Cost cutting. It's the aerobics of the 90s for businesses large and small. More than just the latest buzzword or 90-second flash-in-the-panacea, it's a survival technique. Companies that aren't trimming the fat now may not be around in five years to regret that they didn't.

The term "blanking" refers to the initial metal cutting operations in the process planning sequence which produce the contour of a part starting from rough material. The scope of blanking is: To remove the excess material To machine the part to print specifications, except for those surfaces with subsequent finishing operations. To leave adequate machining stock for finishing operations. To prepare good quality surfaces for location and clamping of the part throughout the process.

Question: When cutting worm gears with multiple lead stock hobs we find the surface is "ridged". What can be done to eliminate this appearance or is to unavoidable?

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.

Complete calendar for November/December 1991

Today, as part of filling a typical gear hobbing or shaping machine order, engineers are required to perform an SPC acceptance test. This SPC test, while it is contractually necessary for machine acceptance, is not a machine acceptance test. It is a process capability test. It is an acceptance of the machine, cutting tool, workholding fixture, and workpiece as integrated on the cutting machine, using a gear measuring machine, with its work arbor and evaluation software, to measure the acceptance elements of the workpiece.

Spur gear endurance tests were conducted to investigate the surface pitting fatigue life of noninvolute gears with low numbers of teeth and low contact ratios for the use in advanced application. The results were compared with those for a standard involute design with a low number of teeth. The gear pitch diameter was 8.89 cm (3.50 in.) with 12 teeth on both gear designs. Test conditions were an oil inlet temperature of 320 K (116 degrees F), a maximum Hertz stress of 1.49 GPa (216 ksi), and a speed of 10,000 rpm. The following results were obtained: The noninvolute gear had a surface pitting fatigue life approximately 1.6 times that of the standard involute gear of a similar design. The surface pitting fatigue life of the 3.43-pitch AISI 8620 noninvolute gear was approximately equal to the surface pitting fatigue life of an 8-pitch, 28-tooth AISI 9310 gear at the same load, but at a considerably higher maximum Hertz stress.

In Part I differences in pitting ratings between AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436:1986 were examined. In this part bending strength ratings are compared. All the standards base the bending strength on the Lewis equation; the ratings differ in the use and number of modification factors. A comprehensive design survey is carried out to examine practical differences between the rating methods presented in the standards, and the results are shown in graphical form.

The authors of last issue's article comparing AGMA, ISO and BS methods for Pitting Resistance Ratings are commended. Trying to compare various methods of rating gears is like hitting a moving target in a thick forest. The use of different symbols, presentations, terminology, and definitions in these standards makes it very difficult. But the greatest problem lies with the authors' use of older versions of these documents. ISO drafts and AGMA standards have evolved at the same time their work was accomplished and edited.