IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO.
6, JUNE 2014
Distributed RHC for Tracking and Formation of
Nonholonomic Multi-Vehicle Systems
Peng Wang and Baocang Ding
Abstract—This paper considers the synchronous distributed
receding horizon control (RHC) for a general problem of
the nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems, i.e., the simultaneous
forward/backward tracking, regulation and formation with the
collision avoidance. First, for each vehicle, a positively invariant
terminal-state region and an auxiliary controller are developed.
When every vehicle lies in its terminal-state region, all the dis-
tributed control targets are achieved by the auxiliary controller.
Second, the compatibility constraint, restricting the norm of the
uncertain deviation between the assumed and actual predictive
trajectories of each vehicle, is given, which respects both the
collision avoidance and convergence guarantee. Thirdly, a robust
collision avoidance constraint tolerating for the uncertain devia-
tion is designed. By these designs, an overall control algorithm is
proposed, by applying which all the control targets are achieved.
Two illustrative examples are provided to show the advantage and
effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Index Terms—Collision avoidance, compatibility constraint,
distributed receding horizon control (DRHC), nonholonomic
multi-vehicles.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N the framework of control of multi-agent/multi-vehicle
systems there are nowadays many important fields of re-
search: flocking [1]–[3], consensus [4]–[8], cooperation [9],
[10], air/ground traffic control management [11], [12], tracking
[13], [14] and formation [15]–[18]. This framework has broad
applications (e.g., battle damage assessment, reconnaissance,
vegetation growth analysis, rapid assessment of topographical
changes, localization of chemical sources, demining, and search
and rescue missions; see [19]–[21]). For the multi-agent/multi-
vehicle systems, the distributed/decentralized control strategy,
with less cost of communication and computation, is preferred
to the centralized one. So far, a great number of techniques
have been applied for the distributed/decentralized control, e.g.,
the leader-follower approach in [14], [19], [22] (where the
controller is designed by vanishing the relative error between
each pair of leader and follower), the artificial potential function
in [23], [24] (where the controller is designed by shrinking
an artificial potential function that defines interaction forces
Manuscript received August 4, 2012; revised January 24, 2013, July 28,
2013, and November 30, 2013; accepted December 22, 2013. Date of pub-
lication February 3, 2014; date of current version May 20, 2014. This work
was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China under
Grant 61174095. Recommended by Associate Editor R. Beard. (Corresponding
author: B. Ding.)
The authors are with the Ministry of Education Key Lab For Intelligent Net-
works and Network Security (MOE KLINNS Lab), Department of Automation,
School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
Xi’an 710049, China (e-mail: edison.wang@stu.xjtu.edu.cn; baocang.ding@
gmail.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TAC.2014.2304175
0018-9286 © 2014 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1439
between the neighboring vehicles), and the algebraic graph
theory in [15], [25]–[27] (where the controller is designed by
guaranteeing the desired property of the Laplacian matrix).
However, these techniques either ignore the physical constraints
(the saturation of input, the collision avoidance, etc.), or just
consider some specific constraints implicitly (e.g., [23] pun-
ishes the collision by a potential function). The receding hori-
zon control (RHC), with the advantages of explicitly handling
the physical constraints and optimizing the trajectories, is a
preferred approach in distributed control of multi-agent/multi-
vehicle systems (see, e.g., [28]–[30]). A survey work of the
distributed RHC (DRHC) can be found in [31].
In practice, usually a wheeled vehicle (e.g., the unicycle-
modeled vehicle in [32]–[34]) is constrained by its mechanical
dynamics to move only along its orientation (i.e., ẏ cos θ −
ẋ sin θ = 0), which is the so-called nonholonomic constraint.
For the nonholonomic vehicle, its local linear controllability
is lost when both the linear and angular speeds converge
to zeros, i.e., limt→∞ (vr2 (t) + ωr2 (t)) = 0 (see the regulation
problem in [33]–[35]), which invalidates the use of linearized
model. Recently, some approaches are proved to be efficient for
the tracking and regulation problem of single nonholonomic
vehicle, e.g., the dynamic feedback linearization in [33] (for
the tracking and regulation, respectively), the backstepping
technique in [34] (for simultaneous tracking and regulation,
with input saturation), and the RHC in [35] (for the simultane-
ous tracking and regulation). As reported in [35], a terminal-
state region and an auxiliary controller for the simultaneous
tracking and regulation problem of single nonholonomic ve-
hicle, are developed. However, the positive invariance of the
developed terminal-state region cannot be guaranteed, which
may induce the loss of recursive feasibility. A similar condi-
tion is provided with [36] for the nonholonomic multi-vehicle
systems. Up to now, the development of the positively invari-
ant terminal-state region and the auxiliary controller is still a
challenge for the simultaneous tracking and regulation problem
of the single nonholonomic vehicle. Aiming at the simulta-
neous forward/backward tracking and regulation problem of
nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems with collision avoidance,
we develop a positively invariant terminal-state region with
an auxiliary controller for each vehicle, which provides the
foundation for the RHC of nonholonomic vehicles. This is the
first contribution of this paper.
By employing a DRHC strategy for the multi-vehicle sys-
tems, each vehicle obtains its current input via solving a con-
strained optimization problem at each sampling instant, taking
advantage of the predictive information of itself and of its
neighbors. The optimization problems of the vehicles can be
1440
Fig. 1. Different DRHC strategies. In the synchronous DRHC, all the vehicles
solve the optimization problems synchronously, and in the sequential one, solve
in the specified order. In the iterative DRHC, each vehicle solves its optimiza-
tion problem and communicates the solution with its neighbors iteratively, until
the local convergence of solutions is attained.
solved either synchronously (see, e.g., [16], [17], [29], [30]),
or sequentially (see, e.g., [11], [37], [38]), or iteratively (see,
e.g., [39]–[41]). The differences of the three are illustrated in
Fig. 1. In the synchronous DRHC which is the target of this
paper, each vehicle uses the assumed predictive trajectories of
its neighbors which deviate uncertainly from the corresponding
actual ones. Due to the existing uncertain deviation, some
constraints or conditions are desired in order to guarantee the
convergence of the overall multi-vehicle systems (to mention
a few, the contractive constraint imposed in [42], the compat-
ibility constraints proposed in [16], [17], the contractive-like
constraint in [29], and the stability condition in [43]). In [30],
an interacting compatibility condition is derived, and disassem-
bled as the compatibility constraints which are incorporated in
the individual optimization problem. However, these relevant
works are not applicable for the simultaneous tracking, regu-
lation and formation problem of nonholonomic multi-vehicle
systems, because their assumption of linear controllability in
the terminal-state region is not satisfied. Motivated by [16],
[17], [30], we propose a time-varying compatibility constraint
in the norm form, which plays an important role in both the
convergence guarantee and the collision avoidance. This is the
second contribution of this paper.
For the safety of multi-vehicle systems, the collision avoid-
ance should be considered in its control problem (see, e.g.,
[3], [21], [38], [41]). In the DRHC works [21], [38], [41], the
collision avoidance is guaranteed by i) imposing a collision
avoidance constraint over the control horizon in the individual
optimization problem; ii) developing an admissible protection
zone (i.e., admissible safety set) with positive invariance, and
an backup controller to perform emergency maneuver (e.g.,
stopping at the current position, loitering in a circle with a
constant turn radius, and hovering). All the three works do not
consider the nonholonomic vehicle, and there is no involvement
of the assumed predictive trajectory. In comparison, we design
a collision avoidance constraint for each vehicle which tolerates
the uncertain deviation existing between the assumed and actual
predictive trajectories of every other vehicle. This collision
avoidance constraint is imposed outside of the terminal-state
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014
TABLE I
N OTATIONS
region (i.e., over the control horizon). Inside the terminal-
state region, the auxiliary controller guarantees the collision
avoidance by providing a backup maneuver (this controller is
never implemented). This is the third contribution of this paper.
This paper proposes the DRHC synthesis approach, as-
suming that the nonholonomic dynamics is nominal and the
optimization time at each sampling instant is trivial. The
rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we
introduce the nominal nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems
and the control objective, and formulate the individual cost
function for each vehicle accordingly. Section III details the
synthesis approach. After designing the terminal, compatibility
and collision avoidance constraints, an individual optimization
problem is formulated for each vehicle with the guarantees for
recursive feasibility, collision avoidance and convergence, and a
synchronous DRHC algorithm is presented for implementation.
Section IV provides a numerical example to demonstrate the
unique positive invariance of the designed terminal-state region,
and a simulation example to illustrate the effectiveness of the
proposed DRHC. Finally, a conclusion summarizes this paper
in Section V. Table I clarifies the symbols used in the paper.
II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
Consider the nonholonomic multi-vehicle system of Na ve-
hicles which are formulated by the following unicycle-modeled
dynamics (see, e.g., [32]–[34]):
⎡ ⎤
vi (t) cos θi (t)
żi (t) = f (zi (t), ui (t)) = ⎣ vi (t) sin θi (t) ⎦ , i ∈ Na . (1)
ωi (t)
Here zi (t) = [pi (t); θi (t)] and ui (t) = [vi (t); ωi (t)] denote the
state and control input of vehicle i, respectively; pi (t) =
[xi (t); yi (t)] and θi (t) denote the position (of the midpoint
of the rear axis) in the Cartesian coordinate frame and the
orientation of vehicle i, respectively; vi (t) and ωi (t) are the
linear and angular speeds of vehicle i, respectively. ui (t) ∈
Ui = {ui (t)||vi (t)| ≤ viM , |ωi (t)| ≤ ωiM } where viM and ωiM
are the limits of linear and angular speed, respectively. The
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS
reference trajectory to be tracked is generated by a virtual
reference vehicle of the same dynamics
= 0.
żr (t) = f (zr (t), ur (t))
with the reference state zr (t) = [pr (t); θr (t)], and reference
input ur (t) = [vr (t); ωr (t)] satisfying |vr (t)| ≤ vrM < viM and
|ωr (t)| ≤ ωrM < ωiM .
For the tracking and formation objective, we denote dir =
[dxir ; dyir ] the desired tracking vector between the vehicle i
and the virtual reference vehicle, dij = [dxij ; dyij ] the desired
formation vector between the vehicles i and j, Ni = {j ∈
Na | dij is desired} the formation neighbor index set (j ∈
Ni ⇔ i ∈ Nj ), and R the safety radius of vehicles. To steer the
nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems to track the virtual refer-
ence vehicle and keep the desired formation without collision,
the control objective of each vehicle i is described as
Tracking : as t → ∞, pr (t) − pi (t) = dir , θi (t) = θr (t),
Formation : as t → ∞, pj (t) − pi (t) = dij , ∀j ∈ Ni , (4)
Collision avoidance : pj (t) − pi (t) ≥ 2R, ∀j ∈ Na \ i,
Consistency : dij = dir − djr = dil − djl ,
∀j, l ∈ Ni .
Here the condition (6) is required to guarantee the consistency
between the tracking and formation. For a desired tracking and
formation objective, dir and dij are given a priori, following
1441
and the terminal cost gi (zir (tk + T |tk )), which is a continuous,
differentiable function (chosen in Section III-A), satisfying
gi (0) = 0 and gi (zir (t)) > 0 for any zir (t)
(2)
III. S YNCHRONOUS D ISTRIBUTED R ECEDING
H ORIZON C ONTROL
In the synchronous DRHC, each vehicle i does not know
the current actual predictive trajectories of the others. As the
substitutions, it utilizes the assumed predictive trajectories of
other vehicles which are received before solving the optimiza-
tion problem. To distinguish the different predictive trajectories,
we clarify
u∗i (τ |tk ) the optimal predictive input of vehicle i, the first
portion of which is implemented as the real-time
input;
ûi (τ |tk ) the assumed predictive input of vehicle i, which is
used to evolve the assumed predictive trajectory.
(3)
The corresponding variables evolved according to u∗i (τ |tk )
and ûi (τ |tk ) are labeled in the same manner, e.g., the optimal
(i.e., actual) predictive trajectory p∗i (τ |tk ) and the assumed
(5) predictive trajectory p̂i (τ |tk ). By implementing the real-time
control input ui (τ ) = u∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ), the real-time
trajectory is identical to the optimal predictive one, i.e., pi (τ ) =
(6) p∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ].
The assumed predictive input is taken as the combination of
the optimal predictive input and the terminal controller at the
last sampling instant (see, e.g., [16], [17], [30]), i.e.,
which Ni is determined. To guarantee the collision avoidance 
u∗i (τ |tk−1 ), τ ∈ [tk , tk−1 + T ),
condition (5), each vehicle i has to communicate with all the ûi (τ |tk ) = (9)
vehicles j ∈ Na \ i in order to plan a safe trajectory. Hence, a
κ∗
κi (zir (τ |tk−1 )) , τ ∈ [tk−1 + T, tk + T ]
global communication is desired in this paper.
According to the desired control objective, we de- where κi (zir κ∗
(τ |tk−1 )) is the terminal controller (i.e., the
fine pir (t) = pi (t) − pr (t) + dir the position tracking er- auxiliary control law designed in Section III-A) depend-
ror, θir (t) = θi (t) − θr (t) the angle tracking error, vir (t) = ing on the state tracking error zir κ∗
(τ |tk−1 ) = ziκ∗ (τ |tk−1 ) −
vi (t) − vr (t) cos θir (t) the linear speed tracking error, ωir (t) = zr (τ ) + [dir ; 0], with zi (τ |tk−1 ) being the terminal state
κ∗

