CHAPTER 7

MULTI-SPEED GEARBOX DESIGN

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Gearbox design optimization has been facing with lot of challenges. When
designing a gear reducer, there are many important factors to be considered such as
weight, size, strength, durability material and geometry. Material of the gear
reducer has a key impact on its weight. In this chapter, a two-stage gear reducer is
optimized with major conflict functions like minimization of gear material volume
and maximization of power as objectives with design stresses as the constraints.
Here two gearbox design problems have considered. For the second design
problem two different types of materials are considered in this study.

7.2 DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF TWO STAGE GEARBOX

A Two stage Gear box problem was adopted from Peter R. N. Childs
(2004) to test the effectiveness of the Meta heuristic algorithm. The test problem as
follows: A gearbox is required to transmit 18 kW from a shaft rotating at 2650
rpm. The desired output speed is approximately 12 000 rpm. For space
limitation and standardization reasons a double step-up gearbox is requested with
equal ratios.
 Z1

Z4

Input Shaft Output Shaft

Lay Shaft

Z2

Z3

Figure 7.1 Layout of Two Stage Gearbox

7.2.1 Volume of the Existing Gearbox

2 2
 m ( Z pi  Z wi ) b i
2 2
Volume of present gearbox = i 1
(7.1) =
4
 x 22
[23 x (382  182 )]  [18.6 x (382  182 )]
4
= 231060 mm3

The existing gearbox delivers 18 kW of power and has a volume of 231060

mm3. The preset work is carried out to increase the power output and to reduce the
volume of the gearbox. Because the size and the power delivered are vital in the
case of automobile or machine tool as it may improve its performance.

7.2.2 Problem Description

The problem involves the determination of optimum values for all the
decision variables such as the number of teeth, thickness, module, and power so as
to increase the power output and reduce the volume of gearbox. The feasibility of a
design solution depends on satisfaction of a number of equality and inequality
constraints. The resulting optimization problem becomes more complicated due to
the presence of multiple conflicting objectives.

7.2.3 Assumptions
The various assumptions involved in the work are described below:
 All the gears in the gearbox are spur gears.
 The thicknesses of the gears are same in a gear-pair.
 In a gear-pair, wheel is assigned the larger number of teeth between the
mating gears.
 Same number of teeth in pinion and gear for both pair are adopted.

7.2.4. Objective Function

Objective function is formed with design variables such as power,

module, gear thickness and number of teeth, whose values determine the solution
to the problem. The objective functions listed below were adopted from Deb and
Jain (2003).

 Maximization of power delivered by the gear reducer (f1).

 Minimization of overall gear material used, which is directly related

to the weight and cost of the gear reducer (f 2).

Equations (7.2) and (7.3) represent the above said objective functions,
Maximize, f1 = P, Where P(L) ≤ P≤ P(U) (7.2)

2 2
 
2 2
Minimize,f2 = m ( Z pi
Z wi
)b i for i = 1, 2. (7.3)
4 i 1
7.2.5. Design Constraints

For the gear reducer layout shown in Figure 7.1 there are two gear-pairs.
By considering fixed number of teeth Zi varying thickness values bi and power
delivered P, each gear must satisfy two constraints mentioned by Equation (7.4)
and (7.5) were adopted from Deb and Jain (2003).

Bending stress: bi  bi al (7.4)

Compressive stress: ci  ci al (7.5)

The bending and compressive stresses developed in the ith gear-pair are
calculated by the Equations (7.6) and (7.7).

Bending stress developed in the ith gear-pair:

97500 PK C K d (ri  1)
σbi= (7.6)
w i a i b i m ri y i cos

Compressive stress developed in the ith gear-pair:

0.59 (ri  1) 97500 PK C K d (ri  1)E

σci= (7.7)
ri a i w i b i sin 2

The transmission ratio is defined as the ratio of the number of teeth Z wi in

wheel to the number of teeth Zpi in pinion and it is expressed by Equation (7.8).

Z wi
ri  (7.8)
Z pi
 The thickness value should lie between lower and upper limit values,
these constraints are shown by the Equation s (7.9)

b( L)  bi  b( U) , for i = 1,2. (7.9)

With the number of teeth in gears are also kept as decision variables, the
resulting problem must involve additional constraints considering the following
aspects.

The maximum gear-ratio rmax in any gear-pair must not exceed a limit.
Equation (7.10)

Z wi
 r m ax , for i = 1,2. (7.10)
Z pi

Number of teeth in each gear pair should be integers and value must be
greater than its lower limit.

Z wi , Z pi  Z( L ) for i = 1,2. (7.11)

Since multiple-criteria are on different scales, to reflect their actual

contribution to the multiple-criterion objective function their values have to be
normalized to the same scale. Hence the Combined Objective Function (COF) is
adopted as,

 power   min .weight 

  NW1     NW2 
COF=  max .power
   weight  (7.12)

Where, NW1, NW2, = 0.5

In this research work, SFHM have been employed and the results are compared
with trial method and the existing models.

Table 7.1 gives the details about two stage gear box and Table 7.2 shows the input
parameters and its bounds for test problem.
Table 7.1 Two stage Gearbox Details

Gears No. of Teeth Thickness(mm)

Z1 38 23
Z2 18 23
Z3 38 18.6
Z4 18 18.6

Table 7.2The Input Values of Gear Box with their Bounds

Parameter/Constraint Values for Spur Gear Pair

Gear material 655M13 Case Hardened Steel
Gear Lower Limit 10 mm
Thickness Upper Limit 30 mm
Power Minimum 18 kW
delivered Maximum 20 kW
Max Speed ratio 4.45
Number of Lower Limit 14
Teeth Upper Limit 38
Permissible bending strength 345 N/mm2
Permissible compressive stress 1080 N/mm2
Young’s modulus 2.1 x105 N/mm2
Input and Output speed 2650 rpm and Approx 12000 rpm
Module Minimum 1
Maximum 3
 The test problem is solved in two cases adopted from Padmanabhan et al
(2014). In Case I module is kept constant and other variables like power, thickness
and number of teeth are varied. While in Case II, all variables are variedto get the
optimized results.

7.2.6 Constant Module (Case I)

In this case the module is kept constant (module = 2 mm). The variables
are Power, Gear thickness and Number of teeth is varied. The optimized results are
tabulated in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3 Optimum results for Constant Module (Case I)

Power
Design Gear Thickness Power Volume to
No. of Teeth Volume
Tool (mm) (kW) (mm3)
ratio
(%)
Existing Z1=38 Z2=18 b1=23 b2=23
18 231060 7.79
design Z3=38 Z4=18 b3=18.6 b4=18.6
Z1=38 Z2=18 b1,2=22.7
TM 18 228283 7.88
Z3=38 Z4=18 b3,4=18.4
Z1=38 Z2=18 b1,2=20.6
SFHM 18.08 212730.9 8.50
Z3=38 Z4=18 b3,4=17.7

7.2.7 Varying all the considered design variables (Case II)

The problem can be more flexible by allowing some additional parameters

as decision variable in order to get a better insight into the gearbox design problem.
In this case all the parameters such as power, thickness, number of teeth and
module are considered as variables. The module of the gear train is allowed to
vary. The optimized results for TM are tabulated in Table 7.4 and for SFHM in
Table 7.5.

Table 7.4 Optimum results obtained for TM (Case II)

Gear-pair no, i Power

Module Power Volume to
Volume
1 2 (mm) (kW) (mm3)
ratio
(%)
Zpi 18 18
Zwi 38 38 1.5 18 156215.6 11.52
bi 27 23
Zpi 18 18
Zwi 38 38 2 18.02 218840.6 8.23
bi 21.4 18

Table 7.5 Optimum results obtained for SFHM (Case II)

Gear-pair Module Power Volume Power to

Volume
no, i (mm) (kW) (mm3)
ratio (%)
1 2
Zpi 18 18
Zwi 38 38 1.5 18.06 151747.80 11.90
bi 26.34 22.23
Zpi 18 18
2 18.09 204066.13 8.86
Zwi 38 38
 bi 19.53 17.21

From the above tables 7.4 and 7.5, it clearly shows that, large volume of
gear box is reduced by SFHM and the same time power also considerably
increased from the existing design. Power to Volume ratio also decreses as
increase of module.

7.3TWO STAGE GEARBOX WITH TWO GEAR MATERIALS

Optimum values for all the decision variables such as the number of gear
teeth, thickness, module, and power are to be determined taking into consideration
of two different gear materials. This would increase the power and also reduce the
volume of gear reducer. The test problem is solved by using Alloy Steel (40Ni
2Cr1 Mo28) and 45C8 as gear materials with SFHM technique. Different gear
materials have a vital impact on the gear reducer’s weight as proposed by Buiga
(2012).

A Two stage Gear reducer test problem is adopted as follows: “A two stage gear
spur gear reduction unit with 20 full depth involute teeth. The input shaft rotates
at 1440 rpm and receives 10kW power through a flexible coupling. The speed of
output shaft should be approximately 180 rpm. All the gears are made of plain steel
45C8”.

The test problem is solved in two cases. In Case I module is kept constant and
other variables like power, thickness and number of teeth are varied. While in Case
II, all variables are varied to get the optimized results.

7.3.1Constant Module (Case I)

 In this case the module is kept constant (module = 6 mm). The variables
are Power, Gear Thickness and Number of teeth. The optimized results are shown
in Table 7.6 for 45C8 and Table 7.7 for Alloy steel.

Table 7.6 Optimum results for Constant Module for 45C8 (Case I)

Gear Thickness Power Volume

Design Tool No. of Teeth
(mm) (kW) (mm3)

Existing design Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 = 60

Method 10 9924283
(45C8) Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4 = 60

TM Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2=59.76

10.03 9884585
(45C8) Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=59.76
SFHM Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 =52.81
10.13 8735022
(45C8) Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=52.81

Table 7.7 Optimum results for Constant Module for Alloy Steel (Case I)

Gear Thickness Power Volume

Design Tool No. of Teeth
(mm) (kW) (mm3)

TM Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 =57.43

10.16 9499192
(Alloy Steel) Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=57.43
Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 =50.74
SFHM
b3,4=50.74 10.47 8392635
(Alloy Steel) Z3=18 Z4=51

In this case, module is kept constant. Power, gear thickness and number of
teeth are varied. From the obtained optimum results, it is found that the number of
gear teeth values does not vary much from one solution to another. Since Alloy
steel has higher stress values when compared to 45C8. By changing the gear
material from 45C8 to Alloy steel, provides more room to reduce the gear
thickness and number of teeth. This solution provides a wide difference when
compared with the existing trial design method.

7.3.2 Varying all the considered design variables (Case II)

This problem can be made more flexible by allowing some additional

parameters as decision variable. This would yield a better insight into the gear
reducer design. In this case all the parameters such as power, thickness, number of
teeth and module are considered as variables. Table 7.8 and 7.9 shows optimal
solutions in the objective space for Case-II.

Table 7.8Optimum results by SFHM for 45C8 (Case II)

Gear
Design Module Power Volume
No. of Teeth Thickness
3
Tool (mm) (kW) (mm )
(mm)

Existing Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 = 60

design 6 10 9924283
Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4 = 60
Method
Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2=58.69
TM 6 10.08 9707602
Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=58.69

Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2=52.32

SFHM 5.75 10.19 8653974
Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=52.32
 Table 7.9Optimum results by SFHM for 40Ni 2Cr1Mo28 material (Case II)

Gear
Design Module Power Volume
No. of Teeth Thickness 3
Tool (mm) (kW) (mm )
(mm)
Z =18 Z2=51 b1,2 = 50
Existing 1
design 5 10 5743219
Method Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4 = 50

Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2 =49.4

TM 4.91 10.11 5471864
Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=49.4

Z1=18 Z2=51 b1,2=46.11

SFHM 4.79 10.32 4860842
Z3=18 Z4=51 b3,4=46.11

In this case, no variable are kept constant. Power, module, gear thickness
and number of teeth are varied. From the Table 7.8 and 7.9, it is observed that the
number of teeth does not vary much from one solution to another. When compared
with the trial method, SFHM shows further reduction in the module and the
number of teeth with a slight increase in the power transmission. Also, when
compared with Case I, Case II does not show a noticeable variation in the gear
thickness because of gear module reduction.

From the above results, by considering the volume and power for the SFHM
for case I and case II, it is observed that for a required range of power SFHM gives
lesser range of volume when compared with trial design method in this model also.
So it is understood that SFHM is suited for this model also and it gives better
results.
7.4 SUMMARY
In this work, the design optimization of a two speed gearbox and with
different type gear materials has been done. The obtained optimal results are
tabulated. The results and discussion about this research work has been given in
the next chapter.