TECHNICAL

Rating of Asymmetric Tooth Gears

Alex L. Kapelevich and Yuriy V. Shekhtman
Asymmetric tooth gears and their rating are not described by existing gear design standards. Presented is a rating
approach for asymmetric tooth gears by their bending and contact stress levels, in comparison with symmetric
tooth gears, whose rating are defined by standards. This approach applies finite element analysis (FEA) for
bending stress definition and the Hertzian equation for contact stress definition. It defines equivalency factors for
practical asymmetric tooth gear design and rating. This paper illustrates the rating of asymmetric tooth gears with
numerical examples.

Introduction
Although the gear geometry and design
of asymmetric tooth gears (Fig.1) are
known and described in a number of
technical articles and books, they are
not covered by modern national and
international gear design and rating
standards. This limits their broad implementation for various gear applications, despite substantial performance
advantages in comparison to symmetric tooth gears for mostly unidirectional
drives. In some industries, like aerospace, which are accustomed to using
gears with nonstandard tooth shapes,
rating of these gears is established by
comprehensive testing (Ref.1). Unfortunately, such testing programs are not
affordable for the many less demanding gear drives that could also benefit
from asymmetric tooth gears. On the
other side, asymmetric teeth, though
nonstandard, have involute flanks like
standard involute gears with symmet-

Figure 1Asymmetric tooth gears.

ric teeth. Their drive and coast flank

involutes unwind from two different
base circles, and drive and coast pressure angles at a reference diameter are
different. Typically (but not always), a
drive tooth flank has a higher pressure
angle than the coast flank. Although
it leads to the drive flank contact ratio
reduction, selection of the drive tooth
flank with a higher pressure angle allows for reducing contact stress of the
drive flanks and increasing gear transmission density of asymmetric tooth
gears. An asymmetry factor that defines
the difference between drive and coast
pressure angles is a subject for optimization (Ref.2).
The goal of this article is to bridge
the gap between the stress evaluation
methods of symmetric and asymmetric tooth gears and to allow for the application of existing rating standards to
asymmetric tooth gears.

Design Methods of Asymmetric

Tooth Gears

Traditional design of asymmetric

tooth gears. Some researchers describe
the geometry of asymmetric tooth gears
by applying a traditional rack generating method (Refs.38). This method
defines asymmetric gear geometry by
the preselected asymmetric generating
gear rack parameters and addendum
modifications (Fig.2). Typically, an
asymmetric generating rack is modified from the standard symmetric rack
by increasing the pressure angle of one
flank. The opposite flank and other rack
tooth proportions remain unchanged.
Direct Design of asymmetric tooth
gears. The alternative Direct Gear Design method (Ref.9) does not limit gear
parameter definition by a preselected
generating rack, thus allowing comprehensive customization of asymmetric
tooth geometry to maximize gear drive
performance. This design method pres-

Figure 21) initial standard symmetric generating rack; 2)modified

asymmetric generating rack; 3)gear profile; Agear addendum;
Ddedendum; Xaddendum modification (X-shift); Rrack tip
radius; mmodule; ddrive profile (pressure) rack angle; ccoast
profile (pressure) rack angle.

Printed with permission of the copyright holder, the American Gear Manufacturers Association, 1001 N. Fairfax Street, Fifth Floor,
Alexandria, VA 22314-1587. Statements presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and may not represent the position or opinion
of the American Gear Manufacturers Association.

40

Power Transmission Engineering

APRIL 2016

WWW.POWERTRANSMISSION.COM

Figure 3Tooth profile (root fillet profiles

in red) znumber of teeth; dbd,
dbcbase diameters; vd, vcinvolute
intersection profile angles;
dwoperating pitch diameter; wd,
wcprofile (pressure) angles at
diameter; dw, Swcircular tooth
thickness at diameter; dw, datooth
tip circle diameter; symbols d and
c are for drive and coast tooth
flanks

ents an asymmetric tooth by two involutes of two different base circles (dbd
and dbc) and a tooth tip circle da (Fig.3).
Drive and coast profile (pressure)
angles d and c at operating pitch diameter dw:

( )
=arccos( d )
d
wd=arccos dbd
dw
wc

(1)
(2)

bc

Asymmetry factor K:
d
cos(vc) cos(wc)
K= bc =
=
1.0
dbd cos(vd) cos(wd)

(3)

Circular tooth thickness Sw at operating pitch diameter dw:

(4)

Sw=

dw
[inv(vd)+inv(vc)inv(wd)inv(wc)]
2

Equally spaced teeth form the gear.

The root fillet between teeth is the area
of maximum bending stress. Direct
Gear Design optimizes the root fillet profile, providing minimum bending stress concentration and sufficient
clearance with the mating gear tooth
tips in mesh (Refs.1011).

Comparable Symmetric Tooth

Gear Definition
In order to apply existing rating standards to asymmetric tooth gear rating,

Figure 4Transformation of asymmetric generating rack to symmetric rack for comparable

symmetric tooth gear generation. aasymmetric rack; bsymmetric rack;
ccomparable symmetric tooth profiles.

the asymmetric tooth gears must be replaced by comparable symmetric tooth

gears. Tooth geometry of these symmetric tooth gears should be described
by symmetric generating rack parameters and addendum modifications (or
X-shift coefficients).
Transformation of asymmetric generating rack to symmetric rack for
comparable symmetric tooth gear
generation. Traditional gear design of
asymmetric tooth gears uses an asymmetric generating rack and addendum
modifications. In order to define the
tooth geometry of comparable symmetric tooth gears, the asymmetric generating rack should be transformed to the
symmetric generating rack. Parameters
of this symmetric rack include (Fig.4):
APRIL 2016

Symmetric generating rack profile

(pressure) angle:
=

d+c
2

Rack addendum coefficient:

ha=

had+hac
2

Full rack tip radius coefficient:

r=

/4hatan
cos

Clearance coefficient:
c=r(1sin)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Addendum modification (X-shift) coefficients:

x1,2(sym)=x1,2(asym)
Power Transmission Engineering

(9)

41

TECHNICAL
where index 1 and 2 are for the pinion and gear, respectively.
Definition of symmetric rack for
comparable symmetric tooth gear
generation based on direct gear design of asymmetric tooth gear pair.
The Direct Gear Design method of
asymmetric tooth gears does not utilize
any racks to generate gear tooth geometry parameters. However, in order to define the tooth geometry of comparable
symmetric tooth gears that would be
used for asymmetric tooth gear rating,
the symmetric generating rack should
be defined by asymmetric gear parameters.
Parameters of this symmetric rack include (Fig.5):
Symmetric generating rack module:
r=

/4hatan
cos

(10)

where z1 and z2 are numbers of teeth of

the pinion and gear, respectively.
Profile (pressure) angle:
=

wd+wc
2

Rack addendum coefficient:

ha=

da1d1+da2d2
4m

Full rack tip radius coefficient:

r=

/4hatanw
cosw

Clearance coefficient:
c=r(1sinw)

(11)

(12)

c
(13)

(14)

Figure 5Definition of symmetric rack for comparable symmetric tooth gears generation
based on Direct Gear Design of asymmetric tooth gear pair amating
asymmetric tooth pinion and gear profiles; bsymmetric rack; ccomparable
symmetric tooth profiles.
Table 1Asymmetric and comparable symmetric tooth gear geometry data

Gear Pair

Asymmetric

Comparable Symmetric

Addendum modification (X-shift) coefficients:

x1=

s1s2
andx2=x1
4mtan

(15)

Depending on whether the asymmetric gear design method utilized is

traditional or direct, the symmetric
generating rack parameters defined by
Equations 59 or 1015 are used to design the comparable symmetric gears
and obtain their rating data for required
gear drive operating conditions. A sample of the asymmetric and comparable
symmetric tooth gear geometry data is
presented in Table 1.

Number of teeth
Module
Pressure Angle
Asymmetry Factor
Pitch Diameter (PD)
Base Diameter
Tooth Thickness at PD
Center Distance
Generating Rack Angle
Addendum Coefficient
Root Radius Coefficient
Root Clearance Coefficient
Profile Shift Coefficient
Tip Diameter
Root Diameter
Root Fillet Profile
Face Width
Contact ratio

20

49
5.000
35/20*
1.147
100.000
295.000
81.915/
200.692/
93.969*
230.225*
8.168
7.540
172.500

100.000

109.802

254.214

110.110

optimized

trochoidal

89.080**

233.597**

30.00

27.00

optimized

1.20/1.55*

20

5.000
27.5
1.0

88.701

8.168

0.060

295.000
217.318

172.500
27.5
0.951
0.327
0.176

7.540

-0.060

253.910

89.360
30.00

49

233.141

trochoidal
1.31

27.00

* drive/coast flanks, ** root fillet optimized

42

Power Transmission Engineering

APRIL 2016

WWW.POWERTRANSMISSION.COM

Stress Calculation of
Asymmetric and Comparable
Tooth Gears

Root bending stress and conversion

coefficients. The standard procedure
for bending stress calculation (based on
the Lewis equation) cannot be used for
asymmetric tooth gears because a symmetric Lewis parabola does not properly fit into an asymmetric tooth profile.
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a more
suitable analytical tool to calculate the
maximum root stress in the asymmetric
and comparable symmetric tooth gears
in order to define bending stress conversion coefficients. The Direct Gear
Design technique utilizes the FEA tooth
root bending stress calculation for both
symmetric and asymmetric tooth gears
(Ref.9). Correlations between standard
and FEA root stress were explored by
Vanyo Kirov (Ref.12). Although there are
differences in the standard and FEA root
stress calculation results, FEA allows
for defining conversion coefficients
between asymmetric and comparable
symmetric tooth maximum bending
stresses. A 2-D or 3-D FEA program can
be used for tooth root bending stress
calculations; this article describes the
2-D FEA procedure developed by Yuriy
Shekhtman. ANSYS software was used
for the 3-D FEA; the 2-D and 3-D finite
element meshes of the asymmetric and
comparable symmetric gear teeth are
shown in Table 2.
For the maximum root bending stress
calculation, normal load Fn is applied to
the highest point of single tooth contact
(HPSTC) of the drive tooth flank.
Fn=

2T1
dbd

2-D mesh

3-D mesh

Asymmetric
tooth

Comparable
symmetric
tooth

Table 3Root fillet stress of asymmetric and comparable symmetric teeth

2D mesh

3D mesh

Asymmetric
tooth

Comparable
symmetric
tooth

(16)

where T1 is the pinion driving torque,

db1 is the pinion base diameter.
The pinion and gear conversion coefficients are:

CF1,2= Fmax (sym)1,2

Table 22-D and 3-D finite element meshes of asymmetric and comparable symmetric teeth

(17)

Fmax(asym)1,2

where Fmax(asym)1,2 and Fmax (sym)1,2 are the

maximum FEA root bending stresses of
the asymmetric and comparable symmetric tooth pinion and gear.
Table 3 includes 2-D and 3-D finite element stress models of the asymmetric
and comparable, symmetric gear teeth.

The standard tooth flank contact

stress calculation procedure (based on
the Hertzian equation) is suitable for
both symmetric and asymmetric tooth
gears.
The Hertzian equation allows for calculating the maximum contact stress
in asymmetric and comparable symmetric tooth gears to define the contact
stress conversion coefficients.
The Hertzian contact stress is:
E
1 1
+
( bF )( 2 (1v
) )( )

F=

(18)

APRIL 2016

where b is face width in contact, E and

v are modulus of elasticity and Poisson
ratio, assuming mating pinion and gear
materials are identical, 1 and 2 are pinion and gear curvature radii in contact.
For a spur pinion and gear with a contact ratio < 2.0, the maximum flank contact stress is localized near the lowest
point of single tooth contact (LPSTC) of
the drive tooth flank of the pinion. The
pinion drive flank LPSTC point coincides with the gear drive flank HPSTC
point (Fig.6).

Power Transmission Engineering

43

TECHNICAL
where SF(sym)1,2 are the root bending safety
factor of comparable symmetric tooth
gears defined by the rating standards.
The rated contact safety factor of
asymmetric tooth gears is:
(21)

SH(asym)=CH SH(sym)

where SH (sym) is the flank contact safety

factor of comparable symmetric tooth
gears defined by the rating standards.
A sample of the asymmetric and
comparable symmetric tooth gear
stress analysis results is presented in
Table 4; geometric data for these gears
is in Table 3.

Summary
b

Figure 6Contact stress point.

The contact stress conversion coefficient is

CH= Hmax (sym)

national and international standards

(Refs.1314). In order to apply these
rating standards to asymmetric tooth
gears, the bending and contact safety
factors defined for the comparable symmetric tooth gears should be multiplied
by the contact and bending conversion
coefficients accordingly. Then the rated
bending safety factors of asymmetric
tooth gears are:

(19)

Hmax(asym)

where Hmax (asym) and Hmax (sym) are the

maximum Hertzian contact stresses of
the asymmetric and comparable symmetric tooth gears pairs.

Standard Rating of Asymmetric

Tooth Gears

(20)

SF(asym)1,2=CF1,2 SF(sym)1,2

The rating of involute gears with symmetric tooth gears is established in

This article outlines a simple and effective approach to rating asymmetric

tooth gears using existing, symmetric
tooth gear rating standards that include:
Conversion of the asymmetric
tooth geometry to the comparable
symmetric tooth geometry and
definition of its generating rack
Calculation of maximum bending
stresses using 2-D or 3-D FEA to
both asymmetric and comparable
symmetric gear teeth
Calculation of maximum contact
stresses for both asymmetric and
comparable symmetric gear teeth
using the Hertzian equation
Definition of the bending and
contact stress conversion coefficients
Standard stress analysis for the

Table 4Asymmetric and comparable symmetric tooth gear stress analysis results

Gear Pair

Asymmetric

Number of teeth
Module
Pressure Angle
Torque, Nm
RPM
Service Life, hours
Material type
Bending Stress (2D FEA), MPa
Bending Stress (3D FEA), MPa
Bending Stress, MPa
Contact Stress, MPa
Maximum Contact Stress, MPa
Bending Stress Conversion Coefficients (2D FEA), CF1,2
Bending Stress Conversion Coefficients (3D FEA), CF1,2
Contact Stress Conversion Coefficients (Hertz), CH
Bending Safety Factors
Contact Safety Factors

20

Comparable Symmetric

49

20

5.000
350/200*
900
1000

49
5.000
27.5

2205
408

900
1000

2000
2000
Carburized, case harden steel, like AISI 8620
276
277
309
295(+7%)
284(+2.5%)
320(+3.5%)
448*
1507*
1257
1349
1.120
1.206
1.085
1.232
1.073
1.90/1.84**
1.95/2.00**
1.70*
1.02
1.12
0.95*

2205
408
334
350(+5%)
480*
1407*

1.62*
1.04*

*Calculation method: per ISO 6336 standard, **2D/3D FEA

44

Power Transmission Engineering

APRIL 2016

WWW.POWERTRANSMISSION.COM

comparable symmetric gear tooth

and definition of the contact and
bending safety factors
Definition of the contact and
bending safety factors for
asymmetric tooth gears using the
symmetric tooth gear safety factors
and the bending and contact stress
conversion coefficients
The presented asymmetric tooth
gear rating approach allows
expanding implementation of
these types of gears in many
primarily unidirectional gear
drives, thus maximizing their
performance.

11. AKGears tooth root fillet optimization

software www.akgears.com/software.htm,
2015.
12. Kirov, V. Comparing AGMA and FEA
Calculations, Gear Solutions, February
011, 3945.
13. Standard ISO 6336/2006. Calculation of
Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears.
14. Standard ANSI/AGMA 2001-D04.
Fundamental Rating Factors and
Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
Helical Gear Teeth, 2004.

References
1. Brown, F.W., S.R. Davidson, D.B. Hanes,
D.J. Weires and A. L. Kapelevich. Analysis
and Testing of Gears with Asymmetric
Involute Tooth Form and Optimized
Fillet Form for Potential Application
in Helicopter Main Drives, AGMA Fall
Technical Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
October 1819, 2010, (10FTM14), also
published in Gear Technology, June/July
2011, 4655.
2. Kapelevich, A. L. Asymmetric Gears:
Parameter Selection Approach, Gear
Technology June/July 2011, 4851.
3. DiFrancesco, G. and S. Marini. Structural
Analysis of Asymmetrical Teeth:
Reduction of Size and Weight, Gear
Technology, September/October 1997,
4751.
4. Gang, G. and T. Nakanishi. Enhancement
of Bending Load Carrying Capacity of
Gears Using an Asymmetric Involute
Tooth, Paper presented at the JSME
International Conference on Motion and
Transmissions (MPT2001-Fukuoka), 2001,
Fukuoka, Japan.
5. Karpat, F., K. Cavdar and F.C. Babalik.
Computer Aided Analysis of Involute
Spur Gears with Asymmetric Teeth, VDI
Berichte. 1904 I 2005: 145163.
6. Brecher, C. and J. Schafer. Potentials of
Asymmetric Tooth Geometries for the
Optimization of Involute Cylindrical
Gears, VDI Berichte. 1904 I 2005: 705720.
7. Pedersen, N.L. Improving Bending Stress
in Spur Gears Using Asymmetric Gears
and Shape Optimization, Mechanism and
Machine Theory, 45 2010: 17071720.
8. Wang, S., G. R. Liu, G. Y. Zhang and L.
Chen. Design of Asymmetric Gear and
Accurate Bending Stress Analysis Using
the ES-PIM with Triangular Mesh,
International Journal of Computational
Methods, Vol. 8, No. 4. 2011, World
Scientific Publishing Company, 759772.
9. Kapelevich A.L. Direct Gear Design, CRC
Press, 2013
10. Kapelevich, A. L. and Y. V. Shekhtman.
Tooth Fillet Profile Optimization for
Gears with Symmetric and Asymmetric
Teeth, Gear Technology, September/
October 2009, 7379.

Dr. Alex Kapelevich operates

the gear design consulting

firm AKGears, LLC. He is a
developer of modern Direct
Gear Design methodology
and software. He has over 30
years of experience in custom
gear drive development,
with particular expertise in gear transmission
architecture, planetary systems, gear tooth
profile optimization, asymmetric tooth gears,
and gear drive performance maximization.
Kapelevich is author of the book Direct Gear
Design and many technical articles.

Dr. Yuriy Shekhtman is

an expert in mathematical
modeling and stress analysis.
Drawing upon over 40 years
experience, he has created
a number of computer
programs based on FEA and
other numerical methods.
A software developer for
AKGears, Dr. Shekhtman is also the author of
many technical publications (y.shekhtman@
gmail.com).

For Related Articles Search

gear design
at www.powertransmission.com

APRIL 2016

MISSING
A
PIECE?

Weve got you covered! Go to

powertransmission.com to see what
you missed in last months issue,
plus another eight years of back
issues, industry and product news,
and more!

In last months issue:

Our annual Buyers Guide
Choosing chain or belt drives
The industrial Internet is changing
everything
Preventing Roller Bearing Failure
... and more!

Power Transmission Engineering

45