ωi (t) − ωr (t) the angular speed tracking error, pij (t) =
pi (t) − pj (t) + dij the position formation error, zir = [pir ; θir ]
the state tracking error, and uir = [vir ; ωir ] the input tracking
error. For the weighting scalars αi , ρi and βi given a priori, the
evolved along the dynamics (1) from ziκ∗ (tk−1 + T |tk−1 ) =
zi∗ (tk−1 + T |tk−1 ) by implementing the feedback control input
ui (τ |tk−1 ) = κi (zirκ∗
(τ |tk−1 )) in closed-loop. Accordingly, the
assumed predictive trajectory is evolved as
ideal cost function of each vehicle i is formulated as 
p∗i (τ |tk−1 ), τ ∈ [tk , tk−1 + T ],
t
k +T p̂i (τ |tk ) = (10)
i (τ |tk−1 ),
pκ∗ τ ∈ (tk−1 + T, tk + T ]
Ji (tk , zir , pi· , uir ) = Li (τ |tk , zir , pi· , uir )dτ
where pκ∗ i (τ |tk−1 ) is the associated terminal trajectory. The
tk

+ gi (zir (tk + T |tk )) (7) relationship between the different inputs and corresponding tra-
jectories are illustrated in Fig. 2. Following the assumed predic-
with the stage cost tive trajectory (10), we define the uncertain deviation between
Li (τ |tk , zir , pi· , uir ) = αi pir (τ |tk )2 + ρi vir (τ |tk )2 the assumed and actual predictive trajectories of vehicle i as
 
εi (τ |tk ) = p̂i (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ), and denote the corresponding
position tracking predictive position formation error as p̂ij (τ |tk ) = pi (τ |tk ) −
+ αi θir (τ |tk )2 + ρi ωir (τ |tk )2 p̂j (τ |tk ) + dij .
 

angle tracking
Let Ωi (tk ) define the terminal-state region at the in-
 stant tk , hCB i (εi (τ |tk )) ≤ 0 the compatibility constraint,
+ βi pij (τ |tk )2 (8) and hCA i (p i (τ |tk ), p̂j (τ |tk )) ≤ 0, ∀j ∈ Na \ i the collision
j∈Ni
 
avoidance constraint. Each vehicle i takes its current cost
position formation as Ji (tk , zir , p̂i· , uir ) instead of Ji (tk , zir , pi· , uir ) in (7), by
1442 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014

Fig. 3. Terminal-state region Ωi for the case of forward tracking and reg-
ulation. For the given parameters λi , μi , θ̄ir , and Di , the boundary of this
Fig. 2. Relationship between different inputs and corresponding trajectories. region is determined by solving an optimization problem subjecting to the
Please refer to Algorithm 1 for implementation details. constraint (15).

substituting pij (τ |tk ) with p̂ij (τ |tk ), ∀j ∈ Ni , and solves the

following optimization problem: respectively (following the common practice of RHC in [44]).
The collision avoidance should also be considered outside of
min Ji (tk , zir , p̂i· , uir ) Ωi (tk ), which will be detailed in the next section.
ui (τ |tk )
According to Definition 1, we design the auxiliary control
s.t. zi (tk |tk ) = zi (tk ), law and the terminal-state region via three steps: (i) transform-
for all τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ], ing the coordinate frame; (ii) giving the immediate formulations
of the terminal-state region and the auxiliary control law;
żi (τ |tk ) = fi (zi (τ |tk ), ui (τ |tk )) ,
(iii) showing that these formulations satisfy the requirements
ui (τ |tk ) ∈ Ui , in Definition 1.
hCB
i (εi (τ |tk )) ≤ 0, For ease of design, we transform the state to the vehicle-
based coordinate frame (see the xi − yi coordinate frame in
hCA
i (pi (τ |tk ), p̂j (τ |tk )) ≤ 0, ∀j ∈ Na \ i,
Fig. 3). In the vehicle-based coordinate frame, we define the
zi (tk + T |tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk ). (11) position tracking error
In the following, the terminal-state region with the auxiliary  
x̃ir (t) cos θi (t) sin θi (t)
controller, the compatibility and the collision avoidance con- p̃ir (t) = = p (t), (13)
ỹir (t) − sin θi (t) cos θi (t) ir
straints are designed.
the angle tracking error θ̃ir (t) = θir (t), and the state tracking
A. Design of the Terminal-State Region and the error z̃ir (t) = [p̃ir (t); θ̃ir (t)]. Then, the differential dynamics
Auxiliary Control Law of the tracking error can be derived for each vehicle i as
As mentioned in the introduction, the development of the ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 ωi (t) 0 vi (t)−vr (t) cos θ̃ir (t)
positively invariant terminal-state region and the associated
z̃˙ ir (t) =⎣−ωi (t) 0 0 ⎦z̃ir (t)+⎣ vr (t) sin θ̃ir (t) ⎦.
auxiliary controller is still a challenging issue for the simulta-
0 0 0 ωi (t)−ωr (t)
neous tracking and regulation problem of single nonholonomic
(14)
vehicle. In the following, we tackle this issue for the nonholo-
nomic multi-vehicle systems with collision avoidance. The terminal-state region is constructed by the terminal
Definition 1: The terminal-state region Ωi (tk ) and the aux- constraints in the following:
iliary control law κi (·) are such that, for any zi (t|tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk )
and τ ≥ t, by implementing ui (τ |tk ) = κi (zir (τ |tk )), 2
ỹir (τ |tk ) ≤ λ2i x̃2ir (τ |tk ), (15a)

