Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191

Thrust reverser modulationFa tool to command

landing ground run
S.M. Malaek*, J. Parastari
Sharif University of Technology, P.O. Box 11365-8639, Azadi Ave., Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Due to ineciencies and associated cost incurred by taxi-in related delays in a busy airport, a new idea
has been proposed to eciently command and control the landing ground run of medium to heavy
transport aircraft equipped with thrust reversers. The idea is based on the modulation of thrust reversers
installed on the aircraft. To demonstrate the eciency of such a system, the complete equations of motion
as soon as the main gears touch the ground, up until the aircraft comes to a complete stop have been
developed. In addition to the thrust reversers, all eective control mechanisms during the landing process,
such as brakes and spoilers have been included in the mathematical model. By proposing a suitable
denition for an optimum landing ground run and its associated cost function dierent contour plots for
landing ground run vs. optimal control commands have been developed for a typical heavy transport. It is
further shown that a modulated thrust reverser could be an eective tool to command and control the
landing ground run of an aircraft. The results of simulation program for a typical heavy transport, such as
a B-747-100, show a possibility of 12% decrease in the time associated with taxi-in. r2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Recent studies conducted by NASA to explore the cause of delays in the national airspace of
the United States have related a number of causes, one of which is known as airport groundside
congestion [1]. Results show that taxi-in delays are generally constant, and when peaks in taxi-in
delays occur they are related to peaks in departure as well as arrival rates. This could be the result
of inadequate number of taxiways in a typical airport. It is therefore necessary to come-up with
ideas to make better use of the existing taxiways of already available airports. The idea of
commanding the landing ground run of an aircraft, therefore, seems to be an attractive solution
to decrease the taxi-in associated delays. The idea here is to develop a look-up table for each
*Corresponding author.
1369-8869/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 9 - 8 8 6 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 9 - X
Nomenclature
X2Z aircraft longitudinal plane (inertial axes)
m aircraft mass
V aircraft velocity in X2Z plane
u longitudinal speed in body axes
w vertical speed in body axes
y pitch angle
g gravitational acceleration
X
B
longitudinal axis in body frame
Z
B
vertical axis in body frame
Y
B
lateral axis in body frame
F
X
B
external forces in X
B
direction
F
Z
B
external forces in Z
B
direction
F
A
X
B
aerodynamic forces in X
B
direction
F
T
X
B
propulsive forces in X
B
direction
F
G
X
B
landing gear reaction and friction forces in X
B
direction
F
A
Z
B
aerodynamic forces in Z
B
direction
F
T
Z
B
propulsive forces in Z
B
direction
F
G
Z
B
landing gear reaction and friction forces in Z
B
direction
M
Y
B
external pitching moment
M
A
Y
B
aerodynamic pitching moment
M
T
Y
B
propulsive pitching moment
M
G
Y
B
landing gear reaction and friction pitching moment
I
YY
polar moment of inertia about Y
B
a angle of attack, angle between V and X
B
% q dynamic pressure
s wing area
c
D
g
drag coecient under ground eects
c
L
g
lift coecient under ground eects
c
m
g
pitching moment coecient under ground eects
Tt engines thrust
Rt reversing ratio
f
T
thrust line angle with respect toX
B
d
T
thrust pitching moment arm about C:G
d
T
thrust control lever (throttle)
k
T
engine lag dynamic parameter
k
0
T
thrust magnitude parameter
d
R
reverser control lever
a
R
reverser lag dynamic parameter
R
max
reverser eciency parameter
m
m
friction coecient for main landing gear
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 180
individual aircraft to allow the aircraft to stop at a suitable taxiway, knowing the distance between
the point of touchdown and the desired taxiway (Fig. 1).
To develop such a look-up table, one must consider the complexity of the landing phase of an
aircraft. Landing as a terminal ight phase is considered to be one of the most complicated ight
conditions as far as the equations of motion are concerned. During this phase, the aircraft is
supposed to lose its total potential and kinetic energies and come to a complete stop. Based on this
denition, a designer must make sure that enough devices have been implemented on the aircraft
to dissipate its total energy during landing. These devices are normally brakes, spoilers and thrust
reversers, which for convenience are referred as BSR devices in this manuscript. In conventional
Fig. 1. Commanded landing distance. Best Case Scenario: aircraft stops before the closest taxiway; Normal Landing
Procedure: aircraft stops between two available taxiways; Worst Case Scenario: aircraft stops after last taxiway.
m
n
friction coecient for nose landing gear
l
m
horizontal distance between main landing gear and C:G
l
n
horizontal distance between nose landing gear and C:G
d
m
main landing gear equivalent free length
d
n
nose landing gear equivalent free length
k
m
main landing gear equivalent spring parameter
k
n
nose landing gear equivalent spring parameter
c
m
main landing gear equivalent damper parameter
c
n
nose landing gear equivalent damper parameter
f
n
m
1 main gear touchdown
0 else
f
n
n
1 nose gear touchdown
0 else
D
m
main landing gear equivalent spring compression
D
n
nose landing gear equivalent spring compression
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 181
approach to solve the landing problem, a designer is normally concerned with losing the aircraft
total energy in applicable ground and meteorological conditions. The landing phase is assumed
completed as long as there are sucient means to safely dissipate the aircraft total energy.
However, the cost to dissipate a unit amount of energy for any one of the BSR devices, due to
their individual characteristics, are quite dierent and one might need to know which combination
is the most ecient one to use. It is also noticed that the BSR devices do not have the same
function of merit, as they are located in dierent parts of the aircraft, and maintenance and
replacement cost of them are also dierent. Based on this introduction, the optimal landing
ground run could be dened in dierent fashions [2]. However, in this work, our goal is to
decrease the time associated with taxi-in of an aircraft in the landing phase. Therefore, the optimal
ground run here is dened as the landing ight phase and its associated trajectory, during which
the ground run takes place in minimum time with respect to the existing taxiways allowing the
aircraft to clear the main runway in the shortest time possible.
To nd suitable ground run trajectories and its associated control system, one need to have a
complete control on all devices, which contribute in losing aircraft energy during a landing
condition, that is BSR devices. However, brakes are already designed to function at their
optimum point by maximising the kinematics friction [3] and it is of no use to design a controller
for this device. Compared to the aircraft brakes, the spoilers deection angle can easily be
controlled having their C
D
ds
(i.e. drag produced by the spoilers vs. their deection angle) as well as
their maintenance cost as a function of number of deections and angle of each deection. The
last devices to be controlled are the aircraft thrust reversers. As it is known, thrust reversers work
is based on the principle of preservation of linear momentum. A negative thrust is produced by
the propulsion system, which helps to decelerate and stop the aircraft. In a variable pitch propeller
engine, this is done by reversing the pitch angle of the blades and in a jet engine aircraft this could
be achieved by reversing the exhaust jet. To impose any control scheme on these devices, however,
one needs to change their current design characteristics as they are being built as ono devices.
That is, they are either deployed or not. In spite of the facts associated with the current design
practice of thrust reversers, they have the potential to be controlled. For example, in a variable
pitch propeller aircraft, this characteristic is already available if the propeller pitch could be
commanded through a control system. In a jet engine, the actuators, which are used to deploy
each thrust reverser, can be modulated and each position can be commanded through a suitable
control system. Fig. 2 shows the schematic view of a modulated thrust reverser for a jet engine.
To produce a negative thrust from a propulsion system at least two conditions must be satised.
Firstly, there must be enough thrust available that justies the reversing process. Secondly, there
must be a suitable means to control the magnitude of reversed thrust. Controlling the exhaust
nozzle area through controlling the thrust reverser lever can do the latter. Of course, the same line
of reasoning might easily be applied to a variable pitch propeller engine. In such an engine, one
must have a sucient control on the engine RPM and the propellers pitch angle at the same time
[4]. Assuming, such a modication named thrust reverser modulation (TRM)
1
could be done on
existing engines, this manuscript demonstrates the advantages of such a design to eectively
command the landing ground run and to decrease the airport groundside congestion associated
with taxi-in.
1
The modicatin known as TRM is registered at the Sharif University of Technology.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 182
2. Landing ground run equations of motion
Considering the general conguration of Fig. 3, which shows the forces and moments acting on
an aircraft after touchdown and assuming the aircraft remains attached to the ground after
touchdown, the equations of motion during the ground run can be established. Since, we are
interested in the motion in the X2Z plane and to simplify the equations, it is further assumed that
aircraft motion after touchdown is symmetric. That is, no engine failure occurs and friction forces
on both left and right wheels are similar. It is possible to write the equations of motion as follows:
m u w

y mg sin y
X
F
X
B
F
A
X
B
F
T
X
B
F
G
X
B
; 1
m w u

y mg cos y
X
F
Z
B
F
A
Z
B
F
T
Z
B
F
G
Z
B
; 2
I
YY
.
y
X
M
Y
B
M
A
Y
B
M
T
Y
B
M
G
Y
B
: 3
Furthermore, it is assumed that the interaction between aerodynamic and thrust related forces
and moments in the vicinity of the ground and during deployment of the thrust reversers is
negligible. Then, the aerodynamic and propulsive forces and moments are given by
F
A
X
B
F
A
Z
B
M
A
Y
B
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
9
>
>
=
>
>
;
% qs
cos a sin a 0
sin a cos a 0
0 0 % c
2
6
4
3
7
5
c
D
g
c
L
g
c
m
g
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;
; 4
F
T
X
B
F
T
Z
B
M
T
Y
B
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
9
>
>
=
>
>
;
TtRt
cos j
T
sin j
T
d
T
8
>
<
>
:
9
>
=
>
;
: 5
To solve the equations of motion during the ground run, it is necessary to express the forces and
moments in Eqs. (1)(5). These are considered to be the reversing ratio Rt; the thrust force T
and the forces related to the landing gears reactions and the ground friction forces. Obviously, the
Fig. 2. Schematic view of a jet engine equipped with modulated thrust reverser.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 183
magnitude of the thrust force T depends on the dynamical characteristics of the engines. Based
on [5], for a single spool gas turbine, the thrust dynamics can be written as

Tt
1
k
T
k
0
T
d
T
t Tt

: 6
To develop a suitable equation for the reverser dynamics, that is Rt; the thrust reversing ratio of
an engine is dened as the ratio of the reversed thrust to the forward thrust at each position of
the reverser lever. This ratio is zero, while the reverser is not deployed and reaches to its
maximum value R
max
; while the reverser is fully deployed. Therefore, the reverser dynamics can
be expressed as a rst order system as follows [4,6]

Rt a
R
1 Rt 1 R
max
d
R
t : 7
The landing gear reaction (F
G
Z
B
) and the resulting ground friction forces (F
G
Z
B
) have been studied
by many authors [4,7,8] and are usually expressed by a second order standard system as follows
F
G
Z
B
f
m
k
m
D
m
t c
m
w l
m

y

f
n
k
n
D
n
t c
n
w l
n

y

; 8
F
G
X
B
m
m
f
m
k
m
D
m
t c
m
w l
m

y

m
n
f
n
k
n
D
n
t c
n
w l
n

y

; 9
M
G
Y
B
f
m
k
m
D
m
t c
m
w l
m

y

l
m
m
m
d
m
D
m

f
n
k
n
D
n
t c
n
w l
n

y

l
n
m
n
d
n
D
n

:
10
As it is seen, Eqs. (1)(10) are non-linear and no close form solution is known to exist. However,
with the help of commercial software programs such as Maple-V [9] and MatLab [10], these
equations have been numerically solved, and dierent contours to be used to command the
landing ground run for a typical heavy transport have been developed (see Figs 4 and 5).
Fig. 3. Forces acting on an aircraft at touchdown.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 184
3. Ground run cost function and simulation
To develop a look-up table consisting necessary control command histories to be used to
command the landing ground run of an aircraft, one needs an appropriate cost function that leads
to an optimum landing ground run. Therefore, it is needed to dene the optimality as far as the
ground run is concerned. Obviously, an appropriate cost function must consider all the eects that
have to be balanced during a landing phase, such as the strategy in deceleration, passenger
comfort and the maintenance cost of brakes, tyres and other available speed controlling devices
[11]. Our objective, here, is to develop a control strategy to clear the main runway as soon as
possible and at the same time we are interested in the evaluation of the eectiveness of the thrust
reversers as a tool to control the ground run of an aircraft. Therefore, an optimal landing ground
run is dened as a commanded distance during which the aircraft comes to a complete stop in the
Fig. 4. Stop distance contours.
Fig. 5. Stop time contours.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 185
vicinity of an exit (taxiway) in the minimum possible time. This distance is measured from the
point where the aircraft main gears touch the ground (Fig. 1).
It is well known that the formulation of the dened optimisation problem using the calculus of
variation and its associated form of Hamiltonian [12] leads to a two point boundary value
problem (TPBVP), for which the Steepest Descent method is used in this work to nd the
solution. The mathematical detail of the procedure could be found in [4]. Moreover, to nd the
trajectories in the landing phase, forth order RungeKutta integration technique was used to
numerically integrate the equations of motion given by Eqs. (1)(10) [4].
4. Case studies
Using available set of data for a B-747-100 from [11], a systematic search in the domain of
solutions was conducted by giving a set of pre-selected commands for d
T
and d
R
; the results of
which are given in Figs 4 and 5. Fig. 4 shows the resulting contours of commanded stop
distances. As can be seen for each commanded stop distance, the one that satises d
T
d
R
1:0
is the one that is performed in a minimum distance from point of touchdown (i.e. the upper right
point in Fig. 4 which corresponds to a stop distance of 3330 ft). Fig. 5 shows the contours of
commanded stop times, in which for each commanded stop time, the one that satises d
T

