Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

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

Approximate equations for the meshing stiffness and the load MARK
sharing ratio of spur gears including hertzian effects
⁎
Miryam B. Sánchez, Miguel Pleguezuelos, José I. Pedrero
UNED, Departamento de Mecánica, Juan del Rosal 12, 28040 Madrid, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this paper, the meshing stiffness of spur gear pairs, considering both global tooth deflections
Spur gears and local contact deflections, is evaluated at any point of the path of contact and approximated
Meshing stiffness by an analytical, simple function. With this function, the load sharing ratio is calculated and
Load distribution compared with previous results obtained from the hypothesis of minimum elastic potential
Load capacity
energy (MEPE model), considering the tooth deflections, but neglecting the hertzian deflections.
Critical bending and contact stresses from both models are also compared both for standard and
high contact ratio spur gears.

1. Introduction

The determination of the mesh stiffness and the load sharing of tooth gears is critical to predict the dynamic behavior or the load
capacity of spur gear transmissions. Several models for the meshing stiffness and studies on the load distribution along the line of
contact can be found in technical literature. Li [1] studied the effect of the tooth addendum on the contact and bending stresses of
spur gears, and analyzed the tooth load and the load sharing rate, the transmission error and the mesh stiffness. Arafa and Megahed
[2] evaluated the mesh compliance of spur gears by a finite element modeling technique, and discussed the load sharing among the
mating gear teeth. Pimsarn and Kazerounian [3] developed a new method for estimating the equivalent mesh stiffness and the mesh
load in gear system (pseudo–interference stiffness estimation).
More recently, Pedersen and Jorgensen [4] developed a method for the tooth stiffness estimation performed by using the finite
element analysis. Fernández del Rincon et al. [5] presented a model for the meshing stiffness of spur gears taking into account global
and local deformations, which was applied to study the influence of the profile shift on the efficiency [6]. Li [7] studied the influence
of misalignments, tooth profile modifications and transmitted torque on the meshing stiffness and the load sharing ratio. Ye and Tsai
[8] extended the study to high contact ratio spur gears. Marques et al. [9] computed the load sharing ratio by minimizing the elastic
potential energy, considering frictional effects, and applied the obtained load distribution to compute the friction power losses.
Marimuthu and Muthuveerappan studied the load sharing on spur gears with asymmetric profiles for standard [10] and high contact
ratio [11] spur gear drives. Chen and Shao [12] calculated the mesh stiffness of spur gear pairs with profile modifications and tooth
crack, and developed the dynamic simulation of the tooth with crack propagating [13]. Yu et al. studied the effect on the stiffness of
the crack propagation [14] and the corner contact effects [15]. Cui et al. [16] studied the meshing stiffness and vibration response of
cracked gears based on the universal equation of gear profile. Ma et al. [17] provided a method for the determination of the mesh
stiffness of spur gears with tip relief.
A model of load distribution for external gears, based on the minimum elastic potential energy criterion, has been developed by
the authors in previous works [18,19]. The elastic potential energy of a pair of teeth at any contact position of the path of contact was

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jpedrero@ind.uned.es (J.I. Pedrero).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.11.014
Received 23 September 2016; Received in revised form 28 November 2016; Accepted 29 November 2016
Available online 07 December 2016
0094-114X/ © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Nomenclature sF Tooth thickness at the critical section, mm

u Gear ratio
b Face width, mm x Rack shift coefficient
Cs Shear potential correction factor YS Tooth correction factor (ISO 6336–3)
E Modulus of elasticity, MPa y Coordinate along the tooth centerline from the
e Tooth thickness, mm gear rotation center, mm
F Load, N z Number of teeth
G Transverse modulus of elasticity, MPa ZE Elasticity factor (ISO 6336–2)
ha Tooth addendum coefficient αC, αF Load angle
hF Bending moment arm, mm αn Standard normal pressure angle
KM Meshing stiffness, N/mm2 α’t Operating pressure angle
KTP Stiffness of the couple of teeth, N/mm2 γ Tooth angular thickness
k Stiffness, N/mm2 εα Transverse contact ratio
mn Normal module, mm ρ Relative curvature radius, mm
R Load sharing ratio σF Tooth-root bending stress, MPa
rb Base radius, mm σH Contact stress, MPa
rc Contact point radius, mm ξ Involute profile parameter

calculated by the integration of the equations of the theory of elasticity, as a function of the normal load. The load sharing among
several spur tooth–pairs in simultaneous contact was obtained minimizing the total potential (which is the sum of the potential of
each pair at its respective contact point and loaded with its respective load), regarding the restriction of the total load to be equal to
the sum of the load at each pair. This model -named Minimum Elastic Potential Energy (MEPE) model- was applied to the
calculation of the bending and pitting load capacity of standard [20–22] and high contact ratio [23,24] external gears.
One of the most interesting results of this investigation was an approximate, accurate equation for the inverse of the elastic
potential for unit load and face width (named the inverse unitary potential) of the tooth pair, which was expressed as a function of
the transverse contact ratio by means of a very simple formula [18,19]. This formula allowed expressing the meshing stiffness and
the load sharing ratio by simple, analytic equations which made easier the studies of maximum stresses and load capacities.
However, this model was based on the bending, shear and compressive elastic potential energy, but the hertzian contact deflections
were not accounted. The influence of these contact deflections on the load sharing is small [5,9], because the contact stiffness is much
greater than the combined bending, shear and compressive stiffness, and consequently the obtained values of the critical stresses
[20–24] are valid for strength calculations.
Nevertheless, the contact stiffness is not complicated to be taken into account if assumed the Hertz's contact model between two
cylinders is accurate enough to describe the contact between involute teeth. In fact, the hertzian deflection between two cylinders is
proportional to the total tightening load, which means a load-independent stiffness.
Contact between involute spur gear surfaces occurs along a straight line, parallel to the gear rotation axes, and all the contact
points of each surface have the same curvature radius. As these contact conditions are very similar to those corresponding to contact
between two cylinders, the Hertz's model should be accurate. Li [1] obtained by FEM the load distribution along the width of the
contact zone of two spur teeth and concluded that the Hertz formula is accurate for contact stress and contact width calculations of
the gears. AGMA [25,26] and ISO [27] standards evaluate the contact stress with the Hertz equation for calculating the load capacity
of involute spur and helical gears. Fernández del Rincon et al. [5] use the same formulation for the local deformations. Coy and Chao
[29] use the Hertz solution to estimate the element size for a finite element study. Wang and Zhang [30] calculated the tooth mesh
stiffness from the Hertz model of line contact between cylinders. In all the cases results were satisfactory, so it can be concluded that
the Hertz equations for contact between two cylinders describe the contact between tooth surfaces accurately.
This paper presents an enhanced model for the spur gear mesh stiffness, including bending, shear, compressive and contact
deflections. An adjusted equation for the inverse unitary potential (or for the mesh stiffness for unit face width) is also presented. As
the previous one, the approximate equation is simple, accurate and depends on the contact ratio exclusively. With this equation the
load sharing ratio, and accordingly the load at any point of the path of contact, has been determined, both for standard and high
contact ratio spurs gears. Critical stresses and determinant load conditions are calculated, and discrepancies with previous values are
discussed and eventually adjusted.

2. Load sharing model

The MEPE model [18,19] is based on the assumption that the couples of teeth in simultaneous contact are loaded in such a way
that the elastic potential energy is minimum. This model, which is described in depth in [18], was developed considering the
bending, shear and compressive deflections, but neglecting the contact deflections. In addition, results were expressed in terms of
the unitary potential, which is defined as the elastic potential for unit load and unit face width.
Of course, the same results are obtained if the problem is approached in terms of stiffness instead of potential energy. In this
section the MEPE model will be outlined in terms of stiffness, in order to facilitate the inclusion of the contact stiffness.

232
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

2.1. Tooth pair stiffness

The stiffness k of a spur tooth loaded at a point C can be expressed from the bending stiffness kx, the shear stiffness ks and the
compressive stiffness kn as:
1 1 1 1
= + +
k kx ks kn (1)
in which kx, ks and kn can be computed from:
1 12 y γc 2 dy
kx
= Eb
∫y C [( yC − y)cos αC − rc sin 2
sin αC ]
e3 ( y)
p
y
1
kn
=
1
Eb
∫y C sin2 αC edy( y)
p
1 1 yC dy
ks
= Cs Gb ∫ cos2 αC e ( y)
yp (2)
where αC is the load angle at the contact point, rc the contact radius, γc the tooth angular thickness at the contact point
circumference, b the effective face width, E the modulus of elasticity, G the transverse module of elasticity, and e(y) the tooth
thickness. The coordinate y describing each section of the tooth is the distance from the gear rotation center to the plane of the
section. The integrals are all extended from the embedded section, y=yp, to the load section, y=yC. Finally, Cs is the shear potential
correction factor, which accounts the influence of the distribution of the shear stresses on the section, according to the Colignon's
theorem. For rectangular section, Cs=1.2. These geometrical parameters for involute external teeth have been represented in Fig. 1.
Of course the tooth stiffness k depends on the contact point. To describe the contact point, its ξ parameter (or involute profile
parameter) ξc will be used, which is defined as:

z rc2
ξc = −1
2π rb2 (3)
where z is the number of teeth and rb the base radius. The involute profile parameter of the wheel contact point can be expressed as a
function of the involute profile parameter of the corresponding pinion contact point. In fact, the sum of the curvature radii of both
transverse involute profiles at their respective contact points is constant at any point of the path of contact, and equal to the distance
between the tangency points of the operating pressure line and both base circles of pinion and wheel, consequently:
z2 + z1
ξw + ξ = λ = tan α′t
2π (4)
where α’t is the operating pressure angle, and λ the distance between both tangency points divided by the pinion base radius and the
pinion angular pitch. Subscripts 1 and 2 denote the pinion and the wheel, respectively, except for the profile parameter of the pinion
contact point, denoted by ξ with no subscript, and that of the wheel contact point, denoted by ξw.
Accordingly, both the stiffness of pinion and wheel, kp and kw, can be expressed as a function of the pinion profile parameter ξ,
so the stiffness of a couple of teeth KTP will be:
⎛1 1⎞
−1 ⎛ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ⎞
−1
KTP = ⎜ + ⎟ =⎜ + + + + + ⎟ = KTP (ξ )
⎝ kp kw ⎠ ⎝ kxp ksp k np kxw ksw k nw ⎠ (5)
If represented this tooth-pair stiffness function KTP(ξ) along the path of contact a diagram as one in Fig. 2 is always obtained.
Note that, from Eq. (3), the difference between ξ parameters corresponding to outer and inner points of contact, ξo and ξinn, is equal
to the contact ratio εα, and consequently the path of contact is described by ξinn≤ξ≤ξo=ξinn+εα. The values of KTP(ξ) have been
normalized to do KTPmax=1, because the actual maximum value of the meshing stiffness, near the midpoint of the path of contact,
has no influence on the load sharing [18,19].
This normalized pair stiffness is very accurately approximated by the equation:
KTP (ξ ) ≃ cos(b0 (ξ − ξm )) (6)
where

Fig. 1. Geometry of involute external teeth.

233
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 2. Evolution of the tooth-pair stiffness (KTP) and the meshing stiffness (KM) along the path of contact.

⎡1 ⎤−1/2
⎢⎣ 2 (1 + )
εα
b0 = 2 − 1⎥
2
⎦
εα
ξm = ξinn + 2 (7)
which is valid for standard center distance and tooth addendum equal to the normal module mn (i.e., ha=1). The influence of all the
other geometrical parameters (number of teeth, pressure angle, rack shift coefficients, etc.) is involved in the actual value of the
contact ratio. In the case of addendum coefficient different from 1 or non-standard center distance Eq. (6) remains valid for
describing the tooth-pair stiffness, but parameters b0 and ξm should be computed considering the values of the contact ratio and the
inner point of contact parameter corresponding to a standard spur gear with the same geometry, except the tooth addendum and the
center distance [19]. Of course, this expression of the tooth-pair stiffness with these fictitious parameters, ξ'inn and ε'α, is extended
along the actual -not fictitious- path of contact ξinn≤ξ≤ξinn+εα. Function KTP(ξ) may lose its symmetry and ξm may not be located
at the midpoint of the interval of contact. Fig. 3 shows an example of tooth-pair mesh stiffness with reduced addendum on pinion.
The load transmitted by a tooth pair at any contact position is proportional to the stiffness at this position and inversely
proportional to the sum of the stiffness of all the tooth pairs in simultaneous contact:
Fi K
RTPi = = z −1TPi
F ∑ j1=0 KTPj (8)
where RTP is the load sharing ratio, F the total transmitted load and z1 the number of teeth on pinion. Considering the first tooth
pair (j = 0), the load sharing ratio can be expressed as:
F (ξ ) K (ξ )
RTP (ξ ) = = z −1 TP
F ∑ j1=0 KTP (ξ + j ) (9)

Fig. 3. Tooth-pair stiffness for reduced addendum on pinion.

234
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 4. Load sharing ratio for standard spur gears.

This formulation is valid if assumed KTP(ξ) = 0 outside the interval of contact ξinn≤ξ≤ξinn+εα. From this assumption, Eq. (9) is
suitable for any contact conditions: single o double tooth contact, for standard spur gears (1 ≤ εα ≤ 2), and double or triple tooth
contact, for high contact ratio spur gears (2≤εα≤3). Figs. 4 and 5 represent the typical aspect of RTP(ξ) for both standard and high
contact ratio spur gears.

2.2. Mesh stiffness

Models of tooth-pair stiffness and load sharing presented in [18,19] and outlined above do not account the hertzian deflections of
the contact zone. The influence of these deflections will be small because the contact stiffness is much greater than the tooth-pair
stiffness (between 4 and 10 times greater, depending on the contact point, for steel gears).
In consequence, all the strength models developed from MEPE load distribution and based on the tooth-pair stiffness [20–24], as
well as their corresponding values of the critical stresses and load conditions, should be very similar to those obtained regarding
contact deflections in the stiffness values, and consequently accurate enough for strength calculations.
Nevertheless, the accurate modeling of the mesh stiffness is essential for the simulation of other important aspects of the gear
teeth, as the dynamic behavior or the loaded transmission error. In addition, contact stiffness is not complicated to account in the
mesh stiffness evaluation, whether the Hertz model of line contact between two cylinders is adopted. In fact, according to this model
the contact deflection is proportional to the total load, which results in a load-independent contact stiffness, easy to introduce in the
formulation of the problem.
The adoption of the Hertz model of line contact between two cylinders to describe the contact between involute tooth surfaces is
quite reasonable. The model assumes two infinitely long cylinders with line contact along a common generatrix, loaded with a
constant load per unit of length. The contact between spur gear teeth occurs along a straight line, at all whose points both tooth
surfaces have constant curvature radii, just like two cylinders with a common generatrix. If the tooth face is wide enough, the length
of contact can be considered infinite. If the base radius is big enough, the load will be evenly shared along the line of contact.

Fig. 5. Load sharing ratio for high contact ratio spur gears.

235
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Summarizing, the contact conditions are just the same as ones the Hertz model are based on, and therefore this model is widely used
in tooth contact simulation.
In this section, the mesh stiffness, including the contact stiffness component according to the Hertz model, will be formulated.
Though the influence of this improvement will not have decisive influence on the load sharing, and consequently on the strength
calculations, it may be interesting to check the results presented in [20–24] and eventually correct possible discrepancies.
From the above considerations, and for the same material for pinion and wheel, the contact stiffness kH is given by:
π Eb
kH =
4 1 − ν2 (10)

where ν is the Poisson's ratio. Accordingly, the mesh stiffness KM can be computed from:

⎛ 1 1⎞
−1 ⎛ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎞
−1
KM = ⎜ + ⎟ =⎜ + + + + + + ⎟ = KM (ξ )
⎝ KTP kH ⎠ ⎝ kxp ksp k np kxw ksw k nw kH ⎠ (11)

and the load sharing ratio can be expressed as:

F (ξ ) K (ξ )
RM (ξ ) = = z −1 M
F ∑ j1=0 KM (ξ + j ) (12)

The evolution of the mesh stiffness along the path of contact has been represented in Fig. 2 together with the evolution of the
tooth-pair stiffness; the corresponding load sharing ratio, for standard and high contact ratio spur gears, have been represented in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. It can be observed that all the curves corresponding to the mesh stiffness approach (considering contact
effects) are very similar to those corresponding to tooth-pair stiffness approach, as expected.
To prove the small discrepancies between both models, the values of the load sharing ratio at the singular points of standard
contact ratio gears (the inner and outer points of the interval of contact, and the inner and outer points of the interval of single tooth
contact) from both approaches have been investigated. 3775 different cases were considered, obtained from the 4000 possible
combinations of the following values of the geometrical parameters, but neglecting cases with undercut pinion profile:

1. Number of teeth on pinion, z1: 20, 30, 40 and 50.

2. Number of teeth on wheel, z2: 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100.
3. Pressure angle, αn: 18°, 19°, 20°, 21°, 22°, 23°, 24° and 25°.
4. Rack shift coefficient on pinion, x1: –0.1, –0.05, 0, 0.05 and 0.1.
5. Rack shift coefficient on wheel, x2: –0.1, –0.05, 0, 0.05 and 0.1.

For each case, the tooth-pair stiffness KTP was computed at each singular point by numerical integration of Eq. (2), and the
meshing stiffness KM at the same four points was computed from Eqs. (10) and (11). The load sharing ratio from both approaches
was calculated from Eqs. (9) and (12). As a result, for each approach, 3775 values of R(ξinn), 3775 of R(ξo−1), 3775 of R(ξinn+1)
and 3775 of R(ξo) were obtained.
Fig. 6 shows the results for the inner point of both intervals: the contact interval and the single tooth contact interval. All the
points are contained inside a very narrow interval. For the inner point of contact, these values are contained between 0.342 and
0.364 for tooth-pair stiffness model, and between 0.355 and 0.375 for meshing stiffness model. This means that mean values (0.35
and 0.36, respectively) are suitable for any spur gear geometry. Of course, complementary results were obtained for the inner point
of single tooth contact (0.65 and 0.64, respectively), as shown in Fig. 6. Identical results were obtained for the outer point of contact

Fig. 6. Load sharing ratio at the inner point of the interval of contact and at the inner point of the interval of single tooth contact.

236
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

and the outer point of single tooth contact, respectively.

Accordingly, R(ξ) diagrams for standard contact ratio spur gears can be built from the above values of R at the singular points,
and assuming linear variations along the intervals, which will be suitable for any spur gear with ha = 1 and standard center distance.
For ha≠1 or nonstandard center distance, the diagrams should be modified as presented in [19] and outlined above.

3. Approximate equation for the mesh stiffness

From Fig. 4, the load sharing ratio provided by the mesh stiffness KM, accounting contact deflections, for spur gears with
standard contact ratio (1 ≤ εα ≤ 2) can be expressed as:
0.28
RM (ξ ) = 0.36 + εα − 1
(ξ − ξinn ) for ξinn ≤ ξ ≤ ξinn + εα − 1
RM (ξ ) = 1 for ξinn + εα − 1 ≤ ξ ≤ ξinn + 1
0.28
RM (ξ ) = 0.36 − εα − 1
(ξ − ξinn − εα ) for ξinn + 1 ≤ ξ ≤ ξinn + εα (13)

This equation is very simple and accurate enough for strength calculations and allows determining the critical stresses and load
conditions in an easy way. Though the expected discrepancies with results published in [20–22] are small, the analysis could be
performed without special difficulties.
The problem is different for high contact ratio spur gears. An equation similar to Eq. (13) is not possible, because in this case the
values of the load sharing ratio at the critical points are not constant, but depends on the contact ratio much more strongly. The
equation:

⎛ 1 1⎞
−1
KM = ⎜ + ⎟
⎝ KTP kH ⎠ (14)

cannot be combined with the approximate, analytical equation for KTP -Eq. (6)-, because this equation provides the value of the
normalized tooth-pair stiffness, so the value of KTPmax will be required, and the numerical integration of Eq. (2) cannot be avoided.
However, Fig. 2 suggests the possibility to find an approximate equation for KM, similar to Eq. (6). Even more, the same Eq. (6)
with different value for b0 will be probably suitable (the value of ξm cannot change because function KM(ξ) keeps the symmetry
respect to the midpoint of the interval of contact). After some calculations, the following equation was found:
KM (ξ ) ≃ cos(b0 (ξ − ξm )) (15)

with:

⎡1 ⎤−1/2
⎢⎣ 2 (1.11 + )
εα
b0 = 2 − 1.17⎥
2
⎦
εα
ξm = ξinn + 2 (16)

To validate Eqs. (15) and (16) and the load sharing obtained from the combination of these equations with Eq. (12), two
separated studies have been carried out, the first one for standard contact ratio spur gears, and the other for high contact ratio spur
gears. In both cases, approximate results obtained with these equations have been compared with numerical results obtained by
integration of Eq. (2).

Fig. 7. Best fit (left) and worst fit (right) between numerical and approximate KM(ξ) functions (standard contact ratio spur gears).

237
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 8. Best fit (left) and worst fit (right) between numerical and approximate RM(ξ) functions (standard contact ratio spur gears).

3.1. Accuracy for standard contact ratio spur gears

From the same 3775 cases of standard contact ratio described in the previous section, the numerical mesh stiffness KM-num
obtained from Eq. (2), and the approximated mesh stiffness KM-app obtained from Eq. (15), have been compared. The calculated
R2-factor oscillated between a minimum of 0.9721 and a maximum higher than 0.9983. The average value of the 3775 R2-factors
was higher than 0.986. The maximum error, computed as the percentage difference between KM-num and KM-app at any point of
the path of contact, for the 3775 cases was slightly greater than 6%. The largest deviation of the maximum of KM-num and ξm was
around 3.5% of the length of the interval of contact. Fig. 7 show the numerical and the approximate functions of KM(ξ) for both best-
fit and worst-fit cases.
A similar study of accuracy was carried out with the values of the load sharing ratio RM(ξ) computed from KM-num(ξ) and KM-
2
app(ξ). In this case, the R -factor oscillated between a minimum of 0.9954 and a maximum higher than 0.9999, while the average
value of the 3775 R2-factors was higher than 0.999. The maximum error was lower than 3.8%. Fig. 8 shows the numerical and the
approximate functions of RM(ξ) for both best-fit and worst-fit cases.

3.2. Accuracy for high contact ratio spur gears

The study involved the high contact ratio spur gears obtained from the combination of the following gear parameters:

1. Number of teeth on pinion, z1: 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100.
2. Gear ratio, u: 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and 4.
3. Pressure angle, αn: 10°, 11°, 12°, 13°, 14°, 15°, 16°, 17° and 18°.
4. Rack shift coefficient on pinion, x1: –0.1, 0 and 0.1.
5. Rack shift coefficient on wheel, x2: –0.1, 0 and 0.1.

Fig. 9. Best fit (left) and worst fit (right) between numerical and approximate KM(ξ) functions (high contact ratio spur gears).

238
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 10. Best fit (left) and worst fit (right) between numerical and approximate R(ξ) functions (high contact ratio spur gears).

From the 2835 combinations, 745 presented vacuum gearing or contact ratio smaller than 2, and were neglected. For the other
2090, an identical analysis to the previous one was performed.
Concerning to the comparison between KM-app and KM-num, the calculated R2-factor oscillated between a minimum of 0.9478
and a maximum of 0.9866. The average value of the 2090 R2-factors was higher than 0.938. The maximum error, computed as the
percentage difference between KM-num and KM-app at any point of the path of contact, for the 2090 cases was smaller than 8.4%.
The largest deviation of the maximum of KM-num and ξm was around 4.5% of the length of the interval of contact. Fig. 9 show the
numerical and the approximate functions of KM(ξ) for both best-fit and worst-fit cases.
Concerning to the load sharing ratio RM(ξ) computed from KM-num(ξ) and KM-app(ξ), the R2-factor oscillated between a
minimum of 0.9702 and a maximum of 0.9975, while the average value of the 2090 R2-factors was around 0.993. The maximum
error was around 6.0%. Fig. 10 shows the numerical and the approximate functions of RM(ξ) for both best-fit and worst-fit cases.

4. Contact stress calculation

To compute the pitting load capacity of spur gears, all the gear rating standards [25–27] evaluate the contact stress with the
Hertz equation. It can be written as:

F 1
σH (ξ ) = ZE R (ξ )
b ρ (ξ ) (17)

where ZE is the elasticity factor (according to ISO 6336–2 [27]) and ρ(ξ) the relative curvature radius of the involute profiles of
pinion and wheel, at contact point described by ξ. Obviously, the pitting load capacity will be determined by the maximum value of
the contact stress along the path of contact, which should be calculated.

Fig. 11. Location of the critical contact stress for standard contact ratio spur gears.

239
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 12. Evolution of the contact stress along the path of contact for standard contact ratio spur gears.

4.1. Standard contact ratio spur gears

The function 1/ρ(ξ) is symmetric respect the midpoint of the interval of the pressure line between both tangency points with
pinion and wheel base circles, and has a local minimum at this midpoint. The function RM(ξ) is symmetric respect the midpoint of
the interval of contact and increases between the inner point of contact and the inner point of single tooth contact. Additionally, the
midpoint of the interval of contact is closer to the pinion tangency point than the midpoint of the interval between tangency points,
and consequently the critical contact stress will necessarily be located at the inner point of contact or at the inner point of single
tooth contact. From Eq. (13), RM = 0.36 for the first case and RM = 1 for the second, so the critical contact stress for standard
contact ratio spur gears can be expressed as:

F ⎛ 0.36 1 ⎞
σH 0 = ZE max ⎜ , ⎟
b ⎝ ρ (ξinn ) ρ (ξinn + εα − 1) ⎠ (18)

Both possibilities can be given, depending on the gears geometry, but it is much more usual finding the maximum at the inner
point of single tooth contact. Only for small values of ξinn, for which 1/ρ(ξ) trends to infinite, the critical stress may be located at the
inner point of contact. As shown in Fig. 11, this occurs typically for ξinn < 0.3. And the condition is even more restrictive for
reduced addendum on pinion [19].
Fig. 12 shows the typical shape of the curves of the contact stress for both possible locations of the maximum stress, at the inner
point of single tooth contact and at the inner point of contact. The evolution of the contact stress according to MEPE load sharing
model [20] is also represented. It can be observed that discrepancies between both models (regarding or regardless contact stiffness)
are very small, and conclusions presented in [20] are valid for strength calculations. However, Eq. (18) is equally simple and slightly
more accurate than one proposed in [20].

Fig. 13. Location of the critical contact stress for high contact ratio spur gears.

240
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 14. Evolution of the contact stress along the path of contact for high contact ratio spur gears.

4.2. High contact ratio spur gears

From a similar reasoning, it can be concluded that for high contact ratio spur gears, the maximum contact stress is always located
at one of these points: the inner point of contact (named point A), and both limits of the inner interval of double tooth contact
(named points B the inner limit, and C the outer limit). In this case, the ordinates of RM(ξ) at the singular points are not constant, so
the critical contact stress should be computed from:

F ⎛ R (ξinn ) R (ξinn + εα − 2) R (ξinn + 1) ⎞

σH 0 = ZE max ⎜ , , ⎟
b ⎝ ρ (ξinn ) ρ (ξinn + εα − 2) ρ (ξinn + 1) ⎠ (19)
where the values of the load sharing ratio RM should be computed with Eq. (12). It can be observed that the critical stress is located
at the inner point of contact for small values of ξinn, at the inner point of the inner interval of double tooth contact for intermediate
values, and at the outer point of this interval for high values, as could be expected. Nevertheless, in this case the limits of ξinn for
location at each point are not as well defined as one in the previous case, as shown in Fig. 13. The variation of the contact stress along
the path of contact for an example of each case has been represented in Fig. 14.
As seen in the third (lower left) diagram, the critical stress may be located at point C for contact ratio not much greater than 2. In
these cases, the contact stress at the inner point of the upper interval of double tooth contact (named point D) is only slightly smaller
than the critical stress at point C. This means that the critical stress can be also located at point D for reduced addendum on pinion
(point D moves to the left, increasing its stress) or enlarged addendum on wheel (point C moves to the left, decreasing its stress). An
example has been represented in the fourth (lower right) diagram of Fig. 14 for enlarged addendum on wheel. In these cases, points
C and D are close each other, and stresses at both points are consequently very similar. Eq. (19) are therefore accurate enough also
for this fourth case; nevertheless, Eq. (19) can be easily modified to account this fourth possibility:

F ⎛ R (ξinn ) R (ξinn + εα − 2) R (ξinn + 1) R (ξinn + εα − 1) ⎞

σH 0 = ZE max ⎜ , , , ⎟
b ⎝ ρ (ξinn ) ρ (ξinn + εα − 2) ρ (ξinn + 1) ρ (ξinn + εα − 1) ⎠ (20)
Concerning to the discrepancies with MEPE model, Eq. (20) is exactly the same as one proposed in [23], whose results are

241
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

obviously valid. Diagrams in Fig. 14 also represent the evolution of the contact stress along the path of contact according to MEPE
load sharing model, and show that values of the stresses from both models are very similar.

5. Tooth root stress calculation

To compute the bending load capacity of spur gears, all the gear rating standards [25,26,28] evaluate the bending stress with the
Navier equation. It can be written as:
6F
σF (ξ ) = R (ξ )cos αF (ξ ) hF (ξ ) YS (ξ )
bsF2 (21)
where according to ISO 6336–3 [28], αF is the load angle, sF the tooth thickness at the critical section, hF the bending moment arm
and YS the stress correction factor. ξ is the profile parameter of the pinion contact point. As in the previous case, it will be necessary
computing the maximum value of the bending stress, which will be determinant for the bending load capacity.

5.1. Standard contact ratio spur gears

According to Eq. (21), the critical tooth-root stress will be given by the maximum of function:
ϒ(ξ ) = R (ξ )cos αF (ξ ) hF (ξ ) YS (ξ ) (22)
It can be proved [22] that, for standard tooth proportions, function [cosαFhFYS](ξ) always grows with ξ. Accordingly, and taking
into account that function RM(ξ) is symmetric with respect to the midpoint of the interval of contact, the maximum of function ϒ(ξ)
should be necessarily located between the outer point of single pair tooth contact and the outer point of contact. However, the
maximum located at the outer point of contact is not possible in practice. In fact, for low contact ratio, i.e. contact ratio slightly
greater than 1, the outer point of single tooth contact and the outer point of contact are close each other, so that values of
[cosαFhFYS](ξ) at both points are similar, while RM is equal to 1 at the first point and equal to 0.36, and consequently much smaller,
at the other. Not so clear is the reasoning for contact ratio close to 2, but it can be checked that the growth of [cosαFhFYS](ξ)
between the outer point of single tooth contact and the outer point of contact is not enough to compensate the ratio between the
values of RM at both points. Fig. 15 shows the evolution of the bending stress along the path of contact for spur gear with contact
ratio sligthly greater than one (left diagram) and sligthly smaller than 2 (right diagram). In consequence, the critical tooth-root stress
for standard contact ratio spur gears can be computed from:
6F
σF 0 (ξ ) = cos αF (ξinn + 1) hF (ξinn + 1) YS (ξinn + 1)
bsF2 (23)
which is exactly the same equation as one obtained from MEPE load sharing model in [22], therefore conclusions presented in [22]
are fully valid.

5.2. High contact ratio spur gears

For the case of high contact ratio, the condition of critical tooth-root stress corresponds equally to the maximum of the function
ϒ(ξ), described by Eq. (22). Also in this case, function [cosαFhFYS](ξ) grows with ξ for standard tooth proportions [24].
Consequently, accounting the symmetry of function RM(ξ), the maximum of function ϒ(ξ) will be located between the inner point of
the upper interval of two pair tooth contact and the outer point of contact. However, it can be checked [24] that the maximum is

Fig. 15. Evolution of the bending stress along the path of contact for standard contact ratio spur gears.

242
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 16. Load conditions for critical bending stress for high contact ratio spur gears.

always located at the upper interval of two pair tooth contact. As shown in Fig. 16, critical load conditions correspond to contact at a
local maximum inside the interval for small high contact ratios (typically between 2 and 2.45), at the outer point of the interval for
higher values of the contact ratio (between 2.45 and 2.95), and at the inner point of the interval for very high contact ratios (over
2.95).
Fig. 17 shows the typical aspects of functions σF0(ξ) and ϒ(ξ) –both of them are proportional– for small high contact ratios, with
a local maximum inside the outer interval of two pair tooth contact, and for higher contact ratio, with the maximum at the outer
point of the same interval. It can be observed that the values of the ϒ(ξ) function are quite uniform along the interval, and differences
of the values of the bending stress for contact at any point of this interval are very small. Consequently, the critical tooth-root stress
for high contact ratio spur gears may be computed with the load acting at any point of this interval. However, the smallest errors are
obtained for the tooth loaded at the midpoint of the outer interval of two pair tooth contact, which is described by:
1 + εα
ξϒ = ξinn +
2 (24)

This provides a value for the critical tooth-root bending stress of:
6F
σF 0 = R (ξϒ )cos αF (ξϒ ) hF (ξϒ ) YS (ξϒ )
bsF2 (25)

which can be used for strength calculations. The use of Eq. (24) induces an error smaller than 4.5%. Once again, this conclusion is
the same as one obtained regardless the hertzian effects in the meshing stiffness, presented in [24].

6. Validation of the model by the Finite Element Method

Several studies on the agreement between the stress evaluation from MEPE load sharing model (regardless hertzian effects) and

Fig. 17. Evolution of the bending stress along the path of contact for high contact ratio spur gears.

243
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 18. Finite element model for the analysis.

by the Finite Element Method (FEM) have been presented in previous works [18,22]. Since the values of the stresses computed by
the MEPE model and computed by the model accounting the contact stiffness presented here (TCMS, Teeth and Contact Mesh
Stiffness model), are very similar, the agreement of the new model with the FEM results should be as good as the agreement of the
FEM results with the MEPE model. In this section, these previous studies will be complemented with the comparison of both FEM
and MEPE results with those of the new TCMS calculation method based on the meshing stiffness accounting the contact deflections.
The results of the same analyses expressed in terms of load sharing ratio and meshing stiffness are also compared.
For this study, the ANSYS© general purpose program has been used. Fig. 18 shows the FE model used including the pinion and
the wheel in contact. The rotation of the wheel is prevented and the pinion can rotate around its axis. A torque is applied to the
pinion axis, inducing a relative rotation between the pinion and the wheel, due to the tooth deflection. Elements SOLID 45 have been
used to form the FE mesh, combined with elements CONTA 173 and TARGET 170 for pinion and wheel contact zones, respectively.
The total number of elements and nodes is slightly different for each studied transmission, but is around 340,000 elements and
350,000 nodes, providing high enough resolution for the analysis. The material is steel with the properties of Young's modulus
E=200 GPa and Poisson's ratio ν=0.25 for the pinion and ν=0.3 for the wheel. Results presented below correspond to Transmissions
ESG-21/49-S20 and ESG-50/100-H14, whose parameters are given in Table 1. In both cases, the operating center distance is
slightly greater than the standard one in order to avoid contact at the coast side of the pinion tooth in the FE model. The MEPE and
TCMS stresses have been corrected to consider this center distance modification, as described in [19].

6.1. Standard contact ratio spur gears

Fig. 19 shows the comparison among MEPE, TCMS and ANSYS–FE contact and bending stresses, for Transmission ESG-21/49-
S20, at 15 contact positions along the path of contact. Continuous curves represent the MEPE (solid) and the TCMS (dashed)
stresses, while dotted ones represent the ANSYS–FE results.
The left diagram represents the evolution of the contact stress along the path of contact. It can be observed that both MEPE and
TCMS load sharing models provide very similar results showing the small influence of the contact deflections on the load sharing, as
stated above. In addition, both curves fit quite accurately with ANSYS–FE results, even very accurately between the inner point of
single tooth contact and the outer point of contact. The small discrepancies at the inner interval of two pair tooth contact may be due
to the border conditions of the FE mesh. As the nodes of the external sections of the pinion ring are fixed, the stiffness of the external
teeth will be greater than that of the central one, which means that the central tooth is slightly underloaded, and consequently
understressed, during the interval of double tooth contact. As the ANSYS–EF stresses are always computed at the central tooth,
stresses at the two pair tooth contact intervals are underestimated. This effect is not significant at the upper interval of two pair tooth
contact because the influence of the fixed external nodes on the tooth stiffness for load acting at the pinion root is much smaller, and
the central tooth is much more slightly underloaded. At any rate, it can be affirmed that both MEPE and TCMS contact stresses are in

Table 1
Parameters of the transmissions for the FE analysis.

Transmission z1 z2 αn mn b rf x1 x2 ha ha0 C′ εα Τ1
deg mm mm mm Nm

ESG-21/49-S20 21 49 20 10 20 0.25 0 0 1 1.25 351.5 1.51 955

ESG-50/100-H14 50 100 14 10 20 0.25 0 0 1 1.25 751.0 2.14 4774

z1/z2: number of teeth on pinion/wheel, αn: pressure angle, mn: normal module, b: face width, rf: tool tip radius coefficient, x1/x2: pinion/wheel rack shift coefficient,
ha: addendum coefficient: ha0: dedendum coefficient, C′: operating center distance, εα: contact ratio, T1: pinion torque.

244
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 19. Evolution of the contact stress (left) and the tooth-root stress (right) along the path of contact for standard contact ratio spur gear ESG-21/49-S20.

good agreement with ANSYS–FE contact stresses along the complete path of contact.
The right diagram of Fig. 19 shows the evolution of the pinion root stress along the path of contact. The values of the root stresses
represented in the diagram have not been computed from Eq. (21), as recommended by ISO 6336–3 [28], but considering the
compressive component of the stress, in order to compare homogeneous magnitudes, as the FE stresses are obviously affected by the
compressive stress. It is observed that MEPE and TCMS curves are very close each other again, due to the small influence of the
contact deflections on the load sharing. Agreement is also good with ANSYS–FE results, especially at the two pair tooth contact
intervals. In this case, the underestimation of the load at the central tooth has no significant influence at the inner interval of two pair
tooth contact because the moment arm at this load points is small, and consequently the root stress is small regardless whether the
load is underestimated or not. The discrepancies arising at the single pair tooth contact interval, in which the ANSYS–FE tooth-root
stress is slightly smaller than MEPE and TCMS ones, are quite small and allow concluding that the agreement among three
considered models is good enough.
From the information provided by ANSYS, the results of the comparative study between ANSYS–FE and TCMS can be also
expressed in terms of the load sharing ratio and the meshing stiffness. In fact, the evolution of the contact load along the path of
contact according to ANSYS–FE model can be obtained from the ANSYS–FE contact stress and the Hertz equation. From these
values of the load, the load sharing ratio can be obtained immediately, and the meshing stiffness after some non-complicated
calculations.
Fig. 20 shows the comparison between ANSYS–FE and TCMS models in terms of the load sharing ratio. It can be observed that
TCMS curve fits to ANSYS–FE points quite accurately along the complete path of contact, except at the inner interval of two pair
tooth contact, in which the ANSYS–FE load is slightly underestimated. This is due to the same reason as one discussed above for the
contact stress, represented in Fig. 19.
The comparison between both meshing stiffness is represented in Fig. 21. In this case, the values of the meshing stiffness

Fig. 20. Evolution of the load sharing ratio along the path of contact for standard contact ratio spur gear ESG-21/49-S20.

245
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 21. Evolution of the tooth pair meshing stiffness (left) and the total meshing stiffness (right) along the path of contact for standard contact ratio spur gear ESG-
21/49-S20.

obtained from the FE analysis have been pseudo-normalized by dividing them by the maximum TCMS stiffness KMmax, obtained by
the numerical approach (in this case KMmax = 5.9241·105 N/mm was obtained). In this way, the comparison with the approximate
cosine equation is performed between homogeneous magnitudes. Pseudo-normalized values of ANSYS–FE stiffness are not strictly
normalized because the maximum may be different from 1, even greater than 1.
The left diagram of Fig. 21 represents the meshing stiffness of a couple of teeth. The TCMS cosine curve fits very acceptably to the
ANSYS–FE discrete points. As in the previous cases, the ANSYS–FE stiffness is slightly underestimated at the inner interval of two
pair tooth contact. The right diagram shows the meshing stiffness of all the pairs in simultaneous contact, which is the sum of the
stiffness of each pair at its corresponding contact position. Once again, the agreement between both models is very good.

6.2. High contact ratio spur gears

Fig. 22 shows the results of a similar study for Transmission ESG-50/100-H14. Once again, MEPE and TCMS curves are very
close each other in both diagrams, and both of them fit very accurately with ANSYS–FE curve along the complete interval of contact.
The very small discrepancy at the central interval of three pair tooth contact is due to the same reason as the previous case: as the
border conditions of the FE mesh results in a smaller stiffness in the central tooth, this central tooth is underloaded, and the ANSYS–
FE stresses are slightly smaller.
This effect can be also observed in the load sharing ratio curves, represented in Fig. 23. The fit is very accurate, though the
ANSYS–FE load is slightly smaller along the central interval of three pair tooth contact, and slightly greater along the upper interval
of two pair tooth contact.
The evolution of the meshing stiffness according both to TCMS and ANSYS–FE models can be observed in Fig. 24. In this case,
the obtained value of KMmax was 5,6668·105 N/mm. The pseudo-normalized ANSYS–FE meshing stiffness of a pair of teeth,

Fig. 22. Evolution of the contact stress (left) and the tooth-root stress (right) along the path of contact for high contact ratio spur gear ESG-20/100-H14.

246
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

Fig. 23. Evolution of the load sharing ratio along the path of contact for high contact ratio spur gear ESG-20/100-H14.

represented in the left diagram of the figure, presents the same singularity as the load sharing ratio: is slightly underestimated
around the middle of the path of contact, and slightly overestimated along the upper half-interval of contact. This is due to the border
condition of the FE mesh, discussed in the previous sub-section.
Finally, the right diagram of Fig. 24 shows the meshing stiffness of all the pairs in simultaneous contact. Also in this case, the
agreement between both models is very accurate, even better than that for standard contact ratio spur gears.

7. Conclusions

A model of load sharing among couples of teeth in simultaneous contact has been developed both for standard and high contact
ratio spur gears. It has been used for the calculation of the bending and pitting nominal stresses, according to ISO 6336, as long as
for the determination of the corresponding critical load conditions. The model has been obtained from the meshing stiffness of the
couple of teeth at any point of the path of contact, which has been computed considering the bending, shear and compressive
deflections of each tooth, and the contact deflections of the couple of teeth as well.
For standard contact ratio (between 1 and 2) spur gears, the shape of the load sharing ratio curve is always the same, with very
slight variations of the ordinates at the singular points: 0.36 at the limits of the interval of contact, and 0.64 at the limits of the
interval of single tooth contact. This allows knowing the load at any point of the path of contact from the contact ratio exclusively,
which is required to determine the critical stresses and load conditions for bending and wear.
For high contact ratio (between 2 and 3) spur gears, the ordinates of the singular points are more heavily dependent on the
contact ratio, and the values of the meshing stiffness are required for load calculations. To make the calculations easier, avoiding the
numerical integration of the teeth stiffness, an approximate equation for the meshing stiffness, considering contact deflections, has
been presented. The formulation is simple (the meshing stiffness is expressed as a function of the contact ratio exclusively) and the
provided results very accurate.
From these values of the load sharing ratio, the critical bending and contact stresses have been determined by solving the

Fig. 24. Evolution of the tooth pair meshing stiffness (left) and the total meshing stiffness (right) along the path of contact for high contact ratio spur gear ESG-20/
100-H14.

247
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

maximization problem. The conclusions of this study are the following:

7.1. Contact stress

The critical contact stress conditions, for standard contact ratio spur gears, correspond to the determinant of the following two:
(i) contact at the inner point of contact of the pinion (ξ=ξinn) and tooth loaded with the 36% of the total load (R = 0.36), or (ii)
contact at the inner point of single pair tooth contact (ξ=ξinn+εα–1), with the application of the total load at the considered pair of
teeth (R=1). Typically, condition (i) is determinant for ξinn≤0.3, and condition (ii) for ξinn > 0.3.
For high contact ratio spur gears, the critical contact stress conditions correspond to the determinant of the following three: (i)
contact at the inner point of contact (ξ = ξinn), (ii) contact at the inner limit of the inner interval of two pair tooth contact (ξ = ξinn +
εα – 2), or (iii) contact at the outer limit of the same interval (ξ=ξinn+1). For reduced addendum on pinion and contact ratio not
much higher than 2, the critical contact stress may be shifted to (iv) the inner point of the outer interval of two pair tooth contact (ξ =
ξinn + εα – 1). In all the cases, the fraction of the load at the critical point is not fixed but depends on the contact ratio, and should be
computed from the equations of the load sharing ratio and the meshing stiffness. Typically, condition (i) is determinant for ξinn≤0.5,
condition (ii) for 0.5 ≤ ξinn ≤ 1.5, and condition (iii) for ξinn > 1.5, though these limits are not so well defined as in the previous case
of standard contact ratio.

7.2. Tooth root stress

For standard contact ratio spur gears, the maximum bending stress corresponds with the total load (R = 1) acting at the upper
limit of the interval of single pair tooth contact (ξ=ξinn+1).
For high contact ratio spur gears, the critical contact point may be located at any point of the outer interval of two pair tooth
contact: at the inner limit (ξ=ξinn+εα–1, typically for very high contact ratio, εα > 2.95), at the outer limit (ξ =ξinn+2, for 2.35 < εα
< 2.95), or at a local maximum inside the interval (for 2 < εα < 2.35). However, the variation of the bending tooth-root stress along
this interval of load points is quite small, and accurate enough values of the critical stress can be obtained for contact at the midpoint
of the outer interval of two pair tooth contact (ξ =ξinn + ½ (εα + 1)).
Simulated results provided by Finite Element Analysis have resulted in very good agreement with the theoretical results obtained
from the presented model, either when expressed in terms of contact and tooth root stresses, or in terms of load sharing ratio, or in
terms of stiffness. In consequence, the calculation of the critical stresses according to the calculation methods of the nominal stresses
of ISO 6336 at the critical points and load conditions proposed herein will provide accurate enough values for preliminary
calculations or standardization purposes.
As this improved model describes accurately the meshing stiffness, it can be also use for the simulation of the dynamic behaviour
or the loaded transmission error of spur gear teeth.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are expressed to the Spanish Council for Scientific and Technological Research for the support of the projects DPI2011–
27661, “Advanced Models for Strength Calculation and Dynamic Analysis of Non-Conventional Cylindrical Gears”, and DPI2015–
69201–C02–1–R, “Load Distribution and Strength Calculation of Gears with Modified Geometry”, as well as the School of
Engineering of UNED for the support of the action 2015-MEC27, “Calculation Models of Cylindrical Gears”.

References

[1] S. Li, Effect of addendum on contact strength, bending strength and basic performance parameters of a pair of spur gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 43 (2008)
1557–1584.
[2] M.H. Arafa, M.M. Megahed, Evaluation of spur gear mesh compliance using the finite element method, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. – Part C 213 (1999) 569–579.
[3] M. Pimsarn, K. Kazerounian, Efficient evaluation of spur gear tooth mesh load using pseudo–interference stiffness estimation method, Mech. Mach. Theory 37
(2002) 769–786.
[4] N.L. Pedersen, M.F. Jorgensen, On gear tooth stiffness evaluation, Comput. Struct. 135 (2014) 109–117.
[5] A. Fernández del Rincón, F. Viadero, M. Iglesias, P. García, A. de Juan, R. Sancibrián, A model for the study of meshing stiffness in spur gear transmissions,
Mech. Mach. Theory 61 (2013) 30–58.
[6] A. Diez Ibarbia, A. Fernández del Rincón, M. Iglesias, A. de Juan, P. García, F. Viadero, Efficiency analysis of spur gears with a shifting profile, Meccanica 51
(2016) 707–723.
[7] S. Li, Effects of misalignment error, tooth modifications and transmitted torque on tooth engagements of a pair of spur gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 83 (2015)
125–136.
[8] S.-Y. Ye, S.-J. Tsai, A computerized method for loaded tooth contact analysis of high-contact-ratio spur gears with or without flank modification considering tip
corner contact and shaft misalignment, Mech. Mach. Theory 97 (2016) 190–214.
[9] P.M.T. Marques, R.C. Martins, J.H.O. Seabra, Power loss and load distribution models including frictional effects for spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory
96 (2016) 1–25.
[10] P. Marimuthu, G. Muthuveerappan, Design of asymmetric normal contact ratio spur gear drive through direct design to enhance the load carrying capacity,
Mech. Mach. Theory 95 (2016) 22–34.
[11] P. Marimuthu, G. Muthuveerappan, Investigation of load carrying capacity of asymmetric high contact ratio spur gear based on load sharing using direct gear
design approach, Mech. Mach. Theory 96 (2016) 52–74.
[12] Z. Chen, Y. Shao, Mesh stiffness calculation of spur gear pair with tooth profile modification and tooth root crack, Mech. Mach. Theory 62 (2013) 63–74.
[13] Z. Chen, Y. Shao, Dynamic simulation of spur gear with tooth root crack propagating along tooth width and crack depth, Eng. Fail. Anal. 18 (2011) 2149–2164.
[14] W. Yu, Y. Shao, C.K. Mechefske, The effects of spur gear tooth spatial crack propagation on gear mesh stiffness, Eng. Fail. Anal. 54 (2015) 103–119.

248
M.B. Sánchez et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 109 (2017) 231–249

[15] W. Yu, C.K. Mechefske, Analytical modeling of spur gear corner contact effects, Mech. Mach. Theory 96 (2016) 146–164.
[16] L. Cui, H. Zhai, F. Zhang, Research on the meshing stiffness and vibration response of cracked gears based on the universal equation of gear profile, Mech.
Mach. Theory 94 (2015) 80–95.
[17] H. Ma, J. Zeng, R. Feng, X. Pang, B. Wen, An improved analytical method for mesh stiffness calculation of spur gears with tip relief, Mech. Mach. Theory 98
(2016) 64–80.
[18] J.I. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Artés, J.A. Antona, Load distribution model along the line of contact for involute external gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 45
(2010) 780–794.
[19] M.B. Sánchez, M. Pleguezuelos, J.I. Pedrero, Enhanced model of load distribution along the line of contact for non-standard involute external gears, Meccanica
48 (2013) 527–543.
[20] J.I. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Muñoz, Critical stress and load conditions for pitting calculations of involute spur and helical gear teeth, Mech. Mach. Theory
46 (2011) 425–437.
[21] J.I. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Muñoz, Contact stress calculation of undercut spur and helical gear teeth, Mech. Mach. Theory 46 (2011) 1633–1646.
[22] M.B. Sánchez, J.I. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, Critical stress and load conditions for bending calculations of involute spur and helical gears, Int. J. Fatigue 48
(2013) 28–38.
[23] M.B. Sánchez, J.I. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, Contact stress calculation of high transverse contact ratio spur and helical gear teeth, Mech. Mach. Theory 64
(2013) 93–110.
[24] M.B. Sánchez, M. Pleguezuelos, J.I. Pedrero, Tooth-root stress calculation of high transverse contact ratio spur and helical gears, Meccanica 49 (2014) 347–364.
[25] AGMA Standard 2001–D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and Helical Gear Teeth, American Gear Manufacturers
Association, Alexandria, VA, 2004.
[26] AGMA Information Sheet 908–B89, Geometry Factor for Determining the Pitting Resistance and Bending Strength of Spur, Helical and Herringbone Gear
Teeth, American Gear Manufacturers Association, Alexandria, VA, 1989.
[27] ISO Standard 6336–2:2006, Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears – Part 2: Calculation of Surface Durability (Pitting), International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[28] ISO Standard 6336–3:2006, Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears – Part 3: Calculation of Tooth Bending Strength, International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[29] J.J. Coy, C.H.-C. Chao, A method of selecting grid size to account for Hertz deformation in finite element analysis of spur gears, J. Mech. Des. 104 (1982)
759–764.
[30] Q. Wang, Y. Zhang, A model for analyzing stiffness and stress in a helical gear pair with tooth profile errors, J. Vib. Control (2015).

249