“Trebuchet: Designing and Testing”

Leen AlNouri (327003710) & Aisha AlQahtani (527001330) & Nafia

Tasneem (327000261) & Hania El-Sayed (527004207)
Texas A&M University at Qatar
ENGR 216-503
Due Date: 28 April, 2019
Professor: Dr. Michael Schuller
 2

Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….…3

Theory (Model) …………………………………………………………………………………….….4

Experimental Apparatus……………………………………………………………………………..…6

Test Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………….…8

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………….…9

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………..…11

Findings……………………………………………………………………………………….………12

Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………12

References………………………………………………………………………………………..……12

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………13

 3

Introduction

Designing a catapult to launch projectiles that cover certain ranges is problematic

since many parameters must be taken into consideration. Catapults can be used for military
purposes as a siege weapon; used mainly for throwing missiles at soldiers in battles. In order
to make those catapults work perfectly, various tests and modifications must be done.
The objective of this experiment was to design a trebuchet that throws a projectile at a
target range. Those ranges were 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m. The catapult design was fabricated and
tested for the purposes of this experiment. It was tested by adding different counterweights to
check how much mass is required for each projectile to cover all three target ranges.
The purpose of the experiment was to find the angles and the counter mass that will make the
big and small projectile travel a distance of 500cm, 750 cm, and 1000 cm.
An overview of how the machine works, it uses stored potential energy which is
converted to kinetic energy of the swing arm and then to the kinetic energy of the projectile.
There are three main ways to store energy for a catapult: tension, torsion and gravity. For the
sake of this project, the trebuchet works on gravity.
Once the projectile is thrown it travels in a projectile motion, which is defined as: it is
the motion of an object thrown or projected into the air, subject to only the acceleration of
gravity.2

There are many factors which can affect the distance the projectile travels:
• Environmental parameters: fluid density, temperature, humidity - there are
variables that cannot be easily controlled. In this project no such control
measurements were taken for environmental factors.
• The length of the swing arm of the catapult
• Counterweight
• Height of the swing arm from the ground
• Launch velocity
• Position of the fulcrum - the projectile moves at a better linear velocity when
the fulcrum is positioned closer to the counter weight
• Initial angle at which the projectile is released

The parameter chosen was varying the counterweight. The built catapult was tested
several times by throwing projectiles with known masses at certain distances. Along with
practical methods, the range was also obtained by calculations. Only two projectiles were
used; one was a spacer and the other was a pulley. Python script was used to take recordings
of the trebuchet in action. The video was analyzed to capture the moment at which the
projectile leaves the arm, which is called the launch position. This aided in determining the
correct launch angle by measuring it using the image analysis software, Digimizer.
Several physics concepts were taken into account for the calculations of the projectile
motion, one of the physical concepts used was the conservation of energy for the two
masses; this important law could be used because the only force acting on both the masses
was the force of gravity, which is conservative by nature.

“The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed -
only converted from one form of energy to another.” 1
 4

Theory (Model)

In theory, the projectiles should cover three target ranges for three different
counterweights. In the experimental application of the theory, the projectiles covered the
target distances when the correct counterweights were added. Those ranges would be covered
if the projectiles were thrown at an appropriate initial velocity, an appropriate launch angle, a
proper arm length & a proper counterweight. The main physical concept used to
mathematically and physically prove this theory was the law of conservation of energy.
However, the law of conservation of energy was not enough to do all the required
calculations, where the dynamics of rotational motion and projectile motion were also used
for the calculations in the proof process of this experiment.
The law of conservation of energy was used to calculate the initial velocity of the
projectiles and the counterweights when the trebuchet was launched. Moreover, the dynamics
of rotational motion were used since the arm was rotating around a pivot point. Rotational
motion was used to also calculate the velocities of the projectile & counterweights through
the angular velocity from the relation (v = ωr). Finally, the dynamics of projectile motion
were used to calculate the ranges that were experimentally covered, and the time taken to
cover them.
All of the data obtained in the experiment was used to calculate the launch velocity,
the projectile distance and the time taken to cover that distance. The calculations were done
with the equations below which reduced the data obtained into three main ones: target
distances, launching velocities, time take to cover the distances.

Equations

From Figure-1 we obtain: From Figure-2 we obtain:

h"# = H − L" sin (∅) h"2 = H − L" cos (ψ)

h/# = H + L/ sin (∅) h/2 = H + L/ cos (ψ)

∅, H, L" & L/ were measured. ψ, H, L" & L/ were measured.
h"# & h/# were calculated. h"2 & h/2 were calculated.

Conservation of Energy:

PE# + KE# = PE2 + KE2

/
𝐿/ /
(𝑚/ 𝑔ℎ/< − 𝑚/ 𝑔ℎ/= ) + (𝑚" 𝑔ℎ"< − 𝑚" 𝑔ℎ"= ) = 1/2 (𝑚/ A I + 𝑚" ) 𝑣"=
𝐿" + 𝐿CDEFGH
All variables in the equation including mass were measured except v"2
Derivation:

PE# + KE# = PE2 + KE2

1 /
1 /
𝑀/ 𝑔ℎ/< + 𝑀" 𝑔ℎ"< = (m/ gh/2 + m" gh"2 ) + A 𝑀/ 𝑣/= + 𝑀" 𝑣"= I . . (𝟏. 𝟏)
2 2
𝑤 = 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑤(𝐿" + 𝐿CDEFGH ) = 𝑣"= 𝑤𝐿/ = 𝑣/=
]^_ a^ bacdefgh ]^_ a`
]`_
= a`
𝑣/= = a
^ bacdefgh
𝐵𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣/= 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝟏. 𝟏 𝑤𝑒 𝑜𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
 5
By solving for v"2 in the equation above we obtain:
Launch Velocity:

"//

2g(M/ L/ − M" L" )(sin(∅) + cos(ψ))

v"2 = n / r
L
M" + M/ p𝐿 + 𝐿/ q
" CDEFGH
All variables were measured to calculate v"2.

Projectile distance (𝒙𝒎𝒂𝒙 ) & Time taken to cover the Distance (𝒕𝒎𝒂𝒙𝑿 ):
"
−v"2 sin(ψ) ± [(v"2 sinψ)/ − 4(H + L" cosψ)(−4.9) ]/
t yz{| =
2(−4.9)
All variables were measured but v"2 was calculated.

xyz{ = v"2 cosψ t yz{|

v"2 & 𝑡„G…† were calculated and ψ was measured.

Derivation:
v"2{ = v"2 cosψ v"2• = v"2 sinψ
Launch Height = y• = H + L" cosψ

For constant acceleration:

1
y = y• + v"2• t + at /
2
a = g = -9.8 m/s2
y = H + L" 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜓 + 𝑣"= sin 𝜓 𝑡 − 4.9𝑡 /

Maximum x at y=0:
"
−v"2 sin(ψ) ± [(v"2 sinψ)/ − 4(H + L" cosψ)(−4.9) ]/
t yz{| =
2(−4.9)
xyz{ = v"2{ t yz{| = v"2 cosψ t yz{|
•
𝑥" + 𝑥/ + ⋯ + 𝑥• 1
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑥̅ ) = = – 𝑥<
𝑛 𝑛
<—"
The average of the three trials taken was calculated.
(…^›…̅ )` b(…` ›…̅ )`b⋯b(…œ ›…̅ )`
𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝜎) = š •›"
, where 𝑥̅ represents the average
of the points. The standard deviation of the distances travelled by the projectiles in each
target distance was calculated. This was to show how far these ranges were from their
mean.
…cge¡fc ›…g¢feg¡f
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑥„G… = …̅
× 100, where x¥ is the average of the

target and the average reached distance by the projectile.

 6

Experimental Apparatus

Below are labeled pictures of the apparatus used in this experiment:

camera
Small mass
projectile attached
with thread

catapult

Big mass projectile

Air hockey table attached with thread

20g and 10g

mass
100g Counter 5g mass
100g Counter weight weight with 20 g
mass

Screen

Meter ruler
 7

Equipment

• Metals with different masses: they were used as counterweights.

• Meter ruler: used to take all the measurements.
• Air hockey table: to achieve a frictionless surface.
• A built catapult: to launch the projectile.
• Tracking camera: to record the motion and locate launch angle.
• Screen: to observe the motion.
• Different objects (spacer and pulley): used as the two projectiles.
• Thread and cord attached to the projectile and counterweight: to hold them in place.

Components

Figure 1: Catapult components and locations of measurements initially.

 8

Figure 2: Catapult components and locations of measurements at launch.

Uncertainty of the meter stick used to measure all the heights was ±0.1 cm.

Test Procedure

At first, it was required to build a catapult with the equipment given. However, in
order to achieve the desired distance, the trebuchet needed to be shrunk by using shorter
beams. Then, the measurements of L1, L2, Lthread, Lcord, and H were taken using a meter ruler
as shown in Figure 1.
In this experiment, two angles were required to be found. The first angle was the
initial angle which was the starting angle before the catapult was released. This angle was
measured using an angle indicator application on the phone. The second angle was the launch
angle which is the angle at the instant the trebuchet was released, and this was measured
using two different methods. The first method was using the Digimizer and the second
method was using an online protractor. The Digimizer method was carried out by placing the
catapult on the air hockey table and recording the trebuchet in action by the camera on the
side of the table. The video was analyzed and then a screenshot of the determined launch
position was taken. The picture was exported to Digimizer and the measurements from the
pivot were taken as ratios, so there was no need to calibrate.
After that, the heights measured were used in the calculations to determine the
velocity, maximum time and maximum range for the projectile in relation to the
counterweight placed. A plot was then graphed from the data that resulted from the
calculations. The plot indicated the relation of the mass of the counterweight to the distance
the projectile travelled.
Finally, different counterweight masses were tested and the ranges the two projectiles
travelled were recorded by placing a meter ruler under the pivot of the trebuchet. The
 9

trebuchet was released, and the distance was approximately observed on the meter ruler.
Several trials were carried out using different counter masses until the desired distance was
achieved. Three trials were done at each assigned distance for both the small and big
projectile. This process was made easier by placing three tracking stickers on the target
distances as shown in the figure below:

Results

The launch angle was found to be 20° for the spacer projectile and 40° for the pulley
projectile.
The tables below show the calculated time and velocity of the two projectiles to cover the
target distances.
Table 1: Time taken for both projectiles to cover the target distances, as calculated.
Distance covered (m) Time taken for spacer (s) Time taken for pulley (s)
0.50 0.401 0.484
0.75 0.423 0.526
1.00 0.445 0.565

Table 2: The velocity at the moment of launch for both projectiles when given the target
distances, as calculated.
Distance covered (m) Velocity of the spacer (m/s) Velocity of the pulley (m/s)
0.50 1.617 2.106
0.75 2.157 2.554
1.00 2.668 2.953

Below are the three trials’ average range from the approximated counterweight mass for both
projectiles, along with the plot of counterweight mass vs range. Refer to ___ in Appendix to
view all the reached values and counterweight masses used.

Table 3: The averages of the travelled distances of the small projectile (spacer), along with
their standard deviation.
Target range (m) Average (m) Standard deviation
0.50 0.457 0.0301
0.75 0.687 0.0306
1.00 0.990 0.0173
 10

M2 vs xmax
0.0085
Counterweight mass (kg) 0.008
0.0075
0.007
0.0065
0.006
0.0055
0.005
0.0045
0.004
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Maximum range (m)

Graph 1: Mass of the counterweight (M2) placed, versus the maximum range the small
projectile (spacer) reached, as obtained by calculations.

Table 4: The averages of the travelled distances of the large projectile (pulley), along with
their standard deviation.
Target range (m) Average (m) Standard deviation
0.50 0.458 0.0333
0.75 0.740 0.0132
1.00 0.968 0.0126

M2 vs xmax
0.048
0.047
Counterweight mass (kg)

0.046
0.045
0.044
0.043
0.042
0.041
0.04
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Maximum range (m)

Graph 2: Mass of the counterweight (M2) placed, versus the maximum range the large
projectile (pulley) reached, as obtained by calculations.
 11

Percentage Difference between average range and target range for spacer:
The percentage differences were 9.0 %, 8.8 %, and 1.0 % for the 0.5 m, 0.75 m, and 1.0 m
targets.
Percentage Difference between average range and target range for pulley:
The percentage differences were 8.8 %, 1.3 %, and 3.3 % for the 0.5 m, 0.75 m, and 1.0 m
targets.
Discussion

Initially, the trebuchet designed was large, so it made the projectiles travel for large
distances. It was therefore shrunk since in this experiment it was only required for the
projectile to travel short ranges.
When the videos taken were analyzed, it was observed that the launch angle was the
point at which the thread of the hanging projectile aligned with the catapult arm. This was
verified by checking the point after the launch point; where the projectile at that point was
ahead of the arm, which means it was travelling at its own velocity which was different from
the arm’s.
In this analysis, the launch angle was considered to be constant for each projectile
regardless of the counterweight mass placed. Because of that, only one measurement was
taken for the launch angle. If a measurement was taken for every counterweight placed, the
calculations would have yielded better results, because in reality, the launch angle changes
with the change of weight.
The graph showed a directly proportional relation between two variables which are
the counterweight and distance travelled, that is, as the counterweight mass increased, the
distance (being the dependent variable) also increased. The heavier the counterweight, the
longer the distance covered. This was true even in real life when the catapult was tested with
different masses. The calculations predicted the mass to be too light. The calculations
obtained the range from the launch position, not the pivot, so this was also taken into
consideration. The center of mass of the counterweights placed also varied, but even after
accounting for that change, the mass predicted was still too small.
The larger projectile (pulley) had a larger launch angle than the smaller projectile
(spacer) because it was heavier. This large launch angle made it take longer time to travel the
same distance because of the large vertical velocity component. This can be seen in Table 2,
where the velocity of the pulley was found to be greater.
As shown from the graph, the calculations predicted masses that were too light. The
correct mass that would make the projectile travel the destination was a lot heavier, and
hence, the calculations overestimated the distance covered by the projectile due to numerous
errors.
The first error was the numerous ruler measurements taken, which is a random error.
There was also no account for the friction between the pivot bar (metal bar) and the arm of
the trebuchet as it rotates, as well as air resistance. Another concept that could have been
considered was the fact that the catapult arm was not massless, hence it also had potential
energy, kinetic energy as well as moment of inertia which all would have affected the
equations used in the calculations. Nevertheless, if the moment of inertia was accounted for,
it wouldn’t have made a big difference because the arm itself was not heavy, and its center of
mass was about its center, which was far from the location the projectile is thrown from.
The length of the catapult arm was also too long, and so, this error might have also
affected the calculations to be far from the real value. In addition, the position at which the
arm was held before releasing it to launch the projectile also affects the motion of the
projectile, it was best to hold it at the end (values stayed more constant).
 12

The standard deviation vales were small, which means that the trials were precise.
However, the predictions of the calculations were far off from the real-life masses used. The
percentage error calculated shows that the counterweight masses used made the projectile
travel to an accurate distance.

Findings

Discoveries from the experiment:

• The larger mass had a larger launch angle.
• The larger mass took longer to reach the same distance.
• A larger counterweight mass yielded a larger travelled distance.
• Two launch angles obtained by throwing both the projectiles for different
ranges.
• The counterweight mass and the distance covered were directly proportional.
• The calculations did not predict a correct real-life situation.

Conclusion

A larger mass gives larger launch angle which makes the object take more time to
return back to the ground. The larger the mass placed (larger force of gravity), the larger the
travelled distance. It requires less force to move a small mass in comparison to a larger mass.
Newton’s second law of motion is not obeyed in this experiment.

References

1. “Law of Conservation of Energy.” Law of Conservation of Energy - Energy

Education, energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Law_of_conservation_of_energy.
2. Vedantu. “Projectile Motion.” Formula, Equations and Examples Of, Vedantu, 15
Apr. 2019, www.vedantu.com/physics/projectile-motion.
 13

Appendix
Table 5: Data for spacer
Mass used (kg) Travelled range (m)
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
0.070 0.460 0.425 0.485
0.085 0.660 0.680 0.720
0.110 1.000 0.970 1.000

Table 6: Data for pulley

Mass used (kg) Travelled range (m)
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
0.105 0.475 0.420 0.480
0.120 0.745 0.725 0.750
0.140 0.955 0.980 0.970

Sample Calculations:
¦.§¨¦b¦.§/©b¦.§ª©
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = «
= 0.457 𝑚
|0.5 − 0.457|
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑥„G… = × 100 = 9.0 %
0.5 + 0.457
2

Excel workbook calculations: