ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Belt Friction Experiment

Objective

This experiment has three objectives:

𝑇
1. To show that a constant angle of lap θ has a constant tension ratio of 𝑇1
2
𝑇1 𝜇𝜃
2. To verify the relationship of 𝑇2
= 𝑒
3. To determine the friction 𝜇 between the CI pulley and the belt.

Theory

As given in the lab sheet;

𝑇1
For a flat belt drive: 𝑇2
= 𝑒 𝜇𝜃
T1 = Tight side tension
T2 = Slack side tension
µ = Coefficient of friction
θ = Angle of lap (radians)

If a dependence of T1 is plotted against T2 for a constant angle of lap θ then a straight line should pass
𝑇1
through the origin because 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 is constant. = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘 or T1 = k.T2
𝑇2
The slope k can be measured and it can yield a value for the coefficient of friction 𝜇.
𝑇1 1
𝑇
= 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘 ln k = 𝜇𝜃 = 𝜇 = 𝜃 ln 𝑘
2

𝑇1
If ln is plotted against θ then the resulting curve should be a straight line that passes through the origin.
𝑇2
𝑇
The slope for this line equals µ: ln 𝑇1 = µ𝜃
2

Apparatus

 Belt friction rig

 Dial test indicator
 Weight carrier
 2 – 25 kg weights

Figure 1: Belt friction rig with

weight carrier and weights Figure 2: Dial test indicator

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Procedure

As given in lab sheet;

Cantilever calibration
1. Turn angle of lap protractor to 0
2. Hang belt and weight carrier on the cantilever
3. Set the dial test indicator to 0
4. Measure the deflection of the cantilever for masses from 0 – 24kg in steps of 3kg.
5. Plot T2 against deflection for the cantilever
6. Use the plot as a calibration curve to determine T2 on the slack side against deflection

Constant angle of lap

1. Set lap θ to 90⁰, attach the belt and set the dial indicator to 0
2. Switch the pulley motor on
3. Measure the deflection for masses 0-20kg
4. Using the calibration curve compute T2 and plot T1 against T2.
5. Calculate µ using first method in theory section

Variable angle of lap

1. Attach belt and set the test indicator to 0
2. Attach 20kg to the belt
3. Switch pulley motor on
4. Measure deflection for angle of lap θ from 240⁰ to 10⁰
5. Determine T2 for each angle with aid of the calibration curve
T1
6. Plot 𝑙𝑛 T2 against θ, rad
7. Record µ from the slope of the curve

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Results

1. Cantilever calibration

m (kg) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
𝛿 0 15 30.5 45 60 75 90 104 118
T₂ = mg (N) 0 29.43 58.86 88.29 117.72 147.15 176.58 206.01 235.44
Table 1: Cantilever calibration results

Calculation
T2 = m × g
T2 for 3 kg = 3 kg × 9.81 (earth gravitational force)
T2 for 3 kg = 29.43 N

Slack side (T2) against Deflection (𝛿)

250
y = 1.9882x - 1.019
200 R² = 0.9998

150
T₂ (N)

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
𝛿

Figure 3: Calibration curve to show tension on the slack side against the cantilever deflection

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

2. Constant angle of lap

m (kg) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
𝛿 0 5 11 18 23 29 34 40 45 51 58
T₁ = mg (N) 0 19.62 39.24 58.86 78.48 98.1 117.72 137.34 156.96 176.58 196.2
T₂ = k x δ 0 9.94 21.868 35.784 45.724 57.652 67.592 79.52 89.46 101.388 115.304
Table 2: Constant angle of lap results

Calculation

T2 = k × δ
T2 = 1.988 × 5
T2 = 9.94 N

𝑇
Given the equation in the lab sheet 𝑇1 = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘
2
T1 = 19.62 N
T2 = 9.94 N
K = 1.988
θ = π/2

𝜋
𝜇( )
𝑒 2 = 1.988
𝜋
𝜇 × ( 2 ) = ln(1.988)
2
𝜇= × 0.687
𝜋

𝜇 = 0.437

Graph of T1 against T2
250

200 y = 1.719x + 0.5495

T₁ = mg (N)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
T₂ = k x δ (N)

Figure 4: T1 against T2 graph

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

3. Variable angle of lap

Θ, 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 10

deg
δ 25 26 29 33 37 41 47 53 60 67 76 86 92
T2, N 49.7 51.69 57.65 65.60 73.56 81.51 93.44 105.36 119.28 133.2 151.09 170.97 182.9
Θ,
4.19 3.84 3.49 3.14 2.79 2.44 2.09 1.75 1.4 1.05 0.7 0.35 0.17
rad
𝑻𝟏
3.95 3.80 3.40 2.99 2.67 2.40 2.10 1.86 1.64 1.47 1.30 1.15 1.07
𝑻𝟐
𝑻𝟏
𝒍𝒏 1.37 1.34 1.22 1.10 0.98 0.88 0.74 0.62 0.49 0.39 0.26 0.14 0.068
𝑻𝟐
Table 3: Variable angle of lap results

1.37
𝜇= T1 = m × g T2 = K × δ
4.19
T1 = 20 kg × 9.81 T2=1.988 x 25
𝜇 = 0.327 T1 = 196.2 N T2=49.7

Graph of T1/T2 against angle of lap θ

4.5
4
y = 0.7395x + 0.7337
3.5
3
T1/T2

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Angle of Lap θ (radians)

Figure 5: Graph of T1/T2 against angle of lap

Graph of LnT1/T2 against angle of Lap

θ(radians)
1.6
1.4
y = 0.3364x + 0.0294
1.2
1
LnT1/T2

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Angle of Lap θ (radians)

Figure 6: Graph of ln(T1/T2) against angle of lap(rad)

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

Conclusion
𝐓𝟏
1. Is the tension ratio 𝐓𝟐 constant for a given angle of lap?
The tension ratio for a given angle of lap is constant. This can be seen from the results from table
2. This can be further proved as when experiment 2 was conducted, the value of 𝜇 stayed fairly
𝑇
constant through all masses. 𝑇1 = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 shows that 𝜇 is a constant. From graph 2 we can see the
2
relationship between T1 and T2 gives us a gradient of 1.719 and the line is fairly linear. From
experiment 3 when the angle is changed, the ratio of T1/T2 begins to decrease as the angle of lap
decreases.

2. What is the value of 𝝁 between the belt and cast iron pulley and by considering the two values
obtained, what is the experimental error?
From the second experiment the value for 𝜇 is 0.437
From the third experiment the value for 𝜇 is 0.327

The 𝜇 value between the belt and the pulley should be the same. However, as you can see from
the above two values this is not the case.

The difference in values is 0.11. This has a percentage error of 25%. This error is quite significant,
but there are a few errors that could have caused this.

Apparatus error could have occurred as the weights used may have not been the weight stated by
the manufacturer. Another error could be hysteresis error which is the error that is a result of the
histories that the piece of apparatus has gone through and apparatus error which is due to the
inaccuracy of the apparatus by default. Random error may have also played a part in the
experimental values not meeting the theoretical value as when the weight was placed in the middle
of the beam, it was placed using the naked eye, which could have been misread.

There are many ways in which this experiment could have been more accurate and minimise the
risk or errors. However, there is not one specific method that could eliminate all errors and give the
perfect reading. Below you will see a brief description on how the errors mentioned earlier could
have been minimised.

Apparatus error could be minimised by either getting more accurate measurement devices, or
having the equipment maintained on a regular basis.

Hysteresis error could have been prevented by using a new belt

Random error could have been prevented if an electronic device recorded the results.

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444

 ENGD2005- Theory of Machines

𝑻
3. Have you verified the relationship 𝑻𝟏 = 𝒆𝝁𝜽?
𝟐

The experiment conducted shows a strong correlation between T1/T2 and 𝒆𝝁𝜽; The value for the
two are very close to each other. From table 3 we can use 4.19 radians as an example, the value
for T1/T2 is 3.95.

eµθ= e0.327 x 4.19 = 3.936.

The equation above shows that the value from the equation is 3.94. The difference between the
two values is 0.25, which gives a percentage error of 10.2%. This error is not as significant as the
difference of 𝜇, but could still have been avoided as mentioned earlier.

© Nizam Inc. 2017 P15219444