What was the final calculated factor of safety for bending on Gear 3 in the case study?
Explanation
Larger gears, like Gear 3, often have very high factors of safety against bending because their tooth geometry is much more robust than the mating pinion, even though they transmit the same force. This is demonstrated by the high calculated safety factor of 3.77.
Other questions
According to the design sequence for a power transmission system, which consideration should be addressed first to determine the overall sizing needs?
In a double-reduction gearbox with two pairs of meshed gears, what is the likely percentage of power loss from the input to the output power?
In the case study example, what was the target output speed range for the gearbox?
In the case study, assuming an input of 20 hp at 1750 rev/min, what is the calculated torque on the input shaft, T2?
What were the final tooth counts chosen for the gears in the case study to achieve the desired speed reduction?
What is the calculated speed of the intermediate shaft (ω3 and ω4) in the case study?
In the case study, what was the minimum diametral pitch (Pmin) estimated to keep the gearbox height within the 22-inch constraint?
What was the calculated transmitted load (Wt45) between gear 4 and gear 5 in the case study?
In the gear wear analysis for gear 4, what material specification was found to be achievable for a design factor of 1.2?
What was the final calculated factor of safety for wear (nc) of gear 4 in the case study?
What were the final specified face widths for the first stage gears (2 and 3) and the second stage gears (4 and 5) respectively?
In the shaft layout shown in the case study, what dictates the 4-inch distance between the two gears on the countershaft?
What is the total estimated length of the intermediate shaft as determined in the shaft layout phase of the case study?
During the force analysis of the intermediate shaft, where is the bending moment expected to be largest?
What shaft material was initially selected for the stress analysis in the case study before being changed?
What was the specified minimum safety factor for the infinite life design of the shaft in the case study?
Why was the material for the shaft in the case study changed from 1020 CD to 1050 CD steel?
What is the design life specified for the bearings in the case study, in hours and revolutions?
In the case study, what type of bearing was ultimately selected for the right end of the intermediate shaft (bearing B) due to the high load?
What are the calculated radial reaction forces at bearing A (RA) and bearing B (RB) on the intermediate shaft?
In the key design for the intermediate shaft, what was the required factor of safety?
For the intermediate shaft with a diameter of 1.625 inches at the gears, what was the calculated length of the square key needed to meet the design requirements?
Why is it noted in Section 18-10 that checking only the crushing failure is adequate for a square key?
What is the primary purpose of a retaining ring in a shaft design?
What is the final step in the proposed design sequence for a power transmission system, intended as a final check?
What is a potential negative consequence of having large axial distances between gears and bearings on a shaft?
In the case study, why was a face width of 1.5 inches chosen for gears 2 and 3?
What material was ultimately chosen for Gear 3 in the case study to achieve the required safety factors?
What was the final calculated factor of safety for bending for gear 4 in the case study?
In the case study, why is gear 4 considered likely to be critical and analyzed first?
What is the reason given for only one bearing on each shaft being axially fixed in the housing in the case study layout?
In the case study, what was the estimated bore size for the intermediate shaft bearings before a specific bearing was selected?
What was the calculated required catalog load rating (FRB) for the roller bearing at the right end of the intermediate shaft?
In the case study key design, what was the transmitted torque value used for the calculation?
What material was chosen for the keys in the case study key design?
What is the bore diameter of the gears on the intermediate shaft, which is used to select the key size?
According to the final summary of gear specifications, what is the pitch diameter and face width for Gear 5?
What is the primary reason that deflection analysis is saved until after the stress design of the shaft?
In the case study, what was the allowable axial thrust for the retaining ring specified for the left bearing?
What is the nominal shaft diameter for which the right bearing's retaining ring was selected?
What is the specified reliability for the bearing selection in the case study?
What is the function of specifying the gear train as a 'compound reverted gear train'?
Which gear in the case study was specified to be made of Grade 1 flame-hardened steel?
What pitch-line velocity (V23) was calculated for the first-stage gear mesh?
Which phenomenon is NOT a primary focus of the design sequence outlined in Chapter 18?
What was the specified life for the gears and bearings in the case study?
What was the final calculated factor of safety for wear (nc) on Gear 2 in the case study?
According to the final shaft drawing in Figure 18-3, what is the nominal diameter of the shaft at the location of the left bearing?
What is the primary trade-off mentioned in Section 18-3 when considering custom gear sizes versus stock gears for small lot production?