Power required to reach X velocity in X time with drag

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the power required for a car to reach a specific velocity within a given time frame while accounting for drag forces. Participants explore the implications of drag on power calculations and the need for numerical integration methods to achieve accurate results.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial calculation for power needed to accelerate a car without drag, yielding a result of 20,000 W.
  • Another participant suggests that due to the nonlinear nature of drag, averaged values cannot be used, and numerical integration is necessary.
  • A participant proposes using Euler-Integration to simulate the car's acceleration in small time steps to determine the power needed for a specific duration.
  • It is noted that the power contributing to acceleration is not constant and is zero at the start when velocity is zero.
  • Discussion includes the need to consider maximum tractive force based on tire traction, especially at low speeds.
  • One participant provides a complex integral equation to relate power, mass, and velocity, indicating that it is difficult to solve analytically and suggesting numerical methods or series approximations instead.
  • Another participant points out that the drag force should include a constant related to the vehicle's aerodynamics, which was initially omitted for simplicity.
  • There is acknowledgment of the need for further learning and understanding of integration methods among participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of numerical integration to account for drag effects, but there are differing views on the specifics of the calculations and the appropriate methods to use. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact power calculations and integration techniques.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of the integral equations presented, the dependence on specific constants for drag calculations, and the unresolved nature of the mathematical steps required to derive power accurately.

A_User
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I wrote a program that adds force to a car like so:
Engine Force = Power / Velocity
Drag Force = -Velocity²
Net Force = Engine Force - Drag Force = Power / Velocity - Velocity²
I'd like to determine power based on how fast I want a car of a given mass to reach a given speed, for example, 0 to 20 m/s in 10 seconds for a 1000 kg car. Here is the equation I came up with to calculate the power needed without any drag:
Power = Force * Velocity = (Mass * Average Acceleration) * (Displacement / Time)

Using it to solve the example:

Mass = 1000 kg
Time = 10 s
Average Acceleration = 20 / 10 = 2 m/s
Displacement = 0.5 * 2 * 10² = 100 m
Power = (1000 * 2) * (100 / 10) = 20,000 W to go from 0 to 20 m/s in 10 seconds for a 1000 kg car
I'm not sure if that equation is sound but it calculates the power needed in a vacuum perfectly. The problems start when I try to account for drag:

Net Force = Power / Velocity - Speed²
Net Force + Speed² = Power / Velocity
Power = (Net Force + Velocity²) * Velocity
Power = [(Mass * Average Acceleration) + (Displacement / Time)²] * (Displacement / Time) = 21,000 W

This is incorrect. When I run my program with the calculated power, it takes the car ~11.5 s to reach 20 m/s, not 10 s. By trial and error, I determined that the correct value is ~23,500 W.

I've tried all day to find the correct equation with no success. What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A_User said:
What am I doing wrong?
Since the drag is nonlinear you cannot use averaged values. You have to do actual integration (eventually numerically, so it's good that it's a program).
 
A.T. said:
Since the drag is nonlinear you cannot use averaged values. You have to do actual integration (eventually numerically, so it's good that it's a program).
That was my hunch, but I don't know how to go about it, I never learned integrals, much less how to solve them
 
A_User said:
That was my hunch, but I don't know how to go about it, I never learned integrals, much less how to solve them
If you integrate over time numerically, you basically simulate the car in small time steps. The simplest approach for this is Euler-Integration. This gives you the duration to reach a given speed for a given power.

In an outer optimization loop you can then find the power needed for a given duration to reach a given speed. You can use Newton-Method here.

But note that the power that goes into acceleration cannot be constant throughout the acceleration. It's zero when v=0, for example.
 
A.T. said:
If you integrate over time numerically, you basically simulate the car in small time steps. The simplest approach for this is Euler-Integration. This gives you the duration to reach a given speed for a given power.

In an outer optimization loop you can then find the power needed for a given duration to reach a given speed. You can use Newton-Method here.

But note that the power that goes into acceleration cannot be constant throughout the acceleration. It's zero when v=0, for example.
I'll give it a try, thanks
 
When you consider aerodynamics, the acceleration becomes a function of velocity (equation 1b).

You also have to consider the maximum tractive force you can get. You correctly identified the one based on power. But at low speeds - as noted by @A.T. - you will have to consider the one based on tire traction, which can accept less than what the power can provide.

Then you can numerically integrate this way to find the distance traveled and the time taken to do it.

All of this theory is neatly wrapped up in this simulator.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: A_User
If you consider the power of the engine to be constant you would have:
##F=ma=mv'=m\frac{dv}{dt}=P/v-v^2##
##\frac{mv}{P-v^3}dv =dt##
##\int_{0}^{V} \frac{mv}{P-v^3} dv=\int_{0}^{T} dt=T##

This integral is defined, but is a very difficult integral to calculate. The easiest way to solve this problem is to make use computing methods or series.

If you really want to see why the real result you can see here in Wolfram:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=int(m+v/(P-v^3),+v)

That monstrous function is equal to T plus the value of that function in zero, which is ##\frac{-\sqrt{3}m\pi}{18 P^{1/3}} ##
To get P you need to substitute the values of m, v and T and find the root of the below equation for P, which I think is not defined. So, anyway, you will have to make use of approximations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: A_User and jack action
Thank you everyone for your very complete answers, looks like I got a lot of learning to do!
 
jaumzaum said:
If you consider the power of the engine to be constant you would have:
##F=ma=mv'=m\frac{dv}{dt}=P/v-v^2##
##\frac{mv}{P-v^3}dv =dt##
##\int_{0}^{V} \frac{mv}{P-v^3} dv=\int_{0}^{T} dt=T##

This integral is defined, but is a very difficult integral to calculate. The easiest way to solve this problem is to make use computing methods or series.

If you really want to see why the real result you can see here in Wolfram:
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=int(m+v/(P-v^3),+v)

That monstrous function is equal to T plus the value of that function in zero, which is ##\frac{-\sqrt{3}m\pi}{18 P^{1/3}} ##
To get P you need to substitute the values of m, v and T and find the root of the below equation for P, which I think is not defined. So, anyway, you will have to make use of approximations.

Minor nitpick - your V^2 term should have a constant attached to account for the aerodynamics of the vehicle - it will basically be equal to 1/2*frontal area*air density*drag coefficient. Aside from that I agree though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jaumzaum, A_User and jack action
  • #10
I just used OP's equations. In the original equation he used this constant equal to one. but I agree the general formula would have a k in there.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cjl
  • #11
Yes I used a placeholder constant of 1 to make things simpler until I could figure out integration
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K