Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A population-based meta-heuristic approach for robust micro-geometry optimization of tooth profile in spur gears considering manufacturing uncertainties

  • Published:
Meccanica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper proposes a population-based meta-heuristic approach for the multi-objective robust optimization of tooth profiles, aimed at finding a set of micro-geometry modification parameters that allow to improve mechanical performance of spur gears. With the aim of making the optimization results reliable in real-life applications, a robust formulation of the optimization problem is generated by incorporating noise parameters that account for the influence of manufacturing uncertainties on the objective function. The described multi-objective gear optimization strategy is based on response surface (surrogate) models, allowing for checking the performance of a large number of candidate solutions in very short computational times. The computation efficiency of the proposed approach is the key that enables a simultaneous assessment of both linear and parabolic profile modifications, so that the most appropriate tooth geometry can be selected for the specific application. The proposed approach was successfully employed in a case study in which static transmission error and contact stress of a gear pair loaded by different torques were optimized under fatigue-related constraints and in presence of geometric variability due to manufacturing uncertainties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fuentes-Aznar A, Ruiz-Orzaez R, Gonzalez-Perez I (2016) Comparison of spur, helical and curvilinear gear drives by means of stress and tooth contact analyses. Meccanica. doi:10.1007/s11012-016-0515-y

    Google Scholar 

  2. Iglesias M, Fernandez del Rincon A, de-Juan A, Diez-Ibarbia A, Garcia P, Viadero F (2015) Advanced model for the calculation of meshing forces in spur gear planetary transmissions. Meccanica 50(7):1869–1894

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Ma H, Feng M, Li Z, Feng R, Wen B (2016) Time-varying mesh characteristics of a spur gear pair considering the tip-fillet and friction. Meccanica. doi:10.1007/s11012-016-0502-3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Park HS, Dang XP (2010) Structural optimization based on CADCAE integration and metamodeling techniques. Comput Aided Des 42(10):889–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khuri AI, Mukhopadhyay S (2010) Response surface methodology. Comput Stat 2(2):128–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2016) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Korta J, Raniolo R, Danti M, Kowarska I, Uhl T (2012) Multi-objective optimization of a car body structure (No. 2012-01-1555). SAE Technical Paper

  8. Zhang G, Wang G, Li X, Ren Y (2013) Global optimization of reliability design for large ball mill gear transmission based on the Kriging model and genetic algorithm. Mech Mach Theory 69:321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kayabasi O, Erzincanli F (2007) Shape optimization of tooth profile of a flexspline for a harmonic drive by finite element modelling. Mater Des 28(2):441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang J, Guo F (2015) Statistical modification analysis of helical planetary gears based on response surface method and Monte Carlo simulation. Chin J Eng Mech 28(6):1194–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Park CI (2010) Multi-objective optimization of the tooth surface in helical gears using design of experiment and the response surface method. J Mech Sci Technol 24(3):823–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beyer HG, Sendhoff B (2007) Robust optimizationa comprehensive survey. Comput Method Appl Mech 196(33):3190–3218

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghribi D, Bruyère J, Velex P, Octrue M, Haddar M (2012) A contribution to the design of robust profile modifications in spur and helical gears by combining analytical results and numerical simulations. J Mech Des 134(6):061011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gabiccini M, Bracci A, Guiggiani M (2010) Robust optimization of the loaded contact pattern in hypoid gears with uncertain misalignments. J Mech Des 132(4):041010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Artoni A, Guiggiani M, Kahraman A, Harianto J (2013) Robust optimization of cylindrical gear tooth surface modifications within ranges of torque and misalignments. J Mech Des 135(12):121005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Carbonelli A, Rigaud E, Perret-Liaudet J, Pelloli E, Barday D (2014) Low noise design of a truck timing multi-stage gear: robust optimization of tooth surface modifications, In International Gear Conference 2014: 26th 28th August 2014. Chandos Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mandol S, Bhattacharjee D, Dan PK (2016) Robust optimization in determining failure criteria of a planetary gear assembly considering fatigue condition. Struct Multidiscip Optim 53(2):291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mucchi E, Tosi G, d’Ippolito R, Dalpiaz G (2010) A robust design optimization methodology for external gear pumps. In: ASME 2010 10th biennial conference on engineering systems design and analysis, pp 481–490

  19. Tosi G, Mucchi E, d’Ippolito R, Dalpiaz G (2015) Dynamic behavior of pumps: an efficient approach for fast robust design optimization. Meccanica 50(8):2179–2199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun SX, Yan M, Bai P, Han L (2010) Gear reliability design using probability finite element method based on response surface. Appl Mech Mater 34:7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Korta JA, Mundo D (2016) Multi-objective micro-geometry optimization of gear tooth supported by response surface methodology. Mech Mach Theory 109:278–295. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2016.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Coello CAC, Lamont GB, van Veldhuizen DA (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Park GJ (2007) Analytic methods for design practice. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Deb K, Goel T (2001) Controlled elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms for better convergence. In: Zitzler E, Thiele L, Deb K, Coello Coello CA, Corne D (eds) Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. EMO 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1993. Springer, Berlin

  25. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Shepard D (1968) A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM national conference. ACM, pp 517–524

  27. Simpson TW, Poplinski JD, Koch PN, Allen JK (2001) Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Eng Comput 17(2):129–150

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Andrianakis I, Challenor PG (2012) The effect of the nugget on Gaussian process emulators of computer models. Comput Stat Data Anal 56(12):4215–4228

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Ebden M (2008) Gaussian processes for regression: a quick introduction. The Website of Robotics Research Group in Department on Engineering Science, University of Oxford

  30. Wang GG, Shan S (2007) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 129(4):370–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Harianto J, Houser DR (2007) A methodology for obtaining optimum gear tooth micro-topographies for noise and stress minimization over a broad operating torque range. In: ASME 2007 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, pp 289–303

  32. Artoni A, Gabiccini M, Guiggiani M, Kahraman A (2011) Multi-objective ease-off optimization of hypoid gears for their efficiency, noise, and durability performances. J Mech Des 133(12):121007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kolivand M, Kahraman A (2009) A load distribution model for hypoid gears using ease-off topography and shell theory. Mech Mach Theory 44(10):1848–1865

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Bonori G, Barbieri M, Pellicano F (2008) Optimum profile modifications of spur gears by means of genetic algorithms. J Sound Vib 313(3):603–616

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fernández A, Iglesias M, de-Juan A, García P, Sancibrián R, Viadero F (2014) Gear transmission dynamic: effects of tooth profile deviations and support flexibility. Appl Acoust 77:138–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith JD (2003) Gear noise and vibration. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  37. Faggioni M, Samani FS, Bertacchi G, Pellicano F (2011) Dynamic optimization of spur gears. Mech Mach Theory 46(4):544–557

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Parker RG, Agashe V, Vijayakar SM (2000) Dynamic response of a planetary gear system using a finite element/contact mechanics model. J Mech Des 122(3):304–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cai Y, Hayashi T (1992) Optimum modification of tooth profile for a pair of spur gears to make its rotational vibration equal zero. Paper presented at the ASME: Design Engineering Division 43(2):453–460

  40. Barbieri M, Zippo A, Pellicano F (2014) Adaptive grid-size finite element modeling of helical gear pairs. Mech Mach Theory 82:17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ye SY, Tsai SJ (2016) A computerized method for loaded tooth contact analysis of high-contact-ratio spur gears with or without flank modification considering tip corner contact and shaft misalignment. Mech Mach Theory 97:190–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Shigley JE, Mischke CR, Budynas RG (2004) Mechanical engineering design. Mech Eng Des 7(22):400–405

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sigal IA, Hardisty MR, Whyne CM (2008) Mesh-morphing algorithms for specimen-specific finite element modeling. J Biomech 41(7):1381–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Alexa M (2002) Recent advances in mesh morphing. Comput Graph Forum 21(2):173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013/ under REA grant agreement no. 324336 DEMETRA: Design of Mechanical Transmissions: Efficiency, Noise and Durability Optimization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, P. Bucci, Cubo 46C, 87036, Rende, Italy

    Jakub A. Korta & Domenico Mundo

Authors
  1. Jakub A. Korta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Mundo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Domenico Mundo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Korta, J.A., Mundo, D. A population-based meta-heuristic approach for robust micro-geometry optimization of tooth profile in spur gears considering manufacturing uncertainties. Meccanica 53, 447–464 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-017-0737-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11012-017-0737-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation