Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

A practical approach to the optimization of gear trains with spur gears
Nenad Marjanovic a,⁎, Biserka Isailovic b, Vesna Marjanovic a, Zoran Milojevic c, Mirko Blagojevic a, Milorad Bojic a
a b c

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, S. Janjic 6, Serbia Zastava automobili, Thermo – shaping plant, 34000 Kragujevac, 4 Kosovska str., Serbia Faculty of Technical Sciences, 21000 Novi Sad, Bulevar D. Obradovica 6, Serbia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Optimization of gear trains is a complex task, due to the characteristics of mathematical model that describes its behavior. This paper presents the characteristics and problems of optimization of gear trains with spur gears. It provides a description for selection of the optimal concept, based on selection matrix, selection of optimal materials, optimal gear ratio and optimal positions of shaft axes. The paper will further present the definition of mathematical model, with an example of optimization of gear trains with spur gears, using original software. Using an approach like this for the optimization of gear trains with spur gears gives results that can be applied in practice. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 10 November 2010 Received in revised form 3 November 2011 Accepted 13 February 2012 Available online 22 March 2012 Keywords: Optimization Gear train with spur gears Minimum volume Optimal concept Mathematical model Selection matrix

1. Introduction Gear trains are complex technical systems. Numerous complex equations, depending on a large number of design variables, are used for their mathematical formulation and many influence factors have to be taken into consideration as well. The possibility of reducing the number of factors influencing a system is limited and it depends on good knowledge about the nature of the system and the ability of the designer to assess the importance of each influence factor in advance. The designing of gear trains is very complex and it often requires the use of nonlinear functions, as well as discrete design variables. In almost all structures, it is extremely important to design elements in such a manner that the whole construction weight is minimal. Savsani et al. [1] described the design of minimum weight gear trains using particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithms. Yokota et al. [2] described genetic algorithm for the optimization of gear weight. Gologlu and Zeyveli [3] presented an automated preliminary design of gear drives by minimizing volume of gear trains using a genetic algorithm. Mendi et al. [4] presented a dimensional optimization using a genetic algorithm. Thompson et al. [5] presented their work on the optimization of multi-stage spur gear reduction units taking into account minimum volume and surface fatigue life, as objective functions, employing quasi-Newton method. Chong et al. [6] described a method for reduction of geometrical volume and meshing vibration of cylindrical gear pairs while satisfying strength and geometric constraints using a goal programming formulation. Abuid and Ameen [7] have done the optimization based on min–max method combined with a direct search technique. They presented a problem containing seven objective functions — gear volume, center distance and five dynamic factors of shafts and gears.
. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 381 34 335990; fax: + 381 34 333192. E-mail address: nesam@kg.ac.rs (N. Marjanovic). 0094-114X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.02.004

