Decentralized 2-D Control of Vehicular Platoons
under Limited Visual Feedback

arXiv:1702.03097v1 [cs.SY] 10 Feb 2017

Christos K. Verginis, Charalampos P. Bechlioulis, Dimos V. Dimarogonas and Kostas J. Kyriakopoulos
Abstract— In this paper, we consider the two dimensional
(2-D) predecessor-following control problem for a platoon of
unicycle vehicles moving on a planar surface. More specifically,
we design a decentralized kinematic control protocol, in the
sense that each vehicle calculates its own control signal based
solely on local information regarding its preceding vehicle,
by its on-board camera, without incorporating any velocity
measurements. Additionally, the transient and steady state
response is a priori determined by certain designer-specified
performance functions and is fully decoupled by the number of
vehicles composing the platoon and the control gains selection.
Moreover, collisions between successive vehicles as well as connectivity breaks, owing to the limited field of view of cameras,
are provably avoided. Finally, an extensive simulation study is
carried out in the WEBOTSTM realistic simulator, clarifying
the proposed control scheme and verifying its effectiveness.

I. I NTRODUCTION
During the last few decades, the 1-D longitudinal control
problem of Automated Highway Systems (AHS) has become
an active research area in automatic control (see [1]–[5]
and the references therein). Unlike human drivers that are
not able to react quickly and accurately enough to follow
each other in close proximity at high speeds, the safety and
capacity of highways (measured in vehicles/lanes/time) is
significantly increased when vehicles operate autonomously,
forming large platoons at close spacing. However, realistic
situations necessitate for 2-D motion on planar surfaces (see
Fig. 1).
Early works in [6]–[9] consider the lane-keeping and lanechanging control for platoons in AHS, adopting however a
centralized network, where all vehicles exchange information
with a central computer that determines the control protocol,
making thus the overall system sensitive to delays, especially
when a large number of vehicles is involved. Alternatively,
rigid multi-agent formations are employed in decentralized
control schemes, where each vehicle utilizes relative information from its neighbors. The majority of these works
consider unicycle [10]–[14] and bicycle kinematic models
[15]–[17]. However, many of them adopt linearization techniques [11], [13], [15], [17]–[21] that may lead to unstable
inner dynamics or degenerate configurations owing to the
C. K. Verginis, C. P. Bechlioulis and K. J. Kyriakopoulos are with the
Control Systems Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, National
Technical University of Athens, Athens 15780, Greece. D. V. Dimarogonas is with the Centre for Autonomous Systems at Kungliga Tekniska
Hogskolan, Stockholm 10044, Sweden. Emails: chrisverginis@gmail.com,
chmpechl@mail.ntua.gr, dimos@kth.se, kkyria@mail.ntua.gr.
This work was supported by the EU funded project RECONFIG: Cognitive, Decentralized Coordination of Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems
via Reconfigurable Task Planning, FP7-ICT-600825, 2013-2016 and the
Swedish Research Council (VR).

Fig. 1.

Vehicular platoons in 2-D motion on planar roads.

non-holonomic constraints of the vehicles, as shown in [22].
Additionally, each vehicle is assumed to have access to the
neighboring vehicles’ velocity, either explicitly, hence degenerating the decentralized form of the system and imposing
inherent communication delays, or by employing observers
[14] that increase the overall design complexity. Furthermore,
the transient and steady state response of the closed loop is
affected severely by the control gains selection [23], thus
limiting the controller’s robustness and complicating the
design procedure.
Another significant issue affecting the 2-D control of
vehicular platoons concerns the sensing capabilities when
visual feedback from cameras is employed. A vast number
of the related works neglects the sensory limitations, which
however are crucial in real-time scenarios. In [13], [22]
visual feedback from omnidirectional cameras is adopted,
not accounting thus for sensor limitations, which however
are examined in [10] considering directional sensors for the
tracking problem of a moving object by a group of robots.
Although cameras are directional sensors, they inherently
have a limited range and a limited angle of view as well.
Hence, in such cases each agent should keep a certain close
distance and heading angle from its neighbors, in order
to avoid connectivity breaks. Thus, it is clear that limited
sensory capabilities lead to additional constraints on the
behavior of the system, that should therefore be taken into
account exclusively when designing the control protocols.
The aforementioned specifications were considered in [24],

where a solution based on set-theory and dipolar vector fields
was introduced. Alternatively, a visual-servoing scheme for
leader-follower formation was presented in [25]. Finally, a
centralized control protocol under vision-based localization
for leader-follower formations was adopted in [26], [27].
In this paper, we extend our previous work on 1-D longitudinal control of vehicular platoons [28] to 2-D motion on
planar surfaces, under the predecessor-following architecture.
We design a fully decentralized kinematic control protocol,
in the sense that each vehicle has access only to the relative
distance and heading error with respect to its preceding
vehicle. Such information is obtained by an onboard camera
with limited field of view [12], that imposes inevitably
certain constraints on the configuration of the platoon. More
specifically, each vehicle aims at achieving a desired distance
from its predecessor, while keeping it within the field of
view of its onboard camera in order to maintain visual
connectivity and avoid collisions. Moreover, the transient and
steady state response is fully decoupled by the number of
vehicles and the control gains selection. Finally, the explicit
collision avoidance and connectivity maintenance properties
are imposed by certain designer-specified performance functions, that incorporate the aforementioned visual constraints.
In summary, the main contributions of this work are given
as follows:
• We propose a novel solution to the 2-D formation
control problem of vehicular platoons, avoiding collisions and connectivity breaks owing to visual feedback
constraints.
• We develop a fully decentralized kinematic control
protocol, in the sense that the feedback of each vehicle
is based exclusively on its own camera, without incorporating any measurement of the velocity of the preceding
vehicle.
• The transient and steady state response of the closed
loop system is explicitly determined by certain designerspecified performance functions, simplifying thus the
control gains selection.
The manuscript is organized as follows. The problem
statement is given in Section II. The decentralized control
protocol is provided in Section III. In Section IV, an extensive simulation study is presented, clarifying and verifying
the theoretical findings. Finally, we conclude in Section V.
II. P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
Consider a platoon of N vehicles moving on a planar
surface under unicycle kinematics:

ẋi = vi cos ϕi 
ẏi = vi sin ϕi
, i = 1, . . . , N
(1)

ϕ̇i = ωi

where xi , yi , ϕi denote the position and orientation of each
vehicle on the plane and vi , ωi are the linear and angular
velocities respectively. Let us also denote by di (t) and
βi (t) the distance and the bearing angle between successive
vehicles i and i−1 (see Fig. 2). Furthermore, we assume that
the only available feedback concerns the distance di (t) and

݀௖௢௡
߮௜ିଵ
Vehicle i-1
݀௜
ߚ௖௢௡

Vehicle i

ߚ௜

݀௖௢௟

߮௜

Fig. 2. Graphical illustration of two successive vehicles in the platoon.
Each vehicle should keep its distance di (t) and bearing angle βi (t) to its
predecessor within the feasible area dcol < di (t) < dcon and |βi (t)| <
βcon , thus avoiding collisions and connectivity breaks.

the bearing angle βi (t), which both emanate from an onboard
camera that detects a specific marker on the preceding
vehicle (e.g., the number plate). The control objective is
to design a distributed control protocol based exclusively
on visual feedback such that di (t) → di,des and βi (t) →
0, i.e., each vehicle tracks its predecessor and maintains
a prespecified desired distance di,des . Additionally, di (t)
should be kept greater than dcol to avoid collisions between
successive vehicles. In the same vein, the inter-vehicular
distance di (t) and the bearing angle βi (t) should be kept less
than dcon > dcol and βcon respectively, in order to maintain
the connectivity owing to the camera’s limited field of view
(see Fig. 2). Moreover, the desired trajectory of the formation
is generated by a reference/leading unicycle vehicle:
ẋ0 = v0 cos ϕ0
ẏ0 = v0 sin ϕ0
ϕ̇0 = ω0
with bounded velocities v0 (t), ω0 (t) and is only provided to
the first vehicle. Finally, to solve the aforementioned control
problem, we assume that initially each vehicle lies within
the field of view of its follower’s camera and no collision
occurs, which are formulated as follows.
Assumption A1. The initial state of the platoon does not
violate the collision and connectivity constraints, i.e., dcol <
di (0) < dcon and |βi (0)| < βcon , i = 1, . . . , N .
In the sequel, we define the distance and heading errors:

edi (t) = di (t) − di,des
, i = 1, . . . , N
(2)
eβi (t) = βi (t)
p
where di (t) = (xi (t) − xi−1 (t)) 2 + (yi (t) − yi−1 (t)) 2 .
Hence, differentiating (2) with respect to time and

are designer-specified, smooth, bounded and decreasing positive functions of time with positive parameters lj , ρj,∞ ,
ėdi = −vi cos βi + vi−1 cos(γi + βi )
j ∈ {d, β} incorporating the desired transient and steady
,
i
=
1,
.
.
.
,
N
v
ėβi = −ωi + dvii sin βi − i−1
di sin(γi + βi )
state performance respectively, and M ji , M ji , j ∈ {d, β},
(3)
i = 1, . . . , N are positive parameters selected appropriately
where γi (t) = ϕi (t) − ϕi−1 (t), which may be expressed in
to satisfy the collision and connectivity constraints, as prevector form as follows:
sented in the sequel. In particular, the decreasing rate of
ėd = −C̃v + c
ρji (t), j ∈ {d, β}, i = 1, . . . , N , which is affected by the
(4)
ėβ = −ω + D−1 (S̃v + s)
constant lj , j ∈ {d, β} introduces a lower bound on the
speed of convergence of eji (t), j ∈ {d, β}, i = 1, . . . , N .
where
Furthermore, the constants ρj,∞ , j ∈ {d, β} can be set
T
T
arbitrarily small (i.e., ρj,∞ ≪ max M ji , M ji , j ∈ {d, β},
ed = [ed1 , . . . , edN ] , eβ = [eβ1 , . . . , eβN ]
i = 1, . . . , N ), thus achieving practical convergence of the
T
T
v = [v1 , . . . , vN ] , ω = [ω1 , . . . , ωN ]
distance and heading errors to zero. Additionally, we select:
D = diag(d1 , . . . , dN )T

M di = di,des − dcol 
c = [v0 cos(γ1 + β1 ), 0, . . . , 0]T
M di = dcon − di,des
, i = 1, . . . , N .
(7)
s = [v0 sin(γ1 + β1 ), 0, . . . , 0]T

M βi = M βi = βcon
substituting (1), we obtain:



and C̃, S̃ are the lower bi-diagonal matrices:

cos β1
0
···
0

..
 − cos(β2 + γ2 ) cos β2
.


.
.
..
..
C̃= 
0


..

.
0
0
···
− cos(βN + γN ) cos βN

Notice that the parameters dcon , βcon are related to the
constraints imposed by the camera’s limited field of view.
More specifically, dcon should be assigned a value less or
equal to the distance from which the marker on the preceding

vehicle may be detected by the follower’s camera, whereas

β
 con should be less or equal to the half of the camera’s
π
angle of view, from which it follows that β
con < 2 for
common cameras. Apparently, since the desired formation
 is compatible with the collision and connectivity constraints

sin β1
0
···
0
(i.e., dcol < di,des < dcon , i = 1, . . . , N ), the aforementioned
 selection ensures that M j , M ji > 0, j ∈ {d, β}, i =

..
i

 − sin(β2 + γ2 ) sin β2
.
 1, . . . , N and consequently under Assumption A1 that:



.
.
..
..
S̃= 
.

0


−M di ρdi (0) < edi (0) < M di ρdi (0)


..
, i = 1, . . . , N .


.
−M βi ρβi (0) < eβi (0) < M βi ρβi (0)
0
(8)
0
···
− sin(βN + γN ) sin βN
Hence, guaranteeing prescribed performance via (5) for all
III. C ONTROL D ESIGN
t > 0 and employing the decreasing property of ρji (t), j ∈
The concepts and techniques in the scope of prescribed {d, β}, i = 1, . . . , N , we conclude:

performance control, recently proposed in [29], are adapted
−M di < edi (t) < M di
in this work in order to: i) achieve predefined transient and
, i = 1, . . . , N
−M βi < eβi (t) < M βi
steady state response for the distance and heading errors
edi (t), eβi (t), i = 1, . . . , N as well as ii) avoid the viola- and consequently, owing to (7):

tion of the collision and connectivity constraints presented
dcol < di (t) < dcon
in Section II. As stated in [29], prescribed performance
, i = 1, . . . , N
−βcon < βi (t) < βcon
characterizes the behavior where the aforementioned errors
evolve strictly within a predefined region that is bounded by for all t ≥ 0, which ensures the satisfaction of the collision
absolutely decaying functions of time, called performance and connectivity constraints.
functions. The mathematical expressions of prescribed perA. Decentralized Control Protocol
formance is given by the following inequalities:

In the sequel, we propose a decentralized control protocol
−M di ρdi (t) < edi (t) < M di ρdi (t)
that
guarantees (5) for all t ≥ 0, thus leading to the solu, i = 1, . . . , N
−M βi ρβi (t) < eβi (t) < M βi ρβi (t)
tion of the 2-D formation control problem with prescribed
(5)
performance under collision and connectivity constraints for
for all t ≥ 0, where
the considered platoon of vehicles. Hence, given the distance
n ρd,∞
n ρd,∞
o )e−ld t +
o
ρdi (t) = (1 −
and heading errors eji (t), j ∈ {d, β}, i = 1, . . . , N defined
max M d ,M di
max M d ,M di
i
i
in
(2):
ρ
ρ
n β,∞
n β,∞
o )e−lβ t +
o
ρβi (t) = (1 −
Step
I. Select the corresponding performance functions
max M β ,M βi
max M β ,M βi
i
i
(6) ρji (t) and positive parameters M ji , M ji , j ∈ {d, β}, i =

1, . . . , N following (6) and (7) respectively, that incorporate
the desired transient and steady state performance specifications as well as the collision and connectivity constraints.
Step II. Define the normalized errors as:
 ed1 


ξd1 (ed1 , t)
ρ (t)

 d1.


