Overlap ratio — where it appears
Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A twist steadies what it cannot tighten
A helical rotor's sections are at different phases of the same mesh, so the clearance a machine has at one instant is a window along its own profile rather than a point on it. A wrap of exactly one lobe pitch holds the seal's open area constant through the turn — every harmonic at once, whatever the profile — and leaves its average, its tightest place and its widest place exactly where they were.
Contact that runs along the tooth
A straight tooth engages along its whole face at once, so the amount of contact at a mesh is a square wave. Slant the tooth and a second contact ratio appears that has no tooth count in it and no pressure angle — bought with face width and helix angle alone, and able to reach a value at which the total length of contact stops varying at all.
A helix pays for the root with face width
A spur pair's least worst-root sliding, 0.834 on a 17-tooth pinion driving a 51-tooth wheel, was bought by spending contact ratio down to the floor of 1.2 that continuity needs. A helical pair gets its continuity from the overlap along the face, so its transverse contact ratio can fall below that floor, and the root's sliding falls with it, nearly in proportion: 0.209 at a third of the contact and 0.102 at a sixth, on the pitch point's law π εα (1/z₁ + 1/z₂) / tan αw. The helix angle itself buys under a tenth. What pays is the face: the mean length of line in contact is the transverse ratio times the face, so carrying the spur pair's load on as much line at a third of the contact takes a face 2.65 times as wide.
The face carries the least line
A helical pair that gives up transverse contact to cut its root's sliding was priced by the face it needs to carry the spur optimum's mean length of contact line: 2.65 times as wide, at a third of the contact on a 30° helix. But the length in contact swings through every base pitch and the peak load stands on its least value. That least has a closed form in the fractional parts of the two contact ratios, exact against the swept field to 10⁻¹³. The spur optimum's own least is its face, a sixth below its mean, so least against least the factor is 2.21 when the overlap ratio is a whole number. Real faces land between whole numbers and need 2.21 to 2.87 times the spur's, 2.39 on a spur face of ten modules, and above 2.65 only on faces under ten. And a steeper helix is not always more line: at a fixed face, raising the overlap ratio from 1 to 1.5 takes a third of the least line away.
The least line carries the root
A helical pair's length of contact line swings through every base pitch, and the peak load stands on its least value. The roots, where the sliding is worst, sit at the two ends of the path of contact. The share of the load carried there swings too, and in the limit of a thin root band it reaches its peak while the line in contact is least: half as much again as an even share at overlap ratios just above one, a quarter above two, a sixth above three. A whole-number overlap ratio removes both swings at once. So the overlap that makes the least line largest is also the one that spreads the root's load evenly, and a face sized on the least line alone understates the root's worst moment by the root's own swing.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Contact ratioLine of actionDesign rulePitchProfile shiftBase pitchClearanceConjugate-actionHarmonicInvoluteLobeMesh