479

Optimizing involute gear design for maximum

bending strength and equivalent pitting resistance
V Spitas1 and C Spitas2∗
1
Laboratory of Applied Mechanics, Technical University of Crete, Athens, Greece
2
Department of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, Athens, Greece

The manuscript was received on 15 March 2006 and was accepted after revision for publication on 8 January 2007.
DOI: 10.1243/0954406JMES342

Abstract: Standard involute gear designs dominate high-power transmission applications

because they combine sufficient bending strength with high pitting resistance, while retaining an
adequate contact ratio. In this paper, a non-standard, optimal alternative involute gear design has
been presented, which has the same pitting resistance as the standard involute gears but exhibits
maximum resistance to bending. The optimization procedure is based on the complex algorithm,
where the root stress, as calculated through tabulated boundary element analysis values, is the
objective function and the active constraints include all of the kinematical, manufacturing and
geometrical conditions, which must be satisfied by the optimal design, including the pitting resis-
tance. The results indicate that optimal designs can achieve up to 8.5 per cent reduction of the
fillet stress. Two-dimensional photoelasticity was used to verify the optimization results.

Keywords: spur gears, bending strength, contact pressure, pitting resistance, optimization,
boundary element analysis, photoelasticity

1 INTRODUCTION or reversing the effective increase of the bending

In high-power transmission gears, wherever bend-
ing strength becomes critical it is customary to
apply heavy positive addendum modifications on
the weaker pinions as a remedy [1]. Such gears are
often encountered as pinions in volume-saving com-
pact automotive transmission gearboxes and they are
characterized by distinct tooth shapes which are thick
at the root and pointed at the tip.
The practice of applying positive modifications
(long addendum teeth) results in an increase of the
working pressure angle (pressure angle at the operat-
ing pitch circle), centre distance, and sliding velocities
at the ends of the path of contact, whereas the con-
tact ratio of the pair is decreased. These changes
affect in turn the pitting and the scoring resistance
of the gear, which become lower, thus moderating
∗ Corresponding author: Department of Production Engineering
and Management, Technical University of Crete, 58 Filolaou
Street, GR-11633, Athens, Greece. email: cspitas@yahoo.com;
cspitas@dpem.tuc.gr
strength of the gear.
In the literature, the majority of the proposed
designs aiming to increase the root bending strength
mainly focuses in producing sturdier teeth, usu-
ally by applying positive addendum modifications
[2, 3]. Also, the existing standards [4, 5] suggest some
optimal addendum modifications (profile shifts) for
increasing bending strength. As a side effect, the
application of profile shifting increases the centre
distance, the working pressure angle, and the slid-
ing velocity at the ends of the path of contact, while
decreasing the contact ratio of the gear pair. As a
result, the pitting resistance and the scoring/scuffing
resistance of the gear are detrimentally affected.
Moreover, since the optimization iterative proce-
dure requires hundreds or even thousands of stress
evaluations for every gear pair, it is impractical to
use numerical analysis techniques, i.e. finite element
analysis or boundary element analysis (BEA), for real-
time stress evaluation at each iterative step, as this
would require enormous computational time [6].
A different approach for gear bending strength opti-
mization, which partly solves the pitting and scoring
problem, is to use non-involute geometrical tooth

JMES342 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
480
forms for increasing the thickness at the fillet [7].
Although promising, this approach produces non-
interchangeable gears, which require special tooling
for their generation. Additionally, these gears exhibit
lower contact ratio and are sensitive to errors in their
centre distance. Also, since only nominal stresses
are calculated during the optimization procedure,
ignoring stress concentration phenomena, the results
are only indicative and cannot be used literally in
practical gear manufacturing.
In the recent years, the works of Litvin et al. [8] and
Kapelevich [9] have introduced asymmetric gear teeth
for increasing root bending strength. These teeth are
composed of a standard 20◦ standard involute flank
on the driving side and of a higher pressure angle
(i.e. 25◦ ) involute flank on the coast side. Although
asymmetric involute gears are indeed stronger, they
too present some limitations regarding (a) equally
efficient use in both directions of motion and (b) need
for special tooling.
In this paper, non-standard involute gears with
optimized tooth geometry for minimum root stress
are presented. The independent free geometrical
design parameters for the gear pair are the thick-
ness coefficients for both gears (i.e. pinion and wheel)
and the individually applied addendum modifica-
tions. The active constraints include all the basic
geometrical requirements such as non-zero top land
thickness, the basic kinematic requirements such
as lack of interference or backlash/thickness con-
flict, and the basic manufacturing issues such as
ability for the gear teeth to be generated using
standard cutting tools (i.e. hobs). In order for the
optimal gears to be fully interchangeable with their
non-optimal standard counterparts, additional con-
straints are the preservation of the nominal centre
distance (S0 corrected gears [1]) and the preserva-
tion of the maximum contact pressure (pitting resis-
tance) at the lowest point of single tooth contact
(LPSTC).
In this optimization process, the real maximum ten-
sile stresses developed at the root fillet due to bending
are considered instead of the nominal stresses. To
achieve this, the maximum stresses at each iterative
step of the algorithm are calculated from interpola-
tion of tabulated values obtained through BEA runs
on selected gear tooth models. In order to reduce the
number of the independent variables, the concept
of non-dimensional tooth modelling introduced by
Spitas and Costopoulos [10] is used.
The results obtained by use of the complex
algorithm [11] indicate that a reduction of the max-
imum root stress up to 8.5 per cent can be achieved.
The optimal design was verified experimentally by
using two-dimensional photoelasticity on suitable
machined single-tooth specimens from birefringent
polycarbonate material.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
V Spitas and C Spitas
2 NON-DIMENSIONAL GEAR TOOTH
MODELLING
Consider the gear pair shown in Fig. 1: gear 1 being
the pinion and gear 2 the wheel. The law of gear-
ing [1, 12] requires that both members of the pair
should have the same nominal pressure angle αo and
the same module m in order to mesh properly. In the
general case, the gears are considered to have adden-
dum modifications x1 , x2 , respectively, and therefore
their pitch thickness is calculated from the following
relationship [12]
soi = csi mπ + 2xi m tan αo = soiu m (1)
where csi is the thickness coefficient of gear i, (i =
1, 2), which in the general case is cs1 = 0.5  = cs2 , and
soiu is the pitch thickness of the corresponding non-
dimensional gear for which the module m and the
face width b are both equal to unity.
The centre distance O1 O2 is calculated using the
following formula
z1 + z2
a12 = m + (x1 + x2 )m = a12u m (2)
2
The actual operating pitch circle rbi of gear i, (i = 1, 2)
should verify the law of gearing and therefore be
equal to
zi
rbi = a12u m = rbiu m (3)
z1 + z2
Let us now consider gears 1 and 2 revolving about
their centres O1 and O2 , respectively, and meshing
along the path of contact AB as illustrated in Fig. 1.
During meshing there are two pairs of gear teeth in
contact along the segments AA and BB , thus sharing
the total normal load, while there is only a single such
pair when tooth contact takes place along the central
region A B , carrying the total normal load. Point B
is the highest point of single tooth contact (HPSTC)
for gear 1 and its position, defining the radius rB ,
is [10]
rB = O1 B

  
= 2
rk1 + (ε − 1)tg (ε − 1)tg − 2 rk1
2
− rg21 (4)
Dividing by the module of the pair, the above equation
yields its equivalent in terms of non-dimensional
JMES342 © IMechE 2007
 Optimizing involute gear design 481

Fig. 1 Involute mesh geometry and path of contact

values for standard 20◦ involute teeth



 2
 2  z 2
rB  z1 z1
rB u = =  + x1 + ck + (ε − 1)π cos αo (ε − 1)π cos αo − 2 + x1 + ck −
1
cos αo (5)
m 2 2 2

From the above equation it is evident that the posi-
tion of the HPSTC of a gear depends only on its
geometry and on the contact ratio of the pair, in
which all the characteristics of the mating gear are
incorporated in a condensed form.
Therefore, the mechanical behaviour of every gear
can be modelled only by using its own geomet-
rical characteristics z, x, cs and the contact ratio
ε of the pair instead of using all of the geometrical
characteristics of the mating gear. Also, the use of non-
dimensional teeth further simplifies the problem, as
every dimension of the transverse section of a full-
scale gear tooth can be derived by multiplying the
corresponding dimension of the transverse section of
the non-dimensional gear tooth with the module of
the pair.
The non-dimensional modelling can incorporate
the tooth-related stress field by defining a non-
dimensional stress σu (z, x, cs , ε), which is produced by
applying a unitary load PNu = 1 at the HPSTC. This
is related to the actual stress σ through the following
equation
PN
σ = σu (6)
bm
3 CALCULATION OF STRESSES USING BEA
CONCEPT OF STRESS TABLES
The established analytical methods rely on the cal-
culation of the nominal tensile bending stress at the

JMES342 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
482 V Spitas and C Spitas

fillet of the loaded spur gear tooth [13] and usually

compensate for the stress concentration by introduc-
ing a stress concentration factor derived by either
empirical or semi-empirical methods. All standards
treat the loaded gear tooth as a cantilever beam sub-
jected to bending and the calculated nominal stress
is multiplied by the stress concentration factor to
produce the real bending stress.
According to the standard ISO 6336 [14], the nom-
inal stress is calculated by using the assumption that
the critical section lies at the point where a line
with an inclination of 30◦ to the tooth centreline
touches with the fillet internally. This has a tendency
to overestimate the maximum fillet stress and has the
disadvantage of not considering the change of the
Fig. 2 BEA solution: principal stress distribution at the
critical section position due to the displacement of
boundary of a tooth model loaded at the HPSTC
the load along the active tooth profile, as suggested
in non-dimensional coordinates
by Kelley and Pedersen [15].
The standard AGMA 2101-C95 [4] proposes a more
detailed analytical approach to the problem, as it of the gear. A representative such table for 18 teeth
takes into consideration the change of the position has been calculated with the following characteristics:
of the critical section. The critical section is consid- nominal pressure angle αo = 20◦ , addendum coeffi-
ered to lie at the point where the parabola with its cient ck 1.0, dedendum coefficient cf 1.25, and cutter
apex at the intersection of the load direction with the radius coefficient cc 0.25.
tooth centreline touches the fillet internally. This idea In order to calculate an intermediate stress value σ
was introduced by Lewis [16], and although it con- corresponding to a given number of teeth z and set
stitutes a better approach than the 30◦ theory, it can of parameters z, x, cs ε, not necessarily included in the
still introduce considerable errors, particularly if large stress table, linear interpolation is used as described
tooth shifting is employed. subsequently.
Numerical methods such as finite element method
and boundary element method [6, 17] have been Step 1. From the stress table corresponding to the
successfully applied on loaded gear teeth offering given tooth number, the bounding values are
increased accuracy and reliable stress estimation. A chosen εi
ε
εi+1 , xj
x
xj+1 , csk
cs

drawback of these methods is that they require a lot of csk+1 .
time for both the generation of the mesh and for the
solution of the matrix equations. Furthermore, they Step 2. From the stress table, the stress values corre-
are difficult to integrate in a custom-made optimiza- sponding to the above bounding coefficient
tion algorithm because they require sophisticated values are selected
proprietary software interfaces.
The shortcomings of the above methods can be
overcome by the use of the ‘stress table’. In order σ (εi , xj , csk ) = σi,j,k
to create a stress table, a gear with a given number
σ (εi , xj , csk+1 ) = σi,j,k+1
of teeth z is selected and then a range of possi-
ble addendum modification coefficients (xmin , xmax ), (7)
tooth thickness coefficients (cs min , cs max ), and con- σ (εi , xj+1 , csk ) = σi,j+1,k
tact ratios (εmin , εmax ) is set. Each of these intervals is
discretized in four to six values, and for each com- σ (εi , xj+1 , csk+1 ) = σi,j,+1k+1
bination (ε, x, cs ), the maximum non-dimensional (8)
tensile stress σu (ε, x, cs ) at the root fillet of the cor-
responding non-dimensional tooth model is calcu- σ (εi+1 , xj , csk ) = σi+1,j,k
lated through BEA using quadratic isoparametric σ (εi+1 , xj , csk+1 ) = σi+1,j,k+1
boundary elements (Fig. 2). The calculation of the
(9)
non-dimensional tooth profile and the generation
of the mesh are done automatically using specially σ (εi+1 , xj+1 , csk ) = σi+1,j+1,k
developed in-house software. σ (εi+1 , xj+1 , csk+1 ) = σi+1,j+1,k+1
The results obtained by the analysis are tabulated
in Table 1, characterizing the mechanical behaviour (10)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science JMES342 © IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
 Optimizing involute gear design 483

Table 1 Stress table for 18 teeth

x\cs cs = 0.40 cs = 0.45 cs = 0.50 cs = 0.55 cs = 0.60

ε = 1.2
x = −0.2 5.730 4.818 4.141 3.621 3.211
x = +0.0 4.965 4.246 3.696 3.262 2.912
x = +0.2 4.502 3.887 3.406 3.021 2.708
x = +0.4 4.032 3.510 3.094 2.758 2.484
x = +0.7 3.729 3.257 2.873 2.561 2.306
ε = 1.4
x = −0.2 4.906 4.184 3.642 3.222 2.889
x = +0.0 4.214 3.652 3.218 2.874 2.596
x = +0.2 3.800 3.321 2.945 2.642 2.397
x = +0.4 3.413 3.005 2.680 2.418 2.203
x = +0.7 3.054 2.702 2.415 2.183 1.993
ε = 1.6
x = −0.2 4.391 3.793 3.339 2.986 2.703
x = +0.0 3.741 3.283 2.927 2.643 2.412
x = +0.2 3.282 2.911 2.618 2.382 2.189
x = +0.4 2.942 2.629 2.380 2.177 2.012
x = +0.7 2.602 2.339 2.125 1.952 1.809
ε = 1.8
x = −0.2 3.978 3.485 3.109 2.812 2.573
x = +0.0 3.356 2.990 2.703 2.472 2.284
x = +0.2 2.928 2.640 2.411 2.225 2.072
x = +0.4 2.616 2.379 2.188 2.033 1.904
x = +0.7 2.253 2.070 1.921 1.800 1.699

Step 3. The following intermediate stress values are 4 OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE

calculated
σi,j,k+1 − σi,j,k 4.1 Formulation of the objective function
σi,j = σi,j,k + (cs − csk )
csk+1 − csk Analytical optimization methods are not suitable
σi,j+1,k+1 − σi,j+1,k for gear stress optimization problems because of
σi,j+1 = σi,j+1,k + (cs − csk )
csk+1 − csk the complex implicit functions that relate the main
(11) geometrical variables to the resulting stresses. An
σi+1,j+1,k+1 − σi+1,j,k efficient method of solving such intricate problems
σi+1,j = σi+1,j,k + is the complex algorithm [11], which calculates the
csk+1 − csk
minimum of a function of n variables f (x), where
× (cs − csk )
x(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )T is the variable vector.
σi+1,j+1,k+1 − σi+1,j+1,k In any gear pair, the maximum tensile stresses
σi+1,j+1 = σi+1,j+1,k +
csk+1 − csk developed at the root fillet of each tooth are not equal
× (cs − csk ) but usually in unshifted gears the stress developed at
(12) the pinion is greater than that developed at the wheel.
σi,j+1 − σi,j It is also established [1] that the root stress is maxi-
σ1 = σi,j + (x − xj )
xj+1 − xj mized when the tooth comes into contact at its HPSTC
σi+1,j+1 − σi+1,j because the applied normal load to the profile and its
σi+1 = σi+1,j + (x − xj ) leverage to the critical section reach their maximum
xj+1 − xj
(13) values. Therefore the objective of gear tooth optimiza-
tion is to reduce the maximum stress at both fillets
Step 4. The desired stress is calculated as assuming loading at the HPSTC.
σi+1 − σi The independent variables considering non-
σ (z, ε, x, cs ) = σi + (ε − εi ) (14) dimensional gears are the addendum modification
εi+1 − εi
coefficients x1 and x2 and the tooth thickness coef-
The increments of the parameters z, x, cs , ε used in ficients cs1 and cs2 for gears 1 and 2, respectively.
the stress tables were selected so that the maximum The objective function without any constraints is
interpolation error is kept below 1.2 per cent. This is defined as
in good accordance with the overall accuracy of the
analytical methods employed in calculating the stress min f (x1 , x2 , cs1 , cs2 ) = max(σ1 , σ2 )
values, therefore a tighter selection of increments will
not result in a tangible increase in stress prediction where σ1 , σ2 are the maximum tensile stresses devel-
accuracy. oped at the fillets of the conjugate gears 1 and 2,

JMES342 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
484
respectively, when loaded at their corresponding
HPSTC.
Naturally, geometrical, manufacturing and kine-
matical constraints should be applied because the
optimum teeth should still fulfil certain opera-
tional criteria. There are nine different constraints
described subsequently and in order to include them
in the optimization procedure, the following form
of the objective function is adopted using weighted
residuals
V Spitas and C Spitas
dedendum coefficients, respectively. The radial
clearance constraint is shown schematically in Fig. 3.
Constraint 4: Interference. If the tip radius rki of gear
i revolving about Oi exceeds a maximum value rki max
so that the intersection of the tip circle of the gear with
the common path of contact at point U defines on the
mating gear j a radius which is lower than its form
radius rjs , then interference occurs, since the tooth
part below the form radius has a trochoidal and not an
involute form. Consequently, it should always be rki


9
min f (x1 , x2 , cs1 , cs2 ) = max(σ1 , σ2 ) + wi ci
i=1
The penalty functions ci and the weighting coef-
ficients wi employed in equation (15) are defined
below. In general, the penalty functions either take
very big values when variables exceed the permissi-
ble design boundaries in order to exclude them from
the next iterative steps (penalty), or are related to the
actual variable values in order to facilitate smooth
convergence. In the latter case, the values of the
weighting coefficients are chosen as to provide prod-
ucts wi xi comparable to the non-dimensional stresses
within the objective function and thus streamlining
the process.
Constraint 1: Allowable addendum modification.
The addendum modification coefficient for gear i
is restricted between two values xi min and xi max ,
depending on the number of teeth z. These values are
dictated by common gear practice and manufacture.
In each stress table, there is a range of addendum
modification coefficients that must not be exceeded.
Constraint 2: Allowable thickness coefficients. For
technical reasons, the cutting tool producing the
gears (rack cutter, pinion cutter, or hob) cannot
have infinitely thick or infinitely thin teeth, therefore
imposing a constraint on the resulting thickness of the
generated gear. Thus the thickness coefficient should
range between the values cs min and cs max , which are
the limit values specified in the stress tables.
Constraint 3: Minimum radial clearance. In order to
ensure that the conjugate gears operate without the
risk of seizure, there should be a minimum allow-
able radial clearance cr min m, where cr min = 0.25. For
the non-dimensional gear i, it is calculated from the
equation
cri = a12 − rkiu − rf iu = cf − ck = cr
where ruki = (zi /2) + xi + ck and rufi = (zi /2) + xi − cf
are the tip and root radii of the non-dimensional
gear i ck = 1.0, cf = 1.25 are the addendum and
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
rki max , where rki max = Oi U. The interference constraint
(15)
is shown schematically in Fig. 3.
Constraint 5: Minimum tip thickness. In common
gear practice, the tip thickness is never below 0.2 times
the module, otherwise fracture of the top land of the
tooth could occur. In a non-dimensional gear, the tip
thickness should always be sku  0.2.
Constraint 6: Allowable contact ratio. In order to
ensure smooth running, the contact ratio should
exceed 1.2. A usual upper limit is 1.8, which in 20◦
standard or shifted spur gears is never surpassed. Sim-
ilarly to the constraints 1 and 2, the contact ratio ε of
the gear pair should lie in the range defined in the
stress tables, therefore big penalties are applied at the
boundaries.
Constraint 7: Allowable backlash. The backlash B
of a gear pair should always be positive and usually
optimized designs require that this is kept minimum,
since thicker teeth are subjected to lower root stress.
Although zero backlash is never actually desirable
for power transmissions, the presence of a minimum
backlash does not seriously reduce the tooth thick-
ness, hence the root stresses, and therefore in order to
simplify the calculations the optimum backlash can
be considered zero. This can be expressed in terms of
a penalty function, suitably big beyond the permis-
sible boundaries. The backlash constraint is shown
schematically in Fig. 3.
Constraint 8: Same contact pressure. Since the pit-
ting resistance of a gear pair is proportional to the
developed contact pressure at the LPSTC [1], then
the application of a penalty function equal to c8 =
((p/pmax ) − 1) will ensure that the pitting resistance
provided by the optimal solution is not decreased
when compared with the initial value.
The maximum contact pressure at the LPSTC is
given by Niemann and Winter [18]
1 2ρbE
p= (16)
2.86 PN
JMES342 © IMechE 2007
 Optimizing involute gear design 485

Fig. 3 Mesh constraints affecting the design decisions and the optimization process

where ρ is the equivalent radius of curvature of the 4.2 The Complex optimization algorithm
tooth flanks in contact at the LPSTC and it is calcu-
lated from the local radii of curvature of gears 1 and 2 After the formulation of the objective function, the
(ρ1 , ρ2 , respectively) from the equation complex iterative algorithm, as described later, is
executed.
The objective function as per equation (15) is con-
1 1 1 structed and the problem is defined as an uncon-
= + (17) strained minimization problem (the constraints have
ρ ρ1 ρ2
been incorporated within the objective function)

Positive profile shifting usually plays a detrimental min f (x), where x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )T
role in pitting resistance due to the decrease in contact The solution procedure is as follows
ratio, hence the movement of the LPSTC to regions Generate a complex of m + 1 random vectors
with smaller local curvature. x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x m . The mean value of this complex is

1 
m
Constraint 9: Same centre distance. The applica- x= xi (18)
tion of profile shifting on both gear members leads m + 1 i=0
to a change in their nominal centre distance by
the amount of (x1 + x2 )m. Therefore it is impossi- The following norm is used as the convergence crite-
ble to achieve the same centre distance with shifted rion

gear teeth, unless the positive shift of one of the 
 1  m
  
gears equals the negative shift of the other gear  f (x i ) − f x < ε (19)
(S0 corrected gears). A suitable penalty function is m + 1 i=0
c9 = |ao − a|, where ao is the nominal centre dis-
tance and a is the current centre distance, respec- where the tolerance ε is a sufficiently small positive
tively. real number.

JMES342 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
486 V Spitas and C Spitas

Then a sequence of iterations is performed com-

prising subsequent steps in the following order

4.2.1 Reflection

Vectors x L and x H are selected, such that f (x L )

f (x i )
f (x H ), i = 0, 1, . . . , m. These are used to derive
a new vector x N using the formula
 
xN = x + α x − xH (20)

where α > 0 is the reflection coefficient.

If f (x L ) < f (x N ) < f (x H ), then x H is substituted
by x N .
4.2.2 Expansion
If f (x N ) < f (x L ), then an attempt is made to derive an
even better candidate vector using the formula
x L = x + β(x N − x )
where β > 0 is the expansion coefficient. If f (x L ) <
f (x L ), then x L is replaced by x L . If f (x N ) < f (x L ), then
x L is replaced by x N in the complex.
4.2.3 Contraction
If
f (x N ) > f (x i ) , i = H
a new vector x H is defined among those that satisfy
equation (22) corresponding to the lowest value of the
objective function. Then the process of contraction is
applied to derive a new vector x C as follows
 
x C = x + γ x H − x (23)
where γ > 0 is the contraction coefficient. If f (x C ) <
f (x H ), then vector x H is substituted by x C and a new
iteration is started. If f (x C ) > f (x H ), then every vector
x i in the complex is substituted by x i + (1/2)(x L − x i )
and a new iteration is started.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 4 Non-dimensional fillet stress of optimized gears
compared to that of standard gears for z1 = 15.
The grey area shows the absolute stress reduction
achieved. Optimal stress is equal for both gear
members
(21)
Stress tables were first constructed for all cases
and the following optimization parameter values
were used: ε = 1 × 10−4 (tolerance), α = 1.2 (reflec-
tion coefficient), β = 1.0 (expansion coefficient), and
γ = 2.0 (contraction coefficient). These parameter
values were chosen after preliminary testing so as
to provide quick convergence and stability of the
algorithm.
(22) In Fig. 4, the values of the maximum root stress
for the non-dimensional pinion with 15 teeth and
its conjugate gears with 18, 22, 28, and 50 teeth are
plotted. In this figure it can be observed that the
maximum pinion stress (gear 1) is always greater than
the maximum stress on the mating wheel (gear 2) in
the case of standard gears, whereas these stresses are
equal in the case of the optimized gears. The percent
reduction of the maximum root stress offered by the
optimum design is also plotted, and the maximum
reduction in the fillet stress is achieved for a pinion
with 15 teeth and a gear with 50 teeth, reaching 8.5
per cent.
The observed fact that the strength of the pin-
ion is increased in the expense of the strength of
the mating gear is attributed to the change in shape

The optimization method described earlier has been

implemented on various combinations of 20◦ invo-
lute gears with mating wheels, as described in Table 2.

Table 2 Test cases considered for optimization

Gear teeth
Pinion teeth 18 22 28 50

15 15/18 15/22 15/28 15/50

18 18/22 18/28 18/50
22 22/28 22/50 Fig. 5 Overlay of optimal and standard gear teeth (case
28 28/50
15/50). Thick line: standard; thin line: optimal

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science JMES342 © IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
 Optimizing involute gear design
of the two gears after the application of the mod-
ifications, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The pinion tooth
always ends with increased thickness at its root as
opposed to the mating gear tooth. After the modifi-
cation, both gear members present the same resis-
tance to bending, as anticipated from an optimal
design.
The optimal design has been experimentally veri-
fied using two-dimensional photoelasticity. The spec-
imens corresponding to the above-calculated tooth
profiles were made of special birefringent polycar-
bonate material. The fillet stresses were experimen-
tally measured on a circular plane polariscope under
monochromatic sodium light Fig. 6. The loading was
exerted on the specimen with a special mechanism
constructed in the laboratory in order to ensure
that the load was always normal to the profile and
Fig. 6 Photoelasticity test results. Isochromatic fringe
patterns under 589 nm monochromatic light
JMES342 © IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015
487
that frictional forces at the contact point were not
present. The experimental results are in excellent
agreement with the numerical predictions (maxi-
mum deviation of 2.8 per cent) and the new design
offers a decrease of the maximum fillet stress rang-
ing from 1.6 per cent (15 tooth pinion in mesh with
a 18 tooth pinion) to 8.5 per cent (15 tooth pinion in
mesh with a 50 tooth wheel) for the examined gear
combinations. The measured difference between the
pinion and the mating gear fillet stress never exceeds
1.6 per cent.
6 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, non-standard involute gears with opti-
mized tooth geometry for minimum root stress were
presented. The constraints used for the optimization
included apart from the basic kinematic, manufac-
turing and geometrical limitations constant contact
pressure to assure same pitting resistance and same
centre distance in order for the optimum gears to
be fully interchangeable with the standard gears in
a given housing. Non-dimensional gear tooth mod-
elling was used to obtain generalized results and BEA
was employed to calculate the maximum fillet stresses
for various loading conditions. The results were tabu-
lated in stress tables, allowing significant decrease in
computational time.
The optimal gear designs obtained indicated that
reduction of the maximum root stress up to 8.5 per
cent can be achieved depending on the number of
teeth of the pinion and mating gear. These find-
ings were further confirmed experimentally using
two-dimensional photoelasticity.
REFERENCES
1 Townsend, D. P. Dudley’s gear handbook, 1992 (McGraw-
Hill, New York).
2 Mabie, H. H., Rogers, C. A., and Reinholtz, C. F. Design
of non-standard spur gears cut by hob. Mech. Mach.
Theory, 1990, 25(6), 635–644.
3 Rogers, C. A., Mabie H. H., and Reinholtz, C. F. Design
of spur gears generated with pinion cutters. Mech. Mach.
Theory, 1990, 25(6), 623–634.
4 AGMA 2101-C95, Fundamental rating factors and calcu-
lation methods for involute spur and helical gear, 1995
(American Gear Manufacturers Association, Alexandria,
VA, USA).
5 DIN 3990, Calculation of load capacity of cylindrical
gears, 1987 (Deutsches Institut fur Normung E.V., Berlin,
Germany).
6 Ciavarella, M. and Demelio, G. Numerical methods for
the optimisation of specific sliding, stress concentra-
tion and fatigue life of gears. Int. J. Fatigue, 1999, 21,
465–474.
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science
488 V Spitas and C Spitas

7 Yeh,T.,Yang D., and Tong, S. Design of new tooth profiles APPENDIX

for high-load capacity gears. Mech. Mach. Theory, 2001,
36, 1105–1120. Notation
8 Litvin, F. L., Qiming, L., and Kapelvich, A. L., Asym-
metric modified spur gear drives reduction of noise, a12 centre distance
localization of contact, simulation of meshing and stress b tooth width
analysis. Comput. Methods in Appl. Mech. Eng., 2000, c penalty function
188, 363–390.
cc cutter tip radius coefficient
9 Kapelevich, A. L. Geometry and design of involute spur
gears with asymmetric teeth. Mech. Mach. Theory, 2000,
cf dedendum coefficient
35, 117–130. ck addendum coefficient
10 Spitas, V. A. and Costopoulos, T. New Concepts in cs tooth thickness coefficient
numerical modeling and calculation of the maximum f objective function
root stress in spur gears versus standard methods. i ref. to gear no. i
A comparative study, Proceedings of 1st National m module
Conference on Recent advances in mechanical engineer- PN normal force on flank
ing, Patras, 2001, ANG1/P106. rb operating pitch radius
11 Box, M. J. The Complex algorithm. Computers, 1965, 8, rg involute base radius
42. rk outside radius
12 Buckingham, E. Analytical mechanics of gears, 1988
so tooth thickness at pitch circle
(Dover Publications Inc., New York).
13 Timoshenko, S. and Baud, R. V. Strength of gear teeth,
tg base pitch
Mech. Eng., 1926, 48, 1105. u ref. to non-dimensional gear
14 ISO 6336-3:1996. Calculation of the load capacity of spur w weighting coefficient
and helical gears-Part 3: Calculation of tooth bending x addendum modification coefficient
strength. ISO, 1996. x vector of optimization variables
15 Kelley, B. W. and Pedersen, R. The beam strength z number of teeth
of modern gear tooth design. Trans. SAE, 1950, 66,
p. 246. α reflection coefficient
16 Lewis, W. Investigation of strength of gear teeth. In αo pressure angle at pitch circle
Proceedings of the engineering club No. I, Philadelphia,
β expansion coefficient
1882, pp. 16–23.
17 Andrews, J. A finite element analysis of bending stresses
γ contraction coefficient
included in external and internal involute spur gears. ε contact ratio
Strain Anal. Eng. Des., 26(3), 1991, 153–163. ε convergence tolerance
18 Niemann, G. and Winter, H. Maschinenelemente, Band σ bending stress at tooth critical cross-
II, 1983 (Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany). section

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science JMES342 © IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at COLORADO STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on July 18, 2015