A wheel rolls down a flat inclined surface

alefisico
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
1. A wheel rolls down a flat inclined surface that makes an angle $\alpha$ with the horizontal. The wheel is constrained so that its plane is always perpendicular to the inclined plane, but it may rotate about the axis normal to the surface. Obtain the solution for two-dimensional motion of the wheel, using Lagrange's equations and the method of undetermined multipliers.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



The kinetic energy has two components in a two dimensional motion:
\begin{equation}
T = T_{trans} + T_{rot} = \frac{m \dot x^2}{2} + \frac{m r^2 \dot \theta^2}{2} \label{eq:301}
\end{equation}
and the potential energy:
\begin{equation}
V = mg y = mg x \sin \alpha \label{eq:302}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the Lagrangian is given by:
\begin{equation}
L = \frac{m \dot x^2}{2} + \frac{m r^2 \dot \theta^2}{2} - -mg x \sin \alpha \label{eq:303}
\end{equation}
The Lagrange's equations and the method of undefined multipliers use the relation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q} \right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = \lambda_q \frac{\partial f}{\partial q} \label{eq:304
}
\end{equation}
Applying this in the Lagrangian :
\begin{equation} m \ddot x - mg \sin \alpha = \lambda_x \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} m r^2 \ddot \theta = \lambda_\theta \frac{\partial f}{\partial \theta} \end{equation}

where the constrain equation is $r \theta = x$ and therefore $f = r \theta - x = 0$. Then:
\begin{equation} m \ddot x - mg \sin \alpha = - \lambda \end{equation}
\begin{equation} m r^2 \ddot \theta = r \lambda \end{equation}
\begin{equation} m r \ddot \theta = \lambda \end{equation}
But, from the constrain we can found: $r \ddot \theta = \ddot x$. Then,
\begin{equation} \lambda = \frac{mg \sin \alpha}{2} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \ddot x = \frac{mg \sin \alpha}{2} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \ddot \theta = \frac{mg \sin \alpha}{2r} \end{equation}
The general solution for the equation of motion are:
\begin{equation} x(t) = \frac{1}{4} g t^2 \sin \alpha + At + B \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \theta(t) = \frac{1}{4r} g t^2 \sin \alpha + Ct + D \end{equation}
where $A,B,C,D$ are constants.

Apparently it is not the right answer. What am I doing wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, alefisico!

I guess there was some kind of mishmash. So, the Lagrange's equations are $$\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q} \right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = 0.$$ These equations can be solved very simply without any "undetermined multipliers" which used when we try to find conditional extremums in non-linear programming theory.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes wrobel
In the answer, is \ddot{\theta}=\frac{2g\sin{\alpha}}{3r}?
 
hi alefisico! welcome to pf! :smile:

just wanted to say that on this forum you don't need to type all those "\begin{equation}"s etc …

just type [noparse]$$ before and after
(or ## before and after for inline-tex)[/noparse] :wink:
 
GregoryS said:
Hi, alefisico!

I guess there was some kind of mishmash. So, the Lagrange's equations are $$\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot q} \right) - \frac{\partial L}{\partial q} = 0.$$ These equations can be solved very simply without any "undetermined multipliers" which used when we try to find conditional extremums in non-linear programming theory.

Those are the Lagrange equations in the absence of constraints.

Where there are constraints as in this problem, you need the method of Lagrange multipliers.

See, e.g., Goldstein Chapter 2.
 
Last edited:
Albertodominguez3731 said:
Those are the Lagrange equations in the absence of constraints.

Where there are nonholonomic constraints in this case, you need the method of Lagrange multipliers. See, e.g., Goldstein Chapter 2.
:welcome:

This thread is nine years old, which is when the original poster was last seen!
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
I posted for the benefit of anybody who might come across this page (like myself) and be confused by Gregory's incorrect observation. As far as the OP, I assume he finished his classical mechanics class (successfully or otherwise) and moved on.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian and berkeman
The error in the OP's solution is that he is considering only one rotation angle. That simpler problem is actually solved by Goldstein in section 2.4, pp. 49-51 (2nd edition).

The wording in this problem is intended to allow rotation on two different axes.

See the attached figure below for the definition of the coordinates for this problem.
516.png
 
  • Like
Likes Hamiltonian
For a correct solution to this problem and for a correct narration on nonholonomic mechanics as a whole
I would also recommend Nonholonomic Mechanics and Control (Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics) (Anthony Bloch, et al)
and [Greenwood_D.T.]_Classical_dynamics
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
Back
Top