Advertisement

Control Action Continuity on Situation-Based Obstacle Avoidance

  • D. Hernandez
  • J. Cabrera
  • A. Dominguez
  • J. Isern
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5717)

Abstract

This work is related to the analysis of reactive obstacle avoidance in general, and specifically to ND algorithms family. Contrary to many previous methods, the ND approach is not aimed at devising a general motion law; instead, it operates over a reduced set of possible situations that are treated by a particular motion law. The big earning of this idea is that it eases the design of control, as now motion laws are specific to every identifiable situation. However, it also raises new issues as nothing guarantees the control action continuity when the diagnostic changes. In this paper a modification of the ND approach, along with experimental results, is presented in order to improve this aspect of the method.

Keywords

Mobile Robot Obstacle Avoidance Situation Transition Obstacle Avoidance Algorithm Security Distance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arras, K.O., Persson, J., Tomatis, N., Siegwart, R.: Real-time obstacle avoidance for polygonal robots with a reduced dynamic window. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3050–3055 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borenstein, J., Koren, Y.: The vector field histogram - fast obstacle avoidance for mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 7(3), 278–288 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brock, O., Khatib, O.: High-speed navigation using the global dynamic window approach. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 341–346 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khatib, M., Chatila, R.: An extended potential field approach for mobile robot sensor-based motions. In: Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS 1995), pp. 490–496 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minguez, J., Montesano, L., Montano, L.: Extending reactive collision avoidance methods to consider any vehicle shape and the kinematics and dynamic constraints. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 3(1), 85–91 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minguez, J., Osuna, J., Montano, L.: A ”divide and conquer” strategy based on situations to achieve reactive collision avoidance in troublesome scenarios. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2004. Proceedings, April 26-May 1, vol. 4, pp. 3855–3862 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minguez, J., Montano, L.: Nearness diagram (ND) navigation: collision avoidance in troublesome scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 20(1), 45–59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Minguez, J., Montano, L.: Extending reactive collision avoidance methods to consider any vehicle shape and the kinematics and dynamic constraints. IEEE Transactions on Robotics (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simmons, R.: The curvature-velocity method for local obstacle avoidance. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, April 1996, pp. 3375–3382 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ulrich, I., Borenstein, J.: VFH*: Local obstacle avoidance with look-ahead verification. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, April 2000, pp. 2505–2511 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hernandez
    • 1
  • J. Cabrera
    • 1
  • A. Dominguez
    • 1
  • J. Isern
    • 1
  1. 1.SIANI, ULPGCSpain

Personalised recommendations