Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Terramechanics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

A review of autonomous agricultural vehicles (The experience of

Hokkaido University)
Ali Roshanianfard a,⇑, Noboru Noguchi b, Hiroshi Okamoto b, Kazunobu Ishii c
a
Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Daneshghah Street, Ardabil, Iran
b
Laboratory of Vehicle Robotics, Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Kita-9, Nishi-9, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8589, Japan
c
Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Kita-9, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8589, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Robotic farming will play an undeniably significant role in future sustainable agriculture. Autonomous
Received 18 January 2020 agricultural vehicles for arable crops and their components are reviewed herein, and their differing pos-
Revised 25 June 2020 sible components, advantages and disadvantages are discussed. The autonomous agricultural vehicles are
Accepted 29 June 2020
qualified from technical points of view, including each vehicle’s hardware unit (platform development,
platform, transporter system, operation functions, communication, sensors [positional sensor, attitude
sensor, and safety sensor], and control unit), the physical environment, and the control algorithm. The
Keywords:
development process for different vehicles is described. As an operational case study, all investigations
Smart farming
Digital farming
conducted at Hokkaido University between 1990 and 2018 are discussed and evaluated based on the
Precision farming described classification. The development procedure, the process of component selection, developmental
Agricultural robot challenges, and the performance indicators of the vehicles are discussed in detail. The development pro-
Artificial intelligence cess and applicability of each component are then presented, and recommendations for future studies are
Autonomous vehicle noted. Finally, the most important experiences and lessons, and some recommendations are outlined.
Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
2. The characterization of autonomous vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.1. The variation AV hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.1.1. The variation in platform development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2.1.2. The variation in platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
2.1.3. The variation in transporter systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
2.1.4. The variation in operation function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
2.1.5. The variation in communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
2.1.6. The variation in sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
2.1.7. The variation in controlling unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.2. The variation in environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2.3. The variation in controlling algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
2.4. Performance indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3. Literature review results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.1. Autonomous vehicle in Hokkaido university . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.1.1. AV-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
3.1.2. AV-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3.1.3. AV-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.1.4. AV-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
3.1.5. AV-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

⇑ Corresponding author at: Assistant Professor of Biosystem Engineering, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili.
E-mail addresses: alirf@uma.ac.ir, alirf@bpe.agr.hokudai.ac.jp, ali.roshanian@yahoo.com (A. Roshanianfard), noguchi@cen.agr.hokudai.ac.jp (N. Noguchi), hiro@bpe.agr.
hokudai.ac.jp (H. Okamoto), ici@bpe.agr.hokudai.ac.jp (K. Ishii).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2020.06.006
0022-4898/Ó 2020 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
156 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Nomenclatures

Abbr. Explanation UTV Utility vehicles

AI Artificial intelligence ATV All-terrain vehicle
AR(s) Agricultural robot(s) AV-n Autonomous vehicles - number
LIDAR Light detection and ranging PTO Power take-off
GDS Geomagnetic direction sensor IO Input/output
CBM Controlled by modifications AD Analog-to-digital board
TMS Transcranial magnetic sensor ECU Engine control unit
PC Personal computer CAN-bus Controller area network-bus
DA Digital-to-analog board IOT Internet of things
PMC Pulse motor control LTE Long-term evolution
USB Universal serial bus SNAV Smooth navigation
PDS Personal digital assistant GPS Global positioning system
LNAV Lateral navigation RTK-GPS Real-time kinematic GPS
XNAV X-ray pulsar-based navigation VeBots Vehicle robotics
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers multi-RTs
JAEI Japan Aviation Electronics Industries Multi-robot tractors
IMU Inertial measuring unit FOG Fiber optical gyroscope
GNSS Global satellite navigation system DGPS differential GPS
OSV Omnidirectional stereovision RMSE Root means square error
API Application programming interface INS Inertial navigation system
PID Proportional-integral-derivative FOG Fiber optical gyroscope
CWM Controlled without modification GA Genetic algorithm
GIS Geographic information system FL Fuzzy logic
LSM Least squares method VRS Virtual reference station
DOF Degrees-of-freedom PTU Pan-tilt unit
PPW Payload per weight CB Circle back
HST Hydrostatic transmission ANN Artificial Neural Network
AAV autonomous agricultural vehicles HRI Human-robot interaction
USV Unmanned Surface Vehicle GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
MPC Model predictive control MIMO multi-input and multi-output
LRF laser range finder SHB sliding hitch bar

3.1.6. AV-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

3.1.7. AV-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.1.8. AV-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.1.9. AV-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.1.10. AV-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.1.11. AV-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.1.12. AV-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.1.13. AV-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.2. Characterization results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.3. The development of communication system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.4. The development of positioning system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.5. The development of attitude sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
3.6. The development of safety sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
3.7. Performance qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
4. Lessons learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

1. Introduction 2017). Supporting this population will not be possible unless

Being able to provide food for the world’s population will be a
significant concern for governments in the near future, and self-
sufficiency in food production is the main criterion with which
countries will struggle. It is estimated that the world’s population
will increase to 11.8 billion by 2100 (Statistics Bureau of Japan,
long-term planning is included in the future policies of the agricul-
ture industry, which has faced other new challenges over the past
few decades — including food self-sufficiency and rural migration
to cities. The number of agricultural harvestable farms worldwide
is limited, and these farms must deal with water crises, labor
shortages, natural phenomena, and economic issues that could
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
markedly reduce farming opportunities. The change of forests to
agricultural fields will also have irreversible consequences on the
ecosystem, air pollution levels, and oxygen production.
In developed countries such as Japan and the United States, the
younger generation’s interest in agriculture is steadily declining
because of farmers’ low income compared to office work, the diffi-
culty of farm work, and changes in cultural attitudes. According to
global agriculture statistics, the average age of farmers is 65.9 years
in Japan (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2017), compared to 55.9 years
old in the U.S. (USDA, 2019) and 52 years old in Iran
(Asadollahpour et al., 2014). With declining farming populations,
the majority of farmers are considered ’too old’ to handle the rigor-
ous demands of the industry. According to the latest report from
the Statistics Bureau of Japan, the number of laborers continued
to decrease over the period from 1960 to 2013 from 20.33 million
(30.2% of total workers) to 13.40 million (3.7% of total workers).
This problem and others have had a negative effect on the agricul-
tural output in Japan, which was 8.47 trillion yen in 2013, down
0.7% from 2012 (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2017).
However, based on a Global Agricultural Productivity report, a
100% increase in agricultural production is necessary over the next
40 years (Ellen et al., 2013). It is apparent that the world will have
fewer farmers, older farmers, limited farmland, water crises, cli-
mate change, and population growth in the future, all of which
continue to increase the complexity of agriculture issues. These
factors comprise a multi-variable problem that scientists must
solve considering a single overarching challenge: how to produce
more food with limited resources.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic technology will be key
tools for addressing this complicated situation. Agricultural robots
(ARs) could become a benchmark technology for saving human
society when the properly designed systems for agricultural unpre-
dictable environments are achieved. ARs can work all day long;
they can be programmed for different tasks; their efficiency can
be increased with an optimized algorithm; and they are economi-
cally efficient in the long term. In the case of robot tractors, ARs can
have multiple applications, and serval ARs can collaborate to do
one or several tasks in one or more fields.
However, there is still a long way to go before ARs can be used
effectively worldwide. More opportunities to develop ARs with
high efficiency and at reasonable economic cost are needed. The
inception of ARs has provided a new horizon for the future of farm-
ing. Labor issues must be considered, but the potential capability of
robotic science and farming experience can be merged. Some of the
challenges noted above are related to the changes in natural
resources, whereas other issues have arisen due to human
resources.
Several research groups around the world have achieved very
promising advances in agricultural robotics. Qiao et al. (2005) used
a mobile fruit-grading robot to study a database that was created
for sweet peppers. An agricultural robot designed to improve the
quality of products, the cost, and safety (especially in greenhouses)
was developed by Belforte et al. (2006). Kondo et al. (2009) pre-
sented a machine vision system for automatic tomato harvesting.
A wearable agri-robot mechanism for farmers was developed by
Toyama and Yamamoto (2009b). Rajendra et al. (2009) described
the methodology they used to develop an image processing algo-
rithm for a strawberry harvester robot.
To address the challenges and difficulties of daily work in an
orchard on slopes, Kurashiki et al. (2010b) studied laser-based
vehicle control for use in orchards, and they proposed a self-
localization algorithm for 2D laser fingers for mobile robots
(Kurashiki et al., 2010a). A paper discussing the advantages of 3D
light detection and ranging (LIDAR) compared to traditional sensor
fusion was presented by Weiss and Biber (2011). Kurita et al.
157
(2012) introduced technology for automated unloading by a
robotic head-feeding combine harvester that uses image process-
ing. A fuzzy controller in a mushroom-growing hall was modeled
by Faizollahzadeh Ardabili et al. (2016). Thanpattranon et al.
(2016) were developed a control algorithm for a single-sensor
tractor-trailer navigation system for traveling between plots for
various in-field tasks, such as product loading/unloading using a
laser range finder (LRF). The LRF was used to navigate vehicle
and a sliding hitch bar (SHB) was developed to modify the opera-
tion in narrow rows and to support the navigation system with a
wider turn for the trailer than a conventional single hitch point.
More agricultural robots worth mentioning are a cucumber-
harvesting robot (Van Henten et al., 2009), a robot platform in a
sugar beet field (Bakker et al., 2011), an asparagus-harvesting robot
(Dong et al., 2011), a mobile grading machine for citrus fruit
(Kohno et al., 2011), a robot combine harvester for beans (Saito
et al., 2013), a robotic system for paddy field farming (Tamaki
et al., 2013), a sweet pepper harvester (Eizicovits et al., 2016),
and a multi-arm robotic harvester (Zion et al., 2014). Robots
designed to harvest strawberries (Hayashi et al., 2010), apples
(De-An et al., 2011), white asparagus (Barawid et al., 2007), cher-
ries (Tanigaki et al., 2008), tomatoes, petty-tomatoes, cucumbers,
and grapes (Kondo et al., 1996) have been reported. Moreover, sta-
tionary robots are used for sheep shearing (Tanner et al., 2001),
wearable robots are available for agricultural work (Toyama and
Yamamoto, 2009a), and robot tractors have been designed
(Noguchi and Barawid, 2011; Zhang et al., 2015). Pettersson et al.
(2010) designed a magnetorheological robot gripper for the han-
dling of food products with varying shapes such as carrots, straw-
berries, tomatoes, and grapes. Pettersson et al. (2011) designed an
end-effector by the same target to handle varying small-sized
crops. A pneumatic gripper equipped with a pressure sensor to
grasp eggplants and apples was reported by Blanes et al. (2016).
Kim et al. (2008) designed and manufactured a hybrid robotic sys-
tem for heavy crops such as melons by combining a parallel mech-
anism and an end-effector. The above-cited papers are just a
sampling of the studies in the field of autonomous agricultural
vehicles.
Thanks to many valuable reviews were presented in the field of
agricultural autonomous vehicle. Li et al. (2009) briefly character-
ized the autonomous guidance system for agricultural vehicles
(AVs) including navigation sensors (GPS, machine vision, dead-
reckoning sensors, laser-based sensors, IMUs, and GDSs), computa-
tional methods for features and fuse extraction, navigation plan-
ners to supply control algorithms and steering controllers to
control position and orientations. As mentioned in this paper,
when the article published, the guidance systems had not yet been
fully developed and commercialized. Mousazadeh (2013) also
reviewed and classified the autonomous agricultural vehicles
(AAVs) from the positioning and navigation point of view. He more
focused on navigation theorems and algorithms such as an artifi-
cial neural network (ANN), genetic algorithm (GA), and Kalman fil-
ter. Also, a review presented by Zhou et al. (2020) focused on path
planning problems is a multi-modality constraint. They classified
this issue in 3 main stages: (1) basic ingredients (shape, kinemat-
ics, and dynamics), (2) route planning, and (3) trajectory and
motion Planning, and reviewed different methods applied to the
Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs).
Bochtis et al. (2014) presented a review of the advantages of
agricultural machinery management for future intelligent manned
and/or unmanned operations. This paper more focused on mecha-
nization and its infrastructure for future smart farming in the
strategic, tactical, operational, and evaluation levels.
Vasconez et al. (2019b) reviewed the Human-robot interaction
(HRI) where humans and robots interact to solve complicated
158 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
problems including the agriculture industry. They compared the
autonomous levels of field crops versus other crops that require
more complicated robotic harvesting. They mentioned about the
problem of labor shortage in some countries and how they struggle
with it. Also, Vougioukas (2019) reviewed the challenges imposed
on AAVs by agricultural environments which vary in conditions,
canopy structures, and physical and/or chemical characteristics.
They discussed the growth of agricultural production and labor
shortage and presented a general review of the recent develop-
ments of agricultural robots and navigation, the challenges, and
possible solutions.
Lezoche et al. (2020) were presented an impressive review
about Agri-food 4.0, the supply chains and technologies for future
agriculture to understand the future of the Agri-Food. As men-
tioned in this paper, all agricultural machinery will incorporate
electronic controls and enhance their current performance soon.
Using sensors and drones will support the data collection (weather,
animals and crops behaviors, and the farm life cycle). There are
also more review articles about agricultural robotics used poultry
production (Ren et al., 2020), Agriculture 4.0 (fourth evolution in
the farming technology) and its requirements (Zhai et al., 2020),
and a general view of smart farming – challenges and advantages
(Charania and Li, 2020).
Although some of the mentioned review articles presented the
sensors, algorithms, and control methods used in agricultural
autonomous vehicles, all of the mentioned literature have not
reviewed AAVs from the points of: (1) They do not provide detailed
information about the configurations and operation methods of
each sensor (Machine vision, GDS, LIDAR, . . .), algorithms (GA,
ANN, FL, . . .), and controlling methods (Open-loop, PID control,
adaptive controller), (2) most of them did not discuss the different
types of platforms, transportation systems, operation functions,
communication methods (internal and external), sensors, control
units, and environment types in detail, (3) they didn’t present
the development progress and challenges in the using of each com-
ponent used in AAVs. (4) at the time of publishing some of the arti-
cles, some components such as guidance systems had not yet been
fully developed and commercialized (Li et al., 2009), (5) this paper
covers also deals with the terrain-vehicle interaction (Section 3.1.9)
and the kinds of wheels used in AAVs (Section 2.1.3), and (6) none
of the papers talked about the development procedure of AAVs in a
research center, the connection between their components, the
process of component development and selection, and the creation
of an applicable study resource to develop new AAVs.
Fig. 1. The flow chart of the presented paper.
In this regard, this paper is a structured review of AAVs devel-
oped in the laboratory of vehicle robotics – Hokkaido University
between 1990 and 2018 by classifying the AAVs based on their
components and categorizing each component. The many relevant
investigations and reports are reviewed and categorized in the fol-
lowing sections. The overview of the presented paper is illustrated
in Fig. 1.
2. The characterization of autonomous vehicles
The existing autonomous vehicles (AVs) used for agriculture are
classified herein based first on their main characterization. Auton-
omous vehicles vary based on the type of hardware used (see Sec-
tion 2.1 below). The hardware can be a specifically developed/used
platform equipped with different sensors and actuators. The AVs
are controlled with the use of various control algorithms and soft-
ware (Section 2.2). In addition, AVs have been developed, opti-
mized, and/or tested in different farming environments
(Section 2.2). These three aspects (hardware, controls, and the
environment) comprise the main infrastructure used herein for
evaluating the existing AVs.
2.1. The variation AV hardware
The hardware of AVs varies based on the platform development
procedure (Section 2.1.1), the type of platform used (Section 2.1.2),
the transportation type (Section 2.1.3), the AV’s functionality in
operation (Section 2.1.4), the communication type (Section 2.1.5),
and the sensors used (Section 2.1.6).
2.1.1. The variation in platform development
Autonomous vehicles must be installed on a mobile platform.
The platform can be developed in the laboratory (these are known
as prototype platforms), or a commercialized platform can be used.
The commercialized platforms usually do not have all of the
required functionality for autonomous navigation. In such a case,
researchers may modify the mechanical components, actuators,
chassis, wheels, and/or any other mechanical unit. At this stage,
such a platform is known as a semi-commercialized platform. With
a semi-commercialized platform, a research group can mechani-
cally modify the commercialized platform based on the objective
of the research. For example, an extra wheel could be added; a unit
for controlling the power take-off (PTO) may be necessary, or an
actuator to control the steering could be needed. Platforms with
limited controllable mechanical functionality are generally semi-
commercialized platforms.
In contrast, the platform to be used can be developed at a fac-
tory, with all required functionality, and the users do no need to
modify the platform mechanically. This type of platform is known
as commercialized platforms. Generally, during the development of
a new system, a prototype platform is first developed in the labo-
ratory (the prototype). A factory then uses the prototype to manu-
facture the system. During the development flow between the
laboratory and the factory, the platforms are always semi-
commercialized since the platforms are later modified mechani-
cally. A factory can then include the function that was modified
for new models. Finally, when a platform reaches its mechanical
’maturity,’ the platform is known as a fully commercialized system
or a commercialized platform (Fig. 2). At present, most mechanical
modifications are included, and all mechanical components of a
platform are controllable using an engine control unit (ECU). At
this stage, a control system (or control unit) and all of the required
components of the robotic system such as controllable steering,
programmable ECU connected to a PC, required input/output ports
to connect sensors and actuators, can be applied to the platform.
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183 159

Fig. 2. The platform development procedures used in the AVs.

2.1.2. The variation in platforms Table 2

The platforms used for agricultural machinery vary; the most Comparison of wheel-type, crawler-type and foot transporter system.
common and well-known platforms are tractors and combine har-
Wheel Crawler Foot
vesters. Combines are used for harvesting tasks, but tractors do
Complexity of designing and Low High High
the majority of farm work using different implements for tillage,
development
weeding, seeding, fertilizing, and watering. Some airboats and rice Reparation Easy Hard (easy to Hard
transplanters have been used recently in paddy fields, and utility break)
vehicles are used for transportation in other specific cases. Thus, Life time Long Short Short
AV platforms can generally be divided into five types: tractors, Cost Low High High
Material type Various Only hard material Various
combine harvesters, utility vehicles, transplanters, and airboats.
Ex. Metal
The application and varieties of each platform is presented in Weight Light Heavy Light
Table 1. Ground pressure High Low High
Soil compaction High Less Low
Power efficiency Low High Medium
Friction Low High Low
2.1.3. The variation in transporter systems
Maneuverability Good Bad Limited
The transporter system is the main component of a mobile plat- Maneuver environment Dry and All surfaces Limited
forms and AVs. The four currently used transporter system types solid
are the wheel-type, half-crawler type, crawler-type (continuous Traction on slop, slippery Not good Good High
track), and robotic leg (Fig. 3). Each of these transporter systems and wet ground
Drive over various obstacles Hard Easy Medium
was designed for a certain application and performance, and each Traction system Not Optimized Not
has advantages and disadvantages. The designers of an agricultural optimized optimized
AV must consider the manageability of the AV in different farming Steering Good Poor Poor
environments before selecting the appropriate transporter system. Spinning Good Better than Wheel Medium
Turning Big place Small place Poor
The differences between the transportation systems summarized
Speed High Low Low
in Table 2. Precision Good Bad Low
The common-use transporter type is wheel-based (Fig. 3a). This
type of transporter is economically affordable, easy to repair, easy
to design and develop, and lightweight, and it provides good steer- paction over the long term, and reduces the maneuvering speed
ing and vehicle speed. However, the wheels put high pressure on (Fig. 3c). Compared to the wheel type, this type of transporter sys-
the soil, which increases the compaction possibility. The friction tem is more complex to make and repair, and the number of com-
is low because the wheels have a smaller contact surface compared ponents increases the cost, break possibility, and weight;
to crawlers, but this can increase the possibility of wheelspin and additional disadvantages are a shorter system lifetime and reduced
reduce the efficiency. The wheels can be made of different materi- maneuverability, steering, and speed. The large contact surface
als and can provide precise maneuvering for the vehicle. enables crawler vehicles to maneuver in a variety of environments
The crawlers have larger connection surfaces, which increases such as paddy fields and muddy agricultural fields. The first auton-
the friction, reduces the wheelspin possibility, reduces soil com- omous vehicles were equipped with wheels or crawlers, but a new

Table 1
Different platforms used in autonomous agricultural vehicle.

Type of platform Varieties Applications as AV

Tractor Row crop tractors, General purpose tractors, Pulling/pushing different machineries (agricultural machinery, tanks,
tracklayers, Two-wheel tractors vehicles or trailers), Pre-planting process, Plowing, Tilling, Disking,
Harrowing, Planting, Weeding, Watering, Fertilizing, Harvesting
Combine harvester Wheel type (self-propelled), Crawler type Harvesting, Winnowing, and Threshing
(track), Tractor mounted
Utility vehicle Utility vehicles (UTV), All-terrain vehicle (ATV) Transporting, Plowing (field, snow), Raking, Harrowing, Mowing grass,
Building fences, Spreading seeds, Catching calves, Carrying firewood
Transplanter Rice transplanter, Vegetable transplanter, Transplanting seedlings
Flower transplanter
Boats Motorboat, Airboat Fertilizing, Weeding

Fig. 3. Transporter system types, (a) wheel-type, (b) half-crawler, (c) crawler-type (YANMAR CO., 2018), and robotic leg (Boston Dynamics, 2019).
160 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
generation of half-crawler vehicles has also been commercialized
(Fig. 3b). These vehicles provide functionality that is between those
of wheel-type and crawler-type vehicles: medium speed, medium
friction, and medium cost.
An infrequently used type of transporter system is robotic legs
or robotic feet. This special type of transporter system is used for
discontinuous movement applications. A transporter system with
robotic legs or feet may have disadvantages such as high complex-
ity, poor repairability, high cost, and limited maneuverability, but a
robotic foot-type system is the only transporter type that can move
on an unpredicted, uneven and complicated surface. In some spe-
cial cases in which farmers are using an airboat to fertilize paddy
fields, the transporter system of the airboat can be a propeller. This
type of transporter is rarely used for agricultural AVs.
2.1.4. The variation in operation function
A vehicle as a mechanical platform has different functionalities.
In the case of agricultural vehicles, the number of functionalities is
greater than those of vehicles used for daily application such as
cars and buses. As shown in Fig. 4, AVs have seven main operation
functions: steering control by a handle, forward and backward
motion control, braking, shifting, rotary speed, hitching, and a
PTO. The steering is usually controlled by one or more driving
wheels (front wheels) in the case of wheel-type and half-
crawler-type vehicles, and by controlling the crawlers in the case
of crawler-type vehicles and combine harvesters. The forward/
backward motion is mainly controlled by shifts in the wheel-type
and half-crawler-type tractors and by the swash plate of a hydro-
static transmission (HST) system in crawler-type tractors and com-
bine harvesters. The brake as a resistant unit for motion
inhabitation, the shift as a transmission ratio changer, and the
rotary speed of the engine are the three functionalities that are
available in all vehicles.
The main difference between agricultural vehicles and other
vehicles is the hitch and PTO functions. The hitch or three-point
hitch in tractors is developed for attaching different implements
to the tractor. This function is not available in combine harvesters.
A PTO is a rotary shaft behind the tractor that is directly connected
to the engine for the transmission of power to an installed imple-
ment or another vehicle.
All of the above-mentioned functions are controllable manually
(M) or using an ECU. For autonomous applications, all of the func-
tions should be controllable electrically using a command from a
personal computer (PC) connected to the ECU. With some plat-
forms, some functions are not controllable electrically. In such a
case, an electric, hydraulic, or pneumatic actuator could be added
to make the functions controllable. This type of functions is
referred to herein as ’controlled by modifications’ (CBM). For exam-
Fig. 4. Operation functions of AVs. (1) steering, (2) forward and backward, (3)
brake, (4) shift, (5) rotary speed, (6) hitch, (7) PTO.
ple, electric circuit modification or the addition of a hydraulic
cylinder to the steering and brake are CBM functions. Several com-
panies have recently developed agricultural vehicles that include a
controllable function without modification. These functions are
known as ’controlled without modification’ (CWM). The CWM func-
tions are easily controllable using a PC connected to the ECU. A
function can also be Not available (NA); examples are a hitch or
PTO in combine harvesters and boats. The operation functions
can thus be classified in four categories: M, NA, CBM, and CWM.
2.1.5. The variation in communication
There are two different communication types used in AVS:
internal and external communications. Internal communication
always is the communication between the controlling PC inside
the vehicle and its ECU (see Section 2.1.5.1 below). External com-
munication can be between the AV and another controlling unit
far from the AV, such as a host-PC, an emergency switch, or
another vehicle (Section 2.1.5.2).
2.1.5.1. The variation in internal communication. All types of com-
munication that can connect different devices and elements inside
an AV are known as internal communication methods. In the
beginning stages of AV research, the agricultural vehicles had no
ECU, and because of that, communication between the vehicle
and a PC was not possible. In such cases, the actuators can be con-
trolled directly from the PC, which is called direct control. In the
direct control method, there is no communication system and
the control is achieved using an input/output (IO) port, an
analog-to-digital board (AD), a digital-to-analog board (DA), and
a pulse motor control board (PMC) as shown in Fig. 5. The IO con-
trols the actuators and relays using output signal/commands, and
it receives input commands from a switch. An AD is installed on
a PC bus to receive information from sensors, and the DA and
PMC control the actuators and motors, respectively.
When autonomous vehicles were later equipped with an ECU,
the controlling signals from a PC were sent directly to the ECU,
and the ECU would then control the actuators. At that time, several
serial communication standards were becoming popular, including
RS232c for low-speed communication, and RS422 and RS485 for a
multidrop serial bus, ethernet, and universal serial bus (USB). The
RS232c standard can communicate only between two devices
(Fig. 6a), whereas the RS422 and RS485 standard can provide com-
munication between 10 and 32 devices at the same time. The
RS232c had some limitations including a limited cable length,
low data-transmission speed, and limited multi-connection func-
tionality. These limitations obliged researchers to use USBs instead
of RS232c in 1996. The use of a USB improves the speed and some
other limitations, but its serial communication has master–slave
protocol in which the slave cannot interact without a host, as
shown in Fig. 6b. Decisions must be made from a controlling PC,
which can increase the process time and decrease the response
speed.
Fig. 5. Topography of direct control.
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Fig. 6. Topographies of (a) the RS232c standard and (b) a USB.
In 1990, the international communication protocol ISOBUS was
published. The communication system of agricultural vehicles was
adopted by the ISO 11783 standard based on Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) standard J1939. With this standard, the controller
area network (CAN-bus) was introduced (AEF, 2019). Using CAN-
bus, different devices and microcontrollers can communicate with
each other without any host PC, as shown in Fig. 7. In this system,
several ECUs, PCs, the internet of things (IOT), and microcontrollers
as nodes can connect with each other using a bus connection.
Different control units have been used to control an AV’s steer-
ing, forward and backward motion, brake, shift, rotary speed, hitch,
PTO, user interface, and implements’ ECUs. In vehicle robotics lab-
oratories, the internal communication of AVs was first developed
based on ’direct control’ and then improved to RS232, and eventu-
ally the CAN-bus was used. The details of this progress are dis-
cussed below in Section 3.1.
2.1.5.2. The variation in external communication. AVs have also been
designed to communicate with controlling rooms, monitoring
Fig. 7. Topography of CAN-bus.
Fig. 8. The external communication of AV.
161
rooms, cloud servers, user interfaces, and separate vehicles such
as a tractor, combine harvester, or drone. This communication
requires a wireless communication system that is a type of exter-
nal communication (Fig. 8). It can be two-way communication,
one-way communication, or master-slave communication. Based
on the application of the system and the target of the research,
the external communication can be a Wi-Fi signal, Bluetooth sig-
nal, or long-term evolution (LTE) with the use of a Wi-Fi router,
Bluetooth device, personal digital assistant (PDS), or cell phone.
2.1.6. The variation in sensors
One of the main components of a robot is its sensors, which
detect the information from the environment and send the related
signals to the controlling unit. For agricultural vehicles, the sensors
can be divided into three main groups: positioning sensors (Sec-
tion 2.1.6.1 below) that provide the location of the robot, attitude
sensors (Section 2.1.6.2) to provide the orientation of the robot,
and safety sensors (Section 2.1.6.3) for emergency situations.
2.1.6.1. The variation in positioning sensors. The well-known posi-
tioning sensors for AVs are image sensors, including lateral naviga-
tion (LNAV), Smooth navigation (SNAV), X-ray pulsar-based
navigation (XNAV), Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), glo-
bal positioning system (GPS), differential GPS (DGPS), and real-
time kinematic - GPS (RTK-GPS). The accuracy, interval, and
methodology of these sensors differ. The topography of image sen-
sors (positioning sensors) as a positioning system is illustrated in
Fig. 9. This system is composed of a single main system which is
uploaded on a robotic platform, and two static image sensors as
subsystems (Ishii et al., 1998a) that can control the entire system
based on the principle of triangulation. The system calculates the
robot position using two angles from the base line to a visual mar-
162 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Fig. 9. Topography of positioning systems (image sensors) based on the principle of triangulation.

ker mounted on the robot and a predetermined distance (L)
between two subsystems.
Because the positioning system recognizes the visual marker
based on chromaticity, two fluorescent lamps with red and white
radii have been used as the visual marker mounted on the robot.
Each subsystem is composed of a rotary encoder, a CCD camera,
a stepper motor, and a computer. To measure the angle to the
visual marker on the robot (h), the rotation angle of the CCD cam-
era (hc ) and the deflection angle of the visual marker in an image
(hd ) are detected by the rotary encoder and the CCD camera,
respectively. The controlling system performs an image analysis
to calculate the robot’s position using the two angles from the sub-
systems, and it transfers the location data via a radio receiver (e.g.,
a wireless modem) (Ishii et al., 1998b).
LNAV was an off-the-wire electromagnetic induction system
with power cable installation around the field (Fig. 10a) (Kondo
et al., 2011). This navigation system was developed by Kubota
Co., and the cables installed around the field provided a magnetic
field. The generated magnetic fields are strongly deepened with
the distance from each cable. In this system, two magnetic field

Fig. 10. Positioning systems. (a) LNAV; (1) cable C end detection and perimeter operation (9.8 kHz). (2) Cable A for returning and perimeter operations (4 kHz); (3) Field
border. (4) Cable B for returning and perimeter operations (1.5 kHz). (5) Left sensor. (6) Right sensor. (7) Unmanned returning operation. (8) A teaching run: (b) SNAV, (c)
XNAV (9) target, (10) mobile station. (11) Reference station Topcon AP-L1 (Kondo et al., 2011).
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183 163

sensors were used at each side of the vehicle. To use this position-
ing system, it was necessary to manually ’teach’ the robot along the
field boundary. This system could be effective in different weather
conditions, but the cost of construction can increase dramatically
in large fields.
The SNAV developed by Japan Aviation Electronics Industries
(JAEI) used DGPS, a Transcranial Magnetic Sensor (TMS), and an
inertial measuring unit (IMU) (Fig. 10b) (Kondo et al., 2011). The
IMU and TMS were used to improve the interval of positioning sys-
tem. The accuracy of SNAV was sufficient, but the costs, informa-
tion service, and the reference station were major limitations for
the use of SNAV.
XNAV was developed by BRAIN-IAM and manufactured by
Sanyo Electric Co. Generally, XNAV looks like an image sensor,
but this positioning sensor used an optical measurement system
(Fig. 10c) (Kondo et al., 2011). The installed target on the vehicle
(Fig. 10 (9)) was observed from the reference station, and the diag-
onal distance (L) and the horizontal angle could then be obtained.
The coordination of the target was thus obtained.
The GNSS, GPS, DGPS, and RTK-GPS are four important position-
ing systems nowadays. The general principles of GNSS, DGPS, and
RTK-GPS are based on a global satellite navigation system (GNSS),
but each has small differences in methodology, accuracy, topogra-
phy, and application. Several GNSSs are now in use, including NAV-
STAR (U.S.), QZSS (Japan), GLONASS (Russia), IRNSS (India), BeiDou-
3 (China), and GALELEO (Europe). The GPS uses three satellites for
the determination of attitude and longitude and one satellite for
altitude, providing accuracy within 3 m. The mobile unit (rover)
carries a GNSS antenna (or cellphone) to receive GNSS signals.
DGPS enhances the position using a base station which has a
known positional coordination. DGPS can provide accuracy of
10 cm. For some agriculture applications, a minimum accuracy of
5 cm is required, and thus RTK-GPS could the best option. RTK-
GPS corrects the position of the mobile unit using the positional
coordination of a base station, which is transferred by a transmis-
sion antenna. In this case, the mobile unit should carry a GNSS
antenna and a radio antenna. Several companies currently provide
both antennas in one package. Some positioning sensors that are
commonly used in vehicle robotics laboratories along with their
accuracy and intervals are shown in Table 3.
2.1.6.2. The variation in attitude sensors. The attitude sensor is a
complementary unit for autonomous navigation that indicates
the orientation of the vehicle. It can also improve the positioning
accuracy using sensor fusion methods when the GPS signal is
unavailable because of tunnels, trees, or buildings. Geomagnetic
direction sensors (GDSs) were previously used for agricultural
robots to measure the heading angle (Yaw). These sensors had
two main problems; their accuracy is affected by the surrounding
magnetism field, and errors resulting from vehicle inclinations can
occur. Fiber optical gyroscope (FOG) sensors then became popular,
but FOG sensors are quite expensive, and they are not cost-
effective for use in agricultural robots.
The inertial measurement units (IMUs) are known as the best
choice for indicating the orientation of vehicles. These sensors
can measure the quaternions, headings (pitch, roll and yaw veloc-
ity and indirectly pitch and roll angle, eventually yaw angle), linear
accelerations, and gravity. An IMU consists of gyroscopes and
accelerometers, and magnetometers are also available in some
IMUs. The combination of an IMU and RTK-GPS with a sensor
fusion method can guide vehicles with high accuracy. Some com-
panies have recently offered an IMU as part of their RTK-GPS pack-
age. The attitude sensors commonly used in vehicle robotics
laboratories are listed in Table 4.
2.1.6.3. The variation in safety sensors. An autonomous vehicle
should have a specific safety zone to prevent accidents with
humans, other vehicles, and any other possible obstacles. This
safety zone can be controlled by different safety sensors such as
a laser scanner (2D or 3D), camera (2D, 3D, or an omni-
directional stereo vision [OSV] camera), different switches (e.g., a
tap switch, proximity switch, bumper switch, and emergency
switch). These safety sensors can cover a specific safety zone (such
as a 10-m-dia. circle), or it can work by physical force (mostly

Table 3
Different type of positioning sensors and examples.

Type Examples and properties Price range

Abbr. Brand Model Accuracy (mm) Frequency (Hz)
Image sensors PS-1 Prototype Prototype 300 0.84 Prototype
LNAV PS-2 Kubota LNAV 50 10 Prototype
SNAV PS-3 JAEI SNAV 100 1 Prototype
XNAV PS-4 Topcon AP-L1 10–50 2 $5k–$6k
RTK-GPS PS-5 Trimble MS750 20 20 $4k–$5k
PS-6 Topcon Legacy-E 10 10 $5k–$13k
PS-7 Topcon AGI-3 20 10 $5k–$30k
PS-8 Trimble SPS855 8 20 $5k–$15k
DGPS PS-9 Hemisphere V100 600 0.05 $3k–$8k

Table 4
Different type of attitude sensor and examples.

Type Abbr. Example Price range

Brand Model
GDS AS-1 Watson Industries FGM-300A –
Gyroscope AS-2 Gyrostar ENV-05F-03 $100–$1k
Inclinometer AS-3 Omron D5R-L02-15 $100–$3k
FOG AS-4 JAE Ltd. JG35FD (1-axis FOG) $100–$2k
IMU AS-5 JAE Ltd. JCS-7401A (3-axes FOG) $1k
AS-6 Vectornav VN-100 (MEMS*) $800
AS-7 JAE ltd. JCS-7402A (3-axes FOG) $1k–$2k
AS-8 Topcon, AGI-3 On-RTK-GPS (MEMS) On board
*
MEMS: Microelectromechanical systems.
164 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Table 5
Different type of safety sensors and examples.
Type Abbr.
2D laser scanner SS-1
OSV SS-2
Camera SS-3
tap switch SS-4
proximity switch SS-5
3D camera SS-6
2D Laser scanner SS-7
Wireless video transmission SS-8
Bumper switch SS-9
Emergency switch SS-10
switches). The safety sensors that are frequently used in vehicle
robotics laboratories are listed in Table 5.
2.1.6.4. Other classification. There are many other classifications of
sensors in the literature for mobile and autonomous vehicles
which classify them based on (1) the type of sensing parameter,
(2) the direction of energy, and (3) the application of sensor
(Siegwart et al., 2011; Vasconez et al., 2019b).
(1) The first and most common classification of sensors is based
on the type of sensor’s parameters which can be internal (proprio-
ceptive sensors) or external parameters (exteroceptive sensors)
(Narvaez et al., 2017; Soter et al., 2018). The proprioceptive sensors
know a sensor to measure the internal parameters of AVs such as
encoder to measure motor speed and joint angles, or loadcells to
measure forces. The exteroceptive sensors achieve the information
from the surrounded environments of AVs such as LIDAR, laser-
scanner, or sonar for obstacle detection and distance measure-
ments (Vasconez et al., 2019a). Exteroceptive sensors are usually
applied for the environment observation, mapping, autonomous
navigation, action estimation, or characterization of the environ-
ment’s variables. They may use as a safety sensor, positioning sen-
sor, attitude sensor, or a combination of them.
(2) The second classification is based on the direction of energy
which can be from the sensors (active sensors) or to the sensor
(passive sensors) (Narvaez et al., 2017). The active sensors check
the environmental reaction by emitting energy into the environ-
ment such as encoders, ultrasonic sensors, and laser rangefinders.
And, the passive sensors measure ambient environmental energy
entering the sensor such as thermal sensors and probes for temper-
ature measurement, and cameras to achieve image parameters
(Vasconez et al., 2018).
(3) the last and most practical classification is based on the
application of sensors which can be divided into ground-based
beacons, heading sensors, tactile sensors, active ranging sensors,
motion/speed sensors, and vision-based sensors (Ampatzidis
et al., 2009; Narvaez et al., 2017). The ground-based beacons are
for localization and positioning of AVs which is mentioned in Sec-
tion 2.1.6.1 (such as GNSS, RTK-GPS, RF/Active ultrasonic/Reflective
beacons) (Prado et al., 2018). The heading or orientation sensors
are to measure the orientation and attitude of AVs which is men-
tioned in Section 2.1.6.2 as positioning sensors (such as IMUs,
FOGs, Compass, and Inclinometers). The tactile sensors are for
detection of physical contact which introduced as safety sensors
in Section 2.1.6.3 (such as contact switches, bumpers switches,
and proximity sensors). The active ranging sensors check the
reflectivity, time-of-flight, and geometric triangulation which
mentioned as safety sensors in Section 2.1.6.3 (such as ultrasonic
sensor, laser scanners, and sonar sensors). The motion/speed sen-
sors are sensors to measure the velocity and acceleration of AVs
relative to fixed or moving objects (such as Doppler radar). The last
group of sensors is the vision-based sensors which mentioned as
Example Price range
Brand Model
SICK Ltd. LMS 291 $2.5k
Point Gray Reasearc Ladybug3 $10–$12k
DWINC Co. Ltd. MTV-54KON $500–$1k
Tapeswitch T5-16 $10–$100
KEYENCE Ltd. ED-130 $10–$100
PMD tec. CamCube 2.0 $12k
Hokuyo Automatic co. Ltd. UTM-30LX $4.5–$5k
Cosmowave co. 4CH Quad $500~$1k
– – –
– – –
safety sensors in Section 2.1.6.3 and they use for visual ranging,
image analysis, segmentation, obstacle recognition (such as CCD/
CMOS camera, OSV camera, and visual ranging packages)
(Moshou et al., 2011; Rahnemoonfar and Sheppard, 2017;
Vasconez et al., 2018).
2.1.7. The variation in controlling unit
The autonomous navigation of an AV is always controlled using
a control unit. The main control unit is a computer (PC) with differ-
ent connections. The controlling program is always written in the
PC in various languages such as C and C#. When there was no
ECU available in vehicles, the autonomous navigation of robots
was designed based on a direct control system. In this type of con-
trolling system, a PC was usually connected to the actuator and
sensors using different AD, DA, or PMC boards or IO ports
(Fig. 11). In this case, the control of an actuator was achieved based
on the controlling program written in the PC, with the data
received from the sensors. Later control units were designed to
use a microcontroller such as Arduino or Raspberry. With this type
of control unit, the pre-written program in the PC can control the
actuator based on signals from sensors. This type of control system
is suitable for some vehicles that have no ECU. A control unit using
a microcontroller can play the role of an ECU for the vehicle.
For vehicles that are equipped with an ECU, a PC connected to
the ECU can control the system. Unlike a direct control system
which has different control boards, in this system only a PC is con-
nected to the ECU. The PC only sends the command to the ECU; the
ECU controls the vehicle’s motion. Factories that manufacture ECUs
provide an application programming interface (API) library for the
development of a control algorithm based on pre-determined stan-
dard codes. In this system, some vehicle-related sensors and actu-
ators are connected to the ECU, and some external sensors and
external communication systems are connected to the PC. The
communication system between the PC and ECU progressed from
RS-232c to CAN-bus. When CAN-bus is used as the communication
system, different ECUs for different units can be added. The exter-
nal ECU can be connected with implements and external functions.
2.2. The variation in environment
Autonomous vehicles have been designed for a variety of farm-
ing environments. The AVs can be designed to maneuver in open
Fig. 11. Controlling unit.
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183 165

fields such as corn and soybean fields; they can be designed for
orchards such as those of oranges and apples; and they can be
designed for specific fields such as paddy fields. Based on the
new innovations in agriculture, the target environments can be
changed. Each environment can have specific features and limita-
tions. In open fields, the sun’s radiation, the wind, and muddy soil
can present different limitations. In orchards, the surrounding
trees can reduce the efficiency of a navigation system. In paddy
fields, muddy soil and maneuvering limitations are major con-
cerns. The parameters for designing an AV can and do vary based
on the farming environment.

2.3. The variation in controlling algorithm

The control algorithm is the decision unit of an AV. The main

objective of this algorithm is the development of a kinematic and
dynamic model to control the lateral and longitude error of the
vehicle and thus guide the vehicle along a desired path. The kine-
matic model of an autonomous vehicle must be defined as shown Fig. 12. General kinematic model of AVs.
in Fig. 12. The parameters include the coordination of the vehicle
single or several layers based on the requirements. As the GDS
(xc ; yc ; hc ), which indicated the position of the vehicle. The coordi-
was affected by the surrounding magnetic fields, the neural net-
nation can be measured by applying positioning sensors such as
works were modified to overcome the error of inclinations and
those used with RTK-GPS, the reference coordination (x0 ; y0 ; h0 ),
magnetism. However, it was necessary to train the neural network,
the objective position or desired location (xd ; yd ; hd ), and the orien-
and the AV had to be trained before main maneuvers were per-
tation of the vehicle (xv ) which is measured using attitude sensors
formed. One of the major disadvantages of neural networks was
such as an IMU, the steering angle (d), the longitudinal velocity
the black boxes, i.e., some unidentified boxes in programming
(Vx ), the heading error (ehead ), and the lateral error (elat ). The ehead
due to the hidden layers. The presence of such boxes resulted in
is the difference between the heading angle of the vehicle and
some uncontrollable behaviors in navigation that could make the
the desired angle of the path. The elat is the distance between the
AVs dangerous.
communication port of the vehicle and the desired path. The gen-
Fuzzy logic is a many-valued logic. To control a vehicle, there
eral kinematic model for autonomous vehicles is as shown in Eq.
are three different functions that handle the lateral error based
(1). The dynamic model is shown in Eq. (2).
on the steering angle (Fig. 13b), which is defined as trapezoid-
2 3 2 32 3
elong cos hc sin hc 0 xd  xc shaped curves. When the lateral error is almost zero, the f 0 controls
6
4 elat 7 ¼
5 4
6
 sin h c cos h c 0
76
54 d  yc 5
y
7
ð1Þ the steering angle. When the lateral error starts to increase, the
density of f 0 decreases and the system is going to use f 1 . This is
ehead 0 0 1 hd  hc
the same situation when the lateral error is decreasing. The func-
2 3 2 3 tions can be developed based on the required parameters in the
_
elong cos hc 0  
6 _ 7 6 7 v algorithm.
4 elat 5 ¼ 4 sin hc 0 5 ð2Þ A PID controller is a type of controller that can correct the
u_
_
ehead 0 1 required navigation parameters using the feedbacked signal which
produces the error value. This controller uses three proportional-i
Then, the global coordination frame is as follows:
ntegral-derivative functions to control the error (Fig. 13c). PID con-
2Rt R  3
2 3 v cos 2 3
t
u_ dt dt trollers are now used as an appropriate control for autonomous
xc 6 0
7 0 x0 navigation because of their high capability and controllable
6 7 6 Rt  R  7 6 7
4 yc 5 ¼ 6 v sin t u _ dt dt 7 þ 4 y0 5 ð3Þ functions.
4 0 0 5
hc Rt h0 Because of the disadvantages of neural networks and fussy
0
u_ dt logic, the use of a PID controller is becoming more popular nowa-
where elong is the longitudinal error and u_ is the yaw rate velocity. days. In this regard, mainly using two PID controllers, the dynamic
model can be developed for the control of lateral (PID-1) and lon-
However, in the real field conditions, the values of v and u can vary
gitudinal (PID-2) motion by adjusting the steering angle and gas
due to the slip angle and different parameters related to features of
pedal command, respectively. The PID-1 controller is for lateral
the soil.
control, which consists of two control systems: a P control based
As autonomous navigation in agricultural fields has non-linear
on ehead and a PID controller based on elat ; as shown in Eq. (4)
behavior, different logic or different control systems could be used
and Fig. 14a. The objective of this control system is to control the
to control lateral and longitudinal errors, such as a neural network,
vehicle’s steering angle along a desired path. In this regard, the sys-
fuzzy logic, a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller, or a
tem tries to keep elat and ehead near zero.
model predictive control (MPC). A neural network can be used to
Xn
define the output of attitude sensors in non-linear conditions dn ¼ Kp;lat :elat þ Ki : e Dt _ þ Kp;head :ehead
þ Ki :elat ð4Þ
i¼1 lat
(Fig. 13a). When a neural network was used in 1992, GNSS and
GPS was not sufficiently developed and/or it was too expensive The PID-2 controller is for longitudinal control (Fig. 14b). This
for autonomous navigation, and a GDS was commonly used as an control system adjusts the current longitude velocity of the vehicle
attitude sensor. Neural networks were used to improve the perfor- (vc ) based on the desired velocity (vc ). The velocity error (ev ) comes
mance of navigation, because the image sensors (positioning sen- to the PID-2 controller as an input value, and the PID-2 controls the
sors at that time) had a large interval and low accuracy. gas command (Uv ) of the ECU. This can be a pedal control output
A neural network was composed of three layers: an input layer, for the vehicle, controlled by external actuators. The control func-
a hidden layer, and an output layer. The hidden layer could be a tion is as follows:
166 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Fig. 13. Controlling logics. (a) Neural network, (b) Fuzzy logic, and (c) PID controller, (d) Theoretical principle of MPC.

1. The MPC can handle multi-input and multi-output (MIMO) sys-

tems the same as ANN. This functionality is useful when it is
predicted that there are some interactions between inputs
and outputs (Fig. 15). The MPC consists of three parts: predic-
tion model, rolling optimization, and feedback adjustment. In
an AV the steering wheel angle can affect the velocity output
because of wheel slip or other possible reasons. Using the PID
controller can make the controlling algorithm more compli-
cated because two PID control loop would operate indepen-
dently of each other. As if there are no interactions between
loops, designing larger systems would be even challenging.
The advantage of MPC is its multivariable controller that con-
Fig. 14. PID control system for (a) lateral control (PID-1) and (b) longitudinal
trols the outputs simultaneously by consideration of all the
control (PID-2).
interactions between system variables.
2. The MPC can handle constraints which are important because
Xn
Uv ¼ Kp  ve þ Ki  ve Dt þ Ki  v_e ð5Þ violating them leads AVs to undesired consequences. An AV
i¼1
must obey speed limits and maintain a safe distance from other
vehicles, AVs (in the multi-robot system), and obstacles. They
Where
are also constraints due to the physical limitations of AVs such
as limits on acceleration. If the AV works based on an MPC algo-
ve ¼ vd  vc ð6Þ rithm, the controller would track a desired trajectory while sat-
For agriculture applications (Fig. 12), a simplified steering con- isfying all these constraints.
trol is sometimes used as follows: 3. The MPC has preview capability which is similar to feedback
control. When an AV travels on a curvy path or would turn at
dn ¼ k1  elat þ k2  ehead ð7Þ the headland if the controller doesn’t know that the corner
coming ahead, the AV only be able to apply the brake while it
in which k1 and k2 are gains. The elat error is: takes the corner. However, the AV equipped with a safety sen-
sor like a camera which provides trajectory feature, the con-
aEGPS þ bNGPS þ C troller will know in advance about the upcoming corner. So, it
elat ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð8Þ can brake sufficiently to safely stay in the lane. The MPC can
a2 þ b2 easily incorporate future reference information into the control
problem to improve controller performance.
in which a, b, and C are constant coefficients in the linear equation.
The EGPS , and NGPS are RTK-GPS easting and northing, respectively. The MPC has all the advantages a bow mentioned but to apply
The ehead is: this algorithm, a powerful and fast processor with a large memory
required. This is because the MPC solves an online optimization
e 
lat problem at each time stem.
ehead ¼ a tan þ hc ð9Þ
L Thanks to a valuable review paper about the MPC, its develop-
The MPC is a feedback control algorithm that uses a model for a ment procedure, and its application in agriculture by Ding et al.
prediction about the feature of processes that can be used for pre- (2018). The paper explained different types of MPC such as hybrid
diction and optimized controlling of an AV including steering angle MPC, adaptive MPC, robust MPC, nonlinear MPC, tube-based MPC,
and velocity. There are many reasons to use the MPC controller: stochastic MPC, distributed MPC, and explicit MPC which were
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Fig. 15. MPC algorithm of an AV.
developed to improve the disadvantages of PID, ANN, and other
controllers.
2.4. Performance indicators
The performance of an AV can generally be defined using two
main parameters: ehead and elat . When an AV is being developed,
these two parameters must be defined (Fig. 16a). The determina-
tion of whether the designed vehicle is accurate enough or not is
based on these two parameters. In Japan, the required lateral error
must be 8 cm, because the average distance between crop rows is
66 cm, whereas the width of wheels or crawlers is ~50 cm. In this
case, the maximum accuracy of 8 cm can be acceptable for AVs
(Fig. 16b). Otherwise, the vehicle can damage the crop rows and
the efficiency of AV can be dramatically decreased.
For the determination of the values of ehead and elat , the root
means square error (RMSE) must be defined. The average values
cannot be the representative of the values because an autonomous
vehicle can have an average error of zero but still show high turbu-
lence in lateral and heading control. The maximum and minimum
values can be used as the sub-main parameters. After the evalua-
tion of each AV based on the different indicators described here
in Section 3.7, the performance indicators of all AVs will be
compared.
3. Literature review results
3.1. Autonomous vehicle in Hokkaido university
The laboratory of vehicle robotics (VeBots) at Hokkaido Univer-
sity is one of the pioneer laboratories studying autonomous vehi-
cles (Roshanianfard). In this section, the VeBots studies
conducted between 1990 and 2018 are summarized, and the devel-
opment component for each AV is discussed. The AVs developed at
the VeBots lab have gone through several evolutions from a path
planning system in 1997 to a multi-robot tractor (multi-RTs) sys-
tem and intelligent systems (Roshanianfard and Noguchi, 2020)
Fig. 16. Performance indicators (a) ehead and elat , and (b) the maximum limitation of
lateral error.
167
in 2018. The 12 VeBots lab projects are introduced in the following
section with ’AV-n’ titles; the n is the project number.
Table 6 provides a general description of each projects (which
described in Section 3 and illustrated in Fig. 21) and a summary
of the variety in platform types, transportation systems, and
mobile platforms. The development procedure for autonomous
agriculture vehicles can be divided into three eras: the develop-
ment of technology (AV-1 to AV-3), commercialization (AV-4 to
AV-11), and intelligent systems (AV-12 and AV-13). During the
development era, the main target was designing, manufacturing,
and evaluating an autonomous tractor that can maneuver in fields
with little human interposition. At the end of that approx. 8-year
era, the AV-3 could maneuver autonomously with high accuracy.
After this technology was established, laboratories decided to
commercialize their systems and apply them on different plat-
forms. A collaboration between Hokkaido University and the
University of Illinois produced the AV-4. In VeBots laboratory then
developed another system by applying autonomous system to a
crawler-type tractor (AV-5; model CT801, Yanmar), a utility vehi-
cle (AV-6; E-Gator, John Deere), a commercialized wheel-type trac-
tor (AV-7; model EG83, Yanmar), a combine harvester (AV-8;
model AG1100, Yanmar), an airboat (AV-9; model RB-26, Yanmar),
a rice transplanter (AV-10; model EP8D, Kubota), and a half-
crawler-type tractor (AV-11; model EG105, Yanmar). After the
VeBots laboratory successfully expanded their technology, the
multi-robot tractor (AV-12; model EG453, Yanmar) and the robotic
harvesting system for heavy-weight crops (AV-13; model YT5113,
Yanmar) were developed. The detailed explanations of each sys-
tems is presented in the following sections.
3.1.1. AV-1
Noguchi et al. (1992) introduced the first robot tractor from the
VeBots lab in a paper titled ‘‘A Study of an Intelligent Industrial
Vehicle with a Neural Network” at the Second Intelligent Systems
Symposium–Japan in 1992. This was the first authentic step in the
development of an intelligent autonomous vehicle for agricultural
applications. Before that study, several research groups had
designed agricultural vehicles controlled on a predetermined path
with the use of mechanical, optical, ultrasonic, or radio guidance,
and in some cases using leader cables. Each of these methodologies
has specific disadvantages (e.g., large errors, lack of communica-
tion, and positioning errors) which made them unsuitable for use
with an auto-guidance system. At that time, the lack of a stable
and accurate position-sensing system necessitated the develop-
ment of different positioning systems.
The GNSS and GPS became available in 1990 only for military
applications, and Noguchi et al. (1996) then developed a mobile
[42] then developed a mobile agricultural robot that used a geo-
magnetic direction sensor (GDS) and image sensors (Ishii, 1997).
Their objective was to establish a mobile robotic system for agri-
cultural applications that can detect its location using a positioning
system and a heading angle sensor. They investigated a mobile
robot that could be controlled by positions obtained from the
168 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Table 6
General description of projects.

Project No. Type of platform Transportation system Brand Model Project name Start Finish
1
Development of technology AV-1 Tractor Wheel-type Prototype Prototype NA 1992 1997
AV-2 Tractor Wheel-type Kubota GL320 BRAIN2 1993 1998
AV-3 Tractor Wheel-type Kubota MD77 NEDO3 1997 2000
Commercialization AV-4 Tractor Wheel-type Case-IH Magnum 7220 UIUC4 1997 1999
AV-5 Tractor Crawler-type Yanmar CT801 Yanmar co. 2002 2008
AV-6 Utility vehicle Wheel-type John Deer E-Gator Yanmar co. 2005 2008
AV-7 Tractor Wheel-type Yanmar EG83 MAFF5 2010 2014
AV-8 Combine harvester Combine harvester Yanmar AG1100 MAFF 2010 2014
AV-9 Airboat Propeller Yanmar RB-26 NA 2012 2016
AV-10 Rice transplanter Wheel-type Kubota EP8D BRAIN 2014 2018
AV-11 Tractor Half-crawler Yanmar EG105 SIP6 2015 now
Intelligent systems AV-12 Tractor Half-crawler Yanmar EG453 SIP 2015 now
AV-13 Tractor Half-crawler Yanmar YT5113 SIP 2016 now

1-AV: Autonomous vehicle.

2-BRAIN: Bio-oriented Technology Research Advancement Institution.
3-NEDO: New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization.
4-UIUC: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
5-MAFF: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
6-SIP: Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program.

image sensors and heading angles from a GDS. As shown in Fig. 21
(AV-1), this mobile robot tractor (AV-1) was a small, prototype,
rear-wheel-drive tractor with a petrol engine that could electri-
cally control the steering angle (/) using a potentiometer (max.
±35° that improved to ±40° (Noguchi and Terao, 1997)) and the
rotation of a rear wheel by a rotary encoder (max. 7°/s). It was also
equipped with a controllable clutch and a brake using a computer
which provided movement speed in the range of 0.4–1.2 m/s. In
this AV, the image sensors were used for the positioning system.
In a robotic system, not only the location of the robot should be
predetermined as auto-guidance input; the orientation of the sys-
tem should also be recognized. In 1996, GDSs were popular as low-
cost sensors for measuring the heading angle (w), and that
mounted a GDS almost 1 m above a robot tractor to avoid the noise
effect. They also corrected the GDS outputs using an inclination
sensor. The heading angle could measure roll and pitch directions
in the range of 360° ± 6°. Using a GDS involved two main errors:
the error due to the magnetism which exists around the robot,
and the error from the robot inclinations. In this regard, Noguchi
et al. (1996) developed a neural network to refine the GDS output.
Their neural network was composed of two networks: a correction
network for vehicle inclinations, and a correction network for the
magnetism that surrounds the robot (Fig. 17, left). The training
data of the neural network were obtained by giving the tested
robot the inclinations in the outdoor environment.
Ishii et al. (1994) compared their neural network and a PID con-
troller in order to identify the best control system for a robot trac-
tor as a vehicle with a nonlinear kinematic system. The results
indicated that the neural network controller, with a maximum
error of 7.5 cm and 0.105 rad, had an accuracy higher than that
of the PID controller (max. error of 31 cm and 0.195 rad).
Noguchi and Terao (1997) later developed a control technique that
used a combination of a neural network and a genetic algorithm
(GA) which was able to create a suboptimal path for the developed

