ISSN: XXXX-XXXX Vol.

2 (3),
International Journal of Mechanical pp. 055-062, June, 2014. ©
Global Science Research Journals
Engineering

Full length Research Paper

Optimization of gear parameters by using genetic

algorithm
*T Raja1, Dawit Gebreamlak Teklemarian2 and GNA Senthil kumar3
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KIOT,Wollo University, Kombolcha (SW),Ethiopia
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KIOT,Wollo University, Kombolcha (SW), Ethiopia
3
Department of mechanical Engineering, Muthiyammal College of Engineering, India

th
Accepted 5 June, 2014

An analysis of the failed gear has been carried out. The fractured gear teeth were subjected to detailed
analysis using metallurgical techniques such as Visual Examination, Chemical composition analysis,
Micro hardness survey, Tensile strength analysis and Microstructure analysis of the failed gear were
carried out in the process to found out various root causes resulting for the failure of the gear. The
design of gear train is a kind of mixed problems which have to determine various types of design
variables; i,e., Continuous, Discrete, and Integer variables. In this study Genetic algorithm is introduced
for the optimum Design of gear train to solve such problems & propose a genetic algorithm based gear
design system. This system applied for simple planetary gear train to show Genetic algorithm is better
than the conventional algorithm. Their main demanded characteristics are like root fillet radius, face
width and rim thickness.

Keywords: Failed gear, microstructure, optimization, genetic algorithm

INTRODUCTION

Life expectancy of mechanical system is always
dependent on the most critical component of the system
(Arora, 1989). In power transmission it is customarily a
gear. Gear is a greatest discovery of mechanical power
transmission system. In which the gear failure occur due
to the various reasons like pitting, wear, corrosion and so
on. For avoiding the failure various process treatments
were carried out at the time of gear manufacturing but
due to lack of the behavior constraints of the gear
materials and design parameters the failure occurs over
and over again. To resolve the term optimization of the
gear is held in this task. This paper describes a detailed
elucidation of the failure root causes and the resolved
optimization process for the failed gear.
Corresponding Author’s Email: rajaktraja@gmail.com
Borisov, (2006). An analysis of the premature failure of
two counter shafts used in centrifugal pumps for lifting
slurry has been carried out Chemical analysis, micro
structural characterization, fractography, hardness
measurement were used for this analysis.
Xu, (2008) Fractography investigation on the cracked
teeth indicates that the crack origins are about 3 mm from
the groove and exhibits point-like features. The cracking
nature of the two gears attributes to the once
instantaneous cracking. Metallurgical analysis indicates
that cracking of the teeth occurred during the
carburization-quenching process. The presence of a
number of inclusion clusters consisting of Al 2O2 complex
inclusions in the crack origin zones is mainly responsible
for cracking of the gears. Gears are fundamental
components used in most machines and mechanical
machines or the systems. However, gear design to
professional standards, such as International Standard
Organization (ISO), American Gear Manufacturer
Int'l J. Mech. Eng. 056
Fig : Flow chart of Material testing
Association (AGMA) and British Standards (BS), is a
complicated task which makes gear design optimization
very difficult. The optimization of multiple parameters with
multiple objective functions for gear design (Opt MM
Gear) remains a challenging area to be Optimization of
gear design is an important issue for improving the
performance of the tackled. Conventional optimization
methods such as hill climbing and Newton-Raphson
methods are not suitable for Opt MMGear due to the
following reasons:
Gear tooth strength (tooth root bending and surface
failure, lubrication condition, etc) is an important rating
criterion for gear design optimization. The strength
calculations to ISO, AGMA, BS and other professional
standards are complicated. Many (often more than 50)
design parameters, which are related to tooth geometry,
material, lubricants, manufacture, etc, are involved in the
calculations (AGMA, 1988). These parameters are inter-
related and contribute to a combined effect on the tooth
strength; their relationship related to the combined effect
is almost impossible to be expressed explicitly. In most
cases, the relationships of the optimization parameters
with multiple objective functions can hardly be described
using mathematical equations suitable for traditional
optimization method. The searching space for OptMM
Gear is so large that exhaust search for a global optimum
is unfeasible.
The flow chart describes a brief idea about the
research slant uses in the failed gear. Based on the
methodology, the root causes for the failure held in the
gear was found out and the corrective action in terms of
optimization of the gear is taken out for the failed gear.
Figure 1 shows the flow chart of material testing.
Visual Examination
Visual Examination is one of the most prominent methods
of Non Destructive Testing (NDT).The condition of the
Fig 2: Failed gear
Table.1. Chemical composition
S.no Chemical Weight in
composition %
1 Carbon 0.756
2 Silicon 0.208
3 Sulphur 0.033
4 Nickel 0.101
5 Aluminium 0.049
gear after the failure is analyzed with the help of naked
eye. From the Visual Examination it is found out that the
failed gear consists of 22 teeth. In which most of the gear
tooth was broken out in the face region of the gear at
1/3rd of its face width. The observation of the failed gear
revealed that gear failure occurs due to the abrasive
wear. The surface of the failed gear is free from rust. The
failed gear taken for the study of visual examination is
shown in figure 2.
Material Identification
The subsequent task in the failure analysis was the
material identification. The material identification is an
important task since with the help of it the material
composition in its weight percentages, the alloying
element added and its effecting reaction, its behavior
according to the environmental aspects and its micro-
structure for diverse equipped temperatures are
effortlessly focused and found out in material
identification.
Chemical Composition
The next task in the failure analysis was the material
identification. The chemical composition analysis helps to
identify the basic composition of the raw material used
in the failed gear. For this a small piece of specimen is
cut-off and subjected to optical emission spectrometer
 Raja et al. 057

