metals

Article
Fatigue Reliability Prediction Method of Large Aviation
Planetary System Based on Hierarchical Finite Element
Ming Li 1 , Yuan Luo 1 and Liyang Xie 2, *

1 School of Mechatronics Engineering, Shenyang Aerospace University, Shenyang 110136, China

2 School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The reliability of planetary equipment determines the economic affordability and service
safety, to a large extent, for a helicopter transmission system. However, with the continuous im-
provement of the progressiveness and large-scale degree of new aviation planetary equipment, the
contradiction between reliability design indexes and R&D economy is also gradually highlighted.
This paper takes the large aviation planetary system as a research object, aims to accurately evaluate
the system reliability level formed in design processes, and deeply excavates the inherent char-
acteristics of the planetary system in functional realization and builds a system fatigue reliability
evaluation model accordingly. An advanced hierarchical finite element technology is used to calculate
dangerous tooth load histories under the influence of system global elastic behavior, and the tooth
probability fatigue strength is obtained through the gear low-cycle fatigue test and life distribution
transformation method, so as to provide economic load and strength input variables, respectively,
for the reliability model. This prediction method can provide targeted structural optimization guid-
ance in the development and design of the large aviation planetary system and significantly reduce
the cost of reliability index realization for this kind of large-scale, high-end equipment in design
iteration processes.
Citation: Li, M.; Luo, Y.; Xie, L.
Fatigue Reliability Prediction Method
Keywords: planetary transmission; hierarchical analysis; finite element method; reliability modeling;
of Large Aviation Planetary System fatigue test
Based on Hierarchical Finite Element.
Metals 2022, 12, 1785. https://
doi.org/10.3390/met12111785
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Alberto
Campagnolo The heavy-lift helicopter is military and civilian general-purpose strategic equipment
related to core national interests, as well as an important symbol of the aviation science
Received: 27 August 2022 and technology levels and even the comprehensive national strength. The high-power
Accepted: 19 October 2022
transmission system technology is a core technology field for improving the performance
Published: 23 October 2022
of the heavy-lift helicopter by reducing its noise and vibration levels and controlling its
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral life-cycle cost. Both the United States and Russia have listed the reliability and economic
with regard to jurisdictional claims in affordability of the high-power transmission system as key technical indicators in their
published maps and institutional affil- respective R&D plans for the advanced heavy-lift helicopter, and they have put forward
iations. specific low maintenance design requirements for the transmission system [1]. Among the
largest number of heavy-lift helicopters currently in service, the large aviation planetary
mechanism, as the basis and core of their transmission systems, determines the scientific
and technological levels of the transmission systems to a great extent and is one of the
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
bottlenecks restricting the development of transmission system technologies in the heavy-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
lift helicopter [2].
This article is an open access article
As a deceleration terminal directly connected with the main rotor, the large aviation
distributed under the terms and
planetary mechanism is a power transmission link with the worst load environment and
conditions of the Creative Commons
highest strength requirements in the heavy-lift helicopter transmission system [3]. With
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the continuous improvement of performance standards, such as the power density level
4.0/).
and dry running capacity of the advanced heavy-lift helicopter main reducer in developed

Metals 2022, 12, 1785. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12111785 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2022, 12, 1785 2 of 27

countries, the speed and bearing limits of the large aviation planetary mechanism continue
to break through, and the structure and power sharing forms become more complex. These
increase the complexity and uncertainty in structural strength design and analysis for the
planetary system and lead to a higher risk of structural failure when the new generation
of heavy aviation planetary equipment is pursuing lightweight [4]. The transmission
system is one of the three key dynamic systems (engine system, transmission system, and
rotor system) in a helicopter. Considering weight or space, a redundancy design for the
transmission system cannot be realized. Therefore, the reliability of its core link will directly
determine the service safety and life-cycle cost of the helicopter [5].
High reliability and long life have become the core technology development direc-
tions for large aviation planetary equipment in the future [4,6]. Compared with small and
medium-sized helicopters, the planetary mechanism in the heavy-lift helicopter has larger
parts and components, higher requirements for structural mechanics indexes, and more
stringent design standards for important geometric elements. If only relying on the design
level and experience parameters of existing related products to develop a larger-sized
isomorphic mechanism, it may directly lead to the failure to guarantee the reliability and
durability for large aviation planetary equipment. In order to meet performance matching
requirements of the new generation heavy-lift helicopter main reducer, a system reliability
index prediction method that adapts to the structure and operation characteristics of the
large-scale aviation planetary equipment is urgently needed. This method will enable devel-
opers to accurately evaluate the reliability level of products in the early stage of design, and
then provide targeted reference data for the structural optimization and reliability improve-
ment of products. This will significantly reduce the cost of expensive large-scale aviation
planetary mechanism products for the realization of reliability indicators in development
iteration processes.
In a gear transmission system, the failure of any gear or tooth will affect the transmis-
sion capacity of the entire system, so it is generally assumed that the gear transmission
system is a series system, with the gear or tooth as basic functional units in the reliability
analysis [7,8]. The loads on different individual gears in the system, or even different teeth
on the same gear, may be different, but they all have a certain mathematical relationship
with the system input power. This load correlation and general load randomness make
the failure behavior of each unit no longer independent, so it is unreasonable to simply
think that the reliability of the series system is equal to the product of each unit’s relia-
bility. Especially for the large aviation planetary gear train with more complex structure,
this “unit independent failure assumption” will even lead to serious errors in the task
of system reliability analysis [9]. In addition, most relevant research works simplify the
gear transmission system into a general series system or series parallel hybrid system,
which completely fails to reflect the special attribute that the functional form of this kind
of system changes with time [10]. Different from the “chain type” series system, in which
each potential failure unit is loaded at the same time, the energy transfer in the gear system
is completed by the alternating loading of each tooth. Therefore, the gear system is not
only a series system in the sense of spatial structure, but also a series system in the time
domain. The structure and motion forms of the large aviation planetary gear train are more
complex, and the teeth meshing timing characteristic will be more prominent. Therefore,
the important influence of this behavior mechanism needs to be fully considered in a strict
and effective reliability evaluation.
Tooth root bending fatigue strength is one of the most important strength check
indexes in high-speed and heavy-duty gear systems. For the planetary mechanism in
heavy-lift helicopters, its extreme load conditions and harsh reliability requirements will
put forward a higher standard for tooth root bending fatigue resistance. Gear researchers
are always trying to find a trade-off solution between obtaining accurate results from gear
stress analyses and high-efficiency computing. For both factors, accuracy on the one hand,
and high-efficiency computing on the other hand, the accuracy and efficiency of tooth root
bending stress calculation determines the validity of fatigue reliability assessment of large
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 3 of 27

aviation planetary wheel systems. At present, the main calculation method of tooth root
bending stress is to use general finite element tools [11–13], which are flexible in technical
processing and are not limited by input conditions, such as geometric characteristics and
material properties, and the analysis results are relatively comprehensive (depending on
software post-processing ability). Several studies have investigated how to better analyze
gear stresses using finite element models. A strategy for the mesh refinement of finite
element models of gear drives, based on the application of multi-point constraints, has been
applied. It allows for a considerable reduction of the computational cost in the analysis of
the whole cycle of meshing. In the model, the refined area mesh and the non-refined area
mesh were connected by multi-point constraint (MPC) at the same time, in order to save
time on the FEM solution, on the premise of ensuring the accuracy of model analysis [14–16].
Chen investigated the effects of a gear tooth spalling in a helical gear by finite elements.
The results showed that spalling also caused the rapid increase of tooth root stress in the
spalling meshing area [17]. Franco Concli analyzed early crack propagation in single tooth
bending fatigue by combining finite element analysis with critical plane fatigue criterion.
The results showed that the crack propagation direction at the ρ f p did not follow the plane
of maximum alternating shear stress, but the plane of maximum damage parameter [18].
However, the general finite element method has high computational cost in model setting
and solution operations and is usually only suitable for isolated solutions of gear parts or
several teeth, but it is difficult to perform global operations at the system-level. Moreover, it
is difficult to predict tooth bending conditions or add corresponding boundary conditions
to the model, especially for thin-walled rim gears or gears directly installed on bearings
(such as the planetary gears with rotation and revolution characteristics). In addition,
the mesh density on the tooth surface cannot be refined to the micron level to reflect the
micro-geometric state of the tooth surface, so it is difficult to analyze the influence of tooth
surface modification on tooth root stress by the general finite element method.
This paper takes the large aviation planetary system as a research object, aims to accu-
rately evaluate the system reliability level formed in design processes, and deeply excavates
the inherent characteristics of the planetary system in functional realization and builds
a system fatigue reliability evaluation model accordingly. Advanced hierarchical finite
element technology is used to calculate tooth dangerous load histories under the influence
of system global elastic behavior, and the tooth probability fatigue strength is obtained
through the gear low-cycle fatigue test and life distribution transformation method, so
as to provide economic load and strength input variables, respectively, for the reliability
model. This prediction method can provide targeted structural optimization guidance in
the development and design of the large aviation planetary system and significantly reduce
the cost of reliability index realization for this kind of large-scale, high-end equipment in
the design iteration processes. At the same time, it can provide important reference data
for the first renovation period of relevant finalized products and then provide the technical
support for their economic guarantee in the whole life-cycle.

2. Tooth Root Stress Calculation Based on Hierarchical Finite Element Technology

2.1. Principle Analysis of Hierarchical Finite Element Technology
Most tooth root stress calculation standards are analyzed and processed according
to the geometric characteristics of tooth root, referring to empirical data, and considering
working conditions. The biggest disadvantage of these methods is that they are limited to
the specified geometries, materials, and working conditions. For the unconventional tooth
geometries commonly existing in the aviation field, the calculation results obtained by
these standard methods may not be accurate. In particular, the urgent need for lightweight
components for the new generation of large aviation planetary equipment makes the
components in the system widely adopt lighter and thinner structural design forms. The
introduction of such a large number of flexible features means that the transmission shafts,
support frames, gears, and other critical transmission parts will undergo significant elastic
deformation under heavy loads. The resulting stiffness problem makes it necessary to fully
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 4 of 27

consider the nonlinear mechanical behaviors for the whole system, such as elastic deforma-
tion and meshing misalignment, in order to accurately calculate the tooth root stress.
In order to solve the contradiction between the calculation accuracy and calculation
cost of the general finite element method, when facing the mechanical simulation analysis
task for the large complex gear system, an advanced hierarchical finite element method for
root stress analysis of the large aviation planetary mechanism is proposed in this paper.
When calculating the tooth root stress, it is directly based on a detailed tooth 3D finite
element sub-model, so it does not need to rely on empirical data and industry experts.
In the system-level model, the dynamic load line on the tooth surface was obtained by
quasi-static static analysis and tooth surface micro-geometric analysis, and then it was
loaded on the tooth surface of the finite element sub-model as a load boundary condition.
At the same time, system elastic deformation results, including the deformation behavior
of the gear rim and tooth, were extracted and loaded into the finite element sub-model as a
displacement boundary condition. In this way, the calculation results of tooth root stress
could include the influence of the elastic deformation (including deformations, such as
rim distortion and tooth bending and so on), meshing misalignment, and tooth surface
micro-geometry in the whole system.
The analysis and solution for the system-level model took the analytical algorithms in
the international standard as the default calculation basis, and they have a strong auxiliary
calculation ability in the tooth surface micro-geometric analysis. At the same time, the
general finite element method was used as a backup advanced analysis method, and the
introduction of finite element components into the system-level model made the system
elastic deformation results more reliable. In the system-level model, there is no need
to perform detailed root stress calculation, which greatly saves the calculation cost for
system-level analysis. In addition, tooth surface micro-geometric analysis was run in the
system-level model, so it is no longer necessary to include micro-geometric parameters in
the secondary finite element sub-model. In the quasi-static analysis results of the system-
level model, the physical effects, such as rotation, centrifugation, and thermal expansion
of transmission components, were considered, so the boundary conditions imposed on
the secondary sub-model were relatively simple. In the face of advanced simulation and
analysis tasks for a large aviation planetary system, only considering the convenience of
modeling and boundary condition setting, the computational efficiency of the hierarchical
finite element method will be much higher than that of the general finite element method. In
addition, different from the commercial finite element software using a nonlinear equation
solver, the hierarchical finite element method uses an improved simplex solver to ensure
convergence within a set number of iterations. Although the total number of freedom
degrees in the two-level finite element model may be very large, this hierarchical analysis
approach keeps the amount of CPU time and memory required for analytical calculation
within the capabilities of a personal computer.
It can be seen that the hierarchical finite element method is a more accurate, fast, and
easy method for calculating tooth root stress, and it is especially suitable for the strength
checking and analysis tasks of large aviation gear systems. In this paper, a high-fidelity
mechanical simulation model was constructed by the hierarchical finite element method,
based on the structure and material performance parameters of a certain type of large
aviation planetary mechanism products. Based on this, the dangerous tooth root stress
under system quasi-static elastic mechanical behavior was calculated, and the effective
load input variables were provided for the system reliability evaluation model.

2.2. System-Level Elastic Mechanical Behavior Simulation Analysis

2.2.1. Overall Configuration of System Model
A semi-analytical finite element technique was used to construct the system-level elas-
tic mechanical simulation model of the large aviation planetary mechanism and accurately
evaluate the elastic deformation of the large thin-walled parts, the meshing misalignment
between teeth, and the micro-modification on tooth surface, and then provide detailed load
 2.2. System-Level Elastic Mechanical Behavior Simulation Analysis
2.2.1. Overall Configuration of System Model
A semi-analytical finite element technique was used to construct the system-level
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 elastic mechanical simulation model of the large aviation planetary mechanism and5accu- of 27
rately evaluate the elastic deformation of the large thin-walled parts, the meshing misa-
lignment between teeth, and the micro-modification on tooth surface, and then provide
detailed
and load andboundary
displacement displacement boundary
conditions conditions
for the secondary forsub-model
the secondary
of thesub-model of the
tooth root stress
tooth root
analysis. Thestress analysis. Thefinite
semi-analytical semi-analytical
element methodfinitewas
element
usedmethod was used inanalysis
in the system-level the sys-
tem-level
process. analysis fine
Although process.
meshAlthough
densitiesfine
weremesh
useddensities
for somewere largeused for some
structural large struc-
members, the
tural members,
effective the effective
combination combination
of analytical of analytical
and finite and finite element
element calculations resultedcalculations
in significant re-
sulted in significant
improvements improvementsefficiency
in the computational in the computational efficiency
at the system-level. at the system-level.
The system model of the
The system
planetary model of and
mechanism the planetary mechanism
the structural parameters andofthe
thestructural
gear trainparameters
are shown in of Figure
the gear 1
and
trainTable
are 1, respectively.
shown The1 power
in Figure flow 1,
and Table path inside the system
respectively. starts flow
The power from path
the input shaft,
inside the
passes
systemthrough the sun
starts from the gear
inputand planet
shaft, gearthrough
passes to a planet
the carrier,
sun gear and finally,
and planet the planet
gear to acarrier
planet
transmits
carrier, andthefinally,
motiontheandplanet
powercarrier
to a main rotor shaft,
transmits after a and
the motion deceleration
power toofa3.334 maintimes.
rotor
In addition,
shaft, after athe rated working
deceleration condition
of 3.334 times. Inparameters
addition, ofthethe planetary
rated working mechanism
condition mainly
param-
include
eters of an
theinput power
planetary of 5000 kW,
mechanism inputinclude
mainly speed ofan500 rpm,
input and working
power of 5000 kW,temperature
input speed of
70 ◦ C.
of 500 rpm, and working temperature of 70 °C.

Figure1.1.System
Figure Systemmodel
modelof
ofplanetary
planetarymechanism.
mechanism.

Table1.1.Geometric
Table Geometricparameter
parameterofofplanetary
planetarygear
geartrain.
train.

Parameters
Parameters SunGear
Sun Gear Planet
PlanetGear
Gear Ring Gear
Ring Gear
Module
Module (mm)(mm) 5.012
5.012 5.012
5.012 5.012
5.012
Number
Number of of teeth
teeth 84
84 5656 196
196
Number
Number of of gears
gears 11 77 1
Pressure angle
Pressure angle (◦(°)
) 20
20 2020 20
20
Helix angle (◦ ) 0 0 0
Helix angle (°) 0 0 0
Effective face width (mm) 120 120 120
Effective
Base circleface width(mm)
diameter (mm) 120
394.671 120
263.114 120
920.899
Base
Base circle diameter
circle pitch (mm)(mm) 394.671
14.761 263.114
14.761 920.899
14.761
Root circle
Base fillet radius
pitch (mm)
(mm) 2.757
14.761 2.870
14.761 2.657
14.761
Tooth surface hardness 60 HRC 60 HRC 60 HRC
Root fillet radius (mm) 2.757 2.870 2.657
Tooth core hardness 35 HRC 35 HRC 35 HRC
Tooth
Elasticsurface
modulushardness
(MPa) 60 HRC
2.07 × 105 602.07
HRC× 105 60
2.07HRC
× 105
Tooth
Poisson core
ratiohardness 35 HRC
0.3 350.3HRC 35
0.3 HRC
Elastic modulus (MPa) 2.07 × 105 2.07 × 105 2.07 × 105
Poisson
2.2.2. ratio
Deformable Planet Carrier 0.3 0.3 0.3
An FE model and the geometry of a planet carrier are illustrated in Figure 2, which
shows an example of an FE grid for a seven-planet system, with its supporting conditions
simulated by lumped stiffness elements. Since there are no relative displacements between
the axis of rotation of the planet pins and the planet nodes (planet centers), a fixed interface
component mode synthesis method can be used to reduce the size of the carrier model.
The stiffness of the springs is considered to be significantly higher than that of the bearings
and pins, thus creating a rigid link in the radial directions between the contour nodes and
 tween the axis of rotation of the planet pins and the planet nodes (planet centers), a fixed
interface component mode synthesis method can be used to reduce the size of the carrier
model. The stiffness of the springs is considered to be significantly higher than that of the
bearings and pins, thus creating a rigid link in the radial directions between the contour
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 nodes and planet centers. The classic reduction process of Craig and Bampton [19]6 of was
27
employed, in which the displacements were expressed, in terms of static and dynamic
modes, as

 XPCint   D  S    qPC 

planet centers. The classic reduction process of Craig and Bampton [19] was employed, in
which the displacements were expressed, =  in terms ofstatic
  anddynamic modes, as (1)
  XPCbou   0 I   XPCbou 
XPCint [φ D ][φ S ] qPC
= · (1)
with XPCint as the vector ofXthe internal degrees
PCbou [0] [I] of freedom,
XPCbou XPCbou as the vector of the
degrees of freedom at the contour nodes, D  as the truncated modal matrix of the
with XPCint as the vector of the internal degrees of freedom, XPCbou as the vector of the
fixed-interface
degrees planet-carrier
of freedom at the contour nodes,[φ
structure, 
S D] as the
as static
the mode matrix,
truncated I  asofthethe
modal matrix identity
fixed-
matrix, planet-carrier
interface 0 as the nilstructure, [φ S ]qas
matrix, and the static mode matrix, [I] as the identity matrix,
PC as the vector of the planet-carrier modal un-
0] as the nil matrix, and qPC as the vector of the planet-carrier modal unknowns.
[knowns.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Example
Example of
of FE
FE model
model and
and geometry
geometry of
of planet
planet carrier.
carrier.

2.2.3.
2.2.3. Planet
Planet Bearing
Bearing Element
Element
This
This connecting part
connecting part was
was composed
composed of of seven
seven lumped
lumped springspring elements
elements across
across the
the
planet bore, in order to connect node O of planet j
planet bore, in order to connect node Ojj of planet j to the corresponding three contour
to the corresponding three contour
nodes
nodes of of the
theplanet-carrier
planet-carrier substructure
substructure (denoted
(denotedas asNN11,, N and N
N22,, and N33 in
in Figure
Figure 3).
3). Planets
Planets
were modeled as rigid disks with 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs), which are the
were modeled as rigid disks with 6 degrees of freedom (DOFs), which are the infinitesimal infinitesimal
generalized
generalizeddisplacements
displacementssuperimposed
superimposedon rigid-body motions
on rigid-body and represented
motions by screws
and represented by
of coordinates.
screws of coordinates.  

uj O j = v j Sj + w j Tj + u j Z
τj (2)
ωj = ϕ j Sj + ψj Tj + θ j Z
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
where 7 of 29
Sj , Tj , and Z are the unit vectors of the frame fixed to the sun gear/planet j mesh
(Figure 4).

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Planet
Planetbearing
bearingelement.
element.

u j ( O j ) = v j S j + w j Tj + u j Z 
    (2)
ω j =  j S j +  j Tj +  j Z
j

where Sj, Tj, and Z are the unit vectors of the frame fixed to the sun gear/planet j mesh
(Figure 4).
 Figure 3. Planet bearing element.

u j ( O j ) = v j S j + w j Tj + u j Z 
    (2)
ω j =  j S j +  j Tj +  j Z
j
Metals 2022, 12, 1785  7 of 27
where Sj, Tj, and Z are the unit vectors of the frame fixed to the sun gear/planet j mesh
(Figure 4).

Figure 4. GeometricalFigure 4. Geometrical parameter for internal gear modeling.

parameter for internal gear modeling.
Considering two points, P and Q, belonging to planet j, their displacements were
Considering twoexpressed, usingPthe
points, and Q, property
shifting belonging
of the to planet
moment of screw  j  , displacements
j,their as were
expressed, using the shifting property of the moment of screw τj , as
u j ( P) = u j (O j ) + PO j  ω j
(3)
u j (Q) = u j (O j ) + QO j  ω j
uj ( P) = uj (O j ) + PO j × ωj
(3)
Denoting Ku
v, K
j (wQ
, )
and=Kuu
the
j (O j ) + QO
stiffness in thej S ×j, Tω
j, and Z directions between P and N1,
j
Oj, and N2, and Q and N3, and the strain energy stored in the spring element 1 connecting
node N1 and point P reads
Denoting Kv , Kw , and Ku the stiffness in the Sj , Tj , and Z directions between P and N1 ,
1 strain 1element
U1 = X  Ku Vu  Vu + Kv VV  VV + K w VW  VW  X = X K1  X
Oj, and N2 , and Q and N3 , and the T
 energy
T storedT in the spring
T
 T 1 connecting
(4)
node N1 and point P reads 2 2
where XT = (u j , v j , wj , j , j , j , uN1 , vN1 , wN1 ) is the vector containing the degrees of free-
1 dom 1
hassociated with nodes Oj (6 DOFs) and N1 (3 DOFs). iThe structural vectors Vu, Vv,
U1 = XT Ku Vu · VuT + Kv VV · VV T
+ K W VW · VW T
X = X T [ K1 ] X (4)
2 2

where XT = (u j , v j , w j , ϕ j , ψj , θ j , u N1 , v N1 , w N1 ) is the vector containing the degrees of

freedom associated with nodes Oj (6 DOFs) and N1 (3 DOFs). The structural vectors Vu , Vv ,
and Vw are expressed, in terms of the planet width and its angular position Φ j (Figure 4), as

VuT = hD1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, −1, 0, 0i E

VvT = 0, cos Φ j , − sin Φ j , − 2b sin Φ j , − 2b cos Φ j , 0, 0, −1, 0 (5)
D E
VwT = 0, sin Φ , cos Φ , b cos Φ , − b sin Φ , 0, 0, 0, −1
j j 2 j 2 j

A similar procedure was used for the other spring elements attached to the same
planet, thus leading to the 15 × 15 stiffness matrix of the planet j bearing element, which
connected the 6 degrees of freedom at the planet center (u j , v j , w j , ϕ j , ψj , θ j ) and those at
nodes N1 (uN1 , vN1 , wN1 ), N2 (uN2 , vN2 , wN2 ), and N3 (uN3 , vN3 , wN3 ).

2.2.4. Deformable Ring Gears

Ring gears and their supports were modeled by using FE analysis, combined with
lumped parameter elements, to account for the ring-gear bearing stiffness and for the
contribution of the teeth modeled as lumped masses. The ring-gear FE model was reduced
using a component mode synthesis method based on the mode shapes of the undamped
isolated structure. After separating the internal displacements, XRGint , and the degrees of
freedom at the boundary nodes, XRGbou , i.e., on the root cylinder and in correspondence
with the planet ring-gear contacts, the following approximation was used:
 
XRGint
= [ΦN ]qRG (6)
XGDbou

with XRGint as the vector of the internal degrees of freedom, XRGbou as the vector of the
degrees of freedom at the contour nodes, [ΦN ] as the truncated modal matrix of the
undamped ring-gear structure, and qRG as the vector of the modal unknowns.
  XRGint 
  =  N  qRG (6)
 XGDbou 
with X RGint as the vector of the internal degrees of freedom, X RGbou as the vector of the
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 degrees of freedom at the contour nodes,  N  as the truncated modal matrix of the 8 ofun-
27

damped ring-gear structure, and q RG as the vector of the modal unknowns.

2.2.5.
2.2.5.System
SystemSupport
SupportCondition
Condition
InInthis
thisanalysis
analysistask,
task,ititwas
wasassumed
assumedthatthatthethereducer
reducerboxboxhad
hadananabsolutely
absolutelyrigid
rigid
body;
body;the theinput
inputshaft
shaftwas
wassupported
supportedby bytwo
twotapered
taperedroller
rollerbearings
bearings(TRB)
(TRB)with
withO-type
O-type
layout,
layout,and andtheir
theirouter
outerrings
ringswere
wererigidly
rigidlyconnected
connectedtotothe thebox.
box. All
Allplanet
planetgears
gearsininthe
the
system were evenly distributed on the planet carrier along a circumferential
system were evenly distributed on the planet carrier along a circumferential direction. The direction. The
double-row
double-rowtapered taperedroller
rollerbearing
bearing(DRTRB),
(DRTRB),withwithan anX-type
X-typelayout,
layout,was
wasassembled
assembledinside
inside
each planet gear, and the bearing inner ring was rigidly connected
each planet gear, and the bearing inner ring was rigidly connected with the with the planet shaft.
planet A
shaft.
radial ball bearing (RBB) fixed the planet carrier and made it have a certain
A radial ball bearing (RBB) fixed the planet carrier and made it have a certain floating floating amount
(its size and
amount (its direction were controlled
size and direction by the bearing
were controlled by theclearance) to counteract
bearing clearance) the unequal
to counteract the
load sharing among planet gears, and its outer ring was rigidly connected
unequal load sharing among planet gears, and its outer ring was rigidly connected with with the box.
The
the structural forms andforms
box. The structural parameters of variousof
and parameters main bearings
various maininbearings
the system aresystem
in the shown are in
Figure 5 and Table 2, respectively.
shown in Figure 5 and Table 2, respectively.

Figure5.5.Bearing
Figure Bearingstructure
structureininplanetary
planetarysystem.
system.

Table 2. Bearing parameters in planetary system.

Table 2. Bearing parameters in planetary system.
Parameters TRB1 TRB2 DRTRB RBB
Parameters TRB1 TRB2 DRTRB RBB
External diameter (mm) 310 420 240 480
External diameter (mm) 310 420 240 480
Internal diameter (mm) 200 300 160 360
Internal diameter (mm) 200 300 160 360
Width (mm)
Width (mm) 70 70 76
76 102
102 56 56
Number
Number of ofrollers
rollers 31 31 40
40 72
72 24 24
Roller diameter
Roller diameter(mm)
(mm) 23 23 26
26 16
16 40 40
Roller length
Roller length(mm)
(mm) 50 50 55
55 38
38 - -
Contact angle ( )◦ 15.945 14.931 17.049 0

2.2.6. Finite Element Component Modeling

The solid model creation of standard parts, such as gears and bearings, can be realized
with the help of professional software, such as RomaxDesigner or GearTrax (GearTrax2020,
Camnetics Inc., Oregon, WI, USA). The powerful parametric modeling function for the
standard parts in the software can enable designers to complete this work easily. In addition,
four key finite element components were also included in the planetary mechanism system
model, which are the planet carrier, the ring gear, the planet gear, and the input shaft,
integrated with the sun gear. Based on the advantages of 3D modeling software, such as
NX (UG2020, Siemens PLM Software, Plano, TX, USA) and SolidWorks (SW2021, Dassault
Systemes, Concord, MA, USA), and general finite element software, such as HyperMesh
(HyperMesh2020, Altair Troy, MI, USA) and ANSYS (ANSYS 19.0, ANSYS Corporation,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA), a high-quality parametric modeling function for finite element
components can be realized, and the core technology implementation can refer to the
literature [20,21]. The final modeling results and mesh quality parameters are shown
 shown
ware, suchin Table
shown as in 3. It should
HyperMesh
Table 3.Pittsburgh, be emphasized
It(HyperMesh2020,
should be emphasized that creating
Michigan, thatUS)and complete
creating ANSYS teeth
complete(ANSYSfeatures
teeth 19.0, in
featuresAN-the
shown in Table
SYS 3. It should
Corporation, be emphasized
P.A., USA), that creating
a high-quality complete
parametricteeth features
modeling in thein the
function for
SYS SYS
gear Corporation,
finite element
Corporation, Pittsburgh,
models
Pittsburgh, canP.A.,P.A.,
make USA), USA),
the a high-quality
system-level
a high-quality parametric
flexibility
parametric analysismodeling
modeling results function
cover
function thefor
for
gear
finitefinite
gear finite element element
element models models
components can makecan
canmake
the the system-level
system-level
be realized, and flexibility
the core flexibility
analysisanalysis
technology results results
cover cover
implementation the thecan
finite
accurate
finite element
mechanical
element components
components behavior can be realized,
characteristics,
cancharacteristics,
be realized, and and
such the
as
theas thecore
core rim technology
distortion
technology implementation
and tooth
implementation bendingcan can
accurateaccurate
refer mechanical
mechanical
to the behavior
literature behavior
[20,21]. The characteristics,such
final modeling such as
theresults
rimthedistortion
rim
and distortion
mesh and andparameters
tooth
quality tooth
bending bendingare
refer
refer to to the
deformations,
the literature
which
literature can [20,21].
[20,21]. provide
The The
final final
more modeling
effective
modeling results
displacement
results and and
mesh mesh quality
boundary
quality parameters
conditions
parameters for
are are
deformations,
deformations,
shown inwhich which
Tablecan can
3. Itprovide provide
should more more effective
effective displacement
be emphasized displacement
that creating boundary boundary
complete teeth conditionsconditions
features for
for in the
theshown
shown secondary in Table
in Table
the 3. It3.sub-model
sub-model It should
should of be be
theof emphasized
tooth
emphasized thatthat
root stress creating
calculation.
creating complete
Additionally,
complete teethteeth it features
featuresis now
it in
in the
pos-
the
gearsecondary
the secondary sub-model
finite element models of the themake
tooth
can tooth root
root stress
the stress calculation.
calculation.
system-level Additionally,
Additionally,
flexibility analysis it isresults
now is pos-
now
coverpos-
the
gear
sible to finite
keep element
CPU CPU models
requirements can make
down the
to about system-level
8 s per flexibility analysis results cover the
stime step and memory needs down
Metals 2022, 12, 1785
gear 9 of 27
siblefinite
sible
to keep element
to CPU
accurate keep models
requirements
mechanical
can make
requirements
behaviordown theto system-level
down aboutto about
characteristics, 8 s per 8flexibility
such per
time time
step
as the
analysis
step
and
rim andresults
memory
distortion memoryneeds
and
cover
needs
down
tooth
the down
bending
accurate
to 128 MB.
accurate mechanical
This
mechanical has been
behaviorbehavior
made characteristics,
possible
characteristics, such
by accepting as the rim
programming distortion and
complexity, tooth bending
in ex-
to 128to MB.128 MB. has
This
deformations, This has made
been
which been made
possible
can provide by such
possible
more byasaccepting
accepting
effective
the programming
rim distortion
programming
displacement
and tooth
boundary
bending
complexity,
complexity, in ex-in ex-
conditions for
deformations,
change for
deformations, an which
increase
which can in can
speed.provide
provide more more effective
effective displacement
displacement boundary
boundary conditions
conditions for for
change change
for an for an
increaseincrease
in in
speed. speed.
the secondary sub-model of the tooth root stress calculation. Additionally, it is now pos-
the the secondary
secondary sub-model
sub-model
in Table of of the
It the tooth tooth
beroot root
stressstress calculation.
calculation. Additionally,
Additionally, isitnow
it teeth is now pos-pos-in the gear
sible to keep CPU3.requirements should emphasized
down to about that 8 s per creating
time step complete
and memory features
needs down
sible to keep
sible to keep CPU CPU requirements
requirements
finite element down
downcan
models to
to about about
make8 by 8 s per time
s persystem-level
the step and
time step andflexibility memory
memory analysis needs
needs down down cover the
results
to 128 MB. This has been made possible accepting programming complexity, in ex-
to 128
to 128 MB. ThisMB. This has
has been
accurate been made
made possible
mechanical possible
behavior by accepting
bycharacteristics,
accepting programming programming complexity,
such as the complexity,
rim distortion inand in tooth
ex- ex- bending
change for an increase in speed.
change
change for for an increase
an increase
deformations, in which
in speed. speed.can provide more effective displacement boundary conditions for the
secondary sub-model of the tooth root stress calculation. Additionally, it is now possible
Table 3. Finite element
to keep model and mesh quality
CPUmodel
requirements parameter.
Table Table 3. Finite
3. Finite elementelement
model meshdown
and quality
and mesh toparameter.
quality about 8 s per time step and memory needs down to
parameter.
Finite Element Models 128 MB. This has been made possible
Effective Size by accepting Minimum
programming complexity, in exchange
Angle
FiniteFinite Element
Element Modelsfor an increase in speed.
Models Effective
Effective Size Size Minimum
Minimum AngleAngle
Table 3. Finite element model and mesh quality parameter.

(%)
Table
Table 3. Finite
3. Finite element
element
Table model
3.model
Finite and30and mesh
mesh
element quality
quality
model and parameter.
parameter.
mesh 12
quality parameter.

proportion (%)
(%)
30 12 12

(%)
30

proportion (%)
proportion

(%)
Finite Element Models proportion Effective Size Minimum Angle
Finite Element Models Effective
SizeSize Minimum Angle

proportion
Finite Element Models
Finite Element Models
20 Effective
20 Effective Size 8 Minimum Angle
Minimum Angle

proportion
20 8 8
10 (%) 4 12
Unit

10 10
30
Unit proportion (%)

124 12 4
Unit
(%)

(%)
Unit proportionUnit

30 30

Unit
Unit proportion (%)
Unit proportion

Unit
Unit proportion Unit
(%)
0

Unit proportion
0 0 20 30 40 50 60
1020 0 8
20 1030size
20 20 10 Effective 2040 3050 4060 50
(mm) 60
80 8 10 0 20 30 40 50 60 70
EffectiveEffective
size (mm)size (mm) 20 10
10 Minimum 20
40 30
30 angle 50 40
60 50
(deg) 70 60 70
10 Minimum Minimum angle (deg)
angle (deg)
4
10 10 4
4
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0 0
10
20 20 30
40 40
30Effective 50
60 60
size (mm)
50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10
Effective size (mm) 10 30
20Minimum
30 50
40 angle
50 7060 70
ber of surface
Number mesh node:node:
of surface 31,248 Number of surface
Effective sizemesh
(mm) elements: 15,589 10 20 40 60 (deg)
ber of surface mesh mesh
node: 31,24831,248 Number
Number of surface
of surface mesh mesh elements:
elements: 15,58915,589 Minimum
Minimum angleangle
(deg) (deg)
Number of surface mesh node: 31,248 Number of surface mesh elements: 15,589
Metals 16
2022,
als 12,2022,
2022, x FOR
12, 12,PEER
x FOR x PEER
FORREVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16 16
(%) 11 11 321132of 32
of of
(%)

Unit proportion (%)

(%)
Number of surface mesh node: 31,248 24Number of surface mesh elements: 15,589
proportion (%)
(%)

umber of surface mesh node: 31,248 Number of surface mesh elements: 12

15,589
proportion

ber of surface mesh node: 31,248 Number

24 of24surface mesh elements: 15,589
12 12
proportion

proportion

etals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 32

proportion

Metals
2022, 12,2022,
x FOR12,PEER
x FORREVIEW
PEER REVIEW 16 8 11 of 3211 of 32
16 8 16 8
16
4 16
(%) proportion (%)

16
Unit

8 4
Unit(%)

4
Unit proportion (%)

Number of surface mesh node:

92739273 8 Number of surface mesh elements:
46064606
(%)
proportionUnit

8surface
Unit

ber
mberof of
surface mesh
surface meshnode: 9273
node: Number
Number of24of surface mesh mesh elements:
elements: 4606
(%)

12
(%)

24 24
Unit proportionUnit

1200 12 10 0 20 30 40 50 60 70
Unit proportion

0
Unit proportion

0 0 10
16 20 30 820 10
10 Minimum 20
40 30
30 angle 50
(deg)40
60 5070 60 70
Number
Number of of
surface mesh
surface node:
mesh 9273
node: 9273 Number
16 16
Number of
10 surface
Effective 10 20
size
ofEffective
surface mesh
(mm) 20 30
mesh elements:
30 8 4606
8 Minimum Minimum angle (deg)
angle (deg)
ber of surface mesh node: 9273 Number of surface
Effective mesh
size (mm)size (mm) elements:
elements: 24 244606
4606 24
(%)

4
(%)

16
(%)

16 16
Unit
(%)
Unit proportion (%)

8 4
Number of surface mesh node: 9273 Number 8 of surface mesh elements: 4606 4
Unit

8
Unit proportion
Unit proportion
Unit proportion

Unit proportion

12
Unit proportion

12 12 16 16024 160
16 0 2410 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Unit proportion (%)

0
Unit proportion (%)

30 24 10 20 20Minimum
30 5040 angle
50 7060 70
(%)

0168 80 168 10 20 30 40 60 (deg)

(%)

(%)
(%)

10 10Effective 20
20 size (mm) 30 30 Minimum
Minimum angle angle
(deg) (deg)
12 Effective size (mm) 8 8 16 8
Unit proportion
Unit proportion

124 4 Effective size (mm)

Unit proportion

124
Unit proportion

16 16
8
80 0 80 0 0 8 0
10 10 40 20 4050
30 5060
40 6070
50 7060 70 1030 30
2040 40
3050 504060 60
50 60
4 1020 2030 30 Effective size (mm) 8 10 81020 20
4 Effective
4 size (mm)
Effective size (mm) Minimum
MinimumMinimum
angle (deg)
angle angle (deg)
(deg)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10 20 30 10 4020 50
Effective 30 (mm)
size 40 70
60 50 60 70 1030 2040angle
10 20Minimum 3050(deg)
4060 50 60
Number of surface mesh node: 16,111 Number of Effective
surface sizemesh
(mm) elements: 8021 Minimum
angle (deg)angle (deg)
ber
mberof of
surface mesh
surface meshnode: 16,111
node: 16,111 Number
Numberof of
surface
Effective mesh
size
surface (mm)
mesh elements:
elements: 8021
8021 Minimum

Number of surface mesh node: 16,111 Number of surface mesh elements: 8021
Number
Number of of
surface mesh
surface node:
mesh 16,111
node: 16,111 Number
Number of of
surface mesh
surface elements:
mesh 8021
elements:
ber of surface mesh node: 16,111 Number of surface
32
mesh elements: 8021 8021
32 32
(%)
(%)
Unit proportion (%)
(%)
(%)

12
Unit proportion (%)

12 12
24
Unit proportion

24 24
Unit proportion
Unit proportion
Unit proportion

32 8 8 8
Unit proportion (%)

32
Unit proportion (%)

32 12
(%)

16 16 16
(%)
(%)

12
(%)

24 12
24 4
Unit proportion

248 4 4
Unit proportion
Unit proportion

8
Unit proportion

8 8
16 8 8
160 16 0
0 0 0 0
10 10 3040
20 4050
30 5060
40 6070
50 7060 70 1030 30
410 1020 20 2040 40
3050 50
4060 60
50 60
8 1020 2030 4 4
8 Effective Effective
8 Effective
size (mm)
size size (mm)
(mm) Minimum Minimum
Minimumangle
angle angle (deg)
(deg)
(deg)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of surface mesh node: 23,956 Number of surface
10 20 30 mesh
10 40
20
Effective 30 elements:
50
size 50 60 11,942
40 70
60
(mm) 70 1030 2040angle
10 20Minimum 3050(deg)
4060 50 60
Effective
Effective size (mm) size (mm) MinimumMinimum angle (deg)
angle (deg)
Number
ber
mberof of of surface
surface
surfacemesh
meshmesh
node:
node:node:
23,956
23,95623,956 Number
NumberNumber
of of of surface
surface
surface mesh
mesh mesh
elements: elements:
elements: 11,942
11,94211,942
2.2.7. Setting Node Connection
Number of of
surface mesh node:
2.2.7. 23,956
2.2.7.
Setting
2.2.7. SettingSetting
Node
Node Node
The Number
Connection
Connection
Connection
above-mentioned of of
surface
solid mesh elements: as11,942
Number
ber of surface surface mesh
mesh node: node:
23,956 23,956 Number Number
of surface meshmodels,
surface mesh
elements: such
elements:
11,942 the gears and bearings, as well as finite
11,942
The The above-mentioned
element
above-mentioned models,
solid such solid
models,as models,
the input
such assuch
shaft
the
The above-mentioned solid models, such as the gears and bearings, as the
and
gears gears
planet
and and bearings,
carrier,
bearings, were
as well
as asaswell
imported
well asinto
finite
as finite
finite the Rota-
2.2.7.
element Setting
element
2.2.7. Setting
models, Node
tionMaster
models,
Node
such Connection
asas(RM)
such as software
the
Connection
the input input
shaft platform,
shaft
and and
planet respectively.
planet
carrier, carrier,
were It can
were seamlessly
imported imported
into integrate
into
thethe the
Rota- a variety
Rota- of
element
2.2.7. Setting models,
Node such
Connectionthe input shaft and planet carrier, were imported into Rota-
tionMaster The
tionMaster
tionMaster above-mentioned
(RM)
The (RM) (RM)
softwaresoftware
software
above-mentioned solid
platform,
platform,
solid models,
platform, such
respectively.
respectively.
models, as
respectively.
It Itthe
can can gears
It can
seamlesslyand
seamlessly bearings,
seamlessly
integrate
integrate as
integratewell
a variety
a as aas
variety finite
variety
of
asof of
The above-mentioned solid models, such assuchthe as
gearsthe gears
and and
bearings,bearings,
as well as well
finite finite
CAD element
CAD CAD
andandCAE
element models,
and
CAE CAE such
software,
software,
models, as
software,
andandthe
it and
is
it input
an
is it isshaft
an
advanced
an advanced and
advanced planet
simulation
simulation carrier,
simulation
platform were
platform forimported
platformthe
for for theinto
comprehensive
the the
comprehensive Rota-
comprehensive
element models, such assuch
the as
inputthe shaft
inputand shaft and planet
planet carrier,carrier, were imported
were imported into the into the Rota-
Rota-
tionMaster
analysisanalysis
analysis andand (RM)
and software
calculation
calculation
calculation platform,
ofplatform,
ofplatform,
large
of large large
and and respectively.
and
complex complex
complex It can
transmission
transmission seamlessly
transmission
systems.
systems. Itintegrate
systems.
has
It hasIt hasawidely
been variety
been of of
widely
tionMaster
tionMaster (RM) (RM)
softwaresoftware respectively.
respectively. It can It can seamlessly
seamlessly integrate a been
integrate
varietyawidely
variety
of
used CAD
used used
in andin
related
in CAE CAE
related software,
related
engineering
engineering and
engineering it
technology is an advanced
technology
fields. fields.
The simulation
The
imported platform
imported
solid for
solid
models the
models
and comprehensive
and
finite ele- ele-
finite finite
ele-
CAD CAD
and andsoftware,
CAE and it technology
software, and
is anitadvanced fields.
is an advanced Thesimulation
simulation imported
platform solid
formodels
platformthefor and
the comprehensive
comprehensive
Number of surface mesh node: 23,956 Number of surface mesh elements: 11,942

2.2.7. Setting Node Connection

Metals 2022, 12, 1785
The above-mentioned solid models, such as the gears and bearings, as well as10finite of 27

element models, such as the input shaft and planet carrier, were imported into the Rota-
tionMaster (RM) software platform, respectively. It can seamlessly integrate a variety of
CAD
CAD and
and CAE
CAE software,
software, and and itit is an advanced simulation
simulation platform
platform for the comprehensive
comprehensive
analysis
analysis and
and calculation
calculation of of large
large and
and complex
complex transmission
transmission systems.
systems. It has
has been
been widely
widely
used
used in
in related
related engineering
engineering technology
technology fields. The imported solid models and finite ele-
ment
ment models
models were
were positioned
positioned and and assembled
assembled in in aa unified
unified global
global coordinate
coordinate system,
system, and
and
the
the node connection relationships between the two types of models were established. We
node connection relationships between the two types of models were established. We
comprehensively
comprehensivelyadjusted
adjustedthe thecontrol
controlparameters,
parameters,suchsuchas as the
the search
search criteria
criteria and
and selection
selection
modes,
modes, and
and used
used RM’s
RM’s tolerance
tolerance search
search technology
technology to to screen
screen the
the connection
connection node
node groups
groups
between
between the
the finite
finite element
element models
models and and the
the solid
solid models.
models. The The analytical
analytical schematic
schematic diagram
diagram
of
of two
two search
search criteria
criteria in
in the
the technology
technologyisisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure6.6.

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
6. Node
Node search
search criteria:
criteria:(a)
(a)shell
shellsearch;
search;(b)
(b)solid
solidsearch.
search.Where
Where d1 dis pitch circle diameter
Figure 1 is pitch circle diameter
(PCD), and D and d2 indicate the search range. D = d1 × (1 + 2 × TF), d2 = d1 × (1 – 2 × TF).
(PCD), and D and d2 indicate the search range. D = d1 × (1 + 2 × TF), d2 = d1 × (1 – 2 × TF).

The two semicircles in the figure show the geometric dimensions of the cross-sections
of the hollow and solid cylinders, respectively, which will be used to define the search spaces
corresponding to the two search criteria. Within the range of the specified cylinder height,
“shell search” will search for all the nodes between the inner and outer walls of the hollow
cylinder and on the walls. This search criterion is suitable for the node connection setting
between the solid model of a bearing inner ring and the finite element model of a shaft.
“Solid search” will search out all the nodes inside the solid cylinder, including its outer
surface. This search criterion is suitable for establishing the node connection relationship
between finite element teeth and their meshing lines. RM can automatically generate
the pitch circle diameter (PCD), according to the geometric characteristics at the node
connection location. The tolerance factor (TF) was used to adjust the diameter parameters of
the inner and outer walls of the cylinders to optimize the connection attributes, such as the
number of connection nodes and the connection stiffness. In addition, RBE2 element type
(detailed in the NASTRAN help file) can bundle the selected connection nodes into a rigid
node group, which means that all the nodes will have the same displacement parameters, so
it can simplify the model and improve calculation efficiency. RBE3 element type distributes
loads evenly across the selected connection nodes. It reduces the stiffness of the connection
area by increasing the flexibility around the nodes, so that the elastomer deformation
behavior obtained from the analysis will be more accurate, but the calculation cost will also
increase significantly. Table 4 shows the node connection results and corresponding node
parameters between the sun gear teeth on the input shaft and the meshing lines (pitch circle
position), between the planet gear and the outer ring of a tapered roller bearing, between
the mounting holes on the ring gear and the reducer box, and between the pin holes on the
planet carrier and the planet shafts (single side).

2.2.8. System Elastic Behavior Analysis

The finite element models in the system are polycondensed to extract the correspond-
ing mass and stiffness matrices, and the calculation process can be performed on general
finite element software, such as ANSYS or ABAQUS(ABAQUS 2021, Dassault SIMULIA,
Providence, RI, USA) or the RM software platform. At the same time, the deformation
 lationship
lationship
of of
a shaft. between
between
“Solid finite element
finite
search” element
will search teeth
teeth and
outand allall their
their
the meshing
meshing
nodes inside lines.
lines.
thethe RM can
RM
solid can automatically
automatically
cylinder, including
a shaft. “Solid search” will search out the nodes inside solid cylinder, including
generate
generate
its its
outer the
the pitch
pitch
surface. circle
circle
This diameter
diameter
search (PCD),
(PCD),
criterion according
according
is suitable to
to
forfor the
the geometric
geometric
establishing characteristics
characteristics
thethe node connection atthe
at there-re-
outer surface. This search criterion is suitable establishing node connection
node
node connection
connection
lationship between location.
location.finite The
The
elementtolerance
tolerance teeth factor
factor
and (TF)
(TF)
their was
was
meshing used
used to
to adjust
adjust
lines. RM the
the
cancan diameter
diameter
automatically pa-
pa-
lationship between finite element teeth and their meshing lines. RM automatically
rameters
rameters
generate ofofthethe
the inner
inner
pitch anddiameter
and
circle outer walls
outer walls of the
of
(PCD), the cylinders
cylinders
according tototothe optimize
optimize
geometric thecharacteristics
the connection attrib-
connection attrib-
at the
generate the pitch circle diameter (PCD), according to the geometric characteristics at the
utes,
utes,
node such
such asas
connection the
the number
number
location. of
of connection
connection
The tolerance nodes
nodes
factor and
and (TF) the
the was connection
connection
used to stiffness.
stiffness.
adjust the In
In addition,
addition,
diameter pa-
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 node connection location. The tolerance factor (TF) was used to adjust the diameter pa-
11 of 27
RBE2
RBE2
rameterselement
element of of type
type
the (detailed
(detailed
inner and inthe
in
outer the NASTRAN
NASTRAN
walls of of thethe helpfile)
help
cylinders file)to can
can bundlethe
bundle
optimize theselected
the selectedconnec-
connection connec-
attrib-
rameters the inner and outer walls cylinders to optimize the connection attrib-
tion
tion
utes, nodes
nodes
such into
into
as as aa the
the rigid
rigid
number node
node group,
ofgroup,
connection which
which means
means
nodes and that
that theallall the nodes
the
connection nodesstiffness.
will have
will haveInthethe same
same
addition,
utes, such number of connection nodes and the connection stiffness. In addition,
displacement
displacement
RBE2 element parameters,
parameters,
type (detailedso
so it
it can
can
in in simplify
simplify
thethe NASTRAN the
the model
modelhelp and
and
file) improve
improve
cancan bundle calculation
calculation
thethe efficiency.
efficiency.
selected connec-
RBE2 element type (detailed NASTRAN help file) bundle selected connec-
RBE3
RBE3
tionsmoothness
element
element
nodes was
type
type
into usednode
distributes
a rigid as angroup,
distributes evaluation
loads evenly
loads evenly
which index,
across
across
means andthe theselected
the
that performance
selected
allallthethe connection
nodes of
connection each
will stiffness
nodes.
nodes.
have theIt matrix
Itsame
re-
re-
tion nodes into a rigid node group, which means that nodes will have the same
duces
duces was the
the tested
stiffnessby
stiffness means
of
of the
the of the
connectionload
connection transfer
area
area by
by behavior
increasing
increasing among the
the polycondensation
flexibility
flexibility around
around nodes.
the
the nodes,
nodes, Finally,
displacement parameters, so it can simplify the model
displacement parameters, so it can simplify the model and improve calculation efficiency. and improve calculation efficiency.
soRBE3
so thethe
that
that loading
the elastomer
elastomer boundary deformationconditions
deformation wereobtained
behavior
behavior applied to
obtained thethe
from
from system
the model,
analysis
analysis willand
will the global
bemore
be more accu-
accu- cal-
RBE3 element
element type type distributes
distributes loads
loads evenly
evenly across
across thethe selected
selected connection
connection nodes.
nodes. It re-
It re-
rate,
rate, culation
butthe
but the of quasi-static
thestiffness
calculation cost elastic
willalso behavior
alsoincrease
increase was performed
significantly. to
Tableobtain
44showsthe
shows node displacement
thenode
node con-
duces
duces thecalculation
stiffness of of cost
the the will
connection
connection areaarea bybysignificantly.
increasing
increasing theTable
theflexibility
flexibility the
around
around thethe con-
nodes,
nodes,
nectionresponse
nection results
results ofandeach
and elastic member
corresponding
corresponding node
node under rated working
parameters
parameters between
between conditions.
the
the sun
sun In the
gear
gear teeth
teeth system-level
on
on the
the
so so
that thethe
that elastomer
elastomer deformation
deformation behavior
behavior obtained
obtained from from thethe analysis
analysis will be be
will more more accu-accu-
input
input simulation
shaft
shaft and
and analysis,
themeshing
the meshing the planet
lines
lines gear circle
(pitch
(pitch transferred
circleposition),
position), the power between
between received
the
the from
planet theand
gear sun the
and gear
the to
rate, butbut
rate, the calculation
the calculation costcostwill willalsoalsoincrease
increase significantly.
significantly. Table
Table 4 planet
shows
4 shows gear
the node
the node con-con-
outer the double-row
ring of aa tapered
tapered taperedrollerroller
bearing, bearing between (DRTRB) and the planet
the mounting
mounting holes shaft,
on the inring
turn,
ring andand
gear finally,
outer
nectionring
nection of
results
results and and roller
correspondingbearing,
corresponding between
nodenode the
parameters
parameters between
between holes
thetheon
sun the
sungear gear gear
teethteeth onand thethe
on
the
the acted
reducer
reducer on the
box,
box, load
and
and on a
between
between pin hole
the
the of
pin
pin the planet
holes
holes on
on carrier.
the
the planet
planet Figure 7
carrier
carrier shows and
and the
the
the calculation
planet
planet shafts
shafts results
input
input shaftshaft and the meshing lines (pitch circle position), between the planet gear and thethe
of the
(single
(single planetand
side).
side).
the meshing
carrier lines (pitch and
elastic deformation circle the position),
load distribution between the on eachplanet gear and
DRTRB. Under
outer
outer ring ring of of
a tapered
a tapered roller
roller bearing,
bearing, between
between the mounting holes onon thethe ring gear and
the rated working conditions of the system, thethe mounting
maximum holes
node resultant ring gear
displacement and
thethereducer
reducer box, box, and and between
between thethe pinpin holesholes onon thethe planetplanet carrier
carrier and and thethe planet
planet shafts
shafts
Table
Table (NRD)
4.4.Node
Node at connection
the pin hole
connection of the finite
between
between planet carriermodel
finiteelement
element exceeded
model andsolid
and 1000 µm,
solidmodel.
model. which will lead to significant
(single
(single side).side).
movement position error for the planet shaft in working state, and seriously affect the tooth
ConnectionNodes
Connection Nodes root stress response Connection
Connection Objects
Objects
in the planetary gear train. NodeParameters
Node Parameters
Table 4. Node connection between
Inputshaft
Input shaft Table 4. Node connection
Meshing
Meshing lines finite
between
lines
element
finite element model
model andand solidsolidmodel.
model.

Connection
Connection Nodes Table 4. NodeConnection
Nodes connection
Connection between
Objects
Objects finite element model and solid Node Nodemodel.
Parameters
Parameters
Input shaft
Input shaft Meshing lines
Meshing lines
Connection Nodes Connection Objects Number Numberof ofconnection
connectionNode nodes:
nodes: 1830
1830
Parameters
Input shaft Meshing lines Numberof
Number ofnode
nodegroups: groups:77
Node
Node
Number search
search
Number of of criterion:
criterion:
connection
connection solid
solid search
search
nodes:
nodes: 18301830
Node
Node
Number selection
selection
Number of node
Number
of method:
method:
node groups:
ofgroups:space
space7 7 nodes: 1830
connection
Element
Element
Node Node type:
type:
search Number
search RBE2
RBE2
criterion:of node
criterion: groups:
solid
solid search 7
search
PCD
PCD == 10
10 mm,
mm, Node TF
TF search
== 0.01
0.01 criterion: solid search
Node Node selection
selection method:
method: space
spacespace
Node selection method:
Element
Element type: type: RBE2 RBE2
Element type: RBE2
PCD PCD = 10 = 10 mm,
PCD mm, =TF =mm,
10TF 0.01
= 0.01
TF = 0.01

Planetgear
Planet gear DRTRB
DRTRB
Planet gear DRTRB
Numberof
Number ofconnection
connectionnodes:nodes:520 520
Planet gear
Planet gear DRTRB
DRTRB Number of node groups:
Number of node groups: 2
Number of 2
connection nodes: 520
Node
Node search
search
Number Number
of criterion:of
criterion:
connection node
solid
solid groups:
search
search
nodes: 2
520520
Number of connection nodes:
Metals 2022, 12, x12,
FOR PEER REVIEW Node Node
selection search
method: criterion:
surface solid search 13 32
Metals 2022, x FOR PEER REVIEW Node selection
Number
Number of method:
node
of
Node node groups:
groups:
selection 2 2 surface 13 of
surface
method:
of 32
Metals
Metals 2022,
2022, 12,
12, x x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW Element
Element
Node
Node type:
type:
search
search RBE3
RBE3
criterion:
Element type: solid
criterion: solid
RBE3 search
search 13 13
of of
32 32
PCD
PCD ==240
Node
Node240 mm,
mm,
PCD TF
selection
selection=TF =0.01
0.01
=method:
method:
240 mm, surface
TFsurface
= 0.01
Element
Number
Element
Number type:
of RBE3
of type:
nodenodegroups:
RBE3groups:34 34
Ring gearRing gear Main
Mainreducer boxbox
reducer PCD
PCD =
Number
Node
Number
Node
Number 240
search
=of
of mm,
of
node
240
searchmm, TF
node
criterion:= 0.01
groups:
groups:
TF =shell
criterion:
connection 34
0.01
nodes: 34
search
shell search
930
Ring gear Main reducer box Number of connection nodes: 930
Node
Node
Node search
selection
search
Node criterion:
method:
criterion:
selection shell
surface
shell
method: search
search
surface
Number of connection nodes: 930
Ring gear
Ring gear Main
Mainreducer box
reducer box Node
Element
NodeElement
Number
Number selection
type:
selection
of RBE2
type: method:
method:
RBE2
connection
of
Numberconnection
of node surface
surface
nodes:
nodes:
groups:930930
34
PCDElement
= 20type:
Element
PCD 20type:
= mm,
Node TF
RBE2
mm, RBE2
= 0.01
TF
search =criterion:
0.01 shell search
PCDPCD = 20
= 20 mm,mm,
Node TF TF = 0.01
selection
= 0.01 method: surface
Element type: RBE2
PCD = 20 mm, TF = 0.01

Planet carrier
Planet carrier Planet shafts
Planet shafts
Planet carrier Planet shafts
Planet
Planet carrier
carrier Planet
Planet shafts
shafts
Number
Number of connection
of connection nodes: 1410
nodes: 1410
Number
Number
Number
Numberof of
ofconnection
ofNumber
node groups:
connection
node of groups:nodes:
7 7 1410
nodes:
connection 1410 1410
nodes:
Number
Node
Number search
Node of Number
node
search ofgroups:
ofcriterion:
node node
groups: 7groups:
solid
criterion: solid 7
7search
search
Node search criterion: solid search
Node
Node
Node search
selection
search
Node criterion:
method:
criterion:
selection solid
surface
solid
method: search
search
surface
Node selection method: surface
Node
Element
Node selection
type:
selection
Element RBE3method:
method:
type: RBE3 surface
surface
Element type: RBE3
PCDElement
= 140
Element
PCD type:
mm,
type:
= PCD
140 RBE3
mm, RBE3
= TF
140=mm,
TF 0.01
= 0.01
TF = 0.01
PCDPCD = 140
= 140 mm, mm,TF TF = 0.01
= 0.01

2.2.8. System
2.2.8. System Elastic Behavior
Elastic BehaviorAnalysis
Analysis
2.2.8.
2.2.8. System
System
TheThe Elastic
Elastic
finite element
finite Behavior
Behavior
models
element Analysis
Analysis
in the
models system
in the systemareare
polycondensed
polycondensed to extract thethe
to extract correspond-
correspond-
inging
mass
TheThe
massand
finite stiffness
finite
and elementmatrices,
stiffness
element modelsinand
matrices,
models the thesystem
in and
the calculation
the
system areare process
calculation canto
polycondensed
process
polycondensed beextract
can toperformed
extract
be thethe
performed on general
correspond-
on general
correspond-
finite
ing ing element
mass
finite
mass andand
element software
stiffness
software
stiffness (such as and
matrices,
(such
matrices, ANSYS
asandthethe
ANSYS or calculation
ABAQUS(ABAQUS
process
or ABAQUS(ABAQUS
calculation process 2021,
cancan
be be Dassault
performed
2021,
performedDassaultSIMULIA,
on on general
SIMULIA,
general
Providence,
finite element
Providence,
finite element RI, USA)
software
RI,
softwareUSA)or the
or
(such RM
(such
the
as as
RMsoftware
ANSYS
ANSYS or
software platform. At At
platform.
or ABAQUS(ABAQUS thethe
ABAQUS(ABAQUS samesame
2021, time,
2021, thethe
Dassault
time,
Dassault deformation
SIMULIA,
deformation
SIMULIA,
smoothness
Providence,
smoothness
Providence, was
RI, used
RI,
was
USA)USA)as
or an
used as evaluation
or
thethe
an RM
evaluation
RM index,
software
software and
index, thethe
and
platform. performance
platform.
At At
thethe same
performance
same of each
time,
of each
time, thestiffness
the matrix
deformation
stiffness
deformationmatrix
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 32
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 12 of 27

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Mechanical
Figure analysis
7. Mechanical result:
analysis (a) displacement
result: nephogram
(a) displacement of planet
nephogram carrier;
of planet (b) roller
carrier; forceforce
(b) roller
diagram of DRTRB.
diagram of DRTRB.

In the system-level
In the system-level simulation
simulationanalysis,
analysis,ititisisnecessary
necessary to obtain the
to obtain thenode
nodedisplacement
displace-
ment response
response of the
of the planet
planet geargear rim teeth,
rim and and teeth, so provide
so as to as to provide
necessary necessary displacement
displacement boundary
boundary
conditionsconditions for the secondary
for the secondary sub-model sub-model of tooth
of tooth root stressroot stress calculation.
calculation. Figurethe
Figure 5 shows
5 shows the calculation
calculation results ofresults of the
the elastic elastic deformation
deformation and stress and stress distribution
distribution of a planet of agear
planet
under
gear under
rated rated working
working conditions.conditions. The structural
The structural element element
integrity integrity
of the of the system
system modelmodel ensures
ensures
that thethatelastic
the elastic deformation
deformation of theofplanet
the planet
carriercarrier and planet
and planet shaft,shaft,
as wellas as
well
theasbearing
the
bearing clearance
clearance and factors,
and other other factors,
can be can
taken beinto
taken into account
account in the Comparing
in the results. results. Comparing
the original
thecontour
originalofcontour
the planetof gear
the planet
with itsgear
loadedwithdeformation
its loaded contour
deformation contour (theproportion
(the deformation defor-
has been
mation enlarged),
proportion as shown
has been in Figure
enlarged), 8a, itin
as shown can be seen
Figure 8a, itthat
canthebe elastic
seen thatdeformation
the elastic of
the planetofgear
deformation the rim presents
planet gear rim an presents
ellipticalan shape. Figure
elliptical 8b shows
shape. Figure the stress the
8b shows distribution
stress
nephogram
distribution of the planet
nephogram gearplanet
of the after being loaded,
gear after being which identifies
loaded, whichthe two teeth
identifies themeshing
two
teeth meshing with sun gear and ring gear, respectively. The high stress zone was locatedroot
with sun gear and ring gear, respectively. The high stress zone was located at the tooth
of the
at the loaded
tooth root side of loaded
of the the twosideteeth,
of respectively,
the two teeth, and the maximum
respectively, andvonthe Mises
maximum stressvon(vMS)
reached
Mises stress298 MPa.reached
(vMS) It can also
298be found
MPa. fromalso
It can the be
figure
found thatfrom
the tooth root stress
the figure value
that the of the
tooth
rootteeth
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW stressthatvalue
wereof notthe
engaged in meshing
teeth that were not was not zero,
engaged inwhich
meshing is mainly
was not duezero,
to thewhich
significant
15 ofis32
elliptical
mainly due deformation
to the significant of theelliptical
rim structure.
deformationThe imprecise
of the rim tooth root stress
structure. Thebehavior
imprecisewas
included in the system-level simulation analysis results, and
tooth root stress behavior was included in the system-level simulation analysis results,more accurate tooth root stress
calculation results need to be further obtained from the secondary
and more accurate tooth root stress calculation results need to be further obtained from sub-model.
the secondary sub-model.
NRD (μm) vMS (MPa)
1522.50 298.38
1268.75 248.65
1015.00 198.92
761.25 149.19
507.50 99.46
253.75 49.73

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure8. 8.
Mechanical analysis
Mechanical result
analysis of planet
result gear: (a)
of planet displacement
gear: nephogram;
(a) displacement (b) stress(b)
nephogram; nepho-
stress
gram.
nephogram.

InInthe
thesystem-level
system-levelsimulation
simulationanalysis,
analysis,thethenode
nodedisplacement
displacementresponse
responseofofthe
thesun
sun
gear rim and teeth are reflected in the displacement nephogram of the input shaft,
gear rim and teeth are reflected in the displacement nephogram of the input shaft, and and the
calculation resultresult
the calculation is shown in Figure
is shown 9a. It can
in Figure 9a.beItseen
canfrom Figure
be seen from9 that the 9sun
Figure gear
that theand
sun
the ring gear have the same deformation trend, and there are obvious elastic deformation
zones near the teeth meshing with the planet gears. The flexible design of the sun gear rim
structure makes each high deformation zone evenly cover multiple teeth in a circumfer-
ential direction, and the thin-walled rim and cantilever support of the ring gear make each
high deformation zone offset by the same amount in axial direction. These elastic behavior
 Metals 2022, 12, 1785 13 of 27

gear and the ring gear have the same deformation trend, and there are obvious elastic
deformation zones near the teeth meshing with the planet gears. The flexible design of the
sun gear rim structure makes each high deformation zone evenly cover multiple teeth in a
circumferential direction, and the thin-walled rim and cantilever support of the ring gear
make each high deformation zone offset by the same amount in axial direction. These elastic
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW behavior characteristics will have a significant impact on the tooth root stress distribution
16 of 32
and stress level for the corresponding gears.

NRD (μm) NRD (μm)

1453.9 462.7
1211.6 385.6
969.3 308.5
726.9 231.3
484.6 154.2
242.3 77.1

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Elastic deformation result: (a) displacement nephogram of input shaft; (b) displacement
Figure 9. Elastic deformation result: (a) displacement nephogram of input shaft; (b) displacement
nephogram of ring carrier.
nephogram of ring carrier.

2.2.9. Calculation
2.2.9. Calculationof Tooth Surface
of Tooth Load
Surface LoadLine
Line
TheThe tooth
tooth surface
surfacemicro-geometric
micro-geometric analysis was carried
analysis was carriedout outat at
thethe system-level,
system-level, which
which used the boundary conditions of the whole system model. Based
used the boundary conditions of the whole system model. Based on the calculation results on the calculation
results of system
of system elastic
elastic deformation
deformation and meshing
and meshing misalignment,
misalignment, and considering
and considering toothtooth
surface
surface micro-geometric
micro-geometric information,
information, the dynamic
the dynamic load
load line on line
toothonsurface
tooth surface was calcu-
was calculated, which
lated, which provided
provided the load boundary
the load boundary conditions conditions for the secondary
for the secondary sub-model sub-model
of tooth of tooth
root stress
rootcalculation.
stress calculation. The micro-geometric
The micro-geometric analysisanalysis
modulesmodules in the RotationMaster
in the RotationMaster and
and RomaxDe-
RomaxDesigner
signer softwaresoftware (RomaxDesigner20,
(RomaxDesigner20, Romax Technologies
Romax Technologies Ltd., Nottingham,
Ltd., Nottingham, UK) can carry
UK) out
canvery accurate
carry out verymathematical definition fordefinition
accurate mathematical the tooth surface, including
for the tooth micro-geometric
surface, including
parameters, such
micro-geometric as involute
parameters, suchshape and tooth
as involute shapesurface
and toothmodification, and the nonlinear
surface modification, and
thecontact
nonlinearmodel of the
contact toothof
model surface can be
the tooth automatically
surface created by accurately
can be automatically created by evaluating
accu-
the evaluating
rately geometry and meshing direction
the geometry and meshing on the tooth surface.
direction The tooth
on the tooth surface
surface. The modification
tooth sur-
facegeometric information
modification geometricin the planetary mechanism
information is digitally
in the planetary expressed,
mechanism and the visual-
is digitally ex-
ized modeling
pressed, results aremodeling
and the visualized shown inresults
Figure are
10, shown
which will be used
in Figure 10,as one of
which thebe
will key input
used
as one of the key input conditions for the system-level tooth surface micro-geometry anal- of
conditions for the system-level tooth surface micro-geometry analysis. The contour maps
theThe
ysis. modification
contour maps amount in the
of the figure, respectively,
modification amount indescribes
the figure,therespectively,
modificationdescribes
state on the
working tooth surface for each gear, which, respectively, cover the
the modification state on the working tooth surface for each gear, which, respectively, micro-modification data,
such
cover theasmicro-modification
inclination, drum amount, andastop
data, such trimming,drum
inclination, in both directions
amount, and oftoptooth direction
trimming,
and tooth
in both profile.
directions of tooth direction and tooth profile.
The tooth surface dynamic load line results of each gear in the system can be obtained
through tooth surface micro-geometric analysis. The results consider the influence of the
elastic deformation and meshing misalignment of the system and record the information,
such as the meshing line movement trajectory on tooth surface and the tooth surface load
distribution under each rotation step. The calculation results of the tooth surface load line
of the sun gear, planet gear, and ring gear are shown in Figure 11, which show the tooth
surface load distribution state, when the load line moved to the center of tooth height.
It can be seen from the figure that the load on each tooth surface was basically evenly
distributed along the direction of tooth width, and a peak load was located in the center
area of tooth width. The load lines (contact spots) in Figure 11c,d were wider, which was
the result of internal meshing forming between the ring gear and planet gear.
 Metals
Metals 2022, 12,2022,
x FOR12,PEER
1785 REVIEW 17 of 32 14 of 27

(a) (b)

Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

(c) (d) 18 of 32
Figure Figure
10. Contour map ofmap
10. Contour tooth
ofsurface modification:
tooth surface (a) planet
modification: gear tooth
(a) planet gearsurface meshedmeshed
tooth surface with with
sun gear; (b) working tooth surface of sun gear; (c) planet gear tooth surface meshing with ring gear;
sun gear; (b) working tooth surface of sun gear; (c) planet gear tooth surface meshing with ring gear;
(d) working tooth surface of ring gear.
(d) working tooth surface of ring gear.

The tooth surface

Loaddynamic
(N/mm) load line results of each gear in the system can beLoad obtained
(N/mm)
Roll angle (°)

Roll angle (°)

24 through tooth surface micro-geometric

642 analysis.
24 The results consider the influence of the
642
462 22 462
20 elastic deformation and meshing
282 misalignment 20of the system and record the information,
282
16 such as the meshing line movement
102 18 tooth surface and the tooth surface 102
trajectory on load
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
distribution
Tooth width (mm)under each rotation step. The calculation results of width
Tooth the tooth
(mm) surface load line
of the(a)
sun gear, planet gear, and ring gear are shown in Figure 11, (b)which show the tooth
surface load distribution state, when the load line moved to the center of toothLoad
Load (N/mm) height.
(N/mm)It
Roll angle (°)

Roll angle (°)

24 646 22 646
can be seen from the figure 464
that the load on each
21
tooth surface was basically evenly dis-
464
20
tributed along the direction 282 of tooth width, and20a peak load was located in the center 282 area
16 19
0 20
of tooth
40 60
width.
80
The load 100
100 120
lines (contact spots) in Figure
0 20
11c,d
40
were
60
wider,
80
which was100the
100 120
result
Tooth of (mm)
width internal meshing forming between the ring gear and Toothplanet gear.
width (mm)
(c) (d)
Figure11.
Figure 11. Load
Loadline
lineon
ontooth
toothsurface:
surface:(a)
(a)planet
planetgear
geartooth
tooth surface
surface meshed
meshed with
with sun
sun gear;
gear; (b)(b) work-
working
ing tooth surface of sun gear; (c) planet gear tooth surface meshing with ring gear; (d) working tooth
tooth surface of sun gear; (c) planet gear tooth surface meshing with ring gear; (d) working tooth
surface of ring gear.
surface of ring gear.

2.3. Secondary
2.3. Secondary Sub-Model
Sub-model Construction
Construction and
and Tooth
Tooth Root
Root Stress
Stress Analysis
Analysis
2.3.1.
2.3.1. Construction
Construction of
of Secondary
Secondary Sub-Model
Sub-model
In
In the
the system-level
system-level model,
model, the
the dynamic
dynamic load
load lines
lines onon tooth
tooth surface
surface were
were obtained
obtained
through
throughquasi-static
quasi-staticstatic
staticanalysis
analysisandandtooth surface
tooth surfacemicro-geometric
micro-geometric analysis (see(see
analysis Figure 11),
Figure
which could be loaded on the tooth surface of the secondary sub-model
11), which could be loaded on the tooth surface of the secondary sub-model as load as load bound-
ary conditions.
boundary At theAt
conditions. same time, time,
the same the system elastic
the system deformation
elastic results,
deformation including
results, the
including
deformation
the deformation behavior of the
behavior of gear rim and
the gear rim teeth (see Figures
and teeth 7–9),7–9),
(see Figures couldcould
be extracted and
be extracted
loaded into the
and loaded intosub-model
the sub-modelas displacement boundary
as displacement conditions.
boundary In thisInway,
conditions. this the tooth
way, the
root stress analysis results of the sub-model naturally included the elastic
tooth root stress analysis results of the sub-model naturally included the elastic defor- deformation of
mation of the entire system (including rim distortion deformation and tooth bending de-
formation, etc.), meshing misalignment, and tooth surface micro-geometry, as well as
other factors. In addition, the dynamic behavior factors, such as the gear rotation and
meshing, were also considered in the system model. When these important factors are
fully considered in the system model, the overall structure of the sub-model can be signif-
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 15 of 27

the entire system (including rim distortion deformation and tooth bending deformation,
etc.), meshing misalignment, and tooth surface micro-geometry, as well as other factors.
In addition, the dynamic behavior factors, such as the gear rotation and meshing, were
also considered in the system model. When these important factors are fully considered in
the system model, the overall structure of the sub-model can be significantly simplified.
It could only contain a few teeth and the corresponding rim feature; the configuration is
shown in Figure 12, and its modeling and computational costs focused more on the tooth
root geometric details. In terms of model quality, the tooth root geometric elements
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of of
32
the sub-model were more comprehensive than those of the system model, and its quality
indicators, such as accuracy level and mesh quality were also higher.

Figure 12. Evolution process of tooth root stress distribution on sun gear.
Figure 12. Evolution process of tooth root stress distribution on sun gear.

2.3.2.TheResult Analysissub-model
secondary of Tooth Rootof theStress
tooth root stress analysis with high-fidelity was
established by a general finite element method.
If the planetary system is considered an absolutely The parametrically
rigid system,defined detailed
and the gear
misalign-
solid models in the system-level model were auxiliary modeling
ment of the gear mesh will be caused mainly by the clearance between the moving parts. elements for the 3D
finite element
This will sub-models,
generate phase-wisewhichmeshing
solved the problem ofbetween
interference difficultthe
modeling for the
planetary general
gears and,
finite element
thus, will method, increase
significantly to a certain extent.level
the stress In addition,
in the toothin order
roots. to further alleviate
Introducing the
the elastic
contradiction
mechanism into between calculation
the system model accuracy and operation
can alleviate the meshingspeed,interference
a first-orderbehavior
hexahedronbe-
element was adopted in the finite element sub-model. When the meshes
tween gears, to some extent (the more significant the flexible characteristics of the system are relatively
coarse,
within athe toothrange,
certain top maythe appear “jagged” inthis
more pronounced appearance,
mitigationdue to shear
effect), self-locking
reducing tooth rootor
hourglass
stress. effect from the first-order element, but this does not affect the analysis results of
toothFirstly,
root stress. RM software platform can recommend economical and
the tooth root stress analysis program of the sun gear sub-model was run, and adaptive mesh
density
the maximumhere, which can stress
principal accurately
valuecapture the steep
at the tooth stress
root was gradientaccording
calculated at tooth root and
to the is
first
enough to make the calculation of the sub-model converge within predetermined
strength theory. The calculation results of the system deformation and tooth surface load number
of
lineiterations.
are applied In tosystem-level
the sub-model analysis, theconditions,
as input meshing force on teeth
and then is applied
the model through
is solved ac-
condensation nodes and finite element nodes, but in a secondary sub-model,
cording to the set rotation steps. According to the coincidence degree of gear pairs in the the meshing
force
system, is applied by theintooth
the meshing surface load
and meshing out line obtained
processes of afrom
tooththearesystem-level
divided intoanalysis.
16 rotation
steps, and the sub-model performed a finite element solution for each rotation step. Alt-
2.3.2. Result Analysis of Tooth Root Stress
hough this made the processes of stiffness decomposition and load vector inverse substi-
tutionIf the planetary
relatively system (involving
complex is considered an absolutely
multiple rigidtraversals
recursive system, and
at the
the misalignment
substructure
of the gear mesh will be caused mainly by the clearance between the moving parts. This
layer), it was worthwhile to significantly reduce the calculation cost by appropriately in-
will generate phase-wise meshing interference between the planetary gears and, thus, will
creasing the program complexity.
significantly increase the stress level in the tooth roots. Introducing the elastic mechanism
Figure 13a shows the calculation results of the tooth root stress of the sun gear under
into the system model can alleviate the meshing interference behavior between gears, to
16 rotation steps. The stress results, without considering system elastic deformation, were
11.9%–17.3% higher than those considering this factor, which indicates that ignoring the
flexible behavior characteristics of the large aviation planetary mechanism may directly
lead to an over-conservative design scheme for corresponding structural strength. Figure
12 shows the evolution process of tooth root stress distribution of sun gear teeth during
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 16 of 27

some extent (the more significant the flexible characteristics of the system within a certain
range, the more pronounced this mitigation effect), reducing tooth root stress.
Firstly, the tooth root stress analysis program of the sun gear sub-model was run,
and the maximum principal stress value at the tooth root was calculated according to
the first strength theory. The calculation results of the system deformation and tooth
surface load line are applied to the sub-model as input conditions, and then the model
is solved according to the set rotation steps. According to the coincidence degree of gear
pairs in the system, the meshing in and meshing out processes of a tooth are divided into
16 rotation steps, and the sub-model performed a finite element solution for each rotation
step. Although this made the processes of stiffness decomposition and load vector inverse
substitution relatively complex (involving multiple recursive traversals at the substructure
layer), it was worthwhile to significantly reduce the calculation cost by appropriately
increasing the program complexity.
Figure 13a shows the calculation results of the tooth root stress of the sun gear under
16 rotation steps. The stress results, without considering system elastic deformation, were
11.9%–17.3% higher than those considering this factor, which indicates that ignoring the
flexible behavior characteristics of the large aviation planetary mechanism may directly lead
to an over-conservative design scheme for corresponding structural strength. Figure 12
shows the evolution process of tooth root stress distribution of sun gear teeth during
meshing (corresponding to steps 8~16 in Figure 13a). Load lines successively passed
through three teeth, A, B, and C, in the sub-model, and the figure indicates the specific
value and position of the maximum tooth root stress (the maximum mentioned here refers
to the maximum in position) under each rotation step. As can be seen from the action
of load lines in the first three steps that tooth A gradually disengaged meshing, and its
root stress kept decreasing, while the adjacent tooth B gradually entered meshing, and
its root stress kept increasing. When step 11 was reached, the maximum tooth root stress
position jumped from tooth A to tooth B. When the 12th step was reached, the sun gear
changed from double-tooth meshing to single-tooth meshing, and the root stress at tooth
B increased significantly, then reached a stress peak state at the 14th rotation step. It was
the maximum value state that tooth root stress could reach during the meshing process,
and it was also one of the most dangerous load states that caused the sun gear to suffer
from bending fatigue tooth breakage; then, the gear entered double-tooth meshing again
and continuously circulated the above process. In addition, the stress peak of tooth root
bending fatigue obtained by the calculation model in ISO6336 is also shown in Figure 13 a,
and the calculation model is as follows:
Ft
σF = · K A · KV · K Fβ · K Fα · YF · YS · Yβ · YB · YDT (7)
b·m
The simulation result, without considering system elastic deformation, is in good
agreement with this calculation result, which proves the validity of the load boundary
conditions and other model parameters in the simulation analysis process.
Figure 13b shows the calculation results of the tooth root stress of the planet gear
meshing with the sun gear and the ring gear, respectively, in 16 rotation steps, and it also
marks the demarcation line of the tooth root stress grade under single-tooth meshing and
double-tooth meshing. One side tooth surface of the planet gear tooth was meshed with
the sun gear, and the stress peak at the tooth root reached 272 MPa; the other side’s tooth
surface meshed with the ring gear, and the stress peak at the tooth root was 276 MPa. In
addition, the calculation result of the tooth root stress peak of the ring gear was 280 MPa.
These stress results were obtained under system-rated working conditions, and the effects
of the elastic deformation, meshing misalignment, and tooth surface micro-geometry of the
whole system were fully considered.
 bending fatigue tooth breakage; then, the gear entered double-tooth meshing again and
continuously circulated the above process. In addition, the stress peak of tooth root bend-
ing fatigue obtained by the calculation model in ISO6336 is also shown in Figure 13 a, and
the calculation model is as follows:
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 Ft 17 of 27
F =  K A  KV  K F   K F  YF  YS  Y  YB  YDT (7)
bm

320 System deformation 320 Meshing with ring gear

308

Maximum tooth root stress (MPa)

Maximum tooth root stress (MPa)

No system deformation 300 305 Meshed with sun gear

300
ISO 6336 calculation 292 300
276
280 270 280 272
259
260 249 260
244 243 241 240 8 242 241
23 236 33
240 2 229 6 240 Dividing line
22 21 9
218 13 2 21
220 2 209 9 220
205 202 207 20
200 197 193
189 185 200
2
181 18
180 180
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Meshing process (Step) Meshing process (Step)

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Maximum tooth root stress history: (a) sun gear; (b) planet gear.
Figure 13. Maximum tooth root stress history: (a) sun gear; (b) planet gear.

2.3.3.The
Loadsimulation result,Conversion
Input Variable without considering system elastic deformation, is in good
agreement with this calculation
Based on the hierarchical finite result, whichmethod,
element proves thethesystem
validitypower
of thepeak
loaddistribution
boundary
conditions and other model parameters in the simulation analysis process.
was transformed into the gear stress peak distribution, which provided direct load input
Figurefor13b
variables theshows
systemthe calculation
fatigue results
reliability of the tooth
evaluation model. root
In stress of the
a typical planet
service gear
mission,
meshing
with a longwithflight
the sun gearthe
time, and the ring
input powergear, respectively,
history of this in 16 rotation
kind steps,system
of planetary and it also
was
marks the demarcation line of the tooth root stress grade under single-tooth
collected, as shown in Figure 14a. The power peaks in the load history were extracted meshing and
double-tooth meshing.
as load statistical One sideand
characteristic tooth surface
fitted withofnormal
the planet gear tooth
distribution, was
and themeshed
power withpeak
the
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW sun gear, and the stress peak at the tooth root reached 272 MPa; the
distribution result is shown in Figure 14b. Based on the hierarchical finite element method, other side’s tooth
21 of 32
surface
a mapping meshed with theofring
relationship thegear,
sameand the stress
probability peak atfrom
quantile the tooth
powerroot was 276 MPa.
distribution In
to stress
addition, the was
distribution calculation resultand
established, of the
thetooth
power root stress
peak peak of the
distribution wasring gear was 280
transformed MPa.
into the
These
tooth stress
root stress results
root stress
peak weredistribution
peak obtained
distribution under
of each of
gear system-rated
each gear
in the in the
system. working
system.
Final conditions, and the
Final calculation
calculation results areeffects
results
shown
of
arethe elastic
in deformation,
Figure 14d, meshing
where the misalignment,
PS represents and
the tooth
tooth surface
in Figure 14d, where the PS represents the tooth root stress on the planet gear toothgear
shown root stress micro-geometry
on the planet of
(the
the whole
tooth (thesystem
tooth were
side fully
meshed considered.
with the sun gear), and the other codes
tooth side meshed with the sun gear), and the other codes in the figure have similar mean- in the figure have
similar
ings. meanings.
2.3.3. Load Input Variable Conversion
6000 Based on the hierarchical finite element method, the system power peak distribution
 S N ( 248, 15.832 )
P (kW)

4000 was transformed into the gear stress peak distribution, which provided direct load input
 PS N ( 250, 15.962 )
2000 variables for the system fatigue reliability evaluation model. In a typical service mission,
0 2 4
with a long flight
6
time, the
8
input power
10
history of this kindof N ( 254, 16.22system
PR planetary
2
) was col-
T (h)
lected, as shown(a) in Figure 14a. The power peaks in the load history
R N ( 257,
were
2
)
extracted
16.41 as load
statistical characteristic and fitted with normal distribution, and the power peak distribu-
1.6×10-3 Ption
I ( 4385, 280
N result )
is 2shown 2.8×10-2
in Figure 14b. Based on the hierarchical finite element method,S
PS
a map-
ping relationship of the same probability quantile from
2.1×10-2 power distribution PR to stress dis-
1.2×10-3
R
tribution was established, and the power peak distribution was transformed into the tooth
f (x)

f (x)

8.0×10-4 1.4×10-2

4.0×10-4 7.0×10-3

0.0 0.0
3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 200 225 250 275 300 325
P (kW) σ (MPa)
(b) (c) (d)
Figure 14. Load input variable conversion: (a) input power history; (b) power peak distribution; (c)
Figure 14. Load input variable conversion: (a) input power history; (b) power peak distribution;
hierarchical finite element simulation; (d) stress peak distribution.
(c) hierarchical finite element simulation; (d) stress peak distribution.

3. Tooth
3. ToothProbability
ProbabilityStrength
StrengthFitting
FittingBased
Basedon
onGear
GearFatigue
FatigueTest
Test
3.1.
3.1. Gear
Gear Bending
Bending Fatigue
Fatigue Test
Test
AA gear
gear bending
bending fatigue
fatigue accelerated
accelerated life
life test
test was
was carried
carried out
out by
by aa power
power flow
flowclosed
closed
gear rotation
gear rotation testing machine, which provided strength input variables for the fatigue
machine, which provided strength input variables for the fatigue re-
liability prediction model of the large aviation planetary system. The overall layout of the
test platform is shown in Figure 15a, and its working principle and verification standard
are shown in the previous relevant research work [2]. For power flow input inside the
testing machine, a conical friction surface-type mechanical loading device was adopted,
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 18 of 27

reliability prediction model of the large aviation planetary system. The overall layout of the
test platform is shown in Figure 15a, and its working principle and verification standard are
shown in the previous relevant research work [2]. For power flow input inside the testing
machine, a conical friction surface-type mechanical loading device was adopted, as shown
in Figure 15d, which ensured a reliable seal of the power flow under an ultra-high cycle.
A vibration monitoring system (see Figure 15b,e) enabled the testing machine to have the
function of real-time automatic shutdown, in case of sudden fatigue tooth breakage, which
better ensured the consistency of the failure states for all the gear samples. The final shapes
and sizes of each tooth root crack were basically the same, as shown in Figure 15h. At the
same time, tooth root fatigue fracture surface morphology is shown in Figure 15i, and the
macro morphological features, such as fatigue expansion zones and fatigue instantaneous
fracture zones, can be clearly seen. A top-view of test gearbox inside is shown in Figure 15g.
The gear pair adopted an assembly form of full tooth width contact, and the lubrication
and cooling for the gear pair were realized by oil injection during the test. The structural
details and specific parameters of the gear samples are shown in Figure 15f and Table 5,
respectively, and the preparation process strictly followed the principle of “teeth fatigue
strength equivalent”, that is, to make the sample parameters as equal, or similar, to the gear
parameters in the planetary mechanism as possible, in terms of material properties, tooth
geometry, machining, and heat treatment, etc. A reliable guarantee for this similarity level
will help to improve fatigue reliability prediction accuracy for the planetary system. In
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWaddition, all the gear samples came from the same batch production process to minimize 22 of 32
the dispersion of test data.

Figure 15. Gear bending fatigue test: (a) test platform; (b) vibration monitoring; (c) revolution coun-
Figure 15. Gear bending fatigue test: (a) test platform; (b) vibration monitoring; (c) revolution
ter; (d) loading device; (e) acceleration sensor; (f) gear sample; (g) gear installation; (h) root crack;
counter; (d)morphology.
(i) fracture loading device; (e) acceleration sensor; (f) gear sample; (g) gear installation; (h) root
crack; (i) fracture morphology.
Table 5. Parameter list of test gear.
Table 5. Parameter list of test gear.
Items Parameters Items Parameters
Items Parameters Items Parameters
Module (mm) 5 ISO quality grade 5
Module (mm)
Number of teeth 525 ISO quality
Material grade
brand 5
1Cr18Ni9Ti
Number of teeth 25 Material brand 1Cr18Ni9Ti
Pressure
Pressure angle
angle ((°)
◦) 2020 Carburized depth(mm)
Carburized depth (mm) 0.80.8
± ±0.13
0.13
Helix
Helixangle
angle (°)
(◦ ) 00 Tooth surfacehardness
Tooth surface hardness 59–63
59–63 HRC
HRC
Face
Facewidth
width (mm)
(mm) 3232 Tooth corehardness
Tooth core hardness 35–48
35–48 HRC
HRC
Root fillet radius(mm)
Root fillet radius (mm) 2.7
2.7 Precision machining
Precision machining Grinding
Grinding

3.2. Tooth Probability Strength Fitting

The tooth root stress peak was taken as an evaluation index for the stress grade, and
the bending fatigue performance of the tooth root was tested by the group method under
four stress grades. The selected stress levels and the number of test points under various
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 19 of 27

3.2. Tooth Probability Strength Fitting

The tooth root stress peak was taken as an evaluation index for the stress grade, and
the bending fatigue performance of the tooth root was tested by the group method under
four stress grades. The selected stress levels and the number of test points under various
stress levels were 649 MPa (17 points), 618 MPa (22 points), 586 MPa (29 points), and
555 MPa (38 points), respectively. During the test, if any tooth on the gear sample failed
first, the testing machine would automatically stop, and the direct data obtained from this
was the gear life, rather than the tooth life. It represents the ability of the individual gear
to maintain excellent transmission function under current stress level, so the gear life was
also the “first broken tooth” life. From the perspective of probability, the more teeth on
a gear, the more potential failure links. Therefore, under the same stress and revolution
conditions, the failure risk of the gear will increase with the increase of the number of
teeth. In the process of this test, a complete rotation of the sample was recorded as one
gear life. In this conventional counting mode, the statistical characteristics of the number of
teeth led to the difference in the probability life between the gear and tooth. In order to
obtain direct strength input variables for the reliability prediction model, a probabilistic
statistical transformation method was proposed to fit the tooth P-S-N curves, based on the
gear life data.
The probability life relationship between the gear and tooth was established based on
the concept of minimum order statistics. The fracture of any tooth on a gear will cause the
gear to lose excellent transmission capacity. For this reason, it can be considered that the
life of a gear depends on the minimum life of its teeth. Suppose X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn is a set of
samples from a parent X, then Xmin = min(X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ) is the minimum order statistics
of the parent. This probability model will be applied to the life transformation calculation
under the failure mode of tooth root bending fatigue, and then the gear probability life is
equal to the minimum order statistics of tooth probability life.
Assuming that the cumulative distribution function of random variable X is F ( x )
and its probability density function is f ( x ), then the probability density function of the
minimum order statistics of X can be expressed as

gmin ( x ) = z · [1 − F ( x )]z−1 · f ( x ) (8)

If the two-parameter Weibull distribution is adopted to express tooth probability life,

then the cumulative distribution function can be expressed as
h i
F ( x ) = 1 − exp −( x/θ ) β (9)

and the probability density function is

  h i
f ( x ) = β · x β−1 /θ β exp −( x/θ ) β (10)

where β and θ are, respectively, the shape parameter and scale parameter of the tooth
life distribution.
Equations (9) and (10) are brought into Equation (8) to obtain the following equation
  β    β 
gmin ( x ) = β · x β−1 / θ/z1/β exp − x · z1/β /θ (11)

If the number of teeth on a gear is z, then gmin ( x ) directly represents the probability
density function of the gear life distribution. From the expression of this function, it can be
seen that the gear probability life also follows two-parameter Weibull distribution, and the
shape parameter and scale parameter are as follows

β Gear = β
(12)
θGear = θ/z1/β
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 20 of 27

In the statistical processing for the test data, the two-parameter Weibull distribution
function was adopted to fit the probability distribution of gear life points under each stress
level. The probability life transformation between the gear and tooth was then performed
by model (12). Finally, a least square method was used to linearly fit the same probability
quantiles of the tooth life distribution under each stress level in a single logarithmic
coordinate system, and the results of tooth bending fatigue P-S-N curves obtained are
shown in Figure 16. Under deterministic loading, the dispersion of fatigue life generally
increases as stress level decreases; therefore, in a linear coordinate system, the P-S-N curve
family will appear as an “umbrella” shape with a small upper opening and a large lower
opening. However, due to the single logarithmic coordinate system, the curve family
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 32
presents a corresponding inverted shape.

Gear life P-S-N curves

Tooth life Tooth life
f R ( x ) = aR + bR x
a0.9 = 1348.5, b0.9 = −123.3

a0.5 = 1528.2, b0.5 = −146.1
a = 1692.7, b = −167.1
 0.1 0.1
 G = 2.11
   T = 2.11

660   R=0.5 660
G = 2.95 10
  T = 13.5 10

5 5

640 R=0.9 R=0.1 640

 G = 3.07
   T = 3.07

 
Stress levels (MPa)

Stress levels (MPa)

G = 6.64 10
 T = 18.9 10

5 5
620 620

600  G = 2.69
  T = 2.69

600
 
G = 8.38 10
 T = 27.7 10

5 5

580 580
 G = 3.68
   T = 3.68

 
G = 23.2 10
 T = 55.7 10

5 5
560 560

540 540
104 105 106 107 105 106 107
Number of cycles Number of cycles
(a) (b)

FigureFigure 16. Statistical

16. Statistical transformation
transformation of test
of test data: (a)data: (a) probability
probability life transformation
life transformation for tooth;for
(b) tooth;
P-S-N(b) P-
S-N curves fitting for tooth.
curves fitting for tooth.

4. System
4. System Reliability
Reliability Modeling
Modeling Considering
Considering Planetary
Planetary Transmission
Transmission Characteristic
Characteristic
4.1. Conditional Probability
4.1. Conditional Expectation
Probability Algorithm
Expectation for Part
Algorithm forFatigue Reliability
Part Fatigue Calculation
Reliability Calculation
The traditional “load “load
The traditional and strength interference”
and strength analysis
interference” methodmethod
analysis was extended to es- to
was extended
tablish a conditional
establish probability
a conditional expectation
probability algorithm
expectation for calculating
algorithm the fatigue
for calculating thereliability
fatigue relia-
of thebility
parts,ofbased on thebased
the parts, probability
on the distribution of the stress level
probability distribution of theand thelevel
stress life distribution
and the life dis-
undertribution
the specified stress level. For the static strength failure of parts under
under the specified stress level. For the static strength failure of parts one load, the one
under
reliability can be regarded as a function of stress, and the conditional reliability
load, the reliability can be regarded as a function of stress, and the conditional reliability model
undermodel
specified stress
under is established.
specified stress isThat is, underThat
established. the condition
is, under of
thestress σ, the of
condition probability
stress  , the
calculation formula of static strength S greater than the stress is
probability calculation formula of static strength S greater than the stress is
Z ∞

ζ (σ) = ( )f=(S)dS
f ( S ) dS
 (13) (13)
σ

wherewhere ( S )probability
f (S) isfthe is the probability
density density
functionfunction
of staticof static strength
strength S. S.
Furthermore, the static strength reliability model of parts that can reflect
Furthermore, the static strength reliability model of parts that can reflect the effect of of
the effect
load uncertainty can be expressed
load uncertainty can be expressed asas
Z ∞

R= h(σ ) h· (ζ
R= (σ))dσ
 ( ) d (14) (14)
0 0

where h ( ) is the probability density function of stress  .

If Equation (14) is the traditional “load and strength interference model”, then the
basic meaning is extended from probability perspective. Based on the total probability
calculation principle of continuous random variable, Equation (14) can be interpreted as
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 21 of 27

where h(σ ) is the probability density function of stress σ.

If Equation (14) is the traditional “load and strength interference model”, then the
basic meaning is extended from probability perspective. Based on the total probability
calculation principle of continuous random variable, Equation (14) can be interpreted as
the mathematical expectation of random function ζ (σ ) in the definition domain of random
variable σ.
For fatigue reliability, because it is difficult to obtain the fatigue strength distribution
under specified life directly, a mathematical expression for calculating the fatigue reliability
of parts directly, based on life distribution, can be constructed, according to above extended
thinking. Assuming that ζ (n, σ ) is the conditional fatigue reliability function under the
specified stress level, that is, under the condition of stress level σ, the probability calculation
formula of the life N greater than the number of load cycles n is
Z ∞
ζ (n, σ ) = f ( N |σ )dN (15)
n

where f ( N |σ ) is the life probability density function at stress level σ.

Correspondingly, under the action of random stress level σ, the fatigue reliability
model of parts can be expressed as
Z ∞
R(n) = h(σ ) · ζ (n, σ )dσ (16)
0

The fatigue reliability index of parts under random constant amplitude cyclic load can
be directly calculated by Equation (16).

4.2. Fatigue Reliability Evaluation Model of Series System Considering Failure Dependence
The fracture of any tooth in a planetary system will affect the transmission capacity of
the whole system. Therefore, if each tooth in the system is regarded as a potential failure
unit, then the system is a typical series system. In the service process, the load borne by
each tooth has significant dependence on the system input power, and the load dependence
and general load randomness make the failure of each element not independent of each
other, so the reliability of the series system cannot be simply considered as the reliability
product of each unit.
The fatigue reliability evaluation model of a series system is established based on
conditional probability expectation algorithm and considering the failure dependence
among unit parts. First of all, only under the action of deterministic load, the failure of
each part in the system is independent of each other, so the conditional reliability of the
series system is equal to the conditional reliability product of each part. Then, considering
the load uncertainty effect at the system-level, the probability that r parts in the system will
not fail, that is, the fatigue reliability evaluation model of the series system is
Z ∞ r Z ∞

RSYS (n) = h0 ( σ ) ∏ f i ( N |(si σ + µi ) )dN dσ (17)
0 i =1 n

where h0 (σ ) is the probability density function of standard normal distribution, and

f i ( N |(si σ + µi ) ) is the life probability density function of the ith part under stress level
si σ + µi .
The model assumes that the load follows normal distribution and realizes load normal-
ization for each part through the mathematical relationship transformation between normal
distribution and standard normal distribution, so as to consider the load uncertainty effect
at the system-level.

4.3. Structural Optimization of Reliability Model Considering Sequence Characteristic

The kinematic equation of planetary transmission was deduced according to a periodic
operation law in the planetary gear train; at the same time, the single tooth meshing times
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 22 of 27

of various gears in the system within the same time interval were obtained, which matched
the sequence characteristic attributes for the system fatigue reliability evaluation model.
Assuming that the absolute angular velocities of the sun gear, planet gear, ring gear, and
planet carrier are ωS , ωP , ωR , and ωC , respectively, then the mathematical relationship
among them can be expressed as:
C · ω + iR · ω

 ωS = iSR R SC C
C · ω + iS · ω

ωR = iRS

S RC C
R · ω + iS · ω (18)

 ωC = iCS S CR R
 R · ω + iC · ω
ωP = iPC C PR R

c represents the ratio of the relative rotational speed of member a and member b,
where iab
c = ( ω − ω ) / ( ω − ω ).
respectively, relative to member c, i.e., iab a c b c
The kinematic equation of the planetary gear train can be derived from Equation (18)


 ωS + p · ωR − ( 1 + p ) · ωC = 0
ωR + ωS /p − (1 + p) · ωC /p = 0

(19)
 ωC − ωS / ( 1 + p ) − p · ωR / ( 1 + p ) = 0

ωP − (1 + p) · ωC /(1 − p) + 2p · ωR /(1 − p) = 0


where p is the kinematic characteristic parameter of the planetary gear train, which is the
ratio of the number of teeth between ring gear and sun gear, i.e., p = zR /zS .
Through Equation (19), the relative angular velocities of the sun gear, planet gear, and
ring gear, relative to the planet carrier and their single tooth meshing times in the same
time interval, can be obtained, and the kinematic parameters are shown in Table 6, where
the positive and negative signs indicate that the rotation directions are opposite, and kP is
the number of planet gears in the system. System input speed ωS is a known condition,
and nPS (t) is the meshing times between the target single tooth of a planet gear and the sun
gear within a time interval t, and the interpretation for other relevant parameters is similar.

Table 6. Kinematic parameter of planetary gear train.

Components Angular Velocity Relative Angular Velocity Single Tooth Meshing Times
Sun gear ωS p · ωS / ( 1 + p )
n S ( t ) = p · ωS · t · k P / ( 1 + p )
2p · ωS / 1 − p2 nPS (t) = nPR (t) = 2p · ωS · t/ p2 − 1


Planet gear ωS / ( 1 − p )
Ring gear 0 − ωS / ( 1 + p ) n R ( t ) = ωS · t · k P / ( 1 + p )
Planet carrier ωS / ( 1 + p ) 0 -

The parameters of the single tooth meshing times in Table 6 were brought into the
model (17), the calculation factors ζ i of the tooth element conditional fatigue reliability of
various gears were obtained, and the fatigue reliability evaluation model RSYS (t) for the
planetary system, considering failure dependence and meshing sequence, was as follows
R∞
ζ S = n (t) f S ( N |(sS σ + µS ) )dN

 S
 ζ = R∞

f PS ( N |(sPS σ + µPS ) )dN

PS
Rn∞PS ( t ) (20)
 ζ PR = nPR (t) f PR ( N |( sPR σ + µPR ) )dN
∞

 R
ζ R = n (t) f R ( N |(sR σ + µR ) )dN

R

Z ∞
h0 (σ ) · ζ SS · (ζ PS · ζ PR )kP ·zP · ζ RR dσ
z z
RSYS (t) = (21)
0
It is assumed that the manufacturing and assembly process of such large aviation
planetary mechanism products has well-met the accuracy and quality requirements in
the product design. Based on the above model, the fatigue reliability evolution law of
the planetary systems before the first overhaul was predicted, and the result is shown
in Figure 17. The prediction result of the traditional model shows an excessively rapid
 
RSYS ( t ) =  h0 ( )   SzS  ( PS   PR ) P
k  zP
  RzR d (21)
0

It is assumed that the manufacturing and assembly process of such large aviation
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 planetary mechanism products has well-met the accuracy and quality requirements in 23 the
of 27
product design. Based on the above model, the fatigue reliability evolution law of the
planetary systems before the first overhaul was predicted, and the result is shown in Fig-
ure 17. The prediction result of the traditional model shows an excessively rapid down-
downward trend, and the downward speed will raise with the increase of the number
ward trend, and the downward speed will raise with the increase of the number of units
of units in the system, which is difficult to accept. The curve result, considering failure
in the system, which is difficult to accept. The curve result, considering failure depend-
dependence (FD), was relatively accurate in overall shape, which could distinguish the
ence (FD), was relatively accurate in overall shape, which could distinguish the evolution
evolution characteristics of product fatigue reliability during an accidental failure period
characteristics of product fatigue reliability during an accidental failure period and a de-
and a depletion failure period. However, only the prediction result that considers both
pletion
failure failure period.
dependence However,
and meshingonly the prediction
sequence (MS) couldresult that considers
achieve excellent both failurewith
agreement de-
pendence and meshing sequence (MS) could achieve excellent agreement with the
the relevant historical information (based on the statistical processing results from the rele-
vant historical
historical information
censored (based on the statistical processing results from the historical
data [22]).
censored data [22]).

1.0

0.9
Fatigue reliability

0.8

0.7 FD+MS model

FD only model
Traditional model
0.6 Historical data

0.5

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 12,000 14,000

Service time (h)
Figure
Figure17.
17.Prediction
Predictionresult
resultof
ofreliability
reliabilitymodel.
model.

5.5.Reliability-Driven
Reliability-DrivenOptimization
OptimizationDesign
DesignforforKey
KeyStructural
StructuralElements
Elements
Basedon
Based onthe
theabove
above reliability
reliability calculation
calculation method
method to redesign
to redesign the geometric
the key key geometric
fea-
features of the large aeronautical planetary mechanism, the reliability-sensitive
tures of the large aeronautical planetary mechanism, the reliability-sensitive structural structural
el-
elements
ements of large
of large thin-walled
thin-walled partsparts
in theinsystem
the system were screened,
were screened, and multi-objective
and multi-objective dimen-
dimensional
sional optimization
optimization analysisanalysis was executed.
was executed. Taking Taking
the ratedtheworking
rated working conditions
conditions of the
of the system as the load boundary conditions of the simulation model,
system as the load boundary conditions of the simulation model, the uncertainty effect of the uncertainty
effect
the loadofwas
the load wasinignored
ignored in the reliability
the reliability analysis processes,
analysis processes, so the load sodistribution
the load distribution
function
function in Equation (15) will be provided in the form of the determined
in Equation (15) will be provided in the form of the determined tooth root stress tooth peak.
root stress
The
peak. The simulation analysis shows that the ring gear rim and the planet carrier played a
simulation analysis shows that the ring gear rim and the planet carrier played a main
main supporting role for the planetary gear system, and their core structural parameters
supporting role for the planetary gear system, and their core structural parameters largely
largely determined the meshing quality of the whole planetary gear system. Among them,
determined the meshing quality of the whole planetary gear system. Among them, insuf-
insufficient rigidity of the ring gear rim led to excessive bending deformation for the gear
ficient rigidity of the ring gear rim led to excessive bending deformation for the gear teeth.
teeth. Insufficient rigidity of the planet carrier baseplate will cause severe deflection for
Insufficient rigidity of the planet carrier baseplate will cause severe deflection for the
the planet shaft, and these design defects will increase the risk of fatigue tooth breakage
planet shaft, and these design defects will increase the risk of fatigue tooth breakage in
in the planetary gear system, and the corresponding dimensional schematic is shown
the planetary gear system, and the corresponding dimensional schematic is shown in Fig-
in Figure 18. In turn, both of these dimensional characteristics are core factors in the
ure 18. In turn, both of these dimensional characteristics are core factors in the lightweight
lightweight design of large aerospace planetary equipment, and their dimensional growth
design of large aerospace planetary equipment, and their dimensional growth contributes
contributes significantly to the weight growth for the planetary mechanism. Therefore,
significantly to the weight growth for the planetary mechanism. Therefore, taking the
taking the thickness of the rim and base plate as the design variables, based on the reliability
thickness of thecalculation
analysis and rim and base plate as
method the design
proposed variables,
in this paper,based
under oncomplex
the reliability
system analysis
elastic
and calculation method proposed in this paper, under complex system elastic
behavior coupling mechanism, the best stiffness matching result of the thickness of the rim behavior
and base plate that jointly meets the requirements of reliability and lightweight indicators
is sought.
Metals 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 32

Metals 2022, 12, 1785 24 of 27

coupling mechanism, the best stiffness matching result of the thickness of the rim and base
plate that jointly meets the requirements of reliability and lightweight indicators is sought.

Figure18.
Figure 18. Sensitivity
Sensitivity dimensions
dimensions ofof system
system performance
performance indexes:
indexes: (a)
(a) rim
rim thickness
thickness of
of the
the ring
ring gear
gear
(b) base plate thickness of the planet carrier.
(b) base plate thickness of the planet carrier.

The
The elastic
elastic deformation
deformation resultsresults ofof the
the ring
ring gear
gear and
and the
the planet
planet carrier,
carrier, as as well
well as
as the
the
reliability
reliability results
results ofof the
the planetary
planetary gear gear system,
system, are
are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 19.
19. AA total
total ofof 30
30 data
data
points
points are
are calculated
calculated in in Figure—six
Figure—six pointspoints were
were taken
taken in in the
the range
range ofof10~35
10~35 mm mm forfor the
the
ring
ring gear
gear rim
rim thickness,
thickness, withwith 55 mmmm was was taken
taken for
for the
the point
point interval;
interval; 55 points
points were
were taken
taken
in
in the
the range
range ofof 12~36
12~36 mm mm for for the
the planet
planet carrier
carrier base
base plate
plate thickness,
thickness, withwith 66 mm mm forfor the
the
point
pointinterval,
interval,and andthe
thespline
splinecurves
curveswerewereusedusedtotofit
fitthe
thedata
datapoints.
points. ItIt can
can be be found
found from
from
Figure
Figure 19a19a that
that the
the maximum
maximum node node resultant
resultant displacement
displacement almost almost stopped
stopped decreasing
decreasing
when
when the rim thickness reached 25.3 mm, indicating that the rigidity reserve of the
the rim thickness reached 25.3 mm, indicating that the rigidity reserve of the ring
ring
gear
gear raised by increasing the rim size can no longer be effectively utilized at thisvalue.
raised by increasing the rim size can no longer be effectively utilized at this limit limit
At the same
value. At thetime,
same the elastic
time, thedeformation responseresponse
elastic deformation of the ring gearring
of the is also
gearinfluenced,
is also influ-to
some
enced,extent,
to someby extent,
the thickness
by the dimension of the planet
thickness dimension carrier
of the planetbase plate.base
carrier Under theUnder
plate. same
rim
the same rim thickness, the deformation of the ring gear slightly decreases with thethe
thickness, the deformation of the ring gear slightly decreases with the increase of in-
base
creaseplate thickness,
of the which
base plate indicateswhich
thickness, that the improvement
indicates that theofimprovement
the planetary of system stiffness
the planetary
conditions causedconditions
system stiffness by the thickening
caused by of the
the planet carrier
thickening ofbase plate also
the planet has base
carrier a benign
plateeffect
also
on the mechanical environment of the ring gear.
has a benign effect on the mechanical environment of the ring gear.
1.000
Maximum node resultant displacement (μm)

1200
BPT 12 BPT 12
BPT 18 BPT 18
1000 BPT 24 0.996 BPT 24
BPT 30 BPT 30
Fatigue reliability

800 BPT 36 BPT 36

0.992

600
0.988

400
0.984
200
0.980
0 10 15 20 25 30 35
10 15 20 25 30 35
Rim thickness of ring gear (mm) Rim thickness of ring gear (mm)

(a) (b)

Figure 19. Elastic deformation and reliability results: (a) elastic deformation curves of the ring gear.
Figure 19. Elastic deformation and reliability
(b) System reliability results:
growth (a)Notes:
curves. ElasticBPT
deformation
is the basecurves of the ringofgear.
plate thickness (b) carrier.
the planet
System reliability growth curves, notes: BPT is the base plate thickness of the planet carrier.
Figure 19b shows the variation pattern of the fatigue reliability index of the planetary
gear system under the joint influence of rim and base plate sizes. As the thickness of the
ring gear rim increases, the reliability of the system will continue to grow, and when the
value of the rim thickness reaches 22.5 mm, the reliability growth is weak. At the same
time, the reliability of the system also increases with the increase of the thickness of the
planet carrier base plate, and the reliability growth is weak when the thickness reaches
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 25 of 27

30.5 mm. The results of the reliability curves in the figure reflect the mechanisms of the
coupling effect of the rim and base plate dimensions on the fatigue reliability of the system.
In the variation range of the rim thickness from 10 to 22.5 mm, the growth rate of each
reliability curve increases with the increase of planet carrier base plate thickness, indicating
that their scale growth in a certain range has a mutual promotion effect in optimizing the
system reliability index. By setting the coordinate point with a reliability growth rate of less
than 0.03% as the optimal design point, and considering the static strength requirements
of the ring gear and the planet carrier, the best matching values of the two key structural
dimensions of the large aero-planetary mechanism can be determined: 22.5 mm thickness
for the ring gear rim and 30.5 mm thickness for the planet carrier base plate.

6. Concluding Remarks
This paper takes the large aviation planetary system as a research object, aims to
accurately evaluate the reliability quality attributes formed in the system design process,
and deeply excavates the inherent behavior characteristics for the planetary system in
function realization. Based on this, a system fatigue reliability evaluation model was
constructed by considering the failure dependence and meshing sequence among the
functional logic units. At the same time, an advanced hierarchical finite element method
was adopted to calculate the tooth dangerous load history under the influence of system
global elastic behavior, and the tooth probability fatigue strength is statistically analyzed
by the gear low-cycle fatigue test and life distribution transformation method. These will
provide economic effective load and strength input variables for the reliability evaluation
model, respectively, and the specific conclusions are as follows.
(1) In the face of advanced simulation and analysis tasks for a large aviation planetary
system, only considering the convenience of modeling and boundary condition set-
ting, the computational efficiency of the hierarchical finite element method will be
much higher than that of the general finite element method. Compared with the
results of the tooth root stress obtained by the international standard method, the
hierarchical finite element method had high calculation accuracy. Moreover, the stress
results, without considering system elastic deformation, were 11.9%~17.3% higher
than those considering this factor, which indicates that ignoring the flexible behavior
characteristics of the large aviation planetary mechanism may directly lead to an
over-conservative design scheme for the corresponding structural strength.
(2) The gear bending fatigue accelerated life test was carried out by a power flow closed
gear rotation testing machine; a total of 106 life data points were tested under four
stress levels by a group method, and the probability life relationship between the gear
and tooth was established based on the concept of minimum order statistics. The
linear correlation of the P-S-N curves obtained by the statistical method in this paper
was more than 96%, which ensures the effectiveness of strength input variables for
the reliability model.
(3) With the increase of the ring gear rim thickness of the large, thin-walled internal gear
ring, its elastic deformation under the rated working condition gradually decreased,
and the maximum node resultant displacement almost stopped decreasing when the
rim thickness reached 25.3 mm, indicating that the rigidity reserve of the ring gear
raised by increasing the rim size can no longer be effectively utilized at this limit
value. At the same time, the elastic deformation response of the ring gear was also
influenced, to some extent, by the thickness dimension of the planet carrier base plate.
Under the same rim thickness, the deformation of the ring gear slightly decreased
with the increase of the base plate thickness, which indicates that the improvement of
the planetary system stiffness conditions caused by the thickening of the planet carrier
base plate also has a benign effect on the mechanical environment of the ring gear.
(4) Within a certain size range, the increase of the ring gear rim thickness and the planet
carrier base plate thickness will improve the stiffness conditions of the planetary
gear system and optimize the gear meshing performance, thus improving the fatigue
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 26 of 27

reliability level of the planetary gear system. When the ring gear rim is thin, the
increase in the thickness of the planet carrier base plate will accelerate the change
in the reliability of the system caused by the thickening of the rim, while, when the
ring gear rim is thick, the thickness of the planet carrier base plate will have the
opposite effect. This “thin vs. thick” dimensional range will be determined by the
other structural elements in the planetary mechanism, as well as the level of external
loads. Based on the base plate thickness–rim thickness–reliability curve cluster, the
best matching results for two key structural dimensions in a specified type of large
aviation planetary system to meet the reliability and lightweight requirements were
determined. The results of this study will provide important reference data for the
structural optimization design of a large aviation planetary system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.L.; methodology, L.X.; software, M.L. and Y.L.; valida-
tion, M.L.; formal analysis, M.L.; investigation, M.L. and L.X.; resources, M.L.; data curation, M.L.
and Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, M.L., Y.L. and L.X.;
visualization, L.X.; supervision, M.L.; project administration, M.L.; funding acquisition, M.L. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
(grant No.52005350), Scientific Research Foundation of Education Department of Liaoning Province
(grant No. LJKZ0196), and National Defense Key Laboratory Open Foundation of Shenyang
Aerospace University (grant No. SHSYS202103).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Liyang Xie for the reliability calculation model.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

ρf p Tooth root radius

CPU Central processing unit
FE Finite element
TRB Tapered roller bearings
DRTRB Double-row tapered roller bearing
RBB Radial ball bearing
d1 Pitch circle diameter
PCD Pitch circle diameter
TF Tolerance factor
NRD Node resultant displacement
PS The tooth root stress on the planet gear tooth (the tooth side meshed with the sun gear)
P (kw) The input power history of this kind of planetary system has been collected
Xi A set of samples from a parent X
F (x) The cumulative distribution function of random variable X
f (x) Probability density function
gmin ( x ) The probability density function of the minimum order statistics of X
β The shape parameter of the tooth life distribution
θ The Scale parameter of the tooth life distribution
z Number of teeth on a gear
σ Condition of stress
ζ (σ) Under the condition of stress σ, the probability calculation formula of static strength S
greater than the stress
f (S) The probability density function of static strength S
h(σ) The probability density function of stress σ
R(n) Under the action of random stress level σ, the fatigue reliability model of parts
Metals 2022, 12, 1785 27 of 27

h0 ( σ ) The probability density function of standard normal distribution

ω Represents the angular velocity of the member
c
iab Represents the ratio of the relative rotational speed of member a and member b
respectively relative to member c
p The kinematic characteristic parameter of the planetary gear train
kP The number of planet gears in the system
nPS (t) The meshing times between the target single tooth of a planet gear
and the sun gear within time interval t
ζi The calculation factors of tooth element conditional fatigue reliability of various gears
FD Failure dependence
MS Meshing sequence

References
1. Yin, Z.Y.; Fu, B.B.; Xue, T.B.; Wang, Y.H. Development of helicopter power transmission system technology. Appl. Mech. Mater.
2011, 86, 1–17. [CrossRef]
2. Li, M.; Xie, L.; Ding, L. Load sharing analysis and reliability prediction for planetary gear train of helicopter. Mech. Mach. Theory
2017, 115, 97–113. [CrossRef]
3. Xue, H.L.; Liu, G.; Yang, X.H.; Han, B. Key technologies research of helicopter transmissions. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 743, 55–60.
[CrossRef]
4. McFarland, J.M.; Riha, D.S. Uncertainty quantification methods for helicopter fatigue reliability analysis. In Proceedings of
the American Helicopter Society 65th Annual Forum, Grapevine, TX, USA, 27–29 May 2009; American Helicopter Society
International: Grapevine, TX, USA, 2009.
5. Li, T.; Zhao, Z.; Sun, C.; Yan, R.; Chen, X. Adaptive channel weighted CNN with multisensor fusion for condition monitoring of
helicopter transmission system. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 8364–8373. [CrossRef]
6. Brown, M.A.; Chang, J.H. Analytical techniques for helicopter component reliability. In Proceedings of the American Helicopter
Society 64th Annual Forum, Montreal, QC, Canada, 29 April–1 May 2008; American Helicopter Society International, 2008.
7. Li, M.; Xie, L.Y.; Li, H.Y.; Ren, J.G. Life distribution transformation model of planetary gear system. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2018, 31,
1–8. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, J.; Li, W.; Sheng, L.; Jiang, S.; Li, M. Study on reliability of shearer permanent magnet semi-direct drive gear transmission
system. Int. J. Fatigue 2020, 132, 105387. [CrossRef]
9. Yan, Y. Load characteristic analysis and fatigue reliability prediction of wind turbine gear transmission system. Int. J. Fatigue
2020, 130, 105259. [CrossRef]
10. Xie, L.; Wu, N.; Qian, W. Time domain series system definition and gear set reliability modeling. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2016, 155,
97–104. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Wang, W.; Chi, W. Simulating coupling behavior of spur gear meshing and fatigue crack propagation in tooth
root. Int. J. Fatigue 2020, 134, 105381. [CrossRef]
12. Zorko, D. Investigation on the high-cycle tooth bending fatigue and thermo-mechanical behavior of polymer gears with a
progressive curved path of contact. Int. J. Fatigue 2021, 151, 106394. [CrossRef]
13. Vučković, K.; Čular, I.; Mašović, R.; Galić, I.; Žeželj, D. Numerical model for bending fatigue life estimation of carburized spur
gears with consideration of the adjacent tooth effect. Int. J. Fatigue 2021, 153, 106515. [CrossRef]
14. Alshoaibi, A.M.; Fageehi, Y.A. Simulation of Quasi-Static Crack Propagation by Adaptive Finite Element Method. Metals 2021, 11,
98. [CrossRef]
15. Mohsenzadeh, R.; Soudmand, B.H.; Shelesh-Nezhad, K. Failure analysis of POM ternary nanocomposites for gear applications:
Experimental and finite element study. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 140, 106606. [CrossRef]
16. Li, Q.; Xie, L. Analysis and optimization of tooth surface contact stress of gears with tooth profile deviations, meshing errors and
lead crowning modifications based on finite element method and Taguchi method. Metals 2020, 10, 1370. [CrossRef]
17. Chen, K.; Ma, H.; Che, L.; Li, Z.; Wen, B. Comparison of meshing characteristics of helical gears with spalling fault using analytical
and finite-element methods. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 121, 279–298. [CrossRef]
18. Concli, F.; Maccioni, L.; Fraccaroli, L.; Bonaiti, L. Early crack propagation in single tooth bending fatigue: Combination of finite
element analysis and critical-planes fatigue criteria. Metals 2021, 11, 1871. [CrossRef]
19. Craig, R.R.; Bampton, M.C.C. Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analysis. AIAA J. 1968, 6, 1313–1319. [CrossRef]
20. Ericson, T.M.; Parker, R.G. Experimental measurement and finite element simulation of elastic-body vibration in planetary gears.
Mech. Mach. Theory 2021, 160, 104264. [CrossRef]
21. Wang, C.; Dong, B.; Parker, R.G. Impact of planet mesh phasing on the vibration of three-dimensional planetary/epicyclic gears.
Mech. Mach. Theory 2021, 164, 104422. [CrossRef]
22. Henry, Z.S. Bell Helicopter Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission (ART) Program; Textron Bell Helicopter: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2013.