Original Article

J Strain Analysis
1–11
Ó IMechE 2021
A modified damping model of vector Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
form intrinsic finite element method DOI: 10.1177/03093247211018820
journals.sagepub.com/home/sdj

for high-speed spiral bevel gear

dynamic characteristics analysis

Xiangying Hou1,2 , Yuzhe Zhang1,2, Hong Zhang1,2, Jian Zhang1,2,

Zhengminqing Li1,2 and Rupeng Zhu1,2

Abstract
The vector form intrinsic finite element (VFIFE) method is springing up as a new numerical method in strong non-linear
structural analysis for its good convergence, but has been constricted in static or transient analysis. To overwhelm its
disadvantages, a new damping model was proposed: the value of damping force is proportional to relative velocity
instead of absolute velocity, which could avoid inaccuracy in high-speed dynamic analysis. The accuracy and efficiency of
the proposed method proved under low speed; dynamic characteristics and vibration rules have been verified under high
speed. Simulation results showed that the modified VFIFE method could obtain numerical solutions with good efficiency
and accuracy. Based on this modified method, high-speed vibration rules of spiral bevel gear pair under different loads
have been concluded. The proposed method also provides a new way to solve high-speed rotor system dynamic
problems.

Keywords
Spiral bevel gear pair, vector form intrinsic finite element method, modified dynamic damping model, convergence and
accuracy, gear high-speed vibration

Date received: 21 January 2021; accepted: 20 April 2021

Introduction numbers of researchers focus their attention on trans-

To meet people’s requirements with modern life, high-
speed, light weight, low vibration, and low noise are
becoming the predictable development orientation for
mechanical equipment. Gear transmission system, that
is wildly used in vehicles, aerospace, and other fields, is
also facing harsh design restrictions. Thus, it is becom-
ing increasingly important to simulate and predict high-
speed responses of transmission system precisely as well
as other rotor systems.
Spiral bevel gear (SBG), one of the most complex
gears, is usually used as the first stage in transmission
system due to its stability, capacity, and space-saving
specialty. Due to its complex spatial curved profile,
dynamic contact force, dynamic transmission error,
and other dynamic mechanical indexes are rather more
difficult to predict precisely. Heavy-duty, high-speed,
and lightweight condition makes the dynamical beha-
vior simulation of SBG (as well as other complex rotor
systems) face severe challenges. Therefore, increasing
mission system dynamics and dynamic simulation
method improvement. Up to now, finite element
method (FEM), lumped-mass method (LMM), or the
combinations of the two methods (as well as their
improvements) are the most widely used methods to
deal with gear transmission system dynamics.
Taking a panoramic view of recently published lit-
eratures, we could find that researchers and experts are
1
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Nanjing University of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China
2
National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Helicopter
Transmission, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing, China
Corresponding author:
Hou Xiangying, College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering/National
Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Helicopter Transmission,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 29 Yudao Street,
Nanjing 210016, China.
Email: houxiangying@126.com
2 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
establishing new models or methods to describe system
dynamics more precisely. Taking flexibilities of shafts
and bearings into consideration and coupling shafts
finite element models and gear LMM non-linear
dynamic models, Yavuz et al.1 analyzed transmission
system (spur, helical, and spiral bevel gears) dynamics.
Peng built an integrated drivetrain coupling analysis
model considering significant time-varying non-torque
loads based on an aeroelastic loose coupling approach
and assembly of the finite element method.2 Wang
et al.3 presented a general system-structure coupling
dynamic analysis procedure to analyze the dynamic
performance of planetary gears where the influences of
system parameters and structure dimensions are con-
sidered at the same time. Hu and Fang4 combined
curved beam model with loaded tooth contact analysis
to build gear system dynamic model. Zhu et al.5 used
substructure method to extract the dynamic parameters
from the gearbox’s finite element model and build
spiral bevel gear-shaft-bearing-gearbox coupling sys-
tem. Liu et al.6,7 introduces an improved model gener-
ated by hybrid user-defined element method (HUELM)
for dynamic analysis of a double-helical gear pair to
balance computing time and accuracy. It is obvious
that increasing numbers of researchers focus on the
structural flexibility of the transmission system.8–10
Accurate excitation analysis is also a way to improve
dynamic analysis precision. Neubauer et al.11 proposed
the design of inequidistant gears and a method to cal-
culate the gear mesh stiffness and mesh forces to guar-
antee dynamics simulation accuracy, which is also
compared with experiments. Chen12 proposed a new
dynamic model of a helical gear pair system, consider-
ing three-dimensional motion due to bearing deforma-
tion to provide more accurate dynamic responses than
those previous models which are considered as con-
stant. Meng et al.13 established a dynamic gear model
considering fault characteristics analysis of gear based
on time-varying mesh stiffness to approximate gear
failures. Nonlinear oil-film force and stiffness are
added into gear dynamic equations by researchers to
improve simulating accuracy14,15; similarly, coupling
effects between surface wear and dynamics of gear sys-
tems were also studied.16,17 Huangfu et al.18 considered
the thin rim structure and gear tooth modifications and
built a three-dimensional dynamic model and wear pre-
diction model. Chen et al.19 proposed a comprehensive
and general analytical gear mesh model to improve
dynamic analysis precision by considering all the defor-
mations including the teeth and the gear body
structure.
When it comes to high-speed transmission system,
experimental studies and LMM simulation become
major approaches while structural vibrations are usu-
ally disregarded. Liu et al.20 considered the flexibility
of the ring and carrier, proposed a hybrid model for
the helical planetary gear set that operates at high and
variable speed conditions, but the rotational speed was
less than 10,000 rpm. Li21 developed FEM software to
calculate centrifugal deformations and centrifugal stres-
ses of the thin-walled gear by a cantilever model at
speed range 5000 to 40,000 rpm. Guilbert et al.22 ana-
lyzed the effect of centrifugal effects on high-speed
(28,650 rpm) thin-rimmed gears by an original hybrid
gear model which combines lumped parameter ele-
ments, finite elements, and condensed substructures
along with a mortar-based mesh interface. Lin et al.23
proposed a new type of curve-face gear pair for high
speed transmission and discussed the dynamic impacts.
According to the existing literature review, it is not
difficult to conclude that lightweight structure, strong
non-linear vibration, fracture, and high-speed dynamics
are becoming research hotspots. Current researches
developed some new models and methods to realize
structure mechanical behavior simulation and have
made some progress, especially in non-linear dynamic
excitations, tooth profile design, and dynamic behavior
control. However, high-speed flexible-structure
dynamics are neglected or over-simplified because of
the limitations of current simulation methods24: (1)
FEM is used more for static and transient analysis than
high-speed system dynamics because of its convergence
and computing amount; (2) lumped-mass method sim-
plifies the system as spring-damper-mass model to
reduce computing complexity, which would decrease
calculation accuracy and lose structural vibration char-
acteristics; (3) the combination of the two method try
to combine the merits of FEM and LMM, but inevita-
bly demerits are gathered together.
Being widely used for non-linear structural
mechanics in civil engineering, vector form intrinsic
finite element (VFIFE) method is showing its advan-
tages in non-linear and high-speed problems. But lim-
ited by damping model, element model and control
equation, this method application is usually restricted
to civil structural static analysis.25–28 The author has
already simplified the hexahedral element and accom-
plishes SBG static analysis in the former study.24 Based
on former research, this paper proposed a damping
model and a control equation to simulate high-speed
SBG dynamics with whole-mesh model balancing com-
puting time and simulating accuracy, which would
offer a new method to solve high-speed dynamic prob-
lems in future rotor system analysis.
The paper is organized as follows: The basic theory
of modified VFIFE method and dynamic damping
model are established in Section 2. Spiral bevel gear
meshing theory, mesh model, and tooth contact analy-
sis (TCA) are conducted in Section 3. In Section 4, the
dynamic results of SBG with low rotational speed
(500 rpm) are simulated by modified VFIFE method,
whose results are also compared to that of FEM to ver-
ify the computing accuracy and efficiency of proposed
method. Section 5 discusses vibration characteristics of
the SBG system with high rotational speed (15,000 rpm)
using modified VFIFE method, whose results are com-
pared to that of LMM to demonstrate the accuracy and
rationality of the proposed method. Eventually, in
Hou et al.
Figure 1. Solution procedure of pure nodal deformation.
Section 6, we draw the conclusions to summarize char-
acteristics of the proposed method.
Basic theory of modified VFIFE method
and dynamic damping model of SBG
For traditional VFIFE method, the model is discretized
into mass points and massless elements with dynamic
equation:
x = P + f + fd
m€
m, x€, P, f is the mass, acceleration, external, and
internal force respectively. fd =  zmx_ is virtual damp-
ing force with virtual damping coefficient z . 0.
The control equation (1) is proposed for static analy-
sis, which means the value of damping force (depends
on damping coefficient and absolute velocity) has little
influence on convergence results. When it comes to
high-speed dynamic analysis, the control equation and
damping model become inapplicable. Thus, this Section
introduces a simplified 3-D hexahedral element theory
and a control equation with a new damping model,
which would lay the foundation of the SBG dynamic
simulation.
3
Modified VFIFE method
Due to computing complexity and spatial structural
features, the author proposed a simplified 3-D hexahe-
dral element theory to diminish computing amount,
which has been proved by comparison with FEM.24
The solving process of pure nodal deformation can
be illustrated by Figure 1, in which three steps are
needed to calculate pure nodal deformation: (1) point
coincidence; (2) line coincidence; and (3) face coinci-
dence. As shown in Figure 1, black hexahedron and
ð1Þ
red hexahedron represents the element before and after
deformation respectively with superscript 0 and n.
Choose one node as the reference point as well as the
origin of a local coordinate system (we deformation a
as the reference point in this paper). The first step
‘‘point coincidence’’ (Figure 1(a) and (b)) means to
make two reference points coincident by translating,
which could be expressed by:
Du = una  u0a ð2Þ
In which, u is the position vector of nodes while
superscript n means the final position with deforma-
tionthe initial position 0 means initial position without
4 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)

deformation. Subscript a represents the point number
in the element. After the first step of translation, new
position of element with superscript # is shown in
Figure 1(b).
The second step ‘‘side coincidence’’ (Figure 1(b) and
(c)) means to superpose side ab and a#b# by rotating
the deformed element (the red element), while rotation
angle u1 is between side ab and a#b# and the rotation
axis vec1 can be calculated by vector ab and a#b#:
ab3ab0
vec1 =
jab3ab0 j
cost to unacceptable levels; (2) using the larger damping
coefficient to accelerate the the convergent process
would result in distortion of computational solution
due to over-large damping forces.
Inspired by meshing damping model used in
lumped-mass method, we decided to use relative velo-
city of meshing surfaces instead of absolute velocity to
describe the damping force. Section 2.2 would intro-
duce: (1) basic contact model and (2) how to define
relative velocity and damping force. More detailed
information is available in reference.24
ð3Þ

Contact model. It is easy to find the specialty of gear

The third step ‘‘surface coincidence’’ (Figure 1(c) meshing and surface contact: (1) contact surface is cer-
and (d)) means to superpose surface abd and a#b#d# by tain and simple repeating (tooth profile); (2) contact
rotating the deformed element (the red element). deformation is regarded as elastic deformation; (3)
Similarly, the rotation angle u1 is calculated by normal small contact deformation reduces the difficulty of non-
vectors (nabd and nabd00 ) of surface abd and a#b#d# and linear computational convergence as well as contact
the rotation axis vec2 is also obtained: search. From these characteristics, we determine to
8 apply master-slave algorithm and inside-outside algo-
> ab3ad
>
> nabd = rithm for global search and local search respectively.
>
> j ab3ad j
>
> The master-slave algorithm was firstly proposed to
< 00
ab3ad solve the contact behavior of contact-impact problem
nabd00 = ð4Þ
>
> jab3ad00 j and widely used in finite element software.29 In this
>
>
>
> nabd 3nabd00 method, two contact surfaces are defined as master face
>
: vec2 =  
nabd 3n 00 abd
and slave face, on which nodes are master nodes and
slave nodes. The core idea of inside-outside local search
algorithm is judging the master node located in or out
For any rotational axis vec with rotational angle u, the effective region of the element using vectors, as
the rotational matrix R could be written as: detailed in reference.30
R(  u) = ½1  cos(  u)V2 + sin(  u)V ð5Þ
Relative velocity and damping model. As discussed in the
2 3 preceding Section, damping force defined by is
0  vecz vecy
fd =  zmx_ not suitable for high-speed rotor dynamics.
where V = 4 vecz 0  vecx 5 and
vecy vecx 0 Therefore, a relative velocity damping force model is
proposed in this paper.
vec = ½vecx vecy vecz T . Rotational matrix R1 or R2 It is not difficult to find that velocity x_ used in static
corresponding to vec1 or vec2 could be calculated by analysis is a simplified equation of a complete expres-
equation (5). sion, which means x_ is the velocity difference between
Finally, the pure nodal deformation of the element is transient state and static state, or more precisely, velo-
obtained (as shown in Figure 1(d)): city difference between transient state and steady state.
Damping model could be redefined by fd =  jDx_ in
qi = u0i  u000 i (i = a, b, c, :::g, h) ð6Þ this way. j is damping ratio and Dx_ = x_ t  x_ t steady rep-
resents velocity difference. Since x_ t steady is a fluctuating
000
in which ui represents deformation coordinates of value for dynamics, theoretical velocity x_ theo could be
node i. used to replace x_ t steady and Dx_ could be written as
Dx_ = x_ t  x_ theo . For node i, the relative velocity is
obtained:
Establishing of dynamic damping model of gear
dynamics Dx_ = x_ t  x_ i theo = x_ t  vtheo 3ri ð7Þ
The traditional damping model defined in equation (1),
which is proportional to the magnitude of velocity with in which, ri is rotation radius of node i, vtheo is
opposite directions, is not applicable for dynamics anal- theoretical angular velocity at time t, for gear
ysis because: (1) damping coefficient is usually less than vtheo = vgt , for pinion vtheo = vpt . Angular velocity
0.1 and low damping coefficient could reduce the rate norm vgt and vpt at time t could be calculated by nodes
of convergence greatly which multiply the computing on gear body:
Hou et al. 5

Figure 2. Contact patterns and transmission errors obtained by TCA: (a) contact patterns of gear, (b) contact patterns of pinion,
and (c) transmission errors.

Table 1. Basic parameters. Table 2. Machine-tool settings.

Items Pinion Gear Items Pinion Gear

Tooth number 27 79 Concave Convex

Modulus (mm) 3.15 3.15
Pressure angle (°) 20 20 Profile angle (°) 20 20 20
Mean spiral angle (°) 30 30 Point radius (mm) 94.01 96.18 94.26
Face width (mm) 30 30 Cutter diameter (mm) 152.4 190.5
Shaft angle (°) 90 90 Cradle angle (°) 250.44 248.81 50.16
Mean cone distance 116.49 116.49 Radial distance 104.53 108.77 107.42
Hand of spiral Right Left Blank offset 1.41 20.62 0
Pitch angle (°) 18.87 71.13 Machine center to back 21.16 20.13 0
Root angle 17.9 72.1 Sliding base 0.41 0.10 20.50
Addendum (mm) 3.34 1.32 Machine root angle 17.90 69.44
Dedendum (mm) 1.91 3.94

P
m P
n Tooth contact analysis (TCA)
ngk npj
k=1 j=1 In this part, we build a series of mesh models that are
vgt = , vpt = ð8Þ meshing in different meshing positions divided from
rgk  m rpj  n
the entrance meshing position to the exit meshing posi-
tion. Meshing equation was established and the solving
where m and n represent the number of body nodes
results are shown in Figure 2 based on the parameters
(represented by k and j) on gear and pinion, vgk and vpj
in Tables 1 and 2.
are velocity magnitudes, rgk and rpj are radius of rota-
The contact ellipse major axis is considered when the
tion axis.
gears are under a small load, and the elastic deforma-
Therefore, we could define damping force as:
tion is 0.00635 mm. The contact path is calculated and
fdi =  j  Dx_ i =  j(x_ t  vtheo 3ri ) ð9Þ the relative transmission error curve is calculated with-
out elastic deformation. The transmission error unit is
Then the damping model was established. arc-second and unit of rotational angle is degree.
Plug equation (9) into equation (1) and the control
equation could be written as:
Models and settings
x = P + f  j  Dx_
m€ ð10Þ
According to TCA results and modeling method, the
mesh model of spiral bevel gear pair could be obtained
Basic model of SBG and tooth contact meeting assembly conditions, as shown in Figure 3.
analysis After installation, the gear and pinion both take the
right meshing position. Nodes inside body have been
Basic parameters and machine-tool settings imposed restrictions (as highlighted in Figure 5): both
Based on the design method of spiral bevel gears,31–33 pinion and gear release the rotational DOF of rota-
basic parameters and machine-tool settings and were tional axis while rotational speed and load torque are
designed and list in Tables 1 and 2. applied on pinion and gear respectively.
6 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
Figure 3. Mesh model and constraint conditions.
Table 3. Element number and node number.
VFIFE FEM dynamic FEM static
model model model
Element number 133 660 1176
(one tooth surface)
Node number 160 720 1250
(one tooth surface)
These models are calculated with the following mate-
rial properties: elastic modulus E = 2:063105 MPa,
Poisson’s ratio m = 0:29, and applied torques on gear
are 1500 Nm. Since these analyses are carried out under
static condition, the friction between teeth surfaces had
a less effect and was ignored.
Verification of the proposed method with
low-speed condition
After installation, nodes inside body have been imposed
restrictions (as highlighted in Figure 3): both pinion
and gear release the rotational DOF of rotational axis
while rotational speed and load torque are applied on
pinion and gear respectively. Pinion rotational speed is
500 r/min for low-speed dynamic analysis.
SBG shows different dynamic characteristic under
different working conditions. Since it is difficult to con-
duct high-speed simulation for FEM, this paper pre-
sented two different working conditions to verify the
accuracy and efficiency of proposed method: low-speed
and high-speed conditions with the same load torque.
For low-speed condition, dynamic responses are consis-
tent with static analysis, thus static analysis results are
compared with results of VFIFE method and finite ele-
ment method to validate accuracy and efficiency of the
proposed method.
Finite element model and boundary conditions
To balance computing efficiency and accuracy, an
appropriate element number and node number is deter-
mined, as shown in Table 3. For dynamic analysis,
coarse mesh would contribute to computing efficiency;
Figure 4. Contact force curves.
refined mesh would ensure simulating accuracy for sta-
tic finite element analysis, whose result should be used
as a reference. As discussed in former study that
VFIFE is much less sensitive in mesh density than
FEM,24 sparse meshes is applied in VFIFE model.
Different mesh densities are used in different methods
to balance computing efficiency and accuracy.
Results comparisons among VFIFE (dynamic), FEM
(dynamic), and FEM (static)
Contact force. Contact forces of dynamic model simu-
lated by VFIFE method and FEM were shown in
Figure 4, compared to static simulation result. The
abscissa has been nondimensionalized to intercept the
same meshing period ensuring the comparability of
numeral data.
Figure 4 illustrates that the contact force obtained
by modified VFIFE method and static analysis is basi-
cally the same, but dynamic contact force is about
