Coordination of Cyclic Motion Processes in Free-Ranging Multiple Mobile Robot Systems

  • Elzbieta RoszkowskaEmail author
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 241)


We consider a Multiple Mobile Robot System (MMRS) viewed as a group of autonomous robots sharing a common 2D motion space. Each robot performs a mission that requires it to travel a number of times along a specific, independently planned closed path. The robots operate asynchronously and are able to control their motion with path-following algorithms that allow each of them to correctly perform its mission when alone on the stage. When sharing the motion space, the robots must refine their motion strategies in order to avoid collisions, through modification of their paths, velocity profiles or both. Following our earlier contributions, we represent MMRS as a class of RAS (Resource Allocation System) that abstracts in a discrete form the motion space and the motion processes of the robots. A model of the feasible dynamic behavior of the robot system is then obtained by mapping the distinguished RAS into a DFSA (Deterministic Finite State Automaton) that ensures collision avoidance among the robots. Based on this model, we formulate the deadlock avoidance problem, discuss its complexity, and demonstrate relevant algorithms to solve it. Finally, we propose a control architecture that implements the described control logic and combines it with the priority control, thus receiving a flexible controller for MMRS.



This work was partially supported by grant no. 2016/23/B/ST7/01441 of the National Science Center.


  1. 1.
    Barraquand, J., Latombe, J.: Robot motion planning: a distributed representation approach. Int. J. Robot. Res. 10(6), 628–649 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassandras, C.G., Lafortune, S.: Introduction to Discrete Event Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang, C., Chung, J., Lee, B.: Collision avoidance of two robot manipulators by minimum delay time. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 24(3), 517–522 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, D., Shadden, S., Marsden, J., Olfati Saber, R.: Collision avoidance for multiple agent systems. In: Proceedings of 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, HI, USA, 9–12 December 2003, pp. 539–543. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cirillo, M., Pecora, F., Andreasson, H., Uras, T., Koenig, S.: Integrated motion planning and coordination for industrial vehicles. In: ICAPS’14 Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA, 21–26 June 2014, pp. 463–471. AAAI Press (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Claes, D., Tuyls, K.: Multi robot collision avoidance in a shared workspace. Auton. Robot. 42(8), 1749–1770 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Draganjac, I., Miklic, D., Kovacic, Z., Vasiljevic, G., Bogdan, S.: Decentralized control of multi-AGV systems in autonomous warehousing applications. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 13(4), 1433–1447 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferrera, E., Capitán, J., Castaño, A.R., Marrón, P.J.: Decentralized safe conflict resolution for multiple robots in dense scenarios. Robot. Auton. Syst. 91, 179–193 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khatib, O.: Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. Int. J. Robot. Res. 5(1), 90–98 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kousi, N., Koukas, S., Michalos, G., Makris, S.: Scheduling of smart intra-factory material supply operations using mobile robots. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57(3), 801–814 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reveliotis, S., Roszkowska, E.: On the complexity of maximally permissive deadlock avoidance in multi-vehicle traffic systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control. 55(7), 1646–1651 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reveliotis, S., Roszkowska, E.: Conflict resolution in free-ranging multivehicle systems: a resource allocation paradigm. IEEE Trans. Robot. 27(2), 283–296 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reveliotis, S.A.: Real-time Management of Resource Allocation Systems: A Discrete Event Systems Approach. Springer, New York (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roszkowska, E., Goral, I.: Correct-by-construction distributed control for multi-vehicle transport systems. In: IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 17–21 August 2013, pp. 156–161. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roszkowska, E., Reveliotis, S.: A distributed protocol for motion coordination in free-range vehicular systems. Automatica 49(6), 1639–1653 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Snape, J., van den Berg, J., Guy, S.J., Manocha, D.: The hybrid reciprocal velocity obstacle. IEEE Trans. Robot. 27(4), 696–706 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Valle, S.M.L., Hutchinson, S.A.: Optimal motion planning for multiple robots having independent goals. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14, 912–925 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cybernetics and Robotics, Faculty of ElectronicsWrocław University of Science and TechnologyWrocławPoland

Personalised recommendations