JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT

Vol. 58, No. 1, January–February 2021

Dynamics Analysis of Spatial Landing-Gear Mechanism

with Hinge Clearance and Axis Deviation

Yin Yin,∗ Kui Xu,† Hong Nie,‡ Xiaohui Wei,§ and Huilong Wang¶
College of Aerospace Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Mechanics and Control of Mechanical
Structures, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 210016 Nanjing,
People’s Republic of China
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035739
The hinge clearance and rotation axis deviation of aircraft landing-gear retraction mechanism are unavoidable due
to factors, such as manufacture, assembly, wear, and wing deformation. Such negative factors affect the dynamic
response of the mechanism itself, which is more serious for spatial mechanisms. To study this effect, both numerical
and experimental investigations on a spatial landing-gear mechanism are carried out in this study. To build the
numerical model, the nonlinear contact force model and modified Coulomb friction model are adopted in the hinge
clearance of the landing-gear mechanism. Considering the flexibility effect, some key moving parts, such as sidestay
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

links, are flexibly processed to deal with the axis deviation problems. Based on the proposed model, the influences of
clearance size and axis deviation value on the dynamic behaviors of spatial landing-gear mechanism are studied. Both
the test and simulation results indicate that the clearance and axis deviation have little effect on the actuation response
of the retraction mechanism if they are within reasonable ranges. Nevertheless, the axis deviation is greatly influential
to the load on structure and the friction in hinge, whereas the clearance mitigates the adverse effects on the motion of
mechanism caused by the axis deviation to some extent.

Nomenclature
ce = coefficient of restitution
Ek = elastic modulus of impact body material
hi ; hj = parameters related to the material properties
K = contact stiffness coefficient of impact body
Ri ; Rj = equivalent spherical radii for the impact between two
bodies
vr = maximum tangential velocity in friction model
vτ = relative tangential velocity
δ = embedded depth of impact body
δ0 = relative embedding velocity
δ 0− = initial embedding velocity
μf = dynamic friction coefficient
μk = Poisson’s ratio
I. Introduction
S UPERCRITICAL airfoil is widely used in large passenger air-
planes, which delays the drag-divergence Mach number to attain
better transonic flight performance for planes. Its peculiar feature is
a thin wing root [1], as shown in Fig. 1. However, this feature makes
the landing-gear retraction space extremely tight because the main
landing gear of passenger airplanes is installed usually at the wing root
position. To address this problem, a three-dimensional (3-D) retraction
mechanism has been proposed, which has gained extensive applica-
tion in the main landing gear of modern large passenger airplanes.
As shown in Fig. 2, the 3-D retraction mechanism is primarily
composed of a sidestay, a main strut, and wheels. The sidestay
includes an upper drag brace, a lower drag brace, an upper lock link,
a lower lock link, and three nodes. Unlike the planar motion mode
of a two-dimensional retraction mechanism, in the 3-D retraction
Received 25 September 2019; revision received 3 June 2020; accepted for
publication 8 June 2020; published online 9 July 2020. Copyright © 2020 by
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights
reserved. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be
submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the eISSN 1533-3868 to
initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/
randp.
*Lecturer of Dynamic and Control, Jiangsu; yinyin@nuaa.edu.cn.
†
Ph.D. Student, Jiangsu; kui_x@nuaa.edu.cn.
‡
Professor of Dynamic and Control, Jiangsu; hnie@nuaa.edu.cn.
§
Professor of Dynamic and Control, Jiangsu; wei_xiaohui@nuaa.edu.cn.
¶
Ph.D. Student, Jiangsu; Wang13016982662@163.com.
30
mechanism, the sidestay also rotates around a specific axis aside from
self-folding motion during the entire retraction process. In the retracted
state, the sidestay of the landing gear can be fully folded onto the
same plane as the main strut, which occupies almost no vertical space
inside the wing. To achieve such a 3-D motion, the mechanism needs
to satisfy the design principle of “three axes intersecting at one point”
[2–4]. These three axes are axis 1 (the rotation axis of the main strut),
axis 2 (the rotation axis connecting the lower drag brace and upper lock
link to the main strut), and axis 3 (the rotation axis connecting the
upper drag brace to the fuselage). Axes 1 and 2 are mounted to the wing
rear. Axis 2 is located on the landing-gear structure. The degree of
freedom (DOF) of the mechanism’s rigid-body motion is one only
when the three axes intersect at one point. At this time, the mechanism
can complete the spatial folding and retraction excellently.
As a matter of fact, the hole–shaft fit at structural joint inevitably
has clearance to allow flexible operation of the mechanism [5,6].
Moreover, due to the deformation of the wing structure caused by
assembly error and aerodynamic load, the 3-D retraction mechanism
fails to strictly conform to the requirements of the three axes inter-
secting at one point principle. Nevertheless, in actual engineering, the
deviation does not affect the retraction performance of landing gear as
long as it is within an allowable range. This is because the structural
deformation of braces and the hole–shaft fit clearance can eliminate
the adverse effects resulting from axis deviation. An obvious con-
clusion is that, if the clearance is too small or the axis deviation of
spatial mechanism is too large, the mechanism will operate inflexibly,
which will cause severe friction to accelerate the wear of members,
thereby altering the mechanical properties [7,8]. In contrast, exces-
sively large clearance may change the motion accuracy of the landing
gear, and cause positioning error of upper and lower locks [9], which
may even cause structural impact during gear landing to increase the
dynamic load of members, thus resulting in poor loading performance
of the structure. Hence, reasonable control of hinge clearance and axis
deviation is a key issue in the design of the 3-D retraction mechanism.
Accurate creation of a multibody dynamics model with clearances
and axis deviations is a prerequisite to analyze the aforementioned
problem. The multibody dynamics of hinge clearance mechanism
has been studied by many scholars since the 1970s. Depending on
the contact form and mechanical model, the dynamics models with
clearances can be classified roughly into three categories: massless
rod model, collision model, and continuous contact model. Proposed
by two researchers [10–12], the massless rod model is the earliest
solution to the dynamics problems with clearances. Its main idea is to
 YIN ET AL.
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
Fig. 1 Schematic of supercritical airfoil.
assume that the two parts with clearance pair are always in contact,
and to let the clearances be equivalent to massless rigid rod. Accord-
ingly, the mechanical system with clearances can be transformed into
a multilink mechanical system. Despite simple and easy-to-calculate
advantages, the method can hardly describe the dynamic character-
istics of clearance kinematic pair because it fails to take the stiffness,
damping, friction, and restitution coefficients of the pair into account.
The three-state model of separation–contact–collision, which was
proposed by Miedema and Mansour [13], is quite a classic collision
model. Its main idea is to establish the dynamic relation between
colliding parts based on the conservation of momentum and the
coefficient of restitution by assuming that the contact time between
the two parts is extremely short. Although this method achieves rather
realistic simulation of the collision process, it ignores the changes in
collision force and the contact deformation process. The continuous
contact model is the most popular clearance dynamics model at
present. It believes that two parts having a clearance undergo local
deformation at the contact surface, and that the deformation displace-
ment and deformation velocity are the input parameters of contact
force, and so the contact force can be equivalent to a spring-damper
Fig. 2 Schematic of the 3-D retraction mechanism.
31
model. Based on the existing literatures, the spring-damping models
can be classified roughly into the linear and nonlinear types. The most
representative linear model is the Kelvin–Voigt model proposed
by Dubowsky and Freudenstein [14,15]. Despite its simple form,
the model cannot reflect the nonlinear relationship between collision
force and embedded depth. Moreover, the damping force results
in the collision restitution phase fail to match the actual situation.
To this end, many scholars have introduced nonlinear damping terms
on the basis of Hertz contact force model. The most representative
is the Lankarani–Nikravesh (L–N) model [16], which proposes the
introduction of nonlinear damping terms that consider the restitution
coefficient of the structure. Aside from normal contact force, the
clearance dynamics problem also includes tangential friction force.
According to the existing literature, the majority of friction models
are modified versions of the Coulomb friction model. The primary
purpose of such modification is to resolve the abrupt change problem
when tangential velocities approaching zero, so that the friction force
is a continuous function with respect to velocity. Some examples are
the Rooney–Deravi model [17] and the Threlfall model [18].
Regarding the application of the aforementioned dynamics methods
with clearances, most existing studies are limited to the planar motion
mechanisms (four-bar or slider–crank linkages). Compared to spatial
mechanisms, planar structures have simpler modes of motion, which
consider only two dimensions in the motion and dynamics of clear-
ances. Therefore, their model variables are considerably less in number
than the 3-D spatial models, which are easy to calculate numerically.
Ma et al. [19] developed a hybrid contact force model based on the L–N
contact force model, and illustrated the wider adaptability of their
hybrid model than the L–N model using a slider–crank linkage. Xu
and Li [20] created a two-DOF planar pick-and-place parallel robot
model with clearances based on the continuous contact theory and
hysteretic damping contact force model, and proposed reduction of the
mechanism vibration with pretensioned spring. On the basis of the L–N
model, Flores et al. [21] considered a mechanical model with lubrica-
tion action, who demonstrated that the lubrication action could remark-
ably suppress the structural vibration by using a slider–crank linkage.
For spatial mechanisms, clearance or six-DOF deviation of axis
means damage to their motion principle. Thus, their dynamics analysis
can hardly be achieved with pure rigid-body dynamics model, and
introduction of multiflexible body dynamics means is needed. Con-
cerning the research on clearance dynamics of multiflexible bodies,
Bauchau and Rodriguez [22] built a flexible body dynamics model of
slider–crank with clearance, focusing on analyzing the effects of
clearance and lubrication on the motion performance of the mecha-
nism. The effects of different contact force models on the peak contact
force were studied by Schwab et al. [23] by creating a flexible body
dynamics model of slider–crank with clearance. Based on the ADAMS
simulation platform, Erkaya et al. [24,25] studied the dynamics
of slider–crank with clearance and flexible body, who found that the
flexible structural members were effective in suppressing the vibration
caused by clearance. Further, they verified the accuracy of the results
experimentally. Dessalegn et al. [26] constructed a flexible dynamics
model of wing control surface using ADAMS to simulate the joint
clearance through changes in structural length and stiffness. Based
on the parameter influence results, they designed a reasonable wing
control linkage.
To sum up, the majority of dynamics researches on mechanisms
with clearances are confined to the classic planar linkages, while only
a few deal with practical engineering problems, not to mention fewer
studies involving engineering problems of spatial mechanisms. At the
present stage, most engineering problems are concentrated around
simple planar operating mechanisms, such as the aircraft flaperon
mechanisms [26,27], the aircraft door linkage [28], and the aerospace
solar panel folding mechanism [29,30]. In this paper, in contrast, a
complex spatial landing-gear retraction mechanism is targeted. The
effects of hinge clearance and axis deviation on the mechanism’s
retraction performance and load transfer are studied by building a
rigid–flexible coupling dynamics model of landing gear with clear-
ance. The results of this study provide a reference for the tolerance
design scope of retraction mechanism, as well as the stiffness design
of wing structure.
 32 YIN ET AL.

Table 1 Main parameters of the landing-gear structure

Body Length, mm Material Mass, kg Moment of inertia, kg ⋅ m2  J xx ; J yy ; J zz 
Main strut 2889 Alloy steel 1300 (126.48, 1377.39, 1452.48)
Lower drag brace 1031.4 Alloy steel 68.94 (0.35, 8.62, 8.76)
Upper drag brace 757.53 Alloy steel 71.72 (0.26, 4.85, 4.86)
Lower lock link 285.43 Alloy steel 10.44 (0.04, 0.14, 0.17)
Upper lock link 504 Alloy steel 7.19 (0.004, 0.22, 0.222)

II. Tests of Retraction Mechanism Considering Hinge
Clearance and Axis Deviation
To investigate the extent to which the hinge clearance and axis
deviation affect the retraction performance of landing-gear spatial
mechanism, tests are carried out by setting up a landing-gear test
prototype and a platform.
Given the constrained test conditions and the investigation emphasis
of the influence of clearance variations between connecting members
of the sidestay, we only tested the hinge clearance between the upper
and lower drag braces and that between the upper and lower lock
links. Their results can fundamentally reflect the variation regularity.

A. Test Prototype and Control System

The test prototype is a 1∶1 model of a certain passenger airplane’s
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

main landing gear. The landing gear is simplified to cut the processing
cost of the prototype. The investigation focus part, such as the side-
stay, is fine machined, whereas the rest parts (main strut and wheels)
are rough machined as they only need to meet the mass attribute
requirements as test members. Tolerance analysis is carried out
according to the motion principle of the 3-D retraction mechanism
to allow reasonable tolerance allocation among various moving parts
[4]. Table 1 lists the main parameters of the landing-gear structure.
The physical test prototype is processed and assembled to the test bed,
as shown in Fig. 3.
The hydraulic retraction system of the landing gear includes a
retraction channel and an unlocking channel. The retraction channel
completes the extension and retraction actions of the landing gear,
whereas the unlocking channel accomplishes the unlocking action
of locking device before the extension and retraction of landing gear.
Figure 4 presents an actual image of the hydraulic station. The specific
retraction process is as follows: extension state → unlocking the
lower lock → retracting the landing gear → locking the upper
lock → unlocking the upper lock → extending the landing gear →
locking the lower lock. The retraction test is controlled by signal
transmission, logic solution, and control command sending via the
programmable logic controller (PLC) system. Figure 5 shows the
Fig. 4 Hydraulic station system.
electrical cabinet of the PLC system.

B. Test Schemes for Hinge Clearance and Axis Deviation

1. Test Scheme for the Effects of Hinge Clearance on Mechanism
Because the interstructure hole–shaft connection is achieved by
mating of shaft pins with copper bushings, the scenarios of different
assembling clearances and structural wearing clearances are simu-
lated by adjusting the aperture of the copper bushings during the test.

Fig. 3 Test prototype assembly. Fig. 5 Electrical cabinet of the PLC system.
 YIN ET AL. 33

Table 2 Test measurement parameters

Structural parts Measuring items
Upper node Torsional friction between the upper node and the fixture rotation pair; extrusion load between the structures
Upper drag brace Loads on the upper drag brace (primarily the tensile and compressive loads)
Lower drag brace Loads on the lower drag brace (primarily the tensile and compressive loads)
Lower node Friction between the lower node and the strut-connecting hole; extrusion load between the structures
Main strut Stress in the lugs connecting the hydraulic cylinder
Upper lock link Loads on the upper lock link (primarily the tensile and compressive loads)
Lower lock link Loads on the lower lock link (primarily the tensile and compressive loads)

The main test items are the friction torque inside key rotation pair
and the loading condition of structural parts. Table 2 lists the details.
The loads borne by the sidestay are basically the tensile and
compressive axial loads, which can be measured by axially arranging
strain gauges on the upper and lower symmetry planes of structures.
Meanwhile, in the stress level test, strain rosettes are arranged at the
locations of interest to derive the stress levels at the corresponding
parts. The challenge lies in the measurement of friction torque of
hole–shaft fit. In the present test, the strain rosettes are arranged on
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
is achieved, the bolts are tightened again. The test content is funda-
mentally consistent with the hinge clearance test.
III. Dynamics Modeling of the 3-D Retraction
Mechanism Considering Hinge Clearance and Axis
Deviation
In our previous work, the motion principle and multi-rigid-body
dynamics model of the landing-gear 3-D retraction mechanism have

the two symmetry planes of 0 and 180 deg angles on the shaft pin. The been deduced in detail [31]. In this paper, the dynamics problem of
intermediate gauge is required to coincide with the pin neutral layer,
whereas the rest of the gauges form 45 deg angles with the neutral
layer, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Friction torque is obtained by
eliminating the influence of other external loads by bridging means.

2. Test Scheme for the Effects of Axis Deviation on Mechanism

As shown in Fig. 8, to simulate the axis deviation of the landing-
gear retraction mechanism caused by wing deformation and assembly
error, the position of up-node rotation axis on the landing gear
is adjusted during the test. The specific implementation procedure
of axis deviation is as follows: four sets of wedge-shaped plates (as
shown in Figs. 9 and 10) are arranged, where each of the large and
small plates is matched into one set. The small wedge-shaped plates
are weld connected with the up-node fixture, whereas the large
wedge-shaped plates are attached to the bevels of small wedge-
shaped plates and locked by bolts. When artificial generation of axis
deviation is necessary, the bolts are loosened and the large wedge- Fig. 8 Axis deviation method.
shaped plates are knocked from two sides. After the desired deviation

Fig. 6 Strain rosette arrangement for measuring friction torque.

