Session #1566

A Hardware/Software Centered Approach to the

Elements of Machine Design Course
At a Four Year School of ET

Howard A. Canistraro, Ph.D.

Ward College of Technology
University of Hartford

Introduction:

A particularly difficult course for many students in either Mechanical Engineering or MET is the
Machine Design Course. One of the major problems they encounter is the vast range of diverse
topics that must be covered which often tie into theories and principles that have been introduced
over their entire academic careers.. Additionally, the idea of the course being “open ended” and
without “exact” answers leads to confusion over the distinction between the textbook and the
industrial world. In an attempt to unify and clarify this broad array of subject matter and
provide some insight into the actual practices utilized in industry, our Machine Design Course
now centers itself around mechanically complex commercial devices. These devices serve as an
instrument to demonstrate much of the subject matter found in most texts. Computer software is
also extensively used to ease in the calculation and aid in modelling the dynamic nature of
mathematical relationships. The revised course has been taught for 5 semesters and in each case
a gear transfer case has been analyzed in terms of the following: gear tooth design, shaft design,
shaft vibration analysis, fracture and fatigue, bearing analysis, splines, keys and structural
deflection. The hardware, along with complete prints and specifications have been donated by
John Deere Inc. (A right angle gear box from commercial deck mower) and Mitsubishi Motors of
America,(a transfer case from a 3000GT VR4). The students are required to disassemble the
devices, make measurements (either from prints or directly), apply the principles presented in the
course and determine the adequacy of the design. Specially designed student course evaluations
have been overwhelmingly positive and performance on tests has been excellent. The use of the
program MathCAD has also greatly eased the complex equation usage required. In general, the
level of complexity and depth of course has been expanded. A detailed discussion of the
application of the theory to the hardware, a description of the laboratory activities, a discussion
of the use of MathCAD in machine design, and an evaluation of the student assessment of the
course will be presented in the paper.

Description of the Course:

The primary goal of the course is to familiarize students with the common task of solving open-
ended engineering design and analysis problems. Courses of this type cover all aspects of basic
Page 5.28.1

machinery with an emphasis on power transmission systems and advanced strength of materials.
Students are expected to be able to apply many of the theories and analytical methods that have
been presented in their lower division courses, while being introduced to many new topics which
may seem unrelated and diverse in their scope. These topics include spur gears, shaft design,
tolerances and dimensioning and mechanical fatigue. Currently three text books (one required,
two supplemental) are being used (references 1,2,3). In addition, the lecture portion of the
course is supplemented by a weekly lab session in which many the presented theories are
explored through a sequence of experiments. It is this component of the course that has lent
itself well to the use of the hardware for analysis, but this technique could be exported to any
conventional machine design sequence.

Methodology of the Revised Curriculum

In an effort to unite the diverse aspects of the machine design course curriculum, commercial
pieces of engineering hardware are introduced to the student during the first few weeks of the
semester. A good example has been a John Deere Inc. right angle transfer case, from a
commercial grade deck lawn mower. The students are allowed to handle the device and
physically measure some key dimensions, review the design prints, and study the operating
specifications. The entire course syllabus is then reviewed and each subject area as it pertains to
the given hardware is briefly reviewed. The course then covers the standards: various stress
relationships for design such as modified endurance limits, print reading and dimensional
interpretation. They are also introduced to the mathematical software package MathCAD,.

As the analysis of the commercial hardware begins, a deliberate sequence of steps has been
chosen in order to provide continuity in the presentation of the course material. A copy of the
syllabus is given in Appendix A.

The bevel gears are the logical first step; these are what cause the loads in a transfer case. First
the basic laws of spur gears are introduced such as the relation between Diametral Pitch and
pitch diameter, limits of interference, and the standard law of gearing. The concepts of tooth
loads are then presented which relate the beam strength of individual teeth to the dynamic loads
that they are subjected to.

These relationships are then applied to the more complex right-angle bevel gear system found in
the commercial hardware system. In this case, three dimensional loads must be considered and
again fundamental aspects of statics are reinforced. A modified version of the Lewis Form
Factor method as is pertains to bevel gears is employed. The students are required to conduct all
computations using the program MathCAD and a factor safety for the bevel gear teeth are
determined. Next the reactions at the bearing supports for the pinion and gear shafts are found
which will be used in determining the equation for slope and deflection of each shaft as well as
the loads that will be transmitted to bearings.

Various methods can then be employed to find the slopes and deflections of the shafts. The
primary method has been to utilize direct integration of the bending moment equation along with
the use of McCaully brackets to ease in the computations. It is at this point that a brief
introduction to the finite element method is given. The program ANSYS is utilized to conduct a
Page 5.28.2
rudimentary analysis of the deflection of the pinion shaft and these results are compared with
those obtained by the classical method.

Once the loads on each shaft have been found, the concept of combined steady and dynamic
stress loading is introduced through the use of the Distortion Energy Theory and the Maximum
Shear Stress Theory. Again, the students are required to utilize the program MathCAD for all
computations and a factor of safety for each shaft is found based on the applied torque and
bending moment. Results in two planes must be found due to the three dimensional loading of
the bevel gears and the moments and shears are added vectorally.

The vibratory natural frequency of the pinion shaft is also found using the Rayleigh criteria in
conjunction with results from the deflection relationships.

Since the reactions at the bearings have been found, bearings lives are now evaluated. By using
the standard L10 life prediction methodology, the students compute the service life of each of the
bearings. These values are then compared with the specified values provided by the
manufacturer. Again, the program MathCAD is used to ease in calculations.

Finally, the topic of keyways and splines can be explored since most every pinion or gear shaft is
connected using one of these mechanisms. For the John Deere gear box, a Woodruff key has
been used on both of the shafts. The students inspect the key system, conduct dimensional
measurements and compute the capacity of the key. These results are then compared with the
specified input torque provided by the manufacturer.

Use of Software:

By employing the ever expanding power of PC based mathematical software packages, today’s
students can explore many sophisticated relations with relative ease. The program MathCAD
has proven to be quite intuitive and a typical student can be up and running in less than an hour.
A sample laboratory handout and associated analysis using MathCAD 7.0 for evaluation of the
fatigue strength of the pinion shaft is given in Appendix B.

A recently introduced aspect of the course has been the use of the finite element program
ANSYS. Several basic structural problem are considered including the modelling of a standard
gear tooth subjected to power transmission loads. The students compare the stress values
predicted using standard beam theory with the values delivered by the finite element program.

Technical Communication Emphasis:

For each major section (approximately 1 per week), a laboratory is required which requires a
formal write up that is based upon the subject matter that is currently being covered and must be
presented in standard technical report format. Students must include complete mathematical and
simulations using either MathCAD or Microsoft EXCEL, appropriate prints of the subject matter
under question using AutoCAD R14 and a master document created using Microsoft WORD.
At the end of the course, all labs are combined into a complete technical report reviewing the
engineering hardware that was investigated.
Page 5.28.3
Course Evaluation:

Machine Design I has been one of the most highly regarded courses in Ward College’s MET
program. A course specific post survey was developed and has been overwhelmingly positive a
sample of which is given in Appendix C along with percentages of student responses. Students
have especially enjoyed the use of an actual engineering system to illustrate the many concepts
that are covered in the machine design course. They have also appreciated the invaluable
experience of technical report writing that will ultimately lead to improved performance in
professional practice. They also have the opportunity to integrate several types of software into a
single report. A startling result has been the discovery of the conservative nature of the types of
analyses that are presented in the typical machine design text, illustrating the “first order” nature
of the material presented in the text.

Conclusions and Future Plans:

Given the open ended structure of the course, new commercial hardware can readily be evaluated
in subsequent years providing additional subject matter and diversity in the course curriculum.
The use of several software packages will continue including an expanded use of finite element
modelling.

References:

1. Deutschman A.D., Michels W.J., and Wilson C.E., Machine Design Theory and Practice,
MacMillan Publishing, New York, 1975.

2. Hamrock B.J., Jacobson B. and Schmidt R., Fundamentals of Machine Elements, McGraw
Hill, Boston, 1999.

3. Juvinall R.C. and Marshek K.M., Fundamentals of Machine Component Design 2nd edition,
New York, 1991.

Acknowledgements:

The author would like to thank John Deere Inc. and Mitsubishi of America Inc. for the donation
of hardware, prints and design specifications.

HOWARD CANISTRARO
Howard Canistraro is currently the head of the Mechanical and Audio Engineering Technology programs, and the
Assistant Dean of the Ward College of Technology. He received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of
Connecticut. He has worked as an engineer at Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Inc. and holds several patents on devices
ranging from indoor golf simulators to a novel method of mammography. His current research interests are in
biomedical engineering and pedagogical development of the four year MET program. He is the principal
investigator on an NSF ILI grant and has served as a co-P.I. on an NSF grant on Institution Wide Reform at the
University of Hartford. He also serves as an expert witness in product liability cases.
Page 5.28.4
 APPENDIX A

ELEMENTS OF MACHINE DESIGN - MET 363

SYLLABUS

WEEK TOPIC SECTIONS HOMEWORK

1. Introduction and Definitions 1.1-1.6 Handout

3.1-3.22

2. Material Fatigue and Fracture 3.23-3.29 3.6a,6b,6c

Lab #1: Use of MathCAD 3.7,23,24,28

3. Dimensions and Tolerances 4.6-4.9 3.30,31

Review of Commercial System Prints 4.28,29,30,31
(John Deere Gear Box)

4. Introduction to Spur Gears 10.1-10.4 10.1,3

Lab #2: Speed Reducing Gear System

5. Spur Gears 10.4-10.8 10.7,9a

Lab #3: Evaluation of Bevel Gear Forces 10.10-10.15,10.18 10.19,21
On John Deere Gear Box

6. Stresses in Beams and Shafts 5.1-5.5 5.1, TBA

Deflections 5.8-5.9
Lab #4: Evaluation of Shaft Stresses/ Deflections in
John Deere Gear Box Shaft

7. Review and Exam #1

8. Shear and Torsion 5.6-5.7 5.1,4,6,8,12

Lab #5: Finite Element Method for deflection of
John Deere Gear Box Shafts.

9. Buckling 5.10 5.34, 43,44

Failure Theories 6.1-6.4
Lab #6: Buckling of Brass Rods

10. Failure and Fatigue Lives 6.5 6.1,12,13

Soderberg Criteria
Lab #7: Evaluation of the John Deere Gear
Box pinion and gear shafts.

11. Introduction to Shaft Design 7.1-7.7 7.2.5.6.8

Page 5.28.5
12. Rolling Bearings 9.1-9.11 9.1-9.5
Lab #8: Evaluation of John Deere 9.12-9.20 9.7-9.17,24,26
Gear Box Bearings

13. Keys and Splines 16.1-16.6 16.1, 3,7,9

Lab #9: Evaluation of Woodruff Key
on the John Deere Gear Box.

14. Review
Final design review of the gear box.

Final Exam

APPENDIX B
Laboratory Handout and Associated MathCAD Analysis

Laboratory #7 – Fatigue Analysis of the John Deere Gear Box Pinion Shaft

Objective: Analyze the John Deere Gear Box shaft for fatigue at the location with the
maximum bending moment a sustained torque loading. The maximum bending
moment will be taken as the sum of the squares of the XY and XZ plane
bending moments.

Procedure: This lab will use the results for reactions and bending moments from the John
Deere Gear box pinion shaft which were determined in the previous lab exercise.

The following values will be needed:

1. Bending moment in each plane as a function of position down the shaft

2. The value of maximum sustained torque
2. All material properties of the shaft as given in the shaft specification handout.
Other Values: Shock factor of Ks = 3.0

Analysis:
Find the factor of safety for fatigue using both the general and simplified forms
of the:
-Maximum Shear Stress Theory
-Distortion Energy Theory
Page 5.28.6
 MATHCAD 7.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PINION SHAFT
Machine Design I - MET 363
John Deere Gear Box Analysis: Fatigue and Fracture Considerations of the
Rotating Shaft - Laboratory #8

Maximum Shear Stress Theory, Distortion Energy Theory

Define Material Input Variables for Pinion Shaft:

Sy 52000 psi Material Yield Point (psi), p. 871 Deutschman

Sn .5 . 92000 psi Material Endurance Limit (psi), p. 106 Deutschman

Sys 27000 psi Material Shear Yield Point

Sns 0.58 . Sn psi Material Endurance Limit in Shear

4
Sn = 4.6 10
Cf .95 Finish Factor p. 111 Deutschman

DMF 3.62 Deviation Multiplication Factor 99% Reliability p. 109 Deutschman

Cr 1 0.08 . ( DMF ) Reliability Factor P. 109 Deutschman Cr = 0.71

Cs .85 Size Factor p. 110 Deutschman

Cw 1.0 Weld Factor p. 113 Deutschman

Cf . Cr . Cs . Cw . Sn
4
Se psi Modified Endurance limit tension Se = 2.639 10
Ses Cf . Cr . Cs . Cw . Sns psi Modified Endurance limit in shear

Ks 3.0 Shock Factor Based on type of load p. 322 Deutschman

Notch Sensitivity Factor p. 116 Deutschman
q .2
Stress Concentration Factor (from Tables in Deutschman)

Kt 1.5 Stress Concentration Factor

Kf 1 q . ( Kt 1) Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor Kf = 1.1

Kts 1.0 Torsional Stress Concentration Factor

Kfs 1 q . ( Kts 1)
Torsional Fatigue Stress Concentration Factor Kfs = 1

Geometric considerations of the shaft are defined as:

r 0.5 in. Radius of the pinion shaft

π .r
4
I in 4 Area and polar moment of inertia of the shaft I = 0.049 in 4
4

π .r
4
J in 4 J = 0.098 in 4
2
c r in. Maximum distance from centroid of area
Page 5.28.7
Page 5.28.8
The rest of the analysis includes the determination of the factors of safety using the simplified
forms of the Maximum Shear Theory and Distortion Energy Theory for combined loading.

APPENDIX C
MACHINE DESIGN STUDENT EXIT SURVEY
(Results presented are from 46 student surveys)

Answer yes or no and include any comments:

A. Did you feel the use of the commercial hardware aided in the presentation of the
course material?

94% Yes, 6% No
Page 5.28.9
B. Did the hardware help to unify the diverse aspects of the course?

98% Yes, 2% No

C. Did the hardware aid in visualization of the concepts presented in the course?

100% Yes

D. Were the limitations of the methods used in the course exposed by analyzing the
commercial hardware?

75% Yes, 25% No

E. Was the use of the computer programs helpful?

84% Yes, 16% No

F. Do you think the hardware should continue to be used?

96% Yes, 4% No

G. Do you think the use of MathCAD should continue?

100% Yes

Page 5.28.10