A Methodology for Obtaining Optimum Gear Tooth Microtopographies for Noise and Stress Minimization over a Broad Operating Torque Range Jonny Hatianto and Dr. Donald R. Houser (This article first appeared in the proceedings ofthe ASME 2007 Intemational Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETCICIE 2007, September 4-7, 2007, Las Vegas. I is reprinted here with permission.) Management Summary ‘This paper presents a method for evaluating the effect of microgeometric or microtopographic variation on various ‘gear performance parameters, i., noise excitations, gear contact and root stresses, film thickness and surface temperature under loaded conditions. Micro geometries that are considered are profile crown, profile slope, lead crown, lead slope and bias modifications variations, Various combinations of these micto geometries are considered in analytical simulations in which respective gear design metrics are evaluated based on the calculated load distributions. This paper will provide a ‘walk-through analysis for a helical gear design in order to describe the procedure. Introduction Classical gear designers use bending and contact stress formulas along a series of correction factors for their design metrics (Ref. 1). The designer establishes the number of teeth, center distance, module, etc, so that the design will achieve durability performance ‘goals. However, prior to completing the design, the designer must make some decisions regarding the profile and lead ‘modifications that must be specified. ‘These modifications, which are usually specified as tolerance bands ‘on profile and lead charts, are used for several purposes, including: + Compensation for misalignment, im that the peak stresses do not occur on the tooth edges 42° GEARTECHNOLOGY uly 2008 | ‘+ Reduction of noise excitations + Minimization of scoring potential by minimizing loads at peak sliding regions of the contact zone ‘The type of modifications needed to minimizeone ofthe above factorsisoften in conflict with the modification needed to minimize the others. Also, one often finds that noise minimization is desired ‘across a broad range of loads that are much lower than the durability design load. Thus, designers require a tool that allows them to create topographical ‘modifications that provide a reasonable ‘compromise between many design metrics (noise, stress, tribology, etc.) ‘over a broad range of torques. ‘This paper presents a graphical procedure for selecting lead and profile www geartechnology.com ‘modifications that provide a good ‘compromise of results for each of the above mentioned design factors, The procedure allows one to observe the impact of these modifications over a ‘broad torque range on a large number of ‘gear design metrics, Background Perfect involute profiles of both spur and helical gears only exhibit conjugate ‘motion at no load conditions. Once load is applied to a gear pair, deflections occur and the motion transfer is no longer conjugate, In order to get the motion back to some semblance of ‘conjugacy, the tooth profile is modified, usually by the removal of material from portions of the tooth surface, Profile ‘modifications in the form of tip or rootrelief compensate for tooth bending deflections, and lead modifications in the form of either lead crown or end relief compensate for manufactured lead errors, shaft misalignments and shaft deflections. ‘These concepts have been applied to gears for many years; some of the more classic treatises that refer to tooth modifications are presented in References 2-8, Since the contact regimes of spur and helical gears have some differences, the approaches to their modification also have differences. In this paper, the concentration is on helical gears, but a brief discussion of the approaches that have been applied to both spur and helical gearing will be discussed in this section, Spur gearing. Extensive rescarch hhas een conducted on the profile modifications that are appropriate for spur gears. However, one will find that the following generalizations exist: 1. Apply tip relief on both the gear ‘and pinion or tip and root relief on one ‘of the members (Refs, 9-10), 2. Fortip relief, start the modification al the highest point of single-tooth contact, and for root relief start at the lowest point of single-tooth contact (use highest and lowest points of double- tooth contact for spur gears with contact ratios greater than 2.0). 3. The amplitude ofthe relief should be at least as great as the peak mesh deflection at the load in which smooth motion is desired. If one wishes to ‘compensate for spacing errors, one should add the peak tooth-to-tooth spacing error of each gear to the mesh deflection value (Ref. 11). 4, Most investigators have used either a linear or parabolic shape for the relief (Refs. 12-13), 5. Some gears required some combination of linear and parabolic modification in order to obtain mote perfect compensation for the nonlinear tooth pair deflection (Ref. 14), ‘The above procedure yields a modification that works well atthe “design” load, but as the load either increases or decreases, the motion error will increase (Ref. 15).In order to reduce ‘igure 1Schematis af Gears In Mosh Table 1: Helical Gear Geometry (GEARI (GEARZ ‘Number of Teeth 25 31 Module (mm) 2.7798 Pressure angle (deg) 22.21 Helbx angle (deg) 259 Operating center distance (mm) 28.9) Outside diameter (mm) 85.298 108.348 Root diameter (min) 71.399 90.449 Face width (mi) 31.750 31.750 ‘Standard pitch diameter SPD (wn) 78375 98.425 “Transverse tooth thickness at SPD (mm)| 4.088 4.888 Profile, face, total contact ratio 1.37 /1.7618.13, the torque sensitivity, a scheme that ‘combines profile modifications with lead ‘erowning has been applied (Ref. 16), Another approach to the reduction in noise excitations at lower loads is to use ‘what is called “short relief,” where the sar of the modification is moved closer to the tooth extremes (Refs. 9 and 17). In this scheme, itis possible to have ‘zero transmission error at no load and sill have a reduction of excitation at higher loads. However, the reduction at the design load will be much less than for the “long relief” method described above. For narrow face width spur gears, correction in the face width direction is usually not used, but for medium-to- wide face widths, lead crowning may be needed in order to compensate for lead ‘errors and misalignment. When lead ‘crowning is used, one must reassess the scheme for determining the best modification, Helical gearing. in order to got adequate benefits of the axial load sharing of helical gears, they usually have medium-to-wide face widths that likely require some lead crowning in ‘order to compensate for misalignment, ‘Many gear researchers (Refs. 18-27) have shown the effects of crowning www.geartechnotogy.com shape andamplitude on oad distribution. In cach instance it was shown that for a zziven level of misalignment, there is a range of crowning that will provide a uy 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 43reduction in the peak root and contact stresses, and wall shift the peak stresses from the edge of the tooth to the center: However, it was also shown that while excessive crowning can certainly shift the peak contact stress closer to the center ofthe tooth, it will also result in an increase in the peak contact stress due to the concentration of load in the center of the crown region, These investigators, however, seldom mentioned the effects, of crowning on gear noise excitation, Numerous investigators have de- veloped schemes for creating optimum modifications for helical gears, most of them based on the minimization of ‘ansmission error, Several researchers (Refs. 28-32) have developed methods for simultaneously studying the profile and lead modifications of helical gears. (Ref. 30) performance diagram that allows the study of many variables is similar to what is done in this study, but his emphasis was much more related (0 the best gear geometries, to minimize dynamics. nally, it has been shown that itis possible to obtain a zero-transmission- ‘error surface topography for any gear pair (Ref. 33). Constraints are that the method will work at only one load, and it requites that the load distribution be defined beforchand, In addition, the ‘modifications that result have peculiar Umezawa’s shapes that would be difficult to manufacture. Load Distribution Analysis Procedure When considering topographical modifications and misalignment ef fects on the performance of gearing it is necessary to have a computation procedure that determines the load distribution along the lines of action of the gears. In this paper, the basis of the load distribution analysis comes from the research of Conry and Scireg (Ref. 34). However, similar approaches have been used by a number of investigators (Refs. 35-37). The work of Conry and Seireg has led to the creation of a computer program called the Load Distribution Program (Ref. 38) at the GearLab at The Ohio State University Unlike general purpose, finite element July 2008 44 GEARTECHNOLOGY approaches that are often used for this type of analysis, the approach used here is—computationally—extremely fast, allowing the performance of rumerous simulations in a short time. Microgeometry modifications can be applied to the load distribution solver by treating them as the initial separation ‘of the gears in mesh, A brief discussion ‘of the bases of this program is provided in an annex at the back of this paper. Outline of Procedure of ‘Topographical Modifications ‘The following is an outline of the ‘graphical procedure that is used to come up with optimal modifications. This procedure essentially allows the user to observe the effects of any of a number ‘of response variables, such as root and contact stresses; noise excitations such as transmission error and sum-of-forces; and tribology properties such as surface temperature and film thickness. Sum-of- forces is the sum of the first harmonic of transmission error, shuttling foree and friction force (Ref. 39). The effect of any of these variables may be viewed as function of torque in a number of ways. ‘The designer now has the opportunity to select the modification that can provide adequate noise response over a broad range of loads while at the same time satisfying load distribution, contact stress and bending stresses requirements at the higher loads. The final process ‘of the evaluation is to perform a manufacturing sensitivity analysis to ‘check the design's sensitivity to random crrors in manufacturing and assembly, such as housing misalignment, lead and profile errors 1, Select two design variables and their ranges. Possibilities include profile crown, profile slope, tip relief, lead crown, misalignment, shaft deflection and bias modification, 2, Select evaluation torques and run the load distribution program, 3, Select design evaluation metrics (ransmission sum-of-forces, contact stress, bending stresses, surface temperature and film thickness) 4, Create a 2D parameter map, and move the cursor around on the appropriate evaluation metrics map at www geartechnology.com the selected torque untiltheuser achieves a desirable torque response for that pair of variables. One may repeat this selection to compare the performance of various combinations of these variables At each selection, a graph versus torque will be made for that variable and each selection is superimposed on the same graph. One may look at other design metrics and then select the composite “pest” design or designs. 5. With the chosen values of the design variables, select two additional design variables and repeat the above procedure. One may need to iterate on the original variables upon completion of initial evaluations, but generally, iteration is not required. 6, Perform robustness analysis. of the selected designs. Procedure Example ‘The procedure is quite flexible in the order in which variables are analyzed and in the number of variables that are considered. Therefore, an example of only one procedural possibility is presented. Usually, it was found that the ‘most important variables should be dealt with in the early steps, One approach to rank ordering the importance of the design variables is with a Taguchi-type, factorial design analysis (Ref. 40). In the example that is shown below, a helical gear pair that was designed and tested by NASA (Ref. 41) will be optimized to minimize noise excitations at a range of pinion torques between 100 and 250 Nm (mean value is 175 Nm). The rated design torque for these gears is roughly 400 Nm. Figure 1 shows a transverse plane schematic of the gears in mesh, Table 1 presents a summary of the geometry of this gear pair, Selection of lead crown to compensate for misalignment, ‘There are essentially three types of decisions that are made regarding the selection of lead crown, including: 1, Use none; this may be done for narrow face widths or when extremely accurate manufacturing methods are used. 2, Use company-specitfied standards that are based on company experience.3, Establish the amount of peak misalignment and perform a load distribution analysis to establish a level of erown that shifts the peak Toad from the tooth edge. Usually this evaluation is, done at the design load since the goal is to control the root and contact stresses. Here, the latter situation will be ‘demonstrated. One method is to use an AGMA-quality number as a reference, For example, AGMA AB quality will be assumed to establish the manufacturing misalignment, This number will be doubled in order to account for the misalignment due to the housing, giving peak misalignment of 15 ym across the face width of the gear set. Because of the relatively narrow face width of the gear pait, circular lead erowning will ‘be applied so that the contact stresses and root stresses do not peak at the edge of the gear. Figure 2 shows the typical contact stress without any misalignment (peak at 1,225 MPs). Figure 3 shows the contact stress of the misaligned part (peak at 1,600 MPs). Figure 4 shows the contact stress of the misaligned part with 5 pm of lead crown (peak at 1,350 MPa), One ean see that for this 5 jum lead crown, the contact stresses at the ‘edge are avoided. In each case, a sharp profile tip modification is applied so that the high stress at the comer of the Es als 30 2a: af en: Boa es os» gee ive Tse wan (oe) 5 Figure &Confocl Soo 00 Nm (No Mgnt gs 3 = : is i ° ; sen le a (om Fire 3=Conlac es 0 Nn ith Magner, gs 2 e i i i > Hi x 3 Ds os 225 Fooe ta 2 Figure 4—Contact stesso 400 Nim (6.07 wm Lead Grown and 16.28 pm Misalignment “Table 2: Summary of Contact and Bending Stress at the Design Torque for Several Misalignment and Lead Crown tip and root can be reduced or ignored. Misalignment | Lead Crown Stresses (MPa) Table? shows contact stress and bending um) um Contact | GEAR? GEAR? stresses for different misalignment and Jead crown, 0 ° 1225 230 234 ‘Another method is «0 use the 2D 15 0 1800 348 308 parameter maps of contact stress and 6 5 7350 a0 er bending stress for lead crown versus misalignment, as shown in Figure 5. 9 5 1250 247 252 z i = i = ° ° zg 05 1) 15 m0 25 9 05 0 8 mw g Lead rom im) Lead Gon in) a. Contact Steas (GPa) Figure 5—inleacton of Misalignment and Lead Crown at Design Terque (400 N-. ». GRARI Bending Stress (GPa) www.geartechnotogy.com | July 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 45‘This method could be used to establish the appropriate lead crown needed at known misalignment values. Using this ‘method, it would seem like the best Iead ‘erown would be about 7 yim for contact, stress and about 10 ym for bending stress. In the next stage of the analysis, the interactions between lead crown and profile crown will be performed for perfectly aligned teeth, Profile crown and lead crown interactions, Experience has shown that circular crown provides nearly optimal modification for the minimization of transmission error of helical gears Beside that, profile crown and lead crown are the two most important variables in minimizing. transmission ‘error. Thus, it is logical that they arc the first variables to be considered when minimizing transmission error. In this case, standard parameter maps were generated for lead crown and profile erown amplitudes from 0-50 bm. ‘Maps of peak-to-peak transmission ‘error for six torque levels are shown in Figure 6, One may traverse any of the parameter maps with a mouse cursor and by clicking it, one may select any ‘combination of profile and lead crowns, ‘Then one can plot any of a large number ‘of gear design metrics (transmission ‘error, sum-of-forces, contact stress, bending stress, ele.) versus torque for that combination of crowns. Each time anew combination is clicked, a new set ‘of torque plots will be superimposed on the plots of design metrics. One example—Figure 7—shows such a set of plots with the letters A, B, C, D and E being the selected pairs From the peak-to-peak transmission ‘error versus torque plots, we see that cach of the crowning pairs gives a minimum transmission error ata different torque. The second noise metric—sum-of-forces—is less clear with regard to the minimum values; but if the procedure is repeated using the sum-of-forces parameter map, one might have found better minimum values for this variable. ‘The remaining plots show how the ‘other design metrics respond to the increasing profile and lead crowning Usually, as we increase crowning, stresses go up since loads are being concentrated more in the center region ‘of the tooth-meshing zone. Since the center of the noise torque region is at 175 Nm, we will try to find the profile crown and lead crown that would minimize the peak-to-peak transmission error at this torque and its surrounding torques. Figure 8 shows the profile crown and lead crown (AB, AC, [AD and AB) that are used for the next rns that are used to select the second- ‘order tooth modifications. Profile slope and lead slope interactions. The next step isto use the selected cases from profile crown and lead erown (AB, AC, AD and AE) and ‘evaluate the interaction of profile slope and lead slope from ~25 to 25 jum. Figure 9 shows the peak-to-peak transmission error for ease AE, At one torque, changing the profile slope and lead slope interaction may improve the design matrix, while the reverse may be true at other torque, The behavior of ‘one torque might be different at another torque, For example, at SO. Nm, one ‘could sce that for ~10 to 10 jm lead slope, one could select a large range of profile slope. However, at 400 Nm torque value, increasing lead slope and increasing profile slope are required to te weSseesae2S 53) oF GaawaEeaRE SS a ‘igure &Peak-to-Peak Transmission Evo or Prolie Crown and Lead Crown Moaiicaion| 48 GEARTECHNOLOGY uly 2008 | www geartechnology.comhave low peak-to-peak transmission error, The user could move around the ‘mouse cursor to find the relationship of profile slope and lead slope, Here cases ABO, AEI, AE2, AE3 and AEA will be chosen, Although not shown here, a similar procedure is used for the other cases (AB, AC and AD). Thus, the selected designs would have their own profile ‘erown, lead erown, profile slope and lead slope. By and large, the profile slope and lead slope modifications do not have much effect on the transmission cerrorresults, but ina couple of instances, some improvements were observed. It is interesting to note that the maximum, transmission error across the entire torque region is about 1.25 ym. To reduce the next interaction study (bias modifications), one or two of each main ease are used, which is shown in Figure 10, There are a total of seven selected designs—ABO, ACO, ACI, ADO, AD2, AEO and AE2. Bias modification interactions. Bias & 0 0 mw ow» fe Lax Cro e ae pep) Ee Poem gay 0s ies 20 Teed Gown gy Ps aDggend [= [ae [Se ‘women: TEbmy Toe ea Bong Se Po ints Figue 7—inieaction a Selected Potie Crown and Lead Crown fo Several Gear De wnw.geartechnology.com stay 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 47‘modifications (twist in the tooth shape) from—7.5 t07.5 pm are used forthe next procedure. “Bias out" modifications remove more material from the entering ‘and leaving regions of contact, and “bias-in” modifications remove material from the opposite corners of the teth Table 3 shows the bias that was added to the earlier modifications. Figure 11 shows the schematic on applying the program, Figure 12 shows the effect of bias modification of several design metries for case ABO. Here, adding bias-in ‘modification seems to improve the peak- to-peak transmission error and sum-of- forces, and at the same time it does not increase the contact stress from the no- bias case. For this particular case, 5 pm (bias-in, case AEO2), seems to be the best selection, The same procedure is done (not shown here) forall other cases and the bias modifications are selected ‘that optimize the design metrics. Figure 13 shows the comparison of these selected modifications. Cases ACO3 and ADO2 seem to be the better modification, when compared to other cases from the peak-to-peak Pere) atom i HER RG STRRTUTUEESESNS UTERO GGSESERAE Sn . es OP 5 io te 20 2 10 18 mm m0 Lacombe vessomntra some 88 rma 109014 0009 iw Profile Crown Gan ‘Lead Crown (un) ‘2D-Legend Peale Peak TE Gm) Tere wm) Peon Geng Stee (MPa) Tore ‘igure 8 Several Geor Design Meties Reslls using Solocied Profle Crown and lead Grown Medications, 48 GEARTECHNOLOGY 447 208 | gpa omtransmission error point of view at noise torqueranges. However cases ABO2and AB02 seem to be the better modification ‘compared to other eases from the sum- ‘of-forces point of view. Case ACO3 seems to be the better modification to the other cases from a contact stress point of view. Bending stresses show similar results as the contact stress (oot shown here). Figure 14 shows the baseline modification for each selected modification, Thus, the gear designers ‘would need to compromise between the noise and stresses for the modification to beused as a baseline. Next step would be to analyze which of these modifications are less sensitive to manufacturing error (robustness analysis). Robustness analysis. analysisisaMonteCarlo-typesimulation Robustness (Ref. 42) that applies randomly selected ‘errors to profile slope, profile curvature, lead slope (includes misalignment), lead ‘curvature and bias modifications, In this analysis, the standard deviation of each variable is created from the AGMA AB accuracy specifications by wh 100 manufacturing errors are selected randomly from the normal distributions for the gear. The distributions of errors wrieim » a” » 8 3 : Fr Be Ee Ew a Zo Bo cr 3 a 1s ia i 2s é f 8 « * i y 228 ne 20) 2 abt Hi ise) ‘estoy een if ‘reman200¥n ‘euse009m oe c000 he iW ts 1s a » ie is S Pi oe iz i oo ne were 200 0 ® He Lins) stone eon ey ts ‘Toxque= 175.00 Nm “Torun 400,00 Nm “Tome £00.00 Kms pif ce om = a f SED [ABI [AE | an) [ABS Trois Slaps Gam) NN ead Slope (um) a0] 2s; 00] 75715 Daged |e oe oe | Peak TE) Tegan Pron Gone em Po) Toms exe Figure §—Peak-to-Peak Transmislon Eror fo Varying Pofie lope ond lead Slope wih @ Fixed 7.5 pm Profi Crown and 7S pn Lead Grown (Cave 2 www.geartechnology.com July 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 49Table 3 Bias Modification Information Bias Case | Mosifeaton (um) | Type fio’ 15 BiasIn . file2 5.0 Bias-In wel - file3. 25 Bias-In 4 3 S| | tte 00 No Bias “| } Pe / fis 5 Biasn f oF eo files 50 Bias-In 1b. Bias OUT Modisicatons (75 jm) file7 1s Bias-In Fig 10—Stacking Slocoa Cans. Figure Ties ociicoion on FART ends grt Treason or) ee) Teo “oman samatFace somctrocen 9) Tenn Tere “Torq (Nm) Tomine) Figure 12-Eect of Bios Moaincations (7.5% 7.5 un) lo Case AE 75 1m Profle Crown, 7.5 ym Load Crown, 0.0 ym Pref Slope, and O pm {ead Siope) 80 GEARTECHNOLOGY | July 2008, Figuo 13—Summary Rests of Selected Design. www geartechnology.comFigur 14—Total Moaifeation For Selected Caso, Figue 16-100 Random Samples of Manutachung Ener www.geartechnotogy.com | July 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 51‘ ee a = a _ t acaeereeteit Figur 1é—Robusiness Analals (Average and Avers3 Sve) for Pook to- Figure 17—Robusiness Analyss (Average and AvorsS Siva) for Sum-oF Forces. = 10 pee =" vort z ware F a wore sl =| ” _ | asad 2 et E so or af 5 al ed Twos Figure 18 Robustness Anaiys (Average and Avered Sia) for Contact ‘Sho, 82. GEARTECHNOLOGY | July 2008, Figure 19—Rebusine Bending Sto. “Analysis (Average and Avors3 Sia) for GEAR ‘eaR2 Rox Stes SEM Amen) (GzaRa Roe Stes BEN AIS) penneeet Figure 22—Robusinoss Analisis (Average and Avere3 Sha) for GEARZ Bencing ht www.geartechnology.comof each of the variables are shown in Figure 15, Then, load distribution simulations are performed from low to high torque values Results are shown for each design metric in Figures 16-20. Results are shown in terms of the average value of ‘each 100 simulations and the mean-plus- three standard deviations (Aver+38tvd), which gives an indication of the worst- cease situation. Designs ABO2, AEO2 and AE22 each have transmission error average values that do not exceed 0.5 hm over the noise design torque range, and the same design's mean-plus-three values stay under 1 micron for the same torque range. From sum-of-forces viewpoint, the ‘design ABO2 data seems to be the best. For these designs, the ACO3 design has the lowest root and contact stresses, The topography for these designs is provided in Figure 14, ‘Summary This paper has presented an interactive, graphical procedure for determining gear tooth topography designs that minimize the noise and stresses of gears, The method is also a valuable educational tool for understanding the effects of numerous topographical changes of the tooth surface on gear performance. For the example helical gears, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1, Lead erown to adequately com- pensate for the misalignment is from 1/2 to 1/3 of the amount of misalignment across the face width, 2, Minimizing root stress requires a greater lead crown than does minimizing ‘contact stress, 3, Profile and ead crown are the most important modifications for minimizing transmission error, 4, Profile slope and lead slope corrections have little effect on transmission error (shaft deflections are not considered here). 5. Bias modifications provide some improvements in transmission error ver the noise design torque range, but the type of bias that is used depends upon the initial values of profile and lead erown, 6. Designs that are best for the perfect gear set are usually also the most robust gear designs. In the future, there is @ desire to apply these techniques to a broader range of gear geometries to see if the above conelusion can be extended to a broader range of gear geometries. OF Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the sponsors of the Gear Dynamics and Gear Noise Research Laboratory (GearLab) at The Ohio State University ‘for their support of the development of the modeling procedures used for the ‘gear analyses presented in this paper. References 1. Collins, LJ, Applications, Design and Manufacture.” AGMA, 1947. 2. Walker, H. “Gear Tooth Deflection and Profile Modification.” The Engineer, Vol. 166, pp. 409-412. Oct. 14, 1938, 3. Walker, H. “Gear Tooth Deflection and Profile Moditication—Part 2.” The Engineer, Vol. 166, pp. 434~436, Oct. 21, 1938, 4, Dudley, D.W. “Modification of Gear Tooth Profiles.” Sept. 20, 1949, pp. 126-131. 5. Dudley, D.W. “Handbook of Practical Gear Design.” McGraw Hill Book Company, NY, 1984, 6, Weber, C., K, Banaschek and G. Niemann. “Shape Changes and Tip Relief for Spur and Helical Gears.” Schriftenreihe Antriebstechnik, 1953, 7. Sigg, H. “Profile and Longitudinal Corrections on Involute Gears.” AGMA Paper 109.16; Chicago, Oct., 1965. 8. National Broach and Machine Div. “Modern Methods of Gear Manufacture.” Fourth Edition, 1972. 9, Munro, R.G., N. Yildirim and DM. Hall. “Optimum Profile Relief and ‘Transmission Error in Spur Gears, Proceedings I. Mech. E. Gear Noise and Vibration, Cambridge, 1990. 10, Remmers, E.P, “Analytical Gear Tooth Profile Design.” ASME Paper No. 72-PTG-A7, 1972 11. Welbourn, DB. Knowledge of Gear Noise—A Survey. Proceedings I. Mech. E. Confer “Gears—Their “Fundamental Noise and Vibrations of Engines and Transmissions, Cranfield Institute of Technology, July, 1979. 12, Lin, HLH,, FB, Oswald and DP. Townsend. “Dynamic Loading of Spur Gears with Linear or Parabolic Tooth Profile Modifications." Mechanism ‘and Machine Theory, 1994; 29 (8), pp. 1115-1129, 13, Tavakoli, M. 8, and D.R. Houser. “Optimum Profile Modifications for the Minimization of Static Transmission Errors of Spur Gears.” ‘Mechanics Transmission, ASME, Vol. 108, pp. 86-95, March, 1986, Journal 14, Houser, D.R. “Transmission Error Modeling.” Seminar: Plastic Gear Fundamentals Design and Manufacturing, Rosemont, IL, April 26-27, 2005, 15, Niemann, G. and J, Baethge. “Drehwegfchler, Zzahnfederharte und Gerdusch bei Stirnrademn.” DL-Z, Vol. 112, No. 4 and No. 8. 16, Wyeth, M. and W. Rouverol ‘Differential Crowning: A New Weapon Against Gear Noise and Dynamic Load."AGMA, 1996. 17, Palmer, D., and R.G. Munro. ‘Measurements of Transmission Error, Vibration and Noise in Spur Gears.” Proceedings, . Mech. E. Gear Dynamics Conference, 1995 18. Tobe, T.,andK. Inoue. “Longitudinal Load Distribution Factor of Helical Gears.” J Mech. Trans, and Auto, in Design, Vol. 107, 1985. 19, Wingate, D., and R. Walsh. “Evaluating the Load Distribution Factor for Spur Gears.” SAE Paper 891930, Milwaukee, 1989. 20, Sainsot, V. and D. Berthe. “ and Dynamic Analysis of Misaligned Gears with Partial Contact." Proceedings of the 15th Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology, Univ. of Leeds, UK, pp. 167-172, 1988, 21, De Vaujany, Jean-Pierre, “Axis Misalignments and Crowning for Helical Cylindrical Gears.” 4th World Congress, on Gearing and Power Transmission; Paris, France, 1999, 22. Chang, S., D.R. Houser and J Harianto, “Tooth Flank Corrections of Wide Face Width Helical Gears Static www.geartechnotogy.com | July 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 5354 GEARTECHNOLOGY uly 2008 that Account for Shaft Deflections.” Proceedings of the 9th International Power Transmission and Gearing Conference, Chicago, HL, 2003 Hand MM. Sent, “Breitenlastverteilung bei Verzahn- bungen—Berechnung und Diskussion Longitudinal Load Distribution in Gearing—Caleulation and Discussion.” ‘Maschinenbautechnik, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 437-444, 1983, 24, Hisel, TH. “Calculation of Contact Pattern and Longitudinal Flank Correction in Spur and Helical Involute Geats.” Proceedings 6th World Congress on the Theory of Machines and Mechanism, New Delhi, 1983, 25. Fujita, K. “GearTooth Stress Calculation Method for Heavily Crowned Gear.” JSME, Vol. 17, No. 104, pp. 264-272, Feb., 1974, 26. Umezawa, K, T. Suzuki, H. Houjoh and K. Bagiasna, “Influence of Misalignment on Vibration of Helical Gear.” Proceedings nd World Congress on Gearing, Paris, pp. 615-626, 1986. 27. Guilbault, R. “Effects of Helical Slope and Form Deviation on the Contact and Fillet Stresses of Helical Gears.” AGMA Technical Conference. 28, Umeyama, M. “Effects of Modified Tooth Surface of a Helical Gear Pair fon the Transmission Error and its Optimal Design.” International Gearing Conference, University of Newcastle, ‘Tyne, UK, p. 377, 1994, 29. Maki, H. “A Study on Optimum ‘Tooth Modifications of Helical Gears under Various Loads.” Proceedings of the Transmission and Driveline Systems ‘Symposium, SAB, pp. 257-261, 1999. 30, Umezawa, K. “Low Vibration on a Helical Gear Pair.” AGMA Technical Paper, 98FTMS, 1998. 31, Honda, 8, “Rotational Vibration of a Helical Gear Pair with Modified Tooth Surfaces, (Modified Tooth Surface and its Equivalent Tooth Profile) JSME International Jounal Series C: Dynamics Control Robotics Design and ‘Manufacturing, pp. 125-134, 1993, 32, Matsumura, S., K, Umezawa, and H. Houjoh. “Performance Diagram of a Helical Gear Pair Having Tooth Surface Deviation During Transmission www geartechnology.com on Light Load.” Proceedings 7th ASME Inil, Power Trans. and Gearing Conf, San Diego, pp. 161-168, 1996. 33, Regalado, I and DR. “Profile Modifications for Minimum Static Transmission Error in Cylindrical Gears.” Proceedings ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Atlanta, 1998, 34. Comy, LF. and A. Seireg. “A Mathematical Programming Technique for the evaluation of Load Distribution and Optimal Modifications for Gear Systems." ASME Journal ofEngineering for Industry, Nol. 94, July, 1972. 35. Kubo, A. “Stress Condition, Vibrational Exciting Force, and Contact Pattern of Helical Gears with Manufacturing and Alignment Errors. Journal Mech, Des., Trans. ASME., Vol. 100, pp. 177-184, Jan., 1978. 36. Borner, J., N. Kurz and F. Joachim. Effective Analysis of Gears with the Program LVR—Stifiness Method).” Intl. Conference on Gears, Munich, pp. 721-735, Match, 2002, 37, Krenzer, TJ. “Tooth Contact Analysis of Spiral Bevel and Hypoid Gears Under Load.” SAE Paper 810688, 1981 38. Load Distribution Program Manual, GearLab—The Ohio State University, 2002 39, Houser, D.R, and J, Harianto “Manufacturing Robustness Analysis of the Noise Excitation and Design of Alternative Gear Sets.” SAE Technical Paper, May, 2001 40. Ueda, Y. and D.R, Houser. “Optimum Design and Manufacturing Robustness for Gear Whine of Helical Gears,” Proceedings Intemational Conference on Gears and Transmissions, Munich, Germany. 41. Houser, DR. “Gear Noise Sources and Their Prediction Using Mathematical Model.” Gear Design (AE-15) Manufacturing and Inspection Manual, Chapter 16, Society of Automotive Engineering, pp. 213-222, 1990, 42, Houser, D.R. and J. Harianto, “A Gear Design Optimization Procedure that Identifies Robust, Minimum Stress and Minimum Noise Gear Pair Designs.” 02FTMII, Technical Paper, AGMA, 2002,Annex Formulation of the Load Dis- tribution Caleulation Procedure ‘The formulation of the solution of the Toad distribution (Ref. 1) in gears is equivalent to the formulation of the solution of the generalized, elastic contact problem, The discussion that follows is a condensation of the work of Conry and Seireg (Ref. 2) pertaining to elastic bodies in contact. Given the compliance of each point in the ‘contact zone—the initial separations (or approaches) under zero-load and the applied load—the load distribution and the overall system rigid body rotation may be obtained using a modified, ‘Simplex-type algorithm. All elastic deformations and forces are assumed to be acting along the line of action in the transverse plane. For the gear teeth to be in contact at any point, the sum of the elastic deformations and 1 separations must be equal to the rigid body displacement of the point with respect to the reference line, To determine the position of contact, the gear teeth are taken to be of perfect, involute form, Any tooth surface errors ‘are interpreted as initial separations or approaches. ‘Two criteria are proposed for the ‘mathematical formulation of the solution ‘of the contact problem, The condition ‘of compatibility of deformation outlines the condition for which points may ‘come into contact. The condition of ‘equilibrium assures that the sum of torques acting on the system are zero. For any point, k, in the contact zone, the total sum of elastie deformations and initial separations must be greater than, or equal to, the rigid body approach along the line of action. This condition may be written as: Wy 4W, +e, 2 RO in) The sum of all torques acting on ‘@ gear body must be zero, The sum fof moments about the line of action ‘must be equal, but opposite in sign, to the applied torque. This condition is represented as: BXR)+T=0 @ ‘The compatibility conditions as defined by the inequality equation (1) may be transformed into an equation of ‘equality through the introduction of a slack variable, Y,, Equation I may now be written as W,+Wyte-R0-¥=0 GB) Consequently, if Y, > 0, then the ‘wo bodies are not in contact at point k and F, =0. FY, = 0, then contact exists and F, = 0. Thus, the solution to the load distribution problem may be stated as follows = [SILF}¢ 8,0 [1+ WILY fel = @) I+ (IR, +7=0 © ‘A modified Simplex type algorithm is then used 1 solve for the load istribution, ‘The major assumptions that ae used in the load distribution calculation are: 1. All contact is along the line of action. This assumption does not allow so called “corner” contact that occurs when the modifications are not sufficient to compensate for tooth deflections as teeth enter and leave contact. There is a comer contact option that does allow this to be included for both spur and helical gearing (Ret, 3). 2. The edges of helical gear teeth are modeled as being perpendicular to the normal plane. 3, Rims and webs are assumed to be solid. 4. Tooth bending and shear de- fletions are computed using a Rayleigh- Riz solution of & tapered plate model ww.geartechnotogy.com Ref. 4). 'S. Additional tooth deflection com- ponents include Hertzian deflections (Ref. 5) and deflection of the tooth base (Ref. 6), References 1. Load Distribuion Program Manual, GearLab—The Ohio State University, 2002. 2. Conry, TF. and Seineg, A., “A Mathematical Programming Technique forthe evaluation of Load Distribution and Optimal Modifications for Gear Systems." ASME Jounal ofEngineering {for Industry, Vol. 94, July 1972. 3. Singh, A., and D.R. Houser “Analysis of Off-Line of Action Contact at the Tips of Gear Teeth.” SAE Paper 941716, 4. Yau, EB, Busby, H. and DR. Houser. “A Rayleigh-Ritz Approach for Modeling the Bending and Shear Deflections of Gear Teeth.” JSME International Conference on Motion ‘and Power Transmission, 1991 5. Weber, C.“The Deformations of Loaded Gears and the Effect on Their Load-Carrying Capacity.” Sponsored Research (Germany), British Dept of Scientific and Industrial Research, Report No, 3, 1949, 6. Stegemiller, MB, and DR. Houser. “A Three-Dimensional Analy- sis of the Base Flexibility of Gear Teeth.” ASME Sth Intemational Power Transmission and Gearing Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 189-196, April, 1989, uy 2008 | GEARTECHNOLOGY 55