Duty Rating - Search Results
Articles About Duty Rating
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
This paper reviews the necessity for detailed specification, design and manufacture to achieve required performance in service. The precise definition of duty rating and a thorough understanding of the environmental conditions, whether it is in a marine or industrial application, is required to predict reliable performance of a gearbox through its service life. A case study relating to complex marine gears and other general practice is presented to review the techniques used by Allen Gears to design and develop a gearbox that integrates with the requirements of the whole machinery installation. Allen Gears has considerable experience in the design of a variety of industrial and marine gears(Ref. 1,2).
In comparison to the visionary Industry 4.0 - or the Fourth Industrial Revolution - the machine tool industry can appear rather down-to-earth.
The common calculation methods according to DIN 3990 and ISO 6336 are based on a comparison of occurring stress and allowable stress. The influence of gear size on the load-carrying capacity is considered with the size factors YX (tooth root bending) and ZX (pitting), but there are further influences, which should be considered. In the following, major influences of gear size on the load factors as well as on the permissible tooth root bending and contact stress will be discussed.
One process for hard finishing gears is generating gear grinding. Due to its high process efficiency, generating gear grinding has replaced other grinding processes such as profile grinding in batch production of small- and middle-sized gears. Yet despite the wide industrial application of generating gear grinding, the process design is based on experience along with time- and cost-intensive trials. The science-based analysis of generating gear grinding demands a high amount of time and effort, and only a few published scientific analyses exist. In this report a thermo-mechanical process model that describes influences on the surface zone in generating gear grinding is introduced.
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.
What is the difference between pressure angle and operating pressure angle?
This paper introduces the latest process developments for the hard-finishing of gears, specifically in regard to controlling the so-called flank twist.
In several applications like hoisting equipment and cranes, open gears are used to transmit power at rather low speeds (tangential velocity < 1m/s) with lubrication by grease. In consequence those applications have particularities in terms of lubricating conditions and friction involved, pairing of material between pinion and gear wheel, lubricant supply, loading cycles and behavior of materials with significant contact pressure due to lower number of cycles.
I have a query (regarding) calculated gear life values. I would like to understand for what % of gear failures the calculated life is valid? Is it 1-in-100 (1% failure, 99% reliability) or 1-in-one-thousand (0.1% failure)?
There are many different gear rating methods in use today, and they can give substantially different results for any given gearset. This paper will make it easy to understand the choices and the impact the choices have on gearbox design. Eight standards are included - AGMA 2001; AGMA 6011; AGMA 6013; ISO 6336; API 613; API 617; API 672; and API 677. (Click HERE for the Appendix to this article).
The objective of this work is to introduce a method for the calculation of the tooth root load carrying capacity for gears, under consideration of the influence of the defect size on the endurance fatigue strength of the tooth root. The theoretical basis of this method is presented in this paper as well as the validation in running tests of helical and beveloid gears with different material batches, regarding the size distribution of inclusions. The torque level for a 50 percent failure probability of the gears is evaluated on the test rig and then compared to the results of the simulation. The simulative method allows for a performance of the staircase method that is usually performed physically in the back-to-back tests for endurance strength, as the statistical influence of the material properties is considered in the calculation model. The comparison between simulation and tests shows a high level of accordance.
Although gear geometry and the design of asymmetric tooth gears are well known and published, they are not covered by modern national or international gear design and rating standards. This limits their broad implementation for various gear applications, despite substantial performance advantages in comparison to symmetric tooth gears for mostly unidirectional drives. In some industries â€” like aerospace, that are accustomed to using gears with non-standard tooth shapes â€” the rating of these gears is established by comprehensive testing. However, such testing programs are not affordable for many other gear drive applications that could also benefit from asymmetric tooth gears.
In order to improve load-carrying capacity and noise behavior, gears usually have profile and lead modifications. Furthermore, in gears where a specified tooth-flank load application direction (for drive and coast flanks) is a design enhancement, or even compulsory, the asymmetric tooth profile is a further solution. Nowadays, many gears need to be hard finished. Continuous generating grinding offers a very high process efficiency, but is this process able to grind all modifications, especially asymmetric gears? Yes, it is!
The major focus of the American Gear Manufacturers Association standards activity has been the accurate determination of a gearbox's ability to transmit a specified amount of power for a given amount of time. The need for a "level playing field" in the critical arena was one of the reasons the association was formed in the first place. Over the past 85 years, AGMA committees have spent countless hours "discussing" the best ways to calculate the rating of a gear set, often arguing vigorously over factors that varied the resulting answers by fractions of a percentage point. While all that "science" was being debated in test labs and conference rooms all over the country, out industry's customers were conducting their own experiments through the daily operation of gear-driven equipment of all types.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you make hardened gears and have not seen any micropitting, then you havenâ€™t 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.