Table.2. Tensile testing specifications case region the microstructure shows a fine tempered
martensite distributed throughout the case.
S.no Specification Units
1. Machine number Mi utme 01
2. Model Fut 40 Fig.3. Micro structure case-100x
3. Capacity 400 KN
4. Range 0-200 KN
5. Accuracy +/- 1
Ambient
6. 27 deg.c
temperature

studies. Based on the chemical composition it is identified

as the gear is manufactured by EN-353. The base
material of failed gear is En-353 which is a low carbon
case hardened alloy steel .The chemical composition of
the failed gear is tabulated below in table1.

Tensile Testing Fig.4.Micro structure Core-100x

The specimen for tensile testing is prepared as a straight
sided and has a constant cross section with beveled tabs
at its ends. The tensile testing machines technical
specifications are tabulated. From the tensile test the
tensile strength of the failed gear is measured as 643.91
N/mm2 and the yield strength is about 469.49 N/ mm2 as
shown in table 2

Hardness Testing
Hardness is the resistance of a material to localized
deformation. The failed gear tooth is subjected to the
hardness test in Rockwell testing machine. The failed
gear is case hardened and its hardness is in the range of
28-29 HRC. The details about the hardness testing OP Optical Microscope
machine and its technical specifications are tabulated
below. The metallographic characterization of the failed gear
tooth was studied and analyzed with the assist of optical
Table.3. Hardness testing specifications microscopy examination .The examination is done by
means of high resolution optical microscope. For this
S. Technical Units
no specification evaluation, the pre- course of action is done in which the
1. Machine number Mi hard 24 gear tooth is cut-off and it chemically etched, at the same
time as it is an alloy steel the specimen is refined to a fine
2. Model Opfb 3000 finished state using standard techniques in order to
examine the inner structure of the failed gear. The
3. Ambient 28 deg.c
temperature
coloring agents are added to specimen to represent
approved shade to the accurate alloying element surplus
4. Scale C
in the failed gear tooth. The diverse shades of colors give
5. Load 150 kgf a brief proposal regarding to the alloying element mixed
and bonded mutually in the failed gear tooth. In addition it
shows the fine allocation of alloying elements throughout
Metallographic Analysis the surface and domination of the chief percentage of
alloying elements in the gear tooth.
Microstructure The microstructure of the gear is analyzed within the
The specimen is first ground, polished and etched using range of 100 X and 400X.The microstructure of the failed
standard techniques in order to examine the inner gear on the case region is shown in Figure 5
structure of the failed gear. The microstructure of the Initiation of outcome through the slant of failed gear,
failed gear held on both the case and core region in the Examination of the failed gear with visual examination
range of 100X. The microstructure results state that in the revealed that the gear tooth is failed due to the three
Int'l J. Mech. Eng. 058

Figure 5: Microstructure of Failed Gear KA : Application factor

KV : Internal dynamic factor
KFβ : Face load factor
KFα : Transverse load factor

Power = 22 hp
Number of teeth gear = 30
Diameter of gear =113.5 mm
Speed of gear = 72 rpm
Number of teeth pinion =16
Material
EN 353
15Nicr1Mo12

Module (m),
m = d/z
body abrasive wear and the gear tooth broken out = 113.5/30
through the entire gear tooth. The chemical composition m = 3.783 mm
of the failed gear shows that the gear is manufactured by
En-353. It is low carbon alloy steel consists of other Diameteral pitch,
elements like Nickel, Sulphur and Silicon. The presence pd = 1/m
of Si retains hardness of the gear tooth during tempering. = 1/3.783
Low value of Ni decline the toughness of alloy steel. The pd = 0.2
material composition is not within the specification limit
for consistent operating features of the gear tooth. From Gear ratio,
the hardness testing the material hardness is measured Z2
as in the range of 28-29 HRC which be evidence for an i=
Z1
inadequate hardness procedure held at the time of
manufacturing. Due to this the micro structural property
gets violated and at the end the gear failure occurs. To i = 1.875
rectify the causes the amend research slant is plotted.
Diameter of pinion,
Bending Stress Calculation = mz1
= 3.783×16
Standard codes = 60.528 mm
The most common method of gear design is based on
international gear standards such as AGMA ,where Speed of pinion N1,
formula for gear tooth bending stress calculations are N1
included . 1.875 =
72
Nominal bending stress,
N1 = 135 rpm
Ft
σF0 = YFYSYBYDT
bm
Direct bending stress, Torque transmitted by pinion,
σF = σF0 KAKVKFβKFα
60P
Mt =
where, 2 N2
σF0 : Nominal bending stress
σF : Direct bending stress
m : Module [Mt]=Mt.K.Kd. Assume K.Kd. = 1.2
b : Face width
Ft : Tangential force = [60×16.4054/2π×135]×1.2
YF : Form factor
YS : Stress correction factor = 1.160×1.2
= 1.508×103 N-mm
YB : Rim thickness factor
YDT : Deep tooth factor Addendum,
 Raja et al. 059

1 Da = pitch circle of diameter of gear + (2xaddendum)

a= = 113.5+ (2x3.783)
pd Da = 121.066 mm
a = 3.78 mm
Dedendum, Nominal bending stress,
1.25 Ft
= σF0 = YFYSYBYDT
pd bm
(YF = 1, and YS = 3 are constant)
1.25
= 45.81
0.2643 = × 1×3×3.2×1.1
b = 4.729 mm 47  3.783
2
= 0.54415 N/mm
Clearance,
Direct bending stress,
0.25
C= σF = σF0 KAKVKFβKFα
pd = 0.54415×1× 1.146 × 1.086 × 1
σF = 1.076110759 N/mm2
0.25
=
0.2643 Similarly those calculations
= 0.945 σF = 1.076110759N/mm2 (b= 47, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
Center distance, σF = 1.143368918 N/mm 2 (b= 47, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
= DG+DP/2 σF = 1.18339553 N/mm2 (b= 47, YB =3.52 ,YF YS =3)
= 113.5+60.3/2 σF = 1.053526573 N/mm 2 (b= 48, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
= 86.9 mm σF = 1.119439964 N/mm 2 (b= 48, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
σF = 1.159031506 N/mm2 (b= 48, YB =3.52 ,YF YS =3)
2
Pitch line velocity, σF = 1.0322088051 N/mm (b= 49, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
2
d1n1 σF = 1.09659869 N/mm (b= 49, YB =3.24,YF YS =3)
V= σF = 1.135320088 N/mm2 (b= 49, YB =3.52 ,YF YS =3)
60  1000 σF = 1.011542136 N/mm 2 (b= 50, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
  60.528  135 σF = 1.07462756 N/mm2 (b= 50, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
= σF = 1.11269635 N/mm2 (b= 50, YB =3.52 ,YF YS =3)
60  1000 σF = 1.255399928 N/mm2 (b= 47, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
V = 0.428 m/s σF = 1.333930404 N/mm2 (b= 47, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
Tangential force on gear tooth, σF = 1.380918168 N/mm 2 (b= 47, YB =3.52 ,YF YS=3)
Mt 2.6  133 σF = 1.229295615 N/mm2 (b= 48, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
FT = = σF = 1.306085803 N/mm2 (b= 48, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
d 113.5
2 2 σF = 1.361992541 N/mm2 (b= 48, YB =3.52 ,YF YS =3)
2
FT = 45.81 N σF = 1.204278982 N/mm (b= 49, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
Fr = FT×tanα σF = 1.279328882 N/mm2 (b= 49, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
= 45.81×20 σF = 1.324576358 N/mm2 (b= 49, YB =3.52 ,YF YS=3)
= 16.67 N σF = 1.180132492 N/mm2 (b= 50, YB =3.2 ,YF YS =3)
σF = 1.257832376 N/mm2 (b= 50, YB =3.4 ,YF YS =3)
Resultant force, σF=1.298036973N/mm2 (b=50, YB=3.52, YF YS=3)
Ft Optimization Program
FR =
cos  Gear Strength Calculation Program
45.81 namespace Gear
= {
cos 20 public partial class Form1 : Form
= 48.75 N {
double BS;
Tooth height, double CS;
H = Addendum + Dedendum Double DBS;
= 3.783+4.729
= 8.212 mm public Form1()
{
Tip circle diameter of gear,
Int'l J. Mech. Eng. 060

InitializeComponent(); Figure 6: Geometry parameters of the initial design

}

private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventA

{

{//ISO Workin

double FaceWidth, BackupRatio, RootFiletRadius;

FaceWidth = double.Parse(textBox1.Text);
BackupRatio = double.Parse(textBox2.Text);
RootFiletRadius = double.Parse(textBox3.Text);
BS = (45.81 * BackupRatio * RootFiletRadius * 1.1) /
(FaceWidth * 3.783);
textBox4.Text = " " + PS;
increases the time taken to achieve the solution.
Therefore, the recommended values for the Gas are
//Direct Bending Stress finding
provided as an initial trial, and the user can modify them
DBs = BS * 1 * 1.146 * 1.086 * 1.589;
later if the solution is not satisfactory. If a quick solution is
textBox6.Text = "" + DBs;
required this can be achieved by reducing the
population size and number of tests. The optimization
//Compressive Stress Finding results shown in Table 3.4
double t = (45.81 * 1.75 * 2.1 * 1 * 1.1) / (FaceWidth
* 60.3 * 0.082);
cs = 25 * Math.Sqrt(t); RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
textBox5.Text = " " + cs;
Effect of root fillet radius
}
The influence of the root fillet radius on the bending
stress is summarized in figure 7 Bending stress increases
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
as the root fillet radius decreases, and the effects of root
{
fillet radius calculated by genetic algorithm are similar to
double b;
those obtained by the formulas of the standards. This
study investigated comparatively larger root fillet radius
// German Method Working
up to 3.25, which results in notable stress reduction.
// bending Stress finding
b = double.Parse(textBox1.Text);
BS = ((1.875 + 1) / (86.9 * 3.783 * b * 0.44)) * (1.508 * 4.2. Backup Ratio
1000);
The rim thickness is not sufficient to provide full support
for the tooth root, the location of bending fatigue may be
textBox4.Text = " " + BS;
through the gear rim rather than at the root fillet or critical
section. In such cases, the use of a stress modifying
//Compressive Stress
factor YB is recommended. This factor, the rim thickness
factor YB, adjust the bending stress for thin rimmed gear.
Double sq = Math.Sqrt(((1.875 + 1) / (1.875 * b)) * 2.5
It is the function of backup ratio. It is defined as the ratio
Math.Pow(10, 5) * (1.508) * Math.Pow(10, 3));
of rim thickness below the tooth root to the whole depth
cs = 0.74 * ((1.875 + 1) / 86.9) * sq; of the tooth.
textBox5.Text = " " + cs;
4.3. Effect of Rim Thickness
Genetic Optimization of Spur Gear
The influence of the rim thickness on the bending stress
is summarized in figure 4.2. It seems that the effect of the
The initial design provides the starting point of the
backup ratio above 3.2 may be negligible as indicated in
optimization search, as shown in figure 3.4. Increasing
the standards. However, effect of the backup ratio below
the population size increases the resolution of the search
3.2 may be considerably overestimated. So that sudden
process with regard to the search area. However
failure due to a crack through the rim thickness is prone
increasing the population increases the time taken for the
to occur in case of backup ratio in figure 8.Thus the
process to converge upon solution. It thus increases the current standards seem to be conservative, as the
ability of the GA to obtain the optimum solution. A large backup ratio becomes smaller although the bending
number of tests may leads to a better solution; however it
stress is not a direct cause of the rim through crack.
 Raja et al. 061

Table.4. Optimization Results Figure 7: Nominal Bending Stress Vs Root Fillet Radius

Face
Backup Root NBS DBS CS
width
45.5 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.41 22.68
46 4 0.3 0.35 0.69 22.56
46.5 4.5 0.4 0.52 1.02 22.44
47 5 0.5 0.71 1.4 22.32
47.5 5.5 0.6 0.93 1.83 22.2
48 6 0.7 1.17 2.3 22.08
48.5 6.5 0.8 1.43 2.82 21.97
49 7 0.9 1.71 3.39 21.86
49.5 7.5 1 2.02 3.99 21.75
50 8 1.1 2.34 4.64 21.64
50.5 8.5 1.2 2.69 5.32 21.53
51 9 1.3 3.06 6.04 21.42
51.5 9.5 1.4 3.44 6.8 21.32 Figure 8: Direct bending stress Vs Backup ratio
52 10 1.5 3.84 7.6 21.22
52.5 10.5 1.6 4.26 8.43 21.12
53 11 1.7 4.7 9.29 21.02
53.5 11.5 1.8 5.15 10.19 20.92
54 12 1.9 5.62 11.12 20.82
54.5 12.5 2 6.11 12.08 20.72
55 13 2.1 6.61 13.08 20.63
55.5 13.5 2.2 7.13 14.1 20.54
56 14 2.3 7.66 15.15 20.44
56.5 14.5 2.4 8.2 16.23 20.35
57 15 2.5 8.76 17.33 20.26
57.5 15.5 2.6 9.34 18.46 20.18
58 16 2.7 9.92 19.62 20.09
58.5 16.5 2.8 10.52 20.8 20
59 17 2.9 11.13 22.01 19.92
59.5 17.5 3 11.75 23.24 19.83
60 18 3.1 12.39 24.5 19.75
60.5 18.5 3.2 13.03 25.78 19.67
61 19 3.3 13.69 27.08 19.59 CONCLUSION
61.5 19.5 3.4 14.36 28.4 19.51
62 20 3.5 15.04 29.74 19.43 Examination of the failed gear with visual examination
62.5 20.5 3.6 15.73 31.11 19.35 revealed that the gear tooth is failed due to the three
63 21 3.7 16.43 32.49 19.28 body abrasive wear. The chemical composition failed
63.5 21.5 3.8 17.14 33.89 19.2 gear shows that gear is manufactured by En-353. It is low
64 22 3.9 17.86 35.32 19.12 carbon alloy steel consists of other elements like Nickel,
64.5 22.5 4 18.59 36.76 19.05
Sulphur, and Silicon. From the hardness testing the
65 23 4.1 19.32 38.22 18.98
material hardness is measured as in the range of 28-29
HRC. The tensile test results that the tensile strength of
65.5 23.5 4.2 20.07 39.69 18.9 2
the material is about 643.91 N/mm . The microstructure
66 24 4.3 20.83 41.19 18.83
of the failed gear tooth is analyzed both in case and core
66.5 24.5 4.4 21.59 42.7 18.76
regions the both regions shows a fine structure on the
67 25 4.5 22.37 44.23 18.69
process of failed gear. From the above result it is clearly
67.5 25.5 4.6 23.15 45.78 18.62
conforming that the gear occur due the violation of design
68 26 4.7 23.94 47.34 18.55 parameters and inadequate of the hardness held in the
68.5 26.5 4.8 24.74 48.92 18.49 case of the gear surface at the time of manufacturing. To
69 27 4.9 25.54 50.51 18.42 prevent the violation occur the gear design the gear
69.5 27.5 5 26.35 52.12 18.35 parameters should be optimized. In this study, the
70 28 5.1 27.17 53.74 18.29 influence of rim thickness and root fillet radius on bending
70.5 28.5 5.2 28 55.38 18.22 stress was investigated for spur gear. The bending stress
was calculated with variation of backup ratio and root fillet
Int'l J. Mech. Eng. 062

radius by GA to compare with standard AGMA. It was Goldberg, David E, “Genetic Algorithms in search, optimization &
machine learning,” Addison Wesley, 1989.
found that the consideration of backup ratio, root fillet Borisov DP and Goncharova VV (2006). Analysis of the premature
radius and face width in the standard was reasonable for failure of two counter shafts used in centrifugal pumps.
the concerned spur gear in the range of backup ratio H.Bayrakceken*, Failure Analysis of an Automobile differential shaft,
above 3.2 mm, the range of face width 47 mm. However Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 1422-1428
the rim thickness effect was overestimated in the range of Fatigue and fracture. ASM handbook, vol.19. Metals park (OH):
American Society for Metals; 1996.
a backup ratio between 2 mm and 3.2 mm. The bending PSG Design Data Book.
stress could become larger through the interaction of rim Xiao-lei, Zhi-wei Yu, Yu-ming Gao, Tie-Nan Wang , Crack failure of
thickness and root fillet radius in a very low backup ratio gears used in generating electricity equipments by wind power,
Engineering Failure Analysis 15 (2008) 935-945.
and small fillet radius. nd
Reed-Hill RE. Physical metallurgy principles,2 ed. Monterey.
Krauss G. Bending fatigue of carburised steels. In: Fatigue and
Fracture, ASM Handbook, vol. 19.
REFERENCES Kyung-Eun Ko*, Do-Hyeong Lim, Pan-Young Kim and Jinsoo Park A
study on the bending stress of the hollow sun gear in a planetary
Arora, Jasbir S., “Introduction to Optimum Design,” McGraw-Hill, 1989 gear train.
Lin CY and Hajela P, "Genetic Algorithms in Optimization Problems with American Gear Manufactures Association, AGMA2001-B88,
Discrete and Integer Design Variables," Eng., Opt., Vol.19, pp. “Fundamental Rating factors and Calculation Methods for involutes
309-327, 1992. Spur and Helical Gear Teeth,” 1988.