A gear contact-set consistency check verifies that a proposed solution satisfies force balance and the unilateral contact conditions used to define a gear mesh active-contact set. Solving an equation for selected contacts is insufficient if an omitted tooth should be loaded or an included tooth would require tension.
For the model , choose a trial active set and solve
The check then requires positive for included pairs and for excluded pairs. Recomputing every contact with the unilateral law gives the force residual
A consistent exact solution has together with the inclusion inequalities.
An original example has stiffnesses and gaps . At , a trial set containing only the first two pairs gives . It balances those selected forces but exceeds the third gap by . The omitted contact would carry , giving . Including all three gives the consistent approach .
Conversely, including all three at applied load gives the un-clipped solution and a third force . Rejecting that tensile contact and solving with the first two gives and forces .
Numerical tolerances should keep their units and roles clear. A displacement tolerance near a gear tooth engagement threshold is not the same quantity as a force-residual tolerance. At an exact zero-force touch, either a geometric-touch flag or the positive-force active convention may be useful, but the reported convention must be stated. The one-sided gear mesh tangent stiffness can differ across that boundary.
Primary dynamic gear analysis couples tooth stiffness and calculated loads as contact position changes.[ref] The scalar check above validates internal consistency of its quasistatic model; it does not establish that the model includes every deformation or dynamic effect in a real mesh.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.