Gear

A gear is a toothed mechanical element that transmits motion and torque through contact with another gear or a rack and pinion. The teeth maintain a prescribed relation between the motions: unlike a smooth friction drive, the ideal gear ratio is set by geometry and tooth counts. The gear pitch circle supplies an imaginary rolling geometry for describing that relation; it is not the circle through the tooth tips.^[ref]

For two external gears on fixed parallel axes, let $N_1,N_2$ be their tooth counts and let signed angular velocities ${\omega }_1,{\omega }_2$ use the same orientation. Each tooth on one gear must pass a tooth space on the other, so counting tooth passages givesThus a 20-tooth input driving a 40-tooth output makes the output turn half as fast in the opposite direction. An input of $1200$ revolutions per minute gives an output of $600$ revolutions per minute in magnitude. These signs describe an external pair; a rack and pinion instead converts rotation into translation.

The useful trade is between angular speed and torque. In an ideal steady transmission, conservation of energy equates input and output power, $|{\tau }_1{\omega }_1|=|{\tau }_2{\omega }_2|$. The same 20-tooth/40-tooth pair therefore turns an input torque of $2\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ into an output torque of $4\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ while halving angular speed. This does not create energy: more torque accompanies less angular displacement per input revolution. Real gears dissipate energy through friction, and backlash permits a small lost motion on reversal; tooth strength and bearings, rather than the gear ratio alone, determine allowable load.

A face gear is a gear whose working teeth occupy an annular face and mesh with a mating cylindrical pinion. A common arrangement turns the drive through approximately a right angle; other shaft angles and tapered configurations are possible. Its working surface geometry must maintain compatible tooth contact, rather than simply placing ordinary cylindrical teeth on a flat disk.

Tooth counting still supplies an ideal speed relation. If the pinion has $N_p$ teeth and the face gear $N_f$, equality of tooth-passage rates givesAn original 20-tooth pinion driving a 100-tooth face gear at $1500$ revolutions per minute therefore gives $300$ revolutions per minute at the output. Rotation signs require a stated orientation of the two different shaft axes; the scalar minus sign for an external parallel-axis spur gear pair cannot be copied without that convention.

The annular layout also explains a geometric design issue. With $N$ tooth positions, angular spacing is $2\pi /N$, while arc spacing on a ring of radius $r$ isFor $N=80$, radii $40$ and $60\mathrm{mm}$ give arc spacings about $3.142$ and $4.712\mathrm{mm}$. This radial change does not prescribe two interchangeable gear modules; it shows why a generated face-tooth surface cannot be understood as a single extruded cylindrical tooth profile.

A primary 2002 program built a scaled-power split-torque transmission with two opposed face gears, two input pinions and two idlers.^[ref] Multiple meshes make the geometry useful for distributing and recombining load, but also make alignment and compatibility important.

A bench rotation check can test the tooth-count ratio. A gear contact marking test, dimensional inspection and load-sensitive measurements address different questions about the manufactured surfaces and their operation. Correct output speed alone does not establish an acceptable gear contact pattern, tooth stress or gear efficiency.

Gear surface pitting is local loss of tooth-flank material associated with repeated contact loading and mechanical fatigue. The pits alter the surface geometry and can produce debris in the lubricant. This failure mode concerns the loaded flank; it must be distinguished from a tooth breaking through its section. Hertzian contact provides a basic elastic contact-stress model, while actual fatigue depends on the material, lubrication, load history and surface condition.^[ref]

A practical inspection can record a gear pitting area fraction $\varphi =A_{\mathrm{pit}}/A_{\mathrm{inspected}}$, provided the inspected flank region and image scale are fixed. An original example with0.80mm² of projected pit area in a40mm² inspected region gives $\varphi =0.02$, or2%. The same fraction in a smaller region need not represent the same damaged volume or depth. Consistent illumination and a stated area convention are needed before comparing successive inspections.

A2009 NASA study provides a motivating experiment. It analyzed24 sets of tapered involute spur pinions meshing with face gears in an endurance program. Vibration measurements were compared with an in-line oil-debris sensor whose coils detected passing metallic particles. Repeated inspections connected the signals to actual tooth-surface damage. The paper found debris responses for the pitting failures, while vibration indicators differed in their ability to detect different damage patterns.^[ref]

The experiment illustrates why one spectral amplitude is insufficient to identify pitting. The damaged geometry, its position among the teeth and the transmission path all affect a gear vibration spectrum. Combining repeated surface inspection with vibration and debris measurements tests a damage interpretation more directly than labeling every rise at gear mesh frequency as a pitting event.

The gear pitting area fraction measures how much of a stated tooth-flank inspection region is classified as affected by gear surface pitting:Both areas must use the same geometric convention. A projected photograph, an unwrapped flank map and an actual curved surface need not assign the same areas. The gear pitting inspection mask specifies which part of the flank is included, so that an apparent change of damage is not merely a change of inspected region.

For an original image-counting example, let the inspected region contain $N$ equal-area pixels and let $n$ be classified as pitted. If their common scale is $s$ length units per pixel,Thus $n=2400$ out of $N=120000$ gives $\varphi =0.02$, or $2\%$. The common scale cancels from the ratio; uncertainty in the classification boundary, perspective distortion or the inspection mask does not. Image segmentation should therefore be checked against the actual surface, with consistent illumination and a recorded threshold or classification rule.

Combining regions requires area weighting. Suppose one region has $0.6\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ of pits within $30\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and another has $1.2\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ within $120\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. Their fractions are $2\%$ and $1\%$, but the combined fraction is $1.8/150=1.2\%$, rather than the unweighted average $1.5\%$.

The ratio measures extent under its chosen convention, not pit depth, lost volume or a universal remaining life. A 2009 NASA endurance study paired repeated gear inspection with vibration and oil-debris monitoring. Its test rig used accelerometers, shaft timing signals and an inductive debris sensor, giving observations of different aspects of the evolving damage.^[ref] A surface fraction can complement these measurements, but it does not make their signals interchangeable.

A gear pitting inspection mask specifies the tooth-flank region over which damage is counted. It separates eligibility for inspection from the classification of an eligible location as pitted. The denominator of a gear pitting area fraction depends on this mask, so a change in coverage can change the reported fraction even when the surface has not changed.

For a digital image, let $m_i\in \{0,1\}$ indicate inclusion of pixel $i$ and let $p_i\in \{0,1\}$ indicate its classification as pitted. With represented surface area $a_i$ per pixel,The arrays $m_i$ and $p_i$ are different indicator functions. Uniform pixel areas cancel, but an oblique view or a curved-surface map can require nonuniform $a_i$. A shadow, occlusion or unrecorded region should not automatically count as intact material.

An original example begins with 200 pitted pixels among 10000 eligible equal-area pixels, giving $2\%$. Cropping to a 5000-pixel region that retains 150 pitted pixels gives $3\%$. The counted damaged area fell while the fraction rose; this comparison alone cannot establish damage growth.

A gear inspection common-region comparison first uses image registration to put inspections into corresponding surface coordinates. On a common grid, the intersection mask is $m_i^{\mathrm{common}}=m_i^{(0)}{m}_i^{(1)}$. Comparing the two pitting classifications within that same region holds the denominator convention fixed. Coverage outside the intersection should still be reported: excluding a newly obscured damaged edge can hide relevant change.

Useful inspection records retain the raw image, mask, geometric mapping, image thresholding or other image segmentation rule, and the reason for excluded regions. A primary NASA gear-endurance study combined inspection history with vibration and oil-debris observations, illustrating why damage labels must remain connected to actual inspected surfaces.^[ref] The mask formalism above is an explicit measurement convention, not a claim that every historical inspection used this pixel algorithm.

A gear inspection common-region comparison evaluates repeated surface observations on the same registered portion of a tooth flank. It prevents a changed gear pitting inspection mask from being mistaken for a change in damage. The region must be common in surface coordinates, not merely occupy the same pixel positions in two camera images.

After image registration, let $m_i^{(0)}$ and $m_i^{(1)}$ be inspection-mask indicator functions on one reference grid. Their common mask isIf $p_i^{(t)}$ classifies pitting at time $t$ and $a_i$ is represented surface area, defineThe identical denominator makes the difference a comparison within the same eligible area. It does not eliminate errors in registration or image segmentation.

An original example has 10000 eligible equal-area pixels at the first inspection and 8000 at the second, with 7000 in common. In the common region, pitted counts rise from 140 to 210: fractions rise from $2\%$ to $3\%$, a change of one percentage point or $50\%$ relative to the original fraction. Suppose total pitted counts were 200 and 240 across the separate full masks. Their raw difference, 40 pixels, is not the same quantity as the 70-pixel increase within the common region.

A gear inspection coverage audit should also record the excluded areas and why they disappeared or became newly visible. An intersection-only result can miss damage on an edge that the second camera view no longer captures. Keeping the original images makes that loss of coverage visible to a later reviewer.

Common inputs can correlate the two estimated fractions. In general,This is the usual correlated-input uncertainty propagation, not an assumption that neighboring image pixels are independent.^[ref] A primary NASA endurance study linked repeated physical inspections with vibration and debris observations; the common-region formalism specifies one way to make such repeated surface measurements comparable.^[ref]

A gear inspection coverage audit records which parts of a tooth surface were eligible for observation, which were excluded and why. It accompanies a gear pitting area fraction or gear inspection common-region comparison so that a numerical damage statistic can be interpreted against the area actually inspected.

A useful record retains the original image, gear pitting inspection mask, surface-coordinate map from image registration, represented pixel areas and exclusion reasons. Shadow, occlusion and an out-of-frame edge are different from a visible region classified as intact. An audit also distinguishes changes in viewing coverage from changes in the image segmentation rule.

An original calculation shows how missing area limits interpretation. Let inspected fraction $c=A_{\mathrm{seen}}/A_{\mathrm{target}}$ and observed pitting fraction ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{seen}}$ both refer to the same target surface. If unseen area has unknown pitting fraction $0\le {\varphi }_{\mathrm{unseen}}\le 1$, thenso the gear inspection missing-area bound isAt $c=0.8$ and ${\varphi }_{\mathrm{seen}}=0.02$, the whole-target fraction lies between $0.016$ and $0.216$ without further information. This is a deterministic range over missing data, not a statistical confidence interval. A small observed fraction does not alone establish a small whole-target fraction.

For repeated inspections, record areas visible only initially, only later and at both times. A common-region result can be valid for its intersection while becoming less representative of the full target if a damaged edge is systematically lost. Increasing pixel count inside the retained region does not recover information about the missing region.

The primary NASA gear-endurance study connected inspection history to vibration and oil-debris observations, illustrating the importance of tying a damage interpretation to physical inspection rather than a signal label alone.^[ref] The audit and bound above specify an explicit measurement convention; they do not assert that the historical study used this digital-mask procedure.

A gear inspection missing-area bound limits the whole-target pitting fraction using the area actually observed and explicit constraints on the unseen area. It formalizes what a gear inspection coverage audit can establish without assuming that excluded regions resemble visible ones.

Let $c=A_{\mathrm{seen}}/A_{\mathrm{target}}$, let $p$ be the observed gear pitting area fraction, and let $u$ be the unseen fraction affected by pitting. For a consistent surface-area convention,With only $0\le u\le 1$ known,The interval width is exactly $1-c$. Improving classification precision within the visible area cannot by itself remove uncertainty from a completely unseen region.

For an original example with $c=0.9$ and $p=0.02$, the possible whole-target fraction ranges from $0.018$ to $0.118$. The observed $2\%$ therefore does not prove that the whole surface is below an illustrative $5\%$ criterion. That chosen criterion is not a gear safety or acceptance standard.

The worst-case upper bound meets a target $\theta <1$ only iffor $p<1$. At $p=0.02$ and $\theta =0.05$, at least about $96.94\%$ coverage is required for this particular worst-case guarantee.

Additional justified information can narrow the range. If a separate observation establishes $0\le u\le 0.1$, then $cp\le \Phi \le cp+0.1(1-c)$. At $c=0.8$ and $p=0.02$, this gives $0.016\le \Phi \le 0.036$. The tighter bound depends on the new evidence about the unseen region, not on a mathematical preference for a smaller interval.

These deterministic bounds assume the observed classification and represented areas are correct. Image registration, image segmentation and geometric uncertainties can require additional allowances. They are not confidence intervals and do not describe pit depth or remaining fatigue life. The primary NASA endurance study combined inspection with vibration and debris monitoring; these different observations constrain different aspects of damage.^[ref]

Gear face width $b$ describes the width of the toothed portion. For a cylindrical spur gear or helical gear, it is measured parallel to the rotation axis, rather than along the slanting tooth trace. A projecting hub need not be part of the toothed width. Manufacturer drawings distinguish face width, hub width and total length as separate dimensions.^[ref]

The available width of one gear is not necessarily the gear effective face width of a pair. For two aligned cylindrical gears with equal width $b$ and relative axial offset $e$, a simple interval-overlap model givesAn original $b=20\mathrm{mm}$ pair offset by $4\mathrm{mm}$ has only $16\mathrm{mm}$ of common axial extent. If a hypothetical normal load $1000\mathrm{N}$ were uniformly spread across that extent, mean load per axial width would rise from $50$ to $62.5N/mm$. This is bookkeeping for an ideal uniform load, not a tooth-strength prediction. Actual gear face load distribution also depends on alignment and deformation.

For helical gears, width also enters gear overlap ratio:With gear normal module $m_n=2\mathrm{mm}$ and gear helix angle $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$, reducing engaged width from $20$ to $16\mathrm{mm}$ reduces ideal overlap from $1.5915$ to $1.2732$. The overall gear ratio is unchanged. Width therefore affects engagement and loading even when tooth counts and shaft speeds remain the same.^[ref]

Gear face load distribution describes how tooth-contact load is spread across the engaged gear face width. Equal total transmitted force can produce different local loads when shafts tilt, supports deform or tooth traces are imperfect. A geometrically available gear effective face width therefore does not establish uniform loading. The manufacturer's tooth-flank gear face load factor accounts for support arrangement and the expected quality of contact under load.^[ref]

For a simple axial line-load model, let $w(z)$ have units $N/mm$ over $0\le z\le b$. Its total normal force isUniform loading gives $w=F_n/b$. An illustrative tilted distribution isIts integral remains $F_n$, while its largest line load is $(1+\lambda )F_n/b$. With $F_n=1000\mathrm{N}$, $b=20\mathrm{mm}$ and $\lambda =0.6$, the two edges carry20 and80N/mm, compared with the50N/mm mean. The peak-to-mean ratio1.6 characterizes this constructed model; it is not a substitute for the manufacturer's standard factor calculation.

The gear contact pattern can reveal where mating tooth flanks touch, but an unloaded marking test alone does not measure the operating force density. A loaded comparison must specify applied torque, shaft positioning and support deformation. In helical gears, changing tooth-contact lines and multiple simultaneous contacts also require a consistent choice of time and projected width. A wider tooth can reduce mean load per width while still suffering a concentrated edge load; width and alignment must be considered together.

A gear contact pattern is the observed region of tooth-flank contact during a stated mesh test. Its position and extent reveal how the installed tooth surfaces meet. A gear contact marking test uses a thin marking layer and controlled rotation to make that region visible; the mounting position, transmission direction and applied torque belong in the test description. Manufacturer guidance treats surface-contact checks as evidence about the assembled mesh, including shaft alignment.^[ref]

A useful bench comparison holds the gear pair and test conditions fixed, records the initial mark, then changes one alignment setting and repeats the test. A mark moving toward one face edge indicates a change in where the flanks meet. This is an observation of contact location, rather than an automatic measurement of operating pressure or a universal diagnosis of the alignment error.

For example, a mark occupying the full20mm gear effective face width is compatible with a hypothetical uniform line load $w=50N/mm$, but also with the tilted positive distributionBoth integrate to1000N, yet their peak line loads are50 and80N/mm. Merely observing full-width contact cannot choose between those gear face load distributions. The gear face load factor or local stress needs additional load/deformation information.

Loaded and lightly loaded patterns can also differ because shaft, housing and tooth deformation change the gap. A quantitative loaded assessment may use strain measurements or a validated contact model alongside the pattern; the2006 gear-rating standard explicitly distinguishes comprehensive load assessment from the limited information in a bearing pattern.^[ref]

A gear contact marking test makes a gear contact pattern visible by using a thin contrasting marking layer and rolling the mating gears under stated conditions. The observed transfer or removal of the layer locates the region where the flanks meet closely enough to mark. A useful test record includes the marked flank, rotation direction, mounting position, backlash and applied torque. Manufacturer guidance discusses tooth-surface contact as an assembly and alignment check.^[ref]

A controlled comparison changes one alignment setting while keeping the same marking method and loading condition. A shift of the mark toward an edge then records a change in the mesh geometry. Changing layer thickness at the same time would confound that comparison: the visible pattern is the response of the surfaces and the marking process together.

An original threshold model illustrates this limitation without claiming a universal paint law. Suppose an unloaded gap over a $20\mathrm{mm}$ face isStipulate that a mark appears wherever $g(z)\le h$, with gear marking-layer gap threshold $h$. At $h=2\mu \mathrm{m}$ the marked width is $8\mathrm{mm}$; at $h=4\mu \mathrm{m}$ it is $16\mathrm{mm}$. The indicated coverage doubles even though the underlying gap is unchanged. Real transfer also depends on deformation and the marking material.

Nor does a broad mark uniquely determine the gear face load distribution. Operating torque deforms teeth, shafts and supports, so a lightly loaded pattern can differ from a loaded one. The historical gear-rating standard distinguishes comprehensive loaded assessment from the limited information in a bearing pattern.^[ref]

A meaningful validation pairs the pattern with an independent load-sensitive observation, such as tooth-root strain, or a checked deformation model. The question is whether the setup places contact where intended under the specified condition, rather than whether one visually attractive mark proves uniform pressure at every operating load.

A gear marking-layer gap threshold is an effective separation below which a stated marking process produces a visible transfer or removal of material. It is a model of the observation in a gear contact marking test, rather than a universal thickness or a material constant. Layer thickness, pressure, rolling history and the marking material can all matter; a visible gear contact pattern does not directly give local operating pressure.

For an original idealization, let the unloaded separation across a face beand stipulate a visible mark where $g(z)\le h$. Here $h$ is the effective threshold, $g_0$ the minimum gap and $a>0$ its slope magnitude. For a centered pattern on face width $b$, the predicted marked width isChoose $b=20\mathrm{mm}$, $g_0=0.5\mu \mathrm{m}$ and $a=0.4\mu m/mm$. Thresholds $h=1.5$ and $2.5\mu \mathrm{m}$ give marked widths $5$ and $10\mathrm{mm}$. The geometry has not changed; the observation threshold has.

Away from the onset and saturation corners,Here a threshold change $0.2\mu \mathrm{m}$ changes the indicated width by $1\mathrm{mm}$. In the shallow-gap limit, small changes of the marking process can therefore cause conspicuous changes in the visible pattern.

A controlled comparison should hold the coating method, applied torque and number/direction of roll-throughs fixed, then vary one geometric setting. A separate fixture with known separations can test whether a proposed threshold model describes the marking process, without treating nominal coating thickness as an exact gap measurement.

Manufacturer contact guidance describes patterns as evidence about assembled tooth surfaces, and the historical rating standard limits the load information inferred from a bearing pattern.^[ref][ref] The threshold equation is a deliberately specified illustrative model; actual deformation and transfer behavior need validation before converting a mark into a quantitative gap or gear face load distribution.

A gear face load factor quantifies the effect of nonuniform load across the engaged gear face width. For the contact-load convention in ISO 6336-1:2006, $K_{H\beta }$ compares maximum line-load intensity with the mean intensity over the stated width:Here $F_m$ is the total load represented by that distribution and $b$ is its evaluation width. A uniform distribution gives1; an edge-concentrated distribution gives a larger value. The numerator and denominator must refer to the same load convention and operating condition.^[ref]

For an original illustrative distribution over $b=20\mathrm{mm}$,total load is1000N, mean line load is50N/mm and maximum line load is80N/mm. Thus $K_{H\beta }=1.6$. A uniform distribution with the same width and total load gives1. The gear contact pattern can cover the whole width in both cases.

For ideal elastic line contact at fixed geometry and material, Hertzian contact pressure scales with the square root of line load. The corresponding gear contact-stress load factor is therefore $\sqrt{1.6}\approx 1.265$ in this simplified comparison. Multiplying the contact pressure itself by1.6 would confuse a load-intensity ratio with a stress ratio. This scaling does not replace a complete gear-rating calculation.

The manufacturer's treatment connects face-load assessment to shaft-support placement, shaft stiffness and loaded contact quality.^[ref] A value inferred from a toy line-load profile is consequently useful for understanding the factor, while a real design must obtain the relevant distribution or factor from a method appropriate to its geometry and load state.

The gear contact-stress load factor $\sqrt{K_{H\beta }}$ is the multiplier associated with the face-load term in a contact-stress calculation where Hertzian contact pressure scales with the square root of local line load. It distinguishes a stress ratio from the underlying gear face load factor. The historical definition of $K_{H\beta }$ compares maximum line-load intensity with the mean over the evaluation width.^[ref]

For ideal elastic line contact, hold the effective geometry and material fixed. Write the peak pressure aswhere $w$ is load per contact length, $E^{\ast }$ the effective elastic modulus and $R^{\ast }$ the effective radius. If the largest line load is $w_{\max }=K_{H\beta }\overline{w}$, division by the pressure calculated from the mean line load givesThe square root follows from the pressure model; it is not a second independent multiplier on the load.

For an original example, a face-load ratio $K_{H\beta }=2.25$ gives a stress multiplier $1.5$. A mean-line-load reference pressure $600\mathrm{MPa}$ would become $900\mathrm{MPa}$ under these assumptions. Multiplying pressure directly by $2.25$ would instead give $1350\mathrm{MPa}$ and count the load ratio as though it were a stress ratio. Increasing effective line load fourfold doubles this model pressure.

Small relative uncertainties also scale differently:Thus a small $8\%$ relative change in $K$ produces about a $4\%$ relative change in its square root to first order. This sensitivity concerns that term alone; uncertainties in material, geometry and the reference load remain.

A local stress scaling does not predict gear surface pitting life on its own. Contact position, curvature, load history and material response matter. A primary NASA analysis explicitly combined varying tooth loads and contact geometry with a fatigue-life model.^[ref] A real rating must keep all factors and load conventions consistent with the chosen method.

Gear effective face width is the usable axial width participating in a stated cylindrical gear mesh. It must be distinguished from each component's nominal gear face width, and from a claim that every part of that width carries equal load. The normal/transverse tooth geometry and gear overlap ratio use this engaged width, while gear face load distribution describes how the load actually occupies it.^[ref]

An elementary geometric model treats the two toothed widths as intervals $I_1=[a_1,b_1]$ and $I_2=[a_2,b_2]$ on their common axial coordinate. Their available overlap isFor one20mm-wide gear occupying $[-10,10]\mathrm{mm}$ and a16mm-wide mate centered at $6\mathrm{mm}$, the second interval is $[-2,14]\mathrm{mm}$. Their overlap is only12mm. The mean line load for a hypothetical uniformly shared normal force of1200N is then100N/mm, rather than the60N/mm obtained by using the first gear's entire nominal width.

With gear normal module $m_n=2\mathrm{mm}$ and gear helix angle $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$, gear axial pitch is $p_x=4\pi \mathrm{mm}$. The12mm overlap gives geometric gear overlap ratio $b_{\mathrm{eff}}/p_x=3/\pi \approx 0.9549$, compared with $5/\pi \approx 1.5915$ for20mm. Axial positioning can therefore alter overlap without changing the ideal gear ratio.

The interval calculation assumes the flanks remain usable throughout their common extent. Relief, damaged regions or partial contact can require a more specific working-width convention. Uneven loading is not generally corrected by shrinking width until a uniform-load formula looks plausible; a stated load-distribution model is needed to predict local loading.

Gear mesh frequency is the rate at which successive teeth pass through a mesh. For a fixed-axis gear with $N$ teeth rotating at $f_{\mathrm{rot}}$ revolutions per second,where $n$ is speed in revolutions per minute and $\omega$ is angular velocity in radians per second. The formula follows by counting $N$ tooth passages per complete turn. Both gears of one steady compatible mesh give the same result because their tooth-passage rates agree.^[ref]

For an original example, a24-tooth input rotating at1500 revolutions per minute gives $f_m=600\mathrm{Hz}$. Its60-tooth mate turns at600 revolutions per minute, also giving $60(600)/60=600\mathrm{Hz}$. The shaft rotation frequencies differ even though the mesh frequency agrees.

A compound gear train can have different mesh frequencies at successive stages. If that60-tooth gear is rigidly joined to a20-tooth gear driving an80-tooth output, the second mesh frequency is $20(600)/60=200\mathrm{Hz}$. The final output turns at150 revolutions per minute. By contrast, every mesh of an ideal fixed-axis simple gear train shares the same tooth-passage frequency: its intermediate gear engages both neighbors with the same tooth count and rotation rate.

A gear vibration spectrum may contain components at the mesh frequency and its integer multiples, together with other mechanical excitations. Measuring rotation with a rotary encoder lets a test compare observed frequency components with tooth-passage predictions. A spectral peak near $f_m$ does not by itself establish a structural natural frequency or identify a particular defect; the forcing and the system's frequency response both shape measured vibration.^[ref] For trains with moving gear axes, the simple fixed-axis formula requires the appropriate relative rotational rate rather than an unqualified absolute shaft speed.

A gear vibration spectrum describes how a measured gearbox motion signal is distributed over frequency. An accelerometer on a housing supplies a response spectrum; a rotary encoder supplies a rotation reference. Gear mesh frequency predicts tooth-passage components, but their observed amplitudes also depend on applied loads, sensor direction and the mechanical frequency response. A response peak alone therefore does not identify a structural natural frequency.^[ref]

For an original example, a24-tooth gear at1500 revolutions per minute rotates at $f_r=25\mathrm{Hz}$ and has mesh frequency $f_m=600\mathrm{Hz}$. Consider an illustrative acceleration signal with amplitude modulation:The product-to-sum identity gives a600Hz component of amplitude $A$ and modulation sidebands at575 and625Hz, each of amplitude $\mu A/2$. For $A=1m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and $\mu =0.20$, each sideband has peak amplitude $0.10m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. Gear vibration order expresses these frequencies relative to the chosen shaft: the central order is24 and the neighboring orders23 and25. These positions follow from the constructed signal, without requiring a damaged tooth.

A primary apparatus example makes that ambiguity concrete. NASA's2015 transmission experiment compared rotating accelerometers on a pinion shaft with stationary housing sensors. The rotating radial channel showed sidebands at1854 and2060Hz around a1957Hz mesh frequency, spaced by the103Hz shaft rate. The report derives this shift from the rotating measurement direction and discusses sums and differences of tangential channels. A measurement-frame effect can therefore create sidebands as well as a mechanical defect.^[ref]

A useful test records speed, load, mounting and sensor orientation with each spectrum. If speed changes appreciably within one record, fixed-frequency lines can spread; comparisons should then account for the changing rotation rate. Record duration also controls Fourier frequency resolution. Sideband changes are evidence to interpret alongside a baseline and the test conditions, rather than a unique diagnosis from one spectral peak.

Gear vibration order expresses the frequency of a measured vibration component relative to a specified shaft's rotation rate:Here $f$ is frequency in hertz and $n$ is shaft speed in revolutions per minute. The dimensionless order is cycles per shaft revolution. It must name the reference shaft: the same gear mesh frequency has different orders relative to the two gears in one mesh. Order tracking follows such rotation-related components as speed changes.^[ref]

For a24-tooth input at1500 revolutions per minute, $f_r=25\mathrm{Hz}$ and mesh frequency is600Hz, so mesh order is24. Its60-tooth mate turns at10Hz, giving mesh order60 relative to that shaft. If the input rises to1800 revolutions per minute, mesh frequency becomes720Hz but input-relative mesh order remains24. An unrelated structural natural frequency at600Hz would instead move from order24 to order20 as reference speed increases.

Angular resampling makes the distinction explicit. Let $\theta (t)=2\pi {\int }_0^t{f}_r(u)du$ be shaft angle. A tooth-periodic illustrative signal $a(t)=A\cos [N\theta (t)]$ can spread across many fixed-frequency bins during acceleration, while as a function of angle it remains $a(\theta )=A\cos (N\theta )$, with order $N$. Enough angle samples are needed to resolve the desired tooth-related oscillations. This derivation describes the resampling approach; not every order tracking algorithm uses that implementation.

Rotation-synchronous amplitude modulation can produce neighboring modulation sidebands: a24th-order component modulated once per input revolution has orders23 and25. Modulation associated with another shaft need not give integer spacing in the chosen reference. Orders identify kinematic relationships, while amplitudes still depend on loads, mounting and frequency response. A high mesh order or a sideband is therefore not itself a diagnosis of damaged teeth.^[ref]

Gear contact ratio measures how much successive tooth engagements overlap. For an external spur gear pair, its transverse value iswhere $L$ is usable gear path of contact length along the gear line of action and $p_b$ is gear base pitch. One tooth pair remains engaged while contact advances through length $L$; successive pairs begin after an advance of $p_b$. Thus ${ϵ}_{\alpha }$ is also the ideal mean number of tooth pairs simultaneously engaged.^[ref]

For a tip-limited, noninterfering external involute pair with tip radii $r_{a1},r_{a2}$, base radii $r_{b1},r_{b2}$, axis separation $a$ and operating pressure angle ${\alpha }_w$, right-triangle geometry givesFor an original example, use module $2\mathrm{mm}$, tooth counts 20 and 40, reference angle $20{}^{\circ }$ and standard separation $60\mathrm{mm}$. With tip radii $22$ and $42\mathrm{mm}$, the formula gives $L\approx 9.6546\mathrm{mm}$ and $p_b\approx 5.9043\mathrm{mm}$, hence ${ϵ}_{\alpha }\approx 1.6352$.

In the ideal periodic timing model, two tooth pairs are engaged for about $63.52\%$ of a tooth-passage period and one pair for about $36.48\%$. This does not mean that force is divided equally between engaged pairs: tooth flexibility and contact geometry affect load sharing. A value below one would leave gaps in ideal engagement, while a value exactly one leaves no overlap margin for tolerances and deformation.

The plot shows contact timing, rather than physical tooth shapes or force sharing. For helical gears, the transverse measure must additionally be distinguished from gear overlap ratio caused by the inclination of teeth across the gear face. Finally, real usable contact can be shortened by modified or unavailable flank portions; the tip-circle formula is conditional on its stated geometric assumptions.

Gear overlap ratio measures the additional engagement overlap caused by a helical gear's tooth inclination across its gear face width. It is distinct from the transverse gear contact ratio, which measures contact length within one transverse section. For face width $b$, reference gear helix angle $\beta$ and gear normal module $m_n$,where $m_t$ is gear transverse module and $p_x$ is gear axial pitch.^[ref]

Unwrapping the reference cylinder explains the ratio: moving across axial width $b$ shifts the tooth pattern circumferentially by $b\tan |\beta |$. Dividing this shift by gear transverse pitch $\pi m_t$ counts how many tooth spacings the engagement progresses across the face.

For an original example, $b=20\mathrm{mm}$, $m_n=2\mathrm{mm}$ and $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$ giveDoubling the face width doubles this geometric overlap if the other parameters stay fixed. At the spur gear limit $\beta =0$, the overlap contribution tends to zero.

In the ideal cylindrical-helical model, total geometric contact ratio is the sum of transverse and axial contributions, ${ϵ}_{\gamma }={ϵ}_{\alpha }+{ϵ}_{\beta }$. This does not specify a uniform division of load: flexibility, alignment and the usable flank region affect actual contact. Increasing helix angle can improve overlap while also increasing gear axial force; increasing width also changes the alignment and support demands. These are related geometric tradeoffs, not a guarantee of a specified noise level or load capacity.

A helical gear is a cylindrical gear whose teeth follow a helix around the reference cylinder. The gear helix angle $\beta$ measures their inclination to the axis. In a conventional external pair on parallel axes, mating gears have opposite hands with matching helix-angle magnitudes. Inclination makes engagement progress across the face rather than beginning everywhere along a straight tooth at once, but also creates a gear axial force that the supports must carry.^[ref]

A helical gear must specify its reference plane. The gear normal module $m_n$ is based on a section normal to the tooth direction, whereas gear transverse module $m_t$ is based on the plane perpendicular to the gear axis. Their geometric relation isSimilarly, reference pressure angles satisfy $\tan {\alpha }_t=\tan {\alpha }_n/\cos \beta$. Equal numbers labeled “module” in different planes therefore need not specify interchangeable gears.^[ref]

For an original example, take $m_n=2\mathrm{mm}$, $N=20$ and $\beta =30{}^{\circ }$. Reference diameter is $46.188\mathrm{mm}$, rather than $40\mathrm{mm}$. With ${\alpha }_n=20{}^{\circ }$, the transverse angle is about $22.796{}^{\circ }$.

At standard mounting, a transmitted torque $2\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ gives gear tangential force $F_t\approx 86.60\mathrm{N}$. Ideal contact-force resolution gives axial magnitudeIts direction depends on helix hand and transmitted-torque direction. The corresponding radial component uses the transverse gear pressure angle. This illustrates the design trade: distributed engagement can improve smoothness, but the same transmission requires axial-load support. The example concerns parallel-axis cylindrical gearing; it should not be applied unchanged to crossed-axis arrangements.

Gear axial force is the component of tooth-contact load parallel to a gear's rotation axis. In a standard parallel-axis external helical gear pair, ideal force resolution at the reference mounting giveswhere $F_t$ is gear tangential force and $\beta$ is reference gear helix angle. Its direction depends jointly on helix hand and the transmitted-torque direction. Reversing the torque can reverse axial thrust even though the cut helix remains unchanged.^[ref]

For an original example, transmit $6\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ through reference radius $30\mathrm{mm}$ at standard mounting. Then $|F_t|=200\mathrm{N}$. A30degree helix gives axial load $200\tan 30{}^{\circ }\approx 115.47\mathrm{N}$; a15degree helix at the same tangential load gives about $53.59\mathrm{N}$. The support must sustain the appropriate axial reaction in addition to the mesh's radial and tangential loads.

The axial load does not itself imply energy loss. If an ideal gear has no axial velocity, that force does no work through an axial displacement. Real support friction and deflection can nevertheless affect efficiency and tooth alignment. A useful bench check applies a controlled transmitted torque and measures the axial reaction while recording helix hand and the actual power-flow direction; an unsigned force magnitude alone does not establish the direction rule.

For the ideal spur gear limit, $\beta =0$ and this geometric thrust term vanishes. Opposite-handed helical sections can be arranged to cancel net axial thrust under suitable symmetric loading, but unequal loading prevents assuming exact cancellation. Away from the stated reference mounting, force formulas must use a geometrically consistent operating convention rather than mixing operating pitch radii with an unrelated reference angle.

Gear transverse module $m_t$ specifies tooth spacing in the plane perpendicular to a cylindrical gear's axis. If $N$ is tooth count and $d$ is reference diameter, $m_t=d/N$, so reference-circle gear transverse pitch is $p_t=\pi m_t$. For a helical gear, this transverse section differs from the section normal to the tooth direction.^[ref]

Unwrapping the reference cylinder makes the tooth direction a slanted line. Projecting its normal spacing into the circumferential direction giveswhere $m_n$ is gear normal module and $\beta$ is reference gear helix angle. At zero helix angle the normal and transverse modules coincide, recovering the spur gear case.

For an original example, take $m_n=2.5\mathrm{mm}$, $\beta =30{}^{\circ }$ and $N=24$. Then $m_t\approx 2.88675\mathrm{mm}$ and $d\approx 69.282\mathrm{mm}$. A compatible 48-tooth gear has reference diameter $138.564\mathrm{mm}$, giving standard separation $103.923\mathrm{mm}$. Treating2.5 as the transverse module instead would incorrectly give diameters60 and120mm and separation90mm.

The transverse specification is convenient for reference diameters and axis separations, while the normal specification is convenient for the tooth-normal geometry. A drawing must identify which module and pressure-angle planes it uses; a numerical module value alone is incomplete for a helical gear. These are reference dimensions: a changed operating separation must additionally be interpreted through the mounted geometry, rather than redefining the gear's original module.

Gear normal module $m_n$ is the gear normal pitch divided by $\pi$, measured normal to the tooth direction of a helical gear. It describes a different section from gear transverse module $m_t$, which uses the circumferential spacing in a plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.^[ref]

If $\beta$ is reference gear helix angle, geometric projection givesFor an original inference example, reference diameter $d=60\mathrm{mm}$, tooth count $N=30$ and $\beta =30{}^{\circ }$ imply $m_t=2\mathrm{mm}$ but $m_n=\sqrt{3}\mathrm{mm}\approx 1.73205\mathrm{mm}$. The normal pitch is approximately $5.4414\mathrm{mm}$, compared with transverse pitch $6.2832\mathrm{mm}$. This is a geometric example, not a claim that the inferred normal module belongs to a particular manufacturer's preferred series.

Conversely, specifying $m_n=2\mathrm{mm}$ for the same30 teeth and30degree helix angle gives reference diameter $69.282\mathrm{mm}$. Thus two drawings both labeled “module2” can describe different gears when one means normal module and the other transverse module.

Pressure angles need the same care: for reference tooth geometry, $\tan {\alpha }_t=\tan {\alpha }_n/\cos \beta$. Matching only a module number, without its plane, pressure-angle convention and helix geometry, does not establish a compatible pair. In a conventional parallel-axis external mesh, the two helical gears also require appropriate opposite hands; the normal-module definition alone does not specify that connection.

Gear normal pitch $p_n$ is the repeat spacing of corresponding helical gear tooth flanks normal to their tooth direction on the developed reference cylinder. It equals $\pi$ times gear normal module $m_n$. It is a different geometric spacing from gear transverse pitch $p_t$, measured circumferentially, and from gear axial pitch $p_x$, measured parallel to the rotation axis.^[ref]

Unwrap the reference cylinder into a plane. The equally spaced tooth traces become parallel straight lines making gear helix angle $\beta$ with the axis. Projecting the transverse spacing onto the normal to those traces givesFor reference diameter $d=60\mathrm{mm}$, $N=30$ teeth and $\beta =30{}^{\circ }$, $p_t=\pi d/N=2\pi \mathrm{mm}$, whereas $p_n=\sqrt{3}\pi \mathrm{mm}\approx 5.4414\mathrm{mm}$. Multiplying $p_n$ by $N$ gives about $163.24\mathrm{mm}$, not the $188.50\mathrm{mm}$ circumference: normal pitch is not the circumferential step.

At $\beta =0$, normal and transverse pitches agree, as expected for a spur gear. For nonzero gear helix angle, using one in place of the other introduces a factor $\cos \beta$. Normal pitch is also distinct from gear base pitch, which refers to the base-circle geometry of an involute. Matching a pitch value without its measurement convention, pressure angle and tooth geometry is insufficient to establish a compatible mesh.

The gear helix angle $\beta$ measures a cylindrical gear tooth's inclination to the rotation axis, normally on the reference cylinder. A straight spur gear has $\beta =0$; a helical gear has a nonzero inclination and a specified hand. The cylinder and reference direction matter because another measurement plane or cylinder radius can give another angle.^[ref]

Let $L$ be the positive gear lead, the axial advance of one tooth helix in a complete turn, and let the reference diameter be $d$. Unwrapping that cylinder produces a right triangle with circumferential side $\pi d$ and axial side $L$:For $d=60\mathrm{mm}$ and $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$, $L\approx 326.484\mathrm{mm}$. Doubling the lead on that same cylinder gives angle approximately $16.102{}^{\circ }$, rather than15degrees: the relation involves a tangent, not a linear angle scaling.

With $N$ equally spaced teeth, gear axial pitch is $p_x=L/N=p_t/\tan |\beta |$, where $p_t$ is gear transverse pitch. For nonzero $\beta$, this also gives $p_x=\pi m_n/\sin |\beta |$. The corresponding axial-pitch quantity diverges in the straight-tooth limit; it is not a finite replacement for the transverse tooth spacing of a spur gear.

Larger helix angle changes reference diameter at fixed gear normal module and tooth count, increases axial thrust for a fixed tangential load, and increases face-overlap geometry at fixed face width. These consequences must be evaluated together with gear contact ratio and support loads. A magnitude such as30degrees does not by itself specify right versus left hand, nor the thrust direction under a particular applied torque.

Gear axial pitch $p_x$ is the axial repeat distance between corresponding flanks of successive teeth of a cylindrical helical gear. The measurement follows a line parallel to the rotation axis on a concentric cylinder. It is not the axial advance of one tooth helix through an entire revolution; that larger distance is gear lead $L$. For $N$ equally spaced teeth, $L=N{p}_x$.^[ref]

On the developed cylinder, neighboring tooth traces separated transversely by gear transverse pitch $p_t$ intersect a fixed circumferential coordinate at axial positions separated by $p_x$. Their slope givesFor $d=60\mathrm{mm}$, $N=30$ and gear helix angle $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$, $p_t=2\pi \mathrm{mm}$ and $p_x=2\pi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{mm}\approx 10.8828\mathrm{mm}$. The corresponding gear normal pitch is only $5.4414\mathrm{mm}$. These two distances differ by a factor of two in this example because $\sin 30{}^{\circ }=1/2$.

For an engaged gear face width $b=20\mathrm{mm}$, the ideal gear overlap ratio is $b/p_x\approx 1.8378$: successive tooth-contact traces span about1.84 axial pitches across the face. Holding $p_t$ fixed while letting $\beta$ tend to zero makes $p_x$ diverge. Straight spur gear tooth traces do not cross an axial generator successively, so a finite axial-pitch interpretation does not survive that limit. Helix hand determines orientation; the positive pitch magnitude alone does not specify hand.

Gear lead $L$ is the axial advance of one tooth helix over a complete turn around a cylindrical helical gear. It differs from gear axial pitch $p_x$, which steps between successive teeth at one circumferential position. With $N$ equally spaced tooth helices, $L=N{p}_x$. The lead magnitude does not specify whether the helix is right-handed or left-handed.^[ref]

Unwrapping a reference cylinder of diameter $d$ gives a right triangle with axial side $L$ and circumferential side $\pi d$. Since gear helix angle $\beta$ is measured from the axis,For $d=60\mathrm{mm}$ and $|\beta |=30{}^{\circ }$, $L=60\pi \sqrt{3}\mathrm{mm}\approx 326.484\mathrm{mm}$. If $N=30$, then gear axial pitch is $10.8828\mathrm{mm}$; confusing the two distances would introduce a factor30.

A useful geometric check keeps the lead fixed while changing the chosen concentric cylinder. The helix's axial advance per revolution remains $L$, but its angle satisfies $\tan |\beta (r)|=2\pi r/L$. For the same lead on diameter $40\mathrm{mm}$, the angle is approximately $21.052{}^{\circ }$, rather than $30{}^{\circ }$. Thus a helix-angle specification needs its cylinder, normally the reference cylinder. Lead can remain finite when the physical tooth is much shorter than one complete turn: it describes the continued helix, not a requirement that the manufactured tooth cover a full revolution.

The gear pressure angle specifies the direction of tooth-normal contact relative to tangential motion. For an external spur gear pair with involute tooth flanks, its operating value is the angle between the gear line of action and the common tangent to the operating pitch circles. The gear line of action is the common normal to the contacting flanks and a common tangent to their gear base circles. Reference gear pressure angle $\alpha$ and operating pressure angle ${\alpha }_w$ coincide at the corresponding reference mounting, but need not coincide at another axis separation.^[ref]

Neglecting friction, let the tooth-normal force magnitude be $F_n$. Its components areThe gear tangential force $F_t$ transmits torque, $\tau =F_t{r}_w$, at operating radius $r_w$. The gear separating force $F_r$ pushes the gear centers apart in the external mesh and loads their supports. Increasing gear pressure angle increases this separating load for the same transmitted tangential load.

For an original example, a spur gear transmits $\tau =3\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ at $r_w=30\mathrm{mm}$. Then $F_t=100\mathrm{N}$. At ${\alpha }_w=20{}^{\circ }$,If the angle were $25{}^{\circ }$ at the same $F_t$, the separating load would rise to approximately $46.63\mathrm{N}$. This comparison concerns load direction, not gear efficiency: an ideal normal force can transmit power without dissipating it. Actual frictional contact adds another force component and can alter both losses and support loads.

Gear separating force is the component of an external gear mesh load along the line joining the gear centers, tending to push those centers apart. For a frictionless external spur gear pair,where $F_n$ is tooth-normal force, $F_t$ is gear tangential force and ${\alpha }_w$ is operating pressure angle. This component acts on the shaft supports even when the mesh is ideal and lossless.^[ref]

For example, take operating radius $r_w=20\mathrm{mm}$ and transmitted torque $4\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$. Then $F_t=200\mathrm{N}$. At ${\alpha }_w=20{}^{\circ }$, $F_r\approx 72.79\mathrm{N}$; at $25{}^{\circ }$ and the same tangential load, $F_r\approx 93.26\mathrm{N}$. The larger separating load is a change in load direction, not by itself an efficiency loss.

