Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Volume 2, Issue 1, 2011

Compact Design for Non-Standard Spur Gears

Tuan Nguyen, Graduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Memphis, Hsiang H. Lin, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Memphis, Abstract This paper presents procedures for compact design of non-standard spur gear sets with the objective of minimizing the gear size. The procedures are for long and short addendum system gear pairs that have an equal but opposite amount of hob cutter offset applied to the pinion and gear in order to maintain the standard center distance. Hob offset has shown to be an effective way to balance the dynamic tooth stress of the pinion and the gear to increase load capacity. The allowable tooth stress and dynamic response are incorporated in the process to obtain a feasible design region. Various dynamic rating factors were investigated and evaluated. The constraints of contact stress limits and involute interference combined with the tooth bending strength provide the main criteria for this investigation. A three-dimensional design space involving the gear size, diametral pitch, and operating speed was developed to illustrate the optimal design of the non-standard spur gear pairs. Operating gears over a range of speeds creates variations in the dynamic response and changes the required gear size in a trend that parallels the dynamic factor. The dynamic factors are strongly affected by the system natural frequencies. The peak values of the dynamic factor within the operating speed range significantly influence the optimal gear designs. The refined dynamic factor introduced in this study yields more compact designs than those produced by AGMA dynamic factors. Introduction Designing gear transmission systems involves selecting combinations of gears to produce a desired speed ratio. If the ratio is not unity, the gears will have different diameters. The tooth strength of the smaller gear (the pinion) is generally weaker than that of the larger one (the gear) if both are made of the same material. In some designs, pinions with very small tooth numbers must be used in order to satisfy the required speed ratio and fit in the available space. This can lead to undercut of the teeth in the pinion which further reduces strength. One solution to the pinion design problem is to specify nonstandard gears in which the tooth profile of the pinion is shifted outward slightly, thus increasing its strength, while the gear tooth profile may be decreased by an equal amount. These changes in tooth proportions may be accomplished without changing operating center distance and with standard cutting tools by withdrawing the cutting tool slightly as the pinion blank is cut and advancing the cutter the same distance into the gear blank. This practice is called the long and short addendum system. When gears are cut by hobs, this adjustment to the tooth proportions is called hob cutter offset. Several studies of non-standard gears have been performed to determine the proper hob cutter offset to produce gear pairs of different sizes and contact ratios with similar tooth strength. Walsh and Mabie [1] investigated the method to adjust the hob offset values for pinion and gear so that the stress in the pinion teeth was approximately equal to that in the gear teeth. They developed hob offset charts for various velocity ratios and for several changes in center distance. Mabie, Walsh, and Bateman [2] performed similar but more detailed work about tooth stress equalization and compared the results with those found using either the Lewis form factor Y or the AGMA formulation. Mabie, Rogers, and Reinholtz [3] developed a numerical procedure to determine the individual hob offsets for a pair of gears to obtain maximum ratio of recess to approach action, to balance tooth strength of the pinion and gear, to maintain the desired contact ratio, and to avoid undercutting. Liou [4] tried to balance dynamic tooth stresses on both pinion and gear by adjusting hob offset values when cutting non-standard gears of long and short addendum design. Designing compact (minimum size) gear sets provides benefits such as minimal weight, lower material cost,

smaller housings, and smaller inertial loads. Gear designs must satisfy constraints, such as bending strength limits, pitting resistance, and scoring. Many approaches for improved gear design have been proposed in previous literature of references [5] to [16]. Previous research presented different approaches for optimal gear design. Savage et al. [12] considered involute interference, contact stresses, and bending fatigue. They concluded that the optimal design usually occurs at the intersection point of curves relating the tooth numbers and diametral pitch required to avoid pitting and scoring. Wang et al. [13] expanded the model to include the AGMA geometry factor and AGMA dynamic factor in the tooth strength formulas. Their analysis found that the theoretical optimal gear set occurred at the intersection of the bending stress and contact stress constraints at the initial point of contact. More recently, the optimal design of gear sets has been expanded to include a wider range of considerations. Andrews et al. [14] approached the optimal strength design for nonstandard gears by calculating the hob offsets to equalize the maximum bending stress and contact stress between the pinion and gear. Savage et al. [15] treated the entire transmission as a complete system. In addition to the gear mesh parameters, the selection of bearing and shaft proportions were included in the design configuration. The mathematical formulation and an algorithm are introduced by Wang et al. [16] to solve the multiobjective gear design problem, where feasible solutions can be found in a three-dimensional solution space. However, none of them was for compact design study. Most of the foregoing literature dealt primarily with static tooth strength of standard gear geometries. These studies use the Lewis formula assuming that the static load is applied at the tip of the tooth. Some considered stress concentration and the AGMA geometry and dynamic factors. However, the operating speed must be considered for dynamic effects. Rather than using the AGMA dynamic factor, which increases as a simple function of pitch line velocity, a gear dynamics code by Lin et al. [5, 6, and 17] was used here to calculate a dynamic load factor. The purpose of the present work is to develop a design procedure for a compact size of non-standard spur gear sets of the long and short addendum system incorporating dynamic considerations. Constraint criteria employed for this investigation include the involute interference limits combined with the tooth bending strength and contact stress limits. Model Formulation Spur Gears Cut by a Hob Cutter The following analysis is based on the study of Mabie et al. [3]. Figure 1 shows a hob cutting a pinion where the solid line indicates a pinion with fewer than the minimum number of teeth required to prevent interference.

Figure 1 Spur gear tooth cut by a standard hob or a withdrawn hob. The addendum line of the hob falls above the interference point E of the pinion, so that the flanks of the pinion teeth are undercut. To avoid undercutting, the hob can be withdrawn a distance e, so that the

addendum line of the hob passes through the interference point E. This condition is shown as dotted in Figure 1 and results in the hob cutting a pinion with a wider tooth. As the hob is withdrawn, the outside radius of the pinion must also be increased (by starting with a larger blank) to maintain the same clearance between the tip of the pinion tooth and the root of the hob tooth. To show the change in the pinion tooth more clearly, the withdrawn hob in Figure 1 was moved to the right to keep the left side of the tooth profile the same in both cases. The width of the enlarged pinion tooth on its cutting pitch circle can be determined from the tooth space of the hob on its cutting pitch line. From Figure 2, this thickness can be expressed by the following equation:

t = 2etan +

p 2


Figure 2 A hob cutter with offset e for enlarged pinion tooth thickness Equation (1) can be used to calculate the tooth thickness on the cutting pitch circle of a gear generated by a hob offset an amount e; e will be negative if the hob is advanced into the gear blank. In Figure 1, the hob was withdrawn just enough so that the addendum line passed through the interference point of the pinion. The withdrawn amount can be increased or decreased as desired as long as the pinion tooth does not become undercut or pointed. The equation that describes the relationship between e and other tooth geometry is

e = AB + OA - OP k = + Rb cos - R p Pd



k Pd

- R p ( 1- cos2 )



1 Pd

(k -

N 2 sin ) 2


Two equations that were developed from involutometry find particular application in this study:

cos B = t B = 2 RB (

RA cos A RB tA + inv A -inv B ) 2 RA



By means of these equations, the pressure angle and tooth thickness at any radius RB can be found if the pressure angle and tooth thickness are known at a reference radius RA. This reference radius is the cutting pitch radius, and the tooth thickness on this cutting pitch circle can be easily calculated for any cutter offset. The reference pressure angle is the pressure angle of the hob cutter. When two gears, gear 1 and gear 2, which have been cut with a hob offset e1 and e2, respectively, are meshed together, they operate on pitch circles of radii R'1 and R'2 and at pressure angle . The thickness of the teeth on the operating pitch circles can be expressed as t'1 and t'2, which can be calculated from Equation (6). These dimensions are shown in Figure 3 together with the thickness of the teeth t1 and t2 on the cutting pitch circles of radii R1 and R2.

Figure 3 Non-standard gears cut by offset hob cutters and operated at new pressure angle . To determine the pressure angle at which these gears will operate, we found

2 N 1 R1' = = ' 1 N 2 R2
' = t1' + t 2 ' 2R1' 2R2 = N1 N2



Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (8) and dividing by 2R 1,

R' [ t1 + (inv - inv ' )] + 2' [ t 2 + (inv - inv ' ) = N1 R1 2 R2 2 R1

Rearranging this equation gives,


t1 R' t R' + 2' 2 = + (1 + 2' )(inv ' inv ) 2 R1 R1 2 R2 N 1 R1

By substituting Eq. (7) and 2R = N/Pd into the above equation and multiplying by N1/Pd ,

( 10 )

t1+ t2 =


N 1+ N 2 ( inv -inv ) Pd


By substituting Eq. (1) for t1 and t2,

2 e1 tan +

p p N + N2 (inv - inv ) + 2 e2 tan + = + 1 2 2 Pd Pd

( 12 )

Simplifying the equation above gives,

2 tan ( e1 + e2 )+ p =


N 1+ N 2 ( inv -inv ) Pd

( 13 )

By substituting p = /Pd and solving for inv ,

inv = inv +

2 Pd ( e1 + e2 ) tan N 1+ N 2

( 14 )

e1 + e2 =

( N 1 + N 2 )(inv - inv ) 2 Pd tan

( 15 )

Expressing the above equation in metric unit with m as module,

e1 + e2 =

m ( N 1 + N 2 )( inv -inv ) 2 tan

( 16 )

In this study, we limit our investigation to the case that the hob cutter is advanced into the gear blank the same amount that it is withdrawn from the pinion, therefore, e2 = -e1 and, from Eq. (15) or (16), = . Because there is no change in the pressure angle, R'1 = R1 and R'2 = R2, and the gears operate at the standard center distance. If the offsets are unequal (e2 -e1), then the center distance must change. This problem is not considered in the present investigation. Objective Function The design objective of this study is to obtain the most compact gear set of the long and short addendum system satisfying design requirements that include loads and power level, gear ratio and material parameters. The gears designed must satisfy operational constraints such as avoiding interference, pitting, scoring distress and tooth breakage. The required gear center distance C is the chosen parameter to be optimized.

C = R p1 + R p 2


Rp1 pitch radius of gear 1 Rp2 pitch radius of gear 2

Design Parameters and Variables The following table lists the parameters and variables used in this study: Table 1 Basic gear design parameters and variables Gear Parameters Design Variables Number of pinion teeth Bending strength and contact strength Diametral pitch limits Operating speed Operating torque Gear ratio Face width Pressure angle Hob cutter offset

Design Constraints Involute Interference Involute interference is defined as a condition in which there is an obstruction on the tooth surface that prevents proper tooth contact (Townsend et al. [18]); or contact between portions of tooth profiles that are not conjugate (South et al. [19]). Interference occurs when the driven gear contacts a noninvolute portion (below the base circle) of the driving gear. Undercutting occurs during tooth generation if the cutting tool removes the interference portion of the gear being cut. An undercut tooth is weaker, less resistant to bending stress, and prone to premature tooth failure. DANST has a built-in routine to check for interference. Bending Stress Tooth bending failure at the root is a major concern in gear design. If the bending stress exceeds the fatigue strength, the gear tooth has a high probability of failure. The AGMA bending stress equation can be found in the paper by Savage et al. [13] and in other gear literature. In this study, a modified Heywood formula for tooth root stress was used. This formula correlates well with the experimental data and finite element analysis results (Cornell et al. [20]):

j =

W j cos j F

[ 1 + 0.26(

hf 2R f

) 0.7 ] [

6l f h2 f

tan j h 0.72 ( 1 L tan j ) ] hf l f hf hf


where root bending stress at loading position j. Wj transmitted load at loading position j. j load angle, degree F face width of gear tooth, inch approximately 1/4, according to Heywood [21]. Rf fillet radius, inch

other nomenclature is defined in Figure 4 and References [20] and [21]. To avoid tooth failure, the bending stress should be limited to the allowable bending strength of the material as suggested by AGMA [22],

j all =



St AGMA bending strength KL life factor KT temperature factor

all allowable bending stress

KR reliability factor Kv dynamic factor

Figure 4 Tooth geometry for stress calculations using modified Heywood formula. Surface Stress The surface failure of gear teeth is an important concern in gear design. Surface failure modes include pitting, scoring, and wear. Pitting is a gear tooth failure in the form of tooth surface cavities as a result of repeated stress applications. Scoring is another surface failure that usually results from high loads or lubrication problems. It is defined as the rapid removal of metal from the tooth surface caused by metal contact due to high overload or lubricant failure. The surface is characterized by a ragged appearance with furrows in the direction of tooth sliding (Shigley et al. [23]). Wear is a fairly uniform removal of material from the tooth surface. The stresses on the surface of gear teeth are determined by formulas derived from the work of Hertz [18]. The Hertzian contact stress between meshing teeth can be expressed as


1 1 + W j cos j 1 2 = F cos 1 12 1 22 + E2 E1


where Hj contact stress at loading position j Wj transmitted load at loading position j. load angle, degree j F face width of gear tooth, inch pressure angle, degree 1,2 radius of curvature of gear 1,2 at the point of contact, inch 1,2 Poissons ratio of gear 1,2 E1,2 modulus of elasticity of gear 1,2, psi The AGMA recommends that this contact stress should also be considered in a similar manner as the bending endurance limit (Shigley et al. [22]). The equation is

Hj c ,all = S C




allowable contact stress AGMA surface fatigue strength life factor hardness-ratio factor temperature factor reliability factor

According to Savage et al. [12], Hertzian stress is a measure of the tendency of the tooth surface to develop pits and is evaluated at the lowest point of single tooth contact rather than at the less critical pitch point as recommended by AGMA. Gear tip scoring failure is highly temperature dependent (Shigley et al. [23]) and the temperature rise is a direct result of the Hertz contact stress and relative sliding speed at the gear tip. Therefore, the possibility of scoring failure can be determined by Equation (20) with the contact stress evaluated at the initial point of contact. A more rigorous method not used here is the PVT equation or the Blok scoring equation (South et al. [18]). Dynamic Load Effect One of the major goals of this work is to study the effect of dynamic load on optimal gear design. The dynamic load calculation is based on the NASA gear dynamics code DANST developed by the authors. DANST has been validated with experimental data for high-accuracy gears at NASA Lewis Research Center (Oswald et al. [24]). DANST considers the influence of gear mass, meshing stiffness, tooth profile modification, and system natural frequencies in its dynamic calculations. The dynamic tooth load depends on the value of relative dynamic position and backlash of meshing tooth pairs. After the gear dynamic load is found, the dynamic load factor can be determined by the ratio of the maximum gear dynamic load during mesh to the applied load. The applied load equals the torque divided by the base circle radius. This ratio indicates the relative instantaneous gear tooth load. Compact gears designed using the dynamic load calculated by DANST will be compared with gears designed using the AGMA suggested dynamic factor, which is a simple function of the pitch line velocity. Gear Design Application Design Algorithm An algorithm was developed to perform the analyses and find the optimum design of non-standard gears of the long and short addendum system (LASA). The computer algorithm of the dynamic optimal design can start with the pinion tooth number loop. Within each pinion tooth number loop, all of the basic parameters are needed in dynamic analysis, including the diametral pitch, addendum ratio, dedendum ratio, gear material properties, transmitted power (torque), face width, and hob offset value. The DANST code also calculates additional parameters that are needed in dynamic analysis, such as base circle radius, pitch circle radius, addendum circle radius, stiffness, and the system natural frequencies, etc. One of the system natural frequencies (the one that results in the highest dynamic stresses) will be used as pinion operating speed. For this study, the diametral pitch was varied from two to twenty. Static analysis was first performed to check for involute interference and to calculate the meshing stiffness variations and static transmission errors of the gear pair. If there was a possibility of interference, the number of pinion teeth was increased by one and the static process was repeated. The number of gear teeth was also increased according to the specified gear ratio. Results from the static analyses were incorporated in the equations of motion of the gear set to obtain the dynamic motions of the system. Instantaneous dynamic load at each contact point along the tooth profile was determined from these motions. The varying contact stresses and root bending stresses during the gear mesh were calculated from these dynamic loads. If all the calculated stresses were less than the design stress limits for a possible gear set, the data for this set were added to a candidate group. At each value of the diametral pitch, the most compact gear set in the candidate group would have the smallest center distance. These different candidate designs can be compared in a table or graph to show the optimum design from all the sets studied. The analyses above are for gears operating at a single speed. To examine the effect of varying speed, the analyses can be repeated at different speeds. The program will stop when all the stresses are below the

design constraints. Thus, a feasible optimal gear set operating at the system natural frequency can be obtained. As the diametral pitch varies, the optimal gear sets determined from each diametral pitch value are collected to form the optimal design space. This design space, when transferred into the center distance space, which is our merit function of optimal design, will indicate all the feasible optimal gear sets to be selected from with given operating parameters. Design Applications Table 2 shows the basic gear parameters for the sample gear sets to be studied. They were first used in a gear design problem by Shigley and Mitchell [19], and later used by Carroll and Johnson [13] as an example for optimal design of compact gear sets. The sample gear set transmits 100 horsepower at an input speed of 1120 rpm. The gear set has standard full depth teeth and a speed reduction ratio of 4. In this study, the face width of the gear is always chosen to be one-half the pinion pitch diameter. In other words, the length to diameter ratio () is 0.5. Table 2 Basic design parameters of sample gear sets 20 Pressure Angle, (degree) Gear Ratio, Mg 4.0 0.5 Length to Diameter Ratio, Transmitted Power (hp) 100.0 Applied Torque (lb-in) 5627.264 Input Speed (rpm) 1120.0 Modulus of Elasticity (Mpsi) 30 0.3 Poissons Ratio, Scoring and Pitting Stress Limits, SS and SP (Kpsi) 79.23 Bending Stress Limit, Sb (Kpsi) 19.81 Hob Cutter Offset (in) 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, 0.09 Cutting gears with offset hobs is an effective way to balance the dynamic tooth strength of the pinion and gear. It reduces the dynamic stress in the pinion and increases stress in the gear to achieve balance. In general, increasing the offset improves the balance in dynamic tooth strength. However, the best hob offset varies with the transmission speed and is limited by the maximum allowable offset that renders the pinion tooth pointed. The hob offset amount is varied from 0.03 inch to 0.09 inch with an increment of 0.02 inch in this investigation. Table 3 displays Carrolls [13] optimal design results for the sample gears of standard system without hob cutter offset. The optimal design is indicated in bold type and by an arrow. In the table, Pd is the diametral pitch, NT1 and NT2 represent the number of teeth of pinion and gear, respectively, CD is the center distance, FW is the face width, CR is the contact ratio, and Sb, SS, and SP are the stress limit for bending, scoring, and pitting, respectively. Table 3 Carrolls optimization results of sample standard gear set [13] (Using Lewis tooth stress formula) Ss NT1 NT2 CD FW CR Sb 19 76 23.750 4.750 1.681 2.872 72.497 20 80 22.222 4.444 1.691 3.553 72.162 21 84 21.000 4.200 1.701 4.275 72.532 23 92 19.167 3.833 1.717 5.820 74.100 27 108 16.875 3.375 1.745 9.202 77.876 40 160 16.667 3.333 1.805 12.703 66.972 53 212 16.563 3.313 1.840 16.191 63.302 66 264 16.500 3.300 1.863 19.670 61.463 86 344 17.917 3.583 1.887 19.727 53.219 132 528 20.625 4.125 1.917 19.726 42.459 185 740 23.125 4.625 1.934 19.742 35.708

Pd 2.00 2.25 2.50 3.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 20.00

Sp 51.396 55.853 59.950 67.213 78.860 78.309 78.247 78.285 69.603 57.137 48.760

The theoretical optimum for this example occurs at the intersection of bending stress and contact stress constraint curves at the lowest point of single tooth contact. This creates a gear set that has NT1 = 64 and Pd = 9.8 for a theoretical center distance of 16.333 in. The minimum practical center distance (16.50 in.) is

obtained when NT1 = 66 and Pd = 10.0. For comparison with the above results, we used the same AGMA dynamic factor Kv (Equation 6) but with the modified Heywood tooth bending stress formula (Eq. 2) in the calculations. Table 4 lists the optimization results obtained. Table 4 Optimization results of sample standard gears (Using modified Heywood tooth stress formula) NT2 CD FW CR Sb 76 23.750 4.750 1.681 2.847 76 21.111 4.222 1.681 3.935 80 20.000 4.000 1.691 4.718 88 18.333 3.667 1.709 6.384 112 17.500 3.500 1.751 8.466 164 17.083 3.417 1.808 12.215 216 16.875 3.375 1.842 15.785 268 16.750 3.350 1.865 19.369 348 18.125 3.625 1.888 19.637 536 20.938 4.188 1.918 19.638 752 23.500 4.700 1.935 19.718

Pd 2.00 2.25 2.50 3.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 20.00

NT1 19 19 20 22 28 41 54 67 87 134 188

Ss 66.873 78.539 76.864 76.054 66.656 58.956 56.336 55.015 47.915 38.076 32.006

Sp 52.390 61.589 65.812 73.234 76.216 77.066 77.689 78.137 69.817 57.045 48.616

As can be seen from the table, the minimum practical center distance (16.750 in.) is obtained when NT1 = 67 and Pd = 10.0. This is very close to Carrolls design but his optimal gear set will exceed the design limit of 19.81 Kpsi (from Table 2) for maximum bending stress on the pinion according to our calculations. The differences between Carrolls results and those reported here are likely due to the use of different formulas for bending stress calculations. Figure 5 shows graphically the design space for the results presented in Table 4, depicting the stress constraint curves of bending, scoring, and pitting. The region above each constraint curve indicates feasible design space for that particular constraint. In the figure, the theoretical optimum is located at the intersection point of the scoring stress and the bending stress constraint.

Figure 5 Design space for determination of optimized results of sample standard gears using modified Heywood tooth stress formula.


Table 5 displays the data for the optimum compact design of the sample non-standard gears (long and short addendum system) with a hob offset of 0.03 inch. The practical minimum center distance is equal to 15.000 inches and occurs at two values of Pd = 10.00 and 12.00, with NT1 = 60 and 72. The practical minimum center distance decreases as the diametral pitch Pd increases from 2.00 to 10.00; it then increases as the diametral pitch Pd increases from 12.00 to 20.00. Table 5 Optimization results for non-standard gears (LASA) with 0.03 inch hob offset Pd 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 NT1 20 25 30 39 50 60 72 107 151 NT2 80 100 120 156 200 240 288 428 604 CD 25.000 20.833 18.750 16.250 15.625 15.000 15.000 16.719 18.875 FW 5.000 4.167 3.750 3.250 3.125 3.000 3.000 3.344 3.775 CR 1.691 1.732 1.762 1.801 1.833 1.854 1.872 1.904 1.924 Sb 2.684 5.325 8.534 12.526 16.074 21.053 24.637 25.312 25.647 Ss 71.166 74.722 79.217 78.846 76.410 78.169 76.021 61.583 51.281 Sp 23.861 27.375 25.057 60.440 63.863 67.826 68.245 57.990 49.269

In Table 6, when the hob offset is increased to 0.05 inch, the optimum compact design occurs at Pd = 10.0 with a practical minimum center distance of 15.750 inch and NT1 = 63,. As can be seen from the table, the minimum center distance decreases as the diametral pitch increases from 2.00 to 10.00. When the diametral pitch is greater than 10, the minimum center distance increases with the diametral pitch value. Table 6 Optimization results for non-standard gears with 0.05 inch hob offset Pd 2.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 16.00 20.00 NT1 19 25 30 42 52 63 79 127 196 NT2 76 100 120 168 208 252 316 508 784 CD 23.750 20.833 18.750 17.500 16.250 15.750 16.458 19.844 24.500 FW 4.750 4.167 3.750 3.500 3.250 3.150 3.292 3.969 4.900 CR 1.681 1.732 1.762 1.811 1.838 1.859 1.880 1.915 1.936 Sb 3.005 5.296 8.611 14.076 17.460 23.580 25.628 25.293 25.309 Ss 78.361 73.095 77.748 78.573 75.663 78.122 71.270 54.128 41.570 Sp 26.984 29.197 30.469 30.307 61.022 65.023 62.258 49.583 38.476

The optimization results for hob offsets of 0.07 and 0.09 inches are very similar. For both cases the practical minimum center distance is equal to 17.500 and occurs at Pd = 6.00 and 8.00, with NT1 = 42 and 56, respectively. Minimum center distance decreases as the diametral pitch increases from 2.00 to 6.00; it then increases as diametral pitch increases from 8.00. At Pd = 6.00 and 8.00, the minimum center distance for both cases is unchanged. Some higher diametral pitch values do not produce optimization results due to the pointed teeth. Comparisons between non-standard gear designs at different hob offset values are shown in Figures 6(a) and 6(b). The compact design improves significantly as Pd value increases from 2.00 to 4.00 for nonstandard gears and from 2.00 to 6.00 for standard gears.


210 190

Pinion Tooth Number

170 150 130 110 9 7 5 3 1 2.00 3.00 4.00

Feasible Design







Diametral Pitch Hob Offset

0.03 in 0.05 in 0.07 in 0.09 in

29 27 25

Center Distance (in.)

23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 2.00 3.00 4.00

Feasible Design







Diametral Hob Offset

0.03 in 0.05 in 0.07 in 0.09 in

(b) Figure 6 Design space and optimal gear sets for standard and non-standard gears, Gear ratio Mg = 4, pressure angle = 200.


At diametral pitch values less than or equal to 3.00, non-standard gears with hob offset values of 0.07 inches and 0.09 inches appear to be more compact than standard gears while non-standard gears with hob offset values of 0.03 inches and 0.05 inches have the same center distance as standard gears (except nonstandard gears pair at Pd = 2.00 with hob offset 0.05 inch that has slightly smaller center distance than standard gears pair). At a diametral pitch value of 4.00, non-standard gears and standard gears have the same compact design. At diametral pitch that is greater than 6.00, standard gears appear more compact than non-standard gears. The difference is extremely large at high diametral pitch values and high hob offset values. Comparisons between non-standard gears indicate that the curves in this study are almost identical to the one in Study 8. Therefore, similar conclusions are derived in this study. From Figure 6(b), hob offset values of 0.07 inches and 0.09 inches seem to result in better compact design than hob offsets of 0.03 inches and 0.05 inches when diametral pitch is less than or equal to 4.00. With diametral pitches that are greater than 4.00, non-standard gears with hob offset values of 0.07 inches and 0.09 inches become less compact when compared to non-standard gears at smaller hob offset values. Generally, at a diametral pitch value of 4.00 or less, increasing the hob offset value will result in a more compact design. When the diametral pitch is greater than 4.00, increasing the hob offset value will result in a larger gears center distance or a less compact design. When the diametral pitch value is high (greater than or equal to 10.00), non-standard gears at higher hob offsets (0.07 inches and 0.09 inches) seem very sensitive to subject load which result in a much larger gear pair. Thus, the degree of sensitivity increases with hob offset value at high diametral pitch values. As can be seen in the plots, because of the sensitivity in geometry, we could not obtain results for non-standard gears with hob offset values of 0.07 inches at Pd = 20.00 and 0.09 inches at Pd = 16.00 and 20.00. Conclusions This paper presents a method for optimal design of standard spur gears for minimum dynamic response. A study was performed using a sample gear set from the gear literature. Optimal gear sets were compared for designs based on the AGMA dynamic factor and a refined dynamic factor calculated using the DANST gear dynamics code. The operating speed was varied over a broad range to evaluate its effect on the required gear size. A design space for designing optimal compact gear sets can be developed using the current approach. The required size of an optimal gear set is significantly influenced by the dynamic factor. The peak dynamic factor at system natural frequencies can dominate the design of optimal gear sets that operate over a wide range of speeds. In the current investigation, refined dynamic factors calculated by the dynamic gear code developed by the authors allow a more compact gear design than that obtained by using the AGMA dynamic factor values. Compact gears designed using the modified Heywood tooth stress formula are similar to those designed using the simpler Lewis formula for the example cases studied here. Design charts such as those shown here can be used for a single speed or over a range of speeds. For the sample gears in the study, a diametral pitch of 10.0 was found to provide a compact gear set over the speed range considered.


References 1. Walsh, E. J. and Mabie, H. H., A Simplified Method for Determining Hob Offset Value in the Design of Nonstandard Spur Gears, 2nd OSU Applied Mechanism Conference, Stillwater, Oklahoma, (Oct. 1971). 2. Mabie, H. H., Walsh, E. J., and Bateman, Determination of Hob Offset Required to Generate Nonstandard Spur Gears with Teeth of Equal Strength, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 181-192, (1983). 3. Mabie, H. H., Roggers, C. A., and Reinholtz, C. F., Design of Nonstandard Spur Gears Cut by a Hob, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 635-644, (1990). 4. Liou, C. H., Design of Nonstandard Spur Gears for Balanced Dynamic Strength, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Memphis, (1994). 5. Lin, H.H., Townsend, D.P., and Oswald, F.B., 1989, Profile Modification to Minimize Spur Gear Dynamic Loading, Proc. of ASME 5th Int. Power Trans. and Gearing Conf., Chicago, IL, Vol. 1, pp. 455465. 6. Liou, C.H., Lin, H.H., and Oswald, F.B., 1992, Effect of Contact Ratio on Spur Gear Dynamic Load, Proc. of ASME 6th Int. Power Trans. and Gearing Conf., Phoenix, AZ, Vol. 1, pp. 2933. 7. Bowen, C.W., 1978, The Practical Significance of Designing to Gear Pitting Fatigue Life Criteria, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 100, pp. 4653. 8. Gay, C.E., 1970, How to Design to Minimize Wear in Gears, Machine Design, Vol. 42, pp. 9297. 9. Coy, J.J., Townsend, D.P., and Zaretsky, E.V., 1979, Dynamic Capacity and Surface Fatigue Life for Spur and Helical Gears, ASME Journal of Lubrication Technology, Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 267276. 10. Anon, 1965, Surface Durability (Pitting) of Spur Gear Teeth, AGMA Standard 210.02. 11. Rozeanu, L. and Godet, M., 1977, Model for Gear Scoring, ASME Paper 77-DET-60. 12. Savage, M., Coy, J.J., and Townsend, D.P., 1982, Optimal Tooth Numbers for Compact Standard Spur Gear Sets, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 104, pp. 749758. 13. Carroll, R.K. and Johnson, G.E., 1984, Optimal Design of Compact Spur Gear Sets, ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 106, pp. 95101. 14. Andrews, G.C. and Argent, J.D., 1992, Computer Aided Optimal Gear Design, Proc. of ASME 6th Int. Power Trans. and Gearing Conf., Phoenix, AZ, Vol. 1, pp. 391396. 15. Savage, M., Lattime, S.B., Kimmel, J.A., and Coe, H.H., 1992, Optimal Design of Compact Spur Gear Reductions, Proc. of ASME 6th Int. Power Trans. and Gearing Conf., Phoenix, AZ, Vol. 1, pp. 383390. 16. Wang, H.L. and Wang, H.P., 1994, Optimal Engineering Design of Spur Gear Sets, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 10711080. 17. Lin, H.H., Wang, J., Oswald, F.B., and Coy, J.J., 1993, Effect of Extended Tooth Contact on the Modeling of Spur Gear Transmissions, AIAA-932148. 18. Townsend, D.P., 1992, Dudleys Gear Handbook, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill Inc. 19. South, D.W. and Ewert, R.H., 1992, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Gears and Gearing, McGraw-Hill. 20. Cornell, R.W., 1981, Compliance and Stress Sensitivity of Spur Gear Teeth, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 103, pp. 447459. 21. Heywood, R.B., 1952, Designing by Photoelasticity, Chapman and Hall, Ltd.


22. Shigley, J.E. and Mitchell, L.D., 1983, Mechanical Engineering Design, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill. 23. Shigley, J.E. and Mischke, C.R., 1989, Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill. 24. Oswald, F.B., Townsend, D.P., Rebbechi, B., and Lin, H.H., 1996, Dynamic Forces in Spur Gears Measurement, Prediction, and Code Validation, Proc. of ASME 7th Int. Power Trans. and Gearing Conf., San Diego, CA, pp. 915