THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL TRAINING

REPORT
BALANCING AND SHAPE SYNTHESIS OF LINKS
IN PLANAR MECHANISMS

Hoang Mai Trung

School of Mechanical Engineering, Thai Nguyen University of
Technology, 3-2 Road, Tich Luong District, Thai Nguyen City,
Thai Nguyen, Vietnam.
* e-mail: k175905218022@tnut.edu.vn *
Instructor: MSc. Nguyen Thi Thanh Nga
Lecturer of Faculty of International Training, Thai Nguyen
University of Technology
 Table of Contents and Figure
I. Introduction..........................................................................................................4
II. Literature review...................................................................................................5
1. Planar four-bar mechanism .................................................................................................................5
Fig. 1. Four-bar mechanism detached from its frame.[1].................................................................... 5
Fig. 2. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment without converting link #2 into physical
pendulum: Case (1), (2), (5) and (6); with link #2 as physical pendulum: Case (3) and (4).[1].......... 7
Fig. 3. Variations of driving torque without converting link #2 into physical pendulum: Case (1), (2),
(5) and (6); with link #2 as physical pendulum: Case (3) and (4).[1] ..................................................8
Fig. 4. Performances using different balancing methods.[4,5] ..........................................................13
Fig. 5. Performances using different radius of gyration limits.[4,5] ..................................................14
Fig. 6. Performance using different weight factors for same radius of gyration.[4,5] .......................15
Fig. 7. Dynamic performance of the Hoeken’s mechanism, case (a) normalized driving torque, (b)
normalized shaking force, (c) normalized shaking moment to fixed point O1.[6] ............................17
Fig. 8 Balancing of planar four-bar mechanism using three counterweights (Tricamo and Lowen,
1983a,b).[7]...................................................................................................................................... 18
2. Planar five-bar mechanism ...............................................................................................................18
Fig. 9. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment for complete cycle for planar five-bar
mechanism.[8] ..................................................................................................................................19
Fig. 10. Planar five-bar mechanism detached from its frame.[8]...................................................... 20
3. Planar Stephenson six-bar mechanism ......................................................................................20
Fig. 11. Original and optimized link shapes of five-bar mechanism [figure drawn on scale].[9] ......21
4. Planar slider-crank mechanism .........................................................................................................22
Fig. 12. Original and optimized link shapes for planar slider-crank mechanism [figure drawn on
scale].[11] .........................................................................................................................................22
Fig. 13. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment for complete crank cycle for slider-crank
mechanism.[11] ................................................................................................................................23
Fig. 14. Planar slider-crank mechanism.[12] ....................................................................................24
Fig. 15. Comparison of different cases for shaking force and shaking moment.[12]........................ 25
Fig. 16. Variations in shaking force and shaking moment for complete cycle.[12] ..........................26

III. Conclusion.........................................................................................................27
IV.References..........................................................................................................28
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank the teacher and everyone who guided me to complete this
project. Thank you for everything. I would like to express the deepest appreciation
to my supervisor, Nguyen Thi Thanh Nga, who has helped and guided in this
subject and worked on this project. Without her guidance and persistent help, this
project would not have been easyly completed. One time again, I thank to Nguyen
Thi Thanh Nga from who have been guiding and helping in undertaking this
project.

ABSTRACT
The linkage balancing problem is an old problem to reduce amplitude of
vibration of the frame due to shaking forces and moments which in turn cause
noise, wear, fatigue, etc.; and to smoothen highly fluctuating input-torque needed
to obtain nearly constant drive speed. However, the problem has faced new
challenges, particularly, in balancing the combined shaking forces, shaking
moments, and input-torque fluctuations in the design of high-speed machinery. The
methods of balancing linkages are well developed and documented .Most of the
techniques are based on mass redistribution, addition of counterweights to the
moving links ,and attachment of rotating disks or duplication of the linkages
.These methods have dealt with forces involved, or the momentum fluctuations in
the linkages.
I. Introduction
A planar mechanism consists of links which are said to move only in
parallel planes. When planar mechanisms comprise only lower pair joints
(revolute and prismatic pairs), they are called planar linkages. The balancing is
very important because it helps links in planar mechanisms to reduce shaking
force and find the optimine shape synthesis of links.

Without considering the interface between a mechanism and its mounting

frame, design of that mechanism cannot be completed. During the time that an
unbalanced linkage moves, it transmits shaking forces and moments to its
surroundings. These transmitted forces and moments may cause some serious
and undesirable problems such as vibration, noise, wear, and fatigue. These
disturbances cause vibrations and therefore limit the full potential of many
machines. Therefore, several methods are developed to eliminate the shaking
forces and shaking moments in planar mechanisms.

Several methods to reduce the shaking force and shaking moment based on
various principles . The complete force balancing can be achieved by making
the total mass center of moving links stationary either using mass redistribution
or by adding counterweights. Force balancing and trajectory tracking are
achieved in a five-bar real-time controllable mechanism using adjusting
kinematics parameter approach. Instead of complete balance of shaking force
and shaking moment, some methods are developed to minimize them
simultaneously through optimization. The conventional optimization technique
is used to optimally balance the planar four-bar mechanismand to analyze the
sensitivity of shaking force and shaking moment to the design variables.

This research present literature review of some methods to balance the

shaking force and shaking moment in the planar mechanism and we will take
an example of the most common mechanism, the four-bar mechanism, five-bar
mechanism, six-bar mechanism and the slide-crank mechanism to explain how
to method application for theses.
II. Literature review
1. Planar four-bar mechanism
H. Chaudhary, S.K. Saha el at.(1) using maximum recursive dynamic algorithm
for balancing of four-bar linkages ,a numerical problem of planar four-bar
mechanism [2,3] as shown in Fig. 1 is solved using the method proposed.

Fig. 1. Four-bar mechanism detached from its frame.[1]

The link length, mass and other geometric parameters of the unbalanced
mechanism are given in Table 1

Table 1. Original parameters of four-bar mechanism.

Link Length Mass Moment of di θi

i ai (m) mi (kg) inertia (m) (°)

1 0.1 0.392 0.0014 0.5 0

2 0.4 1.570 0.0841 0.20 0
3 0.3 1.177 0.0356 0.15 0
0 0.3 ∑moi= 3.139 -
This Four-bar mechanism has 6 different cases are investigated to balance :

+ In case (1), in order to make full force balancing, the weighting

factors, w1 and w2, are taken as 1 and 0, respectively,

in Eq: Minimize Z=w1fsh,rms+ w2nsh,rms

Link #1 and link #3 are considered for mass redistribution keeping link #2
intact.

+ In case (2), the simultaneous minimization of force and moment is

considered taking the weighting factors, w1 and w2, as 0.5. In this case, the
point-masses of all three links are chosen to find their optimum mass
distribution.

+ Investigate the effect of this conversion, the cases (1) and (2) are
repeated after making link #2 as the physical pendulum and reported

as cases (3) and (4).

+ In Case (5), the mechanism balancing is achieved without changing the

original link masses

+ Balancing using non-symmetric shapes is presented as Case (6).

Comparison of original RMS values and peak values of shaking force and shaking
moment with those of optimum values.

Fig. 2. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment without converting link #2
into physical pendulum: Case (1), (2), (5) and (6); with link #2 as physical
pendulum: Case (3) and (4).[1]
 Fig. 3. Variations of driving torque without converting link #2 into physical
pendulum: Case (1), (2), (5) and (6); with link #2 as physical pendulum:
Case (3) and (4).[1]

In original mechanism have shaking force have RMS equal 5.9604, peak
equal 11.8837 ; shaking moment have RMS equal 10.7250, Peak equal 12.3939
and finally driving torque have RMS equal 3.0588 , Peak equal 5.0480. Base on
the original mechanism divide values of dynamic quantities in the original and
optimized mechanisms in six case.

