Original Article

Proc IMechE Part J:

J Engineering Tribology
An approach to weight optimization 0(0) 1–14
! IMechE 2016

of a spur gear Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1350650116650343
pij.sagepub.com

S Panda1, BB Biswal2, SD Jena3 and D Mishra1

Abstract
Lightweight is one of the most important criterion in the optimum design of gear set for motorsport and aerospace
application. A tradeoff between optimum weight and failure modes of gear is a subject of interest for researchers and the
industry. In the present work weight of a single-stage spur gear set is optimized. This nonlinear constrained optimization
formulation has been solved by using differential evolution algorithm. A total of six design variables corresponding to gear
geometry and material property are considered. The results obtained are compared with those of published heuristics
like genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, and particle swarm optimization algorithm, respectively. The optimization is
performed in such a way that the design variables satisfy all constraints at optimum solution. Apart from this, several
constraints related to scoring are included in the optimization. The constraint violation study is performed to prioritize
the constraints. The sensitivity analysis is carried out to see the effect of manufacturing tolerances of design variables on
weight of the gear set. The optimality of the solution has been ensured through the convergence study. The optimization
reveals that the reported results are also encouraging in terms of objective function values and CPU time. In addition, the
optimum design variables obtained through the weight optimization of spur gear set are used for preparation of a CAD
model. Then the stress analysis using finite element analysis is performed on the gear set to identify the critical stress
region in the optimized gear set.

Keywords
Optimal weight design, differential equation, constraint violation, sensitivity analysis, CPU time, finite element analysis

Date received: 14 June 2015; accepted: 23 April 2016

Introduction
Design of a gear that can withstand almost all failure
modes in its running condition is a complex task. In
the industry, there is a need of comparatively low-cost
and lightweight gear trains. A tradeoff between opti-
mum weight and protection against failure modes of
gear is a subject of interest for researchers. So the
selection of optimum input parameters is necessary
in the gear train design. Due to the complex geometry
of gear, a number of geometric as well as material-
dependent parameters have to be considered in the
design optimization. The numerical methods are not
suitable for this type of problem easily because of
their slow convergence and complexity. The compu-
tational complexity increases as the number of design
variables and constraints increases. These complex
optimization problems also involve discrete, continu-
ous, and integer variables that are difficult to be
handled simultaneously. A conventional design pro-
cess is based on the tooth bending strength, tooth
surface durability, tooth surface fatigue, interference,
and efficiency. Manual design is very difficult when the
above factors are considered and there is need of CAD.
With the use of computer, design can be performed
iteratively and the design variables that satisfy the
given condition can be obtained. However, the
design so obtained may not be an optimum one,
because in the iterative design process the variables
so obtained satisfy one condition at a time. For exam-
ple if module is calculated based on bending strength,
the same module is substituted to calculate the surface
durability. It is accepted if the strength of surface dur-
ability is within the limit, otherwise it is changed
accordingly. But in this optimum design approach
the variables are determined and they simultaneously
1
Department of Production Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University
of Technology, Burla, Odisha, India
2
Department of Industrial Design, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, Odisha, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai University
of Technology, Burla, Odisha, India
Corresponding author:
S Panda, Department of Production Engineering, Veer Surendra Sai
University, Burla, Odisha 768018, Indi.
Email: sumanta.panda@gmail.com

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

2 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)
satisfy the envisaged condition i.e. at optimum point all
most all constraints are satisfied. Moreover increased
demand in compact, efficient and reliable design
forces the designer to use optimum design approach.
Thus, there is a strong need of an evolutionary-based
algorithm, which can handle both mixed integer and
nonlinear constraints easily. In this context various evo-
lutionary technique such as genetic algorithm (GA),1,4–6
particle swarm optimization (PSO), and simulated
annealing (SA)13 are proposed. Yokota et al.1 proposed
a scheme using GA for minimization of weight of a
single-stage spur gear train. The bending strength of
tooth, torsional strength and interference were con-
sidered as active design constraints in the weight
optimization.
Kader et al.2 used the center distance as the object-
ive function along with pitting and bending strength
as the constraints to study the critical failure mode of
a spur gear set in its optimized condition both for 20
and 25 pressure angles full depth teeth. Abuid and
Ameen3 formulated a multiobjective function for the
optimization of spur gear by considering gear volume,
center distance as objective functions, and five
dynamic factors of shaft and gear as variables. The
solution was obtained by using min–max numerical
method and a direct search method. Gologlu and
Zeyveli4 used GA for optimization of a two-stage hel-
ical gear set. Gear volume was formulated as objective
function along with contact stress, bending stress,
number of teeth on gear and pinion, module and
face width of gear as constraints. The penalty function
approach was used for constraint handling. Mendi
et al.5 proposed a multiobjective approach using GA
for gearbox weight optimization. The multi-objective
optimization problem was formulated using gear
volume, shaft diameter, and rolling bearing dimen-
sions as the objective functions and tooth root frac-
ture and surface failures as constraints. Refaat and
Meguid6 reported the use of a two-step algorithm
involving quadratic programming and Lagrange’s
multipliers to estimate the contact and root stress of
gears. The results of the modeling were verified with
the results of finite element analysis (FEA).
Thompson et al.7 proposed a quasi-Newton mini-
mization-based multiobjective optimization using
gear volume and surface bending fatigue as the two
objective functions. In another similar approach,
Wang and Wang8 studied the multiobjective
optimization problem using the weight of gear,
center distance, gear life, and tooth deflection as
four objective functions. Woods et al.9 proposed a
model to study the effect of presetting on fatigue life
of gear tooth. The results of the proposed model were
verified analytically and experimentally using the
FEA and the fatigue test to confirm the improvement
of fatigue life through presetting. Kapelevich10 pro-
posed a method to design spur gear drive with asym-
metric teeth so as to increase load capacity, reduce
Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016
weight, size, and vibration level. Deb and Jain11
applied the nondominated sorting genetic algorithm
(NSGA-II) for optimization of both gear volume and
the power of an 18-speed, 5-shafts gear box. A meth-
odology for the selection of optimum gear ratio, the
optimum position for shaft axes, and material for
optimum design of spur gears was developed by
Marjanovic et al.12 Recently, Savsani et al.13 con-
sidered the same optimization problem that was pre-
viously studied by Yokota et al.1 A new gear design
scheme based on AGMA criteria to minimize the
weight of a simple spur gear train involving mixed
integer using PSO and SA was studied. Golabi
et al.14 minimized the volume/weight of a gear using
optim tool box of Matlab. By choosing different input
variables of gear box like input power, gear ratio,
hardness of gear materials different performance par-
ameters like number of stages, face width of gear, and
shaft diameter were estimated using the practical
graphs obtained from the results of optimization.
Based on the literature review, authors have
noticed the implementation of evolutionary-based
algorithms for weight optimization of gear trains.
It is also observed that use of more numbers of
active control constraints like flash temperature,
equality modules of each gear pair, etc., identification
of key design variables, prioritization of constraints,
sensitivity analysis of various design variables, and
stress analysis of optimized gear geometry using
FEA have not received proper consideration by the
researchers. This has motivated us to address these
issues in the weight optimization problem.
In this paper, the aim is to address the weight
optimization of a spur gear set and stress analysis of
optimum gear set using a novel DE algorithm and
FEA. The DE algorithm is subjected to some modifi-
cation to expedite convergence and avoid constraint
violations. The weight of a spur gear set is formulated
as a constrained optimization problem using the for-
mulation reported in Savsani et al.13 Interestingly,
stable and improved solutions are obtained through
the convergence of the proposed DE algorithm. The
key design variables are identified quantitatively
through statistical analysis. The constraint violation
study is performed to prioritize the constraints. The
sensitivity analysis is carried out to study the effect of
tolerance of design variables on weight of gear set.
The optimization results are compared with that of
GA, SA, and PSO as reported in Yokota et al.1 and
Savsani et al.13 The optimization results obtained are
also encouraging in terms of objective function values
and CPU time. Further, using all the optimum geo-
metric variables a CAD model was prepared. The
CAD model was imported into the ANSYS V-12
workbench for stress analysis.
The present work is organized as follows.
The forthcoming sections describes the implementa-
tion of the proposed DE algorithm and outline the
Panda et al. 3

problem synthesis. Optimization results and discus- In this study, the handling of discrete variables
sions are reported next. The CAD modeling, stress involve the following steps:
analysis of the optimized gear train using FEA and
comparisons of results are reported subsequently. 1. Replace each discrete variable with a continuous
Conclusions are drawn in the last section. variable taking values between 1 and n with n
being the number of discrete values allowed for
A modified differential evolutionary the discrete variable under consideration. This
variable is called a continuous position variable.
algorithm 2. Round the value assigned to each continuous pos-
Evolutionary algorithms are optimization techniques ition to an integer.
based on the concept of a population of individuals 3. Use the integer position value to look up the
that evolve and improve their fitness through prob- actual value from the corresponding discrete set.
abilistic operators like recombination and mutation.
DE adds the weighted difference of two vectors of the The implementation of mutation procedure
population to a third vector. Price and Storn15 adopted in this study is DE/rand/2/bin, the procedure
proposed the working principle of DE with a single for DE involve the following steps:
strategy. Later on, Price and Storn16 suggested 10 dif-
ferent strategies namely, DE/rand/1/bin, DE/best/1/ i. Initialize a population of individuals (solution
bin, DE/best/2/bin, DE/rand/2/bin, DE/rand to vectors) with random values generated according
best/1/bin, DE/rand/1/exp, DE/best/1/exp, DE/best/ to a uniform probability distribution in the
2/exp, DE/rand/2/exp, DE/rand to best/1/exp. In n-dimensional problem space.
DE/x/y/z, DE indicates differential evolution, x is a ii. Evaluate the fitness value of each individual.
string, which denotes the vector to be perturbed, iii. Perform the mutation operation of the individ-
y denotes the number of difference vectors taken for uals according to the following equation
perturbation of x, and z is the crossover method.
Evolutionary algorithms are successfully applied to uij ðt þ 1Þ ¼ xi,r1 ðt þ 1Þ þ Fðxi,r2 ðtÞ  xi,r3 ðtÞ
the optimization problem within gear box systems þ xi,r4 ðtÞ  xi,r5 ðtÞÞ ð3Þ
and to the optimization of gear train in particular
as developed by Savsani et al.13 The DE algorithm
as suggested in Price and Storn15 is modified so as iv. Following the mutation operation, the crossover is
to expedite the optimization. The modifications are applied on the population. For each mutant
(i) the initial iteration is skipped when bound vio- vector, ui(t þ 1), an index rnbr(i) 2 {1, 2,. . ., n} is
lation will occur, (ii) another modification is that chosen randomly, and a trial vector, ui(t þ 1) ¼
our implementation uses both ‘‘forced bound’’ and [ui1(t þ 1), ui2(t þ1).uin(t þ1)]T, is generated with
‘‘method without forcing the bound’’ together in 8
dealing with bound violations, instead of using > uij ðt þ 1Þ if ðrand ðbð j Þ4CRÞ
>
>
them individually and independently. Design vari- < orð j ¼ rnbrðiÞÞ,
ables bound violation may occur as a result of uij ðt þ 1Þ ¼
>
> uij if ðrand ðbð j Þ 4 CRÞ
mutation and crossover operations. Since the trial >
:
vectors are infeasible, such trial vectors are repaired. orð j 6¼ rnbrðiÞÞ
The violated dimensional value is repaired either by
taking the bound value that is being violated or by ð4Þ
replacing it with a new vector generated through the
neighborhood of best value (xibest) within the To decide whether the vector ui(t þ 1) should be a
boundaries. Consider the case when the target member of the population comprising the next gener-
vector uij(tþ1)>max(xij) ation, it is compared to the corresponding vector xi(t).
Thus, if Fc denotes the objective function under mini-

maxðxij Þ if rand 4 0:5 mization, then
uij ðt þ 1Þ ¼ 
xibest þ rand  ðxibestþ1 þ xibest1 Þ=2g 
ui ðt þ 1Þ if Fc ðui ðt þ 1ÞÞ 5 Fc ðxi ðtÞÞ,
ð1Þ xi ðt þ 1Þ ¼
xi ðtÞ otherwise:
ð5Þ
Similarly for the case when uij(tþ1)<min(xij)

minðxij Þ ifrand 4 0:5
uij ðt þ 1Þ ¼ 
xibest þ rand  ðxibestþ1 þ xibest1 Þ=2g v. Loop to step (ii) until a stopping criterion is met,
usually a maximum number of iterations (gener-
ð2Þ
ation) where i ¼ 1, 2,. . . ,N is the individual’s

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

4 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)

index of population, j ¼ 1, 2,. . .,n is the position

in n-dimensional individual, t is the time (gener-
ation), xi(t) ¼ [xi1(t), xi2(t), . . . , xin(t)]T stands for
the position of the ith individual of T population
of N real-value n-dimensional vectors, ui(t) ¼
[wi1(t), wi2(t), . . . , win(t)]T stands for the position
of the ith individual of a mutation vector, r1 , r2,
r3, r3, and r5 are mutually different integers and
also different from the running index, i , ran-
domly selected with uniform distribution from
the set {1, 2,. . .,i  1,i þ 1,. . .,N}; F is mutation
vector.CR is the crossover rate.

The pseudo-code for the proposed algorithm is as

follows.

Proposed DE algorithm
1: Specify,NP,F,CR and MaxFE.
2: Provide the domain, range (bound) of each
variable.
3: Give the global optimal g_opt (value to reach) of
the maximization problem.
4: Randomly generate the initial population.
5: Evaluate the initial population using the penalty
function constraint handling method.set the
number of function evaluation,nfe equals to NP.
6: Determine the best function value f_best and the
best solution x_best and its location i_best.
7: while nfe< MaxFE and f_best<g_opt
8: For each target vector
9: Randomly find the five population vectors
10: Generate the mutated vector according to the
mutation strategy DE/rand/2/bin using Eq.(4)
11: Generate the trial vector using Eq.(4)
12: if
13: it is the first generation and the side constraints
are violated then skip the iteration.
14: Else
15: Handle the out of bound according to
Eq.(1)&Eq.(2)
16: Evaluate the new trial vector using the new evalu-
ation functionas per step 5 increment nfe by one.
17: Update the current generation of population by
replacing the target vector with the trial vector
if the trial vector turns out to be better.
Problem synthesis
The research on the gear design is mainly focused on
dimensional design of the gear drives. A number of
design and calculation procedures were developed by
researchers2–6 for the gear drives design. In a compact
design of the gear box, weight of the gear drive plays a
pivotal role. In this work, a single-stage spur gear
train weight minimization problem is considered.
The same optimization model proposed by Savsani
et al.13 has been used for formulation of the objective
function. An improved DE algorithm is proposed in
Figure 1. Single-stage spur gear train geometry with
dimension.
particular to improve what was reported in Savsani
et al.13 The main objective of this research is to min-
imize the weight of a single-stage spur gear train sub-
jected to 10 nonlinear constraints involving mixed
integer design variables.
Objective function
The basic spur gear geometry considered for the
weight optimization is illustrated in Figure 1. The
objective function for the spur gear train weight opti-
mization problem is as represented in equation (3).
The nonlinear objective function

   
Weight ¼ Fc ðxÞ ¼ bm2 z21 1 þ a2  D2i  d20

2
 2 2

 ðl  bw Þ  ndp bw  d1 þ d2 b ð6Þ
Design variables
The design variables considered in this optimization
problem are module, numbers of teeth on the pinion,
face width, pinion and gear shaft diameter, and hard-
ness of gear material. The design variables with their
bounds are presented in Table 1. A little observation
on Table 1 reveals that the design variables involve
mixed integers. The gear ratio is 4 for the spur gear set
considered in this study.
Constraints
In this design optimization problem, three different
kinds of constraints have been considered, i.e. geo-
metrical constraint, design constraints, and control

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

Panda et al.
Table 1. Design variables.
Design
variables Lower bound Upper bound
b 10 35
d1 10 30
d2 10 40
H 200 400
Z1 18 25
m (1,1.25,1.5,2,2.75,3,3.5,4)
constraints. These constraints are used to provide
design choices and to restrict the objective function
in a way that the gear train will be protected against
the failures.
Design constraints
The different design constraints considered for the
gear train are bending fatigue strength, surface fatigue
strength, and torsional strength of pinion and gear
shaft, respectively. The equations of the constraint
are represented in equations (4), (5), (6), and (7).13
Equations (7) and (8) are related to the constraints
imposed on the bending fatigue and surface fatigue.
The LHS. of these equations is the bending fatigue
and surface fatigue strength of the tooth respectively
as per AGMA design criteria. Equations (9) and (10)
are constraints for torsional strength of the shafts of
pinion and gear, respectively.
g1 ðxÞ ¼ Sn Cs Kr Kms bmJ=ðKv Km K0 Þ  b1 50
g2 ðxÞ ¼ S2fe C2l C2r bD1 I= C2p Kv Km K0  b1 50
g3 ðxÞ ¼ d31  b3 50
g4 ðxÞ¼d32  b3 50
Geometric constraints
Geometric constraints have been considered to avoid
interference between the pinion and the gear and to
allocate the position of gear train. The constraint used
to avoid interference is represented in equation (8).
Equation (11) is the constraint related to interference.
g5 ðxÞ ¼ sin2 D1 ð2D2 þ D1 Þ=ð4mÞ  D2  m50
The other geometrical constraint considered to locate
the position of the gear train i.e. center distance
between gear and pinion is represented in equation
(12). Equation (12) represents the constraint to
restrict the centre distance between pinion and gear.
g6 ðxÞ ¼ ð1 þ aÞmz1 =2  b5 40
Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016
5
Control parameter constraints
The third kind of constraint is considered to control the
value of parameters like face width of gear and pinion,
Variable types
minimum module, and flash temperature to control
Continuous scoring type failure. The constraints are represented in
Continuous equations (13) to (16). Equations (13) and (14) are con-
Continuous straints that ensure the uniform load distribution
Continuous among the teeth. Equations (15) and (16) are constraints
Integer that ensure the protection against scoring.
Discrete
The expression on the LHS of equation (15) repre-
sents the temperature rise due to friction17 and the
value is limited to 300  F keeping in view the flash
point of standard lubricant. Beyond this temperature
the lubricant may fail and scoring will occur.18,23
g7 ðxÞ ¼ b=m  850 ð13Þ
g8 ðxÞ ¼ b=m  1640 ð14Þ
ð0:831 f ðW1  W2 Þ
g9 ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Þ  Tf 40 ð15Þ
ðb ðKCAÞð W1  W2 Þ
2 3ð1=3Þ
6 7
6 TE sin  7
g10 ðxÞ ¼ 6   ! 7
6  1  2 c lZ2   cos2  7
4 1 v 1 Ha 1 5

sin   ð1 cos =ð1 þ aÞÞ
 m40 ð16Þ
In this study a new constraint, i.e. flash tempera-
ture is introduced in the optimization problem. Flash
ð7Þ temperature is defined as the temperature above
which, if the gear surface is exposed during the run-
ð8Þ ning condition, then the scoring type of surface failure
will predominate over other type of gear failures. So
the two nonlinear active constraints (g9(x),g10(x))17 in
ð9Þ
terms of module and flash temperature are introduced
in the weight optimization problem to prevent scor-
ð10Þ ing. The flash temperature is taken as 300  F.17,18
Scoring is more predominant near pitch line and it
depends on module and pitch line velocity so con-
straint g9(x) comes into force. Whereas the flash tem-
perature gives a limit to the temperature raise so as to
avoid scoring. Out of two constraints in a given situ-
ation if the first is an effective constraint, then the
second constraint would be redundant and in other
case vice versa may take place.
Moreover, in this study, the behavior of some
ð11Þ important constants of the constraints like the vel-
ocity factor (Kv) is considered as a function of the
pitch line velocity of gear and pinion, it indirectly
depends on the pitch circle diameters of both gear
and pinion.19,20 Hence, it is expressed as a function
of pitch line velocity and it is represented in
equation (14).
ð12Þ Kv ¼ ð78 þ ð196:85vÞÞ=78 ð17Þ
6 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)
Again the surface factor (Cs) and Lewis geometry
factor (J) cannot be taken as constants. The hardness
of gear material plays an important role in gear
design. Cs is expressed as a third-order polynomial
in terms of hardness as represented in equation (15).
Similarly, J depends on the numbers of teeth. So J is
expressed in terms of pinion teeth as a third-order
polynomial, and it is represented in equation (16).
Cs ¼ 8:3068  109  H3 þ 9:0701  106  H2
 0:00381  H þ 1:2673 ð18Þ
J ¼ 7:6105  107  Z31  0:000179  Z21
þ 0:012787  Z1 þ 0:19525
By following the AGMA design procedure these
relations are obtained using the basic curve fitting
technique. These equations are suitably used in the
design optimization as H and Z1 are design variables.
The different relations used in the formulation of the
objective function are presented in the Appendix A.
Constraint handling
In the case of constrained optimization problems, the
concept of penalty function is used. In this technique,
the problems with constrain are transformed into
unconstrained problems by adding a penalty function
P(x) to the original objective function so as to limit
constraint violations. This new objective function is
called as extended objective function. After normal-
ization, the constraint violations are added together to
get the overall constraint violation. This constraint
violation is then multiplied with a penalty parameter
and it is added to the objective function. It is pena-
lized, by a factor, every time that meets an active con-
straint. In order to have a better efficiency of the
optimization algorithm, a high value of the penalty
factor rp should be used to ensure that all constraints
are obeyed. The extended objective function is given
in equation (17)
ðxÞ ¼ Fc ðxÞ þ rp PðxÞ
X
m X
p 
PðxÞ ¼ fmax½0, gðxÞ2 g þ ½hi ðxÞ2
i¼1 i¼1
where Fc(x) is the original objective function given in
equation (3), P(x) is an imposed penalty function as
represented in equation (18), gi are the inequality con-
straints, hi are the equality constraints. The scalar
multiplier rp is decided by taking several runs so
that a solution within the acceptable limit is obtained.
Thus, understanding of the above issues will help the
gear designer not only in the design of a best gear for
a prescribed weight but also in predicting the key
design variables.
Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016
Results and discussions of optimization
The mathematical model and computational method-
ology outlined in the previous sections have been used
in the study of weight optimization of a spur gear set.
The code was developed by the authors using
Matlab.21 The program has been executed in Dual-
core 1.8 GHz (1GB RAM) Window 7 platform. The
results obtained through the proposed DE algorithm
are compared with that of GA, SA, and PSO as
reported in Savsani et al.13 It is wise to reiterate the
fact that a simple DE relies on the selection of the
number of population members and the number of
maximum iterations or objective function values
greater than some tolerance limit. In this simulation,
ð19Þ the authors have tried to solve the constrained opti-
mization problem with different population sizes, 30,
60, 80, 100,120, and 150. It is observed that with an
increase in the population size the minimum objective
function value also decreases initially. But when it is
increased beyond 100, the decrease in the objective
function value was marginal, whereas the CPU run
time increases considerably. Hence, in this experiment
the authors have chosen the number of population
members as 100. While performing the simulation
with different iterations i.e. 100, 200, 300, 400, 500,
700, 1000, 5000, and 7000, it is observed that an
increase in the number of iterations does not improve
the objective function value further. So the authors
have chosen an appropriate value of 100 for this
experiment. In this study different no. of population
sizes are taken for 100 iterations and it was noticed
that when the population size is 100 the minimum
objective function value is obtained. By increasing
the population beyond 100 there is a marginal
decrease in the function value. Similarly with a popu-
lation size of 100, test runs are performed with differ-
ent iterations and it was noticed that increase
in number of iterations beyond 100 does not
improve the objective function value. In the evolu-
tionary algorithm, there is no mathematical proof of
convergence and it is decided on the basis of results of
the test runs.
It is observed from the trial runs of the program that
ð20Þ the control parameters as given in Table 2 provide better
results with lesser number of function evaluations.
ð21Þ
Table 2. Control parameters of modified DE algorithm.
Modified DE algorithms Values
Penalty factor (rp) 100
Number of population member 100
Cross-over probability (CR) 0.8
Mutation step size (F) 0.4
Maximum number of iterations (imax) 100
Total number of function evaluation 10,000
Mutation strategy DE/rand/2/bin
Panda et al. 7

Table 3. Comparison of optimization results.

Design variables GA13 SA13 PSO13 DE DE DE

Weight (g) 1664.30 1661.11. 1661.10 1603.81 1635.31 3507.3

b (mm) 26.87 26.74 26.73 25.50 25.78 29.1
d1 (mm) 30.00 30.00 30.00 29.98 30.0 30.0
d2 (mm) 36.750 36.743 36.740 36.74 36.25 36.45
Z1 18 18 18 18 18 18
m (mm) 2 2 2 2 2 2.75
H (BHN) 400 400 400 298.23 397.41 397.41
Active constraints g2(x), g7(x) g2(x), g7(x) g2(x), g7(x) g2(x), g7(x),g9(x) g2(x), g7(x) Without any
and g10(x) constraint
Function evaluated 6000 3300 3000 1800 1865 1984
Time taken (s) 9.99 12.29 2.01 3.28 3.18 3.10

Constraints value at optimum point

g1 4.0184eþ03 3.9862eþ03 3.9837eþ03 2.5120eþ03 3.7198eþ03 4.5404eþ03

g2 224.8877 210.9662 209.8953 26.190 70.1938 420.8384
g3 1.4540eþ04 1.4540eþ04 1.4540eþ04 1.4540eþ04 1.4594eþ04 1.4594eþ04
g4 40.9191 12.5627 0.4132 0.4132 0.0136 0.0195
g5 114.4078 114.4078 114.4078 114.4078 114.4078 114.4078
g6 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0 160.0
g7 5.4350 5.3700 5.3650 4.7500 4.8900 6.5500
g8 2.5650 2.6300 2.6350 3.2500 3.1100 1.4500
g9 – – – 43.5214 – 52.7690
g10 – – – 1.235 – 12.6214
GA: genetic algorithm; SA: simulated annealing; PSO: particle swarm optimization; DE: differential evolution.

In addition, it is also found that, the speed and accur-

acy of proposed DE primarily depend on two key
control parameters i.e. mutation factor and cross-
over probability. The effects of rest parameters are
marginal though some may affect the accuracy slightly
towards the end. It may be noted that the stability
and validity of the proposed algorithm are ensured
through repeated checking of the constraints defined
by equations (4) to (13).
A comparison of the results of the proposed DE
algorithm with that of GA, PSO, and SA is performed
to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the
algorithm. The comparison of results is reported in
Table 3 (as boldfaced values). It is observed that a
weight of 3.64%, 3.44%, and 3.44% is saved by Figure 2. Evolution of objective function during optimization
applying the proposed DE algorithm as compared process.
to the results reported in Savsani et al.13 using GA,
PSO, and SA, respectively. Also in this weight opti- to GA, SA, and PSO respectively. The performance of
mization problem more active constraints are con- the proposed DE algorithm is represented in Figure 2
sidered. The computational time for the proposed and it shows that after 18th iteration (i.e. 1800 func-
DE algorithm is 3.28 sec which is less as compared tion evaluations) the results converge to optimized
to SA but slightly inferior than the computational value. The objective function values are much better
time of PSO. The higher computational time may be and precise as compared to GA, SA, and PSO, apart
attributed to the fact that execution of the proposed from this the gear is also protected against scoring
algorithm involves more number of active constraints type of failure. As explained in the convergence
and computational stages as compared to PSO. The study that the increase in no. of iterations to a very
proposed DE algorithm requires 70%, 45.45%, and high values about 7000 iterations, it was reported that
40% less number of function evaluations as compared the improvement in the objective function value is

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

8 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)

Table 4. Variation of best solution with respect to proposed

DE algorithm.
2000 Optimum
Weight of
1500
gear train
(Weight (gm)

1000
Mutation factor
500
(a) Population size ¼ 100, Cross-over
0 probability ¼0.8, Number of iterations ¼7000
28
2.8
0.1 1612.45
27
2.6
26 2.4 0.3 1604.92
2.2
Face width (mm)
25 2
Module (mm)
0.4 1608.72
0.5 1609.04
Figure 3. Optimization results for module, face width and 0.8 1605.34
weight of gear train. 0.9 1636.94
1.0 1617.94
Cross-over probability
(b) Population size ¼ 100, Mutation factor ¼0.4,
Number of iterations ¼7000
0.1 2412.35
2000 Optimum 0.3 1604.92
1500
0.4 1603.81
0.5 1604.38
Weight (gm)

1000
0.8 1608.72
500
0.9 1612.82
0
26 1.0 1612.85
24 2.8
22 2.6 Numbers of iteration
2.4
20
18 2
2.2 (c) Population size ¼ 100, Mutation factor ¼0.4,
Nos. of Teeth Module (mm)
Cross-over probability ¼0.8
100
Figure 4. Optimization results for number of teeth, module, 200 1603.81
and weight of gear train.
300 1606.20
400 1609.30
500 1603.97
700 1613.10
marginal. This shows that the solution is having 1000 1607.14
higher precision. Also there is a saving in weight of 5000 1607.95
the spur gear set in this method i.e. in terms of object- 7000 1608.72
ive function value the proposed algorithm provided
better results. The convergence of optimum fitness
function is illustrated in Figure 2. As m, Z1, and b
are the key design variables so their variations with the reported values of the objective function have
respect to weight of spur gear set are presented in hardly shown any discernable variation. Mutation facili-
Figures 3 and 4. The bar in this stem plot represents tates a random jump out of a local minima (or maxima).
the minimum weight of the spur gear set with respect to Normally the mutation rate is kept low to avoid too
the different values of m, Z1 (Figure 3) and different random search. Even at a higher value of F ¼ 1 the
values of Z1 and b (Figure 4). The results obtained value of objective function does not differ much from
from the present work are reasonably improved as the value reported with F¼0.4.
compared to the previous results. The results correl- Table 4(b) indicates the results obtained by varying
ation establishes confidence in this efficient analysis. the crossover probability. Here also the objective
function values have hardly varied. Hovering
around the neighborhood of 1605.00, these values
Convergence study
are much the same as those reported in Table 4(a).
Table 4(a) to (c) throws more light on the convergence Increasing number of iterations (Table 4(c)) seem to
characteristics and reveals the fact that the solution is produce slightly better value of the objective function,
most likely an optimal one and not one trapped in but for higher number they seem to saturate to the
local minima. The results reported in Table 4(a) indi- value reported in Table 4(a) and (b). One of the spe-
cate that even with an increase in mutation factor, cial significance of the result reported with 5000 and

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

Panda et al. 9

7000 iterations is that these results are almost close to becomes stable at an early stage as compared to
each other and it clearly indicates the higher precision. other parameters and it directly converges to a value
The marginal lower value of objective function in this 18 after 10th iteration. The gear shaft diameter (d2)
study may, however, be an indication of the optimal- finally converges to a value 36.74 mm at 18th iteration.
ity of the solution. It can thus be clearly seen that the The hardness (H), however, shows a decrease in its
computed value of the objective function is better value and finally attains a stable value 298.23 BHN
than those reported in Yokota et al.1 and Savsani after 18th iteration.
et al.13
Key design variable
Design variable convergence It is very important for the designer to have prior
The convergence characteristics of all the design vari- information about the key design variables that influ-
ables are presented in Figure 5. The face width (b) ences the gear design. So an attempt is made to find
shows a variation in its value up to 10th iteration out the critical design variables in gear design. The
after which it directly converge to a value of design variables considered are module, face width,
25.5 mm. The same is the case with module (m) nos. of teeth on pinion, diameter of gear and pinion
which attains a stable value after 18th iteration with shafts and hardness of gear material. In order to iden-
its value 2.0 mm. The pinion shaft diameter (d1) ini- tify the key design variables the minimum, maximum,
tially shows an increase in its value and then it mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variance
becomes stable at 18th iteration with the value of (COV) of each variable is determined in the weight
29.98 mm. The number of teeth on pinion (Z1) optimization problem and it is depicted in Table 5
P in io n S h a f t D ia . d 1 (m m )

G e a r S h a f t D ia . d 2 (m m )
28 30.5
40
F a c e w id t h b (m m )

27 39
30
38
26
37
29.5
25 36
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
No. of Iterations No. of Iterations No. of Iterations
21
N o . o f t e e t h o n P in io n

400
H a rd n e s s H (B H N )
M o d u le m (m m )

2.6
20 350
2.4
19 300
2.2
2 250
18
1.8 200
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
No. of Iterations No. of Iterations No. of Iterations

Figure 5. Results of the evolution of design variables during optimization.

Table 5. Analysis of converged design variables.

Standard Coefficient of
Decision variable Minimum value Maximum value Mean value deviation variance (COV)

Diameter of pinion shaft (d1) 29.50 30.00 29.91 0.1592 0.0046

Module (m) 2.00 2.74 2.11 0.2418 0.1112
Face width (b) 25.50 27.87 25.58 0.3199 0.0312
Diameter of gear shaft (d2) 36.40 40.00 37.08 0.8671 0.0265
Number of teeth on pinion (Z1) 18.00 21.00 18.11 0.3298 0.1103
Hardness (H) 232.22 400.00 298.23 27.6224 0.1889

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

10 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)

(The higher values of COV are boldfaced). It can be
inferred from this table that a higher value of COV
indicates larger dispersion of the variables i.e. these
variables need better control as they influence the
optimized solution. Based on COV values the key
design variables are H, m, Z1, and b. It was also
reported in Mushtaq et al.2 that gear design can
base on bending mode of failure or at scoring or at
pitting mode of failure depending upon the type of
materials being used. This fact is supported in our
optimum gear design as hardness is a material prop-
erty. Materials with hardness value varying between
150 and 350 BHN are more prone to scoring type of
failures as reported in Mushtaq et al.2 In our opti-
mization the hardness value is 298.23 BHN and the
optimized gear set satisfies the scoring constraint i.e.
the gear set is protected against scoring.
In particular, from Figure 5 one can note that H
and m of gear are very influential in the optimum
design process since the beginning, while other
design parameters seem to be more rapid in conver-
ging to optimal values. This may be attributed to the
fact that bending fatigue strength, surface fatigue
strength, surface failure like scoring, and pitting
depends on the hardness. So the selection of econom-
ical material that has better machinability and resist-
ance against different modes of failure is key to
lightweight gear train design. Moreover, it is observed
that the hardness of material obtained by the pro-
posed DE algorithm is less as compared to other
techniques. So less expensive and easily machinable
materials can be used for gear train manufacturing.
The reported key design variables also need manufac-
turing tolerance.
Sensitivity analysis
The COV analysis recognizes m, Z1, and b as
the important design variables that influence the opti-
mum design and these parameters can suffer from
manufacturing tolerances. There is a variation of
design parameter values during the manufacturing
of components and the most common range of devi-
ation is 0.5–1%. So it is desirable to perform para-
metric sensitivity analysis of these design variables.
The parametric sensitivity values of optimized
design variable are tabulated in Table 6. The variation
in design variables has been performed by generating
random points within  1% neighborhood of the
optimized point.
The variation of the design variables are performed
separately and collectively. It can be seen from
Table 7 that there is a small amount of change in
the weight of gear set but the constrained are not
found to be well behaved. The constraints g2, g7,
and g10 are violated in each case. As the constraints
are not satisfied the solutions in each case are infeas-
ible. So a tight manufacturing tolerance on design
variables is desired for a feasible solution. Another
important observation that can be drawn is that the

Table 6. Parametric analysis of design variables.

þ1% Deviation 1% Deviation

of optimized of optimized
design variable % Change in design variable % Change in
objective function objective
Sl. no. b Z1 m value b Z1 m function value

1 ˇ þ0.157 ˇ 0.6846
2 ˇ 0.094 ˇ 0.0744
3 ˇ 0.036 ˇ 0.0051
4 ˇ ˇ 0.0925 ˇ ˇ 1.470
5 ˇ ˇ 0.0154 ˇ ˇ 0.0667
6 ˇ ˇ 0.0340 ˇ ˇ 0.5696
7 ˇ ˇ ˇ 0.0020 ˇ ˇ ˇ 0.7504

Table 7. Constraints violation study.

Constraint no. g2(x) g7(x) g1(x) g4(x) g3(x) g5(x)

Min. value 0.5072 0.0997 0.1428 0.2121 0.2783 0.2933

Max. value 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mean 0.1692 0.3584 0.6436 0.3020 0.5435 0.9201
Range 1.5072 1.09 0.8502 0.7879 0.7217 0.7027

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

Panda et al. 11

1 .5
1 .4 C o n s tra i n t 1 C o n s tra i n t 2

Constraint Violation
C o n s tra i n t 7
Constraint Violation

1 .2 C o n s tra i n t 4
1

1
0 .5
0 .8

0 .6
0
0 .4

0 .2 -0 .5

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
No. of Function Evaluations No. of Function Evaluations
1 .4
Constraint Violation

1 .2 C o n s tra i n t 3
C o n s tra i n t 5
1

0 .8

0 .6

0 .4

0 .2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
No. of Function Evaluations

Figure 6. Constraint violation vs number of function evaluations: (a) Constraints 1 and 4; (b) Constraints 2 and 7; (c) Constraints 3
and 5.

face width (b) has a positive effect on the objective func- The penalty method is used to include constraints,
tion i.e. a þ1% change increases the weight of gear and it is important to separate the constraints at opti-
set and a 1% change decreases the weight of gear. mum solution point and check their magnitude of
But all other design variables have negative effect. violations. The value of constraints at optimum
The parametric analyses demonstrate that the solu- point is reported in Table 3. It is noted that in all
tions obtained are robust, and the practicing engineer the algorithms the constraints are satisfied at opti-
must maintain close tolerance for these design vari- mum solution point except in the case where no con-
ables during the time of manufacturing. straints are used. When the proposed DE algorithm is
applied without using any constraint it is observed
that the constraints g10 is violated at optimum point
Constraint violations
(Table 3 bold faced). This shows effectiveness of the
The constraint violations with numbers of function proposed algorithm for constrained optimization.
evaluation are drawn to prioritize the constraints.
The plots are obtained from the solution at the end
of 100 iterations. The constraint violations are calcu-
Scoring
lated for each solution and then they are plotted with Scoring is one of the factors that cause gears to be
the numbers of function evaluation. The constraint unusable. Since there are many factors affecting scor-
violations are normalized by dividing the highest ing, which have not been satisfactorily explained,
value to give values between 1 and þ1. Figure 6 researches on this subject are continuing. Scoring is
shows the constraint violation for constraints 2, 7, 1, mostly predominant over pitch line region. Design
4, 3, and 5. Constraints g2, g7, g1 and g4 have wide- overweight will also cause scoring as there will be a
spread range with range values 1.5072, 1.09, 0.8502, shift in alignment across the face of gear and wide face
and 0.7217 respectively (refer to Table 7). Constraints gears are more prone to scoring.22
g2, g4, and g7 are concentrated more in the range 0 In this study, the importance of scoring is demon-
and 1 with mean values 0.1692, 0.3020, and 0.3584, strated by performing the design optimization using
respectively. But all other constraints are concen- scoring as one of the constraint. The results obtained
trated near their maximum value. Constraint g2, g7, are then compared with the optimization results
g1, and g4 are important constraints that mostly affect obtained without using scoring constraints. The
the solution. So Table 7 helps to prioritize the result reported in Table 3 shows that there is an
constraints. improvement of around 3.64% weight saving in the

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016

12
Figure 7. Induced von Mises stress on the gear train.
proposed DE algorithm as compared to GA, SA, and
PSO algorithms, whereas an improvement of 1.77%
weight saving in the proposed DE as compared to
GA, SA, and PSO algorithms, when scoring con-
straints are not implemented in the optimization. In
our study, the face width of optimized gear set
reported is less as compared to other algorithm,
thereby ensuring protection against scoring. The
AGMA scoring index reported is also high for the
optimized gear set.
It is very clear from the equation on scoring con-
straint that the flash temperature generated depends
on the face width of the gear. In this study, the width
of gear obtained is less as compared to other opti-
mization approach. The lower width of gear leads to
higher flash temperature and higher scoring index as
reported in Winter and Michaelis.22 But both the
values for the design problem in hand are less than
the critical values.22 So this approach of optimum
design leads to the design of a gear set with low
weight and it also satisfies both the scoring and
strength criteria. In other words, this approach results
in the design of a smaller gear with adequate strength
and protection against the applied load and scoring.
It is also reported in Winter and Michaelis22 that wide
face gears are more prone to scoring.
Finite element analysis using ANSYS
The stress analysis with optimum gear geometry using
FEA will enable the designer to identify the critical
stress region in a gear train. In this article, an opti-
mum parametric model of the spur gear train is
Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016
Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)
Table 8. Comparisons of induced bending fatigue /bending
stress.
Optimization/ Bending fatigue Bending Allowable
Analysis stress (MPa) stress (MPa) stress (MPa)
GA 297.64 132.54 390
SA 299.09 133.18 390
PSO 299.20 133.23 390
DE 289.79 139.66 325
FEM analysis – 50.7 325
GA: genetic algorithm; SA: simulated annealing; PSO: particle swarm
optimization; DE: differential evolution; FEM: finite element method.
developed using the optimized design variables
(Table 3) and CATIA package. The modeled gear
and pinion is then imported to ANSYS workbench
environment for further analysis. In this work for
the sake of clarity, it is mentioned here that FEM
analysis has been performed on an optimized gear
set (optimum geometry obtained by DE algorithm).
So the gear is only analyzed by FEM to cross check
and compare the stress induced under static condi-
tion. The elements used for discretization in FEA
are solid 187 and conta 174 elements. These elements
enable contact between gear and pinion tooth. Before
applying the suitable boundary condition, the whole
gear train is meshed manually by Hex dominant
method. It is assumed that the pinion is simply sup-
ported. The gear and pinion are fixed at their centers
so that both of them will experience the load as they
are mounted on two separate parallel shafts for power
transmission. A torque of 4770.7 N-mm is applied to
the pinion as per the formulation. The FEM analysis
has been performed for a static loading situation (i.e.
constant torque). So traction force has not been con-
sidered. The bending stress at the root of the tooth is
only estimated (most critical) in the FEM analysis.
The induced von Mises stress distribution on the
spur gear train is represented in Figure 7. The max-
imum induced stress is found to be 50.7 MPa, which is
much lesser than the allowable stress of gear material.
The root of the teeth of both pinion and gear are
found to be the most critically stressed region.
Table 8 represents a comparison of state of bending
fatigue stress, bending stress, and surface fatigue
stress at optimum solution point and von Mises
stress obtained through the FEM analysis. The hard-
ness of the material obtained in the DE optimization
is less as compared to PSO. The bending fatigue and
bending strength also depends on other parameters
like Kv, Cs and J. Theses parameters are different in
this design. Kv depends on pitch circle diameter of
gear and pinion. Surface factor Cs depends on hard-
ness and J also depends on the number of teeth on
pinion. So there is a difference for bending stress value
in the DE optimization. The stresses at optimum solu-
tion point are well within the allowable stress limits.
Panda et al.
These reported results enable the designer for selec-
tion of suitable gear geometry for a compact spur gear
train design.
Conclusions
Gear trains are the most common machine compo-
nents and the problem of their minimum weight has
been a subject of interest for many researchers. In this
work, minimization of weight of a spur gear train was
accomplished using the proposed DE algorithm. In
fact this research work is based on a simulation of
spur gear set using DE algorithm and FEA of the
optimized gear geometry. In this study, no practical
test has been conducted on the actual gear set and
gear manufacturing is also not done. Application of
the proposed DE algorithm resulted in saving of
weight of the gear train by 3.64%, 3.44%, and
3.44% as compared to GA, PSO, and SA, respect-
ively. The convergence study is carried out to
ensure the optimality of the design solution. A sen-
sitivity analysis is performed to study the effect of
deviation of design variables due to manufacturing
tolerance and the result shows that the geometric
parameters are near bound. However, a tight toler-
ance is expected for a feasible design. The statistical
analysis of the optimized design variables indicates
that hardness, module, number of teeth on pinion,
and face width are the key design variables. In
order to prioritize the constraints, the constraint
violation study is carried out, in doing so the con-
straints are normalized. FEA results indicate that
the maximum von Mises stress induced in the opti-
mized spur gear set is much lesser than the allow-
able stress of gear material and the roots of both
pinion and the gear teeth are the critical stress
regions. The temperature at the surface of the
gear and pinion is also less than flash temperature,
which ensures that the gear is protected against
scoring type of failure.
In the light of this study, the proposed method-
ology for weight optimization of the spur gear train
serves as a tool to generate gear geometry that could
be used in stress analysis, kinematic issues and other
such performance characteristics even before the
actual fabrication of the gear. This approach can
also be integrated with CAD and FEA to develop
an integral module to enhance the technology of
gear train design.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016
13
References
1. Yokota T, Taguchi T and Mitsuo G. A solution method
for optimal weight design problem of the gear using
genetic algorithms. J Mech Mach Theory 1998; 35:
523–526.
2. Mushtaq M, Kader A, Nigam SP, et al. A study on
mode of failures in spur gears under optimized condi-
tions. J Mech Mach Theory 1998; 33: 839–850.
3. Abuid AB and Ammen YM. Procedure for optimum
design of a two stage spur gear system. Japanese Soc
Mech Engrs 2003; 46: 1582–1590.
4. Gologlu C and Zeyveli M. A genetic approach to auto-
mate preliminary design of gear drives. Comput Ind Eng
2009; 57: 1043–1051.
5. Mendi F, Baskal T, Boran K, et al. Optimization of
module, shaft diameter and rolling bearing for spur
gear through genetic algorithm. J Expert Syst Appl
2010; 37: 8058–8064.
6. Refaat MH and Meguid SA. On the contact stress ana-
lysis of spur gears using variational inequalities. Comput
Struct 1999; 10: 871–882.
7. Thompson DF, Gupta S and Shukla A. Trade-off ana-
lysis in minimum volume design of multi-stage spur gear
reduction units. J Mech Mach Theory 2000; 35: 609–627.
8. Wang H and Wang HO. Optimal engineering design of
spur gear sets. J Mech Mach Theory 1994; 29:
1071–1080.
9. Woods JL, Daniewicz SR and Nellums R. Increasing
the bending fatigue strength of carburized spur gear
teeth by pre-setting. Int J Fatigue 1999; 21: 549–556.
10. Kapelevich A. Geometry and design of involute spur
gears with asymmetric teeth. J Mech Mach Theory
2000; 35: 117–130.
11. Deb K and Jain S. Multi-speed gearbox design using
multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. J Mech Des
2003; 125: 609–619.
12. Marjanovic N, Isailovic B, Marjanovic V, et al. A prac-
tical approach to the optimization of gear trains with
spur gears. J Mech Mach 2012; 53: 531–536.
13. Savsani V, Rao RV and Vakharia DP. Optimal weight
design of a gear train using particle swarm optimization
and simulated annealing algorithms. J Mech Mach
Theory 2010; 45: 531–541.
14. Golabi S, Fesharaki JJ and Yazdipoor M. Gear train
optimization based on minimum volume/weight design.
J Mech Mach Theory 2014; 73: 197–217.
15. Price K and Storn R. Differential evolution –A simple
evolution strategy for fast optimization. Dr Dobb’s J
1997; 224: 8–24.
16. Priceand K and Storn R. Website of DE as on July
2004, http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/storn/
17. Imrek H and Unuvar A. Investigation of influence of
load and velocity on scoring of addendum modified
gear tooth profiles. J Mech Mach Theory 2009; 44:
938–948.
18. Liao TW. Two hybrid differential evolution algorithms
for engineering design optimization. Appl Soft Comput
2010; 10: 1188–1199.
19. Norton RL. Machine design: An integrated approach.
4th ed. New Delhi: Pearson Education Asia, 2001.
20. Juvinall RC and Marshek KM. Fundamentals of
machine components design. 9th ed. New York: Wiley,
2000.
14 Proc IMechE Part J: J Engineering Tribology 0(0)

21. Optimization code for use with Matlab. Natick, MA: H hardness (BHN)
The MathWorks Inc., 1982. I geometry factor
22. Winter H and Michaelis K. Scoring load capacity of J Lewis geometry factor
gears lubricated with EP-oils. AGMA Paper 219.17, K thermal conductivity of the material
1983.
(W/m  C)
23. Dudley DW. Hand book of practical gear design.
Km mounting factor
London: CRC Press, 2000.
Kms mean stress factor
Ko overload factor
Kr bending reliability factor
Appendix A Kv velocity factor
Kw load factor
Notation l length of boss (mm)
a gear ratio lw thickness of rim (mm)
A semi-width of contact (mm) m module (mm)
b face width (mm) n number of drilled holes
bi constraint quantities N1, N2 speed of pinion and gear shaft (r/min)
bw thickness of web (mm) P power to be transmitted (kW)
C specific heat capacity of gear material Sfe surface fatigue strength (MPa)
(J/kg  C) Sn standard Moore endurance limit
Cl surface fatigue life factor Tf flash temperature ( F)
Cp elastic coefficient (MPa) V pitch line velocity (m/s)
Cr surface reliability factor W1,W2 surface velocities of pinion and gear (m/s)
Cs surface factor x design variable vector
d1 diameter of pinion shaft (mm) Z1, Z2 number of teeth on pinion and gear
d2 diameter of gear shaft (mm)
1 coefficient of friction
Di inside diameter of rim (mm)
Ø pressure angle (o)
do outside diameter of boss (mm)
 density of gear material (mg/m3)
dp drilled hole diameter (mm)
 gear material strength (MPa)
Dr dedendum circle diameter (mm)
 Ha allowable Hertzian stress (MPa)
E Young’s modulus (N/mm2)
 shaft shear strength (MPa)
F normal load (N)
1 roll angle (rad)
F(x) objective function
gi(x) constraints

Downloaded from pij.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CINCINNATI on May 20, 2016