Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Concept

Profile shift — where it appears

Cutting a wheel with the generating rack held further from its centre, which changes which part of the involute ends up on the tooth. It cures undercutting on a small wheel and changes the centre distance the pair must be assembled at.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Undercutting, either side of 17.10 teeth. Five gears, drawn whole and scaled to a common pitch circle so the tooth counts can be compared by counting them. The dedendum sits a fixed 1.25 modules below the pitch circle and the base circle sits at r·cos α, so as the tooth count falls the base circle rises relative to the root. Below N = 2/sin²α = 17.097 it rises above it, and the part of the flank between them lies where no involute exists — the cutter removes it. The familiar rule says seventeen; the exact figure is 17.10, so seventeen undercuts slightly and eighteen is the smallest count that does not. The teeth are not to a common scale, because at a common module the small gears would be unreadable.

Undercutting, and the seventeen-tooth rule

Below a certain tooth count a standard cutter eats into the flank it is supposed to be forming. The count is quoted as seventeen. The formula gives 17.097, which means seventeen undercuts slightly and eighteen is the smallest that does not — the rounding went the convenient way.

gears · Tooth 11 teeth, cut with three different shifts. A 11-tooth gear cannot be cut with a standard rack without the cutter eating into the flank near the root — the tooth is undercut, and what it loses is exactly the part that does the work. The fix is to hold the cutter further out by a fraction x of the module. Here the threshold is x = 1 − z sin²α / 2 = 0.3566, measured rather than quoted: at 0.347 the gear still undercuts and at 0.3566 it does not. What the shift costs is at the other end of the tooth. The tip thickness falls from 0.606 to 0.240 of a module, and a tooth shifted far enough comes to a point and breaks — so the technique has a ceiling as well as a floor.

Moving the cutter out

A gear with too few teeth is undercut by the tool that generates it, and the fix is to hold the tool further out. What that does to the tooth is easy to say. What it does to the pair is not what most readers expect — the two gears no longer mesh at the centre distance the sum of their radii would give, and the pressure angle they run at is no longer the one they were cut with.

gears · Tooth Backlash is what the centre distance buys. A 20-and-40-tooth pair, module 1, run at centre distances either side of the one at which the two teeth exactly fill the circular pitch. Backlash is measured from the drawn tooth thicknesses — no involute equation appears in the calculation — and plotted against the textbook linearisation j = 2 Δa tan α_w. Left of zero the teeth interfere and the pair cannot be assembled at all. So backlash is not slop and it is not wear: it is a quantity a designer buys with a centre distance, and buying none of it means specifying a centre distance that has to be exact at every temperature.

Backlash is an allowance

A gear pair with no backlash cannot be run, and a pair with the wrong amount cannot be assembled. It is bought with a centre distance — 0.03 too far apart on a 30 mm centre buys 0.022 of it, which is a quarter of a degree at the pinion — and the textbook formula that says so is right about the slope and drifts 4.5% at a centre-distance error nobody would accept anyway.

gears · Tooth One planet shaft, two centre distances. A compound epicyclic gets its enormous reduction from two meshes whose tooth counts are nearly in the same proportion. The two planet gears are on one shaft, so their axes are at one radius — and at a common module the two rings ask for radii that differ by 0.50 of a tooth. The exactness the reduction is famous for is bought with a pair of meshes running away from the centre distance they were cut at, and the difference is made up by profile shift — the same correction the teeth field applies for a different reason. It is not a rounding: it is the mechanism's own condition, and it is the reason a catalogue reduction of this kind comes in a short list of tooth counts rather than in any combination.

A hundred to one from a difference of one

A harmonic drive reduces by a hundred to one in a single stage with two gears in it, and the hundred is the flexspline's tooth count divided by the two teeth the circular spline has more than it. The same null space that answers a planetary answers it. What each of the three single-stage reductions pays for that arithmetic is different, and the compound epicyclic's price is a pair of meshes whose centre distances differ by half a tooth.

transmission · Transmission What is left of a 12-tooth flank. The flank the rack generated on a 12-tooth wheel, with every point tested against the cutter at every other position of the cut. The pale dots survive; the dark ones are inside the cutter at some later instant and are not on the finished tooth — 39 of 203 of them, the deepest by 5.19e-2 mm. Undercutting is not a shape, it is a removal: the same corner that leaves the fillet comes back for flank the straight edge had already generated, and what is lost is the part of the involute nearest the base circle, which is exactly the part the mating wheel's tip needs. Drag to change the tooth count. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

The cutter takes back the tooth

Undercutting is usually explained as a shape: a tooth with a waist in it. It is better understood as an event — the corner that leaves the fillet comes back through flank the straight edge has already generated — and seen that way the threshold at seventeen teeth is a comparison of two measured points that passes through zero.

meshing · Meshing One cutter, five wheels. The same rack — one module, one pressure angle, one straight flank — rolled on five different pitch circles. Each wheel gets a different involute, of its own base circle, and the worst departure anywhere is 4.26e-14 mm. This is why gears are interchangeable: the tool defines the tooth, so any two wheels cut by the same rack mesh with each other whatever their tooth counts, and a workshop needs one cutter per module rather than one per pair. It is also why the standard is written as a rack — the rack is the definition and the wheels are consequences of it.

One rack and every wheel

Two gears mesh if they were cut by the same tool. That is not a manufacturing convenience laid on top of the geometry — it is the geometry, and it is why a gear standard is written as a description of a cutter rather than as a family of tooth curves.

gears · Tooth

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Base circleInvoluteCentre distanceUndercuttingPressure angleBacklashContact ratioGenerating rackMeshPitchRatioTooth thickness

All concepts