300123

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 30 No 2
On the dynamics of variable

mass systems
F. O. EKE and T. C. MAO, Department of Mechanical and Aero-
nautical Engineering, University of California, One Shields Avenue,
Davis, CA 95616, USA. foeke@ucdavis.edu
Received 10th August 2000
This paper accomplishes two things. It presents a derivation of the equations of motion of
variable mass systems. The method presented here is based on Kanes formalism, and is
complete, efficient, and mathematically rigorousavoiding heuristics and many other pit-
falls of previous attempts at such derivation. The paper also presents a detailed discussion of
the meaning and importance of the various terms of the equations of motion, and the
circumstances under which each term can be neglected. It is found that certain judiciously
simplified versions of the equations of motion are adequate for most studies. The most
important forces contributed by mass variability appear to be the thrust vector and the
Coriolis force. The jet damping moment and the moment due to inertia variation are the
dominant moments due to mass variability. The study ends with specific equations that are
recommended for use in the study of the dynamics of variable mass systems. These equations
capture all the important features of the motion of variable mass systems, while remaining
simple enough to permit tractable analyses of the behaviour of such systems.
Key words: variable mass systems
INTRODUCTION
Studies of free and forced motions of spinning rigid bodies of various geometries have been,
and continue to be documented in great detail in the literature. Such studies have led to the
development of important scientific instruments (gyroscopes, etc.) and to the concept of spin
stabilization of modern spacecraft. By contrast, variable mass systems have received
relatively little attention in the literature, though they play an equally important role in
modern technology, especially in space flight.
It is clear from intuition that when the net change in mass of a system, as well as its mass
variation rate are small, it is unnecessary to account for the change in mass in the study of
the systems motion. For example, automobiles are in fact variable mass systems, yet, no one
takes mass variation into account in handling and performance studies of ordinary auto-
mobiles. The reason is that the rate of mass variation is viewed as negligibleand rightly so.
On the other hand, a system that undergoes a substantial change in mass, especially if this
occurs in a short period of time, will definitely require that mass variation be accounted for
in the study of its overall dynamics; otherwise, any predicted response of the system will be
far removed from its true behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to lay a solid foundation for
the study of the dynamic behaviour of systems with substantial change in mass. This is done
by presenting a complete rigorous derivation of the equations of motion of such systems.
Although scientific study of variable mass systems has been in progress for more than
two hundred years, developments in this field have been sporadic. The earliest recorded
work on the dynamics of bodies with varying mass was performed in the eighteenth century
by Bernoulli [1]. He was then studying the forces acting on a liquid jet propelled
hydroreactive shipan ancient application of the principle of jet propulsion. He actually
derived what may be referred to as the equation of motion in this special case. The Czech
scientist and inventor, George von Buquoy [2], was the first to pose the general problem of
the dynamics of systems with varying mass. In 1812, he obtained his motion formula for
such systems, and went on to solve a large number of examples based on this formula. von
Buquoys work can be said to mark the birth of the theory of the dynamics of systems with
varying mass. In the mean time, William Moore [3] worked out his mathematical theory of
rocket motion in England in 1813, and, in 1819, Poisson [4] took a rather modern approach
and derived the equations of motion of variable mass systems based on Lagranges general
formula. In a book published in 1856, Tait and Steele [5] included a section on mass
variation. They postulated that mass variation produced small continuous impacts or impul-
sive forces on systems, and thus resulted in continuous change of velocity. This work was
followed, several years later, by that of Meshcherskii [6], whose work spanned the period
1897 to 1904. He essentially laid the foundation for the development of variable mass
dynamics as a special discipline of mechanics. He devoted his 160-page masters thesis to
exploring a large array of issues relevant to variable mass dynamicsfrom the derivation of
equations of motion to the solution of a series of problems in the field. All of these early
investigations of variable mass systems were limited in one waythey were only concerned
with the study of the translational motion of such systems. The issue of rotational motion of
such systems was not addressed until the mid 1940s.
The Second World War brought with it a resurgence of interest and activity in the
dynamics of variable mass systems, mostly in connection with rocketry. At this time, transla-
tional motion of such systems was relatively well understood and the main focus of research
in variable mass dynamics began to shift to the attitude motion of such systems. Some of the
scientific giants of this new era include Rosser et al. [7], Gantmacher and Levin [8], Rankin
[9], Leitman [10, 11, 12], and Thomson [13, 14, 15]. These investigators derived several
versions of the equations of motion of variable mass systems, and their work gives a great
deal of physical insight into the behaviour of rockets in particular.
Flaws in current understanding of the dynamics of variable mass systems was brought to
light in the early 1980s, when several space missions with upper stages powered by a new
class of solid rocket motor were observed to exhibit anomalous behaviour. Unexpected and
unexplainable rapid growth in cone angle occurred near the end of the motor burn. This class
of motors was the first known to produce such anomaly, and it differed from its predecessors
mainly in its much larger size and the existence of a submerged nozzle construction. This
problem sparked another flurry of investigations of variable mass systems (see for example
Eke [16], Meyer [17], Mingori and Yam [18], Flandro et al. [19], Cochran and Kang [20]),
and is one of the main factors that motivated this work.
The derivation of equations of motion for systems with varying mass is not as straightfor-
ward as it would normally be for a system of particles and/or rigid bodies of constant mass.
The reason is that the basic principles of dynamics, such as NewtonEuler equations and
Lagranges equations are only truly valid when applied to a definite set of particles or rigid
bodies. Hence, to study variable mass systems, one can proceed in one of at least two ways.
One, is to seek or develop new formalisms that would be valid for variable mass systems in
124 F. O. Eke and T. C. Mao
On the dynamics of variable mass systems 125
general; another solution is to model variable mass systems in a way that allows them to be
viewed as constant mass systems, and thus make them amenable to treatment by existing
principles of dynamics. This latter approach has been the choice of practically all investiga-
tors to date. However, the process of adapting the classical equations of dynamics to variable
mass systems has been based mostly on heuristics. The main purpose of this paper is to place
the equation derivation process for variable mass systems on a solid mathematical basis and
thus lay the foundation for rigorous analyses of the behaviour of such systems.
EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The equations of motion for both rotational and translational motion of variable mass sys-
tems are derived here using one of the methods of analytical dynamicsKanes formalism
[21]. The merit of this approach is its efficiency. It produces the equations of transitional and
rotational motion in one mathematically rigorous step, and makes it possible to clarify a lot
of conceptual issues in the derivation, that have been very difficult to do in previous work.
The system of interest is shown, in its most general form, in Fig. 1. It is determined by
the closed surface, B, and its contents. The contents of B at any given instant consist
generally of a solid phase (R), and a fluid phase (G). B and its contents are allowed to
undergo general three-dimensional motion in space, and matter can flow continuously in and
out of B during this motion. For example, parts of R can dissolve into G by combustion or
other processes; and, some of such products of combustion can then flow across the
boundary B. At any given instant of time, only the surface B and whatever happens to be
inside it at the instant constitute the system for that instant. Thus, the system under consid-
eration here evolves continuously, both as regards its location in space, and its material
constitutionand hence its mass. We will use the symbol S to designate this system.
Fig. 1. Variable mass system.
Before formulating the dynamical equations for the system of Fig. 1, we start by intro-
ducing the concept of constant mass systems associated with the variable mass system under
study. At some instant of time, t
1
, there is a definite set of material particles inside B. Let us
assume that this set of particles is contained in a closed deformable container, B
1
, that is
identical to B at time t
1
. We then take the viewpoint that B
1
has always enclosed the exact
particles that ended up in B at time t
1
, and that B
1
will continue to delimit these particles.
Obviously, subsequent to time t
1
, the shape of B
1
will deviate from that of B if it is to
continue to delimit the particles that were in B at time t
1
. Similarly, prior to time t
1
, the shape
of B
1
, was, most likely, quite different from that of B, since only some of the particles inside
B
1
prior to time t
1
where also inside B. The shape of B
1
is thus seen to vary with time,
becoming identical to, and containing the same amount of matter as B at time t
1
. We note
however, that B
1
and its contents maintain the same mass at all times. We shall represent B
1
and its contents with the symbol S
1
, and refer to it henceforth as the constant mass system
associated with the variable mass system S at time t
1
. Similarly, we can define S
2
, S
3
, etc., as
constant mass systems associated with S at times t
2
, t
3
, etc. Furthermore, we assume that
there exists a special subset of the particles of S that remains within B throughout the interval
of time of interest in this study. In fact, this sub-set is further assumed to constitute a rigid
body that is part of R in Fig 1. This rigid body will therefore be a part of every S
k
.
We note that the configuration and motion of S at some instant of time t
k
is identical to
the configuration and motion of S
k
at time t
k
. Hence, we can study the motion of S simply by
studying the motion of a generic constant mass system of S. The merit to this approach is
that each constant mass system does indeed have constant mass, and can thus be studied
using any of the classical methods of dynamics such as the Lagrange equation or the New-
tonEuler approach.
Kinematics
We now proceed with the derivation of the dynamical equations for a generic constant mass
system S
k
using Kanes equation.
For the typical constant mass system S
k
shown in Fig. 2, we use the symbol R to
designate that part of the solid phase of S
k
that remains a rigid body throughout the interval
of time of interest in this study. We also assume that the motion of the fluid particles relative
to the solid portion of the system is known. Hence, the system has six degrees of freedom. A
possible choice of generalized speeds, u
r
for the system is
u
r
r
r
r
r
'

b
v b
( , , )
( , , )
*
1 2 3
4 5 6
3
(1)
Here, b
1
, b
2
, b
3
is a right-handed set of mutually perpendicular unit vectors that is attached
to R and shown in Fig. 2; is the inertial angular velocity of R, and is thus given by
+ + u u u
1 1 2 2 3 3
b b b (2)
and v
*
is the inertial velocity of the mass centre of S
k
, so that
v b b b
*
+ + u u u
4 1 5 2 6 3
(3)
The inertial velocity of a generic point P (see Fig. 2) of the system is
v v r v + +
o
r
(4)
Fig. 2. Constant mass system, S
k
.
v v r
u u
o
u
r r r
r + ( , , ) 1 6 (5)
Now, the velocity of the system mass centre S
k
*
can be expressed as
v v r v
* * *
+ +
o
r
(6)
where r
*
is the position vector of S
k
*
relative to point O; and so, the corresponding partial
velocities are
v v r
u u
o
u
r r r
r
* *
( , , ) + 1 6 (7)
Equations (5) and (7) can be combined to obtain
where v
o
is the velocity of an arbitrary point O of R, v
r
is the velocity of P relative to body
R, and r is the position vector of P as measured from the point O. Because the motion of the
fluid particles relative to R is assumed to be described by known functions of time, the
partial velocities (see Kane and Levinson [21]) of P are given by
v v p
u u u
r r r
r +
*
( , , ) 1 6 (8)
where p is the position vector from S
k
*
to P.
The acceleration of the generic point, P, of S
k
is
a a r r v a + + + +
o
r r
( ) 2 (9)
where a
r
is the relative acceleration. Similarly, the acceleration of S
*
is
a a r r v a
* * * * *
( ) + + + +
o
r r
2 (10)
and equations (9) and (10) lead to
a a p p v v a a + + +
( )
+
( )
* * *
( ) 2
r r r r
(11)
Generalized inertia forces
The contribution of matter contained in an elementary parallelepiped located at P (see Fig. 2)
to the generalized inertia forces of the system S
k
is
F m
r
P
u
r
*
( )
d a v (12)
where dm is the mass of matter inside the parallelepiped. Equations (12), (11) and (8) yield
F m
m
r
P
r r r r u
r r r r u
r
r
* * * * *
* * *
( )
( )
( )
+ + + +
( )
+
( )
[ ]
+ + + +
( )
+
( )
[ ]

( )
d
d
a p p v v a a v
a p p v v a a p

2
2 (13)
Hence, the generalized inertia force on S
k
corresponding to the generalized speed, u
r
is
F V
V
r u
B
r r r r
u
B
r r r r
r
k
r
k
* * * * *
* * *
( )
( )
+ + + +
( )
+
( )
[ ]
+ + + +
( )
+
( )
[ ] { }
v a p p v v a a
p a p p v v a a

2
2
d
d (14)
We note here that the integrals in (14) are volume integrals that are taken over the region
enclosed by B
k
.
From Fig. 2 and the definition of mass centre,
p r r d d m m
B B
k k

( )
*
0 (15)
Hence,
v v a a
( )

( )

r
B
r
B
k k
m m
* *
d d 0 (16)
Using (15) and (16) together with the facts that
p p I
[ ]

( )
B
k
m d (17)
and
p p p p I
[ ]

[ ]

( ) ( )
B B
k k
m m d d (18)
Equation (14) is reduced to
F m V
V
r u u
B
r
r
B
r r
k
k
* * *
( )
( )
+ +
[ ]
'
+

;
v a I I p v
p a

2 d
d (19)
where m is the mass of S
k
. Hence, for r = 1, 2, and 3,
F V V
r u
B
r r
B
r
k k
*
( ) ( ) + +
[ ]
+
'

I I p v p a 2 d d (20)
and, for r = 4, 5, and 6,
F m
r u
r
* * *
v a (21)
Generalized active forces
The force per unit volume, F
P
, acting on the generic particle P of the system has a compo-
nent F
e
P
that comes from forces external to the system S
k
, and another component F
i
P
that
is from forces internal to S
k
. Thus, the generalized active force F
r
for the system S
k
has the
form
(22)
Now, if the internal force exerted on any particle P of the system S
k
by another particle Q of
S
k
is assumed to act along the line connecting P and Q, then
F
i
P
B
V
k
d
0 (23)
and
p F
( )

i
P
B
V
k
d 0 (24)
In that case, the generalized active force can be written as
F
r u u
r r
+ v F M
*
(25)
where F is the resultant external force on the constant mass system, and M is the sum of the
moments of all the external forces on the system about the system mass centre. Equations (1)
and (25) then give
F r
r u
r
M for 1 2 3 , , (26)
and
F r
r u
r
v F
*
, , for 4 5 6 (27)
F V
V
V V V V
r e
P
i
P
u
B
e
P
i
P
u u
B
u e
P
i
P
B B
u e
P
i
P
B
r
k
r r
k
r
k k
r
k
+
( )
[ ]
+
( )
+
( )
[ ]
+
_
,
+
( )
+
( )
1
]
1

F F v
F F v p
v F F p F p F
d
d
d d d d
*
*

Dynamical equations
Kanes equation for this system has the form
where the time derivative is taken in a reference frame fixed to R. Equation (33) is valid
because B
k
encloses a constant mass system. Next, we substitute (33) into (32) and evaluate
the new expression at time t
k
, when S
k
is identical with S. This leads to
a
v
v
r
B
r
B
r
B
V
t
V
t
V
k k k
d
d
d
d
d
d
d

(33)
We then re-write the last term on the left hand side of (32) as
m V V
o
r r
B B
k k
a r r v a F + +
[ ]
+ +

* *
( ) ( ) 2 d d (32)
Next, we express (31) as
m
o
r r
a r r v a F + + + +
[ ]

* * * *
( ) 2 (31)
At this point, there are two main obstacles that prevent equations (29) and (30) from
being useful as given above. First, the motion of fluid particles within B
k
was assumed
known. This means that both the velocity and acceleration fields within the system are
known as functions of time. In reality, none of these functions is known, but reasonable
guesses can be made for the velocity field within B; that is, the velocity distribution inside B
k
for the instant t = t
k
, when the constant mass system S
k
coincides with the variable mass
system S. The other problem is that we have no good way to estimate the acceleration
fieldnot even within B.
To deal effectively with these obstacles, two important measures are taken. One is that
we convert all accelerations of the generic particle P that appear explicitly in (29) and (30) to
time derivatives of velocity. If done properly, this would take care of the second problem
above. The other measure is that ways are found to convert any volume integral that contains
a velocity term, and is taken over the region B
k
to a volume integral over B, where velocities
can be estimated. This measure would resolve the first problem. We now show how these
measures can be applied to equation (30).
Substituting for a
*

from (10), (30) becomes
ma F
*
(30)
Similarly, the equation of translational motion comes from (28), (27) and (21), and is
I I p v p a M + +
[ ]
+

2 ( ) ( )
r
B
r
B
V V
k k
d d (29)
We recall that F
r
and F
r
*
are, respectively, the generalized active force and the generalized
inertia force of the constant mass system S
k
. From (28), (26) and (20) we obtain the equation
of attitude motion as
F F r
r r

*
, , , ) 0 1 2 6 ( (28)
m V
t
V t
o
t t
r
B
t t
r
B
t t
k
k
k
k
k
a r r v
v F
+ +
[ ]
+
1
]
1
+

1
]
1

* *
( ) ( )
( )
2 d
d
d
d
(34)
Evaluating equation (29) at t = t
k
and replacing the last term on the right hand side with
equation (39), we have the vector equation of rotational motion for the system S, that is
( ) ( ) ( )( ) p a p v p v v n
1
]
1
+
1
]
1

r
B
t t
r
B
r r
B
t t
V
t
V S
k
k
k
d
d
d
d d (39)
Then we evaluate equation (38) for time t
k
and invoke Reynolds Transport Theorem to
convert the result to
( ) ( ) ( ) p a p v p v

r
B B
r r
B
V
t
V
t
V
k k k
d
d
d
d
d
d
d (38)
where all the items in this equation apply to matter within B at the instant under considera-
tion.
The equation of rotational motion for the variable mass system is obtained in a similar
way from (29). First, we have that
m V
t
V S
o
r
B
r r
B B
r
a r r v
v v v n F
+ +
[ ]
+
+ +

* *
( ) (
(
2 ) d
d
d
d ) d (37)
Equation (36) will have the same form for all S
k
, that is, for all values of t
k
. Hence, the
equation of translational motion for the full variable mass system S delimited by B is
m V
t
V S t
o
t t
r
B
t t
r
B
t t
r
B
r
t t
k
k
k
k k
a r r v
v v v n F
+ +
[ ]
+
1
]
1
+
_
,
+
1
]
1

* *
( ) (
( ( )
2 ) d
d
d
d ) d (36)
where the last term is a surface integral over the surface of B, and n is a unit vector normal to
B and pointing outwards. Equations (34) and (35) thus give
d
d
d
d
d
d ) d
t
V
t
V S
r
B
t t
r
B
r r
B
t t k
k
k
v v v v n

1
]
1
+
1
]
1

( (35)
Because the last term on the left hand side of (34) contains a time derivative outside the
integral sign, the limit of the integral cannot be changed to B as was done for the previous
term. We are thus once again faced with the problem of taking the integral of an expression
containing a velocity term over a region in which the velocity field cannot be easily esti-
mated. Fortunately, this dilemma can be resolved by means of the Reynolds Transport
Theorem [22], which gives in this case,
I I p ( v
p v p v v n M
+ +
[ ]
+ +

2
r
B
r
B
r r
B
V
t
V S
)
( ) ( )( )
d
d
d
d d (40)
Another form of the equation of attitude motion
Another very useful form of the vector equation of rotational motion can be obtained from
equation (29) by expanding the third term of this equation. First, consider the expression
A p p p p
[ ]

[ ]

d
d
d
d
d
) d
t
m
t
V
B B
k k
( ) ( (41)
with the time derivative taken in a reference frame fixed to R
k
. Since B
k
encloses a constant
mass system, we have that
A p p p p
v p p p p v

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]
+
[ ]
+
[ ]

d
d
d
d
d
) d
d d d
t
m
t
m
m m m
B B
r
B B
r
B
k k
k k k
( ) (
( ) ( ) ( )

(42)
The last term on the right hand side of (42) can be added to and subtracted from (42); then
by using the identity
v p p v v p
r r r

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) (43)
we have
A v p I p v
[ ]
+ +
[ ]

( ) ( )
r
B
r
B
m m
k k
d d 2 (44)
so that
A v p
I p v
t t
r
t t
B
t t
r
B
t t
k k
k
k
k
k
V
V

[ ]
+ +
[ ]

( )
( )
d
d 2
(45)
On the other hand, A, as given in (41), can be evaluated at t = t
k
and expanded using
Reynolds Transport Theorem to give
A p p
p p p p v n
(I p p v n
t t
B
t t
B B
r
t t
B
r
t
k
k
k
k
t
m
t
m S
t
S

[ ]
'

[ ]
+
[ ]

'
+
[ ]

'
d
d
d
d
d
d ) d
d
d
( d
( )
( ) ( ) (
) ( ) )

tt
B
r
t t
k
k
t
S

_
,
+ +
[ ]

'
d
d
( d
I
I p p v n ( ) )
(46)
We then have, by equating (45) to (46),
2
p v
I
p p v n
p v

1
]
1

_
,
+
'
+

;
( ) ( ) )
(
r
B
t t
B
r
r
B
t t
V
t
S
V
k
k
d
d
d
( d
) d
(47)
Equation (29) evaluated at t = t
k
and (47) lead to the following alternate form of the vector
equation of attitude motion for S
I I
I
p p v n
p v p v p v v n M
+ +

_
,

[ ]

+ + +

d
d
d
d
d
d
d d
t
S
V
t
V S
B
r
r
B
r
B
r r
B
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) (48)
In summary, we have that the translational motion of the variable mass system under
consideration is governed by equation (37), and the rotational or attitude motion of the same
system is governed by equations (40) and (48).
EFFECTS OF MASS VARIATION
The equations of motion derived in the previous section (see equations (37), (40) and (48))
are quite complex, as they contain several volume integrals that are not easy to evaluate.
Very little progress can be made with these equations without some simplifying assumptions
to reduce their complexity. We now re-examine these equations: we assess the significance
of each of the terms and explore the circumstances under which some of these terms can be
dropped. The goal is to arrive at a set of equations that capture the salient features of the
system under study, and that are nevertheless simple enough to render further analysis
tractable.
Translational motion
The vector equation of translational motion (see equation (37)) can be re-written as
m
o
C L T
a r r F F F F + +
[ ]
+ + +
* *
( ) (49)
where
F V
C r
B

2 ( ) v d (50)
F
t
V
L r
B

d
d
d v (51)
and
F S
T r r
B

v v n ( d )
(52)
If v
r
is identically zero everywhere, then F
C
= F
L
= F
T
= 0, and we recover the vector equa-
tion of translational motion for a rigid body. Thus, mass variation appears to augment the
external forces on an equivalent rigid body by three terms. F
C
is often referred to in the
literature as the Coriolis force, since it derives from the Coriolis component of the accelera-
tion. F is the rate at which the systems linear momentum relative to the base rigid body R
decreases with time because of particle motion inside B. F represents the rate at which
relative linear momentum is lost across the boundary B, and is often referred to as the thrust
vector in rocket applications.
If those particles of the system that can move relative to R are allowed to move within B
but do not cross the boundary B, then F
T
becomes zero. F
T
would be non-zero but negligible
if either a very small percentage of the systems particles is allowed to cross B, or those
particles that cross B do so at a very slow rate. In other words, the thrust vector can be
neglected whenever the amount of matter that is lost or gained per unit time is small. What
matters here is the rate, not the total amount of matter lost or gained.
Note that we can use Reynolds transport theorem to expand the Coriolis force into
F v r
r r v n
F
C r
B B
B
r
B
C C
V
t
V
t
V S

+
_
,
+

2 2
2
1 2

d
d
d
d
d
d
d d ( )
F (53)
where F is the external force, F
T
is the thrust vector, and F
C2
is part of the Coriolis force and
is given by (55). F
C
and F
T
can be dropped completely only when the rate of mass loss is
negligible. This is clearly the case for an automobile, where the mass of the exhaust gases
lost per unit time is a negligible fraction of the total vehicle mass.
m
o
T C
a r r F F F + +
[ ]
+ +
* *
( )
2
(56)
There are situations where v
r
can be considered negligible inside the boundary B but not
at an exit from B. An example is an inflated balloon with a small hole. Gas motion inside the
balloon is hardly noticeable while gas exit velocity at the hole is substantial. In cases like
this, F
L
and F
C1
are negligible, but F
C2
as well as the thrust vector survive. As a matter of
fact, this is not an unreasonable assumption for practical systems such as rockets, and can
provide a way of rendering the equations of such systems tractable, since the details of
internal gas flow can be neglected. Even if v
r
is not negligible within B, but the particles
within B can attain some type of steady state in their motion relative to R, then F
L
and F
C1
are once more negligible. After ignition, rocket systems quickly attain an approximate steady
state, and so, F
L
and F
C1
can be ignored for such systems.
In summary, the vector equation of translational motion for variable mass systems can, in
many cases be reduced to
F r v n
C r
B t
S
2
2

d
d
d ( ) (55)
and
F r
C
B t
V
1
2

d
d
d
(54)
where
Rotational motion
Two forms of the vector equation of attitude motion were developed above and given as
equations (40) and (48). Both of these equations reduce to rigid body rotational equations if
v
r
= 0 within B as well as on B. In those situations where it is reasonable to assume that the
motion of the fluid phase relative to the solid phase has axial symmetry, and when there is no
whirling motion, a number of terms vanish from these equations. This is so because, for
every fluid particle P of the system with position vector p and relative velocity v
r
, there
exists another particle P of position vector p and relative velocity v
r
such that the vectors
p v
r
and p v
r
have the same magnitude but opposite directions. And, since
axisymmetry also implies that the immediate neighbourhoods of P and P have the same
mass density, we have that
B
r
V
(p v ) d 0 (57)
so that
d
d
d d
t
V V
B
r r
B

[ ]
(p v p v ) ( ) 0 (58)
We also have
( )( p v v n
r r
B
S ) d 0 (59)
Hence, equations (40) and (48) reduce respectively to
I I p v M + +
[ ]

2 ( )
r
B
V d (60)
and
I I
I
p p v n M + +

_
,
+
[ ]

d
d
( d
t
S
B
r
( ) ) (61)
We arrive at the same conclusion for systems where v
r
can be considered negligible inside
the boundary B but is finite and forms a symmetric field at each exit from B. Such is the
situation in the simple case of a leaky balloon, as well as in the much more complex case of
rockets. Even when the above conditions are not met, the fourth term on the left hand side of
equation (40) also becomes negligible for steady-state relative motion of the fluid particles.
There is advantage in using equation (61) rather than (60) for the study of rotational
motion. The only term in equation (61) that contains v
r
is a surface integral over B. v
r
n is
zero everywhere on the surface of B except at those places where fluid particles can enter or
leave the region delimited by B (the nozzle exit plane in the case of rockets). In general, v
r
n
can be approximated relatively well at these locations; hence the surface integral can in fact
be evaluated in closed form. On the other hand, equation (60) requires a knowledge of the
velocity field inside B, and thus makes the use of equation (60) problematic in many cases.
The fourth term on the left hand side of equation (61) is often referred to as the jet
damping moment, because it has been shown [24] to have attenuating effects on the angular
rates in some types of rocket systems. To evaluate this surface integral, it is necessary to
know the geometric shape of those parts of the boundary where particles are allowed to exit
or enter the system, as well as the velocity profile at these locations. This moment is thus
very much dependent on the systems geometry. In the case of rockets, for example, the
longitudinal dimension of the combustion chamber (for solid rockets) as well as the exit
nozzle radius have much to do with the impact of this term on the systems attitude motion.
The third term on the left hand side of equation (61) captures the contribution of inertia
variation. We thus conclude that jet damping moment and the moment due to the changes in
inertia properties have dominant effects on the attitude dynamics of the system. The relative
importance and the interaction between these two moments essentially determine the charac-
ter of the attitude dynamics of variable mass systems.
CONCLUSION
This study deals with the dynamic behaviour of bodies that lose or gain mass while in
motion. In the first part of the paper, a complete and rigorous derivation of the equations of
motion of such systems is presented. The resulting equations of motion are then further
scrutinized and reasonable simplifying assumptions are invoked to make them tractable
when used in the study of real systems.
In the study of the dynamic behaviour of variable mass mechanical systems, judiciously
simplified versions of the equations of motion appear adequate for most studies. Many real
variable mass systems are such that, at steady state, the velocities of particles moving within
the boundaries of the system are very much less in magnitude than the velocities of particles
exiting the system through some type of orifice (e.g. nozzle). For these systems, and others
that maintain axial symmetry in spite of mass variation, the most important forces contrib-
uted by mass variability appear to be the thrust vector and the Coriolis force. The jet
damping moment and the moment due to inertia variation are the dominant moments due to
mass variability. These quantities should be included in any dynamic studies of variable
mass systems to ensure that meaningful predictions can be made from the analysis. The
simplified vector equations recommended here for the study of variable mass systems cap-
ture the main features of such systems while remaining tractable, even for closed form
analytical studies.
REFERENCES
[1] Bernoulli, D., Hydrodynamica, Argentorati, 1738.
[2] Buquoy, G., Exposition dun Nouveau Principe General de Dynamique, Paris, 1816.
[3] Moore, W. A Treatise on the Motion of Rockets, London, 1813.
[4] Poisson, S. D., Sur le Mouvement dun System de Corps, en Supposant les Masses Variables,
Bull. Sci. Soc. Philomat, April, pp. 6062, Paris, 1819.
[5] Tait, P. G. and Steele, W. J., A Treatise on the Dynamics of a Particle, Cambridge, 1856.
[6] Meshcherskii, I. V., Equations of Motion of a Variable Mass Point in the General Case, St.
Petersburg Polytechnic University News, Vol. 1, pp. 77118, 1904. (Reprinted in I. V.
Meshcherskii, Works on the Mechanics of Variable-Mass Bodies, MoscowLeningrad, 1949,
2nd edition, Moscow, 1952.)
[7] Rosser, J. B., Newton, R. R. et al., Mathematical Theory of Rocket Flight, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1947.
[8] Gantmacher, F. R. and Levin, L. M., Equations of Motion of a Rocket, NACA TM 1255, 1950.
[9] Rankin, R. A., The Mathematical Theory of the Motion of Rotated and Unrotated Rockets,
Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London Series A, 241, 457585 (1949).
[10] Leitmann, G., On the Equation of Rocket Motion, Journal of British Interplanetary Society, 16,
141147, 1957.
[11] Leitmann, G., A Remark on the Free Vibration of a Variable Mass, Jet Propulsion, 28, 197198,
1958.
[12] Leitmann, G., On the Stability of Motion of a Vibrating Variable Mass, Astronautica Acta, 9,
167173, 1963.
[13] Thomson, W. T., Equations of Motion for the Variable Mass System, AIAA Journal, 4(4), 766
768, 1966.
[14] Thomson, W. T., Introduction to Space Dynamics. Dover, New York, 1986.
[15] Thomson, W. T. and Reiter, G. S., Jet Damping of a Solid Rocket: Theory and Flight Results,
AIAA Journal, 3(3) 413417, 1965.
[16] Eke, F. O. and Wang, S. M., Attitude Behavior of a Variable Mass Cylinder, ASME Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 62(4), 935940, 1995.
[17] Meyer, R. X., Convective Instability in Solid Propellant Rocket Motors, AAS 83-368, Advances
in Astronautical Sciences, 54, 657669, 1983.
[18] Mingori, D. L. and Yam, Y., Nutational Instability of a Spinning Spacecraft with Internal Mass
Motion and Axial Thrust, AIAA paper 86-2271, AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference,
Williamsburg, VA, August 1820, pp 367375, 1986.
[19] Flandro, G. A., et al., Fluid Mechanics of Spinning Rockets, AFRPL-TR-86072, Air Force
Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, Edwards AFB, California, 1987.
[20] Cochran, J. E. and Kang, J. Y., Nonlinear Stability Analysis of the Attitude Motion of a Spin
Stabilized Upper Stage, AAS Paper 91-109, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 75, 345364,
1991.
[21] Kane, T. R. and Levinson, D. A., Dynamics: Theory and Applications, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1985.
[22] White, F. M., Fluid Mechanics, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994, pp. 114122.
[23] Ellis, J. W. and McArthur, C. W., Applicability of Eulers Dynamical Equations to Rocket
Motion, ARS Journal, 29, 863864, 1959.
[24] Dryer, M., Equations of Motion for an Arbitrary Body of Variable Mass, Advances in the
Astronautical Sciences, 9, 804842, 1963.

300123

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

300123

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 30 No 2

On the dynamics of variable

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education Vol 30 No 2

You might also like