Multi-UAV collision avoidance with separation
Commented [MSOFFICE1]: Cambiar título
assurance under uncertainties
Alejo, D. 1, Conde, R1. Cobano, J.A. 1 and Ollero, A1,2.
1
Robotics, Vision and Control Group, Escuela de Ingenieros, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville (Spain)
2
Centro Avanzado Tecnologías Aeroespaciales, Parque Tecnológico y Aeronáutico de Andalucía. La Rinconada, Seville (Spain)
churr.te@gmail.com, mamuso@gmail.com, jacobano@cartuja.us.es, aollero@cartuja.us.es
Abstract— This paper presents a collision avoidance method for
multiple UAVs and other non-cooperative aircraft based on
velocity planning and taking into account the trajectory
prediction under uncertainties. The proposed method finds a safe
trajectory from the predicted trajectory modifying the velocity
profile of the different co-operative vehicles involved in the
collision. A particle filter is used to predict the trajectories under
uncertainties dealing with the influence of different sources of
uncertainty such as the atmospheric conditions, the UAV model
and the limitations of the sensors and control system on board
the UAV. A trajectory is safe when the separation among UAVs
is greater than the minimum required separation. The predicted
trajectory of the UAV and the minimum required separation will
be determined from the particle filter. The chosen separation in
each iteration depends on the uncertainty of the trajectory of
each UAV.
Keywords- velocity planning; particle filter; uncertainty; aerial
robotic
I. INTRODUCTION
In the last years, important progress in aerial robotics has
been achieved, particularly, in Multiple Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs) motivated by their interest in applications
such as searching and surveying, exploration and mapping,
hazardous material handling systems, active reconfigurable
sensing systems and space-based interferometry, between
others. The advantages when comparing with single vehicle
solutions are increased efficiency, performance,
reconfigurability, and robustness. Therefore, Multiple UAVs
can now be cooperatively used to carry out tasks where they
can exchange sensor information, and perform detection and
monitoring activities among other tasks ([1][2], [3], [4], [5],
[6], [7], [8]). In these cases, there are several concepts closely
related to minimum required separation and collision
avoidance problem between them and other aerial vehicles
(cooperative or non-cooperative) that should be solved.
Different techniques for the collision avoidance problem have
been proposed and applied for Multiple UAVs, however
uncertainties are not considered in these problems.
ROBAIR scenario.
UAV conflict detection and avoidance requires a model to
predict the UAV trajectories. There are different methods to
predict positions in conflict detection ([9], [10], [11]). In this
paper, the future trajectories of each vehicle are computed from
a particle filter, taking uncertainties into account. These
sources can be the atmospheric conditions, the accuracy of the
UAV model used for prediction, and the limitations of the
sensors and on board control system to cancel perturbations. In
the case of the UAVs, the most important source of uncertainty
during the flight is the change in the atmospheric conditions,
mainly the wind.
Figure 1. shows an UAV of the Robotics, Vision and
Control Group (University of Seville) and Figure 2. describes
an experiment of autonomous flight of this UAV. In this
experiment the UAV should follow the waypoints defined in
each vertex of the polygon. The actual trajectory followed by
the UAV can be also observed. Note the discrepancy due to the
previously mentioned sources of uncertainty.
When Multiple UAVs work cooperatively each trajectory
has to be safe. For that, the separation among UAVs should be
greater than the minimum required separation. If this condition
is not fulfilled one collision is detected. Therefore, each UAV
should maintain the separation to avoid collisions and, thus can
perform its task. This separation depends on the uncertainty in
the trajectory prediction, so decreasing this uncertainty allows
decreasing of the minimum required separation among UAVs.
This decreasing also affects the collision avoidance problem
satisfactorily.
The collision avoidance problem has been extensively
treated in robotics literature. Different resolution methods
have been developed in the last years. In [12] the direction
angle and velocity of the mobile robots are used as control
variables for navigation and collision avoidance for two
vehicles. In [13] the trajectory of a vehicle in the velocity
space to avoid mobile or static obstalces in its trayectory is
computed. The solution for several robots that could be
involved in the collision is not considered in all these methods.
 Other methods such as [14] and [15] cope with unexpected presented only consider speed changes. Finally, collision
changes, but they do not use kinematic or dynamic avoidance resolution system can handle conflicts between
information of the environment to compute the motion multiple (more than 2) aircraft.
commands. Moreover these works do not consider the
problem of the velocity planning using that information.
When the velocity is known, the trajectories can be
computed improving the motion performance regarding other
collision avoidance methods. Different methods have been
proposed to solve it. [21] resolves the problem of avoiding
static obstacle planning the speed along the path. [16] deals
with this problem by searching solutions in a visibility graph
in the configuration-time space. [17] proposes a cell
decomposition to represent the configuration-time space and
then joins empty cells connect the free space. However, in this
cases kinematics constraints are not considered.
[18] presents a method for finding optimal trajectory for
multiple aircraft avoiding collisions. A mixed-integer linear
program (MILP) approach is applied to the collision
avoidance problem, but mobile obstalces are not considered.
In [19] a novel policy is proposed for steering multiple
vehicles between assigned independent start and goal Figure 1. Fixed wing UAV used in the experiments.
configurations, ensuring collision avoidance. The vehicles
move with a constant velocity and all the agents cooperate by
following the same traffic rules. The method usually leads to
the modification of the paths, however this could be not
needed if the collisions are avoided by simply modifying the
velocity.
When considering real-time aircraft collision avoidance
the available computation time is important. In our case, we
consider a dynamic environment in which the collisions are
solved in real-time once they are detected, therefore
computation time plays an important role.
A useful overview of papers on deconfliction can be found
in [20]. This study identifies six attributes of CD&R (Conflict
Detection and Resolution) systems to avoid collisions:
dimensions of the state information, method of dynamic state
propagation, conflict detection threshold, conflict resolution
method, maneuvering dimensions, and management of
multiple aircraft conflicts. Each of these attributes is divided
into basic classes. The dimensions of the state information are
the spatial dimensions. In our case, it is the full three-
dimensional space. Method of state propagation refers to how
a model uses current state information to predict future states, Figure 2. Tracking of the desired trajectory (blue line) and the real trajectory
i.e. trajectories. A particle filter is used to predict trajectories, (violet line) under wind effects.
so the method of state propagation is probabilistic. The
trayectories will be used to detect the collisions. The method In this paper, a 3-D motion planning problem for multiple
to determine when a collision can occurr is based on a grid UAVs sharing the space with non-cooperative aircraft (mobile
model. The methods to resolve detected collision vary widely obstacles) is solved. We follow the decomposition of the
and are categorized into five groups in [20]. The five classes problem into the path planning problem (PPP) and the velocity
are prescribed, optimized, force field, manual, and no planning problem (VPP) proposed in [21][22]. The velocity
resolution method. In this paper, the method is optimized. profile for all the UAVs involved in a potential collision is
Optimized resolutions take a cost function into account and calculated to solve the collision avoidance problem with a
determine a least cost maneuver which provides the required minimum change of the initial trajectory based on the
separation between the vehicles. The maneuvers that are technique presented in [22] which finds suboptimal solutions
employed to resolve the collisions include turns, vertical much faster than optimal methods by exploring a discretized
moves, speed changes, and so forth. The solution can allow for space. In this paper we propose to use the particle filter to
one or several types of resolution maneuvers. The work compute the predicted trajectory and the potential collision
zone around each UAV. Furthermore, the method presented in
this paper ensures separation between aircrafts which is not
the case of the method in [22].
This paper is organized in five sections. Section II presents
the problem formulation. Section III describes an algorithm of
a particle filter and its implementation. Section IV presents the
proposed collision avoidance method. Section V shows the
simulations carried out and Section VI details the conclusions.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
The collision avoidance problem involves the detection of
the potential collision and then solving these collisions. One of
the first approaches of the collision avoidance problem in
robotics was proposed in [21]. where the problem is
decomposed into two steps: the Path Planning Problem (PPP)
and the Velocity Planning Problem (VPP). Once all paths have
been planned by each vehicle, a velocity profile that avoids
collisions in all paths is found by means of the proposed VPP
method.
The method used in this paper is based on [22] but some
changes have been introduced in order to improve the possible
applications.
The detection algorithm is based on a discretized space
divided into cubic cells, also called grid model (see Figure 3. ).
The 3D grid models can be used for CDR with velocity
planning by means of an appropriated grid definition that will
assure the minimum required separation. Furthermore, the
method could be also applied when only some vehicles
(cooperative aircrafts) can modify velocities, while non-
cooperative vehicles maintain velocities.
Figure 3. UAV trajectories in a discretized space divided into cubic cells.
The UAV trajectory can be described as a sequence of cells
with an entrance and departure time. Each UAV knows the
trajectories of other UAVs, i.e., the list of cells that other
UAVs will flight across (see Figure 3. ). To ensure a collision-
free trajectory the distance between two UAVs should be
greater than the minimum required separation, σreq, which is
described by a number of cells. The predicted trajectory of the
UAV and the minimum required separation will be determined
from the particle filter. The chosen separation in each iteration
depends on the uncertainty of the trajectory of each UAV. This
is one improvement with regard to [22]. Thus, the proposed
algorithm detects all the potential collisions whenever a
prediction of the trajectory is received from the particle filter.
The grid model of [22] presents a disadvantage: two
vehicles that are not in the same cell can be closer than other
two that are actually in the same cell (see Figure 4. (a)).
Therefore the algorithm based on the simple space
discretization in cells does not assure minimum required
separation.
For this reason, we should modify the definitions of conflict
and collision used in [22] to make the algorithm able to
guarantee the safety distance, that is, the minimum required
separation. Considering cells is easier to check whether a
collision will occur because each UAV simply has to find the
number of cells with regard to other UAVs. This is an
important difference with the grid model presented in [22].
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Changes in safety distance (minimum required separation) : (a)
Disadvantage of the grid model: U3 and U4 are in conflict while U1 and U2 are
not; (b) Different safety distances: one cell (grey), two cells (pink) and three
cells (blue).
If there is a vehicle in a cell C, there is a collision when
there is another vehicle in a neighboring cell to C. We can
make the following definitions:
 Neighboring cells to C: is the set of cells whose
distance is less than the minimum required separation
considered.
 Conflict: a cell C crossed by a vehicle is in conflict if
there is another vehicle which crosses a cell in the
neighborhood of C.
 Conflict zone: set of consecutive cells of two or more
vehicles that are in conflict (see Figure 5. ).
 Collision: there are two vehicles crossing a conflict
zone at once.
Note that a new concept has been introduced with respect to
[22]: conflict zone. It is important because in our algorithm a
vehicle cannot enter in a conflict zone if there is another
vehicle in it.
To solve the potential collision it is possible to change the
trajectories of the aerial vehicles involved in the collision.
When some vehicle can not change its trajectory it could be
considered as a mobile obstacle and it would keep its initial
trajectory.
The time each aerial vehicle stays in a cell depends on its
model. The distance the vehicle covers in a cell determines the
maximum and minimum time a vehicle stays in a cell.
 In this method, it is necessary to consider vehicles that
detect a potential collision and vehicles that did not detect a
potential collision originally. That is because it is possible to
find a solution that avoids the initial collision but causes a new
collision with those aerial vehicles. Therefore, we distinguish
three kinds of vehicles involved in a collision to solve it. On
the one hand, the vehicles that are involved in the potential
detected collision are called direct involved. On the other hand,
the vehicles whose trajectories are cut by the trajectories of the
direct involved can be either indirect involved cooperative
vehicles or non-cooperative vehicl0065s also called mobile
obstacles. The trajectories of both direct and indirect
cooperative vehicles can be changed.
Figure 5. Example of conflict zone in a multiple UAV scenario with
convergent trajectories (gray-coloured cells).
III. PARTICLE FILTER
A particle filter has been implemented to predict the
trajectories of each UAVs and to calculate the uncertainty of
the predicted trajectory. This uncertainty is used to define the
number of cells that represent the minimum required separation
among UAVs in each iteration.
A. Algorithm
Particle filters are a nonparametric implementation of the
Bayes filter, which can be used to estimate the probability
density function (p.d.f.) of the state of a Markov process, given
the previous outputs ([23], [24]). Let x be the state of the
process:
xk 1  f ( xk , vk )  g (u k , nk )
(1)
z k  h( xk , wk )
Equation (1) are the state space equations of the process,
where zk represents the current output, uk represents the current
input, vk, wk and nk are samples of a random variable, and f, g
and h are known functions.
The particle filter will estimate the posterior p.d.f of x0:k,
using the previous estimation obtained from the sampling of a
set of particles that represent instances of the state trajectories.
Therefore, the particle filter is a sequential Monte Carlo
method, or recursive nonparametric Bayesian filter, with a
belief function, bel:
bel ( x0:k )  p( zk | xk ) p( xk | xk 1, uk )bel ( x0:k 1 ) (2)
where η is a normalizing factor that ensures the probability
of x0:k being in the space of the state trajectories is equal to 1.
The algorithm of the particle filter is:
Inputs are the particle set in the time k-1, control uk and the
measurement zk in the time k.
Line 3 of the algorithm represents the simulation of the
motion of the aerial vehicle; that is, an estimation of the next
vehicle state given the last known state and inputs. This will be
done using the UAV and atmospheric models. In our case the
aim is to estimate the future state of the process at a particular
future time step kf, i.e. we look for bel(xkf ).
In line 5 we have set the weight wk of a particle as the
probability of measuring zk (that in fact is what we have
already measured) given the state x[m]k. This weighting function
gives each particle the importance it deserves, making the
particles that better represent the actual state more probable to
be chosen and vice versa. The choice of the weighting function
is a key for the accuracy of the algorithm especially when the
size of the particle set cannot be large enough.
Resampling is a method to decrease the variance of the
estimation process. It is based on the idea that some samples of
the observable p.d.f. are more significant than others, and thus
sampling them with a higher frequency will improve our
estimator confidence. The resampling process is done at lines 9
and 10. The principal idea is to build a new set using the last
set and their weighting factors so that it is a better estimate of
the posterior distribution. The resampling can sometimes be an
unnecessary time consuming process. Then, we restrict it to
some conditions. A possible way is shown in line 8 of the
previous algorithm. We have introduced here the concept of
effective number of particles of a set, Neff. As η is a normalizing
factor that ensures that , Neff is a real number
between 1 and M indicating the number of particles that are
actually useful. Thus, Neff near 1 means that there is only a
particle that has almost all the weight of the set, while values of
Neff near to M means that all particles have almost the same
weight. Therefore, the process lies in having the particle filter
running normally until the current time kc, and then starts a
pure simulation of the particle set until the desired time kf
without the use of any measurement. When a measurement is
taken, the particle set can be modified at the measurement time
if necessary by making a resampling.
B. Implementation
In order to achieve accurate predictions, a good enough
model of the UAVs is needed. The available UAV control
system is a waypoint tracker autopilot.
A simple model proposed in [25] is used for the command
tracking system. This model describes the behavior of an aerial
vehicle given the commanded yaw, speed and height:
xi  vi cos i  (3)
yi  vi sin  i  (4)

hi   h _ dot hi   h hi  hi
c
 (5)
 i     i 
i
c
(6)
 
vi   v vic  vi (7)
where αυ=1.48s-1, αψ=1.32 s-1, αh=0.33s-2 y αh_dot=1.52s-1 are
parameters that depend on the characteristics of the vehicle, (xi,
yi, hi) represents the 3D coordinates where hi is the altitude, and
ψi is the heading of the vehicle.
The values of the parameters have been chosen to minimize
the error with real flight data from the UAV shown in Fig. 1,
but the identification process is out of the scope of this paper.
There exist constraints with regard to ψi and the speed:
 c   i  c (8)
vmin  vi  vmax (9)
where c=0.28rad/s, vmin=20m/s and vmax=35m/s are positive
constants that depend on the dynamics of the vehicle. Note that
the constraints on the minimum speed can be not relevant in
some aerial vehicles, such as helicopters, but have an important
role in fixed wing UAVs.
An atmospheric model with the wind vector speed is also
used in the particle filter. Wind speed modulus, ρ, and
direction, φ, are represented using two normal distributions
with the same mean and standard deviation, σρ and σφ, for all
the involved instances of the model. However, each instance of
the model is affected by different wind disturbances due to the
stochastic nature of this model
The knowledge about the sensor system uncertainties is
used in two relevant steps of the filter: initialization and
resampling. The initialization process gives a probable state of
the aerial vehicle to each particle in the set by assigning them
random values in the neighborhood of the measured vehicle
state. This neighborhood is shaped by the sensors models.
During the resampling process, each particle will be assigned a
probability of being chosen that is proportional to its weight,
which takes into account the sensors uncertainties.
IV. THE PROPOSED COLLISION AVOIDANCE METHOD
Firstly, the particle filter calculates the predicted trajectory
and its uncertainty. Therefore, the list of cells that each UAV
crosses is known.
The minimum required separation, σreq, will be determined
from the particle filter as σmax,i+σmax,j+ σsafe, where σsafe is a
fixed safety distance in cells, and σmax,i, σmax,j are the two
greatest spatial deviation of the predicted trajectories from their
means.
Secondly, the algorithm checks if there are some vehicles
whose trajectories can be conflictive. In this case, the algorithm
computes if there would be a collision or not.
A potential collision is solved by changing the stay times of
each vehicle in each cell. The proposed method is based on the
algorithm presented in [22]. The method has two steps:
A. Search Tree algorithm which finds a solution if it
exists.
B. Optimization step that minimizes a cost function.
Then, the first step provides an initial solution for the
optimization in the second step.
A. Search tree step
This step ensures that the collision avoidance problem can
be solved by changes in the speed profiles of the UAVs. The
Search Tree algorithm obtains for each conflict an arrival order
that solves it. In the algorithm, we assume that all the vehicles
travel at their maximum velocity. Then it is only possible to
decrease their speeds to avoid a collision.
Let us define the arrival order to a conflict zone as the
order in which the vehicles pass through a given conflict zone.
Therefore, for n vehicles, a conflict zone has n! different arrival
orders. This algorithm explores all the possible arrival orders
until a solution is found. It explores in first place the order in
which the first vehicle to pass through a conflict zone is the one
whose estimated arrival time is smaller. If no solution is found,
the algorithm searches for another solution with a different
arrival order changing firstly the order of those vehicles whose
arrival time to the conflict is greater.
The algorithm gets more complex when there is more than
one conflict zone. Let us assume that there are m conflict zones
with ni vehicles involved in the ith conflict. In that case, we
have to check n0!n1!...nm! different orders. When a given order
is explored with no solution, the algorithm permutes first the
arrival order to the conflict with a higher cost Ti defined as:
Ti=μi–σi (10)
where μi and σi are the mean and standard deviation of the
arrival time of each involved vehicle. The mean of the arrival
times to a conflict zone has to be considered because a change
in earlier conflicts can affect the following conflict zones. The
standard deviation has been included in order to take into
account the differences between the arrival times of the
different vehicles to a conflict zone. It is easier to change the Q P 1
arrival order to a conflict where all the estimated arrival time of
the vehicles involved in it are similar.
t
k 1
mk   t lk  0
k 1
(14)

When a vehicle is going to enter into a conflict zone, if it
has to cross it in the first place, its velocity will be maximum.
Otherwise, the vehicle has to slow down as less as possible in
order to avoid a collision. The decreasing of the velocity should
be done in a minimum number of cells because this could
modify the arrival time to another conflict zone. If the vehicle
cannot slow down enough to avoid a collision, there is no
solution with this arrival order, so we have to check another
one.
B. QP-problem
When the Search Tree Algorithm finds a solution, we have
a valid arrival order for all the conflict zones in the collision
avoidance problem. This allows the formulation of a QP-
problem in order to get the most similar trajectory to the initial
one. A QP-problem minimizes a quadratic cost function with
linear constraints. The cost function considered is:
where P indicates the entry cell in the conflict zone of the
vehicle l and Q indicates the leaving cell of the vehicle m.
In order to solve the above optimization problem we use the
QP-solver implemented in the Computational Geometry
Algorithms Library (CGAL) [26].
V. SIMULATIONS Commented [MSOFFICE2]: Decidir las simulaciones que se
Several simulation experiments have been carried out to
van a presentar y añadir los resultados.
demonstrate the collision avoidance method taking into
account the trajectory prediction under uncertainties. In this
paper a simulation with three UAVs is presented. Error!
Reference source not found.shows some of the characteristics
of the UAVs and their initial states.
TABLE I. CHARATERISTICS OF THE UAVS.

 
N Mi 2 UAV1 UAV2 UAV3
J    tik  tikref (11) Initial position (m) (-500,0) (0,-500) (-500, 300)
i 1 k 1
Goal position (m) (500,0) (0,500) (500,300)
where tik is the stay time in the k-th cell visited by the i-th Min. speed (m/s) 15 15 15
UAV and tikref is the stay time in the original trajectory. N
represents the number of UAVs of the system and Mi the Max. speed (m/s) 40 20 40
number of zones of the UAV ith trajectory. The constraints are: Initial speed (m/s) 15 15 15

t ik  aik vik  bik  0

cik vik  d ik  t ik  0
The maximum and minimum stay time in each cell depends
on the initial velocity at those cells, vik. This dependence is in
fact non linear, but we have to linearize it in order to formulate
the QP-problem. It is done by interpolation with aik, bik, cik and
dik as the interpolation coefficients. The following constraints
on vik are considered:
vik  v max  0
v min  vik  0
ai ,max d i ,k 1 a d
vi ,k 1   vi ,k  vi ,k 1  i ,max i ,k 1
vref vref
i  1...N , k  1...M
The first two constraints are given by the vehicle model,
and the third one relates the initial velocity in one cell with the
other in the previous cell because of the maximum acceleration
constraint. In the third equation, ai ,max represents the maximum
desired acceleration of the ith UAV and di,k represents the
distance traveled by the ith UAV in the kth zone.
Finally, in order to avoid collisions for each conflict zone
and each m vehicle that has to cross that zone immediately
before than l; the following constraints should be considered:
(12) The wind velocity is set to (1,1) m/s. The prediction horizon is
set to 30 s. The trajectory prediction of each UAV at t=0s is
shown in Fig. 5 The particle set is sampled every second but
Fig. 5 shows it every four seconds in order to avoid overlaps.
Some collisions are not detected with these predicted
trajectories. Therefore, the velocity profile is maintained.
When the trajectory prediction is received at t=3s, a
potential collision is detected between UAV1 and UAV2 in the
time t=31s (see Fig. 6) because the minimum separation
computed from the particle sets is violated. Therefore, the
velocity profile of UAV1 and UAV2 should be changed to
avoid the potential collision at t=31s. This minimum separation
has been computed using the maximum of the distances to the
(13) predicted locations of each UAV at t=3, and the minimum
safety distance. The resulting minimum separation is: 51 m.
In Fig. 7 the procedure to avoid the first collision is shown.
UAV2 decelerates while UAV1 accelerates to avoid the
potential collision detected. Note that the speed of the UAVs is
indirectly indicated in Figs. 4, 5, 6 and 7 by the distance
between the particle sets. The collision is solved as it can be
seen at t=28s when UAV1 has passed through the conflict zone
and UAV2 has not arrived there yet.
In Fig. 8 a conflict zone between UAV2 and UAV3 can be
observed. However, there is no potential collision because at
t=40s UAV3 has passed through the conflict zone and UAV2
has not arrived there yet.
 Figure 6. Trajectory prediction at t=0s: potential collision has not been
detected yet.
Figure 7. Trajectory prediction at t=3s: potential collision has been detected.
Figure 8. Trajectory prediction at t=4s: a change in the velocity profile is set
to avoid the collision.
Figure 9. Trajectory prediction at t=28s: the potential collision has been
solved.
VI. CONCLUSIONS Commented [MSOFFICE3]: Modificar las conclusiones
cuando se tengas los resultados.
In this paper, a method to solve the collision avoidance
problem between multiple cooperative UAVs and non-
cooperative aircraft (mobile obstacles) based on velocity
planning and considering the trajectory prediction under
uncertainties has been presented. The objective was to find a
collision-free solution that changes the initial trajectory as little
as possible considering the uncertainty of the predicted
trajectory, by changing the velocity profile of the vehicles.
In the new algorithm the minimum required separation is
obtained by the particle filter in each iteration. This filter uses
the aircraft and atmospheric models. The proposed method
assures the minimum separation between the vehicles.
The simulations show the validity of the real-time
execution of the proposed collision avoidance method for three
UAVs with crossing trajectories.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper has been partially funded by the European
Commission IST and ICT Programmes under project CONET
NoE (FP7- INFSO-ICT-224053) and the Spanish ROBAIR
project (DPI2008-03847) of the Spanish National R&D
Programme.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Bayraktar, G.E. Fainekos and J. Pappas, ”Experimental Cooperative
Control of Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”, 43rd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Bahamas, 2004, pp 4292-4298.
[2] F. Giulietti, L. Pollini, and M. Innocenti, “Autonomous Formation
Flight”, IEEE Control System Magazine, December 2000, pp 34-44.
[3] Y. Gu, B. Seanor, G. Campa, M.R: Napolitano, L. Rowe, S. Gururajan,
and S. Wan, “Design and Flight Testing Evaluation of Formation
Control Laws” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. Vol.
14, No 6, 2006, pp 1105-1112.
[4] J. How, E. King and Y. Kuwata,. “Flight demonstrations of cooperative
control for UAV teams”, AIAA 3rd “Unmanned Unlimited Technical
Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, Chicago, Illinois, 2004.
[5] C. Schumacher and S.N. Singh, “Nonlinear Control of Multiple UAVS
in Close-Coupled Formation Flight”, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, 2000.
[6] A. Ollero and I. Maza, “Multiples Heterogeneous Aerial Vehicles,”
Springer tracts in Advanced Robotics, Berlin, 2007.
[7] A. Ollero and L. Merino, “Control and perception techniques for aerial
robotics,” Annual Reviews in Control, num. 28, 2004, pp. 167-178.
[8] I. Maza and A. Ollero, “Multiple UAV cooperative searching operation
using polygon area decomposition and efficient coverage algorithms”, In
Proc. 7th International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotic
Systems (DARS), pp. 211 - 220. June 2004. Toulouse, France.
[9] R. Paielli and H. Erzberger, “Conflict probability estimation for free
flight,” Journal Guid. and Control Dyn., num. 3, 1997, pp. 558–596.
[10] J. Hu, M. Pandini and S. Sastry, “Aircraft conflict detection in presence
of spatially correlated wind perturbations,” In Proccedings AIAA Guide,
Navigation and Control Conference, Austing, TX, 2003.
[11] M. Prandini, J. Hu, J. Lygeros and S. Sastry, “A probabilistic approach
to aircraft conflict detection,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. I,
num. 4, 2000, pp. 199-220.
[12] A. Fujimori and M. Teramoto, “Cooperative collision avoidance
between multiple mobile robots”, Journal of Robotic Systems, 17(3), pp.
347-363, 2000.
[13] E. Owen and L. Montano, “Motion planning in dynamic environments
using the velocity space”, In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems 2005 (IROS2005)”, pp.
2833-2838, August 2005.
[14] I. Ulrich and J. Borenstein, “VFH*: Local Obstacle Avoidance with
Look-Ahead Verification“, In IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, pp. 2505-2511, San Francisco, USA, 2000.
[15] J. Minguez and L. Montano, “Nearness diagram(nd) navigation:
collision avoidance in troublesome scenarios” , In IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 20(1), pp. 45-59, 2004.
[16] J. Reif and M. Sharir, “Motion planning in the presence of moving
obstacles”, Journal ACM, 41(4), pp. 764-790, 1994.
[17] K. Fujimura and H. Samet, “A hierarchical strategy for path planning
among moving obstacles”, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation, 5(1), pp. 61-69, 1989.
[18] A. Richards and J.P. How, “Aircraft trajectory planning with collision
avoidance using mixed integer linear programming”, In Proceedings of
American Control Conference, pp. 1936-1941, 2002.
[19] L. Pallottino, V.G. Scordio, E. Frazzoli and A. Bicchi, “Decentralized
cooperative policy for conflict resolution in multi-vehicle systems”,
IEEE Transactions on Robtics, 23(6), pp. 1170-1183, 2007.
[20] J.K. Kuchar and L.C. Yang, “A review of conflict detection and
resolution modeling methods”, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, vol. 1, pp. 179-189, December 2000.
[21] K. Kant and S. Zucker. Toward efficient trajectory planning: The path-
velocity decomposition. The International Journal of Robotics Research,
5(3), 1986
[22] J. J. Rebollo, A. Ollero and I. Maza, “Collision avoidance among
multiple aerial robots and other non-cooperative aircraft based on
velocity planning,” Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Mobile Robots,
Albufeira, Portugal, 2007.
[23] S. Thurn, “Particle Filter in Robotics,” In Proccedings of Uncertainty in
Intelligence Artificial, 2002.
[24] S. Thurn, W. Burgard and D. Fox, “Probabilistic Robotics,” MIT Press,
2005.
[25] T. W. McLain and R. W. Beard, “Coordination variables, coordination
functions and cooperative timing missions,” Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, vol. 28, num. 1, 2005, pp.150-161.
[26] CGAL, Computational Geometry Algorithms Library,
http://www.cgal.org