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

net/publication/282319762

Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears’

Article  in  Journal of Low Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control · September 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 498

1 author:

Sivakumar Sivaprakasam
SRM Institute of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using
Active Landing Gears

by

S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

reprinted from
Journal of
LOW FREQUENCY
NOISE, VIBRATION
AND ACTIVE CONTROL
VOLUME 34 NUMBER 3 2015

MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD.

JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL Pages 307 – 322

Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using

Active Landing Gears
S. Sivakumar1* and A. P. Haran2
1Bharath University, Tamil Nadu, India (svkmr_s@yahoo.co.in)
2Park College of Engineering and Technology, Anna University, Tamil Nadu, India

(ap_haran@rediffmail.com)

First submitted: 27 November 2014/Revised: 22 February 2015, 6 March 2015/

Accepted: 7 March 2015

ABSTRACT
In this article, random vibration analysis of full aircraft with passive and active
landing gears has been done by numerical simulations on random runway
profile. The mathematical model of full aircraft with active landing gears and
modelling of runway profiles have been developed for analysing the aircraft
bounce, pitch, roll accelerations, displacement and shock strut travel while
taxiing on random runways. The results show that vibration levels of the aircraft
by the active landing gear system is less than the conventional landing gear
system while taxiing on different grades of random runways. Comparison
results also show that the active system improves the ride comfort and easiness
of pilot handling and thus, increases the fatigue life of the aircraft.

NOMENCLATURE
M Aircraft fuselage mass
m1 Nose landing gear tire mass
m2 Rear left landing gear tire mass
m3 Rear right landing gear tire mass
ks1 Nose gear shock strut stiffness
ks2 Rear left gear shock strut stiffness
ks3 Rear right gear shock strut stiffness
cs1 Nose gear shock strut damping coefficient
cs2 Rear left gear shock strut damping coefficient
cs3 Rear right gear shock strut damping coefficient
kt1 Nose gear tire stiffness
kt2 Rear left gear tire stiffness
kt3 Rear right gear tire stiffness
ct1 Nose gear tire damping coefficient
ct2 Rear left gear tire damping coefficient
ct3 Rear right gear tire damping coefficient
[M] Mass matrix
[C] Damping matrix
[K] Stiffness matrix
[F] Force control matrix
{ü} Acceleration vector
{u.} Velocity vector
{u} Displacement vector
q Pitch angle
b Roll angle
ug1, ug2, ug3 Ground excitation
u1, u2, u3 displacement

*Corresponding author e-mail: svkmr_s@yahoo.co.in (S Sivakumar)

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 307
 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

1. INTRODUCTION
Landing gear is a critical component of the aircraft which transmits the ground loads
to the aircraft structure. It provides ride comfort to the passengers during taxiing on
the runways. It also improves the pilot’s efficiency to control the aircraft and to read
the instruments in the glass cockpits during ground manoeuvres. The landing gear
fitted in the aircraft is not able to adjust the damping characteristics in real-time
runway conditions. The focus on active landing gear system is essential to overcome
the difficulties of passive landing gear. Previous studies of Bender and Beiber [1] and
McGehee and Garden [2] indicated that the feasibility and potential benefits of
applying active load control to the landing gear to limit the ground loads is applied to
the airframe. Ross and Edson [3], Freymann and Johnson [4], and Freymann [5, 6]
demonstrated, analytically and experimentally, the benefits of actively controlled
landing gears in reducing landing loads and vibrations under various runway profiles.
The dynamic performances of active control of damping have been evaluated for a
range of aircraft speeds and for random runway surfaces by Sheperd et al. [7, 8].
Prabakar et al. [9] presented control of the stationary response of a quarter car model
to random road excitation with a magnetorheological damper as a semi active
suspension analysed using multi-objective optimization technique. Wang et al. [10]
have shown improvement in the performances of active landing gear system in
comparison to passive system. Wu et al. [11] experimentally tested proportional-
integral-derivative (PID) controller and fuzzy controller for vibration control of a semi
active vehicle suspension using an adjustable shock absorber. Oveisi and Gudarzi [12]
presented a PID controller tuned with Ziegler-Nichols rules for both robustness and
vibration suppression performance aspects. The application of proportional controller
to active vibration control incorporated with a passive vibration isolator to suppress
the resonant oscillation at its natural frequency was studied by Liu [13]. The present
study analysed random vibration of full aircraft model with active landing gears under
normal landing condition and dynamic response on different grades of random
runways. The designed PID controller generates the control force to reduce bounce,
pitch, roll displacement and accelerations of fuselage body considerably. This article
does not analyse the bank angle response by PID controller during flight. The PID
controller requires the bank angle reference command to tackle the unknown banking
for turn coordination. However, the bank angle reference is required by the PID
controller during crosswind taxiing conditions.
Runway roughness affects both the landing gear and the airframe. Nowadays,
aircraft fatigue life is diminished due to roughness on paved runways. The
roughness is also associated with unpaved air field and bomb-damaged runways. In
case of older airports and airports in the countries of former Warsaw pact, the run
and taxiways display undulations of all frequencies and higher amplitudes than
those measured in the western countries. Ageing of concrete runways causes the
plates that settle unevenly leading to long wave length bumps, steps at the gaps and
different level of rough damage surfaces. The roughness was specified earlier in
terms of step bumps and (1-cos) waves [14].
Runway profiles have been measured around the world and the data reduced to
power spectral densities. From the generation of random profiles it is possible to
analyse random vibration effects on the control of existing passive landing gear
systems and the active landing gear system. Tyan et al. [15] studied shape filter
method and sinusoidal approximation for generating one-dimensional random
profiles. Hwang and Kim [16] reported that the response of aircraft landing gear over
a random runway can be modelled by a non-classically damped system subject to non-
stationary random excitations. Dynamic displacement and acceleration response of
cars with uncertain parameters and random input excitations are investigated by Dai
et al. [17]. The above theoretical and experimental studies considered single landing
gear system as two degrees-of-freedom system model. This model does not include
pitch and roll degrees-of-freedom. The effects of longitudinal and lateral
interconnections cannot be studied in the two degrees-of-freedom system model.
Hence a mathematical model of full aircraft with all three landing gears has been
developed to demonstrate the behaviour of an active landing gear.

308 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

In an earlier research work [18], mathematical modelling of aircraft with active

landing gears is formulated to analyse the dynamic response of active landing gear
system moving over bump inputs. The results indicated that ride comfort of the
active landing gear system is better than passive landing gears. In this article,
modelling of random road profile has been carried out. The dynamic response on
different grades of random road and also response of varying taxiing speed of the
aircraft have been analysed. In the mathematical modelling the pitch, roll and
bounce effect have been considered for the calculation of active control force. The
dynamic response of aircraft with active landing gears subjected to different grades
of random runway excitations has been investigated.

2. FULL AIRCRAFT MODEL FORMULATION

The dynamic model consists of airplane and active landing gear system. The active
landing system consists of low pressure reservoir, hydraulic pump, high pressure
accumulator, servo actuator and electronic controller. When an aircraft lands, the
shock strut stroke is influenced by the aircraft’s payload and varies depending on
the runway excitations. In the active landing gear system, the stroke is measured
by the transducers and their signal input to the PID controller. This controller directs
the servo valve to regulate the oil flow either into or out of the shock strut. It
generates the active control force to reduce the vibration level and the force
transferred to the airplane.
The full aircraft dynamic model built by considering the aircraft fuselage body
or concentrated mass M is free to bounce, roll and pitch. The fuselage mass M is
connected to the three lumped masses m1, m2 and m3 which are front, rear left and
rear right landing gears piston and tire. The front one is called nose landing gear and
the rear landing gears are called main landing gears. They are free to bounce
vertically with respect to the fuselage mass. The full aircraft model contains three
degrees-of-freedom for the aircraft fuselage mass (bounce, roll, pitch), and three
degrees-of freedom for the vertical motions of the nose landing gear tire mass and
for the rear main landing gears tire masses. The yaw motion of the model is
neglected. However, as a future work the study would be extended including the
yaw degree of freedom and the shimmy motion during landing of the aircraft.
Figure 1 indicates the six degrees-of-freedom vibration model of the full aircraft.
In this model u, q and b represent, respectively, the bounce, pitch and roll motion
of the aircraft while u1, u2 and u3 represent the displacement of the nose, left and
right main landing gears and ug1, ug2 and ug3 are the ground excitations of the nose,
left and right main landing gears. ks1, ks2 and ks3 represent the stiffness of nose
shock strut, left and right main gear shock struts. cs1, cs2 and cs3 represent the

u θ X
d
Ixx
ks2 cs Q2 β
m2 2 u 2
e kt2 ct2 C
M
ug2 Iyy
Y
G

ks3 Q3 ks1 Q1
cs3 cs1
m3 m1 u1
u3
kt3 ct3 kt1 ct1
ug3 ug1
b a

Figure 1. Vibration model of full aircraft with active landing gear system subject to runway excitation.

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 309

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

damping coefficients of nose shock strut, left and right main gear shock struts. kt1,
kt2 and kt3 are the stiffness of nose gear tire, left and right main gear tires. ct1, ct2
and ct3 are the damping of nose gear tire, left and right main gear tires. a-distance
from centre of gravity (C.G) to the nose landing gear. b-distance from C.G to the
main landing gears. d-distance from C.G to left main landing gear. e-distance from
C.G to right main landing gear. Q1, Q2 and Q3 are active control forces of the nose,
left and right landing gears.
For deriving the equations of motion u, q and b are considered for bounce, pitch
and roll motion of the aircraft. The equations are written by considering the motion
along vertical axis (bounce), about lateral axis (pitch), and about longitudinal axis
(roll). The vertical excitation on the aircraft is derived from the runway undulation
and taxiing speed (longitudinal motion of the aircraft). The lateral motion (shimmy)
of the aircraft is not considered in the present model and would be taken up in the
future work. Equations of motion describing dynamics of the active landing gear
system are derived from the model.
For bounce motion of the aircraft fuselage mass

Mu + ks1 p + ks2 q + ks3r + cs1  p + cs2 q + cs3r + Q1 = 0 (1)

where
p = u − aθ − hβ − u1

q = u + bq - db - u2
r = u + bq + eb - u3
h=d-e
Q1 = Q1 + Q2 + Q3

i.e.

Mu + ks1 ( u − aθ − hβ − u1 ) + ks2 ( u + bθ − d β − u2 )

+ ks3 ( u + bθ + eβ − u 3 ) + cs1 u − aθ − hβ − u1
( ) (2)
+ cs ( u + bθ − d β − u ) + cs ( u + bθ + eβ − u ) + Q
2 2 3 3 1 =0

For pitch motion of the aircraft fuselage mass

I yyθ − ks1 pa + ks2 qb + ks3rb − cs1 pa

 + cs2 qb
 + cs3rb
 + Q2 = 0  
(3)

i.e.

I yyθ − ks1 ( u − aθ − hβ − u1 ) a + ks2 ( u + bθ − d β − u2 ) b

+ ks3 ( u + bθ + eβ − u 3 ) b − cs1 u − aθ − hβ − u1 a
( ) (4)
+ cs ( u + bθ − d β − u ) b + cs ( u + bθ + eβ − u ) b + Q
2 2 3 3 2 =0

where
Q2 = −Q1 a + Q2 b + Q3b

For roll motion of the aircraft fuselage mass

I xx β − ks1 ph + ks2 qd + ks3re − cs1 ph

 − cs2 qd
 + cs3re
 + Q3 = 0 (5)

310 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

I xx β − ks1 ( u − aθ − hβ − u1 ) h + ks2 ( u + bθ − d β − u2 ) d

i.e.

+ ks3 ( u + bθ + eβ − u 3 ) e – cs1 u − aθ − hβ − u1 h

( ) (6)
− cs2 u + bθ − d β − u2 d + cs3 u + bθ + eβ − u 3 e + Q 3 = 0
( ) ( )
where
Q3 = −Q1 h − Q2 d + Q3 e

For nose landing gear tire mass,

m1u1 − ks1 p − cs1 p + kt1 ( u1 − ug1 ) + ct1 ( u − ug
 1 ) − Q1 = 0
(7)

i.e.
m1u1 − ks1 ( u − aθ − hβ − u1 ) − cs1 u − aθ − hβ − u1
( )
+ kt1 ( u1 − ug1 ) + ct1 ( u − ug
 1 ) − Q1 = 0 (8)

For left main landing gear tire mass,

m2 u2 − ks2 q − cs2 q + kt 2 ( u2 − ug2 ) + ct 2 ( u2 − ug

 2 ) − Q2 = 0 
(9)

  m2 u2 − ks2 ( u + bθ − d β − u2 ) − cs2 u + bθ − d β − u2

( )
+ kt 2 ( u2 − ug2 ) + ct 2 ( u2 − ug
 2 ) − Q2 = 0 (10)

For right main landing gear tire mass,

m3u3 − ks3r − cs3r + kt 3 ( u 3 − ug3 ) + ct 3 ( u 3 − ug

 3 ) − Q3 = 0
(11)

  m3u3 − ks3 ( u + bθ + eβ − u 3 ) − cs3 u + bθ + eβ − u 3

( )
+ kt 3 ( u 3 − ug3 ) + ct 3 ( u 3 − ug
 3 ) − Q3 = 0 (12)

The above equations of motion can be written in the matrix form as

[ M ] {u} + [C ] {u} + [ K ] {u} = {F} (13)

where, [M] is the mass matrix given by

⎡ M 0 ⎤
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 I yy 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ I xx 0 ⎥
0 0 0 0
[M ] = ⎢ 0 0 0 m1 0 0
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 m2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 m3 ⎥
⎣ ⎦

[C] is the damping matrix given by

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 311

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

⎡ Z1 Z2 Z3 – cs1 – cs2 – cs3 ⎤

⎢ ⎥
⎢ Z2 Z4 Z5 acs1 −bcs2 −bcs3 ⎥
⎢ Z3 Z5 Z6 hcs1 dcs2 − ecs3 ⎥
[C ] = ⎢⎢ – cs1 acs1 hcs1 cs1 + ct1 0 0
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − cs2 −bcs2 dcs2 0 cs2 + ct 2 0 ⎥
⎢ − cs3 −bcs3 − ecs3 0 0 cs3 + ct 3 ⎥
⎣ ⎦

where
Z1 = cs1 + cs2 + cs3

Z2 = −acs1 + bcs2 + bcs3

Z3 = −hcs1 − dcs2 + ecs3

2 2 2
Z4 = a cs1 + b cs2 + b cs3

Z5 = hacs1 − dbcs2 + ebcs3

2 2 2
Z6 = h cs1 + d cs2 + e cs3

[K] is the stiffness matrix given by

⎡ R1 R2 R3 – ks1 − ks2 − ks3 ⎤

⎢ ⎥
⎢ R2 R4 R5 aks1 −bks2 −bks3 ⎥
⎢ R3 R5 R6 hks1 dks2 − eks3 ⎥
[ K ] = ⎢⎢ – ks1 aks1 hks1 ks1 + kt1 0 0
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − ks2 −bks2 dks2 0 ks2 + kt 2 0 ⎥
⎢ − ks3 −bks3 − eks3 0 0 ks3 + kt 3 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where

R1 = ks1 + ks2 + ks3

R2 = −aks1 + bks2 + bks3

R3 = −hks1 − dks2 + eks3

2 2 2
R4 = a ks1 + b ks2 + b ks3

R5 = haks1 − dbks2 + ebks3

R6 = h2ks1 + d2ks2 + e2ks3

and {u} is the displacement vector given by
⎧ ⎫
⎪ u ⎪
⎪ θ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ β ⎪
{u} = ⎨ ⎬
⎪ u1 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ u2 ⎪
⎪ u3 ⎪
⎩ ⎭

{F} is the force vector given by

312 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

⎧ −Q1 ⎫
⎪ ⎪
⎪ −Q2 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎪ −Q3 ⎪⎪
{F}= ⎨ ⎬
 1 + Q1
kt1ug1 + ct1ug
⎪ ⎪
⎪  2 + Q2
kt 2 ug2 + ct 2 ug ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪  3 + Q3
kt 3ug3 + ct 3ug ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭

The governing equation can be simplified as

{u} = [ M ]−1 {F} − [ M ]−1 [C ] {u} − [ M ]−1 [ K ] {u} (14)

3. ACTIVE CONTROL FORCE AND CONTROLLER DESIGN

The active control force Q generated by servo actuator is a function of the flow
output of the servo valve. The following empirical formulae are given by Sharp [19]

Q = ka Q flow Q flow (15)

where, the flow quantity Qflow is calculated by

paccum − pres
Q flow = Cd wl (16)
ρ

The servo valve displacement l(t) is controlled by the PID controller. Time delay
is inevitable in the active control system because of the involved dynamics of servo
actuators, filters and sensors, to generate active control force. In real active control
systems, time is consumed by the acquisition of response and excitation data, on-
line computation to obtain the required theoretical control force and application of
the control force. Therefore, there will always be a delay between the time at which
the control force is assumed to be applied and the time when the control force is
actually applied. The time delay may reduce the control performance of the system.
In future study, the intentional time delays into the feedback loop will be
investigated by compensation methods.
PID control is widely used in many control applications because of it is simple,
mathematically credible and relatively easy to realize with scope for adjustments. In
this article, the traditional PID control is considered to complete the mathematical
model and to investigate the landing gear system performance. The control strategy
is based on the individual PID controllers for nose, left and right landing gears. It
works for small uncertainties of the system. This lacks robustness against large
system parameter uncertainties. This is due to insufficient number of parameters to
deal with the independent specifications of time domain response such as settling
time and over-shooting. In the extension of research, the mathematical based
framework for designing robust controller against the system uncertainties will be
investigated.
The controller design is defined as

t de ( t ) (17)
Gc = k p e ( t ) + ki ∫ e ( t ) + kd
0 dt

Gc is the current input from the controller. kp is the proportional gain, ki and kd
are the integral and derivative gains of the PID controller. The error function is the
difference between the reference signal and the feedback signal measured from the

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 313

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

sensors fitted in the nose landing gear, left main landing gear and right main landing
gear, respectively, i.e.
e ( t ) = r ( t ) − u − aθ − hβ − u (t )
( 1 ) (18)

The output signals of the independent PID controllers at the nose landing gear,
left and right main landing gear give the displacement of the nose, left and right
landing gear servo valves, respectively. The displacement of the nose landing gear
servo valve is written as:

l1 (t ) = k p r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u − aθ − hβ − u1 ) (t )⎤⎦ + ki {r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u − aθ − hβ − u1 )(t )⎤⎦}

{ }
r ( t ) − ⎡⎣ u − aθ − hβ − u1 ( t ) ⎤⎦
{
+ kd  ( ) } (19)

Similarly, the displacements at the left and right main landing gear servo valves
from the corresponding independent PID controllers are given as:

l2 (t ) = k p r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u + bθ − d β − u2 ) (t )⎤⎦ + ki {r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u + bθ − d β − u2 )(t )⎤⎦}

{ }
r ( t ) − ⎡⎣ u + bθ − d β − u2 ( t ) ⎤⎦
{
+ kd  ( ) } (20)

l3 (t ) = k p r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u + bθ + eβ − u 3 ) (t )⎤⎦  +ki {r (t ) − ⎡⎣(u + bθ + eβ − u 3 )(t )⎤⎦}

{ }
r ( t ) − ⎡⎣ u + bθ + eβ − u3 ( t ) ⎤⎦
{
+ kd  ( ) } (21)

Here the feedback coefficients kp proportionality coefficient, ki an integral

coefficient and kd a differential coefficient are adjusted by Ziegler-Nichols tuning
rules to obtain the best control efficiency. The values of gain margin and phase
margin obtained from the plot of body displacement of the front landing gear
system and the main landing gear system are used to determine the tuning
parameters of the PID controller for the active full aircraft model. The Ziegler-
Nichols tuning rules are used to determine the proportional, integral and
derivative gains of PID controllers based on the transient response characteristics
of a given system. According to this method, setting integral and derivative gains
to zero, the kp is increased from 0 to a critical value kcr at which the output first
exhibits sustained oscillations. Thus the critical gain kcr and the corresponding
period are determined. The values of the parameters kp, ti and td are set by Ziegler-
Nichols tuning rules. The tuning values are applied independently to the nose
landing gear and main landing gears to obtain the control gains. The control gains
kp = 0.1, ki = 1.0 and kd = 0.0025 are used for the PID controller of nose landing
gear and the control gains kp = 0.6, ki = 190 and kd = 0.00001 are used for the PID
controllers of rear left and right landing gears.

4. MODELLING OF RANDOM ROAD PROFILE

In this work, the shape filter method [15] is used for generating the road profiles.
The road profile can be represented by power spectral density (PSD) function.
Power spectral densities of random roads show a characteristic drop in magnitude
with wave number. To determine the PSD function, the road surface profile is
measured with respect to the reference plane. Random road profile can be
approximated by a PSD in the form
−ω
⎛ Ω⎞
Φ ( Ω ) = ΦΩ. ⎜ ⎟ (22)
⎝Ω ⎠ °

314 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

where,
f(W)-value of PSD at the reference wave number
2 π in rad/m denotes the angular spatial frequency
Ω=
L
L = wavelength
w = waviness
It is well known that the amount of road excitation imposed at the vehicle tire
depends on the road roughness which is a function of the road roughness coefficient
and the velocity (v). The random road profile is generated by shaping filter method.
The profile can be approximated by PSD distribution using
2αV σ 2
ψ (ω ) = (23)
ω 2 +α 2 V 2

where,
s2 - road roughness variance (m2)
V - aircraft speed (m/s)
a - type of road surface (rad/m)
Hence if the aircraft runs with the constant velocity V, the PSD is given by
equation (23) and the road profile signal may be obtained as the output of a linear
filter expressed by the differential
d
zR ( t ) = −α VzR ( t ) + ω ( t ) (24)
dt

where, w (t) is a white noise process with the spectral density y(w).
The road roughness standard deviations for various types of roads [15] are as
given in Table 1. The Simulink model of the first-order filter given by equation (24)
is generated in Matlab-Simulink environment [21] as shown in Figure 2. The

Table 1.
Road roughness standard deviation

Road Grade s(10-3m) f(W0)(10-6m3), W0 =1 a(rad/m)

A (very good) 2 1 0.127
B (good) 4 4 0.127
C (average) 8 16 0.127
D (poor) 16 64 0.127
E (very poor) 32 256 0.127

Road profile

Random number +
1
s
−
Integrator Output
−K − V

Alpha Velocity
t

To workplace Clock

Figure 2. Simulink model of random road generator.

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 315

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

different grades of random roads are generated by using the Simulink model and the
values are given in Table 1.

5. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
Based on the analysis described in Sections 2 and 3, the Simulink model of the
acting landing gear system was been developed in the Matlab-Simulink
environment. A typical airplane of 22,000kg, with landing gear mass of 650kg is
considered with a taxiing speed of 18m/s for numerical simulation. The transient
response of the aircraft with the passive and active landing gear system is simulated
for the random runway excitation in Matlab-Simulink.
The control methodology is based on a generic control loop feed mechanism
widely used in industrial control systems. In this control strategy, the individual PID
controllers are used for nose, left and right landing gears. The output signal of the
controller is governing the displacement of servo valves considering bounce, roll and
pitch effects due to random runway excitations. A comparison of the developed
methodology with other existing schemes will be assessed in future study. Moreover,
majority of the available literature has considered active control of aircraft based on
single station mathematical model considering only bounce motion. Whereas in the
present study, full aircraft math model considering bounce, pitch and roll motions are
developed and independent active control is used for the landing gears. The
parameters used for numerical simulation [20] are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2.
Parameters for numerical simulations

Description Symbol Value Units

Aircraft fuselage mass m 22000 kg
Nose landing gear tire mass m1 130 kg
Rear left landing gear tire mass m2 260 kg
Rear right landing gear tire mass m3 260 kg
Nose gear shock strut stiffness ks1 6.73e5 N/m
Rear left gear shock strut stiffness ks2 4.08e5 N/m
Rear right gear shock strut stiffness ks3 4.08e5 N/m
Nose gear shock strut damping coefficient cs1 1.43e5 N.s/m
Rear left gear shock strut damping coefficient cs2 6.25e5 N.s/m
Rear right gear shock strut damping coefficient cs3 6.25e5 N.s/m
Nose gear tire stiffness kt1 1.59e6 N/m
Rear left gear tire stiffness kt2 1.59e6 N/m
Rear right gear tire stiffness kt3 1.59e6 N/m
Nose gear tire damping coefficient ct1 4066 N.s/m
Rear left gear tire damping coefficient ct2 4066 N.s/m
Rear right gear tire damping coefficient ct3 4066 N.s/m
Mass moment of inertia about XX axis Ixx 65e3 kg.m2
Mass moment of inertia about YY axis Iyy 100e3 kg.m2
Longitudinal Distance from C.G to nose landing gear a 7.76 m
Longitudinal Distance from C.G to horizontal axis
of main landing gear b 1.94 m
Distance from C.G to left main landing gear d 3.8425 m
Distance from C.G to right main landing gear e 3.8425 m

316 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

Grade D road profile is a poor roughness road with a road roughness variance of
0.016, and road surface coefficient a = 0.127. Considering an aircraft speed of 18
m/s, grade D road profile was generated as shown in Figure 3.
A series of simulations were done in the Matlab (Simulink) and the fuselage
bounce, pitch, roll accelerations, displacements and shock strut travel values were
obtained to compare the dynamic response of the passive and active landing gear as
shown in Figures 4–10 and tabulated in Table 3. From Table 3, there is a 54.87%
reduction of bounce acceleration, 28.20% reduction of pitch acceleration and

Grade D road
Road profile signal (m)

0.02
0.01
0
−0.01
−0.02
−0.03
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 3. Grade D road profile.

Fuselage bounce acceleration

Sprung mass acceleration

2 Passive landing gear

1 Active landing gear

0
(m/s2)

−1
−2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 4. Fuselage bounce acceleration for grade D runway.

Fuselage pitching acceleration

Pitching acceleration

2
Passive landing gear
1 Active landing gear
(rad/s2)

0
−1
−2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 5. Fuselage pitch acceleration for grade D runway.

Fuselage rolling acceleration

Rolling acceleration

4
Passive landing gear
2 Activelanding gear
(rad/s2)

0
−2
−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 6. Fuselage roll acceleration for grade D runway.

Fuselage displacement
0.02
displacement(m)

Passive landing gear

Sprung mass

0.01 Active landing gear

0

−0.01
−0.02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 7. Fuselage bounce displacement for grade D runway

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 317

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

x 10−3 Fuselage pitch displacement

Pitching motion (rad)

2
1
0
−1
−2
−3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 8. Fuselage pitch displacement for grade D runway

x 10−3 Fuselage roll displacement

5
Rolling motion (rad)

−5
Passive landing gear
Active landing gear
−10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 9. Fuselage roll displacement for grade D runway

Shock strut travel

Suspension travel (m)

0.04
Passive landing gear
0.02 Active landing gear
0
−0.02
−0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 10. Shock strut travel for grade D runway

Table 3.
RMS values of fuselage acceleration, vertical displacement and shock strut travel

Fuselage acceleration (m/s2) Fuselage displacement (m)

(RMS) (RMS)
passive active passive active
bounce 0.8551 0.3859 0.0075 0.0065
pitch 0.0915 0.0657 0.0004 0.0003
roll 0.1398 0.0668 0.0004 0.0003

52.22% reduction of roll acceleration levels of aircraft with active landing gear
system in comparison to the aircraft with passive landing gear system when
travelling on Grade D roughness runway at a speed of 18 m/sec. Similarly, there is
a considerable reduction of fuselage displacements. The shock strut travel of active
system is 0.041m and that of the passive system is 0.071m, which shows 42.25%
reduction of strut travel by the active system as compared to the passive system.

5. DYNAMIC RESPONSE ON DIFFERENT GRADES OF ROAD

The road profiles for different grades are generated and the performance of the
active landing gear system is investigated in the Matlab-Simulink environment.
Grade B road profile is a good road which has a road roughness variance 0.004,
velocity of the aircraft 5m/s and a = 0.127 generated in Matlab-Simulink. Similarly,
Grades C and E profiles are generated using the values given in Table 1. A series of
simulations were done with the road profiles, and important parameters of fuselage

318 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

Sprung mass acceleration

Fuselage acceleration
4
Passive landing gear
2 Active landing gear

(m/s2)
0

−2

−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(a) Fuselage acceleration response for grade B runway
Sprung mass acceleration

Fuselage acceleration
4
Passive landing gear
2 Active landing gear
(m/s2)

−2

−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

(b) Fuselage acceleration response for grade C runway

Fuselage acceleration
Sprung mass acceleration

4
Passive landing gear
2 Active landing gear
(m/s2)

−2

−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

(c) Fuselage acceleration response for grade E runway

Figure 11. Response of fuselage acceleration to different levels of pavement at 5m/s.

acceleration, displacement and shock strut travel values were obtained to compare
the passive and active landing gear. From Figure 11, the root mean square (RMS)
value of active landing gear acceleration is 0.2035m/s2 and the RMS value of
passive landing gear is 0.3752 m/s2. There is a 47.68% reduction of vibration level
of aircraft with active landing gear system as compared to the aircraft with passive
landing gear system when travelling on Grade B road. In case of Grade C road, the
RMS value of active landing gear acceleration is 0.3006 m/s2 and the RMS value of
passive landing gear is 0.6419m/s2 and in case of Grade E road the RMS value of
active landing gear acceleration is 1.2641m/s2 and the RMS value of passive landing
gear is 0.5661m/s2. In case of Grade C average road and Grade E road the
acceleration reduced by active landing gear system is also approximately 50%.
From Figure 12, the fuselage displacement response for the aircraft with active
landing gear is 3.80mm and the passive landing gear is 4.10mm when travelling
over Grade B random road. The displacement response of the active landing gear is
less than the passive landing gear. Similarly, the displacement response of the active
system is less than the passive system for Grades C and E random roads. From
Figure 13, the RMS value of shock strut travel of active landing gear is 7.50mm and
the travel of passive landing gear is 8.00mm. Similarly, the RMS value of travel
distance of active system is less than the passive system for Grades C and E random
profiles. The values obtained are tabulated in Table 3. Even though it is a minimum
value it greatly increases the life of the aircraft structure and the landing gear
system.
From Figures 11 - 13 and from Table 3, it can be noted that as the roughness
variance increases, there is an increase in the fuselage vertical acceleration, vertical
displacement and shock strut travel. There is overall average 50% reduction of
acceleration of the aircraft with the active landing gear system. The fuselage vertical
displacement and shock strut travel are also considerably reduced in the aircraft with

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 319

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

Fuselage displacement

Sprung mass displacement

0.02

(m)
0

−0.02 Passive landing gear

Active landing gear
−0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

(a) Fuselage acceleration response for grade B runway

Sprung mass displacement

Fuselage displacement
0.03
0.02 Passive landing gear
0.01 Active landing gear
0
(m)

−0.01
7
−0.02
−0.03
−0.04
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

(b) Fuselage acceleration response for grade C runway

Fuselage displacement
Sprung mass displacement

0.02 Passive landing gear

0.01 Active landing gear
0
−0.01
(m)

−0.02
−0.03
−0.04
−0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

(c) Fuselage acceleration response for grade E runway

Figure 12. Response of fuselage displacement to different levels of pavement at 5m/s.

Suspension travel (m)

Shock strut travel

0.05
Passive landing gear
Active landing gear
0

−0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(a) Shock strut travel response for grade B runway
Suspension travel (m)

Shock strut travel

0.05
Passive landing gear
Active landing gear
0

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(b) Shock strut travel response for grade C runway
Suspension travel (m)

Shock strut travel

0.05
Passive landing gear
Active landing gear
0

−0.05

−0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
(c) Shock strut travel response for grade E runway

Figure 13. Response of fuselage shock strut travel to different levels of pavement at 5m/s.

320 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

 S. Sivakumar and A. P. Haran

Table 3.
RMS values of fuselage acceleration, vertical displacement and shock strut travel

Random Fuselage Fuselage Suspension

runway acceleration(m/s2) displacement(mm) travel(mm)
Profile (RMS) (RMS) (RMS)
passive active passive active passive active
Grade B 0.3752 0.2035 4.10 3.80 8.00 7.50
Grade C 0.6419 0.3006 11.90 11.6 23.5 23.10
Grade E 1.2641 0.5661 23.60 22.5 45.8 44.70

the active system. The comparison shows the effectiveness of the active landing
gear system for different grades of runways.

6. CONCLUSION
Random vibration analysis of aircraft with active landing gears taxiing on random
runway roughness has been done in Matlab/Simulink. The vibration levels show
reduction in the magnitude of aircraft bounce, pitch, roll acceleration levels and
displacement levels of the aircraft by the active landing gear system as compared to
the passive system during travel over random runway surfaces. It is also observed
that the influence of pavement roughness increases the vibration levels and
considerably 50% reduction by the active landing gear system. Thus, the aircraft
fitted with active landing gears have improved ride comfort of passengers and
easiness for crew to control the aircraft on ground manoeuvres. The reduction of
vibration level also increases the fatigue life of the landing gear and the aircraft
fuselage structure while travelling on damaged runways.

REFERENCES
[1] Bender EK and Beiber M, A feasibility study of active landing gear (1971),
U.S. Air force flight dynamics lab, Wright Patterson air force base, AFFDL
TR-70-126.

[2] McGehee JR and Garden HD, Analytical investigation of the landing

dynamics of a large airplane with a load-control system in the main landing
gear (1979), NASA Technical Paper 1555.

[3] Ross I and Edson R, Application of active control landing gear technology to
the A-10 aircraft (1983), NASA CR-166104.

[4] Freymann R and Johnson W, Simulation of aircraft taxi testing on the AGILE
shaker test facility, Second International Symposium on Aero elasticity and
Structural Dynamics (1985), sponsored by Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Luf–und
Raumfahrt e.V.in Aachen, W. Germany,.

[5] Freymann R, An experimental–analytical routine for the dynamic

qualification of aircraft operating on rough runway surfaces (1937), AGARD
R-731.

[6] Freymann R, Actively damped landing gear system. Landing Gear Design
Load Conference No-20 (1991), AGARD CP-484.

[7] Sheperd A, Catt T and Cowling D, The simulation of aircraft landing gear
dynamics. 18th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical
Sciences (1992), Beijing, China.

Vol. 34 No. 3 2015 321

 Aircraft Random Vibration Analysis using Active Landing Gears

[8] Sheperd A, Catt TR and Cowling DA, Active landing gear control for
improved ride quality during ground roll. AGARD Specialist Meeting on
Smart structures for aircraft and spacecraft (1992).

[9] Prabakar RS, Sujatha S and Narayanan S, Response of a quarter car model
with optimal magnetorheological damper parameters. Journal of Sound and
Vibration (2013), 332, 2191–2206.

[10] Wang H, Xing JT, Price WG and Li W, An investigation of an active landing

gear system to reduce aircraft vibrations caused by landing impacts and
runway excitations. Journal of Sound and Vibration (2008), 317, 50 –66.

[11] Wu J-D, Lin C-J and Kuo K-Y, A study of semi active vibration control for
vehicle suspension system using an adjustable shock absorber. Journal of Low
Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control (2008), 27(3), 219–235.

[12] Oveisi A and Gudarzi M, Adaptive sliding mode vibration control of a

nonlinear smart beam: A comparison with self-tuning Ziegler-Nichols PID
controller. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control
(2013), 32(1+2), 41–62.

[13] Liu Y-H, Application of proportional feedback controller for active control of
a vibration isolator. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active
control (2005), 24(3), 181–190.

[14] Currey NS, Aircraft landing gear design: principles and practices, AIAA
Education (1988), American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

[15] Tyan F, Hong Y-F, Tu S-H and Jeng WS, Generation of random road profiles.
Computational Dynamics and Control lab, Tamkang University, Taipei,
Taiwan.

[16] Hwang J-H and Kim J-S, On the approximate solution of aircraft landing gear
under nonstationary random excitations. KSME International Journal (2000),
14(9), 968–977.

[17] Dai J, Gao W and Zhang N, Random displacement and acceleration responses
of vehicles with uncertainty. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology
(2011), 25(5), 1221–1229.

[18] Sivakumar S and Haran AP, Mathematical model and vibration analysis of
aircraft with active landing gears, Journal of Vibration and Control (2015),
21(2), 229–245.

[19] Sharp JJ, Basic fluid Mechanics (1988), Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

[20] Abacus Technology, Aircraft landing gear simulation using abacus-Aero-

aircraft landing gear simulation (2010), Technology Brief TB-10-ALG-1.

[21] SIMULINK – Dynamic system simulation for MATLAB, version 2- using

SIMULINK (1997), The Math Works Inc.

322 JOURNAL OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE, VIBRATION AND ACTIVE CONTROL

View publication stats