by
J. H. STEWARD
.1
A thesis submitted to the University of Newcastle upon Tyne for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
January 1989
r,i!=tIJU(Ab I LE UN I VF Wi IIYLI 089 54049 I'S HRARY

rho6L
1
44
ABSTRACT The load distribution across the contact line(s) of spur gears is essential for the gear designer to be able to accurately stress gears for a given application. Existing gear standards (eg BS 436, AGMA218 DIN 3990) use a thin (2D) model of the meshing gear teeth to estimate the contact slice This approach clearly fails to model properly line load distribution. loads, since the buttressing teeth subjected to maldistributed effect the load distribution. of adjacent tooth sections tends to flatten Nonlinear tooth modifications such as crowning and some forms of lead are also inadequately modelled. correction This thesis sets out the theory for a 3D elastic model of wideThe faced spur gears that has been implemented on a microcomputer. for standard form zero required 3D contact line influence coefficients modification spur gears with 18 to 100 teeth have been determined by These theoretical Finite Element analysis. values have been compared with results from experiments carried out on a complete large module (18. Omm) widefaced elemental spur gear. The effect of the various have lead) and profile modifications profile, gear errors (eg pitch, been investigated compared using the 3D computer model; the results with results predicted by the existing gear design standards. The existing gear standards use 2D tooth compliance values up to 50% less than those obtained in this work, largely due to inadequate in which is most significant modelling of the gear body compliance, gear wheels. Comparison of 3D tooth compliance values shows a large discrepancy between author's results again due to inadequate modelling of the gear body.
000
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for their following the like to thank continued people would Design Unit, Hofmann, Director Mr DA help in this of project; SERC for the Tyne, University Newcastle research setting up upon of his for basis this thesis the forms that as aell of project for his Mr JA Pennell tutor, technical enthusiastic my assistance; Mr the throughout technical highly project; guidance constructive and C Woodford of The University Computing Department for his invaluable the remaining help in the use of the University mainframe facilities; in his ME for Unit, Mr Norman Design expertise members of especially the use of microcomputers and finally many thanks to Mrs J Maclean for her meticulous and prompt typing of the thesis. I
DECLARATION This thesis consists of the original work of the author except has is to the not and work of others, where specific reference made been previously submitted for any other degree or qualification.
******
Background Notation
MODELLING 2 MATHEMATICAL OF THE MESHING CHAPTER CONDITIONS BETWEEN SPURGEARS 2.1 A Three Dimensional Elastic Model of Spur Gears
Elementary Theory of Tooth Meshing Load Intensity Solution at any Arbitrary Position Engagement Outside the Kinematically Defined Phase of Mesh of Tooth Contact Compliance and Stresses
Modelling
2.2.1
2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.3
Introduction
2D Contact Compliance of an Elastic Half Space Finite Element Modelling of Contact Compliance and Stresses Comparison of Contact Deflection Results with Published Data Investigation of F. E. Surface Loading Discrepancy Modelling the Contact Compliance and Stresses in a Gear Tooth Contact Compliance Near the Tip/Root of the Tooth of Tooth CentreLine/Gear Body Compliance
Modelling
Introduction Two Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Gear Teeth A Two Dimensional Study of Gear Body Compliance Three Dimensional Finite Element Modelling of Tooth CentreLine Compliance Modelling of Adjacent Tooth Compliance
2.4
Curve Fitting
of Tooth CentreLine/Gear
Objectives of the Experiment Design of the Test Rig Method of Loading the Test Gear Measurement of the Static Deflections Measurement of the Tooth Root Strains/Stresses Calculation of Tooth Root Stresses from Surface Strains Finite Element Model of the Test Gear Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Results
Shaft Deflection Results Tooth Bending Deflection Gsults Tooth Contact Deflection Results Tensile Root Bending Stress Results Error
Experimental
3.9.1 3.9.2
Tooth Bending Deflection Experimental Error Tensile Root Bending Stress Experimental Error
4.1 4.2
4.2.1 4.2.2
4.2.3 4.3
Significance
of Tooth Stiffness
Values
Introduction Effect of Helix Angle Errors Effect of Profile Errors Effect of Pitch Errors in the Presence of Pitch Calculation of Contact Stress %7'. It According to BS/ISO/DIN Standards Contact Stress at Pitch Circle Contact Stress away from Pitch Circle of Tooth Profile Modifications
Errors
Effect
Tip/Root Relief Crowning End Relief LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING SPURGEAR ANALYSISAND AREASFOR FUTURE STUDY Spur Gear Analysis
AnnrRinirtrr
Analysis
dy, Calculation and Initial of Loading Diameter, Clearance, ct, Outside Theoretical Phase of Mesh Surface Coordinates
Plots of F. E. Net Tooth CentreLine Optimising Data Routine for Curve Fitting Root Strain
Gauge Results
and Calculated
******
1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background for a design of gears of appropriate size and reliability both the for predicting method a requires application bending the teeth between the and meshing gear stresses determined These are relatively in the tooth root. easily load distribution across the contact line of the meshing gear known.
The methods of analysis currently used in practical gear design are usually based on one of the modern gear rating standards such as In these analyses, the contact and BS[B31, ISON51, DINED31, AGMAEA81. bending stresses are first calculated for idealised "perfect 11 gears then form). The (without are so calculated values any of errors distribution load by introducing (for "real" various gears) modified the effec, of inaccurate and factors to allow for manufacturing to fundamentally All approach similar adopt a errors. alignment 1986 3: 436: PART BS bending stress and so contact and root calculating will be looked at as an example. is not fully understood, so that failure The mechanism for pitting Hertzian is However, failure not analysis possible. a rigorous Or'h for is comparing surface an criterion adequate stress contact The contact stress is calculated by considering the fatigue strength. cylindrical mating gear tooth surfaces as equivalent to two elastic first bodies in contact with an elliptical pressure distribution 1.1 by Hertz in 1895EH81. Using the notation shown in Fig. treated the contact of perfect stress at the reference diameter for a pair gears is given by:
a
____
(1.1) V
'1 2tr(i)
or
a40
11U17
Where the three Z factors respectively take account of tooth geometry; elastic material properties ind transverse contact ratio, which determines how the load is shared between adjacent teeth in mesh. The length of contact line varies continuously through the mesh cycle in helical gears and, due to elastic interaction between the teeth, the load is not distributed uniformly 'along the line of contact. It is a largely factor which is intended to allow for these empirical effects.
7/
Fig. 1.1, Notation for Contact Stress: BS 436
In BS 436 the nominal root bending stress is cal cul ated  at the treating the gear tooth as a outermost point of single tooth contact, in bending subjected to the tangential simple cantilever component of The critical the tooth load. section at the tooth root is assumed to be defined by the 30" tangent as shown in Fig 1.2. There are also but these are of shear and compressive loads on the tooth root, in he stress secondary importance and in BS 436 are allowed for 't 1.2 factor. Using in the Fig. the nominal concentration notation shown bending stress for the cantilever at the critical section is given by: Cl LF, el% C05 lzr= F6
P
5L C. 05or
whence, introducing a stress concentatfon stress at the 3(f tangent is given by: Y4
hF
Fiq.
1.2
Notation for
Bending Stress:
BS 436
The values of stress concentration factor, Ys, are based on strain [H91, gauge measurments on a large number of tooth forms by Hirt Finite Element analysis and "exact" solutions of the 20 elasticity , by ECII. Earlier problem conformal mapping analyses of this problem were based on a somewhat different analysis of tooth bending proposed by Lewis[LI1. Stress concentration factors applied to the nominal bending stress were based on photoelastic experiments such as those reported by Dolan and Broghammer [D41, and Heywood[H101. These methods have now been shown to considerably underestimate the peak tooth root tresses for perfect gears. Now consider the stressing i nal nom contact stresses for load factors to allow for the The errors and misalignments. BS 436 corrects the of "real" gears. perfect gears by introducing various torques, effect of nonuniform gear contact stress is then given by:
JK hY, V. vc Clac.,,
(1.5)
The application factor, KA, takes account of external dynamic loads superimposed on the mean applied load;  the dynamic factor, KV, dynamic loads generated by the relative allows for of internal This work is concerned only with vibration of the two meshing gears. the slowspeed "static" stress analysis of gears subjected to known for which KA = KV =1 by definition. Calculation of external loading, KA and KV for other situations The face load will not be considered. factor, due to accounts for the increase in contact stress (see Fig. 1.3). Its unequal tK,,, 00 h loading accross the tooth face, total tooth misalignment and the mesh magnitude depends on the initial The transverse load factor, Kiinc accounts for load sharing stiffness. between teeth during multimesh adjacent contact, and depends primari ly on the pitch/profile errors and mesh stiffness. it is these two load distribut'ion factors that are the prime concern of this project, either separately or combined into one static load factor, Moad, where KLoad is the ratio of peak to nominal static load. is not the intention to provide an alternative It to the , 436 gear stressing standard but to improve the modelling BS existing of the load distribution load and provide more accurate peak static
10
The remaining parts of the standard are still applicable provide a more comprehensive analysis of spur gears.
Fig.
1.3
Maldistribution
In this determined by work the static contact stress will be (14) using equation (1.1); and the bending stress by using equation as in BS436. However, the corrections for "real" gears will NOT be calculated by the BS436 method. The gear meshing models used in all the gear standards used to
11
factor Kill, consider the gear teeth, as the load distribution predict indpendently. linearly deflect A that thin slices series of a is face load distribution the the assumed to predict across varying load distribution K,,,. The mesh stiffness analysis of gear teeth on equations originally values used are based on twodimensional carried out by Winter & Podlesnik EW121 based developed by Weber and Banaschek EW4 W71. the root bending stress are calculated in a
F:
G KA. i(v. Fo
ic
Fg "
KrCK
factors and dynamic factors where KA and KV are the application longtitudinal defined KFg KF,, transverse the previously and and , load distribution f; ctors, allow like Kilt. and K,,., for the effects of nonuniform torques, gear errors and misalignments. The contact loads at the most heavily loaded section of the tooth are actually supported bu root flank bending stresses over a finite on width of the tooth Some "averaging" of the contact section. each side of the critical is thus apparent in the distribution load distribution of bending BS436 assumes that KF. = K,,,, based on work stress, so that KFp <K0 A by Jaramillo[JI] discussed below. and Weltuer[W8,01 Limitations 1. of BS436 and Other Existing Gear Design Standards
The thin slice model assumed in BS436 clearly fails, to model teeth to maldistributed loads. buttressing The resultant subjected the thin slice effect of adjacent tooth sections tends to flatten 2D distribution. The linear 2D model is incapable of accurately modelling nonlinear tooth lead modifications eg crowning and non linear (now readily available to the gear designer with CNC correction hobbing at his disposal).
2.
12
3. 4.
in 2D The stiffness the employed analyses'are generally values great dueto inaccurate modelling of the gear body compliance.
too
factors K11,,, The face and transverse loads distribution and 1; are but there is no evidence to suggest that assumed multiplicative their effects are independent.
Several attempts have been made to overcome these shortcommings. The elastic deflection of each tooth at'any point along the contact (not as line depends on the loads at ALL the other points actually for the contact assumed in this "slice model" which is only valid is thus possible (with the use of a, computer) to It compliance). determine the contact load distribution by solving a system of near linear equations of compatibility of deformation for points along the lines of engaging gear teeth in which the deflection at any contact is obtained by integrating the the effects of loads applied point on anywhere along the contact line and also, to a much lesser extent, the adjacent meshing teeth. Since the teeth are such a complex geometrical shape, no simple has so far been developed for the contact line analytical solution Several approximations compliance of any given set of gear teeth. have consequently been suggested for modelling the tooth compliance, involving deflection into (assumed the total splitting generally independent) deflections. The influence coefficients of the contact line have previously been split up into Hertzian contact or local bending/shear of the gear tooth, deflections deflections, of the gear bodies, deflections of the shafts, bearings, and finally, casings etc. In 1949 Weber [W4  W71 obtained expressions for the tooth by integrating the two dimensional stress function contact deflection derived by Hertz. Tooth deflections by equations were obtained the strain energy due to the applied bending moment, shear equating force The gear body and normal force to the work of deformation. by modelling it as a considered semiinfinite plane loaded by the bending moment, shear force and normal force, again by tooth root using a strain energy method. KagawaEK11 put forward a theory for calculating the gear tooth
13
compliance based on the formulae for a beam on an elastic foundation facewidth. by a torsional This compliance along the tooth modified provided a basis for several models developed in the 1960's. In 1963 Hayashi and Sayama[H21 measured the bending deflections The experimental results module rack tooth. of a 240mmwide, 8. Omm were correlated with deflection equations for a thin cantilever plate similar to those developed by Kagawa EK11. This work was continued by for difference Umezawa [U1  U81 who developed a finite solution tapered rack shaped cantilever Local contact deflections plates. were load. Deflections calculated from a 'point' of the gear body were not included in the analysis, the tooth and consequently compliance was underestimated.
Schmidt [SI, S21 used equations of the same form as Weber and Banaschek's tooth stiffness formulae (derived from Kagawals formulae) to obtain the combined stiffness of the meshing pinion and wheel. The equation constants were slightly modified to allow for the additional flexibility This at least acknowledged that the of the wheel only. than the pinion. wheel has a signifTicantly greater flexibility based on the However, the additional compliance was still Weber/Banascheksemiinfinite plane assumption for the gear wheel body The contact deflections were treated as a and was thus inaccurate. twodimensional Hertzian compliance.
Tobe[T41, treated a helical gear as a rack shaped plate encastre The deflections Element at the root. were determined by Finite The deformation of the root was again based on an analysis analysis. to a half space. The contact of forces and moments applied deflections formulae were approximated by using Lundberg's empirical [L51. Conry and Seirig [C3, C41 defined the flexibility of the tooth as a torsional and bending compliance by considering it a cantilever plate. The increased compliance near each end of the gear teeth was taken into The data account by using the mirror or moment'image law[JI]. for an infinitely long plate was used as a obtained from Jaramillo[JI] basis for the plate model. It can be shown that under uniform load the ends of the teeth then behave as though the tooth were infinitely i. e. the tooth stiffness is over estimated. Deflection of the wide,
14
neglected.
Vedmar EV31 used three dimensional finite elements to model tooth bending compliance. Only approximately two modules of the rim was included in the finite ignoring the gear body element mesh effectively deflections deflection. twoContact with were again dealt dimensionally Vedmar also performed a 3D using Hertz formulae. load to show that for gears with contact analysis a "reasonable" distribution, deflection the errors involved in using the 2D contact formula are small. Finally, several authors have published work in which the contact spur gears is based on the conformed mapping of the compliance for from a half plane (e. g. Cardou EC11). Noone gear profile projecting appears to have mapped the half plane into a complete gear to model the gear body deformation. correctly As shown by this brief survey, several authors have already developed 3D elastic models of spur gears based on the contact line (see Section 2.1). However, the stiffness of the meshing gear teeth, accuracy of these models depends directly on the accuracy of the used and noone appears to have modelled stiffness coefficients deflection The tooth centreline the contact line stiffness. correctly (the gear has been found to include a significant 'disc' rotation, body component). For gear wheels this increases the tooth centreline deflection by 125%. In view of this it is essential to model the gear body deformation correctly and the semiinfinite plane assumption is not valid. Objectives of the Work: model for spur the line
1. Develop and verify experimentally a 3D stiffness importance were: gear teeth. Of particular that the commonly adopted method of a. Verify body components of contact/"bending"/gear deflection is sufficiently accurate. b. Verify that the Hertz solution for
the contact
of
15
'half is space valid an elastic at the tip and root. especially c. Examine the magnitude and effects 2. Incorporate 1. into
for
gear
tooth
surface
contact at all phases of mesh including a. Analysing multitooth under load and are when teeth are not in contact until defined deformed (outside the kinematically phase elastically of mesh). b. Correctly take tooth and account gear of arbitrary (pitch, lead error; profile misalignments profile, modifications). 3. Develop and implement 1. and 2. on a microcomputer. The program is to be more easily used as an improved analysis of load distribution than existing gear design standards and also operate as a stand analysis program. alone gear load distribution the shortcommings of 4. Investigate and report design standards (BS, DIN, ISO, AGMA). the existing gear
the In order to properly represent the gear body distortion, including author has found it necessary to model the complete gear, (Section during the Finite Element Analysis, the adjacent shaft, Separate 2D studies have shown that the analytical 2.3). solution for the contact compliance, (Section 2.2), is a valid approximation to the compression between the tooth surface and centreline. A test rig has been constructed to load an 18 tooth pinion and the F. E. /analytical gear modelling of contact line deflections and root stressing validated (see Chapter 3). data has been incorporated in a microcomputer The stiffness an elastic analysis program for spur gears, and Chapter 5 reports investigation, using this program, into the effect of manufacturing load errors and profile modifications on face and transverse based on the The results are compared with predictions distribution.
16
BS, ISO and DIN standards which are shown to overestimate gear 100). (z large teeth 100% for by numbers of = stiffness upto,
tooth..
17
1.2 Notation A[il B Ca Cb Cc C[l 71 .. . CFELAI CGEL. 31 D E FW) Fn Ft Fte Fp6u G(z, zF) K(z, zF) KA KD Kii, KFI Kup KFO KLoad KV Ktb[z, zF] Ktc[z] K(? SrW X Y YF YS Y., Z ZB h ZN ZP ZZ Weighting coefficient point at the lilth gauss integration Offset of tool tip origin from tool axis Height of tip relief Height of end relief Height of crowning deflection for curve fitting tooth centreline Coefficients for curve fitting the 'Master curve ' deflection Coefficients deflection for curve fitting Coefficients the 'end effect' Contact surface diameter Youngs Modulus (209 E3 N/mm2for steel) deflection Centreline 'master curve' function Total tooth force along base tangent Tangential tooth force acting along reference di ameter Tantential force tooth at OPSTC Equivalent mesh misalignment Bending deflection end effect function influence function Contact line deflection factor BS436 application Relative (contact) surface diameter of curvature Transverse load distribuflon factors Face load distribution factors load load to nominal specific Ratio of peak specific BS436 dynamic factor influence function Tooth bending deflection Tooth contact compliance influence function Tooth root stress influence function BS 436 normal tooth chord thickness at critical section X coordinate Y coordinate BS 436 Form factor BS 436 stress correction factor Running in allowance Z coordinate Pinion single contact factor BS 436 elasticity factor BS 436 zone factor BS 436 helix angle factor BS 436 contact ratio factor
18
Centre distance Facewidth Calculated equivalent facewidth Effective facewidth Constant to account for 'disc' rotation componentof tooth centreline deflection Initial, zero load, tooth seperation Single tooth stiffness (BS, ISO, DIN) Relative single tooth stiffness Mesh stiffness Tip diameter Base diameter Shaft diameter Meshing diameter Pinion tip diameter relative to the wheel axis Angle used in tooth clearance calculations (Appendix 2.1.3) Pt. 2: 1970 profile error; DIN 3962 profile error BS436: Pitch error Adjacent pitch error Profile angle error Transmission error Length of path of contact Depth below tooth surface (for contact calculating deflection) Tool addendum BS 436 bending momentarm for root stress calculation Length of path of contact from base normal, test rig loading anvil length Length of end relief Length of path of contact to start of engagement Length of path of contact to mesh diameter dy Normal module Peak Hertzian contact pressure Radius Base radius Tool tip radius trochoid Radius on a given fillet Tooth thickness at reference diameter Tooth thickness at diameter dy
19
u x z zF ZI
Gear ratio Addendummodification coefficient Number of teeth, Axial coordinate Axial coordinate of applied point Iz  zFj
20
et
05 pt
Pressure angle Pressure angle at outer point of single tooth contact Working pressure angle Contact line deflection Loading anvil compression Adjacent tooth surface deflection involute Tooth surface deviations from the theoretical Surface deflection of an elastic half space due to an applied point load bearing the deflection to Tooth relative centreline supports Tooth surface deflection to the tooth centreline relative deflection Tooth centreline deflection due calculated 'shaft' Equivalent angular sepkration of teeth at end of engagement Contact ratio (polar Angle between mesh point and line joining centres coordinate of trochoid) form (Appendix 2.3.2) Vectorial angle of fillet Vectorial angle of point trochoid form (Appendix 2.3.2) line through Angle between tooth centreline and radial meshing point Poissons ratio (0.3 for steel) Stress Contact stress at reference diameter for perfect gears Contact stress at reference diameter for real gears (300 ) stress normal to the gear axis Surface fillet Tooth root stress Tooth root (or 'bending') stress due to a load applied at the OPSTC (30*) stress parallel Axial fillet to the gear axis Principal stress Angular pitch Phase angle relative to the pinion base normal Phase angle at the theoretical end of engagement Phase angle at the theoretical start of engagement between tantent Angle to trochoid and radius vector (Appendix 2.3.2) Distance of mesh point above the refO hce diameter .,. Specific tooth load, between tooth and acentreline angle line joining the two gear axes
21
specific tooth load of facewidth for two point Gauss integration of pinion rotation out of mesh at which no occurs vector
tooth
22
additional a b f y A E
Subscripts Tip diameter Base diameter Root diameter Meshing point Start of mesh, adjacent End of mesh Nondimensional
tooth
Abbreviations DTC EN F. E. B. E W IPSTC LVDT LOA LOC OPSTC SAP STC mu 2D 3D Double tooth contact Engineering number for material specification Finite element Boundary element Hardness, Vickers Inner point of single tooth contact transformer Linearly variable differential Line of action Line of contact Outer point of single tooth contact Start of active profile Single tooth contact Microns (1. OE6 metres) Two dimensional Three dimensional
* ** **
23
2 CHAPTER CONDITIONS SPURGEARS MODELLING OF THE MESHING BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL 2.1 A Three Dimensional 2.1.1 Elastic Model. of Spur Gears
be&een a pair of meshing gear teeth is The load distribution dependent on the initial and the, misalignment of the engaging teeth stiffness of the contact line (The theory about to be presented hare can be extended to apply to multitooth contact of spur, helical, . bevel and worm gears). Consider the engagement of a single pair of parallelaxis gears. Contact between the two teeth will occur over a narrow band lying approximatly in thecommon base tangent plane the tooth flanks in with a width of order mn/30. This plane intersects line known as the line of contact (LOC). For the time being straight we will assume that the tooth load is distributed along the LOC with intensity where zF is the axial coordinate w(zF) per unit Iength, as The elemental force dF(zF)at zF will, for 2.1. shown in Fig. an solid, elastic cause an elemental ddection cT(z)at point z on the The arbitrary load intensity line (eqn 2.1). w(zF) will give contact Rz) deflections 2.1). to rise at point z on the contact line (Fig.
Fig.
2.1
24
where K(z, zF) is an influence theorem we must also have: K(z, zF) = K(zF, z) Integration along the contact 6 so (Ll=) w line
function.
Now consider the overall displacement of the tooth line contact from its perfectly This comprises of manufactured, unloaded position. the following components: Load dependent deviations: Jtc, : Local deformation of the tooth surface tooth This will centreline of tooth. as the contact deflection. to relative be referred the to
Ftb
: Deflection of tooth centreline along the base tangent to the bearing support relative centres excluding bending, torsion bending calculated shaft and deflections.
Non load dependent deviations: (Te Tooth surface deviations from prof i1e al ong base tangent, material to the tooth flank. : Deflections of the tooth invol ute the theoretical deviations positive add along the base tangent
Js
centreline
25
due to 'rigid' torsion, shaft bending, shear deformations. Shaft deflections only vary slightlywith change in load distribution and so can be considered independent of load distribution to a first approximation. ct Initial gap between perfect teeth due to being outside of the theoretical This is important phase of engagement. here only in multitooth engagement but has been included for completeness.
26
Local
tooth
contact
between centreline surface
Deflection relative
27
se
ft is the transmission error along the base Note that ft is independent of z. and wheel.
The tooth deflection is very localised contact and so is load at the point assumed to be only a function of the specific of interest. The tooth deflectionF(z) at z does depend on the load distvibution Combining and consequently does include cross terms. equations 2.1 and 2.4 we have:
4 
,  Ct 
(2.5)
No exact analytical the tooth expression at present for exists bending influence function ktb. Equations 2.3 and 2.5 can be solved by integration to give equations: numerical
E6
(2.6)
hILI
integration. where ADI are the weighting factors for the numerical Repeated two Gauss integration point was chosen to minimise integration errors and prevent the unstable modelling which often results from the use of high order polynomial approximations. Equations 2.6 and 2.7 can be regarded as a set of linear equations for the unknowns w(zF) which can be solved by normal methods (eg If the compliance coefficients' Gauss elimination) are constant (linear Y behaviour). Unfortunatfly, is a nondeflection the elastic contact t 1.
b Lu Lt. ] P LZI
(2.7)
28
the intensity load that linear function the contact so w(zF) of For but decreases is w(zF). with a constant a not compliance is Oe "compliance" "negative" tooth the contact at zF no w(zF) infinite. evidently Equations 2.6 and 2.7 are thus nonlinear, appreciably so if the loadi ng is such that no contact occurs over part of the facewidth. This necessitates an iterative An initial solution. estimate of w(zF) Equations 2.6 is made to allow calculation of the contact compliance. and 2.7 are then solved to give an improved estimate of w(zF). This is The process is then used to recalculate the contact compliances. Loss of contact at any point z repeated until convergance is reached. is indicated by a negative value of w(zF). For these points, the increased so that the convergence contact compliance is progressively process is smooth. Thi s Contact is assumed to occur on up' to three pairs, of teeth. takes account of all practical spur gears including the socalled, high contact ratio MR) spur gears (most spur gears contact on a maximum due to Note that tooth deflection of two pairs at any one instant). loads applied in gear to an adjacent tooth (especially significant wheels) must be included. 2.1.2 Load Intensity Solution at any Arbitrary Position
Section 2.1.1showed how the load distribution at specific points of integration Of speci al along the contact line(s) could be obtained. interest One method of are the loads at each end of the gear teeth. the load intensity obtaining at any point would be to use a large number of Gauss points in the initial solution and then interpolate but this would be very inefficient. Hayashi 1H11 suggests using the relationship Rearranging, we obtain the following:
A
from eqn
Ar
K. LL il
it, Ie
I
Ss' + LT i at
29
is Ktc iteration by for be a since w(zF) solved whi ch can This method has proved to be unsatisfactory function of w(zF). between Gauss forloading points. variations unreasonable gives A better follows: is to as proceed method
known 'and
VJL LI
Kt: ELI
Yt
L LI t.,
(2.9)
is Ktc, The tooth z point only a at any compliance, contact by iterating be 2.9 Equation function load the solved can at Z. of An in itial for the loadWtCl estimate of the load must be made. is known for loads function, Ktb, The tooth bending deflection applied at the Gauss points but nevertheless describes the midtooth Tooth bending facewidth. the deflection across point any at compliance increases rapidly near the ends of the teeth and at the end error. of the tooth are extrapolated values so are prone to greater The method This is why Hayashi's method giyes spurious results. proposed is based on the physical* argument that even for severe malbe "smooth". distribution will of load the tooth bending deflection is accordingly The bending deflection at the point of interest by spline fitting the (already known) Gausspoint values, calculated This interpolated NOT by calculating new values for Ktb in eqn 2.8. deflection into equation 2.9 instead of that is then inserted given by the integral. 2.1.3 Engagement Outside the Kinematically Defined Phase of Mesh
infinitely For perfect, stiff, of phase of gears the limit For engagement is easily determined from geometric considerations. ' however, real contact occurs Outside the theoretical elastic gears, limits of phase of mesh. An example of the effect of this new limit of phase of mesh is in load sharing between adjacent contacting teeth. The loads may or may not be shared between two teeth depending on the difference between adjacent Consequently, peak contact pitches. stresses may at the inner point of single tooth contact due to the low relative radius of curvature (KD), see Fig. 2.3
30
[N/mn]
1: 1
Boo 1 8c
600
6C
400 4C
200 20
0.
0I
02
n4
Roll
n r,
Length
na
L/pb
Im1
11
.1
1.1+
LU
a KO
Fi_q. 2.3
31
75
(equation 24) for tooth The contact compatibility of equation. for the initial separation of the two perfect, contains a term, ct, defined phase of contact Within the kinematically ct unloaded teeth. Where such a tooth is zero Oe there is no gap). are just pair engaging or disengaging contact between the teeth (outside the normal phase angles) can only be between the involute flanks of one gear and Fig. 2.4 shows two gear teeth the tip (corner) of the mating "flank". coming into mesh. to the Contact will be on the pinion flank along a line tangential pinion base diameter, dbl, and passing through the wheel flank corner, dyl A. The loading diameter, used to calculate the pinion bending between this base tangent and contact compliances is thaikintersection line for Appendix 2.13 gives the equation and involute profile. The wheel compliances are assumed to be those calculating ct and dyl. the actual contact although corresponting to normal tip contact, th us be underestimated due to the "nonHertzian" compliance will nature of corner contacts (see 2.2.7 below).
14
32
Fig. 1.4
33
2.2 2.2.1
Modelling
Introduction
for modelling Section 2.1 set out the theoret ical'equations spur Preliminary analysis showed that the tooth gear load distribution. Ktc, contact can contribute up to 30% towards the total compliance, For a nonuniform load distribution contact line compliance. and near the tip/root/ends of the tooth flank there is a complicated 3D contact For "reasonable" load stress field that can not be readily modelled. distributions, however, Vedmar EV31 has shown that the contact compliance can be approximated by applying the 2D "Hertzian" pressure applied to an equivalent elastic half space. In this work, an analytical 2D contact compliance formula has been A semiempirical used to predict the contact deflection. multiplying factor in contact has been derived to take account of the increase compliance near the tooth tips. 2.2.2 2D Contact Compliance of an Elastic Half Space
The stresses beneath the centre of loading of an elastic half Huber and space with an elliptical pressure distribution are (ref. Fuchs [H11D: T+ (2.10)
p
PC, Where contact'depth Footnote:
L i')
(2.11)
34
Fi g. 2.6
with half
Hertzian
Contact
C r,
'PO Q17=
crQc
The strains
+2y
are given by:

ikLM
4 4
e
I /E (2.15)
V (OZ
:.
CZ
ilr
I ozl i')
v(
14 v) r,
(2.16)
35
Whence, inserting
equations
(2.16) gives:
CLZ
41
(2.17)
The
FZ
contact
deflection
is obtained
by integration,
giving: (2.18)
Wf
h, is
Substitutinq for po from (2.12) and assuming h' >> 1 (typically of order 30 at the tooth, centreline) gives:
U In (2 W) 3/1 LiO This expression will be valid aiay from tooth tip/root/end is not valid).
(2.19)
for reasonably uniform load distribution (for which the Hertzian solution effects
36
1,
Fiq.
2.7 F. E. Modelling
of Hertzian
Contact Deflections
and Stresses
2.2.3
Finite
Element Modelling
In order to verify that seperate modelling of contact compliance complete 2D Finite Element modelling of gear was a valid procedure, (see including the contact stresses was undertaken tooth stresses 2.3.2). This required reliable modelling of the contact region itself, and a separate study as accordingly made of how this might be achieved with sufficient accuracy. (restriction A second order polynomial approximation of PAFEC to the elliptical was pressure distribution surface loading facility) (Fig. half F. E. to space, meshes of elastic several an applied 200 Nlmm over a contact width of 2b = 2.7). A specific load of w= Far away from the contact patch 0.3mm was applied to the F. E meshes. theory shows that the stress system is radial and so radial classical boundaries. restraints were applied to the models over semiinfinite To correctly model the The peak shear stress occurs at h' = 0.8b. peak stress gradients the element density is maximum upto a depth of order b. The two coarsest meshes were also subjected to a "point" load (to the accuracy of a constant a corner or midside node) to investigate contact compliance F. E. model. The Finite Element analysis used in load produces this so a "point" work is based on linear elasticity an elastic approxiTation to the the contact compliance. Fi g. 2.8 shows the form of the contact deflection; Fi g. 2.9 the in contact deflection depth; Figs. error as a function of reference 2.10 and 2.11 the error in z and y for each of the meshes shown in Fig. 2.7.
38
_c
wi
. z7
L (U %0 (0 CY) _c
42 L) (U x 0 0 4j 0L (D :: 19 (D CY) (0 L7 (Z _c 0 Li od
c (A
1
(0 CL tn
c
(0
LU c (1
c 0
L 0
L 0
0 c
L (0 aFE
Co
LL
22 Cu"u/N/mu2ax]
Co m1C qzdeo
Z
rli
ry
408 CZ 8AIZeled
U, 480
(f)
E2
(0
m c (0 0
0 c3
CO c m (0 0
(n E2 CY) c 0 (U 0
m c :. G (Z 0
00
x
c2
L LM
Z
V" c
(0
C 4j 0
CM C:
U)
0
Ln d
J0 Ln I; Ln Ki Ul C4 0 C4
CM
A
LL.
ui
tei
uu,*]*, /cpuoiao, 9
14, (] eu)lejzu93
HZOOi ION
0 0c c
0aE (D (D
(D 00 L 0 CM hr) (D 
(D LL 0.. 0
(D CL
(0 00
(0
(0 (0
4' t tz
%%U0
,:!
0
rn
Ln N
ci, CY
Ln
ci 
trt
Ln 11
ci
TO 1%] uI
JOJJ3
(0 10 (D 41 41 ou cc 0000 r0cE C (D 0 (Dd LM (D (D (D c wc%imi L0 (DO LL Ci c2(0 (0 0 O0 0 d (0 (0 00
40 (D L 4J c a) L) nt 0 (D m
lar
40
m c
d
a,
0
LLJ LL
C
L 0 L L LLJ
CN
Uc
CY
12
Ln
CDI
tin 1111
12
(3
ty
9p
u1
Note: 5% to to The deflections converge approximately a value appear Although the mesh was than the analytical solution. greater , in is there which still some region clearly progressively refined, The edge of the elliptical the F. E. approximation is inad equate., * distribution pressure produces very high stress gradients and seems This potential the most likely source of error is source of error. The cornernode model is 20% too later in this section. considered The compliant for h' = 30 (approximate gear tooth reference depth). midside node model converges to 5% error (acceptable) by the time h' 2b. loaded has 30, the that width element a of provided = The stress modelling is less accurate than the deflection modelling The stresses do not converge near the surface as would be expected. to the correct value at the peak stress depth (0.8b) unless three or more 'surface' elements are used to model the applied load. 2.2.4 Comparison of Contact Deflection Results with Published Data theoretical theories. contact
Fig. deflection
by using Westergaard [H. 8] solves for the contact deflection stress functions and obtains the same formula as developed here (valid for large h'). functions Johnson [H. 51 quotes Boussinesq's use of potential to half space. He again calculates of an elastic obtain the deflection from the known stress but the strains equations and deflections different Nikpar and Gohar [H. 91 obtain obtains results. another deflection formula from integrating L'Ure's stress equations, [L. 61. Note: developed The in this solution analytical work, eqn Westegaard stress function solution and the F. E. deflection (2.19); results
43
all
below the surface the to same value converge formula and that of Nikpar
(h' >
and Gohar
Investigation
If the the F. E. model had converged to the correct solution surface loading output should have exactly correspond to the applied In an attempt to compensate for elliptical pressure distribution. the inaccuracy the surface stresses were subtracted from the required The F. E. model was then reanalysed with this error surface loading. load applied to the surface (by itself) with the total load applied 2.12 and 2.13 show the to remain at 200NImm. Figs. constrained for result of superposing these "corrections" results on the original The modified the surface load distribution and contact deflection. loading has given a slightly better deflection curve but has not fully Very fine mesh modelling of the edge explained the 2.5% discrepancy. of the loading surface would probably produce better results but is for the increase in accuracy. not justified
14
44
CY) c3) cc a
(0 (0 00
. 0
0
LU
0 %i
r
0; L
:3
L 0. 0 CL CL
14. 0
0
LU LL
C
L 0 L L uj C%4
C%li
LL
ci t
0 o
c3 Ln
CD
Cl
ci
CD
c2
ci
Ce
00
(3
mi
CY
ci
r4  9419111
mi
Ln
3A
m CY) cc 73 _C) (0 (0 00
0
CD CD 00 co (a %44LL :) w :3
(n
. 0 U co 0
0 0
m c
(n (0 CL Li
PC)
C%j CY)
0 fli
L(I Cj
Ln
C)
Ln
tn
Ln
2.2.6
Modelling
In sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, and F. E. sol ut ions for analytical Most previous Hertzian deflection were developed. authors contact assume that these results are valid for a gear tooth flank away from 2D finite In to this tip/root/end a order assumption verify effects. in a typical gear tooth was el ement study of the contact deflections for his The tooth geometry was that used by Winter CW131 carried out. strain gauge experiments. Number of teeth Pressure angle Module Addendummodifications Cutter addendum Tool tip radius Tip diameter z: C4 mn x: hao rao da : : : : : 14 20 10.0mm 0.0 1.2mn 0.304mn 160mm
(where diameters were considered corresponding Three loading The root bending possible) to Winter's loading diameters (Fig. 2.14). Winter's strain stress could then be compared with gauge results data. The three loading diameters (dy = 157.9,153.6 and 131.94mm) loading; and a 'tip' a typical OPSTC loading modelled a 'root' loading.
o
47
the mesh of From 2.2.5 to model adequatOy the contact region, , Fig. 2.7 was used. The parabolic approximation to the elliptical th e calculated loading was, applied to two surface elements with 1300 Nlmm. Contact deflections were def i ned as contact width for w= to point A along the the deflection of the contact point relative LOA.
D at un Depth h (mm)
5.057 6.038 17.538
2.
Progressive refinement of the remainder of the mesh in the gear tooth and body ( which was insufficiently modelled to give the overall was compliance values) showed that modelling of the gear tooth itself . more than adequate. introduced by The results of table 2.15 show that the errors midtooth superposing contact an analytical compliance on the deflections are minimal, except near the tip, so that modelling of the This had an important bearing contact region by F. E. is not essential. on the extension of the work into 3D, since the 3D equivalent of the mesh shown in Fig. 2.14 would have exceed the capacity of the existing available to the author. computing facilities
49
2.2.7
of the Tooth
2.19) has formula (equation The anal yti cal contact deflection No been proved valid for a spur gear tooth except near the tip/root. of the tip of a suitable analytical solution exists for the deflection in the tip, loaded Hertzian as shown near spur gear with a pressure Fig. 2.16. A 2D Finite Element Study has accordingly been carried to which a Hertzian" pressure distribution out on a 2e rack profile This approximation was applied at different points along the flank. does although it represents the contact conditions at the tooth tip, of the two of deflections not, of cour se, ensure, the compatibility (like the The actual pressure distribution will contacting surfaces. deflections) from that given by eqn 2.1Z. differ The resultant of are plotted as a function contact deflections (Fig. distance from the end of the rack (expressed in contact widths), is increased by up to 1.6 compared with 2.17). The contact deflection that for the elastic half space. A second order polynomial was fitted depth of to the curve for h' = 9.816 (corresponding to the centreline This polynomial provides a semiEmpirical a rack with tip loading). for the half space solution given by eqn 2.16. * multiplier
* Footnote
Since this work was completed, an approximate analytical solution to the problem of "Hertzian" contacts near a 900 corner has become loading This shows that for available compared to 110' assumed here. the compliance is increased by a factor of 2.3. On the at the corner, inversely basis to be the compliance might be thought that to the corner angle (cf analytical wedge sol ut ions ), a proportional 90" and 1.6 for 1100 would be expected This is in factor of 2 for a the work presented here. good agreement with between the This approximation does not account for differences in the contact datum differences rack and spur gear tooth profile, due depth h' between a rack and a spur gear, changes in tooth profile to manufacturing errors, runningin etc. The root loading is applied to a near flat tooth flank formula has been assumed satisfactory. space deflection so the half
50
H! S
j
!!
i
PR
. 22 .
43 0 0 I" u to
41 0
41,11 " I
fl do
n rr vii *I 0 . r4) u
II
4) L)
0 u 41 0 0 IftA
C)% C) CD ry
M) rn
r%0
K) K)
C) CD
d
_c _c 41
Id !
Z _c 41 C) _c _c 4j (D
d Id (%i rli Co _T
_c C
44
_c Z
41
X_c 4j (D
CL
0)
CL
Cl
c2
(D 0 c 0 L (D %9. (D
(D
(2
CD
(D 0 c (D L (D %. 60
C
0 C) c (D L (1) %10
c2
0 0 c 0 L a) %d(D
c2
(1)
0
G
ca
a) C) c (D L a) %4a)
Of .4
0 0 c 9) L 0 %14)
a
4.A _c 0 0
c> rn
c :
0: >
0, EI
4>
CY0
Co
L m ci
0 L c (D
12
Li 0
.C 4j L (0 (D Z
L U(D u c (0
c 0
mi
4j (0 c2
CD
C%j
0
Co o r cy
a) LL
ci
ci
ci
r3u,
2.3 2.3.1
Modelling
of Tooth Centreline
1ntroducti on 2.1 'described the theory for modelling spur gear load The kernel of the tooth deflection integral equation compliance under the action of a point load. centreline deals with the modelling of this centreline deflection Finite Element software.
