Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934

www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Design of a high performance suspension for lunar rover based

on evolution
Baichao Chena,∗ , Rongben Wanga , Yang Jiab , Lie Guoa , Lu Yanga
a Intelligent Vehicle Group, Traffic college, JiLin University, China
b China Academy of Space Technology, Beijing, China

Received 7 March 2008; received in revised form 17 October 2008; accepted 4 November 2008
Available online 21 December 2008

Abstract
In this paper, we propose a new suspension for lunar rover called obverse and reverse four-linkage suspension (ORF-L
suspension for short). Its two components are designed based on the evolutions of bogie and rocker. Firstly, we analyze the
character of bogie and research the approach to improve its performance. Based on that research, an evolved mechanism of
bogie is proposed, named obverse four-linkage. It has better capacity than bogie. In addition an evolved mechanism of rocker
is also proposed, named reverse four-linkage. The bogie, rocker and their evolved mechanisms can compose four available
suspensions including the interested ORF-L suspension. Because ORF-L suspension is composed of two evolved mechanisms, it
has the highest performance. In order to check that, the performance comparison between ORF-L suspension and rocker-bogie
suspension are carried out based on simulation. Finally, a prototype rover with ORF-L suspension is designed and manufactured.
It shows excellent performance as expected.
Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Suspension; Four-linkage; Lunar rover; Exploration vehicle

1. Introduction suspension is used in Sojourner, Rocky7, MER, FIDO,

Wheeled locomotive system can move in various
kinds of soils with high efficiency. And not only are its
impact load, energy consumption and abrasion smaller,
but also its configuration is simpler than other types of
locomotive systems, for example tracked locomotive
system. Therefore wheeled locomotive system is used
broadly in planet exploration. However, it is weak in
trafficability, in order to enhance it, all kinds of sus-
pensions are developed. For example, rocker-bogie
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cbc2009@163.com (B. Chen).
0094-5765/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.11.009
etc by NASA [1,2]; parallel architecture of the bo-
gies and spring suspended fork suspension is used in
SHRIMP by Swiss federal institute of technology, etc.
[3]; pentad grade assist suspension is used in Mcro5
by ISAS Japan [4,5]; RCL Concept series and CRAB
are also used in prototype vehicles for mars by ESA
and ASL [6,7], and so on. Even though all suspensions
are designed to perform well in rough terrain, each
design has its advantages and drawbacks. For example,
the SHRIMP with parallel architecture of the bogies
and spring suspended fork suspension has excellent
climbing capacity, but its platform stationarity is not so
well as a result of rear wheel being fixed on platform
directly. Therefore it is still necessary to develop a new
926 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934
suspension to enhance the performance of wheeled
locomotion system completely.
Because Sojourner and MER had worked success-
fully on Mars and all their suspensions are rocker-bogie
suspension, rocker-bogie suspension is very worth re-
searching. Therefore, this paper starts with the analysis
of rocker and bogie, and then proposes a new suspen-
sion mechanism based on the evolutions of rocker and
bogie.
2. Obverse four-linkage mechanism design
2.1. The character of bogie
Bogie is a component of rocker-bogie suspension.
The bogie of Mar rover Sojourner is shown in Fig. 1.
Because it is a curved bar, its stability is not strong and
it is easy to overturn on uneven road.
The pivot point of bogie and the center points of
wheel 1 and wheel 2 make the angles  and , and form
a triangle (see Fig. 1). Through analyzing the stability
of triangle, we know that the bigger the angle  the more
easily the triangle turns clockwise; the bigger angle 
the more easily the triangle turns counter-clockwise.
Additionally, when one wheel is uplifted relative to the
other one on uneven road, the bigger the angles  and 
the more the variation of wheel load is and the bigger
the probability of bogie turnover is.
In order to enhance the stability of bogie and decrease
the variation of wheel load, it is necessary to adjust the
bogie to make the angles  and  less or even zero as
the bogie of Rocky7 [8] shown in Fig. 2. Rocky7 is a re-
formative type of Sojourner by NASA and its bogie is a
straight bar. But that adjustment also decreases the clear-
ance between bogie and ground, which leads the bogie
likely to be blocked with obstacles. Although to shorten
the length of bogie as Rocky7 can decrease the proba-
bility blocked with obstacles, but which also decreases
the stability. Thus, for bogie, stability, wheel load
Fig. 1. Sojourner and its rocker-bogie suspension.
invariance and ground clearance restrain each other. In
order to make a tradeoff, a proper  or  ought to be
existent.
The climbing of bogie can be regarded that the
torque which is loaded in bogie to help wheel climb
(active torque) overcomes the torque which is loaded
in bogie to prevent wheel from climbing (negative
torque). For bogie, no matter how to adjust the shape,
length and location of pivot, the climbing capacity is
still weak. That is because the torque for wheel 1 to
climb and that for wheel 2 to climb are restrained each
other and those adjustments cannot break this restraint.
In other words, the weak climbing capacity is inher-
ent for bogie and cannot be enhanced by optimizing.
Thus we must design a new mechanism to break that
restraint.
2.2. Approach to enhance climbing capacity of bogie
Through Section 2.1, we know that the bogie stability
and the wheel load invariance of Rocky7 are better than
those of Sojourner. Therefore the research starts with
the bogie of Rocky7.
The correlative parameters are given in Fig. 3(a) when
wheel 1 contacts obstacle. The forces and torques of
wheel 1 giving bogie are F1 and Tf1 . The forces and
torques of wheel 2 giving bogie are F2 and Tf2 . The
distances between the pivot point of bogie and the cen-
ters of wheel 1 and wheel 2 are, respectively, L1 and
L2 . The active torque for climbing is T1 , clockwise. The
negative torque for climbing is T2 , counter-clockwise.
The arms of F1 and F2 are Lb1 and Lb2 . The angles
between bogie and the arms of F1 and F2 are, respec-
tively, 1 and 2 . The angle between horizon and F1
is 1 . The angle between horizon and F2 is 2 . The
angles between bogie and horizon are, respectively, 1
and 2 .
When wheel 1 contacting obstacle, as a rule
0 < 1 < 90◦ and 0 < 2 < 90◦ . Through Fig. 3(a),
the smaller 1 the bigger T1 is. Obviously, 1 can be
 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934 927

Fig. 2. Rocky7 and its rocker-bogie suspension.

Fig. 3. The parametric model of bogie: (a) the original state of bogie (where 1 = 0, 2 = 0); (b) the state of bogie being tilted.

decreased through head-up tilting the bogie (1 will be
decreased to zero when 1 increase to 90◦ −1 ), see
Fig. 3(b). Thus the active torque T1 increases when
the pose of bogie is head-up. Furthermore, from hor-
izontal pose to this tilting pose, 2 goes up. Because
T2 = F2 ×Lb2 = F2 ×L2 ×sin (2 −2 ) and 2 goes up,
T2 goes down. Thus the negative torque goes down un-
der that pose.
According to above analysis, we know that when
wheel 1 contacting obstacle, the capacity of climbing
obstacle will be enhanced (the active torque of climb-
ing increased and the negative torque decreased) if the
bogie is head-up tilted.
With the same way, it is not difficult to prove that
when wheel 2 contacting obstacle, the capacity of climb-
ing obstacle can be also enhanced under that pose.
Under that pose, the clearance between bogie and
ground is increased. The bogie stability is very high
when wheel 2 is to climb obstacle. The question is that
the bogie stability is not so high when wheel 1 is to
climb obstacle, because the followed turn of bogie will
make angle 2 bigger (see also the analysis of Section
2.1). But this trouble can be solved by twisting the bogie
and increasing the length of L2 , as shown in Fig. 4.
According to the analysis of this section, we can draw
a conclusion that the tilted and twisted bogie has strong
928 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934

climbing capacity and it is also good in mechanism
stability and wheel load invariance.
2.3. Obverse four-linkage mechanism design
Above analysis has confirmed the advantages of the
tilted and twisted bogie. In order to perform those ex-
cellent performances in practice, we must find a proper
equivalent mechanism, because that tilting pose of bo-
gie cannot be kept in practical work.
Based on kinematics and mechanics [9], we proposed
an equivalent mechanism of the tilted and twisted bo-
gie, named obverse four-linkage mechanism, shown in
Fig. 5.
When obverse four-linkage is a parallel architecture
and the lengths and slope angles of corresponding link-
ages between the two mechanisms are the same, the
motion trajectories and forces of the corresponding
wheels are the same under the pivots with cross-shaped
mark being fixed. Therefore the obverse four-linkage
mechanism can have the same advantages as the tilted
and twisted bogie.
3. Reverse four-linkage mechanism design
We propose a reverse four-linkage mechanism based
on the evolution of the rocker of bogie-rocker suspen-
sion, shown in Fig. 6(b). The following analysis shows
that the new mechanism has better performance than
the rocker shown in Fig. 6(a).
The reverse four-linkage mechanism has four pivot
points and the rocker has one pivot point. In order to
simulate the actual working status, the pivots marked
with cross are fixed and linkages can turn round the
fixed pivots freely.

3.1. Climbing capacity comparison

We make rocker and reverse four-linkage the same in

Fig. 4. The tilted and twisted bogie of Rocky7.
linkage sizes, corresponding angles, forces and torques
in order to compare them in justice (see Fig. 6). The
load from cab is G. The force and torque of wheel giv-
ing linkage are F3 and Tf3 . When wheel 3 contacting
obstacle, as a rule 0 < 3 < 90◦ (see also Fig. 3). The
balance torques Te1 and Te2 are loaded, respectively,

Fig. 5. Bogie and its equivalent mechanisms.

Fig. 6. The parametric models of rocker and its evolved mechanism (reverse four-linkage): (a) rocker; (b) reverse four-linkage.
 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934
Fig. 7. The parametric models of rocker and reverse four-linkage when wheel 3 climbing up obstacle: (a) rocker; (b) reverse four-linkage.
in the two load linkage ends to prevent wheel from
climbing. Thus the climbing capacity of mechanism can
be reflected by its balance torque Te . The bigger the
balance torque the stronger the climbing capacity is.
The Te1 and Te2 can be written as follows:
Te1 = F3 × [sin(3 ) × (L 3 + L 4 + c tan() × H1 )
+ cos(3 ) × H1 ] − T f 3 − G × L 3
 2 are written as follows:
H1 × sin(3 + ) × F3 − T f 3
Te2 = × sin()
sin( + ) × L 5 × sin()
 L3 + L4
+F3 × sin(3 ) × (L 3 +L 4 ) − G × L 3
where R is the radius of wheel, f is the friction coeffi-
cient between wheel and ground. Thus T f 3 = F3 × R× f .
We make , ,  = 45◦ and 0 < f < 1. The comparison
between Te1 and Te2 can be written as follows:
H1 × sin(45◦ +3 ) × F3 −T f 3
Te2 − Te1 = (L 3 +L 4 )
L5
√
− 2 × F3 × H1 × sin(3 +45◦ ) + T f 3
(3)
According to Eq. (3), Te2 − Te1 can be more than zero
when L5 meets the below inequation:
H1 × sin(45◦ + 3 ) × F3 − T f 3
L5 < √ (L 3 + L 4 )
2 × F3 × H1 × sin(3 + 45◦ ) − T f 3
(4)
Thus the reverse four-linkage mechanism with proper
design has better climbing capacity than the rocker.
3.2. Cab stationarity comparison
The Sojourner’s cab is attached to the load linkage
(rocker) through an averaging mechanism [10,11]. That
is an advisable method to connect cab and this method
is also adopted in our rover. Thus we can evaluate the
cab stationarities through evaluating the slope angles of
929
the load linkage (see Fig. 7). The location to connect
cab is marked with quadrate. In initial state, the load
linkages of the two mechanisms are all horizontal (see
Fig. 6).
In the two mechanisms, the height of wheel 3 being
lifted by obstacle is H2 . The slope angles of the two
load linkages are 1 and 2 . Thus, to compare 1 with
(1) 2 can evaluate the stationarities of the two cabs. 1 and
 
H2 − H1 + L 6 × sin(1 )
1 = arcsin (5)
(2)  
H2 − H1 + L 6 × sin(2 )
2 = arcsin (6)
L3 + L4
Based on the kinematics of reverse four-linkage
mechanism, the turning direction of load linkage is the
same as the direction of wheel linkage turning relative
to load linkage. Thus there is 180◦ − (2 + 2 ) > 180◦ −
(1 + 1 ) when the two load linkages turn counter-
clockwise as the result of wheel 3 climbing up obstacle.
According to Eqs. (5) and (6),  = f () is an increasing
function. Based on above analysis, it is not difficult to
deduce 2 < 1 . Therefore the rover with reverse four-
linkage mechanism has better cab stationarity than the
rover with rocker when wheel 3 climbs up obstacle.
With the same way, it is not difficult to draw the same
conclusion when wheel 3 goes down into crater.
4. Obverse and reverse four-linkage suspension
design
Through Sections 2 and 3, we know that obverse four-
linkage mechanism (OF-L) has the better performances
than bogie and reverse four-linkage mechanism (RF-L)
has also the better performances than rocker. It is rea-
sonable to confirm that the suspension composed of
OF-L and RF-L is high-performance (this conclusion is
also validated by simulation in Section 6). With an avail-
able combination of OF-L and RF-L being achieved,
930 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934
a new high performance suspension is born, named ob-
verse and reverse four-linkage suspension (ORF-L sus-
pension), shown in Fig. 8. ORF-L suspension includes
six linkages and seven pivot points. The installation and
use methods of ORF-L suspension are the same as those
of rocker-bogie suspension.
ORF-L suspension inherits the advantages of OF-L
and RF-L, thus it has higher performances than bogie-
rocker suspension in climbing obstacle, cab stationarity,
wheel load invariance and suspension stability.
5. Combination mechanisms analysis
OF-L, RF-L, bogie and rocker can compose four
available suspensions, named, respectively, ORF-L sus-
pension, OF-L-rocker suspension, bogie-RF-L suspen-
sion and bogie-rocker suspension, shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 8. Rover model with ORF-L suspension.
Fig. 9. The combination mechanisms: (a) ORF-L; (b) OF-L-rocker; (c) Bogie-RF-L; (d) Bogie-rocker.
Table 1
Performance comparisons of the four suspensions
Performance Climbing obstacle Cab stationarity
ORF-L A A
OF-L-rocker B C
Bogie-RF-L B B
Bogie-rocker C C
Note: excellent A; good B; fair C.
ORF-L suspension and OF-L-rocker suspension are
all novel suspensions without being used. The bogie-
RF-L suspension is similar to the suspension of RCL
Concept-C rover by ESA, and the bogie-rocker suspen-
sion is used in Sojourner, MER and other prototype
rovers by NASA.
We think that the performances of suspension can be
decided by the performances of its component mecha-
nisms more or less, and based on that, the relative per-
formances of above four suspensions can be inferred.
The result is shown in Table 1.
6. Simulation validation
6.1. Simulation model
Aiming at the ORF-L suspension rover and the bogie-
rocker suspension rover, some simulation comparison
works are carried out based on ADAMS. In simulation,
no control is set and all wheel velocities are a constant
value.
According to the design requirements of Chinese
lunar rover, the outline size and mass of the ORF-L
suspension rover model (ORF-L rover for short) are
determined. For a fair comparison, the bogie-rocker
suspension rover model (Rocker-Bogie rover for short)
is designed with the same size and mass of ORF-L
rover.
The same parameters are as followed: outline size
is 1.5 m×1.0 m×0.8 m; rover mass is 200 kg; wheel
mass is 3.5 kg; centroid height is 500 mm; diameter and
Mechanism stability Wheel load invariance Weight and complexity
B B C
B B B
C C B
C C A
 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934 931

Fig. 10. The structures and sizes of two rover models: (a) ORF-L rover; (b) Rocker-Bogie rover.

Fig. 11. The course of the two rovers crossing the different height obstacles.

Fig. 12. Comparison of friction coefficients of two rovers.

width of wheel are 300 and 200 mm; wheeltrack is all the acceleration is set at 9.8 m/s2 and wheel velocity is at
same, and the wheelbase between front-wheel and rear- 0.3 rad/s. The structures and sizes of ORF-L rover and
wheel is 1200 mm. In the course of simulation, gravity Rocker-Bogie rover are shown in Fig. 10.
932 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934

Fig. 13. Comparison of invariance coefficients of two rovers.

Fig. 14. Comparison of cab pitch angle of two rovers.

6.2. Simulation and comparison 6.2.1. Comparison of friction coefficient

To increase the friction coefficient between wheel and
ground until Rocker-Bogie rover and ORF-L rover all
can climb over the 250 mm-high obstacle, and then to
measure some interesting parameters. Fig. 11 shows the
course of the two rovers crossing the different height
obstacles (the arrows in Fig. 11 are the forces of ground
giving wheels).
The friction condition needed in climbing can re-
flects the climb capacity of rover. The smaller the fric-
tion coefficient the stronger the climbing capacity is.
Fig. 12, respectively, shows the friction coefficients of
front wheels, middle wheels and rear wheels of the two
rovers during crossing the 250 mm-high obstacle. Dur-
ing the time of zone A, the front wheels of ORF-L rover
contact, climb up and detach from obstacle. With the
 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934 933

same state, zone B, C and D, E, F corresponds, respec-

tively, to middle, rear wheels of ORF-L rover and front,
middle, rear wheels of Rocker-Bogie rover. Obviously,
the friction coefficients leap and come to peak at the
moments of wheels contacting obstacle, therefore those
moments are the most difficult for wheel to climb. Ac-
cording to Fig. 12 the friction coefficients of ORF-L
rover are all less than 0.7, but for Rocker-Bogie rover
the maximum friction coefficient is close to 1.0. There-
fore the climb capacity of ORF-L rover is stronger than
that of Rocker-Bogie rover, which is the same as the
conclusion of the analysis in Sections 4 and 5.

6.2.2. Comparison of invariance coefficient of wheel

load
The invariance coefficient of wheel load is also an
important performance index for rover. It reflects the
variation degree of wheel load in rough terrain, and
the smaller the value the less the wheel sinkage is and
the more the wheel tractive power is. The invariance
coefficient is defined as followed:
Invariance coefficient
current wheel load − initial wheel load
=
initial wheel load
Fig. 13, respectively, shows the load invariance coef-
ficients of front wheels, middle wheels and rear wheels
of the two rovers during crossing the 250 mm-high ob-
stacle. Obviously, the coefficients of ORF-L rover are
smaller than those of Rocker-Bogie rover.
6.2.3. Comparison of cab pitch angle
Cab stationarity can be evaluated through measuring
the pitch angle of cab, and the smaller the angle the
better the cab stationarity is. From Fig. 14, it is obvious
that the pitch angle of ORF-L rover cab is nearly sym-
metric and the maximum pitch angle of ORF-L rover
cab is smaller than that of Rocker-Bogie rover cab.
6.3. Simulation conclusions
In simulation, the ORF-L rover performs more ex-
cellent performances than Rocker-Bogie rover in climb-
ing obstacle, wheel load invariance and cab stationarity.
That verifies the conclusions of the theory analysis in
Sections 3–5. Meanwhile, we find there are also some
the same trends in the performance curves of two mod-
els. We think that those improvements and similarities
just reflect the effect of evolving.
Fig. 15. The prototype lunar rover with ORF-L suspension.
7. Experiments
A prototype lunar rover with ORF-L suspension is
designed, shown in Fig. 15. Because the key technolo-
gies of ORF-L suspension in manufacture and instal-
lation are the same as that of rocker-bogie suspension,
ORF-L suspension has good practical value.
Some interesting tests are carried out on lunar sim-
ulation ground to check the practical performances of
rocker-bogie suspension. In test, the rover passes over
various typical blocks and craters facilely, and not only
is its cab relatively stationary but also the loads in six
wheels is relatively homogeneous. The test states are
partially shown in Fig. 16.
8. Conclusion
In this article we use an effective method to de-
sign the suspension of lunar rover, which is evolution.
Based on that, we design a high-performance suspen-
sion, called ORF-L suspension and evaluate the relative
performances of four different evolutionary suspen-
sions. Because ORF-L suspension has the all-round
excellent performance, it can make rover interesting
to cross higher obstacles rather than to avoid and go
down steeper slope instead of abandoning. Its good
cab stationarity is in favor of the on-board instruments
to work. Its good wheel load invariance can decrease
wheel sinkage and produce more tractive power. Its
key technologies in manufacture and installation are
the same as those of bogie-rocker suspension, which
makes it has high working reliability.
934 B. Chen et al. / Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 925 – 934
Fig. 16. The test to climb block and cross crater.
So far we have not found the similar suspension struc-
ture with ORF-L suspension all over the world. China
has determined to carry an exploring vehicle to lunar in
2012 and as a forecast, the new suspension and the evo-
lution thought will provide a valuable technical support
to it.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by China Natural Science
Foundation, subject No. 50675086. China Academy of
Space Technology provides a lot of help in capital and
technology.
References
[1] D.B. Bickler, A new family of JPL planetary surface vehicles,
Missions, Technologies, and Design of Planetary Mobile
Vehicles, Toulouse, France, 1992, pp. 301–306.
[2] B. Harrington, C. Voorhees, The challenges of designing the
Rocker-Bogie suspension for the Mars exploration rover, in:
Proceedings of the 37th Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium
Galveston, TX, NASA/CP-2004-212073, May 19–21, 2004,
pp. 185–196.
[3] R. Siegwart, P. Lamon, T. Estier, M. Lauria, Innovative
design for wheeled locomotion in rough terrain, Robotics and
Autonomous Systems 40 (2) (2002) 151–162.
[4] T. Kubota, Y. Kuroda, Y. Kunii, I. Nakatani, Small, light-weight
rover “Micro5” for lunar exploration, Acta Astronautica 52
(2–6) (2003) 447–453.
[5] T. Kubota, Y. Kuroda, Y. Kunii, I. Natakani, Micro-planetary
rover Micro5, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International
Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation
in Space (ESA SP-440), Noordwijk, Netherlands,1999,
pp. 373–378.
[6] N. Patel, A. Ellery, C. Welch, A. Curley, Comparative
locomotion study for Mars micro-rovers and mini-rovers, in:
Proceedings of 55th International Astronautically Congress,
Vancouver, Canada, 2004, pp.1–11.
[7] T. Thueer, A. Krebs, R. Siegwart, Comprehensive locomotion
performance evaluation of all-terrain robots, in: Proceedings of
IEEE/RS International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Beijing, China, 2006, pp. 9–15.
[8] S. Hayati, R. Volpe, P. Backes, J. Balaram, The Rocky7
rover: a Mars science craft prototype, in: Proceedings of
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
Albuquerque, NM, 1997, pp. 2458–2464.
[9] Z.H. Zhang, Mechanical Theory, Higher Education Press,
Beijing, China, 1996 pp. 346–348.
[10] D.B. Bickler, K. Jewett, H. Eisen, L. Sword, Mars rover, United
States Design Patent: US D437, 255 S, 2001.
[11] H. J. Eisen, Mechanical design of the Mars Pathfinder mission,
in: Proceedings of Seventh European Space Mechanisms and
Tribology Symposium, ESA Headquarters, Noordwijk, the
Netherlands, October 1–3, 1997, pp. 11–17 C.