How to Apply Rotation Constraints in a Linkage System Equation of Motion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around applying rotation constraints in the equations of motion for a two-dimensional one-bar linkage system. Participants explore the implications of a linkage that can only rotate between 0 and 180 degrees, addressing both the mathematical formulation and the physical behavior of the system upon impact with a wall.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to apply the constraint of limiting rotation to 180 degrees in the equations of motion, expressing concern that the animation suggests free rotation.
  • Another participant asserts that while the equations of motion cannot inherently include the constraint, it is valid to restrict the analysis to the interval 0 ≤ theta ≤ pi after solving the equations.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the equations of motion once the bar impacts the wall, suggesting that a different equation must be used post-impact.
  • A participant describes their method of deriving the equations of motion using numerical methods and software, seeking advice on handling the conditions when theta exceeds pi.
  • Discussion includes the need for an impact equation at theta = pi, which introduces new conditions for the motion of the bar.
  • One participant expresses a preference for practical solutions over mathematical approaches, suggesting a physical modification to the system instead of relying solely on equations.
  • Another participant emphasizes that there is only one equation of motion applicable regardless of the sign of theta-dot, but it does not apply at the moment of impact, necessitating a change in initial conditions for continued analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the equations of motion cannot directly incorporate the rotation constraint, and that different conditions must be considered at the moment of impact. However, there is no consensus on the best method to handle these conditions or the appropriateness of using Lagrangian methods in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the equations of motion developed prior to impact become invalid upon impact, requiring a new approach to describe the motion accurately. There are unresolved questions regarding the application of mathematical methods such as Lagrangian multipliers in this scenario.

Ortafux
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Untitled.jpg


Hi guys! I have a question on applying constraint on Linkage systems. Assumed that there is a two dimensional one-bar linkage, one end can only rotate and one end is free (Such as the figure above, please neglect the damper-spring system if you want).
This link can rotate only 180 degrees, not 360 degrees. But when I solve the equations of motion of this system, the animation shows that the system can rotate freely 360 degrees.
I want to know that how it is possible to apply this constraint (rotating only between 0 degree and 180 degrees) in the equation of motion of this link ?
Is it correct to solve the equation of motion and in the end, only consider the value between 0 degree and 180 degrees?!

I would be grateful if you could help me with this problem.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
There is no way to include the constrain in equation of motion. Assuming that you have correctly solved the equation of motion, it is certainly legitimate to only look at the interval 0<=theta<=pi.

You speak of the animation as though it was something that happened automatically. How did you solve the equation of motion.

By the way, the equation of motion that you would have developed for the motion before the bar hits the wall is no longer valid once the bar does hit the wall. Thus, if you want to be really fussy about the mathematics, you need to substitute a completely different equation of motion for theta>pi.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ortafux
Dr.D said:
There is no way to include the constrain in equation of motion. Assuming that you have correctly solved the equation of motion, it is certainly legitimate to only look at the interval 0<=theta<=pi.

You speak of the animation as though it was something that happened automatically. How did you solve the equation of motion.

By the way, the equation of motion that you would have developed for the motion before the bar hits the wall is no longer valid once the bar does hit the wall. Thus, if you want to be really fussy about the mathematics, you need to substitute a completely different equation of motion for theta>pi.

First of all thank you for your help.
you asked about the way I have solved the equation of motion. I firstly derived the non-linear EOM (Equation Of Motion) and then using numerical methods (like runge-kutta method), got the results and time response (Theta Vs. Time). finally using mathematical softwares ( such as MATHEMATICA) and derived EOM, I plotted the animation of this system.

Do you have any idea to use any equation for Theta>pi ?
 
When theta = pi, the equation of motion used for theta<=0 ceases to apply.

At theta = pi, you have to write an impact equation, describing the event of impacting the wall. This will result in a new set of conditions, with theta-dot < 0, and you can then describe the downward swing of the bar until it strikes another constraint.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ortafux
OldEngr63 said:
When theta = pi, the equation of motion used for theta<=0 ceases to apply.

At theta = pi, you have to write an impact equation, describing the event of impacting the wall. This will result in a new set of conditions, with theta-dot < 0, and you can then describe the downward swing of the bar until it strikes another constraint.

Thank you for your reply.

You mean I have to derive the EOM first, after that consider theta-dot < 0 for impact conditions ?! How is it possible to combine this constraint using Lagrangian method ( Or even Lagrangian multiplier method for constraints) ?
 
This is why I prefer Vise-Grips and hammers over math when designing things. Just weld a backstrap to the fulcrum above the pivot point on the side opposite your desired arc. When the bar hits it, it ain't going any farther.
By the way, whatever "C" is, you do know that it's not going to experience a straight downward force, right? The connecting rod will just bind or push it sideways.
I know that isn't what you asked about, but it's all that I can determine from the sketch.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ortafux
Actually, there is only one equation of motion, that applies no matter what the sign of theta-dot is. The difficulty is that this equation of motion does not apply at the instant of impact. Thus,
(1) the first solution must be stopped at the instant of impact,
(2) the impact description must be processed to produce new initial conditions,
(3) the same ODE solution is then continued, but with the new initial conditions.

For get Lagrange multipliers, etc. That is just spinning your wheels on this problem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ortafux
OldEngr63 said:
Actually, there is only one equation of motion, that applies no matter what the sign of theta-dot is. The difficulty is that this equation of motion does not apply at the instant of impact. Thus,
(1) the first solution must be stopped at the instant of impact,
(2) the impact description must be processed to produce new initial conditions,
(3) the same ODE solution is then continued, but with the new initial conditions.

For get Lagrange multipliers, etc. That is just spinning your wheels on this problem.

That's a great approach for this problem. Thank you so much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K