Simply Gearbox Design

Electro-mechanic engineering facility
Machine elements
Teach by : Ing. Cristopher Vega
Gearbox sub-assembly
mechanical design
Dynamic Failure project
Jean Pablo Valverde Mora

201281263
18/10/2016
II Semestre
2016
Carrera acreditada por:
Main Goal
Content
1.
Main Goal ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.
Problem definition. ......................................................................................................... 1
3.
Requirements. ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.
Academic Requirements .......................................................................................... 2
3.2.
Quality Requirements .............................................................................................. 2
3.2.1.
Gears ................................................................................................................. 2
3.2.2.
Bearing .............................................................................................................. 2
3.2.3.
Shaft .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2.4.
Tolerance and precision ................................................................................... 2
4.
Calculations..................................................................................................................... 3
5.
Design Process ................................................................................................................ 3

5.1.
Materials .................................................................................................................. 3
5.1.1.
Gears ................................................................................................................. 3
5.1.2.
Shaft .................................................................................................................. 3
5.2.
Gears design ............................................................................................................. 4
5.2.1.
Design Model description ................................................................................. 4
5.2.2.
General Assumptions........................................................................................ 5
5.2.3.
AGMA Recommendations ................................................................................ 5
5.2.4.
Power capacity ................................................................................................. 6
5.2.5.
Minimum pinion teeth number (interference Consideration) ......................... 6
5.2.6.
Face Width ........................................................................................................ 7
5.2.7.
Power transmission .......................................................................................... 7
5.2.8.
Impact load expected ....................................................................................... 7
5.2.9.
Mounting .......................................................................................................... 7
5.2.10.
Weight reduction improvements. ................................................................ 7
5.3.
Bearing Selection ..................................................................................................... 8
5.4.
Shaft ......................................................................................................................... 8
5.4.1.
Design Model description ................................................................................. 8
5.4.2.
General Assumptions........................................................................................ 9
5.4.3.
Analyzed sections ............................................................................................. 9
GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project
II
Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design
5.4.4.
6.
Radius between levels ...................................................................................... 9
FEM Simulation of the shaft and comparison with manual calculation ...................... 10
6.1.
Statics ..................................................................................................................... 10
6.1.1.
Shaft ................................................................................................................ 10
6.1.2.
Gear ................................................................................................................ 11
6.2.
Fatigue ................................................................................................................... 12
6.2.1.
Shaft ................................................................................................................ 12
6.2.2.
Gear ................................................................................................................ 13
7.
Working Drawings ........................................................................................................ 13
8.
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 14
9.
References .................................................................................................................... 15
10.
Annexes ..................................................................................................................... 16
Machine elements| Escuela De Ingeniera Electromecnica
Main Goal
1. Main Goal
Design a mechanical sub-assembly of a gearbox (see image) consisting of a shaft, gear
and bearing elements.
2. Problem definition.
As a project of design elements of machinery course it required to to define all the
geometric dimensions of all the gearbox in order to archive the angular velocity ratio
between the output and the input. Also is required to design only the shafts and gears
assigned and bearings must be selected from a vendor list. The gears and shafts must be
designed for infinite lifetime.
Assigned assembly parts manufacturing drawings must be included, also individual
component drawings of each component must be given. Dimensional and geometrical
tolerances, fittings and surface finishing will be considered.
Figure 1 Reduction Gear Box
Assigned parts:
Output Shaft
Gear 1
Bearings 1 and 2
Technical specification:
Power [HP]
42
in [rpm]
3550
in/out
30
[]
20
F.Sgeneral
1,7
3. Requirements.
3.1. Academic Requirements
General geometry characteristics of each shaft as shown in the figure must be

respected, however diameters and lengths can be modified.
All the gears must be assumed helical and they are coupled to the shaft using a key.
Bearings selection bust be based on those given in the book of Robert C. Juvinall and
Kurt M. Marshek: Fundamentals of Machine Component Design.
Only carbon and alloy steels (Juvinall, Appendix C-4a), stainless steel (Appendix C-8)
and wrought aluminum alloys (Appendix C-10) are going to considered for part
manufacture. They can be heat treated if required.
3.2. Quality Requirements

3.2.1.
Overall minimum safety factor has to be more than 1,7.

A 90% bending reliability strength design is a goal.
A 99% surface reliability strength design is a goal.
1 or higher contact ratio is required. Around 1,5 will be desirable.
According to [1] AGMA Qv =9 is required. Hence, high Precision shaved and ground
technique will be used on manufacture (A curve ).
A 107 life cycles are a minimum life goal.
3.2.2.
Bearing
Low maintenance, long life, and high safety is required, then, 99,9% reliability is a
goal.
anti-clockwise is determined as normal rotation direction, however Clock wise
rotation could be possible, hence, both bearing have to be able to carry axial load.
Shaft thermal elongation must be possible with no stress on it.
According to Juvinall common configurations, same outside bearing diameter is
desirable.
3.2.3.
Gears
Shaft
Deflections should not cause mating gear teeth to separate more than about 0.13
mm (0.005 in.), nor should they cause the relative slope of the gear axes to change
more than about 0.5.
3.2.4.
Tolerance and precision
Tolerance and precision will be developed according to Ricardo Brito recommendations [2]
Calculations
4. Calculations
Manual calculation schemes are attached to this document; however numerical calculation
was developed by using an excel data sheet. The numerical calculation results, are attached
also to this document, and those result will be compared with the simulations results.
5. Design Process
5.1. Materials
5.1.1.
Gears
Multiple possibilities available for gear design. Juvinall suggests that a good combination
is often a steel pinion mated to a cast iron gear. That recommendation will be taken for
present work, however, looking for best adjustment design, following material were chosen
as result of an iterative process.
Table 1 Material Selection
Element
Pinions
Gears
5.1.2.
Material
AISI 4140 Normalized
Nodular Iron 120-90-02
Sfe [KSI]
110,8
116,28
Sn[KSI]
75,5
56,4
Shaft
According to Juvinall, hence all steel has basically the same elastic modulus, all of they
have a similar performance on shaft design. Then the cheaper steel is recommended as base
material for design. Then, AISI 1050 steel is considered based on availability and cost.
5.2. Gears design

5.2.1.
Design Model description
Gear design will be ruled by the following conceptions:

1) Teeth bending strength/stress ratio must be equal to the safety factor, or higher,
calculated as follows.

(0,93 )
Equation 1

Equation 2
=
2) Teeth surface strength/stress ratio must be equal to the safety factor, or higher,
calculated as follows.
=
(0,93 )
0,95
Equation 3
Equation 4
3) No interference must exist between gear and pinion, so according with Juvinall
recommendations, addendum radio for each pinon and gears must be according to:
() = 2 + 2 sin2
Equation 5
4) Contact ratio in between gears must be over 1,5 according to the fallowing equation.
2 2 + 2 2 sin
Equation 6
Minimum diameter design fulfilling all those requirements will be selected. All
calculations were made by using an excel data sheet.
Design Process
5.2.2.
General Assumptions
Fallowed assumptions were considered at design process:
Considering Juvinalls page 679 asseveration, following design will consider and
as standard designation values [3].
Expecting an equilibrated stress distribution, speed reduction will be considered to
be as similar as possible in both gear pinion pairs. Hence overall speed reduction
ratio is 30, then:
4 2
=
= 30 5,47
3 1
Hence this value is impractical for a speed reduction factor, and considering a
smooth speed reduction factor, established ratios are:
4
=5
3
2
=6
1
Full Deep teeth gears design will be developed to improve contact ratio.
A 20 standardized pressure normal angle will be used, fallowing Dudleys
recommendation [4], in order to decrease bearings load on high power transmission
applications.
Gearbox Oli temperature will never be more than 80F.
Juvinall recommendation b 2 will be taken.
Following Juvinall recommendations for standard addendum will be taken. = .
According to Juvinall (8.3), a conservative estimate of endurance limit is about

250HB.
All parts will be machined or cold drowned.
5.2.3.
AGMA Recommendations
AGMA based design will be developed. All possible recommendations will be taken in design
procedure. Whereas no helical recommendation is available, spur gears recommendations
will be taken as first approximation.
5.2.4.
Power capacity
AGMA bring some recommendations for power capacity in spur gear. Hence not
recommendation was found for helical gear, and considering multiple similarities between
helical and spur gear, graph below was used as reference.
Hence speed ratios were
stablished in previous section,
it was possible to estimate
pinion 2 speed 2 = 710
rpm, transmitting around 31,3
kW, so recommended AGMA
pitch is around 4 in-1.
Just as note, hence pinion 4

speed is 3550 rpm, and
transmitting also 31,3 kW, so
recommended pitch will be
around 8 in-1.
it
is
important
to
Figure 2 Transmitted power as function of pinion speed for a remember that, for Figure 2
number of diametric pitches.
Np=24 Ko=1.0 and =20.
Tomado de [4]
5.2.5.
Minimum pinion teeth number (interference Consideration)
According to Shigley et all, minimum pinion teeth number, to avoid interference on

a helical gear pinion set is determined by:
Where m is speed ratio for the analized pin gear set, and t is presion angle as
defined for a spur gear. Calculations were developed, considdering full deep teeth (k=1),
and Np2>14 was obtained.
Design Process
5.2.6.
Face Width
Following Juvinalls recommendation, b 2 , a variable based desig was used, proposing

a face width value as follows:
b = m
Equation 7
Pointing to optimize material selection, and reducing material over all material
requirement, while decreasing surface stress, a convenient m value was found (m=2,25)
for each gear set.
5.2.7.
Power transmission
According some authors [5] Helical gear trains efficiency has been founded up to 98%
maximum, although this work will consider a 100% efficiency (friction and misc. losses are
neglected) for academic proposes. Then: = . Hence first gear set is dual paired,
each one of those pair is considered to carry 50% of power transmitted (21 HP).
5.2.8.
Impact load expected
A moderate impact load is expected at gearbox output, while a more uniform load is
expected at input. Then, a Ko=1,25 is applied.
5.2.9.
Mounting
A less rigid mounting with less accurate gear which contact across the full face is
considered (CR>1), .so, from Juvinall Table 15.2, a Km=1,6 is obtained.
5.2.10. Weight reduction improvements.
A webb and rim gear design is proposed. Webb thickness was estimated as described
in [6], where a method is displayed for determine webb thickness without affecting
maximum tress in gear. Following equation was used:
Teeth height
1,6

Equation 8
Weight reduction holes and gear rim thickness was estimated according to the described in
[7], where they were looking for reduce gear mass without affecting overall maximum
stress.
Teeth height
1,6

Equation 9
5.3. Bearing Selection

Based on drawing provided, it was determined that an indirect coupled mounting [8]
of single row tapered bearing was used. Axial loads are transmitted from the gear to the
bearings by a spacer. Bearings relief its axial load on the gearbox case. Shigley method was
use to determined requires manufactures constant at 10% of failure probability.
Equation 10
All parameters were established according authors figures and tables. Lubricant
viscosity (150 cSt@40C) was estimated fallowing Mobil Gearbox oil recommendations.
Shigleys Method is based on Timken bearings building method, hence, in order to be
coherent, Timken bearing were selected from its website catalog.
5.4. Shaft
5.4.1.
Design Model description
ASME failure theory was applied to the shaft design, by using the safety factor as the
undefined variable, model was planted attempting to reach a safety factor above 1,7.
2
2

(
) +(
) =1
Equation 11
1
2

( ) + ( )
Equation 12
Then, the bending moment caused by the gear force and weight1 over the shaft is the only
alternate effect on the shaft, then:
32
Equation 13
3
For the equivalent medium stress, torque and axial force, are considered:
= = (1 + ( 1))
2
2 + ( )
+
2
2
4
2
Weight was non considered on manual calculations, bit in the simulation.
Equation 14
Equation 15
Design Process
=
5.4.2.
6
3
Equation 16
General Assumptions
Fallowing juvinall shaft design recommendations will be considered.
Shafts will be as short as possible,

Bearings will be located as close as possible to the applied loads.
Stress raisers will be away from highly stressed shaft regions.
Generous radios and good surface finishes will be proposed.
Local surface-strengthening processes will be performed
Inexpensive steels will be used hence all have the same elastic module.
The maximum allowable deflection of a shaft is usually determined by critical
5.4.3.
Analyzed sections
Critical sections were determined. Maximum forces and momentum convention is located
at gear assemble surface. After analyze two critical subsections, notch and key hole; key
hole was found as the critical section.
5.4.4.
Radius between levels
After a roler selection, a radius 0,14 is used between levels as bearing requirement.
10
6. FEM Simulation of the shaft and comparison with manual

calculation
Static and fatigue simulations were developed. Complete simulation report is attached to
the digital version of this document, however in fallowing sections important results are
shown.
6.1. Statics
6.1.1.
Shaft
Figure 3 Shaft load
Stresses expected on shaft on manual calculations have good correlation with ones
on the simulation. Manualy calculated Von Mises Stress results around 11 KSI, .and was
though in the notch closest to the gear position. Figure 3 clearly shows a similar value for
the shaft simulation.
Although a difference on the high expected von misses stress was found, resulting
in the output closest notch. This is a result of a bearing requirement, since a reduction in
notch radios was requires at assembly process. (from 0.14 in to 0,03 in). However, this
higher stress value has not much affectation on fatigue life cycles safety factor.
FEM Simulation of the shaft and comparison with manual calculation
6.1.2.
11
Gear
Figure 4 Static load Gear results.
Maximum load at gear static simulation results in approximately a 50% of manual

calculated load. However, its important to recall no same load conditions were computed
for simulation and manual calculations, because in manual calculation a 1,5 contact ratio
indicates that loads are distributed different over teeth surfaces. This differences can make
simulation differ from manual calculations.
As conditions on simulation
result on better conditions than in
manual calculations, no dimension was
considered for the gear.
Maximum stress was found at
key slot instead teeth.
Figure 5 Key slot Stress
12
6.2. Fatigue
6.2.1.
Shaft
Figure 6 Over all shaft fatigue safety factor.
Manual calculations expected a maximum equivalent stress at notch closest to the gear
supporting diameter, but, simulations shown that more critical section was the one closest
to the output. However, plots and graphs show very similar effects in each one of those
places.
Manually calculated expected safety factor for a 107 fatigue life cycles was around 2,15,
neglecting gear weight2 (240 lbs). Simulations shows a minimum safety factor under fatigue
around 3,074, then covariation was found:
=
3,074
70%
2,15
Equation 17
It should be noted that 70% variation can be justified by considering the difference in
the loads applied without considering gears weight as follows:

=

+
Equation 18
755,41
76%
240 + 755,41
Correlation is hence noted between variation of safety factors and considered loads ratio.
22
Is was unknown at design process.
Working Drawings
6.2.2.
13
Gear
Figure 7 Over all gear fatigue safety factor.
Manual calculations expected a minimum safety factor around 1,78 under 10 7 fatigue
life cycles, expecting maximum stresses at teeth. Simulations shows a 2,96 minimum safety
factor under same conditions, but it result minimum safety factor was found near to the
weight reduction geometries. However, at this point it important to recall, that weigh
reducing improvements suggested by Savsani et all [7], applied to this design, were looking
for obtain as low stress in the teeth roots as in the gear webb. Then, as this design was more
little conservative that Savsani proposal, its well expected to having a higher safety factor.
Then a safety factor under fatigue load (107 life cycles) variation was found as:
=
2,96
60%
1,78
Equation 19
7. Working Drawings
Working drawings are attached to this document.
14
8. Conclusions
Significant differences were found between simulated and manually calculated

stresses. Reliability factors, and unconsidered weights and lees accurate surface
definitions can be a difference factor.
Difference result in a more conservative design according to the simulation.
Key slots result on higher stress concentrators.
Gear weight can be reduced with about affection overall design stress.
accurate manufacture process is required.
Elements will not fail under 107 life cycles.
According to simulation report, small deformations will be found at key slot, but
failure will not occur.
References
15
9. References
[1] S. Schmid, University of notre Dame. Chapte 14: Theory for spurs gears, 13 10 2013.
[En
lnea].
Available:
https://www3.nd.edu/~manufact/FME_pdf_files/FME3_Ch14.pdf. [ltimo acceso: 9
10 2016].
[2] R. Brito Salinas, Metrologia Mecnica, ajustes y control de calidad, 2 edicin, Cartago:
Editorial Tcnolgica de Costa Rica, 1993.
[3] R. C. Juvinall y K. Marshek, Fundamentals of mchine component design, Danvers: John
Wiley and sons, INC., 2012.
[4] S. P. Radzevich, Dudley's Handbook of Practical Gear Design and Manufacture, Second
Edition, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012.
[5] R. R. Handschuh y C. J. Cilmain, Efficiency of High-Speed Helical Gear Trains, National
aeronautics and space administration cleveland oh glenn research center, Hanover,
2003.
[6] P. D. M. G., mech-ing.com, 3 septiembre 2011. [En lnea]. Available: http://meching.com/journal/Archive/2011/10/45_128_Gordana%20Marunic.pdf. [ltimo acceso:
2016 10 15].
[7] V. Savsani, R. V. Rao y D. P. Vakharia, Optimal weight design of a gear train using
particle swarm optimization and simulated annealing algorithms, Mechanism and
Machine Theory, n 45, p. 531541, 2010.
[8] R. G. Budynas y J. Keith Nisbett, Diseo en ingeniera mecnica de Shigley, Mxico DF:
McGraw-Hill, 2008.
[9] F. P. Beer, E. R. Johnston, J. T. DeWolf y D. F. Mazurek, Mecnica de Materiales, Mexico
DF: Mc Graw hill, 2013.
[10 Timken
Company,
Bearing
Search,
[En
lnea].
Available:
] http://www2.timken.com/timken_ols3/Bearings/GST/WEB_GST2008/GST_BrgCombi
nedSearch.asp. [ltimo acceso: 17 Octubre 2016].
16
10. Annexes
Excel data Sheet
Tecnolgico de Costa Rica
Proyecto de Falla dinmica
Elementos de Mquinas
Datos Previos sobre fuerzas en el engrane

Fuerza Tangencial (Ft)[lbs]:
Fuerza Radial (Fr)[lbs]:
Fuerza axial (Fa)[lbs]:
Torque (T) [lbft]
Ancho del engrane (b1)[in]:
Separacion Propu. (b3+5%)[in]:
Tempertatura Max (Tmax)[F]:
Velocidad Angular del eje [rpm]
Confiabilidad del eje [%]:
2001,95
775,41
728,65
1864,13
5,25
2,625
176
118,33
99,9
Factor de
Seguridad
Minimo
FSmin
1,7
Calculos estticos
Componente
Componente "x
Fuerza Radial Componente "x Componente "y" Fuerza Radial
"y" Fuerza en
" Fuerza en el
En el
" Fuerza en el
Fuerza en el
En el
el rodamiento
rodamiento 1
rodamiento 1 rodamiento 2
rodamiento 2 rodamiento 2
1
F1X
F1y
F1
F2x
F2y
F2
[lbs]
382,70
[lbs]
988,04
[lbs]
1059,57
[lbs]
392,72
[lbs]
1013,91
[lbs]
1087,31
Rodamientos
Tipo de Carga
Engranes comerciales
Rodamiento
1
2
Tipo de
Rodamiento
Cnico
Cnico
Tipo de aplicacin
Operacin Continua, alta confiabilidad
Confiabilidad deseda
99,90%
Factor de
aplicacin
Factor de
temperatura
Factor de
Viscocidad
Ciclos de vida
deseados
Factor
af
fT
fV
LD
1,300
1,300
0,35
0,35
1,1
1,1
[rev]
23666667
23666667
1,2
1,16
2016
Carga
Dinmica eq
P
[lbs]
1059,57
1761,56
Rodamiento con axial

2
Clasificaci
on de
carga
Minima
C90 min
[lbs]
3120
5186
Elaborado por: Jean Pablo Valverde Mora
Rodamiento 1
Marca
N Parte Exterior
N Parte Interior
Diametro interior [in]
Ancho (W1) [in]
Radio [in]
Timken
65500
65225
2,25
1,75
0,14
Rodamiento 2
C90
FS
Factor K
Diam. Exterior [in]
Back Sh. Diam [in]
Marca
N Parte Exterior
N Parte Interior
Diametro interior [in]
Ancho (W2) [in]
Radio [in]
14200
4,55
1,2
5
2,79
TIMKEN
HM813810
HM813846
2,75
1,4375
0,14
C90
FS
Factor K
Diam. Exterior [in]
Back Sh. Diam [in]
13400
2,58
1,16
5
3,23
Anlisis Esttico
V xz [lbs]
V yz [lbs]
Cortante [lbs]
1,00
2,00
3,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
6,00
7,00
7,00
8,00
8,00
8,00
A
B
B+W2/2
B+W2/2
C
D
D+b1/2
D+b1/2
E-W1/2
E-W1/2
E
E
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
392,72
392,72
392,72
392,72
-382,70
-382,70
0,00
0,00
0,00
392,72
0,00
0,00
0,00
1013,91
1013,91
1013,91
1013,91
-988,04
-988,04
0,00
0,00
0,00
1013,91
0,00
0,00
0,00
1087,31
1087,31
1087,31
1087,31
-1059,57
-1059,57
0,00
0,00
0,00
1087,31
Momento
Flector [lbft]
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
65,13
302,97
540,82
540,82
0,00
540,82
Carga Axial [lbs]

0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
728,65
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
728,65
3000,00
2000,00
2000,00
1000,00
1000,00
0,00
0,00
-1000,00
9 -1000,00
-2000,00
-2000,00
-3000,00
-3000,00
Cortante [lbs]
Carga Axial [lbs]
Momento Flector [lbft]
Torque [lbs
ft]
1374,91
1374,91
1374,91
1374,91
1374,91
1374,91
1374,91
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
1374,91
Torque y Momento [lbft]
Punto
Cortante y axial [lb]
num pto
cortante en p
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
1087,31
-1059,57
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
1087,31
flecor en
p
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
540,82
540,82
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
540,82
axial
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
728,65
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
728,65
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
####
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
####
Seccion
Critica
6
Torque [lbs ft]
2016
Recomendaciones para el eje
Material Seleccionado
AISI 1050 As rolled
Esfuerzo de
cedencia
Sy
[PSI]
60200
Dureza Brinell
Eje min. por

Torque
Eje min.
P/cua
Dmin
[in]
1,4
Dmin
[in]
0,9
HBn
229
Resistencia al la fatiga del material Considerado para Bending 10^6

Segmento
Diametro
D1
D2
D3
D4
D
[in]
3
2,75
2,5
2,25
Resistencia en Coeficiente de
la Prueba de
carga
Sn'
CL
[PSI]
52500
1
52500
1
52500
1
52500
1
Coeficiente de
gradiente
CG
0,8
0,8
0,8
0,8
Coeficiente de Coeficiente de Coeficiente de Resistenci

Superficie
temperatura Confiabilidad
a a la
Cs
CT
CR
Sn
[PSI]
0,7
1
0,753
22138,2
0,7
1
0,753
22138,2
0,7
1
0,753
22138,2
0,7
1
0,753
22138,2
Esfuerzo
Esfuerzo alternante equivalente
Segmento
Subseccin en anlisis
Crtico
d
D4
D4
Diametro
siguiente al
Crtico
D
Hombro
Cuero
D3
D3
Radio de la
Union
Relacin de
Diametros
Coeficiente de
gradiente
Concentrador
simple
r
[in]
0,14
D/d
r/d
Kt
0,9
0,06
1,3
Esfuerzo
Sensibilidad Concentrador Momento alternante
del notch
en fatiga
alternante Equivalent
e
Kf
Ma
ea
q
[lbft]
[PSI]
0,9
1,27
540,8
7370,42
1,6
540,8
9285,57
1,2870174
2016
Esfuerzo medio equivalente
Carga Axial
P
[lbs]
728,6515536
728,6515536
Concentrador
simple
Concentrador
en fatiga
Esfuerzo
Normal
Torque
Kt
Kf
1,1
1,09
1,6
norm
[PSI]
199,8
293,2
T
[lbft]
1374,91
1374,91
Esfuerzo medio
Equivalente
Concentrador
simple
Concentrador
en fatiga
Kt
Kf
1,1
1,09
1,6
Esfuerzo de
cedencia
Sy
[PSI]
60200,0
60200,0
Factor de
Seguridad
FS
Momento Polar
de Inercia
Mdulo de
Rigidez
Deflexion
angular
Mxima Deflexion
Angular admitida
J
[in4]
7,95
5,61
3,83
2,52
G
[PSI]
11500000
11500000
11500000
11500000
Total
[]
0,0517
0,0210
0,0563
0,1715
0,3005
[]
0,5
Cortante
em
[PSI]
8040,91
11803,17
8141,41
11950,69
Teora de Falla ASME

Seccin
Hombro
Cuero
Esfuerzo
alternante
ea
[PSI]
7370,42
9285,57
Esfuerzo medio Resistencia a la

Equivalente
fatiga
em
Sn
[PSI]
8141,41
22138,2
11950,69
22138,2
2,78
2,15
Deflexion angular
Segmento
Dimetro
D1
D2
D3
D4
d
[in]
3,0000
2,7500
2,5000
2,2500
T
[lbin]
16498,9
16498,9
16498,9
16498,9
L
[in]
5,0000
1,4375
2,6250
5,2500
9,625
Cua
Torque
T
[lbin]
16498,9
16498,9
Esfyerzo cedenciaDiametro del Eje Factor de seg Longitud Requerida

Sy
d
FS
L
[PSI]
[in]
[in]
60200
2,2500
1,7
1,269420531
60200
3,0000
1,7
0,714049048
2016
h
[in]
0,5625
0,75
Tcnolgico de Costa Rica
Proyecto Falla dinmica
Datos Generales del la caja reductora
[]
Angulo de
Preson
Normal
n
[]
Angulo de
Presin
Tangencial
t
[]
Relacion de
velocidad de
la caja
in/out
20
20
21,1728
30
Velocidad
de Entrada
Potencia
Transmitida
in
rpm
3550
P
[HP]
42
Angulo de
Hlice
Temp
Mxima
Trabajo
Tmax
[C]
80
Factor de
Seguridad
Tipo de Dientes
de los engranes
FS
k
1
1,7
Prof. Completa
Confiabilidad Confiabilidad
en flexion
en Superficie
[%]
90
Cr
[%]
99
Razon del
Adendum
Material de
G4
Material de Material de Material de

G3
G2
G1
Nodular
4140
4140
Nodular Iron
Iron 120-90- normalizad
normalizado
120-90-02
02
o
Impactos en Impactos en
el Motor
la mquina
Ciclos de
Vida
esperados
c
1
uniforme
1
medio
2
10^7
Este Valor es necesario
Este Valor se puede cambiar
Error
Elemento
Clculos Geomtricos
tipo
G4
G3
G2
G1
Pion
engrane
Pion
engrane
Relacion de
Velocidad
p/g
5
5
6
6
Normal
Diametral
Pitch
Pn
[in-1]
8
8
4
4
Dientes
mnimos del
pion
Numero de
Dientes
Nmin/max
14
14
70
14
84
14
Dimetro del
Radio Base
Pitch
d
[in]
1,8623
9,3116
3,7246
22,3477
rb
[in]
0,8683
4,3415
1,7366
10,4196
Adendum
Dedendum
Radio de
adendum
Radio del
dedendum
a
[in]
0,1250
0,1250
0,2500
0,2500
d
[in]
0,1563
0,1563
0,3125
0,3125
ra
[in]
1,0562
4,7808
2,1123
11,4239
rd
[in]
0,7749
4,4995
1,5498
10,8614
Distancia
entre
centros
c
[in]
5,5869
5,5869
13,0362
13,0362
tipo
G4
G3
G2
G1
Pion
engrane
Pion
engrane
Paso Axial
pa
[in]
1,1482
1,1482
2,2964
2,2964
ramax
[in]
2,1968
4,7875
5,0185
11,4340
velocidad
angular del
engrane
[rad/s]
371,7551
74,3510
74,3510
12,3918
Velocidad
tangencial del
pitch
Vt
[ft/min]
1730,81
1730,81
692,32
692,32
Clculos Fuerzas
Ancho de la
cara del
diente
Factor de cara
de diente G2 y
G1
b
[in]
2,5000
2,5000
5,2500
5,2500
m
[in]
2,25
Factor de
cara de
diente G3 y
G4
m
[in]
2,25
b =
Elemento
Elemento
Clculos Geomtricos
Radio Mximo
del adendum
Fuerza
Tangencial
Fuerza
Radial
Fuerza Axial
tipo
Fuerza de
Flexion
G4
G3
G2
G1
Pion
engrane
Pion
engrane
Ft
[lbs]
400,39
400,39
2001,95
2001,95
Fr
[lbs]
155,08
155,08
775,41
775,41
Fa
[lbs]
145,73
145,73
728,65
728,65
Fb
[lbs]
426,09
426,09
2130,43
2130,43
Elemento
Clculos Esfuerzo de flexion
tipo
G4
G3
G2
G1
In/0ut
In/0ut
In/0ut
In/0ut
II Semestre
Factor de
Forma
Factor
corrector
Calidad AGMA
Factor de
Velocidad
Factor de
Sobrecarga
Factor de
montaje
Bendig
Stress
Prueba
Moore
Factor De
carga
Factor De
Gradiente
Factor de
Superficie
Factor de
confiabilidad
Fcator de
Temperatura
Factor de
estrs medio
Resistencia a
fatiga flexion
Jk
Qv
kv
ko
km
CG
CS
Kr
Kt
Kms
0,99
0,99
1,03
1,03
9
9
9
9
1,2383
1,2383
1,1564
1,1564
1,25
1,25
1,25
1,25
1,6
1,6
1,7
1,7
Sn
[PSI]
75500
56400
75500
56400
CL
0,42
0,42
0,42
0,42
[PSI]
6669,2
6669,2
7572,1
7572,1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0,85
0,85
0,75
0,75
0,7
0,68
0,8970
0,8970
0,8970
0,8970
0,974842767
0,974842767
0,974842767
0,974842767
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,4
Sn
[PSI]
69320,8
51784,0
54994,5
39908,2
2016
Factor
seguridad a
flexion
FSFlexion
10,39
7,76
7,26
5,27
Elemento
Esfuerzo de superficie
G4
G3
G2
G1
Coeficiente
elstico
Cp
[PSI]
2000
2000
2000
2000
Raiz 1
Raiz 2
cseno()
[in]
0,6013
0,6013
1,2025
1,2025
[in]
2,0018
2,0018
4,6837
4,6837
[in]
2,0179
2,0179
4,7084
4,7084
Circular base
Pitch
Razon de
Contacto
Factor
Esfuerzo de
Geomtrico Superficie
pb
CR
0,3897
0,3897
0,7794
0,7794
1,5017
1,5017
1,5112
1,5112
0,1403
0,1403
0,1443
0,1443
H
[PSI]
60982,7
60982,7
65146,0
65146,0
Resistencia a
la fatiga
superficial
Sfe
110800
116280
110800
116280
Factor de
Vida Util
Factor de
Resisten. de
Confiabilidad Superficie
CLi
Cr
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
SH
[PSI]
110800,0
116280,0
110800,0
116280,0
Factor
seguridad
Superficie
FSSuperficie
1,82
1,91
1,70
1,78
Steel
Cast
Steel
Cast
1
2
1
2
Resumen
II Semestre
Elemento
tipo
G4
G3
G2
G1
Pion
engrane
Pion
engrane
Verificado
Interferenci
a
Razon de
Contacto
Verificado
Verificado
Falla Flexin falla superficie
Andho del alma

dp
2
4
1,5017
1,5017
1,5112
1,5112
2016
Term 1
term 2
term 3
term4
Nmero Mnimo de
Dientes
2kcos()
(1+2m)
sen2(t)
m2
Np
1,879385242
1,879385242
1,879385242
1,879385242
11
11
13
13
0,130452763
0,130452763
0,130452763
0,130452763
25
25
36
36
13,28225656
13,28225656
13,45324476
13,45324476
II Semestre
2016
Working drawings
L
3
2
ESCALA 1 : 10
N. DE
ELEMENTO
N. DE PIEZA
CANTIDAD
AISI 1050 ROLADO EN FRIO
RODAMIENTO TIMKEN SERIE TS
HIERRO DCTIL 120-90-02
Eje
2
3
HM813846 HM813810_TS
Separador 2 1-2
Engrane
Separador 2 1-4
65225 - 65500_TS
Cua engrane
RODAMIENTO TIMKEN SERIE TS

AISI 4340 NORMALIZADO
SI NO SE INDICA LO CONTRARIO:
LAS COTAS SE EXPRESAN EN in
ACABADO SUPERFICIAL:
TOLERANCIAS:
LINEAL:
ANGULAR:
NOMBRE
DIBUJ.
Description
REBARBAR Y
ROMPER ARISTAS
VIVAS
ACABADO:
FIRMA
AGMA QV=9
NO CAMBIE LA ESCALA
REVISIN
TECNOLGICO DE COSTA RICA
FECHA
TTULO:
ELEMENTOS DE MQUINAS:
PROYECTO DE FALA DINMICA
J. P. Valverde
VERIF.
APROB.
FABR.
CALID.
SECCIN L-L
MATERIAL:
PESO: PESO
material
PESO
N. DE DIBUJO
ESCALA:1:5
Ensamble
HOJA 1 DE 3
A3
0,4
H7
2,50 f7
5,00
5,00
1 1/4-7UNC
2,63
9,63
2,00
,1
4
,1
R0
4
,1
R0
R0
,1
R0
R0 R0,
,0 03
3
1,44
Torneado
0,28
0,4
0,38
1 3/4 -5UNC
Torneado
0,56
H7
2,75 f7
3,00
0,75
4,00
2,05
H7
2,25 f7
1,50
LAS COTAS SE EXPRESAN EN MM
TOLERANCIAS:
LINEAL:
ANGULAR:
NOMBRE
DIBUJ.
REBARBAR Y
ROMPER ARISTAS
VIVAS
ACABADO:
FIRMA
ESCALA 2 : 1
DETALLE F DETALLE E DETALLE C

ESCALA 2 : 1
ESCALA 2 : 1
ESCALA 2 : 1
REVISIN

FECHA
TTULO:
PROYECTO DE FALLA DINMICA
P. VALVERDE
VERIF.
DETALLE B
NO CAMBIE LA ESCALA
APROB.
FABR.
CALID.
MATERIAL:
N. DE DIBUJO

PESO:
ESCALA:1:2
EJE
HOJA 2 DE 3
A3
H7
G
25
f7
R2
,
0,4
Fresado
4,00
2,00
0,4
Torneado
C
,5
R0
10,00
6,00
4,00
G
SECCIN G-G
0,56
LAS COTAS SE EXPRESAN EN MM
TOLERANCIAS:
LINEAL:
ANGULAR:
NOMBRE
DIBUJ.
Valor
Tipo
Helicoidal
ngulo de Hlice
20
ngulo de Presin normal
20
Paso Normal
4 in
Numero de Dientes
84
Dimertro del pitch
22,3477 in
Dimetro de Raiz
21,7228 in
Diametro de la cabeza
22,8478 in
Altura del diente
0,5625 in
REBARBAR Y
ROMPER ARISTAS
VIVAS
ACABADO:
FIRMA
Parmetro
ESCALA 2 : 1
NO CAMBIE LA ESCALA
REVISIN

FECHA
TTULO:
PROYECTO DE FALLA DINMICA
P. VALVERDE
VERIF.
DETALLE K
APROB.
FABR.
CALID.
MATERIAL:
N. DE DIBUJO
HIERRO DUCTIL 120-90-02

PESO: PESO
ESCALA:1:5
ENGRANE
HOJA 3 DE 3
A3
MM
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
1
INCH
To clear 0.13 max

Fillet Radius
1.0625
0.16
0.05
-0.15
1.4375
4.76
3.50
2.7500
3.23
4.37
5.0000
1.4375
To clear 0.14 max

Fillet Radius
IMPERIAL UNITS
SUPERSEDES
PROJECTION
Max Shaft Fillet Radius - R

Max Housing Fillet Radius - r
ISO Factor - e
ISO Factor - Y
Bearing Weight (with cage)
Number of Rollers per Row
Effective Center a / Cone Back Face
0.14
0.13
0.5
1.2
4.19
20
-0.15
ORIGINAL SCALE
HM813846 - HM813810
1:1
inch
inch
TS BEARING ASSEMBLY
lb
inch
THE TIMKEN COMPANY

CANTON, OHIO USA
K factor
Dynamic Radial Rating, C90
Dynamic Thrust Rating, Ca90
Static Radial Rating, C0
Radial Rating (1E6 Rev.), C1
DRAWN
DATE
Timken.com KC_Engineering v1.0
* COMPUTER GENERATED *
THIS DRAWING MUST NOT BE

COPIED OR REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE TIMKEN COMPANY
1.16
13400 lbf
11500 lbf
57600 lbf
51500 lbf
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
10/15/2016
MM
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
1
INCH
To clear 0.13 max

Fillet Radius
1.3750
0.16
0.04
-0.37
1.7500
4.69
3.15
2.2500
2.79
4.21
5.0000
1.7500
To clear 0.14 max

Fillet Radius
IMPERIAL UNITS
SUPERSEDES
PROJECTION
Max Shaft Fillet Radius - R

Max Housing Fillet Radius - r
ISO Factor - e
ISO Factor - Y
Bearing Weight (with cage)
Number of Rollers per Row
Effective Center a / Cone Back Face
0.14
0.13
0.49
1.23
5.93
16
-0.37
ORIGINAL SCALE
65225 - 65500
1:1
inch
inch
TS BEARING ASSEMBLY
lb
inch
THE TIMKEN COMPANY

CANTON, OHIO USA
K factor
Dynamic Radial Rating, C90
Dynamic Thrust Rating, Ca90
Static Radial Rating, C0
Radial Rating (1E6 Rev.), C1
DRAWN
DATE
Timken.com KC_Engineering v1.0
* COMPUTER GENERATED *
THIS DRAWING MUST NOT BE

COPIED OR REPRODUCED
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE TIMKEN COMPANY
1.20
14200 lbf
11800 lbf
66700 lbf
54700 lbf
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY
10/15/2016
Manual calculations schemes

Simply Gearbox Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simply Gearbox Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simply Gearbox Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main goal of the project?

What is the main goal of the project?

What requirements must the design meet?

What requirements must the design meet?

Electro-mechanic engineering facility

Jean Pablo Valverde Mora

Carrera acreditada por:

Main Goal ....................................................................................................................... 1

Problem definition. ......................................................................................................... 1

Academic Requirements .......................................................................................... 2

Quality Requirements .............................................................................................. 2

Tolerance and precision ................................................................................... 2

Design Process ................................................................................................................ 3

Gears design ............................................................................................................. 4

Design Model description ................................................................................. 4

AGMA Recommendations ................................................................................ 5

Power capacity ................................................................................................. 6

Minimum pinion teeth number (interference Consideration) ......................... 6

Face Width ........................................................................................................ 7

Power transmission .......................................................................................... 7

Impact load expected ....................................................................................... 7

Weight reduction improvements. ................................................................ 7

Bearing Selection ..................................................................................................... 8

Design Model description ................................................................................. 8

Analyzed sections ............................................................................................. 9

GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project

Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design

Radius between levels ...................................................................................... 9

Working Drawings ........................................................................................................ 13

Machine elements| Escuela De Ingeniera Electromecnica

Figure 1 Reduction Gear Box

GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project

Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design

General geometry characteristics of each shaft as shown in the figure must be

3.2. Quality Requirements

Overall minimum safety factor has to be more than 1,7.

Tolerance and precision

Machine elements| Escuela De Ingeniera Electromecnica

GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project

Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design

5.2. Gears design

Design Model description

Gear design will be ruled by the following conceptions:

Machine elements| Escuela De Ingeniera Electromecnica

Fallowed assumptions were considered at design process:

Following Juvinall recommendations for standard addendum will be taken. = .

According to Juvinall (8.3), a conservative estimate of endurance limit is about

GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project

Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design

Just as note, hence pinion 4

Minimum pinion teeth number (interference Consideration)

According to Shigley et all, minimum pinion teeth number, to avoid interference on

Machine elements| Escuela De Ingeniera Electromecnica

Following Juvinalls recommendation, b 2 , a variable based desig was used, proposing

Impact load expected

GEARBOX SUB-ASSEMBLY MECHANICAL DESIGN | Dynamic Failure project

Gearbox sub-assembly mechanical design

5.3. Bearing Selection

Design Model description