The Journal of Engineering

19th International Conference of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Control

Engineering (2018)

Mesh stiffness calculation of helical gears eISSN 2051-3305

Received on 03rd October 2018

with profile modification

Accepted on 12th October 2018
E-First on 7th November 2018
doi: 10.1049/joe.2018.9027
www.ietdl.org

Yu Wang1, Yimin Shao1 , Zaigang Chen2, Minggang Du3, Huifang Xiao4

1State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
2State Key Laboratory of Traction Power, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China
3Northern Vehicle Research Institute, Beijing, People's Republic of China
4National Engineering Research Center of Flat Rolling Equipment, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of

China
E-mail: ymshao@cqu.edu.cn

Abstract: Time-varying contact line and mesh stiffness are important parameters for dynamic investigation of helical gear pair
with profile modification; however, the calculation methods of the time-varying mesh with high accuracy and high efficiency are
also very limited currently. A new mesh stiffness calculation method for helical gear pairs with profile modification is proposed.
The new method is conducted by cutting the helical gear tooth into slices to obtain the change of the contact line and the time-
varying mesh stiffness with considering the change of each slice's engagement performance introduced by the profile
modification. Then, the mesh stiffness of the assumed three different modification cases is calculated by using the proposed
method. The calculated results indicate that the proposed method can be used to calculate the mesh stiffness of helical gear
pairs, especially of those with tooth profile modification.

1 Introduction stiffness curve. The tooth pair stiffness curve is extended to be

Helical gears have been widely used in all sorts of mechanical
equipment as a motion and power transmission device. Tooth
profile modification is frequently used to improve their dynamic
performance and reduce the impact when teeth start to engage or
quit engagement.
Profile modification causes a lot of changes to gear pairs, such
as engagement situation [1], tooth stress [2], and transmission error
[2–4]. Researchers conducted many studies to figure out the
influence of profile modification on gear characteristics. Ozturk et
al. [3] studied the dynamic transmission error and loaded static
transmission error of a spur gear pair with profile modification
using different models. The result showed that profile modification
can be used to reduce dynamic transmission error. Bruyère and
Velex [4] proposed a simplified analysis method to evaluate the
effects of tooth profile modification on minimising transmission
error variations for the spur and helical gear pairs, and they also
proposed a unique equation which leads to a nearly constant
transmission error. He and Singh [5, 6] studied the relationship
between normal loads and friction forces for modified spur gear
pairs. Velex et al. [7] worked on the possible reduction of contact
line length introduced by profile modification. They thought this
contact length reduction is symmetric with regard to the engage
and exit process, and can be simply quantified by a single
parameter which can be obtained through the reasonable
approximations they proposed. Liu and Parker [8] presented an
analytic model for the vibration analysis of multiple gears
considering the influence of profile modification as profile
modification changes the load distribution between tooth pairs.
As mesh stiffness is an important parameter of gear pairs, a lot
of studies about mesh stiffness were published. Chen and Shao [9]
presented an analytical mesh stiffness calculation model for spur
gear to calculate their mesh stiffness after profile modification
considering that the tooth profile error changes the engagement
performance of tooth pairs. The change in the contact line of the
helical gear pair and the corresponding mesh stiffness follows a
similar pattern. The mesh stiffness per unit length of the contact
line was assumed to be constant in [10, 11]. Based on the constant
mesh stiffness per unit length of contact line assumption, Jiang et
al. [11] used the polynomial fitting method to smoothen the mesh
parabola, and the mesh stiffness at the start and end of engage are
symmetric in [12]. Based on the potential energy method of the
spur gear, Wan et al. [13] proposed the accumulated integral
potential energy method to study the time-varying mesh stiffness of
helical gear pairs by dividing tooth into pieces, where each piece
was regarded as a spur gear with no elastic coupling with each
other.
As for the existing mesh stiffness calculation of the helical gear,
the methods proposed by Jiang et al. and Bruyère et al. [11, 12] are
rough: the mesh stiffness per unit length of the contact line is not
unchangeable and the contact line length after modification is hard
to obtain through geometry study, thus making it hard to get the
mesh stiffness after modification. Accumulated integral potential
energy method did not take profile modification into consideration
and the interaction between pieces was not included. Finite element
analysis (FEA) can be used to calculate the mesh stiffness and
contact line length of the modified helical gear, but it cost a lot of
time to set up a model and analysis. The main work of this paper is
trying to set up an analytical method to study the contact line
length and mesh stiffness of helical gear with profile modification.
The paper is arranged as follows. The presented mesh stiffness
calculation method for helical gear pairs with and without profile
modification is described in Section 2, and then the mesh stiffness
and contact line length simulation of helical gear pairs with and
without modification are discussed in Section 3. Finally,
conclusions are given in Section 4.
2 Proposed mesh stiffness calculation method
After profile modification, some tooth segments keep engaged,
some tooth segments lose contact, making the contact line length
and mesh stiffness changed. Contact lose can be distinguished
through comparing the modification amplitude with the
deformation amount of the unmodified gear. If we compare the
modification amplitude with the deformation amount of small tooth
segments along the contact line, the contact line length of the
modified helical gear pair can be obtained, and its mesh stiffness
can be obtained subsequently. Thus, the first step of the proposed
method is to cut the teeth into slices, each slice in a small tooth

J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230 225

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

Fig. 1 Tooth slice division
(a) Slice division, (b) Parameter of slice i, (c) 2D model of slices
segment, and the second step is to calculate the contact line length
and the mesh stiffness of the modified gear pair.
2.1 Slice cutting
The calculation of spur gear mesh stiffness by dividing the teeth
into slices was proposed by Chen and Shao [14, 15]. In their study,
each slice was modelled as a non-uniform cantilever beam.
Bending stiffness, shearing stiffness, and axial compression
stiffness calculations of each slice were conducted, and stiffness of
the teeth was obtained by adding the stiffness of all slices together.
In this new calculation model, the teeth of the helical gear are
divided into n slices, named slice 1, slice 2, …, slice n, in the
direction of the gear axial as Fig. 1a illustrates. The face width of
slice i is bi, and the length of the contact line segment of slice i is li.
The slice is so thin that its load and deformation are assumed to be
concentrated on the middle point of its contact line segment, named
Oi, and the force applied on the slice i is Fi, as shown in Fig. 1b. In
the new model, each slice is regarded as a two-dimensional model,
and every slice is not independent from each other, as shown in
Fig. 1c. Taking slice i, for example, the deformation of slice i is
devoted by F1, F2, …, Fn, and not just by Fi.
226
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
Fig. 2 Tooth slices lose contact and decreased contact line
(a) Tooth slices lose contact, (b) Decreased contact line
2.2 Decreased contact line length and mesh stiffness
calculation
In this paper, the proposed method is used to calculate the mesh
stiffness of helical gear pairs with linear tip modification firstly.
Two parameters are needed to define linear tip modification,
namely the modification magnitude (D) of the tip and the
modification length (ξ), defined as the ratio of the roll angle
difference between the modification starting point and the tooth tip
to the difference between the tooth root and tooth tip. The
modification amount of the tooth surface decreases linearly from
the tooth tip to the point from where modification starts. It should
be noted that the modification amount of each slice along the same
contact line differs from each other as the contact line is not
parallel to the gear axial.
If the modification amount is bigger than the deformation, tooth
slice pairs lose contact after profile modification, as shown in
Fig. 2a. Here slice i is normally engaged with slice i∗ before
modification. When slice i∗ is modified and its modification
amount is bigger than the deformation sum of slice i and slice i∗,
they lose contact; thus, the length of the contact line decreases as
shown in Fig. 2b. Fig. 2b gives a sketch of a decreased contact line
when slice i loses contact. As the teeth were cut into slices,
identifying the contact status of each slices, the decreased contact
line length can be obtained. The calculation flowchart of contact
line length and meshing stiffness for the modified helical gear pair
at any time is shown in Fig. 3.
Firstly, the time-varying contact line length calculation of the
perfect helical gear pair through geometry analysis should be
conducted. Later, the deformation calculation of perfect helical
gear tooth slices, and then the contact length and stiffness of
modified teeth slices are calculated. Finally, the total contact line
length and mesh stiffness are computed.
Total deformation of slices i (δxi(t)) consists of the bending and
shearing deformations (δxbi(t)), contact deformation (δxci(t)), and
fillet-foundation deformation (δx f i(t)). Here, the subscript i denotes
slice i, and the subscript x can be changed into p or g for the pinion
and the gear, respectively:
δxi(t) = δxbi(t) + δxci(t) + δx f i(t) (1)
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
The bending and shearing deformation of slice i is devoted by all
the loads applied on all slices of the same tooth; thus, the bending
and shearing deformation of slice i is the sum of all bending and
shearing deformations contributed by loads on those slices:
n slices i and i∗ no longer contact each other, as shown in Fig. 2a,
δxbi t = ∑ δxb ji t
j=1
Here, δxb ji t is the bending and shearing deformation of slice i
caused by the load applied on slice j; it can be calculated as [16,
them after modification. If slice i is modified and slice i∗ is perfect,
then li − mod is decided by the relative size of the deformation sum of
y
slice i and slice i∗ (δxi + δxi ∗ ) without modification and the
modification amount of slice i (Ei). If Ei is bigger than (δxi + δxi ∗ ),
(2) li − mod equals 0 and the stiffness of slice i and that of slice i∗ are
y
assumed to be 0 for the convenience of computation; otherwise, the
contact line is on the modified flank, li − mod, equals li, and the
y
stiffness of slice i and that of slice i are the results of the loads
∗

17] applied on them divided by their deformation separately. The same

is the case when slice i∗ is modified and slice i is perfect:
−0.3879 0.08219
1515.37F j αn βb
δxb ji = f 1 f 2 f 3z−1.0622 1+ li, Ei <= δxi + δxi ∗
Em 20 10 y
(3) li − mod = (6)
ha 0.5563
hf 0.6971
rfil 0.00043 −0.6040 0, Ei > δxi + δxi ∗
−0.2165 b
× 1 + xp
m m m m
Fxi /δxi, Ei <= δxi + δxi ∗
kxiy = (7)
where F j is the concentrated load applied on slice j, E represents 0, Ei > δxi + δxi ∗
the modulus of elasticity, f 1 is the position factor of the middle
point of the contact line segment on slice j (point O j), and f 2 and f 3 Calculating the stiffness of each slice, respectively, the stiffness of
a tooth is the sum of the stiffness of all slices it is divided into:
are the relative position factors of point O j to point Oi in the radial
and axial directions, respectively. Detailed definitions of f 1, f 2, f 3 n
are given in [16]; haandh f are the addendum and the dedendum, kxy t = ∑ kxiy t (8)
respectively. xp is the addendum modification factor, rfil is the fillet i=1

radius, βb represents the helix angle, αn is the transverse pressure

angle, m is the transverse module, b is the face width, and z is the The contact line length of the modified single tooth pair (lmod
y
) is the
sum of the contact line length of all slice pairs (li − mod):
y
number of teeth.
The contact deformation of slice i is obtained by (4) proposed
by Yang et al. [18]: n
y
lmod (t) = ∑ liy − mod (9)
4 1 − ν2 i=1
δxci t = Fi (4)
πEbi
The stiffness of a gear tooth and that of a pinion tooth are arranged
in a serial form, so the mesh stiffness of the engaged single tooth
where ν is the Poisson ratio.
pair can be written as [13]
The fillet-foundation deflection can be calculated as [19, 20]
1 1
δx f i(t) =
1 Fi 2
cos αn L∗
u u
+ M ∗ + P∗ 1 + Q∗tan2αn (5) kmy t = 1/ + y (10)
E bi Sf Sf k py t kg t

where L∗, M ∗, P∗ and Q∗ are the factors fitted by polynomial As there are several pairs of tooth engaged, the total mesh stiffness
functions. The polynomial functions and detailed introduction of the gear pair is the sum of the mesh stiffness of all the engaged
about S f and u are given in [19, 20]. tooth pairs [13]:
Assuming slice i engaged with slice i∗ before modification, li is o
the contact line length between slice i and slice i∗ without Km t = ∑ kmy(t) (11)
modification, and li − mod is the reduced contact line length between
y y=1

Fig. 3 Decreased contact length and mesh stiffness calculation flowchart

J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230 227

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Here, o symbols the number of engaged tooth pairs. The total
contact line of the gear pair is the sum of the contact line of all the
engaged tooth pairs:
o
Lmod(t) = ∑l y
mod (t)
y=1
3 Simulation results and discussions
Contact line length and mesh stiffness simulations of two different
cases, named Case 1, Case 2, of modified helical gear pairs were
conducted and compared with Case 0 where no modification was
conducted.
3.1 Mesh stiffness calculation results validation
A helical gear pair with parameters, as shown in Table 1, was set
up, and the new mesh stiffness calculation method was used to
calculate its mesh stiffness.
A corresponding finite element model, as shown in Fig. 4, was
established to calculate the mesh stiffness at the same time.
ANSYS software was used to conduct static FEA. The finite
element model, made up of SOLID 185 elements, consists of three
teeth. Normal force is applied on the contact line of the middle
tooth normally to the involute profile, and mesh density along the
contact line was specifically refined to ensure accuracy; the
boundary condition is shown in Fig. 4. Extracting the average tooth
surface deformation from the results, tooth stiffness is the result of
normal force divided by average deformation, calculation of mesh
stiffness of single tooth pair and total mesh stiffness follow (10)
and (11).
Fig. 5 gives the mesh stiffness curves of a single tooth pair in a
mesh cycle calculated by two methods, where T is the time of one
mesh cycle. The mesh stiffness curves of both methods increase
firstly and then decrease to zero. The maximum mesh stiffness of
the single tooth pair calculated through FEM analysis is
3.21 × 108 N/m, and the proposed one is 2.476 × 108 N/m. The
stiffness calculated through FEM analysis is bigger than the new
Table 1 Parameter of helical gear pair
Parameters
normal module, mm
helix angle, deg
face width, mm
transverse pressure angle, deg
number of teeth
Poisson's ratio
modulus of elasticity, Pa
Fig. 4 Finite element model
228
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
method, but within an acceptable range. Therefore, it can be said
that the proposed method is trustworthy.
3.2 Calculated results for different profile modification cases
(12) Three different cases of linear tip modifications whose parameters,
as shown in Table 2, are employed, and the contact line length and
mesh stiffness difference of three different cases are studied.
Comparing the deformation with the corresponding
modification amount of each tooth slice, the length of the contact
line for each case is obtained, as shown in Fig. 6. The mesh
stiffness curves of the three cases are presented in Fig. 7, from
where it can be seen that the mesh stiffness and the contact line
length curves of those three cases follow a similar pattern. As
profile modification leads to contact line reduction, the number of
slices pairs engaged decreases, thereby leading to reduction in the
mesh stiffness and change their fluctuation range. The total contact
line length fluctuation ranges of Case 0, Case 1, and Case 2 are
0.0196, 0.0176, and 0.0179 m, respectively. The total mesh
stiffness fluctuation ranges of Case 0, Case 1, and Case 2 are
8.8 × 107, 6.7 × 107, and 6.8 × 107 N/m, respectively. Profile
modification reduces the fluctuation ranges of both the contact line
and stiffness. Both the total contact line and mesh stiffness change
smoothly after modification.
4 Conclusions
A new method to calculate the mesh stiffness of helical gear pairs
with profile modification analytically by cutting the teeth into
slices is proposed. The deformation calculation of each slice is
conducted and the deformation influence of each other was
considered. The validation of the proposed method was tested by
the FEA result.
Mesh stiffness of a helical gear with tip modification is studied
in this paper. If the modification amount is bigger than the mesh
deformation, the slice loses contact; thus, the length of the contact
line reduces and mesh stiffness decreases. This mesh stiffness
calculation method is also applicable to other kinds of profile
modification.
Pinion Gear
4 4
15 15
35 35
20 20
40 40
0.3 0.3
2.06 × 1011 2.06 × 1011
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Table 2 Parameters of different cases
Tip modification Case 0 Case 1 Case 2
Pinion Gear Pinion Gear Pinion Gear
length 0 0 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.1
magnitude, μm 0 0 45 45 26 26

Fig. 6 Length of contact line for different cases

(a) Contact line of single tooth pair, (b) Total contact line length (Keys: red dashed
line – case 2；green dotdash line – case 1; blue solid line – case 0)
The calculated results of different modification cases show that
tooth profile modification could reduce the contact line and mesh
stiffness fluctuation range, and smoothen their changes.
5 Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No.
51475053.
Fig. 7 Mesh stiffness of different cases
(a) Mesh stiffness of single tooth pair, (b) Total Mesh stiffness (Keys: red dashed line
– case 2；green dotdash line – case 1; blue solid line – case 0)
6 References
[1] Li, S.: ‘Effects of misalignment error, tooth modifications and transmitted
torque on tooth engagements of a pair of spur gears’, Mech. Mach. Theory,
2015, 83, (83), pp. 125–136
[2] Tesfahunegn, Y.A., Rosa, F., Gorla, C.: ‘The effects of the shape of tooth
profile modifications on the transmission error, bending, and contact stress of
spur gears’, ARCHIVE Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C, J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 1989–
1996 (vols 203–210), 2010, 224, (8), pp. 1749–1758
[3] Ozturk, V.Y., Cigeroglu, E., Özgüven, H.N.: ‘Optimum profile modifications
for the minimization of dynamic transmission error’. Int. Gear Conf., Lyon,
France, 2014, pp. 596–605

Fig. 5 Mesh stiffness of single tooth pair (Keys: blue solid line – FEM; red dashed line – the proposed method)

J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230 229

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
[4] Bruyère, J., Velex, P.A.: ‘Simplified multi-objective analysis of optimum
profile modifications in spur and helical gears’, Mech. Mach. Theory, 2014,
80, (4), pp. 70–83
[5] He, S., Singh, R.: ‘Dynamic interactions between sliding friction and tip relief
in spur gears’. ASME 2007 Int. Design Eng. Tech. Conf. Comput. Inform.
Eng. Conf., Las Vegas, USA, 2007, pp. 423–431
[6] He, S.: ‘Effect of sliding friction on spur gear dynamics and vibro-acoustics’,
PhD thesis, Theohio State University, 2008
[7] Velex, P., BruyèRe, J., Houser, D.R.: ‘Some analytical results on transmission
errors in narrow-faced spur and helical gears: influence of profile
modifications', J. Mech. Des., 2011, 133, (3), p. 031010
[8] Liu, G., Parker, R.G.: ‘Dynamic modeling and analysis of tooth profile
modification for multimesh gear vibration’, J. Mech. Des., 2008, 130, (12),
pp. 1500–1508
[9] Chen, Z., Shao, Y.: ‘Mesh stiffness calculation of a spur gear pair with tooth
profile modification and tooth root crack’, Mech. Mach. Theory, 2013, 62, (4),
pp. 63–74
[10] He, S., Gunda, R., Singh, R.: ‘Inclusion of sliding friction in contact dynamics
model for helical gears’, J. Mech. Des., 2007, 129, (129), pp. 48–57
[11] Jiang, H., Shao, Y., Mechefske, C.K.: ‘Dynamic characteristics of helical
gears under sliding friction with spalling defect’, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2014, 39,
(4), pp. 92–107
[12] Bruyère, J., Gu, X., Velex, P.: ‘On the analytical definition of profile
modifications minimising transmission error variations in narrow-faced spur
helical gears’, Mech. Mach. Theory, 2015, 92, pp. 257–272
230
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
[13] Wan, Z., Cao, H., Zi, Y., et al.: ‘Mesh stiffness calculation using an
accumulated integral potential energy method and dynamic analysis of helical
gears’, Mech. Mach. Theory, 2015, 92, pp. 447–463
[14] Chen, Z., Shao, Y.: ‘Dynamic simulation of spur gear with tooth root crack
propagating along tooth width and crack depth’, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2011, 18,
(8), pp. 2149–2164
[15] Chen, Z., Zhai, W., Shao, Y., et al.: ‘Analytical model for mesh stiffness
calculation of spur gear pair with non-uniformly distributed tooth root crack’,
Eng. Fail. Anal., 2016, 66, pp. 502–514
[16] Simon, V.: ‘Load and stress distributions in spur and helical gears’, J. Mech.
Des., 1988, 110, (2), p. 197
[17] Simon, V.: ‘Tooth deflections of involute gears’. Symp. Mechanisms and
Machines, Subotica, 1985
[18] Yang, D.C.H., Sun, Z.S.: ‘A rotary model for spur gear dynamics’, J. Xian
Univ. Technol., 1985, 107, (4), pp. 529–535
[19] Sainsot, P., Velex, P., Duverger, O.: ‘Contribution of gear body to tooth
deflections – a new bidimensional analytical formula’, J. Mech. Des., 2004,
126, (4), pp. 748–752
[20] Chen, Z., Zhang, J., Zhai, W., et al.: ‘Improved analytical methods for
calculation of gear tooth fillet-foundation stiffness with tooth root crack’,
Eng. Fail. Anal., 2017, 82, pp. 72–81
J. Eng., 2019, Vol. 2019 Iss. 13, pp. 225-230
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)