PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

OF NOSE LANDING GEAR OLEO- PNEUMATIC SHOCK

ABSORBER FOR CESSNA 172S AIRCRAFT
A Project Report
Submitted by
FILIMON MULUGETA (RDEG /022/08)
NATINAEL WORKINEH (RDEG /047/08)
MEKONEN DEBEBE (RDEG/ 041/08)
DAWIT BELEMO (RDEG /015/08)

in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award

of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

(Aircraft Mechanical System)

At

DEFENCE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

BISHOFTU, ETHIOPIA

July, 2020
 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that the project entitled “PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND STRUCURAL
ANALYSIS OF NOSE LANDING GEAR OLEO-PNEUMATIC SHOCK ABSORBER FOR
CESSNA 172S AIRCRAFT “submitted for the Bachelor Degree is our original work and the project
has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar
titles.

Signature of the students:

1. ________________________________ FILIMON MULUGETA

2. ________________________________ NATINAEL WORKINEH
3. ________________________________ MEKONEN DEBEBE
4. ________________________________ DAWIT BELEMO

Place _________________________

Date: _________________________

i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report “PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF NOSE LANDING GEAR OLEO-PNEUMATIC SHOCK ABSORBER FOR
CESSNA 172S AIRCRAFT” is the work carried out by FILIMON MULUGETA, NATINAEL
WORKINEH, MEKONEN DEBEBE and DAWIT BELEMO, students of aircraft mechanical
system for Degree Program Of Defense University, College Of Engineering during the year
2019/2020 in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of bachelor of
technology with focus area of aeronautical engineering and that the project has not formed the
basis for the award of any degree, associate ship, fellowship or any other similar title previously.

Name and Signature of the advisor:

________________________________

Place _______________

Date ________________

Examiners Signature

1. _________________ _______________ 1. ____________________

2. _________________ _______________ 2. ____________________

3. ________________________________ 3.____________________

ii
 ABSTRACT

Nose landing gear failure is a high concern in the aviation industries. From case study the
big problem with Cessna 172S aircraft was when it touches down the ground during landing and
taxis on uneven runways with high speed, surface irregularities and human errors, there was
heavy ground impact on the nose landing gear which leads to the considerable vertical
acceleration and impermissible load transmission to the structural members. Due to this incident
the aircraft were exposed to damage frequently in their airframe and other components contained
within.
The shock absorbers and tires must absorb the maximum energy at the relevant design
vertical velocity, such that the design reaction into the airframe is not exceeded, thereby avoiding
deformation. In this project work, the preliminary design of nose landing gear oleo-pneumatic
shock absorber was carried-out by responding to requirements of maximum overall dimensions,
maximum weight and maximum attainable load factor for a Cessna 172S light-weight aircraft
having tri-cyclic configuration.
Landing gear oleo-pneumatic shock absorber has been designed according to requirement
and nature of work. The geometrical parameters of the components of the strut were determined
based on the loads and forces experienced during landing at various conditions. The geometric
modeling of the Nose Landing Gear shock absorber of the existing (actual) and new designed
was carried out using CAD package CATIA V5 R19 and then imported into ANSYS software
after which the stress behavior and deformation of the shock strut determined by considering
same material properties and loading conditions. Finally, the result has been compared on the
basis of the parameters deformation and stress for better resisting load and strength.

Keywords: landing gear, Shock absorption, Deformation, Stress

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First and foremost, we would like to express our deepest gratitude and sincere thanks to our
advisor M. Tech., Lt. Sirak Masresha for his valuable help, constructive suggestion, guidance,
encouragement, and support throughout this project. We are highly indebted for his constant
supervision as well as for providing information regarding this project. Next, we would also like
to thanks the management members of Ethiopian airlines for their cooperation, provision of
relevant information during our internship time and for our project.

Lastly, we are indebted to all persons who directly or indirectly helped us in the completion of
this project.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

Declaration----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i

Certificate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii

Abstract-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iii

Acknowledgement------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iv

Table of content----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------v

List of figures ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vii

List of tables-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ix

Nomenclature------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------42

Chapter one: - Introduction--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1. 1 Background: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.1.1 General Information of CESSNA 172S-------------------------------------4

1.2 Statement of problem: ----------------------------------------------------------------------5

1.3 Objectives: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

1. 3.1 General Objectives: -------------------------------------------------------------6

1.3.2 Specific Objectives: --------------------------------------------------------------6

1.4 Significance of the study: -----------------------------------------------------------------7

1.5 Limitations of the study: ------------------------------------------------------------------7

1.6 Scope of the Study: ------------------------------------------------------------------------7

1.7 Methodology: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

CHAPTER TWO: - LITERATURE REVIEW-----------------------------------------------------------9

v
CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
OF OLEO-PNEUMATIC SHOCK ABSORBER -----------------------------15

3.1 Design considerations:---------------------------------------------------------------15

3.1.1 Vertical Sink Speed (or Design touchdown rate):------------------------15

3.1.2 Landing Gear Load Factor:---------------------------------------------------15

3.1.3 Stroke:---------------------------------------------------------------------------16

3.2 Static Load Distribution:-------------------------------------------------------------16

3.3 Tires:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

3.4 Oleo-Pneumatic Shock Strut Design----------------------------------------------- 21

3.4.1 Oleo-Pneumatic Shock Strut Sizing-------------------------------------------23

CHAPTER FOUR: GEOMETRICAL MODELING AND

ANALYSIS OF SHOCK ABSORBER------------------------------------------33
4.1. Geometric modeling of oleo-pneumatic nose landing gear shock strut-----------------33
4.2 Analysis of oleo pneumatic landing gear shock strut--------------------------------------34
4.2.1 Initial Assumptions------------------------------------------------------------------34
4.2.2 Fixture condition---------------------------------------------------------------------35
4.2.3 Material properties-------------------------------------------------------------------35
4.2.4 Meshing method---------------------------------------------------------------------35
4.2.5 Results --------------------------------------------------------------------------------37
4.2.5.1 Result of the existing oleo pneumatic shock
absorber using actual dimension--------------------------------------------37
4.2.5.2 Result of the new dimension oleo pneumatic shock absorber ----------38
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND FURTHER SCOPE---------41
5.1 Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
5.2 Recommendation------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
5.3 Further Scope----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Figure Name Page No.

Figure 1.1 Most commonly used type Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber------------------------2

Figure 3.1 Definition of dimensions used in calculating landing gear loads------------------18

Figure 3.2 Tire geometric parts list------------------------------------------------------------------19

Figure 3.3 Tire Deflection Schematic; Adapted from Brixius-----------------------------------20

Figure 3.4 Load-Stroke curve of Isothermal compression --------------------------------------26

Figure 3.5 Load Stroke Curve for Isothermal and Poly tropic Compressions-----------------28

Figure 3.6 Load-Stroke curve of Isothermal, Poly tropic and Combined compression------29

Figure 3.7 Stroke (S) and Shock Strut Overlap----------------------------------------------------29

Figure 3.8 Schematic diagrams of the metering pin constructions------------------------------32

Figure 4.1 Model of nose landing gear shock absorber------------------------------------------34

Figure 4.2 Final mesh of the designed oleo pneumatic landing gear -------------------------36

Figure 4.3 Von-mises stress of oleo pneumatic landing gear ----------------------------------37

using existing (actual) dimension
Figure 4.4 Deformation of oleo pneumatic landing gear
using existing (actual) dimension------------------------------------------------------37
Figure 4.5 Deflection on oleo pneumatic landing gear-------------------------------------------38

Figure 4.6 Von-mises stress on oleo pneumatic landing gear -----------------------------------38

Figure 4.7 Von-mises stress at different locations of

oleo pneumatic landing gear-------------------------------------------------------------39

vii
Figure 4.8 Deformation at different locations of
oleo pneumatic landing gear------------------------------------------------------------39
Figure 4.9 Side view (A) and Front view (B) of model
deformation on displacement versus
original displacement of the design----------------------------------------------------40

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description Page No.

Table 1.1 Cessna 172S Model Relevant Aircraft Specification-----------------------------------5

Table 3.1 Vertical sink speed design data------------------------------------------------------------15

Table 3.2 Landing gear reaction (or load) Factor data for design from FAR-------------------16

Table 3.3 Summary of Pressure –Volume values for varying strokes---------------------------25

Table 3.4 Load –Stroke Calculations for isothermal compression-------------------------------26

Table 3.5 Load-Stroke Calculations for poly tropic compression--------------------------------27

Table 3.6 Load –Stroke calculations Isothermal from extended to

static and Poly tropic compression from static to

compressed position----------------------------------------------------------------------28

Table 4.1 Summary of Important new geometric

dimensions of the landing gear shock strut. ---------------------------------------------33

Table 4.2 Summary of Important geometric dimensions of

the existing (actual) oleo pneumatic shock strut to

analyze Von-Mises stress and deformation. --------------------------------------------33

Table 4.3 material property of 4130 Alloy steel---------------------------------------------------35

ix
 NOTATIONS and Abbreviations
Acronyms
AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

CG Center of gravity

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations (United States)

FPS Feet per second

POH Pilot Operating Handbook

USAF United States Air Force

USN United States Navy

Nomenclatures

Piston area

B Wheel base

Bn max Maximum distance between nose landing gear and aircraft’s center of gravity(cgfor)

Bn min Minimum distance between nose landing gear and aircraft’s center of gravity(cgaft)

Cg aft Backward center of gravity limit

Cg for Forward center of gravity limit

Orifice diameter

Do Outside tire diameter

Strut Piston diameter

g Gravitational acceleration [acceleration due to gravity] (9.81 )

H drop test height

x
N Landing gear load factor

n Polytropic exponent for air-compression process

Ng The landing gear load factor (the ratio of maximum load per leg to
the maximum static load)

P1 Air pressure at full extension Static Ground Reaction Force at Nose Landing Gear
Location

P2 Air pressure at static position

P3 Air pressure at full compression

Ss Shock strut stroke [shock absorber stroke]

St Maximum tire vertical deflection

V1 Air volume at full extension

V2 Air volume at static position

V3 Air volume at compressed position

design vertical touch rate (or Vertical Sink Speed)

W Gross weight of the aircraft

s Shock absorber efficiency Factor

t Tire efficiency Factor

D Displacement

Et Touchdown kinetic energy

Di Internal diameter of the outer cylinder

xi
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Since the birth of Aviation, aircraft landing gears have been essential components of every
aircraft, as the majority of failures in the aeronautic structures occur due to breakdown of this
component. The main function of landing gear includes absorbing the energy during landing,
supporting the whole body at all ground maneuvers, such as takeoff, taxiing and landing roll-
out. It plays a crucial role in preventing the airframe from vibration and excessive impact
forces, improving passenger comfort characteristics and increasing aircraft flight safety.

All conventional aircraft has a shock absorber in the landing gear assembly. The shock
absorber is the one item that is common to all current landing gears. Some do not have tires,
wheels, brakes, antiskid devices, retraction systems, or steering systems, but all of them have
some form of shock absorber [1]. Aircraft landing gear usually includes wheels equipped
with simple shock absorbers, or more advanced air/oil oleo struts, for runway and rough
terrain landing. The primary purpose of landing gear shock absorber is, it takes a brunt of the
shock imparted to the landing gear, absorbs it and dissipates the kinetic energy during
landing [2].

The main role of the shock absorber is to zero the vertical component of the airplane velocity
dies ranks among the important engineering in aviation. A good shock absorber should
absorb rough landing, with no rebound and limited load transfer to the vehicle structure.
Landing is sometimes referred to as a “controlled crash”, but it would actually be a disaster
without the shock absorbing mechanism. Its secondary requirement is to allow a comfortable
taxiing. For this reason, Shock absorbers are crucial component of the landing gear as it plays
a major role of taking up the energy resulting from the aircraft contact with runway and
distributing this energy appropriately across the aircraft structure [1].

The absorption of kinetic energy of moving bodies ranks among the important engineering in
aviation. Several types of shock absorption used include springs, rubber pads, etc. Today,
oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers are the most commonly used shock absorbers in aircraft
landing gears because of their high efficiency and ability to absorb shocks and dissipate

1
energy effectively (Currey [1]). It dissipates the kinetic energy produced by impacts arising
when an airplane lands at high speed but also offers a comfortable ride to passengers when
the airplane taxies at low speed. A shock absorber needs to absorb the energy of landing
efficiently, meaning it should compress slowly.

Figure 1.1Most widely used type Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber (Currey [1])
The role of the shock absorber is to absorb and dissipate energy during landing impact so that
the airframe, structural components and passengers are subject to tolerable forces and
accelerations. Landing gear shock absorber should be designed for the cases of landing and
ground maneuvering.

a
2
 Figure: a and b show Cessna 172S damaged Nose landing gear
Nose gear failure is a high concern in the aviation industries. According to the Federal
Aviation Administration reports, 55% of aircraft failures occur during takeoff and landing
while 45% of failures occur during flight [3]. The Cessna 172S aircraft when touches down
the ground during landing and taxis on uneven runways with high speed, there is heavy
ground impact on the nose landing gear and huge vertical load to the airframe. Due to this
they are exposed to damage frequently in their airframe and other components contained
within. They are also frequently exposed to the failure of shock absorber itself. The shock
absorbers and tires must absorb the maximum energy at the relevant design vertical velocity,
such that the design reaction into the airframe is not exceeded, thereby avoiding deformation.
To improve safety and make reduce the impact load transmitted to the aircraft structure to an
acceptable level during landing, an effective landing gear shock absorber capable of
absorbing impact energy as much as possible is indispensable for Cessna 172S aircraft. For
this reason, Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber is the most important component in the nose
landing gear to be designed.

Impact loads during landing are the main design loads for the landing gear design. The
design of landing gear begins from the study of conception of shock absorber and retraction
system (if retraction system is required). One of the most important features in the design of
the landing gear (fixed/retractable) is its shock absorption system. The design of the shock
absorber is one of the most fundamental aspects of in the aircraft landing gear design [4].

The aim of this project, therefore, focuses on the design of nose landing gear oleo-pneumatic
shock absorber using maximum overall dimensions, maximum weight and maximum

3
attainable load factor for a Cessna 172S light-weight aircraft having tri-cyclic configuration.
In the design stage, the basic considerations are sink speed, load factor, stroke, compression
ratio and shock absorber type that affect the shock absorber design based on the existing
design of the aircraft and using design data from the regulatory body (FAR) to calculate the
major geometrical dimensions of a conventional oleo-pneumatic shock strut. After this, The
geometric modeling of the Nose Landing Gear shock absorber of the existing (actual) and
new designed based on the computed values was carried out using CAD package CATIA V5
R19 and then imported into ANSYS software to determine the stress behavior and
deformation of the shock strut by considering same material properties and loading
conditions. Finally, we will numerically analyze and compare for better in resisting more
load and strength in order to ensure compliance with the safety standards of the aviation
industry.

1.1.1 General information of Cessna 172S

The Cessna 172S is a general aviation aircraft that is primarily operated by private
individuals and organizations. The aircraft utilizes a tri-cycle arrangement with a nose
landing gear and a main landing gear. Main landing gear of the Cessna 172 aircraft consists
of a solid spring. The nose landing gear, on the other hand, implements a telescopic, oleo–
pneumatic shock absorber.
Major components of the nose landing gear include:
 Shock Strut - The shock strut is made of top and bottom machined cylinders that
contain a mixture of oil and air. The top and bottom cylinders give changes in the
shock-absorb rates. The upper cylinder is fixed to the aircraft and does not move. The
lower cylinder is called the piston and is free to slide in and out of the upper cylinder.
An orifice located between the two cylinders provides a passage for the fluid from the
bottom chamber to enter the top cylinder chamber when the strut is compressed. The
oil chamber contains an orifice and metering pin; they control the rate of collapse of
the low-pressure gas chamber. Metering pins are designed so as to take a nearly
constant load throughout the stroke of the shock absorber, even under transient
loading conditions.
 Torque Links - The torque links give a mechanical link between the top and bottom
parts of the shock strut and help to keep the nose wheel aligned with the airframe.

4
Information below shows the obtained reference data available from POH of Cessna 172s
that is utilized for the usage of analysis in the design.
Table 1.1 Cessna 172S Model Relevant Aircraft Specification (CESSNA reference data [5])

Gross weight 2550 lbs.

Landing gear type Tricycle/Fixed

Wing area 174 square feet
Wing loading 14.7 Lbs/Sq. Ft
Wheel base length 65"
Nose wheel tire size 5.00 x 5, 4-Ply Rating TT
Nose gear strut pressure (Strut extended) 45 psi
Nose wheel tire unloaded inflation pressure 31 psi

Material type for the shock absorber 4130 Alloy steel

1.2. Statement of the Problem:

From case study, the big problem with Cessna 172S aircraft is when touches down the
ground during landing and taxis on uneven runways with high speed or when design sink
speeds are exceeded in cases of wind gusts, surface irregularities and human errors, there is
heavy ground impact on the nose landing gear this leads to the considerable vertical
acceleration and impermissible loads are applied to the structural members. Due to this they
are exposed to damage frequently in their airframe and other components contained within.
This leads to unnecessary expenses for replacing the damaged airframe components. So, the
shock absorber is the most important component of the Cessna nose landing gear to be
designed with the worst condition (Gross weight), as it is solely responsible to limit the
impact loads by transmitting the lowest and most bearable acceleration level to the airframe
and other components contained within to minimize potential design failures during hard
landing (abnormal impact). The aircraft weight is vital to increase the size of the stroke to
lower the landing load factors and thereby minimizing the structure weight due to landing
loads in turn reducing the applied loads. At touchdown phase, the design objective of oleo-
pneumatic shock absorber is aimed at reducing the maximum vertical load level introduced at
the fuselage attachment and producing a possibly “balanced” set of landing structural loads at

5
touchdown such that the design reaction into the airframe is not exceeded, thereby avoiding
deformation. So the nose landing gear shock absorber preliminary design was carried-out by
responding to requirements of maximum overall dimensions, maximum weight and
maximum attainable load factor based on the existing design of the aircraft using main design
parameters of shock absorber such as sink speed, maximum aircraft weight, load factor,
stroke, and shock absorber type, and using design data as specified in the regulatory
requirements. After this, The geometric modeling of the Nose Landing Gear shock absorber
of the existing (actual) and new designed based on the computed values was carried out using
CAD package CATIA V5 R19 and then imported into ANSYS software to determine the
stress behavior and deformation of the shock strut by considering same material properties
and loading conditions. Finally, numerically analyze and compare for better resisting more
load and strength in order to ensure compliance with the safety standards of the aviation
industry.
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
The general objective of the project is to perform preliminary design and structural analysis
of nose landing gear oleo- pneumatic shock absorber for Cessna 172s aircraft.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
Specific objectives of this project are:

 To do analytical/theoretical analysis Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber and using

mathematical shock absorber design algorithms.
 To perform the 3D modeling of the designed oleo-pneumatic shock absorber based on
the computed values.
 To make numerical analysis and comparison of the designed model with existing
(actual) nose landing gear oleo pneumatic shock absorber for better resisting the
impact load and strength using ANSYS.

 Analyze the findings and draw conclusions.

6
1.4. Significance of the Study

It initiates the Ethiopian airlines to ask the Cessna Aircraft Company to evaluate the existing
nose landing gear shock absorber design and develop remedial action to modify or reengineer
the Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber to improve the touchdown performance of the aircraft. In
order to keep the organization from unwanted expenses for replacing the damaged airframe
components and shock absorber itself . And also, the completion of this project work will
definitely help to understand landing gear oleo-pneumatic shock absorber design and the
behavior for impact load. The comprehensive methodology of design provided herein is
applicable to all oleo landing gear systems for both small and large aircrafts.

1. 5. Limitations of the study

The limitations that we face doing this project are:

 Availability of limited technical literature on design of aircraft landing gear oleo

pneumatic shock absorber.
 Lack of adequate facilities for undertaking Drop test to verify whether the design
duty of landing gear shock absorber met or not.
 It is hard to get the original design data in detail.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of this project is limited to perform preliminary design of single acting double
chamber oleo-pneumatic shock absorber. The design is based on standard input values, such
as sink speed, maximum aircraft weight, load factor using data as specified in the regulatory
requirements and also using certain assumption (since it is Preliminary) then geometric
modeling of the Nose Landing Gear shock absorber of the existing (actual) and new designed
based on the computed values was carried out using CAD package CATIA V5 R19 and then
imported into ANSYS software to determine the stress behavior and deformation of the
shock strut by considering same material properties and loading conditions. After this, we
will numerically analyze and compare for better resisting more load and strength. Finally, we
will do discussion and draw some conclusions.

7
1.7 Methodology

 Studying and analyzing the different literature dealing with the subject matter
 It encompasses the theoretical calculation and a number of decisions that made for
the preliminary design.
 Geometric modeling of the designed and the existing landing gear Oleo-Pneumatic
Shock Absorber using commercial modeling packages. And numerically analyze on
ANSYS software to compare with existing (actual) oleo pneumatic shock absorber.
 Using EXCEL to draw Reaction force Vs each corresponding distance position of
the strut (Load-Stroke) curve.

8
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The survey of literature concern about the most commonly applied landing gear system.
Landing gears equipped with oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers start in the nineteen thirties.
During this decade that the hydraulic, pneumatic and hydraulic-pneumatic shock absorbers
made their entrance replacing the old leaf spring and rubber spring undercarriages. Only the
hydraulic-pneumatic shock absorbers have survived and therefore only literature devoted to
this type of landing gear will be mentioned.

Publications from before 1940 concerned about landing impact phenomenon in general, and
to the application of oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers in particular, are very limited in number
and most cases they are dealing with one part of the subject, or the whole subject is treated in
a very simplified way.

Ref. of A.v.d Nuet and F.J Plantema [17] is a very extensive investigation in the field of
symmetrical landing impact loads and is concern in particular to the problem of defining
critical loading cases for nose wheel landing gears. The tire shock absorber combination of
the nose wheel landing gear is represented by a linear spring. But for the main wheel landing
gear the shock absorber damping characteristics are represented by velocity squared damping
forces. The unspring mass is neglected while wheel and shock absorber spring characteristics
are represented by linear spring. Aircraft translation and pitch are taken in to account. The
equation of motion is solved by a numerical step by step method. Simplified force-deflection
characteristics of the main landing gears are used however in the majority of the calculations.
Besides defining critical loading cases for the landing gears also some other practical
conclusions are derived. It was found for example that aircraft pitch is unimportant for
landing gear loads. Further, the drop test interpretation problem of how to take into account
static lift forces is already recognized.
The oleo pneumatic shock absorber system is commonly used in the medium to large aircraft.
It provides shock absorption as well as effective damping. There are three common

9
configuration of oleo shock absorber. These are telescopic strut, articulating strut and semi-
articulating strut. The main difference between these three types of oleo shock absorbers is
the positioning of landing gear strut relative to the wheel and the whether the shock absorber
id structurally rigged with respect to the airframe. The oleo pneumatic shock absorber has a
higher efficiency under dynamic condition both in terms of energy dissipation and return to
normal static condition (jenkins [18]).
Jenkins (1989) also addressed different testing methods conducted on landing gears such as
stress analysis test, dynamic drop test, Flight by flight fatigue testing and mentioned the
materials used for landing gears. The trends of major landing gear design parameters had
been presented by Greenbank [19] reflecting the developments in aircraft performance over
the last two decades.

The investigation of W.Kochanowsky [20] wherein the combination of tire and shock
absorber was considered In this reference it is assumed that the shock absorber behavior can
be described by a linear spring-damper system. Tire damping is neglected and a linear tire
spring characteristic is assumed. one of the results of Kochanowsky’s work was that the
unspring mass of the wheel is of minor importance for the landing gear loads and therefore
can be assumed to be zero.

G.Temple [21] summarizes the important a practical a step by step calculation method was
developed for the calculation of landing gear forces. A linear tire force-deflection diagram is
assumed, together with shock absorber characteristics given by velocity squared damping and
polytropic compression of the air. Also, the spin-up phenomena are fully investigated and
taken into account. G.Temple himself extended these investigations to asymmetrical landing
cases.

The important problem of determining the loads in the elastic aircraft structure due to landing
impacts was treated by D.Williams [22] in 1945 who assumed the landing gear loads to be
known functions of time. The loads in the structure are considered to be the sum of the loads
which would be experienced by a rigged structure and the loads due to the response motion
of the elastic wing. This method of approximately calculating wing loads in elastic structures
is called the “mode acceleration method.

10
With these publications of Temple and Williams the research in England with regard to the
loading impact phenomena was already so far advanced that at the time all questions could in
principle be answered by analytical; means. However, lack of computational facilities
prevented the wide spread application of these methods so that an appreciation of the
quantitative influence of the various parameters did not become available. Consequently later
British publications do not give really new information but are extensions of D.Williams.

Irawin Ross & Edson [23] investigated first to consider an actively controlled landing gear to
reduce the effect of landing loads. This report presented the design of an active control
landing gear system for a supersonic aircraft, the purpose of which is to minimize the forces
to which the aircraft subjected to a landing impact and rollout, take off and taxi operations.
The work demonstrated the benefits of using an actively controlled landing gear in reducing
loads and vibration under various runway profiles.

Sheperd et al [24] investigated the active landing gear control scheme that can provide some
improvement in ride quality along the passenger cabin as determined by fuselage normal
acceleration during takeoff and landing rollout and dynamic response to typical random and
discrete runway profiles. In this work, the active control system studied here uses feedback
from airframe mounted sensors to modify rigid body and structural response. The system is
based on primarily on modifying the damping characteristics in the nose gear oleo. This is
achieved by reducing the damping orifice area with the active control area about this new
datum value. In addition the benefits of a fully active nose gear using a separate supply of
hydraulic fluid are evaluated.

Freymann & Johnson [25], Freymann [26, 27] demonstrated analytically and experimentally
the benefits of actively controlled landing gears in reducing landing loads and vibrations
under various profiles. An active control undercarriage for the alleviation of aircraft landing
gear and structural loads during operation on rough runway surface is described. For
quantitative demonstration of the improvements obtained with an active control
undercarriage are compared with conventional landing gear systems. Aircraft testing is
realistically simulated by means of a laboratory test set-up especially designed for this kind
of testing.

11
The passive and active control mode of operation of landing gear of F-106B fighter
interceptor has been studied by Howel et al [28]. In this study, a potential method for
improving the operational characteristics of aircraft on the ground by the application of
active control technology to the landing gears to reduce ground loads applied to the airframe
has been investigated. An experimental investigation was conducted on a series-hydraulic
active control nose gear. The experiments involved testing the gear in both passive and active
control modes. Results of this investigations show that hydraulic active control gear is
feasible and that such a gear is effective in reducing the loads transmitted by the gear to the
airframe during ground operations.

The study of semi-active suspensions by Wentscher et al [29] for advanced landing gears and
optimization of their associated design parameters to achieve minimum weight, maximum
comfort under strict requirements with respect to safety and even increased lifetime by
reducing the loads during landing impact and taxiing.

Jayarami Reddy et al [30] explained a set of non-linear differential equations describing the
response of a semi-levered suspension type of landing gear with a single stage oleo-
pneumatic shock strut. This included the kinematics of the articulation of the gear, oil
compressibility effect, wheel spin up as a function of slip ratio, and the hydraulic, pneumatic,
and friction forces of the shock strut. A parameter study on a gear of a helicopter has been
conducted and the effect of variations in the main orifice diameter, coefficient of discharge of
main orifice, initial air volume and pressure, polytrophic exponent for air compression
process, coefficient of friction at lower and upper bearings and the horizontal velocity of the
aircraft during landing on the behavior of the landing gear have been studied.

Esmailzadeh & Farzaneh [31] investigated shimmy vibration which is very important type of
motion in the landing gear system during either takeoff or landing of an aircraft. Dynamic
model is developed for the aircraft nose gear to investigate its transient response for the
lateral deviations and shimmy angles. Variations of different design parameters namely the
energy absorption coefficient of the shimmy damper and the location of the gravity center of
the landing gear are analyzed.

12
In 1951 and 1955 the reports of W.Flugge [32] and B. Milwitzsky and F.E. Cook [33] were
published in which the equations of motion of tire, wheel and shock absorber were derived.
In this respect also J.H. Walls must be mentioned which describe experimental investigations
of the NACA devoted to a better understanding of air compression phenomena in shock
absorbers. W.Flugge and B. Milwitzsky and F.E. Cook (analysis of landing gear behavior) is
without doubt, the most important publication in this field because it describes thoroughly the
landing impact process and investigates also the quantitative importance of the different
phenomena. Therefore, it can be judged which simplifications can be introduced in the
analysis, without impairing the accuracy.

These publications do not consider, however, drag loads and spin-up phenomena. On the
other hand, B. Milwitzsky, Lindquist and D.M. Potter [34] and D.M. Potter [35] are
completely devoted to drag loads. The first one publication particularly contains a
fundamental and complete description of the physical phenomena connected with the
building-up of drag forces at landing impact, and moreover gives results of an experimental
investigation. The work of W. Flugge [36], is devoted to an analytic treatment of the spin-up
phenomenon.

Now that the state of the art permitted the accurate analytic determination of the external
loads, again the question arose how large is the influence of aircraft elasticity on the loads
generated by tire, wheel and shock absorber. This problem is treated by F.E. Cook and
G.Milwitzsky [37] with the help of two different simplified examples. Drag loads are
neglected however and wing elasticity is only represented by fundamental wing bending. The
results of this investigations show that in certain cases the influence of wing elasticity on
landing gear loads is large. Quantitatively however the results are not very reliable, because
this influence is analyzed in a rather crude way as it assumed that the influence of elasticity is
independent of landing gear position, a parameter which is varied in this investigation.

Method of deriving the shock absorber forces was performed by Dong-Su, Hongbin, and Hui
[38]. Dong-Su, Hong-bin, and Hui derived the frictional force as the function of internal
pneumatic force and the coefficient of kinetic friction. Due to the non-linear behavior of the
oleo-pneumatic shock absorber, there are many different factors to take into consideration
during the design stage to achieve the highest efficiency. Those factors include the total

13
stroke, compression ratio, air and fluid volume [39]. In 1965, the military specification (MIL-
L-8552) for the air-oil shock absorber was implemented to require certain materials,
protective treatment, process, and efficiency to be used on the oleo-pneumatic shock
absorbers.

In addition to the analytical approach of analyzing the shock absorber, J.H Walls performed
the experimental study of the internal strut pressure and loads on the small shock absorber
[10]. His experiment only focused on a specific range of shock strut velocity and strokes.
Walls concluded that the orifice coefficient increased slightly with increasing the velocity for
the Reynolds number ranging from 9,500 to 66,500. The change of orifice coefficient due to
the chamfer length was very small. Forces from the internal pressure correlated well with the
computation forces from accelerometer and dynamo meter measurement.

Another similar work was done by Milwitzky and Cook to study the behavior of the landing
gear [37]. The author described the three shock absorber forces more in depth. The drop test
was performed to compare the analytical to the experimental results. Milwitzky and Cook
concluded that both results were to be in good agreement. The method of obtaining the
frictional, hydraulic and pneumatic forces from the shock absorber was a proven method to
use; therefore, in this project will consider this method while designing.

14
 CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF OLEO-PNEUMATIC
SHOCK ABSORBER
3.1 Design considerations

Oleo struts are designed around a number of parameters including compression ratios (the
ratio of the pressure in the strut in its static position divided by the pressure in the strut in its
extended position), as well as the loads, strokes and pressures in extended, static and
compressed positions. Important considerations when designing oleo struts include the sink
speed of the aircraft, landing gear load factors and the strut stroke.

3.1.1 Vertical Sink Speed (or Design touchdown rate)

The sink speed describes the aircraft’s vertical speed at the moment it touches down. Sink
speed ( ) is usually legislated by the procuring authority and/or the regulations pertaining to
a particular category of aircraft.

Table 3.1 vertical sink speed design data

Design touchdown rates

FAR23* 4.4(W/S) L0.25 fps
FAR 25 12fps
USAF 10 fps
10 fps for transports
USN
17 fps for other non-carrier-based
airplanes
22 fps for carrier-based airplanes

No less than7 fps and more than 10fps

3.1.2 Landing Gear Load Factor

In aerospace application, the load factor or limit load factor is usually referring to the ratio of
a specified load to the total weight of the aircraft. In this project, it is used to represent the
overall ground reaction load to which the structure of the aircraft, more specifically the nose
portion of the aircraft and the supporting interface (landing gears), is subjected. The landing
15
gear load factor (N) is the ratio of the maximum load and the equivalent load applied under
static conditions. General aviation aircraft like the CESSNA 172S the reaction factor is 3
(from table 3.2 below) in order not penalize the strength of the airframe. We have adopted a
reaction factor 3 as a compromise between weight savings and the resulting airframe loads.
Thus, the strut needs to be able to dissipate a worst-case landing force equivalent to about
three times the aircraft’s normal static weight. The first step in calculating the stroke (S) is to
select the design reaction factor (N), sometimes called the landing load factor. Lower
reaction factors will result in higher strokes in turn reducing the applied loads.

Table 3.2 Landing gear reaction (or load) Factor data for design from FAR

3.1.3 Stroke
The stroke of the absorber is an important design parameter. Stroke encompasses both the
strut stroke, the distance the piston travels and the wheel stroke, the vertical distance the
wheel moves.

3.2 Static Load Distribution

It is very essential to determine the static load distribution on the nose landing gear as this
determinant factor. Working on the weight exerted on the landing gear offers a good start to
estimating the size for the components, such as the dimension of main strut and wheel sizes.
The required piston diameter of strut can be easily determined based on the static load.

16
Center-Of-Gravity Limits of Cessna 172s [42]
Center of Gravity (CG)
It is the mass center of the aircraft, or theoretical point at which the entire weight of the
aircraft is assumed to be concentrated.

Center-of-Gravity Range of Cessna 172S (Refer Section 6 Weight and balance):

The range of the aircraft CG is important to be able to obtain the static load distribution of
the landing gear.

Forward: 35.0 inches aft of datum at 1950 pounds or less, with straight line variation to 41.0
inches aft of datum at 2550 pounds.

Aft: 47.3 inches aft of datum at all weights.

Reference Datum (Datum); Imaginary vertical plane or line from which all horizontal
distances are measured for balance purposes.
Reference Datum: Lower portion of front face of firewall.
B=Wheel base length= 65 inch
Horizontal distance from reference datum to the nose wheel is 6.8 inch.

The forward CG provides the worst loads on the Nose Landing Gear. For the purposes of this
analysis, we are used forward cg limit of the aircraft. Because the forward CG provides the
worst loads on the Nose Landing Gear.

17
Vertical loading Condition

Figure 3.1: Definition of dimensions used in calculating landing gear loads

Calculation of the static loads on each gear is performed by employing equilibrium

equations. Since the aircraft is in static equilibrium, the summation of all forces in the
vertical direction must be zero:

Furthermore, the summation of all moments about o is Zero:

The percentage of the static load (i.e., aircraft weight) which is carried by the Nose gear is:

Fn =

Where B= wheel base=65inch

=47.8inch, =54.10

W=Gross Weight=2550lbs=11342.96N
18
The loads on the nose landing gear can be calculated using figure 3.7.

 The Maximum static nose gear load (or Nose landing gear vertical reaction)

@fwd cg= = =2550*(65-47.8)/65=675lbs=3000N

 The Minimum static nose gear load

@aft cg= = =2550*(65-54.10)/65=428lbs=1902N

We tactically assume that the nose gear reaction load is transferred directly in to the shock
absorber. This condition is not satisfied for gears where the reaction load is not <in line >
with shock absorber.

3.3 Tires
Tires are designed around a maximum allowable static load. For any center of gravity
position in combination with the highest weight pressing on the landing gear this allowable
load may not be exceeded. The geometry of an aircraft tire is defined by the following
parameters:

Figure 3.2: Tire geometric parts list [15]

Tires are graded in terms of ply rating, maximum allowable static loading, recommended
unloaded inflation pressure and maximum allowable runway speed.

Cessna 172S graded tire terms are defined as the following.

19
Type III This type was one of the earliest size designations used for early piston-prop type
aircraft. Its characteristic is low pressure for cushioning and flotation.

Ply Rating The term “Ply Rating” is used to identify a given tire with its maximum
recommended load when used in a specific type of service. It is an index of tire strength and
does not necessarily represent the number of carcass plies in the tire.

TT or TL Designates whether the tire is tube-type or tubeless construction.

Static Loaded Radius Loaded Radius is the distance from the center of the axle to the
deflected tread surface under normal load and inflation pressure.

FIGURE 3.3: Tire Deflection Schematic; Adapted from Brixius [8]

The Good year aircraft tire data book provides a method for calculating the tire deflection as
follows:
St = Do/2-(loaded radius) (For TYPE III TIRE 5.00 x 5, 4-Ply Rating TT with 31psi inflation
pressure, Do and static loaded radius data taken from table at the back page)

Maximum outer diameter= 14.2 inch and static loaded radius 5.7inch (=5.65 from good tire)

St=7.1-5.7=1.4inch

20
3.4 Oleo-pneumatic Shock Strut Design

The basic weight support function of the oleo-pneumatic shock struts, which have a high
efficiency under dynamic conditions both in terms of energy absorption and dissipation, is
provided by a compressed cylinder of air and oil.

The first step in designing the shock absorber is to calculate stroke. The distance (stroke)
from static to fully compressed positions are largely a matter of choice. In calculating the
stroke (Ss) the first step is to select the design landing gear load (or reaction) factor (N), Tire
efficiency ( t), Shock absorber efficiency ( s) and to calculate tire deflection and vertical
(sink speed).

The influence of the tire efficiency is not very high when the stroke is large and the shock
efficiency is high. The tire efficiency t can therefore be fixed at a value of 0.47. The shock
absorber efficiency ns is estimated between 80 and 90 per cent (Currey [1] p.(35, 77))

In this method first the landing load factor is selected from a range of 0.7 to 1.5. The value of
1.2 is however mostly used. Then using the required sink speed at landing (from FAA/EASA
regulations) the energy absorbed during touchdown is approximated

From the provided data;

 Tire efficiency (from table 2.2):

t = 0.47
 Shock absorber efficiency (from table 2.2):
s= 0.85 ℎ Metered
Oleo-pneumatic (hydraulic) shock absorber is one of the most efficient types.
 Allowable Tire deflection (or Maximum tire vertical deflection) =St=1.4 inch.

Design touchdown rate, Vertical (sink) speed specified by FAR 23:

= = =8.6 fps

Thus, the final figure comes from FAA certification requirements, which require that a
landing gear be designed to handle a hard landing with a sink rate of 8.6 feet per second.

For a given sink speed the drop test height can be calculated accordingly.

21
 For a sink speed: = 8.6 fps = 3.6m/s.

Equivalent drop test height:

H= =

The total stroke length of the system can calculate using a basic balance of energy formula;
the work done will correlated with the change in kinetic energy for the nose landing gear
strut, and by substituting appropriate values the stroke length was determined. The total
aircraft energy that must be absorbed during touchdown is a kinetic energy which is derived
by the aircraft mass as well as the aircraft vertical velocity at the instance of touchdown.

The touchdown kinetic energy or the kinetic energy in the vertical direction at touchdown
can be approximated from the equation,

E total= +

Where; W is the aircraft weight, V is the sink speed, g is the gravitational acceleration, L is
the wing lift, and St is the tire deflection, SS is shock absorber stroke. The kinetic energy
capacity of the shock absorber and tire must be equal to the total energy.

Thus, E total= SsNW+ t St NW

N is the landing gear load factor.

From the law of energy conservation

Kinetic energy of aircraft=Tire energy + shock absorber energy

In most cases it may be assumed that the wing is still creating lift equal to the aircraft's
weight during the time that the shock absorber is deflecting.

If we assume that the potential energy term is negligible and if the lift generated is
approximately equal to the weight of the aircraft during landing. The shock strut stroke was
calculated by the following equation:

Ss= + 0.0254 = =0.14045m=0.14m

22
 Where; N= reaction factor =3
= Design touchdown rate or vertical sink speed=8.6fps=2.6mps
t =tire efficiency = 0.47
s= Shock absorber efficiency for Metered orifice Oleo pneumatic =0.85
St= Maximum tire vertical deflection= 1.4inch=0.03556m
g= gravitation acceleration= 9.81 m/s2

3.4.1 Oleo-Pneumatic Shock Strut Sizing

The shock absorber is defined by three of its varying positions depending on the load acting
on it. These positions are fully extended, static and fully compressed. Therefore, in other to
size the shock struts, the ratio of the pressure at one position (e.g. fully compressed) to
another (e.g. fully extended) have to be assumed.

Two compression ratios are usually taken into consideration, and as suggested by Currey for
a (or light) small aircraft the following ratios would be satisfactory during initial sizing and
are given as:

 Static to extend: 2.1/1

 Compressed to static: 1.9/1

The next step having defined the compression ratios are to calculate the loads and pressures
at static and fully compressed positions since the static load is already previously defined.

The fully extended pressure (or service pressure) is known ( from Service Manual) , therefore
the air pressures at static and fully compressed positions can be derived using the suggested
compression ratios.

 Air pressure at full extension:

1= 45 psi=3.103 bar (Known from Service manual of Cessna)

 Air pressure at the static position (P2) = (2.1×3.103)/1=6.516 bar

 Air pressure at full compression (P3) = 6.516×1.9=12.38 bar

23
Area of piston

The condition used to determine the area of this piston was the balancing of the strut in
equilibrium position, i.e. the load acting on the strut should be balanced by the air pressure in
the chamber in static condition. A simple force/pressure relation was used to find the area.

Area of Piston ( )= = =0.0046

Piston diameter and Displacement can be calculated as follows:

Strut piston diameter ( )= = =0.07653m

Displacement (D) = =0.14045m =0.000646

The Load-stroke Curve

The energy absorbed by the strut during its stroke is obtained by integrating the area beneath
the load-stroke curve, which relates the magnitude of the applied ground loads to the stroke
traversed.

Isothermal Compression

This is a representative of the normal ground handling activities of the shock strut which do
not register a sharp increase in applied load to the shock absorber. The Pressure – Volume
relationship which defines this compression is:

=Constant

Thereafter, the various corresponding volumes V1, V2 and V3 for the fully extended, static
and fully compressed, strut positions can be derived using the pressure volume relationships
for an isothermal compression.
Thus:

Air volume at full extension (V1) = = = =0.000862

Air volume at static position (V2) = = =0.000410

Air volume at compressed position displacement (V3) =V1-Displacement=0.000862-

0.000646=0.000216

24
“To accommodate excess energy produced in a heavy or semi-crash landing, shock absorbers
are designed such that the piston is not fully bottomed even at the compressed position, i.e.,
V3 ≠ 0.”

The reserve air volume, allows the shock strut at a predetermined load to move through extra
travel, absorbing the excess energy by the work done.

Hence, the air volume at the fully-extended position is given as

V1 = V3 + d

The corresponding maximum vertical loads can be worked out since the piston area is
constant, by multiplying the piston area by the pressures at each strut position.

Assuming F is the notation for load,

 Load at full extension will be

F1=P1 =3.103

 F2(static load) =3000N is already previously calculated

 Load at full compression (F3) =P3

Table 3.3 Summary of Pressure –Volume values for varying strokes

P1(bar) 3.103 V1(m3) 0.000862

P2(bar) 6.516 V2(m3) 0.000410
P3(bar) 12.38 V3(m3) 0.000216

Having established this data, the load- stroke curve can be drawn at the various stroke values
X.

P x= =

Where V x=V1-(X )

The stroke from extended to static for isothermal compression is given by:

X static= =0.14045m-0.042174m=0.098276m

These points are plotted in fig from the calculations shown in Table and are defined by the
isothermal compression curve.

25
 Table 3.4 Load -Stroke Calculations for isothermal compression

Stroke(m) V-m^3 P-bar Load -KN

0 0.000862 3.103 1.43
0.02 0.000770 3.474 1.60
0.04 0.000678 3.945 1.81
0.06 0.000586 4.564 2.10
0.08 0.000494 5.415 2.49
0.098276 ( static ) 0.000410 6.525 3.00
0.1 0.000402 6.654 3.06
0.12 0.000310 8.628 3.97
0.14 0.000218 12.38 5.64

Isothermal compression
6.00

5.00

4.00
Load (KN)

3.00

2.00 Isometric compression

1.00

0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Stroke (m)

Figure 3.8 Load-Stroke curve of Isothermal compression

In figure the shock absorber load is plotted as a function of the stroke

Poly tropic Compression

This process obeys the gas law relation = C, where C is a constant and n is any real
number, but in this case 1.35 since the gas and oil in our shock absorber are separated. It has
been said many times that air (or nitrogen) and oil should not be mixed in an oleo-pneumatic
shock absorber. Conway says, "Oil issuing from an orifice should be deflected or turned
sideways. It should not impinge on the air, where it will cause froth, and indeed serious loss

26
of adiabatic compression by cooling the air" (Ref. 1, p. 187). It represents the dynamic
compression cases such as landing impact and bump transversal.

Conversely, poly tropic compression makes use of the relationship below.

= =

Where; Vx=V1-XA

X –stroke distance

Therefore, for the poly tropic compression of static position (V2)

V2= =0.000862 0.5766=0.000497

P3= 3.103 19.85bar

So finally, the load required to fully compress the shock absorber is

F3=P3 =9131 N=9.131KN

The static closures for both compressions are derived by the equation below.

Sp=total stroke –

Table 3.5 Load-Stroke Calculations for Poly tropic Compression

P-bar-poly
Stroke-m V-m3 Load –KN (poly tropic)
tropic
0 0.000862 3.103 1.43
0.02 0.000770 3.614 1.66
0.04 0.000678 4.291 1.97
0.06 0.000586 5.225 2.40
0.08 0.000494 6.579 3.03
0.09 0.000448 7.507 3.45
0.098276 0.000410 8.464 3.89
0.1 0.000402 8.690 4.00
0.12 0.000310 12.342 5.68

27
 0.14 0.000218 19.852 9.13

10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
Load (KN)

5.00
Isometric compression
4.00
Polytropic compression
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Stroke (m)

Figure 3.5 Load Stroke Curve for Isothermal and Poly tropic Compressions
Examining the data from table indicates that stroke may perhaps never be utilized because
would be needed. Thus, it would be better to plot the poly tropic such that isothermal values
are used up to deflections. Hence, dynamic compression would be analyzed from that point
to full compression.

Table 3.6 Load –Stroke calculations Isometric from extended to static and Poly tropic
compression from static to compressed position

Stroke-m V--m^3 P-bar-combined Combined Load KN

0 0.000862 3.103 1.43
0.02 0.000770 3.474 1.60
0.04 0.000678 3.945 1.81
0.06 0.000586 4.564 2.10
0.08 0.000494 5.415 2.49
0.09 0.000448 5.971 2.75
0.098276 0.000410 8.464 3.89
0.1 0.000402 8.690 4.00
0.12 0.000310 12.342 5.68
0.14 0.000218 19.852 9.13

28
 10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
Load (KN)

5.00 Isometric compression

4.00 Polytropic compression
3.00 Combined
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Stroke (m)

Figure 3.6 Load-Stroke curve of Isothermal , Poly tropic and Combine compression.

Internal Cylinder Length

In order to determine the volume of oil, the dimensions of the sliding tube must be
determined. It is estimated that the distance between the outer ends of the bearings shall not
be less than 2.75 times the piston diameter.

Figure 3.7 Stroke (S) and Shock Strut Overlap

Therefore, Minimum permissible overlap=2.75 2.75 0 0 m=0.2105m

Thereafter, the minimum cylinder bore length is calculated as follows

 Length of Outer Cylinder =

0.14045+0.2105=0.3509m

29
The total length of the oleo-pneumatic shock strut including the stroke distance and the fixed
portion of the oleo will be approximately 2.5 times the stroke (Raymer [17]). Taking the
length from Upper tip to lower tip is 2.5 Ss
The remaining length of piston ( )=
=0.35-0.3509=0.0009m
L piston= =0.2105+0.0009=0.2114m
Upper Outer Cylinder Internal Diameter

Assuming a bearing thickness of 12.4mm, we can calculate the shock absorber cylinder
internal diameter as follows;

= (Dp)+2×0.0124=0
.07653m+0.0248=0.1013m

Oleo-pneumatic Cylinder External Diameter

The internal diameter of the oleo is 0. 1013m.The external diameter of the oleo is 30%
greater than then internal diameter (Raymer,1992). The external diameter is calculated as

Oil Volume

The internal volume of the shock absorber can then be computed as follows;

Volume = = 0.3509=0.002828

Then, the volume is calculated by subtracting the volume at compressed position (V3)

Oil volume = 0.002828-0.000218=0.00261

Gas Chamber Sizing

The gas chamber of the shock absorber can be sized, having determined the piston area. The
first step is to determine the internal diameter and area of the piston. Preliminary estimation
was carried out having determined the stroke, piston outer diameter and the minimum
permissible overlap. There after the heights of the gas chamber when the shock absorber is
fully extended, static, and fully compressed can be determined through the following
equations.

30
  Extended position Hg1=

 Static position Hg2=

 Compressed position Hg3=

Where: Hg is the height of the gas chamber.

Orifice Design

An orifice plate divides the strut into two chambers. Fluid passes through the orifice as the
strut compresses, absorbing energy and damping recoil. A method for sizing the orifice is
provided by Curry. The formulation provides for the orifice total area, from which the
individual diameters can be deduced depending on the relative size ratio of the two orifices
(closure and recoil). Energy absorbed when recoiling is much less than for closing as the
energy extending the un-sprung mass is that contained in the isothermal spring curve. It is
estimated that the recoil damping orifice area should be 1/16 of that of the closure orifice.

Sizing of the orifice may be done by equation.

Total orifice area, = = =0.714 =460.644

The diameter can be computed as

D= =24.22mm

There are two closure orifices and one recoil orifice.

 The closure orifice will have an area of half the total orifice area

Closure orifice area = Total orifice area =0.5 =230.322

 The recoil orifice will have an area of 1/16 of the total orifice area

Recoil orifice Area = Total orifice area =0.0625 =28.79

Metering Pin
Metering pin is an important part in landing gear shock absorber. There by to obtain
maximum efficiency we need relatively small orifice at the beginning of the stroke, when the

31
piston velocity is relatively slow; and during the middle part of the travel, a larger orifice is
desirable and at the end of the travel a larger orifice is desirable. Finding out the diameters of
the orifice at various positions we will be able to arrive at the design of a metering pin and a
subsequent metering pin that will facilitate the working of the same.

Figure 3.8 Schematic diagrams of the metering pin constructions

Diameter of orifice at full extension

Orifice area@ full extension, = = * =0.24988

The diameter can be computed as

D= =0.56419in=14.33mm

Diameter of orifice at full compression

Orifice area@ full extension, = = =0.02195

The diameter can be computed as

D= 0.1672177in=4.2473mm

32
 CHAPTER 4
GEOMETRICAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF SHOCK
ABSORBER
4.1. Geometric modeling of oleo-pneumatic nose landing gear shock strut
This part deals with geometric modeling of the oleo-pneumatic shock absorber Based on the
design calculations on chapter 3.

The important geometric dimensions Based on the design calculations are obtained as given
in table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Summary of Important new geometric dimensions of the landing gear shock strut.

Length of Outer Cylinder (or Upper Cylinder Height) 0.3509m

Upper Cylinder Diameter 0.1013m

Piston Height 0.2114m

Piston Diameter 0.07653m

Thickness 0.03039m

Table 4.2 Summary of Important geometric dimensions of the existing (actual) oleo
pneumatic shock strut to analyze Von-Mises stress and deformation [42].

Length of Outer Cylinder (or Upper Cylinder Height) 0.38m

Upper Cylinder Diameter 0.06m

Piston Height 0.18m

Piston Diameter 0.05m

Thickness 0.09m

Taking the data from table 4.1 the geometric model of fixed main landing gear is drawn
using CATIA V5.

33
 Figure 4.1 Model of nose landing gear shock absorber
4.2 Analysis of oleo pneumatic landing gear shock strut

This simulation study is utilized to calculate stresses and deformation of the shock strut. The
analysis is conducted to ensure the numerical analysis of Oleo-pneumatic shock absorber.
Determining the boundary condition and the applied impact load over the landing gear shock
absorber is necessary in the analysis of ANSYS software. Initial assumptions, material
property and meshing method will be established and defined.
4.2.1 Initial Assumptions
To appropriately simplify the analysis study the axial movement of floating piston and piston
support tube at the moment of maximum impact loading are assumed to be stationary. All
connections which are found on landing gear are assumed to be rigid. This appropriately
provides a direct load path to the upper mass. The load applied over shock absorber is
assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the shock absorber structure (uniform
pressure).

34
 4.2.2 Fixture condition
Landing gear is fixed with the fuselage at the top of the upper cylinder. For the analysis the
upper part of the cylinder is taken as fixed support.

4.2.3 Material properties

The material properties are an important parameter which is one of the main inputs for the
analysis. Assigning material properties is considered to be of prime importance for the sake
of analysis. Analysis of the designed model in the following manner was done by using
ANSYS workbench. The objective of this is to determine the stress behavior and the
displacement of a nose landing gear shock absorber of an aircraft during landing.

The material properties for the landing gear shock strut will be defined in accordance with
their manufacturing specifications. These properties will also be used to determine the factor
of safety during the peak impact response.
Table 4.3 material property of 4130 Alloy steel

Properties Metric
UTS 560 M Pa
Yield strength 460 M Pa
Modulus of elasticity 200 G pa
Poison’s ratio 0.29
Density 7.85 g/cm3

4.2.4 Meshing method

For a solid mesh, numerical accuracy is best achieved by a mesh with uniform perfect
elements whose edges are equal in length, Due to complex geometry four-sided solid
(tetrahedral) element with 10 grid points is applied. This meshing has the following inputs
for best result:

Element size = 5mm

Smoothing = medium
Refinement = 1

35
By satisfying all meshing requirements, the final mesh of the model can be established as
shown in figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 final mesh of the designed oleo pneumatic landing gear
Number of nodes=352278
Time for mesh completion=8 min and 46 second.

36
4.2.5 Results
4.2.5.1 Result of the existing oleo pneumatic shock absorber using actual
dimension
Time for calculation=12 minute and 15 seconds
Von-Mises stress

Figure 4.3: Von-mises stress of oleo pneumatic landing gear using existing dimension

Figure 4.4: deformation of oleo pneumatic landing gear using existing (actual) dimension
The results are summarized as:

Maximum Von-Mises stress=23.347 M Pa

Maximum deformation=2.389e-5 m

37
4.2.5.2 Result of the new dimension oleo pneumatic shock absorber
Maximum deformation

Figure 4.5: Deflection on oleo pneumatic landing gear

Equivalent (Von-Mises) stress

Figure 4.6: Von-mises stress on oleo pneumatic landing gear

38
The overall result indicates that the maximum stress occurs at contact between the upper
cylinder and piston tube, a little more stress at the upper cylinder, and piston tube and fork
contact interface. As shown in figure 4.7.

Figure 4.7: von-mises stress at different locations of oleo pneumatic landing gear
The high deformation happens at the fork, piston tube, contact between fork assembly and
piston tube and contact between the upper cylinder and piston tube. As shown in figure 4.8.

Figure 4.8: deformation at different locations of oleo pneumatic landing gear

39
 (A) (B)
Figure 4.9: Side view (A) and Front view (B) of model deformation on displacement versus
original displacement of the design
The results are summarized as:
Maximum Von-Mises stress=9.8448 M Pa
Maximum deformation=5.691*10^-6 m

40
 CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
In this work the preliminary design of nose landing gear shock absorber was carried-out by
responding to requirements of maximum overall dimensions, maximum weight and
maximum attainable load factor. From above work, one can get early insight the aircraft
weight is vital to increase the size of the stroke to lower the landing load factors and thereby
minimizing the structure weight due to landing loads in turn reducing the applied loads.

The objective of reducing the landing shocks leads to design with worst scenario to change
the geometry of shock strut and preliminary sizing of components through static analyses
.Then geometric modeling of the Nose Landing Gear shock absorber of the new designed
was carried out using CAD package CATIA V5 R19 and then imported into ANSYS
software after which the stress behavior and deformation of the shock strut determined by
considering same material properties and loading conditions.

For comparison purpose, the results of the study indicated that the stress found on the new
dimension model has less than the existing (actual) model which is safe and better in
resisting more load than the existing one. And also, the total deformation on the new
dimension model has less, which is better strength than the existing one.
5.2 Recommendation

To accommodate the requirement of reducing the impact load transmitted to the Cessna
aircraft structure to an acceptable level, the nose landing gear shock absorber should be
redesigned with requirements of maximum overall dimensions, maximum weight and
maximum attainable load factor.

5.3 Further Scope

 To numerically analyze the internal flow oleo-pneumatic shock absorber.

 Horizontal load effects can be considered for design of shock absorber.
 Modeling and simulation of an oleo-pneumatic shock absorber.
 Airframe response for landing impact.
 Oleo pneumatic shock strut can be analyzed with different materials.

41
REFERENCES

[1] Norman S. Curry, Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices, AIAA, 1988.
[2] Arttu Heininen, ‘’Modelling and Simulation of An AircraftMain Landing Gear Shock
Absorber”, Master of Science Thesis,201 .
[3] T. D. Nguyen, "Finite Element Analysis of a Nose Landing Gear During Landing," UNF
Theses and Dissertations”, p. 21 , 2010.
[4] E. F. Bruhn, “Analysis and design of flight structure “, 19 .
[5] 172SNAV SKYHAWK SP Information Manual.
[6] Santos Dumont no 14 bis [Image]. Retrieved August 14, 2006 from
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos_Dumont, 2006.
[7] <ftp://ftp.uni-uisburg.de/FlightGear/Docs/Landing_Gear_Shock_Absorber.pdf>,
date retrieved November 23 2011.
[8] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_tire>, date retrieved March 19 2011.
[9] "The Oleo Story," OLEO International, [Online]. Available:
https://www.oleo.co.uk/about/story. [Accessed 2019].
[10] Besselink, I. J. M, “Shimmy of Aircraft Main Landing Gears”.
Technical Universityof Delft, 2000.
[11] OLEO international, Oleo Principle, available at
http://www.oleo.co.uk/principle.php?tagID=0000000023
[12] Benjamin Chartier-Brandon Tuohy-Jefferson Retallack-Stephen Tennant, ‘’Research
work’’, landing gear shock absorber.
[13] T. D. Nguyen, "Finite Element Analysis of a Nose Landing Gear During Landing," UNF
Theses and Dissertations, p.215, 2010.
[14] B. Milwitzky and F. E. Cook, "Report 1154: Analysis of Landing-Gear Behavior,"
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1953.
[15] J.Roskam, “Airplane Design Part IV: Layout of Landing Gear and Systems”, DAR
Corporation, 2010.
[16] Raymer, D. P, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, D.C 1992.
[17] A.v.d Nuet and F.J Plantema “Nose wheel loads at landing impacts” nat. Aeron, Research
Institute, Amsterdam, Rep. S-244, S-245 and S-304, 1941

42
[18] S F N Jenkins, “Landing gear design and development”, 1989.
[19] S J Greenbank, “Landing gear- the aircraft requirement”, 1991.
[20] W.Kochanowsky, “Landing and taxing shocks with oleo leg undercarriages” British
Ministry of Supply. TPR 3/TiB 2, Translation no GOC 10/5250 T, 1944.
[21] G.Temple, “Prediction of undercarriage reactions”, R & M no 2221, 1944.
[22] D.Williams - R.P.N Jones, “Dynamic loads in Aeroplan under given impulsive loads with
particular reference to landing and gust loads on large flying boat”, R & M nov2221,
1945.
[23] Irawin Ross & Edson, “Application of active control landing gear technology to the A-10
aircraft”, NASA CR-166104, 1982.
[24] Sheperd A, Catt T and Cowling D “The simulation of aircraft landing gear dynamics”,
18th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Beijing, China,
September 20–25, ICAS-92-1.7.1, 1992.
[2 ] Freymann R and Johnson W “Simulation of aircraft taxi testing on the AGILE Shaker Test
Facility”, Second International Symposium on Aero elasticity and Structural Dynamics,
Germany, April 1–3, 1987.
[2 ] Freymann R “An experimental–analytical routine for the dynamic qualification of aircraft
operating on rough runway surfaces”. AGARD Report-731, 1987.
[2 ] Freymann R “Actively damped landing gear system”, Landing Gear Design Load
Conference No. 20, AGARD Conference Proceedings-484, 1991.
[28] Howell WE, McGehee JR, Daugherty RH, et al “F-106B airplane active control landing
drop test performance”, Landing Gear Design Loads Conference No. 21, AGARD
Conference Proceedings-484, Povoa dc Varzim, Portugal, October 8–12, 1991.
[29] Wentscher, H. Design and Analysis of Semi-Active Landing Gears for Transport Aircraft.
DLR Forschungsbericht 96-11; Deutsches Zentrum fu¨ -und Raumfahrt: Koï, 1995.
[30] Jayarami Reddy et al, “Analysis of a semi-levered suspension landing gear with some
parametric study”, 1984.
[ 1] Esmailzadeh & Farzaneh, “Shimmy vibration analysis of aircraft landing gears”, 1991.
[ 2] W.Flugge, “Landing gear impact”, NACA TN-2743, 1951.
[33] F.E. Cook and B.Milwitzsky, “Effect of interaction on landing gear behavior and dynamic
loads in a flexible airplane structure”, NACA TR 12 8 (TN 4 ), 19 .

43
[34] B.Milwitzsky-Lindquist-D.M. Potter, “An experimental study of applied ground loads in
landing”, NACA TR 1248 (TN 24 ) (RM-L53Eo6b), 1953.
[35] D.M Potter, “AN experimental investigation of the effect of wheel perorations on landing
gear drag loads”, NACA TN 2 0, 19 4.
[ ] W.Flugge, “Landing gear impact”, NACA TN-2743, 1951.
[37] B.Milwitzky -F.E Cook, “Analysis of landing gear behavior”, NACA TR 1154 (TN
2755), 1952.
[38] Dong-Su, Wu, Gu Hong-bin and Liu Hui. "GA-based bodes predictive control of
semi-active landing gear." Chinese Journal of Aeronautics (2007).
[39] Mason, William H and Sony T Chai. "Landing gear integration in aircraft
conceptual design." Research topic support by NASA Ames Research Center.
1996.
[40] J.H Walls, “An experimental study of orifice coefficients, internal strut pressures, and
loads On a small oleo-pneumatic shock strut”, NACA TN 42 , 19 .
[41] Benjamin Chartier, Brandon Tuohy, Jefferson Retallack, Stephen
Tennant, ‘’Research work’’, landing gear shock absorber.
[42] Abrha Teka- Tesfaye Genebo-Endrias G/her, “Design of retractable landing gear system
for light aircraft”, Defence university college of engineering, Bishoftu, 2017.

44