Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Acceleration of Geared System

Objective

To conduct an experiment to measure the acceleration of a geared system and compare it with calculated
theoretical values.

Theory

As given in the lab sheet

Apparatus

 Geared system rig


 “Orbit” counter timer plus inductive probe
 Selection of masses and wire

Figure 2: Selection of masses used in experiment and Orbit counter Figure 1: Geared system rig

© Nizam Inc. 2017


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Data
Given in lab sheet

The torque drum diameter of shaft 1 is 76.2mm, and the torque drum diameters of shafts 2, 3 and 4 are
50.8mm.

 t1 = 90 teeth
 t2 = 30 teeth and 96 teeth
 t3 = 24 teeth and 100 teeth
 t4 = 20 teeth

The following data is determined from an experiment

I1 = 22.6x10-3kgm2 TF1 = 2.19x10-3Nm η12 = 90.4%

I2 = 23.8x10-3 kgm2 TF2 = 3.63x10-3Nm η23 = 94.0%

I3 = 26.1x10-3kgm2 TF3 = 3.12x10-3Nm η34 = 97.0%

I4 = 14.0x10-3kgm2 TF4 = 3.11x10-3Nm

Procedure

As given in lab sheet

1. Mesh all gears to produce a four-shaft train.


2. Mount the probe to monitor 60-hole circle on the inertia disc attached to shaft 4.
3. Apply accelerating mass via a wire to the torque drum on shaft 1. This mass will produce
accelerating torque T1.
Use masses: 6, 8, 10, 12 kg.
4. Using the ratchet handle raise the mass and stop any rotation in the mechanism.
5. Release the mass by removing the ratchet handle and allow it to accelerate freely under the
action of gravity.
6. Note the readings displayed on the counter timer sequentially as they appear until mass hits the
floor. Since there are 60 holes, each frequency reading will represent the average angular velocity
of shaft 4 in revolutions per minute displayed at two seconds’ intervals. It is recommended to use
a video recorder (mobile phone camera) to record these readings for post-processing.
7. Repeat steps 3 - 6 for other accelerating masses.
8. For each run (accelerating mass):
a. plot angular velocity (in rad/s) against time (s) for shaft 4.
b. from the plots deduce the angular accelerations of shafts 4 (slope of the curve in 8a).
c. calculate transmission ratio of the gear box
d. compute angular acceleration of shaft 1using results obtained in 8b for shaft 4.
9. Calculate values of angular accelerations of shaft 1 for the same accelerating masses theoretically.
10. Compare the results with those obtained experimentally in section 8.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Results

6 kg

Time Velocity Velocity


(seconds) (RPM) (rads/s) Velocity/Time for shaft 4 (6 kg)
0 0 0 90
2 59 6.178466 80 y = 2.0348x
4 101 10.5767 70

Velocity (rads/s)
6 143 14.97492 60
8 183 19.16372 50
10 223 23.35251 40
12 261 27.33186 30
14 300 31.41593 20
16 337 35.29056 10
18 374 39.16519 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
20 410 42.9351
Time (seconds)
22 446 46.70501
24 481 50.3702
Figure 3: Graph of results from 6kg load
26 515 53.93067 Computational methods show an angular acceleration of 2.035rad/s2
28 548 57.38643
(53.931−50.370)
30 581 60.84218 Acceleration = (26−24)
= 1.781 rad/s2
32 613 64.19321
34 644 67.43952
36 675 70.68583
38 682 71.41887
40 665 69.63864
42 650 68.06784
44 634 66.39232
46 620 64.92625
48 605 63.35545
50 590 61.78466
52 576 60.31858
54 563 58.95722
56 550 57.59587
58 536 56.12979
60 524 54.87315
Table 1: Experimental results for 6 kg

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

8 kg

Time Velocity Velocity


(seconds) (RPM) (rads/s) Velocity/Time for shaft 4 (8 kg)
0 0 0 100
2 50 5.235988 90 y = 2.7295x
4 108 11.30973 80

velocity (rads/s)
6 165 17.27876 70
60
8 220 23.03835
50
10 275 28.79793
40
12 328 34.34808 30
14 381 39.89823 20
16 432 45.23893 10
18 482 50.47492 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
20 532 55.71091
22 580 60.73746 time (seconds)

24 628 65.76401
Figure 4: Graph of results from 8kg load
26 675 70.68583 Computational methods show an angular acceleration of
28 720 75.39822 2.7295rad/s2
30 766 80.21533
(70.686−65.764)
32 810 84.823 Acceleration = (26−24)
= 2.461 rad/s2
34 800 83.7758
36 783 81.99557
38 766 80.21533
40 749 78.4351
42 733 76.75958
44 716 74.97934
46 700 73.30383
48 685 71.73303
50 669 70.05752
52 655 68.59144
54 640 67.02064
56 626 65.55457
58 612 64.08849
60 548 57.38643
Table 2: Experimental results for 8 kg

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

10 kg

Time Velocity Velocity


(seconds) (RPM) (rads/s) Velocity/Time for shaft (10 kg)
0 0 0 120
2 56 5.864306 y = 3.4513x
100
4 134 14.03245

velocity (rads/s)
6 207 21.67699 80
8 278 29.11209
60
10 347 36.33776
12 414 43.35398 40
14 480 50.26548
20
16 545 57.07227
18 609 63.77433 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
20 672 70.37168
time (seconds)
22 732 76.65486
24 793 83.04277
Figure 5: Graph of results from 10kg load
26 854 89.43067 Computational methods show an angular acceleration of
28 912 95.50442 3.4513rad/s2
30 940 98.43657
(89.431−83.043)
32 921 96.44689 Acceleration = (26−24)
= 3.194 rad/s2
34 902 94.45722
36 884 92.57226
38 866 90.68731
40 848 88.80235
42 830 86.9174
44 813 85.13716
46 796 83.35693
48 780 81.68141
50 763 79.90117
52 747 78.22566
54 731 76.55014
56 716 74.97934
58 701 73.40855
60 686 71.83775
Table 3: Experimental results for 10 kg

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

12 kg

Time Velocity Velocity


(seconds) (RPM) (rads/s) Velocity/Time for shaft 4 (12 kg)
0 0 0 120
2 10 1.047198 y = 4.0165x
100
4 119 12.46165

velocity (rads/s)
6 210 21.99115 80
8 297 31.10177
60
10 380 39.79351
12 462 48.38053 40
14 543 56.86283
20
16 621 65.03097
18 700 73.30383 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
20 776 81.26253
time (seconds)
22 852 89.22123
24 927 97.07521
Figure 6: Graph of results from 12kg load
26 1000 104.7198 Computational methods show an angular acceleration of
28 1057 110.6888 4.0165rad/s2
30 1037 108.5944
(104.7198−97.0752)
32 1017 106.5 Acceleration = (26−24)
= 3.8223 rad/s2
34 996 104.3009
36 977 102.3112
38 958 100.3215
40 939 98.33185
42 922 96.55161
44 903 94.56194
46 885 92.67698
48 868 90.89675
50 851 89.11651
52 834 87.33628
54 817 85.55604
56 801 83.88052
58 785 82.20501
60 769 80.52949
Table 4: Experimental results for 12 kg

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Calculations

Theoretical

𝑇1 − 𝑇𝑅(1) = 𝐼𝐸𝑄(1) 𝑎1

𝛼1 – angular acceleration of shaft 1 𝑇1 – applied torque at shaft 1


𝑇𝑅(1) – resistance torque 𝐼𝐸𝑄(1) – equivalent moment of inertia

I1 = 22.6x10-3kgm2 TF1 = 2.19x10-3Nm η12 = 90.4%


I2 = 23.8x10-3 kgm2 TF2 = 3.63x10-3Nm η23 = 94.0%
I3 = 26.1x10-3kgm2 TF3 = 3.12x10-3Nm η34 = 97.3%
I4 = 14.0x10-3kgm2 TF4 = 3.11x10-3Nm

𝑇𝐹2 𝑛21 𝑇𝐹3 n21 n32 T𝐹4 n21 n32 n43


𝑇𝑅(1) = 𝑇𝐹1 + ( )+( )+( )
ƞ21 ƞ21 ƞ32 ƞ21 ƞ32 ƞ43
90 90 96 90 96 100
((3.63x10¯³)( )) ((3.12x10¯³)( )( )) (3.11x10¯³)( )( )( )
30 30 24 30 24 20
𝑇𝑅(1) = 2.19x10-3 + + (0.904)(0.94)
+ (0.904)(0.94)(0.973)
0.904

TR(1) = 0.284 Nm

2 2 2 2 2 2
𝐼2 𝑛21 𝐼3 𝑛21 𝑛32 𝐼4 𝑛21 𝑛32 𝑛43
𝐼𝐸𝑄(1) = 𝐼1 + + +
𝜂21 𝜂21 𝜂32 𝜂21 𝜂32 𝜂43
2 2 2
90 2 90 2 96 90 2 96 100
23.8×10−3 ( ) 26.1×10−3 ( ) ( ) 14×10−3 ( ) ( ) ( )
𝐼𝐸𝑄(1) = 22.6 × 10−3 + 0.904
30
+ 30 24
(0.904)(0.94)
+ 30 24 20
(0.904)(0.94)(0.973)

IEQ(1) = 65.639 kgm2

𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒: 𝑇1 = 𝐹 × 𝑟
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝐹) = 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 × 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑑
𝑟= = 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
2
76.2
𝑇1(𝟔𝒌𝒈) = (6 × 9.81) × (( ) × 10−3 ) = 2.243 𝑁𝑚
2
76.2
𝑇1(𝟖𝒌𝒈) = (8 × 9.81) × (( ) × 10−3 ) = 2.99 𝑁𝑚
2
76.2
𝑇1(𝟏𝟎𝒌𝒈) = (10 × 9.81) × (( ) × 10−3 ) = 3.738 𝑁𝑚
2
76.2
𝑇1(𝟏𝟐𝒌𝒈) = (12 × 9.81) × (( ) × 10−3 ) = 4.485 𝑁𝑚
2

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

𝑇1 − 𝑇𝑅(1)
= 𝛼1
𝐼𝐸𝑄(1)
2.243 − 0.284
= 𝛼1(𝟔𝒌𝒈) = 0.0298 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠/𝑠 2
65.639
2.99 − 0.284
= 𝛼1(𝟖𝒌𝒈) = 0.0412 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠/𝑠 2
65.639
3.738 − 0.284
= 𝛼1(𝟏𝟎𝒌𝒈) = 0.0526 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠/𝑠 2
65.639
4.485 − 0.284
= 𝛼1(𝟏𝟐𝒌𝒈) = 0.0640 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠/𝑠 2
65.639

Experimental

Figures given from lab


𝑤2 𝑡1 90
𝑛21 = = = =3
𝑤1 𝑡2 30
𝑤3 𝑡2 96
𝑛32 = = = =4
𝑤2 𝑡3 24
𝑤4 𝑡3 100
𝑛43 = = = =5
𝑤3 𝑡4 20
𝑤4
𝑛41 = = 3 × 4 × 5 = 60
𝑤1
Therefore, the transmission ratio for this geared system is 60.

Angular acceleration for shaft 1


𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 4
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 1 =
60
Load (kg) Angular acceleration for shaft Angular acceleration for shaft
4 1
6 2.0348 0.0339
8 2.7295 0.0455
10 3.4513 0.0575
12 4.0165 0.0669
Table 5: Experimental results for angular acceleration of shaft 1 and shaft 4

Load (kg) Experimental angular Theoretical angular Percentage error (%)


acceleration for shaft acceleration for shaft
1 (rads/s2) 1 (rads/s2)
6 0.0339 0.0298 13.76
8 0.0455 0.0412 10.44
10 0.0575 0.0526 9.36
12 0.0669 0.0640 4.53
Average: 9.52
Table 2: Experimental and theoretical angular acceleration of shaft 1 and percentage error

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Discussion

1. Derive the formula for calculation of the angular acceleration of shaft 1 theoretically and present
all computations.
𝐹1 𝑑
𝑇1 =
2
ma = mg – F1
𝑑
I𝐸𝑄 α = F1
2
𝑑
𝑎=𝛼 2
𝑑
𝑚 𝛼 2 = 𝑚𝑔 − 𝐹
𝑑 𝑑
𝐹1 = 𝑚𝑔 − 𝑚𝛼 = 𝑚 (𝑔 − 𝛼 )
2 2
𝑑 𝑑
𝐼𝐸𝑄 𝛼 = 𝑚 (𝑔 − 𝛼 2 ) 2
𝑑 𝑑
[𝐼𝐸𝑄 + 𝑚 ( 2 ) ²] 𝛼 = 𝑚𝑔 2
𝑑
𝑚𝑔
2
𝛼= 𝑑
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚 ( )²
2
𝑑 2
𝑑 𝑚𝑔 ( ) 𝑑
2
𝑇1 = 𝐹1 ( 2 ) = 𝑚 [𝑔 − 𝑑 2
]2
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( )
2
𝑑 2
𝑚( )𝑑
2
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑔 [1 − 𝑑 2 2
]
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( )
2
𝑑 2
𝑚( ) 𝑑
2
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑔 [1 − 𝑑 2 2
]
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( )
2
𝑑 2 𝑑 2
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( ) − 𝑚( )
2 2
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑔 𝑑 2
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( )
2
𝐼𝐸𝑄
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑔 𝑑 2
𝐼𝐸𝑄 +𝑚( )
2
1
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑔 𝑚𝑑2
1+
𝐼𝐸𝑄 4
𝑑
𝑚𝑔 𝑚g𝑑
2
𝑇1 = 𝑚𝑑2
= 𝑚𝑑2
1+ 2(1+ )
4 𝐼𝐸𝑄 4𝐼𝐸𝑄

2. Comment on the agreement between measured and calculated values of angular acceleration.

Table 6 shows a correlation between the load and the percentage error, as the load increases the
percentage error decreases. The largest percentage error in this experiment is 13.76%, this was using
the 6 kg load. This is quite significant compared to 4.53% error from the 12 kg load.

Theoretically the acceleration of the weights should be linear until the weight drops to the ground
and then immediately starts decelerating.

However, as this experiment was conducted in an uncontrolled environment it was hard to minimise
all of the factors that could impact the experiment (The errors in the experiment are mentioned in
more detail in answer 3).

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444


ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

3. Is the angular acceleration constant? If not, to what do you attribute any discrepancy and is the
assumption of constant acceleration justified?

From figures 3,4,5,6 we can see that the acceleration is mostly linear, with a few anomalies.

These anomalies could have been caused by many different factors; such as air resistance, parallax
error, apparatus malfunction, percent error and random error.

Air resistance could have occurred whilst the weight was being dropped, and whilst the gears were
spinning. The increase in air resistance would have decreased the acceleration of the acceleration of
the weight whilst it was dropping to the ground.

Parallax error could have occurred whilst a student was measuring one metre from the ground to the
weight. This could have caused the height to be more/less than one metre; this will have an impact on
the acceleration value.

The apparatus used (figures 1,2) could have been damaged or not calibrated; This would have been
caused by continuous use or lack of maintenance. T

Random error could have been caused when the readings from the timer were taken. As the readings
were given every 2 seconds, there is a possibility that the results reader did not capture the result at
the specific time, which may have resulted in a value being missed out.

Although, there seems to be an abundance of errors that could’ve occurred during the experiment,
the percentage errors seem to be relatively small.

4. This is one method of angular acceleration measuring. Is it satisfactory? Can you offer an
alternative and/or better method?

There are many ways in which this experiment could have been more accurate and minimise the risk
or errors. However, there is not one method that could eliminate all errors and give the perfect
reading. Below you will see a brief description on how the errors mentioned in question 3 could have
been minimised.

The likelihood of Air resistance being prevented is very minimal, as the experiment will most likely
have to be conducted in a controlled environment where it is placed in a vacuum.

Parallax error could be minimised if an electronic tool was used to measure the distance between the
ground and the weight.

Apparatus error could be minimised by either getting more accurate measurement devices, or having
the equipment maintained on a regular basis.

Random error could have been prevented if an electronic device recorded the results

In conclusion, the experiment held was satisfactory as the acceleration calculated and obtained was
very close to the theoretical value even though there could have been a few errors. However, there
could have been other ways to carry out this experiment such as connecting a motor instead of
weights and calculating the rate of acceleration through this way. This would ensure less errors as
parallax, air resistance should be less than the method used here. The load will be connected to one
side of the gears with the motor on the other side. The load will be varied to calculate the rate of
acceleration; this would result in different acceleration rates like this experiment.

Nizamuddin Patel P15219444