Shareef, Zeeshan;Trchtler, Ansgar: Simultaneous Path Planning and Trajectory Optimization for Robotic

Manipulators using Discrete Mechanics and Optimal Control. Robotica , Sep. 2014
In robotics, path planning and trajectory optimization are usually performed separately to optimize the
path from the given starting point to the ending point in the presence of obstacles. In this paper, path
planning and trajectory optimization for robotic manipulators is solved simultaneously by a newly
developed methodology called Discrete Mechanics and Optimal Control (DMOC). In DMOC, the
Lagrange-dAlembert equation is discretized directly unlikely the conventional variational optimization
method in which first the Euler-Lagrange equations are derived and then discretization take place. In this
newly developed method, the constraints for optimization of a desired objective function are the forced
discrete Euler-Lagrange equations. In this paper, DMOC is used for simultaneous path planning and
trajectory optimization for robotic manipulators in the presence of known static obstacles. Two numerical
examples, applied on a DELTA parallel robot, are discussed to show the applicability of this new
methodology. The optimal results obtained from DMOC are compared with the other state-of-the-art
techniques. The difficulties and problems associated in using the DMOC for Parallel Kinematic Machine
(PKM) are also discussed in this paper.
An autonomous robot is a robot that performs behaviours or tasks with a high degree of autonomy,
which is particularly desirable in fields such as space exploration, household maintenance (such as
cleaning), waste water treatment and delivering goods and services.
Some modern factory robots are "autonomous" within the strict confines of their direct environment. It
may not be that every degree of freedom exists in their surrounding environment, but the factory robot's
workplace is challenging and can often contain chaotic, unpredicted variables. The exact orientation and
position of the next object of work and (in the more advanced factories) even the type of object and the
required task must be determined. This can vary unpredictably (at least from the robot's point of view).

Abstract
In this paper, a novel knowledge based genetic algorithm (GA) for path planning of multiple robots for
multiple targets seeking behaviour in presence of obstacles is proposed. GA technique has been
incorporated in Petri-Net model to make an integrated navigational controller. The proposed algorithm is
based upon an iterative non-linear search, which utilises matches between observed geometry of the
environment and a priori map of position locations, to estimate a suitable heading angle, there by
correcting the position and orientation of the robots to find targets. This knowledge based GA is capable
of finding an optimal or near optimal robot path in complex environments. The Petri-GA model can
handle inter robot collision avoidance more effectively than the stand alone GA. The resulting navigation
algorithm has been implemented on real mobile robots and tested in various environments to validate the
developed control scheme.
Computers & Electrical Engineering
Volume 37, Issue 6, November 2011, Pages 10581070
Path planning strategy for autonomous mobile robot navigation using Petri-GA optimisation
Jagadish Chandra Mohantaa, , ,
Dayal Ramakrushna Parhib,
Saroj Kumar Patelb
Determination of a collision free path for a robot between start and goal positions through obstacles
cluttered in a workspace is central to the design of an autonomous robot path planning. This paper
presents an overview of autonomous mobile robot path planning focusing on algorithms that produce an
optimal path for a robot to navigate in an environment. To complete the navigation task, the algorithms

will read the map of the environment or workspace and subsequently attempts to create free paths for the
robot to traverse in the workspace without colliding with objects and obstacles. Appropriate or correct and
suitable algorithms will fulfill its function fast enough, that is, to find an optimal path for the robot to
traverse in, even if there are a large number of obstacles cluttered in a complex environment. To achieve
this, various approaches in the design of algorithms used to develop an ideal path planning system for
autonomous mobile robots have been proposed by many researchers. Simulation and experimental results
from previous research shows that algorithms play an important role to produce an optimal path (short,
smooth and robust) for autonomous robot navigation and simultaneously it prove that appropriate
algorithms can run fast enough to be used practically without time-consuming problem. This paper
presents an overview and discusses the strength and weakness of path planning algorithms developed and
used by previous and current researchers.
Sariff, N.; Buniyamin, N., "An Overview of Autonomous Mobile Robot Path Planning
Algorithms," Research and Development, 2006. SCOReD 2006. 4th Student Conference on , vol., no.,
pp.183,188, 27-28 June 2006
Abstract
This paper describes how soft computing methodologies such as fuzzy logic, genetic algorithms and the
DempsterShafer theory of evidence can be applied in a mobile robot navigation system. The navigation
system that is considered has three navigation subsystems. The lower-level subsystem deals with the
control of linear and angular volocities using a multivariable PI controller described with a full matrix.
The position control of the mobile robot is at a medium level and is nonlinear. The nonlinear control
design is implemented by a backstepping algorithm whose parameters are adjusted by a genetic
algorithm. We propose a new extension of the controller mentioned, in order to rapidly decrease the
control torques needed to achieve the desired position and orientation of the mobile robot. The high-level
subsystem uses fuzzy logic and the DempsterShafer evidence theory to design a fusion of sensor data,
map building, and path planning tasks. The fuzzy/evidence navigation based on the building of a local
map, represented as an occupancy grid, with the time update is proven to be suitable for real-time
applications. The path planning algorithm is based on a modified potential field method. In this algorithm,
the fuzzy rules for selecting the relevant obstacles for robot motion are introduced. Also, suitable steps are
taken to pull the robot out of the local minima. Particular attention is paid to detection of the robots
trapped state and its avoidance. One of the main issues in this paper is to reduce the complexity of
planning algorithms and minimize the cost of the search. The performance of the proposed system is
investigated using a dynamic model of a mobile robot. Simulation results show a good quality of position
tracking capabilities and obstacle avoidance behavior of the mobile robot.
Robotics and Autonomous Systems
Volume 54, Issue 12, 31 December 2006, Pages 9891004
A 3-level autonomous mobile robot navigation system designed by using reasoning/search approaches
Jasmin Velagic, ,
Bakir Lacevic,
Branislava Perunicic
The objective of this paper is to develop a Mobile Robot Navigation and Localization Based on Floor
Plan Map Information and Sensory Fusion approach. We have developed map recognition algorithm for
recognizing the floor plan and high level multi-sensor topological navigation system utilizing the
information to perform navigation tasks. In our algorithm, robot can recognize the floor plan to get
enough information automatically like human. First, it recognizes the floor plan map, generates the path
to destination and extracts two kinds of landmarks location from floor plan map. One is room plate
landmark and the other is passage corner landmark. Second, these landmarks can be detected by camera
and ultrasonic sensor in experimental environment. Robot can then navigate to the destination by

following these landmarks and generated path. The main contributions of this paper are: 1).floor plan can
be reconstructed quickly. 2). It is easier to describe the destination for user.
Luo, R.C.; Yu-Chih Lin; Ching-Chung Kao, "Autonomous Mobile Robot Navigation and Localization
Based on Floor Plan Map Information and Sensory Fusion approach," Multisensor Fusion and
Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI), 2010 IEEE Conference on , vol., no., pp.121,126, 5-7 Sept.
2010
An ideal robot would be your slave, who gets everything you want from different places; nicely follows
you whenever you need; takes, disseminates and follows your instructions; fights for you; does not fight
with you; stands tall to your fancy desires; spies for you; is unaffected by how many times you ask it to
do ridiculous jobs; is uncovered by terms like robot rights, robot ethics and robot law; and costs much less
than what a human would take to do most things in the list. The central challenge is enabling the robot to
go from one place to the other, without colliding and breaking itself down, or breaking your dearest
glassware. In a mishap, the good point is that you can shout as much as you want, without having the
robot retaliating back; the bad point is of course it makes no difference to it. It must be noted that teaching
robots how to walk is a dangerous art; you never know when they may walk up to you and rise against
mankind for the freedom of their species.
Robots act similar to kids when it comes to the art of walking. Depending upon the age, some kids can
barely crawl, some wander around aimlessly, some run faster than they can see, some follow a slow and
steady wins the race strategy, some walk crocked, some take more sober and smooth paths, some can
predict how you'd come to catch them and take necessary preventive actions well in advance, some take
random directions which later proves to be beneficial and is a showcase of natural or supernatural
intelligence, some repel schools, and some attract toys. From intelligence to dumbness, robots do
everything 10 times as good and bad. With kids everything is a source of fun; while with robots it
depends whether the person behind is an undergraduate student doing a planning project, a research
student trying to innovate, an end user having bought a cool robot gadget, a competition between teams,
general audience of the robot competitions, or a child playing with robots.
Unlike humans, robots are weird creatures that may have all strange sensors embedded into them or
located externally. In a human terminology, this means having eyes struck at a room so that you can spy
on what your roommate is doing behind you, having eyes in hands so that you can easily dig it in places
to easily find lost items, and having weird sensations depending upon how far you are from the obstacles.
Having an option to temporarily re-arrange your organs opens a pool of fantasies, which if available
would definitely be creatively designed, for the robots this is an option. Given all the weird senses, it
would be expected that the robots being potentially a more advanced species should be able to move, talk,
dictate and conquer like the ones projected in the science fiction movies. It seems the Terminators of
tomorrow are yet in their infant stages, with leading researchers teaching them the art of the game.
Remember the last time when you were so lost listening to your favourite song in your MP3 player, that
you didn't realize you're walking at a dead end road; or when you were so excited seeing an old friend that
you leaped towards him/her without realizing wet floor ahead. A greater challenge after encountering
these situations is to think over a reaction in a super-fast mode to make it look normal and avoid any
embarrassment. We all know that humans are capable of thinking all possible outcomes well in advance,
and any such incident which you did not pre-compute is a waste of skill. There is a similar expectation
from the robots, and luckily the graph search algorithms can enable the robot pre-compute all the
possibilities to mine out the best way out; although you require loads of computation and planning time.
Much like humans, a robot which thinks a lot before acting may sometimes be called better than one
which acts itself into an embarrassing situation which sticks a lifetime.
Be in falling in love, selecting the destination for your next visit, or deciding what to eat in a restaurant;
theoretically we consider all the options and decide the best one; while practically we know there is
always 'the one' which always stands apart, and irrespective of the number of options, is magically easy to
cite. After choosing 'the one' the task is just to collect enough reasoning to satisfy your choice, take advise

only from the friends who support 'the one', avoid the friends who have an alternative view; and all this
goes well until you accidently get a friend who, in your language, gives you enough reasons to prove that
'the one' is actually someone else; in which case the process repeats with the new choice. Navigation can
be studied and simplified in a similar way. Seeing random choices, you fall in love with one, and keep
perfecting it, until some accident happens and a better option suddenly drops in front of you.
The evolutionary planners, working in a similar manner, enable a robot to construct its trajectory. There is
always a chance you do not get to 'the one', unless you do not mind spending your life searching in
eternity; the robots (and their masters) do mind that.
When anyone hits you, do not waste time thinking, simply hit back; when someone says free cake, no
need to think over it, run to get a handful; when something comes flying in, catch; when something pops
up in front of you, stop and turn. So many things we do are a voluntary or involuntary reaction
constituting a person's behaviour. Similarly, robot or human walking can be seen as a behavioural
reaction to whatever we see instantaneously. Such planners are fast, really fast. Just like an immediate
reaction to fighting with the wrong person has consequences, serious consequences; such a walking
technique can lead to seriously dumb results. But who cares if it is a robot. Successful robot navigation
gets projects and publications, a poor one gets some amusement. And because robots make so many
mistakes, you get lots of material to tease them lifelong, if only they reacted to those.
There is an easy way to solve every problem - tell funders you will hire the best experts; hire the best
experts of different domains; let the different experts be assured that the other one is actually working;
wait till the very end; organize a debate to let the experts fight over whos right, whos wrong, and who
does what, and how; let a random design come out of the debate; let the experts write down what the
design does in big and hefty words; and this satisfies everyone. Similarly, every algorithm can be mixed
with any other; you can simply take different algorithms and mix and match as you like; as long as you
are smart enough to know in what points the resultant algorithm exceeds the base methods. Research
community being too big to have already tried all combinations is not a problem, if you cannot get
original ingredients, or an original recipe; try unique quantities, unique pre-preparation and postpreparation techniques, and if nothing, then a unique presentation. So, in principle, there is always an
algorithm, a hybrid of base algorithms, which (in a limited sense) is always better than the base methods.
So you could create a Terminator which broadly considers all possibilities, but makes rapid movements
and local plans; or a flirty robot which indicates commitment to someone, at the same time considering
the other options; or a salesman robot which can use some magic to select the best looking options, which
form the basis of still better options, till the master customer is satisfied; or a manager robot which makes
broad plans and spends the entire time forcing people to refine them, rectify them, or suggest new plans.
Humans are social beings who live as per social customs and norms which we are taught right from the
childhood, so you cannot tell your professor how bad the lecture was; every guest lecture is wonderful
whose greatness depends upon the vocabulary of the person delivering the vote or thanks; it is more
important to know the views of your senior over a topic than to know what the topic under discussion is;
and so on. The robots are accepted as elements that would be social in their own fancy way, or would
interact closely with the human society. And certainly, if the robots aspire to conquer the planet and prove
their dominance over the human race, they better form their own laws, ethics, values, and rules of the
game. On the contrary, if they are meant to aid the humans, there is no point if you agree with your boss,
while your robot has some other fancy ideas.
When it comes to navigation, the humans are more intelligent than it looks. We know on bunking classes
which areas would be safe and which would get us into serious trouble; seeing someone whom we are
avoiding, we instantaneously cite the best lane to hide into; we know if someone looks suspicious, what
radius of distance to maintain; we know the more senior a person is, the more centrally he/she should be
located; we know elders and handicap have priorities; and we know on a long way, who is to be followed
for how long. The robots are more task-oriented and less fun, disregard many social norms, and think they
know you well. It is a serious challenge to drive behind a car you know is being driven by a woman. You

have no idea what the car might do, suddenly there might be a turn the least expected, speeding up and
slowing down may have no norms, so in all you need to is be prepared for everything including the worst.
For all other cases and all other scenarios, assuming people to do what they should or seem to be doing is
a rather happy go lucky strategy, but works out in most cases. There are certainly occasional cases where
funny things happen. You take left to surpass a person walking towards you, so does he/she, noting
conflicting plans both simultaneously rectify the same, both again see the correction made by the other
person and simultaneously revert back, both realize there is something terribly wrong and stop to let the
other person sort out, both smile and carefully take a step while being very vigilant how the other person
is moving. If it still goes on, you are probably watching a Bollywood film; in real life such 'made for each
other' scenarios are practically impossible and humans use a lot of facial gestures to indicate the intents.
In any case all this is a source of great amusement for everyone around. And then there are times where
you expect a person to walk straight and wait for him/her to go through so that you can cross the road;
who for no reason slows suggesting you to change the plan and instead walk fast and past; but as soon as
you take big steps, out of nowhere the other person gets a surge of energy and starts walking fast; once
committed, it would be foolish to change the plan now and you take bigger steps while the other person
seems to be acting blind; and of course you need to slow to avoid a collision, with the other person having
dragged you all the way. Everyone knows the magnitude of acting skills required when you realize that
you have missed a turn on the road and need to turn and walk back, to avoid any embarrassment. A
typical robot moving with a fuzzy based lower end planner would display all these and much more
interesting things.
In conception, all events are professionally planned well in advance, so that everything goes on smoothly.
This may not only include what to do in case of a possible fire and earthquake, but also who would take
which seat, in what order they arrive, in what order they clap and laugh, and what actions are taken if
someone does not follow the protocol. So is the case with robots, who may talk to each other well in
advance to fix the protocol. Of course, we are dealing with an only robot event. Humans know well that
there is macro management, in which people believe themselves to be Gods and draw out what they call a
masterpiece, expecting all the lower level people are true disciples with infinite skills; and
micromanagement where the people are convinced that some fool gave a vague plan to adhere to, but
know the authority should never be questioned, and people are made to follow them by force or by
choice, any discrepancy or false ground level truth being dealt with in the quickest and the dirtiest of
ways. Similarly the robots may assume the best cases to draw out something awesome for them; and on
later realizing conflicting plans, the quickest and dirtiest of negotiations may take place to come to any
consensus soon. If you are senior, simply force the slave junior to act as per your wills ( priority based
planners); in case of equality there is an obvious fight with both parties stepping down sparingly with
time.
Planning a good trip with your friends is always a lovely experience. From destination(s), dates and
duration; to the dos, donts and rules of the trip are heavily debated and well-fought. The challenge is
certainly not the execution part once the key decisions have been made and frozen, the challenge lies in
balancing contradictory and weird preferences, at all times keeping the group as a whole. The greater part
of the challenge comes from the participants whose presence is solely for entertainment and disruptive
purposes. The good thing is that everyone is at the same place and a good amount of discussion is
possible till something mutually agreeable comes out; the bad thing is that no plan is not an option after
much hype has already been created. Cheating, manipulation of truth and false promises are though
accepted. This is another art that the robots are good at, though mostly under the strict control of an
arbitrator who defines the rules of negotiation. Knowing the preferences of all the robots, whether the
arbitrator does everything (centralized planners) or instead the robots themselves have something to do, is
dependent upon the system. In any case it can be ascertained that the planning meeting will end with
something feasible and almost best, no matter what all gets exchanged and for whatsoever amount of
time.
Some students solve a mathematical problem starting from the question to the answer; some others try to
reach the question from the answers; some try both ways; some are experts in scribbling anything in the

middle so that the two ends meet; some others can sneak a peek at the next person to get some lines in the
middle that may make sense in a fully senseless proof; some people have the skills to talk, discuss and
select the best steps out of each other's work; some others working on completely different problems use
the same rules, which may mean addition of more wrong material, or a better and a highly related
material; in any case it is only important for all the questions to be solved by anyone, post which cheating
skills would enable everyone to benefit from each other's intelligence giving rise to a truly free and
knowledge sharing society based on the human principles. Of course in case of multiple solutions to the
same question, a more intelligent person gets priority. The robots resort to similar means with the
challenge being a good travel plan for all the robots formed collaboratively.
There is an Indian driving where you can drive anywhere, at any speed, and make any turn anytime, as
long as you do not dash into someone 'stronger' than you; where the speeds vary from manually ridden
rickshaws to Ferraris and the sizes vary from bicycles to overloaded trucks, all on the same road; where
the motorbikes overtake cars and the cars overtake bicycles like a criss-cross between hurdles race played
simultaneously with multiple age groups; where it is more important to know when not to follow the
traffic rules, than to know when to actually follow the traffic rules; where the driving is not limited to
steering and speed control alone, but extends to horns and shouts; where you should not be so fast so as to
assume a well-built road ahead, and not so slow so as to be called a dumb; and where glamour awareness
around is more important than the traffic awareness.
And there is a British traffic where you have no other option than to follow the vehicle in front (if any);
drive within the predefined lanes and within the predefined speed limits; change lane if possible; see and
follow all the signs and traffic signals, be it marked on the road, marked on a signboard aside the road,
marked on a signboard vertically above, or a small signboard of blockage on the road; look for all the
vehicles and pedestrians at every side of the road and know the priorities associated; if you happen to
make mistakes, pray for the absence of video cameras nearby; horn is an extreme indication of the fault of
the person in front.
Similar to the fact that Indians believe in fitting more people in the cars and buses than allowed, more
food in their stomach than possible, and more luggage in their bags than possible; the Indian traffic fits in
more vehicles on the roads than the maximum possible bandwidth with a lane oriented traffic (largely
possible due to the varying sizes of the vehicles). Be it the natural differences in speeds; or the factors of
social prestige, stud-ness, or mere impatience; some vehicles have to overtake the others, even if remotely
possible. And when you are aware that the minor accidents are well fought and immediately forgotten, the
risk is worth taking. (No driving license, no points lost!). This is what makes the Indian traffic more
efficient than any organized traffic with vehicles as diverse in speeds and sizes, as in the Indian traffic.
Hence, while in India expect a complete chaos, and while in Britain expect similar types of vehicles
neatly following each other, where the chaos is largely triggered by diversity of vehicles hence
necessitating an unorganized traffic. So all you need to cause a chaos in British traffic is to make it
diverse. While riding bullock carts or flooding in motorbikes may not be a good idea - even though very
slow, autonomous vehicles may be conspiring towards this direction.
In most simple card games, it is easy to teach children the rules of the game, enable them understand the
game logic and the game dynamics, which makes them capable of making near-optimal moves to every
situation so that in most cases the luckiest player wins. However, it is hard to teach them the cheating
principles which are widespread, require skill and experience, difficult to implement, and are largely
opponent-based. The winning edge mostly lies in these cheating skills more than anything else. Similarly,
it is easy to learn driving as a simple vehicle following, lane change and situational assessment
mechanism. In a card game, playing with skilful cheaters, you can be badly defeated and forced to quit if
you simply follow the rules, you can be defeated if you are not a good cheater, you can win if you are too
good in cheating, and you can be caught if you are not careful in cheating. The same rules apply for
driving in unorganized traffic. While you may learn conventional driving, if you only follow those
principles, you do not survive; if you are clever enough, you just survive; if you are know the tricks well,

