Designing a Gear Train: Power Transmission and Input Power Calculation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattjones
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gears
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the design of a gear train intended to transmit power from one shaft to another, focusing on the calculation of input power required at the first shaft. Participants explore various aspects of gear arrangement, efficiency, and constraints imposed by the problem statement.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Matt presents a problem statement involving a gear train with specific rotational speeds and load conditions, seeking guidance on calculating input power.
  • Some participants clarify that idler gears may not be necessary for the arrangement, suggesting that only two gears are required to connect the shafts directly.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of frictional resistance on power loss, with some noting that the different rotational speeds will affect the power loss calculations for each shaft.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the assumptions made about gear sizes and arrangements, particularly in relation to the specified constraints on tooth counts and gear diameters.
  • One participant points out that the requirement for teeth to be multiples of 5 could lead to accelerated wear due to repeated engagement of the same tooth pairs, which is generally avoided in good gear design.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the current arrangement may not provide sufficient spacing for the gears, questioning the feasibility of the proposed tooth counts to meet the 300 mm spacing requirement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of idler gears and the implications of the constraints on gear design. There is no consensus on the optimal arrangement or the feasibility of the proposed design based on the given parameters.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about gear sizes and arrangements, the impact of frictional losses, and the constraints imposed by the problem statement that may lead to a unique or impractical solution.

mattjones
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A gear train is to be designed to transmit power from shaft 1 to shaft 2 with the following condition:

Shaft 1 (driven by an electric motor) rotates at 100 revs min–1.

Shaft 2 is to rotate at 400 revs min–1 in the opposite direction to shaft 1 against a load of 200 Nm.

All shafts have a frictional resistance of 5 Nm.

Question: Determine the input power required at shaft 1

The gear train I have put together consists of a drive gear, two idlers and the output gear in a linear form.

Can someone point me in the right direction, any help would be appreciated!

Thanks

Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just to be clear, Matt, you used 2 idlers, but no compound gears? It might help if you could post a sketch of your train to make completely clear what you have.
 
The problem statement does not say anything about the input and output shaft arrangement so there is no need for idler gears to get the input and output shafts coaxial. you only need two gears - one on each shaft.

calculate input power by working back from the output power. I'd assume gearing losses are ignored.
The trickiest part is dealing with the 5 Nm friction for each shaft - it will give a different power loss for each shaft as their rpm is different.
 
As billy_joule has observed, there is no need for idler gears, but the OP says (first post) that he has used two idler gears. This indicates additional shafts and therefore more friction power losses. This is why I asked for clarification regarding idlers versus compound gears.
 
Thanks for the replies, here is the question in full:

A gear train is to be designed to transmit power from shaft 1 to shaft 2 with the following condition:

(i) Shaft 1 (driven by an electric motor) rotates at 100 revs min–1.

(ii) Shaft 2 is to rotate at 400 revs min–1 in the opposite direction to shaft 1 against a load of 200 Nm.

(iii) The centre of shaft 1 is 300 mm from shaft 2.

(iv) The minimum number of teeth on any gear is 15, all gears must have a multiple of 5 teeth and have a module of 2 mm.

(v) The maximum number of gears permissible is 4 gears and the diameter of the maximum gear must be minimised.

(vi) The centres of the gears should lie on a line which is as close to straight as possible.

(vii) All shafts have a frictional resistance of 5 Nm. Carry out the following:

(a) Design a gear train which satisfies the above criteria. Use a sketch to illustrate your design, label the gears A, B, C, etc. from the driver to the driven gear, and state the number of teeth on each gear.
(b) Determine the input power required at shaft 1.
(c) Specify the efficiency of the gear train as a percentage.
(d) Determine an equation for the efficiency of the gear train in terms of the load (torque) on shaft 2 (all other factors remaining constant).
 
It's a very basic sketch but here's what I have so far
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1117.JPG
    DSC_1117.JPG
    37.5 KB · Views: 1,233
mattjones: It looks like you have assumed that you can get gears of any diameter, which is true in theory, but not possible with standard gears. You need to take a look at possible diametral pitch values and the associated gear sizes that result. Do they line up in a straight line as you have shown? Not too likely.

Items (iv) and (v) essentially dictates the first gear have 60 T and the last gear have 15.

On re-reading the problem, I see that the module is specified to be 2 mm, so the diametral pitch is fixed right there. It looks like the only flexibility you have is whether to use the 15/30 combination for the two middle gears (the idlers) or perhaps a 10/10 pair. This whole problem is fairly academic, that is, constrained in such a way as to force a unique solution. In real life, the module/diametral pitch choice would be up for grabs, and the multiple of 5 constraint would never be there (more about that below).

The requirement that all tooth numbers be a multiple of 5 (Item (iv)) forces a bad design. This means that there will be a common factor on all the tooth numbers, and consequently the same tooth pairs will engage time after time resulting in accelerated wear. In good gear design, common factors are to be avoided.
 
Your current arrangement has around half the required spacing. .. Forget 15 and 60 that won't work if you want your gears lined up. There is no solution for the idler gears tooth counts to get the 300mm spacing with 15 and 60.
 
I did not check to see if the gears were large enough to span the gap; I assumed that they were. Evidently, this was a bad assumption.
 

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
23K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K