Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.

Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 188

188
APPENDIX G
Arrestor Prediction Code
G.1. APC Overview was not inherently capable of simulating the aggregate and
aggregate foam systems, which do not behave as an analog to
The APC was developed to simulate aircraft arrestments for either crushable foams or soils. The APC was, therefore, more
the different arrestor concepts. The APC allows experimenta- generalized than ARRESTOR and could simulate a broader
tion with different aircraft, arrestor geometries, and material variety of system concepts.
strengths. Built with a generalized framework, essentially any
arrestor bed concept could be simulated with the APC.
Figure G-1 shows that the APC has four principal inputs: G.3. Suspension Model
G.3.1. Concept Description
1. Metamodel data, which defines the aircraft landing gear
interaction with the arrestor bed; At the core of APC is an aircraft suspension model that cal-
2. Tire load-deflection data, which defines the landing gear culates the dynamic loads and motion of an aircraft as it rolls
interaction with solid surfaces; through an arrestor bed. The arrestor bed exerts loads on both
3. Aircraft library, which defines the aircraft dimensions, the nose and main gear, and the aircraft responds by pitching
weights, and other properties; and forward, bouncing, sinking into the bed, and decelerating to
4. Arrestor design definitions, which define the bed dimen- an eventual stop. The upper portion of Figure G-2 illustrates
sions and aircraft conditions for a given scenario. the loads on the aircraft during such an event.
The dynamic behavior of the aircraft was represented
Using these four inputs, the APC runs a time-marching mathematically using the component model illustrated in
simulation to predict the dynamic loads on the aircraft, the the lower portion of Figure G-2. The component model is
arresting distance, and so on. A typical APC simulation for an
composed of lumped masses, springs, and damper elements
aircraft arrest takes 1.5 to 2 minutes to run. After completion
in order to approximate the aircraft fuselage, wings, and
of the simulation, the APC provides graphical plots and tab-
landing gear. Although an effective wing mass, spring, and
ular data output.
damper were included, this was done as a placeholder provi-
The APC was written in MATLAB, a scientific programming
sion within the mathematical framework of the model. In
language and coding environment. Overall, the APC has nine
modules (m-files) with nominally 1,500 lines of code. practice, the wing motion was neglected by using null values
for those parameters.
G.2. FAA ARRESTOR Code
G.3.2. Scope of Capabilities
The FAA previously developed the ARRESTOR code,
which performed similar predictions as the APC. It featured The APC was developed specifically to simulate aircraft
three aircraft (B707, B727, and B747) and could be used to arresting scenarios. Consequently, its intended capabilities
model different foam arresting bed geometries. Initially, and limitations were defined a priori. General performance
modification of the ARRESTOR code was considered in lieu objectives for the suspension model include:
of developing a new predictive tool. If the evaluation had
been restricted to crushable foam materials only, this could · Allowing the modeling of general arrestor beds of various
have proven advantageous. However, the ARRESTOR code geometries,

OCR for page 188

189
Tire Load-
Aircraft Library
Deflection Data
Arrestor Design
Metamodel Data
Definition
Arrestor Prediction
Code (APC)
(MATLAB)
Performance
Predictions
Figure G-1. Simplified diagram of the APC.
DMG DNG
VMG VNG
u6
(6) Wing Mass
u1
u2 (2) Fuselage u3 (3)
(1) x
u4 Strut u5 Strut
Main Gear (4) FD,MG Nose Gear (5) FD,NG
Wheel/Axle Wheel/Axle
FV,MG FV,NG
Tire/Arrestor Tire/Arrestor
Interface Interface
Main Gear Rut Nose Gear Rut
z Direction of Travel
x
Figure G-2. Aircraft dynamics transformed into suspension model.

OCR for page 188

190
· Modeling of material response accomplished through freedom are included in the governing equations. This pro-
metamodels, duced a system stiffness matrix that was 10 x 10.
· Prediction of gross loading on landing-gear struts for dam- Additionally, linear approximations were made for the
age estimation, angle () and the angular velocity () that were accurate to
· Prediction of stopping distance for arrestor concepts, within less than one percent for the angle range specified.
· Prediction of porpoising effect with transient load spikes,
· Prediction of arrestor efficiency compared with idealized
deceleration, and G.3.4. User-Defined Problems
· Prediction of fleet-wide performance (versatility) of an The APC permits the user to define arrestor scenarios using
arrestor. many parameters, as summarized in Table G-1.
General limitations for the suspension model include:
· No steerage (yawing) or other lateral motion effects, G.4. Aircraft Parameter Definition
· No tire slippage or heat generation effects,
The aircraft library indicated in Figure G-1 was developed to
· No lateral load prediction on gear struts, and
provide input parameters required by the suspension model
· No higher order effects or frequency analysis.
for the three test aircraft: the CRJ-200, B737-800, and B747-
400. These properties included aircraft weights, landing
G.3.3. Simplifying Assumptions gear configuration, design strengths of the struts, and overall
In light of the APC scope of capabilities, the mathematical dimensions. In all, 36 parameters were required to define
suspension model involves several simplifying assumptions: each plane. These properties were obtained from published
manufacturer data, a generalized aircraft model, and the FAR
· The fuselage only pitches at relatively small angles, less requirements for passenger aircraft.
than +/10 degrees;
· The motion is two-dimensional with no yawing; G.4.1. Published Manufacturer Data
· The airframe remains effectively rigid; and
· The landing-gear struts can be approximated with con- Published aircraft data generally included information
stant stiffness and damping factors. regarding aircraft weight, gross dimensions, landing gear
strut configurations, and the types of tires used. This infor-
These assumptions were appropriate because the simula- mation was acquired through open-source websites and air-
tions assume an aircraft in a ground rolling state. Non-linear port guidance documents published by the manufacturers
strut spring and damping factors were considered, but ulti- (42, 60). Goodyear also provided load curve data for the tires
mately were not necessary due to the relatively low loading used by the three subject aircraft.
rates and minimal strut travel. Aircraft manufacturers were approached directly for addi-
Given these assumptions, the model has seven degrees of tional information regarding strut properties and landing gear
freedom. Since the two rut-depth degrees of freedom are design strengths. However, these requests were ultimately un-
implicitly defined by the metamodel data, only five degrees of fruitful due to the proprietary nature of the specifications.
Table G-1. User-defined parameters for simulations.
Aircraft Arrestor Simulation Controls
· Type · Type · Time step for computations
and data output intervals
· Initial speed · Bed length and depth
· Plotting and tabular data
· Braking conditions inside and · Depth at which the bed is saving options
outside of the bed recessed vertically
· Setback distance
· Tapering length for bed
thickness
· Increase or decrease
arrestor material strength

OCR for page 188

191
G.4.2. Generalized Aircraft Model G.4.4. Summary of Aircraft Parameters
In the absence of the remaining properties, which were Based on the preceding discussion, the different aircraft
needed to complete the aircraft definitions, alternative means parameters and related data sources can be summarized as
were sought to develop reasonable estimates. Sources found in Table G-2.
during the literature review provided the means to calculate For inline wheel sets, "shadowed wheels" were those behind
approximate values. the leading wheel. The leading wheel was responsible for pro-
Chester outlines a modeling approach for a generalized ducing the drag load when interacting with the arrestor bed,
aircraft of arbitrary size, with a focus on landing gear while the shadowed wheels were assumed not to contribute
dynamics and overall airframe response (16). Based on this drag load.
method, properties such as strut stiffness, the pitching
moment of inertia, and various unspecified dimensions G.5. Arrestor and Tire Interface
were estimated.
Currey provided excellent guidance with regard to landing G.5.1. Contrast of APC and ARRESTOR
gear mechanics (14). Non-linear strut compression curves The APC uses a different premise than ARRESTOR for
were developed based on oleo-pneumatic strut design prin- calculating the landing-gear loads. The ARRESTOR method
ciples. Ultimately, however, constant spring stiffnesses were calculated the loads on the tire based on the geometry of
used for simplicity. Statistical information in this reference interface and the foam compression strength (radial spring
regarding typical landing gear weights was used to estimate tire assumptions) (63). These loads were calculated in real-time,
the travelling mass for the wheel assemblies of each strut. during the course of the simulation. This quasi-analytical
The strut damping coefficients were estimated as a per- method proved sufficient for crushable foam arrestors (cellu-
centage of critical damping, assuming the estimated strut lar cement, polymer foam, etc.). However, the approach is
stiffness and a mass equivalent to the vertical static load on not as well-suited to more chaotic and non-linear arrestor
the strut. Generally, damping factors less than 1.0 (under- materials (aggregates, foam aggregates, etc.).
damped) produced oscillatory behavior, noise, and instabil- The APC method uses high-fidelity numerical models of the
ity. After experimentation, it was determined that a simple tire/arrestor interface to build a large database of loads for a
factor of 1.0 (critically damped) would suffice for the simu- broad range of conditions, which are defined in the metamod-
lations. Aside from basic system stability, the damping els discussed in Table G-4. Because high-fidelity models are
factor was not found to have a substantial effect on the used for the load calculations a priori, the load predictions have
predictions. higher accuracy than using a simplified analytical model. Fur-
ther, there is no inherent limitation on the arrestor beds that
G.4.3. Federal Aviation Regulations can be assessed; a suitable numerical code can be chosen for
whatever system is desired (LS-DYNA, EDEM, others). The
The load limits for the landing gear were among the most contrasts of the APC and ARRESTOR methods are summa-
critical properties to define for each aircraft. Such values were rized in Table G-3.
not available from published data or the aircraft manufactur-
ers. Discussions with the manufacturers and the FAA pro-
G.5.2. Metamodel Interface
duced a straightforward alternative: the limit and ultimate
with Suspension Model
landing-gear loads as specified by the FAR were taken as
design strengths for the aircraft. During each simulation, the loads on a tire are determined
The limit/ultimate loads were calculated for the nose and based on the penetration depth of the tire into the arrestor, the
main gear from multiple criteria in FAR Part 25. Vertical load speed of travel, and the arrestor bed depth. Given these condi-
limits were not of high importance since the rolling arrestments tions, the APC queries the correct metamodel for the vertical
did not substantially affect them. The rearward drag load limits and drag loads on the tire. This process is essentially a database
were critical, however, particularly for the nose gear. lookup except that the database is a multi-dimensional meta-
For the nose gear, the highest drag loads resulted from model. When the tire was on a hard surface, rather than in an
Section 25.509, "Towing Loads," conditions 1 and 2. For the arrestor bed, tire load-deflection data was used in place of the
main gear, the highest drag loads resulted from Section 25.493, metamodel data.
"Braked Roll Conditions." Values for drag-direction limit Figure G-3 illustrates the transformation of the tire/arrestor
and ultimate loads based on these two criteria were employed interface into a virtual spring/roller assembly in the suspen-
in the APC as performance thresholds. sion model (refer to Figure G-2).

OCR for page 188

192
Table G-2. Summary of aircraft parameters.
Group Parameter Source
Overall Mass Weight (maximum take-off) Published data
Aircraft
Pitching moment of inertia Generalized model
Dimensions Wheel base
Published data
Distances from center of gravity (CG) to
nose and main gear Supplemented using
generalized model
Height to CG
Main & Nose Configuration Number of struts
Gear
Wheels per strut Published data
Number of shadowed wheels
Mass Travelling weight Generalized model
Strut Stiffness
Generalized model
Damping
Tire Diameter
Static deflection
Static load Published data
Maximum deflection
Maximum load
Load limits Drag limit load
FAR Part 25
Drag ultimate load
Wings Mass Weight
Spring Stiffness Not used
properties
Damping
Table G-3. Contrast of ARRESTOR and APC methods for landing-gear
load calculations.
ARRESTOR APC
Tire Model Radial spring analytical model Numerical model, dependent on software
choice
· LS-DYNA: finite element tire model
· EDEM: rigid tire form, with deflection
adjustment
Arrestor Material Simplified quasi-analytical Numerical model using appropriate method
Model crushable foam model
· Crushable: LS-DYNA smooth particle
hydrodynamics (SPH) formulation
· Aggregate: EDEM discrete element
(DEM) formulation
Load Calculation Analytical calculation based on Batch simulations utilizing numerical model
Method area of tire/arrestor interface
· Many simulations to create data set
· Metamodel for loading created as a fit
to the data set
Timing of Load Real-time, during simulation A priori, using high-fidelity models to create
Calculation metamodels.
Metamodels referenced in real-time during
simulation.

OCR for page 188

193
Wheel/Tire
Mass
Main Gear Strv
Wheel/Axle
FD
FV Tire/Arrestor
Arrestor Bed Interface
Rut
z Direction of Travel
x
Figure G-3. Arrestor interface dynamics transformed into suspension model.
G.5.3. Metamodel Dimensions of significant interest when compared with the overall drag
loads. Given the soft nature of the arrestor materials, this
The metamodels generated for each arrestor type had three
assumption was reasonable.
independent variables: speed, bed depth, and depth of pene-
Additional metamodel data could be generated to include
tration into the bed. For each condition set, two response
vertical speed and could be implemented with little alteration
values were available: the drag and vertical loads (Table G-4).
of the software. However, this additional complexity was
Considered from the standpoint of the suspension model,
deemed unnecessary for the current effort.
there were additional parameters that could have been
included as additional variables, such as wheel spin, vertical
translation velocity, braking torque, and so on. For simplic- G.6. Overall Program Function
ity, these variables were neglected in the current analysis.
The overall process followed by the APC is illustrated by
Therefore, the current metamodels were four-dimensional,
Figure G-4. Starting from the initial conditions specified by
having three independent variables and one response variable
the user (upper left), the program calculates a steady-state
each. Ultimately, metamodels could be seven-dimensional if
rolling solution for the aircraft, including initial strut and tire
the additional independent variables were included.
deflections, weight distribution for the aircraft, and so on.
The primary limitation of the metamodel data used in these
The program then enters the main loop, which computes
simulations is the lack of vertical speed as an independent
the time-marching dynamic behavior of the aircraft and
variable. Without vertical wheel velocity information, high
arrestor bed. The loop calculates the current load state based
frequency response predictions, such as small bumps and
on the component locations and velocities. Using the core
noise, could be realistically simulated. The overall assump-
suspension model stiffness matrix (gray box), the system
tion for the metamodel data was that steady-state loading at
various penetration depths was sufficiently accurate for the velocity matrix is determined. Numerical time integration
required predictions. Overall, transient vertical loads were not produces new displacements from the velocity matrix. After
updating the stiffness matrix constants, the loop begins a new
iteration. This process continues until the aircraft comes to
Table G-4. Metamodel variables and responses. rest. At that point, data files and plots are output per user
specifications.
Variables Responses
Included in Metamodels Forward speed Vertical load
G.7. Conclusions
Bed depth Drag load
Penetration depth of tire The APC effectively simulated aircraft arrestments across
Neglected in Metamodels Vertical speed Torque on tire
a wide range of aircraft and for a set of dissimilar arrestor
mediums. Because it was not dependent on simplified analyt-
Spin rate
ical tire or arrestor material models, it provided a generalized
Braking torque
framework suitable for simulating nearly any arrestor design.

OCR for page 188

194
Input Initial Conditions Calculate Forces for
for Case Tire/Ground/Arrestor
(Aircraft Parameters, Interface
Arresting Material (Tire Load Curves or
Parameters, etc) Metamodel Data)
Calculate Velocities &
Calculate Initial Steady- Accelerations
State Solution (Suspension Model Matrix
Solution for u-dot matrix)
Integrate Over Time Step
& Calculate
Displacements
Update Suspension Model
Constants
(Non-Linear Coefficients)
Simulation Complete
Output Data & Plot Files
Figure G-4. Simplified process diagram for the arrestor prediction
code.