Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This brief note addresses a common confusion in continuum mechanics, particularly in axially moving beams, strings and plates, where certain terms arising from the material derivative are mistakenly labeled as “Coriolis acceleration” due to their mathematical similarity to the Coriolis expression. We clarify this misinterpretation using definitions of Coriolis, convective and gyroscopic terms, and show that these terms are not Coriolis accelerations when viewed in fixed reference frames. In addition, we briefly comment on the meaning of the Coriolis inertial force whether it performs mechanical work and how such mislabeling affects teaching, computational modeling and the interpretation of vibration problems.

Keywords

Coriolis acceleration gyroscopic terms Coriolis inertial force material derivative fixed reference frame moving reference frame.

Introduction

Coriolis acceleration is a fundamental concept in the field of dynamics arising when motion is described relative to rotating coordinate systems. Its classical form, ${\vec{a}}_{c o r} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}$ , follows directly from the transport theorem for vector derivatives. However, in the vibration literature on axially moving continua such as beams, plates and strings, velocity-dependent terms with the same mathematical structure often appear even when the derivations are performed in fixed reference frames. In several articles,^1–8 these terms are mistakenly referred to as “Coriolis acceleration”. We believe this terminology is misleading. The purpose of this brief note is to call attention to this recurring issue and to show why certain terms in translating continua belong to categories other than Coriolis acceleration.

Theory

Although well known in the mechanics community, we reiterate the expression for Coriolis acceleration within absolute acceleration formula to better set the stage for our discussion.

{\vec{a}}_{P} = {\vec{a}}_{rel} + {\vec{a}}_{transp .} + 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}

(1)

where

{\vec{a}}_{P}

represents the acceleration of the moving material point P (see Figure 1) observed from the fixed axis system OXYZ, i.e., its absolute acceleration. The term

{\vec{a}}_{rel}

denotes the acceleration of P relative to the moving axes O'xyz, defined as

(d {\vec{v}}_{rel} / d t)_{O^{'} x y z}

. The term

{\vec{a}}_{transp .}

represents the acceleration of the moving axis system O'xyz at the point coincident with P, also observed from OXYZ.

Figure 1.

Inertial and moving reference frames.

The final term is the so-called Coriolis acceleration, which is our focus:

{\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}

(2)

where

\vec{ω}

is the angular velocity vector of the moving axis system O'xyz relative to the fixed system OXYZ and

{\vec{v}}_{rel}

is the observed velocity of the material point P from O'xyz.

It should be emphasized that the Coriolis acceleration appears only when the position vector, velocity and absolute acceleration of the material point are expressed with respect to a moving intermediate coordinate system. On the other hand, if the absolute acceleration is derived directly in a fixed (absolute) coordinate system, no Coriolis acceleration term arises.

Formal definitions and distinctions

Coriolis acceleration:

{\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}

where

\vec{ω}

is the angular velocity of a moving frame relative to an inertial frame and

{\vec{v}}_{rel}

is the velocity measured in the moving frame. Coriolis acceleration arises only when kinematics are expressed relative to rotating coordinates.

Convective acceleration: Velocity-dependent terms originating from the material derivative in fixed coordinate systems, e.g.,

2 c \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial X \partial t}

As encountered in axially moving beams or strings. These terms are not indicative of Coriolis acceleration, rather, they represent convective components associated with the transport of material points along the continuum.

Gyroscopic terms: These terms arise in Lagrangian dynamics when velocity-dependent forces appear as skew-symmetric terms in the equations of motion. They conserve energy because no mechanical work is performed.

This classification distinguishes mechanisms that may be mathematically similar but are physically distinct. A concise side-by-side summary is provided in Table 1, clarifying frame dependence, mathematical form and energy properties.

Table 1.

Formal comparison of Coriolis, convective (transport) and gyroscopic terms.

