0
Research Papers

Comparison of Various Dynamic Balancing Principles Regarding Additional Mass and Additional Inertia

[+] Author and Article Information
Volkert van der Wijk

Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlandsv.vanderwijk@kineticart.nl

Just L. Herder

Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlandsj.l.herder@tudelft.nl

Bram Demeulenaere

 Atlas Copco Airpower NV, Boomsesteenweg 957, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium; Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300B, 3001 Heverlee, Belgiumbram.demeulenaere@be.atlascopco.com

J. Mechanisms Robotics 1(4), 041006 (Sep 17, 2009) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3211022 History: Received November 03, 2008; Revised June 05, 2009; Published September 17, 2009

The major disadvantage of existing dynamic balancing principles is that a considerable amount of mass and inertia is added to the system. The objectives of this article are to summarize, to compare, and to evaluate existing complete balancing principles regarding the addition of mass and the addition of inertia and to introduce a normalized indicator to judge the balancing performance regarding the addition of mass and inertia. The balancing principles are obtained from a survey of literature and applied to a double pendulum for comparison, both analytically and numerically. The results show that the duplicate mechanisms principle has the least addition of mass and also a low addition of inertia and is most advantageous for low-mass and low-inertia dynamic balancing if available space is not a limiting factor. Applying countermasses and separate counter-rotations with or without an idler loop both increase the mass and inertia considerably, with idler loop being the better of the two. Using the force-balancing countermasses also as moment-balancing counterinertias leads to significantly less mass addition as compared with the use of separate counter-rotations. For low transmission ratios, also the addition of inertia then is smaller.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

General double pendulum, connected to the base at O

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Simplified double pendulum with lumped mass

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Balanced double pendulum by using counter-rotary countermasses with k1=k2=−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Balanced double pendulum by using countermasses and separate counter-rotations at the base with k1=k2=−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Balanced double pendulum by using an idler loop with k1=k2=−4

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Balanced double pendulum by using axial and mirror symmetric mechanism duplicates

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Approach to dynamic balancing can be classified as balancing the links individually or the mechanism altogether; balancing links individually is done by using counter-rotary countermasses or by using countermasses and separate counter-rotations

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In