Marques 等。 - 2021 - A Continuous Analytical Solution for the Load Shar

Mechanism and Machine Theory 161 (2021) 104320
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmachtheory
Research paper
A continuous analytical solution for the load sharing and

friction torque of involute spur and helical gears considering
a non-uniform line stiffness and line load
Pedro M.T. Marques a,∗, João D.M. Marafona b, Ramiro C. Martins c,
Jorge H.O. Seabra b
a
INEGI, Universidade do Porto, Campus FEUP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias 400, Porto 4200-465, Portugal
b
FEUP, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, Porto 4200-465, Portugal
c
ISEP, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 431, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: In this work a continuous analytical model for the estimation of the mesh stiffness, load
Received 17 December 2020 sharing and friction torque for parallel axis involute spur and helical gears is presented.
Revised 3 March 2021
The model has no limitations in the admissible range for the overlap and contact ratios.
Accepted 3 March 2021
The main novelty of the work lies on the mathematical approach that allows the contin-
Available online 26 March 2021
uous description of the gearing phenomena without using functions by domains. At first,
Keywords: a model for the mesh stiffness and load sharing ratio for spur gears is developed. Then, a
Gears more advanced approach is used to tackle the same problem for helical gears. Both mod-
Mesh stiffness els consider a non-uniform contact line stiffness sharing function. Afterwards, assuming a
Load sharing constant friction coefficient, two friction torque models are developed, one for spur and
Friction torque the other for helical gears, while considering a non-uniform contact line load. The influ-
ence of the model parameters in the mesh stiffness, load sharing and friction torque is
evaluated. Finally three gears of different types are selected and compared with reference
results.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The importance of gear efficiency is undeniable, whether the topic is renewable energy, automobile or aerospace, its
impact on the environment and sustainability is extensive, affecting not only industry but also the everyday life.
Gear teeth friction losses are intimately related to gear geometry, the fraction of the load that is being supported by
each meshing teeth pair and the lubrication conditions, which can often be condensed in a friction coefficient. The friction
force acting between meshing gear teeth is almost proportional to the normal load, if a Coulomb friction model is assumed.
This indicates that the load sharing between meshing teeth pairs is of great importance when the aim is to estimate the
gear friction torque. Through the years many authors have dealt with the mesh stiffness and load sharing problems in gears
[1–18].
The analytical estimation of gear efficiency has been a topic of discussion for many years. Many equations aiming to
provide an estimation of average efficiency based on basic gear parameters (gear loss factor) have been developed since
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pmarques@inegi.up.pt (P.M.T. Marques).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2021.104320
0094-114X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.M.T. Marques, J.D.M. Marafona, R.C. Martins et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 161 (2021) 104320
Nomenclature
Quantity Description (Unit)

αA,E
i (ξ , i ) partial lever arm (m)
αf minimum load ratio (contact line)
αk minimum stiffness ratio (path of contact)
αL minimum stiffness ratio (contact line)
αn normal pressure angle (rad)
β helix angle (rad)
βb base helix angle; ∠EE’H, see Figure 1 (rad)
δ (η ) normalised path of contact coordinate shift
δb transmission error (path of contact) (m)
is (ξ , i ) lever arm balance (m)
ih (ξ , i ) lever arm balance (m)
A,E
η normalised coordinate along a contact line
γA,E
i (ξ , i ) fraction of the length of a contact line
λ normalised distance AC
pbt , Figures 5 and 16
i (ξ , i )
Fs,h load sharing ratio with friction
R load sharing ratio at ξ = 0
μ constant average gear friction coefficient
T1 A see Figure 13 (m)
T2 E see Figure 13 (m)
i
T1,2 L (ξ , i ) distance to contact line (m)
i
T1,2 LA,E (ξ , i ) distance to point of equivalent load (m)
φ i (ξ , i ) normalised path of contact coordinate shift
φLi (ξ , i ) normalised contact line coordinate shift
ψ parameter related to the c f h factor
A start point of meshing
C pitch point
E end point of meshing
O1,2 axis of rotation; centre of a circle
T1,2 contact point of tangent (mesh lines) at base circle
θ1 , 2 angular displacement ( rad)
ε total contact ratio, ε = εα + εα
εL normalised maximum contact line length
εα transverse contact ratio, εα = pAE , see Figure 1
bt
εβ overlap ratio, εβ = pEH , see Figure 1

bt
ξ normalised coordinate along the path of contact
a centre distance (m)
b facewidth (m)
c single stiffness, ISO 6336 method B ( N m−2 )
cf f normalised parabolic line load correction factor
c f s,h stiffness correction factor
i (ξ , i )
CFA,E normalised position of load application centre
f i (ξ , η , i ) normalised parabolic line load distribution
FaiA,E (ξ , i ) friction force (N)
Fai (ξ , i ) friction force (N)
FNs,h tooth normal force, transverse plane (N)
FNi (ξ , i ) force normal to teeth pair i, transverse plane (N)
s,h
i (ξ , i )
F PA,E line load fraction
H (... ) Heaviside function
i teeth pair shift (integer)
k Heaviside function steepness
kih (ξ , η, i ) normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness
ki s,h (ξ , η, i ) normalised line stiffness distribution
L
2
kis (ξ , i ) normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness

ISO
Kmax maximum single pair stiffness, equation (27) (N m−1 )
i (ξ , i )
kls,h normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness
Kls,hu (ξ , i ) unbounded normalised gear mesh stiffness
Kls,h (ξ ) normalised gear mesh stiffness
M1i ,2 (ξ ) single teeth pair torque (N m)
mn normal module (m)
M1,2 torque (N m)
pbt transverse pitch on base cylinder (m)
PV ZPs,h power loss along the path of contact (W)
ra1,2 tip radius, O1 B, O2 A, see Figure 13 (m)
rb1,2 base radius, O1,2 T1,2 , see Figure 13 (m)
Sif (ξ , i ) switching function
TV ZPs,h (ξ ) gear friction torque (N m)
TVi ZP (ξ , i ) total single teeth pair friction torque (N m)
s,h
T ls,h (ξ ) static trim function
Ul∞i (ξ , i ) normalised complementary contact line length
Ulmi (ξ , i ) normalised simplified contact line length
Ulγi (ξ , i ) normalised contact line length in CEE’C’
ULis,h (ξ , i ) contact line length (m)
i (ξ , i )
Uls,h normalised contact line length
x1,2 profile shift coefficient
z1,2 number of teeth
Superscript
˙ time derivative
’ other face of the gear
i teeth pair number (integer)
Subscript
1 driving body
2 driving body
φL related to φLi (ξ , i )
A points in AA’C’C, see Figure 16
E points in CEE’C’, see Figure 16
f related to parabolic line load sharing
h helical gear
s spur gear
the middle of the 20th century [19–25]. Other studies have dealt with the analytical study of the friction torque in spur
gears [26–28].These works are mostly adequate for gears with contact and overlap ratios in very well defined ranges. More
recently, there have been studies that focus on the estimation of the gear friction torque using numerical methods, which,
in some cases, take into account the gear teeth contact deflections and the lubricating film formation [7,29]. In other works
[30–33], the gear friction torque was experimentally measured and then compared with model estimations.
The goal of this work is to present a continuous analytical model for the estimation of the friction torque for spur and
helical gears without limitations in the admissible range for the overlap and contact ratios. Furthermore, by relying on the
properties of the Heaviside function, there is no need to specify any equation by domains, since the mathematical approach
takes care of this problem.
First, spur and helical gear mesh stiffness and load sharing models are presented. These models are based on some of
the ideas introduced in a previous work, [34], however, in this work, a non-uniform stiffness is considered along a contact
line. Then, on the assumption of a constant friction coefficient, from the load balance equations, two friction torque models
considering a non-uniform load along a contact line are developed, one for spur and another for helical gears.
The proposed models rely on the adjustment of three parameters of which, two control the single teeth pair mesh
stiffness shape along the path of contact and the other controls the load sharing function shape along a contact line. The
sensitivity of the model to these parameters was evaluated. It was concluded that the shape of the contact line load sharing
function can have a significant influence on the friction torque estimations. The results obtained with the proposed models
are compared with existing analytical and numerical solutions showing promising results.
3
Fig. 1. Definition of coordinates ξ and η for a gear with an arbitrary overlap ratio, εβ .
2. Reference coordinate system
Consider that x is the position along the path of contact with origin in A. A is the theoretical start point of meshing, see
Fig. 1. Consider then a coordinate ξ , that is the coordinate along the path of contact normalised by the transverse base pitch,
pbt , where ξ = 0 at point A, see Fig. 1. The transformation from normalised to real coordinates in this reference direction is
represented by Eq. (1).
x = ξ · pbt (1)
Throughout this work, phenomena will be studied along any contact line LL’. y is then the coordinate that specifies the
distance along a contact line at a position ξ , eg. in Fig. 1 ξ1 is the origin of the contact line LL’. y = 0 at the point L, where
the contact line starts, and increases towards L’. η is then the coordinate y normalised by the quantity cosbβ , see Fig. 1.
b
Eq. (2) is the transformation from normalised to real coordinates in the direction of a contact line. Note that for helical
gears point L is not always over the line defined by AE, in other words, the origin of η is not always coincident with a point
of the reference axis for ξ . When ξ > εα point L is over the EE’ line.
b
y=η· (2)
cos βb
rom Eq. (2) dy can specified according to Eq. (3).
dy b b
= ⇔ dy = dη · (3)
dη cos βb cos βb
3. A continuous description of the length of the lines of contact
In previous works, the authors developed an analytical description on the length of the lines of contact based on the
Heaviside function in order to develop an over simplistic gear mesh stiffness model, [34]. The Heaviside contact line length
model is partially presented in this section. Despite some redundancy, this is at the very core of the approach taken through-
out this work, so properly understanding this step is fundamental to understand the whole study. Furthermore, the equa-
tions presented here are extensively used and the notation also had to be slightly updated compared to the previous work
[34] in order to accommodate for the added complexity in the present study.
For spur gears, the length of a contact line over a tooth is constant, therefore teeth pair entering the plane of action, (see
AEE’A’ in Fig. 1) can be viewed as a step increment of constant value in the function describing the length of a contact line.
The Heaviside function (unit step function) is then suited to describe this behaviour.
The Heaviside function can be approximated using Eq. (4). For a value of k = 1 × 104 the analytic approximation is in
good agreement with the theoretical Heaviside function, see Fig. 2.
1

H (ξ ) = lim (4)
k→+∞ 1 + e−2·k·ξ
The ratio of length of the contact line over a tooth to the facewidth for a spur gear (helix angle, β = 0) is always constant
and equal to 1 in the active section of the plane of action and 0 outside of it. This defines a function that has a shape of a
square of unitary height and width equal to the gear contact ratio, εα , which can be obtained by subtracting two Heaviside
functions shifted by εα . The contact ratio εα is defined according to Eq. (6).
In a spur gear there can be multiple pairs of teeth simultaneously meshing, that are in delay or advance from each other
by a multiple integer of the transverse base pitch, pbt , which corresponds to a unit in the abscissa of the coordinate system
where ξ is defined, Eq. (1). So in order to account for all the possible meshing teeth pairs, the function that defines the
behaviour of a single meshing teeth pair should be shifted back and forth as needed to fill the active region of the plane
of action, see AEE’A’ in Fig. 5. In the coordinate system that was defined this corresponds to shifting the aforementioned
4
Fig. 2. Approximation to the Heaviside function, Eq. (4).
i
Fig. 3. Normalised length of the lines of contact over a single meshing teeth pair, Uls,h ( ξ , i ).
square like window function by an integer amount i, yielding the normalised contact line length ratio for spur gears, Ulsi (ξ , i )
(Eq. (5)), see Fig. 3 a. Here the length of a contact line is normalised to the gear facewidth b.

Ulsi (ξ , i ) = H (ξ − i ) − H (ξ − εα − i ) (5)
The contact ratio εα , Eq. (6), represents the average number of meshing teeth. From the definitions of εα and the coor-
dinate ξ , (see Fig. 1), it follows that the i integers must be i = − floor(εα ) : 1 : floor(εα ) (floor is rounding down).
AE
εα = (6)
pbt
Ulsi (ξ , i ), Eq. (5), is only valid for spur gears, however, for helical gears the thought process is similar. For helical gears,
the Heaviside function can be combined with linear functions to yield the progressive behaviour of the length of a contact
line. In addition, for helical gears the contact line length normalisation is done dividing the contact line length by cosbβ ,
b
where βb is the base helix angle, see ∠EE’H in Fig. 1.
H
Ulhi (ξ , i ), Eq. (7), is then the normalised contact line length for helical gears. In Eq. (7), the term ε 1 represents the
β
H
normalised linear increment in length as a line enters the contact, for ξ ≤ 0, ε 1 = 0. This line develops to its full length at
β
H2
ξ = εβ , so term εβ is subtracted to the previous one to prevent a line increasing its length indefinitely. A line starts exiting
H H H
the path of contact at ξ = εα , so ε 3 is subtracted to ε 1 − ε 2 . A contact line does not decrease in length indefinitely, it
β β β
H
becomes 0 at ξ = ε so the term ε 4 is summed to the previous ones, resulting in a plateau, such that Ulhi (ξ , i )=0 for ξ ≥ ε .
β
ε is total contact ratio and it is defined according to Eq. (8) and εβ is the overlap ratio, Eq. (9), see Fig. 1.
1

Ulhi (ξ , i ) = · H ( ξ − i ) · ( ξ − i ) − H ( ξ − εβ − i ) · ( ξ − εβ − i ) − H ( ξ − εα − i ) · ( ξ − εα − i )
εβ
H1 H3
H2
+ H (ξ − ε − i ) · (ξ − ε − i ) (7)

H5
5
Fig. 4. Normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness, kis (ξ , i ) (αk = 0.6, i = 0).
Fig. 5. Plane of contact of a spur gear, where LL’ is a generic contact line.
ε = εα + εβ (8)
EH
εβ = (9)
pbt
In Eq. (7) i = − floor(ε ) : 1 : floor(ε ) (floor is rounding down).

Fig. 3 b and c show the application of Ulhi (ξ , i ) to helical gears where εα > εβ and εα ≤ εβ , respectively.
4. Mesh stiffness model
As it is known, gear load distribution/sharing ratio plays a fundamental role in gear friction torque. The friction force
between gear teeth surfaces is approximately proportional to the load supported by each teeth pair in contact. Before tack-
ling the friction torque problem, an analysis to the gear load sharing ratio will be done. The model presented here is a
natural evolution of a model previously presented by the authors [34], but here the stiffness partition along a contact line
is assumed parabolic instead of uniform. This seemingly small alteration introduces modifications to the way that the single
teeth pair mesh stiffness is calculated, modifying the total mesh stiffness and consequently the load sharing ratio, especially
for helical gears.
By approximation, spur and helical cylindrical gears can be viewed as stacks of infinitely thin spur gear slices [35]. In the
case of helical gears, such infinitesimal slices are shifted from each other by an incremental slice angle around and along
the axis of rotation.
The single teeth pair mesh stiffness for a spur gear slice can be approximated by a parabolic function [36]. kis (ξ , i ),
Eq. (10), proposed here, is a parabolic approximation that can be used to describe the single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness
and it is normalised to a maximum value of one. In Eq. (10) it should be αk < 1, in order to maintain a realistic parabolic
shape. In the case of αk = 1 a constant single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness along the path of contact is obtained, which
would be equivalent to the infinitely rigid gear approach for load sharing determination purposes.
4(αk − 1 ) 4(αk − 1 )
kis (ξ , i ) = ( ξ − i )2 − (ξ − i ) + αk (10)
εα2 εα
Fig. 4 shows the application of kis (ξ , i ), Eq. (10), to a gear slice with contact ratio, εα = 2.0, (αk = 0.6, i = 0).
6
Fig. 6. Normalised contact line stiffness distribution, kiLs (ξ , i ) (αL = 0.6, i = 0).
4.1. Mesh stiffness for spur gears
In a spur gear kis (ξ , i ) is the same for all the slices of a given teeth pair/contact line, because LL’is parallel to CC’, see
Fig. 5.
These infinitesimal spur gear slices are not decoupled. A previous study by Yu and Mechefske [37], has shown that for
a contact line simultaneously crossing the AE and A’E’ lines (see Fig. 5), the stiffness is highest at the centre of a contact
line, lowering smoothly towards its start, L, and end points, L’. From this behaviour, in this work a parabolic approximation
(parabolic stiffness weight function) was employed. Taking into account the coordinate η, Eq. (2), the equation for the
contact line stiffness partition can be specified according to Eq. (11), see Fig. 6. In Eq. (11) αL is the ratio between the
contact line stiffness at η = 0 and η = 1 and its value at η = 12 . For a spur gear the normalised single teeth pair line length
Ulsi (ξ , i ) has a fixed value of one.
4(αL − 1 ) 4(αL − 1 )
kiLs (η ) = · η2 − · η + αL ⇔
12 1
kLs (η ) = 4η (αL − 1 )(η − 1 ) + αL
i
(11)
In a previous work [34], the authors calculated the maximum value for single teeth pair mesh stiffness of a spur gear
using the ISO 6336 method B [38], which is also considered here as a reference. The ISO 6336 method B suggests that the
maximum single teeth pair mesh stiffness can be calculated multiplying a constant factor c (maximum single stiffness) by
the length of the line of contact at the point of maximum single teeth pair mesh stiffness. In the case of spur gears the
maximum length of a contact line is equal to the gear facewidth, b. For spur gears, the maximum single teeth pair mesh
ISO , is then defined according to Eq. (12).
stifness, Kmax
ISO
Kmax = c · b (12)
In order to keep the total stiffness equivalent between the parabolic assumption and the ISO 6336 method B, the max-
imum single teeth pair mesh stiffness must be similar between both approaches. The maximum single teeth pair mesh
stiffness is assumed to occur at half length of the path of contact, i.e., at ξ = ε2α , which is mostly adequate for gears where
the teeth of the driving and driven bodies have comparable heights. Eq. (13) specifies the equivalence condition between
approaches, where c f s is the correction factor in order to have the same area under the parabolic and uniform distribution
curves at ξ = ε2α .

1
ISO
Kmax ISO
· 1 = c f s · Kmax · kiLs (η ) dη ⇔
0
2 + α −1
L
cfs = (13)
3
For a spur gear the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness, klsi (ξ , i ), can then be calculated by integrating the
parabolic line distribution kiL (ξ , η, i ) over the contact line length, accounting for the correction factor c f s , and the nor-
malised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness kis (ξ , i ), Eq. (14). klsi (ξ , i ) is directly bound to the correct domain by Ulsi ,
because Ulsi (ξ , i ) = 0 only for ξ ∈ [0; εα ].

Ulsi
klsi (ξ , i ) = c f s · kis kiLs (η ) dη ⇔
0
klsi (ξ , i ) = Ulsi · kis (14)
7
Fig. 7. Representation of a generic static trim function with window size ζ , T l (ξ ) = H (ξ ) − H (ξ − ζ ).
Fig. 8. Path of contact of a helical gear, where LL’ is a generic contact line.
By superposition of effects the normalised gear mesh stiffness for a spur gear, Kls (ξ ), can be calculated as stated by
Eq. (15).

floor(εα )

Kls (ξ ) = klsi · T ls (15)
i=−floor(εα )
For all values of i, but i = 0, klsi (ξ , i ) extends beyond the active domain of the path of contact, AEE’A’. Hence a unit square
function T ls (ξ ), is used to trim and bound Kls (ξ ), so that Kls (ξ ) = 0 only for ξ ∈ [0; εα ], Eq. (16). Fig. 7 is an example of a
static trim function of window length ζ , while T l s (ξ ) has a window length of εα .
T ls ( ξ ) = H ( ξ ) − H ( ξ − εα ) (16)
4.2. Mesh stiffness for helical gears
Compared to spur gears, in helical gears a contact line LL’ is never parallel to CC’, see Fig. 8.
This indicates that as a point travels from L to L’ it will see different slice mesh stiffness ratios, therefore a relationship
between the normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness and the coordinates ξ and η, must be established. This is
clearly expressed in Fig. 9, from where the normalised delay δ (η ) can be derived, Eq. (17).

1 b
δ (η ) = η· · sin (βb ) ⇔
pbt cos βb
δ ( η ) = η · εβ (17)
For ξ ≥ εα the contact line starts at a point over the EE’ line instead of the abscissa of the frame of reference axis, ξ , see
Fig. 9. Therefore, for ξ ∈ [εα ; ε ] an extra coordinate shift, φ i (ξ , i ), must be taken in order to account for the stiffness of the
lines that are leaving the contact and consequently decreasing in length, see Fig. 10.
φ i (ξ , i ) is defined as shown in Eq. (18). In φ i (ξ , i ), Ul∞
i (ξ , i ), is the normalised length of a contact line as if the EE’ was
at ξ = ∞, (see Fig. 10), Eq. (19). Ulhi (ξ , i ), is the normalised length of a contact line as it travels through the path of contact,
Eq. (7). It is then clear that φ i (ξ , i ) is the difference between these functions projected in the ξ axis (normalised path of
8
Fig. 9. Computation of normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness for helical gears.
Fig. 10. Definition of φ i (ξ , i ), complementary length of a contact line.
contact) as stated by Eq. (18).

1 b
φ i
(ξ , i ) = i
U l∞ − U lhi · sin βb ⇔
pbt cos βb
i
φ i ( ξ , i ) = εβ U l∞ − U lhi (18)
1

i
Ul∞ (ξ , i ) = H ( ξ − i ) · ( ξ − i ) − H ( ξ − εβ − i ) · ( ξ − εβ − i ) (19)
εβ
Then, taking Eq. (10) and accounting for the normalised delays δ (η ) and φ i (ξ , i ) gives kih (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (20).
4(αk − 1 ) 2 4(αk − 1 )
kih (ξ , η, i ) = · ξ − i − η · εβ − φ i − · (ξ − i − η · εβ − φ i ) + αk (20)
εα
2 εα
As previously stated, the infinitesimal spur gear slices are not decoupled. The already mentioned study [37], has shown
that for a contact line of length cosbβ the stiffness is highest at approximately the centre of the contact line, lowering
b
smoothly towards its start and end points. In this study a similar behaviour is assumed but instead of considering a reference
line length of cosbβ , here the length of a fully developed contact line, εL (Eq. (21)), is taken. When εα ≤ εβ the length of a
b
9
Fig. 11. Normalised contact line stiffness distribution, kiLh (ξ , η, i ) (αL = 0.6, i = 0, ξ < ξφL , Eq. (24)).
Fig. 12. Contact line stiffness distribution and the role of φLi (ξ , i ).
b
fully developed contact line is less than cos βb
.

