ME 206 Statics and Dynamics Group 1

Experiment 2
Rotating Frames of Reference

Group Members:
Aarav Shah (22110004)
Abhijit Venkat (22110008)
Abhinav Singh Yadav (22110011)
Aditya Prasad (22110018)
Objective

The main aim of this experiment is to exhibit and quantitatively measure all the terms on
the RHS of the following expressions:

( ) ( )
→ →
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵 → →
𝑑𝑡
= 𝑑𝑡
+ Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

( ) ( ) ( )
→ 2 → →
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵 𝑑 𝑟𝐴𝐵 → → → 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵 → → →
𝑑
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
= 2 + Ω̇ × 𝑟𝐴𝐵 + 2Ω × 𝑑𝑡
+ Ω × (Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵)
𝑑𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

These expressions relate the velocities and accelerations of any particle with respect to
rotating frames and fixed frames of reference. By performing this experiment, we can verify
the expression and compare the analytical results with experimental values.

Rationality and Real-Life Applications

This experiment helps in getting a basic understanding of rotating frames of reference and
how to make meaningful measurements. In this particular experiment, we can
quantitatively measure the various terms on the RHS of the expressions and understand
the Coriolis component of acceleration. The Coriolis component is just one such example.
We can also observe the path traced by the particle with respect to the rotational frame
and differentiate it from stationary frames of reference.

This concept is mainly used in space missions as the Earth is a rotating Frame of reference.
Additionally, this concept also explains the Coriolis Effect, which is a natural phenomenon
that causes circulating air to deflect toward the right in the Northern Hemisphere and
toward the left in the Southern Hemisphere due to the Earth’s rotation.

There are many more applications of these concepts in Engineering problems as well, as a
rotating frame of reference is a special case of a Non-inertial Frame of reference.

2
Our Model

We decided to break the problem down to its fundamentals. Firstly, a rotating frame is
required, which we decided to make out of a 3 mm Acrylic sheet. The radius of the
frame/disc is 15 cm, and a 2 cm hole was Laser cut into the disc to accommodate the ball
bearing.

Next, we attached the assembly to a stationary axis and base. We marked the base with the
fixed axis to assist with the calculations.

Now, we needed a particle that moved along a straight line with respect to the fixed frame
of reference. We chose a Table Tennis ball to be our particle, which moved with a constant
velocity. We mounted two 30 cm scales to make the ball follow a straight path and also to
measure the velocity with respect to the ground. The final setup looked like this

𝐹𝑖𝑔. 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙

3
First Principles Approach

Our primary approach was to take a video of the experiment, break it down frame by
frame, and analyze the sequence of snapshots. The first principles we used are as follows:

→
In our experiment 𝑂𝐵 is 0, or point B coincides with the Origin O. Since the frame is rotating
and the Particle is moving in a straight line with respect to the ground, the x and y
coordinates of the position of the particle with respect to the rotating frame change from 𝑥'
^
to 𝑥'’ to 𝑥'’’ in time intervals of ∆𝑡, and similarly for the 𝑗 component in each step.

^ ^ ^ ^
Here 𝑖 , 𝑗 are the basis vectors of the rotating frame of reference, and 𝐼 , 𝐽 are the basis
vectors for the fixed frame of reference. From the image above, we can see how the
position vector is defined with respect to the fixed and rotating frames of references.

→
The frame was rotated by hand, and it rotates with an angular velocity Ω, which was
calculated using two simultaneous snapshots and measuring the respective angular
displacements by the following approximation:

4
 θ𝑖+1 −θ𝑖
Ω𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑥 = ∆𝑡

Where θ𝑖+1 is the angular displacement of the i+1th frame measured from the fixed

reference, and θ𝑖 is the angular displacement of the ith frame measured from the fixed

reference.

→
In our experiment, Ω was almost constant for the time duration of the measurement. Since
the ball bearing was quite smooth, the effects of friction and angular deceleration were
ignored (Only for the time period of the measurement, which was short enough for such
approximations).

The video was shot at 60 frames per second (fps) and, therefore, ∆𝑡 is equal to
1
60
𝑠 = 0. 0167𝑠. The images used for initial calculations were:

𝑓𝑖𝑔1. 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠 1, 2, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 3 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

5
MATLAB was used to make the interactive measurements. From the above images, we can
◦ ◦ ◦
see that θ1 = 60 , θ2 = 66 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 θ3 = 72 .

Now, we can find the angular velocities at the 2nd and 3rd positions using the above-defined
expression. If we say that the angular velocity at the 2nd position is Ω2 and at the 3rd position

is Ω3

θ2−θ1 ◦ ◦
66 − 60 ◦ 𝑟𝑎𝑑
Ω2 = ∆𝑡
= 1 = 360 /𝑠 = 6. 28 𝑠
60

θ3−θ2 ◦ ◦
72 − 66 ◦ 𝑟𝑎𝑑
Ω3 = ∆𝑡
= 1 = 360 /𝑠 = 6. 28 𝑠
60

𝑟𝑎𝑑
Clearly, Ω2 = Ω3 , we can say that Ω2 = constant = Ω = 6. 28 𝑠

→ ^
Also, Ω = − 6. 28 𝑘

→
Therefore, Ω˙ = 0, since Ω is constant.

Now, moving on to the displacements with respect to the stationary and rotating axes, we
get the following.

𝑓𝑖𝑔 2. 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑤. 𝑟. 𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 2

6
 𝑓𝑖𝑔 3. 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑤. 𝑟. 𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 3

𝑋1 = 232. 54 𝑚𝑚, 𝑌1 = − 230. 01 𝑚𝑚

𝑋2 = 232. 54 𝑚𝑚, 𝑌1 = − 243. 01 𝑚𝑚

𝑋3 = 232. 54 𝑚𝑚, 𝑌3 = − 256. 01 𝑚𝑚

The above values are the coordinates of the position of the ball at points 1, 2, and 3
respectively with respect to the stationary frame of reference. The below values are the
coordinates of the position of the ball at points 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with respect to the
rotating frame of Reference.

𝑥1 = 327. 59 𝑚𝑚, 𝑦1 = 79. 15 𝑚𝑚

𝑥2 = 323. 85 𝑚𝑚, 𝑦1 = 109. 68 𝑚𝑚

𝑥3 = 321. 97 𝑚𝑚, 𝑦3 = 155. 02 𝑚𝑚

→ ^ ^
𝑟𝐴𝐵(1) = 232. 54 𝐼 − 230. 01 𝐽

7
 → ^ ^
𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) = 232. 54 𝐼 − 243. 01 𝐽

→ ^ ^
𝑟𝐴𝐵(3) = 232. 54 𝐼 − 256. 01 𝐽

Similarly, for the position vectors with respect to the rotating frame of reference

→
(
𝑟𝐴𝐵(1) )
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
= 327. 59 𝑖 + 79. 15 𝑗
^ ^

→
(𝑟 )𝐴𝐵(2)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
= 323. 85 𝑖 + 109. 68 𝑗
^ ^

→
(𝑟 )𝐴𝐵(3)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
= 321. 97 𝑖 + 155. 02 𝑗
^ ^

Our aim is to measure all the terms when the ball is at position 2. Therefore, we first find
the velocity of the ball with respect to the ground. For that, we use

→ →
→ 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) − 𝑟𝐴𝐵(1) ^ ^ ^ ^
232.54 𝐼 − 243.01 𝐽 − 232.54 𝐼 − 230.01 𝐽 ^
𝑉2 = ∆𝑡
= ∆𝑡
= 780 𝐽

→ →
→ 𝑟𝐴𝐵(3) − 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ^ ^ ^ ^
232.54 𝐼 − 256.01 𝐽 − 232.54 𝐼 − 243.01 𝐽 ^
𝑉3 = ∆𝑡
= ∆𝑡
= 780 𝐽

→ → ^
We can clearly see that 𝑉2 = 𝑉3 . Therefore, acceleration along 𝐽 is 0. Now we move on to

find the velocity of the ball with respect to the rotating frame. For that, we use

→ →
→ (𝑟 ) (
− 𝑟𝐴𝐵(1) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

(𝑉 ) 2
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
𝐴𝐵(2)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
∆𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
323.85 𝑖 + 109.68 𝑗 − 327.59 𝑖 + 79.15 𝑗
∆𝑡
=
^ ^
− 224. 4 𝑖 + 1831. 8 𝑗

→ →
→ (𝑟 ) (
− 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

( ) 𝑉3
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
𝐴𝐵(3)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
∆𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
321.97 𝑖 + 155.02 𝑗 − 323.85 𝑖 + 109.68 𝑗
∆𝑡
=
^
− 112. 8 𝑖 + 2720. 4 𝑗
^

Now, we finally reach the part where we substitute the values into the first expression.

( ) ( )
→ →
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) → →
𝑑𝑡
= 𝑑𝑡
+ Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

8
( )
→
→ → →
( )
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)
𝑑𝑡
= 𝑉2 + Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙

→ → ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵 = − 6. 28 𝑘 × (323. 85 𝑖 + 109. 68 𝑗 ) = 688. 79 𝑖 − 2033. 78 𝑗

( )
→
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ^ ^ →
𝑑𝑡
= 464. 39 𝑖 − 201. 93 𝑗 = 𝑉2(𝐸𝑥𝑝)
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙

→ ^
We know that the actual velocity with respect to the ground frame is 𝑉
2
= 780 𝐽.

Comparing the magnitudes of the experimental and analytical values, we get:

→ 𝑚𝑚 → 𝑚𝑚
|𝑉2| = 780 𝑠
, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 |𝑉2(𝐸𝑥𝑝)| = 506. 39 𝑠

As we can see from the results, the experimental value of velocity is quite deviated from the
analytical magnitude. We will discuss the reasons for this deviation later in the report.
Moving on to the next expression, we have to experimentally find the acceleration at the
2nd position.

( ) ( ) ( )
→ → →
𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)
2
𝑑 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) → → → 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) → → →
𝑑
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
= 2 + Ω̇ × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) + 2Ω × 𝑑𝑡
+ Ω × (Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2))
𝑑𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

We know that the LHS equates to 0, because the acceleration of the ball with respect to the
→
stationary frame is 0. Also, Ω̇ is 0 because Ω = Ω .
2 3

→ →
Therefore, Ω̇ × 𝑟 = 0.
𝐴𝐵(2)

( )
→
→ 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ^ → ^ ^
2Ω × 𝑑𝑡
= − 12. 56 𝑘 × 𝑉2(𝐸𝑥𝑝) = − 2536 𝑖 − 5832. 72 𝑗
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

→ → → ^ ^
Ω × (Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)) = − 12772 𝑖 − 40325 𝑗

9
 → →
(𝑉 ) ( )
( )
→
2
𝑑 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) → − 𝑉2
3
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 ^ ^
2 = 𝑎𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧(2)(𝐸𝑥𝑝) = ∆𝑡
= 6696 𝑖 + 53316 𝑗
𝑑𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

Adding up all the terms, we get the following on the RHS

( )
→
𝑑 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ^ ^
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
= − 8612 𝑖 + 7159 𝑗
𝐸𝑥𝑝

Taking the Magnitude of the experimental result, we get

→ 𝑚𝑚
|𝑎2| = 11199. 01 2
𝑠

𝑚𝑚
Whereas actual acceleration of the ball with respect to the ground is 0 2 . We can observe
𝑠

quite a lot of errors here as well. Discussion on errors and deviations will be done in the
next section.

Results

The terms on the RHS of the first expression measured quantitatively are:

→ → ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵 = − 6. 28 𝑘 × (323. 85 𝑖 + 109. 68 𝑗 ) = 688. 79 𝑖 − 2033. 78 𝑗

→ →
→ (𝑟 ) (
− 𝑟𝐴𝐵(1) ) ^ ^ ^ ^

( )
𝑉2
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
𝐴𝐵(2)
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
∆𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧
=
323.85 𝑖 + 109.68 𝑗 − 327.59 𝑖 + 79.15 𝑗
∆𝑡
=
^ ^
− 224. 4 𝑖 + 1831. 8 𝑗

The terms on the RHS of the second expression measured quantitatively are:

→ →
(𝑉 ) ( )
( )
→
2
𝑑 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) → − 𝑉2
3
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧 ^ ^
2 = 𝑎𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧(2)(𝐸𝑥𝑝) = ∆𝑡
= 6696 𝑖 + 53316 𝑗
𝑑𝑡
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

→ →
Ω̇ × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) = 0

( )
→
→ 𝑑𝑟𝐴𝐵(2) ^ → ^ ^
2Ω × 𝑑𝑡
= − 12. 56 𝑘 × 𝑉2(𝐸𝑥𝑝) = − 2536 𝑖 − 5832. 72 𝑗
𝐵𝑥𝑦𝑧

10
→ → → ^ ^
Ω × (Ω × 𝑟𝐴𝐵(2)) = − 12772 𝑖 − 40325 𝑗

Errors and Deviations from Analytical Results

There can be a few causes of error in this particular setup using the tools to measure the
terms of the expressions quantitatively. The error in the first term is

→ →
|𝑉2(𝐸𝑥𝑝)| − |𝑉2|
ε1 = | → | × 100% = 35. 07%
|𝑉2|

● As we can clearly see, the error is very large, and there can be a few causes for this
error. The first one could be due to an error in measurement. The software we used
(MATLAB) did not scale the distances perfectly, and this must have caused errors in
measuring the position vectors, thus propagating the error across all terms of the
expression.
● The second possible cause of error could be due to the setup itself. The setup
consisted of various parts mounted at different heights. This could’ve caused the
software to make errors in measuring the true values.
● The third cause of error could be our assumptions of the angular velocity and
velocity of the particle with respect to the ground to be constant. Even though the
instantaneous accelerations could be calculated to be zero, it could have been any
other value.
● The fourth possible cause of error could lie in the method of evaluation of the terms
itself. The way we used the definitions of the derivatives of vectors could consist of
some hidden errors.
● Another error that has to be included is the time interval ∆𝑡. Since the derivative is
an instantaneous ratio, it is desirable to have ∆𝑡 as small as possible.

The most important learning from this experiment is to identify the errors and try to
minimize them using logical and meaningful mathematical methods. Also, this experiment
gives us an insight into the true concept behind rotational frames of references and the
equations that govern these laws. We would like to thank Prof. K.R Jayprakash for letting us
work on such an experiment through the course.

11