Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics

Volume 3 Issue 2

“Weight and Volume Optimization of Helical Gear Produced by


Hobbing Process using Genetic Algorithm on Cast Iron”

Mansukh Gorasiya
Student
Department of Mechanical Engineering
HJD Institute of Technical Education and Research, Kera Kutch
Corresponding Authors’ email id: mansukhgorasiya@gmail.com

Abstract
Gears are most critical elements in mechanical systems. The gears are
commonly used to transmit motion, the effectiveness of transmission is very
high as compare to others. Today’s competitive market required to optimize
Weight and Volume of the gear design. Weight and Volume optimization of
gear pairs is difficult to solve because it includes various objectives and
large number of variables. Therefore, to solve such difficulty robust
optimization technique will be useful to get optimal solution. Genetic
algorithm will be useful to solve such difficulty using MATLAB. Helical
gear of cast iron material is manufactured by Hobbing process. Experiment
done on gear test rig is necessary for evaluating the performance of gear.
Testing of gears are going to be conduct under lubrication conditions.
Tooth damage investigation is carryout on optical microscope. Results can
be helpful to employ for a least material and cost by fulling design
accuracy and other required performance.

Keywords: MATLAB, Helical Gear, Hobbing Process, Genetic Algorithm

I. INTRODUCTION quality. Today’s competitive global market


The automotive industry has been has brought increasing awareness to
suffering a competitive environment and optimize the gear design. The problem of
striving hard to find methods to reduce gear design optimization is tough to solve
manufacturing cost, waste and improve because it includes multiple constraint and

1 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

large number of variables. Therefore, a  Crossover or recombination:


reliable optimization technique will be Crossover ensures that the search
helpful in obtaining optimal solution for progresses in the accurate direction
the problems.Using Genetic algorithm by creating new chromosomes that
(GA) approach for the optimization of keep characteristics similar to both
Helical gear pair to gives results that can the parents
be applied in practice.GA results can be
help designers to employ for minimum  Mutation: Mutation is usedto avoid
material and cost by fulfilling high local optimum.It helps a quick
efficiency and other performance change in a gene within a
requirements.Performance is evaluated on chromosome permitting the
gear test rig. algorithm to get for the solution far
away from the current ones. See
1.1 Genetic Algorithm (GA): FIGURE 1
Genetic algorithms are suitable for solving
such difficulties,and in extreme cases they 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
can find the global optimum solution with 1) In this research the mathematical
a high probability.Genetic algorithms are model of cycloid speed reducer is
work on the principles of natural genetics created. multi-objective
and naturalselection. The important optimization is consider including
elements of natural genetics - the important criteria and objective
reproduction, crossover, andmutation.[13] functions is established.
Reasonable rise in efficiency
 Reproduction or selection by two (3.79%) and decrease in size
parent chromosomes is selected (32.51%) are achieved. Also
based on their fitnessreproduction suggested that multi-objective
ensures that only the fittest of the optimization design gives healthier
solutions made to form design solutions. Jian Wang, et. al
offspringreproduction will force [1]
the GA to search that area which
has highest fitness values

2 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Figure 1.1General Flow Chart of Genetic Algorithm[13]

2) A helical gear pair reducer is taken method and analytical approach


in this research. Aim of this through AGMA standards. By
research is to minimize the volume inspecting results of this two
of helical gear reducer. For approach crossed helical gear
minimum volume, variables and performance in terms of stress and
constraints are considered. With strength was found better and
the help of Particle Swarm herringbone model and single
Optimization Technique (PSO). helical gear model are engaged for
The results succeeded for least best values of speeds and loads. In
material and cost by satisfying the single helical gear pair, the low
strength. Sunny Patel, et. al [2] stresses were noticed. S. Jyothirmai
et. al [3]
3) In this study different types of
helical gear model are created with 4) In this effort 1, 2 and 3-stage gear
the support of Pro-e andThe work trains has been taken and with the
is to compare different helical gear help of Matlab program and
systems performance through FEA objective of this work is to reduced
3 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved
Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

volume/weight of gearbox. By described with formulation of


selecting different values for the design variables and constraint.
power, gear hardness, gear ratio Objective is to improve power &
etc. the useful charts are created efficiency and reduces Weight &
from the results. all the essential Centre distance has been
parameters like no. of stages, considered in this model. Finite
modules, face width of gears, and Element Analysis (FEA) was used
shaft diameter can be derived. The to support the results and compared
chart results are compared with with the allowable limit. S.
earlier works and an illustration is Ganesan, et. al [16]
taken to display how the practical
chart can be used. Javad Jafari et. 7) Researcher is going to achieve the
al [14] optimal dimensions for gear box
components by using genetic
5) Here model of 2-grade of Helical algorithm tool. Firstly, model
Gear Reducer is created and then formulation is done then design
objective function, design variables variables and design constraints
and constraint condition was was described. Optimization of
described. By comparing the gearbox components is performed
results with the design data it can by genetic algorithm and also
be observed that 35.28% saving in analytical method is used. By
materials and center distance comparing results of this two
reduced by 33mm. so it can be method it was found that GA is
observed that with the help of effective as compare to analytical.
matlab toolbox result obtain was Faruk Mendi, et. al [7]
highly accurate and more
useful.Long He, et. al [15] 8) Aim of this paper is to improve
gear dynamic performances by an
6) In this work an effort has been optimization methodology using
Carryout to improve spur gear pair Genetic Algorithms. Objective is to
design using Genetic Algorithm reduced noise and gear vibration by
(GA) and analytical tool MITCalc. profile modification of in linear
A combined objective function was and parabolic form and compared

4 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

by several optimization approaches comparison with the uncoated, as-


based on FEM analysis. It found ground condition. From the results
that Genetic algorithms of gear testing, it is decided that the
optimization tool is very effective Nb–S coated gears indicated the
for design shape modifications for best overall contact fatigue
dropping the gears vibration. performance. V. Moorthy et. al
Giorgio Bonori, et. al [08] [10]

9) In this paper A twin-disc test rig 11) In this study, with the help
was developed to measure contact dynamic FEA method, the
fatigue characteristic. The device is interactions between transient
aimed to reproduce the most engaging performance and the
influencing operating conditions of modification coefficient and the
gears at the most critical point helical angle are investigated. The
along the tooth profile with regard FEA results have shown that
to pitting damage. To allow the transient performance of gears with
implementation of complete tests different modification coefficients
without the need for inspection by and different helical angles so that
an operator, the rig has been the cost of design and
provided with a vision system manufacturing of gears can be
considered to automatically reduced greatly. Yumei Hu et. al
identify the onset of pitting on the [11]
surface of specimens. G.
Meneghetti et. al [09] 12) In this paper A test rig to evaluate
the performance of a micro
10) In this study, the performance involute gear has been developed.
investigation of helical gears with Shaft position and shaft centre
applied surface coatings like distance of gears have great
Balinit C, C6 + IFLM and Nb–S influence on the gear performance
coatings is carried out. The tests and therefore they must be adjusted
were conducted up to 50 million precisely. The meshing condition
cycles to compute the performance of micro involute gears is
of the different coatings in investigated experimentally. The

5 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

experimental results indicated that considering is weight and volume for


micro gears suffer severe wear helical gear.
under unlubricated conditions that
generate powder like wear 𝟓×𝝅 ×𝒎𝟐𝒏 𝒃
Minimize function𝑓 [𝑥] = 𝟒 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝟐 𝜷
(𝒁𝟐𝟏 )
particles. M.E. Niza et. al[12]
Where,
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY  𝑏 = 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡𝑕 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑚
A function is defined as the quantity to be  𝑍1 = 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜f teeth on pinion
minimized or maximized by analysing a  𝛽 = 𝑕𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒
search space under the imposed Representing the function in the Vector
constraints.[4] In this work, function form as below,

𝟓 × 𝝅 × 𝒎𝟐𝒏 𝒃 𝟐
𝑓 𝑥 = 𝑉 = 𝑓[𝑚𝑛 , 𝑏, 𝑍1 , 𝛽] = 𝑓[𝑥1, 𝑥2, 𝑥3, 𝑥4] = (𝒁𝟏 )
𝟒 𝒄𝒐𝒔𝟐 𝜷

Where,

 𝑥2 = 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡𝑕 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑚
 𝑥3 = 𝑁𝑜. 𝑜f teeth on pinion
 𝑥4 = 𝑕𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑥 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒

Design variables:

The variables used in optimizing of helical gear pair are normal module, face width, number

of teeth and helix angle.

The vector of design variables as follows: -

= [normal module( ), face width( ), number of teeth ( ), helix angle ( )]

6 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Table 3.1 Variables & Limits of Helical gear and Pinion

Sr. No Design Variables Limits

1 Normal Module 2.5 mm

2 Face Width ( ) 20 to 25 mm

3 Number Of Teeth On Pinion ( ) 20, 22, 24, 26

4 Helix angle ( ) to

Constraints considered:
Following constraint are taken in study Bending Stress, Compressive Stress,Normal Module,

Gear Ratio and Centre Distance Between Pinion &Gear.

Table 3.2Constraints formulation[16]

Sr. No Constraints Equations

Bending Stress
1

×
Compressive
2
Stress

7 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

3 Normal Module

4 Gear Ratio

Centre Distance
5 Between Pinion And
Gear

Solving with Genetic Algorithm Objective function f(x):


The objective function considered in this function f = objfun(x)
work is volume/weight based on that the f =
suitable design variables is taken into (5*pi*(x(1)^2*x(2)*x(3)^2))/(4*(cos(x(4)
account with their upper and lower limits. *(pi/180)))^2);
Formulation of constraint is done based on
helical gear design formula. By using the Constraint formulation:
Genetic algorithm in Matlab to obtain the c(1)=(277.032*cos(x(4)*pi/180))/(0.231*x
optimum solution for below objective (1)^2*x(3)*x(2)-
function. Following Matlab coding is used 1.368*x(1)^2*x(2)*(cos(x(4)*pi/180)^3))-
to solve the objective function. 500;

8 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

c(2)=((23.302*10^3*cos(x(4)*pi/180))/(x( clear X; clear F_value;


1)*x(3)*sqrt(x(2))))-5000; for i=1:100 % simulation run
c(3)=(1.15*((131.92*x(1))/(((77*x(3)/(cos [x_ga,fval_ga] =
(x(4)*pi/180))^3)-456)*x(2)))^(1/3))-x(1); ga(@objfun,nvars,A,b,Aeq,beq,LB,UB,@
c(4)=(-x(1)*x(3))/(cos(x(4)*pi/180))+3.78; confuneq);
X(i,:) = x_ga;
Problem Bound: F_value(i,:) = fval_ga;
nvars = 4; End
A = [];
b = []; Genetic algorithm results up to 100
Aeq = []; Simulation:
beq = []; From below table shows that after 100
LB = [0.25,2,22,14]; simulation value of volume and other
decision variables are optimized.
UB = [0.25,2.5,24,17];

Table 3.3Genetic algorithm results up to 100 Simulation

Constant Face width No. of Teeth Helix angle Volume


Module(cm) (cm) on pinion (degree) (cm3)

Average 0.25 2.233045493 22.20155263 14.87225597 289.1949702

Round
0.25 2.24 23 15 311.71
off

From above table average value of decision variable should be taken such as module (m n) =
0.25 cm, face width (b) = 2.24 cm, No. of teeth on pinion (Z1) = 23 and Helix angle (β) = 15o.
Value of objective function that is volume = 311.71 cm3

9 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

4. HELICAL GEAR MANUFACTURING BY HOBBING PROCESS:

Figure 4.1Helical Gear Manufacturing [courtesy to Shubham Gears]

Table 4.1 Manufacturing data for normal helical gear pair

Face No. of Helix Outer


Parameters Module Material
width teeth angle diameter

Gear 2.5 mm 25 mm 48 15o 129.2 mm C.I Casting

Pinion 2.5 mm 25 mm 24 15o 67.11 mm C.I Casting

Figure 4.2Helical gear pair manufactured with normal data

10 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Table 4.2 Manufacturing data for optimized helical gear pair

Face No. of Helix Outer


Parameters Module Material
width teeth angle diameter

Gear 2.5 mm 22.5 mm 46 15o 124 mm C.I Casting

Pinion 2.5 mm 22.5 mm 23 15o 64.50 mm C.I Casting

Figure 4.3Helical gear pair manufactured with GA data

5. Experimental Set-Up

Figure 5.1 Gear test rig set-up


11 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved
Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Table 5.1 Performance conditions

Sr. no Parameter Condition

1 No. of cycle to operate for both gears 5 million

2 Motor/Pinion speed 1440 rpm

3 Working time 4 to 5 hours/day

4 Working condition Grease lubrication

5 Working load No load

6 Total hours to complete 5 million cycle 58 hours

7 Tooth testing Optical Microscope

Figure 5.2Normalgear pairs image after 5 million cycles

12 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Figure 5.3 Optimize gearpairs image after 5 million cycles

6. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

6.1 Results Comparisons Between Analytical Method & Genetic Algorithm

Table 6.1 Comparisons of Results

Analytical G. A
Sr. Genetic
Parameters Difference
no algorithm
method Rounded-off

Module ( )
1 2.5 2.5 2.5 0
(mm)

Face width ( )
2 25 22.33 22.40 2.6
(mm)

No. of Teeth on pinion


3 24 22.20 23 1
( )

13 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Helix angle ( )
4 15o 14.87o 15o 0o
(Degree)

Volume (V)
5 378.80 289.19 311.71 67.09
(cm3)

Mass (M)
6 2.72 2.08 2.244 0.483
(kg)

As from the comparisons between analytical method and genetic algorithm tool in above

table it is clear shows that the reduction in value of design variables i.e. helix angle, no. of

teeth on pinion, and face width of gear pair. Also the weight and volume of the helical pair is

reduced with the application of genetic algorithm.

Table 6.2 Actual Observation Results for Both Pairs

Normal Gear Optimized Gear


Parameters Difference
Pair Pair
Real Pinion Weight
0.416 0.344 0.072
(kg)
Real Gear Weight
2.010 1.659 0.351
(kg)
Total weight
2.426 2.004 0.422
(kg)
Tooth Manuf. Time
88 80 8
(min.)
Material Requirements
2.8 2.6 0.2
(kg)
Material cost
168 156 12
Rs. 60 / kg
Total cost of Gear pair
1200 1120 80
(Rs.)
14 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved
Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

Chart 6.1Practical Data Comparisons

Practical Data Comparisons


2800 2600
2800 2426
2400 2004
2000 1200 1120
1600
1200 88 80 168 156
800
400
0

Tooth Manuf. Material


Total Weight Material Cost Overall Cost
Time Requirements
Normal Pair 2426 88 2800 168 1200
Optimize Pair 2004 80 2600 156 1120

Above chart unit for various parameter please refer table 6.1

As from the Actual observation data comparisons in above table and chart it can be shows
that the material cost, manufacturing time, material requirement, and overall cost of the gear
pair are reduced. It can be say that the genetic algorithm tool has provide better performance
as compared to analytical method.

6.2 Comparisons of Microstructure Examination Report:

Table 6.3 Test Reports Comparisons

Tooth-1 Tooth-2 Tooth-3 Tooth-4

Figure 6.1 Report - 1 Pinion at 0 cycle

15 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

2 Damage Damage Damage Damage

Figure 6.2 Report – 2 Optimized Pinion at 5 million cycles

3 Damage Damage Damage


Damage

Figure 6.3 Report – 3 Normal Pinion at 5 million cycles

As above table shows the comparisons of cm3 and reduction in mass is 0.483
three tested report results. Here 4 tooth are kg.
to be tested to quantify the comparisons
between them and tested 4 tooth are to be 2) In the Actual observation data
selected in random way. Images shows the comparisons with genetic
profile damage and wear on normal tooth algorithm it is found that total
is little high as compared to optimized weight of helical gear pair is
tooth. From above Images Comparisons its reduce to 0.422 kg, reduction in
show that the performance of optimized Tooth Manufacturing time is 8
gear is better as compared to normal gear. minute, reduction in Material
Requirements is 0.2 kg, reduction
CONCLUSIONS in material cost is Rs. 12 and
1) From results comparisons of overall cost reduction is Rs. 80. So
analytical method and genetic it is concluded that the genetic
algorithm tool it is found that the algorithm is effective tool to
reduction in face width is 2.6 mm, improve the gear design with high
reduction in no. of teeth on pinion accuracy.
is 1, reduction in volume is 67.09

16 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

3) In Microstructure Examination it III. S. Jyothirmai, et. al, “A Finite


shows that the damage on Element Approach to Bending,
optimized gear tooth profile is less Contact and Fatigue Stress
than the normal tooth profile. Distribution in Helical Gear
Systems” [J],Procedia Materials
4) Finally, from above points it is Science 6 (2014) 907 – 918
concluded that the performance of
optimized helical gear pair is better IV. Javad Jafari et. al, “Gear train
as compared to normal helical gear optimization based on minimum
pair. volume/weight design”
[J],Mechanism and Machine
FUTURE SCOPE Theory 73 (2014) 197–217
Future work can be extended using
different optimization technique such as V. Long He, et. al, “Optimal design of
particle swam optimization, simulated Two-stage Helical Gear Reducer
annealing etc. based on Matlab” [J], IEEE 2nd
International Conference on
REFERENCES Computing, Control and Industrial
Papers Engineering 2011
I. Jian Wang, Shanming Luo, et. al,
“Multi-objective optimal design of VI. S. Ganesan, et. al, “Gear Pair
cycloid speed reducer based on Design Optimization by Genetic
genetic algorithm.” [J],Mechanism Algorithm and FEA” [J], Frontiers
and Machine Theory 102 (2016) in Automobile and Mechanical
135–8 Engineering -2010

II. K. Tamboli, S. Patel, P.M. George, VII. Faruk Mendi, et. al, “Optimization
et al., “Optimal design of a heavy of module, shaft diameter and
duty helical gear pair using particle rolling bearing for spur gear
swarm optimization technique” [J], through genetic algorithm.” [J],
Procedia Technology 14 (2014) Expert Systems with Applications
513 – 519 37 (2010) 8058–8064

17 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved


Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics
Volume 3 Issue 2

VIII. Giorgio Bonori, et. al, “Optimum XIII. Genetic Algorithms and
profile modifications of spur gears Engineering Optimization. Mitsuo
by means of genetic algorithms.” Gen and Runwei Cheng,John
[J], Journal of Sound and Vibration Wiley & Sons, 2000
313 (2008) 603–616
XIV. Gear Materials, Properties, And
IX. G. Meneghetti et. al, “A Twin Disc Manufacture by J.R. Davis, Davis
Test Rig For Contact Fatigue & Associates, ASM International,
Characterization Of Gear United States of America, 2005
Materials.” [J], Procedia Structural
Integrity 2 (2016) 3185–3193 XV. Handbook of Gear Design by Gitin
M. Maitra, Tata McGraw-Hill
X. V. Moorthy et. al, “Contact fatigue Education, 1994
performance of helical gears with
surface coatings.” [J], Wear 276– XVI. Design Data Book, Faculty of
277 (2012) 130– 140 Mechanical Engineering, PSG
College of Technology,
XI. Yumei Hu et. al,“Transient Coimbatore 641004, Tamilnadu,
meshing performance of gears with India.
different modification coefficients
and helical angles using explicit
dynamic FEA.” [J], Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 25
(2011) 1786-1802

XII. M.E. Nizaet. al,“Test rig for micro


gear and experimental analysis on
the meshing condition and failure
characteristics of steel micro
involute gear and metallic glass
one.” [J], Mechanism and Machine
Theory 45 (2010) 1797-1812

18 Page 1-18 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018. All Rights Reserved