Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:48:00.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-speed navigation of unmanned ground vehicles on uneven terrain using potential fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

Shingo Shimoda ,
Yoji Kuroda  and
Karl Iagnemma
Shingo Shimoda*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Biomimetic Control Research Center, RIKEN, Nagoya 463-0003, Japan
Yoji Kuroda
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Karl Iagnemma
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: shimoda@bmc.riken.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Many applications require unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) to travel at high speeds on sloped, natural terrain. In this paper, a potential field-based method is proposed for UGV navigation in such scenarios. In the proposed approach, a potential field is generated in the two-dimensional “trajectory space” of the UGV path curvature and longitudinal velocity. In contrast to traditional potential field methods, dynamic constraints and the effect of changing terrain conditions can be easily expressed in the proposed framework. A maneuver is chosen within a set of performance bounds, based on the local potential field gradient. It is shown that the proposed method is subject to local maxima problems, rather than local minima. A simple randomization technique is proposed to address this problem. Simulation and experimental results show that the proposed method can successfully navigate a small UGV between predefined waypoints at speeds up to 7.0 m/s, while avoiding static hazards. Further, vehicle curvature and velocity are controlled during vehicle motion to avoid rollover and excessive side slip. The method is computationally efficient, and thus suitable for onboard real-time implementation.

Keywords

Mobile robotsPotential fieldsOutdoor terrainMotion planning
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 409 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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. Walker, J., “Unmanned ground combat vehicle contractors selected,” DARPA News Release February 7, 2001, available at http//www.darpa.milGoogle Scholar
2. Gerhart, G., Goetz, R. and Gorsich, D., “Intelligent Mobility for Robotic Vehicles in the Army after Next,” Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology (1999) pp. 128–139. Orland, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Shiller, Z. and Chen, J., “Optimal Motion Planning of Autonomous Vehicles in 3-Dimensional Terrains,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1990) pp. 198–203.Google Scholar
4. Kelly, A. and Stents, A., “Rough terrain autonomous mobility — Part 1: A theoretical analysis of requirements,” Auton. Robots 5, 129–161 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Khatib, O., “Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 5 (1), 90–98 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Barraquand, J., Langlois, B. and Latombe, J., “Numerical potential field techniques for robot path planning,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 22 (2), 224–241 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ge, S. and Cui, Y., “Dynamic motion planning for mobile robots using potential field method,” Auton. Robots 13 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Caselli, S., Reggiani, M., and Sbravati, R., “Parallel Path Planning with Multiple Evasion Strategies,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2002) pp. 1232–1237. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
9. Tanner, H., Loizou, S. and Kyriakopoulos, K., “Nonholonomic navigation and control of cooperating mobile manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19 (1), (2003) pp. 53--64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hussien, B., Robot Path Planning and Obstacle Avoidance by Means of Potential Function Method. Ph.D. Dissertation (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Rimon, E. and Koditschek, D. E., “Exact robot navigation using artificial potential functions,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8 (5), 501–518 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kyriakopoulos, K. J., Kakambouras, P. and Krikelis, N. J., “Navigation of Nonholonomic Vehicle in Complex Environments with Potential Field and Tracking,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1996) pp. 3389–3394. Minneapolis, MN, USA.Google Scholar
13. Conn, R. A. and Kam, M., “Robot motion planning on N-dimensional star worlds among moving obstacles,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14 (2), 320–325 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Chuang, J. H. and Ahuja, N., “An analytically tractable potential field model of free space and its application in obstacle avoidance,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.—Part B: Cybern. 28 (5), 729–736 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Haddad, H., Khatib, M., Lacroix, S. and Chatila, R.., “Reactive Navigation in Outdoor Environments using Potential Fields,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1998) pp. 1232–1237. Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
16. Fox, D., Burgard, W. and Thrun, S., “The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 4 (1), 23–33 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Brock, O. and Khatib, O., “High-Speed Navigation Using the Global Dynamic Window Approach,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1999) pp. 341–346. Detroit, MI, USA.Google Scholar
18. Ogren, P. and Leonard, N., “A convergent dynamic window approach to obstacle avoidance,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21, 188–195 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Spenko, M., Iagnemma, K. and Dubowsky, S., “High Speed Hazard Avoidance for Mobile Robots in Rough Terrain,” Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Unmanned Ground Vehicles (2004) pp. 439–450, Orland, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Spenko, M., Hazard Avoidance for High Speed Rough Terrain Unmanned Ground Vehicles. Ph.D. Thesis (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005).Google Scholar
21. Stentz, A., The NAVLAB System for Mobile Robot Navigation, CMU-CS-90-123. Ph.D. Thesis (Pittsburgh, PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, March 1990).Google Scholar
22. Dudgeon, J. and Gopalakrishnan, R. “Fractal-Based Modeling of 3D Terrain Surfaces.” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Bring Together Education, Science, and Technology (1996) pp. 246–252, Tampa, FL, USA.Google Scholar
23. Arakawa, K. and Krotkov, E. “Estimating Fractal Dimension from Range Images of Natural Terrain.” Technical Report CMU-CS-91-156 (Pittsburgh, PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, July 1991).Google Scholar
24. Iagnemma, K. and Dubowsky, S., Mobile Robots in Rough Terrain, STAR Series on Advanced Robotics (Springer, Berlin, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Iagnemma, K. D. and Dubowsky, S., “Terrain Estimation for High Speed Rough Terrain Autonomous Vehicle Navigation,” Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Unmanned Ground Vehicle Technology IV (2002) pp. 256–266, Orland, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Bellutta, P., Manduchi, R., Matthies, L., Owens, K. and Rankin, A., “Terrain Perception for DEMO III,” Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (2000) pp. 326–332. Dearborn, MI, USA.Google Scholar
27. Golda, D., Iagnemma, K. and Dubowsky, S., “Probabilistic Modeling and Analysis of High-Speed Rough-Terrain Mobile Robots,” Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (2004) pp. 914–919. New Orleans, LA, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Golda, D., Modeling and Analysis of High-Speed Mobile Robots Operating on Rough Terrain. M.S. Thesis (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003).Google Scholar
29. Gillespie, T., Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics (Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Pacejka, H., “The Tire as a Vehicle Component,” Proceedings of the XXVI FSITA Congress 1996. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
31. Jarvis, R. A., “Distance Transform Based Path Planning for Robot Navigation,” In: Recent Trends in Mobile Robots, Zheng, Y. F., ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, (1993) Ch. 1, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
32. Krishna, K. and Kalra, P., “Solving the local minima problem for a mobile robot by classification of spatio-temporal sensory sequences,” J. Robot. Syst. 17 (10), 549–564 (2000).3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar