MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177824437 · doi:10.5589/q02-021

Influence of Landing-Gear Design on Helicopter Ground Resonance

2002· article· en· W2177824437 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Luis E. Monterrubio, Inna Sharf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian aeronautics and space journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuselageLanding gearFinite element methodStructural engineeringVibrationStiffnessEngineeringRotor (electric)Resonance (particle physics)Natural frequencyModal analysisInstabilityMechanicsAcousticsPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of landing-gear design on a ground-resonance phenomenon is investigated with the aid of finite-element software. Ground resonance is a vibration phenomenon that occurs at certain rotor speeds when the helicopter is on the ground. Mathematically, the instability occurs when the regressing lead-lag frequency of the rotor couples with one of the natural frequencies of the fuselage, which in turn is modelled as a rigid body supported on a flexible landing gear. In this paper, two approaches are proposed to study the effect of landing-gear design parameters on ground-resonance instabilities. In the first solution, ANSYS is used to define a detailed finite-element model of a particular landing-gear configuration and then, to obtain the mass, stiffness, and damping matrices of the gear with respect to the craft's center-of-mass degrees of freedom. These matrices are subsequently used in a standard ground-resonance mathematical model to calculate the regions of instability of the helicopter. The second approach uses a modal analysis of the fuselage and the uncoupled rotor system in ANSYS. The fuselage is modelled as in the first approach while the rotor is represented with a finite-element model, consisting of flexible blades interconnected to rigid offsets with lead-lag hinges and springs. This methodology provides a good approximation of the center of the ground-resonance instability, but does not predict its severity. By contrast, the coupled ground-resonance analysis (first approach) predicts the severity and width of the instabilities, in addition to their location as a function of rotor speed. Results obtained with both methods for landing gear manufactured from aluminium and composite materials are presented. As well, variations in landing-gear height, cross-tube spread, and location of cross-tube attachment points to the fuselage are investigated for their effect on ground-resonance instability. All results are integrated to develop landing-gear-design guidelines to prevent the ground-resonance instability.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian aeronautics and space journalSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207