zi (τ |tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk ), (12a)

2
θ̃ir (τ |tk ) ≤ μ2i x̃2ir (τ |tk ), (15b)
ui (τ |tk ) ∈ Ui , (12b) 2
θ̃ir (τ |tk ) ≤ θ̄ir
2
, (15c)

pj (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) ≥ 2R, ∀j ∈ Na \ i, (12c) x̃ir (τ |tk ) ≤ 0, ỹir (τ |tk )θ̃ir (τ |tk ) ≥ 0, for vr (τ ), vi (τ ) ≥ 0,

(ġi (zir (τ |tk )) + Li (τ |tk , zir , pi· , uir )) ≤ 0. (12d) x̃ir (τ |tk ) ≥ 0, ỹir (τ |tk )θ̃ir (τ |tk ) ≤ 0, for vr (τ ), vi (τ ) ≤ 0,
i∈Na (15d)
The condition (12a)–(12d) stand for the positive invariance, dir − djr  − 2R
p̃ir (τ |tk ) ≤ Di = min (15e)
input admissibility, collision avoidance and local convergence, j∈Na \i 2
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS 1443

TABLE II
WAY TO H ANDLE THE T ERMINAL C ONDITIONS

⎧   
with the non-negative scalars λi , μi , θ̄ir . For simplicity, we have ⎨ 1+λ2i αi +2|Ni |βi +2 j∈N βj +αi μ2i +ρi a2i
omitted the superscript “κ” in x̃ir (τ |tk ), ỹir (τ |tk ), θ̃ir (τ |tk ) γi ≥ max
i
,
and p̃ir (τ |tk ). Hence, the terminal-state region is ⎩ ai − λi μi vrM
     
Ωi (tk ) = zi (τ |tk )(15) . (16) ρi 1 + λ2i bi μi vrM + ci . (19e)

In the terminal constraint (15), (15a)–(15d) are designed in Theorem 1: Let the terminal-state region and terminal cost
view of the nonholonomic property, to constrain the terminal function be given as in (16) and (18). Suppose Assumption 1
state for simultaneous tracking and regulation. The two cases holds and zi (t|tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk ). Then, for any τ ≥ t, under the
in (15d) are designed, respectively, for forward and backward auxiliary control law (17),
tracking with regulation. The constraint (15e) is designed to a) the requirements in Definition 1 are satisfied;
guarantee (12c), which follows the intuition that if each vehicle b) the tracking error system (14) is exponentially stable.
is closed enough to its desired position, then it will not collide Proof: The proof follows that, under ui (τ |tk ) =
with the others (for more details see Theorem 1 in the sequel). κi (zir (τ |tk )), for any zi (t|tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk ), the requirements
The region enclosed by dotted lines in Fig. 3 is the terminal- in Definition 1 are guaranteed by (15) and (19), and gi (·)
state region for the case of forward tracking and regulation. decreases exponentially to zero. For more details, see
The auxiliary control law is Appendix A. 

κ  Following Assumption 1, the auxiliary controller scalars
vi (τ |tk )
κi (zir (τ |tk )) = κ ai , bi , ci , the terminal constraint scalars λi , μi , θ̄ir , and the
ωi (τ |tk ) terminal weighting scalar γi can be chosen off-line (see

 Algorithm 1).
vr (τ |tk ) cos θ̃ir (τ |tk ) + vir
κ
(τ |tk )
= (17) The brief relationship between the conceptual condition (12)
ωr (τ |tk ) + ωir κ (τ |t )
k
and the realistic conditions (15), (19) is shown in Table II.
with κ
vir (τ |tk ) = −ai x̃ir (τ |tk ) and ωirκ
(τ |tk ) = Remarks 1: Compared with the results in [35], [36], [45],
−(sgn(θ̃ir (τ |tk ))(bi |x̃ir (τ |tk )vr (τ )θ̃ir (τ |tk )| + ci x̃2ir (τ |tk ))/ the terminal-state region Ωi (tk ) in (16) has the following
(x̃2ir (τ |tk ) + ỹir
2
(τ |tk )), where ai , bi , ci are positive scalars. advantages.
Additionally, we define the terminal cost function as • It handles forward tracking (vr (τ ), vi (τ ) ≥ 0), backward
  tracking (vr (τ ), vi (τ ) ≤ 0) and regulation (vr (τ ) = 0)
1 problem in a unified manner. In comparison, [35] requires
gi (zir (τ |tk )) = γi pir (τ |tk )2 + |θir (τ |tk )|
2 vr (t) ≥ 0 for the single vehicle, while [36], [45] require
   vr (t)
= 0.
1 2  
= γi p̃ir (τ |tk ) + θ̃ir (τ |tk ) (18) • It avoids the collision between the multi-vehicles.
2
• It guarantees the positive invariance (illustrated in
with the weighting scalar γi > 0, which will serve as a Section IV-A).
Lyapunov function for the tracking error system (14).
For the existence of the above terminal cost function, B. Design of the Compatibility and Collision
terminal-state region and auxiliary controller (which are the Avoidance Constraints
three ingredients of [44] for a usual RHC) to satisfy the require-
ments in Definition 1, the following assumption is desired. Due to the satisfaction of (12c), the collision avoidance is
Assumption 1: Given the input limits viM , ωiM , vrM , ωrM and guaranteed in the terminal-state region. When the predictive
the weighting scalars αi , βi , ρi , i ∈ Na , there exist scalars trajectory is planed over the control horizon τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ],
ai , bi , ci , λi , μi , θ̄ir ∈ [0, π/2] and γi such that the collision avoidance should also be guaranteed. Under the
ideal condition, each vehicle i prefers to consider the collision
  v M − vrM avoidance constraint
max λi ωiM , λi μi vrM ≤ ai ≤ i , (19a)
Di
pj (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) ≥ 2R, ∀j ∈ Na \ i (20)
bi ≥ 1 + λ2i , (19b)
     for τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ]. However, the actual predictive trajectory
ci ≥ max 1 + λ2i ωrM + ai λi , 1 + λ2i ai θ̄ir , (19c)
pj (τ |tk ) is unavailable for vehicle i at tk , so the correspond-
bi μi vrM + ci ≤ ωiM − ωrM , (19d) ing assumed predictive trajectory p̂j (τ |tk ) is utilized as the
1444
substitution. As a result, the influence of the uncertain deviation
εj (τ |tk ) on the collision avoidance cannot be ignored. Addi-
tionally, the influence of the uncertain deviation on the con-
vergence of tracking and formation should also be considered.
In this section, we propose to design a compatibility constraint
to handle the effects of, and design the collision avoidance
constraint tolerating for, the uncertain deviation.
Constraining the uncertain deviation εi (τ |tk ), referred to as
the compatibility constraint in [16], [17], [30], is imposed in the
individual optimization problem with the fundamental effect
of enforcing a degree of consistency between what a vehicle
plans to do and what other vehicles believe it will do. This is
important for guaranteeing the state trajectory to converge to the
desired target (see, e.g., [30]) or a neighborhood of it (see, e.g.,
[16], [17]). In this paper, we endow the compatibility constraint
with an additional effect for the collision avoidance. To these
ends, we design two bounds for the compatibility constraint, in
the following.
The first bound is designed in view of the collision
avoidance, as
σi (k) = min {σij (k)}
j∈Na \i
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014
The constraint (26) is still valid by substituting σij (k) with
σj (k). We select the variable σij (k) in (26) for less commu-
nication cost (see the second paragraph after Algorithm 1 in
Section III-D). The constraint (26) is the designed collision
avoidance constraint, i.e.,
i (pi (τ |tk ), p̂j (τ |tk )) = 2R+σij (k)−p̂j (τ |tk )−pi (τ |tk ).
hCA
(27)
In summary, if the constraints (23) and (26) are satisfied for all
τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ], then the implementation of ui (τ ) = u∗i (τ |tk ),
τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ) guarantees the collision avoidance condition (5)
over the interval [tk , tk+1 ].
Example: Let us illustrate how the compatibility constraint
(23) plays its role in the collision avoidance. Suppose for three
vehicles i, j and l
p̂j (τ |tk )− p̂i (τ |tk ) = p̂l (τ |tk )− p̂i (τ |tk ) = 2R, (28)
p̂j (τ |tk )− p̂l (τ |tk ) = 4R (29)
for all τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ]. The assumed predictive trajectory of vehi-
cle i is sandwiched between those of j and l. According to (21),

minτ ∈[tk ,tk +T ] {p̂j (τ |tk )− p̂i (τ |tk )}
= min
j∈Na \i 2 and pl (τ |tk ) = p̂l (τ |tk ), τ ∈ (tk , tk+1 ], i.e., the three vehicles
The second bound is designed for the tracking and formation
convergence guarantee, as
 

ϕ αi zir (tk )2 + j∈Ni βi pij (tk )2
ηi (k) =  (22)
(T − δ) j∈Ni βj (2ξij (k) + 3σij (k))
where ϕ ∈ [0, 1) is a pre-specified scalar denoting the
desired convergence speed, and ξij (k) = maxτ ∈[tk+1 ,tk +T ]
p̂j (τ |tk ) − p̂i (τ |tk ) + dji . Then, by incorporating both
bounds, we constrain the uncertain deviation by
εi (τ |tk ) ≤ min {σi (k), ηi (k)}
for all τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ]. The constraint (23) is the designed
compatibility constraint, i.e.,
hCB
i (εi (τ |tk )) = εi (τ |tk ) − min {σi (k), ηi (k)} .
Following the compatibility constraint (23) and the triangle
inequality property, yields:
pj (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) = p̂j (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) − εj (τ |tk )
≥ p̂j (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) − σij (k)
by applying which the ideal constraint (20) can be
guaranteed by
p̂j (τ |tk ) − pi (τ |tk ) ≥ 2R + σij (k), ∀j ∈ Na \ i.
 σi (k) = σj (k) = σl (k) = 0 is computed. Furthermore, accord-
ing to (23), it leads to pi (τ |tk ) = p̂i (τ |tk ), pj (τ |tk ) = p̂j (τ |tk )
−R .
(21) move along their assumed predictive trajectories, respectively,
so that the collision between these vehicles is avoided over
the interval [tk , tk+1 ]. Without (23), there are many choices
for pi (τ |tk ), pj (τ |tk ), pl (τ |tk ) satisfying (26) but incurring
collision.
C. Main Results
Now, by substituting the above designed terminal, compat-
ibility and collision avoidance constraints into (11), the opti-
mization problem of each vehicle i to be directly solved on-line
is formulated as
(23) min Ji (tk , zir , p̂i· , uir )
ui (τ |tk )
s.t. zi (tk |tk ) = zi (tk ),
for all τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ],
(24) żi (τ |tk ) = fi (zi (τ |tk ), ui (τ |tk )) ,
ui (τ |tk ) ∈ Ui , (23), (26),
for τ = tk + T, (15). (30)
Since the optimization problem (30) is constructed following
the common practice of RHC, the properties of the usual RHC
(i.e., the recursive feasibility of the optimization problem, and
(25) convergence of the closed-loop state; see [44]) will be illus-
trated. The collision avoidance will be proved as an additional
property of the multi-vehicle systems.
Theorem 2: For the multi-vehicle system (1), each vehicle
solves the optimization problem (30) at each sampling instant
(26) tk , k ≥ 0. For each vehicle, if there exists a feasible solution at
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS
the initial instant t0 , then by implementing the real-time input
ui (τ ) = u∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ),
a) the optimization problem (30) is feasible at any tk , k > 0;
b) the collision between each pair of vehicles is avoided for
all t ≥ 0;
c) the tracking and formation errors of multi-vehicles con-
verge to zeros.
Proof: The proof follows that, by applying the real-time
input ui (τ ) = u∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ) for each vehicle, the
assumed predictive input ûi (τ |tk+1 ), τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk+1 + T ] is
feasible to (30) at the instant tk+1 ; the collision avoidance
condition (5) is guaranteed over the interval τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ]; the
sum of all the individual optimal cost functions (serving as a
Lyapunov function of the multi-vehicles) decreases exponen-
tially to zero. For more details, see Appendix B.  smaller scalar ϕ leads to a smaller ηi (k), which will force the
Now, following the proof of Theorem 2, the main results
of this paper are concluded as follows. For the nonholonomic
multi-vehicle system (1), the reference trajectory generated by
(2), and the given control objective (3)–(6), if the optimization
problem (30) of each vehicle i is feasible at the initial instant
t0 , then the implementation of the real-time input ui (τ ) =
u∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ) for each vehicle can steer the multi-
vehicle system to track the desired reference trajectory and
achieve the desired formation with collision avoidance.
Remark 2: Compared with the compatibility constraints pro-
posed in [16], [17], [30], the constraint (23) has the following
advantages.
• It guarantees the tracking and formation errors to converge
to zeros (while [16], [17] do not), and is in the norm form
(while [30] is in a complex linear matrix inequality form).
• It plays an important role in both the collision avoidance
(depending on the designed bound σi (k)) and the conver-
gence guarantee (depending on the designed bound ηi (k)),
while the former is not considered in [16], [17], [30].
D. Implementation of the DRHC Algorithm
In this section, the synchronous DRHC algorithm is pre-
sented for each vehicle to schedule the optimization, implemen-
tation, calculation and communication.
Algorithm 1:
Off-line stage: For each vehicle i, give the weighting scalars
αi , ρi , βi , and the convergence speed ϕ; choose the terminal
constraint scalars λi , μi , θ̄ir , the terminal controller parame-
ters ai , bi , ci , and the terminal weighting scalar γi satisfying
Assumption 1.
On-line stage: At the initial time t = t0 , each vehicle i sets
p̂i (τ |t0 ) = pi (t0 ), τ ∈ [t0 , t0 + T ], sends p̂i (τ |t0 ) to j ∈ Na \
i, and receives p̂j (τ |t0 ) from j ∈ Na \ i. Then, it performs the
following procedure:
(I) At each sampling instant t = tk , k ≥ 0,
a) compute the bounds σij (k) and σi (k) according to
(21), and ηi (k) according to (22);
b) solve the optimization problem (30) to obtain
u∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ];
1445
(II) Over the interval t ∈ [tk , tk+1 ), k ≥ 0,
a) implement the real-time input ui (t) = u∗i (t|tk );
b) assume the predictive trajectory p̂i (τ |tk+1 ), τ ∈
[tk+1 , tk+1 + T ] according to (10);
c) send p̂i (τ |tk+1 ) to j ∈ Na \ i and receive p̂j (τ |tk+1 )
from j ∈ Na \ i.
In the off-line stage of Algorithm 1, the determination of
the parameters is discussed as follows. The weighting scalars
αi , βi , ρi are given according to the desired tracking and for-
mation objectives. The more the tracking (formation) objective
is emphasized, the larger the scalars αi and ρi (βi ) should be
given. The scalar ϕ ∈ [0, 1) is given to tune the convergence
speed of tracking and formation. The faster the convergence
speed is desired, the smaller the ϕ should be given. However, a
vehicle i to keep closer with its assumed trajectory, i.e., leave
less margin for improving trajectory. The scalars λi , μi and θ̄ir
are chosen to tune the terminal-state region Ωi (tk ). According
to the constraints (15a)–(15c), the larger the scalars λi , μi and
θ̄ir are chosen, the larger the region Ωi (tk ) can be determined,
however, the less margin is reserved for choosing the controller
parameters ai , bi and ci (see the conditions (19a)–(19d) in
Assumption 1). Thus, the terminal-state region Ωi (tk ) should
be determined properly to guarantee the existence of the auxil-
iary control law κi (·). After the determination of Ωi (tk ) and
κi (·), the terminal weighting scalar γi can be easily chosen
according to (19e).
In the on-line stage of Algorithm 1, the trick of setting the
initial assumed predictive trajectory as p̂i (τ |t0 ) = pi (t0 ) is mo-
tivated by [16] and [17], to avoid the computation complexity
of centralized computation. In item a) of step (I), the calcula-
tion of σi (k) depends on the collection of the communicated
information p̂j (τ |tk ), j ∈ Na \ i. Then, using σj (k) in the
collision avoidance constraint (26) would require each vehicle
to communicate with the others once more, which is avoided
in this paper. The calculation of ηi (k) depends on the current
state zi (tk ) and the current position pj (tk ) of vehicles j ∈ Ni ,
which are identical to zi∗ (tk |tk−1 ) and p̂j (tk |tk ), respectively.
In item b) of step (I), the time of solving the optimization
problem (30) is assumed to be trivial at each sampling instant tk
for immediate implementation. For the non-trivial optimization
times, a predictive version can be adopted (as referred in [17]),
i.e., solving (30) before tk using the optimal state zi (tk ) =
zi∗ (tk |tk−1 ).
For the above proposed distributed RHC, when Na in-
creases, the number of collision avoidance constraints, say
Na − 1, is increased, but the number of decision variables
ui (τ |tk ) (τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ]) never grows. In contrast, for the
centralized RHC, the number of collision avoidance constraints
is (1/2)Na (Na − 1), while the number of decision variables
ui (τ |tk ) (τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ], i ∈ Na ) increases linearly with Na .
In [46], some analyses on the computational complexity of the
RHC optimization problem for the continuous-time nonlinear
system have been given, and a comparison of the complexity
bounds between the centralized and distributed RHCs has been
provided. These results similarly support the computational
advantage of Algorithm 1.
1446 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014

