4.7 Article

Comparison of meshing characteristics of helical gears with spalling fault using analytical and finite-element methods

期刊

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 279-298

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.11.023

关键词

Time-varying mesh stiffness (TVMS); Tooth root stress; Contact stress; Helical gear; Spalling fault; Analytical method; Finite element method

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation, China [11772089]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China [N170308028, N160312001, N160313004]
  3. Program for the Innovative Talents of Higher Learning Institutions of Liaoning, China [LR2017035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the effect of a gear tooth spalling in a helical gear. An analytical model was developed to study the effect of the damage to the time-varying mesh stiffness, contact stress and tooth root fillet stress. In order to validate the efficiency and the accuracy of the proposed method, a finite element method is presented for simulation, such to compare the mesh stiffness and stresses obtained from the analytical method under different spalling variables, including the spalling lengths, widths, axial positions (in the direction of face width) and tooth orientation positions (from dedendum to addendum). The results show that the proposed analytical method has higher computation efficiency than the finite element method, and the mesh stiffness obtained from two methods shows a good agreement. However, some errors exist between the time-varying mesh stiffness and stresses obtained by the two methods, but change laws of the tooth root stress and contact stress obtained from the two methods are similar. This is because the effects of flank-tip contact and spalling edge contact are considered in the finite element method, which makes the results more accurate than the results obtained by the proposed analytical method. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据