See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331352711

Comparative Analysis of Mobile Robot Wheels Design

Conference Paper · September 2018

DOI: 10.1109/DeSE.2018.00041

CITATIONS READS
14 5,818

3 authors, including:

Artur Sagitov Evgeni Magid

Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University
36 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS    161 PUBLICATIONS   1,229 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rescue Robot View project

Control system for robotic laparoscopic instrument View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evgeni Magid on 03 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparative Analysis of Mobile Robot Wheels
Design
Ksenia Shabalina, Artur Sagitov and Evgeni Magid
Intelligent Robotics Department
Higher School of Information Technology and Information Systems
Kazan, Russian Federation
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract—This paper considers a design of wheeled mobile a most suitable one. To provide a good maneuverability of
robot platforms. Each platform is designed for a set of spe- a mobile robot in a narrow space, omnidirectional wheeled
cific tasks and thus is supposed to work in previously known solutions should be considered.
general conditions of its environment. A robotic system could
be constructed as a holonomic or a non-holonomic system, This paper explores a question of a wheeled mobile robot
which directly correlates with a type of its wheels. In this work base design from a locomotion point of view tackling the
we compare different types of mobile robot wheels, including choice of wheels and their configuration. We consider holo-
conventional wheels, universal omnidirectional wheels, Mecanum nomic and non-holonomic robots and the corresponding types
wheels, caster wheels, and steering standard wheels, and analyze
of wheels: conventional wheels, steering wheels, caster wheels,
the best scenario of design application. This paper shares our
experience in selecting wheeled platform design and could be universal wheels, and Mecanum wheels. Next, we discuss par-
considered as a brief practical guideline for beginners in mobile ticular strengths and drawbacks of each type providing useful
robot platform design. technical parameters that could serve as a recommendation
Index Terms—Mobile robotics, comparison, omni drive, robot for a robot designer while selecting mobile robot locomotion
platform, robot design, engineering
modes. We do not pretend to cover all existing models and
modifications of wheels (e.g., we do not deepen into multiple
I. I NTRODUCTION
modifications of Mecanum wheels [8] or the newly created
Robotics field is rapidly developing, and robots are grad- omnidirectional wheels [9]) within this paper due to space
ually becoming an important part of everyday life of hu- limitations, but we do demonstrate the most popular and
mankind. Besides such classical areas as industrial [1], medical widely used type of wheels and platform designs.
and rehabilitation robotics [2], which mainly use various The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
manipulators with certain task-oriented end effectors while II reviews typical wheels of a mobile robot with a brief
both a task and an operational environment could be a-priori overview of their main advantages and disadvantages. Section
described rather precisely, robotics gradually takes its place III describes optional wheel configurations within a mobile
in less predictable fields such as, for example, human robot robot base. Section IV provides a comparative analysis of these
interaction [3], exploration [4] and urban search and rescue [5]. typical wheels. Finally, we conclude in Section V.
In nowadays robots are applied not only in factory settings,
surgery operational rooms and warehouses, but interact with II. H OLONOMIC AND N ON - HOLONOMIC SYSTEMS
a human on a daily basis inside usual premises, including
offices, hotels, corridors of hospitals and living apartments. First we need to distinguish between holonomic and non-
Often in such settings mobile robots require a capability to holonomic systems. A system is called holonomic if a number
operate in a confined space [6]. One of the natural selections of controlled degrees of freedom (DoF) is equal to a total
for confined space operating in human-oriented environments number of DoF [10]. Therefore, a robot is a non-holonomic
today are bipedal robots, but their development and especially system if a number of its controlled degrees is less than a total
dynamically stable locomotion algorithms, fall detection and number of DoF. The property of holonomicity directly depends
management [7] require significantly more efforts than a on the type of robot wheels. Consider a non-holonomic car-
development of conventional wheeled robots that could move like robot, which is typically an Ackerman wheeled system
freely in confined spaces. that cannot move freely in any direction. At the same time
The analysis of research papers and real world applications a robot, which is equipped with omnidirectional wheels,
demonstrates that a vast majority of modern mobile robots are becomes holonomic. This section describes holonomic and
constructed using wheels. However, this requires to consider non-holonomic systems in terms of wheels usage as well
maneuverability and controllability of a robot within its target as strengths and weakness of each type of wheels. In this
environment at early design stages. Among the variety of paper we look at differential drive robots and Ackerman
options for number of wheels, their type and configuration drive robots as representatives of non-holonomic systems,
within a mobile robot platform base a designer should select and consider caster wheels (including a caster ball), universal
wheels, Mecanum wheels, omnidirectional wheels) as the ones locomotion almost in any direction. Typically, rollers have
to support holonomic system examples. a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1c) and their number may vary.
Even though omnidirectional wheels provide free locomotion
A. Conventional Wheel in a 2D space, they have a number of disadvantages (e.g.,
One of the examples of a non-holonomic system is a inefficiency at a dirty surface) which are considered in the
differential drive wheeled robot with conventional wheels. A next Section.
conventional wheel (Fig. 1a) is widely used in all engineering
E. Mecanum Wheel
areas due to its simplicity and functionality, which is limited
to providing forward and backward rotation of a wheel. For These wheels are similar to a universal wheel construction
a differential drive robot conventional wheels allow robot ro- except that rollers are mounted with their axis at an angle of 45
tation when different rotation speeds and/or rotation direction degrees relatively to an axis of an active wheel base (Fig. 1d).
are applied for its conventional wheels. It was first developed by a company Mecanum AB in 1973 by
Bengt Ilon [12]. Since a mecanum wheel design is complex,
B. Steering Wheel manufacturing cost is greater as compared to universal wheels.
At a first glance a steering wheel may look completely like a These wheels are capable to roll about an axis of an active
conventional wheel, but it has a different mechanical structure. wheel (i.e., a base wheel) and also about axis of rollers at
The term steering means not just a wheel, but a certain an angle of 45 degrees. Applying different velocities to each
steering mechanism, which allows a conventional wheel to wheel a robot can move in any direction; classic Ilon wheels
rotate around its vertical axis. For this purpose, a mechanism have 3 Degree of freedom: wheel rotation, roller rotation, and
uses a steering motor to control a movement direction (i.e., a rotational slip about the vertical axis passing through a point of
rotation around the vertical axis) of a wheel, and a driving contact with locomotion surface [11]. Thus, Mecanum wheels
motor to provide forward and backward locomotion. This can move in a desired direction, allow a diagonal movement
way, the same physical wheel could be used in the role of with regard to heading direction and a rotation around a
a conventional wheel or, by attaching a steering mechanism, robot vertical axis in place. More details about strengths and
it could be transformed into a steering wheel. drawbacks of wheel be considered in the next sections.

C. Caster Wheel III. A NALYSIS OF W HEEL C ONFIGURATION

Another type of a wheel is a caster (or sometimes called In this section we demonstrate a number of examples for
castor) wheel (Fig. 1b2). Caster wheels have a wide appli- possible wheel configurations. While there are no limitations
cation not only in robotics, but are also used in service and for a number of wheels or their placement within a mobile
medical equipment, manufacturing etc. Using caster wheels robot base, the following schemes reflect most broadly used
helps to achieve a near-omnidirectional mobility of a mobile by robotics community configurations due to their optimal
robot or any other mechanical vehicle. Some manufacturers designs.
divide caster wheels strictly into two categories: rigid wheels A. Conventional Wheel and Caster Wheel
and swivel wheels. In the case of a rigid wheel, the wheel
Caster wheels are used as passive wheels and they can be
can rotate only forward and backward. For a swivel wheel
applied together with other wheels to reach omnidirectional
category, the wheel can passively rotate 360 degrees with
mobility. One of the popular configurations for using such
regard to the vertical axis as well as to rotate forward and
backward, providing a free movement of the wheel. A special
type of a caster wheel is a ball caster wheel (Fig. 1b1), which
provides a free motion in all directions due to the use of a
passive sphere in a role of a wheel. Ball caster wheels are
widely used as additional passive wheels with other active
driving wheels, e.g., it could be used to provide an additional
ground-contact (rolling) point within a differential drive based
platform.

