INTRODUCTION

Gear noise is an important design consideration. While good

design is desirable, many situations arise where the gears are
already designed and manufactured, and it is necessary to
troubleshoot a noise problem. But simple and accurate
prediction is diffcult as gear noise is affected by many factors.
The sound that results from the meshing of gear teeth is
transmitted via forces and motions to the shafts, bearings and
the housing, from which it is radiated to the surroundings as
shown in Figure 1. There are a number of factors that may be
considered in the gear design stage itself to reduce the noise.
However these factors are not cumulative, as such one
improvement is made, and the effect of each new improvement
is signifcantly reduced.
Also, as one factor is altered, other factors that were previously
unimportant will have a greater effect on noise. As mentioned
earlier, this paper however restricts to the infuence of gear
geometry alone in noise reduction. Literature suggests that the
following changes in gear geometry design parameters would
greatly reduce the gear noise:
Figure 1. Gear Noise Transmission Path [3]
Infuence of Gear Geometry on Gearbox Noise Reduction -
An Experimental Investigation
Uday Nayak, S Aravind, and Sunil Aundhekar
Ashok Leyland Pvt Ltd
ABSTRACT
The present competitive market scenario and customer requirements demand for improved NVH quality and to meet
statutory norms without increased cost. When gears are used for power transmission, gear noise is of particular concern.
The noise may be created due to harmonics of the rotating and meshing internal components. This has a signifcant effect
on the overall vehicle sound quality. Various factors contribute to gearbox noise. Some of them include shaft
misalignments, gear geometry, lubrication, bearings and loose mountings. Hence it is essential to study which factors
contribute to the gearbox noise and to develop countermeasures for the same. Although a number of factors may
contribute to gear noise as mentioned, the scope of this paper is limited to the effect of gear geometry alone on the
gearbox noise.
This paper offers an experimental investigation of reducing the noise levels in Ashok Leyland gearbox by modifying the
gear tooth profle on one of the gear trains in order to meet the futuristic noise statutory norms. The modifcation includes
controlling the tip relief and introduction of lead-profle charts in the existing spur gear train as well as converting the
existing spur gear train to helical gear train. The three gearboxes are tested on the vehicle and the same are validated in
an acoustic enclosure and sound pressure levels at different dynamometer speed and torque are mapped. It is seen that
by controlling the tip relief and introduction of lead-profle charts in the standard spur gear train leads to a reduction of
around 3-3.5 dB in sound pressure level, whereas converting the same to helical gear train leads to an overall reduction of
around 6-6.5dB in the sound pressure level.
CITATION: Nayak, U., Aravind, S., and Aundhekar, S., "Infuence of Gear Geometry on Gearbox Noise Reduction - An
Experimental Investigation," SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 7(2):2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-9029.
2014-01-9029
Published 10/01/2014
Copyright 2014 SAE International
doi:10.4271/2014-01-9029
saecomveh.saejournals.org
746
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
1. Increased contact ratio [4], [7]: One can achieve upto 3 dBA
only. Further improvements necessitate accurate lead-profle
modifcations. With an accurate lead-profle modifcation, one
can achieve upto 9 dBA reduction in noise.
2. Lead crowning [4]: One can achieve 2-8 dBA reduction
in noise level as crowning compensates for shaft
misalignment and defection.
3. Profle modifcation [8]: Improved tip relief and convex
profle errors can lead upto 5dBA reduction in noise.
However S -shaped and concave profles can increase the
noise drastically to around 18dBA. It has been reported
that a total profle error greatly effects gear noise and
gears with a concave profle error radiate more noise than
those with a convex error [2] as shown in Figure 2.
The profle error is also greatly infuenced by the
manufacturing technology. The gears produced by
hobbing usually generate higher noise level than a gear
manufactured by Niles Ground gear.
4. Converting from spur gear to helical gear: This improves
the contact ratio [5], [6]. One can achieve upto 20 dBA
reduction in noise level [7]. However machining errors
have less effect on helical gears. Also, helix angle plays
a signifcant role in noise reduction. However this is also
supported by the introduction of taper roller bearings to
take care of the thrust forces. Studies reveal that noise
reduces with increase in helix angle upto 40, however
thrust forces become severe. [1], [8]
Figure 2. Gear profile error vs. vibration displacement[2]
This paper restricts itself to analyzing the gear geometry of one
of the principal gear trains alone, that of the Ashok Leyland
standard gearbox as this gear train operates around 80% of
the vehicle running condition. To have the maximum utilization
of the other parts of the existing gear box such as the housing
and the bearings, the gears are made interchangeable by
using the existing forgings and the center distance is unaltered.
The tip relief of the gears is controlled and lead-profle charts
are introduced in the existing spur gear train of the standard
gearbox. Also, the gears of the standard gear train are
converted to helical gears.
The three gearboxes namely, the gearbox with standard gear
train (Sample-01), the gear box ftted with gear train having
customized profle (Sample-02) and the gearbox ftted with
helical gear train (Sample-03) are tested in the vehicle for
noise and the same are validated in the rig having an acoustic
enclosure. The rig test is simulated at the vehicle operating
condition which corresponds to 60 kmph and engine RPM of
2000-2200 RPM and 400 Nm torque. It is important to note that
the sample-01 and sample-02 are ftted with cylindrical roller
bearings at either end of the shafts, whereas in case of
sample-03, the bearings are changed to taper roller bearings in
order to take care of the thrust forces generated due to helical
profle of the gears.
GEAR GEOMETRY
It is known that tooth fank fnishing methods gives specifc
error characteristics. It is proven that the gears fnished on
Niles machine or Maag machine produce less noise than the
gears that are hobbed and fnished to ground profle [2]. The
gears on the standard gear box were simply hobbed and
fnished while the gears on the gearboxes with customized
profle and helical gears were ground and fnished on Niles
machine. The gear specifcations and geometry are shown in
Table1.
The gears are made of Steel EN355/822 to BS 970. The
forging is isothermally annealed to 160-210BHN. The gears are
carburized, hardened and tempered to a surface hardness of
60HRC. The case depth after grinding is maintained to 0.6mm
minimum on the bore and 0.9-1.1 mm on other portions. All the
gears are manufactured to DIN 8 quality standards. The gear
reduction unit is made of cast iron housing and has splash
lubrication system.
Table 1. Gear specifications and geometry
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
747
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
In addition to the above modifcations, lead and profle charts
are introduced for sample-02 and sample-03 as shown in
Figure 3. Convex profle error has been introduced, as per the
explanations given in Figure2, which indicates that fairly large
vibrations occur due to stiffness variation even without error,
and a fank having convex error generates a smaller vibration
than a fank having concave or no error. In addition, lead
tolerances and maximum allowable limit for reverse bends are
also defned for these charts [2].
As seen in the fgure 3.1, the lead crown chart is calculated
based on the face width of the gear and gear defection and
the involute chart mainly depends on the involute profle of the
gear [3]. The horizontal axis of the lead crown chart indicates
the gear face width whereas the vertical axis indicates the error
in microns. The horizontal axis of the involute chart indicates
the error in microns while the vertical axis indicates the roll
angles at different locations along the involute.
Figure 3.1. Theoretical Lead Crown chart and Involute Profile Chart for
sample 02 and sample-03
The lead-profle charts for the sample-01, sample-02 and
sample-03 are shown in Figure 3.2. It is seen that the profles
are controlled as per the theoretical charts for sample-02 and
sample-03.
The angles at Start of Active Profle (SAP), Start of Base
Profle(SBP), Operating Pitch Diameter (OPD), End of Base
Profle(EBP) and End of Active Profle (EAP) are calculated
using the equation of involute as follows[3]:
(1)
Where, = Roll Angle in degrees,
R
b
= Base Circle Radius in mm,
r = Radius of Interest in mm and
= Pressure Angle at radius r
(2)
(3)
Figure 3.2. Sample Lead Crown chart and Involute Profile Chart for
sample 02 and sample-03
Also, from the Figure 4,
(4)
These equations are the basic relationships of an involute by
means of which many characteristics of involute gear teeth are
readily calculated. In practice, the roll angle is often used to
locate the point in an involute. Roll angle is defned as per the
Figure 4 as,
(5)
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
748
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
The allowable limits on the profle are determined by suitable
equations which are based on gear quality and defection [7].
Figure 4. Calculation of involute profile
NOISE MEASUREMENT ON THE VEHICLE
The gearboxes were driven by a prime mover which is capable
of delivering 165kW @ 2500 RPM and having maximum torque
of 800 Nm @ 1400RPM. Microphones were ftted on the
gearbox at the specifed locations and noise measurements
were made on the vehicle for wide open throttle condition, in
which the vehicle was made to run to speed of 60 kmph. Once
the vehicle stabilizes at 60 kmph, the measurements were
made.
The gear mesh frequency is determined using the equation,
(6)
Where, f= gear mesh frequency in Hz
N = RPM of the input shaft and
Z = no. of teeth on pinion
Considering wide open throttle condition, the gear mesh
frequency was determined to be around 1290 Hz. The
frequency spectrum was determined for the three gearboxes
as shown in the Figure 5. The Figure 5 plots the frequency vs.
sound pressure levels for the three gearboxes. The gear mesh
frequency is indicated at 1290 Hz as shown.
As seen in the graphs, the sound pressure levels at the gear
mesh frequency is around 93 dBA for the sample 01, whereas
it is 88 dBA and 82 dBA for the sample-02 and sample-03
respectively. It is evident from the graph that the noise levels
are considerably reduced for the gear train having customized
gear profle and further reduced for the geartrain with helical
gears. It is also evident from the Figure 5 for the standard
geartrain, 32rd order and its harmonics were being generated
and were identifed as the source of noise, which is clearly
evident in the spectrum at 2400 RPM slice.
When more detailed information about a complex sound is
needed, the frequency range of 20Hz to 20 KHz can be split
into sections or bands. This is done electronically within a
sound level meter. These bands usually have a bandwidth of
one octave or one third octave. More advanced instruments
may be able to give a narrow band analysis of the noise data.
This may be an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) or information in
1/12 octaves. An octave band is a frequency band where the
highest frequency is twice the lowest frequency. For example,
an octave flter with a center frequency of 1 KHz has a lower
frequency of 707Hz and an upper frequency of 1.414 KHz. Any
frequencies below and above these limits are rejected [7], [8].
A third octave has a width of 1/3 of that of an octave band.
These measurements allow a coarse evaluation of the
frequency content of the gearbox. The Figure 6 compares the
octave 1/3 frequency vs. noise levels in dBA for the three
gearboxes [8]. As is evident from the plot, the maximum
frequency for the octave plot corresponding to gearbox with the
standard geartrain is highest (97.5 dBA), followed by the
gearbox ftted with geartrain having customized gear profle (95
dBA) and further reduced for the gearbox ftted with helical
gear train (91.5 dBA).
It is also seen that noise levels increased upto 200 Hz range,
whereas as above 630 Hz, reduction in noise is observed for
the geartrain ftted with customized gear profle. The noise
levels increased in 200-500 Hz range whereas as above 2KHz,
reduction in noise is observed for the geartrain ftted with
helical gears.
Figure 5.1. Gearbox with standard gear train
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
749
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Figure 5.2. Gearbox with gear train having customized gear profile
Figure 5.3. Gearbox with gear train having helical gears
Figure 5. Frequency vs. Noise Levels for the three Gearbox Samples
Figure 6. Noise Octave comparison for the three gearbox samples
NOISE MEASUREMENT ON THE RIG
The three gearboxes were tested in a test rig as shown in the
Figure 7. The test gear unit was driven by a 132KW motor
under electrical load by regeneration operation in a semi-
anechoic room. The gearboxes were loaded through a motor
dynamometer which is capable of loading upto 450 Nm torque.
The specimen gearboxes were mounted on the mounting
fxtures as shown in the Figure 7 and the drive was given
through the prime mover to the pinion shaft. The gear box was
isolated from the prime mover and dynamometer by means of
an acoustic enclosure, which was lined with sound proof
materials to provide good noise isolation.
The gearboxes were made to run only on the gear train on
which the modifcations were made. The noise measurements
were made under the combined combinations of 600 to 3000
RPM (in increments of 200 RPM) for the rotational speed of the
pinion and 0 to 400 Nm torque (in increments of 100 Nm) of the
pinion shaft. The radiated noise levels of the tested gear unit
were measured through two sound level meters, which were
located at a distance of 1 meter from the gearbox on either
side as shown.
Figure 7. Layout of the experimental test rig setup for gear noise
measurement
The Figure 8 shows the plot of torque Vs noise levels for
varying RPM for the three gearboxes. It was found that the
noise level increased with increasing RPM as well as with
increasing torque value. Also, the sound pressure levels were
highest for the standard geartrain, followed by the geartrain
with customized gear profle and the gear train with helical
gears respectively.
Figure 8.1. Gearbox with standard gear train
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
750
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Figure 8.2. Gearbox with gear train having customized gear profile
Figure 8.3. Gearbox with gear train having helical gears
Figure 8. Measured Noise levels vs. Dynamometer Torque at different
RPMs for the three geartrains
At the practical vehicle running condition, i.e. at 2200 RPM
and 400 Nm, the noise levels were 95 dBA for the sample-01,
92.5 dBA and 88.5 dBA for the samples-02 and sample-03
respectively (refer Figure 9). When it is analyzed for the most
severe condition, i.e. at 3000 RPM and 400 Nm, the noise
levels were 98 dBA for the sample-01, 94.5dBA and 91.5 dBA
for the sample-02 and sample-03 respectively. The plot on
Figure 9 indicates noise level at the same operating
conditions i.e. at 2200 / 3000 RPM and 400 Nm torque, which
shows that there is an average reduction in noise level of
around 3 to 3.5 dBA for the gearbox with gear train having
customized gear profle, whereas there is an average
reduction in noise level of around 6 to 6.5 dBA for the gearbox
ftted with helical gear train.
Figure 9. Comparison of noise levels at 2200 RPM and 3000 RPM for
the three geartrains
COMPARISON OF NOISE LEVELS ON
VEHICLE AND TEST RIG
Noise level measurements were made on the vehicle and
validated over the rig. The Figure 10 depicts the comparison of
noise levels for the different modes of noise testing, namely
baseline noise level near the source, 1/3 octave measurement
and rig measurement. It is seen that for all the three cases,
noise levels are lower for the gearbox with geartrain having
helical gears, followed by the gearbox with geartrain having
customized gear profle and the gearbox with standard
geartrain respectively.
From the viewpoint of quantitative comparison, the noise levels
of the vehicle level tests agree well with the rig test
measurement. In the case of 1/3 octave frequency method, the
noise values indicated are the maximum values, whereas for
the rig measurements, the noise values are averaged out for
the two microphone locations.
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
751
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Figure 10. Comparison of noise levels for different cases
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
In order to obtain an experimental prediction of the infuence of
gear geometry on gear noise, the three gearboxes were tested
on the vehicle and validated over the rig. The following were
the observations based on the modifcation of gear geometry:
1. Gear box ftted with geartrain having customized gear
profle:
By controlling the tip relief, modifying the addendum
co-effcient to suit the gear defection and quality levels
and introduction of lead- profle charts on the gears of the
standard geartrain resulted in an average reduction of
around 3- 3.5 dBA in noise level.
2. Gear box ftted with geartrain having helical gears:
By introducing helix angle to improve the overall contact
ratio and controlling the tip relief, modifying the addendum
co-effcient to suit the gear defection and quality levels
and introduction of lead- profle charts on the gears of the
standard geartrain resulted in an average reduction of
around 6- 6.5 dBA in noise level.
REFERENCES
1. Wellborn, D. B., Fundamental Knowledge of Gear Noise-A
Survey, IME Paper CI 17/79, 1979.
2. Masuda Teruo, Abe Toru and Hattori Kanji, Prediction Method of
Gear Noise Considering the influence of the Tooth Flank Finishing
Method, ASME Paper.
3. Dudley, D.W., Handbook of Practical Gear Design, Second
Edition, Tat McGraw-Hill Edition 2011, Chapter 14.
4. Opitz, H., Noise of Gears, Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society, Vol.
263, December 1968.
5. Smith, J.D., Gears and their Vibration, Macmillan, NY, 1983.
6. Ill, M., Some problems of Gear Noise and Quality Control,
Vibration and Noise in Motor vehicles, I. Mech. E., 1972.
7. Jones, E. and Route W.D., Design Considerations in Gear Noise
Control, AGMA Paper 299.02, June 1963.
8. Bradley, W., How to Design the Noise out of Gears, Machine
Design, Vol.45, No. 30, 1973, p-49.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Aravind S
aravind.s@ashokleyland.com
Sunil Aundhekar
sunil.aundhekar@ashokleyland.com
Uday Nayak
uday.Nayak@ashokleyland.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. Nithin Seth, Ashok
Leyland Private Limited for their support. The authors would
also like to thank Mr. JohnBegg, Ashok Leyland Private
Limited for his valuable guidance and suggestions during the
execution of the work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.
Nayak et al / SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. / Volume 7, Issue 2 (October 2014)
752
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Wednesday, October 29, 2014