lead error - Search Results
Articles About lead error
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
A pair of spur gears generally has an effective lead error which is caused, not only by manufacturing and assembling errors, but also by the deformations of shafts, bearings and housings due to the transmitted load. The longitudinal load distribution on a contact line of the teeth of the gears is not uniform because of the effective lead error.
Much information has been written on gear inspection, analytical. functional. semiautomatic and automatic. In most cases, the charts, (if you are lucky enough to have recording equipment) have been explained.
Q&A is your interactive gear forum.
Base helix error - the resultant of lead and profile errors is the measured deviation from the theoretical line of contact (Fig. 1). It can be measured in the same way that lead error on a spur gear is measured, namely, by setting a height gage to height H based on the radial distance r to a specified line of contact (Fig. 2), rotating the gear so as to bring a tooth into contact with the indicator on the height gage, and then moving the height gage along two or more normals to the plane of action. The theoretical line of contact on helical gear must be parallel to the surface plate, which is attained by mounting the gear on a sine bar (Fig. 3).
This paper initially defines bias error—the “twisted tooth phenomenon.” Using illustrations, we explain that bias error is a by-product of applying conventional, radial crowning methods to produced crowned leads on helical gears. The methods considered are gears that are finished, shaped, shaved, form and generated ground. The paper explains why bias error occurs in these methods and offers techniques used to limit/eliminate bias error. Sometimes, there may be a possibility to apply two methods to eliminate bias error. In those cases, the pros/cons of these methods will be reviewed.
Joe Arvin comments on his recent trip to Scandinavia and how U.S. defense dollars are being spent overseas. J.D. Smith responds to an article on gear noise from the previous issue.
Gear noise can be a source of intense annoyance. It is often the primary source of annoyance even when it is not the loudest noise component. This is because of the way it is perceived. Gear noise is a collection of pure tones which the human ear can detect even when they are 10dB lower than the overall noise level. Another reason for our sensitivity to transmission noise is that we associate it with impending mechanical failure.
Vehicle gear noise testing is a complex and often misunderstood subject. Gear noise is really a system problem.(1) most gearing used for power transmission is enclosed in a housing and, therefore, little or no audible sound is actually heard from the gear pair.(2) The vibrations created by the gears are amplified by resonances of structural elements. This amplification occurs when the speed of the gear set is such that the meshing frequency or a multiply of it is equal to a natural frequency of the system in which the gears are mounted.
The connection between transmission error, noise and vibration during operation has long been established. Calculation methods have been developed to describe the influence so that it is possible to evaluate the relative effect of applying a specific modification at the design stage. These calculations enable the designer to minimize the excitation from the gear pair engagement at a specific load. This paper explains the theory behind transmission error and the reasoning behind the method of applying the modifications through mapping surface profiles and determining load sharing.
The concept of "transmission error" is relatively new and stems from research work in the late 1950s by Gregory, Harris and Munro,(1) together with the need to check the accuracy of gear cutting machines. The corresponding commercial "single flank" testing equipment became available in the 1960s, but it was not until about ten years ago that it became generally used, and only recently has it been possible to test reliably at full load and full speed.
Presumably, everyone who would be interested in this subject is already somewhat familiar with testing of gears by traditional means. Three types of gear inspection are in common use: 1) measurement of gear elements and relationships, 2) tooth contact pattern checks and 3) rolling composite checks. Single Flank testing falls into this last category, as does the more familiar Double Flank test.
Anyone involved in the design, manufacture and use of gears is concerned with three general characteristics relative to their application: noise, accuracy, and strength or surface durability. In the article, we will be dealing with probably the most aggravating of the group, gear noise.
When designing hardened and ground spur gears to operate with minimum noise, what are the parameters to be considered? should tip and/or root relief be applied to both wheel and pinion or only to one member? When pinions are enlarged and he wheel reduced, should tip relief be applied? What are the effects on strength, wear and noise? For given ratios with enlarged pinions and reduced wheels, how can the gear set sized be checked or adjusted to ensure that the best combination has been achieved?
The data discussed in this article was taken from an upright vacuum cleaner. This was a prototype cleaner that was self-propelled by a geared transmission. It was the first time that the manufacturer had used a geared transmission in this application.
It is very common for those working in the gear manufacturing industry to have only a limited understanding of the fundamental principals of involute helicoid gear metrology, the tendency being to leave the topic to specialists in the gear lab. It is well known that quiet, reliable gears can only be made using the information gleaned from proper gear metrology.
How should we consider random helix angle errors fHβ and housing machining errors when calculating KHβ? What is a reasonable approach?
The purpose of this article is to clarify some terms and methods used in measuring the size of gears. There is also an explanation given of the error induced and how to correct for it in certain cases when the measurement is made using pins instead of balls.
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.
An investigation of transmission errors and bearing contact of spur, helical, and spiral bevel gears was performed. Modified tooth surfaces for these gears have been proposed in order to absorb linear transmission errors caused by gear misalignment and to localize the bearing contact. Numerical examples for spur, helical, and spiral bevel gears are presented to illustrate the behavior of the modified gear surfaces with respect to misalignment and errors of assembly. The numerical results indicate that the modified surfaces will perform with a low level of transmission error in non-ideal operating environments.
Minimizing gear losses caused by churning, windage and mesh friction is important if plant operating costs and environmental impact are to be minimized. This paper concentrates on mesh friction losses and associated scuffing risk. It describes the preliminary results from using a validated, 3-D Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and Tooth Contact Analysis (TCA) program to optimize cylindrical gears for low friction losses without compromising transmission error (TE), noise and power density. Some case studies and generic procedures for minimizing losses are presented. Future development and further validation work is discussed.
Our research group has been engaged in the study of gear noise for some nine years and has succeeded in cutting the noise from an average level to some 81-83 dB to 76-78 dB by both experimental and theoretical research. Experimental research centered on the investigation into the relation between the gear error and noise. Theoretical research centered on the geometry and kinematics of the meshing process of gears with geometric error. A phenomenon called "out-of-bound meshing of gears" was discovered and mathematically proven, and an in-depth analysis of the change-over process from the meshing of one pair of teeth to the next is followed, which leads to the conclusion we are using to solve the gear noise problem. The authors also suggest some optimized profiles to ensure silent transmission, and a new definition of profile error is suggested.
Everyone makes mistakes. Nobody's perfect. We've all heard those or similar words, and if you happen to be in charge of your company's quality efforts, you've probably heard them more than most people.
Helical gears can drive either nonparallel or parallel shafts. When these gears are used with nonparallel shafts, the contact is a point, and the design and manufacturing requirements are less critical than for gears driving parallel shafts.
Our experts discuss runout and helix accuracy, as well as the maximum number of teeth in a shaper cutter.
Question: When evaluating charts from a gear inspection machine, it is sometimes found that the full length of the profile traces vary, and that sometimes they are less than the length of active profile (above start of active profile-SAP) by up to 20%. This condition could be caused by a concentricity error between tooth grinding and shaping, or by unequal stock removal when grinding. (See Fig. 1.) Is it possible that some of the variation is coming from the inspection machine? How can variation from the inspection machine be reduced?
Modern gearboxes are characterized by high torque load demands, low running noise and compact design. In order to fulfill these demands, profile and lead modifications are being applied more often than in the past. This paper will focus on how to produce profile and lead modifications by using the two most common grinding processes—threaded wheel and profile grinding. In addition, more difficult modifications—such as defined flank twist or topological flank corrections—will also be described in this paper.
A graphical procedure for selecting optimum combinations of profile and lead modifications.
In this study, the combined influence of shaft misalignments and gear lead crown on load distribution and tooth bending stresses is investigated. Upon conclusion, the experimental results are correlated with predictions of a gear load distribution model, and recommendations are provided for optimal lead crown in a given misalignment condition.
It may not be widely recognized that most of the inspection data supplied by inspection equipment, following the practices of AGMA Standard 2015 and similar standards, are not of elemental accuracy deviations but of some form of composite deviations. This paper demonstrates the validity of this “composite” label by first defining the nature of a true elemental deviation and then, by referring to earlier literature, demonstrating how the common inspection practices for involute, lead (on helical gears), pitch, and, in some cases, total accumulated pitch, constitute composite measurements.
A programmable algorithm is developed to separate out the effect of eccentricity (radial runout) from elemental gear inspection date, namely, profile and lead data. This algorithm can be coded in gear inspection software to detect the existence, the magnitude and the orientation of the eccentricity without making a separate runout check. A real example shows this algorithm produces good results.
In the last section, we discussed gear inspection; the types of errors found by single and double flank composite and analytical tests; involute geometry; the involute cam and the causes and symptoms of profile errors. In this section, we go into tooth alignment and line of contact issues including lead, helix angles, pitch, pitchline runout, testing and errors in pitch and alignment.
The two-flank roll test measures kickout (tooth-to-tooth composite error) and tooth thickness. In this article, it will be shown that measured values vary with the number of teeth on the master gear.
This paper discusses the influence of tip relief, root relief, load modification, end relief and their combinations on gear stresses and transmission errors due to shaft deflections.
The presence of significant errors in the two-flank roll test (a work gear rolled in tight mesh against a master gear) is well-known, but generally overlooked.
Transmission error (TE) is recognized as one of the most important causes of gear acoustic emissions...
This paper will demonstrate that, unlike commonly used low-contact-ratio spur gears, high-contact-ratio spur gears can provide higher power-to-weight ratio, and can also achieve smoother running with lower transmission error (TE) variations.
Forest City Gear applies advanced gear shaping and inspection technologies to help solve difficult lead crown correction challenges half a world away. But these solutions can also benefit customers much closer to home, the company says. Here's how…
In January of this year we at Gear Technology got hip to the fact-in un-hip, belated fashion - that we needed a Blog Site and someone to do the blogging. Lucky for us, we already had that someone right here - in plain sight. That someone was Charles D. Schultz, P.E.
Profile corrections on gears are a commonly used method to reduce transmission error, contact shock, and scoring risk. There are different types of profile corrections. It is a known fact that the type of profile correction used will have a strong influence on the resulting transmission error. The degree of this influence may be determined by calculating tooth loading during mesh. The current method for this calculation is very complicated and time consuming; however, a new approach has been developed that could reduce the calculation time.