Constant jerk motion: acceleration vs. position

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FranzS
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 2K views
FranzS
Messages
99
Reaction score
28
TL;DR
How to find an equation for acceleration vs. position in a constant jerk motion?
Hi PF,

a motion with constant jerk ##j##, i.e. with a constant rate of change of the acceleration with respect to time, should be described by the following equations (hope the variable names are self-explanatory):

$$
\begin{cases}
a = a_0 + j \ t \\
v = v_0 + a_0 \ t + \frac{1}{2} \ j \ t^2 \\
s = s_0 + v_0 \ t + \frac{1}{2} \ a_0 \ t^2 + \frac{1}{6} \ j \ t^3
\end{cases}
$$

I'm interested in deriving an explicit equation for acceleration ##a## with respect to position ##s## as the only independent variable. Jerk ##j## and all initial conditions are to be considered known values.
My guess is that I should set up a differential equation of the type...
$$
\frac{da(s)}{ds}=\frac{da(t)}{dt} \cdot \frac{dt(s)}{ds}
$$
... where ##da(t)/dt=j## by definition, and then integrate both sides.
But that would mean finding ##t(s)## first, and that's solving a cubic equation.

Is my approach correct? Is there any simpler way?
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There's a known formula to solve a cubic. Look it up, write ##t(s)##, and plug that into your first equation. You will get either one or three real solutions. You can safely ignore complex solutions, but if you have multiple real solutions you may have to come up with a way to pick the correct one.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FranzS
Ibix said:
There's a known formula to solve a cubic. Look it up, write ##t(s)##, and plug that into your first equation. You will get either one or three real solutions. You can safely ignore complex solutions, but if you have multiple real solutions you may have to come up with a way to pick the correct one.
How could I not see the direct substitution into the first equation... It seems like I really wanted to re-derive that one as well... My bad. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix