Multi-physics based Simulations of a Shock Absorber Sub-system for PHM



Published Jul 5, 2016
Krishna L S Siddiqui K M M Vanam U


The multi-physics involve Mechanical, Thermal, Hydraulic, and Pneumatic based modeling and simulation of an oleo-pneumatic shock absorber with fault capabilities presented in this paper. The fault simulated in this model is leakage due to eccentricity. The one-dimensional shock absorber system models render loads at different sink velocities. These load values, used in the structural model to do static stress analysis. By using these loads directly from the system model eliminates the error in load computation from the loads group, thereby eliminating the time and cost involved in this activity. The models and static stress analyses are done with both 1-D and 3-D elements. The 3-D landing gear model meshed with using both auto and manual mesh generation options. The consequences of both 1-D, and 3-D models mesh generation are discussed in this paper. The static stress analysis, compared with the experimental results and it is found that the results are within 5% deviation. Based on the static stress analysis computed the life of a landing gear.

How to Cite

L S, K., K M M, S., & U, V. (2016). Multi-physics based Simulations of a Shock Absorber Sub-system for PHM. PHM Society European Conference, 3(1).
Abstract 675 | PDF Downloads 1608



structural analysis, Shock absorber, Fault model, Hydraulic leakage, Co-simulation

Mary S R, Tolga K, Karen M L, Jeffrey L B, Colleen A W (2010), Assessment of the State of the Art of Integrated Vehicle Health Management Technologies as Applicable to Damage Conditions, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135, NASA/TM-2010-216911
Milwitzky B, and Cook F E, (1952) Analysis of Landing-gear behavior, NACA TN 2755, Washington D C.
James N D, (1996) A Method for Landing Gear Modeling and Simulation with Experimental validation, NASA Contractor Report 201601, June 1996.
Edward B, Abhinav S, Sriram N, Indranil R, and Kai G, (2011) Experimental Validation of a Prognostic Health Management System for Electro-Mechanical Actuators, Infotech@Aerospace, 29-31 March 2011, AIAA 2011-1518.
Kai Goebel, George Vachtsevanos and Marcos E. Orchard, in Chapter 4: Prognostics of Integrated Vehicle Health Management the Technology, 2013 SAE international ISBN 978-0-7680-7952-4, edited by Ian K. Jennions.
Eker O F, Camci F, and Jennions I K (2012) Major Challenges in Prognostics: Study on Benchmarking Prognostics Datasets, European Conference of Prognostics and Health Management Society 2012.
J. Lee, Fangji Wu, Wenyu Zhao, Masoud Ghaffari, Linxia Liao, David Siegel (2013), Prognostics and health management design for rotary machinery systems — Reviews, methodology and applications, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. ymssp.2013.06.004.
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 25, Airworthiness Standards Transport Category Airplanes, May 2009 Edition.
Krishna Lok Singh, Pulak Chakrabarti, Satish Chandra, Report on Computation of NLG and MLG Landing Loads, NCAD/DQ-04/0005/2012, 21March 2012.
Cai-Jun X, Yu H, Wen-Gang Q, and Jian-Hua D, (2012) Landing-Gear Drop-Test Rig Development and Application for Light Airplanes, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 49, No. 6, November-December 2012, DOI: 10.2514/1.C031913
Krishna Lok S and Abdul Waheed A (2014), Stress and Fatigue Damage Computation of a Nose Landing Gear, Int. J. Fracture & Damage Mechanics 1-10, Journal Pub, vol. 2 Issue 1.
Technical Papers