Development of an Optimum

Variable-Stroke Internal-
F. Freudenstein
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Columbia University,
New York, N.Y. 10027
E. R. Maki
Mechanical Research Department,
General Motors Research Laboratories,
Warren, Mich. 48090
Combustion Engine Mechanism
From the Viewpoint of Kinematic
Structure
The method of separation of kinematic structure and function has been used in the
development of an optimum variable-stroke engine mechanism for automotive
power plants. A systematic search procedure resulted in the structures of 39
mechanisms, one of which was judged optimal (U.S. Patent No.
4,270,495—reference [13]). The prior art, as disclosed in a number of patents and
other publications, was evaluated and shown to be either included in the
mechanisms created in the course of the search, or deliberately excluded by the
search specification. The general nature of the approach, which combines
mathematical and creative approaches, is believed to be useful in mechanical
design.

Introduction Table 1 Creation of mechanisms [13]

The classification of mechanisms according to function and
kinematic structure has had a long development along both
empirical and analytical lines. Beginning with the Industrial
Revolution, increasingly precise concepts of the structure and
function of mechanisms have been formulated [1, 2, 9, 16,
20]. In more recent times it has been shown that kinematic
structure can be defined precisely with the aid of graph theory
and can be used for the creation of mechanisms in a relatively
systematic manner [4-7, 10, 11, 15, 24], In particular, it can
be used for the creation of mechanisms by separating
structural from functional considerations [8, 12]. The basic
approach can be summarized as shown in Table 1.
In the following study we shall use this approach to find an
optimum variable-stroke engine mechanism configuration
[13] and to compare this configuration with others which have
been proposed.
Principles of Variable-Stroke Internal-Combustion
Engines. Load control in the conventional fixed-stroke in-
ternal-combustion engine is achieved by throttling the inlet.
Elimination of inlet throttling would improve engine ef-
ficiency, but would not allow tailoring engine output to load,
since the load controller (the throttle) would not exist. An
alternative method of load control involves variation of
piston stroke. At short-stroke operation, only sufficient fuel-
Contributed by the Mechanisms Committee of the Design Engineering
Division and presented at the Design and Production Engineering Technical
Conference, Washington, D.C., September 12-15, 1982 of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received at
Headquarters May 24,1982. Paper No. 82-DET-29.
I Structure
1 Determine freedom (/•), number of moving members, com-
plexity (Z-in<i) and nature of motion (plane, \ = 3;spatiai, X = 6).
2 Find structures of kinematic chains from tables.
3 Label structures according to types of joints and choice of fixed
link in as many different ways as possible.
4 Sketch corresponding mechanism for each structure.
II Function
Determine the functional requirements for the desired mechanism
and relationship to kinematic structure.
III Structure and Function
Use functional requirements to screen out unacceptable
mechanisms. Remaining mechanisms represent potential solutions
and can then be evaluated in greater detail.
air mixture is induced to satisfy light-load operation, whereas
for high-load conditions, long strokes are used, so that more
incoming charge is taken into the cylinder. The improvement
in the economy of a variable-stroke engine (as compared to a
fixed-stroke engine) is estimated to approach 20 percent as
reported by Siegla and Siewert [21]. The gain is attributed
largely to the elimination of inlet throttling, with additional
benefits due to decreased friction during short-stroke
operation. In order to achieve this efficiency, it is necessary to
restrict the bore-to-stroke variation within prescribed limits
[22].
In the mechanical realization of variable-stroke operation it
is necessary not only to alter the stroke, but also to maintain a
constant or nearly constant compression ratio. Engines ex-
ASME perience high internal loads due both to gas and inertia forces
and the crankshaft speed can be in excess of 5,000 rpm. The

Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design JUNE 1983, Vol. 105/259
Copyright © 1983 by ASME
Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 design of a variable-stroke mechanism for an internal
combustion engine therefore presents a variety of challenges.
Previous Work
The patent literature contains numerous variable-stroke
engine patents. Included are axial configurations in which the
cylinders are arranged circumferentially with their axes
parallel to the crankshaft and in-line configurations in which
the cylinders are arranged longitudinally with their axes
perpendicular to the axis of the crankshaft in either vertical or
V-configurations as listed in Table 4. The former involve
three-dimensional motions and the in-line two-dimensional
motions. This investigation was limited to the in-line types as
representative of the majority of automotive-type gasoline-
engine applications.
The journal literature on variable-stroke engine
mechanisms is sparse. Welch and Riley [23] describe an ad-
justable wobble-plate mechanism (an axial-engine con-
figuration) for a high-performance diesel engine. More
recently a five-cylinder variable-stroke gasoline engine based
on an adjustable plane six-bar linkage has been demonstrated
by Pouliot et al. [19].
Objectives of This Investigation
In the abovementioned literature there is no indication as to
whether the mechanisms, which have been described, included
a systematic exploration of other variable-stroke mechanisms.
In this investigation one of the goals is the minimization of the
possibility of overlooking potentially useful variable-stroke
mechanisms. This is achieved by developing a systematic
search procedure which identifies impartially all potentially
useful variable-stroke mechanisms within a rather wide search
specification. By applying suitable selection criteria the
number of candidate mechanisms can then be greatly reduced
and, ultimately, an optimum configuration obtained. We now
describe this process in greater detail.
Specification of the Kinematic Structure of Variable-Stroke
Engine Mechanisms. As mentioned previously, we limit
ourselves to in-line configurations, so that we only need to
consider plane, single-degree-of-freedom mechanisms. Due to
their high load-carrying capability, the admissible joints are
limited to those with surface contact, i.e. turning pairs (R)
and sliding pairs (P). Thus, gear pairs and cam pairs are
excluded, both for this reason and due to their higher cost and
potential noisiness. Circular-arc sliders are excluded as well,
in order to avoid unnecessary complexity.
In addition we consider only mechanisms which obey the
general degree-of-freedom equation [12]:
F=MK/-!)+£/, (1)
i=i
where
F = degree of freedom of mechanism = 1
X = mobility number = 3 for general, plane
mechanisms
/ = number of links
j = number of joints
and / , = degree of freedom of relative motion permitted by
(th joint
Thus, we exclude mechanisms which depend on special
proportions for their mobility.
The number of independent circuits or loops (L-md) of the
mechanism is given by the equation [18]:
LM = l+j-l (2)
Combining equations (1) and (2), we can solve for / andy:
260/Vol. 105, JUNE 1983
Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
/ = 2Lind+2 ^
r 0)
y=3L ind + i J
The case Lmi -1 can be shown to yield the following
mechanisms: the plane four-bar linkage, the slider-crank and
its inversions, the scotch yoke, cardanic and inverse-cardanic
motion, and the Rapson slide. None of these configurations
are suitable for variable-stroke operation as there is no way of
controlling the stroke.
Hence, and not unexpectedly, a variable-stroke engine
mechanism will involve more links than the conventional
slider-crank motion used in current fixed-stroke engines. A
greater number of links will facilitate stroke control, but at
the same time will introduce increased mass and
correspondingly greater inertia forces, the latter being
detrimental to the search for lightweight, fuel efficient power
plants. Hence, in order to minimize the number of additional
links, we have limited our search to linkages with two and
three independent loops. According to equation (3) such
linkages have either six links and seven joints, or eight links
and ten joints. The kinematic structure of six-link and eight-
link plane kinematic chains have been enumerated (see, for
example, references [5] and [11]). As is well known there are
two six-link kinematic chains and sixteen eight-link kinematic
chains. The number of mechanisms obtainable from these
kinematic chains involves labeling the graph representation of
the kinematic structure of these chains in as many
inequivalent ways as possible (the labeling identifying the
fixed link and the nature of the joints: R or P).
Hundreds of structures are obtained in this manner. It is
possible to restrict the search to a smaller number of can-
didates by using selection criteria based on functional and
structural considerations. Some of these are relatively
Table 2 The search specification
1 The search is limited to plane six-link mechanisms with seven
joints and plane eight-link mechanisms with 10 joints; all joints
being turning pairs (R) or straight-line sliding pairs (P) and all
mechanisms obeying the general degree-of-freedom equation
[!]•
2 The maximum number of sliding pairs cannot exceed two (this
limits the amount of sliding in the mechanism).
3 No link can have more than one sliding joint (again this limits
the degree of sliding in the mechanism).
4 Only the piston can be ground-connected by a sliding pair. This
precludes the possibility of links other than the piston being in
pure translation. Such a condition would be awkward and
probably substantially increase frictional resistance in the
mechanism.
5 The ground link of all six-link structures should be ternary (i.e.,
must have three joints) since control via a floating-link con-
nection is considered undesirable.
6 All eight-link structures, which do not have at least one link with
four joints, are excluded. This limits the number of floating
links to three as is desirable for dynamics and balance.
7 All eight-link structures with only one sliding pair are
eliminated. The reason for this restriction is as follows: Variable
displacement with constant compression ratio can be obtained
by (a) changing the length of a moving link; (£>) changing the
length of a ground link; and (c) combinations of these.
Possibilities (a) and (c) are rejected because it is desirable to have
a grounded control. If possibility (b) is to be realized with a
mechanism having only turning pairs and one sliding pair
(piston-to-ground connection), this leads to poor transmission
angles, unfavorable force transmission, large acceleration
fluctuations, large size, or combinations of these. For example,
in the case of minimum stroke, an eight-link configuration
approaches a six-link configuration which is instantaneously in a
critical form, i.e., it has folding and/or coincident links and the
abovementioned unfavorable kinematic and dynamic
characteristics. If, however, a sliding pair is part of the stroke
adjustment and the mechanism proportioned so that there is
minimal sliding at this point, these circumstances do not, in
general, apply.
8 Controls to vary the displacements are not included in the
structures which are enumerated in the search.
Transactions of the ASME
 straightforward, while others require experience in sketching
and proportioning mechanisms. Most involve functional
considerations, which can be related to kinematic structure.
Table 2 summarizes restrictions on the structures enumerated
in the search, while Table 3 lists criteria used in the evaluation
of the mechanisms which have been enumerated. Some of the
criteria in Table 3 are simply related to kinematic structure,
while others are not. Among the more difficult aspects of the
evaluation of candidate mechanisms is the relationship
between stroke-variation capability at approximately constant
compression ratio and kinematic structure. Here experience
and creativity remain dominant factors, especially time spent
in proportioning one or two mechanisms in some detail.
Evaluation Guidelines. Evaluation guidelines relate to a
number of functional considerations, the most important of
which are:
(a) complexity or awkwardness of construction,
(b) quality of force transmission,
(c) relative friction, and
(d) relative inertia.
The term relative here means "in comparison with a con-
ventional engine." Control of these factors is essential in a
modern internal-combustion engine, which must operate at
the highest possible efficiency over a wide range of speeds and
loads. Table 3 summarizes the principal evaluative guidelines
used in this investigation.
Variable-Stroke Engine Mechanisms, (a) General Com-
ments. Figure 1 shows the structural diagrams of graphs of 16
six-link variable-stroke mechanisms and schematic drawings
of these mechanisms. Figure 2 shows the structural diagrams
of graphs of 23 eight-link variable-stroke mechanisms and
schematic drawings of these. These diagrams' and sketches
were obtained by the search procedure outlined in Table 1 and
described in the preceding section.
In the structural diagrams the links are represented by
vertices, the joints by edges, and the joint connection of links
corresponds to the edge connection of vertices. The edges are
labeled according to joint type and the fixed link is identified
as well. For details of the theory see reference [12]. At least
one schematic drawing is illustrated for each structure,
although in many cases several were actually sketched. In two
instances more than one schematic is shown.
Each mechanism satisfies the prerequisite of providing a
link which can be manipulated to effect stroke control.
However, at this stage of the investigation, no attempt was
made to develop the control into a functional configuration.
The following notation applies in the majority of diagrams:
1 = fixed link or ground
2 or 3 = crank
5 or 7 = connecting rod attached to piston
6 or 8 = piston
(b) Discussion of Patents and Related Disclosures. Before
reviewing the mechanisms obtained from the search, it is
useful to review the patent literature and other disclosures
cited in Table 4. The mechanisms of McCollum (1933),
Valentine (1933), Biermann (1958), Biermann (#2,909,164-
1959) and Pouliot et al. (1976) correspond to structures which
were found in our enumeration. These are described in Table
4. Valentine, Biermann, and Pouliot et al. describe six-link
structures and it is interesting to observe that the structure of
Pouliot et al. is already anticipated by Valentine. McCollum
and Biermann (1958) describe eight-link structures
enumerated in our search (Table 4). Rietti (1914), Biermann
(#2,909,163-1959), and McCollum (1933-in one embodiment)
use eight-link structures with only one prismatic pair. Such
structures were deliberately eliminated from our search
Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design
Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Table 3 Evaluation criteria directly related to kinematic
structure
1 No sliding pair may exist in the drive loop (i.e., the loop which
contains the crank) so that sliding in this high-speed loop is
eliminated.
2 Each piston must be connected to a binary (i.e., two-jointed)
connecting rod, because a connecting rod with more than two
joints is likely to develop excessive side-thrust and lead to high
piston friction.
3 Each crank must be binary (i.e., two jointed). This restriction
may not be absolutely essential, but will avoid complicated
cranks and the likelihood of high piston side-thrust.
4 The crank cannot be directly connected to the connecting rod
(otherwise it would be very difficult to vary the stroke).
5 The crank cannot be part of the control loop (i.e., the loop
which is connected to stroke adjustment) because it would be
difficult to design the control loop and there is the additional
likelihood of excessive sliding and joint forces.
6 Stroke variation cannot be achieved at the expense of requiring
variation of the proportions of the links in the drive loop. Such
variation would lead to large acceleration fluctuations and
unfavorable dynamic and balance conditions.
Table 4 Patents and publications on plane variable-stroke
engine mechanisms
Author, Publication and Comments on Structure
Rietti, U.S. Patent #1,095,675 (1914)
An 8-link R P linkage; eliminated from search specification due
to presence of only one sliding pair
McCollum, U.S. Patent #1,909,372 (1933)
An R9P structure rejected as above; and a structure with a cir-
cular sliding pair. Although structures with circular sliding pairs
have been eliminated from the search specification, the latter
structure is closely related to No. 15 of the eight-link structures.
Valentine, U.S. Patent #1,912,604 (1933)
Structure No. 9 of six-link structures; anticipates Pouliot et al.
[19].
Biermann, U.S. Patent #2,822,791 (1958)
Structure No. 23 of eight-link structures
Biermann, U.S. Patent #2,909,163 (1959)
An eight-link R P linkage; excluded from search as described
under Rietti
Biermann, U.S. Patent #2,909,164 (1959)
Structure No. 1 of six-link structures
McWhorter, U.S. Patent #3,686,972 (1972)
A geared mechanism; excluded from search specification due to
presence of gear pairs
Pouliot et al., reference [19] (1976)
Structure No. 9 of six-link structures
McWhorter, reference [17] (1979)
Excluded from search specification since this is a two-degree-of
freedom mechanism
specification (Table 2, item 7). Finally, McWhorter's
disclosures involve a geared mechanism (1972) or a two-
degree-of-freedom linkage (1979). The structures of both of
these mechanisms were also deliberately excluded from our
search specification (Table 2, item 1). Thus all the disclosures
are accounted for in our search.
This suggests that specification of the kinematic structure in
mechanical patents can be useful in determining novelty and
in defining the nature of an invention. It is conceivable that
some time in the future mechanical patents will be indexed
according to kinematic structure, at least when the number of
independent loops is not too large.
(c) Discussion of Variable-Stroke Engine Mechanisms
Created in the Search. A total of 39 variable-stroke
mechanisms were obtained and are shown in Figs. 1 and 2(a,
b). Then these were screened according to the evaluation
guidelines given in Table 3 as well as other considerations.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the results.
Each of the eight-link structures consists of a drive loop
(which includes the crank), a control loop to vary the stroke,
and an output loop that includes the piston. The six-link
structures contain only two loops so that the functions of two
of the eight-bar loops must be assigned to one six-bar loop.
For this reason the six-bar drive loops also include the control
JUNE 1983, Vol. 105/261
 STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM
STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM 6
SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM

5f 96
5f—— f6

© 1
® 4
3 i — - »2
3©———92

5f 96

© 4
© i

3* ; »2

5' ' i 6

5C »6 R P

©
© < P R

3«—— »2

5f— 96
5? " *6

© t"
©
3
" ^ *2

STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM

STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM

R 5

© 1

©
© 1

® 1

© ' A

Fig. 1 Structural and schematic drawings of six-link variable-stroke

mechanisms

262/Vol. 105, JUNE 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM
STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM
5 p 4

© "

© »
© ''

© «

GROUP 3
STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM
6 P 5

Fig. 2 (a) Structural and schematic drawings of eight-link variable-

stroke mechanisms: Groups 1,2,3,4

Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design JUNE 1983, Vol. 105/263

Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 5 Evaluation of six-link structures in Fig. 1
STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM
SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM

5
Mechanism Comments
1 Reject: Proportions of four-bar linkage in drive loop
change as stroke is altered.
2 Reject: Link 4 has three joints, which would result in
excessive piston side thrust. Integral piston and
connecting rod accentuate this problem;
proportions of four-bar linkage in drive loop
change as stroke is altered; stroke control is
difficult to achieve.
Reject: The integral piston and connecting rod results in
high piston side-thrust. Four-bar geometry is
altered to vary stroke.
Reject: Excessive sliding exists in drive loop; drive-loop
proportions are altered to vary stroke.
Reject: Either no crank or no control.
Reject: Control would lead to excessive piston side-
thrust; drive loop proportions are altered to vary
stroke.
7 Reject: Excessive sliding of block in drive loop. Drive-
loop proportions are altered to vary stroke.
8 Reject: Two drives to one piston: not a feasible geometry
9 Reject: Four-bar geometry altered to vary stroke;
relatively large piston side-thrust; relatively large
mechanism size; device described in [19]
® 3 10 Reject: Three-jointed connecting rod leads to high piston
side-thrust; control loop also contributes to
piston side-thrust; drive loop proportions are
altered to vary stroke.
11 Reject: High piston side-thrust exists due to integral
piston and connecting rod; four-bar proportions
are altered to vary stroke.
12 Reject Excessive sliding in drive loop; control not
f2\ feasible
13 Reject Excessive sliding in drive loop; excessive piston
® " side-thrust; three-jointed connecting rod; drive-
loop proportions altered to vary stroke
14 Reject Four-bar geometry altered to vary stroke
15 Reject Integral piston and connecting rod results in high
piston side-thrust; four-bar proportions are
altered to vary stroke.
16 Reject: Four-bar geometry altered to vary stroke; ex-
cessive sliding in drive loop; likelihood of high
piston side-thrust

GROUP 6
STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM SCHEMATIC OF MECHANISM

function and this is an important reason why none of the six-

® achieve stroke variation. The dynamic characteristics of the
® adjust the position of the camshaft to its proper phase
® mechanism development procedure and one can expect to
Fig. 2(b) Structural and kinematic drawings of eight-link variable-
stroke m e c h a n i s m s : Groups 5 and 6
link variable-stroke structures were judged provisionally
acceptable. Due to the dual function of the drive loop, the
dimensions of the drive-loop linkage must be altered to
mechanism are adversely affected by these dimensional
changes. For example, large acceleration fluctuations, un-
favorable dynamic loading and unsatisfactory balance
conditions can be expected. A second consequence of
changing drive-loop linkage dimensions is a phase change of
the points at which the piston reaches its extremes of travel.
This causes changes in engine cycle event timing and, in turn,
requires a separate phase-change mechanism in order to
relationship relative to the crankshaft. Such phase change was
encountered by Pouliot et al. [19] and corrected with an
external phase-changing device.
Mechanism No. 1 of Fig. 1 illustrates the variation that can
be obtained in creating schematic diagrams or sketches from
the structural diagrams. In this case two configurations are
shown, one with the control on moving link 4 and the other
with the control located between link 4 and ground. The
schematic drawings reflect an empirical aspect of the
spend some time arriving at potentially workable
arrangements. In our judgment, the facility with which one
creates the schematic increases rapidly with experience.
Although mechanism Nos. 1, 3, 9, and 11 in the six-link
group might have some potential of being developed into
variable-stroke devices, none of them passed the evaluation
criteria given in Table 3.

264/Vol. 105, JUNE 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 6 Evaluation of eight-link structures in Fig. 2
Mechanism Comments
1 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-3
2 Reject: coupler-connected stroke control
3 Reject: coupler-connected stroke control
4 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 3-6
5 Reject: coupler-connected stroke control
6 Reject: coupler-connected stroke control
7 AGROUND - 1
Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-3
8 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 3-6
9 Reject: control changes four-bar proportions
10 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 4-5 and coupler-
connected stroke control
11 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-4
12 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 3-5
13 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-4, since crank cannot be
in control loop
14 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 4-5
15 Reject: control implies high piston side-thrust
16 Potentially acceptable
17 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-3

® 2 -<j>W
18 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 3-4
19 Potentially acceptable
20 Reject: Contol link becomes too large for given stroke
variation, or results in high piston side-thrust.
21 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 2-5, since crank cannot be
in control loop Fig. 4 Eight-link mechanism 19
22 Reject: sliding in drive loop at 5-6, since crank cannot be
in control loop
23 Potentially acceptable
4
$
0>
,-^ £ GROUND - 1

I.# ^
?

Fig. 5 Eight-link mechanism 23

Fig. 3 Eight-link mechanism 16

Eight-link mechanisms were evaluated in a similar manner

and the results of this evaluation are given in Table 6. Three
mechanisms (Nos. 16, 19, and 23) passed the evaluation
criteria and therefore were deemed sufficient to warrant
further study. Each of these mechanisms has a grounded
control; possesses the capability of minimizing side thrust by
limiting connecting-rod angularity; and can be proportioned
for minimum sliding at the prismatic pair in the control loop.
The sliding will be least for mechanism No. 19. Two versions
of mechanism No. 19 are shown: a single-piston version and a
double-piston version. The latter version was stimulated by
the realization that a double-piston arrangement would
substantially reduce the number of moving parts (including
connecting rods and crankthrows) needed per cylinder and
thus offer the possibility of a more compact mechanism.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show more detailed drawings of the
three most promising mechanisms. Comparing mechanism
No. 19 with mechanism Nos. 16 and 23, the former possesses
several advantages. These include the possibility of a paired- Fig. 6 Embodiment of eight-link variable-stroke mechanism 19, from
cylinder configuration, greater compactness, minimum U.S. Patent 4,270,495 [13]

Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design JUNE 1983, Vol. 105/265

Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 sliding at the prismatic pair in the control loop, and the
possibility of obtaining a straight-line control path resulting
in proportional control. Mechanism No. 19 was, therefore,
judged to be optimal. As a consequence, it was selected for
additional kinematic and dynamic analysis with stringent
constraints imposed by bearing loads, dynamic balance,
component strength, and allowable stresses. A patent [13] has
been issued for its application to the task of providing a
variable-stroke engine mechanism. Figure 6 shows one of the
embodiments involved.
Conclusion
In this method for the creation of mechanisms, all variable-
stroke mechanisms within the specification of the search have
been included. The structures corresponding to a given
specification can be obtained by more or less analytical
procedures. However, experience and creativity are needed to
arrive at the search specification and the evaluation criteria,
and to determine and evaluate the functional constraints.
Within these limits, though, the unbiased and relative
completeness of the search suggest its usefulness in many
areas of conceptual mechanical design.
References
1 Artobolesvskii, I. I., "Evaluation de la theorie de la structure et de la
classification de mechanismes en Russie," Actes de Sie'me Congr'es In-
ternational d'Histoire des Sciences, Florence, Italy, Sept. 1956, Vol. 1, pp.
980-983.
2 Assur, L. V., Investigation of Plane Hinged Mechanisms with Lower
Pairs from the Point of View of Their Structure and Classification, (Russian),
Izv. St. Petersburg. Politekh. Inst. Imp. Pet. Vel.; Pt. I, Vol. 20, 1913, pp.
329-385; Pt. II, Vol. 20, 1914, pp. 581-635; Vol. 21, 1914, pp. 187-283,
475-573; Vol. 22, pp. 177-257; Vol. 23, 1915, pp. 1-169.
3 Babbage, C , "On a Method of Expressing by Signs of Action of
Machinery,"Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, Vol. 2, 1826, p. 250.
4 Buchsbaum, F., and Freudenstein, F., "Synthesis of Kinematic Structure
of Geared Kinematic Chains and Other Mechanisms,'' Journal of Mechanisms,
Vol. 5, 1970, pp. 357-392.
5 Crossley, F. R. E., "The Permutations of Kinematic Chains of Eight
Members or Less from the Graph-Theoretic Viewpoint," Developments in
266 / V o l . 105, JUNE 1983
Downloaded 17 Sep 2011 to 140.118.196.179. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (W. A. Shaw, Editor), Pergamon Press,
Oxford, Vol. 2, 1965, pp. 467-486.
6 Davies, T. H., "An Extension of Manolescu's Classification of Planar
Kinematic Chains and Mechanisms of Mobility M > 1 , Using Graph Theory,"
Journal of Mechanisms, Vol. 2, 1968, pp. 87-100.
7 Dobrjanskyj, L., and Freudenstein, F., "Some Applications of Graph
Theory to the Structural Analysis of Mechanisms," ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, Vol. 89,1967, pp. 153-158.
8 Erdman, A., Nelson, E., Peterson, J., and Bowen, J., "Type and
Dimensional Synthesis of Casement Window Mechanisms," ASME Paper 80-
DET-78, 1980, also Mechanical Engineering, Dec. 1981, pp. 46-55.
9 Franke, R., Vom Aufbau der Getriebe, Vol. I, VDI Verlag, Diisseldorf,
1951.
10 Freudenstein, F., "An Application of Boolean Algebra to the Motion of
Epicyclic Drives," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 93, 1971,
pp. 176-182.
11 Freudenstein, F., and Dobrjanskyj, L., "On a Theory for the Type
Synthesis of Mechanisms," Proc. 11th Intl. Cong. Appl. Mechanics, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, 1965, pp. 420-428.
12 Freudenstein, F., and Maki, E. R., "The Creation of Mechanisms Ac-
cording to Kinematic Structure and Function," Journal of Environment and
PlanningB, Pergamon Press, Vol. 6,1979, pp. 375-391.
13 Freudenstein, F., and Maki, E. R., "Variable Displacement Piston
Engine," U.S. Patent #4,270,495, 1981.
14 Freudenstein, F., and Mohan, K., "When Linkages Need Harmonic
Analysis," Product Engineering, Vol. 32, Mar. 6,1961, pp. 47-50.
15 Freudenstein, F., and Woo, L. S., "Kinematic Structure of
Mechanisms," in Basic Questions of Design Theory, Elsevier North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1974, pp. 241-264.
16 Jones, F. D., Horton, H. L., Newell, J. A., (Eds.), Ingenious
Mechanisms for Designers and Inventors, Industrial Press, New York, 1968.
17 McWhorter, E. M., "The Five-Bar Reciprocating System," ASME Paper
79-DE-l, 1979.
18 Paul, B., "A Unified Criterion for the Degree of Constraint of Plane
Kinematic Chains," ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 82, 1960, pp.
196-200.
19 Pouliot, H. N., Delameter, W. R., and Robinson, C. W., "Variable-
Displacement Spark-Ignition Engine," SAE Transactions, Vol. 86, 1977, pp.
446-464.
20 Reuleaux, F., Kinematics of Machinery: Outline of a Theory of
Machines, translated by A.B.W. Kennedy, Macmillan, London, 1876.
21 Siegla, D. C , and Siewert, R. M., "Variable-Stroke Engine—Problems
and Promises," SAE Transactions, Vol. 87,1978, pp. 2726-2736.
22 Siewert, R. M., "Engine Combustion at Large Bore-to-Stroke Ratios,"
SAE Transactions, Vol. 87, 1978, pp. 3637-3651.
23 Welch, H. W., and Riley, C. T., "The Variable-Displacement Engine: An
Advanced Concept,'' SAE Paper 710830, Oct. 1971.
24 Woo, L. S., "Type Synthesis of Plane Linkages," ASME Journal of
Engineering for Industry, Vol. 89,1967, pp. 159-172.
Transactions of the ASME