389

Gear transmission error outside the normal path of

contact due to corner and top contact

R G Munro, L Morrish* and D Palmer

School of Engineering, University of Huddersfield, UK

Abstract: This paper is devoted to a phenomenon known as corner contact, or contact outside the
normal path of contact, which can occur in spur and helical gear transmission systems under certain
conditions. In this case, a change in position of the driven gear with respect to its theoretical position
takes place, thus inducing a transmission error referred to here as the transmission error outside the
normal path of contact ( TE ).
o.p.c.
The paper deals with spur gears only, but the results are directly applicable to helical gears. It
systematizes previous knowledge on this subject, suggests some further developments of the theory
and introduces the novel phenomenon of top contact. The theoretical results are compared with
experimental measurements using a single flank tester and a back-to-back dynamic test rig for spur
and helical gears, and they are in good agreement.
Convenient approximate equations for calculation of TE suggested here are important for
o.p.c.
analysis of experimental data collected in the form of Harris maps. This will make possible the
calculation of tooth stiffness values needed for use in theoretical models for spur and helical gear
transmission systems.

Keywords: gear, transmission error, path of contact, corner contact, top contact

NOTATION r ,r outside radii of the first and second gears

a1 a2
r ,r base radii of the first and second gears
b1 b2
a centre distance between the two gears S point in Figs 4 and 5
A point in Fig. 3 S start of the involute of the first gear when
C1
b distance EF in Fig. 4 its tooth corner is at point C ( Figs 3
B beginning of the normal path of and 4)
contact S start of the involute of the second gear
C2
c distance FH in Fig. 4 when its tooth corner is at point C
C tooth corner of the first gear ( Figs 3 and 4)
D point in Figs 3 and 4 S start of the involute of the first gear when
E1
E end of the normal path of contact its tooth corner is at point E ( Fig. 3)
F point in Figs 3 and 4 S start of the involute of the second gear
E2
G point in Fig. 4 when its tooth corner is at point E
H point in Fig. 4 ( Fig. 3)
N N common tangent to base circles T point at which top contact first occurs
1 2 ( Fig. 9)
O and O geometrical centres of the first and
1 2 TE transmission error outside the normal
second gears o.p.c.
P pitch point path of contact owing to corner contact
p base pitch ( Fig. 3, approach and recess cases)
b V point in Fig. 5
r ,r radii of curvature of the involute teeth of
1 2
two gears when in contact at the end of
the path of contact, E (Fig. 4) a flank angle of basic rack
a geometrical construction angle used in
C2
calculations (not shown in any figure)
The MS was received on 6 March 1998 and was accepted after revision a geometrical construction angle ( Fig. 3)
for publication on 30 June 1998. E1
a geometrical construction angle ( Fig. 3)
* Corresponding author: School of Engineering, University of E2
Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK. a working pressure angle
t
C02798 © IMechE 1999 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
390 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER
c geometrical construction angle (Fig. 3)
C2
c geometrical construction angle (Fig. 3)
E2
Dh and Dh angles of rotation of the first and
1 2
second gears ( Fig. 3)
h geometrical construction angle (Fig. 5)
W geometrical construction angle (Fig. 3)
C2
W geometrical construction angle (Fig. 3)
E2
W pressure angle at the tip ( Fig. 4)
T
1 INTRODUCTION
Corner contact, or contact outside the normal path of
contact, can occur in spur and helical gear transmission
systems either owing to the bending of the teeth under
working load or to adjacent pitch errors. This paper
deals with spur gears only, but the results are directly
applicable to helical gears. This statement becomes clear
if one considers a helical gear as a series of thin staggered
spur gears, although clearly there are some additional
complications in the helical gear case owing to their
three-dimensional geometry. Corner contact is highly
unwelcome for several reasons:
1. Corner contact leads to rapid tooth wear.
2. It creates unfavourable conditions for tooth lubri-
cation. With regard to lubrication it should be noted
that the standard tests for the scuffing resistance of
oils induce corner contact. This may be a convenient
way to speed up the failure process, but it is open to
question whether this simulates lubricant failure
under realistic design conditions.
3. High-frequency harmonics of the transmission error
( TE ) take place in the case of corner contact, leading
to system vibration and unpleasant noise. By defi-
nition, TE is a deviation of the position of the driven
gear from its theoretical one (which it would occupy
as defined by the gear ratio if both gears were geo-
metrically perfect and infinitely stiff ). It can be
expressed either as an angular value or linearly, i.e.
as a linear movement at base radius. TE continuously
changes with time (as the gears rotate) and the sign
convention is that it is negative when the driven gear
lags behind its theoretical position. TE is a very
important concept in gearing. Created by a gear
pair, TE is in fact an excitation for the whole trans-
mission system that can lead to unwanted noise and
vibrations.
Corner contact can be avoided if sufficient tip and/or
root relief on the teeth is used. Using various types of
relief has become common practice in gear design since
the late 1930s when the theory behind this was proposed
by Walker [1], but the choice by designers of both
amount and extent of relief needed for particular load
conditions has been by trial and error or tradition
through most of the subsequent years.
Meanwhile, some considerable theoretical develop-
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
ments in this direction were made by various authors.
The most significant step forward in the understanding
of gear kinematics was made in the late 1950s by Harris
[2], who suggested that the TE under different loads be
presented as a series of plots against the gear rotation.
These plots are now known as Harris maps and have
become a very powerful tool for clear understanding of
gear kinematics and can help to predict their dynamic
behaviour. At the same time studies of spur gear dynam-
ics were set up at Cambridge University. A dynamic
back-to-back test rig was designed for measurements of
the transmission error by means of optical gratings and
considerable progress was made in understanding spur
gear dynamics [3, 4]. Subsequent research has put the
design of profile relief on a proper scientific basis (e.g.
references [5] to [10].
It can be concluded that the static and dynamic behav-
iour of spur gears has been studied by researchers very
extensively indeed, leading to its very clear theoretical
understanding. One question remains open though, that
being the choice of tooth pair stiffness value for use in
theoretical models. The huge amount of experimental
data that has been collected at Huddersfield University
in the form of Harris maps provides an opportunity for
extracting the data needed for calculation of stiffness
values for particular gear pairs, and in order to do so
an accurate and convenient mathematical relationship
for the corner contact is needed.
The first attempt to understand the geometry of corner
contact in detail was made by Richardson [11] in 1958,
i.e. before the concept of TE was suggested by Harris.
He calculated the value of what would now be termed
the transmission error outside the normal path of contact,
TE (i.e. when the contact occurs at the tooth corner).
o.p.c.
He referred to it as ‘the no-load separation of ideal invol-
ute gear teeth’, and his developments led to pages of
exact, but cumbersome formulae. In 1962, Munro [3]
proposed a different approach for calculation of TE .
o.p.c.
It was based on the TE concept and used some approxi-
mations, thus leading to approximate, but conveniently
simple, formulae.
The importance of the phenomenon was hardly recog-
nized by the majority of researchers at that time, which
has probably been the main reason for a long break in
achieving new results on this subject. Only in 1975 did
Seager [12] produce some work on analysis of Munro’s
[3] developments, and much more recently a consider-
able step forward was made by Lin et al. [13] who came
up with an exact version of analytical formulae for calcu-
lation of TE (still referring to it as ‘separation’) and
o.p.c.
presented a thorough analysis of its effect on spur gear
transmission.
This paper presents more results on corner contact
theory, bringing all hitherto acquired knowledge on this
subject into systematic order. It suggests a further devel-
opment to the more handy approximate version of the
formulae for TE discussed by Munro [3] and Seager
o.p.c.
C02798 © IMechE 1999
 GEAR TRANSMISSION ERROR OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PATH OF CONTACT
[12] and introduces a novel phenomenon called top con-
tact, discussing possible conditions under which it can
occur. Theoretical calculations of TE are verified
o.p.c.
against experimental measurements on a single flank
tester and a back-to-back dynamic test rig and results
are presented.
The transmission error due to corner contact is defined
strictly geometrically in Section 2. The exact mathemat-
ical formulae for the value of TE are discussed in
o.p.c.
Section 3 and the derivation of a new approximate ver-
sion of it is presented in Section 4. Sections 5 and 6 deal
with experimental results, and finally Section 7 explains
the top contact phenomenon.
2 CORNER CONTACT PHENOMENON
2.1 Conditions for corner contact to occur
In order to demonstrate corner contact, Fig. 1 can be
used which shows a schematic of part of the theoretical
Harris map for a spur gear pair with no profile relief,
no manufacturing errors, zero load and the contact ratio
(CR) artificially chosen to be less than one (i.e. the centre
distance between two gears is artificially too large). The
line BE represents the TE on the normal path of contact
which, theoretically, is a straight line in this case. The
normal path of contact BE is shorter than the base pitch,
p (CR<1), and corner contact occurs beyond the
b 105.08 mm, centre distance a=203.2 mm, face width
normal path of contact. This happens in both the
approach stage (i.e. before B, when a tooth pair is coming
into mesh) and in the recess stage (i.e. after E, when a
tooth pair is leaving mesh). As a result, a rapid change
in the absolute value of TE takes place with the rotation
of the first gear, Dh . It starts decreasing again when the
1
second pair takes over. The TE curves beyond the
normal path of contact, shown in Fig. 1, are slightly
asymmetric because for the same angle of rotation of
Fig. 1 Theoretical transmission error curve with corner con-
tact taking place (no profile relief, no manufacturing
errors, zero load applied)
C02798 © IMechE 1999
391
the driving gear, Dh , TE is different in the approach
1 o.p.c.
and recess cases (hence Dh ≠Dh in
1(approach) 1(recess)
Fig. 1). This is discussed in more detail in references [12]
and [13].
This phenomenon can also take place in the case of
normal working conditions (CR>1) if the amount of
tip/root relief used is not sufficient to compensate for
tooth deflection under the load applied to a gear pair.
This can be demonstrated on the theoretical Harris maps
for a gear pair with no relief in Fig. 2a. TE is a straight
line in the no-load case, but with increased loads, and
hence tooth deflections, corner contact comes into play,
resulting in the sharp peaks on the TE curve (this is
discussed in more detail by Lin et al. [13]). It is interes-
ting to point out that at a certain load the TE curve
looks very similar to that in Fig. 1. Thus, the effect of
an incorrectly chosen relief profile can be very similar to
that of a CR of less than one.
Figure 2b presents measured Harris maps for a gear
pair with no relief and the resemblance between theoreti-
cal predictions and practical measurements is remark-
able. Measured static TE curves are obtained from an
optical analogue measuring system on a back-to-back
dynamic test rig for spur and helical gears at
Huddersfield University. It is one of the sets presented
by Palmer and Munro [10] for a particular pair of gears
with no profile relief (54 teeth each, module 3.738 mm,
basic rack flank angle a=18°, outside radii r =r =
a1 a2
11 mm) and the applied loads were 7, 93, 176, 262, 347,
430 and 560 N/mm face width. Effects of small profile
errors are visible in the case of the measured TE and
also the low-frequency level varies slightly (owing to the
eccentricity of the gear pair), but the peaks due to corner
contact are clearly noticeable for heavier loads. Also, it
is clear that these peaks are asymmetric, with the steeper
slopes occurring in approach rather than in recess, as
expected [12] and [13].
2.2 Spur gear teeth in contact outside the normal path of
contact
Figure 3 shows two spur gears in mesh, where the first
gear with base radius r is driving and the second one
b1
is driven (its base radius is r ). The tip circles of the
b2
gears (their radii are r and r respectively) define the
a1 a2
normal path of contact BE along the tangent line to the
gear base circles, N N .
1 2
Dotted involute curves in Fig. 3 show a pair of teeth
positioned so that the contact occurs exactly at the end
of the normal path of contact, i.e. at point E. If the
driving gear rotates further and the next pair of teeth is
still not in contact, then corner contact occurs. This teeth
position is shown in Fig. 3 with thick solid serrated lines.
As mentioned earlier in the paper, this is a case of
recess, which means that teeth are leaving mesh. In this
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
392 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER

Fig. 2 Static transmission errors (Harris maps), no profile relief: (a) theoretical; (b) measured

case, contact occurs between the flank of the driven gear been ‘extended’ along the line (involute) CF is also
and the tooth corner C of the driving gear (Fig. 3). shown in Fig. 3 (dashed lines in Fig. 3). If that had been
Corner contact is also possible in the case of approach the case, the contact would have occurred at point F
(a pair of teeth in this position is also shown in Fig. 3 which lies on the common tangent line N N to provide
1 2
with thin solid serrated lines) when contact occurs a smooth conjugate motion of the driven gear. Thus the
between the flank of the driving gear and the tooth TE due to corner contact, TE , is geometrically
o.p.c.
corner of the driven gear. defined as the distance DF along the path of contact as
shown in Fig. 3.
Similarly, Fig. 3 shows TE in the approach case.
o.p.c.
2.3 Definition of transmission error outside the path of In this case the tooth of the driven gear is extended
contact (dot-dashed lines) to point A on the common tangent
N N , defining TE in approach. As discussed in
1 2 o.p.c.
In the recess case, the position that the driven gear tooth references [12] and [13], values of TE in approach
o.p.c
would have taken if the tooth of the driving gear had and recess are generally different for the same angle
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C C02798 © IMechE 1999
 GEAR TRANSMISSION ERROR OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PATH OF CONTACT 393

Fig. 3 Tooth pairs of spur gears in mesh at the beginning (B), end (E) and beyond the normal path of
contact and the definition of the transmission error outside the normal path of contact, TE , in
o.p.c.
recess and approach

of rotation of the first gear even in the case of a 151 the position as defined by the tooth corner of the first
gear ratio. gear. Thus the separation as calculated by Lin et al. [13]
is the distance DF in Fig. 3 along the path of contact,
i.e. the transmission error TE in recess, and can be
o.p.c.
3 EXACT METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF calculated as a function of the angle of rotation of the
TRANSMISSION ERROR DUE TO CORNER driving gear, Dh , as follows (Fig. 3, where angle
1(recess)
CONTACT a is not shown to avoid additional construction lines):
C2

The exact method for calculation of tooth separation r +r

a =cos−1 b1 b2 (1)
that was developed by Lin et al. [13] is restated below t a
for the recess case (in slightly different form and with
the notations used in Fig. 3). In this case the first (driv- r
a =cos−1 b1 (2)
ing) gear is rotated uniformly while the driven gear takes E1 r
a1
C02798 © IMechE 1999 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
394 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER

O E=
2 S [r sin(a −a )]2+[a−r cos(a −a )]2
a1 E1 t a1 E1 t
(3)

O C=
2 S [r sin(a −a +Dh
a1 E1 t 1(recess)
)]2+[a−r cos(a −a +Dh
a1 E1 t 1(recess)
)]2 (4)
Two lines are additionally constructed. The first line,

K K
r sin(a −a )
c =tan−1 a1 E1 t (5) CG, passes through point C and is parallel to the
E2 a−r cos(a −a ) common tangent N N . The second line, FH, is perpen-
a1 E1 t 1 2
dicular to both N N and CG. Lines FH and CG inter-
1 2
K K
r sin(a −a +Dh )
c =tan−1 a1 E1 t 1(recess) (6) sect at point H.
C2 a−r cos(a −a +Dh ) The following notations are used in these calculations
a1 E1 t 1(recess)
( Fig. 4):
r
a =cos−1 b2 (7)
E2 O E EF¬b (13)
2
W =tan a −a =inv a (8) FH¬c (14)
E2 E2 E2 E2
From the geometry of an involute, the distance b can be
r
a =cos−1 b2 (9) calculated as
C2 O C
2
b=Dh r (15)
W =tan a −a =inv a (10) 1 b1
C2 C2 C2 C2 All further developments are made with the assumption
Dh =(c −W )−(c −W ) (11) that b is small.
2(recess) C2 C2 E2 E2
The distances DF and CG are taken to be approxi-
TE =r Dh −r Dh (12)
o.p.c.(recess) b2 2(recess) b1 1(recess) mately equal, thus the TE is approximately
o.p.c.
noting that, as normal, TE is negative as the driven #CG
o.p.c. TE
o.p.c.
(16)
gear lags behind its conjugate position.
The same equations can be used to calculate TE The radii of curvature of the involutes S C and S C
o.p.c. C1 C2
in approach by changing some notations (effectively at point C are taken to be approximately the same as
‘swapping’ the driving and driven gears), i.e. those at point E, i.e. r and r :
1 2
TE can be calculated using equations (1) to
o.p.c.(approach) r =N E (17)
(12) by interchanging r and r and r and r and 1 1
b1 b2 a1 a2
substituting TE , Dh and Dh for r =N E (18)
o.p.c.(recess) 1(recess) 2(recess) 2 2
TE , Dh and Dh respect-
o.p.c.(approach) 2(approach) 1(approach) and thus the distances CH and HG can be approximately
ively. Using this method, TE is found as a
o.p.c.(approach) found:
function of Dh , but plotting TE
2(approach) o.p.c.(approach)
against Dh effectively ‘swaps’ the gears back c2
1(approach) CH# (19)
again [in this case Dh has the same value as
1(approach) 2r
1
Dh given in the original equation (11)].
2(recess) c2
HG# (20)
2r
2
4 CALCULATION OF TRANSMISSION ERROR From equations (16), (19) and (20) the equation for
DUE TO CORNER CONTACT USING AN TE can be written as
o.p.c.
APPROXIMATE METHOD

A B
c2 1 1
TE =CH+HG# + (21)
o.p.c. 2 r r
4.1 General idea of the approximate method 1 2
The method described in Section 3 [equations (1) to (12)] Seager [12] suggests that distance c be calculated
allows calculation of the exact value of TE due to corner approximately as
contact as a function of the rotation of the first gear, c=b tan W (22)
Dh . The disadvantage of this method is that it is in the T
1 where angle W is ‘the pressure angle at the tip’ which
form of an algorithm and cannot be used easily. As an T
alternative, the approximate formula suggested by can be found from the gear geometry:
Munro [3] and analysed later by Seager [12] can be used. r
A summary of the developments made by Munro and W =cos−1 b1 (23)
T r
Seager in the above documents is given below ( Fig. 4, a1
recess case). The distances r and r used in equation (21) can be
1 2
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C C02798 © IMechE 1999
 GEAR TRANSMISSION ERROR OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PATH OF CONTACT 395

Fig. 4 Geometrical quantities used in the approximate method

found: is 127.27 mm. Thus, the relative error is 10.67 per cent
but grows considerably with increase in Dh .
r = √r2 −r2 (24) 1
1 a1 b1
r =(r +r ) tan a −r (25)
2 b1 b2 t 1 4.3 Exact formula for distance c
Distance c can be calculated exactly as
4.2 Numerical results
c=sin a SC+cos a ES (26)
A number of numerical calculations were conducted to t t
compare the approximate method [ formula (21)] used where
together with equations (15) and (22) to (25) against SC=r |sin(a −a +Dh )−sin(a −a )| (27)
a1 E1 t 1 E1 t
the exact algorithm [equations (1) to (12)]. The calcu-
ES=r |cos(a −a +Dh )−cos(a −a )| (28)
lations show that for small angles Dh ( less than about a1 E1 t 1 E1 t
1
2–3°) the relative error lies within about 10 per cent. (this comes from the geometry in Fig. 4). Using the exact
One of the considered examples was the pair of spur equation (26) [with equations (27) and (28)] instead of
gears with no profile relief, described in Section 2.1. They the approximate equation (22) [with equations (15) and
have 54 teeth each, a module of 3.738 mm, basic rack (23)] reduces the error significantly. For example, for the
flank angle a=18° (thus giving the base radii r =r = numerical example described in Section 4.2 the relative
b1 b2
95.9863 mm) and outside radii r =r =105.08 mm. error is reduced to 1.77 per cent (|TE |=125.02 mm,
a1 a2 o.p.c.
For the centre distance a=203.2 mm the approximate as opposed to the exact value |TE |=127.27 mm).
o.p.c.
method gives |TE |=113.69 mm for the angle of The disadvantage of the exact equation (26) is that it
o.p.c.
rotation of the first gear Dh =2.5°, while the exact value requires additional calculations by equations (27) and
1
C02798 © IMechE 1999 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
396 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER

(28). The one-line formula proposed in the next section Now, from DO N E:
1 1
is another version of an approximate formula for calcu-
r
lation of distance c. cos(90°−h+a )= b1 (34)
t r
a1
and thus
4.4 New version of the approximate formula for
distance c r
h−a =sin−1 b1 (35)
t r
From Fig. 5, assuming that the chord EC is approxi- a1
mately equal to the arc EC, the following can be written: Finally, substituting equation (35) in equation (33) gives
the one-line formula for distance c as a function of the
|EC|#r Dh (29) angle Dh and gear parameters only:
a1 1 1
Line O V connects the gear centre O and the centre of
A B
1 1 r Dh
chord EC, V, and thus is perpendicular to line EC. Line c#r Dh cos a sin b1 − 1 (36)
a1 1 r 2
SE is parallel to the centre line O O , therefore giving a1
1 2
Dh The approximate calculations described in Section 4.1
3
CES=h− 1 (30) were again applied for the numerical example described
2
in Section 4.2, but equation (36) was used instead of
and from right triangle DESC: equation (22). This gave |TE |=125.04 mm, meaning
o.p.c.
that the relative error was reduced from 10.67 per cent

A B
Dh
SC=EC sin h− 1 (31) (as in the method described by Seager [12]) to 1.75 per
2 cent (and it remains approximately the same with
increase in Dh ).
A B
Dh 1
ES=EC cos h− 1 (32) Thus, an approximate algorithm consists of only four
2
relatively simple equations:
Equation (29) is substituted in equations (31) and (32)
A B
r Dh
and then the resulting two equations are substituted in c#r Dh cos a sin b1 − 1 (36)
a1 1 r 2
equation (26). After trivial trigonometrical manipu- a1
lations this leads to r = √r2 −r2 (24)
1 a1 b1

A B
Dh r =(r +r ) tan a −r
c#r Dh cos h−a − 1 (33) 2 b1 b2 t 1
(25)
a1 1 t 2

A B
c2 1 1
TE # + (21)
o.p.c. 2 r r
1 2
and the new version of the equation for c [equation (36)]
improves the accuracy in calculations of TE con-
o.p.c.
siderably compared with that when equation (22) was
used.
Note that the approximate method can also be used
to calculate TE in approach in a very similar way
o.p.c.
to that described in Section 3, with angle Dh
1(approach)
being calculated from equation (12) rewritten as ( Fig. 3)
Dh r +TE
Dh = 2(approach) b2 o.p.c.(approach)
1(approach) r
b1
(12∞)
bearing in mind that TE is negative.
o.p.c.(approach)

5 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE

SINGLE FLANK TESTER

It is possible to compare the numerical results received

Fig. 5 Geometrical quantities used in the new versions of the
expression for distance c
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
from the exact algorithm (1) to (12) against the results
of experimental measurements. Referring to Fig. 1, the
value of TE can be both measured by means of
o.p.c.max
a single flank tester and calculated theoretically for
C02798 © IMechE 1999
 GEAR TRANSMISSION ERROR OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PATH OF CONTACT 397

various increased centre distances (under zero load ). Table 1 Theoretical and measured (on single flank tester)
This can be done in the following way. values for TE for a pair of gears with 54 teeth
o.p.c.max
each, module 3.738 mm, basic rack flank angle a=
18°, outside radii r =r =105.08 mm and face
a1 a2
5.1 Theoretical calculations width 11 mm (the experiment is described in
Section 5)
The length of the normal path of contact BE can be
|TE |(mm)
found: o.p.c.max
a Difference
(mm) Theoretical Measured (mm)
BE=[√(r2 −r2 )−r tan a ]
a1 b1 b1 t
208.465 64.583 74.054 9.471
+[√(r2 −r2 )−r tan a ] (37) 208.665 74.513 81.829 7.316
a2 b2 b2 t 208.865 85.107 93.924 8.817
where a is the working pressure angle calculated using 209.065 96.367 107.314 10.947
t 209.265 108.278 121.424 13.146
equation (1). 209.465 120.831 133.326 12.495
Provided that the centre distance is large enough for 209.665 134.035 146.045 12.010
the length of the normal path of contact, BE, to be
shorter than the base pitch, p , corner contact will take
b
place. The theoretical value for TE can be calcu- values of TE can be found in Table 1 and in
o.p.c.max o.p.c.max
lated from either equations (1) to (12) or from equations Fig. 6.
(21), (24), (25), (36) and (12∞) using the iteration
method to satisfy
5.3 Comparison of the theoretical and measured results
(Dh +Dh )r =p −BE (38)
1(approach) 1(recess) b1 b
The increase in TE with centre distance is of similar
This will correspond to when the second pair of teeth o.p.c.
character for both theoretical and measured data,
‘takes over’ ( Fig. 1). The results of these calculations for although the measured values are larger than the theor-
several values of centre distance, a (giving a contact ratio etical ones by less than about 15 mm which is due to the
of less than one), for the pair of gears described in inevitable presence of corner wear. The change in TE
Section 4.2 can be found in Table 1 in the column o.p.c.
owing to corner wear is demonstrated in Fig. 7. If the
‘Theoretical results’ and are plotted in Fig. 6. corner is ‘worn’ (rounded slightly) then the contact
occurs not at point C, but at another point somewhere
5.2 Experimental measurements near C and closer to the driving gear centre, point C∞,
say, and in this case the TE is larger than that calcu-
o.p.c.
Using the single flank tester, the TE plots were measured lated for an ideally sharp corner by the distance DD∞.
for the same increased centre distances, a. The measured For the small distance CC∞, the increase in TE can
o.p.c.

Fig. 6 Theoretical and experimental values of TE for a particular gear pair

o.p.c.
C02798 © IMechE 1999 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
398 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER
Fig. 7 Change in TE in the case of a ‘worn out’ tooth
o.p.c.
be taken to be approximately equal to CC∞ (DD∞#CC∞).
There is no straightforward way to measure the corner
wear, but a value of about 7–13 mm looks reasonable.
Thus, taking into account the very high sensitivity of
TE to corner wear, it seems reasonable to conclude
o.p.c.
that the experiment agrees with the theoretical calcu-
lations very well indeed.
6 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE
BACK-TO-BACK DYNAMIC TEST RIG
Figures 8a to d show the theoretical and measured Harris
maps of a pair of spur gears with no profile relief. The
applied loads are from 19 to 517 N/mm face width
(evenly spaced ) and the geometry details are similar to
those described in Section 4.2 (number of teeth 54,
module 3.738, basic rack flank angle 18°, centre distance
203.2 mm, face width 11 mm), but the outside radius is
105.787 mm, giving a contact ratio very close to 2.
Figure 8a uses a constant tooth stiffness value and
does not include the effects of corner contact. This results
in no variation in transmission error since a contact ratio
of exactly 2 would produce no variation in mesh stiffness.
When corner contact is included (Fig. 8b) the contact
ratio is effectively increased to more than 2 owing to the
contact beyond the start and end of the path of contact,
and variation in transmission error results. From pre-
vious experimental investigations [10] the tooth pair
stiffness was found to vary from 12 N/mm mm at the
pitch point to about 9 N/mm mm at the start and end of
the path of contact, and Fig. 8c includes this variation.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
These results can be compared with actual measured
data obtained on the back-to-back dynamic test rig at
Huddersfield University using Heidenhain encoders and
a GFM computer with an accuracy of better than 1 arc s
( Fig. 8d) and the resemblance with Fig. 8c is impressive,
the slight differences in the d.c. level of each loaded curve
for theoretical and measured Harris maps being due to
bearing and other element deflections in the test rig. The
eccentricity of the gear pair also causes the low-
frequency transmission error signal level to vary, in
this case approximately 100 mm peak to peak over one
complete revolution.
7 TOP CONTACT PHENOMENON
Returning to Fig. 3, if the driving gear rotates even
further (Dh is larger) then a position could be reached
1
(provided that the next pair of teeth still does not come
into contact) where the tangent lines to the involute
tooth of the driven gear and to the top circle of the
driving gear coincide (point T in Fig. 9). This means
that further rotation of the driving gear cannot cause
any further rotation of the driven gear and the contact
point lies on the outside (top) circle of the driving gear.
This phenomenon is known as top contact. The angle of
rotation of the first gear, Dh , at which top contact starts
1
to occur can be found from Fig. 9:
r r
Dh =sin−1 b2 +a −cos−1 b1 (39)
1 a t r
a1
The calculations show that top contact could actually
take place only in gears with very few teeth. For example,
using equation (39) for, say, r =r =100 mm, r =
b1 b2 a1
105 mm and a=208 mm gives Dh =26.9°. This means
1
that in this example top contact can occur only if there
are less than 12 teeth on the driving gear.
8 SUMMARY
This paper:
(a) presents all knowledge on the corner contact
phenomenon acquired to date in a systematic order;
(b) suggests some new corrections to approximate ver-
sions of the formulae for calculating the TE that
o.p.c.
are simple to use and highly accurate;
(c) presents a comparison of the theoretical develop-
ments with experimental measurements and shows
their good agreement;
(d ) discusses a new phenomenon known as ‘top con-
tact’.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the University of Huddersfield for
providing the facilities needed for this research and
C02798 © IMechE 1999
C02798 © IMechE 1999

GEAR TRANSMISSION ERROR OUTSIDE THE NORMAL PATH OF CONTACT

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C

Fig. 8 Harris maps for a particular gear pair with a contact ratio of 2: (a) theoretical Harris maps with the TE outside the
normal path of contact not taken into account, constant tooth stiffness; (b) theoretical Harris maps with the TE
outside the normal path of contact taken into account, constant tooth stiffness; (c) theoretical Harris maps with the

399
TE outside the normal path of contact taken into account, variable tooth stiffness; (d) measured Harris maps
400 R G MUNRO, L MORRISH AND D PALMER
Fig. 9 Top contact phenomenon
Eaton Limited for financial support for one of the
authors (D.P.).
REFERENCES
1 Walker, H. Gear tooth deflection and profile modification.
The Engineer, October 1938, 410 and 435; August 1940,
102.
2 Harris, S. L. Dynamic loads on the teeth of spur gears.
Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, 1958, 172, 87–112.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 213 Part C
3 Munro, R. G. The dynamic behaviour of spur gears. PhD
thesis, Cambridge University, 1962.
4 Gregory, R. W., Harris, S. L. and Munro, R. G. Dynamic
behaviour of spur gears. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, 1963,
178, 207–226.
5 Niemann, G. and Baethge, J. Drehwegfehler, Zahn-
federharte und Gerausch bei Stirnradern. VDI-Z, 1970,
112, 205–276 and 495–499.
6 Munro, R. G., Yildirim, N. and Hall, D. M. Optimum
profile relief and transmission error in spur gears. In
Proceedings of IMechE Conference on Gearbox Noise and
Vibration, 1990, paper C404/032, pp. 35–41 (Mechanical
Engineering Publications, London).
7 Yildirim, N. Theoretical and experimental research in high
contact ratio spur gearing. PhD thesis, Huddersfield
University, 1994.
8 Munro, R. G. and Yildirim, N. Some measurements of static
and dynamic transmission errors of spur gears. In
Proceedings of International Gearing Conference, Uni-
versity of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1994, pp. 371–376.
9 Rosinski, J., Hofmann, D. A. and Pennell, J. A. Dynamic
transmission error measurements in the time domain in
high speed gears. In Proceedings of International Gearing
Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1994,
pp. 363–370.
10 Palmer, D. and Munro, R. G. Measurements of trans-
mission error, vibration and noise in spur gears. In
Proceedings of British Gear Association Technical
Congress, 2 November 1995.
11 Richardson, H. H. Static and dynamic load, stress, and
deflection cycles in spur gear systems. ScD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1958.
12 Seager, D. L. Separation of gear teeth in approach and
recess, and the likelihood of corner contact. In Proceedings
of 30th Annual Meeting of American Society of
Lubrication Engineers, May 1975.
13 Lin, H. H., Wang, J., Oswald, F. B. and Coy, J. J. Effect
of extended tooth contact on the modeling of spur gear
transmissions. Gear Technology, July/August 1994, 18–25.
C02798 © IMechE 1999