Machine Kinematics
solved, then drawn
Field

Teeth

A gear tooth is not a shape somebody liked. It is the curve that keeps the velocity ratio constant while the contact point slides, and there is essentially only one answer.
The involute, unwound. Hold a string taut against a circle and unwind it: the end traces this curve. Two properties follow immediately and between them they are the whole of gear geometry. The string is always tangent to the base circle, and it is always perpendicular to the curve. So the normal to an involute at any point is a tangent to its base circle — measured on the generated points here, to 2.3e-5 — and when two involutes touch, the common normal is a line tangent to both base circles, which does not move as the gears turn.

Why a tooth is an involute

The law of gearing, the involute as its solution, why the normal to an involute is tangent to its base circle, and how that property is tested on the generated flank.

 20 teeth driving 32. Both flanks generated from the involute, not approximated, at a pressure angle of 20°. The orange line is the line of action — tangent to both base circles, and the only place contact happens. Its length between the two tip circles divided by the base pitch is the contact ratio, 1.612 here, which means that for 61% of the cycle two tooth pairs are carrying the load and for the rest just one. The velocity ratio is 0.6250, and it is constant because the common normal never moves. The dashed extension runs between the two base tangency points, which are 8.89 mm apart; the heavy part is where contact actually happens.

What happens in a mesh

The line of action, the contact ratio and what it counts, why teeth must overlap in engagement, and what the pressure angle changes.

 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

Why small gears undercut, the exact threshold 2/sin²α, how it moves with pressure angle, and what profile shift does about it.

 Sun 24, ring 72, planet 24. An epicyclic train has three shafts and one equation relating them, so fixing any one gives a different ratio from the same gears. With the ring held, a sun input turns the carrier at 1 + 72/24 = 4.000 to one. Willis's equation and the tabular superposition method are independent derivations and both are computed here; the site requires them to agree, because planetary ratios are the most commonly mis-stated numbers in mechanism work and the sign errors are notorious.

Epicyclic ratios, two ways

The planetary gear train, Willis's equation, the tabular superposition method, and the three ratios one set of gears provides.

 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

Profile shift, the threshold it has to clear to cure undercutting, the operating pressure angle and centre distance measured against the involute equation, and the compensated pair that returns to standard.

 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

Backlash computed from the drawn tooth thicknesses against the textbook linearisation, why zero backlash is unbuildable, and what the allowance is actually for.

 404 ways to gear 60 to 1. Each dot is a pair of wheels and a pair of pinions whose ratios multiply to exactly 60, with wheels of 40 to 120 teeth and pinions of 6 to 16 leaves. The line is the hyperbola every exact answer must lie on; the dots are the ones that lie on it at whole numbers of teeth, and there are 404 of them. In a single pair there are 0 — a ratio of sixty needs a wheel of 360 teeth against a pinion of six, and nobody cuts that. Exactness is decided in integers here and never by comparing floating-point ratios, which is the one way a search like this quietly returns answers that are merely close.

A clock is a factorisation

Wheel trains as integer factorisation, enumerated exactly, and the difference between a ratio that factorises and one that only ever gets approximated.

 Which teeth one tooth ever meets: 20 on 40. Follow one tooth of the pinion round and mark every wheel tooth it touches. It does not touch them all. It touches 2 of 40, which is z₂ divided by the greatest common divisor of the two counts — 20 here — and it goes on touching the same ones for as long as the gears are in mesh. The pattern repeats after 2 turns of the pinion. Adding one tooth to the pinion makes the counts coprime and takes the count from 2 to 40. The marks are produced by walking the mesh, and the count they give is compared with the gcd rather than derived from it.

Which tooth meets which

The orbit structure of a gear mesh: which teeth ever meet, how long the pattern takes to repeat, and the hunting-tooth rule as a statement about a greatest common divisor.

 20 teeth driving 32. Both flanks generated from the involute, not approximated, at a pressure angle of 20°. The orange line is the line of action — tangent to both base circles, and the only place contact happens. Its length between the two tip circles divided by the base pitch is the contact ratio, 1.612 here, which means that for 61% of the cycle two tooth pairs are carrying the load and for the rest just one. The velocity ratio is 0.6250, and it is constant because the common normal never moves. The dashed extension runs between the two base tangency points, which are 8.89 mm apart; the heavy part is where contact actually happens.

The module is a size, the ratio is a shape

Why a gear pair's quantities sort cleanly into two classes, what that says about measuring one, and why the ratio belongs to neither.

 The string is the radius. An involute is generated by unwinding a taut string from the base circle, and the taut string is the flank's normal — so the point where it leaves the base circle is the centre of curvature and the string's length is the radius. At a flank radius r that length is √(r² − r_b²), and the dashed curve is that expression. The dots are the curvature of the polyline this site actually draws, measured by circumcircle through consecutive points, over 324 of them. Worst relative disagreement 1.9e-6. At the base circle the radius of curvature is zero, which is why a flank cut below it is not an involute and why undercutting removes exactly that part.

