Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Online planning for relative optimal and safe paths for USVs using a dual sampling domain reduction-based RRT* method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A heuristic Dual sampling domain Reduction-based Optimal Rapidly-exploring Random Tree scheme is proposed by guiding the planning procedure of the optimal rapidly-exploring random tree (RRT*) method through learning environmental knowledge. The scheme aims to plan low fuel expenditure, easy-execution, and low collision probability paths online for an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) under constraints. First, an elliptic sampling domain, which is subject to an elliptic equation and the shortest obstacle avoidance path estimation, is created to plan short paths. Second, by the consideration of the USV motion states, obstacles and external interferences of the current, the near sampling domains of tree nodes are reduced to exclude high-cost sampling domains. Path feasibility is ensured by explicitly handling motion constraints. Third, a safe distance-based collision detection (CD) scheme and a velocity-based bounding box of USV are proposed to decrease the path collision probability. Additionally, a layered USV online path planning framework is built in accordance with the model predictive control method, and the path smoothing scheme is applied via the Dubins curve under the curvature constraint. Results demonstrate that the proposed dual sampling domain reduction method outperforms traditional reduction schemes in terms of improving the execution efficiency of RRT*. Meanwhile, the proposed CD method is more reliable than the conventional one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campbell S, Naeem W, Irwin GW (2012) A review on improving the autonomy of unmanned surface vehicles through intelligent collision avoidance manoeuvres. Ann Rev Control 36:267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zheng Z, Sammut K, Lammas A, He F, Tang Y (2015) Efficient Path Re-planning for AUVs Operating in Spatiotemporal Currents. J Intell Rob Syst 79:135–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yershova A, Lavalle SM (2009) Motion planning for highly constrained spaces. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Lazarowska A (2017) A new deterministic approach in a decision support system for ship’s trajectory planning. Expert Syst Appl 71:469–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Du P, Liang H, Zhao S, Ahn CK (2019) Neural-based decentralized adaptive finite-time control for nonlinear large-scale systems with time-varying output constraints. IEEE Syst Man Cybern Syst 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang L, Lam H-K, Sun Y, Liang H (2019) Fault detection for fuzzy semi-Markov jump systems based on interval type-2 fuzzy approach. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang L, Liang H, Sun Y, Ahn CK (2019) Adaptive event-triggered fault detection scheme for semi-Markovian jump systems with output quantization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern: Syst 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liang H, Zhang H, Wang Z, Wang J (2014) Output regulation of state-coupled linear multi-agent systems with globally reachable topologies. Neurocomputing 123:337–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lavalle SM, Kuffner JJ (2001) Randomized kinodynamic planning. Int J Robot Res 20:348–400

    Google Scholar 

  10. Frazzoli E (2003) Quasi-random algorithms for real-time spacecraft motion planning and formation flight. Acta Astronaut 53:485–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karaman S, Frazzoli E (2011) Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. Int J Robot Res 30:846–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Noreen I, Khan A, Ryu H, Doh NL, Habib Z (2018) Optimal path planning in cluttered environment using RRT*-AB. Intel Serv Robot 11:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gammell JD, Srinivasa SS, Barfoot TD (2014) Informed RRT*: optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic. In: Presented at the 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Chicago, USA

  14. Islam F, Nasir J, Malik U, Ayaz Y, Hasan O, Khan M et al (2013) RRT*-SMART: a rapid convergence implementation of RRT*. Int J Adv Rob Syst 10:299–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jaillet L, Cortés J, Siméon T (2010) Sampling-based path planning on configuration-space costmaps. IEEE Trans Rob 26:635–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Y, Bucknall R (2015) Path planning algorithm for unmanned surface vehicle formations in a practical maritime environment. Ocean Eng 97:126–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao Y, Zheng Z, Zhang X, Liu Y (2017) Q learning algorithm based UAV path learning and obstacle avoidence approach. In: Presented at the 2017 36th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Dalian, China, 2017

  18. Challita U, Saad W, Bettstetter C (218) Deep Reinforcement Learning for Interference-Aware Path Planning of Cellular-Connected UAVs. In: Presented at the 2018 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), Kansas City, USA

  19. Hatzakis I, Wallace D (2006) Dynamic multi-objective optimization with evolutionary algorithms: a forward-looking approach. In: Presented at the proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, Seattle, USA

  20. Noreen I, Khan A, Habib Z (2016) A comparison of RRT, RRT* and RRT*-smart path planning algorithms. Int J Comput Sci Netw Secur (IJCSNS) 16:20–25

    Google Scholar 

  21. Liu ZQ, Wang YL, Wang TB (2018) Incremental predictive control-based output consensus of networked unmanned surface vehicle formation systems. Inf Sci 457:166–181

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Tam CK, Richard B (2010) Collision risk assessment for ships. J Mar Sci Technol 15:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Abbasi F, Mesbahi A, Mohammadpour VJ (2017) A new Voronoi-based blanket coverage control method for moving sensor network. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 27:409–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park BS, Yoo SJ (2019) An error transformation approach for connectivity-preserving and collision-avoiding formation tracking of networked uncertain underactuated surface vessels. IEEE Trans Cybern 49:2955–2966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Colito J (2007) Autonomous mission planning and execution for unmanned surface vehicles in compliance with the marine rules of the road. University of Washington, Master

    Google Scholar 

  26. Benjamin MR, Schmidt H, Newman PM, Leonard JJ (2013) Autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with MOOS-IvP. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Loe ØAG (2008) Collision avoidance for unmanned surface vehicles. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Master

    Google Scholar 

  28. Culligan KF (2006) Online trajectory planning for UAVs using mixed integer linear programming. Doctoral, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pongpunwattana A, Rysdyk R (2007) Evolution-based dynamic path planning for autonomous vehicles. Stud Comput Intell 70:113–145

    Google Scholar 

  30. Peng Z, Bo L, Chen X, Wu J (2012) Online route planning for UAV based on model predictive control and particle swarm optimization algorithm. In: Presented at the 10th world congress on intelligent control and automation (WCICA), Beijing, China, 2012

  31. Nikolos IK, Valavanis KP, Tsourveloudis NC, Kostaras AN (2003) Evolutionary algorithm based offline/online path planner for UAV navigation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 33:898–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peng X, Xu D (2012) Intelligent online path planning for UAVs in adversarial environments. Int J Adv Rob Syst 9:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wen NF, Su XH, Ma PJ, Zhao LL, Zhang YH (2015) Online UAV path planning in uncertain and hostile environments. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 8:469–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wen NF, Su XH, Ma PJ, Zhao LL (2014) Sampling space reduction-based UAV online path planning algorithm in complex low altitude environments. ACTA Automatica Sinica 40:1376–1390

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gomez-Gil J, Ruiz-Gonzalez R, Alonso-Garcia S, Gomez-Gilm FJ (2013) A kalman filter implementation for precision improvement in low-cost GPS positioning of tractors. Sensors 13:15307–15323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Qiu B, Wang G, Fan Y, Mu D, Sun X (2019) Adaptive sliding mode trajectory tracking control for unmanned surface vehicle with modeling uncertainties and input saturation. Appl Sci 9:1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Doa KD, Jiang ZP, Pana J (2004) Robust adaptive path following of underactuated ships. Automatica 40:929–944

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Fossen T (1994) Guidance and control of ocean vehicles. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mousazadeh H, Kiapey A (2019) Experimental evaluation of a new developed algorithm for an autonomous surface vehicle and comparison with simulink results. China Ocean Eng 33:268–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Muske KR, Ashrafiuon H, Haas G, Mccloskey R, Flynn T (2008) Identification of a control oriented nonlinear dynamic USV model. In: Presented at the American Control Conference, Seattle, USA, 2008

  41. Beard RW, McLain TW, Nelson DB, Kingston D, Johanson D (2006) Decentralized cooperative aerial surveillance using fixed-wing miniature UAVs. Proc IEEE 94:1306–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vandenberg J, Abbeel P, Goldberg K (2011) LQG-MP: optimized path planning for robots with motion uncertainty and imperfect state information. Int J Robot Res 30:895–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Motus L (1993) Time concepts in real-time software. Control Eng Pract 1:21–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61673084) and Key Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Advanced Control of State Ethnic Affairs Commission (Grant No. MD-IPAC-2019103).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Electromechanical Engineering, Dalian Minzu University, Dalian, China

    Naifeng Wen, Rubo Zhang, Junwei Wu & Guanqun Liu

Authors
  1. Naifeng Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rubo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Junwei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guanqun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rubo Zhang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wen, N., Zhang, R., Wu, J. et al. Online planning for relative optimal and safe paths for USVs using a dual sampling domain reduction-based RRT* method. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 11, 2665–2687 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01144-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-020-01144-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation