Review and benchmarking study of different gear contact analysis software in terms of the static transmission error response

Abstract

In response to the imperative for precise static transmission error (STE) calculations crucial for evaluating gearbox vibroacoustic responses, this paper conducts a rigorous comparative study, utilizing diverse software tools and exploring critical factors such as gear type, gearbox complexity, microgeometry modification, mounting defects, and geometrical cutouts for lightweight gears. The study systematically dissects modeling principles and assumptions, delving into detailed case studies and outcome comparisons, including the Peak-to-Peak Transmission Error (PPTE). Revealing substantial amplitude variations exceeding 66% in standard spur gear cases with different software and escalating to 200% with microgeometry alterations, the introduction of parallelism defects induced variations of up to 42% between ROMAX and MASTA. The variations were comparatively lower for involute helical gears, hovering around 48%. However, the examination of the impact of a crowning modification paired with tip relief revealed significant discrepancies, ranging from a decrease of −42% for the most standard model VIBRAGEAR to a substantial increase of 867% in GENOM FE. Notably, for complex gearboxes, variations extend to 150%, emphasizing the intricate stacking effects of micro and system-scale influences on calculation errors. Examining lightweight gears in MASTA, ANSYS, and MARC revealed variations in tooth-level PPTE that correlate with the magnitude orders observed in the single-tooth analysis and a commendable agreement in the fluctuating part of the STE.This research fills a gap in comparative studies on transmission error calculations, enhancing our understanding of gear contact mechanisms and factors influencing their estimation. It also serves as a practical guide for selecting tools tailored to specific cases and positions itself as a benchmark for the future development of more sophisticated numerical tools, contributing significantly to the ongoing evolution of methodologies within this field.

Keywords

• Static transmission error
• Gearbox modeling
• Tooth stiffness models
• Tooth contact analysis
• Benchmarking study
• Lightweight gears