Hua Xia

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
Date:
I, ,
hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
in
It is entitled:
Student Signature:
This work and its defense approved by:
Committee Chair:
11/12/2010 1,173
2-Nov-2010
Xia Hua
Master of Science
Mechanical Engineering
Hypoid and Spiral Bevel Gear Dynamics with Emphasis on
Gear-Shaft-Bearing Structural Analysis
Teik Lim, PhD
Teik Lim, PhD
Xia Hua
Hypoid and Spiral Bevel Gear Dynamics with Emphasis on
Gear-Shaft-Bearing Structural Analysis

A thesis submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in the Program of Mechanical Engineering
of the College of Engineering and Applied Science

November 2010
by
Xia Hua

B.S. Zhejiang University of Technology, Zhejiang, P.R. China, 2007

Academic Committee Chair: Dr. Teik C. Lim
Members: Dr. Ronald Huston
Dr. David Thompson

iii
ABSTRACT

Hypoid and spiral bevel gears, used in the rear axles of cars, trucks and off-
highway equipment, are subjected to harmful dynamic response which can be
substantially affected by the structural characteristics of the shafts and bearings. This
thesis research, with a focus on gear-shaft-bearing structural analysis, is aimed to develop
effective mathematical models and advanced analytical approaches to achieve more
accurate prediction of gear dynamic response as well as to investigate the underlying
physics affecting dynamic response generation and transmissibility. Two key parts in my
thesis are discussed below.
Firstly, existing lumped parameter dynamic model has been shown to be an
effective tool for dynamic analysis of spiral bevel geared rotor system. This model is
appropriate for fast computation and convenient analysis, but due to the limited degrees
of freedom used, it may not fully take into consideration the shaft-bearing structural
dynamic characteristics. Thus, a dynamic finite element model is proposed to fully
account for the shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics. In addition, the existing equivalent
lumped parameter synthesis approach used in the lumped parameter model, which is key
to representing the shaft-bearing structural dynamic characteristics, has not been
completely validated yet. The proposed finite element model is used to guide the
validation and improvement of the current lumped parameter synthesis method using
effective mass and inertia formulations, especially for modal response that is coupled to
the pinion or gear bending response.
Secondly, a new shaft-bearing model has been proposed for the effective
supporting stiffness calculation applied in the lumped parameter dynamic analysis of the

iv
spiral bevel geared rotor system with 3-bearing straddle-mounted pinion configuration.
Also, based on 14 degrees of freedom lumped parameter dynamic model and quasi-static
three-dimensional finite element tooth contact analysis program, two typical shaft-
bearing configuration used in automotive application, that are the 3-bearing straddle
mounted pinion configuration and the 2-bearing overhung mounted pinion configuration,
are compared for their different contribution to the spiral bevel gear mesh and dynamics.
Parametric study is also performed to analyze the effect of shaft-bearing configuration on
spiral bevel gear mesh and dynamics.

v

vi
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr.
Teik C. Lim, for his guidance and support during my graduate study thus far. Also, my
gratitude is expressed to Dr. David Thompson and Dr. Ronald Huston for serving as my
master supervisory committee members. This thesis research is supported by the Hypoid
and Bevel Gear Mesh and Dynamic Modeling Consortium.
In addition, I wish to thank all my labmates at the Vibro-Acoustic and Sound
Quality Research Laboratory, University of Cincinnati for their cooperation and help.
Finally, I should thank my parents and my wife Gaoyan Shi for their love and
encouragement during my study.

vii
CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Literature Review...................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Motivation, Objectives and Thesis Organization...................................................... 4
Chapter 2. Finite Element and Enhanced Lumped Parameter Dynamic Modeling of
Spiral Bevel Geared Rotor System ..................................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Proposed Dynamic Finite Element Model ................................................................ 7
2.3 Proposed New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Method for Existing Lumped
Parameter Dynamic Model and Its Difference from the Old Lumped Parameter
Synthesis Approach ...................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Spiral Bevel Gear 14-DOF Lumped Parameter Dynamic Model .................... 13
2.3.2 Proposed New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Method in Spiral Bevel Gear ... 16
14 DOF Lumped Parameter Model........................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Difference Between Old Lumped Parameter Synthesis Approach and Proposed
New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Approach .......................................................... 28
2.4 Comparison Results and Discussions ..................................................................... 28
2.5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 35
Chapter 3. Effect of Shaft-bearing Configurations on Spiral Bevel Gear Mesh and
Dynamics .......................................................................................................................... 36
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 36
3.2 Mathematical Model ............................................................................................... 37
3.2.1 Mesh Model ..................................................................................................... 37
3.2.2 Spiral Bevel Gear 14-DOF Lumped Parameter Dynamic Model .................... 38
3.2.3 Finite Element Modeling of 3-bearing Straddle Mounted Pinion Configuration
for the Effective Lumped Stiffness Calculation........................................................ 41
3.2.4 Axial Translational Stiffness Model Refinement ............................................ 44
3.3 Comparison of 3-bearing Straddle Mounted Pinion and 2-bearing Overhung
Mounted Pinion on Gear Mesh and Dynamics ............................................................. 46
3.3.1 Analysis on Equivalent Shaft-bearing Stiffness Models and Pinions Lumped
Shaft-bearing Stiffness Matrices of Two Pinion Configurations .............................. 49
3.3.2 Comparison on Gear Dynamics ....................................................................... 52
3.3.3 Effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing Configurations on Mesh Model ................. 57
3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 70
Chapter 4. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 74

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure2.1 Dynamic finite element model of spiral bevel geared rotor system ................... 8
Figure2.2 Spiral bevel gear pair dynamic model ............................................................. 11
Figure2.3 Spiral bevel gear 14 DOF lumped parameter dynamic model ....................... 16
Figure2.4 Static finite element modeling of 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion
configuration ..................................................................................................................... 19
Figure2.5 Axial translational stiffness model ................................................................... 20
Figure2.6 A design of beam with lumped mass ................................................................ 21
Figure2.7 Beam with lumped mass model of pinion with integrated shaft ....................... 23
Figure2.8 Dynamic mesh forces ....................................................................................... 30
Figure2.9 Dynamic mesh forces ....................................................................................... 31
Figure2.10 Dynamic mesh forces ..................................................................................... 32
Figure3.1 Tooth load distribution generated from quasi-static three-dimensional finite
element tooth contact analysis program ........................................................................... 38
Figure3.2 Spiral bevel gear 14 DOF lumped parameter dynamic model ........................ 41
configuration ..................................................................................................................... 44
Figure3.4 Axial translational stiffness model ................................................................... 45
Figure3.5 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion (upper) and 2-bearing overhung mounted
pinion (lower).................................................................................................................... 49
Figure3.6 Finite element model of 3-bearing mounted pinion (left) and finite element
model of 2-bearing mounted pinion (right) ...................................................................... 52
Figure3.7 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic mesh
force .................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure3.8 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on modal strain energy
distribution ........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure3.9 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic bearing
load ................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure3.10 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on pinion response 57
Figure3.11 Effect of pilot bearing position on mesh point for 3-bearing case................. 58
Figure3.12 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh point for 3-bearing case.. 59
Figure3.13 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh point for 2-bearing case.. 60
Figure3.14 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on mesh point ....... 61
Figure3.15 Effect of pilot bearing position on line-of-action vector for 3-bearing case . 62
Figure3.16 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on line-of-action vector for 3-
bearing case ...................................................................................................................... 63
bearing case ...................................................................................................................... 64
Figure3.18 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configuration on line-of-action
vector................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure3.19 Effect of pilot bearing position on mesh stiffness for 3-bearing case ............ 66

ix
Figure3.20 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh stiffness for 3-bearing case
........................................................................................................................................... 67
........................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure3.22 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configuration on mesh stiffness .... 68
Figure3.23 Comparison on dynamic mesh force without considering the difference of
mesh stiffness .................................................................................................................... 69
Figure3.24 Comparison on dynamic mesh force considering the difference of mesh
stiffness .............................................................................................................................. 69

1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Hypoid and spiral bevel gears are widely used as final set of reduction gear pairs
in the rear axles of trucks, cars and off-highway equipment to transmit engines power to
the drive wheels in non-parallel directions. The hypoid and spiral bevel gear dynamics
becomes more and more significant for the concern of noise and durability, because
under dynamic condition the mesh force acting on gear teeth are amplified which
potentially reduces the fatigue life of gears and the large dynamic force can be
transmitted to housing which causes structure-born gear whine. Accordingly, it is needed
to perform in-depth investigation on hypoid and spiral bevel geared system dynamic
response and resonance characteristics to form a deeper understanding in the physics
controlling dynamic force generation and transmissibility to achieve superior design for
quiet and durable driveline. Though it is the fact that much is known about dynamic
characteristics in parallel axis gear system, research on the dynamics of nonparallel axis
geared systems such as hypoid and spiral bevel gears is not mature.
Most previous analytical work mainly focuses on gear mesh modeling and its
application to analyze gear pair dynamics, nonlinear time-varying gear pair dynamic
analysis considering gear backlash, time-varying mesh characteristics, mesh stiffness
asymmetry effects and friction, coupled multi-body gear pair dynamic and vibration
analysis and so on. Very little amount of attention is given to the gear-shaft-bearing
structure of the geared rotor system. The goal of this thesis is to gain a better
understanding on the effect of gear-shaft-bearing structural design on hypoid and spiral
bevel gear system dynamics and to establish new computational models more accurately
accounting for gear-shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics.

2
1.1 Literature Review
Dynamics of parallel axis geared rotor system has been studied extensively[1-14].
Papers by Ozguven and Houser[1] and Blankenship and Singh[2] provide a
comprehensive review of mathematical models used to investigate dynamics of parallel
axis geared rotor system. Among these studies, a special attention has been paid on gear-
shaft-bearing structure rather than the dynamics of the gear itself. In 1975, Mitchell and
Mellen[3] indicate the torsional-lateral coupling in a geared rotor system by conducting
experiment study. In 1981, Hagiwara, Ida[4] analytically and experimentally studied the
vibration of geared shafts due to run-out unbalanced and run-out errors and it is observed
that both torsional and lateral modes could be excited by gear errors and unbalanced
forces. In 1984, Neriya, Bhat and Sankar[5] studied the effect of coupled torsional-
flexural vibration of a geared shaft system on dynamic tooth load by using lumped
parameter dynamic model in which equivalent lumped springs were used to represent the
flexibility of shaft-bearing structure. In 1985, Neriya, Bhat and Sankar[6] used finite
element method to model the geared rotor system and introduced the coupling between
torsion and flexure at the gear pair location. In 1991, Lim and Singh[7] developed linear
time-invariant, discrete dynamic models of a generic geared rotor system based on their
newly proposed bearing matrix formulation by using lumped parameter and dynamic
finite element techniques to predict the vibration transmissibility through bearing and
mounts, casing vibration motion, and dynamic response of the internal rotating system. In
2004, Kubur and Kahraman[8] proposed a dynamic model of a multi-shaft helical gear
reduction unit formed by N flexible shafts by finite elements. This model has an accurate

3
representation of shafts and bearings as well as gears, which is used to study the influence
of some key gear-shaft-bearing structure parameters.
Though large numbers of research has been done on parallel axis gear dynamics,
the research on dynamics of right-angle geared rotor system such as bevel and hypoid
gear is still scanty. In recent years, a group led by Lim[15-19] began to develop the
dynamic model of right-angle hypoid and spiral bevel geared rotor system and analyze
the dynamic characteristics of hypoid and spiral bevel geared rotor system. In one of the
study, Cheng and Lim[15] developed the single-point gear mesh-coupling model based
on both unloaded and loaded exact gear tooth contact analysis. This mesh model is then
applied to develop multiple degrees-of-freedom, lumped parameter model of the hypoid
and spiral bevel geared rotor system for linear time-invariant and nonlinear time-varying
analysis. In 2002, Wang, H. and Lim[16] developed a multi-point gear mesh-coupling
model based on Cheng single point gear mesh-coupling model and applied it to dynamic
analysis of hypoid and spiral bevel geared rotor system. In the same year, Jiang and
Lim[17] formulated a low degrees of freedom torsional dynamic model to analyze the
nonlinear phenomenon through both analytical and numerical solutions. In 2007, based
on the low degrees of freedom torsional dynamic model, Wang, J. and Lim[18] extended
Jiangs work and further investigated the influence of time-varying mesh parameters and
various nonlinearities on gear dynamics. In 2010, through developing various more
accurate high degrees of freedom lumped parameter dynamic models, Tao and Lim[19]
examines torque load effect on gear mesh and nonlinear time-varying dynamic responses,
coupled multi-body dynamics and vibration, influence of the typical rotor dynamic factor

4
on hypoid gear vibration, effect of manufacturing error or assembly error on gear
dynamics and the interaction between internal and external excitations.

1.2 Motivation, Objectives and Thesis Organization
From above literature review, it could be observed that most of the research on
hypoid and bevel geared rotor system dynamics is concerned with gear mesh dynamics so
the flexibility of gear-shaft-bearing structure is simply represented by equivalent
supporting springs or even ignored in much study only focusing on the effect of gear
mesh characteristics. Very little attention has been paid to the detailed modeling and
analysis of gear-shaft-bearing structure for the concern of dynamics of the whole geared
rotor system. Therefore, in this thesis, an attention will be given to the gear-shaft-bearing
structural analysis to achieve more accurate prediction of gear dynamic response and to
investigate the effect of shaft and bearing design on gear dynamics.
Chapter 1 presents the general introduction, literature review, motivation and
objective for this thesis research. It discusses current progress in gear dynamics research
and the limitations of the research on hypoid and spiral bevel gear dynamics. The
discussion further illustrates the objectives of this thesis, which is to perform study on
dynamics of hypoid and spiral bevel geared rotor system with emphasis on the gear-shaft-
bearing structural modeling and analysis.
Chapter 2 proposes a finite element dynamic model of hypoid and spiral bevel
geared rotor system to fully account for dynamic characteristics of gear-shaft-bearing
structure. In addition, the proposed finite element dynamic model is used to guide the
improvement of the existing lumped parameter dynamic model using effective mass and

5
inertia formulations, especially for modal response that are coupled to the pinion or gear
bending.
Chapter 3 proposes a new shaft-bearing model for the effective supporting
stiffness calculation for the lumped parameter dynamic analysis of the hypoid and spiral
bevel geared rotor system with 3-bearing straddle-mounted pinion configuration. In
addition, two typical gear-shaft-bearing configurations used in automotive application are
compared for their different contribution to the hypoid and spiral bevel gear mesh and
dynamics. Parametric study is also performed to analyze the effect of gear-shaft-bearing
configuration on gear mesh and dynamics.
Chapter 4 gives a summary of the significant achievement of this thesis research
and the recommendations for future work.

6
Chapter 2. Finite Element and Enhanced Lumped Parameter Dynamic
Modeling of Spiral Bevel Geared Rotor System

2.1 Introduction
Along with the operating speed of geared rotor system growing higher, the
dynamics of geared system becomes more and more significant for the concern of noise
and durability, because under dynamic condition the mesh force acting on gear teeth are
amplified which potentially reduces the fatigue life of gears and the large dynamic force
can be transmitted to housing which causes structure-born gear whine.
Dynamics of gear systems have been studied extensively [1-14]. Though it is the
fact that much is known about dynamic characteristics in parallel axis gear system,
research on the dynamics of nonparallel axis geared systems such as hypoid and spiral
bevel gears is not mature. In recent years, a group led by Lim [15-19] began to develop
the dynamic model of spiral bevel geared rotor system and analyze the dynamic
characteristics of spiral bevel geared rotor system. In one of the study, Cheng and Lim
[15] developed the single-point gear mesh-coupling model based on the exact spiral bevel
gear geometry. This mesh model is then applied to develop multiple degrees-of-freedom,
lumped parameter model of the spiral bevel geared rotor system. Later, based on this
model, Tao and Lim [19] investigated the influence of various gear system parameters on
dynamic characteristics of the spiral bevel geared rotor system. However, due to limited
degrees of freedom, the lumped parameter model may not fully take into account the
shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics and also the lumped parameter synthesis method
used in this model is not mature.

7
In this paper, two modeling methods of spiral bevel geared rotor dynamic system,
i.e. the finite element dynamic modeling and the enhanced equivalent lumped parameter
synthesis, are introduced and compared. This first objective of this paper is to develop a
dynamic finite element model which could better take into account and describe the
shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics than the multiple degrees-of-freedom, lumped
parameter dynamic model [15]. The second objective is to develop a more accurate
lumped point parameter synthesis method fully considering the shaft-bearing structural
characteristics in existing lumped parameter model [15] and compare with the proposed
dynamic finite element model.

2.2 Proposed Dynamic Finite Element Model
As shown in Figure2.1, the mass/inertia of the pinion head and ring gear is
separately lumped at one node and the two nodes have mesh coupling between them.
The mass/inertia of the differential is lumped at one node. The pinion shaft and gear shaft
are modeled with beam elements, for which consistent mass matrix is used. The bearings
are modeled as stiffness matrices according to a bearing stiffness formulation[21,22]. The
engine and load are separately represented by one node. All nodes of the system
respectively have 6 DOFs except for the two nodes representing the engine and load
which only have torsional DOFs. The system totally has 17 nodes and accordingly
92 2 * 1 15 * 6 = + DOFs.

8

Figure2.1 Dynamic finite element model of spiral bevel geared rotor system

The stiffness and mass matrices of each beam element are determined and
assembled to form stiffness ] [
sp
K and mass ] [
sp
M matrices of pinion shaft and stiffness
] [
sg
K and mass ] [
sg
M matrices of gear shaft. Overall shaft stiffness and mass matrices
of the system are then assembled as ] ] [ ] [[ ] [
sg sp s
K K Diag K = and
]. ] [ ] [[ ] [
sg sp s
M M Diag M =
The engine and load are separately connected to one node at pinion shaft and one
node at gear shaft with torsional springs. The stiffness matrices of the torsional spring
elements used to connect the engine and pinion shaft and to connect the load and gear

9
shaft could be written in terms of individual torsional spring stiffness as ] [
tsp
K and ] [
tsg
K ,
both of which are 7 by 7. The overall stiffness matrices of torsional spring elements of
the whole system could be written as ]]. [ ] [ [ ] [
tsg tsp ts
K K Diag K = The overall mass
matrices of engine and load of the whole system could be written in terms of torsional
moment of inertia of engine and load
L E
I I , as ]. [ ] [
, L E L E
I I Diag M =
In industry, pinion shaft is usually supported by 2 or 3 bearings and gear shaft is
usually supported by 2 bearings. Suppose that the system has a total of n bearings, the
overall bearing stiffness matrix of the whole system could be written by assembling the
individual bearing element stiffness matrices ) 1 ]( [ n to i K
bi
= as
]. ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ [ ] [
3 2 1

bn b b b b
K K K K K =
The gear stiffness coupling matrix which represents the mesh coupling between
the two nodes representing pinion head and ring gear could be derived from the free
vibration equations of motion of spiral bevel gear pair. The dynamic model of the spiral
bevel gear pair is shown in Figure2.2. The pinion and gear, which are both built as rigid
body, are connected by linear gear mesh spring and damper. Using a quasi-static three-
dimensional finite element tooth contact analysis program[23,24] and concept of contact
cells[15], the averaged mesh point, averaged line-of-action, averaged mesh stiffness and
loaded transmission error are obtained to represent the mesh spring connecting point,
mesh spring direction , mesh spring stiffness and transmission error excitation between
pinion and gear. Pinion and gear are both allowed to move in 6 directions so the gear pair
dynamic system totally has 12 degrees of freedom. The generalized coordinates of pinion
and gear are separately expressed as

10
T
gz gy gx g g g pz py px p p p pg
z y x z y x q } , , , , , , , , , , , { } { u u u u u u = . The undamped free vibration
equations of motion for this gear pair dynamic system could be expressed as:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
= +
=
=
=
gm gx m gm gy m gz gz
gm gz m gm gx m gy gy
gm gy m gm gz m gx gx
gz m g g
gy m g g
gx m g g
pm px m pm py m pz pz
pm pz m pm px m py py
pm py m pm pz m px px
pz m p p
py m p p
px m p p
y pn k x pn k I
x pn k z pn k I
z pn k y pn k I
pn k z m
pn k y m
pn k x m
y pn k x pn k I
x pn k z pn k I
z pn k y pn k I
pn k z m
pn k y m
pn k x m
u
u
u
u
u
u

(1)
where, ) , , (
lz ly lx
n n n is the line-of-action vector, ) , , (
lm lm lm
z y x ) , ( q p l = is the
mesh point vector. q p l , = refers to pinion and gear local coordinate systems
respectively.
m
k is mesh stiffness. p is relative displacement between pinion and gear
along line-of-action and is expressed as:
px pm pz py pm pz pz pm py px pm py
py pm px pz pm px pz p py p px p gx gm gz gy gm gz
gz gm gy gx gm gy gy gm gx gz gm gx gz g gy g gx g
n y n x n x n z
n z n y n z n y n x n y n x
n x n z n z n y n z n y n x p
u u u u
u u u u
u u u u
+ +
+ +
+ + + + =
(2)
Combining equations (1-2), a clearer equation of motion could be obtained as:
0 } ]{ [ } ]{ [ = +
pg pg pg pg
q k q m (3)
here,
] , , , , , , , , , , , [ ] [
gz gy gx g g g pz py px p p p pg
I I I m m m I I I m m m diag m = (4)

11
=
} { } { } { } {
} { } { } { } {
] [
g
T
g m p
T
g m
g
T
p m p
T
p m
pg
h h k h h k
h h k h h k
k (5)
Here, } {
p
h and } {
g
h are the coordinate transformation vectors between the spiral
bevel gear line-of-action direction and generalized coordinate directions for pinion and
gear separately. They are expressed as:
) , ( } , , , , , { } { q p l n n n h
lz ly lx lz ly lx l
= = ,

(6)

) , ( } , , - { } , , { q p l n y n x n x n z n z n y
lx l ly l lz l lx l ly l lz l lz ly lx
= = . (7)

Figure2.2 Spiral bevel gear pair dynamic model

The gear mesh stiffness matrix ] [
pg
k and the mass matrix ] [
pg
m of the gear pair
can be obtained from Equations (3-7). The overall gear mesh stiffness and mass matrices
of the whole system could be obtained as ] ] [ [ ] [
pg pg
k Diag K = and
] ] [ [ ] [
pg pg
m Diag M = .

12
The mass and stiffness matrices of the whole dynamic finite element system are
derived as ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
,L E s pg
M M M M + + = , ]. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [
ts b s pg
K K K K K + + + =
The system proportional damping is assumed in this model as
] [ ]) [ ] [ ] ([ ] [
pg m ts b s s
K K K K C . . + + + = (8)
where,
s
. is the system damping ratio,
m
. is the mesh damping ratio.
The excitation of the whole system could be written as
) ( ) ( ] } { } { [ )} ( { t e j c k h h t F
m m
T
g p
+ =

(9)
The equation of motion of the whole spiral bevel geared rotor system could be
expressed as
)} ( { )} ( ]{ [ )} ( ]{ [ )} ( ]{ [ t F t X K t X C t X M = + +

. (10)
The direct method is applied here to calculate the steady state forced response as
)} ( { )] ( [ )} ( {
1
t F H t X

= e . (11)
The dynamic response of pinion head and ring gear could be derived from ) (t X as
{ }. { },
g p
X X The dynamic transmission error is expressed as
}. }{ { } }{ {
g g p p d
X h X h = o
(12)
The dynamic mesh force in line-of-action direction is expressed as
) ( ) (
0 0
c o c o
+ =
d m d m m
c k F
.

(13)

where,
m
k is mesh stiffness;
m m m
k c . = is mesh damping;
0
c is loaded
transmission error.
The given spiral bevel geared rotor system in Figure2.1 is an example used to
explain proposed dynamic finite element modeling theory. The same theory could be

13
applied to spiral bevel geared rotor system with other kinds of pinion or gear
configurations.

2.3 Proposed New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Method for Existing Lumped
Parameter Dynamic Model and Its Difference from the Old Lumped Parameter
Synthesis Approach
2.3.1 Spiral Bevel Gear 14-DOF Lumped Parameter Dynamic Model
The spiral bevel gear 14-DOF lumped parameter dynamic model[15] used in
this study comprises of a spiral bevel gear pair, an engine element and a load element
as shown in Figure2.3. Engine and load respectively have 1 DOF which is torsional
coordinate. Pinion and gear are both modeled as rigid body which separately have 6
DOFs. Torsional springs are used to connect pinion and engine as well as to attach
gear and load. Pinion and gear have mesh coupling.
m
k is the averaged mesh stiffness
and TE is the static transmission error. Since pinion and gear are built as rigid body,
their mass and inertia are lumped at each lumped point. Lumped shaft-bearing springs
are connected to each lumped point of pinion and gear to support pinion and gear.
The equation of motion could be expressed as:
)} ( { } ]{ [ } ]{ [ } ]{ [ t F q K q C q M = + +

(14)
The generalized coordinates are expressed as:
T
L
T
g
T
p E
q q q } , } { , } { , { } { u u =
(15)

T
lz ly lx l l l l
z y x q } , , , , , { } {
.
u u u =

(l = p, g) . (16)

The lumped mass matrix is described as:

14
] , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , [ ] [
L gz gy gx gz gy gx
pz py px pz py px E
I I I I M M M
I I I M M M I diag M =

(17)

]] [ ] [[ ] ] [ [ ] ] [ [ ] [
tsg tsp pg ll
K K Diag K Diag K Diag K + + =

(18)

Here, ] [
ll
K is the lumped shaft-bearing stiffness matrix of pinion and gear.
] [
pg
K is the gear mesh coupling stiffness matrix. ] [
tsp
K is the coupling stiffness
matrix of the torsional spring used to connect pinion and engine. ] [
tsg
K is the
coupling stiffness matrix of the torsional spring used to connect gear and load.
The damping [C] is assumed to be system proportional, which is expressed as:
] ] [ [ ]]) [ ] [[ ] ] [ [ ( ] [
pg m tsg tsp ll s
K Diag K K Diag K Diag C . . + + =

(19)

where
s
. is system damping ratio and
m
. is mesh damping ratio.
The force vector )} ( { t F at the right side of Equation (14) is,
) ( ) ( ] } { }, { [ )} ( { t e j c k h h t F
m m
T
g p
+ =

(20)

Here,

} {
p
h

and } {
g
h are the coordinate transformation vectors between the
spiral bevel gear line-of-action direction and generalized coordinate directions for
pinion and gear separately. They are expressed as,

} , , , , , { } {
lz ly lx lz ly lx l
n n n h =
, (21)

} , , - { } , , {
n y n x n x n z n z n y = . (22)

Here {n
lx
, n
ly
, n
lz
} is the line-of-action vector; {x
l
, y
l
, z
l
} is the mesh point
vector; l = p, g refers to pinion and gear local coordinate systems seperately.
The dynamic transmission error
d
is solved in frequency domain and
expressed as,

15
} { } {
g g p p d
q h q h = o

. (23)
The dynamic mesh force along line-of-action direction is expressed as:
) ( ) (
0 0
c o c o
+ =
d m d m m
c k F
.
(24)

Here,
m
k is mesh stiffness;
m m m
k c . = is mesh damping;
0
c is loaded
transmission error.
The deficiency of this model lies in that it is a lack of a fully validated method
to synthesize the lumped point parameters, i.e. the lumped shaft-bearing stiffness
matrix ] [
ll
K , lumped mass/inertia of pinion
pz py px pz py px
I I I M M M , , , , , and lumped
mass/inertia of gear
gz gy gx gz gy gx
I I I M M M , , , , , , which is key to representing shaft-
bearing structural dynamic characteristics. It may cause inaccurate dynamic response
prediction if the lumped point parameters are not well determined.

16

Figure2.3 Spiral bevel gear 14 DOF lumped parameter dynamic model

2.3.2 Proposed New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Method in Spiral Bevel Gear
14 DOF Lumped Parameter Model
The basic idea of proposed lumped parameter synthesis method is to
approximate the continuous parameter models of pinion and gear to lumped
parameter models while having the same 1
st
order pinion and gear bending modes.
2.3.2.1 Equivalent Lumped Shaft-bearing Stiffness Calculation
Static finite element model of 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion
configuration is shown in Figure2.4. The reason to do this static finite element

17
modeling is to calculate the pinions equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness relative to
the lumped point. The pinion with integrated shaft is modeled with several
uniform cross-section beam elements. Bearing is modeled as bearing stiffness
matrix calculated following a bearing stiffness formula[21,22].
Add a unit load at lumped point and then the equation for this static finite
element model could be expressed as:
| | } { } { } { A = + S R P (25)
Here,{P} represents the external load exerted at all the nodes; {R}
represents the reaction load at all the nodes; [S] is the assembled stiffness matrix;
{ A} represents the displacements of all the nodes.
A more detailed equation could be drawn from (25) as:
)
`
A
A
)
`
)
`
S
F
SS SF
FS FF
S
F
S
F
S S
S S
R
R
P
P
(26)
Here, P
F
means the external load exerted at the nodes at the part of pinion
with integrated shaft. P
S
means the external load at the nodes at the bearing outer
races. R
F
represents the reaction load at the nodes at the part of pinion with
integrated shaft. R
S
represents the reaction load at the nodes at the bearing outer
races.
F
A represents the displacement of the nodes at the part of pinion with
integrated shaft.
S
A represents the displacement of the nodes at the bearing outer
races.
Since the reaction load is only exerted at the nodes at the bearing outer
races and the nodes at the bearing outer races are fixed, R
F
and
S
A in equation (26)
could be set to be zeros,

18
)
`
A
)
`
)
`
0
0
F
SS SF
FS FF
S S
F
S S
S S
R P
P
.
(27)
Thus, (28) could be drawn from (27) as:
{ } | | { }
F FF F
P S
1
= A .

(28)
The lumped point displacement {
l
1
A } could be got from {
F
A }. The
relationship among the unit external load at the lumped point {
l
P
1

}, the
displacement of the lumped point{
l
1
A } and the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness
relative to the lumped point ] [
ll
K could be expressed as:
| | } { } {
1 1
l ll l
K P A = . (29)
Following above procedure, by adding a unit load in other five directions
separately to the lumped point, the lumped point displacements corresponding to
each unit load could be calculated and obtained, which are written as
) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( } { = A i
l
i
. The unit load at the lumped point in each of other 5 directions
could be written as } { ) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( = i P
l
i
. Similarly, the following formulation
could be obtained as:
| | ) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( } { } { = A = i K P
l
i
ll l
i
(30)
Combining (29) and (30),
] ][ [ ] [
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
l l l l l l ll l l l l l l
K P P P P P P A A A A A A = (31)
So, the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness relative to the lumped point
] [
ll
K could be calculated as:
1
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
] ][ [ ] [

A A A A A A =
l l l l l l l l l l l l ll
P P P P P P K (32)

19

configuration

However, the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness calculated from static
finite element model may not accurately describe the equivalent axial translational
stiffness. So the axial translational stiffness model of 3-bearing straddle mounted
pinion configuration shown in Figure2.5 is developed in order to refine the axial
translational stiffness described by equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness ] [
ll
K
calculated from static finite element model. In Figure2.5, K
b1
and K
b2
are axial
translational stiffness of bearing1 and bearing2. K
s1
is shaft axial stiffness from
load point to center of bearing1. K
s2
is shaft axial stiffness from center of bearing1
to center of bearing2. K
c
is additional cascade stiffness with bearing2 to represent
the shaft-bolt-york between the center of bearing2 and inner race of bearing2. K
hb

is housing bolt stiffness.

20

Figure2.5 Axial translational stiffness model

The axial translation stiffness of ] [
ll
K calculated from static FE model
does not take K
c
and K
hb
into account. The refinement should be made according
to Figure2.5 in the following way. Before doing finite element calculation, the
cascade stiffness K
s3
should be added into the axial translation stiffness of
bearing2 K
b2.
After doing static finite element modeling, the temporary equivalent
shaft-bearing stiffness is obtained. Then the temporary equivalent shaft-bearing
stiffness should add K
hb
into its axial translation stiffness to get the eventual

21
equivalent lumped shaft-bearing stiffness of the 3-bearing straddle mounted
pinion.
The equivalent lumped shaft-bearing stiffness of other pinion and gear
configurations could be calculated in the similar way[19].
2.3.2.2 Effective Lumped Mass and Inertia Calculation
The first step is to generate the first bending mode shape functions of
pinion with integrated shaft and gear with integrated shaft. The Initial Parameter
Method[20] used in this paper to calculate first bending mode shape function is
described using the coordinate system I defined below as Figure 2.6. This method
has been proved to be valid for dynamical calculation for beam with arbitrary
peculiarities and different boundary conditions.

Figure2.6 A design of beam with lumped mass

In Figure 2.6., the dotted line at y=0 which is the left end represents an
arbitrary type of support. Transverse displacement
0
z , angle of rotation
0
m ,
bending moment
0
M and shear force
0
Q at y=0 are called initial parameters.
State parameters transverse displacement z(y), angle of rotation ) ( y m , bending

22
moment ) ( y M , shear force ) ( y Q at any position y may be presented in the
following forms (Bezukhov et al, 1969; Babakov, 1965; Ivovich, 1981)[20].
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
+ + + =

)] ( [ )] ( [ )] ( [
1 1
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
2
2
2
3
0
2
0 0 0
i i i i i i i i
y y k U J y y k V z M
k
y y k V R
k EI k
EI k
ky V
Q
EI k
ky U
M
k
ky T
ky S z y z
m e
e
m
(33)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
+ + + =

)] ( [ )] ( [ )] ( [
1 1
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
2
0 0 0 0
i i i i i i i i
y y k T J y y k U z M
k
y y k U R
k kEI
EI k
ky U
Q
kEI
ky T
M ky S k ky V z y
m e
e
m m
(34)

+ +
+ + + =
)] ( [ )] ( [ )] ( [
1
) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
0 0 0
2
0
i i i i i i i i
y y k S J y y k T z M
k
y y k U R
k
k
ky T
Q ky S M EIk ky V EIk ky U z y M
m e
e
m
(35)

+ +
+ + + =
)] ( [ )] ( [ )] ( [
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 2
0 0
2
0
3
0
i i i i i i i i
y y k V J k y y k S z M y y k S R
ky S Q k ky V M EIk ky U EIk ky T z y Q
m e e
m
(36)
Where M
i
= lumped masses (note: M
0
= bending moment at x=0)
J
i
=

moment of inertia of a lumped mass
R
i
=concentrated force (active or reactive)
y
i
= distance between origin and point of application R
i
or M
i
z
i
,
i
m = vertical displacement and slope at point where lumped
mass M
i
is located
S(y), T(y), U(y), V(y) = Krylov-Duncan functions

23

) sin (sinh
2
1
) (
) cos (cosh
2
1
) (
) sin (sinh
2
1
) (
) cos (cosh
2
1
) (
ky ky ky V
ky ky ky U
ky ky ky T
ky ky ky S
=
=
+ =
+ =

k=
4
2
e
EI
m
, m is line density of the uniform beam, e is radian
natural frequency, E is Youngs Modulus, I is rotary inertia of the cross-sectional
area.
This theory could generally be applied to the pinion and gear of spiral
bevel geared rotor system. Here, take an overhung mounted and simply supported
pinion for example as Figure 2.7. The pinion is modeled as a uniform beam with a
lumped mass at the lumped point a.

Figure2.7 Beam with lumped mass model of pinion with integrated shaft

24
Accordingly, transverse displacement z(y), angle of rotation ) ( y m ,
bending moment ) ( y M , shear force ) ( y Q at any position y of the pinion model
shown in Figure2.7 could be expressed by using the Initial Parameter Method[20]
as:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
+ + + =
)] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
1
)] ( [
1
)] ( [
1 1
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
2
2
2
2 1 2
3 0 2 0 0 0
a y k U a J a y k V a Mz
k EI k
c y k V R
k
b y k V R
k EI k
EI k
ky V
Q
EI k
ky U
M
k
ky T
ky S z y z
m e
e
m
(37)
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
+ + + =
)] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
1
)] ( [
1
)] ( [
1 1
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
2 1
2 0 0 0 0
a y k T a J a y k U a Mz
k kEI
c y k U R
k
b y k U R
k kEI
EI k
ky U
Q
kEI
ky T
M ky S k ky V z y
m e
e
m m
(38)
)] ( [ ) (
)] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
1
)] ( [
1
) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
2 1
0 0 0
2
0
a y k S a J
a y k T a Mz
k
c y k U R
k
b y k U R
k
k
ky T
Q ky S M EIk ky V EIk ky U z y M

+ + +
+ + + =
m e
e
m
(39)
)] ( [ ) (
)] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ )] ( [
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
2 1
0 0
2
0
3
0
a y k V a kJ
a y k S a Mz c y k S R b y k S R
ky S Q k ky V M EIk ky U EIk ky T z y Q

+ + +
+ + + =
m e
e
m
(40)
The boundary condition could be described as:
0 ) ( ; 0 ) ( ; 0 ) ( ; 0 ) ( ; 0 ; 0
0 0
= = = = = = d Q d M c z b z Q M .
Substitute the boundary condition into (37-40) and get the following
equation.

25
0 )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
1
) (
) ( ) (
2
2
2
0 0
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ =
a b k U a J a b k V a z M
k EI k
k
kb T
kb S z b z
m e
e
m
(41)
0 )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
1
1 ) (
) ( ) (
2
2
1
2
0 0
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ + =
a c k U a J a c k V a z M
k
b c k V R
k
EI k k
kc T
kc S z c z
m e
e
m
(42)
0 )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
1
)] ( [
1
) ( ) ( ) (
2
2
2
1 0
2
0
= + +
+ + =
a d k S a J a d k T a z M
k
c d k T R
k
b d k T R
k
kd EIkV kd U EIk z d M
m e
e
m
(43)
0 )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
)] ( [ ) ( ) ( ) (
2 2
2
1
2
0
3
0
= + +
+ + =
a d k V a kJ a d k S a z M c d k S R
b d k S R kd U EIk kd T EIk z d Q
m e e
m
(44)
Displacement and angle of rotation at y=a are expressed as:
k
ka T
ka S z a z
) (
) ( ) (
0 0
m + = (45)
) ( ) ( ) (
0 0
ka S k ka V z a m m + = (46)
Therefore, the homogeneous system of equations is obtained. If and only
if the following determinant, which represents the frequency domain, is zero, the
system has a non-trivial solution.
0 ] [
4 3 2 1
=
T
r r r r (47)
where,

26
T
ka S a b k JU
EI k
ka T a b k MV
EI k k
kb T
ka V a b k JU
kEI
ka S a b k MV
EI k
kb S
r
+
+
=
0
0
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
) (
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
e e
e e
(48)
T
EI k
b c k V
ka S a c k JU
EI k
ka T a c k MV
EI k k
kc T
ka V a c k JU
kEI
ka S a c k MV
EI k
kc S
r
+
+
=
0
)] ( [
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [
) (
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
3
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
e e
e e
(49)
T
c d k T
k
b d k T
k
ka S a d k JS ka T a d k T
k
M
kd EIkV
ka V a d k JS
k
ka S a d k MT
kd U EIk
r
+
=
)] ( [
1
)] ( [
1
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
) ( )] ( [
) ( )] ( [
) (
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
e
e
e
e
(50)
T
c d k S
b d k S
ka S a d k kJV
k
ka T a d k MS
kd U EIk
ka V a d k JV k ka S a d k MS kd T EIk
r
+
+
=
)] ( [
)] ( [
) ( )] ( [
) ( )] ( [
) (
) ( )] ( [ ) ( )] ( [ ) (
2
2
2
2 2 2 3
4
e
e
e e
(51)
Multiple solutions of k which are expressed as k
1
, k
2
, k
3
, k
4
, k
5
could be
solved from above equation. k
1,
the smallest value of k, is for the first bending
mode. Substitute the value of k
1
to the equation. After cleaning, then
0
z ,
1
R ,
2
R

27
could be expressed in terms of
0
m . Substitute the relationship ), (
0 0
m f z =
) ( ), (
0 2 0 1
m m f R f R = = to (37,38) to solve mode shape function z(y), ) ( y m .
Then according to balance of kinetic energy at the first bending mode, the
first equation could be expressed as:
) ( 5 . 0 ) ( 5 . 0
) ( 5 . 0 ) ( 5 . 0 ) ( ) ( 5 . 0
2 2
2 2 2
0
a I a z M
a J a z M dy y z y m
effective effective
d
m
m
+ =
+ +
(52)
Where,
effective
M and
effective
I are pinions effective mass and effective
moment of inertia that need to be solved.
As for the model in Figure2.7, the lumped stiffness relative to Point a and
the first bending natural frequency could be obtained as
2 2
] [
a
K and
1
e . As the
continuous parameter model in Figure2.7 and its equivalent 2DOF lumped
parameter model should have the same first bending nature frequency
1
e . The
second equation could be expressed according to
1
e as:
0
0
0
] [
2
1
=
effective
effective
a
I
M
K e (53)
According to equation (52) and (53), the effective mass
effective
M and
effective moment of inertia
effective
I could be obtained.
Then, in equation (17), the lumped mass and inertia of pinion could be
express as:
effective pz px
M M M = = ,
effective pz px
I I I = = (54)
total py
M M = ,
torsion py
J I = (55)

28
Where,
total
M is the total mass of pinion.
torsion
J is the torsional moment of
inertia of pinion. Note, x is in horizontal direction, y is in axial direction, z is in
vertical direction.
torsion total
J M , are directly used for
py py
I M , since pinion does not have
torsional and axial translational deformation when the geared rotor system is
excited at relatively low frequency.
The lumped mass and inertia of pinion or gear with other kinds of
configurations could also be calculated by following the procedure above, which
is not explained in detail here.
2.3.3 Difference Between Old Lumped Parameter Synthesis Approach and Proposed
New Lumped Parameter Synthesis Approach
The new lumped parameter synthesis approach and the old lumped parameter
synthesis approach have the same process of equivalent lumped shaft-bearing
stiffness calculation. While, the old lumped synthesis approach simply treats the total
mass/inertia of pinion or gear as lumped mass/inertia, and by contrast, the new
lumped synthesis approach calculates and uses the effective mass/inertia of pinion or
gear as the lumped mass/inertia.

2.4 Comparison Results and Discussions
First of all, by using exactly the same spiral bevel geared rotor system, the
proposed finite element dynamic model and the old lumped parameter dynamic model are
compared on dynamic mesh force. Three different cases are taken for example here. In
Case 1, pinion and gear are both overhung mounted and simply supported, which

29
corresponds to Figure2.8. In Case 2, pinion and gear are both overhung mounted and
flexibly supported, which corresponds to Figure2.9. In Case 3, pinion is straddle mounted
and flexibly supported while gear is overhung mounted and flexibly supported, which
corresponds to Figure2.10.
From the comparison results, it could be easily observed that dynamic mesh
forces of two models are different at some modes. In Figure2.8, dynamic responses
cannot match at Mode a and Mode b, and by observing the mode shapes of Mode a and
Mode b of old lumped parameter model, Mode a and Mode b are both coupled to
component 5 and 7, which are pinion bending components. In Figure2.9, Mode a, Mode b
and Mode c of old lumped parameter model fail to match finite element dynamic model.
The mode shapes of the three modes show that they are all coupled to pinion bending,
which are represented by component 5 and 7. In Figure2.10, Mode a of old lumped
parameter model matches very well with finite element model while Mode b and Mode c
of old lumped parameter model show certain discrepancy with finite element model. It
could be observed from the mode shapes that Mode a is not coupled to pinion bending
represented by component 5&7 or to gear bending represented by component 11&13,
Mode b is coupled to large pinion bending and Mode c is coupled to large gear bending.
Three cases show the same phenomenon that dynamic responses of finite element
dynamic model and old lumped parameter dynamic model may not match well at the
modes that are coupled to pinion bending or gear bending.

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

Figure2.8 Dynamic mesh forces
, dynamic finite element model
, old equivalent lumped parameter model

a
b
a. b.

31

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

, old equivalent lumped parameter model
a
a.
b c
b. c.

32

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

,old equivalent lumped parameter model

Figure2.11, Figure2.12 and Figure2.13 show the comparison of finite element
model and new lumped parameter model on dynamic mesh force separately for Case 1,
a b c
a. b. c.

33
Case 2 and Case 3. All of the three cases show that two models have reasonably close
dynamic responses. Especially at low frequency, two models almost show perfect match.
In the old lumped parameter model, the lumped parameter synthesis method
simply treats total mass/inertia as lumped mass/inertia which leads to inaccurate
representation of shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics and leads to inaccurate modal
responses that are coupled to pinion or gear bending. In the new lumped parameter
model, by using the effective mass/inertia instead of total mass/inertia, the shaft-bearing
dynamic characteristics is more accurately considered and the modal responses that are
coupled to pinion or gear first bending show better match with finite element dynamic
model.
However, at higher frequency range, finite element dynamic model and new
lumped parameter dynamic model still show certain minor discrepancies which may be
caused by the following reasons.
(a). The process to calculate effective lumped shaft-bearing stiffness and effective
mass/inertia may not be perfect, in which minor computational errors may exist.
(b). Since new lumped parameter synthesis approach is developed based on the
first bending mode of pinion and gear, the new lumped parameter model cannot
accurately predict modes that are coupled to more complicated pinion or gear bending at
relatively high frequency range.

34
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Dynamic Mesh Force
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

, equivalent lumped parameter model

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Dynamic Mesh Force
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)


35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
10
-1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
Frequency(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)


2.5 Conclusion
A finite element dynamic model of spiral bevel geared rotor system is proposed in
this study, which could better account for shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics than
existing lumped parameter model. The finite element dynamic model is also used to
provide guide and reference for the enhancement of equivalent lumped parameter
synthesis theory to be used in existing lumped parameter model. Dynamic responses of
two models have been compared and show good consistency at relatively low frequency.
Both models could be used not only to predict the dynamic response of the spiral bevel
geared rotor system, but also to help engineers figure out the best designs from the
viewpoint of vibration and noise.

36
Chapter 3. Effect of Shaft-bearing Configurations on Spiral Bevel Gear
Mesh and Dynamics

3.1 Introduction
Dynamics of gear systems have been studied extensively [1-19]. It is known that
spiral bevel gear dynamics may not be accurately predicted by ignoring the flexible
components such as shafts and bearings. In industry, different kinds of shaft-bearing
configurations of rear axles exist. For example, pinion could be overhung mounted with 2
bearings which is typically used in light or medium duty rear axle, while pinion could
also be straddle mounted with 3 bearings which is typically used in the heavy duty rear
axle. The effect of shaft-bearing configurations on spiral bevel gear mesh and dynamics
therefore needs attention. In this study, a new shaft-bearing model has been proposed for
the effective supporting stiffness calculation for the lumped parameter dynamic analysis
of the spiral bevel geared rotor system with 3-bearing straddle-mounted pinion
configuration. Also, the 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion configuration and the 2-
bearing overhung mounted pinion configuration are compared on dynamic
characteristics, i.e. natural frequency, dynamic mesh force and dynamic bearing force,
and on mesh model parameters, i.e., mesh point, line-of-action vector, mesh stiffness,
using 14-DOF lumped parameter dynamic model and quasi-static three-dimensional
finite element tooth contact analysis program. Moreover, parametric study of bearing
position and bearing type is performed to analyze the effect of shaft-bearing
configuration on spiral bevel gear mesh and dynamics.

37
3.2 Mathematical Model
3.2.1 Mesh Model
Mesh model is the basis of the spiral bevel gear dynamic model. The key step
to develop the spiral bevel gear dynamic system is to effectively model the gear pair
meshing relationship. In this paper, a theory[15] of synthesizing the lumped mesh
model based on the tooth load distributions generated from quasi-static three-
dimensional finite element tooth contact analysis program[23,24] is applied to
calculate the mesh point, line-of-action vector, mesh stiffness and static transmission
error.
The contact zone shown in Figure3.1 is divided into N grids. For each grid i, r
i

(r
ix
, r
iy
, r
iz
) is the position vector; n
i
(n
ix
, n
iy
, n
iz
) is the normal vector; f
i
is the load.
Static mesh force could be computed as:
2 2 2
1 1 1
, , ,
z y x total i
N
i
iz z i
N
i
iy y i
N
i
ix x
F F F F f n F f n F f n F + + = = = =

= = =
. (1)
The line-of-action vector could be calculated as:
total z z total y y total x x
F F n F F n F F n / , / , / = = = . (2)
The mesh position could be calculated as:
x z y y x z N
i
i
i
N
i
iy
F x F M z F y F M x
f
f r
y / ) ( , / ) ( ,
1
1
+ = + = =
=
=
(3)
where, | | | |
iy ix ix iy
N
i
i z ix iz iz ix
N
i
i y
r n r n f M r n r n f M = =

= = 1 1
, .
The mesh stiffness could be expressed as:
( )
0
/ c =
L total m
e F k (4)

38
where, e
L
is loaded translation transmission error and
0
c is unloaded translation
transmission error.

Figure3.1 Tooth load distribution generated from quasi-static three-dimensional finite
element tooth contact analysis program

3.2.2 Spiral Bevel Gear 14-DOF Lumped Parameter Dynamic Model
The spiral bevel gear 14-DOF lumped parameter dynamic model[15] used in
this study comprises of a spiral bevel gear pair, an engine element and a load element
as shown in Figure3.2 Engine and load respectively have 1 DOF which is torsional
coordinate. Pinion and gear are both modeled as rigid body which separately have 6
DOFs. Torsional springs are used to connect pinion and engine as well as to attach
gear and load. Pinion and gear have mesh coupling. K
m
is the mesh stiffness and TE is
the static transmission error, which are actually time-varying. Since pinion and gear
are built as rigid body, their mass and inertia are lumped at each lumped point.

39
Lumped shaft-bearing springs are connected to each lumped point of pinion and gear
to support pinion and gear. The equation of motion could be expressed as:
} { } ]{ [ } ]{ [ } ]{ [ F q K q C q M = + +

. (5)

The generalized coordinates are expressed as:
T
L
T
g
T
p E
q q q } , , , { } { u u =

, (6)

T
lz ly lx l l l l
z y x q } , , , , , { } {
.
u u u =

(l = p, g)

. (7)

The mass matrix and stiffness matrix are described as:
] , , , , , , , , , , , , , [ ] [
L gz gy gx g g g pz py px p p p E
I I I I M M M I I I M M M I diag M =

,

]] [ ] [[ ] ] [ [ ] [
tsg tsp ll
K K Diag K Diag K + =

(8)

] [
tsp
K is the coupling stiffness matrix of the torsional spring used to connect
pinion and engine. ] [
tsg
K is the coupling stiffness matrix of the torsional spring used
to connect gear and load. ] [
ll
K is the lumped shaft-bearing stiffness matrix of pinion
and gear calculated through shaft-bearing stiffness models which would be described
in detail later. The damping [C] is assumed to be component proportional.
The force vector {F} at the right side of Equation (5) is,
T
L m g m p E
T F h F h T F ] , , , [ } { = . (9)

Here, T
E
and T
L
are torques exerted on the engine and load. F
m
is the dynamic
mesh force in line-of-action direction. h
p
F
m
and h
g
F
m
are equivalent mesh forces and
moments exerted on the pinion and the gear in generalized coordinate directions, and
h
p
and h
g
are the coordinate transformation vectors between the spiral bevel gear line-

40
of-action direction and generalized coordinate directions for pinion and gear
separately. They are expressed as,
} , , , , , {
lz ly lx lz ly lx l
n n n h =

, (10)

} , , - { } , , {
n y n x n x n z n z n y =

. (11)

Here {n
lx
, n
ly
, n
lz
} is the line-of-action vector; {x
l
, y
l
, z
l
} is the mesh point
vector; l = p, g refers to pinion and gear local coordinate systems seperately.
If the model is nonlinear time-varying, the dynamic transmission error
d
is
solved by numerical integration in time domain and expressed as,
T
gz py gy gx g g g g
T
pz px p p p p d
R z y x h z y x h } , / , , , , { } , 0 , , , , { u u u u u u o =

.

(12)

Here, R is the gear ratio.
If the model is reduced to linear time-invariant, the dynamic transmission
error
d
is solved in frequency domain and expressed as,
} { } {
g g p p d
q h q h = o

. (13)
If the model is nonlinear time-varying, the dynamic mesh force F
m
can be
expressed as:
< + +
< <
> +
=
c d d m c d m
c d c
c d d m c d m
m
b if c b k
b b if
b if c b k
F
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
) ( ) (
0
) ( ) (
c o c o c o
c o
c o c o c o
. (14)
If the model is reduced to be linear time-invariant, the dynamic mesh force is
expressed as:
) ( ) (
0 0
c o c o
+ =
d m d m m
c k F
.
(15)

41
Here, K
m
is mesh stiffness; C
m
is mesh damping;
0
is unloaded transmission
error; b
c
represents gear backlash.

Figure3.2 Spiral bevel gear 14 DOF lumped parameter dynamic model

3.2.3 Finite Element Modeling of 3-bearing Straddle Mounted Pinion Configuration
for the Effective Lumped Stiffness Calculation
As shown in Figure3.3, static finite element model of 3-bearing straddle
mounted pinion configuration is developed based on static finite element model of 2-
bearing overhung mounted pinion configuration[19] to calculate the pinions
equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness relative to the lumped point. The pinion with

42
integrated shaft is modeled with several uniform cross-section beam elements.
Bearing is modeled as stiffness matrix calculated according to the bearing stiffness
formulation[21,22]. The model totally consists of 9 nodes, 5 uniform cross-section
beam elements, and 3 bearing elements.
Add a unit load at the lumped point in one direction and then the equation for
this static finite element model could be expressed as:
| | } { } { } { A = + S R P (16)
Here,{P} represents the external load exerted at all the nodes; {R} represents
the reaction load at all the nodes; [S] is the assembled stiffness matrix; { A}
represents the displacements of all the nodes.
A more detailed equation could be drawn from (16) as:

)
`
A
A
)
`
)
`
S
F
SS SF
FS FF
S
F
S
F
S S
S S
R
R
P
P
(17)

Here, P
F
means the external load exerted at the nodes at the part of pinion with
integrated shaft. P
S
means the external load at the nodes at the bearing outer races. R
F
represents the reaction load at the nodes at the part of pinion with integrated shaft. R
S

represents the reaction load at the nodes at the bearing outer races.
F
A represents the
displacement of the nodes at the part of pinion with integrated shaft.
S
A represents
the displacement of the nodes at the bearing outer races.
Since the reaction load is only exerted at the nodes at the bearing outer races
and nodes at the bearing outer races are rigidly fixed, R
F
and
S
A in equation (17)
could be set to be zeros,

43
)
`
A
)
`
)
`
0
0
F
SS SF
FS FF
S S
F
S S
S S
R P
P

(18)
Thus, (19) could be drawn from (18) as:
{ } | | { }
F FF F
P S
1
= A (19)

The lumped point displacement {
l
1
A } could be got from {
F
A }. The
relationship among the unit external load at the lumped point {
l
P
1

}, the displacement
of the lumped point{
l
1
A } and the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness relative to the
lumped point ] [
ll
K could be expressed as:
| | } { } {
1 1
l ll l
K P A = . (20)
Following above procedure, by adding a unit load in other five directions
separately to the lumped point, the lumped point displacements corresponding to each
unit load could be calculated and obtained, which is written as ) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( } { = A i
l
i
.
The unit load at the lumped point in each of other 5 directions could be written as
} { ) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( = i P
l
i
. Similarly, the following formulation could be obtained as:
| | ) 6 , 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 ( } { } { = A = i K P
l
i
ll l
i
(21)
Combining (20) and (21),
] ][ [ ] [
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
l l l l l l ll l l l l l l
K P P P P P P A A A A A A = (22)
So, the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness relative to the lumped point ] [
ll
K
could be calculated as:
1
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
] ][ [ ] [

A A A A A A =
l l l l l l l l l l l l ll
P P P P P P K . (23)

44

configuration

3.2.4 Axial Translational Stiffness Model Refinement
The equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness calculated from static finite element
model ] [
ll
K may not accurately describe the equivalent axial translational stiffness.
So the axial translational stiffness model of 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion
configuration shown in Figure3.4 is developed based on the axial translational
stiffness model of 2-bearing overhung mounted pinion configuration[19] in order to
correct the axial translational stiffness described by equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness
calculated from static finite element model ] [
ll
K . In Figure3.4, K
b1
and K
b2
are axial
translational stiffness of bearing1 and bearing2. K
s1
is shaft axial stiffness from load
point to center of bearing1. K
s2
is shaft axial stiffness from center of bearing1 to

45
center of bearing2. K
c
is additional cascade stiffness with bearing2 to represent the
shaft-bolt-york between the center of bearing2 and inner race of bearing2. K
hb
is
housing bolt stiffness.

Figure3.4 Axial translational stiffness model

The axial translation stiffness of ] [
ll
K calculated from FE model does not
include K
s3
and K
h
. The refinement should be made according to Figure3.4 in the
following way. Before doing finite element calculation, the cascade stiffness K
c

46
should be added into the axial translation stiffness of bearing2 K
b2.
After doing finite
element modeling, the equivalent shaft-bearing stiffness is got. Then the equivalent
shaft-bearing stiffness should add K
hb
into its axial translation stiffness to get the final
effective lumped shaft-bearing stiffness.

3.3 Comparison of 3-bearing Straddle Mounted Pinion and 2-bearing Overhung
Mounted Pinion on Gear Mesh and Dynamics
In this part, the spiral bevel geared system with 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion
and the spiral bevel geared system with 2-bearing overhung mounted pinion are
compared from the viewpoint of gear mesh and dynamics. Two spiral bevel geared
systems for comparison have exactly the same structural parameters, except the pinion
configuration. 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion configuration and 2-bearing overhung
mounted pinion configuration are shown in Figure3.5. As the basic assumption of the
comparability, the only difference between two kinds of design lies in that 3-bearing
mounted pinion has a straight roller bearing to support the rear end of the pinion while
2-bearing mounted pinion does not have a straight roller bearing and the distance
between the tapered roller bearings of 3-bearing mounted pinion is smaller than that of 2-
bearing mounted pinion. The typical spiral bevel geared rotor system for industrial
application is used for example here to perform numerical calculation and comparative
analysis.
Table1 shows the system parameters used in this study. In Table1, Bearing#0,
Bearing#1, Bearing#2 refer to bearings supporting pinion described in Figure3.5. Gear is
overhung mounted with 2 bearings and Bearing#3, Bearing#4 refer to bearings

47
supporting gear. A bearing stiffness formulation[21,22] is applied here to calculate
stiffness of these bearings. As for pinion, D refers to Bearing#1 to pinion back side
distance. L refers to Bearing#1 to Bearing#2 distance. S refers to Bearing#0 to pinion
back side distance and this is only applicable to 3-bearing mounted pinion. As for gear, D
refers to Bearing#3 to ring gear back side distance. L refers to Bearing#3 to Bearing#4
distance.
Table 1. System Parameters
Gear Parameters
Pinion Gear
Number of teeth 14 45
Offset (m) 0 0
Pitch angle (rad) 0.391 1.282
Pitch radius (m) 0.067 0.215
Spiral angle (rad) 0.478 0.478
Face width (m) 0.063 0.063
Type Left Hand Right Hand
Loaded side Concave Convex

Shaft Parameters
3-brg Pinion Shaft 2-brg Pinion Shaft Gear Shaft
Outer diameter(m) 0.09 0.09 0.12
Inner diameter(m) 0 0 0
D(m) 0.028 0.028 0.026
L(m) 0.115 0.15 0.055
S(m) 0.1
Backcone thickness(m) 0.01 0.01 0.048
Youngs modulus 2.07e11 2.07e11 2.07e11
Poissons ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3

Bearing Parameters
Bearing#0 Bearing#1 Bearing#2
Kxx (N/m) 8.599e9 8.823e9 8.599e9
Kxy (N/m) 0 1.095e2 -1.671e2
Kxz (N/m) 4.236 1.277e1 4.236
Kxx (N/rad) 4.101e-1 2.457e-1 4.101e-1
Kxz (N/rad) -1.521e8 1.452e8 -1.521e8
Kyy (N/m) 0 8.887e8 1.721e9
Kyz (N/m) 0 -2.138e1 1.73e1

48
Kyx (N/rad) 0 -4.867e-1 1.654e-1
Kyz (N/rad) 0 1.681e0 2.935
Kzz (N/m) 8.599e9 8.823e9 8.599e9
Kzx (N/rad) 1.521e8 -1.452e8 1.521e8
Kzz (N/rad) -4.101e-1 -2.457e-1 -4.101e-1
Kxx (Nm/rad) 3.600e6 3.856e6 3.600e6
Kxz (Nm/rad) -1.15e-2 7.32e-3 -1.15e-2
Kzz (Nm/rad) 3.600e6 3.856e6 3.600e6
Cascaded axial stiffness(N/m) 4.1e8
Bolt-housing at Pinion Side
Bolt-housing axial stiffness(N/m) 7.71e9
Bearing#3 Bearing#4
Kxx (N/m) 9.988e9 5.042e9
Kxy (N/m) -1.975e2 7.435e1
Kxz (N/m) -5.846e1 2.231e1
Kxx (N/rad) 7.158e-1 3.455e-1
Kxz (N/rad) 2.590e8 -1.198e8
Kyy (N/m) 1.852e9 1.091e9
Kyz (N/m) 7.937 -4.015e1
Kyx (N/rad) 1.362 2.912e-1
Kyz (N/rad) -3.833 -1.725
Kzz (N/m) 9.988e9 5.042e9
Kzx (N/rad) -2.590e8 1.198e8
Kzz (N/rad) -7.158e-1 -3.455e-1
Kxx (Nm/rad) 7.663e6 3.065e6
Kxz (Nm/rad) -2.687e-2 1.961e-3
Kzz (Nm/rad) 7.663e6 3.065e6
Bolt-housing at Pinion Side
Bolt-housing axial stiffness(N/m) 1.21e10

Dynamic Parameters
Engine Load
Torsional moment of inertia(kg-m
2
) 2.734 5.25
Pinion Gear
Mass (kg) 14.72 122.69
Torsional moment of inertia(kg-m
2
) 0.0587 1.92
Bending moment of inertia(kg-m
2
) 0.502 2.065
Mesh damping ratio 0.06
Support component damping ratio 0.02

49

Figure3.5 3-bearing straddle mounted pinion (upper) and 2-bearing overhung mounted
pinion (lower)

3.3.1 Analysis on Equivalent Shaft-bearing Stiffness Models and Pinions Lumped
Shaft-bearing Stiffness Matrices of Two Pinion Configurations
Static finite element models of 2-bearing mounted pinion and 3-bearing
mounted pinion are shown in Figure3.6. The pinion with integrated shaft is modeled
with several uniform cross-section beam elements and the bearings are modeled with
linear springs. The finite element model of 3-bearing mounted pinion consists of 9
nodes, 5 uniform cross-section beam elements and 3 linear spring elements. The finite
element model of 2-bearing mounted pinion consists of 7 nodes, 4 uniform cross-
section beam elements and 2 linear spring elements. The axial translation stiffness

50
models for two kinds of configurations are identical as Figure3.4, since the pilot
bearing of 3-bearing configuration cannot stand the axial load.
It could be predicted that the lumped shaft-bearing stiffness of two
configurations will be different. As for the 2-bearing mounted pinion, the equivalent
lumped shaft-bearing stiffness could be derived as:
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
=
=
07 843 2 03810 0 6375 0 980 2 08 140 4
03810 0 07 843 2 08 140 4 003 1 6375 0
6375 0 08 140 4 09 644 8 89 15 468 9
980 2 003 1 89 15 09 013 1 87 88
08 140 4 6375 0 468 9 87 88 09 644 8
] [
E . . . - . - E . -
. E . E . . - .
. - E . E . . - .
. - . - . - E . .
E . - . . . E .
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
K
ll
z z
ll
x z
ll
zz
ll
zy
ll
zx
ll
z x
ll
x x
ll
xz
ll
xy
ll
xx
ll
z z
ll
x z
ll
zz
ll
zy
ll
zx
ll
z y
ll
x y
ll
yz
ll
yy
ll
yx
ll
z x
ll
x x
ll
xz
ll
xy
ll
xx
ll
u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u
u u
u u
u u
.
As for the 3-bearing mounted pinion, the equivalent lumped shaft-bearing
stiffness could be derived as:

51
+ +
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
=
=
07 140 . 5 02771 0 5204 0 441 2 07 294 . 7
02771 . 0 07 140 . 5 07 294 . 7 8690 . 0 5204 . 0
5204 0 07 294 . 7 10 585 . 1 53 . 14 93 . 12
441 2 8690 . 0 53 14 09 015 1 90 . 84
07 294 . 7 5204 0 93 . 12 90 . 84 10 585 . 1
] [
E . . - . - E -
E E -
. - E E -
. - - . - E .
E - . E
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
k k k k k
K
ll
z z
ll
x z
ll
zz
ll
zy
ll
zx
ll
z x
ll
x x
ll
xz
ll
xy
ll
xx
ll
z z
ll
x z
ll
zz
ll
zy
ll
zx
ll
z y
ll
x y
ll
yz
ll
yy
ll
yx
ll
z x
ll
x x
ll
xz
ll
xy
ll
xx
ll
u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u
u u
u u
u u

Certain stiffness elements change significantly from 2-bearing to 3-bearing
configuration. They are
ll
xx
k ,
ll
zz
k ,
ll
x x
k
u u
,
ll
z z
k
u u
,
ll
x z
k
u
and
ll
z x
k
u
.
ll
xx
k ,
ll
zz
k are horizontal
and vertical translational stiffness, which becomes larger.
ll
x x
k
u u
,
ll
z z
k
u u
are both bending
stiffness, which also becomes larger.
ll
z x
k
u
,
ll
x z
k
u
are both representing the coupling
between translation and bending, which becomes smaller. The significant change of
these stiffness elements may lead to the change of modal frequency and dynamic
response.

52

Figure3.6 Finite element model of 3-bearing mounted pinion (left) and finite element
model of 2-bearing mounted pinion (right)

3.3.2 Comparison on Gear Dynamics
Here, two configurations are compared from the viewpoint of the dynamics of
spiral bevel geared rotor system, by using the 14-dof lumped parameter dynamic
model and it is assumed that the dynamic system parameter affected by
2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations only lies in pinions lumped shaft-bearing
stiffness.
As shown in Figure3.7, the dynamic mesh forces of 2-bearing case and 3-
bearing case show obvious difference, including certain main peak. For example, by
changing 2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration, the peak at about 800
Hz is shifted to the left and the peak amplitude is increased. Thus, it could be
concluded that effect of 2-bearing configuration and 3-bearing configuration on
dynamic mesh force could be significant.

53
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
10
2
10
3
10
4
freqenceny(Hz)
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

M
e
s
h

F
o
r
c
e
(
N
)

Figure3.7 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic mesh
force
, 2-bearing case; ,3-bearing case

Figure3.8 shows the comparison on system modes. As for 2-bearing
configuration case, at low frequency range, there are many pinion bending modes
which have large pinion bending strain energy, such as Mode 6, Mode 7, Mode 8 and
Mode 9. While at high frequency range, there are few pinion bending modes. By
contrast, as for 3-bearing configuration case, at low frequency range, there are few
pinion bending modes, while at high frequency range, there exist pinion bending
modes which are dominated by pinion bending strain energy. Thus, the effect of 2-
bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic system modes is significant and
pinion bending modes are at lower frequency for 2-bearing configuration case. This
phenomenon may be caused by the increased lumped shaft-bearing bending stiffness
from 2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration.

54

Figure3.8 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on modal strain energy
distribution
(a) Description of x-axis in (b) and (c); (b) 2-bearing configuration case; (c) 3-bearing
configuration case

Fractional Strain Energy Distribution
Element Number Component (Stiffness Elements)
1 Pinion Translation Compliance
2 Gear Translation Compliance
3 Pinion Rotational Compliance
4 Gear Rotational Compliance
5 Pinion Bending Compliance
6 Gear Bending Compliance
7 Mesh Compliance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 1
(0.0 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 2
(16.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 3
(47.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 4
(421.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 5
(430.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 6
(673.8 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 7
(793.9 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 8
(1252.9 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 9
(1739.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 10
(1754.8 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 11
(1920.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 12
(1975.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 13
(4062.8 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 14
(4139.6 Hz)
Fractional Strain Energy Distribution
Element Number Component (Stiffness Elements)
1 Pinion Translation Compliance
2 Gear Translation Compliance
3 Pinion Rotational Compliance
4 Gear Rotational Compliance
5 Pinion Bending Compliance
6 Gear Bending Compliance
7 Mesh Compliance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 1
(0.0 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 2
(16.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 3
(47.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 4
(420.4 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 5
(430.3 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 6
(583.8 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 7
(620.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 8
(678.5 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 9
(830.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 10
(1273.4 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 11
(1920.2 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 12
(1970.7 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 13
(3145.5 Hz)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mode 14
(3246.8 Hz)
(a)
(b)
(c)

55
Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic bearing
load of pinion is shown in Figure3.9. The dynamic bearing moment around z-axis at
bearing1 and the dynamic bearing moment around x-axis at bearing2 are taken for
example. Bearing1 is the tapered roller bearing closer to the pinion head and Bearing2
is the tapered roller bearing farther away from the pinion head. x-axis is in the
horizontal direction and z-axis is in the vertical direction. The comparison shows that
pinions dynamic bearing load is affected significantly by changing 2-bearing
configuration to 3-bearing configuration. In this comparison case, both in
Figure3.9(a) and Figure3.9(b), at low frequency, dynamic bearing load of 3-bearing
configuration case is smaller than that of 2-bearing configuration case, while at
certain part of high frequency range, dynamic bearing load of 3-bearing configuration
case is larger than that of 2-bearing configuration case. It could be concluded that,
how dynamic bearing load change with frequency at each pinions bearing location is
dependent on the number of bearings used to support the pinion shaft. Thus, engineer
is capable to tune the dynamic bearing load at tapered roller bearings of pinion by
changing pinion shaft-bearing configurations.

56
0 1000 2000 3000
0
100
200
300
400
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
m
)

0 1000 2000 3000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
m
)

Figure3.9 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic bearing
load
(a) Bearing1:Dynamic bearing moment around z-axis; (b) Bearing2: Dynamic bearing
moment around x-axis;

As shown in Figure3.10, generally, pinion response in 2-bearing configuration
case is larger than pinion response in 3-bearing configuration case, especially in low
frequency range. And the change of pinion response matches the change of system
modes. This is because, by changing 2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing
configuration, horizontal, vertical translation and bending stiffness increase
significantly and pinions translational and bending motion is largely restrained.
Therefore, pinions vibration could be significantly reduced through changing 2-
bearing configuration pinion to 3-bearing configuration pinion.

(a) (b)

57
0 1000 2000 3000
0
2
4
6
x 10
-6
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
m
)

0 1000 2000 3000
0
2
4
6
x 10
-6
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
m
)

0 1000 2000 3000
0
0.5
1
x 10
-4
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
r
a
d
)

0 1000 2000 3000
0
0.5
1
x 10
-4
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
r
a
d
)

Figure3.10 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on pinion response
(a) Horizontal x-axis translation displacement; (b) Vertical z-axis translation
displacement; (c)Rotation displacement around x-axis; (d) Rotation displacement
around z-axis

3.3.3 Effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing Configurations on Mesh Model
The difference of shaft-bearing compliance between two kinds of
configurations may lead to the difference of mesh model. By using Quasi-static
Three-dimensional Finite Element Tooth Contact Analysis Program, the effect of
shaft-bearing configurations on mesh model, i.e. mesh point, line-of-action, mesh
stiffness, is studied here.
From Figure3.11, it could be concluded that for 3-bearing configuration case,
the effect of pilot bearing position on mesh point is very slight.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)

58
0 10 20 30
-0.064
-0.062
-0.06
-0.058
-0.056
-0.054
-0.052
RollAngle in One Mesh Cycle(Degree)
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

X

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
0 10 20 30
0.174
0.176
0.178
0.18
0.182
0.184
0.186
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Y

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

0 10 20 30
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Z

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

Figure3.11 Effect of pilot bearing position on mesh point for 3-bearing case
, S =0.002 inch; , S =1.18 inch. , S =2.36 inch.
, S =3.36 inch; , S =4.36 inch; ,S =5.36 inch;

From Figure3.12 and Figure3.13, it could be concluded that both for 3-bearing
configuration case and 2-bearing configuration case, the effect of tapered roller
bearing position on mesh point is very slight.

59
0 10 20 30
-0.064
-0.062
-0.06
-0.058
-0.056
-0.054
-0.052
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

X

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
0 10 20 30
0.174
0.176
0.178
0.18
0.182
0.184
0.186
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Y

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

0 10 20 30
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Z

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

Figure3.12 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh point for 3-bearing case
, L =5.965 inch; , L =4.445 inch. , L =2.925 inch.

0 10 20 30
-0.064
-0.062
-0.06
-0.058
-0.056
-0.054
-0.052
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

X

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
0 10 20 30
0.174
0.176
0.178
0.18
0.182
0.184
0.186
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Y

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

60
0 10 20 30
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Z

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

Figure3.13 Effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh point for 2-bearing case

Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on mesh point in
Figure3.14 shows that there exists certain small influence of 2-bearing and 3-bearing
configurations on mesh point. In other words, by changing 2-bearing configuration to
3-bearing configuration, the mesh point is influenced a little and obviously this
influence comes from adding a pilot bearing to the rear end of pinion rather than
changing the distance between the tapered roller bearings.

0 10 20 30
-0.064
-0.062
-0.06
-0.058
-0.056
-0.054
-0.052
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

X

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)
0 10 20 30
0.174
0.176
0.178
0.18
0.182
0.184
0.186
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Y

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

61
0 10 20 30
-0.012
-0.01
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0
M
e
s
h

P
o
i
n
t

Z

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
(
m
)

Figure3.14 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on mesh point
, 2-bearing configuration case; ,3-bearing configuration case.

Figure3.15 shows that, as for 3-bearing configuration case, there is little effect
of pilot bearing position on line-of-action vector.

0 10 20 30
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

X

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e
0 10 20 30
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Y

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
i
n
e

62
0 10 20 30
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Z

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
s
i
n
e

Figure3.15 Effect of pilot bearing position on line-of-action vector for 3-bearing case
, S =0.002 inch; , S =1.18 inch., S =2.36 inch.

It could be concluded from Figure3.16 and Figure3.17 that, both for 3-bearing
configuration case and 2-bearing configuration case, the effect of tapered roller
bearing position on line-of-action vector is very tiny.

0 10 20 30
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

X

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

0 10 20 30
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
RollAngle in One Mesh Cycle(Degree) L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

63
0 10 20 30
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Z

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

bearing case

0 10 20 30
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

X

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

0 10 20 30
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

64
0 10 20 30
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Z

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

bearing case

By changing 2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration, line-of-action
vector is influenced a little as shown in Figure3.18, which is caused by adding a pilot
bearing to the rear end of pinion rather than changing the tapered roller bearing
distance.
0 10 20 30
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

X

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

0 10 20 30
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Y

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

65
0 10 20 30
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
L
i
n
e
-
o
f
-
a
c
t
i
o
n

Z

D
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
s
i
n
e

Figure3.18 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configuration on line-of-action
vector

The result for the effect of pilot bearing position on mesh stiffness is shown
in Figure3.19. As the distance between selected pilot bearing position and the pinion
small cone S becomes larger and larger, mesh stiffness decreases. In other words,
mesh stiffness is sensitive to the position of pilot bearing. Moreover, the effect of
pilot bearing position on mesh stiffness is larger when the pilot bearing is closer to
the pinion.

66
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
x 10
8
M
e
s
h

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
k
/
m
)

Figure3.19 Effect of pilot bearing position on mesh stiffness for 3-bearing case
, S =0.002 inch; , S =1.18 inch. , S =2.36 inch.

The results for effect of tapered roller bearing position on mesh stiffness are
shown in Figure3.20 and Figure3.21. As for 3-bearing configuration case, as the
tapered roller bearing2 is moved closer to tapered roller bearing1, mesh stiffness
keeps unchanged. By contrast, as for 2-bearing configuration case, as the tapered
roller bearing2 is moved closer to tapered roller bearing1, mesh stiffness shows
certain changes. Thus, in other words, when a pilot bearing is applied to support the
pinions rear end, mesh stiffness is not sensitive to the tapered roller bearing position.
While, when a pilot bearing is not applied, mesh stiffness could be sensitive to the
tapered roller bearing position.

67
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
x 10
8
M
e
s
h

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
k
/
m
)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
x 10
8
M
e
s
h

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
k
/
m
)


The comparison of 2-bearing configuration and 3-bearing configuration on
mesh stiffness in Figure3.22 shows that by changing 2-bearing configuration to 3-
bearing configuration, mesh stiffness generally increases. The effect mainly comes

68
from adding a pilot bearing to support the rear end rather than tuning the position of
tapered roller bearing2.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
x 10
8
M
e
s
h

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
(
k
/
m
)

Figure3.22 Comparison of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configuration on mesh stiffness

Actually, the dynamic system parameters affected significantly by the 2-
bearing configuration and 3-bearing configuration not only lie in lumped shaft-
bearing stiffness, but also exist in mesh stiffness. Figure3.23 shows the comparison
on dynamic mesh force, assuming that the lumped shaft-bearing stiffness is the only
difference caused by two configurations. Figure3.24 shows the comparison on
dynamic mesh force, considering both the difference of mesh stiffness and the
difference of lumped shaft-bearing stiffness caused by two configurations. Obviously,
in Figure3.24, the effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configuration is more significant.
Thus, the change of mesh stiffness in 2-brg to 3-brg configurations is also a
significant factor on dynamic response.

69
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
10
2
10
3
10
4
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

Figure3.23 Comparison on dynamic mesh force without considering the difference of
mesh stiffness

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
10
2
10
3
10
4
freqenceny(Hz)
M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
(
N
)

Figure3.24 Comparison on dynamic mesh force considering the difference of mesh
stiffness

70
3.4 Conclusions
In this study, a new shaft-bearing model has been proposed for the effective
supporting stiffness calculation for the lumped parameter dynamic analysis of the
spiral bevel geared rotor system with 3-bearing straddle-mounted pinion
configuration. Effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on spiral bevel gear
mesh and dynamics has been studied.
Pinions lumped shaft-bearing stiffness changes significantly by changing 2-
bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration. Vertical and horizontal translational
stiffness and bending stiffness increase significantly while coupling between
translation and bending decreases significantly.
Effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic force can be
significant. Dynamic bearing load at each pinions tapered roller bearing varies
significantly due to different pinion shaft-bearing configurations. Pinion response is
significantly reduced at low frequency by changing 2-bearing to 3-bearing
configuration pinion, which may be caused by significant increase of horizontal,
vertical translational stiffness and bending stiffness.
Effect of change from 2-bearing to 3-bearing is significant on pinion bending
modes. In the low frequency range, the number of pinion bending modes becomes
smaller, while in the high frequency range, the number of pinion bending modes
becomes larger, which may be caused by significant increase of bending stiffness.
Both for 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations, mesh point and line-of-
action are almost not affected by the bearing position change. By changing the 2-
bearing to 3-bearing configuration, mesh point and line-of-action are influenced a

71
little, which is caused by adding a pilot bearing to the rear end rather than the distance
change of tapered roller bearings.
For the 3-bearing case, mesh stiffness is most sensitive to the pilot bearing
position and insensitive to the tapered roller bearing position. On the other hand, for
the 2-brg case, mesh stiffness can be quite sensitive to the tapered roller bearing
position.
Changing from 2-bearing to 3-bearing configurations, mesh stiffness generally
increases. The influence on mesh stiffness is mostly caused by adding a pilot bearing
rather than positions of tapered roller bearings. This change in mesh stiffness from
2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration is also a significant factor on
dynamic response.

72
Chapter 4. Conclusions
In this thesis, a dynamic finite element model of spiral bevel geared rotor system
is proposed, which could better account for shaft-bearing dynamic characteristics than
existing lumped parameter dynamic model. The dynamic finite element model is also
used to provide guide and reference for the enhancement of equivalent lumped parameter
synthesis theory to be used in existing lumped parameter model. Dynamic responses of
two models have been compared and show good consistency at relatively low frequency.
Both models could be used not only to predict the dynamic response of the spiral bevel
geared rotor system, but also to help engineers figure out the best designs from the
viewpoint of vibration and noise.
In addition, a new shaft-bearing model has been proposed for the effective
supporting stiffness calculation for the lumped parameter dynamic analysis of the spiral
bevel geared rotor system with 3-bearing straddle-mounted pinion configuration. Effect
of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on spiral bevel gear mesh and dynamics has
been studied. The conclusions are listed below.
Pinions lumped shaft-bearing stiffness changes significantly by changing 2-
bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration. Vertical and horizontal translational
stiffness and bending stiffness increase significantly while coupling between translation
and bending decreases significantly.
Effect of 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations on dynamic force can be
significant. Dynamic bearing load at each pinions tapered roller bearing varies
significantly due to different pinion shaft-bearing configurations. Pinion response is
significantly reduced at low frequency by changing 2-bearing to 3-bearing configuration

73
pinion, which may be caused by significant increase of horizontal, vertical translational
stiffness and bending stiffness.
Effect of change from 2-bearing to 3-bearing is significant on pinion bending
modes. Pinion bending modes move to much higher frequency, which may be caused by
significant increase of bending stiffness.
Both for 2-bearing and 3-bearing configurations, mesh point and line-of-action
are almost not affected by the bearing position change. By changing the 2-bearing to 3-
bearing configuration, mesh point and line-of-action are influenced a little, which is
caused by adding a pilot bearing to the rear end rather than the distance change of tapered
roller bearings.
For the 3-bearing case, mesh stiffness is most sensitive to the pilot bearing
position and insensitive to the tapered roller bearing position. On the other hand, for the
2-brg case, mesh stiffness can be quite sensitive to the tapered roller bearing position.
Changing from 2-bearing to 3-bearing configurations, mesh stiffness generally
increases. The influence on mesh stiffness is mostly caused by adding a pilot bearing
rather than positions of tapered roller bearings. This change in mesh stiffness from
2-bearing configuration to 3-bearing configuration is also a significant factor on dynamic
response.

74
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] H.N. Ozguven, D.R. Houser, Mathematical models used in gear dynamicsa review,
Journal of Sound and Vibration 121 (1988) 383-411.
[2] Blankenship, G. W., and Singh, R., 1992, A Comparative Study of Selected Gear
Mesh Interface Dynamic Models, ASME International Power Transmission and
Gearing Conference, DE 43-1.
[3] L. D. MITCHELL and D. M. MELLEN 1975 American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Paper 75-DET-75. Torsional-lateral coupling in a geared high-speed rotor
system.
[4] N. HAGIWARA, M. IDA and K. KIKUCHI 1981 Proceedings, International
Symposium of Gearing and Power Transmissions, Tokyo, 85-90. Forced vibration of a
pinion-gear system supported on journal bearings.
[5] Neriya, S. V., Bhat, R. B., and Sankar, T. S., 1984, Effect of Coupled Torsional-
Flexural Vibration of a Geared Shaft System on Dynamic Tooth Load, The Shock and
Vibration Bulletin, 54(3), pp. 6775.
[6] Neriya, S. V., Bhat, R. B., and Sankar, T. S., 1985, The Coupled Torsional-
Flexural Vibration of a Geared Shaft System Using Finite Element Method,
The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, 55(3), pp. 1325.
[7] Lim, T. C. and Singh. R., Vibration transmission through rolling element bearings.
Part III: Geared rotor system studies, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.151(1), pp.31-
54,1991.
[8] M. Kubur, A. Kahraman, D. Zini, K. Kienzle, Dynamic analysis of multi-mesh helical
gear sets by finite elements, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 126 (2004) 398406.

75
[9] A. Kahraman, H.N. Ozguven and D.R. Houser. Dynamic analysis of geared rotors by
finite elements. Proceedings of the ASME Power Transmission and Gearing Conference,
Chicago, pp. 375-382, 1989.
[10] H.N. Ozguven and D.R. Houser. Dynamic analysis of high speed gears by using
loaded transmission error. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 125, No. 1, 1988.
[11] Liada, H. and Tamura, A., Dynamic Characteristics of Gear Train System with
Softly Supported Shafts, Bull. JSME, 29, pp.1811-1816,1986.
[12] Lim, T.C. and Houser, D.R., Dynamic Analysis of Lay Shaft Gears in Automotive
Transmission, Proceedings of SAE Noise and Vibration Conference, pp.739-749.,1997.
[13] Lim, T.C. and Li, J., Dynamic Analysis of Multi-mesh Counter-shaft
Transmission, J. Sound Vib., 219(5), pp.905-919., 1999.
[14] Iwatsubo, T., Arii, S., and Kawai, R., Coupled Lateral-Torsional Vibration of Rotor
System Trained by Gears , Bulletin of JSME, Vol.27, pp.271-277, 1984
[15] Cheng, Y., Dynamics of high-speed spiral bevel and bevel geared rotor systems,
Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2000.
[16] Wang, H., "Hypoid gear mesh simulation and dynamics," Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Alabama, 2002.
[17] Jiang, X., "Non-linear torsional dynamic analysis of hypoid gear pairs," Ph.D.
Dissertation, The University of Alabama, 2002.
[18] Wang, J., "Nonlinear Time-varying Gear Mesh and Dynamic Analysis of Hypoid
and Bevel Geared Rotor Systems," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2007.
[19] Peng, T., Coupled Multi-body Dynamic and Vibration Analysis of Hypoid
and Bevel Geared Rotor System, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 2010.

76
[20] Karnovsky, Igor A.(2003). Free Vibrations of Beams and Frames. McGraw-Hill.
Part I: bearing stiffness formulation, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.139(2), pp.179-
199, 1990.
Part II: system studies, Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol.139(2), pp.201-225,1990.
[23] Vijayakar, S. M., "A combined surface integral and finite element solution for a
three-dimensional contact problem," International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 31, 525-545, 1991.
[24] Vijayakar, S. M., "Hypoid Face Milled User's Manual," (Advanced Numerical
Solutions LLC.), 2003.

Hua Xia

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hua Xia

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi