Mass-spring-damper system "shock absorber"

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the equations of motion for a mass-spring-damper system with specific parameters: mass (m) of 1 kg, spring constants (k1 = 10, k2 = 25), damping coefficient (b = 3), and gravitational acceleration (g = 9.81 m/s²). The equations presented are m\ddot{y} = -k_2 y + k_1 (q-y) + mg and b\dot{q} = -k_1(q-y). The user encountered difficulties modeling the system in Simulink, particularly in understanding the equilibrium state when spring constants are set to zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mass-spring-damper systems
  • Familiarity with Newton's second law of motion
  • Basic knowledge of Simulink for modeling dynamic systems
  • Concept of equilibrium in mechanical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore Simulink modeling techniques for mass-spring-damper systems
  • Study the effects of varying spring constants on system behavior
  • Learn about equilibrium states in mechanical systems
  • Investigate the impact of damping on oscillatory motion
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, physics students, and anyone involved in dynamic system modeling or control systems analysis will benefit from this discussion.

vaitus
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find equations of motion for mechanical system given by picture, where m = 1kg, k1 = 10, k2 = 25, b = 3 and natural lengths of springs are a1 = 1m, a2 = 2m. The whole system is in a gravitational field g = 9.81m/s^2

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I came up with
m\ddot{y} = -k_2 y + k_1 (q-y) + mg \\<br /> b\dot{q} = -k_1(q-y)<br />
but whenever I try to model it in simulink it doesn't seem right.
 

Attachments

  • Smj0.png
    Smj0.png
    99 KB · Views: 522
Physics news on Phys.org
vaitus said:
it doesn't seem right
In what respect ?

Anyway, you can check what you get for k1=0 and for k2=0
 
When I let k1=k2=0 the mass will just keep falling, which is ok (second picture). But when k1, k2 is what it should be then (second pic), I would guess they shouldn't have an equilibrium state at the same place.

EDIT: Oh, It should be this way because it isn't the position but it's displacement and when it doesn't have mass (the q) then it should be this.
Ok, anyway thanks
 

Attachments

  • first.png
    first.png
    8.1 KB · Views: 528
  • second.png
    second.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 497
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K