Strategies for Modeling Friction in Gear Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Manish Vaishya, Rajendra Singh

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1107

J. Mech. Des 125(2), 383-393 (Jun 11, 2003) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1564063 History: Received March 01, 2001; Revised September 01, 2002; Online June 11, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Torsional model of gear pair with friction force
Grahic Jump Location
Typical variation in μ over the entire surface of a spur gear tooth
Grahic Jump Location
Measured pinion deflection in traction (ξ) and sliding (η) direction for Tp=102 Nmp=1000 rpm. (a) Low η0 lubricant, ξ-direction; (b) Low η0 lubricant, η-direction; (c) High η0 lubricant, ξ-direction; (d) High η0 lubricant, η-direction.
Grahic Jump Location
Simulated mesh and friction forces on the two teeth when static and dynamic mesh forces are considered at Γ=1.532, μ=0.1, ζ=0.01, Ωp=2400 rpm (non-resonant condition). (a) Mesh load using N; (b) Mesh load using Fmesh; (c) Ff using N; (d) Ff using Fmesh. Key: [[dashed_line]] 1st tooth in mesh, – 2nd tooth in mesh (2 mesh cycles shown).
Grahic Jump Location
Spectra of total friction force on when static and dynamic mesh forces are considered at Γ=1.532, μ=0.1 and ζ=0.01. (a) Ff calculated using N, at Ωp=2400 rpm (nonresonant condition); (b) Ff using Fmesh, at Ωp=2400 rpm; (c) Ff using N, at Ωp=2300 rpm (resonant condition); (d) Ff using Fmesh, at Ωp=2300 rpm.
Grahic Jump Location
Dynamic response δ(t) for 2000 rpm, ζ=.05, Γ=1.473, μ=0.1, k/kb=5×105 (a) Semi-positive definite system: time response; (b) Semi-positive definite system: frequency spectrum; (c) Positive definite system with extra spring: time response; (d) Positive definite system with extra spring: frequency spectrum.
Grahic Jump Location
Input power to the geared system. (a) With constant output and input torques, mean power=0; (b) With constant input torque and spring attached to output gear, mean power=629 Watts (equivalent to energy loss due to friction).
Grahic Jump Location
Variation of sliding speed for the three friction models. (a) VS for quasistatic case; (b) Vs for LTV model; (c) Vs with nonlinear friction. Key: – 1st tooth, [[dashed_line]] 2nd tooth.
Grahic Jump Location
Variation in coefficient of friction for different models at Ωp=100 rpm, μ=0.1, Γ=1.590, ζ=0.01. (a) No friction; (b) Assumed variation corresponding to Fig. 7(b); (c) Actual variation corresponding to Fig. 7c.
Grahic Jump Location
Sample response for δ due to individual and combined excitations. (a) All excitations combined; (b) Only friction excitation Tf(t).
Grahic Jump Location
Dynamic response for the three friction models in terms of δ, at Ωp=200 rpm, ζ=0.05. (a) LTV system with μ0=0; (b) LTV system with μ0=0.1; (c) NLTV system with μ0=0.1.
Grahic Jump Location
Dynamic response δ(t) with LTV analysis, near resonance conditions for ζ=0.001, μ=0.1, Ωp=1490 rpm, Γ=1.473. (a) LTV system; (b) NLTV system.
Grahic Jump Location
Effect of Coulomb friction on instability zone, (–) with friction, ([[dashed_line]]) without friction (area enclosed within the curves is the unstable zone)




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In