Multi-objective optimisation of profile

modifications in spur and helical gears –

an analytical approach
J. Bruyère, P. Velex
INSA de Lyon, LaMCoS, UMR CNRS 5259, France

ABSTRACT

The performance of the profile modifications minimizing transmission error time-

variations with regard to other key design criteria such as mesh forces, stresses and
tooth friction losses is analyzed. An approximate formula is given for the profile relief
rendering transmission error nearly constant. The corresponding contact and root
stresses are then derived along with the efficiency related to tooth friction. The
analytical findings compare well with the results obtained by numerical simulations.
Some general results are presented which are believed to be useful at the early stage of
profile modification design.

1 INTRODUCTION

Profile modifications are often necessary when power is transmitted in a pinion-gear

pair in order to ensure smooth motion transfer in the presence of errors and elastic
deflections. Research on profile modifications dates back to the works of Walker (1-2),
Gregory et al. (3), Niemann et al. (4-5) who found that they were influential on off-line-
of-action contacts and could strongly reduce the vibration and noise of spur gears at one
particular load, coined ‘design load’ (6-17). In this context, approximate design rules for
profile relief in spur gears have been established (9-10), (12) whereas, for helical gear
teeth, the definition of modifications mostly relies on extensive numerical simulations
(11), (13-17) from which general trends can hardly be extrapolated. Recently, some
approximate analytical formulae have been proposed (21-22) which correlate
reasonably well with the results from specific software codes and make it possible to
estimate the relevant profile modification parameters minimising transmission error
fluctuations for both spur and helical gears. The objective of this paper is to investigate
further the performance of these optimum profile modifications with regard to
transmission error fluctuations when other classic design criteria such as tooth load,
contact pressure, root stress and friction loss are taken into account. Some closed-form
formulae are presented for quasi-static running conditions which can be useful to
estimate interesting profile modifications with respect to several design constraints and
also initiate more refined multi-objective deterministic and/or probabilistic
optimisation procedures.

________________________________________
76 © The author(s) and/or their employer(s), 2014
2 THEORY

2.1 Model
The pinion and the gear of a pair are assimilated to two rigid cylinders with 6 degrees-
of-freedom (DOFs) each, superimposed on large rigid-body rotations (15), (21). Two-
node shaft and lumped parameter elements are used to simulate the gear mechanical
environment and there is no restriction on the number of nodes and degrees-of-
freedom. Mesh elasticity is modelled using a classic thin-slice approach such that the
overall mesh stiffness is derived from a series of time-varying independent stiffness
elements k  M  dM (Wrinckler foundation), where M is any potential point of contact,
distributed along the contact lines. Following (21), it will be further assumed that the
mesh stiffness per unit contact length is approximately constant, i.e. k  M   k0 . Shape
deviations with respect to ideal tooth profiles are represented by distributions of
equivalent normal gaps e  M  which stem from the composite deviations on the pinion
and gear flanks. Shape deviations and stiffness elements are attached to every potential
point of contact M and are updated in the course of the meshing, depending on the
position of M (translation of the contact lines in the base plane and relative motions of
sliding of the teeth leading to time-varying normal gaps). In what follows, linear and
symmetric profile relief are considered (identical on the pinion and gear tooth tips or
the pinion tooth tips and roots) which can be characterised by two parameters only: a
normalised extent (or length)  expressed as a percentage of the theoretical length of
contact on the base plane (Figure 1) and a dimensionless depth of modification E *
defined as:

E E
E*   FS [1]
 m0 km 0

where E is the actual depth of modification, FS is the static normal mesh force and
 b
k m 0  k0 is the average mesh stiffness when contacts cover all the theoretical
cos  b
contact lines in the base plane.

Figure 1 – Profile relief parameters and contact length reduction parameter

(   t / Tm is a dimensionless time, Tm is the mesh period).

Even for errorless gears, the presence of profile modifications can lead to partial
contacts (or reduced contact ratio). In view of the profile relief symmetry, the possible
reduction in contact length is necessarily symmetric with regard to engagement and
recess and can be quantified by a single parameter  (defined in Figure 1) such that the
actual (reduced) profile contact ratio is   '  1  2    .

77
2.2 Quasi-static transmission error
Following (23), the quasi-static transmission error TE S   measured in the base plane is
defined by using a) the no-load transmission error NLTE   , b) the quasi-static DOF
vector X S   , the generalised displacement vector for the model when the rotational
speeds shrink to zero and, c) a projection vector W filled by zeros except at the positions
corresponding to the torsional DOFs at the nodes used to define TE S   for which its
components are Rb1 and Rb2 (pinion and gear base radii) respectively. In these
conditions, the quasi-static transmission error under load reads:

TE S    W T X S    NLTE   [2]

where the no-load transmission error can be derived from tooth shape deviations as
NLTE     EMAX   / cos b with EMAX    max M (e  M ) , maximum of the composite
deviation at time  . It has been demonstrated (21) that, as long as the influence of
bending slopes can be averaged (as is the case for narrow-faced gears), a unique
dimensionless equation for quasi-static transmission error, independent of the number
of degrees of freedom can be derived under the form:

cos  b kˆ  , X S  TES*    1  kˆ0  e *  M  dM [3]

L  , XS 

with Aˆ  A / k m 0 , for any generic variable A (normalization with respect to the average
mesh stiffness) and A*  A /  m 0 for any generic variable A (normalization with respect
to the average static deflection). L  , X S  is the time-varying, possibly non-linear
contact length and kˆ  , X S   kˆ0  dM , is the time-varying, possibly non-linear, mesh
L  , XS 

stiffness function. In the particular case of constant mesh stiffness per unit of contact
length k0 , an exact solution for the definition of linear symmetric profile relief rendering
TE S*   constant can be derived for gears with    2 under the form (21-22):

  /  L OPT   /  2   1 with   1 [4]

where  L      1 /   is the dimensionless extent of modification for the so-called long

relief as defined by (9-10) and   E * /   is the dimensionless depth of modification.

This set of optimal profile relief [4] can be represented by a unique master curve as
shown in Figure 2 which compare reasonably well with the numerical results from
specific software codes (21). For profile modifications along the master curve, the
parameter for contact length reduction  is found to be (Figure 2):

  /  L OPT  1   /  2   1 [5]

and the corresponding transmission error is constant TE S*    TE S* 0 and given by

 
cos b TES* 0  E*      /   

78
 Figure 2 – Master curves.

2.3 Mesh force

Considering any point of contact M in the base plane, the mesh force acting on the
elemental cell centred at this point can be expressed in terms of the dimensionless
transmission error and shape deviations as:

Fˆ  M     M  cos b TES*    e*  M   [6]

with Fˆ  M   F  M  / f  M  and f  M   k0  m 0 dM  FS kˆ0 dM .   M  is a windowing

function such that   M   1 when      1      ;   M   0 otherwise.

Focusing on the optimum profile modifications rendering transmission error under load
constant (master curve in Fig. 2), [6] takes a particularly simple form:

F̂  M     M    e*  M   [7]

2.4 Contact stress

The maximum contact stress is a key design criterion for gear rating (24-25). The
contacts between spur gear teeth can be assimilated to that between cylinders whose
radii are the radii of curvature. A simplified approach is employed for helical gears for
which the cone-against- cone exact contact geometry is approximated by a series of
staggered thin discs. In such conditions, the maximum contact stress on every thin slice
of a spur and helical pair can be expressed as:

 H max  k H Fˆ  M  / ˆ  M  [8]

where k H  E * FT kˆ0 / T1T2 is a constant for one pinion/gear pair and a given load;


1 / E *  1 /   / 1   12  / E1  1   22  / E2  defines the equivalent Young’s modulus;

FT  FS cos  b is the tangential mesh force; ˆ  M   xˆ  M  1  xˆ  M   is representative of

79
the dimensionless equivalent radius of curvature and xˆ  M   x  M  / TT
1 2 is the

dimensionless point of contact coordinate.

Considering the ‘optimal’ relief as defined in [4], formula [8] takes a simple form in
terms of x̂  M  , the dimensionless position of the contact point, and it can be
demonstrated that the maximum contact stress with optimum profile modifications can
only be reached at points on the profile characterised by:

2
 2cos  0 
1   ha1  x1   cos 2  t 0
Z1  Z1 
    if 2
1 [9-1]
Z 2  2cos  
1  0
 a 2 2 
h  x  cos 2
 t0
 Z2 

  1      otherwise [9-2]

An example of maximum contact pressure distribution on a tooth flank from

engagement to recess calculated using [8], [9-1] and [9-2] is shown in Figure 3.

2.5 Root stress

Bending stress at the root of the teeth is another crucial design parameter which,
according to ISO 6336, can be approximated by:

 B   FT / bm0  YSYF [10]

with YS , stress concentration factor considered as independent of the load position on

the tooth flank and YF , shape factor depending on the load position (26).

For one given gear geometry, a local form associated with every gear slice can be
derived as for contact stress. Using the results of Dufailly (27) based on ISO 6336
formulae, the following dimensionless expression of the maximum root stress can be
obtained:

 z1 cos  0 cos K 2  K 3 sin K 2 

 maxi      K1  [11]
2cos  0
3
1  K 32
 

sFn z sin s  2  

with K1   v1 ; K 2  01  inv 0  inv M ; K 3   tan  t 0  1     0  
2 3m0 3 2r01  z1 
 0  T1I /   pbt is the dimensionless position of the pitch point in the base plane and
1
 M  Arccos . Angle  is defined in ISO6336-3 and used in the expression of the
1  K 32
critical section and parameter  M is the angle between the tangent profile and the axis
of symmetry of the tooth for the equivalent spur gear.

80
 Figure 3 – Maximum contact pressure distribution on tooth flank from
engagement to recess.

Figure 4 shows the corresponding evolutions of the dimensionless maximum root stress
when following a pinion tooth from engagement to recess.

Figure 4 – Maximum root stress distribution on one pinion tooth from engagement
to recess (conventionally, engagement is near the pinion root).

2.6 Power dissipated by friction

Sliding friction on the teeth is recognised as a major source of power loss in low-medium
speed gears (28-29) which, according to (30) can be characterised by an equation of the
form:

81
  1   
  1  f    [12]
 Z 1,2  cos  b
1 1 1
where  is the efficiency, f is the average friction coefficient,   and  is a
Z1,2 Z1 Z 2
loss factor depending on the position of the reversal of sliding, contact ratio and profile
relief.

Considering the optimum profile modifications defined by the master curve [4] and
following the developments in (30), an approximate analytical equation for  can be
derived for f  1 under the form:

   1  1  
1  2   0  0  1     1      
         
      
 [13]
    
2
   

2  2  1    1    1   2 1    1       1   
 2  1  1   2 3    
  3          

  

3 ELEMENTS OF VALIDATION

Extensive comparisons between the proposed analytical results and numerical

simulations have been performed based on 12 different spur and helical gears. For each
of them, profile shift coefficients have been varied in order to sweep over realistic
ranges of pitch point position (reversal of sliding) leading to 112 different gear
geometries. Finally, ten (‘10’) ‘optimum’ profile modifications uniformly distributed on
the master curve have been selected thus generating a total of 1120 cases. The
numerical simulations have been conducted by using the 36 degree-of-freedom dynamic
model of (15) which has been run for quasi-static conditions (very low rotational
speeds) and employing the constant mesh stiffness per unit contact length as defined in
the ISO 6336 standard (24). The quasi-static equations of motion have been solved step-
by-step in time and a normal contact algorithm has been used to verify that all the
contact forces on the teeth are compressive and that there is no interpenetration of the
parts outside the contact area. The tooth profiles have been discretised and the
corresponding tooth flank traces on the base plane have been updated at each time step
to simulate the transit of the tooth modifications in the contact zone. Tooth friction
forces have been accounted for via a Coulomb model with a constant friction coefficient
as described in (29). The maximum relative deviations for the maximum contact
pressure, root stress and loss factor all lie in the +/- 6% range and it can be concluded
that the proposed analytical approach is sound.

4 PERFORMANCE DIAGRAMS ON THE MASTER CURVE

One of the major interests of the proposed analytical formulations is the possibility to
draw general conclusions re the influence of the extent and depth of profile
modifications minimising transmission error variations, when considering other design
criteria such as stresses and efficiency. Based on [4], [8], [9-1], [9-2], [11] and [13],
performance diagrams can be established as shown in Figure 5 which, for all low-contact
ratio gear geometries, illustrate the design criterion evolutions when changing profile

82
relief amongst the set of modifications along the master curve in Figure 2. It is observed,
in particular, that the design criteria can be classified in two families: a) the maximum
contact pressure and root stress which are reduced when longer optimum relief is used
and, b) the loss factor and contact length reduction (or actual contact ratio) which
increase as longer relief is considered.

Figure 5 – Performance diagrams for loss factors, contact & root stresses and
contact length reduction.

5 CONCLUSION

Considering a simplified gear model with constant mesh stiffness per unit contact length
(or with a time-varying mesh stiffness function proportional to the instantaneous
contact length), some general equations have been established which can be used to
define linear relief minimising the fluctuations of quasi-static transmission errors under
load. It is shown that all the results can be condensed on a dimensionless so-called
master curve from which the optimum extents / depths of relief can be determined
along with the contact length reduction factor at any load. It has been proved that the
analytical approach can be extended in order to deal with other key design criteria such
as mesh force, stresses and friction losses between the teeth, which, to a considerable
extent, control the system durability. Based on simplified models similar to those
employed in the ISO and AGMA standards and the efficiency equation proposed in (30),
closed-form formulae have been derived which, for profile modifications on the master
curve, give realistic estimates of the mesh force evolution, the maximum contact, root
stress distributions and tooth friction losses with minimum effort. The analytical
findings compare very well with the results obtained by numerical simulations in the
same condition of constant mesh stiffness per unit contact length thus demonstrating
that the proposed theory is valid. From a practical viewpoint, it is confirmed that
transmission error can be made constant by using a series of profile modifications
rather than a unique optimum value, these modifications range from long to short relief,
each of them having advantages and drawbacks. When adding other criteria than
transmission error, it is found that the contact length reduction factor, the maximum
contact and root stresses all decrease when moving from the ‘optimum’ short to long
relief whereas, conversely, the friction loss factor increases. Depending on the specific
design constraints, it is therefore possible to select suitable relief based on a

83
compromise between these contradictory parameter evolutions. Finally, the proposed
study relies on an approximate mesh stiffness model which could perhaps be extended
in the light of the developments presented in (22) by using asymptotic expansions in
terms of a small parameter representative of the tooth pair mesh stiffness function.

REFERENCES

(1) H. Walker, Gear tooth deflection and profile modification, The Engineer 166 (1938)
409-412.
(2) H. Walker, Gear tooth deflection and profile modification, The Engineer 170 (1940)
102-104.
(3) R.W. Gregory, S.L. Harris, R.G. Munro, Dynamic behaviour of spur gears,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 178 (1963) 207–226.
(4) G. Niemann, J. Baethge, Transmission error, tooth stiffness, and noise of parallel
axis gears, VDI-Z, 112 (4) (1970) 205–276.
(5) G. Niemann, J. Baethge, Transmission error, tooth stiffness, and noise of parallel
axis gears, VDI-Z 112 (4) (1970) 495–499.
(6) Y. Terauchi, H. Nadano, M. Nohara, On the effect of the tooth profile modification
on the dynamic load and the sound level of a spur gear”, Bull. JSME 25 (207)
(1982) 1474- 1481.
(7) T. Sato, K. Umezawa, J. Ishikawa, Effects of contact ratio and profile correction on
gear rotational vibration, Bull. JSME 26(221) (1983) 2010–2016.
(8) M.S. Tavakoli, D.R. Houser, Optimum profile modifications for the minimization of
static transmission errors of spur gears, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions and
Automation in Design 108 (1986) 86–95.
(9) R.G. Munro, N. Yildirim, D.L. Hall, Optimum profile relief and transmission error in
spur gears, Proc. Int. Conf. on Gearbox noise and vibration, Cambridge, UK, 1990,
pp. 35-42.
(10) N. Yildirim, R.G. Munro, A systematic approach to profile relief design of low and
high contact ratio spur gears, Proc. IMechE, J. Mech. Eng. Science 123 (C1) (1990)
551-562.
(11) C. Lee, H.H. Lin, F.B. Oswald, D.P. Townsend, Influence of Linear Profile
Modification and Loading Conditions on The Dynamic Tooth Load and Stress of
High-Contact-Ratio Spur Gears, Journal of Mechanical Design 113 (4) (1991) 473-
480.
(12) Y. Cai, T. Hayashi, The optimum modification of tooth profile for a pair of spur
gears to make its rotational vibration equal zero, Proc. 6th ASME Int. Power Trans.
Gearing Conf., Phoenix, USA, 1992, pp. 453–460.
(13) H. H. Lin, F. B. Oswald, D. P. Townsend, Dynamic loading of spur gears with linear
or parabolic tooth profile modifications, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 29 (8)
(1994) 1115-1129.
(14) S. Matsumura, K. Umezawa, H. Houjoh, Performance diagram of a helical gear pair
having tooth surface deviation during transmission on light load, Proc. 7th ASME
Int. Power Trans. Gearing Conf., San Diego, USA, 1996, pp. 161–168.
(15) P. Velex, M. Maatar, A mathematical model for analyzing the influence of shape
deviations and mounting errors on gear dynamic behaviour, Journal of Sound and
Vibration 191 (5) (1996) 629–660.
(16) M. Maatar, P. Velex, Quasi-static and dynamic analysis of narrow-faced helical
gears with profile and lead modifications, Journal of Mechanical Design 119 (4)
(1997) 474–480.
(17) A. Kahraman, G.W. Blankenship, Effect of involute tip relief on dynamic response of
gear pairs, Journal of Mechanical Design 121 (2) (1999) 313-315.

84
(18) E. N. Mohamad, M. Komori, H. Murakami, A. Kubo, S. Fang, Analysis of General
Characteristics of Transmission Error of Gears With Convex Modification of Tooth
Flank Form Considering Elastic Deformation Under Load, Journal of Mechanical
Design, 131 (6) (2009) 061015, 9 pages.
(19) S. Sundaresan, K. Ishii, D. R. Houser, A Procedure Using Manufacturing Variance to
Design Gears With Minimum Transmission Error, Journal of Mechanical
Design 113 (3) (1991) 318-325.
(20) D. Ghribi, J. Bruyère, P. Velex, M. Octrue, M. Haddar, A contribution to the design of
robust profile modifications in spur and helical gears by combining analytical
results and numerical simulations, Journal of Mechanical Design 134 (6) (2012) 9
pages, DOI: 10.1115/1.4006740.
(21) P. Velex, J. Bruyère, D.R. Houser, Some analytical results on transmission errors in
narrow-faced spur and helical gears – Influence of profile modifications, Journal of
Mechanical Design 133 (3) (2011), 11 pages, DOI: 10.1115/1.4003578.
(22) J. Bruyère, P. Velex, Derivation of optimum profile modifications in narrow-faced
spur and helical gears using a perturbation method, Journal of Mechanical Design
135 (7) (2013), 8 pages, DOI: 10.1115/1.4024374.
(23) P. Velex, M. Ajmi, On the modelling of excitations in geared systems by
transmissions errors, Journal of Sound and Vibration 290 (3-5) (2006) 882-909.
(24) ISO∕DIS 6336-2 &3, 2004, “Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears—
Parts 2 & 3”, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
(25) AGMA Standard 2001-D04, 2004, “Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation
Methods for Involute Spur and Helical Gear Teeth,” American Gear Manufacturers
Association, Alexandria, VA.
(26) J. I. Pedrero, I. I. Vallejo, M. Pleguezuelos, Calculation of tooth bending strength and
surface durability of high transverse contact ratio spur and helical gear drives,
Journal of Mechanical Design 129 (1) (2007) 69-74.
(27) J. Dufailly, Etude géométrique des engrenages cylindriques de transmission de
puissance, Ellipses, 1997, 233 pages, ISBN: 9782729857035
(28) B. R. Höhn, K. Michaelis, A. Doleschel, Frictional behaviour of synthetic gear
lubricants, Tribology Series 39 (1) (2001) 759-768.
(29) Y. Diab, F. Ville, P.Velex, Prediction of power losses due to tooth friction in gears,
Tribology Transactions 49 (2) (2006) 260-270.
(30) P. Velex, F. Ville, An analytical approach to tooth friction losses in spur and helical
gears – Influence of profile modifications, Journal of Mechanical Design 131 (10)
(2009), 10 pages, doi: 10.115/1.3179156
(31) G. Niemann, H. Winter, 1989, Maschinenelement , Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

85