Fig. 7 Torque measurement in actual test. Fig. 9 Schematic for axis deviation.
 34 YIN ET AL.
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

Fig. 11 Multi-rigid-body dynamics model of landing gear.

links, upper and lower nodes, and lock node are selected as flexible
members, as shown in Fig. 13. The specific procedure of flexible
body processing is as follows: the landing-gear parts are meshed using
Fig. 10 Implementation diagram of axis deviation scheme. finite element modeling software and assigned for material properties
(density, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, etc.). Then, multipoint
constraints are defined at the points of kinematic pair constraints and
the 3-D retraction mechanism is focused on which takes the hinge force element applications to characterize the load transfer locations of
clearance and axis deviation into account. Challenges lie in the need structural parts. Finally, the constraint mode of each part is calculated
for dynamics modeling of multiflexible bodies and for dynamics to form a multiflexible body dynamics model of the landing-gear
modeling of hole–shaft fit with clearance. For flexible body dynamics retraction mechanism.
model, the derivation of dynamics equation is far more difficult than
the multi-rigid-body dynamics equation due to the larger number of B. Simulation of Hinge Clearance and Axis Deviation
voxels. Hence, in this paper, the Siemens Virtual. Lab Motion multi- 1. Hinge Clearance and Axis Deviation model
body dynamics software is used to handle the multiflexible body The kinematic pairs of 3-D retractable main landing gear are mostly
problem, and to build the dynamics model of the 3-D retraction in the form of rotation pairs comprising a shaft pin and a bushing.
mechanism with hinge clearance and axis deviation. Given the presence of clearance, the position and posture of shaft pins
in the bushings vary by the force and moment they receive. Depending
A. Dynamics Modeling of Landing-Gear Retraction on the force bearing form, the hole–shaft model can be classified into
1. Multi-Rigid-Body Dynamics Model of the Landing-Gear Retraction the complete separation, two-point contact, one-point contact, and
Mechanism line contact modes. The difficulty in establishing the hole–shaft model
The linkage part models of landing gear are simplified while ensur-
ing the inertial mass of mechanism. As shown in Fig. 11, the damper
strut, wheel axle, torsion arm, and wheels are deemed as an integral
rotating part and named main strut, whereas all the remaining bars of the
sidestay are separate dynamic components. Kinematic pair connection
is established according to the linking relations between the structural
parts shown in Fig. 12. The main strut is connected to the fuselage via
two spherical hinges. The nodes in the sidestay and the interconnections
between the sidestay links are all rotation pairs, whereas the connection
pairs between various members are all connected in the form consistent
with the landing gear in an actual airplane. Force elements applied
include the aerodynamic force received during main strut retraction, the
friction torque between rotating parts, as well as the driving force of
retraction actuator.

2. Multiflexible Body Dynamics Model of the Landing-Gear Retraction

Mechanism
Pure rigid-body dynamics model of landing-gear retraction is
incompetent for successful simulation because the presence of hinge
clearance and axis deviation alters the motion characteristics of the 3-D
retraction mechanism. To eliminate the effects of hinge clearance and
axis deviation on the mechanism motion, considering the structural
flexibility of the landing gear is necessary. Based on factors, such as the
load transfer relationship between structural parts and key analyzing
parts, the main strut, upper and lower drag braces, upper and lower lock Fig. 12 Schematic of the landing-gear dynamics model.
 YIN ET AL.
Fig. 13 Multiflexible body dynamics model of the 3-D retractable main
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
landing gear.
lies in the simulation of clearance. After comprehensively considering
the computational efficiency and accuracy, the modeling idea herein is
to simulate the hole–shaft clearance with multiple ball–plane contact
combinations based on the theory of continuous contact mechanics.
As shown in Fig. 14, the planes represent the hole wall structure with
an aperture size of Dc , the multiple balls represent the shaft structure
with a shaft diameter of dc , and the clearance is Δc  Dc − dc .
Obviously, neither the complete separation nor the one-point contact
mode is stable, which will be disrupted once upon structural loading.
In contrast, the two-point contact and line contact modes can endure
continuous contact loading.
Noteworthy is that only the radial clearance between the hole and
the shaft is considered herein, whereas the axial direction is locked by
structural baffle and nut. Thus, the axial clearance is not taken into
account. To release the radial DOF, the kinematic pair relationship
between shaft pin and hole is defined as the point-to-surface con-
straint. Regarding selection of friction parameters, the semilubricat-
ing dynamic friction coefficient between the steel shaft pin and the
copper bushing is set as 0.1, and the critical switching velocity
between dynamic and static friction is 0.5 mm∕s.
During simulation, the axis deviation is made to stagger the
intersection point by moving the axis of upper node, as shown
in Fig. 8.
2. Contact Mechanics Model
Contact force is simulated with the popular L–N model [16]. The
model simplifies the contact impact into a spring damp system, in
which the stiffness term is a nonlinear function (classical Hertz force
model) with the embedded depth of impact body. Besides, a damping
Fig. 14 Schematics of the hole–shaft clearance model in multiple ball–plane contact modes.
35
term associated with restitution coefficient is introduced to simulate
the energy loss during contact using damping force. Accordingly, the
normal contact force is expressed as


31 − c2e  δ 0
FN  Kδ3∕2 1  (1)
4 δ 0−
The contact stiffness coefficient of impact body K is correlated
with the material properties and structural shapes of contact planes,
which can be expressed as
 
4 Ri Rj 1∕2
K (2)
3πhi  hj  Ri  Rj
The equivalent spherical radii Ri ; Rj for the impact between two
bodies can be indicated by Fig. 15. The parameters hi ; hj are related
to the material properties, which can be expressed as
1 − μ2k
hk  k  i; j (3)
Ek
3. Friction Mechanics Model
Actually, the Hertz contact force ignores the friction on contact
planes, which fails to fully express the tangential contact friction
characteristics of contact planes. In this paper, the Threlfall model
[18] (Fig. 16) is employed to simulate the tangential friction of cylin-
drical pair impact contact with clearance. Its expression is as follows:
v  
fT  −μf FN τ 1 − e−3jvτ j∕vr (4)
vτ
C. Test Results and Simulation Model Verification
With the aid of the aforementioned established multiflexible
body model of landing-gear retraction dynamics, simulation analysis
is performed separately concerning the effects of hinge clearance and
axis deviation on the 3-D retraction mechanism, and model verifica-
tion is carried out based on the test results. The main parameters of
the landing-gear structure can be found in Table 1. Because of space
limitations, the installation position and angle relationships between
various structural parts are not presented here. Details can be con-
sulted in Ref. [31]. Besides, some parameters used in the simulation
are listed in Table 3.
1. Test Results Concerning the Effects of Hinge Clearance and Axis
Deviation on the Landing-Gear Retraction Response
Before an in-depth loading study of structural parts, tests are con-
ducted to explore the effects of hinge clearance and axis deviation on
the overall dynamic response of landing-gear retraction. According to
the test scheme, axis deviation test is completed in three scenarios:
moving the upper node fixture outward by 10, 20, and 25 mm. Mean-
while, hinge clearance test is completed in four scenarios: replacing
 36 YIN ET AL.
Fig. 15 Surface contact model of two bodies.
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
Fig. 16 Threlfall friction model.
the ϕ28 mm copper bushing between lock links to ϕ28.2 and
ϕ28.4 mm, and replacing the ϕ60 mm copper bushing between drag
braces to ϕ60.2 and ϕ60.4 mm. The results of tests suggest that neither
the axis deviation nor the hinge clearance produces much effect on the
retraction response of the landing gear within certain parameter ranges.
This is manifested in the curves of retraction time vs retraction actuator
pressure, as shown in Figs. 17 and 18.
According to the results, as the axis deviation enlarges, the actuator
load increases slightly. The reason is that the axis deviation causes
mutual extrusion between structural parts to generate additional
resistance to the retracting action. Nevertheless, the retraction times
in several scenarios are fundamentally consistent overall. The effects
of hinge clearance also exhibit similar results. Thus, clearly, although
axis deviation or hinge clearance breaks the three axes intersecting at
one point principle of mechanism, the flexible deformation of struc-
tures can eliminate the adverse effects caused by parameter deviation
as long as the deviation range is reasonable. They do not produce
qualitative impact on the motion of the entire retraction mechanism.
Despite the insignificant effects of hinge clearance and axis
deviation on the overall retraction response of the landing gear, the
extrusion load and friction condition between the mechanism linkage
structures undergo significant changes. Therefore, the model verifi-
cation and subsequent analysis both center on the structural loading.
Table 3 Simulation parameters of clearance dynamics
Parameters Values
Diameter of connect bolt between lock links 28 mm
Young’s modulus 210 GPa
Dynamic friction coefficient 0.1
Diameter of connect bolt between drag braces 60 mm
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Restitution coefficient 0.9
Fig. 17 Effects of axis deviation on hydraulic system response.
Fig. 18 Effects of hinge clearance on hydraulic system response.
2. Test Verification Regarding the Effects of Axis Deviation on Load
Transfer Performance
To investigate the effects of axis deviation on the load transfer
performance of the retraction mechanism, the load transfer character-
istics at two typical locations (upper drag brace force and upper node
friction torque) are selected for verification illustration. In Figs. 19
and 20, the experimental and simulation results in three scenarios
(moving the upper node fixture outward by 10, 20, and 25 mm) are
compared. Noteworthy is that the landing gear gets stuck and is
unable to be retracted properly when the axis deviation reaches
30 mm during the test. Hence, the axis deviation involved in this
paper is up to 25 mm.
According to the comparison results, the simulation curves for
the upper drag brace force and the upper node friction torque are
overall in good agreement with the experimental curves. Differences
lie in the force and friction torque at the initial stage of retraction. The
curves agree well at smaller axis deviations, which show less agree-
ment with the increasing axis deviation. This is attributable to the
continuation of data acquisition during outward movement of the
upper node fixture in the experimental construction, and external
factors may lead to errors in the experimental results. Noteworthy is
that the friction torque in the experimental data undergoes a load
Fig. 19 Simulation vs experimental results for the effects of axis
deviation on upper drag brace force.
 YIN ET AL.
Fig. 20 Simulation vs experimental results for the effects of axis
deviation on upper node friction torque.
jump at the position where the landing gear is retracted by 30 deg.
The reason is that the landing gear is unlocked and retracted to an
angle of 30 deg initially via the unlocking actuator cylinder, which is
then retracted further by hydraulic supply via the retraction actuator
cylinder. Because of conditional constraints, there is a delay in the
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
hydraulic supply at the linkup between retraction and unlocking
actuator cylinders (i.e., when the landing gear is retracted by
30 deg), which causes the landing gear to fall back slightly after it
is brought up to 30 deg by the unlocking actuator cylinder. The falling
back process leads to unloading and reserve rotation of the upper
node friction torque. Contrastively, simulation of such phenomenon
is unnecessary in the simulation process. The aforementioned load
jump does not occur in the force of the upper drag brace because the
brace is in a uniaxial tensile stress state during the entire retraction
process, without presenting unloading process. Apart from the fluc-
tuation at the 30 deg position, the experimental and simulation results
are fundamentally consistent in terms of the force and trend of
structural loading throughout the retraction process.
As the results demonstrate, the variation trends of brace force and
node friction torque are basically coincident, which increase initially,
peak at retraction of the landing gear to about 45 deg, and then start to
fall back until full retraction of the landing gear to zero. Such trend is
associated with the characteristics of the 3-D retraction mechanism.
In the initial stage of retraction, the drag brace pulls the main strut by
the action of unlocking actuator cylinder, whose force is large. With
the increase in retraction angle, the retraction actuator cylinder sup-
ports the weight of the main strut slowly, and the drag brace is also
rotated to a horizontal state gradually, so that its pulling force on the
landing gear diminishes gradually. Regarding the effects of axis
deviation on the load transfer of landing-gear retraction, it can be
seen that the force of brace and the friction torque at node increase
gradually with the increasing deviation. This suggests that the axial
deviation is detrimental to the load transfer of landing-gear retraction.
3. Test Verification Regarding the Effects of Hinge Clearance on Load
Transfer Performance
Based on the aforementioned results of lock link and drag brace
clearances in four scenarios, we explain the effects of hinge clearance
on the load transfer performance of the retraction mechanism.
According to the comparison results shown in Figs. 21 and 22, the
simulation curves for the upper drag brace force and the upper node
friction torque are overall in good agreement with the experimental
curves. Similarly, the difference in friction torque of the upper node
at a 30 deg retraction angle is also present due to the fall back of
the landing gear. Nevertheless, unlike the results of axis deviation,
the hinge clearance exhibits little effects on the load transfer of drag
brace or the frictional torque of node. The trend is decrease of brace
force and node friction torque with the increasing hinge clearance.
The reason is that greater hinge clearance implies smoother motion
between structures, which reduces the adverse effects of axis
deviation accordingly.
Simulations and experimental data concerning the effects of
axial deviation and hinge clearance on the retraction performance
are analyzed comparatively. The results prove the accuracy of the
rigid–flexible coupling dynamics model for the 3-D retractable main
37
Fig. 21 Simulation vs test results for the effects of hinge clearance on
upper drag brace force.
Fig. 22 Simulation vs test results for the effects of hinge clearance on
upper node friction torque.
landing gear with hinged clearance and axis deviation, which can be
used for further analysis of the effects of hinge clearance and axis
deviation on the dynamics of landing-gear retraction.
IV. Effect Analysis of Different Hinge Clearances
and Axis Deviations
Simulation analysis is performed by selecting three scenarios
(upper node axis deviations  10, 20, and 25 mm) based on the
rigid–flexible coupling dynamics model with hinge clearance and
axis deviation. The investigation emphases are the variations of stress
levels at key positions of various structural parts in the sidestay and
the friction torques at the three nodes with the axis deviations. The
effects of hinge clearance are considered from two aspects: drag brace
clearance and lock link clearance. Comparative analyses are made by
selecting three drag brace clearance scenarios (0, 0.2, and 0.4 mm)
and three lock link clearance scenarios (0, 0.2, and 0.4 mm).
A. Effects of Axis Deviation on Landing-Gear Retraction
Figure 23 illustrates the effects of axis deviation on the structural
load transfer characteristics of the landing-gear retraction mechanism.
As is clear from Fig. 23, axis deviation is significantly influential to
the load transfer of upper and lower drag braces and upper and lower
lock links. With the axis deviation increasing, the stresses at various
structures increase significantly. The difference is that the stress
peaks of upper and lower drag braces appear in the middle position
of retraction, whereas those of upper and lower lock links appear
in the initial stage of retraction (i.e., unlocking stage). The friction
torques at various nodes change in the same trends as the stresses of
the sidestay, which include the variation trend with axis deviation and
the position of peak appearance. The corresponding structural parts
are as follows: the upper node corresponds to the upper drag brace,
the lower node corresponds to the lower drag brace, and the lock node
corresponds to the upper lock link.
From the results, it is clear that the axis deviation produces a great
influence on the stress level of various structural parts of the retraction
mechanism, which may cause changes in mechanical properties and
 38 YIN ET AL.
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

Fig. 23 Effects of axis deviation on landing-gear retraction.

accelerate the wear of parts if controlled improperly, thereby affecting
the life of parts. Thus, the assembly deviation should be lowered as
much as possible because the wing deformation is inevitable. Addi-
tionally, regular lubrication is needed at the joints of various struc-
tural parts.
B. Effects of Brace Hinge Clearance on Landing-Gear Retraction
Figure 24 illustrates the effects of brace clearance on the structural
load transfer characteristics of the landing-gear retraction mechanism.
As shown in Fig. 24, the general trend is, with the clearance of drag
brace increasing, the structural stress and friction torque decrease.
This also indicates that the motion between structures becomes
smoother as the hinge clearance enlarges, which in turn reduces the
level of stress transmitted between structures. Nevertheless, the hinge
clearances of drag braces are significantly influential only to the load
stresses of drag braces and the friction torques of corresponding
nodes, while producing little effects on the upper and lower lock
links. Although the clearance allows smoother linkage motion of
 YIN ET AL. 39
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

Fig. 24 Effects of brace hinge clearance on landing-gear retraction.

mechanism, its size needs to be controlled strictly to avoid larger
impact and vibration during the gear landing.
Also noteworthy is that the dynamic response of the retraction
mechanism does not show irregular vibration of linkage motion result-
ing from the presence of clearance, as indicated by many references.
This is attributable to the relatively slow action of landing-gear retrac-
tion. Only fast-moving light linkage mechanisms encounter irregular
vibration problem due to the presence of clearance. Thus, clearly,
a continuous contact mechanics model is suitable for studying the
clearance dynamics problem of the landing-gear retraction mechanism.
 40 YIN ET AL.
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739

Fig. 25 Effects of link hinge clearance on landing-gear retraction.

C. Effects of Link Hinge Clearance on Landing-Gear Retraction
Figure 25 illustrates the effects of link clearance on the structural
load transfer characteristics of the landing-gear retraction mechanism.
As is clear from Fig. 25, the effects of link hinge clearance on
structural load are actually consistent in trends with those of brace
hinge clearance. The difference is that the increase of link clearance
almost has no effect on the structural load of drag braces, which can
only lead to marked reduction in the load stress of lock links and the
friction torque of corresponding nodes.
V. Conclusions
The primary objective of this paper is to study the changes in
dynamic characteristics of a 3-D landing-gear retraction mechanism
 YIN ET AL.
when the hinge clearance and axis deviation break the design prin-
ciple of three axes intersecting at one point. A multiflexible body
dynamics model of landing-gear retraction with clearance and axis
deviation is created based on the continuous contact force model
and modified Coulomb friction model. Using the created model,
the effects of different assembly clearances and axis deviations
on the dynamic properties of landing-gear retraction are analyzed
comparatively. The following conclusions are drawn:
1) Although axis deviation or hinge clearance breaks the three axes
intersecting at one point principle of mechanism, the flexible defor-
mation of structures can eliminate the adverse effects caused by
parameter deviation as long as the deviations are within reasonable
ranges. They do not produce qualitative impact on the actuation time
and velocity of the entire retraction mechanism.
2) Regarding the effects of axis deviation on the load transfer
of landing-gear retraction, the stress levels of various structural parts
of the retraction mechanism rise markedly with the deviation increas-
ing. This suggests that the axis deviation is detrimental to the load
transfer of landing-gear retraction, which may accelerate the wear of
structural parts if controlled improperly, thereby affecting the life of
structures. Thus, regular lubrication is required at the joints of various
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
structural parts.
3) As for the effects of clearance, the general trend is, with the
clearance of drag brace increasing, the structural stress and friction
torque decrease. This is because the presence of clearance mitigates
the adverse effects on the motion of mechanism caused by the axis
deviation. Although the clearance allows smoother linkage motion of
mechanism, its size needs to be controlled strictly to avoid larger
impact and vibration during the gear landing.
4) Noteworthy is that, due to the heavy structure of the landing gear
and the relatively slow action of retraction, the dynamics of landing-
gear retraction do not present irregular vibration jump just because
of the clearance. Hence, a continuous contact mechanics model is
suitable for studying the clearance dynamics problem of the landing-
gear retraction mechanism.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (grant number 51805249), the Natural Science
Foundation of Jiangsu Province (grant number BK20180436), the
Advanced Research Foundation in Manned Spaceflight Field (grant
number 040202), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (grant number NF2018001), and the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
References
[1] Harris, C. D., “NASA Supercritical Airfoils: A Matrix of Family-
Related Airfoils,” NASA TP 2969, 1990.
[2] Knowles, J. A. C., Krauskopf, B., and Lowenberg, M., “Numerical
Continuation Analysis of a Three-Dimensional Aircraft Main Landing
Gear Mechanism,” Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 71, Nos. 1–2, 2013,
pp. 331–352.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-012-0664-z
[3] Yin, Y., Neild, A. S., Jiang, J. Z., Knowles, J. A. C., and Nie, H.,
“Optimization of a Main Landing Gear Locking Mechanism Using
Bifurcation Analysis,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 54, No. 6, 2017,
pp. 2126–2139.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034228
[4] Yin, Y., Hong, N., Fei, F., Xiaohui, W., and Huajin, N., “Nonlinear
Assembly Tolerance Design for Spatial Mechanisms Based on Reliabil-
ity Methods,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 139, No. 3, 2017,
Paper 032301.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035433
[5] Erkaya, S., and Uzmay, I., “Investigation on Effect of Joint Clearance on
Dynamics of Four-Bar Mechanism,” Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 58,
Nos. 1–2, 2009, pp. 179–198.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-009-9470-7
[6] Erkaya, S., and Doğan, S., “A Comparative Analysis of Joint Clearance
Effects on Articulated and Partly Compliant Mechanisms,” Nonlinear
Dynamics, Vol. 81, Nos. 1–2, 2015, pp. 323–341.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-015-1994-4
41
[7] Flores, P., “Modeling and Simulation of Wear in Revolute Clearance
Joints in Multibody Systems,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 44,
No. 6, 2009, pp. 1211–1222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2008.08.003
[8] Flores, P., and Ambrosio, J., “Revolute Joints with Clearance in
Multibody Systems,” Computers & Structures, Vol. 82, Nos. 17–19,
2004, pp. 1359–1369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.03.031
[9] Zhang, J., Zhang, B., and Yu, R. G., “Simulation-Based Reliability
Analysis for Kinematic Accuracy of Retracting Mechanism of Landing
Gear,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 215–216, Nov. 2012,
pp. 754–757.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.215-216.754
[10] Wu, C. L. S., and Earles, S. W. E., “A Determination of Contact-Loss at a
Bearing of a Linkage Mechanism,” Journal of Engineering for Industry,
Vol. 99, No. 2, 1977, pp. 375–379.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3439239
[11] Earles, S. W. E., and Wu, C. L. S., “Motion Analysis of a Rigid Link
Mechanism with Clearance at a Bearing Using Lagrangian Mechanics
and Digital Computation,” Proceedings of the 1972 Mechanisms
Conference, London, U.K., 1972, pp. 83–89.
[12] Earles, S. W. E., and Wu, C. L. S., “Predicting the Occurrence of Contact
Loss and Impact at a Bearing from a Zero-Clearance Analysis,” 4th
World Congress on the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Inter-
national Federation for the Promotion of Mechanism and Machine
Science (IFToMM), 1975, pp. 1013–1018.
[13] Miedema, B., and Mansour, W. M., “Mechanical Joints with Clearance:
A Three-Mode Model,” Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 98,
No. 4, 1976, pp. 1319–1323.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3439107
[14] Dubowsky, S., and Freudenstein, F., “Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical
Systems with Clearances, Part 1: Formulation of Dynamic Model,”
Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1971, pp. 305–309.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3427895
[15] Dubowsky, S., and Freudenstein, F., “Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical
Systems with Clearances, Part 2: Dynamics Response,” Journal of
Engineering for Industry, Vol. 93, No. 1, 1971, pp. 310–316.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3427896
[16] Lankarani, H. M., and Nikravesh, P. E., “A Contact Force Model
with Hysteresis Damping for Impact Analysis of Multibody Systems,”
Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 112, No. 3, 1990, pp. 369–376.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2912617
[17] Rooney, G. T., and Deravi, P., “Coulomb Friction in Mechanism Sliding
Joints,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1982,
pp. 207–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-114X(82)90006-4
[18] Threlfall, D. C., “The Inclusion of Coulomb Friction in Mechanisms
Programs with Particular Reference to DRAM au Programme
DRAM,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1978,
pp. 475–483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-114X(78)90020-4
[19] Ma, J., Qian, L. F., Chen, G. S., and Li, M., “Dynamic Analysis of
Mechanical Systems with Planar Revolute Joints with Clearance,”
Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 94, Dec. 2015, pp. 148–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2015.08.011
[20] Xu, L. X., and Li, Y. G., “Investigation of Joint Clearance Effects on
the Dynamic Performance of a Planar 2-DOF Pick-and-Place Parallel
Manipulator,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
Vol. 30, No. 1, 2014, pp. 62–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2013.09.002
[21] Flores, P., Ambrosio, J., Claro, J. C. P., Lankarani, H. M., and Koshy,
C. S., “A Study on Dynamics of Mechanical Systems Including Joints
with Clearance and Lubrication,” Mechanism and Machine Theory,
Vol. 41, No. 3, 2006, pp. 247–261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2005.10.002
[22] Bauchau, O. A., and Rodriguez, J., “Modeling of Joints with Clearance
in Flexible Multibody Systems,” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2002, pp. 41–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(01)00186-X
[23] Schwab, A. L., Meijaard, J. P., and Meijers, P., “A Comparison of
Revolute Joint Clearance Models in the Dynamic Analysis of Rigid
and Elastic Mechanical Systems,” Mechanism and Machine Theory,
Vol. 37, No. 9, 2002, pp. 895–913.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-114X(02)00033-2
[24] Erkaya, S., Dogan, S., and Ulus, S., “Effects of Joint Clearance on the
Dynamics of a Partly Compliant Mechanism: Numerical and Experi-
mental Studies,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 88, June 2015,
pp. 125–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2015.02.007
 42
[25] Erkaya, S., Dogan, S., and Sefkatlioglu, E., “Analysis of the Joint
Clearance Effects on a Compliant Spatial Mechanism,” Mechanism
and Machine Theory, Vol. 104, Oct. 2016, pp. 255–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.06.009
[26] Dessalegn, A., Yihun, Y., Fernandes, J. P. F., and Lankarani, H. M.,
“Effect of Variation of Link Lengths and Stiffness on the Gearing
Ratio of a Four Bar Mechanism with Application to Aircraft Trim
Tabs,” Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engi-
neering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engi-
neering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME), Paper DETC2015-46054, V05BT08A061, New York, 2015,
pp. 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2015-46054
[27] Wan, W., Liu, G., Zhou, Y., Ma, S. J., and Tong, R. T., “Numerical and
Experimental Investigation on Electromechanical Aileron Actuation
System with Joint Clearance,” Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2019, pp. 525–535.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-019-0105-8
Downloaded by Cranfield University on May 6, 2023 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.C035739
YIN ET AL.
[28] Liu, J. Y., Zhang, Y. G., Guo, W., and Sun, C., “A Kinematics Velocity
Reliability Analyzing Method for Complex Planar Linkage Mechanism
Based on Equal-Effective Mechanics Model,” Proceedings of the ASME
2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
American Soc. of Mechanical Engineers Paper IMECE2016-65463,
V014T14A022, New York, 2016, pp. 1–8.
[29] Zhao, Y., and Bai, Z. F., “Effects of Clearance on Deployment of Solar
Panels on Spacecraft System,” Transactions of the Japan Society for
Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Vol. 53, No. 182, 2011, pp. 291–295.
https://doi.org/10.2322/tjsass.53.291
[30] Li, X. Z., Zheng, F. B., Yang, Z., and Xi, B. C., “Dynamic Response of
Solar Panel Deployment on Spacecraft System Considering Joint Clear-
ance,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2012, pp. 174–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.07.020
[31] Yin, Y., Nie, H., Zhang, M., and Ni, H. J., “Reliability Analysis of
Landing Gear Retraction System Influenced by Multi-Factors,” Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2016, pp. 713–724.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033333