Full Chapter Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets 1St Edition Timothy M Barrows PDF

Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible
Rockets 1st Edition Timothy M.

Barrows
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/dynamics-and-simulation-of-flexible-rockets-1st-editio
n-timothy-m-barrows/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Flexible Robot Manipulators Modelling Simulation and

Control Azad
https://textbookfull.com/product/flexible-robot-manipulators-
modelling-simulation-and-control-azad/
Simulation Approach Towards Energy Flexible

Manufacturing Systems 1st Edition Jan Beier (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/simulation-approach-towards-
energy-flexible-manufacturing-systems-1st-edition-jan-beier-auth/
Advanced Simulation of Alternative Energy: Simulation

with Simulink® and SimPowerSystems™ 1st Edition Viktor
M. Perelmuter
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-simulation-of-
alternative-energy-simulation-with-simulink-and-
simpowersystems-1st-edition-viktor-m-perelmuter/
Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Nanostructured

Materials-An Understanding of Mechanical Behavior 1st
Edition Snehanshu Pal (Author)
https://textbookfull.com/product/molecular-dynamics-simulation-
of-nanostructured-materials-an-understanding-of-mechanical-
behavior-1st-edition-snehanshu-pal-author/
Political Thinking Political Theory and Civil Society
5th Edition Steven M Delue Timothy M Dale
https://textbookfull.com/product/political-thinking-political-
theory-and-civil-society-5th-edition-steven-m-delue-timothy-m-
dale/
Flexible Working in Organisations A Research Overview

Lilian M De Menezes
https://textbookfull.com/product/flexible-working-in-
organisations-a-research-overview-lilian-m-de-menezes/
Nonequilibrium Gas Dynamics and Molecular Simulation

Cambridge Aerospace Series Band 42 1st Edition Iain D.
Boyd
https://textbookfull.com/product/nonequilibrium-gas-dynamics-and-
molecular-simulation-cambridge-aerospace-series-band-42-1st-
edition-iain-d-boyd/
Developing Modular Oriented Simulation Models Using

System Dynamics Libraries 1st Edition Christian K. Karl
https://textbookfull.com/product/developing-modular-oriented-
simulation-models-using-system-dynamics-libraries-1st-edition-
christian-k-karl/
Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Nursing Jared M.

Kutzin
https://textbookfull.com/product/comprehensive-healthcare-
simulation-nursing-jared-m-kutzin/
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets
152 x 229 mm paperback | 10.6mm spine
9780128199947
Dynamics and Simulation
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets

of Flexible Rockets
Timothy Barrows and Jeb Orr Dynamics and Simulation
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets provides a full state, multi-axis treatment
of launch vehicle flight mechanics and provides the state equations in a format that can
be readily coded into a simulation environment. Various forms of the mass matrix for the
of Flexible Rockets
vehicle dynamics are presented. This book also discusses important forms of coupling, such
as between the nozzle motions and the flexible body.
Timothy Barrows and Jeb Orr
This book is designed to help practicing aerospace engineers create simulations that can
accurately verify that a space launch vehicle will successfully perform its mission. Much of
the open literature on rocket dynamics is based on analysis techniques developed during
the Apollo program of the 1960s. Since that time, large-scale computational analysis
techniques and improved methods for generating Finite Element Models (FEMs) have
been developed. The art of the problem is to combine the FEM with dynamic models of
separate elements such as sloshing fuel and moveable engine nozzles. The pitfalls that
may occur when making this marriage are examined in detail.
• Covers everything the dynamics and control engineer needs to analyze or improve the
design of flexible launch vehicles
• Provides derivations using Lagrange’s equation and Newton/Euler approaches, allowing
the reader to assess the importance of nonlinear terms
• Details the development of linear models and introduces frequency-domain stability
analysis techniques
• Presents practical methods for transitioning between finite element models,
incorporating actuator dynamics, and developing a preliminary flight control design
Timothy M. Barrows has worked for 35 years at Draper Laboratory as a dynamicist. Early
work involved analyzing the dynamic interaction between the attitude control system of
the Space Shuttle and a heavy payload on its remote manipulator arm. More recent work
included developing simulations for several rocket programs, most notably NASA’s Space
Launch System. Dr. Barrows received a BSE in aerodynamics from Princeton and an MSE
and PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT.
Barrows • Orr
Jeb S. Orr serves as Principal Staff, Flight Systems and GN&C Technical Director for Mclaurin
Aerospace, a small business headquartered in Huntsville, Alabama. Prior to joining
Mclaurin, Dr. Orr held technical staff positions at Draper Laboratory and SAIC. He has
supported various research and flight development programs with an emphasis on launch
vehicle dynamics and control. Dr. Orr received a BSE in computer engineering and an MSE
and PhD in control from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
ISBN 978-0-12-819994-7
9 780128 199947
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets_AW1.indd All Pages 02/12/2020 14:51

DYNAMICS AND
SIMULATION OF
FLEXIBLE
ROCKETS
This page intentionally left blank
DYNAMICS AND
SIMULATION OF
FLEXIBLE
ROCKETS
TIMOTHY M. BARROWS
JEB S. ORR
Cover photo: The Saturn IB SA-205 launch vehicle carries the first crewed Apollo spacecraft into
orbit on October 11, 1968. This photograph was taken from the Airborne Lightweight Optical
Tracking System (ALOTS) aboard a specially modified C-135 aircraft. (NASA)
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom
525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
MATLAB® is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. and is used with permission.
The MathWorks does not warrant the accuracy of the text or exercises in this book.
This book’s use or discussion of MATLAB® software or related products does not constitute
endorsement or sponsorship by The MathWorks of a particular pedagogical approach or particular
use of the MATLAB® software.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements
with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency,
can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In
using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of
others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-819994-7
For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher: Matthew Deans

Acquisitions Editor: Carrie Bolger
Editorial Project Manager: Fernanda A. Oliveira
Production Project Manager: Kamesh Ramajogi
Designer: Mark Rogers
Typeset by VTeX
Contents
Acknowledgments vii
1. Introduction 1
2. The system mass matrix 9

2.1. Problem formulation 9
2.2. Structural dynamics 15
2.3. Kinetic energy 25
2.4. Lagrangian accelerations 29
2.5. Assembled equations of motion 32
2.6. Reduced body modes 39
2.7. Truncating the slosh motion 48
3. Slosh modeling 53
3.1. Fluid mechanics model 56
3.2. Spring slosh model with nonlinear terms 59
3.3. Hydrodynamic model in the FEM 65
3.4. Summary of hydrodynamic models 74
4. Pendulum model 77
4.1. General pendulum model 77
4.2. Motion equations 81
4.3. Slosh dynamics using the pendulum model 93
4.4. Nozzle dynamics using the pendulum model 102
5. Forces and torques 109

5.1. External forces and torques 109
5.2. Fuel and nozzle offset torques 125
5.3. Slosh, engine, and bending excitation 126
5.4. Summary of excitation terms 138
6. Engine interactions 143

6.1. The tail-wags-dog (TWD) zero 143
6.2. Engine/flex interaction 146
6.3. Defining the finite element model 159
6.4. Bending frequency shift due to thrust 164
7. Linearization 175
7.1. Scalar equations of motion 176
v
vi Contents
7.2. State-space model 188

7.3. Distributed aerodynamics 195
8. Simulation parameters 207

8.1. Thrust dispersions 208
8.2. Finite element parameters 209
8.3. Transition between finite element models 222
9. Stability and control 233

9.1. Problem formulation 234
9.2. Design methods 240
9.3. Actuation systems 265
9.4. Stability analysis 270
10. Implementation and analysis 285

10.1. Numerical integration 285
10.2. Constraints 288
10.3. Monte Carlo analysis 294
A. List of symbols and acronyms 299
B. Quadruple vector product 305
C. Finite element model unit conversions 307
D. Second-order coordinate transformation 309
E. Angular momentum of free-free modes 315
Bibliography 317
Index 319
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the many people that helped make this work
possible. We would like to thank our present and past friends and colleagues
in the dynamics and control community at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight
Center, Langley Research Center, Armstrong Flight Research Center, and
the NASA Engineering and Safety Center. We make no attempt to list their
names as they are too numerous.
The support of systems engineers and managers during the NASA
Constellation and Space Launch System programs was helpful in the ad-
vancement and standardization of methods and software tools for analyzing
large rockets. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the many lively
discussions we enjoyed among the technical staff during our tenure at the
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory.
Finally, we would like to recognize the contributions of Mr. Rekesh
Ali, who as a graduate student researcher, contributed significantly to the
typesetting of this book.
vii
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Rockets, like most things, become more complicated as they grow larger.
Judging from the similarity of external appearance, it might seem that go-
ing from a small rocket to a large rocket would be a simple extrapolation
according to size. However, this is not the case. Some idea of the reason for
the added difficulty can be obtained from the following quote from J. B. S.
Haldane:
. . . consider a giant man sixty feet high – about the height of Giant Pope and
Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim’s Progress of my childhood. These mon-
sters were not only ten times as high as Christian, but ten times as wide and
ten times as thick, so that their total weight was a thousand times his, or about
eighty to ninety tons. Unfortunately the cross sections of their bones were only
a hundred times those of Christian, so that every square inch of giant bone had
to support ten times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the
human thigh-bone breaks under about ten times the human weight, Pope and
Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step. This was
doubtless why they were sitting down in the picture I remember. But it lessens
one’s respect for Christian and the Giant Killer.
In this example, increasing the bone cross section by a factor of a hundred is

not enough – it must be increased by more than a hundred. In other words,
the structural weight fraction must be increased. In the design of rockets,
however, the mere suggestion of increasing the structural weight fraction
will produce the most pained anguish. A good portion of this extra weight
will be taken out of the payload. As a typical payload weight is less than
ten percent of the total rocket weight at launch, it is easy to see how the
payload can disappear entirely without a stringent effort to minimize the
structural weight. The result is that the design of large rockets becomes an
almost desperate effort to improve structural efficiency.
From a dynamic standpoint, as the scale increases, the rocket grows flim-
sier and flimsier. The natural frequencies of more and more flexible modes
creep downward into a range that is within the control bandwidth. The op-
portunities for dynamic interaction proliferate. The control engineer must
verify that all of these interactions are benign and stable. Doing this requires
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819994-7.00006-6 All rights reserved. 1
2 Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets
methods for constructing simulations that can efficiently deal with a large
number of dynamic modes.
Perhaps the most famous large rocket ever built was the Saturn V of
the Apollo space program. Since the time of that program, major advances
have taken place in our ability to analyze structures using finite element
methods. At the same time, modern computer tools such as MATLAB®
have promoted the use of matrix techniques and made it increasingly easy to
deal with large matrices. The purpose of this book is to provide a uniform
foundation for modeling all these interactions that takes advantage of these
developments.
The dynamics of an ascending rocket are typically presented for planar
motion. That is, the resulting equations are valid for either the pitch plane
or the yaw plane. This approach does not provide any insight into the
possible coupling that may exist between motion in one plane and that
in another. Such coupling may arise from asymmetries in either the mass
distribution or the stiffness distribution.
The planar dynamics of a rocket can be found in many sources. These
sources fall into two separate camps, which might called the “reduced
body” approach and the “integrated” approach. The characteristic feature
of the former is that the translation and rotation equations are written for a
reduced body consisting of the rocket without the sloshing fuel mass. One
example of this approach is the textbook by Greensite [1]. A comprehensive
treatment of the planar motion of a rocket was developed for the 1960’s At-
las rocket program, although the technical reports (and similarly, company
reports that are cited elsewhere) are not available in the open literature.
Related formulations were independently derived by Rheinfurth and Ho-
senthein [2]; these are presented in part in the compilation by Garner [3]
and eventually appear, without reference, in the classic paper by Frosch and
Vallely [4]. An early example of a derivation in the open literature is the
work of Bauer [5]. He provides an analysis of a flexible rocket with sloshing
fuel mass. His analysis does not include a gimbaled engine.
Rocket dynamics is essentially multibody dynamics applied to a system
consisting of a rocket body, engine nozzles, and slosh masses. The multi-
body model must be coordinated with the structural dynamic model – they
must both take either the reduced body or the integrated body approach.
Thus if a finite element model already exists for the rocket, the dynamicist
will have to go along with whatever approach was taken during the creation
of that model. An “integrated body finite element model,” as the name im-
plies, contains all of the mass of the rocket, including the slosh masses and
Introduction 3
engines. For the creation of this structural model, the slosh masses and en-
gines are locked to the vehicle. Thus the relative motion of the slosh masses
is not included, and the engine gimbal actuators are treated as rigid. The
result of the finite element analysis is a set of eigenvalues (mode frequencies)
and eigenvectors (mode shapes), which become input parameters to the dy-
namic model (the subject of the present treatise). In a “reduced body finite
element model”, either the slosh masses or the engine masses, or both, are
removed from the rocket, and a finite element model is created from what
is left. Within the dynamic model, the effects of the relative motion of the
slosh and engine masses are treated in different ways for the integrated body
model and the reduced body model.
This book begins with the integrated body approach, which is derived
in Chapter 2. As will be seen, the reduced body approach has the disad-
vantage that the results contain more terms. It turns out, however, that no
guarantee can be provided that the mass matrix using the integrated ap-
proach is positive-definite. Indeed, it can be shown that if a sufficiently
large number of modes are included, the mass matrix will become non-
positive-definite. Thus the reduced body approach, while less convenient,
is the safer of the two approaches. This is discussed in Section 2.6.
Besides the issue of the integrated body approach versus the reduced
body approach, there are two other major decisions that must be made be-
fore embarking on the analysis of rocket dynamics. For preliminary studies,
it is often assumed that the Thrust Vector Control (TVC) actuators are very
stiff, such that the engine motion can be computed independently from the
rest of the dynamics. In other words, engine motion is prescribed. Chap-
ter 2 goes into this in some detail. For purposes of the present discussion,
it is sufficient to state that one must either (a) assume a given engine mo-
tion, which acts like a disturbance to the motion equations, or (b) assume
a certain actuator torque on the engine, in which case the state vector is
expanded to include variables that specify the engine motion. A third de-
cision must be made as to whether to model the slosh motion as a point
mass that slides in a y-z plane at the end of a spring (the spring model),
or to model it as a point mass on the end of a pendulum. Thus there are a
total of eight possible outcomes from making these three binary decisions
about the model formulation. For this reason, this book does not provide
a “final” result for the system equations of motion, but rather attempts to
present the results in such a way that the analyst can select the equations
and terms for the particular formulation that is most appropriate.
Notation system
The analyses herein follow the system used by Hughes [6]. His system
makes a distinction between a vector and a column matrix. A vector
is a mathematical quantity with both magnitude and direction in three-
dimensional space, and is independent of the system of coordinates used to
express it.
Suppose there is a reference frame a defined by the orthogonal unit
vectors â1 , â2 , â3 and a reference frame b defined by unit vectors b̂1 , b̂2 , b̂3 .
A vector may be written using its frame a components
−
→
v = v1a â1 + v2a â2 + v3a â3 (1.1)
or using its frame b components

−
→
v = v1b b̂1 + v2b b̂2 + v3b b̂3 . (1.2)
(Symbols in italics are scalars). Both expressions represent exactly the same
vector. In frames a and b, the associated column matrices are expressed as
T
va = v1a v2a v3a (1.3)
T
vb = v1b v2b v3b .
One feature of the Hughes system is that the superscript representing

the frame is dropped. Thus it may be necessary to read the text to determent
the frame in which each vector is expressed. This may make it more difficult
to jump into the middle of a derivation and understand what everything
means. However, this drawback is more than compensated by the fact that
the notation is less cluttered. Appendix A contains a glossary of symbols
that may be helpful in finding where each symbol is first defined.
The symbol F denotes a coordinate frame. Thus F1 is the coordinate
frame of body 1. The statement “v is a vector expressed in F1 ” is really a
shorthand for the statement that “v is the vector −
→v expressed as a column
matrix in F1 .”
Lower case bold represents a three- or four-element column matrix.
Upper case bold represents a matrix (typically 3 × 3). Script is used for
long vectors and large matrices. Upper case bold with an arrow represents
a dyadic. The notation −̇
→v indicates the time derivative of v with respect to
−̊
→
an inertial frame, and v indicates the time derivative of v with respect to
Introduction 5
a rotating frame. Quantities that are not bold and have no arrow are scalars,
typically the scalar length of a vector. Thus b · b = b2 .
The notation v̇, without the arrow, indicates the time derivative of the
column matrix v. Since a particular frame must be defined as part of the
definition of v, and each element of v is a scalar, from a mathematical
standpoint this time derivative is uniquely defined, i.e., it can only have
one meaning.
If v is defined in a rotating body frame, then v̇ corresponds to −̊
→v . The
physical meaning of this derivative may not be obvious, so v̇ might best be
considered as simply a mathematical entity. In particular, if v is a velocity
vector in the body frame, then v̇ cannot be integrated to get v. That is what
is meant by the phrase “v is not holonomic.” For an excellent discussion of
this issue, the reader is referred to Appendix B of the textbook by Hughes
[5].
Hughes uses the following notation for the cross product matrix:
⎡ ⎤
0 −v3 v2
⎢ ⎥
v× ≡ ⎣ v3 0 −v1 ⎦ (1.4)
−v2 v1 0
Using the Hughes system, the dot product and cross product are trans-
lated into matrix form as follows:
u ·−
−
→ →
v → uT v (1.5)
u ×−
−
→ →
v → u× v. (1.6)
It is important to recognize that u× is a matrix. Matrix operations such as

gradients and time derivatives readily follow in this representation, whereas
for the binary cross product −
→u ×− →v , such operations are not as easily de-
fined.
Matrix operations
With due attention to the order of operations, the dot product and the
cross product can be interchanged;
u· −
−
→ →
v ×−
→ w· −
w =−
→ →
u ×−
→ u ×−
v = −
→ →
v ·−
→
w. (1.7)
The matrix equivalent of this expression is

T
uT v× w = wT u× v = u× v w. (1.8)
Note that parentheses are essential for the last expression.

Sometimes it is useful to take the derivative with respect to a column
matrix. Consider the scalar product
s = uT v. (1.9)
The partial derivative of this expression with respect to v is

∂s
= u. (1.10)
∂v
This is just a convenient way to write three derivatives at once. Suppose
T
u = u1 u2 u3 ; this matrix equation is equivalent to the three scalar
equations
∂s
= u1
∂ v1
∂s
= u2 (1.11)
∂ v2
∂s
= u3 .
∂ v3
One slightly more complicated case will be presented here. Suppose

1
T = ωT Iω (1.12)
2
where I is a 3x3 symmetric inertia matrix and T is the rotational kinetic
energy. The derivative of T with respect to ω is
∂T
= Iω. (1.13)
∂ω
The most convincing way to verify this is to write the complete expression
for the scalar T in terms of the elements of I and ω, and then take derivatives
term by term.
Organization of this book

Chapter 2 provides an introduction to finite element models, and shows
how Lagrange’s equation can be applied to the problem of a flexible rocket
with sloshing fuel. The objective is to derive a mass matrix, i.e., the matrix
M in the equation Mẍ = F . Several forms of the mass matrix are derived,
Introduction 7
depending on factors such as whether an integrated or reduced body is de-

fined for the FEM, whether the engine motion is included in the dynamics
or prescribed externally, etc.
Chapter 3, Section 3.1 provides a brief description of how a sloshing
wave in a fuel tank can be represented by a suitable mechanical analog, ei-
ther as a point mass on a spring or a point mass on a pendulum. Section 3.2
provides a Newton-Euler derivation of the nonlinear forces (Coriolis and
centrifugal) on a slosh mass. Section 3.3 discusses various issues that arise if
the FEM contains hydrodynamic elements that model the effect of sloshing
fuel.
Chapter 4 contains a nonlinear Newton-Euler analysis of a pendulum
on a spherical joint. The resulting model can be used to represent either a
pendulum model of sloshing fuel or a gimbaled engine. This model is of
particular importance if engine deflections or sloshing wave amplitudes are
large enough that nonlinear effects must be included in the simulation.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the forces and moments that go on
the right-hand side (RHS) of the equations. These include effects such as
aerodynamics as well as apparent forces that arise in an accelerating refer-
ence frame. The phenomenon of rigid-body jet damping, which arises due
to flowing propellant, is treated in detail. This chapter ends with summary
of how to compute the forces that go with each equation.
Chapter 6 discusses the important topic of engine interactions, or more
precisely the coupling that may exist between the engine motions and the
rest of the dynamics. Special attention is given to the topic of inertial and
thrust vector coupling of gimbaled engines with bending, which gives rise
to thrust vector servoelasticity (TVSE). Recommendations for how the
engine actuators should be modeled in the FEM are also provided.
Chapter 7 shows how the equations of motion can be put into state-
space form that is suitable for either time-domain or frequency-domain
analysis. Linear perturbation methods are used to introduce approximations
for effects such as follower forces and aeroelasticity, and their influence on
linear system eigenvalues and frequency response is summarized.
Chapter 8 discusses the important issue of producing the inputs that
are provided to a simulation. Established practice is to run a Monte Carlo
analysis in which parameters such as thrust, flex frequency, etc. are given
a dispersed set of values, rather than a single value. During a simulation,
the FEM must change at periodic intervals as the rocket mass changes. Sec-
tion 8.3 shows how to minimize the disruption that occurs in a simulation
during these changes.
Chapter 9 introduces the topic of stabilization and control of flexi-

ble boost vehicles using feedback. Linear analysis techniques developed in
Chapter 7 are applied to synthesize feedback control structures that provide
the desired closed-loop response of the rigid-body dynamics. A model for
a typical actuation system, a pressure-stabilized hydraulic thrust vector con-
trol actuator, is introduced.
Finally, Chapter 10 incorporates material presented in previous chapters
and discusses practical considerations for the development of production
computer simulations. A simple constraint method using Lagrange multi-
pliers is shown to be adequate for the modeling of launch pad interfaces.
Numerical integration concepts specific to the present application are dis-
cussed. The important topic of designing Monte Carlo simulations and
assessing results using binomial and order statistics, particularly for flight
certification, is introduced.
CHAPTER 2
The system mass matrix

In this chapter, the fundamental dynamic equations of a flexible rocket with
sloshing propellant and a gimbaled engine are derived from first principles.
The detailed analysis of these features is applicable to many rocket con-
figurations, but is particularly important for very large rockets. In the case
of space launch vehicles, the motion of propellant sloshing within the fuel
tanks is of great significance to the design as often more than 90% of the
vehicle’s liftoff mass is liquid propellant.
Sloshing propellant is usually modeled as a linearized pendulum or an
equivalent spring, mass, and damper coupled to the vehicle rigid and elastic
degrees of freedom such that the force and moment response of the me-
chanical analog matches that of test-correlated semi-empirical models of a
rigid tank. The portion of the equivalent liquid mass that is not in motion is
lumped into the rigid-body mass. The properties of the mechanical analog
change as a function of propellant remaining and the vehicle acceleration.
Engine dynamics can also play a significant role in the global vehicle
behavior. For very large booster systems, particularly space launch vehicles,
the use of large thrust-vectored engines results in a total moving engine
mass that is a significant fraction of the total vehicle mass. Engine position
control is often provided by high-power hydraulic or electromechanical
actuators. This combination of moving mass, high actuator loads, and the
lightweight, flexible stage structure leads to a variety of coupling effects
between the engines and vehicle that must be accounted for explicitly in
the design.
In the following development, the equations of motion will be de-
veloped initially for a rocket with a single fuel tank and a single engine.
Generalization of these techniques to the case of multiple tanks and en-
gines is straightforward.
2.1 Problem formulation

Consider a rocket with one fuel tank and one gimbaled engine, as shown
in Fig. 2.1. Thus three bodies are considered, one of which is modeled as
a point mass. There may also be one or more non-gimbaled engines, not
Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819994-7.00007-8 All rights reserved. 9
shown. The origin of the coordinate system is placed on the undeformed

centerline, at any convenient location.
The rocket body includes the non-sloshing fuel and the non-gimbaled
engines and is designated by the subscript 0. The position of the sloshing
mass in the body frame is given by
rsj = bsj + δ sj (2.1.1)
The subscript j (for tank j) is attached to these vectors, even though at

this stage in the analysis there is only one tank. Here bsj is a fixed vector and
δ sj varies dynamically. bsj aligns with the xb axis if the tank is on the cen-
terline. Under equilibrium conditions δ sj = 0, and let vsj ≡ δ̇ sj , the velocity
of the sloshing mass relative to the body.
Figure 2.1 Rocket with sloshing fuel mass.
Let an inertial frame be temporarily assumed with an initial velocity

that matches that of the vehicle. If there is no thrust, no gravitational ac-
celeration, and no external force, the overall center of mass will remain
stationary in inertial space. Rigid-body motion of the engine about the
gimbal or displacement of the slosh mass from its equilibrium position will
cause the rocket body to move in response to these motions, but the overall
center of mass will remain fixed. The origin, however, remains attached to
the rocket body, and thus moves relative to the inertial frame in response to
these motions.
The system mass matrix 11
Retaining the assumption of no thrust or external force, we now add the

additional assumptions that an integrated body FEM is being used, the en-
gine gimbals are locked, and slosh masses are locked to the body. If there are
elastic vibrations, the position of the center of mass will still remain station-
ary. The undeformed centerline (the body xb axis) also remains stationary
while the elastic vibrations take place. This means that the entire body axis
frame and its origin remain stationary relative to an inertial frame. As the
name implies, the undeformed centerline is always straight and represents
the centerline of the rocket when all the elastic vibrations have decayed to
zero. The origin is not fixed to any physical part of the rocket body but stays
on the undeformed centerline. In the dynamics literature, this is sometimes
referred to as a mean axis formulation.
The assumption that the rocket is stationary in the inertial frame can be
removed. Let vI be the velocity of the origin expressed in inertial coordi-
nates. This velocity is defined by taking the time derivative of the location
of the body origin with respect to the inertial origin. Let v correspond to
the same vector expressed in the body frame. For a linearized analysis, the
kinematic relationship of the inertial and body frames can be approximated
using the expression

v = 1 − φ × vI (2.1.2)
where
T
φ≡ φx φy φz (2.1.3)
is a column matrix containing the roll, pitch, and yaw of the body frame
relative to the inertial frame, all of which are assumed to be small such that
the dependency of that relationship on the order of rotations is negligible.
If this assumption is not valid, one has instead
v = CbI vI (2.1.4)
where CbI is the transformation from the inertial frame to the body frame.
The column matrix v has hybrid characteristics: it is defined by taking
the time derivative relative to an inertial frame, but it is expressed in the
body frame. The acceleration in the body frame is
dvI
ab = CbI = CbI CIb v̇ + ĊIb v = v̇ + ω× v (2.1.5)
dt
where ω is the angular rotation of the body frame with respect to the
inertial frame, expressed in the body frame. Here, the kinematic differential
equation
ĊIb = CIb ω× (2.1.6)
has been used to determine the time derivative of vI in the body frame.
Lagrange’s equation can be employed to derive general expressions for
mechanical systems undergoing vibrations; it is given by

d ∂T ∂T ∂V ∂D
− + + = Qi (2.1.7)
dt ∂ q̇i ∂ qi ∂ qi ∂ q̇i
where T is the kinetic energy, V is the potential energy, and D is the

dissipation function. The generalized coordinates and generalized external
forces are given by qi and Qi , respectively. It can be shown that when
applied to problem under consideration, the second term in (2.1.7) is always
zero. The third and fourth terms in (2.1.7) can be moved to the right hand
side (RHS) of the equation. Thus Lagrange’s equation can be expressed as

d ∂T ∂V ∂D
= Qi − − (2.1.8)
dt ∂ q̇i ∂ qi ∂ q̇i
This is the ultimate form of Lagrange’s equation that is used in the

development of a typical simulation. The left hand side (LHS) is used to
generate a mass matrix. The solution procedure is to compute the RHS
from the system state, solve the matrix equations to generate accelerations,
and integrate the states forward in time. The remainder of this chapter is de-
voted to explaining in detail how the mass matrix is derived. Computation
of the RHS is postponed to Chapter 5. Thus, in the present chapter, the
generalized coordinates qi do not appear, only their derivatives q̇i . A detailed
description of how these equations are integrated is provided in Chapter 10.
For bookkeeping purposes, the analysis is simplified if the potential en-
ergy and dissipation terms are used for the sole purpose of representing
inter-body forces. Thus, the gravitational potential is not included as part
of V . Instead, the gravity force is included as a part of Qi . The term “sys-
tem” is used to denote the entire rocket, i.e., the system consisting of the
rocket body, the sloshing masses, and the engine. The three translation and
three rotation equations of the body frame do not contain any excitations
on the RHS from inter-body forces, since these forces have an equal and
opposite effect on the overall motion.
Strictly speaking, Lagrange’s equation is not valid in a rotating body
frame. Hughes [6] notes this fact, and provides a set of “quasi-Lagrangian”
equations, valid for a rigid body, for the case in which the second, third,
and fourth terms in Eq. (2.1.7) are zero.

d ∂T ∂T
+ ω× =f (2.1.9)
dt ∂ v ∂v

d ∂T × ∂T × ∂T
+ω +v =g (2.1.10)
dt ∂ω ∂ω ∂v
Here f is the external force vector, and g is the external torque vec-
tor about the origin. For a linearized analysis, the equilibrium trajectory
(e.g., solution of the motion equations) can be subtracted, thus converting
the dynamic variables such as v and ω to small quantities (perturbation vari-
ables) so that terms like v× (∂ T /∂ v) become second order and the equations
revert to the Lagrangian form given by (2.1.7). What is called the “trans-
lation equation” in the following development is obtained by taking the
time derivative of the linear momentum, ∂ T /∂ v. Later chapters provide a
multibody Newton-Euler analysis in which rotating body effects are fully
taken into account. It can be verified that when the rotation rates are suffi-
ciently small, a linearized version of the Newton-Euler approach gives the
same result as the present Lagrangian approach.
Eqs. (2.1.9) and (2.1.10) are also known to dynamicists as the Boltz-
mann-Hamel equations.
Mass properties
The total mass is divided into separate components for the rocket body
(subscript 0), the sloshing fuel, and the engine.
mT = m0 + msj + mE (2.1.11)
Let ρ0 be the density (mass per unit volume) of the rocket body, and ρE
be the density of the engine. The slosh mass density is defined using δ ,
the Dirac delta, located at the slosh mass position rsj . This function has the
property that its value is zero for every value of r except in an infinitesimal
region around r = rsj , and the value in this region is such that

δ r − rsj dV = 1 (2.1.12)
where dV is an element of volume, and the integration takes place over the
entire volume of the rocket. The sloshing mass density is written as

ρsj (r) = msj δ r − rsj (2.1.13)
so that

msj = ρsj dV (2.1.14)
The Dirac delta is introduced in order to enable the entire rocket mass
to be expressed in one integral. Whenever it is encountered inside an inte-
gral, it represents an opportunity for simplification by taking advantage of
(2.1.12). The other masses are given by

m0 = ρ0 dV

mE = ρE dV (2.1.15)
E
The E on this last integral indicates that the integration takes place
over the volume of the engine. If ρ0 and ρE are defined to be zero in the
region outside the boundaries of their respective bodies, then a mass density
expression can be defined that is valid over the total rocket:
ρT (r) = ρ0 (r) + ρsj (r) + ρE (r) (2.1.16)
Using this, the total mass is

mT = ρT dV (2.1.17)
It is also convenient to define the mass element
dm ≡ ρT dV (2.1.18)
Thus

mT = dm (2.1.19)
The first moment of inertia of the system is defined as

sTD ≡ rρT dV = r dm (2.1.20)
The first moment of inertia is simply the total mass times the vector
from the origin to the center of mass. The first subscript, T, indicates
that this applies to the total body. The second subscript, D, indicates that
this varies dynamically as the engine and slosh masses move around. The
second moment of inertia about the origin can be written in either of the
following forms;

ITD = rT r1 − rrT dm = − r× r× dm (2.1.21)
where 1 is the identity matrix.

When the second moment of inertia is computed, if a propellant tank
has circular symmetry about the xb axis, then the roll component of the
fluid inertia (sloshing and non-sloshing) is not included. That is, it is as-
sumed that the rocket can roll about the xb axis without the fluid mass
rolling along with it. In actuality, there is some viscous coupling between
the tank wall and the fluid that depends on the wall geometry and the
fluid properties. In most cases, this coupling can be determined via sec-
ondary analyses, and accounted for by adjusting the rigid body roll inertia.
If the tank is compartmented or radially segmented, this assumption must
be modified.
Bauer [7] presented a model for calculating the effective moments of
inertia of a cylindrical tank filled with liquid for the transverse (y and z)
axes. For a smooth-walled tank, these inertias are only a small portion of
what they would be for a solid mass of the same shape. If baffles are present
or the wall has an orthogrid/isogrid structure, the liquid mass tends to
move along with the walls of the tank, and hence increases the effective
inertia. Bauer’s work was extended by Dodge and Kana [8], who found
that Bauer’s model could be simplified in many practical circumstances.
Theoretical and experimental results for a few baffle arrangements are also
provided. Bauer [9] went on to provide more general formulas for different
baffle geometries.
For small offset cylindrical tanks, the contribution to the roll inertia
can be computed by treating the fluid mass as a point mass. There will be a
contribution to the xb axis inertia proportional to this mass times the square
of the radial offset, but no significant contribution due to the fluid inertia
about the tank centerline.
2.2 Structural dynamics

The dynamics and control engineer will require a working knowledge of
how to use data from a Finite Element Model (FEM), even though he or
she may not have the expertise to create such a model. It may also be nec-
essary to interact with a specialist in structural dynamics in order to specify
what idealizations should be employed during the creation of the FEM.
Figure 2.2 Finite element model.
At a conceptual level, a structural dynamic model is essentially an as-

semblage of masses and springs (Fig. 2.2). These mass elements usually
correspond to a computational mesh of a large three dimensional model
of the structure, and are called nodes. A point on the structure associated
with a node may also be referred to as a grid point.
Each node may have a maximum of six degrees of freedom (DoFs),
although the model may be set up to have fewer DoFs per node. For ex-
ample, in the diagram in Fig. 2.2, there are P nodes. If each of these nodes
has six DoFs, the system will have a total of M = 6P DoFs. The diagram
also shows an external load, consisting of a force f and a torque g, acting
on one node. In the more general case, there may be external forces acting
on a number of nodes.
For a FEM of a real aerospace structure with a relatively fine mesh, it
is not unusual for the number of DoFs to exceed one million. It is the
job of the finite element analyst to reduce the problem to a numerically
tractable size, using a technique such as Guyan reduction [10]. Each DoF
has its own equation of motion, and these equations can be assembled into
a matrix equation of the following form:
MB ẍ + KB x = F (2.2.1)
In this equation, MB is the mass matrix, KB is the stiffness matrix, x is a col-

umn vector of physical displacement coordinates, and F is a column vector
of physical loads. The term “physical” is added here for reasons that will be
explained. Following tradition, the subscript B (for bending) is used, even
though the FEM contains all types of flexible motion. The displacement
vector x contains translations and rotations for nodes 1 through P;
T
x = x1 , y1 , z1 , θx1 , θy1 , θz1 , . . . , xP , yP , zP , θxP , θyP , θzP (2.2.2)
All these elements are functions of time, based upon the solution of
Eq. (2.2.1). It is assumed that the elastic displacements are sufficiently small
that linear vibration theory can represent the structural dynamic response as
an M-DoF linear system. If this is the case, the response can be decomposed
into a linear combination of orthogonal solutions (vibration modes). Note
that in this form, the system has no damping; that is, there is no coefficient
of ẋ in Eq. (2.2.1). While it is possible to include a physical damping term,
structural damping is very difficult to model and estimate in practice, and it
significantly complicates the linear analysis. As such, it is usually assumed for
the purposes of finding the initial modal response that either the damping
is proportional to the mass and stiffness, or zero. A damping term is later
added to the modal equations. This damping can be based on experience
with similar structures, or correlated to test data.
Diagonalization
The solution of Eq. (2.2.1) proceeds first by finding the homogeneous
solution corresponding to F = 0, where 0 is the M-element null vector.
There will also be M = 6P modes, the same as the number of DoFs. For
each mode i, a solution that varies sinusoidally with time is assumed:
xi = φ i Ai sin Bi t (2.2.3)
A vector φ i and a scalar Ai are included in this expression. The scalar makes
resizing φ i more convenient. Substitution of the assumed solution converts
(2.2.1) into the generalized symmetric eigenvalue problem
MB 2Bi φ i − KB φ i = 0 (2.2.4)
This is solved for the M eigenvalues 2Bi and associated eigenvectors φ i .

Note that Ai sin Bi t has been canceled out of both terms of this expression.
The eigenvectors are also called mode shapes and their spatial derivatives,
taken with respect to the undeformed body axes, are called mode slopes. All
the eigenvectors can be assembled into a single square matrix, of the same
size as KB and MB , such that
⎡ ⎤
| ··· |
⎢ ⎥
= ⎣ φ1 · · · φM ⎦ (2.2.5)
↓ ··· ↓
The eigenvectors φ i , with a subscript, are not to be confused with the φ

in (2.1.2). According to linear algebra (see, for example, Strang [11]), this
is a congruence transformation that can be used to simultaneously diago-
nalize the matrices KB and MB . A solution of the generalized symmetric
eigenproblem will yield real eigenvalues and real eigenvectors if the asso-
ciated matrices KB and MB are symmetric, positive definite. For physical
structural dynamic systems, this is almost always the case. Thus
T MB = mB (2.2.6)
T
KB = mB 2B (2.2.7)
where
mB ≡ diag(mB1 · · · mBM ) (2.2.8)
and the generalized mass of each individual mode is defined as
mBi ≡ φ Ti MB φ i (2.2.9)
The last matrix on the right hand side of (2.2.7) contains the eigenvalues
of each mode:
2B = diag(2B1 , 2B2 , · · · 2BM ) (2.2.10)
An eigenvector can be scaled (multiplied by a constant) and it will still
satisfy Eq. (2.2.4). This allows the eigenvectors φ i to be chosen such that
all the generalized masses are equal to one, i.e.,
T MB = 1 (2.2.11)
where 1 is the M × M identity matrix. This is what is meant by “mass

normalization.” If is mass normalized, it follows that
T KB = 2B (2.2.12)
It is worth emphasizing that the only reason to solve the homogeneous

problem is to produce the crucial matrix . Once this is obtained, the
original problem can be diagonalized and the equations for each mode can
be decoupled.
The units of the constants Ai in (2.2.3) must be chosen so as to produce
the correct units for the elements of the vector xi , i.e., they must undo
the strange units that emerge in the eigenvectors from mass normalization.
For example, it is typical for finite element analyses in the US aerospace
industry to use inches for displacement and slinches (sometimes called snails,
in contrast with slugs) for mass. A force of one pound acting on a mass of
one slinch will produce an acceleration of one inch per second squared.
Thus one slinch√ equals twelve slugs. For this system of units, the Ai all have
units of inch · slinch.
It is important to note that the FEM may utilize a different system of
units, and a different coordinate system (often the x axis points rearward)
from that used in the dynamic model (in which the x axis points forward).
It may be the responsibility of the dynamicist to convert the FEM data into
compatible units and axes. More detail regarding these transformations is
discussed in Appendix C.
The physical displacements of the structure can be expressed as a linear
combination of the generalized coordinates;
η(t) = [η1 · · · ηM ]T (2.2.13)
Each element of this vector is a function of time. When mass normaliza-

√
tion is used, they have the same units as Ai , that is, length · mass. The
generalized coordinates are related to the physical displacements using the
transformation (2.2.5);
x = η (2.2.14)
This amounts to separation of variables. The matrix gives the deflec-
tion as a function of the location in the structure, i.e., node number, and
η gives the variation with time. In the parlance of finite element analysis,
x represents the solution in physical space, η is the solution in eigenspace,
and is the transformation between these solutions. In terms of Lagrange’s
equation, the elements of η represent the generalized degrees of freedom.
Thus it is necessary to distinguish between the physical DoFs and the gen-
eralized DoFs. That is the reason why x in (2.2.1) is referred to as a vector
of “physical” DoF’s.
Substitution of (2.2.14) into (2.2.1) gives
MB η̈ + KB η = F . (2.2.15)
Pre-multiplying by T and using (2.2.11) plus (2.2.12), this yields the modal
equations
η̈ + 2B η = T F (2.2.16)
Since the modal equations have been decoupled or diagonalized, each row
of this matrix equation can be solved individually.
η̈i + 2Bi η = φ Ti F (2.2.17)
External loads
For a discrete load, such as that from the thrust of one engine, the external
force vector F will typically be nonzero for only one node, in this case
the node at the engine gimbal point. In the example of Fig. 2.2, the only
nonzero load is at node n:
T
F = 0T , 0T , . . . , fTn , gTn , . . . , 0T , 0T (2.2.18)
Here, 0 represents the 3 × 1 null vector. Thus it is not necessary to

include the entire eigenvector on the RHS of (2.2.16). Only the portion
associated with the node under consideration is required. The entire eigen-
vector for mode i can be decomposed into P nodal components;
T
φ i = φ T1i · · · φ TPi (2.2.19)
where each φ ni is a 6 × 1 column vector that maps generalized displacements

ηi into the associated 6 physical degrees of freedom of each node n. If
applying forces and torques only to node n, Eq. (2.2.16) becomes

fn
η̈i + 2Bi η = φ Tni (2.2.20)
gn
It is useful to further decompose the node vector into translation and rota-
tion vectors (each 3 × 1) such that

ψ ni
φ ni = (2.2.21)
σ ni
This allows one to write
η̈i + 2Bi ηi = ψ Tni f + σ Tni g (2.2.22)

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the four Incorporations of Leith (aggregate), £53, 16s. 7d.; the
Episcopal Clergy of Edinburgh, £8, 8s.; Magistrates of Haddington
(and collected by them), £28; Society of Periwigmakers in
Edinburgh, £24, 4s. 3d.; Inhabitants of Musselburgh, Inveresk, and
Fisherrow, £20; collected by Lady Grizel Cochrane, at Dumbarton,
£30; Colonel Charteris’s lady, £5, 7s. 6d.; collected by Lady Grizel
Cochrane, from sundry persons specified, £180.[487]
To do the government justice, the rebel 1716.
prisoners were treated mildly, not one of
them being done to death, though several were transported. An
attempt was made, two years later, by a commission of Oyer and
Terminer sent into Scotland, to bring a number of other Jacobite
delinquents to punishment. It sat at Perth, Dundee, and Kelso,
without being able to obtain true bills: only at Cupar was it so far
effective as to get bills against Lord George Murray, of the Athole
family; Sir James Sharpe, representative of the too famous
archbishop; Sir David Threipland of Fingask; and a son of Moir of
Stonywood; but it was to no purpose, for the trials of these
gentlemen were never proceeded with.[488]
Captain John Cayley (son of Cornelius Oct. 2.

Cayley of the city of York), one of the
commissioners of his majesty’s customs, was a conspicuous member
of that little corps of English officials whom the new arrangements
following on the Union had sent down to Scotland. He was a vain gay
young man, pursuing the bent of his irregular passions with little
prudence or discretion. Amongst his acquaintance in Edinburgh was
a pretty young married woman—the daughter of Colonel Charles
Straiton, well known as a highly trusted agent of the Jacobite party—
the wife of John M‘Farlane, Writer to the Signet, who appears to
have at one time been man of business to Lord Lovat. Cayley had
made himself notedly intimate with Mr and Mrs M‘Farlane, often
entertained them at his country-house, and was said to have made
some valuable presents to the lady. To what extent there was truth in
the scandals which connected the names of Commissioner Cayley
and Mrs M‘Farlane, we do not know; but it is understood that Cayley,
on one occasion, spoke of the lady in terms which, whether founded
in truth or otherwise, infinitely more condemned himself. Perhaps
drink made him rash; perhaps vanity made him assume a triumph
which was altogether imaginary; perhaps he desired to realise some
wild plan of his inflamed brain, and brought on his punishment in
self-defence. There were all sorts of theories on the subject, and little
positively known to give any of them much superiority over another
in point of plausibility. A gentleman,[489] writing from Edinburgh the
second day after, says: ‘I can hardly offer you anything but matter of
fact, which was—that upon Tuesday last he 1716.
came to her lodging after three o’clock,
where he had often been at tea and cards: she did not appear till she
had changed all her clothes to her very smock. Then she came into a
sort of drawing-room, and from that conveyed him into her own
bedchamber. After some conversation there, she left him in it; went
out to a closet which lay at some distance from the chamber; [thence]
she brought in a pair of charged pistols belonging to Mr Cayley
himself, which Mr M‘Farland, her husband, had borrowed from him
some days before, when he was about to ride to the country. What
further expressions there were on either side I know not; but she
fired one pistol, which only made a slight wound on the shackle-bone
of his left hand, and slanted down through the floor—which I saw.
The other she fired in aslant on his right breast, so as the bullet
pierced his heart, and stuck about his left shoulder-blade behind. She
went into the closet, [and] laid by the pistols, he having presently
fallen dead on the floor. She locked the door of her room upon the
dead body, [and] sent a servant for her husband, who was in a
change-house with company, being about four afternoon. He came,
and gave her what money he had in the house, and conducted her
away; and after he had absented himself for about a day, he
appeared, and afterwards declared before the Lords of Justiciary he
knew nothing about it till she sent for him.... I saw his corps after he
was cereclothed, and saw his blood where he lay on the floor for
twenty-four hours after he died, just as he fell, so as it was a difficulty
to straight him.’[490]
Miss Margaret Swinton, a grand-aunt of Sir Walter Scott, used to
relate to him and other listeners to her fireside-tales,[491] that, when
she was a little girl, being left at home at Swinton House by herself
one Sunday, indisposed, while all the rest of the family were at
church, she was drawn by curiosity into the dining-room, and there
saw a beautiful female, whom she took for ‘an enchanted queen,’
pouring out tea at a table. The lady seemed equally surprised as
herself, but presently recovering self-possession, addressed the little
intruder kindly, in particular desiring her to speak first to her mother
by herself of what she had seen. Margaret looked for a moment out
of the window, and, when she turned about, the enchanted queen
was gone! On the return of the family, she spoke to her mother of the
vision, was praised for her discretion, and desired to keep the matter
from all other persons—an injunction she 1716.
strictly followed. The stranger was Mrs
M‘Farlane, who, being a relative of the family, had here received a
temporary shelter after the slaughter of Captain Cayley. She had
vanished from Margaret Swinton’s sight through a panel-door into a
closet which had been arranged for her concealment. The family
always admired the sagacity shewn in asking Margaret to speak to
her mother of what she had seen, but to speak to her alone in the
first instance, as thus the child’s feelings found a safe vent. It will be
remembered that Scott has introduced the incident as part of his
fiction of Peveril of the Peak.
In the ensuing February, criminal letters were raised against Mrs
M‘Farlane by the Lord Advocate, Sir David Dalrymple, and the father
and brother of the deceased, reciting that ‘John Cayley having, on the
2d of October last, come to the house of John M‘Farlane in order to
make a civil visit, she did then and there shoot a pistol at John
Cayley, and thereby mortally wounded him.’ Not appearing to stand
her trial, she was declared outlaw.[492] Sir Walter Scott states it as
certain, that she was afterwards enabled to return to Edinburgh,
where she lived and died;[493] but I must own that some good
evidence would be required to substantiate such a statement.
The romantic nature of the incident, and the fact of the sufferer
being an Englishman, caused the story of Mrs M‘Farlane to be famed
beyond the bounds of Scotland. Pope, writing about the time to Lady
Mary Wortley Montagu, breaks out thus: ‘Let them say I am
romantic; so is every one said to be that either admires a fine thing or
does one. On my conscience, as the world goes, ’tis hardly worth
anybody’s while to do one for the honour of it. Glory, the only pay of
generous actions, is now as ill-paid as other just debts; and neither
Mrs Macfarland for immolating her lover, nor you for returning to
your lord, must ever hope to be compared to Lucretia or Portia.’[494]
A newspaper which enjoyed a temporary Oct. 20.
[495]
existence in Edinburgh —each number
consisting of five small leaves—is vociferous with the celebrations of
the anniversary of King George’s coronation in Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Aberdeen, Perth, and other Scottish towns. Ten days later, it
proclaims with equal vehemence the 1716.
rejoicings in the same places in honour of
the birthday of the Prince of Wales. Paradings and firings of
musketry by the troops, drinkings of loyal toasts from covered tables
at the Cross, bonfires, ringings of bells, form the chief
demonstrations. And it is notable that in Dundee, Brechin, and
Aberdeen, which we know to have been in those days full of
Jacobites, the symptoms of loyalty to Hanover are by many degrees
the most ostentatious, there being the more need of course for the
friends of the reigning house to exert themselves. In Dundee (where
in reality the Jacobites were probably two to one), ‘everybody looked
cheerful, and vied who should outdo other in rejoicing, except some
few of our Jacobite neighbours, who, being like owls, loved darkness;
but care will be taken that they spared not their money by being
singular.’
Loyalty is altogether a paradox, appearances with it being usually
in the inverse ratio of its actual existence, and the actuality in the
inverse ratio of the deserving. No monarch ever enjoyed so much of
it as Charles I. Since the days of his sons, when the bulk of the people
of Scotland felt themselves under a civil and ecclesiastical tyranny,
the demonstrations at market-crosses on royal birthdays had not
been so violent as now, when a new family, about whom nobody
cared or could care, occupied the throne. Nor did these again become
equally loud till the time of George III., when Wilkes prosecutions,
losses of American colonies, and unjustifiable wars with French
reformers, made loyalty again a needful article, and king’s-health-
drinkings in the highest degree desirable. On the other hand, when
rulers are truly worthy of a faithful affection on the part of their
people—as in our happy age—one never hears the word loyalty
mentioned.
All through the reign of the first George and a great part of that of
his successor, the newspaper estimate of human character seems to
have had but one element—the attachment of the individual to ‘our
present happy establishment in church and state.’ At the end of every
paragraph announcing a choice of magistrates in Scotland, it is
pointedly stated that they are all friends of the Hanover succession.
Such things are, of course, simply the measure of the extent of hatred
and indifferency with which the happy establishment and dynasty
were regarded, as well as of the danger in which it was the fate of
both to exist, from the eagerness of many to get them destroyed.
The same newspaper, while telling us of such grave things as
Scottish nobles and gentlemen waiting in the Tower and in Carlisle
Castle for death or for life, as an incensed 1716.
government might please to dictate, gives us
other notices, reminding us of the affecting truism breathed from
every sheet of the kind in our own day, that all the affairs of human
life, the serious, the comic, the important, the trivial, are constantly
going on shoulder to shoulder together. We glance from a hard-
wrung pardon for a dozen rebels, or an account of the execution of
Sergeant Ainslie, hung over the wall of Edinburgh Castle for an
attempt to render the fortress up to the Jacobites—to the let of the
lands of Biggarshiels, which ‘sow above eighty bolls of oats,’ and have
a good ‘sheepgang’ besides—or to David Sibbald’s vessel, the Anne of
Kirkcaldy, which now lies in Leith harbour for the benefit of all who
wish to transport themselves or their goods to London, and is to sail
with all expedition—or to the fact that yesterday the Duke of
Hamilton left Edinburgh for his country-seat, attended by a retinue
of gentlemen—or to an announcement of Allan Ramsay’s
forthcoming poem of the Morning Interview—for all these things
come jostling along together in one month. Nor may the following
quaint advertisement be overlooked:
‘A young gentlewoman, lately come from London, cuts hair
extremely well, dresses in the newest fashion, has the newest
fashioned patterns for beads, ruffles, &c., and mends lace very fine,
and does all sort of plain work; also teaches young gentlewomen to
work, and young women for their work. She does all manner of
quilting and stitching. All the ladies that come to her on Monday and
Thursday, have their hair cut for sixpence; at any other time, as
reasonably as any in town; and dresses the beads on wires cheaper
than any one. She lodges in the Luckenbooths, over against the
Tolbooth, at one Mr Palmer’s, a periwig-maker, up one pair of
stairs.’[496]
Since the Revolution, there had been a constant and eager

pressure towards commerce and manufactures as a means of saving
the nation from the wretched poverty with which it was afflicted. But
as yet there had been scarcely the slightest movement towards the
improvement of another great branch of the national economy—
namely, the culture of the ground. The country was unenclosed;
cultivation was only in patches near houses; farm establishments
were clusters of hovels; the rural people, among whom the
distinction of master and servant was little 1716.
marked, lived in the most wretched
manner. A large part of rent was paid in produce and by services. Old
systems of husbandry reigned without disturbance. Little had yet
been done to facilitate communications in the country by roads, as
indeed little was required, for all goods were carried on horseback.
The first notable attempt at planting was by Thomas, sixth Earl of
Haddington, about the time of the Union. From a love of common
country sports, this young nobleman was called away by his wife, a
sister of the first Earl of Hopetoun, who desired to see him engaged
in planting, for which she had somehow acquired a taste. The
domain they had to work upon was a tract of low ground
surrounding their mansion of Tyninghame, composing part of the
coast of the Firth of Forth between North Berwick and Dunbar. Their
first experiment was upon a tract of about three hundred acres,
where it was believed that no trees could grow on account of the sea-
air. To the marvel of all, Lord Haddington included, the Binning
Wood, as it was called, soon became a beautiful sylvan domain, as it
continues to this day. To pursue his lordship’s own recital: ‘I now
took pleasure in planting and improving; but, because I did not like
the husbandry practised in this country, I got some farmers from
Dorsetshire. This made me divide my ground; but, as I knew the
coldness of the climate, and the bad effects the winds had, I made
stripes of planting between every enclosure, some forty, fifty, or sixty
feet broad, as I thought best.... From these Englishmen we came to
the knowledge of sowing and the management of grass-seeds. After
making the enclosures, a piece of ground that carried nothing but
furze was planted; and my wife, seeing the unexpected success of her
former projects, went on to another.... There was a warren of four
hundred acres, vastly sandy [near the mouth of the Tyne]. A
gentleman who had lived some time at Hamburg, one day walking
with her, said that he had seen fine trees growing upon such a soil.
She took the hint, and planted about sixty or seventy acres of warren.
All who saw it at the time thought that labour and trees were thrown
away; but to their amazement, they saw them prosper as well as in
the best grounds. The whole field was dead sand, with scarce any
grass on it; nor was it only so poor on the surface, but continued so
some yards down.’[497] Such was the origin of the famous
Tyninghame Woods, which now present eight hundred acres of the
finest timber in the country. By means of 1716.
his Dorsetshire farmers, too, Lord
Haddington became the introducer of the practice of sowing clover
and other grass-seeds.
Another early improver of the surface was Sir Archibald Grant of
Monymusk (second baronet of the title), whose merits, moreover, are
the more remarkable, as his operations took place in a remote part of
the north. ‘In my early days,’ says he, ‘soon after the Union,
husbandry and manufactures were in low esteem. Turnips [raised] in
fields for cattle by the Earl of Rothes and very few others, were
wondered at. Wheat was almost confined to East Lothian. Enclosures
were few, and planting very little; no repair of roads, all bad, and
very few wheel-carriages. In 1720, I could not, in chariot, get my wife
from Aberdeen to Monymusk. Colonel Middleton [was] the first who
used carts or wagons there; and he and I [were] the first benorth Tay
who had hay, except very little at Gordon Castle. Mr Lockhart of
Carnwath, author of Memoirs, [was] the first that attempted raising
or feeding cattle to size.’[498]
‘By the indulgence of a very worthy father,’ says Sir Archibald, ‘I
was allowed [in] 1716, though then very young, to begin to enclose
and plant, and provide and prepare nurseries. At that time there was
not one acre upon the whole estate enclosed, nor any timber upon it
but a few elm, sycamore, and ash, about a small kitchen-garden
adjoining to the house [a very common arrangement about old
Scotch country mansion-houses], and some straggling trees at some
of the farmyards, with a small copsewood, not enclosed and
dwarfish, and browsed by sheep and cattle. All the farms [were] ill-
disposed and mixed, different persons having alternate ridges; not
one wheel-carriage on the estate, nor indeed any one road that would
allow it; and the rent about £600 sterling per annum, [when] grain
and services [were] converted into money. The house was an old
castle, with battlements and six different roofs of various heights and
directions, confusedly and inconveniently combined, and all rotten,
with two wings more modern of two stories only, the half of the
windows of the higher rising above the roofs; with granaries, stables,
and houses for all cattle and the vermin attending them close
adjoining; and with the heath and muir reaching in angles or gushets
to the gate, and much heath near. What land was in culture belonged
to the farms, by which their cattle and dung 1716.
were always at the door. The whole land
[was] raised and uneven, and full of stones, many of them very large,
of a hard iron quality, and all the ridges crooked in shape of an S, and
very high, and full of noxious weeds, and poor, being worn out by
culture, without proper manure or tillage. Much of the land and muir
near the house [was] poor and boggy; the rivulet that runs before the
house in pits and shallow streams, often varying channel, with banks
always ragged and broken. The people [were] poor, ignorant, and
slothful, and ingrained enemies to planting, enclosing, or any
improvements or cleanness; no keeping of sheep or cattle, or roads,
but four months, when oats and bear (which was the only sorts of
their grain) was on ground. The farmhouses, and even corn-mills,
and manse and school, [were] all poor, dirty huts, [occasionally]
pulled in pieces for manure, or [which] fell of themselves almost each
alternate year.’[499]
By Sir Archibald’s exertions, Monymusk became in due time a
beautiful domain, well cultivated and productive, checkered with fine
woods, in which are now some of the largest trees to be seen in that
part of Scotland.
There is reason to believe that the very first person who was
effective in introducing any agricultural improvements into Scotland
was an English lady. It was in 1706—the year before the Union—that
Elizabeth Mordaunt, daughter of the famous Earl of Peterborough,
married the eldest son of the Duke of Gordon, and came to reside in
Scotland. A spark of her father’s enterprising genius made her desire
to see her adopted country put on a better aspect, and she took some
trouble to effect the object, by bringing down to some of her father-
in-law’s estates English ploughs, with men to work them, and who
were acquainted with the business of fallowing—heretofore utterly
unknown in Scotland. Her ladyship instructed the people of her
neighbourhood in the proper way of making hay, of which they were
previously ignorant; and set an example in the planting of muirs and
the laying out of gardens. Urged by her counsels, during the first
twenty years of her residence in Scotland, two Morayland
proprietors, Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonston, and a gentleman
named Dunbar, and one Ross-shire laird, Sir William Gordon of
Invergordon, set about the draining and planting of their estates, and
the introduction of improved modes of culture, including the sowing
of French grasses.[500] It is rather 1716.
remarkable that Scotland should have
received her first impulse towards agricultural improvements from
England, which we have in recent times seen, as it were, sitting at her
feet as a pupil in all the various particulars of a superior rural
economy.
We are informed that, after the close of Nov.

the Rebellion, owing to the number of
people cast loose thereby from all the ordinary social bonds, ‘thefts,
robberies, rapines, and depredations became so common [in the
Highlands and their borders], that they began to be looked upon as
neither shameful nor dishonourable, and people of a station
somewhat above the vulgar, did sometimes countenance, encourage,
nay, head gangs of banditti in those detestable villanies.’ The tenants
of great landlords who had joined the Whig cause were particularly
liable to despoliation, and to this extent the system bore the
character of a kind of guerilla warfare. Such a landlord was the Duke
of Montrose, whose lands lying chiefly in the western parts of Perth,
Stirling, and Dumbarton shires, were peculiarly exposed to this kind
of rapine. His Grace, moreover, had so acted towards Rob Roy, as to
create in that personage a deep sense of injury, which the Highland
moral code called for being wreaked out in every available method.
Rob had now constituted himself the head of the broken men of his
district, and having great sagacity and address, he was by no means a
despicable enemy.
At the date noted, the duke’s factor, Mr Graham of Killearn, came
in the usual routine, to collect his Grace’s Martinmas rents at a place
called Chapel-eroch, about half-way between Buchanan House and
the village of Drymen. The farmers were gathered together, and had
paid in about two hundred and sixty pounds, when Rob Roy, with
twenty followers, descended upon the spot from the hills of
Buchanan. Having planted his people about the house, he coolly
entered, took Mr Graham prisoner, and possessed himself of the
money that had been collected, as well as the account-books, telling
the factor that he would answer for all to the duke, as soon as his
Grace should pay him three thousand four hundred merks, being the
amount of what he professed himself to have been wronged of by the
havoc committed by the duke upon his house at Craigrostan, and
subsequently by the burning of his house at 1716.
Auchinchisallen by the government troops.
Mr Graham was permitted to write to the duke, stating the case, and
telling that he was to remain a prisoner till his Grace should comply
with Rob’s demands, with ‘hard usage if any party are sent after him.’
Mr Graham was marched about by Rob Roy from place to place,
‘under a very uneasy kind of restraint,’ for a week, when at length the
outlaw, considering that he could not mend matters, but might only
provoke more hostility by keeping his prisoner any longer, liberated
him with his books and papers, but without the money.
Part of the duke’s rents being paid in kind, there were girnels or
grain stores near Chapel-eroch, into which the farmers of the district
used to render their quotas of victual, according to custom.
‘Whenever Rob and his followers were pressed with want, a party
was detached to execute an order of their commanders, for taking as
much victual out of these girnels as was necessary for them at the
time.’ In this district, ‘the value of the thefts and depredations
committed upon some lands were equal to the yearly rent of the
lands, and the persons of small heritors were taken, carried off, and
detained prisoners till they redeemed themselves for a sum of
money, especially if they had at elections for parliament voted for the
government man.’[501]
The duke got his farmers armed, and was preparing for an inroad
on the freebooter’s quarters, when, in an unguarded moment, they
were beset by a party of Macgregors under Rob’s nephew, Gregor
Macgregor of Glengyle, and turned adrift without any of their
military accoutrements. The duke renewed the effort with better
success, for, marching into Balquhidder with some of his people, he
took Rob Roy prisoner. But here good-fortune and native craft
befriended the outlaw. Being carried along on horseback, bound by a
belt to the man who had him in charge, he contrived so to work on
the man’s feelings as to induce him to slip the bond, as they were
crossing a river, when, diving under the stream, he easily made his
escape. Sir Walter Scott heard this story recited by the grandson of
Rob’s friend, and worked it up with his usual skill in the novel
bearing the outlaw’s name.
While these operations were going on, the commissioners on the
Forfeited Estates were coolly reckoning up the little patrimony of
Rob Roy as part of the public spoil of the 1716.
late rebellion. It is felt as a strange and
uncouth association that Steele, of Tatler and Spectator memory—
kind-hearted, thoughtless Dicky Steele—should have been one of the
persons who administered in the affairs of the cateran of
Craigrostan. In the final report of the commissioners, we have the
pitiful account of the public gains from the ruin of poor Rob,
Inversnaid being described as of the yearly value of £53, 16s. 8½d.,
and the total realised from it of purchase-money and interest, £958,
10s. There is all possible reason to believe, that it would have been a
much more advantageous as well as humane arrangement for the
public, to allow these twelve miles of Highland mountains to remain
in the hands of their former owner.
Wonder-seekers were at this time regaled 1717. Jan.

with a brochure stating how Mr John
Gardner, minister near Elgin, fell into a trance, and lay as dead for
two days, in the sight of many; and how, being put into a coffin, and
carried to his parish church in order to be buried, he was heard at the
last moment to make a noise in the coffin; which being opened, he
was found alive, ‘to the astonishment of all present.’ Being then
carried home, and put into a warm bed, he in a little time coming to
himself, ‘related many strange things which he had seen in the other
world.’ In the same publication was a sermon which the worthy man
had preached after his recovery.
Mr Gordon of Ellon, a rich merchant of Apr. 29.

Edinburgh, lived in a villa to the north of
the city, with a family composed of a wife, two sons, and a daughter,
the children being all of tender age.[502] He had for a tutor to his two
boys a licentiate of the church, named Robert Irvine, who was
considered of respectable attainments, but remarked for a somewhat
melancholic disposition. A gloomy view of predestination, derived
from a work by Flavel, had taken hold of Irvine’s mind, which,
perhaps, had some native infirmity, ready to be acted upon by
external circumstances to dismal results.
The tutor, having cast eyes of affection upon a servant-girl in his
employer’s house, was tempted, one day, to take some liberties with
her, which were observed and reported by 1717.
his two pupils. He was reprimanded by Mr
Gordon for this breach of decorum, which, on an apology from him,
was forgiven. The incident sunk into the man’s sensitive nature, and
he brooded upon it till it assumed proportions beyond the reality,
and raised in his heart an insane thirst for revenge. For three days
did the wretch revolve the idea of cutting off Mr Gordon’s three
children, and on the day here noted he found an opportunity of
partially accomplishing his morbid desire. It was Sunday, and Mr
and Mrs Gordon went to spend the latter part of the day with a friend
in the city, taking their little daughter along with them. Irvine, left
with the two boys, took them out for a walk along the then broomy
slope where St Andrew Square and York Place are now situated. The
children ran about gathering flowers and pursuing butterflies, while
this fiend-transformed man sat whetting a knife wherewith to cut
short their days. Calling the two boys to him, he upbraided them with
their informing upon him, and told them that they must suffer for it.
They ran off, but he easily overtook and seized them. Then keeping
one down upon the grass with his knee, he cut the other’s throat;
after which he despatched in like manner the remaining one.
The insane nature of the action was shewn by its being committed
in daylight in an open place, exposed to the view of multitudes who
might chance to look that way from the adjacent city. A gentleman,
enjoying his evening walk upon the Castle Hill, did obtain a tolerably
perfect view of the incident, and immediately gave an alarm. Irvine,
who had already attempted to cut his own throat, but unsuccessfully,
ran from his pursuers to the Water of Leith, thinking to drown
himself there; but he was taken, and brought in a cart to prison, and
there chained down to the floor, as if he had been a wild beast.
There was a summary process of law for murderers taken as he
was with the red hand. It was only necessary to bring him next day
before the judge of the district, and have sentence passed upon him.
In this case, the judge was the Baron Bailie of Broughton, a hamlet
now overwhelmed in the spreading streets of the New Town of
Edinburgh, but whose court-house existed so lately as 1827.[503] Till
the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in 1747, the bailie of the Baron
of Broughton could arraign a criminal 1717.
before a jury of his own people, and do the
highest judgment upon him. Irvine was tried by the bailie upon the
30th of April, and received sentence of death. During the brief
interval before execution, which was but a day, the unhappy wretch
was addressed by several clergymen on the heinousness of his crime,
and the need of repentance, and, after a time, he began to exhibit
signs of contrition. The bloody clothes of the poor children being
then exhibited before him, he broke out in tears and groans, as if a
new light was shed upon his mind, and he had been able to see his
offence in its true character. He then sent a message to the bereaved
parents, beseeching their Christian forgiveness to a dying man; and
this they very kindly gave.
Irvine was next day hanged at Greenside, having first had his
hands hacked off, and stuck upon the gibbet by the knife with which
he had committed the murder. His body was thrown into a
neighbouring quarry-hole.[504]
Occurred this day at Edinburgh a June 10.

thunder-storm, attended with such
remarkable effects, that an account of it was published on a
broadside. It was little, perhaps, that it frightened the people off the
streets, caused the garrison at the Castle to look well to the powder-
magazine, and killed a man and a woman at Lasswade. What
attracted particular attention was the fate of a tavern company at
Canonmills, where two barbers from the Lawnmarket had come to
celebrate the Pretender’s birthday over a bottle of ale. They had just
drunk to the health of their assumed monarch—one of the company
had remarked with a curse how the bells were not rung or the Castle
guns fired on ‘the king’s’ birthday—when a great thunder-clap broke
over the house. ‘The people on earth,’ cried one of the party, ‘will not
adore their king; but you hear the Almighty is complimenting him
with a volley from heaven.’ At that moment came a second stroke,
which instantaneously killed one of the barbers and a woman, and
scorched a gentleman so severely that he died in a few hours. The
rest of the company, being amazed, sent to Edinburgh for doctors to
take blood of the gentleman; but the doctors told them they could do
no good. They tried to let blood of him, but found none. ‘Their bodies
were as soft as wool.’
‘There is none more blind than them that 1717.
will not see: these men may see, if they
wilfully will not shut their eyes, that Providence many times hath
blasted their enterprises.... These men were contending for that
which did not concern them; they were drinking, cursing, and
passing reflections—which in all probability hath offended the King
of Heaven to throw down his thunder, &c., a warning to all
blasphemers, drunkards, swearers, licentious livers, and others.’[505]
It is a little awkward for this theory, that among the killed was but
one of the Jacobite barbers, the other and equally guilty one
escaping.
The capture of the fugitate Rob Roy June.

seeming now an object worthy of the regard
of the Duke of Athole, a negotiation took place between them, which
ended in Rob being taken into custody of a strong party at Logierait,
the place where his Grace usually exercised his justiciary functions,
and where his prison accordingly was situated. The outlaw felt he
had been deceived, but it did not appear that he could help himself.
Meanwhile, the duke sent intelligence of the capture of Rob to
Edinburgh, desiring a company of troops to be sent to receive him.
Ultimately, however, the duke countermanded the military, finding
he could send a sufficiently strong party of his own people to hand
over the outlaw to justice.
While preparations were making for his transmission to the
Lowlands, Rob entertained his guards with whisky, and easily gained
their confidence. One day, when they were all very hearty, he made a
business to go to the door to deliver a letter for his wife to a man who
was waiting for it, and to whom he pretended he had some private
instructions to give. One of the guard languidly accompanied him, as
it were for form’s sake, having no fear of his breaking off. Macgregor
was thus allowed to lounge about outside for a few minutes, till at
last getting near his horse, he suddenly mounted, and was off to
Stirlingshire like the wind.[506]
To have set two dukes upon thief-catching within a twelvemonth
or so, and escaped out of the clutches of both, was certainly a curious
fate for a Highland cateran, partisan 1717.
warrior, or whatever name he may be called
by.
Sir Richard Steele appears not to have Nov.

attended the business of the Forfeited
Estates Commission in Edinburgh during the year 1716, but given his
time, as usual, to literary and political pursuits in London, and to a
project in which he had become concerned for bringing fish ‘alive
and in good health’ to the metropolis. It was reported that he would
get no pay for the first year, as having performed no duty; but those
who raised this rumour must have had a very wrong notion of the
way that public affairs were then administered. He tells his wife, May
22, 1717, in one of those most amorous of marital letters of his which
Leigh Hunt has praised so much, that ‘five hundred pounds for the
time the commission was in Scotland is already ordered me.’ It is
strange to reflect that payment of coach-horses, which he, as a man
of study, rarely used, and condemned as vain superfluities, was
among the things on which was spent the property wrung out of the
vitals of the poor Scotch Jacobites.
When the second year’s session of the commissioners was about to
commence in September 1717, Sir Harry Houghton appears to have
proposed that Steele should go at the first, in which case the baronet
proposed to relieve him in November; in case he did not go now, he
would have to go in November, and stay till the end of January. He
dallied on in London, only scheming about his journey, which, it
must be admitted, was not an easy one in 1717. He informs his wife:
‘I alter the manner of taking my journey every time I think of it. My
present disposition is to borrow what they call a post-chaise of the
Duke of Roxburgh [Secretary of State for Scotland]. It is drawn by
one horse, runs on two wheels, and is led by a servant riding by. This
rider and leader is to be Mr Willmot, formerly a carrier, who answers
for managing on a road to perfection, by keeping tracks, and the like.’
Next it was: ‘I may possibly join with two or three gentlemen, and
hire a coach for ourselves.’ On the 30th of September, he tells Lady
Steele: ‘The commission in Scotland stands still for want of me at
Edinburgh. It is necessary there should be four there, and there are
now but two; three others halt on the road, and will not go forward
till I have passed by York. I have therefore taken places in the York
coach for Monday next.’ On the 20th of October: ‘After many
resolutions and irresolutions concerning my way of going, I go, God
willing, to-morrow morning, by the 1717.
Wakefield coach, on my way to York and
Edinburgh.’ And now he did go, for his next letter is dated on the 23d
from Stamford, to which place two days’ coaching had brought him.
An odd but very characteristic circumstance connected with
Steele’s first journey to Scotland was, that he took a French master
with him, in order that the long idle days and evenings of travelling
might be turned to some account in his acquisition of that language,
which he believed would be useful to him on his return. ‘He lies in
the same room with me; and the loquacity which is usual at his age,
and inseparable from his nation, at once contributes to my purpose,
and makes him very agreeable.’
Steele was in Edinburgh on the 5th of November, and we know
that about the 9th he set out on his return to London, because on the
11th he writes to his wife from Ayton on the third day of his journey,
one (a Sunday) having been spent in inaction on the road. ‘I hope,’
says he, ‘God willing, to be at London, Saturday come se’ennight:’
that is to say, the journey was to take a fortnight. In accordance with
this view of the matter, we find him writing on Friday the 15th from
Pearce Bridge, in the county of Durham, ‘with my limbs much better
than usual after my seven days’ journey from Edinburgh towards
London.’ He tells on this occasion: ‘You cannot imagine the civilities
and honours I had done me there, and [I] never lay better, ate or
drank better, or conversed with men of better sense, than there.’[507]
Brief as his visit had been, he was evidently pleased with the men
he met with in the Scottish capital. All besides officials must have felt
that he came about a business of malign aspect towards their
country; but his name was an illustrious one in British literature, he
was personally good-natured, and they could separate the great
essayist from the Whig partisan and servant of the ministry. Allan
Ramsay would be delighted to see him in his shop ‘opposite to
Niddry’s Wynd head.’ Thomson, then a youth at college, would steal
a respectful look at him as he stood amongst his friends at the Cross.
From ‘Alexander Pennecuik, gentleman,’ a bard little known to fame,
he received a set of complimentary verses,[508] ending thus:
‘Scotia....
Grief more than age hath furrowèd her brow,
She sobs her sorrows, yet she smiles on you;
Tears from her crystal lambics do distil,
With throbbing breast she dreads th’ approaching ill,
Yet still she loves you, though you come to kill,
In midst of fears and wounds, which she doth feel,
Kisses the hurting hand, smiles on the wounding Steele.’
Sir Richard spent part of the summer of 1718.

1718 in Edinburgh, in attendance upon the
business of the commission. We find him taking a furnished house
for the half-year beginning on the 15th of May (the Whitsunday term
in Scotland), from Mr James Anderson, the editor of the Diplomata
Scotiæ. But on the 29th July he had not come to take possession:
neither could he say when he would arrive, till his ‘great affair’ was
finished. He promised immediately thereupon to take his horses for
Scotland, ‘though I do not bring my coach, by reason of my wife’s
inability to go with me.’ ‘I shall,’ he adds, ‘want the four-horse stable
for my saddle-horses.’
He appears to have taken the same house for the same period in
1719, and to have revisited Scotland in the same manner in 1720,
when he occupied the house of Mr William Scott, professor of Greek
in the Edinburgh University.[509] There is a letter to him from Mr
James Anderson in February 1721, thanking him for the interest he
had taken in forwarding a scheme of the writer, to induce the
government to purchase his collection of historical books. Steele was
again residing in Edinburgh in October 1721, when we find him in
friendly intercourse with Mr Anderson. ‘Just before I received yours,’
he says on one occasion, ‘I sent a written message to Mr
Montgomery, advising that I designed the coach [Steele’s own
carriage?] should go to your house, to take in your galaxy, and
afterwards call for his star:’ pleasant allusions these probably to
some party of pleasure in which the female members of Mr
Anderson’s and Mr Montgomery’s families were to be concerned. In
the ensuing month, he writes to Mr Anderson from the York
Buildings Office in London, regarding an application he had had
from a poor woman named Margaret Gow. He could not help her
with her petition; but he sent a small bill representing money of his
own for her relief. ‘This trifle,’ he says, ‘in her housewifely hands, will
make cheerful her numerous family at Collingtown.’[510]
These are meagre particulars regarding Steele’s visits to Scotland,
but at least serviceable in illustrating his 1718.
noted kind-heartedness.
‘Kind Richy Spec, the friend of a’ distressed,’
as he is called by Allan Ramsay, who doubtless made his personal

acquaintance at this time.
There is a traditionary anecdote of Steele’s visits to Scotland,
which has enough of truth-likeness to be entitled to preservation. It
is stated that, in one of his journeys northward, soon after he had
crossed the Border, near Annan, he observed a shepherd resting on a
hillside and reading a book. He and his companions rode up, and one
of them asked the man what he was reading. It proved to be the
Bible. ‘And what do you learn from this book?’ asked Sir Richard. ‘I
learn from it the way to heaven.’ ‘Very well,’ replied the knight, ‘we
are desirous of going to the same place, and wish you would shew us
the way.’ Then the shepherd, turning about, pointed to a tall and
conspicuous object on an eminence at some miles’ distance, and
said: ‘Weel, gentlemen, ye maun just gang by that tower.’ The party,
surprised and amused, demanded to know how the tower was called.
The shepherd answered: ‘It is the Tower of Repentance.’
It was so in verity. Some centuries ago, a Border cavalier, in a fit of
remorse, had built a tower, to which he gave the name of
Repentance. It lies near Hoddam House, in the parish of
Cummertrees, rendered by its eminent situation a conspicuous
object to all the country round.
We are informed by Richard Shiels that Steele, while in Scotland,
had interviews with a considerable number of the Presbyterian
clergy, with the view of inducing them to agree to a union of the
Presbyterian and Episcopal churches—a ‘devout imagination,’ which
one would have thought a very few such interviews would have been
required to dispel. He was particularly struck with the singular and
original character of James Hart, one of the ministers of Edinburgh,
who is universally admitted to have been an excellent man, as he was
a most attractive preacher. That strange enthusiast, Mrs Elizabeth
West, speaks of a discourse she once heard from him on a passage in
Canticles: ‘The king hath brought me into his chambers; we will be
glad,’ where he held forth, she says, ‘on the sweet fellowship Christ
and believers have together.’ ‘Oh,’ she adds, ‘but this was a soul-
refreshing sermon to me!’ What had most impressed the English
moralist was the contrast between the good-humour and
benevolence of Hart in his private 1718.
character, and the severe style in which he
launched forth in the pulpit on the subject of human nature, and on
the frightful punishments awaiting the great mass of mankind in
another state of existence. Steele called him on this account ‘the
Hangman of the Gospel.’[511]
The only other recollection of Steele in Edinburgh which has ever
come under the notice of the author, represents him,
characteristically, as assembling all the eccentric-looking mendicants
of the Scottish capital in a tavern in Lady Stair’s Close, and there
pleasing the whimsical taste of himself and one or two friends by
witnessing their happiness in the enjoyment of an abundant feast,
and observing all their various humours and oddities. Shiels also
relates this circumstance, and adds that Steele afterwards confessed
he had drunk in enough of native drollery to compose a comedy.
Lord Grange tells us, in his Diary, of a 1717. Nov.
woman in humble life, residing in the
Potterrow in Edinburgh, who had religious experiences reminding us
of those of St Theresa and Antonia Bourignon, but consonant with
orthodox Presbyterianism. Being taken, along with Mr Logan, the
minister of Culross, to see her at ‘Lady Aytoun’s, at the back of the
College,’ he found her a woman between thirty and forty. At the
communion in Leith, a month ago, she had striven to dwell upon the
thought of Christ, and came to have ‘clear uptakings of his
sufferings.’ She saw him on the cross, and his deserted sepulchre, ‘as
plainly as if she had been actually present when these things
happened, though there was not any visible representation thereof
made to her bodily eyes. She also got liberty to speak to him, and ask
several questions at him, to which she got answers, as if one had
spoken to her audibly, though there was no audible voice.’ Lord
Grange admits that all this was apt to look like enthusiasm or
delusion; but ‘far be it from me to say it is delusion.’ Being once at a
communion in Kirkcaldy, ‘it was born in upon her—“Arise and eat,
for thou hast a journey to make, a Jordan to pass through.”’ In
passing across the Firth of Forth that afternoon, she was upset into
the water, but sustained till a boat came to her rescue.
The pious judge seems to have desired much to keep up
acquaintance with Jean Brown—for such was her name—and he
went several times to see her at her little shop; but the place was so
much crowded with ‘children and people 1717.
coming in to buy such things as she sells,’
that his wish was frustrated. ‘Afterwards,’ he tells us, ‘I employed her
husband [a shoemaker] to make some little things for me, mostly to
give them business, and that I might thereby get opportunity now
and then to talk with such as, I hope, are acquainted with the ways of
God.’
Immediately after the Union, the shrewd- 1718.

witted people of Glasgow saw the
opportunity which was afforded them of making a profitable trade
with the American colonies. They had as yet no vessels of their own,
and little means of purchasing cargoes; but diligence, frugality, and
patience made up for all deficiencies. There is scarcely anything in

Full Chapter Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets 1St Edition Timothy M Barrows PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Full Chapter Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets 1St Edition Timothy M Barrows PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible

Rockets 1st Edition Timothy M.

Flexible Robot Manipulators Modelling Simulation and

Simulation Approach Towards Energy Flexible

Advanced Simulation of Alternative Energy: Simulation

Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Nanostructured

Flexible Working in Organisations A Research Overview

Nonequilibrium Gas Dynamics and Molecular Simulation

Developing Modular Oriented Simulation Models Using

Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Nursing Jared M.

Dynamics and Simulation

Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets

Dynamics and Simulation of Flexible Rockets_AW1.indd All Pages 02/12/2020 14:51

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

For information on all Academic Press publications

Publisher: Matthew Deans

2. The system mass matrix 9

5. Forces and torques 109

6. Engine interactions 143

7.2. State-space model 188

8. Simulation parameters 207

9. Stability and control 233

10. Implementation and analysis 285

A. List of symbols and acronyms 299

B. Quadruple vector product 305

C. Finite element model unit conversions 307

D. Second-order coordinate transformation 309

E. Angular momentum of free-free modes 315

In this example, increasing the bone cross section by a factor of a hundred is

or using its frame b components

One feature of the Hughes system is that the superscript representing

It is important to recognize that u× is a matrix. Matrix operations such as

The matrix equivalent of this expression is

Note that parentheses are essential for the last expression.

The partial derivative of this expression with respect to v is

One slightly more complicated case will be presented here. Suppose

Organization of this book

depending on factors such as whether an integrated or reduced body is de-

Chapter 9 introduces the topic of stabilization and control of flexi-

The system mass matrix

2.1 Problem formulation

shown. The origin of the coordinate system is placed on the undeformed

rsj = bsj + δ sj (2.1.1)

The subscript j (for tank j) is attached to these vectors, even though at

Figure 2.1 Rocket with sloshing fuel mass.

Let an inertial frame be temporarily assumed with an initial velocity

Retaining the assumption of no thrust or external force, we now add the

where T is the kinetic energy, V is the potential energy, and D is the

This is the ultimate form of Lagrange’s equation that is used in the

ρT (r) = ρ0 (r) + ρsj (r) + ρE (r) (2.1.16)

Using this, the total mass is

It is also convenient to define the mass element

The first moment of inertia of the system is defined as

where 1 is the identity matrix.

2.2 Structural dynamics

Figure 2.2 Finite element model.

At a conceptual level, a structural dynamic model is essentially an as-

In this equation, MB is the mass matrix, KB is the stiffness matrix, x is a col-

xi = φ i Ai sin Bi t (2.2.3)

This is solved for the M eigenvalues 2Bi and associated eigenvectors φ i .

The eigenvectors φ i , with a subscript, are not to be confused with the φ

where 1 is the M × M identity matrix. This is what is meant by “mass

xi = φ i Ai sin Bi t (2.2.3)

This is solved for the M eigenvalues 2Bi and associated eigenvectors φ i .

η̈i + 2Bi η = φ Ti F (2.2.17)

η̈i + 2Bi ηi = ψ Tni f + σ Tni g (2.2.22)