0.33% larger than static contact force (average value),
which is reasonable. The contact force curve fluctuation
simulated by VFIFE is caused by different algorithms
and time-varying dynamic excitations. By contrast,
dynamic contact force obtained by FEM is rather
coarse: there are 1.2% and 2.9% relative errors for
amplitude value and average value between dynamic
and static analysis even though the finite element
method remains the same. It could be deduced from the
data that VFIFE method would achieve better accuracy
under the same mesh condition.
Contact stress. Contact stress could be also calculated
according to contact force which is presented by contact
force curve in Figure 5. Contact stress curves simulated
by three methods represent contact stress changing
Hou et al.
Figure 5. Contact stress curves.
process for one tooth from entering into meshing to
seceding from meshing. The figure illustrates that con-
tact stresses obtained by the three methods have the
same trend, and the curve of the modified VFIFE
method is very similar to the results of static analysis
and FEM dynamics with errors 20% and 4.5% (for
peak values). Dynamic contact stress of dynamic analy-
sis is about 15% higher than that of static analysis,
which agrees well with general experience.
Contact stress pattern. Taking one tooth profile as the
research object, there is a contact stress value for each
element facet in each calculating step. Then contact
stress pattern is obtained based on the maximum value
of each node to illustrate the maximum contact stress
distribution during the whole meshing process. It could
be easy to conclude that contact stress patterns
obtained by VFIFE method and static finite element
method have similar distributions, change trends, and
stress values. Furthermore, the pattern obtained by
modified VFIFE method is much smoother, which
means less sudden changes and higher stability. Figure
6(a) and (b) shares the same scale.
Bending stress. Bending stresses calculated by three
methods are shown in Figure 7(a) and (b) respectively.
The figure shows that bending stress curves have simi-
lar trends and values for three different methods for
either pinion or gear. For bending stress of pinion,
VFIFE and FEM (dynamic) have 3.72% and 3.67%
error compared to static FEM; while the relative errors
are 8.7% and 12.7% for gear bending stresses. The
error of the proposed method is proved acceptable.
Transmission error. Transmission error curves calculated
by three methods under low speed conditions are dis-
played in Figure 8. For FEM dynamic analysis, the
average value is about 254.13 arc-second with relative
7
Figure 6. Contact stress patterns: (a) FEM static analysis and
(b) VFIFE dynamic analysis.
errors 10.5% compared to static FEM results with an
average value 260.51. For VFIFE simulation results,
the average value is 264.28 arc-second with relative
errors about 6.22%. Fluctuation amplitude shows a
rather significant error which may be caused by con-
straint boundaries, computing algorithms, and model
differences.
Transmission error represents deformation which
should have the same trend with contact force (Figure
4). This trend validates reasonability of simulation
results indirectly. The fluctuation value of VFIFE
method might be influenced by computing algorithms
and constraint conditions. Nevertheless, the calculation
result of the modified VFIFE method is reliable.
In this section, modified VFIFE method, static
FEM, and dynamic FEM are used to simulate gear
meshing responses, such as contact force, bending stress
and transmission error, etc. It is found that the relative
error between modified VFIFE method and static
FEM does not exceed 10% under low speed conditions,
which verifies the good accuracy of this method. The
above analysis provides a basis for applying the modi-
fied VFIFE method to high-speed conditions for
numerical solutions. It should be pointed out that
VFIFE method has poor computing speed in low-speed
simulation problems, which takes about 20 h to finish
the simulation.
High-speed simulation results
Since it is difficult for FEM to deal with high-speed
rotational analysis (supercomputing center maybe
needed), this paper compared simulation results
between VFIFE and LMM to verify accuracy and sta-
bility of the proposed method under 15,000 r/min rota-
tional speed.
Simulation model and boundary conditions
To ensure comparability between different methods
and models, LMM model is defined as purely torsional
8 Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
Figure 7. Bending stress curves: (a) pinion and (b) gear.
Figure 8. Transmission errors.
concentrated parameter model, as shown in Figure 9.
Input excitations of LMM are obtained by static FEM
analysis, including transmission error, meshing stiff-
ness, and contact force etc. Because of a large number
of literature studied on spiral bevel gear dynamics based
on LMM,34–36 dynamic equations are not detailed in
this article.
Due to ignorance of structural feature, LMM could
not derive stress data or contact pattern. Therefore,
contact force, displacement and acceleration are sum-
marized to illustrate dynamic simulation results.
Analysis of dynamic responses
Contact force. Contact force curves are shown in Figure
10, which shows that the contact force obtained by the
