277 views

Original Title: Agma 927-a01.pdf

Uploaded by Roro

- AGMA 918-A93
- AGMA 930-A05
- AGMA 915-3-A99
- AGMA 938-A05.pdf
- AGMA 1103-H07 Tooth Proportions for Fine- Pitch Spur and Helical Gearing (Metric Edition)
- AGMA 1102-A03
- AGMA 910-C90
- AGMA 929-A06 Calculation of Bevel Gear Top Land and Guidance on Cutter Edge Radius
- AGMA 911-A94
- AGMA 912-A04
- AGMA 917-B97 Design Manual for Parallel Shaft Fine-pitch Gearing
- ANSI AGMA 2015 2A 06
- AGMA 914-B04
- AGMA 906 A94
- AGMA 915-2-A05
- Ansi Agma6010 f97
- Agma Ansi 1006-A97
- AGMA 915-1-A02 Gears Inspect
- ANSI-AGMA 2004-B89-1995 Gear Materials and Heat Treatment Manual
- AGMA 2002-B88

You are on page 1of 38

Methods for Cylindrical Gears

(This Information Sheet is NOT an AGMA Standard)

American

AGMA 927--A01

Gear

Manufacturers CAUTION NOTICE: AGMA technical publications are subject to constant improvement,

revision or withdrawal as dictated by experience. Any person who refers to any AGMA

Association

technical publication should be sure that the publication is the latest available from the Association on the subject matter.

[Tables or other self--supporting sections may be quoted or extracted. Credit lines should

read: Extracted from AGMA 927--A01, Load Distribution Factors -- Analytical Methods for

Cylindrical Gears, with the permission of the publisher, the American Gear Manufacturers

Association, 1500 King Street, Suite 201, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.]

Approved October 22, 2000

ABSTRACT

This information sheet describes an analytical procedure for the calculation of the face load distribution. The

iterative solution that is described is compatible with the definitions of the term face load distribution (KH) of

AGMA standards and longitudinal load distribution (KH and KF) of the ISO standards. The procedure is easily

programmable and flow charts of the calculation scheme as well as examples from typical software are

presented.

Published by

1500 King Street, Suite 201, Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Copyright 2000 by American Gear Manufacturers Association

All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic

retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

ISBN: 1--55589--779--7

ii

AGMA 927--A01

Contents

Page

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1

Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3

Definitions and symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4

Iterative analytical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5

Coordinate system, sign convention, gearing forces and moments . . . . . . . . . 4

6

Shaft bending deflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

7

Shaft torsional deflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8

Gap analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9

Load distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

10 Future considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Annexes

A

B

Load distribution examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figures

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Base tangent coordinate system for CW driven rotation from reference end . 5

Base tangent coordinate system for CCW driven rotation from reference end 6

Hand of cut for gears and explanation of apex for bevel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Gearing force sense of direction for positive value from equations . . . . . . . . . . 8

Example general case gear arrangement (base tangent coordinate system) . 8

View A--A from figure 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Example shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Calculated shaft diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Torsional increments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Shaft number 3 gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Shaft number 4 gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Total mesh gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Relative mesh gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Tooth section with spring constant Cm, load L, and deflection Cd . . . . . . . . . 19

Deflection sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Mesh gap section grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Tables

1

2

3

4

Values for factors hand, apex, rotation, and drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Calculation data and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Evaluation of mesh gap for mesh #3, mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

iii

AGMA 927--A01

Foreword

[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, in this document are provided for

informational purposes only and are not to be construed as a part of AGMA Information

Sheet 927--A01, Load Distribution Factors -- Analytical Methods for Cylindrical Gears.]

This information sheet provides an analytical method to calculate a numeric value for the

face load distribution factor for cylindrical gearing.

This is a new document, which provides a description of the analytical procedures that are

used in several software programs that have been developed by various gear

manufacturing companies. The method provides a significant improvement from the

procedures used to define numeric values of face load distribution factor in current AGMA

standards. Current AGMA standards utilize either an empirical procedure or a simplified

closed form analytical calculation. The empirical procedure which is used in ANSI/AGMA

2101--C95 only allows for a nominal assessment of the influence of many parameters which

effect the numeric value of the face load distribution factor. The closed form analytic

formulations which have been found in AGMA standards suffer from the limitation that the

shape of the load distribution across the face width is limited to a linear form.

The limitations of the previous AGMA procedures are overcome by the method defined in

this information sheet. This method allows for including a sufficiently accurate

representation of many of the parameters that influence the distribution of load along the

face width of cylindrical gears. These parameters include the elastic effects due to

deformations under load, and the inelastic effects of geometric errors as well as the tooth

modifications which are typically utilized to offset the deleterious effects of the deformations

and errors.

The analytical method described in this information sheet is based on a thin slice model of

a gear mesh. This model treats the distribution of load across the face width of the gear

mesh as being independent of the any transverse effects. The method also represents all of

the elastic effects of a set of meshing teeth (tooth bending, tooth shear, tooth rotation,

Hertzian deflections, etc.) by one constant, i.e., mesh stiffness (Cm). Despite these

simplifying assumptions, this method provides numeric values of the face load distribution

factor that are sufficiently accurate for industrial applications of gearing which fall within the

limitations specified.

The first draft of this information sheet was made in February, 1996. This version was

approved by the AGMA membership on October 22, 2000.

Special mention must be made of the devotion of Louis Lloyd of Lufkin for his untiring efforts

from the submittal of the original software code through the prodding for progress during the

long process of writing this information sheet. Without his foresight and contributions this

information sheet may not have been possible.

Suggestions for improvement of this document will be welcome. They should be sent to the

American Gear Manufacturers Association, 1500 King Street, Suite 201, Alexandria,

Virginia 22314.

iv

AGMA 927--A01

PERSONNEL of the AGMA Helical Rating Committee and Load Distribution SubCommittee

Chairman: D. McCarthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorris Company

Vice Chairman: M. Antosiewicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Falk Corporation

SubCommittee Chairman: J. Lisiecki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Falk Corporation

K.E. Acheson . . .

W.A. Bradley . . . .

M.F. Dalton . . . . .

G.A. DeLange . . .

O. LaBath . . . . . .

L. Lloyd . . . . . . . .

Consultant

General Electric Company

Prager, Inc.

The Cincinnati Gear Co.

Lufkin Industries, Inc.

J.J. Luz . . . . . . . .

D.R. McVittie . . . .

M.W. Neesley . . .

W.P. Pizzichil . . .

F.C. Uherek . . . . .

Gear Engineers, Inc.

WesTech Gear Corporation

Philadelphia Gear Corp.

Flender Corporation

G. Lian . . . . . . . . .

J.V. Lisiecki . . . . .

L. Lloyd . . . . . . . .

J.J. Luz . . . . . . . .

D.R. McVittie . . . .

A.G. Milburn . . . .

G.W. Nagorny . . .

M.W. Neesley . . .

B. OConnor . . . .

W.P. Pizzichil . . .

D.F. Smith . . . . . .

K. Taliaferro . . . .

The Falk Corporation

Lufkin Industries, Inc.

General Electric Company

Gear Engineers, Inc.

Milburn Engineering, Inc.

Nagorny & Associates

Philadelphia Gear Corp.

The Lubrizol Corporation

Philadelphia Gear Corp.

Solar Turbines, Inc.

Rockwell Automation/Dodge

M. Hirt . . . . . . . . .

R.W. Holzman . .

R.S. Hyde . . . . . .

V. Ivers . . . . . . . .

A. Jackson . . . . .

H.R. Johnson . . .

J.G. Kish . . . . . . .

R.H. Klundt . . . . .

J.S. Korossy . . . .

I. Laskin . . . . . . . .

J. Maddock . . . . .

J. Escanaverino .

G.P. Mowers . . . .

R.A. Nay . . . . . . .

M. Octrue . . . . . .

T. Okamoto . . . . .

J.R. Partridge . . .

M. Pasquier . . . .

J.A. Pennell . . . . .

A.E. Phillips . . . . .

J.W. Polder . . . . .

Renk AG

Milwaukee Gear Company, Inc.

The Timken Company

Xtek, Incorporated

Mobil Technology Company

The Horsburgh & Scott Co.

Sikorsky Aircraft Division

The Timken Company

The Horsburgh & Scott Co.

Consultant

The Gear Works -- Seattle, Inc.

ISPJAE

Consultant

UTC Pratt & Whitney Aircraft

CETIM

Nippon Gear Company, Ltd.

Lufkin Industries, Inc.

CETIM

Univ. of Newcastle--Upon--Tyne

Rockwell Automation/Dodge

Delft University of Technology

K.E. Acheson . . .

J.B. Amendola . .

T.A. Beveridge . .

W.A. Bradley . . . .

M.J. Broglie . . . . .

A.B. Cardis . . . . .

M.F. Dalton . . . . .

G.A. DeLange . . .

D.W. Dudley . . . .

R.L. Errichello . . .

D.R. Gonnella . . .

M.R. Hoeprich . .

O.A. LaBath . . . .

MAAG Gear AG

Caterpillar, Inc.

Consultant

Dudley Technical Group, Inc.

Mobil Technology Center

General Electric Company

Prager, Incorporated

Consultant

GEARTECH

Equilon Lubricants

The Timken Company

The Cincinnati Gear Co.

M. Bartolomeo . .

A.C. Becker . . . .

E. Berndt . . . . . . .

E.J. Bodensieck .

D.L. Borden . . . .

M.R. Chaplin . . . .

R.J. Ciszak . . . . .

A.S. Cohen . . . . .

S. Copeland . . . .

R.L. Cragg . . . . .

T.J. Dansdill . . . .

F. Eberle . . . . . . .

L. Faure . . . . . . . .

C. Gay . . . . . . . . .

J. Gimper . . . . . .

T.C. Glasener . . .

G. Gonzalez Rey

M.A. Hartman . . .

J.M. Hawkins . . .

G. Henriot . . . . . .

G. Hinton . . . . . . .

Nuttall Gear LLC

Besco

Bodensieck Engineering Co.

D.L. Borden, Inc.

Contour Hardening, Inc.

Euclid--Hitachi Heavy Equip. Inc.

Engranes y Maquinaria Arco SA

Gear Products, Inc.

Consultant

General Electric Company

Rockwell Automation/Dodge

C.M.D.

Charles E. Gay & Company, Ltd.

Danieli United, Inc.

Xtek, Incorporated

ISPJAE

ITW

Rolls--Royce Corporation

Consultant

Xtek, Incorporated

AGMA 927--A01

E. Sandberg . . . .

C.D. Schultz . . . .

E.S. Scott . . . . . .

A. Seireg . . . . . . .

Y. Sharma . . . . . .

B.W. Shirley . . . .

L.J. Smith . . . . . .

L. Spiers . . . . . . .

A.A. Swiglo . . . . .

J.W. Tellman . . . .

vi

Pittsburgh Gear Company

The Alliance Machine Company

University of Wisconsin

Philadelphia Gear Corporation

Emerson Power Transmission

Invincible Gear Company

Emerson Power Trans. Corp.

IIT Research Institute/INFAC

Dodge

F.A. Thoma . . . . .

D. Townsend . . . .

L. Tzioumis . . . . .

F.C. Uherek . . . . .

A. Von Graefe . . .

C.C. Wang . . . . .

B. Ward . . . . . . . .

R.F. Wasilewski .

H. Winter . . . . . . .

NASA/Lewis Research Center

Dodge

Flender Corporation

MAAG Gear AG

3E Software & Eng. Consulting

Recovery Systems, LLC

Arrow Gear Company

Technische Univ. Muenchen

Association --

-- Analytical Methods for

Cylindrical Gears

1 Scope

This information sheet covers a method for the

evaluation of load distribution across the teeth of

parallel axis gears. A general discussion of the

design and manufacturing factors which influence

load distribution is included.

The load distribution factors for use in AGMA parallel

axis gear rating standards are defined, to improve

communication between users of those standards.

Historically, analytical methods for evaluating load

distribution in both AGMA and ISO standards have

been limited by the assumption that load is linearly

distributed across the face width of the meshing gear

set. The result of this assumption is often overly

conservative (high) values of load distribution factors. The method given here is considered more

correct.

1.1 Method

A simplified iterative method for calculation of the

face load distribution factor, based on combined

twisting and bending displacements of a mating gear

and pinion, is presented. The transverse load

distribution (in the plane of rotation) is not evaluated

in this information sheet. This method assumes that

the mesh stiffness is a constant through the entire

contact roll and across the face. General guidance

for design modifications to improve load distribution

is also included.

AGMA 927--A01

This method is intended to be used for general gear

design and rating purposes. It is intended to provide

a value of load distribution factor and a means by

which different gear designs can be analytically

compared. It is not intended for rigorous detailed

analysis to calculate the actual distribution of load

across the face width of gear sets.

The knowledge and judgment required to evaluate

the results of this method come from experience in

designing, manufacturing and operating gear units.

This method is intended for use by the experienced

gear designer, capable of understanding its limitations and purposes. It is not intended for use by the

engineering public at large.

2 References

The following documents were used in the development of this information sheet. At the time of

publication, the editions were valid. All publications

are subject to revision, and the users of this manual

are encouraged to investigate the possibility of

applying the most recent editions of the publications

listed:

AGMA Technical Paper P109.16, Profile and

Longitudinal Corrections on Involute Gears, 1965

ANSI/AGMA 1012--F90, Gear Nomenclature,

Definitions Of Terms With Symbols

ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95, Fundamental Rating Factors And Calculation Methods For Involute Spur

And Helical Gear Teeth

ANSI/AGMA ISO 1328--1, Cylindrical Gears -- ISO

System of Accuracy -- Part 1: Definitions and

Allowable Values of Deviations Relevant to Corresponding Flanks of Gear Teeth

ISO 6336--1:1996, Calculation of load capacity of

spur and helical gears -- Part 1: Basic principles,

introduction and general influence factors

Dudley, D.W., Handbook of Practical Gear Design,

McGraw--Hill, New York, 1984

Timken Engineering Design Manual, Volume 1

AGMA 927--A01

The terms used, wherever applicable, conform to

ANSI/AGMA 1012--F90.

NOTE: The symbols and definitions used in this standard may differ from other AGMA standards. The user

should not assume that familiar symbols can be used

without a careful study of their definitions.

numbers where they are first discussed, are listed in

alphabetical order by symbol in table 1.

3.1 Load distribution factor

The load distribution factor, KH, modifies the rating

equations to reflect the non--uniform distribution of

load along the gear tooth lines of contact as they

rotate through mesh. In past AGMA standards, the

variables Cm and Km have been associated with this

factor. In ISO standards, the variables KH, KH, KF

and KF, have been associated with the factor. In

KH, is used for both pitting resistance and bending

strength calculations. There is no separate value,

KF, for bending strength as found in ISO standards.

The magnitude of KH is affected by two components,

transverse load distribution factor and face load

distribution factor.

The transverse load distribution factor pertains to the

plane of rotation and is affected primarily by the

correctness of the profiles and indexing of the mating

teeth. Standard procedures to evaluate it have not

been established and it is assumed to be unity in this

information sheet.

The face load distribution factor is the focus of this

information sheet.

3.2 Target mesh

The target mesh is that mesh for which load

distribution is being analyzed. The target mesh

includes a target pinion and a target gear.

Symbol

A

BT

BTN

BTZ

Cm

b

D

DpG

d

din

dsh

E

FaG

FaP

Fg

Fi

FsG

FsP

FtG

FtP

G

H

I

Definition

Apex factor

Axis in the base tangent plane

Axis normal to base tangent plane

Axis in the base tangent plane perpendicular to BT

Tooth stiffness constant, for the analysis

Helical/bevel gear face width

Drive factor

Operating pitch diameter, gear

Outside effective twist diameter

Inside shaft diameter

Outside diameter, effect outside diameter of the teeth

Modulus of elasticity

Axial thrust force, gear member

Axial thrust force, pinion member

Total load in the plane of action

Gearing or external force at a distance

Separating force, gear member

Separating force, pinion member

Tangential force, gear member

Tangential force, pinion member

Modulus of elasticity in shear

Hand factor

Moment of inertia

Units

-- --- --- --- -N/mm/mm

mm

-- -mm

mm

mm

mm

N/mm2

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N/mm2

-- -mm4

First

referenced

5.3

5.2

5.2

5.2

9.1

5.3

5.3

5.3

7.1

6.1

6.1

6.1

5.3

5.4

9.2

6.1

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

7.1

5.3

6.1

(continued)

AGMA 927--A01

Table 1 (concluded)

