Switched Modeling and TaskPriority

Motion Planning of Wheeled Mobile

Robots Subject to Slipping
Katarzyna Zadarnowska

Journal of Intelligent & Robotic

Systems
with a special section on Unmanned
Systems
ISSN 0921-0296
J Intell Robot Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10846-016-0397-1

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10846-016-0397-1

Switched Modeling and TaskPriority Motion Planning

of Wheeled Mobile Robots Subject to Slipping
Katarzyna Zadarnowska

Received: 15 December 2015 / Accepted: 18 April 2016

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This study is devoted to the modelling and

control of Wheeled Mobile Robots moving with longitudinal and lateral slips of all wheels. Due to wheel
slippage we have to deal with systems with changing dynamics. Wheeled Mobile Robots can be thus
modeled as switched systems with both autonomous
switches (due to wheel slippage) and smooth controls (due to control algorithm). It is assumed that the
slipping is counteracted by the slip reaction forces acting at contact points of the wheels with the ground.
A model of these reaction forces, borrowed from the
theory of automotive systems, has been adopted and
included into the Lagrangian dynamic equations of
the robot. A framework for designing motion planning schemes devoid of chattering effects for systems
with changing dynamics is presented. A taskpriority
motion planning problem for wheeled mobile robots
subject to slipping is addressed and solved by means
of Jacobian motion planning algorithm based on the
Endogenous Configuration Space Approach. Performance of the algorithm is presented in simulations of

This work was supported by the Wrocaw University of

Technology under a statutory research project.
K. Zadarnowska ()
Electronics Faculty, Chair of Cybernetics and Robotics,
Wrocaw University of Technology, Janiszewskiego Street
11/17, 50-372 Wrocaw, Poland
e-mail: Katarzyna.Zadarnowska@pwr.edu.pl

the Pioneer 2DX mobile platform. The robot dynamics

equations are derived and 4 variants of motion are
distinguished. The motion planning problem is composed of two sub-tasks: robot has to reach a desired
point in the task space (proper motion planning) and
the motion should minimize either the control energy
expendinture or the wheel slippage. Performance of
the motion planning algorithm is illustrated by a sort
of the parking maneuver problem.
Keywords Wheeled mobile robot Switched control
systems Endogenous configuration space approach
Motion planning algorithm Wheel slippage

1 Introduction
Wheeled Mobile Robots (WMRs) are most often
assumed to be capable of rolling without slipping, and
modeled as nonholonomic dynamic systems [8, 9, 28,
36, 39]. The guidance and the control of the WMR
is influenced by the features of terrain on which the
robot operates. Due to various effects such as slipping, scrubbing, sliding, deformability or flexibility of
the wheels, the ideal constraints are never strictly satisfied. For autonomous mobile robots driving across
soft soils, like sand, loose dirt or snow it is essential to deal with the dynamic effects occurring at the
wheelterrain contiguity. Wong [37] gives a fundamental understanding of the critical factors affecting

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

the performance, handling and ride essential to the

design of ground vehicles. Notice, that wheel slippage is a common phenomenon that may simply occur
when a WMR moves on a slippery or rough surface,
when it turns at a high speed, when it is accelerating or
decelerating or when the torques applied to the robot
are sufficiently large. Ignoring the effect of wheel slip
may result in deviation of WMR from a desired path
and fail its mission. Most often conventional control
and localization algorithms do not consider the physical characteristics of the vehicle what leads to poor
position estimation, poor traction and possibly even
immobility. A development of dynamics models and
control algorithms taking into account the slip phenomenon is a challenging area of mobile robotics,
driven by applications to the design of autonomous
vehicles, both terrestrial (e.g. military) well as planetary, [3, 38]. Since friction is crucial for generating
forces acting on the wheels, the problem of modeling and predicting tire-ground friction has become an
area of intense research in the automotive industry. In
[33] an excellent review of current trends in modeling the friction forces using different methodologies
has been provided. Amongst methods discussed are
piecewise linear model, Burckhardt model [4, 19], Rill
model, Dahl model, LuGre model [6], and Pacejka
model [23] known as the magic formula. A large body
of research expresses tire traction/braking forces as a
function of wheel slip and wheel skid. In [13] a unified
traction/braking model is proposed, where the traction/braking force is expressed as a function of the
wheels relative velocity. The issue of friction forces
modeling contributes to various studies on control
design [31, 32], trajectory tracking control [1, 11, 17],
stability analysis and predictive control [35, 42], neural network identification scheme [12], wheel slip and
sinkage estimation [26], navigation and slip control
[27]. Eventually, it is obvious that in some cases slip
is necessary to generate traction force at the contact
point between the wheel and the surface that is responsible for the motion of the WMR. In other words, the
assumption that a vehicle can slip is not only a consequence of some specific road conditions, but also
applies to so called skid steering vehicles in which
slipping is a necessary condition for changing their
orientation [18].
In this paper, we model the overall dynamics of a
WMR subject to wheels longitudinal and lateral slips.
When neither lateral nor longitudinal slips can be

ignored in the dynamic model, the WMR becomes an

underactuated nonlinear control system. Although the
topic of slip modeling was brought up in [40], here we
focus on another representation of the robot dynamics (devoid of limitations of the singular perturbation
approach). The Lagrangian model of dynamics is
used, taking into account the reaction forces counteracting the wheel slips. The mathematical description
of these forces is borrowed from the theory of automotive systems [4]. According to this approach, the
slips are defined as some velocity ratios, differently
for the braking and driving type of motion, while the
dependence of the slip reaction coefficient on the slip
is exponentially-linear. The slip reaction forces are
incorporated into the Lagrangian model as generalized forces in agreement with the approach developed
in [1]. As a result, the dynamics model of the WMR
reflects all the variants of motion, i.e. braking and
driving, hence we arrive at a sort of the switched control affine system in which specific subsystems are
switched on and off dynamically, depending on the
road condition. A somewhat similar system is studied
in [5], however in our case the switched subsystems
are control systems, and the switching is autonomous
(the dynamics of the system changes in different
regions of the state space) [20, 35]. Thus, we have to
deal with a sort of switched dynamical system consisting of a family of continuoustime subsystems and
a rule that orchestrates the switching between them.
In particular, our WMR is modeled as a switched
system with finite autonomous switches (operating
regimes) caused due to rolling/sliding effects appearing at the wheelground contact. Design of controllers
for switched systems remains a challenging problem and is the subject of considerable amount of
researches [35]. Switched systems have numerous
applications in control of mechanical systems, the
automotive industry, aircraft and air traffic control and
other [22, 35]. A stability issue of switched systems
has been dealt in [21, 42] where stabilizing switching
controller is proposed. In general sense, the control
systems studied herein exhibit autonomous (uncontrolled) switches resulting in discontinuous jumps in
the vector fields governing the evolution of the continuous state of the system. We deal here with an
example of a system that is subject to continuous statedependent constraints, i.e. the switches correspond to
different combinations of constraints that are active in
a particular region of the state space. Because of the

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

inherently discontinuous dynamics, the control task

for such systems becomes in many respects a difficult
problem.
In this switched system a motion planning problem is addressed, and as its solution a Jacobian motion
planning algorithm derived by means of Endogenous Configuration Space Approach (ECSA) [29] is
proposed. The motion planning problem consists in
defining a control strategy steering the platform to
a desired position and orientation. This control produces a reference trajectory of motion of the robot.
The motion planning problem of WMR subject to
wheel slippage has been already studied in [40], in
the framework of singular perturbation approach and
in [30], where a simple model of reaction forces proportional to the slips have been adopted. Finally, the
motion planning of mobile robots whose ideal pure
rolling and nonslipping constraints have been transgressed during the motion has been developed in
[41], where a switched dynamics model with mathematical representation of reaction forces following
from the theory of automotive systems [19] has been
presented. The main contribution of this paper lies
in extention of the theory presented in [41] on the
taskpriority motion planning algorithm based on
the pseudo inverse of the Jacobian. Specifically, the
motion planning problem for the WMR is divided
into two sub-tasks with decreasing priorities. The primary task is to drive the robot to a desired point in
the task space over a prescribed time interval. As the
secondary priority task we take: (1) the minimization
of the control energy, (2) the wheels slippage minimization (which may be replaced by other subtasks,
like obstacle or singularity avoidance). We show the
functionality of the algorithm elaborated for switched
control affine system within the ECSA. Though the
proposed motion planning method provides the openloop control functions, there exist its modification
to tracking control taking into account the uncertainties of the model (e.g. Iterative Learning Control Strategy or Nonlinear Model Predictive Control)
[15].
Summarizing, the main novelty of the paper lies
in designing a motion planning algorithm applicable to the underactuated control system which, due
to the discontinuous slip model based on Burckhardts approach [4], forms a switched affine system.
It has been shown how to apply the continuation
methodology incorporated in the ECSA to the steering

of mobile robots characterized by the multifaceted

dynamics, so that to obtain continuous controls and
the motion devoid of chattering effects. In contrast
to [41], the paper addresses the multipletask motion
planning problem [24, 25] for switching control affine
systems composed of multifaceted dynamics. Performance of the proposed control motion planning
algorithm is illustrated by solving a sort of parking
problem. The algorithm has been used in computer
simulations involving the Pioneer DX2 mobile platform moving on various surfaces varying from asphalt
to snow.
This study is organized in the following way.
Section 2 introduces basic concepts culminating in
the switched control system representing the dynamics of the robot. The essentials of the taskpriority
motion planning algorithm are presented in Section 3.
Section 4 contains numerical solutions of a number of
motion planning problem for the Pioneer DX2 mobile
robot. The paper is concluded with Section 5.

2 Dynamics Equations
Let us focus on a class of WMRs, whose phase
constraints of motion (e.g. pure rolling, non-slipping
conditions at the contact point of each wheel with the
ground) are fully transgressed. Let q Rn denote
generalized coordinates of the mobile robot. The Pfaffian matrix A(q) of size l n reflects the l n
velocity constraints imposed on the robot motion. Naturally, in the face of slippage occurrence it is assumed
.
that the velocity constraints A(q)q = 0 are violated.
j
Hence, for A (q) denoting the j -th row of the Pfaf.
fian matrix we arrive at the product sj = Aj (q)q for
j = 1, 2, . . . l defining a slip: either lateral or longitudinal. It will be assumed further that all l phase
constraints are violated.
Assuming that the platform moves on the horizontal plane and its wheels slip and touch the ground
point-wise, the robot dynamics may be represented as
the following control system
..

P(q)q + D(q, q) = F(q, q) + B(q)u,

y = k(q). (1)
.

In the above equations P(q) and D(q, q) denote,

respectively, the inertia matrix and the vector of centripetal and Coriolis forces. The presence of slipping
induces occurrence of the counteraction forces act.
.
ing against the slip. The term F(q, q) = Ff (q, q) +

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst
.

Fs (q, q) describes the friction and the slip reaction

forces at the contact points of the wheels with the
ground. The control input u Rm collects torques
driving the wheels. The control matrix B(q) transmits
the torques to the robot generalized coordinates. The
output function y = k(q) provides coordinates subject to the motion planning. It will be assumed that
the friction forces can be compensated by feedback, so
further they will be omitted from the equations. Now
let us look at a model of generalized interaction forces
.
Fs (q, q), that should depend on the slip. In the literature there exist a number of concepts of the slip that
can be either relative or absolute, also the longitudinal slip can be assigned either to the direction
lying in the wheel plane (Reimpell approach) or to
the direction of motion of the contact point between
the wheel and the ground (Burckhardt approach). The
absolute slip is identified with the speed of the slipping motion sj as said above. This concept of the
slip, along with longitudinal slip directed along the
wheel, has been proposed in [34] and used in [30].
The relative slip describes the absolute slip to velocity
ratio.
In this paper we shall follow the theory of automotive systems [4, 16, 19, 23] and the Burckhardts
approach. In accordance with this methodology, the
longitudinal slip sL is defined in the direction of
the wheel ground contact point velocity vW , and
the lateral slip sS is perpendicular to the longitudinal one. In order to calculate the wheel slip vector,
s = (sL , sS ), we shall introduce the concept of a
wheel lateral slip angle (see Fig. 1). vR denotes the
rotational equivalent wheel velocity while vw is the
wheel ground contact point velocity. Multiplying the
velocity vR by cos we get a projection in the direction of the wheel velocity vW . The wheel lateral slip
angle is understood as the angle between the wheel
plane and the velocity of the wheel ground contact
point vw , thus it can be easily obtained geometrically
(see Fig. 1).
As we have already noticed, the wheels of WMR
may either brake or drive (autonomous switches), thus
we can distinguish 2k (with k denoting the number of wheels) different regimes in which our robot
operates, depending on whether its wheels drive or
brake. E.g. for the robot equipped with 2 independent wheels we have four different regimes: (a) both
wheels are driving; (b) wheel 1 is driving, wheel 2 is
braking; (c) wheel 1 is braking, wheel 2 is driving;

Fig. 1 Wheel slip

(d) both wheels are braking. The WMR brakes when

the rotational velocity of its wheels is less that the
velocity occurring at the ground wheel contact point.
An autonomous switch from braking to driving occurs
when the wheels start rotate faster so that the rotational velocity of the wheels exceeds the wheel ground
contact point velocity. Conversely, the switch from
driving to braking occurs when the wheel ground contact point velocity exceeds rotational velocity of the
wheel.
Depending on the motion type i.e. braking/driving,
Table 1 displays definitions of sL and sS [19].
The resultant longitudinal wheel sleep is always
requested to satisfy sL < 1, hence the speed difference is divided by the respective larger speed (vw for

Table 1 Definitions of sL and sS

Braking
vR cos vW
Longitudinal slip

sL =

Lateral slip

sS =

vR cos vW
vW
vR sin
vW

Driving
vR cos > vW
sL =

vR cos vW
vR cos

sS = tan

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

braking and vR cos for driving). The resultant wheel

slip is equal to the Euclidean norm of the slip vector,

(2)
sRes = ||s|| = sL2 + sS2 .
Assuming (xi , yi ) as the i-th wheel position coordinates,we are able to compute its velocity norm
vWi = xi 2 + yi 2 , and vRi = i , with i denoting the
rotation angle of the wheel.
According to the Burckhardts approach, the slip
reaction coefficients defined in the longitudinal and
lateral directions are the following
sL
sS
, S = ks Res
,
(3)
L = Res
sRes
sRes

Since the maximum slip reaction coefficient in

the lateral direction is smaller than in the longitudinal direction, in Eq. 3 an attenuation factor ks
(0.9; 0.95) is introduced. Having defined the slip reaction coefficients (3), the slip reaction forces FL and FS
in the direction of the wheel ground contact velocity
vW , and in the direction orthogonal to it are
FL = L FZ , FS = S FZ .

(6)

In the next step we transform these forces to the

wheel coordinate system (xW , yW ) (see Fig. 1)
FW L = FL cos FS sin , FW S = FS cos

where
Res (sRes ) = c1 (1 exp

(c2 sRes )

) c3 sRes ,

has the meaning of the resultant slip reaction coefficient with parameters c1 , c2 , c3 depending on the
road surface (see Table 2). Is it possible to extend the
Burckhardts approach via two more factors to obtain
[19]
Res (sRes ) = (c1 (1 exp(c2 sRes ) ) c3 sRes )ec4 sRes vCoG
(1 c5 FZ2 ).

(5)

c4 and c5 describe, respectively, the influence of a

higher drive velocity and the influence of a higher
wheel load. Both c4 (0.02 ms ; 0.04 ms ) and c5 gets
a maximum value of 1, thus they reduce Res given
by Eq. 5. FZ denotes the normal force exerted by the
wheel on the ground, while vCoG is the velocity of the
chassis center. In one word, the contact between the
wheel and the road, together with the vehicle velocity and the wheel load determine Res (5), which is
then split into longitudinal and lateral slip reaction
coefficients defined in Eq. 3.
Table 2 Parameters
c1 , c2 , c3 for various road
surfaces, [19]
Asphalt, dry
Asphalt, wet
Concrete, dry
Cobblestones, dry
Cobblestones, wet
Snow
Ice

FL sin .

(4)

(7)

To find the generalized slip reaction forces denoted

by Fs , we shall apply the principle of virtual work. It
follows that these forces act along the transposed rows
of the Pfaffian matrix, and for the i-th wheel are given
by
= AiS T (q)FW S + AiL T (q)FW L ,
F{b,d}
si

(8)

with AiS and AiL denoting the rows of the matrix A(q)
related, respectively, to the lateral and to the longitudinal slip of this wheel. Since each wheel may either
drive or brake, we denote by Fbsi the slip reaction force
for the i-th wheel braking and by Fdsi this force for the
i-th wheel driving. In this way we arrive at 2k admissible variants of motion of the wheeled mobile robot
equipped with k wheels.
Let i = {b, d}, i = 1, 2, . . . , k describes the
motion type (braking/driving) of the i-th wheel. For
all types of slip permitted, the robots motion may be

c1

c2

c3

1.2801
0.857
1.1973
1.3713
0.4004
0.1946
0.05

23.99
33.822
25.168
6.4565
33.7080
94.129
306.39

0.52
0.347
0.5373
0.6691
0.1204
0.0646
0

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

described by a switched control system composed of

2k subsystems of the form
.
q =
.
.
.

(9)
P(q) + D(q, q) = Fs (q, q) + B(q)u

y = k(q),
with
.

Fs (q, q) =

k


Fspp .

(10)

p=1

For each time instant of the robot motion a proper

subsystem in Eq. 9 will be activated, depending on
the conditions shown in Table 1. In other words, the
robots motion equations (9) differ depending on the
form of Fs which is affected directly by sL and sS
given by Table 1. So, at any time instant ti (0, T ) of
computations the conditions from Table 1 need to be
checked in order to choose the proper equations of the
longitudinal sL and lateral sS slip. Thus, according to
the motion type (braking or driving) of each individual
wheel, an adequate model of sS and sL slip is applied,
specified, and the corresponding motion equation
implemented. Having chosen the proper motion equation, the computations at time ti are executed starting
from the initial state (q(ti1 ), (ti1 )) obtained at the
previous time instant and applying controls u as they
were calculated/planned by the motion planning algorithm (right at the beginning of the simulation) for
time ti .

3 Motion Planning

m


gi (x)ui ,

y = k(x),
(11)

with x = (q, q) = (x1 , x2 )  R2n , u Rm , the

control vector fields
g(x) = 0n2 , P1 (x1 )B(x1 ),
and the drift f (x) = x2 , P1 (x1 )(D(x) + Fs (x)) .
Suppose that T > 0 denotes a control time horizon, and that the control functions u() belong to

(12)

and computes the system output at T , when driven by

u().
Given a desired point yd in the task space, an initial state x0 and the time horizon T , we shall study
the motion planning problem that consists in defining
a control function ud (t), such that the system output
moves from the initial point y0 = k(x0 ) to the desired
point yd , so Kx0 ,T (ud ()) = yd . The motion planning problem can be solved numerically by means of
a Jacobian motion planning algorithm [29]. A derivation of such an algorithm follows the guidelines of the
continuation method [7, 28], and can be summarized
in the following way. First, we choose an arbitrary initial control function u0 () X . If this control solves
the problem, we stop. Otherwise, we look for a differentiable curve u (), R in X , passing through
u0 (), such that the task space error
(13)
de()
d

along this curve decreases exponentially, i.e.

=
e(), with a prescribed decay rate > 0. The differentiation of the error e() with respect to results
in an implicit differential equation
D Kx0 ,T (u ())

i=1
.

Kx0 ,T (u()) = k(x(T )) = k(x0 ,T (u()))

e() = Kx0 ,T (u ()) yd

In this section the motion planning problem is formulated. We introduce preliminaries about Jacobian
algorithms derived by means of the ECSA.
For fixed , the motion equations (9) can be represented as a control affine system with output function,
of the form
x = f (x) + g(x)u = f (x) +

the Hilbert space L2m [0, T ] of Lebesgue square integrable

functions with inner product < u1 (), u2 () >=
T
u
(t)u
1
2 (t)dt and the corresponding L2 norm.
0
Admissible control functions constitute the endogenous configuration space X L2m [0, T ], [29].
It is assumed that for every admissible control function and every initial state x0 , there exists a state trajectory x(t) = x0 ,t (u()) of the control system (11) and
the corresponding output trajectory y(t) = k(x(t)),
defined for t [0, T ]. In accordance with the endogenous configuration space approach the task map of the
mobile robot is identified with the end-point map of
the system (11)

du ()
du ()
= Jx0 ,T (u ())
= e(),
d
d
(14)

where v() X . The operator

T
Jx0 ,T (u())v() = (T ) = C(T ) (T , s)B(s)v(s)ds
0

(15)
is refereed to as the Jacobian of the system (11) at
u(). It describes how an infinitesimal change in the

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

input force is transmitted into a change of the position

and orientation of the mobile robot. For a given v()
the Jacobian determines the output value (T ) of the
linear approximation

motion planning algorithm can be adapted to constrained motion planning problems [14], or to the
multiple-task motion planning [24].
3.1 A TaskPriority Motion Planning Algorithm

(t) = A(t) (t) + B(t)v(t), (t) = C(t) (t), (0) = 0

(16)

to the system (11) along (u(t), x(t)). This means that

(f (x(t)) + g(x(t))u(t))
, B(t) = g(x(t)),
x
k(x(t)) (t, s)
C(t) =
,
= A(t)(t, s), (s, s) = In .
x
t
(17)

A(t) =

The pseudo inverse of Eq. 15 is computed as




J#x0 ,T (u())v (t) = BT (t)(T , t)CT (T )G1
x0 ,T (u())v
(18)

where the matrix Gx0 ,T (u()) is called the mobility

matrix of the system (11) [39], and may be computed
by integrating the Lyapunov differential equation
.

M(t) = B(t)BT (t) + A(t)M(t) + M(t)AT (t),

(19)

with M(0) = 0, and setting Gx0 ,T (u()) =

C(T )M(T )CT (T ). Employing a right inverse of the
Jacobian J#x0 ,T (u()) to Eq. 14, we make this equation
explicit, and obtain a dynamic system
du ()
= J#x0 ,T (u ())e(),
d

u =0 (t) = u0 (t),
(20)

underlying the Jacobian motion planning algorithm.

Finally, the limit ud (t) = lim + u (t) of the trajectory of Eq. 20 provides a solution of the motion
planning problem.
In the case when the pseudo inverse of the Jacobian
is chosen, the system (20) takes the form, see [29],

When the motion planning task is augmented with

additional tasks (e.g. respecting constraints of motion,
limitations of energy, obstacle avoidance etc.), the
motion planning problem will be referred to as a
multipletask problem [24, 25, 40]. Let us assume that
additional task is defined by the task map in the form

i

Kx0 ,T (u()) =

Hi (x(t), u(t))dt,

(22)

with Hi (x(t), u(t)) non-negative and differentiable

wherever defined. Given z additional tasks, the task
priority motion planning problem consists in determining a control function ud (t) X minimizing the
collective error
e() = (0 e(),1 e(), . . . ,z e()),

(23)

where 0 e() = Kx0 ,T (u ()) yd and

i

e() =i Kx0 ,T (u ())

(24)

are errors corresponding to subsequent subtasks. By

minimizing 0 e() we find a control function ud (t),
which drives the mobile robot from a certain initial
point y0 = k(x0 ) to a desired point yd over a prescribed time interval [0, T ] (subtask 0 S). i e() is
defined so that to minimize additional criteria, like
obstacle or singularity avoidance, the control energy
minimization, slipping minimization, or others (sub
task i S). We associate with the task map the corresponding Jacobians. The Jacobian for the task number
0 is given by Eq. 15, while for the i-th subtask it can
be expressed as follows (see [24] for details)

du (t)
= BT (t)T (T , t)CT (T )G1
x0 ,T (u ())e( ).
d
(21)

Jx0 ,T (u())v() = D i Kx0 ,T (u())v()


T
Hi (x(t), u(t))
Hi (x(t), u(t))
(t) +
v(t) dt,
=
x
u
0
(25)

In this formula the subscript means that the

corresponding function needs to be computed along
the trajectory (u (t), x (t)). The presented Jacobian

where (t) denotes the solution of Eq. 16. The MoorePenrose inverse for 0 Jx0 ,T (u()) is defined by Eq. 18,

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

while for i Jx0 ,T (u()) is as follows (see [24] for

details)
(i J#x0 ,T (u())v)(t) =

bi (t) + ci (t)
v,
||bi (t) + ci (t)||2

(26)

v X , where

bi (t) = B (t)

Hi (x(s), u(s))
 (s, t)
x
T

T
ds,
(27)

the lower priority tasks, whereas the projection i Px0 ,T

implants those tasks within the null space of the
Jacobian, thus being responsible for their realization.
Observe that in the case of a finite dimensional representation of control functions, the degree of realization
of the lower priority tasks will increase along with the
dimension of the control space. Solution to the motion
planning problem is computed as the limit ud (t) =
lim + u (t).
The taskpriority motion planning algorithm for z
tasks takes the form [25]

and

ci (t) =

Hi (x(t), u(t))
u

T
.

(28)

i=1

The essential assumption of the prioritarian

approach is that the subtask with a lower priority
can be achieved on condition that all higher priority
sub-tasks have been solved. In this way, the minimization of the additional criteria utilizes the control
freedom available after solving 0 S. In general, in order
to design a taskpriority motion planning algorithm,
we need to define for each subtask separately a list
i S consisting of the four elements: the task map, the
Jacobian, the Jacobian right inverse, and the error [24]


i
S = i Kx0 ,T (u()),i Jx0 ,T (u()),i J#x0 ,T (u()),i e() .
(29)
The task space error of the i-th subtask i e() computed along the chosen smooth curve u () X ,
R should decrease exponentially along with
du ()
d i e() i
= Jx0 ,T (u ())
= i i e(),
d
d

z
i1


du ()
i
=

j =0

(32)

with i Px0 ,T (u ()) = idX . This algorithm belongs to

the successive inverse-based projection method [2]. In
our case of the single lowerpriority task the dynamic
system (32) is as follows
du ()
= 0 0J#x0 ,T (u ())0 e()
d
1 0 Px0 ,T (u ())1 J#x0 ,T (u ())1 e() (33)
with the task space errors 0 e() and 1 e() defined,
respectively, in Eqs. 13 and 24.
In this research we run the taskpriority motion
planning with two kinds of 1 S subtask: the minimization of the control energy expenditure and the slip
minimization. Our goals can be written symbolically
as

(30)

> 0 and i = 1, 2, . . . , z. In agreement with [24] the motion planning algorithm for the
i-th subtask takes the form


du (t)
= i i J#x0 ,T (u ())i e() (t)
d


+ i Px0 ,T (u ())i () (t),
(31)

with a decay rate i

with i Px0 ,T (u ()) = idX i J#x0 ,T (u ())i Jx0 ,T (u ())

denoting the projection of X onto Keri Jx0 ,T (u ()).
The function i () X describes a direction in the
endogenous configuration space. The motion planning
algorithm (31) relies on a sort of Jacobian null space
engineering. Specifically, the function i () describes

Px0 ,T (u ()) i J#x0 ,T (u ())i e() ,

ud (t)

S : y0 yd ,

Sen :

ud (t)

uT (t)udt min

(34)

or
0

ud (t)

S : y0 yd ,
T
ud (t)
1
Sslip :
(A(x1 (t))x2 (t))T A(x1 (t))x2 (t)dt min
0

(35)

with weight matrix (t) = diag{1 (t), . . . , m (t)},

i (t) > 0. Since the primary motion planning problem
(subtask 0 S) has been previously defined, the four
elements are given respectively by Eqs. 12, 15, 18 and

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

13. For the subtasks 1S we get the task map 1 Kx0 ,T :

X R respectively as

1 T T
1
Kx0 ,T (u()) =
u (t) (t)u(t)dt
(36)
2 0
or

1

Kx0 ,T (u()) =

(x2 (t))T AT (x1 (t))A(x1 (t))x2 (t)dt.

and

(37)
1J

In consequence, the Jacobians

X R
T
1
Jx0 ,T (u())v() =
uT (t) (t)v(t)dt

x0 ,T (u())

Jx0 ,T (u())v() =

T
0

H(x)
(t)dt
x

(38)

(39)

e(u()) =1 Kx0 ,T (u()).

(42)

The implementation of the above task as an additional objective function in the motion planning algorithm results in the control functions characterized by
the minimal energy consumption or by the minimal
slippage effects.
Since the endogenous configuration space is
infinitedimensional, in order to carry out effective computations a finite-dimensional, orthogonal,
trigonometric (Fourier) parameterization of control
functions is employed, by setting

Jx0 ,T () = T

with H(x) = (x2 )T AT (x1 )A(x1 )x2 and (t) given by

Eq. 16. The Jacobian pseudoinverses 1 J#x0 ,T (u()) :
RX


(t)u(t)
1 #
Jx0 ,T (u())v (t) =
v
(40)
|| ()u()||2
or


b(t)
1 #
Jx0 ,T (u())v (t) =
v,
(41)
||b()||
T T
T
where || ()u()||2 =
0 u (t) (t) (t)u(t)dt,

T
H(x(s))
T
b(t) = BT (t) 0  (s, t)( x )T ds. Finally, the
error for 1 S assumes the form
1

or

The vector Rs contains control parameters. The

dimension s of the control space should be taken at
least equal to the number of the output coordinates in
Eq. 11. The Jacobian operators (15), (38) and (39) are
now defined as
T
0
Jx0 ,T () = C (T )
 (T , t)B (t)Ps (t)dt
(43)

Jx0 ,T () =

T
0

PTs (t) (t)Ps (t)dt

H(x(t))
(t)dt,
x

(44)

where (t) is given by Eq. 16 computed along

(u (t), x (t)), matrices A (t), B (t), C (t) and
 (t, w) are computed according to Eq. 17 along
(u (t), x (t)). The parametric Jacobian (43) is equal
to 0 Jx0 ,T () = C (T )J (T ), with J (t) solving the
differential equation
.

J (t) = A (t)J (t) + B (t)Ps (t),

(45)

initialized at J (0) = 0. A discretization of the motion

planning algorithm (21) gets tantamount to updating the control parameters iteratively, with iterations
indexed by an integer , i.e.
+1 = JTx0 ,T ( )G1
x0 ,T ( )e(),

= 0, 1, . . . ,
(46)

= Jx0 ,T ()JTx0 ,T ().

the limit d =

starting with 0 , where Gx0 ,T ()

The solution is achieved in
lim + , and delivers ud (t) = Ps (t)d . A finitedimensional and discrete version of the taskpriority
motion planning algorithm (33) takes the form
0
+1 = 0 0 JTx0 ,T ( )G1
x0 ,T ( ) e()
1
1 0 Px0 ,T ( )1 JTx0 ,T ( )1 G1
x0 ,T ( ) e()

(47)
where 1 Gx0 ,T () =1 Jx0 ,T ()1 JTx0 ,T (), 0 Px0 ,T () =
I 0 J#x0 ,T ()0 Jx0 ,T () and the task space errors
for both sub-tasks: 0 e() =0 Kx0 ,T ( ) yd and
1 e() =1 K
x0 ,T ( ).

u (t) = Ps (t),
with Ps (t) = diag{P(t), . . . , P(t)} as a block diagonal matrix built of m copies of the row matrix P(t) =
[1, sin t, cos t, . . . , cos pt], = 2/T , containing 2p + 1 basic functions, therefore s = m(2p + 1).

4 Case Study
A Pioneer 2DX platform has been intended to serve as
a tool for implementing and testing a motion planning

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

algorithm. The motion planning task will be solved

using the method outlined in Section 3. The platforms schematic view is displayed in Fig. 2. A mobile
robot of this class has also been studied in [1] and
[40].
It is assumed that the platform moves on the horizontal plane and is equipped with two identical,
independently actuated wheels (of radius r) mounted
on a common axle (of length 2l). The wheels may
slip, both longitudinally as well as laterally. The body
frame (x, y, z) is placed in the middle of the platform axle, with x-axis set along the platform, directed
forward and z-axis pointing upward. The platform
motion is described with respect to the space reference
frame X, Y, Z. The natural vector of generalized coordinates of the platform q = (x, y, , 1 , 2 )T R5
consists of the position of the center of wheels axle,
the platform orientation and rotational angles of the
wheels. In order to achieve dimensional consistency of
the coordinates the generalized platform coordinates
are set as w = (x, y, l, r1 , r2 )T . In w coordinates the Pfaffian matrix characterizing the lateral and
longitudinal slips of the platform wheels takes the
form

sin wl3 cos wl3 0 0 0

1 1 0
A(w) = cos wl3 sin wl3
w3
w3
cos l sin l 1 0 1

(48)

The identity of the form A(w)w = 0 means the

totally slip-less motion. The slips of the wheels can be
computed as follows: the lateral slip of both wheels
.
A1 (w)w, the longitudinal slip of the right wheel
.
A2 (w)w, and the longitudinal slip of the left wheel
.
A3 (w)w. The output function k(w) = (w1 , w2 , wl3 )
SE(2)
= R2 S1 selects coordinates subject to the
motion planning, i.e. it provides the platforms position and orientation in the horizontal plane. Assuming
that the center of mass of the robot is located at
the middle
point of the wheel axle, we get P(w) =

I

diag m, m, Il 2 , r 21 , r 22 . The symbols used above

have the following meaning, m the mass of the
robot, I the moment of inertia of the robot around
the vertical axis, and I the moment of inertia
.
of each wheel. P(w) is constant, so D(w, w) = 0.


T
Finally, B = 1r 023 I2 . To the needs of computer simulations the following real geometric and
dynamic parameters of the mobile platform Pioneer
2DX have been used: l = 0.163 m, r = 0.0825
m, m = 8.67 kg, I = 0.256 kgm2 , I1 = I2 =
0.02 kgm2 , [10]. The wheel lateral slip angles equal
i = wl3 atan2( xyii ) (see Fig. 2), where (x1 , y1 ) =
(w1 + l sin( wl3 ), w2 l cos( wl3 )) and (x2 , y2 ) =
(w1 l sin( wl3 ), w2 + l cos( wl3 )) describe position
respectively of the 1-st and 2-nd wheel,the wheel
ground contact point velocity vWi =
xi 2 + yi 2 ,

Fig. 2 Mobile robot

Pioneer 2DX and its
geometric schematic

l
Z

(x,y)
r

X
Y

vy

2y
2

y1

vx2
.
x2

.
y

y2

.
x y.
1

r
x2

x1

vx1
.
x1
1

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

and the rotational i-th wheel velocity is equal to

vRi = 1r w 3+i .
Since all types of slips are permitted, the generalized slip reaction forces act at the contacts of the
wheels with the ground. The counteraction forces are
directed along the transposed rows of the matrix A(w),

while their values are proportional to the amount of

slip. Consequently, the platform motion is described
by a collection of 4 systems of equations of the
.

form (9) with Fs (w, w) defined in accordance with

Eq. 10. In our case, depending on the conditions from
Table 1, each wheel moves in pursuance of one of

a
0.5

2
1.5

[rad]

y[m]

1
0.5

0.5
0
0.5

1
0

x[m]

c
0.7

1
0

t[s]

0.01

u1
u

0.008

0.5

0.006

0.4

0.004

0.3

0.002

0.2
0

sL []

u[Nm]

0.6

0
0

t[s]

0.05

t[s]
3
2.5

0.04

1.5
1

0.02

s []

0.03

0.5
0

0.01

0.5
0
0.01
0

1
1

t[s]

1.5
0

t[s]

Fig. 3 Motion planning of Pioneer 2DX on the dry asphalt: a platform path X Y , b orientation, c controls, d wheel slips, e wheel
slides, f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

state x0 = (0, 0, l 2 , 0, 0, 0, 106 , 106 , 0, 0)T , the

time horizon T = 4 s, and the desired output yd =
(5, 0, l 2 )T , find a control u(t) R2 such that y(T ) =
(w1 (T ), w2 (T ), w3 l(T ) )T = yd . This problem is a sort
of the parking maneuver. The controls in the form of

the modes described by = {bb, bd, db, dd}. In

order to solve the motion planning problem, the con.
trol affine system (11) is defined with x = (w, w)
R10 . The method of ECSA will be applied to the following motion planning problem: Given the initial

a
0.5

2
1.5

[rad]

y[m]

1
0.5

0.5
0
0.5

1
0

1
0

x[m]

d
0.7

0.025

u2

s
0.02

0.5

sL []

u[Nm]

0.6

0.01

0.3

0.005

0.1

L2

0
0

t[s]

f
s

2.5

S1

0.08

L1

t[s]

0.015

0.4

0.2
0

2
t[s]

sS2

2
1.5
1

sS []

0.06

0.5

0.04

0
0.02

0.5
1

0
0

t[s]

