All Title Author
Keywords Abstract


Dynamic Obstacle Avoidance for an Omnidirectional Mobile Robot

DOI: 10.1155/2010/901365

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

We have established a novel method of obstacle-avoidance motion planning for mobile robots in dynamic environments, wherein the obstacles are moving with general velocities and accelerations, and their motion profiles are not preknown. A hybrid system is presented in which a global deliberate approach is applied to determine the motion in the desired path line (DPL), and a local reactive approach is used for moving obstacle avoidance. A machine vision system is required to sense obstacle motion. Through theoretical analysis, simulation, and experimental validation applied to the Ohio University RoboCup robot, we show the method is effective to avoid collisions with moving obstacles in a dynamic environment. 1. Introduction An omnidirectional robot is a holonomic robot that can move simultaneously in rotation and translation [1]. Most work on omnidirectional robots is in robot development; the few studies on dynamic models are Watanabe et al. [2], Moore and Flann [3], Williams et al. [4], and Kalmar-Nagy et al. [5]. These models all have decoupling between the wheels, which is not complete; thus, we first briefly summarize a new coupled nonlinear dynamics model for three-wheeled omnidirectional robots. The potential field method was first suggested by Andrews and Hogan [6] and Khatib [7] for obstacle avoidance of manipulators and mobile robots. Obstacles exert a virtual repulsive force, while the goal applies a virtual attractive force to the robot. Koren and Borenstein [8] identify potential field limitations (robot trapped by local minima, oscillation in presence of obstacle, and the lack of passage between closely spaced obstacles). To overcome these problems, they developed the vector field histogram. Ge and Cui [9] mentioned an additional shortcoming, a nonreachable goal with an obstacle nearby, and presented a new repulsive function to overcome it, increasing complexity and computation. Adams [10] presented a simulation study using the potential field method considering low-level robot dynamics, with static obstacles. Guldner and Utkin [11] proposed a method that took the gradient of the potential field as the desired vector field for path planning. Tsourveloudis et al. [12] proposed an electrostatic potential field for an autonomous mobile robot in a planar dynamic environment; their method depends on obstacle prediction accuracy and slow environment changes. The velocity space method to deal with moving obstacle avoidance in a preknown environment was suggested by Fiorini and Shiller [13], who discussed the velocity obstacle concept. This method

References

[1]  F. G. Pin and S. M. Killough, “New family of omni-directional and holonomic wheeled platforms for mobile robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 480–489, 1994.
[2]  K. Watanabe, Y. Shiraishi, S. G. Tzafestas, J. Tang, and T. Fukuda, “Feedback control of an omnidirectional autonomous platform for mobile service robots,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 315–330, 1998.
[3]  K. L. Moore and N. S. Flann, “Six-wheeled omni-directional autonomous mobile robot,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 53–66, 2000.
[4]  R. L. Williams II, B. E. Carter, P. Gallina, and G. Rosati, “Dynamic model with slip for wheeled omnidirectional robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 285–293, 2002.
[5]  T. Kalmár-Nagy, R. D'Andrea, and P. Ganguly, “Near-optimal dynamic trajectory generation and control of an omnidirectional vehicle,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 47–64, 2004.
[6]  J. R. Andrews and N. Hogan, “Impedance control as a framework for implementing obstacle avoidance in a manipulator,” in Control of Manufacturing Processes and Robotic Systems, D. E. Hardt and W. Book, Eds., pp. 243–251, ASME, Boston, Mass, USA, 1983.
[7]  O. Khatib, “Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots,” in Proceedings of International Conference Robotics and Automation, pp. 500–505, St. Louis, Mo, USA, March 1985.
[8]  J. Borenstein and Y. Koren, “The vector field histogram—fast obstacle avoidance for mobile robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 278–288, 1991.
[9]  S. S. Ge and Y. J. Cui, “New potential functions for mobile robot path planning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 615–620, 2000.
[10]  M. D. Adams, “High speed target pursuit and asymptotic stability in mobile robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 230–237, 1999.
[11]  J. Guldner and V. I. Utkin, “Sliding mode control for gradient tracking and robot navigation using artificial potential fields,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 247–254, 1995.
[12]  N. C. Tsourveloudis, K. P. Valavanis, and T. Hebert, “Autonomous vehicle navigation utilizing electrostatic potential fields and fuzzy logic,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 490–497, 2001.
[13]  P. Fiorini and Z. Shiller, “Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 760–772, 1998.
[14]  A. Chakravarthy and D. Ghose, “Obstacle avoidance in a dynamic environment: a collision cone approach,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics A, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 562–574, 1998.
[15]  A. Tsoularis and C. Kambhampati, “On-line planning for collision avoidance on the nominal path,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 327–371, 1998.
[16]  K. Fujimura and H. Samet, “Hierarchical strategy for path planning among moving obstacles,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 61–69, 1989.
[17]  R. A. Conn and M. Kam, “Robot motion planning on N-dimensional star worlds among moving obstacles,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 320–325, 1998.
[18]  T. Y. Chang, S. W. Kuo, and Y. J. Hus, “A two-phase navigation system for mobile robots in dynamic environment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '94), Munich, Germany, 1994.
[19]  F. Xu, H. van Brussel, M. Nuttin, and R. Moreas, “Concepts for dynamic obstacle avoidance and their extended application in underground navigation,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2003.
[20]  C. Leng, Q. Cao, and Y. Huang, “A motion planning method for omni-directional mobile robot based on the anisotropic characteristics,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 327–340, 2008.
[21]  F. Belkhouche, “Reactive path planning in a dynamic environment,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 902–911, 2009.
[22]  J. van den Berg and M. Overmars, “Kinodynamic motion planning on roadmaps in dynamic environments,” in Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '07), pp. 4253–4258, San Diego, Calif, USA, November 2007.
[23]  J. Wu, Dynamic path planning of an omni-directional robot in a dynamic environment, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA, 2004.
[24]  J. J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 3rd edition, 2005.
[25]  J. Wu, R. L. Williams II, and J. Lew, “Velocity and acceleration cones for kinematic and dynamic constraints on omni-directional mobile robots,” Transactions of the ASME on Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 788–799, 2006.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus