Classical Soil Mechanics

Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra
Review
Digging and pushing lunar regolith: Classical soil mechanics

and the forces needed for excavation and traction
Allen Wilkinson *, Alfred DeGennaro
Fluid Physics and Transport Branch, NASA Glenn Research Center, M.S. 110-3, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135, United States
Received 11 January 2006; received in revised form 6 September 2006; accepted 7 September 2006
Available online 13 November 2006
Abstract
There are many notional systems for excavating lunar regolith in NASAs Exploration Vision. Quantitative system performance comparisons are scarce in the literature. This paper focuses on the required forces for excavation and traction as quantitative predictors of
system feasibility. The rich history of terrestrial soil mechanics is adapted to extant lunar regolith parameters to calculate the forces. The
soil mechanics literature often acknowledges the approximate results from the numerous excavation force models in use. An intent of this
paper is to examine their variations in the lunar context. Six excavation models and one traction model are presented. The eects of soil
properties are explored for each excavation model, for example, soil cohesion and friction, toolsoil adhesion, and soil density. Excavation operational parameters like digging depth, rake angle, gravity, and surcharge are examined. For the traction model, soil, operational, and machine design parameters are varied to probe choices. Mathematical anomalies are noted for several models. One
conclusion is that the excavation models yield such disparate results that lunar-eld testing is prudent. All the equations and graphs presented have been programmed for design use. Parameter ranges and units are included.
Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.
1. Introduction
The parameters described in Fig. 1 are used throughout
Sections 2 and 3 of this paper. It will become clear that the
tool digging depth, d, soil internal cohesion forces, c (soil
soil sliding along the shear failure surface plane), rake
angle, b, and external friction forces (soil sliding on the
blade) related to the external friction angle, d, and toolsoil
adhesion, Ca and/or l, are the most prominent variables.
Gravity manifests itself in this paper only by way of the soil
weight. A likely overconsolidation ratio greater than one
for virgin regolith due to meteorite impact, tidal and thermal lunar quakes, and gravity settlement will induce memory eects on soil cohesion and toolsoil adhesion. The
vacuum and plasma active lunar ambient environment also
will induce particle surface activity that aects adhesion
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 216 433 2075; fax: +1 216 433 3793.
E-mail addresses: aw@grc.nasa.gov, Allen.Wilkinson@grc.nasa.gov
(A. Wilkinson).
0022-4898/$20.00 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of ISTVS.
doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2006.09.001
and cohesion. Some models include an inertial force

required to give the soil its kinetic energy (v2) for moving
with the blade. Some models include surcharge pressure,
q, due to soil mounding above the reference level of the original soil surface. These models allow the machine force, T,
to be applied to the excavator blade at an arbitrary angle,
d, with horizontal, H, and vertical, V, forces resolved. All
models here include soil density and some cohesion eects
as a minimum. The contributions of each of the physical
sources in the models, like cohesion, are shown separately
in the gures, except for the Osman model. Appendix A
gives the exact expressions used for each physical source
in each model plot.
Table 1 gives the parameter settings used in Sections 2
and 3, except when a parameter is varied in the plots of
Figs. 26, 8 and 9. This parameter set represents Apollo
lunar soil parameters to the extent they exist [1]. Appendix
B provides more denition and plausible ranges for these
parameters from terrestrial and lunar sources. No single
model uses all of these parameters.
134
A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152
Fig. 1. Denition of angles and parameters [2].
Table 1
Parameter set (SI units) used for Balovnev, Gill, McKyes, Osman, Swick
and Viking models
Tool width, w
Tool length, l
Tool depth, d
Side length, ls
Side thickness, s
Blunt edge angle, ab
Blunt edge thickness, eb
Moon gravity, gM
Earth gravity, gE
Soil specic mass, c
Surcharge mass, q
Rake angle, b
Shear plane failure angle, q
Tool speed, v
Gills cut resistance index, K
Cohesion, c
Internal friction angle, /
Soiltool adhesion, Ca
Soiltool normal force, N0
External friction angle, d
Osman-d1
Osman-d2
Osman-d3
Osman-d4
Osman-d5
Osman-d6
Osman-d7
Log radius, w 0
Base log radius, r0
Calculated log radius, r1
Rankine passive depth, t
Values
Units
1
0.7
0.5
0.56
0.02
40
0.05
1.63
9.81
1680
1
45
30
0.1
1000
170
35
1930
100
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.17
0.5
m
m
m
m
m
deg
m
m/s2
m/s2
kg/m3
kg/m2
deg
deg
m/s
N/m
N/m2
deg
N/m2
N
deg
m
m
m
Lunar soil parameters are used where available.
When using excavation and traction results here, one

would balance H with the drawbar pull while V contributes to the eective weight of the vehicle, either heavier
or lighter. Using known soil parameters, one adjusts
machine parameters until H and drawbar pull match,
with some established drawbar pull over-design factor.
Given that we do not know the soil parameters precisely,
one has to do soil parametric studies to be sure the
design is tolerant.
Beyond the scope of this work is the customary eld
testing required to validate design with reality. Field testing
is a very expensive proposition for lunar exploration that
needs careful consideration in order to avoid robotic or
human support failures.
2. 2-D models of excavation

2.1. Osman [2,3]
This model uniquely allows for a curved soil shear failure surface. A curved failure surface is more realistic in
excavating than the at surface other models assume, but
is determined by some authors as not a signicant enough
quantitative contribution to warrant the mathematical difculty. The Osman model contains surcharge and toolsoil
eects, while it lacks the inertial forces that bring the soil
from rest up to the speed of the tool. This model also lacks
explicit inclusion of the soil internal friction angle.
The excavation force equation is

0
e2w tan q 1 2
2
2
r0 gcd 2
T w 0:5gct ftan 45 0:5qgd 1
4 tan q

gqtftan2 45 0:5qgd 4 d 1
3

c
2ctftan45 0:5qgd 4
w 0:5r21 r20
tan q

gqt
d 5 C a ld 7 d 1
1
6
sin45 0:5q
and the horizontal and vertical components of the total
force, T, are
H T sinb d;
V T cosb d:
The authors here do not develop the use of this model
since the dis are indeterminate in the original Osman
paper. To get the dis an optimizing iteration is required
on a parameter k, related to the location of the center of
rotation of the log-radius shear surface, that is not mathematically explicit in the formulation by either Osman or
Blouin. As a result no quantitative conclusions are merited
here. Fig. 2 shows the behavior of H for several parameters
while holding all other parameters constant as in Table 1.
The dis used in this gure are arbitrary. In this model certain values of q will cause the tan(f(q)) and 1/tan(q) functions to become divergent.
2.2. Gill and Vanden Berg [2,4]
This model, like Osmans, is of older origins. It adds an
inertial force contribution with the tool velocity term. Surcharge is missing from this model, but simplied toolsoil
Force (N)
7000
6000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
150
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
15000
6000
Force (N)
7000
8000
35000
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
5000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1000
2000
3000
4000
Cohesion, c (N/m 2 )
Soil Mass Density, (kg/m 3 )
Horizontal Force vs
Initial Log Spiral Radius
30000
Force (N)
6000
5000
10000
4000
20000
7000
40000
8000
50000
Horizontal Force vs
Log Spiral Angle
Force (N)
100
Surcharge, q (N/m2 )
5000
Force (N)
50
Rankine Passive Depth, t (m)

Osman
25000
Force (N)
5000
0.2
5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700
Horizontal Force vs
Surcharge
8000
Horizontal Force vs
Rankine Passive Depth
135
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Log Spiral Angle, w (radians)
Initial Log Spiral Radius, r0 (m)
Fig. 2. Osmans required drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.
friction, soilsoil cohesion, and inertial forces are included.

In the simplest form, the model for the horizontal force can
be written as
H N o sin b dN o cos b K w
with an ideal penetration cutting force term contained in
K w. Blouin re-writes the force equation to allow leaving
out that force as
H H K w N o sin b dN o cos b:
Eq. (2) breaks out the full complexity of No

sinb q
d cosb q d sinb q tan b
l
H gc
sin q
2 sin q
2 sin q

2
c
cv sin b
sin qsin q / cos q sinb qsin q / cos q

wdsin b d cos bsin q / cos q
:
2

sinq b1 /d cosq b/ d
10000
Force (N)
4000
6000
8000
total
cut
tool_soil
depth
cohesion
kinetic
2000
2000
Force (N)
Horizontal Force vs
Rake Angle
14000
10000
Horizontal Force vs
Tool Depth
6000
136
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
20
40
60
Rake Angle,, (deg)
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Internal Friction Angle
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
80
6000
2000
4000
Force (N)
3000
2000
0
1000
Force (N)
4000
8000
Depth, d (m)
Gill
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1000
2000
3000
Horizontal Force vs
Gravity
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
4000
4000
Force (N)
2000
10000
5000
Force (N)
15000
6000
20000
Internal Friction Angle, (deg)
10
Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)
Fig. 3. Gills drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.
The penetration K w term is kept in results here as it has

signicant magnitude. The total and vertical components
of this force are
T H cscb d;
V H cotb d:
From this point forward plot results will show the individual contributions of physical sources of the forces in order
to gauge their relative contributions. Appendix A gives

the exact expressions used for each physical source noted
by the legends. See Fig. 3 for the predicted drawbar force
requirement under the variation of several parameters while
holding all other parameters constant as in Table 1. This
model indicates that depth and toolsoil friction are the
dominant contributors to the drawbar pull required for
excavation. Depth, gravity, and rake angle, b, present the

Horizontal Force vs
Tool Depth
3000
2000
Force (N)
0
1000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
20
40
60
Rake Angle, (deg)
Horizontal Force vs
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
80
3000
Force (N)
1000
0
1000
2000
1500
4000
2000
Depth, d (m)
Swick
500
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1000
2000
3000
Horizontal Force vs
Gravity
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
4000
1500
0
1000
500
2000
3000
Force (N)
4000
2000
5000
1000
Force (N)
1000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Force (N)
Horizontal Force vs
Rake Angle
total
surcharge
tool_soil
depth
cohesion
kinetic
0.2
Force (N)
137
10
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Fig. 4. Swick and Perumpral drawbar force variation for the dominant parameters.
strongest functional dependence. The lunar soil cohesion

used here makes cohesion a small contribution. Cohesion
as a parameter projects roughly a 100% increase over the
range, while the internal friction angle, /, projects a 34% increase. Over a plausible range of soil density the required
drawbar force increases by 120% in a linear way, although
no eect of density on K was allowed here. This model presents mathematical problems as the rake angle, b, ap-
proaches 90, as it might for a backhoe, due to the tanb

factor in the rst line of Eq. (2).
2.3. Swick and Perumpral [2,5]
The Swick and Perumpral model includes a more
sophisticated toolsoil friction term with the adhesion
parameter Ca. All the physical eects of a simple blade
138

Horizontal Force vs
Rake Angle
Horizontal Force vs
Tool Depth
3000
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
20
40
60
Rake Angle, (deg)
Horizontal Force vs
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
80
3000
Force (N)
1000
0
1000
2000
1500
4000
2000
Depth, d (m)
McKyes
500
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1000
2000
3000
Horizontal Force vs
Gravity
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
4000
1500
0
1000
500
2000
3000
Force (N)
4000
2000
5000
1000
Force (N)
2000
Force (N)
0
1000
0.2
Force (N)
1000
2000
1000
Force (N)
3000
4000
total
surcharge
tool_soil
depth
cohesion
kinetic
10
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Fig. 5. McKyes drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.
without end eects are included in this model. The magnitude of the total force is written as follows:

C a cosb / q gcd
cot b cot q sin/ q

T
sin b
2

c cos / cv2 sin b cos /
gqcot b cot q sin/ q
sin q
sinb q
wd

sinb / q d
3
force, T, are
H T sinb d;
V T cosb d:
See Fig. 4 for the variation of H for several parameters. This
model is problematic for certain angle ranges. If b + / +
q + d P 180, then the multiplier on the last line of Eq. (3)
passes through a singularity and jumps negative. If b + /
+ q < 90, then the toolsoil force is non-physical for small
rake angles, b, which comes from the Ca term in Eq. (3).
This paper considered using the rule that q = 45 + //2.
However, that produced the singular multiplier using lunar
soil parameters at larger rake angles. As a result a xed value
of q is chosen in Table 1, that of a sand [6]. This still produced
5000
Force (N)
4000
1000
3000
6000
8000
total
friction
cohesion
kinetic
2000
Force (N)
Horizontal Force vs
Rake Angle
7000
Horizontal Force vs
Tool Depth
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
20
40
60
80
Rake Angle, (deg)
Depth, d (m)
Muff
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
4000
0
500
2000
1500
Force (N)
2500
6000
8000
3500
Horizontal Force vs
Tool Velocity
Force (N)
139
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
1000
3000
4000
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
5000
Force (N)
10000
1000
5000
3000
15000
20000
7000
Horizontal Force vs
Gravity
Force (N)
2000
Cohesion, c (N/m2)
Tool Velocity, v (m/s)
10
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Fig. 6. Viking models drawbar force variation for signicant parameters under lunar conditions.
the negative toolsoil force contribution as seen in the horizontal force vs. rake angle plot in Fig. 4.
If one accepts that the failure plane angle in triaxial
shear cell tests is the same angle as q, then using the Mohr
stress circle dened by triaxial test results, one gets
q = 45 + //2 [7, p. 1415]. Hoek also suggests that q
depends on b as well [8]. Some forms of dependence of q
on b could either eliminate or exacerbate the singular multiplier problem, depending on the form.
Overall, depth remains the largest contributing term as it
was for Gill. Depth, gravity, and rake angle show strong
eects. However, soilsoil cohesion has a strong dependence at values larger than the lunar value here with
a 270% increase over the range plotted. Soil internal friction

angle, /, projects a 150% increase over the range. Soil density shows a 90% increase over the range plotted. Surcharge
remains small as its chosen mass per area here is small.
2.4. McKyes [2,7]
Like Swick and Perumpral, the McKyes model includes
all the physical eects of a two-dimensional blade without
end eects. This model is an enhancement of early work by
Reece [9]. In the simplest form this model shows a heritage
from the Terzaghi coecients, Nx [10]. The total force
equation is
140
T wcgd 2 N c cdN c C a dN ca gqdN q cm2 dN a ;

cgdcot b cot q
gqcot b cot q
T
2
c1 cot q cotq / C a 1 cot b cotq /

cv2 tan q cotq /
wd
1 tan q cot b
cosb d sinb d cotq /
4

force, T, are
H T sinb d;
V T cosb d:
A feature of the results in Fig. 5 is the quantitative
equivalence to Swick and Perumpral, even with a dierent mathematical description. However, the chief dierence between Eqs. (3) and (4) is in the handling of the
trigonometric factors. This model shows the same mathematical problems for the angle sums as noted in Section
2.3; negative toolsoil adhesion force for some rake angles depending on the choices of q and / and a vanishing
divisor on the last line of Eq. (4) for other rake angles.
Together these cause concern for the generality of these
models.
2.5. Lockheed-Martin/Viking [1113]
This model was used by Martin-Marietta Corp. in cooperation with the Colorado School of Mines for design of
the Mars Viking lander robotic excavation arm. The original forms come from Luth and Wismer testing sands for
friction terms and clays for cohesive terms [12,13]. These
equations are also in active application for characterization
of a bucket-wheel excavator for lunar and Martian use.
The model includes toolsoil friction, soilsoil shear resistance due to cohesion, and inertial eects. Velocity has
some non-quadratic contribution in the cohesion equations; v0.121 in Hcohesion and v0.041 in Vcohesion. Surcharge,
shear plane failure angle and soiltool adhesion are not factors in this model. The use of assorted exponents and constant terms make it hard to reect on the physical details of
the model.
H and V stand for horizontal and vertical force components respectively in Eqs. (5)
0:77
p
d
H friction cgwl1:5 b1:73 d
l sin b
(
)
1:1
d
v2
1:05
1:26 3:91 ;
w
gl

0:777
p
d
2
1:5
V friction cgwl
d f0:193 b 0:714 g
l sin b
(
)
0:966
2
d
v
1:31
1:43 5:60 ;
w
gl

1:21
p
d
d
H cohesion cgwl b
l sin b
(
!
1:21 0:121
0:78
11:5c
2v
d

0:055
0:065
cgd
3w
w

v2
;
0:64
gl

p
d
3
1:5
V cohesion cgwl
d f0:48 b 0:70 g
l sin b
(
!
0:41 0:041
0:225
11:5c
2v
d
9:2
5:0

cgd
3w
w

v2
0:24
:
5
gl
Examining Fig. 6, friction contributions far outweigh other
contributions under low cohesion lunar conditions and
modest excavation speed. Inertial (kinetic) contributions
remain small as they have in other models in this paper.
Depth, gravity, and rake angle dependence remain strong.
Cohesion eects have a weakly non-linear character as distinct from the other models and projects a 140% increase
over the plotted range. This model, unique from the others
in this paper, almost triples the required drawbar pull over
the density range considered. The angles d, /, and q do not
gure into this model, and the rake angle does not create
the mathematical problems of the Gill, Swick and Perumpral, and McKyes models.
1:5 1:15
2.6. 2-D section summary

In this section the Gill, Swick and Perumpral, along with
the McKyes and Viking models, predict in the plots factorof-2-like dierences between the models in the expected
drawbar forces required under identical lunar conditions.
Cohesion causes drawbar pull requirements to vary more
than soil internal friction for the range of each parameter
considered plausible here. It is beyond the scope of this paper
to survey the comparison of these predictions with terrestrial
eld test data. The authors suggest that the level of quantitative variance in these models requires eld tests in situ on the
lunar surface to validate their design dependability for longterm space hardware procurement. Pending validation the
authors cannot recommend one model over another.
3. 3-D models for excavation
Most excavator buckets have sides that cut through soil
and conne material loss from the bucket. This section
adds the cutting and toolsoil adhesion eects from these
sides. Some Russian workers laid the foundations for this
thinking [1416].
3.1. Hemami [2,17]
Hemami has partitioned the excavation forces with
attention to all the physical actions as identied below.
Fig. 7 illustrates these forces. Eq. (6) adds up all the horizontal (x) components
F x f1x f2x f3x f4x f5x f6x ;
where f1 is the weight of the accumulating material in the

bucket, f2 is the resistance from compacting the material,
f3 is all the friction forces of material sliding on bucket surfaces, f4 is the penetration or cutting resistance, f5 is the
inertial force from accelerating the material to the tool
velocity much like in Section 2. Finally, f6 is the inertial
force to move the empty bucket.
3.2. Balovnev [2,14]
The non-inertial components of Hemamis model can be
further dened by associating the fi to the horizontal forces
according to Balovnev:
f4x P 1 P 2 P 3
and
f 3x P 4 ;
where P1 is the cutting and surface friction resistance of a

at trenching blade with a sharp edge; P2 is the additional
cutting resistance due to resistance from a blunt edge; P3 is
the resistance oered by cutting from the two conning
sides of the bucket; and P4 is the resistance due to friction
on those sides. Interestingly f1, f2, f5, f6 are not included in
this picture. The Russian literature considers these secondary and small [16,15].
The horizontal component of the total force is now written as
H f4x f3x P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4

dgc
c cot / gq BURIED
wd1 cot b cot dA1
2

1 sin /
d l sin b gc
web 1 tan d cot ab
1 sin /

eb gc
1 sin /
c cot / gq dgc
A2
2
1 sin /

dgc
c cot / gq BURIED
2sdA3
2

1 sin /
d ls sin b gc
4 tan dA4 ls d
1 sin /

dgc
c cot / gq BURIED d ls sin b

2

1 sin /
gc
;
7
1 sin /
Fig. 7. Denition of forces used in this section [2].
141
where BURIED = TRUE or FALSE is a 1 or 0 depending

on whether the whole bucket is below the soil surface or
not.

A1 Ab; A2 Aab ; A3 A4 A p2 are geometric
factors depending on the angle of a surface with respect
to a reference plane. To calculate a particular Ai replace
b with the appropriate argument in the following equation:
1 sin / cos2b
1 sin /

sin d
if b < 0:5 sin1
d ;
sin /

q
cos d cos d sin2 / sin2 d

1 sin d
e 2bpdsin sin / tan /
1 sin /

sin d
if b P 0:5 sin1
d :
sin /
Ab
The total and vertical components of this force are

T H cscb d;
V H cotb d:
Table 2 provides horizontal and vertical forces as a function of cutting depth. These numbers are between those
of the Gill and McKyes models. As a compromise they will
be used in the discussions of Section 4.
Fig. 8 shows the dependence on digging depth, soil
density, surcharge, soil cohesion, and gravity. The discontinuity in the Depth plot is caused by the bucket
entering the buried condition. The drawbar force shows
linear dependence on soil cohesion and gravity like all
the other models except the Viking model. Surcharge,
as in all the other models, has little eect unless it is
greatly increased. Soil density causes a 133% increase
of the drawbar force over the range plotted. Cohesion
Table 2
Balovnev data set: Cartesian forces for various excavation depths
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Depth (m)
Horizontal force (N)
Vertical force (N)
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
74.84
156.71
262.87
393.34
548.11
727.17
930.53
1158.19
1410.15
1776.48
2158.48
2577.94
3034.87
3529.27
4061.13
4630.47
5237.27
5881.54
6563.27
7282.48
52.40
109.73
184.07
275.42
383.79
509.17
651.57
810.98
987.40
1243.91
1511.38
1805.09
2125.04
2471.22
2843.64
3242.29
3667.17
4118.30
4595.65
5099.25
142
projects a 740% increase over the plotted range, much

greater than any other model. Depth remains the strongest contributor to the drawbar pull, as it was in the
other models.
Fig. 9 shows the dependence on various angles. The discontinuity in the rake angle plot is due to the bucket exiting
the buried condition as the rake angle increases. The shear
plane failure angle, q, does not enter this model. The rake
angle in various angle summations does not create the
problem noted for the Gill, Swick and Perumpral, and
McKyes models. However, if d is greater than /, then
A(b) misbehaves in this model. Overall though, the qualitative shapes of the curves are similar to the other models.
The Balovnev model shows that the blunt edge has little
eect. Soiltool adhesion caused by the sides is a prominent
contributor. Side eects are ignored in all Section 2 models.
The soil internal friction angle, /, projects a 130% increase
in horizontal force over the plot range.
3.3. 3-D section summary
In all the excavation models of this paper soil properties
are considered homogeneous. Chapter 9 and Section 1.4 of
the Lunar Sourcebook gives estimated ts of density with

depth [1]. The interdependence of parameters like (b, /, q)
and (g, /, c), which seem physically plausible, are neither
dealt with here nor often in the literature. The Balovnev
model includes some larger contributors to excavation
forces not seen in Section 2. Cohesion causes required
drawbar pull to vary more than it does with soil internal
friction and by a wider margin than in the 2-D models.
Table 3 provides a list of excavation depths for a 1 m wide
bucket that requires a drawbar pull expected for the Apollo
rover as estimated in Section 4 for the moon. Lunar-eld
test data is needed to sort which depth is valid. Pending
validation the authors cannot recommend one model over
another.
4. Traction [1820]
Three notable methods of performing traction calculations are: (1) agricultural engineerings mobility indexbased [21] method, (2) the NATO Reference Mobility
Model [22,23, p. 120] method, and (3) the normal and shear
stress-based method of Bekker [20]. The rst two use data
from cone-penetrometer measurements as the single source
Force (N)
4000
6000
total
surcharge
depth
cohesion
sharp_blade
blunt_blade
sides_cut
sides_friction
500
2000
Force (N)
Horizontal Force vs
Soil Density
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Horizontal Force vs
Tool Depth
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Depth, d (m)
Balovnev.1
Horizontal Force vs
Gravity
6000
4000
Force (N)
2000
0
Force (N)
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
8000
Horizontal Force vs
Cohesion Stress
1000
2000
3000
Cohesion, c (N/m2)
4000
10
Fig. 8. Balovnevs drawbar force variation for some signicant parameters. Note that the sum of surcharge, cohesion, and depth add up to the total force.
Also the sum of sharp_blade (P1), blunt_blade (P2), sides_cut (P3), and sides_friction (P4) add up to the total force in these plots. This break-out was
intended to help comparison to previous models as well as examine the new features of this model.

Horizontal Force vs
Rake Angle
Horizontal Force vs
External Friction Angle
Force (N)
6000
8000
total
surcharge
depth
cohesion
sharp_blade
blunt_blade
sides_cut
sides_friction
2000
4000
2500
2000
1500
Force (N)
1000
500
0
20
40
60
80
Rake Angle, (deg)

Balovnev.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
External Friction Angle, (deg)
Horizontal Force vs
Blunt Edge Thickness
1000
0
500
500
1000
1500
Force (N)
2000
1500
2500
Horizontal Force vs
Force (N)
143
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Blunt Edge Thickness, eb (m)
Fig. 9. Balovnevs required drawbar force variation for additional signicant parameters.
Table 3
Spread of digging depth for roughly the same drawbar pull on the moon
4.1. Soil thrust and slip
Model
Depth (m)
Required drawbar
pull (N)
Gill
McKyes and Swick
and Perumpral
Viking
Balovnev
<0.05
0.15
239
246
Slip directly aects the traction, or drawbar pull. This

paper does not include eects from the inertial forces of
moving the soil during slip. The eect is related to what
we saw for excavation in Section 2. There, the inertial contribution was small.
Patel oers S kxW
2 [23] to calculate slip. The authors use
tL
this form for calculations here. The result of this prediction
for lunar soil is given in Table 4. However, more commonly
it is an experimental observable that is plugged into a calculation. Once the ideal drawbar pull, H0, is calculated, as
seen later in this subsection, there are several forms to calculate the eective drawbar pull before various resistances
are subtracted. At low velocity for plastic soils one computes the eective drawbar pull most simply as [20]
0.062
0.14
239
239
of soil information. The third uses bevameter measurements along with soil cohesion, internal friction angle,
and slippage information for calculations. NASA has historically worked with the Bekker approach (3). The
authors employ the Bekker approach here, while quantitatively examining the eects of several parts of the model
using Apollo lunar rover [24] and soil parameters where
possible.
This paper does not deal with the eects of the running
gear. It focuses on the soil mechanics.
Notation for this section is dened in Fig. 10 and
Appendix B. Further denition is available in Refs.
[18,20]. This model starts from the linear MohrCoulomb
relation between normal and shear stresses, s = c +
r tan /.
H H 0 1 eSL=j :
Another form used for Apollo rovers, assuming plastic

soils, is [1,6]
h
i
j
H H0 1
1 eSL=j :
9
SL
This form is used for the plots shown here. However, the
use of these forms for lunar soils is unclear, as lunar soil
144
soil surface
l
Fig. 10. Simple denition of geometrical parameters for traction.
may well behave as brittle dry granular soils. A form for

soils in general (including brittle soils) is [20, p. 8]

q
2
H H 0 exp K 2 K 2 1 K 1 S L

q
2
exp K 2 K 2 1 K 1 S L :
10
Table 4
Parameter set base: (SI units) used for traction calculations
In Fig. 11 all three of these forms for drawbar pull are compared using values for K1 and K2 that are selected to track
Eq. (9) as well as possible. K1 and K2 are called slip coecients, and values do not exist for lunar soils. Larger values
of K1 cause steeper initial slope and quicker fall-o at larger
slip in plots of H = f(S). K1 is the degree of brittleness, a
cohesion eect. Larger values of K2 cause an increase in
the magnitude of H = f(S) for all slippage values. K2 is
the degree of slip strength, a friction eect. Today one
would measure the drawbar pull versus slippage and t
the curve for the best values of K1 and K2.
Appendix B gives a range for K1 and K2 that span from
loose sand (low cohesion and high friction angle) to brittle/
compact (high cohesion and low friction angle) soils in terrestrial experience [19, p. 2667]. Notice K1 and K2 used
here are of lower cohesion and higher friction angle soil
than a slightly moist sandy loam that Bekker describes.
To get H0, the ideal tractive thrust available, for a vehicle with a soil contact area of A = bL per wheel, track, or
leg, and W is the total vehicle weight, one uses the equation
[18]
W
W
tan /:
H 0 Ac l Ac
n
n
For an n-wheeled or n-legged powered vehicle, total soil
thrust is given by
H 0 nbLc W tan /:
Values
Units
Calculated slippage, S
Calculated sinkage, z
Tire squat, e
Soil rupture angle, q
Soil specic mass, c
Vehicle mass, W
Gravity level, gM
Terrain slope angle, h
Internal friction angle, /
Soil cohesion, c
Calculated wheel/track contact area, A
Wheel nominal width, B
Wheel diameter, D
Calculated wheel contact length, L
Number of wheels/tracks, n
Contact grousers per wheel/track, Ng
Grouser height, h
Calculated k
kc
k/
Calculated Kc
Nc
Calculated Kc
Nc
Calculated l0
kt
Degree of brittleness K1
Slip strength K2
Coecient of surface adhesion, x
Shear deformation slip modulus, j
Soil deformation exponent, n 0
Tracked OR not
8.30
0.00863
0.0081
62.5
1680
698.5
1.63
0
35
170
0.0400
0.27
0.81
0.188
4
4
0.0015875
825,185
1400
820,000
48.6
25
0.537
1.5
0.00234
50
5.56
2.5
0.000518
0.018
1
0
%
m
m
rad
kg/m3
kg
m/s2
deg
deg
N/m2
m2
m
m
m
Calculated net drawbar pull, DP
239
m
0
Pa=mn
n0 1
Pa=m
0
Pa=mn
m
m1
Dierent weight loading per wheel, track, or leg is not considered here for simplicity. Likewise the eects of pre-consolidation or conning pressure from neighboring wheels
or legs on improved soil shear strength and the resultant effects on H0 and slippage is not considered.
For tracked vehicles, the soil thrust increases due to the
greatly increased ground contact area. For two tracks, soil
thrust is given by
H 0 2bLc W tan /:
4.2. Grousers
Grousers, or cleats, are an additional way to engage more
soil (excavation-like) for greater traction. This paper
includes the number of grousers interacting with the soil as
the wheel diameter changes, given a xed grouser spacing.
However, it does not include the soil shear strength decrease
when the grousers are tall enough and close enough to disrupt the soil of neighboring grousers. The Apollo lunar rover
had 54 titanium alloy chevrons, 1.6 mm high, covering 50%
of the wheel surface [24]. This leads to a 2.4 cm spacing
between grousers. For a grousered, n-wheeled/legged vehicle, the maximum soil thrust is given by [19, p. 2267]
H 0 nT 0 W tan /;
m2/N
m
h
where T 0 sN g cos hb
cos
.
qsin q
q
1 = TRUE,
0 = FALSE
N
For a double tracked vehicle with Ng grousers of thickness, or height h, in contact with the soil, the maximum soil
thrust per track is
400
Net Draw Bar Pull (N)
200
1000
1500
2000
Total
Compressive
Bulldozing
600
800
Draw Bar Pull vs

Slippage Alone
Simple Plastic
LSB Plastic
General & Brittle
500
2500
Draw Bar Pull vs

Gravity
10
20
60
80
100
0.00
0.04
200
100
0
k
kc
300
Total
Compressive
Bulldozing
100
5000
300
10000
Draw Bar Pull vs

Modulii of Soil Deformation
5000
10000
40
Slippage, s (%)
Draw Bar Pull vs

Sinkage Alone
0.08
0.12
0e+00
2e+05
8e+05
400
300
0
50
0
200
Total
Compressive
Bulldozing
Total
Compressive
Bulldozing
100
200
150
6e+05
Draw Bar Pull vs

250
Draw Bar Pull vs

Soil Cohesion
100
4e+05
k or 100 X kc
Sinkage, z (m)
145
1000
2000
3000
4000
Soil Cohesion, c (N/m2)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fig. 11. Bekkers predicted drawbar pull as a function of gravity, slippage, sinkage, and soil strength.

2h
h
h
H 0 2N g bLc 1
W tan / cot1 :
b
b
b
4.3. Motion resistances
There are several forces that subtract from the eective
drawbar pull after slippage. These forces are sinkage, bulldozing, and hill climbing, along with others relevant to a
specic context like wheel exure elastic losses or soil inertia with slippage of grousers or transmission and running
gear losses. This paper allows for the rst three. Inertia
losses may be small at low speeds as we saw with the exca-
vation equations earlier. Sinkage and bulldozing depend on

soil behavior.
4.3.1. Soil compaction due to sinkage
Energy is lost in packing down the soil by a wheel, leg, or
track. The modulus of soil deformation, k = kc/b + k/ [20, p.
240, 31340 and 447], provides a cohesional, kc, and frictional, k/, measure of the resistance to compaction due to
sinkage. One should nd kc and K1, as well as k/ and K2,
coupled by their cohesive and frictional physical origins,
respectively. The computer code supporting this paper uses
the general form of sinkage for n wheels or tracks as follows:
146
10 10
n
W
P n
;
11
nAk
k
where the total vehicle weight, W, is rationalized by the total
ground contact area, n A, for the graphs and tables here.
Slippage induced sinkage [20, p. 139] is not covered in
this paper. Multiple passes in the same track by a wheel
is not covered by Eq. (11), unless one has new measurements of k and A.
Another form for sinkage of a balanced n-wheeled vehicle is given by
! 02
2n 1
3W =n
p
z
:
3 n0 k b D
This is not a special case of Eq. (11), but rather an empirical

form which Bekker wrote down that described three dierent
experimental results for a rigid wheel if one uses dierent values of n 0 . See Ref. [20, p. 4379] for more discussion.
Using z of Eq. (11), the soil compaction resistance for n
tracked, wheeled, and legged vehicles is determined
through the following equation [20, p. 458 and 484]:

bk
0
Rc n 0
12
zn 1 :
n 1
4.3.2. Bulldozing
Bulldozing comes from the pushing of soil in front of a
wheel by the action of that wheel. For soft soils with large
sinkage, this term can dominate over compaction losses.
A form for the bulldozing resistance per wheel or track
is [20, p. 453, Eqs. (2)(25)]
Rb
bsina /
2zcK c gcz2 K c
2sinacos/

pgcl30 90 / pcl20
/
2
cl0 tan 45
:
540
2
180
13
Bulldozing for wheeled vehicles involves all the terms of

Eq. (13). But for tracked vehicles, only the rst term is relevant. The key parameters of Eq. (13) are [10]
K c nc tan / cos2 /;

2nc
1 cos2 /
Kc
tan /
and
l0 z tan2 45 /=2:
4.3.3. Gravitational
This force is just the simple projection of the vehicle
weight vector along an incline during ascent or descent, written here as
Rg W sin h:
14
4.4. Drawbar pull
With all the forces in hand the net drawbar pull is written, assuming R is independent of slip, as follows:
DP H R H Rc Rb Rg Rother :
15
Table 4 gives the parameters used for the calculations of

Table 5 and Figs. 11 and 12, except where they were specifically overridden to isolate a particular eect. The table
values reect literature values for the moon and the 4
wheel-drive Apollo lunar rover [1,24].
Table 5 presents the data behind the sinkage plot in
Fig. 11. This predicts that if the Apollo lunar rover were to
sink about 2.1 cm into the regolith, then it would be stuck.
Compressive resistance increases more rapidly with sinkage
than bulldozing resistance for this range of sinkage. Note,
this paper does not develop the consequences of soil parameter changes with depth, like density, as they are not certain
enough in the literature. For example, the lunar surface powder layer that sometimes is crusty is not accounted for at all.
Fig. 11 maps the eects of gravity, slippage, sinkage, and
modulus of sinkage deformation, k, on traction. Realize that
slippage and sinkage, both proportional to vehicle weight in
these calculations, are increasing with increasing gravity.
Also soil shear strength increases with gravity since the normal stress from the vehicle weight increases. Bulldozing resistance increases more rapidly than compressive resistance as
gravity increases. At about two-thirds of Earths gravity
drawbar pull has a maxima for this soil and vehicle.
Recall there are three slippage models above. One might
expect that the lunar soil could be described as brittle rather
than plastic with drawbar pull declining after failure at
around 60% slippage in Fig. 11. The coincidence of the
General and Brittle curve and the Lunar SourceBook
(LSB) Plastic curve is arbitrary, as there is no lunar data
to t for K1 and K2. The K1 and K2 used for the plots are
relevant to a loose frictional sand. The Simple Plastic
and LSB Plastic curves are markedly dierent using
known lunar parameters. The LSB Plastic equation is
used here in all calculations.
Table 5
Drawbar pull versus sinkage under lunar conditions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sinkage (m)
Drawbar pull (N)
Compressive
resistance (N)
Bulldozing
resistance (N)
0.0010
0.0078
0.0145
0.0213
0.0280
0.0348
0.0415
0.0483
0.0550
0.0618
0.0685
0.0753
0.0820
0.0888
0.0955
0.1023
0.1090
0.1158
0.1225
0.1293
292.27
249.26
150.01
2.37
206.39
461.08
765.79
1119.97
1523.20
1975.11
2475.38
3023.72
3619.88
4263.60
4954.67
5692.88
6478.02
7309.90
8188.35
9113.17
0.446
26.764
93.687
201.216
349.350
538.090
767.435
1037.385
1347.940
1699.101
2090.867
2523.238
2996.214
3509.796
4063.983
4658.776
5294.174
5970.177
6686.785
7443.999
0.724
17.420
49.743
94.596
150.475
216.433
291.793
376.026
468.701
569.451
677.955
793.925
917.102
1047.245
1184.128
1327.542
1477.286
1633.167
1795.002
1962.612
250
200
150
0
50
100
250
200
150
100
0
50
300
Draw Bar Pull vs

Wheel Diameter
300
Draw Bar Pull vs

Wheel Width
147
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Wheel Width, B (m)
Wheel Diameter, D (m)

Draw Bar Pull vs
Vehicle Mass
3000
2000
500 1000
240
235
230
220
225
245
Draw Bar Pull vs

Soil Density
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2000
4000
6000
8000
Vehicle Mass, W (kg)
Fig. 12. Bekkers predicted drawbar pull for wheel width, diameter, soil density, and vehicle mass.
The reader should be aware that in the k dependence plot,

when either kc (the cohesive contribution) or k/ (the frictional contribution) are varied, then the other one is set to
its Lunar Sourcebook value. That is why the k/ curve intersects the kc curve when k/ reaches its lunar value. k/ has the
dominant dependence for the soil strength. When k/ < 415
kPa and z > 1.7 cm bulldozing resistance is predicted to
dominate compressive resistance. If that friction contribution were less than roughly 225 kPa, then the rover would
be stuck. The sinkage at this point is about 3 cm, or approximately 4% of the wheel diameter. Perhaps something like
this happened during Apollo when the lunar rover (LRV)
drove in some soft soil. Small k/ gives rise to large sinkage,
that causes the approach angle, a, to be greater than
90; the wheel has sunk over its axel. It is worth asking what
would happen when driving on lose excavated regolith piles
in the future.
The k/ dependence has a mathematical pathology for
the smallest k/. The problem arises from the sin(a + /)/
sin a coecient for the bulldozing resistance in Eq. 13.
When a + / > 180, then Rb is negative, adding to drawbar
pull unphysically. This can be seen in the Draw Bar Pull
vs. k plot. However, it is unrealistic for a or / to ever
be greater than 90, and this pathology should not be a
practical problem.
Cohesion shows about a 20% decrease in drawbar pull
over the same range considered for excavation forces ear-
lier. However, soil internal friction angle increases drawbar

pull something more than 300% over the range used in the
excavation sections here.
Fig. 12 shows that traction is not strongly dependent on
soil density (11% decrease), assuming other parameters like
k are constant. Not surprisingly narrow wheels get stuck.
For a width less than 3.8 cm the loaded lunar rover is stuck
in this calculation. On the other hand, changing the width
to greater than 3040 cm does not improve traction much.
Increasing the wheel diameter decreases traction in this
model. That is a consequence of decreased soil shear
strength with wheel bearing pressure from increased contact area and the 1/L2 dependence of slippage used here.
The exponential in Eq. (9) dominates the 1/(S L) factor
leading to a decreasing H with wheel diameter. If S L were
a constant, then increased wheel diameter would increase
drawbar pull as the increasing grouser number in soil contact would overcome decreased wheel bearing pressure, but
a law of diminishing returns occurs. The number of grousers per unit circumferential length was held constant.
Increasing vehicle mass shows the strongest eect in this
gure. At about 209 kg, the mass of the Apollo rover without cargo, the drawbar pull is roughly 26 N. An optimum
mass for maximum drawbar pull is seen. It may pay to selfload an excavator or rover with regolith to greatly improve
its traction without having to bring mass from the Earth.
However, overloading beyond the optimum is detrimental.
148
4.5. Traction summary

Table 4 predicts that the Apollo lunar rover could provide about 239 N of drawbar pull fully loaded on a level
surface. Compressive resistance is the most signicant loss
for traction, given lunar soil parameters. However, when
k/ is small and sinkage is large, or when cohesion or gravity are larger, then bulldozing resistance dominates. Brittle
lunar soil slippage eects are unknown for lack of traction
measurements during Apollo. Sinkage gets one stuck rather
easily on the moon. Increased soil density and cohesion
have a modest decreasing eect on traction, while soil internal friction has a large eect. This is the opposite of what
was seen for cohesion and density eects on excavation.
Not surprisingly wheel width and diameter play an important role for designers, and slippage constraints can make
larger a diameter helpful or a handicap. A band of vehicle
mass oers a maxima for traction performance.
This work enables convenient calculations for a tracked
vehicle as well, but is not presented here.
5. Conclusions
Besides base-lining calculations using Apollo soil sample
results, this paper presents selected soil and machine parametric studies to highlight the most signicant parameters
for both the excavating bucket and the tractive vehicle driving the bucket. If all were as modeled, this work suggests the
Apollo rover could excavate from roughly 1 to 15 cm depth
depending on which excavation model is most accurate.
However, the lunar rover could get stuck if it sank nominally more than 2.1 cm into virgin regolith (ignoring the
loose powder on the surface). There is no available work
on traction and sinkage into excavated lose lunar regolith,
and getting stuck on such soil will be more likely.
Soil cohesion has a large increasing eect on excavation
forces but a small decreasing eect on traction. Soil internal
friction has a relatively small increasing eect on excavation
forces but a rather large increasing eect on traction. Soil
density produces a moderate to strong increase in excavation
forces, while producing a small decrease in traction. The
competing eects of these soil parameters when balancing
excavation forces against traction forces suggests that versatility of equipment designs for diverse lunar soils is hard to
accomplish.
Some mathematical anomalies of the excavation and
traction models are noted.
A key capability of these results is that one could test
models and lunar parameters with small scale excavation
and traction devices on lunar robotic precursor missions
immediately. All equations in this paper have been computer programmed for future calculations. These models
have the better part of a century of application to terrestrial
soils and machines. In all such applications patient eld testing was needed to establish the soil parameters to match the
models. However, the predictability of these equations for
the moon are unknown, without eld testing, across the
widely variable soils of the lunar highlands, maria, and frozen poles. Excavation and traction tests during robotic lunar
missions is strongly recommended by this work.
Modern excavating companies like Caterpillar and John
Deere are actively working on more granular physics-based
predictive algorithms, knowing that soil mechanics predictions use many empirical parameters to t observations
and that tight tolerance machine designs are not possible
without more fundamental physics understanding. As during
Apollo, NASA could choose to advance the state-of-the-art
in terramechanics, starting with robotic lunar missions.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the NASA Exploration Initiative transitional support under In-Situ Resource Utilization. We thank Chris Gallo and Dr. Juan Agui and Dr.
Richard Rogers for editorial improvements to this manuscript. Edward Katich, a summer intern, assisted with literature collection and database entry.
Appendix A. Expressions used to calculate curves for each
physical force of each model
Gill and Vanden Berg model:
Cutting: Kw,
Toolsoil:
lgc
sinb q

:
sin q
Depth:

sinb q d cosb q d sinb q tan b
gc
sin q
2 sin q
2 sin q
1 /d

sinq b
cosq b/ d:
Cohesion:
c

:
sin qsin q / cos q sinq b1 /d cosq b/ d
Kinetic:
cv2 sin b
sinb qsin q / cos q


:
Swick and Perumpral model: (Each term multiplied by

sin(b + d) for horizontal component)
Surcharge:
gqcot b cot q sin/ q
wd
:
sinb / q d
Toolsoil:
C a
Kinetic:
cosb / q
wd

:
sin b
sinb / q d
Depth:
gcd
wd
cot b cot q sin/ q
:
2
sinb / q d
c
149

0:77

1:21
p
p
d
v2
d
cgwl1:5 b1:73 d
1:26 cgwl1:5 b1:15 d
gl
l sin b
l sin b
!
(
)
1:21 0:121
0:78
11:5c
2v
d
v2

0:055
0:065 0:64
:
cgd
3w
w
gl
Cohesion:
Balovnev model:
cos /
wd

:
sin q sinb / q d
Surcharge:
Kinetic:
sin b cos /
wd

:
cv
sinb q sinb / q d
gqwd1 cot b cot dA1 web 1 tan d cot ab A2 2sdA3

4 tan dA4 ls d:
McKyes model: (Each term multiplied by sin(b + d) for

horizontal component)
Surcharge:
gqcot b cot q
wd
:
Toolsoil:
C a 1 cot b cotq /
wd
:
cot b cot q
wd

:
2
Cohesion:
wd
c1 cot q cotq /
:
Kinetic:
cv2
dgc
wd1 cot b cot dA1
BURIED d l sin b
2

1 sin /
1 sin /
web 1 tan d cot ab A2 dgc
gc
1 sin /
1 sin /

dgc
1 sin /
2sdA3
BURIED d ls sin b gc
2
1 sin /

dgc
BURIED d ls sin b
4 tan dA4 ls d
2

1 sin /
gc
:
1 sin /
Cohesion:
Depth:
cgd
Depth:
tan q cotq /
wd

:
1 tan q cot b
c cot /wd1 cot b cot dA1 web 1 tan d cot ab A2

2sdA3 4 tan dA4 ls d:
Sharp blade:

dgc
c cot / gq
wd1 cot b cot dA1
2

1 sin /
BURIED d l sin b gc
:
1 sin /
Blunt blade:
web 1 tan d cot ab A2
Lockheed-Martin/Viking model:
Friction:
1:5 1:73
cgwl b
)

0:77 (
1:1
p
d
d
v2
d
1:05
1:26 3:91 :
l sin b
w
gl
Cohesion:

1:21 (
0:121
p
d
11:5c 1:21 2v
1:5 1:15
cgwl b
l sin b
cgd
3w
!
)
0:78
d
v2
0:055
0:065 0:64
:
w
gl

eb gc
1 sin /
c cot / gq dgc
:
2
1 sin /
Sides cut:

dgc
2sdA3
2

1 sin /
gc
:
1 sin /
Sides friction:

dgc
4 tan dA4 ls d
2

1 sin /
gc
1 sin /
150
Appendix B. Dene notation

Model symbol
Coding parameter
Units
{Range} description
Tool
eb
l
ls
s
w
ab
eb
l
ls
s
w
alphab
m
m
m
m
m
deg
{0.005:0.10} Blunt edge thickness

{0.1:1} Tool length (front to back)
{0.8 * l} Length of side plate
{0.01:0.1} Side plate thickness
{0.3:3} Tool width
{10:45} Blunt edge angle
Soil
c
N/m2
gamma
kg/m3
phi
deg
s = c + r(c) tan/
{68:4500} Cohesion, Bekker p. 332 and 340 [20], LSB
p. 529 [1]
{1,200:3,500} Specic mass {[1] p. 494 and 536},
Blouin mixed this up with specic weight between
models
{20:50} Internal friction angle
Toolsoil
Ca
d
Ca
delta
N/m2
deg
Tool shear = Ca + No(c) tand

{200:5000} Soiltool adhesion
{0:50} External friction angle
Operation
d
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
K
q
r0
r1
t
v
w0
b
q
d
d1
d2
d3
d4
d5
d6
d7
K
q
r0
r1
t
v
wprime
beta
rho
m
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
N/m
kg/m2
m
m
m
m/s
deg
deg
deg
r
s
sigma
tau
N/m2
N/m2
{0.05:1.0} Tool depth

{unknown} Osmans graphical distance
{unknown} Graphical distance
{0:10} Cutting resistance index
{0.5:100} Surcharge * g = N/m2
{0.5:5} Initial radius of log spiral
Calculated radius of log spiral
{0.05:1} Depth of Rankine passive zone
{0.01:0.3} Tool speed
{0:90} Polar angle in log spiral
{5:90} Rake or cutting angle
q = 45 + //2 OR {20:55} [6] soil rupture angle
(traction) OR shear plane failure angle (excavation),
w.r.t. soil surface
W
Normal stress nA
per wheel, for traction
Soil shear strength = c + rtan/
Gravity
g
g
gM
gE
1.63 m/s2
9.81 m/s2
Gravitational acceleration (MOON)

Gravitational acceleration (EARTH)
m
m
m
N/m2
m
m
Inertia coecient
Cohesion coecient
Adhesion coecient
{0:1,000} Load normal to blade
Surcharge coecient
Weight coecient
Miscellaneous
Na
Nc
Nca
No
Nq
Nc
No
151
Appendix B (continued )
Model symbol
Coding parameter
Units
{Range} description
Forces
H
T
V
T
V
N
N
Horizontal component of T OR Soil Thrust in

traction
Resultant vector cutting force
Vertical component of T
Traction
A
m2
B
D
DP
h
H0
k
B
D
DP
h
H0
k
kc
kc
kt
kt
k/
kphi
K1
K1
K2
K2
Kc
Kc
Kc
Kgamma
l0
l0
n0
n
nc
nprime
n
nc
Ng
Ng
nc
ngamma
P
R
Rb
Rc
Rg
Rr
Rother
P
R
Rb
Rc
Rg
Rr
Rother
Ground contact area per wheel; leg; or track;

p
4 b L for wheel OR B L for track and leg
m
{0.025:0.5}
Effective wheel ground contact width
p
2 B e e, NOT USED
m
{0.025:1.0} Width of wheel/track/leg
m
{0.175:5} Wheel diameter
N
Net drawbar pull
m
{0.001:0.10} Grouser height
N
Ideal soil thrust without slip
Pa
, Patel; mPan0 , Bekker Modulus of sinkage deformation = kc + b k/ per
mn0 1
Patel [18] (soil consistency); Bekker otherwise
denes k = kc/b + k/, {[20] p. 240, 31340 and 447}
Pa
{0:1593,
Terrestrial range} modulus of cohesion of
0 1
n
m
soil deformation, {[20] p. 2403} & {[1] p. 529}
Dimensionless
Tangential stiness of wheel or track, derived from
S L physical observation
Pa
{0:160,000, Terrestrial range} modulus of friction of
0
n
m
soil deformation, {[20] p. 2403} & {[1] p. 529}
1/m
{3.9:39} Degree of brittleness or compactness or
coherence (cohesion eect) [19, p. 265 ]
Dimensionless
{3:1} Degree of slip strength (friction eect)
[19, p. 265 ]
Dimensionless
{[20] p. 453} For bulldozing resistance, corrects Patel
[18]
Dimensionless
{[20] p. 453} For bulldozing resistance, corrects Patel
[18]
m
{[20] p. 453} Distance of rupture for bulldozing
resistance, corrects Patel [18]
m
{0.1:5}
pGround
contact length: wheel:
L 2 D ee, NOT USED wheel or track.
Dimensionless
{0:1.2} Soil deformation exponent, {[20] p. 340}
Dimensionless
{1:6} Number of wheels/tracks/legs
Dimensionless
{0:3} Coecient of passive earth pressure, {[20]
p. 139 and 142} & [10]
Dimensionless
{0:20} Number of grousers touching soil per track/
wheel/leg
Dimensionless
{15:35} Coecient of passive earth pressure, {[20]
p. 139} & [10]
N/m2
Ground pressure = W/A = r
N
Total resistive force
N
Bulldozing resistance
N
Soil compaction resistance
N
Gravitational resistance
N
Rolling resistance of elastic tire, NOT USED
N
Other resistive forces
(continued on next page)
152
Appendix B (continued )
Model symbol
Coding parameter
Units
{Range} description
Dimensionless
T0
T0
N = kg m/s2
deg
h
j
theta
kappa
deg
m
l
m
x
mu
nu
omega
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
m2/N, Pa1
{(0.10:0.12)/L} Low speed slip, {[20] p. 138 and 447}

say S L = 1012 cm, max. traction. S = x W/
kt L2 per Patel.

Available grousered wheel thrust s N g cos hb
qsin q
h2
cos q
{50:8000} * g Vehicle weight, WLRV = 460 lbs
vehicle + 1080 lbs cargo = 1540 lbs on
Earth = 698.5 kg = 6852 N on Earth = 1138 N on
the moon
Sinkage, not counting multiple passes in wheel tracks.
Bekker
W denition
10 P 10 is used in this paper,
n
z nAk
k n

Approach angle arccos 1 2 ze
D . e is often
negligible
{0.01:0.10} Wheel squat/deection (<10% of wheel
dia., elasticity)
{0:10} Slope angle of the ground (w.r.t. horizontal)
{0.01:1.0} Shear deformation slip modulus, S L/
j = {10:0.1} is observed physically {[1] p. 529}
Soil coecient of friction = tan/
transv
{1:5} Poissons ratio strain
strainlong
Coefficient of surface adhesion;
2
reciprocal of soiltool adhesion SkWt L 1=C a
References
[1] Heiken GH, Vaniman DT, French BM. Lunar sourcebook: a users
guide to the moon. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
[2] Blouin S, Hemami A, Lipsett M. Review of resistive force models for
earthmoving processes. J Aerospace Eng 2001;14(3):10211.
[3] Osman M. The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J Agric Eng Res
1964;9(4):31328.
[4] Gill W, VandenBerg G. Agriculture handbook no. 316. Agricultural
Research Service US Department of Agriculture; 1968.
[5] Swick WC, Perumpral JV. A model for predicting soiltool interaction. J Terramech 1988;25(1):4356.
[6] Wong J. Terramechanics and o-road vehicles. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
1989.
[7] McKyes E. Soil cutting and tillage. Developments in agricultural
engineering, vol. 7. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1985.
[8] Hoek E, Brown E. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J
Rock Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstr 1997;34(8):116586.
[9] Reece A. The fundamental equation of earthmoving mechanics.
Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, vol. 179(3F).
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Agricultural Engineering
Department, University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 1965. p. 1622.
[10] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York, NY: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc; 1943.
[11] Mu T, King RH, Duke MB. Analysis of a small robot for Martian
regolith excavation. In: AIAA space 2001 conference and exposition.
American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics; 2001.
[12] Luth HJ, Wismer RD. Performance of plane soil cutting blades in
sand. Trans ASAE 1971:2559.
[13] Wismer RD, Luth HJ. Performance of plane soil cutting blades in
clay. Trans ASAE 1972:2116.
[14] Balovnev VI. New methods for calculating resistance to cutting of
soil. Amerind Publishing (Translation), P. Datta translator and
Rosvuzizdat, New Delhi, Available from National Technical Information Service, Springeld, VA 22161, 1983 and 1963, respectively.
[15] Alekseeva T, Artemev K, Bromberg A, Voitsekhovskii R, Ulyanov

N. Machines for earthmoving work: theory and calculations. New
Delhi, Moscow: Amerind Publishing Co. and Mashinostroenie; 1985.
1972.
[16] Zelenin A, Balovnev V, Kerov I. Machines for moving the
Earth: fundamentals of the theory of soil loosening, modeling of
work processes and forecasting machine parameters. New Delhi,
Moscow: Amerind Publishing Co. and Mashinostroenie, 1985.
1975.
[17] Hemami A, Daneshmend L. Force analysis for automation of the
loading operation in an lhd-loader. In: Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE
international conference on robotics and automation, 1992.
[18] Patel N, Scott GP, Ellery A. Application of Bekker theory for
planetary exploration through wheeled, tracked, and legged vehicle
locomotion. In: Space 2004 conference and exhibit, AIAA 2004-6091.
San Diego, CA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
AIAA; 2004. p. 19.
[19] Bekker MG. Theory of land locomotion. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press; 1956.
[20] Bekker MG. Introduction to terrainvehicle systems. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press; 1969.
[21] Zoz F, Grisso R. Traction and tractor performance. In: ASAE
distinguished lecture no. 27, ASAE, agricultural equipment technology conference, Louisville, Kentcky; 2003.
[22] Ahlvin RB, Haley PW. NATO reference mobility model, 2nd ed.,
NRMM 2, Users guide, no. GL-92-19. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksberg, MS
39180-6199, 1992, labeled as a technical report 283 pages sensitive but
unclassied.
[23] Wong J. Theory of ground vehicles. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley;
2001, ISBN 0471524964.
[24] Costes NC, Farmer JE, George EB. Mobility performance of the
lunar roving vehicle: terrestrial studies Apollo 15 results, TR R-401.
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812,
December 1972.

Classical Soil Mechanics

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Classical Soil Mechanics

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal

Digging and pushing lunar regolith: Classical soil mechanics

and cohesion. Some models include an inertial force

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Fig. 1. Denition of angles and parameters [2].

Lunar soil parameters are used where available.

When using excavation and traction results here, one

2. 2-D models of excavation

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m 3 )

Rankine Passive Depth, t (m)

5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700

Log Spiral Angle, w (radians)

Initial Log Spiral Radius, r0 (m)

Fig. 2. Osmans required drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.

friction, soilsoil cohesion, and inertial forces are included.

Eq. (2) breaks out the full complexity of No

sin qsin q / cos q sinb qsin q / cos q

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Rake Angle,, (deg)

Internal Friction Angle, (deg)

Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)

Fig. 3. Gills drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.

The penetration K w term is kept in results here as it has

to gauge their relative contributions. Appendix A gives

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Rake Angle, (deg)

Internal Friction Angle, (deg)

Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)

strongest functional dependence. The lunar soil cohesion

proaches 90, as it might for a backhoe, due to the tanb

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Rake Angle, (deg)

Internal Friction Angle, (deg)

Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)

Fig. 5. McKyes drawbar force variation for signicant parameters.

cot b cot q sin/ q

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

Rake Angle, (deg)

Tool Velocity, v (m/s)

Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)

a 270% increase over the range plotted. Soil internal friction

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

T wcgd 2 N c cdN c C a dN ca gqdN q cm2 dN a ;

and the horizontal and vertical components of the total

2.6. 2-D section summary

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

where f1 is the weight of the accumulating material in the

where P1 is the cutting and surface friction resistance of a

Fig. 7. Denition of forces used in this section [2].

where BURIED = TRUE or FALSE is a 1 or 0 depending

The total and vertical components of this force are

Horizontal force (N)

Vertical force (N)

A. Wilkinson, A. DeGennaro / Journal of Terramechanics 44 (2007) 133152

projects a 740% increase over the plotted range, much

the Lunar Sourcebook gives estimated ts of density with

Soil Mass Density, (kg/m3)

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Acceleration of Gravity, g (m/s2)