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 solveThe check then requires positive for included pairs and for excluded pairs. Recomputing every contact with the unilateral law gives the force residualA 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]
Predicted Effect of Dynamic Load on Pitting Fatigue Life for Low-Contact-Ratio Spur Gears by David G. Lewicki. Summary and Introduction, printed p. 1
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
There are currently no matching articles.