MECH 343

Theory of Machines

LAB 4

Experiment 5: GOVERNOR APPARATUS

Experiment 6: CAM ANALYSIS

Massaissile Khelfaoui 40030292( CI-X)

Jiao Tang 40010691 (DI-X)

Yousef Meguid 40075611 (AI-X)

Concordia University

November 13​th​, 2020

Experiment 5: Governor Apparatus

Results

​Governor Apparatus

Sample Calculations:

Table 1: Tabulated results for the 4 sleeve apparatus

x h α tanα sinα ω​2 ω n(theory) n (test)

0 0.055 46.56746 1.056268 0.726184 220.6372 14.85386 141.8439 139

0.012 0.049 52.22951 1.290564 0.790471 254.7082 15.95958 152.4028 150

0.015 0.0475 53.57643 1.355199 0.80465 264.2499 16.25576 155.2311 150

0.018 0.046 54.90037 1.422875 0.818153 274.306 16.56219 158.1572 154

0.021 0.0445 56.20315 1.49396 0.831015 284.9383 16.88011 161.1932 162

0.03 0.04 60 1.732051 0.866025 321.0293 17.91729 171.0975 166

0.036 0.037 62.45145 1.917015 0.886619 349.5118 18.69523 178.5263 173

Table 2: Tabulated results for the 8 sleeve apparatus

x h α tanα sinα ω2 ω n(theory) n (test)

0 0.055 46.56746 1.056268 0.726184 300.8009 17.34361 165.6193 164

0.009 0.0505 50.85759 1.228641 0.775579 334.8677 18.29939 174.7463 172

0.012 0.049 52.22951 1.290564 0.790471 347.2508 18.63467 177.948 178

0.015 0.0475 53.57643 1.355199 0.80465 360.2592 18.98049 181.2504 181

0.021 0.0445 56.20315 1.49396 0.831015 388.4642 19.7095 188.2118 188

Graph 1: Plot of n theoretical and experimental vs linear displacement for 4 sleeves

Graph 2: Plot of n theoretical and experimental vs linear displacement for 8 sleeves

Graph 3: Angular velocity vs linear displacement of the governor apparatus simulation.

Discussion

When comparing the experimental results to the theoretical results, they are very closely
matched, however the theoretical line is more linear. In both cases, where there are 4 sleeves and 8
sleeves, as the governor begins motion, the values of n move linearly with respect to linear
displacement, around the linear displacement value of .1m, there is a hick up in the results. This seems
to be due to some sort of imperfections in the apparatus. however past the halfway point, the graphs
continue linearity.

When comparing these findings to the simulation, we find a similar linear trend for n with
respect to linear displacement. In the simulation the angular velocity is constant, while the sleeve
displaces a small distance, then there is a sudden commencement of a linear line due to the increase in
angular velocity. This was not found when doing the experiment due to the fact that the linear
displacement under the constant angular velocity was not detected and so the results found were solely
the linear portion of the plot.
Experiment 6: CAM ANALYSIS

Results and discussion:

Graph 4: Linear displacement of the top surface of the shaft linked with the cam

The cam assembly and motion analysis was a success. We can see that the total displacement of
the shaft is 0.101-0.075=0.026 meters. As we can see from the graph, the period is exactly 1 second
between every peak, which we can multiply by 60s to find that the RPM=60 which confirms the RPM
given in the motion analysis.

Graph 5: Linear displacement of the frontal surface of the shaft linked with the cam

As we can see from this graph, the linear displacement taken either from the top of the shaft or
from the frontal surface of the shaft will give the same result. The frontal surface is subject to the same
displacement as the top because it moves the same distance.
Graph 6: Velocity of the top surface of the shaft linked with the cam

The velocity of the shaft follows a heartbeat pattern and we can see that it reaches its maximum
velocity in the middle of its movement. Consequently, the shaft experiences zero velocity at the
complete top and bottom of its motion.

Graph 7: Acceleration of the top surface of the shaft linked with the cam

Graph 8: Angular displacement of the top surface of the shaft linked with the cam

The angular displacement of the top surface is equal to zero and this makes perfect sense
because the shaft is not rotating. The shaft follows a linear up and down movement which makes it
impossible to have any angular displacement.
Graph 9: Displacement given with data set

Cam dimensions:
 To determine the theoretical velocity, we have to do delta displacement over delta time. To
determine the theoretical acceleration, we take the delta velocity over delta time, however, for
acceleration we take a range of points of velocity and take the average to minimize the number of
random spikes in the values.

We have to use these formulas for the flank portion of the cam to determine the experimental
displacement, experimental velocity and experimental acceleration. These formulas must be used until
the roller reaches the position of 61.61 degrees.

The angular velocity w was determined by finding the period (T) of the experiment which is the
total time multiplied by 2. Once the period was found the angular velocity was easily solvable.

ω= 2×π
T

2×π
ω= 0.1848×2

ω = 16.99 rad/s

Then, we have to use the set of formulas below when the roller reaches the nose up until it
doesn’t contact it anymore. This means that the nose portion is between 61.61 degrees and 120
degrees.
 Once we reach 120 degrees, the roller contacts the cam flank and we have to go back using the
first set of formulas to determine the experimental displacement, velocity and acceleration.

Graph 10: Displacement vs time graph

When we compare the experimental and theoretical values for displacement, we can clearly see
that they are very close. The curve of the actual results almost perfectly matches the curve of the
theoretical values.

When we compare this graph to the displacement graph generated by Solidworks motion
analysis we can see that they are very similar also. It is possible to see that the total displacement is
around 0.25 meters with the whole period taking an approximative 1 second to complete
Graph 11: Velocity vs time graph

The experimental and theoretical velocities are also a perfect match. Except for some odd points
from the experimental data, but they can be ignored. The experimental values also tend to flatten out at
the beginning and at the end of the cycle which matches the data gathered through Solidworks. The
theoretical data doesn’t take into account the latency the system experiences between every period
that can be explained because of the geometrical shape of the cam.

Graph 12: Acceleration vs time graph

 The experimental and theoretical values are also closely matching for the acceleration. The
experimental curve has many fluctuating points whereas the theoretical curve is really flat. The curve
from the Solidworks motion analysis closely resembles the experimental curve.

Conclusion

The objective of this lab was to study the governor apparatus and to understand how the device
is used to maintain the angular speed of a machine, regardless of the load. The theory was in accordance
to our findings in this experiment, as the angular velocity increased linearly, regardless of the load it was
subjected to. The other experiment was the cam analysis and the objective was to study the
displacement, velocity and acceleration profile of a cam. The results found were that the displacement
of the follower was at a maximum when the top of the cam was in contact and at a minimum when the
bottom was in contact. Similarly the linear velocity was increasing in the positive direction as the
follower moved upwards, at the peak the velocity is zero, and then the follower proceeds with the same
linear velocity in the negative direction. Though the experimental results for acceleration were found to
be unreliable, the theoretical results showed that the acceleration was constant, and it was either
positive or negative depending on the direction of the follower.

Possible sources of errors during this experiment could've been from measuring errors when
noting down the angles and lengths. As for the simulation, using improper units when switching
between solid works tabs to create and evaluate different parts, as the default units are always selected
unless otherwise selected. Another source could be mates, sometimes not all the mates are defined
correctly which can lead to rebuild errors. Finally selecting the wrong direction to analyze motion. It is
important to ensure the direction of motion sought to study corresponds with the X-Y-Z axis of the
assembly. Sometimes different designs can lead to different references and it is important the motion
study is adjusted accordingly.