Advertisement

Two-dimensional path finding subject to geometric constraints

  • A. A. AndreychukEmail author
  • K. S. Yakovlev
Control Systems of Moving Objects
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The trajectory planning on a plane is considered as the problem of finding a path in a graph of a special form. Algorithms that are able to solve this problem in the case of geometric constraints, more precisely, under the assumptions that the trajectory is composed of a sequence of straight segments such that the angle between the adjacent segments does not exceed a given threshold, are analyzed. This statement is important for the development of effective navigation methods for unmanned vehicles. A novel algorithm for solving this problem is proposed, and the results of theoretical and experimental studies are presented. The experimental results confirm that the proposed algorithm can be used in practice for planning the trajectory of low-flying unmanned multirotor aerial vehicles in an urban area. They also show that the proposed algorithm significantly exceeds other available algorithms in terms of the number of successfully accomplished tasks.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. A. Makarov, A. I. Panov, and K. S. Yakovlev, “Architecture of the multilayered intelligent control system for unmanned aerial vehicles,” Iskusstv. Intellekt Prinyatie Reshen., No. 3, 18–32 (2015).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. S. Albus, “4D/RCS: a reference model architecture for intelligent unmanned ground vehicles,” in Proceedings of the 16th SPIE Annual International Symposium on Aerospace/Defense Sensing, Simulation and Controls, Orlando, FL, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Yu. Zheltov and B. E. Fedunov, “Operational goal setting in anthropocentric objects from the viewpoint of the conceptual model called Etap: I. Structures of algorithms for the support of crew decision-making,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 54, 384 (2015).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. A. Andreev, A. B. Miller, B. M. Miller, and K. V. Stepanyan, “Path planning for unmanned aerial vehicle under complicated conditions and hazards,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 51, 328 (2012).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Yu. Baklanov and V. M. Morozov, “Stabilization of desired motion of a quadrotor helicopter,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 52, 955 (2013).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. F. Filaretov and D. A. Yukhimets, “Synthesis of a system of automatic calculation of program signals for controlling motion of an underwater vehicle along a complex spatial trajectory,” J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 49, 96 (2010).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. N. Kanatnikov, A. P. Krishchenko, and S. B. Tkachev, “Permissible spatial trajectories of an unmanned aerial vehicle in the vertical plane,” Nauka Obrazov., No. 3 (2012). http://technomag.edu.ru/doc/367724.html.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Ferguson, M. Likhachev, and A. Stentz, “A guide to heuristic-based path planning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling ICAPS-2015, Jerusalem, Israel, 2015, pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. M. la Valle and J. J. Kuffner, “Randomized kinodynamic planning,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 20, 378–400 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Kuwata, S. Karaman, J. Teo, E. Frazzoli, J. P. How, and G. Fiore, “Real-time motion planning with applications to autonomous urban driving,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 17, 1105–1118 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. I. Zhulev, V. S. Levushkin, and T. N. Nguen, “Real time trajectory planning for unmanned ground vehicle,” Vestn. RGRTU 46 (4), 18–23 (2013).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. S. Yakovlev and E. S. Baskin, “Graph models for solving 2D path finding problems,” Iskusstv. Intellekt Prinyat. Reshen., No. 1, 5–12 (2013).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. S. Yakovlev, D. A. Makarov, and E. S. Baskin, “UAV path planning technique under flight dynamics constraints,” Iskusstv. Intellekt Prinyat. Reshen., No. 4, 3–17 (2014).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Yakovlev, E. Baskin, and I. Hramoin, “Grid-based angle-constrained path planning,” in Proceedings of the 38th Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence KI’2015, Dresden, Germany (Springer International, New York, 2015), pp. 208–221.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. S. Yakovlev and E. S. Baskin, “Euristical estimation of path planning quality by LIAN-search method,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on System Analysis and Informational Technologies SAIT-2015, Vol. 1, pp. 132–138.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. O. Lavrov, V. V. Petrov, and B. E. Fedunov, “The operative design of the trajectory on the plane for the leaving of the object in the given point with the given course. Part 1,” Mekhatron., Avtomatiz., Upravl., No. 2, 54–59 (2014).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. O. Lavrov, V. V. Petrov, and B. E. Fedunov, “The operative design of the trajectory on the plane for the leaving of the object in the given point with the given course. Part 2,” Mekhatron., Avtomatiz., Upravl., No. 3, 48–55 (2014).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. O. Lavrov, V. V. Petrov, and B. E. Fedunov, “The operative design of the trajectory on the plane for the leaving of the object in the given point with the given course. Part 3,” Mekhatron., Avtomatiz., Upravl., no. 4, 52–55 (2014).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. E. Bresenham, “Algorithm for computer control of a digital plotter,” IBM J. Syst. 4, 25–30 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. L. V. Pitteway, Algorithms of Conic Generation, Fundamental Algorithms for Computer Graphics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991), pp. 219–237.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybernet. 4, 100–107 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. W. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” Numer. Math. 1, 269–271 (1959).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Botea, M. Muller, and J. Schaeer, “Near optimal hierarchical path-finding,” J. Game Developm. 1, 7–28 (2004).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Daniel, A. Nash, S. Koenig, and A. Felner, “Theta*: any-angle path planning on grids,” J. Artific. Intelligence Res. 39, 533–579 (2010).MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Botea, M. Muller, and J. Schaeer, “Near optimal hierarchical path-finding,” J. Game Developm. 1, 7–28 (2004).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Likhachev and A. Stentz, “R* search,” in Proceedings of the 23d AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence AAAI-2008 (AAAI, Chicago, IL, 2008), pp. 344–350.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Likhachev, G. Gordon, and S. Thrun, “ARA*: anytime A* with provable bounds on sub-optimality,” Adv. Neural Inform. Process. Syst. 16, 767–774 (2003).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Munoz and M. Rodriguez-Moreno, “Improving efficiency in any-angle path-planning algorithms,” in Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems IS-2012, Sofia, Bulgaria (IEEE, 2012), pp. 213–218.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Kim, D. Kim, J. U. Shin, H. Kim, and H. Myung, “Angular rate-constrained path planning algorithm for unmanned surface vehicles,” Ocean Eng. 84, 37–44 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Haklay and P. Weber, “Openstreetmap: user-generated street maps,” Pervasive Comput. 7 (4), 12–18 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    N. Sturtevant, “Benchmarks for grid-based pathfinding,” Trans. Comput. Intelligence AI Games 4, 144–148 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations