I.
INTRODUCTION
UAV Path Planning with
Tangent-plus-Lyapunov Vector
Field Guidance and Obstacle
Avoidance
HONGDA CHEN
KUOCHU CHANG
George Mason University
CRAIG S. AGATE
Toyon Research Corporation
A dynamic path-planning algorithm is proposed for routing
unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) in order to track ground targets
under path constraints, wind effects, and obstacle avoidance
requirements. We first present the tangent vector field guidance
(TVFG) and the Lyapunov vector field guidance (LVFG)
algorithms. We demonstrate that the TVFG outperforms the
LVFG as long as a tangent line is available between the UAV’s
turning circle and an objective circle, which is a desired orbit
pattern over a target. Based on a hybrid version of the TVFG
and LVFG, we then derive a theoretically shortest path algorithm
with UAV operational constraints given a target position and the
current UAV dynamic state. This algorithm has the efficiency of
the TVFG when UAV is outside the standoff circle and the ability
to follow the path via the LVFG when inside the standoff circle.
In addition we adopt point-mass approximation of the target state
probability density function (pdf) for target motion prediction
by exploiting road network information and target dynamics
as well as obstacle avoidance strategies. Overall, the proposed
technical approach is practical and competitive, supported by
solid theoretical analysis on several aspects of the algorithm
performance. With extensive simulations we show that the
tangent-plus-Lyapunov vector field guidance (T+LVFG) algorithm
provides effective and robust tracking performance in various
scenarios, including a target moving according to waypoints or
a random kinematics model in an environment that may include
obstacles and/or winds.
Manuscript received March 18, 2011; revised October 7, 2011, and
January 27 and March 29, 2012; released for publication June 14,
2012.
IEEE Log No. T-AES/49/2/944504.
Refereeing of this contribution was handled by W. Koch.
Authors’ current addresses: H. Chen, Sigma Space Corporation,
4600 Forbes Blvd., Lanham, MD 20706; K. Chang, Department
of Systems Engineering and Operations Research, George Mason
University, MS 4A6, 4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA 22030,
E-mail: (kchang@gmu.edu); C. S. Agate, Algorithms R&D, Toyon
Research Corporation, Goleta, CA 93117.
0018-9251/13/$26.00 °
c 2013 IEEE
840 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
Path planning for multiple unmanned air vehicles
(UAVs) to cooperatively track ground targets is an
important research topic with approaches varying from
classical optimal trajectory planning to bio-inspired
swarm behavior [1—4]. There are many complex
factors involved in creating a realistic path, such as
obstacles, threats, the presence of multiple UAVs,
uncertainty in the environment, and multiple tasks
per UAV. The path-planning problem for a UAV
tracking a ground target was typically formulated
as an optimal control problem [5—9], consisting of a
system dynamic, a set of boundary conditions, control
constraints, and an object function. Traditionally,
the objective function can be expressed as the cost
associated with the UAV state trajectory along
the path from a UAV’s initial state to a desired
state. The objective function is to be minimized
in order to produce an optimal control solution.
However, the overall costs will be UAV dependent
and could include factors such as power (battery, gas)
consumption, communication, mission scheduling with
multiple UAVs, and so on. Past approaches include
nonlinear programming [10—12], optimization and
stochastic sampling [13—14], search methods [15—19],
and evolution based approaches [20—21].
Assuming that each UAV has the resources to
complete its tracking assignment, the cost function
could be dramatically simplified. In this paper the
only physical limitations we consider are a UAV’s
maximum turn rate and a nominal cruising speed.
Consequently, the simplified objective considered
here is to minimize the UAV’s flight path length, such
that given a UAV’s initial state and a desired final
state, the objective is to find the shortest trajectory
between them with possible constraints. The focus
of the paper is to develop a dynamic path-planning
algorithm for routing UAVs to track ground targets
under path constraints, wind effects, and obstacle
avoidance requirements.
In the case of obstacle-free environments, the
control solution of the objective generally is a set
of UAV waypoints and speeds passed to a UAV
autopilot system (AP) for low-level control [22—23].
Past approaches for trajectory planning include the
map-based approach [24—25], target-based approach
with possible coordination between multiple UAVs
[26—29], and coordinated planning under potential
uncertain environments [30—32]. Considering UAV’s
limitations of turning rate and speed constraints, an
accurate UAV motion model is required to insure that
its AP can reach the waypoints. The shortest path
involves flying a constant turning rate path. If we
consider varying the UAV speed, a shorter distance
solution is available such that UAV initially slows to
achieve maximum turning rate, then accelerates along
tangent line. Finally, UAV decelerates on final circle
to achieve desired velocity.
In reality often there are obstacles or constraints
such as a no-flight zone to restrict UAV flight path
[33—37]. Vision-based navigation and guidance
strategy for collision avoidance are traditionally
used in the literature [44—48]. In this paper we
develop a novel UAV routing algorithm with an
obstacle avoidance strategy. The algorithm combines
the tangent vector field guidance (TVFG) [38]
path-planning approach with the Lyapunov vector
field guidance (LVFG) algorithm [39—41] to obtain
a theoretically shortest path with UAV operational
constraints given a target position and the current
UAV dynamic state. This hybrid algorithm, called
tangent-plus-Lyapunov vector field guidance
(T+LVFG), has the advantage of the TVFG when
UAV is outside the standoff circle and presents the
ability to follow the path via the LVFG when inside
the standoff circle.
Given the assumption that the UAV has been given
the initial state (position/velocity) information about
the target of interest and that the UAV could observe
the latest target state information with its own sensor
in a tracking stage, we first determine the approximate
location of target at intercept time. Then, a desired
UAV state (at the planning horizon time) is chosen
based on three factors: 1) UAV position is located on
the circle of a predefined radius about target; 2) UAV
speed is selected based on the target speed (matched
if possible); and 3) UAV heading is the same to the
target. Usually, the estimated intercept location is
less accurate when UAV is farther away. However,
the replanning interval is normally shorter than the
planning horizon so that accuracy of prediction
improves as UAV approaches target. Moreover,
considering target location uncertainty or probability
of detecting target at a desired location, we propose
to use a particle filter to predict target location
probability density function (pdf). A point-mass
approximation of the target state pdf is stochastically
simulated using a ground vehicle motion model that
exploits road network and other information. Once we
generate a predicted target state pdf, we determine
an “optimal” UAV location that maximizes the
probability of detecting the target. When obstacles or
constraints are present to restrict the UAV flight path,
we model the obstacles as a circular region similar to
the standoff circles. The obstacle avoidance strategy is
then developed by considering the path with obstacles
and determining the best path to go around them with
the similar TVFG concept mentioned earlier. Overall,
the main contribution of this research is the newly
proposed path-planning method, which is able to
provide a shortest path for a UAV tracking a target, to
utilize particle filters for target motion predictions and
to avoid identified obstacles in generating the optimal
paths.
CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section II the model and solution methodology of
UAV flight guidance used to create the path plans
in the search of an uncertain, dynamic, and windy
environment [42] is reviewed. T+LVFG is described
in detail. Section III introduces the particle approach
for target motion prediction to maximize target
detection probability. Target-location particles and
how they are utilized in the stochastic simulations
are discussed. The calculation of UAV coverage
probabilities is derived analytically. In Section IV
obstacle avoidance strategies are presented and
analyzed. Section V gives a set of demonstrations
to validate the techniques in multiple different
environments. Finally, Section VI concludes the
paper.
II. UAV FLIGHT GUIDANCE
The UAV autopilot system is developed
to accomplish more complex tasks, operate in
uncertain and dynamic environments, and eventually
allow integration with other UAVs to accomplish
coordinated missions. Its command signal is produced
by the guidance system with respect to UAV state
variables. The algorithms presented here assume that
the UAV is equipped with a low-level control system
so that vector field guidance indications can present a
kinematic model to the guidance layer.
In an obstacle-free environment the dynamic
path-planning algorithm requires the following
information about the system state: 1) the predicted
target state, 2) the current UAV state, and 3) the
desired UAV state. Specifically, a two-dimensional
(2D) position and velocity target state is defined by
[xt , x_ t , yt , y_ t ]; the UAV inertial state is [xu , x_ u , yu , y_ u ]; the
relative state of the UAV to the target is [xr , x_ r , yr , y_ r ];
and the desired UAV state is [xd , x_ d , yd , y_ d ]. It is
necessary to mention that all state vectors are time
dependent, however, the time variable (t) is not
presented for simplicity. In practice the UAV inertial
state at any time step is known, and the target state
is estimated from collected sensor data. The desired
UAV state is given by the following conditions: 1) the
UAV is positioned on a circle of fixed radius around
the estimated target location; 2) the UAV’s heading is
equal to the target’s heading; and 3) the UAV’s speed
is equal to the target’s speed unless the target speed
is less than the UAV’s minimal speed; in which case,
the UAV’s speed is set to its minimum. The UAV’s
desired state is, therefore, dependent on the target state
and can be determined through different approaches.
For example, in the left diagram of Fig. 1,
UAV starts at point “A” with initial velocity v1 =
[x_ u (t1 ), y_ u (t1 )] and ends at desired endpoint “G” with
velocity v2 = [x_ d (t2 ), y_ d (t2 )]. It is obvious that the size
of a UAV’s turning circle depends on its speed. The
optimal path (minimal traveling distance) follows A !
841
 Fig. 1. UAV path planning (L) and selected path (R).

B ! C ! D ! E ! F ! G, in which the “BC” circles

correspond to the minimal turning radius (slowest
speed), the large dotted circle (with the tangent line
CD) corresponds to maximal UAV cruising speed,
the “AB” circle corresponds to the initial UAV speed, Fig. 2. Clockwise LVFG with Rt = 30 m.
and the “EF” circle corresponds to the final desirable
standoff circle. The optimal path from A to G can be
illustrated as in the right side of Fig. 1, in which the be nonpositive by choosing a desired relative vehicle
UAV first slows down to follow a minimum turning velocity [x_ d , y_ d ]T according to the guidance vector
circle, then it speeds up to a maximum speed along a field, such that [41]
tangent line, and finally it slows down again to reach · ¸ · 2 ¸· ¸
x_ d r ¡ Rt2 2rRt xr
the desired standoff circle. Therefore, the optimal = ¡¸ 2 2
(2)
y_ d ¡2rRt r ¡ Rt yr
control problem can be described as: given the UAV
position and velocity at points A and G, find the in an anticlockwise direction, or
points B/C/D/E/F such that the cost function (travel · ¸ · 2 ¸· ¸
x_ d r ¡ Rt2 ¡2rRt xr
distance) is minimized. In the subsequent section we = ¡¸ (3)
show that the shortest path is found using what we y_ d 2rRt r2 ¡ Rt2 yr
call tangent vector guidance. in a clockwise direction, where ¸ is a nonnegative
normalization factor. With (2) and (3) the velocity
A. Lyapunov Vector Field Guidance
field vectors produce a nonpositive rate of change of
Using an LVFG law [40—41], the guidance of a ¡ (¢). If ¸ is larger than zero, ¡ (¢) is zero and invariant
UAV to an observation ‘orbit’ around a target can be only on the standoff circle (r = Rt ), which ensures
determined by building a vector field that has a stable that the vector field produces a globally attractive
limit cycle centered around the target position. The limit cycle [41]. For example, Fig. 2 illustrates the
UAV is assumed to be able to move freely but only in guidance vectors surrounding a stationary target in the
the direction of its orientation. As defined in [39] the clockwise orientation. It is clear that a path following
UAV dynamics can be modeled as the field vectors from any point will end up on a
circle of radius equal to the specified standoff distance
x_ u = V ¢ cos μ; y_ u = V ¢ sin μ; μ_u = w (1)
(shown in black).
where the inputs V and w denote lateral and angular
B. Tangent Vector Field Guidance
velocity, whose constraints are given by vmin · V ·
vmax and ¡® · w · ®. A UAV traveling at constant In [38] we proposed a dynamic path-planning
speed without slipping will experience a minimum algorithm for a UAV that was tracking a ground
turning radius so that the angular velocity is bounded target. A theoretically optimal path based on the
by jwj · V=R. Given the two-dimensional inertial TVFG was derived with UAV operational constraints
position of the aircraft [xu , yu ]T and its relative given a target position and the current UAV kinematic
position to the target p = [xr , yr ]T , a Lyapunov vector state. The limitation of TVFG is that the UAV must
field law can be applied to determine the guidance of be outside the standoff circle; otherwise, a tangent line
a UAV by calculating the desired velocity. Consider does not exist, and the TVFG cannot provide proper
the Lyapunov
p function ¡ (p) = (r2 ¡ Rt2 )2 in which guidance.
2 2
r = xr + yr is the radial distance of the UAV from In general, for any 2D point (xu , yu ) outside of an
the target and Rt is the radius of the standoff circle. objective circle with radius Rc and center (xc , yc ), we
The total time derivative of ¡ (p) can be specified to can easily calculate two tangent points on the circle,

842 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
 target [xt , yt ]T with velocity [x_ t , y_ t ]T , the UAV model
may be simply modified as
x_ r = V ¢ cos μ + Wx ¡ x_ t (7)
y_ r = V ¢ sin μ + Wy ¡ y_ t (8)
where Wx and Wy are the components of the
background (horizontal and vertical) wind velocity.
To compare the performance of the two guidance
laws in a more rigorous manner, we introduce distance
and time efficiency measures to evaluate the UAV
path-planning efficiency. The distance between
UAV and target is denoted as “d.” The relative UAV
heading direction to the target is denoted ½, and ®
is the relative direction of Wind. The distance and
time efficiency are then defined as Dx =d and Tx V̄=d,
respectively. Here, Dx denotes the UAV total flight
Fig. 3. Clockwise TVFG with Rt = 30 m.
distance to the objective circle, and Tx is the total time
used to travel to the objective circle. V̄ is the average
speed of UAV. Notice that, in the case of a UAV
such that with constant speed, the time efficiency and distance
q efficiency are equivalent.
Rc2 Rc
x1,2 = (x ¡ x ) ¨ (y ¡ y ) ru2 ¡ Rc2 + xc Figure 4 plots two example trajectories when ½ = 0
ru2 u c
ru2 u c

q (4) and ½ = ¼, respectively. The UAV speed is constant

R2 R at 14 m/s, the turning limit is ¼=6, and the sampling
y1,2 = 2c (yu ¡ yc ) § 2c (xu ¡ xc ) ru2 ¡ Rc2 + yc
ru ru
p 30 m, the target is located at (0, 0), and the initial
where ru = (xu ¡ xc )2 + (yu ¡ yc )2 . In that case,
assuming that [xo , yo ]T is the tangent point on the
standoff circle, the UAV direction angle can be
determined as
· ¸
y ¡ yo
Ár = tan¡1 u : (5)
xu ¡ xo
The desired relative vehicle velocity according to the
guidance vector field is
· ¸ · ¸
x_ d cos Ár
= ¸2 ¢ (6)
y_ d sin Ár
where ¸2 is a nonnegative normalization factor.
For example, Fig. 3 visualizes the TVFG vectors
surrounding a stationary target with clockwise
orientation. It is clear that a path following the field
vectors from any point will end up on a circle of
radius equal to the specified standoff distance (shown
in black). Moreover, it is easy to show the following
result.
PROPOSITION 1 As long as the tangent lines are
available between a UAV’s turning circle and an
objective circle, TVFG provides more efficient (in the
sense of shorter path) path planning than LVFG.
The proof of Proposition 1 is provided in
Appendix I. Essentially, this proposition states that
TVFG performs strictly better than LVFG when UAV
is outside the target standoff circle. In the presence
of a wind field, when expressed relative to a moving
period is 1 s. The radius of the objective circle is
UAV is at (100 m, 100 m). Note that, in general,
TVFG provides more efficient waypoints to reach
the objective orbit. Additionally, we observe that the
LVFG cannot precisely reach the desired standoff
circle. The offsets depend on UAV’s velocity and
sampling interval.
Figure 5 plots the distance/time efficiency as a
function of relative angle between 0 to ¼. Here, in
order to have a fair comparison, we use the LVFG’s
orbit as the objective for evaluation. Time and distance
efficiency are identical since we assume that UAV’s
speed is constant. Notice that the TVFG performs
about 40% better than the LVFG on the efficiency
measurements.
C. Tangent-Plus-Lyapunov Vector Field Guidance
(T+LVFG)
As shown in the previous section, TVFG is more
efficient than LVFG when UAV is outside the standoff
circle. However, when UAV is inside the standoff
circle, TVFG is not applicable due to the lack of a
tangent line. Because of the limitation we propose
a hybrid strategy to take advantage of both TVFG
and LVFG, such that whenever UAV is outside the
standoff circle, we use TVFG, and whenever UAV
is inside the standoff circle, we use LVFG. We refer
to this hybrid strategy as the T+LVFG algorithm.
As shown in the following proposition, T+LVFG
performs better than each of the two stand-alone
algorithms due to its hybrid nature.

CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE 843

Fig. 4. (a) Example 1–relative angle of UAV heading to target
is 0 deg. (b) Example 2–relative angle of UAV heading to target
is 180 deg.
As a UAV tracks a target along a standoff circle,
the average distance between the UAV trajectory
and the standoff circle in steady-state is defined
as the average steady-state bias (ASB). Due to the
finite sampling rate, the UAV cannot fly along the
circle exactly but reaches a steady state with an error
between the objective circle and the UAV’s actual
flight path. In general we have the following result.
PROPOSITION 2 With a nominal speed V̄ and a
sampling time (planning cycle) ¢, when the UAV is
tracking a stationary target along a standoff circle Rc ,
the ASB of T+LVFG and LVFG are given by:
q
1) In T+LVFG ASB is bounded by Rt2 + 14 V̄2 ¢2
¡Rt ; q p
3
2) In LVFG ASB is given by ¡q + q2 + p3 +
q p
¡q ¡ q2 + p3 + 16 V̄¢ ¡ Rt ,
3
1
where q = ¡ 216 V̄3 ¢3 ¡ 13 V̄¢Rt2 and p = ¡ 36
1 2 2
V̄ ¢
1 2
¡ 3 Rt .
844 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
Fig. 5. Efficiency performances of LVFG and TVFG.
The proof of Proposition 2 is provided in
Appendix II. Figure 6 shows the ASBs with different
sampling intervals for a UAV that is tracking a
stationary target. We observe that the bias T+LVFG
is about an order of magnitude smaller than that of
LVFG.
III. TARGET MOTION ESTIMATION AND
MAXIMIZING TARGET DETECTION
As discussed previously we base the UAV’s
desired location on the estimated location of the
target. Choosing a target location estimate, such as
the expected location, may be straightforward when
the predicted target location pdf is uni-modal (e.g.,
Gaussian). However, in many practical ground target
tracking scenarios, the ground vehicles move through
a road network, which, due to the presence of road
intersections, often results in predicted target pdfs
that are multi-modal. Moreover, we need a basis for
choosing the desired UAV location. Thus, we use a
point-mass approximation of the target state pdf and
use stochastic simulation to propagate the pdf using
a ground vehicle motion model that exploits road
network information. Once we generate a predicted
target state pdf, we determine an “optimal” UAV
location that maximizes the probability of detecting
the target. With this desired UAV position, we can
apply the algorithm discussed previously to generate
the optimal UAV trajectory.
A. Coverage in 2D Space
We first discuss the coverage probabilities of a
UAV and a target in a 2D space. This simplified case
assumes that the UAV and target can move along any
direction without physical limitations. Specifically,
assume that the UAV position is (x̄u , ȳu ) and that the
target position is (x̄t , ȳt ). The heading directions are
 Fig. 7. Geometry illustration for two angle calculations.

depends on the distance between UAV and the target,

namely q
d0 = (xt ¡ xu )2 + (yt ¡ yu )2 : (12)

If d0 ¸ Rc + Rt the target is out of the field of view

(FOV) of the UAV so that the coverage probability
is zero. If d0 · Rc ¡ Rt the target is completely in the
FOV of the UAV so that the coverage probability is
one.
In Fig. 7 angles μ1 and μ2 can be calculated by the
law of cosines, such that
μ 2 ¶
Rc + d02 ¡ Rt2
μ1 = 2 cos¡1 and
2Rc d0
μ 2 2 2¶
¡1 Rt + d0 ¡ Rc
μ2 = 2 cos :
2Rt d0
Therefore, based on the determined angles, one
can readily show the following result. The proof is
omitted.
PROPOSITION 3 Suppose that the UAV’s coverage
radius is Rc and that the target uncertainty radius is
Rt . The coverage probabilities (Pr) can be expressed as

Fig. 6. (a) Objective bias using T+LVFG with UAV speed 1) In case of Rc ¸ Rt we have
14 m/s. (b) Objective bias using LVFG with UAV speed 14 m/s. 8 s1 p
>
< ¼R 2 , if d0 ¸ Rc2 ¡ Rt2
t
Pr = : (13)
assumed to be ® and ¯, respectively. Then, at the : 1 ¡ s2 ,
> otherwise
next time step, the UAV and target positions can be ¼Rt2
expressed as 2) In case of Rc < Rt we have
xu = x̄u + ¢Vu cos ® 8 s p
> 1
(9) > , if d0 ¸ Rt2 ¡ Rc2
< ¼Rt2
yu = ȳu + ¢Vu sin ®
Pr = (14)
>
> R2 s
xt = x̄t + ¢Vt cos ¯ : c2 + 2 2 , otherwise
: (10) Rt ¼Rt
yt = ȳt + ¢Vt sin ¯
where s1 ´ 12 [μ2 ¡ sin(μ2 )]Rt2 + 12 [μ1 ¡ sin(μ1 )]Rc2 and
The radius of the UAV’s coverage is denoted to be Rc , s2 ´ 12 [μ2 ¡ sin(μ2 )]Rt2 ¡ 12 [μ1 ¡ sin(μ1 )]Rc2 .
and target uncertainty radius (say, 3-sigma boundary)
is Rt . The intersection points of the two circles may be B. General Coverage Probabilities
found from the solutions of the following equations,
In practice, due to the road and/or turning angle
(x ¡ xu ) + (y ¡ yu ) = Rc2
2 2 limitations, a UAV or a target cannot move freely to
(11) anywhere in their reachable circles and, therefore,
(x ¡ xt )2 + (y ¡ yt )2 = Rt2 :
the circular representation of the target’s location
Obviously, in the case of no real solution from (11), uncertainty is insufficient. Our objective for choosing
the coverage probability is either one or zero, which a desired UAV location is to maximize the probability

CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE 845
of detection. Since the target’s state is not known
with certainty, we can only calculate the expected
probability of detection
Z total number of particles
EfPd g = D(x)p(x)dx (15)
−s
where −s presents the sensor FOV, p(x) is the pdf of
the target state, and D(x) represents a function that
maps the target state into a probability of detection.
Note that p(x) is obtained by extrapolating the
target’s kinematic state based on road network
information. The idea is to use a digital road map to
constrain the possible target locations. Monte Carlo
samples (particles) can be generated to describe
possible target states, and the integration part of (15)
can be approximated by counting the number of
particles in the respective areas.
C. Coverage Rate with Particles
As mentioned in the previous section, we apply
particles to simulate possible target locations at the
next time step in order to obtain a UAV’s desired
location. As described in the Introduction, it is
assumed that the UAV has been given the initial
state (position/velocity) information about the target
of interest; and in a tracking stage, the UAV could
observe the latest target state information with its
own sensor. We further assume that digital road
map information is available and that initial target
information is available from at least one of the
resources (ground moving target indicator (GMTI) or
otherwise). After initialization the UAV must track the
target using only sensor data collected by the UAV’s
onboard sensor. If the UAV cannot acquire the target
on its own after the initial assignment, then it is highly
likely that it will never track the target. In that case a
separate initialization/reassignment process is needed.
The initial pdf of a target state is generally given
based on the assumption that the target is following
the roads in a given map, and its velocities are
uniformly distributed between maximal and minimal
speed limits. Thus, particles will be randomly drawn
from this pdf. These particles are used to predict
the target state forward in time based on the road
network.
The desired UAV destination objective is a
reachable position for the UAV within a given
planning cycle that maximizes the probability of
detecting the target, which amounts to the UAV
location such that the maximum number of particles
is within the UAV’s FOV. Euclidean distances
can be used to compare the destination objectives.
Specifically, by assuming that there are N particles
fPi (x, y)g and M candidate objectives fCj (x, y)g, we
have the distance between particle i and candidate
objective j, namely
dP!C (i, j) = jPi (x, y) ¡ Cj (x, y)j: (16)
846 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
Based on the UAV’s FOV radius, the coverage
probabilities can then be estimated as a ratio of the
number of particles inside the UAV’s FOV over the
1X
Pr(j) = ±[dP!C (i, j) · RC ]: (17)
N
i
To determine the most desirable UAV destination
objective based on (16) and (17), we must sample
the set of reachable UAV states in order to render
the number of potential locations to consider into a
finite number. To select the destination candidates, one
simple idea is to define them uniformly in the UAV
reachable region based on maximum and minimum
UAV speeds.
IV. OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE
In an operational environment often there are
obstacles or constraints, such as no-flight zone or
tall buildings, to restrict the UAV flight path. The
information about the existence of the obstacles is
either known in advance (e.g., buildings) or acquired
during flight (e.g., collision avoidance with other
aircraft). In most real scenarios more than one
obstacle might appear, so multiple obstacles are
considered.
We assume that the UAV is capable of receiving
obstacle information at any path-planning cycle
by either its own sensors or road map indications.
Without loss of generality obstacles are modeled
as circles determined by their center position and
radius. Other shapes may be treated in a conservative
manner by inscribing them in a larger circle, which
thereby permits the obstacle avoidance problem to
be formulated in terms of a simplified model of
turning circles similar to the shortest path algorithm
described earlier. The obstacle avoidance problem is,
then, interpreted as the shortest path selection among
all possible paths. Specifically, we first determine
the closest obstacle for the UAV to move around
by using a straight line to link the UAV and the
destination circle about the target. Then, we start from
this obstacle to locate the next possible obstacle, if
any, between the target and current obstacle circle.
By this recursive process all the possible paths and
corresponding distances can be calculated to obtain a
practical solution with the shortest distance.
More specifically, during a path-planning cycle,
assume L obstacle circles (no flight zones) appear
unexpectedly. These obstacle circle parameters are
assumed to be available, i.e., center coordinates
(xo[i] , yo[i] ) and radius Ro[i] . For simplicity the obstacle
circles are assumed to be nonoverlapping in this
paper. The intersection points of the obstacle circles
and the path-line between the UAV and the target
may be found from the solutions of the following
equations

(x ¡ xo[i] )2 + (y ¡ yo[i] )2 = Ro[i]2 , i = 1, 2, : : : , L

y ¡ yt x ¡ xt (18)
= :
yu ¡ yt xu ¡ xt
If there is no real solution in (18) for an obstacle-i,
it means that this obstacle will not affect the current
path planning, and we may ignore it at this moment.
Otherwise, based on the distance measurements
between UAV and the intersection points, we can
readily locate the closest obstacle, which is blocking
the path (marked as the most effective obstacle or
MEO), and initiate the obstacle avoidance algorithm
to plan the UAV path around it.
In general the UAV will take the shortest distance
by following the line path connecting the start point
and the target point. In the case that an MEO is
located, the path-planning algorithm will follow
a tangent line to this obstacle. There are three
basic situations to be considered: 1) the MEO is
independent, 2) the MEO is dependent, and 3) without
effective obstacle.
In the situation of “without effective obstacles,”
path planning operates in a normal manner, and
the obstacle avoidance algorithm is not needed.
For independent MEO, as illustrated in Fig. 8(a),
the path-line of “x1 ! y1” crosses obstacle-A
and obstacle-B; the first MEO can be identified
as obstacle-A. The obstacle avoidance algorithm
will select a path around obstacle-A first, such that
“x1 ! x2.” Similarly, by the straight-line “x2 ! y2,”
the subsequent MEO is identified as obstacle-B, and
the obstacle avoidance algorithm will find a path
to go around it. Therefore, the overall path could
be obtained as “x1 ! x2 ! x3 ! y3.” The case of Fig. 8. (a) MEO independent. (b) MEO dependent.
dependent MEO is illustrated in Fig. 8(b). As the
path-line of “x1 ! y1” crosses only obstacle-C, moving within speed-based waypoints. Then, we
an MEO is identified as obstacle-C. The obstacle consider different wind environments to present
avoidance algorithm will select a path around its robustness for the UAV to track a stationary
obstacle-C, e.g., “x1 ! x2.” However, this new path and/or moving target. After that we present detection
will cross another obstacle-A, which will affect the probabilities using an example. Moreover, the particle
current path plan. Therefore, adjustments of the simulation approach is employed in two different
path plan need to be made first to avoid obstacle-A. scenarios. Finally, the obstacle avoidance algorithm
In reality we simply treat obstacle-A as a pseudo is validated as multiple obstacles appear in dynamic
objective circle, and then the TVFG can be applied path generations.
to guide the UAV to go around it. In the first scenario a UAV’s initial position is
assumed to be at [x0 = 300, y0 = ¡200] m and its
V. NUMERICAL RESULTS height 100 m. It has a nominal speed of 14 m/s
Multiple simulation scenarios are provided in this with a heading angle [54 deg (East is 0 deg)]. The
section to illustrate the performance of the newly UAV maximal turning rate is 30 deg/s. Both the
proposed dynamic UAV path-planning algorithm sampling rate and planning cycle are in 1 s. Using
for ground target tracking. First, we consider three T+LVFG Fig. 9 plots four cases as a target follows
examples of different target-moving models [8, 12]: the kinematic model (Fig. 9(a) and (b)), speed-based
1) a target is moving with a kinematic model (nearly waypoint model (Fig. 9(c)), and time-based waypoint
constant velocity) in 2D free space, 2) a target is model (Fig. 9(d)). In the kinematic model the
moving within time-based waypoints, 3) a target is initial target position is assumed to be at [x0t =

CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE 847
 Fig. 9. T+LVFG tracking performance in four different scenarios. (a) T+LVFG tracking: Target with random-moving model.
(b) T+LVFG tracking with winds: Target with random-moving model. (c) T+LVFG tracking: Target with speed-waypoint model.
(d) T+LVFG tracking with winds: Target with time-waypoint model.

200, y0t = 100] m with an initial speed of 5 m/s and
a heading angle of ¡45 deg. The target maximal
speed is 12 m/s, and the state process noise standard
deviation is 0.1 m/s. In addition a constant wind of
strength 5.0 m/s and an angle of 45 deg is present
in scenarios (b) and (d). In the speed-based model
the target has a constant speed in each line space
(road section). Specifically, the moving segments
are defined as pt (t0 ) ) pt (t1 ) ) pt (t2 ) ) pt (t3 ) )
pt (t4 ) ) pt (t5 ), where the target positions are located
at [¡100, ¡120] m, [¡50, ¡20] m, [10, 0] m,
[¡50, 102] m, [¡110, 150] m, and [¡300, 200] m,
and the target speeds are 10 m/s, 8 m/s, 7 m/s, 2 m/s,
15 m/s, 12 m/s, and 14 m/s, respectively. In the
time-based model the target arrives to these denoted
points at times of 0 s, 8 s, 18 s, 37 s, 52 s, and 68 s
then stops at the final position. Results show that the
T+LVFG algorithm provides an efficient and effective
solution in each of the scenarios.
To demonstrate the robustness of the T+LVFG
algorithm under wind conditions, we now consider
a case in which the UAV tracks a stationary target.
Suppose that a UAV’s relative-angle to the target
is ¼, turn-limit is 30 deg/s with a speed of 14 m/s.
Figure 10 plots the UAV and target trajectories
in different wind environments. In Fig. 10(a) the
trajectories using LVFG and T+LVFG under a wind
condition of ½w = 1:0 m/s and μw = ¡¼=4 are given.
While in this case the T+LVFG yields similar paths
with or without the presence of wind, the LVFG
alone does not perform very well. In Fig. 10(b)
the wind strength is increased to ½w = 2:0 m/s and
the heading angle is ¡¼=4. Notice that, while the
T+LVFG algorithm has a slightly distorted path along

848 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
Fig. 10. Performance comparison with different wind scenarios. The relative-angle of UAV and target is ¼, UAV with v = 14 m/s and
turn-limit W = ¼=6. (a) Constant winds: strength ½ = 1:0 m/s and angle μw = ¡¼=4. (b) Constant winds: strength ½ = 2:0 m/s and angle
μw = ¡¼=4. (c) Constant winds: strength ½ = 13:0 m/s and angle μw = ¡¼=4. (d) Constant winds: strength ½ = 14:0 m/s and angle
μw = ¡¼=4.

the objective circle, the LVFG could not keep up
with the target in these mild wind cases. As shown
in Fig. 10(c), at a high wind speed of 13.0 m/s,
the T+LVFG algorithm struggles but manages to
eventually locate the target within the FOV, though
the trajectory fails to accurately follow the objective
circle. Unfortunately, when the wind speed is the
same or higher than the UAV’s speed, the UAV
cannot compensate for the wind and, therefore, cannot
reach the objective circle as expected. A simulation
example with the wind speed equal to the UAV speed
limit of 14 m/s is shown in Fig. 10(d) in which both
algorithms diverge.
Next, we apply the newly proposed T+LVFG
algorithm for a UAV that tracks a moving target under
windy conditions. The UAV has the same parameters
as in the case of tracking a stationary target. Figure 11
shows the tracking results for a moving target with
and without winds. In Fig. 11(a) the moving target
has a constant velocity of 5 m/s, starts from (0, 0), and
moves along a direction angle of μt = ¼=10. Since the
UAV is much faster than the target, both algorithms
demonstrate that the UAVs are circling along the
target trajectory. However, the T+LVFG algorithm
provides closer and more efficient tracks than the
LVFG. In Fig. 11(b) we consider a faster target with
a constant velocity of 12 m/s. The target starts from
(0, 0) and heads east. Again, the path corresponding
to the T+LVFG algorithm is generally closer to
the target. In Figs. 11(c) and (d), winds are added
with a speed of 2 m/s and 13 m/s, respectively. The

CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE 849
Fig. 11. Performance comparison for a moving target in different wind conditions. (a) Without winds, Target speed is 5 m/s, and UAV
speed is 14 m/s. (b) Without winds, Target speed is 12 m/s, and UAV speed is 14 m/s. (c) Constant winds (½ = 2 m/s, μw = ¡¼=4),
Target speed is 5 m/s, and UAV speed is 14 m/s. (d) Constant winds (½ = 13 m/s, μw = ¡¼=4), Target speed is 5 m/s, and the UAV
speed is 14 m/s.

T+LVFG algorithm works well, but the LVFG alone
fails in both cases.
Figure 12 illustrates simulation results using a
point-mass approximation of the target predicted
pdf and choosing a desired UAV location based on
maximizing the probability of detecting the target.
The two plots show the corresponding tracking results
via the particle simulation strategy. In each planning
step we generate 100 particles for the predicted
target location and select 50 destination candidates
uniformly in the UAV’s reachable region. At each
planning cycle we select the UAV destination based
on maximizing the probability of detecting the target.
Finally, we evaluate the obstacle-avoidance
strategies in the dynamic path-planning algorithm.
Suppose that there are three obstacles in a
path-planning environment. The simulated obstacles
are defined as Obstacle-1 centered at [10, 40] m with a
radius of 45 m, Obstacle-2 centered at [110, 30] m and
radius 50 m, and Obstacle-3 centered at [68, 140] m
and radius 50 m. On the left of Fig. 13, the initial
position of UAV is fixed at [¡160, ¡140] m, and
a heading of 50 deg. A target is following a road
map. The optimal paths are plotted for different
hypothetical target positions, where obstacles are
successfully avoided in each planned path. On the
right of Fig. 13, the same obstacles are presented with
a specific target trajectory. A target is moving with
a kinematic model in 2D free space [8]. The initial
target position is assumed to be [x0t = ¡200, y0t =
100] m with an initial speed of 5 m/s and a heading
of ¡45 deg. The target’s maximal speed is 12 m/s,
and the state process noise standard deviation is
0.1 m/s. The UAV is initially located at [500, 200] m

850 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013

Fig. 12. (a) Map-1: Tracking results with road constraints.
(b) Map-2: Tracking results with road constraints.
Fig. 13. Path planning and tracking results with the obstacle avoidance strategy.
CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE
with velocity [14, 0] m/s and heading of 90 deg. The
results show that the UAV is able to track the target
successfully while avoiding the obstacles.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have proposed a dynamic UAV
path-planning algorithm for tracking a ground target.
The algorithm is characterized by a combination of
TVFG and LVFG, a point-mass approximation of the
target state pdf, and obstacle avoidance strategies. The
key advantages of the proposed method are the ability
to find the shortest path for a UAV tracking target,
to utilize particle filters for target motion predictions
for the case in which road network information is
available, and to avoid identified obstacles in the
path generations. Theoretical analysis shows that the
T+LVFG algorithm outperforms the LVFG alone
whenever the tangent lines are available between the
UAV’s turning limit circle and an objective circle. The
steady-state objective biases of both the T+LVFG and
LVFG algorithms are formally derived, as well as the
coverage probability calculations. The fact that tangent
lines and particle filters are combined to generate path
candidates for UAV tracking makes this approach very
effective. The proposed solution methodology can
be easily embedded in a mission-planning strategy.
This dynamic path planning uses fixed-increment
time advance, which fits well with any heuristic
solution algorithms. Simulation results demonstrate
the efficiency and robustness of the new algorithm
as a UAV tracks a target in a variety of different
experimental scenarios, including different target
moving models, wind environments, preknown road
maps, and multiple obstacles along the way. Future
work will focus on a collaboration of multiple UAVs
in a multiple target environment.
851
APPENDIX I
PROOF OF PROPOSITION 1
Without loss of generality, we assume that a target
is located at [0, 0], the radius of an objective circle
is Rt , and a UAV position is given by [xr , yr ]. As
long as the tangent lines are available between the
UAV’s turning limit circle and the objective circle,
TVFG follows tangent lines to the standoff circle.
Thus, the minimal distance between the target and
the TVFG guidance line is always a constant of Rt . Fig. 14. Illustration diagram for TVFG objective bias.
Next we show that the minimal distance between
the target and the LVFG guidance line is larger Figure 14 illustrates a UAV that passes through
than Rt and that it depends on the location of the an objective circle via TVFG. A target is located at
UAV. “O,” and the radius of the objective circle is R = Rt .
Based onpthe LVFG (2, 3), at the UAV position Assume that the UAV’s current position is “A” and
[xr , yr ], r = xr2 + yr2 , two possible directional lines are that it will be moving along the tangent line “A ! B”
either clockwise as with the tangent point “C.” If a planning cycle time
is ¢ seconds and if the points “A, B” are associated
¡2rRt xr + (r2 ¡ Rt2 )yr with two consequent planning cycles, then we have
y ¡ yr = (x ¡ xr ) (19)
(r2 ¡ Rt2 )xr + 2rRt yr
jABj = jACj + jCBj
or counterclockwise as
= a1 + a2
2rR x + (r2 ¡ Rt2 )yr
y ¡ yr = 2 t r 2 (x ¡ xr ): (20) = V̄¢ (22)
(r ¡ Rt )xr ¡ 2rRt yr
Since the minimal distance between any 2D where V̄ denotes UAV’s speed. Therefore, the distance
from the two planning cycles (A,B) to the target is
coordinates [x0 , y0 ] to a line Ax + By + C = 0
q
is given by jAx0 + By0 + Cj ¢ (A2 + B 2 )¡1=2 , the x1 = Rt2 + a21 ¡ Rt (23)
minimal distance of the target to LVFG lines can be
q
expressed as
x2 = Rt2 + a22 ¡ Rt : (24)
¨2rR x + (r2 ¡ Rt2 )yr
yr ¡ 2 t r2 x For the linear tangent line, the averaged difference is
(r ¡ Rt )xr § 2rRt yr r
dmin = s· ¸2 given by
¨2rRt xr + (r2 ¡ Rt2 )yr ±TVFG = 12 x1 + 12 x2 : (25)
+1
(r2 ¡ Rt2 )xr § 2rRt yr Therefore, the maximal objective bias will be obtained
2r(xr2 + yr2 )Rt when x1 = x2 , such that
=p q
(xr2 + yr2 )(r2 + Rt2 )2 ¤
±TVFG = 12 4Rt2 + V̄2 ¢2 ¡ Rt : (26)
2r2
= R: (21) Now, we consider the case of LVFG alone. Since
r2 + Rt2 t clockwise LVFG and counterclockwise LVFG are
Since tangent lines are available, it implies r > Rt . symmetric, we only show the clockwise LVFG
without loss of generality. Assume that a target is
Therefore, from (21), we have dmin > Rt , and the
located at (0, 0), andq
that the LVFG trajectory is given
minimal distance depends on the UAV position [xr , yr ].
If the UAV is far away from the target (i.e., r À Rt ), by fxi , yi g with ri = xi2 + yi2 ; i = 1, 2, : : :. Based on the
this distance could be twice the radius of the objective clockwise LVFG (2), the (k + 1)th trajectory point can
circle. be derived from the kth one, such that
· ¸ · ¸ · ¸
xk+1 xk x_ k
APPENDIX II = + ¢¢
yk+1 yk y_ k
PROOF OF PROPOSITION 2 · ¸ · ¸
xk xk
First, we show the result for T+LVFG. Since the = ¡ ¸¢Hk
guidance law when a UAV is within an objective yk yk
circle is the same for T+LVFG and LVFG alone, we · ¸· ¸
1 ¡ ¸¢(rk ¡ Rt2 )
2
2¸¢rk Rt xk
compare T+LVFG and LVFG only when the UAV = 2 2
¡2¸¢rk Rt 1 ¡ ¸¢(rk ¡ Rt ) yk
starts outside the objective circle and attempts to
approach and fly along it. (27)

852 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
where · ¸ [3] Ferng, C., et al.
ri2 ¡ Rt2 2ri Rt Distributed simulation of forward reachable set-based
Hi = : (28) control for multiple pursuer UAVs.
¡2ri Rt ri2 ¡ Rt2 Proceedings of the SimTecT 2006 Simulation Conference
and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, May 29—June 1,
The squared distance from UAV to the target can be 2006.
recursively expressed as
[4] Ma, G., Duan, H., and Liu, S.
· ¸T · ¸ Improved ant colony algorithm for global optimal
2
xk+1 xk+1 trajectory planning of UAV under complex environment.
rk+1 =
yk+1 yk+1 International Journal of Computer Science and
Applications, 4, 3 (2007), 57—68.
= [1 ¡ ¸k ¢(rk2 ¡ Rt2 )]2 rk2 + 4¸2k ¢2 Rt2 rk4 : (29) [5] Winstrand, M.
Mission planning and control of multiple UAVs.
The nominal speed of the UAV can be computed from Swedish Defence Research Agency, Scientific Report,
2D vectors, namely 1650—1942, Oct. 2004.
s· ¸ · ¸ [6] Rathinam, S., et al.
x_ i T x_ i An architecture for UAV team control.
V̄ = Proceedings of the 5th IFAC Conference on Intelligent
y_ i y_ i Autonomous Vehicles, Lisbon, Portugal, July 5—7, 2004.
s· ¸ · ¸ [7] Wise, R.
xi T T xi
= ¸i Hi Hi UAV control and guidance for autonomous cooperative
yi yi tracking of a moving target.
Ph.D. research proposal, Dept. of Aeronautics and
= ¸i (ri2 + Rt2 )ri : (30) Astronautics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA,
June 2006.
The normalization factor can then be determined by [8] Cowling, I., Whidborne, J., and Cooke, A.
Optimal trajectory planning and LQR control for a
V̄ quadrotor UAV.
¸i = : (31)
ri (ri2 + Rt2 ) Proceedings of the International Conference on Control
2006, Glasgow, Scotland, Aug. 30—Sept. 11, 2006.
With (29) and (31) the squared distance can be further [9] Collins, G., et al.
deduced into Cooperative control of UAVs for tracking moving targets
through information gain.
2 2V̄¢rk (rk2 ¡ Rt2 ) Toyon Research Corporation, Phase II STTR Final
rk+1 = rk2 + V̄2 ¢2 ¡ : (32) Report, Dec. 28, 2007.
rk2 + Rt2
[10] Tang, S. and Conway, B.
As LVFG converges, k ! 1, the steady-state distance Optimization of low-thrust interplanetary trajectories
from UAV to the target may be solved as below. using collocation and nonlinear programming.
AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 18, 3
2r3 ¡ V̄¢r2 ¡ 2Rt2 r ¡ V̄¢Rt2 = 0: (33) (1995), 599—604.
[11] Geiger, B., et al.
The real solution in the third-order polynomial Optimal path planning of UAVs using direct collocation
equation is given by with nonlinear programming.
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference,
q p q p Keystone, CO, Aug. 2006, AIAA Paper 2006-6199.
3 3
r¤ = ¡q + q2 + p3 + ¡q ¡ q2 + p3 + 16 V̄¢ [12] Karatas, T. and Bullo, F.
Randomized searches and nonlinear programming in
(34)
trajectory planning.
1 2 2 1 2 1
where p = ¡ 36 V̄ ¢¡ 3 Rt
and q = ¡ ¡ 216 V̄3 ¢3 Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision
1 2 and Control, vol. 5, Orlando, FL, Dec. 4—7, 2001, pp.
3 V̄¢Rt . Therefore, the ASB of the LVFG can be 5032—5037.
¤
obtained as ±LVFG = r¤ ¡ Rt .
[13] Betts, J. T.
Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization.
REFERENCES Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 21, 2 (1998),
193—207.
[1] Eberhart, R. and Shi, Y.
Particle swarm optimization: Developments, applications [14] Faiz, N., Agrawal, S. K., and Murray, R. M.
and resources. Trajectory planning of differential systems with dynamics
Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary and inequalities.
Computation (CEC 2001), vol. 1, Seoul, Korea, May AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 24
27—30, 2001, pp. 81—86. (Apr. 2001), 219—227.
[2] Rasmussen, S. J., et al. [15] Ablavsky, V., Stouch, D., and Snorrason, M.
Introduction to the MultiUAV2 simulation and its Search path optimization for UAVs using stochastic
application to cooperative control research. sampling with abstract pattern descriptors.
Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference, Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance Navigation and Control
Portland, OR, June 8—10, 2005, pp. 4495—4496. Conference, Austin, TX, Aug. 2003.

CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE 853
[16] Ferguson, D. and Stentz, A.
The delayed D* algorithm for efficient path replanning.
Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2005), Barcelona, Spain,
Apr. 18—22, 2005, pp. 2045—2050.
[17] O’Rourke, K., et al.
Dynamic routing of unmanned aerial vehicles using
reactive tabu search.
Military Operations Research Journal, 6 1 (2001), 5—30.
[18] Flint, M., Fernandez-Gaucherand, E., and Polycarpou, M.
A probabilistic frame-work for passive cooperation
among UAVs performing a search.
Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Symposium on
Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Leuven,
Belgium, 2004.
[19] Yang, Y., Polycarpou, M., and Minai, A.
Decentralized cooperative search by networked UAVs in
an uncertain environment.
Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, vol.
6, Boston, MA, June 30—July 2, 2004, pp. 5558—5563.
[20] Rathbun, D., et al.
An evolution based path planning algorithm for
autonomous motion of a UAV through uncertain
environments.
Proceedings of the AIAA 21st Digital Avionics Systems
Conference, vol. 2, Irvine, CA, Oct. 2003, pp.
8D21—8D212.
[21] Barlow, G. J., Oh, C. K., and Grant, E.
Incremental evolution of autonomous controllers for
unmanned aerial vehicles using multi-objective genetic
programming.
Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics
and Intelligent Systems (CIS), vol. 2, Singapore, Dec.
2004, pp. 689—694.
[22] Fradkov, A. and Andrievsky, B.
UAV guidance system with combined adaptive autopilot.
Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on
Intelligent Systems and Control, Salzburg, Austria, 2003,
pp. 91—93.
[23] Roskam, J.
Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls,
Parts I & II.
Lawrence, KS: DAR Corporation, 1998.
[24] Stentz, A.
Map-based strategies for robot navigation in unknown
environments.
Planning with Incomplete Information for Robot Problems:
Papers from the 1996 AAAI Spring Symposium, Palo Alto,
CA: AAAI Press, 1996, pp. 10—116.
[25] Burns, B. and Brock, O.
Information theoretic construction of probabilistic
roadmaps.
Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 1, Las
Vegas, NV, Oct. 27—31, 2003, pp. 650—655.
[26] Mclain, T. and Beard, R.
Trajectory planning for coordinated rendezvous of
unmanned air vehicles.
Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, Denver, CO, Aug. 14—17, 2000, pp.
1247—1254.
[27] Campbell, M. and Ousingsawat, J.
On-line estimation and path planning for multiple
vehicles in an uncertain environment.
Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, CA, Aug. 5—8,
2002, AIAA Paper 2002-4466.
854 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013
[28] Misovec, K., et al.
Low observable nonlinear trajectory generation for
unmanned air vehicles.
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Piscataway, NJ, 2003, pp. 3103—3110.
[29] Lee, J., et al.
Strategies of path-planning for a UAV to track a ground
vehicle.
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Autonomous
Intelligent Networks and Systems (AINS 2003), Menlo
Park, CA, June 30—July 1, 2003.
[30] Pongpunwattana, A. and Rysdyk, R.
Real-time planning for multiple autonomous vehicles in
dynamic uncertain environments.
Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and
Communication, 1, 12 (Dec. 2004), 580—604.
[31] Frew, E. and Lawrence, D.
Cooperative stand-off tracking of moving targets by a
team of autonomous aircraft.
Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, Aug.
15—18, 2005, AIAA Paper 2005-6363.
[32] Rysdyk, R., Lum, C., and Vagners, J.
Autonomous orbit coordination for two unmanned aerial
vehicles.
Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, Aug.
15—18, 2005, pp. 4876—4884.
[33] Milam, M. and Mushambi, R.
A new computational approach to real-time trajectory
generation for constrained mechanical systems.
Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Sydney, Australia, Dec. 2000, pp. 845—851.
[34] Singh, L. and Fuller, J.
Trajectory generation for a UAV in urban terrain, using
nonlinear MPC.
Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference, vol.
3, Arlington, VA, June 25—27, 2001, pp. 2301—2308.
[35] Becker, M., Dantas, C., and Macedo, W.
Obstacle avoidance procedure for mobile robots.
In ABCM Symposium Series in Mechatronics (1st ed.),
vol. 2, Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and
Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 2006, pp. 250—257.
[36] Keerkov, S. M., Kabamba, P. T., and Zeitz, III, F. H.
Optimal path planning for unmanned combat aerial
vehicles to defeat radar tracking.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 29, 2 (Apr.
2006), 279—288.
[37] Richards, A. and How, J.
Aircraft trajectory planning with collision avoidance using
mixed integer linear programming.
Proceedings of the 2002 American Control Conference, vol.
3, Anchorage, AK, May 8—10, 2002, pp. 1936—1941.
[38] Chen, H., Chang, K. C., and Agate, C.
A dynamic path planning algorithm for UAV tracking.
Proceedings of SPIE, Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion,
and Target Recognition XVIII, vol. 7336, Orlando, FL,
Apr. 2009.
[39] Chen, H., Chang, K. C., and Agate, C.
Tracking with UAV using tangent-plus-Lyapunov vector
field guidance.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Information Fusion, Seattle, WA, July 6—9, 2009, pp.
363—372.
[40] Lawrence, D.
Lyapunov fields for UAV track coordination.
Proceedings of the 2nd AIAA Un-manned Unlimited
Systems, Technologies and Operations Conference, San
Diego, CA, Sept. 2003.
[41] Frew, E., Lawrence, D., and Morris, S. [45]
Coordinated standoff tracking of moving targets using
Lyapunov guidance vector fields.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 31, 2
(Mar.—Apr. 2008).
[42] McGee, T., Spry, S., and Hedrick, J. [46]
Optimal path planning for an aircraft with a bounded turn
rate in the presence of a constant wind.
Proceedings of the AIAA Conference on Guidance,
Navigation, and Control, Aug. 2005. [47]
[43] Nikolos, I. K., et al.
Evolutionary algorithm based offline/online path planner
for UAV navigation.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part
B: Cybernetics, 33, 6 (Dec. 2003), 898—912. [48]
[44] Petillot, Y., Ruiz, I. T., and Lane, D. M.
Underwater vehicle obstacle avoidance and path planning
using a multi-beam forward looking sonar.
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 26, 2 (Apr. 2001),
240—251.
CHEN, ET AL.: UAV PATH PLANNING WITH TANGENT-PLUS-LYAPUNOV VECTOR FIELD GUIDANCE
Lorusso, A. and Micheli, E. D.
An approach to obstacle detection and steering control
from optical flow.
Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Intelligent Vehicle
Symposium, Tokyo, Sept. 19—20, 1996, pp. 357—362.
Gandhi, T., et al.
Detection of obstacles in the flight path of an aircraft.
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
39, 1 (Jan. 2003), 179—191.
Kavraki, L., et al.
Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in
high-dimensional configuration spaces.
IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 12, 4
(1996), 556—580.
Larson, J., et al.
Advances in autonomous obstacle avoidance for
unmanned surface vehicles.
AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America 2007,
Washington, D.C., Aug. 7—9, 2007.
855
 Hongda Chen received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering
from the Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China in 1987 and 1990,
respectively, and his Ph.D. degree in information technology from George Mason
University, Fairfax, VA in 1999.
From 1998 to 2002 he was a senior member of technical staff in Mobile
Satellite Communication, Hughes Network Systems. In 2003 he joined Intelligent
Automation as a senior research engineer. He performed state-of-the-art research
and development in Riorey, Inc. for advanced network security products in
2006. Since 2003 he has served as a senior research consultant on projects of
multisensor data fusion and multitarget tracking in the Department of SEOR,
George Mason University, VA, and currently, he is a senior research scientist
with Sigma Space Corporation, Lanham, MD, where he works on NASA
EOS projects. His research interests include signal processing, data analysis,
communications, and fault diagnosis/prognosis in industry applications.
Dr. Chen has published more than 30 papers in the areas of signal processing,
data fusion, and communications.

Kuo-Chu Chang (M’86–SM’95–F’10) received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees

in electrical engineering from the University of Connecticut, Storrs, in 1983 and
1986,respectively.
From 1983 to 1992 he was a senior research scientist in the Advanced
Decision Systems (ADS) division, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Mountain View,
CA. In 1992 he joined the Department of Systems Engineering and Operations
Research, George Mason University, where he is currently a professor. His
research interests include estimation theory, optimization, signal processing, and
multisensor data fusion. He is particularly interested in applying unconventional
techniques in the conventional decision and control systems.
Dr. Chang has more than 30 years of industrial and academic experience and
has published more than one hundred and sixty papers in the areas of multitarget
tracking, distributed sensor fusion, and Bayesian Networks technologies. He was
an associate editor on Tracking/Navigation Systems from 1993 to 1996 and on
Large Scale Systems from 1996 to 2006 for IEEE Transactions on Aerospace
and Electronic Systems. He was also an Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A from 2002 to 2007. He is a member of Etta
Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi.

Craig Agate received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering
from California State University, Northridge and his Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2000.
Upon graduating he joined Toyon Research Corporation in Goleta, CA.
With a general background in detection and Bayesian estimation theory, he has
developed a particle filtering algorithm to address the unique aspects of ground
target tracking (incorporating road constraints, evidence such as nondetection
events, and measured signatures for feature-aided tracking and identification).
Other research includes developing feature-aided tracking algorithms and object
identification algorithms based on Bayesian evidence accrual. Addressing
the need for long-term continuous tracking of particular targets, he has also
developed an approach to feature-aided tracking that exploits features collected
“on-the-fly” to characterize targets of interest, which has provided a fingerprint
that allows for disambiguation of the target of interest from background targets.

856 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 49, NO. 2 APRIL 2013