Material Grade in Gears

The complete industry news section from the June 2018 issue of Gear Technology.

A reader asks: We are currently revising our gear standards and tolerances, and a few problems with the new standard AGMA 2002-C16 have arisen. Firstly, the way to calculate the tooth thickness tolerance seems to need a "manufacturing profile shift coefficient" that isn't specified in the standard; neither is another standard referred to for this coefficient. This tolerance on tooth thickness is needed later to calculate the span width as well as the pin diameter. Furthermore, there seems to be no tolerancing on the major and minor diameters of a gear.

So, what exactly do we mean when we say “use good material” for your gears? Once again, the answer is “it depends.” Even the “best” steel may be wr...

One of the scariest things a gear designer can face is a blank sheet of paper. This is why most of our products are “derivative” rather than “revol...

Our international readers are no doubt chuckling over this silly, American “long addendum” terminology. The “civilized world” has long relied on a ...

I have a query (regarding) calculated gear life values. I would like to understand for what % of gear failures the calculated life is valid? Is it 1-in-100 (1% failure, 99% reliability) or 1-in-one-thousand (0.1% failure)?

At most family reunions, everyone gets along, everyone puts on a good face, and everyone celebrates their togetherness. The AGMA annual convention held at the end of April was a lot like that.

Machine data has never been easier to collect, distribute and analyze. Monitoring production lines, evaluating tools and surveying tool conditions ...