[starbox] Thinking back on my experiences on the Helical Gear Rating Committee, I am a bit shocked at what hasn’t happened. As AGMA 218 was bein...

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.

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.

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 formula 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.