z/

NASA

Contractor

Report

201601

A Method for Landing Gear Modeling

and Simulation With Experimental
Validation
James

N. Daniels

George Washington
Joint Institute
NASA

for the Advancement

Langley

Cooperative

University

Research

Agreement

Center,

NCC1-208

June 1996

National

Aeronautics

and

Space Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001

of Hight
Hampton,

Sdences
Virginia

Abstract

An approach
Specifically,

for modeling

a nonlinear

and validated

against

such as a polytropic
the discharge
damping
equations

gas law, velocity

at which

returned

the problem

point,

2 minutes

validate

the model,

Langley

Research

hydraulic

shaker

were

tuned

parameters

friction

a Runga-Kutta

solution

back

per 1 second
engineers

Center

table to provide

to match

one dynamic

and the results

caused
routine

of simulation

includes

a geometry

and a nonlinear

corrector

integrated

Landing

nonlinear
governed

tire spring

friction

model

past the discontinuity

corrector.
under

dynamic

Dynamics

case.

runway

Other

were in excellent

inputs

effects
model

and
the
was
and

circumstances.
facilities

to the gear.

To

at NASA
and used a
Model

parameters

cases were then run with the updated

agreement

for

Run times of this software

one A-6 main gear on a drop carriage

simulated

simulated,

was used to integrate

by a stick-slip

to the predictor

at the Aircraft

installed

effects

is presented.

Gear is developed,

damping,

predictor

until a discontinuity

reached,

are around

stick-slip

Main

gear systems

test data. This model

squared

An Adams-Moulton

of motion

landing

of an A-6 Intruder

static and dynamic

coefficients,

model.

model

and simulating

with the test data.

Table

Abstract
Table

of

Contents

....................................................................................................................

of Contents

Nomenclature
List of Figures

....................................................................................................

iii

...........................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

viii
ix

1: Introduction
1.1 Background

Chapter

...........................................................................................

1.2 Objective

...............................................................................................

1.3 Literature

Survey

...................................................................................

1.4 Research

Significance

1.5 Document

Outline

2: Problem

Formulation

2.1

Initial

2.2

Nonlinear

2.3

Relation

2.4

Summary

Landing

............................................................................

.................................................................................

Gear Investigation

Model

Development

of Pressures

.........................................................
.............................................................

to Stroke

Position

and Stroke

Rate ...................

............................................................................................

3: Numerical

7
9
13
22

Analysis

3.1

Introduction

3.2

Model

3.3

Karnopp

.........................................................................................

Integration
Friction

23

Model ......................................................................

26

of Discontinuities

3.5

.. ..........................................................................................

Summary

4: Experimental
Introduction

4.2

Test Equipment

4.3

Summary

.........................................................................................
...................................................................................

............................................................................................

5: A-6 Experimental

5.2 Determination

...............................................................

28
29

Facility

4.1

Introduction

23

................................................................................

3.4 Treatment

5.1

Parameter

31
35

Determination

.........................................................................................
of Static

31

Parameters

111

.....................................................

36
36

5.3

Dynamic

5.4

Model

5.5

Summary

Testing

.................................................................................

45

Validation

.................................................................................

51

............................................................................................

57

..........................................................................................

58

6: Conclusions

Chapter

6.1 Conclusions
6.2
References
Appendix

Future

Research

...................................................................................

..............................................................................................................
A:

Program

Information

58
60

and Listing

A.1

Program

Set-Up

.................................................................................

63

A.2

Program

Listing

.................................................................................

65

A.3

Sample

A.4

Output

Input Files .............................................................................

Manipulation

File ...................................................................

iv

83
85

Nomenclature

As ........................

Genetic

area for one snubber

orifice

(it2)

Cd ........................

Discharge

coefficient

of a flow through

Cas c .....................

Discharge

coefficient

of a snubber

orifice

during

compression

Cas E .....................

Discharge

coefficient

of a snubber

orifice

during

extension

Ct .........................

Tire damping

C1/3 ......................

an orifice

coefficient

0bf*sec/ft)

Redefinition

of damping

coefficient

0bf*seJ/it)

C_4 ......................

Redefinition

of damping

coefficient

0bf*sec2/ft)

Di, Ai ...................

Diameter

(ft) and area (ft a) of flow

DL, A L..................

Diameter

(ft) and area (ft a) of lower

do, Ao ...................

Variable

Dop .......................

Fixed

Dpi .......................

Diameter

Dpi_ ......................

Variable

DR, AR .................

Diameter

(ft) and area (ita) ofrebotmd

ds c, A_ c ................

Diameter

(it) and area (ita) of one snubber

orifice

during

compression

_E, A E ................

Diameter

(it) and area (ft 2) of one snubber

orifice

during

extension

D.,

Diameter

(ft) and area (fta) of upper

An ..................

diameter

diameter

of piston

El, E2, E3, E4 ........ Redefinition

shaft

(i)

chamber

(it) and area (_)

of orifice

diameter

at point

of main

orifice

plate (It)
(f_)

of the metering

ofnonpressure

pin (It)

terms

f ...........................

All friction

F i .........................

External

force on body (i) (lbf)

Fow .......................

Variable

friction

Fpeak .....................

Maximum

F_ .........................

Relative

fsc_ .......................

Constant

Fstick .....................

The force

Ft .........................

Force

(or snubber)

chamber

chamber
in flow

equations

(ftS/(sec2*lbf))

in gear 0bf)

sticking

due to moment
friction

force between
friction

created

between

bodies

due to seal tightness

through

(lbf)

together

tire (lbf)

two bodies

one and two 0bf)

to stick the two bodies

transmitted

by offset wheel

(Ibf)

0bf)

0bf)

g ..........................

Gravitational

acceleration

Kt .........................

Tire

(lbf/t_)

K1/3 ......................

Redefinition

of spring

stiffness

term

0bf*ft _)

K2/4 ......................

Redefinition

of spring

stiffness

term

0bf*ft'9

L ..........................

Lift function

on wing

ma ........................

Moment

Mi ........................

Mass

of body

M L .......................

Piston

Mass

Mo .......................

Moments

M u .......................

Portion

of Airplane

N .........................

Normal

reactant

P ..........................

Pressure

of a fluid at a point

Pi .........................

Pressure

at point

PL .........................

Hydraulic

pressure

in lower

Ps .........................

Hydraulic

pressure

in snubber

Psi ........................

Pressure

Pu .........................

Pneumatic

Q .........................

Volumetric

Qidea/ ....................

Ideal

Qo ........................

Flow through

Qreal .....................

Real flow through

Qs c .......................

Flow

through

a snubber

orifice

during

compression

Qs E.......................

Flow

through

a snubber

orifice

during

extension

(f_/sec)

stp .......................

Minimum

bearings

when

fully extended

U, U ...................

Input

(ft/sec)

from

ground

V ..........................

Velocity

of a fluid at a point

Vi .........................

Velocity

at point

V i.........................

Velocity

of body (i) (ft/sec)

stiffness

(ft/sec 2)

0bf)

arm of tire force

acting

on piston

fit)

(i) (slug)
and Wheel/Tire

about

point

Mass

(slug)

O 0bf*ft)

Mass

force

and Cylinder

of cylinder

Mass

(slug)

wall on side of piston

head

0bf)

(psi)

(i) in a fluid (psi)

to which

upper

pressure

chamber
chamber

chamber

in upper

(psi)
(psi)

is initially

chamber

charged

(psi)

(psi)

flow rate of a fluid (t_/sec)

flow through

an orifice

the main

position

orifice

an orifice

separation

(ft-S/sec)
(fia/sec)
(flZ/sec)

between

(ft) and velocity

(ft/sec)

(i) in a fluid (ft/sec)

vi

(ftZ/sec)

(ft)

Vr.........................
Relativevelocity (ft/sec)betweenbodiesoneandtwo
1;'........................
Time derivativeof relativevelocity(ft/sec2)
Wi........................
Momentumof body (i) (slug*ft/sec)
........................
Time derivativeof momentumof body(i) (lbf)
X,,

,_'o, X, .......... Wheel

axle position

X_ ........................

Stroke

X, ........................

Stroking

X_i........................

Stroke

X_,,

Fully extended

....................

remaining

(t_), velocity

(ft/sec),

and acceleration

(ft/sec 2)

in strut (ft)

rate (it/sec)
position

Xwg, _'wt, X'_s ..... Wing/Gear

at which
stroke

position

upper

value

chamber

is charged

(ft)

(it)

(it), velocity

(it/see),

Z ..........................

Height

of a point

in a fluid from

Zi .........................

Height

at point

1/3 .......................

Subscripts

associated

with compression

2/4 .......................

Subscripts

associated

with extension

and acceleration

some reference

(ff/sec 2)

(it)

(i) in a fluid fit)

Greek

Symbols

13..........................

The ratio of orifice

area over flow from area (ff/ft)

5 ..........................

Velocity

near zero (ft/sec)

T ..........................

Polytropic

gas constant

_t ..........................

Coefficient

of friction

v ..........................

Specific

weight

p ..........................

Density

of a fluid (slug/ft 3)

deadband

between

piston

of a fluid (slug/(it*sec2))

vii

head

and cylinder

wall

List

Figure

of

Figures

2-1:

Schematic

of typical

Figure 2-2:

Schematic

of a telescoping

Figure

2-3:

Schematic

of upper

mass and main

Figure

2-4:

Schematic

of lower

mass ....................................................................

Figure

2-5:

Control

volume

between

Figure

2-6:

Control

volume

for the snubber

Figure

2-7:

Schematic

Figure

3-1:

Simple

Figure

4-1:

Schematic

Figure

4-2:

Instrumented

Figure

5-1:

Load

cell under jack

Figure

5-2:

Total

weight

Figure

5-3:

Weight

Figure

5-4:

Experimental

Figure

5-5:

Pressure-stroke

Figure

5-6:

Result

Figure

5-7:

Zero centered

Figure

5-8a:

Frequency

response

comparison

of strut stroke

to shaker

Figure

5-8b:

Frequency

response

comparison

of upper

position

shaker
Figure

5-8c:

Figure

5-8d:

two mass

system

chamber
model

plate ..............................

..........................................

input

16
18
21

with slip stick friction

..............................

26
32

system

and frictional

.......... 37

loop ................

loop .........................

.............................................

analytical

subtracted

and friction

hysteresis

hysteresis

curve

and fitted

mass

34

expression

......................

from axle load measurements..

load data ......................................................

mass

comparison

of upper

chamber

comparison

of upper

chamber

response

comparison

of strut stroke

to shaker

Figure

5-9b:

Frequency

response

comparison

of upper

position

ooo

vul

mass

43
44

49
to
50
to

......................................................................................

Frequency

42

to

pressure

5-9a:

39

input ..... 48

pressure

Figure

38

40

input ......................................................................................
response

12
13

input ......................................................................................
response

11

.............................

tire load-deflection

frictional

......................................

development

and frictional

load"

cylinder

gear ...........................................................

of the system

curve

gear .....................................

and orifice

lug to measure

mass

gear ......................................

set up ......................................................

A-6 landing

of "pressure

Frequency
shaker

piston

of experimental

of lower

landing

main landing

of gear for friction

Frequency
shaker

telescoping

50
input ..... 51
to

shaker
Figure

5-9c:

Frequency
shaker

Figure

input ......................................................................................

5-9d:

response

of upper

chamber

pressure

to

input ......................................................................................

Frequency
shaker

comparison

52

response

comparison

of upper

chamber

52

pressure

to

input ......................................................................................

53

Figure

5-10a:

Frequency

response

comparison

of strut stroke

to shaker

Figure

5-10b:

Frequency

response

comparison

of upper

position

mass

input...
to shaker

input ................................................................................................
Figure

5-10c:

Comparison

of responses

of upper

chamber

pressure

54
to shaker

input ................................................................................................
Figure

5-10d:

Comparison

of responses

of lower

champer

pressure

54
to shaker

input ...............................................................................................
Figure

5-1 la:

Time

history

of strut position

Figure

5-1 lb:

Time

history

of Wing/Gear

as gear encounters
Position

55

a step bump

as gear encounters

53

..... 56

a step

bump ..............................................................................................

56

List of Tables

Table

4-1:

Instrument

guide

on A-6 test specimen

ix

...............................................

34

Chapter

1.1

1: Introduction

Background
In recent

research

focus

supersonic

years, NASA
on the High

(mach

both carrier
Concorde,

design

Speed

2.4) airplane

and passenger
a current,

To make
stage.

and many

expensive

One major

(HSCT).

places

supersonic

carder.

more cost effective,

problem

and total weight.

has been

designed

for aerodynamic

much

encountered

The concept

performance

effort

expended

are rarely

disturbances,

or vibrations.

a goal of the landing

Computer
problem.
runway

profile,

The military

how well to repair

the runway

less sensitive

runways,

repair
to rough

and thus allowing

A great
a runway

specifications.

quicker

however,

the fuselage

low frequency
is to reduce

deal of effort
to prevent

Active

decreasing
response

for predicting

in simulating

aircraft

applied

research

concepts

missions.

to

This effort

but rather

may render
to repair

for

to the problem

gear failures.

the time needed

of military

ground

of much

the force transmission),

control

dynamics,

gear response

has been

landing

transmission

fuselage

has been the subject

the gear (i.e. to control

runways,

Since

this disturbance

gear dynamics,

a simulator

gear dynamics

runways.

and wings

of design,

gear design

to study

concerning

has long been interested

did not focus on changing

gears

developed

to develop

of landing

bomb-damaged

of determining

changing

are being

and taxi speed,

Simulation

years.

repaired,

simulations

to external,

between

to the fuselage.

The task is to take information

response.
many

from the ground

of the fuselage
stages

for

in the

is the trade-off

considered.

it is very sensitive

transmission

is being

In the early

is very long and slender,

disturbance

price

to that of the

on the HSCT

Therefore,

is to fly a

will be similar

the structure

performance.

their

at an economical

in its development

To this point,

and dynamic

have increased

on the globe

appearance

rigidity

gear location

companies

Its overall

structural

landing

Civil Transport

to various

use.

the HSCT

aerospace

on

landing

damaged

1.2 Objective
This document
systems.

will present

Specifically,

a nonlinear

simulated,

and validated

polytropic

gas model,

discharge
model.

To validate

NASA

Langley

a hydraulic

techniques

mathematical

effects

and a nonlinear

at the Aircraft

Gear

tests.

runway

effects

governed

inputs

In summary,

formulation

of landing

model

tire spring

such as a
for the

and damping

Dynamics

approaches

to the gear.

Facility

for further

validation

presents

verifies

at

and used

Model

then, this research

gear systems,

gear

is developed,

nonlinear

Landing

landing

one A-6 main gear on a drop carriage

simulated

with tests, and discusses

includes

a geometry

installed

and dynamic

Main

damping,

engineers

Center

and simulating

of an A-6 Intruder

friction

table to provide

used both quasi-static

comprehensive

squared

stick-slip

Research

for modeling

test data. This model

the model,

shaker

model

against
velocity

coefficients,

an approach

the modeling

model

correlation

been generally

to predict

using

the

test results.

1.3

Literature

Survey

Concurrent
military

aircraft

modeling

to prevent

the HAVE
simulated

through

the dynamic

response

and operational

structure

to generate

mainly

limits.

Base.

of the landing

minimum

repair

accomplishment

this program,
aircraft

Induced

Loads

Excitation

usually

combine

gear with linear

response.

Each

techniques

of traversing

limited

the inputs

of repairs.

repaired

runways.

component

is usually

nonlinear
describing

In addition,

to their models

is

has

damaged

(AGILE)

sections

to

of this research

of these simulations

for the plane in question.

of

procedures

the USAF

over bomb

of these simulations

Simulations

the total aircraft

therefore,

military

Validation

Ground

with the problem

They have,

Using

taxi loads

has led to extensive

with test data and are used to identify

but each is also very tailored

concerned

classes

equations

This work

One major

program.
of many

are validated

the use of the Aircraft

differential

on rollout.

_ simulation

Air Force

runways.

with the goal of determining

BOUNCE

Wright-Patterson

runway.

aircraft

bomb-damaged

gear failure

simulations

weaknesses

good,

over repaired,

of military

runways

These

and past work of this kind have

2 test facility
coupled
the fuselage
is usually

very

the military

is

sequentially
mainly

achieved

on a

to the various

at

Another
parameters

approach

of a state space

are included

are fair to good

Edson 5 described

impact

to significantly

and rollout.

model

of the equations

was designed
the landing
weight
Their

reduce

gear.

model

rebound

chamber.

damping.

also, was no recourse

tire spring,

response

well in attenuating

aircraft

performed
effort
Their

has been exerted

main simulation

gear types

velocities,
which

as a node.

has proven
captured

transport

plane.

acceleration,

mechanism

results

especially

was not detailed,

orifice

showed

The program

reduction

The

models
part

in terms

of the

selection
of

of the gear or

were

subsystem

force

accurate

simulation

tool. The complexity

effects

seen in test data.

applied
of peak

in the nose and tail section

only an assumed

allows

for any pan

concept

scheme

inputs.

detailed

equivalents

most dynamic

was used to test an active

highly

responses

outputs

fluid

control

frequency

gear dynamic

this to be a very

program

These

Other

squared

6"7in the field of simulation

many

gear.

and angular

of

motions.

includes

landing

in terms

pin and no

this active

to various

Dynamics

types of landing

accelerations

generally

program

and outputs

is selected

validation

of the model

of several

by Stirling

flow into and out of

in case of servo failure.

and velocity

this aircraft's

landing

The servo-controller

no metering

and testing

for individual

normal

friction

takeoff,

the use of a linearized

developed

no tire damping,

they did include

during

gear which

is very expensive

aircraft

components

Extensive

however,

by implementing

and control.

fuselage

control,

Ross and

landing

level by porting

this research

system

positions,

to active

controlled

in the system.

experimentally.

force

test data is

time is limited.

an actively

through

extended

Much

various

However,

command

on the exact

when

computation

by an aircraft

Freymann

on a fighter
control

a linear

is good

controlled

analytically

and confirmed

a certain

There,

included

sustained

parameters

of this type of formulation

damping

and an actively

were obtained

This approach

and complexity.

and simulation

3. These
Depending

This approach

gear to augment

forces

of motion

to maintain

tables.

the results

test data.

controller

The results

look-up

by Ross and Edson 5 in which

to a landing

an electronic

gear and fuselage

through

determination,

an experiment

uses data from tests to determine

capability,

to actual

for parameter

is connected

was found

for the landing

and the measurement

4 revisited

servovalve

in the literature

formulation

in comparison

accessible

Freymann

model

in a quasi-linear

form of the model

easily

discussed

behavior.

interactions.

This same

to the nose gear of a typical

and root mean
of the plane.

square

values

An active

This is a very good

of

orifice

program

for

landing geardesignandtestingof existinggearconfigurations.However,a simpler

model would allow thephysicsof the strut,only, to bescrutinized,leadingperhapsto a
clearerunderstandingof landinggearbehavior.
Researchinto thebehaviorof a supersoniccarrierduring groundoperationswas
performedby C.G. Mitchells. His theoreticalanalysisandtestexperiencewith the
Concordehasshownthatthe supersonictransportis moresensitiveto unevenrunways
thanthe subsonictransport.Resultsreportedin
minimize

undercarriage

airframe

stiffness

and undercarriage
Ramamoorthy

landing

based

However,

model

by Bell,

for the discharge

degrees

of freedom

of this model

metering
allow

showed

has been

the damping
to reduce

vibration

An optimization
Qing-zhi
as design

variables

coefficient

(which

the discharge
value

of the fatigue

impact
damping

energy,

static

coefficient.

on the simulated

estimation

power

alter the results

of the model

a landing

needs

it cannot

in the force

change.

An active

to be

With

this

with two

pin shape.

Optimization

to the

model

gear model

of the metering

was

transmitted

et. al. was used for this parameter.

The results

of the metering
reduction.
orifice
changed

Once

pin,

concept

would

in reaction

to

transmission.
strut characteristics
an optimization
initial

is a function

spectral

The results

show

What

approach

air volume,

The objective

density.
ratio,

was performed

of the hydraulic

and oil density).

707.

and

A semi-empirical

of the gear to be continuously

compression

Boeing

could

of this parameter

geometry.

improvement

the initial pressure,

coefficient

to

of an articulated

can alter forces

Wahi _developed

defined,

described

in reality,

on his model

that the coefficient

and orifice

some

of many

1]. This paper

vibrations

and no validation

the optimization

characteristics

of cockpit

coefficient

well to flight and drop tests.

case,

care must be taken

were made

Knudsen

to investigate

pin shape

any input

number

coefficient,

compared

for this particular

conclusions

Schlichting,

study

in the discharge

as 25% and that proper

on both the Reynolds

developed

a parameter

Wahl j found

by as much

if problems

that much

were to be avoided.

that changes

No quantitative

performed.
fuselage

fatigue

9 performed

gear and found

dramatically.

and friction

[8] show

Constraints

maximum
a significant

the results

by Li, Gou-zhu,

for landing

gear design

and an artificial
and pneumatic
function

and
using

oil damping
areas as well as

was the mean

square

were in the form of landing

compression
reduction

fail to show,

ratio and limits

in the accumulated

however,

is whether

on the
fatigue
the

upperandlower limits onthe dampingcoefficientsarephysicallyachievable.Thelimits

did not includeconsiderationsof geometryandrealisticdischargecoefficientvalues.
Doyle_2providesanexcellentliteraturesurveyon aircraftgrounddynamic
simulationtechniques.His reportcontainsa brief summaryof the computerprograms
written topredictthedynamicdisplacements
andforcesresultingfrom nonflightaircraft
operations.Thecapabilitiesof eachprogramandtheirlimitationsandnumerical
techniquesarecited.

1.4 ResearchSignificance
The significanceof the materialtreatedin this researchis thatit bringstogetherin
oneplacea comprehensive
developmentof the theoryof telescopinggear. This
documentcontainsthedevelopmentof theequationsof motionanddetailsthe more
standardpracticesof expressingthemin termsof physicallymeasurablequantities.The
modelhasonly two degreesof freedom,bothin the verticaldirection. In the investigation
of loadstransmittedinto the fuselage,though,this is themostimportantdirection. The
modelis fully nonlinearandincludessucheffectsasa polytropicgasmodel,a velocity
squareddampingterm,which includesa dischargecoefficientthatis a functionof orifice
geometry,extensiondamping,stick-slipfriction in thegear,andnonlineartire model. All
parameterssuchaspolytropicgasconstant,orificegeometry,frictional quantities,etc.
appearexplicitly in theequations,andcanbeusedin a sensitivityanalysis.Also,
optimizationof geargeometryandinitial chargepressuresandvolumesis easily
accomplishedusingthis model. In theend,controlconceptscanbe linkedto this model
for investigationof forcetransmissionreduction.
This researchalsotreatsthesubjectof numericalintegrationof the equationsof
motion. The stiff, nonlinear,anddiscontinuousbehaviorof theseequationsmakethis a
difficult problemto solvenumerically,andmanyconsiderationsweremadeto makeit
easier.Also, this documentdetailsa seriesof testsandproceduresby which to validate
themodel. This validationis bothstaticanddynamic. A frequencyresponsemethod
wasusedto updatetheparametersin themodelandothertypesof casesto validatethe
simulation.

1.5

Document

Chapter
motion

Outline

This document

is divided

2, discusses

the theoretical

of a landing

numerically

gear.

implemented

describes

the test procedures

experimental

about

A, is the FORTRAN

of the problems

and presents
program

Finally,

Chapter

some

concluding

used to obtain

document.

in which

in Chapter

of the equations
these equations

that were encountered.

validation

that were implemented

the introduction

development

the method

used in the experimental

error control.

plans

3 details

and some

the equipment

After

and mathematical

Chapter

discusses

statements

into six chapters.

effort.

to validate

6 will discuss
remarks.

the simulation

The next chapter

future

Also included,
results

of

were

Chapter

this simulation
some

1,

shown

and some

research

and

in Appendix
in this

Chapter

2.1

Initial

Landing

Gear

telescoping

gear components.
gear (as opposed

to familiarize

a mathematical

landing gear.

Problem

Formulation

Investigation

This chapter is intended

and to demonstrate

2:

the reader with landing gear terminology

development

Figure 2-1 is intended

It shows the simplified

of the equations

of motion

to acquaint the reader with basic landing

components

of a telescoping,

main landing

to a nose gear).

1) Upper

Mass

2) Nitrogen
3) Outer

(Fuselage)

Gas (Pneumatic

5) Orifice

Fluid
Plate

6) Metering

Pin

7) Snubber

Orifice

8) Snubber

(Rebound)

9) Lower

Chamber

Piston

10) Tire

2-1:

Schematic

of typical

telescoping

Spring)

Cylinder

4) Hydraulic

Figure

for a

main

landing

gear.

Point 1 on thefigureis a rigid bodyrepresentationof the aircraftfuselagethatthe

gearcarriesandis the interfacebetweenthe planeandthegear. Point2 is a chamber
containingcompressednitrogenwhich servesasa springthatcarriesthe weight of the
planein groundoperations.Point3 refersto themain,uppercylinder which housesthe
compressedgas,hydraulicfluid, andwithin which thepistonslides.The hydraulicfluid
is represented
by the shadedarealocatedby point4. Point5 is the orificeplate. It is
essentiallya circularplatewith a holein thecenterthroughwhich thehydraulicfluid
flows when thestrut is stroking. It, alongwith themeteringpin, point 6, controlsthe
dampingcharacteristicsof thegear. Themeteringpin is rigidly fixed to thepistonhead.
As the strut strokes,
hole in the orifice
Nose

rebound

or snubber

snubber

either

orifices

volume

stage.

orifices

a large orifice

axle.

damping

Finally,

landing

and studied

developed

gear.

(point

8) called

fluid

one of many

These

holes

the rebound

damping

lead

or

when the strut

upon

orifice

a slip ring that

in the extension

pin and is also the rigid connection

This element

performance

a servovalve

of

of the gear adds both spring

of the gear,

nonlinear

then linearized

of an active
a metering

Research

and is selected

damping

response,

of control

to accomplish
that active
simulation

requires

control

it difficult

gear can reduce

was validated

about

scheme.
chamber.

(upper

and

carefully

the ground

and large

loads

equilibrium

The model
However,

to implement.

using experimental

for a simplified

they
their model

to the other

of the snubber

pressures

the ground

the initial

or lower)

the usefulness

high hydraulic

the task, making

equations

control

pin or a rebound

precluding

provided

the equations

to port fluid from one chamber

the gear damping

Their

They developed

They

did not include

did conclude
fuselage.

7 locates

on the gear).

stage or a smaller

and Edson 5 of Hydraulic

the effect

This method

plumbing

Point

is to provide

the metering

the constant

i.e. variable

in that they are dependent

10 is the tire.

for this research.

telescoping

control

It houses

diameter,

pin.

head

through

applications.

information

included

of the snubber

to the overall

A study by Ross

point

orifice

12, depending

of the piston

are variable

point

characteristics

for various

around

in the compression

Point 9 is the piston.

the wheel

pin.

(usually

The purpose

effective

pin passes

have no metering

on the backside

The snubber
allows

a variable

gear on most planes

chamber.

extends.

size of the metering

plate, causing

damping.

into a small

the changing

transmitted

equipment

or metering

pumps

The report,

to

and
however,

to the

and facilities

of

HydraulicResearch.The linearizedmodeldid not allowexplicit investigationof orifice

diametersandotherparameterscriticalin understanding
thelandinggear'sdynamic
behavior. But, thesestudieswereconsideredinvestigativein natureandledto a more
completeunderstanding
of someof the complexdynamicsof landinggear.

2.2

Nonlinear

Model

To extend
development
physical

Development

the work by Ross and Edson 5, this research

of a mathematical

parameters

model

included.

The nonlinear

telescoping

main gear.

main gear.

This gear was chosen

The analytical

validation.

drawings

by the Grumman

An initial model
fluid dynamics
allowed

gear

main

orifice

effective

Ross

was the addition

the gear is extending.

attempt

to quantify

friction

as well as a variable

realistic,

a nonlinear

function

of tire deflection

developed

below,

The nonlinear
that axe actually
Figure
motion.
It includes

Since

frictional

characteristics

the results

Another

that is a function

of stroke.

This tire model

proportional

and damping

and the early

coefficient

of each of these terms

model
results

to change

variation

is to be validated

friction

the fluid,

This simple

This feature

The model

was added.

above

pin was then added

chamber.

this new model

term.

of this model

of stroke.

or rebound

and damping

the spring

tire spring

was also made.

tire model

an A-6

from the technical

the air-spring

effects

of

the

from Edson
provides

and

damping

with test data, some

includes

constant

In a further

has a spring

to compression

seal

effort

to be

rate that is a

rate.

In the equations

are used as if they were constant.

is included

in the equations

of motion

integrated.
2-2 is a schematic

This schematic
the aerodynamic

of the gear used in the development

is representative

of a general

lift on the plane,

and the mass of the main cylinder

the piston

and a linear

as a function

of a snubber,

for a

of an A-6 Intruder

of the gear were taken

and Ross 5. A metering

diameter

are developed

exist to test and characterize

that only included

between

of Edson

of motion

Company.

orifice,

trend comparison

the linearized

while

a fixed

facilities

an independent

gear with all the relevant

used is a representation

details

was developed

through

some

Specific

landing

equations

model

because

gear for simulation

supplied

of a main

discusses

lumped

telescoping-type

Lift, the upper

together

and the mass of the tire, also lumped

mass

as

M E.

main

landing

(of the plane's

as a rigid mass,

together

of the equations

gear.

fuselage)

M_ and the mass

The inertial

of

coordinate

of
of

the uppermassis Xws.The zerovaluefor Xwsis whenthe gearis fully extendedwith the
tire just touchingthe ground. Fromthis samegearconfiguration,Xa,the coordinateof
thelower mass,is takenaszeroatthe axleof the tire. Therefore,whenthegearis in
somecompressedstate,X, measuresthedeflectionof thetire whenthe groundinput,
U(t), is zero. In the compressednitrogenchamber(uppercylinder)with crosssectional
areaof A_,
At., there
pressure

the pressure

is a pressure
is defined

the metering
through
mode

mode

The tire is also shown

and damping

respectively.

coefficients,

chamber

with cross

with annulus

the superscripts
The diameter

Fluid reaches
represent
of the piston,

D_, through
the snubber

either

I_, and C t are nonlinear

tire force F t.

10

of pointing

and contribute

area of

which
chamber

the compression

Dpi, is used to calculate

shaft from that of the lower

2-2 with a distinction

sectional

area of A e, the

has a hole of diameter

Dpin moves.

the area of the piston

in Figure

chamber,

plate

diameter

ds c and ds E, where

subtract

in the lower

of Pt.. In the snubber

pin, with variable

or extension

Likewise,

to be P. The orifice

the orifices

A_. Simply

is P..

cylinder

to get A R.

out that the tire spring

to the calculation

of the

Li_

Upper

Mass/Cylinder

M_,

Slip Ring Snubber

ds c Large
(Compression)
ds E Small
(Extension)

Ps, AR

Kt, Ct =_ F t
Nonlinear
Piston/Lower
Mass

The

+U(t)

Figure

2-2:

Schematic

of a telescoping

11

main

landing

gear.

Lift

TTTTTT
+X_g

P., A_

L!o
lyLi
TT'r

TTT
PL, AL

AR i

PistOnDp
i

P_ _

ML

Figure

Figure
mass

2-3 shows
gives

2-3:

the forces

the following

acceleration,
previously.

to the pneumatic
reflects
depending

= Mug-

pressure.

on the upper

mass

mass.

L-

and main

Balancing

cylinder

the forces

on the upper

P_Ao - PL(AL -- ,4o)+ P_AR T f

side of Eq. (2.1) is the inertial

f is the friction
This equation

acting

of upper

equation:

M.X_s
The term on the left hand

Schematic

present
assumes

term,

in the gear, and all other terms

that the fluid pressure

In this development,

the fact that the metering

motion

pin is included,

on stroke.

12

g is the gravitational

are as described

in the upper

the variable

(2.1)

cylinder

Ao, the main

i.e. it is a variable

orifice

cross-sectional

is identical
area,
area

I"

..........

=1

SA

r ..........

"I

"A"
........

........

r"

I
I

r]

Piston

I,

)
v

Ps

+ Xa
MLg

Figure

Figure

2-4 shows

(piston)

the forces

the force balance

F,

2-4:

acting

equation

Schematic

of lower

on the piston.

Summing

mass.

the forces

the left hand

area of the snubber

ground

side of Eq. (2.2) is the inertial

orifice.

mass

is:

MeX . = Meg+ PL(AL-As)-_(AR-As)-Ft

where

on the lower

4- f

motion

F, is the force that is transmitted

of the lower
through

(2.2)
mass

and A S is the

the tire from the

and has the form:

v,=x,(x,.+v)+C,(Xo
+O)
where

the tire force

is a function

composed

of a damping

of change

of the tire deflection.

2.3 Relation

terms

related to the positional

compressed
closed

system

coefficient

of Pressures

The pressure

nitrogen

of a nonlinear

tire stiffness

that is proportional

to Stroke

Position

and a damping

to the tire stiffness

and Stroke

Xws and X_ or their derivatives.

in the upper cylinder

can be described

as:

13

and the time rate

Rate

in Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2) are as yet unknown

variables

force that is

and need to be

The pressure

by the polytropic

of the
gas law for a

(2.3)

tx...-x:)
where

X, is the stroke

available,

given

by:

X, =Xw,- X a
with X_ as some
constant.

process

of the pressure

13. The significance

process

that occurs.

pressure.

though,

Equation

These

through

are idealizations

gas constant

is not constant

in such a manner
completely

the orifice

the higher

pressure

that along

to the lower

a streamline

pressure.

the flow,
multiplied

a) is the specific

point,

weight

by the gravitational

zero reference.
negligible,

at some

calculated

in application.
very large

when

This is a suitable

gas constant
cylinder

orifices,

Bernoulli's

7 as an unknown.
and in the snubber

regions.

equation

The volumetric

are

flow

Qs, can be determined

by

for fluids '4. Flow is always

equation

for an incompressible

(2.5)

g is the gravitational

of the fluid which

assumes

the flow to be steady

at all and is usually

In real

2 + Z = Constant

acceleration

This equation

processes.

is

'a,

P/a) + (1/2g)V
P is the pressure

(constant-

of particular

collapsed.

and Bemoulli's

or constant

of a gas, the process

that P, will become

Qo, and the snubber

equation

heats

sufficient

with only the polytropic

plate hole,

be isobaric,

the type of

to an isothermal

(PL and P,) of the fluid in the lower

the continuity

fluid states

along

1, corresponding

to the flow rates of the fluid into and out of those

combining

where

would

is usually

This form of

is that it describes

cases

i.e. the gear is nearly

of the process,

gas constant

value

gas

as a quasi-equilibrium

to the ratio of the specific

data. An average

The pressures
related

entropy.

to happen

0, the process

gas, 7"

(2.3) was defined

X, is near Xm.,,
representation

if),=

at X,,, and 7, the polytropic

the gear can be extended.

is assumed

of the polytropic

the polytropic

pressure-stroke

pressure

to which

change

If), is equal

or constant

situations

value

for an ideal

process.

isentropic,

from

P,j, the charge

For example,

However,

temperature)

rates

length,

X,,,_, is the maximum

representation

from

initial

(2.4)

is equal

acceleration,

to the fluid density

(g), and Z is the height

that the viscous

and incompressible,

V is the velocity

effects

difference

within

(p)
from

some

the fluid are

and that the equation

is applicable

a streamline.
Equating

streamline

Bemoulli's

equation

(Eq. (2.5)) at two points

yields:

14

in the flow along

the same

of

P1/19
+ (1/2g)Vl2+ Z I =
In the case of a landing
the distances
continuity
solution

involved
equation

gear, the potential

PJ_

+ (1/2g)V2

distance

are very small compared

for incompressible

of this equation

between

to the other

fluids

which

states

in terms

of one of the velocities.

flow is from Pt to P2, then

solve

for V1 from the continuity

and substitute

into Eq. (2.6) and solve

this velocity

V2 = +

When

the flow reverses,

equation

flowrate

In a realistic

terms

(Q_t)

flow situation

loss is empirically

switched

quantified

Z 1and 7_,2 can be neglected

as

terms.

Equation

Q = AjV 1 = A2V 2 allows

Assuming
equation

at point

of the ideal flow that actually

ideal flow,

yields

that P_ > P2, i.e. the

as:

2 is described

sign on the square

fluid can be expressed

there is a loss due to the Vena

percentage

for the

(2.7)

and a negative

by a discharge

(2.6) with the

for an incompressible
though,

(2.6)

for V2:

i.e. P_ < P2, then the velocity

with the pressure

volumetric

....

2 + 7-,2

coefficient

occurs.

This coefficient,

root.

as Q_

Contracta

(Ca), which

by the above
The ideal
= A*V.

effect.

represents

This

the

when multiplied

by the

Q_l as:
Qre._l= CaQi_leal = ACdV

Substituting

Eq. (2.7) into Eq. (2.8) for velocity:

l/2

Q"'t=ACd

For the landing

gear shown

the orifice

plate

orifice

during

are two flows

that are of concern,

and the flow into and out of the snubber

chamber

As c, which

the extension

(2.9)

) )

in Fig. 2-2, there

the flow rate into the snubber

area (A s) becomes

"-* >

(D___kl41

P 1-_,D2

through

(2.8)

allows

mode

in the compression
larger

is defined

flow.

mode,

chamber.
where

The flow rate through

Define

Qs c as

the snubber

orifice

the snubber

as Qs E , and the area A s becomes

15

the flow

As E, which

only allows small,restrictedflow. In bothcases,the flow throughthe mainorifice plateis

Qo.

Qo, Pu

Q:

PL,
AL

j--_
-JQs c
p,

Figure

Figure

2-5 shows

chamber

rates to the pressures,

Control

p, ,AR

volume

between

piston

and orifice

of fluid flow into and out of a control

of stroke
defining

The stroke

--_
J T+X_
Qs c --

Piston
"Dpi
_

the direction

as a function

is necessary.

2-5:

QEII

mode

(extension

a control

volume

rate is defined

or compression).
as shown

plate.

volume

in the lower

In relating

the flow

by the dashed

line in Figure

as:

.,_, = _'.s - ,_'_

where

the compression

The flow is assumed

For an incompressible
be written

mode

is given

to be negative
fluid,

(2.10)

by ,_ > 0.0, and the extension

leaving

the volumetric

the control

volume,

flow rates

for compression

mode

by ,_', < 0.0.

and is positive

entering

and extension

the compression

the extension

flow rate.

Substituting

flow rate through

control

can

mode,

(2.11)

and:

Qo+ Qff + ALL = 0.0

during

it.

as:
Q,, + QC + AL.,_,. =0.0

during

2-5

volume

mode.

Equation

(2.9) defined

the appropriate

the orifice

plate during

pressures,

the general
areas,

the compression

and PL > Pu and P,) can be written

16

(2.12)

as:

form of the equation

and diameters
mode

(when

into Eq. (2.9),

for a
the

flow is out of the

-AoC.
I . 2-

where

do is the effective

chamber,
snubber

diameter

of the main orifice,

and C a is the discharge

orifices

during

QC = _AcC c

with ds c as the diameter

coefficient

this mode

coefficient

of the snubber

orifice

Similarly,

for the extension

Qo=AoCa

7"
p

where

the difference

exchanged
snubber

positions
orifices

between

D R

snubber

orifice,

coefficient
(2.15),

is the effective

and (2.16),

diameter

orifices

forP.

is given

(PL < Pu and Ps):

> PL

(2.15)

in the extension

terms

have

the

for P_ > PL

snubber

chamber,

orifices

mode.

be redefined

17

is that the pressure

by:

area of the snubber

terms

volume

orifice.

The flow rate through

, -pL

of the annulus

let the non-pressure

Cas c is the discharge

term is now positive.

II 2

above,

is into the control

and Eq. (2.13)

mode

the

(2.14)

area of the snubber

.,'_-P_

this equation

As E is the effective

of the snubber

Dr. as described

flow

_D,_)

the extension

OJ=A C

where

and the whole

during

orifice,

where

The flow through

for PL > P_

p,

and As c is the effective

mode,

iI

orifice.

of the lower

by:

of a snubber

D L is the diameter

of the main

is described

/.(

(2.13)

forP6 > _

ds E is

the diameter

of a

and Cas E is the discharge

To simplify
as:

(2.16)

Eqs.

(2.13),

(2.14),

i>/l
/
4

Pl-

'

_:)

e_ =E,,

respectively.
(2.16)

Substituting

into Eq. (2.12)

Eqs. (2.13)

using

and (2.14)

this new notation,

-E_f-_L-P_-E2_L-P

into Eq. (2.11)

rewrite

L +At,_,

= 0.0

(2.11)

(2.15)

and (2.12)

and

as:

for X, > 0.0

_ + AL,_', = 0.0

E._,qr-_ - PL +E4_-P

Eqs.

and Eqs.

(2.1 la)

for X_ < 0.0

IdOl

(2.12a)

Cylinder

Wall

SC

ds
"t" -I

--

AR, P_,
t. ........

Figure

Additional
studying
2-6.

The

a control
variables

2-6:

information
volume

Control

about

DR

/N

volume

for the snubber

the flow rate-pressure

in the snubber

chamber

18

relationship

as shown

A R and D R in Fig. 2-6 are the rebound

chamber.

can be gained

by the dashed

chamber

annulus

by

line in Figure
area

and

effectivediameterrespectively.Psis thepressurein the reboundchamberanddsc anddsE

arethediametersof the snubberorificesin the compressionmodeandextensionmode
respectively.In thecaseof compression,where Xs

> 0.0 and Pt. > Ps,

Qsc + AR2 s = 0.0

Substituting

the flow rate Qs c of Eq. (2.14)

(2.17)

into Eq. (2.17)

yields:

(2.17)
-ACcCas

7-dC, 4,_ _-

P, * ARX, : 0.0

P 1 - I'lL-L

From

previous

notation

of E i, this expression
-E2_

Rearrange

Eq. (2.18)

becomes:

L - P_.+ AR_"_ = 0.0

to get an expression

for the pressures

(2.18)
in terms

of the stroke

rate as:

,_P-L-L
- P_ = +AR _'s

(2.19)

e:
Substitute

Eq. (2.19)

into Eq. (2.1 la) and solve

for the variable

PL as:

PL = P, +_(AL-ARI2EII 2,_2
where

P. is given

in Eq. (2.3).

Square

both sides

(2.20)

of Eq. (2.19)

and solve

for Ps as:

<:.:1)
Similarly,

for the extension

case with

_'_ < 0.0:

PL. = P. _[AL--ARI2
_, _

These

known

into Eqs.
compression

pressures

[Eqs.

(2.1) and (2.2).

and extension

(2.3),

Algebraic
cases

(2.20),

"'e

(2.21),

of readily

19

(2.22)

2:

simplification
in terms

2_,2

(2.23)

(2.22),

(2.23)]

can now be substituted

of these equations
measurable

leads to the

quantities

as:

M,,X,,.8 = M,,g - L + ( AR - AL )P=i

*i =" {I/
ML2.

-"

MLgJ.(AL

+
(2.1 a)

:AL-A,"
}

="-i i J_=_-=')
=:+:

ARIPsi(

Xsi

lT

._.

kx, J

_-_
for the compression

(2.2a)

(a,-a_/+('_a"
' c',

case, and:

M,f_,,.,g=M,,g-L+(A=-AL)P,

{I ;

kk _ )

MLJ_,, = MLg+(AL-AR)P_i(--_,

(2.1b)

' l lII

a=::,-:

) r +X'i
(2.2b)

B e,

-[AL-AR)
- (-_4Rf] (A=-A:)_
e,

fI(AL--ARI2

for the extension

equations:

case.

the coefficients

coefficients

a new notation

"1" and "2" will be associated

"4" with extension

where

Introduce

(set (b)).

subscripts

with compression

With this change,

the equations

to simplify

(equation

L + CI,3,4_,2 + Kj/3X,

MLX . = MLg+

C2/4,_', 2 + K2/4X= -r - F, ..T-f

position

rate squared

20

the above

in the form:

-r + f

term are assigned

term are the Ki's.

set (a)), and "3" and

can be written

M_2,,= = M,,g-

of the stroke

of the stroke

using

Fr
(A_-A_)}X
= "_-+

the C/s, and the

(2.1c)
(2.2c)

The only unknowntermleft in theseequationsis friction. As mentioned

previously,friction in this gearcomesmainly from two sources,friction dueto tightnessof
the sealand

friction

due to the offset

maximum

value

functional

relationship

through

testing.

statically

and some

between

The friction

by the nonaxially

wheel

loaded

(moment).

function

frictional

of velocity

in the dynamic

force level and velocity

due to the offset

piston

The seal friction

wheel

is the result

could

is assumed
state.

to be a

The

be determined

of the moment

produced

within the cylinder.

+Xws

stp

+Xa
F,
Figure

2-7:

It can be seen from Figure

a result
The

of the tire force,

frictional

Figure

force

Schematic

of gear for friction

2-7 that the force between

F t, applied

at moment

due to the offset

wheel

model

the piston

development.

head

and the cylinder,

arm, ma, from the centerline

(Fow) is assumed

of the piston.

to be of the form

(refer

N is the normal

force of the cylinder

_t is the coefficient

of friction

the moments

point O to zero to get:

about

between

EMo:
Where

to

2-7):
Fow=_N

Where

N, is

stp is the minimum

distance

Rearrange

(2.24)

form of Fow:

to get an explicit

wall resisting

the two parts.

the side of the piston

To find the unknown

head,

Eq. (2.25)

the piston
by isolating

21

head and the lower

and

force N, sum

Ftma - N(X S + stp) = 0

between

gear is fully extended.

(2.24)

(2.25)
seal when

N, and then substitute

the

N into Eq.

ma* F,
x., - xo + stp

N=

ma,F

The total friction

in the landing

gear, f, in equations

f = F,,
This development
of the total weight
centerline
loads

on the strut.

does not take

drag.

that rests upon

The

fluid is assumed

only for straight-line

maneuvers

the basis

2.4

stiffness

over
effect

are not covered

for a "rollout"

as a nonlinear
(because

only a vertical

on the tire does not significantly

turning

gear) is treated

to be incompressible

taxiing

part of the fuselage

Also, this model

spinning

to be rigid, with each having

good

the main

cylinder.

is now assumed

to be:

(2.26)

that a proportionate

The tire is modeled

into account

(2. lc) and (2.2c)

+ Fo,

assumes

of the main upper

at the

into account

only vertical

spring

and damper.

This tire model

the test tire does not spin)

of freedom.

profiles

the vertical

mass centered

takes

and all structural

degree

runway

as a lump

(half of the 80%

members
These

and landing

loads

in the development.

or spin-up

are assumed

assumptions

impact

are

(spin-up

on the strut).

Any braking

The equations

developed

drag
or

here are

simulation.

Summary
In this chapter,

the nonlinear

telescoping

main landing

determined

based

proportional
finally

which

friction.

These

constant,

discharge

friction

levels

(2.1) and (2.2) that cannot

differing

values

compression.
a method

These

gravitational

contain

parameters

be directly

Chapter
of solving

these equations

a pneumatic

forces,

spring

the empirical

that is

damping

lift, inputs

seal friction

for a general,

from

that is

a runway,

and a variable

parameters

bearing

of polytropic

and the snubber

are the only variables

orifices,

that appear

and

gas
and the

in equations

measured.

and discharge

3 will discuss

were developed

law, a hydraulic

for both the main orifice

(2.1) and (2.2) are highly

of friction

contain

of both a constant

explicitly

in the gear.

equations

rate squared,

coefficients

of motion

gas compression

is composed

equations

Equations

These

on the polytropic

to the stroke

friction,

gear.

equations

nonlinear

coefficient

more about

and are discontinuous

as a function

the nature

for gear displacements

22

of extension

of these

equations

and velocities.

due to the
and
and present

Chapter

3.1

gear research.

1, a brief

In Chapter

and the equations

motion

spring

equations.

under

those

stiff.

and present

are stiff.
is a result
or, in other

smaller

or larger

time step required

routine

is therefore

slower

solutions
known

the problem

to numerically

that successfully

words,

by Edson

to friction,

and

of stiff equations
integrate

solves

nonlinear

special

and

these types

the problem.

there

in time scales

must be small enough

These

to accurately

along.

predict

common

also as explicit

an implicit

the solution

a fast time scale is present.

The main difference

routine,

may become

(or backward)
These
between

routines

Euler
implicit

when

routine,
routines

However,

of the
than the

carrying

on forward

other,
Euler

large

is present

a different

is able to take larger

routine

time

in the
type of

time steps

are what are used to solve

the two is that the explicit

23

is that

The integration

of taking

a fast time scale

unstable.

routine

smaller

while

are based

The problem

is much

the progress

masses.

this fast solution

routines.

time scale

of magnitude

of the other

integration

the various

for a numerical
track

gear

in the

between

solution

to accurately

can be orders

integration

integration

whose

this causes

a lot of time tracking

Most

Euler

time steps

that landing

one type of "stiffness"

of the dynamics

is at least one body

than the others 15. The problem

spending

and Ross 5 indicated

of two or more bodies,

is that the total solution

called

equations.

undertaken

some

of

damping,

exist to integrate

due mainly

will discuss

gear was defined

squared

(2.1) and (2.2) require

as presented

of the difference

with an explicit

routine,

the process

model

time scale solution.

solution,

routines

landing

2, the equations

due to velocity

and discontinuous

a final scheme

the time steps attempted

schemes,

by Eqs.

with a landing

As seen in Chapter

numerical

This chapter

In a system

bodies,

short

associated

are nonlinear,
Many

to past and concurrent

Integration

The linearized

equations

given

It will detail

of equations

when

Analysis

in regard

were developed.

rate, and friction.

conditions,

discontinuities.

systems

2, the terminology

in that they are nonlinear,

some

Model

was given

gear system

However,

consideration

history

of motion

of the landing

polytropic

steps

Numerical

Introduction
In Chapter

3.2

3:

stiff

uses derivative

informationatthe previousstep
derivative

information

implicit

routine

to make the next step, whereas

at the attempted

is stable,

even

step to reach

for very large

the implicit

that step.

routine

This assures

time steps, whereas

uses

that the

the explicit

routine

in Chapter

2 are

is

not.
The equations
numerically

stiff.

of sources.
30 times

between

to the upper

is very

model,

The numerical

difference)

stiffness

negative

of that value.

process,

assigning

experiences

one value

In the original

a negative

to change

to the negative

model
Many

could

solve

investigation,
efficiently

numerical
equations.

the problem,

based

predicted

solution

were investigated

one-step

integration

predictor

be noticed
method

zero.

to the

To

function

friction

while

to

will go from

zero of about

stiffness

in an attempt

+/- 1 in/see.

problem.

The

maintaining

corrector

solution

routine.

points

which

initial

polynomial.

For this landing

used.

The routine,

DDR/V2.f,

could

iterations

satisfies

After

further

much

more

corrector

routine

the solution

the differential
corrector

equation

routine
upon

needs
which

Adams-Moulton

at the Los Alamos

of

National

uses

to the next

to drive the error between

the f'u'st few points

24

this problem

with strict tolerances

be solved

A predictor

gear case, a modified

was written

routine,

to first extrapolate

that the predictor

to accumulate

to solve

was unacceptable.

that Eqs. (2.1) and (2.2),

and the solution

_6. It should

value

as a discontinuous

a new stiffness

that a Runga-Kutta

and then uses correction

tolerance

one large

through

band around

numerical

mass,

In the mathematical

that the sliding

but introduces

mass

of numerical

was used as a continuous

but the time of solution

on previous

time step (predictor)

passed

(about

reality.

It was found

it was found

source

steps from

as velocity

a couple

and the upper

this was modeled

tangent

to reduce

routines

with an implicit

a polynomial

simulation,

problem,

is taken

of its smaller

(Eq. 2.26).

essentially

from

in time scales

The other

model

It has been specified

that approaches

stiff differential

friction

of that value in a velocity

rise time of this function

because

accelerations.

a hyperbolic
sign.

of the difference
which,

sign to friction

This is a fix to the discontinuity

friction

lower

gear case comes

very high accelerations,

sign, the friction

this discontinuity,

friction

in the landing

mass,

from the sliding

changes

gear, as developed

is a consequence

large and has much

as velocity

cause

stiffness

the lower

mass,

is introduced

allieviate

of the landing

Part of the stiffness

compared
which

of motion

the

to within
some

some

initial,

to build the
method

Laboratory

was
(by

D. KahanerandC. Sutherland,9/24/85,availableat http://gams.nist.gov/).The routineis

designedto solven first orderordinarydifferentialequationsin statespaceform given the
initial conditions.The programalsohasoptionsto allow the solutionof both stiff and
non-stiff differentialequations,aswell asanoptionto allow a dynamicselectionof
stiffness. For stiff equations,it usesa fifth orderpredictor-correctorandfor non-stiff
equations,it usesa twelfth orderpredictor-corrector.The routineis very flexible and
containschecksto ensureproperusage.This programalsohasmanyinput parameters
thatneedto be selectedwith care,dependingupontheproblemto besolved. These
parametersincludethemaximumtime stepattemptedby the routine,definedby the
differencebetweenthe initail time andtherequestedfinal time (0.00025is used),a value
of therequestedrelativeaccuracyin all solutioncomponents(1e-6 for thisproblem),the
smallestphysicallymeaningfulvaluefor the solution(le-15), andthemodeof stiffness
solution(dynamicselection).Theparametersin the currentsimulationhavebeensetto
valuesthatseemto mostefficiently solvetheproblem.
As mentionedearlier,theproblemat handis alsodiscontinuous.Two reasons
existfor this discontinuity. The first occursin thedampingcoefficients,Ci'saspresented
in Eqs.(2.1c)and(2.2c). The dampingcoefficientis a functionof fluid density,p, gear
areasanddischargecoefficients,Cd'S,only. Thedischargecoefficientsareassumedto be
functionsof orifice geometry(diameter)only. This modelassumesthatthe flow through
the orifice will be laminar(belowa certainReynoldsnumber).A representative
equation
for the dischargeequationsis given17to be:
C,t = 0.8fl 2 - 0.4813fl
In this model,
which

13is the ratio of the orifice

the fluid is flowing.

This model

selected

as a first approximation

is going

from an extension

diameter

of the rebound

slip ring in the physical

flow

(extension)

of this process
another
minor

value
one.

to the actual,

inlets

is discontinuous.
of discharge

this discontinuity

mode,

discharge

edges

This is due to a

is used.

Even though

the calculation

25

flow (compression).

one value

If the gear

the value of the

instantaneously.

easier

from

and was

coefficient.

to the flow of the fluid and either

that allows

effects

of the chamber

with rounded

or vice versa,

nearly

For compression,

coefficient

holes

unknown,

change

gear that responds

to a position

over the diameter

is for circular

to a compression
chamber

or slides

Since

diameter

+ 0.8448

is used,

chokes

the

The model

and for extension,

this is a discontinuity,
of a fluid damping

it is a

coefficient

thatgetsmultiplied by a velocitysquared(seeEqs.(2.lc) and(2.2c))term,andthis

discontinuityoccursat zerovelocity,theeffectof this discontinuityon thesolutionis
small,andno furtherstepsweretakento smooththetransition.
The seconddiscontinuitycomesfrom theeventof strutstickingor breakingloose.
Theeventof stiction,or the stickingtogetherof the two partsto moveasa rigid body,is
modeledin this simulation. The methodfor implementingstictionfriction, asusedin the
simulation,wasdevelopedby Kamopp
stick friction
require

3.3

in a manner

reformulation

Karnopp

Friction

the relative

in which

to the first mass.

force and velocity

further

near zero relative

numerical

stiffness

velocity

and does not

Is

that includes

system

treats

of motion.

with the manner

a model

a two mass
force

Model

deals

task of integrating

and applied

that does not introduce

of the equations

This section

1 shows

_s. This model

in which a numerical
a frictional

that allows

holds

can handle

sticking.

W_, V1, M_, Fj are the momentum,

The same

between

model

integrator

for the second

mass.

with stick-slip

friction.

the

Figure

velocity,

3-

mass

F r and V r are

the two bodies.

E 1

Figure

3-1:

For this two mass system,

The state equations

and the velocities

Simple

two mass

system

take the momentum

are then given

can be solved

(W_) of each mass

as the state vectors.

as:

from

w,

(3.1)

(3.2)

the momentum

26

to be:

v, = w___,

(3.3)

Ml

V2 = _
with V r - V_ - V r
velocity.

When

the two masses

are stuck

Let F, = Fs,,ck, the force required

no relative

motion

be zero.

through

This derivative

(3.4)
together

should

be no relative

to keep V, = 0. For the two masses

time, the time derivative

is taken

there

of the relative

velocity

to display

also needs to

as:

v,= w,

(3.5)

MI M2
SubstituteEqs. (3.I) and (3.2)intoEq. (3.5)to get:
f,= (F_-F,)

Setting

the Eq. (3.6) to zero and solving

M2

the resulting

F_,,ck =

M2

expression

F_

M_

M,+M2
The logic of Kamopp's
is smaller
between

than some
applied

the masses
between
landing

model
defined

forces,

will stick together.

gear,

that if the absolute

quantity,

and friction

the equations

(3.7)

slippage

occurs

velocity,

frictional

and there

is relative

function.

can be cast into a form

force,

Fv. _, then
velocity

For the case of a

in which

momentum

is the

as:

W,= Mfi., = M.g- Z + C_:_- K,,3X:' - F.

_V

where,

IV, I,

value of the difference

sticking

can be any arbitrary

of motion

F2

value of the relative

8, and if the absolute

Otherwise,

for F,, or Fsack, gives:

M,+M2

IF:F21, is less than the peak,

the two masses,

state vector

states

(3.6)

(F2 +F,)

MI

,._

MIXa

F, = +/- f. To use Kamopp's

Mig

__

model,

FI = M.g-

allows

the Equations

Jr

K214xs-_

Ft

dp

Fr

let:

L + el2 _ + K1/.aX, -r

F2 = M,g+C_2_
This reassignment

C2X

2 + K2/,X,-r-F_

(2.1) and (2.2) to be written

:F,-F,
_=5+F,

27

in the form:

(2.1)
(2.2)

afterwhich the samelogic asabovecanbeapplied.

This modelusestherelativevelocityandthe relativeforceasthedecisionfactors
for sticking. If thevelocity is very closeto zeroand
preselected

sticking

frictional

the relative

acceleration

some

small

value,

small

velocity.

is zero.

8, which

Coulomb

after the sticking

force, then the logic

This implies

is unwanted.

damping

condition

the relative

is to assign

that the relative

An addition

When

slipping,

the frictional
velocity

to this model

was used to decrease

is active.

force is below

force such that

remains

constant,

was to damp

the remaining

the friction

velocity

at

out this

to zero

can be any arbitrary

function.
In considering
One was called
between

the "bristle

the two relative

certain

amount

established.
capture

of relative

the effect

only a single
mechanism

model".

The

realism

in capturing

3.4

Treatment

because

phenomenon,

due mainly

that need
a system

of the problems

when

DDRIV2

special

break,

after a

are

This model

The other model

model

_9.

are defined

others

of velocity.

except

will

is called

the

that there

is

is that it also has a

the two bodies

and compares

are sticking.

This

well to the Karnopp

of its ease of implementation,

and its numerical

that the routine

either

its

efficiency.

routine

in the solution

history

This warning

to fit the next point

(the discontinuity).

28

routine

the user to become

or reductions

or breaking-free,

contains

integration

One such warning

iterations,

accuracy.

is trying

the simulation

that allows

is having.

too many

sticking

friction,

The Adams-Moulton

and errors

time with the specified

predictor-corrector

to stick-slip

treatment.

of warnings

is attempting

a discontinuity,

to a comer

bristles

Its advantage

model

or springs,

and can be broken

to the bristle

out when

than the bristle

the slip-stick

some

when

has a stiffness

surfaces.

was chosen

of bristles,

inefficient.

to damp

were also investigated

of Discontinuities

discontinuities

next output

energy

models

is a function

is similar

the relative

model

For the reasons

incorporates

bristle

established

This model

between

Karnopp

Each

a number

but is numerically

more efficient

model.

in which

of bristles

for the frictional

is much

two other

force has built up. As some

of sticking,

bond

friction,

model"

surfaces.

The number

"reset integrator

model

how to model

aware

of

to the user indicates

of time step,

to get to the

has been used to determine

has been

encountered.

The

of at least a fifth order

The calling

program

polynomial

has been

modifiedso thatwhenthis warningis activated,the mainprogramswitchesto an error

control, variable-step

fourth

order Runga-Kutta

Baudendistel

and G. Haigler,

4/1/83,

explicit-type

one step integrator

to continue

in error control.
again,

it was found

order.

Numerical

tolerances
three

passing

errors

were used.

under

of le-6,

stick-slip

conditions.

7 was a bad trade

increase

in numerical

generally

the break
when

will almost

loose,

depending

the less it calls

R-K.

the gear goes from a relative

always

trigger

the R-K.

point,

times can become

longer,

set of parameters,

the run times

real time per 1 second

are longer,

about

When

simulated

time.

2 minutes

loose,

and A/M

state.

forces

simulated

will
is.

the most

This condition

and velocities

and slipping,

case (no sticking)

and slipping

corrector

to have

does more of the integration.

real time per 1 second

to le-

the break-loose

seems

state of sticking

sticking

problems

the predictor

the gear experiences

When

were many

the run and the incremental

state to the stuck

for a fully dynamic

of

the R-K or A/M tolerance

Adams-Moulton

i.e., it is in a continuous
as Rung-Kutta

of le-5

on how quickly

motion

different

For error tolerances

with only a few numerical

the gear breaks

once or twice,

near the break-free

3.5

When

is useful

tolerance

but there

for R-K tolerances

the time it takes to complete

stability.

call Runga-Kutta

The faster
problem

off between

when

in specified

was stable,

that decreasing

the predictor

to R-K, and back

and AIM tol. = le-6.

is well behaved,

was

needs to be near the same

for a difference

Finally,

It was found

directs

were encountered

the over all solution

is an

This program

of this R-K routine

of each program

i.e. R-K tol. = le-3

the solution

program

step feature

(by S.

This routine

from Adams-Moulton

is unstable

instability.

RKF4.f

formulas.

the main

in the form of instabilities

of local numerical

tolerances

times

the solutions

two orders of magnitude,

areas

on Fehlberg's

The variable

The solution

routine,

at http://gams.nist.gov/).

point,

that the error tolerance

orders of magnitude,

within

at which

the solution.

When

available

and is based

used to get past the discontinuity,

corrector

integration

Under

very

the run
the current

is about

25 seconds

are involved,

the run

time.

Summary
In an effort

form rather

to maintain

than linearized.

and the discontinuous

factors

in this decision.

model

Such

behavior

fidelity,

considerations

of stick-slip

Therefore,

the equations

as the stiffening

friction

numerical

and discharge

routines

29

were left in their nonlinear

were

found

effect

of sliding

coefficients
to handle

friction

were

also

this problem.

A modified Adams-Moultonroutineintegratesthestiff, nonlinearequationsuntil a

discontinuityis encountered,
asdetectedby theroutineattemptingto reducethetime step
too manytimeswithoutgettingto the nextstep,atwhich point, a variablestep,error
controlRunga-Kuttaintegratespastthediscontinuity,andthenthe Adams-Moulton
continues

the solution.

has led to a more stable

verify

the model

equipment

solution

parameters

of the control

with experimental

dynamic

and usefulness
comparisons

parameters

as well as reasonable

used in the tests and Chapter

their significance
present

Adjustment

between

run times.

data.

Chapter

5 will present

in the validation
the updated

30

to the integration

process
model

The next task is to

4 will detail

experimental

routine

the facility

and

results

and discuss

of the simulation,

as well as

and test data.

Chapter

4.1

4:

Experimental

Facility

Introduction
The equations

velocity

squared

discontinuous
numerical

of motion

damping

uses a predictor
describes

As discussed

schemes

corrector

were evaluated

facility

simulation.

of the testing

scheme

to solve

a number

of

The final method

the problem.

used to validate

was to determine

Quasi-static

to adjust

tests determined

frictional

forces,

Dynamic

tests were used to find dynamic

coefficients.

load-stroke

Initial

Research

drop carriage,

curve

This chapter

the simulation

Center.

which

with

levels

data acquisition

system.

for vertical

in the

maximum

and values

software

static
curve.

of orifice

were performed

discharge

at NASA

used was an instrumented

The gear is mounted

motion

The tire of the gear rests on a hydraulic

of the

and tire load-deflection

of friction

equipment

models

as masses,

spring,

the simulation

characteristics

and/or

such quantities

The particular

is constrained

the physical

parameters

for the nitrogen

tests to validate

gear and a mobile

carriage.

and stiff and

for use in this simulation.

and equipment

A-6 gear and to use that information

landing

3, however,

due to the

data.

The objective

Langley

2 are nonlinear,

gas law assumption,

in Chapter

and a Runga-Kutta

the experimental

experimental

in Chapter

term and the polytropic

due to friction.
integration

as developed

within

shaker

a main,

table which

A-6 main

on a truss-like

translational
is controllable

via

computer.

4.2

Test

Equipment

As stated
gear was chosen
Navy

previously,

for its availability.

as part of the phasing

operational

condition

a gift toward

as shown

landing

out of the A-6 Intruder

on the drop carriage

4-1.

mounting

of the gear to the plate,

carriage.

The drop carriage

gears

fleet. The landing

USA

36X11

so that it would

A connecting

Type

31

tests.

about

by the

surplus

yard, as

VII tire inflated

to

vertical

to allow

connected

This

are still in

be in the standard

plate was fabricated

that weighs

gears

a Naval

and the plate was then rigidly

is a truss-structure

for these

were scrapped

from NAVICP-PHILA,

The gear and a GoodYear

if Figure

gear was selected

It and four other main

and were acquired

research.

120 psi was installed

position,

an A-6 main

the normal

to the drop

4.5 tons and allows

the

gear to be raised
on horizontal

tracks.

(for drop tests)

mass
portion

The translational

It can be moved

or over the shaker

of the drop

carriage

of the aircraft

is used to input
mule,

and lowered.

rests upon

the landing

into the gear.

Hydraulic

exists

static
gear.

by the gear.

are used to lift the drop carriage

the ability

weighs

such that the landing

table (for some

mass carried

forces

carriage

Once

to lock the gear in that position

55 tons and rides

gear tire is over concrete

and many

dynamic

This mass

simulates

the gear is loaded,

lift cylinders,

and unload

about

the gear.

powered
Once

with hydraulic

(8)Guide
rollers_

tests).

only
The

the rigid

the shaker

table

by a hydraulic

the gear has been

lifted,

valves.

__

cap
Lift cylinder
(1400 psi)

Translation
carriage

Im

Instrumented
A-6 gear

Shaker control
Mobile Data _
rack
II
Aquisition
Inl
_
II

_._

Hydraulic mule

.i

Shaker
Table

.-Servo and slave valves

tside
ump
Shaker
hydraulic pallet

Figure

The hydraulic
landing

gear.

shaker

4-1:

Schematic

table was built specifically

It was built by TEAM

These

specifications

included

longer

than 2 ms while

bearing

of experimental

Corporation

the capability
12,000

The shaker

32

for the task of examining

to the specifications

to perform

Ibm.

set-up.

a step bump

of NASA

the A-6
LaRC.

of one inch in no

is also capable

of simulating

wave

functions

dynamic

at user-selected

force

level of at least

no more than a ten second

trapezoidal

bump

loads

12,000

included
provides

the shaker

head.

for user-selectable

user-selected

runway

adjust

(1-cos),

actuator

of controlling
profiles.

This software

profiles/simulations

from

the shaker

versus

within

The shaker

to the shaker

to

variable

of 6 inches.

velocity,

sine,

form.

of supporting

that operates

displacement,

at a

time data and, through

the inputs

movement

system

wave

versus

is also capable

3.5 inches,

of at least two cycles

include:

elevation

internally

servo control

and user selected

functions

runway

The shaker

It is also capable

of about

rise time, and a saw-tooth

Ibf and allows

a digital

controller

in waveforms

The wave

to the controller,

the input profile.

of at least

package

period.

with amplitudes

lbf., and for a duration

by a file containing

feedback

accomplish

10,000

with user-selected

can also be driven

positional

frequencies

static

This shaker

a PC computer.

or acceleration
to accomplish

also provides

This

actuation

all of the built-

plots to show

the accomplished

of

the

runway

profile/simulation.
The gear was instrumented
validation

(see Fig. 4-2).

the second
upper

There

one at the lower

mass with respect

position

pressure

transducers

are included

significant
upper

degree

cylinder,

These

instruments

developed

the upper

axle of the gear.

from the equations

One is located
in the piston

moments

to allow

of motion

at the upper

masses

mass

one to locate

carriage

as a check

just outside
head.

This gage is calibrated

the instrument

were selected

and lower

for model
and

the

and one to

of the gear.
of some

Two

of the basic

that the fluid and the gas do not mix to any

after initial shaking).

4-1 shows

on the translational

in the instrumentation

(mainly

the strut and the bending

Table

are also used,

and the other is embedded

gage on the wheel

through

Two potentiometers

between

of the simulation

information

one placed

to a fixed position

the relative

the necessary

are two accelerometers,

mass.

measure

assumptions

to provide

induced

sensitivity
direct
obtained

33

the charge

Finally,

there

to read the vertical

port of the
is a strain
load

by the tire.
and other

comparisons
in Chapter

detailed

sensory

to the simulation
2.

information.
results

Slide Wire for UpperMassPosition

Upper MassServo
Accelerometer

PressureTransducer
for Pneumatic
Pressure

PressureTransducerfor
Hydraulic Pressure

SlideWire for
PistonLocation
with respectto
Uooer Mass

StrainGagefor Axle
Bending/Load

Lower MassServo
Accelerometer
TemporaryLoad Cell

LVDT for Shaker

Table Head Position

Figure

4-2:

Instrumented

A-6 landing

Type

gear.

Offset

Range

Sensitivity

Co
Upper
Strut

Mass
Piston

Position
Position

Slide Pot Wire,

TCC

40 in.

Slide Pot, Bourns

28 in

16 in.

-1.94

Lower

Chamber

Press.

Pressure

Transducer,

Kulite

2 ksi.

-115.4

Upper

Chamber

Press.

Pressure

Transducer,

Kulite

2 ksi.

-92.7

Upper

Mass

Accel.

Accelerometer,

Kistler

(+/-)

12 _'s

Lower

Mass

Accel.

Accelerometer,

Kistler

(+/-) 12g's

Axle
Temp.
Shaker

Load (bending)
Load Cell
Head Position

Engineering

Units

Wire
BLH
LVDT,

Strain Gage,
20 klbs

4-1:

20 klbs.

TEAM

(EU) = Co + C 1 *Voltage
Table

162.2 klbs.

MMT

Instrument

(+/-)

3.89 in.

Reading
guide

34

C1

on A-6 test specimen.

in
psi
psi

1050

in/volt

4.04 in/volt
865.75

psi/volt

834.80

psi/volt

2.41 g/volt
lb

16 lb
0

-10.48

2.40 g/volt
6488.0 lb/mvolt
3999.20

lb/volt

0.77 in/volt

A mobiledataacquisitionsystemhasbeendevelopedto gather,manipulate,plot
andstoredatatakenfrom thetests. This systemis a roll-aroundrack thatallows 16
channels(expandable)of inputandincorporatesa LABVIEW interface. Datafrom two
channelscanbeplottedin realtime. At posttest,upto 16channelscanbe plottedversus
time simultaneously,or any selectedchannelcanbeplottedagainstanyotherchannel.
The systemhasa userdefinedacquisitionrateof between1 Hz and3000Hz andhas
built-in userselecteddigital datafilters. Finally, this systemallowsmanipulationof the
dataandwill storethedatain a Microsoft EXCEL worksheetformat.

4.3 Summary
Theobjectof thetests,again,is to determinethephysicalcharacteristicsof theA6 testgearandusethatinformationto updatethe simulation.Theseteststo validatethe
simulationsoftwarewereperformedattheAircraft LandingDynamicsFacility in
building 1262at NASA LangleyResearchCenter. An instrumentedA-6 main landing
gearis mountedon a truss-likedropcarriage,which is constrainedto verticalmotion
within a main,translationalcarriage.The tire of the gearrestsona hydraulicshakertable
which is controllablevia computer.A mobiledataacquisitionsystemrecordsand
manipulatesthe dataincomingfromthe testset-up. Chapter5 will explainthe procedures
of eachtestandpresentthe results,aswell asexplainhowthe resultsof eachtestareto be
incorporatedinto themodel.

35

Chapter

5.1

5:

A-6

Experimental

chapters

have defined

gear,

the numerical

test equipment
chapter

analysis

is divided

levels,

describes

the procedures

updated

some

using

forces

acting

of Static

frictional

dynamic

measure

motion

Figure

tests were designed

It was recognized

as follows.

head.

slowly,

The upper

position

around

and lower

was raised

head

of about

were being

the weight

maximum

to the statically

is compared

in

sticking

The horizontal

recorded.

of the system
friction

the entire

of guide

rollers

mass

on the

and to

mass

to prevent

were locked

under

raised

During

the jack

lug of the gear,

and lowered

load array

36

mass

rested

result

was a hysteresis
the positive

The test results

of friction
and dividing

relative

shown

and weight

with
in

on the load cell.

for just over

this time, load cell reading

bearings.

the means

together

until the tire lost contact

until the entire

The expected

in the carriage

may be external

the total system

with the loop defining

lines describing

by first, summing

in the bearings

of the system

test and was

was lowered

six inches.

on that there

by the lift cylinders

was manually

the masses

This test was a quasi-static

A load cell was then placed

the shaker

a total displacement
mass

section

of discharge

Adjustments

to define

early

to measure

level of the bearings.

5-1, and the drop carriage

Very

static

The second

in terms

data and the final model

This

and results

masses,

curve.

parameters

mass due to the friction

and the drop carriage

the shaker

like system

and tire damping.

The first test was designed

the frictional

performed

of the model.

the

Parameters

loads.

on the upper

drop carriage.

dynamic

and finally

the procedures

and tire load-deflection

levels,

The f'u'st set of quasi-static

static

describes

the landing

to test data.

5.2 Determination

and some

of motion,

parameters

of some parameters

curve,

frictional

are made

space

of the unknown

for determining

and dynamic

basis for modeling

the equations

The first section

values

pressure-stroke

model

frequency

static

the theoretical

in solving

into two sections.

frictional

coefficients

involved

used to determine

of the tests to determine

found

Determination

Introduction
The previous

5-2.

Parameter

one cycle

for

and upper
loop centered

and negative

range

are shown

in Figure

of

on the plot were

by the number

of points,

thus

gettinganestimateof valueof thecenterof theloop (someof the datawasrepeatedasthe

returnstrokeoverlappedpreviousdistancetraveledandsotheaverageis weightedtoward
the lower bound). Then,thedatasetwasdividedalongthis valueinto thosevalueshigher
thanthe averageandthoselower. A meanwasthenfoundfor eachof thesedataarrays,
definingthe frictional upperandlower limits. Thesetwo valueswerethensummedand
the averagetakento find the averagetotal systemweightto be 9465lbs. Comparedto the
total weight of the system,the staticfrictional level of theguiderollersof 117.7lb. is only
1.25%of theloadfelt throughthegear. Underdynamicconditions,this frictional level
will decrease,havinganevensmallereffecton the dynamics.For this reason,this
externalforce is neglectedin the simulation. It'sadditionwouldcomplicatethe Kamopp
modelof friction andaddonly a very smallincreaseof fidelity.
Total SystemMass

JackLug
TemporaryLoad Cell
ShakerTable
I Input

Figure 5-1:

Load

cell under jack

lug to measure

37

Displacement

system

mass

and friction.

Weight of System and Friction in Carriage

9700

9650

9600
9550

o_

...................................

95oo

F.d_ian = .+../-!!.7,7.1b .....................................

system Weight = 94651b

I1:9450

.........

........................................................................................

-o 9400
0
._1

9350
9300
9250

9200

Figure

5-2:

Total

10
11
Upper Mass Travel (in)

weight

of the system

The next test dealt with finding

fluid inside

the piston.

that the air spring

For this test, the upper

was taken

and returned
was another
would

A check

hysteresis

Figure

to be 318.4

raise

the upper

mass weight

state very

slowly.

of the test accuracy

in the first test.

and the boundaries

of friction

hysteresis

loop.

the wheel

was vented

about

band

13

and tire, and the

to the atmosphere

The load cell was under

the test results

lbs. and a frictional

values

chamber

mass through

loop as found

5-3 displays

and the mean

of the piston,

from the fully compressed

it to the fully compressed

be the lower

friction.

weight

to slowly

and frictional

from consideration.

in the first test and the gear started

were used

the mass

12

lbs.

38

inches

lug as

The lift cylinders

of the gear's

The expected

would

were obtained

was also performed.

twelve

However,

as measured

of +/-115.7

position.

the jack

so

result

the center

be the constant

of this test

of this loop
seal static

in the lab, showing

The lines indicating

stroke

the weight

the mean

in the same way as in the first test.

The wheel

and piston

of one of the

extragearsanda gallonanda half of fluid weremeasuredona scale.The total lower

massasmeasuredby the scalewas320lbs. This agreesvery well with the datafoundin
thequasi-statictest.
Weight of Lower Mass and Seal Friction in Strut
500

45O

400
.o

Friction = +/-115.71b

.c:
350
"o
_

n-

O
"0

Lower Mass Weight_= 318.41b

300

o,
250
Lower Limit = 202.61b
20O

.__=_

. :, --.

150

Figure

5-3:

Weight

The third experiment

obtain

data concerning

checking
of about
shaking

2 inches

gas, i.e. some

fluid, and the gear settled

along

and adding

to the upper

static

what charge

It was found

hysteresis

loop.

chamber

stroke

to get a static
through
between

to inject

vigorous
the fluid and

dissolved

A procedure

stroke

into the

was developed

to a fully extended

that if the goal of static

39

14

by

was lost due to being

pressure

............

The gear was serviced

state was reached

stroke.

.-_-.:"r

12

The strut was then exercised

table. A steady

N..

The goal of this test was to

relationship.

to near the desired

shaken.

test.

10

and frictional

of the gas volume

these lines to try to predict

that has not yet been

mass

nitrogen

is desired.

via input from the shaker

the compressed

of lower

was also a quasi-static

above what

._

6
8
Strut Stroke (in)

the tire load-deflection

the fluid amount

gear

was 3.5 inches,

for example,

friction

could cause the gear to stick at a static

inches.

With

a little shaking,

friction

will significantly

affect

the gear fully extended

cylinders

the gear could be settled

procedures

lower

the gear again.

As a means

allow

mass displacement

no upper

tire.

Two points

tire spring

becomes

test was combined

behavior

around

rested

the gear until it came

and the shaker

linear.

two points.

both the nonlinear

the operating

point

head

from this test.

essentially

with these

the data to capture

which

regime.

on the load cell.

After

some

was locked

initial

The data set found

polynomial

Figure

with

The lift

in position
deflect

deflection,

to

the

aircraft

from the continuous

was used to represent

at initial compression

at 1.6 inches.

that

and then to raise

was used to further

A third order

behavior

indicating

The test started

to equilibrium

to get more data, the drop carriage

of data were taken

behavior

a platen

value as high as 6.5

again to 3.5 inches,

in the quasi-static

and the tire above

were used to slowly

stroke

and the linear

5-4 shows

the data and the

cubic fit.
Fit of Tire Load-Deflection

Data

2 x 10 4
I

Tire Spring
1.8

......

F,k = -252(X.

Force

+ U) 3 + 1397(X.

(F,O

+ U) 2 + 4267(X.

+ U) + 130 '-

i--_"

1.6
............

TI

re inflalion

P:essum]

; 2;psi

............................................

"_"

1.4

_" 1.2
"0
0
..I

_- 0.8

0.6
0.4

0.2

0
-0.5

Figure

0.5

5-4:

1
1.5
Tire Deflection (in)

Experimental

tire load-deflection

4O

curve.

2.5

It maybe noticedin Figure5-4thatthetire loaddatadoesnot startatzerowhentire

deflectionis zero. The positionaldataof tire deflectionfrom thecontinuousdatawas
calculatedfrom measuredquantities(Tire deflection= Xwg- Xs). The interceptof thedata
(usinganaveragethroughthehysteresis)is approximately-0.17inches.It is thoughtthat
combinedcalibrationerrorof the uppermass(Xwg)andstrutpositional(Xs)
measurements,
aswell assomeflexurein thedropcarriagemay accountfor this
discrepancy.
A final quasi-statictestwasperformedto gatherinformationconcerningthe
pressure-stroke
curveandto helpcorrelatetheoffsetwheelfriction model. For this test,
the uppermasswaslockedinto its equilibriumpositionby usingtie down cablesto
preventmotionin the upwarddirectionwhile thelift cylinderspreventedmotionin the
downwarddirection. The shakerheadwasthenmovedfrom the zeropoint to the fully
retractedposition,allowing thegearto strokeabout7.25inches.Two runsof this test
weremade. The first controlledtheshakerheadto movevertically ata slowrateof about
0.084in/sectill no further strokewaspossiblewith the shakerhead(strokeof about2.8
in left on the gear). The secondtestuseda strokerateof about0.725in/sec. Thesetwo
testswereperformedto determinetheeffectof nitrogengasdissolvinginto thehydraulic
fluid andto determinesomeof theeffectvelocityhason frictional levels. It wasfound
(seeFigure5-5) that for a fastercompressionrate,lessgasis dissolvedinto the fluid,
leavingmoregasin thechamber,causingtheair springto bestiffer. The hysteresisin the
pressuremeasurements
representsthe amountof volumeof gaslost to or gainedfrom
the fluid.
pressure
results

No plans
curve

are made to model

to use as the model

of runway

inputs

rate test was selected

using

the form of Eqn.

on Figure
data.
second

5-5.

point,

to represent

However,

the dynamic

in the extrapolated

at fully extended

11.0 inches,
stroke,

that stroke

the air curve

response

(2.3) was used to fit this data.

at about

the decision

is made with the reasoning

will be high. Therefore,

Two points

The first point,

this effect.

found

41

during

that are

the higher-

to stroke.

A curve

This calculated

curve

is also shown

to within

15.09 inches,

rates

of pressure

area of this curve

agreed

as to which

agreed

were checked

against

test

1.6% of the test data and the

to within

9.6%.

Pressure-Stroke Curve for A-6 Landing Gear

800

P, = 356.6[
700

.0
EX

".1

\i.19

4.5 ]

tx,)

600
500

8
t_

40O
--

Run 1 Duration: 6.2 see

Run 2 Duration; 56.5 see

300

...........

2O0
100
0
2

Figure

5-5:

The folowing
frictional

effects.

developed

using

friction

using

Pressure-stroke

procedures

The result
dynamic

of this method

test data.

the "theoretical"

induced.

However,

a set rule because

that the frictional

the result

and fitted

was unclear

analytical

loads

of subtracting

of the solubility
should

through

a slow compression

to statically

the analytical

section,

of the gas into the fluid.

force"

the pressure

and extension

42

expression

Figure

loads

for

gage

are

does not
assumed

5-6 shows
axle load.

the load measurements

around

was

pressure

It is therefore

from the measured

The first represents

model

the nitrogen

with the zero load axis.

"pressure

quantify

from the axle strain

load) by using

in the previous

16

expression.

these two data sets, the remaining

be symmetric

the theoretical

14

and the final frictional

to finding

load (or frictionless

as described

12

in an attempt

The approach

this plot, two data sets are represented.

were taken

curve

were developed

the area it acts on. By subtracting

friction
follow

8
10
Remaining Stroke (in)

static data is to use both the load data measured

and to calculate
times

In

that

the 2.2 to 7.5 inch range.

Thesecondrepresentsdatathatweretakenduringa fastercompressionandextensionrate
througha strokerangefrom about5.0inchesto 15.0inches.Therearetwo majornotes
to makefrom this plot. Thefirst is thepressureeffectasmentionedabove. It is believed
thatfrom onetime to thenext,in a quasi-staticregime,thepressurecannotbeaccurately
predictedbecauseof thesolubilityeffect. So,eventhoughtheareais constant,the
pressurefor a given strokevalueis very transientunlessa long periodof time is allowed
for the gasandfluid to cometo equilibrium,or the processis donesorapidly asto allow
no mixing. This transienceof pressurecanexplainwhy the two datasetsin Figure5-6
arenot centeredaroundzero. The nextpointto noticefrom theplot is the differenceof
scalebetweenthe two datasets.The settakenat amuchslowerrateshowsa much
greaterfrictional hysteresisloop,whereasin theotherset,wherethe strokeratewas
faster,thefrictional loop is thinner. This lendscredibility to thetheorythatslidingfriction
is a functionof velocity. Statically,oneencountersthemaximumamountof friction
possible. As velocitydecreases,
thefriction alsodecreases.Beyondsomevelocity value,
the friction remainsessentiallyconstant.
Pressure

Corrected

Axle

Load-Stroke

Friction

Data

5000,

4000

Ra t eData-

- '

.........................

in/secSt ok;

3000

2000

.......................................................

1000

............

-..............

:...........................

:..............

:..............

Stroke

Rate Data

o,

_...............

" .............

oii
_

- 1000

:..............

0.725 in/sec

: ............

::

-2000
2

8
Available

Figure

5-6:

Result

of "pressure

10

load" subtracted

43

12

14

Stroke(in)

from axle load measurements.

16

In light of these two points,

symmetric)
value

around

zero, a process

of the two data

their respective

data

and the assumption

was developed

sets in Figure

to center

5-6 was found

sets, resulting

in Figure

that friction

be centered

the test data.

and those

values

(or

A rough

median

were subtracted

from

5-7.

Corrected Axle Load-Stroke Friction Data

2500
2000

......................

_..............

:..............

.084 in/see

:..............

Stroke

:..............

Rate Data

i ............

1500
1000
50O

0.725

in/see

Stroke

Rate Data

t-I

"o

o,
-500

-1000

-1500

-2000

-2500
2

Figure

The data, as seen in Figure

stroke

and velocity,

pressures

are capable

5-7:

of change,

associated

with this quasistatic

developed

using

dynamic
friction

of (arbitrarily)

frictional

to indicate

any conclusions

not be useful.

frictional

information,

the frictional

only.

relationship

with strut

In light of the uncertainty

a working
model

as developed

1.3 times that of sliding

44

16

load data.

a functional

The initial

model

i
14

12

from this data, in light of how the

would

information

data will contain

values

Zero centered

5-7, may seem

but to draw

dynamic

8
10
Available Stroke(in)

friction.

model

of friction

for comparison

in Chapter

was

against

2, and static

In summary,
mass

about

the system

318 lbs., leaving

+/- 117 lbs. was found

to 9147

function

of stroke

The friction

encountered

stroke.

best by a cubic equation

linear

spring

noted,

were implemented

testing,

operating

varying

are the tire damping

coefficients,

levels

between

sinusoidal

sweep

from a runway

input

given

These

specified

inputs,

to draw

to be a
a firm

a rapidly
to be represented

and models,

and the

except

those

regime.

amplitudes.

variables

break

away

system.

of a given

amplitude

strut starts

to stroke.

These

variables

because

gas constant,

the

again.

gear system

responds

consideration,
values

considered

of the intended

45

parameters
not be

with linear

systems.

the model,
response

which

in the frequency
use of the program.

sweep

the two models,

and lower

by slowly
present

has been

tests should

to a frequency

in both the upper

the force levels

This

should

in comparing

can also be observed

of the gear to a

of varius

used when dealing

between

the strut breaks

quantities.

This process

frequency

and noting

these

shifts

These

and pressure

frequency

to verify

under

friction

after

for when

the strut sticks

and phase

response

how the landing

The variables

the gear positional

and criteria

was used to determine

data, and the test gear.

precisely

polytropic

such as

unknowns,

the test gear and the simulation

to this nonlinear

frequency

gear model,

The remaining

a dynamic

of these tests was to make a comparison

by the static

etc.

friction,

the gain amplitudes

inputs

with the typical

are important

possibly

this landing

and starts to slide, and when

is only to compare

The maximum,

but in comparison

at initial compression

values

to fully validate

of sliding

comparison

demonstrate

was found

effects

level of

115 lbs. was found

curve was found

coefficient,

response

updated

of roughly

to test data in a dynamic

sinusoidal

frequency

The purpose

A frictional

to best characterize

deflections.

friction

confused

wheel

both the nonlinear

for comparison

ramp inputs,

certain,

seal friction

the tire load-deflection

free from the static

given

lbs.

of the drop carriage,

was found

tests need to be performed

discharge

process

9147

lbs. and the lower

Testing

Many

the static

rollers

9465

but the data is not clear enough

to capture

rate at normal

to be about

A static

curve

Finally,

to be about

due to the offset

and gear force,

The pressure-stroke

step bumps,

mass

to exist in the guide

conclusion.

5.3 Dynamic

was found

the upper

lbs., this force is negligible.

to exist in the strut.

three

weight

increasing

are

chambers.
the

in the gear when

responses

of

the

comparisons

The simulation

will

beusedto evaluateanalyticallytheeffectof various

applied

active

shaken

to allow

sweep

test, the gear starts

the fluid and gas to come

at rest on the shaker

to equilibrium.

swept

sine wave

from 0.75 to 3.75 hertz in the course

about

1.0 inch.

The model

discharge

coefficients,

frequency

response

and pressure

the weight

parameters

that will be

over the whole

for setting

of the system)

at which

is very sensitive

may also be function

and may be a function

to model

following

results.
tire damping

by the simulation
matched.

these

The

is bouncing

and kinetic
effects,

than purely

energies

higher

frequency

force.

and the damping

was selected

the force

From

value

is about

2700

by the
friction

level

with other

is not consistent

and how fast it was traveling

gear system.

of 2690

No attempt

lbs. was used in the

such that the tire deflection

was inspected
to match

level (above

comparison

this number

stuck

in the test before

tire mode

in the positional

This quantity

in the landing

was adjusted

and the data recorded

tire damping,

for the break-away

sine waves,

and the constant

in the model

of

such that the predicted

slip time, as calculated

The criteria

amplitude

friction,

10% agreement

to stroke.

of how long the strut has been

and potential

was made

The

and other

with an amplitude

sliding

was to observe

The predicted

other

It is then

range.

friction

to this number.

of something

such as step bumps

about

the strut started

case.

of 40 seconds

were adjusted

frequency

the sticking

Ibs. for the 1.0 inch amplitude

it stuck,

gas constant

head.

The test used as an input a

friction,

and the test data were within

variables

simulation,

of sticking

and polytropic

The method

when

concepts

to the test set-up.

For this frequency

runs,

control

the strut started

in this region

the phase

predicted

stroking
where

only the tire

of the tire as well as

possible.
The other parameters
constant

softer.

in that they all effect

work

the stroke

the curve
These

variables

friction,

are coupled

coefficients
changing

of sliding

the predicted

of pressures

parameters

of upper

pneumatic

to damp

pressure

were

(Xwg), strut stroke

were much

chamber,
larger

making

or hydraulic

than the measured

46

affects

behavior

(Xs), upper
pressure
pressures

gas

and discharge

the spring

the dynamic
position

and polytropic

friction

gas constant

of stroke,

by inspecting

coefficients

The sliding

and the polytropic

selected

(Pu), and lower

pressures

the stroke.

as a function

mass position

discharge

the stroke
stiffer

by

or

of the

chamber,

or

(PL)" If, for example,

but the positional

variablesseemedclose,the polytropicgasconstantneededto bedecreased.However,if

boththepressuresandthepositionaldataweregreaterthanthemeasureddata,thenthe
dampingin the strut,alone,may needto be increased.Theseparameterswereadjustedin
aniterativefashionuntil thefrequencyresponses
of eachof the abovementioned
predictedvariableswerewithin about10%of the measureddata. The valueusedfor
slidingfriction is a constant
indeed

be a function

a larger

of stroke

This value is somewhat

velocity.

Further

The discharge

coefficients

3. However,

a percentage

help match

the data.

information,

gear,

to be sufficient

exceed

The model

no flow velocity

for this landing

are still fuctions

and in reality,

to be run to quantify

of the discharge

information.

control

of the discharge

These

than about

may

friction

is about

to

earlier

in this chapter.

This change

reduced

stroke.

This change,

to within

The frequency
simulation

data

are presented

plots for the strut stroke

input.

variable

natural

frequency
13%.

discharge
response

agrees

match

is greatly

and sliding

to within

an average

plots presented

where

and are

do not
The

1.19 as indicated

amplitudes

for given

Figure

gain predicted

The

routine

swept

sine

in the experiment

at
by

The parameters

of

The phase

of the

the rest of the frequency

range,

"jumps"

difficulty

head

by the simulation

in the strut.

Over

The next figure,

47

to bring

the gain and phase

to the 1 inch shaker

may still need to be adjusted.

transformation

of

data and the nonlinear

5-8a shows

by the damping

of 5%.

values

was sufficient

as that recorded

are the usual

no data exists.

the results

are reasonable.

to 1.1 from

previously,

the maximum

friction

appropriate

quantities.

5-8 (a-d).

affected

improve

of both the measured

1.6 Hz. is not as great

and the fast Fourier

system

mentioned

very well with that of the test data.

of the phase

180 degrees
nonlinear

This value

coefficient

the two gains

of some

of about

down

(X,) as a response

As can be seen from the figure,

to

only geometry

may not be entirely

these values

the pressure

comparison
in Figures

is taken

As long as the coefficients

10% of the measured

response

coefficients

in

0.9

was adjusted

with the others

as described

includes

above

0.8, arbitrarily,

gas constant

results

models

as mentioned

The polytropic

the predicted

geometry,

coefficients

on these coefficients.

coefficients

along

of orifice

of each of the three discharge

but the adjustments

one, and are greater

average

about

tests need

arbitrary

extent.

Chapter

taken

400 lbs.

at the beginning

in distinguishing

calculating
Figure

a response
5-8b,

shows

and end
between
to a
the

+/-

frequency
shaker
mass,

response

input.

moves

not be as large.

larger

this behavior.

This may also improve

position

(X,s)

that for higher

amplitudes

(about

and discharge

a little further

The suggestion

the strut to accommodate

in error.

through

to stroke

mass

here indicates

for this may be the frictional

the strut were allowed

would

of the upper

The gain plot shown

as simulated,

One reason

comparison

with respect
frequencies,

The phase

coefficients

the damping,

as mention
mass

to some

of this predicted

with the suggested

the upper

14%) than the test gear.

each time, the upper

is to reduce

to the

value

above.

If

amplitudes
small

extent,

in

is also slightly

changes.

Response of Strut Stroke Position due to Shaker Head (1.0 in.)

4

- -

Simulation
Test Data D a ta

x
1

1.4

1.6

1.8

2
2.2
Frequency (Hz)

2.4

2.6

2.8

2.4

2.6

2.8

/
__

t/

,-.,oot.
Figure

1.4

1.6

5-8a:

Frequency

1.8

response

2
2.2
Frequency (Hz)
comparison

48

of strut stroke

to shaker

input.

Response of Wing/Gear Position due to Shaker Head (1.0 in.)

'

'

--Tesit
Data
'
Simulation Data
I

.......

_2
x

" ...........

"...........

.........

.................................

:_ ..........

..

...........

" ...........

1.4

1.6

1.8

2
2.2
Frequency (Hz)

2.4

2.6

2.8

I
2.8

200

100

.......

...........

"..............................................

i ...........

" ......................

a
0
ffl
eQ.

-100

-200

I
1.4

Figure

Figure

5-8b:

5-8c

Frequency

shows

chamber

(Pu).

between

the model

upper

Again,

to lower

the main orifice

through

ranges

where

values

at this frequency.

discharge

the orifice.

pressure.

coefficient

This would

allow

near

5-8d)

i
2.6

position

of the pressure
to compare

pressures

stroke

This lower
The damping

49

limiting

inputs.

frequency

gains
The

of the gear.
It is noticed

the calculated

value corresponds
the stroke

to be a little larger,

stroke

amplitude

are both high by about

more,

pressure

input.

in the upper

in this comparison.

otherwise

may need

to shaker

of frequency

1.6 Hz, the natural

component

larger

mass

over a range

(see Figure
except

i
2.4

it is useful

measurements

the strut would

than the measured

stroke

measurements,

chamber

of upper

comparison

in the strut is the critical

frequency,

is not larger

comparison

response

and the actual

all frequency

damping

at natural

the frequency

and lower

i
t
2
2.2
Frequency (Hz)

response

For the pressure

chamber

10% through

i
1.8

1.6

rate by decreasing

indicates

to allow

that

pressure
directly
that

more flow

the damping

in the

strut.

The polytropic

pressure
3001

250

200

gas constant

amplitudes

over the whole

Response
!

may also need

range

of Pneumatic

to be decreased

................
i

Pressure

due

to Shaker

150

Head

(1.0

_est
p a,ta
_lmulauon

_ .........................................................

....

the

in.)

'
-- -

to lower

of frequencies.

...................

slightly

Data

: ....................

"

_.

........

"": ,

._. ......

. ...........

"

:..............

100

50-

Figure

i
1.4

5-8c:

i
1.6

i
1.8

Frequency

response

Response

=
2
Frequency

comparison

of H ,draulic

2.2
(Hz)

of upper

Pressure

due

2.4

chamber
to Shaker

2.6

pressure
Head

(1.0

2.8

to shaker

input.

in.)

300

250

200

_150

......

IZ,.

!/
"1

100

50

.........................................................................................

.........

Test Data
Simulation
0

_..-_1.

1.4

Figure

5-8d:

Frequency

1.6

1.8

response

2
Frequency

comparison

2.2
(Hz)

of lower

50

2.4

chamber

2.6

pressure

:
Data
L

2.8

to shaker

input

Figure5-8dof the hydraulicpressureshowsa responsesimilar to thatof the pneumatic

pressure.The differencein amplitudes(pressure)betweenthehydraulicandpneumatic
drive the motionof the strut.

5.4

Validation
The

of Updated

swept

encounter.

quantities

updates,

several

predicted

data.

amplitude
shown

values

0.5 inches,
5-9 (a-d).

are apparent

over the course

when looking
as predicted

at Figure

of this one variable,

of Strut

Stroke

Position

5-9a.

Over

range

however,

and with an

The results
section,

the whole

is below

to the

are
to reduce

range

of

that of the test data by

the data and the predicted

:......................

_..........

....... !...................................

0 _m
1.4

1.6

1.8

1.4

1.6

1.8

due

to Shaker

Head

(0.5

!
:

! ..........

; ..........

: ..................................

i ...........

!...........

,.

"_ 2

were compared

in the previous

by the simulation

,
........

to the model

of 40 seconds.

as discussed

certain

very well.
Response

As a validation

and the results

gear to

predicted

sine test over the same frequency

The reasons,

With the exception

agree

again

case for a landing

such that the model

10% for this one case.

tests were performed

the response

9%.

5.3 is an extreme

were selected

The first was a swept

in Figures

frequencies,

parameters

to within

other

of about

strut damping

about

sine used in Section

The model

measured

Model

J
2
Frequency

i
2.2
(Hz)

Test
Data
Simulation

in.)

'
Data

.:..................................

t
2.4

2.6

m
2.8

2.4

2.6

2.8

to shaker

input.

2OO

100

0
t--

_t.

-100

-200

Figure

5-9a:

Frequency

response

2
Frequency

comparison

51

2.2
(Hz)

of strut stroke

Response

of Wing/Gear

Position

due

to Shaker

Head

(0.5

in.)

-- Te,tOata I
simulation

D ta

_2
x
1
.....
I

i
I

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.6

1.8

2
Frequency

2.2
(Hz)

2.4

2.6

2.8

2.6

2.8

200

.-.

100

0)

0
.-

(1.

-100

-200

1.4

Figure

5-9b:

Frequency

response

Response

2
Frequency

comparison

of Pneumatic

2.2
(Hz)

of upper

Pressure

due

2.4

mass position

to Shaker

Head

300

to shaker
(0.5

input.

in.)

I
!

Test Data
Simulation

--

Data

250

200

......................................

t _ .........................................................

150
n

........

_ ...........

_" .........

1 O0

i
.......

/i

!.........

z.! ..........

i ...........

i ...........

! ..........

i ...........

!.........

50

i
0

J
1.4

i
J
1.6

1.8

2.2

Frequency

Figure

5-9c:

Frequency

response

comparison

of upper

52

2.4

2.6

2.8

(Hz)

chamber

pressure

to shaker

input.

Response

of Hydraulic
'

3001

Pressure

due

to Shaker
'

Head

I--

,: i

I--

(0.5

in.)

'
Test

!
Data

Simulation

Data

///

1.4

Figure

5-8d:

1.6

Frequency

The second
was different.
the course

1.8

response

check

2
Frequency

comparison

of lower

was to run a test where

This test swept

2.2
(Hz)

2.4

chamber

the sweep

a 1.0 inch amplitude

2.6

2.8

pressure

to shaker

rate of the frequency

sine wave

input

range

from 0.75 to 3.75 Hz. over

of 25 seconds.
Response

of Strut

Stroke

Position

due

to Shaker

!
-

Head
-

(1.0

in.)

'

Tesl Data
Simulation

"
Data

x
1
O

1.4

1.6

1.8

2
Frequency

2.2
(Hz)

2.4

2.6

2.8

1.4

i
1.6

I
1.8

i
2
Frequency

2.2
(Hz)

2.4

2.6

i
2.8

response

comparison

200
100
0
t_

-100
-200

Figure

5-10a:

Frequency

53

of strut stroke

to shaker

input.

Response
4

of Wing/Gear

Position

due

to Shaker

Head

(1.0

in.)

--

Test Data
Simulation

Oa ta

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

Frequency

2.4

2.6

2.8

,
2.4

i
2.6

i
2.8

(Hz)

200

100

........

:................................................................................................

b
Q:,

a
=,

t,,'=

Q.

-100

=
1.4

-200

,
1.6

,
2

1.8

i
2.2

Frequency

Figure

5-10b:

Frequency

Response

300

response

comparison

of Pneumatic

Pressure

(Hz)

of upper

due

mass

position

to Shaker

'

Head

---

(1.0

_est
--

to shaker

'

in.)

'}

D_ta

_lmUlatlon

input.

"
D_,ta

!
250
i

200

150

.......

........

::........

""i

.............
,,

::.......................

!....
,':
i
: /

_.

_.-_.
: .......
--

: .................. i

:: .........

:" .........

!: ........
i

:...........
:
i

_i

"

1 O0

50

Figure

.......

i.........

=
1.4

5-10c:

: ..............................

i
i
1.6

Comparison

i
1.8

i ......

=
2
Frequency

of responses

,
2.2
(Hz)

of upper

54

i .....................

j
2.4

chamber

2.6

pressure

: .........

a
2.8

to shaker

input.

Response

of H rdraulic

Pressure

due

to Shaker

Head

(1.0

300

in.)

,
- --

Simulation
Test Data

Data
i

/
250[-

.......

:........

- i._ t/_

!
i

___/:

_ " I ...........

i ...........

i ..........

i ...........

::...........

_ ..........

"_

!
i

i
i

i
i

!
i

!
i

\i

_oo .......i.....................

).......... i........... i........... i..........

_so ....... i,"

-.

_-: i '_

1 O0

.......
,
.
..........
i
..........
i
...........
...........
,
.
.........
i
.
..........
,
.
..........
i.........
/
1.4

Figure

1.6

5-10c:

1.8

Comparison

of responses

As can be seen from Figures

measured
where

values

will accurately
input.

the physical

As a final check,

results.

However,

the strut to lock up must

2.4

2.6

chamber

pressure

predicts

The results

rate were changed,

of interest

indicate

very well,

5-11 a that the strut stroke

at around

does not correctly

1.25 seconds.

be improved.

Otherwise,

2.8

to shaker

the response

to these

case was run and Figures

the model

up, as seen by the overshoot

5%).

variables

a step bump

It can be seen from Figure

8% of the test data.

of lower

well (within

and then the sweep

predict

2.2
(Hz)

5-9 and 5-10, the simulation

exceptionaly

the amplitude

2
Frequency

input.

of the

past two tests,

that the simulation

for any of these types

5-11 (a and b) show

is predicted

predict

This suggests
the simulation

within

when

the

about

the strut locks

that the criteria

predicts

for

the response

very well.
Figure

5-1 lb shows

the response

simulation

predicted

to within

about

oscillation

that can be seen in the predicted

bouncing.

Since

of the upper

10% the values

the test data does not show

mass

to the step bump.

as recorded

in the test data.

data when the strut is locked

this behavior,

increased.

55

The
The

is due to tire

the tire damping

needs

to be

of

Stroke
,
_
-}Vleasured
Stroke
-.--.._.redi_ed
Stroke:
-.tnput D Sp acement

..

4.5

........

....

,:\._'

vs. Time

.....................

.....

t: .: _

Remaining

........
.......

!..........

_l
I_

"i

..........

"i

i ....

'"I,,

4_

" " : ..........

................

."..........

i .........

,-li

3.5
.=_
v

.__ 3

"_ 2.5
o:

"

1.5
1
0.5
i
0

0.5

1.5

2
Time

Figure

5-11a:

Time

history

of strut position

Wing/Gear
14

2.5
(sec)

3.5

as gear encounters

Position

4.5

a step bump.

vs. Time

12

........

: ..... _

.....................

i.... /,

i....................

!..........

-;

"; ........

\:J

.....................................

10

.... i ..................

o=
._

' _
I

o_
6

.........

...........

,..........

, ..........

..........

. ..........

.PCedic_ed .Wing/Gear
Measured
Wing/Gear
input
Displacement

. ..........

Positi0h
Position

......

............................

o-t--

"I InPUt
0

0.5

1.5

2.5
Time

Figure

5-11b:

Displacement

Time

history

of Wing/Gear

4.5

(sec)

Position

56

3.5

as gear encounters

a step bump.

This sectionhasshownthattheparametersfoundby tuningthe modelto a 1.0

inch amplitudesinesweepfrom 0.75to 3.75Hz. in 40 secondswerealsogood for other
cases,validatingthemodelfor other,moregeneraltypesof casesthatmaybe run.

5.5

Summary
In this chapter,

mass,

tire load-deflection

performed
been

the static

at NASA

updated

were,

once

Langley's

again,

and pressure-stroke
Aircraft

Landing

updated

to reflect

the 10% range.

a way to further

increase

the accuracy

analytical

of a telescoping

model

with test data and validated

simulation

seconds

real time per simulated

accuracy
active

Further

schemes

to the landing

After

of the model

In summary,

runs, times

This model

gear.

57

of about

are much

had

of the model
tests were
predicted

the

suggested

has been
3 minutes

shorter,

may now be adjusted

the effect

the model

Other

were

tests

then, a fully nonlinear

here which

has run times

or it may be used as is as a tool for evaluating

control

Facility.

from various

that the simulation

gear is presented

For semi-static
second.

were found

of the system.

changes

of the model.

landing

such as system

test was run and the parameters

with data and which

second.

Dynamics

and it was found

within

gear model

curve,

the new knowledge

of this set of parameters

response

dynamic

of the landing

with static data, a sine sweep

run as a check
system

curve

parameters

of applying

about

tuned
per
30

for further
various

as

Chapter

6.1

comprehensive
associated

model

the equations

Remarks

gear which

to the effort

to study

of various

the fuselage.

predictor-corrector

to integrate

on the development

tool of the A-6 Intruder

data.

force or vibration
presented

then, this simulation

is a powerful

main

This model

that are transmitted

a SIMULINK

routine

across

through

This tool is to be used to simulate

to reduce

to tune the

the

and evaluate

transmission

in this document

program

is a

to

currently

and in a DADS

tool that is the result

of both

efforts.

Research

This research
areas of future
The model

has provided

research

additional

studies

result

This tuning
are currently

to be tuned.
defined,

and back

be further

again

needs

at all, leaving

efficiency

in solving

associated

is optional,
being

predicted.

With

only the Adams-Moulton,

portions

the model

of when

this change,
which

friction
to slip need

to the stuck

the Runga-Kutta

history.

may

of

the stick-slip

has demonstrated

of the total solution

58

bearings

to stick and when

is to

An

measures

from motion

of

of the model.

damping.
roller

as acceptable
In addition,

A couple

for this fine tuning

with the guide

that takes the dynamics

to be smoothed.

the continuous

affect

uses.

the update

A suggestion

though,

Not only do the criteria

but the model

be needed

tuned.

that directly

may be that the friction

parameters

to be further

could

can be put to many

The first is to complete

on the variables

need to be simulated.

needs

a tool which

are suggested.

strut damping

run sensitivity

important

vibrations

of the problems

a procedure

and dynamic

program,

and experimental

Future

with both static

schemes

of a FORTRAN

In conclusion,

analytical

based

and describes

is a simulation

of a plane.

in one place a

a discussion

was needed

and correct

control

Simulations

exist in the form

format.

active

together

that an implicit

routine

validated

gear into the fuselage

the effect

of motion,

of this research

has been

brings
of motion,

It was found

but a Runga-Kutta
The result

contribution

phase

of the equations

with test data.

discontinuities.

landing

in this document

development

was very efficient,

landing

presented

with integrating

analytical

model

Concluding

Conclusions
The research

6.2

6:

may not

excellent

The secondareaof futureresearchinvolvesactivelycontrolledlandinggear. As

statedin the introduction,theultimategoalof this researchis to contributeto the process
of alleviatingvibrationsin theHSCT. As a steptowardthat,this simulationis to beused
to evaluatevariouscontrolschemes.Threeapproaches
to controlaircraftvibrationsusing
thelandinggearareproposed.Oneis anactiveorifice conceptwhich would allow the
landinggeardampingcharacteristics
tobe greatlyalteredin responseto unacceptable
grounddisturbances.The secondis a forceactuatorplacedparallelto themainlanding
gearcylinderthatactsto activelyattenuaterelativemotion of the fuselageto theground.
A third conceptuseselectro-rheological
fluids to activelycontrolthedamping
characteristicsof thelandinggear. This approachmaycall for thereplacementof the
currentfluid in the cylinderor perhapsbeimplementedasa paralleldamper.The
dynamicsof thesevariousconceptsareto bemodeledandaddedto thevalidated
simulation. Control lawswill thenbe evaluatedonthe basisof reducingvibrationsin a
simulatedcockpit. Theseconceptsarebeingdevelopedby NASA engineersandareto be
testedata laterdate.

59

References

1)

Tony G. Gerardi
USAF

Aircraft

April

2)

Shaker

and an Alternative

and W. Johnson,

Test Facility",

Structural

3)

Ninnetyan

,"Status

Simulation

of Computer

Technique",

Simulations

AGARD

of

CP-326,

1982.

R. Freymann

e.V.

and Dr. Levon

Second

Dynamics,

in Aachen,

R. Freymann,
of Aircraft

"Simulation

of Aircraft

International

Symposium

sponsered

W. Germany,

by Deutsche
April

on the AGILE

on Aeroelasticity

Gesellschaft

and

fur Luft- und Raumfahrt

1985.

"An Experimental-Analytical
Operating

Taxi Testing

Routine

on Rough

Runway

Surfaces",

"Actively

Damped

Landing

"An Electronic

Control

for the Dynamic

AGARD

Qualification

R-731,

March

1987.

4)

Raymond
484,

5)

7)

Irving

Ross,

Ralph

Aircraft

Alan Sheperd,

Edson,

Landing

Tyrone

Gear",

18th Congress

Sciences,

People's

Tyronne

Aircraft

Beijing,

Catt, David

System",

AGARD

CP-

During

and Spacecraft,

on a Supersonic
Loughborough

"Some

for an Electrohydraulic

CR 3113,

Cowling,

April

of China,

Alan Sheperd,
Ground

Landing

of the Aeronautical

1992.

"Active

Roll",

of Aircraft

Council

Sept.

Active

1979.

"The Simulation

of the International

Republic

Cowling,

Ride Quality

C.G. Mitchell,

NASA

Catt, David

Gear Dynamics",

Improved

8)

Gear

1990.

Control

6)

Freymann,

Landing

AGARD

Smart

Gear Control
Structures

for

for

Oct. 1992.

Measured

Transport
University

and Calculated

Aircraft",

Effects

Symposium

of Technology,

60

England,

of Runway

on Nonlinear
March

1972.

Unevenness

Dynamics,

9)

D. Yadav,

R. P. Ramamoorthy,

Touchdown",

Journal

113, December

10)

Mahinder
Time

11)

12)

Simulation",

Liu Li, Yang

13)

George

14)

16)

Shock

Strut Dynamic

Guo-zhu,

Chinese

Inc.,

Inc.,

S. Teukolsky,

Cambridge

University

C. William

Gear,

Dean

Vol.

York,

York,

and

Control,

Press,

Analysis

Vol

and Its Real-

Shock

Vol 6, No. 2, May

Simulations

1993.

for Aircraft-Surface

1986.

of Engineering

Thermodynamics,

John

1988.

Fundamentals

of Fluid

Mechanics,

John

1990.

W. Vetterling,

Numerical

Flow

of Computer

T. Okiishi,

Prentice-Hall,

Miller,

B. Flannery,

Numerical

Recipes

in C,

1992.

Initial
Inc., N.J.,

Measurement

Value

Problems

in Ordinary

Differential

1971.

Engineering

Handbook,

McGraw-Hill

Book

2nd ed.,1989.

Karnopp,

Dynamic

at

of Oleo-Pneumatic

of Aeronautics,

Fundamentals

New

W. Press,

R.W.

Behavior

1976.

"Optimization

Vol 23, No. 4, April

New

D. Young,

& Sons,

13, No. 4, April

Journal

Jr., "A Review

H. Shapiro,

& Sons,

Vol.

He Qing-zhi,

M. Moran,

Company,

18)

"Oleopneumatic

J. Aircraft,

Equations,

17)

Measurement,

Dynamics",

Wiley

15)

Systems,

of Aircraft",

B. Munson,

Gear

of Dynamic

J. Aircraft,

R. Doyle

Wiley

Landing

1991.

K. Wahi,

Absorber

"Nonlinear

"Computer

Systems",

107, March

Journal

Simulation

of Stick-Slip

of Dynamic

1985.

61

Systems,

Friction

in Mechanical

Measurement,

and Control,

19)

D. HaessigJr.,B. Friedland,"On the Modeling andSimulationof Friction",

Journal

of Dynamic

Systems,

Measurement,

62

and Control,

Vol.

113, Sept.

1991.

Appendix

A.1

Summary

of Program

As part of this reasearch,

numerically

solve

the appendix

that which

is presented

Y(3)

of motion

is consistant

and Y(2), the position

uses the Adams/Moulton

Runga-Kutta

program's

first, "pin.dat",

Four

The

setup

of the wheel
method,

to

used

program,

of the wing/gear

numerical

define

There

the shape

are four

not

These

states

interface,

axle.

and

The program

and a variable

data files associated

of the metering

The next n entries

of the pin (n).

Lastly

with the diameters.

step

pin.

with it. The

The first entry

are the n diameters.

is the
Then the

in this data file is the number

defining

This file is the entry point

of the many

associated

"piston.dat".

parameters.

the gear is charged,

Du, the diameter

chamber,

D 1RC and D 1RE, the diameters

extension

conditions

the diameter
the value

of the upper

respectively,
of the piston

conditions

inputs

chamber,

shaft,

"ic.dat".

of the four states

The last data file is a runway

of the file is left up to the user.

of this file are:

charge

of one snubber

friction

profile.

Since

compression

system,

of the piston

various

gas

of the lower

of the upper

described

The user needs

63

y, the polytropic

hole under

This is a file of the initial

in the order

Xsi, the initial

of the hole in the orifice

Mu, the mass

sticking

pressure,

DL, the diameter

Dop, the diameter

of the maximum

The third file is called

The

Pi, the initial

constant,

name

The notation

are used for the solution.

respectively,

is simple.

next data file is called

at which

the initial

written

stroke.

(12) piston/cylinder

FSMAX,

has been

gear in time.

respectively

predictor/corrector

changes

associated

the maximum

Dpis,

states

and velocity,

and velocity,

lets the user

of slope

n lengths

of landing

"gearfin.f'

to get past discontinuities.

The

number

program,

with that used in the FORTRAN

in the paper.

and Y(4), the position

length

a computer

the equations

throughout

are Y(1)

and

plate,

and

MI, and

seals.
conditions.

Inputs

are

above.
runways

to locate

could

the "Read

be used,

the

in Runway"

sectionof

this program

and change

the name.

contain

the length

(I) of the following

vector:

[TIME(I)

ELEV(I)

the runway
wheel

in meters

rolls along

data.

ELEVD(I)].

and piecewise

it. Therefore,

The first line of the input

The next element

This file contains

continuous

of the input

file is the

a time history

time rate of change

any type of velocity

file should

of the height

of the height

or acceleration

of

as the

case may be

investigated.
This program
routine

"ddriv2.f'.

has six subroutines

The next is a routing

derivative

of the states

subroutine

returns

data

of pin.dat.

coefficients

Kutta

changes

"FOUT".

The current

routine,

data

that the program

writes

the solutions.

Y(1),

Y(4).

The second

at each

time, the accelerations,

The third file is used

writes

the peak

the stiction
fourth

to check

sticktion

friction,

file, "hydr.out",

on the current

when

friction,

and the relative

records

the program

and the input

the C and K
data from

a fourth-order

Runge-

hits a discontinuity

switch

routine

This

from

is really

(as when

the predictor

a copy

corrector

of "F", and is

and can be called

to record

files are for the A-6 Intruder.

has many
in mind.

where

outputs.

first is "y.out".

file, "tfaa.out",

records

and YDOT(4),

numerical

fitness.

the two forces

velocity

outputs

files are written

of times

along

It contains
the time,

It is called

in ASCII,
the interval

the four
the value

and lower

coefficients

of freedom.

to compare
masses.

states,
of friction

"check.out".

that are subtracted

and damping

are selected

of the two degrees

of the upper

64

These

All output

n is the number

The

the spring

stroke

the input

is "RKF4.f',

of the integration

YDOT(2),
some

using

the

"METPIN".

In this subroutine,

The fifth

of the program
of the model

first is the integration

is to define

is called

are calculated

is independent

the form of an nX4 matrix,

Y(2), Y(3),

routine

based

The sixth

The current

form

Its function

sign) it will automatically

(rkf4.f).

with the idea of validation

and have

rate.

with it. The

"F".

"COEFF".

gear equations

This routine

by the user.

of Dpin

is called

and the stroke

to Runge-Kutta

the states

value

step integration

suddenly

(ddriv2.f)
called

The fourth

variable

friction

the current

Dpin,

called

at any time t. The third

of the landing

"piston.dat",

associated

This file
against
The

of the functional

equationsof motion. They arePu,P1,Ps,andQo, the upperpressure,lower presser,

snubberpressure,andflowratethroughthe main orifice respectively. The fifth output
file, "tire.out", is usedto recordinput informationandtire coefficients. Thesevaluesare
U, UDOT, Kt, andCt.
file "gdplta.m"

much

simulated,

is thought

orifices
This

conditions.

and possibly

Program

basic

other

gear configurations

Also,

could

of various

the metering

parameters.

pin, perhaps

written

with bumps

to simulate

touchdown,

to include

a rollout

at various

locations.

or drop

or taxi case in which

GEARFIN

This program

Masters

of Science

Institute

for the Advancement

done by James

was developed

as partial

from George

Daniels.

satisfaction

Washington

of Flight

of a

University,

Sciences.

Work

Joint
was

5/15/96.

C
C

A computer

the equations

for the solution.

velocity,

the position

program

and a variable

program,

"gearfin.f'

of motion
These

respectively

has been written

of landing
states

gear in time.

are Y(1)

of the wing/gear

and velocity,

step Runga-Kutta

to numerically
Four states

and Y(2),
interface,

respectively,

uses the Adams/Moulton

are used

the position
and Y(3)

of the wheel

predictor/corrector
to get past problem

solve
and

and Y(4),

axle.

The

numerical

method,

discontinuities.

C
C

The program's

with it. The

metering

pin.

setup
first,

is simple.

"pin.dat",

The first entry

the

test

Listing

PROGRAM

the

this form of expressing

studies

to optimize

is that it makes

parameters.

it was expanded

is defined,

setup.

There

are four data files associated

lets the user

is the number

65

define

the shape

of slope

m-

that are of interest.

form

different

to optimization

was originally

However,

profile

the same

many

with a MATLAB

variables

in a component

Conceivably,

is conducive

in conjunction

and plot many

will be performed

program

are used

the program

more flexible.

that studies

snubber

A.2

of writing

and equations

files

to calculate

as long as they have

parameters

runway

output

and "resp.m"

The benefit
program

These

changes

of the
of the

be
the
It

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

pin (n).

The next n entries

associated

with the diameters.

defining

the maximum

The next
point

of the many

piston/cylinder

charge

Du, the diameter

pressure,

and extension

shaft, Mu,the
percent

mass

The third file is called

conditions.
in the order

"ic.dat".

the "Read

name.

Its inputs

contains

in Runway"

rolls along

of the piston
mass,

dynamically,

DF, the

and FSMAX,
seals.

This is a file of the initial

conditions

profile.

Since

section

are: TIME(I),

a time history

the diameter

of the piston

of the four

various

of the file is left up to the user.

locate

hole under

MI, the lower

friction

Its inputs are the initial

described
above.

The name

of the lower

Dop,

the diameter

that is active

sticking

last data file is a runway

respectively,

system,

ELEV(I)

it. Therefore,

The user

could
needs

This

in meters

any type of velocity

be

to

and change

and ELEVD(I).

of the runway

states

runways

of this program

of the height

the
file

as the

or acceleration

case may be investigated.

This program

has six subroutines

the integration

routine

Its function

is to define

The third
value

routine

of Dpin

pin.dat.

"ddriv2.f".

is called

based

The fourth

coefficients

is called

"piston.dat",

Dpin,

fourth-order

Runge-Kutta

When

the program

changes

sign)

corrector
really

variable

It calculates

rate.

using
The

hits a discontinuous

(rkf4.f).

a copy of "F", and is called

"FOUT".

and can be called

data from

fifth is "RKF4.f",

routine.
friction

suddenly

from the predictor

to record

66

of

the C and K

spot (as when

switch

the current
data

the input

step integration

"F".

at any time t.

and the input

to Runge-Kutta

of the integration

called

Its job is to return

stroke

gear equations

it will automatically

(ddriv2.f)

of the states

"COEFF".

and the stroke

with it. The first is

The next is a routing

"METPIN".

on the current

of the landing

associated

the derivative

of

gas constant,

of one snubber

and Dpis,

friction

of the maximum

The inputs

DL, the diameter

conditions

of the upper

parameters.

the gear is charged,

polytropic

chamber,

plate,

of the maximum

the value

wheel

associated
at which

gamma,the

of the upper

of the hole in the orifice

used,

This file is the entry

D 1RC and D1 RE, the diameters

compression

the n lengths

in this data file is the number

"piston.dat".

Xsi, the initial length

Pi, the initial

chamber,

Lastly

Then

stroke.

data file is called

this file are:

The

are the n diameters.

The sixth
This routine
the states

routine

is

is independent
by the user.

The current

data files are for the A-6 Intruder.

EXTERNAL
C ........
C

Variable

Declaration

DOUBLE

PRECISION

Y,YDOT,WORK,

DOUBLE

PRECISION

T,TOUT,EWT,EPS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

G,STP,TMIN

INTEGER

NEQ,L,I,J,JJ

INTEGER

MSTATE,MINT,LENW,IWORK,LOUT

INTEGER

LENIW,N,NROOT,COUNT,NUMBR

.... Subroutine

F and FOUT ....

PRECISION

CT,KT,LIFT,TEMP

PRECISION

MU,GRAV,ML,U,UDOT,FRICT

DOUBLE

PRECISION

XS,FT,FC,MA

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DELTA,FR,MTIRE,FTC,FTK

DOUBLE

PRECISION

F1,F2,FSTICK,DEL

--Define
Type for Input Calculation-DOUBLE
PRECISION
PIE,ELVU,ELVL,ELEV,TIME
DOUBLE

PRECISION

DISTL,DISTU,TAXISPD,DIS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

AA,BB,HGT,LE,A0,DD,X,ELEVD

INTEGER

LN

.... Subroutine

METPIN

....

PRECISION

INTEGER

DT

DOUBLE

DOUBLE

.................

.... Main---

DOUBLE

F,COEFF,METPIN

PAR,DPIN,D,LNG

NUM

.... Subroutine

COEFF

DOUBLE

PRECISION

PAR1,C,K,CON,ALS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DOR,AO,RHO,CD,AL,FLW

DOUBLE

PRECISION

AOP,APIN,MEW,VEL,RD,BETA,C

DOUBLE

PRECISION

ARC,ARE,CDE,CDC,E

DOUBLE

PRECISION

BETAE,BETAC,AS

.... Subroutine

....

RKF4 ....

DOUBLE

PRECISION

INTEGER

MTH,IERR

TOL,PD,HMIN,HMAX,H,WK

67

1,E2,E3,E4,AR

.... Define Array Size....

PARAMETER (NEQ=4)
DIMENSION Y(NEQ),YDOT(NEQ),WK(7*NEQ)
DIMENSION

WORK(300),IWORK(30)

DIMENSION

PAR 1(12),C(2),K(2)

DIMENSION

PAR(20),D(10),LNG(10),FLW(4)

DIMENSION

TIME(5000),ELEV(5000),ELEVD(5000)

COMMON/PARAM/PAR
C ..........

Read

in Metering

OPEN(UNIT=4,
READ(4,*)
DO

1,PAR,

STP,TIME,ELEV,ELEVD,NUM,LN

Pin Info ...............

STATUS='

OLD',FILE='pin.

NUM

I=I,2*NUM

READ(4,*)
END

PAR(I)

DO

READ(4,*)

PAR(2*NUM+

I)

CLOSE(UNIT=4,STATUS='KEEP
C PAR(2*NUM+I)=[
C ..........

dat')

D(N),

L(N),

')
XSMAX

Read in Piston Info for Coefficients

]
......

OPEN(UNIT=5,STATUS='OLD',FILE='piston.dat')
DO I=1,12
READ(5,*)
END DO

PARI(I)

CLOSE(UNIT=5,STATUS='KEEP')
C PARl(13)=[
C ........

Read

XSI,PI,YI,DU,DL,D1RC,D1RE,DOP,DPIS
in Runway

Profile .....................

The data file is an ascii,

contains

in meters

runway

three column

time in the first column

in the second
height

column

file that

and runway

STATUS

and time derivative

='UNKNOWN',FILE='r211.

LN

DO I=I,LN
READ(6,*)
END DO

TIME(I),

ELEV(I),

ELEVD(I)

CLOSE(UNIT=6,STATUS='KEEP')

C ........

Define Height
STP=9.5/39.37

height
of

in third column.

OPEN(UNIT=6,
READ(6,*)

MU ML FSMAX

of Stop Block

in cylinder

68

....

dat')

C............ OpenOutputFiles......................
C Thesevariablesarestrictly up to the user. These
C arethe currentvariablesbeingrecorded.A MATLAB
C routine "gdplta.m" existsto plot theseparticular
C variablesin a coherentway. It may bealteredby
C any user.
C
WRITE(11,790)CY(J),J=I,4)
OPEN(UNIT= 11,STATUS='UNKNOWN',FILE='y.out')
C
WRITE(12,790)T,FRICT,YDOT(2),YDOT(4)
OPEN(UNIT=12,STATUS='UNKNOWN',FILE='tfaa.out')
C
WRITE (13,790)FR,F1,F2,VEL
OPEN(UNIT=13,STATUS='UNKNOWN',FILE='check.out')
C
WRITE(14,790)(FLW(J),J=I,4)
OPEN(UNIT=14,STATUS='UNKNOWN',FILE='hydr.out')
C
WRITE(15,790) U,UDOT,KT,CT
OPEN(UNIT=15,STATUS='UNKNOWN',FILE='tire.out')
C._.

................................................

C .... Landing
or AM-2
LOUT=160000

Mat bump

case or runway

profile

....

DT=0.00025
C .... The amount

of time one gets is = DT*LOUT

....................................

Re-initialize

the initial conditions.

DO I=I,NEQ
Y(I)=O.O
YDOT(I)=0.0
END DO
C

Read

Two files are available,

initial

Conditions

startswith

positional

sink rate.

The second

equilibrium

position

OPEN(UNIT=
READ(IO,*)

"landic.dat"

vector
starts

or "static.dat".

at zero and velocity

with the position

and the velocity

vector

10,STATUS='OLD',FILE='r211
(Y(1),I=1,4)

CLOSE(UNIT=10,STATUS='KEEP

')

T=0.0

N=NEQ

69

The first
vector

vector

at a given
in its

set to zero.
ic.dat')

C
C

Call into currentmemorycurrentvalues

of all the states
CALL

100

and their accelerations.

F('N,T,Y,YDOT)

TOUT=0.0

C ........

Define

DDRIV2

See the leading

explanation
MSTATE=I

Parameters

...........

introduction

of these

of DDRIV2.f

and other

for further

parameters.

NROOT=0
EPS=I

E-6

EWT=IE-15
MINT=3
LENW=300
LENIW=30
COUNT=0

C
C

Loop
..............

.--.

DO
C

entire

process

to get LOUT

data points.

.........................................

L=I,LOUT

Increment
time step.
TOUT=DT*L

Call main integration

5

CALL

routine.

DDRIV2(N,T,Y,F,TOUT,MSTATE,NROOT,EPS,EWT,MINT,WORK,

LENW,IWORK,LENIW,G)

Provide

a visual

check

IF ((REAL(L)/2000.0)
WRITE
END
C .... Check
C Error

(*,889)

of the integration.
THEN

IF
for errors

from

(3) or (-3) indicates

C time step.

of the progress

.EQ. INT(REAL(L)/2000.0))

Time

to switch

IF (MSTATE
C

Initiate

complete

backup

DDRIV2.
too much

work

to ge to next

to Runga-Kutta.

.EQ. 3 .OR. MSTATE

integration

the next

integration

method

.EQ.

-3) THEN

since DDRIV2

step.

70

cannot

C........ RKF4 Parameters

.........
TOL=IE-5
MTH=I
HMIN = 1E- 15
HMAX=IE-2
H=HMAX
CALL
2

F('N,T,Y,YDOT)

CALL

RKF4(NEQ,T,TOUT,Y,TOL,F,PD,MTH,HMIN,HMAX,H,WK,IERR)
C Check

for error

from

R-K.

C are not set up correctly

IF (IERR

(-1) indicates

that the tolerances

for this problem.

.EQ.-

1) THEN

WRITE (*,889)
TOL=IE-5

IERR

MTH=I
HMIN=IE-15
HMAX=

1E-2

H=HMAX
IERR=0
IF (COUNT

.EQ.

500) GOTO

500

COUNT=COUNT+I
GOTO

ENDIF
IF (IERR .EQ. 0) THEN
MSTATE=I
GOTO

ENDIF
ENDIF
1

COUNT=O

C .... Define
C---files

some

filtering

are VERY

process

to record

data.

IF ((REAL(T/DT)/40.0)

.EQ.

INT(REAL(T/DT)/40.0))

CALL FOUT(N,T,Y,YDOT)
END IF

END THE
END DO

L LOOP:

889

FORMAT(I6)

500

CLOSE(UNIT=I
CLOSE(UNIT=

Otherwise,

data

large.

i.e. Each

integration

1,STATUS='KEEP')
12,STATUS='KEEP')

71

step

THEN

CLO SECUNIT = 13,STATUS='KEEP')

C--End

CLOSE(UNIT=I

4,STATUS='KEEP')

CLOSE(UNIT=

15,STATUS='KEEP')

of Main
END

program.

C
C
C
C

Subroutines

C
C
w

SUBROUTINE

F(N,T,Y,YDOT)

Subroutine

Anything
changed in this subroutine
in the FOUT routine and vise versa.

F defines

EXTERNAL

form of Ydot(i)--....
needs

also to be changed

COEFF,METPIN

DOUBLE

the functional

PRECISION

Y,YDOT,T,CT,KT,LIFT,MU,GRAV

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DOUBLE

PRECISION

XS,VEL,FT,FC,MA,DELTA,FR

DOUBLE

PRECISION

MTIRE,DEL,STP,F1,F2,FTC,FTK

DOUBLE

PRECISION

FSTICK,PAR,PAR1,C,K,FLW

--Define

Type

for Input

ML,U,UDOT,FRICT,DPIN,TEMP

Calculation--

DOUBLE

PRECISION

PIE,ELVU,ELVL,ELEV,TIME

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DISTL,DISTU,TAXISPD,DIS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

AA,BB,HGT,LE,A0,DD,X,ELEVD

INTEGER

N,NUM,LN

PARAMETER

(NEQ=4)

DIMENSION Y(NEQ),YDOT(NEQ),TIME(5000),ELEV(5000),ELEVD(5000)
DIMENSION C(2),K(2),PAR(20),PARl(12),FLW(4)
72

COMMON/PARAM/PAR 1,PAR,STP,TIME,ELEV,ELEVD,NUM,LN
MU=PARI(10)
ML=PARI(11)
XS=PAR(2*NUM+I)+Y(3)-Y(1)
CALL METPIN(Y,NUM,PAR,DPIN)
CALL COEFF(Y,PAR1,DPIN,XS,C,K,FLW)

C
C
C

.... Calculatethe inputU into the tire from runway....

This sectiondefinesthegroundexcitationfor a runwayprofile
input case. It linearly interpolatesbetweenpointsof the datafile.
DO I=I,LN-1
IF(T .GE.TIME(I).AND. T .LT. TIME(I+I)) THEN
ELVL=ELEV(1)
ELVU=ELEV(I+I)
ELLD--ELEVD(1)
ELUD=ELEVD(I+I)
U=(ELVU-ELVL)*(T-TIME(I))/(TIME(I+ 1)-TIME(I))+ELVL
UDOT is dU/dT,leavingonly:
UDOT=(ELUD-ELLD)*(T-TIME(I))/(TIME(I+I)-TIME(I))+ELLD
ENDIF
END DO

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

.... Define Input of AM2 RepairMat....

TAXISPD=20.0*.5144444
AA= 15.0"(.3048)
BB= AA+4.0"(.3048)
CC= BB+70.0"(.3048)
DD= CC+4.0"(.3048)
HGT= 1.5/39.37
-. X=TAXISPD*T -X=TAXISPD*T
IF (X .LT. AA .OR. X .GT. DD) THEN
U=0.0
UDOT=0.0
ELSEIF

(X .GE. AA .AND.

X .LE. BB) THEN

U=HGT*(X-AA)/(BB-AA)
UDOT=HGT*TAXISPD/(BB-AA)

73

ELSEIF (X .GT.
U=HGT

BB .AND.

X .LT. CC) THEN

UDOT=0.0

C
C

ELSEIF

(X .GE. CC .AND.

X .LE. DD)

THEN

U=-HGT*(X-CC)/(DD-CC)+HGT

UDOT=-HGT*TAXISPD/(DD-CC)
END

C .... Toggle

IF

for landing/runway

C .... for landing

C
U=0.0
C

case,

input case.

but DO want

We want no input

bumps

etc. for other

cases.

UDOT=0.0

C ..........

Tire Model

as updated

from

Experimental

KT=(-252.0*(39.37*(Y(3)+U))**2.0+
*
C

Data ....

1397.0*(Y(3)+U)*39.37+4267.0)

*(39.37*4.4482)
.... Tire Damping
MTIRE=ML

model,

as observed

from

test data---

CT=5000.0
C

---Define

the Tire

Force

(FT) ....

FTK=I.0*KT*(Y(3)+U)

+ 130.0"4.4482

FTC=CT*(I.0)*(Y(4)+UDOT)
IF ((Y(3)+U) .LT. 0.0)THEN
FTK=0.0
FTC=0.0
END

IF

FT=FTC+FTK
C--o

................................

GRAV=9.81
C

.... Lift Model ....

LIFT=9.81

*MU

LIFT=0.0

VEL=Y(2)-Y(4)

C .........

Defining

relative

forces

before

friction

....

FI=MU*GRAV-LIFT+C(1)*VEL**2.0+K(1)*(1.0/XS)**(PARI(3))
F2=ME*GRAV+C(2)*VEL**2.0+K(2)*(1.0/XS)**(PARI(3))-FT

....................................................

C ......

Add

the KARNOPP

friction

Model

to the accelerations.

74

C --DEL is how closerelativevelocity needsto be to zeroto stick.

DEL=.0009
DELTA=ABS(F l-F2)
C Calculatethe bearingfriction of thepistonin the
C cylinder. FC is frictional coefficient,MA is momentarm.
C
FC = .05
C
MA = 10.5/39.37
C
TEMP=(FC*FT*MA/(ABS(Y(1)-Y(3)+STP))+PAR 1(12))*.75
C.... FutureFriction Model. Needsto be ironedout.-........
C
TEMP=(4000.0*EXP(-XS/(1.0*.0254))+1000.0"
C * EXP(-ABS(VEL/0.05)))*4.44822
C * *EXP(-ABS(VEL/0.05))
C
FRICT=-TANH(VEL/.008)*TEMP
C..... Also part of future friction model.-.............
C
FR=1.0*(4000.0*EXP(-XS/(6.2*.0254))+
1000.0*.4)*4.4482+PAR1
(12)
C...... Frictiontogglefor finding initial conditions....
TEMP=400.0
FRICT=(-0.0-TANH(VEL/.008))*TEMP*4.4482
FR=2689.0"4.44822
C
FR=0.0
C
FRICT=0.0
C

.............

IF (DELTA
C Case

1, Piston

.LT. FR .AND.
Sticks

F 1=MU* GRAV-LIFT+K(
F2=ML*

ABS(VEL)

.LT. DEL)

1)* (1.0/XS)*

* (PAR 1(3))

in Cylinder.

GRAV+K(2)*

FSTICK=(ML*F1

( 1.0/XS)*

* (PAR 1(3))-FT

- MU*F2)/(MU+ML)

YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)=FI/MU

- FSTICK/MU

YDOT(3)=Y(4)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML

+ FSTICK/ML

ELSE
C Case
C

2, Relative

and Cylinder,

Motion

between

with friction

Piston

present.

YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)=F

1/MU

+ FRICT/MU

YDOT(3)=Y(4)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML
END

- FRICT/ML

IF

75

THEN

C Case3, Thegearandtire leavethe ground.

IF ((Y(3)+U) .LT. 0.0 .AND. XS .GT. PAR(2*NUM+I)) THEN
YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)--F1/MU - FSTICK/MU
YDOT(3)=Y(2)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML
END IF

+ FSTICK/ML

RETURN
STOP
END
C ...............

SUBROUTINE

SUBROUTINE

METPIN

METPIN(Y,NUM,PAR,DPIN)

This subroutine

linearly

army,

the length

of the metering

and L(n),

DOUBLE

DIMENSION
PAR(2*N+I)
DO

array

DPIN,

in the D(n),

to determine

at any stroke,

diameter

the diameter

XS.

Y,PAR,DPIN,D,LNG,XS

NUM,I

PARAMETER

pin,

interpolates

PRECISION

INTEGER

......................

(NEQ=4)
Y(NEQ),PAR(20),D(10),LNG(10)

= [ D(N),LNG(N),XSMAX

I=I,NUM

D(I)=PAR(I)
LNG(I)=PAR(NUM+I)
END

DO

DPIN=D(NUM)
XS=PAR(2*NUM+
DO

1)-Y(1)+Y(3)

I=I,NUM-1

IF (XS .LT. LNG(I)

.AND.

XS .GT. LNG(I+I))

DPIN = D(I) + (D(I+ 1)-D(I))*

ENDIF
END

DO

RETURN
END
C .................

SUBROUTINE

COEFF

THEN

(LNG (I)-XS)/(LNG(I)-LNG(I+

.....................

76

1))

SUBROUTINE COEFF(Y,PAR1,DPIN,XS,C,K,FLW)
C

For a thourough

in the thesis

are presented

calculates

These coefficients
direction.

understanding

Chapter

2, Equations

this subroutine

as they are defined

are only functions

of geometry

PRECISION

Y,PAR1,C,K,CON,ALS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DOR,AO,RHO,CD,AL,FLW

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DPIN,AOP,APIN,XS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

MEW,VEL,RD,BETA,C

DOUBLE

PRECISION

ARC,ARE,CDE,CDC,E

DOUBLE

PRECISION

BETAE,BETAC,AS

Y(NEQ),PAR1

(12),C(2),K(2),FLW(4)

XSI,PI,YI,DU,DL,D1RC,D1RE,DOP,DPIS,MU,ML
Various

areas to be used ....

CON=.7853981
ARC=CON*PARI(6)**2.0
ARE=CON*PARI(7)**2.0
AL=CON*PAR
AS=AL-

1(5)*'2.0

CON *PAR 1(9)* *2.0

AOP=CON*PAR1
(8)**2.0
APIN = CON*DPIN**2.0
AO=AOP-APIN

C Def'me

a constant

C nature

of DOR.

C the fluid.

(C 1) to account
It is effectively

I'm not using

for the annular

SMALLER

to

this at the moment,

but

the tests bare out the fact that something

C is not working
C to tweak.

quite right, this may be a parameter

CI=I.0
DOR=C
C RHO

1
1,E2,E3,E4,AR

(NEQ=4)

DIMENSION

C .... Calculate

and flow

PARAMETER

C should

in the paper.

DOUBLE

PAR1 (9)=[

look

(1) and (2) as they

at the end of the chapter,

the coefficients

INTEGER

of this subroutine,

1 * SQRT(AO/.7853981)

is fluid density.
RHO=912.0

MEW

is fluid viscosity.

77

FSMAX

MEW=35.0*.001
VEL--Y(2)-Y(4)
C RD is reynoldsnumber. An RD modelof the discharge
C coefficientmay want to beusedin the future.
RD=RHO*ABS(VEL)*PARI(5)/MEW
C ThevariousBETA's areratios of (fluid coming from D 1)/
C (fluid

going

through

D2) =>

BETA=nOR/PAR1
BETAC=PAR1
BETAE=PAR
C Therefore,

(5)
(6)/PAR1

(5)

1(7)/(SQRT(AS/(

the discharge

C of geometry,

(D 1/D2)=Beta

12.0".7853981

coefficients

not Reynold's

number.

CD = 1.0*BETA**2.0

- .4813*BETA

+ .8448

CDC=.95*(.8*BETAC**2.0

- .4813*BETAC

CDE=I.0*(.8*BETAE**2.0
C COMPRESSION

- .4813*BETAE

IF (VEL
C
C

)))

are now only functions

.GT. 0.0 .OR. VEL

AR is the sum of the twelve

orifices.

+ .8448)
+ .8448)

.EQ. 0.0) THEN

areas

that comprise

the snubber

AR=12.0*ARC
E l=AO*.95*CD*SQRT((2.0)/(RHO*(1.0-BETA**4.0)))
E2=AR*CDC*
ALS=AL-AS

SQRT(2.0/(RHO*(

1.0-BETAC**

4.0)))

C(1)=((ALS/E1)**Z.0-(AS/EZ)**Z.0)*AS-(ALS/E1)**Z.0*(AL-AO)

C(2)=((AS/EZ)**Z.0-(ALS/E1)**Z.0)*(AS-AR)+(ALS/E1)**2.0*(AL-AR)
K( 1)=(AS-AL)*PAR1

(2)*PAR

K(2)=ALS*PARI(Z)*PAR1
C--As

a bonus,

the pressures

PU=PAR

1( 1)**PAR1

(3)

(1)**PAR1(3)

and flow rates are also being

1(2)*(PAR

calculated

1( 1)/XS) * *PAR 1(3)

PL=PU+(((AL-AS)/E1)*VEL)**2.0
PS=PL-(AS*VEL/E2)**2.0
QO=-E

1 * SQRT(PL-PU)

C EXTENSION
ELSE
C
C

AR is the sum of the twelve

orifices.
AR=I

areas that comprise

the snubber

2.0*ARE

E3--AO*

1.1 *CD*SQRT(2.0/(RHO*(

E4=AR*CDE*
ALS=AL-AS
C(1)=(ALS/E3)**

1.0-BETA**4.0)))

SQRT(2.0/(RHO*(1.0-BETAE**4.0)))

2.0*(AL-AO)+((AS/E4)**2.0-(ALS/E3)**2.0)*AS

C(2)=((ALS/E3)**2.0-(AS/E4)**2.0)*(AS-AR)-(ALS/E3)**2.0*(AL_AR)

78

here.

K(1)=(AS-AL)*PARI(2)*PARI(1)**PARI(3)
K(2)=ALS*PAR1
C--As

a bonus,

(2)*PAR1

the pressures

PU=PAR1

(1)**PAR

and flow rates

(2)*(PAR1

1(3)

are also being

(1)/XS)**PAR

calculated

here.

1(3)

PL--PU-(((AL-AS)/E3)*VEL)**2.0
PS=PL+(AS*VEL/E4)**2.0
QO=E3*SQRT(PU-PL)
END

C--Put

IF

the pressures

C--outward

and flow rates

into an array

to pass

for recording.

FLW(1)=PU
FLW(2)=PL
FLW(3)=PS
FLW(4)=QO
RETURN
END
C.._....

...................................................

SUBROUTINE
C Subroutine
C Anything

FOUT(N,T,Y,YDOT)

FOUT
changed

C in the F routine

as F and comments

in this subroutine

needs

match

also to be changed

COEFF,METPIN
PRECISION

Y,YDOT,T,CT,KT,LIFT,MU,GRAV

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DOUBLE

PRECISION

XS,VEL,FT,FC,MA,DELTA,FR

DOUBLE

PRECISION

MTIRE,DEL,STP,F

DOUBLE

PRECISION

FSTICK,PAR,PAR1,C,K,FLW

--Define

until

and vise versa.

EXTERNAL
DOUBLE

is the same

Type

for Input

ML,U,UDOT,FRICT,DPIN,TEMP
1,F2,FTC,FTK

Calculation--

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DOUBLE

PRECISION

DISTL,DISTU,TAXISPD,DIS

DOUBLE

PRECISION

AA,BB,HGT,LE,A0,DD,X,ELEVD

INTEGER

N,NUM,LN

PARAMETER

PIE,ELVU,ELVL,ELEV,TIME

(NEQ=4)

79

the output.

DIMENSION Y(NEQ),YDOT(NEQ),TIME(5000),ELEV(5000),ELEVD(5000)
DIMENSION C(2),K(2),PAR(E0),PAR1(12),FLW(4)
COMMON/PARAM/PAR 1,PAR,STP,TIME,ELEV,ELEVD,NUM,LN
MU=PARI(10)
ME=PAR1(11)
XS=PAR(2*NUM+I)+Y(3)-Y(1)
CALL METPIN(Y,NUM,PAR,DPIN)
CALL COEFF(Y,PAR1,DPIN,XS,C,K,FLW)

C
C
C

.... Calculate

the input

This section
input

defines

case.

IF(T

.GE.

the ground

It linearly

DO I=I,LN-

U into the tire from runway

excitation

interpolates

between

....

for a runway
points

profile

of the data file.

1
TIME(I).AND.

T .LT. TIME(I+I))

THEN

ELVL=ELEV(I)
ELVU=ELEV(I+

1)

ELLD=ELEVD(I)
ELUD=ELEVD(I+I)
U=(ELVU-ELVL)*(T-TIME(I))/(TIME(I+

1)-TIME(I))+ELVL

UDOT=(ELUD-ELLD)*(T-TIME(I))/(TIME(I+I)-TIME(I))+ELLD
ENDIF
END

C
C
C
C
C
C
C

DO

.... Define Input of AM2

TAXISPD=20.0*.5144444
AA=
BB=

AA+4.0"(.3048)

CC = BB+70.0"(.3048)

C
C

-- X--TAXISPD*T

X=TAXISPD*T

IF (X .LT. AA
U=0.0

C
C
C

Mat ....

15.0"(.3048)

DD= CC+4.0"(.3048)
HGT = 1.5/39.37

Repair

--

.OR. X .GT. DD)

THEN

UDOT=0.0
ELSEIF
U=HGT

(X .GE. AA .AND.

X .EL. BB) THEN

* (X-AA)/(BB-AA)

80

UDOT=HGT*TAXISPD/(BB-AA)

ELSEIF

(X .GT. BB .AND.

U=HGT

UDOT=0.0

ELSEIF

X .LT. CC) THEN

(X .GE. CC .AND.

X .LE. DD) THEN

U=-HGT*(X-CC)/(DD-CC)+HGT

UDOT=-HGT*TAXISPD/(DD-CC)
END IF

C
C

C .... Toggle

for landing/runway

C .... for landing

C

U=0.0

UDOT=0.0

C ..........

case,

Tire Model

input

but DO want

as updated

case.

bumps

from

We want no input
etc. for other

Experimental

KT=(-252.0"(39.37*(Y(3)+U))**2.0+
*
C

cases.

Data ....

1397.0*(Y(3)+U)*39.37+4267.0)

*(39.37*4.4482)
.... Tire Damping
MTIRE=ML

model,

as observed

from test data---

CT=5000.0
C

---Define

the Tire Force

FTK = 1.0*KT*(Y(3)+U)

(FT) ....
+ 130.0*4.4482

FTC=CT*(1.0)*(Y(4)+UDOT)
IF ((Y(3)+U)
FTK=0.0

.LT. 0.0) THEN

FTC=0.0
END

IF

FT=FTC+FTK
C

..................................

GRAV=9.81
C

.... Lift Model ....

LIFT=9.81

*MU

LIFT=0.0

VEL=Y(2)-Y(4)
C .........

Defining

relative

forces

before

friction ....

FI=MU*GRAV-LIFT+C(1)*VEL**2.0+K(1)*(1.0/XS)**(PARI(3))
F2=ML*GRAV+C(2)*VEL**2.0+K(2)*(1.0/XS)**(PARI(3))-FT

....................................................

81

C...... Add the KARNOPP friction Model to the accelerations.

C

--DEL is how
DEL=.0009

close

DELTA=ABS(F
C Calculate

relative

velocity

needs

to be to zero to stick.

l-F2)

the bearing

friction

C cylinder.
FC is frictional
C
FC = .05

of the piston

coefficient,

in the

MA is moment

MA = 10.5/39.37

TEMP=(FC*FT*MA/(ABS(Y(1)-Y(3)+STP))+PARl(12))*.75

C .... Future
C

Friction

Model.

Needs

to be ironed

TEMP=(4000.0*EXP(-XS/(1.0*.0254))+

* EXP(-ABS(VEL/0.05)))*4.44822

* *EXP(-ABS(VEL/0.05))

arm.

out.- ........
1000.0"

FRICT=-TANH(VEL/.OO8)*TEMP

C .....

Also part of future

friction

model.-

.............

FR= 1.0*(4000.0*EXP(-XS/(6.2*.0254))+

C ....

Friction toggle
TEMP=400.0

for finding

1000.0*.4)*4.4482+PAR1

initial conditions

....

FRICT=(-0.0-TANH(VEL/.008))*TEMP*4.4482
FR=2740.0"4.44822
C

FR=0.0

FRICT=0.0

IF (DELTA
C Case

1, Piston

.LT. FR .AND.
Sticks

ABS(VEL)

.LT. DEL)

in Cylinder.

FI=MU*GRAV-LIFT+K(1)*(1.0/XS)**(PARI(3))
F2=ML

* G RAV+K(2

FSTICK=(ML*F1

)* ( 1.0/X S ) * * (PAR 1(3)) -FT

- MU*F2)/(MU+ML)

YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)=F1/MU-

FSTICK/MU

YDOT(3)=Y(4)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML
ELSE
C Case
C

2, Relative

and Cylinder,

Motion

+ FSTICK/ML
between

with friction

Piston

present.

YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)=F1/MU

+ FRICT/MU

YDOT(3)=Y(4)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML
END IF

- FRICT/ML

82

THEN

(12)

C Case3, The gearand

tire leave

IF ((Y(3)+U).LT.

the ground.

0.0 .AND.

XS .GT.

PAR(E*NUM+I))

YDOT(1)=Y(2)
YDOT(2)=F

1/MU

- FSTICK/MU

YDOT(3)=Y(2)
YDOT(4)=F2/ML
END IF

+ FSTICK/ML

WRITE(11,790)

(Y(J),J=

WRITE(12,790)

T,FRICT,YDOT(2),YDOT(4)

WRITE(13,790)

FR,F 1,F2,VEL

WRITE(14,790)

(FLW(J),J=I,4)

WRITE(15,790)
790

FORMAT(E

1,4)

U,UDOT,KT,CT
14.4,1X,E

14.4,1X,E

14.4,1X,E14.4)

RETURN
60O

CLOSE(UNIT=I

1,STATUS='KEEP

')

CLOSE(LrNIT=

12,STATUS='KEEP

')

CLOSE(UNIT=

13,STATUS='KEEP')

CLOSE(UNIT=14,STATUS='KEEP')
CLOSE(UNIT=I

5,STATUS='KEEP')

STOP
END

A.3

Sample

Input

Files

Pin.dat:
6
.0133604
.021844
.022352
.022352
.026162
.026162
0.4461
0.353314
0.277114
0.112014
0.035814
-0.0254
.383286

83

THEN

This file describes

a metering

pin, and the diameters

Following

pin of an A-6 intruder.

are listed from top of pin (not piston

these six diameters

Pis_n.dat:This
summary

There

filecontains

are the six stroke

lengths

the twelveparamete_

are six slope

changes

on the

head end) to the piston

associated

as describedin

end.

with each diameter.

the program

section.

.0889
2571744.47
1.1
.1524
.1524
3.98781e-3
1.587503e-3
.0285877
.1397
4139.8841
145.1
511.5455
Ic.dat:

This file contains

the initial

conditions

of the state

vector.

0.3164
0.0
0.04045
0.0

Test.dat:

This file contains

a sample

runway.

Only

1640
0.0000000e+00

-2.1399094e-02

2.5000000e-02

-1.8608421e-02

2.7217370e-01
2.7906726e-01

5.0000000e-02

-1.5748813e-02

2.8596082e-01

7.5000000e-02

-1.2598451e-02

3.1503620e-01

1.0000000e-01

-9.1933014e-03

3.4051494e-01

1.2500000e-01

-5.8510932e-03

3.3422082e-01

1.5000000e-01

-2.4309578e-03

3.4201354e-01

etc.

84

a few of the 1640

entries

are shown.

A.4 Output Manipulation File

% This file loads,

manipulates

and plots the

% output data from the simulation.

This is
% a MATLAB
.m file and is consistant with
%

MATLAB

release

4.2c.

load y.out
load tfaa.out
load check.out
load hydr.out
load tire.out

t=tfaa(:,l);
fr----check(:, 1)*.2248089;
fl=check(:,2);
f2=check(:,3);
delta=.5*abs(fl

-f2)*.2248089;

vel=check(:,4);
xsmax=.383286;
MU=4139.8841;
ML=145.1;
fwg=MU*

(-tfaa(:,3)+9.81)*.2248;

ges=-ffaa(:,3);
s=date;
xwg=y(:,

1);

xa=y(:,3);
vwg=y(:,2);
va=y(:,4);
xs=(xsmax-(xwg-xa))*39.37;
kt=tire(:,2);
or=tire(:,3);
k--hydr(:,

1);

c l=hydr(:,3);
c2=hydr(:,4);
frict=tfaa(:,2);
u---tire(:,l);
relvel=(vwg-va)*3.28084;
pu=hydr(:,

1) * 1.450377e-4;

pl=hydr(:,2)

* 1.450377e-4;

ps=hydr(:,3)

* 1.450377e-4;

qo=hydr(:,4)*

264.172052;

85

% Each of the following

% optional.

They

plots

are

are only a sample

% of the types of things that can be

% considered
with the information
% available.

subplot(2,1,1),plot(t,ges,'y')
xlabelCl'ime

(sec)')

ylabel('Awg

(g)')

title('Wing/Gear

Force

vs. Time')

gtext(s)

subplot(2,1,2),plot(t,xs,t,u*39.37,'--')
xlabelCrime

(sec)')

ylabel('Stroke
title('Stroke

Remaining
Remaining

(in)')
vs. Time')

grid
legend('-','Stroke','--','Input

Displacement

')

%figure
%subplot(2,1,1),
%xlabel('Time
%ylabel('Relative
%title('Relative

plot(t,relvel,'y')
(sec)')
Vel. (_s)')
Velocity

vs. Time')

%gtext(s)

%grid
%subplot(2,1,2),
/_xlabel('Time

plot(t,delta,'-',t,fr,'--')
(sec)')

%ylabel('Force

(lbf)')

%title('Relative

Force

and Fr vs. Time')

%grid
%legend('-','Fwg-Fa','--','Peak

Friction

Force')

%figure
%plot(t,pu)
%gtext(s)
%xlabel('Time
%ylabel('Pneumatic
%title('Nitrogen

(see)')
Press.
Pressure

(psi)')
vs. Time')

%grid
86

%figure
%plot(t,pl)
%gtext(s)
%xlabel('Time

(sec)')

%ylabel('Hydraulic
%title('Fluid

Press.

Pressure

above

(psi)')
Piston

vs. Time')

%grid
%figure
%plot(t,ps)
%gtext(s)
%xlabel('Time

(sec)')

%ylabel('Hydraulic
%title(Tluid

Press.

Pressure

(psi)')

in Snubber

vs. Time')

%grid
%figure
%plot(t,qo)

%gtext(s)
%xlabel('Time
%ylabel('Flow
%title('Flow

(sec)')
Rate (gal/s)')
through

Main

Orifice

vs. Time')

%grid

87

REPORT
_Pl_bl'mpomng _r(j_.

for Ihm.c<_lect_.

DOCUMENTATION

_ informalion_m estimatedto

m_rape

FormApproved

PAGE

OMB

I hour per response, includ_

the time for rev_,Hng .m_tuc_rm,

No.

0704-0188

sere'thing existing data Iources,

H" m_Bn o_ m.lr_uo

.m?sug_geslKmsfo reoucmg thin bum_n, to Wm_mgton Headquarters Senncm, Dm
for InformUmn Ol_ratmm and P,epoas, 121S J_/emon
_nwly, .'_ne ]zu4, Amngton. vA ZZ2QZ-430Z, and to the Offce o_ Management and Budge, PI_
Reduction Prelect (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20.503.
1. AGENCY

USE

ONLY

(Leave

b/ank)

2. HP.PORT

DATE

3.

June 1996
4. TITLE

AND

REPORT

TYPE

Contractor

SUfii|TLE

AND

and Simulation

COVERED

Report
S.

A Method for Landing Gear Modeling

Experimental
Validation

DATES

Davis

FUNDING

with
WU

NUMBC:RS

NCC1-208
505-63-50-19

s. AUTHOR(S)

James

N. Daniels

7. PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
NANE(S)
ANDADORESS(F-S)
George Washington
University
Joint Institute for the Advancement
of Flight Sciences
MS 269, NASA LaRC
Hampton, VA 23681-0001
9. SPONSORING

/ MONITORING

AGENCY

NAME(S)

National Aeronautics
and Space
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-0001
11.

SUPPLEMENTARY

AND

8.

PERFORMING
REPORT

ADORESS(ES)

10.

SPONSORING
AGENCY

Administration

ORGANIZATION

NUMBER

NASA

I MONITORING

REPORT

NUMBER

CR-201601

NOTES

Langley Technical

Monitor.

Lucas G. Horla (1-757-864-4352)

pf ".s_rma_.hon_u this, report .was o._cz'cdasa _.s_ hz paxtial fulfillment ofthc .requiremc .nts for the Degree of Master
_ctence, zne :>caooi ozP.agmccnag ano -,q4)pn_z_czcace, The George Washington University, June 1996.

12_ _HWsUTIO.! AV_L.AJ_UJTY

STATEMENT

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

COOE

Unclassified
- Unlimited
Subject Category 05

Availability:
13.

/,._S-i'--HACT

NASA
(Ma_dmum

200

CASI,

(301) 621-0390

words)

This document
presents an approach for modeling and simulating landing gear systems.
Specifically,
a
nonlinear model of an A-6 Intruder Main Gear is developed,
simulated,
and validated against static and
dynamic test data. This model includes nonlinear effects such as a polytropic
gas model, velocity
squared damping, a geometry governed model for the discharge coefficients,
stick-slip friction effects
and a nonlinear tire spring and damping model. An Adams-Moulton
predictor corrector was used to
integrate the equations of motion until a discontinuity
caused by a stick-slip friction model was
reached, at which point, a Rtmga-Kutta
routine integrated
past the discontinuity
and returned the
problem solution back to the predictor corrector.
Run times of this software are around 2 rains, per 1
sec. of simulation
under dynamic circumstances.
To validate the model, engineers
at the Aircraft
Landing Dynamics
facilities at NASA Langley Research Center installed one A-6 main gear on a drop
carriage and used a hydraulic shaker table to provide simulated runway inputs to the gear. Model
parameters
were tuned to produce excellent agreement
for many cases.
14.

SUBJECT

Landing

TEF-d_

15.

gear, Simulation,

Vibration

NUMBER

OF

PAGES

9"1
15.

PRICE

COOE

A0 5
17.

SECUre,
_ CLASSFICATION
OF REPORT

Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500

18.

SECU_iz

_' CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS

PAGE

Unlassified

19.

SECURITY
OF

CLASSIFICATION

20.

LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Unclassified
StandanlForm_

(Rev.2-4_)

Prmlc_bed by ANSI StIL Z31_ 18

298-102