6.1 Numerical Simulation of Quarter Model of Passive and Active Landing Gear

88
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF QUARTER MODEL OF

PASSIVE AND ACTIVE LANDING GEAR
In this chapter, Simulation results of the two degrees of freedom

system model and full aircraft six degrees of freedom model are discussed.
Series of simulations have been done in the MATLAB environment. The
codes are written to run the Simulink model of the active landing gear
designed with PID controller. Acceleration, displacement and strut travel
derived from simulink model are used to compare the passive and active
landing gear dynamic responses on runways with different irregularities. PID
controller of the active landing gear will be tuned for optimal gains before
starting the numerical simulation .
6.2 TUNING OF PID CONTROLLER
The PID controller is tuned for optimal gains using Ziegler –

Nichols method as discussed in section 3.7.2 and given in the Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of the landing

gear
Type of controller
PID 0.584 0.0012 0.0001

89
6.3 RIDE RESPONSE OF QUARTER MODEL
The runway disturbance used for this simulation analysis is

assuming the single bump of height of 0.1 m. The aircraft travels over the
bump at a speed of 55.5 m/s and the response of the aircraft will be computed.
The vertical displacement of the aircraft is an important parameter in
designing the aircraft landing gear system. The displacement factor reflects
the sensitivity of the designed system to unevenness of the runway surface.
The generated profile of bump input for simulation is shown in Figure 6.1.
Runway bump input

0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.1 Runway bump input of 0.1 m height considering the aircraft
speed as 55.5 m/s
The governing differential equation of motion as discussed in

section 3.5 is used to obtain the dynamic response of the aircraft quarter
model for the above runway bump input for both passive and active landing
gears. Figure 6.2 indicates the vertical displacement response of the aircraft
for the passive and active landing gears. The displacement response with the
90
passive landing gear is 0.135 m and that with the active landing gear is 0.120
m. The reduction of the displacement with the active landing gear is
approximately 12% less compared to the passive landing gear system. The
passive system requires approximately 5.4 s for the aircraft to return to its
static equilibrium position. Whereas the active system requires 3.2 s. and
there is a reduction of 2.2 s. There is a 97% decrease of the aircraft’s
displacement with the active landing gear system within 2.5 s as shown in
Figure 6.2.
Sprung mass displacement(m)
Figure 6.2 Fuselage displacement for runway bump input of 0.1m and
aircraft speed of 55.5 m/s
The corresponding vertical acceleration response of the aircraft is

as shown in Figure 6.3. The peak value of fuselage acceleralation with
passive landing gear system is 2.7 m/s² and the active landing gear system is
2.5m/s². The passive system requires approximately 5.8 s for the aircraft to return to
its static equilibrium position.The settling time is reduced to 3 s using the
91
active system.It can be noted that the settling time to return to the normal
position is reduced 48.5% by the active landing gear system, thereby
demonstrating a significant improvement of the active landing gear system
over the performance of the passive system. The results obtained are
compared with the Haitao Wang et.al (2008) results for the dynamic model of
A6-intruder actively controlled landing gear indicated that the settling time is
reduced to approx 0.8s where as passive system requires approx 2.8s for the
aircraft to return to its static equilibrium position and also indicated that there
is a 12% decrease of the transmitted force 13% decrease in aircraft
displacement by the active system.
3
passive landing gear
active landing gear
2
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.3 Fuselage acceleration for runway bump input of 0.1m and
Figure 6.4 shows that the reduction of air spring force generated in
active landing gear is 26 % less than that in the passive landing gear. The
amplitude of the spring force transmitted to the aircraft structure is
92
considerably reduced. This significantly increases the fatigue life of the

landing gear and the aircraft.
4
x 10
3
2.5 active landing gear
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.4 Air spring force for runway bump input of 0.1m with
Figure 6.5 shows that the damping force generated in the active
landing gear system is 22 % less than that in the passive landing gear. The
amplitude of the total force transmitted to the airframe is considerably
reduced by the active landing gear system which increases the fatigue life of
the aircraft. Figure 6.6 shows that the strut travel of the passive landing gear is
0.065 m and the active landing gear strut travel is 0.045 m. It can be noted that
the shock strut travel response is decreased by 44% in the case of the active
landing gear system. In the analysis of two degrees of freedom system model
analysis, it is observed that there is a reduction in the magnitude of aircraft
acceleration, the displacement of centre of gravity and shock strut travel by
the active landing gear system when subjected to external disturbances due to
93
uneven runway surfaces. Thus the active landing gear system has improved
the crew and passenger comfort and increase the fatigue life of the aircraft
structure and landing system.
4
x 10
2
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s )
Figure 6.5 Damping force for runway bump input of 0.1 m with
0.08
active landing gear
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.6 Strut travel for runway bump input of 0.1 m with aircraft
speed of 55.5 m/s
94
6.4 RIDE RESPONSE OF FULL AIRCRAFT MODEL
The dynamic response of the full aircraft model with passive and
active landing gear system as discussed in section 4.3 for the runway with half
sine wave bumps and random terrain undulations is obtained by the
simulation of the governing equation of motion as in Equation (4.14) in
MATLAB SIMULINK environment. The simulation of full aircraft model in
done through the matlab programme in Appendix 1.3.In this simulation, an
airplane of 22000 kg, with landing gear mass of 650 kg is considered with a
taxying speed of 55.5 m/s on a runway. The PID controllers are tuned
independently before the simulation.
6.4.1 Tuning of PID Controllers
The tuning procedure as explained earlier is applied to the PID

controller of the nose landing gear, right main landing gear and the left main
landing gear. Then the tuning values are applied independently to the nose
landing gear and main landing gears to obtain , and control gains.
The Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of the PID controller of nose and main
landing gears are given in the Tables 6.2 and 6.3. In the practical
implementation of the controller, a low pass filtering element should be
included with the controller, so that high frequency oscillations are not
fedback to the active control system. The high frequency oscillations from the
run way would be controlled by the passive landing gear itself. If the active
landing gear system fails, the existing passive landing gear would take the
landing loads and runway excitations.
Table 6.2 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of nose

(front) landing gear
Type of controller
PID 0.1 1.0 0.0025

95
Table 6.3 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of main (rear

left & right) landing gears
Type of controller
PID 0.6 190 0.0001
6.4.2 Aircraft Ride Response for a Runway with Half Sine Wave
Bumps
The dynamic response of the aircraft is computed assuming that

nose landing gear of the aircraft subjected to sine type runway bump of height
40 mm and the right and left main landing gears are subjected to the bump of
60 mm height and 100 mm height of bump respectively over which the
airplane travels. The half sine wave bump for nose landing gear is as shown in
Figure 6.7 and those for the right main landing gear and the left main landing
gear are as shown in Figure 6.8.
Runway input for nose landing gear

0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.7 Runway input excitation for a front (nose) landing gear
96
Runway input for right and left landing gear

0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
For left landing gear
For right landing gear
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.8 Runway input excitation for right main landing gear and
left main landing gear
The acceleration response of the aircraft for the above bump inputs
when the aircraft runs with a speed of 55.5 m/s speed is as shown in the
Figure 6.9. It can be noted that at 0.2 s, the nose landing gear enter the bump,
the peak acceleration response of the aircraft with passive landing gear is 0.4
m/s² whereas that with the active landing gear is 0.22 m/s².When it travels a
bump height of 0.04 m, the acceleration level is reduced to 45% by the active
landing gear system. Then at 2.6 s, the right main gear moves over a bump
height of 0.06 m, the aircraft vertical acceleration response with passive
landing gear is 1.24 m/s² and that with the active landing gear is 0.53 m/s².
The acceleration level reduction in the case of active landing gear is 57 %
compared with the passive case. Then at 5.0 s, the left main gear travels a
large bump with the height of 0.1 m, the aircraft vertical acceleration with
passive landing gear is 2.07 m/s² and that with the active landing gear is
97
0.95 m/s². In this case, the acceleration level reduced by the active landing
gear is 54.1% in the fuselage station. The overall average peak to peak value
of aircraft acceleration response is reduced by 52 % and settling time is also
reduced to 33% by active landing gear system.
Fuselage acceleration
3
active landing gear
-1
-2
-3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.9 Aircraft (fuselage) acceleration response as the aircraft

moves over half sine bumps with a speed of 55.5 m/s
Similarly pitch acceleration of the aircraft as it moves over the half

sine bumps is obtained and is shown in Figure 6.10. It can be noted that the
pitch acceleration of the aircraft with active landing gear system is reduced by
about 32% as compared to that with passive landing gear system, also there is
considerable reduction in the settling time.
98
Pitching acceleration
0.3
active landing gear
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.10 Aircraft (Fuselage) pitch acceleration response as it moves

over half sine bumps with a speed of 55.5 m/s
Figure 6.11 shows the corresponding roll acceleration of the aircraft

with passive and active landing gear systems as the aircraft moves over half
sine bumps as indicated in Figures 6.7 and 6.8 at a speed of 55.5 m/s. It can be
noted that The rolling acceleration exhibits on the aircraft structure is reduced
approximately 30% by the active landing gear system compared with the
passive system and the acceleration settling time is also reduced by the active
system.
99
Rolling acceleration
0.6
active landing gear
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.11 Aircraft roll acceleration as it moves over half sine bumps
with a speed of 55.5 m/s
Figure 6.12 shows that the dynamic displacement response of the

aircraft as it moves over runway with half sine wave bumps as indicated
earlier at a speed of 55.5 m/s. It can be noted that the active landing gear
system reduces the fuselage displacement response by 22%, 17%, & 15%
respectively as the aircraft moves over the above three bumps .The overall
average peak to peak value of aircraft’s displacement response is decreased to
18% by the active landing gear system.
100
Fuselage displacement
0.06
active landing gear
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.12 Aircraft vertical displacement response as it moves over half

sine bumps with a speed of 55.5 m/s
The shock strut travel of active landing gears are less than the
passive landing gears .It can be seen from the Figure 6.13.The nose active
landing gear strut travel distance is 0.003 m less than the passive nose landing
gear and travel distance reduced to 15.7% by active landing gear system. The
strut travel of passive right main landing gear is 0.063 m and the active right
main landing gear is 0.054 m. The strut travel reduced by 14.5% by the active
landing gear. The overall average peak to peak value of aircraft’s shock strut
travel response has decreased by 14.6% by the active landing gear system.
101
Nose landing gear shock strut travel

0.12
active landing gear
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.13 Nose landing gear shock strut travel response to a bump
Right landing gear shock strut travel

0.12
active landing gear
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.14 Right landing gear strut travel response to a bump

102
Left landing gear shock strut travel

0.12
active landing gear
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.15 Left landing gear shock strut travel response to a bump
Figures 6.9 to 6.15, illustrate that both peak values and settling time
have been reduced by the active landing gear system and the peak to peak
values are taken for comparison of passive and active landing gears tabulated
in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 Comparison of dynamic response of the aircraft with

passive and active landing gears when it negotiates with half
sine wave bumps
When Nose When right When left

landing gear is landing gear is landing gear is
Response moving over the moving over the moving over the
parameter bump bump bump
Passive Active Passive Active Passive Active
LG LG LG LG LG LG
Fuselage
0.40 0.22 1.24 0.53 2.07 0.95
acceleration(m/s²)
Fuselage
0.011 0.0086 0.032 0.0266 0.0535 0.045
displacement(m)
Shock strut
0.019 0.016 0.063 0.054 0.105 0.091
travel(m)
103
In the analysis of full aircraft model, it is observed that there is

reduction in the magnitude of aircraft acceleration, the displacement of centre
of gravity, shock strut travel by the active landing gear system when subjected
to external disturbances due to uneven runway surfaces. Hence the aircraft is
taxying smoother, crew/passengers comfort is improved and a better runway
holding is achieved by using active landing gear system.
6.5 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE TO A BUMP WITH

DIFFERENT TAXYING SPEEDS
In this case, the dynamic response of the aircraft is analyzed for

different taxying speeds 10 m/s, 20 m/s, 30 m/s and 40 m/s encountering half
sine wave bumps as considered earlier. The simulations have been done and
the fuselage displacement and acceleration responses and shock strut travels
of the aircraft are obtained. In this case the aircraft travels over a series of half
sine bumps have 20m width and the distance between the bumps is 20m,such
that the nose landing gear and right and left landing gear moving over the
bumps with a time lag depending on the speed of the aircraft. Figures 6.16 to
6.19 show the fuselage vertical acceleration of the aircraft with passive and
active landing gear systems. The peak accelerations are also compared in
Table 6.5
104
0.4
active landing gear
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 5 10 15
time(s)
Figure 6.16 Fuselage acceleration response for bump input at 10 m/s
1
active landing gear
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.17 Fuselage acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

105
5
4 active landing gear
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
8

active landing gear
6
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)

106
Table 6.5 Comparison of fuselage acceleration response of the aircraft

with passive and active landing gears
When Nose When right

When left landing
landing gear is landing gear is
gear is moving
Aircraft taxying moving over the moving over the
over the bump
speed(m/s) bump bump
LG LG LG LG LG LG
10 m/s 0.055 0.050 0.190 0.140 0.316 0.235
20 m/s 0.174 0.155 0.634 0.415 1.000 0.738
30 m/s 0.764 0.310 2.610 0.650 4.425 1.142
40 m/s 1.000 0.470 4.070 0.900 6.800 1.575
From the Figures 6.16 to 6.19 and from the Table 6.5, it can be
noted that as the speed increases there is increase in the fuselage vertical
acceleration in the passive and active case. The overall average percentage
reduction of acceleration also increases as the aircraft speed increases .i.e., the
effectiveness of the active landing gear system in reducing the acceleration
levels increases as the aircraft speed increases.
107
0.045
active landing gear
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
0 5 10 15
time(s)
Figure 6.20 Fuselage displacement response for bump at 10 m/s
0.05
active landing gear
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)

108
0.06
active landing gear
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
0.08
active landing gear
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)

109
Table 6.6 Comparison of fuselage displacement response of the aircraft

with passive and active landing gears

Aircraft taxying moving over the moving over the moving over the
speed(m/s) bump bump bump
LG LG LG LG LG LG
10 m/s 0.0083 0.0084 0.025 0.026 0.0416 0.0442
20 m/s 0.0095 0.0087 0.029 0.027 0.0480 0.0460
30 m/s 0.0108 0.0083 0.034 0.025 0.0560 0.0437
40 m/s 0.0110 0.0078 0.036 0.024 0.0600 0.0413
From the Figures 6.20 to 6.23 and from the Table 6.6, it can be
noted that as the speed increases there is increase in the fuselage vertical
displacement and overall average percentage reduction of displacement also
increases .i.e., the effectiveness of the active landing gear system in reducing
the displacement levels increases as the aircraft speed increases.
110
0.1
active landing gear
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
0 5 10 15
time(s)
Figure 6.24 Fuselage roll acceleration response for bump input at 10 m/s
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.25 Fuselage roll acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

111
1
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
2.5
active landing gear
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)

112
Table 6.7 Comparison of fuselage rolling acceleration response of the

aircraft with passive and active landing gears

LG LG LG LG LG LG
10 m/s 0.002 0.002 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.06
20 m/s 0.002 0.002 0.26 0.20 0.39 0.26
30 m/s 0.001 0.001 0.54 0.48 0.98 0.60
40 m/s 0.001 0.001 0.86 0.80 2.30 1.40
From the Figure 6.24 to 6.27 and from the Table 6.7, the rolling
acceleration exhibits in the aircraft when the main landing gears travel over
bumps. It can be noted that as the speed increases there is increase in the
fuselage rolling acceleration and overall average percentage reduction of
rolling acceleration also increases .i.e., the effectiveness of the active landing
gear system in reducing the rolling acceleration levels increases as the
aircraft speed increases. The rolling acceleration settling time is considerably
reduced by the active landing gear system.
113
0.04
active landing gear
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0 5 10 15
time(s)
Figure 6.28 Fuselage pitch acceleration response for bump input at 10 m/s
0.15
active landing gear
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.29 Fuselage pitch acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

114
0.5
0.4
active landing gear
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.30 Fuselage pitch acceleration response for bump at 30 m/s
0.8
active landing gear
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
time(s)
Figure 6.31 Fuselage pitch acceleration for bump input at 40 m/s

115
Table 6.8 Comparison of fuselage pitch acceleration response of the

aircraft with passive and active landing gears

LG LG LG LG LG LG
10 m/s 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.014 0.038 0.026
20 m/s 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.14 0.10
30 m/s 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.10 0.45 0.17
40 m/s 0.58 0.58 0.40 0.20 0.70 0.42
From the Figures 6.28 to 6.31 and from the Table 6.8, the pitching
acceleration is noticed that the nose gear alone travels on the bump with the
passive and active systems. It can be noted that as the speed increases there is
increase in the fuselage pitching acceleration and overall average percentage
reduction of pitching acceleration also increases i.e., the effectiveness of the
active landing gear system in reducing the pitching acceleration levels
increases as the aircraft speed increases. The pitching acceleration settling
time is considerably reduced by the active landing gear system.
6.6 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE FOR A RAMP INPUT
In this case the aircraft is assumed to move over a ramp of 80 mm

height such that all the three landing gears move over ramp at the same
instant of time as in Figure 6.34. with a speed of 20 m/s . At 2 s,all the three
landing gears enter the ramp height of 80 mm with a slope of 1:250. The ramp
model is as shown in Figure 6.32.
116
Ramp input
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.32 Simulink model of ramp input
In this case ,the peak value of fuselage acceleralation of the aircraft

with passive landing gear system is 0.82 m/s² and that with active landing
gear system is 0.4 m/s².With about 51 % reducion in acceleralation as shown
in Figure 6.33. The settling time of passive landing gear is 5.4 s and the active
landing gear system is 2.4 s and it can be noted that settling time is reduced to
55.5% by the active landing gear system. From the Figure 6.34, the aircraft
displacement response of the passive landing gear and the active landing gear
is 0.080 m. There is not much change in fuselage displacement and the
displacement settling time is reduced 1.0 s by the active landing gear system.
117
1
active landing gear
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.33 Fuselage acceleration response to a ramp
0.09
active landing gear
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.34 Fuselage displacement response to a ramp

118
6.7 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE TO STEP INPUT
In this case, the aircraft is considered to be encountering a step of

height 80mm at 2 s while taxying at a speed of 20 m/s. It is also considered
that all the three landing gears encounter the step at the same time. The
runway step input at the landing gears is shown in Figure 6.35.
Step input
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.35 Runway step input
In this case ,the peak to peak value of fuselage acceleralation of the

aircraft with passive landing gear system is 16.5 m/s² and that with active
landing gear system is 15 m/s². The settling time of passive landing gear is
6.0 s and the active landing gear system is 3.0 s and it can be noted that
settling time is reduced to 50% by the active landing gear system as shown in
Figure 6.36. From the Figure 6.37, the sprung mass displacement of passive
landing gear is 0.135 m and the displacement of active is 0.0965 m. The
sprung mass displacement under the active is 28.5% less as compared to the
passive landing gear. The settling time of the passive landing gear is 5.5 s and
the active is 3.5 s. The settling time under active is 36.4% less as compared to
the aircraft under the passive system.
119
20
active landing gear
15
10
-5
-10
-15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.36 Fuselage acceleration response to a step
0.14
active landing gear
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.37 Fuselage displacement response to a step

120
6.8 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE FOR A POTHOLE INPUT
In this case, the aircraft is considered to be encountering a pothole

of depth 40 mm at 2 s while taxying at a speed of 5m/s. It is also considered
that all the three landing gears encounter the pothole at the same time. The
runway pothole input at the landing gears is shown in Figure 6.38.
-3 Pot hole input

x 10
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-4
-4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.38 Runway pothole input
The peak value of Fuselage acceleralation of passive landing gear

system is 0.38 m/s² and the active landing gear system is 0.14 m/s² .It can be
noted that there is 63% reducion in acceleralation and the settling time
reduced 5.5 s is as shown in Figure 6.39.
121
0.4
active landing gear
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.39 Fuselage acceleration response to a pothole
-3
x 10 Fuselage displacement
2
active landing gear
1
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.40 Fuselage displacement response to a pothole

122
From the Figure 6.40, the fuselage displacement of passive landing

gear is 0.006 m and the displacement of active is 0.0048 m. The fuselage
displacement of the aircraft under the active is 20% less with that of the
passive landing gear. The settling time of the passive landing gear is 5.5 s and
the active is 3.5 s. The settling time under active is 36.4% less as compared to
the aircraft under the passive system.
-3
x 10 Shock strut travel
4
active landing gear
2
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.41 Shock strut travel response to a pothole
6.9 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE ON POTHOLE AT

DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND TIME INTERVALS
In this case, at 2.8 s the nose wheel of the aircraft enters in the
pothole and emerges at 3.5 s and the right main gear enters the different
pothole at 4.8 s and emerges from the hole at 5.5 s and the left main gear
enters the other pothole at 7.8 s and emerges at 8.5 s. while the aircraft
taxying at a speed of 5 m/s. The acceleration response of the aircraft for the
pothole inputs when the aircraft runs with a speed of 5 m/s speed is as shown
123
in the Figure 6.42. It can be noted that at 2.8 s, the nose landing gear enter the
pothole, the peak value of acceleration response of the aircraft with passive
landing gear is 0.05 m/s² whereas that with the active landing gear is
0.03 m/s². When it travels a pothole depth of 0.04 m, the acceleration level is
reduced to 40% by the active landing gear system. Then at 4.8 s, the right
main gear moves in a pothole depth of 0.04 m, the aircraft vertical
acceleration response with passive landing gear is 0.17 m/s² and that with the
active landing gear is 0.07 m/s².The acceleration level reduction in the case of
active landing gear is 58% compared with the passive case. Then at 7.8 s, the
left main gear travels a pothole with the depth of 0.04 m, the aircraft vertical
acceleration with passive landing gear is 0.17 m/s² and that with the active
landing gear is 0.07 m/s². In this case, the acceleration level reduced by the
active landing gear is 58 % in the fuselage station. The overall average peak
to peak value of aircraft acceleration response is reduced by 52 % and settling
time is also reduced to 33% by active landing gear system.
0.25
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(s)
Figure 6.42 Fuselage acceleration response to a pothole at different locations

124
Similarly pitch acceleration of the aircraft as it moves in potholes is

obtained and is shown in Figure 6.43. It can be noted that the pitch
acceleration of the aircraft with active landing gear system is reduced by
about 30% as compared to that with passive landing gear system, also there is
considerable reduction in the settling time.
0.06
active landing gear
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(s)
Figure 6.43 Fuselage pitching acceleration response to a pothole at

different locations
Figure 6.44 shows the corresponding roll acceleration of the aircraft

with passive and active landing gear systems as the aircraft moves in potholes
at a speed of 5 m/s. It can be noted that The rolling acceleration exhibits on
the aircraft structure is reduced approximately 30% by the active landing gear
system compared with the passive system and the acceleration settling time is
also reduced by the active system.
125
0.08
active landing gear
0.06
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(s)
Figure 6.44 Fuselage roll acceleration response to a pothole at different

locations
Figure 6.45 shows that the dynamic displacement response of the

aircraft as it moves in the potholes at a speed of 5 m/s. It can be noted that the
active landing gear system reduces the fuselage displacement response by
31%, 25%, & 25% respectively as the aircraft moves in the potholes. The
overall average peak value of aircraft’s displacement response is decreased to
27% by the active landing gear system. The shock strut travels of active
landing gears are less than the passive landing gears .It can be seen from the
Figure 6.46. The overall average peak value of aircraft’s shock strut travel
response is decreased 21% by the active landing gear system.
126
x 10
-3
1
active landing gear
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(s)
Figure 6.45 Fuselage displacement response to a pothole at different

locations
-3 Shock strut travel

x 10
1
active landing gear
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
time(s)
Figure 6.46 Shock strut travel response to a pothole at different locations

127
6.10 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE FOR RANDOM RUNWAY

INPUT
The road profile is generated in the Matlab Simulink environment

as per the details given in section 5.4. The Grade B road profile which has a
road roughness variance 0.004 is considered. The velocity of the aircraft is
5 m/s and road roughness index, =0.127. The road profile input with respect
to time is as shown in Figure 6.47. Similarly the random profile inputs for the
Grade C random road with the road roughness variance of 0.008 and for the
Grade E random road with the road roughness variance of 0.032 with road
roughness index of =0.127 and aircraft speed of 5 m/s are shown in
Figures 6.48 and 6.49 respectively. The simulation of full aircraft model for
random road profiles is plotted through the matlab code as given in
Appendix 1.4.
Grade B road
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
-0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.47 Grade B road profile (road roughness index =0.127,

variance=0.004, seed=1, aircraft speed=5 m/s)
128
Grade C road
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.48 Grade C road profile (road roughness index =0.127,

Grade E road
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.49 Grade E road profile (road roughness index =0.127,

129
Figures 6.50 to 6.52 indicate the fuselage acceleration as the

aircraft moves over Grade B, Grade C and Grade E roads at a speed of 5 m/s.
The Figures indicate the acceleration response with passive and active landing
gears. It can be noted that the rms value of fuselage acceleration is reduced by
50% in the case of aircraft with active landing gears. The corresponding
aircraft displacements are shown in Figures 6.53 to 6.55 respectively. While
shock strut travels are indicated in Figures 6.56 to 6.58. These results are also
summarized in Table 6.9.
4
active landing gear
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.50 Fuselage acceleration response for grade B random runway

130
4
active landing gear
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.51 Fuselage acceleration response for grade C runway
4
active landing gear
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.52 Fuselage acceleration response for grade E runway

131

active landing gear
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.53 Fuselage displacement response for grade B runway
0.03
active landing gear
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.54 Fuselage displacement response for grade C random runway

132
0.03
active landing gear
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.55 Fuselage displacement response for grade E runway
Shock strut travel

0.05
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.56 Shock strut travel response for grade B runway

133
Shock strut travel

0.05
active landing gear
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.57 Shock strut travel response for grade C runway
Shock strut travel

0.06
active landing gear
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.58 Shock strut travel response for grade E runway

134
Table 6.9 RMS values of fuselage acceleration, vertical displacement

and shock strut travel
Random Fuselage Fuselage Suspension

Runway acceleration(m/s²) displacement(m) travel(m)
Profile (rms) (rms) (rms)
passive active passive active passive active
Grade B 0.3752 0.2035 0.0041 0.0038 0.0080 0.0075
Grade C 0.6419 0.3006 0.0119 0.0116 0.0235 0.0231
Grade E 1.2641 0.5661 0.0236 0.0225 0.0458 0.0447
From the Figures 6.50 to 6.58 and from the Table 6.9, it can also
be noted as the roughness variance increases there is increase in the fuselage
vertical acceleration, vertical displacement, and shock strut travel increases
and overall average 50 % reduction of acceleration of the aircraft with the
active landing gear system and the fuselage vertical displacement and shock
strut travel are also considerably reduced in the aircraft with the active system
which shows the effectiveness of the active landing for different grades of
runways.
6.11 RIDE RESPONSE TO GRADE D ROAD WITH DIFFERENT

AIRCRAFT TAXYING SPEEDS
The Grade D road profile is a poor roughness road having a road

roughness variance of 0.016, considering the aircraft speed of 5 m/s, seed =3
and =0.127,the road profile for Grade D road has been generated and the
same with respect to time is as shown in Figure 6.59. In this same runway, the
simulations were done with the aircraft taxying speed of 5 m/s, 10 m/s, 25 m/s
and 50 m/s.
135
Grade D road
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time (s)
Figure 6.59 Grade D road profile
In this case, the dynamic response of the aircraft is analyzed for

different taxying speeds 5 m/s, 10 m/s, 25 m/s and 50 m/s travelling over
grade D poor random runway. The simulations have been done and the
fuselage acceleration & displacement responses and shock strut travels of the
aircraft are obtained. In this case the aircraft travels over a grade D random
road as in Figure 6.59. Figures 6.60 to 6.71 show the rms value of fuselage
acceleration, fuselage displacement and shock strut travel of the aircraft with
passive and active landing gear systems. The comparison of results are shown
in Table 6.10.
136
2.5
active landing gear
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.60 Fuselage acceleration response to grade D runway at 5 m/s
2.5
active landing gear
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.61 Fuselage acceleration response for grade D runway at 10 m/s

137
2.5
active landing gear
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
2.5
active landing gear
2
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)

138
Fuselage displaceme nt
0.025
active landing gear
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.64 Fuselage displacement response for grade D runway input

at 5 m/s
0.025
active landing gear
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.65 Fuselage displacement response for grade D runway at 10 m/s

139
0.025
active landing gear
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
0.025
0.015
0.01
0.005
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
-0.025
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)

140
Shock strut travel

0.04
active landing gear
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.68 Shock strut travel response for grade D runway input at 5 m/s
Shock strut travel

0.04
active landing gear
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Figure 6.69 Shock strut travel response for grade D runway at 10 m/s
141
Shock strut travel

0.04
active landing gear
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
Shock strut travel

0.04
active landing gear
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time(s)
142
Table 6.10 Comparison results for different taxying speeds
Aircraft Fuselage Fuselage Suspension

Taxying acceleration(m/s²) displacement(m) travel(m)
speed (rms) (rms (rms)
passive active passive active passive active
5 m/s 0.7718 0.3744 0.0108 0.0105 0.0214 0.0209
10 m/s 0.7690 0.3736 0.0086 0.0080 0.0169 0.0159
25 m/s 0.7560 0.3689 0.0059 0.0048 0.0114 0.0094
50 m/s 0.7106 0.3567 0.0044 0.0030 0.0086 0.0059
From the Figures 6.60 to 6.71 and from the Table 6.10 it can be
noted that as the speed increases there is decrease in the fuselage acceleration,
displacement and shock strut travel of the aircraft with the passive and active
landing gears. However the overall average percentage reduction of
acceleration, displacement and shock strut travel increases in case of aircraft
with active landing gears i.e., the effectiveness of the active landing gear
system increases as the aircraft speed increases.The obtained results have
been qualtitatively compared with the experimental investigation of Howel
WE et.al (1991) on F-106B airplane active controlled nose landing gear
performance and also Sheperd et al (1992) analytically evaluated the active
control system for a range of aircraft speeds for random and discrete bump
models of the runway surface. In general the peak and rms values of normal
accelerations at all passenger cabin locations are reduced.
6.12 RIDE COMFORT ASSESSMENT
From the simulations, The sprung mass bounce acceleration for the
active and passive landing gear when the aircraft is taxying the runway with
half sine wave bumps is represented in Figure 6.9 and it is plotted in
frequency domain after carrying out FFT. The frequency domain curves have
143
been superimposed with ISO-2631, human exposure to whole body vibration

curves is shown in Figure 6.72. It can be noted that rms acceleration levels for
the case of active landing gears are below the 24 hr line while that for the
passive landing gear the levels are below 8 hr line only, indicating the higher
comfort level provided by the active landing gear system.
Figure 6.72 Comparison of sprung mass bounce acceleration of the

aircraft in frequency domain with the human exposure to
vibration ISO -2631 curves, when it is taxying on runway
with the bumps
Therefore it can be concluded that the active landing gear system

has better performance capabilities over passive landing gear system. Also,
the fuselage acceleration for the grade E random runway excitation in
144
frequency domain is compared with ISO-2631 human exposure to whole body

vibration curves in Figure 6.73.
Figure 6.73 Comparison of fuselage bounce acceleration of the aircraft

in frequency domain with the human exposure to vibration
ISO-2631 curves when it is taxying on the grade E random
runway
It can be noted that rms acceleration levels for the case of active
landing gears are below the 24 hr line while that for the passive landing gear
the levels are below 4 hr line only, indicating the higher comfort level
provided by the active landing gear system.
145
6.13 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT WORK
In recent years, mathematical model based system development is

universally recognized as cost effective way to bring new design concepts in
to reality. In this research work, the developed full aircraft mathematical
model with active landing gears is a generic model and could accurately
represent the dynamics of any aircraft. With this model, it has been possible
to predict the improvement in acceleration levels of the aircraft with the active
landing gears about three axes. These results have been compared well
qualititatively with the results obtained from the investigation of full aircraft
model done by shepard (shepard et.al 1992). It can be used for fine tuning the
ride quality of the aircraft by fine tuning the landing gear stiffness and
damping characteristics and to design the active control strategies. Hence the
current study involving the formulation of generic model helps in early
understanding of detailed design, developing the specifications, subsystem
integration, testing and finally to architect the active landing gear system and
saving development costs.

6.1 Numerical Simulation of Quarter Model of Passive and Active Landing Gear

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.1 Numerical Simulation of Quarter Model of Passive and Active Landing Gear

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

88

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF QUARTER MODEL OF

In this chapter, Simulation results of the two degrees of freedom

6.2 TUNING OF PID CONTROLLER

The PID controller is tuned for optimal gains using Ziegler –

Table 6.1 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of the landing

PID 0.584 0.0012 0.0001

6.3 RIDE RESPONSE OF QUARTER MODEL

The runway disturbance used for this simulation analysis is

Runway bump input

The governing differential equation of motion as discussed in

Sprung mass displacement(m)

The corresponding vertical acceleration response of the aircraft is

considerably reduced. This significantly increases the fatigue life of the

6.4 RIDE RESPONSE OF FULL AIRCRAFT MODEL

6.4.1 Tuning of PID Controllers

The tuning procedure as explained earlier is applied to the PID

Table 6.2 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of nose

PID 0.1 1.0 0.0025

Table 6.3 Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of PID controller of main (rear

PID 0.6 190 0.0001

The dynamic response of the aircraft is computed assuming that

Runway input for nose landing gear

Runway input for right and left landing gear

Figure 6.9 Aircraft (fuselage) acceleration response as the aircraft

Similarly pitch acceleration of the aircraft as it moves over the half

Figure 6.10 Aircraft (Fuselage) pitch acceleration response as it moves

Figure 6.11 shows the corresponding roll acceleration of the aircraft

Figure 6.12 shows that the dynamic displacement response of the

Figure 6.12 Aircraft vertical displacement response as it moves over half

Nose landing gear shock strut travel

Right landing gear shock strut travel

Figure 6.14 Right landing gear strut travel response to a bump

Left landing gear shock strut travel

Table 6.4 Comparison of dynamic response of the aircraft with

When Nose When right When left

In the analysis of full aircraft model, it is observed that there is

6.5 AIRCRAFT RIDE RESPONSE TO A BUMP WITH

In this case, the dynamic response of the aircraft is analyzed for

Figure 6.16 Fuselage acceleration response for bump input at 10 m/s

Figure 6.17 Fuselage acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

Figure 6.18 Fuselage acceleration response for bump at 30 m/s

passive landing gear

Figure 6.19 Fuselage acceleration response for bump at 40 m/s

Table 6.5 Comparison of fuselage acceleration response of the aircraft

When Nose When right

Figure 6.20 Fuselage displacement response for bump at 10 m/s

Figure 6.21 Fuselage displacement response for bump at 20 m/s

Figure 6.22 Fuselage displacement response for bump at 30 m/s

Figure 6.23 Fuselage displacement response for bump at 40 m/s

Table 6.6 Comparison of fuselage displacement response of the aircraft

When Nose When right When left

Figure 6.25 Fuselage roll acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

Figure 6.26 Fuselage roll acceleration response for bump at 30 m/s

Figure 6.27 Fuselage roll acceleration response for bump at 40 m/s

Table 6.7 Comparison of fuselage rolling acceleration response of the

When Nose When right When left

Figure 6.29 Fuselage pitch acceleration response for bump at 20 m/s

Figure 6.30 Fuselage pitch acceleration response for bump at 30 m/s

Figure 6.31 Fuselage pitch acceleration for bump input at 40 m/s

Table 6.8 Comparison of fuselage pitch acceleration response of the