268 Int. J. Hydromechatronics, Vol. 3, No.

3, 2020

Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear

Subhransu Kumar Panda,

Pradeep Kumar Mishra and
Biswaranjan Patra
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
CAPGS, BPUT, Rourkela, India
Email: subhransupanda3@gmail.com
Email: capgs.pkmishra@bput.ac.in
Email: biswaranjan.patra93@gmail.com

Subrata Kumar Panda*

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
NIT, Rourkela, India
Email: call2subrat@gmail.com
*Corresponding author

Abstract: The demand for high speed, enhanced performance and greater
reliable of machineries is increased, prediction and control of gear defects like
vibration, noise and diagnosis of same are the primary consideration. In this
paper, the static and dynamic behaviour of the spur gear are modelled and
analysed using SOLIDWORKS and three dimensional finite element method
(ANSYS workbench), respectively. Different stress components for spur gear
are evaluated with varying pressures angles, keyway types, i.e., single or
double made with both square or rectangular shape and material properties.
Minimum stresses are observed in the gear made of 20° pressure angle with
double square keyway. It is also found that stress components in the gear
decrease with an increase in pressure angle. Similarly, it can be concluded that
a single rectangle keyway with 14.5º pressure angle spur gear shows more
resistance to free vibration and grey cast iron is the suitable material.

Keywords: ANSYS; keyway; pressure angle; SOLIDWORKS; spur gear;

stress analysis.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Panda, S.K., Mishra, P.K.,
Patra, B. and Panda, S.K. (2020) ‘Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear’,
Int. J. Hydromechatronics, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.268–280.

Biographical notes: Subhransu Kumar Panda completed his Bachelor’s in

Mechanical Engineering at National Institute of Science and Technology,
Odisha, India. He completed his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering at
CAPGS, BPUT, India. He is currently pursuing his PhD at Department of
Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India. His
research works are focused in the field of solid mechanics, vibration, fracture
mechanics and finite element methods.

Pradeep Kumar Mishra completed his Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering at

Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Odisha, India. He completed his
Master’s in Mechanical Engineering at National Institute of Technology,

Copyright © 2020 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 269

Rourkela, India and received his PhD from Indian Institute of Technology,
Bhubaneswar, India. He is currently working as an Assistant Professor and
HOD at Department of Mechanical Engineering, CAPGS, BPUT, India. His
research interests are in the field of solid mechanics, vibration, composites,
fracture mechanics and finite element methods.

Biswaranjan Patra completed his Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering at

Modern Engineering and Management Studies, Odisha, India. He completed
his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering at CAPGS, BPUT, India. His research
works are focused in the field of automobile, solid mechanics, vibration, and
finite element methods.

Subrata Kumar Panda completed his Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering at

C. V. Raman College of Engineering, Odisha, India. He completed his Master’s
from Department of Applied Engineering and Mechanics and Drawing, Bengal
Engineering and Science University, Shibpur (HWH), WB, India and received
his PhD from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. He is currently
working as an Associate Professor at Department of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India. His research interests are in
the field of solid mechanics, smart composite structures, FGM, structural
optimisation, nonlinear finite element methods, etc.

1 Introduction

Gear is a rotating part of machine. It transmits torque, motion power from one shaft to
another shaft. It changes the speed, direction, and torque of power source. Now-a-days,
different type of gear sets is present in the market. According to the requirement, gear
sets are used. In general, the gears are mounted on shaft, which are supported by an
enclosed casing. In the gear mechanism, driver and driven gear run opposite to each other
and the smallest gear is called as pinion gear. When two gears are meshed with each
other, one gear rotate in clockwise direction and cause the other one to rotate counter
clockwise direction. The third gear will rotate in the direction of first gear and the fourth
gear will be same as of second. If two or more than two gears are meshed up to work in
sequence, then they form gear train or transmission. To achieve maximum efficiency and
life, gears are modelled to have backlash between meshed teeth. Backlash is the amount
of movement provided between the meshed teeth in a gear system and it results when the
tooth space exceeds the meshing tooth. It is required between meshed gears to avoid full
contact on both sides of teeth. The space created allows lubricant between the contacting
surfaces. Too little backlash can cause undesirable resistance resulting in the overheating
or jamming of the meshing gears.
Manickaraj (2014) used finite element method to analyse the spur gear drives. It is
very much important to calculate and predict the stress, deflection and stiffness of gear
drive. Because, these parameters are important to analyse the crack initiation and
propagation of gear system. Qin and Guan (2014) used Hertz theory and finite element
method to inspect the surface and subsurface stresses occurring in gear teeth. The smith
Watson topper method based on the multi axial fatigue mechanism used to predict the
number of loading cycles essential for fatigue crack initiation. The existence of the teeth
was brought to decrease the stresses on those points and enhance their fatigue life. By
270 S.K. Panda et al.

using asymmetric gears and shape optimisation method, Pedersen (2010) enhanced the
bending stress in spur gears. The bending stress is indirectly associated with form
modifications made to the cutting tool. The bending stress may be reduced substantially
by the use of asymmetric gear teeth and via shape optimising the equipment through
changes made to the geometry of the tool. Danieli and Mundo (2005) followed a
procedure to increase the contact ratio between the teeth of non-circular gears using a
pressure angle constant for any given tooth and also proposed a method to generate a
CAD representation. Gonzalez-Perez et al. (2011) approached a complete and effective
solution of the contact problem. Lin et al. (2007) gave an approach for mesh generation
of gear drives at any meshing position and presented an automatic modelling program for
tooth mesh analysis. This method was also used to simulate the gear behaviour under
dynamic loading conditions. Ramamurti and Rao (1988) presented a new approach to the
stress analysis of spur gear teeth using FEM. Their new approach was based on with a
cyclic system of gear teeth and with asymmetry of the load on the teeth. Osman and
Velex (2012) studied the interactions between contact fatigue and dynamic tooth loads on
gears. Their main objective was to examine the dynamic tooth loads to pitting in spur
gears and presented the comparison between experimental and simulated surface failure.
Kasuba and Evans (1981) evaluated dynamic load factors for gears of one and two
degree of freedom models having heavily loaded. Mark (1978) and Natarajan (2017)
analysed the vibration excitation of gear systems. He formulated the equations of motion
of a generic gear system in the frequency domain using Fourier-series coefficients of the
components of vibration excitation. Kahraman et al. (1992) developed a finite element
model of a geared rotor machine on flexible bearings. The tools mesh modelled through a
couple of inflexible disks connected via a spring and a damper with a regular value which
represented the average mesh size. Sweeney and Randall (1996) developed a scientific
method of calculating the static transmission error of an equipment set, primarily based
on the consequences of geometric parameter version on the transmission mistakes.
Du et al. (1998), Cornell (1986) and Tordion and Gerardin (1967) improved the
Sweeney’s basic model to outspread it to advanced quality gears where the tooth
deflection component was further significant. Klenz (1999) investigated a spur equipment
set with the usage of FEM. The stresses due to contact were examined the usage of one-
dimensional FEM version. The bending stress analysis was done on different thin rimmed
gears. Howard et al. (2001) and Cornell (1981) simplified the dynamic equipment version
to discover the impact of friction on the resultant gear vibration. Wang et al. (2001)
measured the nonlinear vibration of gear transmission systems. The progress in nonlinear
dynamics of gear driven system was reviewed, especially the gear dynamic behaviour by
considering the backlash and time-varying mesh stiffness of teeth. The primary standards
were the mathematical models and the solution methods for non-linear dynamics of gear
system.
Atanasovska (2016) developed a new method to study the influence of various
characteristics on the stability of spur gears. He prepared different algorithms and
followed various processes to do spur gear stability analysis. Oglieve et al. (2019)
combined finite element based TCA model to improve efficiency durability and NVH of
gear pairs. They used TCA model with lubricated contact mechanics analysis measured
from coordinate measuring machine (CMM) for real gear pairs. Similarly, planetary
systems provide advantage over traditional gear trains due to their required speed-torque
 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 271

variation. They also provided lighter, compact and co-axial construction. The frictional
loss between the gear teeth could be reduced by modifying the geometry of the gear teeth.
But, due to these modifications the durability of the system and integrity of the structure
would be reduced. Therefore, optimisation of the system is an important factor while
designing of gear (Fatourehchi et al., 2019; Beisekenov et al., 2019). Atanasovska and
Momcilovic (2016) followed finite element method to calculate the contact stresses based
on true contact involute geometry. It offers the stress gradients for theory of critical
distances (TCD) application in damage initiation prediction.
From the above mentioned literatures, it is found that finite element method is more
suitable for the analysis of spur gear and it is important to evaluate the stress induced in
the spur gear. The objectives of the present work are given as below:
1 3D stress analysis of the spur gear with different pressure angle to evaluate shear
stress, equivalent stress and maximum shear stress.
2 Evaluation of shear stress, equivalent stress and maximum shear stress of the spur
gear having different keyway.
3 Modal analysis method is used to calculate the suitable material for the design of
spur gears.

2 Modelling of spur gear

The geometrical model of spur gear was constructed using SOLIDWORKS software for
the designing process (Figures 1 and 2). After creating the model in SOLIDWORKS
software, the design is imported into ANSYS workbench software for further analysis of
the key factors such as stresses, deflections and modal analysis of the spur gear.

Figure 1 Dimensions of spur gear (see online version for colours)

The dimensions and the material properties of the spur gear are given Tables 1 and 2.
Figure 3 shows the meshed view of the spur gear. Accuracy and efficiency of finite
element method depends upon the meshing size of the model. A very fine mesh is used to
design the model so that the results would be more accurate.
272 S.K. Panda et al.

Figure 2 Representation of spur gear (see online version for colours)

Figure 3 Meshed view of spur gear (see online version for colours)

Table 1 Parameters used for the design of spur gear

Tooth geometry Driver Gear Driven Gear

No. of teeth (N) 31 31
Diametral pitch (P) 5” 5”
Pitch circle diameter (D) 6.20” 6.20”
Pressure angle (φ) 14.5° 14.5°
Addendum (A) 0.2” 0.2”
Dedendum (B) 0.23” 0.23”
Nominal shaft diameter 2-1/16 2-1/16
Keyway type Single Rectangle Single Rectangle
Face width 1” 1”
 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 273

Figure 4 Boundary condition of spur gear (see online version for colours)

Table 2 Material properties of spur gear

Density (ρ) 7,850 kg/m3

Coefficient of thermal expansion (α) 1.2E+5 °C–1
Temperature (t) 22°C
Young modules (E) 2E+11 Pa
Poisson ratio (υ) 0.3
Bulk modules (K) 1.6667E+11 Pa
Shear modules (G) 7.6923E+10 Pa
Tensile yield strength (TS) 2.5E+8 Pa
Compressive yield strength (CS) 2.5E+8 Pa
Tensile ultimate strength (UTS) 2.5E+8 Pa

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Validation study

In the spur gear, the shear stress (τ), equivalent stress (σv) and maximum shear stress
(σm) directly depends on the amount of load and type of load acting on the spur gear.
Performance and life span depend upon stress and deformation. To get the analysis
results, the SOLIDWORKS design model is imported to ANSYS Workbench and
boundary conditions are applied (Figure 4). For the design of the spur gear, 31 number of
teeth with a square keyway type are used. In this validation study, material type is
structural steel (Manickaraj, 201)).
From Table 3, it is concluded that the generated value for a single square keyway
with pressure angle 14.5° through simulation is approximately the same as the reference
value. Reference value and current analysis error value for equivalent stress is 10% and
274 S.K. Panda et al.

for maximum shear stress value error is 2% and for shear stress is 7%. From Table 4, it is
concluded that the generated value for square keyway with pressure angle 20° through
simulation is approximately same to the reference value. Reference value and current
analysis error value for equivalent stress is 7% and for maximum shear stress value error
is 3% and for shear stress is 2%.
Table 3 Comparison between present analysis and Manickaraj (2014) at pressure angle
of 14.5°

Type of analysis Reference value [1] Current value Error (%)

Equivalent stress (Pa) 2.9868 × 108 2.6946 × 108 10
Maximum shear stress (Pa) 1.5491 × 108 1.5284 × 108 2
Shear stress (Pa) 1.5468 × 108 1.446 × 108 7

Table 4 Comparison between present analysis and Manickaraj (2014) at pressure angle of 20°

Type of analysis Reference value Current value Error (%)

Equivalent stress (Pa) 2.8432 × 108 2.665 × 108 7
Maximum shear stress (Pa) 1.4787 × 108 1.5148 × 108 3
Shear stress (Pa) 1.3219 × 108 1.3079 × 108 2

3.2 Stress analysis results of spur gear

Different stress variations of the spur gear made with material properties (structural steel,
stainless steel and grey cast iron) are presented in Tables 5, 6 and 7. From the Table 5, it
is concluded that a double square type keyway with a 20° pressure angle have the best
performance than a common pressure angle of 14.5° for stress minimisation. Comparing
Tables 5, 6 and 7, it is also concluded that spur gear made with grey cast iron material
experience less than other two materials for the given loading and boundary conditions.
Table 5 Stress analysis results for different pressure angle and keyway for structural steel

Pressure Maximum Equivalent

Pitch diameter Diametral No. of
Key type angle shear stress stress
(inch) pitch (inch) teeth (N)
(degree) (Pascal) (Pascal)
6.20 5 31 Single 14.5–14.5 1.8627e8 3.3271e8
rectangle 20–20 1.5708e8 2.7657e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.383e8 2.4592e8
rectangle 20–20 1.2733e8 2.2817e8
Single 14.5–14.5 1.5284e8 2.6946e8
square 20–20 1.5148e8 2.665e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.2914e8 2.2637e8
square 20–20 1.1977e8 2.1063e8

3.3 Modal analysis

In this section, modal analysis of the spur gear has been carried out for different pressure
and geometry of the key. Two pressure angles (i.e., 14.5° and 20°), two key types
(rectangular and square key) and three materials (structural steel, stainless steel and grey
 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 275

cast iron) of the spur gear have been used to evaluate the modal responses. The
comparison of the results has been presented in Figures 5–12.
Table 6 Stress analysis results for different pressure angle and keyway for stainless steel

Pressure Maximum Equivalent

Pitch diameter Diametral No. of
Key type angle shear stress stress
(inch) pitch (inch) teeth (N)
(degree) (Pascal) (Pascal)
6.20 5 31 Single 14.5–14.5 1.8396e8 3.289e8
rectangle 20–20 1.7222e8 3.058e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.3698e8 2.4367e8
rectangle 20–20 1.2606e8 2.2601e8
Single 14.5–14.5 1.5142e8 2.6699e8
square 20–20 1.5004e8 2.6414e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.2819e8 2.2469e8
square 20–20 1.1879e8 2.0892e8

Table 7 Stress analysis results for different pressure angle and keyway for grey cast iron

Pressure Maximum Equivalent

Pitch diameter Diametral No. of
Key type angle shear stress stress
(inch) pitch (inch) teeth (N)
(Degree) (Pascal) (Pascal)
6.20 5 31 Single 14.5–14.5 1.9075e8 3.4012e8
rectangle 20–20 1.7795e8 3.1587e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.4088e8 2.503e8
rectangle 20–20 1.2983e8 2.3238e8
Single 14.5–14.5 1.5567e8 2.7436e8
square 20–20 1.5413e8 2.7132e8
Double 14.5–14.5 1.3104e8 2.2966e8
square 20–20 1.2172e8 2.14e8

Figure 5 Modal analysis result for single rectangle keyway with 14.5° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)

8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
276 S.K. Panda et al.

Figure 6 Modal analysis result for single rectangle keyway with 20° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 7 Modal analysis result for double rectangle keyway with 14.5° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 8 Modal analysis result for double rectangle keyway with 20° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 277

Figure 9 Modal analysis result for single square keyway with 14.5° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 10 Modal analysis result for single square keyway with 20° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 11 Modal analysis result for double square keyway with 14.5° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
278 S.K. Panda et al.

Figure 12 Modal analysis result for double square keyway with 20° pressure angle (see online
version for colours)
8000
Grey Cast Iron Stainless Steel Structural Steel
7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In Figures 5–12, all the modal responses (natural frequencies) shown are in Hz. It is
concluded that the spur gear made with grey cast iron have the lowest natural frequency
compared to spur gear made with structural steel and stainless steel materials. It is also
observed that that single rectangle keyway with 14.5° pressure angle spur gear shows
more resistance to free vibration. And, spur gear made with grey cast iron shows more
resistance to free vibration compared to stainless steel and structural steel.

4 Conclusions

Static and modal analysis of spur gear has been carried out using finite element method.
Stresses, deflections and natural frequencies of spur gear have been evaluated for varying
pressure angles, key geometries and gear materials. Material analysis using mathematical
methods and simulation software are common to select material for pinion and gear with
grey cast iron combination. In the present study, some clear deviation has been shown
during comparison of spur gear made with structural steel, stainless steel and grey cast
iron materials. The specific conclusions are outlined as follows.
• Change of spur gear material properties did not affect the physical and
environmental circumstances for gear manufacturing which will improve the
efficiency from an economical point of view.
• Maximum shear stress, equivalent stress and shear stress of the spur gear made with
grey cast iron material has minimum stresses and thus, increased life span.
• It is found that single rectangle keyway with 14.5° pressure angle spur gear shows
more resistance to free vibration.
• Spur gear made with grey cast iron shows more resistance compared to gear made
with stainless steel and structural steel.
• The present FEA results have concluded that the simulation software like ANSYS
would evaluate the failures occur to gearing system. Thus, it would reduce the
practical problems occur during preparation of the prototype and hence the cost.
 Static and dynamic analysis of spur gear 279

References
Atanasovska, I.D. (2016) ‘Influence of addendum modification on spur gears stability’,
International Journal of Powertrains, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.230–245.
Atanasovska, I.D. and Momcilovic, D.B. (2016) ‘Spur gear model for prediction of fatigue damage
initiation in contact zone’, International Journal of Powertrains, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.213–229.
Beisekenov, I., Spitas, C., Amani, A., Tsolakis, E. and Spitas, V. (2019) ‘Stress analysis of
self-aligning automotive gearing’, International Journal of Powertrains, Vol. 8, No. 2,
pp.93–114.
Cornell, R.W. (1981) ‘Compliance and stress sensitivity of spur gear teeth’, ASME, Transactions,
Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 103, pp.447–459.
Cornell, R.W. (1986) ‘Optimum profile modifications for the minimization of static transmission
errors of spur gears’, ASME J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des., Vol. 108, pp.86–94.
Danieli, G.A. and Mundo, D. (2005) ‘New developments in variable radius gears using constant
pressure angle teeth’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.203–217.
Du, S., Randall, R.B. and Kelly, D.W. (1998) ‘Modelling of spur gear mesh stiffness and static
transmission error’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal
of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 212, No. 4, pp.287–297.
Fatourehchi, E., Mohammadpour, M., King, P.D., Rahnejat, H. and Trimmer, G. (2019) ‘Effect of
tooth profile modification on the durability of planetary hub gears’, International Journal of
Powertrains, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.40–57.
Gonzalez-Perez, I., Iserte, J.L. and Fuentes, A. (2011) ‘Implementation of Hertz theory and
validation of a finite element model for stress analysis of gear drives with localized bearing
contact’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp.765–783.
Howard, I., Jia, S. and Wang, J. (2001) ‘The dynamic modelling of a spur gear in mesh including
friction and a crack’, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp.831–853.
Kahraman, A., Ozguven, H.N., Houser, D.R. and Zakrajsek, J.J. (1992) ‘Dynamic analysis of
geared rotors by finite elements’, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp.507–514.
Kasuba, R. and Evans, J.W. (1981) ‘An extended model for determining dynamic loads in spur
gearing’, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 103, No. 2, pp.398–409.
Klenz, S.R. (1999) Finite Element Analyses of a Spur Gear Set, Doctoral dissertation, MSc thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan.
Li, X., Sun, D., Liang, Y. and Wang, D. (2016) ‘Stability study of gear meshing area considering
friction of tooth surface’, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.466–483.
Lin, T., Ou, H. and Li, R. (2007) ‘A finite element method for 3D static and dynamic
contact/impact analysis of gear drives’, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 196, Nos. 9–12, pp.1716–1728.
Manickaraj, K. (2014) ‘Stress analysis of spur gear drive using finite element method by varying
pressure angle’, IJIRT, Vol. 1, No. 9, pp.2349–6002.
Mark, W.D. (1978) ‘Analysis of the vibratory excitation of gear systems: basic theory’, The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp.1409–1430.
Natarajan, S. (2017) ‘Vibration signal analysis using histogram features and support vector
machine for gear box fault diagnosis’, International Journal of Systems, Control and
Communications, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.57–71.
Oglieve, C., Sivayogan, G., Mohammadpour, M. and Rahnejat, H. (2019) ‘Lubricated loaded
tooth contact analysis for spur gear pair’, International Journal of Powertrains, Vol. 8, No.1,
pp.23–39.
Osman, T. and Velex, P. (2012) ‘A model for the simulation of the interactions between dynamic
tooth loads and contact fatigue in spur gears’, Tribology International, Vol. 46, No. 1,
pp.84–96.
280 S.K. Panda et al.

Pedersen, N.L. (2010) ‘Improving bending stress in spur gears using asymmetric gears and shape
optimization’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 45, No. 11, pp.1707–1720.
Qin, W.J. and Guan, C.Y. (2014) ‘An investigation of contact stresses and crack initiation in spur
gears based on finite element dynamics analysis’, International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences, Vol. 83, pp.96–103.
Ramamurti, V. and Rao, M.A. (1988) ‘Dynamic analysis of spur gear teeth’, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.831–843.
Sweeney, P.J. and Randall, R.B. (1996) ‘Gear transmission error measurement using phase
demodulation’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 210, No. 3, pp.201–213.
Tordion, G.V. and Gerardin, H. (1967) ‘Dynamic measurement of the transmission error in gears’,
in Proc. JSME Semi-International Symposium, September, pp.279–287.
Wang, W.J., Wu, Z.T. and Chen, J. (2001) ‘Fault identification in rotating machinery using the
correlation dimension and bispectra’, Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.383–393.