0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

24 просмотров15 страницA Kinematic Analysis of Meshing Polymer Gear Teeth (1)

Feb 11, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

A Kinematic Analysis of Meshing Polymer Gear Teeth (1)

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

24 просмотров15 страницA Kinematic Analysis of Meshing Polymer Gear Teeth (1)

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

M Karimpour1 , K D Dearn2 , and D Walton2

1

Mechanics of Materials Division, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London,

South Kensington Campus, London, UK

2

Power Transmission Laboratory, School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,

Birmingham, UK

The manuscript was received on 16 December 2009 and was accepted after revision for publication on 30 April 2010.

DOI: 10.1243/14644207JMDA315

Abstract: This article describes an investigation into the contact behaviour of polymeric gear

transmissions using numerical finite element (FE) and analytical techniques. A polymer gear

pair was modelled and analysed using the ABAQUS software suite and the analytical results were

calculated using the BS ISO 6336 rating standard. Before describing the results, the principles

of the strategies and methods employed in the building of the FE model have been discussed.

The FE model dynamically simulated a range of operating conditions. The simulations showed

that the kinematic behaviour of polymeric gears is substantially different from those predicted

by the classical metal gear theory. Extensions to the path of contact occur at the beginning and

end of the meshing cycle. These are caused by large tooth deflections experienced by polymer

gear teeth, as a result of much lower values of stiffness compared to metallic gears. The premature contact (occurring at the beginning of the meshing cycle) is hypothesized to be a factor in

pitch line tooth fractures, whereas the extended contact is thought to be a factor in the extreme

wear as seen in experiments. Furthermore, the increase in the path of contact also affects the

induced bending and contact stresses. Simulated values are compared against those predicted

by the international gear standard BS ISO 6336 and are shown to be substantially different. This

is particularly for the case for bending stresses, where analytically derived values are independent of contact stiffness. The extreme tooth bending and the differences between analytical and

numerical stresses observed in all the simulations suggest that any future polymeric gear-rating

standard must account for the effects of load sharing (as a result of tooth deflection) and friction

(particularly in dry-running applications).

Keywords: spur gears, polymers, steels, friction, temperature, kinematics

1

INTRODUCTION

applications in the 1950s and have developed into

a large range of applications. The majority of these

tend to be in motion control (low load, temperature,

and speeds). However, the development of the super

engineering polymers and polymer gearing technology has pushed the application limits further into

moderate power transmission functions. The benefits

Mechanical Engineering, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

email: k.d.dearn@bham.ac.uk

JMDA315

emanate from their low cost, low weight, resilience,

and ability to run dry. A reduced load capacity and,

crucially, a poor temperature resistance tend to limit

the use of such gears.

High temperatures reduce the mechanical properties of polymers much more than metals. One of

the consequences of this is a reduction in the transmission accuracy of polymer gears, giving rise to

transmission errors caused by the large tooth deflections. Loss of contact ratio due to the following two

factors should not be ignored in performance specification, namely a lower manufacturing accuracy grade

and an allowance for thermal and hydroscopic expansion. Klein Meuleman et al. used a quasi-static FE

model to simulate transmission errors in a polymeric

gear set over a range of operational conditions [1].

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

102

model, they were able to minimize composite toothto-tooth transmission errors through novel geometric

modifications.

This was not the first time FEA had been used

to analyse the kinematic behaviour of non-metallic

gears. Walton et al. used the FE method to study

load-sharing effects and were among the first to

suggest that, as a result of thermal softening, the

contact ratio of a polymeric gear set was greater

than that predicted by theory [2]. Using a nondimensional analysis based on a variety of operational parameters, the actual contact conditions

in terms of a contact ratio were determined by

a gear elasticity parameter. This work then led to

further studies on the beneficial effects of performance and profile modification, such as backlash

allowance [3] and tip relief [4], in non-metallic

gears.

The FE method was also employed by Senthilvelan

and Gnanamoorthy to assess the effect of tooth fillet radius on gear performance [5]. They employed a

basic single-tooth model, loaded only at the tip, and

disregarded contact ratio effects, calculating an equivalent line load. This indicated, as would be expected,

higher bending stress levels in teeth with smaller fillet

radii. There were similar increases in tooth deflections, having the combined effect of shortening the

gear life.

Van Melick used both FEM and analytical methods

to investigate the influence of stiffness on dissimilar

materials, gear kinematics, and stresses (a steel gear

is typically 70 times stiffer than an equivalent polyoxymethylene polymer gear) [6]. He suggested that

polymeric gear kinematics are different to those produced by the classical gear theory, with the effect of

increasing stresses and, through an extended path of

contact, influencing the wear resistance of the plastic

gear. An interesting aspect of this study was the discovery of a reciprocating motion at the root of the driven

gear as the teeth disengage at the end of the meshing

cycle. The FEA model used employed a quasi-static

solution.

FEA has been used for some time to model the complexities of the steel gear theory. One of the most

detailed and accurate FEA simulation on metallic

gears was arguably conducted by Mao [7]. He utilized

FE to investigate the effects of micro-geometry modifications on the reduction of transmission errors and

fatigue damage in a metallic helical gear set. To achieve

the maximum possible geometrical accuracy, instead

of importing a model into the FE software (ABAQUS),

the gear geometry was mathematically generated

using Python Script. Advanced surface-based tie techniques between nodes were utilized to obtain a highquality mesh for contact. The novel aspect of this was

that instead of a multi-simulation technique (quasistatic), the whole gear meshing process was achieved

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

real rolling and sliding contact. Having developed an

accurate FE model, shaft misalignment and assembly deflection effects on gear surface durability and

transmission error were also studied. This revealed

an effective way of reducing transmission error and

gear surface wear damage through micro-geometry

modification (i.e. crowning, tip relief, and lead

correction).

2 THEORY

The complexities of polymer gearing offer an ideal

application for the finite-element method. Many

researchers have used it to study the fundamental

kinematic and kinetic behaviours of polymer gears. In

recent years, as computational power has increased,

along with the sophistication of commercial finiteelement software, researchers have employed numerical techniques not only to study the behaviour of

polymeric gear transmissions, but also to modify and

optimize gear trains for specific applications. However,

these polymer gear simulations are all based on quasistatic solutions (as detailed above). The following

section discusses current rating methods for nonmetallic gears and discusses those that are deemed

most appropriate to the unique behaviour of plastic

gears. The development of a dynamic non-linear FE

model to study the kinematic behaviour of a polymer gear transmission is then described. Employing

a dynamic solution allowed the whole meshing cycle

to be continuously simulated, resulting in a better

understanding of tooth bending effects, and the ramifications of these effects for other aspects of polymer

gear performance. In addition to this, it provided an

answer as to whether gear-rating standards, developed

specifically for metallic gears, could be used to design

and rate polymer gears.

2.1

to give the best approximation of stresses within and

around gear teeth; hence, it is inevitable that different procedures will predict different values according

to the assumptions made. In a comparison of available procedures for the rating of non-metallic gears

(BS6168, ESDU68001, and Polypenco), Walton and Shi

observed large discrepancies between different methods and suggested that an experimental investigation

was required to assess which rating standard was the

most accurate [8]. Following on from this, Cropper

compared the stress levels predicted by a similar range

of rating standards against an FE analysis considering

load sharing and showed BS ISO 6336 (method B) to

be the most accurate [9].

JMDA315

2.2

103

bending equation, which has gone through many

minor modifications since its first introduction. For

instance, ISO 6336:1996 [10] has adopted the exact

location of maximum stress experimentally found by

Hoffer [11]. ISO 6336 (methods B and C) as well as

ANSI/AGMA 2001 take into account the stress concentration at the tooth root fillet, which is ignored by the

other methods. A unique characteristic of method B in

ISO 6336 is that it enables the tooth form factor to be

calculated from first principles (an extensive process,

but it accounts for any tooth geometry); other methods

use tabulated data instead.

2.3

Contact stresses

The basis of all contact stress calculations is the classical Hertzian contact analysis. Stress levels are usually

calculated at the pitch point where the sliding friction may be assumed to be zero as well as negligible

bending deflection due to contact. The only difference between the standards is the load-sharing effect.

ANSI/AGMA 2001 assumes no load sharing, whereas

ISO 6336 does consider a load-sharing factor in the

calculation of contact stress. When considering polymeric materials, load sharing cannot be disregarded

and hence ISO 6336:1996 would seem to be the most

accurate available method. When comparisons are

made against a standard in this article, they are made

against ISO 6336:1996 method B (from this point

forward referred to as the Standard).

3

TOOTH KINEMATIC ANALYSIS

are based on rigid-body kinematics. This assumes that

no significant deformation occurs in the tooth, preserving the involute profile. This is probably a valid

assumption in the metallic gear theory; however, it is

unlikely to be the case for plastic gears in all but the

lightest of applications.

An accurate two-dimensional model of the Birmingham benchmark gear was developed and imported

into a state-of-the-art FE package (ABAQUS). A summary of the gear geometry is given in Fig. 1. In order

to reduce the computational time of the simulation,

only ten meshing teeth were modelled, with two pairs

of mating teeth meshed to a higher mesh density

to enable the extraction of accurate data (shown in

Fig. 2). The mesh in this region has relatively small

elements dimensions (i.e. approximately 0.04 mm).

In addition to this, the use of a structured mesh of

quadrilateral elements following the involute profile

of the teeth and enhanced hour-glass control adds

JMDA315

Fig. 1

Benchmark gear geometry

to the accuracy of the solution. The size of the elements was determined based on the simulation of

metallic gear teeth from reference [12]. As the polymer

material used in the simulations has a lower stiffness than the material used by Wang and Howard, the

field variable gradients are much smaller than those of

metallic gears. Hence, the same mesh density with a

structured mesh throughout the tooth has been used.

This will be conservative in terms of mesh refinement

but should guarantee accurate results. The rest of the

teeth were modelled with a coarse mesh to increase

computational efficiency.

As the stress elements do not have rotational degrees

of freedom, an advanced surface-based tie technique

was utilized to attach the nodes at the gear hub

to a rigid-body shaft, later used to apply rotational

loads and boundary conditions (also shown in Fig. 2).

In order to minimize fluctuations between contacting surfaces, an inertia load was assigned to the

shaft to dampen unwanted vibrations. The elements

used (CPE4R) were four-node bilinear plain strain

quadrilaterals with reduced integration [13].

Solutions were obtained in three steps, namely

approach, loading, and rotation, selected to reduce

the occurrence of contact inaccuracies and vibration.

A smooth step profile was defined as custom amplitude to apply all the boundary conditions and loads

as smoothly as possible. Boundary conditions and

loads were applied at the drive shaft reference points

(centres), according to the solution step sequence.

Four separate surfaces were defined on each meshing gear, to isolate each zone of the meshing cycle. The

boundary conditions were selected as follows.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

104

Fig. 2

(a) Loads and boundary conditions and (b) generated mesh representing the gear

constrain completely the driving and driven gears.

2. Approach: A rotational constraint was removed

from the driving gear, then a rotational boundary

condition was activated, closing the gap between

interacting tooth flanks. The magnitude of rotation

was equivalent to the theoretical backlash for the

benchmark geometry.

3. Loading: A rotational constraint was removed from

the driven gear (thus both gears were now free to

rotate). Opposing rotational moments were then

applied on the driving and driven gears, essentially

resisting each other.

4. Rotation: Rotational boundary conditions were

applied about the drive shaft centres. The magnitude of the rotations allowed at least one pair of

gear teeth to complete one meshing cycle.

Simulations were conducted for combinations

shown in Table 1. Load-sharing data were smoothed

using the StavitzkyGolay [14] method implemented

within MATLAB. This was to compensate for the fluctuations caused by the inevitable numerical errors

and contact inaccuracies (this was a result of the way

the contact algorithm is defined in ABAQUS). Material properties for the simulations were taken from the

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Table 1

Simulation schedule

E (GPa) T (N m)

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

Test 5

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.5

5

8

11

15

8

0

0

0

0

0

Test 6 2

Test 7 1

Test 8 3.1

Test 9 3.1

8

8

0.3

0.5

Notes

at 35 C

Analogous to POM (Delrin 500)

at 50 C

Analogous to POM (Delrin 500)

at 90 C

polymer manufacturer Du Pont [15]. For each simulation, Poissons ratio was taken as 0.35 and the material

model used was isotropic linear elastic.

4

RESULTS

and analysis were initiated to test a variety of common operational conditions for polymer gears. These

were specifically selected to examine the explicit kinematic responses and to assess the suitability of using

JMDA315

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

the FE model simulating an applied load of 7 N m

(E = 3.1 GPa)

were then examined and compared against those

predicted by the Standard, highlighting the shortcomings of this rating method. Finally, the effects that

operational conditions (for example, temperature and

friction) had on the performance of the gears are given.

4.1

4.1.1

Kinematics

Path of contact

contact of a pair of meshing gears lies on a straight

line (effectively being the locus of all contact points)

between the first (FPC) and last points of tooth contact (LPC) (governed by the addendum radii). Figure 3

shows the locus of contact points extracted from

simulation 2 (specified in Table 1), plotted against

the theoretical benchmark geometry. It exhibits, as

expected, a line of contact between the addendum

radii as predicted by the theory. However, there are

also periods of premature contact (Fig. 4) occurring

before the theoretical FPC and extended contact after

the predicted LPC. The extensions do not coincide with

the linear section of the line but are almost perpendicular to it. The extended contact (at the LPC) lies

almost exactly on the addendum radius of the wheel,

suggesting that this extraordinary contact occurs on

the involute area of the tooth flank. This was not the

case for the premature contact region, suggesting that

contact occurs outside the involute flank on the tooth

tip.

The main reason for this behaviour lies with the

very large tooth deflections observed in polymeric gear

teeth, deformations that are much greater than those

found in metallic gearing. These deflections significantly alter the (theoretical) tooth geometry and are

JMDA315

105

large tooth deflections

This can be verified by the results presented by Wang

and Howard [12]. It was shown that in soft metallic

gears (i.e. aluminium gears), the load share ratio profile differs from the theoretical curve and that with

greater load, the extent of premature and extended

contact would be increased.

During the premature contact stage, the tip of the

tooth and top land of the wheel make heavy contact

with the pinion tooth in the proximity of its pitch point.

Contact then continues up the tooth flanks until they

are tangent to one another, followed by normal contact until the theoretical LPC. This was likely to be the

result of a deflection lag (i.e. it was the result of successive teeth already being deflected). After this point,

the deflected teeth attempt to return to their original

form. In doing so, the tip of the pinion slides along

the flank of the wheel in the direction of the pitch

point. This was the reciprocating motion that was first

suggested by van Melick and is discussed below.

Van Melick [6] suggested that the reciprocation of

the tooth tip at the mating root accounts for the distinctive wear patterns described by Breeds et al. [16],

such that they govern the mechanisms of wear in polymeric gearing. This is a strong statement given that

Walton et al. [3] reported that wear was the predominant form of failure in polymer gears. Given the locality

of the premature contact region (i.e. at the pitch line

of the pinion), this may also be a contributory factor

in pitch line fractures (PLFs). This is particularly interesting considering the work of Cropper [9], who noted

that for the benchmark geometry (i.e. when the pinion

and wheel are geometrically identical) PLF occurs only

on the pinion. This, however, requires further research.

4.1.2

Load sharing

The fraction of the applied load transmitted by individual gear teeth was governed by the theoretical contact

ratio, which, in case of the benchmark geometry, was

1.65. Physically, this means that for approximately

two-thirds of the meshing cycle, two pairs of teeth

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

106

Fig. 5 The load share ratio against the roll angle predicted by simulation 2

carries it. The division of the applied load between different meshing tooth pairs is defined as the load share

ratio. The Standard defines the load share fraction (for

metal gears) as 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3 (i.e. at the first point

of contact one-third of the load is carried by a meshing pair and this increases to two-thirds at the point of

single tooth contact where finally the entire load is carried). The reverse of this then occurs as the tooth pair

runs out of the mesh.

Figure 5 shows the load share ratio plotted against

the roll angle in simulation 2. It reaches a maximum of

approximately 0.8, suggesting that single tooth contact does not occur in polymeric gears under such

conditions, pushing the real contact ratio above 2.

This clearly invalidates the load sharing predicted by

the Standard. The parabolic form of the load share

ratio also suggests that deflections are shared evenly

between the meshing pair, which is in agreement with

the work of Klein Meuleman et al. [1]. With the maximum load occurring at the pitch line of the teeth, it

is in this area where maximum contact and bending

stresses are expected. Another interesting aspect of

Fig. 5 is the increase in the roll angle (the rotational

angle of gear body from FPC to LPC). Theoretically,

the roll angle of the benchmark geometry should be

19.84 ; however, this value increases in the simulations

by 30 per cent to 25 . The reason for this is the cumulative effect of the extensions to the path of contact and

ultimately the large tooth deflections.

4.2

Stress analysis

as the scalar representative of the stress state at a given

point. At the tooth root, this would translate into the

magnitude of tensile stresses caused by bending. In

the case of the contact patch, this would represent the

stresses caused by contact between the mating tooth

flanks. As in the Standard, this could then be compared with the limits of the material in order to provide

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

Fig. 6

maximum: (a) bending and (b) contact stresses

criteria). The nodes from which the predicted stresses

were extracted from the tooth flank and root are shown

in Fig. 6.

4.2.1

for each node is plotted against the roll angle in Fig. 7.

JMDA315

Fig. 7

Bending stresses at various nodes against the roll angle predicted by simulation 2

it also shows the location of the nodes from which data

were taken. The maximum stress occurs at the centre

of the fillet radius (node 2539) and when the point of

contact is at the pitch point. This is not, however, the

point at which the Standard predicts that maximum

stress will occur. The Standard predicts that the greatest stress is induced at the tooth tip (i.e. the first or last

point of contact).

The difference between the assumption made in

the Standard and the location of maximum stress predicted in the simulation has a significant effect on the

predicted bending stress values. The simulation predicts a maximum bending stress of 25.9 MPa, whereas

the Standard calculates it to be 38 MPa. This is a significant difference of around 46 per cent. Tooth deflection

is the most likely explanation for this discrepancy.

The Lewis equation, on which the Standard is based,

Fig. 8

JMDA315

107

(being the point at which the lever arm is greatest);

however, it does not consider that at this point, the load

is being carried by (at least) two teeth pairs reducing

the tangential force. The effect of load sharing reduces

the magnitude of the applied load, with the peak at the

pitch point, where maximum stress occurs.

4.2.2

A similar approach was adopted to establish the position of maximum contact stress across the tooth flank.

Figure 8 shows the corresponding stress profile plotted against the roll angle along with the nodes along

the tooth flank. Once again, the maximum stress value

occurred at the pitch point. A maximum contact stress

value of 38.69 MPa was predicted. This is in close

agreement with the Standard that predicts a value of

Contact stresses at various nodes against the roll angle predicted by simulation 2

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

108

Fig. 9

cent).

Caution should, however, be exercised when using

the Standard to calculate contact stresses. The

single-pair tooth contact factor, used in the Standard,

converts the contact stress calculated at the pitch point

to that at the inner point of contact [17]. This may go

some way to explaining the discrepancy but certainly

requires further examination. The stress contours with

the gear teeth during loading, during simulations 2 and

4, are shown in Fig. 9.

It is also interesting to note the manifestation of the

extended contact points in Fig. 8. Evidence of premature contact appears in the double peak seen in the

plot of node 2139 and the single peak in node 2143

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

the wheel tooth collides with the pitch point of the

pinion tooth). Extended contact is apparent in the

increase in the stresses seen in node 2093.

4.2.3

the contact and bending stresses revealed some interesting results. Four separate simulations were carried

out to simulate a range of applied loads. A comparison of the stresses generated from the simulations

and those calculated using the Standard is given in

Table 2. The values of contact stress found using the

simulations correlate well with the Standards values.

JMDA315

Table 2

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

109

stresses for a range of loads

Contact stress (MPa)

Torque

(N m)

FE

simulation

BS ISO

6336

FE

simulation

BS ISO

6336

5

7

10

15

31.57

38.70

44.20

48.75

29.71

37.58

44.06

49.71

17.13

25.94

34.36

42.31

23.80

38.08

52.36

66.64

where discrepancies between simulated and the Standard values increase with load. This makes the Standard (part 3) even less suitable for rating polymer gears

in demanding applications.

These stresses should be carefully interpreted, as

they are those that occur at the pitch point. It has,

however, already been shown that because of extended

contact (specifically the interference of tooth tip and

mating flank), high contact stress peaks occur during

the early and later stages of the meshing cycle. The

stresses shown in Table 2 do not account for these.

Figure 10 shows the kinematic effect of increasing

the loads on meshing gear teeth. It indicates that the

maximum load carried by a single gear tooth pair

decreases as the applied load increases. This implies

that the higher loads induce greater tooth deflections,

increasing the real contact ratio and load sharing.

There are other kinematic effects induced by these

deflections, namely larger extensions to the path of the

contact. Figure 11 compares the paths of contact for

each of the load conditions specified in Table 1. This

suggests that greater tooth deflections cause premature contact to occur earlier (it therefore follows that

Fig. 10

JMDA315

Fig. 11

extended contact lasts longer. Thus, the overall length

of the contact path is increased.

4.3

4.3.1

Temperature

The effect of temperature in this case is taken to represent the reduction in the material stiffness because

of elevated operating temperatures. This is a simplification of the physical manifestation of high gear

temperatures; however, in terms of the kinematic

behaviour of the gear teeth, the reduction in modulus

has a strong influence. Table 3 summarizes the reduction in stiffness with temperature rise. These values are

assigned to the materials specified in simulations 2, 5,

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

110

Table 3

Test 2

Test 5

Test 6

Test 7

temperature

Modulus of

elasticity

(GPa)

Torque

(N m)

Equivalent

gear body

temperature

( C)

3.1

2.5

2

1

7

7

7

7

23

35

50

90

on the homo-polymer polyoxymethylene as specified

by Du Pont [15].

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

sharing experienced by individual gear teeth (Fig. 12)

and has a similar effect on the path of contact. The

influence of temperature on kinematic behaviour is

similar to the effects of increasing load, as shown in

Fig. 10.

A comparison of simulated and Standard derived

bending and contact stresses is shown in Fig. 13.

Once again, contact stresses correlate well with one

another and decrease with a reduction in stiffness

(an effect that was expected as the Standard derived

contact stresses account for contact stiffness). This

has implications in terms of gear operating performance, particularly at elevated temperatures. This

could explain why Kono [18] observed an increase in

Comparison of contact and bending stresses versus Youngs modulus, at the pitch point

JMDA315

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

150 C. Interestingly, bending stresses do not correlate

well. FE-determined bending stresses increase with

stiffness, whereas the Standard derived stresses are

overestimated and remain constant. This is because

the Standard bending stress is, in theory, dependent

only on geometry and load. For BS ISO 3663 to become

a better approximation of polymeric gear bending

stresses, it should incorporate a material factor that

would account for load sharing due to tooth bending.

4.3.2

Friction

because it is written for metallic gears that are always

lubricated and where frictional forces are low. No consideration is given to the effect friction will have on

JMDA315

111

Walton et al. [19] have shown that coefficients of friction in dry-running polymeric gears can be as high as

0.8. Frictional forces induced by coefficients of friction of this magnitude must affect the position and

magnitude of contact stresses and to a lesser extent

the stresses in bending. Simulations 2, 8, and 9 were

executed, transmitting a load of 7 N m with increasing coefficients of friction. These were conducted to

investigate the effect of increasing friction on the stress

and kinematic behaviour of the gears.

The gear theory dictates that at the pitch point, the

gears experience only a rolling action (with no sliding velocity) and so assumes a negligible frictional

influence. Figure 14 suggests that for (dry-running)

polymeric gears this is not the case. It shows that

frictional forces decrease the maximum load share

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

112

ratio and hence increases transmitted loads and subsequent contact stresses. Friction does not seem to

affect the kinematic behaviour of the gears and has

a negligible effect on the length of the path of contact.

Similar trends, shown in Fig. 15, are observed when

FE and the Standard derived stresses are compared

against increasing coefficients of friction. As expected,

Standard derived stresses show no variation with friction. The FE simulations increasingly overestimate

contact stresses compared with those calculated from

the Standard. FE contact stresses show a strong dependence on friction. Bending stresses are also shown to

increase with friction but remain below stress levels

predicted by the Standard.

Therefore, for the Standard to become a more accurate means of specifying polymeric gears, a frictional

factor should be incorporated into the rating equations to account for tangential forces, particularly in

dry-running applications. The dominance of contact

stresses (being greater than the bending stresses) may

also contribute to wear being the predominant failure

mechanism in dry-running polymeric gears.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

5

CONCLUSIONS

behaviour of a pair of dry-running, similar-material,

non-metallic gears running under a variety of

operating conditions. The stresses extracted from the

finite-element models have been compared to those

calculated from the BS ISO 6336 rating Standard

(method B). The main conclusions are as follows.

1. The assumptions made by the classical gear theory and inherited by most common gear-rating

standards, specifically those of negligible tooth

deflections and frictional effects, are not valid for

dry-running non-metallic gears that have high

friction coefficients.

2. Employing a non-linear FE technique to develop a

dynamic simulation of the meshing cycle enabled

the entire kinematic history of the cycle to be

recorded (including the load-sharing effects and

increases to the path of contact) and also allowed

the frictional effects to be investigated during

contact. These were shown to have a significant

influence on FE-derived stresses.

3. Contact is shown to occur outside the theoretical line of contact, increasing the roll angle of the

gears.

4. Premature contact extends the beginning of the

contact line; the physical result of this is an impact

between the tip of the driven gear and the region

of the pitch point of the driver gear. This induces

abnormally high levels of contact stress and could

be a contributory factor in PLFs.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

reciprocating motion at the tooth root for

polymersteel contacts were confirmed in the case

of all the polymer gear meshes simulated here.

The extensions to the path of contact increased the

roll angles predicted by the theory.

For the conditions simulated, load-sharing ratios

were always below 1. This implied that the real

contact ratios were always above 2, despite the

theoretical prediction of 1.65.

As the Standard does not consider tooth deflections, reducing the Youngs modulus of the

polymer (as would be the case at elevated operational temperatures) has no effect on Standardpredicted bending stresses. It does, however, with

the FE-derived bending stresses. Increasing the

stiffness of the modelled gears is likely to cause

the simulated bending stresses to converge with

those of the Standard.

Frictional effects cannot be disregarded in dryrunning polymer gears where they were shown

to have a significant effect on the induced tooth

stresses.

Loss of contact ratio due to allowance for expansion and lower tooth accuracy need to be considered.

The above conclusions point to the need for a specific polymer gear Standard that accounts for the

idiosyncrasies that are not based on metallic gearrating methods. The authors have evidence to show

that the lack of applicable design data and a rating

Standard, in the public domain, is preventing this

novel form of gearing from being fully exploited.

Authors 2010

REFERENCES

1 Klein Meuleman, P.,Walton, D., Dearn, K. D.,Weale, D. J.,

and Driessen, I. Minimization of transmission errors in

highly loaded plastic gear trains. Proc. IMechE, Part C:

J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 2007, 221(C9), 1117

1129. DOI: 10.1243/09544062JMES439.

2 Walton, D., Tessema, A. A., Hooke, C. J., and Shippen,

J. M. Load sharing in metallic and non-metallic gears.

Proc. IMechE, Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science,

1994, 208(C2), 8187. DOI: 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1994_

208_104_02.

3 Walton, D., Tessema, A. A., Hooke, C. J., and Shippen, J.

M. A note on tip relief and backlash allowances in nonmetallic gears. Proc. IMechE, Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 1995, 209(C6), 383388. DOI: 10.1243/

PIME_PROC_1995_209_169_02.

4 White, J.,Walton, D., and Weale, D. J. The beneficial effect

of tip relief on plastic spur gears. In Proceedings of the

Conference at ANTEC98, Society of Plastics Engineers,

Atlanta, USA, April 1998, vol. III, pp. 30133017.

5 Senthilvelan, S. and Gnanamoorthy, R. Effect of gear

tooth fillet radius on the performance of injection

JMDA315

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

639.

van Melick, H. G. Influence of Youngs modulus on kinematics and stresses in plastic spur gears. In Proceedings

of the Conference at VDI Breichte, 1904, 2005, vol. II,

pp. 12191225.

Mao, K. An approach for power train gear transmission error prediction using the non-linear finite element method. Proc. IMechE, Part D: J. Automotive

Engineering, 2006, 220(D10), 14551463. DOI: 10.1243/

09544070JAUTO251.

Walton, D. and Shi, Y. W. A comparison of ratings for

plastic gears. Proc. IMechE, Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 1989, 203(C1), 3138. DOI: 10.1243/

PIME_PROC_1989_203_083_02.

Cropper, A. B. Failure mode analysis of polymer gears.

PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK, 2003.

BS ISO 6336. Calculation of load capacity of spur

and helical gears, Part 3: calculation of tooth bending

strength, 2nd edition, 1996 (British Standards Institution,

London).

Hoffer, H. Verzahnungskorrekturn an Zahnraden (tooth

corrections to gear wheels). Automob. Z., 1947, 49(2),

1920.

Wang, J. and Howard, I. The torsional stiffness of

involute spur gears. Proc. IMechE, Part C: J. Mechanical Engineering Science, 2004, 218(C1), 131142. DOI:

10.1243/095440604322787009.

Dassault Systmes. Simulia, 2007 (Warrington, UK).

Bromba, M. U. A. and Ziegler, H. Application hints for

SavitzkyGolay digital smoothing filters. Anal. Chem.,

1981, 53, 15831586.

Du Pont PLC. Engineering polymers for gearing applications, 1998 (Du Pont PLC, Bristol).

Breeds, A. R., Kukureka, S. N., Mao, K., Walton, D., and

Hooke, C. J. Wear behaviour of acetal gear pairs. Wear,

1993, 66, 8591.

BS ISO 6336. Calculation of load capacity of spur and

helical gears, Part 2: calculation of surface durability (pitting), 2nd edition, 1996 (British Standards Institution,

London).

Kono, S. Increase in power density of plastic gears for

automotive applications. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK, 2003.

Walton, D., Cropper, A. B.,Weale, D. J., and Klein Meuleman, P. The efficiency and friction of plastic cylindrical

gears. Part 1: influence of materials. Proc. IMechE, Part

J: J. Engineering Tribology, 2002, 216(J2), 7578. DOI:

10.1243/1350650021543915.

BS 6168: 1987. Specification for non-metallic spur-gears,

1987 (British Standards Institution, London).

APPENDIX 1

113

Subscripts

1

2

pinion

wheel

A2.1

contact stress levels calculated at the pitch point or

those at the inner point of single tooth contact. The

nominal contact stress, H , and the permissible contact stress, HP , can be calculated using equations (1)

and (2), respectively.

(1)

H = ZB HO KA KV KH KH

Ft u + 1

HO = ZH ZE Z Z

(2)

D1 b u

A2.1.1

flank curvature at the pitch point and converts tangential force to a normal force at the pitch point

(equation (3))

2 cos b cos wt

(3)

ZH =

cos2 t sin wt

A2.1.2

material properties (equation (4)).

1

ZE =

(4)

{[(1 v12 )/E1 ] + [(1 v22 )/E2 ]}

A2.1.3

the transverse contact and overlap ratios on the tooth

surface load capacity (equation (5)).

For spur gears

4

Z =

(5)

3

The transverse contact ratio, , is given in

equation (6) and the overlap ratio in equation (7).

Transverse base pitch

Notation

E

ra

T

addendum radius

torque (N m)

coefficient of friction

theoretical pressure angle (degree)

JMDA315

Pbt = mt cos t

Length of path of contact

1

2

2

2

2

g =

da1 db1 da1 db1 a sin wt

2

(positive sign for external gears)

Proc. IMechE Vol. 224 Part L: J. Materials: Design and Applications

114

Calculation of hFe

g

Pbt

(6)

b sin

mn

=

A2.1.4

(7)

contact stress at the pitch point to the inner point

of single pair tooth contact ((if ZB > 1 or ZD > 1),

equation (8)).

ZD = 1

if M2 1

ZB = M1

if M1 > 1

Z D = M2

if M2 > 1

G

fp

SFn

+ 3

= zn sin

3

cos

mn

mn

(8)

A2.2

tooth root using a modified form of the Lewis bending

equation (given in equation (9)). In a similar manner to

that outlined above, multiplying the nominal bending

stress by a series of correctional factors gives a permissible stress level (equation (10)). Again, using ISO 6336

for polymeric gears, most of the correctional factors

were set to unity

F = FO KA KV KH KH

FO = YF Ys Y

A2.2.1

Ft

bmn

(9)

SFn , and Fen ; it can be calculated through iteration

using equation (13) and an iterative seed value of /6

(suggested by BS 6168: 1987 [20]).

Calculation of

E=

fp

4

cos n

undercut factor (set to zero for polymer gears), and hfp

the dedendum of the basic rack

G=

hfp

fp

+x

mn

mn

of polymer gears)

Base helix angle

(SFn /mn )2 cos n

(12)

(10)

(equation (11)).

YF =

0.5 + 2 tan n x

+ inv n inv en

zn

Fen = en e

hfe

cos n

= 0.5zn

cos

cos Fen

3

mn

fp

G

+ 0.5

mn

cos

tan wt

M2 =

2

2

(da2 /db2 ) 1 (2/z2 )

2

2

(da1

/db1

) 1 ( 1)(2/z1 )

if M1 1

dbn = dn cos n

dan = dn + da d n =

cos2 b

dan 2

dbn 2

2

2

z

2

den = 2

|z|

d cos cos n

dbn 2

(n 1) +

|z|

2

dbn

en = cos1

den

e =

tan wt

M1 =

2

2

(da1

/db1

) 1 (2/z1 )

2

2

(da2

/db2

) 1 ( 1)(2/z2 )

ZB = 1

d n = mn z n

(11)

z

zn =

2

cos b cos

Virtual number of teeth of a helical gear

E

2G

H=

zn 2

mn

3

JMDA315

Hence

=

2G

tan H

zn

A2.2.2

(13)

115

into a true bending stress, accounting for the

exact location of the applied load, at the point of

maximum loading

YS = (1.2 + 0.13L)qs[1/1.21+(2.3/L)]

where

the nominal bending stress to local tooth root stress

and accounts for the following:

L=

at the tooth root fillet radius;

Fp

f

2G 2

=

+

mn

mn

cos (zn cos2 2G)

JMDA315

(14)

SFn

,

hFe

qs =

SFn

2F