0
Research Papers

Robust Optimization of Cylindrical Gear Tooth Surface Modifications Within Ranges of Torque and Misalignments

[+] Author and Article Information
Alessio Artoni

e-mail: alessio.artoni@ing.unipi.it

Massimo Guiggiani

e-mail: massimo.guiggiani@ing.unipi.it
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale,
University of Pisa,
Largo Lucio Lazzarino 2, Pisa 56122, Italy

Ahmet Kahraman

e-mail: kahraman.1@osu.edu

Jonny Harianto

e-mail: harianto.1@osu.edu
Gear and Power Transmission
Research Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University,
201 West 19th Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210

m is defined here as a nondimensional number, being expressed as the net displacement at one side of the tooth divided by the face width (slope).

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Power Transmission and Gearing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 31, 2013; final manuscript received July 23, 2013; published online September 18, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Matthew B Parkinson.

J. Mech. Des 135(12), 121005 (Sep 18, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1045; doi: 10.1115/1.4025196 History: Received January 31, 2013; Revised July 23, 2013

Tooth surface modifications are small, micron-level intentional deviations from perfect involute geometries of spur and helical gears. Such modifications are aimed at improving contact pressure distribution, while minimizing the motion transmission error to reduce noise excitations. In actual practice, optimal modification requirements vary with the operating torque level, misalignments, and manufacturing variance. However, most gear literature has been concerned with determining optimal flank form modifications at a single design point, represented by fixed, single load and misalignment values. A new approach to the design of tooth surface modifications is proposed to handle such conditions. The problem is formulated as a robust design optimization problem, and it is solved, in conjunction with an efficient gear contact solver (Load Distribution Program (LDP)), by a direct search, global optimization algorithm aimed at guaranteeing global optimality of the obtained microgeometry solutions. Several tooth surface modifications can be used as microgeometry design variables, including profile, lead, and bias modifications. Depending on the contact solver capabilities, multiple performance metrics can be considered. The proposed method includes the capability of simultaneously and robustly handling several conflicting design objectives. In the present paper, peak contact stress and loaded transmission error amplitude are used as objective functions (to be minimized). At the end, two example optimizations are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Some typical tooth surface modifications

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Optimal total surface modification for problem (1). (3 μm profile crown; 14 μm lead crown.)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Variation of PPTE with torque (design point optimization)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Selected weight distribution functions and corresponding robust counterparts (shown for torque only)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A multi-objective optimization problem with two design variables and two objectives

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Reference points F˜1 (infeasible) and F˜2 (feasible) projected onto the Pareto front and their corresponding Pareto-optimal objective vectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pareto front exploration: reference points and their corresponding Pareto-optimal objective vectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Robust optimization of PPTE: optimal tooth surface (total) modifications corresponding to the three proposed robustness measures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Robust optimization of PPTE: optimized PPTE curves (thicker) versus those obtained in Ref. [14] (thinner)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Robust optimization of PPTE and pmax: reference points and robust Pareto-optimal objective vectors

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Robust optimization of PPTE and pmax: Pareto-optimal tooth surface (total) modifications

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Robust multi-objective optimization of PPTE and pmax: optimized PPTE and pmax curves versus those obtained in Ref. [14]

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