root relief - Search Results
Articles About root relief
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
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?
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.
Point-surface-origin (PSO) macropitting occurs at sites of geometric stress concentration (GSC) such as discontinuities in the gear tooth profile caused by micropitting, cusps at the intersection of the involute profile and the trochoidal root fillet, and at edges of prior tooth damage, such as tip-to-root interference. When the profile modifications in the form of tip relief, root relief, or both, are inadequate to compensate for deflection of the gear mesh, tip-to-root interference occurs. The interference can occur at either end of the path of contact, but the damage is usually more severe near the start-of-active-profile (SAP) of the driving gear.
How local stresses obtained from FEA can be used to determine fatigue strength of worm wheel teeth.
While designing gear and spline teeth, the root fillet area and the corresponding maximum tensile stress are primary design considerations for the gear designer. Root fillet tensile stress may be calculated using macro-geometry values such as module, minor diameter, effective fillet radius, face width, etc.
In this article, a new tip relief profile modification for spur gears is presented. The topography proposed here is a classical linear profile modification with a parabolic fillet.
In the past, the blades of universal face hobbing cutters had to be resharpened on three faces. Those three faces formed the active part of the blade. In face hobbing, the effective cutting direction changes dramatically with respect to the shank of the blade. Depending on the individual ratio, it was found that optimal conditions for the chip removal action (side rake, side relief and hook angle) could just be established by adjusting all major parameters independently. This, in turn, results automatically in the need for the grinding or resharpening of the front face and the two relief surfaces in order to control side rake, hook angle and the relief and the relief angles of the cutting and clearance side.
Helical gear teeth are affected by cratering wear particularly in the regions of low oil film thicknesses, high flank pressures and high sliding speeds. The greatest wear occurs on the pinion in the area of negative specific sliding. Here the tooth tip radius of the driven gear makes contact with the flank of the driving gear with maximum sliding speed and pressure.
Chapter 2, Continued In the previous sections, development of conjugate, face milled as well as face hobbed bevel gearsets including the application of profile and length crowning was demonstrated. It was mentioned during that demonstration that in order to optimize the common surface area, where pinion and gear flanks have meshing contact (common flank working area), a profile shift must be introduced. This concluding section of chapter 2 explains the principle of profile shift; i.e. how it is applied to bevel and hypoid gears and then expands on profile side shift, and the frequently used root angle correction which from its gear theoretical understanding is a variable profile shift that changes the shift factor along the face width. The end of this section elaborates on five different possibilities to tilt the face cutter head relative to the generating gear, in order to achieve interesting effects on the bevel gear flank form. This installment concludes chapter 2 of the Bevel Gear Technology book that lays the foundation of the following chapters, some of which also will be covered in this series.
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.
In this paper, two developed methods of tooth root load carrying capacity calculations for beveloid gears with parallel axes are presented, in part utilizing WZL software GearGenerator and ZaKo3D. One method calculates the tooth root load-carrying capacity in an FE-based approach. For the other, analytic formulas are employed to calculate the tooth root load-carrying capacity of beveloid gears. To conclude, both methods are applied to a test gear. The methods are compared both to each other and to other tests on beveloid gears with parallel axes in test bench trials.
In this paper, an accurate FEM analysis has been done of the true stress at tooth root of spur gears in the function of the gear geometry. The obtained results confirm the importance of these differences.
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.
The manufacturing quality of spiral bevel gears has achieved a very high standard. Nevertheless, the understanding of the real stress conditions and the influences. of certain parameters is not satisfactory.
In this study, limiting values for the load-carrying-capacity of fine-module gears within the module range 0.31.0 mm were determined and evaluated by comprehensive, experimental investigations that employed technical, manufacturing and material influence parameters.
Service performance and load carrying capacity of bevel gears strongly depend on the size and position of the contact pattern. To provide an optimal contact pattern even under load, the gear design has to consider the relative displacements caused by deflections or thermal expansions expected under service conditions. That means that more or less lengthwise and heightwise crowning has to be applied on the bevel gear teeth.
This paper will provide examples of stress levels from conventional root design using a hob and stress levels using an optimized root design that is now possible with PM manufacturing. The paper will also investigate how PM can reduce stresses in the root from transient loads generated by abusive driving.
In a modern truck, the gear teeth are among the most stressed parts. Failure of a tooth will damage the transmission severely. Throughout the years, gear design experience has been gained and collected into standards such as DIN (Ref. 1) or AGMA (Ref. 2). Traditionally two types of failures are considered in gear design: tooth root bending fatigue, and contact fatigue. The demands for lighter and more silent transmissions have given birth to new failure types. One novel failure type, Tooth Interior Fatigue Fracture (TIFF), has previously been described by MackAldener and Olsson (Refs. 3 & 4) and is further explored in this paper.
For maximum life in carburized and ground gearing, I have been advised that fully grinding a radius into the root gives maximum resistance against fatigue failures. Others have advised that a hobbed and unground radius root form is best. Which is best, and why?