I I1 I IIII ~ .

N A S A T E C HNI C A L N O T E NASA &M D-8080

_*

0
00
0
OF)
n
z
c
4
v3
4
z

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF A N ACTIVE

CONTROL LANDING GEAR FOR LOAD CONTROL
DURING IMPACT A N D ROLL-OUT a a A N COPY: RETURN TO
AFMk TECHNZCAL LIBRARY
K1RTuN-D AFB, #. M.
/ '\\

John R. McGehee und Huey D. Curden /'

1 1
\

Lungley Reseurch Center

Humpton, Vu. 23665
\

,i'
',
I

$?e
Y
'5
3
4OUT'Qv

hs
z
"7.3 4976

N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N WASHINGTON, D. C. FEBRUARY 1976

 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

- - ~~~
Illl1lI1llllllYl 1l 1111Il11I1l 11
OL3383b
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipienr s Latalog No.
NASA T N D-8080
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

A MATHEMATICAL MODEL O F AN ACTIVE CONTROL F e b r u a r v 1976

LANDING GEAR FOR LOAD CONTROL DURING IMPACT 6. Performing Organization Code
AND ROLL-OUT
7. Author(s1 8. Performing Organization Report No.

J o h n R. McGehee and Huey D. C a r d e n L -10440

-.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 743 -01 -12-03
-
NASA Langley R e s e a r c h C e n t e r
~~~~

1 1 . Contract or Grant No.

Hampton, Va. 23665
~~

- 13. T y p e of Report and Period Covered

2, Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note
. ~ _ _ _
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20546
. . ~~

5. Supplementary Notes

. - - ~~ ~~

6. Abatract
A mathenlatical model of an active control landing % e a r (ACOLAG) h a s been developed and
p r o g r a m e d for operation on a digital computer. T h e mathematical model includes theoretical
subsonic a e r o d y n a m i c s ; f i r s t -mode wing bending and t o r s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; oleo-pneumatic
shock s t r u t with fit and binding friction; closed-loop, s e r i e s - h y d r a u l i c control; e m p i r i c a l t i r e
force-deflection c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; antiskid braking; and sinusoidal o r random runway roughness.
T h e inathematical model was u s e d t o compute the loads and motions f o r a s i m u l a t e d v e r t i c a l
drop t e s t and a simulated landing impact of a conventional (passive) main landing g e a r desiyned
f o r a 2268-kg (5000-lbm) c l a s s a i r p l a n e . Computations w e r e a l s o made f o r a siinply modified
v e r s i o n of the p a s s i v e g e a r including a s e r i e s - h y d r a u l i c active control s y s t e m .
Comparison of computed r e s u l t s f o r the p a s s i v e g e a r with e x p e r i m e n t a l data shows that t h e
active control landing g e a r a n a l y s i s i s valid f o r predicting the loads a n d motions of an a i r p l a n e
during a s y m m e t r i c a l landing. Computed r e s u l t s for t h e s e r i e s -hydraulic a c t i v e control in con­
junction with the simply modified p a s s i v e g e a r show that 20- t o 3 0 - p e r c e n t reductions in wing
f o r c e , relative t o those o c c u r r i n g with t h e modified p a s s i v e g e a r , can b e obtained durinq t h e
impact phase of the landing. T h e s e reductions in wing f o r c e could r e s u l t i n substantial i n c r e a s e s
in fatigue life of the s t r u c t u r e .

I
7. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

A i r c r a f t landing g e a r Unclassified - Unlimited

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. ( o f this page) 2 1 . NO. of Pages 22. Price'
Un c lass if ie d Unclassified 70 $4.25

F o r sale b y t h e N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Service, Springfield, V i r g i n i a 221 61

I
 A MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF AN ACTIVE CONTROL LANDING GEAR
FOR LOAD CONTROL DURING IMPACT AND ROLL-OUT

John R. McGehee and Huey D. Carden

Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

A mathematical model of a n active control landing g e a r (ACOLAG) has been devel­

oped and programed f o r operation on a digital computer. The mathematical model i n ­
cludes theoretical subsonic aerodynamics; first-mode wing bending and torsional charac ­
t e r i s t i c s ; oleo -pneumatic shock s t r u t with fit and binding friction; closed-loop7 s e r i e s -
hydraulic control; empirical t i r e force -deflection c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; antiskid braking; and
sinusoidal o r random runway roughness. The mathematical model was used t o conipute
the loads and motions f o r a simulated vertical drop t e s t and a simulated landing impact of
a conventional (passive) main landing g e a r designed f o r a 2268 -kg (5000-lbm) c l a s s a i r ­
plane. Computations were a l s o made for a simply modified version of the passive gear
including a series-hydraulic active control system.
Coinparison of computed r e s u l t s f o r the passive gear with experimental data shows
that the active control landing g e a r analysis i s valid for predicting the loads and motions
of an airplane during a symmetrical landing. Computed r e s u l t s for the s e r i e s -hydraulic
active control in conjunction with the simply modified passive g e a r show that 2 0 - t o 30­
percent reductions in wing force, relative t o those occurring with the modified passive
gear, can be obtained during the impact phase of the landing. These reductions in wing
force could r e s u l t in substantial i n c r e a s e s in fatigue life of the s t r u c t u r e .

INTRODUCTION

Dynamic loads in large a i r c r a f t resulting f r o m landing impact and runway and taxi -
way unevenness are recognized as a significant factor in causing fatigue damage and
dynamic s t r e s s i n g of the a i r f r a m e s t r u c t u r e . In addition, ground-induced vibrations r e ­
sult in crew and passenger discomfort and can contribute t o reduction of the pilot's capa­
bility t o control the a i r c r a f t . Such vibration probleins have been encountered with s o m e
conventional transport a i r c r a f t and have required modification of the g e a r design t o i m ­
prove r i d e and handling qualities after the a i r c r a f t i s in service.
These ground-induced dynamic loads and vibration problems will be magnified f o r
supersonic -cruise a i r c r a f t because of the increased structural flexibility of the slender -
body, thin-wing designs and the higher takeoff and landing speeds. During design studies
of supersonic transports conducted in the United States, investigations of the ground ride
qualities of one particular design indicated extremely high vibration levels in the crew
compartment during takeoff (ref. 1). The design philosophy f o r airplane oleo-pneumatic
landing g e a r s has been to obtain the lightest g e a r f o r the maximum designed sink rate.
For supersonic-cruise transport aircraft, it may be necessary t o concentrate on limiting
the load applied t o the s t r u c t u r e by the g e a r to obtain satisfactory structural dynamic re­
sponse characteristics and a satisfactory fatigue life. One potential method for improving
ground operations of supersonic c r u i s e a i r c r a f t i s the application of active control tech­
nology t o limit the loads applied to the a i r f r a m e by the landing g e a r s .
Analytical studies have been conducted to determine the feasibility of applying active
controls to the landing g e a r during roll-out o r taxiing over uneven runways o r taxiways.
The study reported in reference 2 indicated that a shock s t r u t with a hydraulically con­
trolled actuator in s e r i e s with the passive elements of the strut ( s e r i e s -hydraulic control)
possessed the most desirable dynamic properties and would be quite feasible to implement.
Little published information is available for actively controlling loads applied to the a i r ­
f r a m e by the landing g e a r during the impact phase.
The purpose of this paper i s to present and validate a mathematical model of an
active control landing g e a r (ACOLAG) employing a series-hydraulic control for load
control during impact and roll-out and t o present r e s u l t s f r o m the application of this con­
t r o l concept to a simply modified main landing gear of a 2268-kg (5000-lbm) class a i r ­
plane. The model i s evaluated for predicting airplane loads and motions encountered
during vertical-drop and landing-impact simulations f o r a rigid a i r f r a m e with a passive
(conventional) oleo-pneumatic shock-strut landing g e a r . The model i s also used to deter -
mine control p a r a m e t e r s and airplane response for a s e r i e s -hydraulic active control gear.
Edwin L. Fasanella, of LTV Aerospace Corporation, reviewed the equations of
motion and assisted in debugging the antiskid braking and active control subroutines of the
computer program,

SYMBOLS

The units used f o r the physical quantities defined in this paper are given f i r s t in the
International System of Units and parenthetically in the U.S. Customary Units. Measure­
ments and calculations were made in the U.S. Customary Units.

Aco a r e a of control orifice, m2 (ft2)

A0 a r e a of opening in shock-strut orifice plate, m 2 (ft2)

2
AP c r o s s -sectional a r e a of metering pin, m2 (ft2)

A1 shock-strut hydraulic area (piston area), m 2 (ft2)

A2 shock-strut pneumatic a r e a (cylinder area), m 2 (ft2)

PR aspect ratio of wing, b2/Sw

a lift-curve slope a t finite aspect ratio, (dCL/dcr)R

am lift-curve slope f o r infinite R, dCL/da

b wing span, m (ft)

CD,f aerodynamic friction -drag coefficient

cD, i aerodynamic induced-drag coefficient

D,P aerodynamic profile -drag coefficient

cd,co discharge coefficient f o r control s e r v o valve orifice

cd,o shock-strut orifice discharge coefficient

CL aerodynamic lift coefficient

CX numerical constant for each type of t i r e (this symbol i s k l in ref. 3; type III,
C x = 0.53; type VII, C x = 0.60)

CZ vertical-force coefficient for each type of t i r e (type I, C z = 0.02; types Ill

and VII, C z = 0.03)

CP torsional damping coefficient of control s e n s o r m a s s , N/rad-sec (lbf/rad-sec)

3
 critical torsional damping coefficient of control s e n s o r mass,
N/rad-sec (lbf/rad-sec)

Df fuselage aerodynamic drag force, N (lbf)

Dt tail aerodynamic drag force, N (lbf)

DW wing aerodynamic drag force, N (lbf)

d diameter of unloaded t i r e , m (ft)

dce a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and wing e l a s t i c axis in fuselage

x b - z b plane, m (ft)

dcf a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and fuselage m a s s center in

fuselage Xb-Zb plane, m (ft)

dc Q control-line diameter, m (ft)

dct a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and aerodynamic center of p r e s ­

s u r e of tail along Xb-axis, m (ft)

dcw a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and wing m a s s center in fuselage

x b - z b plane, m (ft)

dcwG a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and wing-gear interface in fuse­

lage Xb-Zb plane, m (ft)

deh a r m between wing elastic axis and hub in body coordinate system, m (ft)

dew a r m between wing elastic axis and wing m a s s center along Xb-axis, m (ft)

dwwG a r m between wing m a s s center and wing-gear interface along Xb-axis, m (ft)

dCL/da lift -curve slope, r a d

4
dl a r m between airplane composite m a s s center and wing-gear interface normal
t o Zb-axis, m (ft)

d2 distance between tire-runway interface and airplane composite m a s s center

normal t o Xg-axis, m (ft)

d3 distance between airplane composite m a s s center and tail center of p r e s s u r e

parallel t o fuselage longitudinal axis, m (ft)

d4 distance between airplane composite m a s s center and fuselage m a s s center

normal t o fuselage longitudinal axis, m (ft)

d5 distance between airplane composite m a s s center and wing center of p r e s s u r e

parallel to fuselage longitudinal axis, m (ft)

d6 distance between airplane composite m a s s center and wing center of p r e s s u r e

normal t o fuselage longitudinal axis, m (ft)

E Young's modulus for v i n g s t r u c t u r a l material, Pa (lbf,/ft2)

e base of natural logarithms

FA, s s total shock-strut axial force, N (lbf)

FG,X ground f o r c e at tire-runway interface acting along Xg-axis, N (lbf)

FG, Z ground f o r c e at tire-runway interface acting along Zg-axis, N (lbf)

FN,ss f o r c e normal t o shock s t r u t , N (lbf)

Fn nose-gear f o r c e along Zg-axis, N (lbf)

Fss, 1 shock-strut binding friction force, N (lbf)

FSS, 2 sliding friction f o r c e between shock-strut piston and cylinder, N (lbf)

5
*T,N t i r e f o r c e normal t o runway, N (lbf)

FT,T tire f o r c e tangential to runway, N (lbf)

FwB wing bending f o r c e due to cantilever deflection of wing, N (lbf)

G shearing modulus of elasticity f o r wing s t r u c t u r a l material, Pa (lbf/ft2)

g gravitational acceleration, m/sec2 (ft/sec2)

h height of wing box, m (ft)

Ia m a s s moment of inertia of wheel and t i r e about axle, kg-m2 (slug-ft2)

Ie m a s s moment of inertia of semispan of wing about elastic axis,

kg-m2 (slug-ft2)

Isect a r e a moment of inertia of wing chord section, m4 (ft4)

IYY pitching m a s s moment of inertia of one-half of airplane, with respect t o plane

of symmetry, about composite m a s s center, kg-m2 (slug-ft2)

KWB wing bending spring constant, N/m (lbf/ft)

Kw r wing torsional spring constant, N-m/rad (lbf -ft/rad)

KX, T t i r e fore-and-aft spring constant, N/m (lbf/ft)

KP spring constant between braking control s e n s o r m a s s and wheel, N/m (lbf/ft)

Lt aerodynamic lift force of tail, N (lbf)

LW aerodynamic lift force of wing, N (lbf)

lcQ length of active control hydraulic line, m (ft)

6
 shock-strut length, m (ft)

length between upper and lower shock-strut bearings f o r fully extended s t r u t ,

m (ft)

12 length between lower shock-strut bearing and hub f o r fully extended strut,
m (ft)

Ma ground-induced tcrque on wheel about axle, N-m (lbf -ft)

Mbr brake torque about axle, N-m (lbf-ft)

Mef torque about wing elastic a x i s applied to fuselage, N-m (lbf -ft)

Mew torque about wing elastic a x i s applied to wing, N-m (lbf -ft)

Mn nose-gear moment, N-m (lbf-ft)

mC composite m a s s , kg (slugs)

mf one-half of fuselage m a s s concentrated at fuselage center of gravity,

kg (slugs)

m a s s assumed concentrated at hub (axle), kg (slugs)

semispan wing m a s s a s s u m e d concentrated at semispan wing c.g. on spanwise

chord containing wing -gear' interface, kg (slugs)

mp braking control s e n s o r m a s s , kg (slugs)

N number of cycles to failure

NRe Reynolds number of airflow

P tire inflation p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft2)

I
 atmospheric p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft2)
Pat

Pe c effective active control p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft 2)

hydraulic p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft2)
PH

c control akcumulator p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft2)

Po,a absolute t i r e inflation p r e s s u r e at z e r o vertical load, Pa (lbf/ft2)

Pr rated inflation t i r e p r e s s u r e , Pa (lbf/ft2)

P1 hydraulic p r e s s u r e in shock-strut piston, Pa (lbf/ft2)

p2 pneumatic p r e s s u r e in shock-strut cylinder, Pa (Ibf/ft 2)

Rh amplitude of runway roughness, m (ft)

r deflected radius of tire, m (ft)

SW planform area of wing, m2 ($1

S shock-strut stroke, m (ft)

t elapsed time after touchdown, s e c

Vac volume of hydraulic fluid transferred by active control, m3 (ft3)

v2 volume enclosed by shock-strut cylinder, m 3 (ft3)

Veff effective velocity of hydraulic fluid through control, m / s e c (ft/sec)

Vtemp intermediate value of velocity of hydraulic fluid through control f o r computing

p r e s s u r e loss, m/sec (ft/sec)

8
W maximum width of undeflected tire, m (ft)

Xb,Xg displacement along xb- o r Xg-axis, m (ft)

xCP fore-and-aft shift of t i r e footprint center of p r e s s u r e , m (ft)

Y absolute value of spanwise distance f r o m fuselage center line to chord con­

taining wing-gear interface, m (ft)

zb,zg displacement along z b - o r Z -axis, m (ft)

g

ZBe bending deflection of wing elastic axis at spanwise chord of wing m a s s center
relative t o wing elastic axis a t fuselage center line along Zb-axis, m (ft)

Zer,b relative displacement between wing elastic axis at spanwise chord containing
wing m a s s center and wing elastic axis in fuselage x b - z b plane along z b ­
axis, m (ft)

Zew,b displacement of wing elastic axis a t spanwise chord containing wing m a s s cen­
t e r along Zb-axis, m (ft)

ground elevation measured along Zg-axis, m (ft)

initial height along Zg-axis between shock-strut fluid level and control-
reservoir fluid level, m (ft)

CY total angular displacement of wing chord at spanwise location of wing m a s s

center relative to wing chord at fuselage center line, CYj + @e, r a d

@e wing elastic rotation, rad

ai angle of incidence of wing, r a d

P angular displacement of brake s e n s o r mass, r a d

Y ratio of specific beat of g a s at constant p r e s s u r e t o that at constant volume

YH specific weight of hydraulic fluid, N/m3 (lbf/ft3)

9
Ill Ill I I1 I1 I

difference o r change of value

combined vertical tire deflection, m (ft)

vertical t i r e deflection for p u r e vertical loading, m (ft)

vertical sinking of t i r e due to fore-and-aft tire deflection, m (ft)

slip r a t i o between wheel and surface

slope of runway surface, r a d

angle of pitch of airplane, rad o r deg

t i r e pressure -rise parameter

angle, in Xb-Zb plane, between wing chord and line connecting wing elastic
axis t o airplane composite m a s s center, r a d

Xcf angle, in x b - z b plane, between fuselage longitudinal axis and line connecting
fuselage m a s s center to airplane composite m a s s center, r a d

xcw angle, in x b - z b plane, between line connecting wing m a s s center to airplane

composite m a s s center and line through composite m a s s center parallel to
fuselage longitudinal axis, rad

kwG angle, in Xb-Zb plane, between line connecting wing-gear interface to airplane
composite m a s s center and line through composite m a s s center parallel to
fuselage longitudinal axis, r a d

xeh angle, in x b - z b plane, between Zb-axis and line connecting wing elastic axis to
hub, r a d

P friction coefficient between t i r e footprint and runway surface, o r tire-runway

friction coefficient (positive along negative Xg-axis)

dynamic viscosity of hydraulic fluid, N-sec/m2 (lbf -sec/ft2)

k S , l friction coefficient between shock-strut lower bearing and piston

10
Pss,u friction coefficient between shock-strut upper bearing and cylinder

Pa m a s s density of a i r , kg/m3 (slugs/ft3)

PH m a s s density of hydraulic fluid, kg/m3 (slugs/ft3)

U s t r e s s level, Pa (lbf/ft2)

@ angular displacement of wheel about axle, r a d

WG frequency of variation of sinusoidal runway elevation, r a d / s e c

Wn,P natural frequency of brake control sensor m a s s , r a d / s e c

Subscripts :

b body-axis system

C airplane composite m a s s center

ce,b between airplane composite m a s s center and wing elastic axis in body-axis
system '

e wing elastic axis

f fuselage m a s s center

g gravity-axis system

h hub m a s s center

i initial value

max maximum value

t-At value at previous time step

11
W wing m a s s center

wG wing-gear interface

X linear dimension along Xb-axis

z linear dimension along Zb -axis

Dots over symbols indicate differentiation with respect to time.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

Variables considered significant in analyzing actively controlled landing gear s y s ­

t e m s are shown in figure 1. Of these variables the following are included in this study:
impact loads; runway-induced loads; braking loads; aerodynamic loads; flexible -airframe
characteristics; and load isolation. Some examples of previously proposed landing g e a r
active control concepts for load isolation are shown in figure 2. The series-pneumatic
and the series -hydraulic controls have the actuator in s e r i e s with the stiffness and damp ­
ing elements of the shock strut. The parallel-hydraulic control has the actuator in p a r a l ­
lel with the stiffness and damping elements of the shock strut. In all these systems, con­
t r o l i s implemented by metering the working fluid (oil o r a i r ) to the actuator. F o r the
present analysis the series-hydraulic control was selected on the basis of r e s u l t s of the
feasibility study presented in reference 2.
Three rigid-body degrees of freedom are included in the model: vertical t r a n s l a ­
tion, fore-and-aft translation, and pitching about the airplane m a s s center. Since the
model was devised t o study active control concepts of a single main gear with pitch r o t a ­
tion included, lateral symmetry was assumed and a simplified representation (linear
spring with no rebound) of a nose gear was included t o absorb the rotational energy. Def­
initions of axes and f o r c e s f o r the rigid-airframe option and f o r the rigid-fuselage­
elastic-wing option are presented in figures 3 and 4, respectively. The model accounts
for the following variables: sinusoidal o r random runway unevenness; empirical t i r e
force -deflection characteristics and antiskid braking; oleo-pneumatic s t r u t with fit and
binding friction; closed-loop, series-hydraulic control; first -mode wing bending and t o r ­
sional structural-elastic characteristics; and theoretical subsonic aerodynamics without
ground effect. These variables will be discussed in o r d e r in the following sections.

12
 Runway Model
Two general methods of analysis f o r runway unevenness have been considered in the
study reported in reference 4: deterministic and statistical (power spectral). It was
stated in reference 4 that the deterministic approach should be used f o r dynamic analysis
when the response characteristics of the airplane are nonlinear. Consequently, runway
models included in the present analysis are a sinusoidal variation of runway elevation as
a function of distance t r a v e r s e d along the runway or a random variation of runway eleva­
tion as a function of runway distance. For the sinusoidal variation, the runway elevation
is defined in t e r m s of the frequency and the amplitude of undulation as follows:

The slope of the runway surface at any instant in t i m e is:

The random variation of runway elevation is defined as piecewise linear slopes in t e r m s

of runway distance t r a v e r s e d as follows:

F o r the random variation a table of runway elevation as a function of distance t r a v e r s e d

is required as input.

T i r e and Brake Models

The tire and brake models employed in this analysis are shown in sketch (a):

Brake sensor ?ass

,e­

f
Sketch (a)

13
 Empirical tire force-deflection equations.-
- The mechanical properties of the tire
are defined from semiempirical equations given i n reference 3. Equation (125) of refer­
ence 3 is used to define the normal tire f o r c e FT,N during a landing impact as a function
of tire deflection and physical properties of the undeformed tire. This equation is (in the
present notation)

where

6 = 6, - 6,

FT,T
6, = 0.01 -
KX, T

The tangential t i r e f o r c e FT,T during free rolling of the wheel i s defined as that
/,
f o r c e required t o decelerate the wheel such that the tire tangential velocity is equal t o the
hub velocity. The tangential t i r e force during skidding (slip ratios 5 g r e a t e r than zero)
is defined as the tire-runway friction coefficient (-1 multiplied by the normal t i r e force.
Tire-runway friction coefficient. - The tire-runway friction coefficients are modeled
~

as a function of wheel-runway slip ratio 5 (called Sw in ref. 5) on the basis of experi­

mental data presented in references 5 and 6. (See sketch (b).) The dashed line represents
the model of the tire-runway friction coefficient at touchdown and during wheel spin-up.
In the present analysis, the friction coefficient at touchdown is assumed to be 0.336 on the
basis of data in reference 6. During wheel spin-up the tire-runway friction coefficient i s
held constant until the wheel slip ratio decreases to a value of 0.06 (sketch (b)), which i s
the intersection of the braking and spin-up curves. The friction coefficient is then reduced
along the braking-model curve t o the value of z e r o friction for f r e e rolling. Antiskid
braking is initiated at the time of nose-gear touchdown, and the friction coefficient follows
the braking curve to a slip ratio of approximately 0.25. The antiskid braking system then
operates with a s e n s o r m a s s acceleration corresponding to the slip ratio (approximately
0.25) f o r maximum t i r e -runway friction coefficient.

14
 1.0

r Braking
.8

.6

.4

Sp in-up
.2

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0

Sketch (b)

Braking model.- The antiskid braking system model presented in reference 5 w a s

simplified in this paper by omitting the t i r e elasticity at the tire-wheel interface. The
brakes a r e controlled by the angular acceleration of the control sensor m a s s , which i s
attached to the wheel through a spring-damper arrangement (sketch (a)). Brake applica­
tion and release a r e controlled by preselected values of control-sensor -mass accelera­
tions. The brake torque applied by the system i s assumed to be torque limited; onset and
offset torque r a t e s may be independently changed, but vary linearly with time.

Oleo-Pneumatic Shock-Strut Model

A sketch of a typical oleo-pneumatic shock s t r u t and a detailed description of the
mechanics of the landing gear are presented in reference 7. During a landing impact the
s t r u t piston f o r c e s hydraulic fluid t o flow through an orifice at a high velocity and c r e a t e s
a p r e s s u r e drop a c r o s s the orifice which r e s i s t s the motion of the piston. (See fig. 2.) In
addition to the hydraulic resistance to s t r u t closure, the fluid flow into the s t r u t cylinder
i n c r e a s e s the pneumatic (nitrogen) p r e s s u r e , which also opposes s t r u t closure. Internal
bearing friction f o r c e s must a l s o be considered along with the p r e s s u r e forces. The total
axial force developed by a passive (conventional) shock strut, with a metering pin, may b e
expressed as follows:

FA,ss = (PI - P2)(A1 - Ap) + P2A2 + *(Fss,l + Fss,2)jtanh (2s))

(SI

15
 where

12 - s

This i s a modified f o r m of the equation presented in reference 7. Since the shock strut
connects the a i r f r a m e and the hub, the axial force imposes acceleration t o the a i r f r a m e
while reacting t o hub motion.

Series -Hydraulic Active Control Gear Model

The purpose of the series-hydraulic active control g e a r i s to limit the force applied
t o the a i r f r a m e at the wing-gear interface by regulating the damping force in the oleo-
pneumatic strut. The model of the series-hydraulic active control g e a r i s shown schemat­
ically in sketch (c). The control consists of a s e r v o valve, a high-pressure reservoir, a
hydraulic pump, a low-pressure accumulator, an electronic control circuit, accelerome ­
t e r s , p r e s s u r e transducers, and a linear potentiometer.

Ac celerometer
High-pressure
reservoir
Electronic

Hydraulic P*P

Low-pressure
potentiometer accumulator

Accelerometer

Sketch (c)
The following example illustrates the operation of the series-hydraulic active con­
t r o l g e a r during a landing impact and roll-out. The m a s s at the wing-gear interface i s
assumed to remain constant during landing; thus, the acceleration of the wing-gear inter -
face reflects the force applied at this position. F o r a specific airplane design and the
measured sink rate, the limit force, defined f r o m the limit acceleration, i s determined as
the product of the m a s s and the square of the sink rate divided by the available shock-strut
stroke. A signal corresponding to the limit acceleration i s input to the electronic control

16

. .- ... . ...
circuit. The electronic control circuit (sketch (c)) continuously monitors the acceleration
signal at the wing-gear interface and compares this signal with the limit acceleration sig­
nal. The control i s actuated when the wing-gear accelerometer signal exceeds the a c c e l ­
eration limit signal by a p r e s e t tolerance.
Figure 5 schematically illustrates three operational phases of the s e r i e s -hydraulic
active control gear during a landing impact. First, the gear contacts the runway at the
measured sink rate and the shock-strut f o r c e builds as the s t r u t stroking velocity b in­
creases. The gear continues to operate in a passive mode (see fig, 5(a)) until the alge­
braic sum of the forces at the wing-gear interface (airplane weight, aerodynamic forces,
and shock-strut force) exceeds the control limit force. The second operational phase
occurs during shock-strut compression when the electronic control signals the s e r v o valve
to move the spool to connect the piston to the low-pressure accumulator. The rate at
which the spool i s moved i s determined within the electronic control as a function of the
stroking velocity of the shock s t r u t . Hydraulic fluid will then flow from the shock-strut
piston into the low-pressure accumulator (see fig. 5(b)) to limit the force r i s e in the shock
strut. A s the shock-strut velocity decreases, the shock-strut hydraulic force will de­
crease. If the wing-gear -interface acceleration drops below the limit acceleration and if
the wing-gear -interface velocity i s g r e a t e r than a predetermined value, the r a t e of open­
ing of the s e r v o valve will be decreased t o permit an increase of the hydraulic force and
r a i s e the shock-strut force. With continuing decrease in the shock-strut velocity and
accompanying decrease in hydraulic force, the electronic control will command the s e r v o
valve spool to commence closing to maintain the wing-gear -interface acceleration within
prescribed tolerances of the limit acceleration. When the s e r v o valve spool returns to the
fully closed position, the piston i s isolated from the low-pressure accumulator. The third
operational phase occurs as the wing-gear acceleration drops below the limit acceleration,
and the electronic control commands the spool to connect the piston to the high-pressure
hydraulic r e s e r v o i r . Hydraulic fluid i s then injected into the piston under high p r e s s u r e
to increase the hydraulic force. (See fig. 5(c).) The r a t e at which fluid i s injected i s
determined by the r a t e of change of the shock-strut extension velocity.
The transition from the impact phase to the ground-roll phase is accomplished by
linearly decreasing the limit-force signal from the value used during the impact phase to
a value t o be used during the ground-roll phase. During this transition, the limit accel­
eration tolerance will be increased to a value compatible with the active control g e a r de­
sign. With the assumption that the m a s s of the airplane remains constant during landing,
the momentum of the wing-gear interface i s determined by the wing-gear -interface veloc­
ity. The objective of the transition phase i s to r e s e t the signal for control limit a c c e l e r a ­
tion and the tolerance signals to values compatible with a wing-gear -interface acceleration
of z e r o f o r the ground-roll phase. This infers that the impact energy of the airplane has
been dissipated. Transition to the ground-roll configuration i s initiated when the wing­

17
g e a r -interface velocity, which is continuously monitored by the electronic control, be -
comes equal t o a signal input equivalent t o a n impulse divided by the airplane mass. For
takeoff the control will be activated in the ground-roll mode. After takeoff, when the gear
becomes fully extended, the control will be recycled into the impact phase of operation and
will be deactivated during gear retraction. When the gear i s extended for landing, the
control will be activated in the impact mode.
Control effects are mathematically simulated by modifying the passive -gear shock-
s t r u t p r e s s u r e equations, which are
Pneumatic

Hydraulic

The principles used to modify the p r e s s u r e equations a r e as follows: During shock-strut

compression, the volume of incompressible fluid that normally would flow through the
orifice in a s m a l l time interval i s diverted t o the low-pressure accumulator at a r a t e
equivalent t o the shock-strut compression r a t e and thus limits the hydraulic p r e s s u r e in­
crease. The modification of the passive -gear p r e s s u r e equations f o r simulation of control
effects i s therefore based upon two control p a r a m e t e r s : instantaneous volume flow r a t e
into o r from the piston and cumulative volume added to or removed from the piston. The
pneumatic p r e s s u r e i s a function of the cumulative volume of fluid which has flowed from
the piston t o the control low-pressure accumulator o r from the control high-pressure r e s ­
e r v o i r into the piston. Therefore, the equation f o r the pneumatic p r e s s u r e incorporating
active control i s

The passive-gear shock-strut hydraulic p r e s s u r e equation is modified to reflect control

operation by solving f o r an effective shock-strut compression or extension velocity based

18
on the control flow rate, the area of the piston, and the instantaneous shock-strut velocity
as follows:

The control flow r a t e and incremental values of flow a r e determined through an

iterative process. These values of flow r a t e and flow are used in the p r e s s u r e equation
to solve for new values of p r e s s u r e and shock-strut force. The following procedure i s
used to determine the flow r a t e and flow during s t r u t compression: The shock-strut force
w a s controlled to limit the force at the wing-gear interface during the preceding interval.
The state of the integrated variables has been determined for this shock-strut force. The
shock-strut force i s recomputed on the basis of the updated variables and p r i o r shock-
s t r u t and control p a r a m e t e r s . If the shock-strut force r e s u l t s in a force at the wing-gear
interface g r e a t e r than the control limit force, the control must lower the shock-strut
force. The updated hydraulic p r e s s u r e and the control accumulator p r e s s u r e a r e used t o
compute a temporary velocity of flow through the control line and s e r v o valve:

This temporary velocity i s then employed to compute the effective p r e s s u r e pec between
the piston and the control accumulator by introducing line losses:

The effective velocity of flow for the instantaneous shock-strut p a r a m e t e r s i s defined as

L -1

The area of the s e r v o valve opening required on the basis of the change in shock-strut
velocity over the computing interval i s determined as

19
The control flow rate is defined as

vac 1 t = Cd,coAcoltVeff

and the incremental flow occurring during the t i m e interval is

The shock-strut f o r c e f o r the active g e a r i s determined by the s a m e equation used f o r the

passive gear. If the shock-strut force again r e s u l t s in a wing force g r e a t e r than the limit
force, the control orifice area i s increased and new values of flow rate and flow are com­
puted on the basis of the shock-strut p a r a m e t e r s at the beginning of the interval. The
flow which occurred during the f i r s t iteration is removed from the cumulative flow and the
new value of flow is algebraically summed. This iterative p r o c e s s continues until the'
wing f o r c e is within the design tolerance of the control limit force. Mathematical simu­
lation of flow f r o m the control high-pressure r e s e r v o i r into the shock-strut piston i s
accomplished in a s i m i l a r manner.

Elastic-Wing Model
Limited structural-flexibility effects a r e considered by including in the mathemati ­
cal model first-mode wing bending and wing torsional characteristics. The wing bending
mode i s defined as the deflection of the elastic axis of the wing deforming as a cantilever
beam. The wing mass, wing-gear interface, and engine m a s s a r e assumed t o be located
on the wing chord at the s a m e spanwise location. The wing i s a l s o assumed to be rec­
tangular in planform. The equation f o r the spanwise bending spring constant may, with
the foregoing assumptions, be expressed as

The bending deflection Z B ~ of the wing i s determined f r o m the relative motion of the in­
tersection of the wing elastic axis with the x b - z b plane containing the fuselage center line
and the wing elastic axis at the spanwise chord containing the wing m a s s center. The wing

20
bending force i s determined from the product of wing bending deflection and the wing bend­
ing spring constant:

The first-mode torsional characteristics of the wing are determined assuming a

constant wing c r o s s section f r o m the fuselage center line t o the spanwise chord containing
the wing m a s s center and the wing-gear interface. Wing torsional deflection i s assumed
t o occur about the elastic axis and the wing chord is assumed to remain undeformed. With
these assumptions the wing torsional spring constant i s

where

Ssect chordwise a r e a of wing c r o s s section, m 2 (ft2)

Y spanwise distance f r o m fuselage center line to chord containing wing-gear

interface, m (ft)

h height of wing box, m (ft)

twbh thickness of horizontal wing box units, m (ft)

twbv thickness of vertical wing box units, m (ft)

Wwbx width of wing box, m (ft)

The torsional elastic deformation a e of the wing chord a t the spanwise location of the
wing mass center relative to the wing chord at the fuselage center line i s determined from
the relative angular motion of these sections. The wing torque i s defined a s the product
of the torsional elastic deformation and the wing torsional spring constant:

21
 Aerodynamic Model
The aerodynamic model employed is based on theoretical subsonic aerodynamics,
neglecting ground effects, determined from reference 8. The theoretical lift -curve slope
f o r a wing of infinite aspect r a t i o i s

a, = dCL/da = 2n p e r radian

For a finite aspect ratio, the lift-curve slope i s approximately

a = - & p e r radian
1 + p2R

The wing lift force is

where

The tail lift force is found in a s i m i l a r manner.

The wing aerodynamic drag force (ref. 8) is assumed to consist of induced drag,
friction drag, and profile drag and is defined as follows:

% = 0.5PaSwkc,g(CD,i
2 + CD,f + cD,p)

where
Induced drag,

Friction drag,
Profile drag,

The drag f o r c e s f o r the tail surfaces and the fuselage are determined in a s i m i l a r manner.

EQUATIONS OF MOTION

The deterministic solution consists of determining the f o r c e s to be used in the equa­

tions of motion, defining the coupled equations of motion which govern the response of the
airplane, and performing numerical integration of the equations of motion on a digital com­
puter. The equations of motion were written f o r two separate options: rigid-airframe
option, and rigid-fuselage--elastic-wing option. The coupled equations of motion are p r e ­
sented in appendix A f o r both options.
F o r the elastic wing, the wing m a s s center has additional degrees of freedom, which
a r e perturbations in the Zb-direction and in rotation about the elastic axis relative to the
rigid-body motions of the airplane.
The equations of motion were solved by performing a numerical integration. The
numerical integration procedure i s based on the classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta f o r m ­
ula, and use of Richardson's extrapolation-to-the-limit theory r e s u l t s in a fifth-order
integration procedure. This procedure operates with a variable time interval which i s
sized to meet a specified local relative truncation e r r o r .

ANALYTICAL MODEL SIMULATIONS

To validate the mathematical model described in the foregoing sections and to p e r ­

form an evaluation of the active-control gear, a landing-gear and airplane configuration
w a s modeled t o permit simulations of vertical-drop t e s t s , landing impacts, and landing
roll-outs with the ACOLAG computer program. To accommodate the active control, the
passive gear w a s modified in the analysis to provide additional stroke capability. The
stroke w a s increased from 0.187 m (7.375 in.) to 0.264 m (10.375 in.) by increasing the
cylinder length, pneumatic volume, and piston length.

Passive G e a r
Vertical-drop test. - To permit comparison between computed data from the ACOLAG
computer program with experimental drop-test data, the program w a s adapted t o include
t i r e hysteresis f o r the nonrotating wheel (ref. 3), and braking simulation w a s excluded. A
lumped m a s s at the g e a r trunnion was used to simulate a rigid airframe. The passive

23
landing g e a r (ref. 7) f r o m a 2268-kg (5000-lbm) c l a s s airplane w a s selected, since exper­
imental vertical-drop-test data were available f o r this gear. A sketch of the shock s t r u t
and the geometric characteristics of the g e a r a r e presented in appendix B. The impact
p a r a m e t e r s were a sink rate of 2.7 m / s e c (5.8 f t j s e c ) ; a lift f o r c e of 10.7 kN (2412.5 lbf),
which was held constant throughout the impact; a pitch angle of 00 (gear normal to impact
surface); and a wheel rotational velocity of 0 rad/sec (0 ft/sec).
L anding
- impact. - F o r comparison of computed data with data obtained from trans­
versely symmetrical airplane landings, t i r e hysteresis effects w e r e eliminated (ref. 3)
and antiskid braking was included. An airplane configuration was defined in t e r m s of
geometry, a rigid-airframe lumped m a s s distribution, and aerodynamics compatible with
the selected landing gear. The geometry and lumped m a s s distribution of the airplane
configuration are shown schematically in figure 6 .
Since experimental landing-impact data a r e not available f o r the selected passive
g e a r (ref. 7), ACOLAG was evaluated f o r landing impact by comparing the r e s u l t s of this
simulation with computed r e s u l t s obtained f r o m a multiple -degree-of -freedom takeoff and
landing analysis (TOLA), which, as described in reference 9, will only accommodate con­
ventional g e a r s and a rigid a i r f r a m e . The impact p a r a m e t e r s w e r e a sink r a t e of 2.7
m / s e c (8.8 ft/sec); a ground speed of 4 5 . 7 m/sec (150 ft/sec); a pitch m g l e of 10.50; an
angle of attack of 13.8O, which r e s u l t s in a lift force equal to the airplane weight at touch­
down; and a wheel rotational velocity of 0 rad/sec (0 ft/sec).
Landing roll-out.
. - - T o determine the damping characteristics of the modified passive
gear, a landing roll-out simulation was made. F o r this simulation the airplane was placed
on the runway with a pitch angle of 0 r a d (0 deg), the g e a r and t i r e deflected to support the
m a s s of the airplane, the t i r e and wheel in the free-rolling condition, and a ground speed
equal to 4 4 . 5 m/sec (146 ft/sec). The simulation w a s s t a r t e d with the t i r e encountering a
sinusoidally varying (3 Hz with a half-amplitude of 0.0254 m (0.0833 ft)) runway bump
which had an initial elevation of zero. At the end of one-quarter cycle, the surface was
dropped vertically to z e r o elevation and remained at this elevation f o r the remainder of
the simulated roll-out.

Active Gear
Vertical-drop
_ _ _ ~test. -
.~
- No experimental data a r e available f o r the active control gear.
Therefore, evaluation of the active control gear was accomplished by comparing computed
r e s u l t s f o r the active g e a r with those of the passive g e a r f o r the vertical-drop test. The
gear p a r a m e t e r s and impact p a r a m e t e r s were the s a m e as those for the passive gear.
Landing impact. - F o r this c a s e evaluation of the active control g e a r w a s accom­
plished by comparing computed results f o r the active g e a r with those of the modified p a s ­

24
sive gear. The airplane configuration and impact p a r a m e t e r s w e r e the s a m e as those de­
scribed in the section "Landing impact" f o r the passive gear.
Landing roll-out. - T o compare the damping characteristics of the active g e a r with
those of the modified passive gear, a landing roll-out simulation was made for the airplane
and runway p a r a m e t e r s cited in the section "Landing roll-out" f o r the passive gear.
The modification of the passive g e a r discussed in this paper i s simply an expedient
method t o characterize the range of control p a r a m e t e r s that would be required for such a
design. However, it should be noted that an active control g e a r would not be a simple
modification of a passive-gear design, but would require an independent design based upon
optimization of g e a r p a r a m e t e r s in conjunction with control p a r a m e t e r s .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To evaluate the ACOLAG computer program, results were obtained from the
vertical-drop -test simulation and compared with the experimental data reported in refer ­
ence 7. The TOLA computer program (ref. 9) w a s also employed to simulate the s a m e
vertical-drop t e s t and the r e s u l t s w e r e compared with the experimental data. Evaluation
of the ACOLAG landing -impact simulation w a s accomplished by comparing results obtained
by using the rigid-airframe and passive-gear modes with results obtained for a s i m i l a r
calculation employing the TOLA computer program.
Results a r e presented f o r vertical-drop-test simulations with stationary and verti­
cally oscillating impact surfaces; for landing-impact simulations on a flat runway surface
and a sinusoidally varying amplitude surface; and for a landing roll-out on a runway s u r ­
face having a single, quarter -cycle, sinusoidal bump ending in a vertical discontinuity at
peak amplitude, followed by a flat surface.

Passive Gear
Vertical-drop
. .- _.. simulations.
. - Figure 7(a) presents computed and experimental time
histories of shock-strut force and stroke during the impact phase of the vertical-drop
t e s t of the passive gear. Since rebound of the upper mass (airframe m a s s ) occurred at
approximately 0.16 s e c in both the experiment (ref. 7) and the computer simulation, data
a r e not presented beyond this time. The shock-strut f o r c e s computed from ACOLAG and
TOLA a r e in excellent agreement and both are in good agreement with the experimental
data. A s was the case with the shock-strut force, the calculated shock-strut strokes for
the two p r o g r a m s a r e in excellent agreement and both are in good agreement with the ex­
perimentally determined strokes f o r most of the time history.
Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection, computed for a rigid a i r ­
f r a m e and a passive gear, a r e compared in figure 7(b) with experimental data obtained

25
f r o m the vertical-drop test (ref. 7). Computed vertical ground f o r c e s are generally in
excellent agreement with the ground f o r c e obtained f r o m the experiment, The ground
force computed f r o m the ACOLAG program is in excellent agreement with that computed
f r o m the TOLA program. The tire deflections calculated f r o m the ACOLAG program are
in excellent agreement with those computed f r o m the TOLA program and both are in good
agreement with experimental data.
Figure 7(c) p r e s e n t s a comparison of mass-center accelerations (nomenclature f o r
experimental data i s upper -mass accelerations) f o r the computed r e s u l t s and experimen­
tal data. Since the shock-strut force i s the only varying f o r c e applied to the upper mass,
the trend of the comparison should be the s a m e as that f o r the shock-strut force (fig. 7(a)).
The trend i s the s a m e and the agreement between computed and experimental mass-center
accelerations is good.
Landing-impact simulations. - Evaluation of the ACOLAG computer program for the
landing-impact option i s accomplished by comparing computed r e s u l t s from the ACOLAG
program with r e s u l t s from the TOLA program. These comparisons a r e presented in
figure 8.
Time histories of pitch attitude a r e compared in figure 8(a) f o r a landing impact on
a flat runway. The agreement between the computed r e s u l t s f r o m the two p r o g r a m s i s
excellent.
Time histories of shock-strut force and s t r o k e calculated from the two p r o g r a m s
a r e compared in figure 8(b). The shock-strut f o r c e s a r e in excellent agreement. A l ­
though the shock-strut strokes computed f r o m the ACOLAG program a r e slightly l e s s than
those calculated from the TOLA program, the agreement i s good.
Computed time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection a r e compared
in figure 8(c). The vertical ground forces and t i r e deflections calculated with the ACOLAG
program a r e in good agreement with those computed with the TOLA program.
Airplane m a s s -center accelerations obtained f r o m the ACOLAG and TOLA programs
a r e compared in figure 8(d). The Zb-axis accelerations are in good agreement to a time
of approximately 0.17 s e c . At this time, the TOLA p r o g r a m indicates that the nose g e a r
has contacted the surface, and hence the Zb-axis accelerations increase. The ACOLAG
program has the nose g e a r contacting the surface at a t i m e of approximately 0.18 sec, at
which time, because of the simplified nose-gear representation, data from the ACOLAG
program a r e not comparable with those of the TOLA program. Mass-center Xb-axis
accelerations a r e in good agreement to a time of approximately 0.11 s e c . A t this time the
wheel has spun up and i s in a free-rolling state. When the wheel i s freely rolling, the
tire-runway friction coefficient in ACOLAG is decreased to a value which produces no
wheel slippage. This t i r e -runway friction coefficient resulted in a very small component

26
of ground d r a g force applied at the m a s s center, while the Xb-axis component of the v e r ­
tical ground force was sufficiently l a r g e to develop a positive Xb-axis acceleration of the
m a s s center. T h e definition of the tire-runway friction coefficient in TOLA resulted in a
l a r g e r tire -runway friction coefficient during free rolling of the wheel. Consequently, the
ground d r a g f o r c e applied at the m a s s center and hence the m a s s - c e n t e r Xb-axis a c c e l e r ­
ations were g r e a t e r . Comparison of Xb-axis accelerations was a l s o terminated at the
t i m e of contact between t h e nose g e a r and the surface.
Considering the good agreement shown between TOLA and ACOLAG r e s u l t s when
compared with experimental data and when compared with each other, the ACOLAG p r o ­
g r a m a p p e a r s to be a valid tool for the study of various actively controlled landing g e a r s .

S e r i e s -Hydraulic Active Control Landing G e a r

Results which demonstrate the operation of a series -hydraulic active control g e a r
f o r vertical -drop and landing-impact simulations are presented and compared in figures 9
t o 13.
Vertical-drop
._ -. -- .~
simulations. - Computed r e s u l t s f o r the passive and active control
g e a r s a r e compared in figure 9 for a vertical drop onto a flat stationary surface. F i g ­
u r e 9(a) p r e s e n t s a comparison between the wing f o r c e s experienced during a vertical-
drop simulation of the passive and active g e a r s . The wing f o r c e is shown as a function of
wing displacement. Presentation of the active-gear r e s u l t s i s discontinued at the maxi­
mum value of wing displacement because in the vertical-drop simulation the aerodynamic
lift was maintained constant at a value equivalent t o the m a s s of the airplane, and hence
r e s u l t s calculated during rebound are not physically realistic f o r a landing simulation.
F o r the active-gear simulation the wing f o r c e w a s limited to 21.46 kN f 334 N (4825 lbf
f 75 lbf), which r e p r e s e n t s a 26-percent reduction f r o m that of the passive-gear
s i mu1ation.
It was noted in reference 2 that for aluminum s t r u c t u r e s undergoing a cyclical level
resulting in a fatigue life of approximately l o 5 cycles, the relation between the number of
cycles to failure N and peak-to-peak s t r e s s o is

where A = 1.8 x Pa5 (1bf5/ftlo). If a fully r e v e r s e d stress of 241 MN/m2 (35 000
psi) f o r the passive g e a r simulation i s a s s u m e d on a n aluminum wing s t r u c t u r e , the fatigue
life of this s t r u c t u r e would be 34 000 cycles. With the wing f o r c e controlled to a value of
74 percent of the passive-gear value, the s a m e s t r u c t u r e would have a n increased fatigue
life of approximately 4.5 t i m e s , o r 154 000 cycles. Thus it a p p e a r s that s m a l l reductions
in cyclical stress levels have a significant effect on the fatigue life of the structure. R e ­

27
duction in wing force, however, r e s u l t s in an increase in wing displacement of approxi­
mately 10 percent f o r this case, which is p r i m a r i l y reflected in an increased shock-strut
stroke. F o r energy compatibility t o exist between the passive-gear and the active-gear
simulations, the hatched areas of figure 9(a) must be equal. The energies represented by
the hatched areas were determined to be nearly the s a m e . Thus, the incorporation of the
control analysis into the passive -gear analysis r e s u l t s in a n energy-compatible procedure,
which increases confidence in the validity of active control landing g e a r analysis.
Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke f o r the passive and active g e a r s are
compared in figure 9(b). At approximately 0.047 sec, control of the shock-strut force
level at 21.46 kN f 334 N (4825 lbf f 75 lbf) was initiated to maintain the wing force
within the p r e s e t limits, which w e r e exceeded at this time. Since the s t r u t was compress­
ing, the control removed fluid and the maximum flow r a t e attained was -428 l/min (-113
gal/min) at 0.084 s e c . A t r a n s f e r from the low-pressure mode to the high-pressure mode
was required at 0.11 s e c t o maintain the wing force. This t r a n s f e r r e s u l t s in a shift to the
lower bound of the control limit force and accounts f o r the lower shock-strut force during
the time from 0.11 s e c to 0.143 sec. The maximum injection flow rate of 458 f/min (121
gal/min) occurred a t a time of 0.129 s e c . The momentum of the upper m a s s becomes
equal to the impulse designed into the electronic control circuit at a time of 0.143 sec, and
the electronic control commands a linear d e c r e a s e in the limit force from the impact limit
force to the roll-out limit force. When the roll-out limit force i s reached, data presenta­
tion i s terminated. At the time of initiation of control at the roll-out limit force (0.18 sec),
the shock-strut stroke for the active-gear simulation was approximately 17 percent g r e a t e r
than the stroke shown f o r the passive-gear simulation.
Figure 9(c) shows calculated t i m e histories of vertical ground force and tire deflec­
tion f o r the vertical-drop simulations of the passive and active gears. A s would be ex­
pected for the controlled lower shock-strut force, both the vertical ground force and t i r e
deflection were lower for the active-gear simulation than those for the passive-gear
simulation.
Computed r e s u l t s f o r the passive and active control g e a r s a r e compared in figure 10
f o r a vertical drop onto a vertically oscillating surface. The vertically oscillating surface
was introduced to simulate a sinusoidally varying runway-unevenness effect, since no
ground speed i s involved with vertical-drop testing. The surface oscillation, a frequency
of 10 Hz and a half-amplitude of 0.0254 m (0.0833 f t ) , was selected as a worse-case con­
dition, since this corresponded t o the resonant frequency of the hub mass. At touchdown
the surface was set into an upward motion opposite to that of the gear.
Wing force as a function of wing displacement i s shown in figure lO(a) for the
vertical-drop simulation. In the initial phase of this simulation the ground motion passed
through the peak displacement and was moving away f r o m the tire. The resulting initial
rise in wing f o r c e did not exceed the upper bound of the limit f o r c e (21.80 kN (4900 lbf));
consequently, the control w a s not activated. During the fourth q u a r t e r of the first cycle
of ground motion, however, the control w a s activated because the ground was again mov­
ing into the tire and the resulting wing f o r c e exceeded the upper bound of the control limit
force. The wing force, f o r the active g e a r in this simulation, attained a value of only 64
percent of that of the passive g e a r with a n i n c r e a s e in wing displacement of only 5 percent.
T i m e histories of shock-strut f o r c e and s t r o k e are shown in figure 10(b) f o r the
vertical-drop simulation with t h e oscillating surface. The appreciable reduction in wing
f o r c e (36 percent) with the relatively s m a l l increase in wing displacement (5 percent), as
shown in figure lO(a),w a s not attained without penalty. T o achieve these values, t h e max­
imum control flow rates required, as shown in figure lO(b), w e r e -723 P/min (-191
gal/min) during compression and 1423 P/min (376 gal/niin) during transition f r o m impact
t o roll-out control. Also, a 25-percent i n c r e a s e in shock-strut s t r o k e above that of the
passive g e a r was required. However, it should be recalled that the surface motion was
chosen t o create a w o r s e - c a s e condition, and f o r this study t h e g e a r was not optimized t o
be compatible with the s e r i e s -hydraulic control.
F i g u r e 1O(c) shows t i m e histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection com­
puted f o r this simulation. A s would be expected, the maximum ground f o r c e and t i r e de­
flection for the active g e a r w e r e s m a l l e r than those computed for the passive g e a r during
the portion of the impact phase p r i o r t o rebound.

_ _ . ____ - Comparisons of computed data for the modified p a s -

- - simulations.
Landing-impact
sive g e a r and the series-hydraulic active control g e a r a r e presented in figures 11 and 12.
F i g u r e 11 shows comparisons of computed data f o r landing-impact simulations onto a
smooth runway. Comparisons of computed data f o r landing-impact simulations onto a
sinusoidally uneven runway (frequency of 10 Hz with a half -amplitude of 0.0254 m (0.0833
f t ) ) a r e shown in figure 13.
Figure l l ( a ) p r e s e n t s comparisons of computed wing force as a function of wing d i s ­
placement for the passive g e a r and the active g e a r . The active g e a r achieved a 20-percent
reduction in wing force relative to the passive gear, with a n i n c r e a s e in wing displacement
of 8 percent.
Figure l l ( b ) c o m p a r e s computed t i m e h i s t o r i e s of shock-strut force and s t r o k e for
the passive and active g e a r s . The shock-strut f o r c e f o r the active control g e a r gradually
i n c r e a s e s during the initial control phase, in contrast to the essentially constant shock-
s t r u t force for t h e vertical-drop simulation. (See fig. 9(b).) Since the wing f o r c e is the
f o r c e being maintained by the control, the shock-strut f o r c e i n c r e a s e s to offset the d e ­
crease in lift f o r c e as the airplane pitches down during the impact. T h e maximum control
flow r a t e s required during this simulation w e r e 447 Q/”in (118 gal/”in) for injection of
fluid into the piston and -397 Q’min (-105 gallinin) f o r removal of fluid f r o m the piston.

29
At the time of nose g e a r contact (0.18 sec), the shock-strut s t r o k e of the active gear was
25 percent g r e a t e r than that of the passive gear.
Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection are shown in figure ll(c).
Again, the maximum vertical ground f o r c e and tire deflection for the active g e a r were less
than those of the passive gear during the impact phase.
Figure 12 p r e s e n t s t i m e histories of control flow rate and control flow which were
required during the landing-impact simulation on a smooth runway. Following control
initiation, the control removed fluid f r o m the s t r u t and attained a maximum flow rate of
approximately -360 Q/min (-95 gal/min). The flow rate decreased from this maximum
value t o z e r o at a t i m e of 0.098 sec, which indicates that the control required a transition
f r o m the low-pressure mode of operation t o the high-pressure mode at this time. The
flow rate increased in the high-pressure mode to a value of 447 P/min (118 gal/min) at a
t i m e of 0.118 sec. At a t i m e of 0.12 s e c (see fig. l l ( b ) ) , the control initiated the t r a n s i ­
tion from the impact control limit force t o the roll-out control limit force. During this
transition, the control required a shift f r o m the high-pressure mode of operation t o the
low-pressure mode at a time of approximately 0.139 sec. Fluid w a s then bled from the
piston and reached a maximum flow rate of approximately -397 Q/min (-105 gal/min).
The flow rate decreased f r o m this maximum until, at a time of 0.18 sec, the nose g e a r
contacted the surface and the r e s u l t s w e r e terminated.
The control flow shown in this figure i s the cumulative volume of fluid removed o r
injected into the piston at any instant of time. During the initial low-pressure mode of
operation, approximately 0.156 Q (0.0055 ft3) of fluid was removed from the strut. This
occurred at a time of 0.098 sec, where the transition from the low-pressure mode to the
high-pressure mode of operation occurred. Fluid was then injected into the strut until the
second operational transition occurred at a time of 0.139 sec. At this time all the fluid
that had been removed f r o m the s t r u t had been returned and an additional amount of
approximately 0.0255 Q (0.0009 ft3) had been injected into the strut. Fluid was again r e ­
moved from the strut, and at the time of nose-gear contact with the surface (0.18 s e c ) ,
approximately 0.130 Q (0.0046 ft3) had been removed. Consequently, after the impact
phase, the fluid remaining in the g e a r was approximately 92 percent of the fluid in the g e a r
p r i o r to touchdown.
Comparisons of computed r e s u l t s f o r the simply modified passive g e a r and the
series-hydraulic control version of this g e a r are shown in figure 13 f o r a landing-impact
simulation onto a n extremely uneven, sinusoidally varying runway surface. Figure 13(a)
presents wing force as a function of wing displacement. A s in previous cases, the com­
puted results show that the active control analysis i s an energy-compatible procedure.
Figure 13(b) shows t i m e histories of shock-strut f o r c e and stroke for the landing
impact onto the sinusoidally varying runway surface. The versatility of the active control

30
logic of the analysis may be seen by comparing the shock-strut-force r e s u l t s shown in
t h i s figure with those shown in figure 10(b) at the t i m e of control activation. A s discussed
in connection with the vertical-drop simulation, control activation w a s initiated in the low -
p r e s s u r e phase, as anticipated during development of the control logic, and occurred dur ­
ing the fourth quarter of the f i r s t cycle of surface oscillation. In figure 13(b) control w a s
initiated in the low-pressure phase during the f i r s t one-quarter cycle of surface oscilla­
tion; however, the next one-half cycle of the surface oscillation w a s in phase with the wing
motion and the shock-strut force for the passive gear decreased. A s a consequence, the
wing force decreased below the lower tolerance of the wing limit force and the high-
p r e s s u r e phase was required to maintain the wing force within the limits. Operation re­
mained in the high-pressure phase until transition was required f r o m the impact control
limit force to roll-out control limit force. Since no experimental data are available on
active control landing g e a r s , this illustration of the versatility of the control logic in deal­
ing with unexpected interactive effects increases confidence in the active control landing
gear analysis.
The maximum control flow r a t e s encountered in this simulation w e r e 432 Q/min
(114 gal/min) for the high-pressure phase of operation and -1154 Fjmin (-305 gal/min)
for the low-pressure phase of operation. These l a r g e flow r a t e s coupled with t i r e bounce
(see fig. 13(b))a r e undesirable.
Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection for this simulation a r e
presented in figure 13(c). The computed r e s u l t s f o r the active control gear show that
upon control activation, ground force and t i r e deflection become g r e a t e r than those f o r the
passive gear. A s previously noted in figure 13(a), the wing force f o r the passive gear i s
oscillatory because of the runway perturbations. It i s desirable from the standpoint of
fatigue not only to limit the magnitude of the f o r c e s applied to the upper body but to reduce
oscillations as well. Consequently, with the control operating i h the high-pressure mode
the shock-strut f o r c e was increased t o prevent the wing-force oscillation, A s a result of
this increased shock-strut force, the ground ,force and t i r e deflection increased relative
to those obtained for the passive g e a r . Presentations of active-gear r e s u l t s a r e discon­
tinued at the time the t i r e leaves the s u r f a c e .
Landing roll-out simulations.
- - The effects of the series-hydraulic control on the
damping characteristics of the modified oleo-pneumatic shock s t r u t a r e shown in figure 14
by comparing time histories of wing f o r c e and vertical ground force f o r the active and
passive g e a r s during a roll-out simulation. The simulations were made assuming that the
m a s s of the airplane was supported by the main g e a r s and the ground speed was 44.5 m/sec
(146 ft/sec).
Figure 14(a) p r e s e n t s computed time histories of wing force f o r the passive and
active g e a r s for the roll-out simulation. F o r the active gear, the wing force was con­

31
trolled about z e r o force with a tolerance of *2134 N (+480 lbf) and the wing force varied
f r o m z e r o t o approximately -3114 N (-700 lbf). At a time of approximately 0.08 s e c the
runway elevation dropped vertically t o z e r o and the wing force f o r the passive g e a r in­
creased very rapidly t o a value of 4782 N (1075 lbf). A t a time of 2 sec, the wing force
f o r the passive g e a r had damped to about 11percent of the peak-to-peak value encountered
during the first cycle. The active -gear simulation shows that the series-hydraulic control
limited the wing force t o the control limit f o r c e during the f i r s t two cycles, and at a time
of 2 sec, the wing force had damped to about 5 percent of the peak-to-peak value encoun­
t e r e d during the first two cycles.
Computed time histories of vertical ground force are presented in figure 14(b) f o r
both the passive- and active-gear landing roll-out simulations. The peak-to-peak excur ­
sion of vertical ground force for the active gear, after the surface discontinuity, was
g r e a t e r than that for the passive gear. Subsequent peak-to -peak force oscillations, about
the static ground force of 10.7 kN (2412.5 lbf), were lower than those of the passive g e a r .
On the basis of these comparisons of wing f o r c e and vertical ground force f o r both
the passive and active g e a r s , it appears that the damping characteristics of the series-
hydraulic active control g e a r were equivalent t o o r better than those of the modified p a s ­
sive g e a r for an excitation resulting f r o m a vertically discontinuous, sinusoidal bump. In
addition, the wing force encountered during t r a v e r s e of the bump was reduced by 30 p e r ­
cent of the wing force experienced by the passive gear.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

A mathematical model of an active control landing g e a r has been developed and pro­
gramed for operation on a digital computer. The principles upon which the model i s based
have a l s o been discussed. The model has been evaluated f o r predicting airplane loads and
motions encountered during simulations of a vertical drop and a landing impact of a rigid
a i r f r a m e with a landing g e a r incorporating a conventional (passive) oleo-pneumatic shock
strut. Results have a l s o been presented for the operation of a s e r i e s -hydraulic active
control g e a r for s i m i l a r simulations of a vertical drop and landing impact and roll-out.
The r e s u l t s obtained f r o m this investigation a r e summarized in the following state­
ments: The computed r e s u l t s from the subject mathematical model, simulating a vertical-
drop test with a rigid a i r f r a m e and a passive gear, a r e in good agreement with experimen­
tal data and with r e s u l t s obtained from a multiple -degree-of -freedom takeoff and landing
analysis (TOLA). Computed r e s u l t s for a landing-impact simulation, with a rigid a i r f r a m e
and passive gear, are in excellent agreement with r e s u l t s computed for the s a m e landing-
impact simulation employing TOLA. On the basis of these comparisons, it appears that
the mathematical model of the active control landing gear i s valid f o r the prediction of

32
airplane landing loads and motions for simulated symmetrical landings of a rigid a i r f r a m e
with passive main landing gears.
Results of vertical-drop and landing-impact simulations employing the mathematical
model of the active control landing g e a r show that wing forces, relative to those encoun­
t e r e d with the modified passive gear, can be reduced substantially during the impact phase
of the landing. The vertical-drop simulation for the active gear resulted in limiting the
wing force to 75 percent of the f o r c e f o r the modified passive gear with a-15-percent in­
c r e a s e in shock-strut stroke. The r e s u l t s of the landing-impact simulation for the active
gear on a smooth runway indicated that the wing force could be limited to 80 percent of the
force for the modified passive g e a r during the impact phase, with a 25-percent increase in
s t r u t stroke relative to that encountered during passive-gear simulation. The results f o r
a landing-impact simulation onto an extremely uneven runway a l s o indicated that the wing
force could be limited, during the impact phase, to 80 percent of the wing force encoun­
tered with the modified passive gear. In this case, however, a 45-percent increase in
shock-strut stroke relative to that encountered with the passive gear was required. These
reductions in wing force could result in substantial increases in fatigue life of the
structure,
Comparison of computed r e s u l t s f o r the active and passive g e a r s during a landing
roll-out, in which the g e a r s were forced into motion by a single, discontinuous, one-
quarter cycle, sinusoidal bump, indicated that the s e r i e s -hydraulic active control g e a r had
damping characteristics equivalent to or slightly better than those inherent in the modified
passive gear. F o r these simulations, the active gear reduced the wing force by 30 percent
of the wing force generated by the passive g e a r ,
Control flow r a t e s required by some of these simulations were very large and, if
ultimately required for this type of active control gear, could necessitate advances in
s e r v o valve technology. However, it should be reemphasized that these r e s u l t s were for
a simply modified version of a landing g e a r with a conventional oleo-pneumatic shock
s t r u t and, consequently, do not necessarily represent optimum r e s u l t s that could be ob­
tained with a gear specifically designed to be compatible with the series-hydraulic control
concept.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, Va. 23665
December 18, 1975

33
 APPENDIX A

EQUATIONS OF MOTION

This appendix p r e s e n t s the equations of motion f o r the physical system shown s c h e ­

matically in figures 3 and 4 for the rigid-airframe option and the rigid-fuselage-elastic­
wing option.

Rigid-Airframe Option
The equations of motion f o r the rigid-airframe option in the body-axis system and
the gravity-axis system are presented in this section.
Airplane center-of -gravity (composite m a s s center) motion in body-axis system

p.5Lt sin a - 0.5(Df +

1- (mf + m w + mh)g sin (e + a )
Q) cos a - 0.5% + FG x cos (6 + a ) - FG z sin (6
1
+ a)

Xc,b = mf + mw + mh

-0.5% - 0 . 5 h cos a - 0.5(Df + Dt) sin a - FA,^^ + (mf + mw)g cos (6 + a)

'ic,b =
mf + mw

Airplane center-of -gravity motion in gravity-axis s y s t e m

zCpg = zc,b cos (8 + a ) - xC,b sin (6 + a)

Hub motion in body-axis system

FG,Z cos (6 + a ) + FG x sin (6 + a ) + FA,^^ + mhg cos (6 + a)

'ih,b = ~~
~~ . . ­

mh

34
 APPENDM A

Hub motion in gravity-axis s y s t e m

sh,g = zh,b cos (e + a) - x h b

Y
sin (e + a,)

Wing-mass -center motion in gravity-axis s y s t e m

2w,g = xc,g + $dew s i n ,Xcw + (3) + b2dcw cos jXcw + 8;

'iw,g= Zc,g + i d c w cos :~kcw + 8 ) - e- 2d, sin (XCw + e'i

Fuselage -mass-center motion in gravity-axis s y s t e m

xf,g = xc,g - Qdcf s i n (Xcf + 0) - e' 2dcf cos (Xcf + e)

Wing-gear -interface motion in gravity-axis system

xwG,g = j;'c,g + edcwG sin (&cwG+ e ) + e. 2dcwG cos (XcwG + 0 )

Shock-strut motion in body-axis s y s t e m

g b = zwG,g cos (e + a ) + x w ~ , sgi n (e + a ) - zh,g cos (e + a ) - xh,g s i n (e + a ) - e- 2zSs

Pitch angular acceleration about airplane center of gravity

-
- 0 . 5 h d c t + 0.5Dfdcf + 0.5Qdct + 0 . 5 L W d c ~ cos

I
,~ a, - 0. 5LwdCW,Zsin a,

- 0.5DwdCW,Zcos a, - 0 . 5 D ~ d s~i n ~a, , - ~F ~ , ~ + ~F ~d , xl d 2cos (e + a,)

- F ~ , z d 2sin (e + a,) + Mn
e=-
.* - ~-
-. -
4

IYY

35

I
 APPENDIX A

Wheel angular acceleration about hub

Brake -control s e n s o r - m a s s acceleration about hub

Rigid -Fuselage -Elastic - Wing Option

The equations of motion f o r the rigid-fuselage -elastic -wing option in the body-axis
system and the gravity-axis system are presented in this section.
Airplane center -of -gravity (composite m a s s center) motion in body-axis system

Xc,b =
+ Dt) cos CY -
r0.5Lt sin a - 0.5(Df

i
- (mf + mw + mh)g sin (e + a )
~-
0.5%

mf
+ FG,X cos

+ mw + mh
- -- -~ ~
-1
(e + CY) - FG,Z sin (0 + a )

Zc,b = -0.5Lt cos a - 0.5(Df

-
+ Dt) sin CY - F w +~mfg cos (e + a ) - Fn
. . . .
cos 0
.

mf

Airplane center-of -gravity motion in gravity-axis system

xc,g = xc,b cos (0 + CY) + Zc,b sin (e + CY)

= Zc,b cos (0
!ic,g + CY) - xc,b sin (0 + CY)

Hub motion in body-axis system

+ idce sin Ace - i 2 d C e sin h c e

36
 APPENDIX A

P r i o r to shock-strut stroking

Subsequent t o shock-strut stroking

Hub motion in gravity-axis system

Wing-mass -center motion in body-axis s y s t e m

I i
FG,X cos (0 + a ) - FG,Z s i n (0 + a )
- (mf + mw + mh)g s i n (0 + a ) - 0 . 5 F w ~

- 0.5(Df + Dt) cos a + 0.5Lt s i n a

.. + &dew + 8dr-e s i n Xce - d2dce hce
Xw,b = mf + mw + mh
~~ ~

COS

P r i o r to shock-strut stroking

..=w,b = rG9z
-0.5Lw
cos (0
+ F,B
+ a ) + FG,X s i n

mw
(0

+
+ a)+

“h
(mw + m h ) g cos (0 + a)
11 + Bdew

Subsequent t o shock-strut stroking

- 0.5Lw + F,B + m,g cos (e + a )

zw,b = + 6dew
mW

37
 APPENDIX A

Wing-mass -center motion in gravity-axis system

xw7g= xw7b cos (0 + a)+ zw,b s i n (e + a)

Zw,g = zw,b cos (0 + a) - xw,b sin (e + a)

Fuselage -mass-center motion in gravity-axis system

xf,g = xc7g - gdcf sin (Xcf + e) - h2dCf COS (Acf + e)

zf,g = zc,g - i d c f COS (Xcf + 6) + d2dCf sin (Xcf + 6)

Wing-gear -interface motion in body-axis system

FA,^^ - 0.5Lw + F,B

- - ~
+ mwg
~
cos (8
_
..-
+ a)
_
‘wC,b = - + &(dew + &G)
mW

Shock-strut motion in body-axis system

Motion of elastic axis a t spanwise location of wing m a s s center:

P r i o r to shock -strut stroking

Subsequent t o shock-strut stroking

FA,^^ - 0.5Lw + F,B + mwg cos (8 + a )

iew,b =
mW
 APPENDIX A
Motion of elastic axis at spanwise location of wing m a s s center relative to fuselage

Rotational motion of wing about elastic axis and relative to fuselage:

P r i o r to shock-strut stroking

Subsequent t o shock-strut stroking

Wheel angular acceleration about hub

Brake -control-sensor acceleration about hub

Pitch angular acceleration about airplane center of gravity

1-0.5Qdg + 0.5Dfdq + 0.5Dtdq + 0.5Lwd5 cos a - 1

0.5Lwdg sin a

s i n (0 + a ) + Mn
J
IYY
39

I
 APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF LANDING GEAR

The landing gear simulated in this paper was originally designed for a s m a l l a i r ­
plane having a g r o s s m a s s of approximately 2268 kg (5000 lbm). (See ref. 7.) The g e a r
is a cantilevered type with a conventional oleo-pneumatic shock strut. The tire is a
0.69-m (27-in.) diameter type I (smooth contour) which was inflated to 221 k P a (32 psi).
The m a s s of the landing g e a r is 68 kg (150 lbm) and the unsprung m a s s i s 59 kg (131 lbm).

*2

Sketch (d)
The important geometric characteristics of the landing-gear shock strut are illus­
trated in sketch (d), and the program input p a r a m e t e r s are as follows:
Shock strut:
Pneumatic area, A2 ..................... 0.00535 m 2 (0.05762 ft2)
Hydraulic area, A 1 ..................... 0.00437 m 2 (0.04708 ft2)
P r i m a r y orifice area, A0 . . . . . . . . .......... 0.00005 m 2 (0.00056 ft2)
Pressurized pneumatic volume, V2 .. .......... 0.0010 m3 (0.03545 ft3)
Charging p r e s s u r e , po,a ......... ........... 299.9 kPa (6264 psfa)
Bearing separation f o r fully extended shock strut, I1 . . . . . 0.16828 m (0.5521 f t )
Axial length from hub to lower bearing for fully extended
shock strut, 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6785 m (2.22604 f t )
Mass of airplane acting on each main gear, W1 . . . . . . . . . 1094 kg (2411 lbm)
Unsprung g e a r mass, W2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 kg (131 lbm)

40

I
 APPENDIX B

Fully extended length of shock strut, lss,e . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9674 m (3.174 ft)

Friction coefficient (upper bearing), pss,u .................... 0.15
Friction coefficient (lower bearing), pss,i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15
Volume between piston and cylinder, V3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o m3 (0 ft3)
Area between piston and cylinder, A3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 m 2 (0 ft2)
Specific weight of hydraulic fluid, yH . . . . . . . . . . . 8226 N/m3 (52.36 lbf/ft3)
Dynamic viscosity of hydraulic fluid, p~ . . 0.00862 N-sec,’m2 (0.00018 lbf-sec/ft2)
Mass density of hydraulic fluid, p~ . . . . . . . . . . . 838 kg/m3 (1.626 slugs/ft3)
Volume of hydraulic fluid in fully extended strut, VH . . . . -0.0014 m3 ( ~ 0 . 0 5ft3)
Wheel and t i r e :
Wheel flange diameter, df . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.39053 m (1.28125 ft)
Width of wheel rim, ww ...................... 0.227 m (0.745 f t )
Unloaded diameter of tire, d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.686 m (nominal 2.25 ft)
Maximum width of undeflected t i r e , w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.245 m (0.805 f t )
Unloaded rated inflation t i r e p r e s s u r e , p r . . . . . . . . . 482.63 kPa (10 080 psf)
Unloaded t i r e inflation p r e s s u r e , po . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220.6 kPa (4608 psf)
P r e s s u r e - r i s e parameter, K ........................... 0.66
Vertical-force coefficient, C z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02

41
 REFERENCES

1. Wignot, J a c k E.; Durup, P a u l C.; and Gamon, Max A.: Design Formulation and Analysis
of an Active Landing Gear. Volume I. Analysis. AFFDL-TR-71-80, Vol. I, U.S. A i r
Force, Aug. 1971. (Available f r o m DDC as AD 887 127L.)
2. Bender, E. K.; Berkman, E. F.; and Bieber, M.: A Feasibility Study of Active Landing
Gear. AFFDL-TR-70-126, U.S. A i r Force, July 1971. (Available f r o m DDC as
AD 887 451L.)
3. Smiley, Robert F.; and Horne, Walter B.: Mechanical P r o p e r t i e s of Pneumatic Tires
With Special Reference t o Modern Aircraft Tires. NASA T R R-64, 1960. (Super­
s e d e s NACA T N 4110.)
4. Tung, C. C.; Penzien, J.; and Horonjeff, R.: T h e Effect of Runway Unevenness on the
Dynamic Response of Supersonic Transports. NASA CR-119, 1964.
5. Batterson, Sidney A.: A Study of t h e Dynamics of Airplane Braking Systems as Affected
by Tire Elasticity and Brake Response. NASA T N D-3081, 1965.
6. Milwitzsky, Benjamin; Lindquist, Dean C.; and Potter, Dexter M.: An Experimental
Study of Applied Ground Loads in Landing. NACA Rep. 1248, 1955. (Supersedes
NACA T N 3246.
7. Milwitzsky, Benjamin; and Cook, F r a n c i s E.: Analysis of Landing-Gear Behavior.
NACA Rep. 1154, 1953. (Supersedes NACA TN 2755.)
8. Diehl, Walter Stuart: Engineering Aerodynamics. Sixth ed. Ronald Press Co., c.1936.

9. Lynch, Urban H. D.: Takeoff and Landing Analysis (TOLA) Computer P r o g r a m .

Part 1: Capabilities of the Takeoff and Landing Analysis Computer P r o g r a m .
AFFDL-TR-71-155, Pt. 1, U.S. Air Force, Feb. 1972. (Available f o r m DDC as
AD 741 942.)

42
 loads induced / A loads

Input loads
f o r total

-
response analysis
'eedback
Shock strut
Perturbation Airframe
.loads response
, ,
~~
-Tire
Operational loads Flexible airframe
0 Steering
0 Thrust reversal
and braking
0 Aerodynamic
0 Asymmetric
impact 0 Modal frequencies
0 Modal displacements

Figure 1.- Variables considered significant for analyzing active control landing gear systems.
 Parallel-hydraulic S e r ie s -hy d rau1ic
Series-pneumatic
control cont ro 1
control

Electronic
m
/e=l-J
Sensor

Figure 2.- Active control concepts for airplane landing gears.

 X Y (into paper)

Gravity axes
Body axes

Shock- s t rut

FG, Zl
Figure 3. - Definition of axes and forces for rigid-airframe option.
 Y (into paper)
Yb(into paper) g

zg

Body axes Gravity axes

---- Motion due to first wing

Shock-strut bending and torsion

Figure 4. - Definition of axes and forces f o r rigid-fuselage --elastic-wing option.

 111 Fluid motion
t t t Pressure force
t Direction of motion
A2

-1
S A1

*1

(a) Passive gear phase. Compress­ (b) Active gear phase. Low- (c) Active gear phase. High-
ing with wing force l e s s than pressure operation; compress - pressure operation; extending;
limit force. ing; wing force greater than wing force l e s s than limit force.
limit force.
Figure 5. - Operational phases of series-hydraulic active control gear.
 Y (into paper)
Yb(into paper)

"T; '

Figure 6. - Rigid-airframe configuration used for study, (Dimensions a r e not to scale.)

I
 32 ­ 0 Experiment (ref. 7) - .7 - 7 103
-TOLA
28 ­
-6

24 ­
-5

20 ­
-' 4
Strut Strut
Strut
force,
16 c stroke,
ft
force,
Ibf
kN
-3

-2

-1

-0

Time, sec

(a) Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 7.- Comparison of computed results obtained from ACOLAG and TOLA with experimental data for a vertical
drop onto a flat stationary surface. 8 = Oo; iC,,= 2.7 m/sec (8.8 ft/sec); kc,, = 0 m/sec (0 ft/sec).
 32 0 Experiment ( r e f . 7 ) .7 I x lo3

-
-TOLA
.20 - - - - -ACOLAG
28
.6 6

24 .16
.5 5
i
20 ~

V ert i cal
ground
fo rce 16
p e r g ear,

12 L-

I - .2 -2
8 r

I
- .I - 1
4 1

0 ­ I I I I 0 - 0
0 .05 .10 .15 20 .25
Time, sec

(b) Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection.

Figure 7. - Continued.
 -3.5 0 Experiment (ref. 7)
TOLA
- - - - - ACOLAG
-3.0

-2.5

-2.0
Mass-center
acceleration,
g units

-1.5

-1.0

- .5

0
Tinre, sec

(c) Time histories of mass-center acceleration.

Figure 7. - Concluded.
 -2 I I I I I

Figure 8. - Comparison of computed results from ACOLAG and TOLA f o r landing-impact simulation.
0 = 10.5O; kc,, = 2.7 m/sec (8.8 ft/sec); kc,, = 45.7 m/sec (150 ft/sec).
 32 - -TOLA - .I I x lo3
__--
.20 - rForce
ACOLAG

28 ­
6

24 - .16 ­
5

20 ­
4
Main gear
Main gear 16 - strut force,
s t r u t force, Ibf
liN 3
12 ­

Time, sec

(b) Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 8. - Continued.

cn
w
 32

.20
28
6

24 .16
5

20

.12 4
Ve r t i c a l
V ert i cal 16 - Tire ground f o r c e
ground f o r c e deflection p e r g ear ,
I p e r g ear, p e r ge a r, lbf
meters 3
kN
li .OI

2
t

.oi
- 1
1

( I I 1 I - 0
( .05 .10 .15 .20 25
Ti me, s e c

(c) Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection.

Figure 8. - Continued.
-3.0 -
TOLA
---- ACOLAG

-2.5 -

.5 I I I I I
0 .05 .10 .15 2.0 .25
Time, sec

(d) Time histories of mass-center acceleration.

Figure 8. - Concluded.
 32 Active gear
---- Passive g e a r

j6
-5

,
I

Wing
force,
kN
16L
I

I
-I4
-3
wing
force,
lbf

12 c
I
I

, -I 2
8 L

4 L -1
I

-0
Wing displacement, met ers
 -Active gear
32

28
.2c
Control flow rate,
-428 l/m in (-113 gal/min) - Control flow rate,
-- - - Passive gear
4 5 8 l / mi n (+121 galjmin)
.7

6
- I x io3

-6

24 .16
5 -I 5

20

.12 4 -4 Strut
Strut force
Strut 16 ' Strut per gear,.
force stroke, ft
lbf
per gear, m e te rs
.3 -3
kN
12 .OE

1
.2 2
8

.04
.1 1
4

C 0 0
a 5
Time, sec

(b) Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 9. - Continued.
 32
I T x 103

28
.6 5

24

-5 3

20
Vertical
groucd
force .4 T i r e 4 Vertical
deflect ic ground
p er g ea r,
kN p e r geai force
ft p er gear,
.3 lbf

12

.2 2
8

4 .1 1

0 0 0
)

Time, s e c

(c) Time histories of vertical ground force and tire deflection.

Figure 9. - Concluded.
 -9 x lo3

-401
-Active gear
---- Passive g e a r
-36 - -8

; A i r
-7
I
;‘I I
I 1 36 %reduction
‘ I in wing force
I -6
I I
I I
I I
Tolerance I
I
I
I I -5
Wing
force, lbf
5 % i n c r e a s e in -4
- I wing displacement

-3

-2

-1

I I I I I I
0 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 0
Wing displacement, iiieters

I I I I I I I I I I I
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Wing displacement, f t

(a) Wing force as a function of wing displacement.

i
Figure 10.- Comparison of computed results for modified passive and active gears for a vertical drop onto !

a vertically oscillating surface. 8 = , z c,g = 2.7

00. m/sec (8.8 ft/sec); xc,g = 0 m/sec (0 ft/sec).
Q,
0

40 -Active gear
- - - - Pa s s i v e g e a r
36
.24

32

20
28

24 .16

S t ru t Strut
20 - Strut
force f o r c e p er
stroke,
p e r gear, gear, Ibf
m e t e r s .12
kN 16

12 .08

.04

0 0

(b) T i m e histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 10. - Continued.

 .28 ­
-40 - -Active g e a r - .9 - -9 x lo3

- - -- Passive gear
-36 ­ - .8 - -8
.24 - -
;
\

,’ ‘\
-32 ­ - .I - -7
.20
-28 ­
- .6 * -6

-24 .16
Vertical Tire -5 Vertical
deflection .5 T i r e
ground ground
force -20 per gear, deflectic
force
p e r gear. meters p e r gea:
p e r gear,
kN .12 .4 f t -4 Ibf
-16

.3 -3
-12 .08

.2 -2
-8

.04
-4 .I -1

0
0 0 0
Time, sec

(c) Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection.

Figure 10. - Concluded.

 Q,
N

J
-9 lo3
-Active g e a r
- - - - Pass i v e g e a r
-8

-32
-36 ‘c -7

!
i

Wing
force, kN

Wing displacement, m e t e r s

I I I I
.3 I
.4 .5I I
.6
.II I
.8
I
.9 1.I0
0 .1 .2

Wing displacement, ft

(a) Wing force as a function of wing displacement.

Figure 11.- Comparison of computed results for modified passive and active g e a r s for a landing impact onto
a smooth runway surface. 0 = 10.50; kc,, = 2.7 m / s e c (8.8 ft/sec); kc,g = 45.7 m/sec (150 ft/sec).
 “1
36 .24
Control flow rate,
-360 Q/min (-95 gal/nim)
Control flow rate,
4 4 7 I/min (+118 gal/niin)

-
----
Active g e a r
Passiv.e g e a r

Control flow rate,

1 -397 U m i n (-105gal/min)

StNt Strut
force p er force p e r
gear, kN stroke,
gear, Ibf

(b) Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 11.- Continued.

 -40 -

- ---- Passive g e a r
8
-36
.24 ­

-32 - I
2.0 -
-28 -
- .6 - 6

-24 - .16 ­
Vertical
ground
fo rce pe r
g ear, !04

(c) Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection.

Figure 11.- Continued.

 -20 ­
-500 - - Control flow rate
---- Control flow - 6x IO-' - -12 X 10

-8

-4

Control
4 flow rate,
gal/min

12

16

20
.30 L 1 I I I 1
.15 20 .25
0 .05 'lo Time, s e c

Figure 12. - Time histories of control flow rate and control flow for landing impact of .active gear onto a smooth
runway surface. 0 = 10.50; zc,g = 2.7 m/sec (8.8 ft/sec); xc,, = 45.7 m/sec (150 ft/sec).
 -32
7x lo3

I
-----
Active g e a r
Pa s s i v e g e a r
1
-24 I
I
I
4 5

-20 -
Wing
force, lbf

-' 3
-12 i-
I
I

I
- 2

/
- 1

- 4 tI

I I I I I I I -
0 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 0
Wing displacement, m e t e r s

L I I I I I I I I I I
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Wing displacement, ft

(a) Wing force as a function of wing displacement.

Figure 13. - Comparison of computed results for modified passive and active g e a r s for a landing impact onto a
sinusoidal runway surface. 0 = 10.5O; iC,,= 2.7 m/sec (8.8 ft/sec); x c t g = 45.7 m / s e c (150 ft/sec).
 40 r Active gear
_----- Passive gear I
1
Control flow rate,
- - Tire bounce
36 .24
r .1154 ( min (-305 gal, m n )
I

Strut Strut

gear, kN meters

12 I- .08

6I
4

0
.04

0
Time, sec

(b) Time histories of shock-strut force and stroke.

Figure 13. - Continued.

 .28

Active g e a r

.24

I I

-28 - .2(

- .6 -8 6

-24 - .16 ­ \
\
Vertical Tire \ -1 .5 - 5
\ ! Tire Vertical
ground deflection
deflection ground
fo rce -20 r p e r ge a r , \
per gear, I f o r c e per
p er gear,
kN
m e te rs
.12 - \ -4 f t -: 4 gear, Ibf
-16 +

-12 ­ i .3
- 3

-8 - - .2 - 2

-4 - -1

O
I- -0

(c) Time histories of vertical ground force and t i r e deflection.

Figure 13. - Concluded.
 - -1.00 lo3
-4 -
-Active gear
_ - - - Passive gear
- -.75

- -.50

- -.25

- 0

Wing
force, lbf
- .25

I l
I I
l
- I
.50

0
1 I
.5
I
1.0 Time, sec
I
1.5

(a) Time histories of wing force.

I
2.0
I
2.5
.75

1.00

1.25

Figure 14. - Comparison of computed results for active and passive gears f o r a landing roll-out after traversing a
vertically discontinuous bump. f3 = 00; zc,g = 0 m/sec (0 ft/sec); Xc,, = 44.5 m/sec (146 ft/sec).
 -201
-16 ­
- Active
__--
Sear
Passivc g e a r

1
4 -3
-4 103

-12
I
Vertical Vertical
ground
q round
force, Ibf
-
force, liN
I -2

I
- -1
-4 ­

I I I I 0
0 .s 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time, sec

(b) Time histories of vertical ground f o r c e .

r
0
m
4

Figure 14. - Concluded.

t-’
I
Y
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2 0 5 4 6 POSTAGE AND FEES P A I D
N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D
O F F I C I A L BUSINESS SPACE A D M IN l S T R A T l O N
PENALTY FOR P R I V A T E USE $300 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE 451
USMAIL
BOOK

2 3 8 001 C 1 U A 76012.3 S 0 0 9 0 3 D S
D E P T OF T H E A I R Fl-iRCf
AF I.;’E4PUNS L A d O R A T O R Y
ATTN: T E C H N I C A L L I B R A R Y StlL 1
K I R T L A N O A F B NM 8 3 1 1 7

POSTMAgTIR If Undeliverable (Section 158

Post;il Rfnniinl) Do N o t Return

‘‘The aeronautical and spate activitiqs of the United States shall be

.
conducted so as t o contribute . . t j the expamion of human knowl­
edge of phenomena in th e atmosphere and space. T h e Administratio%
shall provide for the wzdest practicable and appropriate dissemimtion
of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.”
-NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958.

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TbCHNICAE PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and
technical information considered important,
complete, and a lasting contribution to existing
knowledge.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a
contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS :
Inforpation ,re$eiving limited distribution
because of preliminary data, security classifica­
tion, or other reasons. Also includes conference
proceedings with either limited or unlimited
distribution.
- used by NASA that may be of particular
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and
technical information generated under a NASA
contract or grant and considered an important
contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information
published in a foreign language considered
to merit NASA distribution in English.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
derived from or of value to NASA activities.
Publications include final reports of major
projects, monographs, data compilations,
handbooks, sourcebooks, and special
bibliographies.
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
interest in commercial and other-non-aerospace
applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
Technology Utilization Reports and
Technology Surveys.

Details on the availability of these publications may b e obtuined from:

SCIENTIFIC A N D TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
Washington, D.C. 20546