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 article discusses the relationships among the fillet stress on a thin rim planet gear, the radial clearance between the gear rim and the gear shaft, the tooth load, the rim thickness, the radius of curvature of the center line of the rim, the face width and the module.

Optimization is applied to the design of a spiral bevel gear reduction for maximum life at a given size. A modified feasible directions search algorithm permits a wide variety of inequality constraints and exact design requirements to be met with low sensitivity to initial values. Gear tooth bending strength and minimum contact ration under load are included in the active constraints. The optimal design of the spiral bevel gear reduction includes the selection of bearing and shaft proportions in addition to gear mesh parameters. System life is maximized subject to a fixed back-cone distance of the spiral bevel gear set for a specified speed ratio, shaft angle, input torque and power. Significant parameters in the design are the spiral angle, the pressure angle, the numbers of teeth on the pinion and gear and the location and size of the four support bearings. Interpolated polynomials expand the discrete bearing properties and proportions into continuous variables for gradient optimization. After finding the continuous optimum, a designer can analyze near-optimal designs for comparison and selection. Design examples show the influence of the bearing lives on the gear parameters in the optimal configurations. For a fixed back-cone distance, optimal designs with larger shaft angles have larger service lives.

The complete and accurate solution t the contact problem of three-dimensional gears has been, for the past several decades, one of the more sought after, albeit elusive goals in the engineering community. Even the arrival on the scene in the mid-seventies of finite element techniques failed to produce the solution to any but the most simple gear contact problems.

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.

Many CAD (Computer Aided Design) systems have been developed and implemented to produce a superior quality design and to increase the design productivity in the gear industry. In general, it is true that a major portion of design tasks can be performed by CAD systems currently available. However, they can only address the computational aspects of gear design that typically require decision-making as well. In most industrial gear design practices, the initial design is the critical task that significantly effects the final results. However, the decisions about estimating or changing gear size parameters must be made by a gear design expert.

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?

To mechanical engineers, the strength of gear teeth is a question of constant recurrence, and although the problem to be solved is quite elementary in character, probably no other question could be raised upon which such a diversity of opinion exists, and in support of which such an array of rules and authorities might be quoted. In 1879, Mr. John H. Cooper, the author of a well-known work on "Belting," made an examination of the subject and found there were then in existence about forty-eight well-established rules for horsepower and working strength, sanctioned by some twenty-four authorities, and differing from each other in extreme causes of 500%. Since then, a number of new rules have been added, but as no rules have been given which take account of the actual tooth forms in common use, and as no attempt has been made to include in any formula the working stress on the material so that the engineer may see at once upon what assumption a given result is based, I trust I may be pardoned for suggesting that a further investigation is necessary or desirable.

The design of any gearing system is a difficult, multifaceted process. When the system includes bevel gearing, the process is further complicated by the complex nature of the bevel gears themselves. In most cases, the design is based on an evaluation of the ratio required for the gear set, the overall envelope geometry, and the calculation of bending and contact stresses for the gear set to determine its load capacity. There are, however, a great many other parameters which must be addressed if the resultant gear system is to be truly optimum. A considerable body of data related to the optimal design of bevel gears has been developed by the aerospace gear design community in general and by the helicopter community in particular. This article provides a summary of just a few design guidelines based on these data in an effort to provide some guidance in the design of bevel gearing so that maximum capacity may be obtained. The following factors, which may not normally be considered in the usual design practice, are presented and discussed in outline form: Integrated gear/shaft/bearing systems Effects of rim thickness on gear tooth stresses Resonant response

A simple, closed-form procedure is presented for designing minimum-weight spur and helical gearsets. The procedure includes methods for optimizing addendum modification for maximum pitting and wear resistance, bending strength, or scuffing resistance.