Symbol

IC

i

KH

Ls

Lj

L

M

MG

n

P

R

RL

RR

S

SLi

ti

V

xi

Xj

Xfi

x

y

ti

G

P

Definition

Units

Integration constant

Station number

Load distribution factor

Distance between the supports (reactions)

Load at station

Load intensity

Bending moment

Moment due to axial thrust force

Station number at end support

Power transmitted through the mesh

Rotation factor

Reaction at the left bearing

Reaction at the right bearing

Speed of shaft

Station slope value

Torsional deflection at a station

Shear

Length of face where point load applied

Distance between adjacent stations

Distance from left support to load location

Distance between stations

Deflection along the line of action

Tooth deflection at a load point

Bevel pitch angle of gear

Bevel pitch angle of pinion

Helix angle/spiral angle

Normal pressure angle

N/mm

N mm

N mm

-- -kW

-- -N

N

rpm

-- -mm

N

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

degrees

degrees

degrees

degrees

First

referenced

6.1

6.1

9.4

6.1

7.1

9.1

6.1

5.4

6.1

5.3

5.3

6.1

6.1

5.3

6.3

7.1

6.1

9.2

7.1

6.1

6.1

6.1

9.1

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

--

--

This information sheet presents an iterative analytical method for determining a value of load distribution factor. The iterative method combines the

calculated elastic deflection of the pinion and the

gear with other misalignments. The result defines a

mesh gap in the base tangent plane which is the net

mismatch between the gear and the pinion. The

teeth in mesh are modeled by an equally spaced

series of independent parallel compression springs

which represent the mesh stiffness. The mesh gap is

then mathematically closed by compressing the

springs until the sum of the spring forces equals the

total tooth force.

values and including them as equivalent misalignments of the target shaft axes are:

influences:

solid disk (such as a spoke gear);

and gear, including bearing clearances and

housing bore alignment;

-- mesh elastic deflections due to Hertzian

contact and tooth bending;

-- shaft elastic deflections due to twisting and

bending, resulting from the target mesh loads and

loads external to the mesh.

AGMA 927--A01

-- elastic deflection

foundations;

of

the

housing

and

body gears (such as a spoke gear);

deflection;

-- elastic deflection

foundations;

--

--

alignment and deflection;

influences:

--

application influences and tooth dynamics;

--

-- double helical

overloaded.

gears

with

one

helix

4.1 Methodology

of

the

--

--

housing

and

The following assumptions and simplifications are

used:

--

meshes other than the target mesh are ignored;

load on these meshes is treated as concentrated

in the center of the mesh;

following basic steps:

-- shear coupling between the mesh gap compression springs representing the mesh stiffness

is ignored;

initial uniform load distribution;

width of tooth;

2) Calculate a new load distribution by mathematically closing the mesh gap. This is accomplished by compressing the springs until the sum

of the spring forces equals the total tooth force;

--

new load distribution;

4) Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the change in load

distribution from the previous iteration is

negligible;

5) The load distribution factor is then calculated

from this final load distribution.

4.1.1 Calculated elastic deflections

Deflections which are calculated within the iterative

method include the elastic deflections of the pinion

and gear shafts, plus the mesh. Elastic shaft

deflections include shaft twist and bending. Elastic

tooth deflections include Hertzian contact and tooth

bending.

zero as the thrust force from each helix cancels

each other;

-- for double helical gears the tangential and

separating force is distributed equally on each

hand helix; this is generally true as long as one

member can float with respect to the other with no

external axial load applied.

gearing forces and moments

5.1 Rules

The rules that govern the coordinate system, sign

convention, gearing forces and moments are:

--

in the base tangent plane;

them as an equivalent deflection at the target mesh

include:

the base circles of the target mesh;

pinion and gear teeth;

4

contact first occurs in the root of the tooth and

traverses to the tip of the tooth;

AGMA 927--A01

followed;

the reference end (see figures 1 and 2).

under consideration;

the BTCS axes and in calculating the mesh loads, a

reference end needs to be identified. For purposes

of this information sheet, the reference end is the end

of the driving element shaft opposite the torque input

end.

application of a force or moment on the target

pinion shaft which is most remote from the target

mesh toward the reference end of the shaft (see

5.2);

-- the input torque to the driving element enters

the shaft from one side only and is fully balanced

by torque in the target mesh.

directions of the BTCS axes are determined as

follows:

+ BTZ: away from the reference end;

tangent plane, BTP, of the target mesh and is defined

as the base tangent coordinate system, BTCS. The

BTCS is comprised of three orthogonal axes: BT,

BTN (base tangent normal), and BTZ.

mesh shafts. The BT axis lies in the BTP and is

perpendicular to the BTZ axis. The BTN axis is

perpendicular to both the BT and the BTZ axes

(normal to the base tangent plane). The origin of the

BTCS lies at the intersection of the base tangent

the base tangent coordinate system for a typical

target mesh. In figure 1, the input torque is clockwise

when viewed from the reference end. In figure 2, the

input torque is counterclockwise when viewed from

the reference end.

The force, moment and deflection along the positive

direction of BT, BTN and BTZ are assigned positive

values. Along the negative direction of BT, BTN and

BTZ, they are assigned negative values.

Driver

Base diameter -driving element

Input

torque

Target shaft -driver

Target mesh

+BTZ

+BT

Target shaft -driven

*

Reference

end

+BTN

Driven

Figure 1 -- Base tangent coordinate system for CW driven rotation from reference end

AGMA 927--A01

Driver

Base diameter -driving element

Input

torque

+BTZ

Target mesh

Base diameter -driven element

Base tangent

plane

+BT

Reference

end

+BTN

Driven

Figure 2 -- Base tangent coordinate system for CCW driven rotation from reference end

5.3 Gearing forces and signs

cause forces and moments to develop on the shafts

that carry these gear members. These forces and

moments will cause deflections of the shafts that will

tend to affect the alignment and ultimately the

distribution of the load across the face width of the

mesh. These elastic deflections need to be combined with all other sources of potential misalignment.

equations 1 through 3. In these equations, the

values of factors H, A, R, and D are obtained using

table 2. When properly applied, these factors will

ensure that the proper direction of the forces are

determined.

The directions obtained will be

consistent with the BTCS definition presented in 5.2.

The tangential force is calculated as:

F tG =

1.91 10 7 P (D R )

S D pG b sin G

(1)

b

F sG =

cos

A

F aG =

F (A )A D H R sin cos

tG

G tan sin G

cos

P

(2)

where

where

tG

G

G

where

FaG is axial thrust force, gear member, N.

(3)

AGMA 927--A01

Factor description

Hand

Factor

H

Apex (bevel)

Rotation

Drive

Value

+1

--1

0

+1

--1

+1

--1

+1

--1

Condition

Right hand helix or spiral (see figure 3)

Left hand helix or spiral (see figure 3)

Spur, straight bevel, or herringbone

Apex toward reference end (see figure 3), or no apex

Apex away from reference end (see figure 3)

Clockwise viewed from reference end

Counterclockwise viewed from reference end

Driving element

Driven element

above equations. The forces must be determined for

each mesh on each of the target mesh shafts.

the values of these angles equal to zero in equations

1 to 3.

To obtain the force for the pinion member, replace

the gear values in equations 1 through 3 with the

corresponding pinion values.

of the BT axis, the tangential mesh load on the

driving element will introduce positive mesh displacement in the base tangent plane.

direction of the gear forces. The direction shown is

for the positive value of forces evaluated by the

example, mesh 3 is the target mesh. Shafts 3 and 4

are the target shafts.

Hand

Right hand

helix

Left hand

helix

Right hand

spiral

Left hand

spiral

Apex

Away from

reference

Toward

reference

Figure 3 -- Hand of cut for gears and explanation of apex for bevel gears

AGMA 927--A01

Mating target

shaft

One target

shaft

Mate

shaft

If mate to target

shaft is on the

left, use these

positive force

directions

Ft

Fa

Fa

Fs

Fs

Ft

the right, use these positive

force directions

reference end

Figure 4 -- Gearing force sense of direction for positive value from equations

Mesh 1

Shaft 1

FtG1

FaP1

FaG1

A Driver

RH

FsG1

FtP1

Driver

LH

Shaft 2

Reference end

and origin of

shaft for mesh 2

FsP2

FsG1

FtP2

Driven

LH

Driver

RH

FaG2

Shaft 3

Reference end

and origin of

shaft for mesh 3

FaP2

Base tangent

FtG2

plane for mesh 2

Mesh 2

FsG2

FsP3

+BT

FtG3 Mesh 3

FaG3

FaP3

FtP3

+BTZ

Driven

RH

Bearing

+BTN

Base tangent coordinate

system for mesh 2

Base tangent

plane for

mesh 3

member typical

+BTN -- Axis normal to base tangent plane of target mesh

Shaft 4

FsG3

Driven

LH

CL

Gear

face

Example showing actual direction of the forces as determined from the sign of the values calculated in the

force equations.

Figure 5 -- Example general case gear arrangement (base tangent coordinate system)

AGMA 927--A01

cause moments. For the target mesh, the moments

can be determined for each mesh section. For each

additional mesh on the target shafts, the resulting

moment is assumed to act at the center of the face

width. For a double helical mesh the net moment will

be zero.

moments on their shafts, which will cause elastic

deflections. These deflections can affect the alignment of the gear teeth and therefore affect the load

distribution across the gear face width.

member is given by equation 4.

MG =

F aG D pG

(4)

This section presents a simplified computer programmable integration method for calculating the

bending deflection of a stepped shaft with radial

loads imposed and two bearing supports.

Rules for calculating bending deflection when calculating load distribution factor are also presented.

where

MG moment due to axial thrust force, N mm.

To obtain the moment due to an axial thrust force on

the pinion member, replace the gear values by the

corresponding pinion values.

Figure 6 shows the tangential and separating forces

and the axial thrust moments acting on shafts 3 and 4

of figure 5. These forces affect the load distribution

of mesh 3. Figure 6 demonstrates the resolution of

the shaft 3 and 4 forces and moments into the base

tangent coordinate system for mesh 3.

As explained in other sections, when calculating

shaft deflections, the area of the gear teeth is broken

into eighteen separate load application sections.

However, to simplify the explanation of the deflection

calculation method the following model and explanation will be of a stepped shaft with two supports, three

changes in diameter, and two point loads. This is as

shown in figure 7 and table 3.

Driver

LH

Base tangent coordinate

system for mesh 3

Shaft 2

+BTZ

Driven

RH

Mesh 2

FsG23

Shaft 3

Driven

LH

FtG34

FsP33

MG23

Driver

RH

+BTN

Base tangent

line

FtG23

+BT

MP33

FsG34

Shaft 4

FtP33

Target

Mesh #3

MG34

BTN -- Axis normal to base tangent plane of target mesh

AGMA 927--A01

10

AGMA 927--A01

--13500

22.0

1

28.0

2

35.0

+9000

28.0

25.0

4

50.0

25.0

5

44.0

22.0

6

38.0

+6180

--1680

All modeling will be from the left--hand support

moving toward the right--hand support. Deflection at

supports is zero. The gearing forces and any other

external forces are used to obtain the free body force

diagram. In the force diagram the forces, Fi, and the

distances they act from the left support, Xfi, are

specified.

Using standard static force analyses calculate the

reaction, RR, at the right side support by summing

the moments about the left support.

RR =

Fi Xfi

Ls

(5)

Ls

Xfi

location, Fi.

(6)

sum of the loads.

RL =

Fi RR

(7)

the calculations with the preceding formulas.

The basic equation for small deflection of a stepped

shaft is:

d2 y

=M

EI

dx 2

following step by step procedure applied to the

stepped shaft as shown in figure 7 will illustrate the

procedure evaluating shaft deflection. A tabulated

form as shown in table 3 lends itself to the process.

Step 1: Divide the shaft into lengths with intervals

beginning at each force and at each change in

section (see figure 7).

where

X fi = x i + X fi1 i = 1, 2, 3, n

where

(8)

numbers beginning at the left support with station i=1

and ending at the right support with station i = n.

Step 3: List station numbers, i, on alternate lines in

column 1 of calculation sheet (see table 3).

Step 4: List free body forces in column 4 on the

same lines as the station numbers at which they

occur. Care should be taken to designate proper

signs to forces (upward forces are considered

positive in this example).

Step 5: Calculate the shear, Vi, at each station by

summing the values in column 4. Tabulate each

shear value in column 5, one station below the

station for which it is calculated. The last shear value

11

AGMA 927--A01

the last force listed in column 4.

V i+1 = V i + F i i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(9)

where

V

is the shear, N;

AMEI i =

number, list the distance to the preceding station.

Step 7: Calculate bending moment, Mi, at each

station and list the value in column 7. Value at the

first station is zero. Values at succeeding stations

are obtained by summing the products of shear

force, Vi (column 5), and distance between stations,

xi (column 6). The moment at the first and last

station, i = 1 and i = n, should be zero (i.e. M1=0.0 and

Mn = 0.0).

M i+1 = M i + V i+1x i+1 i = 1, 2, 3, n

(10)

Step 8: Calculate the moment of inertia, Ii, in

bending for each interval. Place the I value in

column 8 on the line between the two stations at

which the interval begins and ends.

Ii =

d4

sh i

d4

64

in i

i = 1, 2, 3, n

(11)

where

dsh

din

elasticity, E, and insert the EIi value in column 9 on

the same lines as corresponding Ii values. For steel

use E = 206 000 N/mm2. Dividing the EIi values by

103 before tabulating them in column 9 results in

units of m for the rest of the tabulation.

EI i = ( E )I i i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(12)

column 7 by the EIi value in column 9 which precedes

and follows it. List these two values, MEIui and MEIli,

in column 10.

12

each interval by averaging the values on the lines on

which the station is listed and the following line. List

the average values on the lines between stations in

column 11.

MEI ui =

Mi

i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

EI i

(13)

MEI li =

M i+1

i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

EI i

(14)

MEI ui + MEI li

i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

2

(15)

starting with zero at station 1 (i.e., SL1=0). Succeeding values are obtained by summing the products of

AMEIi from column 11 and the xi value on the next

lower line of column 6. These values are listed on the

same lines as the stations.

SL i+1 = SL i + AMEI ix i+1 i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(16)

the beginning and end of each interval. These

values, ASLi, are listed on the lines between stations

in column 13.

ASL i =

SL i + SL i+1

i = 1, 2, 3, n 1 (17)

2

in column 14 by multiplying the average slope value

in column 13 and the xi value from the next lower line

in column 6.

DI i = ASL ix i+1 i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(18)

constant which depends on type of shaft. For the

simply supported shaft with no load outside of the

supports as shown in figure 7, the constant is

obtained by summing the deflection increment

values in column 14 to obtain Sy. The sign of Sy is

changed and the sum divided by the distance

between the reaction, Ls, to obtain the integration

constant per mm of length.

n1

Sy =

i=1

DI i

(19)

xi

(20)

Ls =

IC =

i=1

Sy

Ls

integration constant.

(21)

will

change

the

AGMA 927--A01

--13500

22.0

1

35.0

28.0

2

+9000

28.0

25.0

4

25.0

5

44.0

50.0

+6180

22.0

6

38.0

--1680

+10000 (N)

0.0

--10000 (N)

Shear Diagram, V

350000 (Nmm)

0.0

--150000 (Nmm)

Moment Diagram, M

+0.01 (1/mm)

0.0

--0.01 (1/mm)

M Diagram

EI

0.4 (mrad)

0.0

Slope Curve

0.0

--10 (mm)

Deflection Curve

13

AGMA 927--A01

ICSi, is now calculated. Multiply integration constant,

IC, calculated in step 15 by xi value on the next lower

line from column 6 to obtain the constant for each

section. List these values in column 15 on the same

line as the average slope and deflection increments.

ICS i = ( IC )x i+1 i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(22)

Place zero at left support location, i.e. y1=0.0,

because support locations must have zero deflection. For all other stations the deflection values are

obtained by summing together the deflection increment and integration constant values from columns

14 and 15. These deflection values are inserted on

the same line as the station. As a math check when

summing the values of yi the calculated value at the

right support location, yn, should be very close to

zero.

y i+1 = y i + DI i + ICS i i = 1, 2, 3, n 1

(23)

6.2 Rules

When using the shaft bending deflection routine

explained in 6.1 to calculate load distribution, the

following rules apply:

--

--

to the accuracy of this calculation. Rules for

station length are: no longer than 1/2 diameter of

the station; no longer than 3 times the shortest

section of the non--gear tooth portion of the shaft;

no longer than 30 mm.

When in doubt about the number of stations, if

adding more does not significantly change the

calculation results, the number of original stations

is adequate.

teeth is the (tip diameter minus root diameter)/2

plus the root diameter;

-- The moment couple applied to single helical

gears due to the thrust component of tooth

loading can be modeled as equal positive and

negative forces at a location just to the left and

right of the gear tooth area.

Meshing gear sets transmitting torque will also twist

the shafts that carry the gear elements. The twist will

cause deflection at the teeth that will affect the load

distribution across their face width.

7.1 Torsional deflection

The torque input end is subjected to full torque. The

torque value decreases along the face until it

becomes zero at the other end. Hence the direction

of torque path is of importance.

Consider a cylindrical shaft with circular cross

section with outside effective twist diameter, d, inside

diameter, din, and incremental length, Xj, as shown in

figure 9.

The equation for torsional twist can be found in

machinery design text. The torsional deflection must

be calculated over the length of the tooth face. The

twist must be converted from radians to a deflection

in the base tangent plane. Equation 24 is in a form

that allows summation using the discreet stations

used in this document. This results in the equation:

1

2

i i

X

L

j

j4 d

j

=

1

j

=

1

10 3

t i =

(24)

G d 4 d 4in

where

ti

When calculating bending deflection for load distribution factor, the following rules also apply:

Lj

is load at a station, N;

Xj

are considered;

mm;

of the gear teeth is broken into eighteen equal

sections;

din

is station number;

14

AGMA 927--A01

Undeformed

position

Facewidth

X1

X2

L1

X3

L2

X4

L3

X5

L4

din

Torsional

deflection

Torque

input

L5

L6

Torque

input

Li Load on teeth

At the first point of interest on the tooth where j = 1,

the summation of Xj will be zero and the torsional

deflection is zero. Continued calculation of the

torsional twist toward the end of the tooth face where

torque is being applied results in a maximum

torsional deflection, see figure 9.

Equation 24 is an approximation which yields

reasonable results for gearing. The theoretically

correct equation would be an integration.

A slightly more accurate approximation is found in

equation 25.

t i =

(i 1) k

10 3

L j X k8 d 2

k = 1j = 1

(25)

G d 4 d 4in

7.2 Rules

section is the root diameter plus 0.4 times the normal module;

-- the twist of all elements except the target

mesh being analyzed is ignored;

CAUTION: Equations 24 and 25 only cover torques in

the target mesh that arise from gear tooth loading. Other torques may require additional modeling.

8 Gap analysis

Elastic bending and torsional deflections, tooth

modifications, lead variations and shaft misalignments cause the gear teeth to not be in contact

across the entire face width. The distance between

non contacting points along the face width of the

mating teeth is defined as the gap. This gap is closed

to some degree when the gear set is loaded due to

the compliance of the gear teeth along the face width

of the target mesh.

deflection in the base tangent plane is proportional to

the twist angle.

the bending analysis for each shaft increment of the

target mesh. Retain the positive or negative sign of

the bending deflection.

are:

torsional analysis for each shaft increment of the

15

AGMA 927--A01

non--parallelism, etc. At design stage, values should

be based on expected manufacturing accuracy.

Incorporate expected shaft misalignment so as to

increase mesh gap (check both directions).

torsional deflection.

Tooth modification: Tooth modification accounts

for lead modification and crowning. The sign

convention for tooth modification as illustrated in

table 4 is the following: if the load direction on the

teeth is positive, removal of metal at an individual

station is entered as a positive value; if the direction

of load on the teeth is negative, the removal of metal

at an individual station is entered as a negative

value.

At final verification stage use actual shaft misalignment. The shaft misalignment that corresponds to

material removal on the tooth flank has the same

sign as the load on the tooth flank when entered in

table 4.

measured for the gear set. The lead variation

corresponding to material removal from the tooth

flank has the same sign as the load on the tooth flank

when it is entered in table 4.

misalignment values with proper positive or negative

signs for each shaft of the target mesh to form table

4. In table 4, the shaft gap is the algebraic sum of all

deflections, tooth modifications, lead variation and

misalignment. The difference between the individual

shaft gap positions is the total mesh gap. To

evaluate load distribution by the iterative method the

relative gap is used. Relative mesh gap at each

station of interest is obtained by subtracting the least

total mesh gap from the total mesh gap at the station.

The last column in table 4 reflects the relative mesh

gap.

for the error in concentricity of the bearing diameters

mesh #3 of general arrangement shown in figure 5.

set is not available at the design stage. At this stage

lead variation based on the expected ANSI/AGMA

ISO 1328--1 tolerance of the gear set may be used.

The lead variation must be incorporated so as to

increase the total mesh gap (check both directions).

Shaft #3

Shaft #4

Station

number

Bending

deflection

Torsional

deflection

Tooth

modification

Lead

variation

Shaft misalignment

11.8

--9.1

5.0

0.0

11.7

--8.9

3.5

0.3

10

11.5

--8.5

2.7

11

11.3

--7.9

2.0

12

11.0

--7.1

13

10.7

14

Total

mesh

gap

Relative

mesh

gap

--4.2

11.9

0.0

--5.4

12.8

0.9

--1.3

--6.5

14.1

2.2

--1.8

--7.6

15.6

3.7

--1.0

--2.3

--8.8

17.3

5.4

0.0

--1.3

--2.8

--10.3

19.7

7.8

4.4

0.0

--1.5

--3.3

--11.8

22.0

10.1

--11.0

3.0

0.0

--1.7

--3.8

--13.5

25.4

13.5

--10.5

1.6

0.0

--2.0

--4.3

--15.2

29.9

18.0

0.8

0.0

--2.2

--4.8

--16.1

34.9

23.0

Shaft #3

gap

Bending

deflection

Torsional

deflection

Tooth

modification

0.0

7.7

--12.8

8.6

0.0

0.8

7.4

--12.7

8.4

0.0

0.6

1.3

7.6

--12.6

8.0

0.0

0.8

1.8

8.0

--12.4

7.4

0.0

1.3

1.0

2.3

8.5

--12.1

6.6

--6.1

0.7

1.3

2.8

9.4

--11.8

10.3

--4.9

0.0

1.5

3.3

10.2

15

9.9

--3.5

0.0

1.7

3.8

16

9.5

--2.1

1.0

2.0

4.3

17

9.1

--0.8

3.5

2.2

4.8

18.8

16

Lead

variation

Shaft misalignment

Shaft #4

gap

0.0

0.0

--0.3

--0.8

--0.6

--0.8

0.0

5.6

--11.4

11.9

14.7

--9.9

AGMA 927--A01

20

18

16

SHAFT #3

14

12

Micrometers

10

8

6

4

2

0

8

--2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

15

16

17

--4

--6

--8

--10

--12

--14

--16

--18

--20

20

18

16

14

12

Micrometers

10

8

6

4

2

0

8

--2

10

11

12

13

14

--4

--6

--8

--10

--12

--14

--16

SHAFT #4

--18

--20

17

AGMA 927--A01

20

18

16

SHAFT #3

14

12

Micrometers

10

8

6

4

2

0

8

--2

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

14

15

16

17

--4

--6

--8

--10

--12

SHAFT #4

--14

--16

--18

--20

20

18

16

14

12

Micrometers

10

8

SHAFT #3

6

4

2

0

8

--2

10

11

12

13

--4

--6

--8

--10

--12

--14

--16

SHAFT #4

SHAFT #4

--18

--20

18

9 Load Distribution

mesh gap. This gap in the mesh must be accommodated by deflection of the teeth, t, as shown in figure

14 and equation 26.

This method uses the concept of a tooth mesh

stiffness constant, Cm, to compare the tooth load

intensity and tooth deflection with the total load and

overall mesh gap. For simplicity, the base tangent

plane along the line of action is used and multiple

teeth in contact are ignored. Effectively the mesh is

analyzed as if it were a spur set. For the purpose of

illustrating this concept, this clause will use only 6

sections in the mesh area. Hertzian contact and

tooth bending deflections are combined to produce a

single mesh stiffness constant, Cm, and the mesh is

assumed to be a set of independent springs (as

shown in figure 14).

The tooth deflection at a given point is a linear

function of the load intensity at that point and the

tooth mesh stiffness as shown in equation 26 below.

(26)

L i = ti C m

AGMA 927--A01

The mesh gap analysis divides the target mesh into

discreet equal length sections, Xi, with point loads,

Li, applied in the center of each of these sections

(see figure 15). For double helical, analyze each

helix separately. Since the method for calculating

mesh gap uses point loads, while the tooth deflections per equation 26 are based on load intensity, the

point loads must be converted to load intensity. This

is shown in equation 27.

L

L i = i

Xi

(27)

where

Xi

mm;

Li

where

Li

ti

L1

N/mm/mm (~11 N/mm/mm for steel gears).

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6

Xi

Cm

Face width

Bearing

Figure 15 -- Deflection sections

Li

mesh

gap,

i

Face width

Figure 14 -- Tooth section with spring constant

Cm, load L, and deflection

This assumed linearity differs from previous AGMA

(AGMA 218) and ISO (ISO 6336--1, C) analytical

methods where the load distribution was assumed

as a straight line over the whole face width.

the tooth. This should improve accuracy as mesh

stiffness is generally lower at the ends of the teeth,

but it is assumed constant in this analysis. Also note

that the tooth is divided into equal length sections

such that all values of Xi are equal. In addition, the

sum of the individual loads must equal the total load

on the gearset as shown in equation 28.

F g = L 1 + L 2 + L 3 + + L n

(28)

where

Fg

points, i and j, is proportional to the difference in

19

AGMA 927--A01

tooth stiffness constant. Notice the switch in terms.

The absolute tooth deflection is not used, rather the

change in mesh gap which is equal to the change in

tooth deflection is used. Therefore, equation 29

below can be derived from equation 26 (see figure

16).

(29)

L i L j = i j C m

analysis, equation 29 may be rewritten as:

Li Lj

= i j C m

Xi Xj

(30)

Li L1

= i 1 C

Xi X1

(31)

Or:

XL C

(32)

XL C

(33)

L1 = X 1

And:

Li = Xi

and get equation 34 below. Remember, only one

value of tooth stiffness, Cm, is used and the tooth

face width is broken into equally spaced segments:

XL XL + XL XL + XL XL

Face width

Total pinion deflection

= 1 1 + 2 1 + n 1 C m

(34)

Simplifying equation 34 gives:

XL + XL + XL nXL

1

Mesh gap,i

= 1 1 + 2 1 + n 1 C m

(35)

0.0

plane load, Fg, and all values of Xi are equal, so:

XL + XL + XL = XF

1

(36)

Total gear deflection

L1 =

F g C m X i

i

i

1 1 + 2 1

+ n 1

Figure 16 -- Mesh gap section grid

(37)

be calculated.

further in clause 5. Areas with greater mesh gap

have lower tooth load and areas with lower mesh gap

have higher tooth load. Using figure 16 as a guide,

note that in equation 30 as mesh gap, i, gets larger,

the load, Li, must get smaller.

across the mesh is assumed and gaps are calculated. From these initial gaps, an uneven load

distribution is calculated. This new load distribution

is then used to calculate a new set of gaps. This

iteration process is continued until the newly calculated gaps differ from the previous ones by only a

small amount. Usually only a few, 2 or 3, iterations

are required to get an acceptable error (less than 3.0

mm change in gaps calculated).

example it is location 1 (see figure 16). A sum of the

values for all locations referenced to location 1 can

then be created. This is done by setting term j in

equation 30 to location 1 and rearranging the

equation as shown below:

20

results in negligible change in gaps calculated are

This is defined as the highest or peak load divided by

the average load.

KH =

L i peak

L i ave

(38)

where:

Fg

L i ave = n

(39)

Initially all loads on the face width are assumed in the

same direction, i.e., have the same sign. If there is

not full contact across the face width some stations

will have their load value change sign. This indicates

tooth separation and there is no tooth contact at that

location, and therefore, the load must be zero at that

location. The method used to correct this condition

relies on the difference in load between stations

being a function of the change in deflection between

stations. Therefore, even if a change in sign is

calculated, the difference in load between stations

with tooth contact will be correct.

To find the actual loads at these stations do the

following. Sum all the loads that had a change in sign

and divide by the total number of loads that had a

change in sign. Subtract this value from each load

that did not have a change in sign. Set the value of

load to zero at all stations that had a change in sign.

The sum of loads at all stations that have contact will

now equal the total load on the face width and the

difference in load between these stations has not

changed.

9.6 Restatement of rules

The rules that govern the loads on the face width are:

-- The sum of the individual loads on the face

width, Li, must equal the total load on the gearset,

Fg;

-- The change in load intensity, Li -- Lj, between

any two locations on the face width must equal the

change in tooth deflection, ti -- tj, or change in

mesh gap, i -- j, between those locations;

AGMA 927--A01

(mesh misalignment) have lower tooth load and

areas with lower mesh gap (mesh misalignment)

have higher tooth load;

-- Areas where load changes sign represent

areas where the teeth are not in contact and their

sum must be included in the loads that did not

change sign, i.e., Li = Fg;

-- The face width shall be divided into eighteen

sections for the actual gap analysis and load distribution factor calculations.

10 Future considerations

10.1 Differential thermal conditions

Temperature differences are developed between the

pinion and mating gear elements and they may vary

along the face width. Both of these phenomena

produce distortions that may require lead compensations to achieve acceptable load distribution.

Under running conditions the pinion element of a

gear set operates at a higher temperature than its

mating gear. This thermal differential will cause

pinion base pitch increases that exceed those of the

cooler mating gear.

In speed reducers the base pitch differential increase is partially offset by elastic tooth deformations (refer to 5.1). Profile modification is often used

to compensate for this.

In helical gear meshes there is also a temperature

differential along the face width due to the heat

generated as lubricant is displaced in wave--like

fashion from leading end to trailing end of the helix.

Lead correction may be used to compensate for this.

10.2 Mesh stiffness variations

The stiffness of a gear tooth at any given location

along its length is buttressed by adjacent tooth

length. A tooth portion at mid--face width is buttressed on both sides and has greater stiffness than

a similar tooth portion at the tooth end.

21

AGMA 927--A01

Annex A

Flowcharts for load distribution factor

Input

Elastic

Data

Non--elastic

Data

Bending

No

is

P&G

Done

Yes

Torsional

No

is

P&G

Done

Yes

Gap Analysis

Load Distribution

No

New

Gap

Difference

Small

Yes

Output

22

AGMA 927--A01

Case ID

U.S.

SI

Units

?

Units

Labels

Manual

Adjustment

in BTCS

Target mesh

data

External forces,

moments, torques

(Timken convention)

Convert to

BTCS

Analysis

Yes

Test

No

Output

KH

Figure A.2 -- Data flow

23

AGMA 927--A01

INPUT Values

The gear mesh is divided into sections of equal length with loads placed in the center of each section.

The sign convention is critical, positive loads and deflections are in same direction.

Cm = tooth stiffness constant

N = total number of sections

i (j) = gap at each section

Li (j) = initial load at each section

Xi (j) = length of each section

k = number of sections across the face width

X3 = sum [W (j) / Y (j) -- X (j) * e] for j = 1 to k sum of deflection and load

X6 = sum [W (j)] for j = 1 to k total load, this must remain constant

M3 = X6/k average load on each section

W4 = Y(1)*X3/k new load on first section [new W(1)]

reversal (i.e., teeth are not

contacting) or

[X6/abs (X6)] * W(j) < 0

Yes

XTOT = sum {[X6/abs (X6)] * W(j) <0}

KTOT = sum number of stations where

there is load reversal

without a load reversal

No

CALL SUBROUTINE

calculate deflections and perform

gap analysis based on new load

distribution

No

reversal to zero (0.0)

Y5 = max [abs W(i): abs W(k)]

calculate misalignment factor

C5 = Y5/abs (M3)

from last gap analysis by a

significant amount

Yes

OUTPUT

C5 = misalignment factor Km

Z(j) = final gap analysis

W(j) = final load distribution

24

AGMA 927--A01

INPUT Values

The helix is divided into sections of equal length with loads placed in the center of each section.

The sign convention is critical.

G = shear modulus

m = total number of sections

D(j) = major diameter at section j (outside diameter minus 4 standard addendums)

A(j) = inside diameter at section j

W(j) = load at each section j (in base tangent plane)

Y(j) = length of each section

A = sign multiplier to correct for direction of torsional deflection

for j = 1 to m

L(j) = L(j--1) + W(j) sum of load to station j

U(j) = U(j--1) + Y(j--1) sum of length to station j

T(j) = A * L(j) * U(j) * 4D(j)2/[G * 3.1416 * (D(j)4 -- A(j)4)] torsional deflection

OUTPUT

T(j) = torsional deflection across mesh

25

AGMA 927--A01

Annex B

Load distribution examples

In this example a pinion shaft with dimensions as

shown in figure B.1, and with a total load, Fg, of

104 090 N upward is analyzed for mesh gap. This

load is broken into six even loads of 17 348 N each

and gives the shaft deflection shown in table B.1. In

this gap analysis the deflection of the gear is very

small and is assumed to be a straight line. The

values are carried to the significant digits shown to

keep round--off error to a minimum and should not be

confused with the precision of the deflection analysis. A miscellaneous misalignment of 5.08 mm in the

direction to increase mesh gap was included to

account for manufacturing and assembly errors.

Refer to figure B.2 for gap analysis information.

values of L using equation 33 The values for

deflection are micrometers (1 10 --6 meters) and a

value of Cm = 11 N/mm/mm is used.

XL + XL + XL = 4560

1

+ 19.2) 11] 22.83 = 16 320

(B.1)

6

75

Fg = Li = 104 090 N

L1

L4

L2 L3

Miscellaneous

mismatch

65

L

L5 6

Torsional deflection

115.6

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6

55

115.6

22.83

135.6

137

Face width

Rotation

135.6

Mesh gap

Torque path

45

Bearing support

Figure B.1 -- Example sections

22.8

45.7

68.5

91.3

114

Table B.1

Sta. No., i

1

2

3

4

5

6

26

Bending

67.35

72.05

74.45

74.45

72.05

67.35

Deflections, micrometers

Torsional

Misc.

0.00

0.00

--0.94

--1.03

--2.82

--2.06

--5.64

--3.07

--9.40

--4.08

--14.1

--5.08

Total, i

67.35

70.08

69.58

65.74

58.57

48.18

i -- 1

0.00

--2.73

--2.23

1.61

8.78

19.20

Load

Li, N

17 348

17 348

17 348

17 348

17 348

17 348

22.83

(B.2)

L 3 = 22.83 16 320 2.23 11 = 15 760

22.83

(B.3)

L 4 = 22.83 16 320 + 1.61 11 = 16 720

22.83

(B.4)

L 5 = 22.83 16 320 + 8.78 11 = 18 520

22.83

(B.5)

L 6 = 22.83 16 320 + 19.2 11 = 21 140

22.83

(B.6)

Using the non--uniform loads calculated, re--calculate the deflections and new loads in an iteration until

sufficient accuracy has been attained. In this

example, further analysis gives values shown in

table B.2. Therefore:

K H = 21 140 = 1.22

17 350

(B.7)

the first calculation, and although further iterations

did change the values, they did not change the

overall accuracy of the KH calculation. Only six

stations across the face width were used, and this

may not insure sufficient accuracy. However this

example was also run with 20 load stations across

the face width and it only changed the KH value by

4% to 1.27. So within the accuracy of the procedure,

it is not necessary to have large numbers of load

stations. Use of computers make this a moot

AGMA 927--A01

hard to process.

It is necessary to investigate the effects of miscellaneous misalignment in the other direction, and in

varying amounts, as this can have a big impact on

the KH for a gearset. For this example a miscellaneous misalignment of 5.08 mm in a direction to

reduce mesh gap gave a KH = 1.18.

In this example the deflection of the gear was not

considered. In some cases the deflection of the

mating element could make a major impact, especially in overhung designs or multiple reduction units.

This procedure is dependent only on the total

mismatch between the gear teeth and can be used

with equal ease when deflections of both parts are

considered.

In this example the load distribution factor for a low

speed mesh of a double reduction parallel shaft gear

drive is shown. The dimensions, loading and

deflections are as shown in Table B.3 with a figure.

This data is also presented as it appears in the form

of the input and output data files to the computer

program CmSolve. The computer software program

CmSolve was developed to do an analysis as

described in this document. It was used to do an

international comparative analysis in an effort to

improve the calculation of load distribution for load

capacity determinations.

Table B.2

Sta. no., i

1

2

3

4

5

6

Bending

66.98

71.72

74.21

74.31

72.02

67.41

Deflections, micrometers

Torsional

Misc.

0.00

0.00

--0.87

--1.03

--2.58

--2.06

--5.23

--3.07

--8.98

--4.08

--14.1

--5.08

Total, i

66.98

69.82

69.57

66.01

58.95

48.24

i -- 1

0.00

--2.85

--2.59

0.97

8.02

18.7

Load

Li, N

16 410

15 690

15 760

16 660

18 430

21 140

27

AGMA 927--A01

CmSolve Version

4.2.1

01/15/00

AGMA

07:01:00 AM

Crowned

**********************DEFLECTIONS***********************

LENGTH

STATION

LOAD

BENDING

TORSIONAL

MISC.

TOTAL

RELATIVE

(MM)

NUMBER

(N*100)

(MU--M)

(MU--M)

(MU--M)

(MU--M)

(MU--M)

36.223

15.4

15.4

6.7

44.706

18.0

--0.1

--9.5

8.5

7.0

13.41

52.231

20.5

--0.3

--17.9

2.3

13.2

20.11

10

58.850

22.8

--0.7

--25.3

--3.2

18.6

26.81

11

64.605

25.0

--1.2

--31.7

--7.9

23.4

33.52

12

69.535

26.9

--1.9

--37.0

--12.0

27.4

40.22

13

73.668

28.7

--2.8

--41.2

--15.4

30.8

46.92

14

77.030

30.3

--4.0

--44.5

--18.1

33.6

53.62

15

79.640

31.7

--5.3

--46.7

--20.3

35.7

60.33

16

81.508

32.8

--6.8

--47.8

--21.8

37.3

67.03

17

82.642

33.7

--8.5

--48.0

--22.8

38.2

73.73

18

83.040

34.4

--10.5

--47.0

--23.1

38.5

80.44

19

82.694

34.9

--12.6

--45.1

--22.8

38.2

87.14

20

81.590

35.1

--14.9

--42.1

--21.9

37.3

93.84

21

79.708

35.1

--17.4

--38.0

--20.3

35.8

100.55

22

77.017

34.8

--20.0

--33.0

--18.1

33.6

107.25

23

73.483

34.4

--22.7

--26.9

--15.2

30.7

113.95

24

69.064

33.7

--25.5

--19.7

--11.6

27.0

1.179508

100

80

Load / Deflection

60

40

20

0 5

10

15

20

--20

--40

--60

28

25

LOAD (N*100)

BENDING (MU--M)

TORSIONAL (MU--M)

MISC. (MU--M)

TOTAL (MU--M)

RELATIVE (MU--M)

AGMA 927--A01

0,-3,0,.364,0

0,3,0,.364,0

0,4.22,0,.2685,0

0,4.22,0,.2675,0

1763.0507,4.22,0,.001,0

0,4.22,0,.1319,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.2639,0

1584.0435,4.22,0,.1319,0

0,4.2,0,.001,0

-1763.0507,4.2,0,.4115,0

0,4.2,0,.4125,0

-2621.35,11.451,0,1.5,0

7735.76,11.451,0,1.5,0

2621.35,3.5,0,.3,0

0,3.5,0,.3,0

0,3,0,.46,0

0,3,0,.46,0

0,-3,0,0,0

3.77,0,6,0,0,25

2.632,-775.8483,1477.6644

1,1

10.5,4.091,16.604,9,20

0,0,-696.528,85,-99,0,1574.8031

300,340.48,1,4.22

2,.728,0,3,0

2,.537,0,4.22,0

0,0,0,0,0

0,0,0,0,0

0,0,0,0,0

18,4.75,28512.7834,4.22,0

0,0,0,0,0

2,.825,0,4.2,0

2,3,0,11.451,0

2,.6,0,3.5,0

2,.92,0,3,0

1

7.2,2.707,11.37,20,11,1,3

AGMA

ISO Double - LS Pinion - CW - fma=(fHB1**2+fHHB2**2)**0.5

0

29

AGMA 927--A01

CmSolve Version 4.2.1

01-15-2000

ISO Double - LS Pinion - CW - fma=(fHB1**2+fHB2**2)**0.5

AGMA

STA.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

EXTERNAL

FORCE N

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7835.78

0.00

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

0.00

-7835.78

0.00

-11650.44

34381.16

11650.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

FREE BODY

FORCE N

-95459.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

7835.78

0.00

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

7040.19

0.00

-7835.78

0.00

-11650.44

34381.16

11650.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

-65645.28

*SHAFT DIAMETER*

OUTSIDE INSIDE

-76.200

76.200

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

107.188

106.680

106.680

106.680

290.855

290.855

88.900

88.900

76.200

76.200

-76.200

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

SHAFT

LENGTH

9.246

9.246

6.820

6.795

0.025

3.350

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

6.703

3.350

0.025

10.452

10.478

38.100

38.100

7.620

7.620

11.684

11.684

0.000

FACE

BENDING

TORS.

TOTAL

0.0

6.7

13.4

20.1

26.8

33.5

40.2

46.9

53.6

60.3

67.0

73.7

80.4

87.1

93.8

100.5

107.2

114.0

OUTSIDE DIAMETER 95.7580

INSIDE DIAMETER 0.0000

TOOTH STIFFNESS CONSTANT = 2.632

30

X10^6

07:10:04

0.0

4.2

8.2

11.0

13.7

13.7

15.0

17.5

19.9

22.1

24.2

26.1

27.8

29.3

30.6

31.7

32.6

33.2

33.6

33.8

33.8

33.5

33.1

32.4

32.0

32.0

30.3

28.2

19.7

11.1

9.2

7.2

3.8

0.0

0.0

-0.2

-0.5

-1.0

-1.7

-2.5

-3.5

-4.7

-6.0

-7.5

-9.2

-11.0

-13.0

-15.2

-17.5

-20.0

-22.7

-25.5

15.0

17.4

19.4

21.1

22.5

23.6

24.3

24.6

24.6

24.2

23.4

22.2

20.6

18.6

16.3

13.5

10.4

6.9

AGMA 927--A01

CmSolve Version 4.2.1

01-15-2000

ISO Double - LS Pinion - CW - fma=(fHB1**2+fHB2**2)**0.5

AGMA

STA 7

STA 7

STA 7

LENGTH

(MM)

0.00

6.70

13.41

20.11

26.81

33.52

40.22

46.92

53.62

60.33

67.03

73.73

80.44

87.14

93.84

100.55

107.25

113.95

24

24

24

CM= 1.186654

CM= 1.179403

CM= 1.179508

STA.

NO.

LOAD

(N)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

3622.3

4470.6

5223.1

5885.0

6460.5

6953.5

7366.8

7703.0

7964.0

8150.8

8264.2

8304.0

8269.4

8159.0

7970.8

7701.7

7348.3

6906.4

MAX LD= 8303.2282

MAX LD= 8303.9630

TOT LD= 126723

TOT LD= 126723

07:10:04

AVE LD= 7040

AVE LD= 7040

SUM 239200.325

SUM 247301.066

SUM 247066.229

BENDING TORSIONAL

MISC. TOTAL

RELATIVE

CORR

(MU-M)

(MU-M)

(MU-M) (MU-M)

(MU-M)

(MU-M)

15.4

18.0

20.5

22.8

25.0

26.9

28.7

30.3

31.7

32.8

33.7

34.4

34.9

35.1

35.1

34.8

34.4

33.7

0.0

-0.1

-0.3

-0.7

-1.2

-1.9

-2.8

-4.0

-5.3

-6.8

-8.5

-10.5

-12.6

-14.9

-17.4

-20.0

-22.7

-25.5

0.0

-9.5

-17.9

-25.3

-31.7

-37.0

-41.2

-44.5

-46.7

-47.8

-48.0

-47.0

-45.1

-42.1

-38.0

-33.0

-26.9

-19.7

15.4

8.5

2.3

-3.2

-7.9

-12.0

-15.4

-18.1

-20.3

-21.8

-22.8

-23.1

-22.8

-21.9

-20.3

-18.1

-15.2

-11.6

0.0

7.0

13.2

18.6

23.4

27.4

30.8

33.6

35.7

37.3

38.2

38.5

38.2

37.3

35.8

33.6

30.7

27.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

LOAD DIST FACTOR CM= 1.179508

LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR = 1.179508

MISC MISALIGNMENT VALUE =-19.707 MICRO-METER PER HELIX

CROWN AMOUNT VALUE =37.533 MICRO-METER PER HELIX

31

PUBLISHED BY

AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

1500 KING STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

- AGMA 918-A93Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 930-A05Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 915-3-A99Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 938-A05.pdfUploaded byRoro
- AGMA 1103-H07 Tooth Proportions for Fine- Pitch Spur and Helical Gearing (Metric Edition)Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 1102-A03Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 910-C90Uploaded bypablo_stz
- AGMA 929-A06 Calculation of Bevel Gear Top Land and Guidance on Cutter Edge RadiusUploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 911-A94Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 912-A04Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 917-B97 Design Manual for Parallel Shaft Fine-pitch GearingUploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- ANSI AGMA 2015 2A 06Uploaded byhanrotools
- AGMA 914-B04Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 906 A94Uploaded byAnonymous Z5wCELp
- AGMA 915-2-A05Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- Ansi Agma6010 f97Uploaded byvyhtran4731
- Agma Ansi 1006-A97Uploaded byermaksan
- AGMA 915-1-A02 Gears InspectUploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- ANSI-AGMA 2004-B89-1995 Gear Materials and Heat Treatment ManualUploaded bySantosh Shankarappa
- AGMA 2002-B88Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA6011-I03_Specification for High Speed Helical Gear UnitsUploaded byConradodaMatta
- AGMA 925-A03 - Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface DistressUploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA_ANSI_ISO1328_1_99Uploaded byLuis Testa
- AGMA 922-A96 - Load Classification and Service Factors for Flexible Coupling-2Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- AGMA 925-A03 - Effect of Lubrification on Gear Surface Distress.pdfUploaded byAnonymous uL3JlWfh
- AGMA 923-B05Uploaded bysimone.castagnetti
- ANSI_AGMA_2015-1-A01Uploaded byNilson Venancio
- AGMA_913-A98.pdfUploaded byMauricio Adame
- 1012-G05 Gear Nomenclature, Definition of TermsUploaded byPablo Andrés Duque Ramírez

- Kinematic Analysis of SlopesUploaded bylinaweb
- formula studentUploaded byChirila Razvan
- No 31 2012 ASEE Radiator FinalUploaded byGopinath Raghu
- Ch - 5 Gas Well TestingUploaded byMohannad Abdulrahman
- CycloneUploaded byhcorpdgp
- Chapter 2 Conduction AnalysisUploaded byNurul Asyilah
- Electromagnetism NotesUploaded byVineet Kumar Singh
- Gunpowder RocketsUploaded byMartin Echeverria
- Exemplos SINTAPUploaded byDaniele Gouveia
- Rpt Fizik 2013 CartaUploaded bynkhkhadeeja
- Experimental analysis on the risk of vortex ventilation and the free surface ventilation of marine propellersUploaded bynascosannascosan
- Child Pedal Cart DesignUploaded byShiyas Basheer
- Pressure drop in the flow of oil products through pipelines - application for hydraulic calculationUploaded byTI Journals Publishing
- Heat Transfer in Friction Stir Welding—Experimental and Numerical Studies.pdfUploaded byAnonymous pjBjTmvweQ
- 101to130 Gear BoxUploaded bymanoj983@gmail.com
- Maxon Motor GuideUploaded byRadj90
- CDR Vibration Test PlanUploaded byKalaivani Arunachalam
- jse57BUploaded byFides Fuentes Umemura
- Thermo Dyna IcsUploaded byAnkit Chaudhary
- EmiUploaded byRishav Dugar
- Peristaltic Flow of a Conducting Williamson Fluid in a Vertical Asymmetric Channel with Heat Transfer through Porous MediumUploaded byAnonymous vQrJlEN
- solucion al capitulo 16 del serwayUploaded byDiego Perez
- RCCUploaded byNageswar Pattem
- Pipe Flow Expert Compress Ible EquationsUploaded byIsahbani
- Dynamics 11 LectureUploaded byColin Brady
- 3 Fatigue Analysis in PressureUploaded byArjun Charan
- FTFS Chap15 P071Uploaded byAbdulAbdul
- Nozzle Thrust and Efficiency MeasurementUploaded byDhruvNagpal
- oldexam1Uploaded byslator
- II Sem 2 Marks QuUploaded byGnana Ambica