Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt

A practical approach to the optimization of gear trains with spur gears

Nenad Marjanovic a,, Biserka Isailovic b, Vesna Marjanovic a, Zoran Milojevic c, Mirko Blagojevic a, Milorad Bojic a
a b c

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, S. Janjic 6, Serbia Zastava automobili, Thermo shaping plant, 34000 Kragujevac, 4 Kosovska str., Serbia Faculty of Technical Sciences, 21000 Novi Sad, Bulevar D. Obradovica 6, Serbia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Optimization of gear trains is a complex task, due to the characteristics of mathematical model that describes its behavior. This paper presents the characteristics and problems of optimization of gear trains with spur gears. It provides a description for selection of the optimal concept, based on selection matrix, selection of optimal materials, optimal gear ratio and optimal positions of shaft axes. The paper will further present the definition of mathematical model, with an example of optimization of gear trains with spur gears, using original software. Using an approach like this for the optimization of gear trains with spur gears gives results that can be applied in practice. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 10 November 2010 Received in revised form 3 November 2011 Accepted 13 February 2012 Available online 22 March 2012 Keywords: Optimization Gear train with spur gears Minimum volume Optimal concept Mathematical model Selection matrix

1. Introduction Gear trains are complex technical systems. Numerous complex equations, depending on a large number of design variables, are used for their mathematical formulation and many influence factors have to be taken into consideration as well. The possibility of reducing the number of factors influencing a system is limited and it depends on good knowledge about the nature of the system and the ability of the designer to assess the importance of each influence factor in advance. The designing of gear trains is very complex and it often requires the use of nonlinear functions, as well as discrete design variables. In almost all structures, it is extremely important to design elements in such a manner that the whole construction weight is minimal. Savsani et al. [1] described the design of minimum weight gear trains using particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithms. Yokota et al. [2] described genetic algorithm for the optimization of gear weight. Gologlu and Zeyveli [3] presented an automated preliminary design of gear drives by minimizing volume of gear trains using a genetic algorithm. Mendi et al. [4] presented a dimensional optimization using a genetic algorithm. Thompson et al. [5] presented their work on the optimization of multi-stage spur gear reduction units taking into account minimum volume and surface fatigue life, as objective functions, employing quasi-Newton method. Chong et al. [6] described a method for reduction of geometrical volume and meshing vibration of cylindrical gear pairs while satisfying strength and geometric constraints using a goal programming formulation. Abuid and Ameen [7] have done the optimization based on minmax method combined with a direct search technique. They presented a problem containing seven objective functions gear volume, center distance and five dynamic factors of shafts and gears.
. Corresponding author. Tel.: + 381 34 335990; fax: + 381 34 333192. E-mail address: nesam@kg.ac.rs (N. Marjanovic). 0094-114X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2012.02.004

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

It is possible to optimize gears using various criteria. Ciavarella and Demelio [8] developed a software package for gear optimization that includes: kinematic optimization (minimisation and balancing of specific sliding), static stress analysis (to minimize stress concentrations) and crack propagation studies (to estimate fatigue life under a pre-existing defect). Mao [9] described optimization of gear surface micro-geometry for the fatigue wear reduction. Optimization of gears for the reduction of noise is shown in paper [10]. The rotational movement of gears is treated as the input of the gear system and the acoustical noise signal as the output. Bonori et al. [11] performed the optimization of gear pairs aiming to reduce vibration and noise by using a genetic algorithm. Literature review shows that various authors apply various techniques for the optimization of gear trains. Nevertheless, this paper shows the review of specific problems that occur during the optimization of gear trains with spur gears. Unlike quoted literature, this paper offers a comprehensive original approach to optimization of gear trains with spur gears. It provides a description for selection of optimal concept, based on selection matrix, selection of optimal materials, optimal gear ratio and optimal positions of shaft axes. This paper presents the defining of a mathematical model for gear trains with spur gears, with an example of their optimization using original software GTO (Gear Train Optimization) developed by Marjanovic [12]. The motivation for this paper comes from the idea to provide a mechanical engineer with a powerful tool that would offer the solution to the majority of problems that arise during the design of gear trains with spur gears.

2. Characteristics and problems of optimization of gear trains with spur gears Optimization of gear trains with spur gears is a complex task, due to the characteristics of mathematical model that describes their behavior. The increase of complexity of the mathematical model gives a more accurate solution, but it aggravates and slows down the process of reaching the solution. It is obvious that it is necessary to make a compromise between complexity and compatibility of the mathematical model. When formulating a mathematical model, the following facts should be taken into consideration: Mathematical model is just one of many possible approximations of behavior of the given system. The task of the model is to assist, and not replace the researcher, nor free him from making decisions. The model does not provide completely new information about the system, but it enables a better understanding of its behavior. There are numerous factors that make the optimization of a gear train with spur gears a complex procedure: selection and complexity of objective function, complexity of mathematical model, number of optimization variables, complexity and number of constraints, selection of method for solving, to name but a few.

3. Selection of optimal concept of gear trains with spur gears Gear trains transmit energy from driving machine to working machine and in that, they adjust torque and number of revolutions of driving machine shaft to the torque and number of revolutions that the working machine needs. Partial functions of this basic function are realized through gear pairs, shafts, housings, bearings and other parts and assemblies. Various combinations of these elements give various concepts of gear trains. Limited number of design variables are combined when versions of concepts are formed, but due to a large number of parameters and characteristics (of gear pairs primarily), the number of concept versions becomes quite large. Conceptual design of gear trains with spur gears is conducted in two phases. The first phase includes the development of versions and the second includes the selection of optimal concept and its optimal parameters.

3.1. Concepts selection matrix Optimal concept of gear train with spur gears can be selected by selection matrix. Selection matrix is made by combination of various gear pairs in certain stages. Those combinations providing gear trains that cannot function or gear trains that will surely be worse by all selection criteria are eliminated at the beginning. The designation of gear train concept provides the information about: number of stages, type of gear pair (S spur gear, B bevel gear or W worm gear) in each stage, position of axes of input and output shafts (P parallel, I intersecting, A skew or C coincident), direction of rotation (+, or +/) as well as the position of intermediate shafts that is defined by the number showing the number of planes in which the axes of all shafts lie. Selection matrix can be summarized as in Fig. 1. In this manner, apart from ordinal number, name, sketch and designation of the gear train, the following can be added to the table: positions of shaft axes, number of stages, gear ratio (u) that can be achieved, approximate efficiency () and direction of rotation. Information about other concepts of gear trains can be seen in the Appendix A, but the focus of this paper is turned to gear trains with spur gears.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Fig. 1. Selection matrix of gear train concepts.

A selection matrix with twenty-eight concept versions is developed as a part of this research, and the methodology of forming of these versions enables its expansion. 3.2. Selection of acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears Selection matrix can be used for the selection of acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears, and factors that influence the selection of concepts are used as constraints. The procedure includes the selection of concepts that satisfy the first adopted constraint and then the concepts satisfying the second constraint are chosen from them and so on. When all constraints are considered, a set of acceptable gear trains with spur gears is created which can be smaller or larger, depending on adopted constraints. Software following previously defined procedure is developed for the selection of acceptable concepts. During the development of the software, the following constraints were considered: position of input and output shaft axes, position of intermediate shaft axes, maximum number of stages, gear ratio and direction of rotation. Designer manually enters the constraints, while the software offers acceptable concepts after each entered constraint. Finally, we get the concepts that satisfy all set constraints. 3.3. Selection of optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears If the set of acceptable concepts contains several members, this means that there are several concepts of gear trains with spur gears that satisfy all given constraints. To select the optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears it is necessary to do the optimization of each acceptable concept and select the one that gives the best value of objective function for the chosen criterion, or for several criteria in case of multi-objective optimization [13,14]. To speed up the process of selection of optimal concepts, a continuous optimum for the chosen criterion can be adopted as a measure of comparison of qualities of individual concepts. This method does not include the solution of problems with mixed variables (i.e., continuous, integer and discrete), which can significantly speed up the process. Achieved continuous optima are approximate, but they can be used for comparison of individual concepts. Special software for the selection of optimal concept was developed. At this level, it is convenient to give the designer (decision maker) a possibility to change the solution suggested by the computer. In this way and with the possibility of changing the set of acceptable concepts, the designer is actively involved in the process of decision making and is the key factor of the

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

process. The information given by the computer is used as an objective estimation of certain factors that influence the selection of gear train concept. 4. Selection of optimal parameters of a gear train with spur gears 4.1. Selection of optimal materials In the process of optimization, materials that will provide maximum load carrying capacity of flanks and load carrying capacity of roots should be chosen for spur gears, which would enable reaching the optima by various criteria. For the case of pinion, this can be achieved by maximization of expression: SH S min ; F SH min SF min and for the case of gear: S ; F min SH min SF min ( SH
g g

) 1

) 2

where: SH and SF are factor of safety from pitting and factor of safety from tooth breaking, respectively, of pinion and gear, and SH min and SF min are their minimum recommended values. SH and SF are determined according to standard calculations [15]. Maximization of expressions (1) and (2) ensures maximum load carrying capacity of teeth of both spur gears by criterion of tooth surface strength and tooth bending strength. Depending on the purpose of the gear train with spur gears and conditions under which it functions, one can aim to achieve greater tooth surface strength or tooth bending strength. This is realized by the selection of values for SH min and SF min [16]. By introducing SH min and SF min into decision making of the material selection, wanted ratio of tooth surface strength and tooth bending strength is maintained in this phase of optimization, as well. Suggested approach enables the inclusion of costs in the process of optimization as the only criterion or as one of the criteria. To obtain correct results according to this criterion, it is necessary to use reliable and current data about costs, which do not depend only on technical conditions. Optimization criteria used in this paper generally are not opposed to costs criterion. 4.2. Selection of optimal gear ratios for gear trains with spur gears In optimization of multi-stage gear trains it is important to select the number of stages and to properly distribute gear ratio to individual stages [17]. For the criterion of minimum weight of spur gear pairs, it is possible to determine optimal gear ratios with Lagrange Multipliers method [12]. The volume of spur gear pair (Fig. 2) can be determined as follows:       b p p 2 g g 2 kol d kol d 4
(p) (g)

where: d (p) and d (g) are pitch diameters, and kol and kol are mass reduction factors of pinion (p) and gear (g) and b is gear width. Mass reduction factor is the ratio of approximate volume of spur gear and theoretical volume of the gear, i.e. the volume of cylinder encompassing the gear. As shown in detail in the literature [12], applying Lagrange Multipliers method gives the following equation:
2 k u k u 2 2kr u3 k kr uk 1 r k1 2 r k1 ; 2 uk1 uk
(p) (g)

where kr is the ratio kol /kol that can be defined as a relative reduction factor of gear in relation to pinion. Based on thorough analysis, it can be said that the value of reduction factor is between 0.3 and 0.9 [12]. Reduction of gear is greater than the reduction of pinion, so approximate value kr = 0.7 can be adopted as a relative reduction factor. System of nonlinear Eqs. (4) is solved numerically. Optimal number of stages is determined by varying index k in Eq. (4) and creating various systems of equations. By solving the system of equations and comparing the objective function values (relative volumes), the number of stages that provides its minimum value is adopted. Fig. 3 shows the distribution of gear ratio to individual stages. This figure was created by varying total gear ratio, with determined optimal number of stages and optimal gear ratio in each stage.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Fig. 2. Spur gear pair.

Fig. 3. Distribution of gear ratio of multi-stage gear train.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

4.3. Selection of optimal position of shaft axes of gear trains with spur gears Gear trains are usually made with shaft axes in the same (most commonly horizontal) plane. When the position of shaft axes is changed, the space that gear pairs occupy and the dimensions of gear train are changed as well. Optimization of gear pairs from the point of view of minimization of center distance has been presented in papers [18,19]. To define mathematical model, multi-stage gear train with spur gears (Fig. 4) is observed. Origin is placed in the input shaft axis and the position of other axes of the shaft is defined by angles i in relation to x axis. Dimensions of space occupied by gear train (L and H) can be defined as follows: L X R X L H Y T Y B where: X R maxfX Ri g; X L minfX Li g Y T maxfY Ti g; Y B minfY Bi g i 1; 2; ; n: 6 5

Coordinates of points xi and yi are determined on the basis of geometry shown in Fig. 4. In this way, L and H can be defined and, using them, the objective functions describing the criteria of length, height or volume of a gear train with spur gears are defined as well. Changing the angle i, changes the position of the spur gear in space, therefore it is necessary to introduce additional constraint that enables the assembly of the spur gear i.e. that prevents the gear from catching on non-neighboring shaft. In this paper an example is presented that shows the importance of optimization done in the previously defined manner. Objective function that is the product of length, width and the height of a gear train with spur gears is applied in this example. Angles defining the position of shaft axes (1 and2) are used as optimization variables, while the dimensions of spur gears are treated as parameters that do not change during the process of optimization. Complex BOX method is used for solving of this optimization task. Fig. 5a shows starting concept of a gear train with spur gears and Fig. 5b shows the concept with optimal

Fig. 4. Selection of optimal position of shaft axes of gear train with spur gears.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Fig. 5. Concept of a gear train with spur gears, before and after optimization.

position of shaft axes from the perspective of minimization of total volume of the space occupied by the gear train with spur gears. This resulted in the following optimal values of optimization variables: 1 53:874 and 2 7:448: With these values of angles 1 and 2 and with other measurements of the spur gears unchanged, the volume of the space occupied by the gear train with spur gears is decreased by 22.5%, which is not insignificant. 5. Optimization of gear train elements Optimization of gear pairs provides greatest possibilities in the optimization of gear trains. There are numerous reasons for that and the most important are: - Gears in gear trains carry the biggest load; they are the most complex and the most expensive elements of the whole gear train. - Gear pairs are defined by a large number of parameters, such as the type of gearing, number of teeth, module, gear width, helix angle, etc. - Optimization of gear pair changes the conditions under which other elements of gear train function. - Objectives (criteria) of gear pairs optimization are not inconsistent, which means that the achievement of an objective in gear pair optimization does not (drastically) deteriorate that same objective in the optimization of the whole gear train. Other gear train elements can be optimized as well, such as: shafts (that should have minimum weight in any case), housings (the dimensions of which depend on the dimensions of other elements), bearings (that are standard elements), as well as other standard elements such as: pistons, screws etc., but the possibilities of saving are significantly less than in gear train optimization. 5.1. Mathematical model of optimization of a gear train with spur gears To define a mathematical model, it is necessary to mathematically define optimization criterion by objective function and to define constraints by constraint function. Set of optimization variables, objective functions and the sets of constraints depend on gear train concept. Due to that, it is convenient to use matrices of variables, objective functions and constraints for the definition of mathematical model. Set of optimization variables is defined by vectors Xi that depend on the given concept of a gear train with spur gears i.e.: Xi = {x1, x2, , xni}, where ni is the number of optimization variables for i-th concept. 5.1.1. Objective function matrix It is convenient to form objective function matrix F from the sets of variables for each gear train concept. The elements of this matrix are functions: fkj,k = 1, 2, , nkp,j = 1, 2, , nko, with: k index of gear train concept (nkp number of concepts taken into consideration), and j index of optimization criterion (nko number of optimization criteria taken into consideration). 5.1.2. Constraint matrix Similar to objective function, it is convenient to form a constraint matrix G with constraint functions as its members: gkl, k = 1, 2, , nkp,l = 1, 2, , nog, with: l constraint index (nog number of constraints taken into consideration). It is also convenient to divide constraint function matrix into three parts, with the following equation as the result: G = Go + Gg + Ga, with: Go obligatory constraint matrix, Gg constraint matrix for given concept, Ga additional constraints matrix.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Adaptive mathematical model of gear train optimization can be summarized in a table. For the gear train concepts defined in selection matrix it is possible to define objective functions, sets of variables, sets of constraints (sets of explicit constraints, sets of obligatory constraints and sets of constraints for given concept). Adaptive mathematical model is used for the development of software for gear train optimization. Within the research, method Complex BOX was used to solve the problem of gear train optimization. The problem of objective function minimization was solved with this method, and, in that, the optimization variables can be submitted to explicit and implicit constraints. Lower and upper limits of variables can be constant or arbitrary functions of optimization variables. If, in a specific problem, some variables are theoretically unlimited, so called safety limits are adopted, and this makes the application of this method possible. Safety limits are of values that the specific variable cannot reach during the process of optimization. Previously defined mathematical model can also be used for multi-objective gear train optimization. In case of multi-objective optimization, it is necessary to select several objective functions from the set of objective functions and those functions have to meet chosen criteria. In this case, the set of constraints is determined in the same manner as in single-objective optimization. To completely define mathematical model for multi-objective optimization, it is necessary, apart from objective function and set of constraints, to define the importance (preference) of individual optimization criteria in a certain manner i.e. it is necessary to define weight coefficients. Numerous methods and techniques are developed for solving the problem of multi-objective optimization. Marler and Arora [20] analyzed the problem of multi-stage optimization and the possibility of application of large number of methods in engineering.

5.2. Software Optimization of gear trains is an optimization task that cannot be performed without a computer. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to this problem, which is the base of software GTO. The source code currently contains approximately 7000 lines. General flowchart for this software is shown in Fig. 6. Computer programs are developed in programming language C (C++). Due to the length of the source code, the program is split to several smaller programs connected into one project. Each program contains several functions that perform similar tasks. In this way, the program is developed faster and more comprehensible source code is created. Apart from that, individual functions (or whole programs) can be used for solving of other optimization tasks as well. Optimization of gear trains is divided into two levels. Optimal concept is selected at the first level and optimal parameters of selected concept are selected at the second level. Fig. 7 shows a view of software GTO output screen.

5.3. An example of selection of optimal concept and the optimization of a gear train with spur gears For the optimization of gear trains with spur gears, it is necessary to select acceptable concepts initially and then the optimal concept is selected. Adopted constraints, which are the basis of selection of acceptable concepts, are shown in Table 1. There are 11 acceptable concepts for the first criterion; this number is then reduced to only three concepts that satisfy all given criteria (Table 1).

Fig. 6. General flowchart for GTO software.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Fig. 7. Output screen of gear train optimization software GTO.

To select the optimal concept of a gear train with spur gears, it is necessary to define optimization criterion as well. In this case, the criterion is the length of the gear train with spur gears. This means that the objective function is expressed through optimization variables, such as pinion and gear diameters, as well as recommended values for the distance from the spur gear to the housing. The shape of the objective function is different for different concepts. Objective function for concept 4 is: p g p g d d d d f 4 a1 a2 1 2 2c2 , and for concepts 15 and 16: f 15;16 a1 a2 a3 1 3 2c2 , where a is center distance, 2 2 2 2 d (p), d (g) pitch diameters of pinion and gear, c2 minimum distance between gears and housing. Constraints for concept 4 are: - Explicit constraints: standard module 1 mm mn 20 mm, number of teeth of pinion 13 z (p) 50, number of teeth of gear 13 z (g) 500, gear width 0.4d (p) b 1.6d (p), helix angle 0 30 , profile shift coefficient 0.5 x 1.0, angle defining the position of shaft axis 0 360 . (p) (g) - Obligatory constraints: safety factor for tooth breakage of pinion (SFi ) and gear (SFi ) in relation to minimal value (SF min) (p) (g) (p) (g) SFi SF min and SFi SF min, i = 1, , nns, constraint safety factor for pitting of pinion (SHi ) and gear (SHi ) in relation to
(g) SH min, i = 1, , nns, where nns is the number of stages. minimal value (SH min) SHi SH min and SHi g da1 a2 c2 dsh3 . - Additional constraint: 2 (p)

Explicit and obligatory constraints for concept 15 are the same as for concept 4, and there is additional constraint that is g d d introduced so that the gear of the second spur gear pair does not come into contact with the third shaft: a2 a3 sh4 c2 , 2 2 where dsh4 is the fourth shaft diameter. For concept 16, apart from explicit and obligatory constraints (as in concept 4), an additional constraint is introduced, so that g p d d the gear of the first spur gear pair does not come into contact with the pinion of the third spur gear pair 1 a2 3 c2 . 2 2

Table 1 Selection of the set of acceptable concepts of a gear train. Selection criterion Position of axes of input and output shafts Position of axes of intermediate shaft Maximum number of stages Gear ratio Direction of rotation Parallel In one plane 3 40 Arbitrary Acceptable concepts 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27 15, 16, 26, 27 15, 16 15, 16 15, 16 No. of accept. conc. 11 5 3 3 3

10

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Table 2 Example of selection of optimal concept and the optimization of gear train with spur gears. Gear train concept no.: 4, 15, 16 Input data: Power: P = 40 kW, Input speed (RPM): n1 = 1450 rpm Optimization criterion: length of gear train with spur (no. 3) [mm] Total gear ratio: utot = 40 Available materials: 14CrNi6 Number of variables: 8/12 Number of constraints: 28/40 Number of points in complex: 16/24

Set of variables

Optimal values Continuous optima Conc. no. 4 2.07 22.69 185.476 65.0 4.667 18.316 86.036 107.059

Conc. no. 15 1.669 28.868 123.039 76.436 3.524 20.025 70.104 100.00 4.107 24.108 62.095 157.472 644.241

Conc. no. 16 2.492 20.087 71.794 76.455 3.251 22.334 85.923 109.483 3.702 27.505 76.934 146.192 681.24

For optimal concept (no. 15) Discrete 2 23.86 110.163 76.347 3.0 24.142 84.184 115.881 4.5 23.471 56.217 139.183 656.164

Real 2 24 110 76.4 3 24 84 116 4.5 23 56 140

I mn z1 z2 b II mn z1 z2 b III mn z1 z2 b Objective function value

714.169

Optimization according to this criterion is done for each acceptable concept and in that, only continuous optima are determined. The values of these optima are shown in Table 2. It is obvious that, according to this criterion, the best value of objective function is realized by concept number 15, so it is adopted as the optimal concept. Mixed variables problem is solved by the use of Branch and Bound method. Branching for discrete values of the module for all three stages is done for this concept and Table 2 shows these values. Real values of optimization variables are adopted based on discrete values. Table 2 shows the values of optimization variables (mn module, z1 number of pinion teeth, z2 number of gear teeth, b gear width) for all three stages (I, II, III) of gear trains with spur gears. Fig. 8 shows the sketches of optimal designs of gear trains with spur gears for all acceptable concepts of the gear train. Sketches for concept numbers 4 (Fig. 8a) and 16 (Fig. 8b) are given on the basis of continuous optima, and for concept number 15 (Fig. 8c), which is adopted as the optimal one, the sketch is given based on real values of optimization variables [12]. 6. Conclusion Gear pairs are the most important elements of gear trains. This paper presents one practical approach to optimization of gear trains with spur gears, which was the basis for the development of GTO software. Two examples of gear train with spur gears optimization are shown using this software. First example shows the optimization of position of shaft axes for the purpose of reducing the volume occupied by the gear train with spur gears. The results show that the volume of the gear train with spur gears is reduced by 22.5%. Software GTO accomplishes needed results in a very short time. The process of designing of gear trains with spur gears is performed by using two operations. Versions of concepts of gear trains with spur gears are developed within the first operation and the selection of optimal concept and their optimal parameters are selected within the second operation. The second example shows the complete procedure run during the

Fig. 8. Acceptable concepts of gear trains with spur gears.

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

11

optimization of a gear train with spur gears, from the selection of acceptable concepts, through the optimization of each acceptable concept to the selection of optimal concept with software GTO. Depending on set constraints, it is possible to select the set of acceptable concepts using GTO, which is later used as a basis for the selection of optimal concept. This kind of approach can also be applied to gear trains with bevel and worm gear pairs, but this is not shown here, as it does not fall within the subject of this paper. The optimization of parameters of gear trains with spur gears is done in this manner and the results can be applied in practice. GTO can be used for problems in single-objective optimization, as well as for those in multiple-objective optimization. Nomenclature a center distance b gear width c2 minimum distance between gears and housing d (p), d (g) pitch diameters of pinion, gear (p) (g) da , da diameter of the addendum circle of pinion and gear dsh shaft diameter F objective function matrix fkj elements of objective function matrix G constraint matrix Ga additional constraints matrix Gg constraint matrix for given concept gkl constraint functions Go obligatory constraint matrix H height of space occupied by gear train j index of optimization criterion k index of gear train concept (g) kol mass reduction factor of gear (p) kol mass reduction factor of pinion kr relative reduction factor l constraint index L length of space occupied by gear train m module ni number of optimization variables for i-th concept nkp number of concepts taken into consideration nko number of optimization criteria taken into consideration nns number of stages nog number of constraints taken into consideration P power to be transmitted (kW) (p) (g) SH , SH factor of safety from pitting of pinion, gear SH min minimum prescribed value of factor of safety from pitting (p) (g) SF , SF factor of safety from tooth breaking of pinion, gear SF min minimum prescribed value of factor of safety from tooth breaking u gear ratio utot total gear ratio V volume of gear pair x profile shift coefficient Xi set of optimization variables z (p), z (g) number of teeth on pinion, gear helix angle efficiency i position of shafts defined in relation to origin and x axis

Abbreviations A skew shaft axes B bevel gear C coincident shaft axes GTO Gear Train Optimization I intersecting shaft axes P parallel shaft axes S spur gear W worm gear

12

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

Appendix A. Selection matrix of gear train concept (Complete)

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

13

Appendix A (continued)

14 Appendix A (continued)

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116 Appendix A (continued)

15

16

N. Marjanovic et al. / Mechanism and Machine Theory 53 (2012) 116

References
[1] V. Savsani, R.V. Rao, D.P. Vakharia, Optimal weight design of a gear train using particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithms, Mechanism and Machine Theory 45 (2010) 531541. [2] T. Yokota, T. Taguchi, M. Gen, A solution method for optimal weight design problem of the gear using genetic algorithms, Computers & Industrial Engineering 35 (1998) 523526. [3] C. Gologlu, M. Zeyveli, A genetic approach to automate preliminary design of gear drives, Computers & Industrial Engineering 57 (2009) 10431051. [4] F. Mendi, T. Baskal, K. Boran, F.E. Boran, Optimization of module, shaft diameter and rolling bearing for spur gear through genetic algorithm, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 80588064. [5] D.F. Thompson, S. Gupta, A. Shukla, Tradeoff analysis in minimum volume design of multi-stage spur gear reduction units, Mechanism and Machine Theory 35 (2000) 609627. [6] T.H. Chong, I. Bae, A. Kubo, Multiobjective optimal design of cylindrical gear pairs for the reduction of gear size and meshing vibration, JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing 44 (2001) 291298. [7] B.A. Abuid, Y.M. Ameen, Procedure for optimum design of a two-stage spur gear system, JSME International Journal Series C Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing 46 (2003) 15821590. [8] M. Ciavarella, G. Demelio, Numerical methods for the optimisation of specific sliding, stress concentration and fatigue life of gears, International Journal of Fatigue 21 (1999) 465474. [9] K. Mao, Gear tooth contact analysis and its application in the reduction of fatigue wear, Wear 262 (2007) 12811288. [10] Y. Wang, Optimized tooth profile based on identified gear dynamic model, Mechanism and Machine Theory 42 (2007) 10581068. [11] G. Bonori, M. Barbieri, F. Pellicano, Optimum profile modifications of spur gears by means of genetic algorithms, Journal of Sound and Vibration 313 (2008) 603616. [12] N. Marjanovic, Gear Train Optimization, University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, CADLab, Kragujevac, 2007. [13] J. Andersson, A Survey of Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkping University, Linkping, 2000. [14] H. Wang, H.-P. Wang, Optimal engineering design of spur gear sets, Mechanism and Machine Theory 29 (1994) 10711080. [15] ISO, Standard 6339, Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gear, International Organization for Standardization, 2006. [16] W.H. Niemann, G. Maschinenelemente, Band II, Getriebe allgemein, Zahradgetriebe - Grundlagen, Struznradgetriebe, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989. [17] T.H. Chong, I. Bae, G.-J. Park, A new and generalized methodology to design multi-stage gear drives by integrating the dimensional and the configuration design process, Mechanism and Machine Theory 37 (2002) 295310. [18] X. Li, G.R. Symmons, G. Cockerham, Optimal design of involute profile helical gears, Mechanism and Machine Theory 31 (1996) 717728. [19] M.M.A. Kader, S.P. Nigam, G.K. Grover, A study on mode of failures in spur gears under optimized conditions, Mechanism and Machine Theory 33 (1998) 839850. [20] R.T. Marler, J.S. Arora, Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 26 (2004) 369395.