1
$\begingroup$

A 3-dimensional object is rotating around an unknown 3-dimensional axis through the object's center of mass. Its orientation is described by two unit vectors. I know an initial orientation and a final orientation and the time in between $\tau$. Four vectors in total. Let's call the initial orientation vectors $\vec{a_0}$ and $\vec{b_0}$, and the final vectors $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$. Both vectors point out of the objects center of mass. How do I find the rotational velocity vector $\vec{\omega}$, where the direction is the rotation axis, and the length is the angular velocity in rad/sec according to the right hand rule?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The rotation velocity vector $\vec \omega$ must be in the plane perpendicular to the vector difference $\vec a - \vec a_0$ and also be in the plane perpendicular to the vector difference $\vec b - \vec b_0$. Consequently, unless these two vector differences are parallel to each other (and provided neither is zero), the rotation velocity vector must be parallel to the cross product vector $ ((\vec a - \vec a_0) \times (\vec b - \vec b_0)) $; that is explicitly:

$$ \vec \omega := \frac{ \| \vec \omega \| }{ \| ((\vec a - \vec a_0) \times (\vec b - \vec b_0)) \| } ((\vec a - \vec a_0) \times (\vec b - \vec b_0)).$$

Further, the "rotation speed" $\| \vec \omega \|$ can be determined through

$$ \frac{1}{\| \vec \omega \|} := \frac{\tau}{2~\pi}~\text{ArcCos}[~ \frac{ (((\| \vec \omega \|)^2~\vec a - \vec \omega (\vec a \cdot \vec \omega)) \cdot ((\| \vec \omega \|)^2~\vec a_0 - \vec \omega (\vec a_0 \cdot \vec \omega))) }{ (\| (\| \vec \omega \|)^2~\vec a - \vec \omega (\vec a \cdot \vec \omega) \|) (\| (\| \vec \omega \|)^2~\vec a_0 - \vec \omega (\vec a_0 \cdot \vec \omega) \|) }~],$$

or equally by a corresponding expression in terms of vectors $\vec b$ and $\vec b_0$.

Note that the argument of the $\text{ArcCos}$ function is a fraction which is independent of the magnitude of vector $\vec \omega$ (but depends on the direction of vector $\vec \omega$, which must be non-zero, of course). Therefore the above expression for the "rotation speed" $\| \vec \omega \|$ can be explicitly evaluated by substituting the cross product vector $ ((\vec a - \vec a_0) \times (\vec b - \vec b_0)) $ for $\vec \omega$ in the argument of the $\text{ArcCos}$ function, on the right-hand side of the expression.

This may be somewhat further simplified by noting that "rotation" means that

$(\vec a \cdot \vec a) = (\vec a_0 \cdot \vec a_0)$ as well as $(\vec a \cdot \vec \omega) = (\vec a_0 \cdot \vec \omega)$,

and likewise

$(\vec b \cdot \vec b) = (\vec b_0 \cdot \vec b_0)$ as well as $(\vec b \cdot \vec \omega) = (\vec b_0 \cdot \vec \omega)$;

but the resulting explicit expressions for the "rotation speed" $\| \vec \omega \|$ or even for the rotation velocity vector $\vec \omega$ still appear too complicated to be worth writing down here explicitly.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This may turn out to be simpler than my approach... but I'm not convinced there is a unique solution for any combination of $a$ and $b$. Is there? $\endgroup$ – Floris Nov 25 '15 at 14:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Floris: "This may turn out to be simpler than my approach..." -- Yeah. At least, by "some algebra", I find that our answers agree in determining the direction of $\vec \omega$. If "my approach" should be not immediately obvious, I could add that, obviously, $\vec a$'s "component along" $\vec \omega$ should remain constant; thus $$\frac{\vec \omega~(\vec a \cdot \vec \omega)}{(\| \vec \omega \|)^2} = \frac{\vec\omega~(\vec a_0 \cdot \vec \omega)}{(\| \vec\omega \|)^2}. $$ So $$(\vec a \cdot\vec\omega) = (\vec a_0 \cdot\vec\omega)$$ and immediately $$((\vec a - \vec a_0)\cdot\vec\omega)=0.$$ $\endgroup$ – user12262 Nov 25 '15 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Floris: "I'm not convinced there is a unique solution for any combination of $a$ and $b$. Is there?" -- If the vector differences $\vec a - \vec a_0$ and $\vec b - \vec b_0$ are parallel to each other then the direction of the angular velocity $\vec \omega$ is not uniquely determined. (This seems obvious in "my approach", and should therefore apply to "your approach", too.) Also, there's an ambiguity in the magnitude; related to the periodicity/multiplicity of $\text{ArcCos}$. But (... obviously ... &) trials may be restricted so that $\| \vec a - \vec a_0 \|$ only increased. $\endgroup$ – user12262 Nov 25 '15 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But if there is a unique axis whose direction only depends on the two difference vectors, there is no guarantee that the magnitude of rotation will be consistent (for any two pairs of vectors) - but if the a,b data did come from a physical rotation, there ought to be a relationship that makes it all OK. That was the point I was trying to make, I suppose. $\endgroup$ – Floris Nov 25 '15 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Floris: "But [...]" -- As far as I (am beginning to) understand what you meant by "the problem being overconstrained", I agree: there are examples of two vector pairs, say $\vec p_0,\vec p$, and $\vec q_0,\vec q$, with non-parallel vector differences and even with $$\|\vec p\|=\|\vec p_0\|,\qquad\|\vec q\|=\|\vec q_0\|,$$ which are not related by the same one rotation (described though angular velocity $\vec\omega$, and duration $\tau$). They fail to have equal "corresponding expressions" for determining a consistent value of angular speed; in contrast to the case considered in my answer. $\endgroup$ – user12262 Nov 25 '15 at 22:04
1
$\begingroup$

When a single vector is rotated from one angle to another, and the angle between them is not 180°, then there are infinitely many axes of rotation that could have brought that about - and these axes all lie on a plane that bisects the two vectors.

When you have two pairs of vectors, then for each pair there would be such a plane, and the actual axis of rotation will be the intersection of these planes.

It may not be possible to solve for both the axis and the magnitude of the rotation - in principle the problem is overconstrained.

But let's assume that the problem is solvable (you have a real pair of vectors, and an unknown axis of rotation). We can then solve as follows.

We find the plane bisecting the two $a$ vectors, and the plane bisecting the $b$ vectors. The intersection of these planes is the axis of rotation. We should be able to find the magnitude of rotation by either considering $a$ or $b$ - and get the same answer. If we don't, we might use an "intermediate" value that gets us close to both.

The direction of the line of intersection $\vec z$ is normal to the normal of both planes. This requires taking lots of cross products. First we define

$$\vec{a_n} = \vec{a_0}\times\vec{a_1}$$

and

$$\vec{b_n} = \vec{b_0}\times\vec{b_1}$$

where the input vectors have been normalized (unit length). The cross product gives us a vector that is perpendicular to the pair of vectors: this is one of the vectors in each of the planes we want to intersect.

The second vector we need is the sum of the $a$ and $b$ vectors (which bisects the two):

$$\vec{a_s} = \vec{a_0}+\vec{a_1}\\ \vec{b_s} = \vec{b_0}+\vec{b_1}$$

Now we need the normals to the planes:

$$\vec{a_p}=\vec{a_s}\times\vec{a_n}\\ \vec{b_p}=\vec{b_s}\times\vec{b_n}$$

And finally the line that is the intersection of these planes is perpendicular to both these normals, so

$$\vec{z}=\vec{a_p}\times\vec{b_p}$$

This gets us the direction, but not the magnitude. I am not sure you can guarantee there is a unique magnitude - as I said above, the problem is overconstrained. But in principle you should be able to project the rotation needed (for example $\vec{a_n}$) onto $\vec{z}$ to get the correct scaling. But I think that you won't, in general, get the same value depending on whether you project onto $a$ or $b$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, forgot to say that the axis is going through the objects center of mass. I edited my question. $\endgroup$ – Markus Fjellheim Nov 24 '15 at 17:12
0
$\begingroup$

Thank you both for the help. I were able to find a, better I think, solution myself, but only partially why it works. Maybe you could help me with that? If I break the rotation down into three components that each will satisfy the rotation for each vector, I can add the components together to find the total rotation axis.I have tested this in geogebra and it works.

The formula

$\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ are both unit vectors and orthogonal to each other. $$\mbox{I}:$$ $$\vec{c} = \vec{a} \times \vec{b}$$ $$\vec{c}_0 = \vec{a}_0 \times \vec{b}_0$$ $$\vec{a}_r = \vec{a}_0 \times \vec{a}$$ $$\vec{b}_r = \vec{b}_0 \times \vec{b}$$ $$\vec{c}_r = \vec{c}_0 \times \vec{c}$$ $$\vec{\omega}_{dir} = \vec{a}_r + \vec{b}_r + \vec{c}_r$$ $$\mbox{II}:$$ $$|\vec{\omega}_{dir}| = 2\sin{\alpha}$$ $$\vec{\omega} = \frac{1}{\tau}\frac{\vec{\omega}_{dir}}{|\vec{\omega}_{dir}|} \arcsin(\frac{|\vec{\omega}_{dir}|}{2})$$ $\vec{\omega}$ is the axis through the object center of mass, that it rotates around according to a right hand coordinate system. $|\vec{\omega}| = \alpha$ and $\alpha$ is the angle the object rotates around the axis. This formula works only when $\alpha \leq 90^\circ$.

How it works

Or rather how I came up with the formula. I don't quite understand how it works myself. $$\mbox{I}:$$ Firstly I define a vector $\vec{c}$, which is also a unit vector and orthogonal to $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$. $\vec{a}$, $\vec{b}$ and $\vec{c}$ can then be defined as the local coordinate system of the object. Let $\vec{x}$, $\vec{y}$ and $\vec{z}$ be the unit vectors describing the world coordinate-system, all three orthogonal. I started of with imagining the situation where $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ where in the $\vec{x}$$\vec{y}$-plane and the rotation axis ($\vec{\omega}$) pointing in the $\vec{z}$ direction. The cross product between the initial and final positions of $\vec{a}$ ($\vec{a}_r$), and the same for $\vec{b}$ will now point in the right direction (the direction of $\vec{\omega}$), and so will their sum. $\vec{c}_r$ will be zero, so if I throw that in as an addent, for symmetry reasons, the answer will be the same for this situation. Let's call the sum $\vec{\omega}_{dir}$. If I reverse the rotation, $\vec{\omega}_{dir}$ will reverse its direction, so till now it's looking good.

If I rotate the situation, it will also work. For instance if $\vec{b}$ and $\vec{c}$ were in, for instance, the $\vec{y}$$\vec{z}$-plane. Or any other combination.

I also tested situations in-between in geogebra, and compared it with Rodrigues' rotation formula. It gave the right result, but I don't know why. $$\mbox{II}:$$ To figure the magnitude of the rotation ($|\vec{\omega}_{dir}|$), I thought of the; $\vec{a}$ and $\vec{b}$ in the $\vec{x}$$\vec{y}$-plane situation. Due to the nature of the cross product, we see that $|\vec{a}_r|$ and $|\vec{b}_r|$ must be $\sin{\alpha}$. Therefore the length of the sum must be $2\sin{\alpha}$. This also works in all situations according to my experiments.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.