In case 1 : when w1 = 1, w2 = 0 to keeping link #2 intact , it’s force balance

have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 0.0087 (−99.85%)

Peak equal 0.3395 (−97.14%)

+ shaking moment have RMS equal 16.1133 (+50.24%)

Peak equal 16.3722 (+32.10%)

 + driving torque have RMS equal 5.4359 (+77.71%)

Peak equal 9.4000 (+86.21%)

In case 2 : w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5, all links are considered . It’s force and moment
balance have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 2.9620 (−50.31%)

Peak equal 4.4830 (−62.27%)

+ shaking moment have RMS equal 3.4484 (−67.85%)

Peak equal 5.1770 (−58.23%)

+ driving torque have RMS equal 0.8769 (−71.33%)

Peak equal 1.6990 (−66.34%)

In case 3 : w1 = 1, w2 = 0; Link #2 is made as physical pendulum

and then kept intact. It’s force balance have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 0.0688 (−99.85%)

Peak equal 0.1861 (−98.43%)

+ shaking moment have RMS equal 27.1472 (+153.12%)

Peak equal 30.6055 (+146.94%)

+ driving torque have RMS equal 8.7761 (+186.91%)

Peak equal 15.7899 (+212.79%)

In case 4 : w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5: Link #2 is made as physical pendulum

and then all links are considered. It’s Force and moment balance have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 4.0330 (−37.34%)

Peak equal 6.3998 (−46.15%)

 + shaking moment have RMS equal 5.9502 (−44.52%)

Peak equal 8.5520 (−30.99%)

+ driving torque have RMS equal 1.5747 (−48.52%)

Peak equal 3.0076 (−40.42%)

In case 5 : w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5: Keeping link masses unchanged. It’s force and
moment balance have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 4.3761 (−27.66%)

Peak equal 7.2856 (−38.69%)

+ shaking moment have RMS equal 5.5974 (−48.12%)

Peak equal 6.7374 (−45.64%)

+ driving torque have RMS equal 1.5819 (−48.49%)

Peak equal 2.7111 (−46.29%)

In case 6 : w1 = 0.5, w2 = 0.5: Non-symmetrical shapes, it’s force and

moment balance have

+ shaking force have RMS equal 4.0172 (−32.95%)

Peak equal 7.4941 (−36.94%)

+ shaking moment have RMS equal 6.3747 (−40.59%)

Peak equal 7.4163 (−40.16%)

+ driving torque have RMS equal 1.7958 (−41.30%)

Peak equal 2.9809 (−40.95%)

 Berkof and Lowen el at. [4] and Lee and Cheng el at. [5] present a four-bar
linkage that has been optimized in [4,5] referred here as the standard four-bar
linkage whose link’s length proportions, masses, and the moment of inertia about
the centre of gravity are given in Table 2. Its optimized parameters are given in
Table 3. In order to show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm the same
linkage is optimized the driving torque, the shaking force and moment are obtained
using the optimized values of the proposed methodology, and those reported in
Berkof and Lowen [4], and Lee and Cheng [5].

Table 2 Link proportions and inertial properties of the standard linkage

Moment of inertia
Link number Link proportions Mass of links (kg) about centre of
(ai/a1) gravity (kg-m2)
1 1 0.04585 0.6733 x10-5
2 2 0.05317 0.3013 x10-4
3 3 0.06602 0.6768 x10-4
4 3n
a1 = 0.0254 m. a In [12], it is 3.695

Table 3 Parameters of standard linkage and balance parameters for different

methods

Balancing p11 p12 p21 p22 p31 p32 I1 I2 I3

method
Standard 0.500 0.000 1.160 0.000 2.160 0.000 0.580 2.178 5.528
linkage
Berkof and -0.580 0.000 -1.160a 0.000 -1.740 0.000 1.594 2.178 8.340
Lowen [12]
Lee and -1.160 -0.006 0.203 -0.406 0.615 0.441 0.812 0.928 2.320
Cheng [13]
Case-I -1.234 0.000 0.0174 -0.075 0.243 0.128 2.411 0.295 0.862
Case-II 0.500 0.000 1.160 0.000 2.160 0.000 0.580 2.178 5.528
Case-III -1.244 -0.002 -0.005 -0.089 0.244 0.125 2.543 0.297 0.862
Case-IV -1.373 -0.005 0.007 -0.215 0.485 0.239 2.886 0.790 2.273
Case-V -1.488 -0.008 0.029 -0.305 0.059 0.288 3.214 1.241 3.539
 Table 4 RMS values of dynamic quantities of standard and balanced linkages