Fig. 17. The neural network method for refining the geomagnetic direction sensor output (left), for motion of a robot tractor (right).
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
robot tractor (Fig. 17, right). The results of their research showed
that the RMSE of forward, lateral, and yaw angular velocities were
0.0171 m/s, 0.0155 m/s, and 0.0156 rad/s, respectively. The devel-
oped method was able to effectively determine a maneuver path
for the robot tractor.
The control algorithm and guidance geometry of the robot are
shown in Fig. 18. Based on these, the robot could measure the angle
of the base line using the GDS before the robot’s autonomous oper-
ation. Next, the target positions (which were previously measured
using the positioning system) and the order of positions for arrival
are indicated to the robot. After this procedure, the robot turns to
the direction of the first target position using the data from the
GDS. The straight-line path from the current position to the first
target position (i = 1) can be created.
The parameters a and b are the gains which were experimen-
tally determined to achieve satisfactory control stability and accu-
racy. The parameter d is the displacement, /d is the path direction
of the GDS, and / is the measured heading angle. A trial run of the
robot was conducted on grassland at 0.5 m/s (Ishii et al., 1995), and
the results showed that the RMSE of the neural network method
(1°) was almost 20% that of the conventional method (5.7°). The
absolute maximum error and the RMSE of the position for the pre-
determined path were 51 cm and 23 cm, respectively. The maxi-
mum errors of the direction for the conventional and neural
network methods were approx. 14° and 1°, respectively. The aver-
age error of the final position for each target position was found to
be approx. 40 cm. This error was caused by measurement error of
the angles, a time delay, and the measurement interval of the posi-
tioning system.
The above results clearly indicated that the neural network
method was more effective than the conventional method because
the angle detected from the GDS indicate more precise values. This
result can be attributed not only to the position error, but also to
the poor steering response due to the lack of power of the stepper
motor with which the robot was equipped. It seemed that the posi-
tion error of the robot was satisfactory for transport work in a field,
but the measurable area of the positioning system should be
increased for practical uses. In addition, more accurate measure-
ments of the robot position are required for various farm
operations.
Fig. 18. Robot guidance geometry using the heading angle and displacement errors.
169
3.1.2. AV-2
Noguchi and his colleagues were able to successfully develop
their first autonomous vehicle, but the navigation system and
interval of the vehicle required some modification. The accuracy
of a positioning system should be optimized, and the communica-
tion time delay between a mobile vehicle and station should be
kept to a minimum. Yukumoto et al. (2000a) developed an auton-
omous agricultural robot that can find a position with an error
<5 cm (Yukumoto et al., 2000b); the positioning error was almost
40 cm when they used image sensors and the principle of triangu-
lation. In another study, Yukumoto et al. (2000a) used a Kubota
tractor (model GL320) (Kubota Co., 2018) as a platform equipped
with a TMS (geomagnetic) heading sensor, a control box, and a
reflector for the navigation system. The configuration of this robot
tractor (AV-2), named ROBOTRA, is shown in Fig. 21 (AV-2).
For newly developed autonomous systems with limited exper-
imental data, it is essential to evaluate different auto-guidance
navigation systems. Yukumoto et al. (2000a) designed and evalu-
ated three different navigation systems: (1) a system using an
off-the-wire method, named LNAV, (2) a method based on a com-
bination of a DGPS and an inertial navigation system (INS) named
’SNAV,’ and (3) an optical method named XNAV that uses two dif-
ferent types of reference stations, i.e., XNAV and AP-L1. LNAV was
developed by Kubota Co. (Tokyo). SNAV was developed by Japan
Aviation Electronics Industries (Tokyo). XNAV was designed by
BRAIN-IAM (The Institute of Agricultural Machinery, Saitama,
Japan), and XNAV by AP-L1 was developed by Topcon Co. (Tokyo).
The experiments were performed in a 100  150 m paddy field
at the speed of 0.5 m/s. The results indicated the following posi-
tioning accuracy and interval values: LNAV, 50 mm and 0.1 s;
SNAV, 100 mm and 0.1 s; XNAV, 50 mm and 0.52 s; and XNAV
by AP-L1 10 mm and 0.5 s (Table 7). However, the interval of the
SNAV system improved when the system was equipped with an
IMU. The XNAV results with the reference station AP-L1 were the
most satisfactory.
The four navigation systems described above were costly, and
this was a commercialization limitation. To reduce the cost of ori-
entation detection, Mizushima et al. (2000) developed a sensor
fusion method (Kalman filter) that uses a GDS and a fiber optical
gyroscope (FOG) based on dead reckoning. They constructed the
kinematic model of the vehicle and conducted experiments with
three autonomous guidance systems: GDS (FGM-300A) alone,
FOG (JG35FD) alone, and the sensor fusion mode. They set three
GDS or FOG sensor to make an IMU for measuring the roll, pitch,
and yaw angles. The results showed that the lateral offsets of the
GDS, FOG, and sensor fusion were 200, 400, and 61 mm, respec-
tively, indicating that the sensor fusion can support maneuvers
more accurately. They then applied the sensor fusion method on
a Kubota GL320 platform, operated the vehicle manually, and col-
lected the positioning data using RTK-GPS (MS750, Trimble Ltd.)
with accuracy of ±2 cm\pm2. The results indicated that the RMSE
of the lateral offset was 38 mm, the maximum error from the
regression line was 100 mm, and the angular error was 0.004°.
Mizushima et al. (2000) also reported that when the geomag-
netic field around the sensor increased, the RMSE of the lateral off-
set, the maximum error from the regression line, and the angular
error could increase to 92 mm, 170 mm, and 0.057°, respectively.
However, their developed sensor fusion method improved the
auto-guidance performance more accurately compared to the use
of a single navigation sensor, and the limitation of GDS due to
the geomagnetic field could decrease the performance accuracy.
Mizushima et al. (2011) later developed a low-cost attitude sen-
sor composed of three vibratory gyroscopes (Gyrostar ENV-05F-03,
Murata Manufacturing Co., Nagaokakyo, Japan), two inclinometers
(D5R-L02-15, Omron Co., Kyoto, Japan), and a sensor fusion algo-
rithm. This attitude sensor could measure the roll, pitch, and yaw
170 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Table 7
Specifications of different navigation systems used with the ROBOTRA robot tractor.
Navigation system LNAV
Positioning accuracy (mm) 50
Interval (s) 0.1
angles with RMSE values of 0.43°, 0.61°, and 0.64°, respectively to
improve the positioning accuracy of the vehicle in a sloping field
from 25.9 cm to 3 cm and in a bumpy field from 8.4 cm to
3.7 cm. This low-cost attitude sensor provided high accuracy at a
price (USD $500) that was only 5% of the cost of previous IMUs
such as combined TMS or FOG sensors. To reduce the price of atti-
tude sensors such as FOG and GDS, Liu et al. (2014) evaluated a
low-cost IMU (S4E5A0A0, Seiko Epson Co., Suwa, Japan) using a
mean filter for pre-procession and Kalman filter sensor fusion.
They aimed to provide acceptable accuracy and attitude.
The navigations systems that are dependent on satellite signals
have shown weak performance in covered areas such as tunnels or
orchards surrounded by trees. Since some agricultural fields
include buildings, trees or different objects, sometimes RTK-GPS
cannot work efficiently. Tsubota et al. (2004) thus developed an
automatic guidance system that uses a 2D laser scanner (LM291)
attached on the front of a robot tractor, a virtual reference station
for RTK-GPS, and an IMU. Their test results showed that the lateral
and heading errors of the system were 60 mm and 3°, respectively.
These results were good enough to autonomously operate the
robot tractor inside a coconut field (Barawid et al., 2008a). Those
authors recommended further modifications for the improvement
of the applications, capability, and performance of this robot trac-
tor by including different applications or the cooperation of several
robot tractors.
3.1.3. AV-3
To improve the efficiency of their developed autonomous trac-
tor, Kise et al. (2001) designed another robot tractor that was able
to maneuver in a field based on a geographic information system
(GIS) predetermined path for different applications. They evaluated
a robot tractor engaged in different agricultural work in actual
fields. The configuration of this robot tractor (AV-3) is shown in
Fig. 21. This was a modified Kubota MD77 robot tractor (Kubota
Co., 2018) equipped with RTK-GPS (#MS750, Trimble, Sunnyvale,
CA), FOG sensor (#JS35-FD, JAEI), and emergency switches. The
data communication between the ECU and a personal computer
was accomplished with CAN-bus. Because of FOG drift, a Kalman
filter was applied to the control algorithm. This sensor fusion
method was proposed by Michio et al. [56], and it could estimate
the heading angle with 45-mm accuracy on different types of paths
(straight, curve, and turns).
The AV-3 robot tractor was tested in a field at the operation
speed of 1.5 m/s, and the results indicated that the robot tractor
could maneuver based on the predetermined path with a lateral
error of 6 cm and a heading error of 1.3°. The system could also
operate a rotary tillage implement with satisfactory required
parameters (Michio et al., 2001). Noguchi et al. (2001a) tested
the same robot tractor by adding an IMU (a three-axis FOG sensor,
#JCS7401A, JAEI) to the control configuration. They also used the
same sensor fusion method, and they tested the robot tractor at
a speed of 2.5 m/s in a soybean field in different operations includ-
ing tillage, planting, fertilizing, and cultivating (Noguchi et al.,
2002). The results demonstrated that the applied sensor fusion sys-
tem with an IMU improved the accuracy of maneuvers, although
the lateral error of the robot tractor was 30 mm. Those authors
did not mention the heading error results in that study, but this
error can be expected to improve (Mizushima et al., 2002).
SNAV SNAV + IMU XNAV XNAV + AP-L1
100 100 50 10
1 0.1 0.52 0.5
Mizushima et al. (2005) obtained the same heading errors (1.59°,
0.41°, and 0.65° in the yaw, roll and pitch angles, respectively)
when they used a microcomputer (#H8S2612, Renesas Co.) instead
of a personal computer.
Because a robot tractor should be able to maneuver for various
types of operation, the turning task at the end of a field remained a
serious problem to solve. Noguchi et al. (2001b) addressed this
problem by developing a switch-back turning function based on
a spline function. They conducted this research by a computer sim-
ulation and real-world experimentation. The computer simulation
determined the desired motion path, and they applied the devel-
oped function to the robot tractor (AV-3). The turning function
was composed of a forward and backward movement. The experi-
mental results confirmed that the system could complete all turns
successfully (Kise et al., 2002a). The positioning error was 70 mm
overall for the turns (Kise et al., 2002b).
Yokota et al. (2005) later installed a 2D laser scanner (#LMS291,
SICK, Minneapolis, MN) on top of the robot tractor to generate a 3D
GIS map that could be used for the collection of field information
for precise farming. They were able to generate a map with a posi-
tioning error of 65 cm and an attitude error of 19 cm. The same
laser scanner was installed by Barawid et al. (2007) on the front
of a tractor (70 cm above the ground) to develop an autonomous
navigation system that can travel between trees in an orchard.
After calibration Barawid et al. (2008b), the completed tests at var-
ious speeds (0.36, 0.48, 0.62, 0.86, 1.23, and 1.43 m/s) indicated
that the best heading and lateral were 0.5° and 50 mm respectively
when the robot’s speed was 0.36 m/s. Those results, in a compar-
ison with the system developed by Tsubota et al. (2004) for the
second robot tractor (AV-2) revealed that the heading error and
lateral error were improved from 60 to 50 mm and from 3° to
1.5°, respectively, demonstrating that autonomous navigation
using different navigation and attitude sensors was significantly
improved.
When a third generation of robot tractors was being developed,
it was necessary to devise a communication system between two
robots as multi-robot cooperation. A system that could connect
two independent robot tractors with sufficient safety was desired.
Noguchi et al. (2004) presented a master-slave system for farm
applications. Their system consisted of two algorithms: a GoTo
algorithm (the slave is guided to go to some predetermined posi-
tion or path), and a FOLLOW algorithm (the slave mimics the mas-
ter’s behaviors by a lateral offset) as shown in Fig. 19.
To increase the safety of robot tractor operations, Yang and
Noguchi (2012) created a human detection system that uses omni-
directional stereovision (OSV) in a 3D panorama image. They used
two multi-lens-based high-definition omnidirectional cameras and
two RTK-GPS systems. The position of an obstacle (a human, height
1.7 m) was detected using the RTK-GPS installed on the human’s
helmet, and this was compared with the results obtained with
the OSV system. The RMSE of the distance error and maximum
error between the RTK-GPS data and the OSV data were 0.49 and
1 m, respectively. The OSV system also successfully detected the
direction of obstacle movement.
Those results demonstrated that the system designed by Yang
and Noguchi can detect a mobile or fixed obstacle in the daytime,
and the accuracy of the system was better than those of laser scan-
ners, ultrasonic sensors, and infrared sensors. Using an OSV
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Fig. 19. GOTO and FOLLOW algorithms for a master-slave robot system.
method could counteract the drawbacks of the above-mentioned
sensors because of the inconsistency of appearance information
such as the color of the obstacle. Jongmin (2014) later improved
the performance of a robot tractor and a combine harvester for
working during the nighttime.
3.1.4. AV-4
In 1997, the VeBots laboratory collaborated with the University
of Illinois to learn the latter’s agricultural robot technology. Zhang
et al. (1999) designed a robot tractor [70] designed a robot tractor
(AV-4) that uses DGPS, a FOG sensor, and a camera with a position-
ing error < 150 mm and a steering error of <0.4° at the travelling
speed of 3.6 m/s. They installed navigation sensors, steering sen-
sors, and a control unit on a modified Case-IH 7220 tractor
(Case-IH Corp.) as shown in Fig. 21 (AV-4). Noguchi et al. (1999)
later developed an intelligent vision system for a robot tractor that
could classify crops. They used fuzzy logic (FL) for crop classifica-
tion, a genetic algorithm (GA) for the FL optimization of vision sys-
tem, an artificial neural network (Aneural network) to estimate the
crop height, and GIS for map creation. The system was expected to
have a positioning accuracy of 200 mm. The developed system was
able to accurately classify the estimated weight and height of soy-
bean crops.
Image processing to detect orientation in which the positioning
error was improved to 44.7 mm was reported by Pinto et al. (2000).
The heading error of this guidance algorithm was 1.26°, which is
greater than the error afforded by the sensor fusion method. The
sensor fusion algorithm of the robot tractor (AV-4) was improved
and recorded by Monte et al. (2000) as a patent entitled ‘‘Sensor-
fusion navigator for automated guidance of off-road vehicles” in
2002.
3.1.5. AV-5
Hokkaido Island is the northernmost island in Japan, with a long
winter and an average winter snowfall of 1 m. Only five months of
the year can be used to cultivate rice, and the muddy rice fields
decrease the efficiency of wheel-tractors. Takai et al. (2010)
designed a crawler robot tractor (AV-5) by applying RTK-GPS
(Legacy-E, Topcon) with a virtual reference station (VRS) and an
IMU (#JCS-7401A, JAEI) on a modified crawler-type tractor (Model
CT801, Yanmar, Osaka, Japan) as shown in Fig. 21 (AV-5). The least
squares method (LSM) was used for the sensor fusion; the naviga-
tion map was provided by the GIS, and the control of each crawler
motion was provided by a digital-to-analog converter of the ECU
(Takai et al., 2014). At the speed of 0.6 m/s, the robot tractor’s
171
heading error was 0.22° and the positioning error was 14 mm, indi-
cating that the maneuvering of this full-crawler robot tractor was
more accurate than that of wheel-type robot tractors. This could
be because of the specifications of crawlers (which can provide
stable motion), or it could be due to the low-speed operation.
The positioning error and heading error of system were as follows:
at the speed of 0.6 m/s, 10 mm and 0.24°; at 0.9 m/s, 18 mm and
0.47°; at 1.3 m/s, 29 mm and 0.76°; at 1.7 m/s, 22.3 mm and
0.63°; and at 2 m/s, 18 mm and 0.54° (Takai et al., 2011).
To increase the safety of the robotic maneuver, three types of
safety sensors, i.e., a 2D laser scanner (#LMS291, SICK), a tap
switch (#T5-16, Tapeswitch Japan, Matsudo, Japan), and two prox-
imity switch sensors (#ED-130, Keyence, Osaka, Japan) were later
used.
3.1.6. AV-6
In the subsequent research by Barawid et al. (2008a) in their
efforts to develop an automatic guidance system for orchards in
2008, Barawid and Noguchi (2010) extended their studies by
developing a small, low-cost robotic vehicle (AV-6) that uses an
electric power source instead of fuel. They used an electric utility
vehicle (E-Gator, John Deere Co., Moline, IL) because of its easy
maintenance and energy efficiency (Fig. 21). The E-Gator was mod-
ified to have controllable steering, movement, and speed by apply-
ing an ECU that was connected to a personal computer using CAN-
bus. An RTK-GPS sensor (#MS750, Trimble) and an IMU (#VN-100,
JAEI) were used as positioning and attitude sensors, respectively. A
proper motor as an electric engine was selected based on the vehi-
cle maneuver in on-road and off-road conditions, and then the
steering of vehicle was calibrated.
The AV-6 was evaluated in straight line tests, and the results
showed that at the speeds of 0.86, 1.52, and 1.61 m/s there was a
lateral error of 80, 180, and 410 mm and heading error of 1.23°,
3.17°, and 7.67°, respectively. The performance of this robot was
compared with that of the robot tractor AV-3 (MD77) described
above, which was used a wheel-type tractor. The results indicated
that the electric vehicle AV-6 was more accurate than the fuel
robot tractor AV-3 regarding positioning and attitude, although
charging the batteries of the electric vehicle can be a limitation
for long applications.
Barawid and Noguchi (2011) attached a camera on an AV-6 to
develop a follower vehicle that uses target recognition. The system
was observed to be able to follow a mobile target with a heading
error of 4.6° and a lateral error of 1 m at the speed of 1.1 m/s
(Barawid and Noguchi, 2011). Yin et al. (2013) also developed an
obstacle detection system using a 3D camera (PMD CamCube 2.0)
which had a lateral error of 56 mm and 71 mm in static and
dynamic situations, respectively. The maximum positioning accu-
racy of 100 and 184 mm with an RMSE of 56 and 71 mm was
achieved in static and dynamic motion, respectively (Yang,
2013b; Barawid, 2011).
Ospina and Noguchi (2016) used an AV-6 robot vehicle to esti-
mate dynamic parameters and improve the efficiency of autono-
mous navigation in order to reduce the tire sideslip effect. The
main objective was to dynamically model the relationship between
the sideslip angle of the platform and the yaw rate (as outputs) and
the vehicle velocity and steering angle (as inputs) using bicycle
geometrical and dynamic models. They used potentiometers
(#CPP-60, Midori Precisions, Tokyo) on one of the steering wheels
to provide the steering angle, plus a microcontroller and a com-
puter for communication and data processing.
The vehicle was tested on a flat concrete surface. The compar-
ison of experimental results and the modeled data confirmed that
the developed model can be used for robotic vehicles with an esti-
mate of dynamic parameters; however, some modification was
needed because of the non-linearity of the agriculture field condi-
172 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
tions. Ospina and Noguchi (2018) later evaluated their developed
model in different soil conditions including a flat experimental
field, dry soil conditions, and wet soil conditions to find a relation
between the tire’s lateral forces and slip angles in terms of soil
moisture content and cone index. This study was done to improve
the automatic steering controller systems of AVs. The results
showed that the model could give a more accurate description of
the relation between the tire’s lateral forces and slip angles and
could be applied to agricultural field conditions with slight
modifications.
3.1.7. AV-7
Yang et al. (2016) developed a CAN-bus-based robot tractor
(AV-7) (Fig. 21). They applied an RTK-GPS sensor (#AGI3, Topcon),
an IMU, OSV, and two laser scanners (front and rear, and a 2D laser
scanner with 100-mm accuracy (Yang and Noguchi, 2014)) as
safety sensors, a personal computer, two CAN-buses (CAN-1: inter-
nal communication between the tractor’s ECU and the sensors and
actuators, CAN-2: communication between the PC and the robot
tractor) on a wheel-type tractor (#EG83, Yanmar).
Three experiments were conducted in a rectangular agricultural
field with eight paths with 5-m intervals and a turning algorithm
developed by Kise et al. (2002b). The experiments were performed
at (1) an experimental farm, without implements for an accuracy
evaluation (at 1 m/s speed); (2) at a soybean field with a spraying
implement for an evaluation of non-straight path navigation (the
speed was not reported); and (3) at a normal 2-ha agricultural field
for almost 5 hr during the night-time for a test of the stability of
the system for long-term work (speed: 0.6 m/s). At the first, sec-
ond, and third experiments the heading error and lateral error
were 0.57°, 0.77°, and 0.75°, and 50, 20, and 40 mm, respectively.
At the second test, the heading error was increased because of
the spraying implement’s weight. Compared to the previously
developed robot tractors (AV-6 and before), the navigation param-
eters were clearly improved in this robot tractor (AV-7). The third
experiment was also the first reported experiment conducted in
the absence of daylight.
The efficiency of farm work could increase if one driver could
control two tractors, and if a robot tractor could follow another
human-driven tractor (Noguchi, 2015). (Zhang et al., 2014a) devel-
oped an algorithm for the AV-7 robot tractor to follow an AV-3
tractor that was operated manually. The robot tractor was
equipped with wireless video transmission, four cameras, a laser
scanner, and a Bluetooth device. The best distance between the
two tractors was 150 m. The experiments were done on six paths,
with a U-turning method, speed of 0.9 m/s, and when the robot
tractor moved before the human-driven tractor moved. The results
showed that this system a had lateral error (straight line and turn-
ing) of 30 mm and a heading error of 0.71° (Zhang et al., 2013a).
The lateral error of the human-driven tractor was improved from
60 mm to 30 mm because it followed the robot tractor (Zhang
et al., 2015; Zhang, 2014a; Yang, 2013a).
3.1.8. AV-8
Zhang et al. (2013b) developed a robot combine harvester (AV-
8) for different applications (Fig. 21). They used a commercial com-
bine harvester (Model AG1100, Yanmar) equipped with RTK-
GPS + IMU (#AGI3, Topcon). A disadvantage of the AGI3 Topcon
RTK-GPS was that it should be used at speeds > 3 m/s, which prob-
ably decreases the efficiency of autonomous vehicles (Zhang,
2014b). After Zhang et al. evaluated the AV-8 in a straight-line test
in the field, the RTK-GPS installation location was modified.
The experimental results demonstrated that the developed
robot combine harvester had a heading error of 0.92° and a lateral
error of 34.7 mm at the traveling speed of 1.0 m/s. This robot com-
bine harvester was clearly more accurate than the previous robot
tractors due to its crawlers. In the case of robot tractor AV-5, its
accuracy was already in a comparison with other robot tractors
with similar horse power values. This is because the crawlers have
a greater connection surface, which reduces the momentary head-
ing fluctuations.
Zhang et al. later optimized the control parameters by develop-
ing a kinematic model for steering and turning functions, and the
robot was retested (Zhang et al., 2014b). They reported that the
performance of the robot was optimized at the speed of 1.2 m/s
when the optimized lateral error was 250 mm; however, this lat-
eral error was larger than those in their earlier report (Zhang
et al., 2013b). Rahman et al. (2017) developed a dynamic model
to estimate the heading angle and reduce the harvesting time. They
also devised an optimum harvesting area for convex and concave
polygon-shaped fields using sensor measurement. The test results
indicated that the absolute estimated heading angle was sufficient
to apply to exact crop periphery determinations (Rahman, 2018).
Choi et al. (2014) added a laser scanner (#UTM-30LX, Hokuyo
USA, Indian Trail, NC) to the AV-8 combine harvester to provide a
navigation system by obtaining more field information (such as
the shape of the field). They did not use this sensor for obstacle
detection or safety applications. Their findings in static and
dynamic (speed: 0.97 m/s) conditions showed that the system
had heading errors of 200 and 700 mm and lateral errors of 0.8°
and 3°, respectively. This system could distinguish the crop rows
and harvested boundary precisely. In the manual operation of the
system, the operator can detect the edge of harvester crops and
tries to harvest the uncut crops. In the system’s autonomous oper-
ation, sensor detection was needed to detect the cut/uncut crops
and to operate the system to reduce the uncut rows.
In this regard, Teng et al. (2016) developed an edge detection
system that uses a laser rangefinder that was a laser scanner
(#UTM-30LX, Hokuyo) installed on a pan-tilt unit (PTU). The
indoor edge detection tests showed an average offset of 217 mm
and an RMSE of 6.7 mm. In static and dynamic experiments in a
wheat field, the system had a lateral error of 42.7 and 101.5 mm,
respectively. The accuracy of the edge detection in the dynamic
condition was affected by the vehicle’s vibration, the steering error
of the navigation (manually operated in that study), and the non-
linearity of the wheat edges. Because of the low resolution of laser
finder, the authors recommended the use of image processing or
sensor fusion in future studies. Fan (2015) subsequently developed
a real-time quality sensor to predict the protein and moisture of
wheat using spectroscopy reflectance; however, this research
was not directly related to the autonomous navigation (Choi
et al., 2013).
3.1.9. AV-9
The monitoring of paddy field growth and spraying has been
another common concern in Hokkaido (Roshanianfard). Liu and
Noguchi (2016) developed an unmanned surface vehicle (USV)
(AV-9) for paddy fields. They used a radio-controlled air propeller
agricultural vessel (RB-26, Hokuto Yanmar Co., Ebetsu, Japan) as
platform, a personal computer, a GNSS / GPS compass (V100:
DGPS + gyroscope, Hemisphere GPS, Calgary, Canada), an ECU
(Arduino UNO), servo motors for rudder control, and a magnetic
sensor (#GV-101, Futaba, Mobara, Japan) to measure the rotary
speed of the engine, and a wireless router for data communication
(Fig. 21).
They evaluated the performance of the USV in three different
conditions: (1) line-follow navigation to minimize lateral and
heading errors, (2) headland turning to evaluate the turning func-
tions, and (3) map-based navigation. The developed robot USV
showed linear and autonomous navigations with lateral errors of
250 and 380 mm, respectively. The USV was also able to navigate
ellipses in turning paths. The large lateral errors were due to a
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
crosswind, and Liu et al. (2017) tested an idea to simulate and
reduce the effect of a crosswind. The main objective of their study
was a determination of the USV’s maneuverability in paddy fields.
The experimental results in a test of a zig-zag maneuver at 1.2 m/s
were compared with those of a computer simulation and related
parameters. The simulation results indicated that the crosswind
force can reach 2.85 N at the speed of 3 m/s under 0.1% turbulence.
Liu et al. recommended that an optimized control algorithm that
considers crosswind force be used in future studies (Liu et al.,
2016).
3.1.10. AV-10
Rice cultivation in paddy fields presents specific challenges
including maneuverability in the fields and labor concerns. Oka-
moto and his team have been working on the autonomous naviga-
tion of a specifically designed rice transplanter made by Kubota Co.
(Japan) (Kawahito, 2016; Okada, 2017; Wada, 2017). As shown in
Fig. 21 (AV-10), this specifically designed vehicle has metallic
wheels and unique dynamic characteristics that make it easier to
control the vehicle. Okamoto et al. developed a low-cost navigation
system that uses an RTK-GNSS sensor (#SPS 855, Trimble) and a
CAN-Bus connection. This rice transplanter can maneuver in a
paddy field with maximum and minimum lateral errors of 33.6
and 6.7 cm, respectively. Okamoto et al. later equipped the vehicle
with a camera (4 mm, Tamron, Saitama, Japan) to recognize pre-
provided paths. They observed that they could control the new sys-
tem by an average lateral error of 10.34 mm. This study is in
progress.
3.1.11. AV-11
As mentioned, autonomous navigation includes the turning
phase at the end of each straight maneuver (headland). To address
this phase, several algorithms have been developed: a U-turn, key-
hole turn (Takai et al., 2011), and fish-tail turn (Michio et al., 2001)
algorithm. Wang and Noguchi (2016) designed a robot tractor (AV-
11) with optimized maneuverability in straight lines and turning at
the headland (Fig. 21). Their main objectives were the optimization
of the trajectory, headland distance, and economy indexes. A
wheel-type tractor (Model EG105, Yanmar) was equipped with a
personal computer, control unit, RTK-GPS sensor (SPS855, Trim-
ble), and IMU (#VN100, VectorNav Technology, Dallas, TX). Their
vehicle’s turning function was named ’circle back (CB),’ which
includes two circular motions and one linear motion. Their exper-
iments indicated that the robot tractor can maneuver with lateral
and heading errors of 60 mm and 1.2° respectively when the speed
of the platform is 1.4 m/s. This turning algorithm provided efficient
and optimized maneuvering.
3.1.12. AV-12
In a continuation of their research into follower robots such as a
master-slave system (GoTo and FOLLOW systems) (Noguchi et al.,
2004) and follower robot tractor (Zhang et al., 2014a, 2013a, 2015),
Zhang and Noguchi (2015) developed a leader-follower system
that is a collaboration of two independent robot tractors in the
field, to reduce the total working time. They equipped a half-
crawler tractor (Model EG453, Yanmar) with RTK-GPS (SPS855,
Trimble), IMU (VN100, VectorNav), PDA (personal digital assis-
tant), personal computer, and Bluetooth as the robot tractor (AV-
12, Fig. 21). This system has two major parts: the robot’s navigator
(all control functions) and the robot’s server/client.
The system was first simulated on six paths at the average
speed of 0.83 m/s when the distance between the robots was
12 m. The minimum distance between the safety zones was
1.56 m. The total operation time was 22.5 min. When the simula-
tion results satisfied the safe distance criterion and the system was
confirmed to work without collisions, Zhang and Noguchi tested
173
the system in a field, using the same parameters as the simulation.
The results indicated that the minimum distance between the
safety zones was 0.8 m, and the total operation time was
24.5 min. These values were obtained because the software did
not include all of the parameters of a real field, and due to IMU
errors. Compared to a single robot tractor, the AV-12 system had
84.3% efficiency. The lateral errors of the first and second robot
tractors were 70 and 50 mm, although the reported lateral error
of the system was almost zero.
Zhang et al. (2016) then improved the algorithm so that the
minimum distance between the safety zones could be decreased
to 0.59 m; the total operation time decreased to 20.4 min, and
the efficiency increased to 95.1%. As was the case when the VeBots
laboratory designed robot tractors with reasonable heading errors,
this parameter was not reported in follower robots.
The spark of the multi-robot operation idea was provided by
Noguchi and Barawid (2011) for rice, wheat, a[109] for rice, wheat,
and soybean in Japan, planning a five-year project beginning in
2010. They introduced developed autonomous vehicles (AV-2,
AV-5, AV-6, AV-8, and AV-10) as platforms, RTK-GNSS and IMU
as navigation sensors, and laser-scanner and ultrasonic sensors
as safety sensors as the components of future multi-robotic sys-
tems. Their idea was the communication among a robot manage-
ment system (navigation sensors, sensor fusion, Kalman filter), a
real-time monitoring system (management and monitoring), a
navigation system, and a safety system using a wireless local-
area network (LAN).
After several attempts, Zhang and Noguchi (2017) developed
the first multi-robot tractor system for agricultural field work.
They aimed to increase the efficiency and speed of farm work in
order to decrease the risk of harvesting and other natural limita-
tions such as rain and temperature variation. Their multi-robot
system can decrease the economic indexes and labor costs that
provide an infrastructure for high-efficiency agriculture. They used
the robot tractor (AV-12) as the main platform in three different
patterns: an I-pattern, a V-pattern, and a W-pattern using a U-
shaped turning method. They controlled the lateral and longitudi-
nal distances between the robots, and they defined a circular safety
zone and a rectangular safety zone. They defined and evaluated
two types of efficiency: the efficiency of the multi-robots’ working
time compared to that of a single robot, and the efficiency of multi-
robots’ working time compared to the total consumed time.
As shown in Table 8, the I, V, and W patterns were simulated
using three robot tractors (18 paths), five robot tractors (30 paths),
and seven robot tractors (42 paths). The observed efficiency of
these combinations were 268.4%, 365.6%, and 437.8%, respectively
compared to a single robot tractor. The field experiments using
three (V-pattern) and four (W-pattern) robot tractors showed effi-
ciency values of 247.5% and 352.9%, respectively compared to a
single robot tractor.
The same study’s comparison of working times indicated that
the three-robot tractor and four-robot tractor combinations has
efficiency and lateral error values of 80% and 82.1% and 50 and
42.5 mm, respectively. Based on the results of safety experiments,
the developed system was confirmed to be safe for field perfor-
mance. The final efficiency evaluation showed that the I-pattern,
V-pattern, and W-pattern have 83.2%–89.8%, 67.3%–78.9%, and
59.4%–65.8% ranges of efficiency, respectively (Fig. 20), which are
strongly dependent on the field size (Zhang, 2017).
3.1.13. AV-13
Heavy-weight crops such as pumpkin, watermelon, melon, and
cabbage have recently attained remarkable market value in Japan
(especially Hokkaido), but the number of farmers in Japan contin-
ues to decrease because of the strenuous workloads and a labor
shortage. For Japan as a developed country, farming is considered
174 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Table 8
Details of the simulation and experimentation results in different patterns.
Number of robot tractor Type of pattern
Simulation 3 I
5 V
7 W
Experimentation 3 V
4 W
Fig. 20. Different patterns for multi-robot systems.
an overwhelming job compared to office work. The current har-
vesters are not precise or careful enough, and this can result in
damage to crops and decline marketing value. Robot technology
is a potential solution for these issues, but most of the agricultural
robots that are currently available are designed for small-sized and
lightweight crops (Roshanianfard).
Vehicle robotics laboratories can design smart robot tractors for
real farms, including farms with heavy crops. Such autonomous
vehicles are equipped with different sensors (navigation sensors,
safety sensors, and attitude sensors) and different platforms (trac-
tors, combine harvesters, rice transplanter, airboats, and electric
utility vehicles). As an intelligent system, a proportionate actuator
is necessary as the complementary unit. This actuator could be
applied for different applications. Roshanianfard and Noguchi
(2017b) developed a ’harvesting robot for heavy-weight crops
(HRHC)’ system (Roshanianfard, 2018a). They sought to develop
an automatic harvesting system to improve the Japanese farmers’
work in different fields. The HRHC system consists of five main
units: (1) an automatic robot tractor (which could be an AV-7,
AV-11 or AV-12), (2) a 5-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) robotic arm,
(3) a specifically designed end-effector, (4) main controlling units,
and (5) a vision system (Fig. 21, AV-13). Automatic maneuvers in
the field, crop detection by a vision system, field monitoring, and
precise field operations are only some of the planned applications
for the HRHC system (Roshanianfard and Noguchi, 2017c).
To develop this system, Roshanianfard and Noguchi (2016) first
designed the development procedure for a low-cost 5-DOF robotic
arm for farm use, considering the limitations when facing complex
agricultural conditions with a limited workspace and payload. Dif-
ferent parameters such as joint torque, payload per weight (PPW),
and repeatability were calculated and simulated dynamically and
statically. After the system’s development, the control algorithm
Kamata et al. (2018) was created using the Denavit and Hartenberg
method in forward kinematics and inverse kinematics calculations
(Roshanianfard and Noguchi, 2018b). The performance evaluation
of the system revealed that the workspace volume was 8.024  10
Number of paths Total work time (min) Efficiency (%)
Multi-robot Single-robot
18 19.57 52.52 268.4
30 24.12 88.17 365.6
42 28.28 123.8 437.8
12 14.02 34.69 247.5
16 13.2 46.57 352.9
9 mm3, the front access was 3.518  106 mm2, and the harvesting
area was 808 mm (Roshanianfard et al., 2019).
Before the end-effector of the system was designed, three vari-
eties of pumpkin (JEJEJ, TC2A, Hokutokou) as a heavy-weight crop
were characterized (Roshanianfard, 2018a). Three experiments
were conducted: (1) an evaluation of the general physical proper-
ties for investigating the pumpkins’ orientation and possible har-
vesting methodologies, (2) a compression strength test for
measuring the yield force, and (3) a bending-shear test for measur-
ing the yield force to cut the pumpkin stems. The results showed
that the average pumpkin’s lift weight was 26% more than pump-
kin’s pure weight. A special applied technique simplified the har-
vesting procedure (Roshanianfard and Noguchi, 2018a).
Roshanianfard and Noguchi (2017a) then designed an end-
effector with a unique harvesting methodology based on the
extracted properties of pumpkins. The components were designed
and dynamically simulated, and after several modifications, the
final components were manufactured and assembled. The
designed end-effector had five fingers designed to grasp and har-
vest heavy-weight crops with the diameter of 170–500 mm by a
sustainable force distribution. The trial results demonstrated that
the systems’ fingers have enough capability under the maximum
payload of the HRHC system (i.e., 25 kg), and the new end-
effector could harvest the varieties of pumpkin mentioned above
because the range of the system’s radius, volume and mass values
covered the extracted physical parameters of pumpkins.
After the control unit of the HRHC system was designed (based
on a programmable logic controller system and consisting of a per-
sonal computer, a position board, amplifiers, servo motors, switch-
ing unit, and emergency switches), the performance of the HRHC
system was evaluated. The results showed that the HRHC system
has a 92% harvesting success rate, 0% damage rate, and an average
cycle time of 42.4 s. The final parameters of workspace were as fol-
lows: workspace volume, 5.662  109 mm3; harvesting surface, 2.
86  106 mm2; and harvesting length, 800 mm. The average accu-
racy values were as follows: x-direction, 10.91 mm; y-direction,
9.52 mm; and repeatability, 12.74 mm. The control resolution in
the x-, y-, and z-directions were 1 ± 0.075, 1 ± 0.05, and
1 ± 0.025, respectively (Roshanianfard et al., 2018).
The harvesting success rate of the HRHC system (100%) was
higher than the overall average harvesting success rate of previous
studies 66% (40–86%) between 1984 and 2012 (Bac et al., 2014).
The results of each calculation, simulation, development, modifica-
tion, and characterization show that the HRHC system can be used
for heavyweight crop robotic harvesting applications. Although
this system was designed for specific crops (i.e., pumpkin, water-
melon and cabbage), it could be used for other applications such
as precise seeding, fertilizing, watering, and weeding.
As Fig. 22 shows, the number of published papers in the devel-
oping era increased rapidly. During the next era of commercializa-
tion, the number of publications decreased because the highest
priority was the expansion of the technology. Nowadays, the
VeBots laboratory is focusing on upgrading their technology in
the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Table 9 presents more
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183 175

Fig. 21. The configurations of the autonomous vehicles designed at Hokkaido University (Roshanianfard).

18
16
16
Number of publication

4
14
12
10 8
8 8 8
8 7
6 6
6
4
4 3
2
2 1
0
AV-1 AV-2 AV-3 AV-4 AV-5 AV-6 AV-7 AV-8 AV-9 AV-10 AV-11 AV-12 AV-13

Project

Fig. 22. The numbers of outcome relevant papers.

detailed information about the applied sensors for each project, the
experimental conditions, and the results.
3.2. Characterization results
One of the main components of an autonomous vehicle is the
mobile platform. For the category of autonomous agriculture vehi-
cles, there are several platforms that can be used. The VeBots lab-
oratory used mostly tractors (in nine projects and 60 papers). They
also used a combine harvester (one project, eight papers), a utility
vehicle (one project, eight papers), an airboat (one project, four
papers), and a rice transplanter (one project, one paper) (Fig. 23).
In general, a tractor was the platform in 70% of the projects (74%
of the papers), and the other types of platforms were used in only
176 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183

Table 9
The navigation results of the autonomous vehicles.

Project No. Environment Speed (m/s) Heading error (degree) Lateral error (mm) Navigation sensor
RMSE Max Avg PS AS SS
AV-1 Field 0.5 1 230 510 400 1 1 –
AV-2 Field 0.5 NA NA NA NA 2 1 9
Field 0.5 NA NA NA NA 3 1 –
Field 0.5 NA NA NA NA 3 1 –
Field 0.5 NA NA NA 50 4 – –
Field 0.5 NA NA NA NA 4 – –
Field 0.6 0.004 38 100 100 5 1,4 –
0.057 170
Orchard 0.5 3.11 60 150 NA 5 4 1
0.55 3.02 60
0.64 3.48 50
0.87 4.39 70
1.4 3.15 60
Field (Flat) 0.8 0.63 65 NA NA RTK 2,3 –
Field (Sloping) 0.64 30
Field (Bumpy) 0.59 37
AV-3 Field 1.5 1.3 60 150 NA 5 4 10
Field 2.5 NA 30 70 NA 5 4,5 10
Orchard 0.36 1.5 110 NA NA 5 5 1,10
Field 0.86 1.5 NA NA 110 6 5 2
1.23 3.3 140
1.43 4.9 190
AV-4 Field, GNSS-FOG 3.6 0.4 NA 150 NA U U
Field, Vision only 200
Field virtual 1.26 41.4 166 44.7 RTK –
AV-5 Field 0.6 0.22 14 NA NA 6 5 1
Field 0.6 0.24 10 NA NA 7 5 –
0.9 0.47 18
1.3 0.76 29
1.7 0.63 22.3
2 0.54 18
Field 0.5 0.2 10 NA NA 6 5 1,4.5
AV-6 Field 0.86 1.23 80 NA NA 5 6 10
1.52 3.17 180
1.61 7.67 410
Field static NA 56 100 NA 6 7 6
dynamic 71 184
AV-7 Field 1 0.57 50 70 NA 7 U 10,2,7
Field, implement – 0.77 20 30
Filed, night 0.6 0.75 40 100
Field 1.4, straight 0.98 41 57.1 NA 8 6 –
1, turning – – 53
Field 0.5 0.39 29 69 NA 7 U 3,8
AV-8 Field 1 0.92 34.7 200 NA 7 6 –
Field Static 0.8 20 40 NA 5 7 7
0.97 3 70 100
AV-9 Paddy field 1.2 NA 310 820 230 U 6 –
AV-10 Paddy field NA NA NA NA NA UD UD UD
AV-11 Field 1.4, straight 1.2 30 160 20 7 U 3,7
1, turning 10 120 80
AV-12 Field 1.16 NA 70 50 40 8 6 7
AV-13 Field UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD

30% of the projects and described in 26% of the papers. These data
are not surprising, because the tractor is a multi-application vehi-
cle that can carry different types of implements and equipment
and perform several types of farm work; a tractor can thus be used
for various robotic applications.
Among the projects mentioned above, in seven projects (52
papers, 64.2%) a wheel-type transporter system was used; in three
projects (14 papers, 17.3%) a half-crawler type was used, and in
two projects (11 papers, 13.6%) a crawler transporter was used.
Most of the robotic projects thus used a wheel-type tractor, which
is the most commonly used agriculture machine in the world
(Fig. 24).
Table 10 summarizes the development procedure of operation
functions of AVs such as the steering control, forward and back-
ward motion, brake, shift, rotary speed, hitch, and PTO. The
advances in steering began with AV-1, the steering of which was
controlled using a stepper motor connected to the steering shaft.
An electro-hydraulic valve was used later in AV-2, -3, -4, -6, -7, -
11, and -12. AV-5 and AV-8 each had a hydrostatic transmission
(HST) system with which the steering could be controlled from a
swash plate. The steering control of the AVs was not directly by
the ECU until AV-13. This was because of Japan’s strict governmen-
tal policy regarding vehicle traffic and autonomous navigation of
vehicles; this policy did not allow manufacturers to sell a vehicle
with controllable steering. After 2016, the policy was revised and
companies were allowed to offer controllable-steering vehicles.
Before that, when an AV was being designed, some modification
of the steering control was required.
The other operation functions (i.e., forward and backward
motion, brake, shift, rotary speed, hitch, and PTO control) were
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183 177

70 Table 10
Operation functions of developed autonomous vehicles and its development process.

Project Project steering Forward & brake Shift Rotary Hitch PTO
No. backward speed
60 Publication
AV-1 d  d NA d NA NA
AV-2 d d d  d d 
AV-3 d d d d d d d
50 AV-4 d d d d d d d
AV-5 d d NA NA d d d
AV-6 d d NA NA NA NA NA
AV-7 d s s s s s s
40 AV-8 s s s s s NA NA
AV-9 d d d NA d NA NA
AV-10 s s s NA s NA NA
AV-11 d s s s s s s
30 AV-12 d s s s s s s
AV-13 s s s s s s s

s: It can be controlled without modification.

20 d: It can be controlled by modification.
: Manual.
NA: Not available.
10

originally performed manually using the related handle. A handle

0 connected to a switch could control the actuator. Until the AV-6,
an extra ECU was required to control these functions. This ECU
Tractor

Rice transplanter
Combine

Utility vehicle

Boat

was connected between a switch and actuators and could control

it using the signals received from a personal computer. This was
why these functions need further modification. From the AV-7
onward, manufacturers have included a commercialized ECU on
the platforms that makes the controllable functions possible. After
that (with the exception of the AV-9, which has a different topol-
ogy, control system, and platform), the operation functions of all
Fig. 23. Different types of platforms used.
AVs have been controllable without modification.

3.3. The development of communication system

Fig. 25 illustrates the internal communication system develop-

ment procedure. As shown, the internal communication system
was directly controlled in the beginning because there was no
60 ECU available on tractors. The research groups were obliged to
use different interface cards to receive data from the sensors and
Number of Project to send commands to the actuators. Some prototype ECUs were
Number of Publication eventually developed and installed on tractors. These ECUs were
50 not commercialized at the time, but then researchers and manu-
facturers investigated several systems to obtain an ideal control
unit. At that time, the RS-232c (and a USB in some cases) was used
for communication between a personal computer and an ECU. In
40 some systems, a USB was also used. After the ISO-Bus and the
immediately CAN-Bus communication systems were developed,
the communication of several ECUs became easier and faster. Trac-
tors, like cars, can be equipped with CAN-Bus, and this communi-
30 cation method is now constantly used.

3.4. The development of positioning system

20
For autonomous navigation, positioning sensors are known as
the most important sensors because they can influence the accu-
racy of the entire autonomous system. When the AV-1 was devel-
oped, GNSS was not yet available, and its positioning sensor had
10
been designed only for military applications. Image sensors were
then created to guide a tractor (Fig. 26). As the accuracy of this

0
Wheel Half-crawler Crawler Other
Fig. 24. Different transporter systems.
Fig. 25. The internal communication system development process.
178
RTK-GPS
DGPS
GPS and SNAV
LNAV and XNAV
Image sensor
AV-1
AV-2
AV-3
AV-4
AV-5
Fig. 26. The positioning sensor development process.
positioning sensor was not good enough, researchers decided to
use some available positioning sensors, including LNAV, XNAV,
SNAV, and DGPS sensors. The SNAV sensor was selected as the
optimal sensor because the navigation topology of SNAV is based
on RTK-GPS. However, RTK-GPS and DGPS were still at the early
development stages at the time, and their accuracy was not very
high. RTK-GPS was also too expensive to use for agricultural appli-
cations (see Fig. 27).
When Japan faced several challenges such as a labor shortage,
the expensive price of autonomous vehicles became more accept-
able and several laboratories expressed their interest in the devel-
opment of robotic vehicles. During this period, RTK-GPS became
the standard position sensor in autonomous vehicles. The current
RTK-GPS, with 2-cm accuracy, is known as an accurate but expen-
sive positioning sensor. The development of low-cost RTK-GPS or a
new economic navigation method is necessary.
3.5. The development of attitude sensors
Overall, attitude sensors can be divided into three categories:
GDS, FOG, and IMU sensors. GDS sensors was the most commonly
used sensors before developing FOG and IMU. GDS and TMS sen-
sors, which are affected by the surrounding magnetic field, were
unavoidably inaccurate which resulted in large random and bias
errors. FOG sensors then became more popular, and three-axis
FOG sensors were soon used to measure the 3D orientation of vehi-
cles. These sensors were applied in airplane navigation systems
before being used in the agriculture industry. Because of the
three-axis FOG sensors’ high price, micro-electro-mechanical sys-
tem (MEMS) IMUs were evaluated, and this type of attitude sensor
is now frequently used. It thus seems that attitude sensors will
continue to be used in future designs of autonomous agriculture
vehicles.
IMU (3-axes FOG)
IMU
FOD
GDS
AV-1
AV-2
AV-3
AV-4
AV-5
AV-6
Project
Fig. 27. The attitude sensor development process.
A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Laser scanner
Camera
Switches
AV-1
AV-2
AV-3
AV-4
AV-5
AV-6
AV-7
AV-8
AV-9
AV-10
AV-11
AV-12
AV-6
AV-7
AV-8
AV-9
AV-10
AV-11
AV-12
Project
Project
Fig. 28. The safety sensor development process.
3.6. The development of safety sensors
Fig. 28 illustrates the safety sensors on different AVs. Safety
sensors — which protect an AV from various obstacles in agricul-
tural environments — have changed over time. Contact sensors
(e.g., bumper switches) were used as the first safety sensors. This
type of safety sensor has high reliability, but the large delay and
long response time could cause serious damage. To increase the
safety index, a camera was added to the next generation of AVs.
Different methodologies based on the cameras were applied to
analyze the agricultural environment, such as stereovision. A cam-
era can collect valuable and diverse information about the environ-
ment, but this type of sensor had two significant disadvantages (1)
more information can reduce the safety, and (2) environmental
factors such as lights and shadows can give rise to errors. Research-
ers then started to combine a camera with a laser scanner to
increase the safety level.
The camera/laser scanner combination is now the main choice
as a safety sensor, but the use of only a laser scanner has been
examined. Compared to a camera, a laser scanner can cover a
longer distance, and, in most cases, a laser scanner is more accu-
rate. The development of safety sensors began with switches,
moved on to cameras, and eventually to the combination of a laser
scanner and camera as the most effective sensor.
Agricultural environments have been the main substrates
examined in the development of AVs for farming, which has pro-
vided many challenges in the design of robotic systems. This type
of substrate is special because in an agriculture environment, many
complex and varying factors must be considered. Examples include
light reflection, which can affect image sensors; dusty environ-
ments, which can affect a mechanical platform or its components;
and humidity, rain, wind, non-flat surfaces, isolation, and vibration.
All of these factors increase the complexity of the design process,
and this complexity it is the reason why researchers select a speci-
fic environment when they start to design the required system.
As shown in Fig. 29, the VeBots laboratory at Hokkaido Univer-
MEMS IMU
sity has conducted research in three main environments: agricul-
tural fields, an orchard, and a paddy field. Most of the research
was performed in agricultural fields (87% of all experiments); the
orchards and paddy field accounted for only 14%. The agricultural
field experiments used different platforms (e.g., a tractor, combine
harvester, or utility vehicle). The orchard experiments used only a
AV-7
AV-8
AV-9
AV-10
AV-11
AV-12
tractor, and the single paddy field experiment used both a rice
transplanter and an airboat.
3.7. Performance qualification
Fig. 30 illustrates the heading error of each of the 13 AVs and
their travel speeds. The horizontal axis indicates the different
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
30
Number of experimentations
87%
25
20
15
10
5 7%
0 Fig. 31 indicates the number of autonomous vehicles, the position-
Orchard
Field
Fig. 29. Experiment environments.
experiments, e.g., AV-2, PS-9, 0.8, and Bumpy, along with the posi-
tioning sensor used (PS-9: RTK-GPS, Topcon, Legacy-E; see Table 3),
the travel speed (0.8 m/s), and the environment specifications (e.g.,
Bumpy field). The blue vertical line indicates the threshold of the
attitude sensor. This threshold is located between the AV-2 and
the AV-3, when the attitude sensor was changed from GDS to
IMU (three-axis FOG or MEMS). These data establish that the IMUs
had a revolutionary effect on the heading error. Before the AV-3,
GDSs were used in the AV-1 and AV-2 as the attitude sensor.
As is clear in the figure, the heading error in (AV-2, PS-5, 0.55),
(AV-2, PS-5, 0.6), (AV-2, PS-5, 0.64), (AV-2, PS-9, 0.8, Flat), and (AV-
2, PS-9, 0.8, Slope) were 3.11°, 3.02°, 3.48°, 4.39°, and 3.15°, respec-
tively (Fig. 30 (1)). These errors were quite high and were not suit-
able for autonomous applications. In standard experimental
Fig. 30. Performance indicators of the AVs (heading error).
179
conditions, the heading error has always been < 2°. From AV-3
onward, three-axis FOGs began to be used, and this type of IMU
changed over time to the MEMS type.
Some experiments indicated that high speed (Fig. 30 (3)), a
rapid turn (Fig. 30 (4)), and using only a 2D laser scanner as the
positioning sensor (Fig. 30 (2)) can cause large heading errors. Gen-
erally, the average heading errors before (using GDS) and after (us-
ing IMU) the threshold were 2° and 1.6°. Using an IMU thus has a
positive effect on the heading error in navigation.
The next performance indicator of AVs is the lateral error
(Fig. 31), which is directly related to the positioning sensor and
7%
also related to the platform, the transporter system, the tire slip
angle, and the environmental conditions. The horizontal axis in
Paddy field
ing sensors, the travel speed, and environmental specifications. The
figure is divided into two periods using a threshold between AV-1
and AV-2. The threshold is the time point at which the positioning
sensor changed to RTK-GPS. Before that, different positioning sen-
sors (e.g., image sensor, LNAV, SNAV, XNAV, and DGPS) were used,
and the results were not stable over all different conditions. The
lateral error of the AV-1 was 23 cm — a large error due to the image
sensor and stations.
In the first AV-2 projects, positioning sensors such as LNAV,
SNAV, and XNAV were used, with poor results. When the position-
ing sensor was changed to RTK-GPS, the average lateral error
decreased to 6.78 cm. The RTK-GPS, Topcon, and Legacy-E position-
ing sensors together had an average lateral error of 2.5 cm when
attached to the AV-5 and AV-7. The RTK-GPS, Topcon, and AGI-3
positioning sensors together had an average lateral error of
2.61 cm when attached to AV-5, -7, -8, and -11.
The RTK-GPS, Trimble, and SPS855 sensors had an average lat-
eral error of 6 cm when attached on the AV-7 and AV-12. The
RTK-GPS, Trimble, and MS750 sensors had an average lateral error
of 9.83 cm when attached to the AV-2, -3, -6, and -8. The DGPS,
Hemisphere, and V100 sensors had an average lateral error of
11 cm when attached to the AV-2 and the AV-9 (31 cm). Although
180 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Fig. 31. Performance indicators of the AVs (lateral error).
it has not been possible to determine the lateral error by consider-
ing only the positioning sensors, the positioning sensors play the
main role in attaining high position accuracy. The data in Fig. 31
also indicate that high speed (AV-6) and a wet environment such
as a paddy field (AV-9) can dramatically increase the lateral error.
4. Lessons learned
Almost thirty years of study on the agricultural autonomous
vehicles in the laboratory of vehicle robotics – Hokkaido University
– Japan has yielded valuable experiences, the most important of
which are outlined below (see videos at Roshanianfard (2020)):
1. To develop an autonomous vehicle (for various applications
including agriculture industry) with minimum human interposi-
tion, the selected platform (such as tractor, combine harvester,
Utility vehicle, Transplanter) must have an automatic transmis-
sion and an electrical controllable steering system. An automatic
transmission helps to adjust the vehicle’s maneuver velocity by
sending a command through the TECU. Speed control of plat-
forms that have manual transmission should be done with addi-
tional mechanical/hydraulic actuating systems (to change gears
and control clutch control). It is not recommended to use addi-
tional actuators because their installation has many challenges
and their application includes many errors.
2. The steering control is also an important character that should
be considered based on the national policies of each country.
Many developed countries such as Germany and Japan, have
restricted the use of electronic steering on various vehicles
because of safety reasons. After designing the necessary stan-
dards and regulations, this system is gradually seen on the
new designs and platforms such as Yanmar YT5113 (Tractor).
In some other countries, there may be similar policies that
restrict the development of autonomous vehicles. Designers
and researchers must carefully review the related standards
and rules before starting their project to avoid wasting time
and budget.
3. To control all the components of an AAV, there must be suffi-
cient access to the ECU using USB, RS232c, or CAN-BUS. This
is because, controlling a platform through its ECU helps the
automation process to control the components according to
the factory’s designed standards and applied APIs. This requires
that the manufacturing company either allow to access the con-
tents of the ECU or to develop an external port to communicate
the ECU and provide the related controlling API. Otherwise, the
designer should include a separate ECU for autonomous control.
An external ECU may have various challenges such as (1) incon-
sistency of the controlling commands of external ECU versus
the main ECU, (2) lack of equipment equipped with CAN-BUS
communication system, (3) multi-ECU control challenges using
USB or RS232c communication system, and (4) inability to stop
the device when it gets out of control.
4. Each prototype AAV needs to be equipped with a computer
that receives the commands from sensors (such as RTK-GPS,
IMU, LIDAR) and send the related commands to the actuators
(such as steering and brake) using a related algorithm. It is
strongly recommended to use solid-state drive (SSD) hard
disks to store data inside the computer so that the vibrations
of the vehicles during maneuver have less effect on the per-
formance of the algorithm. This type of hard disks is more
resistant to physical shock and can support fast communica-
tion with ECUs.
5. The GNSS-based navigation systems have weak performance in
covered areas such as tunnels or environments with obstacles
trees or buildings. It is important to consider this disadvantage
in designed algorithms. There are many studies introduced in
this study that have developed different algorithms using sen-
sor fusion, LRF, or other methods.
6. However, the fuzzy logic, genetic algorithm, and artificial
neural network can help to solve the non-linear behavior of
algorithms and support MIMO controls, it is recommended
to develop the controlling algorithms as simple as possible
regardless of the least important parameters. A simple algo-
rithm can be run fast, and its troubleshooting and coding
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
are much easier. In this regard, the proportional-integral-deri
vative (PID) and model predictive control (MPC) controllers
recommended.
7. More detailed information about the characterization of differ-
ent components including hardware, environments, controlling
algorithm, and performance indicator described in detail in Sec-
tion 2. It is recommended to study this section before develop-
ing a new AV.
5. Conclusion
Different aspects of autonomous agricultural vehicles have been
presented in detail: the variation in hardware (development, plat-
form, transportation system, operation function, communication
methods, sensors, and control units), the environment, control
algorithms, and performance indicators. The development proce-
dures and characteristics of each AV were compared and discussed.
Case studies of autonomous vehicles designed at Hokkaido Univer-
sity and the development process were presented as practical cases
and representative development challenges. The case studies also
contribute to researchers’ understanding of the aspects of future
robotic systems and to the prevention of repeat failures and unnec-
essary challenges. It is hoped that this review will assist scientists
who are working to develop robots for the benefit of humanity and
a peaceful future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Cross-ministerial Strategic
Innovation Promotion Program (SIP) - Tokyo managed by Cabinet
Office of Japan.
References
AEF, 2019. ISOBUS.
Ampatzidis, Y.G., Vougioukas, S.G., Bochtis, D.D., Tsatsarelis, C.A., 2009. A yield
mapping system for hand-harvested fruits based on RFID and GPS location
technologies: field testing. Precis. Agric. 10, 63–72.
Asadollahpour, A., Omidinajafabadi, M., Jamalhosseini, S., 2014. Factors affecting the
conversion to organic farming in Iran: a case study of mazandaran rice
producers. Sci. Int. (Lahore) 26, 1844–1860.
Bac, C.W., van Henten, E.J., Hemming, J., Edan, Y., 2014. Harvesting robots for high-
value crops: state-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. J. Field Rob. 31, 888–
911.
Bakker, T., van Asselt, K., Bontsema, J., Müller, J., van Straten, G., 2011. Autonomous
navigation using a robot platform in a sugar beet field. Biosyst. Eng. 109, 357–
368.
Barawid, J., Oscar, C., Mizushima, A., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., 2007. Development of an
autonomous navigation system using a two-dimensional laser scanner in an
orchard application. Biosyst. Eng. 96, 139–149.
Barawid Jr, O.C., 2011. Development of electronic utility robot vehicle. Department
of Environment Resources, Graduate school of Agriculture, Hokkaido University,
p. 170.
Barawid Jr, O.C., Farrokhi Teimourlou, R., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., 2008a. Automatic
guidance system in real-time orchard application (Part 1), a novel research on
coconut field application using laser scanner. J. Japanese Soc. Agric. Machinery
70, 76–84.
Barawid Jr, O.C., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., 2008b. Calibration method for 2-dimensional
laser scanner attached on a robot vehicle. In: Proceedings of the 17th World
Congress, The International Federation of Automatic Control, Seoul, Korea.
Barawid Jr, O.C., Noguchi, N., 2010. Automatic guidance system in real-time orchard
application (Part 2), development of low-cost and small scale electronic robot
vehicle for orchard application. J. Japanese Soc. Agric. Machinery 72, 243–250.
Barawid, O.C., Noguchi, N., 2011. Automatic steering system for electronic robot
vehicle. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 44, 2901–2906.
Belforte, G., Deboli, R., Gay, P., Piccarolo, P., Ricauda Aimonino, D., 2006. Robot
design and testing for greenhouse applications. Biosyst. Eng. 95, 309–321.
181
Blanes, C., Mellado, M., Beltrán, P., 2016. Tactile sensing with accelerometers in
prehensile grippers for robots. Mechatronics 33, 1–12.
Bochtis, D.D., Sørensen, C.G.C., Busato, P., 2014. Advances in agricultural machinery
management: a review. Biosyst. Eng. 126, 69–81.
Boston Dynamics, 2019. The mobile robot designed for sensing, inspection, and
remote operation (Spot).
Charania, I., Li, X., 2020. Smart farming: agriculture’s shift from a labor intensive to
technology native industry. Internet of Things 9, 100142.
Choi, J., Yin, X., Noguchi, N., 2013. Development of a laser scanner-based navigation
system for a combine harvester. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46, 103–108.
Choi, J., Yin, X., Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2014. Development of a laser scanner-based
navigation system for a combine harvester. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 7, 7–13.
De-An, Z., Jidong, L., Wei, J., Ying, Z., Yu, C., 2011. Design and control of an apple
harvesting robot. Biosyst. Eng. 110, 112–122.
Ding, Y., Wang, L., Li, Y., Li, D., 2018. Model predictive control and its application in
agriculture: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 151, 104–117.
Dong, F., Heinemann, W., Kasper, R., 2011. Development of a row guidance system
for an autonomous robot for white asparagus harvesting. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 79, 216–225.
Eizicovits, D., van Tuijl, B., Berman, S., Edan, Y., 2016. Integration of perception
capabilities in gripper design using graspability maps. Biosyst. Eng. 146, 98–113.
Ellen, L., William, C., Erica, S., Keith, F., 2013. Global Agricultural Productivity report.
Faizollahzadeh Ardabili, S., Mahmoudi, A., Mesri Gundoshmian, T., Roshanianfard,
A., 2016. Modeling and comparison of fuzzy and on/off controller in a
mushroom growing hall. Measurement 90, 127–134.
Fan, Z., 2015. Development of a Real-time Quality Sensor for Wheat on a Combine
Harvester. Department of Environment Resources, Graduate school of
Agriculture, Hokkaido University.
Hayashi, S., Shigematsu, K., Yamamoto, S., Kobayashi, K., Kohno, Y., Kamata, J.,
Kurita, M., 2010. Evaluation of a strawberry-harvesting robot in a field test.
Biosyst. Eng. 105, 160–171.
Ishii, K., 1997. Study on Control method of Agricultural Autonomous Mobile Robot.
Department of Environment Resources, Graduate school of Agriculture.
Hokkaido University, p. 146.
Ishii, K., Terao, H., Noguchi, N., 1994. Studies on self-learning autonomous vehicles
(Part 1), following control using neuro-controller. J. Japanese Soc. Agric.
Machinery 56, 53–60.
Ishii, K., Terao, H., Noguchi, N., 1995. Studies on self-learning autonomous vehicles
(Part 2), verification of neuro-controller by model vehicle. J. Japanese Soc. Agric.
Machinery 57, 61–67.
Ishii, K., Terao, H., Noguchi, N., 1998a. Studies on Self-learning autonomous vehicles
(Part 3), positioning system for autonomous vehicle. J. Japanese Soc. Agric.
Machinery 60, 51–58.
Ishii, K., Terao, H., Noguchi, N., Kise, M., 1998b. Studies on self-learning autonomous
vehicles (Part 4), online neuro-controller. J. Japanese Soc. Agric. Machinery 60,
53–58.
Jongmin, C., 2014. Development of Guidance System Using Local Sensors for
Agricultural Vehicles. Department of Environment Resources, Graduate school
of Agriculture. Hokkaido University.
Kamata, T., Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2018. Heavy-weight crop harvesting
robot - controlling algorithm. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 244–249.
Kawahito, H., 2016. Study on automatic steering of rice transplanter by detection of
traveling marker using image processing (In Japanese), Agriculture department.
Hokkaido University.
Kim, Y.Y., Hwang, H., Cho, S.I., 2008. A hybrid robotic system for harvesting heavy
produce. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 1, 18–23.
Kise, M., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 2001. Development of the agricultural
autonomous tractor with an RTK-GPS and a fog. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 34,
99–104.
Kise, M., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 2002a. The development of the
autonomous tractor with steering controller applied by optimal control. In:
Automation Technology for Off-Road Equipment, Proceedings of the July 26-27,
2002 Conference (Chicago, Illinois, USA). ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 367–373.
Kise, M., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 2002b. Enhancement of turning accuracy by
path planning for robot tractor. In: Automation Technology for Off-Road
Equipment, Proceedings of the July 26-27, 2002 Conference (Chicago, Illinois,
USA). ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 398–404.
Kohno, Y., Kondo, N., Iida, M., Kurita, M., Shiigi, T., Ogawa, Y., Kaichi, T., Okamoto, S.,
2011. Development of a mobile grading machine for citrus fruit. Eng. Agric.
Environ. Food 4, 7–11.
Kondo, N., Monta, M., Fujiura, T., 1996. Fruit harvesting robots in Japan. Adv. Space
Res. 18, 181–184.
Kondo, N., Monto, M., Noguchi, N., 2011. Agricultural Robots.
Kondo, N., Yamamoto, K., Shimizu, H., Yata, K., Kurita, M., Shiigi, T., Monta, M.,
Nishizu, T., 2009. A machine vision system for tomato cluster harvesting robot.
Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 2, 60–65.
Kubota Co., 2018. Kubota Tractor Corporation.
Kurashiki, K., Fukao, T., Ishiyama, K., Kamiya, T., Murakami, N., 2010a. Orchard
traveling UGV using particle filter based localization and inverse optimal
control. In: 2010 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration, pp.
31–36.
Kurashiki, K., Fukao, T., Nagata, J., Ishiyama, K., Kamiya, T., Murakami, N., 2010b.
Laser-based vehicle control in orchard. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 43, 127–132.
Kurita, H., Iida, M., Suguri, M., Masuda, R., 2012. Application of image processing
technology for unloading automation of robotic head-feeding combine
harvester. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 5, 146–151.
182 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Lezoche, M., Hernandez, J.E., Alemany Díaz, M.d.M.E., Panetto, H., Kacprzyk, J., 2020.
Agri-food 4.0: A survey of the supply chains and technologies for the future
agriculture. Comput. Industry 117, 103187.
Li, M., Imou, K., Wakabayashi, K., Yokoyama, S., 2009. Review of research on
agricultural vehicle autonomous guidance. Int. J. Agric. & Biol. Eng. 2, 1–
26.
Liu, Y., Noguchi, N., 2016. Development of an unmanned surface vehicle for
autonomous navigation in a paddy field. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 9, 21–26.
Liu, Y., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., 2014. Development of a low-cost IMU by using sensor
fusion for attitude angle estimation. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47, 4435–4440.
Liu, Y., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Liang, L., 2016. Wind direction-based path planning for
an agricultural unmanned airboat navigation. In: 2016 IEEE/SICE International
Symposium on System Integration (SII), pp. 906–911.
Liu, Y., Noguchi, N., Roshanianfard, A., 2017. Simulation and test of an agricultural
unmanned airboat maneuverability model. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 10.
Michio, K., Noboru, N., Kazunobu, I., Hideo, T., 2001. Field mobile robot navigated by
RTK-GPS and FOG (Part 2) - autonomous operation by applying navigation map.
J. Agric. Mech. Eng. 63, 80–85.
Mizushima, A., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., Matsuo, Y., Lu, R., 2011. Development of a low-
cost attitude sensor for agricultural vehicles. Comput. Electron. Agric. 76, 198–
204.
Mizushima, A., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., 2005. Development of Robot Tractor Using the
Low-Cost GPS/INS System. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Mizushima, A., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 2002. Automatic navigation of the
agricultural vehicle by the geomagnetic direction sensor and gyroscope. In:
Automation Technology for Off-Road Equipment, Proceedings of the July 26-27,
2002 Conference (Chicago, Illinois, USA). ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 204–211.
Mizushima, A., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., Yukumoto, O., Yamamoto, S., 2000.
Automatic guidance system composed of geomagnetic direction sensor and
fiber optic gyroscope. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 33, 313–317.
Monte, A.D., Noboru, N., Qin, Z., John, F.R., Jeffrey, D.W., 2000. Sensor-fusion
navigator for automated guidance of off-road vehicles. In: patent, U. (Ed.), USA.
Moshou, D., Bravo, C., Oberti, R., West, J.S., Ramon, H., Vougioukas, S., Bochtis, D.,
2011. Intelligent multi-sensor system for the detection and treatment of fungal
diseases in arable crops. Biosyst. Eng. 108, 311–321.
Mousazadeh, H., 2013. A technical review on navigation systems of agricultural
autonomous off-road vehicles. J. Terramech. 50, 211–232.
Narvaez, F.Y., Reina, G., Torres-Torriti, M., Kantor, G., Cheein, F.A., 2017. A survey of
ranging and imaging techniques for precision agriculture phenotyping. IEEE/
ASME Trans. Mechatron. 22, 2428–2439.
Noguchi, N., 2015. Current status and future prospects for vehicle robotics on
agriculture. J. Japan Soc. Precision Eng. 81, 22–25.
Noguchi, N., Barawid Jr, O.C., 2011. Robot farming system using multiple robot
tractors in Japan agriculture. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 44, 633–637.
Noguchi, N., Reid, F.J., Zhang, Q., Will, D.J., Ishii, K., 2001a. Development of Robot
Tractor Based on RTK-GPS and Gyroscope. In: 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting. ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI.
Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 1992. A Study on Intelligent Industrial Vehicle by
using Neural Network (Modeling Vehicle Movement by Neural Network). In:
Proceedings of the 2nd Intelligent Systems Symposium Proceedings, Japan, pp.
367–372.
Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 1996. Development of an agricultural mobile robot
using a geomagnetic direction sensor and image sensors. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 67,
1–15.
Noguchi, N., Kise, M., Ishii, K., Terao, H., 2002. Field automation using robot tractor.
In: Automation Technology for Off-Road Equipment, Proceedings of the July 26-
27, 2002 Conference (Chicago, Illinois, USA). ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 239–245.
Noguchi, N., Reid, J., Zhang, Q., Will, D.J., 2001b. Turning function for robot tractor
based on spline function. In: 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Noguchi, N., Reid, J.F., Zhang, Q., Tian, L., Hasan, A.C., 1999. Vision intelligence for
mobile agro-robotic system. J. Robot. Mechatron. 11.
Noguchi, N., Terao, H., 1997. Path planning of an agricultural mobile robot by neural
network and genetic algorithm. Comput. Electron. Agric. 18, 187–204.
Noguchi, N., Will, J., Reid, J., Zhang, Q., 2004. Development of a master–slave robot
system for farm operations. Comput. Electron. Agric. 44, 1–19.
Okada, A., 2017. Study on automatic steering control of rice transplanter by satellite
positioning system (In Japanese). Hokkaido University.
Ospina, R., Noguchi, N., 2016. Determination of tire dynamic properties: Application
to an agricultural vehicle. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 9, 123–130.
Ospina, R., Noguchi, N., 2018. Alternative method to model an agricultural vehicle’s
tire parameters. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 11, 9–18.
Pettersson, A., Davis, S., Gray, J.O., Dodd, T.J., Ohlsson, T., 2010. Design of a
magnetorheological robot gripper for handling of delicate food products with
varying shapes. J. Food Eng. 98, 332–338.
Pettersson, A., Ohlsson, T., Davis, S., Gray, J.O., Dodd, T.J., 2011. A hygienically
designed force gripper for flexible handling of variable and easily damaged
natural food products. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 12, 344–351.
Pinto, F.A.C., Reid, J.F., Zhang, Q., Noguchi, N., 2000. Vehicle guidance parameter
determination from crop row images using principal component analysis. J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 75, 257–264.
Prado, Álvaro J., Michałek, Maciej M., Cheein, Fernando A., 2018. Machine-learning
based approaches for self-tuning trajectory tracking controllers under terrain
changes in repetitive tasks. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 67, 63–80.
Qiao, J., Sasao, A., Shibusawa, S., Kondo, N., Morimoto, E., 2005. Mapping yield and
quality using the mobile fruit grading robot. Biosyst. Eng. 90, 135–142.
Rahman, M., 2018. Studies on tracked dynamic model and optimum harvesting area
for path planning of robot combine harvester. Department of Environment
Resources, Graduate school of Agriculture. Hokkaido University.
Rahman, M., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., 2017. Study on tracked combine harvester
dynamic model for automated navigation purposes. Adv. Robot. Autom. 6.
Rahnemoonfar, M., Sheppard, C., 2017. Deep count: fruit counting based on deep
simulated learning. Sensors 17, 905.
Rajendra, P., Kondo, N., Ninomiya, K., Kamata, J., Kurita, M., Shiigi, T., Hayashi, S.,
Yoshida, H., Kohno, Y., 2009. Machine vision algorithm for robots to harvest
strawberries in tabletop culture greenhouses. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 2, 24–
30.
Ren, G., Lin, T., Ying, Y., Chowdhary, G., Ting, K.C., 2020. Agricultural robotics
research applicable to poultry production: a review. Comput. Electron. Agric.
169, 105216.
Roshanianfard, A., 2018a. Development of a harvesting robot for heavy-weight crop.
Department of Environment Resources, Graduate school of Agriculture.
Hokkaido University, p. 236.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2020. Pumpkin harvesting robotic end-effector.
Computer and electronic in agriculture, 174, 105503.
Roshanianfard, A., 2020. YouTube Channel named ‘‘Agricultural Robots”, Laboratory
of Vehicle Robotics at Hokkaido University - Japan.
Roshanianfard, A., Kamata, T., Noguchi, N., 2018. Performance evaluation of
harvesting robot for heavy-weight crops. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 332–338.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2016. Development of a 5DOF robotic arm
(RAVebots-1) applied to heavy products harvesting. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49,
155–160.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2017a. Designing of pumpkin harvester robotic end-
effector. In: 2017 The 3rd International Conference on Control, Automation and
Robotics (ICCAR 2017). IEEE, Nagoya, Japan.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2017b. Development of a heavyweight crop robotic
harvesting system (HCRH). In: 2017 The 3rd International Conference on
Control, Automation and Robotics. IEEE.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2017c. Development of robotic harvesting system
for heavy-weight crops. In: 11th seminar of ASIJ - Academic Society of Iranians
in Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2018a. Characterization of pumpkin for a harvesting
robot. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 23–30.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., 2018b. Kinematics analysis and simulation of a 5DOF
articulated robotic arm applied to heavy products harvesting. Tarim Bilimleri
Dergisi-J. Agric. Sci. 24, 91–104.
Roshanianfard, A., Noguchi, N., Kamata, T., 2019. Design and performance of a
robotic arm for farm use. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. (IJABE) 12, 146–158.
Saito, M., Tamaki, K., Nishiwaki, K., Nagasaka, Y., Motobayashi, K., 2013.
Development of Robot Combine Harvester for Beans using CAN Bus Network.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46, 148–153.
Siegwart, R., Nourbakhsh, I.R., Scaramuzza, D., 2011. Autonomous Mobile Robots.
The MIT press, p. 335.
Soter, G., Conn, A., Hauser, H., Rossiter, J., 2018. Bodily aware soft robots: integration
of proprioceptive and exteroceptive sensors. In: 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2448–2453.
Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2017. Statistical handbook of Japan. Statistics Bureau
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Japan.
Takai, R., Barawid, O., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., 2010. Development of Crawler-Type
Robot Tractor based on GPS and IMU. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 43, 151–156.
Takai, R., Barawid, O., Noguchi, N., 2011. Autonomous Navigation System of
Crawler-Type Robot Tractor. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 44, 14165–14169.
Takai, R., Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2014. Development of a crawler-type robot tractor
using RTK-GPS and IMU. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 7, 143–147.
Tamaki, K., Nagasaka, Y., Nishiwaki, K., Saito, M., Kikuchi, Y., Motobayashi, K., 2013.
A Robot System for Paddy Field Farming in Japan. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46,
143–147.
Tanigaki, K., Fujiura, T., Akase, A., Imagawa, J., 2008. Cherry-harvesting robot.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 63, 65–72.
Tanner, H.G., Kyriakopoulos, K.J., Krikelis, N.I., 2001. Advanced agricultural robots:
kinematics and dynamics of multiple mobile manipulators handling non-rigid
material. Comput. Electron. Agric. 31, 91–105.
Teng, Z., Noguchi, N., Liangliang, Y., Ishii, K., Jun, C., 2016. Development of uncut
crop edge detection system based on laser rangefinder for combine harvesters.
Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 9, 21–28.
Thanpattranon, P., Ahamed, T., Takigawa, T., 2016. Navigation of autonomous
tractor for orchards and plantations using a laser range finder: automatic
control of trailer position with tractor. Biosyst. Eng. 147, 90–103.
Toyama, S., Yamamoto, G., 2009a. Development of Wearable-Agri-Robot
mechanism for agricultural work. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5801–5806.
Toyama, S., Yamamoto, G., 2009b. Development of Wearable-Agri-Robot
mechanism for agricultural work. In: 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5801–5806.
Tsubota, R., Noguchi, N., Mizushima, A., 2004. Automatic guidance with a laser
scanner for a robot tractor in an orchard, Automation Technology for Off-Road
Equipment, Proceedings of the 7–8 October 2004 Conference (Kyoto, Japan)
Publication Date 7 October 2004. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI.
USDA, 2019. Farm Demographics - U.S. Farmers by Gender, Age, Race, Ethnicity, and
More, United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics
Service.
 A. Roshanianfard et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 91 (2020) 155–183
Van Henten, E.J., Van’t Slot, D.A., Hol, C.W.J., Van Willigenburg, L.G., 2009. Optimal
manipulator design for a cucumber harvesting robot. Comput. Electron. Agri. 65,
247–257.
Vasconez, J.P., Guevara, L., Cheein, F.A., 2019a. Social robot navigation based on HRI
non-verbal communication: A case study on avocado harvesting. Proceedings of
the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing.
Vasconez, J.P., Kantor, G.A., Auat Cheein, F.A., 2019b. Human–robot interaction in
agriculture: a survey and current challenges. Biosyst. Eng. 179, 35–48.
Vasconez, J.P., Salvo, J., Auat, F., 2018. Toward semantic action recognition for
avocado harvesting process based on single shot MultiBox Detector. In: 2018
IEEE International Conference on Automation/XXIII Congress of the Chilean
Association of Automatic Control (ICA-ACCA), pp. 1–6.
Vougioukas, S.G., 2019. Agricultural Robotics. Annu. Rev. Control, Robotics,
Autonomous Syst. 2, 365–392.
Wada, 2017. Research on rudder automatic steering for labor saving in rice
transplanter, Agriculture Department. Hokkaido University.
Wang, H., Noguchi, N., 2016. Autonomous maneuvers of a robotic tractor for
farming. In: 2016 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration
(SII), pp. 592–597.
Weiss, U., Biber, P., 2011. Plant detection and mapping for agricultural robots using
a 3D LIDAR sensor. Rob. Auton. Syst. 59, 265–273.
Yang, L., 2013a. Development of a Robot Tractor Implemented an Omni-Directional
Safety System. Department of Environment Resources, Graduate School of
Agriculture, Hokkaido University, p. 133.
Yang, L., 2013b. Development of in-Field Transportation Robot Vehicle using
Multiple Sensors. Department of Environment Resources, Graduate School of
Agriculture, Hokkaido University, p. 138.
Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2012. Human detection for a robot tractor using omni-
directional stereo vision. Comput. Electron. Agric. 89, 116–125.
Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2014. An active safety system using two laser scanners for a
robot tractor. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47, 11577–11582.
Yang, L., Noguchi, N., Takai, R., 2016. Development and application of a wheel-type
robot tractor. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 9, 131–140.
YANMAR CO., 2018. Data sheet for YT488A, YT498A, YT4104A, and YT5113A
tractors.
Yin, X., Noguchi, N., Ishi, K., 2013. Development of an obstacle avoidance system for
a field robot using a 3D camera. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 6, 41–47.
Yokota, M., Mizushima, A., Ishii, K., Noguchi, N., 2005. 3-D GIS Map Generation
Using a Robot Tractor with a Laser Scanner. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Yukumoto, O., Matsuo, Y., Noguchi, N., 2000a. Robotization of agricultural vehicles
(Part 1), component technologies and navigation systems. Japan Agric. Res.
Quart. 34, 99–105.
183
Yukumoto, O., Matsuo, Y., Noguchi, N., 2000b. Robotization of agricultural vehicles
(Part 2): - description of the tilling robot. Japan Agric. Res. Quart. 34.
Zhai, Z., Martínez, J.F., Beltran, V., Martínez, N.L., 2020. Decision support systems for
agriculture 4.0: survey and challenges. Comput. Electron. Agric. 170, 105256.
Zhang, C., 2014a. Development of a Leader-follower System for Farm Use,
Department of Environment Resources. Graduate school of Agriculture,
Hokkaido University.
Zhang, C., 2017. Development of a Multi-robot Tractor System for Farm Work,
Department of Environment Resources. Graduate school of Agriculture,
Hokkaido University.
Zhang, C., Noguchi, N., 2015. Development of leader-follower system for field work.
In: 2015 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII), pp.
364–368.
Zhang, C., Noguchi, N., 2017. Development of a multi-robot tractor system for
agriculture field work. Comput. Electron. Agric. 142, 79–90.
Zhang, C., Noguchi, N., Yang, L., 2016. Leader–follower system using two robot
tractors to improve work efficiency. Comput. Electron. Agric. 121, 269–281.
Zhang, C., Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2014a. Development of a human-driven tractor
following a robot system. In: Proceedings of the 19th World Congress, The
International Federation of Automatic Control. IFAC proceeding Cape Town,
South Africa.
Zhang, C., Yang, L., Noguchi, N., 2015. Development of a robot tractor controlled by a
human-driven tractor system. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 8, 7–12.
Zhang, C., Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Noguchi, N., 2013a. Development of robot tractor
associating with human-drive tractor for farm work. IFAC Proceedings Volumes
46, 83–88.
Zhang, Q., Reid, F.J., Noguchi, N., 1999. Agricultural vehicle navigation using
multiple guidance sensors. In: Int. Conf. on Field and Service Robotics.
Zhang, Z., 2014b. Development of a Robot Combine Harvester based on GNSS,
Department of Environment Resources. Graduate school of Agriculture,
Hokkaido University.
Zhang, Z., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Yang, L., 2014b. Optimization of steering control
parameters based on a combine harvester’s kinematic model. Eng. Agric.
Environ. Food 7, 91–96.
Zhang, Z., Noguchi, N., Ishii, K., Yang, L., Zhang, C., 2013b. Development of a robot
combine harvester for wheat and paddy harvesting. IFAC Proceedings Volumes
46, 45–48.
Zhou, C., Gu, S., Wen, Y., Du, Z., Xiao, C., Huang, L., Zhu, M., 2020. The review
unmanned surface vehicle path planning: Based on multi-modality constraint.
Ocean Eng. 200, 107043.
Zion, B., Mann, M., Levin, D., Shilo, A., Rubinstein, D., Shmulevich, I., 2014. Harvest-
order planning for a multiarm robotic harvester. Comput. Electron. Agric. 103,
75–81.