Optimum selection of mechanical gearbox ratios

For minimization of the unobtainable power

SAID ALI HASSAN
Department of Operations Research and Decision Support,
Faculty of Computers and Information
Cairo University, Cairo,
5 Tharwat Street, Giza, Cairo
EGYPT

Abstract: - Inspite the fact that conventional gearboxes of automobiles have several disadvantages, they can be
made more efficient if the number of gear ratios and their selection are properly chosen. Increasing the number
of speeds improves the vehicle's dynamic performance that is expected to be optimal with stepless continuously
variable speed drive. However, for a fixed number of speeds, selection of individual gear ratios plays an
important role in improving the vehicle's dynamic performance.
The following mathematical progressions are commonly used for determining the gear ratios of the
automobile transmission: arithmetic, harmonic, and geometric with constant or increasing roots. But the
question is raised about the optimum selection of gear ratios, and if it is one of the used progressions or not.
The goal of this work is to use the optimization techniques to determine the best gearbox ratios. A non-
linear programming model is introduced where the objective function represents the minimization of the
unobtainable or wasted power. This wasted power is represented by the difference between areas under the
curves of discrete and continuous power transmission.
As a real application of the model, it is applied to a Jeep car with 4 gear ratios to show the effect of
choosing different mathematical progressions on the vehicle's efficiency.

Key-words: - Mechanical gearbox ratios - Mathematical progressions - Wasted power in mechanical

transmissions - Nonlinear models - Kuhn-Tucker optimality conditions.

1 Introduction 1. Arithmetic, 2. Harmonic,

Automobile transmission is required to provide the
vehicle with tractive effort-speed characteristics
suitable for the largely changing load conditions.
Between the many types of transmissions, the
mechanical with stepped gear ratios is still widely
used.
Mechanical gearbox has a highest, a lowest and
intermediate gear ratios. The highest is determined
from the condition for maximum tractive effort, i.e.
maximum load and grade-ability specified or
lowest speed required. On the other hand, the
lowest ratio is determined knowing the maximum
required vehicle speed. The intermediate ratios are
classically chosen according to different types of
mathematical progressions.
The following mathematical progressions are
commonly used for determining the intermediate
gear ratios of the automobile transmission:
3. Geometric, and 4. Geometric with increasing
root.
Selection can also be done using a combination
of two different progressions. Choice of the
suitable progression depends upon vehicle type,
specific power and operational demands. For
example, for passenger cars having high specific
power, higher gears (i.e. lower ratios) are used. For
heavy-duty vehicles where load conditions are
more severe, low gears are used.
In arithmetic progression, high gears are widely
spaced and low gears are more close to each other.
In harmonic progression, the high gears are closer
while the low gears are widely spaced. The
geometric progression stands as a compromise
between them, while the geometric progression
with increasing root is a compromise between the
geometric and the harmonic.
 The relationships for calculating the individual
ratios according to the mentioned progressions are
as follows:
Arithmetic:
i1- i2 = i2 - i3=………..= in-1 - in = constant
Where, i1, i2, i3 are the ratios of 1st, 2nd and 3rd
speeds and in, in-1 are the ratios of the top and
before the top speeds.
Harmonic:
1 1 1 1 1 1
− = − = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅⋅ =
i2 i1 i3 i2 i n −1
Geometric:
i i i
1 = 2 = ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅⋅ = n −1 = constant
i i in
2 3
Geometric with increasing root:
in −1 i i
= q1 , n − 2 = q2 ,....., 1 = qn −1 ,
in in −1 i2
q 2 q3 q
and: = = ..... = n −1 = constant
q1 q 2 qn
Where, q1, q2,.........., q n are the values of the
increasing root.
In [1], a comparison of the methods of gear
ratios spacing has been done. As a measure of
comparison, the unobtainable power due to
traction-speed characteristics of the mechanical
transmission relative to the ideal one has been
considered. The comparison has been made
considering the data of a Jeep car and it has been
concluded that the geometric progression would
give the least wasted power in comparison with
other mathematical progression methods.
In [2], a comparison has been applied to 14
small and medium class passenger cars to compare
different methods used for selection of gearbox
ratios. And in [3], the same comparison is made for
7 trucks having different swept volumes and
various Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW). It was also
concluded that selection of gearbox ratios
according to the geometric progression gave
smaller unobtainable power in comparison with
other methods of selection.
The previous results show that the choice of
gearbox ratios according to the geometric
progression is better than other types of
mathematical progressions. However, nothing is
proved about the global optimum choice of gear
ratios.
In this paper, a general mathematical
programming model is introduced to represent the
relation between the gear box ratios and the
unobtainable power. The objective function is a
non-linear function representing the value of the
unobtainable (wasted) power that is needed to be
minimized, while the constraints represent the
mathematical relations between different gear
ratios.
The main goal of this work is to conclude the
values of the different gear box ratios as a result of
the optimization technique that could be applied for
different types of vehicles with 4-speed gearbox
− = constant without regard to the used mathematical
in progressions.
2 Computation of the wasted power
During gear changing in the mechanical gearbox, a
part of power is wasted due to stepped power
transmission. Increasing the number of gear ratios
minimizes this power wasted and makes the
tractive effort-speed diagram more close to the
ideal one. This ideal diagram represents a
continuous power transmission that is
schematically shown in Figure 1 for a gearbox with
four gear ratios.
The wasted power is represented by the
difference of areas under the curves of tractive
effort with ideal and stepped power transmission.
To compute these areas, the equations of tractive
effort-speed curves should be known.
Equation of the ideal curve is written as:
Fi=2700 . Pe max .ηt / V = B1 / V .......(1)
Where:
Fi = available tractive effort at wheels for
the ideal curve, N
Pe max = maximum engine power,
ηt = total mechanical efficiency of the
running gear,
V = vehicle speed, km/h,
B1 =2700. Pemax .ηt = constant.
Equation of the tractive effort for stepped
power transmission is written as:
Ft = 2700 . Pe . ηt / V = B2 . Pe / V ......(2)
Where:
Ft = available tractive effort at wheels for the
stepped curve, N
Pe = engine power, HP
B2 = 2700 . ηt = constant.
Relationship between engine power and engine
revolutions can be expressed by the following
equation :
   ne   ne 
2
 ne 
3
 ne  
4
C3 = A3.B32 .C / nN2 = constant
Pe = PemaxA1+ A2 + A3  + A 4  + A5   C4 = A4 .B33.C / nN3 = constant
  nN   nN   nN   nN  
……… (3). C5 = A5 .B34 .C / nN4 = constant
A ,
Where: 1 2 3 4A , A , A , and A 5 = constants The wasted power ∆E is then calculated as
determined by fitting the actual engine power follows (Figure 1):
V4 V2 V3 V4
curve,
ne = engine speed, r.p.m., ∆E = ∫ F dV − ( ∫
V1
i
V1
Ft dV + ∫ Ft dV + ∫ Ft dV )
V2 V3
nN = engine speed at maximum power, r.p.m.
………(8)
Vehicle speed can also be expressed as a Where:
function of engine speed and the engaged gear box V1=vehicle speed at which the tractive forces of
ratio as follows: the ideal and the first speed curves are equal
0.377.n e rd =maximum vehicle speed at 1st gear, km/hr,
V= , g = 1, 2,....., n ...........(4)
i o .i g V2 =maximum vehicle speed at 2nd gear, km/hr,
V3=maximum vehicle speed at 3rd gear, km/hr,
Where:
V4 =maximum vehicle speed at 4th gear, km/hr.
V= vehicle speed, km/hr
rd = wheel's dynamic radius, m
io = final drive gear ratio
3 Mathematical Model
ig = engaged gear box ratio For a vehicle with 4-speed gearbox, the
From (4), we have: optimization problem is formulated as follows:
= V ⋅ ig ⋅ i° = Find i2 and i3,
n e B 3 ⋅V ⋅ i g ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅( 5 )
0 . 377 r d The objective function is formulated to
io minimize the unobtainable power:
Where: B3 = = constant.
0.377.rd Minimize ∆E given by equation (8)
subject to:
Substituting ne from equation (5) into equation
i2 < i1, i3 < i2 ,
(3), we have : i4 < i3, i2, i3 > 0
 ⋅V ⋅ i g 
P e max [ A
= +  B 3 + Where i1 , i4 = known constants
P A 
e 1 2
 n N  Performing the definite integrals in equation
2 3 (8), we obtain:
 ⋅V ⋅ i g   ⋅V ⋅ i g 
A 3 
B 3  +
A  B 3  + ∆E = B1 (log V4 − log V1 )
 n N  4
 n N  − [ C1 (log V2 − log V1 ) + C2i2 (V2 − V1 )
4
 B ⋅V ⋅ i g 
A 5   ] ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ (6 ) 1
( 1
) ( )
3

 n N  + C3i22 V22 − V12 + C4i23 V23 − V13

2 3
+ C5i24(V42−V14 ) ] −[C1(logV3 −logV2 ) + C2i3(V3 −V2 )
Substituting Pe from equation (6) into equation 1
(2), the equation for Ft is obtained as: 4
 A A .B .i A .B 2 .i 2
1
( )
1
+ C3i32 V32 − V22 + C4i33 V32 − V22 ( )
Ft = B2 .Pemax  1 + 2 3 g + 3 23 g .V + 2 3
V
( )
nN
+ C5i3 V3 − V24 ]
nN 1 4 4
3 3 4 4
A4 B3 .ig 2 A5 .B3 .ig 3 4
.V + .V ] − [C1 (log V4 − log V3 ) + C2i4 (V4 − V3 )
nN3 nN4
1
Ft = C1 + C2 .ig + C3ig2 .V + C4ig3 .V 2 + C5 .ig4 .V 3 ..( 7)
1
( )
1
+ C3i42 V42 − V32 + C4i43 V42 − V32 ( )
V 2 3
Where: 1
4
(
+ C 5i 44 V44 − V34 ] ) …………(9)
C = B2. Pc max = constant
C1 = A1.C = constant
C2 = A2 . B3 . C/nN = constant
 The expression for the maximum vehicle speed µ1 (i2 − i1 ) = 0
µ 2 (i3 − i2 ) = 0
at different gearbox ratios is obtained from the
relation: ……………. (16)
0.377 nN rd D µ3 (i4 − i3 ) = 0
Vg = = ,
ioig ig i2 , i1 ≥ 0
…………… (17)
g = 1, 2, 3, 4 ………….(10) µ1 , µ 2 , µ3 ≥ 0
The unique solution which satisfies the Kuhn-
Where: Tucker conditions for all vehicle types (i.e.
0.377nN rd independent of the values of the constants C2, C3,
D=
io C4, C5, and D) is that µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = 0, and all the
After arranging equation (9) and substituting values inside brackets in equations (13) and (14)=
V1 , V2 ,V3 , and V4 from equation (10), we obtain the 0, this will lead to:
following non-linear programming problem: i 22 = i1i3 , and i32 = i2i4 .
Minimize: This can be written as:
∆E = B1(log i1 −log i4 ) −{C1(log i1 −log i4) + i1 i 2 i3
= = = K (constant ) > 1
 i i i  1   i 2  i 2  i 2  i 2 i3 i 4
C2 D3 − 2 − 3 − 4  + C3D2 3 −  2  −  3  −  4   Which satisfies the geometric progression.
 i1 i 2 i3  2   i1   i2   i3  
This is the optimal solution for the non-linear
1   i 3  i 3  i 3  programming problem since it is a unique solution
+ C4 D 3 −  2  −  3  −  4   +
3
that satisfies the Kuhn-Tucker necessary conditions
3   i1   i2   i3  
for optimality.
  i 4  i 4  i 4 
+ C5D4 3 −  2  −  3  −  4   } …….(11)
1
4   i1   i2   i3  
5 An Example of Application
subject to: A Jeep car is considered as an actual example of
i2 – i1 < 0 , i3 – i2 < 0, application. The car has the following main data:
i4 – i3 < 0 , i2 , i3 > 0, Max power = 112 HP at 3600 rpm
i1 , i4 are known constants …….. (12) Max torque = 281 N.m at 1600 rpm
Main gear box:
1st speed ratio, i1 = 3,1
4 Finding the Optimal Solution 4th speed ratio, i4 = 1
The Kuhn-Tucker conditions (necessary conditions
for optimality) are [4]: Axle ratio io = 3.73
Wheel dynamic radius rd = 0.35 m
  1 i3  2  i2 i32  3  i2
2
i33 
 2  − 2  + 3  2 − 3  + 4  3 − 4 
C D   C D   C D  To show the effect of choosing different values
  i1 i2   i1 i2   i1 i2  for the gearbox ratios, we will calculate the
individual gear ratios of a four-speed transmission
 i 3 i 4 
+ C5 D 4  24 − 35  + µ1 − µ 2 = 0 ……. (13) selected according to the usual mathematical
 i1 i2  progressions. The ratios of the top and first speeds
are kept as those for the actual gear box, they
  1 i4  2  i3 i42  3  i3
2
i43 
 2 
C D  − 
2 
+ C D  −  + C D  −  would have the values indicated in Figures 2 a, b, c,
3  i 2 i3  4  i3 i 4 
 2 3
i i 2 3 2 3 and d.
4 
The traction-speed curves corresponding to
i 3
i  each of these progressions and the expected wasted
+ C5 D 4  34 − 45  + µ2 − µ3 = 0 …….(14)
 i2 i3  power for the Jeep car are shown also in the same
figures.
i2 − i1 ≤ 0, A computer FORTRAN program is written to
i3 − i2 ≤ 0, ……………….. (15) calculate the predicted power losses. The results are
shown in table 1.
i4 − i3 ≤ 0
6 Conclusion References:
A nonlinear programming model is introduced to [1] S.Shaaban, and S.A. Hassan, " Comparison of
methods of selecting gear ratios of automobile
determine the gear ratios of a 4-speed automobile
transmission", 1st Conference on Applied Mechanical
transmission. The objective function represents the Engineering, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt,
unobtainable (wasted) power due to stepped 1984.
traction-speed characteristics given by the [2] S.Shaaban, and S.A.Hassan, " Application of
mechanical transmission relative to the ideal one the methods of selection of gear box ratios to
with continuous power transmission. The problem passenger car", 2nd Conference on Applied
constraints represent the mathematical relations Mechanical Engineering, Military Technical
between different gearbox ratios. College, Cairo, Egypt, 1986.
The optimal solution of the problem proves that [3] S.Shaaban, and S.A.Hassan, "Analysis of the
choosing the gear ratios according to the geometric methods of spacing of mechanical transmission
progression gives the global minimum wasted gear ratios applied to trucks", The 3rd Conference
power. on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Academy of
The presented example considering the data of Scientific Research and Technology, Cairo, Egypt,
a Jeep car with 4-speed gear box showed 1988.
that the arithmetic and harmonic progressions give [4] H.A. Taha, Operations Research, An
approximately 35% higher power waste with Introduction, 5th Edition, Macmillan Publishing
respect to the geometric progression, while the Company, New Yourk, 1992.
geometric progression with increasing root gives [5] John David Associates, " Getting rid of the gear
only 5% higher power waste. box", Engineering Application, England, April
1983.
[6] B.S. Gottfried, Theory and problems of
programming with FORTRAN, Mc Graw-Hill
Table 1: Predicted power losses company, 1992.
GREAT AREA SMALL DIFFERENGE [7] S.Lipschutz, and A. Poe, Programming with
AREA FORTRAN including structured Fortran, Shaum's
2708.174 2685.553 22.621 outline series in Computers, McGraw-Hill Book
9659.297 9390.898 268.398 Company, 1991.
9689.129 9416.508 272.621
9776.738 9499.230 277.508
Geometric losses = 841.148
2708.174 2685.553 22.621
13665.789 12823.816 841.973
8874.820 8675.082 199.738
6584.551 6512.172 72.379
Harmonic losses = 1136.711
2708.174 2685.553 22.621
6534.836 6463.262 71.574
8798.121 8597.070 201.050
13792.203 12929.797 862.406
Arithmetic losses = 1157.652

2708.174 2685.553 22.621

11064.102 10641.891 422.211
9629.289 9361.660 267.629
8431.770 8265.395 166.375
Mod. Geom. losses = 878.836

Fig. 1: Ideal and stepped traction-speed curves.