If the gear centers are ideally fixed, this radial component produces no work through a center-separation displacement, since that displacement is zero. Flexible supports can nevertheless deflect under it and store elastic potential energy. The resulting change in axis separation can change operating pressure angle, backlash and tooth contact, so the assumed geometry and support stiffness interact.

A support-load experiment can apply a known torque slowly to a mounted external pair and measure the reaction along the line of centers while maintaining the stated axis separation. Agreement with $F_r/F_t=\tan {\alpha }_w$ tests the force resolution under low-friction assumptions. Additional reactions, tooth friction and mounting preload must be accounted for before identifying a measured support force with this mesh component. Internal meshes and nonparallel-axis gearing require their own direction conventions; the external separating-force picture must not be transferred unchanged.

Gear tangential force is the pitch-circle-equivalent force that transmits torque in a gear mesh. At operating pitch radius $r_w$,For an external spur gear pair without tooth friction, it is the component of tooth-normal force along the common tangent to the operating pitch circles: $F_t=F_n\cos {\alpha }_w$. Together with the gear separating force, this resolves the mesh load in fixed shaft-loading directions. It is not a claim that the moving contact point always has that same local radial/tangential frame.^[ref]

The relation follows geometrically from the gear line of action. Its distance from a gear center is the gear base circle radius $r_b$, so the moment of a normal force is $|\tau |=F_n{r}_b$. Since $r_b=r_w\cos {\alpha }_w$, substitution yields $|\tau |=F_t{r}_w$.

For an original example, a 20-tooth input with operating radius $20\mathrm{mm}$ transmits $4\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$. Its gear tangential force is $200\mathrm{N}$. Driving a 60-tooth output at operating radius $60\mathrm{mm}$ ideally gives $12\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$: the pitch-circle-equivalent tangential load is the same, while its moment arm is three times larger. At input angular speed $50rad/s$, pitch speed is $1m/s$ and transmitted power is $F_{t}v=200\mathrm{W}$, agreeing with $\tau \omega$.

The calculation assumes steady ideal force transmission. Gear efficiency affects the input/output power balance, while inertia can contribute additional torque during acceleration. A gear tangential force is also not the entire contact load: at ${\alpha }_w=20{}^{\circ }$, $F_t=200\mathrm{N}$ corresponds to normal load about $212.84\mathrm{N}$ and separating load about $72.79\mathrm{N}$.

The gear line of action is the common normal along which ideal tooth contact transmits force. For meshing involute profiles in a transverse plane, it is a straight common tangent to the two gear base circles. The angle it makes with the common tangent to the operating pitch circles is the operating pressure angle.^[ref]

Its intersection with the line of gear centers is the gear pitch point. The actual contact point moves along only a finite portion, the gear path of contact, bounded by usable tooth profiles. Thus a diagram's infinite straight line is a geometric construction, not a claim that teeth can contact everywhere on it.

The geometry explains constant ratio. Let the tooth-normal force magnitude be $F_n$ and the base radii $r_{b1},r_{b2}$. The perpendicular distance from each gear center to the gear line of action is its base radius, so the ideal transmitted moments have magnitudesThese moment arms do not change as the contact point advances along that line. The no-penetration contact condition correspondingly gives $r_{b1}{\omega }_1+r_{b2}{\omega }_2=0$ for an external pair. Compatible profiles have $r_{b2}/r_{b1}=N_2/N_1$, recovering the tooth-count gear ratio.

For example, reference radii $20$ and $40\mathrm{mm}$ at reference gear pressure angle $20{}^{\circ }$ give base radii approximately $18.794$ and $37.588\mathrm{mm}$. A $100\mathrm{N}$ normal force produces moment magnitudes $1.8794$ and $3.7588\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$. Their ratio stays two as the point of contact moves.

Ideal normal transmission does not eliminate gear tooth sliding. Relative surface slip generally changes along the gear path of contact and vanishes at the gear pitch point for the ideal external pair. Actual friction associated with that slip adds a tangential contact force; its resultant need not lie exactly on the geometric gear line of action.

Gear tooth sliding is relative tangential motion of mating tooth surfaces at their contact point. Ideal contact prevents relative normal penetration but does not generally require the tangential surface velocities to agree. For a fixed-axis external involute pair, tangential slip vanishes at the gear pitch point and changes as the contact moves along the gear path of contact.^[ref]

Let $P$ be the pitch point, let $\mathbf{n}$ be a unit vector along the gear line of action, and write a contact location as $Q=P+s\mathbf{n}$. With a common positive axis $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and signed angular velocities ${\omega }_1,{\omega }_2$, rigid-body velocity differences giveThe velocities at $P$ cancel, leaving this term proportional to distance along the contact line. Since ${\omega }_2$ has opposite sign in an external pair, the sliding-speed magnitude is $(|{\omega }_1|+|{\omega }_2|)|s|$.

For an original example, use ${\omega }_1=50rad/s$ and ${\omega }_2=-25rad/s$. At $s=4\mathrm{mm}$, gear sliding velocity along the common tooth tangent is $0.30m/s$; at $s=-4\mathrm{mm}$ it has the opposite sign. At $s=0$ it is zero. Equality of operating pitch-circle speeds must therefore not be used to conclude that the tooth flanks roll without slipping throughout engagement.

In a simplified Coulomb friction model with coefficient of friction $\mu$ and normal load $F_n$, the dissipated gear sliding-friction loss is $P_f=\mu F_n|v_s|$. Hypothetical values $\mu =0.05$, $F_n=100\mathrm{N}$ and $|v_s|=0.30m/s$ give $1.5\mathrm{W}$. This is a local illustrative loss model, not a lubricant specification. Zero ideal sliding at the pitch point also does not eliminate every source of gearbox loss, such as support friction or deformation-related dissipation. Real load and friction can vary through the engagement, so total loss requires integrating the applicable contact model.

Gear sliding-friction loss is the rate at which relative tooth-flank sliding dissipates mechanical energy. In a simple Coulomb friction model with normal contact load $F_n$, coefficient of friction $\mu$ and gear sliding velocity $v_s$, the nonnegative dissipated power isThis is a local contact model, rather than the entire gearbox loss. Manufacturer guidance distinguishes gear-meshing losses from losses in rotating supports and warns that overall gear efficiency depends on load and speed.^[ref]