4.7 Article

UAV trajectory planning based on bi-directional APF-RRT* algorithm with goal-biased

Journal

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
Volume 213, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.119137

Keywords

Bi-directional RRT*; Trajectory planning; Artificial potential field method; Goal-biased strategy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a UAV trajectory planning method based on a bi-directional APF-RRT* algorithm with goal-biased. By addressing the slow convergence rate and large randomness of search range issues, the proposed method achieves better trajectory planning results through optimizing the convergence speed, search range, and path optimization.
In recent decades, RRT* algorithm has attracted much attention because of its asymptotic optimization. However, the RRT* algorithm still suffers from slow convergence rate and large randomness of search range. To overcome the shortcomings of this algorithm, this paper proposes UAV trajectory planning based on bi-directional APF-RRT* algorithm with goal-biased. Firstly, goal-biased strategy is used to guide the generation of random sampling points, and two mutually alternating random search trees are established by the bi-directional RRT* algorithm to perform the search, thus increasing the convergence rate of the algorithm. Secondly, the number of iterations is greatly reduced by incorporating an modified artificial potential field method into the bi-directional growth tree. In the process of smoothing the paths, a cubic spline interpolation algorithm is applied to optimize the paths to obtain the best trajectory. The combination of the two algorithms improves the direction of new node generation and reduces the path cost. Finally, the algorithm of this paper is compared with Informed-RRT*, Bi-RRT* and improved P-RRT* algorithms, and it enhances the search performance of the growing tree.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available