1098
5, OCTOBER 2009
Power Consumption Modeling of Skid-Steer
Tracked Mobile Robots on Rigid Terrain
Jesús Morales, Jorge L. Martı́nez, Anthony Mandow, Member, IEEE,
Alfonso J. Garcı́a-Cerezo, Member, IEEE, and Salvador Pedraza
Abstract—Power consumption is a key element in outdoor mo-
bile robot autonomy. This issue is very relevant in skid-steer
tracked vehicles on account of their large ground contact area.
In this paper, the power losses due to dynamic friction have been
modeled from two different perspectives: 1) the power drawn by the
rigid terrain and 2) the power supplied by the motors. Comparison
of both approaches has provided new insight on skid steering on
hard flat terrains at walking speeds. Experimental power models,
which also include traction resistance and other power losses, have
been obtained for two different track widths over marble flooring
and asphalt with Auriga-β, which is a full-size mobile robot. To
this end, various internal probes have been set at different points
of the power stream. Furthermore, new energy implications for
navigation of these kinds of vehicles have been deduced and tested.
Index Terms—Friction, mobile robots, motion control, power
consumption, skid-steer, tracked vehicles.
I. INTRODUCTION
OBILE robots are increasingly being developed for out-
M door missions that demand an extended degree of auton-
omy. These include applications such as search and rescue, dis-
aster response, agriculture, military, forestry, mining, and plan-
etary exploration. A key aspect of vehicle autonomy is power
consumption, which has become particularly relevant in appli-
cations with critically limited energy sources [1]. However, this
issue has not been usually perceived as a major problem because
most mobile robots use wheels under the nonslipping and non-
skidding conditions [2], which are more power-efficient than
legged or treaded traction systems on hard smooth terrains [3].
Power consumption has been considered at different levels in
robot system design. From a mechanical standpoint, passive lo-
comotion systems have been proposed to reduce energy use [1].
In small and light robots, nonmechanical components (e.g., sens-
ing, communications, or computations) may be responsible for
most of the power consumption; therefore, efficient schedul-
ing [4], as well as specific energy conservation techniques, can
have a major impact [5].
Manuscript received October 28, 2008; revised April 2, 2009 and June
17, 2009. First published July 28, 2009; current version published October
9, 2009. This paper was recommended for publication by Associate Editor
K. Iagnemma and Editor J.-P. Laumond upon evaluation of the reviewers’ com-
ments. This work was supported in part by the Spanish Project DPI2008-00533
and Andalusian Project TEP-01379.
J. Morales, J. L. Martı́nez, A. Mandow, and A. J. Garcı́a-Cerezo are with the
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad de Málaga,
Málaga 29071, Spain (e-mail: jesus.morales@uma.es; jlmartinez@uma.es;
amandow@uma.es; ajgarcia@uma.es).
S. Pedraza is with the Optimi Corporation, Institutos Universitarios, Málaga
29590, Spain (e-mail: salvador.pedraza@optimi.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TRO.2009.2026499
1552-3098/$26.00 © 2009 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO.
In the case of heavier mobile robots, tractive power has a dom-
inant share in power consumption. In wheeled vehicles with no
slippage, the focus has been on minimizing energy objective
functions ultimately related to the path length [6], without ex-
plicitly addressing actual power consumption. In fact, this has
been the traditional goal of path planning in 2-D space [7]. More
generally, information about orography and terrain types can be
used to plan an optimal path that minimizes the energy expended
due to gravity and soil–wheel friction [8].
Motor resistances have been identified as the main source
of power dissipation in the traction system of wheeled robots,
which can be minimized with an appropriate velocity profile [9].
In this sense, motion control methods have also been proposed to
reduce the loss of kinetic energy [10], steering actuations [11],
and accelerations in potential field strategies [12]. Moreover,
an energy model of motor losses has been considered to test
the performance of different motion patterns in searching open
areas [13].
Power consumption has also been studied for alternative loco-
motion mechanisms, such as wheeled vehicles with redundant
actuators [14], limbed robots [15], or snake-like robots [16].
Nevertheless, we find that power efficiency of tracked robots
has not been specifically treated in the technical literature.
Tracked locomotion offers a large contact area with the
ground, which provides better traction than wheels on natu-
ral terrains [17]. Because of this, power consumption due to
track–soil interactions can be very relevant. The skid-steer prin-
ciple is based on controlling the relative velocities of both tracks
(see Fig. 1). For steering, one track pushes the vehicle, while the
other drags it, which results in a turning torque. This causes dy-
namic friction, as the linear motions of the tracks on the ground
do not agree with their motor velocities [18].
A kinematic equivalence between skid-steer mobile robots
(both tracked and wheeled) and differential drive wheeled ve-
hicles has been established for velocities below 2 m/s, i.e., hu-
man walking speed [19] [20]. Despite the kinematic similarities,
power requirements differ. In the latter, power demanded by one
motor is almost independent of the speed commanded to the
other, whereas in skid-steer, the power required by one motor
heavily depends on the speed of the other [21].
In this paper, we model power consumption of skid-steer
tracked mobile robots at walking speeds on flat hard terrains. In
particular, the power losses due to dynamic friction have been
modeled from two different perspectives: 1) the power drawn
by the terrain and 2) the power supplied by the motors. We have
analyzed this issue for Auriga-β, which is a 286-kg mobile robot
with rubber tracks, by using several probes at different points of
MORALES et al.: POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF SKID-STEER TRACKED MOBILE ROBOTS ON RIGID TERRAIN 1099

Fig. 2. Track ICRs on the motion plane represented as virtual wheels.