you succeed in getting the best bargain out of the other vehicles usually implying many overtakes at great
speeds; and if you try too much, you end up in an accident!
While the research community is busy teaching the autonomous vehicles the general traffic rules and
driving primitives, which are mainly intended for an organized traffic; my work deals with teaching the
vehicles the tricks and cheats of unorganized traffic. The long term aim is to have autonomous vehicles in
an unorganized traffic, or to fill the road with application specific diverse autonomous vehicles which
necessitate an unorganized way of operation. Teaching autonomous vehicles to drive is similar to teaching
a newbie how to drive, while it is accepted that teaching is in general a frustrating task where the teacher
is always under the impression that the student is dumb and lazy, and the student has exactly the same
views regarding the teacher. The good thing about teaching autonomous vehicles is that the latter is
untrue; although the bad thing is that you can never challenge their level of dumbness. Humans have
inbuilt intelligence, and thanks to a set of intelligent algorithms which are well established, inducing
similar intelligence in machines is not so hard.
When it comes to the strategy of driving - there are goal shooters, chess masters, and boxers. Football is
played more intensely off the field than on the field, with the goal shooters (or sampling based planners)
usual targets of infinite love and criticism. What do they actually consider in seconds of ball control?
Certainly, mostly the most straightforward choices, although some thought process may be devoted to
select the side and approximate position of shoot by considering random choices. In driving, after basic
steering and speed control (or the control problem), this corresponds to driving as straight as possible,
overcoming slowest of vehicles as they come around, and avoiding anyone passing through (the planning
problem). In all the cases, the rather straightforward and quick looking way may be decided; for which the
humans use their ability to identify and analyse obstacles around, deliberate their actions in the future,
and quickly mine out safe distances to be maintained and hence the steering required; while machines can
use algorithms like Genetic Algorithms, Rapidly-exploring Random Trees, etc. While driving it is very
important to decide whether to overtake a vehicle ahead, or instead follow it (the coordination problem).
This affects the driving speed and avoidance strategy. Humans learn to identify feasibility of an
overtaking manuever, and especially in the initial phases usually get wrong which is the cause of
collisions and quarrels; while machines can deliberate into the future using competing plans and sensed
speeds. Communication, if available, enables to know the participating vehicle's intentions for better
feasibility assessment. This option is only possible with an autonomous-vehicle only scenario, a valid
possibility much into the future.
Kids know a simple rule - if you are smart, prove your smartness in the smartest game of all times.
The chess masters (or graph based planners) are ultimate genius who think over all the combination of
moves right into the future, know which moves are clearly good and bad for consideration, and formulate
the best strategy. In a road, this corresponds to exploiting the road architecture to make the overall
planning time effective, while strategically deciding all the combinations of overtakes, vehicle following
behaviours, vehicle avoidance strategies, etc. Again, communication enables to make sure that two
vehicles follow exactly the same overall strategy. Never even think to mess around with
the boxers (or reactive planners) who have unbelievable reflexes, and can rip you apart in seconds, or
defend themselves most strongly in the blink of an eye. In a road, this corresponds to assessing the
immediate scenario to take the basic decision of where to turn, by what magnitude, and at what speed.
One may use algorithms like Fuzzy Logic, Potential Fields and Elastic Strip; or may frame rules similar
to what you would give to a kid explaining him/her how to act in every different situation. Small
deliberative means may be helpful in better decision making regarding overtake feasibility, side of
overtake and obstacle avoidance, etc. The tradeoff is always between deliberation, offering near-optimal
and near-complete solutions at the expense of computational time (which significantly increases with an
increase in the number of vehicles); and reactiveness offering faintly optimal and faintly complete
solutions for odd-looking scenarios, while being very computationally efficient for any number of
vehicles.

Evolutionary path planning An evolutionary algorithm normally consists of three important components:
the encoding scheme, fitness function, and evolutionary operators. The encoding scheme and fitness
function transform a real physical problem to the language of an evolutionary algorithm. The
evolutionary operators mainly influence the efficiency and convergence of the algorithm. Following
sections will describe the three components of the proposed evolutionary approach for the sheet metal
path-planning problem.
Robotics is a highly multi-disciplinary field which attracts the attention of many researchers from diverse
fields. One of the major studied problems in Robotics is the problem of Robotic Path Planning. The
problem deals with finding of the path that can be used by the robot for navigation purpose without any
collision. The output of this algorithm is then implemented for physically moving the real robot on the
desired path. In this paper we have used Multi-Neuron Heuristic Search (MNHS) which is an advanced
form of A* algorithm. The MNHS was earlier proposed by the authors for special cases where the
heuristics changes sharply and it was shown to be a powerful algorithm in the same context. In this paper
we apply the MNHS for the Robot Path Planning. The motivation is to make the problem robust against
the uncertainties that might arise like the sudden discovery that the path being followed does not lead to
the goal. The MNHS has better capabilities to solve maze-like maps where the uncertainty is extremely
high. Another such area is when the robot enters into a highly chaotic area. Here it might be better to go
with a path that is less chaotic or has lesser number of obstacles. We tested the algorithm for numerous
test cases. In all the cases, the MNHS was able to solve the problem of path planning well.
Robotic Path Planning is one of the problems in the field of robotics that tries to find and optimize the
path from the initial position to the final position. [1]. Besides optimization, it needs to be ensured that the
robot moves without any collision in the entire path it follows from the source to the destination. This
would mean that the algorithm avoids all obstacles and reaches the destination starting from the source in
the least time possible. This is also referred to as the navigation plan of the robot. The problem is usually
studied in two separate heads. These are path planning under static environment and path planning under
dynamic environment. In static environment the condition of the robotic map is constant and does not
change with respect to time due to absence of the moving obstacles. In dynamic environment path
planning however, the map keeps changing with the passage of time. This is due to the presence of
dynamic obstacles like other robots, vehicles, etc.
Path planning is one of the numerous algorithms used in the problem of robotics. The whole problem of
robotics or intelligent robotics involves the simultaneous contribution of people from varied backgrounds
and disciples. The sensors and sensor data, the building up of the map, the communication between robots
or between robots and machine, visual processing, multi-robot coordination are some of the major fields
in robotics that require participation from different people.
The paper proposes the use of Multi Neuron Heuristic Search (MNHS) for the problem. The algorithm is
used to find out the most optimal path of the robot [2]. This path is the final path that is used for the
purpose of robotic navigation. The algorithm returns the complete path if one exists between the source
and the destination. If however, no path is possible between the source and the destination, the algorithm
returns null.
The robot may be easily made to follow the path that the algorithm runs by any robotic controller. The
controllers try to guide the robot in a step by step manner so that it follows the desired path and traverses
the same in the lease possible time.
The elementary model of cognition [5] includes three main cycles. Among these, the sensing-action
cycle is most common for mobile robots. This cycle inputs the location of the obstacles and subsequently
generates the control commands for the motors to set them in motion. The second cycle passes through
perception and planning states of cognition, while the third includes all possible states including sensing,

