MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution
Journal Article

Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution

2025
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Precise modeling of differential drive robots is crucial for effective control and trajectory planning in autonomous systems. A comparative analysis of two modeling approaches for a four-wheel differential drive robot is presented in this paper. The first approach, named Motor-Based Model (MBM), identifies four transfer functions, one for each motor, while the second approach, named Simplified Model (SM), uses only two transfer functions, one for linear velocity and another for angular velocity. Both models were validated by comparing their predicted trajectories against real odometry data obtained from a SLAM system implemented on a differential-drive robot. This provided a practical assessment of each model’s accuracy and underscored the importance of model selection in control design and navigation tasks. The results showed that the Motor-Based Model (MBM) consistently outperformed the Simplified Model (SM) in terms of odometry accuracy, both in position and orientation. Across all trajectories, the average RMSE for position using MBM was 0.309 m, while the SM recorded a higher average RMSE of 0.414 m. Similarly, the maximum position error averaged 0.522 m for MBM and 0.710 m for SM, confirming that MBM is more accurate and consistent in position tracking. Regarding the results of orientation estimation, when averaged across all experiments, the MBM maintained a lower angular RMSE of 0.170 rad in contrast to SM, which achieves an RMSE of 0.239 rad. The maximum angular error was also higher for the MBM at 0.316 rad, compared to 0.447 rad for the SM. Moreover, the computational performance evaluation indicated that the SM consistently outperformed MBM, achieving a 30% reduction in simulation time and substantially lower memory usage. These results demonstrate the relationship between model complexity and accuracy and suggest that the motor-specific model is more appropriate for applications requiring precise mapping or localization, such as SLAM, while the simplified model may be suitable for simpler use cases with lower computational requirements, such as embedded systems with limited resources. This paper provides a practical evaluation of the accuracy and computational performance of two modeling approaches, highlighting the implications of model selection for the design of navigation tasks.