Kinematic Design of Four-Bar Linkages

Kinematic and dynamic design of four-bar linkages by links
counterweighing with variable input speed

Hong-Sen Yan
*
, Ren-Chung Soong
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan, ROC
Received 25 February 2000; accepted 12 March 2001
Abstract
A novel method for four-bar linkages, that satises kinematic design requirements and also attains trade-
o of dynamic balance, is presented. By properly designing the speed trajectory of the input link, the disk
counterweight of moving links, and link dimensions of the given or desired mechanisms, the expected
output motion characteristics and dynamic balancing performance are obtained. The input motion char-
acteristics are designed with Bezier curves. Optimization is applied to nd out optimal design parameters
for reaching the trade-o of dynamic balance. The input speed trajectory of the input link could be gen-
erated by a servomotor. Examples are given to demonstrate the design procedure of this approach. 2001
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Variable input speed; Four-bar linkages; Kinematic synthesis; Dynamic design
1. Introduction
Four-bar linkages are widely used in mechanical devices owing to their simplicity of structure,
ease of manufacturing and low cost. Kinematic synthesis and dynamic design are both essential
steps in the development of mechanisms and were usually treated as separate stages in design
process traditionally. The input speed of a driving link is assumed constant. For high-speed ap-
plications, the dynamic balancing performances, e.g., shaking force and shaking moment, are
desirable. And, we usually struggle to reach the trade-o of dynamic balance performance. Our
purpose here is to develop a novel design method that combines kinematic synthesis, dynamic
design, and input speed trajectory design to reach the trade-o of dynamic balance and to satisfy
the kinematic requirements and constraints simultaneously for four-bar linkages.
Mechanism and Machine Theory 36 (2001) 10511071
www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886-6-275-7575; fax: +886-6-208-4972.
E-mail address: hsyan@mail.ncku.edu.tw (H.-S. Yan).
0094-114X/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0094- 114X( 01) 00032- 5
Relatively little research has been devoted to techniques for combining kinematic synthesis and
dynamic design. Starr [1] considered the problem of determining the constrained path of a
mechanism member between specied positions such that some quality of dynamic performance is
optimized. Cote et al. [2] synthesized the crank-rocker path generating mechanisms with pre-
scribed timing by optimization based on minimizing shaking force, shaking moment, driving
torque, and bearing reactions, respectively.
Variable input speed mechanisms were seldom discussed in the literature. Rothbart [3] designed
a variable speed cam mechanism in which the input of the cam is the output of a Withworth
quick-return mechanism. Tesar and Matthew [4] derived the motion equation of the follower by
Nomenclature
L
i
length of the ith link
L
i
normalized length of the ith link
/
i
angular position of the ith link
x
i
angular velocity of the ith link
a
i
angular acceleration of the ith link
l
i
distance to xed or moving pivot as measured from the applied point of working
forces on the ith link
l
i
normalized distance to xed or moving pivot as measured from the applied point of
working forces on the ith link
b
i
angles as dened in Fig. 2
q
i
radius of the ith link disk counterweight
l
i
angles as dened in Fig. 2
h
i
thickness of the ith link disk counterweight
m
i
the mass of the ith link including counterweight
F
eix
; F
eiy
the x- and y-components of the working forces applied on the ith link
F
ijx
; F
ijy
the x- and y-components of forces exerted on the jth link by the ith link
F normalized force
M normalized shaking moment
T normalized torque
m
2ol
the mass of the link 2
W average angular speed of crank
F
sh
normalized shaking force
M
sh=oi
normalized shaking moment w.r.t. xed pivot o
i
T
D
driving torque
T
ei
working torque applied on the ith link
I
i
moment of inertia of the ith link about its center of gravity
v
i
velocity vector of center of gravity of the ith link
a
i
acceleration vector of center of gravity of the ith link
v
ei
velocity vector of point of working forces applied on the ith link
m
Ax
; m
Ay
the velocity x- and y-components of point A on the link 3
m
Bx
; m
By
the velocity x- and y-components of point B on the link 3
1052 H.-S. Yan, R.-C. Soong / Mechanism and Machine Theory 36 (2001) 10511071
considering the case of variable speed cams. Recently, Yan and associates [58] contributed the
objectives of eliminating the discontinuity in motion characteristics and lowering peak values of
the follower acceleration in cam-follower systems by servo control. Yan and Chen [9] further
designed a general input speed trajectory generating by a servomotor for slider-crank mechanisms
that lead to arbitrarily desired output motion, and its feasibility has been veried by experiments
using a pc-base controlled servomotor.
Methods of balancing shaking force and shaking moment in high-speed machinery are well-
developed and documented [1023]. Most of the balancing methods dealt directly with the force
involved or the moments uctuations in the linkages [11]. Some included bearing reactions
magnitude [12] and input torque uctuations [1315]. However, very few methods allow a trade-
o among variations and the magnitude of the shaking force, shaking moment, and the input
torque [1618]. Some remarkable examples of optimal balancing of four-bar linkages were oered
by [1821]. And, there are two major dierent approaches for optimal balancing of four-bar
linkages. One is obtained by positioning a counterweight on each moving link [19,20]. The other
one is by mass distribution of each link [18,21].
In what follows, the design ow chart and design criteria corresponding to a suitable speed
trajectory of input link are presented. Then, dynamic equations and optimization procedure are
provided. Finally, design examples are given to illustrate the design process for gaining the re-
quired output motion characteristics and dynamic performance.
2. Design approach
The proposed concept of combining kinematic synthesis and dynamic design is based on the
considerations that include both kinematic and dynamic design requirements and constraints in
the same design stage. Based on a given or tentative linkage, we start from designing a suitable
speed trajectory of the input link to satisfy the design requirements and constraints. If the result is
not acceptable, then we consider balancing parameters to meet design requirements and con-
straints. If the design result is still not acceptable, we further synthesize the link dimensions to bow
to design requirements and constraints. Fig. 1 shows the design ow chart of the proposed ap-
proach. Compared with the traditional design approaches, we present the concept of variable
input speed and integrate it with kinematic synthesis and dynamic design to achieve the desired
targets.
3. Input speed trajectory
We assume that the input link of the four-bar linkages is a crank.
The position trajectory of the crank is dened by an nth-order Bezier curve h(t) with parameter
t as follows [9]
h(t) =
n
i=0
h
i
B
i;n
(t); (1)
where
H.-S. Yan, R.-C. Soong / Mechanism and Machine Theory 36 (2001) 10511071 1053
B
i;n
(t) =
n!
i!(n i)!
t
i
(1 t)
ni
; t [0; 1[; (2)
h(t) is a Bezier curve that represents the angular displacement of the input link dened by control
points h
i
. Parameter t is regarded as the normalized time from 0 to 1. Since the Bezier curve is nth
order dierentiable, this guarantees smoothness of the entire motion. Hence, the angular velocity
x(t) and acceleration a(t) of the input link can be derived by continuously dierentiating Eqs. (1)
and (2) w.r.t. time as follows:
Fig. 1. Design ow chart.
x(t) =
dh(t)
dt
=
n
i=0
h
i

dB
i;n
(t)
dt
; (3)
a(t) =
d
2
h(t)
dt
2
=
n
i=0
h
i

d
2
B
i;n
(t)
dt
2
; (4)
where
dB
i;n
(t)
dt
=
n!
(i 1)!(n i)!
t
i1
(1 t)
ni
n!
i!(n i 1)!
t
i
(1 t)
ni1
; (5)
d
2
B
i;n
(t)
dt
2
=
n!
(i 2)!(n i)!
t
i2
(1 t)
ni
n!
(i 1)!(n i 1)!
t
i1
(1 t)
ni1
n!
(i 1)!(n i 1)!
t
i1
(1 t)
ni1
n!
i!(n i 2)!
t
1
(1 t)
ni2
: (6)
Based on kinematic analysis of the four-bar linkage by vector loop approach [24], the angular
displacement /
i
(t), angular velocity x
i
(t) and angular acceleration a
i
(t) of the moving links and
the linear displacement d
mi
(t), linear velocity m
mi
(t) and linear acceleration a
mi
(t) of the center of
mass are computed, respectively, as follows:
/
i
(t) = /
i
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t); (7)
x
i
(t) = x
i
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t); (8)
a
i
(t) = a
i
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t); (9)
d
mi
(t) = d
mi
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t); (10)
v
mi
(t) = v
mi
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t); (11)
a
mi
(t) = a
mi
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; t): (12)
Noting that input speed trajectory of the input link could be generated by a pc-base controlled
servomotor in practical applications.
4. Dynamic equations
In order to reach the trade-o of dynamic balancing by adjusting the kinematic characteristics
and inertial properties of the center of gravity of the moving links of four-bar linkages, we po-
sition a disk counterweight on each of them [19,20]. The general analytical model and inertial
properties of each moving link can be represented, as shown in Fig. 2. Link elasticity and friction
in the joints are neglected. The principle of virtual work and Newtonian dynamic analytical
method is used to derive the dynamic equations.
By applying the principle of virtual work to the system shown in Fig. 2, the driving torque T
D
is
obtained as follows
T
D
=
4
i=2
k
i
x
2
; (13)
where
k
i
= m
i
a
i
v
i
T
ei
x
i
F
ei
v
ei
I
i
a
i
x
i
(14)
in which m
i
is the mass of the ith link including disk counterweight, x
i
is the angular velocity of
the ith link, a
i
is the angular acceleration of the ith link, T
ei
is the working torque applied on the ith
Fig. 2. The four-bar linkage.
link, F
ei
is the working force applied on the ith link, I
i
is the moment of inertia of the ith link about
its center of gravity, v
i
is the velocity vector of center of gravity of the ith link, a
i
is the acceleration
vector of center of gravity of the ith link, and v
ei
is the velocity vector of the point of working
forces applied on the ith link.
Furthermore, based on the free-body diagrams shown in Fig. 2, we obtain close-form ex-
pressions for computing the reactions of the coupler joints A and B as follows:
F
23x
=
(Rv
Bx
Sv
By
P)v
Ay
Qv
By
V
; (15)
F
23y
=
(P Rv
Bx
Sv
By
)v
Ax
Qv
Bx
V
; (16)
F
43x
=
(P Sv
By
)v
Ay
(Rv
Ax
Q)v
By
V
; (17)
F
43y
=
(Rv
Bx
P)v
Ay
(Sv
Ay
Q)v
Bx
V
; (18)
where
P =
3
i=2
K
i
T
D
x
2
; (19)
Q =
4
i=3
K
i
; (20)
R = m
3
a
3x
F
e3x
; (21)
S = m
3
a
3y
F
e3y
; (22)
V = v
Bx
v
Ay
v
By
v
Ax
; (23)
in which F
eix
; F
eiy
are the x- and y-components of the working forces applied on the ith link, F
ijx
; F
ijy
are the x- and y-components of forces exerted on the jth link by the ith link, m
Ax
; m
Ay
are the
velocity x- and y-components of point A on the link 3, m
Bx
; m
By
are the velocity x- and y-com-
ponents of point B on the link 3, a
ix
; a
iy
are the x- and y-components of the acceleration of center
of gravity of the ith link.
By solving, respectively, the equilibrium equations, Eqs. (15)(18), we obtain all unknown
reaction forces F
12
and F
14
of joints as follows:
F
12x
= F
23x
m
2
a
2x
F
e2x
; (24)
F
12y
= F
23y
m
2
a
2y
F
e2y
; (25)
F
14x
= F
43x
m
4
a
4x
F
e4x
; (26)
F
14y
= F
43y
m
4
a
4y
F
e4y
: (27)
Once all joint forces are determined, the normalized shaking force and shaking moments can be
formulated as follows:
F
sh
= F
12x
_
F
14x
F
e2x
F
e3x
F
e4x
_
i (F
12y
F
14y
F
e2y
F
e3y
F
e4y
)j; (28)
M
sh=o1
= F
14y
L
1
cos /
1
_
F
14x
L
1
sin /
1
T
D
T
e2
T
e3
T
e4
G
1
H
1
_
; (29)
M
sh=o2
= F
12x
L
1
sin/
1
_
F
12y
L
1
cos /
1
T
D
T
e2
T
e3
T
e4
G
2
H
2
_
; (30)
where
G
1
= F
e2x
l
2
sinb
2
_
F
e3x
(L
2
sin /
2
l
2
sinb
2
) F
e4x
(L
1
sin/
1
l
4
sin b
4
)
; (31)
G
2
= F
e2x
(l
2
sin b
2
_
L
1
sin/
1
) F
e3x
(L
2
sin/
2
l
2
sin b
2
L
1
sin /
1
) F
e4x
l
4
sin b
4
; (32)
H
1
=
_
F
e2y
l
2
cos b
2
F
e3y
(L
2
cos /
2
l
2
cos b
2
) F
e4y
(L
1
cos /
1
l
4
cos b
4
)
_
; (33)
H
2
= F
e2y
(l
2
cos b
2
_
L
1
cos /
1
) F
e3y
(L
2
cos /
2
l
2
cos b
2
L
1
cos /
1
)
F
e4y
l
4
cos b
4
_
; (34)
in which F
sh
is the normalized shaking force, M
sh=oi
is the normalized shaking moment w.r.t. xed
pivot o
i
; L
i
(= L
i
=L
2
) is the normalized length of the ith link, l
i
(= l
i
=L
2
) is the normalized distance
to xed or moving pivot as measured from applied point of working forces on the ith link,
F
= F =(m
2ol
L
2
W
2
) is the normalized force, M
= M=(m
2ol
L
2
2
W
2
) is the normalized shaking mo-
ment, T = T=(m
2ol
L
2
2
W
2
) is the normalized torque, m
2ol
is the mass of link 2, and W (= 2p) is the
average angular speed of crank.
5. Optimization
From the results of dynamic analysis shown in the last section, it is obvious that the magnitudes
and the variations of dynamic quantities of four-bar linkages are dominated by their kinematic
characteristics and inertial properties of the center of gravity of moving links. In order to reach a
trade-o balancing of four-bar linkages that fulll the kinematic design requirements, the unde-
termined control points (h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
), link dimensions (L
i
; c
3
; i = 1 to 5) and balancing parameters
(q
i
; l
i
; h
i
; i = 2 to 4) are determined by the optimization procedure. Since varying input speed,
positioning disk counterweights and synthesizing link dimensions could change the kinematic
characteristics and adjust the inertial properties of four-bar linkages. It is clear that h
0
and h
n
are
the boundary conditions for the crank displacement in a cycle. Therefore, h
0
= 0 and h
n
= 360
must be specied.
For the purpose mentioned above, the general objective function and constrained equations are
formulated as follows:
Minimizing
f (h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; q
i
; l
i
; h
i
; L
1
; . . . ; L
5
; c
3
)
=
1
2p
_
2p
0
w
1
2
21
F
2
41
_
_
w
2
2
D
_
_
d/
2
(35)
subject to
equality constraints c
j
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; q
i
; l
i
; h
i
; L
1
; . . . ; L
5
; c
3
) = 0;
j = 1; . . . ; n
c
; (36)
and
inequality constraints g
j
(h
1
; . . . ; h
n1
; q
i
; l
i
; h
i
; L
1
; . . . ; L
5
; c
3
) < 0;
j = 1; . . . ; n
g
; (37)
where w
1
and w
2
are the weighting factors, q
i
, l
i
, h
i
are radius, angle measures from the center line
between the two pivots on the ith link to the center of mass, thickness of the ith disk counter-
weight, L
i
, c
3
are the link dimensions and the angle between L
3
and L
5
shown in Fig. 2, respec-
tively; n
c
and n
g
denote the number of equation and inequality constraints. Note that the equality
and inequality constraints are dened to meet the desired output motion characteristics and
dynamic performance. Dierent design examples have dierent constraint equations that will be
discussed in next section in detail.
Up to here, all information for optimization are derived. Any optimization method can be used
to determine the design variables. An optimization program namely MOST [25] that is developed
for solving multi-objective optimization problems with mixed continuous and discrete design
variables is used to solve design variables in this approach.
6. Examples and discussion
This section is to demonstrate the design procedures for this proposed approach according to
the design ow chart shown in Fig. 1 by four examples. In all these four examples, the reference
linkage has its link dimensions and inertial properties given in Table 1 [18,23] and running at an
average crank speed of 60 rpm. A 10th-order Bezier curve (with 11 control points) is used to
represent the trajectory of the crank displacement. The circular disks with xed thickness of 2.54
cm are introduced for counterweights of moving links, the cross-sections of links are kept the
Table 1
Link dimensions and inertial properties of the reference linkage
Link number Length of link (m) Mass of link (kg) Moment of inertial about
center of gravity (kg m
2
)
1 0.0762
2 0.0254 0.04585 0:6733 10
5
3 0.0508 0.05317 0:3013 10
4
4 0.0762 0.06602 0:6768 10
4
same with reference linkage and the weighting factors w
1
and w
2
are both set to be 0.5 for the
trade-o of dynamic balance in the following examples.
Example 1. Designing the balancing parameters of links of the reference linkage with constant
input speed for the trade-o of dynamic balance.
The optimization task is to determine the balancing parameters (q
i
; l
i
; i = 2 to 4) and the
objective function and constrained equations become as follows:
Minimizing
f (q
i
; l
i
) =
1
2p
_
2p
0
w
1
2
21
F
2
41
_
_
w
2
2
D
_
_
d/
2
: (38)
Because we position a disk counterweight on each moving link, note that the q
i
are always positive
or equal to zero which implies no positioning counterweight on the ith link.
The optimal balancing parameters are shown in Table 2, and the comparison of rms dynamic
quantities is shown in Table 3.
Example 2. Designing input speed function and balancing parameters of links of the reference
linkage with variable input speeds for the trade-o of dynamic balancing.
The optimization task is to determine the control points (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) and balancing parameters
(q
i
; l
i
; i = 2 to 4) and the objective function and constrained equations become as follows:
Table 2
Balancing parameters for all examples
Linkage
number
L
1
(cm)
L
2
(cm)
L
3
(cm)
L
4
(cm)
q
2
(cm)
q
3
cm)
q
4
(cm)
l
2
()
l
3
()
l
4
()
Remark
1 7.62 2.54 5.08 7.62 1.87 1.07 0 180.1 210.3 0 Example 1
2 7.62 2.54 5.08 7.62 2.27 1.31 0.53 180.8 182.6 179.9 Example 2
3 7.645 1.552 6.069 7.62 Example 3
4 7.607 1.368 6.273 7.605 1.59 1.25 0.56 180 180.1 180 Example 4
Table 3
Comparison of the dynamic quantities between all examples and linkage number 1
Linkage
number
Method rms
Shaking
force
rms Shaking
moment to
xed pivot o
1
rms Shaking
moment to
xed pivot o
2
rms
Driving
torque
Remark
1 Reference linkage 2.061 2.338 5.300 0.8628
2 Berkof & Lowen 0 4.013()72%) 4.013(24%) 0.749(13%) Complete
force balance
3 This investigation 0.883(57%) 1.314(41%) 1.89(64%) 0.586(32%) Example 1
The value in parentheses denotes percent improvement over the corresponding rms value of the linkage number 1.
Minimizing
f (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; q
i
; l
i
; ) =
1
2p
_
2p
0
w
1
2
21
F
2
41
_
_
w
2
2
D
_
_
d/
2
(39)
subject to
c
1
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = x
2
(0) x
2
(1) = 0;
c
2
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = a
2
(0) a
2
(1) = 0: (40)
The two constrained equations are in order to have continuous angular velocity and acceleration
of the input link in two adjacent cycles, and the q
i
are always positive or equal to zero with the
same reason as in Example 1.
The optimal control points and balancing parameters are, respectively, shown in Tables 4 and
2, and the comparison of rms dynamic quantities is shown in Table 3. The corresponding input
motion characteristics and the comparison of dynamic balancing performance are shown in Figs.
3 and 4, respectively.
Table 4
Control points of trajectory of driving link for all examples
Linkage number h
1
() h
2
() h
3
() h
4
() h
5
() h
6
() h
7
() h
8
() h
9
() Remark
1 Example 1
2 32.8 62.9 111.2 142.3 177.7 216.4 250.6 291.7 327.2 Example 2
3 35.8 68.3 107.1 142.7 178.8 215.2 215.7 285.1 324.2 Example 3
4 38.9 74.6 120.4 155.2 181.1 206.6 240.3 278.8 321 Example 4
Fig. 3. Input motion characteristics Example 2. (a) Crank angular speed; (b) crank angular accleration.
Example 3. Designing input speed function and link dimensions of a desired linkage in which
point B in link 4 passes three precision points p1(0.038 m, 0.066 m), p2(0.0248 m, 0.0563 m) and
p3(0.0159 m, 0.0466 m) as the reference linkage for the trade-o of dynamic balance.
The optimization task is to determine the control points (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) and link dimensions
(L
i
; i = 1 to 4) and the objective function and constrained equations become as follows:
Fig. 4. Dynamic balancing performance Examples 1 and 2. (a) Normalized shaking force; (b) normalized shaking
moment to xed pivot o
1
; (c) normalized shaking moment to xed pivot o
2
; (d) normalized driving torque.
Minimizing
f (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) =
1
2p
_
2p
0
w
1
2
21
F
2
41
_
_
w
2
2
D
_
_
d/
2
(41)
Fig. 5. Input and output motion characteristics Example 3. (a) Motion trajectory of point B; (b) crank angular speed;
(c) crank angular acceleration.
subject to
c
1
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = x
2
(0) x
2
(1) = 0;
c
2
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = a
2
(0) a
2
(1) = 0;
c
3
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
1x
0:038 m = 0;
1
2
c
4
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
1y
0:066 m = 0;
c
5
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
2x
0:0248 m = 0; (42)
c
6
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
2y
0:0563 m = 0;
c
7
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
3x
0:0159 m = 0;
c
8
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
3y
0:0466 m = 0;
g
k1
(L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = (L
min
L
max
) (L
P
L
q
) < 0;
c
9
(L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = L
min
L
2
= 0;
where B
ix
and B
iy
the are X- and Y-components of the coordinates of point B on the ith precision
point, respectively, L
min
and L
max
are the shortest and longest links in the four-bar linkage, re-
spectively, L
p
and L
q
are the rest of the other two links of the four-bar linkage. The rst two
constrained equations have the same purpose as Example 2, the third to the eighth are in order to
fulll the kinematic design requirements, and the last two are the Grashof criteria for a crank-
rocker mechanism.
The optimal control points and link dimensions are, respectively, shown in Tables 4 and 2, and
the comparison of rms dynamic quantities is shown in Table 3. The corresponding input motion
characteristics and the comparison of dynamic balancing performances are shown in Figs. 5 and
6, respectively.
Example 4. Designing input speed function, balancing parameters of links and link dimensions of
a desired linkage that has the same kinematic design requirements and constraints as Example 3
for the trade-o of dynamic balance.
The optimization task that is to determine the control points (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
), balancing parameters
(q
i
; l
i
; i = 2 to 4) and link dimensions (L
i
; i = 1 to 4), and the objective function and constrained
equations becomes as follows:
Minimizing
f (h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; q
i
; l
i
L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) =
1
2p
_
2p
0
w
1
2
21
F
2
41
_
_
w
2
2
D
_
_
d/
2
(43)
subject to
c
1
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = x
2
(0) x
2
(1) = 0;
c
2
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
) = a
2
(0) a
2
(1) = 0;
c
3
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
1x
0:038 m = 0;
c
4
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
1y
0:066 m = 0;
c
5
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
2x
0:0248 m = 0; (44)
c
6
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
2y
0:0563 m = 0;
c
7
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
3x
0:0159 m = 0;
c
8
(h
1
; . . . ; h
9
; L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = B
3y
0:0466 m = 0;
g
k1
(L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = (L
min
L
max
) (L
p
L
q
) < 0;
c
9
(L
1
; . . . ; L
4
) = L
min
L
2
= 0:
The constrained equations have the same purpose as Example 3, and the q
i
are always positive or
equal to zero with the same reason with Example 1.
The optimal control points, balancing parameters and link dimensions are respectively, shown
in Tables 4 and 2, and the comparison of rms dynamic quantities is shown in Table 3. The
Fig. 7. Input and output motion characteristics Example 4. (a) Motion trajectory of point B; (b) crank angular speed;
(c) crank angular acceleration.
corresponding input and output motion characteristics and the comparison of dynamic balancing
performances are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of dynamic balancing performances among the four design ex-
amples with variable input speeds.
1
2
Combining designing input speed trajectory and balancing parameters can reach an appro-
priate improvement of the dynamic balancing performance according to the results of Example 2.
However it is not obvious to improve the dynamic balancing performance as compared with
Example 2 by designing the input speed trajectory and link dimensions in Example 3. This is due
to the reason that the dynamic balancing performance is aected not only by the kinematic
Fig. 9. Dynamic balancing performance Examples 24. (a) Normalized shaking force; (b) normalized shaking mo-
ment to xed pivot o
1
2
characteristics but also by the inertial properties of the linkages, although positioning counter-
weight on moving links and synthesizing the link dimensions both can adjust the kinematic
characteristics and inertial properties of the center of gravity of links, but the former is a two-
dimensional adjustment and the latter is only one. We can get a remarkable improvement of the
dynamic balancing performance from the results of Example 4, if the combined design that in-
cludes the input speed trajectory, balancing parameters and link dimensions are applied, since we
have more room to adjust the kinematic characteristics and the inertial properties of the linkage
than other examples.
7. Conclusions
A novel method that integrates kinematic and dynamic design with variable input speeds is
introduced for the trade-o of dynamic balancing of four-bar linkages. The proposed design ow
chart of this method is presented and has proved to be feasible. By properly designing the input
speed, balancing parameters and link dimensions of a desired four-bar linkage, its kinematic
design requirements and constraints and the trade-o of dynamic balance can be satised by
applying the techniques of optimization. The input motion characteristics are designed with
Bezier curves with undetermined control points. The speed trajectory of the input link could be
Table 5
The table of inertial guesses of design variables for all examples
Examples
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Design
Variables
Inertial
guess
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Inertial
guess
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Inertial
guess
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
Inertial
guess
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
h
1
() 36 0 360 36 0 360 36 0 360
h
2
() 72 0 360 72 0 360 72 0 360
h
3
() 108 0 360 108 0 360 108 0 360
h
4
() 144 0 360 144 0 360 144 0 360
h
5
() 180 0 360 180 0 360 180 0 360
h
6
() 216 0 360 216 0 360 216 0 360
h
7
() 252 0 360 288 0 360 252 0 360
h
8
() 288 0 360 288 0 360 288 0 360
h
9
() 324 0 360 324 0 360 324 0 360
L
1
(cm) 7.62 1 10 7.62 1 10
L
2
(cm) 2.54 1 10 2.54 1 10
L
3
(cm) 5.08 1 10 5.08 1 10
L
4
(cm) 7.62 1 10 7.62 1 10
q
2
(cm) 2 0 5 2 0 5 2 0 5
q
3
(cm) 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5
q
4
(cm) 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5
l
2
() 180 0 360 180 0 360 180 0 360
l
3
() 180 0 360 180 0 360 180 0 360
l
4
() 180 0 360 180 0 360 180 0 360
generated by a servomotor. Furthermore, this design approach can be extended to the linkages
that possess more than four bars or other types of mechanisms.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the National Science Council of the Republic of China (Taiwan,
ROC) for supporting this research under grant NSC 89-2212-E-006-172.
Appendix A
See Table 5.
References
[1] P.J. Starr, Dynamic synthesis of constraint paths, ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Industry, Series
B 95 (2) (1973) 624628.
[2] F.L. Conte, G.R. George, R.W. Mayne, J.P. Sadler, Optimum mechanism design combining kinematic and
dynamic-force considerations, ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Industry, Series B 95 (2) (1975)
662670.
[3] H.A. Rothbart, Cams: Design, Dynamics and Accuracy, Wiley, New York, 1956.
[4] D. Tesar, G.K. Matthew, The Dynamic Synthesis, Analysis and Design of Modeled Cam Systems, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA, 1976.
[5] H.S. Yan, M.H. Hsu, M.K. Fong, W.H. Hsieh, A kinematic approach for eliminating the discontinuity of motion
characteristics of cam-follower systems, Journal of Applied Mechanisms & Robotics 1 (2) (1994) 16.
[6] H.S. Yan, M.C. Tsai, M.H. Hsu, A variable-speed method for improving motion characteristics of cam-follower
systems, ASME Transactions, Journal of Mechanical Design 18 (1) (1996) 250258.
[7] H.S. Yan, M.C. Tsai, M.H. Hsu, An experimental study of the eects of cam speed on cam-follower systems,
Mechanism and Machine Theory 31 (4) (1996) 397412.
[8] H.S. Yan, M.K. Fong, An approach for reducing the peak acceleration of cam-follower systems using a B-spline
representation, Journal of the Chinese Society of Mechanical Engineers (Taiwan) 15 (1994) 4855.
[9] H.S. Yan, W.R. Chen, On the output motion characteristics of variable input speed servo-controlled slider-crank
mechanisms, Mechanism and Machine Theory 35 (4) (2000) 541561.
[10] R.S. Berkof, G.G. Lowen, F.R. Tepper, Balancing of linkages, The Shock and Vibration Digest 9 (6) (1997) 310.
[11] J.L. Wiederrich, B. Roth, Momentum balancing of four-bar linkages, ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering
for Industry 98 (4) (1976) 12891295.
[12] F.R. Tepper, G.G. Lowen, Shaking force optimization of four-bar linkage with adjustable constraints on ground
bearing forces, ASME Transaction, Journal of Engineering for Industry 97 (2) (1975) 643651.
[13] K. Ogawa, H. Funabashi, On the balancing of the uctuating input torques caused by inertia forces in the crank
and rocker mechanisms, ASME Transaction, Journal of Engineering for Industry 91 (1) (1969) 97102.
[14] B.A. Hockey, The minimization of the uctuation of input-shsft torque in plane mechanisms, Mechanism and
Machine Theory 7 (1972) 335346.
[15] R.S. Berkof, The input torque in linkages, Mechanism and Machine Theory 14 (1979) 6173.
[16] J.P. Sadler, Balancing of six-bar linkages by non-linear programming, in: Proceedings of the 4th World Congress
on the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, 1975, pp. 139144.
[17] J.L. Elliott, D. Tesar, The theory of torque, shaking force, and shaking moment balancing of four link mechanisms,
ASME Transaction, Journal of Engineering for Industry 99 (3) (1977) 715722.
[18] T.W. Lee, C. Cheng, Optimum balancing of combined shaking force, shaking moment, and torque uctuations in
high-speed linkages, ASME Transaction, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in design 106
(1984) 242251.
[19] S.J. Tricamo, G.G. Lowen, A novel method for prescribing the maximum shaking force of a four-bar linkage with
exibility in counterweight design, ASME Transaction, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in
design 105 (1983) 511519.
[20] S.J. Tricamo, G.G. Lowen, Simultaneous optimization of dynamic reactions of a four-bar linkage with prescribing
maximum shaking force, ASME Transaction, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design
105 (1983) 520525.
[21] N.M. Qi, E. Pennestri, Optimum balancing of four-bar linkages, Mechanism and Machine Theory 26 (3) (1991)
337348.
[22] G.G. Lowen, R.S. Berkof, Determination of force-balanced four-bar linkages with optimum shaking moment
characteristics, ASME Transaction, Journal of Engineering for Industry 93 (1) (1971) 3946.
[23] G.G. Lowen, F.R. Tepper, R.S. Berkof, The quantitative inuence of complete force and moments of certain
families of four-bar linkages, Mechanism and Machine Theory 9 (1974) 299323.
[24] A.S. Hall Jr., Notes on Mechanism Analysis, BALT publishers, Lafayette, Indiana, 1981.
[25] C.H. Tseng, W.C. Liao, T.C. Yang, Most Users Manual, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Chiao
Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC.

Kinematic Design of Four-Bar Linkages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kinematic Design of Four-Bar Linkages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kinematic and dynamic design of four-bar linkages by links

counterweighing with variable input speed

You might also like