ENGD1005

Mechanical Principles

Flywheel

Student Name: Nizamuddin Patel

P Number: 15219444
Year: 1
Course of Study: Mechanical Engineering

Lab Tutor: Dr. Daniel Paluszczyszyn

Lecturer: Dr Hobina Rajakaruna

Date: 18/01/2015
Name: Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

Introduction

The aim of the experiment is to determine whether the calculated value of the moment of inertia
meets the experimental value.

A flywheel is a wheel that can store unlimited amount of energy

Moment of inertia is the resistance of a moving object

The apparatus we are going to use are:

Flywheel assembly- A metal disc attached to the wall
Cord
Weights
Stopwatch
Metre ruler

Flywheel Flywheel

Weight
hanging on
fly wheel
Calliper Weight

Stopwatch
Weight

Metre Ruler

ENGD1005- Mechanical Principles Flywheel

Name: Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

Determination of moment of inertia by means of experiment

Results and calculations

Experimental data table

Weights M1=2.5kg M2=3.5kg M3=4.5kg
Measurement 1 N= 43.45 N=65 N=89.5
t=13.46 s t=10.41 s t=8.52 s
Measurement 2 N=44.2 N=67 N=92.1
t=13.33 s t=10.44 s t=8.73 s
Measurement 3 N=43.5 N=65.8 N=91.47
t=13.33 s t= 10.24 s t=8.18 s
Average measurements Navg=43.72 Navg=65.93 Navg=91.02
tavg=13.37 s tavg=10.36 s tavg=8.48 s
Moment of inertia(kg m2) 0.5963 0.5426 0.4674
Iexp =
The above table have the data values from the experiment.

To calculate Navg for: To calculate tavg for:

2.5kg- 43.45, 44.2, 43.5 2.5kg- 13.46, 13.33, 13.33

43.45 + 44.2 + 43.5= 131.15 13.46 + 13.33 + 13.33= 40.12
131.15 40.12
= 43.72 3
= 13.37 seconds
3

3.5kg- 65, 67, 65.8 3.5kg- 10.41, 10.44, 10.24

65 + 67 + 65.8= 197.8 10.41 + 10.44 + 10.24= 31.09
197.8 31.09
= 65.93 3
= 10.36 seconds
3

4.5kg- 89.5, 92.1, 91.47 4.5kg- 8.52, 8.73, 8.18

89.5 + 92.1 + 91.47= 273.07 8.52 + 8.73 + 8.18= 25.43
273.07 25.43
= 91.02 = 8.48 seconds
3 3

We can rearrange the following formula, given in the lab sheet, to work out the moments of inertia
(kg m2)
𝑁 4ℎ 2ℎ 2
𝑚𝑔ℎ = 2(𝑁−𝑛)
𝐼 ( 𝑡𝑑 ) + 𝑚 ( 𝑡 ) , where

𝑚 = Mass (2.5kg, 3.5kg, 4.5kg)

𝑔 = Acceleration due to gravity (9.81m/s2)
𝑑 = Dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (m)
ℎ = Height (m)
𝑛 = Number of revolutions for mass to fall
𝑁 = Total number of revolutions
𝑡 = Time (s)

Rearranged formula:
1 2ℎ 2
𝑚𝑔ℎ− 𝑚 ( )
2 𝑡
I= 𝑁 4ℎ 2
[( )×( ) ]
2(𝑁−𝑛) 𝑡𝑑

ENGD1005- Mechanical Principles Flywheel

Name: Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

Average moment of inertia:

Iexp2.5 + Iexp3.5 + Iexp4.5 0.5963470743+0.5426353789+0.4673596147
3
∴ 3
= 0.5354(4𝑑. 𝑝)

Determination of moment of inertia by means of calculation

The following figures are given in the lab sheet:

Density of iron: ρ=7800kg/m3
πd2 𝑡
Mass of solid disc: ρ 4
𝑚𝑟 2
Polar moment of inertia of a solar disc: 2
𝑚(𝑅2 +𝑟 2 )
Polar moment of an annulus:
2

Calculation of moment of inertia of the axle

𝝅ρ(𝐿1 +𝐿2 )𝑑 4
𝐼𝐴𝑋𝐿𝐸 = , where
32

L1= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.175m)

L2= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.0388m)
d= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2(0.03683m)

𝝅×7800×(0.175+0.0388)×0.036834
𝐼𝐴𝑋𝐿𝐸 = IAXLE = 3.012375268 ×10-4 Kgm2
32

𝜋𝜌𝐵𝐷 4
𝐼𝐹+𝐴 = 32
, where

B= 0.05m
D= 0.381m

𝜋×7800×0.05×0.3814
𝐼𝐹+𝐴 = IF+A =0.8067972405 Kgm2
32
𝜋𝜌𝑏1 𝜋𝜌𝑏2
𝐼𝐴1 = (𝑑14 − 𝑑24 ) 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝐴2 = (𝑑14 − 𝑑24 ) , where
32 32

b1= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.018m)

b2= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.017m)
d1= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.283m)
d2= dimension of flywheel, refer to Fig. 2 (0.091m)
𝜋×7800×0.018
𝑰𝑨𝟏 = × (0.2834 − 0.0914 ) = 0.08746709204 Kgm2
32
𝜋×7800×0.017
𝑰𝑨𝟐 = × (0.2834 − 0.0914 ) = 0.08260780915 Kgm2
32

𝐼 = 𝐼𝐴𝑋𝐿𝐸 + 𝐼𝐹+𝐴 − 𝐼𝐴1 − 𝐼𝐴2

𝐼 = 3.0124 … × 10−4 + 0.8068 … − 0.0875 … − 0.0826 …

𝑰 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑𝟕𝟎 (𝟒𝒅. 𝒑)

ENGD1005- Mechanical Principles Flywheel

Name: Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

Percentage error
|𝑥−𝑦|
𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟(%): 𝑥
× 100 , where

x = is the approximate value (experiment)

y= is the exact value (calculations)

|0.5354 − 0.6370|
× 100% = 15.9498%
0.6370

Discussion

The results obtained from the experiment differ from the calculations this could be errors
due to various factors. Systematic errors such as the ruler not being straight when
measuring the height from the ground could impact the result as it may mean the fly wheel
does less/more spins then it would’ve if the height had been measured using a digital tool.
Another factor that may have caused an error could be that when starting and stopping the
stopwatch the reaction time of the person in charge will not be one hundred percent on
point compared with a computerized stopwatch. When measuring the diameter of the
flywheel and the axle using the calliper, the reading may not have been accurate as it would
have been if a digital tool was used to measure the diameter. Another systematic error could
have been caused when counting the revs of the flywheel from start to stop as when the
conductance of the experiment when weighing the heavier weights had caused the flywheel
to spin at very fast speeds resulting in difficulty for the user to capture the actual rev count
of the flywheel. Three people were counting the revs of the flywheel, the average of the
three people was used for the N value. The error could have been reduced if there were
more people counting the revs of the flywheel or if there was a digital tool to count the revs.
This would make the experiment more accurate and would make it more likely for the
experimental values to match the calculated values.

Along with systematic error, random errors could have contributed to the error. Random
errors like the measurements for the different sections of the flywheel could also have an
effect on the results as they could have been a few millimetres off the actual measurement,
the weights used could also be off the manufacturer’s ratings by few grams off the stated
weight. When calculating to obtain the results for inertia, some of the values could have
been rounded when used therefore could outcome in further errors towards the final value.

During the experiment certain forces were acting against the flywheel which caused energy
loss. Forces such as air resistance drag and friction from the bearings caused heat across the
flywheel which slowed the flywheel down considerably which could have an impact on the
result. The equation used to work out moment of inertia theoretically did not include energy
loss and therefore the result of the calculated value would be of a frictionless flywheel.

The experimental result is more realistic than the theoretical value as it takes into account
the energy loss but it contains flaws such as systematic and random errors, which could have
been reduced if better and more accurate equipment were used. If the flywheel is being
used in a vacuum the theoretical value will be correct as the calculation would contain less
errors than the experiment. But if it the flywheel is being used realistically the experimental
values are more accurate as it takes into account the energy loss.

ENGD1005- Mechanical Principles Flywheel

Name: Nizamuddin Patel P15219444

Conclusion

In conclusion, the values for the experimental result and the values of the theoretical result
are close, even though the percentage error (15.94%) is significant when you consider that
the errors can only impact the results to a certain extent.

Whilst carrying out the experiment, it is to be seen that there are some faults in the
theoretical method for finding out the moment of inertia because not all particle factors, for
example, friction has not been taken into account

Overall, taking part in the experiment helped give me an understanding of how the energy
was kept as well as released by a flywheel.

References:

R. H. Creamer, 1984. Machine Design (3rd Edition). 3 Edition. Addision Wesley.

Felix A. Farret, 2006. Integration of Alternative Sources of Energy. 1 Edition. Wiley-IEEE
Press.

Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu,. "Moment Of Inertia". N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. 11.26am

ENGD1005- Mechanical Principles Flywheel