Dierential Equations Coursework - Aeroplane Landing

piguy.org
March 14th, 2014

Contents
1 Introduction

2 Simplifying and Setting up the Model

2.1 Assumptions Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Relevance of Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 Establishing Dierential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2
2
3
3

3 Manipulating the Model

3.1 Solving the Dierential Equations . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Choosing the parameters of the DE . . . . . . . .
3.3 Particular Solutions to the Dierential Equations
3.4 Predictions Produced from Equations . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

4
4
4
5
5

4 Verifying the Model

4.1 Collecting the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6
6
6

5 Comparison of Predictions and Data

5.1 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Variations of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7
7
7

6 Revision of the Model

6.1 Ammendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Establishing New Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8
8
8

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

EX

A
M

PL
E

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

7 Assesment and Conclusions

9
7.1 Solving the New Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2 Conclusion Comparing New Predictions and Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3 Recommending minimum runway length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Introduction

The task, Aeroplane Landing, requires the modelling of the velocity of a landing aeroplane from the
time it touches down to coming to a rest in the following situation:
An aeroplane of mass 120,000kg comes in to land at a runway. After touchdown it initially
slows down from air resistance. When it has slowed down enough this is augmented by a
constant force from the wheel brakes.
We are to investigate a suitable mathematical model using Dierential Equations to explain the nature
of the forces acting on the aeroplane during these 26 seconds.
The task has already provided us with data for the velocity each second from 0 to 26 to aid with the
modelling cycle, which will be discussed later in order to test our models. (see Verifying the Model )

Simplifying and Setting up the Model

2.1

Assumptions Made

There are a number of assumptions made in the model, listed in descending order of relative importance:

PL
E

1. The aerodynamics of the plane do not change. That is, the plane does not deploy any flaps,
ailerons or elevators during landing. This is the most signficant since it has a direct consequence
for the air resistance experienced by the plane.
2. The aeroplane acts as a point. This simplifies the complex aerodynamics and drag by suggesting
that we can consider the plane as a single point at its centre of mass rather than as a whole body.

A
M

3. There is no wind speed on the ground. We dont know if there is any wind going against
the plane - which would act against motion and contribute to its deceleration, or with the plane,
which would work against deceleration. However we dont know what the conditions are, so it is
best to assume there is no headwind - which in reality is unlikely.
4. The runway is completely level. Even with very small slopes, the component of the 120,000g
weight would still be very large in magnitude to be able to aect the deceleration largely.

EX

5. The landing is smooth. If the landing was rough, it would cause the normal reaction force to
vary as the plane landed, which would aect friction and hence the constant braking force.
6. The surface of the runway is uniform. Since were considering a constant braking force, it
doesnt matter exactly what the surface is, so long as it doesnt change - in reality there could be
debris or oil on sections which aect the coefficient, though it would be minor.
7. The landing is completely straight. If the plane were to be turning while landing, it would
increase the friction of the tires and we would need to consider the force needed to change the
direction component of its velocity.
8. The fuel burnt during landing is negligible. This would mean that the mass of the plane
decreased, hence its inertia and resistance to deceleration decreased. However in 26 seconds, the
fuel burnt will be a tiny proportion of its 120,000kg mass.
9. The weather conditions do not change. This would eect the surface of the runway, wind
speeds (see assumptions 2 & 5) as well as possibily the density of air, which would aect air
resistance, however any changes to the weather within 26 seconds would be very minimal.
10. Relativistic eects are negligible. Even at the maximum velocity of 96m/s, it is very small in
comparison to the speed of light, 3 108 m/s, so changes to mass and the eect of time dilation
would be incredibly small, infact it is likley immeasurable.

2.2

Relevance of Assumptions

From our assumptions #2, #3 and #4, we can establish a model of the forces:

The first case is before the braking force is applied; the second model adds this force. Since assumptions
1 & 2 simplify the aerodynamics of the plane to be considered a single point, we note that the drag
force due to air resistance, Fdrag / v, where v is the velocity of the aeroplane. From the rest of our
assumptions, we can just take a constant of proportionality without worrying about additional constants
needing to be added, so Fdrag = kv.

2.3

PL
E

Also since the mass is not changing from assumptions 7 and 10, we can also use the special case of
Newtons Second Law, that F = ma, rather than F = d(mv)
dt .

Establishing Dierential Equations

A
M

We consider the model in two cases; without and with the braking force.

Case 1 Plane initially lands, with only air resistance providing deceleration force.

Fnet = ma

EX

=)

Fdrag = m

dv
dt

=) m

dv
=
dt

Fdrag

Fbraking = m

kv

(1)

Case 2 Braking force is applied.

=)

=) m

dv
=
dt

kv

FB

dv
dt
(2)

3
3.1

Manipulating the Model

Solving the Dierential Equations

We can solve this first order dierential equation using the seperation of varibles:
dv
=
dt

kv

1
dv =
v

=)

=) ln|v| =

k
dt
m

k
t+c
m

(3)

We can use integrating factors to solve our second dierential equation:

dv
= kv
dt
dv
k
+ v=
dt
m

FB

PL
E

FB

Multiplying both sides of the equation by the integrating factor, R = e

k

em

kt k
dv
+ em v =
dt
m

e m FB

d kt
em v =
dt

e m FB

kt

=) e m v =

EX

=) v = ce

3.2

, where P (t) =

k
m

kt

kt

e m FB dt

k
FB
m

kt

=) e m v =

P (t) dt

kt

A
M

=)

k
mt

kt

em + c

k
FB
m

(4)

Choosing the parameters of the DE

We need to identify the initial conditions of the dierential equations to get particular solutions. From
the data given (see section 4), we know the motion is split into before and after the brakes are applied.
From section 4.2, we decided that this occured at t = 10, so our initial conditions are:
case 1 - t = 0, v = 96m/s; t = 9, v = 55m/s
case 2 - t = 10, v = 50m/s; t = 26, v = 0m/s
However these intial conditions can vary, since the data we are given is to the closest integer value, thus
there is an error of 0.5 for all points used. For instance in case one, the upper bound t = 0, v = 96.5m/s
and t = 8.5, v = 55.5m/s, giving a percentage error of (0.5/9 + 0.5/55) 100% = 6.4%
4

3.3

Particular Solutions to the Dierential Equations

For equation (3), we know that at t = 0, v = 96m/s; also at t = 9, v = 55m/s. Thus we obtain
simulaneous equations:
k
9+c
m

ln|96| = c , ln|55| =

Hence we obtain the particular solution that c = ln96 and that

v = exp (ln96

k
m

= ln( 55
96 )/9, giving:

0.06189t)

(5)

k
For equation (4) modelling the velocity after the brakes have been applied, we now know that m
=
55
ln( 96 )/9 as well as our parameters that when t = 26, v = 0m/s; also at t = 10, v = 50m/s. Thus we
obtain simulaneous equations:

ln

55
96

55
96

FB
= c.exp
9

FB
= c.exp
9

Hence we obtain the particular solution that c =

3.4

ln

ln

55
96

55
96

26
9

10
9

50

15.915 and that FB = 1285.4, giving:

15.915e0.06189t

(6)

A
M

v = 79.55

PL
E

ln

Predictions Produced from Equations

0
96

1
90

t (s)
v (m/s)

10
50

11
48

2
85

3
80

4
75

5
70

EX

t (s)
v (m/s)

100

12
46

13
44

14
42

15
39

6
66

7
62

8
59

9
55

16
37

17
34

18
31

19
28

20
25

21
21

22
17

23
14

24
9

25
5

26
0

speed (m/s)

80

60

40

20

10

12

14

time (s)

16

18

20

22

24

26

4
4.1

Verifying the Model

Collecting the data

We have already been supplied with the times and velocities of the aeroplane with the task. As discussed
in 3.2, there is quite a large amount of uncertainty in the data, since we are given it to the closest integer
value, thus there is an error of 0.5 for all points used. For instance in case one, the upper bound t = 0,
v = 96.5m/s and t = 8.5, v = 55.5m/s, giving a percentage error of (0.5/9 + 0.5/55) 100% = 6.4%

4.2

The Data

The following table of results gives the speed v, t seconds after touch down:

100
90

PL
E

80

60
50

A
M

speed (m/s)

70

40

20
10
0

EX

30

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

time (s)

t (s)
v (m/s)

0
96

1
89

2
82

3
77

4
72

5
68

6
64

7
61

8
58

9
55

t (s)
v (m/s)

10
50

11
48

12
46

13
44

14
42

15
39

16
37

17
34

18
31

19
28

20
25

21
21

22
17

23
14

24
9

25
5

26
0

Clearly we observe a dierence in the gradient of the curve between t = 9 and t = 10 seconds, which
indicates that this was the point at which the braking force was applied since the rate of deceleration
increases after t = 10. Since we do not know specifically at which point between 9 and 10 the plane
started to brake, we can only assume that at t = 10 is the inital point at which the model for braking
force begins.
6

5
5.1

Comparison of Predictions and Data

Comparison
100
90
80

speed (m/s)

70
60
50

PL
E

40
30
20

A
M

10

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

time (s)

t (s)
vactual (m/s)
vpredicted (m/s)

5.2

0
96
96

1
89
90

2
82
85

10
50
50

11
46
48

12
41
46

3
77
80

4
72
75

5
68
70

6
64
66

7
61
62

8
58
59

9
55
55

13
38
44

14
34
42

15
31
39

16
27
37

17
24
34

18
21
31

19
18
28

EX

t (s)
vactual (m/s)
vpredicted (m/s)

20
16
25

21
13
21

22
10
17

23
8
14

24
5
9

25
3
5

26
0
0

Variations of Parameters

Our initial model clearly doesnt fit very well at all with the recorded data we were given, particularly in
the latter part of the motion when the braking force was also applied, although the earlier part for the
first 9 seconds fits within the standard error bounds of the data we were given, since our initial parameters
could vary 6.4%. However later predicted data falls well out of range with the actual velocities, seen in
the table:
t (s)
change in v
max change

0
0
6

1
1
6

2
3
5

3
3
5

4
3
5

5
2
5

6
2
4

7
2
4

8
1
4

9
0
4

t (s)
change in v
max change

6
6.1

10
0
4

11
2
3

12
5
3

13
6
2

14
8
2

15
7
2

16
10
2

17
10
1

18
10
1

19
10
1

20
9
1

21
8
1

22
7
1

23
6
0

24
4
0

25
2
0

26
0
0

Revision of the Model

Ammendments

We could improve on the model, which has been seen to be not quite perfect, by relaxing one of our
significant simplyfying assumptions given in 2.1.
We can relax assumption #2, that the plane acts as a single point in space. If we consider it to occupy
space in three dimensions, this alters our original drag equation, as now air resistance acts at a crosssectional area, A, of the plane, rather than a single point.
So now in time, t, the plane covers a distance:
s = vt
Hence the volume of air, V , that it covers is
V = Avt
this means that:

PL
E

Since =

m
V ,

m = V = Avt

Also since the air is at rest (assumption #3) but is then accelerated to the velocity of the plane, v when
it hits the plane, then by Newtons second law:
v
v
=
t
t
Avtv
= ma =
= Av 2 = kv 2
t
aair =

A
M

=) Fdrag

So we will ammend our new model to suppose that Fdrag = kv 2 , rather than our ealier assumption that
there was a linear relationship: Fdrag = kv.

Establishing New Equations

EX

6.2

We consider the model in two cases; without and with the braking force.
Case 1 Plane initially lands, with only air resistance providing deceleration force.

Fnet = ma
=)

Fdrag = m

=) m

dv
=
dt

dv
dt

kv 2

(7)

Case 2 Braking force is applied.

Fdrag
=) m

Fbraking = m
dv
=
dt

kv 2

dv
dt

FB

(8)

7
7.1

Assesment and Conclusions

Solving the New Equations

We can solve equation (7) using normal separation of variables:

m
Z

=)

=)

dv
=
dt

kv 2

1
dv =
v2

1
=
v

k
dt
m

k
t+c
m

1
k
= t+c
v
m

=)

(9)

1
= 8.628 10
v

t + 0.01042

A
M

We now need to solve the other dierential equation:

PL
E

we know that at t = 0, v = 96m/s; also at t = 9, v = 55m/s. After solving the simultaneous equations
we get that k/m = 8.628 10 4 , and the particular solution:

dv
=
dt

1
dv =
2
kv + FB

EX

=)

=)

=)

where d =

1
k

kv 2

(10)

FB
Z

1
dv =
2
v + FkB

1
dt
m
Z

1
dt
m

v kt
1
arctan
=
+c
d
d
m

FB
k

We know that at t = 26, v = 0m/s, thus we see that c =

0.0224328.

To solve the remaining equation for FB , we will make use of the Newton-Raphson iteration for the
remaining simultaneous equation which occurs when t = 10, v = 50m/s:
=)

1
arctan
d

50
d

0.0138048 = 0

Letting the following:

1
arctan
d

f (d) =

f 0 (d) =

1
d

50
d

0.0138048

1
1 + 250
d2

dn
55
54.08357391
54.07701615
54.07139768
54.06497906
54.06491852
54.06491852
54.06491852
54.06491852
54.06491852
54.06491852

A
M

n
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

PL
E

The root is near d = 55, so subsituting values for f (d) and f 0 (d) into the Newton-Raphson iteration
dn+1 = dn f (dn )/f 0 (dn ) gives:

EX

Resulting in our final solution that:

v = 54.065tan(1.2128

7.2

0.04665t)

(11)

Conclusion Comparing New Predictions and Data

The new data much more closely matches with our expected results, in fact the graph shows them almost
indistinguishable from each other.
The data sets are below:
t (s)
vactual (m/s)
vpredicted (m/s)

0
96
96

1
89
89

2
82
82

3
77
77

4
72
72

5
68
68

6
64
64

7
61
61

8
58
58

9
55
55

t (s)
vactual (m/s)
vpredicted (m/s)

10
50
50

11
46
48

12
41
41

13
38
38

14
34
34

15
31
31

16
27
27

17
24
24

18
21
21

19
18
18

10

20
16
17

21
13
14

22
10
10

23
8
8

24
5
5

25
3
4

26
0
0

100
90
80

60
50
40
30

PL
E

20
10

10

12

14

time (s)

A
M

EX

speed (m/s)

70

11

16

18

20

22

24

26

7.3

Recommending minimum runway length

The minimum length of the runway for the aeroplane to safely land must be the area under the final
speed / time graph (on page 11).
Our two final equations are:
v0to9.5 =

ds
1
=
dt
0.0008628t + 0.01042

and
v9.5to26 =

ds
= 54.065tan(1.2128
dt

0.04665t)

Hence the distance covered during landing, s is the integral of these velocities.
i) From t=0 to t=9.5:
Z

9.5
0

1
8.628 10

4t

+ 0.01042

dt =

1
8.628 10

9.5
0

8.628 10 4
dt
8.628 10 4 t + 0.01042

PL
E

s1 =

=) s1 = 1209.5ln(0.0008268t + 0.01042)
=

4818.28

A
M
Z

26

54.065tan(1.2128

0.04665t) dt

9.5

1159.9 lnsec(1.2128

EX

=) s2 =

( 5520.19) = 701.9m

ii) For t=9.5 to t=26, we have:

s2 =

9.5

=0

0.04665t)

26
9.5

( 383.9) = 383.9m

Hence the total length used during landing 383.9 + 701.9 = 1085.88m
A sensible recommendation for the minimum runway length would be to round up to 1.1km, considering
the vast number of assumptions about the conditions made initially for our model.

12