Synthesis and Optimization of Mechanical Networks with Inerters in Landing Gear for Improved Landing Performance and Vibration Control at Touchdown Considering Airframe Flexibility
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 stress analysis 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 of a 150-passenger regional jet with cantilevered landing gear in a tricycle configuration, 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. The performance of the mechanical networks is compared to a baseline oleopneumatic shock absorber. First, the importance of including airframe flexibility effects was demonstrated as the peak landing gear loads, the loading regime, and the frequency response of the structure were altered when compared to the equivalent rigid model. Next, eight candidate layouts were optimized, then the observations from this exercise were used to synthesize a mechanical network with a desired frequency response. All considered mechanical networks demonstrated the ability to control the frequency content of the input loading, thus resulting in a reduction in accelerations and an improvement in all comfort parameters used in this study over 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".