This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

**A COMPARISON OF RATINGS AND REQUIREMENTS OF GEAR STANDARDS
**

————————

Kenneth O. Beckman Chief Engineer of the Power Transmission Division of Lufkin Industries, Inc.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 COMPARISON OF API 613 OR API 677 TO AGMA 6010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He is an active member of the American Gear Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute. . . . . . . . . . . . . API 677. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 KEN BECKMAN Kenneth O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in high-speed gearing and in 1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 6) ISO 9085 . . . . . . . . . . . . He has spent a considerable portion of his time working with users and service departments to solve gearing problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Quality Assurance Department and the Test Stand area were added to his responsibilities in 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 HISTORY OF AGMA 6010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 API 613 AND 677 FORMULAS AND EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART 21 TO AGMA 6011 . . . .4 SPECIFIC QUALITY ASSURANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN API 613 AND AGMA 6011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AND AGMA 6011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 API LENGTH-TO-DIAMETER RATIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incorporated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . .8 OVERVIEW OF DIN 3990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . marine and repair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AGMA 2000 AND ISO 1328 . . . . . . .4 API 613 AND 677 RATING METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 OVERVIEW OF API 613 . . . . . . . . . .2 OVERVIEW OF AGMA 6011 . . . . . .8 COMPARISON OF API 613. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . he was promoted to Chief Engineer responsible for the engineering on all gears including low speed through high speed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 4) COMPARISON OF GEAR-TOOTH ACCURACY STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 2) OVERVIEW OF ISO 13691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beckman received a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Montana State University (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 COMPARISON OF API 613 TO AGMA 6011 – CASE 2 .9 FUTURE GEAR RATING STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 OVERVIEW OF ISO 6336 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . .10 3) PROPOSED RATING CHANGE OF HIGH RATIO API 613 GEAR-SETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 OVERVIEW OF API 677 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 1) REWRITE OF API 613 TO THE FIFTH EDITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 COMPARISON OF DIN 3990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AGMA 6010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He previously served as a Design Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . located in Lufkin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 SPECIFIC TESTING AND DESIGN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN API 613 AND AGMA 6011 . . . . . . . . . . . Beckman is the Chief Engineer of the Power Transmission Division of Lufkin Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and since graduation he has been in gear engineering with Lufkin Industries. .7 COMPARISON OF API 613 TO AGMA 6011 – CASE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He plays an active role in the Texas A & M Turbomachinery Symposium and is currently on the Advisory Board for the University of Southern Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 OVERVIEW OF AGMA 6010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 HELICAL GEAR FORMULAS STANDARD GEARING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 COMPARISONS OF API 613 AND 677 WITH AGMA 6010 AND AGMA 6011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 5) ISO 9084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 HISTORY OF AGMA 6011 . . . . . .

was first released in 1989 using a slightly modified API 613 formula. The intent of this document is to simplify. If a user is not specific or does not have a basic understanding of the different rating systems. Currently. has developed rating standards by consensus using volunteers from the gear manufacturing companies and other interested parties who wish to participate. AGMA. The intent of this paper is to educate the purchaser and user to know what to specify for better understanding of gear ratings and to hopefully reduce gear problems. Centrifugal Compressors Committee is proposing a new gear rating method for high ratio gearsets. respectively. API 677. it appears that gear-sets that have a ratio higher than seven to one will be rated on a simplified version of AGMA 2001. The API 617. the rating system that is used can give very different answers in the amount of power that can be transmitted. ISO 1328-1 and ISO 1328-2 (1995) were later accepted as an ANSI/AGMA document and most likely will become the replacement for AGMA 2000. There are also changes occurring in the gear-tooth quality standards. founded in 1916. the American Petroleum Institute released the second edition of the Special Purpose API 613 Gear Standard. the basic gear-tooth rating formulas are in AGMA 2001. or to a small degree. A final draft of the new international standard equivalent to API 613. the rating formulas were changed to be identical with the API 613 standard. In Europe. 1 . In 1977. which applied to high-speed gearing. then compare the current API. In addition to confusing the purchaser and user. The rating is based on ISO 6336. Even if the supply requirement is simply “AGMA”. The International Organization for Standardization modified DIN 3990 and released ISO 6336 in 1997. For a given gearbox. INTRODUCTION The basis for the gear rating standards in the United States has been developed by the participants in the American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA). and results in slightly different gear ratings than API 613.A COMPARISON OF RATINGS AND REQUIREMENTS OF GEAR STANDARDS ABSTRACT There are many gear-tooth and gearbox rating standards existing in the world. both the German originated specification DIN 3990 and the AGMA standards are used. The General Purpose Low-Speed Gear Standard. and DIN gear standards to help the inexperienced or casual user make intelligent decisions. gear manufacturers are also often confused when transferring back and forth between rating standards. Understanding the manner in which the various rating standards evolved. The two product specific AGMA standards that will be discussed in this paper are 6010 and 6011. the overlap of the standards can supply a gearbox that is a surprise! The end result can be disappointing performance in the field. the price and the reliability of the gearbox can be dramatically affected. the “lowspeed” and “high-speed” standards. it is logical to expect them to give different answers. The probable changes to API and ISO that should occur in the future will also be discussed. The rating formulas were simplified from the AGMA standards and more conservative stresses were required. has been completed. The rating methods used in the API 613 and API 677 standards are highly valued by many because they are consistent between manufacturers and easily checked by purchasers and users. ISO. ISO 13691. Problems have been recognized with AGMA 2000. This confusion is increased when comparing international and domestic standards. At this time. In 1997. so it will be revised or withdrawn. AGMA. but using a de-rating factor to gain conservatism. “API”.

1st Edition Features (1968) • AGMA 421. Following is a brief history of the standard: First Edition .000 feet per minute (60 mps) for parallel shafts or 8. 1968 • Units Rated per AGMA 421. Following is a brief history of the standard: OVERVIEW OF API 613 The API 613 standard is a gear-tooth rating standard and includes detailed quality assurance requirements and more detailed testing requirements as compared to the AGMA standards.06 Rating • 4 Hour Mechanical Test • Bearing Thermometers • Split Journal Bearings 2nd Edition Additions (1977) • Conservative “K Factor” Rating • Provision for Torsiograph • Tilt-pad Thrust Bearing • Provisions for Vibration Probes • SST Internal Piping • Studded Flange Oil Connections • QA Procedures & Documentation • Lateral Critical Speed Analysis • Axially-split Shaft Seals • Material Certification • 4-1/4 Hour Mechanical Test 3rd Edition Additions (1988) • 20 Year Design Life • Hobbing as a Finishing Operation • “Observed” vs. It is limited to gearboxes with gear-tooth pitch-line velocities below 12.000 fpm (150 mps) • Minimum Instrumentation Requirements • 4 Radial Vibration Probes • 2 Axial Vibration Probes • 2 Accelerometers • 12 Temperature Sensors • Residual Magnetism & Run-out Checks • 20 Year QA Records Availability • Additional Vibration Data During Test OVERVIEW OF API 677 The API 677 standard is for general-purpose gears that are usually spared or are in non-critical applications.August. 1995 • Maintained Basic Scope of 3rd Edition • Established Minimum Instrumentation Requirements As the standard evolved.000 feet per minute (40 mps) for bevel shafts.000 horsepower. It is primarily intended for gears that are in continuous service without installed spare equipment. “Witnessed” Inspection • Drawing & Data Requirements • New Allowable Unbalance Procedure 4th Edition Additions (1995) • Gear-Tooth Charts > 30. It is generally limited to 2. A summary of these changes are as follows: 2 .June. basic requirements and features were changed or added.February. 1977 • Conservative “K Factor” Rating Method • Application • Pinion Speed >2900 rpm • PLV >5000 fpm (25 mps) Third Edition . 1988 • Continued Use of “K Factor” Rating Method • Speed & PLV Guidelines Removed • QA Procedures & Documentation Enhanced Fourth Edition .April.06 • Application • Pinion Speed >3600 rpm • Pitch Line Velocity >4000 fpm (20 mps) Second Edition .

01.500 feet per minute (33 meters per second). 1997: • • • • • • • • • • • • • 90 dBA Sound Pressure Level Test Stainless Steel Breather Cap Shaper Cut or Hobbed Gearing Anti-Friction or Hydrodynamic Bearings Axial Stability Check 3 Tooth Contact Checks: 1 at Checking Stand. spur. The 6011G92 was revised to 6011-H98 in 1998. However. 1997 • Rating Changed to be Identical to API 613 • “Generally Limited” to < 2. and the year of the release. 2 in Casing (Pre/Post Test) 1-hr. the revision letter. a hyphen. so care must be taken to specify which standard prevails in the overlap situation. Following are the basic requirements of the current standard. (Both the speed and pitch-line velocity overlap with the AGMA 6011 Standard. The rating methods are now per AGMA 2101.000 hp As compared to the API 613 standard. API 677. resulting in a wide variation of ratings between manufacturers for the same gearbox.500 feet per minute (8 meters per second) in other gear-sets. which is the metric version of AGMA 2001. It does not apply to bevel or internal gearing. Second Edition. the quality assurance requirements are slightly less stringent and the testing requirements are much less stringent. At this revision.July.000 revolutions per minute or the gear-tooth pitch-line velocity is over 6. 1988 • Uses Modified “K Factor” Rating Method • Application • Rated Power < 2.First Edition .) Its gear-tooth rating system refers to the formulas in the basic rating standard AGMA 2001. the formulas for the durability and strength horsepower rating were removed from the standard and were replaced by referring to the basic rating standard AGMA 2001 (2001 was the 218 standard before the new numbering system).500 feet per minute (35 meters per second) in the fastest gear-set and at least 1. Several of the variables in the gear-tooth rating system in AGMA 6010 are allowed a range. No Load Mechanical Run Test Housing Vibration Check During Mechanical Test Aluminum Labyrinth Oil Seals >800 fpm (4 mps) Dynamic Balancing of Gear Elements Vertical Jackscrews and Dowel Pin Starter Holes QA Documentation on File at Vendor’s Plant for 20 Years Mass Elastic Drawing HISTORY OF AGMA 6011 The first high-speed AGMA gear standard was adopted in 1943 as 421. The gear-tooth rating of this standard seems to reasonably repeat when the same gear-set is compared between different gearbox manufacturers. In 1992. OVERVIEW OF AGMA 6010 OVERVIEW OF AGMA 6011 The AGMA 6011 standard is a specification for high-speed enclosed helical gear units. and bevel gears. the strength rating was added.March. The standard evolved through 421. 6011 replaced the old numbering system and the standard became 6011-G92. The AGMA Standard 6010 is a specification for lower speed gear units that can apply to helical. In a multireduction gearbox. In later years. lubrication systems and auxiliary equipment are included.000 hp • PLV < 12. The original standard contained formulas for computing the durability horsepower rating of gearing. Full-Speed. The magnitude of this variation is about plus or minus 20%. The new numbering system would include the standard number. The limitations are speeds up to 4.06 (1968) before the numbering system was changed.000 feet per minute (35 mps). It is recognized as having a good thermal rating method. the gear-tooth pitch-line velocity must be over 6.500 revolutions per minute and pitch-line velocities not over 7.000 fpm (60 mps) Second Edition . This standard is applicable in a single reduction gearbox if the pinion is over 4. 3 .

a revision was released with the new AGMA numbering system as AGMA 6010-E88. The K factor is defined as follows: DESIGN TEST 4 . The application factor reverted back to service factor and the thermal rating section was substantially improved. The method. The durability of the gear-tooth is calculated using “K factor”. developed a simplified rating formula that first appeared in API 613. The API 677. 4th Edition 5 max 3-probe tracks 0. they are equivalent. guidelines only 4w/N Minutely looser Optional Not required. 1997 Standard utilized the same method. Second Edition. paragraph 1. The strength of the gear-tooth is calculated using a “bending stress number” so that the limit is below preset values based on hardness.01 instead of having them in the body of the standard. Selecting and comparing some items in the test and design area are as follows: API 613.1 in/sec filtered Acceleration 4G Critical Speed Checked twice Overspeed 110% for 15 minutes Unfiltered ¥12000/RPM or Vibration Filtered Vibration Temperatures Critical Speed Bearings Radial Bearing Limits 0.4. Balance UT Mag Particle Contact Checks Apex Run-out Journal Run-outs Not required. guidelines only Required Not required. 8/64 inch guideline Required Not required. It substituted the term “application factor” for “service factor” and referred to the basic rating formulas used in AGMA 218.00025 inch or 25% max Required AGMA 6011 H-98 Not checked Recorded only. simplified from AGMA 2001 formulas. 1/16 inch indication 1/64 inch reported indication reported. It refers to the formulas in AGMA 2001-C95 for the durability and strength rating.5. “Gear rated power” is defined in API 613. guidelines only Rolling element or babbitt Sleeve 550 psi. As is typical of the AGMA rating systems. 3-probe tracks Gauss Level E & M Run-out Chemical Analysis Mech. The standard AGMA 420. the universal term used for determining and comparing gear sizes.0005 inch TIR Velocity API 613 AND 677 RATING METHOD API. In 1988.HISTORY OF AGMA 6010 The low-speed enclosed gearbox standard was originally known as AGMA 420. Second Edition. has the two typical criteria of any gear-tooth rating system. Prop.15 in/sec unfiltered 0. the term “service factor” was used to describe the ratio between the maximum and mean torque for a specific application. pad 600 psi & 0. The current standard is AGMA 6010-F97.15 in/sec unfiltered Same Not checked Not checked Same No criteria 54°F rise max guideline Not required.002 inch max 20% of overall @ non sync.0008 inch film SPECIFIC QUALITY ASSURANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN API 613 AND AGMA 6011 The quality assurance area has a more dramatic difference between API 613 Fourth Edition and AGMA 6011 H-98. the durability of the gear-tooth and the strength of the gear-tooth. 50°F rise max Analysis & submittal Babbitt radial and TP thrust 500 psi & 0. SPECIFIC TESTING AND DESIGN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN API 613 AND AGMA 6011 Comparing the details of API 613 Fourth Edition and AGMA 6011 H-98 can be surprising! In some cases. working with the gear manufacturers.001 inch film AGMA 6011 H-98 0. Some of the differences are as follows: API 613. 1977. API 613 AND 677 FORMULAS AND EXAMPLE The K factor is usually calculated at the “gear rated power” stamped on the gearbox nameplate.04 (released in 1975) used a series of formulas and graphs included in the body of the standard to calculate the strength and durability rating of the gear-set.0003 or Not required 0. guideline Three separate times Not required Required Not required 0. 4th Edition 0.

3749_______Degrees “ line 39: Pinion___0. The information on the API 613 data sheet is as follows: Page 1. Fourth Edition). Table 3) _____440___ “ line 21: Gear Service Factor (2.000) / (1. The conditions are a synchronous motor driving a centrifugal compressor through a gearbox. line 42: Net Face Width.4___(Min) Page 2. “Fw”___10. in millimeters.52__ “ line 37: Pitch Dia. geometry factor (from AGMA 908. 1.721__Gear___33. in kilowatts (horsepower).800 x 145 / 38) 8. in revolutions per minute. It is calculated at the gear rated power. Wt can be expressed as follows: Wt = (126.2.000Pg) / Npd Equation 3 bending stress number. mn = module number. The allowable K factor at the gear rated power will vary with the materials selected for the gear teeth. The allowable bending stress number depends on materials selected for the gear teeth.721 Wt = 18. helix angle. and the service factor. The bending stress number is calculated as follows: In SI Units: S = [Wt / (mnFw)](SF)[(1. Pg = gear rated power. normal diametral pitch. Im = material index number (from Table 3 and Figure 3 in API 613. Fourth Edition).026___In “ line 40: Helix Angle__29.91 x 107)Pg] / Npd Equation 1 In U.8 cos γ) / J] Equation 5 5 . in millimeters (inches). the tooth hardening processes used. The allowable K factor is calculated as follows: Ka = Im / (SF) Equation 4 As an example. in newtons (pounds). Geometry Factor For Determining Strength Of Gear Teeth).2.S. d = pinion pitch diameter. customary units: S = [Wt Pnd) / Fw](SF)[(1. The strength of the gear-tooth is calculated using the bending stress number.55____Gear____0. in millimeters (inches).58___ “ line 22: Material Index Number (Fig 2. let’s go through an actual petrochemical plant gearbox calculation. substitute the above into the equation (3): Wt = (126. The motor is name-plated at 9000 horsepower.000 x 9. Wt = transmitted tangential load at the operating pitch diameter. In Pinion____8.S.016-0. Fw = net face width. and the service factor. Np = pinion speed. Where: K = tooth pitting index in megapascals (pounds per square inch). line 36: Pinion (s)____AISI 9310H VD____Hardness__58 RC Minimum___ “ line 37: Gear Rim(s)__AISI 9310H VD____Hardness__58 RC Minimum___ Solving for the transmitted tangential load in pounds.279__ “ line 35: Number of Teeth Pinion___38___Gear____145__ “ line 43: Normal Diametral Pitch___5__Backlash___0.K = [Wt / dFw][(R + 1) / R] In SI units: Wt = [(1. the tooth hardening processes used. SF = minimum gear service factor (from Table 2 in API 613. R = number of teeth in the gear divided by number of teeth in the pinion.000Pg) / N pd Wt = (126.0 Service Factor.5__In Pinion L/D___1.8 cos γ) / J] Equation 6 Where: S = Pnd = γ = J = Equation 2 In U. customary units.932 pounds Where: Ka = allowable K factor.1)______1. operating at 1800 RPM.

The bending stress number formula is given in equation (6). substitute the above into the equation (1): .30 0°. The value can be found either in Table 3 or Figure 3 on page 7 of API 613.4)((1. 25°.721 x 10.3749) /.3749) /. They will also be on the data sheets.40 .5)) ((145 / 38) + 1) / (145/38)) K = 261 The allowable K factor is calculated from the equation (5): Ka = Im /(SF) The Material Index Number is based on the hardness and the heat treating process. The response usually is that being substantially below the allowable only increases the service factor which is already very high.721) /10. so both must be checked. 20°.50 500 150 60 30 20 . The strength rating is checked by using the formula for the bending stress number.8 x cos 29. The geometry factor (designated by “J”) is to account for stress concentration in the root of the tooth. It will be different from the pinion to the gear. The maximum allowable bending stress per Figure 4 is 38.58) S = 34. J Factors for 20 Degree Pressure Angle Gears K = [Wt / dFw][(R + 1) / R] GEOMETRY FACTOR . HELIX ANGLE . therefore.4)((1. 5°. therefore the durability portion of the rating meets API 613 Standard.500. 35°.8 x cos 29. The Minimum Gear Service Factors are in Table 2 on page 6. The hardness in this example is the same on both parts at 58 RC so the same maximum allowable bending stress applies. but often the pinion is harder than the gear.70 Graph (1).60 . We conclude that the gear-set strength rating meets the API 613 Standard. .025 Substituting into the equation to solve for the gear bending stress number: S = ((18.5)(1.55) S = 36.932 x 8.Solving for the K factor at rated conditions.J K = ((18. 30°. which is more than either the pinion actual bending stress (36.ψ Notice that the pinion will have a different bending stress number than the gear.4 Ka = 314 The actual K factor of 261 is less than the allowable K factor of 314. Substituting into equation (6) to solve for the pinion bending stress number: S = ((18. Fourth Edition as well as the data sheets.025) or the gear actual bending stress (34.5)(1.721) /10.113). it is not necessary. It will vary slightly between manufacturers depending on the shape of the roughing and finishing tool as well as heat treating distortion. 10°. Substituting into the equation: Ka = 440 / 1.113 The bending stress number for the gear and pinion can be compared to the allowable bending stress number in Figure 4 on page 8 in API 613. 15°. 6 NUMBER OF TEETH .932 / 8. A copy of typical geometry factors is included as Graph (1) to give a guideline for this value. Gearbox users sometimes question the manufacturer when the actual K factor is the same or only slightly below the allowable K factor.932 x 8.

The guidelines are listed in Paragraph 2.2. For double helical gear-sets. Fourth Edition. The third will compare AGMA 6010 to API 677 for an induction motor driving a fan. In some examples.3. therefore the gap can change slightly depending on the type of process used. etc.6. For this application.125 2 2 purchaser.6. the calculation should include the gap. The gas turbine speed has been selected at 5.2.400 RPM and the generator speed at 3. L/d = (10.5 1 0.3.API LENGTH-TO-DIAMETER RATIOS All gear-tooth rating standards recognize that it is difficult to maintain equal loading across the width of the geartooth.000 HP.600 RPM. If the L/d had calculated higher than 1.2.5 SERVICE FACTOR 2 1.52 Per Table 3 of API 613.1 Service Factor.5 and Figure 3 of API 613. Referring to Graph (2). first.000 Horsepower data point is pictorially represented as follows by an API 613 rated gear-set on the left and an 7 . such as very high pitchline velocities. the maximum allowable L/d ratio for this example is 1.75 2. the calculation is typically based on the shorter of the pinion or the gear-tooth length.375 2. this may be recommended and should be carefully considered.3.6. therefore. Fourth Edition. the 20. For our purposes.721 L/d = 1. if they are different.) per API 613. The second will compare AGMA 6011 to API 613 for a synchronous motor driving a compressor. usually referred to as the L/d ratio. Following in Table (1) is typical information on gap widths as a function of the normal diametral pitch (Pnd): Table 1 TYPICAL GAP WIDTHS FOR DOUBLE HELICAL GEARS Gap Width (inches) 4 2. The generally accepted method for controlling this problem is to limit the shape of the pinion. Speeds: 5400 RPM to 3600 RPM 3 2. the L/d meets the API 613 Standard without the justification per Paragraph 2. The gap is usually required because of the manufacturing process.5 0 Pnd 2 4 6 8 10 12 For the petrochemical plant gear-box example.5 + 2. then the manufacturer could have submitted a detailed analysis of the gear-tooth deflection and loading per Paragraph 2. 5. Fourth Edition and then to rate the same gear-sets per AGMA 6011-H98. then the dynamic bending and twisting of the pinion is less than if it were smaller in diameter and longer.75) / 8. The fourth and final comparison will present the data in a different manner.6 and discussed this with the 1000 5000 10000 20000 40000 60000 80000 HORSEPOWER AGMA Service Factor API Service Factor A different way to present the difference between the size of the gear-set rated by both standards is to pictorially represent them. both API 613 and AGMA 6011 require a 1. using an example that fits into the overlap region where both AGMA 6011 and 6010 and API 613 and 677 can apply. Graph (2) shows the service factor calculated by AGMA 6011 and API 613 for identical gear-sets: Graph (2). API 613 and 677 control the shape by giving limits on the length-todiameter ratio. 10. COMPARISON OF API 613 TO AGMA 6011 – CASE 1 The method used will be to size seven gear-sets at different powers of gas turbines (1.000 HP. For single helical gear-sets. If a pinion diameter is large as compared to it’s length. the comparison will be AGMA 6011 to API 613 for a turbine driving a generator. COMPARISONS OF API 613 AND 677 WITH AGMA 6010 AND AGMA 6011 There are many ways to compare the API gear-tooth ratings to the AGMA ratings.000 HP. the total face width of the pinion and the gear is the sum of the net face width plus the gap.

) 3200 API 613 16. AGMA 6010. Graph (4) is plotted for seven different gear-sets at different power ratings: Graph (4).3 horsepower or 0. the overlap is small.AGMA 6011 rated gear-set on the right. For this example. AND AGMA 6011 As discussed earlier.6% Oil Flow (gpm) 17 Weight (lbs. an example of a 3000 horsepower electric motor at 1785 RPM driving through a gearbox to a 5.75 Mechanical Rating (HP) 4.4 for this application. Graph (3) is plotted for seven different gear-sets at different power ratings as follows: Graph (3). API 677. An overlap can also occur between API 613 and API 677.00 9.428 44.652 HP Loss 43.5 0 1000 5000 10000 20000 40000 60000 80000 HORSEPOWER AGMA Service Factor API Service Factor AGMA Service Factor API Service Factor COMPARISON OF API 613. Speeds: 1780 RPM to 400 RPM 6 5 COMPARISON OF API 613 TO AGMA 6011 – CASE 2 The most common application of the API 613 Standard is a motor driving a compressor. COMPARISON OF API 613 OR API 677 TO AGMA 6010 A typical application that could specify API 677 and also fit in the speed and velocity limitations of AGMA 6010 is a motor driving through a speed reducing gearbox to a fan. To understand how much the API 613 standard affects the efficiency.780 RPM and the fan is 400 RPM.) 7. The following chart gives the resulting face width and center distance to meet the minimum service factor for that standard.000 feet per minute (35 mps).5 1 0. Fortunately.800 RPM motor driving through a speed increasing gearbox to a centrifugal compressor at 6.800 horsepower.6 98. The more robust API 613 gearbox is slightly less efficient than the smaller AGMA 6011 version. 1.000 and 4.500 and the gear-tooth pitch-line velocity is between 6. The overlap exists when both the RPM is between 4.) 14.600 RPM centrifugal compressor is offered: 8 . This comparison is based on an 1. there is an overlap area between AGMA 6010 and AGMA 6011. the motor speed is 1. An example of a gearbox fitting into this overlap is an 1.5% 23 4400 The decrease in efficiency of 1. The AGMA 6011 gear-set scale is 79% of the scale of the API 613 gear-set.800 RPM electric motor driving through a speed increasing gearbox to a 4.5 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 SERVICE FACTOR HORSEPOWER 2 1.3 Efficiency 98.1.000 RPM.75 7.04 percent of the transmitted power is very small.500 feet per minute (33 mps) and 7. Speeds: 1800 RPM to 6000 RPM 3 SERVICE FACTOR 4 3 2 1 0 2. The service factor for both API 613 and AGMA 6011 is 1.000 RPM centrifugal compressor. The service factor in both gear-sets is 1. Unit Data AGMA 6011 Center Distance (in.00 Net Face Width (in.

Method C is a simplified method used for narrow applications. or C.215 RPM driving a 3. for use with DIN 3990. and lubricant factors. the test was stopped when pitting first appeared.4 service factor. such as the dynamic and load distribution factor. unlike the AGMA 6011 Standard. They are appropriate for comparing DIN 3990 and AGMA 6011.The chart also gives the AGMA 6011 service factor for each gear-set so that the robustness and cost can be compared: AGMA 6010 AGMA 6011 API 677 API 613 Center Distance Net Face Width AGMA 6011 S. and Japan. AGMA 6011-H98 has examples in Annex E that are often used as a basis for comparisons between gear standards. PART 21 TO AGMA 6011 An actual application that gives a comparison between DIN 3990. The ISO 6336 is recognized as being more complex and detailed than AGMA 2001.23 inches.F.233 RPM.800 RPM synchronous motor. AGMA would allow the driver to have 4.20 100% 10 7 1. Example #2 in Annex E could be a gas turbine at 8. 6336-2 Calculation of gear-tooth surface compressive stress and permissible compressive stress. The theory in ISO 6336-2 is based on the fundamental Hertzian equations for surface stress.000 RPM or greater. Strength And Quality Of Materials. in decreasing order of accuracy. a new material grade. The ISO 6336-3 section is based 9 .70 180% 14 7 2. The appropriate AGMA Standard for comparison is AGMA 2001. Part 21. Part 21 and AGMA 6011 is an 1.480 gear.70 290% OVERVIEW OF DIN 3990 The DIN 3990 Standard. 6336-5 Strength and quality of materials. The latest release was in 1989. The conclusion is that DIN 3990 calculates a minor increase over AGMA 6011 for through-hardened gearing and a major increase for carburized gearing. material. however. Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical Gears. Method B uses detailed calculations to correlate field data to similar designs and is the method typically used in the industrial gear market. It is generally recognized that the DIN 3990 Standard is not suitable for through-hardened gear-sets.38 110% 14 7 2. DIN 3990 would allow 92% more power. driving a centrifugal compressor at 14. The Standard gives three methods to calculate the ratings. The gear-set supplied is through-hardened with a 22 inch center distance. It was released in 1997.627 Horsepower. The gear-set is throughhardened and has a 15.3 service factor.229 horsepower when using the correct 1. They are as follows: 6336-1 Definitions and influence factors. which is not regarded as a failure point for throughhardened gearing. MX. Example #1 in Annex E has a 5. 6336-3 Calculation of the tensile stress in the root of the gear-tooth and the permissible bending stress.000 RPM pinion driving a 1. method A. Cost 10 6 1. is intended to be applied to gearboxes with a pinion that is rotating at 3. DIN 3990 would allow 16% more horsepower for the same service factor. It evolved from the 1987 DIN 3990 Standard. was created and temporarily put into ISO 6336-5. COMPARISON OF DIN 3990.748 center distance with an effective face-width of 10 inches. The gear-set is carburized and has a 16. so there is a strong similarity between the two.5 inches. During testing. The Standard is broken into four categories. is the gear rating standard that has been adopted by the European Community. the Eastern Bloc.5 inch center distance with an effective face-width of 10. It is single helical with an effective face of 6. requiring about 20 more pieces of information to calculate a gear-set rating. it is not possible to calculate the capacity of the gear-set unless you know the load. Because some of the factors are load dependent. B. As consensus on this point was gained.600 RPM generator. speed.58 whereas DIN 3990 would allow 17% more horsepower for the same service factor.400 horsepower with a 1. This standard is based on analyzing a gear-set with 100 millimeter centers. AGMA would allow the gas turbine to have 26. 4. then modifying the results by a series of factors such as size. OVERVIEW OF ISO 6336 ISO 6336. Method A often includes full size testing as would be appropriate in the aerospace industry. The calculated AGMA 6011 service factor is 1. this would probably be de-rated due to scoring calculations or require that special lubricants be used. surface condition. very similar to AGMA 2001. This resulted in the allowable stresses being set lower than necessary.

3) New rotor dynamics section with correlation on the test stand. For instance. The proposed rating method is more complicated than API 613 because of the increased detail.6. One large difference is the greater design detail in ISO 6336 required. nor does AGMA 2001 calculate a service factor. testing. the capacity of a gear-set cannot be calculated until you know the load. Accuracy grade 4 is minimum allowable. Another difference from AGMA 2001 is that since the ISO dynamic factor and the load distribution factor are dependent on load. 3) PROPOSED RATING CHANGE OF HIGH RATIO API 613 GEAR-SETS A different rating method has been proposed for high ratio compressors that would have been rated by API 613. ISO 6336 does not directly calculate an allowable power for a gear-set. figures.” Comparisons with API 613 have resulted in virtually the same durability ratings. but ISO 6336 has higher durability ratings for carburized gearsets. 5) Integral shaft ends. has been balloted.new spec was published and released in June 2003. 10 “The allowable contact stress numbers (for surface durability) and allowable bending stress number (for bending strength) are established by applying the principal that the successful and satisfactory gear design experience when using Standard API 613 be fully maintained. Paragraph G. The API 617 committee is reviewing a proposal to change the method of rating the gear-sets with a ratio greater than 7. to the extent that the layout. This is to evaluate the uneven loading across the length of the tooth. It is necessary to iterate until the required safety factor is achieved. resulting in the J-Factor being reasonably close at a 20 degree pressure angle. This hardness combination is not addressed in API 613. *(Editor’s note . we find substantial differences. The standard is obviously derived from API 613. The methods used to rate the gear-set are similar to API 613. 2) A life cycle factor modifies the rating for the number of cycles that a gear-tooth will see. but have been derived from ISO 9084. The difference in strength ratings is probably because of the different methods in calculating the “J-factor”. It may be two years before release. The durability rating is about the same for through-hardened gear-sets. These high ratio gear-sets are typically used in integral compressor drives and often use a carburized pinion with a through-hardened gear. Gears-High-Speed SpecialPurpose Units for the Petroleum.3. Chemical and Gas Industries. The added areas are: 1) A load distribution factor modifies the gear-set rating for the dynamic deformation of the gear teeth. The gear-tooth strength ratings seem to always be higher using ISO 6336. but different strength ratings.on simplified cantilever beam theory somewhat similar to AGMA 2001. FUTURE GEAR RATING STANDARDS There are six areas of gear rating standards that most likely will change in the near future: 1) REWRITE OF API 613 TO THE FIFTH EDITION* The Fifth Edition of API 613 is in the final draft stage and should be released in mid-2002. some . Some of the expected changes are: 1) The material requirement upgraded to ISO MX or ME. 4) Higher L/d limits allowed. Gear manufacturers recognize that a more detailed analysis is important on high ratio gearing. but diverging at higher pressure angles. 2) Gear-tooth charts per ISO 1328 are required. To quote Annex G.) 2) OVERVIEW OF ISO 13691 The final draft of ISO 13691. and data sheets are easily recognized. When we compare identical gear-set ratings calculated by ISO 6336 and AGMA 6011. This is about equivalent to the AGMA Grade 2 material.0 to 1.

designs have many pinions in mesh with one gear. Be aware that the API service factors will probably be less than unity. The decision was appealed and is going through the AGMA appeal process. The major difference is in the numbering system. 4) Both ISO and DIN standards generally have higher ratings than AGMA standards for carburized gearsets and have a very complex analysis. A manufacturer’s perspective could be to use the ratings to gain a competitive edge and supply a less robust gear unit. 4) COMPARISON OF GEAR-TOOTH ACCURACY STANDARDS. respectively. ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328 is much different than AGMA 2000. The gear-tooth profile section of ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328 has improved “K” chart definitions as compared to AGMA 2000. 6) ISO 9085 An international standard specific for the low-speed products. but the comparison should indicate the most robust gear-set. This has long been a complaint of AGMA 2000. ISO 1328-1 (1995) and ISO 1328-2 (1997) have been accepted by AGMA and released as ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328-1 and ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328-2. should be released in 2001. However. some gear-set ratings were slightly higher and some were slightly lower than API 613. ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328 uses tables instead of formulas. the gear-set ratings are close. Two new standards. Gear Classification and Inspection Handbook. the “Rule of 17” is typically used. However. 2) AGMA 6011 has good repeatability between manufacturers. The geartooth spacing section of ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328 is regarded as an improvement over AGMA 2000. CONCLUSION The conclusion is that the gear-set rating standards in common use are very different and therefore very confusing. 5) ISO 9084 An international standard specific for the high-speed products. so everyone should get the same answer. was released in 2000. 3) A dynamic factor has been added to compensate for the quality of the gear teeth. It could be appropriately compared to the AGMA 6010 Standard. ISO 9085. To reduce some of the confusion that a user may have. The gear has many cycles for every turn it makes. In comparisons presented to the API 617 Committee. Subtract the AGMA quality number from 17 and the answer is reasonably close to the ANSI / AGMA ISO class. As a result. The allowable rating factors are from AGMA 2101 (metric version of the 2001 standard) so they will be consistent with API 613. the AGMA ratings were from 20 to 93% higher based on durability and 18 to 40% higher based on strength than the proposed method. While is it impossible to define a direct comparison. so this factor has a relatively small effect. has very lenient allowable errors in the lead of the gear-tooth. AGMA 2000. 3) AGMA 6010 has a wide variation in ratings between manufacturers. The AGMA numbering system for different classes of accuracy is from Q3 to Q15. so a minute change in one of the parameters can cause a large change in the allowable accuracy value. In a comparison with AGMA 6011. At the typical speeds of these gear-sets. 5) ANSI / AGMA 1328 is an improvement over AGMA 2000. the AGMA members voted to withdraw the standard. All of the factors will be specified. the allowable lead errors for wide face widths in ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328 are tighter than in AGMA 2000. The ANSI / AGMA ISO system is just the opposite. AGMA 2000 AND ISO 1328 It is recognized that the gear-tooth accuracy Standard. but usually there are significant differences in the ratings when comparing different standards. For some applications. it may be helpful to compare offers from different manufacturers by calculating and then comparing the API service factors. 11 . consisting of 13 classes with zero being the most precision and 12 the least precision. there are some general statements that can be useful for the typical gear unit user: 1) The API standards always result in a substantially more robust gear-set. but is not as complex an analysis as the ISO standards. It is comparable to the AGMA 6011 Standard. To compare the two standards in more detail. ISO 9084. the accuracy has to be very good. The information in ANSI / AGMA ISO 1328-1 covers virtually everything that is needed for the usual gear inspections. gear manufacturers generally agree that ISO 1328 is a better standard than AGMA 2000. in order of increasing precision. The results are very repeatable between manufacturers. In conclusion.

Db = Pn cos φb 21. Z = do2 . d = n 2C = Pn cos ψ mG + 1 2C mG N = Pn cos ψ mG + 1 2 ac Pn 2 ac Pn 2 bc Pn 2 bc Pn 11. sin ψb = sin ψ cos φn n cos φn 19. PN = cos φn Pn 6. gear = Addendum constant of cutting tool = Dedendum constant of cutting tool = Whole depth of tooth = Pitch diameter. dR = d 7. pinion = Base circle diameter. gear np mG Vt Wt Wr Wx Psc φn φt PN ψb db Db Z = Revolutions per minute. Wx = Wt tan ψ 14. pinion = Outside diameter. gear = Outside diameter. pinion = Number teeth. DR = D 8. pinion = Root diameter. cos ψ = N + n 2 Pn C 2. gear = Root diameter. gear = Length of line of action NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ENGLISH UNITS. pinion = Gear ratio = Pitch line velocity (ft. do = d + 5.Db 2 ac + bc 9. pinion = Pitch diameter.GEAR FORMULAS HELICAL GEAR FORMULAS STANDARD GEARING 1.C sin φt ψ C Pn Pt n N ac bc ht d D do Do dR DR = Helix angle = Center distance = Normal diametral pitch = Transverse diametral pitch = Number teeth. C = d+D 2 18. mG = 15. Do = D + 16./min. Wr = Wt tan φn cos ψ 3. 12 . ht = Pn 10. tan φt = N n tan φn cos ψ 4. Vt = dnp 12 . db = Pn cos ψb N cos φn 20. Pt = Pn cos ψ 17. D = 13. Wt = 126000 Psc np d 12.) = Tangential load on tooth = Radial load on tooth (separating) = Axial load on tooth (thrust) = Service or transmitted horsepower = Normal pressure angle = Transverse pressure angle = Normal base pitch = Base helix angle = Base circle diameter.db 2 + 2 Do2 .

- Optimized Straight Bevel Gear
- BEVEL Gears
- Articol Intering 2007 Silvas Engleza
- Experience
- Theory of Machine Student Manual
- Final Exam Mechanics of Machine
- A343E
- ISO_DIS_6336!6!2004_Calculation of Service Life Under Variable Load(en)
- Eclipse Gearbox wind turbine
- Helical Gears
- a New Photoelastic Investigation
- 5331_64
- Gear Types, Spur, Helical, Bevel, Rack and Pinion, Worm - Engineers Edge
- gears
- Gear
- epicyclic Gear Train
- Bearing Glossary
- Manual
- Final Project
- USSAT Final Report
- Are Poor Lubrication Practices Threatening This Promising Source of Clean Energy
- Caja de cambio Caracteristicas T318.pdf
- Apuntes_Basic_Rack_Book_review_Colbourne_Geometry.pdf
- 07-MADEC05
- Project File
- MR8
- gsk gear correction calculation
- w q 01312341241
- Approximate Equation for the Addendum Modification Factors for Tooth Gears With Balanced Specific Sliding
- Calcule Winch

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd