Research Papers

Batch Process and Sensitivity Analysis of Collision Detection of Planar Convex Polygons in Motion

[+] Author and Article Information
Cheng-fu Chen

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alaska Fairbanks,
P.O. Box 755905,
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5905

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering. Manuscript received March 12, 2012; final manuscript received June 28, 2013; published online August 19, 2013. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 13(4), 041001 (Aug 19, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: JCISE-12-1044; doi: 10.1115/1.4024971 History: Received March 12, 2012; Revised June 28, 2013

A new method for formulation, solution, and sensitivity analysis of collision detection of convex objects in motion is presented. The collision detection problem is formulated as a parametric programming problem governed by the changes in the relative translation and relative rotation between the two objects considered. The two parameters together determine all the possible relative configurations between two moving convex objects. Therefore, solving this parametric problem allows for knowing the proximity information for all the possible configurations of the objects. We develop a two-step decomposition procedure to solve this parametric programming problem, and show that the solution is a convex function of the two parameters. This convexity feature enables an archive of the proximity information and sensitivity analysis for the collision detection problem.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Hwang, Y., and Ahuja, N., 1992, “Gross Motion Planning—A Survey,” ACM Comput. Surv., 24(3), pp. 219–291. [CrossRef]
Akgunduz, A., Banerjee, P., and Mehrotra, S., 2005, “A Linear Programming Solution for Exact Collision Detection,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 5(1), pp. 48–55. [CrossRef]
Lin, M., and Gottschalk, S., 1998, “Collision Detection Between Geometric Models: a Survey,” Proceedings of IMA Conference on Mathematics of Surfaces.
Cohen, J. D., Lin, M. C., Manocha, D., and Ponamgi, M. K., 1995, “I-COLLIDE: An Interactive and Exact Collision System for Large-Scale Environments,” Proceedings of ACM Interactive 3D Graphic Conference, Monterey, CA, pp. 189–196.
Gottschalk, S., Lin, M. C., and Manocha, D., 1996, “OBB-Tree: A Hierarchical Structure for Rapid Interference Detection,” Proceedings of SIGGRAPH, New Orleans, LA, pp. 171–180.
Quinlan, S., 1994, “Efficient Distance Computation Between Non-Convex Objects,” Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3324–3329.
Hubbard, P. M., 1996, “Approximating Polyhedra With Spheres for Time-Critical Collision Detection,” ACM Trans. Graph., 15, pp. 179–210. [CrossRef]
Lin, M., and Canny, J., 1991. “A Fast Algorithm for Incremental Distance Calculation,” Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, pp. 1008–1014.
Ong, C. J., and Gilbert, E. G., 1997, “The Gilbert-Johnson-Keerthi Distance Algorithm: A Fast Version for Incremental Motions,” Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1183–1189.
Ponamgi, M., Manocha, D., and Lin, M., 1997, “Incremental Algorithms for Collision Detection Between Solid Models,” IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 3(1), pp. 51–64. [CrossRef]
Leung, B., Wu, C.-H., Memik, S. O., and Mehrotra, S., 2010, “An Interior Point Optimization Solver for Real Time Inter-Frame Collision Detection: Exploring Resource-Accuracy-Platform Tradeoffs,” 2010 International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications, pp. 113–118.
Ong, C., and Gilbert, E. G., 1996, “Growth Distance: New Measures for Object-Separation and Penetration,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom., 12(6), pp. 888–903. [CrossRef]
Rimon, E., and Boyd, S., 1997, “Obstacle Collision Detection Using Best Ellopsoid Fit,” J. Intell. Rob. Syst., 18(2), pp. 105–126. [CrossRef]
Schlemmer, M., and Gruebel, G., 1998, “Real-Time Collision-Free Trajectory Optimization of Robot Manipulators Vis Semi-Infinite Parameter Optimization,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 17(9), pp. 1013–1021. [CrossRef]
Azizi, F., and Houshanqi, N., 2003. “Sensor Integration for Mobile Robot Position Determination,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Washington, DC, pp. 1136–1140.
N.Megiddo, 1987, “On the Complexity of Linear Programming,” Advances in Economic Theory, Fifth World Congress, Bewley, T. F., ed., Cambridge University Press, USA, pp. 225–268.
Chen, C., 2000, “A Linear Programming Approach for Proximity and Collision Avoidance of Polyhedral Objects,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Dantzig, G., 1963, Linear Programming and Extensions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The growth model and growth distance [12]. The original shape of each object is in gray; and its growth model (similar to its original shape) is in white. Three possible proximal relations between the two objects: (a) separate (d > 1), (b) just in contact (d = 1), or (c) interfered (d < 1).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A convex polygon can be expressed as the convex combination of the vectors pointing from a seed point pk to each vertex of the polygon. The motion of this object can be uniquely addressed, in the sense of kinematics, by its translational degrees of freedom pk(t) and rotational degree of freedom θK(t).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The growth distance of two polygons is determined by their relative configuration regardless their global coordinates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The change in the relative configuration between two convex polygons (in gray) is a kinematic combination of a pure translation Δp˜(t) and a pure rotation Δθ˜(t). (a) The initial configurations of OA and OQ, together with their growth models outlined in a just-contact condition. The change in the relative configuration is kinematically equivalent to either (b) the translation-first and rotation-second sequence Q1 → Q2 → Q3, or (c) the rotation-first and translation-second sequence Q1 →Q3 → Q2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of the two-step decomposition procedure for the change in the relative configuration of two moving convex polygons OA and OQ by a translation-rotation sequence (Q1 → Q2 → Q3). (a) Q1 → Q2 is a kinematic translation Δp˜(t), whereby the growth models OAT and OQT are scaled to be just in contact. The growth distance is l2/l1, where l1 and l2 are the size index to their original and “grown” shapes, respectively. (b) Q2 → Q3 is a kinematic rotation Δθ˜(t). Their growth distance is l3/l2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Example. (a) The initial configurations of two square objects. (b) dTrans is an unbounded, convex function of Δp˜ = [Δx˜,Δy˜] and has a minimum 0 at Δp˜ = [4,7] where the only vertex locates. (c) The projection of dTrans. The path ABC is used for the illustration in Fig. 7. (d) dRot has a periodicity of 180 deg for this example.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The change in the relative translation of two square objects (in gray) follows the path ABC defined in Fig. 6(c). The growth models are shown in white. (a) The growth models of the two objects, subject to the “just in contact” condition, remain unchanged along the path from A to B. The growth models are in point-contact in configurations A and B, while in line-contact between A and B. (b) and (c) As the relative translation follows the path from B to C, the growth models is expanded until they are just in contact to each other.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In