.
 , (ρd (t))−1 ed

..
..
ξd (ed , t) = 
 := 

edN
ξdN (edN , t)
ρdN (t)
(9)
 eβ1 


ξβ1 (eβ1 , t)
ρ (t)
 β1.



.

 , (ρβ (t))−1 eβ
..
.
ξβ (eβ , t) = 
 := 
.

eβN
ξβN (eβN , t)
ρβN (t)
(10)


where ρj (t) = diag [ρji (t)]i=1,...,N , j ∈ {d, β}, and
design the decentralized control protocol as:


v1 (ξd1 , t)


..
v (ξd , t) = 
(11)
 = Kd εd (ξd )
.

Theorem 1: Consider a platoon of N unicycle vehicles
aiming at establishing a formation described by the desired
inter-vehicular distances di,des , i = 1, . . . , N , while satisfying the collision and connectivity constraints represented by
dcol and dcon , βcon respectively, with dcol < di,des < dcon ,
i = 1, . . . , N and βcon < π2 . Under Assumption A1, the
decentralized control protocol (9)-(15) guarantees:

−M di ρdi (t) < edi (t) < M di ρdi (t)
, i = 1, . . . , N
−M βi ρβi (t) < eβi (t) < M βi ρβi (t)
for all t ≥ 0, as well as the boundedness of all closed loop
signals.
Proof: Differentiating (9) and (10) with respect to time,
we obtain:
ξ˙d = (ρd (t))−1 (ėd − ρ̇d (t) ξd )
ξ˙β = (ρβ (t))−1 (ėβ − ρ̇β (t) ξβ )

(16)
(17)

Employing (4), (11) and (12), we arrive at:

ξ˙d = hd (t, ξd )
vN (ξdN , t)


= (ρd (t))−1 (−C̃Kd εd (ξd ) + c − ρ̇d (t) ξd )
(18)
ω1 (ξβ1 , t)
˙
ξβ = hβ (t, ξd , ξβ )


−1
..
ω (ξβ , t) = 
 = Kβ (ρβ (t)) rβ (ξβ ) εβ (ξβ )
.
= (ρβ (t))−1 (−Kβ (ρβ (t))−1 rβ (ξβ ) εβ (ξβ )
ωN (ξβN , t)

(12)
+ D−1 S̃Kd εd (ξd ) + D−1 s − ρ̇β (t) ξβ . (19)
with Kj = diag(kj1 , . . . , kjN ), kji > 0, j ∈ {d, β}, i =
1, . . . , N , and
Thus, the closed loop dynamical system of ξ(t) =
h
iT
ξdT (t), ξβT (t) may be written in compact form as:



1
Mβ
i

rβ (ξβ ) = diag  

ξβ

1+ M

"

εd (ξd ) = ln
"

εβ (ξβ ) = ln

ξd

1
d1
ξd
1− M 1
d1

1+ M

ξβ

1+ M

1
β1

ξβ

1− M

1
β1

i
βi

!
!

+ M1


 βi
ξβ
1− M i
βi
i=1,...,N
!#T
ξd
1+ M N

, . . . , ln

dN
ξd
N
dN

1− M

ξβ

, . . . , ln

1+ M

N
βN

ξβ

1− M

N
βN

!#T

.

(13)

(14)

ξ˙ = h(t, ξ) =



hd (t, ξd )
hβ (t, ξd , ξβ )



.

(20)

Let us also define the open set Ωξ = Ωξd × Ωξβ , where:
Ωξd = (−M d1 , M d1 ) × · · · × (−M dN , M dN )

(15)

Remark 1: Notice from (11) and (12) that the proposed
control protocol is decentralized in the sense that each
vehicle utilizes only local relative to its preceding vehicle
information, obtained by its on board camera, to calculate its
own control signal. Furthermore, the proposed methodology
results in a low complexity design. No hard calculations
(neither analytic nor numerical) are required to output the
proposed control signal, thus making its distributed implementation straightforward. Additionally, we stress that the
desired transient and steady state performance specifications
as well as the collision and connectivity constraints are
exclusively introduced via the appropriate selection of ρji (t)
and M ji , M ji , j ∈ {d, β}, i = 1, . . . , N .
B. Stability Analysis
The main results of this work are summarized in the
following theorem.

