Acceleration regards F=ma

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter paulb203
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Newton's second law (F=ma) in the context of a car colliding with a wall. Participants explore whether the car's acceleration prior to impact affects the force calculation during the collision, considering both constant velocity and acceleration scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the initial state of the car (accelerating or at constant velocity) may not be relevant for calculating the force at impact, focusing instead on the final velocity and the time to stop.
  • Others argue that if the car is accelerating towards the wall, the net force acting on the car must be considered, especially if that force continues during the collision.
  • A participant provides a mathematical example for two cars, Car A and Car B, calculating the required acceleration and force during the collision, raising questions about the consistency of variable naming and the implications of prior acceleration.
  • There is a discussion about the average collision force required for both cars, with one participant noting the unrealistic nature of needing different forces for the two scenarios.
  • Participants correct each other on the mass used in calculations, indicating a need for clarity in the parameters being discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on whether the prior acceleration of the car is relevant to the force calculation during the collision. Multiple competing views remain regarding the impact of prior acceleration and the implications for force calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the assumptions made in their calculations, particularly about the forces involved during the collision and the definitions of variables used in their equations.

paulb203
Messages
196
Reaction score
76
TL;DR
When calculating the acceleration of a car driving into a wall in order to calculate the force via F=ma, does it matter whether the car was accelerating or not prior to impact?
I'm thinking it's irrelevant, whether the car was driving at a constant velocity, or accelerating, prior to impact, as I'm thinking the v and u that matter for the F=ma calculation are; the v of 0m/s once the car has come to a stop, and the v of that on impact. But I'm not sure.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
paulb203 said:
TL;DR Summary: When calculating the acceleration of a car driving into a wall in order to calculate the force via F=ma, does it matter whether the car was accelerating or not prior to impact?

I'm thinking it's irrelevant, whether the car was driving at a constant velocity, or accelerating, prior to impact, as I'm thinking the v and u that matter for the F=ma calculation are; the v of 0m/s once the car has come to a stop, and the v of that on impact. But I'm not sure.
If the car is accelerating towards the wall, then there must be a net force on the car towards the wall. If that forces vanishes the instant the car hits the wall, then it does not affect the collision. If, however, it continues during the collision, then it does affect the contact force. An example is a vertical pile-driver, where the weight of the pile-driver is significant in terms of the force it exerts. I.e. the force of gravity affcets the collision in addition to the speed of the pile-driver on impact.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: john1954, paulb203 and sophiecentaur
I agree with the above, however it is also likely that the car's acceleration towards the wall is a small fraction of the deceleration of the impact. So for most purposes it can probably be ignored.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: paulb203 and PeroK
russ_watters said:
...celebration of the impact.
Like watching the destruction derby event at the county fair: the crowd goes wild!
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: paulb203 and russ_watters
renormalize said:
Like watching the destruction derby event at the county fair: the crowd goes wild!
Autocorrect fail fixed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: paulb203
Thanks, guys.

I’ll try an example.

Car A

Mass; 1000kg

Constant v; 15m/s

Time(from hitting the wall to stopping); 0.1s

Q. To establish the acceleration for the F=ma calculation do I do;

A=(v-u)/t

A=(0m/s-15m/s)/t

A= -15/0.1

A= -150m/s/s ?

**

Car B

Mass; 1000kg

A= 5m/s/s

V on impact; 15m/s

Time (from hitting the wall to stopping); 0.1s

Q. To establish the acceleration for the F=ma calculation for Car B do I do the same as I did for Car A;

A=(v-u)/t

A=(0m/s-15m/s)/t

A= -15/0.1

A= -150m/s/s ?
 
paulb203 said:
Car A

Mass; 1000kg

Constant v; 15m/s

Time(from hitting the wall to stopping); 0.1s

Q. To establish the acceleration for the F=ma calculation do I do;

A=(v-u)/t

A=(0m/s-15m/s)/t

A= -15/0.1

A= -150m/s/s ?
Yes. To come to a stop in 0.1 seconds from an initial velocity of 15 m/s requires an average acceleration of -150 m/s/s.

We can compute the required average collision force as ##F_\text{collision} = mA_\text{collision} = 5000 \times -150 = -750000## N
paulb203 said:
Car B

Mass; 1000kg

A= 5m/s/s

V on impact; 15m/s

Time (from hitting the wall to stopping); 0.1s

Q. To establish the acceleration for the F=ma calculation for Car B do I do the same as I did for Car A;

A=(v-u)/t
You are going to confuse yourself if you use the same variable name "A" to denote both the acceleration rate during the collision and the acceleration rate prior to the collision.

Let us use ##A_\text{prior}## to denote the prior acceleration rate.

This means that someone is applying a forward force of ##F_\text{prior} = mA_\text{prior} = 5000 \times 5 = 25000## N prior to and during the collision.

paulb203 said:
A=(0m/s-15m/s)/t

A= -15/0.1

A= -150m/s/s ?
The required acceleration is the same. But what average collision force is now required to achieve that acceleration?

The net force is still going to be -750000 N, But with the engine still running and the tires still spinning and providing 25000 N of forward force, the collision will need to produce -775000 N of retarding force to result in the same net force and, consequently, the same deceleration profile.

This is somewhat unrealistic. How would the wall know that it needs to produce more force against car B than against car A?

The collision time is in the right ball park. Assuming constant deceleration, we have an average speed of 7.5 m/s during a collision of 0.1 s duration. So about 75 centimeters of crush.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and paulb203
jbriggs444 said:
Yes. To come to a stop in 0.1 seconds from an initial velocity of 15 m/s requires an average acceleration of -150 m/s/s.

We can compute the required average collision force as ##F_\text{collision} = mA_\text{collision} = 5000 \times -150 = -750000## N

You are going to confuse yourself if you use the same variable name "A" to denote both the acceleration rate during the collision and the acceleration rate prior to the collision.

Let us use ##A_\text{prior}## to denote the prior acceleration rate.

This means that someone is applying a forward force of ##F_\text{prior} = mA_\text{prior} = 5000 \times 5 = 25000## N prior to and during the collision.


The required acceleration is the same. But what average collision force is now required to achieve that acceleration?

The net force is still going to be -750000 N, But with the engine still running and the tires still spinning and providing 25000 N of forward force, the collision will need to produce -775000 N of retarding force to result in the same net force and, consequently, the same deceleration profile.

This is somewhat unrealistic. How would the wall know that it needs to produce more force against car B than against car A?

The collision time is in the right ball park. Assuming constant deceleration, we have an average speed of 7.5 m/s during a collision of 0.1 s duration. So about 75 centimeters of crush.
Thanks.
For Car A I had -150,000N of F, but I think you've put 5000kg in for the mass instead of 1000kg.
 
paulb203 said:
Thanks.
For Car A I had -150,000N of F, but I think you've put 5000kg in for the mass instead of 1000kg.
Yes, sorry.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: paulb203

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K