2nd International Conference on Engineering Optimization

September 6-9, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal

Optimization of Keyway Design

Niels L. Pedersen

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Solid Mechanics, Technical University of Denmark

Nils Koppels Allé, Building 404, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark, email: nlp@mek.dtu.dk

Abstract
Keys and Keyways are one of the most common shaft hub connections. Despite this fact very little numerical
analysis have been reported. The design is often regulated by standards that are almost half a century old where
most results reported in the literature are based on experimental photoelastic analysis. The present paper shows
how numerical finite element (FE) analysis can improve the prediction of stress concentration in the keyway.
Using shape optimization and the simple super elliptical shape it is shown that the fatigue life of a keyway
can be greatly improved. The design changes are simple and therefore practical realizable with only two design
parameters active.
Keywords: Keyway, Parallel key, Stress concentration, Optimization

1. Introduction
Keys and keyways commonly perform connection of shaft and hubs. The designs of these are controlled by
different standards, e.g. [1]. Different design principles are possible, these include parallel keys, tapered keys or
Woodruff keys, see e.g. [2, 3]. Among these, the most common is the parallel key that is the subject of the present
paper. The key and keyway design is fully controlled by the standards based on only one parameter, the shaft
diameter. It is remarkable that very little effort have been done to improve the design with respect to fatigue, i.e.
by minimizing the stress concentrations. This was already pointed out in [4] and to the authors knowledge very
little have been done since. Other designs are possible and have been proposed in the literature, e.g. [5, 6].
The first paper addressing the torsional stiffness of shafts with a kind of keyway is probably [7]. In this paper,
the shafts were modeled with elliptical cross section and the keyways were modeled as hyperbolas. Following this
analytical paper, there have been a number of experimental papers dealing with the stress concentrations of key
and keyway connections. Many of these papers have used photoelastic analysis, see e.g. [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13].
Other papers have used electroplating of copper to the surface , see e.g. [14, 15]. Between the two paper [7] and
[8] other papers have been dealing with experimental stress concentration verification, see the references in [4].
The most commonly used reference with respect to stress concentration factors is [16] which is reproduced and
extended in [17]. The keyway results reported here are taken from the papers [8, 9, 15]. The use of FE modeling
and computational power makes it possible to improve these results, but it seems that this has not yet been done.
The purpose of the present paper is therefore to improve/optimize the keyway design by lowering the stress
concentration. The keyway related stress is indeed fully 3 dimensional as also stated in [18]. A number of different
factors will have an influence on the needed FE analysis complexity and on the resulting maximum stresses found
by the analyses.

1. Loading: tension, bending or torsion

2. Key: loaded with or without the key inserted in the keyway

3. Stress: at the keyway end or in the prismatic part

Restricting the numerical analysis the present paper deals only with torsion; with respect to the other loads or
any load combinations the reader is referred to [9]. To make easy comparison to the numerical and experimental
work in [8] possible, the keyway is loaded in torsion without the key. This means that there is no need for contact
analysis, which would complicate the numerical analysis considerably. The reported results in [15] state that there
is a difference in the maximum stress for pure torsional loading without the key relative to torsion applied through
the key. The experiments presented in [15] where grouped in two (group A and B) for different relative size of
keyway to shaft diameter. The reported experimental result is that in the prismatic keyway part the maximum
stress is 8 − 12% for group A and 4 − 7% for group B greater with a key relative to no key, while the difference is
16 − 24% for group A and 12 − 14% for group B at the key end. These values were rather unaffected by different
ratios of fillet radius to shaft diameter. This leads to the conclusion that the true stress concentrations can be found

1
 from a study without the torsion coming from the key by adding at maximum 12% to the stresses in the prismatic
part.
The end of a keyway has two standard designs, shown in Figure 1.



  



 

  

 

 








 









a) b)














 






























 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    












 





















 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 












 


















 
PSfrag replacements

  













  


  





 

   




 

 
Figure 1: The two standard keyway ends for parallel keys. a) End-milled or profile keyway b) Sled-runner keyway.

The profile keyway is cut by an end-mile while the sled-runner keyway is cut by an ordinary milling cutter.
The stress concentrations at the keyway end are most severe for the profile keyway so with respect to fatigue the
sled-runner is the best design. [4] suggested a design change to the sled-runner keyway end that further improves
the fatigue properties. The stress concentration factor for pure torsion for a profile keyway end was in [8] found to
be Kt = 3.4 for a width of keyway to diameter ratio equal to b/d = 1/4. This value was unaffected by the keyway
bottom fillet radius. If we are to improve the profile keyway end design we should move away from the circular
design, this would most probably increase the machining cost and is not discussed further in this paper. For the
sled-runner keyway in pure torsion the stress concentration factor is higher in the keyways prismatic part relative
to the keyway end if the same milling cutter is used for the hole cutting operation.
With the simplification made the analyzed stress concentration factor is in the present paper fully controlled by
the keyway fillet in the bottom of the prismatic part. The design domain is two dimensional and shown in Figure
2.
 
                        
                        
              y           
                        
                        
                        
PSfrag replacements                     x    
b r 
                         
                        
            d            
                        
                        
t                        
                        
Figure 2: Cross section of prismatic part of parallel keyway, the coordinate system is placed at the shaft axis. The
relative dimensions corresponds to a d = 100mm shaft according to [1], (t = 10mm, b = 28mm, 0.4mm 5 r 5
0.6mm).

Obeying the standards the only possibility to improve the stress concentrations for the design in Figure 2 is
to select the maximum fillet radius r. Previous work on shape optimization in relation to machine elements, see
[19, 20], has shown that changing from the circular shape to an elliptical shape has a large influence on the stress
concentrations. This is also pursued in the present paper.

2
2. Mathematical formulation and FE
The torsional moment is given by

φ
Mt = GJ (1)
l
where G is the shear modulus of elasticity, J is the cross sectional torsional stiffness factor, φ angular rotation
of torsional cross section and l it the shaft length. In the literature it is common to use θ = φ/l, i.e. an angular
rotation per length. It is assumed that a prismatic shaft is align with a Cartesian coordinate system with the x-, y-
and z-directions such that the shaft axis is aligned with the z-direction. Saint-Venant have introduced the warping
function Ψ(x, y) by which the shaft displacement under torsion is given by

φ φ φ
vx = −yz vy = xz vz = Ψ(x, y) (2)
l l l
Using this definition the cross section shear stresses (all other stresses are zero) are given by

dΨ φ dΨ φ
τzx = τxz = ( − y)G τzy = τyz = ( + x)G (3)
dx l dy l
With zero volume force the force equilibrium gives the Laplace differential equation that the warping function
must fulfill

∆Ψ = 0 (4)

To solve this differential equation the boundary conditions are needed. For free boundaries we have no surface
traction. If we define the normal to the surface as {nx , ny }T then the condition of no surface traction is given by

 
τzx
{nx , ny } =0 (5)
τzy

This can be reformulated into a Neumann boundary condition for the warping function by using (3)

dΨ 
 

 
 dx 
  
y

{nx , ny } = {nx , ny } (6)

 dΨ 
 −x

 

dy
It is possible to utilize symmetry, see Figure 3 where half the cross section of a shaft is shown. The boundary
condition for a symmetry line is given by

 
τzx
{−ny , nx } =0 (7)
τzy

If the symmetry line fulfill that y = 0, as done in Figure 3, then the boundary condition for the symmetry line
(7) can be simplified. Since nx = 0 and ny = 1 then the boundary condition become τzx = 0 or by using (3) that
dΨ/dx = 0. This is identical to the Dirichlet boundary condition

Ψ=C (8)

where C is an arbitrary constant. Since we are only interested in the first derivative of the warping function we may
select C = 0. By formulating the torsional problem as (4) with the boundary conditions (6) and (8) it is possible
to use a standard PDE solver. In the present paper the program COMSOL is used ([21]).
It should be noted that the displacements (2) are all defined relative to a coordinate system placed at the center
of torsion. The calculation of the involved strains and stresses are however insensitive to any movement or rotation

3
of the coordinate system.

2.1 Stress concentration

The stress concentration is most often defined as

σmax
Kt = (9)
σnom
where σnom is the nominal stress, i.e. the maximum stress without the keyway and σmax is the maximum stress
with the keyway. Both stresses are the greatest principal stress. The subscript t indicates that it is a theoretical
stress concentration based only on geometry and loading/boundary condition, no material sensitivity is included.
For torsional problems we may give the stress concentration as

τmax
Kts = (10)
τnom
where we for the present torsional problem have that

16Mt
τnom = (11)
πd3
q
τmax = ( 2 + τ2 )
τzx zy max (12)

The nominal stress and the maximum stress are found under the same external loading. By the assumption of linear
elasticity the external load size does not influence the stress concentration. The size of M t is selected such that

φ
G = 1 N/m3 (13)
l
this leads to the nominal stress and maximum stress given as

d
τnom = N/m3 (14)
2 s
!
Jc dΨ dΨ
τmax = ( − y)2 + ( + x)2 N/m3 (15)
Jk dx dy
max

where Jc is the cross sectional torsional stiffness factor for the circular shaft and Jk is the cross sectional torsional
stiffness factor for the shaft with a keyway.

πd4
Jc = (16)
Z32
dΨ dΨ
Jk = (−( − y)y + ( + x)x)dA (17)
A dx dy

2.2 FE model
A FE model example is shown in Figure 3. The shaft design is the DIN standard presented in Figure 2. Only half the
shaft is necessary for the modeling. The bottom edge is a symmetry line so here the Dirichlet boundary condition
(8) is applied. To the remaining edges the Neumann boundary condition (6) is applied. The number of elements
in the shown mesh is limited (917 elements) for illustrative purpose. The numerical calculations performed in this
paper have all been performed with a much higher number of elements (30000 to 60000). Convergence test have
been made to confirm the FE results.
The maximum stress is of primary interest, since this stress controls the stress concentration. The maximum
stress is in all numerical calculations found at the keyway boundary. In Figure 4 the stress concentration is shown
along the keyway boundary (s is the arc length), in the close up Figure 4b the stress concentration along the fillet
is shown. From an optimization point of view it is clear that this is not optimal because the stress is expected to be

4
 External point PSfrag replacements
Center of keyway

0
5
PSfrag replacements PSfrag replacements
10
Center of keyway
15
a) External 20
point
b)
0.0
0.5a) Example of a finite element mesh, the shown
Figure 3: The figures are for half the shaft given in Figure 2.
mesh is with 917 elements. The Dirichlet boundary condition 1.0
(8) is applied to the bottom edge while the Neumann
1.5lines of resulting stress level, indicating the stress
boundary condition (6) is applied to the remaining edges. b) Iso
concentration at the corner. 2.0
PSfrag replacements 2.5
3.0
Kt Kt Kt
3.0 s/mm3.0

2.5
2.0 2.6

1.5
1.0 2.2

0.5
0.0 1.8
0 5 10 15 20 7.5 7.7 7.9 8.1 8.3
a) s/mm b) s/mm
Figure 4: The figures are for half the shaft shown in Figure 2 and show the stress concentration as a function of
the arc length. a) The stress concentration factor along the keyway boundary starting from the external point until
the center point. b) Stress concentration close up, here only show along the r = 0.6mm fillet at the corner. The
maximum value is Kt = 2.93; with a fillet radius of 0.4mm which is also allowed by the standard the value is
Kt = 3.32.

constant along major parts of the surface in order for the design to be optimal, see e.g. [19]. The stress level is such
that for a fillet radius of r = 0.6mm we find Kt = 2.93, with a fillet radius of r = 0.4mm which is also allowed
by the standard the value is Kt = 3.32. This is a rather large variation in the stress concentration for designs that
fulfills the standard geometry.

3. Keyway optimization
In keyway design as in many other designs within machine elements the standard preferred shape is the circle or a
semicircle. This is probably due to the simple parameterization and/or ease of manufacturing. For the sled-runner
design or the profile keyway there are however no difficulty in introducing a different fillet shape. It is well known
from shape optimization that the circular shape is seldom optimal with respect to stress concentrations, see e.g.
[19].
From a practical point of view focus should be on simplicity, although the optimization result should still be
near to the optimal design. That a given parameterization is sufficiently flexible, i.e. that it can return optimal
designs, can only be checked or verified after an actual optimization procedure. If the stress is constant along
major parts of the surface then the shape is assumed optimal, see [19].
The parameterization chosen here is to use the super ellipse due to the simple parameterization and due to
previous results obtained with this shape in relation to stress concentrations for other problems. The design domain
is shown in Figure 5, where the elliptical shape can be seen for the fillet.
The super ellipse (with super elliptical power η) is in parametric form given by

5
 π
X = L1 + A cos(α)(2/η) , α ∈ [0 : ] (18)
2
π
Y = L2 + B sin(α)(2/η) , α ∈ [0 : ] (19)
2

                          
                         
                         
                         
                         
                          
                         
                         
  L  1                     
                         
PSfrag replacements     B                      
                         
                         
         A                
b/2
                         
 Y          L 2              
                         
                         
                         
      X                   
t
Figure 5: The design domain: half a keyway where the fillet is a super ellipse with semi-major axes A and B.

The keyway design is according to Figure 5 fully controlled by five design parameters, width b, depth t, length
L1 and L2 and super ellipse power η. The optimization is performed for a 100mm shaft. This is of course a
specific choice of shaft diameter but the results will indicate what level of stress improvements are possible more
generally. In the example the other preselected values are

b = 28mm, L1 = 7.4mm

i.e., the width complies with DIN 6885 and the shoulder length L1 complies with the largest allowable fillet ratio
r = 0.6mm. In principle there are now three design variable; the depth t, length L 2 and the super elliptical power
η. However from the preformed parameter study it is found that L2 = 0 and the length parameter L2 is therefore
not an active design parameter. The parameter study results in the optimized values

L2 = 0mm, t = 11.51, η = 1.99

An iso line plot of largest principal stress is presented in Figure 6. The iso lines in Figure 6 close to the fillet
are parallel to the fillet indicating constant stress along the shape. This is visualize in Figure 7 that show the stress
concentration factor along the keyway boundary. The dotted straight line indicates the maximum value, which in
this case is Kt = 1.65, it is seen that the stress is close to being constant along the fillet. The plot shows the stress
concentration factor along half the keyway. It is known that at the starting corner the stress must be zero and then
the stress must build up to the maximum value, which in this case is almost constant along the fillet. Although the
parameterization chosen is very simple with only two active design parameters the design is close to the optimum.
A better parameterization with more design variables might lead to a more constant stress along the shape but from
Figure 7 it is seen that the room for improvement is small.
The maximum stress has for this design been reduced with 43.7% relative to the original design. The design
improvement has been achieved using the same shoulder length as specified by the standard. The load carrying
capacity is therefore identical.
Acknowledgments
For discussions and suggestions I wish to thank Prof. Pauli Pedersen and Prof. Peder Klit.

6
 Figure 6: Iso lines of largest principal stress for the optimized design.

Kt
PSfrag replacements
Kt = 1.65
1.6

1.2

0.8

0.4

s/mm
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 7: The stress concentration as a function of the arc length along the keyway from the external point until
the center point.

References
[1] DIN 6885-1. Paßfedern nuten (in german), 1968.
[2] R. L. Norton. Machine design: An integrated Approach, third edition. Pearson education Inc., Upper Saddle
River, N.J. 07458, 2006. 984 pages.
[3] J. E. Shigley and C. R. Michke. Mechanical Engineering Design 6th ed. McGraw Hill, Singapore, 2003.
1230 pages.
[4] W. C. Orthwein. A new key and keyway design. J Mech Des Trans ASME, 101(2):338–341, 1979.
[5] H. E. Merritt. The design of cylindrical keys. Machinery (London), 27(701):729–732, 1926.
[6] A. Kuske. Erhöhung der lebensdauer durch verbesserung der bauteilgestalt. Stahl und Eisen, 91(8):446–51,
1971.
[7] L. N. G. Filon. On the resistance to torsion of certain forms of shafting, with special reference to the effect
of keyways. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a
Mathematical or Physical Character, 193:309–352, 1900.

7
 [8] M. M. Leven. Stresses in keyways by photoelastic methods and comparison with numerical solutions. Pro-
ceedings of the society for experimental stress analysis, 7(2):141–154, 1949.

[9] H. Fessler, C. C. Rogers, and P. Stanley. Stresses at end-milled keyways in plain shafts subjected to tension,
bending, and torsion. Journal of Strain Analysis, 4(3):180–189, 1969.

[10] H. Fessler, C. C. Rogers, and P. Stanley. Stresses at keyway ends near shoulders. Journal of Strain Analysis,
4(4):267–277, 1969.

[11] W. C. Orthwein. Keyway stresses when torsional loading is applied by the keys. Experimental Mechanics,
15(6):245–248, 1975.

[12] M. Eissa and H. Fessler. Reduction of elastic stress concentrations in end-milled keyed connections. Experi-
mental Mechanics, 23(4):401–408, 1983.

[13] H. Fessler and T. Appavoo. On the effect of key edge shape on keyway edge stresses in shafts in torsion.
Journal of Strain Analysis, 24(3):121–125, 1989.

[14] K. Terada. Erneute untersuchung der formzahl für keilnuten. Materialprüfung, 5(10):385–387, 1963.

[15] H. Okubo, K. Hosono, and K. Sakaki. The stress concentration in keyways when torque is transmitted through
keys. Experimental Mechanics, 8(8):375–380, 1968.

[16] R. E. Peterson. Stress concentration design factors. John Wiley & Sons, inc., New York, 1953. 155 pages.

[17] W. D. Pilkey. Peterson’s stress concentration factors. John Wiley & Sons, inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York,
NY, 1997. 508 pages.

[18] R. E. Peterson. Fatigue of shafts having keyways. American Society for Testing Materials - Proceedings,
32(part 2):413–419, 1932.

[19] N. L. Pedersen and P. Pedersen. Design of notches and grooves by means of elliptical shapes. Journal of
Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 43(1):1–14, 2008.

[20] N. L. Pedersen. Reducing bending stress in external spur gears by redesign of the standard cutting tool.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 38(3):215–227, 2009.

[21] COMSOL AB. Stockholm, www.comsol.se, 1998-2009.