A new approach to smooth global path planning of mobile robots with kinematic constraints

  • Baoye Song
  • Zidong WangEmail author
  • Lei Zou
  • Lin Xu
  • Fuad E. Alsaadi
Original Article


This paper is concerned with the planning problem of smooth global path for mobile robots with kinematic constraints. A new approach is proposed that is based on a modified particle swarm optimization (MPSO) combined with the η3-splines. Some preliminaries on η3-splines are first introduced to interpolate an arbitrary sequence of points with assigned kinematic parameters associated with the motion and control of mobile robots. Then, the MPSO algorithm with adaptive random fluctuations (ARFs) is proposed to deal with the frequently encountered local convergence issue in the planning of the global smooth path. In the MPSO algorithm, the evolutionary state is classified averagely at each iteration according to the evaluated evolutionary factor, where the velocity updating dynamics switches among various modes according to the evolutionary state and the ARFs are enforced on the global/local best particles in each mode of the current iteration. The proposed MPSO is verified to outperform five other well-known PSO algorithms via comprehensive simulation experiments on a collection of benchmark functions. Finally, the new approach by combining the MPSO algorithm with the η3-splines is exploited to handle a double-layer smooth global path planning problem with several kinematic constraints.


Smooth path planning Mobile robots Modified particle swarm optimization Adaptive random fluctuations η3-splines 



This work was supported in part by the Research Fund for the Taishan Scholar Project of Shandong Province of China and the Higher Educational Science and Technology Program of Shandong Province of China under Grant J14LN34.


  1. 1.
    Atyabi A, Powers DMW (2013) Review of clasical and heuristic-based navigation and path planning approaches. Int J Adv Comput Technol 5:1–14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berglund T, Jonsson H, Soderkvist I (2003) An obstacle-avoiding minimum variation B-spline problem. In: Proceedings of international conference on geometric modeling and graphics, London, pp 156–161Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang H, Liu J (2009) High-quality path planning for autonomous mobile robots with η 3-splines and parallel genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics, pp 1671–1677Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen X, Li Y (2006) Smooth path planning of a mobile robot using stochastic particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation, Luoyang, pp 1722–1727Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen Y, Yu J, Mei Y, Wang Y, Su X (2016) Modified central force optimization (MCFO) algorithm for 3D UAV path planning. Neurocomputing 171(1):878–888Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chhikara RR, Sharma P, Singh L (2016) A hybrid feature selection approach based on improved PSO and filter approaches for image steganalysis. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 7(6):1195–1206Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi J, Huhtala K (2014) Constrained path optimization with Bezier curve primitives. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Chicago, pp 246–251Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm: explosion, stability, and convergence in a multi-dimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):58–73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Contreras-Cruz MA, Ayala-Ramirez V, Hernandez-Belnonte UH (2015) Mobile robot path planning using artificial bee colony and evolutonary programming. Appl Soft Comput J 30:319–328Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cruz DL, Yu W (2017) Path planning of multi-agent systems in unknown environment with neural kernel smoothing and reinforcement learning. Neurocomputing 233(12):34–42Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ghilardelli F, Lini G, Piazzi A (2014) Path generation using η 4-splines for a truck and trailer vehicle. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 11(1):187–204Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bianco CGL, Piazzi A, Romano M (2004) Smooth motion generation for unicycle mobile robots via dynamic path inversion. IEEE Trans Robot 20(5):884–891Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bianco CGL, Gerelli O (2010) Generation of paths with minimum curvature derivative with η 3-splines. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 7(2):249–256Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henrich D (1997) Fast motion planning by parallel processing—a review. J Intell Robot Syst 20:45–69Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ho YJ, Liu JS (2009) Collision-free curvature-bounded smooth path planning using composite Bezier curve based on Voronoi diagram. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on computational intelligence in robotics and automation, Daejeon, pp 463–468Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang HC, Tsai CC (2011) Global path planning for autonomous robot navigation using hybrid metaheuristic GA-PSO algorithm. In: Proceedings of SICE annual conference, Tokyo, pp 1338–1348Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huang HC (2014) FPGA-based parallel metaheuristic PSO algorithm and its application to global path planning for autonomous robot navigation. J Intell Robot Syst 76:475–488Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hussein AM, Elnagar A (1997) On smooth and safe trajectory planning in 2D environments. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom 4:3118–3123Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jolly KG, Kumar RS, Vijayakumar R (2009) A Bezier curve based path planning in a multi-agent robot soccer system without violating the acceleration limits. Robot Auton Syst 57(1):23–33Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural network, Perth, pp 1942–1948Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lini G, Piazzi A, Consolini L (2011) Multi-optimization of η 3-splines for autonomous parking. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on decision and control and European control conference, Orlando, pp 6367–6372Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu S, Sun D (2014) Minimizing energy consumption of wheeled mobile robots via optimal motion planning. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 19(2):401–411Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu Y, Wang F, Doaie AM, He G, Zhuang Y (2017) Comparison of 2D image models in segmentation performance for 3D laser point clouds. Neurocomputing. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.030 (in Press)
  24. 24.
    Mallick S, Kar R, Mandal D, Ghoshal SP (2017) Optimal sizing of CMOS analog circuits using gravitational search algorithm with particle swarm optimization. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 8(1):309–331Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Masehian E, Sedighizadeh D (2007) Classic and heuristic approaches in robot motion planning—a chronological review. Int J Mech Aerosp Ind Mechatron Manuf Eng 1(5):228–233Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohajer B, Kiani K, Samiei E, Sharifi M (2013) A new online random particles optimization algorithm for mobile robot path planning in dynamic environments. Math Prob Eng 2013:1–9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nelson W (1989) Continuous curvature paths for autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ international conference on robotics and automation, Scottsdale, pp 1260–1264Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piazzi A, Bianco CGL (2000) Quintic \(G^2\)-splines for trajectory planning of autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium, pp 198–203Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Piazzi A, Guarino Lo Bianco C, Romano M (2007) η 3-splines for the smooth path generation of wheeled mobile robots. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):1089–1095Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Qu H, Xing K, Alexander T (2013) An improved genetic algorithm with co-evolutionary strategy for global path planning of multiple mobile robots. Neurocomputing 120:509–517Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Raja P, Pugazhenthi S (2012) Optimal path planning of mobile robots: a review. Int J Phys Sci 7(9):1314–1320Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reuter J (1998) Mobile robots trajectories with continuously differentiable curvature: an optimal control approach. Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robot Syst 1:38–43Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ratnaweera A, Halgamure SK, Watson HC (2004) Self-organizing hierarchical particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration coefficients. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 8:240–255Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shi Y, Eberhart R (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, Anchorage, pp 69–73Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Song B, Tain G, Zhou F (2010) A comparison study on path smoothing algorithms for laser robot navigated mobile robot path planning in intelligent space. J Inf Comput Sci 7(1):2943–2950Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Song B, Wang Z, Sheng L (2016) A new genetic algorithm approach to smooth path planning for mobile robots. Assem Autom 36(2):138–145Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Song B, Wang Z, Zou L (2017) On global smooth path planning for mobile robots using a novel multimodal delayed PSO algorithm. Cognit Comput 9:5–17Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Souravlias D, Parsopoulos KE (2016) Particle swarm optimization with neighborhood-based budget allocation. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 7(3):451–477Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tang Y, Wang Z, Fang J (2011) Parameters identification of unknown delayed genetic regulatory networks by a switching particle swarm optimization algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 38:2523–2535Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Villagra J, Mounier H (2005) Obstacle-avoiding path planning for high velocity wheeled mobile robots. Proc IFAC World Congr 38(1):49–54Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang S, Han Z, Liu F, Tang Y (2015) Nonlinear system identification using least squares support vector machine tuned by an adaptive particle swarm optimization. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 6(6):981–992Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zhan Z, Zhang J, Li Y, Chung H (2009) Adaptive particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 39(6):1362–1381Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang S, Sun L, Chen Z, Lu X, Liu J (2014) Smooth path planning for a home service robot using \(\eta ^3\)-splines. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics, pp 1910–1915Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zeng N, Wang Z, Zhang H, Alsaadi FE (2016) A novel switching delayed PSO algorithm for estimating unknown parameters of lateral flow immunoassay. Cognit Comput 8:143–152Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhou F, Song B, Tian G (2011) Bezier curve based smooth path planning for mobile robot. J Inf Comput Sci 8(1):2441–2450Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ding D, Wang Z, Ho DWC, Wei G (2017) Distributed recursive filtering for stochastic systems under uniform quantizations and deception attacks through sensor networks. Automatica 78:231–240MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ding D, Wang Z, Wei G, Alsaadi FE (2016) Event-based security control for discrete-time stochastic systems. IET Control Theory Appl 10(15):1808–1815MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Luo Y, Wang Z, Wei G, Alsaadi FE (2017) Robust \(H_{\infty }\) filtering for a class of two-dimensional uncertain fuzzy systems with randomly occurring mixed delays. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 25(1):70–83Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Luo Y, Wang Z, Liang J, Wei G, Alsaadi FE (2017) \(H_{\infty }\) control for 2-D fuzzy systems with interval time-varying delays and missing measurements. IEEE Trans Cybern 47(2):365–377Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang L, Wang Z, Huang T, Wei G (2016) An event-triggered approach to state estimation for a class of complex networks with mixed time delays and nonlinearities. IEEE Trans Cybern 46(11):2497–2508Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang J, Ma L, Liu Y (2016) Passivity analysis for discrete-time neural networks with mixed time-delays and randomly occurring quantization effects. Neurocomputing 216:657–665Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhang W, Wang Z, Liu Y, Ding D, Alsaadi FE (2017) Event-based state estimation for a class of complex networks with time-varying delays: a comparison principle approach. Phys Lett A 381(1):10–18MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu Y, Liu W, Obaid MA, Abbas IA (2016) Exponential stability of Markovian jumping Cohen–Grossberg neural networks with mixed mode-dependent time-delays. Neurocomputing 177:409–415Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liu S, Wei G, Song Y, Liu Y (2016) Extended Kalman filtering for stochastic nonlinear systems with randomly occurring cyber attacks. Neurocomputing 207:708–716Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Liu D, Liu Y, Alsaadi FE (2016) A new framework for output feedback controller design for a class of discrete-time stochastic nonlinear system with quantization and missing measurement. Int J Gen Syst 45(5):517–531MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wen C, Cai Y, Liu Y, Wen C (2016) A reduced-order approach to filtering for systems with linear equality constraints. Neurocomputing 193:219–226Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zeng N, Wang Z, Zhang H (2016) Inferring nonlinear lateral flow immunoassay state-space models via an unscented Kalman filter. Sci China Inf Sci. doi: 10.1007/s11432-016-0280-9
  58. 58.
    Chen H, Liang L, Wang Z (2016) Pinning controllability of autonomous Boolean control networks. Sci China Inf Sci. doi: 10.1007/s11432-016-5579-8

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Electrical Engineering and AutomationShandong University of Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBrunel University LondonUxbridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations