Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
An Invariant Approach
to Differential and Kinematic
Analysis of Gears
Doctoral dissertation
in Mechanical Engineering
Marco Gabiccini
February 2006
Università di Pisa
Scuola di Dottorato in Ingegneria “Leonardo da Vinci”
Dottorato di Ricerca in
Ingegneria Meccanica
An Invariant Approach
to Differential and Kinematic
Analysis of Gears
Tesi svolta per il conseguimento del titolo di Dottore di Ricerca
III Ciclo
Anno 2002
To my wife Angela
We have not succeeded in answering all our problems. The answers we
have found only serve to raise a whole set of new questions. In some
ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused
on a higher level, and about more important things.
Bernt Øskendal
Stochastic Differential Equations:
An Introduction with Applications
Acknowledgements
There is no amount of thanks that could adequately show how much I
appreciate everything Prof. Massimo Guiggiani has done for me while
wearing his many “hats”. As an advisor, he kept me interested while
keeping me on track. As a counselor, he provided me a ten–month
opportunity at the “GearLab”, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University. As a research scientist, he is inspiring in
his ability to actively seek new projects, and pursue them creatively.
His broad knowledge and deep insight were of great importance to my
research.
I could not have done half the things I did without Ing. Francesca Di
Puccio. The countless insights she had while sitting in her office should
warrant a place in this thesis. I owe her a debt not easily repaid.
I have benefitted greatly from interactions with many friends and col-
leagues. They have provided both emotional and technical support
to me in the development of this material: Alessio Artoni, from the
University of Pisa, with the countless fruitful discussions and insights,
Martino Vimercati, from the Politecnico di Milano, with whom I shared
a period of three months at The Ohio State University, a fundamental
experience for my vocational education. I wish to thank also Dr. Ah-
met Kahraman, from The Ohio State University, for his support and
encouragement while at The Ohio State as a visiting scholar.
Finally, I would most especially like to thank my wife, Angela, for
all her support and encouragement during this endeavor. I hope she
knows there is no one in the world as beautiful and inspiring as she is.
Abstract
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Dissertation overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9 Conclusions 175
Bibliography 184
Chapter 1
Introduction
Theory of gearing looks like a pretty difficult subject. It is based on the envelope
of surfaces and it involves a lot of geometry and complex relative motions. Some
books like Theory of Gearing by F. L. Litvin [48] are now classical, not to mention
more recent contributions, still in the form of books, like [49] and [50] by the
same author. This theory has been widely employed and it would be impossible
to cite here all the papers dealing with this subject. Among these very many
contributions we may recall [53, 45, 74, 79, 30, 70], to mention but a few.
All these analyses are based on a deep recourse to (Cartesian) reference sys-
tems. Indeed, reference systems are typically introduced at the very beginning,
almost implying that the whole theory cannot be properly explained without them.
This idea results in a formulation which looks rather complicated. For instance,
a variety of formulae, one for each reference system, are usually provided for the
same geometrical quantity.
A different approach has been pursued by Dooner [14, 15], which employed the
theory of screws. However, several reference systems are introduced in the first
pages of [15] as well.
This thesis aims to formulate the whole theory of gearing without any recourse
to reference systems. This goal is achieved by means of an approach entirely
based on geometric concepts (points, lines, surfaces, vectors) which exist by them-
selves. All vector functions are treated as such. The principal tool that allows
the description of rotating vectors and their manipulation without the use of their
components in some reference systems is the Euler formula for expressing the ro-
tation of a vector about an axis, which apparently dates back to 1775 and was
first published in [16]. The final result is a more compact and general formulation
of the theory of gearing. To show that the proposed approach can cover all the
main issues involved in the theory of gearing, a detailed fresh derivation of many
classical results is provided. For the sake of comparison, precise citation to former
contributions is given.
Since reference systems play no role at all in the theoretical development, their
2 1. Introduction
introduction can be postponed till the very end, when actual computations have
to be done. Moreover, and quite surprisingly, all computations can be carried out
employing just one reference system, without having to bother about the chain of
fixed or rotating frames typical of the traditional approach.
how to find reasonable initial guesses for the numerical procedures were presented
in [40, 3, 66, 65].
All the above mentioned articles and reports employ matrix methods. Several
reference frames are introduced in the first pages of all the papers and the vectors
are represented by their components. The transformation matrices among the
reference systems of the chain account for the relative motion between the tool
and the gear blank where the tooth surface is to be enveloped.
Different approaches to the formulation of the theory of gearing are due Dooner,
Grill, Miller, Wu and Luo and Vogel.
Dooner [15, 14] proposed three laws of gearing employing the theory of screws
and the cylindroidal coordinates to parametrize the kinematic geometry of gen-
eralized motion transmission between skew axes. The three laws define: (1) a
relationship between the instantaneous motion of two toothed bodies in contact;
(2) a relation between the instantaneous gear ratio and the apparent radii of the
hyperboloidal pitch surface in contact; (3) the instantaneous relationship for the
relative curvature of two conjugate surfaces in direct contact showing that this
relation is independent of the tooth profile geometry. An early establishment of
reference frames from the very beginning of the analysis is evident from the first
pages of [15] as well.
Grill [26] employed kinematic relations in vectorial form and derived the cur-
vature properties of the generated tooth surface by employing a spatial extension
of the Euler-Savary theorem.
Miller [69] employed geometric algebra, a unified framework to express geo-
metric concepts with algebraic symbols extensively treated by Hestenes [29, 28].
The equation of meshing in the sole focus of [69], though.
Wu and Luo [84] formulated the theory of gearing by employing a vectorial
notation but the introduction of some operations like the relative differentiation
and the use of kinematic concepts link them closely to the use of reference systems.
The topics in [84] are numerous: from the determination of the function of the first
and second kind, to the analysis of the induced curvatures and their derivatives to
the extension of the Euler-Savary formula to 3D motions.
Vogel et al. [83] proposed a new methodology to describe the generating process
and perform the tooth contact analysis, that they named direct. Based on concepts
borrowed from differential topology, some classical results are re-proposed in a
mathematically elegant manner. For example, the line of action is considered as a
first order singularity of a certain operator equation. Moreover, with the proposed
use of automatic differentiation of algorithms [25], direct dependencies between
contact ellipses and machine parameters are available and may be quantified in
order to perform optimizations.
The problem of performing a sensitivity analysis of the gear surface to the
machine-tool settings and to misalignments dates back to 1983 in the paper by
Litvin et al [42].
Krenzer [31] performed computer aided inspection of bevel and hypoid gears
4 1. Introduction
conditions is developed in a fresh way for the case of generation with fixed axes
and constant gear ratio.
In Chapter 3, the theory already presented is extended to the generation of
gear surfaces with translating axes and variable gear ratio. For this purpose only
slight variations to the basic theory are necessary.
The development and the use of computer numerically controlled (CNC) ma-
chines for manufacturing gears, like hypoid and spiral bevel gear for aerospace ap-
plications, has demanded for general three-dimensional motions to be addressed.
Therefore, in Chapter 4 the invariant approach to gear generation presented in
the previous chapters is extended to cope with fully general enveloping motions,
like those employed in the, so called, free-form cutting machines. Actually, more
than six parameters (somehow like the eight correction mechanisms in the Phoenix
Gleason machine [77]) are included in the analysis to retain the physical meaning
of some degrees of freedom and to make the whole formulation easier to apply to
some practical cases. First, a detailed analysis to obtain the basic equations of the
generated surface is presented. The proposed approach allows for a very compact
and simple formulation since it does not require reference systems. With respect
to the analyses presented in the previous chapters, several new aspects have to be
addressed, making the generalization far from obvious.
In Chapter 5, a short explanation on how to obtain the curvatures and some
kinematic relationships is provided. Again, some new subtle points have to be
taken into account. To show how the proposed method really works, its application
to the face-milling process is presented.
Chapter 6 is concerned with the comparison of different methods in curvature
analysis already proposed in the gear literature. To better point out the analogies
and the differences of the existing methods, the investigation is performed within
the common framework of the invariant approach.
Chapter 7 is devoted to the third order analysis of gear surfaces, that is the
analysis of the geometry of tooth surfaces and that of the contact up to the deriv-
ative of the curvature. Maybe, this is the least “practical” among the chapters.
Nevertheless, the procedures here outlined to perform the third order analysis of
conjugate surfaces reveal a common structure with the ones presented in Chapter
5 and represent their natural generalization.
In Chapter 8, the last chapter, the invariant approach is employed to solve the
problem of global surface synthesis. The problem could be stated as follows: let
us suppose we are given a basic design of a gear tooth surface, which means that
we are given a set of parameters defining the geometry of the tool and the CNC
machine kinematic settings. How should the machine-tool settings be (slightly)
varied in order for the new surface to be, in some norm, as close as possible to
an assigned surface, with an allowable variation of the settings? Obviously, it is
implied that the objective surface is “very” close, in some norm, to the basic one.
The new surface is a corrected surface and the problem of finding feasible
machine-tool settings which allow for arbitrary corrections of the tooth surface is
6 1. Introduction
one of the topics in the theory of gearing which, at present, stirs the most lively
research activity by industry researchers, as demonstrated by recent papers from
Gleason and Klingelnberg as [81], [17] and [35].
It is believed that, by employing the invariant approach, a better understand-
ing of the correction mechanism can be developed and a deeper insight of the
computational algorithms for surface synthesis can be gained.
Chapter 2
a
a Q
Q
N P a
P u1
u0
p
p
c N u2
P
P
O
The derivatives of the rotated vector p̂ with respect to the parameters ξ and θ
are given by
p̂,ξ (ξ, θ; α̂) = R p,ξ (ξ, θ), a, α̂
p̂,θ (ξ, θ; α̂) = R p,θ (ξ, θ), a, α̂ (2.16)
In a more general case, where both the initial vector and the rotation depend on
the same parameter φ, like p̂(ξ, θ, φ) = R(p(ξ, θ, φ), a, φ), a composition of the
previous results is required
p̂,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = R p,φ (ξ, θ, φ), a, φ + a × p̂(ξ, θ, φ) (2.18)
the infinite lines of shortest distance between a and b, while in case of intersecting
axes it is convenient to take Oa = Ob at the common point.
In the fixed space E3f we define a regular surface Σ̂(ψ̂) isomorphic to the surface
Σe and rigidly rotating around the first axis a by an angle ψ̂ (as usual a counter-
clockwise rotation is taken as positive). Typically we may have Σe = Σ̂(0). In
gear generation Σ̂(ψ̂) is the moving surface of the generating tool.
Denoting by P̂ the generic point of Σ̂, its position vector p̂a can be given by
(cf. (2.4))
p̂a (ξ, θ; ψ̂) = P̂ (ξ, θ; ψ̂) − Oa = R pe (ξ, θ), a, ψ̂ (2.23)
where Oa = Oe and pe (ξ, θ) was defined in equation (2.1).
Of course, it is equally possible to employ the position vectors p̂b (ξ, θ; ψ̂) given
by
p̂b (ξ, θ; ψ̂) = P̂ (ξ, θ; ψ̂) − Ob = p̂a (ξ, θ; ψ̂) − dba (2.24)
where dba is constant. It should be noted that the relationship between pe and p̂b
is not a rotation.
Both position vectors p̂a (ξ, θ; ψ̂) and p̂b (ξ, θ; ψ̂) of R3 describe the same family
of surfaces Φf in the space E3f , that is a sequence of regular surfaces Σ̂(ψ̂), one for
each value of ψ̂. It is a family of a special kind, since it only involves rigid-body
rotations of a given surface around a fixed axis a. To avoid any misunderstanding,
it is worth mentioning that Φf is not the family of surfaces whose envelope we are
looking for.
As a consequence of equations (2.23) and (2.24), along with the general prop-
erties (2.16) and (2.17), we have that
A relationship similar to equations (19) and (21) can be found at page 69,
eqn. (95), in [84], although obtained by a kinematic approach, i.e., by means of
time derivatives.
12 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
where τ = 1/η is the (signed) gear ratio. The condition ϕ̂ = −φ means that (2.29)
and (2.30) define a rotation opposite to the one of the gear in order to generate
the gear surface as it were fixed.
A positive value of the gear ratio τ means that a positive rotation ηφ = φ/τ
of the pinion around axis a yields a positive rotation φ of the gear around b.
For instance, in case of transmission between parallel axes with a = b, a pair of
external gears has τ < 0.
It could be easily proven that the screw axis of relative motion between the
two gears is directed like c = ηa − b.
This definition as well only involves vectors and therefore does not require reference
systems.
2.4 The enveloping family of surfaces 13
These results clearly show the relationship between the derivatives of the two
families of surfaces Φg and Φf and also of the generating surface Σe .
According to equations (2.2), (2.27) and (2.32), the normal vector mg to each
regular surface of the family Φg is given by
mg (ξ, θ, φ) = pg ,ξ × pg ,θ
= R m̂(ξ, θ; ηφ), b, −φ
= R R(me (ξ, θ), a, ηφ), b, −φ (2.33)
which also shows the relationship between the normal vectors defined so far.
The derivative of pg with respect to the parameter of motion φ can be obtained
as in eqn. (2.18)
pg ,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = R p̂b (ξ, θ; ηφ), b, −φ ,φ
= R p̂b ,φ (ξ, θ; ηφ), b, −φ − b × pg
= R ηa × p̂a (ξ, θ; ηφ) − b × p̂b (ξ, θ; ηφ), b, −φ (2.34)
where the last step comes from equations (2.26) and (2.31).
If we define the vector function
Quite useful may turn out also the alternative expression, holding for ψ̂ = ηφ
which follows directly from equations (2.31) in the form p̂b = R(pg , b, φ) and (2.35).
14 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
with (ξ, θ, φ) ∈ B ⊂ R3 .
For the equation of meshing to be satisfied, the three vectors in (2.38) must
belong to the same two-dimensional sub-space (i.e, the same plane), that is to be
such that
pg ,φ = α pg ,ξ + β pg ,θ (2.39)
for suitable coefficients α = α(ξ, θ, ηφ) and β = β(ξ, θ, ηφ) as better explained in
the following subsection.
Unfortunately, the equation of meshing is usually defined, at least initially
(as in [48], pages 167–168, in [49], page 108, or in [50], page 3), in terms of the
components r2 (ξ, θ, φ) of pg in a Cartesian reference system, say S2 , fixed in E3g
h i
r2 ,ξ r2 ,θ r2 ,φ = f (ξ, θ, φ) = 0 (2.40)
We wish to point out here again that the reference systems are by no means
necessary and it is our goal to show that they play no role in the theoretical
treatment. In other words, all the results expressed in vector form hold true
regardless of the reference system employed.
For instance, providing the equation of meshing in the form (2.40) is somehow
misleading, since it emphasizes the role of S2 while any other reference system
would do as well. The key point is selecting the family of surfaces whose envelope
we are interested in, while the reference system is just an aid and therefore is
completely arbitrary.
= m̂ · ĥ = 0 (2.41)
2.5 Equation of meshing 15
Exactly like in (2.39) for the classical equation of meshing, the three vectors
in (2.41) must stay on the same plane to have f = 0, that is be such that
ĥ(ξ, θ, ψ̂) = α p̂a ,ξ (ξ, θ; ψ̂) + β p̂a ,θ (ξ, θ; ψ̂) + γ m̂(ξ, θ; ψ̂) (2.44)
that reduces to (2.43) at points where f = 0 holds. In any case to obtain α(ξ, θ, ψ̂)
and β(ξ, θ, ψ̂) just consider that
which provides h i
ĥ p̂a ,θ m̂
α(ξ, θ, ψ̂) = (2.45)
m̂ · m̂
in a similar way h i
p̂a ,ξ ĥ m̂
β(ξ, θ, ψ̂) = (2.46)
m̂ · m̂
16 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
and simply
ĥ · m̂
γ(ξ, θ, ψ̂) = (2.47)
m̂ · m̂
When α and β are calculated for ψ̂ = ηφ, they are the same of equation (2.39),
since all vectors in eqn. (2.43) are simply rotated with respect to those in (2.39).
where the last two are simpler because fully exploit the rigid body motions involved
in gear generation.
ξ = ξ(θ, φ) (2.55)
∂ξ f, ∂ξ f,φ
= − θ, and =− (2.56)
∂θ f,ξ ∂φ f,ξ
On the other hand φ = φ(ξ, θ) cannot be employed in general since, as we will see
in (2.75), we have to allow the possibility for f,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = 0.
18 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
f,θ f,φ
sg ,θ = − p , + pg ,θ and sg ,φ = − p , + pg ,φ (2.60)
f,ξ g ξ f,ξ g ξ
where in the last expressions the geometric meaning (2.39) of the equation of
meshing was taken into account and the last step comes directly from (2.33).
These expressions should be compared with those obtained in [48].
Since me 6= 0, we see that the vector condition for the regularity of the envelope
surface Γg
ng (θ, φ) 6= 0 (2.62)
2.7 Regularity of the envelope surface Γg 19
with ξ = ξ(θ, φ). Coefficients α(ξ, θ, ηφ) and β(ξ, θ, ηφ) are the functions intro-
duced in equation (2.39) and obtained in (2.45) and (2.46).
It may be useful, as sometimes found in the literature, to express the scalar
function g(ξ, θ, φ) by means of vectors. To this purpose we introduce a new vector
q̂(ξ, θ, φ; ψ̂) = p̂a ,ξ × p̂a ,θ f,φ + ĥ × p̂a ,ξ f,θ + p̂a ,θ × ĥ f,ξ (2.64)
so that, according to equations (2.32) and (2.35) we may write eqn. (2.61) in a
more compact way
1 1
ng (θ, φ) = R(q̂, b, −φ) = g R(m̂, b, −φ) (2.65)
f,ξ f,ξ
q̂ · m̂
g(ξ, θ, φ) = f,φ − α f,ξ − β f,θ = (2.66)
m̂ · m̂
where all functions are evaluated at ψ̂ = ηφ. The following dot product, expanded
using the Lagrange identity,
p̂ , · p̂ , p̂a ,ξ · p̂a ,θ p̂a ,ξ · ĥ
aξ aξ
q̂(ξ, θ, φ; ηφ) · m̂(ξ, θ; ηφ) = p̂a ,θ · p̂a ,ξ p̂a ,θ · p̂a ,θ p̂a ,θ · ĥ (2.67)
f, ξ f, θ f, φ
is often encountered in the literature. In [84, p. 57] it is called the limit function
of the first kind. However, in [84] it is obtained employing the concept of relative
differentiation which plays no role in the present paper. In [50, §1.4] two equivalent
conditions for singular points are obtained (namely g1 = 0 and g2 = 0). They are
in the form of (2.39) but written employing components, thus showing that the
use of reference systems may lead to a proliferation of formulas for the very same
concept.
Even in this case we may take advantage of rotating vectors and property
(2.13), writing
where
q e (ξ, θ, φ; ψ̂) = pe ,ξ × pe ,θ f,φ + he × pe ,ξ f,θ + pe ,θ × he f,ξ (2.68)
20 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
It is now easy to provide what is perhaps the most general definition for lines
of singular points lg on the generated surface Γg :
lg = pg (ξ, θ, φ)
f (ξ, θ, φ) = 0 (2.69)
g(ξ, θ, φ) = 0
which collects the results obtained in (2.31), (2.52) and (2.66). All equations are
valid regardless of the reference system actually employed. As already mentioned,
the same problem was addressed, e.g., in [50], §1.4 and the final results are basi-
cally the same. However, the approach here proposed provides maybe a clearer
framework and a more systematic treatment.
It will be shown in Sec. 2.13 that at points of no sliding we have ĥ = 0.
Therefore, at the same points, condition g = 0 simply becomes f,φ = 0 (which is
called limit function of the second kind in [84]) since q̂ = m̂f,φ .
If from the equation of meshing we can obtain an explicit function like, e.g.,
(2.55), the truly enveloping surface can be defined in R3 by means of position
vectors
se (θ, φ) = pe ξ(θ, φ), θ (2.71)
The two surfaces (i.e., the sets of points) Σe and Γe are such that Γe ⊆ Σe . In R3
the surface se (θ, φ) is fixed.
This new surface Γe has, by definition, normal ne (θ, φ)
ne (θ, φ) = se ,θ × se ,φ (2.72)
where, after the derivatives have been performed (i.e., in the final expressions) all
occurrences of ξ must be replaced by ξ(θ, φ). Equation (2.73) clearly shows the
link between the normal vectors me (ξ(θ, φ), θ) and ne (θ, φ). Incidentally, we note
that se ,φ and pe ,ξ are parallel vectors.
2.9 The surface of action Γf 21
We can also investigate under which conditions the new surface Γe may have
singular points, that is points where the normal vector ne becomes zero. As it
immediately arises from equations (2.2) and (2.73), ne = 0 whenever
f,φ ξ(θ, φ), θ, φ = 0 (2.74)
which defines an implicit function between θ and φ. Therefore, differently from
Σe , this new surface Γe may have (lines of) singular points. It will be shown in
Sec. 2.12 that they are also the envelope of contact lines on Γe itself.
In more general terms, the line le of singular points on Γe is fully defined by
le = pe ξ, θ
f (ξ, θ, φ) = 0 (2.75)
f,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = 0
which can also be found in [84, p. 58].
and
1
sf a ,φ = sf b ,φ = − p̂ , f, − η p̂a ,ψ̂ f,ξ ξ=ξ(θ,φ)
f,ξ a ξ φ ψ̂=ηφ
Therefore, nf (θ, φ) can be expressed as
1
nf (θ, φ) = (p̂a ,ξ × p̂a ,θ )f,φ + η(p̂a ,ψ̂ × p̂a ,ξ )f,θ + η(p̂a ,θ × p̂a ,ψ̂ )f,ξ ξ=ξ(θ,φ)
f,ξ ψ̂=ηφ
(2.79)
22 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
Owing to equations (2.26), (2.27), (2.35), (2.43) and (2.63), the normal vector
nf (θ, φ) to the surface of action is also equal to any of the following expressions
f,φ
nf (θ, φ) = m̂ − (ηa × p̂a ) × t
f,ξ
= R(ne , a, ηφ) − (ηa × p̂a ) × t
g
= m̂ − (b × p̂b ) × t
f,ξ
= R(ng , b, φ) − (b × p̂b ) × t (2.80)
where
1
t(θ, φ) = sf a ,θ (θ, φ) = − p̂ , f, − p̂a ,θ f,ξ ξ=ξ(θ,φ) (2.81)
f,ξ a ξ θ ψ̂=ηφ
is the tangent vector to the contact line sf a (θ, φ), with fixed φ. From equations
(2.27) and (2.57) we clearly see that t is never zero. This formula for t corresponds
to equations (1.6.9) and (1.6.10) in [50].
which states that, no matter t, at singular points for Γg the normal nf to the
contact surface, when applied in p̂b , goes through axis b. More precisely, we have,
with ψ̂ = ηφ h i
nf b p̂b = 0 (2.83)
which means that the three vectors belong to the same two-dimensional sub-space.
Therefore, a line through the point P̂ = Ob + p̂b directed like nf necessarily
intersect the line through Ob with direction b (unless nf and b are parallel).
Equation (2.82) corresponds to eqn. (17) in [52], where, however, reference
systems are deeply rooted in the procedure.
Also of interest might be to observe that, if f,φ = 0, we obtain from eqn. (2.80)
nf (θ, φ) = − ηa × p̂a × t (2.84)
and hence h i
nf a p̂a = 0 (2.85)
2.10 Rotating surfaces and contact lines 23
During meshing and according to (2.30), the two rotations are related and we
have ψ̂ = ηφ and ν̂ = φ. The surface of action Γf was already in E3f and stays
fixed. For a fixed value of φ, the three surfaces Γ̂e (ηφ), Γf and Γ̂g (φ) touch each
other along the contact line, with position vectors
ca (θ, φ) = R(se (θ, φ), a, ηφ) = sf a (θ, φ) = R(sg (θ, φ), b, φ) + dba and
with respect to Oa and Ob . More precisely, Γ̂e (ηφ) and Γ̂g (φ) are tangent while
intersecting Γf along the contact line. The tangent vector t to each contact line
was obtained in equation (2.81).
On the other hand, contact lines on each surface Γe and Γg are obtained by
simply fixing φ in the corresponding position vectors se (θ, φ) and sg (θ, φ), respec-
tively. Therefore, we have on each surface a family of curves with parameter φ.
It is interesting to determine under which conditions these contact lines may have
an envelope on the surface itself.
24 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
like in (2.69). Therefore, the necessary condition for the existence of the envelope
of contact lines on Γg exactly corresponds to the necessary condition for the exis-
tence of lines of singular points on the same surface. This line lg of E3g was defined
by equations (2.69).
It is worth noting that inequality (2.92) implies (2.57), but not the other way
around.
The regularity of lg (φ) is equivalent to the condition
lg ,φ 6= 0 (2.96)
The same subject was treated in § 1.7 of [50], but in a fairly different way.
Conditions (2.97) and (2.98) for the regularity of the envelope of contact lines
can be considerably simplified by means again of equations (2.32) and (2.36) with
ξ = ξg (φ), θ = θg (φ) and ψ̂ = ηφ, thus getting
p̂a ,ξ (f,θ g,φ − f,φ g,θ ) + p̂a ,θ (f,φ g,ξ − f,ξ g,φ ) + ĥ(f,ξ g,θ − f,θ g,ξ ) 6= 0 (2.99)
Comparing equations (2.81) and (2.100) we obtain, as expected, that contact lines
are tangent to their envelope curve. In [53], eqn. (42), a similar conclusion is
reached, though in a different way.
Moreover, since t is never zero, we see that the regularity condition for the
envelope of contact lines lg can be simply stated as
s(φ) = g,φ − αg,ξ − βg,θ ξ=ξg (φ) 6= 0 (2.101)
θ=θg (φ)
ψ̂=ηφ
According to equations (2.45) and (2.46), we can take a further step and write the
above condition as (cf. (2.67))
p̂ , · p̂ , p̂a ,ξ · p̂a ,θ p̂a ,ξ · ĥ
aξ aξ
(m̂ · m̂) s(φ) = p̂a ,θ · p̂a ,ξ p̂a ,θ · p̂a ,θ p̂a ,θ · ĥ 6= 0 (2.102)
g,ξ g,θ g,φ
or as
p , · p , pe ,ξ · pe ,θ pe ,ξ · he
eξ eξ
(me · me ) s(φ) = pe ,θ · pe ,ξ pe ,θ · pe ,θ pe ,θ · he 6= 0 (2.103)
g,ξ g,θ g,φ
with ξ = ξg (φ), θ = θg (φ) and ψ̂ = ηφ. Basically the same result can also
be found in [53], eqn. (33). However in that paper all developments are based on
vector components and hence need reference systems.
Owing to the conditions (2.3) and (2.57), we see that the above inequality is
fulfilled if and only if f,φφ 6= 0, exactly like in (2.109). The analysis here presented
is the counterpart of §1.8 in [50].
v(ξ, θ, φ) = φ̇ pg ,φ (2.115)
The sliding velocity v sg of the shaper with respect to the gear is therefore given
by the above velocity computed at those points where the equation of meshing is
verified, that is a points of contact during the envelope process
s
v g (θ, φ) = v(ξ(θ, φ), θ, φ) = φ̇ pg ,φ = φ̇ R ĥ(ξ(θ, φ), θ, ηφ), b, −φ
ξ=ξ(θ,φ)
(2.116)
where the last step is due to equation (2.36).
To map the sliding velocity v sf in the space E3f , that is on the surface of action
Γf it suffices to apply to v sg a rotation φ around axis b
which also shows the physical meaning of vector ĥ. We have no sliding between
the two mating gears at those points where ĥ(ξ(θ, φ), θ, ηφ) = 0. The same result
can be obtained through a different route. Considering equations (2.86), (2.87)
and also (2.88), with ψ̂(t) = ηφ(t) and ν̂(t) = φ(t) we have
!
s
v f (θ, φ) = φ̇ ηŝea ,ψ̂
− ŝgb ,ν̂
(2.118)
ψ̂=ηφ ν̂=φ
Finally, to obtain the sliding velocity v se in the space E3e where the generating
surface Γe is fixed, we simply have to do (cf. equation (2.48))
v se (θ, φ) = R(v sf , a, −ηφ) = φ̇ R ĥ(ξ(θ, φ), θ, ηφ), a, −ηφ = φ̇ he (ξ(θ, φ), θ, ηφ)
(2.119)
head-cutter
machine
frame
cutter
ye axis
Sr
q2 yq
xe
ψc2
cradle Oe= Oa blank
axis a
xq axis
ψ2
∆E m2 ze
γm2
zq
∆ X b2 O q= O b b
∆ X D2
Figure 2.2: Geometric set up for the generation of spiral bevel gears.
where γ is the angle between a and b. Alternatively to γ the machine root angle
γm2 = π/2 − γ is often employed (Figure 6 in [4]).
In the reference system S the components of axis unit vectors a and b are
a = (0, 0, 1) and b = (cos γm2 , 0, sin γm2 ), respectively, and the components of
dba = Ob − Oa become
dba = (∆XD2 cos γm2 , −∆EM2 , ∆XB2 + ∆XD2 sin γm2 ) (2.121)
It is worth noting that a, b and dba are all fixed vectors and, accordingly, they
have in S constant components.
In this application we consider a generating tool Σe with a straight blade
profile and a circular fillet at the top. The geometric parameters of the tool and
the machine settings will appear here with the same labels as in [4] (see also
Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 below). The parametric equations in S of the active flanks
2.14 Application to spiral bevel gears 31
(a) (a)
pe (ξ, θ) of the tool and their unit normal vector me (ξ, θ) are
(Rg ± ξ sin αg ) cos θ + Sr2 cos q2 cos αg cos θ
me(a) (θ) = cos αg sin θ ,
pe(a) (ξ, θ) = (Rg ± ξ sin αg ) sin θ + Sr2 sin q2 ,
−ξ cos αg ± sin αg
(2.122)
1−sin αg
where ξ ∈ [ρw cos αg , s̄g (θ)], θ ∈ [0, 2 π) and the upper and lower signs refer to
concave and convex side, respectively.
The parametric equations of the fillets at the top of the tool and their unit
normal vectors, also in S, are
(Xw ± ρw sin ξ) cos θ + Sr2 cos q2 sin ξ cos θ
p(b)
e (ξ, θ) =
(Xw ± ρw sin ξ) sin θ + Sr2 sin q2 , m(b)
e (ξ, θ) = sin ξ sin θ
−ρw (1 − cos ξ) ± cos ξ
(2.123)
where ξ ∈ [0, π2 −αg ], θ ∈ [0, 2π) and the upper and lower signs refer to the concave
and convex side, respectively.
Again they are all fixed vectors. In [4] equations (2.122) and (2.123) would be
in the reference system Sc2 .
where the upper/lower signs must be chosen accordingly with the equations for
the concave/convex side.
The equation of meshing for the root fillets of the gear is obtained in much the
same way as
f (b) (ξ, θ, φ) = m(b) (b)
e (ξ, θ) · he (ξ, θ, η φ) = 0, (2.127)
32 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
where
h(b) (b) b
e = (η a − R(b, a, −η φ)) × pe + R(b × da , a, −η φ). (2.128)
Equation (2.127) can be solved with respect to the parametric coordinate ξ
obtaining " p #
(b) A(θ, φ) ∓ B(θ, φ)
ξ (θ, φ) = 2 arctan , (2.129)
C(θ, φ)
where the upper/lower signs refer to a right/left handed gear. The coefficients
in (2.129) have the following expressions
A(θ, φ) = 2 −∆EM2 cos(θ + η φ) sin γm2 +Sr2 (η−sin γm2 ) sin(q2 −θ)
+ (∆XB2 +ρw ) cos γm2 sin(θ+η φ) ,
2
2
B(θ, φ) = 4 cos γm 2
∆EM2 +Sr2 sin(q2 +η φ)+Xw sin(θ+η φ)
(2.130)
+ ∆EM2 cos(θ+η ψ2 ) sin γm2 +Sr2 (−η+sin γm2 ) sin(q2 −θ)
2
− (∆XB2 + ρw ) cos γm2 sin(θ + η φ) ,
C(θ, φ) = ±2 cos γm2 [∆EM2 + Sr2 sin(q2 + η φ) + Xw sin(θ + η φ)],
where the upper/lower signs are to be chosen for the concave/convex side.
It is worth noting that in the unique linear space R3 where all vectors are
defined, the envelope surface sg (θ, φ) is fixed and in line contact with the fixed
(a) (a)
surface defined by the position vectors pe (ξ(θ, φ), θ) − dba = se (θ, φ) − dba .
It is more common to have the components of the gear surface sg in another
reference frame, say Sq , with an axis parallel to b; more precisely we could take,
e.g., Sq = (Oq ≡ Ob ; xq , yq , zq ) with kq = b, j q = j and iq = j q × kq . All we need
is simply a change of coordinates from S to Sq , corresponding to a rotation, which
can be conveniently expressed by a 3 × 3 rotation matrix Lq
s̃g = Lq sg (θ, φ) (2.133)
2.15 Conclusions 33
Since the rotation of the gear around its axis is automatically taken into account in
these vector expressions, the generated gear sg is fixed in both S and Sq reference
systems.
Equation (2.133) is the expression that is usually obtained in the classical
approach, where a moving reference frame with the third axis coincident with
the axis b of the to be generated gear is generally employed. For instance, in
[4] equation (2.133) would be in the reference system S2 (one of the six reference
systems employed there for the gear generation), and indeed it is exactly the same.
To obtain the equation of the gear surfaces sg directly in Sq we can use the
following form
s̃g = R R(Lq pe , Lq a, η φ) − Lq dba , Lq b, −φ (2.134)
which leads to the very same vector of R3 as (2.133). In this form all the vectors
involved are first expressed in the reference frame Sq , which has the third axis
aligned with b, and then employed to perform the computations.
The generation of the mating pinion would follow precisely the same steps.
As confirmed by this example, the proposed approach can be carried out theo-
retically without any reference system, thus providing for a very compact formu-
lation. Moreover, all the actual computations can be easily performed using only
one reference system.
2.15 Conclusions
The theory of gearing has been developed taking a fresh approach. Contrary to
common practice, vectors are not dealt with by means of their components, but
are treated as such. As a consequence no reference systems are needed and the
overall formulation becomes more compact.
All major aspects in the theory of gearing have been analyzed, thus showing
that the proposed method can provide a complete formulation.
As also shown by means of a numerical example, actual computations are
performed using just one reference system. The difficult process of defining a chain
of reference systems, typical of the traditional approach, is completely avoided.
34 2. Generation with fixed axes and constant gear ratio
In this chapter we extend the theory developed in Chapter 2 to include the case
when the axes of the tool and the gear blank are subjected, during generation,
to a relative translating motion. Moreover, particular restrictions are imposed to
the ratio of roll, which can vary as a function of the parameter of motion. With
the results of this chapter, it is possible to analyze, for example, the generation of
hypoid gears with correction motions like modified roll, helical and vertical motion.
where P̂ is the image of P after the rotation. It is worth noting that α(φ) can
be an arbitrary function of a general parameter of motion φ, which represents the
independent variable controlling the motion.
36 3. Generation with translating axes and variable gear ratio
Position vectors p and p̂, like all vectors, belong to the linear space R3 , while
points belong, as already stated, to Euclidean (i.e., affine) spaces E3 .
whereas the derivative with respect to φ that controls the rigid rotation is
p̂,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = R p(ξ, θ), a, α(φ) ,φ
= α0 a × R p(ξ, θ), a, α(φ) = α0 a × p̂(ξ, θ, φ), (3.10)
where α0 (φ) = dα(φ)/dφ. In a more general case, where both the initial vector
and the rotation depend on the same parameter φ like in
me 6= 0 (3.15)
where ξe (se ) and θe (se ) are analytic functions and se is the arc length of ce .
The unit tangent vector to ce is given by
dce
te (se ) = = pe,ξ ξe,se + pe,θ θe,se = pe ,se (3.20)
dse
and the derivative along ce of the unit normal vector is
dmue
= mue ,ξ ξe,se + mue ,θ θe,se = mue ,se (3.21)
dse
38 3. Generation with translating axes and variable gear ratio
The normal curvature kne and the geodesic torsion τ e of Σe along ce can be
easily computed by means of the following well known formulas
kne = −mue ,se ·te (3.22)
τ e = mue mue ,se te (3.23)
It is worth mentioning that in most cases we are merely interested in the
computation of kne and τ e at a selected point, say pe (ξ, ˇ θ̌) with ξˇ = ξe (še ) and
θ̌ = θe (še ), and along a given direction marked in (3.20) by the two numbers
eξ = ξe,se (še ) and eθ = θe,se (še ). Therefore, we do not really need the expressions
of the two functions ξe (se ) and θe (se ). Similar ideas can also be found in [9, Eqs.
(3) and (4)].
At a given point on Σe the principal directions g e1 and g e2 and the corresponding
principal curvatures k1e and k2e can be easily obtained [13]. Let λ1 , λ2 , (ε1 , χ1 ) and
(ε2 , χ2 ) be the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix
−1
a11 a12 E F L M
A= =− (3.24)
a21 a22 F G M N
Then we have
k1e = −λ1 k2e = −λ2 (3.25)
and
ε1 pe,ξ + χ1 pe,θ
g e1 =
|ε1 pe,ξ + χ1 pe,θ |
ε2 pe,ξ + χ2 pe,θ
g e2 = (3.26)
|ε2 pe,ξ + χ2 pe,θ |
Therefore, once obtained at a given point on Σe the principal directions g e1 and
g e2 and the corresponding principal curvatures k1e and k2e , we may write
te (se ) = cos β g e1 + sin β g e2 (3.27)
and, employing Rodrigues’ formula,
mue ,se = −(k1e cos β g e1 + k2e sin β g e2 ) = −(k1e (te · g e1 ) g e1 + k2e (te · g e2 ) g e2 ) (3.28)
where β is the angle, in the tangent plane, between g e1 and te , positive if a counter-
clockwise rotation around mue aligns g e1 onto te (we remind that g e1 × g e2 = mue ).
Moreover the normal curvature and the geodesic torsion defined in Eqs. (3.22)
and (3.23) can be calculated by means of Euler’s and Bertrand’s formulas, respec-
tively [33, p. 132 and p. 159],
kne = k1e cos2 β + k2e sin2 β (3.29)
1 e
τe = k = (k2e − k1e ) sin β cos β (3.30)
2 n,β
3.3 A fixed family of surfaces 39
S (f)
Oa(f) y(f)
Gg (f) pa
a
mu
d (f)
pb
j (f)
Ob(f)
By definition the normal vector m̂ to each regular surface Σ̂(φ) of the family
(hence for fixed φ) is given by
m̂(ξ, θ, φ) = p̂a,ξ × p̂a ,θ = p̂b,ξ × p̂b ,θ = R(me (ξ, θ), a, ψ(φ)) 6= 0 (3.37)
where Eqs. (3.6), (3.9), (3.14) and (3.15) were employed. We see from the last
result that m̂ is never zero, thus confirming the assumed regularity of each surface
of the family.
From Eqs. (3.10) and (3.37) we can obtain the derivative of m̂ with respect to
the parameter of motion φ (rigid-body rotation)
m̂,φ = ψ 0 a × m̂ (3.38)
We remark that vectors, including position vectors and their derivatives, re-
gardless on how they were defined, all belong to the very same linear space R3 .
3.4 The enveloping family of surfaces 41
The reason why we have a minus sign in front of the scalar function ϕ(φ) is to
define a rotation opposite to the one actually experienced by the gear. This is
done in order to observe the actual enveloping family, that is the one which is seen
under the transfer motion with the gear.
An equivalent form of Eq. (3.40) is
R(pg (ξ, θ, φ), b, ϕ(φ)) = p̂b (ξ, θ, φ) = R(pe (ξ, θ), a, ψ(φ)) − d(φ) (3.41)
It is worth noting that this definition of the enveloping family pg (ξ, θ, φ) does
not require reference systems, since all position vectors belong to the linear space
R3 regardless of the Euclidean space employed for their definition.
It could be easily proven that the screw axis of relative motion between the
two gears is directed like the possibly non-constant vector
According to [84], page 46, f˜ would be called a “contact function in the strict
sense”, while f would just be the “contact function”. Similar ideas are also dis-
cussed at page 18, still in [84].
where the derivative he,ξ is easily computed according to the general property
(3.9) and definition (3.47) as
he,ξ (ξ, θ, φ) = R(w(φ), a, −ψ(φ)) × pe,ξ (ξ, θ) = we (φ) × pe,ξ (ξ, θ) (3.59)
Similarly we obtain
with
he,θ (ξ, θ, φ) = R(w(φ), a, −ψ(φ)) × pe,θ (ξ, θ) = we (φ) × pe,θ (ξ, θ) (3.61)
df˜
= f˜,ξ ξ,s +f˜,θ θ,s +f˜,φ φ,s = 0 (3.65)
ds
which must be identically zero as well. We can interprete (3.65) as a condition
among the derivatives of ξ(s), θ(s) and φ(s).
From Eq. (3.65) and according also to (3.20), (3.21), (3.58) and (3.60)
df˜
= mue ,s · he + mue · we × pe ,s +f˜,φ φ,s = 0 (3.66)
ds
which, for instance, provides a way to compute f˜,φ φ,s . Employing also Eqs. (3.62)
and (3.63) we obtain
df˜
= mue ,s ·he + mue · we × pe ,s +(w0e × pe + q 0e ) · mue φ,s = 0 (3.67)
ds
which may provide φ,s . Equivalent expressions, although in kinematic terms, are
Eq. (13.1.19) in [48], Eq. (8.4.35) in [49] and Eq. (10) in [9].
where
" # " # " #
λ(ξ, θ, φ) k1e (ξ, θ) he (ξ, θ, φ) we (φ) g e1 (ξ, θ)
= · (3.69)
µ(ξ, θ, φ) −we (φ) k2e (ξ, θ) he (ξ, θ, φ) g e2 (ξ, θ)
46 3. Generation with translating axes and variable gear ratio
df˜
= k · te + f˜,φ φ,se = 0 (3.71)
dse
df˜
= k · te + (w0e × pe + q 0e ) · mue φ,se = 0 (3.72)
dse
the last one being equivalent to Eq. (18) in [9], where b − ω 12 × n corresponds to
k.
It is worth noting that if we choose ce to be a contact line we have φ,se = 0
and the previous equation gives
k · te = 0 (3.73)
showing that k is always orthogonal to contact lines.
Should s not be an arc length, it just suffices to replace te by pe,s .
which employ equations (3.40) and (3.56). Similarly, the normal vector ng to Γg
is (
ng = mg (ξ, θ, φ)
(3.75)
f (ξ, θ, φ) = 0
An in depth analysis of the location of singular points on Γg , that is where
ng = 0, was presented in [11].
3.8 Conclusions
In this chapter the theory developed in Chapter 2 has been extended to gener-
ation with translating axes and variable gear ratio. The results obtained reveal
that this extension easily fits into the invariant approach framework. Only slight
changes to the notation are necessary and the basic structure of the theory remains
unchanged.
3.9 Appendix 47
3.9 Appendix
Proof of Eq. (3.70)
Equation (3.70) can be proven in the following way
since
me × g e1 = g e2 me × g e2 = −g e1 (3.77)
Chapter 4
Generation with
supplemental motions
First a detailed analysis to obtain the basic equations of the generated surface
is presented. The proposed approach allows for a very compact and simple for-
mulation since it does not require reference systems. With respect to the analyses
presented in [11, 12], several new aspects have to be addressed, making the gener-
alization far from obvious. In the last part, a brief explanation on how to obtain
some kinematic relationships is provided. Again, some new subtle points have to
be taken into account. The theoretical results obtained in this chapter will be
tested in Chapter 5 where the simulation of the grinding process of a spiral bevel
pinion is performed.
50 4. Generation with supplemental motions
The current orientation of the axis a, described by a(α), can be obtained in dif-
ferent ways, but it may be convenient to employ (elementary) rotations about
fixed axes. Hence, a fixed orthogonal reference frame of unit vectors i, j and k is
introduced (although only two axes are really employed). It is defined as follows:
denoting by a0 the initial orientation of a and choosing arbitrarily a unit vector
k, the unit vectors i and j are obtained as
k × a0
j= ; i=j×k (4.3)
|k × a0 |
In this way the current unit vector a(α) is given by the following expression,
employing two elementary rotations
a(α) = R R(a0 , j, σ(α)), k, ζ(α) (4.4)
where the angles σ and ζ are shown in Fig. 4.1 and are given by the following
equations
sin(δ) = |k × a0 |
being [2],
!
i · î + j · ĵ + k · k̂ − 1
ε(α) = arccos
2
cos ζ cos σ + cos ζ + cos σ − 1
= arccos (4.7)
2
1 h i
r(α) = (k · ĵ − j · k̂)i + (i · k̂ − k · î)j + (j · î − i · ĵ)k
2 sin ε
1
= − sin ζ sin σ, sin σ(1 + cos ζ), sin ζ(1 + cos σ) (4.8)
2 sin ε
where σ(α) and ζ(α) were defined in (4.5) and î, ĵ and k̂ are the unit vectors,
initially overlapped to i, j and k, after the sequence of rotations.
a0
d
s
a
s
j
whereas the derivative with respect to α (rigid rotation), that can be obtained
from Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2), is
$(α) = ω − R(ω, a, α)
= (1 − cos α)(ω − (ω · a) a) + sin α (ω × a) (4.15)
which generalizes a result presented in [11] for fixed a (and hence ω = 0).
In a even more general case, where both the initial vector p(ξ, θ, α) and the ro-
tation depend on the same parameter α, an additional term is required in Eq. (4.17)
It is worth noting that the position vectors pe , like all vectors, belong to the
linear space R3 , while the points Pe belong, as already stated, to the Euclidean
(i.e., affine) space E3e .
By definition, the normal vector me to Σe is given by
E = pe ,ξ · pe ,ξ F = pe ,ξ · pe ,θ G = pe ,θ · pe ,θ (4.21)
√
where D = EG − F 2 . Accordingly the unit normal vector to the surface mue is
given by
me (ξ, θ) me (ξ, θ) me (ξ, θ)
mue (ξ, θ) = =√ = (4.22)
|me (ξ, θ)| EG − F 2 D(ξ, θ)
S (y)
Oa(f) y(f)
Gg pa
a(f)
mu
d (f)
pb
j (f)
Ob(f)
b (f)
k × a0
ja = , ia = j a × k (4.25)
|k × a0 |
k × b0
jb = , ib = j b × k (4.26)
|k × b0 |
It could be convenient to choose a0 = k and
a0 × b0
ja = jb = j = , i=j×k (4.27)
|a0 × b0 |
but we stick to the more general case defined above in (4.23).
As already mentioned, it is possible also to get to the current orientation with
just one rotation, according to Eqs. (4.6), (4.7) and (4.8),
a(φ) = R(a0 , r a (φ), εa (φ)), b(φ) = R(b0 , r b (φ), εb (φ)) (4.28)
In the space E3f , the position vector of each point P can be referred to Oa or
Ob , that is
pa = P − Oa (φ) and pb = P − Ob (φ) (4.29)
4.3 Generating process in the fixed space 55
pb = pa − d(φ) (4.30)
where, as in (4.28),
p̃e (ξ, θ, φ) = R R(pe (ξ, θ) + e(φ), j a , σa (φ)), k, ζa (φ)
= R pe (ξ, θ) + e(φ), r a (φ), εa (φ) (4.32)
b) first applying the rotation ψ(φ) in the initial position, i.e. about a0 , and then
aligning a0 onto a(φ), that is
p̂a (ξ, θ, φ) = R R(p̂e (ξ, θ, φ), j a , σa (φ)), k, ζa (φ) = R p̂e (ξ, θ, φ), r a (φ), εa (φ)
(4.33)
with
p̂e (ξ, θ, φ) = R pe (ξ, θ) + e(φ), a0 , ψ(φ) (4.34)
In the following, to stress the role of the mobile axis a being the axis of the
virtual generating gear, we will adopt the definition (4.31), and make use of a
compact notation for expressing the sequence of rotations
Ra (v) = R R(v, r a (φ), εa (φ)), a(φ), ψ(φ) (4.35)
which allows Eq. (4.31), that is the moving tool surface, to be written, referred to
Oa or Ob respectively, as
For the sake of clarity, it is worth stressing that Eq. (4.35) is written as a sequence
of two rotations but, for Eqs. (4.4) and (4.6), it represents three elementary ro-
tations. Therefore, to describe the motion of the gear around a mobile axis, a
three-parameters representation is employed, with three elementary rotations of
the Euler’s kind, that is 3–2–3.
with
wa (φ) = ψ 0 a + ω a (4.45)
Equations (4.44) and (4.45) are two simple expressions corresponding to well
known kinematic results, the first one giving the velocity of P̂ relative to Oa
and the second one the composition of the angular velocities. They generalize
Eq. (35) in [12].
By definition the (moving) normal vector m̂ to each regular surface Σ̂ of the
family is given by
where equation (4.20), with properties (4.9) and (4.131) were employed, along with
the regularity of Σe . In a similar way, m̂u = Ra (mue ). We see from the last result
that m̂ is never zero, thus confirming the assumed regularity of each surface of
the family. As in (4.44), the derivative of the normal vector with respect to φ is
m̂,φ = wa × m̂ (4.47)
where r b (φ) and εb (φ) were defined in Eq. (4.28). In gear generation the two
angles ψ and ϕ of the tool and of the generated gear are related to the parameter
of motion φ; since the possibility of a modified roll, i.e. variable gear ratio τ (φ),
is taken into account, generic expressions for the two angles ψ(φ) and ϕ(φ) are
assumed.
Equation (4.48) represents the family of surfaces Φg whose envelope we are
interested in. If Pg denotes the generic point of Φg , the corresponding position
vectors pg = Pg −Og are therefore given by (4.48) as well as by any of the following
expressions
pg (ξ, θ, φ) = R R(p̂a (ξ, θ, φ) − d(φ), b(φ), −ϕ(φ)), r b (φ), −εb (φ)
= R R(R(R(pe (ξ, θ) + e(φ), r a (φ), εa (φ)), a(φ), ψ(φ) +
− d(φ), b(φ), −ϕ(φ)), r b (φ), −εb (φ) (4.49)
58 4. Generation with supplemental motions
This definition as well is purely geometrical and does not require reference
systems. It is a little bit complicated because it requires a sequence of four rigid
rotations, two for each gear: one for positioning the working axis and another one
around it. As in Eq. (4.35), we introduce a compact operator for the sequence of
rotations
Rb (v) = R R(v, r b (φ), εb (φ)), b(φ), ϕ(φ) (4.50)
and for the inverse case
Rbi (v) = R R(v, b(φ), −ϕ(φ)), r b (φ), −εb (φ) (4.51)
pg ,ξ = Rbi (p̂b ,ξ ) = Rbi (Ra (pe ,ξ (ξ, θ)) = Rab (pe ,ξ (ξ, θ))
(4.56)
pg ,θ = Rbi (p̂b ,θ ) = Rbi (Ra (pe ,θ (ξ, θ)) = Rab (pe ,θ (ξ, θ))
According to equations (4.39), (4.46), (4.56) and (4.131), the normal vector
mg to each regular surface of the family Φg is given by
which also shows the relationship between the normal vectors defined so far.
The evaluation of the derivative of pg with respect to the parameter of motion φ
is more complicated but we can take advantage of result (4.44). Employing the
general property (4.18), let us first write the derivative of p̂b = Rb (pg ) as
where
w b = ϕ0 b + ω b (4.59)
ωb = R (σb0 j b + ζb0 k), k, ζb (4.60)
It can be also proven that for the inverse sequence of rotations the derivative of
pg = Rbi (p̂b ) is
since
Taking advantage of previous results (4.56) and (4.68), along with the general
property (4.132), equivalent expressions, simpler than (4.72), can be obtained
h i
f (ξ, θ, φ) = Rbi (p̂b ,ξ ) Rbi (p̂b ,θ ) Rbi (ĥ)
h i h i
= p̂b ,ξ p̂b ,θ ĥ = p̂a ,ξ p̂a ,θ ĥ
= m̂ · ĥ = 0 (4.73)
corresponding to the so-called “engineering approach” [49, 50].
It is convenient to introduce a new vector
he (ξ, θ, φ) = R R(ĥ(ξ, θ, φ), a, −ψ), r a , −εa = Rai (ĥ) (4.74)
= Rai (w 0 0
× p̂a + Ra (e ) − d + wb × d)
= we (φ) × pe (ξ, θ) + q e (φ) (4.75)
where
q e (φ) = Rai (−d0 (φ) + wb (φ) × d(φ)) + e0 (φ) (4.76)
we (φ) = Rai (w(φ)) = Rai (wa (φ) − wb (φ)) (4.77)
so that, employing (4.39), we obtain
h i
f (ξ, θ, φ) = p̂a ,ξ p̂a ,θ ĥ
h i
= Rai (pe ,ξ ) Rai (pe ,θ ) Rai (he )
h i
= pe ,ξ (ξ, θ) pe ,θ (ξ, θ) he (ξ, θ, φ)
For the equation of meshing to be satisfied, the three vectors in the triple
products (4.72), (4.73) and (4.78) must belong to the same two-dimensional
sub-space, that is to be such that
pg ,φ = α pg ,ξ + β pg ,θ (4.80)
ĥ = α p̂a ,ξ + β p̂a ,θ (4.81)
he = α pe ,ξ + β pe ,θ (4.82)
Since the fulfillment of the equation of meshing is only a necessary condition for
the existence on an envelope surface, we may need also to express the sufficient
condition. It means that we must assume the local existence of
which is exactly the sufficient condition for the envelope generating process. The
expressions for the derivatives of f˜ are reported in the Appendix 4.10.
Adopting the first condition in (4.86), it is possible to define the envelope
surface Γg (i.e., the gear surface) by means of position vectors sg given by the
explicit function
sg (θ, φ) = pg ξ(θ, φ), θ, φ (4.88)
The regularity of the envelope surface Γg can be investigated analyzing its
normal vector ng (θ, φ) which, by definition, is given by
ng (θ, φ) = sg ,θ × sg ,φ (4.89)
f˜,θ f˜,φ
sg , θ = − pg ,ξ + pg ,θ and sg ,φ = − pg ,ξ + pg ,φ (4.90)
f˜,ξ f˜,
ξ
1 ˜
= (f ,φ − α f˜,ξ − β f˜,θ ) Rab (me )ξ=ξ(θ,φ) (4.91)
˜
f, ξ
where (4.57) and (4.80) have been taken into account respectively in the second
and in the last steps.
The condition for the regularity of the envelope surface Γg (i.e., no undercut-
ting) is
ng (θ, φ) 6= 0 (4.92)
that, according to (4.91) and since me 6= 0, is equivalent to the scalar inequality
g(ξ, θ, φ) = f˜,φ − α f˜,ξ − β f˜,θ 6= 0 (4.93)
with ξ = ξ(θ, φ). The scalar function g(ξ, θ, φ) can also be obtained as
q · me
g(ξ, θ, φ) = f˜,φ − α f˜,ξ − β f˜,θ = (4.94)
me · me
where
q(ξ, θ, φ) = pe ,ξ × pe ,θ f˜,φ + he × pe ,ξ f˜,θ + pe ,θ × he f˜,ξ (4.95)
4.7 Kinematic analysis of the enveloping process 63
Equation (4.94) follows from the observation that the first and the last lines in
(4.91) can be written as
1 1
Rab (q) = g Rab (me ) (4.96)
˜
f ,ξ ˜
f ,ξ
from which g(ξ, θ, φ) can be obtained doing a dot product of both terms with
Rab (me ) and employing property (4.130).
It is worth noting that the dot product q(ξ, θ, φ) · me (ξ, θ) corresponds to the
so called limit function of the first kind, sometimes written as
p , · p , pe ,ξ · pe ,θ pe ,ξ · he E F pe ,ξ ·he
eξ eξ
pe ,θ · he = F pe ,θ ·he
q(ξ, θ, φ)·me (ξ, θ) = pe ,θ · pe ,ξ pe ,θ · pe ,θ G
f˜,ξ f˜,θ f˜,φ f˜,ξ f˜,θ f˜,φ
(4.97)
From the investigation on the regularity of the surface Γg , employing Eqs. (4.49),
(4.79) and (4.94), we can obtain the following definition for lines of singular
points lg (that is points of undercutting, where ng vanishes)
lg = pg (ξ, θ, φ)
f˜(ξ, θ, φ) = 0 (4.98)
g(ξ, θ, φ) = 0
ω e = φ̇ wa (4.102)
In a similar way the velocity of a point P̌g (ξˇg (θ̌g , φ̌g ), θ̌g , φ̌g ), with f (ξˇg , θ̌g , φ̌g ) = 0,
of the generated surface is
v g (θ̌g , φ̌g , φ) = φ̇ wb × Rb pg (ξˇg (θ̌g , φ̌g ), θ̌g , φ̌g ) + d0b
= φ̇ wb × p̂ (ξˇg (θ̌g , φ̌g ), θ̌g , φ) + d0
b b (4.103)
ω g = φ̇ wb (4.104)
The sliding velocity is given by the difference of the velocity of the pinion (tool)
and of the gear
ˇ θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ̌) − v g (θ̌, φ̌, φ̌)
v seg (θ̌, φ̌) = v e (ξ(
= φ̇ wa × p̂a + Ra (e0 ) + d0a − wb × p̂b + d0b (4.106)
which clarifies the physical meaning of the vector ĥ. As a consequence he and
pg ,φ are parallel to the sliding velocity as seen from the pinion and from the gear
surfaces, respectively. From Eq. (4.107) we obtain that pure rolling between the
two mating gears happens at those points where ĥ(ξ( ˇ θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ̌) = 0.
In order to completely define the screw axis, one of its points H must be deter-
mined, knowing that, by definition, its relative velocity v H eg must be parallel to Ωr
or null that is
H
vH ˇ H ˇ
eg × Ωr = v e (ξ(θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ) − v g (ξ(θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ) × Ωr
ˇ θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ) + Ra (e0 ) + d0 +
= φ̇ wa × p̂a (ξ( a
ˇ 0
− wb × p̂b (ξ(θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ) + db × Ωr
= φ̇ w × p̂ (ξ(ˇ θ̌, φ̌), θ̌, φ) + Ra (e0 ) − d0 + wb × d × Ωr = 0 (4.109)
a
head-cutter
machine
frame
zo
O e(f)
kc
cutter
axis
Se
so S r(f)
j
jc i
q k gear
blank
f
cradle Oa blank
axis axis
a j(f)
DE
(f)
g DX
g
(f)
DX
(f) s (f)
Ob (f) b (f)
line of shortest
distance
Figure 4.3: Geometric setup for the generation of the spiral bevel pinion.
where the constant angles σ0 and ζ0 are called, respectively, tilt and swivel, and
j c and kc mark the tilt and swivel axes, as shown in Fig. 4.3. The vector function
p0e (ξ, θ) represents the tool surface in its reference configuration. As previously
stated, the distance between the cutter and the cradle axes, that is vector e(φ) =
Ôe (φ) − Oa , is a variable quantity called radial installment of the head cutter and
the motion related to its variation is called modified radial motion.
Functions ψ(φ) and ϕ(φ) controlling the rotation of the cradle and the blank,
respectively, specialize now in
2C 2 6D 3 24E 4 120F 5
ψ(φ) = φ; ϕ(φ) = m0 φ − φ − φ − φ − φ , (4.113)
2 6 24 120
where the last expression is generally referred to as modified roll function and the
coefficients within as modified roll coefficients [77]. In the most general framework
of UMC (Universal Motion Concept) type machines, also the machine root angle
4.8 Application to the face-milling process 67
can vary during generation and it is a function of the motion parameter of the
following form
1 1
γm (φ) = γm0 + G1 φ + G2 φ2 + G3 φ3 = γm0 − σb (φ), (4.114)
2 3
where γm0 is the basic machine root angle and σb (φ) is one of the angles employed
throughout the paper.
To actually perform the computations with the proposed approach we need to
define, in the linear space R3 , a single (fixed) reference frame S = (O; x, y, z), with
unit vectors (i, j, k). It is worth noting that all computations will be carried out
using just this unique reference system. We may select k = a and
a × b0 a × b0
j= = , i=j×k (4.115)
sin γ0 |a × b0 |
where γ0 is the angle between a and b0 = b(0). Angle γ0 is generally expressed
with respect to the machine root angle as γ0 = π/2 − γm0 .
we (φ) = R(w(φ), a, −φ), qe (φ) = R(wb (φ) × d(φ) − d0 (φ), a, −φ) + e0 (φ)
(4.123)
The enveloping family of surfaces, according to (4.55), specializes now in the fol-
lowing expression
where Rab (v) and Rbi (v) were defined in (4.50)–(4.53). The position vectors of the
actual surface of the generated gear are then sampled by solving the system
(
sg = pg ξ, θ, φ
(4.126)
f (ξ, θ, φ) = 0
The CAD model of a spiral bevel pinion for aerospace application obtained with
the proposed approach is shown in Fig. 4.4.
4.9 Conclusions
In the first part the invariant approach to the theory of gearing formulated in
Chapters 2 and 3 has been extended to generation with variable axis distance and
generalized gear ratio. The enveloping process has been described, obtaining the
main features of the generated surface, like singular points and kinematic parame-
ters. The ease of use, compactness and computational efficiency of the proposed
approach have been illustrated with a numerical example of a real aerospace spiral
bevel pinion.
70 4. Generation with supplemental motions
4.10 Appendix
Rotating vectors
The rotation operator has many important and useful properties, that are em-
ployed in this approach.
Given the rotated vectors
û = R(u, a, α) v̂ = R(v, a, α) ŵ = R(w, a, α) (4.127)
we immediately have the following algebraic properties
u = R(R(u, a, α), a, −α) (4.128)
û + v̂ = R(u + v, a, α) (4.129)
û · v̂ = u · v (4.130)
v̂ × ŵ = R(v × w, a, α) (4.131)
û · (v̂ × ŵ) = u · (v × w) = u v w (4.132)
me 6= 0 (5.3)
where E, F, G are the coefficients of the first fundamental form of Σe [33, p. 82],
that is
E = pe,ξ · pe,ξ F = pe,ξ · pe,θ G = pe,θ · pe,θ (5.5)
√
and D = EG − F 2 .
The coefficients of the second fundamental form are given by [33, p. 119]
where ξe (se ) and θe (se ) are analytic functions and se is the arc length of ce .
The unit tangent vector to ce is given by
dce
te (se ) = = pe,ξ ξe,se + pe,θ θe,se = pe ,se (5.8)
dse
74 5. Curvature analysis of gear surfaces
dmue
= mue ,ξ ξe,se + mue ,θ θe,se = mue ,se (5.9)
dse
The normal curvature kne and the geodesic torsion τ e of Σe along ce can be
easily computed by means of the following well known formulas
Then we have
k1e = −λ1 k2e = −λ2 (5.13)
and
ε1 pe,ξ + χ1 pe,θ
g e1 =
|ε1 pe,ξ + χ1 pe,θ |
ε2 pe,ξ + χ2 pe,θ
g e2 = (5.14)
|ε2 pe,ξ + χ2 pe,θ |
mue ,se = −(k1e cos β g e1 + k2e sin β g e2 ) = −(k1e (te · g e1 ) g e1 + k2e (te · g e2 ) g e2 ) (5.16)
where β is the angle, in the tangent plane, between g e1 and te , positive if a counter-
clockwise rotation around mue aligns g e1 onto te (we remind that g e1 × g e2 = mue ).
5.2 Curvatures of the generated gear 75
Moreover the normal curvature and the geodesic torsion defined in Eqs. (5.10)
and (5.11) can be calculated by means of Euler’s and Bertrand’s formulas, respec-
tively [33, p. 132 and p. 159],
kne = k1e cos2 β + k2e sin2 β (5.17)
1 e
τe = k = (k2e − k1e ) sin β cos β (5.18)
2 n,β
This is a computable expression where everything is evaluated at (ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) and it
is in terms of the tool shape and the generating relative motion.
However, in many cases it is perhaps simpler to choose the direction for the
evaluation of kng on the tool surface Σe . Therefore we need the unit vector
ˇ θ̌, φ̌), b, ϕ(φ̌)), a, −ψ(φ̌)
te = R R(tg (ξ, (5.28)
that is
pe,ξ (eξ − gξ ) + pe,θ (eθ − gθ ) = he gφ (5.32)
If we take the scalar product of equation (5.31) with pe ,ξ and pe ,θ and we
make use of (3.65), we get the following system of three linear equations
E gξ
+ F gθ + he · pe,ξ gφ = E eξ + F eθ
F gξ + G gθ + he · pe,θ gφ = F eξ + G eθ (5.33)
f˜, g + f˜, g + f˜, g =0
ξ ξ θ θ φ φ
5.2 Curvatures of the generated gear 77
The first condition means that along a contact line, identified by dφ = 0, two
conjugate surfaces have (obviously) the same normal curvature, which is also a
relative principal direction since τ eg = 0 [48, p. 287], and all contact points are
parabolic [33, p. 125], [84, p. 100]. The second condition states that at points where
f˜,φ = 0, that is along the envelope curve of contact lines on the tool surface (e.g.,
[11, Section 13]), kneg = 0 in every direction, which means that the two conjugate
surfaces have a flat contact point, as also reported in [84, p. 100] (see also [33,
p. 136]).
As just stated, the tangent to the contact line is a relative principal direction
with null curvature. Owing to Eq. (3.73), the other relative principal direction
will therefore correspond to k and the relative curvature canpbe easily computed
replacing te in (5.39) with the unit vector parallel to k, i.e. k/ λ2 + µ2 . Summing
up, the principal relative normal curvatures between the conjugate surfaces Σe and
Γg are
k1eg = 0 along the contact line
λ2 + µ2 (5.49)
k2eg = normal to the contact line
g̃
The mean relative curvature H eg and the Gaussian relative curvature K eg are
1 eg λ2 + µ2
H eg = (k1 + k2eg ) =
2 2 g̃ (5.50)
K eg
= k1eg k2eg =0
and employing (5.17), the normal curvature of the generated gear Γg can be written
as
1
kng = kne − kneg = H e + Re cos 2β − (λ cos β + µ sin β)2 (5.52)
g̃
Then, by definition, the geodetic torsion τ g on Γg is given by the following expres-
sion
2
1 g λ − µ2 λµ
τ g = kn,β = − Re sin 2β − cos 2β (5.53)
2 2 g̃ g̃
By requiring kng to assume the extreme values, that is requiring that τ g van-
ishes, it is straightforward to obtain
2λµ
τg = 0 ⇐⇒ tan 2β = (5.54)
(λ2 − µ2 ) − 2 g̃ Re
The principal directions of Γg on the tangent plane to Σe are therefore identified
by the angles
g 1 2λµ
β1 = arctan
2 (λ2 − µ2 ) − 2 g̃ Re
π
β2g = β1g + (5.55)
2
g
and the corresponding principal normal curvatures k1,2 are therefore given by
λ2 + µ2 1p 2
k1g , k2g = H e − ∓ (λ − µ2 − 2g̃Re )2 + (2 λ µ)2 . (5.56)
2g̃ 2g̃
The mean curvature H g and the Gaussian curvature K g of the generated surface
Γg can be readily obtained as
λ2 + µ2
H g = H e − H eg = H e −
2 g̃
(5.57)
k e µ2 + k2e λ2
Kg = Ke − 1
g̃
The same formulas can be found in [84, p. 104].
Adopting the notation already introduced in Section 3.3, let a be the axis of
the machine cradle and b the axis of the pinion blank. As well known in gear
literature [77], during generation of a spiral bevel pinion axes a and b are skew
and can experience a relative translating motion. As suggested in [11], points Oa
and Ob (φ) are not taken on the line of shortest distance, but according to common
practice they are displaced with respect to such line. A schematic representation
of the geometric set up during generation is given in Fig. 5.1.
Point Oa , which is a fixed point on the fixed axis of the machine, is moved
along a by a variable parameter called sliding base ∆XB1 (φ), while point Ob (φ) is
moved along b by the machine center to back ∆XD1 , which has a constant value.
Quantity ∆EM1 (φ), called blank offset, is indeed the shortest distance between a
and b and is a function of the motion parameter φ.
In the Gleason’s implementation of the face-milling process, blank offset ∆EM1 (φ)
and sliding base ∆XB1 (φ) are polynomial functions of the motion parameters of
head-cutter
machine
frame
cutter
axis
y
Sr
q
y(f)
cradle Oa blank
axis a z axis
j(f)
D E M (f)
g
D XB (f)
Ob (f)
D XD
line of shortest
distance
Figure 5.1: Geometric set up for the generation of the spiral bevel pinion.
82 5. Curvature analysis of gear surfaces
ψ(φ) = φ, (5.60)
2C 2 6D 3 24E 4 120F 5
ϕ(φ) = m0 φ − φ − φ − φ − φ , (5.61)
2 6 24 120
where the last expression is generally referred to as modified roll function and the
coefficients within as modified roll coefficients [77].
To perform the computations with the proposed approach we need to define,
in the linear space R3 , a single (fixed) reference frame S = (O; x, y, z), with unit
vectors (i, j, k). It is worth noting that all computations will be carried out using
just this reference system.
We may select k = a and
1 a×b
j= a×b= , i=j×k (5.62)
sin γ |a × b|
where γ is the angle between a and b. Angle γ is generally expressed with respect
to the machine root angle γm1 = π/2 − γ.
In the unique reference system S the components of a and b are, respectively,
and the components of the variable vector d(φ) and its derivatives d0 (φ) and d00 (φ)
become
d(φ) = (∆XD1 cos γm1 , −∆EM1 (φ), ∆XB1 (φ) + ∆XD1 sin γm1 )
d0 (φ) = (0, −∆EM
0
1
0
(φ), ∆XB 1
(φ))
00 00 00
d (φ) = (0, −∆EM1 (φ), ∆XB1 (φ)) (5.64)
It is worth stressing that the definitions given here correspond basically to those
given in [11], but the components of the vectors just defined are now functions of
the parameter of motion φ, since the relative displacement between axes a and b
during generation must be accounted for.
5.3 Application to spiral bevel gears 83
where ξ ∈ [0, π/2 − αp ], θ ∈ [0, 2 π). Again the upper and lower signs must be
taken when considering the convex and concave side, respectively.
The components w(φ) in S of the vector w(φ), marking the direction of the screw
axis, are readily computed as follows
6D 2 24E 3 120F 4
w(φ) = a − ϕ0 (φ) b = a − m0 1 − 2Cφ − φ − φ − φ b (5.71)
2 6 24
The components he (ξ, θ, φ) and its derivative he ,φ (ξ, θ, φ) are computed by em-
ploying definitions (3.47) and (3.63), which give
and
We are now ready to evaluate the equation of meshing in the strict sense by
means of the following expression
Then, the important scalar functions λ(ξ, θ, φ) and µ(ξ, θ, φ) are computed taking
advantage of Eqs. (3.69), which specialize in
" # " # " #
λ(ξ, θ, φ) k1e he (ξ, θ, φ) we (φ) g1e (ξ, θ)
= · (5.75)
µ(ξ, θ, φ) −we (φ) k2e (ξ) he (ξ, θ, φ) g2e (θ)
Equations (3.58), (3.60) allow us to determine f˜,ξ and f˜,θ , which become
√
f˜,ξ (ξ, θ, φ) = − E λ(ξ, θ, φ) = −R1 λ(ξ, θ, φ) (5.76)
p
f˜,θ (ξ, θ, φ) = − G(ξ) λ(ξ, θ, φ) = −(Xp + R1 cos ξ) µ(ξ, θ, φ), (5.77)
The last step is the evaluation the function of singular points in the strict sense g̃.
This scalar function specializes now in
√
R2 0 E he · g1e
1
1
√
g̃(ξ, θ, φ) = 2 2 0 (Xp + R1 cos ξ)2 G he · g2e (5.79)
R1 (Xp + R1 cos ξ)
f˜,ξ f˜,θ f˜,φ
5.4 Conclusions
In this chapter explicit formulas for the determination of principal relative normal
curvatures and directions of conjugate surfaces and principal normal curvatures
and directions of the generated tooth surface have been provided within the same
framework of the invariant approach. The ease of use, compactness and computa-
tional efficiency of the proposed approach have been illustrated with a numerical
calculation of the principal curvatures of a real aerospace spiral bevel pinion.
Acknowledgement
The support of Avio S.p.A. is gratefully acknowledged.
Table 5.3: Machine settings employed for grinding the pinion convex side.
5.4 Conclusions 87
-20
-25
Front cone
Radius R1, mm
-30
g
-35
-40
Back cone
-45
2 4 6 8 10
Fillet Point number on profile Top
Figure 5.3: Principal normal radius of curvature R1g of the pinion surface.
-87
-88
-90
g
-91
-92
Back cone
-93
-94
2 4 6 8 10
Fillet Point number on profile Top
Figure 5.4: Principal normal radius of curvature R2g of the pinion surface.
88 5. Curvature analysis of gear surfaces
5.5 Appendix
Proof of eq. (5.45)
From Eq. (5.32), cross multiplying by pe,ξ and then dot multiplying by mue (and
similarly with pe,θ ) we obtain
gφ
eξ − gξ = mue he pe,θ
me
gφ
eθ − gθ = − mue he pe,ξ
me
eξ (eθ − gθ ) − eθ (eξ − gξ )
gφ gφ
= −eξ mue he pe,ξ − eθ mue he pe,θ
me me
u
gφ u
gφ
= he me pe,θ eθ + he me pe,ξ eξ
me me
u
gφ
= he me te
me
Moreover
Furthermore, we can also include the vector k. First let us observe that
τ eg = he mue (mue ,se +(k1e + k2e )te ) − te · we gφ
= (g e1 · he )g e1 + (g e2 · he )g e2 mue (mue ,se +(k1e + k2e )te ) − te · we gφ
= −(g e1 · he )g e2 + (g e2 · he )g e1 · (mue ,se +(k1e + k2e )te ) − te · we gφ
where
mue ,se +(k1e + k2e )te = − k1e cos β g e1 + k2e sin β g e2 + (k1e + k2e )(cos β g e1 + sin β g e2 )
= k1e sin β g e2 + k2e cos β g e1
And hence
τ eg = −(g e1 · he )g e2 + (g e2 · he )g e1 · mue ,se +(k1e + k2e )te − te · we gφ
= −(g e1 · he )g e2 + (g e2 · he )g e1 · k1e sin β g e2 + k2e cos β g e1 − te · we gφ
= −k1e sin β(g e1 · he ) + k2e cos β(g e2 · he ) − te · we gφ
= −k1e sin β(g e1 · he ) + k2e cos β(g e2 · he ) − (g e1 · we ) cos β − (g e2 · we ) sin β gφ
= − k1e (g e1 · he ) + (g e2 · we ) sin β + k2e (g e2 · he ) − (g e1 · we ) cos β gφ
= −λ sin β + µ cos β gφ
= k · (sin βg e1 − cos βg e2 ) gφ
= k · te × me gφ
since
6.1 Introduction
Curvature analysis of a surface can be carried out quite easily by means of well
established results of classical differential geometry, ([33] and [13]). However, their
application to the investigation of the surfaces of a gear pair is still a difficult task,
mainly because it requires solving the equation of meshing with respect to one
of the involved parameters [48]. Another difficulty is the extreme complexity of
the equations of the generated surface and its derivatives. Therefore, alternative
approaches have been sought by many researchers working on the theory of gearing.
They can be represented mainly by three different methods:
• the indirect meshing method proposed by Litvin [51];
• the indirect generating method proposed by Chen [9];
• the direct generating method proposed by Di Puccio et al. [12] and by Wu
and Luo [84].
In the indirect meshing method [51], relationships between the curvatures of
the gear pair are obtained starting from the analysis of the motion of the contact
point. That is why it is defined here as indirect. Since the two gears are not
necessarily obtained by means of an enveloping process, this method differs also
for considering meshing and not generating conditions. The method has been
proposed by Litvin employing kinematic relationships and scalar components of
the involved vectors. An extension to a generalized motion has been proposed in
[8].
92 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
In the indirect generating method [9], Chen follows Litvin’s approach for the
case of enveloping process between the gears. He obtains some fundamental ex-
pressions, again in kinematic terms, for the case of fixed axes and constant gear
ratio.
The direct generating method has been recently proposed by the authors in
[12] and [11], and is similar to Wu and Luo’s approach [84]. The equations for
the normal curvature and geodesic torsion of the surface are obtained simply by
applying their definitions, therefore in a direct way, for the case of the enveloping
process.
Among other curvature analyses, two at least are worth mentioning: one was
proposed by Dooner in [14] and the other by Ito and Takahashi in [30]. In the
first one the author employs the screw algebra to derive the so called “third law of
gearing” and formulates the limiting relationship between the radii of curvature,
which is only valid, though, for the reference pitch surfaces. In the second one the
curvatures in hypoid gears are investigated starting from a classical differential
geometry point of view, but then kinematic relationships are introduced.
In this chapter all the three main approaches are extended to the case of trans-
lating axes and variable gear ratio, and re-written using a purely geometric ap-
proach [11], that does not require reference systems. A coordinate-free approach,
based on geometric algebra, has also been proposed by Miller in [69], but it only
deals with the generating process and curvature analysis is not addressed.
The new feature of this chapter is also the introduction of the tensor of curva-
ture which plays a key role in the basic equations.
surface [33, p. 121]. Therefore, let us consider an arbitrary regular curve c on the
surface Σ defined by the position vector
where ξ(s) and θ(s) are analytic functions and s is a generic parameter. In the
following we will conveniently assume s to be the arc length of c, so that the unit
tangent vector to c is given by
dc
t(s) = = p,ξ ξ,s +p,θ θ,s = p,s (6.5)
ds
and the derivative along c of the unit normal vector is
dmu
= m,uξ ξ,s +m,uθ θ,s = m,us (6.6)
ds
If s is not the arc length, the vector in (6.5) is still tangent to the curve but has
not unit magnitude.
The normal curvature kn and the geodesic torsion τg of Σ along t at a point P
can be easily computed by means of the following equations:
kn = −m,us ·t (6.7)
τg = mu m,us t (6.8)
and they are features of the surface. It is well known, [33, p. 128], that the normal
curvature assumes its extreme values k1 and k2 along two principal (orthogonal)
directions of unit tangent vectors t1 and t2 , having also null geodesic torsion. The
normal curvature and the geodesic torsion along any other direction at P are not
independent and, according to Euler’s and Bertrand’s formulas, [33, p. 132] and
[33, p. 159], are given by the following equations
where ϕ is the angle between i and i0 , and applying the tensor law of transforma-
tion
[K]S 0 = [T ]T [K]S [T ] (6.18)
In the following we will assume to express K in an orthogonal reference frame,
so that [K] will be a symmetric matrix.
For example, when i = t1 (and j = t2 ) employing Eqs. (6.11) and (6.15) we obtain
kn⊥ being the normal curvature along j; this equation holds even for a non unit
vector v parallel to t
K · v = kn v + τg (mu × v) (6.23)
kn = (K · t) · t (6.24)
τg = (K · t) · (mu × t) (6.25)
which correspond to Eqs. (6.9) and (6.10) when K is written in the principal
directions as in (6.15), or alternatively to the generalized version (6.12) and (6.13)
if we employ (6.16). It may be interesting to note that Eqs. (6.24) and (6.25) hold
in any reference system, orthogonal or not. The previous relationships become
very useful when applied in Rodrigues’ formula, which relates the derivative of the
normal unit vector to the curvature. The most common version of this formula
employs scalar components in a principal reference frame, as in (6.20)
k1 0
[m,us ] = − [t] (6.26)
0 k2
The previous equation holds even if s is not the arc length, with p,s instead of t
where P̂ is the image of P after the rotation and a is the unit vector that marks
the axis direction.
Since Eq.(6.29) is defined on vectors, this approach has the main advantage
of involving vector as such and not their components, required for example by
homogeneous transformations, frequently employed in gear generation.
Some relevant properties of rotating vectors are described in Appendix 6.10.
and me 6= 0 for the regularity of the surface; the unit normal vector mue is
me (ξ, θ) me (ξ, θ) me (ξ, θ)
mue (ξ, θ) = =√ = (6.32)
|me (ξ, θ)| EG − F 2 D(ξ, θ)
6.4 Surfaces of the gear pair 97
where E, F, G are the coefficients of the first fundamental form of Σe [33, p. 82],
that is
E = pe,ξ · pe,ξ F = pe,ξ · pe,θ G = pe,θ · pe,θ (6.33)
√
and D = EG − F 2 .
It is useful for the development of the analysis to introduce a curve ce on the
surface Σe , that according to Eq.(6.4), is defined as
where se is the arc length but a generic parameter could do as well. The unit
tangent and normal vectors to the surface along the curve are respectively
S (f)
Oa(f) y(f)
Gg (f) pa
a
mu
d (f)
pb
j (f)
Ob(f)
employing notation in Eq. (6.29). Similarly, with respect to the moving point Ob ,
the position vector p̂b (ξ, θ, φ) of P̂ (ξ, θ, φ) is
The normal vector m̂ul to each regular surface Γ̂g (φ) (hence for fixed φ) is given
by
m̂ul (χ, ν, φ) = R(mul (χ, ν), b, ϕ(φ)) (6.48)
In curvature analysis we assume that Γ̂g (φ) is in meshing contact with the surface
Σ̂e (φ), therefore three relationships are supposed to be satisfied: same position
vector and same normal vector (for fixed φ) and the equation of meshing (in
kinematic terms v(1) · n(1) = v(2) · n(2) [51]), respectively
Strictly speaking Eq.(6.50) should be m̂ue (ξ, θ, φ) = ±m̂ul (χ, ν, φ), but since at the
end the sign does not affect results, we will assume it to be positive. Taking into
account Eqs. (6.49) and (6.50), the equation of meshing (6.51) becomes
ψ 0 a × p̂a (ξ, θ, φ) − ϕ0 b × p̂l (χ, ν, φ) − d0 · m̂ue
= (ψ 0 a − ϕ0 b) × p̂a (ξ, θ, φ) + ϕ0 b × d(φ) − d0 · m̂ue
= w × p̂a (ξ, θ, φ) + ϕ0 b × d(φ) − d0 · m̂ue = 0 (6.52)
It can be interesting to underline that in the meshing case the gears can be in
point or in line contact, depending on the solution of Eq.(6.49). The important
point is that in curvature analysis we are not interested actually in solving the
three conditions stated above (as in a Tooth Contact Analysis case), but we simply
assume that they are satisfied (at least at one point). This means that, although
we do not know it explicitly, because of the complexity of the solution of the TCA,
there exists a relationship between (χ, ν) and (ξ, θ) for each value of the parameter
of motion φ.
or simply
ĉe (φ) − d(φ) = ĉl (φ) (6.58)
where
ĉe (φ) = R(ce (φ), a, ψ(φ)) = R(pe (ξe (φ), θe (φ)), a, ψ(φ)) = Ĉe (φ) − Oa (φ)
(6.59)
ĉl (φ) = R(cl (φ), b, ϕ(φ)) = R(pl (χ(φ), ν(φ)), b, ϕ(φ)) = Ĉl (φ) − Ob (φ)
(6.60)
The unit normal vectors along conjugate curves, defined in Eqs.(6.36) and (6.39),
are related as follows
m̂uce (φ) = R(muce (φ), a, ψ(φ)) = R(mucl (φ), b, ϕ(φ)) = m̂ucl (φ) (6.61)
It may be worth noting that in case of point contact between the gears, there
is only one couple of conjugate curves, corresponding to the trajectories of the
contact point over the two surfaces Σ̂e and Γ̂g . In case of line contact there are
infinitely many couples of conjugate curves, but each curve ce corresponds to only
one curve cl .
102 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
and
R mue (ξ, θ), a, ψ(φ) = R mug (ξ, θ, φ), b, ϕ(φ (6.67)
which are automatically satisfied by the definitions of pg and mug .
6.6 Litvin’s approach to curvature: indirect meshing method 103
ĉg (φ) = R(cg (sg (φ)), b, ϕ(φ)) = R(pg (ξg (φ), θg (φ), φ), b, ϕ(φ)) = Ĉg (φ) − Ob (φ)
(6.70)
In a similar way, for the unit normal vectors along conjugate curves, defined
in Eqs.(6.36) and (6.39), we have
m̂uce (φ) = R(muce (φ), a, ψ(φ)) = R(mucg (φ), b, ϕ(φ)) = m̂ucg (φ) (6.71)
It is interesting to note that in this case conjugate curves share the same
relations between the parametric coordinates and the arc lengths, that is
Then Litvin investigates the motion of the contact point, requiring that there
is still contact between the gears after an infinitesimal time increment. In this
context time does not play any role, so we express an infinitesimal time increment
as an infinitesimal increment of the motion parameter φ. This small rotation
104 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
causes the contact point to move to an unknown point Q̌, in the neighborhood of
the previous P̌ .
The trajectories of the contact point over the two rotating surfaces Σ̂e (φ) and
Γ̂g (φ) are the rotating conjugate curves ĉe and ĉl , for which Eqs. (6.58) and (6.61)
hold. Accordingly the first two equations in (6.72) can also be written as
where he has been defined in (6.56). In a similar way, Eq. (6.76) becomes
R muce (φ), a, ψ(φ) ,φ = R mucl (φ), b, ϕ(φ) ,φ
ψ 0 a × m̂uce + R muce,φ , a, ψ(φ) = ϕ0 b × m̂ucl + R mucl,φ , b, ϕ(φ)
w × m̂uce + R muce,φ , a, ψ(φ) = R mucl,φ , b, ϕ(φ)
R w × m̂uce (ξ, θ, φ), a, −ψ(φ) + muce,φ = R R mucl,φ , b, ϕ(φ) , a, −ψ(φ)
we × mue + muce,φ = mucle,φ (6.78)
6.6 Litvin’s approach to curvature: indirect meshing method 105
It is worth observing that the derivatives ce,φ , cl,φ , mce,φ and mucl,φ , as well
as cle,φ and mucle,φ are meaningful only along the curves and should be calculated
as
ce,φ = pe,ξ ξ,φ +pe,θ θ,φ = pe,φ
muce,φ = mue,ξ ξ,φ + mue,θ θ,φ = mue,φ
(6.79)
cl,φ = pl,χ χ,φ +p,lν ν,φ = pl,φ
mucl,φ = mul,χ χ,φ +mul,ν ν,φ = mul,φ
Therefore to determine the motion of the contact point we should know the values
at P̌ of the four scalar functions ξ,φ , θ,φ , χ,φ and ν,φ . However, as explained in
Sec. 6.5.1, such functions are very difficult to obtain in an explicit form so they are
practically unknown. Instead of trying to solve them, it is equivalent to assume as
unknowns all the derivatives vectors pe,φ , pl,φ , mue,φ and mul,φ , which correspond
(1) (2) (1) (2)
respectively (and rotated) to the unknowns vr , vr , nr and nr in [51].
All these derivatives are related through Rodrigues’ formula (6.28)
K eg being the relative tensor of curvature. The unknown vectors must also satisfy
the derivative of the equation of meshing
df
= he,φ · mue + he · mue,φ
dφ
= (w0e × pe + we × pe,φ + q 0e ) · mue + he · mue,φ = 0 (6.84)
106 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
df
= (w0e × pe + we × pe,φ + q 0e ) · mue + he · (−K e · pe,φ )
dφ
= (w0e × pe + q 0e ) · mue + (−K e · he + mue × we ) · pe,φ
= (w0e × pe + q 0e ) · mue − (K e · he + we × mue ) · (ple,φ − he ) = 0
and finally
k = K e · he + we × mue (6.86)
normal to the contact line as shown in Sec.6.7, that will help us to have more
compact expressions. Employing k, the solving equations (6.83) and (6.85) in the
unknown ple,φ can be written as
which represent a system of three scalar equations in two scalar unknowns, the
components of ple,φ in the tangent plane at P̂ , corresponding to (8.4.42) in [51].
Curvature features are determined requiring infinitely many solutions for the case
of line contact between the gears. Litvin discusses this issue by writing the matrix
of the linear system obtained after introducing a reference frame and expressing
vectors and tensor in their scalar components.
It can be interesting to follow another way, employing a different form for
Eq. (6.87); from the dot product
Having infinitely many solutions of ple,φ means that the above equations must be
satisfied for every value of y; so from y = 0 we obtain
c
K eg · k = k (6.92)
k·k
and therefore
K eg · (mue × k) = 0 (6.93)
Compared to Eq. (6.23), Eq. (6.93) means that both the normal curvature and
the geodesic torsion are null (as expected) in the direction mue × k, parallel to
the contact line, which is a principal direction for the relative curvature. From
Eqs. (6.92) and (6.93) we have
k1eg = 0 along mue × k (6.94)
k·k
k2eg = along k (6.95)
c
therefore the relative tensor of curvature is completely determined and to have the
tensor of curvature K g we only need to remind
K g = K e − K eg (6.96)
In scalar components in the reference system S(P, e1 , e2 ), the tensor of curvature
is
e T
k1 0 cos σ − sin σ 0 0 cos σ − sin σ
[K g ] = − (6.97)
0 k2e sin σ cos σ 0 k2eg sin σ cos σ
where σ is the angle between mue ×k and e1 , positive if a counterclockwise rotation
of σ around mue moves mue × k over e1 .
We just observe that in case of point contact K eg has both principal values
different from zero and there is only one value of y and one ple,φ ; inserting Eq.(6.90)
in (6.91) we have c
K eg · k + (mue × k)y = k
k·k
from which we have
c
k− K eg · k = yK eg · (mue × k)
k·k
that corresponds to
c
k− K eg · k × (K eg · (mue × k)) = 0
k·k
Since the previous equation is a cross product of vectors in the tangent plane, it
may be written as the following scalar equation
c
k− K eg · k × (K eg · (mue × k)) · mue = 0 (6.98)
k·k
that corresponds to the null determinant required by Litvin in the case of point
contact, i.e. Eq.(8.4.52) in [51].
108 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
pe = pe (ξ, ˇ θ̌)
ˇ θ̌, φ̌) = 0
f (ξ,
ˇ θ̌)
mue = mue (ξ,
where
cge,φ = R R(cg,φ , b, ϕ(φ)), a, −ψ(φ)
mucge,φ = R R(mug,φ , b, ϕ(φ)), a, −ψ(φ)
In this case we need to take care of the notation of the derivatives of pg with
respect to φ, in particular
∂pg (ξ, θ, φ)
pg,φ = (6.101)
∂φ
dpg (ξ(φ), θ(φ), φ)
cg,φ = (6.102)
dφ
6.7 Chen’s approach to curvature: indirect generating method 109
where the unknowns are the values at P̌ of the derivatives ξ,φ and θ,φ , which, from
the first equation, Chen writes as
1
ξ,φ = − pe,θ pe,φ mue (6.104)
me
u 1
θ,φ = pe,ξ pe,φ me (6.105)
me
with me = mue · me . In this way instead of having two scalar unknowns ξ,φ and
θ,φ , we have the unknown vector pe,φ that lies in the tangent plane.
Rodrigues’ formula applied to Γg and rotated, as in Eq. (6.82), becomes
mug,φ = −K g · cg,φ
R R(mug,φ , b, ϕ), a, −ψ = −R R(K g · cg,φ , b, ϕ), a, −ψ
mucge,φ = −K g · cge,φ (6.106)
It is also
df˜
= f,ξ ξ,φ +f,θ θ,φ +f,φ (6.108)
dφ
f˜,ξ = mue ,ξ ·he + mue · he,ξ = mue ,ξ ·he + mue · (ce (φ) × pe,ξ (ξ, θ)) (6.109)
f˜,θ = mue ,θ ·he + mue · he,θ = mue ,θ ·he + mue · (ce (φ) × pe,θ (ξ, θ)) (6.110)
f˜,φ = mu · he,φ = mu · (c0 (φ) × p (ξ, θ) + q 0 (φ))
e e e e e (6.111)
110 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
which, although fairly long, are easily computable functions requiring the knowl-
edge of the generating surface equations and the relative motion. Putting all
together in (6.108) we obtain a scalar equation in the unknown quantities ξ,φ and
θ,φ . Substituting in (6.108) we have
df 1
= (−f,ξ pe,θ + f,θ pe,ξ ) · (pe,φ × mue ) + f,φ = 0
dφ me
df 1
= me ce − (mue ,ξ ·he )pe,θ + (mue ,θ ·he )pe,ξ · (pe,φ × mue ) + f,φ = 0
dφ me
corresponding to Eq.(10) in [9]. Employing Rodrigues’ formula, some simplifica-
tions can be done leading to an expression already obtained in Litvin’s approach
(cf. Eq. (6.87))
pe,φ × mue
me ce − ((−K e · pe,ξ ) · he )pe,θ + ((−K e · pe,θ ) · he )pe,ξ · + f,φ
me
pe,φ × mue
= me ce − ((−K e · he ) · pe,ξ )pe,θ + ((−K e · he ) · pe,θ )pe,ξ · + f,φ
me
pe,φ × mue
= me ce − me (K e · he ) × mue · + f,φ
me
= ce − (K e · he ) × mue · (pe,φ × mue ) + f,φ
= −k · pe,φ + f,φ = 0
= −k · pe,φ + c0e (φ) × pe (ξ, θ) + q 0e (φ) · mue = 0 (6.112)
The solving equations are therefore (6.107) and (6.112)
K eg · (pe,ξ ξ,φ +pe,θ θ,φ +he ) = k
c0e (φ) × pe (ξ, θ) + q 0e (φ) · mue = k · (pe,ξ ξ,φ +pe,θ θ,φ +he )
which can be discussed as already done for the meshing case. At this point Chen,
assuming again infinitely many solutions for pe,φ and also assuming the line of
contact to be a principal direction, chooses to express Eqs. (6.107) and (6.112)
along lines at constant ξ or θ on the generating tool, and along the direction k.
For example, on a curve at constant θ we have
pe,φ = pe,ξ ξ,φ
and from Eq. (6.107) the relative curvature in the direction of pe,ξ is
k · (he + pe,ξ ξ,φ )
kξeg =
(he + pe,ξ ξ,φ )2
where, from Eq. (6.112)
c0e (φ) × pe (ξ, θ) + q 0e (φ) · mue
ξ,φ =
he + pe,ξ
6.8 New approach to curvature: direct method 111
df
= −k · pe,se + f,φ φ,se = 0 (6.114)
ds
If ce is a contact line, being φ,se = 0, gives
k · pe,se = k · te = 0 (6.115)
and
gξ = ξg,sg (šg ), gθ = θg,sg (šg ), gφ = φg,sg (šg ) (6.119)
The parametric coordinates in (6.118) are not completely independent but must
satisfy the equation of meshing f˜(ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) = 0. In addition, the components
(gξ , gθ , gφ ) in (6.41) must be such tg (šg ) · tg (šg ) = 1 and the total derivative
of the equation of meshing vanishes, that is
We could also choose the direction for evaluating kng and τgg on the tool surface Σe
by means of the unit vector
ˇ θ̌, φ̌), b, ϕ(φ̌)), a, −ψ(φ̌)
te = R R(tg (ξ, (6.121)
which, when the tool and the gear get in contact at (ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) marks the same
direction of tg . It is important to stress that in this case we do use conjugate
curves as in the other approaches, since they do not satisfy Eq.(6.121). The
tangent vector te lies in the tangent plane therefore can also be written as linear
ˇ θ̌) and p (ξ,
combination of pe,ξ (ξ, ˇ θ̌)
e,θ
Although eξ and eθ have been introduced as numbers, they could also be seen as
ˇ θ̌) of the derivatives of functions like in (6.35).
the values at (ξ,
Inserting Eqs. (6.41) and (6.122) in (6.121), employing (6.99) and (6.103), we
get
pe,ξ eξ + pe,θ eθ = pe,ξ gξ + pe,θ gθ + he gφ (6.124)
The dot products of Eq. (6.124) with pe,ξ and pe,θ together with the derivative
of the equation of meshing with respect to sg give the following system of three
linear equations
E gξ + F gθ + he · pe,ξ gφ = E eξ + F eθ
F gξ + G gθ + he · pe,θ gφ = F eξ + G eθ (6.125)
f˜, g + f˜, g + f˜, g =0
ξ ξ θ θ φ φ
This is a computable expression where everything is evaluated at (ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) and
expressed in terms of the tool shape and the generating relative motion.
A simpler equation can be obtained for the relative normal curvature kneg be-
tween surfaces Σe and Γg at contact points [48, p. 286] along the same direction;
by definition, it is
kneg = kne − kng = −(mue ,se ·te − mug ,sg ·tg ) (6.130)
provided equation (6.121) holds. Employing equations (6.86), (6.99), (6.103),
(6.122), (6.124) and (6.129) we obtain
kneg = − mue ,ξ eξ + mue ,θ eθ − (mue ,ξ gξ + mue ,θ gθ ) − we × mue gφ · te
= − mue ,ξ (eξ − gξ ) + mue ,θ (eθ − gθ ) − we × mue gφ · te
= −(mue ,ξ eξ + mue ,θ eθ ) · (pe,ξ (eξ − gξ ) + pe,θ (eθ − gθ )) + te · we × mue gφ
= −((mue ,ξ eξ + mue ,θ eθ ) · he + mue · we × te )gφ
= −(mue ,se ·he + mue · we × te )gφ
= −((−K e · te ) · he + mue · we × te )gφ
= −((−K e · he ) · te + mue × we · te )gφ
= (k · te )gφ (6.131)
that, taking into account (6.114) and (6.127), becomes
1
kneg = k · te )2 (6.132)
g̃
This result confirms that k is a principal direction and that the relative normal
curvature along the contact line, orthogonal to k, is null. Compared to (6.94) and
(6.95), Eq. (6.132) underlines that c = (k · k)g̃.
Without reporting all the steps that can be found in [12], the geodesic torsion
of Γg along cg defined in (6.117) can be written as
τgg = mue mue ,ξ gξ + mue ,θ gθ + we × mue gφ te (6.133)
while the relative geodesic torsion τgeg at contact points of the surfaces Σe and Γg
is given by the following equation
1
τgeg = − k te mue gφ = [k mue te k · te ) (6.134)
g̃
114 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
– contact in a point P̃ :
– Rodrigues’ formula
In Litvin’s approach the two gear surfaces are generic and previous conditions are
used to relate the curvature of one gear to the curvature of the other one knowing
relative motion. Since the contact point P̃ is supposed to exists, the first three
conditions are not really employed; the fundamental relations are obtained from
the last four requirements.
Chen considers a generating case where one gear is obtained from the other
by an enveloping process; in this case the first three conditions are automatically
guaranteed, and also conditions on the derivatives of the position and normal
vectors are satisfied thanks to properties of the rotation operator. We could simply
apply the derivative of the equation of meshing and Rodrigues’ formula.
It does not seem to be a relevant advantage to restrict the analysis to the
generating case instead of the general meshing study considered by Litvin. In
both these indirect approaches, although not done in the original version, we have
introduced conjugate curves as trajectories of the contact points over the two
surfaces which should make some steps clearer.
In the direct approach we do not involve conjugate curves but we use rotation
operator properties to relate the generating tool characteristic vectors, as tangent
and normal vectors, to those of the generated gear. In particular we consider curves
sharing the same tangent vector in the contact point during meshing. Employing
a relationship between the derivatives of the unit normal vectors along such curves
6.9 Concluding remarks 115
and the derivative of the equation of meshing, we obtain the very same results of
the previous approaches but in a direct way.
The present comparison employs the tensor of curvature K, not explicitly
considered in other papers, which simplifies many steps of the analysis leading to
very compact and simple expressions without requiring reference systems.
116 6. Curvature analysis: different methods within the same framework
6.10 Appendix
Tensor of curvature in a non orthogonal reference frame
The tensor of curvature can be expressed in a non orthogonal reference frame
S(P, i, j) but its elements do not correspond to the curvature and torsions along
the axes as in (6.16). In order to obtain a more general form for [K] it is convenient,
first of all, to extend the rotation in Eq.(6.17) to a more general transformation
case, from S(P, i, j) to S 0 (P, i0 , j 0 ) both with generic directions
i · i0 i · j 0 cos α cos β
[T ] = 0 0 = (6.135)
j·i j·j sin α sin β
where α and β are the angles between i0 and j 0 and i respectively; instead of
(6.18) in this case we have
To give an idea of a possible form of [K] in a non orthogonal reference frame, the
previous equations are applied to transform [K] expressed in principal directions
S(P, i = t1 , j = t2 ) as in (6.15), to a generic S 0 (P, i0 , j 0 )
−1 k1 0
[K]S = [T ]
0 [T ]
0 k2
k1 cos α sin β − k2 cos β sin α k1 − k2
sin(2β)
sin(β − α) 2 sin(β − α)
=
k1 − k2 k2 cos α sin β − k1 cos β sin α
sin(2α)
2 sin(β − α) sin(β − α)
As a general rule, writing [K] in a reference system S(P, i, j), that can be orthog-
onal or not, as
k k12
[K] = 11
k21 k22
the normal curvature and geodesic torsion along the axes directions i and j can
be obtained from the elements of the matrix as
whereas the derivative with respect to φ that controls the rigid rotation is
p̂,φ (ξ, θ, φ) = R p(ξ, θ), a, α(φ) ,φ
= α0 a × R p(ξ, θ), a, α(φ) = α0 a × p̂(ξ, θ, φ), (6.144)
A rough estimate of contact stresses and contact deformations between gear sur-
faces in direct contact is usually performed by employing the results of the Hertz
theory. Hertz’s solution for the three-dimensional contact between two elastic
bodies is based on the assumptions that the relative normal curvatures of the sur-
faces is uniform in the contact region and the extension of contact region itself is
small as compared to the radii of relative curvature. Under these hypotheses the
gap surface, representing the relative distance between the undeformed bodies in
geometrical contact, can be represented by a quadric surface.
However, in several practical cases the condition of constant relative curvatures
in the whole contact region is questionable. For instance, in a heavy duty spiral
bevel gear transmission for aerospace applications, the contact region can become
as large as 50–80% the extension of the tooth lead. In these conditions, a non-
negligible variation of relative curvature can be expected within the contact region.
In the present chapter a detailed investigation on the differential properties of
the generated gear and of the gap surface between the tool and the generated gear
itself is performed. The procedure is based on the evaluation of terms up to the
third order which appear in the Taylor’s series approximation of the surface in a
neighborhood of a selected contact point.
The information obtained can be employed to evaluate the distribution of the
contact pressures more accurately as reported in [7].
As suggested also in [84], the proposed analysis can be employed to examine
more closely the relationship between the conjugate surfaces in the neighborhood
of a flat contact point, which occur, e.g. [11], when an envelope to the contact lines
on the tool surface exists, that is when the derivative of the equation of meshing
with respect to the parameter of motion vanishes.
The sought for expression of curvature and its derivatives are obtained in a
120 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
direct way, simply employing their definitions and some fundamental properties
due to the enveloping process.
A former investigation on this topic can be found in [84], although this approach
is very different in many aspect with the respect to the proposed one. Here time
is not involved in the treatment, nor we need to introduce the concept of relative
differentiation.
and Ǒg is the chosen origin for R3 . The evaluation is performed along a given
direction ťg = tg (šg ). Therefore, we select the point and the direction, respectively,
by means of the numbers
and
gξ = ξg,sg (šg ), gθ = θg,sg (šg ), gφ = φg,sg (šg ) (7.7)
7.1 Third order differential properties of the generated gear 121
Of course they are not completely independent as (ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) must satisfy the equation
of meshing f˜(ξ,
ˇ θ̌, φ̌) = 0, while the components (gξ , gθ , gφ ) in (7.3) must be such
that tg be of unit length (tg (šg ) · tg (šg ) = 1) and the total derivative (3.65) (see
page 45) of the equation of meshing vanishes, that is
f˜,ξ gξ + f˜,θ gθ + f˜,φ gφ = 0 (7.8)
By expanding in Taylor series the curve cg with respect to the arc length sg , in
the neighborhood of Pˇg , we obtain
3
X ∆sνg d ν cg (šg )
cg (sg ) = čg + ν
+ o(∆s3g ) (7.9)
ν=1
ν! d s g
where ∆sg = sg − šg . Neglecting terms of order higher than three, the increment
∆cg (∆sg ) = cg (sg ) − čg can be approximated by the following expression
∆cg (∆sg ) = ε(∆sg ) tg + δ(∆sg ) mug + γ(∆sg ) (mug × tg ) (7.10)
šg šg šg
The curve cg is not identically a geodesic but only locally therefore in general,
kgg ,sg 6= 0, nevertheless being a normal section through P̌g , at P̌g we must have
which provides a way to compute the derivative kgg ,sg along a normal section.
Our goal is to assess, up to the third order, the shape of ∆cg which lies on
the osculating plane ΠP̌g through P̌g . We will therefore not take into account the
component of displacement γ(∆sg ) orthogonal to ΠP̌g , since it vanishes identically.
From (7.12) and (7.13) it is evident that the proposed analysis can be performed
just evaluating the normal curvature kng and its derivative kng ,sg along cg , which are
the only features of Γg appearing in the tangent and normal components ε(∆sg )
and δ(∆sg ).
In the following we will seek an expression for the component δ of displacement
of ∆cg along mug , as a function of the displacement ε along tg . This relation can
be obtained by performing a series reversion of function ε(∆sg ) in (7.12). This
leads to
1
∆sg (ε) = ε + (kng )2 ε3 (7.16)
6
Substituting the result in (7.13) we get
1 g 2 1 g
δ(ε) = k ε + kn ,sg ε3 , (7.17)
2 n 6
where, again, only terms up to the third order have been considered. The normal
section cg of Γg with ΠP̌g is therefore approximated as a third-order polynomial
expression, being the second and third order coefficients related to the normal
curvature kng and to its derivative kng ,sg with respect to the arc length sg of cg .
The goal is then to obtain the curvature kng and its derivative kng ,sg directly from
the properties of the enveloping tool Σe and the geometry of the relative motion.
Similar expressions, through a different route though, were obtained in [84] at page
110.
This is a computable expression where everything is evaluated at (ξ, ˇ θ̌, φ̌) and it
is in terms of the tool shape and the generating relative motion.
However, in many cases it is perhaps simpler to choose the direction for the
evaluation of kng on the tool surface Σe . Therefore we need the unit vector
ˇ θ̌, φ̌), b, ϕ(φ̌)), a, −ψ(φ̌)
te = R R(tg (ξ, (7.20)
Of course it is simpler to choose the direction for the evaluation of kng by employing
ˇ θ̌), p (ξ,
eξ and eθ , since the natural basis (pe,ξ (ξ, ˇ θ̌)) has known directions on
e,θ
the generating tool Σe .
On the other hand, if the direction te of inspection is given and we are required
to calculate the correspondent coefficients eξ and eθ , it suffices to take the cross
product of (7.21) by pe ,θ and pe ,ξ to obtain
1
eξ = [te pe ,θ mue ]
D
1
eθ = [te mue pe ,ξ ] (7.23)
D
Combining Eqs. (7.3), (7.20) and (7.21), we obtain that
that is
pe,ξ (eξ − gξ ) + pe,θ (eθ − gθ ) = he gφ (7.25)
If we take the dot product of equation (7.24) with pe ,ξ and pe ,θ and we make
use of (3.65) (page 45), we get the following system of three linear equations
E F he · pe,ξ gξ E eξ + F eθ
F G he · pe,θ
gθ = F eξ + G eθ (7.26)
˜ ˜
f ,ξ f ,θ ˜
f ,φ g φ 0
124 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
Since in our analysis cg is locally a geodesic at P̌g , it follows that kgg = 0, and (7.34)
simplifies in
Owing to equations (3.43), (3.50), (3.53) and (3.54), along with property (3.5) we
obtain
where we defined
and the expressions of the known vectors (mug ,ij )e with i = ξ, θ, φ, j = φ are given
in (7.83) in the Appendix. It is important here to point out that in the generic
expression (mug ,ij )e the derivatives are intended to be performed first and then
result is applied a double rotation from E3g to E3e . According to (3.9) (page 36) it
is evident that for the derivatives involving only the surface parameters ξ and θ
the order of derivation and derivation can be interchanged, as applied in (7.37).
It is worth noting also that gφφ , appearing in Eq. (7.37), are the values of
the second derivatives of functions ξg (sg ), θg (sg ) and φg (sg ) with respect to sg
evaluated at šg , that is
gξξ = ξg ,sgsg (šg ) gθθ = θg ,sgsg (šg ) gφφ = φg ,sgsg (šg ) (7.38)
Till now the values of gξξ , gθθ and gφφ are not known and our goal is to find a
procedure to calculate these numbers.
First of all, we wish here exploit the fact that the second derivative vector
cg ,sgsg is known. In fact, since cg is a normal section at P̌g , kgg = 0, and the
following expression holds
where we defined the known vector z as the first two lines of (7.40). It is worth
stressing that gξ , gθ and gφ are already known quantities since we made use of the
solution provided by the sistem of equations (7.26) for their determination. By
comparing Eq. (7.39) and (7.41) we obtain
Vectors (pg ,ij )e , with i = ξ, θ, φ, j = φ, are known at P̌g and their expressions
are given in (7.84) in the Appendix.
By taking the scalar product of (7.43) with (mue ×pe ,θ )/D and (mue ×pe ,ξ )/D
we get the two important equations
[mue he pe ,θ ] [mue pe ,θ z e ]
gξξ + gφφ =
D D
[mue pe ,ξ he ] [mue z e pe ,ξ ]
gθθ + gφφ = (7.45)
D D
Another condition that can be exploited is that also the second derivative of the
function of meshing f˜ with respect to the arc length sg must vanish, that is
d 2 f˜
=0 (7.46)
d s2g
The second term in the first member of (7.53) has been the objective of Sec. 7.1.2
and, once the coefficients gξ , gθ , gφ and gξξ , gθθ , gφφ have been computed ac-
cording to (7.26) and (7.49), its value is easily computable by employing (7.36).
The last step to take is to find a computable expression for mue ,sese which
expands to
mue ,sese = mue ,ξξ e2ξ + 2 mue ,ξθ eξ eθ + mue ,θθ e2θ
+ mue ,ξ eξξ + mue ,θ eθθ (7.54)
In this expression the coefficients eξξ and eθθ are still unknown. A procedure for
their evaluation is outlined in the following.
Let us consider the second derivative vector
Under the assumptions that ce is locally a geodesic at P̌e , we are allowed to write
kne mue = pe ,ξξ e2ξ + 2 pe ,ξθ eξ eθ + pe ,θθ e2θ + pe ,ξ eξξ + pe ,θ eθθ (7.56)
head-cutter
machine
frame
cutter
axis
y
Sr
q
y(f)
cradle Oa blank
axis a z axis
j(f)
D E M (f)
g
D XB (f)
Ob (f)
D XD
line of shortest
distance
Figure 7.1: Geometric set up for the generation of the spiral bevel pinion.
130 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
On Gleason’s CNC machines, blank offset ∆EM1 (φ) and sliding base ∆XB1 (φ)
are polynomial functions of the motion parameters of the following types
1 1
∆EM1 (φ) = ∆EM10 + V1 φ + V2 φ2 + V3 φ3 (7.59)
2 3
1 1
∆XB1 (φ) = ∆XB10 + H1 φ + H2 φ2 + H3 φ3 (7.60)
2 3
where ∆EM10 and ∆XB10 are constant values and Vi and Hi (with i = 1, 2, 3) are
called, respectively, vertical and helical motion coefficients.
Functions ψ(φ) and ϕ(φ) controlling the rotation of the cradle and the blank,
respectively, specialize now in
ψ(φ) = φ, (7.61)
2C 2 6D 3 24E 4 120F 5
ϕ(φ) = m0 φ − φ − φ − φ − φ , (7.62)
2 6 24 120
where the last expression is generally referred to as modified roll function and the
coefficients within as modified roll coefficients [77].
To perform the computations with the proposed approach we need to define,
in the linear space R3 , a single (fixed) reference frame S = (O; x, y, z), with unit
vectors (i, j, k). It is worth noting that all computations will be performed using
just this unique reference system.
We may select k = a and
1 a×b
j= a×b= , i=j×k (7.63)
sin γ |a × b|
where γ is the angle between a and b. Angle γ is generally expressed with respect
to the machine root angle γm1 = π/2 − γ.
In the selected reference system S the components of a and b are, respectively,
and the components of the variable vector d(φ) and its derivatives d0 (φ) and d00 (φ)
become
d(φ) = (∆XD1 cos γm1 , −∆EM1 (φ), ∆XB1 (φ) + ∆XD1 sin γm1 )
d0 (φ) = (0, −∆EM
0
1
0
(φ), ∆XB 1
(φ))
d00 (φ) = (0, −∆EM
00
1
00
(φ), ∆XB 1
(φ)) (7.65)
It is worth observing that the components of the vectors just defined are now
functions of the parameter of motion φ, since the relative displacement between
axes a and b during generation must be accounted for.
7.3 Application to spiral bevel gears 131
¯
where ξ ∈ [ρf (1−sin αp )/(cos αp ), ξ(θ)], θ ∈ [0, 2 π), and the upper and lower signs
refer to the convex (inside blade) and concave side (outside blade), respectively.
(b)
The parametric equations of the fillets at the top of the tool pe (ξ, θ) and their
u (b)
unit normal vectors me (ξ, θ), again in S, are
(Xf ∓ ρf sin ξ) cos θ + Sr1 cos q1 sin ξ cos θ
p(b) mue (b)
e (ξ, θ) = (Xf ∓ ρf sin ξ) sin θ + Sr1 cos q1 , = sin ξ sin θ , (7.67)
−ρf (1 − cos ξ) ∓ cos ξ
where ξ ∈ [0, π/2 − αp ], θ ∈ [0, 2 π). Again the upper and lower signs must be
taken when considering the convex and concave side, respectively.
1. the shape of the curve obtained as the normal section of Γg with the os-
culating (inspection) plane in the neighborhood of a selected contact point
P̌g ;
2. the shape of the section of the gap surface with the osculating (inspection)
plane through P̌g .
We have therefore to calculate the quantities kng and its derivative kng ,sg and kneg
and its derivative k̇neg . According to the procedure proposed, we have first to
evaluate certain quantities essential in the rest of the development.
First of all, we evaluate the principal normal curvatures k1e and k2e and the
components g1e and g2e in S of the principal directions g e1 and g e2 of the tool surface
Σe , along with its first coefficients E, F, G. Explicit formulas and numerical results
will be provided only for the convex active flank (conjugate to the inside blade of
the tool).
Since Σe is a surface of revolution, it is easy to verify that the coordinate lines
(dθ = 0, dξ = 0) mark the principal normal directions on Σe , and therefore we the
132 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
The components w(φ) in S of the vector w(φ), marking the direction of the screw
axis, are readily computed as follows
6D 2 24E 3 120F 4
w(φ) = a − ϕ0 (φ) b = a − m0 1 − 2Cφ − φ − φ − φ b (7.72)
2 6 24
along with its derivatives w0 (φ) and w00 (φ), which are omitted for brevity.
The components he (ξ, θ, φ) and its derivative he ,φ (ξ, θ, φ) are computed by
employing definitions (3.47) and (3.63), which give
and
We are now ready to evaluate the equation of meshing in the strict sense by
means of the following expression
Then, the important scalar functions λ(ξ, θ, φ) and µ(ξ, θ, φ) are computed taking
advantage of Eqs. (3.69) at page 45, which specialize in
" # " # " #
λ(ξ, θ, φ) k1e he (ξ, θ, φ) we (φ) g1e (ξ, θ)
= · (7.76)
µ(ξ, θ, φ) −we (φ) k2e (ξ) he (ξ, θ, φ) g2e (θ)
7.3 Application to spiral bevel gears 133
Equations (3.58), (3.60) allow us to determine f˜,ξ and f˜,θ , which become
√
f˜,ξ (ξ, θ, φ) = − E λ(ξ, θ, φ) = −R1 λ(ξ, θ, φ) (7.77)
p
f˜,θ (ξ, θ, φ) = − G(ξ) λ(ξ, θ, φ) = −(Xp + R1 cos ξ) µ(ξ, θ, φ), (7.78)
The evaluation of the function of singular points in the strict sense g̃ is performed
by means of
√
R2 0 E he · g1e
1
1
√
g̃(ξ, θ, φ) = 2 0 (Xp + R1 cos ξ)2 G he · g2e (7.80)
R1 (Xp + R1 cos ξ)2
f˜,ξ f˜,θ f˜,φ
The resulting intersections are the curves cg and ceg which are approximated
in the neighborhood of M by
1 g 1
δ g (ε) = k (ε)2 + kng ,sg (ε)3 , (7.81)
2 n 6
1 1
δ eg (ε) = kneg (ε)2 + k̇neg , (ε)3 (7.82)
2 6
As results of the proposed approach, the curvature kng (α) and its derivative kng ,sg (α)
and kneg (α) and its derivative k̇neg (α) along te , for α ∈ [0, 2π) are plotted in polar
form in Fig. 7.3-7.4.
In Fig. 7.3 (A) the distance of the generic point on the curve from the origin
represents the absolute value of kng (α) while the angle between τ and the radius
vector is the local value of α. The closed curve is not symmetric with respect
to the selected axes since we employed (τ, σ) as reference directions and not the
principal directions at M on Γg .
In Fig. 7.3 (B) the polar plot of kng ,sg (α) is shown. The shape of the curve
denotes an interesting behavior of the third order properties of Γg as the direction
of inspection varies on the tangent plane. The points on the curve are symmetric
with respect to the origin showing that |kng ,sg (α)| = |kng ,sg (α + π)|, while if we
consider the sign we have indeed kng ,sg (α) = −kng ,sg (α + π). It is worth observing
that since there two values, say α1 and α2 = α1 + π where the sign of kng ,sg
changes along the curve, the curve itself must pass two times through the origin
and therefore there must be a direction where kng ,sg vanishes.
Fig. 7.4 (A) represents kneg (α). Obviously the resulting closed curve is tangent
in the origin to the direction τ , tangent to the local contact line, along which the
principal relative curvature vanishes. The curve is symmetric with respect to both
τ and σ since they are parallel to the principal relative directions.
The shape of k̇neg in Fig. 7.4 (B), like that of kng ,sg , is instead not so obvious
and predictable, since it is not symmetric with respect to the selected axes. Again
it is true that k̇neg (α) = −k̇neg (α + π) and therefore the curve is symmetric with
π 0
7 11
6
π 6
π
4 5
3
π 3
π
3
2
π
(B) Absolute value of kng ,sg (α), [ 10
−4
mm2
]
π
2 3
2 π
3
π 3
2
5 π
6
π 6
1
π 0
7 11
6
π 6
π
4 5
3
π 3
π
3
2
π
Figure 7.3: Polar plots. (A): Absolute value of the normal curvature kng (α) of Γg
for α ∈ [0, 2π). (B): Absolute value of the derivative kng ,sg (α) of the the normal
curvature of Γg for α ∈ [0, 2π).
136 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
respect to the origin. It is worth observing that since there six values, say α1 ,
α2 , α3 and α4 = α1 + π, α5 = α2 + π and α6 = α3 + π where the sign of k̇neg
changes along the curve, the curve itself must pass six times through the origin
and therefore there must be three directions where k̇neg vanishes.
Figures 7.3-7.4 reveals that the derivatives kng ,sg and k̇neg are almost two orders
of magnitude lower than kng and kneg , respectively, and can be therefore neglected
in practical calculations without loss of accuracy.
π 0
7 11
6
π 6
π
4 5
3
π 3
π
3
2
π
(B) Absolute value of k̇neg (α), [ 10
−4
mm2
]
π
2 3
2 π
3
π 3
2
5 π
6
π 6
1
π 0
7 11
6
π 6
π
4 5
3
π 3
π
3
2
π
Figure 7.4: Polar plots. (A): Absolute value of the normal curvature kneg (α) of the
gap surface (relative normal curvature) for α ∈ [0, 2π). (B): Absolute value of the
derivative k̇ng (α) of the the normal curvature of the gap surface for α ∈ [0, 2π).
7.4 Conclusions 137
7.4 Conclusions
Explicit formulas for the coefficients of the third-order polynomial approximation
of the gear surface and of the gap surface in the neighborhood of an arbitrary
contact point have been provided within the framework of the invariant approach.
The proposed procedure has been employed to evaluate quantitatively the third
order properties of the surface of a spiral bevel pinion in the neighborhood of the
mean contact points on its convex side.
The information obtained could be employed also to evaluate the distribution of
the contact pressures more accurately as reported in [7] and, as suggested in [84],
to examine more closely the relationship between the conjugate surfaces in the
neighborhood of a flat contact point, which occur when an envelope to the contact
lines exists on the tool surface.
Table 7.3: Machine settings employed for grinding the pinion convex side.
138 7. Third order analysis of gear surfaces
7.5 Appendix
Derivatives (mug ,ij )e (i = ξ, θ, φ, j = φ) in (7.37)
Identification of CNC
parameters for
micro-geometry optimization
8.1 Introduction
In production of critical gear sets, like hypoid and spiral bevel gears for aerospace
applications, the contact pattern, which can be identified as the union of the bear-
ing ellipses in one cycle of meshing, must satisfy some requirements in terms of
dimension, shape and position within the boundaries of the tooth.
A contact pattern very close to the boundaries of the active flank or with a
short extension can weaken the mechanical resistence of the tooth with respect to
its potential.
In order for the gear designer to optimize the contact pattern, the ability to
modify the micro-geometry of the tooth surfaces with respect to a basic design
has to be gained. Modern Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) machines
for cutting and grinding hypoid and spiral bevel gears, in addition to the basic
motions of the cradle style machine, are capable of supplemental motions, which
allow for accurate optimization of the tooth surface and result in a large number
of parameters to be tuned.
In gear industry, only a small number of parameters is considered in the process
of optimization of the tooth; this because it is impossible even for the most skilled
operator to gain an accurate sensitivity on the combined effects of the whole set of
the available parameters. Another reason is that the use of proprietary softwares
capable of these tasks (like the ones by Gleason and Klingelnberg) can have too
high costs for the budget of middle-sized companies.
The process of optimizing the contact pattern of a gear pair consists of two
140 8. Identification of CNC parameters for micro-geometry optimization
main tasks: the first one is to identify the ease-off surface, that represents the
difference between the optimized (final) and the basic (initial) surface of the tooth,
which ensures the desired contact pattern under load or at least a very good
approximation of it; the second one is to determine the machine-tool settings to
be employed to obtain a surface as closest as possible to the pre-designed one. The
outlined methodology could be automatized.
The solution of the previous problem is worth a dedicated thesis work itself.
The aim of this chapter is to introduce various aspects related to the second task
and present some techniques for its solution. Therefore, the hypothesis we stand
on is that, in some way, we are already given the best ease-off which allows us to
obtain the desired contact pattern.
The developed procedures are implemented via the invariant approach in a
computer code and their results for the optimization of a spiral bevel gear set for
aerospace application are presented.
on the tooth surface with settings x, where i = 1, . . . , n and n is the total number
of points on the grid. We consider that the n points Pg (ζ i , x) on the grid include
both the tooth fillet and the active flank.
For the ζ i to actually represent a triplet on the envelope surface, the equation
of meshing must be satisfied, that is
f (ζ i , x) = [pg ,ξ pg ,θ pg ,φ ] =0 (8.1)
(ζ i ,x)
Adopting the same notation used in the previous chapters, let us define mug (ζ, x)
the unit normal vector to the hyper-enveloping family as
pg ,ξ ×pg ,θ
mug (ζ, x) = , (8.4)
|pg ,ξ ×pg ,θ |
142 8. Identification of CNC parameters for micro-geometry optimization
that is the normal vector to each surface of the sequence obtained varying the
motion parameter φ, once the machine parameters x have been fixed.
The unit normal vector to each of the basic i−th point (i = 1, . . . , n) is defined
u (0)
as mgi = mug (ζ i , x(0) ).
For fixed ∆x and regardless of its entity, equation (8.6), with i = 1, . . . , n, rep-
resents n families of planes, each one parallel to the basic tangent plane at point
(0)
Pg (ζ i , x(0) ).
We now define the desired surface “very” close to the basic one, by assigning
the position vectors of a grid of n points on it with respect to the corresponding
grid on the basic surface. The most natural way of defining this new surface is by
(0)
imposing the position vector pg (ζ i + ∆ζ i , x(0) + ∆x) of the new point P̃g (ζ i , x)
to be such that
(0) (0) (0)
pg (ζ i + ∆ζ i , x(0) + ∆x) − pg (ζ i , x(0) ) = mug (ζ i , x(0) ) hi , (8.8)
where the scalar values hi (i = 1, . . . , n) represent the amount of distance of the de-
sired surface with respect to the basic one, measured in the normal direction to each
8.3 Synthesis of the tooth micro-geometry 143
target surface
Gg
h
h
Gg
hi
z
z
h
zi
z
hn
zn
basic surface
(0)
point Pg (ζ i , x(0) ) on the basic surface grid. Often the vector h = (h1 , . . . , hn )
describing the whole modification is defined as ease-off.
The above mentioned situation is illustrated in Fig. 8.1.
Considering equations (8.7) and (8.8), it is possible to obtain a relationship
between the ease-off hi prescribed at each point of the grid and the corresponding
variations ∆ζ i and ∆x, as follows
A further step can now be pursued. If we dot multiply both sides of (8.9) by
(0)
mug (ζ i , x(0) ) we obtain
(0) (0)
tangent plane to Γg at Pg (ζ i , x(0) ), are orthogonal to the unit normal vectors
(0)
mug (ζ i , x(0) ).
By letting
(0)
sT (ζ i , x) = mug (ζ i , x(0) ) · pg ,x (ζ i , x), (8.12)
we get
ε = S ∆x − h (8.16)
where the L2 (Euclidean) norm of the residuals is minimized. Now we assume that
dim(ker(S)) = 0, that is S has full column rank. By imposing the stationarity
condition
∂
(S ∆x − h)T (S ∆x − h) = 2 (S TS ∆x − S T h) = 0, (8.18)
∂∆x
we obtain the least square solution
∆x = (S TS)−1 S T h = S L h, (8.19)
∆x = (S T W S)−1 S T W h = S L
W h, (8.20)
S = U ΣV T. (8.21)
146 8. Identification of CNC parameters for micro-geometry optimization
ST S = V N V T , (8.23)
n×n
where U ∈ R has the columns composed by n orthonormal eigenvectors of
SS T ∈ Rn×n ordered such that in the diagonal of M ∈ Rn×n the eigenvalues of
SS T have decreasing norms; similarly, V ∈ Rm×m has the columns composed by
m orthonormal eigenvectors of S T S ∈ Rm×m ordered such that N ∈ Rm×m has
in its main diagonal the eigenvalues of S T S with decreasing norms.
In the event that S is not full column rank, that is rank(S) = r ≤ m, the last
n−r columns of U and the last m−r columns of V belong to ker(SS T ) = ker(S T )
and to ker(S T S) = ker(S), respectively, and they form an orthonormal basis of
these spaces. In fact, in this case, the elements mii and nii on the diagonal of M
and N , respectively, with i > r are zero.
It is worth noting that the first r (different from zero) values on the diagonal
of M and N are the same and are positive, that is λi > 0, i = 1, . . . , r. These
matrices have then n − r and m − r null eigenvalues on the diagonal, respectively.
This is a direct consequence of the fact that the eigenvalues of square products
of two rectangular matrices are the same except for a number of null eigenvalues
equal to the difference in the dimensions of the two square matrices.
It is therefore possible to write M = ΣΣT and N = ΣT Σ, with Σ ∈ Rn×m ,
where
p ∆
Σii = λi = σi , i = 1, . . . , r (8.24)
Σij = 0, i 6= j (8.25)
The r positive values σi are called singular values of S.
Matrices U and V considered till now represent orthonormal bases arbitrarily
chosen, except for the fact that the first columns are bases of Im(S) and S T and
the last columns are bases of ker(S T ) and ker(S). We can therefore take a further
step by choosing a relationship between the four fundamental subspaces which
will be particularly useful. It is possible to make it by requiring the following
relationship to be satisfied
S = U ΣV T , (8.26)
which represents the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of S. To obtain the
decomposition we can therefore choose arbitrarily an orthonormal basis of Im(S T )
in the first r columns of V and find the corresponding columns of U solving
SV = U Σ. The columns of U can be computed as follows
1
U (: , i) = S V (: , i), i = 1, . . . , r (8.27)
σi
8.5 Solution by subset selection using the SVD 147
It is easy to verify that these solutions are orthonormal columns (U (:, i)T U (:, j) =
δij , where δij is the Kronecker symbol) and that they form a basis of Im(S):
therefore, they are allowable choices for the first r columns of U . For the rest of
the columns of U and V , it will suffice take the orthogonal complements (e.g.,
by employing the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process). The procedure here
outlined is neither efficient nor numerically stable, but has the purpose to recall
the main ideas of the process leading to the SVD decomposition of a matrix which
is used to define its pseudoinverse. For a detailed discussion on this topic see [23].
By employing the SVD of matrix S, the problem to find the solution to the
general system S∆x = h, in the sense of finding the best approximation of min-
imum norm, has a readily available solution. By rewriting U ΣV T ∆x = h and
changing the coordinates in both domains by setting ∆x = V ∆x̄ and h = U h̄,
in the new coordinates we have Σ∆x̄ = h̄, that is
σ1 ∆x̄1 = h̄1
.. .
= ..
.
σr ∆x̄r = h̄r (8.28)
0 ∆x̄r+1 = h̄r+1
··· = ···
0 ∆x̄n = h̄n
The solution which minimizes L2 norm of the residual vector is therefore given
by ∆x̄1 = σ11 h̄1 , . . . , ∆x̄r = σ1r h̄r , with the remaining components of ∆x̄ which
do not influence the residual vector and therefore can be chosen arbitrarily. On
the other hand, to minimize ∆xT ∆x = ∆x̄T V T V ∆x̄ = ∆x̄T ∆x̄, the remaining
n − r − 1 components must be chosen equal to zero.
Coming back to the original coordinates we obtain the desired solution. The
pseudoinverse matrix S + which solves the problem S∆x = h in the least squares
sense is therefore
S + = V Σ+ U T , (8.29)
+ m×n
where Σ ∈ R has on the main diagonal the reciprocal of the r singular values
of S and zero elsewhere; the sough for solution in the machine-tool settings can
then be obtained as follows
∆x = S + h (8.30)
Obviously, if matrix S has full column rank, solution (8.30) is identical to that
obtained in (8.19).
matrix S comes close to singular (column rank deficiency). In these cases we can
take two different routes toward the solution.
The first one is to precondition matrix S by chopping the singular values which
are smaller than a threshold value, and which would make the entries blow up when
computing the pseudoinverse S + . In other words, the problem is approached by
approximating the least squares solution (8.30), which is here rewritten in an
equivalent way,
r
X 1
∆xLS = U (: , i)T h V (: , i), r = rank(A) (8.31)
σ
i=1 i
with
r̃
X 1
∆xr̃ = U (: , i)T h V (: , i), r̃ ≤ r (8.32)
i=1
σ i
where
r
X
T
S = U ΣV = σi U (: , i)V (: , i)T (8.33)
i=1
S = U ΣV T, i.e. U T SV = diag(σ1 , . . . , σn )
U ∈ Rn×n ; Σ ∈ Rn×m ; V ∈ Rm×m ;
save V ;
extract P ; set B = S P = [B 1 B 2 ],
set y = P T ∆x;
Step 7 Determine y 1 = B + r̃
1 h with y 1 ∈ R such that ||B 1 y 1 − h||2 = min, by
+
employing the pseudoinverse B 1 computed with the SVD algorithm;
Step 8 Reconstruct the whole solution vector ∆x by appending the null vector
o ∈ Rm−r̃ to y 1 and reordering the components according to P as
" #
y1
∆x = P ; (8.36)
o
f = −2 S T h (8.40)
The reason is that by choosing either L∞ or L1 norm the problem structure fits the
standard Linear Programming (LP) problem structure for which efficient solution
algorithms exist (see [82], [27]). Moreover, within the framework of the standard
LP problem the constraints on the variations ∆x of the machine-tool parameters
can be easily taken into account and therefore practical solutions can be found.
where A ∈ Rl×m and b ∈ Rl account for linear inequality constraints among the
machine parameters and ∆xmin and ∆xmax are the lower and upper bounds for the
machine-tool setting variations. In the problem of identification of the variations
for the sake of micro-geometry optimization, there are usually no linear constraints
among the parameters but, nonetheless, we consider here the problem in its most
general form.
The equivalent form of (8.41) expressed in components is
T
min max |s i ∆x − h i |
∆x i = 1, . . . , n
(8.42)
subject to aTj ∆x ≥ bj , j = 1, . . . , l
∆xminq ≤ ∆xq ≤ ∆xmaxq , q = 1, . . . , m
where sTi ∈ R1×m is the i-th row of matrix S, hi the i-th component of the ease-
off vector h, aTj ∈ R1×m the j-th row of linear constraint matrix A, bj the j-th
component of vector b and ∆xminq , ∆xmaxq the lower and upper bounds for the
variation of the q-th component ∆xq .
The equivalent problems (8.41) and (8.42) are still in forms which are not
easily solvable, mainly because of the discontinuity of the objective function, which
involve the function max.
In [72] it is demonstrated that problem (8.42) can be transformed into an
equivalent one, in the sense that they share the same solution. This new problem,
in its turn, can be rewritten as a standard LP problem with little effort. The
8.7 Linear programming solution 153
Now we set
" # " #
M1 m1
M= , m= (8.50)
M2 m2
where
1
| −S
1
0
M1 =
1
,
M 2 = | A (8.51)
|
0
S
1
and
" #
−h
m1 = , m2 = b (8.52)
h
for which efficient solution algorithms exist. Here, we will not dwell into the
mechanics of the algorithms like the revised simplex or the interior point method
suitable to attach these kinds of problems, for which excellent references, like [82]
and [27], are available. The above mentioned algorithms will be employed to solve
a real case and the results obtained will be discussed.
components of a vector, is often called Manhattan norm since it remainds the way
distances are measured between two locations in the Manhattan district, being the
components of the vector, the distances along the streets and the avenues covered
to join the two points. The problem can be stated as
min ||S ∆x − h||1
∆x
subject to A ∆x ≥ b (8.55)
∆xmin ≤ ∆x ≤ ∆xmax
where A ∈ Rl×m and b ∈ Rl account for linear inequality constraints among the
machine parameters and ∆xmin and ∆xmax are the lower and upper bound vectors
for the machine-tool settings. As previously stated in § 8.7.1, in the problem of
identification of parametric variations for micro-geometry optimization, no linear
constraints are usually imposed among the parameters. Nevertheless, we shall
consider here the problem in its most general form since no particular complication
arises in consequence of this choice.
The equivalent form of (8.55) expressed in components is
n
X
T
min |si ∆x − hi |
∆x i=1
(8.56)
subject to aTj ∆x ≥ bj , j = 1, . . . , l
∆xminq ≤ ∆xq ≤ ∆xmaxq , q = 1, . . . , m
where we recall that sTi ∈ R1×m is the i-th row of matrix S, hi the i-th component
of the ease-off vector h, aTj ∈ R1×m the i-th row of linear constraint matrix A, bj
the j-th component of vector b and ∆xminq , ∆xmaxq the lower and upper bounds
for the variation of the q-th component ∆xq .
Now we transform problem (8.56) into an equivalent one which is easier to put
into a standard LP form.
Firstly, we introduce a new variable y ∈ R2n obtained by stacking a vector
α ∈ Rn (where α = (α1 , . . . , αn )) with the machine-tool settings vector ∆x ∈ Rn ,
as follows
α
y= (8.57)
∆x
Secondly, we introduce the column vector e ∈ Rn+m which is given by n 1’s and
m zeros, as follows
eT = 1 · · · 1 | 0 · · · 0 (8.58)
156 8. Identification of CNC parameters for micro-geometry optimization
α≥ S ∆x − h
(8.61)
α ≥ −(S ∆x − h)
Pn
and we minimize the sum i αi , the L1 norm of the residuals will be minimized
as well. The demonstration of the equivalence between the previous problems is
found on many Operations Research textbooks, like [72].
By introducing the n−dimensional identity matrix I n we rewrite inequali-
ties (8.61) as
I n α − S ∆x ≥ −h (8.62)
I n α + S ∆x ≥ h (8.63)
Taking into account possible linear constraints among the parameters as well we
write
" #
α
O l×n A ≥b (8.65)
∆x
where
" #
In −S
M1 = , M 2 = O l×n A (8.67)
In S
8.8 Sequential refinement approach 157
and
" #
−h
m1 = , m2 = b (8.68)
h
The standard form of the LP problems, which is here recalled, is formally identical
to (8.54), even if the same symbols bear now a very different meaning
min eT y
y
subject to My≥m (8.70)
y min ≤ y ≤ y max
Again, the solution methods available for the standard LP problem (8.70) are very
efficient and further details can be found in [82] and [27].
(0)
ζ i , basic (initial) values of the triplet (ξ, θ, φ) for the i-th point
(k)
ζ i , values of the triplet (ξ, θ, φ) for the i-th point at iteration k
(k) (k)
Ξ(k) = (ζ 1 , . . . , ζ n(k) ), set of all the n ζ i ’s at iteration k
Γg = Γ(0)
g , basic (initial) tooth surface
(0)
p(0)
gi = pg (ζ i , x
(0)
), position vector of the i-th point of the grid on surface Γ(0)
g
(0)
mugi(0) = mug (ζ i , x(0) ), unit normal vector to Γ(0)
g at the i-th point
(k)
pg(k)
i
= pg (ζ i , x(k) ), position vector of the i-th point of the grid on surface Γg(k)
(0)
of the grid on surface Γg , by requiring the following n equations to be satisfied
(0)
p(0) u (0)
gi + hi m gi = p̃gi → ∆p(0) u (0)
gi = hi mgi , (i = 1, . . . , n) (8.71)
Now we can solve the problem in ∆x(0) by employing one of the techniques pre-
sented in the previous sections. In every case we end up with a solution ∆x(0)
which we use to obtain the updated machine-tool setting vector x(1) as follows
(1) (1)
Vector h(1) = (h1 , . . . , hn ) is the actual ease-off obtained with the new machine-
tool settings x(1) . Comparing, in some norm, the deviation between the target
h(0) and the actual ease-off h(1) it is possible to estimate if the solution is accept-
able or if more steps are necessary to obtain the desired accuracy. As previously
mentioned, if the target ease-off h(0) is such that
for a tooth with face width of 33 mm, the solution obtained in only one step is
usually not accurate. In such cases a new Taylor series expansion with respect
(1)
to points Pgi can be performed. The equation one obtains considering the 1-st
iteration is
(0) (1) (1) (1) (1)
hi − hi ' mugi(0) · pg ,ζ (ζ i , x(1) ) ∆ζ i + mugi(0) · pg ,x (ζ i , x(1) ) ∆x(1)
(8.76)
8.8 Sequential refinement approach 161
where now the first term on the right hand side does not vanish since, in general,
(1) (1) (1)
the tangent plane to Γg at Pgi , which is spanned by pg ,ζ (ζ i , x(1) ), is not
u (0)
orthogonal to mgi . Recalling the position
From (8.79) it is easy to recognize that, at each point i, the triplet variation
(1) (1) (1) (1)
∆ζ i = (∆ξi , ∆θi , ∆φi ) has to be evaluated besides the variation ∆x(1) : the
dimensionality of the problem is therefore increased by 3n. For convenience we
define
(k) T (k) (k) T (k)
si = sT (ζ i , x(k) ) and z i = z T (ζ i , x(k) ) (8.80)
If we now consider equation (8.79) for all the n points on the grid and define
(k) T (k) T
matrix S (k) = (s1 , . . . , sn ), with S (k) ∈ Rn×m , where its generic entry has
the following expression
(k) (k)
S ij
= mugi(0) · pg ,xj (ζ i , x(k) ), (8.81)
(k) T (k) T
and we define matrix Z (k) = (z 1 , . . . , zn ), with Z (k) ∈ Rn×3n , where its
generic entry has expression
(k) (k)
Z ij
= mugi(0) · pg ,ζj (ζ i , x(k) ), (8.82)
we get, for the first step, the following system of linear equations
Step 2 Set k = 1;
Step 3 Set x(k) = x(k−1) + ∆x(k−1) ;
(0) (k)
Step 4 If ||h̄ + h(0) − h̄ ||∞ ≤ εh
(k)
then EXIT (found solution x(k) ; Γg converged to Γ̃g within tolerance εh )
else CONTINUE
Step 6 If k ≥ kmax
then EXIT (found solution x(k) ; upper iteration limit kmax reached)
else CONTINUE
Step 7 Determine ∆x(k) by solving
(0) (k)
h̄ + h(0) − h̄ ' S(Ξ(0) , x(k) ) ∆x(k)
Step 1 Given the basic x(0) , determine the first variation ∆x(0) by solving
Step 2 Set k = 1;
(k) (k)
Step 4 For i = 1, . . . , n, determine ζ i and hi by solving
( (k) (0) (k) u (0)
pg (ζ i , x(k) ) = pgi + hi mgi
(k)
f (ζ i , x(k) ) = 0
Step 6 If k ≥ kmax
then EXIT (found solution x(k) ; upper iteration limit kmax reached)
else CONTINUE
(k+1) (k)
which requires the displacement vector pgi − pgi not to have components on
(0) (0)
the tangent plane to Γg at Pgi .
(k)
Of course, for the solution ∆x(k) , ∆ζ i to correspond to a point of the envelope
(k+1)
surface Γg , the equation of meshing in the updated condition must be satisfied,
that is
(k) (k)
f (ζ i + ∆ζ i , x(k) + ∆x(k) ) = 0 (8.87)
Since we can expect small variations in the values of the triplets and the machine
settings from iteration k to k + 1, it can be reasonable to employ the linearization
of (8.87) thus requiring
(k) (k) (k) (k)
f (ζ i , x(k) ) + f,ζ (ζ i , x(k) ) ∆ζ i + f,x (ζ i , x(k) ) ∆x(k) = 0 (8.88)
If we extend the above mentioned conditions (8.85), (8.86) and (8.88) to all the n
points of the grid beside the original problem (8.83), we end up with 4n equations in
m + 3n unknowns. The whole sistem of equations if therefore still overdetermined,
with the same imbalance of n − m equations like in problem (8.72).
A procedure describing the sequential refinement approach with no direct con-
straints on the triplets is the following:
Step 1 Given the basic x(0) , determine the first variation ∆x(0) by solving
h(0) ' S(Ξ(0) , x(0) ) ∆x(0)
Step 2 Set k = 1;
Step 3 Set x(k) = x(k−1) + ∆x(k−1) ;
(k) (k)
Step 4 For i = 1, . . . , n, determine ζ i and hi by solving
( (k) (0) (k) u (0)
pg (ζ i , x(k) ) = pgi + hi mgi
(k)
f (ζ i , x(k) ) = 0
8.9 Numerical example 165
head-cutter
machine
frame
zo
O e(f)
kc
cutter
axis
Se
so S r(f)
j
jc i
q k gear
blank
f
cradle Oa blank
axis axis
a j(f)
DE
(f)
g DX
g
(f)
DX
(f) s (f)
Ob (f) b (f)
line of shortest
distance
In the initial design, the numerical values of the design variables are
5
4 45
3 44
2 43
1 42
41
toe heel
root
'
) 1
&
%
m ( ,
" ( 1
!
0
,
(
.
+
σmin = t σ1 (8.91)
8.9 Numerical example 169
+
*
m
- 5
'
&
, 0
! $
, 5
"
!
0
/
N N K
a
`
m
c k
V ]
b f
S V
W Z
b k
S
X
P
W
O O Q
U
f
R S
@ A B
> ?
C D
C
9 < =
e
7 ;
C F G
6 7 8 9 :
A H
K L M
I J
K N O
+
*
m
)
. 5
'
- 0
&
- 5
! $
, 0
"
, 5
!
/
/
N N K
a
`
m
e k
_
d f
V ]
d k
S V
[
c f
W Z c k
b f
S
X
P
W
O O Q
b k
U
j
R S
i
@ A B
> ?
C D
e
7
C
9 < =
7 ;
E
9
C F G
e
6 7 8 9 :
A H
K L M
I J
K N O
*
m
. 5
'
-
0
&
- 5
$
,
0
"
!
, 5
/
8.10 Conclusions
In this chapter different solutions to the problem of identifying practical machine-
tool settings corrections corresponding to a prescribed ease-off have been proposed.
Numerical tests revealed that trying to cure the ill-conditioned problem (that
arises when redundancy among machine parameters exists) by imposing bound
constraints to the design variables, as proposed in [37], is not adequate since does
not solve the cause of the problems. Better solutions may be found by focusing
on the sensitivity matrix (as shown by the SVD solution with preconditioning)
and, therefore, trying to discern the underlying dependencies among the machine
parameters and their redundancies with the purpose of avoiding them. The un-
derstanding of these topics is of paramount importance for the future development
of the gear theory field and will be part of our future research.
Chapter 9
Conclusions
In the present dissertation a new approach to the theory of gearing has been
formulated. The main difference with respect to the classical theory of gearing
is that there is no need of an early introduction of reference systems. In fact, as
demonstrated in the first chapters, they play no role in the theoretical treatment
and, therefore, their introduction can be postponed till the very end, when actual
calculations have to be performed. The final outcome is a more compact and,
hopefully, clearer formulation of the whole theory of gearing.
To show that the proposed methodology can be applied with success in every
facets of the theory, a fresh derivation of many classical results is provided. Also
some investigations on modern topics like curvature analysis and identification of
CNC machine settings capable of free-form surface corrections of the tooth are
presented within the framework of the invariant approach.
Still many studies have to be performed, especially on the topic of global surface
synthesis: it is believed, though, that the invariant approach can represent a new
tool to gain a better understanding and a deeper insight of the problem.
Bibliography
[1] J. Achtmann and G. Bar. Optimized bearing ellipses of hypoid gears. ASME
Journal of Mechanical Design, 125:739–745, 2003. 4
[2] Jorge Angeles. Fundamentals of robotic mechanical systems: theory, methods
and algorithms. Springer, 2nd edition, 2003. 51
[3] J. Argyris, M. De Donno, and F. L. Litvin. Computer program in Visual
Basic language for simulation of meshing and contact of gear drives and its
application for design of worm gear drive. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 189:595–612, 2000. 3
[4] J. Argyris, A. Fuentes, and F.L. Litvin. Computerized integrated approach
for design and stress analysis of spiral bevel gears. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 191:1057–1095, 2002. 2, 29, 30, 31, 33,
83, 131
[5] J. Argyris, F. L. Litvin, Q. Lian, and S. A. Langutin. Determination of
envelope to family of planar parametric curves and envelope singularities.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 175:175–187, 1999.
2
[6] J. Argyris, F. L. Litvin, Aoyong Peng, and H. J. Stadtfeld. Axes of meshing
and their application in theory of gearing. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, 163:293–310, 1998. 2
[7] M. Beghini and C. Santus. Analysis of the contact between cubic profiles.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 46:609–621, 2004. 119, 137
[8] C. H. Chen, S. T. Chiou, Z. H. Fong, C. K. Lee, and C. H. Chen. Mathematical
model of curvature analysis for conjugate surfaces with generalized motion in
three dimensions. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 215(4):487–
502, 2001. 2, 49, 72, 91
[9] N. Chen. Curvatures and sliding ratios of conjugate surfaces. ASME Journal
of Mechanical Design, 120:126–132, 1998. 2, 38, 45, 46, 71, 74, 91, 92, 94, 97,
99, 110
178 Bibliography
[10] Hui Cheng and K. C. Gupta. An historical note on finite rotations. ASME
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 56:139–145, 1989. 8
[11] F. Di Puccio, M. Gabiccini, and M. Guiggiani. Alternative formulation of the
theory of gearing. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 40(5):613–637, 2005. 36,
39, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 58, 59, 61, 72, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 92, 96, 97, 99, 100,
102, 111, 112, 119, 124, 129
[12] F. Di Puccio, M. Gabiccini, and M. Guiggiani. Generation and curvature
analysis of conjugate surfaces via a new approach. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, 41:382–404, 2006. 49, 57, 91, 92, 111, 113
[13] Manfredo Perdigao Do Carmo. Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1976. 38, 74, 91, 94
[14] David B. Dooner. On the three laws of gearing. ASME Journal of Mechanical
Design, 124:733–744, 2002. 1, 3, 72, 92
[15] David B. Dooner and Ali A. Seireg. The Kinematic Geometry of Gearing.
Wiley Interscience, New York, 1995. 1, 3, 72
[16] Leonard Euler. Nova methodus motum corporum rigidorum determinandi.
Novi Commentari Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae, 20:208–
238, 1775. 1, 7, 8
[17] Qi Fan and Ron S. Dafoe. Development of bevel gear face hobbing simulation
and software. 1:485–504, 2005. 6
[18] P.-H. Feng, F. L. Litvin, D. P. Townsend, and R. F. Handschuh. Determi-
nation of principal curvatures and contact ellipse for profile crowned helical
gears. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 121:107–111, 1999. 71
[19] Zhang-Hua Fong. Mathematical model of universal generator with supple-
mental kinematic flank correction motions. ASME Journal of Mechanical
Design, 122:136–142, 2000. 49, 65
[20] Zhang-Hua Fong and Chung-Biau Tsay. Kinematical optimization of spiral
bevel gears. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 114:498–505, 1992. 4
[21] Marco Gabiccini, Massimo Guiggiani, and Francesca Di Puccio. New inves-
tigation on the geometry of the contact in gear generation. In DETC’03,
number PTG-48087, 2003. 111
[22] Gene H. Golub, V. Klema, and G. W. Stewart. Rank degeneracy and least
squares problems. Technical report tr-456, Department of Computer Science,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1976. 149
[23] Gene H. Golub and Charled F. Van Loan. Matrix Computations. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996. 145, 147, 149
Bibliography 179
[24] Claude Gosselin. Identification of the machine settings of real hypoid gear
tooth surface. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 120:429–440, 1998. 4,
167
[26] Joachim Grill. A generalized kinematic for calculating and evaluating surface
geometry of gears and cutting tools. In 6th International Power Transmission
and Gearing Conference. ASME, 1992. 3, 49
[27] George Hadley. Linear Programming. Addison Wesley, New York, 1962. 152,
154, 157
[28] D. Hestenes, H. Li, and A. Rockwood. New algebraic tools for classical
geometry. In G. Sommer, editor, Geometric computing with Clifford alge-
bra. Springer, 1999. 3
[29] Davis Hestenes. New foundations for classical mechanics. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, second edition, 1999. 3
[30] Norio Ito and Koichi Takahashi. Differential geometrical conditions of hypoid
gears with conjugate tooth surfaces. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design,
122:323–330, 2000. 1, 72, 92
[31] Theodore J. Krenzer. Computer aided inspection of bevel and hypoid gears.
In SAE Paper 831266. SAE, 1983. 3
[32] Theodore J. Krenzer. Computer aided corrective machine settings for man-
ufacturing bevel and hypoid gear sets. In AGMA Paper 84FTM4. AGMA,
1984. 4
[33] Erwin Kreyszig. Differential Geometry. Dover Publications, New York, 1991.
37, 38, 53, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 91, 93, 97, 121
[34] Màrk Lelkes, Jànos Màrialigeti, and Daniel Play. Numerical determination of
cutting parameters for the control of Klingelnberg spiral bevel gear geometry.
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 124:761–771, 2002. 49
[35] Q. Lian and Ron S. Dafoe. Using advanced tca theory, geometry modifica-
tions, manufacturing realization to localize bearing contact and reduce cylin-
drical gear noise. 1:737–755, 2005. 6
[45] F. L. Litvin, Aoyong Peng, and Anngwo Wang. Limitation of gear tooth
surfaces by envelopes to contact lines and edge of regression. Mechanism and
Machine Theory, 34:889–902, 1999. 1
[49] Faydor L. Litvin. Gear Geometry and Applied Theory. PTR Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1994. 1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 44, 45, 60, 71
[51] Faydor L. Litvin. Gear Geometry and Applied Theory. PTR Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 2004. 2, 91, 98, 100, 101, 103, 105, 106, 107
[54] Faydor L. Litvin, Pin-Hao Feng, and Sergei A. Lagutin. Computerized genera-
tion and simulation of meshing and contact of new type of Novikov-Wildhaber
helical gears. Technical report, NASA/CR–2000–209415, 2000. 2
[55] Faydor L. Litvin, Alfonso Fuentes, J. Matthew Hawkins, and Robert F. Hand-
schuh. Design, generation and tooth contact analysis (TCA) of asymmetric
face gear drive with modified geometry. Technical report, NASA/TM-2001–
210614, 2001. 2
[57] Faydor L. Litvin and Jian Lu. New methods for improved double circular-arc
helical gears. Technical report, NASA/CR–4771, 1997. 2
[63] F.L. Litvin, A. Fuentes, and M. Hawkins. Design, generation and TCA of
new type of asymmetric face-gear drive with modified geometry. Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 190:5837–5865, 2001. 2
[64] F.L. Litvin, A. Fuentes, C. Zanzi, M. Pontiggia, and R.F. Handschuh. Face-
gear drive with spur involute pinion: geometry, generation by a worm,
stress analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
191:2785–2813, 2002. 2
[67] F.L. Litvin and A.G. Wang. Local synthesis and tooth contact analysis of face-
milled, uniform tooth height spiral bevel gears. Technical report, NASA/CR-
1996–4757, 1996. 2
[68] The Mathworks. Optimization Toolbox - User’s guide. The Mathworks, Nat-
ick, MA - USA, third edition, 2005. 151
[71] David Montana. The kinematics of contact and grasp. The International
Journal of Robotics Research, 7(3):17–31, 1988. 2
Bibliography 183
[72] Massimo Pappalardo. Lezioni di Ricerca Operativa. SEU, Pisa, 2004. 152,
156
[77] Hermann J. Stadtfeld. Advanced Bevel Gear Technology. The Gleason Works,
Rochester, 2000. 4, 5, 41, 49, 65, 66, 81, 82, 129, 130
[78] Gilbert Strang. Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Harcourt Brace Jo-
vanovich Publishers, San Diego, third edition, 1986. 145
[79] Xiaogen Su and Donald R. Houser. Alternative equation of meshing for worm-
gear drives and its application to determining undercutting and reverse engi-
neering. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 122:207–212, 2000. 1
[80] Gabriel Taubin. Estimating the tensor of curvature of a surface from a polyhe-
dral approximation. IEEE CNF, Fifth International Conference on Computer
Vision (ICCV’95), June 20-23, 1995, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1995. 94
[81] J. Thomas and O. Vogel. 6m machine kinematics for bevel and hypoid gears.
1:435–451, 2005. 4, 6
[83] O. Vogel, A. Griewak, and G. Bär. Direct gear tooth contact analysis for hy-
poid bevel gears. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,
191:3965–3982, 2002. 3, 98
[84] Da -Ren Wu and Jia -Shun Luo. A Geometric Theory of Conjugate Tooth
Surfaces. World Scientific, Singapore, 1992. 2, 3, 11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 44, 45,
72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 91, 92, 101, 119, 120, 122, 137
[86] C. Zanzi and J.I. Pedrero. Application of modified geometry of face gear
drive. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 194:3047–
3066, 2005. 2