Real-time Obstacle Avoidance of Hovercraft Based on
Follow the Gap with Dynamic Window Approach
Yuanhui Wang, Wenchao She, Mingyu Fu*
Fuguang Ding,
College of Automation
Harbin Engineering University
Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
wangyuanhui@hrbeu.edu.cn; shewenchao@163.com
fumingyu@hrbeu.edu.cn; dingfuguang@hrbeu.edu.cn
* corresponding author
Abstract—Considering the high-speed hovercraft navigation
safety and its complicated maneuvering and control performance,
it is necessary to study the real-time obstacle avoidance combined
with the hovercraft dynamics performance. This paper introduced
an improved Follow the Gap Method (FGM) with dynamic
window approach (DWA) considering the real-time hovercraft
dynamic performance to avoid obstacles. The traditional DWA is
used to find an appropriate velocity, that is the vehicle selects the
possible velocity in the admissible velocity space to avoid collision
during a specific time interval. And then choose the most
appropriate velocity by using an objective function. In addition,
this method mostly applies in vehicles with first-order
nonholonomic constraints such as automobile and has the problem
of performance decline applying in hovercraft. For the improved
DWA applied on hovercraft, the acceleration and deceleration
limits are added to the algorithm and the influence of the choice of
heading angle during collision avoidance process is more
emphasized. In this paper, follow the gap method is used to find
reference heading angle. FGM aims to find the optimal command
angle by selecting maximum gap in hovercraft’s view and
combining the maximum gap center azimuth with goal azimuth
using a heuristic and fusing function. Traditional FGM has the
problem of calculating difficulties in nonholonomic constraints
and ignoring the working scope of radar. The improved FGM
addresses these problems by restricting rudder angle and
classifying the obstacles. In this way, the collision avoidance goal
is achieved by properly guiding the heading angle and leading an
accessible velocity. Effectiveness of this combined algorithm as
well as the parameter regulation strategy is verified on a dynamic
simulative model of hovercraft.
Keywords—Hovercraft; dynamic obstacle avoidance; Follow the
Gap Method; dynamic window approach
I. INTRODUCTION
A hovercraft, known as an air-cushion vehicle or ACV, is a
craft capable of traveling over land, water, mud, ice, and other
surfaces. As a typical representative of high-speed ships, the
normal speed of hovercraft is up to 50 -60 knots. The high speed
of hovercrafts may cause maneuvering and control problems,
such as obstacle avoidance, dynamic instability, operation in
winds, and so on [1]. For marine navigation safety, it is always
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of
China under Grant 51209056.
978-1-5386-4814-8/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Shaoshi Dai
Deep Water Engineering Research Center
Harbin Engineering University
Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
daishaoshi@hrbeu.edu.cn
a difficult but important problem to study the high-speed ship
collision avoidance combined with the hovercraft dynamics
performance [2].
The collision avoidance approaches can be roughly divided
into two categories, global and local. This paper concentrate on
the local approach which uses no priori information of
surrounding environment to generate control law. Local
approach is not computationally expensive in general and
suitable for reacting to sudden changes in the environment [3].
In this way, it avoids unexpected obstacles autonomously and
dynamically. On the other hand, Global approach which is also
regarded as path planning, finds a most appropriate geometric
path from actual location to goal location by using a map which
contains priori information. This kind of approach is considered
efficiency only in a static situation and it is always expensive in
computation. There are many studies involved with static path
planning (e.g. Probabilistic Road-maps, Rapidly Exploring
Random Trees, Generalized Sampling Based Methods,
Visibility Graphs, Voronoi Diagrams and Cell Decomposition
Methods) [4]. Moe and Pettersen extended recent results in set-
based guidance theory to an underactuated surface vessel and
proved it is a great choice to use set-based guidance on control
design. It guarantees collision avoidance of moving and static
obstacles and ensures path following of a predefined desired
path at the same time [5,6].
FGM is a novel method for collision avoidance and was first
proposed by Volkan Sezer and Metin Gakasan at 2012 [4].
FGM is a kind of geometric method of obstacle avoidance
without any consideration on dynamics. It needs to calculate the
desired heading angle, but does not give linear and angular
velocity reference. It aims to choose maximum gap and adjust
command angle to the center of maximum gap as much as
possible. This novel algorithm is very easy since it has only one
parameter to tune. Because of its inherent properties in the
definition, it does not have local minimum problem compared
to some other methods, such as Artificial Potential Field
Approach, Virtual Force Field Method, and so on. An important
advantage of this method is that it is safer than other methods
in that it tends to guide the robot right in the middle of the
largest gap between obstacles. In [4], FGM concerns the
nonholonomic and the field of view constraints and takes the
nonholonomic constraint into account by set a minimum
turning radius. And then the Gap border will be achieved by
superimposing the field of view constraints with nonholonomic
movement constraint.
In this paper, the turning trajectory for hovercraft is not a
circle, so it is hard to calculate some of the distance parameters
in the dynamic path planning process. To compensate for
nonholonomic constraints, a restricted rudder angle of
hovercraft is applied. This compensation is acceptable in that
hovercraft is hard to turn because of its inner properties and the
feasible region will be too narrow after superimposition. The
alternative method is consistent with the original method. To
make the hovercraft’s collision avoidance processing closer to
reality, the range of radar border is superimposed with Gap
border of FGM furtherly.
Differently, DWA was first proposed by D. Fox, W. Burgard
and S. Thrun [7,8]. It was often used as a navigation scheme for
real-time obstacles avoidance with possible constraints of
kinematics and dynamics [9,10,11]. In the following years,
DWA is used as guidance system together with other
optimization method to get a better performance, such as
rapidly random trees, fuzzy logic, biomimetical ways and so on.
This method was modified by using prediction method and
applied on AUVs [3]. DWA is used to find an appropriate
velocity from the admissible velocity space to avoid collision.
And then choose the most appropriate velocity by using an
objective function. This approach, designed for mobile robots
equipped with synchro-drives, is derived directly from the
motion dynamics of the robot. But it did not give a specific
estimation function and the objective function has 4 parameters
which makes it hard to tune. In this paper, DWA is only used
as a velocity controller. Estimation function and the objective
function are modified and simplified to make it easy to tune.
FGM-DWA applies the strongest elements of FGM and
DWA methods to achieve safe, smooth and fast navigation
which is proposed with dynamic consideration [12,13]. Inspired
by above studies, an improved FGM-DWA dynamic obstacle
avoidance method acting on high-speed hovercraft is proposed.
The objective function also depends on the hovercraft
navigation performance by searching for suitable velocities
under dynamic constraints.
The architecture overview is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig.1 Architecture overview
The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives the
mathematical motion model of hovercraft. Section III A
introduces the definition of the problem and lists the 6 steps of
calculating reference heading angle using follow the gap
method. Section III B introduces the simplified DWA used as
velocity controller and section III C combined DWA with FGM
using a priority function. Section IV verifies the proposed
advanced FGM-DWA methods by a series of hovercraft
obstacle avoidance simulation experiments. Section V draws a
conclusion of this paper.
II. DYNAMICS OF HOVERCRAFT
The 4 degrees of freedom (DOF) kinetics differential
equations for hovercraft are obtained according to momentum
theorem as follows:
mሺuሶ -vrሻ=Fx
‫ۓ‬
mሺvሶ +urሻ=Fy
 (1)
‫ ۔‬Ix pሶ =Mx
‫ ە‬Iz rሶ=Mz
Where m is the hovercraft mass, u, v, p and r denote the surge,
sway, roll and yaw velocity in the body-fixed reference frame
{b}, Ix and Iz represent the moment of inertia around x axis and
z axis, Fx ǡ Fy ǡ Mx ƒ†Mz are the force and moment acting on
the hovercraft hull.
And the 4 degrees of freedom (DOF) kinematics differential
equations are presented as follows:
šሶ ൌ —…‘•ɗ െ ˜•‹ɗ…‘•ɔ
‫›ۓ‬ሶ ൌ —•‹ɗ െ ˜…‘•ɗ…‘•ɔ
 ɔሶ ൌ ’ (2)
‫۔‬
‫ە‬ ɗሶ ൌ ”…‘•ɔ
Where x, y, ɔand ɗ denote the surge position, sway position,
roll angle and yaw angle in the North-East-Down (NED)
coordinate system {n}.
Combining the kinetics differential equations and kinematics
differential equations, motion state parameters of hovercraft
can be calculated in real time by using 4 order Runge-Kutta
method.
 III. FOLLOW THE GAP METHOD COMBINED WITH DYNAMIC
WINDOW APPROACH
A. Follow The Gap Method
The following assumptions have been employed to make
FGM available to solve the problem.
Assumption 1: Both hovercraft and the obstacles are circle
with minimum radius to include all physical boundaries. To
simplify the problem, the distance between the nth obstacle to
the hovercraft is indicated as †௡ , the radius of the nth obstacle
is indicated as ”௢௕̴௡ , the radius of hovercraft is indicated as ”௛௢ .
If this situation satisfies (3), the collision will happen.
limitation of information to obstacles. The obstacles around
hovercraft can be classified into 4 situations based on its
possibility of collision occurrence.
To make all the collision situation clear, two rays and its
extension separate the area into 4 (i.e. bow section, starboard
section, port section and stern section), as is shown in Fig. 2.
This method tolerates the obstacles in the stern section because
the evasive motion will be conducted by the behind vehicle. If
the distance between hovercraft and the nth obstacle †௡ , the
radius of the nth obstacle ”௢௕̴௡ and the radius of hovercraft ”௛௢
satisfy (4), the nth obstacle has intersections with the range of
radar (”௥௔ௗ௢௥ ).

 ”௢௕̴௡ ൅ ”௛௢ ൑ †௡ (3)  ”௢௕̴௡ ൅ ”௛௢ ൅ ”௥௔ௗ௢௥ ൐ †௡ (4)

In addition, the radius of hovercraft ”௛௢ is added to the radius If the nth obstacle satisfies (5), it is inside the range of radar
of obstacle and assume the hovercraft to be a particle. (”௥௔ௗ௢௥ ), otherwise outside.
Assumption 2: The hovercraft does not have priori
 ”௥௔ௗ௢௥ ൐ †௡ (5)
information about obstacle and has a sector field of view which
is shown in Fig. 2. The sector is the range of radar (sensor If the nth obstacle is in the starboard section or port section,
arrangement) set on the hovercraft which is heading to the bow. nth obstacle is outside the range of radar and has no intersection
This area is constrained by two rays and an arc, left ray angle with the range of radar border if satisfy (6), where †௥௜௚௛௧̴௡ is
ɗ௟௘௙௧ , right ray angle ɗ௥௜௚௛௧ , arc radius ”௥௔ௗ௢௥ . the distance from nth obstacle to the right ray and †௟௘௙௧̴௡ is the
distance from nth obstacle to the left ray.
”௢௕̴௡ ൅ ”௛௢ ൏ †௥௜௚௛௧̴௡
 (6)
”௢௕̴௡ ൅ ”௛௢ ൏ †௟௘௙௧̴௡
Further details will be shown in Table I and Fig. 3.
TABLE I TRUTH TABLE
Section Formula4 Formula5 Formula6 Remarks
Bow Satisfy Satisfy -- Situation 1

Bow Satisfy Dissatisfy -- Situation 2

Bow Dissatisfy -- -- Neglect

Starboard Satisfy Satisfy Satisfy Situation 1

Starboard Satisfy Dissatisfy Satisfy Situation 2

Starboard Satisfy Dissatisfy Dissatisfy Neglect

Starboard Dissatisfy -- -- Neglect

Fig. 2 The diagram of radar range
Based on above assumptions, the aim of collision avoidance Port Satisfy Satisfy Satisfy Situation 1
method is to achieve the goal while avoiding obstacles as large Port Satisfy Dissatisfy Satisfy Situation 2
distance as possible. FGM aims to turning the head of
Port Satisfy Dissatisfy Dissatisfy Neglect
hovercraft to the center of largest gap in the field of vision.
There are six steps of calculating command heading angle. Port Dissatisfy -- -- Neglect

Step 1: Construct a sector area at particle. Stern -- -- -- Neglect

The midline of sector is also the midline of hovercraft on

overhead plane. As is shown in Fig. 2, the angle between North
axis and center ray is yaw angle ɗ. In this paper, hovercraft has
a total 120° and 2000m range of view.
Step 2: Classify the obstacles.
Only the obstacles have intersection with the range of radar
border are taken into consideration, which implies the
 will be calculated according to (9), where ߰௟௘௙௧௟௜௠ is left border
of the largest gap and ߰௥௜௚௛௧௟௜௠ is the right border of the largest
gap.
߰௟௘௙௧௟௜௠ ൅ ߰௥௜௚௛௧௟௜௠
 ߠ௚௔௣ ൌ (9)
ʹ
Step 5: Calculation of Goal angle.
Goal angle is essential for follow the gap method and it can
be calculated either based on global planning or pure pursuit
(PP)ways. In this paper, formula (10) is used to calculate
reference goal angle, where ሺ‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ ǡ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ ሻ is the goal position
and ሺ‫ݔ‬௣௢ ǡ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ሻ݅‫ ݏ‬the instant position of hovercraft.
‫ݕ‬ െ ‫ݕ‬௣௢
‫ۓ‬െ ƒ”…–ƒ ቆ ௚௢௔௟ ቇ ൅ ͻͲ
ۖ ‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
ۖ ǡ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ ൐ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ܽ݊݀‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ ൐ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
ۖ
Fig. 3 Possible positions of obstacles ۖെ ƒ”…–ƒ ቆ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ቇ െ ͻͲ
Step 3: Construct a gap array around the hovercraft and find ۖ ‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
ۖ
the maximum gap. ǡ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ ൐ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ܽ݊݀‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ ൏ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
ߠ௚௢௔௟ ൌ  (10)
The gap border angle comes from the field of view constraint ‫۔‬ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݕ‬௣௢
െ ƒ”…–ƒ ቆ ቇ ൅ ͻͲ
ɗ௟௘௙௧ and ɗ௥௜௚௛௧ . Calculation will be applied differently based ۖ ‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
ۖ
on the classified obstacles. In the first situation (Situation 1), ǡ ‫ݕ‬
ۖ ௚௢௔௟ ൏ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ܽ݊݀‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ ൐ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
tangent angle is calculated according to (7). In the second ۖ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݕ‬௣௢
situation (Situation 2), intersection angle is calculated ۖെ ƒ”…–ƒ ቆ ቇ െ ͻͲ
ۖ ‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ െ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
according to (8).
‫ ە‬ǡ ‫ݕ‬௚௢௔௟ ൏ ‫ݕ‬௣௢ ܽ݊݀‫ݔ‬௚௢௔௟ ൏ ‫ݔ‬௣௢
”௢௕ ൅ ”௛௢ FGM can be well combined with global methods.
 ɗ௧௚ ൌ ߰ ‫‹•…”ƒ ט‬ሺ ೙ ሻ (7)
†௡
Step 6: Use a heuristic and fusing function
† ଶ൅” ଶ
െ ሺ”௢௕೙ ൅ ”௛௢ ሻଶ
 ɗ௜௦ ൌ ߰ ‫•‘……”ƒ ט‬ሺ ௡ ௥௔ௗ௢௥ ʹ†௡ ”௥௔ௗ௢௥
ሻ (8) A heuristic and fusing function will be used to calculate
As is shown in Fig. 4, the region between tangent line or reference heading angle between the maximum gap and goal
intersection line is shaded. The maximum gap will be find in angle according to (11) in each time instant of simulation
the remained non-shaded region. program running.

 +
dmin gap goal
guide =
K (11)
+1
dmin

Where dmin is the distance to the nearest obstacle, gƒ’ is the

angle pointing to the safest gap, goal is the goal angle and K is
a weight coefficient for the gap.

B. Dynamic Window Approach

Fig. 4 Feasible gaps after calculating
Step 4: Calculation of the gap center angle.
Following the gap center angle ensures that the hovercraft
will be guided to the center of maximum gap. Gap center angle
DWA mainly include two steps. The first step is to cut
velocity space and remove excess velocity. The second step is
to find the most acceptable velocity according to the objective
function.
The commands controlling vehicle is carried out in the space
of velocity. DWA considers the search space of velocities and
obtains admissible velocity space according to (12)~(15).
Va =൛v|vඥ2·dist(v)·vሶ † ൟ (12)

Va is considered as the acceptable velocity at which the
vehicle can stop before it reaches this obstacle. vሶ † is the
maximum deceleration for brakeage at this velocity and dist(v) hovercraft should move straight forward to the target at a
is the distance between the hovercraft and the nearest obstacle relatively high speed. See (18) for details.
(within the radar range).
 ƒ†
ǡ † ൏ ͳʹͲͲ
ˆ—…ሺ†ሻ ൌ ൝
 ƒ† — ൌ ͳͷȀ•ǡ ͳʹͲͲ ൑ † ൑ ʹͲͲͲ (18)
 Vd =ሼv|vęሾ—-˜ୢሶ ‫ڄ‬t,—+˜ୟሶ ‫ڄ‬tሿሽ (13)
 ƒ† — ൌ ʹͲȀ•ǡ † ൐ ʹͲͲͲ
Vd is the velocity space which takes the limited
accelerations exerted by taking the propeller into account.
Where u is instant velocity of hovercraft, ˜ୢሶ and ˜ୟሶ are the
maximum deceleration and acceleration the hovercraft can get,
and t is set to be a small value (i.e. the simulation step length
0.01s in this paper).

 V• =ሼv|vęሾ—୫୧୬ ǡ —୫ୟ୶ ሿሽ (14)

Vs is the normal speed range of working where —୫୧୬ is set Fig. 5. Different operating modes depending on distance
to 3m/s and —୫ୟ୶ is set to 35m/s. Because hovercrafts working
either at a too fast speed or a too slow speed will cause losing IV. SIMULATION STUDY
control.
The combined FGM-DWA method is applied on hovercraft
(15) simulation model which based on actual hovercraft. The force
 V” =Vƒ Vd Vs
analysis is carried out separately for aerodynamics,
Where V” is defined as the intersection of the probable hydrodynamics, airscrew force, rudder force, and so on. The
velocities. initial values of some main parameters in the simulation codes
Then, the velocity is chosen from the remaining velocities are listed in Table II. The influence of wind and currents have
which maximizes the objective function as follows. been neglected.
TABLE II INITIAL VALUES FOR PARAMETERS
 Gሺvሻ=velሺvሻ (16)
Parameter Initial value Parameter Initial Value
Gሺvሻ is the objective function which chooses the most Step Length 0.01 s w 0
appropriate velocity. Gሺvሻ in this paper is a simplification of
previous objective function which combines heading, distance Sampling Time 0.5 s p 0
and velocity together to choose a suitable velocity pair. The
n 0 q 0
simplified version only use it as a speed controller rather than a
complete collision avoidance system. e 0 r 0

െͲǤͲͲͲͻ͹͸͸ ଶ ൅ ͲǤͲͲͷͺͷͻ ൅ ͲǤͻͻͳʹ d 0 š୥୭ୟ୪ 12000m

ǡ …‘†‹–‹‘ͳ ɔ ›୥୭ୟ୪
 velሺvሻ ൌ ൞ െͲǤͲͲͲͺͳ͸͵ ‫ כ‬ଶ ൅ ͲǤͲͷ͹ͳͶ (17) 0 12000m
Linear
ǡ ‡Ž•‡ Ʌ 0 0
Acceleration
Where condition 1 means there is a obstacle dead ahead and Angular
ɗ 45° 0
its distance to hovercraft is less than 2000m(i.e. radar range); the Acceleration
aim of these two functions is to lead an appropriate speed, u 15.42 m/s Propeller Speed 1167 r/s
neither too fast nor too slow; the first quadratic function takes
the maximum value 1 at 3m/s and the second one takes the v 0 Rudder Angle 0
maximum value 1 at 35m/s. Two PID controllers are cascaded to smooth the command
angle obtained from FGM and the command speed obtained
C. Priority Function from DMA. Parameters KP, KI and KD were optimized
As has been mentioned, FGM and DWA which respectively separately during the process of adding the controller to the
guides a proper heading angle and leads an accessible velocity system.
are introduced and improved in this paper. To achieve a better
control results. Guidance system has to choose when to use the To verify validity of this method, 8 static obstacles are set
combination of FGM and DWA or use one of them. As is shown randomly on its position and radius before simulation. The
in Fig. 5. If the distance is within Dist1 (i.e. 1200m in this paper), minimum radius of obstacles is the radius of hovercraft. As is
distance is the primary factor, hovercraft should maintain a safe shown in Fig. 6, these two figures are two typical examples.
distance from obstacles. If it is between Dist1 (i.e. 1200m in this
paper) and Dist2 (i.e. 2000m in this paper), heading is the
primary factor, hovercraft should be leaded into a proper
heading angle and work on a moderate speed. If it exceeds Dist2
(i.e. 2000m in this paper), velocity is the primary factor,
 obstacles position system to be linear. Here is the simulation result of linear
acceleration and deceleration performance of hovercraft, shown
9000 in Table III.
8000 TABLE III
7000 LINEAR ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION PERFORMANCE
Speed ࢇࢉ‫ܠ܉ܕ‬ ࢊࢉ‫ܠ܉ܕ‬ Speed ࢇࢉ‫ܠ܉ܕ‬ ࢊࢉ‫ܠ܉ܕ‬
6000
(m/s) (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s) (m/s2) (m/s2)
North (m)

5000 34.04 0 -1.269 15.42 1.098 -0.301

4000 31.63 0.166 -1.031 11.29 1.283 -0.307
3000 29.15 0.354 -0.828 9.37 1.372 -0.241
2000
26.59 0.525 -0.775 7.9 1.408 -0.155
1000
23.96 0.677 -0.515 6.19 1.436 -0.07
0
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 21.26 0.833 -0.537 4.46 1.48 -0.049
East (m)
19.88 0.942 -0.392 2.69 1.511 0
Fig. 6a Random obstacles in seed 2
18.25 0.97 -0.383 0 2.122 0

FGM does not have local minimum problems except dead

end scenarios such as U-shaped obstacles. FGM selects the
maximum gap in its view and this provides FGM to move if at
least one gap exists. DWA is used as a supplement to control
working speed. Fig. 7 shows a typical result of FGM-DWA
using as a collision avoidance system. The goal position is set
North (m)

to (12000m,12000m).

Trajectory
12000 goal position
(10879.80,11264.51)
11000

10000

9000

8000

7000
North (m)

Fig. 6b Random obstacles in seed 3 6000

The structure of the program codes is displayed as follows. 5000

4000
Pseudocode 1
3000
Initialization;
Create random static obstacles; 2000
Start of loop body 1000
Load the result of the last moment;
Using 4 order Runge-Kutta method to solve differential equations and 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
get the motion state and attitude of hovercraft and other essential East (m)
parameters of this moment;
Calculation of essential parameters; Fig.7a Trajectory of hovercraft
Determine which method to use;
PID of rotation speed;
Calculation of propeller force;
PID of heading angle;
Calculation of rudder force;
Calculation of aerodynamics;
Calculation of hydrodynamics;
Calculation of gravity;
Store results;
End of loop body
Tuning parameter K is selected as 2500.
The value of maximum acceleration and deceleration of (12)
and (13) can be get by using experimental method. It also can
be get by calculating the ratio of force to mass, assuming the
 Heading Linear acceleration
80 10

vd (m/(s*s))
70 5

60 0

50
Heading (deg)

-5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
40 t (s)
Angular acceleration
0.1
30

rd (deg/(s*s))
0.05
20

0
10

0 -0.05
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
t (s) t (s)

Fig. 7b Heading of hovercraft Fig. 7e Linear acceleration and angular acceleration of hovercraft

u minimum distance
21 2000

1800
20
1600

19 1400
surge speed (m/s)

1200
distance(m)

18
1000
17
800

16 600

400
15
200

14 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
t (s) t (s)
Fig. 7c Surge speed of hovercraft Fig. 7f Minimum distance from obstacles to hovercraft

Roll angle The average of minimum value of †௡ is 985.36m (neglecting

8
the value which larger than 2000m), minimum of minimum
6 value of †௡ is 359.1m.
4 The effectiveness of FGM-DWA applied on high speed
hovercraft is proven. It can be clearly seen from Fig. 7a to Fig.
2
7f, the initial speed of hovercraft is 15.42 m/s and get into the
roll a ngle (deg)

0 state of velocity-first immediately. At about 117s, the

hovercraft finds obstacles for the first time within its radar
-2
range and switches its modes between heading-first and
-4 distance-first from time to time until it is far away from
obstacles (i.e. 1200m). At last it gets to the state of velocity-
-6
first again at about 975s.
-8

-10
V. CONCLUSION
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
t (s) The combination of improved FGM and simplified DWA
Fig. 7d Roll angle of hovercraft
which is applied on hovercraft avoiding collisions is present in
this paper. The proposed method is proven to be successful in
guiding a high-speed vehicle (i.e. hovercraft) from an arbitrary
initial location to the goal location without collision with static
obstacles. Because of its simplicity and easiness, it can be
applied on other marine crafts, mobile robots or aircrafts. The
most impressive advantage of this method is its safety and
easiness of tuning. Another advantage is that it can be combined
with kinds of global planning methods. Despite satisfying
simulation results, a more accurate mathematical model should
be established which takes complex environment factors into
account. Moreover, moving obstacle as well as FGM-DWA
optimization solution should be concerned in the further
research.
REFERENCES
[1] Fein, J. A., A. H. Magnuson, and D. D. Moran. "Dynamic performance
characteristics of an air cushion vehicle." Journal of Hydronautics 9.1
(1975): 13-24.
[2] Tao, M., and W. Chengjie. "Hovercraft performance and skirt-cushion
system dynamics design." (2012).air
[3] B. O. H. Eriksen, M. Breivik, K. Y. Pettersen and M. S. Wiig, "A modified
dynamic window algorithm for horizontal collision avoidance for AUVs,"
2016 IEEE Conference on Control Applications (CCA), Buenos Aires,
2016, pp. 499-506.
[4] Sezer, Volkan, and Metin Gokasan. "A novel obstacle avoidance
algorithm:“Follow the Gap Method”." Robotics and Autonomous
Systems 60.9 (2012): 1123-1134.
[5] S. Moe and K. Y. Pettersen, "Set-based Line-of-Sight (LOS) path
following with collision avoidance for underactuated unmanned surface
vessel," 2016 24th Mediterranean Conference on Control and
Automation (MED), Athens, 2016, pp. 402-409.
[6] Moe, Signe, and Kristin Y. Pettersen. "Set-Based line-of-sight (LOS) path
following with collision avoidance for underactuated unmanned surface
vessels under the influence of ocean currents." Control Technology and
Applications (CCTA), 2017 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 2017.
[7] D. Fox, W. Burgard and S. Thrun, "Controlling synchro-drive robots with
the dynamic window approach to collision avoidance," Intelligent Robots
and Systems '96, IROS 96, Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on, Osaka, 1996, pp. 1280-1287 vol.3.
[8] D. Fox, W. Burgard and S. Thrun, "The dynamic window approach to
collision avoidance," in IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 23-33, Mar 1997.
[9] Brock, Oliver, and Oussama Khatib. "High-speed navigation using the
global dynamic window approach." Robotics and Automation, 1999.
Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on. Vol. 1. IEEE, 1999.
[10] Ogren, Petter, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard. "A convergent dynamic
window approach to obstacle avoidance." IEEE Transactions on
Robotics 21.2 (2005): 188-195.
[11] Y. Kang and A. C. Victorino, "Human-vehicle cooperative driving using
Image-based Dynamic Window Approach: System design and
simulation," 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, 2016, pp. 2487-2492.
[12] A. Özdemir and V. Sezer, "A Hybrid Obstacle Avoidance Method:
Follow the Gap with Dynamic Window Approach," 2017 First IEEE
International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC), Taichung, 2017,
pp. 257-262.
[13] Özdemir, Aykut, and Volkan Sezer. "Follow the Gap with Dynamic
Window Approach." International Journal of Semantic Computing 12.01
(2018): 43-57.