Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:52:18.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bifurcations and symmetry in two optimal formation control problems for mobile robotic systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Baoyang Deng ,
Michael O'Connor  and
Bill Goodwine
Baoyang Deng
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556USA E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Michael O'Connor
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556USA E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
Bill Goodwine*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556USA E-mails: [email protected], [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper studies bifurcations in the solution structure of an optimal control problem for mobile robotic formation control. In particular, this paper studies a group of mobile robots operating in a two-dimensional environment. Each robot has a predefined initial state and final state and we compute an optimal path between the two states for every robot. The path is optimized with respect to two factors, the control effort and the deviation from a desired “formation,” and a bifurcation parameter gives the relative weight given to each factor. Using an asymptotic analysis, we show that for small values of the bifurcation parameter (corresponding to heavily weighting the control effort) a single unique solution is expected, and that as the bifurcation parameter becomes large (corresponding to heavily weighting maintaining the formation) a large number of solutions is expected. Between the asymptotic extremes, a numerical investigation indicates a solution bifurcation structure with a cascade of increasing numbers of solutions, reminiscent, but not the same as, period-doubling bifurcations leading to chaos in dynamical systems. Furthermore, we show that if the system is symmetric, the bifurcation structure possesses symmetries, and also present a symmetry-breaking example of a non-holonomic system. Knowledge and understanding of the existence and structure of bifurcations in the solutions of this type of formation control problem are important for robotics engineers because common optimization approaches based on gradient-descent are only likely to converge to the single nearest solution, and a more global study provides a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of this important problem in robotics.

Keywords

Control of Robotic SystemsMobile RobotsMotion PlanningMulti-Robot SystemsPath PlanningRobot Dynamics
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 35 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1712 - 1731
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Smith, T. R., Hanssmann, H. and Leonard, N. E., “Orientation Control of Multiple Underwater Vehicles with Symmetry-Breaking Potentials,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando, Florida, USA (2001) pp. 4598–4603.Google Scholar
2. McInnes, C. R., “Autonomous ring formation for a planar constellation of satellites,” AIAA J. Guid. Control Dyn. 18 (5), 1215–1217 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Puttgen, H., MacGrego, P. and Lambert, F., “Distributed generation: Semantic hype or dawn of a new era?” IEEE Power Energy Mag. 1 (1), 22–29 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Jennings, J., Whelan, G. and Evans, W., “Cooperative Search and Rescue with a Team of Mobile Robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Monterey, California, USA (1997) pp. 193–200.Google Scholar
5. Desai, J. P., “Modeling Multiple Teams of Mobile Robots: A Graph Theoretic Approach,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, vol. 1, Maui, Hawaii, USA (2001) pp. 381–386.Google Scholar
6. Desai, J. P., Ostrowski, J. and Kumar, V., “Controlling Formations of Multiple Mobile Robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, vol. 4, Leuven, Belgium (1998) pp. 2864–2869.Google Scholar
7. Leonard, N. E. and Fiorelli, E., “Virtual Leaders, Artificial Potentials, and Coordinated Control of Groups,” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando, Florida, USA (2001) pp. 2968–2973.Google Scholar
8. Balch, T. and Arkin, R., “Behavior-based formation control for multi-robotic teams,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14 (6), 926–934 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Balch, T. and Hybinette, M., “Behavior-Based Coordination of Large-Scale Robot Formations,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, IEEE (2000) pp. 363–364.Google Scholar
10. Su, Z. and Lu, J., “Formation feedback applied to behavior-based approach to formation keeping,” J. Beijing Inst. Technol. 13 (2), 190–193 (2004).Google Scholar
11. Belta, C. and Kumar, V., “Geometric Methods for Multirobot Optimal Motion Planning,” In: Handbook of Geometric Computing (Corrochano, E. B., ed.) (Springer, 2005) pp. 679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Lewis, M. A. and Tan, K. H., “High precision formation control of mobile robots using virtual structures,” Auton. Robots 4 (4), 387–403 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Tan, K.-H. and Lewis, M. A., “Virtual Structures for High-Precision Cooperative Mobile Robotic Control,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Osaka, Japan (1996) pp. 132–139.Google Scholar
14. Murray, R. M., “Recent research in cooperative control of multivehivle systems,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 129 (5), 571–583 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Deng, B., Sen, M. and Goodwine, B., “Bifurcations and Symmetries of Optimal Solutions for Distributed Robotic Systems,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA (2009) pp. 4127–4133.Google Scholar
16. Deng, B., Valenzuela, A. K.. and Goodwine, B., “Bifurcations of Optimal Solutions For Coordinated Robotic Systems: Numerical and Homotopy Methods,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, Alaska, USA (2010) pp. 4475–4480.Google Scholar
17. O'Connor, M. and Goodwine, B., “Symmetry-Breaking in Bifurcations of Optimal Solutions for Coordinated Nonholonomic Robotic Control,” Proceedings of the 20th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Barcelona, Spain (2012) pp. 1554–1559.Google Scholar
18. Goodwine, B., “Towards Some General Results in Bifurcations In Optimal Solutions For Symmetric Distributed Robotic Formation Control,” Proceedings of the IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), Nagoya, Japan (2015) pp. 358–363.Google Scholar
