A common goal of gear manufacturers is to produce gearing that is competitively priced, that meets all quality requirements with the minimum amount of cost in a timely manner, and that satisfies customers' expectations.
In order to optimize this goal, the gear manufacturer must thoroughly understand each manufacturing process specified, the performance capability of that process, and the effect of that particular process as it relates to the quality of the manufactured gear. If the wrong series of processes has been selected or a specific selected process is not capable of producing a quality part, manufacturing costs are greatly increased.
In a very general sense, increasing the hardness of a steel gear increases the strength of the gear. However, for each process there is a limit to its effectiveness. This article contains background information on each of the processes covered. In each section what is desired and what is achievable is discussed. Typical processes are presented along with comments on variables which affect the result. By reviewing the capabilities and processes, it is possible to determine the limits to each process.
There are several methods available for improving the quality of spur and helical gears following the standard roughing operations of hobbing or shaping. Rotary gear shaving and roll-finishing are done in the green or soft state prior to heat treating.
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
Following is the second part of an article begun in our last issue. The first part covered basic shot peening theory, shot peening controls, and considerations that should go into developing a shot peening specification. Part II covers optional peening methods and the relationship of shot peening specifications to the drawings.
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.
Shot peening is widely recognized as a prove, cost-effective process to enhance the fatigue characteristics of metal parts and eliminate the problems of stress corrosion cracking. Additional benefits accrue in the areas of forming and texturizing. Though shot peening is widely used today, the means of specifying process parameters and controlling documents for process control are not widely understood. Questions regarding shot size, intensity, and blueprint specification to assure a high quality and repeatable shot peening process are continually asked by many design and materials engineers.
This article should answer many of the questions frequently asked by engineering professionals and to further assist companies interested in establishing a general shot peening specification.
Metrology is a vital component of gear manufacturing. Recent changes in this area, due in large part to the advent of computers, are highlighted in this article by comparison with more traditional methods.
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.