Report 5: Mechanical engineering design project

Integrated Power Transmission System

MECH 390

By Team #2
Andy Xie | 40101455
Charles Gauthier | 40138628
Hania Fazal | 40111699
Aidan Rasmussen | 40101833
Danish Ali | 40131097

Presented to Dr. Ayhan Ince

Fall 2021
Introduction
The following report entails the calculations and the design analysis of the transmission system. The
objective of the work done for the past two weeks was to perform a static and force analysis of the proposed
design along with identifying and finding the unknown variables required to perform the shaft and gear
calculations.
Torque Calculations
To ascertain the torque values that are present at each gear, it was first necessary to establish the sizes and
specifications for gears 1 through 9. Appendix A demonstrates the procedure that was followed for one
𝑤
iteration using an initial guess 𝑤1 = 2. The overall assumptions that were stated throughout Appendix A
2
have been tabulated below for convenience.

Assumptions Values Reasoning

Complies with Figure 9-11 and allows for
Diametral Pitch PD 8 teeth/in for all gears
smaller diameters.
Most common pressure angle, allows for
moderate load carrying capacity for teeth, can
Pressure Angle Φ 20o for all gears
check Table 8-7 for interference.

15o for gears 1 and 2 Left hand and right-hand angles must sum up
Helix Angle ψ
45o for gears 5, 6, 8, 9 to the angle between shafts.
𝑤 Allows for center shaft to rotate more slowly,
Gears 1 and 2 Ratio 𝑤1 3
2 which lowers the overall required gear ratios.
𝑤 Allows for center shaft and countershaft to
Gears 3 and 4 Ratio 𝑤3 1
4 have same speed.

Table 1: Assumptions and their Reasoning for Gear Size Calculations

Although hand-written calculations are useful to illustrate the steps and processes involved in the
𝑤
calculations, they are inefficient in computing multiple iterations. For instance, using 𝑤1 = 2 seen in
2
Appendix A, and generating the model on SolidWorks, it was found that gears 6 and 9 would be too large
and would extend beyond the space constraints. Therefore, this assumption was changed, and various
combinations of gear diameters had to be calculated to verify whether the design could satisfy the space
and stress constraints. As such, using excel, multiple iterations were tested and ultimately, the gear ratios
and dimensions were determined through trial and error. These specifications are found in appendices B
and C.

2
Forces on gears:
The forces on each gear are calculated using the torques values tabulated in Appendix C.
The directions for the forces are based on the coordinates system used for 3D Solidworks Model.
Detailed calculations for forces are included in Appendix D and Appendix E. Forces acting on
each gear for the 3 subsystems are tabulated below in Table 2.
Gear Type Subsystem 1 Subsystem 2 Subsystem 3
# WT (lbf) WR (lbf) WX (lbf) WT (lbf) WR (lbf) WX (lbf) WT (lbf) WR (lbf) WX (lbf)
1 15° RH- 995.5 375.2(-Z) 266.7 871.11 328.3 233.41 663.7 250.13 177.84
Helical (+X) (-Z) (+X) (-Z) (+X)
2 15° LH- 995.5 375.2(+Z) 266.74(- 871.11 328.3 233.41 663.7 250.13 177.84
Helical X) (+Z) (-X) (+Z) (-X)
3 Spur 1792 652.2(+Z) N/A 1568 570.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A
(-Y)
4 Spur 1792 652.2(-Z) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 45° LH- 3360 1728 3360 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Helical (-Y) (-X)
6 45° LH- 3360 1728 3360 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Helical (+Y) (+Z)
7 Spur N/A N/A N/A 1568 570.7 (+Y) N/A N/A N/A N/A
8 45° LH- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1991 1025.2 1991
Helical (-Z) (+X)
9 45° LH- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1991 1025.2 1991
Helical (+Z) (+Y)

Table 2: Forces on gears

Shaft design analysis and calculations:

Endurance limit (Se):
See Appendix E for the derivations of the following equations and calculations of the endurance limits for
each material:

𝑺𝒆𝟏 = 2.7(𝑆𝑢𝑡 )−0.265 (0.879)(1)(1)(0.814)(1)(0.5𝑆𝑢𝑡 ) = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟔𝟓𝟗𝟑𝟑𝟏(𝑺𝒖𝒕 )𝟎.𝟕𝟑𝟓

𝑺𝒆𝟐 = 2.7(𝑆𝑢𝑡 )−0.265 (0.788)(1)(1)(0.814)(1)(0.5𝑆𝑢𝑡 ) = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟔𝟓𝟗𝟑𝟑𝟐 (𝑺𝒖𝒕 )𝟎.𝟕𝟑𝟓

The material chosen for a shaft should exhibit several qualities. These qualities include high strength,
high toughness, good machinability, and a percent elongation that’s greater than 12% [2]. Four materials
were chosen to calculate endurance limits. Each material was a carbon and alloy steel, and they were
chosen for various reasons (Appendix E).
Each of the four materials considered have relatively high yield and tensile strengths. As calculated, they
also each have adequate endurance limit values. Their percent elongation values (which contribute to
toughness) are all above 12%. Due to the relatively low power/speed requirements of the project, each of
these materials will likely be adequate for this application. Thus, the decision may be primarily made

3
based on the cost and ease of manufacture of the shafts. Further research will be conducted on the pricing
of each material and the total cost of assembly for each option.

Design factor:
The design factor, N, is a measure of a load-carrying component's relative safety. To determine a design
stress, or acceptable stress, the strength of the material from which the component is to be produced is
usually divided by the design factor. The actual stress applied to the component should then be less than
the design stress. It is more convenient to set up a relationship from which the design factor, N, may be
computed from the actual applied stresses and the material strength for specific types of loading.
In any context, the designer must decide on a reasonable value for the design component. The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Gear Manufacturers Association, the United States
Department of Defense, the Aluminum Association, and the American Institute of Steel Construction all
have codes that control the value of the design factor or design stress.
The recommended design factor is indicated in the figure below depending on the type of material and
loading. For the textile machine, the material utilized would be ductile and subjected to dynamic loading.
In addition to this, the design of the machine element would be with average confidence because the loading
would be known and the material of the component would be specified in this case, therefore, it can be
assumed that the design factor should be between 2.5 and 3(See Appendix F). This can then help determine
the rest of the stress analysis to figure the size of the components and safety of the stresses.
Furthermore, the extent by which the presence of a stress concentration (notch) weakens a load-carrying
part. Meaning, the presence of irregularities or discontinuities in a part, such as holes, grooves, or notches,
increases the theoretical stresses in the vicinity of the discontinuity greatly.
In the case of shafts, several diameters, keyseats, ring grooves, and other geometric discontinuities that
cause stress concentrations are common in final designs. A preliminary stress concentration factor needs to
be established to determine the appropriate shaft diameters.
Key seats, shoulder fillets, and retaining ring grooves are the most common geometric discontinuities seen
in power-transmitting shafts. A suggested design value is high in each case to create a conservative outcome
for the first approximation to the design. The importance of checking the final design for safety is
highlighted once more. That is, the design is still safe if the final value is less than the initial design value.
If the final figure is higher, the design's stress analysis must be double-checked.
Usually, Kt is 2 for profile key seats, 2.5 for sharp fillet and 1.5 for well-rounded fillet. However, it turns
out that some materials aren't as sensitive to the presence of notches as others, Therefore, a lower Kt value
may be utilized for them. The factor Kf is also known as a fatigue stress-concentration factor, which is why
the subscript f is used. As a result, it's easier to conceive of Kf as a stress-concentration factor that's lower
than Kt due to diminished sensitivity to notches. (See Appendix F for notch factor calculations.)

Force Analysis and Torque diagram

The torque diagrams were first generated (See Appendix G)

4
Shear force and bending moment diagram [3]:
Shaft 1 (input shaft)

Figure 1: Horizontal plane (x) for shaft 1

Figure 2: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 1

5
Shaft 2

Figure 3: Horizontal plane (x) for shaft 2

Figure 4: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 2

6
Shaft 3

Figure 5: Horizontal plane (x) for shaft 3

Figure 6: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 3

7
Shaft 4

Figure 7: Horizontal plane (x) for shaft 4

Figure 8: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 4

8
Shaft 5

Figure 9: Horizontal plane (x) for shaft 5

Figure 10: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 5

9
Shaft 6

Figure 11: Horizontal plane (x) of shaft 6

Figure 12: Vertical plane (y) for shaft 6

10
Shaft diameter calculations:
With the torque, shear force, and bending moment diagrams completed, it was now possible to
begin the shaft diameter analysis. The central equation that was used to determine diameters is
equation 12-24:

Where N is the design factor, Kt is the notch factor, M is the bending moment, T is the torsion,
s’n is the actual endurance strength (previously expressed as se), sy is the yield strength.