Category	Definition / Origin	Mathematical form & frame dependence	Energy/work property & representative examples
Coriolis acceleration	Arises when kinematics are expressed in a rotating frame; originates from the transport theorem.	${\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}$ . Requires nonzero $\vec{ω}$ ; it vanishes in fixed (inertial) frames where $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ .	Inertial Coriolis force $- m {\vec{a}}_{Cor}$ performs no work because it acts perpendicular to ${\vec{v}}_{rel}$ ; virtual work may be nonzero. Occurs in rotating-frame formulations and multi-body relative motion (e.g., rotating mechanisms, FSI in rotating frames).
Convective (transport) terms	Emerge from the material derivative in fixed frames due to transport effects: D/Dt = ∂/∂t + u_j ∂/∂x_j.	For translating continua with axial speed c: ÿ = w_tt + 2cw_xt + c²w_xx for small transverse motion. The cross term 2cw_xt resembles a Coriolis-like term but arises with $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ , so it is not Coriolis.	Energy properties follows from the inertial-frame PDE. Common in axially moving beams, strings and plates derived in fixed coordinates; governs mode coupling and stability in translating media. Mislabeling these terms as Coriolis can obscure correct frame interpretation.
Gyroscopic terms	Velocity-dependent forces that appear as skew-symmetric contributions in Lagrange's equations.	Matrix form G ( q )· q˙ with G ^T = − G ; arises from inertia coupling in Lagrangian dynamics and is not a rotating-frame artifact (though G may depend on a spin or speed parameter)	Perform no net work ( q˙ ^T G q˙ = 0). They redistribute energy among modes. Although they may appear ‘Coriolis-like’, inertial-frame Lagrangian models identify them sa gyroscopic. Common in rotor dynamics and systems with angular momentum coupling.

Notation: $\vec{ω}$ is angular velocity of moving frame; ${\vec{v}}_{rel}$ is velocity measured in the moving frame; D/Dt represents the material derivative; c is axial transport speed; subscripts indicate partial derivatives.

Illustrative examples

Axially moving cable

Consider the axially moving cable shown in Figure 2.⁹ The axis system OXY is fixed (absolute) with unit vectors $\vec{I}$ and $\vec{J}$ . If the transverse displacement of the cable is denoted by $w (X, t)$ , the position vector of a typical cable element can be written as:

\vec{r} = X \vec{I} + w (X, t) \vec{J}

(3)

Figure 2.

Axially moving cable (after reference⁹).

Taking the time derivative, the absolute velocity of the element (with c denoting the axial transport speed) becomes:

\vec{v} = \frac{d \vec{r}}{d t} = \dot{X} \vec{I} + (\dot{X} \frac{\partial w}{\partial X} + \frac{\partial w}{\partial t}) \vec{J} = c \vec{I} + (\dot{w} + c w^{'}) \vec{J};

(4)

where

\dot{()} ≜ \frac{\partial ()}{\partial t}, ()^{'} ≜ \frac{\partial ()}{\partial X}

Taking the time derivative of $\vec{v}$ , we obtain the absolute acceleration of the element:

\vec{a} = \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} = \overset{\cdot \cdot}{X} \vec{I} + (\overset{\cdot \cdot}{X} \frac{\partial w}{\partial X} + \dot{X} [\frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial X^{2}} \frac{\partial X}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial t \partial X}] + \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial X \partial t} + \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial t^{2}}) \vec{J}

Using $\dot{X} = c$ , $\overset{\cdot \cdot}{X}$ = 0, this simplifies to:

\vec{a} = (\frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial t^{2}} + \underset{\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\frac{\partial w}{\partial X})}{\underset{⏟}{2 c \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial X \partial t}}} + c^{2} \frac{\partial^{2} w}{\partial X^{2}}) \vec{J}

(5)

The quantity $\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\frac{\partial w}{\partial X})$ represents an angular rate (local rotation of the cable element). Hence the middle term, although similar in form to Coriolis acceleration, is not a Coriolis term because the derivation is performed entirely in an inertial frame ( $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ ). As expected, the term “Coriolis” does not appear in the original reference.⁹

Translating string

Another example from the literature is the translating string system shown in Figure 3 from the reference.¹⁰ The equation of motion for transverse vibrations of the string is

w_{, t t} + 2 c w_{, x t} - (v^{2} - c^{2}) w_{, x x} = 0.

(6)

with

v^{2} = T / ρ A

. The following statement appears in the work¹⁰:

“The term $2 c w_{, x t}$ is a result of Coriolis acceleration experienced by a string element moving at speed c in a frame at the current location of the element at an angular speed $w_{, x t}$ .”

Figure 3.

Translating string system (from reference¹⁰).

However, because the reference frame used is the fixed xw-axis system, the term $2 c w_{, x t}$ cannot be a Coriolis acceleration. Instead, it represents a convective acceleration term.

Another study¹¹ further supports this interpretation, stating correctly that “these terms come from the second material derivative” for the first, second (the key term for our discussion) and fourth terms of the equation (6).

Now, we will give a short derivation of why the term $2 c w_{, x t}$ is convective, but not Coriolis. Consider an axially translating slender continuum in which material points are labelled by the material coordinate X. The constant c is the axial transport speed. The fixed (inertial) spatial coordinate is denoted as x and the small transverse deflection field, w = w(x, t), is measured in this fixed frame (no rotating coordinates are introduced).

The position of a material point initially located at X at time t = 0 is

x (X, t) = X + c t, y (X, t) = w (x (X, t), t) .

(7)

The absolute transverse velocity and acceleration of this material point are obtained using the material derivative in the inertial frame:

\dot{y} = \frac{D}{D t} w (x, t) = \underset{w_{t}}{\underset{⏟}{\frac{\partial w}{\partial t}}} + \underset{c}{\underset{⏟}{\frac{d x}{d t}}} \underset{w_{x}}{\underset{⏟}{\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}}} = w_{t} + c w_{x},

(8)

\ddot{y} = \frac{D^{2}}{D t^{2}} w (x, t) = \frac{D}{D t} (w_{t} + c w_{x}) = w_{t t} + c w_{x t} + c w_{t x} + c^{2} w_{x x} = w_{t t} + 2 c w_{x t} + c^{2} w_{x x}

(9)

Thus, the cross term $2 c w_{x t}$ , as well as the convective term $c^{2} w_{x x}$ , arise solely from the chain rule applied in a fixed, non-rotating reference frame through the material derivative D/Dt = ∂/∂t + c∂/∂x. No rotating frame is employed, therefore the angular velocity of the frame is zero and no Coriolis acceleration exists.

Therefore, although $2 c w_{x t}$ has the same mathematical structure as a Coriolis term, it is not a Coriolis acceleration. It is a convective (transport) term inherent to describing material motion in an inertial coordinate system. Comparisons can be made with analogous to “Axially moving cable” case, where the expression $\vec{r} = X \vec{I} + w (X, t) \vec{J}$ (equation (3)) produces the same combination of terms when differentiated twice with respect to time in an inertial frame.

In the articles,^1–8^,12 (several of which we have discussed as representative examples), terms that do not correspond to Coriolis acceleration are nevertheless labeled as “Coriolis terms” merely because they share a similar mathematical structure. However, given the coordinate systems used in these works, such terminology is incorrect and can obscure the proper physical interpretation of the underlying mechanics.

Fluid-Conveying pipes

In fluid–structure systems such as pipes conveying fluid, two interacting subsystem exihibit relative motion: the pipe and the internal flow. When a rotating frame attached to the pipe cross-section is employed, the frame introduces a nonzero angular velocity $\vec{ω}$ , while the fluid has a relative velocity ${\vec{v}}_{rel}$ through the section. This combination leads to a linear cross-coupling term ${\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}$ , which is correctly identified as the Coriolis acceleration. This interpretation is consistent with analyses in studies^13,14 on flow-induced vibration, where the lateral inertial term is linked to the Coriolis effect when viewed in the rotating frame.

In contrast, when the same pipe–flow system is formulated in a non-rotating inertial frame ( $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ ), the governing PDEs contain convective/transport couplings rather than Coriolis terms. These appear, for example, as 2Uw_xt and U²w_xx, where U is the mean flow speed and a skew-symmetric gyroscopic matrix G ( q )·q˙ in a Lagrangian state-space representation. These couplings should therefore be referred to as convective/transport and gyroscopic rather than “Coriolis”.

As an example of an inertial-frame formulation, Gürgöze & Altınkaynak¹⁵ derive the variable-mass Hamilton principle using Reynolds transport for a moving mass on a Timoshenko beam. The additional couplings terms arise from transport effects and a virtual momentum-flux boundary term; no rotating observer is introduced ( $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ ) and no Coriolis term appears.

Thus, in inertial descriptions, linear-in-speed couplings originate from convective/transport effects (and appear as gyroscopic terms in state-space). The term “Coriolis” should be reserved exclusively for cases involving rotating or locally rotating reference frames.

Mode coupling and stability in translating continua

In axially moving continua, linear (convective/gyroscopic) and quadratic (transport/ “centrifugal-like”) speed-dependent terms modify the spectral properties, causing mode coupling and potential instability as sufficiently high speeds. A standard semi-discrete representation takes the form

M \ddot{q} + \underset{s k e w - s y m m ., \propto U}{\underset{⏟}{G (U)}} \dot{q} + \underset{e f f e c t i v e s t i f f n e s s}{\underset{⏟}{(K_{0} + K_{2} U^{2})}} q = 0,

(10)

where U denotes the translation speed c for moving beams/strings/plates and the mean internal flow speed for fluid-conveying pipes. The skew-symmetric (gyroscopic) matrix

G (U)

introduces directional coupling between generalized velocities while

K_{2} U^{2}

modifies the effective tension or stiffness. The resulting operator is typically non-selfadjoint, leads to complex modal phenomena such as frequency veering, traveling-wave bias and eigenvalue coalescence at critical speeds. Beyond a threshold, complex-conjugate eigenvalues may migrate into the right half-plane producing flutter-type instabilities even in the absence of viscous damping.^16–18 This behavior is consistent with classical analyses of axially moving strings and beams, where the terms 2Uw_xt (convective) and U²w_xx (transport) shift natural frequencies, split forward/backward branches and induce instability as U approaches characteristic wave speeds.^2,4,11

Rezaee & Lotfan¹⁹ extend the translating-continuum framework to small-scale and nonlocal settings analyzing axially moving nanoscale Rayleigh beams with time-dependent transport speed, Kelvin–Voigt damping and Eringen nonlocal elasticity, all formulated in an inertial frame. Through multiple-scales analysis, they map stability boundaries and demonstrate how nonlocal softening and time-dependent transport U(t) reshape frequency veering and shift flutter thresholds.

Work of the Coriolis inertial force

When discussing Coriolis acceleration, it is natural to ask whether the associated Coriolis inertia force $(- m {\vec{a}}_{Cor})$ performs work under real or virtual displacements. Two important sources address this point directly:

“The work done by the Coriolis inertia force in any relative displacement is zero”²⁰

“Coriolis force $- m {\vec{a}}_{C o r}$ associated with the Coriolis acceleration ${\vec{a}}_{C o r}$ does not do any work during the true relative displacement”.²¹

Both statements reflect the property evident in equation (2). Since ${\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}$ is always perpendicular to the relative velocity ${\vec{v}}_{rel}$ , the corresponding inertia force is also perpendicular to the trajectory tangent of the material point. Consequently, no mechanical work in performed in actual relative motion. The emphasis here is crucial; the statements pertain specifically to “relative motion”.

A similar situation arises in systems whose equations of motion are written using Lagrange's Equations. In such systems, gyroscopic forces appear through a skew-symmetric matrix called a “gyroscopic” matrix, which also represents the Coriolis-type inertia forces.²² Since this matrix has a skew-symmetric structure, no real work is performed.

However, ambiguity exists in the literature concerning virtual relative displacements. Two references^23,24 reach opposite conclusions. The first source²³ claims zero virtual work while the second states the contrary. The latter viewpoint aligns with our own, because a virtual displacement may well be in a direction that is not perpendicular to the force. Thus, while real work remains zero, virtual work may be nonzero.

We also note that asking whether the Coriolis inertia force performs work in absolute motion is not meaningful. Both Coriolis acceleration and associated inertia force are defined only with respect to a moving (rotating) reference frame and they have no interpretation for an observer in a fixed frame.²⁵

In summary, the Coriolis force performs no work in actual relative motion because it is always perpendicular to ${\vec{v}}_{rel}$ . In contrast, virtual work may be nonzero if the virtual displacement is not constrained to remain perpendicular to the force. This subtle distinction is pedagogically useful particularly when teaching energy methods and variational formulations.

Pedagogical implications

Mislabeling convective transport as Coriolis acceleration can significantly obscure students’ understanding of frame dependence. Referring to the cross-derivative $2 c w_{x t}$ as “Coriolis” may lead students to believe that Coriolis effects arise in an inertial frame, undermining both the transport theorem and requirement of a rotating frame for true Coriolis acceleration. Explicitly discussing the material derivative in a fixed frame D/Dt = ∂/∂t + c∂/∂x clarifies the origin of $2 c w_{x t}$ term and shows directly why $\vec{ω} = \vec{0}$ excludes any genuine Coriolis term. This clarity is especially beneficial when students later encounter non-inertial formulations or rotor dynamics systems.

A second consequence appears in modeling practice. In modeling, students often convert PDEs into finite-difference or FEM codes and annotate terms by “physical meaning”. If $2 c w_{x t}$ is labeled as Coriolis, students may mistakenly suppress it when reformulating the equations in a rotating frame leading to double-counting. Emphasizing that $2 c w_{x t}$ and $c^{2} w_{x x}$ are intrinsic convective contributions in a fixed spatial description prevents such errors and supports accurate stability and mode-coupling analysis.

For mode coupling and stability, there are two key pedagogical points: First, mislabeling the 2Uw_xt term as “Coriolis” may tempt students to conclude that “no work” implies “neutral to stability”. In fact, even though gyroscopic/convective terms do no net work, they still alter eigenstructure, enabling mode coupling and flutter. Secondly, when U varies with time, the governing PDE gains parametric terms leading to parametric spectral instabilities in addition to convective/transport effects.²⁶ Clear distinctions between convective, gyroscopic and Coriolis mechanisms helps students predicting these behaviors and selecting appropriate numerical strategies.

From a teaching standpoint, paired derivations can be effective; (i) first in an inertial frame using the material derivative (yielding $w_{t t} + 2 c w_{x t} + c^{2} w_{x x} (Eq . 9)$ ), (ii) then in a rotating frame for simple planar motion where ${\vec{a}}_{Cor} = 2 \vec{ω} \times {\vec{v}}_{rel}$ appears. Encouraging students to annotate each term with (i) its frame of origin, (ii) its mathematical source (e.g., chain rule, transport theorem) and (iii) energy/work implications (e.g., gyroscopic power q ^. ^TGq^.= 0) may help them develop strong diagnostic skills. Reflecting on which term persist or vanish under a frame change strengthens conceptual understanding.

Assessment can reinforce these distinctions without increasing workload. For example, one may present two similar PDEs for an axially moving string, one correctly derived in an inertial frame, the other incorrectly labeled with “Coriolis”, and have students (a) re-derive the inertial acceleration from D/Dt, (b) classify each term using a comparison table (Coriolis vs. gyroscopic vs. convective) and (c) predict stability changes if c increases. In lab sessions, students can vary the $2 c w_{x t}$ term to observe spurious frequency shifts or symmetry loss that arise from misinterpretation that makes the consequences of incorrect labeling immediately evident.

Conclusions

In this brief report, we examined a recurring issue in the literature. Certain terms in the equations of motion for axially moving beams and strings are often referred as Coriolis acceleration terms, even though they do not arise from Coriolis effects. Although they share a similar mathematical structure as Coriolis terms, these terms appear in a fixed reference frame, not a rotating one. For this reason, they should not be classified as Coriolis terms, but instead understood as convective or gyroscopic terms. In addition, the associated Coriolis inertia force performs no work during real relative motion, as it is always perpendicular to the relative velocity of the material point.

Beyond terminology, this distinction carries practical consequences for modeling and teaching. Convective and gyroscopic terms can alter eigenstructures, induce frequency veering and generate flutter instabilities without doing net work whereas Coriolis terms result solely from the choice of a non-inertial description. We hope this manuscript assists researchers and educators in formulating, interpreting and teaching translating-media problems with improved conceptual and pedagogical clarity.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

A Altınkaynak

S Zeren

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Thurman

Mote

Jr . Free periodic nonlinear oscillation of an axially moving strip. J Appl Mech 1969; 36: 83–91.

Wickert

Mote

Jr . Classical vibration analysis of axially moving continua. J Appl Mech 1990; 57: 738–744.

Öz

Pakdemirli

. Vibrations of an axially moving beam with time-dependent velocity. J Sound Vib 1999; 227: 239–257.

Pellicano

Vestroni

. Nonlinear dynamics and bifurcations of an axially moving beam. J Vib Acoust 2000; 122: 21–30.

Zhu

. Energetics and stability of translating media with an arbitrarily varying length. J Vib Acoust 2000; 122: 295–304.

Wang

Zhong

, et al. Hamiltonian Dynamic analysis of an axially translating beam featuring time-variant velocity. Acta Mech 2009; 206: 149–161.

Wang

Zhong

, et al. Dynamic analysis of an axially translating viscoelastic beam with an arbitrarily varying length. Acta Mech 2010; 214: 225–244.

Wang

Zhong

. Dynamic analysis of an axially translating plate with time-variant length. Acta Mech 2010; 215: 9–23.

Ginsberg

. Engineering dynamics. 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

10.

Hagedorn

Dasgupta

. Vibrations and waves in continuous mechanical systems. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007.

11.

Banichuk

Jeronen

Neittaanmäki

, et al. Mechanics of moving materials. 1st ed. Cham: Springer Cham, 2014.

12.

Hong

K-S

Chen

L-Q

Pham

P-T

, et al. Control of axially moving systems. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2022.

13.

Dodds

Runyan

. Effect of high-velocity fluid flow on the bending vibrations and static divergence of a simply supported pipe. NASA Techical Note. NASA TN D-2870, June 1965.

14.

Srinil

Zhu

. On slug flow-induced vibration in long bendable curved pipe. In: The 10th International Conference on Multiphase Flow (ICMF2019), 2019. Newcastle University.

15.

Gürgöze

Altınkaynak

. Improvement in the comprehensibility of the pioneering work of McIver. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 2023; 45: 102.

16.

Chen

. Analysis and control of transverse vibrations of axially moving strings. Appl Mech Rev 2005; 58: 91–116.

17.

Giria

Sharma

Gupta

. Stability analysis of axially moving pipes with internal fluid flow. Phys Fluids 2025; 37: 077139.

18.

Kirillov

Verhulst

. From rotating fluid masses and Ziegler’s paradox to Pontryagin-and Krein spaces and bifurcation theory. In: Günther

Schilders

(eds) Novel mathematics inspired by industrial challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp.201–243.

19.

Rezaee

Lotfan

. Non-linear nonlocal vibration and stability analysis of axially moving nanoscale beams with time-dependent velocity. Int J Mech Sci 2015; 96: 36–46.

20.

Targ

. Theoretical mechanics – a short course. 2nd ed. Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1976.

21.

Chetaev

. Theoretical mechanics. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989.

22.

Müller

. Stabilität und matrizen. 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1977.

23.

Pfeiffer

. Einführung in die dynamik. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1992.

24.

Ziegler

. Vorlesungen über mechanik. 1st ed. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, 1970.

25.

Sayir

Kaufmann

. Ingenieurmechanik 3: Dynamik 2. Auflage. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg, 2015.

26.

Wang

Zhong

, et al. Hamiltonian Dynamic analysis of an axially translating beam featuring time-variant velocity. Acta Mech 2009; 206: 149–161.

Not every Coriolis-like term is a Coriolis acceleration term

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theory

Formal definitions and distinctions

Illustrative examples

Axially moving cable

Translating string

Fluid-Conveying pipes

Mode coupling and stability in translating continua

Work of the Coriolis inertial force

Pedagogical implications

Conclusions

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

References