Linear Quadratic Gaussian Control of a 6-DOF Aircraft Landing Gear
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The suspension system of the aircraft, provided by the landing gear, is a crucial part of landing, take-off, and taxiing. It is important that this suspension system not only adequately supports the airframe of the aircraft but also provides a comfortable, seamless ride for the passengers. However, the landing gear is usually riddled with issues, such as landing vibrations that affect passenger comfort and cause damage to the aircraft’s airframe. To reduce these vibrations, this paper proposes the use of a Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller to control a 6-DOF aircraft landing gear. The LQG controller is an optimal controller that combines the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller with the Kalman filter to compute the system’s control signals and estimate the system’s states. In this paper, the state space model of the 6-DOF landing gear is derived, and the mathematical model of the LQG controller is calculated. The controller’s performance is then tested via MATLAB/Simulink and compared with an equally simple control strategy, the PID controller. The results obtained from the testing process indicate that the LQG controller surpasses the PID controller in reducing landing vibrations, maintaining the aircraft’s airframe, and providing passenger comfort.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".