Fig. 1. Skid-steer mechanism.

same Y coordinate Cy since they lie beyond their corresponding

the power stream. Novel energy implications for navigation are track centerlines on a line that is parallel to the local X-axis.
also deduced based on this study. The ICRs coordinates with respect to the local frame of the
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next vehicle are dynamics-dependent but remain within a bounded
section is devoted to model power consumption in skid-steer area at walking speeds. Therefore, optimized constant values for
tracked vehicles. Section III presents the Auriga-β case study. In ICR positions can be obtained from experimental identification
Section IV, energy-related navigation guidelines are deduced [19].
and tested. Conclusions and future work are discussed in the Track ICR positions depend on terrain type and vehicle de-
last section. sign, especially on the position of the center of gravity and on
the track type. If the center of mass of the vehicle does not lie on
II. POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF TRACKED VEHICLES the Y-axis, then the closest track will slip less due to pressure.
Three main locomotion configurations have been proposed This circumstance results in track ICRs that are not symmetrical
for tracked vehicles: articulated steering, curved track steering, with respect to the Y-axis (see Fig. 2).
and skid steering [22]. The latter is the most widely used, since The relationship between track speeds and vehicle speed can
it is simpler from the mechanical standpoint, and it achieves be expressed as a function of track ICRs in the following way:
a faster response. Another feature of skid steering is that its
Vyr − Vyl
turning radius is not bounded, although the maximum forward vx = Cy (1)
speed of the vehicle is limited proportionally with angular speed. Cxr − Cxl


This section first summarizes a kinematic approach for Vyr + Vyl Vyr − Vyl Cxr + Cxl
tracked skid-steer vehicles. Then, it models the power losses vy = − r (2)
2 Cx − Cxl 2
associated with slippage. Finally, other power losses are con-
sidered to derive the total power demanded by the locomotion Vyr − Vyl
ωz = (3)
system. Cxr − Cxl

A. Kinematic Approximation
This section briefly reviews the work presented in [19] and
[20], where we proposed an approximate kinematic model of
skid-steer vehicles as a function of the instantaneous centers
of rotation (ICRs) of treads on the 2-D ground plane. These
ICRs, which are different from the vehicle’s ICR, represent
the position of equivalent differential drive ideal wheel contact
points, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Let us assume that the local frame of the vehicle has its origin
in the geometrical center of the convex area spanned by the
tracks’ contact points and its Y-axis is aligned with the forward
motion direction. The XY plane is parallel to the ground plane.
Local ICR vectors can be defined as C  l and C r for the left and
right tracks, respectively. Their coordinates are C  l,r = (C l,r ,
x
Cy , 0), where l, r denotes any of both tracks. Both ICRs have the
where Vyl and Vyr are the longitudinal speeds for the left and
right tracks, respectively, vx and vy are the components of trans-
lational velocity with respect to the local frame of the vehicle
v = (vx , vy , 0), and ωz is the angular velocity of the vehicle
 = (0, 0, ωz ).
ω
Note that the sign of the angular speed only depends on the
difference between track speeds and is independent of track ICR
positions, as stated by (3).
The track speed inputs for motion control can be obtained
from the desired longitudinal and angular speeds vysp and wzsp ,
respectively, as follows:
Vyl,r = vysp + Cxl,r ωzsp (4)
where the vxsp set point cannot be addressed due to the nonholo-
nomic restriction of the locomotion system [23].
1100 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2009

Similarly to differential drive, it is necessary to consider that This implies that instantaneous power losses due to dynamic
every ωzsp set point has an associated maximum longitudinal friction are positive and proportional to the absolute value of the
speed vymax angular velocity. Then, the integral of the absolute value of the
 sp angular velocity 
 sign(vysp ) Vymax − Cxr ωzsp , if ωsp
z
>0
vymax (ωzsp ) = vy (5) ψ= |ωz | dt (11)

sign(vysp ) Vymax − Cxl ωzsp , otherwise
is related to the energy spent due to slippage.
where Vymax is the top track speed. Thus, the highest longitudinal According to (10), tread length increases dynamic friction
speed of the vehicle, i.e., vymax (0) = sign(vysp ) Vymax , can only losses, since points in the longitudinal extremes of the tread yield
be achieved in straight-line motion. Conversely, the top angular higher values for the term r − C  l,r . Then, given a particular
speed of the vehicle l,r
tread shape, PS strongly depends on the track ICR positions.
sign(wzsp ) 2Vymax Consequently, farther ICRs result in lesser power efficiency.
ωzmax = (6) Based on this effect, an efficiency index χ can be defined as the
Cxr − Cxl
inverse of the normalized distance between the track ICRs
is reached only when turning on spot with vysp = 0. L
χ= r (12)
Cx − Cxl
B. Power Losses Due to Dynamic Friction
where L is the distance between track centerlines (see Fig. 2).
The turning resistance of one track is due to the dominant Index χ is a positive real value less than one. In the case
longitudinal component of its contact surface, which tends to of ideal differential drive wheels, χ = 1, and the integral part
straight-line motion. Then, the vehicle can turn only if one track of (10) corresponds to the one contact point where a = C  l,r .
counteracts with the other, thus generating slippage between the l,r
Therefore, no power losses due to slippage occurs, i.e., PS = 0.
ground and the tracks. These effects result in relevant power It must be noted that instantaneous power consumption can
losses. depend on the sign of ωz because of ICR asymmetries. Then,
The power lost due to slippage can be modeled from two the efficiency index χ would represent an average value for the
different approaches: first by considering the power drawn by vehicle, thus assuming that chances that the mobile robot turns
the terrain and second by taking into account the power supplied to the left or to the right are the same.
by the motors, both caused by dynamic friction only. The total power drawn by the terrain due to slippage PSt
From the first standpoint, the power drawn by the terrain from results from the contribution of the left and right tracks
each track PSl,r can be modeled as follows:
 PSt = PSl + PSr . (13)
PSl,r = − f(a) · ϑ(a)
 ds (7) Then, using (10)
Ωl , r
  
where ds is the differential of the surface integral, f is the PSt ≈ µ |ωz |  l  ds+
p(a)a − C  r  ds .
p(a)a − C
Ωl Ωr
dynamic friction applied to any point a of the track contact area (14)
 is the corresponding slipping velocity vector.
Ωl,r , and ϑ On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the power supplied
In the case of hard uniform surface soils, such as asphalt, by the motors, PSt can also be expressed as
concrete, or pavement, a general anisotropic friction model can  
be assumed with Coulomb’s law as follows: PSt = − f(a) · V
 l ds − f(a) · V
 r ds (15)
 Ωl Ωr
ϑ(a)
f(a) ≈ −µ p(a) (8) where V  l,r = (0, −Vyl,r , 0) is the velocity vector of the track

ϑ(a)
contact surface with respect to the vehicle. This longitudinal
where p is the pressure under each point a of Ωl,r , and µ is the vector is the same for all points in the contact surface. Therefore,
friction coefficient that depends both on track and terrain types. (15) can be rewritten as
Besides, the slipping velocity ϑ of a point a in Ωl,r can be  
considered as the result of turning around its corresponding PSt = Vyl fy (a) ds + Vyr fy (a) ds (16)
Ωl Ωr
track ICR
which is

ϑ(a) =ω  l,r )
 × (a − C (9)
PSt = Vyl Fyl + Vyr Fyr (17)
where a is the coordinate vector of the point a relative to the
local frame (see Fig. 2). where Fyl,r stands for the overall longitudinal dynamic friction
Using (8) and (9) in (7), PSl,r can be approximated by of a track. Note that for turning, different signs for both Fy ’s
 are necessary. Specifically, the sign of Fy of the inner track is
l,r 
PS ≈ µ p(a) ϑ(a) ds opposed to vy , whereas Fy of the outer track has the same sign.
Ωl , r As stated, (13) and (17) offer different approaches to obtain

 l,r  ds. PSt . Even though both expressions add two terms associated
= µ|ωz | p(a) a − C (10) with the left and the right tracks, the corresponding terms can
Ωl , r
MORALES et al.: POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF SKID-STEER TRACKED MOBILE ROBOTS ON RIGID TERRAIN
Fig. 3. Dynamic friction cases. (a) Straight-line motion. (b) Different positive
track speeds. (c) Left track speed null. (d) Tracks with opposite speeds.
take different values. Thus, the comparison of these equations
provides more insight for power demanded by skid steering. In
particular, the following four cases can be considered.
1) If the two track velocities are equal, the vehicle exhibits
straight-line motion with ωz = 0. Thus, PSt in (13) is zero.
Therefore, since Vyl = Vyr = 0, Fyl,r in (17) are both null
(see Fig. 3(a)).
2) If both tracks move in the same direction (i.e., Vyl Vyr >
0), then the slowest one is dragged by the other. This
provokes a turning torque; therefore, both terms in (13) are
greater than zero. However, the sign of Fy for the slowest
track is the opposite of its track velocity Vy . Hence, the
corresponding term in (17) is negative, which means that
the slowest motor is drawing mechanical power (i.e., it is
acting as an electric generator for its driver). This implies
an extra power consumption for the fastest track motor
apart from the power supplied for all the dynamic friction
(see Fig. 3(b)).
3) If only one track speed is zero, dynamic friction occurs
on both track surfaces [i.e., both terms in (13)], because
ωz = 0. However, the power is only supplied by the other
track’s term in (17) (see Fig. 3(c)).
4) When tracks move with opposite speeds (i.e., Vyl Vyr < 0),
their overall longitudinal dynamic frictions Fyl,r oppose to
their respective motions; therefore, both terms of (17) are
positive. In this case, both motors contribute to dynamic
friction losses in (13) (see Fig. 3(d)).
These cases are illustrated in Fig. 3, where the right track
speed has been considered constant positive, and the left track
speed varies from Vyr to −Vyr . Thus, ωz increases and vy de-
creases as the left track speed varies from case 1) to 4).
C. Other Power Losses
Other relevant power losses of the locomotion system need to
be taken into account. These are the power to overcome traction
resistance PR and that consumed by the motor drivers PD .
1101
First, the motors have to provide power for other traction
resistances apart from dynamic friction:
1) frictions caused by the deformation of the tracks and by
soil shearing; they depend on the weight of the vehicle
and its payload, as well as on track and ground types;
2) internal frictions of the belt around its track train and in
the gearheads.
The power drawn due to these factors PR can be modeled
approximately as proportional to the absolute value of the track
speeds as follows:
PR ≈ K (|Vyl | + |Vyr |) (18)
where K denotes the proportional constant. Note that if one
track is dragged by the other, then the traction resistances of this
track are assumed by the other motor.
Therefore, the total mechanical power provided by the motors
PM can be expressed as the sum of (14) and (18)
PM = PSt + PR . (19)
Second, power consumption of the drivers PD results from
summing up the following contributions.
1) Power-up: This is a constant value to maintain the driver
circuitry active.
2) Braking power: When one track speed is either zero or
opposed to the other, i.e., cases (c) and (d) in Fig. 3,
its driver requires a control effort for braking the motion
induced by the other track.
3) Nonregenerated power: As discussed in the previous sec-
tion, when both tracks move in the same direction, i.e.,
case (b) in Fig. 3, an extra power consumption is present
for the fastest track motor to provide the mechanical power
drawn by the other. Depending on the driver characteris-
tics, it is possible that this mechanical power is regenerated
into electrical power. In this case, the extra consumption
is somewhat compensated. However, if the drivers do not
allow power regeneration, this mechanical power will be
lost.
To sum up, the total power PT demanded by the locomotion
system of a skid-steer tracked vehicle can be expressed as
PM
PT = + PD (20)
η
where η is the electrical efficiency rate that represents electrical
power dissipation due to resistances in the motors and their
drivers (0 < η < 1).
III. POWER CONSUMPTION OF AURIGA-β
A. Auriga-β Mobile Robot
The tracked mobile robot Auriga-β has been designed as a
member of a group of robots for fire extinction tasks (see Fig. 4).
Its dimensions are 0.7 m width, 1.2 m length, 0.96 m height,
and 286 kg weight. It is equipped with a small self-stabilized
landing platform for radio-controlled minihelicopters (which are
employed for fire detection [24]) and a small fire extinguisher.
Skid steering is based on two independent brushless ac motors
with resolvers for dead reckoning. The maximum speed of each
1102
Fig. 4. Mobile robot Auriga-β and a minihelicopter landing on its self-
stabilized platform.
Fig. 5. Auriga-β track train with a punctual pressure distribution model.
track is Vymax= 0.86 m/s. The track train consists of a sprocket
and an idler wheel, with two rollers in between (see Fig. 5).
These are mounted on a rigid suspension system, i.e., without
springs or shock absorbers. Track belt tension is adjusted by a
spring that shifts the idler in the longitudinal direction of the
track. Gearheads between each motor and its sprocket provide
a mechanical efficiency of about 93%.
Two different rubber belt sets have been employed. They only
differ on their width, which is 0.16 m and 0.11 m for the wide
and narrow tracks, respectively (see Fig. 6). In both cases, the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2009
Fig. 6. Two rubber belt types.
TABLE I
MAXIMUM POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE COMPONENTS OF AURIGA-β
belt contact length is 0.72 m, and the distance between track
centerlines is L = 0.42 m.
Apart from the resolvers, the robot includes an inertial mea-
surement unit with gyroscopes. It is also equipped with a GPS
receiver that accepts local-area differential corrections. This
differential GPS (DGPS) provides positioning errors around
0.02 m with good sky visibility.
The computation system is based on a Pentium IV industrial
computer and a cFieldPoint, which is a programmable logic
controller. The computer acts as the user interface, whereas
the cFieldPoint interfaces with the motor drivers and sensors
through several input–output modules.
The cFieldPoint executes a real-time LabVIEW program
for autonomous navigation, which consists of several concur-
rent processes. The main process implements a finite-state ma-
chine that initializes the robot and changes the operation mode
(standby, manual operation, and autonomous navigation). The
other processes interact with the sensors and the drivers to gather
information and to update motion references.
B. Power System of Auriga-β
The power needed by the vehicle is provided by an onboard
3.8-kW petrol-fed 220 V ac generator. The maximum power
consumption for the different components of the mobile robot
is shown in Table I. Note that in this kind of vehicles, the
locomotion system can be responsible for most of the power
consumption (up to 80% for Auriga-β).
Motors are fed by two independent ac drivers that do not allow
regenerated electric power to be transferred from one driver to
the other, nor to the onboard ac generator. Instead, regenerated
power exceeding the internal capacitor bank of each driver is
MORALES et al.: POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF SKID-STEER TRACKED MOBILE ROBOTS ON RIGID TERRAIN 1103

Fig. 7. Internal power measurements and power losses in the mobile robot Auriga-β.

shunted into an external resistor. According to data sheets, the

electrical efficiency of the driver–motor set is η ≈ 0.95.
Power has been probed at different points of the power
stream (see Fig. 7). First, PT is measured from a high-resolution
watthour meter that monitors the ac power supplied by the gen-
erator to the drivers. This sensor can also integrate power for a
given period of time to measure the total energy consumption.
l,r
Second, mechanical power delivered by each motor PM is
l,r
estimated from the motor currents i and the motor speeds
σ l,r , which are measured by the drivers and the resolvers, re-
spectively. In this way
l,r
PM = σ l,r τ l,r = σ l,r kτ il,r (21)

where τ l,r is the motor torque and kτ is the current–torque

relation constant.
l,r
Then, the relationship between PM estimations and the total
mechanical power PM is
l r
PM = PM + PM . (22)

C. Experimental Power Model

This section presents the experimental estimation of the pa-
rameters discussed in Section II for the Auriga-β robot. Exper-
iments have consisted of a stationary power analysis on a dry
hard horizontal flat terrain. Two different types of flooring have
been tested: marble and asphalt.
For each belt and terrain type, all possible combinations of
track speeds (with steps of 0.2 m/s) have been considered. Each
experiment has started with zero velocity. Then, the goal speed
is reached with an acceleration ramp of 2.5 s. This value is
maintained for 5 s, where the average consumption is recorded
l
from both the watthour meter (PT ) and the motor drivers (PM
r
and PM ), before going back to zero with a deceleration ramp of
2.5 s.
l r
The evolution of PM and PM for two of these experiments is
illustrated in Fig. 8 for wide belts on marble flooring. When track Fig. 8. Mechanical power of the motors with V yr = 0.4 m/s and (a) with
speeds are equal but opposite, the mechanical power contributed V yl = −0.4 m/s and (b) with V yl = 0.8 m/s (vehicle on marble flooring and
with wide belts).
by both motors is almost the same, as shown in Fig. 8(a). The
case of different speeds of the same sign is presented in Fig. 8(b). Power model parameters µ and K have been estimated by
It can be observed that the right motor power is negative because optimization from the aforementioned experimental data. Par-
it is being dragged by the other track. Hence, this motor is acting ticularly, the downhill simplex method [25] has been applied
as a generator. to minimize the sum of the absolute value of the difference
1104 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2009

TABLE II
EFFICIENCY INDEX χ OF AURIGA-β ON DIFFERENT TERRAINS
AND TRACK WIDTHS

between measured and modeled power PM in (22) and (19),

respectively. Note that the friction coefficient only depends on
the flooring since the rubber of both track belts is the same.
Conversely, the parameter K depends on the employed track set
(through the contact surface size), but it is independent of the
type of the hard terrain.
The friction coefficient for marble flooring is approximately
µ ≈ 0.63 and increases to µ ≈ 0.81 for asphalt. The propor-
tional constant in (18) has been estimated as K ≈ 342 N for
wide belts and K ≈ 324 N for the narrow set.
To approximately evaluate (14) in (19) for Auriga-β, the fol-
lowing assumptions have been considered.
1) Constant symmetric track ICRs: The efficiency index has
been experimentally estimated for each terrain type and
track width (see Table II) by measuring the total rotated
angle when equal opposite track speeds are applied [19].
According to (12), these values mean that the distance
between ICRs on the local X-axis grows on the asphalted
terrain and with the wide belt set.
2) Punctual model for pressure distribution p on the track
contact area: This model assumes that pressure is con-
centrated on the contact points of the sprockets, rollers,
and idlers (see Fig. 5). Considering the moderate speed
range of the vehicle, its rigid suspension system, and that
its center of gravity is close to the local frame origin, the
vehicle’s weight can be assumed to be evenly distributed
for all the contact points [26].
The power consumption of the drivers PD has been also
obtained by the simplex method. The cost function has been de-
fined as the sum of the absolute value of the difference between
measured PT from the watthour meter and the total modeled
power in (20). The following values have been estimated:
1) power-up ≈ 58W;
2) braking power ≈ 164 W;
3) nonregenerated power ≈ (162 N) (|Vyl | + |Vyr |), where
speeds are expressed in meters per second.
Actual power PT of the locomotion system of Auriga-β, as
measured by the watthour meter, for the wide and narrow belt
sets over marble flooring are shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b), re-
spectively. For the sake of clarity, only a half range of possible
track speed combinations is presented (the other half is almost
symmetrical with respect to the origin). It can be observed that
power reaches maximum values when both tracks have the op-
posite top speeds (i.e., turning around the vehicle’s center at
Fig. 9. Experimental power consumption of Auriga-β over (a) marble flooring
maximum angular speed), whereas minimum values of power with wide tracks, (b) marble flooring with narrow tracks, and (c) hoisted.
occur when both track speeds are the same (i.e., straight-line
motion with ωz = 0). The same experiments have been reproduced in Fig. 9(c)
Comparison of Fig. 9(a) and (b) also reveals that the narrow without ground friction (i.e., µ = 0) by hoisting the vehicle.
belt set requires less power when turning due to a smaller ground Then, the estimated traction resistance constant is K ≈ 282 N.
contact surface than the wide set. The relatively small reduction of this constant with respect to the
MORALES et al.: POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF SKID-STEER TRACKED MOBILE ROBOTS ON RIGID TERRAIN
Fig. 10. Experimental power consumption of Auriga-β over asphalt with (a)
wide and (b) narrow tracks.
on-the-ground values reveals that internal friction is the main
factor in traction resistance for Auriga-β.
Actual power PT for the wide and narrow belt sets over
asphalt are shown in Fig. 10(a) and (b), respectively. It can be
observed that power requirements are considerably larger than
for marble flooring due to a greater friction coefficient.
Contribution of dynamic friction losses to PT can be esti-
mated through (14). This has been represented in Fig. 11 for
marble flooring and wide belts. The dots correspond to the dif-
ferent track speed combinations presented in Fig. 9(a). These
are enveloped by the estimations for the maximum longitudi-
nal speed, as stated by (5), and for turning on spot, which has
the maximum dynamic friction loss for every ωz . It is zero
with ωz = 0, but it achieves high percentages when the abso-
lute value of angular speed increases (close to 70% with ωzmax ).
This figure illustrates the relevant role of dynamic friction on
the total power consumption of the locomotion system. Note
that in a nonslipping wheeled vehicle, this contribution is zero,
regardless of the angular speed.
1105
Fig. 11. Estimated contribution of dynamic friction losses in P T (vehicle on
marble flooring and with wide belts).
D. Validation of the Power Model
To validate the static power model, its response has been
compared with mechanical power measurements PM . These
have been recorded during manually operated spiral-like paths.
Fig. 12(a) corresponds to a turn to the left with wide belts, while
Fig. 12(b) represents a turn to the right with the narrow belt set,
both on marble flooring.
Five stages can be distinguished in both experiments, which
have been labeled in Fig. 12 as the cases presented in
Fig. 3. The first and the last stages correspond to straight-line
motion (i.e., case 1 of Section II-B). The second and fourth parts
(case 2) have different positive track speeds. Finally, the third
part (case 4) corresponds to tracks with opposite speeds. Note
that transitions between cases 2 and 4 require that one track
speed is null.
The previously identified parameters K and µ are employed
to simulate power with (19). Note that the only inputs to the
model are the instantaneous track speeds, i.e., no dynamics are
considered. Hence, power fluctuations due to dynamic effects of
the traction system are not simulated by the model. Nevertheless,
it can be observed that modeled power requirements are similar
to experimental data. Particularly, the mean absolute error and
the standard deviation are ē = 84.5 W and σ = 91.6 W, and
ē = 63.3 W and σ = 96.6 W for the wide and narrow belt
experiments, respectively.
IV. ENERGY IMPLICATIONS FOR NAVIGATION
This section discusses how the preceding theoretical and ex-
perimental power analysis could be used to minimize the energy
spent for navigation by skid-steer tracked vehicles. In particu-
lar, unlike nonholonomic vehicles with nonslipping wheels, two
general guidelines can be considered.
1106
Fig. 12. Real and simulated mechanical power during spiral-like paths on
marble flooring with (a) wide and (b) narrow belts.
1) The navigation strategy should minimize the total amount
of steered angle [i.e., ψ in (11)] as much as the robotic task
can admit. This way, dynamic friction is minimized, which
is a dominant factor for power requirements of full-size
skid-steer tracked mobile robots.
2) Smooth trajectories may not be necessarily energy-
efficient. Instead, when turns are concentrated in a sharp
way, straight-line motion is favored, which is the most
energy-efficient case, especially for long distances. Re-
garding sharp turns, (5) implies that every angular speed
has a maximum longitudinal speed. Therefore, the cen-
trifugal acceleration of the vehicle (ωz vy ) is always kept
bounded.
A simple navigation strategy that complies with these guide-
lines is heading-error correction with way points. The naviga-
tion plan is composed of a list of goal points with connecting
line segments that are assumed to be obstacle free. The aim of
the controller is not to follow exactly the line segments but to
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2009
Fig. 13. Heading control for a goal point.
Fig. 14. Two alternative paths from A to B. The presented tracked paths are
for the case of narrow tracks and speed of 0.3 m/s.
reach the current goal from actual robot pose in straight-line
motion [11], [21].
The motion control law compensates heading error φe (see
Fig. 13) by actuating over the desired angular speed ωzsp as
follows:
ωzsp = G φe (23)
where G is the control gain.
When the distance d between the vehicle and the goal point
is less than a threshold radius dth , the next way point in the path
becomes the current goal point. This may provoke a sharp turn
to compensate for the new heading error.
A. Navigation Results
The aforementioned heading control has been implemented
for Auriga-β. Experiments have taken place on a flat asphalted
parking lot. Heading error is computed from DGPS. The next
goal point is commanded when the distance of the vehicle to the
current goal point is below dth = 1 m.
The robotic task consists of avoiding an obstacle when going
from point A to B (see Fig. 14). Two alternative solutions with
similar path lengths (about 52 m) have been evaluated: one and
two intermediate way points.
These experiments have been repeated for different track
widths, speeds, and control gains, as summarized in Table III.
The value of ψ in (11) has been computed based on the onboard
gyroscope. Path length has been estimated with the DGPS.
It can be observed that the energy spent is always greater with
the wide belts than with the narrow set. This result agrees with
the values for the efficiency index presented in Table II.
MORALES et al.: POWER CONSUMPTION MODELING OF SKID-STEER TRACKED MOBILE ROBOTS ON RIGID TERRAIN
TABLE III
DATA OF THE TRACKED PATHS
Energy consumption also increases for the case of four way
points than with three way points because the total amount of
steered angle is always greater, as the values of ψ indicate. This
result agrees with the first navigation guideline.
In Table III, it is noticeable that the tracked vehicle always
needs more energy when moving at a reference longitudinal
speed of vysp = 0.3 m/s than at 0.5 m/s. This is mainly because
motor drivers need to be powered up during more time (about
68 s longer).
The followed path, as recorded by DGPS, is closer to the line
segments between the goal points in the case of G = 0.18, and
smoother transitions are obtained with G = 0.12 (see Fig. 14).
Data in Table III reveals that G = 0.18 always requires less
energy than G = 0.12. This result agrees with the second navi-
gation guideline.
V. CONCLUSION
Tracked robots have a considerable ground contact area to
improve traction on natural terrains, but power losses increase
due to slippage. This issue has not been specifically studied in
robotics literature.
The paper proposes a static power model for skid-steer tracked
vehicles moving at walking speeds on hard plane terrains that
only depends on instantaneous track speeds. Dynamic friction
losses have been modeled as the power drawn by the terrain
and also as the power supplied by the motors. The comparison
of both approaches has provided useful insight in this kind of
locomotion system. Traction resistance and other power losses
complete the model.
The mobile robot Auriga-β has been presented as a case
study. Experimental power parameters have been obtained and
validated. The relevance of dynamic friction losses with respect
to total power consumption has been confirmed.
Furthermore, some general energy-related navigation guide-
lines for skid-steer tracked vehicles have been deduced and
tested. These take into account that consumed energy heavily
depends on the total turned angle.
1107
Future work includes the real-time estimation of the dynamic
friction and traction resistance coefficients during navigation.
Moreover, we are also interested on power requirements of
wheeled skid-steer vehicles.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Michaud, A. Schneider, R. Bertrand, P. Lamon, R. Siegwart, M. Win-
nendael, and A. Schiele, “Solero: Solar-powered exploration rover,” pre-
sented at the 7th ESA Workshop Adv. Space Technol. Robot. Autom.,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 2002.
[2] D. Wang and C. B. Low, “Modeling and analysis of skidding and slipping
in wheeled mobile robots: Control design perspective,” IEEE Trans.
Robot., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 676–687, Jun. 2008.
[3] P. F. Muir and C. P. Neuman, “Kinematic modeling of wheeled mobile
robots,” Robot. Inst., Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, PA, Tech. Rep.
CMU-RI-TR-86-12, 1986.
[4] J. Liu, P. Chou, N. Bagherzadeh, and F. Kurdahi, “Power-aware scheduling
under timing constraints for mission-critical embedded systems,” in Proc.
ACM IEEE Des. Autom. Conf., Las Vegas, NV, 2001, pp. 840–845.
[5] J. Brateman, C. Xian, and Y.-H. Lu, “Energy-efficient scheduling for
autonomous mobile robots,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Very Large Scale Integr.,
Nice, France, 2006, pp. 361–366.
[6] I. Duleba and J. Z. Sasiadek, “Nonholonomic motion planning based on
Newton algorithm with energy optimization,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 355–363, May 2003.
[7] Y. K. Hwang and N. Ahuja, “Gross motion planning—A survey,” ACM
Comput. Surveys, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 219–291, Sep. 1992.
[8] Z. Sun and J. H. Reif, “On finding energy-minimizing paths on terrains,”
IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 102–114, Feb. 2005.
[9] C. H. Kim and B. K. Kim, “Energy-saving 3-step velocity control algo-
rithm for battery-powered wheeled mobile robots,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Robot. Autom., Barcelona, Spain, 2005, pp. 2375–2380.
[10] A. Barili, M. Ceresa, and C. Parisi, “Energy-saving motion control for
an autonomous mobile robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron.,
Athens, Greece, 1995, pp. 674–676.
[11] B. M. Leedy, J. S. Putney, C. Bauman, S. Cacciola, J. M. Webster, and
C. F. Reinholtz, “Virginia Tech’s twin contenders: A comparative study
of reactive and deliberative navigation,” J. Field Robot., vol. 23, no. 9,
pp. 709–727, 2006.
[12] S. Ancenay and F. Maire, “A time and energy optimal controller for
mobile robots,” Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 3339, pp. 1181–1186,
Dec. 2004.
[13] Y. Mei, Y. Lu, Y. Hu, and C. Lee, “Energy-efficient motion planning for
mobile robots,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., New Orleans,
LA, 2004, pp. 4344–4349.
[14] K. Iagnemma and S. Dubowsky, “Traction control of wheeled robotic
vehicles in rough terrain with application to planetary rovers,” Int. J.
Robot. Res., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1029–1040, Oct. 2004.
[15] F. Silva and J. Tenreiro-Machado, “Energy analysis during biped walking,”
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Detroit, MI, 1999, pp. 59–64.
[16] M. Saito, M. Fukaya, and T. Iwasaki, “Serpentine locomotion with robotic
snakes,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 64–81, Feb. 2002.
[17] J. Y. Wong and W. Huang, “Wheels vs. tracks—A fundamental evaluation
from the traction perspective,” J. Terramech., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 27–42,
Jan. 2006.
[18] D. Endo, Y. Okada, K. Nagatani, and K. Yoshida, “Path following con-
trol for tracked vehicles based on slip-compensation odometry,” in Proc.
IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., San Diego, CA, 2007, pp. 2871–
2876.
[19] J. L. Martı́nez, A. Mandow, J. Morales, S. Pedraza, and A. Garcı́a-Cerezo,
“Approximating kinematics for tracked mobile robots,” Int. J. Robot.
Res., vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 867–878, Oct. 2005.
[20] A. Mandow, J. L. Martı́nez, J. Morales, J. L. Blanco, A. J. Garcı́a Cerezo,
and J. González, “Experimental kinematics for wheeled skid-steer mobile
robots,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., San Diego, CA,
2007, pp. 1222–1227.
[21] J. Morales, J. L. Martı́nez, A. Mandow, A. J. Garcı́a-Cerezo, J. M. Gómez-
Gabriel, and S. Pedraza, “Power analysis for a skid-steered tracked mobile
robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Mechatron., Budapest, Hungary, 2006,
pp. 420–425.
[22] J. Y. Wong, Theory of Ground Vehicles, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 2001,
ch. 6.
1108
[23] Z. Shiller, W. Serate, and M. Hua, “Trajectory planning of tracked vehi-
cles,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Atlanta, GA, 1993, pp. 796–
801.
[24] L. Merino, F. Caballero, J. R. Martı́nez-Dios, J. Ferruz, and A. Ollero, “A
cooperative perception system for multiple UAVs: Application to auto-
matic detection of forest fires,” J. Field Robot., vol. 23, no. 3/4, pp. 165–
184, 2006.
[25] J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, “A simplex method for function minimization,”
Comput. J., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 308–313, 1965.
[26] M. Kitano, K. Watanabe, and N. Nagatomo, “Stability and controllabil-
ity of high speed tracked vehicles: Linear model and vehicle response,”
in Proc. 10th Conf. Int. Soc. Terrain-Vehicle Syst., Kobe, Japan, 1990,
pp. 659–670.
Jesús Morales received the M.Sc. degree in electri-
cal engineering and the Ph.D. degree with European
Mention, both from the University of Málaga,
Málaga, Spain, in 2001 and 2007, respectively.
In 2002, he joined the System Engineering and
Automation Research Group, University of Málaga,
where he is currently an Assistant Professor with the
Engineering School. His current research interests in-
clude mobile robotics and medical robot applications.
He has authored or coauthored six international jour-
nal papers and nine conference papers.
Jorge L. Martı́nez received the Ph.D. degree in com-
puter science from the University of Málaga, Málaga,
Spain, in 1994.
Since 1998, he has been an Associate Professor
with the Department of Systems Engineering and Au-
tomation, University of Málaga. He has authored or
coauthored 13 international journal papers, 33 con-
ference papers, and two book chapters on different
aspects of mobile robotics.
Anthony Mandow (M’08) received the Engineering
and Ph.D. degrees in computer science from the Uni-
versity of Málaga, Málaga, Spain, in 1992 and 1998,
respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor with the
Department of Systems Engineering and Automa-
tion, University of Málaga. He has been engaged in
several robotics and automation projects. He has au-
thored or coauthored more than 30 conference and
journal papers. His current research interests include
field robotics, robot learning, search and rescue op-
erations, 3-D perception, and vehicle motion control.
Dr. Mandow was the Organizing Chair of the 2009 IEEE International Con-
ference on Mechatronics.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS, VOL. 25, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2009
Alfonso J. Garcı́a-Cerezo (M’94) received the Ind.
Electr. Eng. and the Doctoral Eng. degrees from the
Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales
of Vigo, Vigo, Spain, in 1983 and 1987, respectively.
From 1983 to 1988, he was an Associate Professor
with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Com-
puters, and Systems, University of Santiago de Com-
postela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, where he
was an Assistant Professor from 1988 to 1991. Since
1992, he has been a Professor of system engineer-
ing and automation with the University of Málaga,
Málaga, Spain, where he was the Head of the Escuela Tecnica Superior de In-
genieros Industriales de Málaga from 1993 to 2004, is currently the Head of the
Department of System Engineering and Automation, and is also responsible for
the Instituto de Automática Avanzada y Robótica de Andalucı́a. He has authored
or coauthored about 150 journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and
technical reports. His current research interests include mobile robots and au-
tonomous vehicles, surgical robotics, and mechatronics and intelligent control.
He has also been involved in more than 15 research projects over the past ten
years.
Prof. Garcı́a-Cerezo is a member of the International Federation of Auto-
matic Control, the Spanish Production Technology Automation and Robotics
Association, and the Comité Español de Automática. He was the General Chair
of the 2009 IEEE International Conference of Mechatronics. Since September
2008, he has been a Coordinator of the Spanish Thematic Group of Robotics.
Salvador Pedraza received the M.S. degree in elec-
trical engineering and the Ph.D. degree in control
engineering from the University of Málaga, Málaga,
Spain, in 1995 and 2000, respectively.
He was engaged in research on modeling and
control of mobile robots. He was with Nokia Net-
works and, since 2003, has been with Optimi Corpo-
ration, Institutos Universitarios, Málaga, where he is
involved in the mobile telephony research arena. His
current research interests include mobile robots mod-
eling and optimization techniques for mobile network
performance.