Ωξβ = (−M β1 , M β1 ) × · · · × (−M βN , M βN ).
In what follows, we proceed in two phases. First, the
existence of a unique solution ξ(t) of (20) over the set
Ωξ for a time interval [0, τmax ) is ensured (i.e., ξ(t) ∈
Ωξ , ∀t ∈ [0, τmax )). Then, we prove that the proposed control
protocol (9)-(15) guarantees: a) the boundedness of all closed
loop signals for all t ∈ [0, τmax ) as well as that b) ξ(t)
remains strictly within a compact subset of Ωξ , which leads
by contradiction to τmax = ∞ and consequently to the
completion of the proof.
Phase A. Selecting the parameters M ji , M ji , j ∈ {d, β},
i = 1, . . . , N according to (7), we guarantee that the set
Ωξ is nonempty and open. Moreover, as shown in (8) from
Assumption A1, we conclude that ξ(0) ∈ Ωξ . Additionally,
notice that the function h is continuous in t and locally
Lipschitz in ξ over the set Ωξ . Therefore, the hypothesis
of Theorem 54 in [30] (p.p. 476) hold and the existence of
a maximal solution ξ(t) of (20) on a time interval [0, τmax )
such that ξ(t) ∈ Ωξ , ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) is ensured.

Phase B. We have proven in Phase A that ξ(t) ∈ Ωξ ,
∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) and more specifically that:

e (t)
ξdi (t) = ρddi (t) ∈ (−M di , M di ) 
i
, i = 1, . . . , N (21)
e (t)
ξβi (t) = βi ∈ (−M β , M βi ) 
ρβi (t)

i

for all t ∈ [0, τmax ), from which we obtain that edi (t)
and eβi (t) are absolutely bounded by max{M di , M di } and
max{M βi , M βi } respectively for i = 1, . . . , N . Let us also
define:
rdi (ξdi ) =

1
1
Md + M
i
 di
,

ξd
ξd
1− M i
1+ M i
di

i = 1, . . . , N .

(22)

di

Now, assume there exists a set I ⊆ {1, . . . , N } such that
limt→τmax ξdk (t) = M dk (or −M dk ), ∀k ∈ I. Hence, invoking (14) and (22), we conclude that limt→τmax εdk (ξdk (t)) =
+∞ (or −∞) and limt→τmax rdk (ξdk (t)) = +∞,
∀k ∈ I. Moreover, we also deduce from (11) that
¯ where
limt→τmax vk (ξdk , t) remains bounded for all k ∈ I,
¯
I is the complementary set of I. To proceed,
let us define

k̄ = min{I} and notice that εdk̄ ξdk̄ , as derived from
(14), is well defined for all t ∈ [0, τmax ), owing to (21).
Therefore, consider the positive definite and radially unbounded function Vdk̄ = 12 ε2dk̄ for which it is clear that
limt→τmax Vdk̄ (t) = +∞. However, differentiating Vdk̄ with
respect to time and substituting (3), we obtain:

V̇dk̄ = εdk̄ rdk̄ ξdk̄ ρ−1
dk̄ (−kdk̄ εk̄ cos βk̄

(23)
+ vk̄−1 cos(γk̄ + βk̄ ) − ρ̇dk̄ ξdk̄ .

from which, owing to the fact that vk̄−1 cos(γk̄ +βk̄ )− ρ̇dk̄ ξdk̄
is bounded and cos (βk̄ ) > cos (βcon ) > 0, we conclude
that limt→τmax V̇dk̄ (t) = −∞, which clearly contradicts to
our supposition that limt→τmax Vdk̄ (t) = +∞. Thus, we
conclude that k̄ doesn’t exist and hence that I is an empty
set. Therefore, there exist ξ d and ξ̄di such that:
i

− M di < ξ d ≤ ξdi (t) ≤ ξ̄di < M di , ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ) (24)
i

for all i = 1, . . . , N , from which it can be easily deduced
that εd (ξd ) and consequently the control input (11) remain
bounded for all t ∈ [0, τmax ).
Notice also from (21) that εβ (ξβ ), as derived from (15),
is well defined for all t ∈ [0, τmax ). Therefore, consider
the positive definite and radially unbounded function Vβ =
−1
1 T
2 εβ Kβ εβ . Differentiating Vβ with respect to time and
substituting (19), we obtain:
V̇β = − εTβ rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1

2

+ εTβ rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1 Kβ−1

(D−1 S̃Kd εd (ξd ) + D−1 s − ρ̇β (t) ξβ ) .
Hence, exploiting the boundedness of D−1 , S̃, s and εd (ξd ),
we get:
V̇β ≤ − εTβ rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1

2

+ εTβ rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1 Kβ−1 B̄β

(25)

where B̄β is a positive constant independent of τmax , satisfying:
D−1 (S̃Kd εd (ξd ) + s − Dρ̇β (t) ξβ ) ≤ B̄ β

(26)

for all ξ(t) ∈ Ωξ . Therefore, we conclude that V̇β is
negative when εTβ rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1 > Kβ−1 B̄β , from
which, owing to the positive definiteness and diagonality of
rβ (ξβ ) (ρβ (t))−1 and Kβ−1 as well as employing (6) and
(13), it can be easily verified that:



M β M βi
−1
i
kεβ (t)k ≤ ε̄β := max kεβ (0)k , Kβ B̄β max M +M
βi

βi

for all t ∈ [0, τmax ). Furthermore, invoking the inverse
logarithm in (15), we obtain:
−M βi <

e−ε̄β −1
M βi
e−ε̄β +1

=
ξ β ≤ ξβi (t) ≤ ξ¯βi
i

=

eε̄β −1
M βi
eε̄β +1

< M βi
(27)
for all t ∈ [0, τmax ) and i = 1, . . . , N . Thus, the control
input ω (ξβ , t) designed in (12) remains bounded for all t ∈
[0, τmax ).
Up to this point, what remains to be shown is that τmax
can be extended to ∞. In this direction, notice by (24) and
(27) that ξ(t) ∈ Ω′ξ = Ω′ξd × Ω′ξβ , ∀t ∈ [0, τmax ), where
Ω′ξd = [ξ d , ξ̄d1 ] × . . . × [ξ d , ξ¯dN ]
1
N
Ω′ = [ξ , ξ̄β ] × . . . × [ξ , ξ¯β ]
ξβ

β1

1

βN

N

are nonempty and compact subsets of Ωξd and Ωξβ respectively. Hence, assuming that τmax < ∞ and since Ω′ξ ⊂ Ωξ ,
Proposition C.3.6 in [30] (p.p. 481) dictates the existence of
a time instant t′ ∈ [0, τmax ) such that ξ(t′ ) ∈
/ Ω′ξ , which is a
clear contradiction. Therefore, τmax = ∞ and ξ(t) ∈ Ω′ξ ⊂
Ωξ , ∀t ≥ 0. Finally, multiplying (24) and (27) by ρdi (t) and
ρβi (t) respectively, we conclude:

−M di ρdi (t) < edi (t) < M di ρdi (t)
, ∀t ≥ 0 (28)
−M βi ρβi (t) < eβi (t) < M βi ρβi (t)
for all i = 1, . . . , N and consequently the solution of the 2-D
formation control problem with prescribed performance under collision and connectivity constraints for the considered
platoon of vehicles.
Remark 2: From the aforementioned proof it can be deduced that the proposed control scheme achieves its goals
without resorting to the need of rendering the transformed
errors εd (ξd ), εβ (ξβ ) arbitrarily small by adopting extreme
values of the control gains Kd , Kβ (see (23) and (25)). The
actual performance given in (28) is solely determined by
the designer-specified functions ρdi (t) , ρβi (t) and parameters M di , M di , M βi , M βi , that are related to the collision
and connectivity constraints. Furthermore, the selection of
the control gains Kd , Kβ is significantly simplified to
adopting those values that lead to reasonable control effort.
Nonetheless, is should be noted that their selection affects
the control input characteristics (i.e., decreasing the gain

4
3

0
−1

2
1

2

4

6

8

10

ed4 (m)

ed3 (m)

−1

0

2

4

6

8

0
−1

−5
−6

0

2

4

6

8
x(m)

10

12

14

0

2

4

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

6

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

0
−1

10

0
−1

0

2

4

6

8

10

t(sec)

Fig. 4. The evolution of the distance errors edi (t), i = 1, ..., 7 (blue lines),
along with the imposed performance bounds (red lines).
50
eβ2 (deg)

eβ1 (deg)

50
0
−50
2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

50
eβ4 (deg)

50
eβ3 (deg)

0
−50

0

0
−50

0
−50

0

2

4

6

8

10
50
eβ2 (deg)

50
eβ5 (deg)

values leads to increased oscillatory behavior within the
prescribed performance envelope described by (5), which is
improved when adopting, higher values, enlarging, however,
the control effort both in magnitude and rate). Additionally,
fine tuning might be needed in real-time scenarios, to retain
the required linear and angular velocities within the range
that can be implemented by the motors. Similarly, control
input constraints impose an upper bound on the required
speed of convergence of ρdi (t), ρβi (t) that is affected by
the exponentials e−ld t , e−lβ t .

8

1

16

Fig. 3. The trajectories on a planar surface of the vehicles composing the
platoon.

6

t(sec)

ed7 (m)

Leader Agent
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3
Agent 4
Agent 5
Agent 6
Agent 7

−4

4

1
ed6 (m)

ed5 (m)

−3

2

0
−1

10

1

−2

0

1

0
−1

y(m)

0

0
−1

1

0

−7

1
ed2 (m)

ed1 (m)

1

0
−50

0
−50

0

2

4

6

8

10

t(sec)

To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed decentralized control protocol, a realistic simulation was carried out in
the WEBOTSTM platform [31], considering a platoon comprising of a Pioneer3AT/leader and 7 Pioneer3DX following
vehicles. The inter-vehicular distance and the bearing angle
are obtained by a camera with range D = 2m and angle
of view AoV = 90o , that is mounted on each Pioneer3DX
vehicle and detects a white spherical marker attached on
its predecessor. The leading vehicle performs a smooth
maneuver depicted in Fig. 3, along with the trajectories of the
following vehicles. The desired distance between successive
vehicles is set equally at di,des = d = 0.75m, i = 1, . . . , 7,
whereas the collision and connectivity constraints are given
by dcol = 0.05d = 0.0375m and dcon = D = 2m. Regarding
o
the heading error, we select βcon = AoV
2 = 45 . In addition,
we require steady state error of no more than 0.0625m
and minimum speed of convergence as obtained by the
exponential e−0.5t for the distance error. Thus, invoking (7),
we select the parameters M di = 0.7125m, M di = 1.25m
−0.5t
+ 0.0625
and the functions ρdi (t) = (1 − 0.0625
1.25 )e
1.25 ,
i = 1, . . . , 7. In the same vein, we require maximum steady
state error of 1.15o and minimum speed of convergence as
obtained by the exponential e−0.5t for the heading error.
Therefore, M βi = M βi = βcon = 45o and ρβi (t) =

eβ7 (deg)

50

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS

0
−50
0

2

4

6

8

10

t(sec)

Fig. 5. The evolution of the heading errors eβi (t), i = 1, ..., 7 (blue lines),
along with the imposed performance bounds (red lines).

−0.5t
(1− 1.15
+ 1.15
45 )e
45 , i = 1, . . . , 7. Finally, we chose Kd =
diag[0.005, . . . , 0.005] and Kβ = diag[0.001, . . . , 0.001] to
produce reasonable linear and angular velocities that can be
implemented by the motors of the mobile robots.
The simulation results are illustrated in Figs. 4-6. More
specifically, the evolution of the distance and heading errors
edi (t), eβi (t), i = 1, . . . , 7 is depicted in Figs. 4 and
5 respectively, along with the corresponding performance
bounds. The inter-vehicular distance along with the collision
and connectivity constraints are pictured in Fig. 6. As it
was predicted by the theoretical analysis, the decentralized
2-D control problem of vehicular platoons under limited
visual feedback is solved with guaranteed transient and
steady state response, collision avoidance and connectivity
maintenance. Finally, the accompanying video demonstrates
the aforementioned simulation study in the WEBOTSTM
platform.

2.1
d

Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3
Agent 4
Agent 5
Agent 6
Agent 7

con

Di , i = 1, ..., 7(m)

Connectivity constraint

0.8
0.75
d

i,des

Collision constraint

d
0

0

1

col

2

3

4

5
t(sec)

6

7

8

9

10

Fig. 6. The distance between successive vehicles along with the collision
and connectivity constraints.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
We proposed a 2-D decentralized control protocol for
vehicular platoons under the predecessor-following architecture, that establishes arbitrarily fast and maintains with
arbitrary accuracy a desired formation without: i) any intervehicular collisions and ii) violating the connectivity constraints imposed by the limited field of view of the onboard
cameras that are used for visual feedback. Future research efforts will be devoted towards: i) addressing the bidirectional
architecture in a similar framework (i.e., prescribed performance as well as collision and connectivity constraints),
ii) guaranteeing obstacle avoidance and iii) extending the
control protocol to apply for uncertain nonlinear vehicle
dynamics. Finally, real-time experiments will be conducted
to verify the theoretical findings.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Swaroop and J. Hedrick, “String stability of interconnected systems,” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 41, no. 3, pp.
349–357, Mar 1996.
[2] T. S. No, K.-T. Chong, and D.-H. Roh, “A lyapunov function approach
to longitudinal control of vehicles in a platoon,” Vehicular Technology,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 116–124, Jan 2001.
[3] M. R. Jovanovic and B. Bamieh, “On the ill-posedness of certain
vehicular platoon control problems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1307–1321, 2005.
[4] P. Barooah, P. G. Mehta, and J. P. Hespanha, “Mistuning-based control
design to improve closed-loop stability margin of vehicular platoons,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2100–
2113, 2009.
[5] F. Lin, M. Fardad, and M. Jovanovic, “Optimal control of vehicular
formations with nearest neighbor interactions,” Automatic Control,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2203–2218, Sept 2012.
[6] J. Hedrick, M. Tomizuka, and P. Varaiya, “Control issues in automated
highway systems,” Control Systems, IEEE, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 21–32,
Dec 1994.
[7] P. Y. Li, R. Horowitz, L. Alvarez, J. Frankel, and A. M. Robertson,
“An automated highway system link layer controller for traffic flow
stabilization,” 1997.
[8] R. Rajamani, H.-S. Tan, B. K. Law, and W.-B. Zhang, “Demonstration
of integrated longitudinal and lateral control for the operation of
automated vehicles in platoons,” Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 695–708, Jul 2000.