Section di stri but ion. is the tooth This section using PAFEC
Firstly, an adequate two dimensional finite element mesh was developed to model with sufficient centreline accuracy the tooth deflection A st udy of gear body and also the root stresses. deflections f or was then carried out by comparing tooth deflections finite element meshes with various 'depths' of tooth root modelled, to determine how far below the tooth theimodel needed to extend. A three dimensi onal model was then devel oped based on these the resul ts i ncl udi ng a length of shaft at each end to ensure that The stress field within the gear blank was correctly represented. bending deflections teeth of both the loaded tooth and. the adjacent loads appl ied at were then obtained using the model, with "point" various points overthe loaded flank. Finally, the deflection curves for 18,25,40 and were fitted with exponential equations. The coefficients for intermediate tooth equations can be interpolated tooth data for any spur gear from 10 to stiffness standard rack form (1.0mn addendum, 1.25mn dedendum, radius and zero addendummodification). 2.3.2 Two Dimensional Finite Element Modelling 100 tooth models of the fitted numbers to give 100 teeth with 0.25mn tool tip
of Gear Teeth
To model the deflections and stresses in a gear tooth the finite humber of elements ta ens7ure that element model must have a sufficient approximations of the deflection across any element by a second order is sufficiently A gear tooth is a cantilever, polynomial accurate. it and the peak stress gradients occur at the tooth root surface. follows if a selected mesh is able to model the root that stresses it is reasonable to assume it will correctly model the remainder of
53
the tooth
correctly
Fi g. 2.18 shows two finite element meshes for a 14 tooth spur are of spur gear surface coordinates gear. Equations for calculation in Appendix 2.3.2. , Coordinates of midside nodes are also contained to stress a smooth root profile no with calculated give In the tooth root the coordi nates of the mesh are discontinuities. selected to satisfy the PAFECrequirement that they bisect the element (tooth lie (like trochoid the the nodes) edge and corner calculated on low 2.2.3 that fillet) The 'section of of show regions results curve. stress gradient can be modelled adequatdy by very few elements without degrading the overall result. tooth [W131 has published experimental results for this Winter obtained by strain gauges and quotes 268N/mffe for the peak profile (relative deflections to Tooth centreline tooth root tensile stress. point A) agree within 0.8%.
54
all
0*
&.................
N ....... ..............
......................
(A cu
LU
43 r'01
................
.I.
:.
I. .0., .,
...............
41 0
cu
cn
1 "j
c) (Z) c) er ( z (::) C> 4 M c) C,
E EI cc EE
c" cu
11 00
NE
c74 . r 1 LL.
Model 1
Model 2
14 z= mn = 10.00mm x=0.000mm hao = 1.200mft rao = 0.304mn F. E. Model 1 2 3 6 w Emu/N/mm] 0.0248 0.0286 0.0313 7k
,,
2*.3.3
The tooth centreline compliance is made up of two components: bending/shear the acting as a simple compliance of the tooth cantilever and the compliance of the gear body supporting the tooth. is NOT the torsional/shear/bending (Note that this compliance is not possible It to consider associated with the shaft). individually these two components as the stress fields created by each are not separable. To demonstrate the significance of the gear body compliance 'a slice of a gear was analysed using PAFEC complete two dimensional finite load was A simple point element software (see Fig. 2.19). Finite, element models of a sixth, applied at the reference diameter. the a third and a complete gear body were analysed to investigate deflections, from only change in the tooth centreline resulting modelling part of the gear. deflection The tooth centreline was found to increase by up to 26% when the whole of the gear body was modelled. Although the exact field in the entire gear could not be simulated stress perfectly, these results are conclusive enough to show that the entire gear, m be modelled to give correct values of tooth centreline compliancb. 4', 2.3.4 Three Dimensional Finite Compliance Element Modelling of Tooth Centreline.: ".
The kernel of the integral equation is the tooth centreline Ktb. This has been defined in Section 2.1 as the. compliance function, tooth deflection centreline at z due to a point load at zF minus the calculated torsion and shear deflections shaft bending, on the gear centreline. Fig. 2.20 shows one of the finite element models of an 18 tooth The gear facewidth is wide enough to ensure that pinion. a tooth centreline deflection, central point load produces negligible than 40 teeth is a except on gears with greater where there disc' rotation significant of the gear body. The gear is effectively simply supported by restraining end nodes at one end vertically and. horizontally (where the torque is reacted), and radially at the simply
57
Approximately half a shaft diameter has been modelled supported end. at either side of the gear to ensure that local stress concentrations body section the support and the shaft/gear change can be points adequately modelled by the relatively coarse mesh in these regions. The tooth centreline compliance as defined above is assumed not is altered to change appreciably if the shaft mounted configuration (to say, an overhung configuration). The main changes will be those body" different deflections, local "gear the "shaft" the not due deflections associated with transfer of,, the tooth load to the shaft. A representative ds must however be used in the F. E. shaft diameter, ds, and Fig. 2.21 model. shows how the chosen shaft diameter, d, varied with the number of teeth, z. For gear reference diameter, the shaft diameter would a 4: 1 reduction and a pinion with 20 teeth, typically be 16 modules. Torsional strength is proportional to diameter cubed, requiring a wheel shaft diameter of about 25 modules. The shaft diameters shown in Fig. 2.21 are thus close to those that would be used in practice for each tooth number.
58
cli
(A CA (1) S4j Ln r q: c
C
. F
;b
.0W
cu L.
%I!, 6 c E
C%i
4
Q)
FD LU
vi
(1)
E r= CD C) C) i LO Ln
cc) C
C) r4 C)
a qu
C Ex
s
to
E
U
Ts
L
J
cz_
es
WUrM6.2r
1*
50
Ji
Fig.
2.21
torsion and shear deflections Calculation of the shaft bending, is usually based on elementary engineering beam theory using the root diameter of the gear section. Changes di ameter, df, as the effective in section diameter are assumed to take immediate effect, which These same assumptions have the shaft stiffness. overestimates been made when analysing the F. E. results, so that no accordingly deflections is introduced when the same calculated shaft are error "added" back in the elastic model deflection vector.
60
is based on the tooth bending Although the numerical integration 0 is not a the final load distribution compliance due to a point load, It is not series of point loads applied along the contact line(s). finite possible to apply qn "exact" point load to a practical element mesh. Depending on whether the load is applied to a corner or midside (see Fig. is different, node the effective applied load distribution 2.22). To approximate a smooth load distribution when the 'point' loads are summedacross the flank point loads have been applied to midside nodes in the transverse plane.
1CI1.
LOaUIfl
iiTh
Ml z
4
7c 7=3
C.ACli
bisAarice From
t) Londin,
Fiq.
2.22 Effect
nodp
oT an F. E. mes
of applying
I ointl
61
Finite and 100 element data has been generated for 18,25,40 teeth for gearswithout addendum modification, generated by cutters of standard geometry (hao = 1.25mm, rao = 0.25mn). These were loaded at 0.25 0.75 2.5 and 6. Omn from the end of the gear. In each 25 , loads ,1 . , case were applied between the tip and root diameter. (where still involute) Appendix 2.3.4 gives the net tooth at 1.0mn intervals. bending deflection data generated by these F. E. models, for each load case. Fi g. 2.23 shows the nondimensionalised tooth bending deflection ktL[i, ij, for the central (midunder the point of load application, face) loading with the equivalent values given by case, together Vedm 31. ar EV
62
4,, ,,
L M
0 0 E 0 0 (0 DC 0
a
a.. '
0
0 m 0 i
0'
0 0 L
0 Co
rl 0
0
L ei
cIt 0
vi
C)
cz L
c21
a) _ID ei Li
C3 ro
.c
LL.
'A Nd
u
U;
C; qzool
U;
C,
ci
in by the two dimensional F. E. analyses reported As predicted to the tooth Section 2.3.3, the gear body contributes significantly Vedmar's results are centreline compliance for large tooth numbers. For smaller tooth for large tooth numbers. too stiff numbers the is to bringing his results 'disc' closer reduced, rotation effect However, the tooth root region of the those obtained by the author. still more compliant when the whole gear body is modelled, gear is implying that even for small tooth numbers the tooth compliance should be greater than that given by Vedmar. This is clearly not true still for reference diameter loading. datum is only 0.5mn below the tooth Vedmar's bending deflection analysis surface, as in the author's not at the tooth centreline (about 0.84mn deep for reference diameter loading). Timoshenko [T73 due to a point load as: gives the surface deflection
rv.zv') ?. Tr
(2.20)
This gives a nondimensional relative compression between the two deflection datums of 0.40, which should be subtracted from Vedmar's This to explains centreline values. why corresponding results give Vedmar's reference diameter bending deflections appear to be greater at small tooth numbers. 2.3.5 Modellinq of Adjacent Tooth Compliance
Because of the 'disc' rotation of the gear periphery, especi al Iy has the deflection teeth of the two adjacent on large gear wheels, Fi g. 2.24 been investigated. gives the net deflection of th e for the 18 tooth gear at various 1oadi ng tooth following adjacent diameters.
64
C: ) Cl
11 11 11 C r
0)
41 41
C
(D
0)
a)
(1)
a)
a)
0000
LLL
ccCCCL. 00MM0a000 4J 41 4J
4j
41
(07
cc
co
Cl
C3
00====
0 c0EEEE DDDD
0
0
xxxxx
c; c 0
. 0 tI
1011
it
4j 0 0
t '
ca
c7)
L 3 tn
0 f
(0
cu
.
CY
cz
(0
Ol
co
ll e
C2
U! 0
CD
dodd
UW*3*UAI
uolzoal4ea
As shown the adjacent tooth deflections are found to be 1argel y independent of the loading diameter, dy. By Maxwell's reciprocal 2 due to a load applied at point 1 th eorem the deflection at point . at point 1 due to the same load applied at point equals the deflection 2, viz.
deflection is independent of loading If adjacent Oe diameter it follows the deflection that on both adjacent Fig. 2.24 preceeding and succeeding) teeth must be equal. shows variation across the of the nondimensional adjacent tooth deflection facewidth for various tooth numbers. Because these deflections are largely due to rotation of the tooth root they do not vary much with load position, Gear wheels show the most' change in axial zF. pronounced deflection. For a 100 tooth wheel the deflection of the adjacent teeth is 43% Because the curves are of the loaded tooth. of the peak deflection (more convective, ) the total adjacent tooth deflection much 1`1 atter, due to a complete distributed load is a far greater proportion of the loaded tooth deflection. 2.4 2.4.1 Curve Fitting Introducti on of Tooth Centre line/Gear Body Compliance Data
(2.21)
The displacements due to tooth bending/gear body deformation have been calculated Since these numerical values of the by F. E. analysis. di spl acements are evaluated at a finite (z, zF), number of pairs of the displacements. An we must devi se a means of interpolating approximate analytical equation for the deflection must be built up is because it (z, for arbitrary This impractical to zF). of values sol ve for the deflections at arbitrary points using a micocomputer It using the 3D finiteetement anal9ses reported in previous chapters. is desirable to have the final load distribution program on a micro for portability and ease of use.
66
2.4.2
Curve Fitting
For spur gears of standard rack form without addendum modification ., Ab, is a function of the following: the, tooth deflection, number of teeth, z distance of meshing point from reference diameter, y distance along tooth of load, zF distance along tooth of desired deflection, z
function the reciprocal The empirical must satisfy compliance theorem and with this in mind is developed as a symmetric function of z,and zF.
(2.22)
The "master" function F(zI) gives the deflection wide of an infinitely (see Fig. 2.25). The gear loaded in the centre of the facewidth, function G(51 ) accounts for the increase in deflection as the load (see Fig. 2.26). and/or deflection point near the ends of the tooth, in large gear The constant, c, takes account of the "disc" rotation wheels, it is sensibly zero for tooth numbers less than 40. To obtain the best possible fit for the tooth deflection, several forms of equation were first considered for the 'master' curve F(zI) Finite for diameter loading of the 18 tooth Element the reference to the equations considered were optimised by model. The coefficients The method of to the F. E. results. minimising the rms error relative descent (Appendix 2.4.2) was used to minimise the errors steepest the search together with a simple grid searching procedure to identify region and avoid convergence to local minima.
67
c E
0
c E
c rE
c E
0,
0 0
cl C) C)
ci C)
C=l
Ln 
m M
E m
L 3
u c 0 Cl u
co
44 C 0 0 I
0 0 IL 0)
41 co
10
cr) c 0
Ln
0 c ca
U
en
p.,
c 0 4J 0 c
UVI 04
N cr) Utn
m
C5
Ln
cs
U0120814ec] eulleiZU83
L1.1001
a)
41 (1)
CD
4P CD
(5 C3
co C3
mm M CY) C3 CT)
a) CY) cccc
f9
40
Ln
0) u
r
41
Cl
$1
C., '
iiiiiiiiFii1
N cu
C!
1 0
cc
IT
N0
cc
Ir
C3
ci
uoizounj
',3e443 Pu3
by
type 1
(2.23)
W) 3 cEa,
CE33
type2
C[3]Zl
(2.24)
clill
CIL
cE21Z'+
CE27 C
e_
type 3(2.25)
137
CLO
Z1 CCL23 cLBI
: 25 ze
type 4(2.26)
Equation (2.23) was adopted by Seager [S31; this effectively only has one coefficient C1 Vedmar [V31 used eqns and a scaling factor, . Half the symmetric of inverse exponenial form, viz. equation (2.25). The last equation was chosen for its curves are plotted in Fig. 2.27. Note: the secong. exponential term in eqn. 2.26 closeness of modelling. it point. very near>, load application only affects the deflections to have very close modelling in this was desirable region as it contributes most to the tooth contact line compliance. function for the case of midface Having achieved a satisfactory it was necessary to obtain loading (away from the ends of the tooth), the best fit for the function G(Z) to take account of the increased For spur gears G(7) must clearly be a compliance at the tooth ends. symmetric function of (z, zF).
70
0
41
0 CD
V) c
0
o C) CL X +j 41
U (1) . j %4CD
%4a) C L u
a) a) > > L L :) :) u u
00 El I
Co
ca
Ln
1: C
0 CL
C) C a, C.. C a, Li C C, 0 0
0 L
c (Z
04 C3
0) C4.1
Ua, > CU N
flI
m LL
mi
(11
0.
ci
(0
ci
l
Ln
.,r
zli
ci
ci
ci
ci
ci
7 00
Cww/N*nwl uw*3*qzg
u490
'A7,001 '9N
developed the socalled "moment image" method to Jaramil 1o [jl] back the master deal with thi s pro bl em. This involved reflecting in Fig. itself the teeth the deflection at ends shown of as curv e on 2.28.
Fiq.
72
1.5 deflections 0 the tooth Using this modules at and method, f rom th e end of the tooth were found to be 0.76 and 1.13 times the indicating the that finite by deflections analysis, element obtained mom ent image method does not accurately represent tooth end effects. jt ' can be shown that it models the tooth as though it was continuous, on successive sections of width with mirror image load distributions "b". For thi s reason an empiri cal equati on f or the end ef f ect f uncti on G(z, zF) given in equation (2.26) has been developed such that:
CD1 = zF) t or
cC51[
(2.27)
For each tooth number analysed bly F. M. (19,25% 409 100) and each loading height, (1.0, 0.5,0,0.5,1.0mn), the optimum coefficients were determined for CF[11.. CF[41 and CG[11.. CG[31 using the previously developed minimising routine. Note that Fi g. 2.29 shows results from the optimising program. the CG[31 CGE11 to the master curve optimised, are only coefficients deflections The been fi tted. I Ei fi havi CF ousl y ng previ coef ci ents, by E*mn by form in multiplying are given nondimensional
73
c a
c 's
c r=
c E
c E
(1)
c2 m c 0
c2 m c 0
c2 m c 0
c2 m c 0 4
c3 m c 0 _A x <
0
X41
OD
Z 0
x <
A
y x _IC 9
> EI
41
Ili 0 19
L 4.1
Ln C Ln
41 C) Z
mi
tn ri
(0
vi .i
41 0
tn a
cs
C) Lri
Ln i
Cl 4
Ln vi
Ln C4
0 Ci
Ln
Ul d
rj F U
uw*3*'Wq4uOl:, 9
3'l4'G
'9ullellu9J
H7'0'01 IMN
c
Ln N. Ln 11.
c
Ln r%j
c
CD Ln
c
CD C:1
41 w 13
0 c (0
0 c
Ull
C) c
(in
41 w
u c
(13
0 c
(0
41 fp
41 (n
CY) , CY) c c
CY) c
CY) c
cm c7)
c
.C 4.0 (D
i
f
C) Cl
i
0
, i
0
I
0
i
0
M x
m x
tu x
(in x
(0
0
Lr.
C3 (1) c
Ln LA
L 4A c (1)
u C
cl Lri
44 0 0
Lr, z
I
E
0
t. 0
0 I0
cr
4.J
0?
41 U)
uj U
Ln cs
40
a,
Li
0 LA
Ln i
0 4
Ul Ili
0 vi
Ln cli
0 cli
Ln
C3
Ul 6
ci
13
eullej3ua3
Liz"I
ZON
2.4.3 Curve Fittinq of Adjacent Tooth Deflections Th' adjacent tooth bending cI5`flectTo__n_s_w_e_re_fitted using the same The optimising routine as for the loaded tooth bending deflections. deflections Becausethe adjacent tooth are plotted in Fig. 2.24. deflections the are mainly due to disc rotation of the whole tooth, curvep are much flatter so a different form of deflection equation w at"'Ti with symmetry about z= b/z) viz: A CT11 t CL23 e. ( tr '3 7_+ S, cE (z.+rF (2.28)
*****
77
3 CHAPTER OF SPURGEARCOMPLIANCE EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION of,, the Experiment 77 determining the load In Chapter 2a theory wasproposed, for distributioninspur gears.  Jhe tooth contact line compliances were Element, analysis and these results were fitted calculated usingFinite Contrary by'Isuitable to most of the previous approximations. be deflection body found to the significant was ,Published work,,, gear. the model the effect , and, it proved necessary to includein of tooth loads on the deflection of adjacent teeth. 3.1`, Objectives In view of this disagreement an experimental investigation of the line contact compliance was carried out on an 18mmmodule wide face spur pinion. The primary objectives ofthis investigation were as follows:
To measurethe bending deflection of the loaded tooth at various line for comparison with the Finite contact points each along Element results used in theproposed theetical model. 2) deflection, To investigatethe shaft component of the tooth deflection is theory simple engineering and to check that design analysis ( using the sufficiently accurate for practical diameters). appropriate effective To measure the deflection tooth contact compliance. of the point of loading and verify the
3) 4)
To measure the tensile tooth root strains to obtain from which the position and magnitude of the stress can be determined.
78
3.2
the included is test drawing the at rig A, general arrangement of The the 3.1 rig Fig. rig. of this thesis. shows a photograph of end base the tangent or axial radial at any along aIpointlload applies large be to test as tooth. gear, was chosen position on the'loaded The (typical deflection, biggest peak the to possible give as practicable kinematically is 30mu), tooth deflection loaded and order of of , defined. it to loads the well are applied mounted, to ensure. that all, All deflections, are measured from an unloaded, nondeforming measuring The measured table: kinematically 'supported gear. on the, test frame this, whose to deflections of reference a rigid, arerelative _in, , defined. be to'the precisely gear axis can position relative The test 'as fo 11 ows': was gear'data Number of teeth Pressure angle, Module ',I :' I' Addendummodification. addendum _Cutter tip radius, Tool , Tip diameter FacewidthMaterial Surface hardness, ='18 2018. Omm mn 0.0 x 1.400mn hao 0.400mn rao da', ='360mm 260mm b", '708M40 (EN 19A 550 HV flame z
between the loading anvil and tooth surface *, Footnote: The friction bending high the However, tooth. the compliance to will apply a moment the that magnitude (aluminium) will ensure the column anvil support of be force friction the small. will of
79
The test gear was mounted on two 'thin' plates with negligible bending stiffness. One end of the shaft was torsionally restrained in The other end the desired position by a Ringfeder keyless coupling. bedt. deep bearing. This ensures by was supported radially a groove . that the the torque and shear are transmitted to the gear in exactly distribution same way as in a normal pinion giving the correct of stress in both the gear and adjacent shaft. 3.3 Method of Loading the Test Gear
The gear tooth could be loaded to 24 KN by a hydraulic cylinder in parallel During a test the with a load cell and a loading anvil. deflection gauges were zeroed and then the load s reduced to zero, This procedure was found to recording the reverse of the deflection. produce the most consistent results. The deflection gauge assembly was mounted on a carriage that could be traversed along the test rig frame such that the loading axis was The axial position always vertical and along the base tangent. of 1oad ing, to the end of the gear tooth. The zF, was measured relative tooth was truncated to allow the anvil to load up the gear adjacent tooth., SepaLrate Finite Element investigations showed that this had a negligible and stresses. on the tooth deflections The loading applied to the teeth had to satisfy two criteria if firstly it had to agreement with the F. E. model was to be obtained; load with respect to gear tooth approximate a "point" centreline deflection it had secondly, very locally, and gear body deflections; to represent the "Hertzian" contact of two meshing gear teeth. For these reasons a radiused anvil was selected to apply the load, (see Fig. 3.2).
81
. lk
Fig.
'Correct'
557mm), two For each of the three loading diameters (324,342, . identical Each anvil had a radius of curvature were made. anvils equal to that of the gear tooth at the corresponding loading diameter contact and was relieved at each side to give a nominally rectangular area 9. Omm wide. Each anvil was provided with a Dshaped hole as shown in Fig. 3.2, (at a distance 'h through which its axial deflections from the contact surface) could be measured under load with a suitable (LVDT) probe. By loading (in a the two identical anvils together separate calibration rig), at the test load (24 KN), a contact stress to that existing when the gear tooth system was thus set up identical deflection The relative was loaded. of the probes in the Dshaped holes in the calibration rig was thus exactly twice the deflection of the contact surface relative to one of the probes. When loaded against the test gear with the same 24KN load the deflection of the contact surface could then be inferred from measurements. tak.en in the. Dshaped. hole. In this way, objective 3 could be met even though direct access To facilitate to the point of contact with a probe was not possible. fine of the very sensitive probes (claimed measurement adjustments fine adjustment lever on the shaft resolution of 0.01mu) a was The provided for rotating the gear to the correct angular position. lengths, 1, in orderto make contact three anvil pairs had different They were made of the test gear toothat the correct radius. with 665M17 (EN 34) hardened to 550 HV. 3.4 Measurement of the Static Deflections
As previously explained, all the deflection measurements were made to a measuring frame kinematically mounted on the test relative gear, (see Fig. The two shaft sections, A, B, on which the measuring 3.3). frame are supported define the effective test shaft. They are located (e. g. shaft support points, away from any local stress concentration shaft section changes), so that the stresses at the ends of the effective test shaft would be those given by simple beam theory. The three M1, M2, M3, are all on the neutral axis of the test support points, 'distortion' of loading to minimize gear in the direction of the Measuring frame rotation support point positions under loading. about the gear axis is constrained., at the torquerestrained end to minimize to the frame. absolute rotation of the test gear relative
82
rn L/)
L)
L)
,1
31
21
A carriage on the measuring frame carries one or two cantilever LVDT probes (Feinpruf 1320/1 gauge heads, resolution 0.01mu). They were set up to measure the deflection of either flank of the loaded tooth along the base tangent. The unloaded flank is not normal to the base tangent with so is fitted small metal pads providing a perpendicular surface from which to measure off. The deflection to the measuring frame is of the shaft relative ,. determined LVOT probes (Feinpruf 1301 gauge heads, using axial The deflection 0.02mu). resolution of the tooth flank diametrically to the loaded tooth was also measured as well as those of opposite various other points on the gear at positions along the test shaft. The relative 3.5 Wof axial position each deflection to the end of the gear tooth. probe was measured
In order to ver ify the accuracy of the Finite Element modelling ' and also obtain valuable experimental data on tooth root stressing, the tensile tooth root has been extensively strain gauged, (see Fig. 3.4). Because of the symmetry of the gear, tooth root stresses are very nearly a symmetric function of the distance oF the load/measuring from the centre of the face (only the torquerestraint point at one In view of this the tooth end disturbs the symmetry slightly). root stresses were assumed symmetric for a load applied at the same distance from the end of the tooth. Transverse strain gauge chains (HBM 1/120KY11,1.0mm pitch, 0.6mm active length), were fitted at selected axial positions across the 300 tangent line to pick up the peak transverse strain and stacked rosettes (WSMWA0612OR120) are fitted at equivalent positions from the other end of the fillet to obtain the complete surface strain field.
84
CD
41
EI .
The *strain gauge data (and load cell ouIput) was processed by an HBMUPM60multipoint measuring unit and stored on a floppy disk using a Data Track Technology Tracker 1400. 3.6 Calculation of Tooth Root Stresses from Surface Strains
The On the surface of the tooth root is a state of plane stress. to give strains strain and chains are positioned gauge rosettes Ea, iEo & C. in Fig. The peak strain value from the chain is 3.5. used for f: 6 .
d
ll "i ai
Fig.
3.5
State of Strain
in Tooth Root
86
equations
relating
the
(3.1)
and Equations 3.1 & 3.2 can be solved to give principal and the principal stresses ci. P 7.'2. , strains
(3.2) QC
Ei ) +)E =&(
The transverse calculated: and longitudinal,
CJ'
FaZ.
+ 1) E
(3.3)
stresses
then
11Z Cy M7 6 A small post processing program has been written equations. strains based on the,%' 3.7 Finite Element Model,of the Test Gear
The test results were to be comparedwith Finite Element model of Only the effective test section of the test the actual test gear. gear was modelled by F. E. to simplify analysis of the deflection data. Fig. 3.6 shows the test gear, with the F. E. model shaded.
87' '
a) "D
*. a
r_ 0 4 4J u CD El)
14. 
The Finite Element model is simply supported at sections A&B and in torsionally The extra shaft deflection restrained at section B. the test gear due to M1, M2 has been taken into account when comparing the two sets of deflection results. 3.8 3.8.1 Comparison of Calculated Shaft Deflection Results and Experimental Results
As a preamble to the measurement of tooth deflection, the shaft /gear body deflections were examined. This also served to verify that simple calculations o f the shaft deflections engineering were All the tests were carried out for a reference sufficiently accurate. diameter (dy = 324mm), but four separate load cases were loading considered with the distance from the torque restrained end, zF = 130, 50,30 and 10mm. investigation The quantities in this of interest were the ( ie in the deflections vertical of the gear shaft/gear centerline direction (twist) of loading) and the shaft rotation again at the Simple beam theory horizontal shaft no predicts centreline. deflection. Three sources of information of these quantities are available viz: beam theory simple engineering F. the E. the of results analysis taken the the test on surface of measurements 
gear
Examination of the F. E. results showed that although there was distortion the vertical of each shaft and gear crosssection, deflections diameters were very close to that at the ends of vertical Rotation and horizontal deflections of the centreline. of the shaft likewise, be estimated centre could, with sufficient accuracy by taking horizontal diameters. measurements at the ends of vertical Note 1. The shaft rotated relative to the measuring frame under loading, (lifting up support M3 in Fig. 3.3) so that the shaft centreline moved vertically at this end relative to the frame. This required a correction to be applied
89
The measured value for the measured deflections. twist between sections A and B, has been used to twist Calculated values of this the readings. on the root diameter for the gear section agree to 5%.
In the plane of loading, tooth 10 rotated by approximately 15, demonstrating 10% less than tooth significant by the This body. the distortion was confirmed of gear F. E. analysis Distortion of the shaft diameter at the supports was of the order O. lmu. measuring frame
3.
65=AAS
Calculation Experimental
Fig.
3.7
Determination
of Shaft Deflection,
90
The calculation by simple engineering of shaft deflection is made u of 3 components: torsion, bending and shear deflection, Fsb, ss). ,p The following assumptions have been made: 1)
theory ('Tst,
Any change in section diameter (e. g. from the shaft to the gear), has been assumed to be fully effective at the step (not diameter). This is perfectly a 'cone' of effective acceptable for a pinion in which the step is small as here. The root diameter, *df, has been assumed to be the effective deflection. diameter for calculating the torsional diameter The has been assumed effective reference the shear and bending deflections. calculating for The due the the
2) 3)
The results for the four load cases, are plotted in Fig. 3.8. experimental results are generally higher at the ends of the teeth to the assumed 'step' change in diameter. The repeatability of deflection measurements was of order O. 1mu, and thus equal to discrepancy between measured and calculated values.
There is thus no evidence of any systematic error, and the simple theory engineering can be assumed to predict shaft centreline deflections within 5% or tMmu, whichever is greatest.
91
C, E
10
Lr
r
ccc EE
co
r1i
F=
0) 0 C tm
41
a) a) 000 CCC Cc (a
44 41 (P
a) CO
41
cu "1 c
0) +j CO
COL x
(a
p// Li
Ij I
41 0 0
cr) 0 < 0
c
41 U)
CIJ
C3
c;
ci
cs
ci
ev
C) C;
[ntu]
3.8.2
Results
(Fs + the results In this section of the loaded tooth deflection, Jtb), flank are compared to the tooth centreline measured on either deflections Element analysis. The total tooth centreline from Finite deflection has been compared because it is near raw data extracted from If the calculated/measured shaft deflections each model. were from each model an extra be subtracted error could possibly introduced. have been slightly to The F. E. deflections modified Measurements ends. account for the applied end moments to the shaft (dy = 324,342 and 357mm) at were taken for three loading diameters, four axial positions, (zF = 130,50,30,10mm). All measurements were 0.1mu). repeated a total of three times with a repeatability of A.
The results of the tooth bending deflections are plotted in Figs. both the loaded and 3.9,3.10 Where access permitted, and 3.11. were measured and the results averaged to unloaded flank deflections deflection. The difference between the estimate the tooth centreline two readings was never greater that 5%. In the plane of loading, (z = F. E. deflections zF), are plotted for both the tooth centreline and The inplane tooth centreline the unloaded tooth flank. deflection is greater than that of the unloaded tooth flank showing deformation Tip loading shows the largest deformation as of the tooth shape. could be partly due tb some of the contact expected but this deflection being present at the tooth centreline. The F. E. still being on average 6.2% results agree very well with the experiments, lower. from The only plausible reason for this discrepancy (apart is that the F. E. model may not contain experimental error) enough Too fewer elements so has not quite converged to the exact solution. the model and reduce the computed overconstrain elements will deflection.
93
c E
10 Lfl VI
c E
r. 10
10
c E
r, 
c E
CNj C%J
('4
OD r
r
:j 4,
14
LL
Li
Li
N
t) C 0 C
hi
0 C
N
0 C c 0
IE m c 0
cz m c 0
0
l m c 0
0
CM m c 13
0
0 0 CL  x (U Li Ui 1
I t2
>
41,
01
r"
E Li
N Co 2
44
r_
... 0
Ln Co 41
0
Im
0 r4 ry cD CID o r CY c2b Co e r rY 0
c E 10 Ln Lri c; 11
LLN CD 0 c
4
r_ 0
c E
c E
CD
c E
ry
0
N
f'r, cli
LL.
ry c4 tz
LL
(0 4j
LLG) V c
41
(D c22 m
3 0
(D 0 c
4J
0) 0 c
41
0
22c 0 c 0 c 0 r_ 0 x LU U 1
t2
>
4'.
Co 2
44
0
c
(0
N,
iiigiiii&iiitt
c2 mi to ry 0 r CY ri r, 4 CD ry
Co
r
c4
l+
Co 10
Enw] q,"is +s I
ucizoallao
eoe4jnS
Llzooi
Ln V
t0 10
CO r, N
C%i ci e14
:3 CY
' to
LL
L.L
LL
114
N
c 0 .f,
N
c
N m
C C
(U
+. to
Co
f. w
CD
il
C
(0
tn
.3 (D u 1
C) c
v 10 0 73 lu 0 0 m 0
>< CY) w
v 110 0
t2
rm
0 Ul
(0
Cl >., 1
CY
C71
tri fn
CIA pn
Lrw cli
C N
Ln
Cl
+ LM cl
Cntu) qzy
3.8.3
Results
The loading anvil was designed to try and obtain results for the 20 Only the reference contact deflections occurring between gear teeth. diameter 2D The calculated were investigated. contact deflections deflections contact were approximately 21% less than the experimental results. The experimental contact deflections were obtained as follows. Firstly by loading'the two identical the loading anvil was calibrated The anvil compression, rAB, was measured. The test anvils together. gear was loaded at the reference diameter, (dy = 324mm), following the same procedure as for the tooth bending, deflection experiments. Axial Loading Pos'n of Def'n zF Emu] 130 50 30 10 Jtb Measured Anvil Deflection Emu] 59.5 59.0 59.2 65.0 = Deflection Derived Tooth Surface Def'n, A [mul 53.2 52.7 52.9 58.7 Measured Tooth Bending Defln Ab [mul 15.4 15.2 15.9 20.8 Derived Tooth Surface Def'n Ac [mul 37.8 37.5 37.0 37.9 Error in Contact Defln
measured on unloaded flank deflection = 29.6mu for Test G. ear Reference Diameter.
2D contact
Contact Deflection
Results
J*AB The anvil calibration yielded a compression of = 6.3mu. Equation (2.19) The predicts a 2D contact compression of 24.5mu. length 3.2) is only 0.3 of the total of the line load (2b in Fig. length so a 3D stress field was present in the anvil. If the anvil two mating surfaces of the anvils were flat and the stress assumed to
97
spread downwards along a double tapered rectangle deflection can be calculated from equation 3.5. gives an anvil compression of 14.8mu.
7L
Fig.
3.13
Approximation
98
6
C
Fz
E:
a.
(3.5)
0 The deflection should actually be greater than that given by this due to the effect No approximation of the surface curvature. satisfactory explanation can be put forward as to the very low value deflection (6.3mu) and as such the tooth of anvil calibration contact (given in Fig 3.12) compression results derived from this calibration if Note that the are to be viewed with caution. calculated approximation to the anvil compression of 14.8mu is used to derive the loaded tooth surface deflection the derived tooth contact compression is 29.1mu. This gives a +2% lerrorlwith the calculated 2D contact deflection. This suggests that the contact stress system in the test gear tooth is in fact 2D under the loading anvil throughout the tooth depth which does not seem plausable. It seems morelikely that the assumed loading system and corresponding stress system is being distorted, for example by curvature of the tooth in the axial plane due to the 'point' load. In order to obtain more reliable of verification deflection it would appear necessary to desip a new test following specification: Load up a deflections, the identical 2) the contact rig with the
large module gear to obtain the largest possible (not a rack because the loading anvil should have contact surface radius).
Only the gear tooth plus a suitable depth of gear body, (say 4.0 deflections modules), need be modelled as contact are very localised. Gear facewidth should be wide enough to ensure the central (5 modules or are independent of end effect, contact deflections 100 contact widths). Load must be applied across the entire facewidth to ensure plane strain stress field in the centre of the gear tooth. a
3)
4)
99
5)
across the contact line must be uniform, control of tolerances or by introducing into the loading anvil.
3.8.4
The same loading sequence used for the deflection measurements was Typical measurements. peak also used for the root bending stress transverse strain gauged readings were of order 230 microstrain with a repeatability of better than 14 microstrain. Because only tranverse strains were measured at z= 130mm (b/2) the gauge the stress could not be calculated here. At other points, readings were converted into stress values using the equations given in Appendix 3.8.4. This proceedure was carried out using a computer read the data files created by the data logger. program that directly 3.14 to The processed strain gauge results are plotted in Figs. 3.16. tabulated results of strain and calculated The corresponing For the master curve loading, stress are given in Appendix 3.8.4. the peak transverse strain was compared (central loading, zF = b/2), loading by F. E. For the those analysis. other points, with predicted. the measured strains/stresses were found to agree with those predicted 3% at each loading diameter. by F. E. analysis to withint The F. E. mesh used is clearly adequate for practical calculation, even though analysis of the F. E. results of the root bending stress, over adjacent elements of upto showed typical stress discontinuities 25%
100
c E
,0
c E
f
c E
OD
c E
ry
Ln Lrl
%0 r1%0 rLL. fi
G) (0
4 rn
C'J IN 0 :2
LM
0)
f '
(0 4,
c;
LL. N
(D
10 :3 (D , r r: o
(1)
0 c 0
4j (0
u c
0 c
(U
44 Co
L) c
(10
41
4.E
tu
0 (in
5 Z ( a) V
CL x CY) LU c Z (0 U 1 a (D 0
C) c 0 (0 0
CY) c a (0 0
CY) c 0 ti 0
Co
>
\ \ \
rl
in
0 (U 0
V
Co L
rel
w
0
IN
(Z (D LD 41
er
t%l
0
ry
(0
10
ri
ci
ci
LIZOOJ
ci
SSJGAeSUeJi
ci
+ CY cl
II
SSGJZS
Ib
c E
,0
LrI
r%0
c E
Ln
0 r
CD 1, 
c E
CY rj
c 2
(4 :3
0 C (0
(D 0 C (0
0) U C (0
4, r
0 0
L (1)
LU
:3 0 Li 1
c 0
c 0
c 0
c o
co
(0 0
(0 0
(M 0
(Z 0
L
N
\
e Cy
r"
Ln
c a
U) V) 0
L 41 tn
W
X 41 0 0 (0
Pn
to c (0 L
CY
L (0
Ln
PO cn
Co 10 r ry
"0 0
d
ln SSBJZS
ci
Lj: 001
ci
GSJOADSUPJi
i c:
c E
Ln VI
,0
r
c E
OD
c E
ry
c E
Co
'
0 Fcm r(%4 , *C 3
0 0,
c;
LLN
rz
LL. N 0 c
40
LL14
LAti 9) c
44
0 c
Co
(D c
41
(U +i C
0 (D
(0
CD m c
lE cm c
0
CD
c2
CY) m c c
0 0
L (D a xLU
Z 0 U
m 0 m 0
CO
r.
Ln
M
Ln
E 6.j
L 41
W
0 0
cn X 4j 0 0 w
Q)
0
pn
co 41
tn c (9
L L (U 0 cm
41 0
Cf)
CY
10
rn CY) Ue r ry 0 Co 4r ry cl
c:i
c:i
GSJ8A9SUSJI
c:i
ci
C3?
zssejzS
qzool
3.9 3.9.1
Experimental
in measured tooth bending The error firstly, the measurement of main sources, load), from the positional and secondly, The errors have probe (and applied load). loadings at axia diameter and reference 130mmbased on the following assumptions:
deflection arises from two (and applied the deflection accuracy of the deflection been calculated for the tip positions of zF = 10 and of of
Measurement of deflection: The probes have a resolution 0.01mu but were found to have an experimental repeatability 0.15mu. 2) 3) Measurement of load:: LO. 3 kN in 24 kN (1.25%)
4) 5)
Error in position of loading anvil: Loading diameter is defined by locking the gear at the required angular position based on a distance, h, from the tooth flank to a datum on the test vertical due to applying rig frame. The change in the measured deflection the load at the wrong diameter is calculated from the F. E. data. Radial position error assumed to be i. O. 1mm. 10. Error in position of probe up the tooth flank: Assumed equal to the error in loading diameter. in axial Error position of anvil: is estimated from the F. E. deflection accuracy of .02mmError in axial error position of probe: As in 3) the change in data based on a positional
6)
The calculated
104
Error Band
1%]
3.9 t4.1 t6.0 ;L5.5
10 130 10 130
Error
Sources of error in the transverse gauge readings are as follows: 1) Strain factor gauge tolerance:
0.5% &.
2)
3)
Load measurementtolerance (the load cell was calibrated load in series): *1.25% cell calibrated anothei
using
in the point of loading Radial error on the tooth: position the same procedure as for the Estimated from F. E. data following (3.9.1, Section 3). tooth bending deflections,. 450 strain fields Gauge misalignment: over assumed constant Transverse UO. 3mm). tolerance strain of rosettes positional be is 0.6mm therefore transverse the may pitch strain chain gauge in from Error 0.3mm the maximum of value. a peak measured transverse stress estimated from F. E. data. between gauge position Axial misalignment Error in transverse tolerance of 0.5mm. F. E. data. resultant experimental error in the Assumed and load: stress estimated from transverse stress is
4)
5)
The
105
tabulated
in Table 3.18. Loading Diameter dy [MMI Axial Load Pos'n zF IMMI Tooth Bending Defln Jtb [N/mm21 Error Band 1%]
10 130 10 130
Error
Conclusions
The experiments have satisfactorily of the proved the validity for determining tooth F. E. models used centreline spur gear deflections and root stresses. beam theory the shaft to estimate When using engineering diameter of the gear should be assumed to be deflections the effective for equal to the root diameter for torsion and the reference diameter bending and shear. (A The calculated (F. E. ) tooth bending deflections, are, on average, 6.2% lower than those measured. The F. E. model may but the existing require further refinement to eliminate this error, do not permit this to be at Newcastle University computing facilities done at present. The calculated tooth contact deflections were 21% lower than the However, the results do suggest that the plane experimental results. formula is correct. for a test A specification deflection strain The tensile this is given in Section 3.8.3. to verify root rig bending stresses agreed within 3% The F. E. model is perfectly adequate for obtaining stress results.
106
A large amount of both experimental and theoretical work has been Weber and Banaschek [W41 obtained published on spur gear compliance. 20 analytical expressions for the tooth compliance and these have the model for provided much of the subsequent experimental and theoretical The existing European gear design standards research. EB3, D3,151 use 2D tooth compliance data based on this work and on later research carried out by Winter and Podlesnik EW121. Other 2D models of gear tooth compliance are either like those of Weber and Banaschek, with some allowance made for shear and "gear body deformation", based on modified engineering beam theory (Walker[W11, TimoshenkoET7]) or on "exact" solutions obtained by conformal mapping (Cardou and TordionEC11) or by F. E or B. E. analysis (CETIM[C21), Hirt[H91. One disadvantage of all these theoretical models is that the gear body is in all these cases represented either by a semiinfinite body or by a finite the encastre block, so that there always arises datum point from which the question of whereto determine the 'fixed' tooth deflections are to be measured. Weber and Banaschek (and Walker) suggest a point "a few pitches" below the pitchline. Walker integrates his solutions to a point in the semiinfinite Timoshenko solid a distance Irl below the surfaces. ignores gear body deflections lts obtained by F. E. Resu, altogether. analysis of encastre blocks effectively assume the gear to be fixed 3 to 5 modules from the point By only approximately of loading. it at the modelling part of the gear (and, by definition, constraining boundary of the model) the stress/strain field produced*is not that which a complete gear will see. Several authors have used cantilever beam theory to model the 3D behaviour ignoring either the actual of'spur and helical gear teeth, tapered involute shape[J1, K11, the finite the width of the teeth[J11, S3, S4, V31shear deflection or the gear body deflection[HlH6, Kagawa[K11 has proposed a beam type model, which gives closed form
107
the influence coefficients, and Seager[S31 has developed the model for which, the coefficients of semiempirical. differential equations were deduced from tests on a model have also Hayashi[HIH6] published and Zablonski[ZlZ3] for the'3D influence coefficients. expressions for
influence VedmarEV31 has determined 3D gear tooth coefficients His using an elastic model similar to that developed in this thesis. in the with those obtained values can thus be compared directly present work. 4.2 4.2.1 Theoretical Tooth Compliance at Reference Diameter
the The European gear design standaeds (BS, ISO, DIN) define tooth cl as: "The maximumtooth stiffness of one single stiffness loading. For an tooth This occurs at reference diameter pair". uncorrected gear pair with uniform loading, no manufacturing errors and zero shaft compliance, cl is given by: cl LUb,., [N/mm/mul Jt
The single tooth stiffness c' can be used as a basis for comparing both 2D and 3D spur gear compliance models. c' has been calculated for the following gear data: Specific load Module Facewidth Pinion teeth Wheel teeth Weber EW61 Using Weber's notation the single
V. 3
wbm mn b= ZI z2
tooth
stiffness
is given by:
(4.2)
' qv., l' 164 ei't 1)
Ft6r
WO 1E
(t
108
loading
312' ( 14
compliance,
q, is given (using
(4.3)
Existing
is.
The BS, ISO, DIN standards all use the 2D stiffness uncorrected spur gears given by Winter and Podlesnik EW121as: i +o is!; iCI tzx Vedmar EV31 Vedmar gives an empirical expression (fitted to his for the 3D tooth bending influence coefficients, Ktb, depth of h=0.5mm below the tooth surface, (see Fig. Ktc, is added on to Ktb to obtain contact compliance, compliance. IN 57q1 1, zZ
for
(4.4)
109
?I
Calculation
to
110
ft, The transmission error, used in equation (4.1) is calculated from a simplified form of equation (2 5) for zero errors, an zero . shaft compliance giving: LU r Kc, lil Ljj L,, (4.5)
Vedmar's bending influence coefficients they must be modified if Ab, be the tooth deflection, to are compared with centreline determined in this thesis. The smaller reference depth, h, used by Vedmar results in the influence coefficient, Ktb[i, il, containing a larger load" Hertzian From component of "point compression. Timoshenko[T7] the nondimensional deflections half of an elastic space at a distance h' below the surface due to a point load is given by:
0
, E
(4.6)
In Vedmar's work, h' = 0.5; in the present work, h' is measured (h' = 0.835 for a rack loaded at the to the tooth centreline relative The reference corresponding point). nondimensional contact ' deflections difference in (0.933 and 0.594 respectively) of result a 0.399 which must be subtracted from Vedmar's tooth deflections to give Fig. 4.2 shows the master curve (zF = values at the tooth centreline. b/2) derived in this way from Vedmar's results, together with those from the present work. Let us consider further the consequence of the smaller reference depth h', adopted by Vedmar. Compare the predicted flank surface deflection to the tooth centreline for Vedmar and Steward. relative 4.1 for a reference diameter load of 100 N/mm, we Referring to Fig. have:
rl c AC
(4.7) (4.8)
ill
.3^by integration the Where of point obtained numerical is '71" load is a crude approximation as the point (This load equation". There is less than 1% deflection is clearly not a smooth function). As ft, between these two methods. error in the transmission error, factor linear (Ktb is linear) the load distribution Ktc is nearly However, the numerical integration kLoad will be negligibly affected. (taken does require a smooth function, of the contact line deflection deflection to the limit of the of zero reference depth infinite influence bending line be and soatooth predicted), contact will integrate function based on the deeper reference depth will more load deflection Steward the Vedmar only point and model readily. T.meshes). Errors due to F. E. (with relatively crude (too coarse) F. is his depth in Vedmar, be closCtotFe since greater will modelling singuTa'rity at h' = 0.
112
L co E 13
co 6 L co
4J to Cl
Ln CD Cl C%jT It 11 11 it
NNNN .4 to. El 0
Cl
Co
r,
r1l c
Li
Ln
4.6 a 0
0
rn
(1) 44 fp
0 ry
c13
ry
Co ci
r4
"0 0 0
ci
i c:
c;
[)
uw*3*
ION
4.2.2
Comparison
of Theoretical
Single
Tooth Stiffness
Results
Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the calculated stiffness tooth pair according to the various published theories of z and zF. Where the gear body deflections are small there is good agreement between the values of teeth) For larger numbers of teeth, three theories. however, (higher much lower values of stiffness compliance) 'torsional' inclusion compliance of of the substantial to the centre of (ie the rotation of the "rim" relative
of a single as a function (small numbers given by all Steward gives due to the the gear body the shaft.
The significance of this additional gear body compliance is shown in Fig. has been calculated from the 4.4 in which the tooth stiffness deflection to the adjacent loaded tooth. of the loaded tooth relative This effectively removes the "rim" rotation component of the gear body compliance, and corresponds roughly to the datum assumed by Weber. The relative
cIr=
tooth stiffness
is given by:
ILAMM,,41,
(4.9)
is generally accepted that compliance of an individual It gear decreases as z increases due to a change in shape of the tooth Eatntllever. This is shown quite clearly when the gear body component of compliance has been removed. All three theories show the same trend in Fig. 4.4 although the agreement between the' three theories, as shown in Fig. 4.5, is not good. The variation of stiffness of one tooth with z is observed in Fig. 4.3 & 4.4 by the fact that each pinion is meshed with several tooth numbers z2. The variation of the stiffness of an individual by considering only 1: 1 ratios, tooth so with z can be investigated that the two meshing teeth are identics. 1, with mesh a resultant stiffness c' equal to half that of each tooth.
114
t
2 Ci
0
Ln cli
11 C"J N
C 41
C) : r 11
C) 11
0
0 =0
U. ) 
11 C\l N
C 4j
C%J C'J N N
C 44 C 4J Eo co
CD CD
O 0
CD 0)
(DJ 0) LLJ C3 V) 0
L M 3c a) 41
W Cl) 0 0 CL ,,
L a) L
CD CD
C:: 3r.
%4
O 0
C
%1C)
CD CD
J:"""
%4. C)
a) a)
C 5 : %AC)
L CC
41
L a)
E )
L 0
C:)
L. 0
E D
L a)
E D
U)
a) : 3C :DC

CD
0
S 0 Q
JE im
D
to
13
0
t.
0 Q.
(5 CO
NN
C 4J
(D (D c 0 C5
Ln
c CL W0 L
Pn
Z. (0
tq
Lk
rp
413
0 CY m
e
LL
r cli
ri cm
0 cli
0 0
[nw/ww/NI
2 .c C3
41 0 4
4 L> mE 13 a)
C;
V; m 
4. Co #
C) co
L m c to (D
0 L
(a
U'l
w =)
: It
0 0
InL
LM 4
d
E (D 0 D CD (D
:11 Z: ) , L 0L 44 0 Co
CD
41
0 (0
co Ln C)
C\l C%j NNNN C%j
C)
C)
C:
C)
C%j
C5 cnl
IN,
4N
0
, j
N C 0 0 c 0 C3. Ln CL 4C L
13 0
14
0 N
a
a 0 L)
LL.
.r CY r4 CD ri to 10 r CY 0 CO 10 r ri 0
[n"/luw/NI
C 0
0
a) 0 0 u 41
C3
LO
C:;
(D > ;; co __j
ro 
CO __j uj
(D L m c to 0
Ch C
0 i L a)
C3 ff) L
a,
w L 0 :
41
a 0 a44 c 
)t 0
L 0
L 0
00
V)
(f)
=3c
: 3C
>
4
mob cl.
13
*
c (U L
CD 01
0 Co
rm bi
0 c
N
0 0
N o _c
0
Ln
c3) c CD
c2b
tn %4CD c 0 0
(0 CL r= 0 L. )
CI N
LN
0
0 C3 0 C3 C, C3 C,
I,
'
zI..
tn
L flJl I I
0
x
C,
a 
ff
a N 4
E
2: C3
'1
0 C3
M
:Z
ci
93
LL13
FE
.P
C3 in
:0
Q LFf'43
. v
a
0
*1
0
0
4.2.3
Significance
of Tooth Stiffness
Values
different being a out, type carried the analysis of Depending on behaviour the the of describe accurately tooth most will stiffness 3D 2D A full elastic/plastic in model. mesh a simplified qear mesh but be behaviour the describeMay correctly always will model time. in and computing manpower expensive prohibitively For static of stressing ISO method used in BS[B3], is in contact. tooth pair based on the absolute this case for the correctpFase calculated during gear teeth DINED31), BEI51, tooth The single compliance of mesh. (e. g. OPSTC STC contact, by definition one only in be must used stiffness line and of the contact
for tooth the cr DIN ISO, stiffness BS, so called mesh Note: use AGMA correctly 40% than is cl; typically greater about stressing which AGMA crude a the only relatively makes standard although cl, uses for the stiffness. approximation it is the double during tooth contact sharing estimating determines that two the deflections pairs gear meshing of relative tooth the relative In this compliance behaviour. case either their the of compliance the along with compliance be absolute or may used, is tooth Fe77. that 2D each assumes analysis tooth. the adjacent DIN in ISO, loads (as BS, the tooth its by deflected own only be tooth the then cl must K14, compliance relative of calculation c) the have implicitly calculated fact that authors The most used. that body ignoring the (by means compliance) gear compliance relative for in this the are purpose standards the used values stiffness that however, is to better A recognise approach, correct. reasonably deflections influence the of each, tooth loads both pairs meshing on 'loaded' the and adjacent of the compliances absolute correct and use load distribution Static how it is shared. of gears tooth to determine 5. in dealt Chapter is in the presence with of errors For load dynamic/vibration analysis If the that concern. of prime are body, a rigid use of the absolute the However, gear appropriate. depend on where compliance will For forces of gears it is the inertial torsionally as gear were to vibrate be line contact compliance would is effective so the not rigid is the the inertial gear mass of
119
deemed to, be concentrated. For a thinrimmed gear, for example, with the relative (adjacent tooth) compliance most of its mass in the rim, For solid gears, however, a C; would probably be most appropriate. is indicated. Fig. 4.6 shows the value somewhere between c; and c' deflection of a 40 tooth gear from which an estimate of the 2D contact compliance at a given datum diameter could be extracted. 4.3 Two Dimensional Finite Element Model of Seager's Test Gear
Seager's of tests carried experimental rig [S3] is representative A 100 Nlmm load has been out on spur (and helical) gear compliance. to the tip of a 3/4" rack tooth restrained along the bottom applied face, (Seager loaded two mirror image blocks together). 4.7 shows the F. E. analysis of half of Seager's test gear. Fig. The mesh has been extended in the x and/or y direction, (relative to 0), the change in deflection to investigate point and root stress, (Fig. 5.0). The peak tooth root stresses decrease by 5% if the adjacent tooth is not modelled. Fig. 4.8 shows the tooth tip surface and centreline deflections.
1*
120
cz
Cl (3
C!9
ul
U,
u ul 'un'
tj
tj
C gu
in
CA tn
C2 Irt
C,
IX
a
gi 44LLJ
4,J [U 0c CL) ro
Cl. E 0
01411 U 4
cn c >) 0
C 43 C:
0 0
L) 10
Toolk IM lackon
C th u/ Nl, "rA3
Vari
AkiOA
11,1 j
Fig.
4.8
Deflections
vs.
122
is The gear tooth deflection as an encastre cantilever modelled (and by The by Seager all published experimental work). correctly localised body is the tooth the a on elastic gear root of rotation (x =0 to 150mm), by Seager, shown effect and is modelled correctly Determination by the slope having nearly reached zero at x=0. of 'the translation the tooth of entire requires modelling correct gear in body. to x= 150mm shows a 7% increase Comparing x=0 gear 150mm include the compression of the The at points x= compliance. This model only serves as a comparison of extra gear body modelled. it is difficult to As it is based on a rtck profile tooth compliance. has infinite body. an gear model which gear compare with a complete
*****
123
Chapter 2 set out the theory for calculating the contact stresses in real spur gears by generating a 3D elastic model of the meshing Appendix 2.1 explains the program SPURDIST which gear teeth. implements the theory on a microcomputer. In this chapter the the effect program SPURDISTis used to investigate of manufacturing errors modifications and profile stresses on the peak gear tooth (primarily contact stresses). The BS/ISO/DIN standards have been used to provide comparative SPURDIST values of calculated loads and stresses. only calculates the load distribution in the and contact stress meshing gears. OF bending Calculation tooth has been based on the root stresses of BS/ISO/DIN two dimensional formula using peak specific loads output from"SPURDIST. The supporting shafts have been assumed infinitely Where stiff. its significant slope or curvature is present, shaft are effects to lead errors/corrections entirely equivalent of the same form (ie flank misalignment or crowning). The elemental tooth tolerances examined have been mostly based on those given in BS 436: part 2EB31. Profile tolerances can be split into profile form tolerances, ff, and profile angle tolerances values based on DIN 3962 [D61. The stresses are calculated for OPSTC mesh except where rootcontact conditions give greatly increased contact stresses to the smaller effective curvature of the flanks. pinion due
124
H550 Induct. or Flame Hard. pinism: Hard. HV550 Flame Anduct. or Wheel DU436. Univ Design Unit Newcastle DB Materiai quality 1.0 1 RaH Disk': BSDATA .0 23 Feb 86 File: JHS1 3.0 3.0 RaF oot 3.20 3.20 mri ceff Case depth 3.20 11 3.20 clim, NO Numbe! r of teeth Pitting 54 is permitted? z ' 168/100 Normal 000 Lubs. io. module nuWAMO vijcosity mi.,
Transv. (nodule Sear ratio Closed centres Ref. centres Facewidth Ref. dia circle Base dia circle Pitch dia circ. Tip diaineter Root diamEter Tooth depth Refpr. ang. Norm Ref pr. ang. . Wkgpr. aiig. Tran Ref. helix ang. Base heli,. f e.r. g. Addend. mod. coef Sum of " coeffs Transv. Overlap t1 '3 000 U 360.000 a 360.000 ao b 150.006 10.000 5i+0.000 d lE3(). (. )00 507.434 16? 145 db 4 0.0 11 0 '55 dw 1 GO. 000 T,60.000 200.000 da 515.000 df 155.000 22.500 22.500 h 20.0000 alphan 2t). 0000, alphat alphatti beta 0 betab 0.0 " 0.1) x12 Continuous duty Application fac Dynamic factor Required life. Load cycles
planets Total power Torque/npla Tam. force R. P. M
Pitch Slid3. linr, ng vFml,
KA Kv
of
16 49N/mm/fnt.: .. 24.51.
cont. rat ratio cont. Total rat. Bsc: rack dTdend Is 11 =, ct rad ProtUbce u. /cut Root '1gth Bending m;. nT.. arm Root radius
Face load fac. S. t57 Facm load. fac. Meta Transv. load f0c KHalpha Transv. 1276 load fan Walpha Zone factor Z!_q 2.455 Form factor YF Elasticity fac ZE WVW2 Notch parameter qs Cont. fac Zepsilon O. SS5 Stress ratio fac YS corr. Life factor ZN 000 1.000 Hslix fac Ybeta angle '. Lube/Speed 0.969 Life factor Fac ZLZV YN Roughness Sensitivity fac ZR 0.920 fac Ydelta jJork hardg. fac ZW Surf. !. 000 1.000 fac; YR cond. Mati. fac ZM 0.900 Matl. 0.900 qual. fac YM qual. Size factor Zx Size 1.000 1.000 factor YX CONTACT STRESS(N/mm2) BENDING U. T. S. siqB sigBcore Yield stress sigFY
SigR sigRcore Basic lim endce. sigFO Permiss. stress sigFP s igFPcore Root stress sigF sigFaore SAFETY FACTOR SF SFmin 1.40 .r t. Resid. stress
1.649 01" dia. epsalpha ahaft 0.0 L ..: zadcoire epsbata ct ion Accuracy 1.649 epsgamma grade 1.250 1.250 Pitch hfp/mn tolera"ce 0.250 Nisalgrmt ro fP/mn0.250 ahaft 0. o 0.0 1 spr/mn 1*1 Ufi. AC. 111 Z1 2.196 1.983 Mesh misaIgnat. sF n/ r, n 1007 1.105 Eff hF. /mr mesh misal. 0.415 Runir 0.504 roFlmn alloNca FLANK 
14V. 0 9 57.795 to. e"I 54.57q 39.649 4e. 300 SOW() 100TH ROOT,
2.665 1.276 1.731.1 37. 1.870 2.6Wi 1.863 2.19'' IU 000 I. 00(]) 1.0 1.028 1.036i 0.90"1 0.907 0.900 0.90'. 0.950 0.95k STRESS(N/mmE 1800.0 1800. %, 600.0 Boo. 1535.3 1535*j
140.0 430.0 515.9 5(''? B. l 14 Z+ .9 E62.0 50.6 8.72 140., 45() i 513,, ' 51.2t 144. ' 2 4,15* .' 4G., ' 2.
Unwersityat Newcastleup2n!yLe
1:
P. 10mm and Straddle BS436:part deflection Both are accuracy available University. scaled in 5.2 Effect
laced spur gear mesh with zl: z2 = 18: 54 and mn = 15mn has been chosen as a basis for the comparison. b= have been assumed. mounting and a specific load of 20ON/mm 3EB31 makes provision for estimating the effects of elastic fsh of the pinion shaft aswell as individual gear errors. 5.1 which are for BS included in the results shown in Fig. using the commercially grade 9, and which were obtained DU436ED71 developed at Design Unit, Newcastle software Where the module is altered the gears are geometrically all directions. of Helix Angle Errors
The main effect of Fy is on the face load factor K14 describing r. The peak bending stress maldistribution across the gear flank. (defined kinematically in existing design OPSTC the occurs at standards), which is actually a function of the transmitted torque and tooth compliance of the two meshing gear teeth and the adjacent The BS/ISO/DIN standards calculate the face load factor compliances. Kj,p from equations 5.2 and 5.3
tj
OS 4 iii,.
6 z 1,5
kilo
6k,. > L .
where F. c
To investigate the effect of ear accuracy, the mesh was re10 in 5.1, Fig. between 4 with assumed accuracy analysed as and grade (to industrial cover the range of accuracies encountered in typical For comparison with these results, angle a pinion helix gearing). /b) radians was assumed and the overall load factor error of (F Ktoad calculaterd at the OPSTC,using the program SPURDIST.
126
..
(A
LU 0 m)
0 L (0
ac3
10 tn NI %0
9
CO n
ng (D
CD
CD
< =
U) L3
0 o
km
(0
a cl
c;
X CCL LL
t7 0 L
L LU 0
c a) E c
x ID
0 CY
tn
0
9
L 0 (0
Ln
Ln a) LL.
Ln
fi
C
Ki
Ln
ri
0 N
Lr%
cs
C]
peoj
ioaoe_q peol
C) E sc o7
D cc; rz V7
(1)
(D a (a L U')
Ln .r
Ln K)
0 rn
LM N
C%j *N *N,
OL. U44 c
. d
CY)
cli
a)
0
a
Ln
ui
Ln i
Ln fli
ri
Ln N
Lil ri
Ln ci
0 ci
Ln cr) LL.
II
PPOINiozopA PP01
is clear 5.2 it that the BS/ISO/DIN standards From Fig. 'r, 'Load. This is probably because they use the mesh overestimate in (pair) the than tooth stiffness single c, stiffness cy rather logical ( least is OPSTC, At 5.1,5.2. use of c' clearly at equation 5.2, for this gives much better spur gears) and as shown in Fig. agreement with the results from SPURDIST. Fig. 5.3 shows the effect of gear accuracy, grade and size (module) on the values of KLpad obtained from SPURDIST. Equations 5.1 load is factor the for 5.2 that similar geometrically gears, show and is independent in 5.4 (only function the c' given equation ratio a of of module). bending stress, the For gears with a fixed permissible root decreases allowable specific load, and hence the elastic deflection the in proportion to the module, whereas for small module gears, The tend towards constant tolerances/errors values. manufacturing in equation 5.4 is thus always higher for small module gears, ratio inherently have thus worse load factor kLoad. an which 5.3 Effect of Profile Errors
tolerance limit is defined by two According to BS 436 the profile In lie. between the tooth involutes must which actual profile parallel addition, no positive profile deviations may occur outside the central working third of the flank (Fig. 5.4). tolerances; DIN 3962 defines two parameters for profile a profile form error ff (akin to a base pitch error); angle error and a profile f (Fig 5.4). For the purposes of this investigatIon only the error is considered, the effect of pitch errors erfect oi a profile are dealt with in the following section.
129
page 38
DIN 3960
Er
 IrI. .
c111,
z)imcuon of chen food Teit range L 
Figure 40.
Profile
Tooth trace
G*nerant
Generator
*
*
*
Test range 68 AA. AA'
Nominal tooth traces which envelope the actual flank I Actual heficeg which envelope the actual flank I
813'. S"S,
Actual Involute$
Actual generator
CV. C'C'
Nominal tooth traces Nominal generator Nominal profiles which cut the actual generators or tooth traces at the starting and finishing point, respectively. of the test range
GearMeasurement 159
/
o
Design profile
B5
AA chial profile linit Negative
I it
Peryussible positive deparhn from design profilewithn the centralthird not exceeding ol the Ndl=* oine givenin tatie 4
of Profile
130
root angle errors remove metal at the tooth profile diameter of OPSTC. The bending'stress at. this point is in approximation in proportion to the increase a first ratio.
The peak bending stress"7'F calculated by SPURDIST at OPSTCcan be defined peak bending stress qrfrom compared with the geometrically Fa the BS/ISO/DIN standards given by:
uJI)d
(5.4)
The peak contact stress occurs at IPSTC and can be directly defined IPSTC by compared with that calculated at the geometrically 5.5 shows the ratio of peak stresses Fig. the standards. compared with those determined from the BS/ISO/DIN standards as a function of For BS grade 8 there is STC throughout Note: mesh; positive profile errors have been permitted outside the central working third.
131
00
(Z
(D LL
(D
0 to CD
L
(Z 41 0
c
0 cc G) mu 
0
u CV
Od m
10 N
r (Ij
ry CY
(D CL c 0 L 0 L L ui
4
0
cn C: 0)
4
0 L 0.
c2
0
Co
0 .4
uj
Ln
Ln CT) LACo fy Co 10
ci
OiSdO leOIJ19"89
ze ss9jzS/OlSdO lenzoy
ze sseias
in detail Consider the case fH,, = 26.9 mn (1.345 mu/mm) (between grade 7 and 8) where there is just DTC during mesh. The adjacent tooth between the elastic deflections comes into contact when the difference tooth clearance: exceeds the base pitch error plus any initial
(5.5)
where 'I' = master tooth tooth 121 preceeding = J, ed qthe base pitch error. 2% )=f PiL . %. For f. = the two parameers throughout Fig. 5.6 plots mesh. cc 26.9mu there will never be DTC except in the presence of other errors.
133
c c3 f41 0 0 0L 0 41 (n tu
L L LU
Ci(0 0 Co
a d 0 ci L L L Ln ,ci
(D CYc 0 L 0 L L LU _c
(0
ci
ca Ln
ci
c5
czi
0
U1
0
d
tn 0 d
%i
"0
CY
CD
cs
Co
LL.
CSPPJ] LA
916uy
Osel4d
o.
Co rl_L
%0 (D 0
0 L Mu L ty) Co (n
co 4j c 0 u
qD 10
Lri Ln
0
vi
c 0
L
\ \ \ \
ci mi
L L LU 0 i m c
L 0 L L uj
Lm
\ \
0 L
0 40
U1
rl Ln
0
LL
t>
Co
P
10
Lirl
mi
N0
[ww] uw elnpoW
identical For. geometrically gears of equal nominal OFr both the base fr& deflection and the relative elastic pitch error 7 are independent of module. For BS profile errors with no positive deviation outside the central working third the gear will behave as if having linear root relief up to the reference 'diameter. Fig. The error 5.7 plots contact. will have least effect at tip BS grades. regions of STC and DTC for different Large module gears are less sensitive to profile angle errors to the tolerance bands being JeZ Jh4n. proportional to module. due
The region of DTC gives approximately reference diameter loading angle error), of the preceeding tooth (at dy =d there is no profile very making the effect of positive errors outside the working third dramatic.
1*
136
CN Ln d tn
ci Ln
.C (f)
rn
fj) L &. j
0 to
I
a,
C
d tn
m r CL
LM 0
Co
d I
Ln a) LL
5.4
Effectof
Pitch
Errors
For a static analysis with, for nearly all cases, only one or two For teeth in contact, only adjacent pitch errors need be considered. here (b/d = 0.8333) the effect of wide face gears being investigated pitch errors can be Aealt with two dimensionally provided the'correct The adjacent tooth tooth compliance is compliances are used. independent of loading diameter giving a stiffness 26.67 of c' N/mm/mufor this example.
for the 18/54 10. Ommmodule Fig. 5.8 plots single tooth stiffness SPURDIST. from N1mm the 200 program extracted mesh at wb,, =
the of
wi
(11)j7
LJ2(
je ,
11)11 cet
cit
vre
(e ti
Ct2)
(5.6)
Consider only the phase of Assuming DTC sets ctl = ct2 = 0. Substituting the single between DTC and STC sets w. = 0. transition in*(5.6) tooth stiffness gives:
(I) CPQ=(, k Fu Z72, )
(5.7)
which 5.9)
is
the pitch
error
just
mesh (Fig.
138
0 (D
C> cc;
(In L L7
10
00
00 LL U Ca Li 1Cz
(0 L C U') c12
(n
(M
Ln
0
c 0 u CL
c .2 c J: c 2 CY) 4) cr u V) c 0 L 0 L L
CL %60 4k
Ln Ln
0 Ul
Ln
CL
L 0 L L U. J
in cli u 41 CL
cv Ln
LLJ
tr Ln
0 !2 9), CO r10 In r pn CY 0
Ln M. U
Cwtu)
UW
al
npow
similar
gears just
throughout (5.8)
load formula for Consider the ISO specific (K,, = 10) and STC. load distribution
longitudinal
L' =zz
substituting for 7j
Hes.
gives, and KWA.
IN. !E
Ljbm
(5.9)
,=i
where X,. = runn,., j
(5.11)
STC 5.8 the Compared are errors giving actual pitch with equation 62% greater than those predicted by ISO. This is mainly due to the use of the mesh stiffness ce where STCoccurs.
Fig. 5.9 shows the effect of fp,& on STC region.
140
141
Stresso,
in the Presence
of Pitch
Errors.
5.5.1
Contact Stress
at Pitch
Circle
According to BS 436: Pt3: 1986, ISO/DP 6336 and DIN 3990, the for a gear pair, with contact stressr, , at the pitch circle perfect longitudinal load distribution is given by:
G7
K"
_Zk ZE ZE bJ,
(U+I)
CA
account errors
of is
influence
of
(5.13) K accounts for gears is: <( /z load sharing between adjacent teeth and for
spur
Ft/6
Y CO.
where
Note: can NEVER exceed 1.0 and is therefore a stress Zto load for For a teeth. sharing between adjacent account reducer < L., 2.0 (most spur gears) and zero pitch/profile of contact ratio 71 P, 0.82 the pitch circle underestimating stress = errors FK,
z ,
k4
142
to any error
due to the
incorrect
BS and ISO only calculate the contact stress at the pitch'circle. DIN includes the pinion single contact factor, Zth to account for the between flank KD in e pitch circle and curvature change equivalent defined IPSTC. DIN does not stipulate the geometrically calculating the contact stress at the start of engagement where the highest stress (see less 20 Fig. 5.10). than teeth, with often occurs on pinions The very high slope of the contact stress curve near the start of engagement is due to contact occurring very close to the base diameter Contact stresses are where the diameter of curvature D1 is zero. for of error plotted perfect gears and also with an adjacent pitch (BS 5) 12mu than grade which will give STC throughout mesh. greater face load). is for K4p. = 1.0 (uniform In the this Note that larger be pitch errors errors will all gear/shaft/casing of presence required to produce STC throughout mesh.
143
P1 C%j
rI C%j E
Z "i C
L 0 L L LU
z 61
Q L. 4J
4A 0 4J C 0 U
(0 0 _j
0 XU CY) :) 0 L
00
CD CL U)
0 0
L (D r4
ci
In Ln d
2
.C CY)
ci L
"0 (0 L 0 0)
L
fy
.1
0) c
0 (0 4.1 c
0
_c CL c 0
Il
L (0
ssaj
5.6 5.6.1
Modifications
Relief
Like pitch and profile errors, tip and root relief are 2D effects load sharing between meshing gear pairs. BS 436: Pt. 2: 1970 governing specifies upper limits of relief of Ca = 0.2mm applied linearly over BS 436: Pt. 3: 1986 recommends the no more than 0.6mn of the flank. following: Height of relief applied C., z P+ OOLf: z/b &. 1
in any combination
to the pinion
The pitch error fee may be +ve or ve and with a specific ji3 z! 20mn x cos20 the net tooth tip relief is: 17i
rn n r., LAI
Equation
(5.16)
is valid
for
is applied to spur gears to reduce noise Tip/root relief in mesh stiffness between STC and OTC (c' generated by the difference For a small pinion (less than 20 teeth) it is desirable to and cy). load near the loading (small reduce the specific root diameter diameter of curvature). It is strongly recommended that equivalent be confined to the wheel tip wherever possible. tip/root Fig. relief 5.11 shows the 10. Omnmodule 18/54 mesh with wheel tip relief.
145
77 11: C
C) L
C)
G 0 (1.0 I f,
41 C: L
CL '7%
CP
I, ELI,
L
Ill
cl,
CL
J
co
c
(0
cl
Lr. C,
ci
C3 R
%4. LLJ VW V
Q)
Ace
ci
Lr)
LL
sue; j
t4alle6
ali
lssa. aG ioeauoj
'peoi
oaaS
Note: Contact at point A would be 1274 N/mm2 if no tip relief stress (618 B is Peak Nlmm2), contact at point stress now applied. were a factor of 2.1 smaller. Wheel tip relief bending stress There is still DTC/STC transition increases OPSTCfor pinion and thus error ft the in peak the
transmission To obtain a continuous error curve, sufficient the would be needed to reduce and depth of tip relief load to zero at point B.
height specific
5.6.2
Crowning
Crowning is a crude form of helix that partly modification compensates for manufacturing errors and gear deflections under load. Helix or lead correction applies the inverse of the modification line deflection to the gear profile contact at a given design torque to drives with a fairly especially uniform load spectra. applicable line knowledge of the total Helix contact requires modification deflection , so has not been dealt with in this section. BS436:Pt. 3: 1986 recommends crowning only where the calculated K4 is greater that 2.0 for the uncrowned gear pair. Recommended croN height is given by:
"M
(5.17)
(equal deflection For the 18/54 10. Omm module example the elastic to ft) is 18.5mu. Fig. 5.13 plots the load factor at point C vs. peak error for various degrees of crowning.
147
CI
LP
'4.
4
'4.
CCC
Li
Li
n t.rl
tu .4.
li
Ln
CY)
fln
Lei ri
6.
IC6 0 cli L 0 L L
G)
C) CL
12
N Ln cr LL.
Lr
C)
Ln
t 0 cl
ci
r1i
r1i
cli
rj
[3
pecl> c2osj
peoi
Note: Crowning of a perfectly load (KLoad > 1.0). aligned gear increases the peak specific
Less accurate gears require more crowning to reduce the load inaccurate factor For load. a very gears peak specific KLoad  1.7 appears to be the lowest attainable.
of
(Hence the Accurate gears require only a small amount of crowning. 89). BS the grade approximately on graphs, crossover point End Relief
5.6.3
is a crude form of cftwning and inherently End relief produces a As the type due to the flank discontinuity. worse load distribution is a function of the gear cutting, machine used of profile modification the end relieved and crowned gear will possess and, after runningin, been has fatigue identical one carried strength, only analysis near is This for a, BS grade 8 gear fpy BS 436 to recommendation. out 34mu; C6, = 18.5mu; t, /2 = 5.625mm. This is. shown on Fig. 5.12. ,
*****
149
6 CHAPTER LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING SPURGEARANALYSISAND AREAS R 6.1 Limitations of the Existing Spur Gear Analysis
A three dimensional elastic model has been developed for transmission distribution, load the error and contact calculating ' SPURDIST faced in program and a computer spur gears, stresses wide has been written to implement the model on a microcomputer. Elemental two the the tooth of compliance modificalfons, and profile gear errors, the the (a function mounting and configuration) phase of of 5hafts mesh are all input variables.
(including line The contact compliances of the loaded teeth for tooth calculated are automatically compliances) coupling adjacent wide faced solid spur gears 18 <= z <= 100 and standard rack profiles (hao = 1.25 mn, rao = 0.25 mn, b= 12.0 mn) using the results obtained from thirty separate 3D Finite Element analyses of complete spur gears of this type. have limitations. The model and the program SPURDISTnaturally These are compared with those of other elastic meshing published 6.1 The main limitations of the present work are as models in Fig. follows:
1.
No tooth compliance data is available for the thin rimmed spur industry. Analysis in thinrimmed the of a gear used extensively gears tooth has that industrial the for shown epicyclic gearbox sun gear an rotation, compliance can increase by a factor of 2 due to localised increase due to the The the stresses correspondingly also root of rim. increase Thin the 'adjacent deformation. thin will rim effects rim load the terms tooth' alter pattern of and completely compliance sharing between the contacting teeth.
150
2.
faced has for been data spur gears wide The compliance generated flexibility increased of each end of the gear the of effects where In narrow face gears, (for example, as'used in teeth do not overlap. largely be the tooth industry), will compliance the automotive dependent on the overlapping effects of the tooth ends. U11 be Jaramillo's could used method A variation momentimage of be in to been has it but error shown already to model this effect as be face to its gears must for narrow validity wide faced gears in thesis this developed analyse narrow will The model questioned. faced gears but its accuracy has not been verified.
116
151
(0 >,
0. ro
4 Li
1
I
ra
\ \ >< l<
C\ I:
><
><
cu
tA 43 0C aM  1: ) M
fd
ro r,
S CA oa .u (KS
EF (1)
E=C"i
S L.i Q)
>< ><
><
X
0 4)
V) co S (D Qj 0
(A
cm lz ro =: ) CU V)
><
(10 a) m (Ij 3:
rI ) LL
>< ><
><
,a Qj aj
cm
0.
>1
cm. 0
fA
cm
im
>< XX >< >< X >< \ X CU S oa o= u 4)
4) m V)
.
S
0 =
nj
C) V)
14
X (0 4.) LLJ a) (n V;
C13
(A f) %> 0 4J .0 u c "4
A"A X X
u M% a* 4oi &' L. cu 41 cu C (A C= 0C u C cu Q) 0
(A a) 4 '0 00 4)
S4J 0 0 S4J
4J Ea
(0 (A S(A SU) CL U
to ., rCl.
r_
ro (1)
C71 4
c
=0 0
r_
0
u
u u
:3
IW 4J d (A . . (a . 4J (A '0
S fo oo
(0 Q) r
S (ts r
>i r
=0 4J 0
>1 w LA = Q) 4J a
"M 4
E
to
C 4
E= (0
S aj
3: 0
(0 4J
'0
tA r
4m ro CY) U
CA 'M C
S(o (1) C:
cu S S U uM a Q) 4 Su
fo
(1)
C;
3.
Addendum modified
gears
for small numbers of teeth the tooth compliance Especially 18/54 For an spur modification. decrease addendum positive with will is BS/ISO/DIN to c' according stiffness gear mesh the singletooth for 15.15 N/mm/mn 18.0,16.15 a pinion shift of x1 = and respectively has 3D finite No analysis element 0.5,0.0 and 0.5mn respectively. to for of modelling allow correct been carried gears modified out their compliance. 4. Contact compliance at the tip and ends of the tooth
has the tooth tip the of in The increase contact compliance near applied to been modelled by assuming a Hertzian pressure distribution in the has been taken No of change tooth. account a rack profile tip the tooth by the or of adjacent distribution caused pressure tooth numbers. effect of different in contact compliance near the ends of the tooth The increase However the tooth is very compliant at has not been modelled. flank the ends of the gear so the percentage error is small. 5. Calculation coefficients of peak tensile tooth root stress influence
by be calculated The peak to oth root stress at any point can 4 the load distribution from the and integration, calculated numerical stress influence coefficients.
Y,
b
0
GF
i
1, \q
Jz
coefficients in hand to extract values of the influence Work is 2 inchapter F. E. and. the from the analysts K(z, zF) reported results of fit them with approximating functions using the same techniques as for the defledion coefficients.
153
6.
Plasti'c
deformation
and tooth
root
These two effects lead to 'bedding in' of the teeth and improved (and the model developed in Existing standards, contact conditions. this thesis), allowing for 'normal' running in wear, are although based on elastic theory and are unable to accommodate otherwise deformation or work hardening of the gear teeth. A substantial plastic tooth effort would be involved in developing a full elastic/plastic would become functions meshing model. All the influence coefficients is of the applied load and load history (unless tooth root plasticity 'elastic' compliance). neglected or approximated by an equivalent There are areas of study in gear technology that would improve gear far more readily than a full elastic/plastic model at present, rating in view of the move away from the use of soft or through particularly hardened types in which plastic gears towards surfacehardened deformation is unacceptable. 7. Movement of the Line of Contact have profile Gear teeth that or manufacturing modifications errors are not tru, Iy of involute form, and thus do not make contact base tangent plane. in the theoretical The same is true of exactly perfect involute gear teeth under load. The analyses reported only allow for gross departures 'theoretical' planje of contact (eg during tip contact) but allow for the small departures caused, away from the tooth or elastic distortions. profile errors, modifications A further step would be to redefine the contact points the loads and deformations were calculated but it would be to recalculate the stiffness matrix and this would be consuming. 6.2 Areas for Further Study from does tips, the not by
The shortcomings of the spur gear analysis listed in section 6.1 provide the basis for much further research into the understanding The existing program SPURDISTcould be of spur gear stress analysis. directly linked to commercially available design standards software,
154
(DUISO, DU436 END, to give an improved overall gear design package. Such features as an automatic output of the optimum lead or profile The complete synthesis of corrections are immediate possibilities. further are optimum  gear geometry and mounting configurations but present a formidable task which is possibly possibilities, insoluble. influence load The theory coefficient and general distribution/stress. thesis analysis approach used in this can be applied to all types of gearing: dnd These have line Helical a of an oblique contact a) gears: is rotated about the gear axis but are in transverse that section The influence coefficients the same as spur gears. principal are not symmetric about zF = b/2 due to the different stiffness of the two angled tooth ends. The peak tooth root stress will probably be in the (plane normal NOT transverse plane except near the ends of the tooth formula The 20 contact deflection stress). will be less accurate along an oblique contact line with continuously changing curvature and load even for perfectly aligned gears. specific is not really applicable to crossed helicals The theory as torque they have point contact and 'are rarely used for geometrically transmission purposes. b) line contact and so are well These also exhibit Worm gears: to analysis by the influence coefficient Worm gears suited method. have forces sliding and the frictional contact a may have deflection significantly effect on the tooth greater and contact field. Movement of the line of contact under load is well stress be included in any analysis known, and must be clearly of worm contacts. Again the line contact present means that the Bevel gears: C) influence coefficient The majority of method can be readily applied. bevel gears have an overhung mounting configuration potentially is normally this although producing very bad load distributions improved by crowning. An accurate study of the bearing and shaft compliances would be a prerequisite of a meaningful 3D elastic model of bevel gears.
155
bevel gears are to Spiral Spiroid d) Spiral Hypoid, Bevel, gears: Ilk &W (ICNO to helicals bevel W'I S spurs, ?oa are what gears due line 'higher "eds velocities pitch operation at and quieter In hypoid and spiroid length of line of contact. gears more constant tapered to the the resemble a starts as pinion offset shaft axes are influence The coefficient contact occurs. sliding worm gear and the to all three gear types is with potential approach applicable problem areas analagous to bevels and worms respectively.
000
156
Bibliography [Al] EA21 [A31 [A41 Tooth StressesAida T., Teranchi Trans. JSME (in Jap) (19616) 27 (178) Aida T., Teranchi YOS: Tooth StressesTrans. JSME (in Jap) (19616) 27 (178) Aida T., Teranchi Y. : Tooth Stresses9 Trans. JSME (in Jap) (19616) 27 (178)
Y.,
Iwasaki T., Fujio H., Murata S., Aida T., and : Deflections Moments of Wide Plate With Varying Thickness in Direction of Height" Bull. JSME (19732) 16 (92) pp. 387394 Ajapetov E. L. : "Contact Deformation on Gear Teeth" Russ. Engg. Jnl. 1967 (5) pp. 4447 Arai N., Harada S., Mori N., Okamoto M., : "Study on Stresses of Tooth, Deformation and Accuracy at the Root Fillet Deterioration of Spur Gear With a Thin Rim When Rate of Under Dynamic Condition is Considered". Load Distribution Attia A. Y., : 11Deflection Ein Shams University, of Spur Gear Teeth Cut in Thin Rims" Cairo Gears" Dec. 1982
EA51 EA61
AGMA218.1 "The Rating of Spur and Helical Atkinson L. V., "Pascal Programming" Wiley 1983
Zahnfederharte Baethge J., : Drehwegfehler, Diss. T. U. Munchen 1969 StirnradernBaethge J., : VDIZ (197071), 112 (4) p. 205
und Geransch
bei
BS436 Spur and Helical Gears : Part 2 Basic Rack Form , metric module)
50
of Contact and Root : Part 3: 1986 Method for Calculation for Metallic Involute Gears Bending Stress Limitations IBU EB51 IC11 Buckingham E,. : "AnalyticalMechanics McGrawHill 1949 British Steel Corperation : "Iron of Gears" 1986 Tooth
Cardou A., Tordion G.V., : "Calculation bythe Complex Potential FLexibility Trans. ASME, Vol. 107, Mar. 85
[C21
Evaluation of Stresses and Deflection of Spur Chabert G., :" Gear Teeth Under Strain" C. E. T. I. M. Senlis. Fr. ASME72PTG27 Oct. 1972, p. 16 Seireg A., Conry T. F., : "A Mathematic Programming Method for the Design of Elastic Bodies in Contact" Jnl. App. Mechs., Trans ASME93E(1), 1971, pp. 387392 Seireg A., : "A Mathematical Programming Technique Conry T. F., for the Evaluation of Load Distribution and Optimal in Gear Systems" Modification Trans. ASME, Jnl. Engg. for Ind. (Nov. 1973) Cornell R.W,,,, : "Compliance and Stress Sensitivity of Spur Gear Teeth" ASME, Jnl. Mech. Des., Vol. 103, April 1981 of Materials and Structures"
[C31
EC41
EC51
[C61 ID11
Considerations "Some Design Davies W.J., Affecting Performance and Reliability of HighDuty Spur and Helical Gearing for Aircraft" Proc. Int. Conf. Gearing, I. Mech. E. London (1958), pp. 8290 Davis A. W., : "Marine Reduction Gearing" Proc. Inst. Mech. E. 170 (16) 1956, pp. 477498
[D21
[D31 [041
of Load Capacity
of
Spur,
Helical
and
Study in Gear "A Photoelastic Broghammer E. L., Fillets", Tooth No. 335, Engrg Expt. Station Bulletin Univ. of Illonois 1942
Oubbel, : "Tascenbuch fur den Maskinenbaull 1974 Springer"Verlag, DIN 3961 : "Accuracy of Cylindrical Gears: General Bases" 1978
DU436 Computer program implementing BS436 gear stress analysis Newcastle University Design Unit, [B31. of upon standard ,.,, Tyne Dobrovolsky V. : "Machine Elements" Mir Publishers, Moscow 1977 DIN 3960 :,!, 'Concepts and Parameters Associated With Cylindrical Gears and Gear Pairs With Involute Teeth" 1980 Gears: Tolerances for
ED81 [D91
Elkholy A. H., : "Tooth Load,Sharing in HighContact Gears" Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc., Ontario Fujio
Ratio Spur
[FI1
"Varying Thickness Plate (Greens H., Aida T., F. E. Analysis)" Preprint JSMENo. 7106 (19684), p. 113 Preprint JSMENo. 192 (19714), p. 161, (in Jap. ) K., 430, 26 (in (19603) (163) JSME Trans. p. : Jap)
and
EF21 EF31
Fujita Fujita
K., K., Obata F., Miyanishi : "Gear Tooth Calculation Method for Heavily Crowned Gears"
Stress
Mabie H.H., "The Measurement of Furrow R.W., Deformation ofSpur Gear Teeth" Jnl. Mechanisms, 11970, pp. 147168 in Gear Teeth" Gromann M.B., : "Load Distribution Russ. Engg. Jnl. 1967,5, j, pp. 4447 Geick K., : "Technical Formulae" GeickVerlag 1982 Hayashi K., on Contact Line of : "Load Distribution Gear Teeth", (Part 1: Fundamental Concept) 1963 Bull. JSME6 (22), pp. 336343
Helical
EH21
Hayashi K., Sayama T., : "Load Distribution on the Contact Line Gear Teeth". (Part 2: Gears of Large of Helical Facewidth) 1963 Bull. JSME6 (22), pp. 344353 Gears" Hayashi K., : "Analysis of Loading in Cylindrical Symp., Tokyo 1967, pp. 181188 Proc.,,, JSMESemi Internat. Hayashi K., : Trans. JSME (19623) 28 (193), p. 1093 (In Jap. ) p. 1102
"Load Distribution Hayashi K., SayamaT., Gears" Bull. JSME (1962) 5 (18)p pp. 351359 Holl D. L., Jnl. Hertz K.,
in Marine Reduction
[H71 [H81
: "Cantilever Plate with Concentrated Edge Load" Appl. Mechs., Trans. ASME59 (1937), pp. A810 : "Gessamelte Werke, " vol. I, Leipzig, 1895.
[H91
Hirt
M.C. O., : "Stresses inSpur Gear Teeth and Their Strength Radius" as Influenced by Fillet English translation of Phd Thesis by John Maddock, 1976 Published by AGMA in Loaded Projections" ben Beruhrung"
Stresses EH101 Heywood R. B., : "Tensile Fillet Trans. Inst. Mech. Engrs., 1948 [Hlll
"The Importance of the New Standards BS CH121 Hofmann D.A., 436(1986) and DIN 3990 (1986) for Gear Design in the UK" TransIMarE(TM), Vol. 99, Paper 14,1987 [Ill Load Distribution Inoue K., Tobe T., : "Longitudinal Gears" Sendai, Japan Tohoku University, Ishikawa J., Ishikawa J., of Helical
: Trans. JSME (1951) 17 (59) p. 103 (In Jap. ) : Bull. T. I. T. (3) 1957 (Tokyo Inst. Technol. ) subject to
On the elastic problem of cantilever Ishikawa J., combined bending and twisting" 15 (90) 1972 ISO/DP 6336 Gear Loading PARTSI, II, III AND IV.
E151 [Jll
"Deflections T, J., Jaramillo and Moments due Concentrated Load on a Cantilever Plate of Infinite Jnl. Appl. Mechs. 17,1950 Trans. ASME72 Johnson K. L., : 11100Years of Hertz Contact" Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol 196,1982
to a Length"
[J21 EKll
Kagawa T., and Moment due to a Concentrated Edge : "Deflection Load on a Cantilever Plate of Finite Length" Proc. llth Jap. Nat. Congress of Applied Mechanics'1961
EK21
"Extended Model for Determining Dynamic Loads in Kasuba R., Spur Gearing" Trans. ASME,J. Mech. Des. 103,1981 pp. 398409. Kubo A., : "Estimation Kyoto University of Gear Performance" , , p. 1722 Gear Teeth"
Kugimiya H., : "Profile Modifications of Helical Bull. JSME (1966) 9 (36), pp. 829841
Lewis. F. M., : "Load Distribution of Reduction Gears" Jnl. App. Mech. June 1945, pp. A87A90 Linke H., : "Untersuchungen Zur Ermittlung der Breiten Lastverkilung Durch Breitenbalund Erhohung der Betastbarkeit lige Verzahnungen11 19781, Tech. Univ. Dresden, Vol. 1 p. 321 Int. Con. 'Infert Little R.W., : "Bending of a Cantilever Plate" MS Thesis (Mechanics), Univ. Wisconsin (1959)
Two
EL31
[L41
Loo T. T., of Curvature on the Hertz Theory for : "Effect Circul, r Bodies in Contact" Jnl. Appl. Mechs., Trans. ASME 80 (1958), pp. 122124
EL51
"Stress and Deformation Lundberg G., Sjovall H., Contacts" Chalmres Univ. of Tech., Gotenburg, 1958
in Elastic
[L61
Lurle A. I., : "Three Dimensional Problems of the Theory of Elasticity" 1964 Gostekhizdat Moscow 1955, Translated by Interscience Lennox S. C., Applied Chadwick M., : "Mathematics for Engineers Scientists", Heinemann 1977 of a Long Helical Gear Tooth" and
[L71 EM11
: "Gears"
Monch E., Roy A. K. : "Spannunesoptische Schragverzahnden Stirnradsll 1957 Konstruktion 9 (11), pp. 429438
Untersuchung
einer
[M41
Investigations Monch E., Roy A. K. : "Photoelastic Spur Gear" Engineers Digest, 19 (1958) pp. 5357
of a Helical
EM51
Munro R. G., Seager D.L. : "Tooth Loading on the IAE Gear Rig" Inst. Petrolium, I, pp. 7378 Proc. Symp. Gear Lub., (1958) Munro R. G., : "The Dynamic Behaviour of Spur Gears" PhD. Thesis, Camb. Univ. (1962) Niemann G., Schmidt G., : "Untersuchungen uber den Einfluss Zahnbreite und Schragungswinker auf die Zahrbelastung (1971) VDIZ 113 (2), pp. 165170 Stirnradern" von bei
EM61 [N11
EN21 NiemannG., Baethge J., : VDIZ (197071) 112 (4), p. 205 1% [N31 NiemannG., Richter W., : "Tragfahigste Evolventen  Schragverzahnung" Essen Conv. on Transmission Techniques (1954), p. 16
EN41 der G., "Experimentelle Untersuchung Nengebauer Lastverteilung uber der Zalmbreite bei Schragverzalmten im Lauf" Stirnradern Maschinenbautechnik 11 (1962) (2), pp. 93103 Niemann G., Winter H., : "Maschinenelementell 1983 SpringerVerlag Portitsky H., Sutton A. D., Pernick A., Load Along a Pinion" : "Distribution of Tooth
EN51 [P11
Jnl. EP21
pp. 7886
Premilhat A., Tordion G.V., : "An Improved Determination of the Compliance of a Spur Gear Tooth Acted. on by a Elastic Concentrated Load" ASME, Jnl. Eng. Ind. (1974) PAFEC: "Data Preparation User Manual" "Theory and Results" PAFEC1982 Rao A. C., : "On Load Sharing by Pairs of Gear Teeth" J. Inst. Eng. (India) 58 Pt. ME (1978) pp. 265267 Rademacher J., : "Ermittlung von Lastverteilungsfaktoren Stirnradgetriebe" 69 (17), (1967) pp. 3134 IndustrieAnzeiger Richardson H.H., : "Static and Dynamic Load, Deflection Cycles in Spur Gear Systems" (1958) Thesis, MIT ScD. Roark R. J., Young W.C., : "Formulas for McGrawHill 1975 Stress fuer
EP31
[R11 ER21
[R31
and
ER41 ES11
Schragverzahnter Schmidt G., % : "Berechnu ng der Walzpressung * Berucksichtigung Stirnrader der Lastverteilung" unter Diss. T. U. Munchen 1973 "Optimum Tooth Profile Schmidt G.R., Gears" ASMEPaper 80C2/Det110 Correction of Helical
ES21
[S31 ES41
Seager D. L., : "Some Elastic Effects in Helical PhD Thesis Cambridge Univ. (1976) Seager D.L., "Tooth Loading and Static Gears" Trans. ASLE 13 (1), 1970, pp. 6677
Gear Teeth"
Behaviour of Helical
ES51
Sigg
on Involute
[S61
"Bending of a Cantilever Plate Supported. From an Small N. C. Elastic Half Space" (1961) Trans. ASME83E, pp. 387394 Shigley J. E., : "Mechanical Engineering McGrawHill 1981 Design''
ES71 [T11
Terauchi Y., Nagamura K., : "Study on Deflection of Spur Gear by TwoTeeth  1. , Calculation of Tooth Deflection Dimensional Elastic Theory" Terauchi Y., Nagamura K., : "Study on Deflection of Spur Gear Teeth  2. Calculation of Tooth Deflection for Spur Gears With Various Tooth Profiles" Bull. JSME24 (188) 1981, pp. 447452 Terauchi Y., Nagamura K.,  : "On Tooth Deflection Modification of Spur Gear Teeth" and Profile Factor
ET23
[T31 IT41
Load Distribution Tobe T., Katsumi I., : 11Longitudinal for Straddle and OverhungMounted Spur Gears" ASMERap. (80C2/DET45) 1980, p. 8
ET51
in Helical Gear Teeth" Trbojevic M.D., : "Load Distribution The Engineer (1957) 204 (5298) pp. 187190, (5290)'pp. 222224 Trobjevic in Helical Gear Teeth" M.D., : "Load Distribution The Engineer (1957) 204 pp. 483488
Timoshenko S. P., Goodier J. N., : "Theory of Elasticity" McGrawHill 1985 Tuplin W.A. : "Load Capacity of Helical Gears" The Engineer (1966) Sep., pp. 483488
P11
Gears under Load "Meshing Test on Helical Umezawa K., Transmission" 3rd Report, Bull. JSME (1974 Oct. ), 17 (112) pp. 13481355 UmezawaK., UmezawaK., UmezawaK., Bull., JSME (196970) 12 (53) p. 1204 15 (79) p. 116 15 (90), p. 1632 on Helical Gears under Load "The Approximate Formula for of Gear Teeth" pp. 407413
"The meshing test Umezawa K., 2nd Report :Transmission" Bending Moment Distribution, 16 (92) (19723) Bull. JSME,
EU61
due to Contact Between "Deflection Ishikawa, J., UmezawaK., Gear Teeth With Finite Width" Bull. JSME (197273) 16 (97), pp. 10851093 UmezawaK., : "Thick Plate Theory,, Finite Length" Trans. JSME (19692) 35 (270) p. 423 (In Jap. ) Equation for Deflections UmezawaK., : "Practical and Stresses" Trans. JSME (197071) 36 (288) p. 1385, (In Jap. ) Van Zandt R. P. : "Beam Strength Quart. *Trans. SAE (1952), Vathayanon B., : Diss. of Spur Gears" pp. 352357 Urbanar, Helical Ill. Gears"
Vedmar L., : "On the Design of External Lund Inst. Tech. (Sweden) Walker H., : "Gear Tooth Deflection The Engineer 166 (1938)
Involute
and Profile
Modification"
Walker H., : "Helical Gears" July 12, pp. 2426 182 (ii) The Engineer 1946 (i) July 26, pp. 7071 19, pp. 4648 (iii)
July
[W31
"Effect of Deflections. of Gears and their SupWaterworth N., ports" Proc. Int. ' Conf. Gearing; Inst. ' Mech. Engrs. Sept. 1958 Weber C.,  Banascheck K., ' : "Formanderung und Profilrucknahme bei gerad und schragverzahnten Radern" Schriftenr6ihe Ht 11 (1955), p. 54 Antriebstechnik
Thuss W. "Belastungsgrenzen Weber C., ', Stirnradern" schragverzahnen bei gerad und
[W41
[W51
Antriebstechnik [W61
H5,1952
Weber C., "The Deformation of Loaded Gears and the Effect on their Load Carrying Capacity"Part 1. DSIR (London) Sponsored Research (Germany), Report 3 (1949). See also EW71 Weber C., Banascheck K., : "The Deformation of Loaded Gears and the Effect on their Load Carrying Capacity" Part 5. DSIR (London) Sponsored Research (Germany)m Report No. 6 (1950). See also [W41 Seireg A., '': "Bending Strength of Gear Teeth by Wellauer E. I. Cantilever Plate Theory" Trans': ASME82B (3) Aug. 1960, pp. 213222 Wellauer E. I., : "Bending Strength Plate Theory" Trans. ASMEPaper 58A50 of Gear Teeth by Cantilever
IW71
N81
N91
EW101 Winter H., Stolzle K., : "Tragfahigkeitsberechnung getrieben" 10 Jrgg (2) Feb. 1971 Antriebstechnik
von Zahnrad
EW111 Winter H., "Experimentelle und Theoretische Ergebnisse zurbei Schraegverzahnten Last und Spannungsverteilung Raedern" 1978) 1 pp. 347357 Int. Conf. Unfert
EW121 Winter H., Podlesnik., Research work quoted in BS436 draft spur and helical standard., full reference not given
EW131 Winter H.,. Hirt M., : "The Measurement of ActualStrains Influenceof Fillet Radius on Stresses Gear Teeth, Tooth Strength", at and
EW14] Westegaard H.M.,,: "Bearing Pressures and Cracks" , Journal of Appl. 'Mechanics, March 1988
U11 "Load 'Distribution Zablonskii K. I., on Gear Drive Lines" Russ.. Engg. Jnl. (1969) (8), pp. 2631 Zablonskii K. I., et al, the Load'Concentration Vestnik Mashniostroeniya (Sov. Engg.  Res. 3'(1), Zablonskii K. I., : "Gears" Kiev 1977, Tekhnika, Contact
U21
"Automation of the Calculations Factors in, Gears" 63. (1) 1983, pp. 3337 pp. 2832
of
U31
p. 208
EZ41
Ziegler
und Lastverteilung
cOo
APPENDIX2.1
FORTHE ELASTIC ANALYSISOF SPURGEARS PROGRAM SPURDIST, the computer program SPURDIST for Appendix 2.1 explains determining the load distribution, contact stress and transmission The elastic equations in any pair of meshing real spur gears. error used are set out in Section 2.1. 1 shows the menu hierarchy and Fig. 2a summary of the main Fig. commands. The program defines a master tooth (tooth 3) which is used for specifying (see Fig. 4 procedure PHASE). Up the phase of mesh to two teeth either side of the master tooth may be in mesh at any one in mesh if the tooth tip time. A tooth is assumed to be potentially is within 0.25 base pitches of the 'mating' tooth surface (ie touching defined phase of mesh). Elemental when in side the geometrically gear , Error datafiles error are manipulated using procedure ERROR. datafiles are permanently stored on disk. The solution is obtained and output by calling procedure ANALYSE (Fig. 5) and LOADDIST(Fig. 6). (Fig. CALCMAT 4) which calls CALCMAT including (not the load tooth the matrix compliance, generates ' The tooth deflection dependent contact centreline compliance). C[l.. 71 (for 10 to 1,00 teeth at coefficients = 2, 1,0,1,2 datafile COEFDATA. The stored on modules) permanently are have been calculated by fitting natural splines to the coefficients in two 'directions' F. E. result coefficients by adding in the LOADDIST completes the compliance matrix, inverting (Function deflection CONDEFN), the estimated contact Each contact compliance matrix and solving for the load distribution. line has 8 gauss points (2 point integration over successive quarters 3 of the facewidth) giving a 25 x 25 augmented compliance matrix for in contact. The solution is iterated until all teeth gauss point loads have converged to values greater than wbm/1000. When negative loads are predicted (i. e. teeth are separated), the contact compliance This reduces the estimated is multiplied by 10 at each iteration. to zero or gauss load in a smooth process until it approximates
Commands for
Spur
Gear'Load
Distribution
Program, Version
04.261087
I C(ear
E(rror
Prompts
for
gear tooth
geometry
independent
of phase of mesh
file the elemental Returns gear the error menu for handling (pitch, tooqh profile, and pr, ofi'le modificaitons errors barrelling, tip, root and end relief) crowning, Wake Mist Vill P(rint S(elect : : : : Createsa Lists new error datafile error'datafil'e datafile error datafile on the printer on the screen
an existing an error
an existing
dataf ile to each tooth of the 5 an error engaging tooth meshes (maximum of 3 at any possible phase of mesh) for tooth number 15 P(inion prompts pinion : Wheel : prompts for wheel tooth number 15
Returns for for shaft the to main deflections program at the menu gauss integration points tooth pairs
which
data the
is
present
the
mesh is
analysed
and
results is
output
printer
A(nalyse points
for seven phases of mesh corresponding to performed A, B, C, D and the 3 midpoints on the roll angle graph the program
Q(Uit
Exits
Fig.
START
newphase
newphase:  false
Calc RH side tooth defn vector totdefn PROCEDURE CALCDEFN I Invert compliance for & solve matrix loads tooth PROCEDURE LOADDIST I END
Fig
3.
Spur
Gear
Load
Distribution
Program
Procedure
ANALYSE
v3
Calc phase
Calc initial tooth ct for 5 clearance tooth meshes PROCEDURE CLEARANCE Fd d Print yl,
Yqct, or y2
Set
order
of
[ :
Equations
for
calculating
the
tooth
clearance
ct
dealt
with
in Appendix
2.1.3
Fig
4.
Spur
Gear
Load
Distribution
Progra
Procedure
PHASE
START 1 FOR k: = 1 TO numzcon Do DO FOR i: = 1 TO numcoeff defn Calc each bending ci at coefficient phase yy us ng PROCEDURE NATSPLINE I Calc bendin S influence functions load & aNtrix totk compliance
N con
Calc adj influence fuctions & load off *diagonal compliance submatrices
<zz
N
zcon
END
of of
coefficients Program
ci Procedure
(7) CALCMAT
Spur
Load
START
initialise
Gloads
totkc:
= totk
FOR j: =l
TO mat_ord1
DO
Rcomp[jl: = c
jl: = totk I [j, j]+Hcompljj*2/al
totkc[j,
Invert matrix compliance PROCEDUREMATINVERT I Calc gauss loads Gloads: = invtotkc*totdefn PROCEDUREMATBYVEC
I*
DO
Spline estimate
fit
Stb+
6sh to centreline
end tooth
intialise
Eloads
Y, 4 HcompE[jl: = HcompE[jl*101
tE 10 wb
Calc
2 end
loads
(eqn
2.8)
Eloads converged. Ty
END
deflection converges too a stable positive load. The tooth centreline is fitted centreline with natural splines to obtain the end tooth deflections. load is calculated at the end of each The specific meshing tooth from equation 2.8.
** ***
*4
2.1.3 APPENDIX CALCULATION AND INITIAL TOOTH CLEARANCE,. OF LOADING DIAMETER,d St, UUTSlut IMEOREI&S dy Appendix 2.1.3 of and ct at the end of calculation covers , for is It spur gears of any pressure angle pinion valid engagement. with profile codification. The following determine the coordinates at the calculations tangent is joined between tip at a given phase angle4P A pinion The intersection this between the point and the wheel base circf6tangent and the wheel involute defined as the wheel meshing point, defining the tooth clearance, dy2. This and the mesh diameter, ct, procedure has been repeated for the start of pinion tooth engagement. Referring to Fig. 1 we have for the pinion:
zI
(A2.1.3.1)
oil
p
(Ls p
x
st
(A2.1.3.2)
clL
c0s
(A2.1.3.3)
esj 11
8 V 01
eiL
%A rv.
(A2.1.3.4)
=( ei
ots,
4)
68 '2
(A2.1.3.5)
ft st
iLt
(A2.1.3.6)
t1i
II
(A2.1.3.7)
(A2.1.3.8) to base normal where jO = phase angle relative (i = angle between tooth centreline and line joining centres o= angle between meshing point and line joining centres
It
Lt,
outside
the Geometrically
Defined
Now consider
X
(A2.1.3.9)
j4t 2
(A2.1.3.10)
(A2.1.3.11)
AiN
V
4a;
0.7 C, ( )
(A2.1.3.12)
(A2.1.3.13)
where axis.
suffix
lyp2l refers
can now be
ak involute
gent to wheel
base
circle
Fig 2. Wheel Contact Point Outside the Geometrically Ffitsh Referring to Fig. 2 we have
4m
195'. e)
2 is:
(A2.1.3.15)
The equation
line tangent of
gives:
'1.7) (A2.1.3.
n112. =
profile,
line
1: A2.1.3.18)
Inv
C'L 
(A2.1.3.19)
dy2, can be solved iteratively. The wheel mesh diameter, The distance tooth is the along the assumed base tangent clearance, ct, given by: ,cf: (A2.1.3.20)
*****
APPENDIX2.3.2 MODIFICATION SURFACE OF A SPURGEARWITH ADDENDUM COORDINATES This appendix sets out the procedure of spur rectangular coordinates and polar The primary purpose for this was modification. for Finite Element analyses so a procedure midpoint of two surface coordinates is included. Required data for profile generation: : : : : : : z mn 4( x hao rao ry (A2.3.2.1) (A2.3.2.2) (A2.3.2.3) (A2.3.2.4) (A2.3.2.5) (A2.3.2.6) for the calculating gears with addendum to generate mesh data for determining the
number of teeth module pressure angle addendum modification tool addendum tool tip radius For involute reference base radius tooth surface surface thickness pressure angle generation: input radius trt, S=m%
radius
la L rnIN r, CO CC%
hr +aX4, tn cc)
( / ) s, I, r; i o +~ OILr nv Co: C
rectangular
s; r%
For trochoid
generation:
form of the tooth has been calculated based on work by The fillet Buckingham EB41. Coordinates are calculated for a rack cutter with a tool radius.
Fiq.
For. no undercut the trochoid will be tangent to the generated involute From the geometry of Fig.. 1 for the corner of a profile. rack tooth we have:
E)t
(A2.3.2.7)
r(r6) r
(A2.3.2.8)
where
rt = any radius of trochoid (input) b= distance from rack reference line e= vectorial angle of trochoid
to origin
of rack radius
1 we have:
r,
qt
(A2.3.2.9)
t Cos
where rf &;
(A2.3.2.10)
IA
*du
Fig.
Generating
Now consider the generating rack given in Fig. the tool tip radius is offset by: kaAa rao)
4AAi %Z
rAO
The coordinates of the trochoid are defined relative tooth centreline which is offset from the trochoid axis by
(A2.3.2.11) r
of the trochoid
are given
by (9 and
rf
8'":
W. 3.2.12)
A2.3.2.6. Rectangular coordinates are obtained using equation from the Note that the trochoid coordinat6s are not obtained directly trochoid the radius of the tool ti p, radius rf but by inputting rt, origin.
Calculation
distance
If midside node coordinates are omitted from the F. E. input the elements are assumed to have (shown dotted). straight sides, To ensure a correct trochoid the midside node coprofile ordinates must be calculated. is defined The midpoint as a point on the trochoid of equal
from points 1 and 2.1,2 for Equations given the
trochoid are not closed form so is determined by the midpoint iteration between the two calculated corner node coordinates. Fig. 3 F. E. Midside Node Calculation
The flow diagram for the iteration is given in Fig. The 4. program successively divides the trochoid in half and detects which the midpoint must lie until further subdivision section produces no improvement in midpoint coordinates.
*****
Fig
4.
Trochoid
Midpoint
Coordinate
Routine
2.3.4 APPENDIX DEFLECTION RESULTS PLOTSOF F. E. NETT TOOTH CENTRELINE deflections The following tooth the centreline along graphs plot the tooth axis. The results are extracted from PAFEC3D F. E. analyses deflections the 100 The shaft of 18,25,40 teeth. of calculated and F. E. model, due to a point load, have been subtracted from the F. E. results. The plots of adjacent tooth deflection are in Section 2.3.5.
***
**
1*
c E
c E
c E
c E
c E
C) In Ci It Um
a) L) c m
41 0
C) C) d 11 LLq
0 0 c co
41 0)
a) o c (a
4.0 co
0 0 c m
41 0
C3 a) c 0 al o
C3 0) c 0 m o
C3 m c 0 m o
C3 a) c 0 (0 0
C3 m c 0 co 0
(a x
(1) x
co x
m x
(13 x
.4
0
U'l
vi vi
0 vi
Ln 0 0 m tA
a) ca 4J U) Ln
LA ci
C vi
Ln 44
Co
Ln Pei
CP Pei
ul ej
ci
ci
CI
uw*3*Y/cr4lJ0l209l48(1 9
c E
c E
C:
E
a 0 c (1)
4
0 U c co
4J
0 0 c m
41
CD u c co
4
V)
C3 m
Cl) w
C3 C3
U)
C3
(n
C3
a) m m c c c ; m ; co m m m 0 0 0 0 i
x x x x
m c 3 m 0 j
x
to
El
C)
CID
c 0 Ln
0)
tj
L
0
c7) c 0
0 c tli
4
(D Z
(n 2 C:
Z CY. Z w
C31
(N co r 10 Ln .7 M
II
ul"*3*
A/qu'o"Oel4eO
aullej'u'J
'ON
(D t) c (U
4.3 (0
C) 0 c (0
41 m
0 0 c (U
41 w
Q 0 c 0
42 (P
M m c (0 0
ca m c
ca m c
c3 m c
ca m c
m m M j 0 0 1.0 7) 0 0 0 0
Ul
d C!
Ln
C! Ln
r"I c
vi wi
cl
4J 0 0
c 0
u c
4j w
Ln
Ln
4D 4
Ul. Ki
Ul N
Uu'*2*
JkR
UO I zoal 9
C, 9
c r=
c E
c E
c f=
cl it LLtj
(1) U c m
41
16 it LLR
(1) u c m
41
Q L) c m
4j
(D 0 c ca
4J
(1)
V)
U)
(P
FE a) c (a 0
C3 cr) c
ea 0
cl CD c
(a 0
C3 m c
I'D 0
C3 CY) c
m 0
m x x x x
eo x
P.
km l
cl
Lr. 4J
0 0 Pei 0 LA
C! co CY
Lrl .Z
Ln d
C
Co
Ln
4?
r"
J/
cR
uO 1 10814 90 9u 9
113.113 'AZooj
ZeN
S .c
c r=
c a
c E
c E
Ln Ln Cj CD CS 11 if LL L 4 UCD 0 c 1 m
4P w
C) Ln C, 11 UCD 0 C: (a
41
n C) 6 11 LL.
0 0 c: co
+j
0 0 c (a
p
(D 0 c co
41
CO (D
C3 C3
(n
M
CO
0
C3
a) (7) cr C c c
0 i 0
x
cr) m c c
0 i
. 0
0 i d
x
0 i 1
x
0 i
__o
tr.
LrI
4a
Ul
tn cs
,rIIIIIIII C)
t1i
Ln 4
ul r4i
C5 Pei
Ln (I;
0 0i
in d ZGN
Ln
0 ci ci
Ln CD C) Ln Ln C%j P CNJLn C) 6 C:, cli 6 ) LL LL LL. LL. LLN w " " ?4 "
a) (D
co
4J CO
(1)
co
a)
41 W
C: ca
co
41 W
CD
4J O)
+j W
C3 a) c 0 (0
0 (0
r
< Ei
< e
..
lw
tr.
LM
0
..
(1)
Cl
co
rl
10
Ln
1.
uul*3*
In In In 0 cl C, j F, C'i In C) C; C C; If It It L4 14
(D 0 c co A. 10 P

41
W
a) 0 c (a
4P
19
0 0 c co
41
0
(1) 0 c (a
4J
W
(1) () c Of
1=1 C3 07 c (a 0
M M c cc 0
M M c co a
.C 41
CY) 07 c c cc 0 (a 0
x
0
x
El
Y.
0
Ln 0
d
c
C 0
L
Lf! ul
C!
Ln
+0 0 0 h4.1 tu Z
rI c
%r
Ln 0 0 m c 0 Ln
(U 0
C!
Ln
c
4J to
co
is
LU Li
LA
Ln
0 4
In Pei
0 pli
Ln ri
.1 ci
cl d
C! 0
tz
ulu*3* '14,9ui2l,
14110eullenueo
Ll400J. 29N
r=
r= ,
F
c 2
c r=
tn c;
tn N
c> ci Ln 0
c3 M C M 0
x x x x
Id LrI tiri 1 LA Ln
Lr 'i C3 CY) c 0
u cl
fli 4J (j)
Ln
ci 0 0
a
Co
II
APPENDIX2.4.2 OPTIMISATION ROUTINE FOR CURVE FITTING OF FINITE DEFLECTIONDATA ELEMENT TOOTH
To minimise the error between the F. E. tooth deflection results function the coefficients and the mathematical fitting of F( ) and G( ) were optimised by computer. The method used was a modified gradient method. The procedure is set out below. For direction a given function, is approximately F, with n variables given by: the gradient in any
v F. to
where x is a small distance.
(A2.4.2.1)
The vector VF represents the direction of steepest descent for the function. For each of the n variables the gradient in the direction of steepest descent is given by:
'V'
17 Fc
(A2.4.2.2)
where
IN
2 7 F) L.I
(A2.4.2.3)
For the ndimensional space an initial guess for each of the n is made; the gradient is found from equations A2.4.2.1 coefficients Nowproceed in this direction until a miminum is found. This, and 3. for method has been adopted so that the gradient is not recalculated every new set of coefficients.
Fiq.
Modified
Gradient Minimisation
(Powell's
Method)
F in a particular To minimise the function direction quadratic interpolation The steplength for the calculated was adopted. gradient is increased until the I dimensional position see minimum is passed, Fig. 2. The last three to approximated a points evaluated are parabola of form:
10
0.
+6k.
a e1
(A2.4.2.4)
(x)
.4
Fig.
Quadratic
The slopes at the two midpoints L, R can be linearly approximated. into equation A2.4.2.5 gives a good estimate Inserting this of the ordinate of the minimum A. (A2.4.2.6) This method quickly converges to the one dimensional
*** **
minimum.
START
Input coefficientsl
PROCEDURE I GRADIENT
Print results
Fig
4.
Curve
Fitting
Procedure
GRADIENT
START
Calc Calc
slopeL slopeRl
Calc I CC alc
f Reorder along x axi;
"so io l N ut , converged?d?
END
Fig
5.
Curve
Fitting
Procedure
DIRNMIN
Calc
Igradl I
Fig
6.
Curve
Fitting
Procedure
DIRECTION
APPENDIX3.8.4 ROOTSTRESSES TEST GEARTOOTH ROOTStRAIN GAUGE RESULTS AND CALCULATED Appendix 3.8.4 tabulates the experimental results from the tooth deflection test rig described in chapter 3. The method of calculation of the tooth root stresses is given in detail in section 3.6
* ** **
Gear Strain Test Mn ,x=0.0 hao = 1.4 Mn rao = 0.4 Mn 19.000 Mn dy = 7.222  Mn zF = Z rmnI 0'556 1: 667 2.778 3 [389 4: 722 6.111 7.222 Epsa 1 0.149 0.257 0.433 0.758 1.056 1.571 2.778 Epsa I 1.284 1.649 1.257 0.433 0.135 0.041 1.667 Epsa r 1.607 1.270 0.432 0.108 0.014 0.014 0.556 Epsa 1 1.013 0.243 0.000 0.054 0.041 0.014
Gauge
Results.
Epsc Epsb Epsi 1.0e6 mm/N 0.054 0.149 0.324 0.582 1.053 2.188 2.904 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.027 0.041 0.325 0.152 0.259 0.463 0.814 1.265 2.336
sigl 11
Si. ge 13c3c3
sigb
sigd
0.035 0.010 0.059 0.017 0.102 0.019 0.1 E31 0.037 0.049 0.279 0.506 0.060
Mn Epsc Epssb Epsl l. Oe6 mm/N 1.631 2.400 2.993 2.136 1.429 0.620 0.297 0.203 0.527 1.217 1.595 1.406 0.784 1.783 2.515 2.993 2.277 1.686 0.838 Eps2 3 0.296 0.339 0.520 0.250 0.145 0.014 thta Edg3 74 78 90 14 22 30 sigl SQ2 E3C3C3C3 0.389 0.554 0.652 0.506 0.377 0.192 0.055 0.095 0.087 0.100 0.083 0.055 sigb 0.365 0.536 0.652 0.122 0.124 0.090 sigd 0.079 0.114 0.087 0.493 0.336 0.157
Mn Epsb Epsc Epsl l. Oe6 mmIN 3.254 3.348 2.345 1.351 0.786 0.285 0.136 1.161 1.621 1.864 1.351 0.986 0.473 3.267 3.357 2.543 1.608 1.064 0.476 Eps2 3 0.498 0.466 0.247 0.149 0.065 0.010 thta Cdg3 87 3 15 22 30 40 sigi sig2 E3E3E3C3 0.716 0.739 0.567 0.359 0.240 0.110 0.111 0.124 0.11a 0.076 O. Oss 0.035 sigb sigd
0.113 0.714 0.737 0.125 0,150.0.535 0.318 0.118 0.195 0.103 0.079 0.066
zF =
z CMn3
Mn Epsl Epsc Epsb 1.0e6 mmIN 5.712 3.107 1.438 0.730 0.353 0.136 0.068 3.797 3.040 1.892 1.027 0.622 0.243 5.993 3.667 2.012 1.079 0.627 0.243 Eps2 1 1.183 0.3134 0.121 0.106 0.046 0.013 thta [dgl 11 22 31 33 40 43 sigl t1 1.295 0 E316 0.454 0.241 0.141 0.057 sigpC3 0.141 0.164 0.111 0.050 0.033 0.020 sigb C3 0. IE36 0.255 0.203 0,106 0.077 0.037 sigd C3 I. e5o 0.7e6 0.36e 0.184 0.097 0.040
CCDESIGNUNIT
f Newcastle u
Project NO
g42
F?
I
ai + 87 OC.
Gauge
Results.
la
x
=
0.0
1.4
Mn
Mn
rao dy
zF Z ImnI
= 0.4 Mn 19.000 =
= 7.222 Epsa 1
Mn
Mn Epsb Epsc 1.0e6 mm/N Epsl Eps2 1 thta [dgl sigl 11 siga 11. sigb 11 sigd [1
0.187
0.2299
0.012
0.017
59
51
0.042
0.068
0.010
0.017
0.034
0.048
0.019
0.036
0.547 0.991
1.540 2.711 
0.050 0.092
0.194 0.376 
59 62
69 78 
0.122 0.221
0.341 0.597 
0.026 0.047
0.064 0.100 
0.097 0.193
0.304 0.574.
0.051 0.096
0.100 0.123 
zF
z EMn] 0.556 1.667 2.778 3.889 4722 6.111 7.222
2.778
Epsa I 1.539 1.890 1.458 0.648 0.216 0.067 
Mn
Epsb Epsc l. Oe6 mmIN 0.297 0.756 1.485 1.836 1.687 0.945 1, Epsl Eps2 3 2.284 3.042 3.337 2.742 2.052 1.005 0.448 0.396 0.394 0.258 0.149 0.008 thta Edg3 76 80 0 12 21 31 sigl 13 0.494 0.671 0.739 0.612 0.461 0.231 sig2 E3 0.054 0.119 0.139 0.130 0.107 0.071 sigb E3 0.470 0.656 0.139 0.149 0.153 0.113 sigd E3 0.078 0.134 0.739 0.592 0.416 0.189 
F
Mn Epsb Epsc 1.0 e6 inm/N 1.429 1.942 2.171 1.658 1.213 0.566 Epsi Eps2 1 3.955 3.999 3.062 2.012 1.331 0.599 0.611 0.461 0.244 0.164 0.091 0.010 thta [dgl 87 3 14 21 29 34 sigl C1 0.866 0.864 0.686 0.451 0.300 0.135 zig2 11 0.132 0.163 0.155 0.101 0.071 0.039 sigb 11 0.864 0.165 0.185 0.147 0.122 0.069 sigd 11 0.134 0.962 0.656 * 0.405 0.249 0.105
zF = gmnl
0.556 1.667 2.779 3 889 . 4.722 6.111 7.222
0.556
Epsa
Mn
Epsb Epsc Epsl Ep52 thta sigl siga sigb sigd
1
1.465 0.551 0.091 027 0 . 0.040 0.00o 
1.0 e6 mmIN
6.243 3.870 2.009 1.021 0.526 0.202 0.094 3.897 3.427 2.325 1.317 0.920 0.349 6.445 4.356 2.594 1.415 0.941 0.352 1.093 0.379 0.179 0.125 0.061 0.002 
[dgl
9 19 27 30 36 41 
C1
1.406 0.974 0.591 0.316 0.189 0.081 0.195 0.213 0.137 0.069 0.044 0.024 
11
0.229 0.291 0.229 0.132 0.094 0 . 048
c11
1.373 0.096 0.499 0.253 0.139 0 . 057
[:
CDESIGNUNIT
niv riyo
Newcastle
up
ct NO1942
I rDate, 1 O&t
gheet No 44
Test
Gear
Strain
Gauge
Results.
Mii Mii
Mn
dy zF
Z, '
= =
19.833 7.222
Epsa
Mn Mn
Epsb Epsc Epsl Eps2 thte sigl siga sigb sigd
1.0e6 0.188 0.323 0.578 1.062 1.465 2.111 2.778 Epsa I 1.815 2.191 1.761 0.820 0.296 0.091 
Idg. 1 11 41 54 61 62 70 79 0.042 0.074 0.140 0.263 0.405 0.714 
Mn Epsb Epsc l. O e6 mm/N 0.336 0.941 1.801 2.164 1.963 1.089 14 Epsl Eps2 3 2.692 3.642 4.035 3.265 2.465 1.192 0.541 0.510 0.472 0.280 0.207 0.023 thta Edg3 76 91 0 11 19 28 sigl C3 0.581 0.801 0.894 0.731 0.552 0.272 sig2 c3 0.061 0.134 0.170 0.161 0.122 0.077 sigb E3 0.552 0.786 0.170 0.182 0.169 0.120 sigd c3 0.090 0.149 0.894 0.709 0.505 0.229 
Mn Epsb Epsc I. Oe6 mm/N 1.609 2.299 2.556 1.961 1.433 0.663 Epsl Eps2 3 4.748 4.735 3.685 2.403 1.583 0.683 0.826 0.598 0.291 0.185 0096 0.006 thta Edg3 86 2 13 21 28 35 sigl C3 1.034 1.046 0.826 0.539 0.357 0.157 sig2 E3 0.137 0.189 0.187 0.123 0.087 0.049 sigb E3 1.030 0.191 0.218 0.175 0.145 0.084 , sigd C3 0.141 1.045 0.795 *0.488 0.299 0.122 
0.556
Epsa E 1.963 0.834 0.188 0.000 o4O O. 0.000 
Mn
Epsb Epsc I. Oe6 mmIN 4.060 3.791 2.702 1.573 1.008 0.430 Epsl Eps2 3 7.260 5.139 3.096 1.721 1.046 0.432 1.237 0.514 0.205 0.148 0.078 0.002 thta Idg3 7 16 P5 29 34 41 sigl C3 1.582 1.145 0.697. 0. '385 0.235 Ogg ). . sig2 E3 0.216 0.236 0.166 0.085 o. 054 0.029 sigb 13 0.237 0.303 0.260 0.154 0.112 0.060 sigd E3 1.561 1.078 0.604 0.316 0.177 0.069
ECDESIGNUNIT
1Project NO? 4?
11 Date:
SheetR C7