TABLE III
T ERMINAL C ONSTRAINTS , AUXILIARY C ONTROLLERS AND A SSOCIATED PARAMETERS FOR D IFFERENT A PPROACHES

TABLE IV
C HECK OF THE P OSITIVE I NVARIANCE OF T ERMINAL -S TATE R EGIONS

IV. I LLUSTRATIVE E XAMPLES B. A Simulation Example

To verify the validity of the proposed results, we give a This section is provided to verify the main results. Consider
comparison example to demonstrate the positive invariance the simultaneous forward/backward tracking, regulation and
of the terminal-state region Ωi (tk ), and provide a simulation formation problem of Na = 3 nonholonomic vehicles with
example to illustrate the effectiveness of the main results for the collision avoidance. Give the safety radius as R = 0.5 m,
simultaneous (forward/backward) tracking, regulation and for- and the linear and angular speed limits of each vehicle as
mation problem of nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems with viM = 4 m/s and ωiM = 2 rad/s, respectively. The reference
collision avoidance. trajectory (see the dash dot lines depicted in Figs. 4–6) to be
tracked is formulated as
⎧
⎪ 10 cos(0.2t + π/4), 0 ≤ t < 2.5π,
⎨ −5√2,
⎪
2.5π ≤ t < 9.5,
A. A Comparison Example xr (t) = √ √ (31)
⎪
⎪ −5 2 + (7+5 2)(t−9.5)
, 9.5 ≤ t < 17.75,
⎩ 8.25
Consider a simple forward tracking problem (with θr (t) ≡ 0 7, t ≥ 17.75,

rad, vr (t) ≡ vrM = 1 m/s and ωr (t) ≡ ωrM = 0 rad/s) for a 5 sin(0.4t + π/2), 0 ≤ t < 2.5π,
single nonholonomic vehicle (with viM = 2 m/s and ωiM = yr (t) = (32)
−5, t ≥ 2.5π.
1 rad/s). Let us test the positive invariance of the terminal-
state regions by the approaches proposed in [35], [36] and The control objective is different over the horizons [0 s, 9.5 s)
this paper. The terminal constraints, the auxiliary controllers and [9.5 s, 18 s]. Over [0 s, 9.5 s), we set the initial states of the
and the associated parameters, for the three approaches, are multi-vehicles as
listed in Table III. We suppose a set of terminal state tracking z1 (0) = [6; 3.5; −π/3] , z2 (0) = [0; 5; 0],
errors, satisfying the terminal constraints, for each approach.
z3 (0) = [5.3; 1.2; π/3] ,
The derivatives of these errors are calculated according to (14).
Then we check whether or not the terminal constraints are give the desired tracking and formation vectors as
satisfied at the successive time. The results are reported in
Table IV. Clearly, at the successive time, the terminal con- d1r = [−3; −1.75], d2r = [2; 0], d3r = [−3; 1.75],
straints proposed in [35] and [36] are violated, while (15) is d12 = − d21 = [−5; −1.75], d23 = −d32 = [5; −1.75],
still satisfied. d31 = − d13 = [0; 3.5],
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS
Fig. 4. Trajectories of multi-vehicles and reference in scenario 1 (without
collision avoidance guarantee). At the time 0.65 s, 4.65 s and 9.45 s, the vehicles
are marked with the orientation arrows. The vehicles 1 and 3 collide during the
interval [0.5 s, 0.7 s].
Fig. 5. Trajectories of multi-vehicles and reference in scenario 2 (with colli-
sion avoidance guarantee). At the time 0.65 s, 4.65 s and 9.45 s, the vehicles
are marked with the orientation arrows. The collision is avoided.
constrain the linear speed of each vehicle by 0 ≤ vi (t) ≤ viM ,
and restrict the angular speed by −ωiM ≤ ωi (t) ≤ ωiM . This
is a simultaneous forward tracking, regulation and formation
problem. The reference trajectory over [0 s, 2.5π s) is a parallel
parking trajectory adopted in [34]. Over [9.5 s, 18 s], we renew
the desired tracking and formation vectors as
d1r = [0; −3.25], d2r = [4.5; 0], d3r = [0; 3.25],
d12 = − d21 = [−4.5; −3.25], d23 = −d32 = [4.5; −3.25],
d31 = − d13 = [0; 6.5],
and the linear speed constraint of each vehicle as −viM ≤
vi (t) ≤ 0. This is a simultaneous backward tracking, regulation
and formation problem.
In this simulation, the control horizon, the sampling period
and the simulation time step are chosen as T = 3 s, δ =
0.5 s and Δt = 0.05 s, respectively. The tracking and forma-
1447
Fig. 6. Trajectories of multi-vehicles and reference in scenario 3 (with colli-
sion avoidance guarantee). At the time 12 s and 18 s, the vehicles are marked
with the orientation arrows. The collision is avoided.
tion weighting scalars are given as αi = 5 and ρi = βi = 1,
∀i ∈ Na . The convergence speed is desired as ϕ = 0.99. The
terminal constraint scalars are chosen as λi = 0.25, μi = 0.2
and θ̄ir = π/4, ∀i ∈ Na . According to the condition (19), the
auxiliary controller scalars and the terminal weighting scalar
are chosen as ai = 0.5, bi = 1.0625, ci = 0.8, and γi = 34.
The simulation are implemented in MATLAB on a PC, with
a dual-core 2.93 GHz Intel i3 CPU and a 3.24 GB RAM.
The optimization problem of each vehicle is described and
transcribed by the ICLOCS (Imperial College London Optimal
Control Software, see [47]), and solved by the open-source
code IPOPT (Interior Point OPTimizer, see [48]). To illustrate
the main results clearly, we provide three scenarios for this
simulation. The simulation results are given as follows, where
we denote each vehicle by a circle of radius R with an orienta-
tion arrow, show the communication links between vehicles by
dotted lines, and indicate the start points by the thick orientation
arrows.
Scenario 1: Let the multi-vehicles achieve the mission over
[0 s, 9.5 s), where the optimization problem without collision
avoidance guarantee is solved by each vehicle. The optimiza-
tion problem (30) is modified by substituting the constraint
(23) as εi (τ |tk ) ≤ ηi (k), and removing the constraint (26).
The trajectories of the multi-vehicles are plotted in Fig. 4,
where the collision occurs. This scenario provides a comparison
benchmark for the collision avoidance test.
Scenario 2: The mission in Scenario 1 is reconsidered, but
the optimization problem (30) is solved by each vehicle. The
trajectories of multi-vehicles are plotted in Fig. 5, where the
collision is avoided. This verifies the collision avoidance guar-
antee of the constraints (23) and (26). In Fig. 5, the differences
between pi (t|t1 ) and pi (t) verify the existence of uncertain de-
viation between the assumed and actual predictive trajectories.
Scenario 3: Continuing the mission in Scenario 2, let the
multi-vehicles achieve the mission over [9.5 s, 18 s]. The opti-
mization problem (30) is solved by each vehicle. The trajecto-
ries of multi-vehicles are plotted in Fig. 6, where the collision is
1448
Fig. 7. Optimization time of multi-vehicles over the whole simulation
horizon.
Fig. 8. Cost values of multi-vehicles over the whole simulation horizon.
also avoided. This verifies the effectiveness of the main results
for backward tracking.
In the three scenarios, the optimization problems are always
feasible by receding-horizon implementation, which verifies
the property of recursive feasibility. In the scenarios 2 and 3,
the optimization time of each vehicle, say T ci (tk ), over the
whole simulation horizon [0 s, 18 s] are plotted in Fig. 7. The
optimal performance costs, Ji (tk )’s, are plotted in Fig. 8, where
the sum of the individual optimal cost values decreases mono-
tonically for the forward and backward tracking, respectively.
It verifies the convergence guarantee.
In scenario 2, Figs. 9 and 10 show that the linear and angular
speeds of all vehicles converge to the reference linear and
angular speeds after the time t9 = 4.5 s. It means that the
desired forward tracking and formation objective is achieved
after the time t9 = 4.5 s. Note that, the inputs of each vehicle
deviate a little bit from the corresponding reference inputs
during the control horizon [7.5 s, 8 s) (see Figs. 9 and 10). It
means that each vehicle takes a regulation to adjust its position
and orientation for parallel parking. In scenario 3, the similar
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014
Fig. 9. Linear speeds of multi-vehicles over the whole simulation horizon.
Fig. 10. Angular speeds of multi-vehicles over the whole simulation horizon.
phenomenon occurs. Over the whole simulation horizon, the
linear speed of each vehicle does not exceed the range [0, viM ]
before 9.5 s, and the range [−viM , 0] after 9.5 s (see Fig. 9), and
the angular speed does not exceed [−ωiM , ωiM ] (see Fig. 10). It
means that the input constraints are always satisfied. Thus, the
effectiveness of the main results has been verified.
For a reasonable illustration on the computational complexity
of the optimization problem (30) solved by IPOPT, the Monte
Carlo simulations (10 times for each of the 15 sets of feasible
random initial positions) are run for the above scenarios 1 and 2.
For scenario 1, since the Na − 1 collision avoidance constraints
are removed from the optimization problem, it has the same
computational complexity as the case Na = 1. Some statistical
values of the optimization time T ci (tk ) for i = 1, 2, 3 are
shown in Table V. It is shown that the vehicle number Na does
affect the computational complexity.
Remark 3: In this simulation, the optimization time at each
sampling instant is longer than the chosen sampling period
δ = 0.5 s. For the real-time applications, the computers (e.g.,
the embedded computers with hardware acceleration) with
hundreds times faster computing speed than PC are required.
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS 1449

