This article was downloaded by: [CSIR eJournals Consortium]

On: 13 November 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 919661628]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Vehicle System Dynamics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659010

Heave-Pitch-Roll Dynamics of Flexible Vehicle in Variable Velocity Run

D. Yadav; S. Kamle; S. Talukdar

Online publication date: 09 August 2010

To cite this Article Yadav, D. , Kamle, S. and Talukdar, S.(2000) 'Heave-Pitch-Roll Dynamics of Flexible Vehicle in Variable
Velocity Run', Vehicle System Dynamics, 33: 1, 1 — 28
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1076/0042-3114(200001)33:1;1-5;FT001
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/0042-3114(200001)33:1;1-5;FT001

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Vehicle System Dynamics, 33 Ž2000., pp. 1–28 0042-3114r00r3301-028$15.00
q Swets & Zeitlinger

Heave-Pitch-Roll Dynamics of Flexible Vehicle in

Variable Velocity Run

D. YADAV 1 , S. KAMLE 2
and S. TALUKDAR 3

SUMMARY

Analysis for response statistics evaluation of a flexible vehicle travelling with variable velocity over
nonhomogeneously profiled flexible track is presented with a heave-pitch-roll model. The vehicle body
is idealised as a flexible member with variable cross-section, inertia, damping and stiffness distribu-
tions. The vehicle may also have variable section slender elastic attachments. Coupled dynamics with
rigid body heave-pitch-roll modes and elastic bending-torsion modes of the vehicle body along with
coupled bending-torsion modes of the attachments are considered. Equivalent linear suspension system
characteristics are employed for developing the analysis. Numerical results are presented for an aircraft
with tricycle landing gear arrangements and comparison is made with other models.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

1. INTRODUCTION

Unevenness in the track induces vibration in the moving vehicle and the flexible
track system. With increasing operation speeds and lighter constructions, predic-
tion of the vehicle response has become significant for the assessment of its ride
quality, design and control. The knowledge of track dynamics is important for
design, life and maintenance of the track system.
The vehicle-track system has three main components - vehicle super-structure,
suspension system and the track-foundation system. The super-structure, in gen-
eral, is flexible and may have appendages in specific cases. Its dynamics has
heave, pitch and roll as rigid body modes with superimposed bending and torsion
as flexible modes. The suspension system generally has some shock absorber with
spring and damper arrangement mounted over pneumatic wheels. The track is laid
over a subgrade supported by a foundation. The track foundation system under-
goes deflection due to the moving vehicle loading. The track surface has undula-
tions that are random in nature.
The sophistication of the system model to be adopted depends on the degree of
accuracy desired. The analytical study was initiated with simple approximate rigid
1
Professor; Department of Aerospace Engineering, I.I.T. Kanpur, India - 208016.
2
Associate Professor; Department of Aerospace Engineering, I.I.T. Kanpur, India - 208016.
3
Graduate Student; Department of Aerospace Engineering, I.I.T. Kanpur, India - 208016.
 2 D. YADAV ET AL.

lumped mass models. Both constant and variable velocity runs have been consid-
ered with random track inputs w1–6x. Rigid multi-axled multi-wheeled vehicle
models with heave-pitch-roll modes have been analysed w7–10x. Structural flexibil-
ity of ground vehicle models have been taken into account with inclusion of
bending modes in heave-pitch models w11–14x. The effect of track flexibility has
come under consideration with the study of flexible beams under moving loads
w15–26x. The interaction of flexible vehicle body with flexible track has been
studied with various degrees of freedom for nonstationary inputs w27–30x. The
vehicle models employed have ranged from single lumped mass to continuous
nonuniform elements and tracks models have ranged from rigid to flexible
members with stiffness, damping and inertial properties.
The present paper, extending the earlier work presented in Ref. w27x, introduces
improvement in the vehicle model by considering heave-pitch-roll dynamics of the
flexible vehicle with slender attachments. The track and foundation have been
assumed flexible with track unevenness a nonhomogeneous random process
specified by the generalised power spectral density ŽPSD. function. The present
analysis and modelling approach is applicable to most ground vehiclertrack
systems. The authors consider an addition to analysis techniques in this area. The
approach has been illustrated by obtaining the second order response statistics for
a small aircraft in ground runs. Comparison has been drawn with some published
work.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

2. SYSTEM MODEL

The system consists of a vehicle travelling over an uneven and flexible track
supported by elastic subgrade and foundation. The vehicle super-structure is
treated as a flexible member. It is allowed to have nonuniform distribution of
mass, stiffness and damping. It has all the possible rigid body modes in heave,
pitch and roll along with coupled flexible bending and torsion modes. Two slender
attachments modelled as cantilever beams with variable mass, stiffness and
damping distributions are also considered. These also have point mass loadings at
arbitrary locations to simulate stores Žloads. carried by the attachments. A similar
approach is usable when the attachments are different in number. The multi-axle
multi-wheel effect is incorporated with a tricycle wheel arrangement, as in nose
wheel type aircraft landing gears.
The shock absorber and the pneumatic wheel in vehicle suspension have
nonlinear behaviour in stiffness and damping. As nonlinear suspension model is
not directly amenable to closed form solution, a linearised model based on
equivalent energy per unit cycle has been adopted for this analytical study. The
linear model is capable of producing realistic and meaningful results for judging
the system performance. The masses of the undercarriages and wheels are lumped
at their center of gravity Žc.g.. locations to incorporate their inertial effects during
dynamics.
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 3

The track-foundation system has a prepared track slab laid over a subgrade
supported by a foundation. The limitations in the construction process and variable
settlements of the subgrade and the foundation result in unevenness in the track
surface. The surface undulations are best modelled as a nonhomogeneous random
process of the space coordinates. The track-foundation system is subjected to
deflection under loading. The track length is much larger than the width and the
track slab has been idealised as a beam member supported on a foundation with
distributed stiffness and damping.
Figure 1 shows the system model for an aircraft with nose wheel type of
landing gears in ground runs. A similar model may be constructed for other
multi-wheeled multi-axled vehicles also. A rectangular coordinate system with
origin at the vehicle c.g. is employed for developing the system equations. The
deflections considered are w b - deflection of the vehicle body due to heave, pitch
and bending modes in the vertical plane, u b - rotational deflection of the vehicle
body about the longitudinal axis due to roll and torque, wL and wR - vertical
deflections of the left and right wing attachments in bending and heave modes, u L
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 1. System Model.

 4 D. YADAV ET AL.

and u R - torsional rotation for the left and right wing attachments, z i j - the wheel
c.g. displacements with the first suffix 1 for the front axle and 2 for the rear axle
and second suffix 1 for the center, 2 for the left and 3 for the right wheel. y
indicates the vertical deflection of the track. The distances are measured as r
along the vehicle axis and g b transverse to it, s along the wing attachment axis
from its root and e w transverse to it, and x along the longitudinal direction of the
track.
A vehicle forward motion pattern may be described in terms of the location
x c Ž t . of its center of gravity indicating the distance travelled at the time instant t.
Any general forward motion, like constant velocity, accelerating, decelerating, etc.
may be modelled by expressing the c.g. location by a polynomial series
m
x c Ž t . s Ý ak t k . Ž 1.
ks0

It can be seen that m s 1 gives a constant velocity forward motion and m s 2

gives a constant accelerationrdeceleration motion pattern. The size of m and the
value of the coefficients a k may be selected to fit any desired type of forward
motion pattern.
The nonhomogeneous random unevenness hŽx. of the track can be expressed in
the Stiltjes integral form w31x
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

`
hŽ x . s hm Ž x . q Hy`exp Ž jV x . dS Ž V . , Ž 2.

where h mŽ x . is a deterministic function describing the mean level of the track and
SŽ V . is related to the zero mean random part of the unevenness with
U
E dS Ž V . s 0, and E dS Ž V 1 . dS Ž V 2 . s F h R h RŽ V 1 , V 2 . d V 1 d V 2 ,

where asterisk denotes the complex conjugate and F h R h R is the generalised PSD of
the random track. As mentioned before, the expression admits nonhomogeneous
track profiles. The mean track profile depends on the ground characteristics, track
preparation technique and the settlement of the subgrade and the foundation. It
may take various shapes and for the present study is expressed by a polynomial
series
l
hm Ž x . s Ý hi x i. Ž 3.
is0

The size of the series and the value of the coefficients can be matched to represent
a desired mean shape.
In a tricycle type heave-pitch-roll model, vehicle wheels do not follow the same
axial line. This leads to unsymmetrical roughness inputs to the wheels. Mean track
heights experienced by a wheel can be determined w27x as a time function using
Eqs. Ž1. and Ž3..
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 5

The track and foundation deformations under the transverse loading induced by
the moving wheels are small because of its large stiffness. The main interest in
considering the track and foundation to be flexible in the present analysis is to
capture the interaction effects on the vehicle response. A simple track model is
expected to be adequate for this purpose. The track model is a continuous member
and is assumed to have uniform distributions of mass, stiffness and damping
neglecting any variations in these quantities. It is further assumed that the track
deforms in a vertical direction under moving wheel loads and any torsion on the
track due to all the wheels not being in the same line has been neglected.

3. SYSTEM EQUATIONS
The vehicle body is a beam type of member with distributed damping. Its equation
of motion for transverse vibration w b Ž r,t . in the vertical plane can be described by
w32x

E2 E 2 wb E 2 wb E wb E
Er 2 ½ Eb Ib Ž r .
Er 2 5 q mb Ž r .
Et 2
q cb Ž r .
Et
s f b Ž r ,t . q
Er
Mb Ž r ,t . ,

Ž 4.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

in which Eb Ib is the flexural stiffness, m b is the mass and c b is the viscous

damping per unit length. The force f b and moment Mb due to the reactions from
the shock absorbers and the flexible appendages are point loads acting at the
attachments locations. These may be expressed as distributed loads with delta
functions
f b Ž r ,t . s y C s11  w˙ b Ž r ,t . y z˙11 4 q K s11  w b Ž r ,t . y z 11 4 d Ž r y 11 .
3
y Ý C s2 i  w˙ 0 Ž r ,t . y z˙2 i 4 q K s2 i  w 0 Ž r ,t . y z 2 i 4 d Ž r y 1 2 .
is2

E E 2 wL
y
E sL ½ Ew L I w L Ž s L .
E sL2 5 s L s0

E E 2 wR
q
E sR ½ Ew R Iw R Ž s R .
E sR2 5s R s0
P d Ž r y 10 . , Ž 5.

and
Eu L Eu R
Mb Ž r ,t . s y ½ Gw L Jw LŽ sL .
E sL 5 ½
s L s0
q Gw R Jw R Ž sR .
E sR 5 s R s0
d Ž r y 10 . ,

Ž 6.
 6 D. YADAV ET AL.

where C s and K s are the suspension damping and stiffness. The two numerals in
the suffixes are used to denote axle location and wheel location on the axle as
elaborated in the model description. Ew Iw and Gw Jw are the flexural and torsional
stiffness of the flexible attachments undergoing bending transverse displacement w
and twist u relative to vehicle body. Subscript L and R is used for left and right
attachments. z’s denote the vertical displacement of the unsprung masses. 1 0 is
the distance of the elastic axis root of the flexible attachment from the aircraft c.g.
and 11 and 1 2 are the locations of the front and the rear axles. The quantity w0 is
the total vertical deflection of the vehicle body from its longitudinal axis and is
given by

w 0 Ž r ,t . s w b Ž r ,t . q g b Ž r . u b Ž r ,t . ,

where g b Ž r . is the distance of the point on the vehicle body at station r, measured
transverse to the longitudinal axis. The torsional deformation u b Ž r,t . of the
vehicle body is governed by the differential equation

E Eu b E 2u b Eu b
Er ½ G b Jb Ž r .
Er 5 y Ib r Ž r .
Et 2
y qb Ž r .
Et
s yG b Ž r ,t . , Ž 7.

where G b Ib , Ib r and q b are torsional stiffness, mass moment of inertia and

Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

rotational viscous damping per unit length of the beam. The reaction torque G b
per unit length on the vehicle body from the landing gears and the attachments is
given by

3
G b Ž r ,t . s Ý C s2 i  w˙ 0 Ž r ,t . y z˙2 i 4 q K s2 i  w 0 Ž r ,t . y z 2 i 4 e i Ž r . d Ž r y 1 2 .
is2

E 2 wL E 2 wR
q ½ Ew L Iw L Ž s L .
E sL2 5 ½
s L s0
q Ew R I w R Ž s R .
E sR2 5 s R s0
d Ž r y 10 . ,

Ž 8.

where e 2 and e 3 are the distance of the wheels on the rear axle from the
longitudinal axis of the vehicle body.
It may be noted that Eqs. Ž4. and Ž7. also include the rigid body heave and
pitch modes for the vehicle body.
The equations of motion for the front and rear wheels are

Mu11 z¨11 q Cu11  z˙11 y h˙ 11 Ž x 1 . y y˙ Ž x 1 ,t . 4 q K u11  z 11 y h11 Ž x 1 . y y Ž x 1 ,t . 4

q C s11  z˙11 y w˙ b Ž l 1 ,t . 4 q K s11  z 11 y w b Ž l 1 ,t . 4 s 0, Ž 9.

 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 7

and

Mu2 i z¨2 i q Cu2 i  z˙2 i y h˙ 2 i Ž x 2 . y y˙ Ž x 2 ,t . 4 q K u2 i  z 2 i y h 2 i Ž x 2 . y y Ž x 2 ,t . 4

q C s2 i  z˙2 i y w˙ 0 Ž l 2 ,t . y w˙ i Ž s g i ,t . 4 q K s2 i  z 2 i y w 0 Ž l 2 ,t .

ywi Ž s g i ,t . 4 s 0, i s 2,3 Ž 10 .
while w 2 s wL , w 3 s wR , s g 2 s s g L , and s g 3 s s g R .
The coupled bending-torsional oscillation of the flexible attachment carrying
arbitrary masses at arbitrary locations can be written as w15x

E2 E 2w E 2w E 2u Ew
Es 2 ½ Ew Iw Ž s .
Es 2 5 q mw Ž s .
Et 2
y m w Ž s . ew Ž s .
Et 2
q cw Ž s .
Et
Eu
y ew Ž s . cw Ž s . s f w Ž s,t . , Ž 11 .
Et
and

E Eu E 2u E 2w
½ Gw Jw Ž s . 5 y Iw a Ž s . q m w Ž s . ew Ž s . y q Ž s .
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Es Es E t2 E t2
Eu Ew
qe w2 Ž s . c w Ž s . 4 q cw Ž s . ew Ž s . s e w Ž s . f w Ž s,t . y Gw Ž s,t . , Ž 12 .
Et Et
where e w is the offset of the shear center from the c.g. of the cross-section, c w and
q are the distributed viscous damping for translational and rotational motion, and
m w and Iw a is the mass and mass moment of inertia of cross-section about the
elastic axis.
The reaction force f w and torque Gw per unit length of the span are given by

E2
f w Ž s,t . s ym w Ž s . w¨ 0 Ž l 0 ,t . y c w Ž s . w˙ 0 Ž l,t . q m w Ž s . e w Ž s . wX0 Ž l 0 ,t .
E t2
p
E
q ew Ž s . cw Ž s . wX0 Ž l 0 ,t . y Ý Mk  w¨ 0 Ž l 0 ,t . q w¨ Ž s,t . 4
Et ks1

E2
yMk e w Ž s . ½ E t2
wX0 Ž l 0 ,t . q u¨ Ž s,t . 5 d Ž s y sk . y C s2 i  w˙ 0 Ž l 0 ,t .

qw˙ Ž s,t . y z˙2 i 4 q K s2 i  w 0 Ž l 0 ,t . q w Ž s,t . y z 2 i 4 d Ž s y s g i .

q Vac Ž s,t . , Ž 13 .
 8 D. YADAV ET AL.

and
E2
Gw Ž s,t . s yIw a Ž s . wX0 Ž l 0 ,t . q m w Ž s . e w Ž s . w¨ o Ž l 0 ,t . y  qw Ž s .
E t2
E
qe w2 Ž s . c w Ž s . 4 wX0 Ž l 0 ,t . q c w Ž s . e w Ž s . w˙ 0 Ž l 0 ,t .
Et
p p
E2
y Ý Ik
ks1
½ Et 2 0Ž 0 . 5
wX l ,t q u¨ Ž s,t . y Ý Mk e w Ž s .  w¨ 0 Ž l 0 ,t .
ks1

qw¨ Ž s,t . 4 d Ž s y sk . q M ac Ž s,t . , Ž 14 .

where Mk is the kth concentrated mass and Ik is its polar moment of inertia about
the elastic axis. Eqs. Ž11. to Ž14. may be made particular to the left or right
attachment by using subscript L or R and i as 2 for the left and 3 for the right
attachment.
Vac and M ac are the aerodynamic forces and moments. These can be expressed
as a function of vehicle forward velocity, exposed surface characteristics and
aerodynamic coefficients w27x.
As mentioned earlier, the pavement is idealised as of a slender member on
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

elastic supports. The equation of motion for the transverse oscillation can be
written as w9x
E4y E2y Ey
Ep Ip 4
qmp 2
qcf q k f y s f p Ž x ,t . , Ž 15 .
Ex Et Et
where Ep I p , m p , c f and k f are the track flexural rigidity, mass and distributed
damping and spring constant of the subgrade foundation per unit length. These are
assumed to be uniform along the track length. The impressed force per unit length
is given by
f p Ž x ,t . s y Cu11  z˙11 y h˙ 11 Ž x . y y˙ Ž x ,t . 4 q K u11  z 11 y h11 Ž x .
3
yy Ž x ,t . 4 d Ž x y x 1 . y Ý Cu2 i  z˙2 i y h˙ 2 i Ž x . y y˙ Ž x ,t . 4
is1

qK u2 i  z 2 i y h 2 i Ž x . y y Ž x ,t . 4 d Ž x y x 2 . Ž 16 .

4. SOLUTION TECHNIQUE
The solution of the linear systems represented by the set of partial and ordinary
differential equations can be obtained with known initial and boundary conditions.
In the method followed, first the partial differential equations are discretized in
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 9

terms of their time dependent normal coordinates. Thereafter, complete system

equations are decoupled using modal approach and analytical expressions for the
response and its statistics are developed.

4.1. Discretization of the Equation of Motion

The governing system equations of motion are Eqs. Ž4., Ž7., Ž9. – Ž12. and Ž15..
Out of these Eqs. Ž9. and Ž10. are ordinary differential equations for lumped
masses while the rest are partial differential equations for continuous elements. A
set of ordinary differential equations can be obtained for the modal amplitudes by
using the modal decomposition technique w33x. Considering the vehicle body first,
let its deformation be expressed as

` `
w b Ž r ,t . s Ý Wb i Ž r . h b i Ž t . , and u Ž r ,t . s Ý Tb i Ž r . ht i Ž t . , Ž 17 .
is0 is0

where h b i Ž t . and ht i Ž t . are the generalised coordinate associated with the ith
bending and the ith torsional modes.
Substituting Eq. Ž17. in Eqs. Ž4. and Ž7., multiplying these by Wb k Ž r . and
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Tb k Ž r . respectively, integrating both over the length domain of the vehicle body
and using the orthogonality conditions of the normal modes yields the following
two discretized equations for the vehicle body w33x

`
h¨ b i Ž t . q Ý Di k h˙ b i Ž t . q v b2 ih b i Ž t . s Q b i Ž t . , Ž 18 .
ks1

`
h¨ t i Ž t . q Ý DXi k h˙ t i Ž t . q v t2iht i Ž t . s Q t i Ž t . , i s 1,2, . . . Ž 19 .
ks1

where v b i and v t i are the natural frequencies; Q b i and Q t i are the generalised
forces; Di k and DXi k are modal damping coefficients in the bending and torsional
modes of the vehicle body. The expressions for these generalised quantities are
given in Appendix 1 w33x.
The vehicle body performs rigid body heave-pitch-roll motion and the first two
bending modes represent heave and pitch motion while the first mode in torsion
represents rigid roll. These rigid body modes correspond to zero natural frequen-
cies. Other finite nonzero frequencies correspond to elastic modes. For the vehicle
body modelled as a variable section beam the bending and torsional modes and the
natural frequencies can be found by solving the free vibration equations. The
variations in cross-sectional properties need to be fitted to a power series with
finite number of terms as in Ref. w27x.
 10 D. YADAV ET AL.

Following the above mentioned sequence of steps the equations for the other
elastic elements have also been discretized. Eqs. Ž11. and Ž12. for the attachments
take the following form for the left member

`
h¨ wLi Ž t . q Ý DiLk h˙ wLk Ž t . q v L2ihwLi Ž t . s Q wL i Ž t . , i s 1,2, . . . Ž 20.
ks1

in which hw i are the attachment generalised coordinates, v i are the natural

frequencies corresponding to the ith normal mode in coupled bending-torsion. As
mentioned earlier the extension L is for the left attachment. The relations for the
right attachment is obtained by replacing L by R. The expressions for the
generalised quantities for the attachment are placed in Appendix 2.
Eq. Ž15. for the track may be discretized in terms of the normal coordinates as

2 2
h¨ p i Ž t . q Bh˙ p i Ž t . q ½Žv p i y j i y Bj i . y j v p i Ž 2 j i q B . 5 hp i Ž t . s Q p i Ž t . , Ž 21 .

where B s c frm p . The parameter j is related to the foundation damping and v p

is the damped natural frequency of the track beam. The parameters v p , j and the
normal mode function c Ž x . can be found by solving the free vibration equation of
the track beam with appropriate boundary conditions. The generalised mass M p i
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

and the generalised force Q p i associated with the ith mode are given in Appendix
3.

4.2. System Response

A continuous system has infinite modes. However, the lower modes are known to
have dominant contribution as compared to the higher modes. Let the first n b
modes for the vehicle body in bending and n t in torsion, first n w coupled
bending-torsion modes for each attachments and first n p modes for the track be
considered for analysis. This leads to the system degrees of freedom n as

n s nb q nt q 3 q 2 nw q n p .

The discretized equations for the vehicle body, unsprung masses, left and right
attachments and track - Eqs. Ž18., Ž19., Ž9., Ž10. and Ž20. for left and right
attachment and Ž21. can then be combined and presented as a matrix equation

Mq¨ Ž t . q Cq˙ Ž t . q K q Ž t . s F Ž t . , Ž 22 .

where q Ž nx1. is the response vector of the system generalised coordinates, F

Ž nx1. is the generalised excitation vector and M, C and K Ž nxn. are system mass,
damping and stiffness matrices respectively.
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 11

With decoupling of the system Eq. Ž22., into 2n first order equations the system
generalised response can be expressed as w31x
2n 2n n n `
qm Ž t . s Ý X o i u m 1 i exp Ž ya i t . q Ý u m 1 i Ý u i r Ý m r k Hy` H Ž v ,t . dS Ž F Ž w . . ,
i k
is1 is1 rs1 ks1

m s 1,2, . . . n; m1 s m q n, Ž 23 .
where X o i are the constants of integration to be determined from the initial
conditions. a i are the eigenvalues of the matrix A Ž2 n = 2 n.
y1
As M C My1 K
yI 0

and  u n 4i are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue a i , U is the modal

matrix formed by the eigenvectors as its column,  u n 4i represents the column of
Uy1 and m i j are the elements of My1. H Ž v ,t . is the transient frequency response
function given by w31x
1
Hi Ž v ,t . s exp Ž j v t . y exp Ž ya i Ž t y t 0 . . . Ž 24 .
a q jv
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

4.3. Response Statistics

One can now consider the expectation of the response. The mean of the displace-
ment may be expressed as w27x
2n 2n n n
m q mŽ t . s Ý X o i u m 1 i exp Ž ya i t . q Ý u m 1 i Ý u i r Ý m r k Ii k Ž t . , m s 1,2, . . . ,n
is1 is1 rs1 ks1

Ž 25 .
where
2 3
Ii k Ž t . s Ý Ý Ž A k p s T1 p s Ž t . q Bk p s T2 p s Ž t . . q Ck T3 Ž t . . Ž 26 .
ps1ss1

Coefficients A k , Bk and Ck and components T1 , T2 and T3 for different values

of p and s are given in Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 respectively.
The expression for the response covariance is w27x
2n n 2n n n n
K q i q kŽ t 1 ,t 2 . s Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý ui n l u l r mr s ukn p u p g m g w
ls1 rs1 ps1ss1gs1ws1

=  Is, g Ž t 1 ,t 2 . y I l s Ž t 1 . Ip g Ž t 2 . 4 , i ,k s 1,2, . . . ,n Ž 27 .
 12 D. YADAV ET AL.

where i n s i q n, k n s k q n, I l s and Ip g are defined in Eq. Ž26. and integral Is, g

is given by
` `
Is, g Ž t 1 ,t 2 . s Hy`Hy` H l Ž v 1 ,t 1 . HpU Ž v 2 ,t 2 . F Fs F g Ž v 1 , v 2 . d v 1 d v 2 . Ž 28 .

The above integral can be evaluated with the knowledge of the input PSD. The
required input PSD are placed in the Appendix 6 using the track PSD of the form
w9x
F h R h RŽ V 1 , V 2 . s AX exp Ž ybV 12 . d Ž V 1 y V 2 . , Ž 29 .
where AX and b are roughness constant and correlation index for a particular class
of track. The integral Is, g is evaluated using Cauchy’s residue theorem. The basic
terms needed for the covariance evaluation are
al
Is, g Ž t 1 ,t 2 . s Ž 2p AX V1rÕX . exp y ½ < ÕX t 1 y t 2 < y exp Ž ya l t 1 y a p t 2 .
5
ÕX
=exp Ž ba l2rV12 .  ÕX K u r k K u r X k Xq a l Ž K u r k Cu r X k X y ÕX Cu r k K u r X k X .

yCu r k Cu r X k X a l2 4 r Ž a l q ÕXa p . , Ž 30 .
when
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

ssg, for ssn b q n t q 1, . . . ,n b q n t q 3; and ssn b q n t q 1,

with rsksr XskXs1;
for ssn b q n t q 2, with rsksr XskX s 2;
for s s n b q n t q 3, with r s r X s 2, k s kX s 3.

The term ÕX s V1rV2 , where V1 and V2 are the vehicle forward velocities at time
instant t 1 and t 2 . The integral for other base values can be found with the help of
Eqs. Ž30. and ŽA15..
Using expressions Ž25. and Ž27., displacement mean and covariance of the
system generalised coordinates are evaluated. In these two expressions only the
lower half of the matrix U are used. Utilization of the upper half of the matrix U
would yield the velocity response mean and covariance. The expressions for mean
and covariance have to be determined by time differentiation of the corresponding
velocity characteristics.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The analytical approach is illustrated with the example of an aircraft in ground
runs with the system data in Appendix 7 w34x.
Response statistics of the three point input model has been obtained for the
aircraft ground runs. To obtain the behaviour pattern of the vehicle, a significantly
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 13

large number of dynamic modes have to be analysed. The full presentation of the
results, however, would require a very large space and would become impractical.
Hence, the results have been presented here for a few selected initial modes only,
which are known to be more significant compared to the higher modes. Results
have been obtained for constant velocity taxi, accelerating take-off and decelerat-
ing landing runs. The first two - taxi and take-off - are used to present the model
response behaviour while the landing run is used for drawing a comparison of the
present model with other models. The touch down impact at landing is expected to
show clearly the differences in the performance of the various models.
5.1. Taxi Run
In this run the aircraft is assumed to move at constant velocity. Results have been
obtained with three forward velocities - 40 Kmrh, 60 Kmrh and 80 Kmrh. Only
the mean and variance of the displacement response are presented here for the
initial 20 seconds period in Figures 2 and 3 for the first three flexural and two
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 2. Mean Displacement Response - Taxi Run. Key :- Vehicle speed: - - - - 40 Kmrh; . . . 60 Kmrh;
80 Kmrh.
 14 D. YADAV ET AL.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 3. Displacement Response Variance - Taxi Run. Key as in Figure 2.

torsional modes of the airframe, three coupled bending-torsional modes of the left
wing, one flexural mode of the track and heave modes of the three unsprung
masses. Out of the airframe modes the first two flexural modes represent fuselage
rigid body heave and pitch while the first one in torsion is for the rigid rolling of
the airplane. The right wing modes are similar to the left wing for the present case
and have not been presented to save space.
The mean track level selected has an increasing slope with superimposed
sinusoidal profile. All the mean displacements of the aircraft and the pavement
show influence of the track mean profile to various degrees. Out of the two
angular rigid body modes, rolling motion is more affected by the change in vehicle
forward velocity. The elastic fuselage modes in bending and torsion reveal the
presence of high frequency components in mean response for the initial phase
which gradually diminishes with time, leading to a steady state pattern. In most
cases, a single dominant frequency can be observed in the steady state part which
varies with the change in vehicle forward velocity. High frequency oscillations in
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 15

the transient stage are less sensitive to the change in vehicle velocity. This
indicates that they are caused by the system structural modes rather than external
excitation.
The response of the unsprung masses shows a similarity in pattern though the
two main wheels mean response characteristics are not found to be identical. This
may be due to coupled rolling of the vehicle.
The wing mean displacements exhibit clear steady state pattern in the taxi run.
The track normal coordinate displacement mean under the aircraft c.g. also
reflects the pattern of the track mean profile.
The displacement variances show that in the early stages, response is oscillatory
with a high peak at the onset of the vehicle motion. Subsequently the response
subsides to steady asymptotic values dependent on the vehicle forward velocity.

5.2. Take-off Run

Take-off run is an accelerating condition of the vehicle. The aircraft starts from
rest. It is assumed to run with uniform acceleration until the lift-off velocity is
achieved and the plane takes off. Three different forward accelerations 1.6, 1.8 and
2.0 mrs 2 with a take-off velocity 216 Kmrh have been considered. The time
history plots are presented from start of the motion to lift-off.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Figure 4 presents mean and variance for the displacement during take-off for
some selected responses - three bending and two torsional modes of the fuselage,
nose wheel, left main wheel, first wing bending mode and first pavement bending
mode. At the initiation of the motion the mean response shows low transience.
Mean response magnitudes are seen to build up gradually with the increase in the
vehicle forward speed and increase in track mean level with rising gradient.
However, as the aircraft proceeds to take-off, the mean displacement response
shows a decrease in amplitude. This indicates the reduction in the strength of
ground input as the wheels start loosing contact with the ground. Rigid body
motion in roll seems to be more pronounced with increasing velocity. The track
normal coordinates mean response shows an initial low value which subsequently
rises as the vehicle vibration increases with increase in speed imposing more
dynamic load. The high frequency initial transience is unaffected by the changes in
forward velocity and are inherent to the structures, while the low frequency
transients reflect the track mean profile input.
The variances for the vehicle response show very low values in the initial stage.
As the vehicle accelerates from rest, the track input keeps increasing in strength
with the increase in the forward velocity. The variance characteristics, in general,
seems to follow this pattern. Variances are seen to increase faster with forward
acceleration of the vehicle but at take-off instances, differences in magnitudes are
not large in all cases.
The system displacement variances exhibit some high frequency variation in
their response characteristics that are quickly damped out. The vehicle pitch
 16 D. YADAV ET AL.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 4. Displacement Response characteristics - Takeoff Run. Ža. Mean, Žb. Variance. Key :- Vehicle
forward acceleration: - - - - 1.6 mrs 2 ; . . . 1.8 mrs 2 ; 2.0 mrs 2 .

response, however, has more persistent oscillations compared to the other re-
sponses.
5.3. Comparison of Model Behaviours in Landing Run
The accuracy of the response analysis depends on the model employed and hence
the selection of the model is very important. A comparative study of the
displacement and acceleration response of different vehicle models is presented in
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 17

this section to gain some insight into their relative behaviour. The landing run with
touch-down impact, the most severe of the ground runs, has been selected for this
study. Four different vehicle models have been considered. These are:
Ža. Model 1- Two point heave-pitch model with aircraft fuselage as a rigid
member w27x.
Žb. Model 2- Two point input heave-pitch model as in Model 1 with bending
flexibility included for the fuselage.
Žc. Model 3- Model 2 along with roll effect. Gives a three point heave-pitch-roll
model with fuselage bending and rigid roll.
Žd. Model 4- Improves Model 3 by including fuselage torsional flexibility to
have a three point heave-pitch-roll model including fuselage
bending and torsional flexibility. This is the model analysed in
the present study.
The four models describe a ground vehicle with increasing degree of accuracy.
Model 1 and 2 are two point input models and ignore the roll effect. Model 3 and
4 are three point input models and incorporate the roll effects.
Displacement and acceleration mean and variance of heave, pitch, roll and one
bending mode of the fuselage, nose and one main wheel, first coupled bending -
torsion modes of one wing and track first normal coordinate have been presented
for comparison. The landing touch-down condition is assumed to have vertical
sink velocity 1.2 mrs and forward glide velocity 216 kmrhr. The run is assumed
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

to be with uniform slowing rate 1.5 mrs 2 . Plots are generated from the touch-down
instant to stoppage of the vehicle forward motion.
Figure 5 presents the mean and the variance of the displacement response. The
behaviour of the three point input models are different from the two point input
models for the fuselage response. The roll model indicates smaller values of initial
peak displacements compared to the no roll models. The two point input models,
in general, possess more higher frequency components than the three point input
models. The variance response of the fuselage shows greater differences between
the two sets of models compared to the mean response. The above observations
are also true for the nose wheel and the wing response. The mean response of the
main wheel for the two types of models, however, are not very different.
The track response also indicates the presence of strong initial impact at
touch-down of the aircraft for the first two models. However, the frequency
content for the pavement mean response due the two sets of models are close.
Mean and variance of the rigid body rolling of the vehicle in Model 3 and 4
have similar behaviour at touchdown impact with little difference in the amplitude.
Flexible wing’s normal coordinate mean and response variance in the two point
input models show strong sensitivity to the landing impact. In the latter phase of
landing run, displacement response characteristics in all the models are close. This
is expected as the impact energy is quickly dissipated and the vehicle forward
motion also slow down.
The acceleration response mean and variance are placed in Figure 6. The
comparative observations between the two types of models for the displacement
 18 D. YADAV ET AL.
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 5. Comparison of Displacement response Characteristics in landing run. Ža. Mean, Žb. Variance.
Key :- Model 1 - - - -; Model 2 . . . ; Model 3 ; Model 4 —.—.—.—.

characteristics are generally valid for the acceleration response also. The accelera-
tion decays faster than the displacement. The damping dissipation of the roll
models seems to be stronger than the no roll models.
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 19
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Fig. 6. Comparison of Acceleration response Characteristics in landing run. Ža. Mean, Žb. Variance.
Key as in Figure 5.

The comparison shows that inclusion of roll mode is important for study of the
vehicle behaviour. In general, magnitudes of initial impact response mean and
variance of heave-pitch vehicle models are higher than the heave-pitch-roll
 20 D. YADAV ET AL.

models. Inclusion of the elastic torsional mode of the vehicle shows minor
influence on the response behaviour as compared to the elastic bending mode.

6. CONCLUSIONS
An analytical method has been worked out to evaluate the response statistics of
flexible vehicle - flexible track models with multiaxled multiwheeled configura-
tions. Any deterministic variation of vehicle forward motion and non homogeneity
of ground unevenness can be handled. Some conclusions arrived at in the study are
Ž1. Interactions of heave, pitch and roll modes are significant for response
prediction in case of unsymmetrical distribution of roughness across the track.
Ž2. Bending flexibility is more significant compared to torsional flexibility of
the long and slender vehicle for accurate description of the response behaviour.
Ž3. Vehicle and pavement response is highly dependent on the vehicle speed
and track roughness input.
Ž4. Periodicity present in the track mean shape is reflected in the mean response
of the vehicle and the pavement. Removal of any periodic component in the track
mean is an important part of maintenance as at some particular vehicle speed the
input may have frequencies close to some system frequency and cause unaccept-
ably large response.
It can be summarised that a working technique has been presented for the first
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

time to analytically obtain the response characteristics of a multi-wheeled and

multi-axled vehicle moving over a flexible nonhomogeneous track. This has great
significance for design of light bodied vehicles, like aircrafts, as displacements and
the associated stresses and strains can be provided accurately in the probabilistic
environment.

REFERENCES
1. Silby, N.S., ‘‘An analytical study of effects of some airplane and landing gear factors of the
response to runway roughness with application to supersonic transport’’, NASA TND - 1492,
1962.
2. Tung, C.C., Penzien, J., Horenjeff, R., ‘‘The effect of runway unevenness on the dynamic response
of the supersonic aircraft’’, NASA CR - 119, 1964.
3. Virchis, V.J., Robson, J.D. ‘‘Response of an accelerating vehicle to random road undulations’’,
Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 18, 1971, pp. 423–427.
4. Sobczyk, K. and Macvean, D.S., ‘‘Nonstationary random vibration of system travelling with
variable velocity’’, Stochastic Problem on Dynamics, University of Southampton, Ed. B.L.
Clarkson, 1976, pp. 412–432.
5. Yadav, D., Nigam, N.C., ‘‘Ground induced nonstationary response of vehicles’’, Journal of Sound
and Vibrations, 61, 1978, pp. 117–126.
6. Harrison, R.F., Hammond, J.K., ‘‘Evolutionary Žfrequencyrtime. spectral analysis of the response
of vehicles moving on rough ground using ‘‘covariance equivalent modelling’’, Journal of Sound
and Vibrations, 107, 1986, pp. 29–38.
7. Kirk, C.L., ‘‘The random heave - pitch response of aircraft to runway roughness’’ The Aeronauti-
cal Journal, RAS 75, 1971, pp. 476–483.
8. Pintado, P. and Benitez, F.G., ‘‘Optimization for vehicle suspensions I Time domain’’ Vehicle
System Dynamics, 19, 1990, pp. 273–288.
9. Yadav, D. and Upadhyay, H.C., ‘‘Dynamics of vehicles in variable velocity runs over nonhomoge-
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 21

neous flexible track and foundation with two point input models’’ Journal of Sound and
Vibrations, 156, 1992, pp. 247–268.
10. Yadav, D. and Upadhyay, H.C., ‘‘Heave - pitch - roll dynamics of a vehicle with a variable
velocity over nonhomogeneously profiled track’’, Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 164, 1993 pp.
337–348.
11. Wilson, J.F. and Biggers, S.B., ‘‘Dynamic interactions between long, high speed trains of
aircushion vehicles and their guideways’’, Journal of Dynamic System, Measurement and Control,
ASME, 93, 1971, pp. 16–24.
12. Khulief, Y.A. and Sun, S.P., ‘‘Finite element modelling and semiactive control of vibrations in
road vehicles’’, Journal of Dynamic System, Measurement and Control, ASME, 111, 1989. pp.
521–527.
13. Hac, A., Youn, I. and Chen, H.H., ‘‘Control of suspensions for vehicles with flexible bodies-Part-I:
Active suspensions’’ Journal of Dynamic System, Measurement and Control, ASME, 118, 1996,
pp. 508–517.
14. Cole, D.J. and Cebon, D., ‘‘Validation of an articulated vehicle simulation’’, Vehicle System
Dynamics, 21, 1992, pp. 197–223.
15. Criner, H.E., McCann, G.D., ‘‘Rails on elastic foundation under the influence of high- speed
travelling loads’’, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 20, 1953, pp. 13–22.
16. Kenney, J.T., ‘‘Steady-state vibrations of a beam on elastic foundation for a moving load’’,
Journal of Applied mechanics, 21, 1954, pp. 359–364.
17. Saito, H., Murakami, T., ‘‘Vibration of an infinite beam on an elastic foundation with considera-
tion of mass of a foundation’’, Bulletin of Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, 12, 1969, pp.
200–205.
18. Rades, M., ‘‘Steady state response of a finite beam on a Posternak-type foundation’’ International
Journal of Solids and Structures, 6, 1970, pp. 739–756.
19. Kerr, A.D., ‘‘The continuously supported rail subjected to an axial force and a moving load’’,
International Journal of Mechanical Science, 14, 1972, pp. 71–78.
20. Rades, M., ‘‘Dynamic analysis of an inertial foundation model’’ International Journal of Solids
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

and Structures, 8, 1972, pp. 1353–1372.

21. Fryba, L., ‘‘Vibration of solids and structures under moving loads’’, Noordhoff International
Publishing, Groningen, 1972.
22. Fryba, L., ‘‘Non-stationary response of a beam to a moving random load’’, Journal of Sound and
Vibrations, 46, 1976, pp. 323–338.
23. Suzuki, S.J., ‘‘Dynamic behaviour of a finite beam subjected to travelling loads with acceleration’’,
Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 55, 1977, pp. 65–70.
24. Hino, J., Yoshimura, T., Ananthnarayan, N., ‘‘Vibration analysis of non-linear beams subjected to
moving loads using the finite element method’’, Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 100, 1985, pp.
477–491.
25. Iyengar, R.N., Pranesh, M.R., ‘‘Dynamic response of a beam on a foundation of finite depth’’,
Indian Geotechnical Journal, 15Ž2., 1985, pp. 53–63.
26. Yoshimura, T., Hino, J., Kamata, T., Ananthnarayana, N. ‘‘Random vibration of a non-linear beam
subjected to a moving load: a finite element analysis’’, Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 122,
1988, pp. 317–329.
27. Talukdar, S., Kamle, S. and Yadav, D., ‘‘Track induced heave - pitch dynamics of vehicles with
variable section flexible attachements’’, Vehicle System Dynamics, 28, 1998, pp. 1–26.
28. Kortum, W., Wormley, D.N., ‘‘Dynamic interaction between travelling vehicles and guideway
system’’, Vehicle System Dynamics, 10, 1981, pp. 285–317.
29. Diana, G., Cheli, F., ‘‘Dynamic interaction of railway systems with large bridges’’, Vehicle System
Dynamics, 18, 1989, pp. 71–106.
30. Diana, G., Cheli, F., Bruni, S., Collina, A., ‘‘Interaction between railroad super-structure and
railway vehicles’’, The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Supplement to Vehicle System
Dynamics, 23, 1994, pp. 75–86.
31. Nigam, N.C., ‘‘Introduction to Random Vibration’’, MIT Press Cambridge 1983.
32. Fung, Y.C., ‘‘An Introduction to the theory of aeroelasticity’’, 1955, New York, Dover Publica-
tion.
33. Bishop, R.E.D., Price, W.G., ‘‘Coupled bending and twisting of a timoshenko beam’’, Journal of
Sound and Vibration, 5o, 1877, pp. 469–477.
34. Talukdar, S., ‘‘Dynamic response of flexible aircraft in ground runs over nonhomogeneously
profiled flexible runway’’ Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, I.I.T. Kanpur,
1997.
 22 D. YADAV ET AL.

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A State matrix
AX Roughness constant
AT Aspect ratio
ak Coefficients of describing polynomial
c System damping matrix
CL , Cm ac Lift and aerodynamic moment coefficients
C Viscous damping
c Viscous damping per unit length
ch Mean chord length
D Modal damping coefficient
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
e Shear center offset
F Generalised force vector
f Distributed applied loading
G Shear modulus
g Distance measured perpendicular to vehicle longitudinal axis
H Frequency response function
h Track elevation
hm Mean track unevenness
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

hR Random track roughness

I Polar moment of inertia ŽMI. of the concentrated mass about the
shear center; Wing MI; Track cross section MI
Is Aircraft pitch MI about c.g.
Ir Aircraft roll MI about c.g.
Iw a Wing mass polar MI about elastic axis
J Torsional constant
j Imaginary unit
K Covariance, Spring constant
K System stiffness matrix
k Distributed spring stiffness, counting index
L Length
l 0 ,l 1 ,l 2 Wing elastic axis and axle distance from the vehicle c.g
M System mass matrix
M Distributed bending moment
m Mass per unit length, counting index
n Dimensions of the system matrices, number of normal modes
Q Generalised force
q Response vector
S Surface area
s Space coordinate
T Torsional mode shape
t Time instant
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 23

U Modal matrix
u Eigen vector
V Vehicle forward velocity
Vac Lift force per unit length on the wing
W Bending displacement function
w Transverse displacement
Xo Integration constant
x Distance along the track
xc Location of vehicle c.g along the track
y Track transverse displacement
z Unsprung mass vertical displacement
a Eigen values
d Dirac delta function; Kronecker delta
G Distributed torque
h Generalised coordinates
u Angle of twist
q Distributed rotational damping
m, s Mean and standard deviation
r Mass density
F Power spectral density
f Torsional displacement functions
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

c Track displacement function in the ith mode

V Spatial frequency of the track input
v Temporal frequency of the track input; natural frequency
Subscripts
L Left
R Right
1 Front axle, Center wheel
2 Rear axle, Left wheel
3 Right wheel
f Foundation
i ith mode
p Track
s Suspension
u Tyre
b Vehicle body bending
t Vehicle body torsion
w Wing
k kth concentrated mass
Superscript
g Generalised quantity
L Left wing
R Right wing
 24 D. YADAV ET AL.

APPENDIX

1. Generalised Quantities for Vehicle Body in ith mode:

Mass Mbgi s HL m Ž r . W b
2
bi Ž r . dr Ž A1 .
b

Moment of Inertia Ibgi s HL I bi Ž r . Tb2i Ž r . dr Ž A2 .

b

1
Bending Damping Di k s HL c Ž r . W b bi Ž r . Wb k Ž r . dr Ž A3.
Mbgi b

1
Torsional Damping D9i k s
Ibgi
HL q Ž r . T b bi Ž r . Tb k Ž r . dr Ž A4 .
b

1
Force Q b i s H  f Ž r ,t . W
b bi Ž r . q Mb Ž r ,t . WbX i Ž r . 4 dr Ž A5.
bi L bg
M
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

1
Torque Q t i s
Ibgi
HL G Ž r ,t . T
b bi Ž r . dr Ž A6.
b

2. Generalised Quantities for the Attachments in ith Mode:

Mass Mig s HL  m w Ž s . Wi 2 Ž s . q Iw Ž s . f i2 Ž s . y 2 m w Ž s . e w Ž s . fi Ž s . Wi Ž s . 4 ds
W

Ž A7.

Damping Di k s Ž 1rMig . HL c w Ž s . Wi Ž s . Wk Ž s . q  q Ž s .
w

qe w2 Ž s . c w Ž s . 4 f i Ž s . f k Ž s . y e w Ž s . c w Ž s .  f i Ž s . Wk Ž s .

qWi Ž s . f K Ž s . 4 ds Ž A8.

Force Q w i s Ž 1rMig . HL f w Ž s,t .  Wi Ž s . y e w Ž s . f i Ž s . 4 q Gw Ž s,t . f i Ž s . ds

w

Ž A9.
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 25

3. Generalised Quantities for the Track beam in ith Mode:

2
Mass M p i s HL m p ci Ž x . dx Ž A10.
p

Force Q p i s Ž 1rM p i . HL f Ž x ,t . c Ž x . dx
p i Ž A11.
p

4. Coefficients for the mean forcing function

A k p s s 0 for ks1,2, . . . n b q n t ,n b q n t q 4, . . . ,n b q n t q 3 q 2 n w and all p, s

sKu ps for ksn b q n t q 1, and ps ss1; ksn b q n t q 2, and p s s

s 2; ksn b q n t q 3, and ps2, ss3

s c ky j Ž x p . K u p srMkyj for k s n b q n t q 4 q 2 n w , . . . ,n;

and p s s s 1,2; p s 2, s s 3; j s nb q nt q 3 q 2 nw Ž A12.

Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

B kps - Expression as in Eq. ŽA12. with K replaced by C.

c k s 0 for ks1,2, . . . ,n b q n t q 3, n b q n t q 4 q 2 n w , . . . ,n

gL L L 1r2
s Ž L0rMkyj . HLw  W kyj Ž sL . y e w LŽ sL . f kyj Ž sL . 4  1 y sL2rL2w 4 dsL

gL L
q Ž M0rMkyj . HL c Ž s . f
h L kyj Ž sL . dsL , for ksn b q n t q 4, . . . ,n b q n t
w

q 3 q nw ; jsn b q n t q 3

gR R R 1r2
s Ž L0rMkyj . HL W kyj Ž sR . y e w R Ž sR . f kyj Ž sR . 4  1 y sR2 rL2w 4 dsR
wL

gR
q Ž M0rMkyj . HL c h2 Ž sR . f kyj
R
Ž sR . dsR for ksn b q n t q 4, . . . ,n b q n t
wR

q 3 q 2 nw ; jsn b q n t q 3 q n w Ž A13.
with
L0 s r a CL SW r2p LW , M0 s r a Cm acr2
 26 D. YADAV ET AL.

where r a is air density, CL and Cm ac are aerodynamic coefficients for lift and
moment, Sw and L w are plan form areas and semi span of wing.

5. Components of integral Ii k for the mean response

l l k
T1 p s s Ž h 0 . p s q Ý Ž h i . p s Ž c i ,0 . p s J1 q Ý Ž h i . p s Ý Ž c i , r . p s J2 ,
is1 is1 rs1

l l ky1
T2 p s s Ý Ž h i . p s Ž c i ,1 . p s J1 q Ý Ž h i . p s Ý Ž c i , rq1 . p s Ž r q 1 . J2 ,
is1 is1 rs1

2 Ž my1 .
T3 s cX0 J1 q Ý cXr J2 , Ž A14.
rs1

with J1 s Ž1 y expŽya i t ..ra i , k s m.i

r
tr r Ž y1. r ! t ryk r r!
J2 s qÝ kq1
y Ž y1 . exp Ž ya i t . ,
ai ks1 Ž r y k . ! a i a irq1
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

and
r
i
Ž c i ,0 . p s s Ž a p 0 . , Ž c i , r . p s s Ž 1ra p 0 r . Ý Ž ki y r q k . a p k Ž c i , ryk . p s ; r G 1
ks1

a10 s a 0 q 11 , a20 s a30 s a0 y 1 2 ; a1 k s a 2 k s a3 k s a k , k s 1,2, . . . ,m

r
2
cX0 s Ž aX0 . ; cXr s Ž 1rra0 . Ý Ž 3k y r . aXk cXryk , r G 1; aXk s Ž k q 1 . a kq1
ks1

6. Input PSD in terms of track characteristics

f Fs F g Ž v 1 , v 2 . s 0 for s, gs1,2, . . . n b q n t ; n b q n t q 4, . . . ,n b q n t q 3 q 2 n w

s Cu r k Cu r X k X v 1 v 2 q j  v 1Cu r k K u r X k X y v 2 K u r k Cu r X k X 4

qK u r k K u r X k X F h r k h rX kX Ž v 1 , v 2 .

for s s g with s s n b q n t q 1, . . . ,n b q n t q 3;

s s n b q n t q 1, r s r X s k s kX s 1;

s s n b q n t q 2, r s r X s k s kX s 2;
 HEAVE-PITCH-ROLL DYNAMICS 27

and s s n b q n t q 3, r s r X s 2, k s kX s 3; for s / g ,

s s n b q n t q 1, gss q 1, rsks1, r XskXs2;

s s n b q n t q 1, gss q 2, rsks1, r Xs2, kXs3;

s s n b q n t q 2, g s s q 2, r s k s 2, r X s 2, kX s 3

s Ž 1rM p , gyk . cgyk Ž x 1 . F Fs F jŽ v 1 , v 2 . q cgyk Ž x 2 .  F Fs F jq 1Ž v 1 , v 2 .

qF Fs F jq 2Ž v 1 , v 2 . 4

for s s n b q n t q 1, . . . ,n b q n t q 3; gsn b q n t q 4 q 2 n w , . . . ,n;

ks n b q n t q 3 q 2 n w ; jsn b q n t q 1

s Ž 1rM p , syk M p , gyk . csyk Ž x 1 . cgyk Ž x 1 . F f j f j Ž v 1 , v 2 . q  csyk Ž x 1 . cgyk Ž x 2 .

qcsy k Ž x 2 . cgyk Ž x 1 . 4  F F j F jq 1Ž v 1 , v 2 . q F F j F jq 2Ž v 1 , v 2 . 4
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

qFsy k Ž x 2 . cgyk Ž x 2 .  F F jq 1 F jq 1Ž v 1 , v 2 .

q2F F jq 1 F jq 2Ž v 1 , v 2 . q F F jq 2 F jq 2Ž v 1 , v 2 . 4

for s, g s n b q n t q 4 q 2 n w , . . . ,n Ž A15.
7. System Data used for obtaining numerical results w34x

I. Aircraft
1. Fuselage
Mass Ž Mb . : 1.46 = 10 5 Kg
Pitch Moment of inertia Ž Is . : 7.178 = 10 6 Kgm2
Roll moment of inertia Ž Is . : 6.325 = 10 5 Kgm2
Length : 44.35 m
Flexural rigidity Ž Eb Ib Ž0.. : 9.135 = 10 10 Nm2
Torsional rigidity Ž G b Jb Ž0.. : 11.6 = 10 9 Nm2
Viscous damping Ž c b Ž0.rm b Ž0.. : 0.298 s -1.
2. Landing gears
Nose gear Main gear
Distance from arc c.g. Ž11 ,1 2 . 16.68 1.32 m
Main gear tread: 6.3 m
Mass Ž Mu11 , Mu22 s Mu23 . 0.248 1.1105 = 10 3 Kg
Stiffness Ž K s11 , K s22 s K s23 . 2.36 14.5 = 10 6 Nrm
 28 D. YADAV ET AL.

damping Ž C s11 ,C s22 s C s23 . 8.24 50.1 = 10 4 Nsrm

Tyre stiffnesses Ž K u11 , K u22 s K u23 . 1.34 8.5 = 10 6 Nrm
Tyre damping Ž Cu11 ,Cu22 , Cu23 . 0.98 7.86 = 10 6 Nsrm
3. Wing
Semi span Ž L w . : 10.0 m
Aspect ratio Ž AT . : 7.08
Mean chord Ž c h Ž0.. : 3.0 m
Flexural rigidity Ž Ew Iw Ž0.. : 7.174 = 10 6 Nm2
Torsional ridigity Ž Gw Jw Ž0.. : 4.662 = 10 6 Nm2
Mass m. i. about elastic axis Ž Iw a Ž0.. : 8.643 kgm2rm
Massrlength Ž m w Ž0.. : 42.73 kgrm
Shear center offset Ž e w Ž0.. : 0.25 m
Linear damping Ž c w Ž0.rm w Ž0.. : 0.16 s -1
Torsional damping Ž Gw Jw Ž0.rIw a Ž0.. : 0.008 s -1
Aerodynamic coefficients lift Ž CL . : 0.8,
moment ŽC mac . : 0.1
Air density Ž r a . : 1.12 kgrm3

II. Runway
1. Properties
Length Ž L p . : 1400.0 m
Downloaded By: [CSIR eJournals Consortium] At: 04:14 13 November 2010

Massrlength Ž m 0 . : 3620 kgrm

Flexural rigidity Ž Ep Ip . : 1.38 = 10 7 Nm2
Foundation damping Ž c frm 0 . : 0.04 s -1
Foundation stiffness k f Ž . : 1.705 = 10 8 Nrm2
X
Roughness constant A Ž . : 0.5025 = 10 -5
Correlation index b Ž . : 0.1012
2. Mean profile
The mean track is assumed to be a sinusoidal profile over a uniform slope. This is
represented with the following parameters in Eq. Ž3.
h 0 s h 2 s h 4 s . . . s 0,
h1 s 0.001 q 2p A 0rW1 , h 3 s y2p A 0rŽ3!W13 .,
h 5 s 2p A 0rŽ5!W15 . etc. where w1 s 100 p m
A 0 s 0.075, 0.04, 0.06 m for nose, left main and right main wheel paths.