The Use of an Inerter in an Aircraft Landing Gear Suspension for Improved Passenger and Crew Comfort at Touchdown
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The landing impact case results in the development of significant loads and accelerations within the airframe. Accurate knowledge of the landing loads is not only necessary for the stressing and design of the airframe, but also for designing strategies to mitigate the vibratory loads and improve the ride quality. Perceived passenger comfort is dependent both on the magnitude of the acceleration experienced by the passengers and on the frequency content of the vibrations. Using a flexible airframe model to better capture the loading regime and frequency response at landing impact, this study optimizes various single-port (two-terminal) passive mechanical networks that consist of an arrangement of springs, dampers, and inerters to minimize passenger discomfort and peak forces applied to the aircraft and compares the performance to a baseline oleo-pneumatic shock absorber. All considered mechanical networks demonstrated an improvement in all comfort parameters used in this study. However, there exists a trade-off between passenger comfort and peak landing gear loads. Comfort parameters generally favour a gradual force application whereas the landing gear loads are minimized with a constant force for maximum energy absorption. Despite the higher observed peak forces in the mechanical network arrangements, there were lower peak strain energies in the aircraft structure than the oleo-pneumatic baseline.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it