Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT: There are numerous variables involved in the design of a sequential type gear
shifting mechanism. In order to judge the effectiveness of such a mechanism it is essential to
develop a mathematical model that can quantify it. In this paper a mathematical model of a
sequential type gear shifting mechanism is developed. The mathematical model deals with the
forces acting within the system while it is under a static equilibrium. Further, the efficacies of two
such mechanisms are then evaluated for comparison and the superiority of one over the other is
proved. In addition to this, a parameter study is then carried out using MATLAB to individually
assess the effect of each parameter on the output so as to provide a mathematical rationale at the
design stage itself.
KEYWORDS: mathematical model, design variables, drum, fork, fork roller, fork rail, drum
torque, axial force, efficacy of mechanism.
1. INTRODUCTION
Gear Shifting is a sophisticated phenomenon present in all automobiles equipped with manual
transmissions. A mechanism that can effectively handle the issue of gear shifting is always in
demand. Apart from shifting the gear, the effort it brings for the driver on the gear shifting lever is
vital for a gear shifting mechanism. In order to reduce the effort needed to effect a gear change it is
imperative to mathematically evaluate all the design variables linked with the shifting elements.
There are two types of shifting elements involved in gear shifting: Internal shifting elements and
external shifting elements [1].
• Internal shifting elements are the elements that are inside the transmission, such as selector
forks, fork rails, drum etc.
• External shifting elements are the elements that are outside the transmission such as gear
shifting lever, cable controls etc.
The mechanism described here consists of internal shifting elements and the mathematical model
presented deals with the design variables related to these elements.
2. MECHANISM DESCRIPTION
Fork
Fork Rail
Fork Roller
Drum
Star Wheel
Shift Lever-2
Torsion Spring
Shift Lever-1
Tension Spring
Figure 2.1 An illustration of the Sequential Gear Shifting Mechanism
2.1 Construction
The mechanism shown above consists of the following major components:
2.2 Working
The shift lever-1 is rotated with the help of a push-pull type wire. As shift lever-1 rotates, it rotates
the shift lever-2 which in turn rotates the star wheel with a fixed angle (60 degrees). Since, the star
wheel is bolted with the drum, it is also indexed with 60 degrees. Due to this fixed rotation of the
drum the forks engaged in the grooves on the drum surface, with the help of a roller, are moved
axially on the shifter rail. This axial movement of the fork leads to the axial movement of the
shifting sleeve. The desired direction of the fork movement can be governed by engraving a
corresponding groove on the drum surface. Now the magnitude of drum toque required depends on
the various parameters involved e.g. groove ramp angle, drum radius, shifter rail diameter, fork
dimensions etc. The shifting feel is hampered in case the required drum torque exceeds a certain
value. In addition to this, in order to convert this system into an automated shifting mechanism the
drum torque required should be minimized so as to actuate the mechanism with the smallest
possible actuator.
The developed mathematical model is a simplified form of the actual mechanism as described in
section 2. Only the following components are selected for developing the model:
1. Drum
2. Fork Roller
3. Fork
4. Fork Rail
Further since at a time only one fork will come into action, hence only one fork is considered in
the mathematical model.
TD
Ffa2
Ffa1
Figure 3.1 Simplified representation of the mechanism with external forces & moments acting on
it.
3.1 Assumptions
3.2 Objective
To establish a relationship between the axial force to be developed on shifting sleeve and the
required drum torque.
3.3 Inputs
The value of µfr for lubricated steel to steel contact is considered as 0.16 and for steel to aluminium
contact is considered as 0.12.
The value of µrl for lubricated steel to steel contact is considered as 0.16.
For clarification of the above design variables please refer to Fig.3.6.2, Fig.3.6.3, Fig. 3.7.3, Fig.
3.7.4 and Fig.3.7.5.
3.5 Outputs
The various reactions, moments and friction forces acting within the system are considered to be
the output of the model with the Drum Torque, TD being the most important output.
In order to study the interaction of the fork roller and the drum a developed view of the drum
profile is obtained by unwrapping the drum profile.
The forces acting on the drum are as shown in view V. These forces are responsible for developing
a tangential force and an axial force on the drum. The tangential force is responsible for canceling
the moment, TD applied on the drum and hence,
Figure 3.6.1 Developed View of Drum Profile & Force Components acting on it
fl = url R2 (3.6.3)
Figure 3.6.2 Free-body Diagram of Fork Roller
Considering static equilibrium along XR-axis
Fx = 0
R1 cosθ − R2 cos θ + fl sin θ − f r sin θ = 0 (3.6.4)
Considering static equilibrium along YR-axis
Fy = 0
− R1 sin θ − f r cos θ + R2 sin θ + fl cos θ = 0 (3.6.5)
The forces acting on fork lug can finally be expressed as the tangential force (FT), axial force (FA)
and moment (Mfl) as mentioned in the following equations.
FT = R2 sin θ + fl cos θ (3.6.8)
FA = R2 cos θ − fl sin θ (3.6.9)
d
M f = fl × l (3.6.10)
2
3.7 Fork Free-Body Diagram
Since the fork will be sliding on the rail the friction forces acting on the fork can be established
using the following relationships:
f y1 = u fr N y1 (3.7.1)
f y 2 = u fr N y 2 (3.7.2)
f x1 = u fr N x1 (3.7.3)
f x 2 = u fr N x 2 (3.7.4)
3.7.2 Development of Force & Moment Equations
A2
A1
AC
ξ ξ
DS
E1 E2
YF
ZF XF
Figure 3.8.1 Design variables defining the fork geometry
It was observed that the design variables A1, A2, E1 & E2 are related and that by introducing two
more variables the total number of design variables can be optimized.
A1, A2, E1 & E2 can then be related using the following equations:
AC − A2 A1 − AC
sin ξ = = (3.8.1)
Ds Ds
2 2
The value of ξ evaluated from the above equation and can then be substituted in the following
equations to calculate A1, E1 & E2.
Ds
A1 = AC + sin ξ (3.8.2)
2
Ds
E1 = E 2 = cos ξ (3.8.3)
2
The following design variables are then eliminated:
S
DESIGN VARIABLES ELIMINATED DESIGNATION
NO.
1 Arm Length of Fork Leg Force Opposite to Lug Side A1
2 Offset Distance of Fork Leg opposite to Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E1
3 Offset Distance of Fork Leg on Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E2
Angle between 'Perpendicular to Radial Reaction from Shifting Sleeve' & 'Line joining
Fork Leg Center to Rail Center'
ξ
4
The fork leg offset from fork lug center should always lie between –B1 and B2.
- B1 ≤ O3 ≤ B2 (3.8.4)
The lug diameter should always be less than the roller diameter. In case the roller diameter is equal
to the lug diameter that means no roller is used and the equations can simply be modified by
equating dl equal to dr.
dl ≤ dr (3.8.5)
The fork rail diameter should always be less than the dimension C as fork rail is to be
accommodated within this dimension.
d < C (3.8.6)
So, finally the following design variables are considered as the optimum number of variables
required to define a system completely.
The efficacy of the mechanism is defined as the effectiveness of the mechanism to convert a given
drum torque into axial force on Shifting Sleeve Collar.
Ffa ( kg )
η= (4.1)
TD ( kgm )
The following data is provided as input to the above mentioned model for Mechanism-A & B.
B2 mm 84.4 24.3
C mm 15.0 15.1
dl mm 5.0 5.0
dr mm 8.3 8.0
O3 mm 67.8 15.2
ϕ deg 62.1 86.2
d mm 13.0 12.0
θ deg 42.5 42.5
R mm 24.5 24.5
Ds mm 79.6 91.9
Ac mm 66.2 76.0
Table 4.1 Value of various parameters for Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B
Mechanism-A is having the fork attached with the fork rail such that the entire fork-rail assembly is
shifted while the fork moves axially. This means the coefficient of friction between the rail and
casing comes into action i.e. around 0.12.
Mechanism-B is having bushes between the fork & the rail due to which the coefficient of friction
has reduced drastically to 0.07.
Based on the above mentioned data the equations mentioned in section 3 are solved so as to
evaluate the required Drum Torque and other outputs. The following outputs are obtained for the
two mechanisms.
Outputs Units Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
Ffa1 Kg 0.62 0.55
Ffa2 Kg 11.38 11.45
FT Kg 20.98 20.12
FA Kg 16.64 15.95
Nx1 Kg 5.07 -2.55
Nx2 Kg 9.78 8.28
Ny1 Kg 1.08 12.30
Ny2 Kg 22.71 33.36
Fft Kg 5.89 4.49
R1 Kg 24.90 23.96
R2 Kg 26.44 25.36
fr Kg 2.55 2.54
fl Kg 4.23 4.06
fx1 Kg 0.61 0.18
fx2 Kg 1.17 0.58
fy1 Kg 0.13 0.86
fy2 Kg 2.72 2.34
TD Kg-M 0.489 0.470
The efficacy of the mechanism to convert a given drum torque into fork axial force for Mechanism-
A is 24.51 & for Mechanism-B is 25.45.
Drum Torque Required Vs Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) Drum Torque Required Vs Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa)
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
Drum Torque Required (kgm)
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) (kg) Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) (kg)
Various graphs of the important forces, reactions & friction forces are presented as follows:
Mechanism-A Mechanism-B Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
25 40
35
20
30
15 25
20
10
15
10
5
5
0 0
Ffa1 Ff a2 FT FA Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Fft R1 R2
-5
Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
4.5
The graph in Fig.4.3 shows that the reaction N1
4 is negative for Mechanism B and hence, the
3.5 equation (3.7.8) needs to be modified to
3
accommodate the change in position of fx1.
Further since, in Mechanism-B a bush is used
2.5
between the fork and the rail, hence even when
2 Ny2 is higher, the corresponding friction force,
1.5 fy2, is lesser as shown in Fig.4.4
1
0.5
0
fr fl fx1 fx2 fy1 f y2
The above graph shows that the friction losses are maximum at the fork lug and roller interface. In
order to reduce these losses a coating can be used on the inner surface of the roller so as to reduce
these losses.
6. PARAMETER STUDY
A study of the influence of all parameters on Drum Torque is carried out so as to access the role of
each parameter. In this Parameter Study while a parameter is being changed within its constrained
design space all others are kept constant. The changes in the location of friction forces acting
between the fork and the fork rail due to the change in the direction of the normal reactions is also
taken care of in this study.
6.1 The influence of Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side (A2)
0.55
Drum Torque Required Vs Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side(A2) The graph shows that drum torque
increases non-linearly with increase in
0.54
A 2.
0.53
Drum Torque Required (kgm)
0.52
0.51
0.5
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side(A2) (mm)
6.2 The influence of Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opp to Lug Side end (B1)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end(B1)
0.493
0.49
0.489
0.488
0.487
0.486
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end(B1) (mm)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end(B2)
0.62
The graph shows that drum torque
0.6 decreases non-linearly with increase in
B2 and finally becomes constant.
0.58
Drum Torque Required (kgm)
0.56
0.54
0.52
0.5
0.48
0.46
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end (B2) (mm)
6.4 The influence of Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line (C)
0.51
0.505
0.5
0.495
0.49
0.485
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line(C) (mm)
0.5
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fork Lug Diameter(dl) (mm)
0.51
0.505
0.5
0.495
0.49
0.485
0.48
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Fork Lug Roller Diameter(dr) (mm)
0.505
0.5
0.495
0.49
0.485
0.48
0.475
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Fork Leg offset from Lug Center(O3) (mm)
6.8 The influence of Fork Lug Angle from the Z-axis as viewed in XY plane(φ)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Lug Angle(phi)
0.53
0.52
The graph shows that drum torque first
increases and then decreases with
0.51 increase in O3. There is value for which
Drum Torque Required (kgm)
0.5
the drum torque is maximum, so design
should be such that it should that value
0.49 of φ.
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fork Lug Angle(phi) (degrees)
0.4897
0.4896
0.4895
0.4894
0.4893
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rail Diameter(d) (mm)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Groove Ramp Angle (degrees)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Drum Radius(R) (mm)
0.49
below a certain value may not be
possible, so as far as possible this
0.485 diameter should be kept as low as
possible.
0.48
0.475
0.47
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sleeve Mean Diameter(Ds) (mm)
0.5
0.495
0.49
0.485
0.48
0.475
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center(Ac) (mm)
7. CONCLUSION
The developed Mathematical Model successfully evaluated the Efficacy of the Gear Shifting
Mechanism to convert a given Drum Torque into Axial Force generated at the shifting sleeve
collar. Further, it evaluated the effect of various design variables on the drum torque.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Author thanks Prashant D Sutar and his colleagues of the “Team Transmission” at R&D, Bajaj
Auto Ltd. for their support during the execution of this research work.
REFERENCES
clc;
clear all;
fo = 60;
do = 1;
o = 0*pi/180;
Ffa = 12.00;
ufr = 0.12;
Ds = 79.63;
Ac = 66.22;
A2 = 45.35;
B1 = 17.64;
B2 = 84.35;
C = 14.95;
dl = 5.00;
dr = 8.30;
zeta = asin(2*(Ac-A2)/Ds);
A1 = A2+Ds*sin(zeta);
O3 = 67.8;
O1 = B1+O3;
O2 = B2-O3;
E1 = Ds*cos(zeta)/2;
E2 = Ds*cos(zeta)/2;
phi = 62.08*pi/180;
d = 13.00;
url = 0.16;
R = 24.50;
TDRUM = [];
for o=0:do*pi/180:fo*pi/180
A = [ 1 -1 sin(phi) 0 0 0 0 0 sin(zeta) 0;
ufr ufr 0 -1 ufr ufr 0 0 0 0 ;
-(B1+ufr*d/2) -(B2+ufr*d/2) sin(phi)*O3 C*cos(phi) 0 0 A1 A2 0 url*d*sin(phi)/2 ;
0000001100;
0 0 0 C*sin(phi) -(O1-ufr*d/2) O2+ufr*d/2 E1 -E2 O3 url*d*cos(phi)/2 ;
0 0 cos(phi) 0 -1 -1 0 0 cos(zeta) 0;
0 0 -C*cos(zeta)/A2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0;
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -(sin(o)+url*cos(o));
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -(cos(o)-url*sin(o));
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ];
B= [ 0 -Ffa 0 Ffa 0 0 0 0 0 sqrt(A1^2+E1^2)/(sqrt(A1^2+E1^2)+sqrt(A2^2+E2^2))]';
X= inv(A)* B; %Solving for x
if(X(1)<0) %checking if Ny1<0
A(2,1)=-A(2,1); %modifying equation as Ny1<0
end
if(X(2)<0) %checking if Ny2<0
A(2,2)=-A(2,2); %modifying equation as Ny2<0
end
if(X(5)<0) %checking if Nx1<0
A(2,5)=-A(2,5); %modifying equation as Nx1<0
end
if(X(6)<0) %checking if Nx2<0
A(2,6)=-A(2,6); %modifying equation as Nx2<0
end
X= inv(A)* B; %Resolving for x
TDRUM = [TDRUM (R1_temp*sin(o)+url*X(10)*cos(o))*R/1000];
end
O=0:do:fo;
h1=plot(O,TDRUM);
Title('Drum Torque Required Vs Groove Ramp Angle');
xlabel('Groove Ramp Angle (degrees)');
ylabel('Drum Torque Required (kgm)');
hold on;
grid on;
pause;
clear all;
close all;
clc;
NOTE: Please note that the values of the various design variables used in the above mentioned
MATLAB code is for Mechanism A.