Balancing method (k i,min,k i,max) RMS values

Driving torque Shaking force Shaking
momenta
Standard linkage Not available 0.8614 2.0599 2.3384
Berkof and Lowen [12]: Not available 0.7497 (-13)b 0.000 (-100) 4.0111 (72)
r1 = 0.5; r1 = 0.5
Lee and Cheng [13]: r1 Not available 0.1693 (-80) 0.2908 (-86) 0.5344 (-77)
= 0.5; r1 = 0.5
Case-I: r1 = 1.0; (ai/4, ai) 0.0587 (-93) 0.0881 (-95) 0.2333 (-90)
r1 = 0.0
Case-II: r1 = 0.0; (ai/4, ai) 0.8614 (00) 2.0599 (00) 2.3384 (00)
r1 = 1.0
Case-III: r1 = 0.5; (ai/4, ai) 0.0496 (-94) 0.0840 (-96) 0.2310 (-90)
r1 = 0.5
Case-IV: r1 = 0.5; (ai/2.5, ai) 0.1413 (-83) 0.2064 (-90) 0.7296-69)
r1 = 0.5
Case-V: r1 = 0.5; (ai/2, ai) 0.2340 (-73) 0.3189 -84) 1.2715 (-46)
r1 = 0.5
Fig. 4. Performances using different balancing methods.[4,5]
Fig. 5. Performances using different radius of gyration limits.[4,5]
Fig. 6. Performance using different weight factors for same radius of gyration.[4,5]

The purpose to use different weighting factors is to investigate the influence

of bearing forces and driving torque on the over-all dynamic performances.
Numerical values of all the balancing parameters obtained for various methods are
shown in Table 3. The RMS (root mean square) values of the dynamic
characteristics for the different cases are compared with the reported optimized
characteristics [4,5] in Table 4.
 The comparison in Table 4 shows that among five cases, Case-III is optimum.
For instance, the RMS value of the shaking moment shows reduction of 90% over
the standard linkage, while other methods, namely, Berkof and Lowen [4], and Lee
and Cheng [5], there is an increase of 72% and reduction of 77%, respectively:

For the RMS driving torque, Case-III gives reduction of 94% as compared to
the reduction of 13% and 80% in [4] and [5], respectively. Fig. 4 shows a
comparison of the different performance parameters of the optimum linkage of this
investigation, i.e., Case-III, with those reported in [4] and [5], and the standard
linkage. The effect of the moment of inertia bounds on the dynamical quantities is
shown in Fig. 5, which shows Linkage-III is optimum. The comparison of Cases
III–V show that the lower limits on the moment of inertia, i.e., the radius of
gyration, improves the dynamic performances. Moreover, Fig. 6 shows the
comparison between the quantities using different weighting factors. This also
provides the optimum performance parameters for Case-III. The dynamic
parameters of Case-IV are comparable to that of Lee and Cheng [5].

Lowen et al. [6] investigated the effect of force balancing on bearing

reactions, input-torque, and the shaking moment in a family of four-bar linkages.
They had shown that the bearing reactions, input-torque as well as the shaking
moment increase up to 50 percent in most of the case. The conclusions of Lowen et
al. [6] suggest that only force balancing is not effective, and the balancing of
mechanism requires trade-off among various dynamic quantities.
 Fig. 7. Dynamic performance of the Hoeken’s mechanism, case (a) normalized
driving torque, (b) normalized shaking force, (c) normalized shaking moment to
fixed point O1.[6]
We have magnitudes of the shaking force and shaking moment occurred
during motion cycle are minimum when equal weight is given to both the
quantities as shown by bold numbers. Total mass of the mechanism is minimum or
increase very little in cases a(1)–a(3), whereas it increases twofold or more in cases
b(1)–b(3). This is because point-masses may take negative value in problem (a).
This is obtained at a cost of displacing the centres of masses of links far away from
the designed link origins. For example, in cases a(2) and b(2), the location of the
mass centre of link 3, i.e., d3, is 5.3554 and 0.8759, respectively, which are about
4.2 and 0.7 times higher than that of its original value 1.25. It is not necessary that
the point-masses are positives. The conditions, that a set of positive and negative
point-masses represent a realizable link, are the total mass and moment of inertia
about axes through the centre of mass must be positive.
 Tricamo and Lowen (1983a, b) at el.[ 7] investigated a partial force balancing
method for a planar four-bar mechanism, which allows the prescribed maximum
shaking force. The simultaneous minimization of shaking moment, input torque
and bearing forces is achieved by using the three-counterweight technique (Fig. 8).
This method determines the parameters of the three counterweights that must be
attached to the input, coupler, and output links.

Fig. 8 Balancing of planar four-bar mechanism using three counterweights

(Tricamo and Lowen, 1983a,b).[7]

2. Planar five-bar mechanism

The method proposed in this case is used to solve the balancing problem of a
planar five-bar mechanism. Fig.10. The parameters of original mechanism are
given in Table 4 where the input motions of links 1 and 4 are considered as the
cycloidal motion and the harmonic motion.

In reported [8], a method is presented for only shaking force balancing of the
mechanism using natural orthogonal complement dynamic modeling and is solved
by conventional optimization method. It uses non-linear constraint optimization in
which the center of mass parameters of moving links are chosen as the design
variables.
 Fig. 9. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment for complete cycle for
planar five-bar mechanism.[8]
Fig.9 shows the variations of the shaking force and shaking moment over the
complete crank cycle. Both (a,b), the shaking force and shaking moment reduce a
lot in 1 second. The optimized link parameters are then found by using the
equimomental conditions and given in Table 5.

Table 5

Parameters of original and balanced planar five-bar mechanism.

Link Length Standard mechanism Balanced mechanism

i ai Mas Moment di θi Mass Moment di θi
(m) s of inertia (m) (°) mi of inertia (m) (°)
mi (kg)
(kg)
1 0.02 0.03 1.00e−6 0.01 0 0.015 2.93e−6 0.0017 180
2 0.10 0.15 1.25e−4 0.05 0 0.052 1.07e−4 0.0146 0
3 0.10 0.15 1.25e−4 0.05 0 0.038 8.72e−5 0.0312 0
4 0.04 0.06 8.00e−6 0.02 0 0.021 8.05e−6 0.0061 0
 Fig. 10. Planar five-bar mechanism detached from its frame.[8]

The resulting effect on shaking moment and driving torque was not
considered. For the same numerical problem, both shaking force and shaking
moment are simultaneously minimized in this paper using proposed methodology
and the genetic algorithm.

3. Planar Stephenson six-bar mechanism

In the method , it is used to solve the balancing problem of a planar
Stephenson six-bar mechanism as reported in [9] shown in Fig.11 for which
parameters of original mechanism are given in Table 6. For the constant angular
velocity of 2π rad/s for link #3, both the shaking force and the shaking moment are
minimized by redistributing the link masses as against the addition of
counterweights as suggested in [9,10].
 Table 6. Parameters of original and balanced planar Stephenson six-bar
mechanism.

Link Length
i ai Standard mechanism Balanced mechanism
(m)
Mass Moment di θi Mass Moment of di θi
mi of inertia (m) (°) mi inertia (m) (°)
(kg) (kg)
1 0.0559 0.060 4.98e−5 0.0286 3 0.031 3.72e−5 0.0249 0
2 0.1206 0.082 3.27e−4 0.0630 0 0.060 2.00e−4 0.0409 0
3 0.0032 0.075 7.27e−7 0.0031 5 0.019 2.27e−6 0.0057 180
4 0.1397 0.173 1.21e−3 0.0836 19 0.058 2.88e−4 0.0566 0
5 0.0444 0.039 1.53e−5 0.0197 0 0.018 8.12e−6 0.0566 0

Fig. 11. Original and optimized link shapes of five-bar mechanism [figure drawn
on scale].[9]
 The corresponding shapes of mechanism links are shown in Fig. 11. The
reductions of 80.21% and 84.75% were found in the RMS values of shaking force
and shaking moment, respectively whereas reductions in peaks are 89% for both
quantities.

4. Planar slider-crank mechanism

The slider-crank mechanism is the most popular in application . V. Arakelian,
S. Briot el at.(11) is solved a numerical problem of planar slider-crank mechanism
using the proposed method for which a cam mechanism with counterweight to
simultaneously reduce the shaking force and shaking moment.

Fig. 12. Original and optimized link shapes for planar slider-crank mechanism
[figure drawn on scale].[11]
The reductions of 48.45% and 44.14% were found in the RMS values of
normalized shaking force and shaking moment, respectively and corresponding
shapes of mechanism links are shown in Fig. 12.
The variations of shaking force and shaking moment over the complete crank cycle
are shown in figure:

Fig. 13. Variations of shaking force and shaking moment for complete
crank cycle for slider-crank mechanism.[11]

For shaking force: The shaking force is maximum reducing in 1 second.

- In 0 second the shaking force reduce from 3.5 to 2.

- In 0.2 second the shaking force reduce from 1.3 to 0.5.

- In 0.4 second the shaking force reduce from 1.2 to 0.7.

- In 0.6 second the shaking force reduce from 1.6 to 0.6.

- In 0.8 second the shaking force reduce from 1.2 to 0.4.

- In 1 second the shaking force reduce from 3.5 to 1.9.

For the shaking moment , the shaking moment is the maximum stability in 0.4
second.
 Kailash Chaudhary and Himanshu Chaudhary el at (12) proposed method
using equimomental system of point-masses.This method can be effectively used
to balance the mechanisms having revolute and prismatic joints while most of the
methods available in the literature are for the mechanisms with revolute joints
only. A slider-crank mechanism is balanced in this paper by optimally distributing
the link masses while a cam mechanism with counterweight was used to balance
the same mechanism . Therefore, it is advantageous to use the method proposed in
this paper as compared to the method counterweight which increases the overall
mass and complexity of the mechanism.

to start searching the optimum solution

and likely to produce local optimum
solution close to the start point. In this
paper, the formulation of optimization
problem is simplified by modelling the
rigid links of mechanism as
dynamically equivalent system of point-
masses, known as equimomental system
[15, 16]. This optimization problem
is solved by using genetic algorithm
which doesn’t require a start point and
searches the solution in the entire design
space. Therefore, it produces the global
optimum solution for the problem.

Fig. 14. Planar slider-crank mechanism.[12]

The results corresponding to the different combinations of the weighting

factors are presented in Table 7 and shown in Fig. 14. The case 1 is complete
shaking force balancing in which the rms value of shaking moment increases to
four times of that the unbalanced mechanism. Similarly, in case 3, shaking force
increases while shaking moment reduces substantially. Reduction in both the
quantities can occur in case 2, in which equal weighting factors are assigned to
them.
 Table 7. RMS values of dynamic quantities for different combinations of
weighting factors.

Shaking force Shaking moment

Standard value 3.6877 1.0047
Case 1: (w1=1.0;w2=0.0) 2.2247x10-4 4.1714
Case 2: (w1=0.5;w2=0.5) 2.9132 0.1883
Case 3: (w1=0.0;w2=1.0) 3.8605 7.7980 x10-5

Fig. 15. Comparison of different cases for shaking force and shaking moment.[12]

The comparison of the original rms

values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
The comparison of the original rms
values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
The comparison of the original rms values with the optimum rms values of the
shaking force and shaking moment obtained using conventional and genetic
algorithm are presented in Table 8 and Fig. 16.

Table 8. RMS values of dynamic quantities of normalized standard and

optimized mechanisms.

Balancing method Shaking force Shaking moment

Standard mechanism 3.6877 1.0047
fmincon 2.9132 (-21) 0.1883(-81)
Genetic algorithm 2.0051(-46) 0.0105 (-99)
 Fig. 16. Variations in shaking force and shaking moment for complete cycle.[12]

By using the conventional optimization method, the reduction of 21% and

81% was found in the rms values of shaking force and shaking moment,
respectively. The application of the genetic algorithm results in reduction of 46%
and 99% in the values of shaking force and shaking moment, respectively. It is
observed that if the mass of slider is not at CG, shaking moment reduces in the
mechanism. The moment of inertia of slider about CG doesn’t affect the values of
shaking force and shaking moment and hence not given for original and balanced
mechanisms. Moreover, the shaking force rises up to 7 in the original unbalanced
mechanism. In the balanced mechanism, it goes up to 5 as shown in Fig. 16(a).
However, the peak value of normalised shaking moment reduces from 1.8 to 0.25
as shown in Fig. 16(b).

One of the advantages of the proposed method is that the links of the balanced
mechanism are of the uniform thickness while the force and inertia counterweights
added to the original mechanism in traditional methods are of large thickness and
radius compared to the original link parameters. Also, it doesn't require any pre-
defined shapes or design domain to start .The percentage error of resulting inertia
values were found within ±5%. Also, the resulting stresses for all the links of
balanced mechanism can be calculated at the weakest sections under external
loads.
III. Conclusion
When an unbalanced linkage must run at high speeds, or contains massive
links, considerable shaking force and shaking moment are transmitted to its
surroundings. These disturbances cause vibrations and therefore limit the full
potential of many machines. With some of methods in the reseach help links in
planar mechanisms to reduce shaking force, shaking moment( noise,etc,…) and
find the optimine shape synthesis of links.This is very important and its show in
planar four-bar and slide-crank mechanism to explain these method.

The comparison of the original rms

values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
The comparison of the original rms
values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
The comparison of the original rms
values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
The comparison of the original rms
values with the
optimum rms values of the shaking force
and shaking moment obtained using
conventional and genetic algorithm
are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 5.
References
[1]H. Chaudhary, S.K. Saha, Balancing of four-bar linkages using maximum recursive
dynamic algorithm, Mech. Mach. Theory 42 (2) (2007) 216–232.

[2] R.S. Berkof, Complete force and moment balancing of inline four-bar linkage, Mech.
Mach. Theory 8 (1973) 397–410.

[3] M.R. Farmani, A. Jaamialahmadi, M. Babaie, Multiobjective optimization for force

and moment balance of a four bar linkage using evolutionary algorithms, J.Mech. Sci.
Technol. 25 (12) (2011) 2971–2977.

[4] G.G. Lowen, R.S. Berkof, Determination of forced-balance four-bar linkages with
optimum shaking moment characteristics, ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 93
(1) (1971) 39–46.

[5] T.W. Lee, C. Cheng, Optimum balancing of combined shaking force, shaking
moment, and torque fluctuations in high speed linkages, ASME Journal of Mechanisms,
Transmissions, and Automation in Design 106 (1984) 242–251.

[6] G.G. Lowen, F.R. Tepper, R.S. Berkof, The quantitative influence of complete force
balancing on the forces and moments of certain families of four-bar linkages, Mechanism
and Machine Theory 9 (1974) 299–323.

[7] Tricamo and Lowen (1983a, b), A partial force balancing method for a planar four-bar
mechanism.

[8] D. Ilia, R. Sinatra, A novel formulation of the dynamic balancing of five-bar linkages
with application to link optimization, Multibody Sys. Dyn. 21 (2009) 193–211.

[9] M. Verschuure, B. Demeulenaere, J. Swevers, J.D. Schutter, “On The Benefits of

Partial Shaking Force Balance in Six-Bar Linkages”, Proceeding of 12th IFToMM
World.

[10] R.S. Berkof, G.G. Lowen, A new method for completely force balancing simple
linkages, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 91 (1) (1969) 21–26.
[11] V. Arakelian, S. Briot, Simultaneous inertia force/moment balancing and torque
compensation of slider-crank mechanisms, Mech. Res. Commun. 37 (2010)265–269.

[12] Kailash Chaudhary and Himanshu Chaudhary, balancing using equimomental

system of point-masses.