19. Erbe, L. H. and Wang, H., “On the Existence of Positive Solutions of Ordinary Differential Equations,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (3), 743–748 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Erbe, L., Hu, S. and Wang, H., “Multiple positive solutions of some boundary value problems,” Math. Anal. Appl. 184, 743–748 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Naito, Y. and Tanaka, S., “On the existence of multiple solutions of the boundary value problem for nonlinear second-order differential equations,” Nonlinear Anal. 56 (4), 919–935 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Ma, R. and Thompson, B., “Multiplicity results for second-order two-point boundary value problems with nonlinearities across several eigenvalues,” Appl. Math. Lett. 18 (5), 587–595 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Marcos do Ó, J., Lorca, S. and Ubilla, P., “Local superlinearity for elliptic systems involving parameters,” J. Differ. Equ. 211 (1), 1–19 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Avery, R. I. and Henderson, J., “Three symmetric positive solutions for a second-order boundary value problem,” Appl. Math. Lett. 13 (3), 1–7 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Amann, H. and López-Gómez, J., “A priori bounds and multiple solutions for superlinear indefinite elliptic problems,” J. Differ. Equ. 146 (2), 336–374 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Karakostas, G. L. and Ch Tsamatos, P., “Existence of multiple positive solutions for a nonlocal boundary value problem,” J. Juliusz Schauder Center 19, 109–121 (2002).Google Scholar
27. Cohen, D. S., “Multiple stable solutions of nonlinear boundary value problems arising in chemical reactor theory,” SIAM J. Appl. Math. 20 (1), 1–13 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wong, P. J. Y. and Agarwal, R. P., “Multiple positive solutions of two-point right focal boundary value problems,” Math. Comput. Modelling 28 (3), 41–49 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Yang, Z., “Existence and uniqueness of positive solutions for an integral boundary value problem,” Nonlinear Anal.: Theory Methods Appl. 69 (11), 3910–3918 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Mawhin, J. and Willem, M., “Multiple solutions of the periodic boundary value problem for some forced pendulum-type equations,” J. Differ. Equ. 52 (2), 264–287 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Cabada, A., Iannizzotto, A. and Tersian, S., “Multiple solutions for discrete boundary value problems,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 356 (2), 418–428 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Agarwal, R. P., Perera, K. and O'Regan, D., “Multiple positive solutions of singular and nonsingular discrete problems via variational methods,” Nonlinear Anal.: Theory Methods Appl. 58 (1), 69–73 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Lin, X. and Jiang, D., “Multiple positive solutions of dirichlet boundary value problems for second order impulsive differential equations,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 321 (2), 501–514 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Wang, H., “On the number of positive solutions of nonlinear systems,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 281 (1), 287–306 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Lan, K. Q., “Multiple positive solutions of semilinear differential equations with singularities,” J. London Math. Soc. 63 (3), 690–704 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Avery, R. I. and Anderson, D. R., “Existence of three positive solutions to a second-order boundary value problem on a measure chain,” J. Comput. Appl. Math. 141 (1), 65–73 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Henderson, J. and Thompson, H. B., “Existence of multiple solutions for second order boundary value problems,” J. Differ. Equ. 166 (2), 443–454 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Anderson, D., “Multiple positive solutions for a three-point boundary value problem,” Math. Comput. Modelling 27 (6), 49–57 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Lian, W.-C., Wong, F.-H. and Yeh, C.-C., “On the existence of positive solutions of nonlinear second order differential equations,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 124 (4), 1117–1126 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Liu, Z. and Li, F., “Multiple positive solutions of nonlinear two-point boundary value problems,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 203 (3), 610–625 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Murray, R. M., Li, Z. and Sastry, S. S., A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic Manipulation (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Ann Arbor, London and Tokyo, 1994).Google Scholar
42. Siciliano, B. and Khatib, O., eds. Springer Handbook of Robotics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008). Chapter 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Stoer, J. and Bulirsch, R., Introduction to Numerical Analysis (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. and Flannery, B. P., Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, 2007).Google Scholar
45. Kevorkian, J., Perturbation Methods in Applied Mathematics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Khalil, H. K., Nonlinear Systems (Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1992).Google Scholar
47. Deng, B., Bifurcations and Symmetries of Optimal Solutions for Distributed Robotic Systems Ph.D. Thesis (University of Notre Dame, New York, 2011).Google Scholar
48. Brett McMickell, M. and Goodwine, B., “Motion planning for nonlinear symmetric distributed robotic formations,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 27 (10), 1025–1041 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Brett McMickell, M. and Goodwine, B., “Reduction and controllability of nonlinear symmetric distributed systems,” Int. J. Control 76 (18), 1809–1822 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Goodwine, B., “Compositional Boundedness of Solutions for Symmetric Nonautonomous Control Systems,” Proceedings of the Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), Palermo, Italy (2014) pp. 798–803.Google Scholar
51. Nettleman, A. and Goodwine, B., “Symmetries of Multiagent Systems and Formation Stability,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS), Groningen, The Netherlands (2014) pp. 1340–1343. Extended abstract review.Google Scholar
52. Goodwine, B., “Nonlinear Stability of Approximately Symmetric Large-Scale Systems,” Proceedings of the International Federation of Automatic Control World Congress (IFAC), Cape Town, South Africa (2014) pp. 845–850.Google Scholar
53. Nettleman, A. and Goodwine, B., “Symmetries and Reduction for Multi-Agent Control,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA), Seattle, Washington, USA (2015) pp. 5390–5396.Google Scholar
54. Goodwine, B. and Antsaklis, P., “Multi-agent compositional stability exploiting system symmetries,” Automatica 49 (11), 3158–3166 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Brett McMickell, M., Goodwine, B. and Montestruque, L. Antonio, “Micabot: A Robotic Platform for Large-Scale Distributed Robotics,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taipei, Taiwan (2003) pp. 1600–1605.Google Scholar