Field and Service Robotics pp 499-512 | Cite as
Local Path Optimizer for an Autonomous Truck in a Harbor Scenario
Abstract
Recently, functional gradient algorithms like CHOMP have been very successful in producing locally optimal motion plans for articulated robots. In this paper, we have adapted CHOMP to work with a non-holonomic vehicle such as an autonomous truck with a single trailer and a differential drive robot. An extended CHOMP with rolling constraints have been implemented on both of these setup which yielded feasible curvatures. This paper details the experimental integration of the extended CHOMP motion planner with the sensor fusion and control system of an autonomous Volvo FH-16 truck. It also explains the experiments conducted on the differential-drive robot. Initial experimental investigations and results conducted in a real-world environment show that CHOMP can produce smooth and collision-free trajectories for mobile robots and vehicles as well. In conclusion, this paper discusses the feasibility of employing CHOMP to mobile robots.
Notes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Volvo Trucks AB, Gothenburg for their contributions in this work. This work has been supported by the EU Project CargoANTs FP7-605598.
References
- 1.Alonso-Mora, J., Breitenmoser, A., Rufli, M. et al.: Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple non-holonomic robots. In: Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 203–216 (2013)Google Scholar
- 2.Bosshard, P., Philippsen, R.: Investigation of Trajectory Optimization for Multiple Car-Like Vehicles, Semester Thesis report, Halmstad University, Sweden (2015)Google Scholar
- 3.Corominas-Murtra, A., Vallvé, J., Solà, J. et al.: Observability analysis and optimal sensor placement in stereo radar odometry. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3161–3166 (2016)Google Scholar
- 4.David, V., Michael, F.: ROS navigation stack (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.David, J., Valencia, R., Iagnemma, K.: Robotics science and system. In: Workshop on Task and Motion Planning, Michigan, USA (2016)Google Scholar
- 6.Kuhn, H.: The hungarian method for the assignment problem. In: 50 Years of Integer Programming 1958–2008, pp. 29–47. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.LaValle, S.: Planning Algorithms. Cambridge university press (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.Turpin, M., Mohta, K., Michael, N., Kumar, V.: Goal assignment and trajectory planning for large teams of aerial robots. Autonom. Robots (2014)Google Scholar
- 9.Matt, Z., Nathan, R., Anca, D., Mihail, P., et al.: CHOMP: covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 32(9–10), 1164–1193 (2009)Google Scholar
- 10.Paolo, F., Zvi, S.: Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles. Int. J. Robot. Res. 17(7), 760–772 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Philippsen, R., Siegwart, R.: Smooth and efficient obstacle avoidance for a tour guide robot. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), LSA-CONF-2003-018 (2003)Google Scholar
- 12.Siciliano, B., Khatib, O.: Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
- 13.Steenken, D., Voß, S., Stahlbock, R.: Container terminal operation and operations research - a classification and literature review. OR Spectr. 26(1), 3–49 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
- 14.Thrun, S., Montemerlo, M., Dahlkamp, H., et al.: Stanley: the robot that won the DARPA grand challenge. J. Field Robot. 23(9), 661–692 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.van den Berg, J., Stephen, J., Ming, L., Dinesh, M.: Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance. In: Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, Robotics Research: The 14th International Symposium (ISRR), pp. 3–19 (2011)Google Scholar