Although gear geometry and the design of asymmetric tooth gears are well known and published, they are not covered by modern national or international gear design and rating standards. This limits their broad implementation for various gear applications, despite substantial performance advantages in comparison to symmetric tooth gears for mostly unidirectional drives. In some industries — like aerospace, that are accustomed to using gears with non-standard tooth shapes — the rating of these gears is established by comprehensive testing. However, such testing programs are not affordable for many other gear drive applications that could also benefit from asymmetric tooth gears.

A reader wonders about gears where the tops of the teeth are the bearing surface, as used in spur gear differentials. Do they require any special construction or processing?

How difficult is it to design a gear? It depends upon whom you ask.

More than 100 years ago, gear manufacturers were facing a significant challenge from industry. The incredible advances in industrialization and transportation that occurred at the turn of the 20th century resulted in incredible growth for gear makers, but there were significant technical issues. "The lack of process and product standardization was a continuing problem in all U.S. industry. The lack of industry-wide gear standards meant there were no standard gear tooth sizes, ratings, quality definition or consistent manufacturing methods" (Celebrating 100 Years of Gearing, pg. 22).

This proposed standard would not make any recommendations regarding the required quality for any application. The intent is to establish standard pre-finish quality classes for typical finishing operations, which only include the inspection elements that are important to properly evaluate pre-finish gear quality as it applies to the finishing operation. It would be the responsibility of the manufacturing/process engineer, quality engineer, or other responsible individual to establish the required pre-finish quality class for their application.

Measurement institutions of seven different countries — China, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the U.S. — participated in the implementation of the first international comparison of involute gear measurement standards. The German metrology institute Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) was chosen as the pilot laboratory as well as the organizer. Three typical involute gear measurement standards provided by the PTB were deployed for this comparison: a profile, a helix and a pitch measurement standard. In the final analysis, of the results obtained from all participants, the weighted mean was evaluated as reference value for all 28 measured parameters. However, besides the measurement standards, the measured parameters, and, most importantly, some of the comparison results from all participants are anonymously presented. Furthermore, mishandling of the measurement standards as occurred during the comparison will be illustrated.

The face load factor is one of the most important items for a gear strength calculation. Current standards propose formulae for face load factor, but they are not always appropriate. AGMA 927 proposes a simpler and quicker algorithm that doesn't require a contact analysis calculation. This paper explains how this algorithm can be applied for gear rating procedures.

With all the advantages of building float into a planetary gear system, what advantages are there to using a carrier in the first place, rather than simply having your planets float in the system?

In today’s globalized manufacturing, all industrial products having dimensional constraints must undergo conformity specifications assessments on a regular basis. Consequently, (standardization) associated with GD&T (geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing) should be un-ambiguous and based on common, accepted rules. Of course gears - and their mechanical assemblies - are special items, widely present in industrial applications where energy conversion and power transmission are involved.

A response to the September 2013 Voices piece on how gear standards are written, from one who's been there.