ADVANCED ENGINEERING

1st Year (2007) Volume 2

GEAR TOOTH ROOTH FATIGUE BEHAVIOUR

Jelaska, D. & Podrug, S.
Abstract: A numerical model for determination the gear tooth root fatigue behaviour is
presented. Two cases are being explored, first in which gear tooth was loaded with normal
pulsating force acting at the highest point of single tooth contact, and second in which the fact
that in actual gear operation the magnitude as well as the position of the force changes as the
gear rotates through the mesh is taken into account. The fatigue process leading to tooth
breakage is divided into crack initiation and crack propagation period.
The critical plane damage model has been used to determine the number of stress cycles
required for the fatigue crack initiation. The critical plane methods predict not only fatigue
crack initiation life, but also the initiated crack direction, which makes a good starting point for
further fatigue crack propagation studies.
Finite element method and linear elastic fracture mechanics theories are then used for the
further simulation of the fatigue crack growth under a moving load. Moving load produces a
non-proportional load history in a gear's tooth root. Consequently, the maximum tangential
stress theory will predict a unique kink angle for each load increment, but herein cracks
trajectory is computed at the end of the load cycle. An approach that accounts for fatigue crack
closure effects is developed to propagate crack under non-proportional load.
The total number of stress cycles for the final failure to occur is then a sum of stress cycles
required for the fatigue crack initiation and number of loading cycles for crack propagation
from the initial to the critical length.
Although some influences (non-homogeneous material, traveling of dislocations, etc.) were not
taken into account in the computational simulations, the presented model seems to be very
suitable for determination of service life of gears because numerical procedures used here are
much faster and cheaper if compared with the experimental testing.

Keywords: moving force; critical plane; fatigue life; crack path

1 INTRODUCTION
The classical standardized procedures, e.g. [1,2,3], for the approximate determination
of load capacity of gear tooth root are commonly based on the comparison of the
maximum tooth-root stress with the permissible bending stress. Their determination
depends on a number of different coefficients that allow for proper consideration of
real working conditions (additional internal and external dynamic forces, contact area
of engaging gears, gears material, surface roughness, etc.). The classical procedures
are exclusively based on the experimental testing of the reference gears and they
consider only the final stage of the fatigue process in the gear tooth root, i.e. the
occurrence of final failure.
However, the complete process of fatigue failure of mechanical elements may be
divided into the following stages after [4,5,6]: (1) microcrack nucleation; (2) short
crack growth; (3) long crack growth; and (4) occurrence of final failure. In engineering
applications the first two stages are usually termed as crack initiation period, while
long crack growth is termed as crack propagation period. An exact definition of the
187

transition from initiation to propagation period is usually not possible. However, the
crack initiation period generally account for most of the service life, especially in highcycle fatigue, see Fig. 1. The total number of stress cycles N can than be determined
from the number of stress cycles Ni required for the fatigue crack initiation and the
number of stress cycles Np required for a crack to propagate from the initial to the
critical crack length, when the final failure can be expected to occur:
(1)

N = Ni + N p

log
Whler curve

U
Np

Ni

crack initiation

FL
Nq

1/4

NFL

log N

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the service life of components

2 CRACK INITIATION ASSESSMENT

The model for the fatigue crack initiation is based on the continuum mechanics
approach, were it is assumed that the material is homogeneous and isotropic, i.e.
without imperfections or damages. The critical plane damage model, Socie and
Bannantine [4], has been used to determine the number of stress cycles required for the
fatigue crack initiation. Critical plane approaches are based upon the physical
observation that fatigue cracks initiate and grow on certain material planes, called
critical planes, the orientation of which is determined by both stresses and strains at the
critical location. Depending upon strain amplitude, material type and state of stress,
materials generally form one of two types of cracks shear cracks or tensile cracks.
The following tensile based damage model has been found to be superior in
correlating fatigue lives for materials whose damage development was tensile
dominated:
d t = max a =

( 'f )
E

( 2 Ni )

2 bi

+ 'f 'f ( 2 N i ) i

b + ci

(2)

where dt is tensile damage parameter.

The following shear based damage model has been found to be superior for
materials whose damage development was shear dominated:

d s = a 1 + k max
Rt

'f
b
c
( 2 Ni ) 0i + 'f ( 2 Ni ) 0i
=
G

where ds is shear damage parameter.

188

(3)

The critical plane for tensile model is identified as the plane for which the tensile
damage parameter has maximal value, and similarly, in the shear model, the critical
plane is the plane for which the shear damage parameter is maximal.
In this paper, the uniformly distributed load on the tooth flank is assumed which
enables usage of two-dimensional finite element mesh reducing the solution time, and
simplifying the evaluation.
The crack initiation and propagation was analyzed on the gear wheel with basic data
given in Table 1.
Title
Number of teeth 1
Number of teeth 2
Module
Overlap factor 1
Overlap factor 2
Gear width 1
Gear width 2
Flank angle of tool
Radial clearance factor

Symbol
z1
z2
m, mm
x1
x2
b1, mm
b2, mm
n

Value
11
39
4,5
0,526
0,0593
32,5
28 mm
240
0,35

c*
*f

Relative radius of curvature of tool tooth

Outer diameter

0,25
teeth with shortened head

Tab. 1. Basic data of a studied gear

B-1

D-1

3
4a

A-1
9
10
11

6
7

4b
5

11b

B
13

D
E

A+1

12

14

B+1

D+1
15 E+1

E-1

Fig. 2. Load model to determine the stress cycle

According to Pehan et al. [7], it is appropriate to assume plane strain conditions if

the gear width is six times greater than the gear module, so for studied gear wheel
eight-node plane-strain isoparametric elements were used.
189

During the contact of the teeth pair the load move along the each tooth flank and so
changes its direction and intensity. In order to investigate the influence of moving load
on the gear root stress amplitude, the analysis is divided in sixteen separated load
cases: Four of them take the force act on the tooth ahead (0 to 3) and four of them take
the force acts on the tooth after (12 to 15) the analyzed tooth; in six cases the entire
load acts on the analyzed tooth (5-10), and in two cases the load is distributed on the
two teeth in contact (4 and 11) (Fig. 2).
The tooth root stress cycles are obtained and presented in diagram (Fig. 3a) for three
distinctive points of the tooth root curve (Fig. 3b). By analyzing the stress cycle in
tooth root, it becomes obvious that stress has always the maximum value when load
acts in the highest point of the single tooth contact (HPSTC). It follows that the
maximum value of the tensile damage parameter will be at the point of the maximum
main stress of the plane perpendicular to the root curve surface. Also, the maximum
value of the shear damage parameter will be in the plane inclined at 45o regarding to
the plane of the maximum main stress.

Fig.3. a) Stress cycles in three distinctive points obtained for movimg force

Fig.3. b) Three distinctive points of the tooth root curve

190

The gear is made of high strength alloy steel 42CrMo4 with parameters given in
Table 2.
42 Cr Mo 4 AISI 4142
E, MPa
206000
n'
0,14
1
k
1051
G, MPa
80000
K'
2259
f', MPa
-0,08
b0i
0,3
1820
f', MPa

1,13
Rm ,MPa
1000
bi
-0,08
f'
-0,76
c0i
Rt, MPa
800
0,65
f'
D, MPa
550
ci
-0,76
700
e,D
Kth, MPa mm

269

KIc, MPa mm

2620

C,

mm

ciklus MPa mm

3,31 1017

4,16

Tab. 2. Material parameters

It is known from the practical applications that the fatigue failures on gears are
usually nucleated at the surface and so surface conditions become an extremely
important factor influencing fatigue strength. The surface finish correction factor Csur,
depends on surface roughness and tensile strength of the material, is presented and
taken from MSC/FATIGUE [8]. Using this assumption the real service life of gears
may now be reduced in regard to the appropriate value of Csur:
Dr = DCsur

(4)

changing the fatigue strength exponent:

Dr
f
bi =
ln ( 2 N D )
ln

(5)

Lives to crack initiation at critical point (Fig. 4b) of the gear tooth root are obtained
for stresses and strains assessed by Finite Element Method (FEM), and corrected by
Hoffman-Seeger method [9]. The results are presented by diagram in Fig. 4a.

Fig. 4. a) Crack initiation lives for various surface roughness

191

Fig. 4. b) Critical location and critical planes

3 FATIGUE CRACK PROPAGATION

The application of the linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) to fatigue is based upon
the assumption that the fatigue crack growth rate, da/dN, is a function of the stress
intensity range K = KmaxKmin, where a is a crack length and N is a number of load
cycles. In this study the simple Paris equation is used to describe the crack growth rate:
da
m
= C [ K (a )]
dN

(6)

This equation indicates that the required number of loading cycles Np for a crack to
propagate from the initial length a0 to the critical crack length ac can be explicitly
determined, if C, m and K(a) are known. C and m are the material parameters and can
be obtained experimentally, usually by means of a three point bending test as to the
standard procedure ASTM [10]. For simple cases the dependence between the stress
intensity factor and the crack length K = f(a) can be determined using the methodology
given by ASTM [10]. For more complicated geometry and loading cases it is necessary
to use alternative methods. In this work the FEM in the framework of the program
package FRANC2D [11], has been used for simulation of the fatigue crack growth.
The determination of the stress intensity factor (SIF) mode I and mode II is based on a
J integral technique, Raju and Shivakumar [12].
The computational procedure is based on incremental crack extensions, where the
size of the crack increment is prescribed in advance. In order to predict the crack
extension angle the maximum tensile stress criterion (MTS), Erdogan and Sih [13] is
used. In this criterion it is proposed that crack propagates from the crack tip in a radial
direction in the plane perpendicular to the direction of greatest tension (maximum
tangential tensile stress). The predicted crack propagation angle can be calculated by:
2

K
1 K
0 = 2 tan 1 I I + 8
4 K II

K II

192

(7)

The equivalent SIF is then:

K eq = cos 2

0
0
0
K I cos 3K II sin
2
2
2

(8)

A new local remeshing around the new crack tip is then required. The procedure is
repeated until the equivalent SIF reaches the critical value Kc, when the complete tooth
fracture is expected. Following the above procedure, one can numerically determine
the functional relationship K=f(a).
In this paper, the stress intensity range in Paris equation is replaced by the effective
stress intensity range:
K eff = K max K cl

for K min K cl ,

(9)

K eff = K max K min for K min > K cl ,

where Kcl is SIF when closure occurs.

Effective range of SIF is calculated using Budiansky and Hutchinson model [15] for
plasticity induced crack closure, and influence of oxide induced crack closure, and
roughness induced crack closure is taken into account by the concept of the partial
crack closure, Kujawski [16]:

K eff = K max 1 1 2 1

) 1 + 2 1 g

(10)

where g is a transition function:

g =e

max 1
K th

(11)

and is normalized crack-wake plasticity, and it is estimated by fitting results [15]

with 4th order polynomial:
= 0,8561 + 0,0205R + 0,1438R 2 + 0, 2802 R 3 0,3007 R 4
(12)
where R is load ratio, Kmin/Kmax.
Two gear models are being explored: first in which gear tooth was loaded with
normal pulsating force acting at the HPSTC, and second one in which the fact that in
actual gear operation the magnitude as well as the position of the force changes as the
gear rotates through the mesh is taken into account.
The threshold crack length a0 below which LEFM is not valid, i.e. transition point
between initiation and propagation period, may be estimated approximately as Ostash
et al. [18]:
K

a0 = th,eff
D

(13)

Using material parameters (Table 2) and equations (10) and (13), the initial crack
length is estimated to be 200 m. Since crack increment size need to be prescribed in
advance, according to procedure given in Denda and Dong [19] crack increment size is
taken to be 0,2 mm.
After performing numerical simulation of crack propagation for case in which gear
tooth was loaded with normal pulsating force acting at the HPSTC, crack propagation
path and number of loading cycles for the crack propagation to the critical length is
estimated.
193

For moving force model, a quasi static numerical simulation method is presented in
which the gear tooth engagement is broken down into multiple load steps and analyzed
separately after Lewicki et al. [20].
As mentioned above, the analysis is divided in sixteen separated load cases (j = 0 to
15) (Fig. 2). The initial crack is placed in the critical location on critical plane, and SIF
history over one load cycle is computed. The moving load on the gear tooth is nonproportional, since the ratio of KII to KI changes during the load cycle. Consequently,
the maximum tangential stress theory (7) will predict a unique kink angle for each load
increment, but herein cracks trajectory is computed at the end of the load cycle.
The procedure is as follows:
(1) For load step from j-1 to j crack extension angle can be calculated according to
MTS criterion (7):
( j 1, j )

1 K I ( j max ) 1 K I ( j max )

= 2arctan

+ 8 ,
4 K II ( j max ) 4 K II ( j max )

(14)

where KI(jmax) and KII(jmax) are SIFs for a load case which produce larger SIF mode I on
corresponding interval.
(2) By means of calculated extension angles, combined stress intensity factor for j th
load case can be calculated (8):
K eq ( j ) = cos 2

( j 1, j )
( j 1, j )
( j 1, j )
3K II ( j ) sin
K I ( j ) cos

2
2
2

(15)

(3) Among them maximal Keq,max need to be found (which there is always when load is
in HPSTC), in order to calculate SIF when closure occurs:
2
K cl = K eq, max 1 2 1 1 + 1 g .

(16)

(4) From Paris equation crack extension after one load cycle is:
dac = C ( K eq, max K cl )

(17)

(5) Since crack propagates only when Keq(j) > Kcl, so for those load steps crack
extension is calculated. The amount of extension between load steps is proportional to
the ratio of the change in equivalent SIF to the effective SIF
da( j 1, j ) =

K eq ( j ) K eq ( j 1)

2 ( K eq, max K cl )

dac .

(18)

(6) In order to ensure that entire cycle part from crack opening to the crack closure
participate in crack extension, the intersection between Kcl and Keq(j) curves need to be
determined. When load step for which Keq( j -1) < Kcl < K eq( j ) is determined, then
K eq( j -1) = K cl , respectively when load step for which K eq( j -1) > K cl > K eq( j ) is determined, then
K eq( j ) = K cl . As result after one load cycle crack trajectory is obtained, and is
schematically presented in Fig. 5, assuming the load cycle has been discretized into
four steps.
194

(7) The final crack trajectory is approximated by a straight line from the initial crack
tip location to the final crack growth location. The straight line approximation has
length dac, and its orientation is defined by the final angle f:
f = arctan

da(
da(

j 1, j )

sin ( j 1, j )

j 1, j )

cos ( j 1, j )

(19)

Fig. 5. Schematic of crack extension after one load cycle

Fig. 6. Comparison of crack paths for: A force acting at HPSTC,

B force moves along tooth flank
195

Since crack extension over one load cycle is too small to update geometry model, the
crack will be extended in f direction with previously determined crack increment size
of 0,2 mm. Finally, the crack path and number of loading cycles for the crack
propagation to the critical length are estimated.
Differences in crack paths for two gear models are shown in Fig. 6a, and differences
in number of loading cycles for the crack propagation to the critical length are shown
in Fig. 6b.

Fig. 7. Comparison of fatigue lives

4 CONCLUSIONS
The numerical model used to predict the crack initiation life in tooth root is based on
the critical plane methods as the most recent and numerically most demanded method
for this purpose.
The fact that in actual gear operation the magnitude as well as the position of the force
changes as the gear rotates through the mesh, is taken into account. In such a way, a
more realistic stress cycle in gear tooth root is obtained. It resulted in significantly
more exact assessments of the gear crack initiation life, and consequently in the entire
fatigue life. It is reasonable, because the tensile damage parameter comprehends the
amplitude of normal deformation, and the shear damage parameter comprehends the
amplitude of shear deformation. Consequently, by neglecting the part of compression
region stress cycle, which behave if dealing with load in the highest point of the single
tooth contact, the significant error takes rise, especially in thin-rim spur gears. Beside
they predict the crack initiation life, the critical plane methods predict also the initiated
crack direction, which is a good base for a further analyzes of crack propagation.
196

By so completed numerical procedure, the predictions of fatigue lives and crack

paths in regard to the gear tooth root stresses are obtained, which are significantly
closer to experimental results then existing methods (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Computed service life of treated gear wheel and comparison with the available
experimental results [22]

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

DIN 3990 Teil 3, Tragfhigkeitsberechnung von Stinrden, Berechnung der Zahnfutragfhigkeit, Beut Verlag GMBH, Berlin, (1987).
AGMA 6033/2-AXX, Standard for Marine Gear Units: Part 2, Rating, (1992).
ISO 6336, Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears, International Standard, (1993).
Socie, D., Bannantine, J., Bulk Deformation Damage Models, Materials Science and
Engineering, A103, 3-13 (1988).
Shang, D. G., Yao, W. X. and Wang, D. J., "A new approach to the determination of
fatigue crack initiation size", Int. J. Fatigue, 20, 683-687 (1998).
Glodez, S., Flasker, J. and Ren, Z., "A new model for the numerical determination of pitting resistance of gear teeth flanks", Fatigue Fract. Engng Mater. Struct., 20, 71-83 (1997).
Pehan, S., Hellen, T.K., Flaker, J., Glode, S., Numerical Methods for Determining
Stress Intensity Factors vs Crack Depth in Gear Tooth Roots, International Journal of
Fatigue, 19 (10), 677-685 (1997).
MSC/FATIGUE User's Manual, (1999).
Hoffmann, M., Seeger, T., A Generalized Method for Estimating Multiaxial ElasticPlastic Notch Stresses and Strains, parts 1 and 2, Journal of Engineering Materials and
Technology, Transactions of the ASME, 107, 250-260 (1985).
197

[10] ASTM E 399-80, American standard.

[11] FRANC2D, Users Guide, Version 2.7, Cornell University, (2000).
[12] Raju, I.S., Shivakumar, K.N., An Equivalent Domain Integral Method in the TwoDimensional Analysis of Mixed Mode Crack Problems, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
37(4), 707-725, (1990).
[13] Erdogan, F., Sih, G.C., On the Crack Extension in Plates under Plane Loading and
Transverse Shear, J Basic Eng D, 85, 519-525, (1963).
[15] Budiansky, B., Hutchinson, J.W., Analysis of Closure in Fatigue Crack Growth, Journal
of Applied Mechanics, 45, 267-276 (1978).
[16] Kujawski, D., Enhanced Model of Partial Crack Closure for Correlation of R Ratio
Effects in Aluminum Alloys, International Journal of Fatigue, 23, 95-102 (2001).
[18] Ostash, O.P., Panasyuk, V.V., Kostyk, E.M., Assessment of the Period to Fatigue
Macrocrack Initiation Near Stress Concentrators by Means of Strain Parameters, Fatigue
Fract Engng Mater Struct, 22, 687-696 (1999).
[19] Denda, M., Dong, Y.F., Analytical Formulas for a 2-D Crack tip Singular Boundary
Element for Rectilinear Cracks and Crack Growth Analysis, Engineering Analysis with
Boundary Elements, 23, 35-49, (1999).
[20] Lewicki, D.G., Spievak, L.E., Handschuh, R.F., Consideration of Moving Tooth Load in
Gear Crack Propagation Predictions, NASA/TM-2000-210227 (2000).

Author: Jelaska, Damir, Professor; Podrug, Srdjan, Assistant professor; University of

Split, FESB, Croatia

198