Spur Gear Train Transmission Error Analysis

Experimental Analysis and Simulation

Khursheed Ali Khan Junaid Ali

2016196 2016188
FME FME

Bilal Ahmad Ghazanfar Ali

2016102 2016134
FME FME

Farhad Naqvi
2015434
FME

Abstract— This CEP is based on the spur
gear train fabrication and analysis for
transmission errors. A careful observation
of spur gear meshing was carried for
measuring error in different kinematic
parameters. Variation of force, velocity,
torque were studied with respect to time;
the result were presented in the form of
graphs. This report includes complete
analysis both experimental, and
computational on Msc Adams for
measuring transmission error in force,
velocity, and angular displacement.
Computational analysis provided
information about the ideal meshing
kinematic parameters, while experimental
analysis resulted in real meshing
parameter. A comparison between the
ideal and real approximated the
transmission error.
1. INTRODUCTION
Gears are used for the transmission of Power
or Torque from one shaft to another and are
important machine elements. The
transmission of torque/power should be
uniform and accurate to avoid any noise,
vibration, wear etc. Any deviation from
accuracy in design or manufacturing, results
in various defects leading to the transmission
error. The Transmission Error is defined as
the difference between the effective and the
ideal position of the output shaft with
reference to the input shaft in a gear set. The
ideal position represents a condition of
perfect gear box, without any type of errors
and deformations. Transmission error can be
expressed either by an angular displacement
or, more conveniently, as a linear

P a g e 1 | 10
displacement measured along a line of action
at the base circle. 1.2 Causes of Transmission Error
 Tooth Geometry errors: Profile
Transmission error occurs when a traditional
error, pitch error and run out errors
non-modified gear drive is operated under
from manufacturing process.
assembly errors. Transmission error is the
 Elastic Deformation: Local contact
rotation delay between driving and driven
deformation at each meshing tooth
gear caused by the disturbances of inevitable
pair and deflections of teeth in gear
random noise factors such as elastic
bodies due to the transmitted load
deformation, manufacturing error, alignment
through and transverse to the gear
error in assembly.
rotational axis.
1.1 Problem Identification  Imperfect mounting: Geometric
 Gearboxes are the most widely used errors in alignment, which may be
mechanical components in industrial introduced by static and dynamic
equipment such as automobiles, elastic deflections in the supporting
helicopters, and ships. Detecting the bearings and shafts.
gear defects while the machine is still
on operation can help to avoid
abnormal event progression and to 1.3 Methods of measurements of
reduce productivity loss. Transmission Error
There are number of methods to measure
 The faulty gear is usually the major
Transmission Error, but following two
source of severe vibrations and may
methods are commonly used.
result in the abnormal operation and
failure of the system. These may lead
1.3.1 Pulse Timing Method: This method
to transmission error. Therefore,
is based and associated with optical
various method are used for the
encoder measurement of transmission
measurement of Transmission Error.
error consists in using through shaft
This project work deals with the
encoders to avoid couplings .The
fabrication and measurement of
principle of the pulse timing
Transmission Error.
technique is integrated data

P a g e 2 | 10
 acquisition, the collection and storing
of data with the time interval between
the rising edges of the encoder
signals.

1.3.2 Angular Sampling method: This

method is based on the angular
displacement on either the pinion or
gear shaft or as displacement along
Figure 1 showing experimental setup
the gear line of action. In the
following, only transmission error as 2.2 Procedure

an angular error on the pinion shaft is Starting with the calibration of piezoelectric
used. sensor for forces vs voltages. Different
weights were placed on sensor, which gave
different voltage values through use of
2. METHODOLOGY
Arduino IDE software. These voltages were

2.1 Experimental Setup then used to approximate meshing forces of

gears. After this, two piezoelectric sensors
Experimental setup includes two spur gears
were installed on tooth flank of driven gear.
of same dimensions, mounted on shafts of
Arduino was connected to sensors through
equal lengths. Whole mechanism is enclosed
connecting wires. Approximately uniform
in a wooden box. Two piezoelectric sensors
velocity was given manually. Voltage values
are attached on flank face of driven gear tooth
from the two sensors were noted. These
to measure meshing force.
values were later used to measure forces,
making use of the calibration data.

Computational analysis was done through

MSC Adams. Through simulation, forces
were taken for the same locations as was in
experiment. Both the forces were compared

P a g e 3 | 10
and their difference was calculated. This Bearing Specifications are:
difference is due to transmission error.
Dimension Value (cm)
Inner Diameter 2
Outer Diameter 3.5
3. DESIGN OF THE PROJECT

In the finalized design of the spur gear train

Box Specifications are:
analysis, the following parts/components
have been used. Dimension Value (cm)
Length 25.8
 Two Spur Gears
Width 28
 Two Shafts Made of Steel
Height 14.3
 Four Ball Bearings
 A Box Made of Wood to Support
Assembly
 Arduino with Piezoelectric sensors

Gear Specifications are:

Dimension Value (cm)

Pitch Radius of 5.2
Gear
Thickness of Gear 1.3
Number of Teeth 36

Shaft Specifications are:

Dimension Value (cm) Figure 2 showing the fabricated final design

Length 35.56
Radius 2

P a g e 4 | 10
4. COST ANALYSIS

COMPONEN COST( QUANTIT

T Rs) Y
Supporting Box 700 1

Spur Gear 300 2

Shaft 900 1

Bearing 100 4

Piezoelectric 200 10 Figure 3 simulation design of assembly

Arduino 700 1

Wooden Box 300 1

Total 3200 20

Table 1

5. SIMULATION RESULTS

Simulations were carried using Msc Adams.

Force, torque, and angular velocity between
the two gears/shafts at meshing was
calculated versus time for gears. Graphs of
force/torque versus time, and angular
velocity of shaft/gear are presented below.

P a g e 5 | 10
Driver Gear Angular Velocity Driven gear force

Figure 6 showing driven gear force at meshing

Figure 4 showing driver gear angular velocity

Driven Gear Angular Velocity

Driver gear Force

As we can see there is fluctuation in angular

velocity deu to transmission errors.

Figure 5 showing driven gear angular velocity

Figure 7 showing driver gear force at meshing

P a g e 6 | 10
Driver gear torque 6. ANALYSIS
An experiment was carried out to find out the
contact force between two meshing spur
gears. Two piezo electric sensors were
installed on a single teeth half covered by
each. Voltage generated in the piezo sensor
when gears meshed. Voltage was displayed
on computer since Arduino was interfaced
with sensors. Calibration was also necessary,
therefore, to do that following data was
obtained.

Figure 7 showing driver gear torque

S.no Force (N) Voltage (V)

01 0.5 1.65
Driven gear torque 02 0.68 1.80
03 1 1.95
04 2 2.4
Table showing calibration data

Callibration Data
3
y = 0.482x + 1.4463
Voltage (V)

1
Figure 8 showing driven gear torque at meshing
0
0 0.5 1Force (N)
1.5 2 2.5
Figure 6 showing calibration graph for sensor

In the above graphs, there is no acceleration

mentioned as the simulations and experiment Graph showing linear relationship between
both were conducted for a constant angular force and voltage for piezoelectric sensor
velocity, therefore, having a zero-magnitude.

P a g e 7 | 10
Experimental Results 7. PROBLEMS FACED
Sensor Sensor Force (N) Following problems were faced during the
Number Voltage experiment.
(V)
1 2 2.41  Piezoelectric sensors couldn’t be fit in
2 2.5 2.65 the gears as they were of larger size
3 3 2.89 than the spacing between two teeth
4 2.45 2.62 during meshing.
5 1.95 2.38
 Conditioning circuit was also
6 1.80 2.31
necessary, and figuring out its proper
7 2.35 2.57
electronics was not an easy task.
8 2.65 2.72
9 3.15 2.96  Maintaining a uniform angular
10 3.20 2.98 velocity with hand was also not an
Average 2.64 easy job
Table 1 showing experimental data  Piezoelectric sensors were too brittle,
and vulnerable to breakage.
 Soldering the Piezoelectric sensors
damaged some of sensors; great care
Angular Velocity=w=30 degree/s
was required.
Comparison between simulation and  Finding bigger spur gears in the local
experimental results show that there is a market was also a tiresome job
difference between force of contact at  Material specifications were not
meshing. Experimentally, force was found to available as gears were bought in the
be 2.64 N, while simulation indicated a force local market with no datasheet
of 2 N at meshing between the spur gears.

Similarly, there is also a difference between

angular velocities and torques. Experimental
and simulations result indicate a difference of
magnitudes of output shaft.

P a g e 8 | 10
8. CONCLUSION
Due to misalignment, manufacturing
defects, friction, and deformations, output
dynamics parameters of the driven are
affected i.e. angular displacement, velocity,
acceleration, and forces deviates from its
actual values. Output gear doesn’t rotate that
angular displacement with respect to input
gear for a certain degree of rotation, there is
delay/lag at the output shaft due transmission
error. Above mentioned dynamic parameters
of driven/output gear are reduced, because of
reasons indicated above.

P a g e 9 | 10
P a g e 10 | 10