Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Algorithm comparison in static environment
| Algorithm | Path length/m | Search time/s | Does the algorithm have the ability to handle dynamic obstacles |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-Star | 45.36 | 6.72 | No |
| IAPF | 48.00 | 10.43 | Yes |
| DWA | 48.86 | 28.21 | Yes |
| Hybrid algorithm | 46.54 | 8.14 | Yes |
Comparison of the effects of A-Star algorithm improvement
| Algorithm | Path length/m | Time for path finding/s | Number of expansion nodes | Is there a turning point |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-Star | 22.42 | 5.9 | 166 | Yes |
| Improved A-Star | 21.56 | 5.5 | 59 | No |
Results of algorithm comparison in real environment
| Path planning algorithm | Path length/m | Number of nodes passed through | Search time/s |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-Star Hybrid DWA | 3.66 | 126 | 54.42 |
| Hybrid algorithm in this paper | 3.24 | 92 | 48.36 |
Comparison results of improved algorithm
| Experiment Name | Algorithm | Path length/m | Run time/s | Number of cycles |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Path planning testing | APF | 49.970710 | 6.186677 | 447 |
| IAPF | 48.003037 | 5.430491 | 440 | |
| Complex obstacle testing | APF | ∞ | ∞ | ∞ |
| IAPF | 51.519690 | 6.801836 | 451 | |