Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. Vol. 27. No. 4. pp. 491-504. 1987. tk~90-6955/8753.00 + .

00
Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Journals Ltd.

THE OPTIMISATION OF INTERNAL GEARS

B. S. TONG* and D. WALXON*

(Received 9 D e c e m b e r 1986; in final form 3 February 1987)

Abstract--The design of a pair of internal spur on helical gears is treated with the objective of minimising
the centre distance or gear volume for a given specification. T h e designs obtained satisfy all the necessary
conditions for kinematic limits on contact ratio, interference and gear ratio tolerance and meet strength and
wear criteria according to the design standard selected.
A set of design variables are defined in terms of the n u m b e r of pinion and annulus teeth and the module.
T h e objective functions of m i n i m u m centre distance and volume are expressed. Some special search strategies
n a m e d 'belt zone search" and 'half section algorithm" are presented in order to solve the problems of a
discrete n u m b e r of variables and to reduce the calculation time. The effects of tolerances placed on the
design specification and the influence of acceptable facewidth limits on the o p t i m u m rcsults are described.

INTRODUCTION

IN [1] A computerised design aid for internal spur and helical gears was described. This
program, called IGD (Internal Gear Design), enables internal gear pairs to be designed
and is particularly useful when close tolerances are placed on the gear ratio and centre
distance. The program allows the user to experiment with different solutions and so a
form of optimisation can be used. In this paper the authors describe a program which
enables the optimum gear pair to be designed immediately from a given specification.
Gears can be designed either on the basis of a minimum centre distance, or minimum
volume and hence weight. The program described here goes a step beyond IGD in that
a search of tooth numbers to meet the required kinematic conditions is made while at
the same time the facewidth is computed and a search made for the optimum combi-
nations. No search is made for the gear materials which might give the smallest size of
gears as this would always result in the strongest materials being selected each time.
The choice of materials used should, in any case, be left to the designer.
No general procedures exist to determine the optimal size of a gear set. In the recent
literature, several approaches to the optimum design of a gear pair have been presented
[2-4]. A methodology was presented by Savage et al. [2], for the optimum design of
standard spur gear sets, in which the objective function is the minimum centre distance.
A number of kinematic and gear strength constraints were considered, and a design
procedure established to find the optimal design. Savage [2] ignored gear ratio tolerances
and did not allow for any practical variations on facewidth limits. Helical gear sets and
the problem of profile shift modifications were ignored. A design procedure was applied
to find the optimum design, in which a design space was defined by kinematic and gear
tooth strength constraints. By plotting curves on a graph of pinion tooth numbers
against diametral pitch, the region of acceptable designs bounded by these curves was
established. The most compact design was found to lie on the line of least slope inside
this region. The optimal number of pinion teeth could be selected from other graphs
according to the gear ratio and gear pressure angle. By using the minimum pinion teeth
and drawing a straight line through the origin, a set of standard diametral pitches and
corresponding numbers of pinion teeth was found near the optimal position and formed
a number of design alternatives. By analysing these designs and comparing their
properties, a practical optimum design could be selected.

*Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of B i r m i n g h a m , PO Box 363, B i r m i n g h a m BI5 2TT,

U.K.

491
492 B . S . Torso and D. WALro~

Hughson [3] described an optimisation program, GODA5, for the design of external
tractor or automobile gears. The tractor mode was to guarantee against premature
surface failure, and the automobile mode was to maximise the contact ratio. The
program equalised the bending fatigue life of the pinion to that of the gear and balanced
the resistance to bending fatigue with the resistance to surface damage.
Spur gear design, aided by computer, has been described by White and Henderson
[4] with the emphasis on merit functions in such a way as to maximise a mathematical
expression for the design criteria. The merit function can be defined by the user, such
as the facewidth required to reduce the bending stress by a certain percentage. The
optimization technique used in [4], the steepest-ascent method, was programmed in a
search subroutine form. The kinematic constraints were not described in detail and the
method used to search f o r optimum results could only treat those problems with
continuous variables.
The paper presented here describes the design variables, objective functions and all
constraints based on a detailed study of the kinematic and gear tooth strengths for spur
and helical internal gear sets. Some special search strategies are presented to solve the
problems of a discrete number of variables and to obtain the optimum results quickly
and directly.

Design variable
The design variable can be defined as
X = (T,, T2, m~) T (1)
where X is a matrix (transposed as shown) of the design variables T~, T2 and m,,, T I
and T2 are the pinion and annulus tooth numbers respectively and m,, is the normal
module.

Objective functions
The criteria on which the optimisation is based, i.e. the objective functions are:
(i) Minimum centre distance.
CDrnin = f ( X ) = m,,(T, + T2)/(2 cos 13) (2)
where 13 = helix angle on the pitch circle, specified by the user.
The profile shift coefficients are made equal but opposite in sign so as not to affect
the centre distance.
(ii) Minimum volume.
The pinion volume can be approximated to
VI = "rr d t 2 b/4
'IT 2
= ~m,, (T#cos13 + 2X,,t)2b

where dl = pitch diameter of pinion

Xn, = normal profile shift coefficient of pinion
Xn, = 0.025(30-T1) when Ti < 30
= 0 when TI /> 30
b = facewidth
b = f i T , , 1"2, m.).
The annulus volume is given by
-/r
V2 = -~ ( D~ - d2)b

if
D2 = d2 + 12.5m~
 Optimisation of Internal Gears 493

based on existing designs, where

d2 = m , ( T2/cos~- 2X,2)
then
TfFnn2
112- 4 [25(r2/csf~-2X"2)+12"52]b

where D2 = outside diameter of annular ring

d2 = active pitch diameter of annulus
X,,2 = profile shift coefficient of annulus.
The total volume is given by

V= Vt+V2
and is a function of the design variable X.

Constraints
A n u m b e r of practical constraints are built-in to ensure that the solutions m e e t all
the requirements for adequate contact ratio and avoidance of tip interference and
undercutting. Checks are also made to keep the tooth numbers to reasonable limits
and to ensure that the gear ratios are within tolerances. The calculated facewidths are
kept within the limits described in [1].
T o avoid excessive tooth numbers

Tlmin < T~ < 120.

Tlmi. is the minimum n u m b e r of pinion teeth which may be set by the user, otherwise
Tlmin = 15.

R - RL < T2/T~ < R + Ru

where R = nominal gear ratio
Ru = u p p e r tolerance of gear ratio
Rt_ = lower tolerance on gear ratio, both set by the user.
bL < b < b u
where b is the gear pair facewidth, calculated on the basis of tooth wear and strength
and is a function of the design variables, bu and bt. are the u p p e r and lower
permissible facewidths.
CR > [CR]
where CR is the contact ratio which is also a function of the design variables. [CR] is
the minimum permissible contact ratio as specified by the user. If this is not specified
the default value is set at 1.4.
A check has to be made to ensure that tip interference does not occur. If the
circumferential tip clearance is designated by d.,., then tip interference is d e e m e d not
to occur if dx > 0.2 mm.
dx may be determined as follows:

d~ = [Do2(d+y2-O)]/2
where d = (t~-~h)TJTz
and + and 0 are obtained from
cos ~ = (Do22-DoI2-4C2)/(4CDol)
sin 0 = (DolsinO)/Do2
~/~ = (~r/2 + 2X,,~tanoL,cos~ )/Tl + i n w , -- inwxo,~
cosao, l = Dbl/Dol
~/2 = ('tr/2 + 2X,2tana,cosf~ )/Tz + inva, - invao,2
494 B.S. T o s G a n d D . WALTOS

COSOtot 2 = Db2/Do2
C = centre distance
Dot = outside diameter of pinion
002 = inside diameter of annulus
Obt = base circle diameter of pinion
Db2 = base circle diameter of annulus
inv~bt = involute polar coordinate of point on tip of annulus tooth flank
where it meets the root diameter
invd?2 = involute polar coordinate of point on tip of annulus tooth flank
where it meets the internal diameter
O[ t pressure angle.
Involute interference or undercutting will occur if the tooth flank of the annulus meshes
with the pinion flank below the pinion base circle. The minimum number of pinion
teeth to avoid interference is given by
2cos13[(h.2' + X . 2 ) - ( X , , , +X.2) X/([(R ,cosa,')(R,-- 1)] Zsin20tj ]
Tt ~>
Ri- V ( ( R ,-1)sin2a/ )
where h trl = annulus addendum coefficient
Ri = actual gear ratio
Ol.t ' = transverse pressure angle, obtained from
COSOt t ' = coseq/(1 + Q,)
and
ae = centre distance extension ratio, given by
ae = 2(X~t+Xnz) cos f3/(Tt-T2).

Optimisation methods
Following from the mathematical model given above, the problem involves non-
linear constrained programming with three dimensions. As the three variables are not
continuous, a number of methods which are suitable for solving continuous variables
cannot be used. It is possible however, to solve for all feasible combinations of variables
and to choose the best solution, but the amount of computational work would be large.
For example if the total number of pinion and annulus teeth examined was 50 and 20
and 20 different modules were selected, the total number of possible calculations would
be 2 x 104.
Even when using microcomputers some form of refinement is needed. Several search
strategies have been developed and are used in the program. The first to be described
is termed the "belt zone search method". Here we suppose that a set of different pinion
teeth, = T~/(i= 1 to n) and a set of modules m n f i j = 1 to m) are combined. The meshing
annulus teeth for a certain number of pinion teeth T~ may have several values because
of the gear ratio tolerance. If we suppose that only one is selected, corre,sponding to
the lower gear ratio tolerance, i.e. T2~ = T~ ( R - R L ) then the annulus teeth number
has the smallest possible value. After that, all centre distances and gear pair volumes
for each combination of Tt,- and m~j are calculated according to the method described
above and may be arranged in a matrix form as shown in Fig. 1. Each row corresponds
to a different number of pinion teeth and each column to a different module. Each
module is a first, second preferred or non-preferred module according to the choice
made by the user. An X means no solution is possible while an O represents a feasible
solution. The following may be inferred from Fig. 1:
(i) All feasible solutions in the matrix are scattered in a "belt-zone".
(ii) The magnitude of the centre distance for each first feasible solution in a line is
always a minimum for that line, because the module in a given row increases from left
to right.
(iii) The situation is the same for gear pair volumes as for centre distance. The
minimum volume is always to be found at the position of the first feasible solution,
though sometimes the volumes of all feasible solutions in the same line are equal.
 Optimisation of Internal Gears 495

mn]

X X X X X X X 0 X X

X X X X X X 0 0 X X

X X X X X X 0 X X " X

X X X X X 0 0 X X X

Tli X X X X X 0 0 X X X

X X X X 0 0 0 X X X

X X X X 0 0 X X X

X X X X 0 0 x X X X

X X X 0 0 X X X X X

X X X 0 X X X X X X

FIG. 1. "'Belt zone" solution matrix.

According to the rules revealed above, an algorithm termed "'belt zone search" was
developed in which once the first feasible solution for each line is obtained other
solutions can be ignored. This considerably reduces the computing time. The flow chart
for this algorithm is shown in Fig. 2. The technique starts by the user choosing the
minimum number of pinion teeth. A module must now be determined and this first
module is computed based on bending strength and wear equations. At this stage the

C Start

Choose minimum number of pinion teeth

1
" Estimate value of suitable module and
select range of modules

1
'" Search for first feasible design solution in
first row, note column number

l
I Reoord resu.s I

_II Go to next row and read column number

corresponding to previous feasible solution

l
I .,efaoa O t'------

No fea,PJble solution, go
to next hlgt)er modLde

Pass

I Record results J
II-_
C End

FIG. 2. "'Belt zone" search algorithm

gTN 2 7 : 4 - F
496 B.S. TONG a n d D . WALTON

minimum allowable facewidth is assumed, based on recommended ratios of gear face-

width to module ratios as discussed in [1]. In order to form the module row in the
matrix, a range of modules are chosen having magnitudes either side of this first
calculated module. A search is now made for the first feasible solution in row 1 and
the column number and results noted. The pinion teeth are incremented by moving
onto the next row but the first calculation in this row starts at the column number
corresponding to the first feasible solution in the previous row. The facewidths are
calculated and if these are satisfactory the program checks the other constraints such
as contact ratio and interference. It is important to note that the facewidth calculations
involve a substantial amount of computing, using the same subroutines as described in
[1]. If the facewidth is too low the module is decreased and the facewidth recalculated.
If the facewidth is too high, increasing the module would not give a feasible solution
and therefore the program moves on to the next row.
The second refinement method is termed the "half section algorithm". Here, for each
matrix, the pinion tooth numbers are fixed and the annulus teeth are varied over a
range corresponding to the gear ratio tolerance. Each column represents a different
module. Previously, solutions were obtained by varying the pinion teeth numbers in
each row of the matrix while the number of annulus teeth in each row were held
constant, with the module changing in each column. The annulus teeth always corre-
sponded to the lower gear ratio tolerance and so those solutions containing larger
numbers of annulus teeth than that required to give the lower gear ratio tolerance were
not covered. As these solutions may Contain the optimum design the whole range must
be examined from which the true optimum can be found.
Figure 3 shows typical results obtained from a gear specification using the second
refinement method, from which it is possible to deduce:
(i) All feasible solutions in the matrix are positioned at several limited columns in a
narrow strip form.
(ii) The first row in Fig. 3 corresponds to a certain row in Fig. 1.
(iii) The value of the centre distance or gear pair volume of the first feasible solution
in a column is the minimum for that column because the annulus tooth numbers increase
downwards.
According to the rules above there are only four columns which provide feasible
solutions. Column A need not be calculated as the first feasible solution of this column
has already been calculated by the belt zone process. Other solutions in column A all
give larger centre distances and volumes than that in the first row. The results in column
B, while giving feasible solutions are all greater in magnitude than the results in column
A and therefore do not need to be calculated. In column D only the first feasible
solution has to be computed and the same is true for column C, if a solution exists in
this column.

mnj

C D A B

X X X x X X 0 0 X X

X X X X X X 0 0 X X

X X x X X X 0 0 X x

X X X X X 0 0 0 X X

T2k X X X X x 0 0 0 X x

X X X X X 0 0 0 X x

X X X X X 0 0 0 X X

X X X X X 0 0 0 X x

X X x X X 0 0 0 X x

X X X X X 0 0 0 X x

FIG. 3. " ' H a l f s e c t i o n " s o l u t i o n m a t r i x .

 Optimisation of Internal Gears 497

In order to reduce the work involved in searching for the first feasible solutions in
columns C and D, the "half section algorithm" was developed. This is shown in Fig.
4. We do not know the row number in which the first feasible solution in column C
exists. As the algorithm shows, the process starts by calculating the last solution in
column C as this is almost always a feasible solution.
The second computation is carried out by halving the number of rows and moving
to that point in the column. If at this point a feasible solution exists, the interval is
halved again and the next calculation is carried out at the corresponding point above
and so on. In this way solutions rapidly converge on the optimum for a given column.
Using the strategies described above, the number of computations required to find
the true optimum can be drastically reduced. The 2 x 104 combinations in the example
previously mentioned can be reduced to around 200, which in computer terms allows
optimum designs to be produced very quickly.

J 0, ,ontee.. J
I
l
CaLcuLateset. of annulus teeth TB~,Tm=. . . . TeK
No~e total number K

[ l
LOOp:columns C "to D (Fig.3) ],
l

+.
I CaLcuLate focewidth at bottom m of columns

J Note tirst number in ~ e column as: NA ~ I

Note Lost number in ~l~e column o s : N B ~ K

.+
J CaLcuLatemiddle number in the column, NC
NC = ( NA +NB)/2 -take integer

I
I t I

FIG. 4. "Halfsection" search algorithm.

Influence of design constraints

For the optimisation methods to be of practical use they must allow the designer to
impose whatever constraints they feel are needed on the design. For example, they
might wish to limit tooth numbers or achieve a specified contact ratio while seeking an
optimum solution at the same time. For this reason any known gear parameter, with
the exception of the module, may be constrained by the user in the program described
here, although first or second preferred or non-standard modules can be selected.
498 B.S. TONC a n d D . WALTON

The minimum number of pinion teeth is set at 15, but this figure will often producel
very small pinions and practical problems then arise, particularly if shafts or bearings)
are to be inserted in the gear hub. Even so the user may specify any number of pinion.
teeth over a range of 10-120. The user can specify both the upper and lower gear ratio
tolerance. The range of annulus teeth will depend on the tolerances. A wide lower
tolerance usually results in a lower number of annulus teeth and a smaller centre*
distance and volume. The minimum transverse contact ratio is 1.4 but higher values i
can be set by the user. The effect of raising the contact ratio will often result in larger
gear pairs particularly when high powers must be transmitted.
The choice of gear materials is left to the user but as materials are important in
obtaining an optimum gear pair two messages are displayed at the end of each analysis.'
The first message refers to which gear (pinion or annulus) and which load capacity
(strength or wear) govers the facewidth. The second message gives the ratio of computed
pinion to annulus facewidths (bJb2) for strength and wear. These ratios provide an
important and useful guide to the user as they indicate the efficiency of the selected

OPTIMISATION OF INTERNAL G E A R PAIRS

Mech.Eng.Dept. University of B i r m i n g h a m

Title s Opt~msaton of 4 s l drive

*teINPUT DATA** t
Imperial or SI system (ImImperlal, 2=SI)? 2
Nomlnal gear ratio ( I)? 4
Upper t o l e r a n c e on 9ear ratio O.I
Lower tolerance on gear ratio O.i
Power -kW? 5.74
Pinion speed-rpm? 3000
M~imum allowable p i n i o n teeth is 15, Is this OK ? (O-YES, I-NO} O
Helix angle-deg (O~SPUR gear}? O
Total life-hours (O~@quiv.lfe)? iOOOO
M a t e r i a l data s
O-details, I~CI,2-PB, cast 3-MS, 4~En8,N 5 - E n S , H T , 6 - E n 8 , S H
7-En24,BT 8-En24, sH,gmEn32, lO~En34, ll-En36,12~own

Pinion material? 7
A n n u l u s material? 5
Type s (lmGrounu,2mCut)? 2
Define tooth sizes (lmlst praf. 2-1st & 2nd pref, 3=Non-standard)
M~nlmum a l l o w a b l e t r a n s v e r s e c o n t a c t ratio (O-unspecifled) O
P e r c e n t a g e a l l o w a n c e on f a c e w i d t h limits (O%-80%)? O
O p t ~ m i s e for (l-mln centre d~stance. 2=min volume) 1

DATA (~dsplay, 2~change item , 3-change all, 4~ok, 5-stop) I

**e* Design SpeEicati~ t***

Power = 5.7400 k W
G e a r Rat~o - 4.0000 II Tolerance -+ .iO
- .10
Pnlon Speed m 3000.00 revs/mln
M ~ n ~ m u m plnlon teeth m iO.O
Spur Gears

Total L~fe m IOOOO.O hr

Plnlon Materlal s E n 2 4 S s H T
Units in PSIs U T 8 = 1 2 3 2 0 0 . O Surf str fact=3OOO.O Bend sir fact=33500.O
Annulus Material s En8SIH&T
Unlts .in PSIs U T 8 - 8 9 6 O O . O Surf str fact-2OOO.O Bend sir fact=24500.O

Tooth Size Deflntlon s ist & 2nd pref

T r a n s v e r s e contact ratio m 1.40

Percentage a l l o w a n c e on facewldth l i m i t s m O.OO %

Optlmlsatlon based on m l n l m u m centre distance

DATA (l=display. 2-change tem. 3mehange a l l , 4~ok. 5-stop) 4

 Optimisation of Internal Gears 499

**** GEAR DESIGN RESULTS ****

MAn centre olstance : 47.0000 mm

Volume - 1 6 4 . 4 9 1 3 cc

pinion teeth - 16 Annulus teeth - 63

Module - 2.000 mm
Gear ratlo - 3.9375 Error = -0.0625

S p u r gear
Facewldth - 25.8227 mm Width/Module = 12.91
R e a s o n a b l e FW - 12.56 to 26.OOm~
Pressure angle- 2Odeg
**Wheel wear governs facewidth
P i n i o n F W / A n n u l u s F W (for w e a r ) 0.9525
P i n i o n F W / A n n u l u s F W (for s t r e n g t h ) - 1.OO26
* * M a t e r i a l c h o l c e is e a t l s f a c t o r y

Contact ratio in t r a n s v e r s e - 1.60

Display design details 6 Select new item to be o p t l m l s e d

Display design results 7 Restart ** C h a n g e Item(s)

Display gear specification 8 Display & record all feasible solutlonl

Gear pair graphics 9 Notes to o u t p u t file

Record results IO END program

*** NEXT STEP *** z

**t. DESIGN DETAILS ****

Pinion Annulus
Materlal En24SxHT En8SzH&T
N u m b e r of t e e t h 16 63
P.C.D. 32.0000 mm .OOOO m
O u t s i d e dia 37.4OOO~ 123.4OOO M
Root Dia 28.40OOmm 132.4OOO M
B a s e Dis 30.0702 m~ 118.4013 HEa

Addendum 2.7000 mm 1.3OOO m

Dedendum 1.8OOO m~ 3.2000 m
Proflle shift 0.3500 -0.3500

P i t c h llne vel 5.03 m/s 5.03 m/s

Contact Ratio (nransveree) 1.60 1.60
Speed 3000.00 revs/mln 761.90 revs/mln
Torque 18.29 N.m 72.03 N.m
Safety Factor 27.29 18.77
Tang Force 1143.39 N -1143.39 N
Radial Force 416.16 N -416.16 N
Axial Force O.OO N O.OO N

Fic. 5. Sample print-out of program.

gear materials. For example, it is usual to choose a stronger material for the pinion in
order to balance the wear. If the ratio of facewidths is at or near 1 this would indicate
a good material choice, but if the ratio were much greater than 1 this would indicate
that the pinion material is too weak (or the annulus too strong) and hence that the
gear pair volume or centre distance is above the minimum that could be obtained. This
information is provided in order that true minimum centre distance and volume designs
can be obtained, although there might be other practical limits on materials, such as
costs and machineability that prevent this optimum from being reached.
The limits placed on allowable facewidths have been discussed, but it frequently
arises that smaller gears can be designed if solutions just outside the normal facewidth
range are accepted. The decision as to whether or not these solutions can be used
should be left to the user. For this reason the program has been designed to allow the
user to override the normal permissible facewidths and to allow the designer to specify
a percentage allowance on facewidth limits.
500 B.S. TONG and D. WALTON

Case study
Figure 5 shows the interactive steps involved in designing an optimum 4 : 1 internal
spur gear drive. For this example a fairly wide tolerance has been placed on the gear
ratio but the user has not elected to seek designs outside the normal range of allowable
gear facewidths. The objective function is minimum centre distance. The design relates
to a product that has been manufactured [1]. This gearbox was designed manually
which resulted in a centre distance of 60 mm, compared to 47 mm using the optimisation
program. Figure 6 shows the differences in the gear pair sizes resulting from the
optimisation.

2.~5 82 Nodule- 2.000

- - ' / p ~ ~\ \ -.~---:- - K1 - 350

K2 - -. 350

I Ratlo

Angle

Scale
=

-
3.937:1

.00

.40

- 23"i2
~ -
Nodule-

K1 -
2.000

. 2 5 0

Ratio 4. 000:1

Angle .00

Scale .40

FiG. 6. Comparison of results from optimization (top) and using IGD (bottom) [1].

Using the design specification in Fig. 5 enables a comparison to be made of changing

some of the design constraints. Figure 7 shows the effect on the centre distance of the
number of pinion teeth. The results show that the smallest centre distance is not
necessarily obtained when the number of gear teeth is a minimum. When the number
of pinion teeth are reduced to 15, the module required to give an adequately strong
gear tooth results in a centre distance greater than the true optimum.
Figure 8 shows the optimum gear pair volume plotted against pinion teeth numbers.
The true optimum volume is heavily influenced by the number of pinion teeth. Small
numbers of teeth require a large module in order to make the teeth strong enough and
this increases the gear pair volume. When the pinion tooth numbers exceed 30 the
volume increases again, even though the modules are small, as the facewidth required
to provide the necessary bending and wear strength becomes progressively larger.
 Optimisation of Internal Gears 501

J
lO5-
100-
95-
M=1.12/
90-
85"
i
~ 80-

1!t 75-
"0
70-

60.
55. M. oll I .
50. M-a25// /
l b 1's 2'0 2'5 do 3's 4'0 4's 5b 5'5 ~ ~ r'0
teeth

FIG. 7. Influence of tooth numbers on centre distance for a range of modules.

180-

175-
M'2"5/
170-
165-
160-
155-
150-
145- M=2.(
140-
% 135-
0
130-
125-
~>
120- M=1.75~
115-
110-
105-
100-
95- .. ~I M.~.12 5
90- M=1.375

, , i i i i

lb 1~i 2'0 2'5 3b 3'5 4b 45 so 55 60 65 70

Pinion Teeth

FIG. 8. Influence of tooth numbers on gear pair volume for a range of modules.
502 B . S . TONG and D. WALTON

Table 1 shows the results obtained from increasing the allowances on facewidth limits.
For this design there was no change in the centre distance until the allowable facewidth
limit was increased to 15% over that normally permitted. Increasing the facewidth
allowance to 30% only resulted in a reduction of 3 mm in the optimum centre distance.
The effect of facewidth limits on optimum gear pair volume is shown in Table 2. The
table shows the interesting result that the minimum volume is not affected by increasing
facewidth allowances over a wide but sensible range. The increase in facewidth when
the allowance is 20% or higher is compensated by a reduction in the tooth size.
Table 3 shows the results obtained from changing the gear materials. Note that for
design 1 the optimum volume is better than for design 2, but for design 2 the optimum
centre distance is better than design 1. The results show the need for the designer to
be cautious in choosing materials when attempting to obtain optimum designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal gears are frequently used where space considerations are particularly import-
ant and which call for minimum gear sizes. Under these conditions optimisation tools
are most useful. The computer aided design program for internal gear pairs described
in [1] showed that internal gears could be rapidly designed. The present program has
developed the design process a stage further and permits users to obtain an optimum
result immediately. The speed of the calculations encourages the designer to investigate
the effects of changing the specification.
The search methods described here are efficient for solving non-linear programming
problems with discrete variables. The techniques can be used for the optimisation of
other gear configurations such as bevel and worm gears which have discontinuous
design variables.

TABLE I

Percentage Minimum centre

allowance on distance
facewidth Pinion teeth Annulus teeth Module Facewidth minimum CD
No. limit (%) T~ 7"_, m (ram) b (ram) (ram)

1 0 6 63 2.0 25.82 47
2 5 16 63 2.0 25.82 47
3 10 16 63 2.0 25.82 47
4 15 15 59 2.0 29.46 44
5 20 15 59 2.0 29.46 44
6 30 17 67 1.75 29.06 43.75
7 50 16 63 1.75 32.83 41.12

TABLE 2

Percentage
allowance on Minimum volume
facewidth Pinion teeth Annulus teeth Module Facewidth minimum V
No. limit (%) TI 7",_ m (ram) b (ram) (cm 3)

1 0 30 117 1.375 15.61 92.29

2 5 30 117 1.375 15.61 92.29
3 10 30 117 1.375 15.61 92.29
4 15 30 117 1.375 15.61 92.29
5 20 30 117 1.25 18.89 92.29
6 30 30 117 1.25 18.89 92.29
7 50 30 117 1.25 18.89 92.29
 Optimisation of Internal Gears 503

J~ a~

=1 ~ =1 =1 o

e-

~ oo oo

.o

E E oh ~ vh
E E
~r

J~

oo

L~

o"1 I~ ~h I ~-

E-

.=.~Z :
~'E
504 B.S. TONG and D. WALTON

REFERENCES
[1] B. S. TONG and D. WALTON,Int. J. Mach. Tools Manufact. 27, 479--489 (1987).
[2] M. SAVAGE,J. J. CoY and D. P. TOWNSENO,J. Mech. Design 104, 749-757 (1982).
[3] D. HOGHSON GODA5 (gear optimization and design analyses 5,) International highway meeting and
exposition, Mecca, Milwaukee. SAE Technology Paper No. 801026, September (1980).
[4] D. D. WroTE and J. L. HENDERSON, Computer-aided spur gear design. National farm construction and
machinery meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SAE Technical Paper No. 69054. September (1969).
[5] H. E. MERaVrr, Gear Engineering, Pitman Publishing (1970).
[6] E. BUCKINGHAM,Analytical Mechanics of Gears, Dover Publications, New York (1963).