Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

Mechanism and Machine Theory

www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

Dynamic tooth loads and quasi-static transmission errors in helical gears Approximate dynamic factor formulae
P. Velex *, M. Ajmi
Laboratoire de Mecanique des Contacts et des Solides, UMR CNRS 5514, Batiment Jean dAlembert, INSA de Lyon 20, Avenue Albert Einstein, 69621 VILLEURBANNE Cedex, France Received 17 July 2006; accepted 14 December 2006 Available online 8 February 2007

Abstract Based on both single and multi degree of freedom models, some original results are presented which establish a formal link between dynamic tooth loads and quasi-static transmission errors in helical gear sets. It is demonstrated that, as long as linear behaviour is considered, a perturbation technique leads to approximate formulae which make it possible to compute eectively dynamic tooth loads. Comparisons with the results obtained by a time-step integration method are favourable with considerable gains in computational time when multi degree of freedom models are employed. The proposed methodology looks promising in the context of statistical approaches to dynamic tooth loads when parameter variability/uncertainties cannot be ignored. 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Helical gear; Dynamics; Tooth loads; Dynamic factor; Simulations; Analytical formulae

1. Introduction Although geared systems have a long history and are widely used in industry, the scientic study of their dynamic behaviour has taken place mainly in the last 20 years. The motivation to analyse gear dynamics stems from both noise and dynamic loading. It has been shown that noise comes from the vibrations established as the gear teeth deform under load and transmission error (TE) [14] has been recognised as a relevant indicator of the noise generated by a gear set. Since then, the interest of the concept has been experimentally conrmed for narrow-faced gears (automotive applications mostly), and transmission error is now widely used in gear dynamics models and for tooth modication design [59]. On the other hand, dynamic loading is critical in tooth failure by either bending or contact fatigue and, for instance, its inuence is incorporated in design standards by a dynamic rating factor [1012]. Typical gear dynamic models are based on mass-spring representations in which the springs account for the time-varying, possibly non-linear, tooth stiness whereas tooth shape deviations and geometrical errors are
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 72 43 84 51; fax: +33 4 78 89 09 80. E-mail address: Philippe.Velex@insa-lyon.fr (P. Velex).

0094-114X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2006.12.009

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

1513

Nomenclature e(Mi) shape deviation with respect to ideal anks at a potential point of contact Mi F S ; F D static, dynamic mesh force ki individual mesh stiness at a potential point of contact Mi km average mesh stiness kUk modal stiness associated with the kth mode shape meq J RbJ21 J 2 Rb2 equivalent mass 1 2 J 2 1 mUk modal mass associated with the kth mode shape Mi generic potential point of contact NLTE no-load transmission error R FD FS Rmax maximum of R at a given speed TES quasi-static transmission error under load S vx0 VT X0 Fm static mesh deection k T vxD V XD vUk V T Uk UT V k x Rb1 h1 Rb2 h2 xS ; xD quasi-static, dynamic value of x K; M constant stiness matrix, total mass matrix  K averaged total stiness matrix n1 outward unit normal vector with respect to pinion anks VMi ; V structure vector, averaged structure vector (14) and (15) X; XS ; XD respectively total displacement vector, quasi-static displacement vector and dynamic displacement vector _ X0 K1 FS V X0 K1 F0 static solution with averaged mesh stiness bb base helix angle d vector of the modal unknowns de(Mi) dierence between the maximum of e(Mi) and e(Mi) at time t, e(Mi) normal composite deviation (pinion + gear) at Mi U a truncated modal basis Uk kth mode shape X1, X2 angular velocity of the pinion, of the gear qk percentage of modal strain energy stored in the mesh for mode k A0 derivative of A with respect to the angular variable # X1 t B B divided by the static mesh deection vx0 A/k kth component of vector A

often considered as initial separations between the mating anks [1318]. Some more sophisticated deformable-body models have recently been proposed which include not only tooth deections but also blank contributions [1921]. A comparatively small number of experimental investigations have been conducted mostly on single-stage spur and helical gear sets [2,13,15,2224]. Transmission errors are measured by using encoders or accelerometers and tooth loads are evaluated by strain gauges placed at tooth llets. Recently, Tamminana et al. [25] have found by experimental means that, for linear behaviour, tooth loads in spur gears seemed to correlate to dynamic TE variations. If conrmed, this nding would allow simpler dynamic tooth force measurements by encoders and/or accelerometers as opposed to the direct measurement of dynamic contact forces which necessitates strain gauges at the root of the teeth. In a recent paper [26], the authors have investigated from a theoretical perspective the contributions of TE as an excitation source in three-dimensional models. The conclusion reached was that, rather than the time variations of quasi-static TE under load, the dierence

1514

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

between quasi-static TE under load and no-load TE should be considered as the relevant excitation indicator. In the present article, the relation between dynamic tooth loads (i.e., dynamic factors), and transmission errors is examined from a theoretical point of view. Based on the formulation proposed in [26], some new results are presented which relate quasi-static TE to dynamic forces. A general formula for dynamic tooth loads in helical gears is then derived which, provided the variations of quasi-static TE are known (either experimentally or numerically), enables almost instantaneous calculations of dynamic tooth loads over a range of speeds. 2. Transmission errors Transmission error (TE) is dened as a measure of departure from perfect motion transfer between the pinion and gear where perfect refers to rigid bodies with ideal geometry and positioning [13]. The denition of transmission error under load is somewhat ambiguous as its value can vary depending on the chosen measurement points (positions of encoders or accelerometers) or cross-sections of reference for calculating deviations between actual and perfect rotation transfers from the pinion to the gear [27]. In the proposed formulation, transmission errors are dened by extrapolating the usual experimental practice, i.e., from the actual total angles of rotation at one section of reference on the pinion shaft (subscript I) and on the gear shaft (subscript II). The projection of transmission error on the theoretical base plane leads to the following generic denition which is used throughout the text: ! ! Z t Z t TE Rb1 X1 df hI Rb2 X2 df hII Rb1 hI Rb2 hII NLTE 1
0 0

with X1 X2, angular velocity of the pinion, of the gear; f, a dummy integration variable; hI ; hII ; the angular perturbations with respect to rigid-body rotations (degrees of freedom) at node I on the pinion shaft and at node II on the gear shaft (hI h1 and hII h2 in the case of the single d.o.f torsional model). The normal practice is to separate, (i) no-load transmission error (NLTE) which accounts for geometrical deviations, (ii) quasi-static transmission error under load (TES) obtained at low speeds when torques are transmitted and, (iii) dynamic transmission error (DTE) corresponding to loaded high-speed behaviour. 3. Single degree torsional model 3.1. Theory For the sake of clarity, the theoretical developments are rst presented based on the classical torsional model in Fig. 1. It can be shown that the original semi-denite system associated with the two angles h1 (pinion) and h2 (gear) can be transformed into the dierential equation: ! ! X X J2 X2 meq x00 k i cos2 bb x Ft k i deM i cos bb X2 2 NLTE00 2 1 1 Rb2 i i
Cr with x Rb1 h1 Rb2 h2 ; meq J RbJ21 J 2 Rb2 , equivalent mass; Ft Cm10 Rb2 , tangential static mesh force; ki, indiRb J 2 1 1 2 vidual mesh stiness at a potential point of contact Mi; e(Mi), shape deviation with respect to ideal anks at a potential point of contact Mi; deM i is the dierence between the maximum of e(Mi) and e(Mi) at time t, e(Mi) is the normal composite deviation (pinion + gear) at Mi; NLTE, no-load transmission error; bb, base helix angle; A 0 , derivative of A with respect to the angular variable # X1 t. In the equation above, it is assumed that the input angular velocity X1 is kept constant and imposed whereas the resisting torque Cr on the gear is constant. As long as the dynamic contact conditions on the teeth are close to quasi-static ones and following the procedure dened in [26], the excitation functions can be expressed via transmission errors and (2) re-written in terms of the dynamic displacement xD x xS as " # J 2 Rb2 2 2 00 00 00 2 1 X1 meq xD k m cos bb 1 ag#xD meq X1 TES NLTE 3 J 1 Rb2 2

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

T

1515

O1
1

O2

S
Gear Pinion
Z

T1

T1'

T2'

T2
X

Mi

n1

Fig. 1. One degree of freedom torsional model mesh stiness model on base plane.

P where km is the average mesh stiness such that i k i k m 1 ag# and a 0 1, TES is the quasi-static transmission error under load. After neglecting the viscous forces in comparison with the elastic forces, the dynamic tooth loading is given by F D F S k m 1 ag# cos bb xD 4
Ft with F S cos bb , the static normal mesh force, from which, the dynamic factor R, dened as the ratio of the total dynamic to the total static mesh force, is expressed as

R where

FD 1 D ag#D x x FS xD x0S FS ; k m cos bb static normal deflection:

D x x0S

There is no exact solution to the parametrically excited dierential Eq. (3) but approximate solutions can be found by using perturbation methods [15,26]. Assuming that a 00 1 (this assumption being more suited to helical gears), particular stable solutions can be sought as straightforward asymptotic expansions of the form xD xD0 axD1 a2 xD2 The identication of the main order terms leads to 7 x00 2n-x0D0 -2 xD0 TE00 kNLTE00 S D0 q k 1 with - X1 mm cos bb , normalised eigenfrequency of the undamped system with averaged mesh stiness; n, eq damping factor; k J 2 J1
Rb2 1 Rb2 2

1516

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

Assuming that the transmission error function TES kNLTE can be developed in Fourier series of the form X TES kNLTE B0 An sin n# Bn cos n# 8-a
nP1

hence TE00 kNLTE00 S X

nP1

n2 An sin n# Bn cos n#

8-b

a particular solution of (7) can be sought as X xD0 an sin n# bn cos n#

nP1

which, when re-injected in (7) and after identication of like terms in cosine and sine, leads to ! -2 - An 1 2Bn n n n an   !2 -2 - 2 1 4n2 n n ! -2 - Bn 1 2An n n n bn   !2 -2 - 2 1 4n2 n n From (5), (9) and (10), the main order approximation of the dynamic factor is derived as X An
nP1

10-a

10-b

R 1 D0 1 x

- 1 2Bn n Bn 1 2An n n n n n !2 !2 -2 -2 sin n# -2 -2 cos n# 1 4n2 1 4n2 n n n n

-2

-

-2

11

An Bn with An x0S and Bn x0S , normalised coecients of the Fourier series decomposition of quasi-static transmission errors. To the authors knowledge, (11) is original as it establishes a formal link between quasi-static transmission error variations (via An and Bn and dynamic tooth load factor R for helical gears (the latter being a consequence of the assumed small variation in mesh stiness, i.e., a 00 1). Further analytical results can be derived in the case of perfect helical gears, i.e., high precision unmodied gears for which the excitations terms P 2 J2 00 i k i deM i and X1 Rb2 NLTE vanish. The quasi-static transmission error is determined by solving (2) when 2 X1 shrinks to zero as

TES

Ft x0S 1 ag# k m cos2 bb 1 ag#

12

from which, it can be observed that the normalised coecients An and Bn of TES in the dynamic factor Eq. (11) are totally independent of the transmitted load. Furthermore, if one assumes that mesh stiness is proportional to instantaneous contact length, the time-varying function in (12) can be decomposed as follows [28]: X ag# kk cos kZ 1 # gk sin kZ 1 # 13
k

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526 Table 1 Gear data Tooth number Pressure angle () Helix angle () Prole shift coecient Module (mm) Face width (mm) Addendum coecient Dedendum coecient Tool radius/module Centre distance (mm) Pitch diameter (mm) Base diameter External diameter (mm) Root diameter (mm) Theoretical prole contact ratio ea Total contact ratio ea eb (theoretical) 16 20 11.00 0.4925 8.00 171.40 1.0 1.4 0.4 312.43 133.30 122.26 154.28 115.88 1.448 2.653 59

1517

0.42375 158.75 1.0 1.4 0.4 491.56 450.84 503.62 465.22

with 1 cos 2pkeb cos 2pkea cos 2pkea eb 1 2ea eb p2 k 2 1 gk sin 2pkeb sin 2pkea sin 2pkea eb 2ea eb p2 k 2 which shows that the excitations are mostly controlled by prole and overlap contact ratios. kk
P c T1'

T1''

T2''

T2'

Fig. 2. Denition of tooth modications. (a) Denition of prole modications Pc is the tip relief amplitude, Lc is the extent of modication measured on the base plane. (b) Denition of parabolic lead modications; (a) is the lead modication amplitude, (b) is the face width.

1518

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

3.0 Time-step integration Approximate formula (11) 2.6

2.2

Rmax
1.8 1.4 1.0 0 200 400
1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 3. Maximum of dynamic factor versus pinion speed comparisons between time-step integrations and formula (11). Single degree of freedom torsional model (linear prole relief on pinion and gear tips with P c 2 lm and Lc 0:2T 01 T 02 + parabolic crowning of amplitude 10 lm on the pinion).

3.2. Comparisons with time step integrations The validity of the approximate expression of the dynamic factor (11) has been assessed via comparisons with the results obtained by the time-step integration of (2) using a Newmarks scheme combined with a normal contact algorithm [18]. The gear data are given in Table 1 and the prole and lead modications are dened in Fig. 2. The system is loaded by a constant torque of 5976 N m applied on the pinion shaft. The
5.0 Time-step integration 4.2 Approximate formula (11)

3.4

Rmax
2.6 1.8 1.0 0 200 400 600
1 (rad/s)

800

1000

1200

Fig. 4. Maximum of dynamic factor versus pinion speed comparisons between time-step integrations and formula (11). Single degree of freedom torsional model (unmodied pinion and gear).

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

1519

tooth mesh stiness is determined by using the ISO formulae [10] and a unique damping factor of 0.01 is used. Fig. 3 shows the evolution of the maximum of RRmax versus the pinion speed and a good agreement is observed between the analytical results from (11) and the dynamic factor obtained by numerical integration. One limitation of the proposed approach is illustrated in Fig. 4 which represents the same curve but for unmodied tooth anks. The dynamic eects are more marked and, near the major tooth critical speed, contacts between the teeth are momentarily lost and shocks occur which cannot be reproduced by (11). 4. Generalisation to three-dimensional models 4.1. Dynamic factor formula for helical gears The objective of this paragraph is to show that the above approach is not limited to the one-degree-of-freedom model but can be generalised to three-dimensional models. When eccentricities are ignored, the equations of motion for the undamped system can be written as [26]: " X2 MX00 1 K X
i

# k i VMi VMi
T

X F0

X
i

k i deM i VMi X2 NLTE00 E 1

14

with M: total mass matrix; K: constant stiness matrix; V(Mi): structure vector [15,18,26] which accounts for the particular gear geometry and whose restriction to the pinion-gear degrees of freedom is (the other compoT e nents being zero) VMi n1 ; O1 Mi n1 ; n1 ; O2 Mi n1 (see Fig. 1 for the parameter denition); Mi: a generic potential point of contact; n1: the outward unit normal vector with respect to pinion anks; E: vector containing the polar moments of inertia associated with the nodes on the output member. Using a similar approach to that employed for the single degree of freedom model, (14) can be re-written in terms of the dynamic displacements and with the excitations expressed as functions of transmission errors: X2 MX00 K ak m g#VVT XD 1 D
_ cos bb X2 cos bb _ 1 TE00 MX0 X2 NLTE00 E MX0 S 1 vx0 vx0

!! 15

with K: averaged total stiness matrix; XD X XS , the dynamic displacement vector; VT n1 ; O1 M0 n1 ; n1 ; O2 M0 n1 is an averaged structure vector proportional to the co-ordinates of the mesh force wrenches on the pinion in O1 and on the gear in O2 assuming that the mesh force distribution is reduced to a single sliding vector applied along a line M 0 ; n1 [26,27]. X0 K1 F S V. The total dynamic mesh force FD can be written in a simple form analogous to the single degree-of-freedom Eq. (4) as F D F S k m 1 ag#vxD where vxD VT XD and the dynamic factor is deduced as R FD 1 xD ag#xD v v FS 17 16
_

FS with xD vxD ; vx0 VT X0 km : static mesh deection; X0 K1 F0 : static solution with averaged mesh v vx0 stiness. A particular stable solution for dynamic displacements is sought under the form of an asymptotic development:

XD XD0 aXD1 a2 XD2 which, after projection of the main order solution in a modal basis by the transformation: XD0 Ud

18

19

1520

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

leads to a series of uncoupled dierential equations of the form d00 2nk -k d0=k -2 d=k Ck TE00 Dk NLTE00 =k S k 20

where U is a truncated modal basis associated with the constant coecient equations (e.g. the modes of the dierential systemq with g# 0; d is the vector of the modal unknowns; A/k is the kth component of (15)
1 vector A; -k X1 k Uk ; mUk

kUk is the modal stiness associated with the kth mode shape; mUk is the modal mass _
/T MX UT E

associated with the kth mode shape; Ck cosx0bb mUk 0 =k ; Dk mUk =k Ck . v Assuming that the excitation functions can be decomposed into a Fourier series of the same form (8) as for the single degree of freedom model, one obtains X Ck TE00 Dk NLTE00 n2 A sin n# B cos n# 21 S n n
nP1

and a solution to (20) can be sought as X d=k ak sin n# bk cos n# n n

nP1

22

in which coecients ak and ak are determined by identication of like terms in sine and cosine. n n

80 120

120 120

120 80

90

100

7 4

11 130 14 120

S
Fig. 5. Gear set three-dimensional nite element model.

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

1521

Introducing the asymptotic development (18) in the expression of the dynamic factor R, (17) gives a rst order approximation of the form X R1 vUk Nk 23
k

with vUk VT Uk UT V; k
2.0

Time-step integration Approximate formula (25)

1.8

Rmax

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0 0 200 400

1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 6. Maximum of dynamic factor versus pinion speed comparisons between time-step integrations and formula (25). Threedimensional multi-degree of freedom model (unmodied pinion and gear).

2 20 modes 1.8 10 modes 5 modes

1.6

Rmax
1.4 1.2 1 0 200 400
1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 7. Inuence of the number of modes on the dynamic factor computed by (25).

1522

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

Uk ; kth mode shape;

X An nP1

Nk

A n

A n ; vx0

! ! -  - 2 -  k k k 1 2B nk B 1 2A nk n n n n n n n !2 !2 - 2 - 2 sin n# - 2 - 2 cos n#; k k k k 1 4n2 1 4n2 k k n n n n B B n : n vx0 - 2

k

The coecients vUk can be related to the percentage of modal strain energy qk stored in the mesh for mode k (considering the system with averaged stiness matrix) which is dened as qk k m UT VVT Uk km 2 k v T k Uk Uk Uk KUk 24

2 20 harmonics 1.8 10 harmonics 5 harmonics

1.6

Rmax
1.4 1.2 1 0 200 400
1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 8. Inuence of the number of transmission error harmonics on the dynamic factor computed by (25).

Table 2 Frequencies with qk above 5% Eigenfrequency (Hz) 2390 4239 3585 2695 1290 5605 600 8574 6455 2580 Percentage of modal strain energy 34.9 22.9 14.1 8.7 7.2 6.9 6.4 6.3 5.6 5.6

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

1523

and the main order approximation of the dynamic factor is nally written under the form r X k Uk p R1 qk Nk km k
Table 3 Pitch error distribution on the pinion

25

15

10

5 (m)

0 1 -5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

-10

-15 tooth number

1.4 Time-step integration Approximate formula (25) 1.3

Rmax

1.2

1.1

1.0 0 200 400

1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 9. Maximum of dynamic factor versus pinion speed comparisons between time-step integrations and formula (25). Threedimensional multi-degree of freedom model (linear prole relief on pinion and gear tips with P c 12 lm and Lc 0:2T 01 T 02 + parabolic crowning of amplitude 10 lm on the pinion).

1524

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

2 Time-step integration Approximate formula (25)

1.8

1.6

Rmax
1.4 1.2 1 0 200 400
1

600

800

1000

1200

(rad/s)

Fig. 10. Maximum of dynamic factor versus pinion speed comparisons between time-step integrations and formula (25). Threedimensional multi-degree of freedom model (unmodied pinion and gear, pitch errors dened in Table 3).

One can notice that the individual contribution of a given mode is directly related to its percentage of strain energy in the meshing teeth and to the ratio of its modal stiness to the average mesh stiness. These properties can be used for identifying the usually limited number of critical mode shapes and frequencies with respect to tooth contact loads. They may also serve to test the structural modications aimed at avoiding critical loading conditions over a range of speeds. 4.2. Elements of validation The objective of this section is to critically assess the validity of the approximate theory presented in Section 3.1 by comparing the dynamic responses obtained by using (25) with those given by time-step integrations of the equations of motion (14). The gear data are the same as in Section 2 and the geared train three-dimensional model under consideration is shown in Fig. 5. The rst set of comparisons in Fig. 6 concerns an unmodied errorless pinion and gear which were simulated with a very low modal damping factor of 0.01 for all modes. A good agreement is observed over the entire range of speeds both in terms of response peak positions and associated amplitudes. It should be noted that, in this example, the proposed approach is at least 20 times faster than the conventional integration technique. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the eect of the number of modes and excitation harmonics retained in formula (23). The results in Figs. 7 and 8 indicate that, for the example treated, a high degree of agreement is achieved even for a very limited number of modes and harmonics (ve modes and ve harmonics of the mesh frequency in the example treated), thus emphasizing the interest of the methodology in terms of computational time saving. The percentages of modal strain energy in the mesh qk, listed in Table 2, clearly show that a limited number of modes have to be considered for dynamic tooth load calculations. Comparisons are extended to more realistic gear geometries by introducing the tooth modications already dened in Figs. 2 and 3 to which the pitch error distribution on the pinion dened in Table 3 is superimposed. The dynamic factor curves in Figs. 9 and 10 prove that the analytical formula compares very well with the results obtained by the Newmark scheme combined with a normal contact algorithm. It is observed that pitch errors broaden the response peaks because of the more complex excitation spectra that they generate.

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

1525

5. Conclusion Based on straightforward expansions of the dynamic response, it is demonstrated that analytical expressions of dynamic tooth loads or tooth dynamic factors can be derived in terms of the harmonics of the quasi-static transmission error under load. The proposed formulae are essentially valid for helical gears since mesh stiness variations are supposed to be small compared with the average value of the stiness function. Two gear models are successively examined: (i) a single degree-of-freedom one similar to that used for dening the dynamic rating factor in the ISO 6336 standard [10], and (ii) a three-dimensional model condensed by a pseudo-modal method. Two original formulae are presented which compare very well with the results obtained by numerical integration of the equations of motion (parametrically excited dierential systems). From the simplest formula derived from the one degree of freedom model, it has been found that the dynamic factors for perfect helical gears depend mostly on contact ratios and are largely independent of the transmitted load. The latter was veried by integrating the three-dimensional equations of motion (14) for three torques of 2976, 5976 and 8976 N m on the pinion shaft and, as long as linear mesh stiness was employed, the dynamic factor curves were almost exactly superimposed. From a theoretical point of view, the dynamic factor equations in this paper establish a formal link between dynamic tooth loads and the uctuations of quasi-static transmission errors under load for helical gears. This correlation has been known and mathematically proven in the case of spur gears since the pioneering work of Harris [1], Gregory et al. [2,3] but, to the authors knowledge, extension to helical gears had yet to be demonstrated. The proposed equations are also of practical importance as they lead to signicant gains in computational time which makes it possible to conduct intensive parameter analyses and apply statistical approaches to the dynamic behaviour of actual gears, i.e., accounting for geometrical tolerances in relation with quality grades for instance. References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] S.L. Harris, Dynamic loads on the teeth of spur gears, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 172 (1958) 87112. R.W. Gregory, S.L. Harris, R.G. Munro, Dynamic behaviour of spur gears, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 178 (1963) 261266. R.W. Gregory, S.L. Harris, R.G. Munro, Torsional motion of a pair of spur gears, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 178 (196364) 166173. H.K. Kohler, A. Pratt, A.M. Thompson, Dynamics and noise of parallel-axis gearing, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 184 (196970) 111121. W.D. Mark, Analysis of the vibratory excitation of gear systems: Basic theory, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 63 (5) (1978) 14091450. H.N. Ozguven, D.R. Houser, Dynamic analysis of high speed gears by using loaded static transmission error, J. Sound Vib. 125 (1) (1988) 7183. H.N. Ozguven, D.R. Houser, Mathematical models used in gear dynamics. A review, J. Sound Vib. 121 (1988) 383411. M.S. Tavakoli, D.R. Houser, Optimum prole modications for the minimization of static transmission errors of spur gears, ASME J. Mech. Trans. Autom. Des. 108 (1986) 8695. R.G. Munro, Optimum prole relief and transmission error in spur gears, in: Proceedings of the First Institution of Mechanical Engineers International Conference on Gearbox Noise and Vibration, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 3543. ISO 6336-1: 1996(E), Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears. Part 1: Basic principles, introduction and general inuence factors, 1996, 93 pp. ANSI/AGMA 2001-D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and Helical Gear Teeth, 2001. D.R. Houser, A. Seireg, An experimental investigation of dynamic factors in spur and helical gears, ASME J. Eng. Ind. 192 (1970) 495503. A. Kubo, Stress condition, vibrational exciting force and contact pattern of helical gears with manufacturing and alignment errors, ASME J. Mech. Des. 100 (1978) 7784. R. Kasuba, J.W. Evans, An extended model for determining dynamic loads in spur gearing, ASME J. Mech. Des. 103 (1981) 398409. F. Kucukay, Dynamic behaviour of high speed gears, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Vibrations in Rotating Machinery, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, York, 1113 September 1984, pp. 8190. K. Umezawa, T. Sato, J. Ishikawa, Simulation of rotational vibration of spur gears, Bull. JSME 27 (1984) 02109. A. Kahraman, Eect of axial vibrations on the dynamics of a helical gear pair, ASME J. Vib. Acous. 115 (1993) 3339. P. Velex, M. Maatar, A mathematical model for analyzing the inuence of shape deviations and mounting errors on gear dynamic behaviour, J. Sound Vib. 191 (5) (1996) 629660. R.G. Parker, V. Agashe, S.M. Vijayakar, Dynamic response of a planetary gear system using a nite element/contact mechanics model, ASME J. Mech. Design 122 (2000) 304310. A. Kahraman, A.A. Kharazi, M. Umrani, A deformable body dynamic analysis of planetary gears with thin rims, J. Sound Vib. 262 (3) (2003) 752768.

1526

P. Velex, M. Ajmi / Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 15121526

[21] M. Ajmi, P. Velex, A model for simulating the quasi-static and dynamic behaviour of solid wide-faced spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 40 (2005) 173190. [22] A. Kahraman, G.W. Blankenship, Experiments on nonlinear dynamic behavior of an oscillator with clearance and periodically timevarying parameters, ASME J. Appl. Mech. 64 (1) (1997) 217226. [23] A. Kahraman, G.W. Blankenship, Eect of involute contact ratio on spur gear dynamics, ASME J. Mech. Des. 121 (1) (1999) 12118. [24] S. Baud, P. Velex, Static and dynamic tooth loading in spur and helical geared systems Experiments and model validation, ASME J. Mech. Des. 124 (2) (2002) 334346. [25] V.K. Tamminana, A. Kahraman, S. Vijayakar, A study of the relationship between the dynamic factors and the dynamic transmission error of spur gear Pairs, ASME J. Mech. Des. 129 (1) (2007) 7584. [26] P. Velex, M. Ajmi, On the modelling of excitations in geared systems by transmissions errors, J. Sound Vib. 290 (35) (2006) 882909. [27] P. Velex, Some problems in the modelling of gear dynamic behaviour, in: Proceedings of the JSME International Conference on Motion and Power Transmission, MPT 2001, vol. 1, Fukuoka, Nov. 1517, 2001, pp. 4550. [28] M. Maatar, P. Velex, An analytical expression of the time-varying contact length in perfect cylindrical gears Some possible applications in gear dynamics, ASME J. Mech. Des. 118 (1996) 586589.