See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257520225

Failure analysis of a pinion of the jacking system of a jack-up platform

Article  in  Engineering Failure Analysis · October 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.05.018

CITATIONS READS

15 2,318

2 authors, including:

Yuguang Cao
China University of Petroleum - Beijing
37 PUBLICATIONS   155 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuguang Cao on 17 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure analysis of a pinion of the jacking system of a jack-up

platform
Y.G. Cao a,⇑, S.H. Zhang b
a
Department of Engineering Mechanics, China University of Petroleum, 266580 Qingdao, China
b
Drilling Technology, Institute of Shengli Petroleum Bureau, 257017 Dongying, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Component analysis, metallographic examination and hardness test were performed
Received 17 May 2012 respectively for a failed pinion and a new rack of the jacking system of a jack-up platform.
Received in revised form 21 May 2013 Experiment results showed that the superficial heat treatment of the pinion was not uni-
Accepted 27 May 2013
form and there was no hardened layer at the tooth root. At the same time, the hardened
Available online 5 June 2013
layer near the pitch circle had been worn out for long-term service, thus the surface hard-
ness of the failed pinion was lower than that of the rack. Considering that each pinion bears
Keywords:
different load during service, the exact load that each pinion bears under the action of self-
Failure analysis
Jacking system
weight, variable loads and wind loads, was deduced firstly. As per the deduced bearing load
Jack-up platform of the failed pinion, elastic FEM analysis was performed and the distribution of stresses on
FEM the rack and pinion was simulated when the platform was under preload condition. By
comparing the Von mises stresses and contact stresses with those calculated according
to the formula, the accuracy of FEM analysis was verified. Then elastic–plastic FEM analysis
was performed for pinion models with hardened layer and without hardened layer respec-
tively, the results were used to explain the failure of the pinion.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

As large movable structures, jack-up platforms have been designed to operate at various locations with differing sea-bed
conditions, great water depths and various sea conditions [1]. Because of the good adaptability to water depth and good
working stability, jack-up platforms have been widely used for offshore drilling and workover operations. They can also
be used as mobile production platforms to explore marginal oil fields. Over the last few decades, the offshore industry
has ventured into deeper waters and more severe sea conditions. This has subjected the jack-up platforms to severe envi-
ronments. Consequently, it has led to increased scrutiny about the safety of these offshore structures.
As one of the most important structures of a jack-up platform, the jacking system always bears heavy load. It supports the
hull and associated equipments and bears external loads, thus the strength of the jacking system is crucial for the safety of
the platform. Rack and pinion (as shown in Fig. 1) as the most widely used jacking system for jack-up platforms; the strength
of them under different working conditions should be thoroughly investigated. Many researchers have focused on the failure
of gears [2–7]. In this paper, a failed pinion of a jack-up platform that can’t function normally will be examined; bearing
loads analysis and stress analysis by FEM will be performed for it to investigate the reasons that led to the failure.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 532 8698 1775; fax: +86 532 8698 1822.
E-mail address: caoyuguang@gmail.com (Y.G. Cao).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.05.018
 Author's personal copy

Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221 213

Fig. 1. Rack and pinion jacking system.

2. Examinations

Fig. 2 showed the results of fluorescent magnetic particle examination, it is obvious that there are cracks, scratches, ton-
gue-shaped deformation and some other damages on the tooth surface. In fact, not only the examined tooth, all other teeth of
the pinion were damaged.
In order to investigate the reasons led to the failure, a segment of the tooth as shown in Fig. 3 was cut down and further
experiments were performed. Firstly, component analysis of the pinion and rack was done as per the standard of Q/CHZ-TJ-
GY2078A and the results are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Fig. 4 displays the cross-section of the failed tooth; it is obvious that the section is asymmetric. From the top to the bot-
tom, the hardened layer is distinct on the right side while there is no hardened layer on the left side. The hardened layer has
been worn out during the course of jacking. Also, it can be found that the hardened layer on the right side is not even, that is
the layer become thinner and thinner from the top to the root of the tooth. Two specimens were extracted from the segment
for metallographic examination and microhardness examination as shown in Fig. 5. For specimen A, it is obvious that there is
no hardened layer at the toot root although the toot root was not meshed during engagement. It declares the faults of hard-
ening. For specimen B, deep cracks are distinct both in the hardened layer and the base material which means that cracks
have arisen in the pinion under long-term heavy load.
Metallographic examination was performed for the base material of the pinion and the metallographic structures are
shown in Fig. 6. Sorbite structures are distinct in this figure. Metallographic examinations were also done at tooth root
and at the pitch circle on the left side, materials there also displays sorbite structures just as shown in Fig. 6. This means
that the hardened layer of the pinion has been worn out at the pitch circle and there is no hardened layer at the tooth root.
Furthermore, metallographic examination of the outer surface of a new rack clearly showed the presence of martensite. Be-
cause sorbite is softer and easier to be abraded than martensite, large plastic deformation will arise during engagement.
Hardness tests were performed for the pinion and results showed that the hardness of the base material was 280-
300HV0.1; the hardness at the failed surface was 250-350HV0.1; while the hardness of the hardened layer was 700-
740HV0.1. Hardness at the failed surface is slightly higher than that of the base material was caused by deformation
strengthening. For the rack, the hardness of the hardened layer was 370-400HV0.1. The hardness of the hardened layer of

Fig. 2. Macroscopic features of a failed tooth.

 Author's personal copy

214 Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221

Fig. 3. The segment cut down from the tooth for analysis.

Table 1
Chemical compositions of the pinion material (wt.%).

C Si Mn Mo Cr Ni
0.42 0.27 0.65 0.19 1.07 0.048

Table 2
Chemical compositions of the rack material (wt.%).

C Si Mn Mo Cr Ni P S V
0.14 0.25 0.95 0.49 0.62 1.82 0.035 0.035 0.06

Failed Hardened
Surface Layer
B

Fig. 4. Cross-section of the failed tooth.

(a) Specimen A (b) Specimen B

Fig. 5. Specimens for metallographic examination and microhardness examination.
 Author's personal copy

Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221 215

Fig. 6. Metallographic structures of the base material, 30.

the rack was much higher than that of the base material of the pinion because it had been work hardened during service once
the hardened layer had been worn away.

3. Analysis of bearing loads on the pinion

The rack and pinion jacking system is the most important bearing apparatus of the jack-up platform. It has to support the
platform itself, equipments on it and external loads. Thus the jacking system bears heavy loads during service. In this paper,
the most widely used three legs jack-up platform will be selected for analyzing; the loads acting on the jacking system, by
means of internal forces of the legs, will be deduced. It is worth noting that, because the loads applied on the platform are
born by the jacking system, and the loads acting on the jacking system are then conveyed to the legs through the engage-
ment between the rack and pinion, the bearing loads on the pinion are equal to the loads applied on the legs. Generally, the
three legs are supposed to bear identical loads. In fact, because it is hard for the center of gravity to match the centroid of
figure of the platform; moreover, gravity of equipments and external loads acting on the platform will also affect the con-
figuration of the bearing loads of three legs; thus, the exact load acting on each leg is not even.

3.1. Bearing loads under self-gravity and variable loads

The layout of a three legs jack-up platform selected for analysis is shown in Fig. 7. Suppose the hull length as L, width as B,
distance between the stem leg and the stern leg as L1 and distance between the two stern legs as B1. Build plane rectangular
coordinates as shown in Fig. 7, the origin locating at the midpoint of the hull stern; and the three legs locate at D (x1, y1), E
(x1, –y1), F (x2, y0) respectively. Furthermore, suppose the resultant of self-weight and variable loads as G, acting at C (xc, yc),
the coordinates of C can be obtained by statics. Thus, according to the statics,
8
< RD þ RE þ RF ¼ G
>
RD  x1 þ RE  x1 þ RF  x2 ¼ G  xc ð1Þ
>
:
RD  y1  RE  y1 ¼ G  yc

D (x1, y1)

C (xc, yc)
O
B1
B

F (x2, 0) X

E (x1, -y1)

L1

Fig. 7. The layout of a three legs jack-up platform.

 Author's personal copy

216 Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221

where RD, RE, RF are to represent the loads acting on the platform legs D, E, F respectively. It leads to,
8
>
> RD ¼ ðx2 x2ðx
1 Þyc þðx2 xc Þy1
2 x1 Þy1
G
<
ðx1 x2 Þyc þðx2 xc Þy1
RE ¼ G ð2Þ
>
>
2ðx2 x1 Þy1
: xc x1
RF ¼ x2 x1 G

As x1 ¼ LL
2
1
, y1 ¼ B21 , and x2 ¼ LþL
2
1
, substitute them into Eq. (2) we got,
8
>
> RD ¼ 4L1 yc þ½ðLþL 1 Þ2xc B1
4L1 B1
G
<
4L1 yc þ½ðLþL1 Þ2xc B1
RE ¼ 4L1 B1
G ð3Þ
>
>
: 2xc ðLL1 Þ
RF ¼ 2L1 G

3.2. Bearing loads under wind loads

Besides the self-weight and variable loads, wind loads acting on the platform also affect the bearing load of each leg. Take
the main body of the platform as object for study as shown in Fig. 8. Based on the wind loads and wind moments calculated
as per the rules [8], the internal forces acting on the upper section and the lower section can be deduced. It is worth noting
that, the segment extracted from the platform and shown in Fig. 8 for analysis is the same with the segment where the rack
engages with the pinion.
Suppose that the wind blows horizontally at arbitrary angle and build rectangular coordinates as shown in Fig. 8, where
x-axis is along the direction of the wind and y-axis is along the direction of the platform legs, vertical to the hull. Internal
forces, including shearing forces and bending moments, represent the actions of the platform on the extracted segment con-
veyed by the rack and pinion. As shown in Fig. 8, Qup and Mup represent the shearing force and bending moment in the upper
section; Qlow and Mlow represent the shearing force and the bending moment in the lower section; M is the moment caused
by the vertical component of the meshing force between the rack and pinion; F is the horizontal component of the meshing
force. Considering the equilibrium of the extracted segment it can be obtained that,
(
Q up þ F  Q low ¼ 0
ð4Þ
Mlow  M  M up  F  H2  Q up  H ¼ 0

Solve the equation, we got,

(
F ¼ Q low  Q up
Q low þQ up ð5Þ
M ¼ ðM low  M up Þ  2
H

M up

Q up

M X
F

tion
direc
Wind
H

Q low
M low

Fig. 8. The internal forces of the platform legs under wind loads.
 Author's personal copy

Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221 217

As mentioned above, M and F are caused by the engagement between the rack and pinion. By dividing the wind loads into
two directions, along the stern and from the stern to the stem respectively, and considering the equilibrium of the segment
the additional forces applied on the legs can be calculated as,
8  
> F D ¼  cos a þ sin a M
>
> B 2L
< 
1 1

F E ¼  cos a
 sin a
M ð6Þ
>
> B1 2L 1
>
: M
F F ¼ L1 sin a

where FD, FE and FF are the additional forces on the platform legs D, E and F respectively; the signal ‘‘’’ here is to represent
that the bearing load will be decreased and a is the angle between the wind direction and the direction along the stern.

3.3. Total bearing loads

Add the bearing loads of each leg together, we got

8  
>
> PD ¼ RD þ F D ¼ 4L1 yc þ½ðLþL 1 Þ2xc B1
G  cos a
þ sin a
M
>
> 4L B
1 1 B 1 2L 1
<  
4L1 yc þ½ðLþL1 Þ2xc B1 a  sin a M ð7Þ
> PE ¼ RE þ F E ¼ 4L1 B1
G  cos B1 2L1
>
>
>
: 2xc ðLL1 Þ M
PF ¼ RF þ F F ¼ 2L1 G þ L1 sin a

where PD, PE and PF are the total bearing loads of the three platform legs under self-weight, variable loads and wind loads. All
the bearing loads are born by the rack and pinion jacking system, thus the load applied on each pinion can be obtained. The
obtained load on each pinion will be used for the following stress analysis by FEM.

4. Stress analysis by FEM

Many researchers have engaged in developing methods to analyze the contact of gear drive, among them FEM is widely
used [9–10]. With the development of computer technology, many powerful FEM software such as ANSYS, ADAMS, ADINA
and so on have been developed and used for the meshing analysis of gears [11–15]. In this paper, based on ANSYS, three-
dimensional model of the rack and pinion of a jack-up platform was built. The distribution of stresses on the rack and pinion
was calculated and analyzed when the platform was under preload condition.

4.1. FEM model

The primary parameters of the pinion are as follows: number of teeth Z = 7, modulus m – = 100 mm engaging angle
a = 27°, thickness t = 200 mm. The primary parameters of the rack are: thickness t = 127 mm, pitch p = 314.159 mm. The pro-
file of the pinion is involute and the profile of the rack is straight line. To build the three-dimensional model of the pinion,
using the APDL program language of ANSYS, calculate the coordinates of some key points of the involute profile and build the
according key points as per the calculated coordinates firstly. The key points were then linked by splines, thus a single sided
curve of the involute profile was drawn. It was mirrored and the other side curve was drawn. Considering that it is time-con-
suming for the three-dimensional contact analysis of the whole rack and pinion jacking system, only a pair of teeth was built
in this paper as shown in Fig. 9. Solid element of 20 nodes was utilized for meshing. The total number of elements of the
model is 62169. The material of the pinion is SAE4340 and its elasticity modulus is 206 GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.3, yield
strength is 745 MPa. The material used for the rack is ASTM A514 Gr.Q, its elasticity modulus is 200 GPa, Poisson’s ration
is 0.3, and yield strength is 805 MPa.

4.2. Elastic analysis

In ANSYS, surface to surface contact element is generally used to simulate the contact performance between gears. In this
paper, Targe170 was selected for the target surface and Conta174 for the contact surface as shown in Fig. 10; they were related
as a contact pair by sharing a common real constant and the program could recognize the contact pair as per this real constant.
For contact analysis, the penetration between the two contact surfaces is determined by the contact coefficient of stiff-
ness. To properly set the contact coefficient of stiffness is very important. Generally, enough large coefficient of stiffness
should be used to guarantee the penetration rate be acceptable; while oversized contact coefficient of stiffness may probably
lead to the morbidity of the stiffness matrix and difficulty of convergence. Thus, it is usually hard to obtain a satisfied contact
coefficient of stiffness. In this paper, it was set as 1 based on the results of a series of trial calculations and comprehensive
considerations of the precision and time consumed.
For the loads and constraints of gears for meshing analysis, generally, moment of rotation is applied on the drive gear or
tangential force is applied on the mounting hole surface. Considering that, for the jack-up platform, the rack is welded on the
leg and it will be static during the course of jacking, the rack was fixed and moment of rotation was applied on the pinion.
The load applied on the pinion was calculated according to Eq. (9). Because the rack and pinion of different platform legs bear
 Author's personal copy

218 Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221

Mesh Refinement

Fig. 9. FEM model of the rack and pinion.

different loads, the most dangerous, that is the one bears the maximum load, was chosen for analysis. It is worth noting that
for the global jacking system, under different working conditions such as jacking condition, storm survival, and preload con-
dition and so on, the loads applied on it are different; the maximum are under the condition of preload. Thus in this paper,
the preload condition was chosen and maximum load that the failed pinion bore was 295.86 T.
The distribution of Von Mises stresses on the rack and pinion when they come into engagement is shown in Fig. 11. It is
obvious that the stresses at the contact area and tooth root are higher. The distribution of Von Mises stresses on the pinion is
banded; the maximum stresses at the contact area and tooth root are 824 MPa and 618 MPa respectively. The distribution of
Von Mises stresses on the rack is also banded and the maximum stress appears near the two flanks of the rack. The maxi-
mum stresses at the contact area and tooth root are 1700 MPa and 611 MPa respectively. The distribution of contact stresses
on the contact surfaces are shown in Fig. 12. It is clear that the maximum contact stress is 2170 MPa (see Fig. 12).
As per the Hertz theory, for contact between cylinder and plane, the contact stress can be calculated as,
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u P
u
rH ¼ 0:546t1m2 lR 1m2 ð8Þ
E1
1
þ E2 2

where P is the load applied on the cylinder; l is the length of the contact line; R is the radius of the cylinder; E1, E2 are the
elasticity modulus of the cylinder and plane respectively; v1, v2 are the Poisson’s ratios of the cylinder and plane respectively.
At the same time, the tooth root bending stress can be calculated as,

Ft
rF ¼ Y F Y s Y b K A K V K Fb K F a ð9Þ
bmn
where Ft is the nominal tangential force on the reference circle in the end plane; b is the tooth pitch at the tooth root; mn is
the normal modulus; YF is the coefficient of tooth profile; Ys is the coefficient of stress correction; Yb is the coefficient of helix
angle; KA is the coefficient of performance; KV is the dynamic factor; KFb is the coefficient of load distribution along the direc-
tion of tooth width; KFa is coefficient of load distribution among meshing teeth.
According to Eqs. (8) and (9), the bending stress and contact stress of the failed pinion under preload condition are
700 MPa and 2297 MPa respectively. The results almost coincide with those of FEM analysis and the validation of the
FEM simulation was verified.

Fig. 10. The contact pair of the rack and pinion.

 Author's personal copy

Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221 219

The Maximum Stress

Fig. 11. Distribution of Von Mises stresses on the rack and pinion.

Fig. 12. Distribution of contact stresses on contact surfaces.

Hardened Layer

(a) with hardened layer (b) without hardened layer

Fig. 13. Rack and pinion models with or without hardened layer.

4.3. Elastic–plastic analysis

From the above elastic analysis, it is clear that the stresses at the contact area of the rack and pinion are much higher than
the yield strength of the material, the material will deform plastically; thus elastic–plastic analysis should be performed to
analyze the real state of stress distribution during engagement. Furthermore, for the failed pinion, the hardened layer had
 Author's personal copy

220 Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221

Fig. 14. Distribution of Von Mises stresses on the pinion with hardened layer.

Fig. 15. Distribution of Von Mises stresses on the pinion without hardened layer.

been worn out before failure. Considering the properties of the material of hardened layer are different from those of the
base material, models of rack and pinion with hardened layer and without hardened layer were built as shown in Fig. 13
and elastic–plastic analysis were performed in this paper. For the material of the hardened layer of the pinion, its elasticity
modulus, Poisson’s ratio and yield strength are 206 GPa, 0.3, 1372 MPa respectively; and for the material of the hardened
layer of the rack, its elasticity modulus, Poisson’s ratio and yield strength are 200 GPa, 0.3, 1200 MPa respectively.
The procedure for stress analysis is the same with elastic analysis. Because the failure analysis is for pinion, only the re-
sults of the pinion will be discussed in this paper. The distribution of Von Mises stresses on the pinion with hardened layer is
shown in Fig. 14. The maximum stress at the contact area is 1070 MPa, located at the transition area of the hardened layer
and base material, lower than the yield strength of the hardened layer material while higher than the yield strength of the
 Author's personal copy

Y.G. Cao, S.H. Zhang / Engineering Failure Analysis 33 (2013) 212–221 221

base material. That is to say, the base material will deform plastically while the hardened layer remains elastic. The distri-
bution of Von Mises stresses on the pinion without hardened layer is shown in Fig. 15. The maximum stress at the contact
area is 757 MPa, much lower than that of the pinion with hardened layer, also lower than the result of elastic analysis, but
higher than the yield strength of the base material. It means the pinion will deform plastically during engagement.
From the results of elastic–plastic stress analysis, it can be concluded that, for the failed pinion, when it newly came into
use, the applied load on it led to high stress. The high stress was higher than the yield strength of the base material while
lower than the hardened layer material, thus made the base material deform plastically while the hardened layer deform
elastically. The non-uniform deformation brought flaws to arise and made the hardened layer be abraded much faster under
heavy load. For the failed pinion studied in this paper, after long-term service, the hardened layer was worn out. Because the
base material is weaker and more ductile than the hardened layer material, it deformed plastically more seriously under hea-
vy load. The large-scale plastic deformation led to the final failure of the pinion.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, examinations, bearing loads analysis and stress analysis were performed for a failed pinion of a jack-up plat-
form. From the results of the research, the following conclusions can be obtained:

(1) The failed pinion underwent improper hardening treatment; the hardened layer of the pinion is non-uniform on the
un-engaged surface and no hardening layer was found at the tooth root.
(2) The jacking system are composed of many racks and pinions, different pinion bears different load, the load each pinion
bears can be calculated according to the equation deduced.
(3) The FEM analysis of the rack and pinion engagement in this paper was valid; the results of elastic analysis match that
of theoretical calculation as per the Hertz theory.
(4) Elastic–plastic analysis for the rack and pinion models with hardened layer or without hardened layer showed that,
under heavy load, the non-uniform deformation of the pinion made the hardened layer to be worn out fast and the
base material plastically deformed seriously after then. Large-scale plastic deformation of the base material led to
the final failure of the pinion.

References

[1] Guptaa Sayan, Shabakhtyb Naser, van Geldera Pieter. Fatigue damage in randomly vibrating jack-up platforms under non-Gaussian loads. Appl Ocean
Res 2006;28(6):407–19.
[2] Liu Gy, Gao BY, Li JY, et al. Failure analysis and prevention measures for 20 CrMnTi steel carburized gear shaft. Heat Treat Met 2007;32(10):95.
[3] Guo ZD, Shao EY, Pang J. Failure analysis of gears. Beijing: China Machine Press; 1992.
[4] Mack Aldener M, Olsson M. Tooth interior fatigue fracture—computational and material aspects. Int J Fatigue 2001;23(4):329–40.
[5] He X, Wei XH, Deng YZ, et al. Analysis and improvement on fracture of driving bevel gears in wheel loader axle. Equipment Manuf Technol
2007;11:128–30.
[6] Zhang H. Research on cracking mechanism for 20CrMnTi steel gear. Heat Treat Met 2000;25(12):31–3.
[7] Chen L, Huang WG, Meng QH, et al. Analysis on surface spalling failure of 20CrMnTi steel gear. Heat Treat Met 2009;34(9):102–4.
[8] China classification society rules for classification and construction of mobile offshore drilling unit. Beijing: China Communications Press; 2005.
[9] Conry TF, Seireg A. Mathematical programming technique for the evaluation of load distribution and optional modification for gear system. ASME J Eng
Ind 1973;95(11):1115–22.
[10] Refaat MH, Meguid SA. On the contact stress analysis of spur gears using variational inequalities. Comput Struct 1995;57(5):871–82.
[11] Yang SH. Finite element analysis of gear contact. Chin J Comput Mech 2003;20(2):189–94.
[12] Lei L, Wu BL, Xie XB. Analysis on contact stress of spur gear based on ANSYS finite element software. J Mech Transm 2006;30(2):50–1.
[13] Cao YG, Zhang Q, Zhang SH. Strength analysis of rack and pinion of jack-up platform by finite element method. J China Univ Pet 2010;34(6):120–4.
[14] Zhang HW, Wu J. Finite element analysis on contact stress of transmission gear. J Shihezi Univ (Nat Sci) 2008;26(2):238–40.
[15] Kawalec Andrzej, Wiktor Jerzy, Ceglarek Dariusa. Comparative analysis of tooth-root strength using ISO and AGMA standards in spur and helical gears
with FEM-based verification. Drive Syst Tech 2007;21(2):39–48.

View publication stats