Total machine system efficiency

  • Context: Automotive 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pinon1977
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Efficiency Mechanical
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The overall efficiency of a system of gearboxes is determined by multiplying the efficiencies of each individual gearbox rather than averaging them. For example, three gearboxes with efficiencies of 70%, 80%, and 90% yield an overall efficiency of 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.9 = 0.504 or 50.4%. In a scenario with 16 gearboxes, each at 90% efficiency, the actual efficiency drops to approximately 18.5% due to cumulative losses. The type of gearbox—planetary, worm, or helical—affects efficiency, with planetary gears generally offering better performance due to their ability to cancel side forces.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gearbox types: planetary, worm, and helical
  • Basic knowledge of mechanical efficiency calculations
  • Familiarity with Free Body Diagrams (FBD) in mechanical systems
  • Awareness of the impact of bearings on gearbox performance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the efficiency characteristics of different gearbox types
  • Learn how to perform Free Body Diagrams (FBD) for mechanical systems
  • Study the effects of bearing design on gearbox efficiency
  • Explore advanced gearbox configurations and their efficiency implications
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, automotive engineers, and anyone involved in the design and optimization of gearbox systems will benefit from this discussion.

Pinon1977
Messages
126
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
Trying to determine the total efficiency of a system of gearboxes within a larger machine system
Please see the attached sketch. Basically I have a system of three gear boxes, each with their own respective efficiencies. I'm trying to determine, at the end of this string of gearboxes, what the overall efficiency is. How might one go about determining this? Do you just take the average? 70 + 80 + 90 / 3?
IMG_20230622_190057704_HDR.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I'm no expert on gearboxes, but for most systems you would multiply the efficiencies of the series systems to get the overall efficiency. So 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.9 = ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pinon1977, Baluncore, Bystander and 1 other person
Consider a line of 16 gearboxes, each with an efficiency of 90%. The average efficiency would be 90%. But energy must pass through each gearbox in turn to reach the next, with a loss at each step.
In reality, the efficiency would be;
0.9016 = 0.1853 = 18.5%.
 
Baluncore said:
Consider a line of 16 gearboxes, each with an efficiency of 90%. The average efficiency would be 90%. But energy must pass through each gearbox in turn to reach the next, with a loss at each step.
In reality, the efficiency would be;
0.9016 = 0.1853 = 18.5%.

Wow!!!! That's not the explanation I was expecting, but it make sense to a certain degree.

Does it matter what kind of gearbox it is? Planetary vs worm gear vs helical, etc? I was loosely presuming that there would be some sort of gearbox constant or multiplier (depending upon the type of gearbox being used).
 
Pinon1977 said:
Does it matter what kind of gearbox it is? Planetary vs worm gear vs helical, etc?
Different types of gearboxes have different energy efficiencies.

Generally, a two-step reduction box is less efficient than a one-step reduction, but the one-step reduction weighs more for the same ratio and power.

The bearings used inside the gearbox make a big difference as they are subjected to significant side forces on the shafts.

Planetary gears can cancel side forces on the shafts, so are often more efficient.

The ease of driving a gearbox backwards has efficiency implications. A worm gear is very inefficient when driven backwards.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
58
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K