Comparative Assessment of Drive Power Demand in Vibratory Technological Equipment Equipped with Planetary, Differential, Double Crank–Slider, and Cam-Type Vibration Exciters

Introduction. Vibratory technological equipment is widely employed for conveying, screening, compaction, and surface-treatment operations, where drivetrain sizing is dictated by peak power and torque and their pulsations. Prior studies predominantly report dynamics of individual vibration exciters and frequently rely on mean-power or linearized harmonic estimates, which prevents a like-for-like comparison of drive power demand across exciter architectures under identical vibration output and process loading. This study addresses these gaps by introducing a unified comparative framework for planetary, differential, double crank–slider, and cam-type exciters.

Methods. A unified kinematic-dynamic model was formulated in generalized coordinates for each vibratory system. Instantaneous drive torque was obtained from the balance of inertial forces, suspension elastic–damping reactions, and technological resistance forces mapped through mechanism-specific transmission ratios. Instantaneous mechanical power demand was evaluated as P(t) = M(t)·ω(t). To enable a fair comparison, all mechanisms were assessed over a common operating set (target vibration amplitude and frequency, payload mass, and technological resistance characteristics). Evaluation metrics included mean and peak power demand, peak torque, and power pulsation index (peak-to-mean ratio), supplemented by decomposition of inertia-driven versus process-driven contributions.

Results. The framework produces power demand maps that reveal pronounced mechanism-dependent power pulsations that would be underestimated by average power methods. For the same vibration output, planetary and differential exciters exhibit lower peak power demand and reduced torque ripple, whereas cam and double crank–slider exciters show higher peaks and pulsation indices due to more non-sinusoidal motion. Mean power demand is primarily governed by payload and technological resistance, while kinematic nonlinearity largely determines peaks and pulsations.

Conclusions. The proposed framework is novel in providing an objective, harmonized, multi-metric comparison of drive power demand across distinct exciter mechanisms, extending beyond conventional averaged and linearized assessments. It enables evidence-based exciter selection and drivetrain sizing to improve energy performance and durability of vibratory technological equipment.