[9] H. . Tan, R. Rajesh, and W. . Zhang, “Demonstration of an automated
highway platoon system,” in Proceedings of the American Control
Conference, vol. 3, 1998, pp. 1823–1827.
[10] M. Mazo, A. Speranzon, K. Johansson, and X. Hu, “Multi-robot
tracking of a moving object using directional sensors,” in Robotics and
Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA ’04. 2004 IEEE International
Conference on, vol. 2, April 2004, pp. 1103–1108 Vol.2.
[11] G. Mariottini, G. Pappas, D. Prattichizzo, and K. Daniilidis, “Visionbased localization of leader-follower formations,” in Decision and
Control, 2005 and 2005 European Control Conference. CDC-ECC
’05. 44th IEEE Conference on, Dec 2005, pp. 635–640.
[12] T. Gustavi and X. Hu, “Formation control for mobile robots with
limited sensor information,” in Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA
2005. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on,
April 2005, pp. 1791–1796.
[13] A. Das, R. Fierro, V. Kumar, J. Ostrowski, J. Spletzer, and C. Taylor,
“A vision-based formation control framework,” Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 813–825, Oct 2002.
[14] T. Gustavi and X. Hu, “Observer-based leader-following formation
control using onboard sensor information,” Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1457–1462, Dec 2008.
[15] M. Khatir and E. Davison, “A decentralized lateral-longitudinal controller for a platoon of vehicles operating on a plane,” in American
Control Conference, 2006, June 2006, pp. 6 pp.–.
[16] M. Pham and D. Wang, “A unified nonlinear controller for a platoon of
car-like vehicles,” in American Control Conference, 2004. Proceedings
of the 2004, vol. 3, June 2004, pp. 2350–2355 vol.3.
[17] A. Ali, G. Garcia, and P. Martinet, “Minimizing the inter-vehicle
distances of the time headway policy for urban platoon control with
decoupled longitudinal and lateral control,” in Intelligent Transportation Systems - (ITSC), 2013 16th International IEEE Conference on,
Oct 2013, pp. 1805–1810.
[18] H. Tanner, G. Pappas, and V. Kumar, “Leader-to-formation stability,”
Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, no. 3, pp.
443–455, June 2004.
[19] J. Lawton, R. Beard, and B. Young, “A decentralized approach to
formation maneuvers,” Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions
on, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 933–941, Dec 2003.
[20] D. Maithripala, J. Berg, D. Maithripala, and S. Jayasuriya, “A geometric virtual structure approach to decentralized formation control,”
in American Control Conference (ACC), 2014, June 2014, pp. 5736–
5741.
[21] D. Godbole and J. Lygeros, “Longitudinal control of the lead car of a
platoon,” Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 43, no. 4,
pp. 1125–1135, Nov 1994.
[22] R. Vidal, O. Shakernia, and S. Sastry, “Formation control of nonholonomic mobile robots with omnidirectional visual servoing and motion
segmentation,” in Robotics and Automation, 2003. Proceedings. ICRA
’03. IEEE International Conference on, vol. 1, Sept 2003, pp. 584–589
vol.1.
[23] H. Hao, P. Barooah, and P. G. Mehta, “Distributed control of two
dimensional vehicular formations: stability margin improvement by
mistuning,” in ASME 2009 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009, pp. 699–706.
[24] D. Panagou and V. Kumar, “Cooperative visibility maintenance for
leader-follower formations in obstacle environments,” Robotics, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 831–844, Aug 2014.
[25] N. Cowan, O. Shakerina, R. Vidal, and S. Sastry, “Vision-based followthe-leader,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003. (IROS 2003).
Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, vol. 2, Oct
2003, pp. 1796–1801 vol.2.
[26] G. Mariottini, F. Morbidi, D. Prattichizzo, G. Pappas, and K. Daniilidis, “Leader-follower formations: Uncalibrated vision-based localization and control,” in Robotics and Automation, 2007 IEEE International Conference on, April 2007, pp. 2403–2408.
[27] G. Mariottini, F. Morbidi, D. Prattichizzo, N. Vander Valk, N. Michael,
G. Pappas, and K. Daniilidis, “Vision-based localization for leaderfollower formation control,” Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 25,
no. 6, pp. 1431–1438, Dec 2009.
[28] C. P. Bechlioulis, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos,
“Robust control of large vehicular platoons with prescribed transient
and steady state performance,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, 2014, Accepted.
[29] C. P. Bechlioulis and G. A. Rovithakis, “A low-complexity global
approximation-free control scheme with prescribed performance for

unknown pure feedback systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 4, pp.
1217–1226, 2014.
[30] E. D. Sontag, Mathematical Control Theory. London, U.K.: Springer,
1998.
[31] Cyberbotics, “Webots: A commercial Mobile Robot Simulation Software,” http://www.cyberbotics.com, Online.