to name but a few. this paper offers a comprehensive original approach to optimization of gear trains with spur gears. “B”— bevel gear or “W”— worm gear) in each stage. Bonori et al. 2. sketch and designation of the gear train. Marjanovic et al. housings. position of axes of input and output shafts (“P”— parallel. The increase of complexity of the mathematical model gives a more accurate solution. Characteristics and problems of optimization of gear trains with spur gears Optimization of gear trains with spur gears is a complex task. approximate efficiency (η) and direction of rotation. the following facts should be taken into consideration: • Mathematical model is just one of many possible approximations of behavior of the given system. The rotational movement of gears is treated as the input of the gear system and the acoustical noise signal as the output. . Various combinations of these elements give various concepts of gear trains. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 It is possible to optimize gears using various criteria. name. Nevertheless. but it enables a better understanding of its behavior. bearings and other parts and assemblies. with an example of their optimization using original software GTO (Gear Train Optimization) developed by Marjanovic [12]. “−” or “+/−”) as well as the position of intermediate shafts that is defined by the number showing the number of planes in which the axes of all shafts lie. Those combinations providing gear trains that cannot function or gear trains that will surely be worse by all selection criteria are eliminated at the beginning. “I”— intersecting. selection of optimal materials. and not replace the researcher. they adjust torque and number of revolutions of driving machine shaft to the torque and number of revolutions that the working machine needs. the following can be added to the table: positions of shaft axes. Partial functions of this basic function are realized through gear pairs. nor free him from making decisions. This paper presents the defining of a mathematical model for gear trains with spur gears. due to the characteristics of mathematical model that describes their behavior.1. Conceptual design of gear trains with spur gears is conducted in two phases. selection of method for solving. 3. 1. • The model does not provide completely new information about the system. Unlike quoted literature. The designation of gear train concept provides the information about: number of stages. When formulating a mathematical model. [11] performed the optimization of gear pairs aiming to reduce vibration and noise by using a genetic algorithm. In this manner. but the focus of this paper is turned to gear trains with spur gears.2 N. There are numerous factors that make the optimization of a gear train with spur gears a complex procedure: selection and complexity of objective function. • The task of the model is to assist. Limited number of design variables are combined when versions of concepts are formed. Selection of optimal concept of gear trains with spur gears Gear trains transmit energy from driving machine to working machine and in that. Mao [9] described optimization of gear surface micro-geometry for the fatigue wear reduction. the number of concept versions becomes quite large. based on selection matrix. type of gear pair (“S”— spur gear. Ciavarella and Demelio [8] developed a software package for gear optimization that includes: kinematic optimization (minimisation and balancing of specific sliding). 3. Selection matrix is made by combination of various gear pairs in certain stages. direction of rotation (“+”. The first phase includes the development of versions and the second includes the selection of optimal concept and its optimal parameters. complexity and number of constraints. Concepts selection matrix Optimal concept of gear train with spur gears can be selected by selection matrix. Literature review shows that various authors apply various techniques for the optimization of gear trains. static stress analysis (to minimize stress concentrations) and crack propagation studies (to estimate fatigue life under a pre-existing defect). number of optimization variables. shafts. gear ratio (u) that can be achieved. “A”— skew or “C”— coincident). but due to a large number of parameters and characteristics (of gear pairs primarily). apart from ordinal number. complexity of mathematical model. It is obvious that it is necessary to make a compromise between complexity and compatibility of the mathematical model. but it aggravates and slows down the process of reaching the solution. number of stages. optimal gear ratio and optimal positions of shaft axes. Selection matrix can be summarized as in Fig. Optimization of gears for the reduction of noise is shown in paper [10]. The motivation for this paper comes from the idea to provide a mechanical engineer with a powerful tool that would offer the solution to the majority of problems that arise during the design of gear trains with spur gears. this paper shows the review of specific problems that occur during the optimization of gear trains with spur gears. It provides a description for selection of optimal concept. Information about other concepts of gear trains can be seen in the Appendix A.

gear ratio and direction of rotation.e.N. At this level. Designer manually enters the constraints. this means that there are several concepts of gear trains with spur gears that satisfy all given constraints. Selection of optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears If the set of acceptable concepts contains several members. In this way and with the possibility of changing the set of acceptable concepts. a set of acceptable gear trains with spur gears is created which can be smaller or larger. maximum number of stages. Marjanovic et al. To select the optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears it is necessary to do the optimization of each acceptable concept and select the one that gives the best value of objective function for the chosen criterion. integer and discrete). the designer is actively involved in the process of decision making and is the key factor of the . Achieved continuous optima are approximate. depending on adopted constraints.14]. which can significantly speed up the process. 1. the following constraints were considered: position of input and output shaft axes. 3.3. A selection matrix with twenty-eight concept versions is developed as a part of this research. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 3 Fig. Finally. Special software for the selection of optimal concept was developed. The procedure includes the selection of concepts that satisfy the first adopted constraint and then the concepts satisfying the second constraint are chosen from them and so on. This method does not include the solution of problems with mixed variables (i. while the software offers acceptable concepts after each entered constraint. To speed up the process of selection of optimal concepts. we get the concepts that satisfy all set constraints. it is convenient to give the designer (decision maker) a possibility to change the solution suggested by the computer. and factors that influence the selection of concepts are used as constraints. During the development of the software. or for several criteria in case of multi-objective optimization [13. and the methodology of forming of these versions enables its expansion. Selection of acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears Selection matrix can be used for the selection of acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears. 3. but they can be used for comparison of individual concepts. Software following previously defined procedure is developed for the selection of acceptable concepts. When all constraints are considered. a continuous optimum for the chosen criterion can be adopted as a measure of comparison of qualities of individual concepts. position of intermediate shaft axes.2.. Selection matrix of gear train concepts. continuous.

which do not depend only on technical conditions. Mass reduction factor is the ratio of approximate volume of spur gear and theoretical volume of the gear. . System of nonlinear Eqs. (4) and creating various systems of equations. By solving the system of equations and comparing the objective function values (relative volumes). (4) is solved numerically. Depending on the purpose of the gear train with spur gears and conditions under which it functions.4 N. wanted ratio of tooth surface strength and tooth bending strength is maintained in this phase of optimization.7 can be adopted as a relative reduction factor. 3 shows the distribution of gear ratio to individual stages. Based on thorough analysis. it is possible to determine optimal gear ratios with Lagrange Multipliers method [12]. F min SH min SF min ( SH ðg Þ ðg Þ ( ðpÞ ðpÞ ) ð1Þ ) ð2Þ where: SH and SF are factor of safety from pitting and factor of safety from tooth breaking. Selection of optimal materials In the process of optimization. respectively. applying Lagrange Multipliers method gives the following equation: 2 k ⋅u þ k ⋅u −2 2kr ⋅u3 k þ kr ⋅uk −1 ¼ r kþ1 2 r kþ1 . Fig. so approximate value kr = 0. it can be said that the value of reduction factor is between 0. Maximization of expressions (1) and (2) ensures maximum load carrying capacity of teeth of both spur gears by criterion of tooth surface strength and tooth bending strength. 4. This is realized by the selection of values for SH min and SF min [16]. Reduction of gear is greater than the reduction of pinion. this can be achieved by maximization of expression: SH S min . The volume of spur gear pair (Fig. For the case of pinion. Selection of optimal gear ratios for gear trains with spur gears In optimization of multi-stage gear trains it is important to select the number of stages and to properly distribute gear ratio to individual stages [17]. Suggested approach enables the inclusion of costs in the process of optimization as the only criterion or as one of the criteria. and kol and kol are mass reduction factors of pinion (p) and gear (g) and b is gear width. as well. the number of stages that provides its minimum value is adopted. Marjanovic et al. it is necessary to use reliable and current data about costs. with determined optimal number of stages and optimal gear ratio in each stage.3 and 0. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 process. i. which would enable reaching the optima by various criteria. 4. Optimal number of stages is determined by varying index k in Eq. and SH min and SF min are their minimum recommended values. As shown in detail in the literature [12]. of pinion and gear. This figure was created by varying total gear ratio.9 [12]. F SH min SF min and for the case of gear: S . The information given by the computer is used as an objective estimation of certain factors that influence the selection of gear train concept. the volume of cylinder encompassing the gear. 2 ukþ1 uk (p) (g) 3 2 ð4Þ where kr is the ratio kol /kol that can be defined as a relative reduction factor of gear in relation to pinion. For the criterion of minimum weight of spur gear pairs. 2) can be determined as follows:       π⋅b ðpÞ ðpÞ 2 ðgÞ ðg Þ 2 þ kol ⋅ d ⋅ kol ⋅ d 4 (p) (g) V¼ ð3Þ where: d (p) and d (g) are pitch diameters.e.2.1. one can aim to achieve greater tooth surface strength or tooth bending strength. SH and SF are determined according to standard calculations [15]. Selection of optimal parameters of a gear train with spur gears 4. By introducing SH min and SF min into decision making of the material selection. Optimization criteria used in this paper generally are not opposed to costs criterion. materials that will provide maximum load carrying capacity of flanks and load carrying capacity of roots should be chosen for spur gears. To obtain correct results according to this criterion.

3. 2. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 5 Fig. . Distribution of gear ratio of multi-stage gear train. Spur gear pair. Marjanovic et al.N. Fig.

4. In this way. Optimization of gear pairs from the point of view of minimization of center distance has been presented in papers [18. In this paper an example is presented that shows the importance of optimization done in the previously defined manner. When the position of shaft axes is changed. Objective function that is the product of length. the objective functions describing the criteria of length. 4) is observed. Complex BOX method is used for solving of this optimization task. changes the position of the spur gear in space. that prevents the gear from catching on non-neighboring shaft. Y B ¼ minfY Bi g i ¼ 1. Changing the angle θi.3. L and H can be defined and. Selection of optimal position of shaft axes of gear trains with spur gears Gear trains are usually made with shaft axes in the same (most commonly horizontal) plane. n: ð6Þ ð5Þ Coordinates of points xi and yi are determined on the basis of geometry shown in Fig. Marjanovic et al. height or volume of a gear train with spur gears are defined as well. using them.19]. Origin is placed in the input shaft axis and the position of other axes of the shaft is defined by angles θi in relation to x axis. Fig. 5a shows starting concept of a gear train with spur gears and Fig. X L ¼ minfX Li g Y T ¼ maxfY Ti g.e. Selection of optimal position of shaft axes of gear train with spur gears. Dimensions of space occupied by gear train (L and H) can be defined as follows: L ¼ X R −X L H ¼ Y T −Y B where: X R ¼ maxfX Ri g. therefore it is necessary to introduce additional constraint that enables the assembly of the spur gear i. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 4. 2. . Angles defining the position of shaft axes (θ1 andθ2) are used as optimization variables. while the dimensions of spur gears are treated as parameters that do not change during the process of optimization. width and the height of a gear train with spur gears is applied in this example. multi-stage gear train with spur gears (Fig. To define mathematical model. 4.6 N. the space that gear pairs occupy and the dimensions of gear train are changed as well. …. 5b shows the concept with optimal Fig.

This resulted in the following optimal values of optimization variables: θ1 ¼ −53:874˚ and θ2 ¼ 7:448˚: With these values of angles θ1 and θ2 and with other measurements of the spur gears unchanged. and j — index of optimization criterion (nko — number of optimization criteria taken into consideration). 2. Optimization of gear train elements Optimization of gear pairs provides greatest possibilities in the optimization of gear trains. nkp. it is convenient to use matrices of variables. Mathematical model of optimization of a gear train with spur gears To define a mathematical model. gear width. before and after optimization. …. bearings (that are standard elements).N. 2. . helix angle.Optimization of gear pair changes the conditions under which other elements of gear train function. Gg — constraint matrix for given concept. where ni – is the number of optimization variables for i-th – concept. The elements of this matrix are functions: fkj. such as the type of gearing.1. 5. . it is convenient to form a constraint matrix G with constraint functions as its members: gkl. objective functions and the sets of constraints depend on gear train concept. module. Concept of a gear train with spur gears. Set of optimization variables is defined by vectors Xi that depend on the given concept of a gear train with spur gears i. with the following equation as the result: G = Go + Gg + Ga. Constraint matrix Similar to objective function. as well as other standard elements such as: pistons. nkp. 5. Other gear train elements can be optimized as well. k = 1.Gears in gear trains carry the biggest load. housings (the dimensions of which depend on the dimensions of other elements).e. with: Go — obligatory constraint matrix.. with: l — constraint index (nog — number of constraints taken into consideration). nko. Set of optimization variables. …. Due to that. …. they are the most complex and the most expensive elements of the whole gear train. …. . such as: shafts (that should have minimum weight in any case).1.j = 1. nog. objective functions and constraints for the definition of mathematical model. but the possibilities of saving are significantly less than in gear train optimization. It is also convenient to divide constraint function matrix into three parts. which is not insignificant. 5. Ga — additional constraints matrix.1. . which means that the achievement of an objective in gear pair optimization does not (drastically) deteriorate that same objective in the optimization of the whole gear train. x2.k = 1.Gear pairs are defined by a large number of parameters.5%. etc. it is necessary to mathematically define optimization criterion by objective function and to define constraints by constraint function. 5.1. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 7 Fig. 5. position of shaft axes from the perspective of minimization of total volume of the space occupied by the gear train with spur gears. xni}. number of teeth. 2.Objectives (criteria) of gear pairs optimization are not inconsistent. ….: Xi = {x1. There are numerous reasons for that and the most important are: . Marjanovic et al. Objective function matrix It is convenient to form objective function matrix F from the sets of variables for each gear train concept. the volume of the space occupied by the gear train with spur gears is decreased by 22.2.l = 1. screws etc. with: k — index of gear train concept (nkp — number of concepts taken into consideration). 2.

