Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces innovative path planning strategies for unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) to effectively navigate both fixed and moving obstacles in real-time. By integrating a global path planner that combines three distinct algorithms鈥攊ncluding a modified Grassfire and a new version of the Probabilistic Roadmap鈥攚ith a local planner that utilizes advanced decision logic based on obstacle movement, the authors enhance the USV's ability to avoid collisions. Simulations demonstrate that this approach outperforms traditional methods, including the D* algorithm, by enabling more intuitive and effective navigation around dynamic obstacles.
USVs can now intelligently navigate around moving obstacles by employing a novel combination of path planning algorithms that significantly enhance collision avoidance strategies.
There nowadays is a myriad of approaches to real-time avoidance of fixed obstacles for unmanned surface vehicles (USVs) and, to a lesser extent, also the task of avoiding moving obstacles such as boats, ships, swimmers, and other USVs, but both topics still present challenges. This paper offers novel approaches to both of these problems. It uses a combination of a global path planner, which finds a path from a start point to a goal point that avoids fixed obstacles (given that their locations are known in advance), and a local path planner, which can circumnavigate a moving obstacle (as well as any previously unknown fixed obstacles). The global planner is novel in that it employs a combination of three path planners, one known in the literature as Grassfire, one that is a new modification of Grassfire, and one that is a new, and arguably more intuitive, version of the well-known Probabilistic Roadmap. The local planner is novel in that it employs a higher-level decision logic based on its observations regarding the direction of movement of the obstacle relative to the USVs global path. This logic enables the USV to determine the best strategy for avoiding the obstacle by systematically routing the vehicle behind the obstacle rather than running parallel to it until the opportunity to pass appears. Simulations are provided that validate these claims. For comparison with other systems, the simulations include an implementation of the well-known D* algorithm, and the discussion covers additional dynamic path planning systems, which, like D*, do not necessarily route the vehicle behind the moving obstacle.
