See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282267602

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur

Planetary Gears
Article January 2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-06590-8_112

CITATIONS

READS

63

4 authors, including:
Song Xue

Ilyas Mazhar

Curtin University

Curtin University

4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

13 PUBLICATIONS 172 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

I.M. Howard
Curtin University
30 PUBLICATIONS 369 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Song Xue on 10 November 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur

Planetary Gears
Song Xue, Rodney Entwistle, Ilyas Mazhar and Ian Howard

Abstract This paper presents the results of torsional stiffness analysis of involute
spur planetary gears in mesh using nite element methods. A planetary gear model
with 3 planet gears and its subsystem models have been developed to study the
relationship between the overall torsional stiffness and the subsystem torsional
stiffness. The subsystem models include one isolated sun-planet-ring pair, one
isolated sun-planet external pair and one isolated planet-ring internal pair. A
strategy utilising a small preload step via a weak spring was rst applied to eliminate the gap between the teeth and then different torque levels were applied to
calculate the transmission error due to the resulting elastic deformations. This
calculation was repeated at multiple positions covering two tooth mesh cycles in the
overall and subsystem models. The theoretical gear contact position was determined
using an ANSYS APDL program and the gear rolling range was digitized into
equidistant rolling angles. The sun-planet torsional stiffness variation has been
shown to dominate the combined torsional stiffness and, based on the subsystem
torsional stiffness, an analytical method for predicting the overall torsional stiffness
is presented.

Keywords Planetary gear FEA method Elastic deformations Overall torsional

stiffness Subsystem torsional stiffness

1 Introduction
Due to their advantages, planetary gear sets are widely used in many applications,
including automotive, aerospace and wind turbines. Previous studies on planetary
gear systems have mainly focused on their natural models of vibration, load sharing
among planet gears, mesh phase, and planet spacing [15].
S. Xue (&)
R. Entwistle
I. Mazhar
I. Howard
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
e-mail: song.xue2@postgrad.curtin.edu.au
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
P. Pennacchi (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th IFToMM International
Conference on Rotor Dynamics, Mechanisms and Machine Science 21,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-06590-8_112

1369

1370

S. Xue et al.

Based on the uniformly distributed Timoshenko beam theory, Chen and Shao [6]
studied the effect of the ring deformation on the internal gear mesh stiffness. The
effect of the support type, ring thickness and number of supports on the mesh
stiffness has also been investigated. Ambarisha and Parker [7] used unique nite
element-contact analysis software to calculate the mesh stiffness from an isolated
sun-planet pair and an isolated ring-planet pair. Lin and Parker [8] set out a
complete analytical description of mesh phasing relationships in planetary gears and
these relationships include all sun-planet mesh phases, all ring-planet mesh phases
and the phase between the sun-planet and ring-planet meshes. A detailed analysis of
torsional stiffness of a spur gear pair in mesh using Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
methods was presented and the results have shown a load dependency for the
torsional mesh stiffness and the handover region [9, 10].
The main objective of this paper is to develop a detailed FEA analysis of the
torsional stiffness of involute spur planetary gears and to nd the relationship
between the overall torsional stiffness and the subsystem torsional stiffness. Finally,
an analytical method for predicting the overall torsional stiffness based on the
subsystem model is presented.

2 Planetary Gear FEA Models

A planetary gear set commonly consists of one sun gear, one ring gear, multiple
planet gears and one shared carrier arm. The planetary gear tooth parameters used in
this paper are shown in Table 1.
In this research, four different FEA models, as shown in Fig. 1, have been
developed to study the characteristics of the stiffness inside the planetary gear
system:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Planetary gear model with 3 planet gears and flexible carrier arm;
One isolated sun-planet-ring pair with flexible carrier arm;
One isolated sun-planet external pair;
One isolated ring-planet internal pair.

In the overall model, (a), the rim of the ring gear was constrained in both
tangential and radial directions. The sun gear hub and the carrier arm hub were
constrained in the radial direction. The same boundary conditions were applied to
the subsystem. Specically, in the sun-planet model and ring-planet model, the
planet gear has the self-rotation and rotation about the sun gear degrees of freedom.
Table 1 Planetary gear
parameters of this research

Number of teeth
Module, Mn (mm)
Pressure angle
Material

Sun gear

Planet gear

Ring gear

Zs = 21
10
20
Steel

Zp = 39
10
20
Steel

Zr = 99
10
20
Steel

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur Planetary Gears

1371

Fig. 1 FEA planetary gear models

The major assumptions in this research are the following:

Plane stress assumptions were used in the 2-d FEA planetary gear model;
Quasi-static conditions exist and no inertia effects influence the mesh stiffness
curve;
The manufacturing and assembly errors are not included and the transmission
error is only due to the elastic deformation.

3 FEA Torsional Stiffness Results

Torsional stiffness is the ratio between the torque acting on the input pinion and the
relative elastic angular rotation between the input pinion and the output gear hubs
[9],
K T=Dh

The input torque load, boundary conditions and nodal couplings were applied on
the driving components and the outer rim of the ring gear is held xed.

3.1 Sun-Planet (Sp1) Subsystem Torsional Stiffness

The mesh stiffness variation of a sun-planet mesh was obtained from the isolated
sun-planet pair model, as shown in (c). The planet gear will still move around the
sun gear, acting as though there were a rigid carrier arm carrying the planet gear.
The torque Tsp1 was applied to the sun gear. If Dsp1 denotes the elastic angular
rotation of the sun gear hub, the torsional stiffness Ksp1 can be obtained using
Eq. (1). The sun angular rotation will cover 41.1, which is two planetary gear tooth
mesh cycles. Different torque magnitudes were applied to the sun gear hub and the
corresponding mesh stiffness is shown in Fig. 2.

1372

S. Xue et al.

Fig. 2 Sun-planet subsystem torsional stiffness under different applied torques

The major components of the sun-planet mesh stiffness are: (i) the gear body
stiffness, (ii) the teeth bending stiffness and (iii) the Hertzian contact stiffness. From
the results, it was found that as the input loads increased, the sun-planet mesh
stiffness varied slightly, which was mostly due to the Hertzian contact stiffness.
Also, the angle of handover varied with the increased load which is very similar to
the stiffness curve of a xed axis gear pair [10]. For example, the angle of the
handover region for load of 5 Nm is 0.2 while the width of the handover region for
a load of 200 Nm is 0.6.

3.2 Ring-Planet (Rp1) Subsystem Torsional Stiffness

The mesh stiffness variation of the ring-planet mesh was obtained from the isolated
ringplanet pair model, which also comes from the rst branch of the sun-planet
ring mesh, as shown in (d). The outer rim of the ring gear is fully constrained, with
no rotation and the planet was allowed the same movement as in the overall model,
with the rigid carrier arm constraining the planet to move around the ring gear. The
torque Trp1 = (Zp/Zs)Tsp1 was applied by the planet gear hub and if Drp1 denotes the
elastic angular rotation of the planet gear hub, the torsional stiffness Krp1 can be
obtained using Eq. (1). The planet angular rotation will cover 11.1, which is two
planetary teeth mesh cycles and the corresponding ring-planet torsional stiffness is
shown in Fig. 3.

3.3 Mesh Stiffness Comparison

The mesh stiffness variation of the combined sun-planet-ring (spr1) mesh was
obtained from the rst branch of the planetary gear set, as shown in (b). The ring
gear was constrained not to rotate and the sun gear hub and carrier arm hub were
constrained to only allow motion in the radial direction. The torque Tspr1 = Tsp1 was

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur Planetary Gears

1373

Fig. 3 Ring-planet subsystem torsional stiffness under different applied torque levels

applied on the sun gear hub. If Dspr1 denotes the resulting elastic angular rotation
of the sun gear hub, the torsional stiffness Kspr1 can be obtained using Eq. (1). The
carrier arm was initially modelled as a rigid beam to ensure the system only contained the sun-planet and ring-planet mesh stiffnesses. A comparison can be made
between Kspr1, Ksp1 and Krp1 under various loads, as shown in Fig. 4. The Ksp1 and

Fig. 4 Comparison between Kspr1, Ksp1 and Krp1 under various input loads, a 5 Nm, b 100 Nm

1374

S. Xue et al.

Krp1 results were plotted on the left ordinate, while the Kspr1 was plotted on the right
ordinate.
The shape of the sun-planet torsional stiffness plot dominates the shape of the
combined sun-planet-ring torsional stiffness curve. The Kspr1 trend changes with the
variation of Ksp1 shape, especially under higher input load. For example, the Krp1
under 100 Nm is almost a straight-line due to the corner contact while the variation
of Kspr1 remains very clear and the trend changes with the trend of the sun-planet
torsional stiffness.

3.4 Influence of Carrier Arm Stiffness

The combined sun-planet-ring mesh can be modelled either with a flexible carrier
arm or with a rigid carrier arm. It was found that the carrier arm stiffness cannot
change the gear mesh stiffness phase, but only change the gear mesh stiffness
magnitude. A flexible beam with a square cross-section can be used as an example
of the stiffness of the carrier arm and the dimension of 60 mm was chosen in this
research. Being a linear load bearing member, the effective torsional stiffness of the
carrier arm is constant 2.16 106 Nm/rad in this research.

3.5 Planetary Gear Torsional Stiffness with Multiple Planets

The overall planetary gear mesh stiffness variation can also be obtained from the
planetary gear set with the three planet model, as shown in (a). The outer rim of the
ring gear was again constrained not to rotate and the torque Ts = 3Tspr1 was applied
on the sun gear hub. If Ds denotes the resulting elastic angular rotation of the sun
gear hub, the overall torsional stiffness Ks can be obtained using Eq. (1), as shown
in Fig. 5. The angular rotation will cover two planetary teeth mesh cycles.

Fig. 5 Overall planetary gear torsional stiffness with 3 planets and flexible carrier arm

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur Planetary Gears

1375

4 Relationships Inside the Planetary Gear System

4.1 Phase Relationships Between the Torsional Stiffness
The relative mesh phase [8] between the chosen rst sun-planet mesh and the other
sun-planet meshes and also the relative mesh phase between the chosen rst ringplanet mesh and the other ring-planet meshes can be obtained from the mesh phase
relations [8]. sn, rn are the sun-planet n and ring-planet n mesh phase. For this
system (parameters in Table 1), it was found that sn = 0 and rn = 0, which indicates
there is no phase difference between s1, r1 and sn, rn. The mesh stiffness calculated from the isolated sun-planet and ring-planet gear pairs automatically contains the relative mesh phase required between the sun-planet and ring-planet.

4.2 Gear Mesh Stiffness Measured from Different

Components
The combined torsional mesh stiffness measured from a gear hub can be different
from that measured from the pinion hub. Tp, Tg are the torque applied on the pinion
and gear and p, g are the pinion and gear rotation angles. If Kp, Kg are the
torsional stiffness as measured from the pinion and gear hub respectively, the
relation between the two measured torsional stiffness will be,


Kp TP =hP u
Tg =hg =u u2
Tg =hg u2
Kg

where u is the gear speed ratio. From the calculation, it is found that when the gear
mesh stiffness value is measured from the pinion hub, it has to be scaled by the ratio
u squared. This relationship must be considered for both xed axis gear and
planetary gear systems. This indicates that the planetary gear overall stiffness
measured from the sun gear hub also has to be scaled with speed ratio squared for
comparison with the planetary gear overall stiffness measured from the carrier arm
hub.

4.3 Relationships Between Planetary Gear Torsional

Stiffnesses When Acting as a Speed Reducer
and as a Speed Multiplier
When the ring gear is held xed and the driving component is the sun gear, the
planetary gear train serves as a speed reducer, the output being taken from the
planet carrier arm. When the driving component is the carrier arm, the planetary
gear train becomes a speed multiplier. The overall torsional stiffness measured from

1376

S. Xue et al.

the sun and the carrier is different for both cases both in magnitude and phase. The
magnitude stiffness relationship can be written from Eq. (2),
Kc u2sc Ks

where Ks is the overall planetary stiffness measured from the sun gear hub, Kc is the
overall planetary stiffness measured from the carrier arm hub. usc = 1 + Zr/Zs is the
multiplier speed ratio. The difference in phase is due to the different tooth face that
will engage the mesh when having different driving component, and the theoretical
corresponding carrier arm rotation phase difference is /Zr = 1.8. In this research,
the torsional stiffness of the sun gear as the driving component leads the mesh
cycle.

5 Analytical Model of the Torsional Stiffness

In order to nd a predictive model for the sun-planet-ring torsional mesh stiffness, a
model having torsional springs connected in series can be used, as shown in Fig. 6.
As all the stiffness values are measured from the sun gear hub, the values of the
planet-ring mesh and the arm stiffnesses have to be scaled with the corresponding
gear ratios. The single branch sun-planet-ring torsional stiffness can then be calculated as,
1
0
Kspr1

u2sp
1
u2sc

Ksp1 Krp1 Kcarrier

0
is the sun-planet-ring torsional mesh stiffness calculated using the
where Kspr1
prediction model and usp = Zp/Zs is the sun-planet gear ratio. The stiffness of other
0
0
planet branches Ksp2r
and Kspr3
can also be obtained using the phase relation [8].
The analytical results for input load of 50 and 100 Nm for the single planet branch
case are shown in Fig. 7, along with the FEA comparison.
In the overall predictive model, the torsional stiffness of each sun-planet-ring
branch may be treated as a torsional spring connected in series as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Predictive model for a single branch of the sun-planet-ring mesh stiffness

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur Planetary Gears

1377

Fig. 7 Comparison between the single branch analytical and FEA torsional stiffness

The three branches may then be connected in parallel and the overall planetary gear
torsional stiffness calculated as,
0
0
0
Ks0 Kspr1
Kspr2
Kspr3

0
where Ks0 is the overall planetary gear torsional stiffness. Kspr1
can be calculated
0
0
0
using Eq. (4) and Kspr2 and Kspr3 has the same magnitude with Kspr1
.
Similarly, a model having torsional springs connected in series can be used as a
predictive model for the case of a single sun-planet-ring operating as a multiplier, as
shown in Fig. 8.
The magnitude for the single branch sun-planet-ring torsional stiffness as a
multiplier can be calculated as,

1
0
Krps1

1
Kcarrier

u2sp
Krp1
u2sc

1
1
0
Ksp1
u2sc Kspr1

u2sc

0
is the torsional stiffness for the single branch sun-planet-ring acting as a
where Krps1
multiplier. The theoretical phase difference is /Zr = 1.8 as analyzed in Sect. 4.3.
The results from the predictive model have been compared with the FEA result, and
are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 8 Predictive model for single branch of the sun-planet-ring mesh stiffness as a multiplier

1378

S. Xue et al.

Fig. 9 Comparison between the single branch analytical and FEA torsional stiffness

The three branches can be connected in parallel and the magnitude of the overall
planetary gear torsional stiffness acting as a multiplier can be calculated as,
0
0
0
Kc0 Krps1
Krps2
Krps3
Ks0
u2sc

where Kc0 is the overall planetary gear torsional stiffness acting as a multiplier.
A summary of relative errors between the analytical and FEA torsional stiffness
models is presented in Table 2. The pitch point and the middle of the double contact
points have been selected to calculate the relative errors. It was found that the
relative error at the pitch point is small and the relative error in the middle of the
double contact zone is larger. However, all relative errors are less than 4 %.

Table 2 Comparison of analytical and FEA results

Single branch as a reducer

with flexible arm
(100 Nm)
Multiple planets with sun
gear input (300 Nm)
Single branch as a
multiplier with flexible
arm (571 Nm)
Multiple planets with carrier
input (1713 Nm)

Location

FEA results
(kNm)

Analytical
results (kNm)

Relative
error (%)

Pitch point (0)

Double contact
point (1.8)
Pitch point (0)
Double contact
point (1.8)
Pitch point
(1.8)
Double contact
point (0)
Pitch point
(1.8)
Double contact
point (0)

3.46 101
3.98 101

3.44 101
3.83 101

0.6
3.8

1.032 102
1.15 102

1.026 102
1.18 102

0.6
2.6

1.13 103

1.12 103

0.8

1.30 103

1.25 103

3.8

3.33 103

3.37 103

1.2

3.71 103

3.75 103

1.1

The Torsional Stiffness of Involute Spur Planetary Gears

1379

6 Conclusion
A detailed calculation procedure for estimating the overall torsional mesh stiffness
of a planetary gearbox has been developed in this paper. It included the FEA
modelling of the individual sun-planet, ring-planet and carrier arm components and
illustrated how they can be combined together via the gear speed ratios. The
influence of the carrier arm stiffness has also been studied and showed that the
effective torsional stiffness of the carrier arm is constant. Four two-dimensional
plane stress FE models (Fig. 1) were employed to study the torsional stiffness
relationships in planetary gears and the results showed that the sun-planet torsional
stiffness characteristic dominates the variation of the sun-planet-ring mesh stiffness
characteristic over the meshing cycle.
The predictive models for the overall torsional stiffness based on the subsystem
models agreed well with the results from the FEA calculation and the relative error
was less than 4 %. It was found that the torsional stiffness relationships between the
subsystem and overall models were directly related by the square of the gear speed
ratios.

References
1. Kahraman A (1994) Natural modes of planetary gear trains. J Sound Vib 173(1):125130
2. Kahraman A (1994) Load sharing characteristics of planetary transmissions. Mech Mach
Theory 29(8):11511165
3. Ligata H, Singh A, Kahraman A (2009) A closed-form planet load sharing formulation for
planetary gear sets using a translational analogy. J Mech Des 131(2):021007
4. Lin J, Parker RG (1999) Sensitivity of planetary gear natural frequencies and vibration modes
to model parameters. J Sound Vib 228(1):109128
5. Lin J, Parker RG (2000) Structured vibration characteristics of planetary gears with unequally
spaced planets. J Sound Vib 233(5):921928
6. Chen Z, Shao Y (2013) Mesh stiffness of an internal spur gear pair with ring gear rim
deformation. Mech Mach Theory 69:112
7. Ambarisha VK, Parker RG (2007) Nonlinear dynamics of planetary gears using analytical and
nite element models. J Sound Vib 302(3):577595
8. Parker RG, Lin J (2004) Mesh phasing relationships in planetary and epicyclic gears. J Mech
Des 126(2):365370
9. Wang J, Howard I (2004) The torsional stiffness of involute spur gears. Proc Inst Mech Eng
Part C J Mech Eng Sci 218(1):131142
10. Wang J, Howard IM (2006) Error analysis on nite element modeling of involute spur gears.
J Mech Des 128(1):9097