D. Universal Omni Wheel

The basic idea of an omni wheel is a combination of a
main active wheel and passive freely rotating rollers. The
active wheel and the rollers have their own rotation axes and
in the case of universal wheels, axes of passive rollers are
orthogonal to a main wheel axis [11]. While an active wheel
is rotating in clockwise or counterclockwise direction with
respect to its rotation axis, combining active rotation of several Fig. 1. Wheel types: (a) a conventional / steering wheel, (b1) a caster ball
active wheels with passively rotating rollers allows supporting wheel, (b2) a caster wheel, (c) a universal wheel, (d) a Mecanum wheel.
wheels is a differential drive robot; conventional wheels are
used as active wheels and a caster wheel adds stability to a
robot, providing a triangular support polygon, and is used to
allow free rotation (Fig. 2).
B. Steering Wheel
Steering wheels name comes from their steering mechanism,
which acts through a drivetrain mechanism of a robot. Thus,
a steering motor controls a steering direction (to the left or
to the right) of the wheels and this way a motion direction,
while a drive motor transfers a torque to the wheels to provide
forward and backward movement.
Steering wheels are typically used in four-wheeled (e.g., Fig. 3. Steering wheels configurations: (a) a generic view of configuration,
car-like robots, Fig. 3a, b, c), three-wheeled (e.g., triangular (b) an Ackerman drive configuration, (c) a near omni drive configuration, (d)
steering wheels and a caster passive wheel.
cart-like platforms, Fig. 3d) and two-wheeled configurations
(e.g., bicycle). For a three-wheeled configuration it is popular
to combine two active steering wheels with a single caster wheels and caster wheels. While comparing the wheels we
wheel in a role of a passive wheel (Fig. 3d) emphasize the two following points:
C. Universal Omni Wheel • Physically conventional wheels and steering wheels are
A configuration can be optimally composed using three of the same, but they differ in mechanical parameters
four wheels. Three universal wheels could be mounted on • We do not explicitly distinguish caster wheels and ball
a triangular platform with their axes being inclined by 120 caster wheels (spherical wheels)
degrees relative to each other (Fig. 4a and Fig. 6, left). For our comparison we selected general mechanical prop-
In four-wheeled design two configurations are typical: erties: manufacturing complexity [11], sensitivity to a rough
1) Wheels are located symmetrically on the sides of a surface, sensitivity to small (extraneous) objects on the sur-
square mobile platform base (Fig. 4b) with the 90 face [13] [19], possible wheels configuration (guided by the
degrees angle between the wheels configurations that we have discussed earlier in the paper)
2) Wheels are located symmetrically at the corners of a [13], minimal required quantity of wheels (minimal quantity of
square mobile platform base and their axes are inclined sufficient robot configuration) and degrees of freedom (DoF).
by 90 degrees relative to each other (Fig. 4 c) [13] Next, we compared two technical parameters of wheels and
Examples of such universal wheels designs could be found investigated the approximate values using technical informa-
in [14], [15]. tion in websites of wheel manufacturers and their suppliers
[22], [23], [24], [25]. For reader convenience, we present the
D. Mecanum Wheel results in three separate tables.
With Mecanum omnidirectional wheels a typical platform Table I presents the results of comparison of general pa-
has a rectangular or a square shape and the wheels are located rameters of different wheel types. For such parameters as
in a car-like style (Fig. 5, Fig. 6 right): they are mounted in- sensitivity to floor conditions and manufacturing complexity
line to each other. While usually robots use four Mecanum simple wheel types (conventional, steering, and swivel caster)
wheels, this is not a strong limitation [16], [17], [18], [19], provide the best solution. They do not have complex design
[20] [21]. and are almost robust for rough surface of up to some degree of
roughness. At the same time, ball caster wheels are sensitive to
IV. W HEELS C OMPARISON small objects that may appear on a locomotion surface because
In this Section we compared certain type of wheels and a space between a spinning sphere and its cap may be clogged
make analysis of strengths and drawbacks of each type of
wheels. For comparison we will use following type of wheels:
conventional wheels, universal wheels, Mecanum, steering

Fig. 2. Configuration of a differential drive robot with conventional wheels Fig. 4. Universal wheel configurations: (a) triangular base; (b) square base,
and a passive caster wheel. wheels are on the sides; (c) square base, wheels are at the corners.
 TABLE II
M ECHANICAL PARAMETERS OF WHEELS AND CONFIGURATIONS

Type of Possible wheels Minimal required

DoF
a wheel configuration number of wheels
Conventional 2 or more wheels 2 1
2 (+1 DW)
Fig. 5. Configuration of Mecanum wheels. Steering 2 (+1 DW) 2
3, 4 wheels
1
Caster 1 (as PC) 1, 2, 3
TABLE I (as PC)
G ENERAL PARAMETERS OF WHEELS Universal 3 or 4 wheels 3 3
Mecanum 4 or more wheels 4 3
Sensitivity to
Type of Manufacturing Sensitivity to a small
a wheel complexity rough surface objects TABLE III
on a surface T ECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Conventional Low Low Low
Steering Low Low Low Type of Minimum
Maximum load
Caster wheel Low Low Low a wheel required diameter
Caster ball Low Low High
Conventional
Universal Medium High High 50,8 mm Up to 40-60 kg
and steering
Mecanum High High High
Caster 25,4 mm 15 kg
Universal 101,6 mm 2-30 kg
Mecanum 101,6 mm 7-15 kg
with small particles.
Table II compares mechanical parameters of wheels and
their configurations. In the second and third columns DW wheel is optimally used in car-like wheels arrangement for
denotes other (different) wheels, while P C means that a four wheels.
wheel is considered through a prism of being a part of a Table III contains technical information about wheels that
complicated configuration with other (different) wheels. A can be useful for designing a mobile robot model. Each
conventional wheel has only one degree of freedom (moving wheel type has some minimal diameter and maximum load
forward and backward), but requires at least two wheels capacity. We selected these parameters because they determine
in a case of differential drive robot and actually does not the possible degree of load on the wheels from the robot mass
have upper limits on a number of wheels to be integrated and also indicate minimum required wheel‘s size for platform
into a mobile platform base. However, conventional wheels construction. Such information is need to construct mobile
cannot provide an omnidirectional mobility. Steering wheels platform design properly with desired weight of a platform.
have two degrees of freedom (moving forward and backward, Again, a conventional wheel has the best load capacity due
and a rotation around a vertical axis) and can be used in its simple design, while omnidirectional wheels are more
several configurations: two wheels (e.g., with an additional sensitive to maximum load parameter.
passive caster), three wheels (as synchronized wheels), and Thus, each type of a wheel has its own strengths and
four wheels as car-like robot. A caster wheel type contains drawbacks. Conventional wheels are very reliable and robust,
three different types and each type has its own degree of but do not provide a free locomotion in any direction as
freedom value. A caster ball has 3 degrees of freedom due to omnidirectional wheels do. Omni wheels are an excellent
its design, but can be implemented only as a passive wheel. A choice to ensure robot’s maneuverability in indoor and narrow
swivel caster has two DoF and is also used as a passive wheel space, but are probably the worst choice for outdoor tasks.
only. The third type of a caster (a rigid wheel) has only one Caster wheels are an optimal and simple way to support a
DoF. Omnidirectional wheels have 3 DoF: universal wheels more free locomotion for classical wheels (conventional and
provide configuration of three or four wheels, while a Swedish steering). All of the above-mentioned wheels have preferable
configurations for designing a mobile platform. However, at
the beginning stages of a new mobile platform design the
major questions are determining a working environment of
the robot, its intended tasks and an approximate robot weight
while being fully loaded. The answers for these questions will
allow a correct selection of wheel arrangement, type and sizes.

V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper we compared certain types of wheels: conven-
Fig. 6. Example of omni drive robot platform using three universal wheels tional wheel, steering wheel, caster wheel, Mecanum wheel
[14] (left) and four Mecanum wheels [20] (right). and universal wheel to facilitate the question of selecting the
most suitable wheel type and configuration for constructing a [14] O. Y. Ismael and J. Hedley, “Analysis, design, and implementation of
mobile platform. We selected mechanical parameters and tech- an omnidirectional mobile robot platform,” American Scientific Research
Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), vol. 22,
nical values to investigate the question of existing strengths no. 1, pp. 195–209, 2016.
and drawback of each type. The general and mechanical [15] R. Rojas and A. G. Förster, “Holonomic control of a robot with an
parameters for the comparison included manufacturing com- omnidirectional drive,” KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 12–
17, 2006.
plexity, sensitivity to a rough locomotion surface, sensitivity to [16] P. Wu, K. Wang, J. Zhang, and Q. Zhang, “Optimal design for pid
small (extraneous) objects on a locomotion surface, possible controller based on de algorithm in omnidirectional mobile robot,” in
wheels configuration, minimal required number of wheels and MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 95. EDP Sciences, 2017, p. 08014.
[17] L. Sarmento, F. Nunes, R. S. Martins, J. Sepúlveda, and J. S. Esteves,
degrees of freedom. For the second comparison we selected “Remote control system for a mobile platform with four mecanum
minimal required size and maximum load capacity. As a result, wheels,” International Journal, no. 1, p. 274, 2017.
each type of a wheel has its own strengths and drawbacks. [18] H. M. Yip, K. K. Ho, M. H. A. Chu, and K. W. Lai, “Development of an
omnidirectional mobile robot using a rgb-d sensor for indoor navigation,”
Conventional wheels are robust, but do not provide such in Cyber Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems
maneuverability as omnidirectional wheels. However, omni (CYBER), 2014 IEEE 4th Annual International Conference on. IEEE,
wheels have complex manufacture design and high sensitivity 2014, pp. 162–167.
[19] J. Wu, C. Lv, L. Zhao, R. Li, and G. Wang, “Design and implementation
to locomotion surface conditions. Therefore, the first step of of an omnidirectional mobile robot platform with unified i/o interfaces,”
designing and selecting the wheels is awareness of further in Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), 2017 IEEE International
robots workspace and application area. Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 410–415.
[20] J. E. M. Salih, M. Rizon, S. Yaacob, A. H. Adom, and M. R. Ma-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS mat, “Designing omni-directional mobile robot with mecanum wheel,”
American Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1831–1835,
This work was performed according to the Russian Gov- 2006.
ernment Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal [21] J. Tapia, E. Wineman, P. Benavidez, A. Jaimes, E. Cobb, J. Parsi,
D. Clifton, M. Jamshidi, and B. Champion, “Autonomous mobile
University. robot platform with multi-variant task-specific end-effector and voice
activation,” in World Automation Congress (WAC), 2016. IEEE, 2016,
R EFERENCES pp. 1–6.
[1] L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, Modelling and control of robot manipu- [22] “Andymark,” https://www.andymark.com/, accessed: 2018-04-24.
lators. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. [23] “Active-robots quality robotics and electronics,” https://www.
[2] W. M. Nunes, L. A. O. Rodrigues, L. P. Oliveira, J. F. Ribeiro, J. C. M. active-robots.com/, accessed: 2018-04-24.
Carvalho, and R. S. Gonçalves, “Cable-based parallel manipulator for [24] “parkfun start something,” https://www.sparkfun.com/, accessed: 2018-
rehabilitation of shoulder and elbow movements,” in Rehabilitation 04-24.
Robotics (ICORR), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, [25] “Robotshop,” https://www.robotshop.com/, accessed: 2018-04-24.
2011, pp. 1–6.
[3] J. V. Gómez, N. Mavridis, and S. Garrido, “Social path planning: Generic
human-robot interaction framework for robotic navigation tasks,” in
2nd Intl. Workshop on Cognitive Robotics Systems: Replicating Human
Actions and Activities, 2013.
[4] A. Vokhmintsev, M. Timchenko, and K. Yakovlev, “Simultaneous local-
ization and mapping in unknown environment using dynamic matching
of images and registration of point clouds,” in Industrial Engineering,
Applications and Manufacturing (ICIEAM), International Conference
on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[5] E. Magid and T. Tsubouchi, “Static balance for rescue robot navigation-
translation motion discretization issue within random step environment.”
in ICINCO (2), 2010, pp. 415–422.
[6] D. Kim, W. Chung, and S. Park, “Practical motion planning for car-
parking control in narrow environment,” IET control theory & applica-
tions, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 129–139, 2010.
[7] E. Magid and A. Sagitov, “Towards robot fall detection and management
for russian humanoid ar-601,” in KES International Symposium on Agent
and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications. Springer,
2017, pp. 200–209.
[8] A. Ramirez-Serrano and R. Kuzyk, “Modified mecanum wheels for
traversing rough terrains,” in Autonomic and Autonomous Systems
(ICAS), 2010 Sixth International Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 97–
103.
[9] C. Ren and S. Ma, “Analysis and control of an omnidirectional mobile
robot,” in Robotics (ISR), 2013 44th International Symposium on. IEEE,
2013, pp. 1–6.
[10] R. Siegwart, I. R. Nourbakhsh, and D. Scaramuzza, Introduction to
autonomous mobile robots. MIT press, 2011.
[11] I. Doroftei, V. Grosu, and V. Spinu, “Omnidirectional mobile robot-
design and implementation,” in Bioinspiration and Robotics Walking
and Climbing Robots. InTech, 2007.
[12] B. Ilon, “Directionally stable self propelled vehicle,” Jul. 17 1973, uS
Patent 3,746,112.
[13] K. Kanjanawanishkul, “Omnidirectional wheeled mobile robots: wheel
types and practical applications,” International Journal of Advanced
Mechatronic Systems, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 289–302, 2015.

View publication stats