IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Determination of optimum gear ratios of a three stage bevel helical

gearbox
To cite this article: Vu Ngoc Pi et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 542 012007

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 199.244.57.150 on 05/07/2019 at 18:09

ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

Determination of optimum gear ratios of a three stage bevel

helical gearbox

Vu Ngoc Pi1, Tran Thi Phuong Thao1, Tran Thi Hong2, Nguyen Khac Tuan1, Le
Xuan Hung1, Luu Anh Tung1

1 Thai Nguyen University of Technology, Thai Nguyen city, Vietnam

2 Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam.
E-mail: vungocpi@tnut.edu.vn.

Abstract. This paper presents a study on the determination of optimum gear ratios of a three
stage bevel helical gearbox. In the study, for finding the optimum gear ratios, an optimization
problem was conducted. In the optimization problem, the cross sectional area of the gearbox was
chosen as the objective function. Also, the influence of input factors including the total gearbox
ratio, the coefficient of the face width of the bevel and the helical gear sets, the allowable contact
stress and the output torque were considered. evaluating the effect of these parameters on the
optimum gear ratios, an “experiment” was designed and a computer program was constructed to
perform the “experiment”. From the results of the study, the effect of the input factors on the
optimum gear ratios were learned and several models for determination of the optimum gear
ratios were proposed.
Keywords: Gear ratio, optimum gearbox design, bevel helical gearbox.

1. Introduction
In optimum gearbox design, the determination of the optimum gear ratios is significant. The reason is
that the dimension, the mass, and the cost of a gearbox depend powerfully on the gear ratios.
For bevel helical gearboxes, so far, there have been several studies on the determination of the gear
ratios. For two-stage bevel helical gearboxes, V.N. Kudreavtev et al [1] introduced a graph method
(figure 1) for determining the gear ratio for a two-stage bevel helical gearbox. According to this method,
we must select the coefficient large in value (  c 3 = 0.6 to 4). Therefore, it is very complex and almost
impossible to get the optimum value. Later, G. Milou et al. [2] reported “a practical method” in which
the gear ratios were found in the tabulated form from practical data.
A more useful method for determining optimum gear ratios is the model method. In this method, models
for finding the optimum gear were suggested for different objectives. For two state bevel helical
gearboxes V.N. Pi [3] proposed a model for the minimum height of the gearbox. For three stage bevel
helical gearboxes, the minimum length of the gearbox was chosen as the objective of the optimization
problem [4]. Recently, V.N. Pi et al. [5] conducted a study on the determination of the optimum gear
ratios of a mechanical system using a V-belt drive and a two-stage bevel helical gearbox in order to get
the minimum cross-sectional dimension of the system.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

Figure 1. The gear ratio of the bevel gear set vs the total gearbox ratio [1].
This paper introduces a study for determination of the optimum gear ratios of a three stage bevel helical
gearbox with the objective is the minimum surface of the cross section of the gearbox. Also, the effect
of the input parameters on the optimum gear ratios was evaluated.

2. Optimization problem

aw2 aw3

2 dw12 dw22 3
de11

1
de21 dw13 dw23
L

Figure 2. Calculation schema.

From figure 2, the surface of cross section of the gearbox is determined by:
A  Lh (1)
Where, L and h are determined as (see Figure 2):
L  de 21 / 2  aw2  aw3  d w 23 / 2 (2)
h  max  d e 21 , d w 22 , d w 23  (3)
In the above equations, aw 2 , aw3 , d w22 and d w23 are the center distance and the pitch diameters of the
second and the third stage, respectively.
For helical gear sets, d w 22 and d w 23 can be determined as [6]:
d w 22  2  aw 2  u2 /  u2  1 (4)
d w 23  2  aw3  u3 /  u3  1 (5)
Where, u2 and u3 are the gear ratios of the second and the third stage.
Thus, the optimization problem is defined as:

2
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

minimize A  L  h (6)
With the following constraints:
1  u2  9 (7)
1  u3  9
From (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), it is clear that for solving the optimization problem it is necessary to
determine d e 21 , aw 2 and aw3 .

2.1. Determining the driven diameter of the bevel gear set

Based on the pitting resistance of the straight bevel gear set, the external cone distance Re is determined
by [6]:


Re  k R   u12  1  T11  K H  1 / 1  kbe   kbe  u1   H 1   
1/2 1/3
2
(8)
 
In which, kR is the coefficient which depends on the gear material and the gear type; For steel straight
bevel gearings k R  50 ( MPa1/3 ); kbe  0.25 0.3 is the coefficient of the face width;  H 1  is the
allowable contact stress (MPa); u1 is the gear ratio of the bevel gear set; K H  1 is the contact load ratio
for pitting resistance of the bevel gear set. From the tabulated data in [6], the following regression
equations were found for determination of K H  1 (with the coefficient of determination R 2  1 ):
K H  1  0.25  k 2  0.2  k  1.02 (9)
Wherein, k  kbe  u1 /  2  kbe  .
From the condition of the moment equilibrium of the mechanic system with three gear sets we have:
T11  Tout /  u g bg hg b3  (10)
Where, Tout is the output torque (N.mm); u g is the total ratio of the gearbox; bg is the bevel gear
transmission efficiency ( bg  0.95 0.97 [6]);  hg is the helical gear transmission efficiency (
hg  0.96 0.98 [6]); b is the transmission efficiency of a pair of rolling bearings ( b  0.99 0.995
[6]). Choosing bg  0.96 ,hg  0.97 , b  0.992 and substituting them into (10) give:
T11  1.101  Tout / u g (11)
Substituting k R  50 and (11) into (8) gets

Re  51.6296   u12  1  
1/3
 Tout  k H  1 / 1  kbe   kbe  u1  u g   H  
1/ 2 2
(12)
 
The outer pitch diameter of the pinion then can be calculated by [6]:
d e11  2  Re . 1  u12 
1/ 2
(13)

2.2. Determining the center distance of the second stage

The center distance of the second stage aw 2 is calculated by [6]:
1/3
 T12  k H  
aw2  km   u2  1    (14)
  2  u  
 H 2 ba 2 

In which, K H  is the contact load ratio for pitting resistance for the second stage of the gearbox
k H   1.02  1.28 [6]. Therefore, we can chose k H   1.1 ;  H  - allowable contact stress (MPa); In
practice,  H   350 410 (MPa); k m is the material coefficient; As the gear material is steel, k m =43
[6];  ba 2 is the coefficient of the wheel face width of the second stage;  ba 2  0.3 0.35 [6];

3
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

From the moment equilibrium condition of the mechanic system with two helical gear sets the following
equation is given:
Tout  T12 hg
2
b3  u2  u3 (15)
Wherein,  hg is the helical gear transmission efficiency (  hg is from 0.96 to 0.98 [6]); b is the
transmission efficiency of a pair of rolling bearings (be is from 0.99 to 0.995 [6]). Choosinghg  0.97
and b  0.992 then substituting them into (15) gives

T12  1.0887  Tout /  u2  u3  (16)

Substituting (16) and k H   1.1 into (14) with the note that u2  u3  u g / u1 gets:
1/3
 Tout  u1 
aw2  45.6635   u2  1    (17)
  H   u g  u2  ba 2
2

 
The pitch diameter of the second stage then is calculated by [6]:
d w 22  2  aw 2  u2 /  u2  1 (18)

2.3. Determining the center distance of the third stage

The center distance of the third stage aw3 can be determined by the following equation [6]:
1/3
 T13  k H  
aw3  K m   u3  1    (19)
    u  
2
 H 3 ba 3 

Also, for the third stage we have

Tout  T13 hg b2  u3 (20)

Choosinghg  0.97 and b  0.992 as in section 2.2 gives

T12  1.0476  Tout / u3 (21)

Substituting (21), k m =43 and kH   1.1 (as in section 2.2) into (19) gets:
1/3
 Tout 
aw3  45.0814   u3  1    (22)
    u 2  
2
 H 3 ba 3 
The pitch diameter of the third stage then is determined by [6]:
d w 23  2  aw3  u3 /  u3  1 (23)
2.4. Experimental work
To investigate the influence of the input parameters on the optimum gear ratios, an “experiment” was
designed and performed. For this experiment, a 2-level full factorial design was selected. Also, 6 input
parameters were chosen for the exploring (table 1). Therefore, the design was arranged with 26  64
number of experiments. To perform the experiment, a computer program was constructed based on
equations (6) and (7). Table 2 shows the various levels of input parameters and the output responses (the
optimum gear ratios of the first and the second stage u1 , u2 ).

4
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

Table 1. Input parameters.

Factor Code Unit Low High

Total gearbox ratio ug - 40 100

Coefficient of the face width of bevel gear set Kbe - 0.25 0.3
Coefficient of wheel face width of stage 2 xba2 - 0.3 0.35
Coefficient of wheel face width of stage 3 xba3 - 0.35 0.4
Allowable contact stress AS MPa 350 420
Output torque Tout 105 107
Nmm
Table 2. Experimental plans and output response.
AS Tout
StdOrder RunOrder CenterPt Blocks ug Kbe Xba2 Xba3 (MPa) (Nm) u1 u2
33 1 1 1 40 0.25 0.3 0.35 350 10000 4.26 4.17
15 2 1 1 40 0.3 0.35 0.4 350 100 4.06 4.32
58 3 1 1 100 0.25 0.3 0.4 420 10000 5.19 6.42
10 4 1 1 100 0.25 0.3 0.4 350 100 5.19 6.42
62 5 1 1 100 0.25 0.35 0.4 420 10000 5.67 6.39
61 6 1 1 40 0.25 0.35 0.4 420 10000 4.06 4.32
20 7 1 1 100 0.3 0.3 0.35 420 100 5.75 6.3
…
24 63 1 1 100 0.3 0.35 0.35 420 100 6.25 6.27
64 64 1 1 100 0.3 0.35 0.4 420 10000 5.51 6.51

3. Optimization results and discussions

a)

b)
Figure 3. Main effects plot for u1 and u2 .

5
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

To evaluate the effect of input factors on the response and the relative strength of the effect, figure 3
shows the main effect of each parameter on the optimum gear ratios of the bevel gear set u1 (figure 3.a)
and the second stage u2 (figure 3 b). From the figure, both u1 and u2 increase significantly with the
increase of the total gearbox ratio u g . Besides, they also were affected by the coefficient of wheel face
width of the bevel gear and the helical gear sets ( kba ,  ba1 and  ba 2 ). Furthermore, it was found that the
allowable contact stress and the output torque do not affect the optimum gear ratios.

a) b)
Figure 4. Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects for u1 and u2 .
Figure 4 shows the Pareto chart of the standardized effects from the largest to the smallest one. From
this figure, the bars that represent parameters including the total gearbox ratio (factor A), the coefficient
of wheel face width of the bevel gear (factor B) and the helical gear sets (factors C and D) and the
interactions between them cross the reference line. Consequently, these factors are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level with the response model.
Figure 5 shows the Normal Plot of the standardized effects for u1 (figure 5.a) and u2 (figure 5.b). From
the figure, the total gearbox ratio (factor A) is the most significant factor for both u1 and u2 . Also, it has
a positive standardized effect for both u1 and u2 . Besides, kbe and ba 3 (factor B and D) have a negative
standardized effect on u1 but they have a positive standardized effect on u2 . In addition,  ba 2 (factor C)
has a positive standardized effect on u1 while it has a negative standardized effect for u2 .

a) b)
Figure 5. Normal Plot for u1 and u2 .

6
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

a) b)
Figure 6. Estimated Effects and Coefficients for u1 and u2 .
Figure 6 presents the estimated effects and coefficients for u1 (figure 6 a) and u2 (figure 6 b). It can be
seen from the figure 6 that factors which significantly affect a response with P-values lower than 0.05
include the total gearbox ratio u g , the coefficient of wheel face width of the bevel gear set and the
helical gear sets ( kbe ,  ba 2 and  ba 3 ) and their interactions. Consequently, the following equations can
be found for the relation between the optimum gear ratios and the significant effect factors:
u1  2.98  0.05034  u g  2.65  kbe  4.2  ba 2  2.77  ba 3  0.059  u g  kbe  0.04459  u g  ba 2 
(24)
0.06094  u g  ba 3  13.52  kbe  ba 2  11.7  kbe  ba 3  7.8  ba 2  ba 3

u2  2.193  0.015625  u g  2  kbe  1.6  ba 2  2.7  ba 3  0.0425  u g  kbe  0.0025  u g  ba 2 

(25)
0.0225  u g  ba 3  3  kbe  ba 2  3  kbe  ba 3  3  ba 2  ba 3

The above estimated models fit the data very well because the adj-R2 and pred-R2 are in the high values
(figure 6).
Equations (24) and (25) are used to calculate the optimum gear ratios of the first and the second stages
u1 and u2 . After that, the optimum gear ratio of the third stage is determined by u3  ug /  u1  u2  .

4. Conclusions
A study on calculation of the optimum gear ratios of a three stage bevel helical gearbox for getting the
minimum cross sectional surface of the gearbox was conducted. In the study, the influence of the input
parameters including the total gearbox ratio, the wheel face width coefficients of the bevel gear set and
the helical gear sets, the allowable contact stress and the output torque was investigated. In addition,
some models for determination of the optimum partial gear ratios for getting the minimum surface cross
section of the gearbox were proposed. The optimum gear ratios can be determined simply by using these
explicit models.

Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was supported by Thai Nguyen University of Technology for a
scientific project.

References
[1] Kudreavtev V N, Gierzaves I A and Glukharev E G 1971 Design and calculus of gearboxes
(Sankt Petersburg: Mashinostroenie Publishing)
[2] Milou G, Dobre G, Visa S and Vitila H 1996 Optimal Design of Two Step Gear Units, regarding
the Main Parameters (VDI Berichte No 1230) p 227

7
ICMEMSCE 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 542 (2019) 012007 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/542/1/012007

[3] Pi V N 2000, A new and effective method for optimal calculation of total transmission ratio of
two step bevel - helical gearboxes, International colloquium on Mechanics of Solids, Fluids,
Structures & Interaction (Nha Trang: Vietnam) pp 716- 719
[4] Pi Vu N 2008 A study on optimal calculation of partial transmission ratios of three-step bevel
helical gearboxes, International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Applications (Ho Chi
Minh city: Vietnam) pp 277-286
[5] Pi V N, Cam N T H and Tuan N K 2016 Optimum calculation of partial transmission ratios of
mechanical driven systems using a V-belt and two-step bevel helical gearbox, Journal of
Environmental Science and Engineering A 5 pp 566-570
[6] Chat T and Uyen L V 1998 Design and calculus of Mechanical Transmissions (Ha Noi:
Educational Republishing House)