BEYTA GEAR SERVICE

INTRODUCTION TO GEAR DESIGN

Contents
Home
Dedication
Introduction
About the 2nd Edition
1 How to Use This Book
2 What Kind of Gears Should I Use?
2.1 Parallel-Shaft Gears
2.2 Intersecting-Shaft Gears
2.3 Non-Intersecting-Shaft Gears
3 What Should They Be Made Of?
3.1 Rating Calculations
3.2 Gear Materials and Heat Treatment
3.3 The Gear-Design Process
4 What Should They Look Like?
4.1 Mounting Characteristics
4.2 Backlash
4.3 Blank Tolerancing
4.4 Quality Classes
4.5 Surface Finish
4.6 Blank Design
4.7 Tooth-Form Selection
5 How Should They Be Made?
5.1 Milling
5.2 Hobbing
5.3 Shaping
5.4 Broaching
5.5 Lapping
5.6 Shaving
5.7 Honing
5.8 Gear Grinding
5.9 Bevel Gears
5.10 Worm Gears
6 How Should They Be Inspected?
7 Where Do I Look For Help?
8 Acknowledgments
9 About the Author

4.4 QUALITY CLASSES

Selecting the proper quality class for a particular application is one of the most controversial areas of gear design. AGMA has provided a
chart in AGMA 2000 (formerly AGMA 390.03) that can be used to select the quality level needed. Many of the texts listed in the reference

Webpagepdf.com
section of this guide have additional information on this topic. Quality level should be a function of application, power level, and operating
speed. Table 4.4 is the author’s suggestion for minimum quality level vs. maximum pinion pitch-line velocity when relatively smooth
applications are considered.

Table 4.4: Minimum Suggested Quality Level vs. Pitch-Line Velocity

For uni-directional service and relatively smooth power flow:

(If these conditions are not present, a higher quality level may be needed.)

Maximum Minimum-Suggested

plv in ft/min AGMA Quality Level

250 6

500 7

1500 8

2500 9

3500 10

5000 11

7500 12

10000 13

It is very important to remember that increased quality levels cost money. If you want cost-effective designs you must resist the urge to
“solve” your gear problems by over-specifying quality levels. Even the “best” gears will fail if they are not mounted accurately, or
properly sized for the load and system dynamics. Table 4.5 shows the quality levels normally achievable for various gear elements by
modern manufacturing techniques. The column on “relative cost” reflects not only the additional time and effort needed to make the gear
teeth, but also the extra expense of increased blank accuracy.

Webpagepdf.com
 Table 4.5: Achievable AGMA 2000 Quality Levels
by Manufacturing Method

Manufacturing Involute Spacing Relative

Method Run-out Profile Lead (Pitch) Cost

Hobbing (Class b Hob) 8 to 10 8 to 9 8 to 9 8 to 9 1.0 to 1.25

Hobbing (Class a Hob) 9 to 11 8 to 9 9 to 11 8 to 10 1.25 to 1.5

Hobbing (Class aa Hob) 9 to 12 8 to 11 9 to 11 9 to 11 1.5 to 1.75

Shaping (Commercial Cutter) 8 to 10 8 to 10 8 to 11 8 to 10 1.25 to 1.5

Shaping (Precision Cutter) 9 to 11 9 to 10 9 to 11 9 to 11 1.5 to 1.75

Shaving 10 to 12 8 to 10 8 to 12 8 to 12 2.0 to 2.5

Grinding 9 to 14 9 to 14 8 to 14 9 to 14 3.0 to 4.0

Notes:
1 Lower quality levels are generally achievable under most conditions.
2 Upper quality levels require special controls on blanks, tooling, and machinery. This can increase costs
significantly.
3 Relative costs compared to Class b hobbing for operations needed to finish gear teeth only. Material and
heat-treat costs are not included in this comparison.
4 If heat treating is done after tooth finishing, quality level can drop by two levels or more.

© 2004 Charles D. Schultz , P.E.— Used with permission.

Home

Webpagepdf.com