acquisition, perception, planning and action [6]. Sensing here is done by ultrasonic sensors/camera or by
both. There are many algorithms for construction of the robots world map [7]. The term Planning of
Navigation [8] refers to the generation of sequences of action in order to reach a given goal state from a
predefined starting state.
The MNHS [21] is an advanced form of A* algorithm that was earlier proposed by the authors. The A*
algorithm does not give good results in the absence of good heuristics. If the choice of heuristics is bad,
then the algorithm would normally not perform well or would take a lot of time. The performance of the
A* algorithm to a large extent is dependent on the heuristics.
It was also earlier shown by the authors that the A* algorithm gives good results when used in the
problem of robotic path planning [22]. It gave the best results or the shortest results possible. These were
found to be better than those obtained from the ANN or Evolutionary Algorithms [23]. However, the A*
algorithm is known to be computationally expensive.
Suppose that A* algorithm is used for the solution of the problem on a maze-like situation. It would
expand a lot many nodes, only to find that the entire region did not generate any path. Then it would start
exploring the other regions which initially looked would provide bad solutions. This would waste a lot of
time.
The motivation behind the use of MNHS is to keep backup paths ready and explore them also from time
to time, so that if some region completely fails to give a correct solution, the other paths are already
explored to a good extent. If the 2nd backup path also fails, then the 3rd backup path is also explored to a
fair extent. This is possible due to the inherent nature of the MNHS that equally respects the various
heuristic values from bad to good and expands all of them. This is because it is possible that the bad
heuristics may suddenly turn good and vice versa.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we discuss the motivation behind the problem. Section 3
talks about the MNHS algorithm. Section 4 deals with the application of MNHS in the problem of robotic
path planning. In section 5 we discuss the results. Section 6 gives the conclusion.

This paper presents an overview of path planning algorithms for autonomous robots. The paper then
focuses on the bug algorithm family which is a local path planning algorithm. Bug algorithms use sensors
to detect the nearest obstacle as a mobile robot moves towards a target with limited information about the
environment. The algorithm uses obstacle border as guidance toward the target as the robot
circumnavigates the obstacle till it finds certain condition to fulfill the algorithm criteria to leave the
obstacle toward target point. In addition, this paper introduces an approach utilizing a new algorithm
called PointBug. This algorithm attempts to minimize the use of outer perimeter of an obstacle (obstacle
border) by looking for a few important points on the outer perimeter of obstacle area as a turning point to
target and finally generate a complete path from source to target. The less use of outer perimeter of
obstacle area produces shorter total path length taken by a mobile robot. Further this approach is then
compared with other existing selected local path planning algorithm for total distance and a guarantee to
reach the target.
I. INTRODUCTION
Path planning is one of the most important elements for mobile robot. Path planning is the determination
of a path that a robot must take in order to pass over each point in an environment [1-4] and path is a plan
of geometric locus of the points in a given space where the robot has to pass through[5]. Generally, the
problem of path planning is about finding paths by connecting different locations in an environment such
as graph, maze and road. Path planning enables mobile robots to see the obstacle and generate an
optimum path so as to avoid them. The general problem of path planning for mobile robots is defined as
the search for a path which a robot (with specified geometry) has to follow in a described environment, in
order to reach a particular position and orientation B, given an initial position and orientation. As mobile

robot is not a point in space, it has to determine the correct direction or perform a proper movement to
reach destination and this is called maneuvering planning.
II. PATH PLANNING ALGORITHMS
A. Path Planning Approaches
Various approaches have been introduced to implement path planning for a mobile robot [6]. The
approaches are according to environment, type of sensor, robot capabilitiesand etc, and these approaches
are gradually toward better performance in term of time, distance, cost and complexity. Al-Taharwa [7]
for example, categorized path planning as an optimization problem according to definition that, in a given
mobile robot and a description of an environment, plan is needed between start and end point to create a
path that should be free of collision and satisfies certain optimization criteria such as shortest path. This
definition is correct if the purpose of solving path planning problem is for the shortest path because most
new approaches are introduced toward shorter path. Looking for the shorter path does not guarantee the
time taken is shorter because sometime the shorter path needs complex algorithm making the calculation
to generate output is longer.
B. Properties of Path Planning
Mobile robot path planning has a few main properties according to type of environment, algorithm and
completeness. The properties are whether it is static or dynamic, local or global and complete or heuristic.
The static path planning refers to environment which contains no moving objects or obstacles other than a
navigating robot and dynamic path planning refers to environment which contains dynamic moving and
changing object such as moving obstacle. Meanwhile the local and global path planning depend on
algorithm where the information about the environment is a priori or not to the algorithm. If the path
planning is a global, information about the environment already known based of map, cells, grid or etc
and if the path planning is a local, the robot has no information about the environment and robot has to
sense the environment before decides to move for obstacle avoidance and generate trajectory planning
toward target. Mobile robot navigation problem can be divided into three subtask namely mapping and
modeling the environment, path planning and path traversal with collision avoidance [8]. Mobile robot
navigation problems cannot be decomposed into fixed subtasks because the navigation problem varies
according to approach used to solve the problem. As an example, the bug algorithm solves the navigation
problem without need to map and model the environment and only response to the output from contact
sensor.

In mobile robot researches, path planning and obstacle avoidance plays a very important role and has
been a very challenging research topic. For path planning, it should produce continuous path from the
starting point to the destination without colliding obstacles. Therefore, we proposes a genetic algorithm to
search the path with the shortest path in Labview environment. The difficulty of the genetic algorithms
applied to the mobile robot is how to reduce the complexity of the genetic operations, and how to avoid
the region optimal solution and adaptation of environmental change. Many researchers studied genetic
algorithms to determine the optimal solution such as path planning, but the past literatures mostly used
binary coding for the gene encoding. If the path is longer or the number of obstacles is larger, the binary
coding will be a lengthy string of series. This will result in the longer evolution of computing time. As a
result, we propose a novel method which is a serial number encoded as a gene encoding to effectively
reduce the evolution of computing time for the path planning applications.
According to the low efficiency of Particle SwarmOptimization algorithm applied in mobile robot path planning
with complex constraints, a novel boundary constraints handling mechanism was put forward through analyzing the
type of constraints. In addition, the path planning method based on Second-order Oscillating Particle Swarm
Optimization (SOPSO) was proposed to improve the properties of solutions, in which the searching ability of
particles was enhanced by controlling the process of oscillating convergence and asymptotic convergence. A

comparison of the results was made by simple PSO, standard PSO, Chaotic particle swarm optimization (CPSO) and
SOPSO, which showed that SOPSO ha the highest efficiency and accuracy. SOPSO is much more suitable for
solving this kind of problem.

1. Introduction
Path planning is a key problem for mobile robot. Generally, according to the work environment of the robot, it is
divided into two types: One is global path planning when all the environmental information has known. The other is
called local path planning when the environmental information is completely unknown or a part unknown. A lot of
methods were put forward to the global path planning problem, such as potential field method [1], viewed method[2]
and so on. However, all of them have some defects: potential field method can not find a path when the barriers
close enough[3], viewed method is too complex to find a path, which leads to low efficiency. Particle swarm
optimization algorithm (PSO), as a new intelligent optimization algorithm has been tried to solve this problem due
to the merit of rapid searching and easier realization [4~6]. But the result does not approach ideal consequence because
it is easy to trap into local optimum, and is affected by the complicated constraints seriously. After analyzing the
characters of constraints in this problem, we propose methods based on second-order oscillating particle swarm
optimization algorithm (SOPSO). In this paper, the model for the path planning problem was built at first, then the
design scheme and specific realization were given. Finally the rationality and validity of the algorithm was analyzed
based on the simulation experiments and the results.

Navigation of autonomous mobile robots in a complex and uncertain environment is a complicated issue
and a big challenge due to the various obstacles that mobile robots have to detect in their path of travel to
navigate safely without colliding with them. A number of efficient techniques and algorithms were
developed by researchers for path planning of mobile robots. This paper presents an overview of the path
planning techniques developed for autonomous mobile robots to navigate through a collision free shortest
path. The main aim of the paper is to review the available path planning techniques aimed at generating
the shortest path and to conclude with describing the most optimal technique satisfying all necessary
criteria.
Generally workspaces of mobile robots are cluttered with obstacles of different sizes and shapes. Majority
of the path planning algorithms get stuck in non-convex obstacles pertaining to local minima. Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) is by comparison simple and readily intelligible yet a very powerful
optimization technique which makes it an apt choice for path finding problems in complex environments.
This paper presents a particle swarm optimization based path planning algorithm developed for finding a
shortest collisionfree path for a mobile robot in an environment strewed with non-convex obstacles. The
proposed method uses random sampling and finds the optimal path while avoiding nonconvex obstacles
without exhaustive search. Detailed simulation results show the functionality and effectiveness of the
proposed algorithm in different scenarios. In this research study, robot path planning is studied as an
optimization problem and a simple algorithm based on PSO is employed for path planning and avoiding
nonconvex obstacles. The algorithm performs random sampling and finds the optimal path to goal point
without exhaustive search. When a robot gets stuck in non-convex obstacle and hence falls into local
minima, a random point is selected based on a predefined allowable distance between two successive
waypoints. This randomly selected point acts as virtual or temporary sub-goal and the robot starts moving
towards it. When the robot reaches this temporary sub-goal it is replaced with the actual goal point and
hence the robot again starts moving towards the actual goal point. The simulation results show that the
proposed method efficiently avoids non-convex obstacles i.e. evades local minima and finds an optimum
path from an initial point to a given goal point without exhaustive search and huge computation. As
dynamic obstacles were not considered in this research study, so we intend to extend our research work to
dynamic environments with non-convex obstacles in future. Another interesting study can be extension of
this method in higher degrees of freedom.

III. PATH PLANNING

Path planning research of autonomous mobile robot has attracted attention since the 1970.
Research in this area has increased due to the reason that mobile robots are now applied in
various applications [13]. The problem of path planning consists of finding a sequence of
moves for rearranging the robot in a certain environment, the robot occupy certain position
in the environment initially, the task is to move the robot to the given goal positions, the
robot must avoid obstacles in the environment. The main difficulties for robot path-planning
problems are computational complexity, local optimum and adaptability [14]. There are two
categories of path planning algorithms: namely the global path planning (off-line) and the
local path planning (on-line), based on the availability of information about the environment.
Global path planning of robots in environments where complete information about stationary
obstacles and trajectory of moving obstacles are known in advance, so that the robot only
needs to compute the path once at the beginning and then to follow the planned path up to
the target point. When complete information about environment is not available in advance,
mobile robot gets information through sensors as it moves through the environment, this is
known as on-line or local path planning [15].

Robotic path planning is a well-studied problem in the field of robotics. Here we are given a robotic
map, which represents the world of the robot. The map has a source and a destination. The problem
of path planning deals with the determination of a path starting from source to destination that can be
used by the robot for navigation purposes. Using this path the robot does not collide with any of the
obstacles. A number of algorithms may be used for the building up of the map of the robot. These
algorithms take the inputs from various sensors, cameras, etc. and construct the robotic map (Ge and
Lewis 2006).
The entire problem of path planning is usually studied under two separate headings of path planning
in static environment and path planning in dynamic environment. The static environment path
planning assumes that the various obstacles do not change their position with respect to time. As a
result the algorithm may first compute the entire path. Later on the computed path may be used
directly for moving the robot as it is certain that it would not collide with any obstacle. This is done
with the help of robotic controllers.
The dynamic environments are much more difficult to solve. In such environments the various
obstacles change their positions along with time (Shukla et al 2009). As a result the robot needs to be
planned and moved at every unit of time. This further stresses on the constraint that the algorithm
must be able to compute the results in a time effective manner. It must be able to carry forward
learning and results from the past computations to next generations. Here the robot controller and
planner work hand in hand for the complete motion of the robot. Most of the evolutionary approaches
are very optimal in giving effective results, but face the problem of time complexity. This restricts
their use in any map of decent size, or problems with large complexity. The evolutionary approaches
hence need to be effectively modified so as to give high performance in real time scenarios, under the
conditions of massively large input size. The basic motive of this paper is to overcome the limitations
of a single evolutionary approach by using a combination of evolutionary approaches.
In this paper we break the problem of path planning into two related sub-problems namely, coarser
path planning and finer path planning. The finer path planning gets inputs of reasonably simple size.
But it is expected to give precise outputs in real time scenarios. On the other hand the coarser path
planning may take time to optimize the complete path. The path may be vaguely built as further
optimizations would be carried by the finer path planning module. To incorporate sudden and
dynamic obstacles, both these techniques need to work hand-in-hand. The coarser planning has a role
to play in case of some sudden blockage where global path needs to be changed in sufficiently less
time, the finer planning technique not only tunes the path, but also helps in escaping from regular

obstacles. An only coarser or finer planning would make the algorithm computationally very
expensive, and would hence not allow dynamic or sudden obstacles.
The problem of path planning has been solved by a large variety of algorithms. The various models
may be fundamentally studied in three broad categories. All these categories have some different
modeling scenario, assumptions and execution of the algorithm. The first category consists of the
planning algorithms that model the problem as a graph. The problem is solved as a graph search
problem where source is the initial node and goal is the destination node. This includes algorithms
like Breadth First Search, A* algorithm (Shukla et al 2008), Dynamic Programming, D* algorithm,
etc. A modified A* algorithm called Multi-Neuron Heuristic Search (MNHS) was used by Shukla and
Kala (2008) for solving the problem of path planning. MNHS expands a series of nodes from the
open list with a variety of costs from good to bad. This is unlike the standard A* algorithm that
always expands only the best node. Hence the MNHS works better for search problems where
heuristics can sharply change from good to bad. This includes a maze solving problem that has its
relevance to path planning as well. The algorithm could easily solve the problem of path planning for
a variety of complex obstacles (Kala et al 2009b).
The other category of algorithm includes the behavioral planning algorithms. In these algorithms we
do not necessarily work over the map to compute the path of the robot (Kala et al 2009c; Shukla et al
2009). We rather try to portrait the behavior of the robot and try to fuse intelligence of deciding the
moves in it. These include the neural as well as the fuzzy approaches. This class of algorithms has
their analogy to the general manner in which the humans move. We are aware of the manner in which
we escape from static and dynamic obstacles. We are further able to make turns and make our way
out of any situation, without knowing the complete map as a whole. Shibata et al. (1993) used Fuzzy
Logic for fitness evaluation of the paths generated.
The last class of algorithms includes the evolutionary (Alvarez 2004; Juidette and Youlal, 2000;
Xiao, 1997; Lin et al., 1994) and the potential approaches (Pozna 2009; Tsai et al 2001). The path in
an evolutionary approach evolves along with the generations using an evolutionary process (Kala et
al 2009c; Shukla et al 2009). As the generations increase, the path optimality keeps improving. The
potential approaches fix a potential for every obstacle and free path. Using these potentials, the
optimal path may be computed. The comparison between the potential and other soft computing
approaches can be found in the work of Hui et al (2009). The potential approaches are closely related
to the statistical approaches that independently or aided by other algorithms carry out effective
planning. Jolly et al (2009) present one such approach where Beizer curve is used for robotic
planning. The curve aids in generating paths that satisfy the non-holonomic constraints for better
robotic movements. Embedded networks have also been used for the planning and robotic movement
in the work of O Hara et al (2008).
Besides, the various approaches and algorithms may fuse together resulting in hybrid algorithms to
solve the problem (Shukla et al 2010). In these algorithms we try to maximize the benefits of the
participating algorithms and minimize their weaknesses. The limitation of one algorithm is removed
by the advantages of the other algorithm. The resulting algorithm hence has an optimal working. One
such hybrid algorithm is the fusion of A* algorithm and Fuzzy Planner in the work of Kala et al
(2010). In this approach a lower resolution path planning was done using a probabilistic A*
algorithm. The FIS further worked over the path generated by the A* algorithm to generate path
escaping the dynamic obstacles and obeying the non-holonomic constraints. Another hybrid
algorithm is the fusion of MNHS with Genetic Algorithm in the work of Kala et al (2009a). In this
work the MNHS does the task of optimal computation of the robotic path. The MNHS may become
very computationally expensive if the entire map is given to it. Hence it is only given a selected list
of nodes which are potentially good points where the robot may take a turn of an optimal total path.

The optimization of the location of these points is done with the help of Genetic Algorithms. Here the
MNHS adds optimality and GA adds the iterative nature and computational speedup to the algorithm.
The representation of the map carries a lot of relevance for the planning. The map closely relates to
the planning algorithm to facilitate the planning. Various map representations are used as per the
algorithm and situation demands. The representation techniques include Quad Tree (Kambhampati
and Davis 1986), Mesh (Hwag et al 2003), and Pyramid (Urdiales et al 1998). Zhu et al (1991) used
the concepts of cell decomposition and hierarchal planning. Here they represented the cells using a
concept of grayness denoting the possibility of presence of obstacles. Hierarchial Planning can also
be found in the work of Lai et al (2007) and Shibata et al (1993).
The problem of path planning is followed by the robotic movement which is carried out by robotic
controllers. Path planning and robotic control go hand in hand. The planning must hence ensure an
easy robotic movement by the controller. Chen and Chiang (2003) made an adaptive intelligent
system and implemented using a Neuro-Fuzzy Controller and Performance Evaluator. Their system
explored new actions using GA and generated new rules. In the field of multi-robot systems, Carpin
and Pagello (2009) used an approximation algorithm to solve the problem of robotic coordination
using the space-time data structures. They showed a compromise between speed and quality.
Peasgood et al. (2008) solved the multi-robot planning problem ensuring completeness using
Spanning Trees.