Advantageous bucket-wheel configuration for

lightweight planetary excavators

Krzysztof Skonieczny, Scott J. Moreland,
David S. Wettergreen, and William L. Red Whittaker

Field Robotics Center, Carnegie Mellon University,

5000 Forbes Ave.,Pittsburgh, PA 15213
[email protected].

Abstract
Robotic regolith excavation on the Moon and Mars enables outposts, fuel depots, and sus-
tained space exploration. In any space mission, mass is always at a premium because it is the
main driver behind launch costs. Low mass and reduced gravity (1/6 of Earth gravity on the
Moon, 1/3 on Mars) results in machines with limited weight available to produce traction or
plunge tools into regolith. Bucket-wheel excavators have been shown to produce low resistance
forces that enable lightweight operation, but in the past have had difficulty transferring regolith
from bucket-wheel to collection bin. Exposed conveyors and chains fare poorly in harsh lunar
regolith and vacuum. A novel excavator configuration, with bucket-wheel mounted centrally
and transverse to driving direction, achieves direct transfer into a collection bin. Experiments
with a bucket-wheel digging in lunar simulant show that transverse bucket-wheel orientation
does not increase resistance significantly. Excavation resistance is shown to depend mostly on
the ratio of bucket-wheel rotation rate to forward advance rate.

Keywords: Excavation, planetary rovers, bucket-wheel

1 Lightweight Planetary Excavators

Lightweight robotic excavators enable compelling exploration and regolith operations on the Moon
and Mars. An excavator can feed regolith to precursor In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pro-
cessing plants, or remove overburden to study and to mine ice found near the lunar poles. The
capability to excavate and manipulate regolith makes future lunar outposts, fuel depots, and even
sustained human exploration possible.
Like exploration of the Martian surface, extraterrestrial excavation will first be performed by
robots. Missions to collect and process native regolith into oxygen, water, and fuel will begin
before human astronauts set out for Mars or return to the Moon.

1
 Fig. 1: Conceptual excavation robots building outpost infrastructure on the Moon

In any space mission, mass is always at a premium because it is the main driver behind launch
costs. Small excavators that can achieve mission goals are preferable to larger ones. Low mass
machines can also reduce risks for more advanced regolith operations by providing measured per-
formance in actual lunar or planetary conditions before larger and more expensive launches are
required. Low mass and reduced gravity (1/6 of Earth gravity on the Moon, 1/3 on Mars) results
in machines with limited weight available to produce traction or plunge tools into the regolith.
Engineering challenges associated with lightweight excavation necessitate a rethink of excavation
configurations, possibly beyond the dozers, loaders, and excavators typical in terrestrial applica-
tions [1].
In recent years, several robot prototypes have been developed specifically for lunar excavation
and In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). These have varied widely in weight class and in tooling
configuration.
A class of these excavator prototypes with mass less than 100 kg includes a bucket-wheel ex-
cavator [2], a Bucket-Drum Excavator with a novel regolith collection/containment system [3],
NASAs Cratos scraper [4], and several designs entered into NASAs Regolith Excavation Chal-
lenge and subsequent Lunabotics mining competitions. Winners of these contests have all em-
ployed bucket-ladder excavators. A team from Carnegie Mellon University participated in two of
these competitions with Lysander, a scraper excavator.
Juno rovers [5], equipped with front-loading load-haul-dump scoops, have mass well over
200 kg and thus are in a somewhat different class of excavator prototype. NASAs Chariot (equipped
with LANCE bulldozer blade) and Centaur II (with front-loader bucket) both have mass over
1000 kg and can hardly be classified as lightweight excavators, but were nonetheless envisioned as
lunar/planetary excavators.
Aside from weight, another way to classify various lunar/planetary excavator prototypes is by
their configuration type. One distinction is between continuous and discrete excavator configura-
tions. Continuous excavators (such as bucket-wheels or bucket-ladders) achieve productive digging
by taking cuts of soil with multiple small buckets in quick succession. Discrete excavators (such
as front-loaders or scrapers) fill one larger, wider bucket with a single cut.

2
 Fig. 2: Lysander, a lightweight scraper excavator, transporting lunar regolith simulant

This work argues that continuous excavators are more suitable for lightweight operation than
discrete wide bucket excavators. A configuration is proposed that makes using a bucket-wheel
particularly advantageous and lunar-relevant.

2 Theory predicts high productivity for wide bucket excavators

Classical excavation models incorrectly suggest that wide bucket excavators cutting regolith at
low depth are the most productive. This section explores the theoretical underpinnings of this
prediction, and the next section describes the reasons why it fails in practice.
The maximum horizontal excavation resistance an excavator can sustain without losing trac-
tion, denoted Fmax , is limited by its drawbar pull, which on level ground can be assumed to be
a constant bound. An excavators productivity is its rate of soil collection when digging at max
resistance, and both productivity and resistance depend on bucket geometry.
Classical models commonly put forward as candidates for simulating lunar and planetary exca-
vation [6, 7] include Luth & Wismer, Balovnev, McKyes, Swick & Perumpral, and Gill & Vanden-
Berg. Subsequent subsections describe these models and show how they steer toward wide bucket
configurations.

2.1 Applying Luth & Wismer excavation model

Luth and Wismer [8, 9] developed separate excavation models for sand and clay. These models
use non-dimensional ratios of relevant parameters, with coefficients and exponents empirically fit.
Although developed separately for purely frictional sand and purely cohesive clay, the two models
are sometimes used additively for soils that exhibit both frictional and cohesive strength [2, 6, 10].
A bucket is estimated as an inclined plate, with no side walls modeled.
Horizontal excavation resistances modeled by Luth and Wismer for sand and clay are:

3
 0.77 "  1.1 #
v2

d d
FH,sand = gwl1.5 1.73
d 1.05 + 1.26 + 3.91 (1)
l sin w gl

 1.21
1.5 1.15
d
FH,clay = gwl d
l sin
" 1.21  0.121  0.78 ! #
11.5c 2v d v2
0.055 + 0.065 + 0.64 (2)
gd 3w w gl

Bucket width is denoted w, cut depth is d, cut velocity is v, and soil density is . Other
parameters are defined in the notation section.
Excavation production (in kg/s) can be estimated by the product wdv. Production for various
bucket shapes is calculated by holding cut velocity and soil density constant. Depth is treated as
an independent variable, and the bucket width that results in Fmax (also constant) is solved for
numerically.
Predicted production rises monotonically as a function of bucket width aspect ratio (w/d), as
shown in Figure 3. The Luth & Wismer excavation model predicts highest productivity for very
wide buckets cutting very shallowly.

2.2 Applying Balovnev excavation model

Balovnev [11] developed a theoretical excavation model that incorporates bucket side walls and
cutting edge thickness. The horizontal component of excavation resistance is given by:

  
dg 1 sin
FH = wd(1 + cot tan )A1 + c cot + gq + B (d l sin ) g
2 1 + sin
  
eb g 1 sin
+ web (1 + tan cot b )A2 + c cot + gq + dg
2 1 + sin
  
dg 1 sin
+ 2sdA3 + c cot + gq + B (d ls sin ) g
2 1 + sin
  
dg 1 sin
+ 4 tan A4 ls d + c cot + gq + B (d ls sin ) g (3)
2 1 + sin

Bucket width is denoted w, cut depth is d, cut velocity is v, and soil density is . Other
parameters are defined in the notation section. As with the Luth & Wismer model, v, , and
Fmax are kept constant, d is treated as an independent variable, and w is solved for numerically
to calculate excavation production. Figure 3 shows maximum production predicted for a bucket
approximately 100 times wider than cut depth, which corresponds to a very wide bucket cutting
very shallowly.

4
 25

20

Excavation production (kg/s) 15

10

0
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Bucket width aspect ratio (w/d)

Fig. 3: Luth & Wismer (dashed blue) and Balovnev (solid red) excavation models predict maximum pro-
duction at very high ratios of bucket width to cut depth

2.3 Applying McKyes and other excavation models

The theoretical excavation models developed by McKyes, Swick & Perumpral, and Gill & Van-
denBerg share a common form, and differ primarily in types of terms that are included or omitted,
and in some coefficients. All three models are of the form:

FH = wd[1 d + 2 ] (4)
Bucket (assumed a flat plate) width is denoted w, cut depth is d, and i denote coefficients that
do not depend on w or d. Assuming a contant Fmax as before, w can be expressed directly in terms
of d:
Fmax
w= (5)
d[1 d + 2 ]
Excavation production, driven by the product wd, then follows the form:
C
(6)
1 d + 2
which is maximized as d approaches 0 or, in other words, an infinite bucket width aspect ratio
is approached. This is the theoretical limit of a very wide bucket cutting very shallowly.

5
3 Soil accumulation reduces wide bucket productivity in prac-
tice
Theory developed in the previous section suggests using a wide bucket excavator to maximize pro-
ductivity when weight, and thus drawbar pull, are limited. Typical wide bucket excavators include
scrapers and front-end loaders. Classical excavation models assume, though, that excavation resis-
tance depends only on initial bucket setup and remains constant throughout the full traverse of a
cut.
Excavation resistance in fact varies significantly during a cut as soil accumulates in the bucket,
and classical models fail to incorporate this effect sufficiently.
Agui [12] shows that horizontal excavation resistance rises approximately linearly with cut
distance, as soil accumulates in a wide aspect ratio bucket. King [7] demonstrates significant rises
in horizontal forces on a bulldozer blade (another earthmoving configuration with a wide cutting
tool) as surcharge increases with cut distance.
Classical excavation models described in previous subsections do not directly accomodate rise
in excavation resistance due to soil accumulation. Some of the models have a surcharge term to
account for an evenly distributed load acting on the soil being cut. Soil accumulation near the
leading edge of a bucket could also be partially captured as an increase in cut depth. Agui showed
that the shape and location of a soil pile accumulating in a bucket is nontrivially dependent upon
time as well as cut depth, cut angle, and possibly other parameters. Modeling soil accumulation
in a bucket by continuously changing surcharge distribution and cut depth is therefore difficult
because it requires additional modeling of how the soil flows as it enters the bucket.
Weight-limited scrapers, front-end loaders, and bulldozers lose productivity because they are
discrete excavators, not directly because they have wide buckets. It is the soil accumulation in a
discrete bucket that increases resistance, not the aspect ratio of the bucket itself. Incorporating wide
buckets in a continuous excavator, as some bucket-ladder excavators do, maintains productivity
advantages of wide aspect buckets without the drawbacks due to soil accumulation.

4 Bucket-wheels and bucket-ladders

Bucket-wheel excavators have been shown to produce low resistance forces suitable for lightweight
operation [13]. Bucket-wheels, and any other continuous excavators such as bucket-ladders, also
do not suffer from increasing resistance from soil accumulation described in the previous section.
Prototype bucket-wheel excavators have had difficulty transferring regolith from bucket-wheel to
collection bin in the past, and as a result bucket-ladders have gained favor [14].
Bucket-ladders use chains to move buckets along easily shapeable paths, making transfer to a
collection bin easy. Winners of the NASA Regolith Excavation Challenge and subsequent Lun-
abotics mining competitions (which require digging in lunar regolith simulant for 30 minutes) all
employed bucket-ladders driven by exposed chains. However, bucket-ladder chains are exposed di-
rectly to the soil surface and these would degrade very quickly in harsh lunar regolith and vacuum.
Exposed bucket-ladder chains are thus not relevant to operation in lunar conditions.
A novel excavator configuration, with bucket-wheel mounted centrally and transverse to driv-
ing direction, achieves direct regolith transfer into a dump-bed. The bucket-wheel is a single
moving part, with no need for chains or conveyors. This reduces complexity and risk from regolith

6
Fig. 4: Left: Robotic excavator configuration with transverse bucket-wheel and large dump-bed
Right: Close-up of regolith transfer into dump-bed

and dust. Once regolith has been carried to the top of the wheel in an individual bucket, it drops
down a chute into a dump bed. This configuration offers a simple solution to the transfer problem
for bucket-wheels identified in past literature [14].
A large dump-bed achieves a high payload ratio (mass of regolith that can be carried by the
excavator, normalized by excavator mass). High payload ratio has been shown to be a key feature
that governs productivity for lightweight robotic excavators [3]. The proposed configuration is thus
highly productive even though it operates lightweight.

5 Testing a transverse bucket-wheel

The novel bucket-wheel excavator configuration simplifies regolith transfer into a dump-bed, but
it is important to establish if that does not come at a cost, such as higher excavation resistance. A
transverse bucket-wheel configuration must not lose the low resistance that makes bucket-wheels
desirable in the first place.
Excavation forces and production rates of bucket-wheels digging in lunar simulant are mea-
sured experimentally. Experiments compare resistance forces encountered by bucket wheels ad-
vancing through GRC-1 lunar simulant in a transverse configuration (axis of rotation along direc-
tion of travel) and in a forward configuration (axis of rotation lateral to direction of travel).
An experimental apparatus pushes a bucket-wheel along a direction of travel while rotating
it; the bucket-wheel orientation can be set either transverse or forward. A load cell measures the
horizontal force opposing travel.
Excavation resistance for a transverse bucket-wheel is shown to depend strongly on rotation
speed (as a ratio to forward advance rate). Once a sufficiently high rotation speed is achieved,

7
 Fig. 5: Experimental apparatus for bucket-wheel testing

Fig. 6: Transverse bucket-wheels do not exhibit significantly higher excavation resistance once bucket rota-
tion speed is sufficient

8
there is little difference in excavation resistance between transverse and forward bucket-wheel
configurations.
Future experiments will measure lateral loads during transverse bucket-wheel tests. Initial
observations suggest these are low.

6 Conclusions
Continuous excavator configurations, such as bucket-wheels and bucket-ladders, are preferable
to discrete wide bucket excavators, such as scrapers and front-loaders, for lightweight lunar and
planetary excavation. Classical excavation theory suggests wide buckets are highly productive, but
the theory does not capture the effects of soil accumulation which degrades the productivity of
weight-limited systems. Continuous excavators do not suffer from increased resistance from soil
accumulation, because a new empty bucket is repeatedly introduced to cut soil.
Bucket-wheel excavators produce low resistance forces that enable lightweight operation, but
in the past have had difficulty transferring regolith from bucket-wheel to collection bin or dump-
bed. As a result, bucket-ladders have gained favor, but their exposed chains would fare poorly in
harsh lunar regolith and vacuum.
A centrally mounted and transverse bucket-wheel configuration achieves simplified transfer of
regolith into a dump-bed with no significant increase in excavation resistance. Future work will
develop a prototype of this advantageous excavator configuration, for demonstration and further
experimentation.

7 Notation
b Blunt edge angle [rad]
Cut angle [rad]
i Analytical coefficients []
Soil density [kg/m3 ]
External friction angle [rad]
Internal friction angle [rad]
Ai Balovnev model coefficients []
B Buried bucket flag [0,1]
C Constant []
c Cohesion [N/m2 ]
d Cut depth [m]
eb Blunt edge thickness [m]
FH Horizontal resistance force [N]
Fm ax Maximum horizontal force [N]
l Bucket length [m]
ls Side length [m]
s Side thickness [m]
v Cut velocity [m/s]
w Bucket width [m]

9
References
[1] W. W. Boles, D. B. Ashley, and R. L. Tucker, Lunar-base construction equipment and meth-
ods evaluation, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 217235, July 1993.
[2] T. Muff, R. H. King, and M. B. Duke, Analysis of a small robot for martian regolith exca-
vation, in AIAA Space 2001 Conference & Exposition, (Albequerque, NM), AIAA, August
2001.
[3] D. Clark, R. Patterson, and D. Wurts, A novel approach to planetary regolith collection: the
bucket drum soil excavator, in AIAA Space 2009 Conference & Exposition, September 2009.
[4] J. J. Caruso, D. C. Spina, L. C. Greer, and N. F. P. et al, Excavation on the moon: Regolith
collection for oxygen production and outpost site preparation, Tech. Rep. 20080012503,
NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135, 2008.
[5] R. Theiss, D. Boucher, M. Viel, D. Roberts, and J. Kutchaw, Interchangeable payloads for
isru mobility chassis, in Space Resources Roundtable XI / Planetary & Terrestrial Mining
Sciences Symposium Proceedings, 2010.
[6] A. Wilkinson and A. DeGennaro, Digging and pushing lunar regolith: Classical soil me-
chanics and the forces needed for excavation and traction, Journal of Terramechanics,
vol. 44, pp. 133152, 2007.
[7] R. H. King, P. J. van Susante, and R. P. Mueller, Comparison of lance blade force mea-
surements with analytical model results, in Space Resources Roundtable XI / Planetary &
Terrestrial Mining Sciences Symposium Proceedings, 2010.
[8] H. J. Luth and R. D. Wismer, Performance of plane soil cutting blades in sand, Transactions
of the ASAE, vol. 14, pp. 255262, Mar-Apr 1971.
[9] R. D. Wismer and H. J. Luth, Performance of plane soil cutting blades in clay, Transactions
of the ASAE, vol. 15, pp. 211216, 1972.
[10] K. Skonieczny, D. S. Wettergreen, and W. L. R. Whittaker, Parameters governing regolith
site work by small robots, in ASCE Earth & Space 2010 Proceedings, (Honolulu, HI), March
2010.
[11] V. Balovnev, New Methods, for Calculating Resistance to Cutting of Soil [Novy Metody
Rascheta Soprotivlenii Rezaniyu Gruntou]. Amerind Pub. Co. (New Delhi and New York),
1983.
[12] J. H. Agui and A. Wilkinson, Granular flow and dynamics of lunar simulants in excavating
implements, in ASCE Earth & Space 2010 Proceeding, (Honolulu, HI), March 2010.
[13] L. Johnson and R. King, Measurement of force to excavate extraterrestrial regolith with a
small bucket-wheel device, Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 87 95, 2010.
[14] L. L. Johnson and P. J. van Susante, Excavation system comparison: Bucket wheel vs. bucket
ladder, in Space Resources Roundtable VIII Proceedings, (Golden, CO), November 2006.

10