MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF A SEQUENTIAL TYPE

GEAR SHIFTING MECHANISM OF AN AUTOMOBILE

TRANSMISSION
By Priyanshu Agarwal
Design Engineer, R&D, Transmission Division,
Bajaj Auto Ltd.

ABSTRACT: There are numerous variables involved in the design of a sequential type gear
shifting mechanism. In order to judge the effectiveness of such a mechanism it is essential to
develop a mathematical model that can quantify it. In this paper a mathematical model of a
sequential type gear shifting mechanism is developed. The mathematical model deals with the
forces acting within the system while it is under a static equilibrium. Further, the efficacies of two
such mechanisms are then evaluated for comparison and the superiority of one over the other is
proved. In addition to this, a parameter study is then carried out using MATLAB to individually
assess the effect of each parameter on the output so as to provide a mathematical rationale at the
design stage itself.

KEYWORDS: mathematical model, design variables, drum, fork, fork roller, fork rail, drum
torque, axial force, efficacy of mechanism.

1. INTRODUCTION
Gear Shifting is a sophisticated phenomenon present in all automobiles equipped with manual
transmissions. A mechanism that can effectively handle the issue of gear shifting is always in
demand. Apart from shifting the gear, the effort it brings for the driver on the gear shifting lever is
vital for a gear shifting mechanism. In order to reduce the effort needed to effect a gear change it is
imperative to mathematically evaluate all the design variables linked with the shifting elements.
There are two types of shifting elements involved in gear shifting: Internal shifting elements and
external shifting elements [1].
• Internal shifting elements are the elements that are inside the transmission, such as selector
forks, fork rails, drum etc.
• External shifting elements are the elements that are outside the transmission such as gear
shifting lever, cable controls etc.

The mechanism described here consists of internal shifting elements and the mathematical model
presented deals with the design variables related to these elements.
2. MECHANISM DESCRIPTION

Fork
Fork Rail
Fork Roller

Drum

Star Wheel

Shift Lever-2

Torsion Spring
Shift Lever-1
Tension Spring
Figure 2.1 An illustration of the Sequential Gear Shifting Mechanism

2.1 Construction
The mechanism shown above consists of the following major components:

• Drum (Surface Cam)

• Forks
• Fork Rail
• Fork Roller (sits on fork lug)
• Star Wheel
• Shift Lever-1 (Guitar shaped with a welded splined shaft)
• Shifter Lever-2 (Cross Lever)
• Shift Lever-1 Torsion Spring
• Tension Spring
The Fork legs rests on the gear collar and the fork is constrained to move on the fork rail. The
interface between the fork and the rail can be provided with plain bearings which can significantly
reduce the coefficient of friction between the rail and the fork. The material used for such plain
bearings is Daidyne for which the coefficient of friction lies in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 [2] as
compared to 0.16 for a lubricated steel to steel contact. The increase in friction increases the drum
torque significantly which can reduce the mechanism efficiency of torque to force conversion.
Further the fork is provided with a lug that protrudes from its head. The head is also provided with
a roller that can roll on the profile carved on the drum, which is a surface cam with a groove. The
roller is provided for converting sliding friction to rolling friction between the fork lug and the
drum groove. In addition to this, the drum is provided with a star wheel having projected lugs on its
front face on which the shift lever-2 rests. Shift lever-2 is pivoted on shift lever-1 and is connected
to it with a tension spring. Shift lever-1 consists of a guitar shaped sheet body with a splined shaft
welded to it. A torsion spring is provided on shift lever-1 so as to reposition the lever after shifting
the gear.

2.2 Working

The shift lever-1 is rotated with the help of a push-pull type wire. As shift lever-1 rotates, it rotates
the shift lever-2 which in turn rotates the star wheel with a fixed angle (60 degrees). Since, the star
wheel is bolted with the drum, it is also indexed with 60 degrees. Due to this fixed rotation of the
drum the forks engaged in the grooves on the drum surface, with the help of a roller, are moved
axially on the shifter rail. This axial movement of the fork leads to the axial movement of the
shifting sleeve. The desired direction of the fork movement can be governed by engraving a
corresponding groove on the drum surface. Now the magnitude of drum toque required depends on
the various parameters involved e.g. groove ramp angle, drum radius, shifter rail diameter, fork
dimensions etc. The shifting feel is hampered in case the required drum torque exceeds a certain
value. In addition to this, in order to convert this system into an automated shifting mechanism the
drum torque required should be minimized so as to actuate the mechanism with the smallest
possible actuator.

Considering the importance of drum torque required, it is imperative to develop a mathematical

model so as to study the influence of the various design variables involved and thus, minimize the
drum toque.

3. THE DEVELOPED MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The developed mathematical model is a simplified form of the actual mechanism as described in
section 2. Only the following components are selected for developing the model:

1. Drum
2. Fork Roller
3. Fork
4. Fork Rail
Further since at a time only one fork will come into action, hence only one fork is considered in
the mathematical model.
 TD

Ffa2

Ffa = Ffa1 + Ffa2

Ffa1

Figure 3.1 Simplified representation of the mechanism with external forces & moments acting on
it.

3.1 Assumptions

1. The entire system is considered to be in a static equilibrium.

2. The distribution of axial force on fork legs is considered to be in the ratio of their arm lengths
from the rail center line.

3.2 Objective

To establish a relationship between the axial force to be developed on shifting sleeve and the
required drum torque.
3.3 Inputs

The following inputs are considered for the model:

S NO. INPUTS DESIGNATION
1 Total Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar Ffa
2 Coefficient of Friction between Fork & Rail µfr
3 Coefficient of friction between Roller and Lug µrl

Table 3.3.1 Inputs for the mathematical model

The value of µfr for lubricated steel to steel contact is considered as 0.16 and for steel to aluminium
contact is considered as 0.12.
The value of µrl for lubricated steel to steel contact is considered as 0.16.

3.4 Design Variables

The developed mathematical model caters the following design variables:

Table 3.4.1 Design variables for the Mathematical Model

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES DESIGNATION

1 Length of Fork Leg Opposite to Lug Side A1
2 Length of Fork Leg on Lug Side A2
3 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end B1
4 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end B2
5 Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line C
6 Fork Lug Diameter dl
7 Fork Lug Roller Diameter dr
8 Fork Leg offset from Lug Center O3
9 Offset Distance of Fork Leg opposite to Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E1
10 Offset Distance of Fork Leg on Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E2
11 Fork Lug Angle from the ZF-axis as viewed in XY Plane. ϕ
Angle between 'Perpendicular to Radial Reaction from Shifting Sleeve' &
'Line joining Fork Leg Center to Rail Center'
ξ
12
13 Rail Diameter d
14 Groove Ramp θ
15 Drum Radius R

For clarification of the above design variables please refer to Fig.3.6.2, Fig.3.6.3, Fig. 3.7.3, Fig.
3.7.4 and Fig.3.7.5.
 3.5 Outputs

The various reactions, moments and friction forces acting within the system are considered to be
the output of the model with the Drum Torque, TD being the most important output.

The following are the outputs of the developed mathematical model:

S No. OUTPUTS Designation

1 Normal Reaction between Fork and Rail in Y direction at Fork Leg End Ny1
2 Normal Reaction between Fork and Rail in Y direction at opposite to Fork Leg End Ny2
3 Tangential Force on Fork Lug FT
4 Axial Force Fork on Fork Lug FA
5 Normal Reaction between Fork and Rail in X direction at Fork Leg End Nx1
6 Normal Reaction between Fork and Rail in X direction at opposite to Fork Leg End Nx2
7 Axial Force on Fork Leg at opposite to Lug Side End Ffa1
8 Axial Force on Fork Leg at Lug Side End Ffa2
9 Radial Reaction from Shifting Sleeve Collar at Fork Leg on Lug Side Fft
10 Normal Reaction between Roller & Lug R2
11 Normal Reaction between Drum & Roller R1
12 Friction Force at Drum & Roller interface fr
13 Friction Force at Roller & Lug interface fl
14 Friction Force between Fork & Rail X direction (away from leg) fx1
15 Friction Force between Fork & Rail X direction (towards leg) fx2
16 Friction Force between Fork & Rail Y direction at Fork Leg End fy1
17 Friction Force between Fork & Rail Y direction opposite to Fork Leg End fy2
18 Drum Torque Required TD

Table 3.5.1 Outputs of the Mathematical Model

3.6 Drum Profile and Fork Roller Interaction

In order to study the interaction of the fork roller and the drum a developed view of the drum
profile is obtained by unwrapping the drum profile.

The forces acting on the drum are as shown in view V. These forces are responsible for developing
a tangential force and an axial force on the drum. The tangential force is responsible for canceling
the moment, TD applied on the drum and hence,
 Figure 3.6.1 Developed View of Drum Profile & Force Components acting on it

TD = ( R1 sin θ + f r cos θ ) R (3.6.1)

Further, the axial force, FD developed is to be

resisted by the bearings holding the drum. Thus,

FD = R1 cosθ − f r sin θ (3.6.2)

XRYRZR represents the roller coordinate system.

The sliding friction acting between the fork lug

and roller under static equilibrium is related to
the normal reaction between the lug and the
roller as follows:

fl = url R2 (3.6.3)
Figure 3.6.2 Free-body Diagram of Fork Roller
Considering static equilibrium along XR-axis
Fx = 0
R1 cosθ − R2 cos θ + fl sin θ − f r sin θ = 0 (3.6.4)
Considering static equilibrium along YR-axis
Fy = 0
− R1 sin θ − f r cos θ + R2 sin θ + fl cos θ = 0 (3.6.5)

Considering static equilibrium about ZF-axis

Mz = 0
d d
f r × r = fl × l (3.6.6)
2 2
From equations (1), (2) & (4)
dl
R1 = R2 1 + url tan θ −1 (3.6.7)
dr

Figure 3.6.3 Forces & moments acting on Fork Lug

The forces acting on fork lug can finally be expressed as the tangential force (FT), axial force (FA)
and moment (Mfl) as mentioned in the following equations.
FT = R2 sin θ + fl cos θ (3.6.8)
FA = R2 cos θ − fl sin θ (3.6.9)
d
M f = fl × l (3.6.10)
2
3.7 Fork Free-Body Diagram

3.7.1 Coordinate System

The coordinate system XFYFZF defined for the fork is represented in figure 3.7.1. Axis ZF is aligned
with the fork rail axis and the axis YF is aligned with the line joining the shifting sleeve center to
the fork rail center. The remaining axis XF is perpendicular to the plane YFZF, thus formed.

Figure 3.7.1 Free-Body Diagram of Fork

Figure 3.7.2 Cut Section View of Fork representing the reaction and friction forces acting between
the Fork and the Rail.

Since the fork will be sliding on the rail the friction forces acting on the fork can be established
using the following relationships:

f y1 = u fr N y1 (3.7.1)
f y 2 = u fr N y 2 (3.7.2)
f x1 = u fr N x1 (3.7.3)
f x 2 = u fr N x 2 (3.7.4)
3.7.2 Development of Force & Moment Equations

Figure 3.7.3 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in XFYF plane.

Considering static equilibrium along XF-axis
Fx = 0
FT cos φ + Fft cos ξ − N x1 − N x 2 = 0 (3.7.5)

Considering static equilibrium along YF-axis

 Fy = 0
− Ny1 + Ny 2 − FT sin φ + Fft sin ξ = 0 (3.7.6)
Considering static equilibrium about ZF-axis
Mz = 0
Fft A2
− FT C + =0 (3.7.7)
cos ξ

Figure 3.7.4 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in XFZF plane.

Considering static equilibrium along ZF-axis

Fz = 0
− FA + Ffa + f x1 + f x 2 + f y1 + f y 2 = 0 (3.7.8)
Please note that the sign of fx1, fx2, fy1, fy2 should be negative respectively in case the corresponding
reactions Nx1, Nx2, Ny1, Ny2 comes out to be negative.
Considering static equilibrium about YF-axis
My =0
d
FAC sin φ + Ffa1 E1 − F fa 2 E2 + F ft O3 + N x 2 O2 − N x1O1 + ( f x1 + f x 2 ) + M f cos φ = 0 (3.7.9)
2
 Figure 3.7.5 Free-Body Diagram of Fork representing forces in YFZF plane.

Considering static equilibrium about XF-axis

Mx = 0
d d
− FAC cos φ − FT sin φ O3 − Ffa1 A1 − Ffa 2 A2 + N y1 B1 + N y 2 B2 − f y1 + f y 2 + M f sin φ = 0 (3.7.10)
2 2
The axial force acting on the fork legs can be summed up to give rise to the total axial force which
is to be developed.
Ffa1 + Ffa 2 = Ffa (3.7.11)
 Finally, as per assumption (2) i.e. the distribution of the axial force on fork legs will be in
proportion to their arm lengths from the rail center line.
Ffa A12 + E12
Ffa1 = (3.7.12)
A12 + E12 + A2 2 + E2 2
3.8 Design Variable Optimization
Considering the number of design variables involved it is advisable to eliminate the redundant
variables so as to effectively deal with the problem. However, the above mathematical model was
developed without any such optimization so as to establish a more generic approach for solving the
problem in case any of the following mentioned relationships ceases to exist.
φ

A2
A1

AC
ξ ξ

DS

E1 E2

YF

ZF XF
Figure 3.8.1 Design variables defining the fork geometry
 It was observed that the design variables A1, A2, E1 & E2 are related and that by introducing two
more variables the total number of design variables can be optimized.

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES ADDED DESIGNATION

1 Sleeve Mean Diameter (excluding chamfer & fillet) Ds
2 Distance of Fork Leg Contact Point Circle Center from Rail Center Ac

Table 3.8.1 Design variables added in the mathematical model

A1, A2, E1 & E2 can then be related using the following equations:

AC − A2 A1 − AC
sin ξ = = (3.8.1)
Ds Ds
2 2

The value of ξ evaluated from the above equation and can then be substituted in the following
equations to calculate A1, E1 & E2.

Ds
A1 = AC + sin ξ (3.8.2)
2

Ds
E1 = E 2 = cos ξ (3.8.3)
2
The following design variables are then eliminated:

S
DESIGN VARIABLES ELIMINATED DESIGNATION
NO.
1 Arm Length of Fork Leg Force Opposite to Lug Side A1
2 Offset Distance of Fork Leg opposite to Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E1
3 Offset Distance of Fork Leg on Lug Side from Shifting Sleeve Center E2
Angle between 'Perpendicular to Radial Reaction from Shifting Sleeve' & 'Line joining
Fork Leg Center to Rail Center'
ξ
4

Table 3.8.2 Design variables eliminated from the mathematical model

The following are the constraints for the design variables:

The fork leg offset from fork lug center should always lie between –B1 and B2.
- B1 ≤ O3 ≤ B2 (3.8.4)

The lug diameter should always be less than the roller diameter. In case the roller diameter is equal
to the lug diameter that means no roller is used and the equations can simply be modified by
equating dl equal to dr.
dl ≤ dr (3.8.5)

The fork rail diameter should always be less than the dimension C as fork rail is to be
accommodated within this dimension.
d < C (3.8.6)

The fork leg

Ds Ds
Ac - ≤ A2 ≤ Ac + (3.8.7)
2 2

So, finally the following design variables are considered as the optimum number of variables
required to define a system completely.

S NO. DESIGN VARIABLES DESIGNATION

1 Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side A2
2 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end B1
3 Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end B2
4 Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line C
5 Fork Lug Diameter dl
6 Fork Lug Roller Diameter dr
7 Fork Leg offset from Lug Center O3
8 Fork Lug Angle from the ZF-axis as viewed in XY Plane. ϕ
9 Fork Rail Diameter d
10 Groove Ramp Angle θ
11 Drum Radius R
12 Sleeve Mean Diameter (excluding chamfer & fillet) Ds
13 Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center Ac

Table 3.8.3 Final Design variables in the mathematical model

4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Efficacy of the Mechanism
In order to compare the effectiveness of two mechanisms it is necessary to define a quantity known
as efficacy of the mechanism which is defined as follows.

The efficacy of the mechanism is defined as the effectiveness of the mechanism to convert a given
drum torque into axial force on Shifting Sleeve Collar.
Ffa ( kg )
η= (4.1)
TD ( kgm )
The following data is provided as input to the above mentioned model for Mechanism-A & B.

Parameters Units Mechanism-A Mechanism-B

Ffa Kg 12 12

µfr 0.12 0.07

µrl 0.16 0.16

A2 mm 45.4 66.0
B1 mm 17.6 24.7

B2 mm 84.4 24.3
C mm 15.0 15.1
dl mm 5.0 5.0
dr mm 8.3 8.0
O3 mm 67.8 15.2
ϕ deg 62.1 86.2
d mm 13.0 12.0
θ deg 42.5 42.5
R mm 24.5 24.5
Ds mm 79.6 91.9

Ac mm 66.2 76.0
Table 4.1 Value of various parameters for Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B

Mechanism-A is having the fork attached with the fork rail such that the entire fork-rail assembly is
shifted while the fork moves axially. This means the coefficient of friction between the rail and
casing comes into action i.e. around 0.12.
Mechanism-B is having bushes between the fork & the rail due to which the coefficient of friction
has reduced drastically to 0.07.
Based on the above mentioned data the equations mentioned in section 3 are solved so as to
evaluate the required Drum Torque and other outputs. The following outputs are obtained for the
two mechanisms.
 Outputs Units Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
Ffa1 Kg 0.62 0.55
Ffa2 Kg 11.38 11.45
FT Kg 20.98 20.12
FA Kg 16.64 15.95
Nx1 Kg 5.07 -2.55
Nx2 Kg 9.78 8.28
Ny1 Kg 1.08 12.30
Ny2 Kg 22.71 33.36
Fft Kg 5.89 4.49
R1 Kg 24.90 23.96
R2 Kg 26.44 25.36
fr Kg 2.55 2.54
fl Kg 4.23 4.06
fx1 Kg 0.61 0.18
fx2 Kg 1.17 0.58
fy1 Kg 0.13 0.86
fy2 Kg 2.72 2.34
TD Kg-M 0.489 0.470

Table 4.2 Value of various outputs for Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B

The efficacy of the mechanism to convert a given drum torque into fork axial force for Mechanism-
A is 24.51 & for Mechanism-B is 25.45.
Drum Torque Required Vs Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) Drum Torque Required Vs Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa)
0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) (kg) Axial Force to be developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar(Ffa) (kg)

(i) Mechanism-A (ii) Mechanism-B

Figure 4.1 Graph of Drum Torque Required Vs Axial force developed on Shifting Sleeve Collar for
Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B.
 Since, the efficacy of Mechanism-B is more than that of Mechanism-A, B is more efficient in
converting a given torque into axial force. Hence, the mathematical model can quantify the relative
performances of two mechanisms.

4.2 Comparison of Outputs for Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B

Various graphs of the important forces, reactions & friction forces are presented as follows:
Mechanism-A Mechanism-B Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
25 40

35
20
30

15 25

20

10
15

10
5
5

0 0
Ffa1 Ff a2 FT FA Nx1 Nx2 Ny1 Ny2 Fft R1 R2
-5

Figure 4.2 Comparison of important forces for

Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B. Figure 4.3 Comparison of important forces for
Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B.

Mechanism-A Mechanism-B
4.5
The graph in Fig.4.3 shows that the reaction N1
4 is negative for Mechanism B and hence, the
3.5 equation (3.7.8) needs to be modified to
3
accommodate the change in position of fx1.
Further since, in Mechanism-B a bush is used
2.5
between the fork and the rail, hence even when
2 Ny2 is higher, the corresponding friction force,
1.5 fy2, is lesser as shown in Fig.4.4
1

0.5

0
fr fl fx1 fx2 fy1 f y2

Figure 4.4 Comparison of friction forces for

Mechanism-A & Mechanism-B.

The above graph shows that the friction losses are maximum at the fork lug and roller interface. In
order to reduce these losses a coating can be used on the inner surface of the roller so as to reduce
these losses.
 6. PARAMETER STUDY
A study of the influence of all parameters on Drum Torque is carried out so as to access the role of
each parameter. In this Parameter Study while a parameter is being changed within its constrained
design space all others are kept constant. The changes in the location of friction forces acting
between the fork and the fork rail due to the change in the direction of the normal reactions is also
taken care of in this study.
6.1 The influence of Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side (A2)

0.55
Drum Torque Required Vs Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side(A2) The graph shows that drum torque
increases non-linearly with increase in
0.54
A 2.
0.53
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.52

0.51

0.5

0.49

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.45
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Arm Length of Fork Leg Force on Lug Side(A2) (mm)

Figure 6.1.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Arm Length of Fork Leg
Force on Lug Side (A2)

6.2 The influence of Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opp to Lug Side end (B1)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end(B1)
0.493

0.492 The graph shows that drum torque

decreases almost linearly with increase
0.491 in B1.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.49

0.489

0.488

0.487

0.486
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end(B1) (mm)

Figure 6.2.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Support Base Length from
Fork Leg to opposite to Lug Side end (B1)
 6.3 The influence of Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end (B2)

Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end(B2)
0.62
The graph shows that drum torque
0.6 decreases non-linearly with increase in
B2 and finally becomes constant.
0.58
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5

0.48

0.46
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Fork Support Base Length from Fork Leg to Lug Side end (B2) (mm)

Figure 6.3.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Support Base Length from
Fork Leg to Lug Side end (B2)

6.4 The influence of Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line (C)

Drum Torque Required Vs Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line(C)

0.525 The graph shows that drum torque
increases with certain rate linearly with
0.52
increase in C and after a certain value
0.515 the rate of increase increases.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.51

0.505

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Distance of Lug from Rail Center Line(C) (mm)

Figure 6.4.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Distance of Lug from Rail
Center Line (C)
 6.5 The influence of Fork Lug Diameter (dl)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Lug Diameter(dl)
0.52
The graph shows that drum torque
0.51 increases linearly with increase in dl.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.5

0.49

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Fork Lug Diameter(dl) (mm)

Figure 6.5.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Lug Diameter (dl)

6.6 The influence of Fork Lug Roller Diameter (dr)

Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Lug Roller Diameter(dr)

0.525

0.52 The graph shows that drum torque

decreases non-linearly with increase in
0.515
dr.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.51

0.505

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485

0.48
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Fork Lug Roller Diameter(dr) (mm)

Figure 6.6.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Lug Roller Diameter (dr)
 6.7 The influence of Fork Leg offset from Lug Center (O3)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Leg offset from Lug Center(O3)
0.52
The graph shows that drum torque first
0.515
remains constant with increases in O3
0.51 and later increase linearly.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.505

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485

0.48

0.475
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Fork Leg offset from Lug Center(O3) (mm)

Figure 6.7.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Leg offset from Lug
Center (O3)

6.8 The influence of Fork Lug Angle from the Z-axis as viewed in XY plane(φ)
Drum Torque Required Vs Fork Lug Angle(phi)
0.53

0.52
The graph shows that drum torque first
increases and then decreases with
0.51 increase in O3. There is value for which
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.5
the drum torque is maximum, so design
should be such that it should that value
0.49 of φ.
0.48

0.47

0.46

0.45

0.44
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Fork Lug Angle(phi) (degrees)

Figure 6.8.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Lug Angle from the Z-axis
as viewed in XY Plane
 6.9 The influence of Rail Diameter (d)

Drum Torque Required Vs Rail Diameter(d)

0.4899
The graph shows that drum torque
increases linearly with increase in d.
0.4898
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.4897

0.4896

0.4895

0.4894

0.4893
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rail Diameter(d) (mm)

Figure 6.9.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Fork Rail Diameter (d)

6.10 The influence of Groove ramp Angle (θ)

Drum Torque Required Vs Groove Ramp Angle

1.4
The graph shows that drum torque
1.2 increases rapidly with increase in θ.
Design should be such that the value of
θ should be as low as possible.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Groove Ramp Angle (degrees)

Figure 6.10.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Groove ramp Angle (θ)
 6.11 The influence of Drum Radius (R)

Drum Torque Required Vs Drum Radius(R)

0.8

The graph shows that drum torque

0.7
increases linearly with increase in R.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Drum Radius(R) (mm)

Figure 6.11.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Drum Radius (R)

6.12 The influence of Sleeve Mean Diameter (Ds)

Drum Torque Required Vs Sleeve Mean Diameter(Ds)
0.5
The graph shows that drum torque first
decreases and then increases non-
0.495
linearly with increase in Ds. But since
the reducing the size of the sleeve
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.49
below a certain value may not be
possible, so as far as possible this
0.485 diameter should be kept as low as
possible.
0.48

0.475

0.47
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sleeve Mean Diameter(Ds) (mm)

Figure 6.12.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Sleeve Mean Diameter (Ds)
 6.13 The influence of Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center (AC)
Drum Torque Required Vs Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center(Ac)
0.51

The graph shows that drum torque

0.505
decreases almost linearly with increase
in AC.
Drum Torque Required (kgm)

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485

0.48

0.475
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Distance of Sleeve Center from Rail Center(Ac) (mm)

Figure 6.13.1 Graph of the variation of Drum Torque (TD)

with respect to increase in Distance of Sleeve Center
from Rail Center (AC)

7. CONCLUSION
The developed Mathematical Model successfully evaluated the Efficacy of the Gear Shifting
Mechanism to convert a given Drum Torque into Axial Force generated at the shifting sleeve
collar. Further, it evaluated the effect of various design variables on the drum torque.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Author thanks Prashant D Sutar and his colleagues of the “Team Transmission” at R&D, Bajaj
Auto Ltd. for their support during the execution of this research work.

REFERENCES

1. Gisbert Lechner, Harald Naunheimer: Automotive Transmissions, Fundametals, Selection,

Design and Application, Springer-Verlag BerlinHeidelberg, 1999. p 224-228,316-318.
2. http://www.daidometal.cz/product-list.htm#ddk02
APPENDIX
The MATLAB code for generating graph of the variation of Drum Torque with respect to change
in Groove Ramp Angle.

clc;
clear all;
fo = 60;
do = 1;
o = 0*pi/180;
Ffa = 12.00;
ufr = 0.12;
Ds = 79.63;
Ac = 66.22;
A2 = 45.35;
B1 = 17.64;
B2 = 84.35;
C = 14.95;
dl = 5.00;
dr = 8.30;
zeta = asin(2*(Ac-A2)/Ds);
A1 = A2+Ds*sin(zeta);
O3 = 67.8;
O1 = B1+O3;
O2 = B2-O3;
E1 = Ds*cos(zeta)/2;
E2 = Ds*cos(zeta)/2;
phi = 62.08*pi/180;
d = 13.00;
url = 0.16;
R = 24.50;
TDRUM = [];
for o=0:do*pi/180:fo*pi/180
A = [ 1 -1 sin(phi) 0 0 0 0 0 sin(zeta) 0;
ufr ufr 0 -1 ufr ufr 0 0 0 0 ;
-(B1+ufr*d/2) -(B2+ufr*d/2) sin(phi)*O3 C*cos(phi) 0 0 A1 A2 0 url*d*sin(phi)/2 ;
0000001100;
0 0 0 C*sin(phi) -(O1-ufr*d/2) O2+ufr*d/2 E1 -E2 O3 url*d*cos(phi)/2 ;
0 0 cos(phi) 0 -1 -1 0 0 cos(zeta) 0;
0 0 -C*cos(zeta)/A2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0;
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -(sin(o)+url*cos(o));
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 -(cos(o)-url*sin(o));
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ];
B= [ 0 -Ffa 0 Ffa 0 0 0 0 0 sqrt(A1^2+E1^2)/(sqrt(A1^2+E1^2)+sqrt(A2^2+E2^2))]';
X= inv(A)* B; %Solving for x
if(X(1)<0) %checking if Ny1<0
A(2,1)=-A(2,1); %modifying equation as Ny1<0
end
if(X(2)<0) %checking if Ny2<0
A(2,2)=-A(2,2); %modifying equation as Ny2<0
end
if(X(5)<0) %checking if Nx1<0
A(2,5)=-A(2,5); %modifying equation as Nx1<0
end
 if(X(6)<0) %checking if Nx2<0
A(2,6)=-A(2,6); %modifying equation as Nx2<0
end
X= inv(A)* B; %Resolving for x
TDRUM = [TDRUM (R1_temp*sin(o)+url*X(10)*cos(o))*R/1000];
end
O=0:do:fo;
h1=plot(O,TDRUM);
Title('Drum Torque Required Vs Groove Ramp Angle');
xlabel('Groove Ramp Angle (degrees)');
ylabel('Drum Torque Required (kgm)');
hold on;
grid on;
pause;
clear all;
close all;
clc;

NOTE: Please note that the values of the various design variables used in the above mentioned
MATLAB code is for Mechanism A.