Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:15:02.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance-based reactive navigation for non-holonomic mobile robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Michael Defoort ,
Jorge Palos ,
Annemarie Kokosy ,
Thierry Floquet  and
Wilfrid Perruquetti
Michael Defoort*
Affiliation:
Department of System Design Engineering, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan.
Jorge Palos
Affiliation:
ISEN, 41 bvd Vauban, 59 046 Lille Cedex, France.
Annemarie Kokosy
Affiliation:
ISEN, 41 bvd Vauban, 59 046 Lille Cedex, France. LAGIS UMR CNRS 8146, Ecole Centrale de Lille, BP 48, Cité Scientifique, 59651 Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France.
Thierry Floquet
Affiliation:
LAGIS UMR CNRS 8146, Ecole Centrale de Lille, BP 48, Cité Scientifique, 59651 Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France.
Wilfrid Perruquetti
Affiliation:
LAGIS UMR CNRS 8146, Ecole Centrale de Lille, BP 48, Cité Scientifique, 59651 Villeneuve-d'Ascq, France.
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper presents an architecture for the navigation of an autonomous mobile robot evolving in environments with obstacles. Instead of addressing the motion planning and control problems in different contexts, these issues are described in connected modules with performance requirement considerations. The path planning problem is formulated as a constrained receding horizon planning problem and is solved in real time with an efficient computational method that combines non-linear control theory, B-spline basis function and non-linear programming. An integral sliding mode controller is used for trajectory tracking. The closed-loop stability of the tracking errors is guaranteed in spite of unknown disturbances. It is also shown that this strategy is particularly useful if integral sliding mode control is combined with other methods to further robustify against perturbations. The effectiveness, perfect performance of obstacle avoidance, real time and high robustness properties are demonstrated by experimental results.

Keywords

Non-holonomic mobile robotsReactive navigationReceding horizon planningSliding mode control
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 281 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.Laumond, J.-P., Robot Motion Planning and Control (Springer, New York, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Statheros, T., Defoort, M., Khola, S., McDonald-Maier, K., Howells, W., Kokosy, A., Palos, J., Perruquetti, W. and Floquet, T., “Automated Control and Guidance System (ACOS): An Overview,” International Conference on Recent Advances in Soft Computing, Canterbury, UK (2006).Google Scholar
3.Salichs, M. and Moreno, L., “Navigation of mobile robots: Open questions,” Robotica 18, 227–234 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Galicki, M., “Time-optimal controls of kinematically redundant manipulators with geometric constraints,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Automat. 16 (1), 89–93 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Bloch, A., Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control (Springer Verlag, New York, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Brockett, R., “Asymptotic Stability and Feedback Stabilization,” In: Differential Geometric Control Theory (Brockett, R., Millman, R. and Sussmann, H., eds.) (Birkhauser, Boston, MA, 1983) pp. 181–195.Google Scholar
7.Pomet, J., “Explicit design of time-varying stabilizing control laws for a class of controllable systems without drift,” Syst. Cont. Let. 18 (2), 147–158 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Samson, C., “Control of chained systems: Application to path following and time-varying point-stabilization of mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 40, 64–77 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Murray, R. and Sastry, S., “Nonholonomic motion planning: Steering using sinusoids,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 38 (5), 700–716 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Hespanha, J. P. and Morse, A. S., “Stabilization of nonholonomic integrators via logic-based switching,” Automatica 35 (3), 385–393 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Jiang, Z. P. and Nijmeijer, H., “Tracking control of mobile robots: A case study in backsteeping,” Automatica 33 (7), 1393–1399 (1997).Google Scholar
12.Evers, W.-J. and Nijmeijer, H., “Practical Stabilization of a Mobile Robot Using Saturated Control,” IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA (2006) pp. 2394–2399.Google Scholar
13.Floquet, T., Barbot, J. P. and Perruquetti, W., “Higher-order sliding mode stabilization for a class of nonholonomic perturbed systems,” Automatica 39 (6), 1077–1083 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Defoort, M., Palos, J., Floquet, T., Kokosy, A. and Perruquetti, W., “Practical Stabilization and Tracking of a Wheeled Mobile Robot with Integral Sliding Mode Controller,” IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, New Orleans, LA (2007) pp. 1999–2004.Google Scholar
15.Monaco, S. and Normand-Cyrot, D., “An Introduction to Motion Planning Under Multirate Digital Control,” IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, Tuckson, AZ (1992) pp. 1780–1785.Google Scholar
16.de Wit, C. and Sordalen, O., “Exponential stabilization of mobile robots with nonholonomic constraints,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 37 (11), 1791–1797 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Mayne, D., Rawlings, J., Rao, C. and Scokaert, P., “Constrained model predicitive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica 36 (6), 789–814 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Cuzzolaa, F. A., Geromel, J. C. and Morari, M., “An improved approach for constrained robust model predictive control,” Automatica 38 (7), 1183–1189 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Fliess, M., Lévine, J., Martin, Ph. and Rouchon, P., “Flatness and defect of nonlinear systems: Introductory theory and examples,” Int. J. Control 61 (6), 1327–1361 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Lawrance, C., Zhou, J. and Tits, A., User's guide for CFSQP Version 2.5 (Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, 1997).Google Scholar
21.Milam, M. B., Real Time Optimal Trajectory Generation for Constrained Dynamical Systems Dissertation (California Institute of Technology, 2003).Google Scholar
22.Kanayama, Y., Kimura, Y., Miyazaki, F. and Noguchi, T., “A Stable Tracking Control Method for an Autonomous Mobile Robot,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, OH (1990) pp. 384–389.Google Scholar
23.Utkin, V. and Shi, J., “Integral Sliding Mode in Systems Operating Under Uncertainty Conditions,” IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan (1996) pp. 4591–4596.Google Scholar
24.Defoort, M., Floquet, T., Kokosy, A. and Perruquetti, W., “Integral sliding mode control for trajectory tracking of a unicycle type mobile robot,” Integr. Comput. Aided Eng. 13 (3), 277–288 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Utkin, V., Guldner, J. and Shi, J., Sliding Modes Control in Electromechanical Systems (Taylor and Francis, London, 1999).Google Scholar
26.Jiang, Z. P., Lefeber, E. and Nijmeijer, H., “Saturated stabilization and track control of a nonholonomic mobile robot,” Syst. Cont. Let. 42 (5), 327–332 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar