Integrated Landing Gear System PDF

1
Multibody Dynamics Simulation of an Integrated Landing Gear System

using MSC.ADAMS
A. A. Yazdani, J. Jin1, G. Lepage-Jutier and G. Cozzolino
1
Mecaer Aviation Group, j.jin@mecaer.ca
ABSTRACT
This study outlines the effectiveness and reliability of MSC.ADAMS to perform the
multibody dynamics simulation of the integrated landing gear systems. As per
Reference [1], landing gear design encompasses more engineering disciplines than any
other aspect of aircraft design.
Landing gear system retraction and extension analysis is an important part of the
certification requirement. Herein, the dynamic behavior of an electrically driven
landing gear system during retraction/extension cycles is investigated under various
design solutions using MSC.ADAMS. These simulations are done with real geometry
and with joints having the realistic degrees of freedom. Masses and rotational inertia
are assigned to every part of the landing gear system. So, gravity loads are also applied
to this model. Design studies are performed with ease by using the parameterization
tool available in this software. Calculated loads are also obtained by allowing the
software to account for flexibility during simulations. Using this software saved a
considerable amount of effort in troubleshooting of landing gear design.
Comparing the obtained results from both simulations and testing reveals good
correlations. Based on the outcome of this study it can be concluded that the cost and
time can be significantly reduced and the optimization of performance of such an
integrated system can be achieved by using MSC.ADAMS.
Keywords: MSC.ADAMS, Landing Gear, Flexible, Retraction, Extension
INTRODUCTION
In this study, MSC.ADAMS software (Refs [2]-[3]) is used to optimize a Nose Landing Gear (see Figure 1)
performance during retraction and extension cycles (Figure 2). This summarizes the simulation phases
at Mecaer Aviation Group (MAG) that consists of: prediction, correlation against test results and finally
optimization. MAG is the landing gear supplier to several major fixed and rotary wing OEMs, including
Bell Helicopter Textron, Eurocopter, Agusta-Westland, Diamond Aircraft, Eclipse Aerospace, Piper
Aircraft, Turkish Aerospace Industries and the Korean Aerospace Industry. The engineering capabilities
include design, performance, stress and fatigue life assessments as well as reliability analyses.
The multibody dynamics simulation is done for the Nose Landing Gear shown in Figure 1. This NLG is a
semi-levered suspension type shock strut incorporating a single wheel/tire installed on a wheel axle
between the two arms of a double-sided wheel fork. This gear is a semi-levered suspension type with
the wheel trailed backwards and frees to swivel over 360o. The shock absorber is an oleo-pneumatic
type, with a separator piston between oil and nitrogen chamber. The main components of this NLG are
identified in Figure 1.
MSC Software 2013 Users Conference
Irvine, CA, May 7-8, 2013 http://www.mscsoftware.com/
Upper Drag Brace
Over-center Spring
Cartridge
Main Fitting
Lower Drag Brace
Toque Link
Turning Support
Piston
Trailing Arm
Figure 1 Nose Landing Gear (NLG)
Figure 2 NLG Retraction & Extension

RETRACTION/EXTENSION SIMULATION
The goals of this study are:
To investigate the performance of retraction/extension mechanism;
To provide the required actuator load and major attachment loads.

MSC.ADAMS software is used for this simulation. This model is done by including joint definition,
friction, over-center spring preload and stiffness, mass, inertia, drag brace over-center stops and
retraction up position stop. Simulation is initially performed by using rigid bodies then the impact of
flexibility of the major components of landing gear is investigated. Finally, the obtained results are
compared against test results.
Schematic of NLG retraction is presented in Figure 2. Herein, an electrically driven landing gear system
during retraction/extension cycles is investigated. An electromechanical actuator (similar to Figure 3) is
responsible for retraction and extension cycles. The actuator stroke versus time profile used in this
simulation is presented in Figure 4. It is worth mentioning that the actuator speed ramp has a
significant impact on the actuator load particularly at endpoints (down and up positions shown in
Figure 5).
Figure 3 Electromechanical Actuator
Figure 4 Actuator Stroke versus Time

4
Electromechanical
Actuator
Bellcrank
Electromechanical
Actuator
Link
Bellcrank
Figure 5 Fully Extended and Retracted Configurations

3
3.1
SIMULATION RESULTS
Baseline Design
The NLG retraction and extension performances under two distinguishing mechanical characteristics
are investigated. Obtained results are graphically presented and the motion of the NLG is animated.
The initial design consists of an over-center spring with stiffness of 19 lbf/in and preload of 44 lbf.
Using this configuration of NLG, some retraction/extension tests were made by the helicopter
manufacturer. Obtained results are graphically presented in Figure 6. The correlation seems to be
convenient, bearing in mind that real test conditions are unknown, the actuator stroke shown in Figure
4 is an assumption).
In Figure 6, the peak and valley points are identified on extension and retraction curves obtained by
rigid bodies MSC.ADAMS simulation. These loads are used for fatigue life assessments of neighbouring
parts (e.g., bellcrank and link shown in Figure 5).
ActuatorLoad
Spring:Stiffness=19lbf/inch,Preload=44lbf
600
2e
TestData
6e
400
4e
200
Load(lbf)
5r6r
SimulationData
4r
2r
3r
3e
200
ExtensionCycle
400
RetractionCycle
5e
1e
1r
600
5r
800
0
10
12
Time(s)
Figure 6 Extension & Retraction Curves (Baseline Model)

FEM based fatigue life assessments are performed on bellcrank. MSC Patran is used for pre/postprocessing steps and this FEM is solved by MSC.Nastran. The main purpose of this analysis is to
determine the stress distribution in NLG Bell Crank due to the above simulated design load cases
during extension/retraction cycles. In this FEM, bellcrank and interface pin to the main fitting lugs are
both modeled. 10-node tetrahedral elements with aluminum properties and 8-node hexahedral
elements with steel properties are associated to bellcrank and pin, respectively. Actuator and link loads
are applied to this model at correct interface points through RBE3 MPCs as shown in Figure 7. The
obtained results for all peak and valley points (shown in Figure 6) are presented in Appendix A. Based
on this assessment, limited fatigue life is predicted for the most critical fatigue spot of bellcrank. To
improve the fatigue life of this part, actuator loads during extension and retraction cycles must be
reduced.
Using rigid and flexible bodies for baseline design the extension and retraction curves are obtained by
simulation. These curves are presented in Figure 8. For the sake of simplicity, only three major
components that are closer to the actuator are introduced as flexible bodies (e.g., main fitting and both
drag braces). Both simulations predict conservative loads for extension and retraction cycles.
MSC.ADAMS/Flex simulation is in better agreement with test results at the beginning of extension and
retraction cycles.
For the third simulation shown in Figure 8, the stiffness matrices for the Nose Landing Gear at the
Fuselage/Main Fitting attachments and Actuator attachment are also introduced into MSC.ADAMS
simulation. These stiffness matrices are shown below:
Diagonal Stiffness Matrix for the Nose Landing Gear at the Fuselage/Gear Attachments (lbs/in)
RHSMainFittingAttachJoint LHSMainFittingAttachJoint
Tx
Ty
Tz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Actuator
Attach
Joint
LHS Main
Fitting
Attach
Joint
RHS Main
Fitting
Attach
Joint
DOF's
Tx
Ty
Tz
Tx
Ty
Tz
Tx
Ty
Tz
ActuatorAttachJoint
Tx
Ty
Tz
10,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
30,000
30,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
The diagonal terms in the above matrices are assumed by MAG and the accuracy of this assumption is
not confirmed by fuselage manufacturer. Consequently, discrepancies observed between the obtained
curves with this scenario and test results can be explained by the lack of confidence on the assumed
stiffness at attachment points. However, it must be mentioned that the predicted actuator loads by
MSC.ADAMS under all scenarios are generally conservative.
Interface Pin to
Main Fitting Lugs
Spot 1
Link
Spot 2
Actuator
Total Number of Elements & Nodes
CHEXA
= 3,381
CTETEA
= 312,509
GRID
= 490,746
Figure 7 Bellcrank Finite Element Model

550
450
TestData
350
SimulationData(RigidBodies)
SimulationData(FlexBodies)
SimulationData(FlexBodies&Attach)
Load(lbf)
250
150
50
50
ExtensionCycle
150
250
350
0
Time(s)
150
Load(lbf)
50
50
TestData
SimulationData(RigidBodies)
150
RetractionCycle
250
350
6
10
11
Time(s)
Figure 8 Retraction Curve for Baseline Design (Test versus Simulation)

3.2
Redesign Solution
To improve fatigue life of bellcrank, the length of the over-center spring is reduced and the actuator
loads for retraction and extension cycles are rechecked.
So, the redesign solution consists of an over-center spring with stiffness of 23 lbf/in and preload of 27
lbf. Using this configuration of NLG, some retraction/extension tests were also made by the helicopter
manufacturer. Simulated and test results are graphically presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10,
respectively. It can be noticed that the redesign solution reduce significantly the actuator loads for
both simulation and test curves.
The extension and retraction curves are obtained by simulation, using rigid and flexible bodies for
redesign scenario. These curves are presented in Figure 11.
600
Spring:Stiffness=19lbf/in,Preload=44lbf(Baseline)
400
Spring:Stiffness=23lbf/in,Preload=27lbf
Load(lbf)
200
0
200
RetractionCycle
ExtensionCycle
400
600
800
0
10
12
Time(s)
Figure 9 Extension & Retraction Curves (Simulation Data)
600
TestData(Baseline)
400
TestData(RedesignedSpring)
Load(lbf)
200
200
RetractionCycle
ExtensionCycle
400
600
800
0
10
12
Time(s)
Figure 10 Extension & Retraction Curves (Test Data)

400
300
200
Load(lbf)
100
100
TestData(2)
SimulationData(Rigid)
ExtensionCycle
200
300
0
Time(s)
150
100
50
Load(lbf)
50
RetractionCycle
100
TestData(2)
SimulationData(Rigid)
150
200
250
300
6
10
11
Time(s)
Figure 11 Extension and Retraction Curves for Redesign (Test versus Simulation)

10
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper presented a real case study in which the multibody dynamics simulation of an integrated
landing gear system is performed by MSC.ADAMS. Conclusions drawn from the above investigations
are shown below:
With MSC.ADAMS, virtual prototypes of a complete landing gear system can be built efficiently
(reducing engineering time, cost and risk);
MSC.ADAMS models for retraction and extension cycles can be used to improve design and to
investigate quickly new ideas with ease;
Simulation results demonstrated good agreements with the test data for both scenarios
(baseline & redesign);
MSC.ADAMS/Flex models had better agreements with test results at the beginning of extension
and retraction cycles;
In general, both (rigid & flex) simulations predict conservative loads for extension and
retraction cycles.
Trademark Acknowledgements
NASTRANis a registered trademark of NASA and MSC.NASTRANis an enhanced, proprietary

version developed and maintained by the MacNeal Schwendler Corporation.
MSC.PATRAN MSC.FATIGUE and MSC.ADAMSare registered trademarks of the MacNeal
Schwendler Corporation.
REFERENCES
[1]
Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices, Currey N. 1989, AIAA
Education Series.
[2]
"MSC Software, ADAMS/Solver Help",

http://simcompanion.mscsoftware.com/infocenter/index?page=content&id=DOC9391
[3]
"MSC Software, ADAMS/Flex Help",

http://simcompanion.mscsoftware.com/infocenter/index?page=content&id=DOC10098

11
Appendix A - Bellcrank FEA Results

In this Appendix the FEA results for bellcrank mesh shown in Figure 7 are presented. These results are
obtained by MSC.Nastran and post-processed by MSC.Patran are presented. As shown in Figure 6, six
points are identified on extension/retraction curves. Since, visualization of the stress distribution at
contact regions (e.g. sockets, lugs) is not in our interest, for the sake of simplicity, interface bushings
are neglected and glued contact is used between the interface pin and bellcrank. The obtained results
are presented in Figure 12 to Figure 15.
By performing fatigue life assessments, limited life is predicted for the most critical fatigue spot. In
order to meet the expected life, the magnitude of actuator loads during extension and retraction cycles
must be reduced. For this purpose, a redesign is required. This approach is discussed in Section 3.2.
Tension
Compression
Figure 12 Bellcrank von Mises Stress Distribution for Max. Tension & Max. Compression
12
Point 1r
Point 2r
Point 3r
Point 4r
Point 5r
Point 6r
Point 1e
Point 2e
Point 3e
Point 4e
Point 5e
Point 6e
Figure 13 Bellcrank Displacement Distribution at Deformed Shapes

13
Point 1r
Point 2r
Point 3r
Point 4r
Point 5r
Point 6r
Point 1e
Point 2e
Point 3e
Point 4e
Point 5e
Point 6e
Figure 14 Bellcrank von Mises Stress Distribution

14
Point1r
Point2r
Point3r
Point4r
Point5r
Point6r
Point1e
Point2e
Point3e
Point4e
Point5e
Point6e
Figure 15 Bellcrank Max. Principal Stress Distribution


Integrated Landing Gear System PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Integrated Landing Gear System PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

Multibody Dynamics Simulation of an Integrated Landing Gear System

Mecaer Aviation Group, j.jin@mecaer.ca

Upper Drag Brace

Lower Drag Brace

Figure 1 Nose Landing Gear (NLG)

Figure 2 NLG Retraction & Extension

The goals of this study are:

To investigate the performance of retraction/extension mechanism;

To provide the required actuator load and major attachment loads.

Figure 3 Electromechanical Actuator

Figure 4 Actuator Stroke versus Time

Figure 5 Fully Extended and Retracted Configurations

MSC Software 2013 Users Conference

Figure 6 Extension & Retraction Curves (Baseline Model)

Figure 7 Bellcrank Finite Element Model

Figure 8 Retraction Curve for Baseline Design (Test versus Simulation)

MSC Software 2013 Users Conference

Figure 9 Extension & Retraction Curves (Simulation Data)

Figure 10 Extension & Retraction Curves (Test Data)

MSC Software 2013 Users Conference

NASTRANis a registered trademark of NASA and MSC.NASTRANis an enhanced, proprietary

"MSC Software, ADAMS/Solver Help",

"MSC Software, ADAMS/Flex Help",

MSC Software 2013 Users Conference

Appendix A - Bellcrank FEA Results

Figure 13 Bellcrank Displacement Distribution at Deformed Shapes

Figure 14 Bellcrank von Mises Stress Distribution

Figure 15 Bellcrank Max. Principal Stress Distribution

Anda mungkin juga menyukai