Solid Mechanics (MECH1230) Kinematics of plane mechanics (Slider

Crank) 
  
Oliver watts  
Student Names:   Dhyey Kataria   Jacob Temple  
     
  
Rayan Salloum     
  
  
201680709   201553548   201593024  
Student ID:   
201613057        

  

Group Number:   Tm -2 – group 2      

 
  
  
When  2022/23: Semester 1/3  

MECH 1230  
Module Number  
  

Title of Coursework Item   Kinematics of plane mechanics 

Name of Lecturer Concerned  Dr. Ida Shafagh  

  
  
STUDENT DECLARATION (taken to include the “LU Declaration of Academic Integrity”)  
I am aware that the University defines plagiarism as presenting someone else’s work, in whole or in part, as your own.  Work means any
intellectual output, and typically includes text, data, images, sound or performance.   
On the understanding that other members of the group have made contributions to the attached submission, I promise that in the
attached submission I have not presented anyone else’s work, in whole or in part, as my own and I have not colluded with others in the
preparation of this work.  Where I have taken advantage of the work of others, I have given full acknowledgement.  I have not resubmitted
my own work or part thereof without specific written permission to do so from the University staff concerned when any of this work has
been or is being submitted for marks or credits even if in a different module or for a different qualification or completed prior to entry to
the University.  I have read and understood the University’s published rules on plagiarism and also any more detailed rules specified at
School or module level. I know that if I commit plagiarism I can be expelled from the University and that it is my responsibility to be aware
of the University’s regulations on plagiarism and their importance.  
I re-confirm my consent to the University copying and distributing any or all of my work in any form and using third parties (who may be
based outside the EU/EEA) to monitor breaches of regulations, to verify whether my work contains plagiarised material, and for quality
assurance purposes.  
I confirm that I have declared all mitigating circumstances that may be relevant to the assessment of this piece of work and that I wish to
have taken into account.  I am aware of the University’s policy on mitigation and the school’s procedures for the submission of statements
and evidence of mitigation.  I am aware of the penalties imposed for the late submission of coursework.  
  
  
Copy e-signature or type full name here:     
Oliver Watts 

  ABSTRACT 
The experiment that has been conducted serves the aim of optimizing the amount of linear
motion that can be obtained through the conversion of circular motion via a slider-crank
mechanism. By altering the parametric of the connecting rod that joins the slider and the
crank, through the methodology given in the below report to 0.5 times the original length
and 2x the original length. While the real word application of the slider-crank may call for a
variety of speeds it has been found that the larger the radius of the crank, the greater the
speed of the slider (linear motion). 
 
 
INTRODUCTION   
 
 
Slider-crank mechanism 
The slider-crank mechanism is one of the simplest mechanisms, however, it is implemented
very abundantly. The purpose of the apparatus is to transfer between rotational and linear
oscillating motion, most commonly in the order of linear to rotational. Referring to Figure 1,
the object at B will oscillate one-dimensionally at constant amplitude. With sufficient
frequency, the momentum of the object at A will be sufficient to result in a constant circular
motion about O, in an ideal situation. This is the process that allows periodic linear work at B
to be converted to rotational output torque.  
 

 
Figure 1 - Slider crank diagram (Elnaga, 2021) 
AIM AND OBJECTIVES 
The objectives of this experiment are to analyze the behavior of a slider crank, to conduct
parametric analysis based on mathematical models of the mechanism and to gain
experience in teamwork. 
 
1. To analyse the behaviour of a chosen mechanism using computational methods and
comment on the realities of the analysis.   
2. To conduct a simple parametric analysis based on a mathematical model of the
mechanism.   
3. To gain experience of teamwork and delegation of responsibility within the team  
 
Applications of the mechanism 
 
Internal combustion engine 
The most common use of the slider-crank mechanism is the piston engine. This is an
example of a linear to rotational conversion. While there are many uses for this application,
the automotive industry is the largest and the 4-stroke engine is dominant. Here the piston
has linear motion, the crankshaft translates the rotational torque, and the connecting rod is
the line connecting the two. For this engine, fuel enters the piston chamber, is compressed,
ignited, and then ejected. This results in a power stroke (ignition) occurring for every two
revolutions of the crankshaft. Commonly multiple pistons are used to increase the power
output of the engine. These will each have different power stroke timings to provide
smoother power delivery.  

 
Figure 2 - Internal combustion engine (CARID, 2018) 
 
 
Rotary hammer drill 
This is an example of converting rotational to linear motion. A standard drill relies simply on
rotation of the drill bit and force applied by the user to cut through material. However, for a
rotary hammer drill, another motor powers an oscillating piston that produces a hammer
action on the rotating drill bit. This means as you attempt to drill through the object, there is
a high-frequency impact on the material that allows the user to cut through harder
materials with more ease. 
 

 
Figure 3 - Rotary hammer drill (H et al., 2019) 
 

Experimental mechanism 
Figure 4 shows the apparatus used to experiment the behaviour of the mechanism.  
List of the numerical values of the mechanism parameters: 
  p1 (angle caused by connecting rod and crankshaft)-> varies from 0o to 360o   
 p2 (total length of crankshaft and connecting rod)-> 95 mm (original
parameter), 85 mm (0.5*original parameter) and 115 mm (2*original
parameter)  
 a1 (length of crankshaft) -> 20 mm (original parameter), 10 mm (0.5*original
parameter) and 40 mm (2*original parameter)  
 a2 (length of connecting rod) -> 75 mm (constant)  
 q2 (angle of crankshaft bearing) -> varies from 0o to 360o  
 
 

 
Figure 4 - Apparatus used for the experiment 
 
Methodology 
The mechanism was started in a position where the ruler on the linear part and the circular
degrees both were 0. From here the mechanism was rotated by 30 degrees increments for
360 degrees, and the linear position was noted down. By taking the equation given for the
displacement of the slider and differentiating it, the theoretical velocity and acceleration
could be obtained. To identify the experimental values, a time increment system could be
used where there was a constant ‘dt’ value dependant on our angular velocity.  
(
t=θω�=𝜃𝜔
) 
 
 
Computational, theoretical data  
 
Using MATLAB, it was possible to identify the theoretical values of displacement, velocity,
and acceleration at each angle for a specific, constant angular velocity. This could then be
tested using an experimental approach.  
 
The functions/equations are as follows,1 
 
Displacement:
a1cos(q)
+a2cos[sin−1(−a1sin(q)a2)]�1����+�2������−1−�1�����2
 
Velocity:
−a1sin(q)− a21ωsin(q)cos(q)a21−a21sin2(q)a22√−�1����− 
�12����������21−�12���2��22
 
Acceleration:
a21ω2sin2(q)
−a21ω2cos2(q)a21−a21sin2(q)a22√−a21ω2sin2(q)cos2(q)a32(1−a21sin2(q)a22)32/−a1ω2cos(q)�12�
2���2�−�12�2���2��21−�12���2��22−�12�2���2����2�
�231−�12���2��2232−�1�2����
                   
 

 
 All
the graphs closely follow a sinusoidal shape. This is to be expected as all the equations
above are mixes of sine (a cosine) function variations and their derivatives. Furthermore, the
displacement graph is purely negative, which is expected as the slider of the mechanism is
always positioned to one side of the crankshaft. As the displacement graph appears to relate
to a cosine function, the similarity of the velocity graph and a sine curve is expected, and
apparent. Additionally, it is therefore expected that the acceleration graph will correlate to
a negative cosine function, which again can be seen in the graph.   
 
Experimental data 
 
The experimental data is used to test the theoretical data’s validity. This was based off the
displacement of the slider at each angle recorded, and the time taken to reach that point.
This gave an estimate of the motion which can then be checked with the theoretical data.     

 
  

 
The experimental graphs all produce approximately the expected results. The displacement
curve is remarkably similar to the theoretical data and there is truly slight difference
between the two. However, with each order of differentiation, the graphs increasingly differ
from their theoretical counterparts. The velocity graph, while remaining largely sinusoidal,
shows imperfections, such as at the peaks and at the start of the curve. At the peaks, the
curves flatten out. This is because there is no data point at the peak of the graph, so the two
surrounding points both act as the peak. To solve this, data should be taken at intervals of
15° instead of 30°. While the acceleration data still has some similarity to a negative cosine
curve, there is large discrepancy at the start between 0° and 60°. This also results in the
graph being offset from the theoretical data and the peak lying further than the expected
180°. This discrepancy is therefore likely due to a systematic error. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Parametric Study 
 
By changing different parameters, these calculations can be altered to work with other
systems with different sized parts and angular velocities. To investigate this, the lengths that
were inputted to the MATLAB code simply need to be altered. In this study, the parameter
altered was a2 and it was varied between multipliers of 0.5-2. 

 
As shown above, the peak acceleration for the graph of the 2 times parameter sits just below 7000
mm/s2 whereas the peak for the graph of the 0.5 times parameter sits at about 1250 mm/s2. The
shape of the graph is a sinusoid, but it does not perfectly subscribe to any particular trigonometric
function, this is due to the fact that in the acceleration equation shown above there are multiple sine
and cosine functions multiplied by each other which the lower extremes to be slightly skewed. The
peaks for the theoretical graphs are also observably higher than the experimental graphs across all
respective parametrics 
 
  
Discussion 
When observing the results obtained in the above graphs for the experimental data and theoretical
data for the original parameter, there is minimal observable difference in the obtained values for
displacement and hence the overall shape of the graph. There is a mild discrepancy for velocity
which appears to be slightly offset and lacking clear peaks. Acceleration further differs and the offset
is much more apparent, implying a systematic error has occurred. However other than these issues,
the graphs show large similarity after comparison, particularly in their shape. This can be made
evident by similar peak values across graphs for displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Both
graphs have a peak displacement of about -95mm, a peak velocity of about ±200mm/s, and a peak
acceleration of roughly 2500mm/s2. The minimal discrepancy of the shapes of graph imply that the
data was collected accurately, but not necessarily precisely. However, there are a few imperfections
to the experimental data’s shape displaying some inaccuracy. There are many potential sources of
error which are as follows. 
Wear and tear 
Firstly, due to the forces of friction acting on all components of the crank-slider mechanism, with the
movement that occurs there will undoubtedly be wear that takes place during the experiment. This
means that, as the wear increases, the entirety of the circular motion will not be converted solely
into linear motion as such the data obtained from the experiment will be slightly misaligned with the
theoretical data. 
Random error 
There are some errors that occur at unexpected times in measuring of the data that could have
many attributing factors. In the context of the slider-crank mechanism, one key reason other than
the above mentioned one is that the actual rotating mechanism may have design faults from the
factory that may mean that at certain angles more force is required to turn the handle which could
result in skewed results. Despite the nature of these errors being very uncertain and hard to predict,
the simplicity of the experiment means that random error is minimized as there are very few
variables that need to be controlled and as such the experiment can be conducted accurately with
ease. 
Precision of instruments  
Perhaps the largest cause for a lack of precision is the nature of the measuring tools that have been
provided with the slider-crank mechanism. As these were only accurate to the nearest degree, there
could have been sizeable discrepancies that have arisen as a result of the imprecision of the
instruments, since theoretical data will be infinitely more precise than experimental data regardless
of the instrument used; it would be most advisable to improve the accuracy of the experiment by
using digital gauges and calipers for both the angle of the crank as well as the displacement of the
slider, by doing this the experimental results could become even closer to the theoretical results as
this is likely to be the largest factor contributing to the slight discrepancy. 
Another systematic error that could have caused a lack of precision during the experiment is a zero-
offset error, a systematic error which is a consistently incorrect reading from the apparatus due to
the manufacturing process of the mechanism. This could explain why the graph is shifted in the y-
direction, and also explain larger discrepancies in the start of the acceleration and velocity graphs.
This is likely the most impactive error source. 
Conclusion 
This experiment has produced a wider understanding of the slider-crank mechanism and
how the sliders motion changes with steady rotation of the crankshaft. Particular findings
from the experiment however are as follows 
 While using the displacement at different angles of the crankshaft, and the
time taken between each interval provides a good approximation of the
displacement, using this method to calculate the velocity and acceleration results
in too much inaccuracy. 
 The most prevalent error encountered with the equipment provided was the
systematic error, the zero-error. 
 Altering the size of the radius of the circular path of the parameter a1 has a
large impact on the acceleration of the slider. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Bibliography 
Elnaga, M.A. 2021. Week 2. fabacademy.org. [Online]. [Accessed 28 January 2023].
Available from: http://fabacademy.org/2021/labs/egypt/students/mahmoud-
aboelnaga/week2.html. 
CARID 2018. Security Check. www.carid.com. [Online]. [Accessed 28 January 2023].
Available from: https://www.carid.com/articles/how-does-internal-combustion-
engine-work.html#:~:text=An%20engine%20that%20uses%20liquid. 
H, Src="https://Secure.gravatar.com/Avatar/B88ae55604aa62c263cb8c25296b8312?s=50,
Y., #038;d=mm, H, 038;r=g width="50" height="50">Family, Jul. 06 and 2022 2019.
Differences Between a Hammer Drill and Rotary Hammer. Family Handyman.
[Online]. [Accessed 28 January 2023]. Available from:
https://www.familyhandyman.com/article/drilling-into-concrete-tools-rotary-
hammers-and-hammer-drills/#figure-a-inside-a-hammer-drill.