Question about Lagrangean dynamics(inertia matrix)

  • Thread starter Thread starter supernova1387
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
AI Thread Summary
In a three-degree-of-freedom system, the user is concerned about the inconsistency in units within their equation of motion, specifically regarding the inertia matrix, which includes both angular and linear variables. Despite having different units for the variables, it is acceptable to maintain a consistent and symmetric inertia matrix. The discussion references the formulation of mass and stiffness in cantilever beams as a relevant example where mixed units are handled properly. The user acknowledges that this issue arises in systems with both rotational and translational degrees of freedom. Overall, the consensus is that the equations can remain valid despite the unit differences, as long as the matrices are symmetric.
supernova1387
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I have a 3 degree of freedom system and my equation of motion is like this:

M(q)q_dd + C(q,q_d)q_d+G(q)=0

M(q): inertia matrix
C(q,q_d): Coriolis-centrifugal matrix
G(q): potential matrix.

where q_d is the first derivative of q etc and q is a vector of my variables.

q=[θ,γ,a]T

"θ" and "γ" are angles in (rad) and "a" is length in (m).

Now my question is this: I have 3 equations with 3 unknowns but 2 variables are in terms of angles and 1 in terms of distance, so the elements of my inertia matrix don't have the same units. Is that wrong? I mean each equation is consistent in units. The first 2 have units of kg(m/s)^2 while the 3rd has units of kg(m/s^2). I can make the whole thing dimensionless but I read somewhere that the inertia matrix should be symmetric(which it is symmetric at the moment). If I make my equation of motion dimensionless then inertia matrix won't be symmetric anymore. What shall I do?

Any suggestions are welcome

:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's perfectly OK to have variables in different units. Just go with the consistent and symmetric matrices.

If you want to see a fully worked out example of this sort of thing, Google for the the formulation for the mass and stiffness of a cantilever beam with displacement and rotation variables at each end. You should be able to find it worked out both by "mechanics of materials" and Lagrangian methods, and of course both will give the same matrices if all the other assumptions about the system are the same.
 
AlephZero said:
It's perfectly OK to have variables in different units. Just go with the consistent and symmetric matrices.

If you want to see a fully worked out example of this sort of thing, Google for the the formulation for the mass and stiffness of a cantilever beam with displacement and rotation variables at each end. You should be able to find it worked out both by "mechanics of materials" and Lagrangian methods, and of course both will give the same matrices if all the other assumptions about the system are the same.

Thank you for your reply. I think this will happen whenever one variable is measuring displacement while the other is measuring rotation even for 2 DOF systems.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top