Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

Mesh stiffness calculation of a spur gear pair with tooth profile modification
and tooth root crack
Zaigang Chen, Yimin Shao ⁎
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400030, People's Republic of China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gear tooth deviations are the main excitation sources for gear dynamic responses. However, it is
Received 29 June 2012 seldom considered in the analytical mesh stiffness model except for some computational analysis
Received in revised form 30 October 2012 like finite element method. To make up this gap, a general analytical mesh stiffness model is
Accepted 30 October 2012
proposed in this paper to include the effect of the gear tooth errors. This proposed model
Available online 28 December 2012
establishes the relationship between the gear tooth errors and the total mesh stiffness, load
sharing among different tooth pairs in mesh and loaded static transmission errors (LSTE). It is
Keywords: suitable for not only the gear pairs with low contact ratio (LCR), but also the gear pairs with high
Mesh stiffness
contact ratio (HCR). Two spur gear pair models, namely one with LCR between 1 and 2 and the
Tooth profile modification
other one with HCR between 2 and 3, are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
Load sharing
Transmission error mesh stiffness model. Influences of the TPM, applied torque and gear tooth root crack on the mesh
Tooth crack stiffness, load sharing and loaded static transmission errors are also investigated.
Contact ratio © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Gearbox is the most important mechanism in industrial machinery, automotive applications, and our daily lives to transmit
power, provide rotational speed changes and/or change the direction of motion [1,2]. Vibrations of the gear pair are always caused
by external excitations from fluctuation of applied torque and input operating speed [3–5], and by internal excitations from
time-varying cyclic mesh stiffness and transmission errors [1–4,6–8]. Gear pair is characterized by its internal cyclic excitation
sources from time-varying mesh stiffness and transmission errors. Consequently, numerous literatures about the mesh stiffness,
transmission errors and the resultant dynamic performance of gear pairs were published.
In the previous published paper, the finite element (FE) method is widely used to calculate the gear mesh stiffness and
transmission errors [9–15]. This method can involve automatically the effect of the toot errors consist of manufacturing errors,
assembly errors or the profile deviation by tooth profile modification. However, the FE models for the mesh stiffness calculation
need mesh refinements and are computationally expensive. On the other hand, analytical methods show the good results with
reduced computation time in calculating tooth stiffness by comparing with FEA models [16–18]. Thus, analytical models for gear
mesh stiffness calculation have become to be significant alternative tools.
Weber [16], Cornell [17] computed the gear mesh stiffness analytically, and Kasuba and Evans [19] calculated it with a
digitization approach. Yang and Lin [20] used the potential energy principle to calculate the total mesh stiffness of meshing gear
pairs as a function of the rotation angle of the gear. And their model was further refined by Tian [21] and Wu et al. [1] by taking
the shear mesh stiffness into consideration, and further extended by Chen and Shao [2] with taking the fillet-foundation
deflection [22] into account. Chaari et al. [18,23] developed an analytical model to calculate the gear mesh stiffness based on the
Weber's tooth bending equation [16]. In addition, some researchers attempted to extend the gear mesh stiffness model to involve
the presence of the some gear faults, such as tooth breakage and spalling [23], gear tooth crack [1,2,18,21].

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ymshao@cqu.edu.cn (Y. Shao).

0094-114X/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.10.012
64 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

However, the total mesh stiffness of the gear pair in their analytical model is calculated by the direct summation of the mesh
stiffness of tooth pairs in mesh, such as Eqs. (11) and (12) in this paper. The effect of the tooth errors on the total mesh stiffness
were neglected, which resulted in a sudden ‘jump’ phenomenon in the changeover region between the alternating numbers of
tooth-pairs in mesh. Actually, the sudden ‘jump’ of the total mesh stiffness will cause strong impulsive vibrations of the gear
system which influences its dynamic performance seriously. In practice, a tooth pair is running into or exiting from engagement
gradually but not suddenly. Consequently, the practical total mesh stiffness should be smoother than those analytical models
aforementioned, which is especially true when the tooth errors are in consideration. It is the main goal for this paper to achieve,
where the general forms of analytical mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and loaded transmission error are proposed together
with the effect of the mesh stiffness of single-tooth pair and the tooth errors from the manufacturing errors, assembly errors or
the profile deviations due to intentional tooth profile modifications and tooth surface defects. Based on this approach, the effect of
the tooth errors and tooth root crack can be investigated.
Reducing the dynamic loading and noise of gear systems has been an important concern in gear design [24]. Tooth profile
modification is one of the most popular and effective methods for the minimization of the dynamic vibration and noise by
optimizing the transmission errors. Numerous works have been carried on with regard to the investigation of TPM. As early as in
1958, tooth profile correction was analyzed and applied to reduce gear dynamic loads by Harris [8]. Lin et al. [24,25] investigated
the effects of the tooth profile modification on the dynamic response of low contact ratio spur gears. Wagaj and Kahraman [26]
employed a nonlinear finite element contact mechanics model of a parallel axis gear pair to study the impact of intentional tooth
flank modifications on the static transmission error of the gear pair. Li [27] quantitatively investigated the effects of machining
errors, assembly errors and tooth modifications on loading capacity, load-sharing ratio and transmission error of a pair of spur
gears by using special developed finite element method. Tesfahunegn et al. [28] also employed a non-linear finite element
approach to investigate in detail the influence of the shape of profile modifications on transmission error, root stress, and contact
pressure. He et al. [29] studied the effect of the tooth surface friction with a realistic mesh stiffness model with the tip relief. Liu
and Parker [30] studied the effects of tooth profile modification on multimesh gearset vibration. They developed a nonlinear
analytical model to consider the dynamic load distribution between the individual gear teeth and the influence of variable mesh
stiffness, profile modifications, and contact loss. Besides, other literatures were concentrated on the effect of the tooth profile
modifications on the gear set with high contact ratio due to its higher load capacity and steady operating performances [9,31–34].
In these published papers, different shapes of tooth profile modification are proposed, such as linear [24–26,28–31,34], parabolic
[25,26], circular [10,28], straight [10], quadratic [32] and rotated form [5,10] profile modifications. Without loss of generality, as
the most popularly applied tooth profile modification, linear tip relief is adopted in this paper. It is noted that the proposed model
is not limited to the linear profile modification but also other kinds of profile modifications.
Consequently, the main objective of this paper is to develop the general analytical forms of equations to reflect the influence of
the tooth errors and tooth fault on the mesh stiffness, load sharing ratio and loaded transmission error. These factors have a close
relationship with gear static and dynamic performances. It provides a convenient way for the investigation on gear vibration and
noise deduction. The tooth profile deviations by tooth profile modification and tooth root crack are mainly concentrated in this
paper. And the optimization of tooth profile modification aiming at minimizing the fluctuation of the loaded static transmission
error is carried out based on this developed model, which is expected to be useful for gear designs.
This paper is organized as follows: The first segment aims at reviewing the published literatures on the modeling of the gear
mesh stiffness and the effect of the tooth errors, especially the intentional tooth profile modifications. And the gap excites the
formation of this paper. The models of the mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and loaded static transmission error with the effect
of gear tooth errors are derived in Section 2. Then, the calculated results and discussions about the influence of the TPM, applied
load and tooth root crack are exhibited in Section 3 which is followed by conclusions in Section 4.

2. Proposed mesh stiffness model with gear tooth errors

In the previous published work, most calculations of the mesh stiffness, load sharing among tooth pairs and transmission errors
were calculated with some computational algorithms, such as finite element and boundary element methods. These computational
approaches can automatically involve the effect of the gear tooth deviations. However, for the analytical methods, most of them
considered the gear pair with ideal involute tooth profile rather than a more practical gear pair with tooth profile deviations from the
theoretical position which are usually generated by unintentional manufacturing and assembly errors, gear tooth defects and the
intentional tooth profile modifications. In this case, the total mesh stiffness was obtained by summation of all the single-tooth mesh
stiffness even if there were tooth errors in presence [30]. What's more, the general analytical formulas reflecting the effect of gear tooth
deviations on total mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and LSTE can hardly be found. It is the main goal of this paper to be achieved.
Relative position relationships between the contact positions of two gear tooth pair in mesh are shown in Fig. 1. Tooth errors
like spacing errors and tooth profile errors are considered in this schematic. Of course, the tooth profile deviations caused by TPM
or tooth defects can be regarded as the tooth profile errors shown in Fig. 1. Both the pinion and gear are regarded as rigid body
and the gear is fixed while the pinion can rotate freely. The contact positions of a tooth pair are connected by a spring Ki (i = 1, 2)
whose stiffness can be calculated by analytical or FEA methods. And the red dotted lines show the theoretical contact positions.
The symbols Pb, P denote respectively the theoretical and practical base pitches. When an external torque Tin is applied to the
pinion, it will rotate to make the teeth of the gear and pinion contact with each other. At the same time, the springs of the tooth
pairs are suffering compressive action, and their deformations are denoted by δ1 and δ2 (shown as the red region in Fig. 1)
respectively for tooth pair #1 and #2.
 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74 65

Fig. 1. Schematic of double-tooth engagement along line of action (LOA) with errors. (Keys: , contact positions on pinion and gear respectively).

Based on what is shown in Fig. 1 where the gear tooth pair #1 is set to be the reference, the geometric relationship between
the gear pairs in mesh can be obtained by assuming the base pitch P is unchanged under the load Tin. It reads,

s s
δ1 þ Ep1 þ Eg1 ¼ δ2 þ Ep2 þ Eg2 þ Ep12 −Eg12 ð1Þ

Eq. (1) can be further written as,

s s
δ1 −δ2 ¼ Ẽ 12 ; Ẽ 12 ¼ Ep2 þ Eg2 −Ep1 −Eg1 þ Ep12 −Eg12 ð2Þ

where, symbols δ, E and E s represent respectively the deformation of a tooth pair under load, tooth profile error and spacing error
between the teeth. Ẽ is the error function involving the effects of all the errors of the gear teeth in mesh. Subscripts 1, 2 refer to
s
the first tooth pair and second tooth pair and p, g denote pinion and gear, respectively. The spacing error Ei12 (i = p, g) is defined as the
s
distance of tooth 2 relative to tooth 1 minus the theoretical value for the pinion and gear respectively. Note that the Eg12 shown in
Fig. 1 is negative according to the definition of the spacing error. While the tooth profile errors E are defined to be positive if some
material is removed from the tooth relative to the ideal theoretical tooth profile, otherwise, it is negative.
When two gear pairs are in mesh simultaneously which is known as double-tooth engagement, namely δ1 > 0, δ2 > 0, the mesh
forces of the two tooth-pairs can be calculated as,

F 1 ¼ K 1 δ1 ; F 2 ¼ K 2 δ2 ð3Þ

where, Ki, i = 1, 2 are the mesh stiffness of tooth pair i. Simultaneously, Ki is also a function of teeth contact deformation δi, and
angular displacement of the pinion or gear θ, say,


K i ðθÞ; δi > 0
K i ¼ K i ðθ; δi Þ ¼ : ð4Þ
0; δi ≤ 0

It means that the mesh stiffness of a tooth pair equals to 0 if the two teeth don't contact with each other. And the total mesh
force F is equal to the summation of the mesh forces of all the tooth-pairs in mesh, which is obtained as,

F ¼ F 1 þ F 2 > 0: ð5Þ

The total mesh stiffness of the gear pair in double-tooth engagement can be calculated as,

F
K¼ : ð6Þ
maxðδ1 ; δ2 Þ
66 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

Thus, solving Eqs. (1)–(6) can yield the further representation of the mesh stiffness as,

1
K¼ ðK 1 þ K 2 Þ; when δ1 −δ2 ¼ Ẽ 12 > 0 ð7Þ
1 þ K 2 Ẽ 12 =F

1
K¼ ðK 1 þ K 2 Þ; when δ1 −δ2 ¼ Ẽ 12 ð8Þ
>
0:
1−K 1 Ẽ 12 =F

What is shown in Eqs. (7) and (8) says that mesh stiffness of the gear pair in double-tooth engagement increases with the
applied load.
Based on Eqs. (2)–(4), the load sharing factor indicating the ratio of the mesh force of one tooth pair to the total mesh force can
be gained as,
!
F K1 1 þ K 2 Ẽ 12
Lsf 1 ¼ 1 ¼ ð9Þ
F K1 þ K2 F

!
K2 1−K 1 Ẽ 12
Lsf 2 ¼ 1−Lsf 1 ¼ ð10Þ
K1 þ K2 F

where, Lsf is the load sharing factor. If the both two tooth-pairs contact at the ideal involute profile, namely δ1 −δ2 ¼ Ẽ 12 ¼ 0, the
total mesh stiffness in Eqs. (7) and (8) and load sharing factor in Eqs. (9) and (10) are reduced to,

K ¼ K1 þ K2 ð11Þ

K1 K2
Lsf 1 ¼ ; Lsf 2 ¼ ð12Þ
K1 þ K2 K1 þ K2

Eqs. (11) and (12) show how most of the published papers [1,2,4,18,21,23,30] considered analytically the total mesh stiffness and
load sharing factor of the gear pair in double-tooth engagement, which is a special case neglecting the effect of gear tooth errors.
For the single-tooth engagement, the mesh stiffness can be acquired based on Eqs. (4), (7), (8), which reads,

F
K¼ ¼ K 1 ; δ2 ≤0 ð13Þ
δ1

F
K¼ ¼ K 2 ; δ1 ≤0: ð14Þ
δ2

And for the high contact ratio, the total mesh stiffness and load sharing factor can be easily obtained based on this method. For
example, the total mesh stiffness and load sharing factor of gear pair with contact ratio 2 b Cr b 3 is gained as,

1
K¼   ðK 1 þ K 2 þ K 3 Þ; when δ1 ≥ maxðδ2 ; δ3 Þ ð15Þ
1 þ K 2 Ẽ 12 þ K 3 Ẽ 13 =F

1
K¼    ðK 1 þ K 2 þ K 3 Þ; when δ2 ≥ maxðδ1 ; δ3 Þ ð16Þ
1− K 1 Ẽ 12 þ K 3 Ẽ 12 −Ẽ 13 =F

1
K¼    ðK 1 þ K 2 þ K 3 Þ; when δ3 ≥ maxðδ1 ; δ2 Þ ð17Þ
1− K 1 Ẽ 13 þ K 2 Ẽ 13 −Ẽ 12 =F

!
K1 1 þ K 2 Ẽ 12 þ K 3 Ẽ 13
Lsf 1 ¼ ð18Þ
K1 þ K2 þ K3 F

0  1
K2 1 þ −K 1 Ẽ 12 þ K 3 Ẽ 13 −Ẽ 12
Lsf 2 ¼ @ A ð19Þ
K1 þ K2 þ K3 F

0  1
K3 1 þ −K 1 Ẽ 13 þ K 2 Ẽ 12 −Ẽ 13
Lsf 3 ¼ @ A: ð20Þ
K1 þ K2 þ K3 F
 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74 67

Based on the analysis above, a general form of the total mesh stiffness and load sharing factor of a gear pair with N teeth pairs
in engagement under the effect of gear tooth errors can be obtained as,

X
N
Kj
j¼1
K¼ ; where δi ¼ maxðδ1 ; δ2 ; …; δN Þ ð21Þ
X
N
1þ K j Ẽ ij =F
j¼1
0 XN 1
B1 þ K j Ẽ ij C
Ki B j¼1 C
Lsf i ¼ B C ð22Þ
X
N B F C
@ A
Kj
j¼1

where K is the total mesh stiffness, and Lsfi is the load sharing factor of the ith tooth pair. And the mesh stiffness of a single-tooth
pair Ki (i = 1,2…,N) has the same property as that defined in Eq. (4). Epi, Egi are successively the tooth errors of pinion and gear in
ith gear pair; δi is the deformation of the ith gear pair. Here, the general error function Ẽ ij is defined as,
s s
δi −δj ¼ Ẽ ij ¼ Epj þ Egj −Epi −Egi þ Epij −Egij ð23Þ
s
where Ẽ ij ¼ −Ẽ ji , Ẽ ii ¼ 0, and Ẽ ij ¼ Ẽ kj −Ẽ ki . The spacing error Ekij (k = p, g) is defined as the distance of tooth j relative to tooth i
minus the theoretical value for the pinion and gear respectively.
The mesh stiffness of single tooth pair Ki (i = 1,2,…,N) can be calculated by computational methods like finite element method
and analytical methods et al. and the analytical method based on the potential energy principle is adopted in this paper. It can be
calculated as [2],
!
1 1 1 1 1
K i ¼ 1= þ þ þ þ ð24Þ
K t1 K f 1 K t2 K f 2 K h

where, Kti, Kfi (i= 1,2) are the stiffness due to tooth deflection and fillet-foundation deformation respectively. The subscript i= 1
corresponds to pinion and i =2 is for gear. Kh denotes the stiffness due to the Hertzian contact deformation between the teeth in mesh.
With the tooth sliced into many segments along tooth width, the stiffness due to tooth deformation can be calculated as [2],
 
W 1 1 1
K ti ¼ ∫0 1= þ þ ð25Þ
K bi ðxÞ K si ðxÞ K ai ðxÞ

where, W is the tooth width; the variable x is the location on the ‘sliced’ segment along the tooth width; Kb, Ks and Ka are the tooth
stiffness of the corresponding sliced tooth segment due to the effect of tooth bending, shear, axial compression deformation,
respectively. With regard to their calculation, it has been discussed thoroughly in Refs. [1,2,18,21,23]. The presence of tooth crack will
result in the reduction in the area moment of inertia and the area of the section, which will soften the tooth bending stiffness and the
tooth shear stiffness.
Finally, the loaded static transmission error (LSTE) can be given out as,

F
LSTE ¼ þ Epi þ Egi ; where δi ¼ maxðδ1 ; δ2 ; …; δN Þ: ð26Þ
K

Further, substitution of Eqs. (21) to (26) yields,

0 1
1 X
N
LSTE ¼ N @F þ K j Ẽ ij A þ Epi þ Egi ; where δi ¼ maxðδ1 ; δ2 ; …; δN Þ: ð27Þ
X j¼1
Kj
j¼1

Applying the present total mesh stiffness model, the effects of the manufacturing and assembly errors, tooth profile
modification and tooth failure can be investigated conveniently. Simultaneously, their influence on the mesh stiffness, load
sharing factor and LSTEs can be assessed easily according to Eqs. (21)–(27). Additionally, this model enables the optimization of
the applied torque and tooth profile modification to get the minimized transmission errors. The corner contact always takes place
due to the excessive load, tooth deviations or insufficient tooth profile modification, and it is not considered in this paper because
its effect can be significantly reduced by proper profile modification [30]. Some detailed work about the corner contact had been
done by R G Munro et al. [36]. However, the general forms for the calculation of total mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and
loaded static transmission error in Eqs. (21), (22), (26), and (27) can also be suitable to the corner contact cases by searching the
potential contact positions at off line of action, which is excluded from this paper.
68 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

Table 1
Design parameters of spur gear pairs.

Model I Model II

Pinion Gear Pinion Gear

Tooth shape Standard involute Standard involute

Material Steel Steel
Number of teeth 30 30 30 30
Module M (mm) 2 2
Pressure angle (°) 20 20
Addendum (mm) M M 1.53 M 1.53 M
Face width (mm) 20 20 20 20
Theoretic contact ratio 1.65 2.37

3. Results and discussions

Two sets of gear pair models are applied in this paper. Their design parameters are defined in Table 1. These two gear sets, namely
Model I and Model II, have the same parameters except for the tooth addendum and theoretical contact ratio. Model I is a gear set with
low contact ratio (LCR) and Model II with high contact ratio (HCR). With these two gear models, the impact of the tooth profile
modification, applied force and tooth root crack on the mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and static transmission errors can be carried
out for both the cases with LCR and HCR. Their calculation methods have been discussed theoretically in Section 2.

3.1. Effect of tooth profile modification

Since modifying the root of one member has the same effect as modifying the tip of the mating member, all modifications were
assumed to be applied at the tooth tips [24]. Further for convenience, the same amount and the same length are assumed for the
tooth tip profile modifications of both pinion and gear in this paper. The microscale tooth profile modification has the same order
(um) as the transmission error, so it has negligible effect on the curvature of the tooth profile and the mesh stiffness of the single
tooth pair [30]. The maximum amounts of tip and flank modifications are defined in some existing standards such as British
Standard (BS 1970) and ISO (ISO/DIS 1983). In the standards, the suggested maximum magnitude of relief is given out as Ca_max =
0.02 M = 0.04 mm and the relief length is ΔLa_max = 0.6 M = 1.2 mm, where M is the module of the gear. The standard tip relief
limitations can be chosen as the reference values to calculate the actual profile modification amount [9,10,35].

Ca
Cn ¼ ð28Þ
C aXmax

La
Ln ¼ ð29Þ
LaXmax

where Cn and ΔLn are the normalized relief parameters that clearly show the applied relief (parameters) relative to the limits used in
the standards, Ca and ΔLa are actual amount relief and length shown in Fig. 2. In this paper, when the profile modification reaches the
highest point of single tooth contact (HPSTC), the length of profile modification is ΔLa = 1.7 mm with the normalized value of ΔLn =
1.417. LPSTC in Fig. 2 refers to the lowest point of single tooth contact. Two kinds of profile modifications can be clarified by
the modification length, namely short profile modification where ΔLn is not bigger than 1 and long profile modification if ΔLn is
more than 1 [9,10].
Effects of the length and amount of the tip profile modification on the mesh stiffness, load sharing factor and loaded static
transmission error are displayed in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively. For the case of ΔLn = 0 indicating no profile modification applied,
abrupt changes happen to the transition regions between single- and double-tooth engagements for LCR or double- and
triple-tooth engagements for HCR. In order to smooth these transition regions, tooth profile modification is the widely used
approach. With the tooth profile modification, these transition regions are smoothed and the extent of being smoothed is
determined by the selection of the length (see Fig. 3) and the amount (see Fig. 4) of TPM.
A noticeable observation can be found wherein the proportion of double-tooth engagement in one mesh cycle for Model I with
LCR is hardly changed by the length of TPM (see Fig. 3a), but seriously affected by the amount of TPM (see Fig. 4a). However, for
Model II with HCR, the proportion of the triple-tooth engagement in one mesh cycle is greatly influenced by both the length and
amount of the TPM. When the short profile modifications are applied to the gear sets specified in Table 1, the variations of the
mesh stiffness and the LSTE for HCR are smaller than LCR, which can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4. While for the long profile
modification, fluctuation of the LSTE of Model II with HCR is more serious than Model I. Proper selection of the amount and length
of the TPM can result in a minimum variance in the magnitude of the LSTE, such as the cases of ΔLn = 1.4 in Fig. 3a, ΔLn = 0.8 in
Fig. 3b and Cn = 1.5 in Fig. 4b. Besides the amplitudes of the varying mesh stiffness and LSTE being influenced by TPM, their mean
values are also affected, saying that the mean value of the mesh stiffness decreases and that of LSTE increases with the growth of
the amount and length of the TPM. It is implied that the TPM can soften the mesh stiffness of the gear pair by reducing the mesh
 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74 69

Fig. 2. Gear tooth profile modification.

stiffness of double-tooth engagement (Model I) or that of triple-tooth engagement (Model II). For vibration- and noise-deduction,
the variations of the transmission errors are expected to be as small as possible by applying proper TPM. But the load capacity of
the gear pair will be reduced accordingly due to the ‘softened’ mesh stiffness by TPM. In some specified design cases, a tradeoff
should be made between the vibration- and noise-deduction and the load capacity by applying tooth profile modification.

Fig. 3. Gear pair with different length of TPM (Cn = 0.8, Tin = 150 Nm). (Keys: ΔLn = 0; ΔLn = 0.2; ΔLn = 0.5; ΔLn = 0.8; ΔLn = 1.1; ΔLn = 1.4).
70 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

Fig. 4. Gear pair with different amplitude of TPM with short profile modification (ΔLn =0.6, Tin=150 Nm). (Keys: Cn =0; Cn =0.3; Cn =0.6; Cn =0.9;
Cn =1.2; Cn =1.5; Cn =1.8;).

Although the corner contact is neglected in this paper, its presence can also be predicted by observing the theoretical
transition region between the alternating single- and double-tooth engagements for Model I or the double- and triple-tooth mesh
for Model II. If there is an abrupt ‘jump’ in the transition region, a corner contact at the off line of action must exist even if it is not
shown in the result curves. Further, a corner contact must happen in the approaching process of the tooth pair if the ‘jump’
phenomenon is observed in the theoretical transition region from single- to double-tooth engagement for Model I, and that from
double- to triple-tooth engagement for Model II. While if the ‘jump’ appears in the theoretical transition mesh region from
double- to single-tooth (Model I) or from triple- to double-tooth (Model II), a corner contact takes place in the recessing process
of the tooth pair. Example cases to demonstrate the presence of corner contact are shown in Fig. 4, such as the cases with Cn = 0,
Cn = 0.3 and Cn = 0.6 for Model I and Cn = 0, Cn = 0.3 for Model II.
As mentioned above, a minimum variance of the transmission error can be achieved by proper selection of the TPM. And those
tooth profile modifications resulting in a minimum LSTE are illustrated in Fig. 5 under the loaded torque of 150 Nm. Here,
different colors stand for different relative Peak–Peak of the LSTE, which is defined as,

P n −P m
Rp ¼  100% ð30Þ
Pn

where, Rp is the relative Peak–Peak value of the LSTE, and Pi (i = m, n for modification and no modification respectively) is the
Peak–Peak value of the LSTE. It is noted that a smaller Pm will result in a greater Rp.
In Fig. 5, the optimized TPM for these LSTEs with small amplitudes can be found in the red zone. The black solid curves
represent the TPMs causing a greatest Rp, namely a minimum Peak–Peak value of LSTE. In order to manufacture a spur gear pair
specified in Table 1 with minimum static transmission error, the values of TPM on this curve are recommended. A noticeable
conclusion can be made that there is an approximate inverse proportional relationship between the amount and the length of the
tooth profile modification to achieve the minimum variance of LSTE, namely a smaller Cn will require a greaterΔLn and vice versa.
It coincides with the statement in the literature [24,34].
 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74 71

Fig. 5. Relative Peak–Peak value of LSTE (unit: %) (Tin = 150 Nm).

3.2. Effect of applied torque

The applied load can also change the contact pattern between the gear teeth significantly. And it is demonstrated in Fig. 6 clearly.
The double-tooth engagement zone for Model I and triple-tooth engagement zone for Model II increase with the ascending of the
applied load. So does the transition area between the alternating mesh pattern. Corner contact will happen when the applied torque

Fig. 6. Gear pair under different applied load with TPM (Cn = 0.8,ΔLn = 0.6). (Keys: 5 Nm; 50 Nm; 100 Nm; 150 Nm; 200 Nm).
72 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

excesses the designed value, such as the gear Model I loaded by 200 Nm shown in Fig. 6a, and it is possible for it happen to Model II
even if it is not shown in Fig. 6b. For the Model II with HCR with Cn of 0.8 andΔLn of 0.6, there exist single-tooth engagement in the
theoretical triple-tooth zone due to the tooth profile modification when the gear pair is lightly loaded, such as the Model II loaded by
5 Nm and 50 Nm in Fig. 6b. The diagrams showing the loaded static transmission error of gear set loaded by different torques in Fig. 6
are well known as Harris maps [8]. It is used to illustrate the change of the shape and the amplitude of the transmission errors with the
applied load. The same phenomenon can be observed in these literatures [8–10,26,33].
The optimum amount and length of tooth profile modification can be extracted under a certain load, such as the black solid curve
in Fig. 5 loaded by 150 Nm. Some similar curves can be also obtained by the same way when different loads are applied and they are
represented by the blue curves with hollow markers in Fig. 7. While these magenta lines with solid markers at its ends refer to the
permissible minimum amounts of TPM under the corresponding applied torque. When the gear set is loaded by a torque, the values of
the amount of TPM below this minimum value corresponding to the torque can't be applied due to the presence of the corner contact.
In practice, the amount of the TPM is bigger than this minimum value with consideration of the effect of gear tooth errors and dynamic
load. These curves indicating the optimized values of the gear tooth profile modification will move towards the top-right direction in
Fig. 7 with the increase of the loaded torque. Whatever for both gear pairs with low contact ratio and high contact ratio, it means that
above the minimum value of amount of TPM bigger amount or length of the tooth profile modification are required to achieve the
minimum variance of static transmission errors if the applied load is increased, and vice versa.

3.3. Effect of gear tooth root crack

The dimension of the gear tooth root crack is defined as CRACK(q0, Wc/W, q2, αc). Its effect on the gear mesh stiffness can be
involved through Eqs. (26) and (27) by the reduction in the area moment of inertia and the area of the cross section of gear tooth
[2]. Here, q0, q2 are the crack depth at the tooth ends; Wc is the crack length along tooth width and W represents the tooth width;
Symbol αc denotes the inclination angle of the crack. All these parameters are from Ref. [2] and presented in Fig. 8.
In this section, spur gear pairs with tooth root crack are investigated with the proposed method by taking the effect of gear tooth
profile errors from intentional tooth profile modification. The change in both the shape and amplitude of the mesh stiffness, load
sharing factor and loaded transmission error of the gear pair with tooth profile modification is seriously affected by the tooth root
crack and represented in Fig. 9. As the growth of the crack size, the double- and triple-tooth engagement zones keep expanding for
Model I and II respectively. It is because the cracked tooth pair with bigger crack will make the approaching gear tooth pair contact
earlier than that with smaller crack. The bigger the crack is, the more deduction in the mesh stiffness and more increase in the loaded
transmission error are. When the crack is increased to a certain extent, the corner contact is likely to happen, such as the
CRACK(2.5,1,2.5,60) in Fig. 9a. This is because of the greater tooth deformation caused by the presence of the tooth root crack which
makes the gear tooth softer. Thus, the deduction of the mesh stiffness and the potential corner contact resulted from tooth crack will
deteriorate the dynamic performance of the gear pair which has attracted so much attention from researchers in recent decades. It is
suggested that the tooth profile modification should be considered in the simulation of gear tooth crack.

4. Conclusions

A general analytical mesh stiffness model is proposed in this paper to involve the effect of tooth errors which may be resulted from
the manufacturing errors, assembly errors and tooth profile modifications or profile defects. The TPM was thoroughly investigated
in this paper. A very important role it has is smoothing the transition region between the alternating single- (double-) and double-

Fig. 7. Optimization of TPM for minimum LSTE under different load. (Keys: 5 Nm; 50 Nm; 100 Nm; 150 Nm; 200 Nm).
 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74 73

Fig. 8. Gear tooth root crack.

(triple-) tooth engagements, which can ease the impulsive action due to ‘jump’ in the mesh stiffness without TPM. In addition, the
loaded transmission errors can be optimized with proper selection of tooth profile modifications and its minimum fluctuating
amplitude can be obtained with sacrifice of some load carrying capacity. Under the condition with absence of corner contact, a spur
gear pair with bigger amount of TPM will require a shorter length of TPM to achieve the minimized transmission error fluctuation and
vice versa. Also, to achieve the minimum transmission error fluctuation with bigger load needs greater amount or longer length of

Fig. 9. Gear pair under different tooth root crack with TPM (Model I, Cn = 0.8,ΔLn = 0.6, Tin = 100 Nm). (Keys: CRACK(0,0,0,0); CRACK(1,1,1,60);
CRACK(2,1,1,60); CRACK(2,1,2,60); CRACK(2.5,1,2.5,60)).
74 Z. Chen, Y. Shao / Mechanism and Machine Theory 62 (2013) 63–74

TPM. The presence of the tooth root crack could reduce the amplitude of the mesh stiffness, and extend the double- or triple-tooth
engagement zones of gear pairs with LCR and HCR respectively, and even cause corner contact which will devastate the dynamic
performance of the gear pairs. It is suggested that the tooth profile modification should be considered in the simulation of gear tooth
crack. This model is expected to be applied in study on the dynamic performance of spur gears with different types of tooth errors and
defects and on the optimization of contact stress, vibration and noise levels.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the National Natural Science Key Foundation of China under
contract no. 51035008 and the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

References

[1] S. Wu, M.J. Zuo, A. Parey, Simulation of spur gear dynamics and estimation of fault growth, Journal of Sound and Vibration 317 (2008) 608–624.
[2] Z. Chen, Y. Shao, Dynamic simulation of spur gear with tooth root crack propagating along tooth width and crack depth, Engineering Failure Analysis 18
(2011) 2149–2164.
[3] M.T. Khabou, N. Bouchaala, F. Chaari, et al., Study of a spur gear dynamic behavior in transient regime, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 25 (2011)
3089–3101.
[4] Z.G. Chen, Y.M. Shao, T.C. Lim, Non-linear dynamic simulation of gear response under the idling condition, International Journal of Automotive Technology
13 (4) (2012) 541–552.
[5] G. Sika, P. Velex, Analytical and numerical analysis of gears in the presence of engine acyclism, Journal of Mechanical Design — the ASME 130 (2008) 1–6.
[6] P. Velex, M. Ajmi, On the modelling of excitations in geared systems by transmission errors, Journal of Sound and Vibration 290 (2006) 882–909.
[7] W. Bartelmus, Mathematical modelling and computer simulations as an aid to gearbox diagnostics, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 15 (2001)
855–871.
[8] S.L. Harris, Dynamic loads on the teeth of spur gears, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 172 (1958) 87–112.
[9] J. Wang, I. Howard, Finite element analysis of high contact ratio spur gears in mesh, Journal of Tribology 127 (2005) 469–483.
[10] J. Wang, I. Howard, Comprehensive analysis of spur gears in mesh with various types of profile modifications, in: Proceedings International Conference on
Mechanical Transmissions, Chongqing, P.R. China, 2006.
[11] Y. Shao, Z. Chen, S. Wang, Simulation of spur gear pair with faults using FEA, in: ICROS-SICE International Joint Conference, Fukuoka, Japan, 2009.
[12] R. Tharmakulasingam, Transmission error in spur gears: static and dynamic finite-element modeling and design optimization, 2009, PhD thesis, School of
Engineering and Design, Brunel University, United Kingdom.
[13] S. Li, Finite element analyses for contact strength and bending strength of a pair of spur gears with machining errors, assembly errors and tooth
modifications, Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 88–114.
[14] V.K. Tamminana, A. Kahraman, S. Vijayakar, A study of the relationship between the dynamic factors and the dynamic transmission error of spur gear pairs,
Journal of Mechanical Design 129 (2007) 75–84.
[15] J. Wang, I. Howard, The torsional stiffness of involute spur gears, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part C: Journal of Mechanical
Engineering Science 218 (2004) 131–142.
[16] C. Weber, The deformation of loaded gears and the effect on their load carrying capacity, in: Report No. 3, Sponsored research (Germany). British Dept. of Sci.
and Ind.Res, 1949.
[17] R.W. Cornell, Compliance and stress sensitivity of spur gear teeth, Journal of Mechanical Design — the ASME 103 (1981) 447–459.
[18] F. Chaari, T. Fakhfakh, M. Haddar, Analytical modelling of spur gear tooth crack and influence on gearmesh stiffness, European Journal of Mechanics —
A/Solids 28 (2009) 461–468.
[19] R. Kasuba, J.W. Evans, An extended model for determining dynamic loads in spur gearing, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transaction of the ASME 103 (2)
(1981) 398–409.
[20] D.C.H. Yang, J.Y. Lin, Hertzian damping, tooth friction and bending elasticity in gear impact dynamics, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and
Automation in Design 109 (2) (1987) 189–196.
[21] X. H. Tian, Dynamic Simulation for system response of gearbox including localized gear faults, 2004, Master's Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada.
[22] P. Sainsot, P. Velex, O. Duverger, Contribution of gear body to tooth deflections — a new bidimensional analytical formula, Journal of Mechanical Design —
the ASME 126 (2004) 748–752.
[23] F. Chaari, W. Baccar, M.S. Abbes, et al., Effect of spalling or tooth breakage on gearmesh stiffness and dynamic response of a one-stage spur gear transmission,
European Journal of Mechanics — A/Solids 27 (2008) 691–705.
[24] H.H. Lin, D.P. Townsend, F.B. Oswald, Profile modification to minimize spur gear dynamic loading, NASA Technical Memorandum, 89901, 1988.
[25] H.H. Lin, F.B. Oswald, D.P. Townsend, Dynamic loading of spur gears with linear or parabolic tooth profile modifications, Mechanism and Machine Theory 29
(8) (1994) 1115–1129.
[26] P. Wagaj, A. Kahraman, Impact of tooth profile modifications on the transmission error excitation of helical gear pairs, in: Proceedings of ESDA2002: 6th
Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, Istanbul, Turkey, 2002.
[27] S. Li, Effects of machining errors, assembly errors and tooth modifications on loading capacity, load-sharing ratio and transmission error of a pair of spur
gears, Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 698–726.
[28] Y.A. Tesfahunegn, F. Rosa, C. Gorla, The effects of the shape of tooth profile modifications on the transmission error, bending, and contact stress of spur gears,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 224 (2010) 1749–1758.
[29] S. He, R. Gunda, R. Singh, Effect of sliding friction on the dynamics of spur gear pair with realistic time-varying stiffness, Journal of Sound and Vibration 301
(2007) 927–949.
[30] G. Liu, R.G. Parker, Dynamic modeling and analysis of tooth profile modification for multimesh gear vibration, Journal of Mechanical Design 130 (2008) 1–13,
(121402).
[31] C. Lee, H.H. Lin, F.B. Oswald, et al., Influence of linear profile modification and loading conditions on the dynamic tooth load and stress of high contact ratio
gears, NASA Technical Memorandum, 103136, 1990. , (90-C-004).
[32] M. TSAI, Y. TSAI, Design of high-contact-ratio spur gears using quadratic parametric tooth profiles, Mechanism and Machine Theory 33 (5) (1998) 551–564.
[33] J. Wang, I. Howard, A further study on high-contact-ratio spur gears in mesh with double-scope tooth profile modification, in: Proceedings of 10th ASME
International Power Transmission and Gearing Conference PTG, Las Vegas, USA, 2007.
[34] P. Velex, J. Bruyère, D.R. Houser, Some analytical results on transmission errors in narrow-faced spur and helical gears: influence of profile modifications,
Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (2011) 1–13, (031010).
[35] Z. Li, K. Mao, The tooth profile modification in gear manufacture, Applied Mechanics and Materials 10–12 (2008) 317–321.
[36] R.G. Munro, L. Morrish, D. Palmer, Gear transmission error outside the normal path of contact due to corner and top contact, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers — Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 213 (1999) 389–400.