d
R
1:0 is the one that is performed in a minimum time since the time of touchdown (i.e. the
upper right point in Fig. 5 which corresponds to a stopping time equal to 32 s). Using Figs. 4 and
5 as a look-up, one can easily select a suitable combination of d
T
and d
R
to stop the aircraft at a
desired distance from point of touchdown.
The assumptions that were used to develop the aforementioned gures are as follows:
(1) Just before the touchdown the thrust is at its idle position and the reverser lever is in its
normal position (i.e. not deployed).
(2) As soon as both main gears of the aircraft touch the ground the spoilers are deployed.
(3) Brakes are not eective while the aircraft speed is above 100 ft/s (i.e. in the mathematical
model, brakes are considered to be eective wherever speed is below 100 ft/s).
(4) The parameter m
m
(friction coecient) is varied linearly between its limits based on the
aircraft speed.
(5) As soon as the aircraft speed reduces to 40 ft/s thrust becomes idle and thrust reverser
becomes uneective (i.e. no further command is given to the throttle or to the reverser).
(6) Maximum reversing ratio would not exceed 0.5.
(7) The actuators for both throttle and reverser commands are fast enough to be accepted as
step commands.
To show how the TRM can be implemented, the same B-747-100 has been examined in a landing
condition at STD sea level. Assuming the total mass of the aircraft is xed, it is desired to stop the
aircraft at 4500 ft from its point of touchdown in the minimum possible time. In addition to the
assumptions (1) through (7), it is expected that in forward thrust d
T
stays below 60% of its
maximum value, and in reversed thrust d
T
stays below 80% of its maximum value. Figs 68 show
the results. As it is noticed, to stop the aircraft in a minimum possible time, the throttle lever is
kept at its maximum. This forces the aircraft to accelerate toward the nal point which is logical,
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 186
because of the fact that we are interested to get to the destination as fast as possible (i.e. minimum
time). However, after approximately 6 s the reverser is being commanded and that is because it is
required to stop the aircraft at the nal point.
An investigation was conducted to see whether any change in the imposed constraints could
result in a dierent solution. Quite a number of dierent strategies could be considered. The one,
Fig. 6. Optimal control trajectories.
Fig. 7. Throttle and thrust trajectories.
Fig. 8. Reverser control and ratio trajectories.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 187
which is presented here, is related to a case where it is desired to stop the aircraft at 4500 ft in the
minimum time without assumption number (5). The results of this simulation are shown in
Figs 911. Comparing the resulted speeds in the two simulations, it is concluded that the rst
strategy to stop the aircraft is more reasonable. That is because at the nal point where the
Fig. 9. Optimal control trajectories.
Fig. 10. Throttle and thrust trajectories.
Fig. 11. Reverser control and ratio trajectories.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 188
aircraft stops at nearly zero thrust is more desirable and saves a considerable amount of energy
and at the same time helps to make a turn into the taxiway. It should be noted that the point
associated with d
T
0:3 and d
R
1:0 is the current normal practice being used for a B-747-100
during landing phase (Figs 4 and 5) [4].
5. Discussion
Two dierent ideas have been presented in this paper, namely, TRM and commanding
landing ground run to decrease taxi-in delays. Although, each of these ideas has the potential to
be discussed separately and in fact they do, however, due to the complexity of todays engineering
systems any new idea needs a considerable amount of justication on the part of its designer.
Therefore, considering the two ideas together is perceived to be more attractive and more
justiable.
As the results of the simulation indicate a heavy transport such as a B-747-100 in a normal
landing, conguration [11] can be stopped roughly in a range between 3330 ft in 32 s (the best case
scenario) and 6200 ft in 57 s (the worst case scenario) from its point of touchdown. In the average
sense, the current practice to stop a B-747-100 in the same conguration has found to be 5000 ft in
46 s [4]. Assuming that we have the necessary means to measure the distance between the aircraft
and all available taxiways, once both main gears of the aircraft has touched the ground, the
following strategy could be used:
(1) In case a taxiway exists somewhere between the two specied limits (i.e. 3330 and 6200 ft),
the pilot can easily select to stop the aircraft at that taxiway and to clear the runway for the
next aircraft.
(2) In case there is no taxiway between the two specied limits, then there is no need to use the
thrust reverser at all. In addition to that we might even think of putting less pressure on
brakes and therefore increase their life (assuming that putting less pressure on spoilers is of
less importance).
Based on Figs 4 and 5, and assuming a taxiway always exist in the vicinity of the lower limit (i.e.
3330 ft from the point of touchdown), then, the associated time of ground run can be improved up
to 24%. This is because the existing practice to stop a B-747-100 (i.e. 46 s) could be decreased to
35 s. Obviously, we are not that fortunate to always have a taxiway close to where it is expected to
be. Therefore, statistical studies are required to evaluate the actual improvement achieved based
on the following:
(1) glide slope limits and variation in the point of touchdown,
(2) landing weight of the aircraft and its speed at the point of touchdown (i.e. its kinetic
energy),
(3) general architecture of the airport and the arrangement of the taxiways,
(4) airport meteorological characteristics and its eects on the thrust,
(5) piloting technique to land a specic type of aircraft.
Considering the number of landings a typical heavy transport might have during its average of
30 yr life [3] in addition to the total number of heavy aircraft ying yearly, it is easily concluded
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 189
that a 50% probability exists to decrease the taxi-in time by 24% or in a general sense
a 12% improvement in the time associated with taxi-in delays. This calculation has
been done based on the assumption that statistically 50% of the time during its life the
aircraft lands in an airport which has a taxiway in the vicinity of the best-case scenario given
above. In cases where a taxiway does not exist between the two limits, there would
be no improvement in the time to clear the runway. However, in this case, no extra
eort is necessary to stop the aircraft and as stated earlier we are encouraged to put less
pressure on brakes. Although, it is hard to evaluate any increase in the life of aircraft brakes
without any solid data on their mechanical behaviour and/or relationship between their life and
their share in dissipated kinetic energy, however, reasonable amount of saving is denitely
achieved.
Dierent case studies conducted by the authors show that TRM as a control tool can
play an important role in controlling the landing ground run of an aircraft. Thrust reverser
modulation is basically a tool that helps to control the rate of energy dissipation during
the ground run and lets designers to think dierent strategies to stop an aircraft after touchdown.
Obviously, an ecient use of thrust reversers means using fewer brakes and that in turn means
less maintenance time and cost. Moreover, existence of such a device on all aircraft would
make us think of a new architecture for the airports. All existing airports have been built
without considering the fact that landing ground run could in fact be commanded. In other
words, location of the existing taxiways in an airport does not correlate with the types of aircraft
that are expected to land at that airport. Authors believe that the time has come to propose the
location of taxiways based on the aircraft type and their ability to command the landing
ground run.
As the nal comment and based on points mentioned earlier, designing a practical control
system to command and control the landing ground run needs elaborate and detailed
studies for each type of aircraft which is always expected when a new control system is involved.
A practical look-up table must consider variation in the landing weight of the aircraft under
consideration including all emergency conditions, the general characteristics of devices such as
brakes and spoilers and other decelerating devices such as speed brakes or parachutes and nally,
the engine performance in the proximity of ground. The ultimate goal is to have a safe control
system that accepts the pilot command to stop the aircraft at a given distance from its point of
touchdown.
References
[1] Lee D. et al. A method for making cross-comparable estimates of the benets of decision support technologies for
air trac management. NASA/CR-1998-208455, July 1998.
[2] Ayoubi MA. Development of an optimal landing control system. M.S. thesis, Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran, 1999.
[3] Roskam J. Airplane design series part I through part VIII. DARCORP, Lawrence, KS, 1998.
[4] Parastari J. Development of an optimal landing control system based on thrust reverser modulation. M.S. Thesis,
Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 1999.
[5] Cohen H, Rogers GFC, Saravanamuttoo HIH. Gas turbine theory. New York: Longman Scientic and Technical,
1996.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 190
[6] Pickerd JC, Hinds CM. Thrust reversers for business jet aircraft, S.A.E., 1967.
[7] Hogg C, Pears P, Self AW, Wilson D. Simulation of taxing aircraft, 1994.
[8] Barns A, Yagar T. Simulation of aircraft behaviour on/or close to the ground. AGARD-AG-285, 1985.
[9] Maple-V Reference Manual, 1999.
[10] Matlab Reference Manual, 1999.
[11] Roskam J. Airplane ight dynamics and automatic ight control. DARCORP, Lawrence, KS, 1998.
[12] Kirk DE. Optimal control theory. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice hall, 1970.
S.M. Malaek, J. Parastari / Aircraft Design 4 (2001) 179191 191