Autonomous mobile robot navigation system designed in dynamic

environment based on transferable belief model
Wang Yaonan
a
, Yang Yimin
a,⇑
, Yuan Xiaofang
a
, Zuo Yi
a,b
, Zhou Yuanli
a
, Yin Feng
a
, Tan Lei
a
a
College of Electrical and Information Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan 410082, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Regenerative Energy, Electric-Technology of Hunan Province, Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410004,
PR China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 February 2010
Received in revised form 19 March 2011
Accepted 12 May 2011
Available online 20 May 2011
Keywords:
Navigation
Path planning
Mobile robot
Robust tracking control
Transferable belief model
Dynamic environment
a b s t r a c t
This paper investigates the possibility of using transferable belief model (TBM) as a prom-
ising alternative for the problem of path planning of nonholonomic mobile robot equipped
with ultrasonic sensors in an unknown dynamic environment, where the workspace is
cluttered with static obstacles and moving obstacles. The concept of the transferable belief
model is introduced and used to design a fusion of ultrasonic sensor data. A new strategy
for path planning of mobile robot is proposed based on transferable belief model. The
robot’s path is controlled using proposed navigation strategy that depends on navigation
parameters which is modified by TBM pignistic belief value. These parameters are tuned
in real time to adjust the path of the robot. A major advantage of the proposed method
is that, with detection of the robot’s trapped state by ultrasonic sensor, the navigation
law can determine which obstacle is dynamic or static without any previous knowledge,
and then select the relevant obstacles for corresponding robot avoidance motion. Simula-
tion is used to illustrate collision detection and path planning.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
During the past few years, autonomous navigation of
nonholonomic systems such as nonholonomic mobile
robot has received wide attention and is a topic of great
research interest. The navigation systems including map
building and path planning implies that the robot is
capable of reacting to static obstacles and unpredictable
dynamic object that may impede the successful exaction
of a task. To achieve this level of robustness, many litera-
tures that deals with path planning is rapidly growing.
The work of Rueb and Wong [1], Habib and Yuta [2],
Mataric [3], Rimon and Koditschek [4] and Borenstein
and Koren [5] are among the earliest attempts to solve
the problem of path planning. Various classical approaches
designed originally are extended in order to be applicable
in real applications. Probabilistic roadmap methods are
used in [6–9]. Potential field method is suggested in
[10–12]. These methods perform well in static environ-
ments. However, this does not automatically imply good
performance in dynamic environment. Additionally, these
methods have limited performance when obstacles are al-
lowed to move in the workspace.
Recently, other kinds of research were proposed [13–
21], which extended the various approaches to dynamic
environment. For example, dynamic potential field method
[13–15], kinematics methods to solve the problem of colli-
sion detection [16], sensor-based path-planning methods
[17–20]. Sensor-based path-planning methods are widely
used to navigation in dynamic environments. The robot
calculates and estimates the motion of the moving obsta-
cles based on its sensory system. There also exist methods
with other algorithms such as genetic algorithms [21], fuz-
zy system [22], intelligent algorithms [23,24] to solve this
problem. These methods have the ability of wheeled mo-
bile robots to navigate safely and avoid moving obstacle
0263-2241/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2011.05.010

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Yangyi_min@126.com (Y. Yimin).
Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Measurement
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ measur ement
in dynamic environment. However, most of the proposed
approaches for mobile robots in the literature did not con-
sider autonomous navigation in an environment which in-
cludes both static obstacles and dynamic obstacles.
Furthermore, in the nature of the real world, any prior
knowledge about the environment is, in general, incom-
plete, uncertain, or completely unknown. These methods
assume that, each moving object’s velocity and direction
is exactly known, but this prior knowledge is not easy to
gain.
The transferable belief model (TBM) is a model for the
quantified representation of epistemic uncertainty and
which can be an agent, an intelligent sensor, etc., and pro-
vides a highly flexible model to manage the uncertainty
encountered in the multi-sensor data fusion problems.
Application of the transferable belief model (TBM) to many
areas has been presented in [25–29] including classifica-
tion and target identification during recent times. And we
feel it appealing when using navigation of mobile robots.
This work investigates the possibility of using transfer-
able belief model (TBM) as a promising alternative for nav-
igation system of nonholomonic mobile robot. First, a
neural robust tracking controller, comprising adaptive
wavelet neural network controller (AWNN), is used to
achieve the tracking control of the mobile manipulator un-
der some uncertainties without any knowledge of those ro-
bot parameters. Then, based on transferable belief model
(TBM) to design a fusion of ultrasonic sensor data, a new
approach for path planning is proposed. The local map,
represented as an occupancy grid, with the time update
is proven to be suitable for real-time applications. Attrac-
tive and repulsion potential function is modified by TBM
pignistic belief value. Taking the velocity of the obstacles
and static object into account, the suggested method can
determine which obstacle is dynamic or static without
any previous knowledge of moving obstacles, then select-
ing the relevant obstacles for corresponding robot avoid-
ance motion.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
shows the mathematical representation of mobile robot
with two actuated wheels. Section 3 discusses the nonlin-
ear kinematics-WNN back stepping controller as applied to
the tracking problem. Section 4 proposed a new method
for map building based on sonic rangefinder. A path-plan-
ning approach is discussed in Section 5. Simulation and
experiment are shown in Section 6.
2. Model of a mobile robot with two actuated wheels
The kinematic model of an ideal mobile robot is widely
used in the mobile robot (MR) control [30–37]. The MR
with two driven wheels shown in Fig. 1 is a typical exam-
ple of nonholonomic mechanical systems. OXY is the refer-
ence coordinate system; O
r
X
r
Y
r
is the coordinate system
fixed to the mobile robot; O
r
the middle between the right
and left driving wheels, is the origin of the mobile robot; d
is the distance from O
r
to P; 2b is the distance between the
two driving wheels and r is the radius of the wheel. In the
2-D Cartesian space, the pose of the robot is represented by
q ¼ ðx; y; hÞ
T
ð1Þ
where (x, y)
T
is the coordinate of O
r
in the reference coordi-
nate system, and the heading direction h is taken counter-
clockwise from the OX-axis.
The motion model including kinematics and dynamics
of the nonholonomic mobile robot system can be described
by Hou et al. [34]. It is assumed that the wheels of the ro-
bot do not slide. This is expressed by the nonholonomic
constraint.
_
x sinh À
_
y cos h ¼ 0 ð2Þ
All kinematic equality constraints are assumed to be
independent of time and to be expressed as follows:
AðqÞ
_
q ¼ 0 ð3Þ
By appropriate procedures and definitions, the robot
dynamics can be transformed as [30,34]
M
_
v
w
þVv
w
þF þs
ed
¼ s ð4Þ
where
M ¼
r
2
4b
2
ðmb
2
þI
0
Þ þI
w
r
2
4b
2
ðmb
2
ÀI
0
Þ
r
2
4b
2
ðmb
2
ÀI
0
Þ
r
2
4b
2
ðmb
2
þI
0
Þ þI
w
_
_
_
_
V ¼
0
r
2
2b
2
m
c
d
_
h
À
r
2
4b
2
m
c
d
_
h 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
F ¼ J
T
F

s
ed
¼ J
T
s
ed
B ¼
1 0
0 1
_ _
where m = m
c
+ 2m
w
, I
0
= m
c
d
2
+ 2m
w
b
2
+ I
c
+ 2I
m
; m
c
and
m
w
are the masses of the robot body and wheel with actu-
ator, respectively; I
c
, I
w
and I
m
are the moments of inertia of
the robot body about the vertical axis through p, the wheel
with a motor about the wheel axis, and the wheel with a
motor about the wheel diameter, respectively.
y
x
r
X
r
Y
r
O
P
d
2r
θ
2b
left wheel
right wheel
O
Fig. 1. Nonholonomic mobile robot.
1390 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
Since the wheels of the robot are driven by actuators, it
is necessary to take the dynamics of the wheel actuators
into account. The motor models attained by neglecting
the voltage on the inductances are:
s
r
¼ k
a
ðv
r
Àk
b
x
r
Þ=R
a
; s
l
¼ k
a
ðv
l
Àk
b
x
l
Þ=R
a
ð5Þ
where v
r
and v
l
are the input voltages applied to the right
and left motors; k
b
is equal to the voltage constant multi-
plied by the gear ratio; R
a
is the electric resistance con-
stant; s
r
and s
l
are the right and left motor torques
multiplied by the gear ratio; and k
a
is the torque constant
multiplied by the gear ratio. The dynamic equations of the
motor-wheels are:
s
r
¼
k
a
v
r
R
a
À
k
a
k
b
x
r
R
a
; s
l
¼
k
a
v
l
R
À
k
a
k
b
x
l
R
a
ð6Þ
By using (4)–(6), the mobile robot model including the
robot kinematics, robot dynamics, and wheel actuator
dynamics can be written as:
M
_
v
w
þVv
w
þF þs
ed
¼
k
a
v
r
R
a
À
k
a
k
b
x
r
R
a
ð7Þ
w
H
¼ XV ð8Þ
where V, X is selected as
X ¼
1
r
R
r
1
r
À
R
r
_ _
ð9Þ
V ¼
v
w
_ _
ð10Þ
3. Nonlinear kinematic-WNN backstepping controller
In area of research of trajectory tracking in mobile robot,
based on whether the system is described by a kinematic
model or a dynamic model, the tracking-control problem
is classifiedas either a kinematic or a dynamic tracking-con-
trol problem. Using kinematic or dynamic models of non-
holonomic mobile robots, various approaches [21,32–37]
consider that wheel torques are control inputs though in
reality wheels are driven by actuators and therefore using
actuator input voltages as control inputs is more realistic.
To this effect, actuator dynamics is combined with the mo-
bile robot dynamics. In this section, a neural robust tracking
controller is discussedbriefly to achieve the tracking control
under some uncertainties without any knowledge of those
robot parameters from our recent work [36]. More detail,
proof and simulation can be also found in [36].
Recall the robot dynamics (10)
M
_
v
w
þVv
w
þF þs
ed
¼
k
a
v
r
R
a
À
k
a
k
b
x
r
R
a
ð11Þ
The controller for s is chosen as
s ¼
^
f þK
4
e
c
þc ð12Þ
where K
4
is a positive definite diagonal gain matrix, and
^
f is
an estimation of f(x) that is defined by
f ðxÞ ¼ MðqÞ
_
v
c
þV
m
ðq;
_
qÞv
c
þFðvÞ ð13Þ
where x ¼ ½v
T
v
T
c
_ v
T
c
Š, so error can be defined as
e
c
¼ v
c
Àv ð14Þ
Using (11)–(14), the error dynamics stable the input term
is chosen as
M
_
e
c
¼ ÀV
m
e
c
ÀK
4
e
c
þ
~
f þ

s
d
þ
k
a
k
b
R
a
BXv
c
À
k
a
R
a
Bu
Àc ð15Þ
The function in braces in (15) can be approximated by
an AWNN, such that
M
_
v
c
þV
m
v
c
þF ¼
´
Wwðx
i
; c; mÞ ð16Þ
where the term
´
Wwðx
i
; c; mÞ represents an adaptive
approximation WNN. The structure for the tracking control
system is presented in Fig. 2. In this figure, no knowledge
Fig. 2. Structure of the wavelet neural network-based robust control system.
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1391
of the dynamics of the cart is assumed. The function of
WANN is to reconstruct the dynamic (16) by learning it
on-line.
Assumption 3.1. The approximation errors and distur-
bances are bounded, i.e., the specified constants D
e
and D
r
satisfy ke
f
k 6 D
e
and k s
d
k 6 D
r
, respectively.
For case of notation, the approximation error
~
f can be
rewritten as
~
f ¼ W
ÃT
¯
W þ

W
T
´
W þe
f
ð17Þ
where
~
W ¼ W
Ã
À
´
W and
~
w ¼ w
Ã
À
^
w. The controller is
designed to achieve good tracking and stability results
with the connecting weights, dilation, and translation
parameters of the WNN tuned on line. To achieve this,
the linearization technique is used to transform the
nonlinear output of WNN into partially linear from so
that the Lyapunov theorem extension can be applied.
The expansion of
~
w in Taylor series is obtained as
follows:
~
w ¼
~
w
11
~
w
12
.
.
.
~
w
pq
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¼
@w
11
@m
@w
11
@m
.
.
.
@w
11
@m
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
T
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
m¼^ m
ðm
Ã
À ^ mÞ þ
@w
11
@m
@w
11
@m
.
.
.
@w
11
@m
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
T
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
c¼^c
ðc
Ã
À^cÞ þH
ð18Þ
H is a vector of higher-order terms and assume to be
bounded by a positive constant. Substituting (18) into
(17), it is revealed that
~
f þ

s
d
¼
´
W
T
~
w þ
~
W
T
~
w þ
~
W
T
^
w þe
f
þ

s
d
¼
´
W
T
ð
^
w ÀA
T
^
mÀB
T
^
cÞ þ
´
W
T
ðA
T
~
mþB
T
~
cÞ þr ð19Þ
where r ¼ W
ÃT
ðA
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
þHÞ À
´
W
T
ðA
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
Þ þe
f
þ
s
d
By substituting (19) into (15), the closed-loop system
dynamics can be rewritten as
M
_
e
c
¼ À K
4
þV
m
_ _
e
c
þ
k
a
k
b
R
a
BXv
c
À
k
a
R
a
Bu
þ
~
W
T
^
w ÀA
T
^
mÀB
T
^
c
_ _
þ
´
W
T
A
T
~
mþB
T
~
c
_ _
þr Àc
ð20Þ
Moreover, assume the following inequality:
krk þ
@X
2
m
4
¼ W
ÃT
A
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
þH
_ _
À
´
W
T
A
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
_ _ _
_
_
þe
f
þ s
d
_
_
þ
@X
2
m
4
6
@X
2
m
4
þ W
ÃT
A
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
þH
_ _ _
_
_
þe
f
þ s
d
_
_
þ
´
W
Ã
_
_
_
_
_
_ Á A
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
_
_
_
_
_
_ 6 k
p
p
where @ is a positive constant; p
T
¼ ½1k
´
WkŠ; k
p
¼
½k
p1
k
p2
Š; k
p1
P kW
ÃT
ðA
T
m
Ã
þ B
T
c
Ã
; þHÞ þ e
f
þ s
d
k; k
p2
P
kðA
T
m
Ã
þB
T
c
Ã
Þk, i.e., k
p
is an uncertainty bound.
The robust term c is designed as
c ¼
^
k
p
p Á sgnðe
c
Þ ð21Þ
Definition 1. considering (21) for nonholonomic mobile
robot, if using controller (12), the closed loop error
dynamics given by (20) is locally asymptotically stable
with the approximation network parameter tuning laws
given by.
_
´
W ¼ g
1
ð
^
w ÀA
T
^
mÀB
T
^
cÞe
c
Àg
1
@ke
c
k
´
W ð22Þ
_
^
m ¼ g
2
´
WAe
c
Àg
2
@ke
c
k
^
m ð23Þ
_
^
c ¼ g
3
´
WBe
c
Àg
3
@k@k
^
c ð24Þ
_
´
K ¼ g
4
ke
c
kp ð25Þ
where g
1
, g
2
, g
3
, g
4
are positive constants;
^
k
p
is an on line
estimated value of the uncertain bound k
p
.
4. Map building
An occupancy grid is essentially a data structure that
indicates the certainty that a specific part of space is occu-
pied by an obstacle, which is widely used in map building
in mobile robot [17–21]. It represents an environment as a
two-dimensional array. Each element of the array corre-
sponds to a specific square on the surface of the actual
world, and its value shows the certainty that there is some
obstacle there. When new information about the world is
received, the array is adjusted on the basis of the nature
of the information.
Here, the proposed map-building process utilizes Trans-
ferable Belief Model (TBM). The sonar sensor readings are
interpreted by this theory and used to modify the map
using transferable belief model rule. Whenever the robot
moves, it catches new information about the environment
and updates the old map. Because of using this uncertain
theory to build an occupancy map of the whole environ-
ment, it represent important point of view what we must
to consider: any position in the updated map of the whole
environment do not exist absolute exactness for the reason
that any obstacle can not be measured absolutely right-
ness. So every discrete region of the path position may be
in two states: belief degree E, O and uncertain degree H.
For this purpose, the map building system to process the
readings in order to assess, as accurately as possible, which
cells are occupied by obstacles (partially certain) and
which cells are (partially) empty and thus suitable for ro-
bot navigation.
4.1. Review theory of transferable belief model
In this section, we briefly regroup some basic of the be-
lief function theory as explained in the transferable belief
model ( TBM). More details can be found in [25–29].
A.1 (Frame of discernment). The frame of discernment is
a finite set of mutually exclusive elements, denoted
X hereafter. Beware that the frame of discernment
is not necessarily exhaustive.
1392 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
A.2 (Basic belief assignment). A basic belief assignment
(bba) is a mapping m
X
from 2
X
to [0, 1] that satisfies

A#X
m
X
ðAÞ ¼ 1. The basic belief mass (bbm) m(A),
A # X, is the value taken by the bba at A.
A.3 (Categorical belief function). A categorical belief
function on Xfocused on A
Ã
# X, is a belief function
which related bba m
X
satisfies:
m
X
¼
1 if A ¼ A
Ã
0 otherwise
_
ð26Þ
When all bbas are categorical, the TBM becomes equivalent
to classical propositional logic. Two limiting cases of cate-
gorical bbas have received special names.
A.4 (Normalizing or nonnormalizing) The basic belief
mass m(A) represents the part of belief exactly com-
mitted to the subset A of Xgiven a piece of evidence,
or equivalently to the fact that all we know is that A
holds. Normalizing a bba means requiring that
E(H) = 0 and that the sum of all bbms givens to
the non-empty subsets is 1. This means closing the
world. When a bba means requiring that m(H) > 0
and we call this open world. In TBM, we do not
require m(H) = 0 as in Shafer’s work.
A.5 ( Related function) the degree of belief bel(A) is
defined as: bel(A): 2
X
?[0, 1] with, for all A # X
belðAÞ ¼

h–B#A
mðBÞ ð27Þ
The degree of plausibility pl(A) is defined as: pl: 2
X
?[0, 1]
with, for all A # X
plðAÞ ¼

B#H;B\A¼h
mðBÞ ¼ belðHÞ ÀbelðAÞ ð28Þ
The commonality function q is defined as: q: 2
X
?[0, 1]
with, for all A # X
qðAÞ ¼

A#B;B#X
mðBÞ ð29Þ
The function q,bel,pl are always in one to one correspon-
dence. More details and proofs of the relationship among
functions above can be found in [26,27].
A.6 (The conjunctive rule). Given two bbas m
X
1
; m
X
2
from
different sensor respectively, the bba that results
from their conjunctive combination defined by
m½E
1
Š \ m½E
2
ŠðAÞ ¼

B;C #H;B\C¼A
m½E
1
ŠðBÞ m½E
2
ŠðCÞ;
8A#H ð30Þ
A.7 (The pignistic transformation for decision). The
pignistic transformation maps bbas to so called pig-
nistic probability functions. The pignistic transfor-
mation of m
X
is given by
BetP
X
ðAÞ ¼

B#X
jA \ Bjm
X
ðBÞ
jBjð1 Àm
X
ðhÞÞ
; 8A 2 X ð31Þ
where jAj is the number of elements of Xin A. This solution
is a classical probability measure from which expected
utilities can be computed in order to take optimal deci-
sions. Some of its detail and justifications can be found in
[25,29]
4.2. sensor modeling and measurements interpretation
The Polaroid Ultrasonic Rangefinder is used for map
building. This is a very common device that can detect dis-
tances in the range of 0.47–5 m with 1% accuracy. In [21],
the sensor model converts the range information into
probability values. The model in Figs. 3 and 4 is given by
Eqs. (32)–(37).
In region I, where R À e < r < R + e
x ¼
bÀ@
b
_ _
2
þ
eÀjRÀrj
e
_ _
2
2
ð32Þ
EðOjxÞ ¼
0 À1 < x < 0
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
0 6 x 6 1
_
ð33Þ
EðEjxÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðOjxÞ ð34Þ
In region II, where R
min
< r < R À e
x ¼
bÀ@
b
_ _
2
þ
RÀeÀr
RÀe
_ _
2
2
ð35Þ
EðOjxÞ ¼
0 À1 < x < 0
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
0 6 x 6 1
_
ð36Þ
EðEjxÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðOjxÞ ð37Þ
R is the range response form the ultrasonic sensor, and
(r, @) is the coordinate of a point inside the sonar cone. e is
the range error, and it distributes the evidence in Region I.
b is the half open beam angle of the sonar cone.
4.3. The fusion of data from sonar
The sonar data interpreted by Transferable Belief Model
of evidence are collected and updated into a map using the
same theory of evidence. In our approach, the basic
30
o
270
300
330
0
30
60
90
Fig. 3. Typical beam pattern of Polaroid ultrasonic sensor.
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1393
probability assignment corresponding to a range reading r
is obtained directly using Eqs. (32)–(37). The next example
illustrates the usage of transferable belief model for map-
building process.
Example 1. Let the robot be located in cell (15, 10) in the
beginning of the navigation process. The condition is
shown in Table 1 and Figs. 5 and 6. The new basic
probability assignments for cells in the map become (the
first lies in region I and the second lies in region II):
(Static obstacles)
x
S
0
0
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À7
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:1878 x
S
1
0
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À7
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:1878
E
S
0
0
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1 ¼ 0:5341 E
S
0
0
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5341
E
S
0
0
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2659 E
S
0
0
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2659
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
and
x
S
0
1
¼
15À6
15
ð Þ
2
þ
2Àj10À9j
2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3050 x
S
1
1
¼
15À0
15
ð Þ
2
þ
2Àj10À9j
2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:6250
E
S
0
1
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5851 E
S
1
1
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:7809
E
S
0
1
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
1
1
¼ 0:2149 E
S
1
1
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
1
1
¼ 0:0191
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
(Dynamic obstacles)
x
S
2
4
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À5
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3903 x
S
2
5
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
2Àj10À11j
2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:4450
E
S
2
4
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:6322 E
S
2
4
ðxÞ ¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:6625
E
S
0
1
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
1
1
¼ 0:1678 E
S
0
1
ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
1
1
¼ 0:1375
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
In the next moment, the robot is moving in a direction de-
picted by the broken line and sonars scan the environment
again. This situation is given in Fig. 6. S
0
, S
1
and S
2
detect
some possible obstacles on @
S
1
0
¼ 6; r
S
0
0
¼ 4; r
S
1
0
¼ 5;
r
S
0
1
¼ 6; r
S
1
1
¼ 6; r
S
2
1
¼ 7; r
S
1
2
¼ 9; r
S
2
2
¼ 9; @
S
0
0
¼ 3; @
S
0
1
¼
6; @
S
1
1
¼ 0; @
S
2
1
¼ 3; @
S
1
2
¼ 3; @
S
2
2
¼ 6; r
S
2
6
¼ 3; @
S
2
6
¼ 6:
x
S
0
0
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À4
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3100 x
S
1
0
¼
15À6
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À5
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:2503
EðxÞ
S
0
0
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5877 EðxÞ
S
1
0
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5590
EðOÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2123 EðOÞ
S
1
0
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2410
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
x
S
0
1
¼
15À6
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À6
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:2112 x
S
1
1
¼
15À0
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À6
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:6250
EðxÞ
S
0
1
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5427 EðxÞ
S
1
1
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:7809
EðOÞ
S
0
1
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2573 EðOÞ
S
1
1
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:0191
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
y
ε
ε
r
β
x
α
R
Π
angle Pr ofile for the
α
l
−15
15
Pr ofile for the range
l
R ε − R
R ε +
min
R
Fig. 4. The profile of the ultrasonic sensor model.
Table 1
Condition of this example.
Robot position x
r
= 15, y
r
= 10
Dynamic
obstacles
position
and its
moving
direction
X
4x
= 14, X
4y
= 10 moving direction
in a positive X-axis direction.
X
5x
= 15, X
5y
= 7 moving direction
in a positive X-axis direction.
Static
obstacles
position
X
0x
¼ 8; X
0y
¼ 8
X
1x
¼ 10; X
1y
¼ 5
Distances r
and angles
@ detected
by different
sonar
X
0
: r
S
0
0
¼ 7; @
S
0
0
¼ 3; r
S
1
0
¼ 7; @
S
1
0
¼ 3
X
1
: r
S
0
1
¼ 9; @
S
0
1
¼ 6; r
S1
1
¼ 9; @
S
1
1
¼ 0
X
4
: r
S
2
4
¼ 5; @
S
2
4
¼ 3
X
5
: r
S
2
5
¼ 11; @
S
2
5
¼ 3
1394 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
x
S
2
1
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À7
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3278 x
S
1
2
¼
15À3
15
ð Þ
2
þ
2À 10À9 j j
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3278
EðxÞ
S
2
1
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5970 EðxÞ
S
2
1
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5970
EðOÞ
S
2
1
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2030 EðOÞ
S
2
1
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2030
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
(Dynamic obstacle)
x
S
2
2
¼
15À6
15
ð Þ
2
þ
2Àj10À9j
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:1878 x
S
2
6
¼
15À6
15
ð Þ
2
þ
10À2À3
10À2
ð Þ
2
2
¼ 0:3753
EðxÞ
S
2
2
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:5341 EðxÞ
S
2
6
¼
1
2
Â
2Âx
2
1þx
2
_ _
þ1
_ _
¼ 0:6235
EðOÞ
S
2
2
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
0
0
¼ 0:2659 EðOÞ
S
2
6
¼ 0:8 ÀEðxÞ
S
2
6
¼ 0:1765
EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2
Fig. 5. Initial position.
Fig. 6. Occupancy determination based on sonar measurements in t = 2 s.
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1395
Evidence about occupancies of cells including dynamic ob-
ject are combination using transferable belief model,
which is shown in Table 2.
From the new results it can be concluded that the evi-
dence about the occupancy of cells is increased. This pro-
cess continues until the target is reached.
5. Path planning
In this section, we adopt a new path planning strategy,
in which the robot replans the path as new observations
are acquired. What’s more, the navigation recognition
law that can determine which obstacle is dynamic or static
without any previous knowledge is discussed in this
section.
5.1. dynamic object recognition law
Condition 1. Consider the pignistic value and basic prob-
ability assignments given by transferable belief model
based on update information. At ttime, suppose the
number of the sensor is i; interval time is 1, Event A is
moving obstacle if satisfying that:
(1) m
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðEÞ þm
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ ! 1
(2) m
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ P0:5
Proof. Let H = {h
1
, h
2
, . . . , h
n
} denote a set of n hypothesis.
Given the likelihoods l(h
i
jx) for every h
i
2 H Let X denote
the set of possible values this observation can take.
m½xŠðAÞ ¼

h
i
2A
lðh
i
jxÞ

h
i
2

A
ð1 Àlðh
i
jxÞÞ ð38Þ
pl½xŠðAÞ ¼ 1 À

h
i
2

A
ð1 Àlðh
i
jxÞÞ ð39Þ
BetPðAÞ ¼

A#X
m
X
ðAÞ
Að1 Àm
X
ðHÞÞ
; 8A 2 X ð40Þ
Suppose the sensor measurement is A 2 Xandits likelihoods
are m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ ¼ a; m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðEÞ ¼ b, with (38)
m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ ¼ ð1 ÀaÞð1 ÀbÞ ð41Þ
From (40),
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðh
1
Þ ¼
að1 ÀbÞ þ

nÀ1
i¼1
C
i
nÀi
ð1 ÀbÞ
nÀiÀ1
=ði þ1Þ
1 Àð1 ÀaÞð1 ÀbÞ
¼
a

nÀ1
i¼0
C
i
nÀi
b
i
ð1 ÀbÞ
nÀiÀ1
=ði þ1Þ
1 Àð1 ÀaÞð1 ÀbÞ
ð42Þ
The sum can be simplified to from Delmotte [28]:

