Appl Compos Mater

DOI 10.1007/s10443-013-9351-6

Innovative Anti Crash Absorber for a Crashworthy

Landing Gear

Michele Guida & Francesco Marulo &

Bruno Montesarchio & Massimiliano Bruno

Received: 8 July 2013 / Accepted: 19 September 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This paper defines an innovative concept to anti-crash absorber in composite

material to be integrated on the landing gear as an energy-absorbing device in crash conditions
to absorb the impact energy. A composite cylinder tube in carbon fiber material is installed
coaxially to the shock absorber cylinder and, in an emergency landing gear condition, collapses
in order to enhance the energy absorption performance of the landing system. This mechanism
has been developed as an alternative solution to a high-pressure chamber installed on the
Agusta A129 CBT helicopter, which can be considered dangerous when the helicopter operates
in hard and/or crash landing. The characteristics of the anti-crash device are presented and the
structural layout of a crashworthy landing gear adopting the developed additional energy
absorbing stage is outlined. Experimental and numerical results relevant to the material
characterization and the force peaks evaluation of the system development are reported. The
anti-crash prototype was designed, analysed, optimized, made and finally the potential perfor-
mances of a landing gear with the additional anti-crash absorber system are tested by drop test
and then correlated with a similar test without the anti-crash system, showing that appreciable
energy absorbing capabilities and efficiencies can be obtained in crash conditions.

Keywords Crash landing . Composite structure . Shock absorber

1 Introduction

One of the main requirements to be met for a military aircraft, mainly due to a helicopter, is able
to withstand a crash at high-speed vertical impact (12.8 m/s−1), without loss of the crew. Most of
the energy that develops during the crash (60 %) is absorbed by the landing gear equipped with
special shock absorbers that have complicated construction, at the expense of weight and
maintainability. The landing gear has significant importance in the design of an airplane or

M. Guida (*) : F. Marulo

Department of Industrial Engineering, Aeronautical Section, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples,
Italy
e-mail: micguida@unina.it

B. Montesarchio : M. Bruno
Magnaghi Aeronautica, Aeronautical Industry, Napoli, Italy
 Appl Compos Mater

helicopter for the functional aspect is that the structural changes it needs to secure the ground
and absorb the landing impact. The stresses to which it shall be given a landing gear are
significant and therefore the design of its structural parts requires a very thorough study of the
forms to meet the requirements of weight, strength and rigidity. The materials in this type of
composite structures, as it appears, would find their natural application if it were not for the
technological difficulties encountered in implementing the structures of complex shapes that
characterize, as mentioned, the landing gear.
The shock absorber is an essential component of a landing gear. It acts as a suspension for
manoeuvring loads to the ground and limit landing loads, and it absorbs the kinetic energy on
landing, sending passengers to the structure and acceleration levels as low as possible. The system
ensures that the levels do not exceed specified levels of loading the entire structure. For modern
aircraft, the shock absorber is a hydro-pneumatic system. Because of the difference between the
requirements of normal and crash landing, the helicopter dampers designed according to criteria of
crashworthiness are two-stage. For the hard landing or crash, the two stages work together. The
technology used for the second stage varies depending on the manufacturer. Various systems for
limiting loads are available: air compression systems, damping oil through calibrated holes and
collapsible material. A system of traditional energy, such as a shock absorber double room has an
area, called high-pressure chamber, which kicks in when the impact velocity exceeds that of hard
landing. Composite materials offer significant potential advantages over metallic materials with
respect to the weight design flexibility, maintainability and reliability improvements; studies on
the behaviour of FRP tubes subjected to axial compression [1], in fact, demonstrate their ability to
absorb considerable energy keeping the weight down. The purpose is essentially to create a sink
that can absorb energy with high efficiency, keeping the weight content.
The bibliography focused on this topic is very extensive; the article by Alghamdi, reported in
ref. [2] presents an overview of the most common forms of collapsible energy absorbers and
their different modes of deformation. Singace and Sobky studied experimentally the energy-
absorption characteristics of the corrugated tubes, [3]. The aim was to improve the uniformity of
load–displacement path of tubes loaded axially, to predict and control the manner of collapse in
order to optimize the capacity to absorb of energy of the tube. This behaviour was analysed
considering the effects of heat treatment and filling with foam and a comparison between metal
pipes and PVC. Mamalis et al., [4], carried out a theoretical analysis of the failure mechanism of
thin-walled tubes made of fiberglass material subjected to the axial load. Taking into account
the experimental observations and the possible mechanisms of absorption of energy, the
compressive loads and the energy absorbed are predicted. Finally, the theoretical model has
been experimentally verified for various composite materials and geometries of the tubes.
Airoldi and Janszen, [5] presented the basic guidelines for the design of a landing gear adopting
a tube as auxiliary device to absorb energy in crash conditions, in this article the experimental
and numerical aspects, based on the FEM simulation, was investigated only a sample mecha-
nism activated in the crash impact conditions. This item [6] shows the concept of the crash cart,
which absorbs the extra energy whereas the breaking of a composite tube. To do so, the
behaviour is analysed the impact of a composite tube and its ability to absorb the shock. The
peak loads caused by high damping values or by the “bottoming out” of the shock absorber, are
significantly reduced in the use of a tube of composite crash.
Also the automotive industry, as a result of the growing number of accident are now
occupant safety, increasing the amount of energy and optimizing the manner in which energy
is absorbed within vehicle, [7]. CFRP composites offer a solution to fulfill both of these
requirements simultaneously as a result of their excellent crash characteristics and high strength
to weight ratios. When compared with typical aluminium and steel, the benefits of using
composite materials in crash structures is apparent by SEA values; the specific energy
Appl Compos Mater

absorption, in fact, for composite specimen is always higher than similar metal structure, if
properly manufactured, [8]. This is caused mainly by a different response to load, which is
brittle rather than ductile. The actual mechanisms and sequence of damage are highly dependent
on the geometry of the structure, lamina orientation, and type of trigger and crush speed, all of
which must be suitably designed to develop high energy absorbing mechanisms.
A crash landing gear is designed to absorb the 60 % of total energy erasing during crash
impact. This work consisted of introducing a new and innovative shock absorber and
evaluating the presence of the shock absorber installed on the landing gear during an impact
simulated by two different drop tests (with and without composite cylinder) to verify the
behaviour. The results of this study have the aim to provide the technical elements to proceed
in definitive design for the crash absorber.

2 Crash Absorber For Traditional Landing Gear

The prototype is the main landing gear (MLG) of the Agusta A129 helicopter called Mangusta;
it is in a telescopic configuration (see Fig. 1). The actual configuration presents structural limits
during the impact loads in terms of energy absorbing; it absorbs only 10–20 % of the total
energy impact during a normal landing. Contrarily this configuration presents several advan-
tages: the axial symmetry of the telescopic system and the possibility that many components of
the landing gear are located in arrangement and concentric series (such as: body, the rotary tube,
rod-piston shock absorber, and the position in axis, by means of fork-axle wheel, the wheel and
the tire) facilities the involving of these components in the absorbing energy process.
The shock absorber is two-stage oleo-pneumatic type. It is composed of two chambers:
low and high-pressure camera. The first camera absorbs and dissipates energy during normal

Low-pressure
chamber

High-pressure
chamber

Fig. 1 Nose landing gear of Agusta helicopter

 Appl Compos Mater

and ultimate landings; the high-pressure absorbs and dissipates energy during hard impacts
until crash. The two chambers are separated by a separator piston and are filled with oil and
charged by dry nitrogen gas through two valves placed in upper part (low pressure) and
lower part (high pressure). The traditional shock absorber needs a high-pressure chamber,
which penalizes the landing gear in terms of:

& Weight, considering that the cylinder is in steel alloy with an important thickness due to the
inflating pressure of about 300 bar that reaches more that 600 bar during crash landing.
& Service, the shock absorber needs of ground facilities to allow the charging and control
of high pressure.
& Reliability, static and dynamic seals installed in high-pressure cylinder and surface anti
corrosion treatments to protect the internal diameter of the high-pressure cylinder.

3 Landing Gear Characterization Tests

Firstly a comprehensive experimental study of the crash behaviour of circular aluminium

and composite tubes undergoing axial compressive loading are performed, and then two
different drop tests (with and without composite cylinder) were performed to evaluate the
presence of the shock absorber installed on the landing gear.

3.1 Compressive Quasi-static Test

The choice of the design parameters was defined comparing the aluminium alloy and carbon
fiber. The designing and sizing are defined by having a composite crash absorber very
similar to the metal used for the preliminary tests, to make the first comparisons between the
use of light alloy and composite material. The aim is to minimize the tests in order to ascribe
any differences found in the test to a minimum number of variations. The material of
cylinders was aluminium alloy 6,061 T4, with such characteristics:

& Length, L=200 mm;

& External Radius, Re = 30 mm; thickness = 1 mm;
& Inertia moment (of area), I=8.07×104 mm4;
& Weight, W=0.1 Kg;
& Young Modulus, E=68,900 MPa;
& Strength properties: σu=228 MPa; σy=131 MPa and τ=152 MPa;
& Stiffness of test specimens, EI=5.56 109 N mm2.

This geometry was subjected to a compressive quasi-static test, the advantages of a quasi-
static test are primarily the simplicity and controllability, and the main aim of these tests is to
determine the peak load, how the energy is absorbed, to verify the strain and modality of
failure. The experimental quasi-static compression tests were carried out by hydraulic press
“MTS 810” of 250 kN, see Fig. 2. The post-test cylinder indicated that the symmetric
collapse models have been obtained.
Figure 3 reports the force-displacement curve recorded during the compression, the point
A is the collapse load and it has been of 61 kN; the points E, F and G = are related to the
formation of folds (towards the inside and outside), with average value of about 20 kN; the
minimum peak load (point D) was about 14 kN. Finally the energy absorbed was about 4 kJ
for a sample with 0.1 kg of weight.
Appl Compos Mater

Fig. 2 Hydraulic press for the quasi-static compression test

The specific absorbed energy, defined as the ratio of the absorbed energy to the mass
involved in the progressive deformation of the element, can reach values in the 20–50 kJ/kg
range for aluminium alloy cylindrical tubes. This level is exceeded only by absorbers made
of composite material [9], and can be thus considered adequate to realize light and efficient
energy absorber elements.
Identical compressive quasi-static tests were reproduced on a composite cylinder in carbon
fiber with dimensions more similar to aluminium cylinder. The design of the composite cylinder
follows the guidelines used for the sizing of the aluminium one. The purpose is to verify the
characteristics of a composite cylinder having the same characteristics of rigidity and of energy-
absorption of the aluminium cylinder studied and tested in previous stages.
As a choice of correlation parameter the load of instability in compression was chosen,
which must not be less than:
cπ2 EI
PE ¼
L2
Where

PE Critical load evaluated by the Euler law:

c Coefficient related to the conditions to the constraints (= 1 for supported-supported
beam = 4 for beam fixed-fixed).

Fig. 3 Curve f–s about the aluminium alloy absorber

 Appl Compos Mater

Being guaranteed the same condition of constraint, the equality of the load is obtained by
ensuring equality of the fraction (EI/L2). Since the length is likely to be the same, the
verification of equivalence between the absorber in the composite and the metal is obtained
when have the same product EI.
The layup of cylinder absorber in carbon fiber consists of five plies of carbon fiber
material (Hexply 914/40 %/G803) by pre-preg and with a sequence of lamination of 0, +45,
−45, +45, 0 with an amount thickness 1.49 mm (= 0.298 mm x 5plies). The technology
process provides a finished product with effective thickness of about 1.78 mm taking into
account the overlap configuration used, during start laying of the plies, therefore as if it were
considered in 6 plies.
& Dint = 58.8 mm;
& Dext = 62.4 mm;
& E11 ≠ E22 = E33 laminate = 4.88 × 104 MPa;
5 4
& Ix = Iy = p/4x(Rint
4
+ thplies–Rint) = 1.56 × 10 mm ; (with thplies = 1.78 mm)
4

& 9
[E11 × Ilam]laminate = 7.61 × 10 N/mm ; 2

For those reasons the:

& Ratio (E1/3/density): CF about 2 times aluminium alloys.
& Stiffness E x I, it is similar between CF and AA crash cylinder;
& Critical buckling load (Pcr = cπ2EI/L2) is similar.
Assuming as theoretical stiffness:

& (EI)CF = 7.61 109 N mm2;

& (E I)AA = 5.56 109 N mm2;
The ratio is:
ðEI ÞAL =ðEI ÞCF ¼ 1 : 1:35

The compression load to apply to CF cylinder is estimated in 1.35 the compression load
applied on the aluminium test specimen in order to obtain the same energy absorption.
Taking into account that the aluminium specimens failed at about 61 kN, the CF specimen
will fail at about 80 kN (±5 %, uncertainty due to the processing technology).
The characterization tests of the material properties and failure mode for the elements in
composite material defined that the failure mode (by transverse shear) of tested CFRP tubes
differs from the metallic specimen. The tubes have absorbed impact energy by splaying with
axial splitting and fragmentation with debris compacted inside the tube and preventing
further crushing.
The axial quasi-static compression tests are shown in Fig. 4. The common feature of all of
the curves is that the loads increased rapidly in the initial stage, reach a peak value and then
dropped slightly until to total and progressive crushing. Comparison of the results of the tests
performed on metallic and composite elements are reported in the Table 1.
The results obtained show that the adopted concept for CFRP cylinder in term of design,
material and manufacturing, was satisfactory to define the shock absorber test.

3.2 Landing Gear Drop Test Setup

This preliminary experimental test is carried out without any crash absorber, to define the
acting loads and to design of the anti-crash system; the tested landing gear shows the
Appl Compos Mater

Fig. 4 Curve f–s about the carbon fiber absorber

opportunity to be modified to integrate CF crash absorber. The landing gear (see Fig. 5) has a
weight of W=19.6 Kg (with tire); tire inflating pressure is 5.0 bar; inflating pressure of shock
absorber is 9.6 bar; shock absorber integrated internally in the casing.
The damping force is shown by the rod-piston chrome that is integrated with the fork of
the axle wheel in steel material. In order to avoid the free rotation of the wheel at time of
impact with the ground, the fork is connected to the rotary tube steel (it is connected
internally to the body through a pair of self-lubricating bushes), through a pair of torque
links in aluminium material.
The design of the shock stroke is 190 mm, by a hydraulic fluid MIL-H-5606, the shock
absorber has a diameter of 33.27 mm and an area of S=8.69 cm2. In the compression phase,
four axial holes of diameter 1.4 mm and two lateral holes with of diameter 2.5 mm and an
annular orifice determined by metering pin determines the characteristics of the lamination.
Preliminary drop test at increasing height were carried out, in order to evaluate both the
degree of reaction to the ground, using the dynamometer flat to the base of the drop tower
facility, and both the stroke of the shock absorber.
This landing gear development was investigated in according to the certification require-
ments as required by [10]. The test results quantified a vertical force, defined as a reaction
force, of 20 KN as the minimum load to obtain a crash landing. These force entities involved
the high-pressure chamber to absorb the energy developed during the crash landing. During
this evolution, the force value that the crash absorber is called to absorb is about 10 KN.
In order to preserve the landing gear structure (attachments landing gear-structure, wheel
axle and the fork), and also to avoid conditions of hydraulic bottoming preserving the tire,

Table 1 Correlation between two

different specimens AL 6,061 T4 Carbon fiber/epoxy
matrix 914/40 %/G803

Failure [kN] 61 80.4

Energy Absorbed [J] 4,000 4,178
Ɛ [μm/m] 6,000 6,016
Displacement [mm] 1.6 2
EI [N mm2] 5.56 109 7.61 109
 Appl Compos Mater

284

Fig. 5 Nose landing gear test article

the dynamometer flat of the drop tower machine, the crash landing conditions studied were
the following:
& vz=3.0 m/s (vertical component of impact velocity on the ground), which corresponds to
a height of free fall, h=459 mm;
& vx=0 m/s (horizontal component of the impact velocity to the ground, in this case the no-
rotation of the wheel was considered);
& Ft=0 (hypothesis of landing is not sustained);
& Wt=405 kg; (drop weight, simulating the weight of the airplane and the landing gear
(19.6 kg);
& α=0° (the landing gear angle respect to the vertical drop.
The drop results reported a reaction Fv_max=28 kN, (max vertical load); and shock
absorber stroke of 154 mm; (respect to total of 189.9 mm). The Fig. 6 shows the path of the
reaction force measured in correspondence of the landing gear attachments on the fixture
during the drop test, related to the shock absorber stroke.

3.3 Composite Crash Absorber Definition

The design solution installs the CF absorber around S/A Rod and fixed it on the fork, as
described in the sketch reported in the Fig. 7. The shock absorber works in oleo-pneumatic
manner for a maximum stroke of 190 mm.
Starting from the results obtained during the landing gear drop test without crash absorber and
considered that the inner diameter is 53.5 mm, to obtain a maximum design load of Fv equal to 13
kN, the length of the absorber of carbon fiber/epoxy matrix 914/40 %/G803 is fixed in 103 mm.
The final cylinder prototype (for a total weight of about 80 gr) and the assembly is shown in
Fig. 8 where the crash tube is mounted coaxially to the torque link and housed between the
flanges at the lower end. Anti-crash system installed on LG and ready to tested by drop tower.
Appl Compos Mater

Fz - SAT without S/A

30

25

20

15

10

0
20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180

-5

Fig. 6 Curve of reaction force [KN] vs shock absorber travel [mm]

In the solution investigated in this work, the composite device is thus activated only at
piston bottoming, after the full hard landing stroke of the shock absorber has been exploited.
The shock absorber can fully contributes to the energy dissipation before any failure is
induced in the landing system.
On the other hand, this solution requires that the shock absorber response has to be
designed taking into account the piston velocities experienced in a crash impact condition.
At high velocities, the viscous contribution to the shock absorber response has therefore to
be cut-off at a given force.
The crash absorber working mechanism and the relative initial peak, have been evaluated
by means of an experimental test set up to reproduce the basic working conditions of the

Fig. 7 Integration of the CF crash absorber

 Appl Compos Mater

Element in composite
material

Lower and upper

support

Fig. 8 Design of composite element

device. For this reason, before to drop test of the landing gear with the prototype cash
absorber, the quasi-static test under hydraulic press was carried out on the prototype
specimen to establish the effective failure load.
The results showed a failure peak load of 12.3 kN, as reported in the Fig. 9, and the
delamination propagation with a consequential instability load in correspondence of 10 KN,
obtaining a good correlation with FE analysis that fixed the buckling load to 10 kN; this
value matching with the vertical load (Fv) achieved during the preliminary landing gear drop
test.

4 Drop Test: Results

The reference dynamic test without crash absorber has been performed on the same landing
gear with the crash absorber mechanism with identical test conditions.
Figure 10 shows the reaction force vs. stroke absorber travel during a crash landing. The
drop results with and without anti-crash absorber have been respectively 35 KN and 28 KN,

Fig. 9 Curve f–s about the prototype of the composite shock absorber
Appl Compos Mater

Fz - SAT without and with S/A

40

35

Fz - SAT with S/A

30
Fz - SAT without S/A

25

20

15

10

0
20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160

-5

Fig. 10 Curve of reaction force [KN] vs shock absorber travel [mm]

(max vertical load); and shock absorber stroke of 144 mm and 154 mm; (respect to total of
189.9 mm).
Finally the correlation between the energy absorbed during two different drop tests (with
and without anti-crash absorber) is about 2.4 KJ and 2.3 KJ, that generates a specific energy
absorbed equal to 30KJ/kg.
The results of drop test show that CF crash cylinder allows to increase (about 15 %) shock
absorber efficiency during crash impact, with positive effect in terms of weight reduction to
be evaluated.

5 Concluding Remarks

The developed anti-crash system helps to absorb the impact energy generated during
the emergency landing collapsing axially when it is loaded. The composite tubes have
been experimentally validated and investigated. The peculiar feature of the absorber
device is the capability of absorbing major aliquot of the total impact energy in crash
conditions.
The results achieved are comforting and they were just as expected, because it has
possible absorbed more energy (2.4 kJ) with a smaller stroke respect test carried out without
anti-crash system. Moreover, this result was achieved through the design and characteriza-
tion of a system crash extremely simple, with low weight (80 gr.) and low impact in terms of
functional and assembly of the landing gear and it can be fitted, as it is, to the landing gear
direct or telescopic for a maximum take-off weight of 5,000 kg.

References

1. Reid, S.R., Harrigan, J.J.: Transient effects in the quasi-static and dynamic internal inversion and noising
of metal tubes. Int. J. Mech. Sci 40, 263–280 (1998)
 Appl Compos Mater

2. Alghamdi, A.A.A.: Collapsible impact Energy absorbers. An overview. Thin-Walled Structures 39, 189–
213 (2001)
3. Singace, A.A., Sobky, H.E.J.: Behavior of axially crushed corrugated tubes. Int. J. Mech. Sci 39(3), 249–
268 (1997)
4. Mamalis, A.G., Manolakos, D.E., Demosthenous, G.A., Ioannidis, M.B.: Analysis of Failure Mechanism
Observed in Axial Collapse of Thin Walled Circular Fiberglass Composites Tubes. Thin- Walled
Structures 24, 335–352 (1996)
5. Airoldi, A., Janszen, G.: A design solution for a crashworthy landing gear with a new triggering
mechanism for the plastic collapse of metallic tubes. Aerospace Science and Technology 9, 445–455
(2005)
6. Tae-Uk Kim, Jeong Woo Shin, Sung Chan Kim, In Hee Hwang “Design of a Crashworthy landing gear
Composite Tube – Korea Aerospace Research Institute
7. J. Dyckhoff, H. G. Haldenwanger, “Fibre-reinforced composite plastic side members with crash compat-
ibility”, Business briefing: global automotive manufacturing and technology, (2003).
8. Obradovic, J., Boria, S., Belingardi, G.: Lightweight design and crash analysis of composite frontal
impact energy absorbing structures. Composite Structures 94(2), 423–430 (2012)
9. C.M. Kindervater, H. Georgi, Composite strength and energy absorption, in: N. Jones, T. Wierzbicki
(Eds.), Structural Crashworthiness and Failure, Elsevier Applied Science, 1983.
10. Military Standard, MIL-STD-1290, Light fixe and rotary-wing aircraft resistance, Department of Defense,
United States of America, 1995.