Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Engineering
online 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017

X International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017
A 2-DOF Model of an Elastic Rocket Structure Under Circulatory Force
A 2-DOF Model of an Elastic Rocket Structure Under Circulatory Force
Reyolando M. Brasila,* Leandro F. Brejãoa, José M. Balthazarb
Reyolando M. Brasila,* Leandro F. Brejãoa, José M. Balthazarb
a
Aerospace Engineering, Federal University of ABC (UFABC), Av. dos Estados, 5001, 09210-580,Santo André, Brazil
a
Aeronaltics
Aerospace
b
Institute ofFederal
Engineering, Technology (ITA),ofPr.
University ABCMal. EduardoAv.
(UFABC), Gomes,50, 12228-900,
dos Estados, S. José dos Campos
5001, 09210-580,Santo , Brazil
André, Brazil
b
Aeronaltics Institute of Technology (ITA), Pr. Mal. Eduardo Gomes,50, 12228-900, S. José dos Campos , Brazil

Abstract
Abstract
It is intended, in this paper, to develop a mathematical and numerical model of an elastic space rocket structure as a Beck’s
It is intended,
column excitedinbythis paper, to(ordevelop
a follower a mathematical
circulatory) force. Thisand numerical
force model
represents of an elastic
the rocket space that
motor thrust rocket structure
should as a Beck’s
be always in the
column
directionexcited by a follower
of the tangent (or circulatory)
to the structure deformed force.
axisThis force
at the baserepresents the rocket
of the vehicle. motor athrust
We present that should
simplified be always
two degree in the
of freedom
direction
rigid barsofdiscrete
the tangent to the
model. Its structure
system ofdeformed
two second axisorder
at thenonlinear
base of the vehicle.differential
ordinary We presentequations
a simplified two degree
of motion of freedom
are derived via
rigid bars discrete
Lagrange’s energy model.
method,Itsallowing
system of fortwo second understanding
a general order nonlinearofordinary
the maindifferential equations
characteristics of problem.
of the motion areThederived
proposedvia
Lagrange’s energy up
equations consider method,
to thirdallowing for ainertia,
order (cubic) general understanding
stiffness of the
and forcing main
terms. characteristics
Among of the problem.
other rich nonlinear dynamicThe proposed
behaviour of
equations
this model,consider up toonthird
depending order (cubic)
parameters inertia,
and initial stiffness choices,
conditions and forcing terms.
either Among
stable other rich
or unstable limitnonlinear dynamic behaviour
cycle post-critical steady stateof
this model,aredepending
solutions possible.on Theparameters
latter is and initial
a form of conditions choices, either
flutter. Numerical stable are
simulations or unstable
carried limit cycle Runge-Kutta’s
out using post-critical steady state
4th order
solutions are
algorithm possible.
in Matlab The latter is a form of flutter. Numerical simulations are carried out using Runge-Kutta’s 4th order
environment.
algorithm in Matlab environment.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review Published by Elsevier Ltd. committee of EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility ofof the organizing
the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
Keywords: Beck’s column, follower force, limit cycle, nonlinear dynamics.
Keywords: Beck’s column, follower force, limit cycle, nonlinear dynamics.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address:author.
* Corresponding reyolando.brasil@ufabc.edu.br
E-mail address: reyolando.brasil@ufabc.edu.br
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Launcher vehicles (rockets) carry loads from the surface of the Earth to some space mission site. Like any other
Launcher
physical vehicles
body, is not (rockets)
rigid, so carry loads
that the from thedeformations
structural surface of thetend
Earth
to toaffect
someflight
spacedynamics.
mission site. Like paper,
In this any other
we
physical abody,
develop is not rigid,
mathematical so of
model thatanthe structural
elastic space deformations tendastoa Beck’s
rocket structure affect flight
columndynamics.
excited In
by this paper, (or
a follower we
develop a mathematical
circulatory) model
force. This force of an
is the elastic
rocket space
motor rocket
thrust thatstructure
is alwaysasinatheBeck’s column
direction excited
of the by toa the
tangent follower (or
structure
circulatory)axis
deformed force. This
at the force
base of is
thethe rocket We
vehicle. motor thrustathat
present twoisdegree
alwaysofinfreedom
the direction
rigid of thediscrete
bars tangentmodel.
to the structure
The two
deformed
second axisnonlinear
order at the base of thedifferential
ordinary vehicle. We present aoftwo
equations degree
motion are of freedom
derived via rigid bars discrete
Lagrange’s method,model. Thefor
allowing twoa
second order nonlinear ordinary differential equations of motion are derived via Lagrange’s method, allowing for a

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review©under
1877-7058 2017responsibility
The Authors. of the organizing
Published committee
by Elsevier Ltd. of EURODYN 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EURODYN 2017.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.151
 Reyolando M. Brasil et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539 535
Brasil, R.M., Brejão, L.F., Balthazar, J.M/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

general understanding of the main characteristics of the problem. The equations consider up to third order inertia,
stiffness and forcing terms. Depending on parameters and initial conditions choices, either stable or unstable limit
cycle post-critical steady-state solutions are possible. The latter is a form of flutter. Flutter first arose in aerospace
engineering studying structural breakdowns of aircraft in the years 1910-1930 [1,2,3]. [4] analyzed this problem
from the point of view of structural stability. For more adequate analysis, it is necessary to introduce nonlinearities
to the mathematical model (up to cubic in our paper), for determination of amplitudes of post-critical stationary
states, as in [5,6,7]. Although first studied in aircraft, flutter also occur in missiles, launch vehicles and even
suspension bridges (as in the infamous Tacoma Narrows incident). It is a dynamic instability that occurs due to
feedback interaction between two or more distinct modes of vibration of a system and introduction of external
energy, as per [8, 9, 10]. [11] presents an analytical solution of the fourth order partial differential equation of
motion of Beck’s column. Flutter causes amplitude oscillations to grow over time causing structural failure.
Numerical simulations are carried out using Runge-Kutta’s 4th order algorithm in Matlab environment.

2. Physical model

Fig. 1 is the simplified physical model of the structure of a launcher vehicle. We have two rigid massless bars AB
and BC , L1 and L 2 long, pinned at nodes A and B . Displacements are restricted at point A . We have lumped
masses M1 , M 2 and M 3 attached to nodes A , B and C , respectively. Torsional springs k 1 e k 2 provide elastic
restoring forces. Viscous dampers of damping constants ̂ 2 are added to the joints. We adopt the following
̂1 and
modelling hypothesis: 1. L1  L 2  L ; 2. the bars are rigid and massless; 3. lumped masses M1 , M 2 and M 3
represent the actual masses of half the bars connected to that point, thus M1  M 3  m and M 2  2m ; 4. the
stiffness of the torsional springs represent the elastic properties of the continuous structure, k 1  k 2  k , 5. it is
 
adopted ˆ1  ˆ 2  ˆ ; 6. the adopted inertial reference is point A , origin of an orthonormal basis BI  iˆ, ˆj ; 6.
motions are restricted to the Axy plan.
The fundamental static equilibrium configuration of the system represents the vehicle at rest in its launch
platform. We consider a fixed reference coordinate system fixed at A , as shown in Fig. 1. This system is non-

inertial for an observer on Earth, but is assumed to be inertial in the frame of the vehicle on flight. F is a follower
(circulatory) non-conservative force applied to C , in the direction of bar BC . It models the rocket’s thrust force
due to combustion gases expansion at the motors in the basis of the vehicle. We do not consider, in this model, its
dependence on time.
In a Lagrangian approach, our generalized coordinates are angular displacements  1 e  2 of bars AB and BC ,
from their original vertical equilibrium positions. We denote 1 t   q1 t  and  2 t   q2 t  .
3. Mathematical model

3.1 Position vectors of the lumped masses

 
r1  0 (1)


r2  L sin q1iˆ  cos q1 ˆj  (2)


r3  L sin q1  sin q2 iˆ  cos q1  cos q2  ˆj  (3)
536 Reyolando M. Brasil et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539
Brasil, R.M., Brejão, L.F., Balthazar, J.M/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

 
Fig. 1. (left) System motion under follower force F ; (right) rocket appearance under follower force F

3.2 Velocity vectors of the lumped masses

  (4)
r 1  0


r2  L q1 cos q1iˆ  q1 sin q1 ˆj  (5)


r3  L q1 cos q1  q 2 cos q 2 iˆ  q1 sin q1  q 2 sin q 2  ˆj  (6)

3.3 Approximations

We adopt a third order truncated polynomial McLaurin approximations to the sinusoidal functions.

2 3
qi qi
cos qi  1  , sin qi  qi 
2 6 (7)

3.4 Kinetic energy

 Reyolando M. Brasil et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539 537
Brasil, R.M., Brejão, L.F., Balthazar, J.M/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1 2 2  
2 2
q q
mL 3q1  q 2  2 q1 q 2  q1 q 2 1  q1 q 2 2  q1 q 2 q1 q 2 
2
T (8)
2  2 2 
  

3.5 Total potential energy

V  U W 
1
2
 2 2 1

2
k 2q1  q 2  2q1 q 2  mgL 3q1  q 2
2
2
  (9)

where U is the strain energy of the springs and W is the work of the conservative forces (masses weight).

3.6 Derivation of the equations of motion

Next, we apply Euler-Lagrange equations to the Lagrangian functional L  T V :

d    N 
 
 L   L  Fi nc   f jnc • rj
dt  q i  qi qi (10)
j 1

where the non-conservative generalized forces are in the left hand term.

3.7 Generalized non-conservative forces


The generalized non-conservative forces, due to the follower force F are:

  
 
 (11)
f1nc  f 2nc  0, f 3nc  F  sin q2 iˆ  cos q2 ˆj

 q
3
q
3
qq
2
q q 
2

F1nc   FL  q1  q 2  1  2  1 2  2 1 , F2nc  0 (12)

 6 6 2 2 

where F is the scalar value of the follower force, considered time independent.

3 Equations of motion

In our simulations, we consider the orbital flight phase of the vehicle. In fact, in the space environment, the
acceleration of gravity may be neglected [12]. Moreover, only the contribution of intrinsic damping to the geometric
configuration of the vehicle is considered, and therefore such damping is called geometric damping. The equations
of motion are:
538 Reyolando M. Brasil et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539
Brasil, R.M., Brejão, L.F., Balthazar, J.M/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5


 3 1 

0 
1
q1  q2 2    q1 t 
 2
   1      
 1 1  q1  q 2 2 0   q 2 t 
  2  
 0 q 2 q1  q 2   2  1   q1 t   2  1  q1 t 
       c   (13)
  q1 q1  q 2  0   1 1   q 2 t   1 1  q 2 t 
 3 3 2 2

 q1  q 2  q1  q 2  q1q 2  q 2 q1 
 c  6 6 2 2 
 0 
where
k FL ˆ
c ,  ,  (14)
mL ² k mL ²

4 Results

Next, computational simulations are presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, using Runge-Kutta’s 4th order algorithm in
Matlab environment, from the parameterized model of Eq. (14), for a case of post-critical stable steady state limit
cycle. The initial conditions are 1 t   q1 t   0.01 rad,  2 t   q2 t   0.01rad, 1 t   q1 t   0 rad/s and
2 t   q 2 t   0 rad/s, and m  1 kg, L  1 m, k  1 Nm/rad, ˆ  2 kg/s and P  4 N.

5. Conclusions and future research

We presented a simplified 2-D-F nonlinear mathematical model of the elastic structure of a rocket excited by a
follower (circulatory) force due to the motor thrust, always in the direction tangent to its lower extremity.
Simulations presented post-critical limit cycle. In our ongoing research, thought will also be given in the future to
possible control strategies of the resulting vibrations, a crucial problem when real rocket motions are considered. In
future further work, we will develop the exact analytical solution to the fourth order partial differential equation
governing the motion of an elastic space rocket structure under follower force excitation. Last, a Finite Element
Method numerical model of the problem will be developed.

1.5 1.5
Generalized displacements q1 (red) and q2 (blue) [rad]

Generalized displacements q1 (red) and q2 (blue) [rad]

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1

-1.5 -1.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time [s] Time [s]

Fig. 2. (left) Generalized displacements in limit cycle case; (right) rates of generalized displacements in limit cycle case.
 Brasil, R.M., Brejão, L.F., Balthazar, J.M/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Reyolando M. Brasil et al. / Procedia Engineering 199 (2017) 534–539 539

0.6 1

0.8
0.4
Rate of generalized displacements q1 [rad/s]

Rate of generalized displacements q2 [rad/s]

0.6

0.2 0.4

0.2
0
0
-0.2
-0.2

-0.4 -0.4

-0.6
-0.6
-0.8

-0.8 -1
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Generalized displacement q1 [rad] Generalized displacement q2 [rad]

Fig. 3. (left) Phase plane of generalized displacement 𝑞𝑞1 in limit cycle case; (right) phase plane of generalized displacement 𝑞𝑞2 in limit cycle cas

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support by CNPq, CAPES and FAPESP, all Brazilian research funding agencies.

References

[1] D. H. Hodges,G. A. Pierce, Introduction to structural dynamics and aero elasticity, New York Cambridge
University Press (2002).
[2] V. Mukhopadhyay, Historical perspective on analysis and control of aero elastic responses, Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics (2003) 673–684.
[3] G. Herrman, I. Jong, On the destabilizing effect of daming in nonconservative elastic systems, J. Appl. Mech
(1965) .
[4] J. M. T. Thompson, Instabilities and catastrophes in science and engineering, John Wiley, Chichester (1982).
[5] C. E. N. Mazzilli, Dinâmica não linear e estabilidade: uma formulação para sistemas submetidos a excitação
dedsuporte ou carregamentos não conservativos. Thesis (in Portuguese), Escola Politécnica da USP, São Paulo
(1988).
[6] J. Roorda, S. Nemat-Nasser, An energy method for analysis of nonlinear, nonconservative systems, AIAA J.
(1967) 1262-1268.
[7] J. Dugundji, Nonlinear problems of aero elasticity computational nonlinear mechanics in aerospace engineering,
In AtluriSN, editor. Progressin astronautics and aeronautics. Washington,DC: AIAA (1992) 127.
[8] R. L. Bisplinghoff, H. Ashley, and R. Halfman, Aeroelasticity, Addison Wesley (1955).
[9] E. H. Dowell,etal. A Modern Course in Aero elasticity., 4. ed., Kluwer Academic (2005).
[10] Y. C. Fung, An Introduction to the Theory of Aero elasticity, Wiley (1955).
[11] S. P. Timoshenko, Theory of elastic Stability 2nd Ed., Dover, Mineola (2009).
[12] H. D. Curtis, Orbital mechanics for engineering students, Amsterdam, Elsevier (2005) .