two methods of modified VFIFE method and LMM
Figure 9. Dynamics model of lumped mass method.
has the same changing trend, which shows the same
meshing impact process and fluctuations. The relative
error of the modified VFIFE method compared with
LMM is about 3.8% and 2.8% for peak and average
value. But the curve of LMM is smoother than that of
VFIFE because of different solving process.
Vibration displacement along meshing line. The calculation
curves of vibration displacement along meshing line are
shown in Figure 11. For LMM, displacement along
meshing line could be calculated directly while it should
be conducted by rotational angles approximately for
VFIFE method.
The average values of VFIFE and FEM are
3:143105 and 3:333105 with relative error 6.05%.
Hou et al.
Figure 10. Dynamic contact force curves.
Figure 11. Vibration displacement along meshing line.
But fluctuation error is obvious which may be caused
by model and constraints: constraints on gear body, to
a great extent, limit deformation of gear body. If the
constraints were applied on web structure, the fluctua-
tion of vibration displacements would be much larger.
Besides, high frequency oscillation occurred in VFIFE
analysis is due to contact and constraint algorithm,
which do not exist in LMM.
Vibration acceleration along meshing line. Vibration accel-
eration along meshing line could be also calculated
referring to the calculation process of displacement.
Figure 12 shows that vibration acceleration obtained
by the two methods has the same changing trend. The
average values are 9:73103 and with relative error
25.97%.
9
Figure 12. Vibration displacement along meshing line.
The contact force, vibration displacement, and
vibration acceleration are calculated by modified
VFIFE method and LMM under high speed condi-
tions. It can be seen that the calculation error of the
modified VFIFE method is around 20% compared to
the lumped mass method. Error sources are: (1) differ-
ent calculation methods and algorithms; (2) constraints
on the gear body limit deformation in VFIFE method;
(3) oversimplified model in LMM introduced errors
inevitably. Nevertheless, modified VFIFE method
could solve high-speed non-linear problems with good
convergence, accuracy, and efficiency.
Furthermore, VFIFE method takes only 10 h to
complete a dynamic simulation while static analysis
takes 20 h, which means the proposed method would
be more efficient when dealing with a large-scale high-
speed problem, because the proposed method is condi-
tionally convergent. Computing speed is restricted by
mesh size under low-speed conditions, but only limited
by time step in the high-speed analysis, which is totally
different from the traditional finite element method
and would be more suitable for large-scale high-speed
problems.
Conclusion
This paper proposed a modified VFIFE method to
simulate spiral bevel gear dynamic responses.
Simplified VFIFE method for solid structure was pro-
posed, as well as corresponding contact algorithms and
inner force equations. Besides, a new method to
describe dynamic damping force was proposed in order
to avoid computing distortion in high-speed problems.
The accuracy of the proposed method under low-speed
condition was verified by comparing with FEM static
analysis and FEM dynamic simulation. Furthermore,
spiral bevel gear dynamic responses were discussed by
proposed VFIFE method and LMM, in which comput-
ing efficiency and accuracy of the proposed method
10
was validated and error sources were discussed.
Simulation results show that proposed method in this
paper has good convergence and would be more effi-
cient in large-scale high-speed simulations. Therefore,
this paper provides a new method to conduct high-
speed structural analysis.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article: This work was supported by
the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant
No. 2019YFB2004700), Natural Science Foundation
of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20200428), the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (Grant No. NS2020031), and National
Defense Basic Scientific Research Program (Grant
No. JCKY2019605D003)
ORCID iD
Xiangying Hou https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1503-9138
References
1. Yavuz SD, Saribay ZB and Cigeroglu E. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis of a drivetrain composed of spur, heli-
cal and spiral bevel gears. Nonlinear Dyn 2020; 100:
3145–3170.
2. Li ZW, Wen BR, Peng ZK, et al. Dynamic modeling and
analysis of wind turbine drivetrain considering the effects
of non-torque loads. Appl Math Model 2020; 83:
146–168.
3. Wang HW, Zhang T, Liu G, et al. System-structure cou-
pling dynamic analysis of planetary gears. Math Probl
Eng 2015; 2015: 10.
4. Hu SY and Fang ZD. The analysis and modeling of the
synthetical meshing stiffness of inner gearing considering
the flexible inner ring gear. Shock Vibr. Epub ahead of
print 23 April 2019. DOI: 10.1155/2019/2324546.
5. Zhu HM, Chen WF, Zhu RP, et al. Modelling and
dynamic analysis of the spiral bevel gear-shaft-bearing-
gearbox coupling system. Math Probl Eng. Epub ahead
of print 8 September 2019. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9065215.
6. Liu C, Fang ZD and Wang F. An improved model for
dynamic analysis of a double-helical gear reduction unit by
hybrid user-defined elements: experimental and numerical
validation. Mech Mach Theory 2018; 127: 96–111.
7. Liu C, Fang ZD, Liu X, et al. Multibody dynamic analy-
sis of a gear transmission system in electric vehicle using
hybrid user-defined elements. Proc IMechE, Part K: J
Multi-Body Dynamics 2019; 233: 30–42.
8. Xu XY, Tao YC, Liao CR, et al. Dynamic simulation of
wind turbine planetary gear systems with gearbox body
flexibility. Stroj Vestn J Mech Eng 2016; 62: 678–684.
Journal of Strain Analysis 00(0)
9. Shi W, Park Y, Park H, et al. Dynamic analysis of the
wind turbine drivetrain considering shaft bending effect.
J Mech Sci Technol 2018; 32: 3065–3072.
10. Cho S, Choi J, Choi JH, et al. Numerical estimation of
dynamic transmission error of gear by using quasi-flex-
ible-body modeling method. J Mech Sci Technol 2015; 29:
2713–2719.
11. Neubauer P, Bös J and Melz T. Evaluation of the gear
noise reduction potential of geometrically uneven inequi-
distant gears. J Sound Vibr 2020; 473: 115234.
12. Chen YC. Time-varying dynamic analysis for a helical
gear pair system with three-dimensional motion due to
bearing deformation. Adv Mech Eng 2020; 12: 13.
13. Meng Z, Shi GX and Wang FL. Vibration response and
fault characteristics analysis of gear based on time-
varying mesh stiffness. Mech Mach Theory 2020; 148: 15.
14. Chen WT, Chen SY, Hu ZH, et al. Dynamic analysis of a
bevel gear system equipped with finite length squeeze film
dampers for passive vibration control. Mech Mach The-
ory 2020; 147: 18.
15. Yin MH, Cui YH, Meng XJ, et al. Dynamic analysis of
double-helical gear system considering effect of oil film
among meshing teeth. Adv Mech Eng 2020; 12: 14.
16. Liu XZ, Yang YH and Zhang J. Investigation on cou-
pling effects between surface wear and dynamics in a spur
gear system. Tribol Int 2016; 101: 383–394.
17. Cao W, Pu W and Wang JX. Tribo-dynamic model and
fatigue life analysis of spiral bevel gears. Eur J Mech
Solids 2019; 74: 124–138.
18. Huangfu YF, Zhao ZF, Ma H, et al. Effects of tooth modi-
fications on the dynamic characteristics of thin-rimmed
gears under surface wear. Mech Mach Theory 2020; 150: 13.
19. Chen ZG, Zhou ZW, Zhai WM, et al. Improved analytical
calculation model of spur gear mesh excitations with tooth
profile deviations. Mech Mach Theory 2020; 149: 17.
20. Liu CZ, Yin XS, Liao YH, et al. Hybrid dynamic model-
ing and analysis of the electric vehicle planetary gear sys-
tem. Mech Mach Theory 2020; 150: 25.
21. Li ST. Effects of centrifugal load on tooth contact stres-
ses and bending stresses of thin-rimmed spur gears with
inclined webs. Mech Mach Theory 2013; 59: 34–47.
22. Guilbert B, Velex P and Cutuli P. Quasi-static and
dynamic analyses of thin-webbed high-speed gears: cen-
trifugal effect influence. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechan-
ical Engineering Science 2019; 233: 7282–7291.
23. Lin C, Yu YQ and Hu YA. Analysis of composite motion
law and force of high speed curve-face gear. J Adv Mech
Des Syst Manuf 2017; 11: 14.
24. Hou XY, Fang ZD, Zhang XJ, et al. Static contact anal-
ysis of spiral bevel gear based on modified VFIFE (vector
form intrinsic finite element) method. Appl Math Model
2018; 60: 192–207.
25. Duan YF, Wang SM and Yau JD. Vector form intrinsic
finite element method for analysis of train-bridge interac-
tion problems considering the coach-coupler effect. Int J
Struct Stab Dyn 2019; 19: 29.
26. Li XM, Guo XL and Guo HY. Vector form intrinsic
finite element method for nonlinear analysis of three-
dimensional marine risers. Ocean Eng 2018; 161: 257–267.
27. Duan YF, Tao JJ, Zhang HM, et al. Real-time hybrid simu-
lation based on vector form intrinsic finite element and field
programmable gate array. Struct Control Health Monit
2019; 26: 21.
Hou et al.
28. Chen JL, Yang RC and Zhao Y. Application of vector
form intrinsic finite element on integrated simulation of
wind turbine. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2017; 26: 11.
29. Hallquist JO, Goudreau GL and Benson DJ. Sliding
interfaces with contact-impact in large-scale Lagrangian
computations. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1985; 51:
107–137.
30. Ping WS and Nakamachi E. The inside-outside contact
search algorithm for finite element analysis. Int J Numer
Methods Eng 1997; 40: 3665–3685.
31. Litvin FL and Fuentes A. Gear geometry and applied the-
ory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
32. Jinzhan S, Zongde F and Xiangwei C. Design and analy-
sis of spiral bevel gears with seventh-order function of
transmission error. Chin J Aeronaut 2013; 26: 1310–1316.
11
33. Litvin FL, Fuentes A and Hayasaka K. Design, manufac-
ture, stress analysis, and experimental tests of low-noise
high endurance spiral bevel gears. Mech Mach Theory
2006; 41: 83–118.
34. Zhiheng F and Chaosheng S. Effects of geometry design
parameters on the static strength and dynamics for spiral
bevel gear. Int J Rotating Mach. Epub ahead of print 31
July 2017. DOI: 10.1155/2017/6842938.
35. Cao W, Pu W and Wang J. Tribo-dynamic model and
fatigue life analysis of spiral bevel gears. Eur J Mech A
Solids 2019; 74: 124–138.
36. Zhu H, Chen W, Zhu R, et al. Modelling and dynamic
analysis of the spiral bevel gear-shaft-bearing-gearbox
coupling system. Math Probl Eng. Epub ahead of print 8
September 2019. DOI: 10.1155/2019/9065215.