International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)

Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Design and Analysis of Aircraft Landing Gear

System
Suhas D, Srinath P, Shashank N.R, Venkatesh N Sherikar, Dr
Haridasa Nayak
1,2,3,4
Students, PESIT Bangalore South Campus, Bengaluru, Karnataka
5
Associate Professor, PESIT Bangalore South Campus, Bengaluru, Karnataka
Corresponding Author: Suhas D

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted: 01-08-2021 Revised: 07-08-2021 Accepted: 10-08-2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: During ground and take-off the material with the highest factor of safety and
procedures, the landing gear is the most critical least value of the extreme stress generated will be
component of an aircraft system. We can now see regarded as the best material to prevent structural
that the majority of aircraft structure failures occur failures of the model landing gear system.
primarily due to the failure of the landing gear Keywords:Factor of Safety, Landing gear, Static
system. analysis, Stress, Total Deformation.
The landing gear normally holds extreme loads like
side, compressive and drag. In contrast to the I. INTRODUCTION
compressive load, the drag load and side load 1.1 Introduction to Landing GearSystem
values are small. It is, thus, treated as a single This system is one of the pivotal subsystems
dimensional structure. It is designed to take in the of the airplane and is mostly built along with the
energy of the landing effect during landing in order aircraft structure because of its significant influence
to minimize the load transferred to the aircraft on the airplane's structural nature. The function of the
frame. landing gear of the airline is to provide during taxi,
The general option for heavy aircraft is the oleo take-off, and landing operations, a suspension
pneumatic landing gear strut. Aside from static mechanism. The kinetic energy of the landing impact
strength, a very critical architecture criterion is is consumed and dispelled, thus reducing the impact
energy absorption. loads transmitted to theairframe.
We then take an aircraft's conventional landing An aircraft has two landing gears: the Nose
gear and it is designed using CATIA and evaluated Landing Gear and the Main Landing Gear. Not
using ANSYS software for structural protection. only is the nose wheel necessary for a safe landing,
The assembly of landing gears is analysed using but it is also required for aircraft steering while taxiing
ANSYS tools for various composite materials and on the ground. The main landing gear is aimed at
metal alloys. allowing the aircraft to land safely. Both of these
By importing the model landing gear into the landing gears work to make jerk-freelandings.
ANSYS program, Estimation of air craft landing Airplane undercarriage bears the entire weight of
gear linear stresses and deformation and analysis an aircraft throughout taxiing and landing
on main landing gear as well the nose landing gear operations.These gear systems are connected to
of an air craft by linear static structural analysis. theaircraft's key structural components.
The results of the materials listed are compared and

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 374
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

We can subdivide landing gear as: Generally, the following are the parameters of the
1) Wheels to allow the operation on airport landing wheel system to be ascertained:
runways, to and from them, and other hardsurfaces. 1. Type ofGear
2) Skids werefound on Choppers, hot air 2. Fixed, retractable, or partlyretractable.
balloons, and some tail dragger aircraft in the 3. Wheel track.
tailarea. 4. Height.
5. Wheelbase.
Shock-absorbing equipment, fairings, 6. Dia ofStrut.
controls, retraction mechanisms, cowling, warning 7. The distance betweenthe main wheel and point of
systems, brakes, and structural members required balance ofaircraft.
to mount the gear to the aircraft are considered to 8. Sizing of the tire (diameter,width)
be part of the undercarriage, regardless of the type
used.
To authenticate structural robustness and
structural design loads, it is necessary to compute the
loads acting on the landing gears in-flight tests. The
terrain load calibration test usually entails separating
the landing gears from the test aircraft, then mounting
it on a specifically designed test rig and applying
required loads on the landing wheel system. Thus, it is
not possible to fully simulate the stiffness of the
relation between the landing wheel and the rig as the
real stiffness of the connection with the aircraft. This
will influence the efficiency of load calculationdata.
Horack suggested studying thelayout
ofthelanding gear. Landing gear fatiguetest
technology, load association of repeated loading, and
state of service load. The application of lightweight
materials was suggested byYangchen.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 375
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

CG

strut
wheel Height

Wheel base

CG

Height

Wheel track
Fig 2: Primary Parameters of System of Landing Gear

The primary parameters of the landing gear The main wheel is the primary gear that is
are shown in Figure 1.2. The following are the nearer to the centerof mass of the airplane. The main
definitions of the key parameters. The difference wheel contacts the terrain first during the descent
between extreme points of the landing wheel (i.e. the phase of the aircraft. In addition, the main gear
lowest point of the tire) to the spot of attachment to leaves the deck at the terminal stage of the take-off
the airplane is the height of the landing gear. Seeing process. On the other side, the main gear bears a
that landing wheels can be attached to the frame significant part of the load of the aircraft on the
(body) or the wing, discrete meanings are given to the ground. The front viewshowing the distance betwixt
term height. The undercarriage heightis alsoa feature the left main wheel and the right main wheel is known
of the shock absorber and the deflection of the as the wheel track. It will have more than one wheel
landing gears. Height isnormallydetermined while the if a gear is supposed to hold a large load. The weight
airplane is grounded, during which it is under full load of the landing gear is usually around three percent to
condition i.e. maximum weight for take-off; and the five percent of the weight required forthe airplane to
lowest height of the undercarriage i.e. maximum become airborne. The assembly of landing wheels, for
deflection condition. instance, weighsaround7.25 tons in the case of a 747
We can see from the side view of Figure 2 Boeing.
the wheel base which is the distance betwixt the
main wheel centreline and the nose wheel centre.
Two segments of the landing gear are:
1. Mainwheel, This work is organized as follows:
2. Secondarywheel.  Functional review and structural criteria for
DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 376
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

landing gear. The selection process and the androtation.

configurations of the landing gear are reviewed in
thissegment. II. LITERATURE SURVEY
 Decision on whether the landing wheels are to be The following section of the report
retractable, separable, or fixed is studied. addresses some of the research workscarried out by
 The geometry of the landing wheels, including various researchers concerningLanding Gear
wheel height, wheelbase, and wheel track. Systems, which aided us in getting the required
Much essential design criteriathat affect the information to carry out our project.
determination of the parameters of the landing
wheels (e.g. Clearance of airplane from the DesignandAnalysisofaDualShockAbsorberLand
terrain and rotation clearancerequirements for ingGearforCommercialAirplane [1]:
take-off) are studied in thissegment. Sk Sariful Islam’s landing gear function is the
most significant structural unit of an all-type
 Landing gear and airplane centerof mass; and aircraft that carries out the entire body safely on the
three design criteria(tip forward, tip back angles, ground during takeoff and landing. Depending on the
and rotation requirements for take-off) areadded. configuration and size of the aircraft, several types of
 Subdivisions/specificationswhich are of landing gear are used. With one front or nose landing
mechanicalinnature of landingwheelssuch as tire gear unit and two primary landing gear systems, tri-
size, shock absorber, strut size, guide,and cycle configurations are commonly used. Absorbing
retraction subdivisions are put forward. or dissipating energy is the primary feature of all
 The steps and procedure of the landing gear types of shock absorbers. It reduces the impact of
design areadded. flying over the ground for a commercial aircraft,
 Finally, a completely solved example of design contributing to improved ride quality and increased
isgiven. comfortdue toreduceddisturbanceamplitude. The most
significant bouncing mechanism in the
1.2 Functional Analysis and landinggearisrepeated over and over, each time with a
DesignRequirements little less, until the up-and-down movement stops
Landing wheels are the last major aircraft entirely. A single and dual shock absorber landing
part constructed in terms of the construction gear is modeled in this paper and a 3D model is
procedure. In other words, prior to designing the obtained using CATIA v5, and ANSYS v12 is
landinggear, allprimeconstituents(such as the wing, analyzed. Two types of shock observers(signal and
tail, fuselage, and propulsion system) must dual) are compared to verify the best shockabsorber.
bedeveloped. In addition,for landing wheels
configuration, the aircraft with the aptest centerof Design and Analysis Aircraft Nose and Nose
mass and the most forward point of balance must be Landing Gear [2]:
known. In some cases, the design of the Rajesh A, Abhay B T work on Tri-cycle
undercarriage may cause the airplane designer to arrangement landing gear is commonly used as it is
adjust the blueprint of theairplaneto meet the simple; both structurally as well as aerodynamically
specifications of the outline of the landing convenient. It has its drawbacks, but it is preferable
wheelsystem. over other configurations. Factors such as its weight
drag, sudden load application, acoustics, fatigue,etc.
The vital operations of landing wheels are as appear to slow down its life and efficiency. Among
follows: main landing gear and nose landing gear; the former
carries about 85% of the total weight of aircraft and
1. To provide solidity to the airplane on the
the latter carries around 12-15% of the weight. In
groundandduring unloading,loading,and taxiing.
contrast to the main landing gear, the nose landing
2. Allow for free movement and steering of an gear is also a source of noise and its influence is
airplane whiletaxiing. prominent. The executive jet aircraft are extensively
3. A safe interspace is provided between different investigated in this project and a nose landing gear
parts of the airplane when the aircraft is on the similar to those of executive jets is modeled using
terrain to avoid any disfigurement caused by CATIA. The same geometry is imported into
coming in contact with theground. ANSYS ICEM and different angles of attack are
4. To cushion the shocks of the landing during the evaluated for bodyflow.
descentphase. Pressure variation, temperature, density,and
5. To enable smooth ascending by permitting the velocity distribution are noted across the body and
lowest frictionforairplaneacceleration then the Lift and Drag coefficient is plotted for results

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 377
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

obtained against the angle of attack. Checking the but is still simple in design. An effort is made to
strength and stiffness of the built landing gear is synthesize graphically and comprehend the
alsoimportant. mechanism'skinematics.
Therefore, the static structural and impact ADAMS is used to check the design's
test for built geometry has been carried out using mobility. In Unigraphics NX 10, computer 3D
ANSYS APDL and Explicit. For two different modeling of the assembly is carried out and finite
materials, such as steel and aluminum alloy, stress element analysis is performed to analyze stresses
distribution and deformation were noted and primary produced at the rate of descent during landing. The
acoustic results were comparedwith the availabledata. linear static analysis is done with the aid of the
ANSYS Workbench finite element software to
LANDING GEAR OF AN AIRCRAFT [3]: measure the deflections of the main landing gear and
Durga Kumari and Love Sharma work to estimate the internal stresses. In this study, the
on Landing gear in an aircraft's undercarriage. An simulation findings are discussed.
airplane's landing gear is equipment that performs two A subsonic American jet trainer aircraft has
primary purposes. First, it helps aircraft to land been designed to reflect the primary geometry of the
safely and successfully, and second, it supports main Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star (or T-Bird)
aircraft in a restful state. The landing gear is landing gear. ADAMS software serves the task
constructed according to the aircraft's specifications ofrecognizing
and the essence of its function. An airplane's landing themechanism'sbasicskeleton,whichnevertheless
gear is equipment that performs two primary embodies the dimensions of the model and defines the
purposes. First, it helps aircraft to land safely and motion direction in real-time. The deflected
successfully, and second, it supports aircraft in a structure of the landing gear in its maximally loaded
restful state. The landing gear is constructed state was shown by ANSYS Workbench, the finite
according to the aircraft's specifications and the element software. The graphical pictorialoutputs
essence of its function. In this project, we will first displayed varying stress levels corresponding to the
study all the functional specifications and landing gear geometry. Here, it is evident that 118.66 MPa is
gear components that can affect an aircraft's the maximum stress level, which is less than the
purpose. It has been evident from the above work permissible yield power. It can beinterpretedfrom
that the landing gear can be designed and modeled thedesign stress measurement that the acceptable
according to requirementsusing PRO-E. On a Pro/E stress is 197.5 MPa and the design stress is 131.6
assembly, we can perform integrated simulation and MPa, and the maximum stress from the numerical
it is possible to generate an automatically meshed computation in the workbench is 118.66 MPa, so we
model containing very small sections. From the above can infer that the structure is secure and meets the
analysis, early insight into its performance can be landing criteria set by Lockheed T-33 aircraft.
obtained and a concept model can be analyzed to
obtain accurate stresses and displacements Design and Linear Static Analysis of Landing
automatically. On this basis, by adjusting relevant Gear [5]:
parameters and materials, one can optimize the Muhammed Faizal Elayancheri work on Landing is
design. In this way, for a higherperformance, one one of the most common aircraft maneuvers.
can design a landing gear to suit the purpose. There Because of its complex behavior, the landing gear is
have been several challenges forlandinggear called a nonlinear structure. Significant amounts of
designersand practitioners with the need to design impact forces are passed into the nose gear
landing gearwithminimalweight, minimum volume, andmainlanding gear during the landing process. The
high performance, improved life,and reduced life main objective of this paper is to present an aircraft
cyclecosts. Inconfiguration design, use of materials, landing gear prototype using CATIA V5 software to
design and research processes, and the potential research landing gear actions according to actual
design of landing gear for aircraft faces several workingconditions.
newchallenges. Static loads are applied over the landing gear
and internalforces are derived from key components
Design and Structural Analysis of Main of the landing gear, such as the separate study of the
Landing Gear for Lockheed T-33 Jet Trainer torque arm for the internal forces collected from the
Aircraft [4]: generalized modal, modeled with CATIA V5, and
Monisha M and Pooja S work focuses imported to MSC Patran. As a solver, MSC Nastran
primarily on the structural design and study of a jet is used. Linear static analysis was performed from
trainer aircraft's main landing gear, which is the obtained limit stresses to identify the stress of the
economical and has a high strength-to-weight ratio, main landing gear under different conditions.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 378
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

2.2 Objective
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT Following are the objectives of this project:
LANDING GEAR USING DIFFERENT  Estimation of air craft landing gear linear stresses
ALLOYS [6]: and deformation by linear static
Dr. V. Jaya Prasad, P. Sandeep Kumar Reddy, structuralanalysis.
B. Rajesh, and T. Sridhar  Perform static structural analysis on main
The purpose of this study was to examine landing gear as well the nose landing gear of an
the structural analysis of landing gear for various aircraft.
materials. The research explores the most  Design the air craft landing gear using different
appropriatematerial for the construction of the landing materials and alloys and analyze them and
gear by analyzing the stress and deformation determine the best material to beused.
produced due to loadingconditions.  Evaluation of the Factor of Safety for the air
Analysis of stress plays an important role in craft landing equipment using different materials.
finding structural protection and assembly integrity.
The previous stress calculation helps to find suitable 2.3 PROBLEMDEFINITION
material and geometrical dimensions.  Quite high loads impact the landing gear during
landing. It is due to the weight of the aircraft and
Modal Analysis of a typical Landing Gear Oleo its rate of descent as well as forward speed
Strut [7]: during touchdown. If the load on the landing gear
Dr. N Sreenivasa Babu reaches the threshold value,the landing wheel
Structural analysis to analyze the will be damaged ordestroyed.
deformation and Von mises stress levels and analysis  The landing wheel system should be adequately
of vibration measuring frequency levels impervious to all presumed loads, however, the
undervariousconditions.In comparison,fortake-off and measurements taken should not be bulky,
landing conditions, various materials are examined and because it has to protect other airship structure
frequency levels at different loading conditions are parts from beingdamaged.
compared. In the nodal analysis for various materials,
the frequencies are evaluated. The frequency is III. METHODOLOGY
23.6339 Hz for the Ti 6Al-4V material oleo strut and 3.1 MethodologyOverview
the difference is not noticeable during take-off and The below flowchart shows the order of the steps to
landing. The results for displacement are 0.36 mm be followed to meet our project requirements.
from the static study and Von mises Stress is 97.35
for Ferrium S53 material and is ideally suited and
sustainable both for landing andtake-off.

2.1 ResearchGap
 The complete load of the airplane has to be borne
by the landing gear system and due to this,it has
to be very powerful. This is why landing gear is
made of steel because of its robust nature but it
is not used in other parts of aircraft since it is
heavy. Titanium alloys arealso used in the parts of
a landinggear.
 Our project aims at the explicit fundamental
analysis of aircraft landing wheels for discrete
alloys and compositematerials.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 379
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 3: Methodology chart

3.2 DesignConsiderations because it has high effectiveness and it can

 Design is being done for solid landinggear. absorb and release vertical kinetic
 Medium-sized civil aircraft is being considered energyconcurrently.
for theproject.  Sulfron, a para-aramid Twaron enhanced rubber
 Oleo pneumatic shock absorber is being used is used as the material for the tires.

3.3 MaterialProperties
3.3.1 MechanicalProperties(metalalloys) Table1
Mechanical Aluminum 4340 Titanium Titanium Titanium
Properties alloy 7075 Alloy steel alloy 10-2-3 alloy 6- 4 alloy 6- 6-2

Density (Kg M^-3) 2810 7850 4650 4430 4540

Young’s Modulus 80E+9 210E+9 108E+9 120E+9 110.3E+9

(Pa)

Poisson’s Ratio 0.33 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.30

Shear Modulus 26.9E+9 78E+9 42E+9 44E+9 42.4E+9

(Pa)

Tensile Yield
Strength (MPa) 95 470 1050 828 980

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 380
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

3.3.2 Mechanical properties comparison between aluminum alloy, titaniumalloy, and Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Carbon.
Table 2
Properties Aluminum Alloy (Al- Titanium alloy 10V- Carbon Fiber
7075) 2Fe -3Al Reinforced Carbon
(Graphite)

Density 2810 kg/m3 4650 kg/m3 1830 kg/m3

Modulus of Elasticity 80 GPa 108 GPa 1.5 GPa

Poison’s Ratio 0.33 0.32 0.28

Yield Strength 95 MPa 1050 MPa 200 MPa

Shear Modulus 27 GPa 42 GPa 53 GPa

3.4 DesignAssumptions absorber is notconsidered.

 Main Landing Wheel carries 85% of  Consider a perpendicular load applied to the
AircraftLoad. designed landing gear for all the cases is 1400
 Nose Landing Wheel carries 15% of KN or below.
AircraftLoad.  Design is being done in such a way that it can
 Touch down the speed while landing is 160knots. withstand payload weight and structural weight
 A frictional and hydraulic force of shock and it issafe.

3.5 DesignDimensions
3.5.1Medium-SizeCivilAircraftdata. Table3

Overall length (m) 47

Wing span (m) 38

Maximum Take-Off Weight (kg) 124000
Maximum Landing Weight (kg) 106000

IV. MODELLING
4.1 Landing GearComponents

4.1.1 MainLandinggearcomponents

Fig 4:Oleo Cylinder of main landing gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 381
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 5: Oleo piston of main landing gear

Fig 6: Disc unit of main landing gear

Fig 7: Upper link of main landing gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 382
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 8: Lower link of main landing gear

Fig 9: Wheels of main landing gear

4.1.2 NoseLandinggearcomponents

Fig 10: Lower support of nose landing gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 383
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 11: Link of nose landing gear

Fig 12: Strut of nose landing gear

4.2 Landing GearAssembly

Fig 13: Assembly of Main Landing Gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 384
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 14: Assembly of Nose Landing Gear

V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS severalcriteria, including the total size of the model,
The core principle behind finite element the proximity of other topologies, body curvature,
analysis is to examine a structure, which is made and hence the feature's complexity. Structural
up of several different items called components that analysis is done to analyze the deformation and Von
are joined at a finite number of places known as misesstresses.
nodes. These elements and nodes are then subjected The problem is solved according to the
to the loaded boundary conditions. Mesh is the term problem definitions in the solution phase. The
for a network of those elements. Meshing is the computer does all of the hard work of formulating and
process of spatially dividing your geometry into building matrices, and gives the deformations and
elements and nodes. The stiffnessand mass stress values as the finaloutput
distributionof the structure ismathematically
represented using this mesh and material attributes. 5.1 Analysis of Main LandingGear
The default element size is determined by 5.1.1 Aluminum7075

Fig 15: Stress Distribution for Al 7075

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 385
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 16: Total Deformation for Al 7075

5.1.2 Titanium10Al-2Fe-3V

Fig 17: Stress Distribution for Titanium10Al-2Fe-3V

Fig 18:Total Deformation for Titanium10Al-2Fe-3V

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 386
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

5.1.3 CarbonFiberReinforcedCarbon

Fig 19: Stress Distribution forCFRC

Fig 20:Total Deformation forCFRC

5.2 Analysis of Nose LandingGear

5.2.1 Aluminum7075

Fig 21: Stress Distribution for Al 7075 for nose landing gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 387
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Fig 22: Total Deformation for Al 7075 for nose landing gear

5.2.2 Titanium10Al-2Fe-3V

Fig 23: Stress Distribution for Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V for nose landing gear

Fig 24: Total Deformation for Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V for nose landing gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 388
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

5.2.3 CarbonFiberReinforcedCarbon

Fig 25:Stress Distribution for CFRC for nose landinggear

Fig 26:Total Deformation for CFRC for nose landinggear

5.3 Results and its GraphicalRepresentation

5.3.1 ResultofAnalysisdoneonMainLandingGear Table4

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa Deformation(mm)
)

1100 614.96 250.6 5.3281

Aluminium 7075 1200 639.56 260.62 5.5413

1300 664.16 270.64 5.7544

1400 688.76 280.67 5.9675

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 389
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa Deformation(mm)
)

1100 616.45 248.08 3.6069

Titanium 10Al-2Fe-
3V 1200 641.11 258 3.7512

1300 665.76 267.93 3.8954

1400 690.42 277.85 4.0397

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa Deformation(mm)
)
Carbon Fibre 1100 618.65 243.08 3.9778
Reinforced Carbon
1200 643.4 252.81 4.1369

1300 668.14 262.53 4.296

1400 692.89 272.25 4.4551

5.3.2 ResultofAnalysisdoneonNoseLandingGear Table5

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa) Deformation(mm)

100 152.02 40.31 0.99462

Aluminium 7075
130 197.62 52.403 1.293

150 228.03 60.466 1.4919

180 273.63 72.559 1.7903

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa) Deformation(mm)

100 151.66 38.868 0.67556

Titanium 10Al- 2Fe-
3V 130 197.15 50.528 0.87823

150 227.48 58.302 1.0113

180 272.98 69.962 1.216

Material Load(KN) Equivalent Maximum Total

Stress(MPa) Stress(MPa) Deformation(mm)

Carbon Fibre 100 150.48 38.332 0.74932

Reinforced Carbon
130 195.63 49.832 0.97412

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 390
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

150 225.73 57.499 1.124

180 270.87 68.998 1.3488

5.3.3 ComparisonofresultsbygraphicalmethodforMainLandingGear Table6

Load Applied Equivalent Stress (MPa)
(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

1100 614.96 616.45 618.65

1200 639.56 641.11 643.4

1300 664.16 665.76 668.14

1400 688.76 690.42 692.89

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF
LOAD(KN) VS EQUIVALENT
STRESS(MPa)
70
0

68
0

66
0

64
0

62 1100 1200 1300 1400

0 614.96 639.56 664.16 688.76
ALUMINIUM70
75 60
0
TITANIUM10- 616.45 641.11 665.76 690.42
2-3
58
CFRC 0 618.65 643.4 668.14 692.89
LOAD APPLIED
56
0
ALUMINIUM7075 TITANIUM10-2-3
CFRC

Fig 27: Load vs Equivalent stress Graph for Main Landing Gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 391
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

Table 7
Load Applied Total Deformation (mm)
(KN)
Aluminium Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
7075 3V

1100 5.3281 3.6069 3.9778

1200 5.5413 3.7512 4.1369

1300 5.7544 3.8954 4.296

1400 5.9675 4.0397 4.4551

TOTAL DEFORMATION

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
OF
LOAD(KN) VS
7 TOTALDEFORMATION(mm)
6

2
1100 1200 1300 1400
1
5.3281 5.5413 5.7544 5.9675
ALUMINIUM700
75
TITANIUM10- 3.6069 3.7512 3.8954 4.0397
2-3
CFRC 3.9778 4.1369 4.296 4.4551
LOAD APPLIED

ALUMINIUM7075 TITANIUM10-2-3
CFRC

Fig 28: Load vs Total Deformation for Main Landing Gear

Table 8
Load Applied Maximum Principal Stress (MPa)
(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

1100 250.6 248.08 243.08

1200 260.62 258 252.81

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 392
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

1300 270.64 267.93 262.53

1400 280.67 277.85 272.25

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF
LOAD(KN) VS MAXIMUM
PRINCIPAL STRESS(MPa)

290

280

270

260

250

240

230 1100 1200 1300 1400

250.6 260.62 270.64 280.67
220
ALUMINIUM70
75
TITANIUM10- 248.08 258 267.93 277.85
2-3
CFRC 243.08 252.81 262.53 272.25
LOAD APPLIED

ALUMINIUM7075 TITANIUM10-2-3
CFRC

Fig 29: Load vs Maximum Principal Stress for Main Landing Gear

5.3.4 ComparisonofresultsbygraphicalmethodforNoseLandingGear Table9

Load Applied Equivalent Stress (MPa)

(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

100 152.02 151.66 150.48

130 197.62 197.15 195.63

150 228.03 227.48 225.73

180 273.63 272.98 270.87

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 393
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF LOAD(KN)

VS
EQUIVALENTSTRESS(MPa)
30
0
EQUIVALENT STRESS

250

200

150

100

50 100 130 150 180

152.02 197.62 228.03 273.63
ALUMINIUM700
75
TITANIUM10- 151.66 197.15 227.48 272.98
2-3
CFRC 150.48 195.63 225.73 270.87
LOAD
APPLIED

ALUMINIUM TITANIUM10-2-3
7075 CF
RC
Fig 30: Load vs Equivalent stress Graph for Nose Landing Gear

Table 10
Load Applied Total Deformation (mm)
(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

100 0.99462 0.67556 0.74932

130 1.293 0.87823 0.97412

150 1.4919 1.0113 1.124

180 1.7903 1.216 1.3488

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 394
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF
LOAD(KN)VS
TOTAL DEFORMATION(mm)
2
1.
8
1.
6
TOTAL DEFORMATION

1.
4
1.
2
1 100 130 150 180
0. 0.99462 1.293 1.4919 1.7903
8
ALUMINIUM70
75 0.
6 0.67556
TITANIUM10- 0.87823 1.0113 1.216
2-3 0.
CFRC 4 0.74932 0.97412 1.124 1.3488
0.
LOAD APPLIED
2
0
ALUMINIUM7075 TITANIUM10-2-3
CFRC

Fig 31: Load vs Total Deformation for Nose Landing Gear

Table 11
Load Applied Maximum Principal Stress (MPa)
(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

100 40.31 38.868 38.332

130 52.403 50.528 49.832

150 60.466 58.302 57.499

180 72.559 69.962 68.998

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 395
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF LOAD(KN)

VS
FACTOR OF SAFETY

MAXIMUM PRINCIPALSTRESS(MPa)
80

70
MAXIMUM PRINCIPLAL STRESS

60

50

40

30

20

10 100 130 150 180

0 40.31 52.403 60.466 72.559
ALUMINIUM70
75
TITANIUM10- 38.868 50.528 58.302 69.962
2-3 LOAD
CFRC 38.332 49.832 APPLIED 57.499 68.998
ALUMINIUM TITANIUM10-2-3
7075 CFR
Fig 32: Load vs Maximum Principal
C Stress for Nose Landing Gear

5.3.5 ComparisonofresultsbygraphicalmethodforMainLandingGear Table12

Load Factor Of Safety
Applied Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
(KN) 3V
1400 0.14954 1.6946 1.5533

Load Applied (KN) vs FOS

1.8 1.6946
1.5533
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 0.14954
0.2
0
ALUMINIUM 7075 TITANIUM 10-2-3 CFRC
1400 0.14954 1.6946 1.5533
LOAD APPLIED(1400
KN)

Fig 33: Load vs FOS for Main Landing Gear

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 396
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

5.3.6 ComparisonofresultsbygraphicalmethodforNoseLandingGear Table13

Load Applied Factor Of Safety
(KN)
Aluminium 7075 Titanium 10Al-2Fe- CFRC
3V

150 0.37642 3.086 2.7245

Fig 34: Load vs FOS for Nose Landing Gear

VI. CONCLUSION  On establishing a comparison between CFRC

Based on the conclusions drawn from the and Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V we see that the Total
reference papers attached we were able to narrow Deformation, as well as the Equivalent,stresses
down the two best metal materials to be used as the value for CFRC is higher than Titanium10Al-
base material for the strut i.e. Aluminium 7075 and 2Fe-3V.
Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V.An attempt was madeto use  Evaluating the Factor of Safety for these
CFRC- Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Carbon as the materials shows that Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V has
base material ofstrut. the highest factor of safety among the two
Landing gear materials commonly must have good materials and hence is the best material out
fracture toughness, High static strength, and fatigue ofthem.
strength, seen in metals and alloys like steel,
aluminum,and titanium.  CFRC is brittle in nature and has shown to not
Both the nose as well as the main landing gears respond well to sudden impact loads. Yet,
were analyzed and the following conclusions have CFRC is used to make aircraft undercarriage
been drawn: braces, fuselage, wings, tail,etc. where it serves
its intendedpurpose.
 When we compare the results of mentioned
materials likeAluminiumalloy,carbon fiber  Therefore we can concludethis project that
reinforced carbon and titanium alloy the material Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V is the best material to be
having the least total deformation and minimum utilized to construct the modeled landing gear
value of maximum stress (Von mises stress) system and also to avoid structuralfailures.
developed is considered the safest material to
beused. REFERENCES
[1]. Currey’s Norman S. Aircraft Landing Gear
 Though Aluminium 7075 has marginally less Design: Principles andPractices.American
equivalent stress values thanTitanium
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
10Al-2Fe-3V,but it has a high value of Total
Inc., Washington, D.C. 2002; 4.
deformation / Maximum deflection. Thereby
[2]. Conway HG. Landing Gear Design. Royal
establishing, Titanium 10Al-2Fe-3V as the best
Aeronautical Society.1958.
material out ofthem.

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 397
 International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM)
Volume 3, Issue 8 Aug 2021, pp: 374-398 www.ijaem.net ISSN: 2395-5252

[3]. Bishop NWM. Finite Element Based Fatigue Layout Design of Landing Gear and
Calculations. Farnham, UK. July2000. Systems”, 1986.
[4]. M. Susarla and S. Harshavardhan, “Structural [18]. Praveen Joel P and Dr. Vijayan R, “Design
Analysis of the Drag Strut and Dynamic and Stress Analysis of Nose Landing Gear
analysis of Aircraft Landing Gear,” pp.1–8. Barrel (NLGB) of a typical naval trainer
[5]. Mohammad Sadraey-Landing Gear Design-, aircraft,” IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng., vol. 11,
Chapter 9, Daniel WebsterCollege. no. 2, pp. 67–74,2014.
[6]. Horack Ing Vaclav. Advanced Landing
Gear Fatigue Test Method , 4th Edn. Stress
Analysis and Design Engineering Limited, UK
and Malaysia.2006.
[7]. Design and analysis of main landing gear
structure of a transport aircraft and fatigue
life estimation for the critical lug. International
Joint Conference. July 2013. ISBN: 978-81-
927147-7-6.
[8]. BriscoeDave.AeroStructuresProjectonAnaly
sisoftheLandingGear,3rdEdn.FEA Research
Institute, UK.2004.
[9]. Kurdelski Marcin, Leski Andrzej, Dragan
Krzysztof. AirForceInstituteof Technology,
Warsaw, Poland. Fatigue life analysis of main
landing gear pull–rod of the fighter jet
aircraft. 28th International Congress of the
Aeronautical Sciences.2012
[10]. Yangchen Deng. Application of Shape
Optimization in Landing Gear Structural
Design, 2nd Edn. Aircraft Design and
Research Institute, Shenyang,2008.
[11]. Navair Reza Ghanimati. Analysis of C–2A
Nose Landing Gear Barrel, 2nd Edn.
Department of Aerospace Engineering and
Mechanics, San Diego State University. 2009.
[12]. Krason W, Malachowski J. Effort analysis of
the landing gear it possible flow during
touchdown. International Journal of
Mechanics, Mascow, 2006;1.
[13]. Kim Jong–Ho, Lee Soon–Bok, Hong Seong–
Gu. Fatigue crack growth behavior of Al7050–
T7451 attachment lugs under flight spectrum
variation. Journal: Theoretical and Applied
Fracture Mechanics. Elsevier Science; 2003;
40(2) (2003–09):135–44p.
[14]. Tikka Jarkko, Patria. Fatigue life evaluation of
critical locations in aircraft structures using
virtual fatigue test. International Congress of
the Aeronautical Sciences.2002.
[15]. A. V Gaikwad, R. U. Sambhe, and P. S.
Ghawade, “Modeling and Analysis of Aircraft
Landing Gear: Experimental Approach,” vol.
2, no. 7, pp. 2–5,2013.
[16]. S. R. Basavaraddi, “Design and Analysis of
Main Landing Gear Structure of a Transport
Aircraft and Fatigue Life Estimation,” no. July,
pp. 10–14,2013.
[17]. J. Roskam, “Airplane Design: Part IV -

DOI: 10.35629/5252-0308374398 Impact Factor value 7.429 | ISO 9001: 2008 Certified Journal Page 398