G. K.

Matthew

The Design of Modeled Cam Systems

Research Associate.

D. Tesar
Prolessor.
University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida

Part II: Minimization of Motion Distortion Due to

Modeling Errors
The dynamic synthesis procedures of Part I are reinforced by qualitative and quantitative results from analysis. The principal concern is for the motion distortion which results from off-speed operation and from errors in the model parameters. Elementary direct means for calculating errors due to transient vibrations and inertia force variations
are given which eliminate the need for complex analysis procedures. Rules of thumb are
developed which enable the designer to choose system parameters to minimize motion
distortion and inhibit growth of wear and consequent noise.

Introduction
Recent years have seen a substantial increase in the use of materials for cams which have heretofore been considered too expensive or too difficult to machine. Manufacturing of cams has improved by an order of magnitude (now better than 0.0001 in.)
during the past two decades. At the same time, ever higher operating speeds have been imposed upon practically all machinery.
As materials and innovative construction progress, the usefulness
of the cam system will continue to grow as a variable complex
motion mechanism in the industrial process. While the physical
capabilities of cam system components improve, so must the
designer's understanding of the governing dynamic theory in
order that such materials and construction be exploited to their
fullest.
The primary goal of the companion paper (Part I) was the dynamic synthesis of the required cam surface function in terms of
an assumed set of model parameters and a fixed design speed (see
also, reference [l]). 1 Should any of these parameters be in error,
the wrong cam surface will have been calculated, and the resulting output motion will be a distortion of the desired specified motion. This will induce unwanted vibrations and reduce overall
precision of operation for the system, both of which should be
kept to a desirable minimum. The goal of this paper is to derive
direct, easily used means of approximating the magnitude of this
distortion and provide the designer with clear suggestions to min-

1
Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Contributed by the MechanismsDED Division of THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS and presented at the Mechanisms Conference, New York, October 6-10, 1974. Manuscript received at
ASME Headquarters, June 18,1974. Paper No. 74-DET-44.

imize motion distortion and reduce the rate of growth of wear and
potential for noisy operation. The results given here make it possible to avoid tedious, complex, and somewhat unreliable analysis
procedures dependent on coupled differential equations.
Many early works made excellent formulations for cam synthesis and analysis [2-5]. These works were exemplary in their coverage and especially in their experimental validation. Various other
researchers [6-16] have investigated segments of the cam design
problem. Johnson [7, 8] showed how to use finite differences to
design the cam shape function. The idea of a nonconstant angular
velocity for the cam was treated in references [9, 10, 12]. Generally, the objective has been to minimize internal vibrations or unusual variations of the cam surface force. The concisely posed
problem [16] of Freudenstein treats the concept of amplitude amplification due to a cyclic reinforcement from the cam. An attempt to treat general cyclic reinforcement due to a repeated impact from a gross manufacturing error was given in reference [18].
Very recent activity by Chen [19-21] has been significant in enhancing the quality of numerical computation. The interesting
question of clearances and associated impact was studied in reference [22].
Rarely is dynamic synthesis used to design a cam. This means
that the design speed u>d of such a cam is zero; which assures that
the system always operates "off-speed" and will generate a distorted output motion relative to the specified motion. Cyclic
speed variations due to speed drift or variation of a range of speed
-as in operation of the internal combustion engine make the operating speed cc distinct from the design speed. Frequently, machinery rates of production are changed daily or increased to meet
output requirements, all implying off-speed operation.
The procedures for dynamic synthesis (Part I) immediately
infer the existence of a model. Since the modeling process involves geometry, mass content, deformation rates, extensive computation, and numerous assumptions; there always exists a po-

NOVEMBER 1975

Journal of Engineering for Industry

Copyright 1975 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

1181

tential for error in the model parameters. Errors will produce a

correspondingly incorrect cam surface function S, leading to a
distortion S of the specified output motion y. If possible, the designer would like to evaluate how sensitive his system is to error
in a given parameter and to his choice of motion specification.
Further, he would like to obtain this assessment without resorting
to a complex analysis procedure. This type of information, if reduced to easily used "rules of t h u m b " to reinforce those given in
Part I for dynamic synthesis, can guide the designer in his choice of
cam system parameters, the selection of the motion specification,
and the care required to model his system.
To determine the character of the motion distortion 5 and its
dependence on system properties requires an accurate analysis of
the actual system motion x being driven by the cam S. A complete model of the total geometry and all modes of deformation
would lead to many non-linear coupled differential equations with
as many as 15 constant or varying parameters. It is essential that
the computational error be significantly less than the expected
distortion. Consequently, the analysis model should be as simple
as possible still yield useful qualitative design data. Further, only
closed form procedures will prove dependable for this task which
means that all S curves to be studied must be generated by
piecewise analytic functions; in this case, by polynomials. As seen
by the conditions for dynamic synthesis in Part I, this is not a
limiting requirement. It will also be assumed that no manufacturing error has occurred in cutting the cam surface S. Finally, it
is assumed that no reinforcement occurs between sequential cycles of the system. The result of this type of analysis will provide
compact, easily used formulas to calculate the lower bound on the
motion distortion error 8.

which shows the role of the modeled parameters (such as M, K,

Cr, Kr, ua or ixm, nc, fik). The corresponding dynamic response
equation may be written as

W V +^wx'

k + hr

V-mX" + JJ-c*' + VkX = S

(2)
where the analysis is established in terms of the actual system
parameters (m, k, cr, kr, w or /Zm, jic, jik) which, differ from the
modeled parameters. Here y represents the known specified output motion, x represents the actual response of the real system,
and S represents the shape factor synthesized for the modeled
system. The response condition, equation (2), shows that S acts
as the driving function for analysis of the real system.
The above equations may be combined to give
JImx"

+ Mc*' + Hx

= l1^"

+ ^ '

V-*y

(3)

It is convenient to examine the output response in terms of its deviation & = y x in equation (3) to yield

^m 5 " + M ' + M = &m ~ vm)y" + (iT0 - nB)y'

+ ( ? - Ms)y (4)
It also becomes useful to introduce dimensionless error coefficients as
M 0 - M.0

(5)

or
(J-M = (1 + am)jim,

(i c = (1 + a c K , iik = (1 + ak)nk

(6)

which transforms the deviation response equation into the form

2.

One D O F System Transient Distortion

(1 + am)iim6"

For 1 DOF, the dynamic synthesis equation is given as

s=.v

>*

mV-nS>"

+ cP-<y' + ak^y
(1)

-1

K +Kr

+ (1 + a > c 5 ' + (1 +

= fJ-m3>" + M c y' + V-kV

(7)

Consider the motion specification polynomial y = f(B) to have

the form

-NomenclatureA, B = coefficients for the

homogeneous part
of an assumed response equation
A = initial transient amplitude
Cp,Cq,.-.,Ct
= coefficients
of a
given polynomial
Cr = modeled system viscous damping
K = modeled system
spring
Kr = modeled system return spring
M = modeled system mass
S = cam shape factor
ao, ai = coefficients for the
particular part of
an assumed response equation
cr = actual system viscous damping
k = actual system spring
kr = actual system return spring
m = actual spring mass

1182

NOVEMBER 1975

p,q,

= powers in an assumed polynomial

= actual system output motion
= specified system output motion

ratio of Kri, Kr2 to K

modeled coefficients
Hm, He, Hk
of the assumed
motion for synthesis in a one degree of freedom
system
actual coefficients of
Mm, Mc, Mft
the response motion for analysis in
a one degree of
freedom system
model error parame m , c , K
ters for one degree
of freedom
Pi (1 = 0,1,2,3,4) = modeled coefficients
of the assumed
motion for synthesis in a two degree of freedom
system

ft (i = 0,1,2,3,4)

actual coefficients of
the response motion for analysis in
a two degree of
freedom system

= modeled dimension-

v,\y

less
distribution
parameters for two
degrees of freedom

An, A r 2

f\, X, 7 = actual
dimensionless
distribution
parameters for two
degrees of freedom
i, /^> Py ~ model error parameters for two degrees of freedom
d = output motion distortion
ad, w = assumed and actual
operating speeds,
respectively
v, r = real and imaginary
parts, respectively, of the assumed
solution of a response equation

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Now requiring that higher ordered terms such as fix2,

considered insignificant, equation (30) becomes

be

1.0

"-I.6

/
.8

j34p4

= (1 - 2 J J ) ( 1

/1

-"^06 y

-X)77X/3/J.

/^02

IBX=O

P4

= (1 -2x)(i -

(31)

v)vxfixiiJ

v,r

l=o

A/

V*
0.0

tin

Consequently, the total error difference from equation (29) is

+0.125 (PEAK)

(32)
0.0

0.0

where the error distribution coefficients

.2

ft,

.4

.6

=JJ\(1-\)(1-27J)
Fig. 3

(33)

/?,, or /9 2T

/34;i = 7 ? X ( l - j 7 ) ( l - 2 A )
are functions of the modeled distribution parameters only. Thus,
if the designer has some estimate of the probable magnitude of
errors in the mass deformation distribution (fSv,fS\), the @tn,f3t\
functions will indicate the sensitivity of the p 4 synthesis coefficient to these errors. The error distribution coefficients have been
plotted in normalized contour charts (Figs. 3 and 4) with a normalization factor of 4 in each case. Note that equation (32) is an
approximation which allows the qualitative representation of the
charts. For complete accuracy, the designer should use equation
(28).
The above formulation has been carried out for all the ft error
coefficients and is listed in Table 1. Also, all the /3( Pa error distribution coefficients have been plotted in Figs. 3-8. These show
that to minimize the system's sensitivity to distribution error, the
mass and deformation should be near the cam (?) = 0, X = 0).
The condition for best dynamic synthesis (?) = 0, X = 1) shows increased sensitivity due to |8 3 ,\(Y = 1), /?2,\, /?i,\- The significance of
this contradiction will depend on the system and the magnitude

0.0

0 0

-0.2/

i,r

i"l

V4

( .0

0.0
.4

.6

.8

X
/?4x or 0'2\

Two-degree-of-freedom sensitivity parameters

Figure
Reference

NF

B. = n X ( l - X ) ( l - 2 n )
4n

B 4A - n X ( l - n ) ( l - 2 X )

B, - nX(l-x)
3n
,
.
UXU-2A), Y-0
B3
X " ^ ( l - n ) X (1-2X), Y - 1

Approx. Form

Remarks

{(1+8

( 8 . B + 6.,B,})J 2
4n n
4X.A m

)n (1+8,)X ( l - x - B X ) ( l - n - P n)
A
A
n

-r,A(l-n)U-X)>i
m
B3P3

08 -iq

Exact Form

+0.125
(PEAK)

Fig. 4

Table 1

. ,

1 ~0AI

( f ( l + B n ) n ( 1 - Y - B Y) + (1+B )Y ( l - n - B n n ) ]
[(1+BX)X (1-X-B X X)] -

{f

Vn

+ 8

3X X>V m

In(l-Y) + Y ( l - n > ] [ A ( l - X ) ] ) p c i i n
62p2

{(1+B

)n + ( l - n - 6 n ) ( l - X - B , X ) n
n
X
n - (l-n)(l-x)}>i +

2r, " " A

B 2X - - X ( l - n )

B2X -

YX(1-Y)(1-2X)

B 2 Y - YX(1-X)(1-2 Y )

B
{8

2n 8 n

2AV>V

ID

{(1+8

Vl

Y(1-Y)

{(1+B
-

)Y (1+0!)X ( l - Y - 6 YX1-A-B.X)
A
A
Y

Y -

2YSY

Wl

XU-A)}^

)Y + ( H - J v l ) ( l - H , l )
Y
A

{8

1Y 6 Y

+ 8

lX8Xll,c

lY "

U-Y)U-*)}UC

Vo

+ {6

-X(1-Y)

YX

NF = Normalization Factor
g
n

BZH
ft
. X~X
n *
X
X '

Journal of Engineering for Industry

1 -1=1
Y
Y

NOVEMBER 1975 / 1185

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

(ftm very small), it may indeed be best to use motions which minimize (y")rmS- Given a choice, the designer should choose motion
specifications which have smaller (y") r m s values. The conclusions
of Section 2 are reinforced by the form of equation (21).

4.

T w o D O F S y s t e m P a r a m e t r i c Error C h a r t s
Suppose now that the designer has adequately described his
system in terms of one DOF parameters Hm, Vc, Vk but errs in his
estimation of the distribution parameters -q, X, 7, when attempting to describe the 2 DOF system. For many systems with complex geometry, such imprecise definition in the model may be the
expected situation. The real distribution parameters, if, X, 7, then
must be used in describing the 2 DOF dynamic synthesis coefficients PU i = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 introduced in Part I. The dimensionless
distribution error factors may be defined as
*
Fig. 1

-8

I.O

1.2

Pr = Y - y

Initial transient response for various polynomials

(24)

such that the error in the sth coefficient p; is given by

amplitudes. Note that in general a 10 percent or more over-speed
results in worse transients than any under-speed condition.

Pi ~ Pi
Pi

fit

(25)

or the modeling error difference is

3.

One D O F System R M S Distortion

PiPi =Pi-Pi
=fi(y, X, y) -Mv, A, y)
After prolonged study of the distortion phenomena, it was noticed that the inertia load contribution due to system error was
For i = 4, this difference is given as
dominant. Qualitatively, this distortion is best evaluated in the
averaged or root mean square (RMS) sense. Clearly, the motion
&P 4 = G)X(1 - T}){1 ~ X) - 7?X(1 - 7?)(1 - A)} Mm2
error 6 is small 3 so that numerically its derivatives can be expected to be extremely small by comparison. As argued earlier, ak =
Using the error factors of equation (24), this becomes
0, ixc ~ 0 to reduce the controlling equation (7) to S = am fim y"
and after taking the RMS of both sides simultaneously gives
j34p4 = {(I + /3)(1 + /3X)TJX(1 - 77 - ftfl)

l<uy)r

Computer simulation has shown that this result is a useful approximation even if the above assumptions are relaxed. Further,
equation (21) shows that 5rms = fim such that given (5 rms )o, Mmo
for an existing system, then the brms for any other system fim is

7jX(l-7l)(l-X)}ji,2

X (1 - X - 1

(21)
lt m a v

iiafa

(22)

where

Also, if the only error is due to off-speed operation, the RMS distortion can be written as

&P4I1

h'-mO

**Jl

\h")r

(23)

PiPi

{[(1 + 0)(1 -

(28)

(29)

+ ftp4
lBx=o

(27)

are indepen-

be assumed that the error factors

dent so that equation (28) can be written as
A1P4 = PiPt

(26)

IB=

- 13,77) - (1 - 77)]TJX(1 - X)} ,i m 2

8)1*0

= {[(1 + /3X)(1 -

X - /3XX) - (1 - X)]TJ\(1 - X)} ll

(30)

which has been plotted in Fig. 2.

A valuable indicator for the designer is the ratio R = SrmJA for
the distortion magnitudes. For moderately low speed systems, nm
w 5 X 10~6, R has the value of 800 while for moderately high speed
systems jxm ~ 5 X 10'- 4 , R has the value of 30. This ratio can be
shown from equations (18(6)) and (21) to be proportional to ixm(l
- p/2). Hence, except for high speed systems or poorly specified
motions, Srma can be expected to dominate the response unless excessive wear develops which enhances the less predictable transient phenomena. It may be pointed out that (y")rms is nominally a
minimum for the constant acceleration curve (which is not smooth
in any sense) and grows slowly with increasing smoothness of the
polynomial curve. Equation (23) shows that for low-speed systems

m
3

5 is also relatively smooth.

1184

NOVEMBER 1975

Fig. 2

Srms 'or various nm contents

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Now requiring that higher ordered terms such as fix2,

considered insignificant, equation (30) becomes

be

1.0

"-I.6

/
.8

j34p4

= (1 - 2 J J ) ( 1

/1

-"^06 y

-X)77X/3/J.

/^02

IBX=O

P4

= (1 -2x)(i -

(31)

v)vxfixiiJ

v,r

l=o

A/

V*
0.0

tin

Consequently, the total error difference from equation (29) is

+0.125 (PEAK)

(32)
0.0

0.0

where the error distribution coefficients

.2

ft,

.4

.6

=JJ\(1-\)(1-27J)
Fig. 3

(33)

/?,, or /9 2T

/34;i = 7 ? X ( l - j 7 ) ( l - 2 A )
are functions of the modeled distribution parameters only. Thus,
if the designer has some estimate of the probable magnitude of
errors in the mass deformation distribution (fSv,fS\), the @tn,f3t\
functions will indicate the sensitivity of the p 4 synthesis coefficient to these errors. The error distribution coefficients have been
plotted in normalized contour charts (Figs. 3 and 4) with a normalization factor of 4 in each case. Note that equation (32) is an
approximation which allows the qualitative representation of the
charts. For complete accuracy, the designer should use equation
(28).
The above formulation has been carried out for all the ft error
coefficients and is listed in Table 1. Also, all the /3( Pa error distribution coefficients have been plotted in Figs. 3-8. These show
that to minimize the system's sensitivity to distribution error, the
mass and deformation should be near the cam (?) = 0, X = 0).
The condition for best dynamic synthesis (?) = 0, X = 1) shows increased sensitivity due to |8 3 ,\(Y = 1), /?2,\, /?i,\- The significance of
this contradiction will depend on the system and the magnitude

0.0

0 0

-0.2/

i,r

i"l

V4

( .0

0.0
.4

.6

.8

X
/?4x or 0'2\

Two-degree-of-freedom sensitivity parameters

Figure
Reference

NF

B. = n X ( l - X ) ( l - 2 n )
4n

B 4A - n X ( l - n ) ( l - 2 X )

B, - nX(l-x)
3n
,
.
UXU-2A), Y-0
B3
X " ^ ( l - n ) X (1-2X), Y - 1

Approx. Form

Remarks

{(1+8

( 8 . B + 6.,B,})J 2
4n n
4X.A m

)n (1+8,)X ( l - x - B X ) ( l - n - P n)
A
A
n

-r,A(l-n)U-X)>i
m
B3P3

08 -iq

Exact Form

+0.125
(PEAK)

Fig. 4

Table 1

. ,

1 ~0AI

( f ( l + B n ) n ( 1 - Y - B Y) + (1+B )Y ( l - n - B n n ) ]
[(1+BX)X (1-X-B X X)] -

{f

Vn

+ 8

3X X>V m

In(l-Y) + Y ( l - n > ] [ A ( l - X ) ] ) p c i i n
62p2

{(1+B

)n + ( l - n - 6 n ) ( l - X - B , X ) n
n
X
n - (l-n)(l-x)}>i +

2r, " " A

B 2X - - X ( l - n )

B2X -

YX(1-Y)(1-2X)

B 2 Y - YX(1-X)(1-2 Y )

B
{8

2n 8 n

2AV>V

ID

{(1+8

Vl

Y(1-Y)

{(1+B
-

)Y (1+0!)X ( l - Y - 6 YX1-A-B.X)
A
A
Y

Y -

2YSY

Wl

XU-A)}^

)Y + ( H - J v l ) ( l - H , l )
Y
A

{8

1Y 6 Y

+ 8

lX8Xll,c

lY "

U-Y)U-*)}UC

Vo

+ {6

-X(1-Y)

YX

NF = Normalization Factor
g
n

BZH
ft
. X~X
n *
X
X '

Journal of Engineering for Industry

1 -1=1
Y
Y

NOVEMBER 1975 / 1185

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

vv

\ \ \

1.0

o.rv

/ /

N
0.6^

0.6/

\4

o.y

v, r

\0.2

A0.2/

.20.0

0.0

.4

.6

Fig. 5

0.0

ft.

Fig. 7

1.0

ft>or/

Equation (35) now represents the controlling equation for analysis

of the parametrically varied 2 DOF system. Note that it is written in terms of the designer estimated values pt and the error
coefficients ft. The particular solution using the method of undetermined coefficients aQ may be represented by the matrix formulation given in equation (36). Making the reasonable assumptions
Arii Ar2, He, Hm2 ~" 0, equation (36) reduces to equation (37).

y l.o

-- y o.o

2(1 + W P j

j 6(1 :
24(1 + ,i 1 (p 1 | 120(1 + 4 ) p ,

(1 + /f>Pn | 3 d
4(1 - H ^ p ,

j 20(1 +,l,)i>.

'
(p-3)(/>-2)(p-l)pC,

0
(A-2)(/i-l)/ic,

\o.\
\

-0.2/

-0.4;

(P-l)/>c;
pc,

fftPi
(/-3)(/-2)(/-l)/CI

{ &Po

Fig. 6 ftu

(1-1)1)-UK,
(l-l)IC,

IC,

5.

Two DOF System Transient Distortion

Dynamic synthesis of a 2 DOF system was considered in Part I.
The effects of higher derivatives y'", y"", . . . of the motion specification on the subsequent shape factor S were shown to be dependent on the distribution parameters -q, X, y, while the total
mass, deformation, and damping properties were considered invariant in terms of the one DOF values /um, ixc, MA- In Section 2
the one DOF motion distortion due to errors am, ac, ak was treated. Here we wish to investigate the contribution to the motion
distortion due to errors ft, ft, ft, in the distribution parameters
for the 2 DOF system.
The controlling distortion equation for 2 DOF similar to equation (4) for the 1 DOF system is

S(pi-Pi)yi(0

(34)

<=0

Substituting in the ft defined in equation (25) gives

S(l+(3 i )P ( 5 1

(n

= E^P ( y i

(=0

1186

NOVEMBER 1975

i=0

<,)

2(1 +ft) f t

0
1

0
r

6(1 + &)fc
A

0
1

12(1 + >h)fh
^

20(1 + ih)fh

30(1 + (^)p;

I IC-DK', /

which when inverted gives a matrix formulation similar to equation (14). Consequently, the fundamental vibrational amplitude
is obtained in the same manner

A= \p\Cp{{\ +h)P2}<* /2)-i ftP2

(35)

(38)

by assuming that p > 5 which is a desirable condition for the

synthesis of the 2 DOF system. The ft. in the braces can be ig-

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

nored relative to unity to give

p /2)-l ,

\p'-ct{P2y

(39)

&P2I

or
A = pWp(nmrn{V

+ (1 - i , ) ( l - X ) } < * / 2 ) - 1 | i ; X f t 1 - x a -7?)|3 X |
(40)

This formula is based on the existence of a fundamental vibration

amplitude for a system being driven far below its natural frequency. This implies that higher modes of vibration just will not
be excited in most cam systems except in the case where gross
manufacturing errors exist. This conclusion strongly supports the
view that the cam follower system can be adequately represented
by a 2 DOF model as suggested here.
For a system where /t m = 2.27 X 10~ 4 synthesized for the 5-67-8-9 polynomial operated at speed m = 0.9 o>d gives the distortion
contours as shown in Fig. 9 for the fundamental transient amplitude. This contour plot was obtained by direct simulation without any simplifying assumptions and looks surprisingly like the p%
= f(X, ij) chart of Part I. The clarity of this plot justifies many of
the assumptions used in obtaining equation (40). The next vibrational amplitude is 200 times smaller than those shown in Fig. 9,
further justifying assumptions used to obtain equation (40). From
this chart it is noted that:
(a) The boundaries X = 0 and ij = 1 reduce the system to 1
DOF for which the maximum distortion results. Hence, the 2

1.0

0.0

-ozs'

y,r

OAJT

DOF can be considered as a filter with respect to the 1 DOF to

reduce distortion.
(b) No distortion occurs at X = 1, r; = 0 to reinforce the values
for the best design obtained from dynamic synthesis.
6.

T w o D O F System R M S Distortion
To determine the RMS distortion for the 2 DOF system, it is
again assumed that d-y is small so that its higher order properties
5i', &i", . . . go to zero. Equation (35) reduces to
(41)
{=0

and using the reasonable assumptions that A n , 1V2, Mo Mm2 -* 0,

gives
5i = A W i "

(42)

or in the RMS sense, the value for (5i) r m s becomes

(61),= \v^-i(i-v)Px\v-Jyi")rms

(43)

Combining the RMS values for the 1 DOF and 2 DOF systems
yields 4

(5i)ras = |x(l + aJfoA, + (17 - Dftt)

+ a m ( l - X +?)X)|fim(3'i")rms

(44)

Equation (44) is one of the most easily used means of determining

the quality of the output motion in terms of the distribution parameters );, X; errors in the distribution parameters ft,, fl\; the 1
DOF dynamic factor fim; the error am in the dynamic factor; and
the RMS of y i " , the second derivative of the specified motion.
Hence, (yi")rms becomes another useful means of determining
the qualitative merit of a given motion specification.
Fig. 10 represents the (Si)rms for the same system as shown in
Fig. 9 and was obtained by direct simulation without any simplifying assumptions. The form of this chart is virtually identical to
the P2 = f(n, X) chart. This completely justifies the assumptions
used to obtain equation (44). Also, note that A = 1, JJ = 0 are
again ideal values to be used in choosing distribution parameters.
7.

M e a n i n g of D y n a m i c S y n t h e s i s
Suppose t h a t a cam has been manufactured by assuming the
model to be absolutely rigid (K = > and S = y). This may be
due to the economic necessity of using off-the-shelf cams or to the

-0.6,

-oa/

Fig. 8 fox or |8u

"(MAX. '

1.63 X I 0 " )

* Equation (44) is obtained by permitting one and two degree of freedom

errors to occur simultaneously in equation (34) and proceeding through
equations (41), (42).

1.0

JOB

10.6

o.y

/OA
yl^O-Z

0.6/

I J

11
Fig. 9

Fundamental amplitude for two degrees of freedom

Journal of Engineering for Industry

OA/

Fig. 10

QZ/

<5i, m s for two degrees of freedom

NOVEMBER 1975

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

1187

M S l , IMPROVEMENT AS A RESULT OF
*
THE SYNTHESIS PROCESS

400

Fig. 11

800

1200

1600

2000

A for synthesized and unsynthesized systems

failure of the designer to recognize that accounting for system deformation would improve its operation. This is equivalent to synthesizing the cam for wd = 0. When the cam is placed in operation, the result is clearly an over-speed condition. Transient and
RMS deviations for this type of operation are plotted in Figs. 11
and 12, respectively. In addition, deviations for the 4-5-6-7 synthesized polynomial are also superimposed on these plots. The
improvement by reduced amplitudes for operating speed a > 0.7
u>a is quite apparent. In many cases, this reduced sensitivity to
off-speed operation may be the best recommendation for dynamic
synthesis.

8. Conclusions and Design Suggestions

Extensive computer simulation by analysis has confirmed the
conclusions made in this paper. In addition to the conclusions
given in Part I, the following comments and "rules of t h u m b " for
design can now be made:
1. The greatest burden for the designer, analysis, is now largely unnecessary.
2. Simpler models for synthesis are warranted when the specified motion is smooth (p > 4) and excellent manufacture is used.
3. Transient distortion is far less important than RMS distortion. High over-speed, poor manufacture, wear, or cyclic reinforcement can enhance the transient deviation. Use equations
(18) and (40) to estimate this deviation magnitude.
4. RMS deviation is the best overall qualitative tool to judge
the cyclic distortion. Attempt to choose smaller values for
(y")rm3, particularly for low or medium speed systems. Use equation (44) to estimate RMS distortion.
5. In general, deviations for 2 DOF are never more than those
for 1 DOF. The 2 DOF system is the better filter; i.e., the
exact inverse of a device for precision motion transferral.
6. Smoothness of the contact force, (FK) = (FK)a + K2 02,
is a valuable means to judge correct system design. The
smoother this curve is, the less likely noise and wear will develop.
A smooth force curve also means that higher harmonic vibrations
are not induced which means that simpler design models are
valid. Unfortunately, the required precision for 5 2 can only be obtained by a complete analysis.
7. The design charts developed here again indicate that v = 0,
A = 1 is good design. This means to put the mass near the cam
and the deformation beyond.the mass.
8. Use the best possible modeling techniques to reduce the
values if am, /3,\, /? @y. For ^ m , it is better to overestimate. For 2
DOF, use appropriate error distribution charts for guidance, particularly for (32u. fe. Attempt to design the system such that the
model shows a minimal sensitivity to modeling error.

1188

NOVEMBER 1975

Fig. 12

drms tor synthesized and unsynthesized systems

9. Deviations are significantly reduced for systems where dynamic synthesis has been used above 70 percent of design speed.
This is recommended especially where wide speed ranges or anticipated increases in production rates may occur.
10. The above rules may be extended to a large class of medical devices made up of gearing, cams, and linkages where relatively small motion ranges exist. For example, high fidelity pickups and speakers are in this class. The inverse is the filtering system which is designed not to transfer any information. Inversion
of the above rules could prove fruitful for those systems.

References
1 Matthew, G. K., and Tesar, D., "One Degree-of-Freedom Cam System Synthesis and Analysis," submitted to the Journal of Machines in
March, 1974.
2 Dudley, W. M., "New Methods in Value Cam Design," SAE Quarterly Transactions, Jan. 1948, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 19-33.
3 Thoren, T. R., Engemann, H. H and Stoddart, D. A., "Cam Design
As Related to Valve Train Dynamics," SAE Quarterly Transactions, Jan.
1952, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
4 Stoddart, D. A., "Polydyne Cam Design," Machine Design Magazine, Three Parts, Jan., Feb., March, 1953.
5 Barkan, P., "Calculations of High-Speed Valve Motion With Flexible Overhead Linkage," Transactions of the SAE, 61,1953, pp. 687-700.
6 Hartman, J. B., "Anticipating Dynamic Behavior," Transactions of
the 4th Conference on Mechanisms, October, 1957, pp. 9-15.
7 Johnson, R. C., "A New Point of View on Minimizing Cam Vibrations," Machine Design, August 9,1956, pp. 103-104.
8 Johnson, R. C., "The Dynamic Analysis and Design of Relatively
Flexible Cam Mechanisms Having More Than One Degree of Freedom,"
Journal of Engineering for Industry, November, 1959, pp. 323-331.
9 Barkan, P., "High-Speed Spring-Actuated Cams," Transactions of
the 5th Conference on Mechanisms, October, 1958, pp. 64-76.
10 Rothbart, H. A., "Cam Torque Curves," Transactions of the 5th
Conference on Mechanisms, October, 1958, pp. 36-41.
11 Nourse, J. H., Dennis, R. C , and Wood, W. M., "Recent Developments in Cam Design, "SAE Summer Meeting, June 5-10,1960.
12 Johnson, R. C, "Analysis and Design of Cam Mechanisms Having a
Varying Input Velocity," Transactions of the 7th Conference on Mechanisms, October, 1962, pp. 190-201.
13 Weber, T "Filter Theory Applied to Cam Dynamics," Transactions
of the 6th Conference on Mechanisms, October, 1960, pp. 48-54.
14 Roggenbuck, R. A., "Designing the Cam Profile for Low Vibration at
High Speeds," Transactions of the SAE, 61,1953, pp. 701-705.
15 Johnson, A. R., "Motion Control for a Series System
" ASMS
Paper No. 64-Mech-7, 8th Conference on Mechanisms, 1964.
16 Freudenstein, F., "On the Dynamics of High-Speed Cam Profiles,"
Int. J. Mech. Scl, Pergamon Press, Vol. 1,1960, pp. 342-349.
17 Mackowiak, J. F., "Dynamic Synthesis of Direct Contact Mechanisms," Master's Thesis, University of Florida, April, 1967.
18 Rennak, J. R., "Steady State Analysis of Linear Systems Subject to
Periodic Excitations," Master's Thesis, University of Florida, March 1972.
19 Chen, P. Y., "A Refined Algorithm for Finite Difference Synthesis of
Cam Profiles," Journal of Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 7, 1972,
pp.453-460.
20 Chen, P. Y., "Analysis and Design of Cam-Driven Mechanisms With

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Nonlinearities," Journal of Engineering for Industry Trans. ASME, Vol. 95,

No. 3, Aug. 1073, pp. 685-694.
21 Chen, F. Y., "Kinematics Synthesis of Cam Profiles for Prescribed
Acceleration by a Finite Integration Method," Journal of Engineering for

Journal of Engineering for Industry

Industry, Trans. ASME, Vol. 95, No. 2, May 1973, pp. 519-524.
22 Winfrey, R. C, Anderson, R. V., and Guilka, G. W., "Analysis of
Elastic Machinery With Clearances," Journal of Engineering for Industry,
Trans. ASME, Vol. 95, No. 3, Aug. 1973, pp. 695-703.

NOVEMBER 1975

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/11/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

1189