strength rating - Search Results
Articles About strength rating
The geometry factor, which is a fundamental part of the AGMA strength rating of gears, is currently computed using the Lewis parabola which allows computation of the Lewis form factor.(1) The geometry factor is obtained from this Lewis factor and load sharing ratio. This method, which originally required graphical construction methods and more recently has been computerized, works reasonably well for external gears with thick rims.(2-6) However, when thin rims are encountered or when evaluating the strength of internal gears, the AGMA method cannot be used.
In Part I differences in pitting ratings between AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436:1986 were examined. In this part bending strength ratings are compared. All the standards base the bending strength on the Lewis equation; the ratings differ in the use and number of modification factors. A comprehensive design survey is carried out to examine practical differences between the rating methods presented in the standards, and the results are shown in graphical form.
This is the third article in a series exploring the new ISO 6336 gear rating standard and its methods of calculation. The opinions expressed herein are htose of the author as an individual. They do not represent the opinions of any organization of which he is a member.
The face load factor is one of the most important items for a gear strength calculation. Current standards propose formulae for face load factor, but they are not always appropriate. AGMA 927 proposes a simpler and quicker algorithm that doesn't require a contact analysis calculation. This paper explains how this algorithm can be applied for gear rating procedures.
The authors of last issue's article comparing AGMA, ISO and BS methods for Pitting Resistance Ratings are commended. Trying to compare various methods of rating gears is like hitting a moving target in a thick forest. The use of different symbols, presentations, terminology, and definitions in these standards makes it very difficult. But the greatest problem lies with the authors' use of older versions of these documents. ISO drafts and AGMA standards have evolved at the same time their work was accomplished and edited.
If you make hardened gears and have not seen any micropitting, then you havenít looked closely enough. Micropitting is one of the modes of failure that has more recently become of concern to gear designers and manufacturers. Micropitting in itself is not necessarily a problem, but it can lead to noise and sometimes other more serious forms of failure. Predicting when this will occur is the challenge facing designers.
The quality of a gear and its performance is determined by the following five parameters, which should be specified for each gear: Pitch diameter, involute form, lead accuracy, spacing accuracy, and true axis of rotation. The first four parameters can be measured or charted and have to be within tolerance with respect to the fifth. Pitch diameter, involute, lead, and spacing of a gear can have master gear quality when measured or charted on a testing machine, but the gear might perform badly if the true axis of rotation after installation is no longer the same one used when testing the gear.
A study of AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436: 1986 methods for rating gear tooth strength and surface durability for metallic spur and helical gears is presented. A comparison of the standards mainly focuses on fundamental formulae and influence factors, such as the load distribution factor, geometry factor, and others. No attempt is made to qualify or judge the standards other than to comment on the facilities or lack of them in each standard reviewed. In Part I a comparison of pitting resistance ratings is made, and in the subsequent issue, Part II will deal with bending stress ratings and comparisons of designs.
Because of the better thermal conductivity of CBN abrasives compared to that of conventional aluminum oxide wheels, CBN grinding process, which induces residual compressive stresses into the component, and possibly improves the subsequent stress behavior. This thesis is the subject of much discussion. In particular, recent Japanese publications claim great advantages for the process with regard to an increased component load capacity, but do not provide further details regarding the technology, test procedures or components investigated. This situation needs clarification, and for the this reason the effect of the CBN grinding material on the wear behavior and tooth face load capacity of continuously generated ground gears was further investigated.
One of the best ways to learn the ISO 6336 gear rating system is to recalculate the capacity of a few existing designs and to compare the ISO 6336 calculated capacity to your experience with those designs and to other rating methods. For these articles, I'll assume that you have a copy of ISO 6336, you have chosen a design for which you have manufacturing drawings and an existing gear capacity calculation according to AGMA 2001 or another method. I'll also assume that you have converted dimensions, loads, etc. into the SI system of measurement.
What is the difference between pressure angle and operating pressure angle?
ISO 6336 Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears was published in 1997 after 50 years of effort by an international committee of experts whose work spanned three generations of gear technology development. It was a difficult compromise between the existing national standards to get a single standard published which will be the basis for future work. Many of the compromises added complication to the 1987 edition of DIN 3990, which was the basic document.
The American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA) is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to write all U.S. standards on gearing. However, in response to the growing interest in a global marketplace, AGMA became involved with the International Standards Organization (ISO) several years ago, first as an observer in the late 1970s and then as a participant, starting in the early 1980s. In 1993, AGMA became Secretariat (or administrator) for Technical Committee 60 of ISO, which administers ISO gear standards development.
Can a gear profile generated by the hobbing method be an ideal involute? In strictly theoretical terms - no, but in practicality - yes. A gear profile generated by the hobbing method is an approximation of the involute curve. Let's review a classic example of an approximation.
Flute Index Flute index or spacing is defined as the variation from the desired angle between adjacent or nonadjacent tooth faces measured in a plane of rotation. AGMA defines and provides tolerance for adjacent and nonadjacent flute spacing errors. In addition, DIN and ISO standards provide tolerances for individual flute variation (Fig. 1).
Grinding is a technique of finish-machining, utilizing an abrasive wheel. The rotating abrasive wheel, which id generally of special shape or form, when made to bear against a cylindrical shaped workpiece, under a set of specific geometrical relationships, will produce a precision spur or helical gear. In most instances the workpiece will already have gear teeth cut on it by a primary process, such as hobbing or shaping. There are essentially two techniques for grinding gears: form and generation. The basic principles of these techniques, with their advantages and disadvantages, are presented in this section.
This article illustrates a structural analysis of asymmetrical teeth. This study was carried out because of the impossibility of applying traditional calculations to procedures involved in the specific case. In particular, software for the automatic generation of meshes was devised because existing software does not produce results suitable for the new geometrical model required. Having carried out the structural calculations, a comparative study of the stress fields of symmetrical and asymmetrical teeth was carried out. The structural advantages of the latter type of teeth emerged.
This article presents a new spur gear 20-degree design that works interchangeably with the standard 20-degree system and achieves increased tooth bending strength and hence load carrying capacity.
The gear designer needs to know how to determine an appropriate case depth for a gear application in order to guarantee the required load capacity.
There are three distinct gear types in angle drives. The most commonly used are bevel and worm drives. Face gear drives are the third alternative.
This article summarizes results of research programs on RCF strength of wrought steels and PM steels.
The aim of our research is to clearly show the influence of defects on the bending fatigue strength of gear teeth. Carburized gears have many types of defects, such as non-martensitic layers, inclusions, tool marks, etc. It is well known that high strength gear teeth break from defects in their materials, so itís important to know which defect limits the strength of a gear.
This is part II of a two-part paper that presents the results of extensive test programs on the RCF strength of PM steels.
A method to extrapolate running gear bending strength data from STF results for comparing bending performance of different materials and processes.
Tooth contact under load is an important verification of the real contact conditions of a gear pair and an important add-on to the strength calculation according to standards such as ISO, AGMA or DIN. The contact analysis simulates the meshing of the two flanks over the complete meshing cycle and is therefore able to consider individual modifications on the flank at each meshing position.
To mechanical engineers, the strength of gear teeth is a question of constant recurrence, and although the problem to be solved is quite elementary in character, probably no other question could be raised upon which such a diversity of opinion exists, and in support of which such an array of rules and authorities might be quoted. In 1879, Mr. John H. Cooper, the author of a well-known work on "Belting," made an examination of the subject and found there were then in existence about forty-eight well-established rules for horsepower and working strength, sanctioned by some twenty-four authorities, and differing from each other in extreme causes of 500%. Since then, a number of new rules have been added, but as no rules have been given which take account of the actual tooth forms in common use, and as no attempt has been made to include in any formula the working stress on the material so that the engineer may see at once upon what assumption a given result is based, I trust I may be pardoned for suggesting that a further investigation is necessary or desirable.
Columbus' first voyage to the Americas is not the only anniversary worthy of celebration this year. In 1892, on October 15, Wilfred Lewis gave an address to the Engineer's Club of Philadelphia, whose significance, while not as great as that of Columbus' voyage, had important results for the gearing community. In this address, Lewis first publicly outlined his formula for computing bending stress in gear teeth, a formula still in use today.
A simple, closed-form procedure is presented for designing minimum-weight spur and helical gearsets. The procedure includes methods for optimizing addendum modification for maximum pitting and wear resistance, bending strength, or scuffing resistance.
Although there is plenty of information and data on the determination of geometry factors and bending strength of external gear teeth, the computation methods regarding internal gear design are less accessible. most of today's designs adopt the formulas for external gears and incorporate some kind of correction factors for internal gears. However, this design method is only an approximation because of the differences between internal gears and external gears. Indeed, the tooth shape of internal gears is different from that of external gears. One has a concave curve, while the other has a convex curve.
In the design of any new gear drive, the performance of previous similar designs is very carefully considered. In the course of evaluating one such new design, the authors were faced with the task of comparing it with two similar existing systems, both of which were operating quite successfully. A problem arose, however, when it was realized that the bending stress levels of the two baselines differed substantially. In order to investigate these differences and realistically compare them to the proposed new design, a three-dimensional finite-element method (FEM) approach was applied to all three gears.
The load capacity rating of gears had its beginning in the 18th century at Leiden University when Prof. Pieter van Musschenbroek systematically tested the wooden teeth of windmill gears, applying the bending strength formula published by Galilei one century earlier. In the next centuries several scientists improved or extended the formula, and recently a Draft International Standard could be presented.
The present article contains a preliminary description of studies carried out by the authors with a view toward developing asymmetrical gear teeth. Then a comparison between numerous symmetrical and asymmetrical tooth stress fields under the same modular conditions follows. This leads to the formulation of a rule for similar modules governing variations of stress fields, depending on the pressure angle of the nonactive side. Finally a procedure allowing for calculations for percentage reductions of asymmetrical tooth modules with respect to corresponding symmetrical teeth, maximum ideal stress being equal, is proposed. Then the consequent reductions in size and weight of asymmetrical teeth are assessed.