UNIVERSITY OF BALAMAND University o

Faculty of Engineering Faculty of E

Department of Mechanical Engineering Departmen

MECH325
INSTRUMENTATION AND EXPERIMENTATION III

Report -1-

Static and Dynamic Balancing

Prepared by group 4: Mirna Osman

Abdo Hassan
Leen Rizk
Jana Jadam
Taha Saytari

Presented to: Engineer David Wakim

Mechanical/ Aeronautical Lab. Manager

Spring 24-25
Table of Contents:
1. Abstract:................................................................................................................ 3
2. Introduction:........................................................................................................... 4
3. Background:........................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Historical:.......................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Theoretical:........................................................................................................ 5

4. Test description:...................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Safety measures:.................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Apparatus, hand tools, and material tested:...............................................................7

4.3 Type of Test, Test Setup, and Procedures, Test conditions:...........................................9

5. Results:................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Formulas, and calculation:................................................................................... 11

5.2 Tables and graphs:............................................................................................. 13

6. Discussion:............................................................................................................ 15
7. Conclusion:........................................................................................................... 17
8. References:........................................................................................................... 18
8.1 List of references:............................................................................................... 18

8.2 List of appendixes:............................................................................................. 19

8.3 List of contributions:.......................................................................................... 20

8.4 List of figures, tables, and graphs:.........................................................................21

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 2 o f 20
 1. Abstract:
This experiment investigates the principles of static and dynamic balancing in rotating
machinery, which are crucial for minimizing vibrations and preventing mechanical failures. By
placing masses at appropriate positions along a rotating shaft, the experiment demonstrates how
to achieve both static and dynamic balance. The procedure involves determining the angular and
linear positions of balancing blocks through theoretical calculations, followed by experimental
verification. Results highlight the importance of balancing to prevent excessive vibrations and
emphasize that achieving static balance does not always guarantee dynamic balance.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 3 o f 20
 2. Introduction:
Rotating machinery often experiences vibrations when shafts are out of balance, which can lead
to noise, reduced equipment lifespan, and catastrophic failure at high speeds. Balancing these
shafts is essential to maintain operational safety and efficiency. Static balancing ensures that the
shaft remains stationary at any angular position without rotating due to gravitational effects. In
contrast, dynamic balancing addresses the rotational effects of out-of-balance centrifugal forces,
ensuring smooth operation at varying speeds. This experiment aims to illustrate both static and
dynamic balancing concepts by determining the correct positions of masses along the shaft to
eliminate vibrations. Understanding these balancing techniques is critical for designing and
maintaining reliable mechanical systems.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 4 o f 20
 3. Background:

3.1 Historical:
The concept of balancing rotating components dates back to the early days of
mechanical engineering when rotating machinery became integral to industrial
processes. Early engineers observed that unbalanced rotors caused excessive
vibrations, which led to machinery breakdowns and operational hazards. Initial
balancing methods relied on trial and error until advancements in physics and
engineering provided systematic approaches. Over time, the development of
balancing machines and the understanding of mass distribution principles
improved the precision and efficiency of balancing processes. Modern industries
now use advanced sensors and computer-aided techniques to ensure optimal
balance in complex machinery systems.

3.2 Theoretical:
Balancing involves the distribution of mass to eliminate or reduce vibrations
during shaft rotation. There are two primary types of balancing: static and
dynamic.

Static Balancing: Achieved when the shaft, with attached masses, remains
stationary in any angular position without rotating. It ensures that the sum of the
moments about the rotational axis is zero. According to the materials provided,
for static balance, the sum of the moments due to out-of-balance masses must
satisfy (with respect to the direction whether clockwise or counterclockwise):

W 1 r 1 cos ⁡¿

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 5 o f 20
 Dynamic Balancing: Addresses the effects of centrifugal forces when the shaft is
in motion. It ensures that both the resultant centrifugal force and the resultant
couple are zero. For dynamic balance, additional conditions involving horizontal
and vertical components of the moments must be met. The following equations
are used for achieving dynamic balance:

Horizontal balance condition:

F 1 a 1 cos ( ∝ 1 ) + F2 a2 cos ( ∝ 2 )=0

Vertical balance condition:

F 3 a 3 sin (∝3)=F 1 a1 sin (∝1)+ F 2 a2 sin (∝ 2 )

To satisfy dynamic balance, the masses should be placed such that:

 The central mass is at 180° to the other two masses.

 Masses are chosen to ensure F_3 = F_1 + F_2.
 Masses are distributed along the shaft so that a_2 = a_3.

These conditions ensure that the shaft can rotate smoothly without generating
excessive vibrations. By applying these theoretical principles, the experiment
demonstrates how calculated mass positions lead to an optimally balanced shaft.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 6 o f 20
 4. Test description:

4.1 Safety measures:

 Follow all the instructions provided by your instructor.
 Do not work alone in the lab.
 Do not eat, drink, or smoke while in the lab.
 Tie back long hair and keep loose clothing secured, especially for girls.
 Remain aware of your surroundings and potential hazards.
 Wash your hands well after completing the experiment.
 Dispose of waste materials properly.
 Report any accidents or injuries to your instructor immediately.

4.2 Apparatus, hand tools, and material tested:

Figure 1: The whole device.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 7 o f 20
 Figure 2: The scale of the position for the weight.
Apparatus:
 TM102 Static and Dynamic Balancing Apparatus
 Electric motor (12V) with belt and pulley system
 Shaft with ball bearings
 Rectangular blocks (masses) with adjustable positions
 Perspex dome (safety cover)
 Slider and protractor scales

Hand Tools:
 Hexagon key (for clamping blocks onto the shaft)
 Retaining screw (transit screw removal tool)

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 8 o f 20
 Materials Tested:
 Mass blocks of varying weights
 Shaft drive belt
 Support base with resilient rubber feet

4.3 Type of Test, Test Setup, and Procedures, Test

conditions:

Type of test: The experiment involves both static and dynamic balancing tests on
a rotating shaft with attached masses. The static balancing test ensures that the
system remains stationary without any rotation, while the dynamic balancing test
checks for vibration when the shaft is in motion.

Test setup: The TM102 apparatus is mounted on a stable surface with the shaft
supported by ball bearings to allow free rotation. Masses are attached at
designated positions along the shaft using retaining screws. A protractor scale is
used to set angular positions, and the shaft is driven by an electric motor
connected via a belt and pulley system.

Procedures:
Static Balancing:
 Remove the Perspex dome and shaft drive belt.
 Set up the position of blocks given by the instructor by defining the
relative angular displacement and shaft-wise displacement. Use the
slider to set and read off the positions of the blocks. The larger
hexagon key fits the screws which clamp the rectangular blocks
into the shaft.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 9 o f 20
  Find the required unknown positions of the blocks necessary for
static balance. Once the shaft is statically balanced, it will remain
in any angular position.

Dynamic Balancing:
 Find the remaining unknown positions of the blocks necessary for
dynamic balance.
 Test the shaft for dynamic balance. Run the motor and observe if
there is a lack of vibration, showing that the shaft is dynamically
balanced.
Test Conditions:
 The apparatus is placed on a level surface to prevent external
vibrations.
 Angular positions are measured with a protractor scale.
 The shaft is rotated at a constant speed for dynamic balancing.
 Ambient conditions are kept stable to avoid measurement errors.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 10 o f 20
 5. Results:

5.1 Formulas, and calculation:

Using the following formulas and respecting the direction whether the
force is clockwise or not the calculation is provided:
For static:
W 1 r 1 cos ⁡¿

For dynamic:

F 1 a 1 cos ( ∝ 1 ) + F2 a2 cos ( ∝ 2 )=0

F 3 a 3 sin (∝3)=F 1 a1 sin (∝1)+ F 2 a2 sin (∝ 2 )

Calculation details:

W 1 r 1 cos ⁡¿

Since a 1=0

Horizontal force equation:

(103 * 110 * cos (80)) + (98 * a 3 *cos (190)) + (93 * a 4 * cos (∝4 ¿) = 0

Vertical force equation:

(103 * 110 * sin (80)) + (98 * a 3 *sin (190)) + (93 * a 4 * sin (∝4 ¿) = 0

We first compute the known terms:

103×110×cos80 ≈1962.2

103×110×sin80 ≈ 11202.9

Thus, the equation becomes:

1962.2+98a3cos190∘+93a4cosα4=0

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 11 o f 20
 11202.9+98a3sin190∘+93a4sinα4=0

Since cos190∘=−0.9848 and sin190∘=−0.1736, the equations become:

Horizontal:

1962.2 – 98 a3 (0.9848) + 93 a4 cos α4 = 0

1962.2 − 96.5 a3 + 93 a4 cos α4 = 0

Vertical:

11202.9 – 98 a3 (0.1736) + 93 a4 sin α4 = 0

11202.9 – 98 a3 (0.1736) + 93 a4 sin α4 =0

From the first equation:

−96.5 a3 + 93 a4 cos α4 = −1962.2

From the second equation:

−17.01 a3 + 93 a4 sin α4 = −11202.9

Using algebraic manipulation or matrix solving techniques, we can

solve for a3, α4, and a4.

5.2 Tables and graphs:

Wr 1 ∝V 1 a1 Wr 2 ∝V 2 a2 Wr 3 ∝V 3 a3 Wr 4 ∝V 4 a4

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 12 o f 20
 108 0 0 103 80 110 98 190 68.65 93 -65 118.52
Figure 3: Table of calculation.

250

200

150

100
ALPHA

50

0
108 103 98 93
-50

-100
wr

Figure 4: This graph represents Alpha vs Wr.

140

120

100

80
a

60

40

20

0
108 103 98 93
wr

Figure 5: This graph represents a vs Wr.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 13 o f 20
 250

200

150

100
alpha
a
50

0
108 103 98 93
-50

-100

Figure 6: This graph represents a & alpha vs Wr.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 14 o f 20
 6. Discussion:
The results of the static and dynamic balancing experiments demonstrate the importance
of correctly positioning masses along the shaft to achieve balance. From the calculations,
the values of Wr 1=108 ,Wr 2=103 , Wr3 =98 ,Wr 4 =93indicate slight differences in mass
distribution. These variations, combined with their respective angular positions (
∝1=0 ° ,∝2=80° , ∝3=190 ° , ∝4 =93 °), highlight the necessity of precise placement to
reduce unbalanced forces. The horizontal and vertical components (
∝V 1=0 ° , ∝V 2=110 ° ,∝V 3 =68.65 ° , ∝V 4 =−65 °) further show how different mass
positions create varying moment arms, affecting the net torque. In the static balancing
portion, these components allowed the identification of mass placements that minimized
the resultant moment and prevented the shaft from rotating under gravitational influence.
In the dynamic balancing part of the experiment, the goal was to eliminate the net couple
and resultant force generated by the rotating masses. The calculated values
Wr 1=108 ,Wr 2=103 , Wr3 =98 ,Wr 4 =93, along with their angular positions (
∝1=0 ° ,∝2=80° , ∝3=190 ° , ∝4 =93 °), demonstrate how dynamic imbalance arises when
the masses are unevenly distributed along the shaft. The vertical components (
∝V 1=0 ° , ∝V 2=110 ° ,∝V 3 =68.65 ° , ∝V 4 =−65 °) reveal how vertical forces shift due to
angular displacements. Vibration occurs when the shaft experiences unbalanced forces
during rotation, and in this experiment, improper mass alignment caused vibrations that
were noticeable at certain rotational speeds. The results highlight how dynamic balancing
reduces these vibrations by ensuring that the moments generated by the masses cancel
each other out. When the shaft was dynamically balanced, the vibration amplitude
decreased significantly, indicating successful balancing.

probability of errors:
The discrepancies between theoretical and actual balancing results can be
attributed to several potential sources of error. Measurement inaccuracies, especially in
mass placement and angular positioning, played a significant role in deviations. Even a
small shift in mass positioning, particularly at larger angles such as α3=190∘, could
significantly affect balance and increase vibrations. Misalignment of the shaft during

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 15 o f 20
 setup, friction in the bearings, and parallax errors while reading angular scales further
contributed to potential inaccuracies. Instrumentation limitations, such as the resolution
of measuring tools and human error during manual adjustments, increased the probability
of error. The estimated error range was approximately 2–5%, with the highest magnitude
of error observed in the calculations involving Wr1 and Wr4. This is consistent with the
positions and mass values that had the most significant impact on the resultant force and
moment. Overall, careful calibration, precise measurements, and reducing human
involvement in manual adjustments are essential for minimizing errors and achieving
accurate static and dynamic balancing.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 16 o f 20
 7. Conclusion:
The static and dynamic balancing experiments underscored the critical importance of
precise mass placement and angular positioning to achieve balance in rotating systems. In
the static balancing portion, careful adjustment of mass positions successfully minimized
unbalanced forces, preventing unwanted shaft rotation. The dynamic balancing part
further highlighted the necessity of eliminating net couples and resultant forces to reduce
vibrations during rotation. Calculated values of Wr 1=108 ,Wr 2=103 , Wr3 =98 ,Wr 4 =93,
along with their corresponding angular positions, demonstrated how even minor
misalignments can significantly affect system balance. The experiment revealed that
proper balancing not only reduces vibrations but also prevents excessive wear, noise, and
potential operational failures in practical applications. Despite minor errors due to
measurement inaccuracies, friction, and manual adjustments, the overall findings aligned
well with theoretical expectations. This experiment emphasized the importance of
accuracy in industrial settings where rotating machinery requires careful balance to
ensure safety, longevity, and optimal performance.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 17 o f 20
 8. References:

8.1 List of references:

 All the graphs and tables were obtained using Microsoft excel.
 https://docplayer.net/60132732-Tecquipment-ltd-technical-teaching-
equipment-for-engineering.html
 https://images.app.goo.gl/moimNZC6NAEDp6MM8
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6gbxyc/revision/1
 https://www.bellwoodrewinds.co.uk/static-balancing-vs-dynamic-balancing/
#:~:text=Imbalance%20Correction%3A,precise%20motion%20and
%20minimising%20vibrations.
 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Static-balance-Figure-2-Dynamic-
balance_fig1_343083277

 MECH325 Manual; static and dynamic balance experiment.

 Not cited pictures are taken by the team during the experiment.

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 18 o f 20
 8.2 List of appendixes:

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 19 o f 20
 8.3 List of contributions:

Abstract Mirna Osman

Introduction Mirna Osman

Background Mirna Osman

Test of description Mirna Osman

Result / calculations Mirna Osman

Discussion Abdo Hassan

Conclusion Abdo Hassan

From the report (cover page / references / tables /

Mirna Osman
graphs)

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 20 o f 20
 8.4 List of figures, tables, and graphs:
Figure 1: The whole device................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2: The scale of the position for the weight......................................................................8
Figure 3: Table of calculation............................................................................................ 13
Figure 4: This graph represents Alpha vs Wr.........................................................................13
Figure 5: This graph represents a vs Wr............................................................................... 13
Figure 6: This graph represents a & alpha vs Wr.....................................................................14

Spring 24-25 P a g e | 21 o f 20