0
RESEARCH PAPERS

Error Analysis on Finite Element Modeling of Involute Spur Gears

[+] Author and Article Information
Jian D. Wang

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia

Ian M. Howard1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australiai.howard@curtin.edu.au

1

Corresponding author.

J. Mech. Des 128(1), 90-97 (May 02, 2005) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2114891 History: Received February 04, 2004; Revised May 02, 2005

Finite element analysis can incorporate two-dimensional (2D) modeling if the geometry, load, and boundary conditions meet the requirements. For many applications, a wide range of problems are solved in 2D, due to the efficiency and costs of computation. However, care has to be taken to avoid modeling errors from significantly influencing the result. When the application area is nonlinear, such as when modeling contact problems or fracture analysis, etc, the 2D assumption must be used cautiously. In this paper, a large number of 2D and three-dimensional (3D) gear models were investigated using finite element analysis. The models included contact analysis between teeth in mesh, a gear body (disk), and teeth with and without a crack at the tooth root. The model results were compared using parameters such as the torsional (mesh) stiffness, tooth stresses and the stress intensity factors that are obtained under assumptions of plane stress, plane strain, and 3D analysis. The models considered variations of face width of the gear from 5 mm to 300 mm. This research shows that caution must be used especially where 2D assumptions are used in the modeling of solid gears.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

The FE models of the research

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The absolute and relative errors of model 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The absolute and relative errors of model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

The absolute and relative errors of model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of the relative errors of models 1, 2, and 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

The tooth contact stresses and the relative errors of model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

The tooth contact stresses and the relative errors of model 3

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

The tooth root stresses and the relative errors of model 2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Singular element and local coordinate systems of crack

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

3D sub-model of the crack region

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

The fracture stress intensity factors and the relative errors of model 3

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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