Sie sind auf Seite 1von 30

# Spring 2013

## Pennsylvania State University

Joseph R. Felice

[DESIGN OF A COMPRESSOR
DRIVE TRAIN]

## Design of a Compressor Drive Train

By: Joseph R. Felice
Objective
The purpose of this case study is to supply a building contractor with a portable gasoline
powered air compressor for transportation to construction sites in order to drive hammers.
Elements of the compressor unit which relate to lecture topics include but are not limited to
the design of shafts, couplings, bearings, pinions, and gears.
Introduction
A building contractor desires a small air compressor unit used for driving hammers on
site.

## The compressor is to be powered by a single cylinder two-stroke gasoline engine

containing a flywheel. This engine operates at two horsepower regulated at 3,250 revolutions
per minute (rpm). A Schramm piston compressor containing one cylinder is operated by the
output shaft of the gearbox which is connected to the crankshaft. The input and output shafts
of the gearbox and engine respectively are connected by a clutch. Reduction of engine speed is
essential for the proper operation of driving hammers.
In order to reduce engine speed as well as increase torque, a clutch and gearbox system
is coupled to the engine. Inside of the housing for the gearbox unit a pinion and gear mesh,
thus transmitting rotational motion which allows for the reduction of engine speed. The gear
ratio for achieving this result will be determined during the course of this independent analysis.

1|Page

Shaft Analysis
Equations
0  0  <
 =

924



 792
   2



Equation 1-1

Equation 1-1: The above relationship comes from the gas laws. This particular formula
demonstrates the pressure developed in the cylinder as a function of the crank angle.
  =  =


4

Equation 1-2

Equation 1-2: The pressure which was initially calculated generates a gas force. Featured here
is the relationship of the gas force on the piston and the cylinder head as a function of the
crank angle.

  =    !1 + %&
\$

Equation 1-3

Equation 1-3: The above expression relates the torque of the compressor crankshaft due to the
gas forces as a function of the crank angle.

3
1
'  = (  )    2 +  3
2\$
2\$
2

Equation 1-4

Equation 1-4: Shown here is the torque due to the inertia forces as a function of the crank
angle.
 =   + ' 

Equation 1-5

Equation 1-5: Above the torques due to gas forces and inertia forces are simply added together
to yield the total torque.
All of the shaft analysis conducted for this case study was based on the selection of UNS No.
G10200/AISI No. 1020 (HR) steel (Shigley, 1040). The tensile strength of this type of steel is
55,000 psi.
Torque (foot-pounds)
Crank Angle (degrees)
Minimum
-202.56
143
Maximum
603.53
330
Table 1: Minimum and maximum torques necessary for driving the compressor crankshaft with
their respective crank angles.
2|Page

Pressure (psi)
Crank Angle (degrees)
Minimum
0
0-180
Maximum
132
360
Table 2: Minimum and maximum pressures developed in the cylinder with their respective
crank angles.

Force (pounds)
Crank Angle (degrees)
Minimum
0
0-180
Maximum
932.56
360
Table 3: Minimum and maximum force on the piston and cylinder head due to the pressures
with their respective crank angles.

Torque (foot-pounds)

Torque
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100 0
-200
-300

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Angle (Degrees)

3|Page

Pressure
140
Pressure (psi)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Angle (Degrees)

Force
Force (pounds)

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Angle (Degrees)

## Figure 3: A plot of the Force vs. Crankshaft Angle.

4|Page

Force analysis:
Equations
+,-./ =

-./


Equation 2-1

+,-'0 =

-'0


Equation 2-2

Equations 2-1/2-2: Shown above are formulas for calculating the maximum and minimum
tangential force component acting on the gear tooth.

+-./ =

+,-./
%

+-'0 =

+,-'0
%

Equation 2-3

Equation 2-4

Equations 2-3/2-4: These are formulas for calculating the maximum and minimum resultant
forces acting on the gears.

rg (inches)
Tmax (foot-pounds) Tmin (foot-pounds) Wtmax (pounds)
Wtmin (pounds)
2
603.5
-202.6
301.8
-101.3
Table 4: Shown here are the calculated values for the maximum and minimum torques of the
shaft as well as the corresponding maximum and minimum tangential components of the force.
(degrees)
Wtmax (pounds)
Wtmin (pounds)
Wmax (pounds)
Wmin (pounds)
20
301.8
-101.3
321.2
-107.8
Table 5: Featured above are the maximum and minimum tangential force components with
their respective maximum and minimum resultant forces.

5|Page

2 in

2 in

4 in
Ra = 150.9 lbs

Rb = 150.9 lbs

Vaxis

## Mmax = 301.8 ft-lbs

Maxis

Figure 4: Demonstrated above is the shear-force and bending-moment diagram for the

6|Page

Shaft iteration:
Note: For the iterative process a safety factor of two was assumed for the calculations.
Equations

Equation 3-1
>?
D

>
>
16 1
1

?

?
=2
4 64789 :. ; + 3789< . ; = +
64789 :- ; + 3789< - ; = BC
5
@A,

Equation 3-1: This formula is used in the iterative process for determining shaft diameter
(Shigley, 368).
E.F
F
E-

=
=

E.

E-

>
3G.  ?

>?
3G-

= H!

DIJ KL

= H!

MNO

& + 3!

DIJ KS
MNO

>IJP QL

& + 3!

MNO

& R

>?

>IJP QS
MNO

& R

>?

Equation 3-2

Equation 3-3

Equations 3-2/3-3: Shown here are the expressions for von Mises stresses for a solid round
shaft in rotation (Shigley, 368).
89 = 1 + T8, 1

Equation 3-4

## 89< = 1 + T<U5.V 8,< 1 Equation 3-5

Equations 3-4/3-5: Above are formulas for determining fatigue stress concentration factors
(Shigley, 295).
5F = 0.5A, 

Equation 3-6

Equation 3-6: Featured here is the method for calculating the endurance limit for steels
(Shigley, 282).
5 = Y. YZ Y[ YN Y5 Y9 5F

Equation 3-7

Equation 3-7: The Marin formula for the endurance limit specific to a vital location on the shaft
(Shigley, 287).
1

F
E.F
E=
+
5
A,

Equation 3-8

Equation 3-8: This expression is the modified-Goodman criteria for determining the safety
factor (n) (Shigley, 368).

7|Page

Iteration process
Torque (foot-pounds)

Moment (foot-pounds)

Midrange

200.5

201.5

Amplitude

806.1

100.2

Table 6: Above are the midrange and amplitude torques and bending moments.
Iteration

r/d

D/d

qshear

Kt

Kts

0.5

0.65

0.69

1.38

1.35

Table 7: Featured here are some factors that went into the computations for shaft iterations.
Iteration

Kf

Kfs

se (kpsi)

Diameter (inches)

## Safety Factor (n)

17.413

0.91

1.65

1.25

1.24

17.181

1.05

2.00

Table 8: The second iteration yielded the satisfactory safety factor of two.
The iteration process for shaft analysis is a repetitive technique which involves the use
of several design equations designated for properly sizing the diameter to meet project
specifications. Gear diameter and safety factor are a couple of key elements that establish the
design parameters for a shaft. In this specific case study a safety factor of two was selected
since it is adequately sufficient for satisfying the operational conditions associated with the air
compressor unit. An input (spur) pinion pitch diameter of four inches was given as a suggested
guideline for sizing the input shaft.
First iteration values for theoretical stress-concentration factors Kt and Kts were
estimated to be one since the shaft has a very well-rounded fillet. These estimates when
applied to Equations 3-4 and 3-5 also yielded values of one for fatigue stress-concentration
factors Kf and Kfs. Hence, the initial absence of values for the ratios r/d and D/d as well as for

8|Page

notch sensitivity values q and qshear, which necessitates these first iteration estimates. Also, a
value for the endurance limit was calculated using the Marin formula (Equation 3-7).
The first iteration calculation of the endurance limit was based on an assumed value for
the size factor, kb, of 0.9 as well as assumed values of one for both the temperature factor, kd
and the miscellaneous-effects factor, kf. When these values along with the midrange and
amplitude values for torque and bending moment were applied to Equation 3-1 a diameter of
0.91 inches along with a safety factor of 1.65 were acquired as featured in Table 6 above. Thus,
since the safety factor was below the desired value of two, a second iteration was performed.
For the second iteration, the original assumption for the kb value of 0.9 was discarded in
favor of being able to calculate an actual value based on the diameter acquired by the first
iteration. A value of 0.91 inches falls within the diameter range for the first formula featured in
Equation 6-20 of Shigley,
YZ =  0.3\].>] = 0.879 \].>] ,
which yields a value of 0.88, very close to the original assumed size factor (Shigley, 288). When
this new value for kb is applied to the Marin equation a more accurate endurance limit of
17.181 kspi is calculated (Table 5).
Values for q and qshear were obtained by taking a reading along an interpolated 55 kpsi
curve which corresponded to the appropriate radius in Figures 6-20 and 6-21 respectively
(Shigley, 295-296). The ratios r/d and D/d were used to acquire real values for Kt and Kts by
reading Figures A-15-8 and A-15-9 (Shigley, 1028). When the new values for endurance limit,
notch sensitivities and theoretical stress-concentration factors (Table 5) are applied once more
9|Page

to the iterative process a diameter of 1.05 inches was computed. This diameter when applied
to the modified-Goodman criteria (Equation 3-8) resulted in a satisfying the desired safety
factor of two for the shaft.
Gear and Pinion Design:
Equations
a =

2Y
1 + 2(

## !( + b( + 1 + 2( sin & Equation 4-1

Equation 4-1: Featured above in the formula for determining the least amount of teeth a
pinion can contain in order to avoid interference (Shigley, 686).
af = gV a

Equation 4-2

Equation 4-2: Shown here is the equation for determining the largest gear that can mesh with
the pinion in order to avoid interference (Shigley, 687).
E[ h,f

8- k9
= 2+, 8i 8j 8<
C
  l

>/

Equation 4-3

Equation 4-3: This is the AGMA contact-stress equation both a pinion and gear (Shigley, 774).
@n h,f = !

op qr Is It 
up

&

Equation 4-4

Equation 4-4: This is the formula for calculating the safety factors for both a pinion and gear
(Shigley, 774).
@, = 77.3vw + 12,800 

Equation 4-5

Equation 4-5: Shown above is the formula for the allowable bending stress plot for Grade 1
through-hardened steel featured in Figure 14-2 of Shigley (Shigley, 747).
@[ = 349vw + 29,100 

Equation 4-6

Equation 4-6: The formula for allowable contact stress for Grade 1 through-hardened steel
shown above is featured in Figure 14-5 of Shigley (Shigley, 750).
x h,f =  /12

Equation 4-7

Equation 4-7: The formula for calculating the pitch line velocities for pinions and gears (Shigley,
707).
10 | P a g e

Data Tables
Pd
p

(degrees)
(teeth/inch)
(inches)
4
2.6
2.7
14
3.5
0.89
20
2
2.6
1.5
14
7
0.45
20
Table 9: Pinion data for the iterative process related to acquiring the appropriate diameter.
dp (inches)

gr

Fp (inches)

Np (teeth)

Pd
p

(degrees)
(teeth/inch)
(inches)
6
2.6
1.6
36
6
0.52
20
5
2.6
1.5
36
7.2
0.44
20
Table 10: Gear data for the iterative process related to acquiring the appropriate diameter.
dG (inches)

gr

Fp (inches)

NG (teeth)

Note: Both Tables 9 and 10 show two iterations for the pinion and gear. The first row in each
table shows the first iteration with the give pitch diameter of four inches for the pinion. In the
second row of each table are the second and final iterations concluding with the correct values
for each gear.

## A detailed explanation of these numbers is featured in the Calculations

Appendix.
Gear Factors
Pinion
Gear
Speed (rpm)
3250
1250
Pitch-Line Velocity
1701.7
1701.7
(feet/minute)
642.2
642.2
567.1
567.1
(pounds)
603.5
603.5
(pounds)
Allowable Bending Stress
32125
32125
(psi)
Allowable Contact Stress
109600
109600
(psi)
Contact Stress (psi)
38471.4
24331.4
Safety Factor
2.08
3.28
Table 11: Featured above is information related to both the pinion and gear concerning
important speeds/velocities, loads, stresses and safety factors.
11 | P a g e

Design Description
For the design of both the gear and pinion through-hardened Grade 1 steel was selected
for the casting material. A Brinell Hardness value of 250 was chosen for this steel. Therefore,
allowable bending stress calculations for both the gear and pinion were based on Equation 4-5
from Figure 14-2 in Shigley. Also, from Shigley the allowable contact stresses were calculated
by the application of the Brinell Hardness of the steel to Equation 14-6 from Figure 14-5. Given
the speeds for both the gear and pinion, the pitch line velocity was calculated by using Equation
4-7.
were determined as well as the elastic coefficient Equation 4-3 was applied to the pinion and
gear respectively, thus yielding the contact stresses. The earlier value of the transmitted load
of 301.8 pounds was recalculated to be 603.5 pounds in order to accommodate an interference
free design. Safety factors for the pinion and gear were calculated using Equation 4-4. The
safety factor for the pinion was determined to be 2.08, a perfectly acceptable value based on
the selection of a desired safety factor of two. Even though a safety factor of 3.28 for the gear
is slightly higher than expected it is still acceptable.
Bearing Design
Equations
k>]

|z
= y9 z {

|] +  |] } 1~z >Z

>/.

Equation 5-1

Equation 5-1: This formula is used for calculating the C10 catalog entry for both a pinion and
gear (Shigley, 578).

12 | P a g e

Manufacturer

1
2

Rating Life,
Revolutions

x0

90(106)
1(106)

0
0.02

Weibull Parameters
Rating Lives

4.48
4.459

b
1.5
1.483

Table 12: Above is a copy of a table shown in Shigley demonstrating the bearing data of two
different manufacturers experience with their life expectancy (Shigley, 608).

Bearing Design

k>],h'0'i0

>
D

5694

= 1.80 301.8
> = 11382.06 }

1 >.D
0.02 + 4.459 0.02} !. 95&

Demonstrated above is the pinion application for the selection of Weibull parameters
shown in Table 12 (pg. 608 of Shigley) for the data findings regarding the industrial use of ball
bearings from Manufacturer two to Equation 5-1. As we can see the C10 catalog load rating in
this case yields a value of 11382.06 pounds and a similar application of the gear to Equation 51, using the same application factor, gives a load rating of 8277.45 pounds (the life variate
value, xD, for the gear was 2190). For the calculation of the life variate for the deep-groove ball
bearing a Manufacturer twos catalog value of 106 was selected for the rating life. Calculations
based on the desired life expectancy of 10 years featured in the appendix will show an
operational duration of the ball bearings for the pinion was 5.694x109 revolutions and for the
gear 2.19x109 revolutions.

13 | P a g e

## Disk Plate Clutch

Equations
8
=
+ 
-./ 

Equation 6-1

Equation 6-1: This formula is rewritten from its original format as Equation 16-24 in Shigley. It
is used to solve for the outer diameter of a plate clutch (Shigley, 847).

 =

4
 + 

Equation 6-2

Equation 6-2: This formula solves for the actuating force in a plate clutch.

## Design Torque (foot-pounds)

348.17
Inside Diameter (inches)
2.45
Outside Diameter (inches)
4.25
D/d Ratio
1.73
Actuating Force (pounds)
2078.63
Application Factor
1.5
Number of Disks
1
Table 13: Above are the design parameters as well as torque and actuating force
measurements for the disk plate clutch.

Material
Coefficient of Friction
Maximum Pressure (psi)
Powdered Metal on Hard
0.1
300
Steel
Table 14: Shown here is the data for the material selected to craft the clutch plate.

14 | P a g e

One plate should be sufficient since the pressure on the cylinder head is 132 psi and the
maximum pressure of the powdered metal on hard steel is 300 psi. Powdered metal on hard
steel was selected for the manufacturing of the clutch. The low coefficient of friction of this
material yields a high value for the actuating force value.
Conclusion
The purpose of this case study was to design a compressor unit for driving hammers at a
construction site. During the process all of the topics discussed in lecture this semester were
researched as a consequence of investigating how to best design this unit. The iteration
process of shaft design, pinion and gear design as well as several force analysis were conducted
in order to produce the optimal design. This case study was an effective means of better
understanding and appreciating course material covered during the semester.

15 | P a g e

Bibliography
Budynas, Richard G. and J. Keith Nisbett. Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design. 9th ed.
New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2008.

16 | P a g e