Steve Goddard

Contents

Topic Page
Uniform Acceleration 2
Mechanical Energy Transfer 3
Oscillating Mechanical Systems 6
Bibliography 13

Page 1 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Engineering Science – Assignment 2

Dynamic Engineering Systems

Uniform Acceleration

1. A mechanical drive is used to make large containers along an external

conveyor system. The containers are accelerated uniformly to a speed of
40km/h over a distance of 60m. The speed is then maintained constant
for 2 minutes and the containers brought to rest. If the acceleration is
three times the deceleration, determine:

1.1 The total distance travelled by each container

I worked out the total distance by firstly working out how many meters per minute
you can do in 40KM/h.
40000
= 666 .666 M
60

I then multiplied this by two to get the distance travelled in 2 minutes, 1333.33M.

For the deceleration I multiplied the distance It takes to accelerate to 40KM/h by

3.

60 x 3 = 180

I then added them all together to get the total distance travelled:

60 + 180 + 1333.33 = 1573.33 Meters

1.2 The total time taken

Firstly I worked out the time it took to accelerate to 40km/h in 60m.

I calculated that 60m in 40km/h is equivalent to 11.111m per second.

Therefore it takes 5.4 seconds for 60m if the speed is 40km/h constantly so I
multiplied this by two to get the time it would take for the container to accelerate
to 40km/h from 0.

So t1 = 10 .8 seconds

t 2 = 2 Minutes =120 seconds

Seeing the deceleration was 3 times slower than t1 I calculated t 3 = t1 × 3 = 32 .4

seconds

I then took the total of all the times to get the total time taken

t total = 10 .8 +120 + 32 .4 = 163 .2 Seconds

Page 2 of 13
 Steve Goddard

1.3 The retardation force for a single container of mass 1.75te

1.75 te =1.75 ×10 3 Kg

Using Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion FR = ma and the equation of motion

v 2 = u 2 + 2as

F R = ma

v 2 = u 2 + 2as

0 =11 .111 2
+ 2 ×a ×180

∴123 .45 = 360 a

a = 0.343

FR = (1.75 ×10 3 ) ×0.343 = 600 .125 N

Mechanical Energy Transfer

2. Using Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion FR = ma and the equation of motion

v 2 = u 2 + 2as , show that kinetic energy, KE = 1 mv2
2
Firstly we know that Mass is a constant and Force = Mass x Acceleration

F=ma

Distance (S) can be added to this equation so that it becomes an energy

Fs = mas which is equal to the equation of motion

v 2 = u 2 + 2as

Initial velocity u 2 is assumed to be 0 so

v2
v 2 = 2as → = as → 1 v 2 = as
2 2
1 v 2 = as Is the same as 1 
Fa = mas 
→ Fs = m v 2 
2 2 

1 
∴ Fs = m v 2  or Fs = mas
2 

Ke = 1 mv 2 or Ke = mas
2
3. An aircraft sits on a runway ready for take-off. It has 1.4m diameter
wheels and accelerates uniformly from rest to 225km/hr (which is take–
off velocity) in 40s.
Determine:

3.1 The angular acceleration of the undercarriage wheels

Page 3 of 13
 Steve Goddard

So firstly I have the initial velocity and the final velocity:

vi = 0 v f = 62 .5m / s

Using the transformation equation for velocity:

62 .5
v = rω So ωi = 0 and ω f = = 89 .29 rad / s
0.7
The angular acceleration can be found by using the equation ω f = ωi + αt
Rearranging that equation to make α the subject:

ωf 89 .29
= ωi + α = = 2.232 rad / s 2
t 40

3.2 The number of revolutions made by each wheel during the take-off
run

Using the equation θ = 1 (ω i + ω f )t

2

θ = 1 ( 0 + 89.29) 40 = 1785.8 rads

2
So the number of revolutions turned through by each wheel is:

1785 .8
= 284 .2 Revs
2π

3.3 The torque exerted on each wheel if the mass is 85kg and the
effective radius of gyration is 45cm

Using the equations:

T = Iα Torque = Moment of inertia X Angular Acceleration

I = mr 2 Moment of inertia = mass X radius of gyration 2

So:

( )
I = 85 kg × 0.45 2 =17 .212

T = Iα =17 .212 ×2.232 = 38 .382 Nm

4. A solid wheel starts from rest at the top of a slope. The slope is 3m
long and at an angle of 20° to the horizontal. If the radius of gyration of
the wheel (k) is given by:

Page 4 of 13
 Steve Goddard

r
k= , where r is the radius of the wheel, calculate the linear velocity
2
of the wheel at the bottom of the slope, stating any assumptions that
you have made.

PE 1 + KE 1 + RE 1 = PE 2 + KE 2 + RE 2

1 1
mgh + 0 + 0 = 0 + mv 2 + Iϖ 2
2 2

1 1
mgh = mv 2 + Iϖ 2
2 2

r
Moment of inertia (I) = mk² Radius of gyration of the wheel K =
2
mr 2 v
So I = and ϖ =
2 r

1 1 mr 2 v 2
∴ mgh = mv 2 + .
2 2 2 r2

1 2 1 v2
gh = v +
2 2 2

3m
h

20°

h = Sin 20 x 3 = 1.026

3v 2
9.81 x1.026 =
4

(10 .07 ) = v2 Assumptions that I have made are

3 = 13.43 that there is no friction or air
4 resistance, and that the wheel does
not skid. (There are no losses and
= 3.66m/s the system is efficient)
∴v = 13 .43

Page 5 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Oscillating Mechanical Systems

5. The movement of a particular piston of mass 0.25kg may be modeled

with simple harmonic.

5.1 Given that its acceleration is 12 m s 2 when 8cm from the mid
position, find the period for the motion

x = A cos θ

Where A is the amplitude of the oscillation. Since θ = ωt then:

x = A cos ωt [1]

Linear velocity v at some instant is the rate of change of displacement dx/dt and
thus, differentiating the equation above [1] gives:

v = Aω sin ωt [2]

The linear acceleration a at an instant is the rare of change of velocity dv/dt and
thus differentiating equation 2 gives:

a = ω 2 A cos ωt [3]

Looking back to equation 2, equation 3 can also be written as:

a = −ω 2 x = −(2πf ) 2 x

2πf = a
x

So f = 12 ÷ 2π = 1.949
0.08

Period = 1 =1 = 0.513
f 1.949

Further, if the amplitude is 11cm:

5.2 Find the velocity

ω = 2πf = 2π1.949 =12 .247

v = ω A 2 − x 2 =12 .247 (0.11 2 − 0.08 2 )

v = 0.925

5.3 And Kinetic energy

Since I know that V = −ω A 2 − x 2

Page 6 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Thus Kenetic Energy is:

KE = 1 mv 2 = 1 mω 2 ( A 2 − x 2 )
2 2

( )
= 1 0.25 × 12.247 2 0.112 − 0.08 2 = 0.107 NM −1
2

6. A 2.5kg mass, when attached to the lower end of vertical, helical

spring, causes it to extend by 20mm. Determine the period of vertical
oscillation of the mass/spring system.

F = −kx When k = Spring Stiffness and F is proportional to -x

The motion is simple harmonic because F is proportional to –x.

The magnitude of the force per unit displaced is k and thus, using the equation:

mass 1 force per unit displaceme nt

T = 2π Or f =
force per unit displaceme nt 2π mass

Then:

1 k
f =
2π m

mg 2.5 ×9.81
Spring stiffness is calculated by ∆L = 0.02
=1226 .25

1 1226 .25
Therefore f = = 3.524
2π 2 .5

Period = 1 f = 0.284

7. Discuss the effect of forced vibration, resonance and damping (or lack
of it) on suspension bridges by researching at least one historical
instance. Your report should include the sequences of events and a
description of the contribution that each event to the final outcome.

I am going to concentrate my research on the Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge

Page 7 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Introduction

The original Tacoma Narrows Bridge was opened to traffic on July 1, 1940. It was
located in Washington State, near Puget Sound.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was the third-longest suspension bridge in the United
States at the time, with a length of 5939 feet including approaches. Its
two supporting towers were 425 feet high. The towers were 2800 feet
apart.

Design

Prior to this time, most bridge designs were based on trusses, arches, and
cantilevers to support heavy freight trains. Automobiles were obviously
much lighter. Suspension bridges were both more elegant and
economical than railway bridges so the suspension design became
favoured for automobile traffic. Unfortunately, engineers did not fully
understand the forces acting upon bridges. Neither did they understand
the response of the suspension bridge design to these poorly
understood forces.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built with shallow plate girders instead of the
deep stiffening trusses of railway bridges. The wind could pass through
trusses. But plate girders, on the other hand, present an obstacle to the
wind.

As a result of its design, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge experienced rolling

undulations which were driven by the wind. It thus acquired the
nickname "Galloping Gertie."

Failure

Strong winds caused the bridge to collapse on November 7, 1940. Initially, 35 mile
per hour winds excited the bridge's transverse vibration mode, with an
amplitude of 1.5 feet. This motion lasted 3 hours.

The wind then increased to 42 miles per hour. In addition, a support cable at mid-
span snapped, resulting in an unbalanced loading condition. The bridge
response thus changed to a 0.2 Hz torsional vibration mode, with an
amplitude up to 28 feet. The torsional mode is shown in Figures 1a and
1b.

Figure 1a & 1b. Torsional Mode of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge

The torsional mode shape was such that the bridge was effectively divided into
two halves. The two halves vibrated out-of-phase with one another. In

Page 8 of 13
 Steve Goddard

other words, one half rotated clockwise, while the other rotated counter-
clockwise. The two half spans then alternate polarities.
One explanation of this is the "law of minimum energy." A suspension
bridge may either twist as a whole or divide into half spans with
opposite rotations. Nature prefers the two half-span option since this
requires less wind energy.

The dividing line between the two half spans is called the "nodal line." Ideally, no
rotation occurs along this line.

The bridge collapsed during the excitation of this torsional mode. Specifically, a
600 foot length of the centre span broke loose from the suspenders and
fell a distance of 190 feet into the cold waters below. The failure is
shown in Figures 2a and 2b.

Figure 2a & 2b. Failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge

Failure Theories

Candidates

The fundamental weakness of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was its extreme
flexibility, both vertically and in torsion. This weakness was due to the
shallowness of the stiffening girders and the narrowness of the
roadway, relative to its span length.

Engineers still debate the exact cause of its collapse, however. Three theories are:

1. Random turbulence
2. Periodic vortex shedding
3. Aerodynamic instability (negative damping)

These theories are taken from Reference 1. Aerodynamic instability is the leading
candidate.

Random Turbulence

An early theory was that the wind pressure simply excited the natural frequencies
of the bridge. This condition is called "resonance." The problem with this
theory is that resonance is a very precise phenomenon, requiring the
driving force frequency to be at, or near, one of the system's natural
frequencies in order to produce large oscillations. The turbulent wind
pressure, however, would have varied randomly with time. Thus,

Page 9 of 13
 Steve Goddard

turbulence would seem unlikely to have driven the observed steady

oscillation of the bridge.

Vortex Shedding

Theodore von Karman, a famous aeronautical engineer, was convinced that

vortex shedding drove the bridge oscillations. A diagram of vortex
shedding around a spherical body is shown in Figure 3. Von Karman
showed that blunt bodies such as bridge decks could also shed periodic
vortices in their wakes.

A problem with this theory is that the natural vortex shedding frequency was
calculated to be 1 Hz. This frequency is also called the "Strouhal
frequency." The torsional mode frequency, however, was 0.2 Hz. This
frequency was observed by Professor F. B. Farquharson, who witnessed
the collapse of the bridge. The calculated vortex shedding frequency
was five times higher than the torsional frequency. It was thus too high
to have excited the torsional mode frequency.

In addition to "von Karman" vortex shedding, a flutter-like pattern of vortices may

have formed at a frequency coincident with the torsional oscillation
mode. Whether these flutter vortices were a cause or an effect of the
twisting motion is unclear.

Figure 3. Vortex Shedding around a Spherical Body

Aerodynamic Instability

Aerodynamic instability is a self-excited vibration. In this case, the alternating

force that sustains the motion is created or controlled by the motion
itself. The alternating force disappears when the motion disappears.
This phenomenon is also modelled as free vibration with negative
damping.

Airfoil flutter and transmission line galloping are related examples of this
instability.

The following scenario shows

how aerodynamic
instability may have
caused the Tacoma

Page 10 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Narrows Bridge to fail. For simplicity, consider the motion of only one
span half.

Assume that the wind direction was not perfectly horizontal, perhaps striking the
bridge span from below, as shown in Figure 4a.

Thus, the bridge is initially

at an angle-of-
attack with
respect to the
wind.
Aerodynamic lift is
generated
because the
pressure below
the span is
greater than the
pressure above.
This lift force
effectively places a torque, or moment, on the bridge. The span then
begins to twist clockwise as show in Figure 4b. Specifically, the
windward edge rotates upward while the leeward edge rotates
downward.

The span has rotational stiffness, however. Thus, elastic strain energy
builds up as the span rotates. Eventually, the stiffness moment
overcomes the moment from the lift force. The span then reverses its
course, now rotating counter-clockwise

The span's angular momentum will not allow it to simply return to its initial rest
position, however. The reason is that there is little or no energy
dissipation mechanism. Thus, the span overshoots its initial rest
position. In fact, it overshoots to the extent that the wind now strikes
the span from above as
shown in Figure 4c. The
wind's lift force now
effectively places a
counter-clockwise
moment on the span.

Once again, strain energy builds

up in the span material.
Eventually, the stiffness
moment exceeds the
moment from the
wind's lift force. The
span thus reverse
course, now rotating
clockwise. Again, it overshoots its rest position. The cycle of oscillation
begins anew from the position shown in Figure 4a, except that the span
now has rotational velocity as it passes through the original rest
position.

The cycles of oscillation continue in a repetitive manner.

Note that the wind force varies as a function of the span angle during the cycle.
The wind force may also vary with the angular velocity. The wind force
is not a function of time, however.

Page 11 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Eventually, one of two failure modes occurs. One possibility is that the span
experiences fatigue failure due to an excessive number of stress
reversals. The other is that the angular displacement increased in an
unstable manner until the material is stressed beyond its yield point,
and then beyond its ultimate stress limit.

In reality, these two failure modes are interrelated. For example, accumulated
fatigue effectively lowers the yield and ultimate stress limits.
Regardless, the bridge collapses.

As a final note, the aerodynamic instability oscillation is not a resonant oscillation

since the wind does not have a forcing frequency at, or near, the
bridge's torsional mode frequency. Some physics and engineering
textbooks mistakenly cite the Tacoma Narrows Bridge as an example of
resonance. Nevertheless, the bridge's collapse remains the most well-
know structural failure due to vibration.

Replacement Bridge

A new Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built in 1950, as shown in Figure 5. The
second bridge had truss-girders which allowed the winds to pass
through. It also had increased torsional stiffness because it was thicker
and wider. Furthermore, wind tunnel testing was performed to verify the
design of the new bridge prior to its construction.

Figure 5. The Replacement Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Built in 1950

Page 12 of 13
 Steve Goddard

Bibliography

Higher Engineering Science – W. Bolton

Course Notes – Roger Macey

Tacoma Bridge – Wikipedia

Tacoma Bridge – Google

Page 13 of 13