MCEN6020 Advanced Machine Design

Assignment 1:

Analysis and design of a gearbox

By: Zichang Chen

ID: 19737559
Executive Summary:
This assignment contains a detailed design process with analysis for a gearbox that meets the
following requirement:

Function:

Power to be delivered - 1.6 kW

Steady-state input speed – 2000 rpm

Steady-state output speed – 150 ± 2 rpm

Constraint:

Base mounted with 4 bolts

Gear is keyed and press-fitted to the shaft with transition fit

Expected life: 6 years (8 hrs/day, 6 days/week)

Maximum 3% failures for design life.

From the given constraints and requirements, the gear train is first assumed and analysed to select
appropriate available gear from manufacturer KHK catalogue. The gear dimension and any
mechanical properties are then used for the shaft and bearing calculation and selection. Corresponding
material analysis for components requires manual manufacturing without readily available parts are
provided. Appropriate modification is done for each element, and suitable stress concentration values
are given for the dimension calculation such as the shaft diameter. The overall design was evaluated
against the requirement. When the durability of the system is considered, which is also included as a
dimensional change factor, all fitting and tolerance of components are given by standard values from
traceable materials such as research papers or association provided guides. The literature review was
conducted for gearbox, shaft design and environmental protection, which provides the background,
basis and impact of the plan. Overall, the system design includes draft done with CAD software,
specified dimension and third angle projection system view is given coupled with assembly drawing.
Contents
1. List of Figures and tables...............................................................................................................5
1.1 Figures...................................................................................................................................5
1.2 Tables.....................................................................................................................................5
2. Preface...........................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................6
2.2 Literature review...................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Gearbox.........................................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Environmental protection and assessment....................................................................9
3. Gear Mesh...................................................................................................................................12
3.1 Ratios...................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Selection of gear..................................................................................................................13
3.3 Analysis of the mating gears................................................................................................14
3.3.1 Casing and centre distance..........................................................................................14
3.3.2 Face-Width...................................................................................................................15
3.3.3 Detailing and correction...............................................................................................15
4. Counter Shaft Load......................................................................................................................16
4.1 Gear force............................................................................................................................17
4.2 Horizontal force...................................................................................................................17
4.3 Vertical force.......................................................................................................................18
4.4 Initial approximated bearing load........................................................................................18
5. Bearing selection.........................................................................................................................18
5.1 Deep groove ball bearing:....................................................................................................19
5.2 General ball bearings description........................................................................................19
5.3 Bearing required rated capacity of basic dynamic radial load C..........................................19
5.4 Chosen bearing dimension and specification.......................................................................20
5.5 Plain bearing for input and output shafts............................................................................20
6. Shaft design.................................................................................................................................21
6.1 Literature review.................................................................................................................21
6.2 Material Selection................................................................................................................23
6.3 Shaft.....................................................................................................................................24
6.3.1 Shoulder fillets.............................................................................................................24
6.3.2 Groove and Keyway.....................................................................................................24
6.3.3 Bending moment analysis............................................................................................24
6.3.4 Critical section of the shaft..........................................................................................26
6.3.5 Stress concentration....................................................................................................26
 6.3.6 Minimal shaft diameter to avoid failure at critical section...........................................28
7. Keyway and Key.........................................................................................................................29
7.1 Key and spline mechanism...................................................................................................29
7.2 Key loading..........................................................................................................................29
7.2.1 Compression failure of key..........................................................................................30
7.2.2 Shear failure of key......................................................................................................30
7.3 Material selection................................................................................................................31
7.4 Specified key and keyway dimension for each component.................................................31
7.4.1 Gear 2 required length of key......................................................................................31
7.4.2 Gear 3 required length of key......................................................................................32
7.5 Keyway on shaft...................................................................................................................32
8. Casing and connection design......................................................................................................32
8.1 Connections.........................................................................................................................33
8.1.1 Fits...............................................................................................................................33
8.2 Casing design.......................................................................................................................33
9. Conclusion...................................................................................................................................34
Appendices:.........................................................................................................................................35
Appendix A......................................................................................................................................35
Appendix B......................................................................................................................................36
Appendix C.......................................................................................................................................37
Appendix D......................................................................................................................................38
Appendix E.......................................................................................................................................39
Appendix F.......................................................................................................................................40
Appendix G......................................................................................................................................41
Reference: (Chicago Style)..................................................................................................................42
1. List of Figures and tables
1.1 Figures
4.1 Basic bearing arrangement

4.2 Horizontal force diagram

4.3 Vertical force diagram

5.1 Single-Row Deep Groove Ball Bearings

6.1 Horizontal force on countershaft

6.2 Horizontal Moment along counter shaft

6.3 Vertical force on countershaft

6.4 Vertical bending along counter shaft

6.5 shaft layout with fillet

6.7 Keyway location (Note: the bearing is in between of shoulder and the retaining ring)

6.8 Stress relief notch location

7.1 General rectangular key loading

7.2 Shaft Keyway draft

1.2 Tables
3.1 Selected gear parameters
3.2 Summery of common gear design formulae

5.1 Selected bearing parameters

5.2 Plain bearing dimensions
6.1 Material selected for shaft and its associated properties

7.1 Material for key selected

 2. Preface
2.1 Introduction
Transmission of power from an input source to an output load is a common need for industrial
application. From generating capacity to the transportation of production along a manufacturing line,
different motors are used to provide for their operation. However, without a medium to connect the
source of power to the system, the production will not move forward. Suppose direct engine to load
utilisation is applied. In that case, it often results in damage to both machines and the engine due to
inequivalent torque requirement that dramatically reduces the lifecycle of the system or causes failure.
The gearbox is commonly used between the prime mover and driven equipment; it has several
advantages over other types of transmission of mechanical energy, including cheap design cost and
very little energy loss.

Gearbox mainly consists of gears, shafts, bearings and many other parts which assist these
components or functions similarly to them. Each element in a gearbox has its variety which makes the
compromise between the members to have a large margin of error and possibilities. A design
specification is required, so no ambiguity is introduced when presenting the product. Hence, a report
is crucial to set the idea behind each gearbox design.

In this assignment, detailed design and analysis of a gearbox are introduced based on the given
requirement provided by the marketing team. The objective is to finalise a workable model of a
reduction gearbox which transmits 1.6kW power from a motor for industrial application with input
speed at 2000 rpm and required to have 150±2 rpm at the output for the carried load. The components
involved are expected to have equal or less than 3% of failure with a lifecycle of 6 years 8hrs a day 6
days a week.

The design will begin by the examination of required torque and speed at the output to obtain
numerical values for ratios of reduction. Then the given data measures the functionality of the
proposed theoretical design, which is used to provide the dimension for each part. With the given
constraint from durability, material consideration and parts availability, the part’s size is determined
from balancing between required output and the viable gear, bearing and shaft dimension. The
combination of initially calculated values and manufacturer’s data derives the first approximated gear
system, the sub-components like key, keyway, pins and other assisting parts are then analysed and
chosen accordingly.

The sections are divided for detail analysis of the initial proposed design of each component starting
from gears to bearings and shaft. Force diagram and draft for each stage throughout the system is also
provided, so further evaluation and comparison are conducted. Overall, the design follows a logical
methodology builds on precise data and analysis to derive the whole scheme.
The procedure will build on several assumptions, then with a consistent and continuous comparison
with expectation for anomaly between each step to ensure the final design does not fail and provides
proper output values and evaluates to reassure the given assumption is correct or appropriate. In
evaluation, the expected functionality will be discussed and calculate to refer back to the given
constraints.

Literature review on gearbox and shafts are also introduced to ease the reader’s understanding of the
design process and provides for background knowledge regarding the field of study of the gearbox.
Material selection for significant components like shaft is also included in the review of current
industrial considered practice to connect the design to the market.

2.2 Literature review

2.2.1 Gearbox
Before the designing the gearbox, a thorough understanding of the background of gearbox will assist
the process and provide the scope. Most importantly, the latest research on gearbox design and
optimisation will increase the workability of the final model. The design outcome obtained from this
assignment can then be assessed and compared to the existing design methodology and optimisation
method for any possible improvement and misalignment.

The gearbox as transmission takes on a board range of forms; this depends on the given application,
specification, environment of operation, minimum lifecycle and sizing restriction. The variation of
gearbox designed depends upon the types of gears employed in the transmission, matching the right
kinds of gear for the proper application is crucial in determining the type of gearbox that requires to
be designed.

Common gear types include spur, helical, double helical, bevel and worm. The significant variation
between all kinds of gears are the alignment of input and output shaft, helical and spur are inline, the
worm is orthogonal, and the bevel is at an incline. The current development for designing new types
of gearbox is all based on the geometry the gear interaction, as this determines the usage area of the
gearing and impacts the parameters of the gears (László, 2010). Hence, focusing on the aspect of
geometry between gears, CAD software packages have been developed. Depending on the industry of
application, the software will focus on the dimensional or optimising the gearbox development.
Software designed by ZAKGEAR (Lunin, 2010) and UMCORR (Stadtfeld, 1999) is two notable
examples that were introduced in the last and current century that focus solely on the development of
innovative gear characteristics and gear train optimisation. The software used for the design of new
types of gears is based on past theories that visualise the spatial interaction between gears with the
constraint of interference between the mating gears, which Reaching Model is commonly used
(László, 2010). Modern development for new types of gears is improved by computation capability
for more concise arrangement and the dimension of new types of gears to suit more specific needs by
the industry.

The analysing of gear mechanics, load dynamic, and materials are necessary for the basis of parameter
calculation. Without appropriate theories that govern the design process, the modelling of gearbox
would lack consistency and accuracy, which could introduce error when the gearbox is employed.
With the design of gearbox usually uses load examination of bending, shear and any other types of
stress analysis to determine the overall sizing of all parts, modern research highlights refined detail in
different loading situation for analysis to optimise the efficiency of the gearbox. The efficiency of the
gearbox is improved by improving gearbox operation modelling with higher precision in formulation
of the given force transferred and quantifies the transferring mechanics and process. One of the most
significant focus in this century is the vibration of components in a gearbox that is caused by the
rotational dynamics, gear’s natural frequencies or static loading on to the shaft and gear components
(Teik and Rajendra, 1989). The current primary application of gearbox lies in wind turbines generator,
that extensively uses many techniques to optimise the stress concentration and possible vibration. The
reason optimisation is crucial for wind turbine gearbox is due to the large margin of error the gearbox
encounters when connected to a wind turbine. A high-speed shaft connected to a generator is given by
the gearbox, which increases the rotational speed from a low-speed shaft from the turbine (Huaxia,
2018).

Severe cyclic loading not only causes serious fatigue damage on gearbox but also decreases the
efficiency. Optimisation for gearbox performance and lifecycle would require knowledge regarding
the design in numerical analysis. Different sections which vibration can cause problems are closely
tested and verified by researchers for viable optimisation method. Tosun M., Yildiz M. and Özkan A.
(2018) investigated and refined the gearbox noise from vibration. Fatigue failure research analysed for
gear train at high speed is done by Weigang H., Zhiming L. and Dekun L. (2017). Meshing stiffness
and meshing damping on gear vibration by Zuoqing Z., Xuezhi Z. (2010). Control methods with gear
vibration by Kurushin M. I., Balyakin V. B. and Kurushin S. A. (2015). Zheng Li and Yu Zhou
(2020) provided research on gearbox dynamic design methods and optimisation using different aspect
vibration causes and is induced for a comprehensive analysis of a methodology of gearbox vibration
reduction, with straightforward operation and constraints.

Majority of current gearbox research solves highly non-linear and multi-variable functions for
physical parameters optimisation (Huaxia, 2018; Neeta, 2016), this requires the assistance from
computational mathematics. One of the widely used methods for analysing is the finite element
method (FEM) which can approximate the higher-order non-linear derivative into a linear function
(Tristan and Robert, 2014). FEM provides for the logic behind finite element analysis (FEA), which
combined with CAD software introduce the ability to computationally analyse the stress distribution
throughout a gear system and the critical area of load application (Hiren and Bhavesh, 2015). The
simulation can visualise any possible misalignment of data or parts, or any vibration causes due to
load application. Neeta T. C. (2016) used CAD software ANSYS to examine the exterior of a
gearbox, it’s the casing. The protection the case provides covers with all components inside a
gearbox, with the assistance of FEA, static and dynamic stress application effects on the case can be
detailed and quantified, countermeasures can then be discussed and designed accordingly.

For reduction gearbox to be designed in this assignment, the spur gear is housed as the primary
transmission gear type. Spur gear gearbox gives input and output shaft a common axis of rotation, it
has added advantage of high reduction ratio, increased period of the lifecycle and increased stability
that suits the given design requirements. Tristan M. E. (2014) performed experiments on a stationary
spur gear gearbox with varieties of torque that highlights the possible range of application that spur
gear train can handle. Some downfall including the vibration of components for spur gear and its shaft
requires constant analysis and improvement to minimise inefficiency. The concern arises from
gearbox efficiency and lifespan are studied thoroughly with research conducted on gear analysis.
Designing of a gear gearbox is governed by constraints that were introduced or observed from gear
analysis that summaries operation behaviour of gearbox. Hence, the gear analysis focus on
improvement and control of significant downfall the gearbox operation consists, like transmission
error, stress distribution that leads to mechanical failure, failure of the tooth including wear and tear
and the dynamic, status loading or fatigue loading on components. In 2012, Xiang yang Jin (2012)
simplified the process of gear tooth surface analysis by setting up appropriate co-ordinate
transformation that can then be processed with higher speed using computational software like Pro/R
software. S. Jyothirmaia, (2014) carried out the optimisation of helical gearbox design by measuring
the performance of the prototype characteristics. Specific stress analysis for spur gear gearbox are
attempted by C.M. Meenakshi (2012) detailing tangential and radial force acting throughout the body
of spur gear by applying FEA for continuous stress equation. The current gear analysis aims for the
modern design process and optimises existing design and analysis of gearbox. For designing
innovations, example like the developing of a new approach for gear design and lubrication analysis
by D. Croccolo, M. D. Agostinis, G. Olmi and N. Vincenz (2020) suggests a new systematical
approach for practice design of gears. Stress. Z. Qiao, J. Zhou, W Sun and X Zhang (2019) applies
finite element method to model the dynamic response of a proposed two-stage spur gear system; the
outcome was used as a guide for designing gearbox.

2.2.2 Environmental protection and assessment

Currently, the most significant change facing many industries is the inclusion of environmental
protection into their production process. The problems like air contaminants, chemical spills, dust,
offensive odour, stormwater contamination, noise, waste and wastewater (EPA, 2012) are potential
hazards for the surrounding of an industrial site or facilities; the damage can be extended to contribute
further contamination of the neighbouring environment. The gearbox production consists of many
parts and components that undergo several stages of the process, each step can produce waste that
contributes to the possible contamination of the nearby environment. Most notably example would be
the gear material manufacturing, which has a high volume of CO 2 emission every year, due to the
heavy utilisation of coal as an energy source (EPA, 2012). For a clear scope of the overall potential
pollution throughout the manufacture of the gearbox and the direction of change to align with
regulations, understanding of the latest manufacturing procedure of gearbox and corresponding
technique to reduce environmental impact is necessary.

Recent environment protection in the manufacturing industry for gears and gearboxes focuses on the
sustainability that the process of manufacture is presented (Parag, Parimal and Mousumi, 2014). For
the gear industry remains competitive globally, the production needs to align with various regulation
placed by the government or institutions. While productivities are essential, sustainable environment
maintenance is added as constraints which compromising or improvement has to be implemented. The
current regulation given by the Australian government specifies the allowable waste production and
emission a facility can have (EPA. 2012), with fines relative to the damage, caused placed against
unregulated facilities. Several researchers consider air/water pollution, waste generation, noise
pollution and energy consumption to address the environmental problems for industrial gearbox
manufacturing companies (Parag, Parimal and Mousumi, 2014). The inclusion of programmes like
environmental conscious manufacturing (Parag, Parimal and Mousumi, 2014) enables the industry to
minimise possible pollutions by increasing awareness for relevant firms. A case study carried out by
Parag, Parimal and Mousumi (2014) showcase the methodology which the environment protection
and assessment can be carried out for a small or medium-size scale gear manufacturing enterprise.
The study addresses standard industrial gearbox manufacturing process and practice. It provides a
hierarchy for the existing environmental hazard generated during each step of production to quantify
the pollution level based on the possible damage by assign an indicator. The conscious manufacturing
indicator, in theory, aligns a given companies ideas when mapping the production of their gearbox; it
can assign a state-of-the-art technique with the consideration of the producer to environmental
regulation as required. Solid waste and greenhouse gas were found to take the majority of the
attention of researchers during the comparative analysis for the root cause of ecological hazard
(Pavan, Vikrant, Swamy and Jayaraman, 2013).

A solid waste generation comes from a process like grinding, machining, shaping, broaching, milling,
hobbing and assembling/packaging (Gronostajski and Matuszak, 1999) if not handled correctly can be
released into the natural environment. Contamination from the waste particle can cause issues like
marine environmental and habitat pollution (Kapil, Jain and Laubscher, 2016). During gearbox
production, the raw material can go under heat, cut or grinding treatment for the ideal and specified
size by various machine at various location. Naturally, the dumping of generating waste both in solid
and liquid form is essential. Greenhouse gas is a significant issue facing the world, as a large amount
of greenhouse gas raises the average temperature, naturalising the gas produced is crucial. For gear
manufacturing, the majority of the gas released comes from the need for efficient energy used and
material production (EPA, 2012). To achieve the required input, a large number of power plants are
constructed to meet the demand for electricity and heat needed during the show. Stack emission is
used by the inspector to monitor the possible waste into the atmosphere, measuring sustainability
performance. For Australia, there exist corresponding stack emission testing methodology for
industries to keep track of the amount of production of air pollution (EPA, 2012).

To sustain not only economically, but socially and environmentally friendly, development of
sustainable techniques is crucial. To counter a large amount of greenhouse gas emission, currently,
carbon capture techniques are viral amongst researchers. Companies like Google, Amazon and Tesla
have reportedly built facilities that recycle CO 2 in the atmosphere. The research technique for the
capture and storage of CO2 was developed in the early stages by MIT (1989), currently improved and
analysed by many researchers for the stability and cost-effectiveness of the overall process. Udara.,
Lakshan., Lakshitha, Prabhath. and Sakuna (2019) presented the simulation of carbon dioxide capture
for industrial applications. It approximates with a real case study for a manufacturing firm the amount
of CO2 removal effects post-combustion with cost-effectiveness examination based on four central
power plant. The result shows the carbon dioxide reacquired can provide for a significant amount of
energy usage for the plants. The idea of CO 2 capture is currently still been improved for its utilisation
and storage of the fuel generated. Study given by Peter C.P., Stephen C. and Praveen B. (2017) is an
example for manufacturing of material that is commonly used for gearbox production produced CO 2
is captured and refined.

Solid waste includes metals and plastics, mainly from packaging and unwanted parts that were cut
during the processing of materials. As the treatment of these waste particles cannot be simplified into
dumping into water or landfill, the recycle of them becomes a relatively safe option. Aluminium being
a commonly used metal for alloy and surface finish usually produces waste when machining of semi-
finished products takes place (James, Ganesan and Santhamoorthy, 2015). Gronostjski and Matuszak
(1999) proposed methodology for recycling of alloy ingredient like aluminium into alloy chips.

The broad application of gears in every sector of almost any industries causes a high margin of
environmental risk during the manufacturing of gear. The gearbox industry is monitoring the number
of outputs of ecological risk for sustainable manufacturing. With continually improving
methodologies for sustainable manufacturing and the advancement of material and production
technologies, the rate of waste and pollution during manufacturing has been dramatically reduced—a
study done by Kapil, Laubscher, Davim and Jain (2016) highlights numerical techniques like finite
element analysis of lubrication-cooling strategies to reduce the amount of particle waste produced
shows more detailed analysis for controlling during production are employed to match the current
environmental regulation needs.

3. Gear Mesh
3.1 Ratios
Gear mesh is required for different gearbox parts design, the ratio given must be as ideal as possible
for a compact gearbox design.

Given parameters for speed and torque:

Input power = 1.6 kW;

Input speed = 2000 rpm;
Output speed = 150 rpm
The given speed ratio will exceed the 10:1 gear ratio for input stage reduction as a single stage.
Hence, a second stage is added to make up the 150/2000 reduction ratio

Assume: N1 & N3 are pinion 1 & 2 respectively; N2 & N4 are gear 1 & 2 respectively

ωoutput N 1 N 3 150 3
Speed ratio: = × = =
ω input N 2 N 4 2000 40

Where:

Nx = number of teeth for gear x

Ω = speed of the shaft in rpm

Initial guess for stage one and stage two ratios:

40
√ 40 :3=
√ 3
:1=3.651 :1

Choose standard pressure angle for the gearbox to be 20°

Minimum number of gear tooth to avoid undercut:

2 ×k
Nminimum =
sin 2 φ

Where: k = 1 for full depth of gear tooth

φ = 20°

Nminimum = 17.097 ≈ 18 teeth

Hence, for Npinion:Ngear = 3.651:1 each stage:

 Number of teeth on Npinion Number of teeth on Ngear
18 18*3.651 = 65.718
19 19*3.651 = 69.369
20 20*3.651 = 73.02
21 21*3.651 = 76.671
22 22*3.651 = 80.322
23 23*3.651 = 83.973
24 24*3.651 = 87.624
From the table of ratio between Npinion:Ngear, for minimum number of teeth to avoid undercut at 18
teeth above, only when Npinion = 20 the corresponding Ngear is closest to an integer, hence, choose N1 =
N3 = 20, N2 = N4 = 73, as the teeth number.

3.2 Selection of gear

To choose the most suitable gear from an available catalogue, a few application data are required, this
is analysed from given parameters. Most crucial parameters are the gear teeth and its torque
requirement.

However, from KHK gear catalogue, there is no gear with numbers of teeth of 73, hence alternative
combination required. Choose the next closest available gear with teeth number close to 73 are 76 and
70:

20 20
× = 0.07519
76 70

2000 ×0.07519=150.3759 rpm

Within the 150±2 rpm error range with the assumption 100% gear efficiency. Thus, proceed with N 1 =
20 N3 = 20, N2 =76, N4 = 70

For transmission of 1.6kW by gearbox with two stage reduction:

Initial engine or motor shaft speed = 2000 rpm

20
First stage reduction: 2000 × =526.316 rpm
76

20
Second stage reduction: 526.316 × =150.376 rpm
70

Power and torque relationship:

P=T ×ω
 1600
T= =7.639 N . m
For input shaft: 2000× 2× π (3.1)
( )
60

1600
T= =29.0299 N . m
For counter shaft: 526.316× 2× π (3.2)
( )
60

1600
T= =101.6044 N . m
For output shaft: 150.376× 2× π (3.3)
( )
60

Select gear with allowable torque greater than the application torque (See Appendix A and B). From
KHK catalogue:

Table 3.1 Selected gear parameters

Catalog Modul Pitch Outside Face Hub: Bore Allowable Keyway:

Number e Diamete diamete widt diameter x torque
wxd
r r h width (N.m)
Pinion SS2- 2 40 44 20 32 x 10 15 46 5 x 2.3
1 (N1 20J15
=20)
Gear 1 SS2- 2 152 156 20 60 x 10 22 256 6 x 2.8
(N2 76J22
=76)
Pinion MSGB2 2.5 50 55 25 40 x 12 22 222 6 x 2.8
2 (N3 .5-20
=20)
Gear 2 MSGA2 2.5 175 180 25 85 x 12 40 1020 12 x 3.3
(N1 .5-20
=70)
(All above gear keyway are made according to JIS B1301 standard, Js9 tolerance. See Appendix F)

As specified from the manufacturer data, the above gear satisfies the initial torque requirement
calculated from (3.1), (3.2) and (3.3). Where N 1(Pinion 1) on input shaft experiences 7.639 N;
N2(Gear 1) and N3(Pinion 2) experiences 29.03 N.m on the countershaft; N4(Gear 2) experiences
101.6044 N.m.

3.3 Analysis of the mating gears

The chosen gear must undergo further inspection to avoid possible misalignment due to the imperfect
nature a gear can have.
 3.3.1 Casing and centre distance
The specification for the design does not include a constraint on the overall sizing of the gearbox;
however, the gearbox should be made as impact as possible. The centre distance should be
compromised if such condition is placed. The chose gear in section 3.2 is the second attempt for the
gearbox gear arrangement, the first choice of N 1, N2 for module of 1.5 and N3, N4 for module of 2
were found to have calculated minimal shaft requirement greater than the bore size available for the
gears. Hence, the next +0.5 module of each gear was chosen for the shaft requirement to be satisfied.

3.3.2 Face-Width
For pinion to avoid bending or torsional failure, it is recommended that its face width should be kept
at minimal. As suggested by the ISO standards for allowable transmittable power, face-width to

1
pinion diameter should be around for spur gear.
1.3

Pinion 1: D1 = 40 mm, Face Width = 20 mm

face−width 20 1
= =0.5<
pinion diameter 40 1.3

Pinion 2: D3 = 50 mm, Face Width = 25 mm

face−width 25 1
= =0.5<
pinion diameter 50 1.3

Hence, the chosen pinion satisfies the standard minimal face-width constraint provided by ISO
9085:2002(en)

3.3.3 Detailing and correction

If the operating condition of the gearbox exceeds expectation, corresponding material alteration and
surface finish can prevent environmental impact on the strength of the components.

Since the industrially manufactured gears cannot be one hundred per cent identical, hence backlash of
the produced gear is essential. The cut of backlash is to prevent: firstly, dimensional changes due to
temperature; secondly any error for any gears.

General spur gear design formulae can be summarised into the table below:

To calculate From Formulae

Pitch Module (mx), D x =mx × N x
diameter (Dx) number of teeth
(Nx)
Outside Module (mx), Dot −x =a+ D x +mx
diameter (Dot- addendum (a),
 )
x Pitch diameter
(Dx)
Base circle Pitch Diameter D base=D x × cos φ
diameter (Dx), pressure
(Dbase) angle (φ )
Contact ratio Outside Dot −1−Dbase−1 Dot−2−Dbase−2
Diameters (Dot-x),
Base Circle
CR= √ 2
+
√ 2
m× π × cos ⁡( φ)
−CD × sin ⁡( φ)

Diameters (Dbase),
Center Distance
(CD = D1/2 +
D2/2), Pressure
Angle (φ )
Minimal Pressure angle (φ ) 2 ×k
Nminimum =
number of sin2 φ
teeth for no
undercutting
(Table 3.2 Summery of common gear design formulae)
(The sub-script x represents the gear number in a gear train. All linear dimensions in mm)

4. Counter Shaft Load

Shaft initial length is estimated, and the corresponding bearing location is first assumed. The shaft
length ideally needs to be as short as possible, so the maximum bending moment along the shaft at the
critical site can be minimised. With the calculated torque from section 3.2, the countershaft shear,
axial load and bending moments can all be calculated in combination with chosen gear dimensions
from section 3.1.

The diagram below shows the initial assumption of the arrangement of gear and bearing on the
countershaft:
Fig 4.1 Basic bearing arrangement

4.1 Gear force

Constant torsion force of 29.03 N.m is applied to the countershaft (3.2). The torsion acts between the
two gears stays consistent along the shaft. The uniformly distributed torsional force is assumed for
ease of calculation. The final stress concentration will reassess the requirement for shaft dimension
and material in the shaft design section.

From Table 3.1, the gear pitch diameter for each gear can be used to calculate the tangential force
exerted on each gear:

Torque
F tangential=
radius

Gear 2: N2 = 76, D2 = 152 mm, r2 = 0.076 m

29.03
F 2t = =381.97 N
0.076

Gear 3: N3 = 20, D3 = 50 mm, r3 = 0.025 m

29.03
F 3t = =1161.2 N
0.025

The pressure angle is 20º as standard pressure angle. The radial force exerted on each gear are given
by:

F radial =Ftangential × tan ⁡(φ)

Gear 2:

F 2r =381.97 × tan ( 20° ) =139.03 N

Gear 3:

F 3r =1161.2 × tan ( 20° ) =442.64 N

 4.2 Horizontal force
FBD:

Fig 4.2 Horizontal force diagram

∑ M A =−381.97 ×20−1161.2 × 45+B BH × 65=0

BBH =921.44 N

∑ M B=381.97 × 45+1161.2 ×20−B AH ×65=0

B AH =621.7 N

4.3 Vertical force

FBD:

Fig 4.3 Vertical force

diagram

∑ M A =−139.03 ×20−442.64 × 45+ B BV × 65=0

BBV =349.22 N

∑ M A =139.03 ×45+ 442.64 × 20−B AH × 65=0

B AV =232.45 N
 4.4 Initial approximated bearing load
B A =√ 232.45 2+621.722 =663.7 N

BB =√(−349.22)2+(−921.44)2 =985.40 N

5. Bearing selection
Bearing are used to counter the radial and axial force exerted by the gear onto the shaft. There are two
main types of bearing: ball or roller. In this design project, only the ball bearing will be considered as
the applied load is relatively small, and there is no theoretical axial force present.

RADIAL BALL BEARINGS (α = 0°)

Ft
For 0 < < 0.35 𝐹e = 𝐹r
Fr

Ft Ft
For < 0.35 < < 10 𝐹e = 𝐹r x [1 + 1.115( − 0.35)]
Fr Fr

Ft
For > 10 𝐹e = 1.176𝐹t
Fr

Hence assuming the axial force (thrust) onto the bearing is < 0.35 x 𝐹r:

Ft
choose 𝐹e = 𝐹r for 0 < < 0.35
Fr

5.1 Deep groove ball bearing:

Single row radial, ball bearing, supports mainly radial loads and the cross section can be seen below:

Fig. 5.1 Single-Row Deep Groove Ball Bearings

Bore defines the inner hole radius of the bearing that needs to match the size of the shaft.

5.2 General ball bearings description

The main purpose of a bearing is to maintain low friction when put into the casing or other supporting
elements. Hence, it naturally supports the radial and axial force exerted by other factors along the
same shaft. Ball-bearing with a deep groove supports more loads as the size of rolling elements is
relatively more extensive than the ones with shallow groove.

5.3 Bearing required rated capacity of basic dynamic radial load C

From section 4, the location of the bearing and their corresponding horizontal and vertical forces are
calculated, hence the resultant force exerted on each bearing can be calculated:

Given criteria:

1. 3% failure = 97% reliability from Kr graph for life adjustment factor

K r =0.44

2. Ka = 1.0 given that the type of loading application is uniform load, no impact.
3. The gearbox is expected to operate for 6 years, 8 hours a day and 6 days a week; the
calculated revolution per minute for countershaft is equal to 526.32 rpm
Total revolution ( L )=526.32 ×6 × 52× 6 ×8 ×60=472930099.2 ≈ 472930100 revolution
4. LR −bearing life corresponding ¿ rated capacity of 90 ×106 revolution

0.3
L
C=F e K a ( K r LR )
Bearing A: Fr = 663.7 N = Fe
0.3
472930100
C A=663.7 × 1.0 ( 0.44 × 90× 106 )
C A=1396.697 N N

Bearing B: Fr = 985.40 N = Fe
0.3
472930100
C B=985.40× 1.0 ( 0.44 × 90× 106 )
C A=2073.69 N

5.4 Chosen bearing dimension and specification

Since the expected load on the bearing consist mainly of radial load, choose radial ball bearing.
Hence, from the table of Bearing Rated Capacities, C, for 90x10 6 Revolution Life with 90%
Reliability (See Appendix C): For C ≥ 2073.69 N Choose 300 series medium bearing with bore size =
17 mm

Based on the bore size of 17 mm from bearing dimensions choose bearing basic number of 303
medium radial ball bearing.

Bearing Basic Number Bore (mm) OD (mm) w (mm) ra (mm) ds (mm) dH (mm)
 303 17 40 14 1.02 23.6 41.1
(Table 5.1 Selected bearing parameters, See Appendix G)

5.5 Plain bearing for input and output shafts

The assumed input shaft diameter corresponds to the gear 1 bore size which is 15 mm.

The assumed output shaft diameter corresponds to the gear 4 bore size which is 40 mm.

From ggbearing or Garlock bearing, its available product includes many includes many varieties of
plain bearings. Choose case hardened GGB-SHB steel bearing as the plain for input and output shaft,
since the dimension of the bearing can made to order, the product properties should be as follows:

Bore Static Maximum Outsider Maximum operating Lubrication

loading diameter temperature method
For Gear 1 15 mm 300 MPa 40 mm 150 °C Oil
For Gear 4 40 mm 300 MPa 60 mm 150 °C Oil
(Table 5.2 Plain bearing dimensions)

The type of fitting will be similar to the ball bearing, where a locational interference fit will be
provided. The lubrication method according to the catalogue information will be chosen as grease, as
water is not recommended, and oil will be less effective compare to grease, as grease provides high
viscosity for high load at the output shaft but low rotational speed, and high viscosity low load and
high speed at the input shaft, so ensures the rotation of each shaft does not come to an abrupt stop that
damages load and engine with hydrodynamic range of lubrication regime.

6. Shaft design
Shafts as the motion and torque transfer medium needs to be designed accordingly, to reduce the
chance of mechanical failures. Several types of failure modes are present: shear, compression/tension,
torsional, fatigue and bending. Each type of failure is governed by the characteristic of the shaft
motion, which depends upon application load, mounted components and environments. All failure
mode can be approximated and analysed; several were introduced in the literature review of gearbox
design and analysis from section one. It is also essential that the designed shaft can handle applied
load simultaneously suiting the bore diameter for all components that are mounted onto the shaft.

6.1 Literature review

Shaft design can consist of several factors. Production of the shaft for gearbox starts from choosing
suitable material. Different shaft material can provide different shaft usage; hence, the processing of
the material can vary upon construction. Any design of gear sets requires shafts as the transferring
medium. There do not exist an outstanding performing material for shaft, but the most appropriate.
The design end of the shaft selection process consists of shaft loading analysis, this is then
incorporated back to the initially available material for shaft construction, the most suitable choice
balanced between design concept and material choice is made. Sanatan Ratna, M. Saifuddin and
N.S.A. Nori (2018) proposed a multi-objective selection method for cam shaft design, the study
comprehensively covers all prospective materials with limitation on properties for the given
application. The proposed method systematically sorts the criteria with available option as solution, at
the same time measure and ranks the theoretical best performing choice. The result from this selection
method can be adopted in any other types of shaft design.

Steel has dominated the manufacturing business in the last decade, with a low level of cost and
flexibility of modification for the required type of stress concentration favours industrial needs. In
recent time, researchers have focused on proposing new types of material that can possibility has
more effectiveness and more environmentally friendly compare to steel. Studies like hybrid
aluminium/composite for the driving shaft for automobile (Bhushan & Prajitsen, 2013) were
attempted for the reduction of weight of the shaft. The result can improve the vibration and noise
problem that tends to arise when the vehicle is in motion. Ganesan, James and Santhamoorthy (2015)
also aim to design aluminium metal matrix composite to replace gear shaft used in automobile,
ANSYS was used to analyse the designed shaft using steel SMC45 and aluminium hybrid for static,
modal and buckling analysis. The quantifiable of the test was conducted using a finite element model
to obtain a continuous equation on the shaft body.

Material chosen influence the approximated durability the shaft has. Shape and sizing of the shaft
needs to match the bore of mounting components and small parts holding each component in place.
More importantly, the shape and sizing of the shaft are further required to be assessed for stress
endurance in both fatigue and limit. Santosh D. D., Hariom D. C. and Sunil S. analysed a failure
situation of a carbon steel roller shaft of a continuous pad steam machine (2017), which highlights the
aspects like environment, temperature operation duration effects on the lifespan and durability of the
designed steel shaft. FEA was used for numerical failure analysis that quantifies the proper value in
which the steel shaft faulty. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was used to visualise and compare
with the result generated using FEA to summaries behaviour of carbon steel shaft behaviour when
failed. The balancing between the material and design constraints becomes the biggest headache for
engineers. Often the perfect fitting of requirement cannot be achieved; hence, approximated measures
and innovative design methods are placed to optimise the overall shaft design. The computational
aided design involved material selection for gearbox manufacturing has been extremely popular
amongst firms and researchers. Prashanth T and Prabhakar applied FEA combined analysis of gear
system for efficient piece of material and optimised time required for manufacturing (2014).
Moreover, the cause for shaft failure in a gear system is often unclear; the examination of related
factors can identify the error that was unknown during the design process, such analysis is the root
cause analysis. A.H.V. Pavan, K.S.N. Vikrant, M. Swamy and G. Jayaraman described a detailed
approach for finding the root cause failure of a pinion shaft that was used in bowl mills of thermal
power plant (2013). The root cause was identified with tracing back damage evidence by examining a
failed portion of the shaft. Stereomicroscopy is applied for microscale visualisation of the damaged
surface; the pattern of crack can be compared for the type of stress failure. Chemical analysis of the
shaft material to see if any composition change occurred. Reassessment of the UTS, yield strength and
other mechanical properties of the failed shaft parts were tested to ensure no change or alter of the
shaft were taken place. Stress concentration reevaluation can be finalised, and the overloading was
found to be at a keyway due to inadequate design specification.

Stress concentration can be built up in the shaft’s critical location; these locations often are between
the connection of the shaft to its mounting components. Bearings and gears require key and keyway
for the torque transmission from shaft. Other small parts like pins or screws that require modification
of shaft for the connection often are where the stress distribution is most critical. The original design
of shaft would not have been based on a possible modification for the connection; hence, any hole or
groove put into the shaft naturally causes uneven stress distribution. A case study was done by Hiren
and Bhavesh (2015) specifically studied a case study of keyway as critical location in a ball mill shaft.
The discontinuous of the keyway was the main reason the stress tends to build up around keyway. The
hypothesis is investigated using Xiaobin equation for all three loadings: torsion, bending and axial
(Xiaobin & Zelong, 2013) based on Peterson equations to test for the ideal stress concentration factor
(SFC) that can include the modification like keyway on shaft. SFC hence becomes a preferable
method to control the possible critical location stress caused the failure. The SFC is reliable due to the
given value are based on numerous theoretical and experimental test with summarised data value as
an outcome. Famous measure regarding different stress concentration factor for shaft depending on
the modification is provided Stress concentration Design Factors by Peterson (1953), the proposed
SFC for different shaft design was then verified and republished by Wiley (1997). SFC identified by
Peterson can be used to calculate the minimum shaft diameter for a given design load. The current
improvement of the SFC are using FEM for boundary value problem solving of the past concentration
factor derivation for different shafts, which increase the accuracy the final factor can be, this lowers
the safety measure applied onto the design with control.

This gearbox design aims to use cheap material that satisfies the given torque and design requirement
given, hence steel was recommended as the primary material for majority parts of the gearbox. For the
shaft, carbon steel is applied, as it is inexpensive and can provide adequate strength. A large portion
of the market product uses different types of steel for gearbox construction.
 6.2 Material Selection
To counter the different modes of stress, the right material is chosen for the designed shaft is
important. The material used for the gearbox would be directly concerning their maximum applied
stress for both static and dynamic loading. Common shaft material used as discussed from 6.1 is steel,
as it is comparably cheap, low maintenance and can withhold most types of stress given. For different
requirement, steel can be produced adaptively for the given application and operating environment.

The final chosen material for the gearbox design in this assignment is the carbon steel 1050 cold
drawn; its properties are as follows:

Sn: Endurance UTS Sy: Yield Strength Poisson’s Maximum temperature

strength (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Ratio (ºC)
310 620 345 0.29 400
(Table 6.1 Material selected for shaft and its associated properties)

By the research of David Van Aken (2011), the endurance strength is one-half of the ultimate tensile
strength (UTS) of the steel for UTS under 1034 MPa

1050 carbon steel is a commonly used steel that is both suitable for shaft construction, and the
manufacturing process ensures smaller elements like shafts for small gearboxes can be modified.
There exists available sizing of the 1050 carbon steel manufactured suiting the diameter of 22 mm.
The given application of the material chosen can be processed to suit the operation environment, like
heat treated through-hardened, annealed or normalised before any machining is done.

6.3 Shaft
From section four, the loading position and force values given by the gears and bearings are known.
The torsion, bending moment and shear force diagram can be obtained through analysis for the
horizontal plane and vertical plane for the countershaft. However, the stress concentration value
requires further discussion as the shaft in the real world would not be homogeneous throughout its
body.

Given the basic gear and bearing mounting arrangement given by Fig 4.1, the corresponding
mounting method can be first assumed for approximating of possible gear modification.

6.3.1 Shoulder fillets

From 5.5 the chosen bearings for position A and B from Fig 4.1 shows the bore size of the bearing is
17 mm. In contrast, from Table 3.1 section 3.2, the gear bore for gear 2 and 3 are 22 mm, meaning
section shaft where the bearing is held will be expected to have a smaller diameter than the section in
the middle where the gear is held. The appropriate fillet should be designed to avoid any bending or
shear failure.
 6.3.2 Groove and Keyway
To secure the axial location of bearing onto the shaft with the given interference fit requirement is not
enough, other methods to lock the bearing in place so no disruption would occur during the gearbox
operation. Groove should be placed at both ends so a retaining ring can fit in to hold the bearing at the
end.

Similarly, for gear to secure axial location onto the shaft, not only the given transition fit and keyed,
the side of the gear must have a groove for retaining ring to hold the gear in place.

The keyway on the shaft are required to be cut in according to the given keyway dimension from
chosen gear in Table 3.1.

6.3.3 Bending moment analysis

[Link] Horizontal plane

Fig. 6.1 Horizontal force on countershaft

Horizontal Moment analysis:

∑ M ( 0 )=0
For 0< x < 20

20
∑ M ( 20 )=−621.7 × 1000 =−12.43 Nm
For 20 < x < 40

45 25
∑ M ( 40 )=−621.7 × 1000 + 381.97× 1000 =−18.43 Nm
∑ M ( 50 )=0
Horizontal Bending Moment diagram:
Fig. 6.2 Horizontal Moment along counter shaft

[Link] Vertical plane

Fig. 6.3 Vertical force on countershaft

Vertical Moment analysis:

∑ M ( 0 )=0
For 0< x < 20

20
∑ M ( 20 )=−232.45× 1000 =−4.649 Nm
For 20 < x < 40

45 25
∑ M ( 40 )=−232.45 × 1000 +139.03 × 1000 =−6.985 Nm

∑ M ( 50 )=0
Vertical bending moment diagram:
Fig 6.4 Vertical bending along counter shaft

6.3.4 Critical section of the shaft

Resultant moment at both bearings are zero, the bending moment resultant around gear 2 and gear 3
are the largest:

2 2
M gear 2= √(−4.65 ) + (−12.43 ) = 13.27 Nm

2 2
M gear 3 =√ (−6.985) +(−18.43) =19.71 Nm

Back in section 3.2, the result given by counter torque transfer by (3.2) is 29.03 Nm.

Hence, the critical section through the shaft is at gear 3 with moment of 19.71Nm and torque
transmitted at 29.03 Nm

6.3.5 Stress concentration

Given that the shaft requires modification for mounting of the components, hence, suitable stress
concentration factor should be applied to increase safety precaution for the shaft design.

[Link] Fillet
The expected shaft layout around gear 2 and gear 3:

Fig 6.5 shaft layout with fillet

There exist two steps due to the bearing bore size is smaller than the gear bore size, the difference in
diameter causes means discontinuity in stress distribution as originally assumed to be uniform. The
affected stress distribution due to the geometry, meaning it can act as a stress raiser. General stress
concentration analysis of a stationary object can be used for the stress concentration approximation,
corresponding stress concentration factors has been theorised and tested by numerous studies. To
reduce the stress concentration for shaft with diameter difference, a round fillet is created so that the
flow of stress can be smoothed out around the corner where the diameter differs:

Fig. 6.6 stress distribution around sharp corner compared to around a rounded fillet

Choose the rounded fillet radius to be 1.02 mm corresponding to bearing corner radius from section
5.4

Calculation: Given d = 17 mm, r = 1.02 mm, D = 22 mm

r D
=0.06 ; =1.3 , from the stress concentration factors graph by Wilson (1973) for shaft in
d d
bending, K t ≈ 1.47 ; from tension graph for shoulder fillet, the K t ≈ 1.75

Taken K t 1.5 as the stress concentration factor for the designed shoulder round fillet.

[Link] Groove
The expected groove layout around gear 2 and gear 3, bearing A and bearing B

Fig. 6.7 Keyway location (Note: the bearing is in between of shoulder and the retaining ring)

a = 1 mm, r can be approximated as 2 mm hence:

a 2
H = 22, d = 22 – 1 × 2 = 20, = =0.1
d 20
Due to the shaft condition is suffering from torsion and bending, and very little axial load, the tension
is approximated as around 0 hence, the stress concentration factor is: Kt = 1.78 for bending and Kt =
1.3 for torsion. (See Appendix E)

[Link] Further stress concentration relief at critical location

The built-in keyway on the surface of the shaft can cause shear failure when in long fatigue cycles,
notches on the side of the keyway can be produced to relief the concentration near the surface where
keyway is assumed to be located at:

Fig. 6.8 Stress relief notch location

The notch size will have length only 0.75 × ‘length of keyway’, and will have only 0.75 × ‘the depth
of the keyway’, so less bending of the surface between the notch and the keyway would occur.

6.3.6 Minimal shaft diameter to avoid failure at critical section

Given Sn = 310 MPa, Sy = 345 MPa, FoS recommended for industrial application shaft is 2, K t = 1.75
from [Link], T = 29.03 Nm from (3.2), M = 19.71N from 6.3.4:
1

[ ] [ ]]
2 2 3
DB =
32× FoS
π √[ Kt M
Sn
+
3 T
4 Sy

1
2 2 3
DB = [ √[
32× 2
π
1.75× 19.71
310 M
+
3 29.03
] [
4 345 M ]]
DB =0.01669 mm

Hence, the original assumed shaft diameter of 17 mm for bearing section and 22 mm for shaft section
is acceptable.
 7. Keyway and Key
Keyway dimension are given by the manufacturer for the chosen gears and bearings. The
corresponding keyway are also required for the designed shaft from section 6, and key are chosen by
requirement and according to JIS B1301 standards, Js9 tolerance. The given fit for gears required is
press fitted onto the shaft with a transition fit; bearing should be fitted to the shaft with an interference
fit.

7.1 Key and spline mechanism

Without a key between the shaft and gear, the shaft will rotate freely inside the bore of the
gear. By placing a groove or keyway on the gear and shaft then using appropriate key as the
medium, the torque transfer can be realised using half height of the parallel key as the
moment arm to transmit force.

Due to the manufacturer specification on the gear from KHK gear catalogue, the keyway is
pre-determined in Table 3.1, hence rectangular key should be chosen and suitable keyway
should be constructed on the shaft.

7.2 Key loading

Fig 7.1General rectangular key loading

The above diagram describes the basic key loading situation, where:

h: height of the key, where it is shared between the shaft and gear, top half is inside the gear key-seat,
the bottom half inside the shaft key-seat.

b: the width of the key, where b

F: the force applied by rotation of shaft

7.2.1 Compression failure of key

The minimum required length to avoid compression failure:

The area of the key which = h × L where L equals to the length of the key is where the compression
stress is applied, and it is assumed to be homogeneously. This area undergoes compression at the
same time a same amount of stress is imposed on the inner surface of the keyway for gear and shaft.
To avoid the compression failure of the key, the length of the key must be determined so the area on
the side of the key is large enough to counter the compression.

General formula for compression stress:

F
σ= (7.1)
A

The allowable design stress will be provided by:

Sy
σ design= (7.2)
FoS

where S y =¿yield strength of the key and FoS = factor of safety

For initial length of key estimation, assuming only compression, the Length can be approximated
using combination of (7.1) and (7.2):

F ×(FoS)
L=
h (7.3)
× Sy
2

7.2.2 Shear failure of key

The area of the key which = b × L where L is the length of the shaft is where the shear stress built up.
Appropriate length of the key is required so the area for shear stress is large enough for distributed
stress situation.

F
τ= (7.4)
b×L

The allowable design stress will be provided by:

S sy
τ design= (7.5)
FoS

where Ssy =¿ shear strength of the key and FoS = factor of safety

For initial length of key estimation, assuming only compression, the Length can be approximated
using combination of (7.1) and (7.2):

F ×(FoS)
L= (7.6)
b × Ssy

To choose the length for the key, both shear and compression for minimum key length will be
calculated, and the larger value will be used for the design.

The torque imposed = 29.03 Nm

Diameter of the shaft were found in section 6.3.1, which equals to 22 mm, rshaft = 0.011 m

The force applied to the key can be calculated as:

29.03
F= =2639.09 N ≈ 2.64 kN
0.011

FoS is assumed to be 3 for industrial application

7.3 Material selection

As discussed, the steel for gearbox manufacturing is overall cost efficient and durable. Considering
the commonly used carbon steel, carbon steel 1045 has tensile strength of 570-700 MPa, and Brinell
hardness ranging between 170-210, it is suitable for range of industrial application with high
processing ability and good machinability.

Mechanical properties:
Tensile strength, Yield (Sy) 310 MPa
Tensile strength, Ultimate 565 MPa
Elongation at break (in 50 mm) 16.0%
(Table 7.1 Material for key selected)
7.4 Specified key and keyway dimension for each component
7.4.1 Gear 2 required length of key
h
Gear manufacturer data: width ( b ) × =6 mm ×2.8 mm
2
For compression stress:
2.64 k ×(3)
From (7.3): L= =0.016 m
0.0028 ×310 M
For shear stress:
Ssy = 0.5 × Sy (From maximum shear stress theory)
2.64 k ×( 3)
From (7.6): L= =0.0146 m
0.006 ×310 M /2
Hence, the length of the key needs to be ≥ 0.016 m
7.4.2 Gear 3 required length of key
h
Gear manufacturer data: width ( b ) × =6 mm ×2.8 mm
2

Since the keyway dimension of gear 3 is the same as gear 2, same estimation can be made for the
minimum length of the shaft. Hence, the length of the key needs to be ≥ 0.016 m

7.5 Keyway on shaft

As mention, a corresponding shaft keyway needs to be constructed.
Gear 2 and Gear 3, using the minimum length required for key the dimension of the keyway will be:

Length (Parallel to shaft rotational axis) = 16 mm

Depth = 2.8 ± 0.2 mm
Width = 6 mm ± 0.2 mm
The diagram below shows the designed cut over the section of the shaft:

Fig. 7.2 Shaft Keyway draft

However, it is expected that the keyway will not perfectly fitting the key inserted, hence the above
tolerance is given.

The method of cutting for the keyway will chosen as milling.

8. Casing and connection design

The components require parts that links and holds itself onto the shaft, and the shaft requires a
connection to be placed in a designed casing. Hence, appropriate methods of connections have be to
be considered; this includes the situating of all components properly so that no movement of
components occur during operation. The gearbox also requires an exterior to determine the position
and overall sizing of the system and protects all components.

8.1 Connections
8.1.1 Fits
Gear is keyed and fitted in with transition fit and press-fitted onto the shaft and bearings is press fitted
to the shaft with an interference fit.

Basic size of 22 mm for gear:

Choose locational transition fit for a more accurate location where greater interference is permissible.
H7/n6 – 22H7/n6

From table of fundamental deviations for shafts (metric),

From international tolerance (IT) grades table, basic size of 22, use lower-deviation of +0.015 as δF =
fundamental deviation; from IT table, the ∆ d=0.021 mm.

Minimum deviation = basic size + fundamental deviation = 22 + 0.015 = 22.015 mm

Maximum deviation = basic size + fundamental deviation + IT grade = 22 + 0.015 + 0.021 = 22.036
mm

Basic size of 17 mm for bearings:

Choose locational interference fit for parts requiring rigidity and alignment with prime accuracy of
location but without special bore pressure requirements. H7/p6 – 17H7/p6

From table of fundamental deviations for shafts (metric),

From international tolerance (IT) grades table, basic size of 17, use lower-deviation of +0.018 as δF =
fundamental deviation; from IT table, the ∆ d=0.018 mm.

Minimum deviation = basic size + fundamental deviation = 17 + 0.018 = 17.018 mm

Maximum deviation = basic size + fundamental deviation + IT grade = 17 + 0.018 + 0.018 = 17.036
mm

8.2 Casing design

The casing of the overall gearbox will be corresponding to the main countershaft size, and the overall
gear train size. From the gear design and shaft design section, the countershaft length is at minimum
65 mm and the largest centre distance between two mating gear is the gear 3 and gear 4 with CD of
50+175 = 225 mm. Give clearance of 2 mm in all direction, hence the expected dimension is 69 mm x
229 mm x 229 mm is the overall gearbox size. The bearing is pressed against the shoulder of the shaft
with matching edge radius against the fillet radius. Four bolts can be drilled at the base of the gearbox
to ensure stationary gearbox application. A diagram of the sample gearbox can be seen in the sketch
section.

9. Conclusion
The proposed design for a gearbox that transmits 1.6 kW power at 2000 rpm for 150 rpm output was
given by analysing of the velocity ratio for gear train design, the ratio and the chosen gear from
market dictates the overall structure for rest of the gearbox components like shaft and bearing. For
each component, any connection and fitting method requires careful analysing for appropriate stress
concentration factor so that any possible failure can be avoided. Mechanism of the components can
vary once each design alteration is proposed; this provides the design with difficulties, as it is hard to
compromise for a situation that was not encountered. Hence, the design process needs to be handled
with care, making sure the connection between components is considered before further modification
can be made. Appropriate guidelines are given by the standard proposed by groups that have
evaluated and tested the given situation of issues; hence, the given theory can be used for assumptions
of the design. However, the results still require evaluation to avoid misalignments. Overall, this
design proposal does not include further analysis, such as the material operation environment and
wear and tear between teeth. Further, improvement still can be proceeded to increase the reliability
and overall compromised for an increasingly compact gearbox.

Appendices:
Appendix A
Spur gear: Catalogue number ss, with module of 2
 Appendix B
Spur gear: Catalogue number MSGA/MSGB, with module of 2.5
 Appendix C
Bearing rated capacities for 90% reliability
 Appendix D
Stress concentration factor for a stepped bar in bending (based on photoelastic tests of Leven and
Hartman 1951; Wilson and White 1973).
 Appendix E
Stress concentration factors for U-shaped groove bar with circular cross section in tension.
 Appendix F
[Technical Data] Machine Keys and Key Grooves Excerpts from JIS B 1301(1996)
 Appendix G
Bearing dimension
Reference: (Chicago 17th B Style)

Aken, David C. Van. 2001. “Fatigue Endurance Limit of Steel.” Missouri University of
Science and Technology: Scholars' Mine. 2001.
[Link]

Arachchige, Udara, Rasenthiran, Kohilan, Madalagama, Lakshitha and Sandupama, Sakuna.

2019. “Simulation of carbon dioxide capture for industrial applications.” Paper
presented at the 6th International Conference on Power and Energy Systems
Engineering, OKINAWA, November, 2019.
[Link]
apture_for_industrial_applications

Bi, Zhuming, Walter D. Pilkey, and Deborah F. Pilkey. 2020. Peterson's Stress
Concentration Factors. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Chavan, Neeta T. 2016. “Analysis Of Gearbox Casing And Effect Of Ferquency On Stress
And Strain Using Fea.” International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology 05 (10): 251–56. [Link]

Dalvi, Santosh D., Hariom, D. Chandrababu, Sunil Satav, and Vijoykumar. 2017. “Failure
Analysis of a Carbon Steel Roller Shaft of Continuous Pad Steam Machine.” Case
Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 9: 118–28.
[Link]

Dudas, Laszlo. 2010. “New Way for the Innovation of Gear Types.” Engineering the Future.
[Link]

Engel, B., and Sara Salman Hassan Al-Maeeni. 2017. “Failure Analysis and Fatigue Life
Estimation of a Shaft of a Rotary Draw Bending Machine.” International Journal of
Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering 11 (11): 1763–68.
[Link]

Environment Autority Protection (EPA). 2012. “Emission Testing Methodology for Air
Pollution.” [Link] 2012.
[Link]

Ericson, Tristan M., and Robert G. Parker. 2014. “Experimental Measurement of the Effects
of Torque on the Dynamic Behavior and System Parameters of Planetary Gears.”
Mechanism and Machine Theory 74: 370–89.
[Link]
Ganesan, M, S Johny James, and P Santhamoorthy. 2015. “Design to Replace Steel Drive
Shaft in Automobiles with Hybrid Aluminium Metal Matrix Composite.” Journal of
Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Science 1 (3): 41–48.
[Link]

Gupta, Kapil, R.F. Laubschera, J. Paulo Davim, and N.K. Jain. 2016. “Recent Developments
in Sustainable Manufacturing of Gears: a Review” 112 (January): 3320–30.
[Link]

Gupta, Tarun, and Neeraj Patel. 2016. “Methodology for Designing a Gearbox and Its
Analysis.” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology 5 (01).
[Link]

Kucharczyk, P., A. Rizos, S. Münstermann, and W. Bleck. 2012. “Estimation of the

Endurance Fatigue Limit for Structural Steel in Load Increasing Tests at Low
Temperature.” Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures 35 (7): 628–
37. [Link]

Li, Huaxia. 2018. “Gearbox of Wind Turbine.” Advanced Wind Turbine Technology, 59–118.
[Link]

Li, Zheng, and Yu Zhou. 2020. “Research on Gearbox Dynamic Design Methodology Based
on Modal Optimization.” Journal of Vibroengineering 22 (1): 156–69.
[Link]

Milliren, Matthew Britt. 2011. “An Experimental Investigation of the Influence of Various
Gear Steels on the Contact Fatigue Lives of Hard Ground Spur Gears.” Dissertation.
The Ohio State University.

Moolwan, Charnont, and Samroeng Netpu. 2013. “Failure Analysis of a Two High Gearbox
Shaft.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 88: 154–63.
[Link]

Nori, N.S.A, M. Saifuddin, and Sanatan Ratna. 2018. “Cam Shaft Material Selection Using
Multi-Objective Optimization on the Basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA) Method.”
International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and
Development 8 (3): 1023–28. [Link]

Pavan, A.h.v., K.s.n. Vikrant, M. Swamy, and G. Jayaraman. 2013. “Root Cause Analysis of
Bowl-Mill Pinion Shaft Failures.” Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis 1 (2):
103–9. [Link]

Pawar, Prabhakar V, and P. R. Kulkarni. 2015. “Critical Review of Design of Planetary Gears
and Gear Box.” Gears and Gear Drives 3 (3): 1067–73.
[Link]

Prashanth, Thankachan, and Prabhakar, Purushothaman. 2014. “Optimum Material and Process
Modification to Reduce Lead Time of Pedestal Manufacturing Used in Gearbox Assembly.”
International Journal of Engineering Research 3(2): 2036 - 2041.
 [Link]
fication_to_Reduce_Lead_Time_of_Pedestal_Manufacturing_Used_in_Gearbox_Assembly

Prajapati, Hiren R., and Bhavesh Patel. 2015. Investigation of Stress Concentration Factor for
Keyway on Shaft under Different Loading Conditions: A Case Study. 2015.
[Link]
ration_Factor_for_Keyway_on_Shaft_under_Different_Loading_Conditions_A_Case_
Study.

Psarras, Peter C., Stephen Comello, Praveen Bains, Panunya Charoensawadpong, Stefan
Reichelstein, and Jennifer Wilcox. 2017. “Carbon Capture and Utilization in the
Industrial Sector.” Environmental Science & Technology 51 (19): 11440–49.
[Link]

Sen, Parag, Parimal Pal, and Mousumi Roy. 2014. “An Explorative Study to Enable
Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing for an Industrial Gearbox Manufacturing
Organization.” Manufacturing Review. EDP Sciences 1 (2014): 1-14.
[Link]