dynamic factor - Search Results
Articles About dynamic factor
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
One of the best ways to learn the ISO 6336 gear rating system is to recalculate the capacity of a few existing designs and to compare the ISO 6336 calculated capacity to your experience with those designs and to other rating methods. For these articles, I'll assume that you have a copy of ISO 6336, you have chosen a design for which you have manufacturing drawings and an existing gear capacity calculation according to AGMA 2001 or another method. I'll also assume that you have converted dimensions, loads, etc. into the SI system of measurement.
Traditionally, gear rating procedures consider manufacturing accuracy in the application of the dynamic factor, but only indirectly through the load distribution are such errors in the calculation of stresses used in the durability and gear strength equations. This paper discusses how accuracy affects the calculation of stresses and then uses both statistical design of experiments and Monte Carlo simulation techniques to quantify the effects of different manufacturing and assembly errors on root and contact stresses.
Although there is plenty of information and data on the determination of geometry factors and bending strength of external gear teeth, the computation methods regarding internal gear design are less accessible. most of today's designs adopt the formulas for external gears and incorporate some kind of correction factors for internal gears. However, this design method is only an approximation because of the differences between internal gears and external gears. Indeed, the tooth shape of internal gears is different from that of external gears. One has a concave curve, while the other has a convex curve.
Questions: I have heard the terms "safety factor," "service factor," and "application factor" used in discussing gear design. what are these factors an dhow do they differ from one another? Why are they important?
Chicago- Results of recent studies on residual stress in gear hobbing, hobbing without lubricants and heat treating were reported by representatives of INFAC (Instrumented Factory for Gears) at an industry briefing in March of this year.
Three experts tackle the question of profile shift in this issue's edition of "Ask the Expert."
The geometry factor, which is a fundamental part of the AGMA strength rating of gears, is currently computed using the Lewis parabola which allows computation of the Lewis form factor.(1) The geometry factor is obtained from this Lewis factor and load sharing ratio. This method, which originally required graphical construction methods and more recently has been computerized, works reasonably well for external gears with thick rims.(2-6) However, when thin rims are encountered or when evaluating the strength of internal gears, the AGMA method cannot be used.
The use of dimensionless factors to describe gear tooth geometry seems to have a strong appeal to gear engineers. The stress factors I and J, for instance, are well established in AGMA literature. The use of the rack shift coefficient "x" to describe nonstandard gear proportions is common in Europe, but is not as commonly used in the United States. When it is encountered in the European literature or in the operating manuals for imported machine tools, it can be a source of confusion to the American engineer.
This paper addresses the lubrication of helical gears — especially those factors influencing lubricant film thickness and pressure. Contact between gear teeth is protected by the elastohydrodynamic lubrication (EHL) mechanism that occurs between nonconforming contact when pressure is high enough to cause large increases in lubricant viscosity due to the pressure-viscosity effect, and changes of component shape due to elastic deflection. Acting together, these effects lead to oil films that are stiff enough to separate the contacting surfaces and thus prevent significant metal-to-metal contact occurring in a well-designed gear pair.
Spiral-bevel gears, found in many machine tools, automobile rear-axle drives, and helicopter transmissions, are important elements for transmitting power.
A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method is adapted, validated and applied to spinning gear systems with emphasis on predicting windage losses. Several spur gears and a disc are studied. The CFD simulations return good agreement with measured windage power loss.
How dynamic load affects the pitting fatigue life of external spur gears was predicted by using NASA computer program TELSGE. TELSGE was modified to include an improved gear tooth stiffness model, a stiffness-dynamic load iteration scheme and a pitting-fatigue-life prediction analysis for a gear mesh. The analysis used the NASA gear life model developed by Coy, methods of probability and statistics and gear tooth dynamic loads to predict life. In general, gear life predictions based on dynamic loads differed significantly from those based on static loads, with the predictions being strongly influenced by the maximum dynamic load during contact.
Recently, there has been increased interest in the dynamic effects in gear systems. This interest is stimulated by demands for stronger, higher speed, improved performance, and longer-lived systems. This in turn had stimulated numerous research efforts directed toward understanding gear dynamic phenomena. However, many aspects of gear dynamics are still not satisfactorily understood.
Solutions to the governing equations of a spur gear transmission model, developed in a previous article are presented. Factors affecting the dynamic load are identified. It is found that the dynamic load increases with operating speed up to a system natural frequency. At operating speeds beyond the natural frequency the dynamic load decreases dramatically. Also, it is found that the transmitted load and shaft inertia have little effect upon the total dynamic load. Damping and friction decrease the dynamic load. Finally, tooth stiffness has a significant effect upon dynamic loadings the higher the stiffness, the lower the dynamic loading. Also, the higher the stiffness, the higher the rotating speed required for peak dynamic response.
In some gear dynamic models, the effect of tooth flexibility is ignored when the model determines which pairs of teeth are in contact. Deflection of loaded teeth is not introduced until the equations of motion are solved. This means the zone of tooth contact and average tooth meshing stiffness are underestimated, and the individual tooth load is overstated, especially for heavily loaded gears. This article compares the static transmission error and dynamic load of heavily loaded, low-contact-ratio spur gears when the effect of tooth flexibility has been considered and when it has been ignored. Neglecting the effect yields an underestimate of resonance speeds and an overestimate of the dynamic load.