PSI - Issue 39

Aljaž Ignatijev et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 39 (2022) 89 – 97 Author name / Structur Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–00

92 4

Fig. 2. Finite element mesh: (a) Model 1; (b) Model 2.

2.1. Material parameters by static loading Static material parameters were taken from the previous work by Šori (2016), see Table 2. The multilinear isotropic hardening model was used in the subsequent computational analysis.

Table 2. Static mechanical properties of Cu–Ni–Mo sintered steel in hardened state. Parameter Symbol Value Elastic module E [GPa] 142 Poisson’s ratio ν [−] 0.27 Yield stress R p0.1 [MPa] 754 Tensile strength R m [MPa] 965 Elongation at failure A [%] 0.86

2.2. Computational results by static loading Since the crack propagation simulation tool requires the linear-elastic material model, the geometric model 2 was used for that purpose. Because of simplification of the model 2, equivalent von Mises stress along the gear’s thickness was obtained in the tooth root to check the relevance of the model, see Fig. 3. It was found that the values of Misses equivalent stress are quite similar which means that the simplified model 2 could be used to determine the total fatigue life of analysed gear pair. Fig. 3 also shows the stress field which gives the maximum stress at the gear’s contact (which is irrelevant for our study) and at the root of the tooth, where bending stress occurs.