See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276112282

The Undercut Criterion of Pinion Shaper Cutters: And an Improvement by

Modifying the Basic Rack Profile

Article in Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · April 2015

DOI: 10.1115/1.4030375

CITATIONS READS

7 704

1 author:

Mattias Svahn
Lund University
13 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mattias Svahn on 18 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Mattias Svahn
Division of Machine Elements,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Lund University,
P.O. Box 118,
Lund SE-221 00, Sweden
e-mail: mattias.svahn@mel.lth.se
The Undercut Criterion
of Pinion Shaper Cutters:
And an Improvement
by Modifying the Basic
Rack Profile
The fillet of the gear tooth is highly stressed in operation; so for heavily loaded gears, the
fillet geometry must be controlled. The manufacturer’s task is to, within acceptable toler-
ances, produce the gear to the designer’s specifications regardless of the manufacturing
method. Most often gear cutting tools are used that work under generating conditions.
The tool will form the gear tooth; so to produce the specified gear geometry and, espe-
cially, the fillet geometry, this tool must be conjugated to the same basic rack as the gear
to cut. However, this gives a risk that the tooth tip of the tool will be undercut, and if this
occurs the tool will not cut the intended gear fillet. In this report, novel analytical equa-
tions are derived, which predict the limit when the tool tip will be undercut. It is shown
that if the gear tooth should be conjugated to the standard basic rack with a circular
fillet, which is the normal case, very large tool-tooth numbers are needed for pinion
shaper cutters and gear skiving cutters to avoid this type of undercut. However, the mini-
mum tooth number to achieve a smooth continuous tool-tooth profile is reduced by
modifications to the fillet of the basic rack profile. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4030375]

Keywords: pinion shaper cutter, gear skiving cutter, hob, undercut, fillet geometry, basic
rack design, tool design

1 Introduction
Instead of defining the geometry of the gear to manufacture, the
designer often defines the geometry of the rack conjugated to the
gear, the basic rack. This makes it easier for the manufacturer to
find the geometry of the tool to cut the gear. If the designer does
not specify the fillet of the basic rack, it is only required that the
manufacturer chooses a tool where its basic rack has the same
pitch as the basic rack of the gear to produce. However, if the
designer specifies the complete basic rack of the gear to produce,
including the fillet, the manufacturer must choose a tool conjugate
to the same basic rack. If this is not prevailed, the manufacturer
disregards the designer’s specification. The normal situation for
heavily loaded gears, where the gear fillet must have a controlled
geometry in order to maximize the gear strength, is to specify the
complete basic rack profile.
If the designer does not take care there is a possibility that the
fillet of the gear conjugated to the specified basic rack will be
undercut. This is undesired as it weakens the gear tooth, and this
could possibly also reduce the contact ratio. The criterion to avoid
this kind of undercutting is well known. It is avoided if the gear-
tooth number exceeds
h0;t  x  r0;t ð1  sin an Þ
z  2 cos b
sin2 at
However, it is the responsibility of the designer that this criterion
is fulfilled. Out of the control of the designer, there is also a possi-
bility that the tool could be undercut. This type of undercut is
briefly, but not explicitly, illustrated in the work presented by
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
October 14, 2014; final manuscript received April 2, 2015; published online
September 9, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Xiaoping Qian.
Vijayakar et al. [1]. A part of this work presents the conjugate
external gear tooth of various rack designs. In some cases, cusps
exist on the conjugate tooth profile, both in the fillet region and at
the tip of the tooth. Excessive material is removed nearby these
regions, resulting in a tooth profile with a sharp corner. This can
obviously also happen to the tool profile conjugate to the basic
rack profile, for tools such as pinion shaper cutters, gear skiving
cutters, and hobs. If the tip of the tool tooth is undercut in this
way, this tool will not generate the correct gear fillet geometry. It
will be shown that this type of undercut will occur for tooth num-
bers and helical angles common for pinion shaper cutters and gear
skiving cutters; but not hobs. Without loss of generality, the pin-
ion shaper cutter will be used in this paper as an example, but the
results are directly applicable to all mentioned tools.
The pinion shaper cutter is the most versatile tool, working
under generating principles, able to cut both internal and external
gears with a wide range of gear-tooth numbers, see Fig. 1. The
shaper resembles of an external gear, but also sometimes an inter-
nal gear. The teeth are relieved to avoid interference in the cutting
stroke, and the tooth tip is rounded which is said to add strength to
the cut gear and increase tool life [2]. Still, to cut the intended
gear geometry it is required that the shaper tooth must be conju-
gated to the same basic rack as the gear to produce.
(1) Gear fillet strength is highly dependent on the fillet geometry.
Andersson [3] derived the tooth profile, including the fillet geome-
try, of external and internal spur gears cut by a shaper cutter with
rounded tip. Olsson [4] did this later for helical gears. These
works include FEM-calculations and experimental validation,
using photo-elastic and strain-gauge measurements, of the fillet
that stresses the gear experience in operation. Kawalec et al. [5]
made a comparative study using FEM on the root fillet stresses of
external gears manufactured by a rack cutter and a pinion shaper
cutter with rounded tooth tip, where these two tools do not cut the
same gear fillet geometry. This further shows the importance that
the manufactured fillet geometry must be controlled. Moreover,

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011011-1
C 2016 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 below the base circle of the gear. This gives, however, an undercut
criterion different from Eq. (1).

2 Conjugate Basic Rack Profile to Pinion Shaper

Cutter With a Circular Tip Rounding
The pinion shaper cutter used in industry, and in previous
research, mostly has a tip rounding in form of a circular sector.
The tooth profile of this cutter is smooth, continuous, and not
undercut. However, such shaper cutter is most certainly not conju-
gated to the same basic rack as the gear to manufacture. Using
this tool to cut the gear means that the gear fillet will deviate from
the predetermined shape defined as conjugated to a basic rack
with circular fillet. In this case, it would be interesting to deter-
mine the geometry of the basic rack conjugated to this tool, which
in effect is also conjugated to the gear this tool will manufacture.
The deviation compared to a rack with circular fillet may be small
enough to accept.
The shaper geometry is described by many authors [3,4,6,10],
and therefore omitted in this report. In contrast to an external
gear, the shaper cutter has increased addenda and a circular tip
rounding that interconnects the involute profile with the top area
of the tooth. This is a circle sector with radius rc ¼ r0;c mn in the
transverse plane. To give the shaper a smooth transition between
the rounded tip circle and the involute, the center of this circle
must be on the tangent line to the base circle, see Fig. 2. By roll-
ing this shaper over the pitch plane of the basic rack, the conjugate
rack tooth profile is found. At the initial position, C ¼ 0, the
Fig. 1 Pinion shaper cutter cuts an internal gear, external gear, shaper tooth is centered in the tooth space of the rack. At any
or rack other rotational position, the rack must consequently move the
rolled distance R0;t C. In Fig. 3, the shaper cutter is in contact with
the basic rack at point C. The common contact normal between
Fetvaci computed the manufactured gear tooth and the fillet pro- the rack and the shaper must at all times be directed through the
file of symmetric [6] and asymmetric [7,8] spur gears using shaper pitch point P. The relation is obtained
cutters. Lian [9] determined the shaper cut fillet of helical gears,
with and without protuberance to the tool. Tsay et al. [10] deter- tanðut þ CÞ ¼ tan w (2)
mined the cut external spur gear-tooth profile with tip-chamfer
The angle w can be derived from the shaper cutter geometry
and protuberance to the shaper tool. Bair [11] computed the tooth
profile of elliptical gears cut by a shaper cutter. Chang and Tsay dgc
[12] proposed a mathematical model of shaping noncircular gears cot w ¼  (3)
including the fillet, the bottom land, and the working surfaces, and dnc
identified if the cut gear was undercut. The previous research used
the profile of the shaper cutter tooth to determine the cut gear
geometry, and the shaper cutter in these works has a circular tip
rounding. In this paper, we, instead, proceed from the basic rack pro-
file. Possible modifications to the gear tooth, such as protuberance,
tip-relief, and tip-chamfer, are easily added to the basic rack in the
normal fashion. This unifies the tool design methodology with well
established methods for hobs and rack cutters. However, to form the
intended gear fillet, the shaper-tooth tip must be correct and not
undercut. In this paper, the criterion to avoid this type of undercut is
analytically derived in closed-form using the basic rack profile.
For evident reasons, internal gears cannot be cut by a physical
rack cutter. Instead, it must be cut by a pinion shaper cutter with
fewer teeth than the internal gear. The shaper is conjugated to the
basic rack, and the shaper will cut gears conjugated to it. Thus,
the internal and the external gear this shaper could cut will also be
conjugated to the same basic rack, see Fig 1. This means that the
internal gear geometry also can be determined by conjugate action
to the basic rack. In this case, however, the basic rack must be
imaginary. The tooth profile of the internal gear will then be
equivalent to the shaper cutter profile with the same number of
teeth. That is, above the same involute profile, the internal gear fil-
let will have the same profile as the tip of the shaper tooth. The
undercut criterion derived in this paper for the tip of the shaper
tooth is then also applicable to internal gears. But as the shaper
cutter must have fewer teeth than the internal gear wheel that it
cuts, the shaper is the limiting factor. The shaper cutter will
thereby not undercut the fillet of internal gears. The fillet of exter- Fig. 2 Geometry of a pinion shaper cutter with circular tip
nal gears will be undercut if the involute profile of the shaper cuts rounding

011011-2 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 3 Pinion shaper cutter and basic rack profile

Fig. 4 Calculated basic rack profile conjugated to the pinion

shaper cutter with circular tip rounding
From Fig. 3, the geometric relation is found

gc  R0;t cos C ðnt  ntc Þ2 ðgt  gtc Þ2

tan w ¼ (4) f ðntc ; gtc ; at ; bt Þ ¼ þ 1¼0 (8)
nc þ R0;t sin C a2t b2t

The shaper rotational angle C, for a specific point on the tooth
profile so that the contact normal passes through the pitch point,
can be determined by combining Eqs. (3) and (4). To suit numeri-
cal calculations, it can be rewritten as
dnc   A solution to nonlinear least square problems can be found using
f ðCÞ ¼ gc  R0;t cos C þ nc þ R0;t sin C ¼ 0 (5)
dgc
The shaper rotational angle C can be solved for given gc,
ðnc ¼ nc ðgc ÞÞ, by using the Newton–Raphson method
dnc   as expected using the least square method, not perfect but the Eu-
gc  R0;t cos Ci þ n þ R0;t sin Ci
dgc c
Ciþ1 ¼ Ci  (6)
dn
R0;t sin Ci þ c R0;t cos Ci
dgc
With a convergent solution, the coordinates of the basic rack in
the transverse plane can be determined
( 3 Undercut Criterion of Pinion Shaper Cutter
nt ¼ nc cos C þ gc sin C  R0;t C
  (7)
gt ¼ nc sin C þ gc cos C  R0;t þ x
The conjugated basic rack profile of the shaper cutter with the
data, z ¼ 30, b ¼ 20 deg; an ¼ 20 deg; r0;c ¼ 0:15, and x ¼ 0, is
shown in Fig. 4. The circular tip rounding of the shaper cutter gen-
erated the fillet of this rack, and the geometric shape of this fillet
is very close to elliptical. Although it may not be a perfect fit, it is
of interest to determine the ellipse that can describe this fillet. An
ellipse is described in Cartesian coordinates by
This equation contains four unknown parameters and the fillet of
the basic rack in Fig. 4 is determined by m points. The problem is
overdetermined, so the closest solution is found by the least
square method. Equation (8) cannot be expressed as a linear com-
bination of the unknown parameters, so this problem is nonlinear.
the Gauss–Newton method. By this method, the problem is linear-
ized and the parameters are refined iteratively. A convergent solu-
tion will give the center-point, the semiminor axis, and the
semimajor axis. In this example, these values are
ðntc ; gtc Þ ¼ ð0:177; 0:695Þ; at ¼ 0:325, and bt ¼ 0:553. The fit is,
clidean norm of the residual vector is less than 0.015 for m ¼ 100
points. The rack profile is determined in the transverse plane, thus
these are the semiminor axis and the semimajor axis of the ellipse
in the transverse plane too. In the normal plane, these axes are
an ¼ at cosðbÞ and bn ¼ bt .
Conjugated to Rack With Circular Fillet
As shown, the shaper cutter with circular tip rounding is closely
conjugated to a rack with an elliptical fillet. It is evident that this
cutter will not produce the same fillet as a tool conjugate to a basic
rack with a circular fillet. We, therefore, now proceed from the
fact that it is desired to produce a gear conjugated to the basic
rack profile with a circular fillet. For cylindrical gears, this basic
rack profile is standardized, see, e.g., DIN 867 [13]. The shaper
cutter should then be conjugated to this basic rack, but this now
means that the tip rounding will not be circular. However, the

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011011-3

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 requirement still holds that the tooth profile must be smooth and
continuous. To meet these requirements, as will be shown, there is
a criterion that must be fulfilled to avoid undercutting of the tool.
The transition point, between the tip rounding and the involute,
is in one-to-one correspondence to the equivalent point on the
basic rack, i.e., where the circular fillet is tangent to the straight
side. In Fig. 5, this point is in contact with the corresponding point
on the shaper tooth. The common contact normal must be directed
through the pitch point P, and as this contact point is equally on
the involute profile it must be tangent to the base circle R0;b of
the shaper cutter. The radial distance to where the tip rounding
and the involute interconnect on the shaper tooth is then
determined by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
2 h0 ðan Þ 2
R0;if ¼ R0;b þ R0;b tan at þ (9)
sin at

where h0 ðun Þ ¼ h0;t þ x  r0;t ð1  sin un Þ. The radial distance to

any other point on the tip rounding of the gear tooth can be deter-
mined using the cosine-theorem, see Fig. 6

h20 ðun Þ
R20 ðun Þ ¼ R20;t þ þ 2R0;t h0 ðun Þ (10)
sin2 ut Fig. 6 The radial distance R0 from the center of the shaper cut-
ter to the fillet of the basic rack, transverse plane view
This equation is valid in the interval an  un  p=2, and the
transverse pressure angle is

tan ut ¼ tan un = cos b (11)

According to Buckingham [14], a cusp will exist on the theoretical

form of the tooth profile because two points satisfy the equation
of gearing for the same radial distance on the gear. The tooth will
then be undercut, and on the actual shaper tooth there will instead
be a sharp corner. Figure 7 shows how R0 ðun Þ increases from R0;if
to R0;tip with increasing un . In this example, R0 is not unique in the
interval, two points on the same radial distance satisfy the equation
of gearing and undercut occurs. It is seen that the critical area is
when un approaches an . The actual gear-tooth profile in this exam-
ple is shown in Fig. 8. To avoid undercutting, R0 ðun Þ must be

Fig. 7 R0 ðun Þ, z 5 40, b 5 0 deg; an 5 20 deg; h0;t 5 1:25;

r0;t 5 0:35, and x 5 0

Fig. 5 The radial distance R0;if where the tip rounding and the
involute profile interconnect, transverse plane view Fig. 8 The calculated tooth profile from data in Fig. 7

011011-4 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 strictly increasing in the interval. In other words, the derivative ne ðhÞ ¼ r0;t;n sin h
(17)
must be strictly positive. The derivative with respect to un is ge ðhÞ ¼ r0;t;g cos h

dR20 ðun Þ 1 dh0 according to Fig. 9. The standard basic rack with circular fillet
¼2 2
dun sin ut dun will obviously be a special case to this one by setting r0;t;g ¼ r0;t;n .
0 1 To achieve a smooth continuous curve, the straight line of the
B 1 dut 1 C rack must be tangent to the rack fillet. The slope of the profile is
B 2 2 C
@h0 ðun Þ  h0 ðun Þ tan u du dh0 þ R0;t sin ut A
t n dg
dun ¼  cot un (18)
dn
(12)
From the coordinates in Eq. (17), we get after invoking the chain-
where rule
dh0 dg
¼ r0;t cos un (13) dg dg dh dh r0;t;g
dun ¼ ¼ ¼ tan h (19)
dn dh dn dn r0;t;n
and dh

dut tan2 un þ 1 By combining Eq. (18) with Eq. (19), we get

¼ cos b (14)
dun tan2 un þ cos2 b r0;t;g
cot un ¼ tan h (20)
r0;t;n
With positive derivative, dR20 ðun Þ=dun  0, the minimum shaper-
tooth number for a smooth continuous tooth profile is found from
Eq. (12) at the limit un ¼ an The radial distance R0 ðun Þ is derived as in Eq. (10), but the
height function from the pitch point to the contact point now
  becomes
cos b h0 ðan Þ cos b tan2 an þ 1
z  zmin ¼ 2h0 ðan Þ 2  1
sin at r0;t cos an tan at tan2 an þ cos2 b h0 ðun Þ ¼ h0;t þ x  r0;t;g ð1  cos hÞ (21)
(15)
Again, the radius R0 ðun Þ must be unique in the interval
In the spur case, b ¼ 0 deg, this relation simplifies to R0;if  R0 ðun Þ  R0;tip and its derivative with respect to un
  positive. This derivative is
h0 ðat Þ h0 ðat Þ
z  zmin ¼ 2 2 1 (16)
sin at r0;t sin at dR20 ðun Þ 1 dh0 dh
¼2 2
dun sin ut dh dun
The minimum shaper-tooth numbers for the helical angles 0 deg 0 1
 b  40 deg are given in Table 1. In this example, the shaper is B 1 dut 1 1 C
conjugated to the basic rack profile with a circular fillet, B 2
@h0 ðun Þ  h0 ðun Þ þ R0;t sin2 ut C
A
h0;t ¼ 1:25; r0;t ¼ 0:35; an ¼ 20 deg, and the shaper cutter is man- tan ut dun dh0 dh
ufactured without addendum correction, x ¼ 0. Increasing the cir- dh dun
cular fillet radius on the basic rack, r0;t ¼ 0:38, the minimum (22)
shaper-tooth numbers are reduced.
where
4 Undercut Criterion of Pinion Shaper Cutter
dh0
Conjugated to Rack With Elliptical Fillet ¼ r0;t;g sin h (23)
dh
The presented tooth numbers, to avoid an undercut tooth in
Table 1, are unpractical in industrial applications. The shaper cut-
ter used in the industry has fewer teeth without an undercut tooth
tip but, as described in Sec. 2, this shaper is conjugated to another
rack design. One way to solve this problem would be to try to con-
vince the designer to change the fillet geometry. Such a change
could be to make an elliptical fillet. The tool can then have fewer
teeth without undercut. This will, however, also give a new under-
cut criterion.
Modifications are now made to the basic rack so that the shape
of the fillet is elliptical. An ellipse on the parametric form is

Table 1 The minimum shaper-tooth number according to

Eq. (15)

r0;t 0 deg 10 deg 20 deg 30 deg 40 deg

z 0.35 132 126 109 85 59

0.38 115 110 95 74 51
Fig. 9 Ellipse

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011011-5

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 and Table 3 The minimum shaper-tooth number according to
Eq. (25), with the height function h0 ðan Þ freely chosen
dh r0;t;n cot2 un þ 1
¼  2 (24) z
dun r0;t;g r0;t;n
cot un þ1
r0;t;g b

r0;t;n
Using the limit dR20 =dun  0 together with un ¼ an , we get the r0;t;g h deg r0;t;g 0 deg 10 deg 20 deg 30 deg h0 ðan Þ t
undercutting criterion that must be fulfilled.
0 1 0.4 47:700 0.7 44 42 36 28 1.021 0.207
0.8 34 32 28 22 0.988 0.189
cos b B
Bh0 ðan Þ dut 1 1  1C
C 0.9 26 25 21 17 0.956 0.171
z  zmin ¼ 2h0 ðan Þ 2 @ A (25)
sin at tan at du n
dh 0 dh 0.5 53:948 0.7 36 34 30 23 0.962 0.152
dh dun 0.8 26 25 22 17 0.921 0.127
0.9 19 18 16 12 0.880 0.101
where dut =dun is given in Eq. (14). 0.6 58:758 0.7 32 31 27 21 0.913 0.094
To make a fair comparison between the rack with circular fillet 0.8 23 22 19 15 0.865 0.060
and the rack with an elliptical fillet, the rack should have the same 0.9 16 15 13 10 0.817 0.026
active height, h0 ðan Þ, so that the involute region of the cut gear
tooth will be the same. Here, it is chosen so that h0 ðan Þ ¼ 1:0197
which corresponds to h0;t ¼ 1:25; r0;t ¼ 0:35, x ¼ 0 for the basic
rack with circular fillet, see Table 1. For a specific r0;t;g , the auxil-
iary angle h is
 
h0;t þ x  h0 ðan Þ
h ¼ arccos 1  (26)
r0;t;g

and the minor axis of the ellipse is

r0;t;n ¼ r0;t;g tan h tan an (27)

The minimum shaper-tooth numbers to avoid undercut are pre-

sented in Table 2. These shaper-tooth numbers are fewer than
those achieved using the rack with a circular fillet. If there are no
requirements on where the involute region should start on the
manufactured gear tooth, the minimum shaper-tooth numbers to
avoid undercut teeth can be further reduced, see Table 3. Care
must be taken here as this will possibly also reduce the contact ra-
tio. Other than that, there is also the restriction that the tip of the
basic rack profile should not be sharp. This restriction is
p  
t¼  h0;t  r0;t;g ð1  cos hÞ tan an  ne ðhÞ  0 (28)
4

as indicated in Fig. 10.

Another alternative if the rack fillet can be chosen freely is, for
example, that the rack fillet can be super elliptical instead of a
standard ellipse. The general form of the super ellipse in paramet-
ric form is given by
Fig. 10 Basic rack profile with elliptical fillet
nse ðhÞ ¼ r0;t;n sinð2=jÞ h
(29)
gse ðhÞ ¼ r0;t;g cosð2=kÞ h
where the choice of the exponents j ¼ k ¼ 2 will give the stand-
ard ellipse. With j ¼ k ¼ n, Eq. (20) becomes
Table 2 The minimum shaper-tooth number according to
Eq. (25), with the height function fixed, h0 ðan Þ ¼ 1:0197
r0;t;g ð2ð11=nÞÞ
cot un ¼ tan h (30)
r0;t;n
z
and the height function
b
 
r0;t;g h deg r0;t;n 0 deg 10 deg 20 deg 30 deg 40 deg h0 ðun Þ ¼ h0;t þ x  r0;t;g 1  cosð2=nÞ h (31)

0.4 64:897 0.311 96 92 79 62 43

However, the undercutting criterion is not improved significantly
0.5 57:357 0.284 67 64 55 43 30
0.6 51:962 0.279 52 49 43 33 23 by this choice. The best solution is found to be when j ¼ k  1:9,
0.7 47:856 0.282 44 42 36 28 19 and the minimum tooth number is decreased by a few teeth in
0.8 44:592 0.287 39 37 32 25 17 some cases only.
0.9 41:917 0.294 36 34 29 23 16 A change from the basic rack with a circular fillet to one with
an elliptical fillet does not necessarily affect the gear performance

011011-6 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 negatively. Pedersen [15] reduced the fillet bending stresses of
spur gears using shape optimization. In this work, the bending
stresses could be reduced by a change from the standard circular
fillet geometry of the basic rack to a super elliptical fillet.

5 Numerical Example
In this numerical example, an external helical gear, b ¼ 10 deg,
is to be manufactured. The gear teeth are adjacent to a shoulder,
thus a pinion shaper cutter is the most practical tool to use. These
gear teeth should originally be conjugated to a basic rack with a
circular fillet, but the shaper size needed according to Eq. (15)
will be impractically large. For example, the center-distance
needed will be extremely large, maybe above the maximum of
most cutting machines. The designer and the manufacturer must
then together revise the fillet geometry. One solution is to change
the basic rack design. Choosing for example r0;t;g ¼ 0:9 and
r0;t;n ¼ 0:45, the minimum shaper-tooth number without undercut
is z ¼ 18 according to Table 3. The tooth profile for this choice is Fig. 12 Radius of curvature of pinion shaper cutters with 15,
plotted in the transverse plane in Fig. 11. 16, 17, and 18 teeth conjugated to a basic rack with elliptical fil-
A quantitative measure to confirm that the shaper-tooth profile let, r0;t;g 5 0:9 and r0;t;n 5 0:45
is not undercut is to calculate the radius of curvature. If the radius
of curvature equals zero a point is represented, and to avoid a
cusp as shown in Fig. 8 this radius may never be equal to zero. In
Fig. 12, the radius of curvature is plotted for the five regions
depicted in Fig. 11 of the shaper-tooth profiles with the tooth num-
bers z ¼ 15; 16; 17; and 18. The shaper-tooth profile z ¼ 18 is not
undercut while the others are for the radius of curvature equals
zero in region two for these tooth numbers. These teeth will then
get a sharp edge nearby the tip of the tooth profile.
Choosing a shaper cutter with z  18, the tooth profile of these
shaper cutters will not be undercut, and these cutters will then cut
the intended gear fillet. However, if such shaper cutters cut exter-
nal gear teeth, the fillet of the external gear should neither be
undercut. The relation given by Eq. (1) is only valid for generating
processes, where the tool is conjugated to a basic rack with a cir-
cular fillet. The same theory holds that straight side of the basic
rack must not touch below the base circle of the gear to produce,
which is equivalent to, the involute profile of the shaper cuts
below the base circle. Thus, the undercut criterion of the fillet for
external gears now becomes

h0;t  x  r0;t;g ð1  cos hÞ Fig. 13 Radius of curvature of cut external gears with 12, 13,
z  2 cos b (32) 14, and 15 teeth conjugated to a rack with elliptical fillet,
sin2 at r0;t;g 5 0:9 and r0;t;n 5 0:45

In this example, the gear-tooth number must exceed z  14:4. The

radius of curvature nearby the fillet region for external gears with
the tooth numbers z ¼ 12; 13; 14; and 15 cut by this shaper cutter
is shown in Fig. 13. It is clearly seen that z ¼ 15 is not undercut,
while the gears with fewer teeth are. If this shaper cutter, on the
other hand, would cut internal gear teeth there is no risk that the
fillet will be undercut.

Fig. 11 Calculated tooth profile of pinion shaper cutter with 18
teeth conjugated to basic rack with r0;t;g 5 0:9 and r0;t;n 5 0:45
6 Conclusion
In some occasions, the pinion shaper cutter is the most appro-
priate tool to cut gear teeth. Such situations are, for example,
when the gear teeth are adjacent to shoulders, the gear teeth are
close to nearby obstacles, and of course internal gear teeth. The
shaper tooth will form the involute profile and the fillet of the cut
gear teeth. Although the fillet is rarely controlled in industry after
the gear is cut, the desired fillet geometry is certainly specified by
the designer in most cases. This is often specified on the drawing
by the fillet of the basic rack. To meet the design requirements,
the manufacturer must choose a tool conjugated to the same basic
rack as the gear to cut. Besides this, to form the intended fillet
geometry, the tip of the shaper tooth must not be undercut.
In this paper, the undercut criterion is derived for pinion shaper
cutters that are conjugate to the basic rack. For the standard rack

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering FEBRUARY 2016, Vol. 138 / 011011-7

Downloaded From: http://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 with a circular fillet, it is shown that the minimum shaper-tooth Nomenclature
number to achieve a smooth transition between the involute pro-
Parameters
file and the tip rounding is
  ht ¼ addendum height (ht ¼ h0;t mn )
cos b h0 ðan Þ cos b tan2 an þ 1 mn ¼ normal module
z  zmin ¼ 2h0 ðan Þ 2  1
sin at r0;t cos an tan at tan2 an þ cos2 b R¼ radial distance (R ¼ R0 mn )
(33) rt ¼ rack fillet radius (rt ¼ r0;t mn )
rt;g ¼ rack fillet semimajor axis (rt;g ¼ r0;t;g mn )
To avoid undercut teeth large shaper-tooth numbers are needed, rt;n ¼ rack fillet semiminor axis (rt;n ¼ r0;t;n mn )
often not practical in industrial applications. It is also shown that Rb ¼ base circle radius (Rb ¼ Rt cos at )
the commonly used pinion shaper cutter in previous research and Rt ¼ reference radius (Rt ¼ mn z=2= cos b)
in industry with a circular tip rounding is, at least very closely, Rif ¼ start of involute (Rif ¼ R0;if mn )
conjugated to a rack profile with an elliptical fillet. By this modifi- x¼ addendum correction
cation to the basic rack, a new undercut criterion was derived. The z¼ number of teeth
minimum shaper-tooth number needed to achieve a smooth con- an ¼ normal pressure angle
tinuous tooth profile is in this case given by at ¼ transverse pressure angle
0 1 b¼ helical angle
h¼ auxiliary angle for elliptical rack fillet
cos b B C
Bh0 ðan Þ dut 1 1  1C n, g ¼ coordinates
z  zmin ¼ 2h0 ðan Þ 2 @ A (34)
sin at tan at dun dh0 dh
dh dun
Subscripts
The shaper-tooth numbers can be reduced significantly by this
c¼ cutter
choice compared to the rack with circular fillet geometry, and the
e¼ ellipse
shaper cutter still produces the same involute profile to the gear.
n¼ normal plane
Further reduction of the shaper-tooth numbers was found but to
t¼ transverse plane
the cost of reduced involute profile of the cut gear.
se ¼ super ellipse
Essentially, these two shaper cutters can produce the same
0¼ dimensionless parameter by division with mn
involute region, but the produced fillet geometry will not be the
same. This poses a problem if the fillet geometry is predefined on
the drawing specifications provided to the manufacturer. If the
designer predefined the standard basic rack profile with circular References
fillet, the correct fillet geometry is not produced by a tool conju- [1] Vijayakar, S. M., Sarkar, B., and Houser, D. R., 1988, “Gear Tooth Profile Deter-
gated to another rack. To not disregard the designer specifications mination From Arbitrary Rack Geometry,” Gear Technol., 5(6), pp. 18–30.
another tool should be used. However, as mentioned the pinion [2] Radzevich, S. P., 2012, Dudley’s Handbook of Practical Gear Design and
shaper cutter is in some occasions the only appropriate generating Manufacture, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[3] Andersson, S. A. E., 1973, “On the Design of Internal Involute Spur Gears,”
tool. One solution to this problem is for the manufacturer and the Ph.D. thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
designer to make a revision of the fillet geometry. If the choice of [4] Olsson, A., 1995, “On the Design of Internal Involute Helical Gears,” Ph.D.
an elliptical fillet geometry does not affect the performance of the thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
gear, a shaper cutter with an appropriate size can be chosen [5] Kawalec, A., Wiktor, J., and Ceglarek, D., 2006, “Comparative Analysis of
Tooth-Root Strength Using ISO and AGMA Standards in Spur and Helical Gears
according to Eq. (34). Otherwise another manufacturing method With FEM-Based Verification,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(5), pp. 1141–1158.
should be chosen that does not have these limitations. [6] Fetvaci, C., 2010, “Definition of Involute Spur Gear Profiles Generated by
If the designer agrees that a change of the fillet geometry will not Gear-Type Shaper Cutters,” Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach., 38(4), pp.
affect the performance of the gear, care must be taken so the cut fil- 481–492.
[7] Fetvaci, C., 2010, “Generation Simulation of Involute Spur Gears Machined by
let of the external gear is not undercut. The relation given in Eq. (1) Pinion-Type Shaper Cutters,” Strojniski Vestn.: J. Mech. Eng., 56(10), pp.
is valid for gears conjugated to the basic rack with a circular fillet. 644–652.
To not undercut the fillet of external gear teeth conjugated to the [8] Fetvaci, C., and Imrak, E., 2008, “Mathematical Model of a Spur Gear With
basic rack with elliptical fillet, the gear-tooth number must exceed Asymmetric Involute Teeth and Its Cutting Simulation,” Mech. Based Des.
Struct. Mach., 36(1), pp. 34–46.
[9] Lian, G., 2006, “Determining the Shaper Cut Helical Gear Fillet Profile,” Gear
h0;t  x  r0;t;g ð1  cos hÞ Technol., 23(5), pp. 56–67.
z  2 cos b (35) [10] Tsay, C. B., Liu, W. Y., and Chen, Y. C., 2000, “Spur Gear Generation by
sin2 at
Shaper Cutters,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 104(3), pp. 271–279.
[11] Bair, B. W., 2002, “Computerized Tooth Profile Generation of Elliptical Gears
In this paper, the undercut criteria were derived for the tip of Manufactured by Shaper Cutters,” J. Mater. Technol., 122(2–3), pp. 139–147.
the pinion shaper tooth. However, since these were derived from [12] Chang, S. L., and Tsay, C. B., 1998, “Computerized Tooth Profile Generation
and Undercut Analysis of Noncircular Gears Manufactured With Shaper
the basic rack profile, these undercut criteria are valid, and Cutters,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 120(1), pp. 92–99.
directly applicable, to other generating gear tools also, such as [13] DIN 867, 1986, Basic Rack Tooth Profiles for Involute Teeth of Cylindrical
gear skiving cutters and hobs. Gears for General Engineering and Heavy Industries, Beuth Verlag GmBH,
Berlin, UDC No. 321.833.1.
[14] Buckingham, E., 1949, Analytical Mechanics of Gears, McGraw-Hill (Dover
Acknowledgment Publications), New York.
[15] Pedersen, N. S., 2009, “Reducing Bending Stress in External Spur Gears by
For discussion, the author wishes to thank Hans Hansson at the Redesign of the Standard Cutting Tool,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 38(3), pp.
SwePart Transmission AB, Liatorp, Sweden. 215–227.

011011-8 / Vol. 138, FEBRUARY 2016 Transactions of the ASME

DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://manufacturingscience.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats on 09/10/2015 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use