See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224749557

Potential Field Methods and Their Inherent Limitations for Mobile Robot
Navigation

Conference Paper in Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · May 1991
DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.1991.131810 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
1,633 2,590

2 authors, including:

Yoram Koren
University of Michigan
276 PUBLICATIONS 25,859 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yoram Koren on 28 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, California, April 7-12, 1991, pp. 1398-1404

Potential Field Methods and Their Inherent Limitations

for Mobile Robot Navigation
by
Y. Koren, Senior Member, IEEE and J. Borenstein, Member, IEEE
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

ABSTRACT

Potential field methods are rapidly gaining popularity in obstacle avoidance applications for mobile
robots and manipulators. While the potential field principle is particularly attractive because of its
elegance and simplicity, substantial shortcomings have been identified as problems that are inherent
to this principle. Based upon mathematical analysis, this paper presents a systematic criticism of the
inherent problems. The heart of this analysis is a differential equation that combines the robot and
the environment into a unified system. The identified problems are discussed in qualitative and
theoretical terms and documented with experimental results from actual mobile robot runs.

1. Introduction
During the past few years, potential field methods (PFM) for obstacle avoidance have gained increased
popularity among researchers in the field of robots and mobile robots. The idea of imaginary forces acting
on a robot has been suggested by Andrews and Hogan [1983] and Khatib [1985]. In these approaches
obstacles exert repulsive forces onto the robot, while the target applies an attractive force to the robot. The
sum of all forces, the resultant force R, determines the subsequent direction and speed of travel. One of the
reasons for the popularity of this method is its simplicity and elegance. Simple PFMs can be implemented
quickly and initially provide acceptable results without requiring many refinements. Thorpe [1985] has
applied the potential field method to off-line path planning and Krogh and Thorpe [1986] suggest a
generalized potential field method that combines global and local path planning.

Potential field methods have been implemented on mobile robots with real sensory data by Brooks [1986],
and by Arkin [1989]. However, the robot in Arkin's work was very slow; it traversed an obstacle course at
0.12 cm/sec (0.4 feet/sec).

In our own previous research we have developed a PFM, called the virtual force field (VFF) method
[Borenstein and Koren, 1989]. Through extensive experimental work with the VFF method, implemented
on our mobile robot CARMEL, we have gained much insight in the strengths and weaknesses of this
method. Among the weaknesses of the VFF method we identified problems that are inherent to PFMs in
general. This experience prompted us to write this paper to stimulate discussion on possible remedies and
to caution of over-optimism in view of the simplicity and elegance of PFMs.
 2. The Virtual Force Field (VFF) Method
The virtual force field (VFF) method, is especially designed for real-time obstacle avoidance with fast
mobile robots [Borenstein and Koren, 1989]. The VFF method allows fast, continuous, and smooth motion
of the controlled vehicle among unexpected
obstacles. We briefly explain the VFF method
below.

The VFF method uses a two-dimensional

Cartesian grid, called the histogram grid C, for
obstacle representation. Each cell (i,j) in the
histogram grid holds a certainty value (CV) ci,j
that represents the confidence of the algorithm
in the existence of an obstacle at that location.
This representation was derived from the
certainty grid concept that was originally
developed by Moravec and Elfes, [1985]. In
the histogram grid, CVs are incremented when
the range reading from an ultrasonic sensor
indicated the presence of an object at that cell.

Simultaneously, the potential field concept is

applied to the histogram grid as shown in
Fig. 1. It works as follows: As the vehicle
moves, a window of ws×ws cells accompanies
it, overlying a square region of C. We call this
region the "active region" (denoted as C*), and
cells that momentarily belong to the active
region are called "active cells" (denoted as c*i,j).
In our current implementation, the size of the
window is 33×33 cells (with a cell size of
10cm×10cm), and the window is always cen-
tered about the robot's position. Figure 1: The virtual force field (VFF) concept: Occupied
cells exert repulsive forces onto the robot; the magnitude is
proportional to the certainty value ci,j of the cell and inversely
Each active cell exerts a virtual repulsive force proportional to d2.
F i,j toward the robot. The magnitude of this
force is proportional to c*i,j and inversely propor-
tional to dn, where d is the distance between the cell and the center of the vehicle, and n is a positive number.
FcrWnCi,j ln xi-x0 y -y
x^ + j 0
s
y^ u
Fi,j =
dn(i,j) m d(i,j) d(i,j) t (1)

where
Fcr Repulsive force constant.
d(i,j) Distance between active cell (i,j) and the robot.
Ci,j Certainty value of active cell (i,j).
W The width of the mobile robot.

Page 2
x0, y0 Robot's present coordinates.
xi, yj Coordinates of active cell (i,j).

In our implementation as well as in the following discussion we assume n=2. All virtual repulsive forces add
up to yield the resultant repulsive force Fr

Fr = i,j
Fi,j (2)

Simultaneously, a virtual attractive force Ft of constant magnitude is applied to the vehicle, "pulling" it
toward the target.

ln xt-x0 x^ +
yt-y0 s
y^ u
Ft = Fct
m dt dt t (3)

where Fct is the target (attraction) force constant; dt is the distance between the target and the robot; and xt,
yt are the target coordinates.

Summation of Fr and Ft yields the resultant force vector R

R = Fr + Ft (4)

The direction of R, (denoted and given in degrees), is used as the reference for the robot's steering-rate
command 6:

6 = k[ - ] (5)

where k is the proportional constant for steering (in sec-1),  is the current direction of travel (in degrees),
and is the commanded direction of travel (in degrees). This equation will be utilized in the mathematical
analysis.

3. Robot-Environment Mathematical Analysis

To analyze the behavior of the mobile robot in the presence of obstacles, first we introduce a differential
equation that describes the robot's motions as affected by the environment. This equation is based on
combining the steering system model with environmental parameters. The basic model for the robot's
steering motor is a first-order differential equation given by

-7 + 7 = 6 (6)

where 6 is the steering-rate command and 7 is the actual steering-rate; - is the time-constant of the steering
motor and is dependent on the robot's mass. Note that the actual relationship is more complicated than the
one represented in Eq. (6), since our mobile robot also includes a corrective network in the steering
controller.

Page 3
Substituting Eq. (5) and   = 7 into
Eq. (6) yields the steering equation

-¨ +  + k = k (7)

For the development of the robot-

environment model, we assume that
the robot travels on one side of a
long obstacle, with the objective to
reach a target located on the other
side of the obstacle, as depicted in
Fig. 2. Since the object is long, the
repulsive force has only a lateral
component in the direction of X

Frx Wn
Fr = (8)
dn
where Frx is a constant proportional
to Fcr. Note that Eq. (8) holds also for
systems that do not use grid-type Figure 2: Motion of a mobile robot in the vicinity of an obstacle.
world models. The resultant force in
the X-direction is Fr - Fct cos, where Fct is the target force constant. The reference command to the
steering control loop is calculated by the equation

Fr - Fct cos
tan = (9)
Fct sin
Differentiating in Eq. (9) with respect to time yields

  M
= -Nd+  (10)

where

nWn f cos2
N= (11)
dn+1 sin

l
M = n1 -
tan su cos2
m tan t (12)

and

Frx
f = (13)
Fct
Note that for small , the parameter N is independent of and M=1.

Page 4
While the robot may move in an arbitrary direction in the XY-plane at a velocity V, its velocity component
in the X-direction is always given by

d = Vsin (14)

By substituting Eq. (14) into (10) and the resulting equation into Eq. (7), we obtain

-
 + ¨ + k + kN(d,, ) Vsin = kM(, )  (15)

Equation (15) is important since it describes the behavior of the robot in response to relative changes in the
environment. Eq. (15) contains parameters of the robot (k, V) and the PFM (n, f). The environment, as related
to the robot, is also represented in Eq. (15) by (d, ), and the response of the steering angle  to changes in
these parameters is shown.

If we assume that the robot moves almost parallel to the obstacle, and therefore is commanded by small
angles that result in small angles , Eq. (15) can be rewritten

-
 + ¨ + k + kN()V = k (16)

We may assume that  is changing slowly, such that k is zero and N is constant. This results in a linear,
time-invariant differential equation. For this condition, the characteristic equation of the Laplace transform
of Eq. (16) is

-s3 + s2 + ks + kNV = 0 (17)

Note that Eq. (17) holds true for continuous control systems. For sampled data systems, a delay e-sT is
introduced in the control loop and Eq. (17) becomes

-s3 + s2 + ks + kNVe-sT = 0 (18)

This delay T may be quite significant; sampling times of up to 3 seconds are reported in the literature [Arkin,
1989]. However, if the sampling time T is very short, the delay can be approximated by e-sT = 1 - sT.

Substituting this expression in Eq. (18) yields the following characteristic equation

-s3 + s2 + [k(1 - NVT)]s + kNV = 0 (19)

In order to determine the stability limit of the moving robot, the Routh stability criterion may be applied to
Eq. (19), which yields the following condition

1 - NV(-+T) > 0 (20)

with N given in Eq. (11).

Page 5
The condition stated in Eq. (20) clearly shows a major drawback of the PFM: The configuration space might
include regions in which Eq. (20) is not satisfied and the robot will begin to oscillate. The condition is
harder to be satisfied for larger V, -, and T; for example, if a heavy vehicle moves at high speed, it is more
likely that oscillations occur.

Obviously, unstable conditions exist also for the general environment-robot model in Eq. (15). However,
for the general nonlinear time-varying model of Eq. (15) it is difficult to find a simple stability rule like the
one given in Eq. (20).

The parameter that can be tuned to guarantee stability is f which is defined as the ratio between the repulsive
force constant Fcr (defined in Eq. 1) and the target force constant Fct (defined in Eq. 3). The value of f for
a particular system should be determined experimentally, as explained in the following section.

4. The Experimental System

We have verified our theoretical considerations on our mobile robot, CARMEL (Computer-Aided Robotics
for Maintenance, Emergency, and Life support). CARMEL is based on a commercially available mobile
platform with a unique three-wheel drive (synchro-drive) that permits omnidirectional steering
[Cybermation, 1990]. This platform has a maximum travel speed of Vmax = 0.8 m/sec and a maximum
steering rate of 6 = 120 deg/sec; it weighs about 125 kg. A Z-80 on-board computer serves as the low-level
controller of the vehicle.

We equipped this vehicle with a ring of 24 ultrasonic

sensors; the ring has a diameter of 0.8m. Two computers
were added to the platform: a 20Mhz, 80386-based AT-
compatible that runs the VFF obstacle avoidance algorithm,
and a PC-compatible single-board computer to control the
sensors.

In the experiments described in this paper, the ultrasonic

sensors were disabled, and obstacles were manually
inserted into the histogram grid. This measure was neces-
sary to insure that experiments were conducted under
repeatable conditions, without noisy and inaccurate sensory
data. However, in all experiments we used CARMEL, a
real mobile robot, to ensure realistic conditions concerning
system dynamics and sampling time.

A typical real-time run with CARMEL is depicted in

Fig. 3. In this experiment CARMEL traveled from "Start"
to "Target." A small obstacle (approx. 40x40cm) was
inserted into the histogram grid. This experiment was per-
formed to define the relative strength of the repulsive force
(determined by Fcr, in Eq. 1) to the attractive force (deter- Figure 3: A real-time run of CARMEL is used to
mined by Fct, in Eq. 3) such that the robot would just barely determine the minimal ratio between repulsive
and attractive force constants.

Page 6
avoid the obstacle when approaching it head-on, at maximum speed. To ensure repeatability, the obstacle
was manually programmed for subsequent experiments. Fig. 3 shows the resulting path of the robot. The
actual position of the robot at one-second intervals is shown by circles which are plotted to scale according
to the 0.8m diameter of CARMEL's sensor ring.

It should be noted that due to quantization and the finite size of the active window (see discussion in Section
2.3), Frx (defined in Eq. 8) is not constant but rather fluctuates as a function of the robot's distance from an
obstacle. Consequently, f (defined in Eq. 13) varies for our system. For this reason, we use an average value
fav to compare our experimental parameters with the analytical ones. With the experiment of Fig. 3, we deter-
mined fav=0.8; this value was then used in all the experiments described in this paper.

5. Problems with Potential Field Methods

In the course of our experimental work with the VFF algorithm, we identified the following 4 significant
problems that are inherent to PFMs and independent of the particular implementation:

1. Trap situations due to local minima (cyclic behavior).

2. No passage between closely spaced obstacles.
3. Oscillations in the presence of obstacles.
4. Oscillations in narrow passages.

The following sections present a detailed discussion.

5.1 Trap Situations Due to Local Minima

Perhaps the best-known and most often-cited problem with PFMs is the problem of local minima or trap-
situations [Andrew and Hogan, 1983; Tilove, 1989]. A trap-situation may occur when the robot runs into
a dead end (e.g., inside a U-shaped obstacle). Traps can be created by a variety of different obstacle
configurations, and different types of traps can be distinguished. However, trap-situations can be resolved
by heuristic or global recovery.

Trap-situations that are remedied with heuristic recovery rules are likely to result in a non-optimal path. For
this reason we abandoned the heuristic recovery approach in favor of an integrated global path planner
(GPP). With this method, the local path planner (LPP) monitors the robot's path; when a trap-situation is
detected the GPP is invoked to plan a new path based on the available information.

5.2 No Passage Between Closely Spaced Obstacles

Fig. 4 shows a mobile robot at an attempt to pass among two closely spaced obstacles (e.g., passing through
a door frame). With PFMs, the repulsive forces from obstacle 1 and 2 are combined into the two lumped
repulsive forces F'r1 and F'r2, respectively. The sum of all repulsive forces (Fr=F'r1+F'r2) points straight away
from the opening between the two obstacles. Depending on the relative magnitude of the target-directed
force Ft, the robot will either approach the opening further, or it will turn away (as depicted in Fig. 4).

Page 7
5.3 Oscillations in the
Presence of Obstacles

One of the most signifi-

cant limitations of po-
tential field methods is
their tendency to cause
unstable motion in the
presence of obstacles.

The mathematical con-

ditions for the onset of
unstable motion may be
derived from the
ro b o t envi ronment
model developed in
Section 3. Substituting Figure 4:
Eq. (11) for small Under PFM control, the robot does not pass among densely spaced obstacles.
(i.e., cos w1) into
Eq. (20) yields the sta-
bility condition

nV(-+T)Wnf
dn+1  (21)
sin
When the robot travels alongside the obstacle under steady
state conditions, the sum of the lateral forces is zero, so
that

Fr = Fctcos (22)

Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (22) yields

FrxWn
= Fct cos (23)
dn
Figure 5: Instable motion results when the robot
Using f from Eq. (13) and substituting d from Eq. (23) into encounters a disturbance at <cr, while traveling
Eq. (21) we obtain the stability condition in the vicinity of an obstacle.

n
6 nV(-+T) <
f  cos
* W tan 0( (24)

Figure 5 shows what happens when condition (24) is not met. In this real-time experiment CARMEL
traveled from "Start" to "Target." CARMEL was forced to travel alongside a wall which obstructed the
robot's path. Note that the "wall" was manually programmed into the histogram grid and is shown as a
straight line of dots which indicate filled cells in the histogram grid. Initially, the robot's path was fairly

Page 8
straight. However, a discontinuity in the wall (at =20o) caused the robot to enter into oscillatory and
unstable motion.

5.4 Oscillations in Narrow Passages

A similar yet more severe problem with PFMs

occurs when the robot travels in narrow corri-
dors, in which the robot experiences repulsive
forces simultaneously from opposite sides.

To analyze this problem we assume that the

robot moves in the middle of a long passage as
depicted in Fig. 6. At point Y = 4m the left wall
protrudes into the passage and causes a per-
turbation in the robot's path. Figure 6 shows the
path resulting from CARMEL traveling in a
wide (case a) and a narrow (case b) corridor. In
the wide corridor, a sudden change in the width
of the corridor causes the robot to smoothly
adjust its path. In the narrow corridor, however,
the sudden change excites the robot into unstable
oscillations and eventually a collision. A thor-
ough mathematical analysis shows that the
stability criterion for this case is

Ln+1 > 2nWnV(T+-)f (25)

Figure 6:
Motion in narrow corridors with fav=0.8, n=2, T=0.065sec,
Eq. (25) is the stability limit which relates the -=0.3sec, V=0.8m/sec.
robot parameters (W, V, and -) to the PFM a. Motion is stable if the corridor is sufficiently wide.
parameters (f and n,) and the environment pa- b. Unstable motion in a narrow corridor.
rameter L.

6. Conclusions
Based on a rigorous mathematical analysis, we have presented a systematic overview and a critical
discussion on the inherent problems of potential field methods (PFMs). Specifically, we have identified four
distinct drawbacks. Two of these drawbacks are related to the possibility of oscillations which become
apparent only when the PFM is implemented in a high-speed real-time system. Most researchers concentrate
their efforts on simulation programs of potential fields; they don't seem to be aware of the substantial,
possibly unresolvable problems that are bound to surface once actual implementation in an experimental
system is attempted. Other researchers work with actual mobile robots, but at slow speeds which conceal
the disadvantages of the PFMs.

Page 9
 For these reasons, we have abandoned potential field methods altogether, and developed a new method for
fast obstacle avoidance. This method, called the vector field histogram (VFH) method, produces smooth,
non-oscillatory motion, while sampling time and hardware are identical to those used in the VFF method.
The VFH method was introduced in [4].

This work was sponsored by the Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-86NE37969

7. References
[1] Andrews, J. R. and Hogan, N., "Impedance Control as a Framework for Implementing Obstacle
Avoidance in a Manipulator." Control of Manufacturing Processes and Robotic Systems, Eds. Hardt,
D. E. and Book, W., ASME, Boston, 1983, pp. 243-251.

[2] Arkin, R. C., "Motor Schema-Based Mobile Robot Navigation." The International Journal of Robotics
Research, August 1989, pp. 92-112.

[3] Borenstein, J. and Koren, Y., "Real-time Obstacle Avoidance for Fast Mobile Robots." IEEE Transac-
tions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 19, No. 5, Sept/Oct, 1989, pp. 1179-1187.

[4] Borenstein, J. and Koren, Y., "Real-time Obstacle Avoidance for Fast Mobile Robots in Cluttered
Environments." The 1990 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati,
Ohio, May 13-18, 1990, pp. 572-577.

[5] Brooks, R. A., "A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot." IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation, Vol. RA-2, No. 1, 1986, pp. 14-23.

[6] Cybermation, "K2A Mobile Platform." Commercial Offer, 5457 JAE Valley Road, Roanoke, VA
24014.

[7] Khatib, O., "Real-Time Obstacle Avoidance for Manipulators and Mobile Robots." 1985 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation, St. Louis, Missouri, March 25-28, 1990, pp.
500-505.

[8] Krogh, B. H. and Thorpe, C. E., "Integrated Path Planning and Dynamic Steering Control for
Autonomous Vehicles." Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, San Francisco, California, April 7-10, 1986, pp. 1664-1669.

[9] Moravec, H. P. and Elfes, A., "High Resolution Maps from Wide Angle Sonar." IEEE Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Washington D.C., 1985, pp. 116-121.

[10] Tilove, R. B., "Local Obstacle Avoidance for Mobile Robots Based on the Method of Artificial
Potentials." General Motors Research Laboratories, Research Publication GMR-6650, September
1989.

Page 10

View publication stats