In this way. An example of selection of optimal concept and the optimization of a gear train with spur gears For the optimization of gear trains with spur gears. Marler and Arora [20] analyzed the problem of multi-stage optimization and the possibility of application of large number of methods in engineering. sets of variables. General flowchart for GTO software. 7 shows a view of software GTO output screen. Within the research. If. Computer programs are developed in programming language C (C++). This paper describes a comprehensive approach to this problem. which are the basis of selection of acceptable concepts. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 Adaptive mathematical model of gear train optimization can be summarized in a table. Marjanovic et al. apart from objective function and set of constraints. the set of constraints is determined in the same manner as in single-objective optimization. The source code currently contains approximately 7000 lines. For the gear train concepts defined in selection matrix it is possible to define objective functions. the optimization variables can be submitted to explicit and implicit constraints. Each program contains several functions that perform similar tasks. some variables are theoretically unlimited. which is the base of software GTO. Optimization of gear trains is divided into two levels. Safety limits are of values that the specific variable cannot reach during the process of optimization. it is necessary to select several objective functions from the set of objective functions and those functions have to meet chosen criteria. it is necessary to select acceptable concepts initially and then the optimal concept is selected. the program is split to several smaller programs connected into one project. Numerous methods and techniques are developed for solving the problem of multi-objective optimization. Optimal concept is selected at the first level and optimal parameters of selected concept are selected at the second level. In case of multi-objective optimization. to define the importance (preference) of individual optimization criteria in a certain manner i.8 N. General flowchart for this software is shown in Fig. To completely define mathematical model for multi-objective optimization. Due to the length of the source code. Lower and upper limits of variables can be constant or arbitrary functions of optimization variables. 6. Fig. in a specific problem. sets of constraints (sets of explicit constraints. In this case. Software Optimization of gear trains is an optimization task that cannot be performed without a computer. 5. Fig. Adopted constraints.e. 5. method Complex BOX was used to solve the problem of gear train optimization. so called safety limits are adopted. Previously defined mathematical model can also be used for multi-objective gear train optimization.3. There are 11 acceptable concepts for the first criterion. and. it is necessary to define weight coefficients. it is necessary. individual functions (or whole programs) can be used for solving of other optimization tasks as well. sets of obligatory constraints and sets of constraints for given concept). this number is then reduced to only three concepts that satisfy all given criteria (Table 1). are shown in Table 1. .2. in that. and this makes the application of this method possible. Adaptive mathematical model is used for the development of software for gear train optimization. Apart from that. 6. the program is developed faster and more comprehensible source code is created. The problem of objective function minimization was solved with this method.

4. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 9 Fig. 16. profile shift coefficient − 0. 27 15. where a— is center distance. i = 1. and for concepts 15 and 16: f 15. 26.16 ¼ a1 þ a2 þ a3 þ 1 þ 3 þ 2c2 . gear width 0. 4. In this case. 7. nns. so that ðg Þ ðpÞ d d the gear of the first spur gear pair does not come into contact with the pinion of the third spur gear pair 1 ≤a2 − 3 −c2 . apart from explicit and obligatory constraints (as in concept 4). Selection criterion Position of axes of input and output shafts Position of axes of intermediate shaft Maximum number of stages Gear ratio Direction of rotation Parallel In one plane 3 40 Arbitrary Acceptable concepts 1.6d (p). d (g)— pitch diameters of pinion and gear. (p) (g) .5 ≤ x ≤ 1. Output screen of gear train optimization software GTO.Explicit constraints: standard module 1 mm ≤ mn ≤ 20 mm. minimal value (SH min) SHi ≥ SH min and SHi ðg Þ da1 ≤a2 −c2 −dsh3 . where nns — is the number of stages. number of teeth of pinion 13 ≤ z (p) ≤ 50. 11 5 3 3 3 . To select the optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears. …. 26. 5. For concept 16. 4. it is necessary to define optimization criterion as well. 16 No.0. 18. angle defining the position of shaft axis 0 ° ≤ θ ≤ 360 °. 19.Obligatory constraints: safety factor for tooth breakage of pinion (SFi ) and gear (SFi ) in relation to minimal value (SF min) (p) (g) (p) (g) SFi ≥ SF min and SFi ≥ SF min. 4. Marjanovic et al. nns. 16. …. 16 15.N. 2 2 2 2 d (p). number of teeth of gear 13 ≤ z (g) ≤ 500. an additional constraint is introduced. 16 15.4d (p) ≤ b ≤ 1. This means that the objective function is expressed through optimization variables. Constraints for concept 4 are: . . as well as recommended values for the distance from the spur gear to the housing. and there is additional constraint that is ðg Þ d d introduced so that the gear of the second spur gear pair does not come into contact with the third shaft: a2 ≤a3 − sh4 −c2 . such as pinion and gear diameters. 4. of accept. constraint safety factor for pitting of pinion (SHi ) and gear (SHi ) in relation to (g) ≥ SH min. The shape of the objective function is different for different concepts. 27 15. 2 2 Table 1 Selection of the set of acceptable concepts of a gear train. 14. helix angle 0 ° ≤ β ≤ 30 °. 15. 2 2 where dsh4— is the fourth shaft diameter. i = 1. Objective function for concept 4 is: ðpÞ ðg Þ ðpÞ ðgÞ d d d d f 4 ¼ a1 þ a2 þ 1 þ 2 þ 2c2 . the criterion is the length of the gear train with spur gears. c2— minimum distance between gears and housing. 13. conc.Additional constraint: 2 (p) Explicit and obligatory constraints for concept 15 are the same as for concept 4.

881 4.183 656.036 107. no.192 681. 4 2.10 N. Acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears.347 3. .07 22.059 Conc. II.436 3. 8b) are given on the basis of continuous optima. This paper presents one practical approach to optimization of gear trains with spur gears. z1— number of pinion teeth.24 For optimal concept (no.524 20. It is obvious that. The values of these optima are shown in Table 2. The second example shows the complete procedure run during the Fig. First example shows the optimization of position of shaft axes for the purpose of reducing the volume occupied by the gear train with spur gears.241 Conc. Software GTO accomplishes needed results in a very short time.4 3 24 84 116 4.104 100.476 65.794 76.0 24. only continuous optima are determined. 8 shows the sketches of optimal designs of gear trains with spur gears for all acceptable concepts of the gear train.923 109.472 644.455 3.483 3.164 Real 2 24 110 76.00 4. 8c). 16 2. 8. Real values of optimization variables are adopted based on discrete values.: 4.5 23 56 140 I mn z1 z2 b II mn z1 z2 b III mn z1 z2 b Objective function value 714. the best value of objective function is realized by concept number 15.69 185. 16 Input data: Power: P = 40 kW. Branching for discrete values of the module for all three stages is done for this concept and Table 2 shows these values.316 86.86 110. 15 1.107 24.5%. z2— number of gear teeth. 3) [mm] Total gear ratio: utot = 40 Available materials: 14CrNi6 Number of variables: 8/12 Number of constraints: 28/40 Number of points in complex: 16/24 Set of variables Optimal values Continuous optima Conc. Gear train concept no. Sketches for concept numbers 4 (Fig.163 76. 8a) and 16 (Fig. Two examples of gear train with spur gears optimization are shown using this software.669 28.217 139. Input speed (RPM): n1 = 1450 rpm Optimization criterion: length of gear train with spur (no.087 71. Table 2 shows the values of optimization variables (mn— module.025 70.095 157.108 62. 6. 15.334 85. Versions of concepts of gear trains with spur gears are developed within the first operation and the selection of optimal concept and their optimal parameters are selected within the second operation.492 20. so it is adopted as the optimal concept. Conclusion Gear pairs are the most important elements of gear trains.702 27.184 115.0 4.934 146. The process of designing of gear trains with spur gears is performed by using two operations. The results show that the volume of the gear train with spur gears is reduced by 22. III) of gear trains with spur gears. and for concept number 15 (Fig. the sketch is given based on real values of optimization variables [12]. Fig. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 Table 2 Example of selection of optimal concept and the optimization of gear train with spur gears. according to this criterion. Mixed variables problem is solved by the use of Branch and Bound method.142 84.667 18. no.868 123. which was the basis for the development of GTO software.505 76.5 23. no.471 56. which is adopted as the optimal one.039 76.169 Optimization according to this criterion is done for each acceptable concept and in that. b— gear width) for all three stages (I.251 22. 15) Discrete 2 23.

This kind of approach can also be applied to gear trains with bevel and worm gear pairs. as it does not fall within the subject of this paper. Nomenclature a center distance b gear width c2 minimum distance between gears and housing d (p). / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 11 optimization of a gear train with spur gears. which is later used as a basis for the selection of optimal concept. Marjanovic et al. but this is not shown here. it is possible to select the set of acceptable concepts using GTO. gear (p) (g) da . through the optimization of each acceptable concept to the selection of optimal concept with software GTO. SH factor of safety from pitting of pinion. da diameter of the addendum circle of pinion and gear dsh shaft diameter F objective function matrix fkj elements of objective function matrix G constraint matrix Ga additional constraints matrix Gg constraint matrix for given concept gkl constraint functions Go obligatory constraint matrix H height of space occupied by gear train j index of optimization criterion k index of gear train concept (g) kol mass reduction factor of gear (p) kol mass reduction factor of pinion kr relative reduction factor l constraint index L length of space occupied by gear train m module ni number of optimization variables for i-th – concept nkp number of concepts taken into consideration nko number of optimization criteria taken into consideration nns number of stages nog number of constraints taken into consideration P power to be transmitted (kW) (p) (g) SH . from the selection of acceptable concepts. The optimization of parameters of gear trains with spur gears is done in this manner and the results can be applied in practice. z (g) number of teeth on pinion. GTO can be used for problems in single-objective optimization.N. gear SH min minimum prescribed value of factor of safety from pitting (p) (g) SF . gear SF min minimum prescribed value of factor of safety from tooth breaking u gear ratio utot total gear ratio V volume of gear pair x profile shift coefficient Xi set of optimization variables z (p). gear β helix angle η efficiency θi position of shafts defined in relation to origin and x axis Abbreviations A skew shaft axes B bevel gear C coincident shaft axes GTO Gear Train Optimization I intersecting shaft axes P parallel shaft axes S spur gear W worm gear . as well as for those in multiple-objective optimization. d (g) pitch diameters of pinion. Depending on set constraints. SF factor of safety from tooth breaking of pinion.

Selection matrix of gear train concept (Complete) . / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 Appendix A. Marjanovic et al.12 N.

/ Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 13 Appendix A (continued) .N. Marjanovic et al.

/ Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 .14 Appendix A (continued) N. Marjanovic et al.

/ Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 Appendix A (continued) 15 .N. Marjanovic et al.

1989. Mechanism and Machine Theory 35 (2000) 609–627. A. [15] ISO.16 N. K. University of Kragujevac.-P.T. Niemann. A new and generalized methodology to design multi-stage gear drives by integrating the dimensional and the configuration design process.A. Marjanovic. Computers & Industrial Engineering 35 (1998) 523–526. Struznradgetriebe. Gear tooth contact analysis and its application in the reduction of fatigue wear. Numerical methods for the optimisation of specific sliding. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 1–16 References [1] V. 2000. Arora.-J. [18] X. G. JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems. G. Kubo. Ameen. Abuid. Springer-Verlag. M.E. I. Machine Elements and Manufacturing 46 (2003) 1582–1590. Mechanism and Machine Theory 37 (2002) 295–310. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering.M. 2007.H. H. D. 2006.P. Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 8058–8064. Pellicano. F. Y. G. Wang.H. Gear Train Optimization. Linköping. Zahradgetriebe . Getriebe allgemein.V. Gen. G. F. Gupta. Wang.S.M. [8] M. Rao. Li. Optimal weight design of a gear train using particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithms.H. International Organization for Standardization. Bonori. Mao. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering. S. Boran. Computers & Industrial Engineering 57 (2009) 1043–1051. [2] T. A Survey of Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design. Andersson. shaft diameter and rolling bearing for spur gear through genetic algorithm. Ciavarella. Barbieri. T. Optimum profile modifications of spur gears by means of genetic algorithms. Procedure for optimum design of a two-stage spur gear system. Optimized tooth profile based on identified gear dynamic model. Department of Mechanical Engineering. Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gear. Berlin. M. [20] R. International Journal of Fatigue 21 (1999) 465–474. [17] T. Bae. Machine Elements and Manufacturing 44 (2001) 291–298. Optimal design of involute profile helical gears. Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 1058–1068. JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems. A solution method for optimal weight design problem of the gear using genetic algorithms. Linköping University.R. [12] N. Mendi. Kragujevac. A genetic approach to automate preliminary design of gear drives. Wang. S. Vakharia. Park. Tradeoff analysis in minimum volume design of multi-stage spur gear reduction units. Boran. [14] H. M. CADLab. Optimal engineering design of spur gear sets. [7] B.A. G. [5] D. A study on mode of failures in spur gears under optimized conditions. Kader. Marjanovic et al. T. [3] C. Marler. Mechanism and Machine Theory 45 (2010) 531–541. Multiobjective optimal design of cylindrical gear pairs for the reduction of gear size and meshing vibration. Mechanism and Machine Theory 31 (1996) 717–728.P. G. A. [16] W. Symmons. Standard 6339. Savsani. Mechanism and Machine Theory 29 (1994) 1071–1080. Cockerham. J. [4] F. Optimization of module. Shukla. Thompson. Taguchi. Bae.F. Demelio. I.K. Journal of Sound and Vibration 313 (2008) 603–616. [19] M. stress concentration and fatigue life of gears. Gologlu. . Baskal. [6] T. [9] K. Band II. Chong. Nigam. Grover. Maschinenelemente. [13] J.Grundlagen. [11] G. Chong. Yokota. [10] Y. Wear 262 (2007) 1281–1288. Zeyveli. R. Mechanism and Machine Theory 33 (1998) 839–850. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26 (2004) 369–395.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful