Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

ES3323 - Project 2 Report - Reverse Engineering a Gear Shaft

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

ES3323 - Project 2 Report - Reverse Engineering a Gear Shaft

  1. 1. Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, Massachusetts Project 2 ES 3323: Advanced Computer Aided Design Prof. Holly Ault Daniel Ruiz-Cadalso Tino Christelis 12/15/2016
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 3 Problem Statement.......................................................................................................................... 4 Background..................................................................................................................................... 5 Reverse Engineering....................................................................................................................... 8 Modelling Strategy........................................................................................................................ 10 Experimental Results .................................................................................................................... 17 Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 23 References..................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix A: Animation of Part Creation ................................................................................. 25 Appendix B: Experimental Setup Pictures ............................................................................... 26 Appendix B1: Pendulum Swing ........................................................................................... 26 Appendix B2: Bifilar Torsion Pendulum.............................................................................. 27
  3. 3. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Isometric View of the Testing Part.................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Bifilar Torsion Pendulum Setup [1]................................................................................ 7 Figure 3: Schematic Representation of the Testing Part Geometry and Dimensions..................... 9 Figure 4: Model Tree of Completed Part and Gear Properties (Relations Tab) ........................... 11 Figure 5: Revolve Profile.............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 6: Revolve Feature............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 7: Hole Features................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 8: Round Features.............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 9: Chamfer Features .......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: Gear Chamfer / Bevel Feature..................................................................................... 13 Figure 11: Tooth Profile (An Involute Curve).............................................................................. 14 Figure 12: Datum Features in Preparation of Tooth Profile Design............................................. 14 Figure 13: Blend Feature Applied between Profiles, followed by Axial Pattern ......................... 15 Figure 14: Isometric View of Completed Part.............................................................................. 16 Figure 15: Schematic Diagram of the Experimental Setups......................................................... 17 Figure 16: PTC Creo Mass Properties Report .............................................................................. 21
  4. 4. PROBLEM STATEMENT The reverse engineering design process on some components tends to be complex and should be corroborated with experimental investigations and results. There is a wide variety of methods to validate these results, and thus, in this experiment the computer-aided results, which include the center of gravity and moment of inertia, will be compared to the data collected from the pendulum swing and torsion test. The testing part is a gear-shaft and is being referred to as the testing part throughout the report. It consists of a shaft with a step-variation in the cross-section and four distinct gears. The whole part is initially assumed to be of the same material with uniformly-distributed density. With the aid of some physics-derived equations relating the period, pendulum radius, and weight of part, the center of gravity can be localized and the moment of inertia can be calculated for comparison with the computer-aided results. See Figure 1 for a rendered isometric view of the testing component. Figure 1: Isometric View of the Testing Part
  5. 5. BACKGROUND For completely describing the geometry of a gear, the following three governing parameters were needed: number of teeth, pressure angle, and pitch diameter. With these, along with previously-derived parametric equations that are used for defining the gear tooth profile, the complete gear geometry can be constructed. Table 1 shows all of the gear characteristics, which are functions of the three mentioned independent parameters. Table 1: Gear Characteristics Parameter Symbol Definition Number of Teeth 𝑁 𝑁 Pitch Diameter 𝑃𝐷 𝑃𝐷 Pressure Angle 𝜙 𝜙 Base Diameter 𝐵 𝑃𝐷 ∙ cos⁡( 𝜙) Root Diameter 𝑅 𝑃𝐷 − 𝐷𝑒 Dedendum 𝐷𝑒 1.25𝑃𝐷/𝑁 After defining all the needed characteristics of each gear, the mentioned parametric equation that has been derived previously can be used to generate the curve for the tooth profile, shown as follows: 𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑥𝑖(𝑡) + 𝑠(𝑡) ∙ sin(𝜃(𝑡)) 𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑦𝑖(𝑡) − 𝑠(𝑡) ∙ cos(𝜃(𝑡)) 𝑧(𝑡) = 0 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒⁡ { 𝑥𝑖(𝑡) =⁡⁡⁡⁡ 𝑟𝑖 ∙ cos(𝜃(𝑡)) 𝑦𝑖(𝑡) =⁡⁡⁡⁡ 𝑟𝑖 ∙ sin(𝜃(𝑡)) 𝑠(𝑡) =⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡(𝜋𝑟𝑖 𝑡)/2⁡ 𝜃(𝑡) = ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑡 ∙ 90 𝑜 ⁡⁡⁡𝑎𝑛𝑑⁡⁡⁡ { 𝑟𝑖 = ⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠⁡𝑜𝑓⁡𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒⁡𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑡 = ⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝐴𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑦⁡𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
  6. 6. The experimental data from the pendulum swing tests, which will consist of a variation of swing radii and their respective periods, needs to be used with the aid of some equations that describe the relationship between these and the required output, which are the center of gravity location and the moment of inertia. In the case where the pendulum’s total mass consists of two parts, being the testing part and a support component, the parallel axis theorem works perfectly for describing the moment of inertia of the part with respect to the pendulum swing axis, and is as follows: 𝐼 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑙 = 𝐼 + 𝑚𝑟2 where 𝑟 is the radius of the part’s center of gravity to the pendulum swing axis, and 𝐼 is the moment of inertia of the part about a specified axis that is parallel to the pendulum swing axis. Therefore, an equation was derived for the moment of inertia of the testing part, and is as follows [1]: 𝐼 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡(𝑟, 𝑇) = 𝐼 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 ′′ (𝑟, 𝑇) − 𝑚 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑟2 where, 𝐼 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 ′′ (𝑟, 𝑇) = 𝑊𝑆 𝐿 𝑆 + 𝑊𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝐿 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡 4𝜋2 ∙ 𝑇2 − 𝐼𝑆 ′′(𝑟) Thus, with this relationship, the moment of inertia for various pendulum swing radii, which will consist of various periods, can be calculated. The parallel axis theorem, however, is not needed for the bifilar pendulum torsion test because, if perfectly positioned, the whole system rotates about the axis centered through the center of gravity. In this case, the equation needed for relating the experimental data to the required output results is the following [1]: 𝐼 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡(𝑇) = 𝑊𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑2 16𝜋2 𝐷 ∙ 𝑇2 − 𝐼 𝐺𝑒𝑎𝑟 in which the moment of inertias are with respect to the rotating axis. In the above equation, d is the spacing between bifilars, and D is the length of the bifilars; both of which are detailed below in Figure 2.
  7. 7. Figure 2: Bifilar Torsion Pendulum Setup [1]
  8. 8. REVERSE ENGINEERING A 2D schematic sketch (Y-Z plane) of the part was drawn in order to properly organize the geometry, along with the sketch dimensions. Additionally, since one simple 2D sketch is not enough to completely define the part geometry for modelling, each gear was shown individually with a front view of each. The mentioned sketch can be seen in Figure 3. Each dimension was measured with the use of a digital caliper, and assuming the part was originally modelled using the drafting standard ANSI, each of these measurements were rounded to the nearest 1/32”. To simplify the Z-coordinate dimensions, the Ordinate Dimension method was used for the sketch. Keep in mind, the dimensions shown in the sketch were rounded to the nearest 0.01”, although the real value is a factor of 1/32”. Chamfers were measured very carefully by distance-distance, although noted as distance-angle in the schematic sketch. As for the fillets near the gears, the distance from the gear front face to the point of tangency between the fillet and the outer face of the tube was measured and used as the fillet radius.
  9. 9. Figure 3: Schematic Representation of the Testing Part Geometry and Dimensions After having completely defined the shaft and the gear positions, the gears were individually inspected. With the aid of the curve equation derived for gear tooth profiles (see Background), the tooth profile for each gear was successfully determined using the following gear parameters: number of teeth (𝑁), pressure angle (𝜙) and the pitch diameter (𝑃𝐷). Using a simple scale available in the WPI Experimentation Lab the mass of the part was weighed to be 2.6359𝑘𝑔, which converts to 5.811𝑙𝑏𝑓. Because the material of the part was an unknown, a creative method had to be applied to determining what the part was made of. After the part was modeled in PTC Creo, dividing the mass of the part by the volume of the part (calculated in PTC Creo) equated to a part density of approximately 0.278𝑙𝑏𝑚/𝑖𝑛3 . This calculation assumes a constant material and density throughout the part. Determining an actual material for the part will be covered at the end of the Modelling Strategy section.
  10. 10. MODELLING STRATEGY Good modeling strategy and design intent are essential to good engineering design. Manufacturability, mathematics, and practicality must all be taken into consideration in the modeling of any part. It was decided that the best way to design the part would be to group most of the dimensions in a single revolve to create the main body, followed by hole and chamfer / fillet features, and then completed with gear teeth modeling. For optimal visualization of this process, an animation of the entire making of the part is available for viewing and can be found in Appendix A. First steps included deciding on a part origin and setting relations for gear data. The orientation of the part was set such that the origin’s Z-Axis was located along the axial center (positive Z away from the part) and coincident with outward-facing side of the smallest gear (positive X to the right of part). Gear values that were calculated using methods mentioned in the above section were all imported in a relation tab, so that the values could be easily accessed for later reference.
  11. 11. Figure 4: Model Tree of Completed Part and Gear Properties (Relations Tab) The initial step that set the groundwork for the rest of the design was a revolve feature of the entire profile of the part. Looking at the probable method of machining for the part, its axial symmetry suggests the part was first spun and operated on with a lathe. To retain good design intent, it follows that parts should be designed with manufacturability in mind, and so a revolve feature was deemed optimal for the creation of the base body. Set up on a sketch on the Right Plane, diameter and length dimensions were all added to the profile until it was completely constrained. This profile includes both the shaft and gears so the entire part is created in almost a single feature. The profile was fully revolved about the Z Axis, forming the base body. Figure 5: Revolve Profile
  12. 12. Figure 6: Revolve Feature Holes features were next to be applied. All of the hole-features were aligned with the Z- axis to be centered along the part. The first hole created was featured on the front plane and was set to a depth as being up to the surface of the end of the part. Two step holes were then added on either side, each with a blind depth equal to their measured values. Figure 7: Hole Features Next, rounds were added to appropriate corners.
  13. 13. Figure 8: Round Features Chamfers of various sizes and angles were applied to the step holes. Figure 9: Chamfer Features Because all of the gears seem to have a slight “bevel” along the teeth, a chamfer was also applied to the edges of the gears. Creating the gear teeth was a two stage process: creating the tooth profile and creating a patterned blend feature. In order for a gear tooth to transmit forceFigure 10: Gear Chamfer / Bevel Feature
  14. 14. upon other gear teeth such that the force maintains a constant direction tangential to the gear, the geometry of a gear tooth is that of an involute circle. This mathematical definition for gear tooth design was realized in PTC Creo by creating a new coordinate system (CS_1 below) which was then referenced by an equation-driven curve (math for involute circle). By gear sizing standards, the equation behind a tooth profile begins at the base diameter (bd_1). This is the only variable needed for the involute equation. Figure 11: Tooth Profile (An Involute Curve) With the curve now in the PTC Creo environment, some addition datum features and copies of the same curve needed to be made. A point was constructed to be coincident with both the prime diameter and the involute curve; this is used later on for sketch constraints. The point and curve were then both copied and rotated about the Z-axis, first by (360 / N) degrees forming one side of the tooth profile, and then by (0.5 * 360 / N) degrees in order to create a reference curve. A plane was constructed through the Z-axis and the point on this “middle” reference curve. The “middle” curve was mirrored about this plane, providing the other size of the gear tooth profile.Figure 12: Datum Features in Preparation of Tooth Profile Design
  15. 15. Given a left and right bound reference curve for the tooth profile, all that was left to do was fill in the blanks. A 2-point tangent arc was constructed between the two reference curves, and constrained to be tangent to a circle representing of the root diameter (rd_1). To close the profile, and arc was created of a radius greater than the gear radius via relations, and set between the two tooth curves. The profile created by this sketch is a “negative”, as it will be used to cut through the main body. The same sketch was copied to the opposite face of the gear, and rotated by an amount approximately equal to the angle of the real gear teeth (computed through a relation). A straight blend between both these sketches was featured, and then patterned axially about the part an amount equal to the number of gear teeth (N_1). It should be noted that the blend feature was chosen over a helical sweep because a helical sweep can only use a profile that is normal to the helical path, which can’t apply to our teeth “negative”s as they would be normal to a helical path. Figure 13: Blend Feature Applied between Profiles, followed by Axial Pattern
  16. 16. Once this process was repeated 3 more times for the other gears, the part was complete. The only difference in values for other gears are related to prime, base, root diameters, and number of teeth. Upon completion, the volume of the part was measured and used to produce an approximate part density of 0.278 lbm/in3. This calculated density is very close to the density of steel which is 0.283 lbm/in3. With only a 0.005 difference between densities, it was decided that the material of the part would be set to the PTC Creo default values for steel. Figure 14: Isometric View of Completed Part
  17. 17. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Mathcad screenshots can be found in Appendix C As a preparation, the part was first balanced on a straight thin ruler in order to locate its center of gravity and confirm with the computer-aided results. The pendulum experimental setup consisted of a rectangular lexan support part that was attached to a fluorocarbon string. The pendulum experiments consisted of measuring the oscillating periods for a variation of pendulum radii. Figure 15 (A and B) shows a schematic drawing of the pendulum setup for both the swing and the torsion test, which contains the testing part, the support component, and the string, along with the fixture where the axis takes place. Photos of the actual setups can be seen in Appendix B. Figure 15: Schematic Diagram of the Experimental Setups (a) Pendulum Swing (b) Bifilar Torsion The pendulum swing test was used for investigating the moment of inertia with respect to the X and Y axis, which should be equal due to the axial symmetry of the part. The set up pictures for this part of the experiments is shown in Appendix B1. The pendulum was first set to a radius of 13 inches and raised to any height in which the string does not make an angle larger than 30o
  18. 18. with respect to the vertical axis. Data gathered from pendulum swings greater than 30o cannot apply to the equations discussed in the background section. As the pendulum swung, five periods were collected in order to minimize the error band as needed. The pendulum was then set to a different radius and the same experiment repeated, followed by the same type of data collection. With these results, along with the parallel axis theorem derived equations, the moment of inertias with respect to the X and Y axes can be successfully calculated, with a significantly small error band. Table 2 shows the pendulum swing experimental results, along with the calculated moment of inertias for each test. Table 2: Pendulum Swing Test Results Period Intervals Radius = 13 in Radius = 19 in t1 1.084s 1.332s t2 1.088s 1.320s t3 1.100s 1.328s t4 1.088s 1.322 t5 1.072s 1.320s Average Time 1.086s 1.324s Average Moment of Inertia (X-X, Y-Y) 31.348 𝑖𝑛2 ∙ 𝑙𝑏𝑚 15.056 𝑖𝑛2 ∙ 𝑙𝑏𝑚 The moment of inertia with respect to the Z-axis of the part was investigated using the Bifilar Torsion Pendulum test, in which the part was setup as shown in Appendix B2. The pendulum was again rotated to an initial position less than 30o for compatibility with the theoretical equations. While in motion, as soon as the pendulum achieved stable oscillations about the vertical axis, the time for a total of ten oscillations was recorded. This was then used to determine the average time for one oscillation. Afterwards, the moment of inertia with respect to the Z-axis was calculated, and shown in Table 3 along with the rest of the results.
  19. 19. Table 3: Bifilar Torsion Pendulum Test Results Period Intervals Period Time t1 0.505s t2 0.507s t3 0.497 t4 0.503s t5 0.501s Average Time 0.503s Average Moment of Inertia (Z-Z) 5.021 𝑖𝑛2 ∙ 𝑙𝑏𝑚
  20. 20. DISCUSSIONS With the experimental data, the test and computer-aided results can now be compared. Figure 16 shows the Mass Properties report of the CAD part, which contains properties such as volume, density, COG, moment of inertia, etc. Within this information, the COG is reported to be located at coordinates (0, 0, -4.25”) from the coordinate frame system, which is located at the leftmost face from the sketch in Figure 3. The experimentally-calculated COG was recorded as 2.75” from the right face of the rightmost gear, which in terms of the coordinate frame system would be located at (0, 0, -4.44”). Therefore, it is safe to assume that the overall geometry of the part was constructed correctly. However, the moment of inertia results need to be compared for complete validation. Looking at the Mass Properties Report (Figure 16), the Inertia Tensor that is displayed shows the same values for X-X and Y-Y, which validates our axial symmetry assumptions for the part. The moment of inertia for X-X and Y-Y was calculated by PTC Creo to have a value of 28 𝑖𝑛2 ∙ 𝑙𝑏𝑚. Experimental results for a radius of 13” indicate an average moment of inertia of approximately 31 𝑖𝑛2 ∙ 𝑙𝑏𝑚, which compared to the computer-aided results, is very similar. The moment of inertia value with respect to the Z-axis is reported as 5.79 in2lbm in the Mass Properties report generated by Creo. This compares extremely well to the moment of inertia calculated from the Bifilar Torsion Pendulum test results, which is 5.021 in2lbm.
  21. 21. Figure 16: PTC Creo Mass Properties Report It should be noted that while working on the calculations for the moment of inertia, the time period for the oscillations was noticed to have a great influence on the variation of it. For example, the X-X moment of inertia calculated with the pendulum swing test results varied by a difference of approximately 6 in2lbm from a time of 1.084 to 1.088 seconds, and thus, the error factor between the measured experimental time and the moment of inertia is extremely high. This means that manual timing was critical and needed to be as precise as possible. This was, however, compensated significantly by taking multiple time measurements of the same oscillations, which were averaged. This concludes that the 3 in2lbm difference from the Creo results and the pendulum swing experimental results for the small radius is not significant. This may also be the explanation of the wide difference (approx. 13 in2lbm) between the pendulum swing experimental results for
  22. 22. the large radius and the computer-aided results. The minimal differences that are noticed in the results exist solely due to the following: imperfect measurements, small density variations in the distribution due to wear of the part, energy losses in the pendulum due to imperfect initial positions, manual timing of the pendulum period oscillations, etc.
  23. 23. CONCLUSION It is safe to conclude that the Reverse Engineering process of this project was done correctly and with great precision. It is clear that the Creo software is extremely accurate in its mass property calculations, and that CAD software is an essential tool for calculating the properties about a complex object when real life experimentation is not a viable option. From this project, a great deal was learned about specific and highly-applicable Creo features, such as creating curves driven by equations, limitations on sweep functions, and the methodology behind angled-tooth gear design in a CAD environment.
  24. 24. REFERENCES [1] Gracey, W. (1948). The Experimental Determination of the Moments of Inertia of Airplanes by a Simplified Compound-Pendulum Method. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
  25. 25. APPENDICES Appendix A: Animation of Part Creation Link to Animation of Part Creation: http://i.imgur.com/nCO6haF.gifv
  26. 26. Appendix B: Experimental Setup Pictures Appendix B1: Pendulum Swing
  27. 27. Appendix B2: Bifilar Torsion Pendulum
  28. 28. Appendix C: Mathcad Files

×