Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 1357–1375 | Cite as

Design optimization of aircraft landing gear assembly under dynamic loading

INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
  • 274 Downloads

Abstract

Aircraft landing gear assemblies comprise of various subsystems working in unison to enable functionalities such as taxiing, take-off and landing. As development cycles and prototyping iterations begin to shorten, it is important to develop and improve practical methodologies to meet certain design metrics. This paper presents an efficient methodology that applies high-fidelity multi-disciplinary design optimization techniques to commercial landing gear assemblies, for weight, cost, and structural performance by considering both structural and dynamic behaviours. First, a simplified landing gear assembly model was created to complement with an accurate slave link subassembly, generated based of drawings supplied from the industrial partner, Safran Landing Systems. Second, a Multi-Body Dynamic (MBD) analysis was performed using realistic input motion signals to replicate the dynamic behaviour of the physical system. The third stage involved performing topology optimization with results from the MBD analysis; this can be achieved through the utilization of the Equivalent Static Load Method (ESLM). Lastly, topology results were generated and design interpretation was performed to generate two designs of different approaches. The first design involved trying to closely match the topology results and resulted in a design with an overall weight savings of 67%, peak stress increase of 74%, and no apparent cost savings due to complex features. The second design focused on manufacturability and achieved overall weight saving of 36%, peak stress increase of 6%, and an estimated 60% in cost savings.

Keywords

Topology optimization Equivalent static load method Multi-body dynamics Aerospace Aircraft landing gear 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Joseph Lan and James Ning at Safran Landing Systems Canada for their expertise and guidance throughout the course of this research. This research was supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Safran Landing Systems Canada. The contributions made are greatly appreciated.

References

  1. AGARD Report (1995) The design, qualification and maintenance of vibration-free landing gear (R-800)Google Scholar
  2. Altair OptiStruct (2015a) OptiStruct 14.0 Reference Guide. Altair Engineering, Inc., TroyGoogle Scholar
  3. Altair OptiStruct (2015b) MotionSolve 14.0 reference guide. Altair Engineering, Inc., TroyGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauchau OA (2011) Flexible Multibody Dynamics. Springer Netherlands, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O (1999) Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Arch Appl Mech 69:635–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004190050248 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Besselink IJM (2000) Shimmy of Aircraft Main Landing Gears. Delft University of Technology, Delft, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenan KE, Campbell SLV, Petzold LR (1996) Numerical solution of initial-value problems in differential-algebraic equations. Book 256Google Scholar
  8. Cardona A (2000) Superelements modelling in flexible multibody dynamics. Multibody Syst Dyn 4:245–266.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009875930 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi WS, Park KB, Park GJ (2005) Calculation of equivalent static loads and its application. Nucl Eng Des 235:2337–2348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.05.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig RR, Bampton MCC (1968) Coupling of substructure for dynamic analyses. AIAA J 6:1313–1319CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Denti E, Fanteria D (2010) Models of Wheel Contact Dynamics : An Analytical Study on the In-Plane Transient Responses of a Brush Model. Veh Syst Dyn 34:37–41Google Scholar
  12. Deveau S (2013) Transportation - should Airlines start charging by the pound. Financ. PostGoogle Scholar
  13. DuPont (2016) Acetal Resin DuPont™ Delrin ® 100 NC010Google Scholar
  14. Engineering A (2008) Multi-disciplinary design of an aircraft landing gear with altair hyperworks altair engineering, October 2008Google Scholar
  15. Gowda AC, Basha N (2014) Trends in mechanical engineering & technology linear static and fatigue analysis of nose landing gear for trainer aircraft. 4:1–10Google Scholar
  16. Hitch HPY (1981) Aircraft ground dynamics. Veh Syst Dyn 10:319–332.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00423118108968681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. International Air Transport Association (2016a) IATA forecasts passenger demand to double over 20 Years. IATA Press Release No 59 18–22Google Scholar
  18. International Air Transport Association (2016b) Fact Sheet : Climate Change. IATA Environ. Policy 1–3Google Scholar
  19. Kang BS, Choi WS, Park GJ (2001) Structural optimization under equivalent static loads transformed from dynamic loads based on displacement. Comput Struct 79:145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(00)00127-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knowles JAC, Krauskopf B, Lowenberg M (2013) Numerical continuation analysis of a three-dimensional aircraft main landing gear mechanism. Nonlinear Dyn 71:331–352.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-012-0664-z MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krüger WR, Morandini M (2014) Recent developments at the numerical simulation of landing gear dynamics. CEAS Aeronaut J 1:55–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-011-0003-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krüger WR, Besselink IJM, Cowling D et al (1997) Aircraft landing gear dynamics: simulation and control. Veh Syst Dyn 28:119–158.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119708969352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee HA, Park GJ (2012) Topology optimization for structures with nonlinear behavior using the equivalent static loads method. J Mech Des 134:14.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005600 Google Scholar
  24. Li M, Tang W, Yuan M (2014) Structural dynamic topology optimization based on dynamic reliability using equivalent static loads. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49:121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0965-y MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nguyen T, Schonning A, Eason P, Nicholson D (2012) Methods for analyzing nose gear during landing using structural finite element analysis. J Aircr 49:275–280.  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oh SH (2014) A study on development of dual locking linkage for landing gear for the application to UAV. 7:41–48Google Scholar
  27. Park GJ (2011) Technical overview of the equivalent static loads method for non-linear static response structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 43:319–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-010-0530-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park GJ, Kang BS (2003) Validation of a structural optimization algorithm transforming dynamic loads into equivalent static loads. J Optim Theory Appl 118:191–200.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024799727258 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Pritchard J (2001) Overview of landing gear dynamics. J Aircr 38:130–137.  https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2744 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmidt M, Rohrbach K (1990) ASM handbook, volume 1: properties and selection: irons, steels, and high-performance alloys. Met Handb 1:793–800.  https://doi.org/10.1361/asmhba0001 Google Scholar
  31. Shabana AA (1997) Flexible multibody dynamics: review of past and recent developments. Multibody Syst Dyn 1:189–222.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A1009773505418 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Sun J, Tian Q, Hu H (2016) Structural optimization of flexible components in a flexible multibody system modeled via ANCF. Mech Mach Theory 104:59–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tadeusz N, Jerzy M, Adam B (2006) Numerical analysis of a front support landing gear dynamics. 3–10Google Scholar
  34. Tanaka K, Matsuoka S, Kimura M (1984) Fatigue Strength of 7075-T6 Aluminium Alloy Under Combined Axial Loading and Torsion. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 7:195–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.1984.tb00189.x
  35. Vatanabe SL, Lippi TN, de Lima CR et al (2016) Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: a unified projection-based approach. Adv Eng Softw 100:97–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xingguo M, Xiaomei Y, Bangchun W (2007) Multi-body dynamics simulation on flexible crankshaft system. 12th IFTOMM World Congr World Congr 3–5Google Scholar
  37. Zhou M, Shyy YK, Thomas HL (2001) Checkerboard and minimum member size control in topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 21:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations