Trebuchet
Trebuchet
Trebuchet
Project Manual
Mechanical Engineering Design Workshop
Trebuchet Design
Instructor:
Hamid Jahed
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Waterloo
Fall 2006
ME380
Project Manual
Mechanical Engineering Design Workshop
Trebuchet Design
Copyright 2006 by Hamid Jahed and Arash Tajik
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Waterloo
200 University Ave West
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1. History of the Trebuchet ..................................................................................... 1
2. Project Description ................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Objectives ........................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Problem Statement .............................................................................................. 4
2.3. Rules and Regulations......................................................................................... 4
2.4. Trebuchet Competition ....................................................................................... 6
2.5. Reports Structure ................................................................................................ 8
2.6. Safety .................................................................................................................. 9
2.7. Marking Scheme ............................................................................................... 10
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory ............................................................................... 11
3.1. Lagrangian Mechanics - A Short Introduction ................................................. 11
3.1.1. Double Pendulum Example ...................................................................... 14
3.2. Trebuchet Formulation...................................................................................... 16
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View ..................................................... 20
4.1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 20
4.2. Problem Description ......................................................................................... 23
4.3. Building the Model ........................................................................................... 24
4.4. Testing the Model ............................................................................................. 39
4.5. Improving the Model (Optimization)................................................................ 57
Appendix A. Counterweight Specifications ............................................................ 67
Appendix B. Launch Platform Specifications......................................................... 68
Appendix C. Report Title Page ................................................................................ 69
5. References................................................................................................................ 72
1. Introduction 1
1. Introduction
In the ME380 course, students study design processes and techniques. As a part of this
course, these techniques are applied to a project which includes design, construction and
testing of a prototype. For the fall 2006 term, this project is the design and construction of
a trebuchet. Student teams should use MSC.ADAMS/View software for dynamic design,
simulation and optimization of the trebuchet. Stress analysis, material selection and
component design are other parts of this project. A prototype must be constructed and
tested in a competition. The competition includes testing trebuchets for performance i.e.
the highest shooting range and precision in shooting a target. During the competition, the
dynamics of the trebuchet are measured using simple image processing techniques and
the results are compared against simulation data. Teams will be marked based on their
achievements in competition and the design process demonstrated in the two reports to be
handed in through the term.
The purpose of this manual is to provide students with an outline of the trebuchet project
and its requirements. Following this short introduction in section 1, a brief history of
trebuchet will be presented. Project details including a problem statement, rules and
regulations, the report structure and marking scheme are discussed in section 2.
Dynamics of a sample trebuchet are introduced and solved in section 3 using a
Lagrangian approach. Since the main part of the design process is carried out using
ADAMS/View software, a tutorial of this software is included in section 4. This tutorial
consists of step-by-step modeling, testing and optimization of a sample trebuchet.
Throughout this tutorial students learn basics of ADAMS/View and get acquainted with
some aspects of trebuchet design.
1.1. History of the Trebuchet
The trebuchet was first invented in China around 500 to 300 B.C. and was used in Europe
after 600 A.D. It replaced other forms of artillery and was used until the invention of
cannons and gunpowder. [1]
1. Introduction 2
The trebuchet was a very powerful replacement for catapults. Unlike catapults that use
the energy of a twisted rope, a trebuchet relies on the energy provided by a falling
counterweight. The average catapult could launch 13 to 18 kilogram projectiles while
trebuchets are reported to have launched projectiles as heavy as a compact car (~500kg)
to an 80 meter distance using 30-tonne counterweight. They had been designed to throw
projectiles much more accurately than other medieval artillery and were used to attack a
specific target( e.g. a portion of a castle wall) unlike catapults, which were normally used
to instill fear rather than destroy a target. These machines have played a key role in
distribution of Black Plague, killing up to a third or two thirds of Europeans in the mid
14
th
century.
Figure 1- Trebuchet [2]
A common trebuchet is shown in Figure 1. It has a very simple structure and mechanism.
It consists of a lever having counterweight on one side and projectile on the other side.
Having triggered the mechanism, the overhanging counterweight falls down and transfers
1. Introduction 3
its potential energy to kinetic energy which is in turn transferred to the projectile by the
lever pivoted to a fulcrum.
Trebuchets were developed and optimized in their very first years by engineers indeed
the word engineering is intimately related to them. In Latin and the European
vernaculars, a common term for trebuchet was engine (from ingenium, an ingenious
contrivance), and those who designed, made and used them were called ingeniators. [1]
It took years for engineers to develop the early designs by trial and error to increase the
performance and precision of the trebuchet while decreasing its total weight.
Centuries later, potential engineers at the University of Waterloo will use modern tools to
design and optimize the medieval siege engine THE TREBUCHET.
2. Project Description 4
2. Project Description
2.1. Objectives
This project is intended to provide students with a clear understanding of the design
process through a hands-on experience in design, construction and testing of an optimized
dynamic device, with emphasis on utilization of multidisciplinary knowledge learned so
far in the Mechanical Engineering program.
2.2. Problem Statement
Students are supposed to design and build a Trebuchet to launch a given projectile using a
given amount of energy, i.e. potential energy of a counterweight resting high above the
ground. MSC.ADAMS/View will be used to simulate and optimize dynamics of the
trebuchet. Stress analysis is also required for structural design and mass optimization.
Projects will be marked based on performance, precision, agreement of simulation and
experimentation, the design process as demonstrated in the project report, creativity and
design quality. Performance of the machines will be judged based on maximum
utilization of the provided energy, i.e. maximum range thrown per unit mass of the
structure, and precision will be judged based on accuracy in shooting at a predefined
target. A camera will record the trebuchet in action and image processing techniques will
be used to track the projectile trajectory in order to compare the machine dynamics
simulations with reality.
2.3. Rules and Regulations
All teams must meet the following rules and regulations in order to be eligible to attend
the competition.
1. All teams must use a 4kg counterweight which will be provided in Student Machine
Shop two weeks before the competition. Geometry of the counterweight is shown in
Appendix A. Counterweight should be detachable for mass measurements.
2. Project Description 5
2. The maximum height of the center of mass of the counterweight must not exceed
350 mm above the launch platform base at initial state.
3. the projectile is a ball with 90g weight and 66mm diameter.
4. The only source of energy to launch the projectile is the potential energy of the
hanging counterweight. No other sources of energy (e.g. preloaded springs) are
allowed.
Note: Using springs and other elements are allowed as far as they are not adding to
the initial energy of the system.
5. The trebuchet should only throw the projectile in any attempt and no other parts of
the device should be released from the trebuchet.
6. There is no limitation on the number of arms, but each trebuchet must contain at
least one lever pivoted at the fulcrum. There is no limitation on fixing the fulcrum
in a point.
7. The machine should use the same parts to fulfill all required tasks including
performance and precision tests. No part change is allowed during the test unless
they are broken but adjustments of the existing parts are allowed.
8. A broken part may be replaced with a part of the same specifications. Only one part
for one time can be replaced during the whole competition.
9. Team members can only touch the machine to reload it. All group members should
stand clear from the launch platform except for one team member that can trigger
the trebuchet. The triggering mechanism must be reliable and activated by that
designated group member from a distance one meter away from the launch pad.
10. The triggering member should notify the judge that the device is ready for launch
and must wait until the START order is given by the judge. Any attempt before
the START order will not be counted and will not be repeated.
11. The device should be suitable for mounting on the launch platform shown in
Appendix B.
12. Competition will be held in the hallway behind the Student Machine Shop. A layout
of the test area is shown in Figure 2. The allocated test area is 1 meter wide, 25m
long and ~3 meter high. All launches outside this area will not be counted.
2. Project Description 6
Figure 2- Test area layout
13. Teams are free to choose any material.
14. Each team will be paid a total of $70 for material costs. Each team is required to
designate a member as the team leader who is the only team member that has
authority in purchasing from Engineering Machine Shop store using the account
number that will be provided at the beginning of the term. Group Leaders should
see Donna Kellendonk (E2-2328A) for up to $70 reimbursement.
15. All designs will be checked for safety and design regulations before the test.
Disqualified teams are not allowed to continue the test unless they fix the problem
in a timely manner. Disqualifications will affect the mark designated for design
quality.
16. With the counterweight removed, release of the trigger mechanism must not cause
the trebuchet to launch. This rule specifically prohibits the use of additional
counterweights or components designed to increase initial potential energy.
17. Violation of the intent of a rule will constitute violation of that rule. Specific
questions about the rules should be directed to instructor or TAs.
2.4. Trebuchet Competition
The competition will start with a safety check of the trigger mechanisms and procedure.
Safety is the single most important requirement for entering the competition. Only minor
25 m
3
m
1
m
Hallway Walls
Shooting Area
Launch Platform
2. Project Description 7
design revisions are allowed at this stage to ensure safety. Teams meeting safety
requirements are allowed to enter the competition.
Devices are then weighed to one gram resolution without the counterweight and
projectile.
Teams will start the performance test in the order of weights with the heaviest trebuchet
going first. Devices will then be mounted on the launching platform. The performance of
each device is measured based on the longest range thrown per mass of the device. Each
team will have three attempts and the longest shot will be considered for marking. Length
will be measured with one centimeter resolution from the front edge of the launching
platform to the first landing point of the projectile. Minor adjustments can be made
between each attempt provided that no parts are added, removed or replaced. Only broken
parts can be replaced once in the competition. Any shots outside the test area will not be
counted and will not be repeated. Note that the hallway ceiling is a major constraint to the
device performance. Shots hitting the ceiling are not counted and not repeated.
All students should stay clear from the device except for the designated team member
who is supposed to trigger the device according to the procedure outlined in section 2.3.
The device with lowest performance will start the precision test. At this stage teams will
launch three projectiles to a 2x2m foam sheet target which is placed horizontally on the
hallway floor. The centre of the target is at 12 m distance from the front edge of the
launch pad and is marked with a flag. Precision will be measured with summing up the
distance of each of the three projectiles from the centre of the target with centimeter
resolution. Lower summations will show higher precisions.
To measure the real dynamics of the device, each launching attempt will be recorded by a
camera, i.e. there will be a total of six launching videos available at the end of the
competition. Then based on the image processing method mentioned in section 2.5, each
team will measure the trajectory and kinematics of their shots. All teams are required to
make note of their launching conditions when making minor changes in any attempt on
site and modify their simulations using the simulation software and compare them in the
final report as instructed in section 2.5.
2. Project Description 8
At the end of the competition devices will be displayed to general audience and are
marked for creativity and quality of design. The marking for this part will be done by a
judging team including course instructor, TAs, team leaders and two of the Mechanical
Engineering Department professors.
2.5. Reports Structure
Students must hand in two reports: an interim report and a final report.
The interim report must completely demonstrate your design process, including back of
the envelope calculations, dynamic simulations using ADAMS/View, stress analysis and
material selection, design optimizations and final drawings. At this stage your design
must be finalized and be ready to be built. Only minor modifications, unless approved by
instructor or TAs, can be made to the system after this stage.
There should be nine main components in your interim report:
1. Title Page
2. Table of Contents
3. Summary
- Briefly stating approach, findings and recommendations
4. Introduction
- Brief background and objective review,
- Organization of the report
5. Main Body
- Theory and technical background
- Design criteria and constraints identification and analysis
- Design options (must include free hand drawings)
- Decision matrix and method of evaluation
- Procedures and analysis techniques (ADAMS/View Simulations)
2. Project Description 9
- Analysis and calculations results (Optimization)
- Detailed design
- Discussions
6. Conclusion
7. Recommendations
8. References
9. Appendices
- Additional calculations or formulations, if necessary
- Detailed drawings
Note that drawings are mandatory and must be prepared in detail using any of the
available CAD software. Upon submitting interim reports, teams will be notified of any
design problems that may be against rules and regulations or safety considerations.
The final report must include a summary of all key features of the design process
discussed in interim report in addition to modifications, test results and discussions. This
report must contain all nine components of interim report in addition to test results and
comparison of the physical tests to simulations to be added in the main body of the report.
2.6. Safety
Safety is a major concern through out the project. All teams must design and build
devices safe enough to not endanger other students, judges and spectators. Devices with
safety problems will not be allowed to compete until the safety concerns have been
addressed. Teams must operate their devices in a safe manner. Please always wear safety
glasses when launching or reloading the device.
2. Project Description 10
2.7. Marking Scheme
Interim Report: Preliminary Design: 15
Analysis and Design Optimization: 10
Detailed Design: 15
Test Results: Competition Attendance: 10
Performance: 10
Precision: 10
Creativity and Design Quality: 10
Final Report: Simulation/Experimentation Comparison: 10
Discussion: 10
Total Marks: 100
Team members will be asked for peer evaluation and based on their share in team work,
each team member will be marked. The share of each team member will appear on the
report cover page available in Appendix C of this manual.
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 11
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory
As mentioned in section 2, the main part of the project is analysis and optimization of
trebuchet dynamics. A trebuchet, in its fully developed form, is a multi body system that
can hardly be solved using Newtonian mechanics. A simpler and more advanced
approach to solve these sorts of problems is Lagrangian mechanics. Further in this
section, a brief introduction to Lagrangian mechanics will be presented and different
trebuchet configurations will be modeled using this approach. It should be noted that
learning this section is optional and it is only included here to help you with a better
understanding of trebuchet dynamics and formulation.
3.1. Lagrangian Mechanics - A Short Introduction
1
Newtonian mechanics are a set of rules that simplify a complex system to a simple free
body diagram and help in solving the kinematics and dynamics of the system. When it
comes to motion of a multi-body system with complicated degrees of freedom, using this
formalism needs extra patience and huge amount of computation time.
About two centuries after Sir Isaac Newton published these principals in Principia, his
approach to mechanics was reformulated to include more powerful methods that could
handle much more complicated systems with relative ease. One of these techniques was
developed by the great Italian-French mathematician, Joseph Louis Lagrange and was
published in his Mechanique Analytique. Contrary to Newtons fully physical approach to
mechanics, Lagrange used pure mathematics to analyze the motion by defining
Lagrangian and using the Principle of Least Action.
Lagrangian: Define the Lagrangian to be a function of the position, x and the velocities,
x& of all the particles, given by
) ( ) ( ) , ( x V x T x x L = & & (1)
where
=
2
) (
2
1
x m T & is the kinetic energy, and ) (x V is the potential energy of particles.
1
A more detailed discussion of Lagrangian Mechanics can be found in [3]-[6] .
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 12
Now assume all possible paths that can be taken by the system with x
initial
and x
final
end
points, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3- Possible paths that can be taken by system.
Of all these possible paths, the system will only take one path in reality. The principal of
least action tells us which path the system will choose!
Lets define action, S as
}
=
f
i
t
t
dt t x t x L t x S )) ( ), ( ( )] ( [ &
(2)
The principal of least action states that the actual path taken by the system is the path that
has the least action or in other words the path in which action is stationary or in
mathematical form
0 = S o (3)
This principle has the following useful result which helped the development of
Lagrangian Mechanics.
Consider varying a given path slightly, so that
) ( ) ( ) ( t x t x t x o + (4)
x
x
initial
t
x
final
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 13
where we fix the end points of the path by demanding 0 ) ( ) ( = =
f i
t x t x o o . Then the
change in the action is
dt x
x
L
x
x
L
dt L
dt L S
f
i
f
i
f
i
t
t
t
t
t
t
}
}
}
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
=
(
=
&
&
o o
o
o o
(5)
At this point we integrate the second term by parts to get
f
i
f
i
t
t
t
t
x
x
L
dt x
x
L
dt
d
x
L
S
(
c
c
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
=
}
o o o
& &
(6)
But the final term vanishes since we assumed that end points are fixed
so 0 ) ( ) ( = =
f i
t x t x o o . The requirement of the principle of least action i.e. 0 = S o holds if
and only if
0 = |
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
x
L
dt
d
x
L
&
(7)
This equation is known as the Lagrange Equation.
Substituting the Lagrangian definition of equation 1 into Lagrange Equation of equation
7,
( ) . 0
. 0
. 0
) ( ) (
=
c
c
= |
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
= |
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
mv
dt
d
x
V
x
T
dt
d
x
V
x
V T
dt
d
x
V T
&
&
(8)
which is the equivalent of Newtonian formalism of motion, ( ) V mv
dt
d
V = . This means
we could also show that Lagrange Equation is the same as Newtons.
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 14
The Lagrangian formulation has three main advantages over the classical Newtons; First,
Lagranges equation holds in any coordinate system, while Newtons are restricted to an
inertial frame. Second, it is easier to deal with constraints in Lagrangian formulation than
Newtonian. And third, as it was shown in the above equations, Lagrangian mechanics
works with energies rather than forces which puts relation in scalar form rather than
vector form and hence does not requiring vector calculus!
To put it in the nutshell, all you have to do in Lagrangian Mechanics is to calculate
kinetic and potential energies for all particles in your system, plug them into the Lagrange
Equation, and do some simple differentiation and integration.
3.1.1. Double Pendulum Example
Now, before going further into our trebuchet problem, lets solve a classic double
pendulum example.
Figure 4- Double pendulum example
A double pendulum is shown in Figure 4, consisting of two masses, m
1
and m
2
, connected
by two light strings. This system can be defined using two degrees of freedom,
1
u and
2
u .
In order to use Lagrangian mechanics to solve the motion, we have to first write kinetic
and potential energies of the two particles. For m
1
1 1 1 1
2
1
2
1 1 1
cos
2
1
u
u
gl m V
l m T
=
=
&
(9)
u
1
u
2
l
1
l
2
m
1
m
2
x
y
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 15
where T
1
and V
1
are the kinetic and potential energies, respectively. For m
2
it is a little bit
more complicated. Consider the position of the second particle in the (x,y) plane as shown
in Figure 4. This Cartesian position can be converted to a more general coordinate that
we previously defined for the pendulum system using
1
u and
2
u
2 2 1 1 2
2 2 1 1 2
cos cos
sin sin
u u
u u
l l y
l l x
+ =
+ =
(10)
substituting into the kinetic and potential energy of mass m
2
( )
) cos cos (
) cos( 2
2
1
) (
2
1
2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
2 1 2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1 2
2 2
2 2
u u
u u u u u u
l l g m gy m V
l l l l m
y x m T
+ = =
+ + =
+ =
& & & &
& &
(11)
Using Lagrangian definition in equation 1,
2 2 2 1 1 2 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 2
2
2 2 2
2
1
2
1 2 1
cos cos ) (
) cos(
2
1
) (
2
1
u u
u u u u u u
gl m gl m m
l l m l m l m m L
+ + +
+ + + =
& & & &
(12)
Now substituting into Lagrange Equation shown in equation 7 and differentiating with
respect to
1
u and
2
u we can derive equations of motion
( )
. 0
sin ) (
) sin( ) cos( ) (
) cos( ) (
sin ) ( ) sin(
1 1 2 1
2
2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1
2
1 2 1
2 2 1 2 1 2 1
2
1 2 1
1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 1
=
+
+ =
+ +
+ =
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
u
u u u u u u u
u u u u
u u u u u
u u
gl m m
l l m l l m l m m
l l m l m m
dt
d
gl m m l l m
L
dt
d L
& & & & &
& &
& &
&
1 1 2 1
2
2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1
2
1 2 1
sin ) ( ) sin( ) cos( ) ( u u u u u u u u gl m m l l m l l m l m m + = +
& & & & &
(13-1)
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 16
( )
. 0
) sin(
) sin( ) cos(
) cos(
) sin( ) sin(
2 2 2
2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
1 2
=
+ =
+
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
u
u u u u u u u
u u u u
u u u u u
u u
gl m
l l m l l m l m
l l m l m
dt
d
gl m l l m
L
dt
d L
& & & & &
& &
& &
&
) sin( ) sin( ) cos(
2 2 2
2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
u u u u u u u u gl m l l m l l m l m + =
& & & & &
(13-2)
Equations 13-1 and 13-2 show equations of motion for the double pendulum example.
Due to the fact that they are nonlinear, solution to these equations is a little bit
complicated and above a certain amount of energy the motion can be chaotic!
3.2. Trebuchet Formulation
In order to understand the development of trebuchet and the effect of each element on its
performance, it is worth discussing and analyzing dynamics of different versions of
trebuchet. A more detailed solution to trebuchet dynamics is given in [7]-[11], where all
the material from simple dynamic simulations to modern optimization methods that were
used to analyze the medieval trebuchet is discussed. However, in this section we would
only discuss dynamic formulations for different versions of trebuchet through its
development. It should be noted that to simplify the analysis we make some idealizations.
Therefore, we would neglect dissipative forces like joint friction and air resistance. The
beam is assumed to be rigid with negligible mass, and the triggering mechanisms are
assumed to work ideally and will not affect systems performance.
Figure 5 shows a schematic representation of these versions.
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 17
Figure 5- Different versions of trebuchet
See-Saw model. Figure 5-a is the simplest trebuchet configuration, which has almost the
same structure as a see-saw. In this configuration the counterweight is fixed to the beam
end, and it has no sling. The massless beam of length l L + is set to an initial angle of
0
u .
As you can see, this model is a single DOF system which is completely described by the
single variableu . The motion of this simple case can be calculated using Lagrangian
mechanics previously discussed in this section,
) sin sin ( ) (
2
1
2 2 2
u u u Mgl mgL mL Ml L + =
&
(14)
m
L
l
M
u
y
x
m
L
l
M
r
u
m
L
l
M
r
u
k
a)
b)
c)
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 18
substituting into equation 7 an differentiating with respect to u ,
0 cos ) ( ) (
2 2
= + + u u g Ml mL mL Ml
& &
(15)
Solving this equation with
0
) 0 ( u u = = t initial condition gives the equation of motion for
simplest trebuchet configuration. As we will see later, this system is the only
configuration that can be solved analytically. All other configurations need to be solved
numerically.
Trebuchet with hinged counterweight. Figure 5-b shows the configuration with hinged
counterweight. The counterweight is hinged using a link of length r. As you can see, this
model is a 2DOF system described by u and . Using the analogy to double pendulum
example discussed earlier, the Lagrangian for this configuration is
[ ] ) cos sin ( sin ) ) sin( 2 (
2
1
2
1
2 2 2 2 2 2
u u u u u u r l Mg mgL r lr l M mL L
(
+ + + = & &
& & &
(16)
substituting into equation 7 and differentiating with respect to u and ,
u u u u
u u u u
sin ) cos( ) sin(
cos ) ( ) cos( ) sin( ) (
2 2
2 2 2
Mgr Mlr Mlr Mr
g mL Ml Mlr Mlr Ml mL
+ + =
+ = +
& & &
& &
& & &
& &
(17)
The equation of motion of this configuration is coupled and nonlinear and can be solved
numerically.
Trebuchet with sling and hinged counterweight. The most improved medieval
trebuchet is the one with both sling and hinged counterweight. (Figure 5-c) In this case
the projectile is connected to the lever using a mass less sling of length k. This
configuration is a 3DOF system that is described usingu , and . The Lagrangian for
this equation is
[ ] ) cos sin ( ) sin sin (
) ) cos( 2 (
2
1
) ) sin( 2 (
2
1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
u u
u u u u u u
r l Mg k L mg
k Lk L m r lr l M L
+
(
+ + + + + = & &
& &
& &
& &
(18)
3. Trebuchet Dynamics - Theory 19
The constraint and initial conditions for this case is a little bit complicated. In this case,
initially the projectile rubbed on the ground (y
m
=0) until the vertical component of sling
tension is high enough (>mg) to pull it off the ground. After this time, there is no normal
ground force and the projectile is airborne. A general way to handle these types of
constraints is utilization of Lagrange Multipliers. To impose the constraint y
m
=0, we
introduce a new variable , the Lagrange multiplier, and subtract times the constraint
from the Lagrangian of equation 18
[ ] [ ] u u u
u u u u u u
sin sin ) cos sin ( ) sin sin (
) ) cos( 2 (
2
1
) ) sin( 2 (
2
1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
k L r l Mg k L mg
k Lk L m r lr l M L
+ +
(
+ + + + + = & &
& &
& &
& &
(19)
The Lagrange multiplier is the normal force that is required to impose the constraint.
We then use this equation to derive equations of motion by differentiating Lagrange
equation with respect tou , , and the new variable . To solve the equations of motion
numerically, we start from time zero to the time corresponding to mg = . This is the
onset of projectiles taking off the ground. As previously mentioned after this time the
projectile is airborne and we can remove the constraint from the equations, and use the
initial value of L as stated in equation 18.
One can use these equations for design analysis and optimization. However, due to
idealizations made through formulation, only some simple systems can be modeled using
these equations. For this reason, we would normally use readily available software to
model and optimize our system. MSC.Adams is one those powerful commercial software
that would be used in the trebuchet project. In the next section you will learn how to get
started with MSC.Adams to solve your own trebuchet problem.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 20
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View
4.1. Introduction
The MSC.ADAMS
,
V is the projectile velocity.
Since this force acts in the reverse direction of velocity vector and is a vector quantity,
you can compute this force on X and Y directions separately and apply the components to
the center of mass of the projectile.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 54
To add drag force to projectile:
From the Main Toolbox, right click on the Applied Force tool stack,
and select Force (Single Component) tool.
From Run-time Direction list, select Space Fixed.
Note: From the Run-time Direction list you can select the direction of
force during the simulation.
From Construction list, select Pick Feature.
From Characteristic list, select Custom.
Note: From the Characteristic list, you can select whether the force is
constant or varying as a function during simulation. Since the drag
force is function of projectile velocity, in this simulation, you need to
select Custom.
Select Projectile, and then Center of Mass of Projectile, and then X-direction. Check
the status bar and see what the tool is asking for.
The Modify Force dialog box appears.
From the Define Using list, select Function.
Click on the Function button, next to the Function box.
The Function Builder dialog box appears.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 55
Figure 26- Function Builder dialog box
In this box you define the drag force in X-direction.
In Function Work Area, type 0.5*0.5*1.2*28.27E-4*(Projectile_VELX*1E-2) **2.
Note: The ** sign represents the power operator.
Click on Plot button to view the value of this function.
Close the graph.
Note: This value is the magnitude of the force. Since the force is always in the reverse
direction of velocity, we can add a sign() function to correct the value of force.
From the Function Category list, select Math Functions.
From list of functions, double click on SIGN.
List of
Functions
Function
Categories
Function
Work Area
Operators
Verify
Expression
Get
Predefined
Data
Plot Result
of Function
Get Help with System
Supplied Function
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 56
The general form of SIGN function appears in Function Work Area as SIGN(x1, x2).
This function applies the sign of expression x2 to expression x1.
Edit the function, as
-1*SIGN(.5*0.5*1.2*28.27E-4*(Projectile_VELX*1E-2)**2, Projectile_VELX).
Note: This function applies the reverse sign of projectile velocity to the drag force
magnitude.
Select OK in Function Builder dialog box, then select OK in Modify Force dialog box..
The drag force component along x-axis, SFORCE_1, is now created.
Repeat the above procedure for the Y component of drag force.
Note: Remember to choose the Y-axis when you are asked to choose the vector direction.
Use Y component of projectile velocity, Projectile_VELY in drag force function. The
function should look like:
-1*SIGN(.5*0.5*1.2*28.27E-4*(Projectile_VELY*1E-2)**2, Projectile_VELY)
To investigate the effect of drag force on projectile trajectory:
Run a Scripted Simulation.
Save simulation as RUN_3.
Switch to ADAMS/Postprocessor.
From the Dashboard, select RUN_3, then Projectile_Y.
From the drop down list, select Add Curves to Current, and then press Add Curve.
A new curve, showing the effect of drag force on projectile trajectory is created.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 57
Figure 27- Projectile trajectory without dissipative forces (solid), with friction only (blue dashed) and
with drag force only (red dashed)
Close ADAMS/Postprocessor window to return to ADAMS/View.
To delete drag force:
Deselect all objects.
Under Edit menu, select Delete.
From the Database Navigator, select SFORCE_1, select OK.
Repeat the procedure for SFORCE_2.
Save database as Trebuchet_Test.
4.5. Improving the Model (Optimization)
In this section you refine your model by parameterizing some critical values that can
affect the performance of the trebuchet, and then you study the effect of these parameters
and optimize the model based on these parameters.
There are many parameters that affect the performance of a trebuchet. However, in the
current tutorial three critical parameters, namely lever beam mass, sling length and
release angle will be studied, and the performance of trebuchet, which is defined as the
maximum range of projectile, will be optimized.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 58
It should be noted that there are many other parameters that influences the performance
of the trebuchet and you need to consider them in your design.
Parameterizing the Critical Values
The model that you made up to this stage consists of values that are all fixed, i.e. the
lengths, masses and geometrical constraints are pre-defined constants. In order to conduct
a design study and improve your model, you need to set variable parameters that can be
easily changed, so that you can see the effect of these parameters on the performance of
the model.
To create a design variable for lever beam mass:
Right click on the Lever object, point to Part: Lever, and then Modify.
The Modify Body dialog box appears.
From the Define Mass By list, select
Geometry and Density.
Right click on Density box, point to
Parameterize and then Create
Design Variable.
The (.Trebuchet.DV_1) expression appears in the box. This will be the design variable
that further represents the value of lever mass.
Select OK.
To create a design variable for release angle:
You can create a design variable representing the release angle, that has standard value of
20 and can be changed between 0 to 80.
From the Build menu, point to Design Variable and then New.
The Create Design Variable dialog box appears.
In Standard Value box, type 20.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 59
From Value Range by list, select Absolute Min
and Max Values.
In Min. Value box, type 0.
In Max. Value box, type 80.
Select OK.
Since we have defined SENSOR_2 based on the value of this angle, we have to now
change this value in the sensor definition.
From the Simulate menu, point to Sensor, and then Modify.
The Database Navigator dialog box appears.
Select SENSOR_2 and then OK.
The Modify Sensor dialog box appears.
Right click on the Value box, point to Parameterize and then Expression Builder.
The Function Builder dialog box appears.
In Function Work Area box, type TAN (DV_2).
Select OK.
The (TAN (DV_2)) expression appears in Value box.
Select OK.
To create a design variable for sling length:
You can change the value of sling length by setting a design variable to the x-location of
POINT_4. Remember that you have used these points for model construction so that you
can change the model layout by simply changing the position of these points.
Right click on Point_4 (end point of sling), and then point to Modify
The Table Editor for Points dialog box appears. (Figure 28)
Click on Loc_X of POINT_4.
Right click on the Input box on top of the Table Editor, and point to Parameterize, then
Create Design Variable and then Real.
The (Trebuchet.DV_3) expression appears in Loc_X of POINT_4.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 60
Note: When editing values in Table Editor, new values must be entered in Input box
followed by pressing Lock button to make sure that the new value is set to the desired
cell.
Click on Lock button to insert the value in Loc_X of POINT_4.
Select OK to close Table Editor.
Figure 28- Table Editor
To modify and review design variables:
From the Build menu, point to Design Variable and then Modify.
The Database Navigator dialog box appears.
Select DV_1 from the list and select OK.
The Modify Design Variable dialog box appears.
Set Value Range by list to Absolute Min and Max Values.
Set Min Value to 400 (kg/meter**3) and Max Value to 7800 (kg/meter**3).
Select OK.
Input Box Lock button to insert values
from Input box to cells
Row Header
Column Header
Set object
display
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 61
Follow the same procedure to modify DV_3.
Set Value Range by list to Absolute Min and Max Values.
Set Min Value to -15.0 and Max Value to 20.0.
Select OK.
Performing a Manual Study
In this section you can see the effect of sling length on the projectile velocity by manually
changing the value of DV_3, the design variable assigned to sling length.
To perform a manual study:
From the Tools menu, select Table Editor.
The Table Editor dialog box appears.
From Set object display row at the bottom of the dialog box select Variables.
From the Table Editor, change the Real_Value of DV_3 to 20.0.
Select Apply.
Note: Always remember to press Apply or OK to apply changes to your model layout.
Run a Scripted Simulation.
From the Build menu, point to Measure and then Display.
The Database Navigator box appears.
From the list select Projectile_X, and then OK.
The Projectile_X graph appears.
Right click on the red curve in graph and point to Curve: Current and then Save Curve.
The curve color changes from red to blue and is now named Saved1.
From the Table Editor, change the Real_Value of DV_3 to -10.0, and then press Enter.
Select Appply.
Run a Scripted Simulation.
From the Projectile_X measure graph see the effect of sling length on range efficiency.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 62
Note: ADAMS/View shows an animation of the simulation while solving the equations.
In some cases, you may see that the animation shows some unusual behavior of the
mechanism. Although animations are good for visualization, they can not be used for
design purposes and they just provide initial demonstration of model.
Change the Real_Value of DV_3 back to 11.0 and Select OK.
Figure 29- Manual study of sling length effect (Projectile_X vs Time)
Running a Design Study
ADAMS/View has the capability to perform all of the above procedure and automate
your design study. In this section you study the effect of release angle on the performance
of trebuchet.
To run a design study:
From the Simulate menu, select Design Evaluation.
The Design Evaluation Tools dialog box appears.
Form Study a list, select Measure, select Maximum of
from the list and in the box, type Projectile_X.
In Design Variable box, type DV_2.
In Default Levels box, type 5. This will divide the pre-
defined variable range to five values and use them to
run the study.
From the Settings at the bottom of box, select Display
icon.
The Solver Settings dialog box appears.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 63
To see all options, select More.
Set Time Delay to 0.0.
Set Chart Variables and Show Report to Yes.
To close Solver Settings dialog box, Select Close and
return back to Design Evaluation Tools dialog box.
To start the Design Study, select Start.
ADAMS/View runs the simulation and shows the
following graphs in addition to a report as shown in
Run the design study for DV_1 and DV_2 and see the
results and their effect on performance.
Close all graphs and the Information dialog box.
Figure 30- Design Study Results, a) Report, b) DV_2 value vs. Trial, c) Projectile_X value vs. DV_2
a)
b) c)
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 64
Running an Optimization
You will now find the optimum design for your trebuchet considering only the effect of
chosen design variables. As you saw in the design study, mass of the beam is inversely
proportional to the performance. So based on the strength considerations the lowest
weight/strength will suffice your optimum design. Therefore, in device optimization you
only optimize values of sling length and release angle. As you can see at the end of this
section, optimization is a very time consuming process and running a good design study
will help you choose better design variables and come to an optimized solution faster.
To perform an optimization:
From Design Evaluation dialog box, select
Optimization.
In Design Variables box, type DV_2, press Enter, and
then type DV_3.
From Settings, select Optimizer button.
The Solver Settings dialog box appears.
Select OPTDES-SQP from the Algorithm list.
In Tolerance box, type 1E-3.
In Increment box, type 1E-6.
Note: The optimization process is highly dependant on
values of tolerance and increment. Try different values in
your design process to come to the real optimized design.
Select Close to return back to Design Evaluation Tools
dialog box.
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 65
Again from Settings, select Output.
From Output Category list, select Database Storage.
Under Multi-Run Simulations, set Save Analysis to
Yes.
Select Close.
Start Optimization.
Note: Optimization may take several minutes to
complete, and will take several optimizations.
When the optimization process is finished, see the
optimized values from the Information dialog box. These
values are shown in Figure 31.
Use these values to build your final optimized trebuchet!
Note 1: The optimized values will be set to your model by the software at the end of
optimization.
Note 2: Your optimization process highly depends on the tolerance, increment,
optimization algorithm, and range of design variable. In order to come to the best
optimization process, you need to try different scenarios and refine your parameters each
time.
Note 2: The trebuchet optimization is a nonlinear optimization process and may result in
different solutions (local optimized solution) by choosing different initial values. So try
different initial values and check for the best optimized values (global optimized
solution).
Note 3: Again it should be noted that this section is only intended to give you a general
overview of MSC.Adams/View to get started with this software and also learn trebuchet
dynamics. For your own design, you need to study other parameters and design layouts.
Your trebuchet may even look totally different from what is generally known as
trebuchet!
4. Trebuchet Simulation in MSC.ADAMS/View 66
Figure 31- Optimization Results, a) Report, b)Projectile_X value vs. Iteration, c) DV_2 value vs.
Iteration and d) DV_3 vs. Iteration
a)
b) c)
d)
Appendix A. Counterweight Specifications 67
Appendix A. Counterweight Specifications
Appendix B. Launch Platform Specifications 68
Appendix B. Launch Platform Specifications
Appendix C. Report Cover Page 69
Appendix C. Report Title Page
See the next following pages for report title pages.
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ME380 Mechanical Engineering Design Workshop
INTERIM REPORT FALL 2006
Team Number: ______
Team Members:
Name ID#
Contribution
%
Signature
1
2
3
4
5
Marks:
Preliminary Design: /15
Analysis and Design Optimization: /10
Detailed Design: /15
Total Marks for Interim Report: /40
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ME380 Mechanical Engineering Design Workshop
FINAL REPORT FALL 2006
Team Number: ______
Team Members:
Name ID#
Contribution
%
Signature
1
2
3
4
5
Marks:
Interim Report: /40
Test Results: Attendance in Competition: /10
Performance: /10
Precision: /10
Creativity and Design Quality: /10
Final Report: Simulation/Experimentation Comparison: /10
Discussion: /10
Total Marks: /100
5. References 72
5. References
[1] Chevedden, P. E., Eigenbrod, L., Floey, V. and Soedel, W., The Trebuchet,
Scientific American, February 2002, pp. 2-5.
[2] Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet,
Available: July 2006.
[3] Ginsberg, J. H., Advanced Engineering Dynamics, Second Edition, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 1995.
[4] Goldstein, H., Poole, C. P., Safko, J. L., Classical Mechanics, Third Edition,
Addison Wily, San Francisco, 2002.
[5] Kibble, W. B., Berkshire, F. H., Classical Mechanics, Fifth Edition, Imperial
College Press, London, 2004.
[6] Tong, David, Classical Dynamics, Lecture Notes on Classical Dynamics,
University of Cambridge, 2004. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/dynamics.htm.
[7] Denny, M., Siege Engine Dynamics, European Journal of Physics, 26, 2005, pp.
561-577.
[8] Siano, D. B., Trebuchet Mechanics, http://www.algobeautytreb.com/, Available:
July 2006.
[9] Covington, M., The Trebuchet: Physics, Numerics and Connections to Millennia of
Human Activity, Physics Honours Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
[10] Chang, H., Fu, W., Shimizu, M., Tang, C. P., Design and development of a model
trebuchet, MAE415 Final Project, State University of New York at Buffalo, 2000.
[11] Arnold, B., Richards, L., Wongpiromsarn, Going Mobile: Search for Ideal
Trebuchet, MAE479/579 Final Project, Cornell University, 2004.
[12] ADAMS/View online help, MSC.Software Corporation, 2004.