See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273337708

Mathematical model and vibration analysis of aircraft with active landing

gears

Article  in  Journal of Vibration and Control · January 2013

DOI: 10.1177/1077546313486908

CITATIONS READS

11 3,694

2 authors, including:

Sivakumar Sivaprakasam
SRM Institute of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sivakumar Sivaprakasam on 23 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Vibration and Control
2015, Vol. 21(2) 229–245

Mathematical model and vibration ! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
analysis of aircraft with active DOI: 10.1177/1077546313486908
jvc.sagepub.com
landing gears

S Sivakumar1 and AP Haran2

Abstract
This paper deals with the study and comparison of the dynamic response of aircraft with passive and active landing gears
due to runway irregularities while the aircraft is taxying. This paper develops a detailed full aircraft mathematical vibration
model to describe an active landing gear system. The derived dynamic equations are used to analyze the active landing
gear system using proportional integral derivative (PID) controllers. The performance of this system is compared with
the passive landing gear system by numerical simulations. The active landing gear system is able to increase the ride
comfort and good track holding by reducing the fuselage acceleration, vertical fuselage displacement caused by landing
and runway excitations.

Keywords
Active landing gear, proportional integral derivative control, runway excitation

demonstrated analytically and experimentally the bene-

1. Introduction
Landing gear systems support an aircraft’s structure
through trunnions, they transmit reduced impact
loads, retain the aircraft’s stability during various
handling actions, provide ride comfort for passengers
and make the aircraft easier to control on the ground.
Landing gears fitted in most aircraft are of the passive
type successfully designed by the manufacturers
(Currey, 1998). It is not possible to adjust the control
forces that are naturally generated in real-time landing
and runway environments. The passive landing gear
system has fixed damping whereas in active controlled
landing gear system, the hydraulic fluid flow to the
shock strut is controlled depending on ground induced
aircraft vibration loads, thereby changing the hydraulic
damping. So the focus on active landing gear system is
essential to overcome the difficulties in passive landing
gear system. Previous analytical studies by Wignot
et al. (1971), Bender and Beiber (1971) and McGehee
and Garden (1979) indicated that the feasibility and
potential benefits of applying active load control to
the landing gear to limit the ground loads applied to
the airframe. An active landing gear system was first
demonstrated by Ross and Edson (1982) to reduce
landing loads and vibrations under various runway
profiles. The study described in Freymann and
Johnson (1985), and Freymann (1987) and (1991)
fits of actively controlled landing gears in reducing
landing loads and vibrations under various runway
profiles. Active control schemes have been investigated
on landing gears (Catt et al., 1992; Sheperd et al.,
1992).The dynamic performances of active control of
damping have been evaluated for a range of aircraft
speeds and for random and discrete bump models of
the runway surface. The reductions of peak and root
mean square (RMS) accelerations at various fuselage
stations are addressed.
A mathematical model and the nonlinear equations
for a telescopic main gear modified with an external
hydraulic system have been carried out (Horta et al.,
1999).The analysis and test result for an A-6 intruder
landing gear system has been studied (Daniels, 1996).
Investigation results (Howell et al., 1991) from an
F-106B fighter interceptor aircraft involving both pas-
sive and active control modes show that the active
1
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Anna University, Chennai, India
2
Park College of Engineering and Technology, Anna University,
Coimbatore, India
Received: 10 May 2012; accepted: 19 March 2013
Corresponding author:
S. Sivakumar, Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Anna University, Chennai,
602105, India.
Email: svkmr_s@ yahoo.co.in

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

230
landing gear system significantly reduces the loads to
the airframe during landing and ground operations.
Investigations of development of a mathematical
model of a single active landing gear system with a
proportional integral derivative (PID) controller
(HaitaoWang et al., 2008) has shown the improvement
in performances of a passive landing gear system.
Active control technology has become popular in
recent years and has been applied to many systems
such as an automobile suspension system (Karnopp,
1983), precision machine platform and building
structures.
Figure 1 shows that the active landing gear system
consists of a low pressure reservoir, a hydraulic pump,
a high pressure accumulator, a servo actuator and an
electronic controller. The passive system does not
include a servo actuator, transducers and electronic
controllers. The transducers fitted in the landing gear
send a signal to the electronic controllers depending on
the impact conditions to actuate the servo system to
supply hydraulic oil into the landing gears. The gener-
ation of active control energy is to attenuate the vibra-
tions to improve the ride comfort. The above
theoretical and experimental studies considered the
single active landing gear system, whereas in the present
work a mathematical model of the dynamics of a full
aircraft with all three active landing gears has been
developed and the equations of motion derived are
used to demonstrate the behavior of an active landing
gear interaction with the aircraft subject to runway
excitation.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of active landing gear system. HP ¼ high-pressure, LP ¼ low-pressure.
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015
Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)
2. Full aircraft mathematical vibration
model
In the full aircraft model the fuselage body or sprung
mass is free to roll and pitch. The sprung mass is con-
nected to the three unsprung masses which are front,
rear left and rear right landing gears. They are free to
bounce vertically with respect to the sprung mass. The
full aircraft model contains three degrees of freedom
(d.o.f) for the sprung mass (bounce, roll, pitch) and
three d.f. for the vertical motions of the nose landing
gear’s unsprung mass and the rear main landing gear’s
unsprung masses.
2.1. Dynamic equations of motion
Figure 2 indicates the six d.f. vibration model of the full
aircraft. In this model u, ,  represents respectively the
bounce, pitch and roll motion of the aircraft while
u1 , u2 , u3 represents the displacement of the nose, left
and right main landing gears, a-distance from centre of
gravity (CG) to the nose landing gear, b-distance from CG
to the main landing gears, d-distance from CG to left main
landing gear, e-distance from CG to right main landing
gear. Using Newton’s second law of motion, the second
order differential equations of motion describing dynam-
ics of the active landing gear system can be written as
For bounce motion of the sprung mass
Mu€ þ ks1 p þ ks2 q þ ks3 r þ cs1 p_ þ cs2 q_ þ cs3 r_ þ Q1 ¼ 0
ð1Þ
Sivakumar and Haran 231

where i:e,Iyy €  ks1 ðu  a  h  u1 Þa þ ks2 ðu þ b  d  u2 Þb

 
þ ks3 ðu þ b þ e  u3 Þb  cs1 u_  a_  h_  u_ 1 a
p ¼ u  a  h  u1  
þ cs2 u_ þ b_  d_  u_ 2 b
q ¼ u þ b  d  u2  
r ¼ u þ b þ e  u3 þ cs3 u_ þ b_ þ e_  u_ 3 b þ Q2 ¼ 0 ð4Þ
h¼de
For roll motion of the sprung mass
i:e, Mu€ þ ks1 ðu  a  h  u1 Þ þ ks2 ðu þ b  d  u2 Þ
 
þ ks3 ðu þ b þ e  u3 Þ þ cs1 u_  a_  h_  u_ 1 Ixx €  ks1 ph þ ks2 qd þ ks3 re  cs1 ph
_  cs2 qd
_
 
þ cs2 u_ þ b_  d_  u_ 2 þ cs3 r_e þ Q3 ¼ 0 ð5Þ
 
þ cs3 u_ þ b_ þ e_  u_ 3 þ Q1 ¼ 0 ð2Þ
i:e,Ixx €  ks1 ðu  a  h  u1 Þh þ ks2 ðu þ b  d  u2 Þd
 
For pitch motion of the sprung mass þ ks3 ðu þ b þ e  u3 Þe  cs1 u_  a_  h_  u_ 1 h
 
 cs2 u_ þ b_  d_  u_ 2 d
Iyy €  ks1 pa þ ks2 qb þ ks3 rb  cs1 pa
_  
þ cs3 u_ þ b_ þ e_  u_ 3 e þ Q3 ¼ 0 ð6Þ
_ þ cs3 r_b þ Q2 ¼ 0
þ cs2 qb ð3Þ

Figure 2. Vibration model of full aircraft with active landing gear system subject to runway excitation.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

232 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

For nose landing gear unsprung mass where

m1 u€ 1  ks1 p  cs1 p_ þ kt1 ðu1  ug1 Þ Z1 ¼ cs1 þ cs2 þ cs3

þ ct1 ðu_  ug
_ 1 Þ  Q1 ¼ 0 ð7Þ Z2 ¼ acs1 þ bcs2 þ bcs3
  Z3 ¼ hcs1  dcs2 þ ecs3
i:e,m1 u€ 1  ks1 ðu  a  h  u1 Þ  cs1 u_  a_  h_  u_ 1
Z4 ¼ a2 cs1 þ b2 cs2 þ b2 cs3
þ kt1 ðu1  ug1 Þ þ ct1 ðu_  ug
_ 1 Þ  Q1 ¼ 0
Z5 ¼ hacs1  dbcs2 þ ebcs3
ð8Þ
Z6 ¼ h2 cs1 þ d2 cs2 þ e2 cs3
For left main landing gear unsprung mass
½K is the stiffness matrix given by
m2 u€ 2  ks2 q  cs2 q_ þ kt2 ðu2  ug2 Þ 2 3
_ 2 Þ  Q2 ¼ 0
þ ct2 ðu_ 2  ug ð9Þ R1 R2 R3 ks1 ks2 ks3
6 7
6 R2 R4 R5 aks1 bks2 bks3 7
  6 7
m2 u€ 2  ks2 ðu þ b  d  u2 Þ  cs2 u_ þ b_  d_  u_ 2 6 7
6 R3 R5 R6 hks1 dks2 eks3 7
_ 2 Þ  Q2 ¼ 0
þ kt2 ðu2  ug2 Þ þ ct2 ðu_ 2  ug ½K ¼ 6
6 ks aks
7
7
6 1 1 hks1 ks1 þ kt1 0 0 7
6 7
ð10Þ 6 ks bks dks2 0 ks2 þ kt2 0 7
4 2 2 5
For right main landing gear unsprung mass ks3 bks3 eks3 0 0 ks3 þ kt3

m3 u€ 3  ks3 r  cs3 r_ þ kt3 ðu3  ug3 Þ where

_ 3 Þ  Q3 ¼ 0
þ ct3 ðu_ 3  ug ð11Þ
R1 ¼ ks1 þ ks2 þ ks3
 
m3 u€ 3  ks3 ðu þ b þ e  u3 Þ  cs3 u_ þ b_ þ e_  u_ 3 R2 ¼ aks1 þ bks2 þ bks3
_ 3 Þ  Q3 ¼ 0
þ kt3 ðu3  ug3 Þ þ ct3 ðu_ 3  ug ð12Þ R3 ¼ hks1  dks2 þ eks3
R4 ¼ a2 ks1 þ b2 ks2 þ b2 ks3
The above equations of motion can be written in the R5 ¼ haks1  dbks2 þ ebks3
matrix form as
R6 ¼ h2 ks1 þ d2 ks2 þ e2 ks3
½Mfu€ g þ ½Cfu_ g þ ½Kfug ¼ f F g ð13Þ
and fug is the displacement vector given by
where ½M is the mass matrix given by 8 9
>
> u >>
2 3 >
> >
>
M 0 0 0 0 0 >
>  >>
>
> >
>
6 0 Iyy 0 0 0 0 7 <  >
> =
6 7 fu g ¼
6 0 0 Ixx 0 0 0 7 >
½M ¼ 6
6 0 0 0 m1 0 0
7
7 > u1 >
> >
>
>
> >
4 0 0 0 0 m2 0 5 > u2 >
> >
>
>
> >
>
0 0 0 0 0 m3 : ;
u3

½C is the damping matrix given by f F g is the force vector given by

2 3 8 9
Z1 Z2 Z3 cs1 cs2 cs3 >
> Q1 >
>
6 7 >
> >
>
6 Z2 Z4 Z5 acs1 bcs2 bcs3 7 >
> Q2 >
>
6 7 >
> >
>
6 7 >
< >
=
6 Z3 Z5 Z6 hcs1 dcs2 ecs3 7 Q3
½C ¼ 6
6 cs acs
7
7
fFg ¼
> >
6 1 1 hcs1 cs1 þ ct1 0 0 7 >
> _ 1 þ Q1
kt1 ug1 þ ct1 ug >
>
6 7 >
> >
>
6 cs bcs 7 >
> _ 2 þ Q2
kt2 ug2 þ ct2 ug >
>
4 2 2 dcs2 0 cs2 þ ct2 0 5 >
> >
>
: ;
_ 3 þ Q3
kt3 ug3 þ ct3 ug
cs3 bcs3 ecs3 0 0 cs3 þ ct3

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 233

The governing equation can be simplified as The flow quantity Qflow is calculated by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fu€ g ¼ ½M1 f F g  ½M1 ½Cfu_ g  ½M1 ½Kfug ð14Þ paccum  pres 
Qflow ¼ Cd wl ð16Þ


3. Full aircraft model parameters
The model parameters of a Fokker airplane are taken
for numerical simulation to analyze the behavior of pas-
sive and active landing gear for runway bump input,
considering 20% of the aircraft’s body mass is trans-
ferred to the nose landing gear and the 80% of the air-
craft’s body mass is shared by the main landing gears.
The parameters of stiffness and damping coefficient are
taken as linear evaluated from nonlinear behavioral
curves from Figures 3–8 for accurately analyzing the
responses of passive and active landing gear for different
runway inputs. The parameters are shown in Table 1.
Assuming the damping ratio " ¼ 0.1, the damping of
the structural part ofpthe unsprung mass is evaluated as
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ct1 ¼ ct2 ¼ ct3 ¼ 2" kt2 m2 .
4. Active control force
The active control force FQ is a function of the flow
output of the servo valve. The servo valve displacement
lðtÞ is controlled by the PID controller. The controller
_ q,
actuates the servo valve by the signal p, _ r_ measured by
the transducers. There is no exact relationship between
the active control force FQ and the flow quantity Qflow
from the servo valve (Sharp, 1988). It is often deter-
mined through experiments or by empirical formula. It
is assumed that the active control force is described by
 
FQ ¼ ka Qflow Qflow 
When the displacement l ðtÞ 4 0, the hydraulic oil
would have positive flow from the accumulator in to
the landing gear system and a positive control force
FQ 4 0. When lðtÞ 5 0, oil is drawn from the landing
gear in to the LP reservoir so that FQ 5 0, where l ðtÞ
is the displacement determined from the controller as in
equation (16).
5. Controller design
A PID controller is a generic control loop feedback
mechanism widely used in industrial control systems.
The PID controller designed (HaitaoWang et al.,
2008) controls the displacement lðtÞ of the servo valve
of one landing gear and the error function is the differ-
ence between the reference signal and the feedback
signal as velocity signal. In this study it is applied for
all three landing gears. The controller design is defined
by
Z t
deðtÞ
Gc ¼ kp eðtÞ þ ki eðtÞ þ kd ð17Þ
0 dt
Gc is the current input from the controller. kp is the pro-
portional gain, ki and kd are the integral and derivative
gain of the PID controller (Shinners, 1964; Hac, 1985;
Datta et al., 2000). r_ðtÞ represents a reference signal and
_ q,
p, _ and r_ are the feedback signal measured from the
ð15Þ

350000
900000
300000
800000
250000
Spring force (N)

700000
Spring force (N)

600000 200000
500000
150000
400000
300000 100000
200000
50000
100000
0 0
0.0E+00 2.0E+02 4.0E+02 0.0E+00 2.0E+02 4.0E+02
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 3. Main landing gear spring stiffness. Figure 4. Nose landing gear spring stiffness.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

234 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

8.0E+06

6.0E+06

4.0E+06
Damping force (N)
2.0E+06

0.0E+00
–3.0E+04 –2.0E+04 –1.0E+04 0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04
–2.0E+06

–4.0E+06

–6.0E+06

–8.0E+06

–1.0E+07
Velocity (mm/s)

Figure 5. Main landing gear damping.

300000 300000

250000 250000
Spring force (N)

Spring force (N)

200000 200000

150000 150000

100000 100000

50000 50000

0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Figure 6. Main landing gear tire stiffness. Figure 7. Nose landing gear tire stiffness.

sensors fitted in the nose landing gear, left main landing Similarly the displacement at the left and right main
gear and right main landing gear respectively. landing gear servo valves from the corresponding inde-
pendent PID controllers are given by
 
i:e, eðtÞ ¼ r_ðtÞ  u_  a_  h_  u_ 1 ðtÞ ð18Þ    
l2 ðtÞ ¼ kp r_ðtÞ  u þ b_  d_  u_ 2 ðtÞ
The output signal of the controller at the nose land- 
þ ki rðtÞ  ½ðu þ b  d  u2 ÞðtÞ
ing gear gives the displacement of the nose landing gear   
servo valve as þ kd r€ðtÞ  ðu þ b€  d€  u€ 2 ÞðtÞ ð20Þ
       
l1 ðtÞ ¼ kp r_ðtÞ  u_  a_  h_  u_ 1 ðtÞ l3 ðtÞ ¼ kp r_ðtÞ  u þ b_ þ e_  u_ 3 ðtÞ
 
þ ki rðtÞ  ½ðu  a  h  u1 ÞðtÞ þ ki rðtÞ  ½ðu þ b þ e  u3 ÞðtÞ
      
þ kd r€ðtÞ  u€  a€  h€  u€ 1 ðtÞ ð19Þ þ kd r€ðtÞ  ðu þ b€ þ e€  u€ 3 ÞðtÞ ð21Þ

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 235

Table 2. Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of proportional integral

3.0E+07
derivative (PID) controller of nose (front) landing gear.

2.0E+07 Type of controller kp ki kd

P 0.1 0 0
1.0E+07
PI 0.1 1.0 0
Damping force (N)

PID 0.1 1.0 0.0025

0.0E+00
-3.0E+04 -2.0E+04 -1.0E+04 0.0E+00 1.0E+04 2.0E+04 3.0E+04
-1.0E+07

Table 3. Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of proportional integral

-2.0E+07 derivative (PID) controller of main (rear left and right) landing
gears.
-3.0E+07
Type of controller kp ki kd
Velocity (mm/s)
P 0.6 0 0
Figure 8. Nose landing gear damping. PI 0.6 190 0
PID 0.6 190 0.0001

Table 1. The parameters obtained from the linear part of

nonlinear curves used in the numerical simulations. are obtained from the plot of body displacement of
Description Symbol Value Units
the front landing gear system and the main landing
gear system used to determine the tuning parameters
Sprung mass m 22000 kg of the PID controller for the active full aircraft
Nose gear unsprung mass m1 130 kg model. The Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules are used to
Rear left gear unsprung mass m2 260 kg determine proportional gain, integral and derivative
Rear right gear unsprung mass m3 260 kg gain of PID controllers based on the transient response
Nose gear sprung mass stiffness rate ks1 6.73e5 N/m characteristics of a given system.
Rear left gear sprung mass stiffness rate ks2 4.08e5 N/m According to this method, setting integral
Rear right gear sprung mass stiffness rate ks3 4.08e5 N/m and derivative gain to zero, the kp is increased from
Nose gear sprung mass damper rate cs1 1.43e5 N.s/m 0 to a critical value kcr at which the output first
Rear left gear sprung mass damper rate cs2 6.25e5 N.s/m exhibits sustained oscillations. Thus the critical gain
Rear right gear sprung mass damper rate cs3 6.25e5 N.s/m kcr and the corresponding period are determined. The
Nose gear unsprung mass stiffness rate kt1 1.59e6 N/m values of the parameters kp ,ti and td are set by Ziegler-
Rear left gear unsprung mass stiffness rate kt2 1.59e6 N/m Nichols tuning rules. The tuning values are applied
Rear right gear unsprung mass stiffness rate kt3 1.59e6 N/m independently to the nose landing gear and main
Nose gear unsprung mass damper rate ct1 4066 N.s/m landing gears to obtain the control gains. The
Rear left gear unsprung mass damper rate ct2 4066 N.s/m Ziegler-Nichols tuning values of the PID controller of
Rear right gear unsprung mass damper rate ct3 4066 N.s/m the nose and main landing gears are given in Tables 2
Mass moment of inertia about XX axis Ixx 65e3 kg.m2 and 3.
Mass moment of inertia about YY axis Iyy 100e3 kg.m2 In the practical implementation of the controller, a
Longitudinal distance from a 7.76 m low pass filtering element should be included with the
CG to nose landing gear
controller, so that high frequency oscillations are not
Longitudinal distance from CG to b 1.94 m
fed back to the active control system. The high fre-
horizontal axis of main landing gear
quency oscillations from the run way would be con-
Distance from CG to left main landing gear d 3.8425 m
trolled by the passive landing gear itself. If the active
Distance from CG to right main landing gear e 3.8425 m
landing gear system fails, the existing passive landing
gear would take the landing loads and runway
excitations.
Here kp represents a proportionality coefficient, ki an
integral coefficient and kd a differential coefficient.
6. Numerical simulation
These feedback coefficients are adjusted by Ziegler-
Nichols tuning rules to obtain the best control effi- Based on the analysis described in Sections 2 and 3, and
ciency. The values of gain margin and phase margin using MATLAB (Simulink, 1997) numerical

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

236 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

Figure 9. Simulink model of active landing gear system.

Runway input for nose landing gear

0.04

0.035

0.03
Height (m)

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005
Figure 10. Runway bumps.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

simulations of the active landing gear system, responses

Figure 11. Runway input excitation for a front (nose) landing
are derived using Ziegler-Nichols tuning values. To
gear.
illustrate the approach, we investigate an airplane of
22,000 kg, with landing gear mass of 650 kg, taxying
at a speed of 55.5 m/s on a runway. For demonstration
purposes, Figure 10 illustrates an assumed half sine
type runway bump of height 40 mm for nose landing 7. Dynamic response of the aircraft for
gear, 60 mm height for right main landing gear, and
100 mm height for left main landing gear over which
a runway with half sine wave bumps
the airplane travels. The runway ramp input impulse is designed with half
The transient response of the aircraft with the pas- sine wave height of 40 mm for nose landing gear, dur-
sive and active landing gear system is simulated for ation of impulse 0.8 s and frequency 7.85 rad/s over
the runway with half sine wave bumps and for the which the airplane travels, as shown in Figure 11 and
random runway excitation in a MATLAB Simulink described by equation (22). Figure 12 indicates the
environment. double bump inputs are designed with half sine wave

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 237

of height 60 mm for the right main landing gear and ug1 ¼ 40ð1  cos !tÞ 0:2  t  1:0 and
ð22Þ
100 mm for the left main landing gear. Duration of 0 otherwise
impulse is 0.8 s and frequency is 7.85 rad/s over which
the airplane travels, and is described by equations (23) ug2 ¼ 60ð1  cos !tÞ 2:6  t  3:4 and
and (24). ð23Þ
0 otherwise

ug3 ¼ 100ð1  cos !tÞ 5:0  t  5:8 and

ð24Þ
Runway input for right and left landing gear 0 otherwise
0.1

The sprung mass bounce, pitch and roll acceleration

0.08
For left landing gear are as given in Figures 13–15, respectively. The sprung
For right landing gear mass displacement and shock strut travel for the pas-
Height (m)

0.06 sive and active landing gear are as shown in Figures 16

and 17, respectively.
0.04 Figures 13–17 illustrate that both peak values
and settling time have been reduced by the active
0.02
landing gear system. From the figures the peak
to peak values are taken for comparison of pas-
sive and active landing gears and are tabulated in
0 Table 4.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) The overall average peak to peak value of the air-
craft’s displacement response decreased 21% by
Figure 12. Runway input excitation for right main landing gear the active landing gear system. The overall average
and left main landing gear. peak to peak value of the aircraft’s acceleration response

Figure 13. The sprung mass bounce acceleration of the aircraft with passive and active landing gear.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

238 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

Figure 14. The sprung mass pitch acceleration of the aircraft with passive and active landing gear.

Figure 15. The sprung mass roll acceleration of the aircraft with passive and active landing gear.

reduced by 49.7% and the settling time is also reduced to using the active landing gear system. The sprung mass
33% with the active landing gear system. Thereby the bounce acceleration for the active and passive landing
aircraft taxies more smoothly, crew/passenger comfort is gear when the aircraft is taxying above the runway with
improved and a better runway holding is achieved by half sine wave bumps in the frequency domain have been

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 239

Figure 16. The sprung mass displacement of the aircraft with passive and active landing gear.

Figure 17. The shock strut travel of passive and active landing gear.

compared with ISO-2631 human exposure to whole line, while the levels for the passive landing gear
body vibration curves in Figure 18. are below the 8 hr line only, indicating the higher
It can be noted that RMS acceleration levels in comfort level provided by the active landing gear
the case of active landing gears are below the 24 hr system.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

240 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

Table 4. Comparison of passive and active landing gears.

Passive landing gear Active landing gear

Parameter Nose Right Left Nose Right Left

Fuselage acceleration (m/s2) 0.9 2.85 4.72 0.52 1.28 2.26

Fuselage displacement (m) 0.012 0.0386 0.0645 0.01 0.0288 0.050
Shock strut travel (m) 0.023 0.075 0.125 0.0174 0.0517 0.101

Figure 18. 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.

Figure 19. Simulink model of random road input generation.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 241

Table 5. Road roughness standard deviation. 8. Dynamic response of the aircraft for
 
Road class  ð103 mÞ ð0 Þ 106 m3 , 0 ¼ 1 a (rad/m) a random runway input
A (very good) 2 1 0.127 Apart from the sinusoidal bumpy runway input, a
B (good) 4 4 0.127 real runway surface taken as a random exciting func-
C (average) 8 16 0.127 tion is used as input to the aircraft. The random
D (poor) 16 64 0.127 road profile is generated by a shaping filter method
E (very poor) 32 256 0.127
(Goodall, 1983; Zhang et al., 2002; Giua et al., 2004). The
profile can be approximated by power spectral density
(PSD) distribution

2V 2
0.01 ð!Þ ¼ ð25Þ
!2þ 2 V2
0.005
where  2 denotes the road roughness variance (m2), V
Road profile signal (m)

the aircraft speed (m/s),  depends on the type of road

0
surface (rad/m)
Hence if the vehicle runs with the constant
–0.005
velocity V, the PSD is given by equation (25) and
the road profile signal may be obtained as the out-
–0.01
put of a linear filter expressed by the differential
equation
–0.015
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
d
zR ðtÞ ¼ VzR ðtÞ þ !ðtÞ ð26Þ
Figure 20. Random runway input excitation,considering road dt
class E, V ¼ 5 m/s and roughness varience ¼ 0.032.

Figure 21. The sprung mass acceleration of passive and active landing gear for random runway input.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

242 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

Figure 22. The sprung mass displacement of passive and active landing gear for random runway input.

Figure 23. The shock strut travel of passive and active landing gear for random runway input.

where !(t) is a white noise process with the spectral
density ð!Þ.
The random road generation is done through
MATLAB/Simulink as in Figure 19. The road rough-
ness standard deviations for various types of roads are as
given in Table 5. In the present case runway excitation
for a grade E road has been considered. The road profile
of the grade E road is as shown in Figure 20.
The sprung mass acceleration, displacement and
shock strut travel for the passive and active landing

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

Sivakumar and Haran 243

Table 6. Root mean square (RMS) values of sprung mass acceleration, vertical displacement and shock strut
travel.

Passive landing Active landing

Parameter gear (RMS) gear (RMS)

Fuselage acceleration (m/s2) 1.0126 0.5298

Fuselage displacement (m) 0.014 0.0131
Suspension travel (m) 0.0274 0.0260

Figure 24. Comparison of fuselage bounce acceleration of the aircraft in frequency domain with the human exposure to vibration
ISO2631 curves when it is taxying on the grade E random runway.

gear systems for grade E random runway excitation
are shown in Figures 21, 22 and 23 respectively.
From the figures the rms values are taken for compari-
son of passive and active landing gears and are tabu-
lated in Table 6.
From Figures 21–23 and Table 6, for random input,
it can be noted that the acceleration of the sprung mass
has been reduced by 47.6%, which shows the improve-
ment in ride comfort. The sprung mass displacement
and suspension travel are also reduced, which will
improve the life of the landing gear system. Therefore
it can be concluded that the active landing gear system
has better performance capabilities over the passive
landing gear system. Also, the fuselage acceleration
for the grade E random runway excitation in the fre-
quency domain is compared with ISO-2631(Griffin
et al., 1986; ISO 2631-1, 1997) human exposure to
whole body vibration curves in Figure 24.
It can be noted that rms acceleration levels for the
case of active landing gears are below the 24 hr line,
while those for the passive landing gear are below the
4 hr line only, indicating the higher comfort level pro-
vided by the active landing gear system.
9. Conclusions
A mathematical vibration model of an aircraft with
active landing gear system has been developed and its
performance simulated using MATLAB/Simulink. In
this system a PID controller has been used and the
gains of the PID controllers have been tuned using
the Ziegler-Nichols method. The outputs of the

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

244 Journal of Vibration and Control 21(2)

independent controllers are used to operate the servo  Density of hydraulic fluid
control system which applies the control forces in the FQ Active control force
respective active landing gear. The fuselage acceleration ti Time integral
levels, displacement levels and the shock strut travel for td Time derivative
the active and passive landing gears have been com- kp Proportional gain
pared. The fuselage acceleration levels have also been ki Integral gain
compared with the ISO 2631 human exposure to whole kd Derivative gain
body vibration curves. It is observed that there is reduc- ug1 , ug2 , ug3 Ground excitation
tion in the magnitude of acceleration and the displace- u1 ,u2 ,u3 Sprung mass displacement
ment of the aircraft’s fuselage by the active landing gear V Aircraft speed
system when travelling over an uneven runway surface.  Road roughness variance
Thus the active landing gear system improves crew and  road surface type coefficient
passenger comfort and increases the fatigue life of the
aircraft structure and landing system.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Nomenclature

References
M Sprung mass Bender EK and Beiber M (1971) A feasibility study of active
m1 Nose gear unsprung mass landing gear. AFFDL Technical Report-70-126, U.S.
m2 Rear left gear unsprung mass Airforce (available as AD 887451L).
m3 Rear right gear unsprung mass Catt T, Cowling D and Shepard A (1993) Active landing gear
ks1 Nose gear sprung mass stiffness rate control for improved ride quality during ground roll,
ks2 Rear left gear sprung mass stiffness rate AGARD Smart structures for aircraft and spacecraft,
ks3 Rear right gear sprung mass stiffness rate Conference Proceedings-531, Stirling Dynamics Ltd,
Bristol.
cs1 Nose gear sprung mass damper rate
Currey NS (1998) Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles
cs2 Rear left gear sprung mass damper rate and Practices. Washington: AIAA Education Series.
cs3 Rear right gear sprung mass damper rate Daniels JN (1996) A method for landing gear modeling and
kt1 Nose gear unsprung mass stiffness rate simulation with experimental validation. NASA
kt2 Rear left gear unsprung mass stiffness Contractor Report 201601.
rate Datta A, Ho MT and Bhattacharyya SP (2000) Structure and
kt3 Rear right gear unsprung mass stiffness Synthesis of PID Controllers. London: Springer.
rate Freymann R (1987) An experimental–analytical routine for
ct1 Nose gear unsprung mass damper rate the dynamic qualification of aircraft operating on rough
ct2 Rear left gear unsprung mass damper runway surfaces. AGARD Report-731.
Freymann R (1991) Actively damped landing gear system,
rate
Landing Gear Design Load Conference No. 20, AGARD
ct3 Rear right gear unsprung mass damper
Conference Proceedings-484.
rate Freymann R and Johnson W (1985) Simulation of aircraft
½ M Mass matrix taxi testing on the AGILE Shaker Test Facility, Second
½C Damping matrix International Symposium on Aero elasticity and Structural
½K Stiffness matrix Dynamics sponsored by Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Lufund
½F Force vector Raumfahrt e.V.in Aachen, W.Germany, April 1–3.
fu€ g Acceleration vector Giua A, Melas M, Seatzu C, et al. (2004) Design of predictive
fu_ g Velocity vector semi active suspension system. Vehicle Systems Dynamics
fug Displacement vector 41(4): 277–300.
 Pitch angle Goodall RM (1983) Active controls in ground transportation
 Roll angle – a review of the state-of-the-art and future potential.
Vehicle Systems Dynamics 12(4): 225–257.
" Damping ratio
Griffin MJ, McLeod RW, Maseley MJ, et al. (1986) Whole
Qflow Fluid flow quantity from servo valve body vibration and aircrew performance. Institute of
Cd Coefficient of discharge Sound and Vibration Research, Technical Report-132,
w Gradient area of servo valve University of Southampton, Southampton, England.
l Displacement of servo valve Hac A (1985) Suspension optimation of a 2-dof vehicle model
paccum High pressure in accumulator using a stochastic optimal control technique. Journal of
pres Low pressure in reservoir Sound and Vibration 100(3): 347–357.

Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015

 Sivakumar and Haran
HaitaoWang, Xing JT, Price WG, et al. (2008) An investiga-
tion of an active landing gear system to reduce aircraft
vibrations caused by landing impacts and runway excita-
tions. Journal of Sound and Vibration 317: 50–66.
Horta LG, Daugherty RH and Martinson VJ (1999)
Modeling and validation of an A6-Intruder actively con-
trolled landing gear system. NASA TP-1999-209124.
Howell WE, McGehee JR, Daugherty RH, et al (1991)
F-106B airplane active control landing drop test perfor-
mance, Landing Gear Design Loads Conference No. 21,
AGARD Conference Proceedings-484, Povoa dc Varzim,
Portugal, October 8–12.
ISO 2631-1 (1997) Mechanical Vibration and Shock –
Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration.
Part 1: General Requirements. Geneva: International
Standards Organization.
Karnopp D (1983) Active damping in road vehicle suspension
system. Vehicle Systems Dynamics 12(6): 291–316.
McGehee JR and Garden HD (1979) Analytical investiga-
tion of the landing dynamics of a large airplane with a
Downloaded from jvc.sagepub.com by guest on January 18, 2015
View publication stats
245
load-control system in the main landing gear. NASA
Technical Paper 1555.
Ross I and Edson R (1982) Application of active control
landing gear technology to the A-10 aircraft. NASA CR-
166104.
Sharp JJ (1988) Basic Fluid Mechanics. London:
Butterworths.
Sheperd A, Catt T and Cowling D (1992) The simulation of
aircraft landing gear dynamics, 18th Congress of the
International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences,
Beijing, China, September 20–25, ICAS-92-1.7.1.
Shinners SM (1964) Control System Design. NewYork: Wiley.
Simulink (1997) Dynamic system simulation for MATLAB,
version 2- using Simulink, The Math Works Inc.
Wignot Jack E, Durup Paul C, Gamon et al. (1971) Design
formulation and analysis of an active landing gear.
AFFDL-Technical report 1: 71–80.
Zhang LJ, Lee CM and Wang YS (2002) A study on non sta-
tionary random vibration of a vehicle in time. International
Journal of Automotive Technology 3(3): 101–109.