Automation in intralogistics has developed at a rapid pace. More and more companies are turning to automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) to make processes more flexible, faster and more cost-effective. Yet whilst fleet management, navigation and software interfaces have long been subject to strategic planning, one aspect is surprisingly often left to chance: the power supply.
Anyone walking through a car factory or a large distribution centre today will often find an ad hoc structure: here an AGV project for supplying the assembly line, there one for goods-in, and a third for order picking. Each of these projects was planned, tendered for and implemented individually – often by different manufacturers.
The result: each AGV supplier has brought its own charging technology, decided for itself where to position charging points, and registered its own rated connection capacities with the network operator. What began as a pragmatic solution has now become a cost driver. In the worst-case scenario, five different AGV projects mean five separate charging infrastructures with five times the installation costs.
“The fragmentation of the charging infrastructure is a relic from a time when FTS projects were viewed as isolated islands,” explains Matthieu Ebert, Director of Product & Technology at Wiferion. “Today, as companies seek to network and scale their fleets, this approach is becoming a bottleneck.”
Other sectors are leading the way
Interestingly, neighbouring sectors have already solved this problem. In electric mobility, it was clear from the outset that electric cars must be able to charge at all charging stations, not just manufacturer-specific ones. Harmonising the charging infrastructure was not an option, but a prerequisite for market success. Even the forklift truck industry established a standardised manual charging plug early on with the Rema plug.
Only the AGV sector is clinging to the lock-in effect. For now. Because the pressure is mounting. The VDA 5050 initiative shows the way forward: operators no longer want to be dictated to, having to use five manufacturers with five fleet managers for five processes. The harmonisation of core value creation – vehicle control and fleet management – is in full swing. The next logical step is the power supply.
The underestimated potential for savings: rated power and floor space
Operators who take control of their own charging infrastructure stand to gain significant economic benefits. The most important of these is the reduction in nominal grid connection capacity.
Under the traditional ‘island’ approach, each AGV project registers its own rated power, calculated for the theoretical maximum scenario where all vehicles are charging simultaneously at full power. In practice, this never happens. “If an operator runs five FTS projects in parallel, they do not need five times the full rated power with a harmonised infrastructure,” says Ebert. “The savings in grid connection power are substantial, particularly at high charging power levels, where every additional kilowatt really adds to the cost.”
There are also other cost-saving factors: fewer charging points due to higher utilisation mean less installation work. And this should not be underestimated. A charger costs a certain amount. Before it is installed, there are additional costs for electrical installation, cabling, circuit protection and commissioning. Roughly speaking, the cost per charging point doubles as a result of installation. On top of this come space costs: every square metre reserved for charging zones is unavailable for value-adding processes.
Ownership shifts to the operator
The crucial question is: who actually decides where charging points are positioned and which technology is used? Historically, this decision lay with the AGV manufacturer. But that is currently changing fundamentally.
In practice, the operator has long held indirect ownership of the charging points. They define the handover stations, the stopping points and the process flows. This automatically determines the pool of possible charging positions. With in-process charging – charging during process stops that occur anyway – this interdependence becomes particularly clear.
In large greenfield projects, operators now take a more holistic approach. If a centralised fleet management system is already in use, why shouldn’t the charging infrastructure also be planned in a uniform manner? Instead of procuring four proprietary charging systems from four AGV manufacturers, a harmonised infrastructure can supply all vehicles.
“We are seeing that more and more large projects are already being put out to tender with the requirement to use a specific charging technology,” reports Ebert. “The choice of charging technology is either specified by the customer or decided in consultation with the manufacturer.”
Why wireless charging is the logical solution
In theory, a standardised plug could also be the solution to one of the most pressing problems in mobile robotics. In practice, however, this is thwarted by physical constraints: differing vehicle heights, designs and docking positions make a universal mechanical connection virtually impossible.
Contactless inductive charging, on the other hand, offers precisely the flexibility required for a cross-manufacturer infrastructure. The positioning tolerances are high enough to accommodate different vehicle types. There are no mechanical wear parts, no contact issues and no maintenance requirements.
Conclusion: Charging infrastructure as a strategic priority
The days when the power supply for AGV fleets was simply ticked off as a technical detail are over. Anyone investing in automation today should treat the charging infrastructure as an architectural issue from the outset, rather than as an afterthought to the purchase of robots.
Operators who embrace this paradigm shift benefit in several ways: they reduce costs relating to grid connection, installation and floor space. They gain flexibility in their choice of AGV manufacturers. And they create an infrastructure that grows with their requirements – from the first pilot installation to a fully automated factory.
“The question is no longer whether harmonisation is coming,” summarises Matthieu Ebert. “The question is how quickly it will come, which AGV operators will see it as an opportunity, and which AGV manufacturers will view the interoperability requirement as an opportunity rather than a threat.”
