control for mobile robots in real time. Robot. Auton. Syst. 55, 460–469 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Klancar, G., Matko, D., Blaic, S.: Wheeled mobile robots control in a linear platoon. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 54, 709–731 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Do, K.D.: Bounded controllers for global path tracking control of unicycle-type mobile robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61(8), 775–784 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liberzon, D.: Switching in Systems and Control. Birkhauser (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bacciotti, A., Mazzi, L.: An invariance principle for nonlinear switched systems. Syst. Control Lett. 54(11), 1109–1119 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kanayama, Y., Kimura, Y., Miyazaki, F., Noguchi, T.: A stable tracking control method for an autonomous mobile robot. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 384–389 (1990)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jin, J., Green, A., Gans, N.: A stable switched-system approach to obstacle avoidance for mobile robots in se(2). In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp 1533–1539 (2014)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Steinbrucker, F., Sturm, J., Cremers, D.: Real-time visual odometry from dense rgb-d images. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, pp 719–722 (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jin, J., Kim, Y., Wee, S., Gans, N.: A stable switched-system approach to shared robust control and obstacle avoidance for mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Dynamic Systems and Control Conferences (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mastellone, S., Stipanovic, D., Spong, M.: Remote formation control and collision avoidance for multi-agent nonholonomic systems. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.Robotics System Research DivisionDGISTDaeguSouth Korea
  3. 3.Convergence Research Center for Collaborative RobotsDaegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and TechnologyDaeguSouth Korea
  4. 4.Convergence Research Center for WellnessDaegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and TechnologyDaeguSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations