Research Papers

Comparison of Skin Model Representations and Tooth Contact Analysis Techniques for Gear Tolerance Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Jean-Yves Dantan

LCFC - Arts et Métiers ParisTech,
4 rue A. Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
e-mail: jean-yves.dantan@ensam.eu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Computers and Information Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SCIENCE IN ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 25, 2014; final manuscript received September 30, 2014; published online April 8, 2015. Editor: Bahram Ravani.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 15(2), 021010 (Jun 01, 2015) (5 pages) Paper No: JCISE-14-1299; doi: 10.1115/1.4028961 History: Received September 25, 2014; Revised September 30, 2014; Online April 08, 2015

To improve the tolerancing process in an industrial context, there exists a strong need for tolerance analysis to estimate the probability of scrap in an acceptable computer time and managing the accuracy of the results. The developed approaches for gear tolerance analysis based on simulation, depend on the type of the Skin Model representation, and on the type of behavior model. Therefore, this paper proposes a comparison of four Skin Model representations (discrete shape/parametric surface), and three tooth contact analysis (TCA) techniques (discrete approach/simulation of tangency of tooth surfaces) regarding accuracy of results, computation time and the adequacy with the standard tolerance practices.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Loucks, D., 2003, “Quantifying and Communicating Model Uncertainty for Decisionmaking in the Everglades,” 10th United Engineering Foundation Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, Nov. 3–8, Risk-Based Decisionmaking in Water Resources X, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 40–58. [CrossRef]
Ballu, A., and Mathieu, L., 1993, “Analysis of Dimensional and Geometrical Specifications: Standards and Models,” Proceedings of 3rd CIRP Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Cachan, France.
Zhang, M., Anwer, N., Stockinger, A., Mathieu, L., and Wartzack, S., 2012, “Discrete Shape Modeling for Skin Model Representation,” 12th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Huddersfield, UK, Apr.
Schleich, B., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L., Walter, M., and Wartzack, S., 2012, “A Comprehensive Framework for Skin Model Simulation,” ASME Paper No. ESDA2012-82204. [CrossRef]
Requicha, A. A. G., 1993, “Mathematical Meaning and Computational Representation of Tolerance Specifications,” International Forum on Dimensional Tolerancing and Metrology, Dearborn, MI, June, CRTD-Vol. 27, pp. 61–68.
Wirtz, A., 1991, “Vectorial Tolerancing for Production Quality Control and Functional Analysis in Design,” Annals of CIRP, Pennstate, Aug.
Bruyere, J., Dantan, J. Y., Bigot, R., and Martin, P., 2007, “Statistical Tolerance Analysis of Bevel Gear by Tooth Contact Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 42(10), pp. 1326–1351. [CrossRef]
Dantan, J. Y., Bruyere, J., Baudouin, C., and Mathieu, L., 2007, “Geometrical Specification for Gear-Expression, Metrology and Analysis,” Ann. CIRP, 56(1), pp. 517–520. [CrossRef]
Goch, G., 2003, “Gear Metrology,” Ann. CIRP, 52(2), pp. 659–695. [CrossRef]
Guenther, A., 2006, “Evaluation of Runout Deviation at Bevel Gears Based on Pitch Measurements,” Ann. CIRP, 55(1), pp. 539–542. [CrossRef]
Wenzhen, H., and Ceglarek, D., 2002, “Mode-Based Decomposition of Part Form Error by Discrete-Cosine-Transform With Implementation to Assembly and Stamping System With Compliant Parts,” Ann. CIRP, 51(1), pp. 21–26. [CrossRef]
Grandjean, J., Ledoux, Y., Samper, S., and Favrelière, H., 2013, “Form Errors Impact in a Rotating Plane Surface Assembly,” Procedia CIRP, 10, pp. 178–185. [CrossRef]
Litvin, F. L., 2004, Gear Geometry and Applied Theory, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. [CrossRef]
Vincent, J. P., Dantan, J. Y., and Bigot, R., 2009, “Virtual Meshing Simulation for Gear Conformity Verification,” CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol., 2(1), pp. 35–46. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Discrete shape illustration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Definition of coordinate systems of VD&T

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Teeth gap in the case of discrete shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Projected teeth gap in the case of discrete shape

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Contact condition in the case of parametric surface

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison between measurements and simulation




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In