technical

Rules for Optimal Basic Design

of Bevel Gears
Dr. Hermann J. Stadtfeld

Bevel Gear Technology

Chapter 6

Introduction tems provided many new insights. These world standard, although at first view it
More strength and less noise are the two new insights occasionally seemed to does not appear to be very “user-friend-
major demands on gears, which includes contradict the general experiences and ly.” In includes (in a highly condensed
both bevel and hypoid gears. Within the appeared physically inconclusive. It is layout) all important basic dimensions,
last few years, the still modest request for interesting to note that the implication as well as many parameters that are not
higher efficiency has been added to the of the “deeper” analysis and their physi- explicitly expressed in the geometrical
original two requirements. Traditionally, cal basics can often only be discovered data of a bevel gearset. The following
gear engineers have met the first demand after intensive studies. The results are sub-chapters elaborate each on one of
by changing a gearset’s basic parame- significantly improved gear properties the key gear parameters, with recom-
ters — tooth height, pressure angle, spi- which can be materialized for the first mendations that comply with good prac-
ral angle, etc. — and to meet the second, time today. tices in advanced bevel and hypoid gear
by making flank form modifications in This chapter opens with a closer look design. The end of this chapter discusses
order to reduce crowning — also known at the so called “dimension sheet.” The the question, what can be achieved with
as “Ease-Off. ” Gleason Dimension Sheet has become a more optimal dimension sheet parame-
With today’s available bevel gear soft-
ware — e.g., CAGE and UNICAL — many
engineers are modifying flank topogra-
phy and discovering their gearsets are
both stronger and quieter. Unfortunately,
this coincidence is tricking some engi-
neers into believing that Ease-Off itself
adds strength to gearsets. In fact, the
flank form modifications are only allow-
ing the sets to make greater use of the
strength potential that was available in
their basic designs.
Most strength optimization requires
changing a gearset’s basic parameters.
Most minor reductions in gear noise are
made by optimizing just flank topog-
raphy. In some cases, though, there are
gearsets that don’t use all their possible
strength because they need more sophis-
ticated Ease-Offs, which are adjusted to
the particular operating conditions. The
challenge for gear engineers is to know
when to change what — basic parameters
or flank topography — to increase a gear-
set’s strength. In order to make such a
distinction it is necessary to understand
both basic parameters and flank form
modifications (Refs. 1 – 2).
Although the influence of the basic
parameters seemed to be obvious in the
past, today’s calculation and analysis sys-
Figure 1 The most important gear parameter in the dimension sheet.

54 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | May 2016

[www.geartechnology.com]
ters and should not be subjected to tooth
contact optimization and vice versa. The
basic dimensions are “locked in” after
a gearset is in service and certain opti-
mizations which are traditionally sub-
ject of improved basic dimensions can
be achieved with changes in the contact
geometry. The summary chapter gives
recommendations of what can be done in
such a conflict.
Inf luence of the most important
parameters. A gearset’s basic parameters
establish the potential of its properties
which include strength and noise as well
as efficiency. There are many major basic
parameters, and each of them has a vari- Figure 2 Influence of module.
ety of effects upon the operating perfor-
mance of a gearset. Gear engineers who
practice gear design and optimization,
and who must valuate the physical prop-
erties of bevel and hypoid gearsets, need
to understand these effects — especially
when optimizing gearsets. Figure 1 shows
a Gleason Dimension Sheet of a typical
automotive hypoid gearset. The param-
eters with the most influence are high-
lighted in yellow (Ref. 3).
The individually marked parameters
are discussed in the order with which
they are listed in the dimension sheet.
Module. A fine pitch gear pair results
in a larger transverse contact ratio than
in that of a comparable coarse pitch sys-
tem. The reason is the increasing num-
ber of teeth in case of a smaller module Figure 3 Influence of face width.
and same pitch diameter, which will for
an infinite number of teeth eventually length, then the load carrying capacity tural damage and soft spots along the
deliver the relationships of a generating is 50% of the original. Figure 2 summa- face width and in the root). The expected
rack. The theoretical contact ratio of two rizes the major influence of a reduction strength increase due to a wider tooth
engaged racks is infinite. Smaller mod- in module. is not achieved because a uniform load
ules deliver proportionally shorter and Face width. A smaller face width distribution is less likely to be realized if
thinner teeth than larger modules in case delivers a smaller face contact ratio and the face width is increased above the rec-
of same pitch diameters. Fine pitch gear- requires a small tooth contact. There is ommended numbers. The optimal face
sets generate less vibration and noise, a constant risk of edge contact at heel width for bevel and hypoid gearsets is
but also have a lower power density. The and toe, even with small load-affected 33% of the mean cone distance; Figure
analogy for better comprehension of this deformations. In the case of an oversize 3 summarizes the most important influ-
phenomenon is the following: If a canti- face width, problems in manufacturing ences of the bevel gear design parameter
lever beam is split from its profile height might occur, as the chips in the soft cut- face width.
into two halves, and the two thinner ting process are too long and heat treat Point radius of cutting blade or grind-
beams are packaged above each other like distortion of the long spiral shaped teeth ing wheel. The maximal radii that can be
the leaves of a leaf spring, then the load are significant. In addition, a hard finish- ground on the tip of a cutting blade are
carrying capacity of the beam package ing by grinding is problematic because limited by the point width of the cutter
(same outside dimensions) is only 25% of the long contacting zone between and the top width of the blade (Figure
of the original beam. If now the length of teeth and grinding wheel, which in turn 4). Blades with a small clearance side
the beam package is shortened to half the leads to higher risk of burning (struc- edge radius, e.g. — a sharp clearance side

May 2016 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 55

 technical

corner — can cause mutilations in the

root fillet side, which is not “officially”
machined by the observed blade (Fig. 6).
Hypoid offset. A hypoid offset is gen-
erally used for rear wheel driven passen-
ger cars in order to lower the center of
gravity and to avoid a bigger propeller
shaft tunnel. The hypoid offset causes a
relative length sliding between the mesh-
ing flank surfaces and enlarges the diam-
eter and spiral angle of the pinion. This Figure 4 Maximal geometrically possible blade edge radius.
leads to better hydrodynamic lubrication,
additional dampening in the tooth mesh,
increased contact ratio, and improvement
in pinion strength.
The gear engineer should design bevel
gears with an offset whenever possi-
ble — especially small offsets that achieve
the desired advantages without the poten-
tial disadvantages that the hypoid off-
set can produce. Even a very small offset
helps to avoid pitting population along
the pitch line, as they are known in spiral
bevel gears. The possible disadvantages of
hypoid offsets, above 5% of the ring gear
diameter, are the required use of hypoid
oils with additives and the potential for
scoring during the break-in period of the
gearsets. Hypoid gears with offsets above Figure 5 Interference limit for maximal blade edge radius.
20% of the ring gear diameter show a
low efficiency and an increased operat-
ing temperature. The optimal hypoid off-
set lies between 10% and 15% of the ring
gear diameter. Hypoid gears with optimal
offsets are superior to spiral bevel gears
with regard to strength, quiet operation,
and efficiency. Hypoid gears also have the
lowest operating temperatures, compared
to other angular transmissions. Figure 7
contains a summary of the most impor-
tant influences of the hypoid offset.
Pressure angle. A reduction of the
pressure angle increases the topland and
width of the root fillet. A pressure angle
reduction is a welcome freedom if an
increase of the topland or the root fillet
is required in the course of a gearset opti-
mization. This often results in a natural
combination of depth and low pressure Figure 6 Mutilation limit of opposite root fillet due to edge radius.
angle, as it is used in well proportioned
“high tooth designs.” Suitable standard
pressure angles are 20°. In the past, bevel
and hypoid gears often used 22.5° in
order to achieve higher gearset strength.
Today’s tools like flank optimization with

56 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | May 2016

[www.geartechnology.com]
 UMC (Universal Motion Concept; see orig-
inal text chapter 16) and strength analysis
with finite element calculation allow for
a better utilization of the tooth elasticity,
resulting in a better load sharing.
Subsequently, many quiet bevel and
hypoid gearsets today, with high power
density feature a large whole depth and
low pressure angles. The recommenda-
tion for bevel and hypoid gears is to apply
an included pressure angle between 36°
and 40°. The most important influences
of the pressure angle are summarized in
Figure 8.
Profile shift. The profile shift (or
Figure 7 Influence of hypoid offset. addendum modification) is used in order
to improve the roll conditions (increase
of active profile) and to avoid undercut
in the pinion root. The resulting pitch
line for spiral bevel gears with a ratio
above 1x2 lies towards the pinion root.
The pinion root shift towards the pitch
line is even more significant for hypoid
gears, often with the goal to keep the vec-
tor summation of profile and length slid-
ing low. The center graphic in Figure 9
shows the reduction of topland and root
width for this case. The reduction of top-
land and root fillet could be reversed by
reducing the pressure angle; but this in
turn would also reverse the improve-
ment in roll conditions and increase the
undercut again. In the case of form-gen-
erated sets it is possible by means of a
tooth thickness balance to increase the
pinion topland and reduce the gear top-
Figure 8 Influence of pressure angle.
land by nearly identical amounts since
the Formate gear will not change its pro-
file due to a profile shift. This however
will reduce the root width of the pin-
ion, which presents another limitation. In
many cases a compromise between small
pressure angle reductions and minimal
tooth thickness balance can be struck in
realizing the desired profile shift.
Whole depth. A taller tooth has more
elasticity than a tooth with the standard
depth of about 2.2 * mn. The larger whole
depth is achieved by an involute exten-
sion at the top and a deeper cutting at
the root. The root tooth thickness will
Figure 9 Influence of profile shift.
change little or not at all. Advantages of
taller teeth are the increased transverse
contact ratio, the lower intensity of the
meshing impact and better load sharing

May 2016 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 57

 technical

between adjacent teeth due to the high- for bevel and hypoid gears are a minimal tact ratio while the load rises. The larger
er elasticity. Within certain limits this whole depth of 0.8* module and a maxi- spiral angle also reduces the tooth con-
means that more tooth bending leads to mal whole depth of 1.2* module. tact movement and the contact spread in
reduced bending stresses in the root fillet Cutter radius. A small cutter radius heel direction under load that presents a
area, which can be verified with finite ele- increases the contact ratio of a bevel and “natural” protection effect; this effect is
ment calculation (load sharing). In sum- hypoid gearset. The reason is the spi- amplified with smaller cutter radii and
mary, there are strength and noise advan- ral angle, which increases faster towards reduced if larger cutter radii are used.
tages without disadvantages regarding the the heel in the case of a small cutter In an ideal design the contact pattern
function of a gearset. The most important radii. Load-affected deformations cause without load is positioned towards the
influences of an increased whole depth tooth contact movement towards the toe. A cutter radius should be selected so
are summarized in Figure 10. Usual limits heel, that causes an increase of the con- that a certain contact movement — under
load towards the heel — occurs, while at
the same time the contact pattern spreads
in tooth length direction. In this ideal
scenario the contact pattern at nomi-
nal load extends over the entire face
width — without causing edge contact on
heel and toe. The mean point movement
towards the heel with increasing load,
and the natural opposing of this move-
ment due to the increasing spiral angle,
leads to a defined load concentration in
the heel area. The load carrying capacity
can be significantly increased if the opti-
mal cutter radius is chosen, as the tooth
root thickness at the heel is often 50%
larger than tooth thickness at the toe. The
root bending stresses of bevel and hypoid
gears with an optimized cutter radius are
quite uniform along the face width; the
most important influences of the cutter
Figure 10 Influence of whole-depth. radius are summarized in Figure 11.
Relationship between involute point
and mean cone distance. This section
offers a basic explanation of the depen-
dency between the cutter radius and the
displacement behavior of spiral bevel and
hypoid gears that was discussed in the
last section. Load-affected deformations
and inaccuracies in the building position
of a bevel or hypoid gearset cause a tooth
contact movement in the direction of a
certain point within or outside of the face
width. This point is located where the
flank length curvature is equal to the cur-
vature of an involute along the face width.
This requirement would be fulfilled in
every point along the face width — if the
flank line was an involute. Circles or epi-
cycloids fulfill this requirement only at
one point, which can lie within or outside
of the face width. The base circle radius
of this virtual involute is, in the case of
face milling, the distance from the gen-
erating gear center to the center of the
Figure 11 Influence of cutter radius.

58 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | May 2016

[www.geartechnology.com]
cutter head. In the case of face hobbing,
the base circle of the extended epicycloid
is also the base circle of the involute (see
also original text, chapter 2). The con-
nection between the base circle roll point
and any chosen point along the flank
line is the radius of curvature at this cho-
sen point. If the vector of the curvature
radius is oriented tangential to the base
circle, a flank curvature is then generated
identical to the involute curvature. Figure
12 can explain the relationships for both
bevel gear types — face milling and face
hobbing.
Smaller cutter radii are at mid-face or
in the toe area, rather than perpendicular
to the radial distance (i.e. the base circle
single indexing i.e. continuous indexing
method). Larger cutter radii lead to invo-
lute points at larger diameters. The ratio
Ax/Am is documented in the dimension
sheet (see Fig. 1). A value of 1 for Ax/ Figure 12 Relationship of involute radius to mean cone distance.
Am results in an involute point at mid-
face of the teeth, meaning that no contact
pattern movement under load-affected
deformations will occur. This is analo-
gous to the center distance insensitiv-
ity of cylindrical gears (see original text
chapter 1). Although this appears desir-
able initially, a contact pattern that will
not move under any conditions will cause
early surface fatigue in the region of the
design point (in the flank center). This
problem begins to show by evidence of a
growing pitting population that can even-
tually result in flank fracture. The ideal
location of the involute point in mod-
ern, highly optimized bevel gears is in the
middle — between flank center and heel.
Recommended values to achieve deflec-
tion insensitive gearsets are:
(1)
1.14 < Ax/Am < 1.2 and 0.92 < Ax/Ao < 1.05.

Spiral angle. The spiral angle is, per

definition, at the center of the face width. Figure 13 Influence of spiral angle.
A large spiral angle reduces tooth thick-
ness and increases the maximal-possi- increases the root bending strength more neighboring teeth due to the flank crown-
ble face contact ratio. The reduced tooth than the reduction that occurred due to ing. Non-hard-finished bevel gearsets that
thickness has a quadratic influence on the smaller tooth thickness (Fig. 13). The undergo high deflections in their opera-
the root bending stress, which reduces load carrying capacity of a straight bevel tion exhibit more load carrying capac-
the root strength significantly. In con- gearset can theoretically increase with the ity with small spiral angles. Highly opti-
trast, the face contact ratio increases by introduction of 30° spiral angle by 18% mized, ground bevel gearsets benefit
the tanβ of the introduced spiral angle, (see also original text chapter 4.3.4). more from the face contact ratio with
resulting in a load sharing of additional But the reality is that only a small per- respect to the load sharing between sever-
tooth pairs. Theoretically, the latter effect centage of the load is transmitted by the al teeth. In this case spiral angles between

May 2016 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 59

 technical

30° and 35° show optimal results. A larger

spiral angle promotes a smooth, rather
than an abrupt, tooth engagement and
offers more elasticity that results in quiet-
er-running transmissions.
Cutting method. Continuously manu-
factured bevel gears have a parallel tooth
depth; their unrolled flank line is an epi-
cycloid (Fig. 14, top). Continuous cut
(face hobbed) bevel gears that are lapped
after heat treatment show very good con-
ditions for smooth tooth engagement and Figure 14 Influence of cutting method.
quiet operation. Face hobbed flank sur-
faces feature generating flats that cross heat treatment can be finished with non- Sophisticated flank optimizations gen-
the contact lines of the two meshing linear flank modifications that can be erally have a neutral or positive influ-
flanks under an angle. This allows the adapted to the precise load-affected dis- ence on the strength of a gearset. It is
lapping compound to be present in the placements, and also achieve rolling with widely accepted in the industry that a
contacting zone and to abrasively remove minimized mesh impact. gearset does not have to be re-qualified
the multitude of contacting points for strength after an Ease-Off optimiza-
between contact line and generating flats. Limitations in Dimension Sheet tion, as long as the basic gear parame-
Face hobbed bevel gears with a large Data Alterations ters remained the same. For certain small
number of blade groups show a “natural” The discussed basic gear data offers many improvements or changes, the rule that is
insensitivity towards load-affected defor- possibilities to improve the strength and taught in engineering around the world
mations (similar effect as small cutter rolling behavior of bevel gearsets. Yet, should be applied, i.e. — Whenever pos-
radii). A simulation of the displacement in many cases the parameters are given sible, the proven base geometry must be
can help in finding a favorable combina- from an existing transmission whose preserved and only gradual changes, in
tion between the number of blade groups requirements have somewhat changed. order to achieve the required improve-
and the cutter radius Face hobbed bevel An example is a vehicle that received a ments, should be implemented. This
gearsets can be lapped with very good higher-powered engine, but the dimen- rule is the key to successful products and
results, but cannot be ground because sion of the axle drive unit cannot increase short developmental times.
of the epicyclic flank form and the slot in size. Another example is a suddenly Optimization by flank form modifica-
width taper. Face milled bevel gearsets noticed gear noise that must be elimi- tions. Flank form modifications are devi-
have their generating flats oriented par- nated or reduced. It might occur because ations of a flank pair from their conjugate
allel to the contacting lines between pin- of an alteration in the vehicle compo- condition (see also originaal text chapter
ion and gear, which causes the lapping nents that influence or change the acous- 4). Conjugate flank pairs are not practi-
compound to be “wiped off ” and the lap- tic transmission path. cally applicable since the conjugate char-
ping effect to be diminished. Lapping of For strength optimization, new or acteristic will vanish in the presence of
face milled bevel gears often increases the improved basic gear data are generally loads and component tolerances. Instead,
magnitude of the generating flats because required. An exception is the case where edge contact occurs with unfavorable
the contacting lines slide over each gen- the gear basic data are already opti- load concentrations, together with a “saw
erating flat simultaneously, resulting in mal and the gearset cannot be enlarged, tooth-shaped motion error.”
high-frequency rolling noise. which however features an Ease-Off that Bevel and hypoid gearsets require Ease-
Face milled bevel gearsets (Fig. 14, bot- has not been optimized with modern Off in profile and length direction, begin-
tom) are therefore not well-suited for lap- flank modifications. In this case, a signifi- ning at the tooth center with zero and
ping, and yet allow application of modern cant strength increase using suitable flank increasing outwards towards the bound-
and highly precise grinding methods for form optimizations can be achieved. aries of the teeth. Until now circular flank
their hard finishing (see also original text, For noise optimizations the alteration crowning was applied in nearly all cases;
chapter 4). This means that the advan- of the basic gear data is not possible in Figure 15 shows the three commonly
tages of grinding are only available for 9 of 10 cases because of time and cost applied elements of crowning design.
bevel and hypoid gears manufactured in restraints. If the basic parameters have Profile crowning is a circular remov-
a single-indexing process, which explains been changed, then requalification of the al of the flank profile, which appears in
today’s split of the hard finishing meth- gearset on a test rig and in a vehicle is the presentation plane as Ease-Off, like a
ods (face hobbing → lapping, face milling required. This is true even if the reason section of a cylinder with the axis of the
→ grinding). for the change was only based on unac- cylinder oriented in the direction of the
Face milled bevel gearsets ground after ceptable noise emission. flank line (Fig. 15, left). Length crowning

60 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | May 2016

[www.geartechnology.com]
 maximal load — and even then the load
sharing between adjacent tooth pairs is
very unfavorable. With the “right” modi-
fication the contact ratio, even under par-
tial load, can be increased. The load shar-
ing of the simultaneously engaged tooth
pairs can be arranged so that no tooth
pair need be transmitted more than 60%
of the torque. 80% or more of the load in
traditional bevel and hypoid gear designs
is transmitted by single tooth pairs. This
indicates that the improvement by certain
Figure 15 Conventional Ease-Off design elements.
modern Ease-Off modifications is signifi-
cant and may result in a 25% increase in
root bending strength and a 30% higher
surface strength, as compared to gearsets
with a standard second order crowning as
given in Figure 15.
Higher order modifications can be lim-
ited to certain flank sections, thus allow-
ing for adjustment of the correction to
meet the different requirements for the
entrance and exit zone, as well as the
flank center (see also original text chap-
ter 16). Figure 16 shows the graphic for
a motion transmission generated with
a fourth-order flank modification. The
effect of a flat motion graph with a wave
shape has no disadvantages. The load
sharing between adjacent teeth pairs is
more uniform and less abrupt than the
Figure 16 Advanced motion error modifications. diagrams in Figure 15 (Ref. 4). The nomi-
nal contact ratio for a conventional Ease-
is a circular material removal in flank line ties are utilized by today’s flank correc- Off is equal to one of the higher order
direction, which appears in the presenta- tion software — e.g., Gleason UNICAL, Ease-Offs; yet, the higher order Ease-Off
tion plane as Ease-Off like a section of a for achieving flank modulations along the utilizes the potential that the nominal
cylinder with the axis of the cylinder ori- path of contact during the generating pro- contact ratio presents more “intelligently.”
ented in flank line direction (Fig. 15, cen- cess, and which are superimposed onto For gear optimization with higher
ter). Flank twist is created with a circular the traditional corrections of Figure 15 in order flank surface modifications, it must
material removal that appears in the pre- order to achieve nearly any modification of be noted that gearsets that have already
sentation plane as a section of a cylinder, the Ease-Off. This new strategy for Ease- been optimized with a modern tool, such
with the axis of the cylinder oriented in Off design can be realized with Gleason as Gleason UMC, that the potential for
the direction of the contact lines (Fig. 15, UNICAL and is called “selective crowning.” improvement might already be exhaust-
right). The figure sequence below the ed. The attempt to achieve even more
Ease-Off graphics show the tooth con- Strength Improvement and strength increase with more optimiza-
tacts and motion errors that result from Noise Reduction with Ease-Off tion might result in a turn in the opposite
each particular crowning. When prac- Modification direction. Also, the attempt to address
tically applied, bevel and hypoid gears Flank form modifications may be used as certain noise excitations with addition-
always feature a combination of the three effective tools in order to achieve noise al UMC optimizations might reduce
fundamental crowning elements shown reduction and strength optimization; the strength of the gearset. It is recom-
in Figure 15. these modification possibilities are avail- mended in any case to conduct finite ele-
Today’s Gleason bevel and hypoid gear able today on all Gleason cutting and ment calculations parallel to the geomet-
cutting and grinding machines offer the grinding machines. In a typical case the ric flank form optimizations in order to
possibility of superimposing higher order maximum possible contact ratio from the track changes in the strength characteris-
motion combinations. These opportuni- Dimension Sheet is only achieved under tics during the improvement process.

May 2016 | GEAR TECHNOLOGY 61

 technical

Summary tion. An exception is given if the present smaller, but significant, improvements to
It is important to realize that the basic design already has a modern flank form meet today’s stringent requirements. One
gear data of the macrogeometry represent optimization. In this case, noise optimi- should not make the mistake of believ-
the foundation of the physical properties zation will not be easily accomplished. ing that the time-consuming practice
of a gearset. Flank form modifications If an improvement of the noise charac- of gear design can be saved by certain
can contribute to utilizing those prop- teristic via Ease-Off still seems possible, flank optimizations. In short, the last sec-
erties completely. A conventional Ease- then a finite element calculation of the tion can be summarized by the following
Off does not achieve the entire strength situation, before and after the optimiza- rule: “The basic gear parameters give the
potential of a gearset. An optimized Ease- tion, is recommended. In the case where direction for the physical properties of a
Off makes it possible to utilize all of the critical stress conditions are discovered, gearset, while modern flank form opti-
physical possibilities of a gearset by opti- it might be necessary to optimize the mizations only assure a better access to
mally using existing proportions. An gear basic data first in order to find a those properties.”
optimal combination between gear basic new foundation that fulfills the strength
data and flank form modifications can requirements, and then as a second step References
often enable the transmission of twice the to conduct a modern flank form optimi- 1. NN. Bevel & Hypoid Gear Design, Gleason
Company Publication, Rochester New York,
torque and, at the same time, be signifi- zation. The elements making the teeth 1956.
cantly quieter in comparison with a gear- more elastic (see original text chapters 2. Stadtfeld, H.J. “Good Basic Design or
set with less-than-optimal design. 6.21, 6.24 and 6.26) should be considered Sophisticated Flank Optimizations? Each at the
Generally, strength optimization to assure good load sharing and to guar- Right Time,” Gear Technology, Jan/Feb 2005,
Randall Publishing Inc., Elk Grove Village,
requires a new, basic design. An excep- antee a reduction in noise emission. Illinois.
tion is when the basic design is found to The possibility of improving the 3. NN. “Gear Dimension Sheet Explanations,”
be optimal, but the Ease-Off is conven- parameters of a given basic gear design Gleason Company Publication, Rochester, New
tional and shows significant room for should not be treated as a burden, but York, 1982.
4. Stadtfeld, H.J. and U. Gaiser. “The Ultimate
improvement. In this case modern flank welcomed as a seldom-occurring oppor- Motion Graph — UMCULTIMA,” Gleason
form modifications can contribute to a tunity to improve the roll and strength Company Publication, Rochester, New York,
great improvement of the load carrying characteristic of a gearset that has not August 1999.
capacity — and might in fact be the only been brought up to date. Nevertheless,
possibility if the existing gear size cannot the existing design should be used as a
be increased. Noise optimization requires basis since it is possible in most cases For Related Articles Search
in most cases only a flank form modifica- to adjust the gearset with a number of
bevel gears
at www.geartechnology.com

Dr. Hermann J. Stadtfeld received in 1978 his B.S.

and in 1982 his M.S. degrees in mechanical engineering at
the Technical University in Aachen, Germany; upon receiving
his Doctorate, he remained as a research scientist at the
University’s Machine Tool Laboratory. In 1987, he
accepted the position of head of engineering and
R&D of the Bevel Gear Machine Tool Division of
Oerlikon Buehrle AG in Zurich and, in 1992, returned
to academia as visiting professor at the Rochester
Institute of Technology. Dr. Stadtfeld returned to
the commercial workplace in 1994 — joining The
Gleason Works — also in Rochester — first as
director of R&D, and, in 1996, as vice president R&D.
During a three-year hiatus (2002–2005) from Gleason,
he established a gear research company in Germany
while simultaneously accepting a professorship to
teach gear technology courses at the University
of Ilmenau. Stadtfeld subsequently returned to the
Gleason Corporation in 2005, where he currently
holds the position of vice president, bevel gear
technology and R&D. A prolific author (and frequent
contributor to Gear Technology), Dr. Stadtfeld has published
more than 200 technical papers and 10 books on bevel gear
technology; he also controls more than 50 international
patents on gear design, gear process, tools and machinery.

62 GEAR TECHNOLOGY | May 2016

[www.geartechnology.com]