Mechanical Design of a Power

System
Mechanical Engineering Design: ME 4550, Project 2

Date Submitted: June 23, 2014

Authors (Group #18): Richard Arnold, Guido Basciani, Sanae Matsuki, Andrew
Takao

Instructor: Dr. Nader Jalili

Abstract

The intent of this paper is to demonstrate Group 19s ability to design a

system using mechanical theories, constraints and properties. The project
assignment was to design and analyze a simple power shaft system and its
many components. Through extensive analysis and iterations, in combination
with solid Engineering practice the team was able to develop a fully-ready
theoretical model complete with a CAD manufacturing drawing. The group
designed for yield strength and fatigue strength, while still checking for
displacements and slopes along the way. The major design components were
the: shaft, bearings, bolts and gears.

List of Symbols
d Diameter
Bending Stress
Shear Stress
Sut Ultimate Strength
Sy Yield Strength
Se Endurance Strength
Pressure Angle
Angular velocity
Deflection
n Safety Factor
T Torque
Helical Angle
N Number of Teeth
Pd Diametral Pitch
F Tooth Face Width
P Force
Ma Maximum Moment
Ta Maximum Torque
l Length
w Width
h Height
C Bearing Load Rating
YN Repeatedly applied bending strength stress-cycle factor
QV - Transmissions accuracy level
Y Lewis Form Factor

Background
The project team was tasked with designing a system to transmit power.
Requirements were to use a rotating shaft, held in place by 2 bearings, and 2
gears to transmit the power. The basic dimensions for the system were
predetermined and are shown in Figure 1. The teams main tasks were
analyzing, designing and sizing all components of this system based on
stress and strength limitations, as well as deflection restraints. PA is the
known resultant gear force of 600 lbf. In order to complete this design, the
project was broken down into 2 progress reports and this final
comprehensive report. Resources for the design included: Shigleys
Mechanical Engineering Design textbook, Dr. Jalilis lecture notes and in-class
activities, as well as McMaster-Carr. The Tables used from the text can be
found in Appendix B.

Figure 1 - Basic Design Configuration

Theory
The process for designing a system with many components is long and
somewhat iterative, but the team followed a straight-forward process that
began with the stress analysis and initial shaft diameter selection. It was
assumed that the shaft was not rotating, so from the free-body diagram the
team summed the forces and moments in all directions to find the forces and

moments acting on the shaft. This can be seen in Figure 2 and will be further
explained in the results section.

Figure 2 Final Design Free Body Diagram

From these forces, shear-diagrams and bending moment-diagrams were

Ma
Tm
made for 2 planes and are shown in Figure 3. The shafts
and
were then found in terms of d. The normal and shear stresses were therefore
calculated by:
B=

B=

32 M a
d3
16 T m
3

(1)

(2)

Figure 3 Final Design Shear and Bending Diagrams

The principal stresses at the point of maximum moment were found by:

x y
( x+ y )
2

+ xy
2
2
1,2=

max =

The steel has

S ut =85 ksi

and

(3)

x y 2 2
+ xy
2

S y =71 ksi

(4)

. With n=3, the diameter of the shaft

was calculated by the maximum shear stress failure theory:

( 1 3) S y
=
2
2n
max =

(5)

In order to be conservative, the team compared the diameter obtained from

multiple theories. The distortion energy method was also used to calculate
the diameter of the shaft:
' = 2x +3 2xy

'=

(6)

Sy
n

(7)

The rotation of the shaft and fatigue were taken into account so the diameter
of the shaft must be adjusted to ensure infinite life. The endurance limit
strength was calculated with the equations below and constants from the
book:
S 'e =.5 S ut

(8)

K a=a S ut

(9)

K b=.879 d .107

(10)

K c =1
S e =K a K b K c S'e

(11)

Since the stresses on the shaft are a completely reversing normal stress
and a constant mean value shear stress

, each fatigue failure theory

(Modified-Goodman, Gerber, ASME Elliptic, and Soderberg) simplifies to:

1
1
16 n f 1
1
2
2 2
2
2 2 3
d=[
4
k
M
+3
k
T
+
4
k
M
+3
k
T
( ( f a ) ( fs a ) ) S ( ( f m ) ( fs m ) ) ]
Se
ut

(12)

Iterating the process with the newly obtained diameter resulted in a new
Kb
factor and a more accurate estimate for the diameter. With the new
Se

value, the new value of the diameter was found.

Another important factor to consider while designing a system with a

rotating shaft is the critical speed. This is the speed at which the shaft begins
to vibrate at its natural frequency, which causes the system to resonate. The

equation for calculating the critical speed of the rotating shaft is shown
below, using the diameter found above:

( ) ( d4 ) E

(13)

If necessary, the critical speed can be increased by increasing the diameter

of the shaft, as these quantities are directly proportional. The critical speed
for other parts of the shaft will change when the design of the shaft is
changed to a stepped shaft to accompany component placement, but the
value obtained serves as an initial estimate for one possible critical speed of
the shaft to avoid.
Most designs are developed with strength restraints, but deflection of an
object can be a key objective in some design situations. After completing the
initial shaft design, the team checked their work to ensure no part of the
shaft was sloping too much. Castiglianos method was used for this, and the
calculations can be found in Appendix A.
All aspects of this design were concentrated on, even the small Bolt parts. If
the bolts for the bearings fail, the entire system fails. The comprehensive
design work behind the fasteners can be found in Appendix B.
Gears need to be attached to the shaft by some means and for this project, a
key was used. The following are the design equations to determine the keys
dimensions. Assessing shear is done by the following:
Fb =

T
d
2

(14)

Fb Fb
=
A s wl

(15)

Using the existing diameter of the shaft, the team used Table 7-6 of the text
to calculate the width and height. Next, we used equation 16 but solved it for
l.
n=

S sy 0.577 S y
=

Fb
wl

(16)

The same method used for shear was used again for compression stress.

Fb
F
2F
= b = b
Ac 1
hl
wl
2

n=

(17)

Sy
S
= y
2 Fb
hl

(18)

Equation 18 is again solved for l, and the larger length was taken to be
conservative.
As for the keyway slot q was taken to be 1, and the stress concentration
coefficients kt, kts, kf and kfs we determined and used to find a larger d for the
shaft. DE-Goodman theory was simplified and used (equation 19).

1
1
16 n f 1
1
2 2
2 2 3
d=[
4
k
M
+
3
k
T
( f a ) ) S ( ( fs m ) ) ]
Se (
ut

(19)

Using the newly acquired d, it was necessary to check for yielding. Equations
20-23 were used to ensure that the new n was larger than the required n=3.
'a =
'
m

((

=3

32 K f M d

(20)

d3
16 K fs T m
d3
'

'

max = a + m
n=

Sy
max

2 1
2

))

(21)
(22)

(23)

After working through the gear keyhole, the team needed to select a bearing.
This process begins with determining the rotational speed of the shaft and
the total number of revolutions the shaft would experience.
rev
sec
P ) (24)
=
T

years200 days
2 hours
year
3600 sec
day
Operationtime=10
=14.4106 seconds
hour
Total Revolutions=L10=operation time

(25)

(26)

With L10 in millions, a = 10/3 for a roller bearing and Fe known, the necessary
Bearing Load Rating is calculated by equation (27).
1

C=Fe L10a

(27)

Using the most recent diameter, we rounded up to the closest applicable

stock bearing bore size and selected one of the available bearings. Moving
onto gears, in order to design and select them the team started with
standard sizes for Pd and N. After that was the stress analysis, for which we
needed to find the stress coefficients.
The F was approximated by equation 28. The velocity was calculated and
used to find stress constants. A and B are calculated using a common
commercial QV of 7. Km can be found with Cmc, Ce and Cpm all equal to 1. Cma
was found using constants from Table 14-9, as it is an open gearing. Cpf was
calculated using F. According to Table 14-3 and the fact that it is hardened
steel with St=65 kpsi. Ko, Kt, Ks, KB and KR were 1. After converting the running
time and speed information into number of cycles, YN was found and used to
find fatigue strength. J was approximated using Y from Table 14-2.
F=

3
Pd

(28)

v =r 3 w

K v=

A + V
A

(29)

) ( minft )

K m=1+C MC ( C pf C pm +C ma C e )
Cma =A +BF+C F 2

(30)

(31)
(32)

C pf =

F
0.0375+ 0.0125 F
10 d

Y n=1.3558 N

0.0178

(36)

St Y n
K t KR

(37)

St Y n
K t K R Sf

(38)

Sf =

(33)

=wt k o k v k s

Pd K m K B
F
J

(39)

F=w t k o k v k s

Pd K m K B

(40)

After many calculations and values found in Tables, substitution were made
and finally equation 39 was plugged into 40 in order to solve for F. This F had
to be smaller than the previously approximated F from equation 28. The gear
design process was executed for both gears individually.
These gears were turned into helical gears for the final stage of this project.
The helical gears created an additional axial force that had to be accounted
for throughout the system. The entire aftermath, including segmentation and
procedure can be found in Appendix D.

Results
From the process outlined in the previous Theory section, the following
results were obtained.
FBD and Resultant Forces:
Found in Appendix C.
Shaft-Design:
B was found to be the Critical location due to the high bending stress and
torsion.

14,391lbf

( 32 )
B=
6,766 lbf

(16)
B=
The principal stresses at point B were:
146.585 ksi 1 146.585 ksi 2
154.3 ksi 7.696 ksi
1,2 =
3
+(34.358 ksi)2=
,
3
2
2d
d
d3
d3

max =

x y 2 2 1
+ xy = 3
2
d

146.585 ksi
80.989 ksi
+(34.358 ksi)2=
3
2
d

The diameter was then calculated after solving the following equations:

154.3 ksi 7.696 ksi

S
( 1 3)
d3
d3
71 ksi
=
= y=
2
2
2n
6
max =
d=1.899

DE Method:
1
'
2
2 158.3 ksi
= 3 ( 146.585 ksi ) +3 ( 34.358 ksi ) =
d
d3
'

S y 71ksi 158.3 ksi

=
=
n
3
d3

d=1.88

The maximum shear stress theory is more conservative, so the static failure
analysis predicted a uniform diameter of 1.899 with a factor of safety of 3.
The endurance limit strength is calculated below:

'

S e =.5 ( 85 ksi )=42.5 ksi

K a=2.7 ( 85 ksi ).265=.832
1.899

K b=.879
K c =1
'

S e =K a K b K c S e=29.02ksi
Each fatigue failure theory (Modified-Goodman, Gerber, ASME Elliptic, and
Soderberg) simplifies to the following with no stress concentrations:

1
1
16 n f 1
1
2
2 2
2
2 2 3
d=[
( 4 ( k f M a ) +3 ( k fs T a ) ) + S ( 4 ( k f M m ) +3 ( k fs T m ) ) ]
Se
ut

d=2.6
Iterating with the 2.6:
K b=0.911 d

0.157

=( 0.911 ) ( 2.6 )

0.157

=0.784

S e =K a K b K c S'e=27.8 ksi
Se

With the new

value:

d=2.62
The critical speed of the rotating shaft, using the diameter of 2.62 inches
(.0665 m) found above:

=
1.1684 m

)(

.0665 m
4

( 190 109 Pa )
9030

kg
3
m

=551

rad
=5262rpm
s

After testing the shaft design for deflection, it was discovered that there was
some noticeable deflection at A of just under . However, it was
determined that this was acceptable for our design. A more comprehensive
deflection analysis can be found in Appendix A.

The bolts to hold down the bearings were selected to be 9.8 grade steel,
120mm long with a diameter of 12mm. The safety factor on the bolts was
7.55 so the team is extremely confident in them.
Gear Key Design:
Using Shear
T =6765.8 lb f

Fb =

6765.8
=5204.5lb f
2.6
2

Since the shaft falls with the 2 -2 shaft, Table 7-6 is used to calculate
the w=5/8, h=5/8.
S sy 0.577 S y
n= =

Fb
wl
Since Sy=57[ksi] for this material, l=0.76
5

0.577 ( 57000 psi ) ( (3)5204.5 l b

l=

Compression
Fb
Fb 2 Fb
= =
=
Ac 1
hl
wl
2

n=

Sy
S
= y
2 Fb
hl

)
f

=0.76

(57000 psi)
( 2 )( 3 ) ( 5204.5 l bf )
l=

Since this one is larger, it will be used.

Keyway slot q=1
k t =2.2
k ts =3.0
k f =2.2
k fs =3.0
DE-Goodman for Shaft Redesign:

3
16(3)
1
d=[
( 4 ( 2.214391 )2 ) 2 + 1 ( 3 ( 36766 )2 ) 2 ] =3.41

29020
85000

Check for yield:

32 ( 2.2 ) (14391 )
'a =
=8133 psi
3
( 3.41 )
'
m

((

=3

16 K fs T m
d3

2 1
2

))

=4516 psi

max =8133+ 4516=12649 psi

n=

71000
=5.6> 3
12649

Since this n is greater than 3, the key works.

Bearing Design:

12
1 ft
6765.8 l b f
1
rev
=19.5

sec
lb f ft
P
s
= = (20 hp ) 550

T
hp

L10=19.5

r ev
14.4106 sec=280.8106 revolutions
sec

With L10 in millions, we have

1

C=Fe L10a , F e =7.32 kN

3
10

C=( 7.32 kN ) ( 280.8 ) =39.7 kN

Last diameter = 86.6 mm bore=90 mm
C10 = 142 kN > 39.7 so this roller bearing can handle the capacity.
Gear Design:
Gear 3: d=24, Pd=1, N3=24
F3 =

3
=9.424
1

24
2

12
1 ft

v=
K v=

A + V
A

) ( minft )

A=50+ 56 (1B )=65.06

2
3

B=0.25 ( 12Q v ) =0.731

Qv =7
K v =1.629
K m=1+1 ( 0.11961+0.40371 )=1.523
Cmc =C e =C pm=1
Cma =0.247+0.0167 (9.424)0.765104 ( 9.424 )2=0.4037
C pf =

9.424
0.0375+0.0125 ( 9.424 )=0.1196
1024

K m=1.523
Figure 14-14,
hour
day
year
sec
rad 1 rev
N= 2
200
10
3600
608
(
)
day
year
1
hour
s 2 rad

)(

)(

)(

)(

N=1393433358=1.3910 9 revolutions
9 0.0178

Y n=1.3558 ( 1.3910 )

=0.932

S f =3

St Y n
( 65 ksi ) ( 0.932 )
=
=20.2 ksi
K t K R Sf
(1)(1)(3)

Table14-2:
Approximate Y with N 3 :Y 0.337
k 0 =k s =K B =1

F=(563.82)(1)(1.629)(1)
F=0.17

(1) (1.523)(1)
(20200) (0.337)

This F is smaller than the one approximated so this design is okay.

Gear 4: d=10, Pd=2, N4=20
F=

3
=4.7
2

10
2

12
1 ft

v=
A + V
K v=
A

) ( minft )

A=50+ 56 (1B )=65.06

2

B=0.25 ( 12Q v ) 3 =0.731

Qv =7
K v =2.18
K m=1+1 ( 0.068251+ 0.331 ) =1.398
4

Cma =0.247+0.0167 (4.7)0.76510 ( 4.7 ) =0.33

C pf =

4.7
0.0375+ 0.0125 ( 4.7 )=0.06825
1010

K m=1.398
Figure 14-14,
hour
day
year
sec
rad 1 rev
N= 2
200
10
3600
608
(
)
day
year
1
hour
s 2 rad

)(

)(

)(

N=1393433358=1.3910 revolutions
9 0.0178

Y n=1.3558 ( 1.3910 )

=0.932

)(

( 65 ksi )( 0.932 )
=20.2 ksi
(1)(1)(3)

F=w t k o k v k s

Pd K m K B

Table14-2:
Approximate Y with N 3 :Y 0.322

F=(1353.16)(1)(2.18)(1)

(1) (1.398)(1)
(20200) (0.322)

F=0.63

This F is smaller than the one approximated so this design is okay.

The redesign to include helical gears was too extensive to include in this
section, but it is detailed well in Appendix D.

Conclusions
The design changed many times throughout the process due to the fact that
a manipulation of a single part can change the entire systems design. Stress
concentrations drastically affect the needs for a larger shaft diameter in
certain spots. The final designs part list can be found in Appendix E, and the
layout can be found in a CAD drawing attached to this document. Since the
diameter of the shaft only changed in increments of 10mm, it may have
been more advantageous to simply keep a uniform, 90mm shaft and
minimize stress concentrations. This project was extremely informative and
appropriate for the courses objectives, seeing as how the team directly
applied course knowledge and worked on a real-world application of a
Mechanical Engineering Design problem.

Appendix A: Deflection Calculations

Appendix B: Bolt Design

Appendix C: Resultant Forces

Appendix D: Helical Gears Redesign

Appendix E: Parts List

(1) AISI 1080 Steel Hardened Gear d=24, Pd=1, N=24, F=0.17
(1) AISI 1080 Steel Hardened Gear d=10, Pd=2, N=20, F=0.63
(2) Ball Bearings bore=70mm, C10=61.8kN, C0=37.5kN
(4) Bolts 9.8 Grade Steel, L = 120mm, d=12mm
Cold-Drawn steel rod Length: 20, d=80mm
Cold-Drawn steel rod Length: 16, d=100mm
Cold-Drawn steel rod Length: 10, d=80mm

Appendix F: Tables and Charts

Appendix G: AutoCAD Drawing