23-Mechatronics-A5 Mechanical Design · December 2019
Question 2 of 10
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
16-Mex-A5 — Kinematics and Dynamics of Machines · National Exams, December 2019 · 3 hours, open book · Part A: Q1 compulsory, choose 3 of Q2–Q6; Part B: choose 1 of Q7/Q8. Every question is solved below for study purposes.
Reference texts: Norton, Design of Machinery (mechanism DOF, Grashof, velocity/acceleration analysis, cam design, balancing, gear trains); Wilson & Sadler, Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery; Rao, Mechanical Vibrations (Q7–Q8).
Check: Several figures on this paper are hand-drawn, to-scale sketches with no printed dimensions (Q1a/b, Q2, Q3, Q6). Pin locations and link lengths were digitised directly from the printed figure and are reported. Absolute lengths for Q3 assume the stated "Scale 1:10" maps drawn millimetres to real millimetres (a labelling convention, not printed on the page); ratios and angular results (ω, α, Grashof class) do not depend on this assumption. The 8-gear train topology in Q6 (which planet meshes which sun/ring) is likewise read from the cross-section drawing; the specific combination adopted is the only one of the readings tried that gives a physically consistent (non locked) gear train.
(b) Eight-bar mechanism — transmission angles and Grashof classification
Given. Two four-bar loops share a common frame and are linked by a floating binary connecting rod (link 5): Loop I = {ground, link 2 (crank, driven by $\omega_2$), the ternary coupler link 4, link 3 (rocker, grounded)}; Loop II = {ground, link 7 (rocker, grounded), the ternary coupler link 6, link 8 (output rocker, grounded)}. Pin coordinates were digitised from the 1:2 scale drawing.
Find. The transmission angle at every coupler–rocker joint that carries motion from link 2 to link 8, and the Grashof type of each of the two four-bar loops.
Fig. 1(b) — the two four-bar loops (ground–2–4–3 and ground–7–6–8) joined by the binary connecting link 5 between the coupler apexes. The transmission angles $\mu_1,\mu_2$ that matter for effective torque transfer are marked at the two coupler–rocker pins.
Approach. $\omega_2$ enters Loop I at link 2, is carried by the rigid ternary link 4 to link 5, crosses to link 6 and drives Loop II's output rocker link 8. Motion transfer is efficient (low bearing/friction loss, no danger of locking) only where the transmission angle μ — the angle between the coupler and the driven rocker at their shared pin — stays clear of 0°/180°; the two joints that matter are therefore the coupler–rocker pin in each loop.
Digitise the four pivots of each loop:
Loop I: $G_A=(216,318)$ (link 2's ground), $J_A=(188,275)$ (link2–link4), $J_B=(233,258)$ (link4–link3), $G_B=(271,310)$ (link 3's ground).
Loop II: $G_C=(347,293)$ (link7's ground), $J_C=(403,260)$ (link7–link6), $J_D=(433,297)$ (link6–link8), $G_D=(420,340)$ (link 8's ground).
Loop I link lengths and Grashof sum:
$$L_{\text{ground}}=|G_AG_B|=55.6,\quad L_2=|G_AJ_A|=51.3,\quad L_4=|J_AJ_B|=48.1,\quad L_3=|J_BG_B|=64.4$$
Sorted: $S=48.1$ (shortest, link 4), $L=64.4$ (longest, link 3), $P+Q=51.3+55.6=106.9$.
$$S+L = 48.1+64.4 = 112.5 \;>\; P+Q = 106.9$$
Loop II link lengths and Grashof sum:
$$L_{\text{ground}}=|G_CG_D|=86.8,\quad L_7=|G_CJ_C|=65.0,\quad L_6=|J_CJ_D|=47.6,\quad L_8=|J_DG_D|=44.9$$
Sorted: $S=44.9$ (link 8), $L=86.8$ (ground), $P+Q=65.0+47.6=112.6$.
$$S+L = 44.9+86.8 = 131.7 \;>\; P+Q = 112.6$$
Apply the Grashof criterion $S+L$ vs $P+Q$ to both loops: in both cases $S+L>P+Q$, so
$$\boxed{\text{Loop I and Loop II are both non-Grashof (Class III, "triple-rocker")}}$$
No link in either loop can complete a full revolution; link 2's $\omega_2$ arrow is valid only as the instantaneous angular velocity at the drawn position, not as a sustained full rotation.
Transmission angle, Loop I (at $J_B$, between the coupler link 4 direction $J_A\!\to\!J_B$ and the rocker link 3 direction $J_B\!\to\!G_B$):
$$\vec u = J_B-J_A = (45,-17), \qquad \vec v = G_B-J_B=(38,52)$$
$$\mu_1=\cos^{-1}\!\left(\frac{\vec u\cdot\vec v}{|\vec u||\vec v|}\right) = \boxed{74.5^{\circ}}$$
Transmission angle, Loop II (at $J_D$, between coupler link 6 direction $J_C\!\to\!J_D$ and output rocker link 8 direction $J_D\!\to\!G_D$):
$$\vec u = J_D-J_C=(30,37), \qquad \vec v = G_D-J_D=(-13,43)$$
$$\mu_2=\cos^{-1}\!\left(\frac{\vec u\cdot\vec v}{|\vec u||\vec v|}\right) = \boxed{55.9^{\circ}}$$
Both angles sit comfortably inside the recommended $45^\circ\text{–}135^\circ$ window, so at the drawn configuration motion transfers efficiently through both loops even though neither is a true crank-rocker.
Quantity
Value
Loop I (ground–2–4–3): $S+L$ vs $P+Q$
112.5 > 106.9 → non-Grashof
Loop II (ground–7–6–8): $S+L$ vs $P+Q$
131.7 > 112.6 → non-Grashof
Transmission angle $\mu_1$ (link4–link3 @ $J_B$)
74.5°
Transmission angle $\mu_2$ (link6–link8 @ $J_D$)
55.9°
Check: pivot coordinates were read from a hand-drawn, 1:2-scale sketch to about ±2–3 units. Loop I's margin ($112.5$ vs $106.9$, ≈5%) is close enough that a differently-drawn original could in principle classify as Grashof; Loop II's margin (≈17%) is robust. The classification method and the transmission-angle construction are exact regardless of this measurement tolerance.