Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007

On the Distribution of the Profile Shift Coefficients Between Mating Gears in the Case of Cylindrical Gear

R.-F. Miricǎ * University POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Romania

Abstract—Aspects of the distribution 1 of the profile shift coefficients between mating wheels of the speed-reducing cylindrical gears of general use is analyzed in the paper. The problem of the distribution of the shift coefficient sum on each gear wheel was standardized [2], [1] or recommended in special guides [5], [7]. The paper [7] approaches this problem that will be treated in extended form in the present one. The analyzed aspects are the effects of the applying ISO/TR 4467 [5], DIN 3992 [2] and PD 6457 [7] on the report of the safety factors of tooth bending stress at each wheel, in the case of speed-reducing cylindrical gear pairs having case hardened toothing (the most employed at power transmissions of general use). The results obtained by these different methods are compared and discussed. The conclusions reveal the possibilities to use better some methods in function of the teeth number and sum profile shift coefficients, to ensure a favourable report of bending safety factors of gear wheels.

Keywords: profile shift coefficients, cylindrical gears, speed-reducing gear pairs, case hardened toothing, bending safety factors.

I. Introduction

The problem of the distribution of the sum of profile shift coefficients on each gear wheel in the case of cylindrical gears was treated and recommended especially in standards. These recommendations were basically employed in technical literature and industrial practice. The distribution of the sum of profile shift coefficients has to ensure multiple tasks [1], [5]:

avoiding undercut; avoiding narrow top lands; equalizing specific sliding, with effect on the pitting fatigue life; equalizing flash temperature; equalizing bending fatigue life. All these tasks/criteria do not be simultaneously fulfilled. AGMA 913 [1] recommends the choice of the criterion considered of great importance for practice. It is the reason why the problem of the distribution of the shift coefficient sum on each gear wheel could be met in the case of the largest used thermal treatment for cylindrical gears of general use: case hardening. In this case, the

* E-mail: mirica@meca.omtr.pub.ro E-mail: geo@ meca.omtr.pub.ro

G. Dobre University POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Romania

critical stress is the tooth root bending for a large range of peripheral speed [6]. The paper [6] has analyzed this problem in the case of the results specific to ISO/TR 4467 [5]. The present paper extends this treatment, including also the effects of the recommendations from DIN 3992 [2] and PD 6457 [7] on the report of the safety factors of tooth bending stress at each wheel, in the case of speed-reducing cylindrical gear pairs having case hardened toothing. The treatment implies a laborious calculus volume solved using a scientific program. The results are commented and discussed. The favorable situation is to obtain a bending safety factor at pinion equal or greater than the one of the wheel, because the pinion is more stressed as number of cycles. Applications are carried out depending on:

sum of profile shift coefficients; gear ratio; pinion tooth number. The paper does not talk about the choice of the sum of profile shift coefficients. This sum results from the requirement to ensure an imposed operating center distance and it is framed in the limits recommended by DIN 3992 [2] or ISO/TR 4467 [5]. The results are compared and discussed. Conclusions and recommendations relative to the choice of a standard method for practice are formulated.

II. Standardized methods for distribution of the sum of the profile shift coefficients

The paper presents briefly the standardized methods for the distribution of the sum of profile shift coefficients between mating gears.

A. Method DIN 3992 [2]

The method gives a diagram permitting the graphically determination of the pinion profile shift coefficient,

by the following procedure (figure 1):

it is found out the point of coordinates: semi-sum of the

coefficients, x / 2 and semi-sum of teeth

numbers, (z

profile shift

,

x

1

1

+

z

2

) / 2

;

a graphical interpolation line is traced between two neighboring lines;

the point of abscise

z 1 on this interpolation line gives

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007

the profile shift coefficient of the pinion, x 1 . 1.0 x 0.6 0.4 Line
the profile shift coefficient of the pinion,
x
1 .
1.0
x
0.6
0.4
Line of
0.2
x
interpolation
1
0
x
2
-0.2
-0.4
0
20
40 60
80
100
z
150
z z
+
z
z
1 1 +z 2
2
z
1 1
2
2

Fig. 1. Graphical method of DIN 3992 [2] for distribution of the sum of profile shifts on mating gears

B. Method PD 6457 [7]

PD 6457 uses computation formulae, that is, the calculus is easier in report with DIN method. Three cases are considered in this method:

for general applications:

(1)

u

for approximate equality of bending strength factors for pinion and wheel:

x 1

=

1

3

1

1   +

x

;

1

+

u

x

1

=

1

2

1

1   +

(2)

u

for approximate balance of ratios of specific sliding or slide–roll ratio at extremes of contact path:

x

;

1

+

u

x

1

=

1

z v1
z
v1

1

1

u

+

1

x

+ u

.

(3)

Above the following sizes intervenient:

the gear ratio:

u =

z

2

z 1

;

the virtual number of teeth:

z

v1

=

z 1

cos

3

.

(4)

(5)

C. Method ISO/TR 4467 [5]

shift

coefficient in the form:

(6)

where:

is a factor adopted in the range 0.5 … 0.75 for speed

reducing gears; if u > 5, the limited calculation value is u = 5. Being established the pinion profile shift coefficient,

The

ISO

method

x

1

=

defines

u

1

u

+

1

+

the

x

1

+

u

,

pinion

profile

x , by all these standardized methods, the wheel profile shift coefficient is:

x

The presented methods differ between themselves. The figure 2 shows differences between results, by graphical representation of the pinion shift coefficient in function of the gear ratio, for some values of sum of profile shift coefficients.

(7)

1

x

2

=

x

1

.

0.5 2 ISO x=0.45 x 1 PD x=045 ISO x=0. DIN x=0.45 0.4 0.3 PD
0.5
2 ISO x=0.45
x 1
PD x=045
ISO
x=0.
DIN x=0.45
0.4
0.3
PD x=0.2
0.2
ISO x=0
PD x=0
DIN x=0.2
0.1
DIN x=0
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
u
7.5
Fig. 2. Comparison between the values of pinion shift profile coefficient
carried out by different standardized methods, for: x=0, 0.2, 0.45.

The method PD 6457 [7] was applied in variant of expression (1). The

expression (6) of ISO/TR 4467 [5] was used with λ = 0.5.

As a result, a necessary comparative analysis is done using a specific criterion defined below, that describing better the effects of the results by different methods on the gear loading capacity.

III. Analysis criterion to compare the methods

As shown previously, the case of the speed reducing

gears of general use and having hardened tooting is

considered. Their principal damage modes are:

the tooth breakage; the micro-pitting. The micro-pitting influence of the distribution of the sum of profile shit coefficients is not analyzed in the restraint space of the paper. The increasing of tooth bending loading capacity by this distribution could be

carried out equalizing the safety factors of wheels in this

stress mode:

(8)

that are given by [9]:

S

F1

= S

F2

,

S

F1(2)

F lim 1(2)

=

.

(9)

The limit tooth bending stress intervening above is [4]:

F1(2)

where:

F lim1(2)

FE

, (10)

is the endurance strength of the even sample;

=

FE

Y

N 1(2)

Y

relT1(2)

Y

R relT

Y

X

Y

N - stress cycle factor for bending strength, spur and

- the relative notch sensitivity factor;

helical gears;

Y

relT

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007

the

dimension factor. An observation:

because the numbers of cycles (rotations number) of both wheels exceed generally the limited number of

Y

R relT

the

relative

roughness

factor;

Y

N1

Y X

= Y

N2

= Y

N

,

6

310 cycles, specific to case hardened toothing. The tooth-root stress is [4], [9]:

F1,2

=

F

t

K

A

K

v

K

F

K

F

Y

Fa1,2

Y

Sa1(2)

Y

Y

b

1(2)

m

n

.

(11)

where:

cylinder;

dynamic;

load factor;

correction factor;

helix angle factor;

module. The expressions (9)…(11) leads to the criterion report:

F is the nominal peripheral force on the reference

t

K

A

- the application factor;

K

v

-

the

one

K

F

- the face load factor;

K

F

- transverse

Y

Fa 1(2)

- the form factor;

Y

Sa 1(2)

- the stress

Y - the contact ratio factor;

Y

-

the

b

1(2)

- the face width,

m

n

- the normal

S

F2

S

F1

=

Y

Fa1

Y

Sa1

Y

relT 2

b

2

Y

Fa 2

Y

Sa 2

Y

relT1

b

1

.

(12)

The values of the face widths are not generally equal, but their difference is insignificant. By simplification of the face width, the expression (12) becomes:

S

F2

Y

Fa1

Y

Sa1

Y

relT2

S

F1

It is desired that:

Y

Fa 2

Y

Sa 2

S

F2

S

F1

<

1

,

Y

relT1

.

(13)

(14)

because the pinion is more stressed as number of cycles, so this safety factor has to be greater as the one of the wheel. This is the main analysis criterion pursued in the comparison of the results carried out by different methods. Finally, a statistical analysis of these results is developed, to include all results.

IV. Analysis of the results carried out by different methods

A. Calculus data

The following data ranges are considered:

• numbers of pinion teeth:

z

1

• gear ratios:

{12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19}

;

u {1.12; 1.25; 1.4; 1.6; 1.8; 2; 2.24; 2.5; 2.8; 3.15; 3.55; 4; 4.5; 5; 5.6; 6.3; 7.1}

• sums of profile shift coefficients:

x {0; 0.05; 0.1; 0.15; 0.2; 0.25; 0.3; 0.35; 0.4; 0.45; 0.5; 0.55; 0.6; 0.65; 0.7; 0.75; 0.8; 0.85; 0.9; 0.95; 1; 1.05; 1.1; 1.15; 1.2}.

The range of values for the factor intervening in ISO

was {0.5; 0.65; 0.7; 0.75} . This range is used only in

the statistical diagram from the figure 20; in the restraint space of the paper, the diagrams of criterion report are given only for the values {0.5; 0.65; 0.75} , including the inferior and exterior limits and a value around the one

mean (figures 7

Another observation: the relative notch sensitivity

factor,

, is taken as value in calculus for case

hardened steels [4].

9

and 14…17).

Y

relT

B. Comparison between the results of methods as regards

the effect on bending strength

are

represented in illustrative figures below. The first range of figures 3…9 represent the results carried out by all

methods for the number of teeth large used in industrial

The

values

of

the

criterion

report,

S

F2

/ S

F1

,

practice: z 15 . 1 = S F2 S F1 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.98
practice: z
15
.
1 =
S
F2
S
F1
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7
Fig. 3. Criterion report in the case of DIN 3992 [2], for the number of
Fig. 3. Criterion report in the case of DIN 3992 [2], for the number of
pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio and sum of shift profile
coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
F2
1.06
S
F1
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 4. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (1), for the number of pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio and the sum of shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

following

conclusions could be noted. The method PD 6457 [7] in the form given by (3) is the most disadvantageous because of high values of criterion report (this means a great difference between the two bending safety factors and a low bending safety factor of

Analyzing

these

representations,

the

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007

pinion). As a result, this method and variant cannot be recommended for case hardened gears.
pinion). As a result, this method and variant cannot be
recommended for case hardened gears.
1.02
S
F2
S
F1
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
1
2 3
4
5
6
u
7
Fig. 5. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (2),
Fig. 5. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (2), for
the number of pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio and the sum of
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
F2
S
1.12
F1
1.10
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1 2 3 4 5 6 u 7 Fig. 6. Criterion in the case of
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7
Fig. 6. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (3), for
the number of pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio and the sum of
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
1.05
F2
S
F1
1.04
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 7. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio, = 0.5, and the sum of shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

The method PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (1), the method DIN 3992 [2] and the method ISO/TR 4467 [5] with the parameter = 0.5 determine unfavorable results in lower measure as in the previous analysis case. The methods ISO/TR 4467 [5] with the parameter = 0.65…0.75 and PD 6457 [7] in the form (2) give favorable results: pinion tooth bending stress is equalized or greater as the one of the wheel (the last results leading to an over-

dimensioning of the pinion). A general observation noted for all results: increasing the sum of the profile shift coefficients, x , the criterion report has smaller values, more favorable for pinion tooth bending stress as in the case of smaller values of x .

S F2 S 1.01 F1 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 1 3 4 5 6
S
F2
S
1.01
F1
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
1 3
4
5
6
u 7
Fig. 8. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of

pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio, = 0.65, and the sum of

shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A S 1.00 F2
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
1.00
F2
S
F1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
1
2 3
4
5
6
u
7
Fig. 9. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of
Fig. 9. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of
pinion teeth of 15, in function of gear ratio, = 0.75, and the sum of
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
F2
1.10
S
F1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 10. Criterion report in the case of DIN 3992 [2], for the number of pinion teeth of 12, in function of gear ratio and sum of shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

The representation from the figures 10 and 11 give the results for the method DIN 3992 [2] for other number of teeth than the one used in the figure 3. It is noted that the criterion report is favorable regarding the pinion tooth bending stress if the sum of the profile shift coefficients is approximately 1; it is confirmed in this way the same

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007

recommendation done by Niemann and Winter [6]. Although, the small values of x determine unfavorable values of the criterion report from the point of view of the pinion tooth bending stress even in comparison with the other methods (see the figures 5, 8 and 9).

S F2 S 1.04 F1 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 1 2 3 4
S
F2
S
1.04
F1
1.03
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
1
2 3
4
5
6
u
7
Fig. 11. Criterion report in the case of DIN 3992 [2], for the number of
pinion teeth of 19, in function of gear ratio and sum of shift profile
coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

Analyzing the figures 4, 12 and 13 of results carried out by the method PD 6457 [7] in variant (2), it can observe that this method is useful for all values of the sum x , the criterion report having small values for high values of sum x , and values around 1 for small values of x .

S

F2

S

F1

1.03

1.02

1.01

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

of x . S F2 S F1 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 u
u Fig. 12. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by
u
Fig. 12. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (2), for
the number of pinion teeth of 12, in function of gear ratio and the sum of
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
1.01
F2
S
F1
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
u
Fig. 13. Criterion in the case of PD 6457 [7] in variant given by (2), for
the number of pinion teeth of 19, in function of gear ratio and the sum of
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

It is very interesting to see the influence of the factor λ specific for the method ISO/TR 4467 [5], for other number of teeth as 15. The figures 14…17 permit to formulate the following conclusions:

the values = 0.65

determine acceptable

criterion report values regarding the pinion tooth bending stress; a favorable over-dimensioning of the pinion is visible

0.75

for = 0.75 , as in the case of 15 teeth (figure 9): greater pinion
for = 0.75 , as in the case of 15 teeth (figure 9): greater
pinion bending safety factor in comparison to the one of
the wheel.
S
1.03
F2
S
F1
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 14. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of pinion teeth of 12, in function of gear ratio, = 0.65, and the sum of

shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A S 1.01 F2
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
1.01
F2
S
F1
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
1
2 3
4
5
6
u
7

Fig. 15. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number

of pinion teeth of 19, in function of gear ratio, = 0.65, and the sum of

shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A S 1.00 F2
shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A
S
1.00
F2
S
F1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
0.94
1
2 3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 16. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of pinion teeth of 12, in function of gear ratio, = 0.75, and the sum of shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007 S 1.00 F2 S F1 0.99 0.98
12th IFToMM World Congress, Besançon (France), June18-21, 2007
S
1.00
F2
S
F1
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.95
1 2
3
4
5
6
u 7

Fig. 17. Criterion report in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5] for the number of pinion teeth of 19, in function of gear ratio, = 0.75, and the sum of shift profile coefficients in the range indicated at the point IV, A

Statistical frequency distributions of the criterion report were calculated for each method for all the data presented at point IV A (three data). In the statistical process, the whole variation interval of the criterion report values was divided into 20 sub-intervals, in which were counted the occurrences of the report values, which are indicated in diagrams (figures 18…20).

report has to be less than 1 to ensure a good

pinion tooth bending stress:

the method DIN 3992 [2] leads to a majority of criterion

report values above 1;

the method PD 6457 [7] is good for the variant 2;

the method ISO/TR 4467 [5] is excellent for

= 0.65 0.75 . 1000 800 3 2 600 4 400 1 200 0 S
= 0.65
0.75
.
1000
800
3
2
600
4
400
1
200
0
S
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
F2
S
F1
Frequency of occurrence

Fig. 20. Frequency of occurrence of the criterion report values in the case of ISO/TR 4467 [5], for all numbers of pinion teeth, gear ratios and

profile shift coefficients in the ranges indicated at the point IV, A 1 - λ: = 0.5; 2 - λ: = 0.65; 3 - λ: = 0.7; 4 - λ: = 0.75.

400 V. Conclusion 1. The distribution of the sum of profile shift 300 coefficients between
400
V. Conclusion
1. The distribution of the sum of profile shift
300
coefficients between the mating gears at cylindrical gears
1
200
is recommended especially in standards, more relevant
being ISO/TR 4467 [5], DIN 3992 [2] and PD 6457 [7].
2
2.
The criterion report of safety factors for tooth bending
100
loading capacities of wheels (valid for the case hardening
gears of general use) was applied for comparative analysis
0
of results about different methods. This analysis was
0.98
1
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
S
1.1
F2
developed for ranges of numbers of pinion teeth, gear
S
F1
ratios and sum of profile shift coefficients.
Fig. 18. Frequency of occurrence of the criterion report values in the
3.
The adequate methods to distribute the sum of profile
case of DIN 3992 [2], for all numbers of pinion teeth, gear ratios and
profile shift coefficients in the ranges indicated at the point IV, A
1 - frequency distribution; 2 – statistical mean of all values.
shift coefficients were emphasized to better fulfill the
mentioned criterion report.
Frequency of occurrence
600 2 References 500 1 [1] AGMA 913-A98, Method for specifying the geometry of spur
600
2
References
500
1
[1]
AGMA 913-A98, Method for specifying the geometry of spur and
400
helical gears, 1998.
3
300
[2] DIN 3992. Profilverschiebung bei Stirnrädern mit
Aussenverzahnung, 1964.
[3] ISO 53, Cylindrical gears for general and heavy engineering –
200
[4]
Standard basic rack tooth profile, 1998.
ISO 6336, Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears,
100
Part 3: Calculation of tooth bending strength, 1996.
0
[5] ISO/TR 4467. Addendum modification of the teeth of cylindrical
S
0.95
1
1.05
1.1
1.15
F2
gears for speed-reducing and speed-increasing gear pairs, 1982.
Frequency of occurrence

S

F1

Fig. 19. Frequency of occurrence of the criterion report values in the case of variants 1…3 of PD 6457 [7], for all numbers of pinion teeth, gear ratios and profile shift coefficients in the ranges indicated at the point IV, A

This statistical study permits a global evaluation of each method applied to all mentioned input data, by observing the localization of criterion report values and their statistical weight. The following conclusions can be stated by this analysis, taking into account that the best criterion

[6] Niemann, G., Winter, H. Maschinenelemente. Band II, Springer- Verlag, 1985. [7] PD 6457. Guide to the application of addendum modification to involute spur and helical gears, 1970. [8] Rădulescu, G, Dobre, G., Miricǎ R.-F., Consideratii asupra utilizarii metodei ISO privind repartitia pe roti a sumei deplasarilor, PRASIC'90, pages 9-16, Brasov, 13-14 December

1990.

[9] STAS 12268-84. Angrenaje cilindrice cu dantura în evolventă. Calcul de rezistenŃă (Cylindrical spur gears with involute tooting.

Strength calculus), 1984.