TABLE V 2|x̃ir ỹir |      

C OMPARISON OF O PTIMIZATION T IME B ETWEEN S CENARIOS 1 AND 2 ≥ 4 − 1 + λ2i ωr x̃2ir  − ai λi x̃2ir 
ỹir

− (1 − bi )|x̃ir vr θ̃ir | + ci x̃2ir

2|x̃ir ỹir |      
≥ 4 ci − 1 + λ2i ωrM − ai λi x̃2ir 
ỹir

V. C ONCLUSION + (bi − 1)|x̃ir vr θ̃ir |

In this paper, a synchronous DRHC is studied for the non- ≥0 (33)

holonomic multi-vehicle systems. We first design an auxil- which guarantees the satisfaction of (15a) for τ = t+ . Applying
iary control law and a set of terminal constraints to develop (15a), (15c), (15d), and (19c), yields
a positively invariant terminal-state region for each vehicle, !
which provides the foundation for the RHC of nonholonomic d 2
θ̃ir (τ |tk )
vehicle. Then, by considering the uncertain deviation existing dτ x̃2ir (τ |tk )
between the assumed and actual predictive trajectories of each
vehicle, we propose a compatibility constraint in the norm 2x̃ir θ̃ir  
= x̃ ω κ
ir ir − ω κ
ỹ θ̃
i ir ir + a x̃ θ̃
i ir ir
form, which is refreshed at each sampling instant based on x̃4ir
the current state and the assumed predictive trajectories. It
2x̃ir θ̃ir
improves those of [16], [17], [30] by playing an important = − ωr ỹir θ̃ir + ai x̃ir θ̃ir
role in both the collision avoidance and convergence guaran- x̃4ir
  !
tee. Thirdly, with the aid of compatibility constraint, a robust
sgn(θ̃ir ) bi |x̃ir vr θ̃ir |+ci x̃2ir (x̃ir − ỹir θ̃ir )
collision avoidance constraint is designed for each vehicle, −
depending on the assumed predictive trajectories of the others. x̃2ir + ỹir
2

It guarantees the collision avoidance with tolerating for any     

admissible uncertain deviation. By incorporating the above 2|x̃ir θ̃ir | −1  2   2 
≤ b i  x̃ ir v r θ̃ ir  + b i  x̃ ir ỹ ir v r θ̃ ir 
constraints, an individual optimization problem is formulated, x̃4ir (1 + λ2i ) x̃2ir
   
based on which the synchronous DRHC algorithm is presented  
for implementation. Since the synchronous DRHC is studied + ci x̃3ir  + ci x̃2ir ỹir θ̃ir 
systematically in accordance with the rationale of synthesis !
approach, all the properties of a general synthesis approach are + |ωr ỹir θ̃ir | + ai |x̃ir θ̃ir |
provided with this paper.
 
Indeed, the practical applications of the proposed approach  2 
2|x̃ir θ̃ir | bi |vr θ̃ir | bi x̃ir ỹir vr θ̃ir 
for the nonholonomic multi-vehicle systems involve many fac- ≤− +
tors, which will arouse a series of theoretical issues to be x̃4ir 1 + λ2i (1 + λ2i ) x̃2ir
considered in our future researches.  
ci
+ − ai θ̄ir |x̃ir |
1 + λ2i
  !
A PPENDIX A ci
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1 + − ωr |ỹir θ̃ir |
M
1 + λ2i
For any zi (t|tk ) ∈ Ωi (tk ) in (16), the constraints (15a)–(15e)
≤0 (34)
are satisfied for τ = t. Then, under the auxiliary controller (17),
the following derivations (the time-indices “(τ |tk )” and “(τ )” which guarantees the satisfaction of (15b) for τ = t+ . The
are omitted) are made. constraint (15c) is satisfied for τ = t+ because
a) Applying (15a), (15b), (15d), (19b), and (19c), yields
d 2
  θ̃ (τ |tk ) = 2θ̃ir ωir
κ
d x̃2ir (τ |tk ) dτ ir  
dτ ỹir 2 (τ |t )
k 2θ̃ir sgn(θ̃ir ) bi |x̃ir vr θ̃ir | + ai x̃2ir
=−
2x̃ir ỹir ˙ x̃2ir + ỹir
2
= 4 (x̃ir ỹir − x̃ir ỹ˙ ir ) ≤ 0. (35)
ỹir
2x̃ir ỹir  κ  2  
According to (15a), (15d) and (19a)–(19c), we have
= 4 ω i x̃ ir + ỹ 2
ir − a i x̃ ir ỹ ir − x̃ ir v r sin θ̃ ir
ỹir
d 2
2x̃ir ỹir   2  x̃ (τ |tk ) = 2x̃ir (ωiκ ỹir − ai x̃ir )
dτ ir
= 4 ωr x̃ir + ỹir 2
− ai x̃ir ỹir − x̃ir vr sin θ̃ir  
ỹir
  ≤ − 2 ai − λi ωiM x̃2ir
− sgn(θ̃ir ) bi |x̃ir vr θ̃ir | + ci x̃2ir ≤0 (36)
1450 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014

and ≤ dir − djr  − (pi − pj ) + (dir − djr )

d  2 
≤ pj − pi , (42)
ỹir (τ |tk )θ̃ir
2
(τ |tk )
dτ
  i.e., guarantees the condition (12c) for any τ ≥ t.
= 2ỹir θ̃ir −ωiκ x̃ir θ̃ir + θ̃ir vr sin θ̃ir + ỹir ωir
κ
Following the property pij 2 = pir − pjr 2 ≤ 2pir 2 +
2pjr 2 , the condition (12d) holds if:
= 2ỹir θ̃ir − ωr x̃ir θ̃ir + θ̃ir vr sin θ̃ir     
ġi (zir ) + αi pir 2 + θir 2 + ρi vir 2 + ωir 2
  !

i∈Na
sgn(θ̃ir ) bi |x̃ir vr θ̃ir |+ci x̃2ir (ỹir − x̃ir θ̃ir )  
− + 2βi pir 2 + pjr 2 ≤ 0. (43)
x̃2ir + ỹir
2
j∈Ni

−1   
≤ 2|ỹir θ̃ir | bi |x̃ir ỹir vr θ̃ir | + ci x̃2ir ỹir  According to (15a), (15b), (19a), and (19e), the condition (43) is
2 2
(1 + λi ) x̃ir guaranteed by summing the following conditions for all i ∈ Na :
    ⎛ ⎞
 2   
+ bi x̃2ir vr θ̃ir  + ci x̃3ir θ̃ir  
! ġi (zir )+ ⎝αi + 2|Ni |βi + 2 βj ⎠ pir 2 + αi θir 2
 
 2 j∈Ni
+ |ωr x̃ir θ̃ir | + vr θ̃ir   
+ ρi vir  + ωir 
2 2
⎛ ⎞
bi |x̃ir ỹir vr θ̃ir | ci |ỹir | 
≤ −2|ỹir θ̃ir | + = ġi (zir ) + ⎝αi + 2|Ni |βi + 2 βj ⎠ p̃ir 2
(1 + λ2i ) x̃2ir 1 + λ2i
    
j∈Ni
bi  2
+ 2 − 1 vr θ̃ir  + αi θ̃ir 2 + ρi vir κ 2
 + ωir κ 2

1 + λi
!  
  κ κ 2
ci = γi x̃ir vir + ỹir vr sin θ̃ir +sgn(θ̃ir )ωir + αi θ̃ir
+ − ωr |x̃ir θ̃ir |
M
⎛ ⎞
1 + λ2i
  
≤0 (37) + ⎝αi + 2|Ni |βi + 2 βj ⎠ x̃2ir + ỹir
2

j∈Ni
which guarantee the satisfaction of (15d) for τ = t+ . Applying 
κ2 κ2

+ ρi vir + ωir
(15a), (15b), (15d) and (19a), yields ⎛
d  
p̃ir (τ |tk )2 = 2 −ai x̃2ir + ỹir vr sin θ̃ir ≤ γi ⎝−ai x̃2ir + λi μi vrM x̃2ir
dτ  
≤ − 2 ai − λi μi vrM x̃2ir    ⎞
≤0  
(38) sgn(θ̃ir ) bi μi vrM + ci x̃2ir
− ⎠
which guarantees the satisfaction of (15e) for τ = t+ . By x̃2ir + ỹir
2

induction, the condition (12a) holds for any τ ≥ t, i.e., the ⎛ ⎞

positive invariance of Ωi (tk ) is guaranteed.   
+ ⎝αi + 2|Ni |βi + 2 βj ⎠ 1 + λ2i x̃2ir
Note that, (15e) and (19a) lead to
j∈Ni

|vir
κ
| = |ai x̃ir | ≤ |ai |p̃ir  ≤ viM −vrM ⇒ |viκ | ≤ viM , (39) + αi μ2i x̃2ir
+ ρi a2i x̃2ir
  2
 
while (15b) and (19d) lead to ρi sgn(θ̃ir ) bi μi vrM + ci x̃4ir
   + 2
  (x̃2ir + ỹir
2 )
sgn(θ̃ir ) bi |x̃ir vr θ̃ir | + ci x̃2ir
|ωir
κ
|=  
x̃2ir + ỹir
2
≤ − γi ai − λi μi vrM
≤ bi μi vr + ci ≤ ωi − ωrM ⇒ |ωiκ | ≤ ωiM .
M M
(40)
⎛ ⎞
Hence, the condition (12b) holds for any τ ≥ t.   
− ⎝αi + 2|Ni |βi + 2 βj ⎠ 1 + λ2i
According to the constraint (15e), we have
j∈Ni
!
pir  + pjr  = p̃ir  + p̃jr  ≤ dir − djr  − 2R (41)  
− αi μ2i − ρi a2i x̃2ir − bi μi vrM + ci
which, by applying the triangle inequality, guarantees  
γi    

2R ≤ dir − djr  − (pir  + pjr ) × − ρi b i μ i v M
r + c i  sgn( θ̃ ir ) 
1 + λ2i
≤ dir − djr  − (pi − pr + dir ) − (pj − pr + djr ) ≤ 0. (44)
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS 1451

In summary, conclusion a) holds. b) Since the feasibility of (30) at tk guarantees pj (τ ) −

b) For the tracking error system (14), it follows from pi (τ ) ≥ 2R over the horizon τ ∈ [tk , tk+1 ], conclusion b)
(44) that: holds following a).
& &2 c) For the multi-vehicle system, we choose the Lyapunov
& &
ġi (zir (t)) ≤ − αi p̃ir (t)2 − αi &θ̃ir (t)& function as the sum of individual optimal cost functions, i.e.,

∗
≤ − αi z̃ir (t)2 . (45) V (tk ) = Ji (tk , zir , p̂∗i· , u∗ir ) . (50)
i∈Na
Thus, conclusion b) holds.
By minimization, the difference of the Lyapunov function
satisfies
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2
V (tk+1 ) − V (tk )
   
−
Suppose, at the sampling instant tk , the optimization problem ≤ Ji tk+1 , zir , p̂− − ∗ ∗ ∗
i· , uir − Ji (tk , zir , p̂i· , uir )
(30) of each vehicle is feasible, which yields the optimal pre- i∈Na
dictive input u∗i (τ |tk ) and trajectory p∗i (τ |tk ), τ ∈ [tk , tk + T ]. t
k +T
  & & & & 
The satisfaction of the constraints (23) and (26) yields &p∗ij (τ |tk )&2 − &p̂∗ij (τ |tk )&2 dτ
= βi
& ∗ &
&pj (τ |tk ) − p∗i (τ |tk )& ≥ 2R, ∀j ∈ Na \ i. (46) i∈Na j∈Ni tk+1
tk+1
Thus, the real-time trajectory is safe over the horizon τ ∈ − ∗
Li (τ |tk , zir , p̂∗i· , u∗ir ) dτ
[tk , tk+1 ], i.e.,
tk

pj (τ ) − pi (τ ) ≥ 2R, ∀j ∈ Na \ i. (47)  +T

tk+1

+ Li (τ |tk , zir
κ∗ κ∗ κ∗
, pi· , κi (zir )) dτ
For the next instant tk+1 , the derivations are provided in the
tk +T
following. To distinguish from the optimal and assumed pre- !
dictive inputs, we introduce “−” as a superscript, i.e., denote + κ∗
gi (zir (tk+1 + T |tk )) − ∗
gi (zir (tk + T |tk )) .
the feasible predictive input as u− i (τ |tk+1 ); the accordingly
evolved variables are labeled with the same superscript. (51)
a) We show how the inequality constraints in (30) are
satisfied at instant tk+1 . By adopting the predictive input Following the triangle inequality property and the compatibility
u−i (τ |tk+1 ) = ûi (τ |tk+1 ), τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk+1 + T ], each vehicle constraint (23), we have:
evolves its predictive trajectory as p− i (τ |tk+1 ) = p̂i (τ |tk+1 ),
τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk+1 + T ]. Following the property of the terminal- t
k +T
 & & & & 
state region Ωi (tk ), u− i (τ |tk+1 ) ∈ Ui holds for all τ ∈ βi &p∗ij (τ |tk )&2 − &p̂∗ij (τ |tk )&2 dτ
[tk+1 , tk+1 + T ], and the terminal constraint (15) is satis- i∈Na j∈Ni tk+1
fied for τ = tk+1 + T . Because ε− i (τ |tk+1 ) = p̂i (τ |tk+1 ) − t
k +T
p−   & &
i (τ |tk+1 ) = 0, the compatibility constraint (23) is satisfied
≤ βi 2 &p̂∗ij (τ |tk )& εj (τ |tk )
naturally for all τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk+1 + T ]. According to (46) and
i∈Na j∈Ni tk+1
the property of the auxiliary controller, it holds that 
+ εj (τ |tk )2 dτ
2R ≤ p̂j (τ |tk+1 ) − p̂i (τ |tk+1 )
& &
&p∗ (τ |tk ) − p∗ (τ |tk )& , 
t
k +T

& & τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk + T ],

= & κ∗ j i ≤ βi (2 (ξji (k) + σij (k)) εj (τ |tk )
pj (τ |tk ) − pκ∗ &
i (τ |tk ) , τ ∈ [tk + T, tk+1 + T ] i∈Na j∈Ni tk+1
(48) + σji (k) εj (τ |tk )) dτ

∗
which guarantees ≤ ϕLi (tk |tk , zir , p̂∗i· , u∗ir ) . (52)
i∈Na
& &
&p̂j (τ |tk+1 ) − p− (τ |tk+1 )& ≥ R
i
Then, substituting (52) and (12d) into (51) yields
minτ ∈[tk+1 ,tk+1 +T ] {p̂j (τ |tk+1 ) − p̂i (τ |tk+1 )} 
+ (49) ∗
2 V (tk+1 ) − V (tk ) ≤ − (1 − ϕ)Li (tk |tk , zir , p̂∗i· , u∗ir )
i∈Na
for all τ ∈ [tk+1 , tk+1 + T ], i.e., the collision avoidance con-
straint (26) is satisfied. In summary, the predictive input ≤ − (1 − ϕ) min αi ZIr (tk )2 (53)
i∈Na
ūi (τ |tk+1 ) = ûi (τ |tk+1 ) is a feasible solution to (30).
Since the feasibility of (30) at instant tk means its feasibility where ZIr (tk ) = [z1r (tk ); . . . ; zNa r (tk )]. Thus, conclusion c)
at instant tk+1 , conclusion a) holds by induction. holds.
1452
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments and suggestions on improving
the work.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. G. Tanner, A. Jadbabaie, and G. J. Pappas, “Flocking in fixed
and switching networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, no. 5,
pp. 863–868, 2007.
[2] H. S. Su, X. F. Wang, and Z. L. Lin, “Flocking of multi-agents with a
virtual leader,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 293–307,
2009.
[3] H. T. Zhang, C. Zhai, and Z. Y. Chen, “A general alignment repul-
sion algorithm for flocking of multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 430–435, 2011.
[4] R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of
agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, 2004.
[5] K. Y. You and L. H. Xie, “Network topology and communication data rate
for consensusability of discrete-time multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 2262–2275, 2011.
[6] U. Munz, A. Papachristodoulou, and F. Allgower, “Consensus in multi-
agent systems with coupling delays and switching topology,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 2976–2982, 2011.
[7] H. Kim, H. Shim, and J. H. Seo, “Output consensus of heterogeneous un-
certain linear multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 56,
no. 1, pp. 200–206, 2011.
[8] H. J. Fang, Z. H. Wu, and J. Wei, “Improvement for consensus perfor-
mance of multi-agent systems based on weighted average prediction,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 249–254, 2012.
[9] M. G. Earl and R. D’Andrea, “A decomposition approach to multi-vehicle
cooperative control,” Robot. Auton. Syst., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 276–291,
2007.
[10] Y. F. Su and J. Huang, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-agent
systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 1062–1066,
2012.
[11] G. Chaloulos, P. Hokayem, and J. Lygeros, “Distributed hierarchical MPC
for conflict resolution in air traffic control,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
2010, pp. 3945–3950.
[12] S. A. Reveliotis and E. Roszkowska, “On the complexity of maximally
permissive deadlock avoidance in multi-vehicle traffic systems,” IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1646–1651, 2010.
[13] W. Ren, “Consensus Seeking, Formation Keeping, Trajectory Tracking
in Multiple Vehicle Cooperative Control,” Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT, Aug. 2004.
[14] G. D. Shi, Y. G. Hong, and K. H. Johansson, “Connectivity and set
tracking of multi-agent systems guided by multiple moving leaders,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 663–676, 2012.
[15] G. Lafferriere, A. Williams, J. Caughman, and J. J. P. Veerman, “Decen-
tralized control of vehicle formations,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 54, no. 9,
pp. 899–910, 2005.
[16] W. B. Dunbar, “Distributed Receding Horizon Control of Multiagent
Systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA, Apr. 2004.
[17] W. B. Dunbar and R. M. Murray, “Distributed receding horizon control
for multi-vehicle formation stabilization,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 4,
pp. 549–558, 2006.
[18] W. Zhang and J. H. Hu, “Optimal multi-agent coordination under tree
formation constraints,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 53, no. 3,
pp. 692–705, 2008.
[19] D. M. Stipanovic, G. Inalhan, R. Teo, and C. J. Tomlin, “Decentral-
ized overlapping control of a formation of unmanned aerial vehicles,”
Automatica, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1285–1296, 2004.
[20] J. T. Feddema, C. Lewis, and D. A. Schoenwald, “Decentralized control of
cooperative robotic vehicles: Theory and application,” IEEE Trans. Robot.
Autom., vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 852–864, 2002.
[21] T. Keviczky, F. Borrelli, K. Fregene, D. Godbole, and G. J. Balas, “De-
centralized receding horizon control and coordination of autonomous
vehicle formations,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 16, no. 1,
pp. 19–33, 2008.
[22] J. L. Wang and H. N. Wu, “Leader-following formation control of multi-
agent systems under fixed and switching topologies,” Int. J. Control,
vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 695–705, 2012.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 59, NO. 6, JUNE 2014
[23] N. E. Leonard and E. Fiorelli, “Virtual leaders, artificial potentials and
coordinated control of groups,” in Proc. 40th Conf. Decision Control,
2001, pp. 2968–2973.
[24] A. Ajorlou, A. Momeni, and A. G. Aghdam, “A class of bounded dis-
tributed control strategies for connectivity preservation in multi-agent
systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 2828–2833,
2010.
[25] W. J. Dong and J. A. Farrell, “Cooperative control of multiple non-
holonomic mobile agents,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 53, no. 6,
pp. 1434–1448, 2008.
[26] X. L. Wang, Y. G. Hong, J. Huang, and Z. P. Jiang, “A distributed control
approach to a robust output regulation problem for multi-agent linear
systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 2891–2895,
2010.
[27] D. V. Dimarogonas, E. Frazzoli, and K. H. Johansson, “Distributed event-
triggered control for multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 1291–1297, 2012.
[28] D. Jia and B. Krogh, “Min-max feedback model predictive control for
distributed control with communication,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
2002, pp. 4507–4512.
[29] C. Wang and C. J. Ong, “Distributed model predictive control of dynam-
ically decoupled systems with coupled cost,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 12,
pp. 2053–2058, 2010.
[30] B. C. Ding, L. H. Xie, and W. J. Cai, “Distributed model predictive control
for constrained linear systems,” Int. J. Robust Nonlin. Control, vol. 20,
no. 11, pp. 1285–1298, 2010.
[31] R. Scattolini, “Architectures for distributed and hierarchical model predic-
tive control—A review,” J. Process Control, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 723–731,
2009.
[32] J. A. Marshall, M. E. Broucke, and B. A. Francis, “Pursuit formations of
unicycles,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 3–12, 2006.
[33] G. Oriolo, A. De Luca, and M. Vendittelli, “WMR control via dy-
namic feedback linearization: Design, implementation, experimental val-
idation,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 835–852,
2002.
[34] T. C. Lee, K. T. Song, C. H. Lee, and C. C. Teng, “Tracking control
of unicycle-modeled mobile robots using a saturation feedback con-
troller,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 305–318,
2001.
[35] D. B. Gu and H. S. Hu, “Receding horizon tracking control of wheeled
mobile robots,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 743–749, 2006.
[36] J. Chen, D. Sun, J. Yang, and H. Chen, “Leader-follower formation con-
trol of multiple non-holonomic mobile robots incorporating a receding-
horizon scheme,” Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 727–747,
2010.
[37] A. Richards and J. P. How, “Robust distributed model predictive control,”
Int. J. Control, vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 1517–1531, 2007.
[38] Y. Kuwata, A. Richards, T. Schouwenaars, and J. P. How, “Dis-
tributed robust receding horizon control for multivehicle guidance,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 627–641,
2007.
[39] A. N. Venkat, I. A. Hiskens, J. B. Rawlings, and S. J. Wright, “Distributed
MPC strategies with application to power system automatic generation
control,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1192–
1206, 2008.
[40] E. Camponogara and L. B. de Oliveira, “Distributed optimization for
model predictive control of linear-dynamic networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man Cybern. A, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1331–1338, 2009.
[41] Y. Kuwata and J. P. How, “Cooperative distributed robust trajectory
optimization using receding horizon MILP,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 423–431, 2011.
[42] E. Camponogara, D. Jia, B. H. Krogh, and S. Talukdar, “Distributed model
predictive control,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 44–52,
2002.
[43] T. Keviczky, F. Borrelli, and G. J. Balas, “Decentralized receding hori-
zon control for large scale dynamically decoupled systems,” Automatica,
vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 2105–2115, 2006.
[44] D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, and P. O. M. Scokaert, “Con-
strained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica,
vol. 36, no. 6.
[45] F. Xie and R. Fierro, “On motion coordination of multiple vehicles with
nonholonomic constraints,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., 2007, vol. 1–13,
pp. 5986–5991.
[46] W. B. Dunbar, “Distributed receding horizon control of dynamically cou-
pled nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, no. 7,
pp. 1249–1263, 2007.
WANG AND DING: DRHC FOR TRACKING AND FORMATION OF NONHOLONOMIC MULTI-VEHICLE SYSTEMS
[47] P. Falugi, E. C. Kerrigan, and E. V. Wyk, Imperial College London Opti-
mal Control Software User Guide (ICLOCS), 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/ICLOCS/
[48] A. Wächter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior-
point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,”
Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 25–57, 2006.
Peng Wang was born in Shanxi, China. He re-
ceived the M.S. degree from Chang’an University,
Shaanxi, China, in 2009 and is currently pursuing the
Ph.D. degree at the Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an,
China.
His research interests include predictive control,
networked control and distributed control systems.
1453
Baocang Ding was born in Hebei, China. He re-
ceived the M.S. degree from the China University
of Petroleum, Beijing, in 2000 the Ph.D. degree
from Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China,
in 2003.
From September 2005 to September 2006, he was
a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Department of
Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of
Alberta, Canada. From November 2006 to August
2007, he was a Research Fellow in the School of
EEE, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
From September 2003 to August 2007, he was an Associate Professor in Hebei
University of Technology, China. From September 2007 to December 2008,
he was a Professor in Chongqing University, China. He is now a Professor
with Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China. His research interests include
predictive control, fuzzy control, networked control and distributed control
systems.
Dr. Ding was the recipient of the 2009 Program for New Century Excellent
Talents in University of China.