Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

2005-01-1273

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES

Effect of Pinion Profile Modification on Rack and

Pinion Steering Gear
Naresh Kamble and S. K. Saha
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Reprinted From: Steering and Suspension, Tires and Wheels

(SP-1915)

2005 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 11-14, 2005

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed
SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a
minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2005 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
Effect of Pinion Profile Modification on Rack and Pinion
Steering Gear
Copyright © 2005 SAE International
ABSTRACT
Low rack gain and high reduction gear ratio in
the case of Rack and Pinion Steering (RPS) gear of an
automobile puts a limit on pinion diameter. The tooth
strength for small diameter pinion is achieved by
reducing the number of teeth. Undercutting is avoided by
resorting to a pinion profile shift. The profile shift has
effect on frictional characteristics of the steering gear.
Considerable higher tooth load makes it important to
consider the friction variation. This variation in friction is
responsible for variation in steering effort. In order to
reduce the undesirable torque variation, contribution of
pinion profile modification to the variation in torque is
analyzed by taking into account the friction variation and
sliding velocities.
INTRODUCTION
The vehicle follows two main modes of motion
namely, 1) Straight ahead motion, and 2) Turning and
parking lot motions. During straight ahead motion, the
steering system helps in keeping the vehicle moving
straight, preventing any unwanted input and road
disturbances from changing the direction of motion.
Another mode of motion is turning, where the steering
system should offer minimum resistance to the effort
applied by the driver.
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of steering system of vehicle
1
2005-01-1273
Naresh Kamble and S. K. Saha
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Steering wheel rotation is transmitted to the road wheels
successively thorough steering column, steering gear,
and tie rods as shown in Fig. 1. The ratio of the steering
wheel angle to road wheel angle is termed as steering
ratio of the vehicle. The steering ratio is constant over
the span of steering wheel rotation, neglecting the
variation due to change in tie rod linkage configuration
while turning [1]. The steering gear with constant speed
reduction should exhibit constant effort requirement from
the driver. This suggests that driver will have a correct
feel of the road and it should not be deteriorated by
unexpected fluctuations in the steering gear. This
requirement is not completely fulfilled by the steering
gear, and it shows prominent fluctuations in the torque
input required during the rotation. The effort required at
the steering wheel is largely influenced by the
performance of the reduction gearbox used in the
steering system. The steering gear box is shown in Fig.
2. The steering effort should not exhibit any change in its
value over the expected operational life. Any change
due to wear of the components and slackness
developed over the period needs to be compensated. In
Rack and Pinion Steering (RPS) gear, any backlash
developed at gear mesh is compensated by the spring
preload in yokenut assembly. To prevent any slackness
in translational motion of rack, it is guided by a flexible
bush. The bush provides a circumferential grip over the
rack surface and adds to the friction preload for the
motion of rack. In order to ensure that the steering is not
too sensitive, a compressed spring provides sufficient
stiffness to the gear mesh. Along with this basic gearing
mechanism, the steering effort can be lowered or raised
by additional power from external source. Such a
change in steering effort is preferred by the driver to
carry out common steering operations like constant
heading at high speed, the lane change at high speed,
turning, and parking maneuvers. Most of the recent
improvements in the RPS system make use of external
power assistance, e.g. hydraulic, electro-hydraulic etc.
[2]. But due to cost and economy consideration, Manual
RPS systems are still preferred particularly for small
cars.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
Fig. 2 Rack and Pinion Assembly
Considering the steering gear alone, the torque
required to rotate the pinion provides the means for
predicting the performance of the steering system. For a
stand alone steering gear the torque required to rotate the
pinion is termed as Free Pinion Torque (FPT). The Free
Pinion Torque (FPT) results from three frictional interfaces,
namely, 1) Rack and pinion, 2) Rack and plunger, and 3)
Rack and bush. Friction between rack and plunger can be
reduced by replacing sliding contact with by rolling contact.
But due to manufacturing difficulties and cost, use of better
material combination like metal and plastic is commonly
adopted. The friction between rack and pinion is the major
source of the torque variation of the steering gear. Baxter
et al. [3] used a vectorial approach to develop a
mathematical model of mesh friction and mechanical
efficiency of rack and pinion steering. This mesh friction
model is limited to single tooth contact for a roll angle of
one involute flank. Steering gear provides a gear ratio of
15-20:1, which means that 4-5 turns of steering wheel are
required to steer the wheels through an angle of 60o [4].
The rack travel being limited due to track-width of vehicle
and tie rod linkages, the gear ratio is decided by the pinion
diameter. This puts limitation of pinion diameter. The tooth
load capacity of the pinion is increased by increasing the
tooth thickness and reducing the number of teeth [5].
Reduced number of teeth gives poor contact ratio.
Similarly the circular cross section of rack is prone to roll
while translating leading to slight misalignments in the gear
mesh. In helical gears overall contact ratio can be
represented as combination of profile (transverse) and face
contact ratio. This combination in helical gears gives
averaging of once per tooth effect with smoother load
transfer between teeth [6]. In RPS, the rack and pinion has
non-parallel, non-intersecting shafts, which improves the
contact ratio as well as accommodates slight
2
misalignments [7],[8]. Also the rack and pinion are spring-
loaded and, hence, have zero backlash. Zero backlash
gives dual flank contact. Hence, each tooth is in contact
with two adjacent teeth of mating gears. But when two
teeth are in contact, theoretically dual contact will give four
contact points. Since, no two teeth are identical in practice
so the contact occurs at any two points. But these two
contact point out of four theoretically possible contact
points are difficult to determine due to randomness of tooth
thickness error [13]. The number of contact points at any
instant determines the number of frictional interfaces at
that instant. Increase and decrease in number of frictional
interfaces while the teeth go through mesh leads to tooth
friction excitations. Tooth friction excitations [10] ,[11] are
mainly controlled by the transverse contact ratio. In RPS,
once per tooth excitations are enhanced due to larger tooth
depth. As the number of teeth in contact changes, the
number of frictional interfaces and, hence, the mesh
stiffness varies causing vibrations in the gear system. To
obtain lower turning effort and less variation in the torque, it
is necessary to analyze the gear mechanics of the RPS,
which is the contribution of this paper. The paper is
organized as follows: Next section explains the manual
Rack and Pinion Steering (RPS) system under study,
followed by the concept of profile modification. Sliding
velocities and mesh friction are calculated next, while the
torque characteristics are presented in the “Effective radius
for torque transmission.” Finally conclusions are given.
MANUAL RACK AND PINION STEERING (RPS)
SYSTEM
In the Manual Rack and Pinion Steering (RPS) system,
the steering gear box essentially consists of a rack, a
pinion, the yokenut assembly, a bush and a rack tube.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
The manual RPS behaves as constant ratio steering
system as it gives same gear ratio over the entire span
of the rack movement. The rack and pinion gear
assembly is designed to fulfill the following
requirements:
1) Backlash Elimination: Backlash resulting due to gear
errors or wear is eliminated by meshing the rack and the
pinion under the spring force, as shown in Fig. 3. This
leads to dual flank contact in the gear mesh. The rack is
forced upwards to mesh with the pinion due to the spring
compression. Any upward motion of rack to take up the
backlash is supported by the spring-loaded plunger.
Similarly, downward motion of rack acts against the
spring preload. The downward motion of rack is limited
due to small clearance available for plunger to move
downwards. This small clearance is known as yoke
clearance, as denoted in Fig. 3. Manufacturing and
assembly errors often lead to center distance variation
between the gears. If this variation is constrained by
fixing the axis of gears then it leads of jamming of teeth
during mesh. This situation can be predetermined by
meshing the gear with a master gear under a spring
force. Then the total center distance variation gives the
composite error. If this composite error [13] is less than
intentional backlash provided in the gear mesh, then
gears will operate smoothly.
Fig. 3 Yokenut assembly
In the RPS, the yoke clearance does the
function of intentional backlash. Any center distance
variation between pinion and rack is taken up by yoke
clearance. But, when the composite error due to various
individual errors exceeds the yoke clearance value, then
the teeth would interfere, and a higher torque will be
needed to rotate the pinion. The manufacturing errors
need to be closely controlled to avoid such torque
variation. On the contrary, if the manufacturing
tolerances are kept wider to with a larger yoke
clearance, the RPS is prone to produce noise due to
vehicle vibrations. Hence, the amount of yoke clearance
3
should be sufficient to accommodate the composite
error, which is unavoidable due to manufacturing
process. This will avoid frequent jamming of teeth and
higher torque requirements. Similarly, the yoke
clearance should not be large so as to produce noise
due to vehicle vibration. This suggests that the gear
errors need to be closely controlled in order to keep the
center distance variation less than the of yoke
clearance.
2) Stiffness of Steering System: The rack and pinion in
an RPS is forced to mesh under the spring force. The
spring preload acts as normal load at gear mesh,
leading to higher frictional torque. The nominal torque
value required to rotate the pinion depends upon this
preload. The preload is so adjusted that the steering is
neither too responsive during the straight ahead
motions, nor too stiff during turning. Considerably larger
value of spring preload keeps the RPS backlash free.
PROFILE MODIFICATION
With the reduction in number of teeth, the
tendency for undercutting of the mating gear increases.
So the pinion with less number of teeth needs to be
modified so as to avoid the interference. The pinion is
cut by withdrawing the hob by certain amount, which
results in shift of the whole involute profile radially
outwards.
Profile shifted gears have unique features, i.e.
the tooth thickness is significantly different from nominal
standard value. The enlargement of outer diameter
results in relative shift of the two families of involutes
forming the teeth along with a shift of teeth radially
outwards [12]. The disposition of addendum and
dedendum along the flank affects the sliding and rolling
properties of the contact point along the path of contact.
The gear pair is acting at extended centre distance. This
extended centre distance is the summation of the profile
shift on both the gears. Figure 4 shows a schematic
diagram of profile shift of a pinion.
PROFILE SHIFTED PINION
The conservative limit for determining the
minimum number of teeth for no undercut is given by
[13]:
2.4 + 0.000157 × Pd
Nc = (1)
sin 2 φ
Where, N c : Minimum number of teeth, Pd : Pitch circle
diameter, φ : Pressure angle
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of pinion profile shift
The above formula gives 20 teeth considering the tool
clearances. For best profile precision, the teeth number
should be 22. So when it is necessary to design gears
with few teeth, undercutting is avoided by resorting to
enlargement. A modified gear makes the use of involute
profile further out from the base circle, making it
stronger.
As discussed earlier, the pinion diameter is
limited due to limited rack gain. To avoid undercutting,
pinion is cut with hob withdrawn by an amount equal to
the profile shift. The resulting pinion has increased tooth
width with corresponding decrease in tooth space. True
kinematic pitch line of the rack does not roll with the
pitch circle of the pinion but is displaced by an amount
equal to the profile shift. Distance between the line of
symmetry of rack and pinion pitch circle is the extended
center distance as shown in Fig. 4. Also there is an
increase in pinion addendum and corresponding
decrease in rack addendum. This system is commonly
known as ‘Long and short addendum system’ and the
gears operate at extended center distance [5]. The
profile-shifted pinion behaves as recess-action gear with
a long addendum and short dedendum. The gear is call
recess-action gear, because most of the contact occurs
on one side of the pitch point. Recess action gears are
preferable because of their better contact properties and
less wear along the recess portion of flank [12].
4
The pinion in the RPS under study has 6 Number
of teeth. To avoid undercutting, the pinion profile is shifted
radially outwards. The pinion tooth thickness is increased
at the expense of tooth space. As a result of this, the
datum line or axis of symmetry of the rack does not roll
along the pitch circle of the pinion but displaced laterally
from it by an amount equal to the profile shift. For the rack
and pinion gear mesh, extended center distance Ce, is
given by following formula [5], i.e.,
Ce= ∑ (k p + k w )m (2)
Where, kp : Profile modification coefficient on pinion;
kw : Profile modification coefficient on rack; m : Module
Pinion behaves as all addendum gear with
larger addendum exposed to the rack. Contact occurs
on one side of flank only. Approach part being negligible,
larger recess part of the line of action contributes to
motion transmission. The effect of this modified
geometry is to increase the sliding velocity as well as
effective radius for torque transmission.
SLIDING VELOCITY AND MESH FRICTION
The nature of sliding in invloute gear teeth
consists of sliding in one direction during approach,
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

reducing to zero at pitch point, where the direction of

sliding changes and increasing again as the contact
progresses through the recess action. Since larger
recess part of pinion is being used, the friction reversal
effect is less [13] severe but sliding velocities are
increased. In general applications, the gears operate at
constant center distances, and in order to avoid jamming
of teeth, an intentional backlash is provided. The driving
flank of the tooth makes contact with the driven flank on
mating gear. Opposite flank on driving tooth is made
clear of the mating gear due to backlash provided. This
reduces unnecessary frictional losses. But in RPS, as
the gears are meshed under spring force, both the flanks
of driving tooth come in contact with mating gear.
Moreover, the normal load acting at the point of mesh is
higher due to spring preload. Besides, the speed of
operation is low with frequent direction reversals, so it
becomes necessary to consider the variation in friction
from engagement to disengagement of the tooth. In the
recess-action pinion, the sliding velocity at the point of
contact varies through a large amount from engagement
to disengagement, as this velocity depends upon the Fig. 5 Plot of variation in friction versus sliding velocity
distance of point of contact from pitch point. The relation
between coefficient of friction (f) and sliding velocity (Vs)
EFFECTIVE RADIUS FOR TORQUE
is given by following empirical formula [14].
TRANSMISSION

If normal force acting on the gears is constant,

torque required by the driver depends upon the friction
0.050 and the lever arm provided by the point of contact. The
f= + 0.002 Vs
e0.125Vs point of contact on driving pinion ascends from start of
active profile to the tip of tooth. The major portion of

[ ]
active profile constitutes of addendum of the pinion. Due
V 2
Where Vs =   r − r 2 b − rp sin φ (3) to increased tooth depth and larger addendum, leverage
r  offered by the point of contact varies considerably.
 p Theoretically, the pitch circle radius and normal tooth
load determines average torque requirement. But it
In which, V: Pitch line velocity; rp: Pitch circle radius of cannot produce realistic results, because effective radius
pinion; rb: Base circle radius of pinion; r: Radius of point for torque transmission varies through one third of the
of contact; φ :Pressure angle. pitch circle radius and active part of the involute flank
lies almost on one side of the pitch circle radius. Thus,
Relation between the sliding velocity and the major portion of active flank is which actually contributes
friction coefficient based on the above formulae is to the torque transmission is considerably larger than the
plotted Fig. 5 for the following specifications: pitch circle radius. So torque determined by pitch circle
radius is always less than the actual torque. The torque
Pinion Base Radius (rb): 5.58mm required by the pinion depends upon the instantaneous
radius of point of contact, which varies considerably due
Pitch circle Radius (rp): 6.06mm to enlarged pinion tooth depth keeping the pitch circle
diameter same. So there is considerable variation in
Pinion Helix Angle (ψ) : 30 o torque from engagement to disengagement of the tooth.
A similar effect was reported in Baxter et. al. [3], where
Installation Angle (γ) : 15o friction coefficient is considered constant. The recess
torque (Tr) considering the friction given by eq. 3, is
Pressure Angle (φ) : 20o calculated as follows: [14]:

Yoke Preload (Py) : 250 N Tr = Wn rb [1 + f (tan φ + θx)] (4)

Number of Teeth (n) : 6 Where θx: Angle of action (roll angle); f : Coefficient of
friction; Wn: Tooth load.
Bush Friction Preload (Wb) : 0.18 N

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

The torque (Tr), gives the value of Free Pinion CONCLUSION

Torque (FPT) for the steering system for a roll angle of
one tooth flank i.e. from engagement to disengagement
of a single tooth. The variation accounts for combined
effect of friction variation due to increased addendum,
and the overall increased radius due to profile shift. This
torque variation is plotted in Fig. 6, for the numerical
data listed earlier.
Enlargement of the pinion in steering gear
results almost all addendum pinion and the gear pair
acting at extended centre distance. Arc of recess in
modified pinion is considerably larger due to increased
addendum. Low angular velocities (10-15 rpm) and
larger sliding along the arc of recess makes it necessary
to consider variation in friction along the length of path of
contact. This variation in mesh friction gets reflected in
the torque required to rotate the pinion. Similarly,
considerable tooth depth as compared to the pitch circle
radius makes the engagement and disengagement
phenomenon prominent by changing the effective radius
of torque transmission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research work reported here has been

supported by ‘Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd.’,
Gurgaon, India. The authors sincerely acknowledge their
support.

REFERENCES

1. Baxter, J., and Bishop, A. E., 1985 “New Rack

and Pinion Steering and Manufacturing
Fig. 6 FPT Plot showing once per tooth variation Technology,” 841199, Transactions of SAE, pp
5.391-5.398.
Experimental plot of the FPT*1 torque required to 2. Shimizu, Y., Kawai, and T., Yuzurita, J., 1999,
rotate the pinion (Fig. 7) also shows torque variation of “Improvements in Driver-Vehicle System
approximately 0.1 Nm amplitude. The variation is from Performance by Varying Steering Gain with
0.62 Nm to 0.72 Nm, which implies 0.1 Nm variation in Vehicle Speed and Steering Angle,” SAE
the FPT. Hence the proposed model of eq. (4) closely Transactions, Journal of Passenger Cars, Sec.
represents FPT characteristics of an RPS under 6, Part 1, 1999-01-0395.
consideration. 3. Baxter, J., Wou, J. S., Oste, T. D., 2001,
‘Modeling of Mesh Friction and Mechanical
Experimental FPT plots have shown prominent
Efficiency of Rack and Pinion Steering System’,
once per tooth variation of about 0.1 Nm amplitude
Steering and Suspension Technology
along with total variation of about 0.5 Nm. The variation
Symposium, 2001,pp 45-56.
of small amplitude can thus be explained on the basis of
profile modification presented in this paper. 4. Gilliespie, T. D., 1999, ‘Fundamentals of Vehicle
Dynamics’, Publication of Society of Automobile
Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, PA.
5. Merrit, G. H., 1971, Gear Engineering, Pitman
Publishing, NY.
6. Lynwander, P., 1983, Gear Tooth Design, Gear
Drive Systems, Design and Applications, Marcel
Dekker, Inc. NY, 21-92.
7. Wilson, C. E., Sadler, J. P., Michels, J. W.,
1983, Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery,
Helical worm and Bevel Gears – Design and
Analysis, Harper and Row Publishers, NY, 408-
452.
8. Haigh J., Fawcett J. N., 2003, Effects of
Misalignment on Load Distribution in Large Face
Fig. 7 Experimental plot of FPT width Helical Gears, Proceedings of Institute of
Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Multibody
* FPT plots are provided by an automobile component manufacturing company in India. Dynamics, 217, 93-98

6
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
9. Michalec, G.W., 1966, Inherent Gear Errors,
Precision Gearing – Theory and Practices, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY, 56-80.
10. Velex, P., Sainsot, P., 2002, An Analytical Study
of Tooth Friction Excitations in Errorless Spur
and Helical Gears, Journal of Machines and
Mechanism Theory, 37, 641-658.
11. Lin, J., Parker, R., 2002, Mesh Stiffness
Variation Instabilities in Two Stage Gear
Systems, Transactions of ASME, vol 124, 68-76.
12. Mabie, H. H., Ocvirk, F. W., 1978, Mechanisms
and Dynamics of Machinery, John Wiley and
Sons.
13. Smith J. D., 1983, Gears and Their Vibrations,
Gear-box Modelling, Marcel Dekker, Inc. pp,
103-116.
14. Buckingham, E., 1963, Analytical Mechanics of
Gears, Efficiencies of gears, Dover Publications,
NY 1949, pp. 395-425.