The Safe Navigation of Partial Motion Planning Based on “Cooperation” with Roadside Fixed Sensors in VANET

DOI: 10.4236/wsn.2010.29079   PDF   HTML     6,436 Downloads   9,749 Views   Citations


In recent years, many methods of safe vehicle navigation and partial motion planning (PMP) have been proposed in vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET) field. In order to improve the limitation of traditional PMP, this paper presents a novel effective way to plan motion with cooperation of roadside fixed sensors (RFSs). With their cooperation, the vehicles can get the surrounding information quickly and effectively, and give highly accurate projections about the near future conditions on road. After proposing our algorithm, the worst case is analyzed and methods are found to solve the problem. Finally we conduct one elemental contrast experiment, driver situation awareness, with or without the “cooperation” of RFSs in highway scenarios. The result shows that the vehicles can make a better PMP based on the forward conditions received from RFSs, and extend the warning distance obviously when emergency happens.

Share and Cite:

R. Ding and X. Li, "The Safe Navigation of Partial Motion Planning Based on “Cooperation” with Roadside Fixed Sensors in VANET," Wireless Sensor Network, Vol. 2 No. 9, 2010, pp. 661-667. doi: 10.4236/wsn.2010.29079.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] G. Taylor, G. Blewitt, D. Steup, S. Corbett and A. Car, “Road Reduction Filtering for GPS-GIS Navigation,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2001, pp. 193-207.
[2] R. Siegwart and I. R. Nourbakhsh. “Introduction to Auto- nomous Mobile Robots,” MIT Press, Massachusetts, 2004.
[3] K. Macek, D. Vasquez, T. Fraichard and R. Siegwart. “Safe Vehicle Navigation in Dynamic Urban Scenarios,” Proceeding of the 11th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Beijing, October 2008, pp. 482-489.
[4] S. Petty and T. Fraichard. “Safe Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, 2005, pp. 2210-2215.
[5] P. Fiorini and Z. Shiller. “Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments Using Velocity Obstacles,” International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 17, No. 7, July 1998, pp. 760-772.
[6] R. Simmons, “The Curvature Velocity Method for Local Obstacle Avoidance,” International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Minneapolis, April 1996, pp. 3375-3382.
[7] H. Seraji, A. Howard and E. Tunstel. “Safe Navigation on Hazardous Terrain.” Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Seoul, May 2001, pp. 3084-3091.
[8] S. Dietzel, B. Bako, E. Schoch and F. Kargl. “A Fuzzy Logic Based Approach for Structure-free Aggregation in Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 6th ACM international workshop on Vehicular Internetworking, Beijing, September 2009, pp. 79-88.
[9] T. Fraichard and H. Asama, “Inevitable Collision States - a Step towards Safer Robots?” Advanced Robotics, Vol. 18, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1001-1024.
[10] S. M. Jung, T. H. Song, J. H. Park, J. H. Park and J. W. Jeon, “The Safe Navigation of Remote Mobile Robot Using Virtual Stick,” 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, Chengdu, April 2008, pp. 1295-1734.
[11] T. M. Marc, D. Jiang and H. Hartenstein. “Broadcast Reception Rates and Effects of Priority Access in 802.11-based Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks,” Proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Vehicular ad hoc networks, Philadelphia, October 2004, pp. 10-18.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.