nÀ1
i¼0
C
i
nÀi
b
i
ð1 ÀbÞ
nÀiÀ1
=ði þ1Þ ¼
1 Àð1 ÀbÞ
n
nb
ð43Þ
Thus:
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðh
1
Þ ¼
a
nb
1 Àð1 ÀbÞ
n
1 Àð1 ÀaÞð1 ÀbÞ
nÀ1
ð44Þ
Let n = 2 for the reason these are two hypothesis including
occupancy (O) and empty (E):
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ ¼
a
2b
1 Àð1 ÀbÞ
2
1 Àð1 ÀaÞð1 ÀbÞ
¼
a
2b
1 Àð1 À2b þb
2
Þ
1 Àð1 Àb Àa þabÞ
¼
a
2b
2b Àb
2
b þa Àab
¼
a
2b
2b Àb
2
b þa Àab
¼
að2 ÀbÞ
2ð1 ÀmðHÞÞ
ð45Þ
If Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ ( Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ, it means event A of
occupancy is unbelievable, thus if "e and e is a small con-
stant, and
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðhÞ
< e we can belief that event A is
occupancy is unlikelihood.
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ
¼
að2ÀbÞ
2ð1Àm
X
½x
1
; . . . ; x
i
ŠðHÞÞ
_
m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ
1Àm
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ
¼
að2ÀbÞ
2m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ
ð46Þ
If
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ
Bet
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ
< e, we get:
m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðOÞ ! 0 and m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðEÞ
! 1 and m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ P0:5
Table 2
Probabilitic result from transferable belief model.
H H
(unknown)
Occupancy Empty
m
S0
1
ðT
0
Þ
0.3362 0.3921 0.1293
m
S1
1
ðT
0
Þ
0.3362 0.3921 0.1293
m
S0ÈS1
1
ðT
0
Þ
0.6642 0.2561 0.0505
m
S0
1
ðT
1
Þ
0.3248 0.4629 0.0875
m
S0
2
ðT
1
Þ
0.3347 0.4243 0.1063
m
S0ÈS1
1
ðT
1
Þ
0.5409 0.4550 0.0022
m
S2
1
ðT
4
Þ
0.3007 0.5261 0.0671
m
S2
1
ðT
5
Þ
0.2911 0.5714 0.0464
m
S0
2
ðT
0
Þ
0.3248 0.4629 0.0875
m
S1
2
ðT
0
Þ
0.3320 0.4243 0.1063
m
S0ÈS1
2
ðT
0
Þ
0.5371 0.3117 0.0344
m
S0ÈS1
1È2
ðT
0
Þ
0.5281 0.3874 0.0476
m
S0
2
ðT
1
Þ
0.3396 0.4031 0.1177
m
S1
2
ðT
1
Þ
0.2149 0.7660 0.0042
m
S2
2
ðT
1
Þ
0.3212 0.4758 0.0818
m
S0ÈS1ÈS2
2
ðT
1
Þ
0.5478 0.2516 0.0004
m
S0ÈS1ÈS2
1È2
ðT
1
Þ
0.5273 0.3582 0.0682
m
S1
2
ðT
2
Þ
0.4212 0.4758 0.0818
m
S2
2
ðT
2
Þ
0.3420 0.3921 0.1239
m
S1ÈS2
2
ðT
2
Þ
0.6444 0.3016 0.0368
m
S2
2
ðT
6
Þ
0.3086 0.5149 0.0661
m
S2
1È2
ðT
6
Þ Èm EðHÞ
S2
6
_ _
1
(dyanmic obstacle)
0.8444 0.1203 0.0309
mðT
S2
4
Þ
1
Èm EðHÞ
S2
4
_ _
2
(dynamic obstacle)
0.8442 0.1222 0.0292
mðT
S2
5
Þ
1
Èm EðHÞ
S2
5
_ _
2
(dyanmic obstacle)
0.8436 0.1289 0.0239
1396 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
Because m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ þ m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðEÞ þ m
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈ
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
S
i
½AŠðOÞ ¼ 1, we get the condition:
(1) m
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðEÞ þm
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ ! 1
(2) m
S
1
ÈÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
½AŠðHÞ P0:5If satisfying the condition, we
believe this obstacle is dynamic. And the velocity
of this dynamic obstacle is defined:
v
obs
ðtÞ ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
ðx
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞ
Àx
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
tÀT
ðOÞ
Þ
2
þðy
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞ
Ày
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
tÀT
ðOÞ
Þ
2
_ _
T
ð47Þ
where T is interval.
5.2. potential field method based on TBM
The potential field method has been studied extensively
for autonomous mobile robot path planning in the past
decade. An attractive potential which drives the mobile ro-
bot to its destination can be described by Ge and Cui
[10,13]. In this paper, we proposed a new method to
modify this potential field method based on TBM in com-
plex dynamic environment under static and dynamic
obstacle.
Let ½x; yŠ
BetP
X
½Tt ŠðOÞ
and [x
r
,y
r
] is the position both from
dynamic obstacle and robot. v
obs
ðtÞ ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðx
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞ
Àx
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
tÀT
ðOÞ
Þ
2
þðy
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞ
Ày
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
tÀT
ðOÞ
Þ
2
_ _
T,
v
RO
(t) = [v(t) À v
obs
(t)]
T
n
RO
, at t time,
Fatt ðq; vÞ ¼
BetP
S1ÈS2ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
ðOÞm@qkq
tar
ðtÞ ÀqðtÞk
2
nRT if not satisfy condition:1
BetP
S1ÈS2ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞm@
q
kq
tar
ðtÞ ÀqðtÞk
2
n
RT
þBetP
S1ÈS2ÁÁÁÈS
i
t
ðOÞn@
v
kv
tar
ðtÞ ÀvðtÞk
2
n
VRT
if satisfy condition:1
_
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
_
ð48Þ
where q(t) and q
tar
(t) denote the positions of the robot and
the target at time t, respectively; q = [xyz]
T
in a 3-dimen-
sional space or q = [xy]
T
in a 2-dimensional space; v(t)
and v
tar
(t) denote the velocities of the robot and the target
at time t, respectively; kq
tar
(t) À q(t)k is the Euclidean dis-
tance between the robot and the target at time t;
kv
tar
(t) À v(t)k is the magnitude of the relative velocity be-
tween the target and the robot at time t; @
q
and @
v
are sca-
lar positive parameters; nand mare positive constants;
BetP
X
(O) is pignsitic decision value that sensor detect the
occupancy belief value both for static and dynamic respec-
tively; n
RT
being the unit vector pointing from the robot to
the target and n
VRT
being the unit vector denoting the rela-
tive velocity direction of the target with respect to the
robot.
Also a repulsive potential can be written as:
F
rep
ðq; vÞ ¼
0; if q
s
ðq; q
obs
Þ Àq
m
ðv
RO
Þ Pq
0
orv
RO
60
or satisfy condition:1
F
rep1
þF
rep2
; if 0 <q
s
ðq; q
obs
Þ Àq
m
ðv
RO
Þ <q
0
and v
RO
>0
or satisfy condition:1
not defined; if v
RO
>0 and q
s
ðq; q
obs
Þ <q
m
ðv
RO
Þ
or satisfy condition:1
1
2
BetP
S
1
ÈS
2
ÁÁÁÈS
i
1È2ÁÁÁÈt
ðOÞg
S
1
qðq;q
obs
Þ
À
1
q
0
_ _
2
if not satisfy condition:1
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
¸
_
ð49Þ
where
F
repv1
¼
ÀgBetP
X
ðO
v
Þ
ðq
s
ðq; q
obs
Þ Àq
m
ðv
RO
ÞÞ
2
1 þ
v
RO
a
max
_ _
n
RO
F
repv2
¼
BetP
X
ðO
v
Þgv
RO
v
RO?
q
s
ðq; q
obs
Þa
max
ðq
s
ðq; q
obs
Þ Àq
m
ðv
RO
ÞÞ
2
n
RO?
q
m
ðv
RO
Þ ¼
v
2
RO
ðtÞ
2a
max
BetP
X
ðO
v
Þ ¼

O#X
m
X
ðO
v
Þ
jO
v
jð1 Àm
X
ðHÞÞ
; 8A#X
With q
0
is a positive constant describing the influence
range of the obstacle; q
s
(q(t), q
obs
(t)) is denoted the short-
est distance between the robot and the body of the obsta-
cle; v
RO
(t) is the relative velocity between the robot and the
obstacle in the direction from the robot to the obstacle; n
RO
is a unit vector pointing from the robot to the obstacle; a
and g is a positive constant; BetP
X
(O) and BetP
X
(O
v
) are
pignsitic decision value that sensor detect the occupancy
belief value both for static and dynamic respectively;
m
X
(H) is unknown value from pignistic transformation.
From Eqs. (48) and (49), we obtain the potential total
virtual force which drives the reference point of the mobile
robot to the destination, described by:
F
total
¼ F
att
þF
rep
ð50Þ
Assuming that the target moves outward or synchronously
with the obstacle, the robot is obstructed by the obstacle
and cannot reach the target. Refs. [13–17] indicate in highly
dynamic environment, waiting method is often adopted
where both the target and the obstacle are moving.
5.3. Local minimum problems
Like other local path planning approaches, the proposed
navigation algorithm has a local minimum problem. To de-
tect the outbreak of local minimum, we adopt the method
in [5] (see Fig. 7), which compares the robot-to-target
direction, h
t
, with the actual instantaneous direction of tra-
vel, h
0
. If the robot’s direction of travel is more than a cer-
tain angle (90° in most cases) off the target point, that is,
when
jh
t
Àh
0
j > h
s
ð51Þ
where h
s
is a trap warning angle, and typically 90°. We re-
gard it is very likely about to get trapped.
Fig. 7. Incorporating a virtual target on local-minimum alert.
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1397
Consider a common situation as shown in Fig. 8, in
which the robot needs to detour around a long wall to
reach the goal. At position A, the robot is heading to the
goal position and hence h
s
= 0°.
But at position B, the robot changes its direction by
repulsive force from detected wall and h
s
P90°. In such
a situation, the original target point is replaced with the
virtual target point. The virtual target point is placed by
following equations:
x
v
¼ x
i
þm cosðh
i
Àb
vt
Þ
y
v
¼ y
i
þm sinðh
i
Àb
vt
Þ ð52Þ
h
v
¼ h
0
Àb
vt
where m is the distance that the robot needs to travel to
reach the virtual goal. Also
v ¼ L ÂBetP
X
ðOÞ þR ð53Þ
where L is the distance between the robot and the obstacle
near the virtual target detected by the longest-range sen-
sor in the corresponding direction. BetP
X
(O) is a pignsitic
decision value that sensor detect the occupancy belief va-
lue in h
v
that direction. R is an offset which depends on
the size of the robot. b
vt
is a certain angler, and typically
45°.
Based on (51)–(53), the robot escapes from this trap-
ping point and moves to point C. When the robot escapes
from the condition above or when no obstacle is detected,
the original target point is restores, and the robot contin-
ues to proceed to the target point.
6. Simulation and experiment results
To show the usefulness of the proposed approach, a ser-
ies of simulations have been conducted using an arbitrarily
constructed environment including obstacles.
6.1. Simulation results
In these simulations, the positions of all the obstacles
including moving obstacles in the workspace are unknown
to the robot. The robot is aware of its start and finish posi-
tions only. Simulation results obtained in three working
scenarios are presented in Figs. 9–13. The robot has been
modeled as a small circle, and imaginary sensors (sixteen
in number) are placed in the form of the arc along the cir-
cumference of the robot. The minimum distance obtained
within the cone of each sensor is considered as the dis-
tance of the obstacle from the sensor which detects any
obstacle. And any distance information detected from so-
nar is adding Gaussian White Noise. The first to fourth
experiments are conducted to verify the proposed method
in the MATLAB environment, and the fifth experiment is
carried out from Mobilesim environment.
Experiment 1: Fig. 9 represents the obstacle avoidance
path of the mobile robot in static case. Table 3 shows the
condition settings of this experiment. As seen from the vir-
tual plane shown in Fig. 9a, with the decrease of distance
between Obs6 and robot, BetP
X
(O) became much large
which lead the repulsive force much large. Ultimately, ro-
bot changes its path by deviating to the right. The complete
process is shown in Fig. 9.
Experiment 2: This example illustrates the collision
avoidance process in dynamic environment. The scenario
Fig. 8. Anti-deadlock mechanism.
Fig. 9. Collision avoidance (static case).
1398 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
shown in Fig. 10 has some similarity with the scenarios of
example 1 but adding two moving obstacles. Fig. 10 thor-
oughly plots the obstacle avoidance path of the mobile ro-
bot in discrete time while it is maneuvered in a complex
environment (including dynamic and static obstacle)
where two rectangular shapes of obstacles are moving in
Fig. 10. Collision avoidance (dynamic case).
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1399
different directions and different velocity, meanwhile, five
static obstacles also set in this environment. Table 4 shows
the condition settings of this experiment.
Fig. 10 represents the scenario and the virtual plane in
different time intervals: (a and b) 0 6 t 6 5s; (c and d)
0 6 t 6 10s; (e and f) 0 6 t 6 15s; (g and h) 0 6 t 6 37s. As
seen from Fig. 10(c and d), the robot is in a collision course
with both ObsD1, Obs1 and Obs2. However, it is more ur-
gent to avoid collision with ObsD1, and the robot slows
down to accomplish this. The robot avoids collision with
Obs2 as shown in Fig. 10e and f. Fig. 10e and f show the ro-
bot neglect this moving obstacle and can not change its
path for the reason there is no collision risk with ObsD2.
The complete process is shown in Fig. 10g and h.
Experiment 3: For local minimum problem avoidance, a
rigorous testing is carried out in cluttered maze consisting
of concave obstacles and dynamic obstacles (Fig. 11). In the
following Figs. 11 and 12, h represents the static obstacle
and represents the dynamic obstacle. Point a, b, c, . . . rep-
resent several trapping points. represents the real goal
Fig. 11. Collision avoidance (local minimum case).
1400 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
Fig. 11 (continued)
Fig. 12. Collision avoidance (mazes case).
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1401
and represents the current virtual goal. ?represents the
potential total virtual force which drives the reference
point of the mobile robot to the current position. Table 5
shows the dynamic obstacles sets of this experiment.
Fig. 11 represents the scenario and the virtual plane in
different time intervals: (b and c) 0 6 t 6 10s; (d and e)
0 6 t 6 30s; (f and g) 0 6 t 6 40s. As seen from Fig. 11b
and c, the robot does not detect the obsD1 until it reaches
point A at which time it turns to the right-the side with the
lowest collision possibility. Since the obsD1 is now to
change its moving direction and move away from the ro-
bot, the robot continues to track the virtual goal in a coun-
terclockwise direction until it reaches the virtual goal at
point B. Since the goal is now to the left of the robot, it con-
tinues to track the current virtual goal (point C) at which
time the robot detects obsD2. But in Fig. 11b, it shows
the robot neglects this moving obstacle and can not change
its path for the reason that there is no collision risk with
ObsD2. In Fig. 11d and e, there are several local minimum
points including point D, E, F. At these points where the ro-
bot’s direction of travel is more than a certain angle
(jh
t
À h
0
j > 90°) off the target point, the robot turns its
direction and tracks current virtual goal. Then the robot
continues to see the wall on its left until it arrives at point
H and I after which it goes towards a real target point. The
complete process is shown in Fig. 11f and g and the robot
moves counterclockwise around obstacles through point J
and K to the final goal.
Fig. 13. Collision avoidance based on Mobilesim environment (dynamic case).
Table 3
Experimental conditions of obstacle avoidance (static case).
Initial robot position x
r
= 0[m], y
r
= 0[m]
Goal position Goal
x
= 30[m], Goal
y
= 20.5[m],
Obstacle position Obs1
x
= 8[m], Obs1
y
= 10[m]
Obs2
x
= 13[m], Obs2
y
= 10[m]
Obs3
x
= 18[m], Obs3
y
= 20[m]
Obs4
x
= 20[m], Obs4
y
= 15[m]
Obs5
x
= 24[m], Obs5
y
= 20[m]
Obs6
x
= 9[m] ?12[m], Obs6
y
= 10[m]
Processing time 30 s
1402 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
Experiment 4: In this experiment, the more complex
test is performed to present the effectiveness of the pro-
posed approach in cluttered environment with obstacle
loops and mazes. Similar as experiment 3, h represents
the static obstacle and represents the dynamic obstacle.
Fig. 12a, c and e thoroughly plot the obstacle avoidance
path of the mobile robot in discrete time while it is maneu-
vered in a dynamic environment where many dynamic
obstacles are moving in different direction. Whereas,
Fig. 12b, d and f give some detail information about how
the robot navigation system behaves at each discrete time.
The proposed algorithm performs well in a cluttered dy-
namic environment, as shown in Fig. 12a and b. The pro-
cesses for wall following, passing through a narrow door
and escaping from local minimum point using our algo-
rithm are shown in Fig. 12c–f.
Experiment 5: This example is shown in Fig. 13. This
illustrates the collision avoidance process by change both
seed and orientation when facing with multi-moving
obstacle. Fig. 13a represents the scenario, while Fig. 13b–
e indicate the virtual plane in different time intervals: (b)
0 6 t 6 1.2; (c) 0 6 t 6 5.1; (d) 0 6 t 6 6.3; (e) 0 6 t 6 8.1.
As seen from the virtual plane shown in Fig. 13b, there is
a collision risk with D
1
in the time 0 6 t 6 1.2. The robot
changes its path by deviating to the right, as shown in
Fig. 13b. In Fig. 13c and d, robot changes its orientation
by avoiding collision with D
1
and D
2
using proposed
method.
6.2. Experiment with a pioneer robot
The method presented in this paper has been tested on
a Pioneer robot. The robot and the experiment setup are
shown in Fig. 14. The laptop on top on the robot is in
charge of all computation: motion control, planning, SLAM
and so on. The navigation is carried out in real-time and we
only use sonar to detect obstacle.
In order to simulate dynamic obstacle, two football mo-
bile robots (MT-Robot) are used based on remote control.
The orientation of the two MT-Robot is shown in Fig. 15.
The track line of Pioneer robot is indicated approximately
with blue color in this figure. The room is a clean environ-
ment with long wall obstacles and measures approxi-
mately 8.6 m by 6.5 m. The objects were placed in the
room and their positions are point out as shown in
Fig. 15. The position of the robot is recorded at regular time
intervals. During the test executions, all programs were
run under the Windows NT operating system, directly on
the main processor of the robot, a Pentium 2.3G. A test case
is presented in Fig. 15.
In this experiment, the goal position is aligned to the
front of the mobile robot which is obstructed by obstacles
wall and two MT-Robots. The mobile robot starts to move
towards according to the real goal. As it moves, it detects
obstacles in front and in the left from its ultrasonic sensors.
The navigation law makes a correct decision by indicating
the right direction to the mobile robot until it reaches the
virtual goal. Then the mobile robot keeps moving and de-
tects dynamic obstacles in right direction. The robot makes
the correct decision and turns to the left avoiding the de-
tected obstacles successfully and then reaches the goal.
Although feature detectors using sonar is not very
accurate especially in complex environment and real
Table 4
Experimental conditions of obstacle avoidance (dynamic case).
Initial robot position x
r
= 0[m], y
r
= 0[m]
Goal position Goal
x
= 29[m], Goal
y
= 25[m],
Initial dynamic obstacle
position and its moving
direction and velocity
ObsD1
x
= 10[m], ObsD1
y
= 0[m]
moving direction and velocity
moving in a positive Y-axis
direction at 0.88(m/s)
ObsD2
x
= 12[m], ObsD1
y
= 15[m]
moving direction and velocity
moving in a positive X-axis
direction at 0.19(m/s).
Static obstacle position
Obs1
x
¼ 8½mŠ; Obs1
y
¼ 10½mŠ
Obs2
x
¼ 12½mŠ; Obs2
y
¼ 10½mŠ
Obs3
x
¼ 18½mŠ; Obs3
y
¼ 20½mŠ
Obs4
x
¼ 20½mŠ; Obs4
y
¼ 15½mŠ
Obs5
x
¼ 24½mŠ; Obs5
y
¼ 20½mŠ
Processing time 37 s
Fig. 14. Pioneer robot.
Table 5
Experimental conditions of dynamic obstacles.
Initial robot position x
r
= 0[m], y
r
= 0[m]
Goal position Goal
x
= 29[m], Goal
y
= 25[m],
Dynamic obstacle position and
its moving direction and
velocity
ObsD 1
x
= 0[m] M6[m],
ObsD1
y
= 5[m], moving back and
forth along X-axis and its velocity
at 1.20(m/s)
ObsD2
x
= 10[m],
ObsD1
y
= 5[m] M10[m], moving
back and forth along Y-axis and its
velocity at 1.00(m/s)
ObsD3
x
= 15[m] M22[m],
ObsD3
y
= 10[m], moving back and
forth along X-axis and its velocity
at 0.70(m/s)
ObsD4 = (0, 20) M(5, 25), moving
back and forth and its velocity at
0.71(m/s)
Processing time 40 s
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1403
performance, in this experiment, it is not very robust as
compared with simulation experiment in Matlab or
Mobilesim (Process time became long, waiting motion
happened frequently), it also can achieve the goal based
on this navigation method. Furthermore, the performance
of the simulation and the real robot is different. The simu-
lation has a faster cycle time for the iterations of the pro-
posed method. This allows the robot to follow the
smoother path. The reactions of the robot in the simulation
are also different from the real robot. For instance, once a
speed command is given to the real robot, the set point is
obtained over a period of time. In the simulation, the speed
set point is almost immediately achieved.
From these results, it shows that based on our collision
avoidance algorithm, the mobile robot can find a safe and
smooth path for attaining the target position autono-
mously whether in a static or dynamic environment when
adding highly noise to the sensor.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, a new mobile robot navigation strategy
for nonholomonic mobile robot in dynamic environment
was designed and fully tested in this work based on trans-
ferable belief model. The aim was to let the robot find a
collision-free trajectory between the starting configuration
and the goal configuration in a dynamic environment con-
taining some obstacle (including static and moving object).
For this purpose, a navigation strategy which consists of
sonar data interpretation and fusion, map building, and
path planning is designed. The sonar data fusion and dy-
namic object distinguish law were discussed using trans-
ferable belief model. Based on proposed judging law, a
path planning algorithm is modified based on potential
field method. Simulation and experiment results validate
the effectiveness of the proposed method. Though mobile
robot is discussed, the method is generally applicable to
other type of problem, as well as to pattern recognition,
objective classification.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the anonymous editor and reviewer
for their invaluable suggestions, which has been incorpo-
rated to improve the quality of this paper dramatically.
This work was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (60775047, 60673084), National High
Technology Research and Development Program of China
(863 Program: 2008AA04Z214), National Technology Sup-
port Project (2008BAF36B01) and Research Foundation of
Hunan Provincial Education Department (10C0356).
References
[1] K.D. Rueb, A.K.C. Wong, Structuring free space as a hypergrarph for
roving robot path planning and navigation, IEEE Transactions on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9 (2) (1987) 263–273.
[2] M.K. Habib, S. Yuta, Efficient online path planning algorithm and
navigation for a mobile robot, International Journal of Electronics 69
(2) (1990) 187–210.
[3] M.J. Mataric, Integration of representation into goal-riven behavior-
based robots, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8 (3)
(1992) 304–312.
[4] E. Rimon, D.E. Koditschek, Exact robot navigation using artificial
potential function, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8
(5) (1992) 501–518.
[5] J. Borensein, Y. Koren, Real-time obstacle avoidance for fast mobile
robots, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics 19 (5)
(1989) 1179–1187.
[6] S. Thrun, W. Burgard, D. Fox, A probabilistic approach to concurrent
mapping and localization for mobile robots, Machine Learning 31
(1–3) (1998) 29–53.
[7] P. Svestka, M.H. Overmars, Motion planning for carlike robots using a
probabilistic learning approach, International Journal of Robotics
Research 16 (2) (1997) 119–143.
[8] S. Thrun, Probabilistic algorithms in robotics, Ai Magazine 21 (4)
(2000) 93–109.
[9] C.M. Clark, Probabilistic road map sampling strategies for multi-
robot motion planning, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 53 (3–4)
(2005) 244–264.
[10] S.S. Ge, Y.J. Cui, New potential functions for mobile robot path
planning, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 16 (5)
(2000) 615–620.
[11] K.P. Valavanis, T. Hebert, R. Kolluru, et al., Mobile robot navigation in
2-D dynamic environments using an electrostatic potential field,
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A –Systems
and Humans 30 (2) (2000) 187–196.
Fig. 15. Mobile robot and experiment.
1404 W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405
[12] N.C. Tsourveloudis, K.P. Valavanis, T. Hebert, Autonomous vehicle
navigation utilizing electrostatic potential fields and fuzzy logic, IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation 17 (4) (2001) 490–497.
[13] S.S. Ge, Y.J. Cui, Dynamic motion planning for mobile robots using
potential field method, Autonomous Robots 13 (3) (2002) 207–222.
[14] J. Ren, K.A. McIsaac, R.V. Patel, Modified Newton’s method applied to
potential field based navigation for nonholonomic robots in dynamic
environments, Robotica 26 (2008) 285–294.
[15] L. Yin, Y.X. Yin, C.J. Lin, A new potential field method for mobile robot
path planning in the dynamic environments, Asian Journal of Control
11 (2) (2009) 214–225.
[16] F. Belkhouche, B. Belkhouche, Kinematics-based characterization of
the collision course, International Journal of Robotics & Automation
23 (2) (2008) 127–136.
[17] Y.C. Chang, Y. Yamamoto, On-line path planning strategy integrated
with collision and dead-lock avoidance schemes for wheeled mobile
robot in indoor environments, Industrial Robot – An International
Journal 35 (5) (2008) 421–434.
[18] A.O. Djekoune, K. Achour, R. Toumi, A sensor based navigation
algorithm for a mobile robot using the DVFF approach, International
Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 6 (2) (2009) 97–108.
[19] J. Minguez, L. Montano, Sensor-based robot motion generation in
unknown, dynamic and troublesome scenarios, Robotics and
Autonomous Systems 52 (4) (2005) 290–311.
[20] L. Moreno, E. Dapena, Path quality measures for sensor-based
motion planning, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 44 (2) (2003)
131–150.
[21] J. Velagic, B. Lacevic, B. Perunicic, A 3-level autonomous mobile
robot navigation system designed by using reasoning/search
approaches, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (12) (2006)
989–1004.
[22] X.Y. Yang, M. Moallem, R.V. Patel, A layered goal-oriented fuzzy
motion planning strategy for mobile robot navigation, IEEE
Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B –Cybernetics
35 (6) (2005) 1214–1224.
[23] T. Kondo, Evolutionary design and behavior analysis of
neuromodulatory neural networks for mobile robots control,
Applied Soft Computing 7 (1) (2007) 189–202.
[24] J.A. Fernandez-Leon, G.G. Acosta, M.A. Mayosky, Behavioral control
through evolutionary neurocontrollers for autonomous mobile robot
navigation, Robotics andAutonomous Systems 57(4) (2009) 411–419.
[25] P. Smets, Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions,
Information Fusion 8 (4) (2007) 387–412.
[26] F. Delmotte, P. Smets, Target identification based on the transferable
belief model interpretation of Dempster–Shafer model, IEEE
Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A – Systems
and Humans 34 (4) (2004) 457–471.
[27] T. Denoeux, P. Smets, Classification using belief functions:
Relationship between case-based and model-based approaches,
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A –
Systems and Humans 36 (6) (2006) 1395–1406.
[28] F. Delmotte, Comparison of the performances of decision aimed
algorithms with Bayesian and beliefs basis, International Journal of
Intelligent Systems 16 (8) (2001) 963–981.
[29] P. Smets, Application of the transferable belief model to diagnostic
problems, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 13 (3) (1998)
127–157.
[30] R. Fierro, F.L. Lewis, Control of a nonholonomic mobile robot:
Backstepping kinematics into dynamics, Journal of Robotic Systems
14 (3) (1997) 149–163.
[31] Q.J. Zhang, J. Shippen, B. Jones, Robust backstepping and neural
network control of a low-quality nonholonomic mobile robot,
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 39 (7)
(1999) 1117–1134.
[32] S.X. Yang, M. Meng, Real-time fine motion control of robot
manipulators with unknown dynamics, Dynamics of Continuous
Discrete and Impulsive Systems-Series B – Applications &
Algorithms 8 (3) (2001) 339–358.
[33] G. Antonelli, S. Chiaverini, G. Fusco, A fuzzy-logic-based approach for
mobile robot path tracking, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15
(2) (2007) 211–221.
[34] Z.G. Hou, A.M. Zou, L. Cheng, et al., Adaptive control of an electrically
driven nonholonomic mobile robot via backstepping and Fuzzy
approach, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 17 (4)
(2009) 803–815.
[35] W. Sun, Y.N. Wang, A robust robotic tracking controller based on
neural network, International Journal of Robotics & Automation 20
(3) (2005) 199–204.
[36] Y. Zuo, Y.N. Wang, X.Z. Liu, et al., Neural network robust control for a
nonholonomic mobile robot including actuator dynamics,
International Journal of innovative Computing, Information and
Control 6 (8) (2010) 3437–3449.
[37] Y.N. Wang, W. Sun, Y.Q. Xiang, et al., Neural network-based robust
tracking control for robots, Intelligent Automation and Soft
Computing 15 (2) (2009) 211–222.
Wang Yaonan received the B.S. degree in
computer engineering from East China Sci-
ence and Technology University (ECSTU),
Shanghai, China, in 1982 and the M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from
Hunan University, Changsha, China, in 1990
and 1994, respectively.
From 1994 to 1995, he was a Postdoctoral
Research Fellow with the Normal University
of Defence Technology. From 1981 to 1994, he
worked with ECSTU. From 1998 to 2000, he
was a senior Humboldt Fellow in Germany,
and from 2001 to 2004, he was a visiting professor with the University of
Bremen, Bremen, Germany. He has been a Professor at Hunan University
since 1995. His research interests are intelligent control and information
processing, robot control and navigation, image processing, and industrial
process control.
Yang Yimin received the B.E.E., and M.S.E.E.
degrees in 2005 and 2009, respectively, from
Xiangtan University and Hunan University,
Hunan, China. Now, He is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree in Hunan University.
His research interests include robot control
and navigation, intelligent information pro-
cessing, and artificial neural networks.
Yuan Xiaofang received the B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from
Hunan University, Changsha, China, in 2001,
2006 and 2008, respectively.
He is currently a lecturer with the College of
Electrical and Information engineering, Hunan
University. His research interests include
intelligent control theory and applications,
kernel methods, and artificial neural networks.
Zuo Yi received the Ph.D. degree in Control
Science and Engineering from Hunan Univer-
sity, Changsha, China, in 2009. He is a visiting
scholar in University of Waterloo from 2008
to 2009. His scientific interests include neural
networks and robotic robust control.
W. Yaonan et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1405

mc and mw are the masses of the robot body and wheel with actuator. is used to achieve the tracking control of the mobile manipulator under some uncertainties without any knowledge of those robot parameters. with the time update is proven to be suitable for real-time applications. Ic. based on transferable belief model (TBM) to design a fusion of ultrasonic sensor data. Section 3 discusses the nonlinear kinematics-WNN back stepping controller as applied to the tracking problem. The transferable belief model (TBM) is a model for the quantified representation of epistemic uncertainty and which can be an agent. It is assumed that the wheels of the robot do not slide. incomplete. the robot dynamics can be transformed as [30. any prior knowledge about the environment is. the suggested method can determine which obstacle is dynamic or static without any previous knowledge of moving obstacles. a neural robust tracking controller. . then selecting the relevant obstacles for corresponding robot avoidance motion. Then. The local map. 2. OrXrYr is the coordinate system fixed to the mobile robot. Application of the transferable belief model (TBM) to many areas has been presented in [25–29] including classification and target identification during recent times. The MR with two driven wheels shown in Fig. the wheel with a motor about the wheel axis. 1 is a typical example of nonholonomic mechanical systems. but this prior knowledge is not easy to gain. most of the proposed approaches for mobile robots in the literature did not consider autonomous navigation in an environment which includes both static obstacles and dynamic obstacles. 1. each moving object’s velocity and direction is exactly known. First. represented as an occupancy grid.. Yaonan et al. _ _ x sin h À y cos h ¼ 0 ð2Þ All kinematic equality constraints are assumed to be independent of time and to be expressed as follows: _ AðqÞq ¼ 0 ð3Þ By appropriate procedures and definitions. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 shows the mathematical representation of mobile robot with two actuated wheels. This is expressed by the nonholonomic constraint. where (x. Taking the velocity of the obstacles and static object into account. Attractive and repulsion potential function is modified by TBM pignistic belief value.34] Mv_w þ V v w þ F þ sed ¼ s where ð4Þ 1 A 0 M¼ r2 2 @ 4b r2 4b2 ðmb þ I0 Þ þ Iw ðmb À I0 Þ 2 2 r2 4b2 r2 4b2 ðmb À I0 Þ ðmb þ I0 Þ þ Iw 2 2 1 r2 _ mc dh 0 2b2 C B C V ¼ B À r22 mc dh 0 _ A @ 4b 0 F ¼ JT F  sed ¼ JT sed  B¼ 1 0 0 1  q ¼ ðx.1390 W. etc. Section 4 proposed a new method for map building based on sonic rangefinder. Model of a mobile robot with two actuated wheels The kinematic model of an ideal mobile robot is widely used in the mobile robot (MR) control [30–37]. in general. Furthermore. [34]. an intelligent sensor. I0 = mcd2 + 2mwb2 + Ic + 2Im. OXY is the reference coordinate system. y)T is the coordinate of Or in the reference coordinate system. hÞT ð1Þ where m = mc + 2mw. However. or completely unknown. Iw and Im are the moments of inertia of the robot body about the vertical axis through p. This work investigates the possibility of using transferable belief model (TBM) as a promising alternative for navigation system of nonholomonic mobile robot. is the origin of the mobile robot. In the 2-D Cartesian space. Simulation and experiment are shown in Section 6. and provides a highly flexible model to manage the uncertainty encountered in the multi-sensor data fusion problems. d is the distance from Or to P. the pose of the robot is represented by Yr left wheel 2r y Xr P 2b Or d θ right wheel O x Fig. in the nature of the real world. respectively. respectively. comprising adaptive wavelet neural network controller (AWNN). Nonholonomic mobile robot. The motion model including kinematics and dynamics of the nonholonomic mobile robot system can be described by Hou et al. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 in dynamic environment. uncertain. y. and the heading direction h is taken counterclockwise from the OX-axis. Or the middle between the right and left driving wheels. And we feel it appealing when using navigation of mobile robots. These methods assume that. A path-planning approach is discussed in Section 5. and the wheel with a motor about the wheel diameter. 2b is the distance between the two driving wheels and r is the radius of the wheel. a new approach for path planning is proposed.

actuator dynamics is combined with the mobile robot dynamics. mÞ ð16Þ c where the term W wðxi . 2. and ka is the torque constant multiplied by the gear ratio. robot dynamics. In this section. such that c M v_c þ V m v c þ F ¼ W wðxi . c. Ra is the electric resistance constant. Structure of the wavelet neural network-based robust control system. based on whether the system is described by a kinematic model or a dynamic model. Ra Ra sl ka v l ka kb xl ¼ À R Ra M v_w þ V v w þ F þ sed ¼ ð6Þ ka v r ka kb xr À Ra Ra ð11Þ The controller for s is chosen as By using (4)–(6). To this effect. proof and simulation can be also found in [36]. Using kinematic or dynamic models of nonholonomic mobile robots. the tracking-control problem is classified as either a kinematic or a dynamic tracking-con- The function in braces in (15) can be approximated by an AWNN. The dynamic equations of the motor-wheels are: trol problem. so error can be defined as c c ð13Þ where V. the error dynamics stable the input term is chosen as V¼ v w _ M ec ¼ ÀV m ec À K 4 ec þ ~ þ sd þ f  ð10Þ Àc ka kb ka BX v c À Bu Ra Ra ð15Þ 3. Recall the robot dynamics (10) sr k a v r k a k b xr ¼ À . X is selected as ec ¼ v c À v ð9Þ ð14Þ " X¼ 1 r 1 r R r # ÀR r ! Using (11)–(14). . Nonlinear kinematic-WNN backstepping controller In area of research of trajectory tracking in mobile robot. 2. The structure for the tracking control system is presented in Fig. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1391 Since the wheels of the robot are driven by actuators. no knowledge Fig. and wheel actuator dynamics can be written as: s ¼ ^ þ K 4 ec þ c f ð12Þ M v_w þ V v w þ F þ sed ¼ wH ¼ XV ka v r ka kb xr À Ra Ra where K4 is a positive definite diagonal gain matrix. More detail. qÞv c þ Fðv Þ _ where x ¼ ½v T v T v T Š. The motor models attained by neglecting the voltage on the inductances are: sr ¼ ka ðv r À kb xr Þ=Ra . a neural robust tracking controller is discussed briefly to achieve the tracking control under some uncertainties without any knowledge of those robot parameters from our recent work [36]. kb is equal to the voltage constant multiplied by the gear ratio. Yaonan et al. various approaches [21. sl ¼ ka ðv l À kb xl Þ=Ra ð5Þ where vr and vl are the input voltages applied to the right and left motors. and ^ is f an estimation of f(x) that is defined by ð7Þ ð8Þ _ f ðxÞ ¼ MðqÞv_c þ V m ðq. c.W. it is necessary to take the dynamics of the wheel actuators into account. sr and sl are the right and left motor torques multiplied by the gear ratio.32–37] consider that wheel torques are control inputs though in reality wheels are driven by actuators and therefore using actuator input voltages as control inputs is more realistic. the mobile robot model including the robot kinematics. In this figure. mÞ represents an adaptive approximation WNN.

7 6 . Here. A. the closed loop error dynamics given by (20) is locally asymptotically stable with the approximation network parameter tuning laws given by. g2. the proposed map-building process utilizes Transferable Belief Model (TBM). kp is an on line estimated value of the uncertain bound kp. The sonar sensor readings are interpreted by this theory and used to modify the map using transferable belief model rule.1 (Frame of discernment). g3. Yaonan et al. The approximation errors and disturbances are bounded. it catches new information about the environment and updates the old map.. 5  4 5     @w11 @w11 ~ wpq   @m @m ^ m¼m c¼^ c _ c ^ ¼ g3 W Bec À g3 @k@k^ c c _ b K ¼ g4 kec kp ^ where g1. considering (21) for nonholonomic mobile robot. and translation parameters of the WNN tuned on line. kp is an uncertainty bound. The frame of discernment is a finite set of mutually exclusive elements. the array is adjusted on the basis of the nature of the information. the linearization technique is used to transform the nonlinear output of WNN into partially linear from so that the Lyapunov theorem extension can be applied.1. þHÞ þ ef þ sd k. Review theory of transferable belief model In this section. respectively. c where @ is a positive constant. 5 4 . which cells are occupied by obstacles (partially certain) and which cells are (partially) empty and thus suitable for robot navigation. 4. For this purpose. i. the specified constants De and Dr  satisfy kefk 6 De and ksd k 6 Dr .. More details can be found in [25–29].1. Each element of the array corresponds to a specific square on the surface of the actual world. Beware that the frame of discernment is not necessarily exhaustive. assume the following inequality: krk þ      @ X2  T T m c ¼ W ÃT A mà þ BT cà þ H À W T A mà þ BT cà 4   @ X2 @ X2  ÃT  T à  m m  6 þ W A m þ BT cà þ H þ ef þ sd  þ 4  4    c   T   þ ef þ sd  þ  W à  Á A mà þ BT cà  6 kp p 4. 7  6 . 6 . O and uncertain degree H. The robust term c is designed as ^ c ¼ kp p Á sgnðec Þ ð21Þ . the map building system to process the readings in order to assess. It represents an environment as a two-dimensional array. and its value shows the certainty that there is some obstacle there.e. The controller is designed to achieve good tracking and stability results with the connecting weights.1392 W. denoted X hereafter. Whenever the robot moves.e. kp2 P kðAT mà þ BT cà Þk. dilation. Map building An occupancy grid is essentially a data structure that indicates the certainty that a specific part of space is occupied by an obstacle. Because of using this uncertain theory to build an occupancy map of the whole environment. For case of notation. Substituting (18) into (17). 7  6 . To achieve this. as accurately as possible. kp1 P kW ÃT ðAT mà þ BT cà . if using controller (12). When new information about the world is received. kp ¼  ½kp1 kp2 Š. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 of the dynamics of the cart is assumed. it is revealed that ~ þ s ¼ W Tw þ WTw þ WTw þ e þ s ~ ~ ~ ^ d f d c ~ f c ^ c ^ ~ ¼ W T ðw À AT m À BT ^Þ þ W T ðAT m þ BT ~Þ þ r c c ÃT T à T à ð19Þ c where r ¼ W ðA m þ B c þ HÞ À W T ðAT mà þ BT cÃ Þ þ ef þ  sd By substituting (19) into (15). 7 . pT ¼ ½1k W kŠ. g4 are positive constants. _ c c ^ ^ W ¼ g1 ðw À AT m À BT ^Þec À g1 @kec k W c _ c ^ ^ m ¼ g2 W Aec À g2 @kec km ð22Þ ð23Þ ð24Þ ð25Þ ~¼W WþW Wþe e b f f ÃT fT ð17Þ ~ c ~ ^ where W ¼ W à À W and w ¼ wà À w. So every discrete region of the path position may be in two states: belief degree E. we briefly regroup some basic of the belief function theory as explained in the transferable belief model ( TBM). i. The function of WANN is to reconstruct the dynamic (16) by learning it on-line. 7 6 . 7   4 . Assumption 3. it represent important point of view what we must to consider: any position in the updated map of the whole environment do not exist absolute exactness for the reason that any obstacle can not be measured absolutely rightness. the approximation error ~ can be f rewritten as Definition 1. which is widely used in map building in mobile robot [17–21]. ð18Þ H is a vector of higher-order terms and assume to be bounded by a positive constant. ~ The expansion of w in Taylor series is obtained as follows:  2 @w 3T   2 ~ 3 2 @w11 3T  11   w11 @m @m  6 7  7 6 @w 7  6 6 @w11 7  ~ 6 w12 7 6 11 7  6 @m 7  7 6 @m 7  6 6 7  7  ~ 7¼6 ^ ðmà À mÞ þ 6 c w¼6 6 7  7  ðcà À ^Þ þ H 6 . the closed-loop system dynamics can be rewritten as À Á ka kb ka _ Mec ¼ À K 4 þ V m ec þ BX v c À Bu Ra Ra     c ~ ^ ^ ~ c c þ W T w À AT m À BT ^ þ W T AT m þ BT ~ þ r À c ð20Þ Moreover.

for all A # X R is the range response form the ultrasonic sensor. Yaonan et al. mX from 1 2 different sensor respectively. jBjð1 À mX ðhÞÞ B#X 8A 2 X ð31Þ 270 Fig.2 (Basic belief assignment). where R À e < r < R + e mX ¼ & 1 if A ¼ A 0 otherwise à ð26Þ When all bbas are categorical. Normalizing a bba means requiring that E(H) = 0 and that the sum of all bbms givens to the non-empty subsets is 1. sensor modeling and measurements interpretation The Polaroid Ultrasonic Rangefinder is used for map building. for all A # X EðOjxÞ ¼ 0 1 2   2Âx2 1þx2 ð36Þ ð37Þ plðAÞ ¼ X B # H. 3.47–5 m with 1% accuracy. In region I. 3 and 4 is given by Eqs. When a bba means requiring that m(H) > 0 and we call this open world.3 (Categorical belief function). and (r. is the value taken by the bba at A. The pignistic transformation of mX is given by 60 BetP X ðAÞ ¼ X jA \ BjmX ðBÞ . (32)–(37). Typical beam pattern of Polaroid ultrasonic sensor. 4. and it distributes the evidence in Region I. 1] that satisfies P X A # X m ðAÞ ¼ 1. A. b is the half open beam angle of the sonar cone. 90 . A # X. the sensor model converts the range information into probability values. This solution is a classical probability measure from which expected utilities can be computed in order to take optimal decisions. 1] with. In our approach.W. Two limiting cases of categorical bbas have received special names. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1393 A.B\A¼h mðBÞ ¼ belðHÞ À belðAÞ ð28Þ EðEjxÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðOjxÞ The commonality function q is defined as: q: 2X ? [0. This means closing the world. is a belief function which related bba mX satisfies: where jAj is the number of elements of X in A. ð30Þ 300 330 30 8A # H A. In [21]. The basic belief mass (bbm) m(A).4 (Normalizing or nonnormalizing) The basic belief mass m(A) represents the part of belief exactly committed to the subset A of X given a piece of evidence. the basic qðAÞ ¼ X A # B. More details and proofs of the relationship among functions above can be found in [26.2. the TBM becomes equivalent to classical propositional logic. The model in Figs.bel. e is the range error. 1] with. Some of its detail and justifications can be found in [25. 1] with. @) is the coordinate of a point inside the sonar cone. or equivalently to the fact that all we know is that A holds. A categorical belief function on X focused on Aà # X. This is a very common device that can detect distances in the range of 0. we do not require m(H) = 0 as in Shafer’s work.5 ( Related function) the degree of belief bel(A) is defined as: bel(A): 2X ? [0. the bba that results from their conjunctive combination defined by 30o m½E1 Š \ m½E2 ŠðAÞ ¼ X B.C # H. Given two bbas mX .27].6 (The conjunctive rule).3. The fusion of data from sonar The sonar data interpreted by Transferable Belief Model of evidence are collected and updated into a map using the same theory of evidence. A.pl are always in one to one correspondence.B # X mðBÞ ð29Þ The function q.7 (The pignistic transformation for decision). where Rmin < r < R À e  x¼ belðAÞ ¼ X h–B # A bÀ@ b 2 þ 2 ÀRÀeÀrÁ2 RÀe mðBÞ ð27Þ ð35Þ   À1 < x < 0 þ1 06x61 ( X The degree of plausibility pl(A) is defined as: pl: 2 ? [0. A. The pignistic transformation maps bbas to so called pignistic probability functions. A basic belief assignment (bba) is a mapping mX from 2X to [0. In TBM.29] 4. for all A # X  x¼ bÀ@ b 2 þ  eÀjRÀrj e 2 ð32Þ   À1 < x < 0 06x61 2 ( 0 1 2 EðOjxÞ ¼   2Âx2 1þx2 þ1 ð33Þ ð34Þ EðEjxÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðOjxÞ In region II.B\C¼A 0 m½E1 ŠðBÞ  m½E2 ŠðCÞ. A.

@ 1 ¼ 0. S0. X4y = 10 moving direction in a positive X-axis direction. Yaonan et al. 4. The new basic probability assignments for cells in the map become (the first lies in region I and the second lies in region II): (Static obstacles) xS0 ¼ 0 ð15À3Þ þð10À2À7Þ ð15À3Þ þð10À2À7Þ 15 10À2 ¼ 0:1878 xS1 ¼ 15 2 10À2 ¼ 0:1878 0 2      2 2 ES0 ðxÞ ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5341 ES0 ðxÞ ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5341 0 0 2 2 1þx 1þx ES0 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2659 0 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 2 2 ES0 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2659 0 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 and ð15À6Þ þð2Àj10À9jÞ ð15À0Þ þð2Àj10À9jÞ 15 2 2 ¼ 0:3050 xS1 ¼ 15 ¼ 0:6250 1 2 2       S0 S1 1 2Âx2 1 2Âx2 E1 ðxÞ ¼ 2 Â 1þx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5851 E1 ðxÞ ¼ 2 Â 1þx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:7809 xS0 ¼ 1 ES0 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS1 ¼ 0:2149 1 1 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 ES1 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS1 ¼ 0:0191 1 1 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 2 2 Table 1 Condition of this example. X 0y ¼ 8 X 1x ¼ 10. Static obstacles position X 0x ¼ 8. r S1 1 1 5. the robot is moving in a direction depicted by the broken line and sonars scan the environment again. Example 1. @ 2 ¼ 6. (32)–(37). @ S2 ¼ 3 4 11. @ S2 ¼ 3 5 ¼ 7. r S1 ¼ 6. rS2 ¼ 9. r S0 ¼ 4. This situation is given in Fig. The profile of the ultrasonic sensor model. X 1y ¼ 5 In the next moment. r 6 ¼ 3. r S2 ¼ 7. @ S0 ¼ 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 S1 S2 S1 S2 S2 S2 6. r S1 0 0 9. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Pr ofile for the range l Rmin y r R −ε R R +ε Pr ofile for the angle α 15 α β R Π x l ε ε −15 Fig. 5 and 6. yr = 10 X4x = 14. @ S1 0 @ S1 1 ¼3 ¼0 EðOÞS0 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2123 0 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 xS0 ¼ 1 ð15À6Þ þð10À2À6Þ ð15À0Þ þð10À2À6Þ 15 10À2 ¼ 0:2112 xS1 ¼ 15 2 10À2 ¼ 0:6250 1 2       2 2 EðxÞS0 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5427 EðxÞS1 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:7809 1 1 2 2 1þx 1þx EðOÞS1 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:0191 1 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðOÞS0 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2573 1 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 . rS1 ¼ 5. @ S0 ¼ 3. (Dynamic obstacles) xS2 ¼ 4 ð15À3Þ þð10À2À5Þ ð15À3Þ þð2Àj10À11jÞ 15 10À2 2 ¼ 0:3903 xS2 ¼ 15 ¼ 0:4450 5 2  2       2 2 ES2 ðxÞ ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:6322 ES2 ðxÞ ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:6625 4 4 2 2 1þx 1þx ES0 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS1 ¼ 0:1375 1 1 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 2 2 ES0 ðOÞ ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS1 ¼ 0:1678 1 1 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 X5x = 15. Let the robot be located in cell (15. ¼ 9. r S1 ¼ 9. @ 6 ¼ 6: xS0 ¼ 0 ð15À3Þ þð10À2À4Þ ð15À6Þ þð10À2À5Þ 15 10À2 ¼ 0:3100 xS1 ¼ 15 2 10À2 ¼ 0:2503 0 2        2 2 EðxÞS0 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5877 EðxÞS1 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5590 0 0 2 2 1þx 1þx EðOÞS1 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2410 0 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Distances r and angles @ detected by different sonar X0 : X1 : X4 : X5 : r S0 0 r S0 1 r S2 4 r S2 5 ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 7. 6. probability assignment corresponding to a range reading r is obtained directly using Eqs. The condition is shown in Table 1 and Figs. @ 2 ¼ 3. 10) in the beginning of the navigation process. 0 0 0 r S0 ¼ 6. X5y = 7 moving direction in a positive X-axis direction. @ S0 ¼ 6.1394 W. @ S0 ¼ 3. The next example illustrates the usage of transferable belief model for mapbuilding process. @ 1 ¼ 3. Robot position Dynamic obstacles position and its moving direction xr = 15. S1 and S2 detect some possible obstacles on @ S1 ¼ 6.

Yaonan et al. xS2 ¼ 1 EðxÞS2 1 ð15À3Þ þð10À2À7Þ 15 10À2 2 j10À9 ð15À3Þ þð2À10À2 jÞ ¼ 0:3278 xS1 ¼ 15 ¼ 0:3278 2 2       2 2 S2 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5970 EðxÞ1 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5970 2 2 1þx 1þx 2 2 2 2 (Dynamic obstacle) ð15À6Þ þð2Àj10À9jÞ ð15À6Þ þð10À2À3Þ 15 10À2 ¼ 0:1878 xS2 ¼ 15 2 10À2 ¼ 0:3753 6 2       2 2 S2 S2 EðxÞ2 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:5341 EðxÞ6 ¼ 1 Â 2Âx2 þ 1 ¼ 0:6235 2 2 1þx 1þx xS2 ¼ 2 EðOÞS2 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2659 2 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðOÞS2 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS2 ¼ 0:1765 6 6 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 2 2 2 2 EðOÞS2 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2030 1 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 EðOÞS2 ¼ 0:8 À EðxÞS0 ¼ 0:2030 1 0 EðHÞ ¼ 0:2 .W. Occupancy determination based on sonar measurements in t = 2 s. 6. Fig. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1395 Fig. 5. Initial position.

0875 0. H mS0 ðT 0 Þ 1 mS1 ðT 0 Þ 1 mS0 ÈS1 ðT 0 Þ 1 mS0 ðT 1 Þ 1 mS0 ðT 1 Þ 2 mS0 ÈS1 ðT 1 Þ 1 mS2 ðT 4 Þ 1 mS2 ðT 5 Þ 1 mS0 ðT 0 Þ 2 mS1 ðT 0 Þ 2 mS0 ÈS1 ðT 0 Þ 2 mS0 ÈS1 ðT 0 Þ 1È2 mS0 ðT 1 Þ 2 mS1 ðT 1 Þ 2 mS2 ðT 1 Þ 2 mS0 ÈS1 ÈS2 ðT 1 Þ 2 mS0 ÈS1 ÈS2 ðT 1 Þ 1È2 mS1 ðT 2 Þ 2 mS2 ðT 2 Þ 2 mS1 ÈS2 ðT 2 Þ 2   mS2 ðT 6 Þ È m EðHÞS2 6 1È2 (dyanmic obstacle)   mðT S2 Þ1 È m EðHÞS2 4 4 2 W.1293 0.4243 0.1203 Empty 0. and 1 2 Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt S ÈS ÁÁÁÈSi ½AŠðOÞ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈSi 1 2 Bet 1È2ÁÁÁÈt ½AŠðhÞ < e we can belief that event A is occupancy is unlikelihood.0042 0. Path planning In this section. . Consider the pignistic value and basic probability assignments given by transferable belief model based on update information. Event A is moving obstacle if satisfying that: 1 1 (1) m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðEÞ þ m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðHÞ ! 1 1 (2) m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðHÞ P 0:5 S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS a 1 À ð1 À bÞ2 2b 1 À ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞ 2 a 1 À ð1 À 2b þ b Þ ¼ 2b 1 À ð1 À b À a þ abÞ 2 a 2b À b ¼ 2b b þ a À ab 2 a 2b À b ¼ 2b b þ a À ab að2 À bÞ ¼ 2ð1 À mðHÞÞ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS ð45Þ 1 2 1 2 If Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ ( Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ. .0875 0.0661 0.3362 0.1177 0.0239 Thus: 1 2 Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðh1 Þ ¼ (dynamic obstacle)   mðT S2 Þ1 È m EðHÞS2 5 5 2 S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS a 1 À ð1 À bÞn nb 1 À ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞnÀ1 ð44Þ (dyanmic obstacle) Let n = 2 for the reason these are two hypothesis including occupancy (O) and empty (E): 1 2 Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ ¼ Evidence about occupancies of cells including dynamic object are combination using transferable belief model.3362 0.4031 0.2516 0.3921 0.3582 0.3420 0.0818 0.4758 0.3007 0. This process continues until the target is reached.2561 0.0022 0. 1 2 Bet 1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS Bet 1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠð HÞ ¼ að2 À bÞ 2ð1 À mX ½x1 .8442 0.6642 0.1289 0.6444 0.1063 0.3921 0. it means event A of occupancy is unbelievable. .3874 0.0671 0. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 H (unknown) 0. 5.5281 0. thus if "e and e is a small con- S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS stant.5714 0. suppose the number of the sensor is i.2911 0.7660 0.0309 Proof.0292 0.1293 0.3320 0.1222 0.0682 0.0368 0.3248 0.8444 1 Occupancy 0.3921 0. 8A 2 X Að1 À mX ðHÞÞ ð40Þ Suppose the sensor measurement is A 2 X and its likelihoods S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS are m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ ¼ a.4243 0.1063 0. m½xŠðAÞ ¼ Y hi 2A lðhi jxÞ Y Y  hi 2A ð1 À lðhi jxÞÞ ð38Þ ð39Þ pl½xŠðAÞ ¼ 1 À X A#X ð1 À lðhi jxÞÞ  hi 2A BetPðAÞ ¼ mX ðAÞ .4758 0. in which the robot replans the path as new observations are acquired.2149 0.3212 0.0464 0..4212 0. interval time is 1. with (38) 1 2 m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ ¼ ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS ð41Þ From (40).8436 0. we get: 1 2 ! 0 and m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðEÞ 1 2 ! 1 and m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ P 0:5 S ÈÁÁÁÈS S ÈÁÁÁÈS S ÈÁÁÁÈS S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS .0505 0. dynamic object recognition law Condition 1. . From the new results it can be concluded that the evidence about the occupancy of cells is increased.5273 0.4629 0.1396 Table 2 Probabilitic result from transferable belief model. which is shown in Table 2.3248 0.5371 0. At ttime. we adopt a new path planning strategy. m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðEÞ ¼ b.5149 0.4550 0. hn} denote a set of n hypothesis.3086 0. h2.0476 0.3016 0.0004 0. Given the likelihoods l(hijx) for every hi 2 H Let X denote the set of possible values this observation can take. .5261 0.0344 0. Yaonan et al.3347 0.3117 0. the navigation recognition law that can determine which obstacle is dynamic or static without any previous knowledge is discussed in this section. What’s more. . .0818 0. xi ŠðHÞÞ 0 mS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ½AŠðHÞ að2 À bÞ 1È2ÁÁÁÈt ¼ S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS 1 À m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ 2m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ ð46Þ If S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðOÞ S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈS Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ < e.4629 0.5478 0.5409 0. 1 2 Bet1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðh1 Þ ¼ S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS að1 À bÞ þ ¼ P i a nÀ1 C inÀi b ð1 À bÞnÀiÀ1 =ði þ 1Þ i¼0 1 À ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞ C inÀi ð1 À bÞnÀiÀ1 =ði þ 1Þ 1 À ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞ i¼1 PnÀ1 ð42Þ The sum can be simplified to from Delmotte [28]: nÀ1 X i¼0 mS2 ðT 6 Þ 2 C inÀi b ð1 À bÞnÀiÀ1 =ði þ 1Þ ¼ i 1 À ð1 À bÞn nb ð43Þ 0.3396 0. 5. Let H = {h1.1239 0.1.

q Þ À q 1È2ÁÁÁÈt 2 obs 0 jht À h0 j > hs ð51Þ where hs is a trap warning angle. 5. In this paper. h0. Yaonan et al. described by: rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0 2 2 ðxBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ À xBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ Þ þ ðyBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ À yBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ Þ T. q = [xyz]T in a 3-dimensional space or q = [xy]T in a 2-dimensional space.3. we obtain the potential total virtual force which drives the reference point of the mobile robot to the destination. qobs Þamax ðqs ðq. qobs Þ À qm ðv RO Þ P q0 or v RO 6 0 > > > > > > or satisfy condition:1 > > > > > >F > rep1 þ F rep2 . q Þ < q ðv Þ > RO RO > s obs m > > > > > > or satisfy condition:1 > > > > >  2 > >1 : BetP S1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞg 1 1 if not satisfy condition:1 S qðq. we proposed a new method to modify this potential field method based on TBM in complex dynamic environment under static and dynamic obstacle. (48) and (49). respectively. respectively. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1 2 1 2 Because m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðHÞ þ m1È2ÁÁÁÈt i ½AŠðEÞ þ mS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈ 1È2ÁÁÁÈt Si ½AŠðOÞ ¼ 1. kqtar(t) À q(t)k is the Euclidean distance between the robot and the target at time t. We regard it is very likely about to get trapped. qobs Þ À qm ðv RO ÞÞ2 ÀgBetP X ðOv Þ BetP X ðOv Þgv RO v RO? qs ðq. with the actual instantaneous direction of travel. qobs(t)) is denoted the shortest distance between the robot and the body of the obstacle. and typically 90°.yr] is the position both from dynamic obstacle and robot. which compares the robot-to-target direction.W. if 0 < qs ðq. 8 > BetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞm@ q kqtar ðtÞ À qðtÞk2 nRT > 1È2ÁÁÁÈt < F att ðq. that is. Let ½x. kvtar(t) À v(t)k is the magnitude of the relative velocity between the target and the robot at time t. the robot is obstructed by the obstacle and cannot reach the target.2. Local minimum problems Like other local path planning approaches. jOv jð1 À mX ðHÞÞ ð47Þ 2amax X BetP ðOv Þ ¼ O#X 8A # X where T is interval. qs(q(t). vRO(t) is the relative velocity between the robot and the obstacle in the direction from the robot to the obstacle. a and g is a positive constant. 5. if v > 0 and q ðq. If the robot’s direction of travel is more than a certain angle (90° in most cases) off the target point. nand mare positive constants. waiting method is often adopted where both the target and the obstacle are moving. 7). v obs ðtÞ ¼ t tÀT t tÀT With q0 is a positive constant describing the influence range of the obstacle. qobs Þ À qm ðv RO Þ < q0 and v RO > 0 > > > > < or satisfy condition:1 F rep ðq. Also a repulsive potential can be written as: 8 > 0. if qs ðq. Refs. we adopt the method in [5] (see Fig. And the velocity of this dynamic obstacle is defined: S ÈÁÁÁÈS S ÈÁÁÁÈS S ÈÁÁÁÈS F repv 1 ¼ F repv 2 ¼   v RO nRO 1þ amax ðqs ðq. the proposed navigation algorithm has a local minimum problem. ð49Þ Fig. we get the condition: 1397 S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS S ÈS ÁÁÁÈS where 1 1 (1) m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðEÞ þ m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðHÞ ! 1 1 (2) m1È2ÁÁÁÈti ½AŠðHÞ P 0:5If satisfying the condition. @ q and @ v are scalar positive parameters. From Eqs.13]. An attractive potential which drives the mobile robot to its destination can be described by Ge and Cui [10. 7. at t time. F total ¼ F att þ F rep ð50Þ vRO(t) = [v(t) À vobs(t)]TnRO. nRO is a unit vector pointing from the robot to the obstacle. BetPX(O) and BetPX(Ov) are pignsitic decision value that sensor detect the occupancy belief value both for static and dynamic respectively. ht. v(t) and vtar(t) denote the velocities of the robot and the target at time t. Incorporating a virtual target on local-minimum alert. nRT being the unit vector pointing from the robot to the target and nVRTbeing the unit vector denoting the relative velocity direction of the target with respect to the robot. [13–17] indicate in highly dynamic environment. potential field method based on TBM The potential field method has been studied extensively for autonomous mobile robot path planning in the past decade. we believe this obstacle is dynamic. when where q(t) and qtar(t) denote the positions of the robot and the target at time t. To detect the outbreak of local minimum. BetPX(O) is pignsitic decision value that sensor detect the occupancy belief value both for static and dynamic respectively. v Þ ¼ > > > not defined. qobs Þ À qm ðv RO ÞÞ2 nRO? v obs ðtÞ ¼ ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi0 ðxBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ À xBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ Þ2 þ ðyBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ À yBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞ Þ2 T t tÀT t tÀT qm ðv RO Þ ¼ X v 2 ðtÞ RO mX ðOv Þ . yŠBetPX ½T t ŠðOÞ and [xr. v Þ ¼ BetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞm@ q kqtar ðtÞ À qðtÞk2 nRT t > > : þBetPS1 ÈS2 ÁÁÁÈSi ðOÞn@ v kv tar ðtÞ À v ðtÞk2 nVRT t if not satisfy condition:1 if satisfy condition:1 ð48Þ Assuming that the target moves outward or synchronously with the obstacle. mX(H) is unknown value from pignistic transformation. .

in which the robot needs to detour around a long wall to reach the goal. Simulation and experiment results To show the usefulness of the proposed approach. Yaonan et al. the original target point is restores. Collision avoidance (static case). and typically 45°. and the robot continues to proceed to the target point. Simulation results In these simulations. bvt is a certain angler. The robot has been modeled as a small circle. the original target point is replaced with the virtual target point. 8. BetPX(O) is a pignsitic Fig. 9a. 6. The virtual target point is placed by following equations: decision value that sensor detect the occupancy belief value in hv that direction. R is an offset which depends on the size of the robot. the robot is heading to the goal position and hence hs = 0°. When the robot escapes from the condition above or when no obstacle is detected. 9. the positions of all the obstacles including moving obstacles in the workspace are unknown to the robot. As seen from the virtual plane shown in Fig.1. The minimum distance obtained within the cone of each sensor is considered as the distance of the obstacle from the sensor which detects any obstacle. 8. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Consider a common situation as shown in Fig. 9 represents the obstacle avoidance path of the mobile robot in static case. 9–13. And any distance information detected from sonar is adding Gaussian White Noise. But at position B. with the decrease of distance between Obs6 and robot. Also v ¼ L Â BetPX ðOÞ þ R ð53Þ where L is the distance between the robot and the obstacle near the virtual target detected by the longest-range sensor in the corresponding direction. 9. The robot is aware of its start and finish positions only. Experiment 1: Fig. Simulation results obtained in three working scenarios are presented in Figs.1398 W. and imaginary sensors (sixteen in number) are placed in the form of the arc along the circumference of the robot. BetPX(O) became much large which lead the repulsive force much large. Experiment 2: This example illustrates the collision avoidance process in dynamic environment. At position A. and the fifth experiment is carried out from Mobilesim environment. The scenario xv ¼ xi þ m cosðhi À bv t Þ yv ¼ yi þ m sinðhi À bv t Þ hv ¼ h0 À bv t ð52Þ where m is the distance that the robot needs to travel to reach the virtual goal. the robot escapes from this trapping point and moves to point C. Anti-deadlock mechanism. Based on (51)–(53). In such a situation. a series of simulations have been conducted using an arbitrarily constructed environment including obstacles. 6. Table 3 shows the condition settings of this experiment. robot changes its path by deviating to the right. The complete process is shown in Fig. Ultimately. . Fig. the robot changes its direction by repulsive force from detected wall and hs P 90°. The first to fourth experiments are conducted to verify the proposed method in the MATLAB environment.

Fig. 10 has some similarity with the scenarios of example 1 but adding two moving obstacles. 10 thoroughly plots the obstacle avoidance path of the mobile ro- bot in discrete time while it is maneuvered in a complex environment (including dynamic and static obstacle) where two rectangular shapes of obstacles are moving in . Yaonan et al. shown in Fig.W. 10. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1399 Fig. Collision avoidance (dynamic case).

b. it is more urgent to avoid collision with ObsD1. Collision avoidance (local minimum case). different directions and different velocity. 10e and f show the robot neglect this moving obstacle and can not change its path for the reason there is no collision risk with ObsD2. The complete process is shown in Fig. Table 4 shows the condition settings of this experiment. (g and h) 0 6 t 6 37s. Point a. c. Experiment 3: For local minimum problem avoidance. Obs1 and Obs2. represents the real goal . . the robot is in a collision course with both ObsD1. h represents the static obstacle and represents the dynamic obstacle. Yaonan et al. Fig. The robot avoids collision with Obs2 as shown in Fig. As seen from Fig. 10 represents the scenario and the virtual plane in different time intervals: (a and b) 0 6 t 6 5s. .1400 W. 10e and f. However. 11). a rigorous testing is carried out in cluttered maze consisting of concave obstacles and dynamic obstacles (Fig. In the following Figs. (c and d) 0 6 t 6 10s. 10(c and d). Fig. meanwhile. 11. and the robot slows down to accomplish this. (e and f) 0 6 t 6 15s. 10g and h. . represent several trapping points. five static obstacles also set in this environment. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Fig. 11 and 12.

Yaonan et al. Collision avoidance (mazes case). 12.W. 11 (continued) Fig. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 1401 Fig. .

Obs4y = 15[m] Obs5x = 24[m]. Collision avoidance based on Mobilesim environment (dynamic case). But in Fig. Since the obsD1 is now to change its moving direction and move away from the robot. the robot turns its direction and tracks current virtual goal. Then the robot continues to see the wall on its left until it arrives at point H and I after which it goes towards a real target point. 11 represents the scenario and the virtual plane in different time intervals: (b and c) 0 6 t 6 10s. 13. (d and e) 0 6 t 6 30s. E. 11b. 11f and g and the robot moves counterclockwise around obstacles through point J and K to the final goal. 11b and c. ? represents the potential total virtual force which drives the reference point of the mobile robot to the current position. Goaly = 20. Since the goal is now to the left of the robot. 11d and e. . Obs5y = 20[m] Obs6x = 9[m] ? 12[m]. it continues to track the current virtual goal (point C) at which time the robot detects obsD2. the robot continues to track the virtual goal in a counterclockwise direction until it reaches the virtual goal at point B. Table 3 Experimental conditions of obstacle avoidance (static case). Obs6y = 10[m] 30 s Processing time and represents the current virtual goal. Yaonan et al. Initial robot position Goal position Obstacle position xr = 0[m]. it shows the robot neglects this moving obstacle and can not change its path for the reason that there is no collision risk with ObsD2.1402 W. Obs2y = 10[m] Obs3x = 18[m]. As seen from Fig. At these points where the robot’s direction of travel is more than a certain angle (jht À h0j > 90°) off the target point. there are several local minimum points including point D. In Fig. the robot does not detect the obsD1 until it reaches point A at which time it turns to the right-the side with the lowest collision possibility. (f and g) 0 6 t 6 40s. Table 5 shows the dynamic obstacles sets of this experiment. Obs1x = 8[m]. F. The complete process is shown in Fig. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Fig. yr = 0[m] Goalx = 30[m]. Fig. Obs3y = 20[m] Obs4x = 20[m].5[m]. Obs1y = 10[m] Obs2x = 13[m].

12c–f. 13. ObsD1x = 10[m]. The processes for wall following. ObsD1y = 0[m] moving direction and velocity moving in a positive Y-axis direction at 0.71(m/s) 40 s Processing time Experiment 4: In this experiment.19(m/s). ObsD1y = 5[m]. The position of the robot is recorded at regular time intervals. The robot changes its path by deviating to the right. A test case is presented in Fig. Obs1y ¼ 10½mŠ Obs2x ¼ 12½mŠ. 14.2.2. 14. 13c and d. Obs5y ¼ 20½mŠ Processing time 37 s Table 5 Experimental conditions of dynamic obstacles. Obs4y ¼ 15½mŠ Obs5x ¼ 24½mŠ. moving back and forth along X-axis and its velocity at 0. The navigation law makes a correct decision by indicating the right direction to the mobile robot until it reaches the virtual goal. there is a collision risk with D1 in the time 0 6 t 6 1. As it moves. moving back and forth along Y-axis and its velocity at 1. In Fig. Goaly = 25[m]. SLAM and so on. ObsD1y = 5[m] M 10[m]. as shown in Fig.5 m. yr = 0[m] Goalx = 29[m]. 13a represents the scenario. Fig. 20) M (5. Experiment 5: This example is shown in Fig. ObsD 1x = 0[m] M 6[m]. Although feature detectors using sonar is not very accurate especially in complex environment and real Fig. The laptop on top on the robot is in charge of all computation: motion control.70(m/s) ObsD4 = (0. The objects were placed in the room and their positions are point out as shown in Fig. (d) 0 6 t 6 6.W. Experiment with a pioneer robot Static obstacle position Obs1x ¼ 8½mŠ. 12b. In this experiment. Fig. all programs were run under the Windows NT operating system. Initial robot position Goal position Initial dynamic obstacle position and its moving direction and velocity xr = 0[m]. Then the mobile robot keeps moving and detects dynamic obstacles in right direction. The proposed algorithm performs well in a cluttered dynamic environment. 1403 seed and orientation when facing with multi-moving obstacle. The robot makes the correct decision and turns to the left avoiding the detected obstacles successfully and then reaches the goal. This illustrates the collision avoidance process by change both The method presented in this paper has been tested on a Pioneer robot. The orientation of the two MT-Robot is shown in Fig. 6. 13b. (c) 0 6 t 6 5. The navigation is carried out in real-time and we only use sonar to detect obstacle. .3. Initial robot position Goal position Dynamic obstacle position and its moving direction and velocity xr = 0[m]. h represents the static obstacle and represents the dynamic obstacle. The track line of Pioneer robot is indicated approximately with blue color in this figure. ObsD1y = 15[m] moving direction and velocity moving in a positive X-axis direction at 0. In order to simulate dynamic obstacle. c and e thoroughly plot the obstacle avoidance path of the mobile robot in discrete time while it is maneuvered in a dynamic environment where many dynamic obstacles are moving in different direction. 13b. moving back and forth along X-axis and its velocity at 1. robot changes its orientation by avoiding collision with D1 and D2 using proposed method. Whereas.1. planning. 12a.6 m by 6. while Fig. ObsD3y = 10[m]. 25). The mobile robot starts to move towards according to the real goal. (e) 0 6 t 6 8. Pioneer robot. Fig. 15. 13b– e indicate the virtual plane in different time intervals: (b) 0 6 t 6 1. yr = 0[m] Goalx = 29[m]. it detects obstacles in front and in the left from its ultrasonic sensors. The room is a clean environment with long wall obstacles and measures approximately 8. Obs2y ¼ 10½mŠ Obs3x ¼ 18½mŠ. as shown in Fig. Similar as experiment 3. During the test executions. a Pentium 2.00(m/s) ObsD3x = 15[m] M 22[m]. moving back and forth and its velocity at 0. As seen from the virtual plane shown in Fig. the goal position is aligned to the front of the mobile robot which is obstructed by obstacles wall and two MT-Robots. the more complex test is performed to present the effectiveness of the proposed approach in cluttered environment with obstacle loops and mazes. 12a and b. Goaly = 25[m]. 15. 15. directly on the main processor of the robot. d and f give some detail information about how the robot navigation system behaves at each discrete time.20(m/s) ObsD2x = 10[m].1.88(m/s) ObsD2x = 12[m].2. two football mobile robots (MT-Robot) are used based on remote control. Obs3y ¼ 20½mŠ Obs4x ¼ 20½mŠ. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Table 4 Experimental conditions of obstacle avoidance (dynamic case). Yaonan et al.3G. passing through a narrow door and escaping from local minimum point using our algorithm are shown in Fig. The robot and the experiment setup are shown in Fig.

IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A –Systems and Humans 30 (2) (2000) 187–196. Burgard. From these results. et al. Cui. Svestka. waiting motion happened frequently). IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9 (2) (1987) 263–273. The aim was to let the robot find a collision-free trajectory between the starting configuration and the goal configuration in a dynamic environment containing some obstacle (including static and moving object). it is not very robust as compared with simulation experiment in Matlab or Mobilesim (Process time became long. Clark. This allows the robot to follow the smoother path. Though mobile robot is discussed. M. Mataric. [10] S. 7. a navigation strategy which consists of sonar data interpretation and fusion. Kolluru. Efficient online path planning algorithm and navigation for a mobile robot. Furthermore. performance. International Journal of Electronics 69 (2) (1990) 187–210. D. Integration of representation into goal-riven behaviorbased robots. Probabilistic road map sampling strategies for multirobot motion planning.H. The reactions of the robot in the simulation are also different from the real robot. Thrun. This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (60775047. Probabilistic algorithms in robotics. Based on proposed judging law.S. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 53 (3–4) (2005) 244–264. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 Fig. For instance. Fox. a new mobile robot navigation strategy for nonholomonic mobile robot in dynamic environment was designed and fully tested in this work based on transferable belief model. Overmars. in this experiment. it shows that based on our collision avoidance algorithm. the method is generally applicable to other type of problem. [2] M. Valavanis.J. Y. 15. Koren.J.1404 W. References [1] K. [4] E. the performance of the simulation and the real robot is different. Mobile robot navigation in 2-D dynamic environments using an electrostatic potential field. Koditschek. it also can achieve the goal based on this navigation method.. International Journal of Robotics Research 16 (2) (1997) 119–143. Rueb. [7] P. Exact robot navigation using artificial potential function. the set point is obtained over a period of time. Ai Magazine 21 (4) (2000) 93–109. Yaonan et al.E. For this purpose.C. map building. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics 19 (5) (1989) 1179–1187. [9] C. once a speed command is given to the real robot. [11] K.K. Acknowledgements The authors thank the anonymous editor and reviewer for their invaluable suggestions. Conclusion In this paper. Hebert. Machine Learning 31 (1–3) (1998) 29–53. Habib. and path planning is designed. Real-time obstacle avoidance for fast mobile robots. Mobile robot and experiment. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8 (5) (1992) 501–518. Thrun. as well as to pattern recognition. Motion planning for carlike robots using a probabilistic learning approach. S. In the simulation. objective classification. [5] J. Borensein. The sonar data fusion and dynamic object distinguish law were discussed using transferable belief model. a path planning algorithm is modified based on potential field method. which has been incorporated to improve the quality of this paper dramatically. W. Ge. the speed set point is almost immediately achieved. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 16 (5) (2000) 615–620. A. [3] M. Yuta. Simulation and experiment results validate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Y.K. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program: 2008AA04Z214).P.M. Rimon. The simulation has a faster cycle time for the iterations of the proposed method. the mobile robot can find a safe and smooth path for attaining the target position autonomously whether in a static or dynamic environment when adding highly noise to the sensor. R. Structuring free space as a hypergrarph for roving robot path planning and navigation. T. [8] S. [6] S. Wong. 60673084). IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8 (3) (1992) 304–312.D. New potential functions for mobile robot path planning. . A probabilistic approach to concurrent mapping and localization for mobile robots. National Technology Support Project (2008BAF36B01) and Research Foundation of Hunan Provincial Education Department (10C0356). D.

respectively. He is currently working toward the Ph. Valavanis.C. J. His research interests are intelligent control and information processing. Yang. [15] L. Minguez. Sensor-based robot motion generation in unknown. Shippen. Adaptive control of an electrically driven nonholonomic mobile robot via backstepping and Fuzzy approach. Tsourveloudis. and Ph. K. W.S. Dynamics of Continuous Discrete and Impulsive Systems-Series B – Applications & Algorithms 8 (3) (2001) 339–358. Smets. Smets. 2006 and 2008. Ge. Information and Control 6 (8) (2010) 3437–3449. [22] X.V. from Xiangtan University and Hunan University. Hebert. A sensor based navigation algorithm for a mobile robot using the DVFF approach.D. Jones.A. G. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54 (12) (2006) 989–1004. Wang.M. Dapena. Neural network-based robust tracking control for robots. Changsha. Comparison of the performances of decision aimed algorithms with Bayesian and beliefs basis. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 39 (7) (1999) 1117–1134.. Velagic. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 16 (8) (2001) 963–981. K. R. Germany. in 2009. Y. B. respectively. Djekoune. Sun. He has been a Professor at Hunan University since 1995. Zou. degree in Control Science and Engineering from Hunan University. Patel. Hou. Toumi.S. Patel. image processing.. [32] S. Application of the transferable belief model to diagnostic problems. Mayosky. 1405 [36] Y. Denoeux. Moallem. Fierro. dynamic and troublesome scenarios. C. and M.D. Xiang. P.J.E. Control of a nonholonomic mobile robot: Backstepping kinematics into dynamics. Achour. . Yamamoto. he worked with ECSTU. China. robot control and navigation. R. / Measurement 44 (2011) 1389–1405 [12] N.N. Sun. and from 2001 to 2004. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 13 (3) (1998) 127–157.S. Information Fusion 8 (4) (2007) 387–412.X. Dynamic motion planning for mobile robots using potential field method. P. Y.. From 1981 to 1994. degrees in electrical engineering from Hunan University. [31] Q. Behavioral control through evolutionary neurocontrollers for autonomous mobile robot navigation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A – Systems and Humans 36 (6) (2006) 1395–1406. B. B. Cui.. [28] F. Journal of Robotic Systems 14 (3) (1997) 149–163.P. Now. Applied Soft Computing 7 (1) (2007) 189–202. intelligent information processing. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 44 (2) (2003) 131–150.. in 2001. Meng. L. T. Yin. A fuzzy-logic-based approach for mobile robot path tracking.D. et al. Kinematics-based characterization of the collision course. Smets. China.E. [35] W. kernel methods. in 1982 and the M. and artificial neural networks. Modified Newton’s method applied to potential field based navigation for nonholonomic robots in dynamic environments. Changsha. A new potential field method for mobile robot path planning in the dynamic environments. China.N.Y.S. Evolutionary design and behavior analysis of neuromodulatory neural networks for mobile robots control. On-line path planning strategy integrated with collision and dead-lock avoidance schemes for wheeled mobile robot in indoor environments.Z. Lewis. Delmotte.V. Perunicic. [20] L. [23] T. [18] A. Hunan. Y. Autonomous vehicle navigation utilizing electrostatic potential fields and fuzzy logic. he was a visiting professor with the University of Bremen. Zhang. [29] P. Yang Yimin received the B. B.Q. Wang.L. M. He is a visiting scholar in University of Waterloo from 2008 to 2009. Y. K.D. M. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 52 (4) (2005) 290–311. Path quality measures for sensor-based motion planning.C. Y. Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions. Bremen. [33] G. International Journal of Robotics & Automation 20 (3) (2005) 199–204. [24] J. Delmotte.A. Chiaverini. [13] S. Liu.O. Zuo.S. Yuan Xiaofang received the B. [25] P. respectively.S. [34] Z. Acosta. Classification using belief functions: Relationship between case-based and model-based approaches. Neural network robust control for a nonholonomic mobile robot including actuator dynamics.A. A robust robotic tracking controller based on neural network. Shanghai. A layered goal-oriented fuzzy motion planning strategy for mobile robot navigation.. et al. His research interests include intelligent control theory and applications. Wang. A 3-level autonomous mobile robot navigation system designed by using reasoning/search approaches. From 1998 to 2000.G. degree in computer engineering from East China Science and Technology University (ECSTU). degree in Hunan University. Belkhouche. Yin. Ren. Fusco. Smets. G.W. [19] J. Montano. Autonomous Robots 13 (3) (2002) 207–222. Hunan University. [21] J. Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of Dempster–Shafer model.J. S. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B –Cybernetics 35 (6) (2005) 1214–1224. Kondo. Yang.X. Cheng. and Ph. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 15 (2) (2007) 211–221. A. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 17 (4) (2001) 490–497. Y. Yaonan et al. His research interests include robot control and navigation. F. China. [27] T. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 57 (4) (2009) 411–419. [14] J. Wang Yaonan received the B. Real-time fine motion control of robot manipulators with unknown dynamics.N. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A – Systems and Humans 34 (4) (2004) 457–471. degrees in 2005 and 2009. L. Industrial Robot – An International Journal 35 (5) (2008) 421–434. Chang. Lacevic. Belkhouche. M. he was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Normal University of Defence Technology. [16] F. International Journal of innovative Computing. R. Lin. He is currently a lecturer with the College of Electrical and Information engineering. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 6 (2) (2009) 97–108. degrees in electrical engineering from Hunan University. in 1990 and 1994. and industrial process control. E. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing 15 (2) (2009) 211–222. Asian Journal of Control 11 (2) (2009) 214–225. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 17 (4) (2009) 803–815. Robust backstepping and neural network control of a low-quality nonholonomic mobile robot.G. Antonelli. X. [30] R. [37] Y. Moreno. Zuo Yi received the Ph.E. Fernandez-Leon. he was a senior Humboldt Fellow in Germany.J. His scientific interests include neural networks and robotic robust control. Robotica 26 (2008) 285–294. International Journal of Robotics & Automation 23 (2) (2008) 127–136. [17] Y. From 1994 to 1995. Changsha. M. China. [26] F. McIsaac. and artificial neural networks.E.. et al.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful