standards - Search Results
Articles About standards
Articles are sorted by RELEVANCE. Sort by Date.
The purpose of this article is to discuss ISO 4156/ANSI B92.2M-1980 and to compare it with other, older standards still in use. In our experience designing and manufacturing spline gauges and other spline measuring or holding devices for splined component manufacturers throughout the world, we are constantly surprised that so many standards have been produced covering what is quite a small subject. Many of the standards are international standards; others are company standards, which are usually based on international standards. Almost all have similarities; that is, they all deal with splines that have involute flanks of 30 degrees, 37.5 degrees or 45 degrees pressure angle and are for the most part flank-fitting or occasionally major-diameter-fitting.
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.
Measurement institutions of seven different countries — China, Germany, Japan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the U.S. — participated in the implementation of the first international comparison of involute gear measurement standards. The German metrology institute Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) was chosen as the pilot laboratory as well as the organizer. Three typical involute gear measurement standards provided by the PTB were deployed for this comparison: a profile, a helix and a pitch measurement standard. In the final analysis, of the results obtained from all participants, the weighted mean was evaluated as reference value for all 28 measured parameters. However, besides the measurement standards, the measured parameters, and, most importantly, some of the comparison results from all participants are anonymously presented. Furthermore, mishandling of the measurement standards as occurred during the comparison will be illustrated.
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 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.
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.
AGMA has started to replace its 2000-A88 standard for gear accuracy with a new series of documents based largely on ISO standards. The first of the replacement AGMA standards have been published with the remainder coming in about a year. After serving as a default accuracy specification for U.S. commerce in gear products for several decades, the material in AGMA 2000-A88 is now considered outdated and in need of comprehensive revision.
More than 100 years ago, gear manufacturers were facing a significant challenge from industry. The incredible advances in industrialization and transportation that occurred at the turn of the 20th century resulted in incredible growth for gear makers, but there were significant technical issues. “The lack of process and product standardization was a continuing problem in all U.S. industry… the lack of industry-wide gear standards meant there were no standard gear tooth sizes, ratings, quality definition or consistent manufacturing methods” (Celebrating 100 Years of Gearing, pg. 22).
The new chairman of the AGMA Technical Division Executive Committee explains what's involved in the process of developing technical standards at the AGMA.
Creating standards for plastic gears calls for a deft touch. The challenge is to set uniform guidelines, yet avoid limiting the creative solutions plastic offers gear designers.
AGMA Flexible Couplings committee chairman Glenn C. Pokrandt gives an update about standards and other documents under development.
Gear manufacturers are moving into an era that will see changes in both engineering practices and industry standards as new end-products evolve. Within the traditional automotive industry, carbon emission reduction legislation will drive the need for higher levels of efficiency and growth in electric and hybrid vehicles. Meanwhile, the fast growing market of wind turbines is already opening up a whole new area of potential for gearbox manufacturers, but this industry is one that will demand reliability, high levels of engineering excellence and precision manufacturing.
Dr. Phil Terry, chairman of the AGMA Technical Division Executive Committee, talks about the standards-making process.
Industrial gear standards have been used to support reliability through the specification of requirements for design, manufacturing and verification. The consensus development of an international wind turbine gearbox standard is an example where gear products can be used in reliable mechanical systems today. This has been achieved through progressive changes in gear technology, gear design methods and the continual development and refinement of gearbox standards.
Methods of examining large ring gear teeth to detect surface breaking discontinuities have often been time-consuming and limited in terms of data collected. Methods such as visual and magnetic particle inspection can miss critical discontinuities. However, a new ASTM international standard provides a more effective method for gear examination using eddy current array, a technology that has been widely used but, until now, not standardized.
Who wants or needs technical details about gearing? Who cares about it? Three out of every four people who are reading this magazine make up at least 75% of those who have an interest in the subject. The members of AGMA, EUROTRANS, JGMA and JSIM have an interest. All the people attending the Gear Expo in Detroit have an interest. Clearly, however, the people with the most pressing interest in our industry are our customers, the end users of gear products. The unfortunate reality, though, is that in many cases, these customers don't even know that's what they want.
In today’s globalized manufacturing, all industrial products having dimensional constraints must undergo conformity specifications assessments on a regular basis. Consequently, (standardization) associated with GD&T (geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing) should be un-ambiguous and based on common, accepted rules. Of course gears - and their mechanical assemblies - are special items, widely present in industrial applications where energy conversion and power transmission are involved.
I noted with interest the beginning of Gear Technology's three-part series on ISO 9000 certification. I also recently attended Brown & Sharpe's/Leitz gear metrology seminar. Both events caused me to smile and reflect.
Until recently, there was a void in the quality control of gear manufacturing in this country (Ref. 1). Gear measurements were not traceable to the international standard of length through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The U.S. military requirement for traceability was clearly specified in the military standard MIL-STD-45662A (Ref. 2). This standard has now been replaced by commercial sector standards including ISO 9001:1994 (Ref. 3), ISO/IEC Guide 25 (Ref, 4), and the U.S. equivalent of ISO/IEC Guide 25 - ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997 (Ref. 5). The draft replacement to ISO/IEC Guide 25 - ISO 17025 states that measurements must either be traceable to SI units or reference to a natural constant. The implications of traceability to the U.S. gear industry are significant. In order to meet the standards, gear manufacturers must either have calibrated artifacts or establish their own traceability to SI units.
Chairman Todd Praneis of Cotta Transmission describes the activities of AGMA's Enclosed Drives technical committee.
Gary A. Bish, director of product design technology for Horsburgh & Scott, discusses his role as chairman of the AGMA mill gearing committee.
“The gear marketplace is a global marketplace.” Bill Bradley says it easily, with no special emphasis. The vice president of AGMA’s technical division sees the statement as an obvious fact.
AGMA and members of the Metal Powder Industries Federation (MPIF) are three years into a joint project to develop specifications and an information sheet on rating powder metal gears. According to committee vice chairman Glen A. Moore of Burgess-Norton Mfg. Co., the first phase of the project, the publication of AGMA Standard "6009-AXX, Specifications for Powder Metallurgy Gears," should be completed in late 1996 or early 1997.
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.
Standards are unlike gears themselves: mundane, but complex, ubiquitous and absolutely vital. Standards are a lingua franca, providing a common language with reference points for evaluating product reliability and performance for manufacturers and users. The standards development process provides a scientific forum for discussion of product design, materials and applications, which can lead to product improvement. Standards can also be a powerful marketing tool for either penetrating new markets or protecting established ones.
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.
As the international business community grows closer together, the need for understanding differences between national and international gear rating standards becomes increasingly important for U.S. gear manufacturers competing in the world market.
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.
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 — like aerospace, that are accustomed to using gears with non-standard tooth shapes — 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.
A response to the September 2013 Voices piece on how gear standards are written, from one who's been there.
A reader wonders about gears where the tops of the teeth are the bearing surface, as used in spur gear differentials. Do they require any special construction or processing?
How difficult is it to design a gear? It depends upon whom you ask.
A common design goal for gears in helicopter or turboprop power transmission is reduced weight. To help meet this goal, some gear designs use thin rims. Rims that are too thin, however, may lead to bending fatigue problems and cracks. The most common methods of gear design and analysis are based on standards published by the American Gear Manufacturers Association. Included in the standards are rating formulas for gear tooth bending to prevent crack initiation (Ref. 1). These standards can include the effect of rim thickness on tooth bending fatigue (Ref 2.). The standards, however, do not indicate the crack propagation path or the remaining life once a crack has started. Fracture mechanics has developed into a useful discipline for predicting strength and life of cracked structures.
With all the advantages of building float into a planetary gear system, what advantages are there to using a carrier in the first place, rather than simply having your planets float in the system?
This proposed standard would not make any recommendations regarding the required quality for any application. The intent is to establish standard pre-finish quality classes for typical finishing operations, which only include the inspection elements that are important to properly evaluate pre-finish gear quality as it applies to the finishing operation. It would be the responsibility of the manufacturing/process engineer, quality engineer, or other responsible individual to establish the required pre-finish quality class for their application.
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.
Faithful Gear Technology readers may recall that our July 2009 issue contained an update of the deliberations provided by Bill Bradley. Now, almost two years later, there is an ISO/IEC wind turbine gearbox standard out for draft international standard ballot (ballot closes 2011-05-17).
AGMA introduced ANSI/AGMA 2015–2–A06— Accuracy Classification System: Radial System for Cylindrical Gears, in 2006 as the first major rewrite of the double-flank accuracy standard in over 18 years. This document explains concerns related to the use of ANSI/AGMA 2015–2–A06 as an accuracy classification system and recommends a revised system that can be of more service to the gearing industry.
An offshore jack-up drilling rig is a barge upon which a drilling platform is placed. The barge has legs that can be lowered to the sea floor to support the rig. Then the barge can be “jacked up” out of the water, providing a stable work platform from which to drill for oil and gas. Jack-up drilling rigs were first introduced in the late 1950s. Rack-and- pinion-type jack-up units were introduced soon after that and have dominated the industry ever since.
The wind turbine industry has been plagued with gearbox failures, which cause repair costs, legal expenses, lost energy production and environmental pollution.
Your May/June issue contains a letter from Edward Ubert of Rockwell International with some serious questions about specifying and measuring tooth thickness.
Question: What is functional measurement and what is the best method for getting truthful answers?
The first edition of the international calculation method for micropitting—ISO TR 15144–1:2010—was just published last December. It is the first and only official, international calculation method established for dealing with micropitting. Years ago, AGMA published a method for the calculation of oil film thickness containing some comments about micropitting, and the German FVA published a calculation method based on intensive research results. The FVA and the AGMA methods are close to the ISO TR, but the calculation of micropitting safety factors is new.
Today motion control systems are migrating from analog to digital technology at an ever increasing rate because digital technology at an ever-increasing rate because digital drives provide performance equal to or exceeding that of analog drives, plus information to run your machine more effectively and manage your quality program and your business. Most of this data is simply not available from analog drives.
Ready or not, QS-9000 is here. If you are a first-tier supplier to one of the Big Three automotive companies, you've already heard that compliance with this new quality standard is now an entry-level requirement for doing business with Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. If you're a second-or third-tier supplier, you can expect the ripple effect of this new standard to hit your company one way or another.
Much about ISO 9000 is the subject of noisy debate. But on one thing almost everyone, true believers and critics alike, agrees: Getting ISO 9000 certification can be expensive. Companies can expect to spend at least $35,000 for basic certification and six-month checkup fees over a three-year period. These figures do not include hidden costs like time and money spent on internal improvements required to meet ISO 9000 certification. But the really big-ticket items in the process are employee time and the cost of bringing in outside consultants. Many ISO 9000 consultants charge upwards of $1,800 a day.
On of the key questions confronting any company considering ISO 9000 certification is, how much is this going to cost? The up-front fees are only the beginning. Dissect the ISO 9000 certification procedure with an eye for hidden costs, and two segments of the process will leap out - the cost of consultants and the cost of making in-house improvements for the sake of passing certification. Most of these costs can be controlled by careful selection f the right consultant in the first place.
What follows is the first of three articles we will be running on ISO 9000 and what it means for the gear industry. This first article will cover what ISO 9000 is, what some of its benefits - and problems - are, and whether your company should be a candidate for this certification process. In our next issue, we will consider the important question of how, when, and if to hire an ISO 9000 consultant. The final article in this series will discuss ways to save money while streamlining the certification process in your company.
ISO 9000 is the latest hot topic in marketing and manufacturing circles. Everyone seems to be talking about it, but few seem to understand it completely. depending on whom one talks to, it's either the greatest thing to hit industry since the assembly line, another cash cow for slick consultants, a conspiracy on the part of Europeans to dominate global markets, or the next necessary step to compete in the global economy of the twenty-first century. It may be all of the above.
Natural resources—minerals, coal, oil, agricultural products, etc.—are the blessings that Mother Earth confers upon the nations of the world. But it takes unnaturally large gears to extract them.
If you enjoy working with your hands—without doubt a large segment of Gear Technology’s audience—you must go to robives.com. There you will find one of the most clean-but-serious fun websites on the Internet. It is where you will learn—or re-learn, in some cases—how to create things from paper. Origami, you’re thinking? Nah—mere child’s play.
Alongside the macro test parameters on tooth flanks for profile and tooth traces, surface properties (roughness) play a decisive role in ensuring proper toothed gear function. This article addresses roughness measurement systems on tooth flanks. In addition to universal test equipment, modified test equipment based on the profile method for use on gears is addressed in particular. The equipment application here refers to cylindrical gear flanks and bevel gear flanks. The most important roughness parameters, as well as the implementation of the precise measurement procedure will also be described under consideration of the applicable DIN EN ISO standards as well as the current VDI/VDE Directive 2612 Sheet 5.
This article discusses applications of statistical process capability indices for controlling the quality of tooth geometry characteristics, including profile and lead as defined by current AGMA-2015, ISO-1328, and DIN-3960 standards. It also addresses typical steps to improve manufacturing process capability for each of the tooth geometry characteristics when their respective capability indices point to an incapable process.
A best practice in gear design is to limit the amount of backlash to a minimum value needed to accommodate manufacturing tolerances, misalignments, and deflections, in order to prevent the non-driving side of the teeth to make contact and rattle. Industry standards, such as ANSI/AGMA 2002 and DIN3967, provide reference values of minimum backlash to be used in the gear design. However, increased customers’ expectations in vehicle noise eduction have pushed backlash and allowable manufacturing tolerances to even lower limits. This is especially true in the truck market, where engines are quieter because they run at lower speeds to improve fuel economy, but they quite often run at high torsional vibration levels. Furthermore, gear and shaft arrangements in truck transmissions have become more complex due to increased number of speeds and to improve efficiency. Determining the minimum amount of backlash is quite a challenge. This paper presents an investigation of minimum backlash values of helical gear teeth applied to a light-duty pickup truck transmission. An analytical model was developed to calculate backlash limits of each gear pair when not transmitting load, and thus susceptible to generate rattle noise, through different transmission power paths. A statistical approach (Monte Carlo) was used since a significant number of factors affect backlash, such as tooth thickness variation; center distance variation; lead; runout and pitch variations; bearing clearances; spline clearances; and shaft deflections and misalignments. Analytical results identified the critical gear pair, and power path, which was confirmed experimentally on a transmission. The approach presented in this paper can be useful to design gear pairs with a minimum amount of backlash, to prevent double flank contact and to help reduce rattle noise to lowest levels.
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.
There’s no substitute for a good software package in gear manufacturing. It’s a critical shop floor tool that provides practical engineering services that customers appreciate. When you’re in the business of specifying and procuring high quality gears, the software needs to meet many objectives including the consideration of all tolerances of center distance, tooth thickness and tip diameters, root diameters, fillets, etc. It’s also imperative that the software updates include the latest revisions to the gear standards being used in the industry.
In a modern truck, the gear teeth are among the most stressed parts. Failure of a tooth will damage the transmission severely. Throughout the years, gear design experience has been gained and collected into standards such as DIN (Ref. 1) or AGMA (Ref. 2). Traditionally two types of failures are considered in gear design: tooth root bending fatigue, and contact fatigue. The demands for lighter and more silent transmissions have given birth to new failure types. One novel failure type, Tooth Interior Fatigue Fracture (TIFF), has previously been described by MackAldener and Olsson (Refs. 3 & 4) and is further explored in this paper.
A high number of wind turbine gearboxes do not meet their expected design life, despite meeting the design criteria of current bearing, gear and wind turbine industry standards and certifications.
The increasing demands in the automotive industry for weight reduction, fuel efficiency and a reduced carbon footprint need to be addressed urgently. Up until now, widely used conventional steels have lived up to expectations. However, with more stringent emissions standards, demands on materials are increasing. Materials are expected to perform better, resulting in a need for increased fatigue strength. A possibility to increase torque on current generations without design changes can be achieved by selecting suitable materials.
This paper outlines the comparison of efficiencies for worm gearboxes with a center distance ranging from 28 – 150 mm that have single reduction from 5 to 100:1. Efficiencies are calculated using several standards (AGMA, ISO, DIN, BS) or by methods defined in other bibliographic references. It also deals with the measurement of torque and temperature on a test rig — required for the calibration of an analytical model to predict worm gearbox efficiency and temperature. And finally, there are examples of experimental activity (wear and friction measurements on a blockon- ring tribometer and the measurements of dynamic viscosity) regarding the effort of improving the efficiency for worm gear drivers by adding nanoparticles of fullerene shape to standard PEG lubricant
A gearbox that absorbs 30 percent of external forces, transmits power from two engines operating at different speeds, and uses gears that meet several design and specification standards at the same time...
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.
Above all, a gear is not just a mechanical transmission, but is developed to a system fulfilling multiple demands, such as clutch integration, selectable output speeds, and controls of highest electronic standards. This paper shows the basics for high-speed gear design and a selection of numerous applications in detailed design and operational needs.
It may not be widely recognized that most of the inspection data supplied by inspection equipment, following the practices of AGMA Standard 2015 and similar standards, are not of elemental accuracy deviations but of some form of composite deviations. This paper demonstrates the validity of this “composite” label by first defining the nature of a true elemental deviation and then, by referring to earlier literature, demonstrating how the common inspection practices for involute, lead (on helical gears), pitch, and, in some cases, total accumulated pitch, constitute composite measurements.
With the publishing of various ISO draft standards relating to gear rating procedures, there has been much discussion in technical papers concerning the various load modification factors. One of the most basic of parameters affecting the rating of gears, namely the endurance limit for either contact or bending stress, has not, however, attracted a great deal of attention.
Not long ago, many manufacturing managers thought sensitivity to environmental protection standards meant additional expenses, decreased productivity, and a plethora of headaches and hassles.
What is a quality product? This is not an idle question. In the Darwinian business world in which we operate, knowing the answer to this question is key to our survival. A whole library of standards and benchmarks is available to help us gage how we're doing, but they don't really tell the whole story.
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).
For eight days every other year, the sponsor of the International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS), the Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT), strives to turn Chicago's McCormick Place into a "productivity marketplace," the largest and most completer display and demonstration of manufacturing technology ever seen in the Americas. If the growth of the show is any indicator, that effort has been very successful indeed. With over 1.4 million square feet of exhibit space taking up all five levels and all three exhibit halls of McCormick Place, each level would rank as one of the nation's 200 largest trade shows. That wasn't always the size or scope of the show. Its inception, while impressive for the time, was humble by today's standards.
In 1993, M & M Precision Systems was awarded a three-year, partial grant from the Advanced Technology Program of the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Working with Pennsylvania State University, M&M embarked on a technology development project to advance gear measurement capabilities to levels of accuracy never before achieved.
News Items About standards
1 ISO Releases New Gear Standards (April 5, 2006)
ISO's Technical Committee on Gears, comprised of a multi-national delegation, published several new standards, including: ISO 6336... Read News
2 Norton Abrasives Announces Brand Standards Program (December 3, 2012)
Norton Abrasives, a brand of Saint-Gobain Abrasives, has announced the introduction of a new global Norton brand standards program. The s... Read News
3 New Metal Powder Standards Published (November 2, 2009)
The 2010 edition of Standard Test Methods for Metal Powders & Powder Metallurgy Products has been published by the Metal Powder Indus... Read News
4 2010 Metal Powder Testing and Bearings Standards Released (January 5, 2010)
The 2010 editions of Standard Test Methods for Metal Powders and Powder Metallurgy (PM) Products, and Standard 35, Materials Standards fo... Read News
5 KISSsoft Offers Standards in the Shaft Strength Calculation (February 27, 2014)
For an analytical strength assessement, in the first instance the currently valid standard has to be applied. Therefore, an essential tas... Read News