Robust Supervisory-Based Control Strategy for Mobile Robot Navigation

  • Michele Furci
  • Roberto Naldi
  • Andrea Paoli
  • Lorenzo Marconi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 302)


This work introduces a novel control strategy to allow a class of mobile robots to robustly navigate in a dynamic and potentially cluttered environment. The proposed approach combines a high-level motion planner, designed considering the supervisory control theory, and a low-level stabilizing feedback control law. Taking advantage of a symbolic description of the vehicle dynamics and of the environment, the supervisor reactively selects the current motion primitive to be executed so as to reach the desired target location optimally with respect to a given index cost. Sufficient conditions ensuring boundedness of the tracking error are derived in order to handle the interaction between the discrete-time dynamics of the supervisor and the continuous-time dynamics of the low-level control loop in charge of tracking the desired reference. The resulting approach allows to employ supervisory control tools online without affecting the stability properties of the continuous-time low-level control loop. The results are demonstrated by considering, as application, the kinematic model of an aerial vehicle navigating in a cluttered environment.


Planning Supervisory control Switching systems Tracking 


  1. 1.
    C. Belta, A. Bicchi, M. Egerstedt, E. Frazzoli, E. Klavins, and G.j. Pappas. Symbolic planning and control of robot motion: Finding the missing pieces of current methods and ideas. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, pages 61–70, March 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.G. Cassandras and S. Lafortune. Introduction to Discrete Event System. Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.W. Dijkstra. A note on two problems in connexion with graph. Numerische Mathematik, 1:269–271, 1959.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Frazzoli. Robust hybrid control for autonomous vehicle motion planning. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Frazzoli, M.A. Dahlel, and E. Feron. Maneuver-based motion planning for nonlinear systems with symmetries. IEEE Transaction on Robotics, 21(6):1077–1091, december 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Furci, R. Naldi, and A. Paoli. A supervisory control strategy for robot-assisted search and rescue in hostile environments. Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA), 2013 IEEE 18th Conference on, September 2013.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Hornung, K.M. Wurm, M. Bennewitz, Stachniss C, and W. Burgard. Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octress. Autonomous Robots, 34:189–206, 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. International Journal of Robotics Research, 30:846–894, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. Overmars. Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE Transaction on Robotics and Automation, August 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.K Khalil. Nonlinear System. Prentice Hall, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S.M. LaValle. Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning. Computer Science Dept., Iowa State University, October 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.M. LaValle. Motion planning: The essentials. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 18:79–89, 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniel Liberzon. Switching in Systems and Control. Systems and Control: Foundations and Applications. Birkhauser, Boston, MA, June 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.R. Murphy. Humans, robots, rubble and research. Interactions, 12:37–39, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Pounds, R. Mahony, and P. Corke. Modelling and control of a large quadrotor robot. Control Eng. Pract., 18(7):691–699, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Ryde and H. Hu. 3d mapping with multi-resolution occupied voxel list. Autonomous Robots, 28:169–185, 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R.G. Sanfelice and E. Frazzoli. A hybrid control framework for robust maneuver-based motion planning. American Control Conference, pages 2254–2259, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Furci
    • 1
  • Roberto Naldi
    • 1
  • Andrea Paoli
    • 1
  • Lorenzo Marconi
    • 1
  1. 1.CASY-DEIUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations