ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Introduction

This report has been written to verify if the theoretical values of the peak dynamic bending moment
matches an experimental value. An experiment was conducted using a connecting rod, which was
created by De Montfort University. These can be seen in Figures below.

Figure A

Objective

Refer to lab sheet (reference 2)

Apparatus

Refer to lab sheet

Procedure

Refer to lab sheet

Experimental Results

Gauge positions
Gauge Position,(m) Table 1 shows the gauge positions. The positions were measured from
1 0.102 the crank pin in joint A.
2 0.202
3 0.305
4 0.452
5 0.604
Table 1: Gauge positions

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Figure 1: Results from gauge 1

Figure 2: Results from gauge 2

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Figure 3: Results from gauge 3

Figure 4: Results from gauge 4

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Figure 5: Results from gauge 5

Figure 6: Calibration readings from gauge 3

Experimental Calculations

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Looking at the graph in fig.1 it is obvious that there is no common max and min values. This could
suggest gauge 1 has a fault. To remove any major anomalies and to avoid the unreliable data the
results from gauge 1 will not be used for calculations.

From figures 1-6, the voltage, amplitude, period and frequency for each gauge can be found. As
mentioned above the data values of gauge 1 from figure 1 will not be used. The following values
have been calculated using these equations:

Voltage = peak – trough

Amplitude = V/2
Period (one cycle) = higher trough - Lower trough
Frequency = 1/period

Gauge 2
Voltage: 6.4 – (-6.08) = 12.48V
Amplitude: 12.48/2 = 6.24V
Period: 0.2252 – 0.1268 = 0.0984s
Frequency = 1 - 0.0984 = 10.1626Hz

Gauge 3

Voltage: 6.24 - (-7.84) = 14.08V

Amplitude: 14.08/2 = 7.04V
Period: 0.2283 – 0.129 = 0.0993s
Frequency: 1/0.0993 = 10.071Hz

Gauge 4
Voltage: 5.84 – (-6) = 11.84V
Amplitude: 5.92V
Period: 0.2334 – 0.1287 = 0.1047s
Frequency: 9.5512Hz

Gauge 5
Voltage: 3.04 – (-3.12) = 6.16V
Amplitude: 3.08V
Period: 0.2464- 0.1469 = 0.0995s
Frequency: 10.05Hz

Calibration
The calibration was run after the experiments for the 5 gauges were run. The calibration experiment
was conducted using gauge 3 as it had the highest amplitude; calculations for this can be found in
Theoretical calculations. Below you will find a table with my results:

Mass (Kg) Incline Decline Mxx

0 -4.08 -4.08 0
1 -2.56 -2.48 2.99205
2 -0.96 -0.88 5.9841
3 0.48 0.64 8.97615

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

4 2.08 2.16 11.9682

5 3.52 3.52 14.96025
Table 2: Calibration results conducted on gauge 3

Incline Decline Linear (Incline) Linear (Decline)

16
Incline
y = 1.9622x + 7.9772
14
R² = 0.9998

12

10
MXX / NM

8 Decline
y = 1.9582x + 7.8456
6 R² = 0.9993

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-2
BENDING MOMENT / NM

Figure 7: graph showing the relationship between Mxx and bending moments

𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 + 𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 1.9622 + 1.9582

𝐾𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = = = 1.9602
2 2

From lab sheet: Bending moment = Kcal x Amplitude

Gauge Amplitude (V) Experimental Bending Moment (Nm)

2 6.24 12.23
3 7.04 13.80
4 5.92 11.60
5 3.08 6.037
Table 3: Table showing the amplitude and experimental value for each gauge

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Theoretical calculations
The theoretical bending moment can be calculated using the following equation, which has been
provided in the lab report.
𝑚𝑟𝜔2 2
(𝐿 𝑥 − 𝑥 3 )
6𝐿
Where;
m = mass per unit length= mass of connecting rod ÷ Length between centres = 1.01/0.720= 1.40278
r = crank radius = 0.08
L = Length between centres = 0.72m
X = distance from centres and each gauge
2𝜋
𝜔=𝑓= 𝑡
= 2π/ (0.1) = 62.83 rad/sec
t = time period interval = 0.1s

Gauge 2
X = 0.72 – 0.202 = 0.518m
1.40278 × 0.08 × 62.832
𝐵𝑚 = 𝑀𝑥𝑥 = (0.722 (0.518) − 0.5183 ) = 13.28𝑁𝑚
6 × 0.72
Gauge 3
X = 0.72 – 0.305 = 0.415m
1.40278 × 0.08 × 62.832
𝐵𝑚 = (0.722 (0.415) − 0.4153 ) = 14.73𝑁𝑚
6 × 0.72
Gauge 4
X = 0.72 – 0.452 = 0.268m
1.40278 × 0.08 × 62.832
𝐵𝑚 = (0.722 (0.268) − 0.2683 ) = 12.27𝑁𝑚
6 × 0.72
Gauge 5
X = 0.72 – 0.604 = 0.116m
1.40278 × 0.08 × 62.832
𝐵𝑚 = (0.722 (0.116) − 0.1163 ) = 6.007𝑁𝑚
6 × 0.72
Percentage error

Gauge Theoretical BM / Nm Experimental BM / Nm

2 13.28 12.23
3 14.73 13.80
4 12.27 11.60
5 6.007 6.037
Table 4:Summary table of gauges2-5 theoretical and experimental values

Percentage difference = 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙
×100

Gauge 2:
12.23− 13.28
Percentage difference = 13.28 ×100= 7.907%

Gauge 3:
13.80−14.73
Percentage difference = 14.73 ×100= 6.31%

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Gauge 4:
11.60−12.27
Percentage difference = 12.27 ×100= 5.46%

Gauge 5:
6.037− 6.007
Percentage difference = 6.007 ×100= 4.99%

Average percentage difference: 6.18%

Figure 8: Graph showing relationship between gauges and bending moment

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Maximum Bending Moment

The maximum bending moment can be derived from the following formula, which has been
provided from the lab sheet.

𝑚𝑟𝜔2 𝐿2 1.4028 × 0.08 × 62.833 × 0.722

= = 14.73𝑁𝑚
9√3 9√3

To find out where on the rod the maximum bending moment we can use the following formula:
𝐿 0.72
= = 0.42𝑚
√3 √3
This shows that the maximum bending moment of 14.73Nm occurred at 0.42m from the crank pin in
joint A. Bending moment at gauge 3 has the highest figure when compared to the other gauges at
14.94Nm. This bending moment occurred at 0.305m from the crank pin.

Experimental peak dynamic bending moment angle

Dynamic bending moment is the maximum allowable bending moment while the bending rod is in
motion. To calculate this from the experimental results, we have to calculate the distance between
the peak and trough of one cycle. The following equation has been given in the lab report; this
equation will be used to calculate the dynamic peak bending moment for each gauge as well the
maximum dynamic bending moment.

𝑡1 𝜋−𝜃 𝑡1
= where =𝑥
𝑡2 𝜃 𝑡2
𝜋−𝜃
𝑥=
𝜃
𝜋
𝑥 = −1
𝜃
𝜋
𝑥+1=
𝜃
𝜋
𝜃=
𝑥+1

Gauge 2:
t1 = 0.1735 – 0.1268 = 0.0467
t2 = 0.2252 – 0.1735 = 0.0517
x = 0.0467/0.0517 = 0.903
𝜋
𝜃= = 1.65 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠 = 94.538°
0.903+1

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Gauge 3

t1 = 0.0463
t2 = 0.053
x = 0.874
𝜃 = 1.68 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠 = 96.257°

Gauge 4
t1 = 0.0456
t2 = 0.0591
x = 0.772
𝜃 = 1.77 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠 = 101.414°

Gauge 5
t1 = 0.0463
t2 = 0.0532
x = 0.870
𝜃 = 1.68 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑠 = 96.257°

Theoretical peak dynamic bending moment angle

The theoretical dynamic peak bending moment can be calculated using the following formula given
in the lab report.
𝑟
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃=
√𝑟 2 +𝐿2
0.08
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃=
√0.082 +0.722

𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃=0.11
𝜃=cos−1(0.11)=83.68°

Percentage error for peak dynamic bending moment

Using the same equation in percentage error heading above, the percentage error has been
calculated and placed into the table below:

Gauge Experimental peak dynamic Theoretical peak dynamic

Percentage error (%)
number bending moment (°) bending moment (°)
2 94.538 83.68 12.976
3 96.257 83.68 15.03
4 101.414 83.68 21.193
5 96.257 83.68 15.03
Table 5: Percentage error for peak dynamic bending moment

Looking at table 5 it can be noted that gauge 4 had the maximum peak bending moment with the
value being 101.414°; this gauge has had the biggest difference when compared to the theoretical
value of 83.68°, leading to a percentage error of 21%. This could be due to a variety of reason, which
will be discussed in the discussion section.

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Discussion

Comment on the agreement between the peak dynamic bending moment diagrams produced by
measurement and calculation including the position and magnitude of the maximum value.

Figure 7 shows the relationship between bending moment and Mxx. This calibration was taken from
gauge 3 as it the closest to the centre. The two lines are almost identical and both intercept the y-
axis with very little difference in the two.

From figure 8, it can be seen that the experimental points have the same shape as the theoretical
values. However, the experimental values are not on the theoretical curve, which could suggest
some errors during the experiment. The maximum value for bending moment is given in gauge 3
with a value of 13.38Nm. This result is with a 6% error, which is below 10%, the manufacturers
tolerance level, which shows the experiment was a success. Overall looking at figure 8 we can say
that the calculation and experiment agree with each other.

The maximum peak dynamic bending moment occurred in gauge 4 with a bending moment of
101.414°. This astronomical value has an error of 21%, which could suggest that there is a problem
with the data itself or the calculation.

Can the hypothesis that ‘the peak dynamic bending moment occurs when the crank and the
connecting rod are at the right angles’ be confirmed from the results.

The maximum bending moment would occur when the connecting rods are at 90⁰. From the
experiment, gauge 4 had the highest maximum peak dynamic bending moment angle of 101.414,
with a percentage error of 21%. The closest peak dynamic measurement to 90° is gauge 2 at 95°.

Theoretically, gauge 3 should have the highest dynamic bending moment, as it is the closest to the
centre of the rod.

From the experiment conducted and looking at table 5 it is apparent that the peak dynamic moment
does not occur when the crank and connecting rod are at right angles. As gauge 2 was the closest to
90° and had a bending moment of 12.23Nm. This was however, the second highest reading which
may suggest this hypothesis may be true. There were many errors that occurred during the
experiment, and minimising these errors could help answer this question better.

One of the errors that occurred during the experiment is parallax error. This error may have
happened when the distances of the gauge from the crankshaft are recorded, as these were
measured using a 1m ruler. When the observer is required to measure the distance, the ruler may
not have been aligned correctly, or the observer may record the results from an angle which can
cause parallax error, affecting the measurements which may later incur more errors during the
calculations.

Apparatus error may also have had an effect on the results as the masses used have their mass listed
on them, however this may not be exactly correct, as the manufacturers may have set a tolerance
rating on the mass which they have listed (+_1), this indicates that the mass listed on the weights is
not precise. Although, the listed mass and actual mass may have an extremely small difference,
when these results are used in the calculations, the errors may be multiplied and hence have a larger
effect on all the outcomes. The equipment has been stated by Professor Goman as being 40 years
old, which could suggest that the machine is not as effective as it once was and some parts may have
worn out.

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444

 ENGD3038- Dynamics and Control

Another source of error could be random error, as the experiment was only carried out once for
each gauge, to increase the accuracy of our results, the experiment could have been repeated 3
times and average values could have been taken to use in calculations, this would minimise margin
for error, hence providing a more accurate result.

From table 4 we can see that there is an obvious discrepancy between experimental and theoretical
values as all the percentage error values are above 10%, the manufacturer’s accuracy tolerance
level. This error could have occurred due to a calculation mistake in my workings, but this is unlikely
as I double checked my work and compared them with my friend’s calculations. As my calculations
are fine, this could suggest that the data itself could have an error. However, the experimental
values seem correct as the highest dynamic bending moments occur in gauges 3 and 4, with the
lowest values happening in gauge 2 and 5.

References

Anon, (2017). ENGD3038 Intertia bending lab slides. [online] Available at:
https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3794645-dt-content-rid-
6211754_1/courses/ENGD3038_2018_Y/Inertia%20Bending%20-%20Lab%20Slides.pdf
[Accessed 19 Nov. 2017].

Anon, (2017). intertia bending lab sheet. [online] Available at:

https://vle.dmu.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3794645-dt-content-rid-
6211753_1/courses/ENGD3038_2018_Y/ENGD3038E%20-%20Inertia%20Bending.pdf [Accessed
20 Nov. 2017].

Nizamuddin Patel De Montfort University P15219444