As explained above, the endurance strength depends upon the diameter of the circular cross
section. Therefore, finding the true diameter at each segment of the shafts requires iterations and
testing such that the diameter used for the size factor, and the diameter obtained from equation 12-
24 match to a satisfactory degree. Furthermore, the notch factor Kt can be estimated as the average
between the maximum and minimum values provided by the textbook, which depends on the type
of fillet used in the bar. For instance, at bearing A of the input shaft, the bar is bar is stepped and
only subject to torsion because no bending is present. Therefore, the Kt value is estimated as 1.25
and the diameter at this location is:

32(2.5) (1.25)(0) 2 3 1120 2 1

𝐷=[ √[( ) + [ ] ]]3 = 0.74𝑖𝑛
𝜋 25950 4 61000

This calculation was then repeated at the gear 1 location and bearing B locations. Due to time
limitations, this process was not completed for this reported. However, the diameters at the bearing
locations were determined such that the bearings could easily slide on and off of the shafts during
assembly. Furthermore, the fillets of the shoulders at every junction where the shaft change
diameter was determined by verifying that the initial guess for Kt, which was 1.25 here, can
generate a satisfactory ratio D/d. This verification will be repeated for relevant segment of shaft 1,
and then repeated for shafts 2 through 6.

11
Assessment of the week
For this week’s report, Charles finalized the torque calculations and shaft diameter calculations.
Hania determined the design factor and stress concentration factor for the design. Danish
finished the calculations for the forces on gears. Aidan took care of the endurance limit and an
early look at material selection. Andy generated the torque alongside bending moment and shear
force diagrams.
Andy: 20%
Hania: 20%
Charles: 20%
Aidan: 20%
Danish: 20%

References
[1] Budynas, Richard G., J. Keith Nisbett, and Joseph Edward Shigley. Shigley's Mechanical
Engineering Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011.
[2] R. L. Mott, E. M. Vavrek, and J. Wang, Machine elements in mechanical design. New York:
Pearson, 2018.
[3] "Beam Calculator Online (Calculate the reactions, Draws Bending Moment, Shear Force,
Axial Force)", Beamguru.com, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://beamguru.com/online/beam-
calculator/?fbclid=IwAR0eqQqY4j2jXbKuxLN59tMGBw0q7hH3pMyC8cuYM6J87YBtkMiAd
KVVSu4 [Accessed: 26- Oct- 2021].

12
Appendix
Appendix A: Hand-written calculations for gear dimensions and specifications.

13
14
15
Appendix B: Final Gear Dimensions and Specifications

Gear # Diameter (in) Teeth Speed (rpm)

1 2.25 18 2700
2 6.75 54 900
3 3.75 30 900
4 3.75 30 900
5 2 16 900
6 4 32 450
7 6.25 50 540
8 2.25 18 900
9 3 24 675

Appendix C: Torques for each Subsystem

Subsystem 1 (48Hp) Subsystem 2 (42Hp) Subsystem 3 (32Hp)

Torque Torque Torque

Gear # (lb.in) Gear # (lb.in) Gear # (lb.in)
1 1120 1 980 1 746.67
2 3360 2 2940 2 2240.01
3 3360 3 2940 8 2240.003
4 3360 7 4900 9 2986.67
5 3360
6 6720

Appendix D: Forces on Gears (Based on initial Gear Diameters and torques)

16
17
18
19
20
21
Appendix E: Forces on Gears (Based on revised gear diameters and torques; Final)

22
Appendix E: Material Properties and Derivation of the Endurance limit.
For the determination of the endurance limit of a transmission element, various modification factors must
be determined [1]:

𝑏
𝑘𝑎 = 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝑎𝑆𝑢𝑡
Shafts will be machined, so a = 2.70 and b = -0.265.

𝒌𝒂 = 𝟐. 𝟕(𝑺𝒖𝒕 )−𝟎.𝟐𝟔𝟓
−0.107
𝑘𝑏 = 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = { 0.879𝑑 0.11 ≤ 𝑑 ≤ 2 𝑖𝑛
0.91𝑑 −0.157 2.00 < 𝑑 ≤ 10 𝑖𝑛
The diameters of the transmission shafts are yet to be determined, so the size modification factors will be
calculated based upon nominal shaft diameter values. Based upon the sizes of the gears used in the
design, which range from 2” to 6.75” Dp, the diameters of the shafts used will fall into both of the above
ranges used to calculate kb. Diameter values for these ranges will be assumed to be 1” and 2.5” for these
calculations. Once the required shaft diameters are calculated, iterations will be required to determine the
final diameter values. For now, these values will suffice.

23
𝒌𝒃𝟏 = 0.879(1)−0.107 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕𝟗 𝒌𝒃𝟐 = 0.91(2.5)−0.157 = 𝟎. 𝟕𝟖𝟖
𝑘𝑐 = 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

For bending combined with other stresses, 𝒌𝒄 = 𝟏.

𝑘𝑑 = 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Assuming that the transmission elements will operate at room temperature (≈ 70℉ = 21.1℃), 𝒌𝒅 = 𝟏.

𝑘𝑒 = 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
For a desired reliability of 99%, 𝒌𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟏𝟒.
𝑘𝑓 = 𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑜𝑢𝑠 − 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
This factor accounts for various effects, including corrosion, electrolytic plating, and metal spraying. For
this application, 𝒌𝒇 will be assumed to be 1.
𝑆𝑒′ = 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑦 − 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑡

All of the steels tested will have ultimate tensile strengths of less than 200 ksi. Thus, 𝑺′𝒆 =
𝟎. 𝟓𝑺𝒖𝒕 .

Now, the actual endurance limits can be evaluated:

𝑆𝑒 = 𝑘𝑎 𝑘𝑏 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑑 𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑓 𝑆′𝑒

𝑆𝑒1 = 𝑘𝑎 𝑘𝑏1 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑑 𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑓 𝑆′𝑒 𝑆𝑒2 = 𝑘𝑎 𝑘𝑏2 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑑 𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑓 𝑆′𝑒

SAE 1040 OQT 1300

Sut = 88 ksi Sy = 61 ksi 33 %EL 183 HB

𝑆𝑒1 = 0.9659331(88)0.735 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟗𝟓 𝒌𝒔𝒊

𝑆𝑒2 = 0.8659332(88)0.735 = 𝟐𝟑. 𝟐𝟔 𝒌𝒔𝒊

This is a plain carbon steel and is most likely the cheapest option; it’s commonly used for
transmission shafts. There are no significant alloying elements other than carbon and manganese
[2].

SAE 1137 Hot Rolled

Sut = 88 ksi Sy = 48 ksi 15 %EL 176 HB

𝑆𝑒1 = 0.9659331(88)0.735 = 𝟐𝟓. 𝟗𝟓 𝒌𝒔𝒊

𝑆𝑒2 = 0.8659332(88)0.735 = 𝟐𝟑. 𝟐𝟔 𝒌𝒔𝒊

24
SAE 1144 OQT 1300:
Sut = 96 ksi Sy = 68 ksi 25 %EL 200 HB

𝑆𝑒1 = 0.9659331(96)0.735 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟔𝟔 𝒌𝒔𝒊

𝑆𝑒2 = 0.8659332(96)0.735 = 𝟐𝟒. 𝟖𝟎 𝒌𝒔𝒊

The 11xx alloy group includes free-cutting steels. These are resulfurized to improve
machinability, which may be useful in the design [2].

SAE 4140 Annealed:

Sut = 95 ksi Sy = 54 ksi 26 %EL 197 HB

𝑆𝑒1 = 0.9659331(95)0.735 = 𝟐𝟕. 𝟒𝟓 𝒌𝒔𝒊

𝑆𝑒2 = 0.8659332(95)0.735 = 𝟐𝟒. 𝟔𝟏 𝒌𝒔𝒊

The 41xx alloy group includes chromium-molybdenum steels (0.95% Cr, 0.2% Mo) [2]. These
alloying elements improve hardenability, wear resistance, and strength at high temperatures,
which would all be assets for the transmission shaft.

Appendix F: Design Factor and Stress concentration calculations

Figure 13: Recommended design factor

25
The equation for Kf is as follows
Kf = 1+ q (Kt - 1)
where
q: Notch factor
Kt: stress concentration factor
Kf: Fatigue stress concentration factor
The notch sensitivity (q) can be determined by the figure below:

Figure 14: Notch sensitivity q [2]

It is to be noted that if the notch factor is equal to 0, it is because the material is insensitive to
notches. Likewise, if the notch factor is equal to 1, then it is fully notch sensitive.

26
Appendix G
Shaft 1 (Input shaft)

Shaft 2

Shaft 3

*Note that the torque leaves by right-handed helical gears, so it is not visible
Shaft 4

27
Gear 5

Gear 6

28