Inuence of tooth prole and oil formulation on gear power loss

Lus Magalh
~
aes
a
, Ramiro Martins
b,
, Cristiano Locateli
b
, Jorge Seabra
c
a
Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal
b
Instituto de Engenharia e Gest~ ao Industrial, Porto, Portugal
c
Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 August 2009
Received in revised form
30 September 2009
Accepted 2 October 2009
Available online 12 October 2009
Keywords:
Power losses
Friction
Low loss gears
Gear geometry
a b s t r a c t
Nowadays power losses are a main concern in transmission systems and the friction between gear teeth
during the meshing cycle is one of the main sources. The friction losses reduction is mandatory to
promote lower energy consumption, lower operating temperatures, lower oil oxidation and lower risk of
failures.
In this study the power losses reduction is obtained using two different approaches: using lower
modulus helical gears and signicant positive proles shifts and using gear oil formulations with
different base oils.
The adopted geometries proved to reduce the power losses considerably, promoting a reduction of
oil operating temperature up to 20 K.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Environmental awareness is pushing mechanical engineers to
develop mechanical systems, and in particular gear units, that
have lower environmental impact. Such objective can be reached
through different perspectives: reduce gear power loss and
improve efciency, reduce gear operating temperature, promoting
lower oil oxidation and improving oil life or allowing the use of a
smaller oil volume, reduce friction between gear teeth, improving
the resistance to micropitting and scufng and thus gear lifetime,
reduce the environmental impact of lubricants, using biodegrad-
able, low toxicity gear oils [16].
The main objective of low loss gears is to reduce friction
between contacting teeth during the meshing cycle and there are
two paths to attain such objective: modify the tooth geometry in
order to reduce the specic sliding [2], select a gear oil that
generates lower friction [6,7], or a combination of both strategies.
Load, geometry and friction coefcient are the determinant
parameters that govern friction power loss and many options are
available to control these factors. The inuence of the load and
load stresses can be easily reduced using larger teeth or increasing
contact ratio. Friction coefcient may be controlled by surface
texture, lubrication regime or lubricant properties, and also by
factors as sliding speed and the length of the contact path [2,8].
Reasons to modify tooth prole are commonly related to load-
carrying capacity or lifetime. Stress and wear are decisive
parameters on this, leading to frequent thickening of the teeth
or to changes of teeth proles to equalize specic sliding, per
instance [2,9]. The low loss gear concept is based on the reduction
of sliding speed, being the path of contact reduced to a minimum
near the pitch point [2].
Table 1 displays some data from a standard FZG type C gear
and an equivalent low loss gear proposed by H ohn et al. [2].
Notice that a spur gear is replaced by a helical one.
The strong module reduction leads to more and smaller teeth,
thus active anks contact along a shorter path, during less time,
reducing the maximum sliding and consequently reducing
friction. Although there is a considerable drawback, the tooth
root bending resistance decreases considerably, thus it is
necessary compensation in terms of mechanical resistance. The
increase of tooth root bending resistance is mainly obtained
increasing face width from 20 to 40mm and using a 151 helix
angle that increases the total contact ratio.
Lowering gear module has the following effects [2,10]:
Teeth are smaller and more numerous. Dynamic excitation is
different, so noise and vibrations change.
Contact occurs in shorter periods along a shorter contact path,
decreasing specic sliding between teeth surfaces.
The (transverse) contact ratio diminishes. If below 1, must be
compensated by introducing a helix angle.
The tooth root bending resistance diminishes, and this may be
compensated by wider teeth or higher pressure angles (to
thicken the tooth base).
Wear, scufng probability and friction coefcient tend to
diminish, favouring operation conditions.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/triboint
Tribology International
0301-679X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2009.10.001

Corresponding author. Tel.: +351225081742; fax: +351225081584.

E-mail addresses: llm@isep.ipp.pt (L. Magalh~ aes), rcm@fe.up.pt (R. Martins),
cris_loc@yahoo.com.br (C. Locateli), jseabra@fe.up.pt (J. Seabra).
Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871
Finally, as a sum of these effects, power dissipated by gear
friction is strongly reduced.
However, the teeth geometry proposed by Hohn et al. [2]
with a pressure angle of 401 has some drawbacks: It requires
special manufacturing tools (a=401) currently not available
in many work shops, imposes very high radial loads on the
rolling bearings, increasing not only the size of the bearings
but also their overall power loss, and diminishes signi-
cantly the normal contact ratio (e
a
=0.55, values below 1.0
should be avoided) imposing a substantial increase of the face
width.
2. Energetic balance of a gear unit
Eq. (1) establishes an approximated model for the energetic
balance of a gear unit (e.g. the FZG test gearbox) in permanent
conditions [6,8]. This equation states that the sum of all power
loss sources inside the gearbox (by friction and churning) is equal
to the sum of all forms of heat evacuation from the gearbox to the
environment.
P
fr
P
M1
P
spl
P
M0
P
sl
Q
rad
Q
cnv
Q
cn
1
The frictional losses are related with moving parts in contact
between them. The main sources of frictional losses are
the gears and the roller bearings, respectively P
fr
and P
M1
.
Friction between gear teeth and in bearings is the main cause
of power loss on most industrial gearboxes operating at low
speed.
The gear friction power losses (P
fr
) depend on gear geometry,
numbers of teeth, operating conditions and friction coefcient
between the contacting teeth [8], being dened as
P
fr
p
1
z
1

1
z
2

1
g
f
g
a
p
b

g
f
p
b

2

g
a
p
b

2
!
P
in
m
m
2
In Eq. (2) the numbers of teeth, the lengths of approach (g
f
) and
recess (g
a
), as well as the contact path length (g=g
a
+g
f
), have a
large inuence on gear friction power loss. So, modifying gear
tooth prole is a powerful way to reduce the gear friction power
loss.
The friction coefcient between gear teeth, m
m
, can be dened
as [8]
m
m
0:048
F
bt
=b
v
Sc
r
c

0:2
Z
0:05
oil
R
0:25
a
X
L
3
The friction coefcient between gear teeth also has a signicant
impact on the on gear friction power loss (see Eq. (2)) since it is
strongly dependent on the lubricant properties, through the
lubricant factor X
L
[4,6], and it also depends on gear geometry.
Again oil physical properties are an important parameter and
selecting a highly efcient lubricant can promote a decrease of
friction coefcient over 20% [4,6].
Moving parts immerse in the lubricant bath are responsible for
the load-independent or churning power losses, which are mainly
speed-dependent. The main sources are the gears, the bearings
and the seals (P
spl
, P
M0
and P
sl
, see Eq. (1)).
The gear churning power loss (P
spl
) are dependent of gear
immersed depth and area, rotating speed, lubricant viscosity and
density, gearbox geometry and the uid ow inertial, viscous and
gravitational forces and can be estimated using Eq. (4) [11]. The
immersed depth and immersed area are dependent of gears tip
diameter, decreasing with it [8,11,12].
P
spl

p
30
n
1
2
r
p n
30

2
A
i

d
2

3
" #

2 h
d

0:45

V
oil
d

0:1
FR
0:6
Re
0:21
" #
4
Due to the power loss inside the gear unit and the corresponding
heat evacuation to the surrounding environment, the temperature
of the lubricating oil and of the gear unit housing rises
continuously, until an equilibrium state is reached, where the
power loss inside the gear unit is equal to the heat ow evacuated.
Such equilibrium state supposes the gear unit is running under
constant operating conditions (torque and speed), without oil
temperature control and in laboratory conditions (during testing,
fresh air is continuously insufate into and evacuated from the
test room, keeping almost constant the room temperature). In this
study the stabilization temperature (T
s
) was dened by Eq. (5),
resulting from the subtraction of the environment temperature to
the oil bath temperature, that is
T
s
T
oil
T
room
5
Table 1
FZG type C and low loss gears [1,13].
Parameter Symbol Units Type C Low loss
Module m (mm) 4.5 1.75
Number of teeth Z1:Z2 (/) 16:24 40:60
Pressure angle a (1) 20 40
Helix angle b (1) 0 15
Face width b (mm) 14 20
Normal contact ratio e
a
(/) 1.43 0.55
Complementary contact ratio e
b
(/) 0 0.94
Overall contact ratio e
g
(/) 1.43 1.49
Nomenclature
F
bt
tooth normal force, transverse section, N
FR Froud number
P
fr
gear friction power loss, W
P
in
input power, W
P
M0
load independent power loss in rolling bearings, W
P
M1
load dependent power loss in rolling bearings, W
P
sl
Seal power loss, W
P
spl
gear churning power loss, W
Q
cn
conduction heat, W
Q
cnv
natural convection heat, W
Q
H
total heat evacuated, W
Q
rad
radiation heat, W
Ra mean roughness, mm
Re Reynolds number
T
room
ambient temperature, K
V
oil
oil volume, m
3
X
L
lubricant factor
b face width, mm
d pitch diameter, m
g
a
length of recess path, m
g
f
length of approach path, m
h gear immersion depth, m
n input rotating speed, rpm
p
b
base pitch, m
z
i
number of teeths
m
m
average friction coefcient [8]
r specic weight, kg/m
3
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1862
Higher power loss necessarily implies higher stabilization tem-
perature, and so T
S
will be used to compare the gears and the
lubricants performances.
3. Gear geometries
From the basic design of the FZG type C gear with a centre
distance of 91.5mm [13], presented in Table 1, and considering
previous works on the subject [1,10,14,15], three different gear
tooth proles were developed aiming toque loss reduction.
The main guides lines for designing such tooth geometries
were the following: (i) reduce the gear modulus and increase the
number of teeth, keeping constant the centre distance using high
positive prole shifts, (ii) use standard cutting tools with 201
pressure angles available in all manufacturing shops, (iii) impose a
minimum value of the normal contact ratio close to 1.0, (iv)
impose a total contact ratio close to 2.0 and (v) keep constant the
gear safety factors against tooth root breakage (SF) and surface
pressure (SH).
Three different gears, referred as types 311, 411 and 611, were
designed and manufactured in DIN 20 MnCr 5 carburizing steel.
The shapes of the teeth are presented in Fig. 1 and their
characteristics are presented in Table 2.
Fig. 1 shows the shapes of the teeth of each pinion. Helical
gears were used in order to reach a global contact ratio near to 2.0.
It also shows that the teeth height decreases and the pressure
angle increases from pinions 311 to 611, as expected.
All gears are 20mm wide, have 151 helical teeth and operate
with a 91.5mm centre distance (see Table 2). The helix angle was
xed at 151 in order to be easier to compare the three gears. The
face width was also kept constant because of the experimental
conditions available, since only 20mm wide gears could be tested
because of the use of pressure pads to support the axial loads
generated by the helical gears (see more details in Section 5.1).
As a consequence of keeping face width constant, the safety
factors of gears 411 and 611 were below those of gear 311 (see
Table 2), mainly in what concerns the safety factor against tooth
root stress, SF. If the face width of 20 mm was not imposed and its
dimension was determined in order to obtain the same safety
factor for surface pressure for all the gears, the face width will be
22mm for gear 411 and 26mm for gear 611, as presented in
Table 3. These higher face widths would also have a benecial
impact on the total contact ratio of gears 411 and 611.
Keeping in mind the initial objective of producing gears using a
201 rack tool, addendum modication coefcients (x
i
) were
studied as a way to modify teeth proles and signicantly raise
the effective working pressure angle, reaching more than 281 on
gear 611. The sum of addendum modication coefcients (x
1
+x
2
)
reached 2.11 and 3.69 in the case of gears 411 and 611,
respectively. These high addendum modications also modify
considerable the ratio of recess path of contact (g
a
) over approach
path of contact (g
f
), as presented in Table 2. The g
a
/g
f
inuence was
not considered, although it is expected that gears 411 and 611
promote lower operating temperatures, thus higher lm
thickness.
Fig. 1. Pinion teeth of gears 311, 411 and 611 (from left to right).
Table 2
Tested gears 311, 411 and 611.
Gear parameters Symbol Units 311 411 611
Pinion Wheel Pinion Wheel Pinion Wheel
Module m mm 2.5 2.25 1.75
Number of teeth z 28 42 30 45 38 57
Face width b mm 20
Helical angle b 1 15
Working pressure angle a
wt
1 22.12 26.70 28.34
Addendum mod. Coef. x 0.13 0.25 0.96 1.15 1.74 1.95
Tip diameter da mm 78.05 114.89 77.50 113.29 76.41 111.56
Tip diam. mod. Coef k
a
m mm 0.03 0.61 1.02
Pitch diameter d mm 72.47 108.70 69.88 104.82 68.85 103.27
Working pitch diameter d
w
mm 73.20 109.80 73.20 109.80 73.20 109.80
Transverse contact ratio e
a
/ 1.52 1.17 0.93
Overlap contact ratio e
b
/ 0.66 0.73 0.94
Total contact ratio e
g
/ 2.18 1.90 1.87
Recess path/ approach path g
a
/g
f
/ 0.92 1.18 1.75
Path of contact (length) g mm 11.58 8.02 4.97
Safety coefcients
a
Tooth root stress SF / 1.79 1.79 1.49 1.49 1.50 1.49
Surface pressure SH / 1.18 1.19 1.16 1.16 1.07 1.08
Contact parameters
a
Max. Hertz pressure P
0
GPa 0.96 0.99 1.07
Max. sliding speed (tip) vg
a
m/s 2.18 2.37 1.71 1.44 1.24 0.71
Calculated gear friction power loss
b
Gear friction power loss P
fr
W 413 299 240
a
Torque applied to wheel323Nm and wheel rotating1500rpm.
b
Considering an ester-based fully formulated gear oil, ISO VG 100.
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1863
As a result of the gear design options, the gear modulus
decreased from 2.5 to 1.75mm, the number of teeth (Z1+Z2)
increased from 70 to 95, the working pressure angle increased
from 221 to 281. Simultaneously, signicant reductions were
obtained of the maximum sliding speed (at pinion tooth tip v
ga
),
from 2.18 to 1.24m/s, and of the gear friction power loss, P
fr
, from
413 to 240W (a reduction of about 42%).
However, if the original FZG type C spur gear (see Table 1),
with a module of 4.5mm and 40 teeth was considered the
gear friction power loss would be of 650W. Thus, in relation to
the FZG type C gear the friction power loss reduction would
reach 63%.
4. Gear oils
Three gear oils, M1, P1 and E2, formulated with different base
oils, were selected. They are all fully formulated lubricants,
classied as CLP gear oils according to DIN 51517 containing EP
and AW additives, and their main properties are presented in
Table 4.
Gear oils M1 and P1 are both commercial products with a
viscosity grade ISO VG 150. Gear oil M1 is based on parafnic
mineral oil with signicant sulphur content containing an ashless
antiwear additive package based on phosphorous and sulphur
chemistry and metal-organic (ash-giving) corrosion preventives.
Gear oil P1 is a fully synthetic lubricant based on polyalolephines
(PAO), containing an antiwear and EP additive package. Gear oil E2
is formulated using highly saturated and biodegradable ester base
oil, containing environmentally compatible and highly efcient
additives, metal-organic compounds were completely avoided
and the formulation is totally ash free. E2 has a viscosity grade ISO
VG 100. The lack of unsaturated bonds in this base uid leads to
excellent thermal and oxidative stability.
The three gear oils have different physical properties. At 1001C
the kinematic viscosities are 19.4, 14.6 and 14.0cSt, for gear oils
P1, E2 and M1, respectively. At the same temperature their
piezoviscosity coefcients [16] are 14.3, 11.0 and 9.7GPa
1
, for
gear oils M1, P1 and E2, respectively. So, the mineral oil has the
lowest viscosity but the highest piezoviscosity coefcient, while
E2 has the second highest viscosity but the lowest piezoviscosity
coefcient. Those two physical properties have similar contribu-
tions to lm formation, a higher viscosity and a higher piezo-
viscosity increase the lm thickness.
The differences in physical properties between the three
gear oils will generate different friction coefcients between the
gear teeth (m
m
) and, consequently, will also generate different gear
friction power losses (see Eq. (2)). Thus, for constant operating
conditions the oil operating temperature of the gears will depend
on the lubricant used. The results will also give some insights on
the inuence of base oil in the power loss performance for
different operating conditions.
5. Gear power loss tests
The gear power loss tests were performed on an FZG machine
(see Fig. 2), using the gear geometries (311, 411 and 611)
developed and manufactured during this work and the gear oils
(M1, P1 and E2) selected.
The torques applied corresponded to standard FZG load stages
using a load arm of 0.35m [13]. Four load stages were considered,
respectively K1, K5, K7 and K9, as presented in Table 5. Each load
stage was run at three different wheel speeds, respectively, 500,
1000 and 2000rpm. The input power ranged from 0.26 to
67.74kW.
Gears were operated during 4h for each load stage and speed
combination, so that an equilibrium energetic state is reached and
Table 4
Gear oils properties.
Oil reference Units M1 P1 E2
Base oil Mineral PAO Ester
Oil properties
Density at 151C g/cm
3
0.897 0.848 0.925
Kinematic viscosity at 401Cn
40
cSt 146 151 99.4
Kinematic viscosity at 100 1Cn
100
cSt 14 19.4 14.6
Viscosity indexVI / 92 147 152
Thermoviscosity @ 401Cb
40
cSt/1C 0.0559 0.0471 0.0443
Thermoviscosity @ 100 1Cb
100
cSt/1C 0.0266 0.0244 0.0229
Piezoviscosity at 0.2GPa (a=s n
t
)
Piezoviscosity Parameters / 9.904 7.382 6.605
Piezoviscosity parametert / 0.139 0.1335 0.136
Piezoviscosity at 401Ca
40
GPa
1
19.87 14.41 12.35
Piezoviscosity at 1001Ca
100
GPa
1
14.37 10.97 9.51
Fig. 2. The FZG machine.
Table 3
Inuence of face width in safety factors and contact pressure.
Gear parameters Symbol Units 311 411 611
Pinion Wheel Pinion Wheel Pinion Wheel
Tooth width b mm 20 22 26
Safety coefcients*
Tooth root stress SF 1.79 1.79 1.60 1.60 1.92 1.91
Surface pressure SH 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.21 1.21 1.21
Contact parameters*
Max. Hertz pressure P
0
GPa 0.96 1.08 0.96
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1864
the power loss inside the FZG test gearbox equals the heat
evacuated to the surrounding environment and a constant
operating temperature is also reached. In each load stage the
testing gear run 120 000 cycles at 500rpm, 240 000 cycles at
1000rpm and 480 000 cycles at 2000rpm, totalizing 840 000
cycles per load stage. So, in overall each gear power loss test runs
during 3.36 million cycles.
Lubricant started at room temperature on load stage K1
and was heated to 401C before stages K5 to K9. The temperature
of the oil bath (T
oil
) and the room temperature (T
room
) were
recorded along the tests. All tests were repeated using three
different lubricants (see Table 4), each time using a new gear. At
the end of each load stage a lubricant sample (100ml) was
collected for post-testing oil analysis in order to quantify gear
wear.
The inuence of surface roughness on power loss is out of the
scope of this work. However, roughness of the contacting surfaces
was measured before and after tests. The average roughness (Ra)
of the tooth anks, measured (Lt=1.5mm, cut off =0.25mm) in the
radial direction before tests, was in the range 0.210.28mm.
5.1. Pressure pads
As the standard FZG test gearbox is only prepared to test spur
gears, a set of pressure pads was used in order to be able to test
helical gears and absorb the corresponding axial loads. It consists
Table 5
Test conditions at different load stages.
FZG load stage Starting oil bath temperature (1C) Wheel torque (Nm) Wheel input speed (rpm)
500 1000 2000
Input power (kW)
K1 Room 4.95 0.26 0.52 1.04
K5 40 104.97 5.50 11.00 22.00
K7 40 198.68 10.41 20.812 41.64
K9 40 323.26 16.93 33.87 67.74
Fig. 3. Pressure pads mounted on the sides of the pinion (motion reveals the oil ow).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Time [s]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
K
]

311 411 611
K9
K1
500 rpm 1000 rpm 2000 rpm
Fig. 4. Stabilization temperature during load stages K1 and K9 (mineral gear oil M1).
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1865
of two side disks mounted with the gears, as shown in Fig. 3. They
transfer axial loads through the lateral faces of the gear pinion and
wheel, allowing the cylindrical roller bearings of the gearbox to
support only the radial loads from the helical gears.
Due to the mounting options used in the FZG test gearbox, the
use of pressure pads imposed that the test gears should have a
width of 20mm. This lead to slightly lower safety factors of gears
411 and 611 in relation to gear 311 (see Table 2), situation that could
easily be overcome otherwise by increasing the width (see Table 3).
The tests performed allow the comparative evaluation of the
gear friction power loss, due to the friction between contacting
teeth, since all tests were performed in identical conditions,
changing only teeth proles. The same is valid to evaluate the
inuence of the different gear oils tested.
Pressure pads also inuence power loss because they drag with
the lubricant and modify the oil feed to the contact. However,
assuming their inuence is identical in similar tests, the
comparative analysis is still valid.
6. Experimental results
The experimental results obtained for the stabilization tem-
perature will be presented in two different perspectives. In the
rst one the inuence of the gear tooth geometry on the
stabilization temperature and on the gear friction power loss is
shown, and for this purpose only the results obtained with
mineral oil M1 will be used. In the second one the inuence of the
gear oils on the stabilization temperature and on the friction
power loss will be presented, for all tooth prole geometries.
6.1. Inuence of the tooth prole geometry
The evolution of the stabilization temperatures (T
S
=T
oil
T
room
)
during the tests performed with all gears in load stages K1 and K9,
using mineral oil M1, are shown in Fig. 4. The results are very
coherent in all tests, since the stabilization temperature increased
continuously, reaching an almost constant value after each 4h
stage. The gears performed as expected: gear 311 always had the
highest stabilization temperature and gear 611 the lowest one,
with gear 411 in between them, whatever the speed considered.
Thus, the gear with the highest friction power loss (311) also had
the highest stabilization temperature, at each operating speed.
The opposite occurred with gear 611.
Fig. 5 displays the stabilization temperatures at the end of all
load stages performed with all gear geometries, using mineral oil
M1, showing that gear 311 always generated the highest
stabilization temperature, while the gear 611 always generated
the lowest one, and gear 411 is in between the other two. The
differences in stabilization temperature between gears 311 and
611, in load stage K9 range between a 5 to almost 20 K, depending
on the operating speed.
According to Eq. (2) the friction power loss (P
fr
) depends on the
input power and, consequently, on the input speed. Since the gear
power loss tests were performed at 3 different speeds, the
corresponding friction power losses and stabilization tempera-
tures are also dependent of the input speed. To avoid such
dependency the torque loss, which was determined dividing P
fr
by
the rotational speed, will be used instead of the power loss.
Fig. 6 displays the stabilization temperature vs. the calculated
friction torque loss for the three gears tested with mineral
oil M1. This gure shows very clearly that if the load stage
(input torque) increases (at constant speed), the torque loss
also increases, and, as expected, the stabilization temperature
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
311 411 611 311 411 611 311 411 611
500 1000 2000
Gear type / speed [rpm]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
K
]
K1 K5 K7 K9
Fig. 5. Stabilization temperature at the end of all load stages (mineral gear oil M1).
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411
611
311
411 611
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50
Torque Loss [Nm]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
K
]
500-K9
1000-K9
2000 K9
500-K7
1000-K7
2000-K7
500-K5
1000-K5
2000-K5
K5
K7
K9
Fig. 6. Stabilization temperature vs. torque loss (mineral gear oil M1).
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1866
increases as well as. The same is observed if the input speed
increases.
The theoretical prediction of the friction torque loss (using
Eq. (2)) always indicate that gear 611 generates lower torque loss
than gear 411, and these two produce lower torque loss than gear
311, whatever the operating conditions. At high input torque (load
stage K9) this is very clear, and gear 611 generates lower
stabilization temperature than 411, and these two shown lower
stabilization temperature than 311. However, Fig. 6 also shows
that for load stage K5, for all the input speeds, the relative
behaviour between gear 411 and 611 is not clear, displaying
similar stabilization temperatures. This is related to the fact that
the stabilization temperature also takes into account the churning
torque losses and these might be more signicant than the friction
torque losses at high speed and/or low torque (see Eq. (4)). In such
case the correlation between friction torque loss and stabilization
temperature is not so good.
Gear 311 always generated the highest stabilization tempera-
ture, whatever the operating conditions, and gear 611 generated
slightly lower or similar stabilization temperatures than gear 411.
These results agree with the theoretical expectations, and prove
the effectiveness of the modications introduced to the geometry
of the tooth proles.
6.2. Inuence of gear oil
Fig. 7 compare for each gear geometry the three oils tested,
displaying the stabilization temperature at the end of each load
stage performed. In the case of gear 311, lubricant E2 generated
the lowest stabilization temperatures followed by oil lubricants
P1 and M1, for the input speeds of 500 and 1000rpm. At
2000rpm, the stabilization temperatures generated by oils E2
and P1 are similar but higher than the temperature generated by
oil M1. However, it should be noticed that the stabilization
temperatures generated by oil M1 are near or above 80 K, meaning
that the oil temperatures (T
oil
=T
S
+T
room
) were near or above
1001C and the mineral oil cannot support such operating
temperatures without severe oxidation and degradation. It is
clear that, under the operating conditions considered, the ester-
based oil E2 was the best selection for gear 311 in terms of
stabilization temperature.
In the case of gear 411, the relative position of the lubricants is
in general similar to that of gear 311, although not so clear,
especially for load stage K9 where the oil P1 displayed always the
highest stabilization temperature. For the input speed of
2000rpm the relative behaviour of the lubricants is the inverse
of the observed in the other stages. Any way, under the operating
conditions considered, the ester-based oil E2 was the best
selection for gear 411 in terms of stabilization temperature.
In the case of gear 611, lubricant P1 displays the best overall
behaviour, always generating lower stabilization temperatures
than oils M1 and E2. For the input speed of 500 and 1000rpm the
oil E2 had lowest stabilizations that M1, although for the input
speed of 2000rpm the inverse was observed. According to these
results, the stabilization temperatures did not had a uniform
behaviour using different lubricants, the mineral oil displayed
very good results for the highest input speed, and ester oil was
better for the lower ones.
Whatever the lubricant used, 611 gears performed generally better
than the others. Notice there is a global decrease of about 10K in the
stabilization temperature from gear geometry 311 to the others.
Fig. 8 displays the stabilization temperatures at 500rpm for all
gears, lubricants and load stages. This gure clearly shows that the
E2 lubricant always generated the lowest stabilization
temperatures at this speed and also shows that gear 611 also
promotes the lowest stabilization temperatures. At 500rpm the
churning power losses are smaller and Fig. 8 indicates an almost
linear correlation between the calculated torque loss and the
stabilization temperature.
Fig. 8 indicates the following stabilization temperatures in load
stage K9 at 500rpm: gear 311-oil M1, 48.0K; gear 611-oil M1,
41.5K; gear 311-oil E2, 37.5K; gear 611oil E2, 32.5K. This means
that, replacing gear 311 by gear 611, with oil M1, generated a
decrease of 6.5K (less 13.5%) in the stabilization temperature,
replacing oil M1 by oil E2, with gear 611, promoted a decrease of
9K (less 21.7%) in T
S
and, nally, replacing gear 311 by gear 611
and oil M1 by oil E2, generated an overall decrease of 15.5K (less
32.3%) in the stabilization temperature. This is totally in
agreement with Eq. (2) and conrms the main objective of this
study: reduce gear friction torque loss and stabilization tempera-
ture through the optimization of gear tooth prole geometry
combined with low friction gear oil.
Fig. 9 shows the stabilization temperature at 1000rpm for all
gears, lubricants and load stages. This gure clearly shows that
lubricant M1 had the poorest results, always generating the
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2
500 1000 2000
Oil type / speed [rpm]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
K
]
K1 K5 K7 K9
311
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2
500 1000 2000
Oil type / speed [rpm]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
K
]
K1 K5 K7 K9
411
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2 M1 P1 E2
500 1000 2000
Oil type / speed [rpm]
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
K
]
K1 K5 K7 K9
611
Fig. 7. Stabilization temperatures for gear 311, 411 and 611 depending on gear oil
and input speed.
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1867
highest stabilization results whatever the load stage and
lubricant, while lubricant E2 had the best performance. Gear
611 always generated the lowest stabilization temperatures,
although lubricants P1 and E2 had very similar performance
with this gear. Fig. 9 also indicates that, at 1000rpm, there was
still a good correlation between the calculated torque loss and the
stabilization temperature.
Fig. 10 displays the stabilization temperature at 2000rpm for
all gears, lubricants and load stages. At this speed lubricant M1
seemed to have a very good performance, generating lower
stabilization temperatures than oils P1 and E2. However, and as
mentioned earlier, at 2000rpm the operating temperature of oil
M1 was in the range between 100 and 1401C and in such
conditions it will undergo severe oxidation and chemical
degradation. Thus, oil M1 is not an option to operate at
2000rpm, without external cooling and the corresponding
power consumption. Fig. 10 also shows that oil E2 did not
promote a clear distinction between the different gear geometries.
At 2000rpm the churning power losses become at least as
important as the friction power losses because they are directly
related to the input speed at the power 3 (n
3
see Eq. (4)).
Consequently, the correlation between the torque loss and the
stabilization temperature was poorer, as can be observed in Fig.
10. At this input speed the oil bath temperatures are always above
1001C and up to 1401C. This very high oil temperatures associated
with the high input speed modied the relative behaviour of the
lubricants, once the viscosity of the mineral oil decreases
substantially faster than the viscosity of the ester and the PAO.
An energetic model of the gearbox to include the inuence of
helical gears and also the inuence of the pressure pads is in
611
411
311
611
411
311
611
411
311
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
27.5
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5
Torque Loss (Nm)

T

(
K
)
M1-K9
M1-K7
M1-K5
E2-K9
E2-K7
E2-K5
P1- K9
P1-K7
P1-K5
K5
K7
K9
500 rpm
Fig. 8. Stabilization temperatures for all gears at 500 rpm vs. torque loss and gear oil.
611
411
311
611
411
311
611
411
311
30.0
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0
42.5
45.0
47.5
50.0
52.5
55.0
57.5
60.0
62.5
65.0
67.5
70.0
72.5
75.0
77.5
80.0
82.5
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3
Torque Loss (Nm)

T

(
K
)
M1-K9
M1-K7
M1-K5
E2-K9
E2-K7
E2-K5
P1- K9
P1-K7
P1-K5
K5
K7
K9
1000 rpm
Fig. 9. Stabilization temperatures for all gears at 1000 rpm vs. torque loss and gear oil.
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1868
development and hopefully contribute for a better understanding
of the power losses distribution, especially at higher speeds.
6.3. Gear wear measurements
Due to equipment limitations, it was not possible to measure
the roughness of 611 gear tooth, since the tooth distance is very
small. Gear 311 attenuated their surface roughness more than
gear 411, although nal Ra values are very close. Table 6 displays
the average of the measurements made on the active anks of
pinions teeth.
The pinion mass was measured at the beginning and at the end
of the test (3.66 million cycles). The pinions mass loss results are
displayed in Fig. 11, showing that gear 311 had a slightly lower
mass loss then gears 411 and 611, whatever the lubricant selected,
and that gears lubricated with the mineral oil M1 had higher mass
loss then those lubricated with P1 and E2, which showed similar
results. Nevertheless, the pinion mass losses measured were very
small, showing that all gear oils have conveniently protected the
gears against wear.
7. Discussion
The specic lm thickness was determined for the highest load
stage at the stabilized oil bath temperature and the calculation
was performed for the three lubricants. Fig. 12 displays the
specic lm thickness calculated vs. the wheel rotating speed. The
specic lm thickness for such conditions ranges from 0.3 to 1.3,
i.e. boundary to mixed lubrication regimes, as displayed in Fig. 12.
For the lowest load stages the specic lm thickness will be
higher, once the load is lower and the oil temperature was also
lower.
For this operating the gear 311 displays the lowest specic lm
thickness whatever the lubricant used and the gear 611 the
highest. Among the lubricants, the E2 displays the lowest lm
thickness while the M1 and P1 display higher values.
Since the tests were performed using pressure pads, limiting
gear width to 20 mm and introducing an additional small source
of power loss, the results obtained are only comparable between
themselves. Besides, this limitation lead to small differences in the
611
411
311
611
411
311
611
411
311
60.0
62.5
65.0
67.5
70.0
72.5
75.0
77.5
80.0
82.5
85.0
87.5
90.0
92.5
95.0
97.5
100.0
102.5
105.0
107.5
110.0
112.5
115.0
117.5
120.0
122.5
0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0
Torque Loss (Nm)

T

(
K
)
M1-K9
M1-K7
M1-K5
E2-K9
E2-K7
E2-K5
P1- K9
P1-K7
P1-K5
K5
K7
K9
2000 rpm
Fig. 10. Stabilization temperatures for all gears at 2000rpm vs. torque loss and gear oil.
Table 6
Values of surface roughness parameters before and after the power loss tests.
Gears Ra (mm) Rq (mm) Rz-d (mm) Rmax (mm)
311 Before test 0.28 0.35 1.70 2.03
After test 0.18 0.22 1.07 1.29
411 Before test 0.23 0.29 1.37 1.69
After test 0.20 0.26 1.16 1.41
8
13
10
5
7
11
6
10
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
311 411 611
M
a
s
s

l
o
s
s

[
m
g
]
M1
P1
E2
Fig. 11. Pinion mass loss of during the gear power loss tests.
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1869
effective Hertzian pressure between gear teeth of the tested gears
and also on their mechanical resistance safety factors. Any
comparisons should take these factors into account.
The effectiveness of the low loss gear geometries was proved
for the generality of the operating conditions tested. The results of
the gear power loss tests showed that changing gear geometry
from 311 to 411 promoted a considerable decrease of the
stabilization temperature and changing from 411 to type 611 also
promoted a decrease of the stabilization temperature, although
smaller than in the previous case. Fig. 8 clearly showed how gear
geometry inuences gear stabilization temperature and friction
torque loss, presenting similar results to those obtained by H ohn
et al. [2]. However, in this case it was possible to obtain such gear
friction torque loss reduction using gears manufactured with
standard gear cutting tools (with 201 pressure angle), which was
an important feature in order to spread the concept of low loss
gears.
The theoretical prediction of gear friction torque loss (Eqs. (2)
and (3)) correlated quite well with the stabilization temperatures
measured, mainly at 500 and 1000rpm, whatever the lubricant
selected (see Figs. 8 and 9), and also contributed to prove the
validity of the approach for reducing gear friction power loss:
optimization gear geometry together with gear oil selection.
The comparison of lubricants with the different gear geome-
tries showed that in general the ester oil E2 in general displayed
the best results, closely fallowed by P1, and the mineral oil M1
displayed the worst result. This good performance of gear oil E2
had already been put into evidence in previous gear power loss
tests [4,6] performed with spur gears.
The lubricants displayed a slightly different behaviour for
different input speeds. At 500rpm the three lubricants are clearly
separated, and the relative behaviour is E2-P1-M1 (being E2 the
oil with the lower stabilizing temperature). At 1000rpm the
lubricants E2 and P1 showed similar stabilization temperatures,
but lower than those generated by oil M1. At 2000rpm the
relative behaviour is M1-P1-E2, which is an inversion in
comparison to what was observed at 500rpm.
To understand this relative behaviour of the lubricants it must
be noticed that the oil bath temperature is free, that the viscosity
variation with temperature is different for the three oils, as shown
in Fig. 13, and also that the friction coefcient generated by the
ester-based oil E2 is signicantly smaller than the one promoted
by oil M1 [6].
So, at 500rpm, the oil bath temperature is low (below 701C)
and oil E2 will present the lowest churning losses (see Fig. 12 and
Eq. (4)), and that added to its low friction coefcient, will generate
the lowest stabilization temperatures. At 2000rpm, the oil bath
temperature were quite high and both the P1 and E2 oil have
higher viscosity than the M1 oil, and consequently generated
higher churning power losses and higher stabilization tempera-
tures than oil M1. A complete understanding of the inuence of
the churning power losses on the stabilization temperature
requires the development of an energetic model of the FZG test
gear box, based on Eq. (1), and its correlation with the
experimental results. Such model is currently under development.
8. Conclusions
After an analytical study about low loss gears theory, three
helical gear geometries (here referred as 311, 411, and 611) were
designed and manufactured to replace the standard FZG type C
spur gear.
These gears were submitted to power loss tests in the FZG
machine. The results obtained showed that when gears 311 were
replaced by gears 611, the stabilization temperatures decreased
6.5K (less 13.5%), 10.0K (less 25%) and 5.0K (less 13.3%), when
lubricated with gear oils M1, P1 and E2, respectively (load stage
FZG K9 at 500rpm), indicating a signicant reduction of the gear
friction torque loss.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
speed [rpm]
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

f
i
l
m

t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
311-M1
411-M1
611-M1
311-P1
411-P1
611-P1
311-E2
411-E2
611-E2
Fig. 12. Specic lm thickness calculated for load stage K9 at the measured stabilized oil bath temperature.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
60 80 100 120 140
Temperature [C]
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

[
c
S
t
]
M1 P1 E2
Fig. 13. Variation of lubricants viscosity with temperature.
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1870
These results also showed that low loss gear design could be
successfully obtained using standard 201 cutting tools, by
modifying simple gear geometric parameters (the working
pressure angle, a
wt
, of 611 gears was above 281 due to the high
addendum coefcients used).
The experimental results also showed that oils P1 and E2
generated lower stabilization temperatures than the mineral oil M1
(load stage FZG K9, 500rpm, whatever the gear geometry). This
indicates they generated lower torque loss and consequently promote
a lower friction coefcient between gear teeth than the mineral oil.
The approach used to reduce the friction power loss in gears
was validated: The combination of low loss gear design with low
friction gear oil can minimize the gear friction power loss and
reduce signicantly the operating temperature of gear units. In
practice, a balance between standard manufacturing and ener-
getic efciency was achieved.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the Fundac- ~ ao para a Ci encia e
Tecnologia (FCT) of the Portuguese Administration for support
given to this study through the research project Low Power Loss
ADI Gears (ref. PTDC/EME-PME/73389/2006).
References
[1] Hohn BR, Michaelis K, Wimmer A. Gearboxes with minimised power loss. VDI
Berichte 2005;1904(II):145165.
[2] H ohn BR, Michaelis K, Wimmer A. Low loss gears. Gear Technology
2007;24(4):2835.
[3] Hohn BR, Michaelis K. Inuence of oil temperature on gear failures. Tribology
International 2004;37(2):1039.
[4] Martins R, Cardoso N, Seabra J. Gear power loss performance of biodegradable
low-toxicity ester-based oils. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers Part JJournal of Engineering Tribology 2008;222(J3):431440.
[5] Martins R, Seabra J. Micropitting performance of mineral and biodegradable
ester gear oils. Industrial Lubrication and Tribology 2008;60(6):28692.
[6] Martins R, et al. Friction coefcient in FZG gears lubricated with industrial
gear oils: biodegradable ester vs. mineral oil. Tribology International
2006;39(6):51221.
[7] H ohn B-R, Michaelis K, Doleschel A. Frictional behavior of synthetic gear
lubricants. In: Dalmaz G, editor. Tribology research from model experiment
to industrial problem. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2001.
[8] H ohn B-R, Michaelis K, Vollmer T. Thermal rating of gear drives: balance
between power loss and heat dissipation. AGMA Technical Paper, 1996.
[9] Niemann G, Winter H, H ohn B-R. Manuale degli organi delle macchine:
metodologie di progettazione, giunzioni, collegamenti a vite,yMilano
Tecniche Nuove, 2006, p. 1056.
[10] Magalh~ aes L, et al. Inuence of tooth prole on gear power losse. In: Integrity
reliability and failure. Porto: INEGI; 2009.
[11] Changenet C, Pasquier M. Power losses and heat exchange in reduction
gears: numerical and experimental results. VDI Berichte 2002;2(1665):
603613.
[12] Changenet C, Velex P. A model for the prediction of churning losses in geared
transmissionspreliminary results. Journal of Mechanical Design
2007;129(1):12833.
[13] Winter H, Michaelis K. FZG gear test rigdescription and possibilities. In:
Coordinate European council of second international symposium on the
performance evaluation of automotive fuels and lubricants, 1985.
[14] Hohn B-R, Oster P, Schrade U. Studies on the micropitting resistance of
casecarburised gearsindustrial application of the new calculation
method. VDI Berichte 2005;1904(II):1287307.
[15] Schlecht B, Martens S, R omhild I. Approaches to oil-free gears. In:
International conference on gears. vol. 1904, M unchen:VDI-Berichte; 2005.
[16] Gold JW, et al. Viscositypressuretemperature behaviour of mineral and
synthetic oils. Journal of Synthetic Lubrication 2001;18(1).
L. Magalh~ aes et al. / Tribology International 43 (2010) 18611871 1871