1.5
0

t[s]

Fig. 4 Motion planning of Pioneer 2DX on the wet asphalt: a platform path X Y , b orientation, c controls, d wheel slips, e wheel
slides, f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

1. In the k-th step form the control parameters k

(If you just start the computations, so k = 0,
choose/guess initial control parameters 0 )
2. Form the controls uk (t) = Ps (t)k

truncated Fourier series are assumed (chosen) composed of the constant term and up to the 2nd order
harmonics.
We shall proceed according to the following algorithm:

a
b

0.4

2
1.5
1

[rad]

y[m]

0.2

0.2

0.5
0

0.4

0.5
0.6
0

1
0

x[m]

d
0.7

0.65

0.2

2
t[s]

sL1
sL2

0.6

0.15

0.5

s []

0.45

u[Nm]

0.55

0.1

0.4
0.35

0.05

0.3
0.25
0

0
0

t[s]

1.5

t[s]

f
s

S1

2.5

S2

2
1.5

s []

1
0.5
0.5

0
0.5
1

0
0

t[s]

t[s]

Fig. 5 Motion planning of Pioneer 2DX on the wet cobblestones: a platform path X Y , b orientation, c controls, d wheel slips, e
wheel slides, f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

3. Use the differential equation solver that integrates

the system (9) along with the parametric form of
Jacobian (45)
4. Sampling time will be determined by the solver.
For each sample time ti [0, T ] do the following:

based on the state x(ti1 ) from the previous time instant decide about the motion type
(braking/driving) and choose a proper subsystem (9) for further calculations (according to
Table 1)

a
0.5

0.4

1.5

0.2
0.1

(d,d)
(b,d)

[rad]

y[m]

0.3

0.5

(b,b)
(b,b)
(d,b)

0.1

0.2
0

0.5
0

x[m]
0.7

sL1

u2

sL2

0.65
0.6

0.2

2
t[s]

0.15

0.5

s []

0.45

u[Nm]

0.55

0.1

0.4
0.35

0.05

0.3
0.25
0

0
0

t[s]
2.5

t[s]

f
2

S1

sS2

1.5
1

s []
S

1.5

0.5
0
0.5

0.5

1
0
0

t[s]

t[s]

Fig. 6 Motion planning of Pioneer 2DX on the snow: a platform path X Y , b orientation, c controls, d wheel slips, e wheel slides,
f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

for the initial state x(ti1 ) apply control uk (ti )

and execute computations for time instant ti

5. As a result you obtain a state trajectory x(t) of

the switched control system (9), the corresponding output trajectory y(t), and the Jacobian (43)
of the system. Check the task space error e(k) =
y(T ) yd . If for controls uk (t) the error e(k) is
small enough then stop.
6. Otherwise, compute control parameters k+1
according to the motion planning algorithm (46),
and go back to step 2.
Let us take 0i = (0.5, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001, 0.001)T ,
i = 1, 2 as the vector of initial values of the control parameters. Computations have been conducted
for slip reaction coefficients given by Eq. 4, characterizing different types of road, namely dry asphalt,
wet asphalt, wet cobblestones, and snow. The computations have been run with the error decay rate
= 0.5 and stop after the error norm ||y(T ) yd ||
drops below 104 . The slip reaction coefficients are
computed according to Eq. 4. The results of computations are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Notice, that
the original coordinates have been used instead of w.
The figures illustrate the platform path, its orientation, controls, slips and velocities. To visualize the
effect of the wheel slip, the platform orientation has
been marked along the motion path. Since the platform has not been requested to stop at the destination
point, the slips at T may not vanish (see the velocity plots). To visualize the effect of switching between
individual types of motion, the corresponding platform motion modes have been marked for the platform

moving on the snow (see Fig. 6). As we can see

(the plot of platform path) the robot starts the motion
with both wheels braking. Since the braking variant
of motion may describe also the case without slips
(vR cos vW ), it probably denotes the motion without wheel slippage. Next the right wheel starts driving.
After that both wheels are driving and this motion type
takes the most of the time. At the end the right wheel
starts braking. The motion ends with both wheels
braking.
Performance of the taskpriority algorithm (47)
applied to the system (11) will be illustrated by the
four following computer simulations:
1. Control energy minimization (0 S +1 Sen )
(a) The Pioneer 2DX platform starts from
x0 = (0, 0, l 4 , 0, 0, 0, 104 , 104 , 0, 0, 0)T ,
and shall be driven to and stopped at the
desired point yd = (w1 , w2 , wl3 ) = (5, 0, l 2 )
within T = 6 s. The truncated Fourier
series containing up to the 3rd order
=
harmonics are taken, with 0i
(0.5, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001)T ,
i = 1, 2 as the initial values of the control
parameters. The motion planning problem
is successfully completed, when the 0 e()
error drops below 104 . Additionally, it is
requested that during the robot motion the
control energy described as 1 Sen given by
Eqs. 36, 38, 40 and 42 will be minimized.
Specifically, we assume the weight matrix
(t) = diag{1, 1}, which means that the
energy consumption of both wheels will be

Table 3 Motion quality integral factors

Task no.


1 T T
2 0 u udt

1(a) (0 S)
1(a) (0 S +1 Sen )
1(b) (0 S)
1(b) (0 S +1 Sen )
2(a) (0 S)
2(a) (0 S +1 Sslip )
2(b) (0 S)
2(b) (0 S +1 Sslip )

0.42
0.22
0.51
0.32
5.30
5.24
6.29
6.17

9.05 104
2.66 104
1.70 104
5.17 104
5.19
4.79
3.17 102
2.76 102

(x2 )T AT (x1 )A(x1 )x2 dt

T
0

vT vdt

10.39
7.46
10.30
8.60
17.36
17.49
23.56
23.93

T
0

.T .

v vdt

13.06
7.61
2.76
1.74
42.89
43.15
31.49
31.93

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

driven to the final point yd = (w1 , w2 , wl3 ) =

(5, 3, 0) within T = 5 s. The initial values
of control functions and their parametric form
are taken as previously, (0 ,1 ) = (0.5, 0.1)
and (t) = diag{1, 1}.

minimized. We limit our considerations to

the motion on dry asphalt. The decay rates
equal (0 ,1 ) = (0.5, 0.01).
(b) Again, we deal with the taskpriority problem, but this time we want the robot to be

a
b

0.4

1.5

0.6

1
[rad]

y [m]

0.2

0.8
1

0.5
0

1.2

0.5

1.4
1.6
0

1
0

x [m]

0.4

0.35

2.5

0.3

3
t [s]

x 10

sL []

u [Nm]

0.25
0.2

1.5

0.15

0.1

0.5

0.05

0
0

0.5

1.5

0.5
0

t [s]

t [s]

x 10
14

s []

12
10

1.5

0.5

4
0

0.5

0
2
0

t [s]

t [s]

Fig. 7 Taskpriority motion planning of Pioneer 2DX (0 S +1 Sen ); yd = (5, 0, 2 ): a platform path X Y , b orientation; c controls,
d wheel slips, e wheel slides, f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

2. Slippage minimization (0 S +1 Sslip )

the wet asphalt. At this point the parking maneuver problem is considered, thus
the robot starts with the initial posture
x0 = (0, 0, l 4 , 0, 0, 0, 104 , 104 , 0, 0, 0)T

(a) In order to observe the slippage minimization effect, we let the robot move on

0.8

1.5

0.6

[rad]

y [m]

2.5

0.4
0.2

0.5
0
0

0
0

t [s]

x [m]

x 10

0.4
2.5

0.35

sL []

u [Nm]

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15

1.5
1

0.1

0.5

0.05

0
0

0.5

1.5

0.5
0

t [s]

x 10

2.5

1.5

s []

t [s]

0.5

4
5
0

t [s]

0
0

t [s]

Fig. 8 Taskpriority motion planning of Pioneer 2DX (0 S +1 Sen ); yd = (5, 3, 0): a platform path X Y , b orientation; c controls,
d wheel slips, e wheel slides, f platform velocities

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

and reaches its final position yd = (5, 0, l 2 )

within T = 2 s. Initial values of control functions 0i and their parametric form
are as before. The motion planning problem
is successfully completed, when the 0 e()
error drops below 104 . Additionally, it is
requested that during the robot motion the
subtask, given by 1 Sslip formed by Eq. 37,
39, 41 and 42, will be minimized. The decay
rates equal (0 ,1 ) = (0.5, 2.5).
(b) Again we deal with the problem of
wheels slippage minimization (1 Sslip ).
The desired position is given by
yd = (5, 3, 0), while the initial values
of control parameters are given as 0i =
(1.5, 0.01, 0.01, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001)T ,

i = 1, 2. Initial controls have been chosen

bigger than before just to better observe the
slippage minimization effect. All remaining
parameters are as in the previous simulation
example.
The results of the energy minimization are depicted
in Table 3 (v denotes the linear velocity of the plat.
form, while v is its linear acceleration) and Figs. 7
and 8. At the final time the WMR reaches the
desirable point yd , so the subtask 0 S is accomplished successfully. Moreover, one observes that the
control amplitudes (u1 (t), u2 (t)) (see controls plots
in Figs. 7 and 8)) are computed so that to minimize the control energy expenditure. Hence, the
sub-task 1 S have been also realized satisfactorily.

a
0.2

0.1

2.5

u [Nm]

y [m]

0.1
0.2

1.5

0.3

0.4
0.5
0

0.5

x [m]

0.2

0.5

t [s]

1.5

1.5

s []
S

sL []

0
1

0.2
0.5

0.4
0

0.5

t [s]

1.5

0
0

0.5

t [s]

1.5

Fig. 9 Taskpriority motion planning of Pioneer 2DX (0 S +1 Sslip ); yd = (5, 0, 2 )): a platform path X Y , b controls, c wheel
slips, d wheel slides

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

On the ground of the results shown in Figs. 7

and 8 we conclude that the lower energy consumption produces smoother trajectories i.e. the trajectories characterized by the lower velocity changes (cf.
 T .T .
3) achieved at slower speed
0 v (t)v(t)dt in Table
T T
(cf. motion energy ( 0 v (t)v(t)dt) in Table 3). Also,
it seems that the preferred motion patterns may not
be
by the less wheels slippage (see
 T characterized
2 (t))T AT (x1 (t))A(x1 (t))x2 (t)dt Table 3).
(x
0
In Table 3 and Figs. 9 and 10 the results obtained
for slippage minimization (1 Sslip ) have been collected. Again, the subtask 0 S is accomplished successfully. According to the subtask described by
1S
slip the robot moves with less slippage (cf. plots of
sL and sS in Figs. 9cd and 10cd) and therefore with
T
lower energy consumption (see 12 0 uT (t) (t)u(t)dt

in Table 3), however it undergoes at the expense

 T .T .
of higher velocity changes (cf. 0 v (t)v(t)dt in
Table 3). The longitudinal slip sL is reduced to
a greater extent than the lateral slip sS (cf. plots
in Figs. 9c and 10c and plots in Figs. 9d and
T
10d). Although the norm 0 (x2 )T AT (x1 )A(x1 )x2 dt
gets lower, the higher variability of the adopted
control functions (Fig. 10b) and hence longitudinal slips (Fig. 10c) may be observed. The robot
motion
is achieved at higher speed (cf. motion energy
T
( 0 vT (t)v(t)dt) in Table 3).
The simulations show that the dimension of the
control coefficient vector (number of basic functions) appears to be crucial for performance of the
algorithm. Since an increase of the number of control
coefficients improves the minimization of terminal

2.5

2.2
2
1.8

1.5

u [Nm]

y [m]

1.6
1.4
u1
u2
u1
u2

1.2

0.5

S + S sli p
S

0
0

x [m]

0.03
0.025

S + 1S sli p
S + 1 S sli p
0
S
0
S
0

0.5

1.5

1.5

t [s]

0.02

sS []

0.01

0.02

s []

:
:
:
:

0.015

0.03

0.01
0.04
0.005
0.05
0
0

0.5

t [s]

1.5

0.5

t [s]

Fig. 10 Taskpriority motion planning of Pioneer 2DX (0 S +1 Sslip ); yd = (5, 3, 0): a platform path X Y , b controls, c wheel slips,
d wheel slides

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst

errors for the lower priority sub-tasks, the algorithm

may lose convergence for too small dimension of .
Hence, the choice of should express a trade-off
between the quality of solution and the computation
effort.

5 Conclusions
Modeling and control of wheeled mobile robots whose
motion is subject to the longitudinal and lateral slips
of all their wheels has been studied. Depending on
possible wheels slip conditions (i.e. braking/driving),
several modes of motion have been proposed, resulting in the model belonging to a subclass of switched
control affine systems with autonomous switches.
This paper shows applicability of the Endogenous
Configuration Space Approach as a tool for motion
planning of Wheeled Mobile Robots with multifacet
dynamics. Specifically, a taskpriority motion planning algorithm for a Wheeled Mobile Robots, able
to solve the problem composed of two subtasks has
been designed. These subtasks include reaching a
desired point in the task space along with the minimization of either the control effort or the wheels
slippage. Performance of the algorithm has been illustrated by solving a parking maneuver problem of
the Pioneer 2DX robot. Computer simulations have
shown that the control function provided by the algorithm achieves a motion of the robot, from an initial state to a terminal state either with constrained
torques exerted by robots actuators or with less wheels
slippage. The motion planning algorithm based on
the Endogenous Configuration Space Approach has
proved to be able to control the switched robotic system effectively (providing smooth controls and motion
devoid of chattering effects). This paper focuses only
on motion planning that can be open-loop and offline. It delivers just a reference trajectory of the robot.
Tracking control needs to be realized in the closed
loop and on-line. A predictive control algorithm or
a backstepping method are recommended to this
purpose.
The conceptual basis presented in this paper opens
several avenues for further research. The next step
of the presented research will consist in the experimental evaluation of the proposed approach on the
Pioneer platform. Special attention should be paid to
augmenting the motion planning problem with a task

of trajectory tracking (e.g. Nonlinear Model Predictive

Control).

References
1. dAndrea-Novel, B., Campion, G., Bastin, G.: Control of
wheeled mobile robots not satisfying ideal velocity constraints: a singular perturbation approach. Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Control 5, 243267 (1995)
2. Antonelli, G.: Stability analysis for prioritized closed-loop
inverse kinematic algorithms for redundant robotic systems.
IEEE Trans. Robot. 25, 985994 (2009)
3. Broggi, A., et al.: Intelligent vehicles. In: Springer Handbook of Robotics, pp. 11751198. Springer, Berlin (2008)
4. Burckhardt, M.: Fahrwerktechnik: Radschlupf-Regelsysteme, Wurzburg, Vogel Fachbuch (1993)
5. Caldwell, T.M., Murphey, T.D.: Switching mode generation and optimal estimation with application to skisteering.
Automatica 47, 5064 (2011)
6. Canudas de Wit, C., Tsiotras, P., Velenis, E., Basset,
M., Gissinger, G.: Dynamic friction models for road/tire
longitudinal interaction. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 39(3), 189226
(2003)
7. Chitour, Y., Sussmann, H.J.: Motion planning using the
continuation method. In: Essays on Mathematical Robotics,
pp. 91125. Springer, New York (1998)
8. Cortes Monforte, J.: Geometric, Control and Numerical
Aspects of Nonholonomic Systems. Springer, New York
(2002)
9. Dixon, W.E., Dawson, D.M., Zergeroglu, E., Behal, A.:
Nonlinear Control of Wheeled Mobile Robots. Springer,
Berlin (2001)
10. Giergiel, J., et al.: Symbolic generation of the kinematics equations of the mobile robot Pioneer 2DX. Przeglad
Mechaniczny 1920(/2000), 2631 (2000) (in Polish)
11. Gonzalez, R., Fiacchini, M., Alamo, T., Guzman, J.L.,
Rodriguez, F.: Adaptive control for a mobile robot under
slip conditions using a LMIbased approach, pp. 1251
1256. In: Proceedings of the European Control Conference
(2009)
12. Hendzel, Z., Trojnacki, M.: Neural network identifier of a
fourwheeled mobile robot subject to wheel slip. J. Autom.
Mob. Robot. Intell. Syst. 8(4), 2430 (2014)
13. Iagnemma, K., Ward, Ch.C.: Classificationbased wheel
slip detection and detector fusion for mobile robots on
outdoor terrain. Auton. Robot. 26, 3346 (2009)
14. Janiak, M., Tchon, K.: Constrained motion planning for
nonholonomic systems. Syst. Control Lett. 60, 625631
(2011)
15. Jung, S., Wen, J.T.: Nonlinear model predictive control for
the swingup of a rotary inverted pendulum. J. Dyn. Syst.
Meas. Control 126, 666673 (2004)
16. Karnop, D.: Vehicle Dynamics, Stability, and Control. CRC
Press, Boca Raton (2013)
17. Khan, H., Iqbal, J., Baizid, K., Zielinska, T.: Longitudinal and lateral slip control of autonomous wheeled mobile
robot for trajectory tracking. Front Inform. Technol. Electron. Eng. 16(2), 166172 (2015)

Author's personal copy

J Intell Robot Syst
18. Kozowski, K., Pazderski, D.: Modeling and control of a
4-wheel skid-steering mobile robot. Int. J. Appl. Math.
Comput. Sci. 14, 477496 (2004)
19. Kiencke, U., Nielsen, L.: Automotive Control Systems.
Springer, Berlin (2000)
20. Liberzon, D.: Switching in Systems and Control. Springer,
Birkauser (2003)
21. Liberzon, D., Morse, A.S.: Basic problems in stability and
design of switched systems. IEEE Control Syst. 19(5), 59
70 (2002)
22. Morse, A.S.: Control Using LogicBased Switching.
Springer, London (1997)
23. Pacejka, H.B., Sharp, R.S.: Shear force developments by
pneumatic tires in steadystate conditions: a review of
modeling aspects. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 20, 121176 (1991)
24. Ratajczak, A., Tchon, K.: Multiple-task motion planning of
non-holonomic systems with dynamics. Mech. Sci. 4, 153
166 (2013)
25. Ratajczak, A., Karpinska, J., Tchon, K.: Taskpriority
motion planning of underactuated systems: an endogenous configuration space approach. Robotica 28, 885892
(2010)
26. Reina, G.: Methods for wheel slip and sinkage estimation
in mobile robots. In: Yussof, H. (eds.) Robot Localization
and Map Building, pp. 561578. InTech (2010)
27. Seyr, M., Jakubek, S.: Proprioceptive navigation, slip estimation and slip control for autonomous wheeled mobile
robots. In: IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and
Mechatronics, pp. 109114 (2006)
28. Sussmann, H.J.: New differential geometric methods in
nonholonomic path finding. In: Systems, Models, and
Feedback, Birkhauser, pp. 365384. Boston (1992)
29. Tchon, K., Jakubiak, J.: Endogenous configuration space
approach to mobile manipulators: a derivation and performance assessment of Jacobian inverse kinematics algorithms. Int. J. Control 76, 13871419 (2003)
30. Tchon, K., Zadarnowska, K., Juszkiewicz, ., Arent, K.:
Modeling and control of a skid-steering mobile platform
with coupled side wheels. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. 63(3),
807818 (2015)
31. Tian, Y., Sarkar, N.: Control of a mobile Robot Subject
to Wheel Slip. J. Intell. Robot Syst. 74(34), 915929
(2014)
32. Wang, D., Low, C.B.: Modeling and analysis of skidding and slipping in wheeled mobile robots: control
design perspective. IEEE Trans. Robot. 24(3), 676687
(2008)
33. Li, L., Wang, F.Y., Zhou, Q.: Integrated longitudinal and
lateral tire/road friction modeling and monitoring for vehicle motion control. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 7(1),
119 (2006)

34. Ward, Ch.C., Iagnemna, K.: A dynamic-model-based wheel

slip detector for mobile robots on outdoor terrain. IEEE
Trans. Robot. 24, 821831 (2008)

35. Wei, S., Uthaichana, K., Zefran,

M., DeCarlo, R.: Hybrid
model predictive control for the stabilization of wheeled
mobile robots subject to wheel slippage. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 121(6), 21812193 (2013)
36. de Wit, C.C., Siciliano, B., Bastin, G.: Theory of Robot
Control. Springer, New York (1996)
37. Wong, J.Y.: Theory of Ground Vehicles. Wiley, New York
(2001)
38. Yoshida, K., Wilcox, B.: Space robots and systems. In:
Springer Handbook of Robotics, pp. 10311063. Springer,
Berlin (2008)
39. Zadarnowska, K., Tchon, K.: A control theory framework
for performance evaluation of mobile manipulators. Robotica 25, 703715 (2007)
40. Zadarnowska, K., Ratajczak, A.: Taskpriority motion
planning of wheeled mobile robots subject to slipping. In:
Kozowski, K.R. (ed.) Robot Motion and Control. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pp. 7585.
Springer, London (2012)
41. Zadarnowska, K., Tchon, K. In: Kozowski, K.R. (ed.):
Modeling and motion planning of wheeled mobile
robots subject to slipping, pp. 7883. Springer, London
(2015)

42. Zefran,
M., Burdick, J.W.: Design of switching controllers
for systems with changing dynamics. In: Proceeding of 37th
IEEE Conference on Dec. & Contr., pp. 21132118 (1998)

Katarzyna Zadarnowska received the Ph.D. degree in Technical Sciences in 2005. She has been participated in several research projects, e.g. Endogenous configuration space
approach to mobile manipulators (supported by Polish State
Committee of Scientific Research), Hybrid systems with applications to automotive control (supported by Marii Curie Training Site), Green Transfer academia-to business knowledge
transfer project (co-financed by the European Union under the
European Social Fund) or RobREx - Autonomy in rescue and
exploration robots (supported by the Polish National Centre for
Research and Development). Since 2005 she has been an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Computer Engineering, Control
and Robotics, Wrocaw University of Technology, Poland. Currently she works at the Chair of Cybernetics and Robotics,
Wrocaw University of Technology, Poland. Her current interests include mobile robots, wheel slippage modeling, motion
planning algorithms, hybrid control systems, nonholonomic
systems, optimal control, stochastic algorithms and computational fluid dynamics.