εL = max Uls,h
i
(21)
In addition, when a contact line is not fully developed, (Uls,h i (ξ , i ) < ε ), the stiffness should be lower at the contacting
L
points near the gear faces (points over T1 T2 or T1 ’T2 ’), than at the points near the tooth root/tip (points over AA’ and EE’).
Considering this behaviour, a parabolic approximation was taken, see Fig. 11. The parabola has a fixed span of εL , meaning
that, for a line of length εL it has a value of αL and η = 0 and η = εL , see Fig. 12. For helical gears εL can be calculated
setting ξ = εβ and i = 0 in Eq. (7), yielding Eq. (22).
1

εL = εβ − H ( εβ − εα ) · ( εβ − εα ) (22)
εβ
According to the assumed behaviour the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness for a helical gear can be calculated
using Eq. (23), where ki h , Eq. (26), is the parabolic contact line stiffness distribution.
L

Ulhi
klhi (ξ , i ) = c f h · kih · kiLh dη (23)
0
The integration limits in Eq. (23) should correspond to integrating along a contact line, eg., integrating over L4 L’4 or L5 L’5 ,
see Fig. 12.
When εL = 1, i.e. εα > εβ , a line starts decreasing in length for ξ ∈]εα ; ε ]. This indicates that when calculating the nor-
malised single teeth pair mesh stiffness using Eq. (23) (note the integration limits), in order to, integrate from L5 L’5 , a
coordinate shift ξ5 L5 must be applied to the contact line stiffness sharing equation. When ξ ∈ [0; εα ] there is no need to
apply such coordinate shift, see Fig. 12 a.
In the case that εL < 1, i.e., εα ≤ εβ , an extra shift must be taken into account, because a contact line will keep its
maximum length for ξ ≥ εα . This extra shift is LφL L5 as specified in Fig. 12 b. φLi (ξ , i ) is then the distance LφL L5 written in
10
normalised coordinates η, as a function of the coordinate ξ . It increases with the same rate as Ulhi and starts at the point
where a contact line starts decreasing in length, ξφL , Eq. (24).
b
xφL = εα · pbt + (1 − εL ) · sin βb ∴
cos βb
ξ φL = ε α + ( 1 − ε L ) · ε β (24)

Accordingly, φLi (ξ , i ) is described as shown by Eq. (25). Note that φLi (ξ , i ) = 0 for any ξ ∈ 0; εφL .
1
φLi (ξ , i ) = H ( ξ − i − εα − ( 1 − εL ) · εβ ) · ( ξ − i − εα − ( 1 − εL ) · εβ ) (25)
εβ
It should be noted that when εα > εβ the term 1 − εL = 0 making φLi suitable for helical gears with εα > εβ or εα ≤ εβ .
Then, taking Eq. (11) and substituting η by η + φLi (ξ , i ) gives ki h (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (26).
L
4(αL − 1 ) 2 4(αL − 1 )
kiLh (ξ , η, i ) = · η + φLi − · η + φLi + αL (26)
εL 2 εL
As discussed in Section 4.1 a correction factor must be found to have an agreement between the maximum single teeth
pair mesh stiffness calculated considering the parabolic distribution and the ISO 6336 method B maximum single teeth
pair mesh stiffness. KmaxISO is defined here as the maximum single teeth pair mesh stiffness for a contact line length of
b
cos β
, Eq. (27) . Eq. (28) specifies this condition for helical gears on the assumption that the maximum single teeth pair
b
mesh stiffness occurs at ξ = ε2 , which is mostly adequate for gears where the teeth of the driving and driven bodies have
comparable heights. In Eq. (28), A, B and ψ are respectively defined according to Eqs. (29)–(31).
b
ISO
Kmax = c · (27)
cos βb

εL ε ε
ISO
Kmax · εL = c f h · Kmax
ISO
· kih , η, 0 · kiLh , η, 0 dη ⇔
0 2 2
1 2 2
cfh = εL 10αL εL 12αk + B
εβ 4εL − 6εL + 3 + 12εβ ψ (εL − 1 ) + 12ψ 2 − 3εα2
120
−1
− AεL3 20αk + B εβ2 6εL2 − 10εL + 5 + 20εβ ψ (εL − 1 ) + 20ψ 2 − 5εα2 (28)
4(αL − 1 )
A= (29)
εL 2
4(αk − 1 )
B= (30)
εα2
ε ε ε
ψ= −H − εβ · − εβ − εβ εL (31)
2 2 2
Finally, solving Eq. (23) yields the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness for helical gears klhi (ξ , i ), Eq. (32), where
parameters A, B and χ are defined according to Eqs. (29), (30) and (33) respectively. In Eq. (32), Ulhi , can be put in evidence,
bounding klhi (ξ , i ) to the correct domain, because Ulhi (ξ , i ) = 0 only for ξ ∈ [0; ε ].

AB 4 AB 3 Ul i 2
klhi (ξ , i ) = Ulhi εβ2 Ulhi − εβ Ulhi εβ εL − εα + 2 ξ − φLi εβ − χ + h αL Bεβ2
5 4 3

+ A αk + B χ 2εβ 2φLi − εL − 2ξ + εα − ξ 2εβ 2φLi − εL + εα + εβ φLi εβ φLi − εL − εα εL − 2φLi
Ul i
+ χ2 + ξ2 + h αL Bεβ 2χ − 2ξ + εα − A αk εL − 2φLi + B χ 2φLi εβ εL − φLi
2

+ εα − 2ξ εL − 2φLi + εβ φLi φLi − εL 2ξ − εα + χ 2 + ξ 2 − εα ξ εL − 2φLi

i
+ αL + AφL φL − εL
i
αk + B χ − ξ χ − ξ + εα cfh (32)
χ = i + φi (33)
11
Fig. 13. Free body diagram of a gear considering a single teeth pair and the coordinate system (Positive moment from z to x = ξ · pbt ).
From Eq. (28) it becomes clear that the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness for helical gears calculated using
(32) will always have a maximum value that will be equal to εL , Eq. (22). This stems from the definition of Kmax ISO , the
maximum single teeth pair mesh stiffness for contact line length of cosbβ , Eq. (12).
b
Combining the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness for all the meshing teeth pairs in action along the path of
contact results in the normalised gear mesh stiffness, Eq. (34).

floor(ε )

Klh (ξ ) = klhi · T lh (34)
i=−floor(ε )
T lh (ξ ), Eq. (35), is a function whose purpose is to trim and bound Klh (ξ ), so that Klh (ξ ) = 0 only for ξ ∈ [0; ε ], see
Fig. 7.
T lh ( ξ ) = H ( ξ ) − H ( ξ − ε ) (35)
4.3. Load sharing ratio
After calculating the normalised single teeth pair and gear mesh stiffness, the theoretical frictionless load sharing ratio
can be obtained.
Assume that the transmission error due to gear mesh stiffness at the driven body translated to the path of contact is
δb (ξ ), a deflection in the direction of ξ .
The gear mesh stiffness is then for a linear system, by definition, given by Eq. (36). FNs,h is the total normal force sup-
ported by the meshing teeth in the direction of the intersection between the plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation and
the plane of action, ξ , Eq. (37). In Eq. (37), rb2 is the base radius of the driven body, (rb2 = O2 T2 in Fig. 13), and M2 is the
torque imposed at the driven body.
1
ISO
Kmax · Kls,h (ξ ) = FNs,h · (36)
δb
M2
FNs,h = (37)
rb2
Considering the same deflection, δb (ξ ), for all the meshing teeth pairs in contact at a given ξ and from the definition
of stiffness, the total force supported by an individual meshing teeth pair along the path of contact, FNi (ξ , i ), is given by
s,h
i , is the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness, Eqs. (14) and (32).
Eq. (38). In Eq. (38), kls,h
FNi s,h (ξ , i ) = δb · Kmax

ISO i
· kls,h (38)
12
u is the unbounded normalised

Combining Eqs. (36) and (38) gives the gear load sharing ratio, Eq. (39). In Eq. (39), Kls,h
gear mesh stiffness, Eq. (40).
FNi (ξ , i ) i
kls,h
s,h
= u
· T ls,h (39)
FNs,h Kls,h
floor(ε )

u
Kls,h (ξ ) = i
kls,h (40)
i=−floor(ε )
4.4. Closing remarks
As a final remark to the present section it should be stated that when αk = 1 the normalised single teeth pair slice mesh
stiffness becomes constant, in other words, kis,h = 1, Eqs. (10) and (20). This is the same as assuming a constant stiffness
along the path of contact.
For αL = 1, ki s,h = 1, Eqs. (11) and (32), along with c f s,h = 1, Eqs. (13) and (28), which is consistent with the uniform
L
stiffness distribution assumption along a contact line.
Consequently, for αk = 1 and αL = 1, the normalised single teeth pair and gear mesh stiffness for spur and helical gears,
i
kls,h (Eqs. (14) and (32)) and Kls,h (Eqs. (15) and (34)), would be reduced to a proportion between the length of the lines of
i (ξ , i ) and its sum for all the active meshing teeth pairs, respectively.
contact Uls,h
5. Friction torque model
In this section, the analysis of the friction torque will be developed considering just one single meshing teeth pair along
the path of contact. The effects of the other teeth pairs in action will be introduced by superposition, considering that the
behaviour of such pairs is similar to the pair under analysis but coordinate shifted by multiple integers i of the base pitch.
Additionally, it is assumed that the output torque, M2 , is imposed while at the input (driving body) it is a rotation that is
imposed. From these premises, the fraction of the total torque imposed at the driven body (output) that is supported by
a single pair of meshing teeth must be found. Eq. (41) is the ratio between the torque that is theoretically supported by a
single meshing teeth pair of the driven body and the total torque at the driven body as if no friction forces were present.
M2i (ξ , i ) FNi · rb2

= s,h
⇔
M2 (ε )
floor
FNi · rb2
s,h
i=−floor(ε )
FNi
M2i (ξ , i ) = M2 · s,h
(41)
(ε )
floor
FNi
s,h
i=−floor(ε )
The load supported by all the meshing teeth pairs in action must balance the driven torque, Eq. (42).
floor(ε )
M2
FNs,h = = FNi s,h (42)
rb2
i=−floor(ε )
Combining Eqs. (39), (41) and (42) the fraction of the torque that is supported by each teeth pair can be calculated
according to Eq. (43).
i
kls,h
M2i (ξ , i ) = M2 · u
· T ls,h (43)
Kls,h
5.1. Friction torque for spur gears
Fig. 13 is the free body diagram of a gear considering just a single meshing teeth pair. In order to understand the effect
of the friction forces the driving and driven bodies must be separated. Fig. 14 a is the free body diagram of the driven body.
From this diagram a load balance equation of the driven body can be established, Eq. (44).
i
M2i + Fai · T2 L − FNi s · rb2 = 0 (44)
In Fig. 14 a, the friction force Fai is represented as if the meshing process was between A and C, see Fig. 13. At the
moment that the contact line passes through C, the friction force Fai reverses and remains like that between C and E. In
13
Fig. 14. Free body diagrams of the driven and driving bodies of a gear.
Fig. 15. Graphical representation of Eq. (45) for λ = 1 and i = 0.
order to account for the reversal of the friction force at the pitch line, CC’, the switching function Sif (ξ , i ) was introduced,
Eq. (45), see Fig. 15. In Sif (ξ , i ), λ is the normalised distance AC (Figs. 5 and 13), as defined by Eq. (46).
Sif (ξ , i ) = 1 − 2 · H (ξ − λ − i ) (45)
AC
λ= (46)
pbt
Assuming a constant average friction coefficient and a Coulomb friction model, where the friction coefficient is defined
as the ratio between the friction and normal forces, the friction force Fai (ξ , i ) accounting for the reversal of direction at CC’
is written according to Eq. (47).
Fai (ξ , i ) = FNi s · μ · Sif (47)
Taking Eq. (47) and substituting in Eq. (44), the normal force, FNi s (ξ , i ), is obtained, Eq. (48).
M2i
FNi s (ξ , i ) = i
(48)
rb2 − μ · Sif · T2 L
Consider Fig. 14 b, the free body diagram of the driving body. Since the friction, Fai (ξ , i ), and normal, FNi s (ξ , i ), forces
result from the separation of the driving and driven bodies, Eqs. (47) and (48) can be substituted in the torque balance
equation of the driving body, Eq. (49). In Eq. (49), rb1 is the base radius of the driven body, rb1 = O1 T1 , see Fig. 13. Simpli-
fying, the driving torque considering friction forces is obtained, Eq. (50).
i
M1i + Fai · T1 L − FNi s · rb1 = 0 (49)
i
M1i (ξ , i ) = M2i · i
(50)
14
Fig. 16. Contact line LL’ crossing the pitch line, CC’ in a helical gear.
If the torque at the driven body is imposed, a common situation, the total torque at the driving body is the theoretical
frictionless driving torque plus a friction term, TVi ZPs (ξ , i ), Eq. (51).
rb1
M1i (ξ , i ) = M2i · + TVi ZPs (51)
rb2
Matching the right hand side of Eqs. (50) and (51) and solving for TVi ZPs (ξ , i ), the friction torque of a single meshing teeth
pair is obtained, Eq. (52).
i
rb1 − μ · Sif · T1 L r
TVi ZPs (ξ , i ) = M2i i
− b1 (52)
rb2 − μ · Sif · T2 L r b2
Simplifying Eq. (52) yields the friction torque along the path of contact for a single meshing teeth pair of a spur gear,
Eq. (53), where is (ξ , i ) is defined according to Eq. (54). M2i , Eq. (43), is by definition bounded by Ulsi (ξ , i ), therefore there
is no need to directly bound TVi ZPs (ξ , i ).

μ·is
TVi ZPs (ξ , i ) = M2i i (53)
rb2 −μ·Sif ·T2 L
z i i

is (ξ , i ) = 1
· T2 L − T1 L · Sif (54)
z2
In order to obtain an analytical description of the friction torque along the path of contact, an analytical description of
i i
the terms T1 L (ξ , i ) and T2 L (ξ , i ), belonging to Eq. (54), must be found.
i i
From Figs. 1 and 5, T1 L (ξ , i ) and T2 L (ξ , i ) can be directly written, Eqs. (55) and (56).
i
T1 L (ξ , i ) = T1 A + (ξ − i ) · pbt (55)
i
T2 L (ξ , i ) = T2 E + εα · pbt − (ξ − i ) · pbt (56)
Finally, the friction torque along the path of contact for a meshing gear is expressed by the bounded sum of the contri-
butions of all the meshing teeth pairs, Eq. (57).

floor(εα )

TV ZPs (ξ ) = TVi ZPs · T ls (57)
i=−floor(εα )
By definition TV ZPs (ξ ), Eq. (51), is referred to the driving body, therefore the power loss of the gear, PV ZPs (ξ ), must be
expressed according to Eq. (58).
PV ZPs (ξ ) = TV ZPs (ξ ) · θ˙1 (58)
5.2. Friction torque for helical gears
In helical gears a contact line LL’ can, at an instant, have points before and after the pitch line, CC’, respectively in ACC’A’
and CEE’C’, see Fig. 16. This means that the friction force can reverse its direction along a contact line. The friction torque in
helical gears must then be analysed for the lines of contact and their fractions that are in ACC’A’ and CEE’C’, see Fig. 16. This
also implies that for each position of a line LL’ along the path of contact an equivalent load FNi , its centre of application,
A,E
LA,E , and the lever arm T1,2 LA,E must be evaluated, see Fig. 16.
From Figs. 14 a and 16, the torque balance around the centre, O2 , of the driven helical body can be obtained, Eq. (59).
The friction force is separated in two parts, FaA,E , each applied in LA,E , respectively corresponding to the resultant from each
of the domains ACC’A’ and CEE’C’, see Fig. 16.
i i
M2i + FaiA · T2 LA + FaiE · T2 LE − FNi h · rb2 = 0 (59)
15
i (ξ , i ) is the line load fraction.

Consider that the normal line load acting at LA,E is defined according to Eq. (60), where F PA,E
FNi
FNi A,E (ξ , i ) = F PA,E
i
· h
(60)
cos βb
Considering a Coulomb friction model and assuming a constant average friction coefficient, the resulting friction forces
FaiA,B (ξ , i ) that act over Lγ L’ and LLγ are defined according to Eqs. (61) and (62), respectively.
FNi
FaiA (ξ , i ) = F PAi · h
·μ (61)
cos βb
FNi
FaiE (ξ , i ) = −F PEi · h
·μ (62)
cos βb
Plugging Eqs. (61) and (62) in Eq. (59) and solving to find FNi (ξ , i ) yields Eq. (63).
h
M2i
FNi h (ξ , i ) = (63)
μ i i
rb2 + cos βb
· F PEi · T2 LE − F PAi · T2 LA
Eq. (64) is the torque balance of the driving body around its centre, O1 , see Fig. 14 b.
i i
M1i + FaiA · T1 LA + FaiE · T1 LE − FNi h · rb1 = 0 (64)
Considering that FNi (ξ , i ) and FaiA,E (ξ , i ) must be the same for the driving and driven bodies, substituting Eqs. (61)–(63)
h
in Eq. (64) yields the driving torque considering friction, M1i (ξ , i ), Eq. (65).

μ i i
rb1 + cos βb
M1i (ξ , i ) = M2i · (65)
μ i i
rb2 + cos βb
From the imposed torque assumption at the driven body, the torque at the driving body can be specified as the sum of
a theoretical frictionless torque and a friction torque, Eq. (66).
rb1
M1i (ξ , i ) = M2i · + TVi ZPh (66)
rb2
Matching Eqs. (65) and (66), solving for the friction torque TVi ZP (ξ , i ) gives Eq. (67). M2i (Eq. (43)) is by definition bounded
h
by T lεi , therefore there is no need to directly bound TVi ZP (ξ , i ).
h
⎡ i ⎤
i⎣
μ − i
i
TVZ Ph (ξ , i ) = M2 hA hE
i i
⎦ (67)
rb2 cos βb + μ F PE · T2 LE − F PAi · T2 LA
i
In Eq. (67), ih (ξ , i ) and ih (ξ , i ) are defined according to Eqs. (68) and (69), respectively.
A E
z i i

ihA (ξ , i ) = F PAi · 1
· T2 LA − T1 LA (68)
z2
z i

ihE (ξ , i ) = F PEi · 1
· T2 LE − T1 LiE (69)
z2
The friction torque along the path of contact for a meshing helical gear is finally expressed by the bounded sum of the
contributions of all the meshing teeth pairs, Eq. (70).

floor(ε )

TV ZPh (ξ ) = TVi ZPh · T lh (70)
i=−floor(ε )
Since, by definition TV ZPh (ξ ) (Eq. (66)) is referred to the driving body, the power loss of the gear, PV ZPh (ξ ), is established
according to Eq. (71).
PV ZPh (ξ ) = TV ZPh (ξ ) · θ˙1 (71)
i
In order to obtain a continuous and analytical description of TVi ZP (ξ , i ), the parameters T1,2 LA,E (ξ , i ) andF PA,E
i (ξ , i ) must
h
be defined as a function of the helical gear geometry.
16
Fig. 17. Plane of action and the definition of the functions Ulγi (ξ , i ), γA,E
i
(ξ , i ) and αA,E
i
(ξ , i ), (CFA,B
i
= 1
2
).
i
From Figs. 1, 16 and 17, the distances T1,2 LA,E (ξ , i ) can be directly determined according to Eqs. (72) and (73).
i
T2 LA,E (ξ , i ) = T2 E + εα · pbt − αA,E
i
(72)
i
T1 LA,E (ξ , i ) = T1 A + αA,E
i
(73)
Additionally, from Fig. 17, αAi (ξ , i ) and αEi (ξ , i ) can be expressed according to Eqs. (74) and (75), respectively.
b b

αAi (ξ , i ) = (ξ − i ) · pbt − φ i · pbt − Ulhi · · γE · sin βb − Ulhi · · γA · CFAi · sin βb ⇔
cos βb cos βb

αAi (ξ , i ) = pbt (ξ − i − φ i ) − Ulhi · εβ · (γEi + γAi · CFAi ) (74)
b

αEi (ξ , i ) = (ξ − i ) · pbt − φ i · pbt − Ulhi · · sin βb · γE · CFEi ⇔
cos βb

αE (ξ , i ) = pbt (ξ − i − φ ) − Ulh · εβ · γE · CFEi
i i i i
(75)
In Eqs. (74) and (75) φ i (ξ , i ) is the previously defined coordinate shift, Eq. (18). γA,E
i (ξ , i ), (see Fig. 17), are the fraction
of the length of contact line in ACC’A’ and CEE’C’, respectively, Eqs. (76) and (77).
Lγ L’
γAi (ξ , i ) = ⇔
LL’
Ulγi
γAi (ξ , i ) = 1 − i
(76)
Ulm
LLγ
γEi (ξ , i ) = ⇔
LL’
Ulγi
γEi (ξ , i ) = i
(77)
Ulm
In Eqs. (76) and (77), Ulγi (ξ , i ), (see Fig. 17), is the length of a contact line after it passes the pitch line CC’, Eq. (78).
i ( ξ , i ),
Ulm Eq. (79), is a function similar to Ulhi (ξ , i ) (length of a contact line along the path of contact, Eq. (7)), but partially
17
defined in such a way that no indeterminate forms of the type 0

0 occur when computing γA,E
i ( ξ , i ).
1

Ulγi (ξ , i ) = H ( ξ − λ − i ) · ( ξ − λ − i ) − H ( ξ − ( λ + εβ ) − i ) · ( ξ − ( λ + εβ ) − i )
εβ

− H ( ξ − εα − i ) · ( ξ − εα − i ) + H ( ξ − ε − i ) · ( ξ − ε − i ) (78)
1
Ulmi
(ξ , i ) = ( ξ − i ) − H ξ − εβ − i · ξ − εβ − i − H ( ξ − εα − i ) · ( ξ − εα − i ) (79)
εβ
i
CFA,E are defined as the ratio between the distance to the centre of load application LA,E and the length of a contact line
Lγ LA LLE
that is in ACC’A’ or CEE’C’ respectively, in other words, CFAi = and CFEi = .
Lγ L’ LLγ
The definition of the load distribution profile over a contact line has some implications in the shape of the αA,E
i (ξ , i )
i (ξ , i ). Furthermore, the fraction of the load, F P i (ξ , i ),

functions (Eqs. (74) and (75)) through the line fraction factor, CFA,E AE
acting in each equivalent load application point LA,E is also modified. For these reasons, the friction torque will change
depending on the shape of the load distribution along a contact line. As a first approximation the load will be assumed
uniform and then a parabolic distribution will be considered.
5.2.1. Uniform contact line load

For uniform load along a contact line, an equivalent point of load application, LA,E , as well as the load,FNi (ξ , i ), sup-
A,E
ported by each set of points over Lγ L’ and LLγ must be found.
The total load applied in a given zone can be calculated by integration of the load over the fraction of the line in that
same zone, Eq. (80), see Fig. 17. ULih is defined according to Eq. (81).

γ i ULi FNi

A,E h
FNi A,E (ξ , i ) = h
dy (80)
0 ULih cos βb
Taking the coordinate transformation stated by Eq. (2) and considering Eq. (3), Eq. (80) can be expressed in normalised
coordinates according to (82).
b
U Lih (ξ , i ) = U li (81)
cos βb s,h

γ i Ul i FNi

A,E h
FNi A,E (ξ , i ) = h
dη ⇔
0 Ulhi cos βb
FNi
FNi A,E (ξ , i ) = γA,E
i
· h
(82)
cos βb
i (ξ , i ) can be obtained, Eq. (83).
Considering Eqs. (60) and (82) the load fraction F PA,E

γA,E
i
· FNi / cos βb
i
F PA,E (ξ , i ) = i h
⇔
FN / cos βb
h
i
F PA,E (ξ , i ) = γA,E
i
(83)
This result was expected, because of the assumed proportionality between load and line length. Consider that yA,E corre-
sponds to the distances Lγ LA and LLE , as seen in Figs. 16 and 17, and can be formally stated according to Eqs. (84) and (85),
respectively. The centre of application of the equivalent load can be calculated equalizing the moments of the equivalent
load, as stated by Eq. (86).
b
yA = Lγ LA = ηA (84)
cos βb
b
yE = LLE = ηE (85)
cos βb

γ i Ul i
b b A,E h b FNi
ηA,E Fi = η h
dη ⇔
cos βb NA,E cos βb 0 cos βb ULih cos βb
1 FNi 2
ηA,E · FNi A,E = Ulhi h
γA,E
i
(86)
2 cos βb
Replacing FNi (ξ , i ) (82) in the left hand side of Eq. (86) the centre of application of FNi (ξ , i ) is found, Eq. (87).
A,E A,E
1
ηA,E = Ulhi γA,E
i
(87)
2
18
Fig. 18. Representation of f i (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (90), for different values of α f , (i = 0, ξ < εα ).
Fig. 19. Contact line load distribution and the role of φLi (ξ , i ), α f > 1.
Considering the mathematical definition of the normalised centre of application, Eq. (88), and plugging Eq. (86),
i (ξ , i ) is obtained, Eq. (89). As expected for a uniform load, the centre of application is at half length of the corre-
CFA,E
sponding line fraction.
i
CFA,E γA,E
i
Ulhi = ηA,E ⇔
η
i
CFA,E (ξ , i ) = i A,E i (88)
γA,E Ulh
1
i
CFA,E (ξ , i ) = (89)
2
5.2.2. Parabolic contact line load sharing

Coming from the analysis to the uniform contact line load, in this subsection a parabolic assumption is made about the
character of the load sharing ratio for a contact line. f i (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (90), is the parabolic load sharing ratio function that was
considered.
In fact, in past studies [6,39,40], some model and experimental results suggest that the load over a fully developed
contact line increases near the edges for a gear without end relief (theoretical case). Despite not being parabolic, it resembles
a parabolic shape with the concavity facing the conjugate gear. On the current approach, this would be equivalent to setting
α f > 1 in Eq. (90). When end relief is applied the contact line load sharing ratio starts resembling a parabola where its
lowest values are at the start and end points of a fully developed contact line, [35,39,40], corresponding to setting α f < 1
in Eq. (90). Fig. 18 shows a representation of f i (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (90), for different values of α f .
Similarly to the contact line stiffness sharing function, Section 4.2, the parabolic contact line load sharing function also
has a fixed span of εL , Fig. 19. Therefore, a coordinate shift of value φLi (ξ , i ), Eq. (25), must also be applied, Fig. 19.
4 (α f − 1 ) 2 4 (α f − 1 )
f i (ξ , η , i ) = η + φLi − η + φLi + α f (90)
εL 2 εL
The load and torque sharing ratios obtained using Eqs. (39) and (43) are for the total load that a contact line supports.
For this reason, the area under the load profile for both the uniform and parabolic contact line load sharing functions must
19
be the same. The area under the load sharing function for a uniform load can be easily obtained, as well as the total load.
The area under the parabolic line load sharing assumption must then be adjusted using a correction factor c f f , so that it
yields a total load similar to the one found using the uniform load assumption, Eq. (91).

FNi b Ulhi FNi
h
· ULih = c f f · · h
· f i ( ξ , η , i ) dη ⇔
ULih · cos βb cos βb 0 ULih · cos βb
−1
αf − 1 i 2 4 i
cf f = αf + 2U lh − 3Ulh εL − 2φL + 6φL φL − εL
i i i
(91)
6εL2
In Eq. (91), ULih is the length of a contact line over a single teeth pair, Eq. (81).
There is now the need to find the load that acts over the line sections LLγ and Lγ L’, Eqs. (92) and (93).

Ul i
b h FNi
Fi f (ξ , i ) = c f f h
f ( ξ , η , i ) dη ⇔
i
NA cos βb (1−γAi )Ulhi ULih cos βb

FNi 4 αf − 1 i i2
2 i i i
Fi f (ξ , i ) = c f f h
αf γ + i
γ 2 3 − 3 γ i
+ γ Ul i
+ 3 γ − 2 Ul ε − 2 φ i
+ 6 φ i
φ − ε
cos βb 6εL 2
NA A A A A h A h L L L L L
(92)

γ i Ul i FNi

b E h
F i f (ξ , i ) = c f f h
f i ( ξ , η , i ) dη ⇔
NE cos βb 0 ULih cos βb

FNi 4 α f − 1 i i2 i 2
Fi f (ξ , i ) = c f f h
αf γ i
E+ γE 2γE Ulh −3γE Ulh εL −2φL + 6φL (φL − εL )
i i i i i
(93)
NE cos βb 6εL 2
From definition (60), the load fractions F P i (ξ , i ) can be found, Eqs. (94) and (95).
A,E f

αf − 1 i 4 i2
2 i i i
F PAi f (ξ , i ) = c f f α f γ + i
γA 2 3 − 3γA + γA Ulh + 3 γA − 2 Ulh εL − 2φL + 6φL φL − εL
i i i i
(94)
6εL 2
A

4 α f − 1 i i2 i 2
F PEi f (ξ , i ) = c f f α f γEi + γ 2 γ Ul − 3 γ i
Ul i
ε − 2 φ i
+ 6 φ i
( φ i
− ε ) (95)
6εL 2 E E h E h L L L L L
The load application centre, LA,E , of each load partition F i f (ξ , i ) must be found, Eqs. (96) and (97).
NA,E

Ul i
b b h b FNi
ηA Fi f = cf f η − (1 − γAi )ULih · h
f (ξ , η , i )
i
dη ⇔
cos βb NA cos βb (1−γAi )Ulhi cos βb ULih cos βb

FNi 1 i2 i 4 αf − 1 2 2
ηA · FNi f = c f f h
γA Ulh 6α f + 6 − 4γAi + γAi Ulhi
A cos βb 12 εL 2

+ 2(γAi − 3 )Ulhi (εL − 2φLi ) + 6φLi (φLi − εL ) (96)

γ i Ul i
b b E h b FNi
ηE Fi f = cf f η h
f i ( ξ , η , i ) dη ⇔
cos βb NE cos βb 0 cos βb ULih cos βb

FNi 1 i2 i 4 α f − 1 i2 i 2 i
ηE · Fi f = cf f h
γE Ulh 6α f + 3γE U lh − 4γE Ulh εL − 2φL + 6φL φL − εL
i i i i
(97)
NE cos βb 12 εL2
By substituting the equivalent load F i f (ξ , i ), Eqs. (92) and (93) in Eqs. (96) and (97), the centres of application ηA,E for
NA,E
the parabolic load assumption can be found. From definition (88), CF i can be obtained, Eqs. (98) and (99).
A,E f

6α f +
(
4 α f −1 ) 6 − 4γAi + γAi
2
γAi − 3 Ulhi εL − 2φLi + 6φLi φLi − εL
2
U lhi + 2
εL2
CFAi f (ξ , i ) = (98)
4 (α −1 ) 2 2
12 α f + 6εf 2 2 3 − 3γAi + γAi U lhi + 3 γAi − 2 Ulhi εL − 2φLi + 6φLi φLi − εL
L
20

6α f +
) 3γ i 2U l i 2 − 4γ iUl i ε − 2φ i + 6φ i φ i − ε
(
4 α f −1
E εL2
h E h L L L L L
CFEi f (ξ , i ) = (99)
4 (α −1 ) 2 2
12 α f + 6εf 2 2γEi U lhi − 3γEi Ulhi εL − 2φLi + 6φLi φLi − εL
L
5.3. Load sharing ratio including friction
The normalised normal force, Fsi (ξ , i ), is the ratio between the single teeth pair normal load and the total normal load,
Eq. (100).
FNi
i
Fs,h (ξ , i ) = floor(ε )s,h (100)
Fi
i=−floor(ε ) Ns,h
Attending to definition (100), taking Eqs. (42), (43) and (48), and substituing, results in the load sharing ratio for spur
gears including friction, Eq. (101).
M2 ·
klsi
· T ls M −1
Klsu
Fsi (ξ , i ) = i
2
⇔
rb2 − μ · Sif · T2 L rb2
rb2 · klsi · T ls
Fsi (ξ , i ) = i
(101)
Klsu · rb2 − μ · Sif · T2 L
For helical gears the procedure is similar, but Eq. (48) is replaced with Eq. (63), which yields the load sharing ratio in
helical gears considering friction, Eq. (102).
M2 ·
klhi
Klhu
· T lh M −1
Fhi (ξ , i ) = 2
⇔
rb2
rb2 + cosμβ
i i
F PEi · T2 LE − F PAi · T2 LA
b
rb2 · klhi · T lh
Fhi (ξ , i ) = (102)
μ i i
Klhu rb2 + cos βb
F PEi · T2 LE − F PAi · T2 LA
5.4. Closing remarks
When α f = 1, f i (ξ , η, i ) = 1, which is compatible with a uniform contact line load sharing function. Moreover, for this
same particular case c f f = 1, F P i f (ξ , i ) = F PA,E
i (ξ , i ) and CF i
f
(ξ , i ) = CFA,E
i (ξ , i ). This indicates that when α = 1 the pa-
f
A,E A,E
rameters that where found for the parabolic contact line load sharing become identical to the ones found for the uniform
contact line load assumption.
6. Influence of the free parameters
In this section, the influence of the parameters αk , αL , α f and μ (see Eqs. (10), (11), (90), (47), (61) and (62)) in the
z
outputs of the model will be analysed. For this purpose, a set of three different gears, such as z1 = 1 were selected. Table 1
2
Table 1
Geometrical parameters of the S15, H2010 and
H1020 gears.
Gear type: S15 H2010 H1020

εβ = 0 εα > εβ εα ≤ εβ
mn [/m×103 ] 4.5 3.5 3.5
αn [◦ ] 20
β [◦ ] – 15 15
pbt [/m×103 ] 13.2846 10.6528
rb [/m×103 ] 42.2862 42.3842
T1 A/pbt 0.25 0.25 0.25
T2 E/pbt 0.25 0.25 0.25
εα 1.5 2 1
εβ 0 1 2
λ 0.75 1 0.5
21
Fig. 20. Representation of αk as function of εα .
z1
shows the selected geometries. The selected gears have z2 = 1 because, some asymmetric features could appear due to the
z1
driving/driven roles, that otherwise could remain unnoticed when z2 = 1.
6.1. Influence of αk
In order to obtain the normalised single teeth pair mesh stiffness, gears were assumed to be made of a stack of thin
slices. The normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness was assumed parabolic, Eq. (10), see Fig. 4. The αk parameter is
the ratio between the thin slice single teeth pair mesh stiffness at ξ = 0 and ξ = εα and its value at ξ = ε2α . Despite pre-
senting in Section 6.1.1 a solution that allows to estimate αk in limited conditions (see Fig. 20), due to its lack of generality,
the influence of this parameter in the proposed model is evaluated at first.
Fig. 21 a to f show that the influence of αk in the normalised single teeth pair, klhi (ξ , i ), and total mesh stiffness, Klh (ξ ),
for all of the selected gear parameters is significant, especially for the S15 and H2010. Regarding the torque sharing ratio,
M2i /M2 , the result for the H1020 gear appears to be almost unaffected by the change in αk , while for the S15 and H2010 are
significantly modified, see Fig. 21 g to i. Since the friction torque is directly dependent of M2i , it comes to no surprise that
the shape of the normalised friction torque is quite dependent on αk , see Fig. 21 j to o. The average value of the normalised
friction torque can be significantly altered by changes on αk .
6.1.1. A remark on the relationship between αk and the load sharing ratio for a thin slice at ξ = 0 when 1 < εα < 2
As it was discussed in the present section, αk has a determinant role in the estimation of the gear mesh stiffness, load
sharing ratio and friction torque.
Let R be the load sharing ratio for a spur gear at the start of the meshing process, i.e. at ξ = 0. AGMA 925-A03 [4] sug-
gests a value of R = 13 for unmodified gears of standard teeth proportions and εα ∈]1; 2[ while disregarding friction. This
suggests that the load sharing ratio for a spur gear at ξ = 0 would always be the same.
For a thin slice gear where εα ∈]1; 2[ the load sharing ratio at ξ = 0 is obtained by making μ = 0 and ξ = 0 in
Eq. (101) resulting in Eq. (103). Solving (103) to find αk for an arbitrary R yields Eq. (104).
αk
R= (103)
4·(αk −1 ) 4·(αk −1 )
εα2
· (1 ) −
2
εα · (1 ) + αk + αk
4R ( εα − 1 )
αk = − (104)
εα2 (2R − 1 ) − 4Rεα + 4R
1
For R = 3 Eq. (104) becomes Eq. (105).
4 ( εα − 1 )
αk = (105)
εα2 + 4εα − 4
It is up for debate whether if R = 13 or some other value. Some quick simulations were done using KISSsoft R
2019b, for
spur gears with different gear ratios, profile shifts and pressure angles resulting in gears where 1 < εα < 2. The load sharing
results revealed that R ≈ 0.43.
In the work of Sánchez et al. [14] a single teeth pair mesh stiffness approximation based on a cosine function was intro-
duced for spur gears. This solution was validated by Sánchez et al. using a previously developed minimum elastic potential
22
Fig. 21. Influence of αk in kls,h

i
(ξ , i ), Kls,h (ξ ), M2i (ξ , i ), TVZ
i
P (ξ , i ) and TVZPs,h (ξ ), (μ = 0.05; αL = 0.6; α f = 1.6).
s,h
energy model simulating 3775 cases of different gear ratios (number of teeth between 20 and 100), normal pressure angles
(from 18 to 25◦ ) and profile shift coefficients between −0.1 and 0.1. High contact ratio gears were also taken into account.
Taking the single teeth pair mesh stiffness function suggested by Sánchez et al. and solving to find its value at A and E, (see
Fig. 5), allows to obtain an approximation to αk , Eq. (106).
− 12
εα 1 εα 2
α Sanchez
k = cos 1.11 + − 1.17 (106)
2 2 2
In Fig. 20 a representation of Eq. (104) for different values of R and Eq. (106) is shown. There is quite a good agreement
between the value obtained from the solution proposed by Sánchez et al. and the one proposed in this work for R = 13
(AGMA 925-A03). In fact, across all the 3775 simulations performed by Sánchez et al. an average value of R = 0.36 was
found. For R = 0.36 Eq. (104) would lay almost coincident with (106) in Fig. 20. Finally, when R = 12 , Eq. (104) yields
αk = 1, which is consistent with what is expected for a constant single teeth pair mesh stiffness solution.
23
Fig. 22. Influence of αL in kls,h

i
(ξ , i ), Kls,h (ξ ), M2i (ξ , i ), TVZ
i
P (ξ , i ) and TVZPh (ξ ), (αk = 0.6; μ = 0.05; α f = 1.6).
h
Analysing Eqs. (104) and (106) it becomes clear that they lack generality, because they could yield negative values of αk
for εα < 1, and a root of the denominator also appears in this interval. Additionally, as εα decreases αk should smoothly
increase, and at the limit, when εα = 0 it should be αk = 1.
A more precise and physically sound equation for the determination of αk requires further investigation. For the moment,
Eq. (104) can be taken as a reference either for R = 0.43 or R = 0.36, however for gears with unmodified profiles several
studies [4,14,35] suggest that R = 0.36 appears to be closer to reality.
6.2. Influence of αL
In the approach that was taken, the thin spur gear slices are not decoupled. From the results of previous authors [6,37] a
parabolic stiffness sharing ratio along a contact line was assumed, Eqs. (11) and (26). αL is the ratio between the centre
point of the parabola and its value at the start/end points of a contact line.
The influence of αL in the estimations for spur gears is not assessed because in the current model the mesh stiffness in
spur gears is independent of this parameter.
Fig. 22 shows the influence of αL in the mesh stiffness, torque sharing and friction torque estimations. The influence of
this parameter in the model outputs is quite small for the selected gear geometries when compared to αk , however some
detail is added to the curves. H1020 appears to be the most affected gear by αL , but still with a quite small influence on
the normalised friction torque.
24
Fig. 23. Influence of α f in CFA,E

i
f (ξ , i ), αA,E (ξ , i ), F P
i
(ξ , i ), TVi ZPh (ξ , i ) and TVZPh (ξ ), (αk = 0.6; αL = 0.6; μ = 0.05).
A,E f
From the work of Yu and Mechefske [37] it is clear that as the helix angle and facewidth increase αL decreases, however
a reference value of αL ≈ 0.25 can be considered.
6.3. Influence of α f
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the shape of the load sharing function over a contact line, f i (ξ , η, i ) Eq. (90), can vary
depending on the lack or existence of gear flank end relief and its amount [6,35,39,40]. The intensity of the load at the
start/end points for a fully developed contact line is controlled by the α f parameter.
The influence of α f in the estimations for spur gears is not evaluated because in the proposed model the friction torque
in such gears is independent of this parameter.
Fig. 23 a to f show the influence of α f in CF i f (ξ , i ), αA,E (ξ , i ) and F P i f (ξ , i ).
A,E A,E
CF i (ξ , i ), is the normalised position of the centre of load with respect to the fraction of the contact line in ACC’A’
A,E f
and CEE’C’ respectively. When a contact line is crossing the pitch line CC’, (see Fig. 16), that is when ξ ∈]λ; λ + εβ [, the
behaviour is different between the gears. In the case of the H1020 gear, CF i f (ξ , i ) is constant which comes down to the
A,E
fact that for a gear of this type, εα ≤ εβ , as a fully developed contact line moves across the path of contact, the position of
its centre relative to the pitch line CC’ doesn’t change, see Fig. 8.
25
The αA,E
i (ξ , i ) distance is dependent of CF i (ξ , i ). The influence of α f in this distance can be seen in Fig. 23 c and d.
A,E f
Predictably H1020 is influenced the most.
Despite having a clear influence, in the load fraction parameters, F PA,B i (ξ , i ), these variables appear to be the least affected
by α f , see Fig. 23 e and f.

Fig. 23 i to l show the influence of α f in TVi ZP (ξ , i ) and TV ZPh (ξ , i ). The modifications introduced by α f in CF i f (ξ , i ),
h A,E
αA,E
i (ξ , i ) and F P i
(ξ , i ) appear summarized in these figures.
A,E f
Regarding the influence of α f in the friction torque of H2010, it can be seen that the maximum values are maintained
with slight modifications the shapes of the curves, while the average values are not dramatically modified.
As anticipated from the analysis to Fig. 23 a to f, when εα ≤ εβ , α f can modify the friction torque estimation quite
significantly. There is a quite large influence of α f in TVi ZP (ξ , i ) and TV ZPh (ξ , i ) for the H1020 gear, not only the shape of the
h
curves changes but also their maximum and average values.
In fact, for a contact line, LL’, that is crossing the pitch line, CC’, when α f = 1 the centre of application in each line
load fraction, LA,E , sits exactly at the middle of each line fraction, in other words CF i f (ξ , i ) = 12 . In the same meshing
A,E
conditions, as α f decreases, α f < 1, CF i (ξ , i ) move towards the point of intersection between CC’ and LL’, point Lγ . At Lγ ,
A,E f
i.e., when ξ = λ, ih = 0 (Eqs. (68) and (69)), therefore the closer LA,E are to Lγ the lower is the friction torque. For the
A,B
case that α f increases, α f > 1, LE and LA respectively move towards the start (L) and end (L’) points of the contact line, LL’,
and the average friction torque as tendency to increase. These results suggest that for certain gear geometries an end relief,
a situation where α f < 1, can result in a slight reduction in the average friction torque.
Several authors studied the load sharing along a contact line for gears with and without end relief [6,35,39,40]. From the
results found in these works, when end relief is not considered, a value of α f ≈ 1.6 can be taken as a reference. When end
relief is applied a value of α f ≈ 0.2 can be used as a rough approximation.
6.4. Influence of μ
In the proposed model the friction coefficient, μ, is assumed constant. The influence of the friction coefficient in the
model is shown in Fig. 24.
i , is represented in Fig. 24 a to c. As soon as μ = 0 the symmetry of
The load sharing ratio including friction forces, Fs,h
i is broken. The asymmetry increases with the increase in μ. A step like change is observed for the S15 gear at the pitch
Fs,h
line ξ = λ. This result is expected because all the points of a contact line theoretically cross the pitch line LL’ simultaneously,
see Fig. 5. Moreover, at ξ = λ only a single pair of teeth is in contact. The effect of μ in Fs,h i is more subtle for the H2010
and H1020 gears because not only, there are multiple teeth pairs meshing when a contact line is crossing LL’, but also a
contact line crosses CC’ progressively. The normalised single teeth pair friction torque, (see Fig. 24 d to f), also shows an
increased asymmetry with the increase of μ, that is most visible for the S15 and H2010 gears.
The influence of μ in the normalised total single friction torque is almost negligible, see Fig. 24 g to i.
As expected, the friction torque increases as the friction coefficient increases, see Fig. 24 j to o.
7. Model application
In this section three gears from three different types were selected, see Table 2. The mesh stiffness and friction torque
were evaluated using the developed model. The proposed mesh stiffness model was compared with two other analytical
Table 2
Geometrical and material parameters of the C14, H501
and H951 gears.
Gear type: C14 H501 H951

εβ = 0 εα > εβ εα ≤ εβ
z1 (driving) 16 20 38
z2 (driven) 24 30 57
mn /mm 4.5 3.5 1.75
a /mm 91.5 91.5
αn /◦ 20 20
β /◦ – 15
b /mm 14 23 23
x1 0.1817 0.1809 1.6915
x2 0.1715 0.0891 2.0003
εα 1.44 1.46 0.93
εβ 0 0.54 1.08
λ 0.7224 0.7575 0.5630
Young Modulus /Pa 202 × 109
Poisson ratio 0.29
26
Fig. 24. Influence of μ in Fs,h

i
(ξ , i ), TVZ
i
P (ξ , i ), and TVZPs,h (ξ ), (αk = 0.6; αL = 0.6; α f = 1.6).
s,h
models, a previous work, Marques et al. [34] and the approach proposed by Gu et al. [11]. The contact analysis module of
the gear software KISSsoftR
2019b was also used to perform mesh stiffness and friction torque simulations for comparison.
The mesh stiffness and load sharing model previously proposed by the authors [34] has some limitations compared to
the model that is presented in this manuscript and the solution presented by [11], especially in the case of helical gears.
The model presented in [34] assumed that the single teeth pair mesh stiffness was proportional to the length of line of
contact weighted by a parabolic function in the transverse plane. The main innovation of the work presented in [34] was
the introduction of a simplified Heaviside approach for the gear mesh stiffness.
The gear mesh stiffness model proposed by Gu et al. [11], considers a uniform mesh stiffness along a line of contact,
disregarding convective effects. The model is based on description of the length of the lines of contact using Fourier series
previously presented by Maatar and Velex [41]. This mesh stiffness model was validated using two-dimensional finite ele-
ment models and specific benchmark software codes. Due to its nature, the model of Gu et al. [11] is particularly interesting
for the study of the gear dynamic response. In the present study the Gu et al. model was scaled using the mesh stiffness
calculated with ISO 6336 Method B.
27
Fig. 25. Comparison between the presented model and other solutions. (μ = 0.05; αL = 0.25; α f = 1.6, αk calculated according to (104) for R = 0.36).
The KISSsoft R
2019b software contact analysis solution is based on the theory of deformation of meshing gear pairs as
proposed by Weber and Banaschek [1,2,42]. This model accounts for gear body deformation, bending and Hertzian flatenning
[42]. In addition, the tooth is discretized in slices that are coupled by an empirical torsional coupling factor validated with
finite element method simulations [42]. For helical gears, an additional border weakening factor due to the reduced normal
tooth thickness is also considered [42].
Fig. 25 shows a comparison between the mesh stiffness results obtained with the method proposed in the current work,
Marques et al. [34], Gu et al. [11] and KISSsoftR
2019b. In the same figure the friction torque simulations using the proposed
model and KISSsoft R
2019b are also presented. The results were obtained imposing a torque of 150 N m at the driven
body and an input speed of 1500 min−1 at the driving body. From the models that were selected for comparison, only the
KISSsoft R
2019b software accounts for contact extension.
Regarding the gear mesh stiffness there is a good agreement between the models for the C14 and H501 gears, Fig. 25a
and b. For the C14 spur gear the Marques et al. [34] model and the proposed approach yield identical results, Fig. 25a.
For the C14 and H501 both the Marques et al. [34] and the proposed model are close to KISSsoft R
2019b. The solution of
Gu et al. [11] is in agreement with the other models, however there is a slight deviation in magnitude, which according to
the discussion made in [11] is a consequence of scaling the model using the ISO 6336 Method B. In fact, if the proposed
model and the Gu et al. were normalised with respect to their average or maximum value, the results would be almost
superimposed. Even disregarding contact extension in the proposed approach, there is a satisfactory agreement between
all the analytical mesh stiffness solutions for the C14 and the H501 gears. It should be noted that, in terms of shape of
the mesh stiffness function, the proposed model appears to be the closest to KISSsoft R
2019b which considers convective
effects.
In the case of the H951 gear, Fig. 25c, the analytical models are in agreement in what regards the magnitude of the mesh
stiffness but the shape is somewhat different between them. However, it appears that the flatter shape of the mesh stiffness
function obtained with the proposed model is closer to KISSsoft R
2019b than the shapes obtained with the other analytical
models. This flatter shape is a consequence of the parabolic contact line stiffness assumption. Despite being the closest
in shape, there are still some significant differences in shape and magnitude between the proposed model and KISSsoft R
2019b. An analysis to the results obtained with KISSsoft R

2019b allowed to understand that for the operating conditions that
were selected the contact extension in the H951 is such, that an extra teeth pair enters the contact, resulting in significant
28
Fig. 26. Friction torque of the H951 gear imposing εα = 1.1684 compared to the KISSsoft
R
2019b result.
differences between both models. Therefore, in Fig. 25c, the shape differences at ξ ≈ 0, ξ ≈ 1 and ξ ≈ 2 are related to the
effect of contact extension which was disregarded in the proposed model.
Regarding the friction torque there is a satisfactory agreement between the proposed model and the simulations done
with KISSsoft R
2019b especially for the C14 and H501 gears, Fig. 25d and e. The results for the H951 gear show an agree-
ment in the general shape of the friction torque, (see Fig. 25f), but there is a key difference in the average value. The main
reason for the differences verified between these solutions lies in the fact that the proposed load sharing and mesh stiffness
models do not account for contact extension. Manually forcing the contact ratio of the H951, in the model, to the loaded
contact ratio calculated by KISSsoftR
2019b, εα = 1.1684, results in a friction torque average value identical between both
approaches, see Fig. 26.
Generally, the main differences between the proposed approach and KISSsoft R
2019b are at the points that a teeth
pair enters or leaves the path of contact. These are the points where contact extension effects are most influential. Other
differences that are verified between proposed model and KISSsoft R
2019b shown in Fig. 25 also come down to the fact
that the α f and αL parameters were set fixed and independent of the gear parameters, which is not entirely correct. The
load sharing ratio at ξ = 0 was also set to R = 0.36, and according to KISSsoft R
2019b simulations, Section 6.1.1, the load
sharing ratio should be R = 0.43, however from literature it appears that it is closer to the selected R = 0.36. In addition,
for case of the H951 it was imposed that αk = 0.6 because Eq. (104) is not suitable for gears with εα ≤ 1.
8. Discussion on the constant friction coefficient assumption
The friction torque model that was introduced assumes that the friction coefficient is constant along the plane of action,
which in reality is not entirely correct. Considering a different coefficient for each point along the plane of action would
significantly complicate, if not make it impossible to find closed form solutions for the friction torque and load sharing
equations including friction effects. Despite this simplification, the proposed friction torque model can be used to have a
good general idea of the friction torque evolution along the path of contact.
The usefulness of the proposed friction torque model is not limited to the aforementioned scenario. Assuming a constant
friction coefficient certainly lends itself to the estimation of an average friction coefficient from experimental results. In pre-
vious works Fernandes et al. [32] have devised a method to find the experimental value for gear friction torque from exper-
imental tests in an FZG test rig. From experimental friction torque results, such as the ones presented in the aforementioned
work [32] and using the friction torque model proposed in this work, Eqs. (57) and (70), an average friction coefficient could
be estimated. From the mean value theorem, the average friction coefficient could be estimated by integrating Eq. (57), for
spur gears, or (70), for helical gears, for a single mesh period, while leaving the friction coefficient, μ, as an unknown. Then,
exp
it would be a matter of finding a friction coefficient such as the measured average friction torque, TV ZP , would be equal to
the calculated average from the model, Eq. (107). The described approach to find a friction coefficient from experimental
results is not new. The standard approach as described in [32] is based on the idea of a gear loss factor that traditionally
is a function of gear geometry and a load sharing ratio that is not affected by friction, while assuming a uniform contact
line load sharing function [19–21,23]. In the proposed friction torque model the load sharing ratio is not decoupled from the
friction force, additionally the contact line load sharing ratio is not uniform, which has, in Section 6.3, been shown to be
capable of modifying the average friction torque. It is possible to obtain more advanced and accurate forms of the gear loss
factor that are based on finite element method solutions for the local load sharing ratio, which should be more accurate
than the proposed model, however at the expense of many orders of magnitude more computing time.

1
TVexp
ZP
= TV ZPs,h (ξ ) dξ (107)
0
29
The variations in the frictional torque are known as potential cause of gear noise and vibration (frictional excitations).
In the context of gear dynamics the estimation of the friction torque using a constant value can also prove useful. Previous
works by Velex and Cahouet [43] and Velex and Sainsot [44] have shown that in the context of gear dynamic simulations,
at a particular speed, the exact variation of the friction coefficient is of secondary importance and that a Coulomb friction
model considering an average and constant friction coefficient can be used for the purpose of simulating tooth friction
forces.
9. Conclusion
In this work an original mathematical framework that allows a new analytical treatment of parallel axis involute spur
and helical gears is presented. This framework, heavily based on the use of an approximation to the Heaviside function,
allows to take on a theoretically discontinuous and non-smooth problem in a continuous manner. For simplicity, spur gears
and helical gears are treated independently.
The main innovation in this work is in the proposed mathematical approach that allows to study the gear mesh stiffness,
load sharing ratio and friction torque considering parabolic contact line stiffness and line load sharing ratios in a continuous
and smooth manner. Despite the complexity introduced by these assumptions, the proposed approach has led to a set of
closed form equations that can be readily implemented and directly describe the gear mesh stiffness, load sharing ratio
and friction torque without the need to perform any additional numerical or analytical integrations. These equations can be
applied without the need to define specific domains for each mesh case, furthermore the proposed equations are not limited
to a specific range or combination of contact and overlap ratios. A closed form continuous analytical gear mesh stiffness,
load sharing ratio and friction torque model that considers an adjustable parabolic contact line stiffness and an adjustable
parabolic contact line load is to the author’s knowledge a novelty.
The main advantage of model the that was introduced, compared to a possible equivalent analytical model based on
functions by domains, is that it relies on a unique set of equations, which is inherently faster than a branching model that
relies on a set of equations for each mesh case and/or domain. The difference in computation time for a single gear, may be
negligible, however in optimization scenarios such as many of the ones referenced in Miler and Hoić [45], where thousands
of gear solutions may be analysed, the time savings can become very significant.
The analytical treatment of the gear mesh stiffness and load sharing ratio using the proposed mathematical framework
allowed to obtain a new equation for the estimation of the single teeth pair mesh stiffness of helical gears considering
convective effects, Eq. (32). This equation was obtained on the assumption of a single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness of
parabolic shape as well as a contact line parabolic stiffness sharing function to account for the aforementioned convective
effects. The path of contact and contact line stiffness distribution functions are dependent on a single adjusting parameter
each, αk and αL , therefore the single teeth pair mesh stiffness function for helical gears depends on these same adjusting
parameters. The role of the adjusting parameters was analysed in Section 6 and it was concluded that αk is quite influential
in the mesh stiffness, load sharing and consequently friction torque. Due to its importance, an equation for the estimation
of αk is presented, however it is limited to gears with 1 < εα < 2, requiring further investigation. Despite not being as
influential as αk , the details brought by αL , the parameter that controls the convective effects, appear to bring the analytical
solution closer to the results obtained with the KISSsoft R
2019b software, which accounts for convective effects, as shown
in Section 7.
From the assumption of a non-uniform load along a contact line, two friction torque models are established, one for
spur and other for helical gears. The shape of the contact line load sharing function is presented as decoupled from the
parabolic contact line stiffness assumption while calculating the single teeth pair mesh stiffness. The load sharing ratio
models yield the total load that a particular teeth pair supports at a specific position in ξ , Fig. 1. The decoupling is then
achieved through the correction factor c f f which guarantees that the total load along a contact line is maintained. This way,
the compatibility between the load sharing ratio obtained from the mesh stiffness analysis and the total load calculated
from the non-uniform load distribution assumption along a contact line is kept. Decoupling the problems in this way allows
to more expeditiously evaluate and study the effect of the contact line load sharing function shape in the friction torque.
The shape of this function can be altered according to the gear profile modifications. Given that an integrable function for
the contact line load sharing that accounts for profile modifications, is obtainable, the effects of such modifications can be
evaluated using the mathematical approach that was introduced. Based on the results shown in [6,35,39,40] an attempt was
made in this study using a parabolic line load sharing function that depends on a single ajusting parameter, α f . Following
the parabolic contact line load assumption and evaluating the influence of the adjusting parameter, α f , (Section 6.3) it
was possible to conclude that the shape of the contact line load sharing function plays a clear role in the definition of gear
efficiency in the case of helical gears. If helical gear efficiency is to be improved, it is of interest to keep the load over a fully
developed contact line concentrated as much as possible around its geometric centre. In this situation the model shows that
the load application centres move towards the pitch line, where the relative movement between surfaces is minimized, thus
reducing the friction torque. This effect is most influential for gears with εα ≤ εβ . The contact line load sharing function can
be manipulated through the application of tooth profile modifications such as end relief and crowning, [6,35,39,40].
In order to validate the model that was presented, a set of results obtained with other analytical models [11,34] and
the commercial software KISSsoft R
2019b were compared with the results yielded by the presented model. As referred in
Section 7, the KISSsoftR
2019b software accounts for contact extension and convective effects. Generally a good agreement
30
was found between all the models, but the model that was introduced in this work appeared to more closely follow the
solutions obtained with KISSsoft R
2019b due to the consideration of the contact line parabolic stiffness distribution. From
this analysis, it also became readily apparent that when the contact extension is enough to introduce an extra pair of teeth
to the gear mesh, the gear mesh stiffness and friction torque can be significantly modified.
Notwithstanding the virtues of an analytical treatment of a problem, the presented model has some limitations that need
to be addressed. The model requires three adjusting parameters, αk , αL and α f , that control the shape of single teeth pair
slice mesh stiffness, the shape of the contact line mesh stiffness and the shape of the contact line load sharing function,
respectively. Despite some guiding values and an equation for the most influential one, αk , being presented in Section 6, it
is clear that further investigation must be done in this regard. If the proposed values for αL and α f seem questionable for
a particular application, setting αL = 1 and α f = 1 is equivalent to assuming uniform contact line stiffness and load sharing
functions. Additionally, if at the same time αk = 1 is imposed, the model yields the constant single tooth mesh stiffness
solution for the mesh stiffness, load sharing and friction torque functions.
At the present moment, the models that were presented in this study do not consider profile modifications, neither
the possibility of contact extension, problems that will be dealt with in future works using the proposed mathematical
framework. Despite these effects not being dealt with in the current study, there have been analytical studies that focus on
these phenomena such as [17,46–52], just to name a few.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding through several projects and grants whom without this work would not
have been possible:
• LAETA under project UID/50022/2020;
• National Funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) under the PhD grant
SFRH/BD/147889/2019.
The authors would also like to acknowledge KISSsoft AG for the license agreement established with FEUP for the
KISSsoft
R
software.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] C. Weber, K. Banaschek, Elastische formänderung der zähne und der anschliessenden teile der radkörper von zahnradgetrieben, FVA (1955).
FVA-Bericht 129–134.
[2] C. Weber, K. Banaschek, G. Niemann, Formaänderung und profilrücknahme bei gerad- und schraägverzahnten raädernSchriftenreihe Antriebstechnik,
Heft 11 (1955).
[3] Y. Cai, Simulation on the rotational vibration of helical gears in consideration of the tooth separation phenomenon (a new stiffness function of helical
involute tooth pair), J. Mech. Des. 117 (3) (1995) 460–469.
[4] A.G.M. Association, AGMA 925-A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface Distress, American Gears Manufacturers Association, 2003.
[5] A.F. del Rincon, F. Viadero, M. Iglesias, P. García, A. de Juan, R. Sancibrian, A model for the study of meshing stiffness in spur gear transmissions, Mech.
Mach. Theory 61 (2013) 30–58.
[6] M. Ajmi, P. Velex, A model for simulating the quasi-static and dynamic behaviour of solid wide-faced spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 40
(2) (2005) 173–190.
[7] H. Xu, A. Kahraman, N. Anderson, D. Maddock, Prediction of mechanical efficiency of parallel-axis gear pairs, J. Mech. Des. 129 (1) (2006) 58–68.
[8] Y. Peng, N. Zhao, P. Qiu, M. Zhang, W. Li, R. Zhou, An efficient model of load distribution for helical gears with modification and misalignment, Mech.
Mach. Theory 121 (2018) 151–168.
[9] S. Li, Effects of machining errors, assembly errors and tooth modifications on loading capacity, load-sharing ratio and transmission error of a pair of
spur gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 42 (6) (2007) 698–726.
[10] C. Xie, L. Hua, J. Lan, X. Han, X. Wan, X. Xiong, Improved analytical models for mesh stiffness and load sharing ratio of spur gears considering structure
coupling effect, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 111 (2018) 331–347.
[11] X. Gu, P. Velex, P. Sainsot, J. Bruyère, Analytical investigations on the mesh stiffness function of solid spur and helical gears, J. Mech. Des. 137 (6)
(2015). 063301 (7 pages).
[12] F. Sanchez-Marin, J. Iserte, V. Roda-Casanova, Numerical tooth contact analysis of gear transmissions through the discretization and adaptive refine-
ment of the contact surfaces, Mech. Mach. Theory 101 (2016) 75–94.
[13] J. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Artés, J. Antona, Load distribution model along the line of contact for involute external gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 45
(5) (2010) 780–794.
[14] M. Sánchez, M. Pleguezuelos, J. Pedrero, Approximate equations for the meshing stiffness and the load sharing ratio of spur gears including hertzian
effects, Mech. Mach. Theory 109 (2017) 231–249.
[15] J. Pedrero, M. Sánchez, M. Pleguezuelos, Load sharing and quasi-static transmission error of non-standard tooth height spur gears, in: New Trends in
Mechanism and Machine Science, Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 231–238.
[16] J. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Sánchez, Load sharing model for high contact ratio spur gears with long profile modifications, Forsch Ingenieurwes 83
(2019) 401–408.
[17] M. Sánchez, M. Pleguezuelos, J. Pedrero, Influence of profile modifications on meshing stiffness, load sharing, and trasnsmission error of involute spur
gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 139 (2019) 506–525.
[18] S. Ye, S. Tsai, A computerized method for loaded tooth contact analysis of high-contact-ratio spur gears with or without flank modification considering
tip corner contact and shaft misalignment, Mech. Mach. Theory 97 (2016) 190–214.
31
[19] E. Buckingham, Analytical Mechanics of Gears, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Dover Books for Engineers, 1949.
[20] H. Ohlendorf, Verlustleistung und Erwärmung von Stirnrädern, TU München, 1958 PhD Thesis.
[21] G. Niemann, H. Winter, Maschinenelemente: band 2: getriebe allgemein, zahnradgetriebe - grundlagen, stirnradgetriebe, Springer Maschinenelemente
/Gustav Niemann (1989).
[22] A. Wimmer, Lastverluste von stirnradverzahnungen, 2006 PhD Thesis, Konstruktive Einfüsse, Wirkungsgradmaximierung, Tribologie.
[23] P. Velex, F. Ville, An analytical approach to tooth friction losses in spur and helical gears – influence of profile modifications, J. Mech. Des. 131 (10)
(2009). 101008 (10 pages).
[24] J. Pedrero, M. Pleguezuelos, M. Muñoz, Simplified calculation method for the efficiency of involute spur gears 6: ASME Power Transmission and Gearing
Conference; 3rd International Conference on Micro and Nanosystems; 11th International Conference on Advanced Vehicle and Tire Technologies (2009)
131–138.
[25] M. Pleguezuelos, J. Pedrero, M. Sánchez, Simplified calculation method for the efficiency of involute helical gears, Mech. Mach. Sci. (2010) 217–224.
Volume 5, New Trends in Mechanism Science, Analysis and Design.
[26] Y. Michlin, V. Myunster, Determination of power losses in gear transmissions with rolling and sliding friction incorporated, Mech. Mach. Theory 37
(2) (2002) 167–174.
[27] A. Diez-Ibarbia, A. Fernandez-del Rincon, A. De-Juan, M. Iglesias, P. Garcia, F. Viadero, Frictional power losses on spur gears with tip reliefs. The load
sharing role, Mech. Mach. Theory 112 (2017) 240–254.
[28] A. Diez-Ibarbia, A. Fernandez-del Rincon, A. De-Juan, M. Iglesias, P. Garcia, F. Viadero, Frictional power losses on spur gears with tip reliefs. the friction
coefficient role, Mech. Mach. Theory 121 (2018) 15–27.
[29] L. Chang, Y. Jeng, P. Huang, Modeling and analysis of the meshing losses of involute spur gears in high-speed and high-load conditions, J. Tribol. 135
(1) (2013). 011504 (11 pages).
[30] B. Höhn, K. Michaelis, T. Vollmer, Thermal Rating of Gear Drives – Balance Between Power Loss and Heat Dissipation, AGMA Technical Paper, 1996.
[31] T. Petry-Johnson, A. Kahraman, N. Anderson, D. Chase, An experimental investigation of spur gear efficiency, J. Mech. Des. 130 (6) (2008). 062601 (10
pages).
[32] C. Fernandes, P. Marques, R. Martins, J. Seabra, Gearbox power loss. Part II: friction losses in gears, Tribol. Int. 88 (2015) 309–316.
[33] Y. Diab, F. Ville, P. Velex, Prediction of power losses due to tooth friction in gears, Tribol. Trans. 49 (2) (2006) 260–270.
[34] P. Marques, R. Martins, J. Seabra, Analytical load sharing and mesh stiffness model for spur/helical and internal/external gears - towards constant mesh
stiffness gear design, Mech. Mach. Theory 113 (2017) 126–140.
[35] D. Seager, Tooth loading and static behavior of helical gears, A S L E Trans. 13 (1) (1970) 66–77.
[36] Y. Cai, T. Hayashi, The linear approximated equation of vibration of a pair of spur gears (theory and experiment), J. Mech. Des. 116 (2) (1994) 558–564.
[37] W. Yu, C. Mechefske, A new model for the single mesh stiffness calculation of helical gears using the slicing principle, Iran. J. Sci. Technol.Trans. Mech.
Eng. 43 (2019) 503–515.
[38] I.O. for Standardization, ISO 6336 - 1, Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears Part 1: basic principles, introduction and general influence
factors (2007).
[39] K. Hayashi, Load distribution on the contact line of helical gear teeth: part 1 fundamental concept, Bull. JSME 6 (22) (1963) 336–343.
[40] K. Hayashi, T. Sayama, Load distribution on the contact line of helical gear teeth: part 2 gears of large tooth width, Bull. JSME 6 (22) (1963) 344–353.
[41] M. Maatar, P. Velex, An analytical expression for the time-varying contact length in perfect cylindrical gears: some possible applications in gear
dynamics., ASME J. Mech. Des. 118(4) (1996) 586–589.
[42] KISSsoft R
AG, KISSsoft R
release 2020 user manualChapter 17.10 (2020) 336–342.
[43] P. Velex, V. Cahouet, Experimental and numerical investigations on the influence of tooth friction in spur and helical gear dynamics, ASME J. Mech.
Des. 122(4) (20 0 0) 515–522.
[44] P. Velex, P. Sainsot, An analytical study of tooth friction excitations in errorless spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 37 (7) (2002) 641–658.
[45] D. Miler, M. Hoić, Optimisation of cylindrical gear pairs: a review, Mech. Mach. Theory 156 (2021) 104156.
[46] H. Lin, J. Wang, F. Oswald, J. Coy, Effect of extended tooth contact on the modeling of spur gear transmissions, in: 29th Joint Propulsion Conference
and Exhibit, 1993, p. 2148.
[47] A. Singh, D. Houser, Analysis of off-line of action contact at the tips of gear teeth, SAE Trans. 103 (1994) 196–203.
[48] N. Yildirim, R. Munro, A systematic approach to profile relief design of low and high contact ratio spur gears, Proc. Inst. Mech.Eng. Part C 213 (6)
(1999) 551–562.
[49] R. Munro, L. Morrish, D. Palmer, Gear transmission error outside the normal path of contact due to corner and top contact, Proc. Inst. Mech.Eng. Part
C 213 (4) (1999) 389–400.
[50] J. Bruyére, P. Velex, A simplified multi-objective analysis of optimum profile modifications in spur and helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 80 (2014)
70–83.
[51] P. Velex, M. Chapron, H. Fakhfakh, J. Bruyére, S. Becquerelle, On transmission errors and profile modifications minimising dynamic tooth loads in
multi-mesh gears, J. Sound Vib. 379 (2016) 28–52.
[52] J. Bruyére, P. Velex, B. Guilbert, D. Houser, An analytical study on the combination of profile relief and lead crown minimizing transmission error in
narrow-faced helical gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 136 (2019) 224–243.
32

Marques 等。 - 2021 - A Continuous Analytical Solution for the Load Shar

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Marques 等。 - 2021 - A Continuous Analytical Solution for the Load Shar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanism and Machine Theory 161 (2021) 104320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

A continuous analytical solution for the load sharing and

Quantity Description (Unit)

εβ overlap ratio, εβ = pEH , see Figure 1

kis (ξ , i ) normalised single teeth pair slice mesh stiffness

2. Reference coordinate system

3. A continuous description of the length of the lines of contact

Fig. 2. Approximation to the Heaviside function, Eq. (4).

In Eq. (7) i = − floor(ε ) : 1 : floor(ε ) (floor is rounding down).

4. Mesh stiffness model

4.1. Mesh stiffness for spur gears

klsi (ξ , i ) = Ulsi · kis (14)

Fig. 7. Representation of a generic static trim function with window size ζ , T l (ξ ) = H (ξ ) − H (ξ − ζ ).

4.2. Mesh stiffness for helical gears

Fig. 10. Deﬁnition of φ i (ξ , i ), complementary length of a contact line.

contact) as stated by Eq. (18).

4.3. Load sharing ratio

FNi s,h (ξ , i ) = δb · Kmax

u is the unbounded normalised

4.4. Closing remarks

5. Friction torque model

M2i (ξ , i ) FNi · rb2

5.1. Friction torque for spur gears

Fig. 15. Graphical representation of Eq. (45) for λ = 1 and i = 0.

5.2. Friction torque for helical gears

i (ξ , i ) is the line load fraction.

deﬁned in such a way that no indeterminate forms of the type 0

i (ξ , i ). Furthermore, the fraction of the load, F P i (ξ , i ),

5.2.1. Uniform contact line load

Fig. 18. Representation of f i (ξ , η, i ), Eq. (90), for different values of α f , (i = 0, ξ < εα ).

5.2.2. Parabolic contact line load sharing

5.3. Load sharing ratio including friction

5.4. Closing remarks

6. Inﬂuence of the free parameters

Gear type: S15 H2010 H1020

Fig. 20. Representation of αk as function of εα .

Fig. 21. Inﬂuence of αk in kls,h

Fig. 22. Inﬂuence of αL in kls,h

Fig. 23. Inﬂuence of α f in CFA,E

by α f , see Fig. 23 e and f.

Gear type: C14 H501 H951

Fig. 24. Inﬂuence of μ in Fs,h

2019b. An analysis to the results obtained with KISSsoft R

8. Discussion on the constant friction coeﬃcient assumption

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like