Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Journal
of
Terramechanics
Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274
www.elsevier.com/locate/jterra

Mobility performance of a rigid wheel in low gravity environments

Taizo Kobayashi a,*, Yoichiro Fujiwara a, Junya Yamakawa b,
Noriyuki Yasufuku a, Kiyoshi Omine a
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Kyushu University, 744 Moto-oka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The National Defense Academy, 1-10-20 Hashirimizu, Yokosuka, Kanagawa 239-8686, Japan

Received 9 June 2009; received in revised form 16 December 2009; accepted 27 December 2009
Available online 25 January 2010

Abstract

To investigate influences of gravity on mobility of wheeled rovers for future lunar/planetary exploration missions, model experiments
of a soil–wheel system were performed on an aircraft during variable gravity maneuvers. The experimental set-up consists of a single rigid
wheel and a soil bed with two kinds of dry sands: lunar soil simulant and Toyoura sand. The experimental results revealed that a lower
gravity environment yields higher wheel slippage in variable gravity conditions. In addition to the partial gravity experiments, the same
experiments with variable wheel load levels were also performed on ground (1 g conditions). The on-ground experiments produced oppo-
site results to those obtained in the partial gravity experiments, where a lower wheel load yields lower slippage in a constant gravity envi-
ronment. In low gravity environments, fluidity (flowability) of soil increases due to the confining stress reduction in the soil, while the
effect of the wheel load on sinkage decreases. As a result, both of these effects are canceled out, and gravity seemingly has no effect on the
wheel sinkage. In the meantime, in addition to the effect of wheel load reduction, the increase of the soil flowability lessens the shear
resistance to the wheel rotation, as a result of which the wheel is unable to hold sufficient traction in low gravity environments. This
suggests that the mobility of the wheel is governed concurrently by two mechanisms: the bearing characteristics to the wheel load,
and the shearing characteristics to the wheel rotation. It appears that, in low gravity, the wheel mobility deteriorates due to the relative
decrease in the driving force while the wheel sinkage remains constant. Thus, it can be concluded that the lunar and/or Mars’ gravity
environments will be unfavorable in terms of the mobility performance of wheels as compared to the earth’s gravity condition.
Ó 2010 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction field of robotics, and researches/developments of planetary

Recently, lunar and planetary exploration programs
have been taking shape in several countries. During the
future in situ exploration missions, wheeled rovers will be
used as efficient and valuable mobile robots for wide area
investigations. One of the most challenging problems in
developing wheeled mobile robots is to ensure sufficient
mobility on unknown deformable terrain. Since the rovers
will be equipped with many observation instruments,
ensuring mobility holds an important key to the success
of these missions. The importance of “terramechanics”
has recently been reacknowledged by researchers in the
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: t-koba@civil.kyushu-u.ac.jp (T. Kobayashi).
rovers based on the terramechanics approaches can now be
recognized more often (e.g., [1–4]). These studies attempted
to utilize the terramechanics-based models for autonomous
robot controls. The wheel-terrain models basically follow
the classic researches by Bekker (e.g., [5]), Wong and Reece
(e.g., [6]), etc., and are semi-empirical theories in that they
require special tests on the terrain to identify parameters in
the models. Based on these classic models, therefore, it is
difficult to directly evaluate the mobility of the wheels on
the lunar and planetary surface.
Needless to say, conditions of the lunar/planetary surface
are quite different from a terrestrial environment in terms of
surface materials, low gravity and high vacuum conditions
and so on. From a soil mechanics point of view, it is known
that strength and rigidity of soils vary under the influence of

0022-4898/$36.00 Ó 2010 ISTVS. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jterra.2009.12.001
262 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274
gravity, indicating that trafficability of a terrain will be
dependent on gravity, and that mobility performance of
wheels will also be significantly influenced by gravity.
Several studies on soil/granular behaviors in low gravity
fields have been conducted to date. Kobayashi et al. [7] car-
ried out loading experiments of a model footing in low
gravity environments on an aircraft during variable gravity
maneuvers. Klein and White [8] conducted simple experi-
ments concerning granular flow in rotating drum on
NASA’s KC-135 aircraft. Boles et al. [9] performed soil
cutting experiments with the same aircraft to investigate
the earth-moving resistance, and Sture et al. [10] conducted
triaxial compression tests on the space shuttle to examine
the strength of granular materials at very low effective
stresses. However, there are few experimental studies on
the soil–wheel interaction mechanism in low gravity envi-
ronments, and there has not been any clear answer to the
simple question of whether gravity condition of the
lunar/planetary surface would be favorable or unfavorable
to the mobility performance.
In this study, model experiments of soil–wheel systems
were performed on an aircraft that flew in parabolic paths
to generate partial gravity fields. In addition to the partial
gravity experiments with the aircraft, similar experiments
with variable wheel load levels using counterweights were
also performed on the ground (1 g condition). This paper
attempts to make clear the influences of gravity on the
soil–wheel interactions based on the comparisons of the
two types of model experiments.
2. Experimental method
2.1. Soil materials
Soils that cover the lunar/planetary surface are called
“regolith.” From the investigations by Carrier et al., (e.g.,
Fig. 1. SEM photographs of the materials used.
[11,12]) etc., it was made clear that soil properties, includ-
ing particle density, grain shape and chemical composition,
of the lunar regolith are different from those of terrestrial
soils. For researches on the lunar/planetary surface, rego-
lith simulants, which are made of terrestrial-based soils
that mimic actual regolith, are often used. In this study, a
Japanese lunar soil simulant (FJS-1) produced by Shimizu
Corporation was used. This material is a well-graded, fine
granular soil that imitates the chemical composition, parti-
cle density, particle size distribution and shear strength
characteristics of the lunar samples that were brought back
by the Apollo missions. In addition to the lunar soil simu-
lant, Toyoura sand, which is frequently used as a standard
sandy material in soil mechanics studies, was also
employed to examine the influence of material characteris-
tics on the soil–wheel interactions. Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) photographs and particle size distribu-
tions of the materials are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respec-
tively. Physical properties of the materials are listed in
Table 1. Details of the soil strength characteristics can be
found in the previous studies by Kobayashi et al. [7] and
Kanamori et al. [13]. Needless to say, not all of the actual
mobility characteristics of the lunar surface can be pre-
dicted in these experiments with this material. However,
comparisons of the two kinds of materials with different
characteristics should allow us to achieve the objective of
this study.
2.2. Model test apparatus
This study attempts to investigate the mobility perfor-
mance of a single rigid wheel that travels straight ahead
on leveled terrains. Fig. 3 shows the experimental appara-
tus used in this study. The model wheel that is made of alu-
minum is in the shape of a cylinder of 150 mm in diameter
and 80 mm in width. The surface of the wheel is roughed so
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274 263

100 plate was placed onto the leveled soil surface, and then the
Lunar soil simulant (FJS-1) soil was tamped down over the plate with a wooden ham-
Toyoura sand mer until it had the desired density. This preparation pro-
80 Range of lunar samples
Percentage passing (%)

cess was repeated after every run. Settlement and/or

disturbance of the model terrains were not observed during
60 the flight maneuvers, though we were apprehensive that the
model terrains might settle down by high-sustained acceler-
ation of the aircraft. Therefore, it is thought the influence
40 of the gravity variation on the initial terrain condition
can be disregarded.
20
2.3. Parabolic flight and partial gravity

0 The experiments were performed on an aircraft (see

-3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10
Fig. 4) to realize partial gravity environments. As shown
Particle size (mm)
in Fig. 5, the aircraft makes flight maneuver of ascent
Fig. 2. Particle size distributions of the materials used. and decent path. A partial gravity environment is main-
tained for approximately 20–40 s in a convex path. During
the flight, three components of acceleration, namely, fore
Table 1
Physical properties of the soils. and aft (Gx), lateral (Gy), and head to foot acceleration
(Gz), were measured on the body-fixed coordinate system.
Soil properties Lunar soil simulant Toyoura sand
Fig. 5 shows that Gx and Gy are almost zero, indicating that
Soil particle density, qs (g/cm3) 2.95 2.65
it is unnecessary to take the effects of the flight attitude into
Maximum bulk density, 2.02 1.64
qmax (g/cm3) consideration.
Minimum bulk density, 1.49 1.34
qmim (g/cm3) 2.4. Experimental method
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.98 0.98
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.46 0.62
In addition to the partial gravity experiments, a series of
Effective grain size, D10 (mm) 0.014 0.21
Mean grain size, D50 (mm) 0.10 0.26 model experiments with the same testbed were conducted
Coefficient of uniformity, Uc 11.43 1.33 on ground (1 g condition) (See Fig. 6). The partial gravity
Coefficient of curvature, U 0c 1.30 0.98 experiments and on-ground experiments were hereinafter
referred to as PGE and OGE, respectively. In OGE, the
wheel load can be changed by suspending the wheel with
that the wheel grips the terrain. The wheel is held by a shaft counterweights or adding weight to the vertical axis. In
linked to the testbed frame so as to avoid yawing and roll- PGE, both the wheel load and the effective stress in the soil
ing. A ball spline and guide rails are employed at the cou- change with the gravity variation. On the other hand, in
pling parts of the flame so that the wheel can proceed and OGE, the stress condition of the soil is maintained in a
sink freely. Note, however, that it is already known that a 1 g environment, while the wheel load can be changed. If
friction force of approximately 2.0 N gets generated on the any different tendencies are found between OGE and
guide rails. The wheel is self-propelled by a motor that can PGE, it can be concluded that the differences are attribut-
maintain a constant rotational speed of the wheel. The able to the stress conditions in the soils.
angular velocity is held at 0.314 rad/s (3.0 rpm). Active Five variations of gravity were targeted in PGE, namely,
controls by torque and external drawbar forces are not 1/6 g, 1/2 g, 3/4 g, 1 g and 2 g, while OGE was performed
applied in this study. The mass of the wheel system includ- in five wheel load levels, namely, 1/6, 1/2, 3/4, 1 and 2 times
ing the motor, sensors and frame is adjusted to be 10 kg. 98.1 N (10 kg  9.81 m/s2). The gravity condition of 2 g in
Measurements taken were the travel distance (using a PGE was achieved by centrifugal effect via circular flight
non-contact laser displacement transducer), the vertical pattern. PGE was performed three or four times for each
sinkage (ditto), the torque (using a contactless torque gravity condition, while OGE were performed five times
transducer) and the gravitational accelerations (using a for each wheel load level. The gravitational accelerations
three-axis accelerometer) of the field. were measured in the sampling rate of 10 Hz with resolu-
The size of the soil bed is 600 mm in length, 200 mm in tions of less than 1 lg. As a result of the measurements,
width and 100 mm in height. The soil bed was prepared to it turned out that gravity changes during each run were
have relative densities of 50% and 70% for each soil. The not greater than ±0.10 G (standard deviation: 0.03 G or
bulk density, void ratio and shear strength parameters of less) in the cases of 1/6 g, 1/2 g and 3/4 g conditions. In
the soil beds are listed in Table 2. The soil bed preparation the case of 2 g condition with the circular flight pattern,
was achieved as follows. First, the soil was cultivated with a the changes were less than ±0.15 G (standard deviation:
rake to be in a homogeneous loose state. Secondly, a rigid 0.05 G or less). The gravity variation during the runs was
264 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274

Fig. 3. Model test apparatus.

Table 2
Bulk densities, void ratio and strength parameters of the soils used.
Materials Relative Bulk Void Cohesiona Internal
density Dr density q ratio c’ (kN/ fiction anglea
(%) (g/cm3) e m2) /0 (degree)
Lunar soil 50 1.71 0.72 1.07 40.1
simulant 70 1.82 0.62 2.78 44.6
Toyoura 50 1.47 0.80 2.08 38.2
sand 70 1.54 0.73 2.66 40.7
a
Cohesion and internal friction angle were obtained from drained tri-
axial compression tests.

minuscule compared to the five variations of the targeted

gravity, and thus, it seems to have a little effect on the over-
all trends in the mobility characteristics. The experimental
conditions are summarized in Table 3. Fig. 4. Aircraft for partial gravity experiments.

3. Experimental results
of PGE on the lunar soil simulant (relative density,
Fig. 7 shows the typical examples of measured data of Dr = 70%). It can be seen in Fig. 7a that, in all cases,
travel distance, sinkage and torque, respectively in the case regardless of the gravity level, sufficient mobility is
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274 265

Fig. 5. Parabolic flight maneuver.

Fig. 6. Partial gravity experiment (PGE) and on-ground experiment (OGE).

maintained at the start, while slippage begins to occur after
a while. This time-dependent deterioration in mobility can
be explained by the increase of the sinkage shown in
Fig. 7b. Slippage is attributable to the increase of running
resistance by sinkage, and the slippage also causes sinkage
because the spin of the wheel turns up the soil beneath the
wheel. In other words, sinkage results in further sinkage.
Though there are small fluctuations in the data of sinkage,
this seems to be caused by the mechanical vibration of the
displacement transducer. Fig. 7c shows the changes in
266 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274

Table 3 mobility performance significantly depends not only on

Experimental conditions.
Conditions
Wheel:
Diameter
Width
Mass
Angular velocity
Surface
Soil bed:
Materials
Relative density
Size
Targeted gravity levels in PGEa
Wheel load levels in OGEb
a
PGE: partial gravity experiment.
b
OGE: on-ground experiment.
torque. Fluctuations are also seen in this data, but it seems
to be due to the stick–slip behaviors between the wheel and
the soil, and not due to the inherent noises of the data
acquisition system since the range of fluctuations varies
with the time and gravity conditions. This figure shows that
torque is heavily dependent on the gravity conditions.
To examine the trends in the measured data, average
values of travel distance, sinkage and torque in the case
of the lunar soil simulant (Dr = 70%) are replotted in
Fig. 8. Each plot indicates the average value for a period
of ±0.5 s at the time of interest. A comparison of Fig. 8a
and b reveals different trends between OGE and PGE in
terms of travel distance and sinkage, while similar trend
is seen in the torque. That is, the comparison of the travel
distance illustrates that a lighter wheel can travel a longer
distance in OGE, while the travel distance in PGE tends
to get shorter with the decreasing wheel load level. As
to the sinkage, there is a clear dependency on the wheel
load level in OGE, while no obvious trend can be identi-
fied in PGE. Based on these figures, it can be said that the
the wheel load, but also on the stress conditions of the
Value soil. Furthermore, the data demonstrates that a low grav-
ity environment is undoubtedly disadvantageous to the
150 mm mobility of the wheels on sandy materials.
80 mm The performance of a wheel is often expressed by a
10.0 kg
0.314 rad/s (3.0 rpm)
parameter called a slip ratio. A slip ratio can be determined
Rough by the following formula:
V
i¼1 ; ð1Þ
Lunar soil simulant, Toyoura sand rx
50, 70%
600 (L)  200 (W)  100 (H) mm where V: wheel velocity, r: wheel radius and x: angular
velocity of wheel. Eq. (1) indicates that a wheel can travel
1/6, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 2 (9.81 m/s2)
1/6, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 2 (98.1 N)
with no slippage when i = 0, and the slip ratio increases
as mobility deteriorates. Furthermore, a wheel that is com-
pletely stuck is expressed as i = 1.
Fig. 9 shows the changes of averaged slip ratios in all
experimental conditions. For example, by comparing
Fig. 9a-1 and a-2 (the results of OGE and PGE, respec-
tively, in the case of the lunar soil simulant (Dr = 50%)),
it can be seen that the wheel in OGE demonstrates lower
slip ratios as the wheel load decreases, while the wheel in
PGE shows higher slip ratios as the gravity level is
reduced. These tendencies can be seen in all cases regard-
less of the material and how it is packed. In the case of
Toyoura sand (Fig. 9b), differences in the slip ratios with
respect to the wheel load are clearly seen in OGE, while
such considerable differences are not found in PGE, with
the exception of the cases in the 1/6 g condition. Note-
worthy is that all data obtained in PGE, except for the
1/6 g condition, are distributed around the data obtained
in the 1 g condition, indicating that the wheel on Toyoura
sand demonstrates roughly the same mobility as that of
the wheel placed on earth (1 g condition), provided that
the same shall not apply to the cases in a very low gravity
condition, such as 1/6 g. The mechanisms that explain
why the behaviors differ by the materials are discussed
later.

500 25 10
1/6 g
1/6 g 1/6 g
1/2 g
1/2 g 1/2 g
400 20 8
Travel distance (mm)

3/4 g
3/4 g 3/4 g
1g
1g 1g
Sinkage (mm)

Torque (Nm)

2g
2g 2g 6
300 15

200 10 4

100 5 2

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Time vs. travel distance (b) Time vs. sinkage (c) Time vs. torque
Fig. 7. Examples of data measured by PGE (Lunar soil simulant, Dr = 70%).
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274 267

500 50 10
(a) -1 Travel distance 1/6 W
1/6 W (a) -2 Sinkage (a) -3 Torque
1/2 W
1/6 W 1/2 W
400 40 8
Travel distance (mm)

3/4 W
1/2 W 3/4 W
1W
1W

Sinkage (mm)
3/4 W

Torque (Nm)
2W
1W 2W
300 30 6
2W

200 20 4

100 10 2

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
(a) On-ground
ground experiments (OGE)
500 50 10
(b) -1 Travel distance 1/6 g (b) -2 Sinkage 1/6 g (b) -3 Torque
1/2 g 1/2 g
400 8
Travel distance (mm)

1/6 g 40 3/4 g
3/4 g
1/2 g 1g
1g
Sinkage (mm)

Torque (Nm)
3/4 g 2g
300 2g 6
1g 30
2g

200 20 4

100 10 2

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)

(b) Partial gravity experiments (PGE)

Fig. 8. Examples of test results (Lunar soil simulant, Dr = 70%).

4. Influences of gravity on mobility performance
When the wheel is set-up on the model terrain, a settle-
ment takes place to some degrees. The amount of such set-
tlement, hereinafter referred to as the initial sinkage, will
depend on the bearing capacity characteristics of the soil–
terrain system. Fig. 10 illustrates the relationship between
the initial sinkage and the wheel load level. In this figure,
the wheel load level is employed for the horizontal axis
so as to simultaneously compare the results of OGE and
PGE within the same graph. At the same time, the value
of the scale of the horizontal axis indicates the gravity level
(n in ng) in PGE. Regardless of the materials, it can be seen
in this figure that the initial sinkage in OGE increases with
the increasing wheel load. With PGE, a different trend in
the materials is seen, that is, the tendency of increase of
the initial sinkage is sluggish when the gravity is more than
1 g in the case of the lunar soil simulant (Fig. 10a), while a
certain amount is maintained independently of the wheel
load level in the case of Toyoura sand (Fig. 10b). These dif-
ferent behaviors in the soils seem to be due to the differ-
ences in the grain shape of the materials. It is believed
that poorly graded soils and/or soils of which particles
are chipped and rounded, such as Toyoura sand, are quick
to fluidize under a low gravity condition since the number
of particle-to-particle contact points is relatively few. On
the other hand, well-graded and/or soils of which particles
are jagged and of irregular shapes, such as the lunar soil,
can be expected to hold the particle-to-particle structure
due to the interlocking effect, even if the contact forces
are small. This seems to explain the differences in the soil
behaviors.
Figs. 11–14 show the wheel load level versus travel dis-
tance, sinkage, torque and slip ratio at the elapsed time of
15 s, respectively. Note that it was confirmed that similar
trends could be seen before and after the elapsed time of
15 s, and, therefore, a similar conclusion can be reached
for any other elapsed time. From Fig. 11, it can be seen
that there is a different trend in the travel distance
between OGE and PGE. The travel distance decreases
as the wheel load increases under a fixed gravity condition
(OGE), while it is independent of the wheel load under a
variable gravity condition (PGE) when the amount of
gravity becomes large. In the comparison of the sinkage
268 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274

1.0 1.0
(a)-1 OGE (Dr = 50 %) (a)-2 PGE
(Dr = 50 %)
0.8 0.8

Slip ratio
Slip ratio

0.6 0.6

0.4 1/6 W 0.4 1/6 g

1/2 W 1/2 g
3/4 W 3/4 g
0.2 1W 0.2 1g
2W 2g
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
1.0 1.0
(a)-3 OGE (Dr = 70 %) (a)-4 PGE
0.8 0.8 (Dr = 70 %)
Slip ratio

Slip ratio
0.6 0.6

0.4 1/6 W 0.4 1/6 g

1/2 W 1/2 g
3/4 W 3/4 g
0.2 1W 0.2 1g
2W 2g
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) Lunar soil simulant
1.0 1.0
(b)-1 OGE
(Dr = 50 %)
0.8 0.8
Slip ratio

Slip ratio

0.6 0.6 (b)-2 PGE (Dr = 50 %)

0.4 1/6 W 0.4 1/6 g

1/2 W 1/2 g
3/4 W 3/4 g
0.2 1W 0.2 1g
2W 2g
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
1.0 1.0
(b)-3 OGE
(Dr = 70 %)
0.8 0.8
Slip ratio

Slip ratio

0.6 0.6 (b)-4 PGE (Dr = 70 %)

1/6 g
0.4 1/6 W 0.4 1/2 g
1/2 W
3/4 g
3/4 W
0.2 0.2 1g
1W
2g
2W
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s) Time (s)
(b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 9. Change of slip ratio with time.

(Fig. 12), it can be seen that the wheel load in PGE has obvious change is seen in the travel distance as shown
only a slight influence on the sinkage for both materials. in Fig. 11. In OGE, similarly to the initial sinkage that
It is interesting that there is no significant change in sink- is illustrated in Fig. 10, the sinkage increases as the wheel
age with respect to the wheel load level, although the load level increases. Fig. 13 shows the results of torque.
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274 269

15 15

Initial sinkage (% of radius)

PGE PGE

Initial sinkage (% of radius)

Dr = 50 % Dr = 50 %
OGE OGE
PGE PGE
Dr = 70 % Dr = 70 %
OGE OGE
10 10

5 5

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 10. Influence of wheel load on initial sinkage.

500 500
Travel distance (% of radius)

Travel distance (% of radius)

PGE
Dr = 50 %
OGE
400 400 PGE
Dr = 70 %
OGE
300 300

200 200
PGE
Dr = 50 %
OGE
100 PGE 100
Dr = 70 %
OGE
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 11. Influence of wheel load on travel distance at elapse of 15 s.

60 PGE 60
Dr = 50 %
OGE
Sinkage (% of radius)
Sinkage (% of radius)

PGE
Dr = 70 %
OGE
40 40

20 20
PGE
Dr = 50 %
OGE
PGE
Dr = 70 %
0 0 OGE

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 12. Influence of wheel load on sinkage at elapse of 15 s.

Roughly speaking, there is no significant difference in tor- by the wheel load. In Fig. 14, the slip ratios indicate an
que between OGE and PGE in terms of its tendencies and opposing trend between OGE and PGE. Specifically,
how it develops based on the initial density. It is worthy OGE shows lower slip ratios with lower wheel load level,
of note that the initial density and sinkage have no influ- while PGE shows higher slip ratios, and this trend
ence on torque, implying that torque is basically governed reverses when the wheel load becomes greater. Moreover,
270 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274

10 10
PGE PGE
Dr = 50 % Dr = 50 %
OGE OGE
8 8
PGE PGE
Dr = 70 % Dr = 70 %
Torque (Nm)

Torque (Nm)
OGE OGE
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 13. Influence of wheel load on torque at elapse of 15 s.

PGE
1.0 Dr = 50 % 1.0
OGE
PGE
Dr = 70 %
0.8 OGE Slip ratio 0.8
Slip ratio

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
PGE
Dr = 50 %
OGE
0.2 0.2
PGE
Dr = 70 %
OGE
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 14. Influence of wheel load on slip ratio at elapse of 15 s.

it can be seen that the slip ratio in PGE is less sensitive to
the wheel load level compared to OGE. This trend is par-
ticularly noticeable in the case of Toyoura sand.
It must be noted that Figs. 11–14 present the results of
the moments after a fixed elapsed time of 15 s, and, there-
fore, the amount of sinkage is uneven at the time. To fur-
ther examine the performance of the wheel, data of the
moments at a fixed sinkage are also presented in Figs.
15–17.
Fig. 15 shows the relationships between the wheel load
and the rate of sinkage (amount of vertical settlement per
unit time) in the moment when the sinkage reaches 15%
of radius (11.25 mm). Since there are cases, where the sink-
age did not reach 15% of radius, not all of the experimental
data could be plotted on the graphs, although general ten-
dencies can still be found in the figures. Note also that
elapsed-times required to reach the settlement differ for
each case. The results for OGE show that the rate of sink-
age increases as the wheel load increases for both soil mate-
rials, while there is no dependence of the wheel load on the
rate of sinkage in PGE, except for the case of Toyoura sand
in a very low gravity environment. This trend generally
resembles the results of the lunar soil simulant shown in
Fig. 12a, while, Fig. 15 shows that the rate of sinkage for
Toyoura sand suddenly increases when the gravity condi-
tion is reduced to 1/6 g. This implies that the difference in
material characteristics yields distinguishing behaviors.
As mentioned above, the reason for this behavior also
seems to be that Toyoura sand is prone to fluidization in
a low gravity environment, and that a lack of bearing
strength results in such a high rate of sinkage. As shown
in Fig. 10, it was mentioned that the initial sinkage for
Toyoura sand in PGE is independent of the gravity envi-
ronment, while it increases with increasing gravity in the
case of the lunar soil simulant. This figure, on the other
hand, shows that Toyoura sand is dependent on the gravity
condition, while the lunar soil simulant is not. This com-
parison makes it clear that sinkage behavior is different
depending on whether the wheel is rotating or not, and
suggests that the mobility performance is governed concur-
rently by two mechanisms, namely, bearing characteristics
to sinkage and shearing resistance characteristics to wheel
rotation. Fig. 16 shows the influence of the wheel load on
torque at a fixed sinkage. Similarly to the results shown
in Fig. 13, the torque in PGE is proportional to the wheel
load level. On the other hand, unlike the trend in Fig. 13,
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274 271

6 6
PGE PGE
Dr = 50 %

Rate of sinkage (mm/s)

Rate of sinkage (mm/s)

Dr = 50 % OGE
OGE
PGE PGE
Dr = 70 % Dr = 70 %
OGE OGE
4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 15. Influence of wheel load on rate of sinkage at sinkage of 15% of radius (11.25 mm).

10 10
PGE PGE
Dr = 50 % Dr = 50 %
OGE
8 8 OGE
PGE PGE
Dr = 70 % Dr = 70 %
Torque (Nm)

OGE
Torque (Nm)
OGE
6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 16. Influence of wheel load on torque at sinkage of 15% of radius (11.25 mm).

1.0 1.0
PGE PGE
Dr = 50 % Dr = 50 %
OGE OGE
0.8 PGE 0.8
Dr = 70 % PGE
OGE Dr = 70 %
OGE
Slip ratio
Slip ratio

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Wheel load level (times 98.1 N) Wheel load level (times 98.1 N)
(a) Lunar soil simulant (b) Toyoura sand
Fig. 17. Influence of wheel load on slip ratio at sinkage of 15% of radius (11.25 mm).

OGE shows lower torque compared to PGE when the ratio in PGE remains constant even when the wheel load
wheel load becomes large. Variations of the slip ratio are becomes large. This indicates that a wheel, even if it is
shown in Fig. 17. Similarly to Fig. 14, this figure also shows heavy, can travel as long as the sinkage is small.
that the mobility deteriorates in a very low gravity environ- In Fig. 11 through Fig. 17, experimental results were
ment. Meanwhile, unlike the trend seen in Fig. 14, the slip examined from two standpoints, namely, the mobility in
272 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274
the moments after a certain period of time (Figs. 11–14),
and in the moments when the amount of sinkage reaches
the same value (Figs. 11–14). From these examinations, it
can be said that;
 Under a constant gravity condition (OGE), the amount
of sinkage decreases as the wheel load decreases. On the
other hand, sinkage is relatively unchanged with respect
to the wheel load under variable gravity conditions
(PGE).
 Torque is roughly proportionate to the wheel load and is
not greatly dependent on amount of sinkage.
 Gravity conditions in soils have a significant influence
on mobility performance, and a low gravity environ-
ment is disadvantageous to the performance.
 The aforementioned trends can generally be seen for
both Toyoura sand and the lunar soil simulant, and is
not dependent on how the soil is packed. Thus, it can
be said that these trends will represent behaviors of
granular materials in general.
In the following section, the mechanism of the mobility
in a variable gravity environment is discussed.
5. Mechanism of mobility in a low gravity environment
As shown in Fig. 9, slip ratio varies with time. It appears
that a slippage promotes sinkage due to the shearing effect
of the wheel spin, and then the sinkage results in further
increase of the slip ratio. When the gravity level decreases,
not only the wheel load, but also the confining stresses in
the soil, decrease. For frictional granular materials, the
reduction of confining stresses promotes a deterioration
of the bearing capacity, which then results in an increase
of the sinkage. In the meantime, the decrease of the gravity
level restrains the sinkage since the effect of the wheel load
decreases. This means that the effect of the wheel load and
the effect of soil resistance are in conflict with each other
when the gravity environment changes. The experimental
results of PGE in Fig. 15a indicate that these contrary
effects are canceled out, and as a result, there seemingly
is less changes in the amount of sinkage. However, these
two effects are not always exactly canceled out for the case
of Toyoura sand as demonstrated in Fig. 15b. It, thus,
appears that the mechanism is complicated because it is
dependent on the soil materials. Further examinations on
how the contrary effects balance will be an important and
interesting problem to be explored.
Again, it was found that the amount of sinkage in
PGE is constant regardless of the gravity condition
(Fig. 15a), while the slip ratio increases when the gravity
is reduced (Fig. 17a), indicating that a slip ratio can be
different even with the same amount of sinkage. This
implies a complex mechanism of the wheel-terrain interac-
tion, in which the mobility is not attributable only to the
sinkage characteristics. As mentioned in the previous sec-
tion, it was also found that the mobility of the wheel
under a fixed gravity condition improves as the wheel
load decreases, while the mobility deteriorates when both
the wheel load and the confining stresses of the soil
decrease simultaneously. To understand the mechanism
of these different behaviors, it is necessarily to pay atten-
tion to the fact that the soil behavior beneath a wheel is
influenced by the shearing effect of the wheel rotation,
as well as the load effect of the wheel weight. A decrease
of confining stresses in sands (frictional materials) due to
a gravity reduction yields an increase of flowability of the
materials, and an increase of the flowability leads to not
only a decrease of bearing resistance for the wheel load,
but also a decrease of shear resistance for the wheel rota-
tion. Therefore, the traction of the wheel-terrain interface
deteriorates as the gravity level and/or wheel load
decreases. Based on these findings, it can be said that a
slip occurs easily in a low gravity environment because
of the loosing of the traction to grip the terrain.
Here, it should be emphasized again that the mobility of
the wheel is governed by two mechanisms: bearing charac-
teristics to the wheel load and the shearing characteristics
to the wheel rotation. The bearing and shearing character-
istics will be reflected in the data of sinkage and torque,
respectively. Through the experiments of OGE and PGE,
it was found that a reduction of the wheel load and/or
gravity has different influences on the amount of sinkage
(bearing characteristics) and torque (shearing characteris-
tics), respectively. Fig. 18 shows what will happen to a
wheel with a weight of W in 1 g condition when the wheel
load and the gravity environment is reduced to 1/6, for
example, and how the reductions of the wheel load and/
or gravity influence the mobility characteristics is summa-
rized in Table 4. As can be seen in the A–C relationship
(comparison between the wheel on earth and that in the
low gravity environment) in this figure and the table, the
deterioration of the slip ratio in a low gravity environment
is caused by the mechanisms in which the amount of sink-
A
Wheel load: W
Gravity: 1g
A-B A-C
• Sinkage: decreased • Sinkage: constant / increased
• Torque: decreased • Torque: decreased
• Mobility: improved • Mobility: deteriorated
B: OGE C: PGE
Wheel load: W/6 Wheel load: W/6
Gravity: 1g Gravity: g/6
B-CC
• Sinkage: increased
• Torque: decreased
• Mobility: deteriorated
Fig. 18. Mechanism of mobility in lunar gravity environment.
 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274
Table 4
Mechanism of mobility in low gravity environment.
Category/ Mechanism
relationa
Sinkage:
A–B Decreased: the effect of wheel load decreases, while the
effect of soil resistance is unchangeable
A–C Constant/increased: the effect of wheel load and the effect
of soil resistance are in conflict each other
B–C Increased: the effect of soil resistance decreases, while the
effect of wheel load is unchangeable
Torque:
A–B Decreased: confining stresses in soils are reduced due to
the reduction of wheel load. The decrease of sinkage also
influences the decrease of torque
A–C Decreased: both the reductions of wheel load and
traction results in the decrease of torque
B–C Decreased: the stresses in soils decrease, even though the
wheel load effect is unchangeable
Slip ratio:
A–B Improved: the running resistance decreases by the
reduction of sinkage
A–C Deteriorated: the reduction of soil resistance (torque)
provides insufficient traction
B–C Deteriorated: the increase of sinkage and decrease of soil
resistance (torque) result in a significant deterioration of
slip ratio
a
Correspond to Fig. 18.
age is constant or increases (resulting in constancy/increase
of running resistance), while the shearing characteristics
(traction) deteriorates.
Moreover, the low traction will make it more likely for
the wheel to get stuck because a wheel without adequate
driving force will not be able to overcome additional run-
ning resistance of a climbing slope or a drawbar pull, and
so forth, even if it is minor. This suggests that a weight
reduction is not the only goal in terms of improving the
mobility, and the rover may require an adequate weight
to achieve sufficient mobility in cases, where a slope or a
pull is expected. Therefore, it can be concluded that low
gravity environments will be disadvantageous to the mobil-
ity performance of wheels.
6. Conclusions
To investigate the mobility of wheeled rovers in low
gravity environments, model experiments of a soil–wheel
system were performed on an aircraft during variable grav-
ity maneuvers. The main conclusions of this study are sum-
marized as follows:
(1) The sinkage of the wheel under a fixed gravity condi-
tion decreases as the wheel load decreases, while there
seemingly is less changes in the amount of sinkage
under a variable gravity environment since the effect
of the wheel load and the effect of soil resistance are
in conflict with each other when the gravity environ-
ment changes. It should be noted, however, that these
273
two effects are not always exactly canceled out under
some circumstances, where the soil material has high
flowability in a very low gravity environment.
(2) The traction of the wheel-terrain interface decreases as
the gravity level and/or the wheel load decreases. Thus,
it can be concluded that slippage occurs more easily in a
low gravity environment compared to a 1 g environ-
ment even if the same amount of sinkage takes place.
(3) The mobility of the wheel is governed concurrently by
two mechanisms: the bearing characteristics to the
wheel load and the shearing characteristics to the
wheel rotation. In a low gravity environment, the
mobility deteriorates since the amount of sinkage is
constant or increases (resulting in constancy/increase
of running resistance), while the shearing characteris-
tics (traction) deteriorates.
(4) The aforementioned tendencies are found in both of
the soil materials used in the experiments, namely,
the lunar soil simulant and Toyoura sand, and are
independent of the packing state of the soils, suggest-
ing that these are common behaviors for granular
materials in general.
(5) It can be concluded that the lunar and/or Mars’ grav-
ity environments will be disadvantageous to the
mobility performance of wheels compared to the
Earth’s gravity condition.
Although many analytical models for wheel-terrain sys-
tems had been proposed in the past, it appears that there is
no model that can accommodate partial gravity environ-
ments. This seems to be due to the fact that it is difficult
to simultaneously evaluate both the bearing characteristics
and shearing characteristics under the variable gravity con-
ditions. Developing an analytical model for partial gravity
environments will be of great importance to predict the
wheel mobility on lunar/planetary surface. We hope that
this study will make a contribution to modeling of extrater-
restrial soil–wheel interactions.
Acknowledgements
This study was performed as part of “Ground Research
Announcement for Space Utilization” promoted by Japan
Aerospace Exploration Agency and Japan Space Forum.
The authors are grateful for their support and the assis-
tance of Messrs. Michio Nakashima, Shigeru Aoki, and
Dr. Hiroshi Kanamori.
References
[1] Iagnemma K, Dubowsky S. Traction control of wheeled robotic
vehicles in rough terrain with application to planetary rovers. Int J
Robot Res 2004;23(10–11):1029–40.
[2] Shibly H, Iagnemma K, Dubowsky S. An equivalent soil mechanics
formulation for rigid wheels in deformable terrain, with application to
planetary exploration rovers. J Terramechanics 2005;42:1–13.
274 T. Kobayashi et al. / Journal of Terramechanics 47 (2010) 261–274
[3] Reina G, Ojeda L, Milella A, Borenstein J. Wheel slippage and
sinkage detection for planetary rovers. IEEE/ASME Trans Mech
2006;11(2):185–95.
[4] Ishigami G, Nagatani K, Yoshida K. Terramechanics-based model
for steering maneuver of planetary exploration rovers on loose soil. J
Field Robot 2007;24(3):233–50.
[5] Bekker MG. Theory of land locomotion. Ann Arbor (MI): University
of Michigan Press; 1956.
[6] Wong JY, Reece AR. Prediction of rigid wheel performance based on
the analysis of soil–wheel stresses. Part I. Performance of driven rigid
wheels. J Terramecanics 1967;4(1):81–98.
[7] Kobayashi T, Ochiai H, Suyama Y, Aoki S, Yasufuku N, Omine K.
Bearing capacity of shallow foundations in a low gravity environ-
ment. Soils Found 2009;49(1):115–34.
[8] Klein SP, White BR. Dynamic shear of granular material under
variable gravity conditions. AIAA J 1990;28(10):1701–2.
[9] Boles WW, Scott WD, Connolly JF. Excavation forces in reduced
gravity environment. J Aerospace Eng, ASCE 1997;10(2):99–103.
[10] Sture S, Costes NC, Batiste SN, Lankton MR, Alishibli KA, Jeremic
B, Swanson RA, Frank M. Mechanics of granular materials at low
effective stresses. J Aerospace Eng, ASCE 1998;11(3):67–72.
[11] Carrier WD, Mitchell JK, Mohmood A. The nature of lunar soil. J
Soil Mech Found Div, ASCE 1973;99(SM10):813–32.
[12] Carrier WD, Olhoeft G, Mendell WW. Physical properties of lunar
surface. Lunar sourcebook. Cambridge University Press; 1991. p.
475–567 [chapter 9].
[13] Kanamori H, Udagawa S, Yoshida T, Matsumoto S, Takagi K.
Properties of lunar soil simulant manufactured in Japan. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on engineering,
Construction and Operations in Space ASCE; p. 462–8.