4.7 Article

Improved mesh stiffness calculation model of comprehensive modification gears considering actual manufacturing

期刊

MECHANISM AND MACHINE THEORY
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2021.104470

关键词

Time-varying mesh stiffness; Comprehensive modification; Slice method; Actual processing method; Spur gears

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [52005515]
  2. State Key Laboratory of High Performance Complex Manufacturing, Central South University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study established an improved analytical model (IAM) for calculating the time-varying meshing stiffness (TVMS), which considers the coupling modification of spur gears. The IAM was compared with existing models and verified by the finite element method (FEM), showing higher accuracy and efficiency in lead crown modification, tooth profile modification, and comprehensive modification calculations.
Comprehensive modification refers to a modification method that simultaneously performs lead crown modification and tooth profile modification, which is widely used in precision gear manufacturing. However, there are few time-varying meshing stiffness (TVMS) models of spur gears with comprehensive modification. Based on the actual manufacturing methods and slice theory, an improved analytical model (IAM) for calculating the TVMS considering the coupling modification is established. The model does not require to use the finite element method (FEM) to determine the correlation coefficients. The IAM is compared with the published models and verified by the FEM. The results show that the IAM has higher accuracy and efficiency in the calculation of lead crown modification, tooth profile modification and comprehensive modification. The gear bearing capacity of machining method 2 is better than that of method 1. It is useful to improve the calculation accuracy to choose the number of slices reasonably according to the modification amount.

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