Segway balance question (inverted pendulum)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fizzyfiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balance Pendulum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mechanics of balancing a Segway rider while accelerating on a frictionless plane. Participants explore the role of inertial torque and gravity in maintaining balance, emphasizing that without friction, linear acceleration is impossible. The rider is modeled as a massless rod with a point mass at its end, and the torque due to gravity is calculated as T=M*g*sin(a)*L. The conversation highlights the complexities of deriving the equation of acceleration while considering the moment of inertia of the wheels and the center of mass of the system.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian physics, particularly torque and angular acceleration
  • Familiarity with the concepts of center of mass and moment of inertia
  • Knowledge of basic mechanics related to friction and acceleration
  • Ability to interpret and create diagrams representing physical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of torque and angular acceleration in detail
  • Learn about the dynamics of rigid bodies and their motion
  • Explore the effects of friction in mechanical systems, specifically in balancing scenarios
  • Investigate the mathematical modeling of systems with multiple points of mass
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of balancing systems, particularly in the context of personal transportation devices like Segways.

fizzyfiz
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Summary: Why does segway rider who leans forward when accelerating keep balanced ? Is it because the inertial torque acting on the rider balances the torque created by gravity?

F=-ma
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The accelerating force comes from friction with the ground. That creates a real torque, which could flip the rider over backwards. Leaning forward can use gravity to balance this torque.
 
What if we move along frictionless ground?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhanthomJay
fizzyfiz said:
What if we move along frictionless ground?
You can still balance using the wheels as flywheels, but you cannot accelerate linearly.
 
The thing is , I am obliged to solve a segway problem, which accelerates linearly along frictionless plane. The rider is treated as massles rod with the point mass at its end and I am wondering what is condition that rider does not fall.
 
I moved this thread to a homework forum.

@fizzyfiz , show us your attempt at solving the problem. Then we can see if you went wrong, and hint how to fix it.
 
fizzyfiz said:
I am obliged to solve a segway problem, which accelerates linearly along frictionless plane...
A horizontal plane? You cannot accelerate using wheels on a horizontal frictionless plane.
 
If the plane is frictionless, the Segway (and rider) would not be able to move (as in locomotion) linearly.

On the other hand, if the goal is simply to keep the rider upright, even if the rider leans forward or backward (or is perturbed slightly), that's a different story! 😉

@fizzyfiz, what are your ideas on how the rider can stay balanced [on a friction-less plane], even if he doesn't care about traveling anywhere?

[Edit: Here's a hint: the wheels of a Segway have a decently large radius and a fair amount of mass to them; they're not small, light little things. Why is that?]
 
Last edited:
Okay, here is the thing, the rider accelerates on segway. He leans forward making angle alpha with respect to vertical axes. I know the moment of inertia of axe, wheels and engine combined. I know radius of wheels. The rider might be treated as massless rod with point mass at its end. I know the center of mass of the system and mass of the rider and segway combined. I should omit air resistance and friction. My task is to derive equation of acceleration.
 
  • #10
fizzyfiz said:
Okay, here is the thing, the rider accelerates on segway. He leans forward making angle alpha with respect to vertical axes. I know the moment of inertia of axe, wheels and engine combined. I know radius of wheels. The rider might be treated as massless rod with point mass at its end. I know the center of mass of the system and mass of the rider and segway combined. I should omit air resistance and friction. My task is to derive equation of acceleration.
That sounds like a fair amount of good information for your model. I have to ask though, when you say you are tasked with deriving an equation for "acceleration," do you mean "angular acceleration" of the wheels? [Edit: or are you asked to find the torque between the axel-wheel-engine combination and the rider?]

At this point it would be really helpful if you could provide a diagram [and details of the model] and show us the work you have so far at deriving the equation.

(Per the forum guidelines, you need to show some work before we can offer you help.)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
fizzyfiz said:
I should omit air resistance and friction. My task is to derive equation of acceleration.
Without friction the the linear acceleration is zero. Maybe they just mean rolling resistance.
 
  • #12
Yes I mean rolling friction :). The picture is in polish, so I will translate it. The diagram on the left shows the segway with rider. The one on the right shows the simplification of rider as massless rod attached to segway with point mass at its end.

"środek masy układu"- center of mass of the system
"oś obrotu o"- axis of rotation of wheels named "o"
"śodek masy osoby jadącej pojazdem"- center of mass of person riding the segway
 

Attachments

  • obrazek forum.PNG
    obrazek forum.PNG
    28.4 KB · Views: 507
Last edited:
  • #13
fizzyfiz said:
Yes I mean rolling friction :). The picture is in polish, so I will translate it. The diagram on the left shows the segway with rider. The one on the right shows the simplification of rider as massless rod attached to segway with point mass at its end.

"środek masy układu"- center of mass of the system
"oś obrotu o"- axes of rotation of wheels named "o"
"śodek masy osoby jadącej pojazdem"- center of mass of person riding the segway
Is there a question here?
 
  • #14
In the picture I attached- no, the task is to derive the equation of linear acceleration knowing: M-mass of the person and segway combined, I-moment of inertia of wheels combined, a-angle between vertical line and peson, L the distance of center of mass from the axe of wheel's rotation, R-radius of wheel.
 
  • #15
fizzyfiz said:
In the picture I attached- no, the task is to derive the equation of linear acceleration knowing: M-mass of the person and segway combined, I-moment of inertia of wheels combined, a-angle between vertical line and peson, L the distance of center of mass from the axe of wheel's rotation, R-radius of wheel.
Okay. Let's see what you can do.
 
  • #16
The torque applied to the center of mass due to gravity is equal to

T=M*g*sin(a)*L

The only force which could balance the torque might be inertial force due to accelerating wheels.
Fb=-MA
A-acceleration

cos(a)*Fb*L+T=0
M*g*sin(a)*L - cos(a)*M*A*L=0
A=g*tan(a)

For me it is suspicious and seems to simple. What went wrong?
 
  • #17
fizzyfiz said:
The torque applied to the center of mass due to gravity is equal to

T=M*g*sin(a)*L

The only force which could balance the torque might be inertial force due to accelerating wheels.
Fb=-MA
A-acceleration

cos(a)*Fb*L+T=0
M*g*sin(a)*L - cos(a)*M*A*L=0
A=g*tan(a)

For me it is suspicious and seems to simple. What went wrong?

Wasn't there a difference between the centre of mass of the man and the centre of mass of the system?
 
  • #18
Yes there were
 
  • #19
fizzyfiz said:
Yes there were
Also, I have to guess what ##M, L## are. You don't say what these variables mean.
 
  • #20
They were stated above- L is the distance of center of mass of the system from the axis of rotation of wheels, M is the mass of person and segway combined.
 
  • #21
PeroK said:
Wasn't there a difference between the centre of mass of the man and the centre of mass of the system?
PS wasn't there a complication that you have to take the motion of the wheels into account? The applied force doesn't only generate linear KE but rotational KE of the wheels?
 
  • #22
Yes there was . What does this imply?
 
  • #23
fizzyfiz said:
Yes it does . What does this imply?
It means you have a lot of work to do!

You can calculate the force first. Then deal with linear acceleration after that.
 
  • #24
okay, so what is wrong about my reasoning?
 
  • #25
fizzyfiz said:
They were stated above- L is the distance of center of mass of the system from the axis of rotation of wheels, M is the mass of person and segway combined.

Why are you using ##M## for the torque? It's only the man who is leaning over.
 
  • #26
fizzyfiz said:
okay, so what is wrong about my reasoning?
I think you have ignored all the complicating factors.
 
  • #27
so I should take into account that the center of mass of the man is leaning over and the center of mass of the system is accelerating linearly?
 
  • #28
fizzyfiz said:
so I should take into account that the center of mass of the man is leaning over and the center of mass of the system is accelerating linearly?
Yes, you need ##m## for the mass of the man; the height of the axle (I assume this is the radius of the wheels); the mass and moment of inertia of the wheels.
 
  • #29
Okay, thank you a lot. I will try to solve it with the restrictions and see what I will got.
 
  • #30
fizzyfiz said:
The torque applied to the center of mass due to gravity is equal to

T=M*g*sin(a)*L

The only force which could balance the torque might be inertial force due to accelerating wheels.
Fb=-MA
A-acceleration

cos(a)*Fb*L+T=0
M*g*sin(a)*L - cos(a)*M*A*L=0
A=g*tan(a)

For me it is suspicious and seems to simple. What went wrong?

I've had a proper look at this. Assuming the man is balanced on an axle, then the kinetics of the wheels may be irrelevant. Unless you need to look at contact forces.

If you just want the acceleration of the system, then that must be equal to the acceleration of the man. So, you can simply look at the forces on the man.

That reduces to your answer, although your calculation to get there might not have been quite right!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K