Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Engineering
ProcediaProcedia
Engineering 00 (2012)
Engineering 000–000
19 (2011) 196 – 202
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

1st CIRP Conference on Surface Integrity (CSI)

Investigations on Surface Defects in Gear Hobbing

F. Klockea, C. Gorgelsa, A. Stuckenberga*
a
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University, Steinbachstraße 19, 52074
Aachen, Germany

Abstract

An important property of manufacturing processes is the process reliability. This refers to the macrogeometry and to
the achievable surface quality. In dry gear hobbing as the most productive and common manufacturing technology for
the soft machining of cylindrical gears sometimes surface defects are noticed. These defects like welded-on chips and
smeared areas on the flank are not acceptable.
The mechanisms leading to surface defects are not known and understood in total. For the understanding, first the
appearance and exact occurrence have to be investigated. Parallel, metallografic investigations are carried out for the
characterization of the defects. Further on, the appearing of surface defects and characteristic values generated by a
manufacturing simulation for gear hobbing are compared to find influences of the tool and process design on the
tendency of dry hobbed gears towards surface defects.

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. E. Brinksmeier

Keywords: Machining, Surface defect, Gear, Hobbing

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-241-80-28471; fax: +49-241-80-22293.

E-mail address: a.stuckenberg@wzl.rwth-aachen.de.

1877-7058 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.101
2 F.F.
Klocke et et
Klocke al.al./
/ Procedia
ProcediaEngineering
Engineering1900(2011)
(2012)196 – 202
000–000 197

1. Introduction and objective

An important characteristic of production processes is the process reliability. This includes achieving
the required quality of each individual workpiece during single or multiple batches. The most common
method for rough machining of external gears is hobbing. Next to the geometric quality requirements the
surface on the flank has to be free of defects. Surface defects are deviations of the tooth flank, which are
not explainable by the process kinematics. These surface defects have to be avoided because of e.g. a
possible decrease of the case hardening depth and therefore a local minimized load carrying capacity.
Additionally surface defects can conduct to a local higher stock for following manufacturing steps.
Causes for the appearance of surface defects are widely unexplored. In [1, 2, 3, 4] surface defects in
gear hobbing are mentioned but reasons for their occurrence or solutions for the avoidance are not [1, 2,
3] or only rudimentarily given [4]. Because of the lack of knowledge concerning the strategy for avoiding
surface defects, a systematic approach during the process design is required. In contrast, investigations on
the surface quality are documented for many other applications but not for hobbing [5]. The global aim is
to avoid surface defects. To reach that aim different investigations like cutting trials in industrial as well
as in a laboratory environment are carried out. The current findings are discussed with the help of an
example gear under inclusion of the findings of Winkel [4].

2. Experiments on surface defects in gear hobbing and reasons for the avoidance

To generate a basis for the investigations, 3 state of the art external gears are chosen. A spur gear,
representing standard industrial gearbox gear designs (spur), a helical planetary gear with a modified
pressure angle ( = 19.25°), representing automatic transmissions (helical) and a helical gear with high
addendum and helix angle (β = 30°), representing modern dual clutch gearboxes (high). In the following
the report focuses mainly on the helical planetary gear, Fig. 1.
198 F. Klocke
F. Klocke et al.
et al./ / Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 19 (2011)
00 (2012) 196 – 202
000–000 3

workpiece: right flank fa

vc 220/fa 2.8

vc 220/fa 2.8
helical gear root
hmax = 98 µm
mn = 1.35 mm Standweg L
1
z2 = 24
tip
αn2 = 19.25°
β2 = 19°
b2 = 31.5 mm right flank fa
root

vc 220/fa 2,2
vc 220/fa 2.2
tool: hmax = 44 µm
da0 = 75 mm
z0 = 3, left tip
ni = 21
αn0 = 14°
left flank root fa
conventional

conventional
cutting parameters:
vc = 220 m/min hmax = 33 µm
fa = 2.2/2.8 mm tip
T = 3.72 mm 2
climb/conventional cutting

Appearance of light defects

Appearance of 1 2
heavy defects
aktualisieren mit
Gefügeschliff 267

Microsection 100 µm Microsection 20 µm

Fig. 1. Exemplary surface defects according to their location (helical gear)

With this gear design trials using different process designs in industrial environment are made. The
appearance of surface defects is characterized according to the location on the flank.
The different characteristic surface defects are shown exemplarily in Fig. 1. Characteristic defects for 3
different process designs for the helical gear are shown. The different process designs are the starting
point (parameters in industrial application), the decrease of axial feed and the change from climb to
conventional cutting. On the left side of Fig. 1 the detailed gear and process data, in the middle
characteristic defects and on the right side the area of defect appearance on the flank can be seen.
The upper picture shows a welded-on chip. The middle picture in vertical direction additionally shows
a smeared area around a welded-on chip. These two defects are the characteristic defects for this point.
The defects have a maximum height of hmax = 100 µm. In addition the two typical defect occurrences are
shown in a microsection picture. These pictures show the proof that in case 1 the chip is welded on an
already well generated flank, in case 2 the workpiece material is smeared-up at the surface.
The best surface can be detected for the conventional cut variant. In general every flank has slight
surface defects, but these light defects are more an optical interference than a functional failure. The right
flank has more defects than the left.
By reducing the axial feed the defect loaded area increases slightly. The energy input of the process for
the formation of one chip increases with a higher axial feed and cutting speed. For this part the defects are
smaller with a higher energy input. The reason may be a warmer workpiece and so a changed chip
4 F.F.
Klocke et et
Klocke al.al./
/ Procedia
ProcediaEngineering
Engineering1900(2011)
(2012)196 – 202
000–000 199

formation during the process. That means for a good cutting process a certain energy level or rather a
minimal cutting length or chip thickness has to be exceeded.
After discussing the characteristics of surface defects in gear hobbing, the relevance for avoiding has
to be discussed more detailed. In Fig. 2 a typical case hardening depth (CHD) distribution for small
module gears based on Braykoff [6] is drawn. The typical case hardening depth for a gear with a module
of mn = 1.35 mm is 0.3 mm. With the knowledge of a maximum height of welded-on chips of
hmax = 0.1 mm and a grinding stock of s = 0.05 mm the CHD is reduced in this area up to 50 %. This
results in a surface hardness of about 660 HV instead of the required hardness of 720 HV +50. According

900
Grinding Stock s = 0.05 mm Grinding Stock s = 0.05 mm
800
750 Welded on Chip s = 0.1 mm
Hardness Vivkers HV0.1

660
Welded on Chip s = 0.1 mm
600 CHT550HV = 0.3 mm
= 550

Reduction of local Hardness 400

= 660 HV0.1
(Out of Tolerance)

200

Reduction of Local CHT = 720 +50 HV

Load Carrying Capacity
0
0 0.25 0.5 1.0 1,5 2.0
Surface Distance z [mm]

Fig. 2. Example for hardness distribution for small module gears, based on [6]
200 F. Klocke
F. Klocke et al.
et al./ / Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 19 (2011)
00 (2012) 196 – 202
000–000 5

to Niemann and Winter [7] that means a significant reduction of the allowed stress Hlim of 10 % and
along with that a reduction of the local load carrying capacity. Additionally, the hardness is local out of
the given tolerance field. This local decreased hardness can result in damages of the flank. Possible
damages are on the one hand pittings and on the other hand flank breakage [8]. So, especially heavy
defects have to be avoided.

3. Investigations on reasons for surface defects

After knowing influences of different cutting parameters on the appearance of defects, measures to
avoid them have to be found. To reach this aim the manufacturing process simulation SPARTApro is
used [9]. The basis is a geometric penetration calculation similar to other software tools [10, 11]. With the
chip geometries, chip forming characteristics can be calculated and the hobbing process can be described.
In addition to process simulations, findings of Winkel [4] are considered to find an explanation or
solution to avoid the defects for the above shown gear. Winkel documents surface defects at a module
mn = 2.5 mm gear for different process designs. Especially, the tool pressure angle was varied. His
explanations for the appearance of defects are multi flank chips with a thin connection between e.g. the
flank and tip part of a single chip referring to the chip thickness and the cutting length. [4]
Fig. 3 shows four characteristic values: the chip thickness, cutting length, kinematic clearance angle
and number of cuts as function of the cutting edge for the variants with a lower axial feed and the
conventional cut. For a better visibility the kinematic clearance angle is only shown for the relevant area
of the cutting edge.
The most significant fact is the higher chip thickness, cutting length and kinematic clearance angle for
the conventional cut variant. The higher values can be found especially in that area, where the
conventional cut gears are only slightly defect loaded, cf. Fig. 1. This means again that more massive

Workpiece: max. chip thickness max. cutting length

mn = 1.35 mm 0.3 20
z2 = 24 LF T TF LF T TF
vc = conventional 15
hcu,max [mm]

αn2 = 19.25°
Lmax [mm]

0.2 220/150 220/2.8

β2 = 19° fa = 2.8
10
b2 = 31.5 mm
0.1
Tool: 5
da0 = 75 mm 0
220/2.2
0
z0 = 3, left
ni = 21 kinematic clearance angle number of cuts
αn0 = 14°
3 500
Cutting parameters: LF T TF LF T TF
400
vc = 150/220 m/min
φxn,min [°]

fa = 2.2/2.8 mm 300
ns [-]

2
T = 3.72 mm 200
climb/conventional cutting 100
1 0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
cutting edge [mm] cutting edge [mm]
Simulation: SPARTApro

Fig. 3. Changing of specific chip geometries

6 F.F.
Klocke et et
Klocke al.al./
/ Procedia
ProcediaEngineering
Engineering1900(2011)
(2012)196 – 202
000–000 201

chips and in addition to that a higher clearance angle lead to less defects.
One more sign for the kinematic clearance angle as a main factor [2, 3] for the appearance of defects
shows the comparison between the climb and conventional cut variant. For the conventional cut variant
the kinematic clearance angle is Δφxn,min = 0.3° higher against the others. In addition to that this variant
has the lowest defect impact. The reason, especially for the defect smeared areas, may be a too small
space between the tool flank and the workpiece. This can be found as well at Winkel [4]. There friction
can be increased, which leads to a higher temperature on the workpiece flank and therefore to smearing of
material.
A further reason may be the accompanying increase of the rake angle with a reduction of the kinematic
clearance angle. This increase leads to a worse chip flow [12] and that to a longer duration of a chip in
that area. This leads to a longer heat transfer into the workpiece, which may result in the appearance of
smeared areas.
For a detailed view on the effects two generating positions, 14 for the climb cutting and -1 for the
conventional cutting variant, are investigated more detailed, Fig. 4. Both chips are formed in the highly-
defect-loaded area, have a similar maximum chip thickness and are characteristic for the process designs
concerning their geometry. Visible is the higher cutting length for the conventional variant in the
inspected area.
The maximum chip thickness of the two process designs is for the climb variant hcu,max = 0.28
respectively 0.23 mm for the conventional variant. To cut the same tooth gap volume the chips in
conventional cutting have a greater base (hob rotation angle × cutting edge length) referring to the chip
formation of the tooth flank. The comparison of the two chip geometries in Fig. 4 is a good example for
that. With the knowledge that the conventional cut is the lowest defect-loaded variant, an influence of the
chip thickness and the cutting length can be interpreted because of the difference of these values in the
same way as the surfaces of the workpieces differ. So chips may have to be massive. Including the results
of Winkel [4] more defects would be expectable for the conventional cutting variant caused by the above
mentioned visible thin connection between the tip and flank part of the multi flank chip. The fact that his
explanation does not work in this case means there must be more influences on the appearance of defects
than the chip geometry and further, more detailed knowledge has to be gained.

Workpiece: Simulation: SPARTApro

mn = 1.35 mm
z2 = 24 climb cutting conventional cutting
αn2 = 19.25°
β2 = 19° generating position 14 generating position -1
b2 = 31.5 mm
hcu,max,14 = 0.11 hcu,max,-1 = 0.10
Tool:
da0 = 75 mm -29 -15
z0 = 3, left
-18 -4
ni = 21
αn0 = 14° -7 7
Cutting parameters:
4 18
vc = 220 m/min
fa = 2.8 mm 15 29
T = 3.72 mm -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4
climb/conventional cutting cutting edge [mm] cutting edge [mm]

Fig. 4. Influence of the cutting strategy (climb/conventional cutting) on specific chip geometries
202 F. Klocke
F. Klocke et al.
et al./ / Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 19 (2011)
00 (2012) 196 – 202
000–000 7

4. Conclusion

Investigations on the appearance are made and explanations on reasons for the avoidance of surface
defects are given. The investigations are focused on a planetary gear representing modern dry gear
hobbing processes. Starting with a data base on surface defects in gear hobbing, specific surface defects
are better known now. The two major defects are welded-on chips and smeared areas.
Afterwards under support of a manufacturing simulation the defects are compared with characteristic
process values. The comparison shows a good correlation between the appearance of defects and the
values cutting length, kinematic clearance angle and the compactness of chips. The results lead to an
optimization potential for the process design; not in a predictive way but to optimize processes iteratively.
A discussion with former findings leads to the result that this explanation is not applicable in total to
explain and avoid the defects in this case. Further investigations focus on a more detailed view on specific
status during the chip formation in gear hobbing with the help of an analogy trial with a single tooth.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on the IGF-project N04271/09. The IGF-project N04271/09 of the VDW Research
Institute e.V. was funded by the AiF within the program collective research for small and medium
enterprises (IGF) of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) based on a decision of
the German Bundestag.

References

[1] Kobialka C. Prozeßanalyse für das Trockenwälzfräsen mit Hartmetallwerkzeugen. Diss. RWTH Aachen, 2002
[2] Komori M, Sumi M, Kubo A. Simulation of hobbing for analysis of cutting edge failure due to chip crush. In: Gear
Technology, September/October 2004, p. 64-69
[3] Komori M, Sumi M, Kubo A. Remedies for cutting edge failure of carbide hob due to chip crush – Some results of
evaluation by this method in the automotive industry. In: Gear Technology, November/December 2004, p. 22-29
[4] Winkel O. Steigerung der Leistungsfähigkeit von Hartmetallwälzfräsern durch eine optimierte Werkzeuggestaltung.
Diss. RWTH Aachen, 2005
[5] Weinert K, Surmann T, Enk D, Webber O. The effect of runout on the milling tool vibration and surface quality.
In: Production Engineering, Vol 1/3 2007, p. 265-270
[6] Braykoff C. Tragfähigkeit kleinmoduliger Zahnräder. Diss. TU München, 2007
[7] Niemann G, Winter H. Maschinenelemente - Band 2. Springer, Berlin, 2003
[8] Tobie T. Zur Grübchen- und Zahnfußtragfähigkeit einsatzgehärteter Zahnräder : Einflüsse aus Einsatzhärtungstiefe,
Wärmebehandlung und Fertigung bei unterschiedlicher Baugröße. Diss. TU München, 2001
[9] Klocke F, Gorgels C, Schalaster R, Stuckenberg A. An innovative way of designing gear hobbing processes. In: Proceedings
of the International Conference on Gears , October 4th-6th 2010, Munich, Vol 2108.1 2010, p. 393-404
[10] Brecher C, Weck M, Klocke F, Rütjes U. Analysis of a bevel gear cutting process by manufacturing simulation. In:
Production Engineering, Vol 12/2 2005, p. 107-110
[11] Brecher C, Gorgels C, Röthlingshöfer T. Manufacturing simulation of beveloid gears for the use in a general tooth contact
analysis software. In: Production Engineering, Vol 3/1 2009, p. 103-109
[12] Klocke F, König W. Fertigungsverfahren 1 – Drehen, Fräsen, Bohren. Springer, Berlin, 2008