Go to Post Careful what words you use here; we take them literally. - DonRotolo [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Technical Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2015, 17:00
billbo911's Avatar
billbo911 billbo911 is online now
I prefer you give a perfect effort.
AKA: That's "Mr. Bill"
FRC #2073 (EagleForce)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Elk Grove, Ca.
Posts: 2,355
billbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Gearbox efficiencies

I have searched the white papers, but can not find the one I use regularly for calculations. It was originally posted by Joe Johnson. I will copy it in it's entirety here, hopefully someone can locale the link to it's posting location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
Yes, efficiency is a huge factor and very important for sizing gearboxes and designing mechanisms.

I use the following for designing using torque*:
• Straight Spur Gear with good bearing condition 95%
• Straight Spur Gear with funky bearing conditions 90% (look at the final stage of the FP transmission for an example of a funky bearing condition)
• Planetary
o Low ratio (<5:1) 85-90% (depends on how good the bearings are, the grade of the gears, the size of the planets w.r.t. their axles... things like that)
o High ratio (>7:1) 50%
o Very High Ratio (>20:1 -- "hunting tooth" stages) 15% <<these are great for speed reduction by division, but lousy for torque increases by multiplication
• Helical Gear, parallel axis 80%
• Helical Gear, cross axis see Worm Gear
• Worm Gear -- totally depends on lead angle
o Best case 50-60% (high lead angles of 40 deg, good bearings, etc.),
o Worst case 5-15% (lead angles of 10 deg, bad thrust management, etc.)
• Conical Gears / Bevel Gears depends on bear arrangement and alignment 60-90%
• Chain 90% (assuming good alignment and tension)
This is PER STAGE.

Example: If you have a 4 stage 4:1 per stage spur gear gearbox with good bearings it would be .95^4 = 81% efficient. So... ...instead of getting a ratio of 256:1 your "effective ratio" (from a torque point of view) would be 207:1.

Continuing with the example, if you put a FP in with a stall torque of .45N-m then you would get 93N-m out of this gearbox, not 115N-m. Now suppose you are trying to lift your robot with this gearbox and you have the output connected to a .17m arm (and assume your robot weight is 600N, then you need 100N-m to lift your robot.

NOTE: You are not going to lift that robot, all you are going to do is turn a lot of electrons into heat.

Continuing, if you put a 3:1 chain stage between the arm and the gearbox, the effective ratio would be 560:1 (207X3*.9). You could put 250N-m of torque on your arm. Now your motor would be loaded at 40% of its stall during your lift (and the motor would be running at 60% of its free speed or the arm would be turning under load conditions at 12RPM = 16,000RPM *.6/(256*3)<<Note: Actual Ratio used for SPEED, Effective Ratio used for Torque).

Now you'd lift in a heartbeat (1/2 turn in 6 seconds -- well... ...kind of a LONG heartbeat ;-) and you have extra torque should another robot get in your way on the way up.

Life is good.... ...always.

Joe J.

*Some say I am too conservative but my experience with FIRST and with automotive actuators tells me that these numbers are not far from the right ones.
__________________
CalGames 2009 Autonomous Champion Award winner
Sacramento 2010 Creativity in Design winner, Sacramento 2010 Quarter finalist
2011 Sacramento Finalist, 2011 Madtown Engineering Inspiration Award.
2012 Sacramento Semi-Finals, 2012 Sacramento Innovation in Control Award, 2012 SVR Judges Award.
2012 CalGames Autonomous Challenge Award winner ($$$).
2014 2X Rockwell Automation: Innovation in Control Award (CVR and SAC). Curie Division Gracious Professionalism Award.
2014 Capital City Classic Winner AND Runner Up. Madtown Throwdown: Runner up.
2015 Innovation in Control Award, Sacramento.
2016 Chezy Champs Finalist, 2016 MTTD Finalist
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 14:05.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi