COMPARISON Symbol Units ČSN ČSN

12050.6 14220.4

OF CAPABILITIES OF FINITE Density

Tensile Strength
ρ
Rm
[kg/m3]
[MPa]
7870
640
7870
785

ELEMENT METHOD AND Tensile Strength, Yield

Tooth Hardness – Core
Re
JHV
[MPa]
[HV]
390
200
588
250

SPECIALIZED SOFTWARE
Tooth Hardness – Side VHV [HV] 0 650
Contact Fatigue Limit SHlim [MPa] 520 1270

PROGRAMS IN EVALUATION
Bending Fatigue Limit SFlim [MPa] 410 700
Young‘s Modulus (Modulus of Elasticity) E [GPa] 206 206

OF GEARS
Poison‘s Ratio ν [–] 0.3 0.3
Table 1. Input parameters for the strength check using
the Inventor software, KISSsoft
VACLAVA LASOVA, PETR BERNARDIN, EVA KRONEROVA
University of West Bohemia, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Parameter Symbol Unit Pinion Wheel
Department of Machine Design, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Power P [kW] 3 2.971
DOI: 10.17973/MMSJ.2015_06_201515 Speed n [min –1] 20 9.5
e-mail: [email protected] Number of teeth z [–] 20 42
Correction x1 [–] 0 0
When performing the evaluation of engineering structures, today’s
Helix angle β [°] 0 0
designers fully depend on software tools available to their employer.
Pure-rolling centre distance aw [mm] 372
The choice of a software program for design calculations and
evaluation of structural elements is typically dictated by its price. Gear ratio i [–] 2.1
Where the demand for engineering design services involves simple Module m [mm] 12
structures, the designers turn to single-purpose programs based on Gear width b [mm] 80
engineering tables or databases, particularly in small companies. Life Lh [hrs] 5000
Finite element method (FEM)-based tools for structural analysis Material 12050.6 14220.4
are much less affordable. Also, the time required for FEM analysis
Table 2. Input parameters for the strength check using
is considerably longer than with other methods. As the available
the Inventor software, KISSsoft
design completion times tend to be short, designers typically have
to rely on specialized programs (MITCalc, KISSsoft, Autodesk factors may vary, depending on the gear shape, method of manufacture,
Inventor or PREV). Consequently, they have no other choice but to life, notch sensitivity or load pattern. These factors affect the calculation
accept the information and values obtained from these calculation of the contact fatigue strength, bending fatigue strength and the relevant
programs, even without understanding their principles. allowed stress. Their ratios define the pitting sH and bending safety
factors sF,. Those are the key parameters in gear design where failures
KEYWORDS
due to pitting induced by the contact between the teeth and due to
gear calculation, mesh, finite element analysis, root safety, flank safety
bending loads at the tooth root must be prevented. The finite element
method calculation used here did not include the evaluation step. It was
1. INTRODUCTION only employed to find the local stresses caused by the bending load at
The purpose of this study is to present the capabilities of the the tooth root and the pressure along the line of contact on the pitch
aforementioned affordable programs, the FEM method and analytical circle. The conclusion compares the safety factors obtained by means
solutions in calculating and evaluating structural elements and of the various software programs. Stress levels calculated using the
mechanisms. One section of this paper is devoted to comparing aforementioned programs and the FEM method are compared as well.
the programs with respect to materials parameters, loading states,
evaluation criteria and results. A detailed comparison was undertaken Gear Wheel Parameters
for a specific spur gear train. The gear strength analysis was carried In order to check the gear wheel design with regard to pitting resistance
out using analytical software tools [MITCalc 2003-2013, KISSsoft AG and bending strength, one has to provide inputs including the wheel
1998-2014, and PREV 1992] and the finite element method. The results size, module, number of teeth, gear width and service load parameters,
of these various approaches were compared. Different methods (based as shown in Table 2. These parameters were used for developing a 3D
on applicable standards) may be employed in these calculations. Safety model and in calculations using KISSsoft, MITCalc and PREV programs.
Detailed materials data for the pinion and the wheel are given in Table 1
which lists relevant materials characteristics. The wheel is made of the
CSN 14220.4 steel and the pinion material is the CSN 12050.6 steel.

Finite Element Analysis

Gearing calculations using the FEM method are not often used when
designing gear boxes in practice. In this case the numerical calculation
was made as comparative. The contact task considering the linear
behaviour of material took on a standard computer 10 minutes, the
discretization error of the task, which is dependent on the fineness
of the used network, was in normal below 10 %, so the results can
be considered to be accurate enough for comparing with analytical
calculations.
Figure 1 shows the meshes in both gears. For the calculation, it was
Figure 1. Mesh generation necessary to define the shaft and its bedding points as infinitely rigid

610 | 2015 | JUNE | SCIENCE JOURNAL

bodies. The ideal model of the shaft was built of 1D RBE2 elements.
At the points of contact between the gears, fine mesh of CHEXA (20) [4]
elements was applied. In the tooth interior, CTETRA (10) elements were
used. Transition regions between areas with dissimilar elements were Where KF denotes the additional load factor, b is the wheel width, mn
built of pyramid elements. The torque is transmitted between the gears denotes the module, and Fo stands for the tangential force
through contact areas on their teeth. If more accurate results were
required, a non-linear analysis involving a bilinear characteristic of [5]
the sub-surface layer on the tooth face and flank would be necessary
to use. Calculation of the bending safety factor sF

[6]

The Y, Z, K coefficients with relevant indices used in the formulas above

are described in detail in Table 3, where their names, symbols and
values in individual software programs are given.

KISSsoft
Safety MITCalc
Name PREV ISO 6336:2006
factors ISO 6336
Method B
Application
KA 1 1 1
factor
Figure 2. Bending stress at the tooth root in the pinion and the wheel
Dynamic
K Hv 1.01 1.003 1.005
factor
Using the FEM computation, bending stresses (at the tooth root) σF Face load factor
K Hβ 1.2/1.27 1.158 1.067
(contact stress)
and contact stresses (on the pitch circle)σH were found in the pinion and
Transverse load factor
the wheel. Ideally, these stress levels should be equal to those found by KHα 1 1.18 1
(contact stress)
the analytical solution specified in the standard ČSN 01 4686 [4] and Face load factor
K Fβ 1.16/1.22 1.107 1.054
corrected with applicable coefficients. (root stress)
Transverse load factor
K Fα 1.3/1.57 1.18 1
(root stress)
For pitting safety calculation
Elasticity
ZE 189.8 189.812 189.81
factor
Zone
ZH 2.495 2.495 2.495
factor
Contact ratio
Zε 0.89 0.887 0.887
factor
Helix angle
Zβ 1 1 1
factor
Life factor
ZN 1.6 1.174/1.242 1.236/1.331
for contact stress
Figure 3. Contact stress on the pitch circle of the pinion and the wheel Lubricant
ZL 1 1.025/1.02 1.213/1.113
factor
Roughness factor
ZR 1 0.96/0.967 0.84/0.911
Comparison with Results of Calculations affecting surface durability
Using KISSsoft, MITCalc and PREV Peripheral
Zv 1 0.917/0.931 0.877/0.942
speed factor
The purpose of this study is to acquire useful knowledge for checking
Single pair
the strength of gear wheels with the aid of affordable software tools. ZB 1 1.06/1 1.065/1
tooth contact factor
Calculation procedures for the examined programs are based on the ZW Work hardening 1 1.051/1 1
CSN 01 4686 standard. This standard uses the Hertz pressure at the factor
pitch point as the contact strength criterion. For bending safety calculation
Form factor
YFa 2.8/2.37 1.59/1.37 3.036/2.593
(bending)
The formula expressing the Hertz pressure at the pitch point is
Stress correction
YSa 1.48/1.57 1.82/1.99 1.523/1.64
factor
Helix angle
Yβ 1 1 1
factor
where σHO is the nominal contact stress Contact ratio
Yε 0.69 1 0.707
factor
Life factor
YN 1/1.01 0.986/1.006 0.926/1.005
[1] for bending stress
Tooth-root
YR 0.957 0.957/0.957 0.931/0.969
surface factor
Where KH stands for the additional load factor, Fo is the tangential
Size
force, bw is the gear train width, d1 is the pitch circle diameter and i YX
factor 1 0.958/0.93 0.958/0.93
stands for the gear ratio Notch sensitivity
Yδ 1.07/1.11 0.972/0.995 0.976/0.992
factor
[2] Table 3. Inpuat parameters for the strength check using the Inventor, KISSsoft,
and MITCalc software programs
Calculation of the pitting safety factor sH
The formulas for safety factor calculations are identical in all three
[3] software programs, as those are based on a single standard. The
names of Y, K and Z coefficients (including applicable indices) are the

2015 | JUNE | SCIENCE JOURNAL | 611

 Stresses FEM KISSsoft MITCalc Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. FEM (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. FEM (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. KISSsoft (%)

σF 64.01 MPa 58.76 MPa 43.1 MPa 8.2 32.66 26.65

σH 560.5 MPa 560 MPa 443.5 MPa 0.08 20.87 20.80

σFG X 720.4 MPa 330.3 MPa X X 54.15

σHG X 578.19 MPa 574.1 MPa X X 37.52

Table 4. Values and discrepancies between stresses in the pinion

Stresses FEM KISSsoft MITCalc Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. FEM (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. FEM (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. KISSsoft (%)
σF 56.15 MPa 55.47 MPa 39.66 MPa 1.21 29.36 28.5
σH 479.9 MPa 526 MPa 416.7 MPa -9.60 13.16 20.77
σFG X 1247 MPa 628.91 MPa 49.56 X 49.56
σHG X 1448 MPa 1615.6 MPa -11.57 X -11.57

Table 5. Values and discrepancies between stresses in the wheel

Safety factors KISSsoft MITCalc PREV Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. PREV (%) Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. MITCalc (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. PREV (%)
SF 12.26 7.66 7.55 38.41 37.52 1.43
SH 1.03 1.29 1.36 -32.03 -25.24 -5.42
Table 6. Values and discrepancies between pitting and bending safety factors in the pinion

Safety factors KISSsoft MITCalc PREV Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. PREV (%) Discrepancy KISSsoft vs. MITCalc (%) Discrepancy MITCalc vs. PREV (%)
SF 22.49 15.86 12.66 43.7 29.47 20.17
SH 2.75 3.88 3.98 -44.72 -41.09 -2.57
Table 7. Values and discrepancies between pitting and bending safety factors in the wheel

same in most cases. Some coefficients, however, may have different calculation at the tooth root σF and on the pitch circle σH the KISSsoft
names. The differences, for the most part, are only in their symbols program corresponds to the FEM results. The MITCalc program
or, perhaps, there may be different combinations of coefficients in the shows a greater discrepancy, the calculated voltage is lower. For both
various software programs. analytical calculations further allowable stress in contact and bending
More substantial differences are encountered in the calculation of allowed is defined (σFg and σHg). The largest discrepancies were found between
stresses – tooth-root stress limit σFG and pitting stress limit σHG. Minor the σFG values. Here, the difference between KISSsoft and MITCalc
differences can be found in nominal stress calculations. In general, the results is twice as large. This is no random result. A number of follow-
software programs use identical methods for determining the forces against up calculations were carried out. In all cases, identical differences
the teeth but differ in the values of coefficients and, most importantly, in the between σFG values obtained with KISSsoft and MITCalc programs
stress evaluation. Stress results are summarized in Table 4 and 5. were obtained. The question is if it is not just an error in the program.
The above-listed pitting and bending safety factors given in Tables However, this important difference of values has a direct impact on the
6 and 7 are comparable in MITCalc and PREV software tools. The resulting bending safety factor SF and increases the final dimensions.
bending safety factor in KISSsoft differs more substantially from those From this point of view we can say that the differences between the
in the other programs. On the other hand, the pitting safety factor is results obtained by analytical calculations are not fundamental.
comparable with the others. The differences are due to the YFa – Form However, using the MitCalc program is conservative and the designed
factor (bending). It affects the calculation of the YFS coefficient and, in gears using this program are the most robust.
turn, the stress and safety factor magnitudes. Table 3 shows that its
value is approximately twice lower in KISSsoft than in MITCalc and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PREV. The discrepancies in values of both safety factors are caused The work has been supported by Department of Machine Design
by the coefficients defined in particular software programs or by the (University of West Bohemia).
limitations on the selection of coefficient values.
The software programs also recommend certain minimum levels of REFERENCES
pitting SHmin and bending SFmin safety factors. In MITCalc and PREV, [CNI 1998] Czech Normalization Istitute, CSN 01 4686-3. Strength
these limit values are approximately equal. KISSsoft, however, suggests calculation of helical and bevel gears. The control calculation of helical
substantially lower values. The minimum safety factor levels are the gears (in Czech), Prague: 1998
engineering designer’s choice. [KISSsoft AG1998-2014] KISSsoft, Bubikon: Available at: www.kisssoft.ch/
english/downloads/, 1998-2014.
SHmin SFmin [MITCalc 2003-2013] MITCalc 1.7, Available at: www.mitcalc.com/en/
KISSsoft 1 1.4 products.htm, 2003-2013.
MITCalc 1.3 1.6 [PREV 1992] Skoda Machine Tool a.s., PREV (company proprietary
PREV 1.2 1.7 software), Pilsen, 1992
Table 8. Recommended minimum factors of safety for pitting
and bending in individual software programs CONTACTS
Assoc. Prof. Ing. Vaclava Lasova, Ph.D.
CONCLUSION University of West Bohemia, Department of Machine Design
The merits of the present paper include the comparison of results Univerzitni 22, Pilsen, 30614, Czech Republic
using different software programs for gearing designs. During stress tel.: + 420 377 638 200, e-mail: [email protected], www.kks.zcu.cz

612 | 2015 | JUNE | SCIENCE JOURNAL