Two flanks, one law

The involute's radius of curvature measured off the drawn flank as the length of string unwound, and the two flanks' radii summing to a constant along the line of action.

 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

Interchangeability measured across five tooth counts cut by one rack, with profile shift treated as the same tool held further out and its centre distance and pressure angle consequences.

 A tooth flank is the end of an unwound strand. A strand wrapped on a circle of radius 45.105 mm, unwound while kept taut. Its free end traces the involute — the same curve the gears field builds from its own parameterisation, agreeing to 1.5e-14 mm over the whole flank. The strand is the important part of that sentence and not the curve: the taut portion is a tangent to the base circle, its length is the arc it has left, and both of those are statements about a strand rather than about a tooth. At this position the free length is 27.965 mm. positioned by solving, not by drawing.

A tooth flank is an unwound strand

The involute as a taut strand unwound from its base circle, the line of action as a crossed belt, and the centre-distance indifference that follows from the arms rather than from the curve.

 One tooth count, three pressure angles. A 20-tooth gear cut at 14.5°, 20°, 25°, drawn at a common pitch radius and overlaid on its own pitch and base circles. The three teeth have the same thickness at the pitch circle — that is what the standard fixes — and differ everywhere else: a coarser pressure angle puts the base circle lower and leans the flank over, so the tooth gains metal where it is held and loses it where it reaches: thicknesses at the base circle run 1.628, 1.756, 1.967 modules and at the tip 0.866, 0.695, 0.510. Those two run opposite ways, and the second of them ends at a hard stop — a tooth whose tip thickness reaches zero has come to a point and cannot be cut.

The angle the standard left free

The pressure angle swept from 12° to 30°, with the undercutting floor, the contact ratio, the tooth's thickness at base and tip, and the line of action all measured rather than quoted.

 Two cones, 20 teeth and 40, at 90°. The axial section, which is where every bevel quantity is read. Two cones share an apex and roll on one another along the element drawn heavy; their half-angles are 26.57° and 63.43°, adding to the shaft angle, and the ratio of their sines is the tooth-count ratio exactly. The dashed arc is the sphere of radius 22.36 on which a bevel tooth's profile actually lies. The two short lines perpendicular to the common element are the back cones; each is heading for its own axis at a distance r/cos δ from the pitch circle — 11.18 and 44.72 — and that distance is the pitch radius of the spur gear the tooth is really cut to. Both back cones lie on one line, because there is only one perpendicular to the pitch element at that point, and the two heavy stubs straddling it are the two teeth — each one addendum out from the pitch circle and 1.25 in.

A tooth that lives on a sphere

Bevel pitch cones drawn in axial section, the spherical involute that cannot be developed, Tredgold's back cone and its measured departure, and the equivalent tooth count z/cos δ.

 24 teeth inside 72. An internal pair, drawn from the same involute the external pairs are drawn from. Three things are different and they are one difference. The centre distance is 24.0 — the difference of the pitch radii rather than their sum. Both base tangency points lie on the same side of the line of action, so the pitch point falls outside the segment between them rather than inside it. And the contact ratio is 1.931 against the external pair's 1.707, because the annulus's tip circle cuts the line on the far side of its own tangency and lengthens the contact path instead of shortening it. The pinion turns the same way as the annulus, which no external pair ever does.

The mesh with one curvature reversed

An internal pair drawn from the same involute as the external ones, with its contact ratio, its relative curvature and its three tooth-count thresholds measured rather than quoted.

 The field of action, straight and slanted. The rectangle a contact lives in: its width is the usable line of action, its height is the face width, and a new contact line enters every base pitch. On the left the teeth are straight, so the lines are vertical and each one arrives and leaves all at once — the total length in contact jumps by a whole face width, 40 mm, every base pitch. On the right the same pair with a 20° helix: the lines lean by the base helix angle, so a tooth enters at one end of the face before it has left at the other, and the total changes by 3.44 mm instead of 40. Nothing about the profile is different between the two panels.

Contact that runs along the tooth

The field of action for a spur pair and a helical one, the overlap ratio as a face-and-helix quantity, the total length of contact through one base pitch, and the virtual tooth count z/cos³β.

 Where each flank slides worst, and a shift that makes them equal. A 17-tooth pinion driving a 51-tooth wheel, module 1 and 20°, with the pinion's cutter moved out by 0.3574 and the wheel's in by the same, so the centre distance does not change. The two curves are each flank's specific sliding along the path of contact — the sliding speed over that flank's own rolling speed — clipped at ±6. Each is worst at its own root: the pinion's at the start of contact, where it reads 1.962 in size, and the wheel's at the end, 1.961. Unshifted the pinion's is 11.09 and the wheel's 1.38. At a shift of 0.3574 the two are equal, at 1.961. The contact path — the part of the line of action drawn — slides along the line as the shift changes. Dragging changes the shift.

The shift that evens the wear

Specific sliding along the path of contact of a 17–51 pair as the pinion's profile shift changes, with the wheel's opposite; each root's worst sliding against the shift, and where they cross; nine pairs with their balancing shifts beside their undercut cures, sliding, contact ratio and tip thickness; the balancing shift against gear ratio for three pinions; the balancing and undercut shifts against pinion size; and the specific sliding recovered from the lengths of the two involutes.

 Where contact runs on the line of action. A 17-tooth pinion driving a 51-tooth wheel, module one, drawn as its line of action from the pinion's base tangency (left end of each line) to the wheel's (right end), for four designs; the thick stretch is where the teeth are in contact. Specific sliding at a root grows without bound as contact nears that gear's own base tangency. Standard: operating pressure angle 20.00°, contact ratio 1.636, worst root 11.086; ±0.357 shift: operating pressure angle 20.00°, contact ratio 1.558, worst root 1.961; four knobs, shifts ≤ 1: operating pressure angle 26.18°, contact ratio 1.200, worst root 0.834; four knobs: operating pressure angle 27.94°, contact ratio 1.200, worst root 0.753. The four-knob designs push contact away from both ends at once, at a larger centre distance and pressure angle, until the contact ratio reaches its floor of 1.2.

Four knobs for the root

Specific sliding at a spur pair's two roots with both profile shifts and both addendum coefficients free: the line of action for four designs of a 17–51 pair; the worst root by the balancing shift, by the addenda alone and by four knobs across seven pairs; the least worst root against the shift limit; the pinion's specific sliding along the contact for the four designs; and the least worst root against the contact ratio required.

 A taller, narrower field carries the same line. The field of action of two 17–51 pairs, drawn to one scale with the path of contact stretched 7 times: across, the transverse path of contact; up, the face width; the dark lines are the contact lines in it at one instant, a new one entering every base pitch. Left: the spur pair whose four knobs give the least worst-root sliding at a transverse contact ratio of 1.2, 0.834, on a face of 10 modules. Right: a 30° helical pair whose four knobs are chosen for a transverse contact ratio of 0.4, worst root 0.209, on a face of 26.5 modules, which is what carries the same mean length of line, 12.00 against 12.00 modules. Its overlap ratio is 4.21 and its total 4.61. At this instant 10.00 and 12.10 modules of line are in contact.

A helix pays for the root with face width

Helical pairs of 17 and 51 teeth with both shifts and both addenda chosen for the least worst-root sliding at a given transverse contact ratio: the field of action of the spur optimum and of a 30° helical pair at a third of its contact; the least worst root against the transverse contact ratio at three helix angles, with the pitch point's law; the paths of contact of four 30° designs; the face width needed for continuity and for an equal length of line; and seven pairs at the spur floor and at a third of it.

 The line in contact swings, and the least of it is what a tooth carries. A helical pair at a transverse contact ratio of 0.4 and an overlap ratio of 3.5. Left: the field of action, 0.4 of a base pitch across and the face up, with the contact lines at the moment the total length in contact is least; each line crosses the face while advancing 3.5 base pitches, so only a short piece of each lies in the field. Right: the total length in contact over one base pitch, as a share of its mean, 0.857 at its least and 1.143 at its most; the closed form b/(εβ cos βb)·[εα εβ − min(nα nβ, (1 − nα)(1 − nβ))] gives the least exactly. Dashed: the spur optimum at εα 1.2, which carries its whole face for four fifths of a pitch and twice it for one fifth, 0.833 and 1.667 of its mean.

The face carries the least line

The least length of contact line a helical pair carries: the field of action at its least moment and the length in contact over a base pitch; the closed form against the swept field; the least as a share of the mean against the overlap ratio at four transverse ratios; the narrowest face that matches the spur optimum's least line, against the spur face; every floor of the earlier table priced by the mean and by the least; and the least line at a fixed face against the helix angle.

 Where on the field the root band sits, and when it is loaded most. A helical pair at a transverse contact ratio of 0.4 and an overlap ratio of 1.5. Left: the field of action, the path across and the face up, with the bands a tenth of the path wide at each end shaded, where the sliding is worst, and the contact lines at the moment the share of the load in those bands is largest, 1.36 times its even value. Right: over one base pitch, the share of the load in the root bands over its even value (solid), and the total length in contact over its greatest (dashed), least 0.667 of its mean.

The least line carries the root

The share of a helical pair's load carried near the two ends of its path of contact: the field of action with the root bands and the contact lines at the root's worst moment; the line in contact and the root share over a base pitch for thin and wide bands; the counting limit against the swept field; the root share's peak and the least line against the overlap ratio at two transverse ratios; and a ledger.

All essays