MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387259027 · doi:10.3390/en16196902

Linear Quadratic Gaussian Control of a 6-DOF Aircraft Landing Gear

2023· article· en· W4387259027 on OpenAlexafffund
Chimezirim Miracle Nkemdirim, Mohamad Alzayed, Hicham Chaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)AirframeLinear-quadratic regulatorLanding gearController (irrigation)PID controllerEngineeringKalman filterOptimal projection equationsMATLABControl engineeringComputer scienceControl (management)Aerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207