double flank - Search Results
Articles About double flank
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
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.
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.
A best practice in gear design is to limit the amount of backlash to a minimum value needed to accommodate manufacturing tolerances, misalignments, and deflections, in order to prevent the non-driving side of the teeth to make contact and rattle. Industry standards, such as ANSI/AGMA 2002 and DIN3967, provide reference values of minimum backlash to be used in the gear design. However, increased customers’ expectations in vehicle noise eduction have pushed backlash and allowable manufacturing tolerances to even lower limits. This is especially true in the truck market, where engines are quieter because they run at lower speeds to improve fuel economy, but they quite often run at high torsional vibration levels. Furthermore, gear and shaft arrangements in truck transmissions have become more complex due to increased number of speeds and to improve efficiency. Determining the minimum amount of backlash is quite a challenge. This paper presents an investigation of minimum backlash values of helical gear teeth applied to a light-duty pickup truck transmission. An analytical model was developed to calculate backlash limits of each gear pair when not transmitting load, and thus susceptible to generate rattle noise, through different transmission power paths. A statistical approach (Monte Carlo) was used since a significant number of factors affect backlash, such as tooth thickness variation; center distance variation; lead; runout and pitch variations; bearing clearances; spline clearances; and shaft deflections and misalignments. Analytical results identified the critical gear pair, and power path, which was confirmed experimentally on a transmission. The approach presented in this paper can be useful to design gear pairs with a minimum amount of backlash, to prevent double flank contact and to help reduce rattle noise to lowest levels.
Part I of this paper describes the theory behind double-flank composite inspection, detailing the apparatus used, the various measurements that can be achieved using it, the calculations involved and their interpretation. Part II, which will appear in the next issue, includes a discussion of the practical application of double-flank composite inspection, especially for large-volume operations. Part II covers statistical techniques that can be used in conjunction with double-flank composite inspection, as well as an in-depth analysis of gage R&R for this technique.
Quality gear inspection means doing the "right" inspections "right." A lot of time and money can be spent doing the wrong types of inspections related to function and doing them incorrectly. As we will discover later, such things as runout can creep into the manufacturing and inspection process and completely ruin any piece of data that is taken. this is one of the most important problems to control for quality inspection.
This section will deal with the use of gear inspection for diagnostic purposes rather than quality determination. The proper evaluation of various characteristics in the data can be useful for the solution of quality problems. It is important to sort out whether the problem is coming from the machine, tooling and/or cutters, blanks, etc. An article by Robert Moderow in the May/June 1985 issue of Gear Technology is very useful for this purpose.
AGMA introduced ANSI/AGMA 2015–2–A06— Accuracy Classification System: Radial System for Cylindrical Gears, in 2006 as the first major rewrite of the double-flank accuracy standard in over 18 years. This document explains concerns related to the use of ANSI/AGMA 2015–2–A06 as an accuracy classification system and recommends a revised system that can be of more service to the gearing industry.
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.
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.
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.
The load carrying behavior of gears is strongly influenced by local stress concentrations in the tooth root and by Hertzian pressure peaks in the tooth flanks produced by geometric deviations associated with manufacturing, assembly and deformation processes. The dynamic effects within the mesh are essentially determined by the engagement shock, the parametric excitation and also by the deviant tooth geometry.
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.
It was very interesting to see Robert Smith's article on single-flank testing of gears...
The traditional way of controlling the quality of hypoid gears' tooth flank form is to check the tooth flank contact patterns. But it is not easy to exactly judge the tooth flank form quality by the contact pattern. In recent years, it has become possible to accurately measure the tooth flank form of hypoid gears by the point-to-point measuring method and the scanning measuring method. But the uses of measured data of the tooth flank form for hypoid gears have not yet been well developed in comparison with cylindrical involute gears. In this paper, the tooth flank form measurement of generated face-milled gears, face-hobbed gears and formulate/generated gears are reported. The authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of scanning and point-to-point measuring of 3-D tooth flank forms of hypoid gears and introduce some examples of uses of measured data for high-quality production and performance prediction.
Part I of this paper, which appeared in the January/February issue of Gear Technology, described the theory behind double-flank composite inspection. It detailed the apparatus used, the various measurements that can be achieved using it, the calculations involved and their interpretation. The concluding Part II presents a discussion of the practical application of double-flank composite inspection -- especially for large-volume operations. It also addresses statistical techniques that can be used in conjunction with double-flank composite inspection, as well as an in-depth analysis of gage R&R for this technique.
This presentation introduces a new procedure that - derived from exact calculations - aids in determining the parameters of the validation testing of spiral bevel and hypoid gears in single-reduction axles.
Flank breakage is common in a number of cylindrical and bevel gear applications. This paper introduces a relevant, physically based calculation method to evaluate flank breakage risk vs. pitting risk. Verification of this new method through testing is demonstrably shown.
Gear flank breakage can be observed on edge zone-hardened gears. It occurs, for example, on bevel gears for water turbines, on spur gears for wind energy converters and on single- and double-helical gears for other industrial applications.
Question: What is functional measurement and what is the best method for getting truthful answers?
The configuration of flank corrections on bevel gears is subject to relatively narrow restrictions. As far as the gear set is concerned, the requirement is for the greatest possible contact zone to minimize flank compression. However, sufficient reserves in tooth depth and longitudinal direction for tooth contact displacement should be present. From the machine - and particularly from the tool - point of view, there are restrictions as to the type and magnitude of crowning that can be realized. Crowning is a circular correction. Different kinds of crowning are distinguished by their direction. Length crowning, for example, is a circular (or 2nd order) material removal, starting at a reference point and extending in tooth length or face width.
Micropitting, pitting and wear are typical gear failure modes that can occur on the flanks of slowly operated and highly stressed internal gears. However, the calculation methods for the flank load-carrying capacity have mainly been established on the basis of experimental investigations of external gears. This paper describes the design and functionality of the newly developed test rigs for internal gears and shows basic results of the theoretical studies. It furthermore presents basic examples of experimental test results.
Influences of Load Distribution and Tooth Flank Modifications as Considered in a New, DIN/ISO-Compatible Calculation Method
Another expert takes a crack at a previously answered question about double-helical gears and universal hobs.
As is well known in involute gearing, “perfect” involute gears never work perfectly in the real world. Flank modifications are often made to overcome the influences of errors coming from manufacturing and assembly processes as well as deflections of the system. The same discipline applies to hypoid gears.
Were Thomas Jefferson around today, he'd be all over the Double-A engine's development and everything it represents. And what is the Double-A engine; what does its successful design and execution represent, you ask?
A major source of helicopter cabin noise (which has been measured at over 100 decibels sound pressure level) is the gearbox. Reduction of this noise is a NASA and U.S. Army goal. A requirement for the Army/NASA Advanced Rotorcraft Transmission project was a 10 dB noise reduction compared to current designs.
Worm gearing is of great antiquity, going back about 2100 years to Archimedes, who is generally acknowledged as its inventor. Archimedes' concept used an Archimedial spiral to rotate a toothed wheel. Development of the worm gearing principle progressed along conventional lines until about 500 years ago when Leonardo DaVinci evolved the double enveloping gear concept.
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?
Much of the information in this article has been extracted from an AGMA Technical Paper, &quot;What Single Flank Testing Can Do For You&quot;, presented in 1984 by the author
This article was originally published 20 years ago, in Gear Technology’s first issue. It describes a method of evaluating the smoothness, or lack of smoothness, of gear motion. This lack of smoothness of motion, known as “transmission error,” is responsible for excitation of gear noise and problems of gear accuracy and sometimes has a relationship to gear failure.
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.
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.
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.
More strength, less noise. Those are two major demands on gears, including bevel and hypoid gears.
"Frenco--Inspecting All Flanks in Minutes."
Instances of damage to discontinuous form ground and surface-hardened gears, especially of large scale, have recently increased. This may be attributed partly to a faulty grinding process with negative effects on the surface zones and the surface properties.
Most research on micropitting is done on small-sized gears. This article examines whether those results are also applicable to larger gears.