CHAPTER 4

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF SPUR GEAR DRIVE

4.1INTRODUCTION

Gears are the one of the most effective mechanical element for transmitting
power from one shaft to another with or without changing the speed and spur gears
is the most common type of gears. Spur gears have straight teeth. In spur gears, the
axes of the component gears are parallel, that is, they are mounted on shafts which
are parallel to each other. Spur gears have high power transmission efficiency.
They are compact and easy to install and offer constant velocity ratio. There are
various design parameters to be considered for optimal design of a gear drive. The
selection of proper parameters is important to design a gear drive for its smoother
operation, effective power transmission and life of the gears.

In the machine tool or an automobile should be lighter in weight and lesser

power or fuel consumable in economic point of view. Hence, there is a need for
designing an optimum gear pair for efficient performance. In this context, this
chapter focuses on optimal design of spur and helical gear drive.

4.1.1 Basic Gear Geometry

The basic gear geometry is shown in the figure 4.1[Dudley (1962)]. The
figure shows pitch circle diameter, outside diameter, center distance, pressure
angle etc.,
 Figure 4.1 Basic Spur Gear Geometry [Dudley (1962)]

4.1.2 Spur Gear Terminology

The figure 4.2 [Dudley (1962)] shows the Spur Gear Terminology. The figure
shows face width, circular pitch, whole depth, chordal thickness etc.
 Figure 4.2 Spur Gear Terminology [Dudley (1962)]

4.2 DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF SPUR GEAR DRIVE

This section describes the design optimization of spur gear drive by

considering a spur gear test problem. The design objective which has to minimizes
the weight and maximizes power. A combined objective function was framed to
meet the above objective.

The Spur gear drive design consists of determining the design variable such
as module, gear thickness and number of teeth in order to optimize the design.
Several design constraints should be considered in the design of gear drive like
bending stress, compressive stress, module and centre distance etc.
4.2.1 A Spur Gear Problem

A spur gear drive problem was considered as, Design a single speed spur
gear drive to transmit 18 kW at 1200 rpm. Gear ratio is 3.5. The gears are made of
C45 steel.

4.2.2 Design Objectives

The objective functions considered in this work are given below:

Maximization of power delivered by the gear drive (f1), [Deb and Jain
(2003)].

Minimization of the overall weight of gears, which is indirectly related to the

volume of the gears (f2) [Deb and Jain (2003)].

The mathematical models used in spur gear design optimization problem are
objective functions, simplified form of objective functions, constraints, simplified
form of constraints and complete optimization problem. [Dudley (1962) and PSG
Design data book (2008)].

4.2.3 Objective Functions

(i) Maximization of power transmitted by the gear pair. Eqn. (4.1) represents
this objective function.

f1 = P where , P(L) P P(U) (4.1)

(ii) Minimization of weight of the gear pair. Eqn. (4.2) represents this objective
function.

f2 = [[ d12 b] + [ d22b]] (4.2)
4 4

4.2.4 Simplified Objective Functions

The objective functions are simplified in terms of the design variables m, b,

Z1, and P as follows.

Maximize f1= P where, P(L) P P(U) (4.3)

Simplified form of weight of the spur gear pair is represented by Eqn. (4.4).

Minimize f2= 8.172 10-5 b (mZ1)2 (4.4)

4.2.5 Constraints

The constraints considered are bending stress, Compressive stress, gear

ratio, center distance between pinion and gear, number of teeth in pinion and
module. The mathematical models for constraints are formulated and given below.

(i) Bending Stress

The tooth breakage is caused by fatigue due to repeated bending stresses. To

safeguard the tooth against the breakage, the gear should have adequate bending
strength. i.e., the induced bending stress when transmitting a torque should be
lesser than the allowable bending stress. Eqn. (4.5) represents this constraint.

b [b]al (4.5)

The induced bending stress is represented by the expression (4.6).

b=
i 1 [Mt] (4.6)
a m b y

[Mt] = Mt k kd

(ii) Compressive Stress

To avoid the surface failures of the tooth profile like pitting, surface abrasion,
seizure etc., and to have the satisfactory life, gear should have the wear resistance.
i.e., the induced Compressive stress should be lesser than the allowable
Compressive stress. Eqn. (4.7) represents this constraint.

c [c]al (4.7)

The induced Compressive stress is represented by the expression (4.8).

i 1 i 1
c=0.74 E [M t ] (4.8)
a ib

(iii) Gear Ratio

The gear ratio should be a constant and it should be equal to the ratio between the
number of teeth in gear and the number of teeth in pinion. Eqn. (4.9) represents
this constraint.

Z2 d
i = 3.5 = (or) 2 (4.9)
Z1 d1

(iv) Center Distance between pinion and gear

 a=
d 1
d2 m
= [Z1+ Z2] (4.10)
2 2

Centre distance between the shafts a should be greater than the minimum
centre distance a min to assure the required clearance between the tip of the pinion
tooth and the root of the gear tooth and vice versa. Eqn. (4.11) represents this
constraint.

a a min (4.11)

The minimum center distance is represented by the eqn. (4.12).

0.74 2 E [M ]
amin = (i + 1) t
(4.12)

3

c i

(v) Number of teeth in pinion

The number of teeth must be integer and within the lower and higher limits.
Eqn. (4.13) represents this constraint.

Zi I, for i = 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28. (4.13)

(vi) Module

The module m obtained through the optimization process should be greater

than the minimum module to assure the proper transmission of rotational motion.
Eqn. (4.14) represents this constraint.

m m min (4.14)
The minimum module m min is represented by the expression (4.15).

mmin = 1.26 3
M t
(4.15)
y
b
Z
m 1

4.2.6 Simplified Constraints

The constraints are simplified in terms of the design variables m, b, Z 1, and

P. The simplified form of bending stress, Compressive stress, gear ratio, center
distance, number of teeth in pinion and module are represented by the eqns. (4.16),
(4.17), (4.18), (4.19), (4.20) and (4.21) respectively.

Bending stress (N/mm2): (Z1 + 8) m2 b x P-1 607.92(4.16)

Compressive stress (N/mm2): mZ1 (b)0.5 x (P)-0.5 317.16 (4.17)

Gear ratio: Z2 = i Z1 (or) Z2 = 3.5 Z1 (4.18)

Center distance (mm): m Z1 x P-(1/3) 53.648 (4.19)

Number of teeth in pinion are 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28.(4.20)

Module (mm): m3 P-1 (Z1+8) 31.4523 (4.21)

4.2.7 Combined Objective Function

The gear drive design problem has two different parameters in the objectives
considered in this work. i.e., power and weight of material. Since all these
parameters are on different scales, these factors are to be normalized to the same
scale. [Ho and Moodie (1998)]. For maximization criterion, the values are
normalized by dividing its value with the normalizing factor, maxi, which is the
maximum value of this criterion obtained from the solutions that have been
explored so far and for minimization criterion, it is normalized by dividing the
normalizing factor, mini ,with its value. The normalized objective function is
obtained and expressed by the following Eqn. (4.22).

The COF for this problem is,

power min .weight

NW1 NW2
COF= max .power (4.22)
weight

Here the normalized weightages for the objectives NW 1+NW2 = 1. In this

work equal weightages are allocated for the individual objective functions. The
allocation of weightages is depending on the importance of the objective. That is
more weightages is allotted depending upon its importance. A non-zero weight of a
criterion means the presence of the criterion, and a zero weight means the absence.
Hence, the objective function can be converted into a single-criterion objective
function by assigning a non-zero weight to the criterion of interest and zero
weights to the rest of criteria.

4.2.8 Complete Optimization Problem

The objective functions are simplified in terms of the design variables m,

b, Z1, and P as follows,

Maximize f1= P where, P(L) P P(U) (4.23)

Minimize f2= 8.172 10-5 b (mZ1)2 (4.24)

Subject to,

mZ1 (b)0.5 x (P)-0.5 317.16 (4.25)

(Z1 + 8) m2 b x P-1 607.92 (4.26)

m Z1 x P-(1/3) 53.648 (4.27)

m3 P-1 (Z1+8) 31.4523 (4.28)

Zi I, for i = 14, 16,18,20,22,24,26,28 (4.29)

The SFHM has been implemented to solve the above said Spur Gear Drive
Design Optimization Problem and the optimal results are attained. The
implementation of SFHM approach with numerical illustration is discussed in this
chapter and the other trial method is discussed in the subsequent chapter.

Design parameters (P, m, b and Z1) boundary values and material

properties given as input are tabulated in Table 4.1.
 Table 4.1 The Input Values with their Bounds for Spur Gear

Values for
Parameter/Constraint
spur gear drive
Gear material C45
Lower Limit 10 mm
Gear Thickness
Upper Limit 50 mm
Minimum 18 kW
Power delivered
Maximum 20 kW
Lower Limit 14
Number of Teeth
Upper Limit 28
Minimum 4
Module
Maximum 8
Input speed 1200 rpm
Gear-ratio 3.5
Allowable compressive stress 500 N/mm2
Allowable bending stress 140 N/mm2
Youngs modulus 2 x 105 N/mm2
Density 7.85 x 10-6 kg/mm3

4.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF SHFM FOR SPUR GEAR DRIVE

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

For an illustration of the implementation of SFHM, the population size of

10 strings is taken and it is given bellow. The range of module is taken as 4 to 5
mm.

4.3.1 Initial Generation

Mixed integer representation is used for the control variables. The

module, thickness, number of teeth in pinion, the power, maximum power,
minimum weight and COF are represented in a control string. The control string
will be as per the Equation (4.30).

X = [m, b, Z, P, f1, f2, COF] (4.30)

Table 4.2 represents 10 different control strings. The strings are having
the variables, which satisfy all the constraints the corresponding objective
functions and COF.

Table 4.2 Initial generation of the control strings for SFHM

Number m B Z P f1 f2 COF
1 4.35 30.56 15 18.320 18.320 10.832 0.987
2 4.26 46.18 14 18.710 18.710 13.675 0.894
3 4.66 42.69 17 18.100 18.100 22.305 0.725
4 4.57 18.3 19 18.010 18.010 11.486 0.951
5 4.96 33.92 19 18.400 18.400 25.080 0.707
6 4.35 30.43 15 18.310 18.310 10.786 0.989
7 4.26 46.05 14 18.710 18.710 13.636 0.895
8 4.65 42.56 17 18.090 18.090 22.141 0.727
9 4.56 18.17 19 18.000 18.000 11.355 0.956
10 4.96 33.79 19 18.400 18.400 24.984 0.697

4.3.2 Crossover

Any two strings are selected from the generation randomly for cross over
process. The randomly selected strings are shown in
Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Selected strings for cross over

M b Z P f1 f2 COF
 4.65 42.56 17 18.090 18.090 22.141 0.727
4.56 18.17 19 18.000 18.000 11.355 0.956

To carry out the crossover operation any one of the variables m, b, Z and
P may be selected from the above strings and crossover is performed. The new
strings obtained after the crossover are mentioned in Table 4.4. The new values of
the control strings have to be validated along with the existing variables for
constraint satisfaction and COF has to be updated.

Table 4.4 Child strings after cross over

m B z P f1 f2
4.65 42.56 19 18.090 18.090 22.141
4.56 18.17 17 18.000 18.000 11.355

4.3.3 Mutation

Any one of the control string has to be taken to carry out the mutation operation.
The randomly selected child is shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Selected string for mutation

M B Z P f1 f2
4.57 18.30 19 18.010 18.010 11.486

To carry out the mutation operation any one of the variables m, b, Z and P
may be selected from the above string. The new string obtained after the mutation
is given in Table 4.6. The new mutated variable of the string has to be validated
along with the existing variables for constraint satisfaction and COF has to be
evaluated.

Table 4.6 Child after mutation

M B Z P f1 f2
4.57 18.30 19 18.320 18.320 11.486

Stopping criteria: The steps followed in this work, is to stop the computation after
reaching the required number of iterations. The maximum number of iterations
adopted here is 100.

4.3.4 Results of SFHM for Spur Gear drive Design Optimization

Module is varied from 4 to 5mm, 5 to 6mm, 6 to 7mm and 7 to 8mm in the
range of 0.01mm.

Table 4.7Optimum results for various module range for Spur Gear drive

No. of
Module Module Thickness Teeth Power Weight
Tool
range (mm) (mm) in (kW) (kg)
Pinion
TM 5.00 50.000 20 18.000 40.581
4 to 5 mm
SFHM 4.72 44.732 20 18.342 32.362
TM 6.00 50.000 20 18.000 58.442
5 to 6 mm
SFHM 5.76 43.731 20 18.574 47.121
TM 7.00 50.000 20 18.000 79.557
6 to 7 mm
SFHM 6.62 45.734 20 18.644 65.076
7 to 8 mm TM 8.00 50.000 20 18.000 103.90
 SFHM 7.67 46.015 20 18.754 87.881

Tables 4.7 show the optimal solutions obtained SFHM. The significant increase in
power and decrease in weight in SFHM is observed when compared with trail
method.

19

18.8 18.754
18.644
18.574
18.6
Power (kW)

18.4 18.342

18.2 TM
18 18 18 18 SFHM
18

17.8

17.6
4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8
Module (mm)

Figure 4.3 Comparison of optimum power for various module of Spur Gear
drive
 120
103.9
100 87.881
79.557
Weight (kg) 80
65.076
58.442
60
47.121
40.581 TM
40 32.362 SFHM

20

0
4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8
Module (mm)

Figure 4.4 Comparison of optimum weight for various module of Spur Gear
drive

Figure 4.3 and 4.4 shows the SFHM gives lesser weight and higher power when
compared with trial method, but SFHM yields the best results.

4.4 SUMMARY

In this chapter, Spur gear problems have been considered for the design
optimization of gear pairs. The mathematical models for objective functions and
constraints are made and the variable bounds are identified. The SFHM have been
implemented to solve these problem and the results are compared. Numerical
illustration for the implementation of SFHM is discussed in this chapter. In next
chapter, helical design optimization is discussed.