AGMA Tribology Test Report Provides Insights on Gear Lubrication Testing

AGMA Tribology Test Report
Compiled by W. A. Bradley
American Gear Manufacturers Association

Helical Gear Rating Committee
Report of the Tribology Test Program
Overview
This report covers the gear lubrication testing and analysis accomplished during the active years
of the AGMA Tribology Test Program. The program was conceived and run by members of the
AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee with partial funding through the AGMA Foundation. The
work started in 2000, after a successful prototype study, with the manufacture of 100 gear sets.
Test gear design, material, a majority of the manufacturing and some testing was accomplished
by in-kind contributions of interested company members of the committee. In addition, a second
batch of test gears was manufactured for sale to those wishing to conduct other test programs.
The AGMA testing began in January 2001 and continued through 2005. This program included
two parts; a benchmark set of eight tests by each of four laboratories and a planned set of
twenty four tests by each of the laboratories. The second part was not completed for the lack of
funding and various reasons that are discussed in the report. Only 41 of the 96 Part 2 tests
were completed.
Although only about two thirds of the totally planned tests were accomplished, significant
conclusions and knowledge were gained that included:
- A test program to achieve significant data on the affect of lubricants on gear life requires
tests that duplicate actual operation. This requires, at least, duplication of surface
features, contact pressures, rolling-sliding velocities, and operating temperatures, which
normally requires many hours of testing for the extended fatigue lives;
- Wear induced profile changes are important. An initial failure mode at high contact
stresses is different from that at lower loads. At high loads, the local stress at first
contact can cause early wear that affects the profile and load distribution during contact
for the remaining life.
- A 220 R&O lubricant performed significantly better than a 220 EP lube at 300 Ksi and
higher contact stresses. At lower contact stresses, scatter made it difficult to determine
if this occurs and in some tests at lower loads this trend shows a tendency to reverse;
- In addition to the familiar failure modes, there were areas of very shallow surface re-
hardening on tested teeth, due to frictional heat in the mesh at high contact stresses.
This was a previously unknown (or at least unpublished) gear damage mode. It was
learned that the re-hardening tooth damage was probably not a primary failure mode,
but an effect of running the damaged (micropitted) teeth at high loads.
Additional conclusions are contained in the report. Much of testing indicated that carefully
controlled tests, gear design, and manufacturing can produce meaningful test data and those
typical failure modes of highly loaded carburized gears in service today can be duplicated.
At the writing of this report, there were over 40 gear sets from the original batch and 28 from the
second batch remaining for future test programs. It is the sincere desire of the program steering
committee that the remaining gear sets be used to develop additional knowledge to advance the
application of gears and their lubrication.
Page 1 of 29
1. Introduction
In the late 1990’s the AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee (HGRC) was of the opinion that the gear
lubricant industry needed valid tests to develop better lubricants for industrial gear drives. A Tribology
subcommittee of the HGRC laid the groundwork for a test program and established a steering committee
to manage the test effort. The materials, manufacturing and heat treating were donated by interested
companies.
This test program was developed to provide a way to increase the accuracy of gear capacity calculation
standards like ISO 6336 and AGMA 2001 by providing a better way to evaluate the performance of
lubricants that provide pitting and micropitting resistance for industrial carburized gear applications. It has
been found from practical experience that changes in lubricants can have a pronounced effect on gear
pitting resistance. The AGMA test program was designed to evaluate the changes in gear life due to
lubricant viscosity, base stock and additive type at various loads. The program used test gears designed
to represent industrial gears, capable of different failure modes under different lubrication conditions and
intended to represent the actual performance of gears and lubricants in typical applications. Also, the
program was intended to be capable of evaluating lubricant performance in all gear surface failure
modes. The specifically designed AGMA test gear sets were manufactured to operate in existing test
machines that are widely available at many gear and lubrication research facilities around the world.
The program also intended to validate a standard test procedure, which could be used to evaluate gear
lubricants of all kinds. The prototype test gear design indicated that it could scuff, or micropit, or
macropit, or break depending on the lubricant and test load. Therefore, by using common test machines
and the designed test gears, any lubricant could be evaluated for use as a gear lubricant or compared to
existing or previously tested lubricants. However, the main objective of the test program was to develop
a lubricant factor that could be used in rating calculations for gear performance in industrial applications.
Although all of the initial goals could not be achieved within the limits of the testing performed, significant
knowledge was obtained that needed to be documented in a report to inform the gear industry.
Hopefully the work can be used as a basis for future testing and gear lubrication application.
2. Scope and Objectives of the program
The program was designed to develop information for an industrial gear lubricant dependant rating factor
for existing life calculation methods. It is known that the choice of the proper lubricant is critical in
achieving the desired gear application life, but is not addressed adequately in existing calculation
procedures. The proposed test specifically considered surface distress failure modes of macropitting
and micropitting on carburized and hardened gears using a readily available test machine.
Currently, AGMA standards only require the presence of adequate lubrication and ISO standards only
weakly consider the effect of viscosity, speed and surface finish. The combined effect of these factors in
the ISO calculation is seldom far from 1.0, which implies little effect from changes in lubricants. It is
known from practical experience that changes in lubricants have a pronounced effect on gear pitting
resistance. Darle Dudley proposed changing calculating standards to recognize three basic lubrication
regimes at least 25 years ago, but test results have not been made public to support his proposal. The
AGMA test program intended to evaluate the changes in gear life due to lubricant viscosity, base stock,
and additive type at various loads. Future tests, using the same procedure, could evaluate lubricant
performance for other conditions such as different operating speed and surface roughness.
An objective was that the AGMA test program would evolve into a standard test procedure, which could
be used to evaluate lubricants for use in gear applications and to compare their performance with
previously tested lubricants. This can be done using test machines that are available worldwide in most
lubrication research laboratories and test gears that can be produced from publicly available drawings.
Page 2 of 29
Some standardized gear lubricant tests were developed by the Technische Universität München,
Lehrstuhl für Maschinenelemente Forschungsstelle für Zahnräder und Getriebebau (FZG) in Garching,
German. They use gears specifically designed to promote a single gear failure mode in order to
discriminate between lubricants. However, they do not yield numerical values useful in calculating real
gear capacity. The FZG scuffing test, recognized in an ISO standard, is a currently accepted test widely
used to compare the scuffing capacity of gear lubricants. The gears used are designed to scuff and are
very different from industrial gears. The FZG pitting test used gears of more standard proportions, but
without lead or profile modification. A disadvantage of testing for a single failure mode is that lubricants
developed to have high performance in the scuffing test may have low resistance to micropitting or
macropitting. Good industrial gear lubricants should avoid all surface failure modes.
The AGMA program designed test gears that are more like industrial gears, capable of producing
different failure modes under different lubrication conditions. Thus it is intended for them to represent
actual performance of gears and lubricants in typical industrial applications. Prototype testing indicated
that the test gears could fail by scuffing, or micropitting, or macropitting, or break, depending on the
lubricant and test load. The AGMA test gears are designed to run on the FZG test machine, which is
widely available at many gear and lubrication research facilities around the world.
2. Historical background
Between 1997 and 1999, the AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee (HGRC) developed the basic test
procedure with strong participation from manufacturers (Caterpillar, Cincinnati Gear, Lufkin, Dorris, Falk,
and Allison), consultants, material suppliers (Timken), and lubricant specialists from Mobil, Texaco and
Lubrizol. The HGRC laid the groundwork for this test program and interested companies donated all of
the design time, materials, manufacturing, testing and evaluation of six sets of prototype test gears. See
Annex I for the presentation of the prototype test results given at the 1998 AGMA Fall Technical Meeting.
An overview of these results is presented in the next section (3) of this report.
Donated, in-kind, efforts worked well for the prototype testing on a small scale, but could not support the
program required to develop and validate a standard test procedure. In 1999, the HGRC realized it
needed financial support to implement a program of sufficient tests to gain meaningful data and
presented a proposal to the AGMA Foundation for a multipart program, see Annex II.
In 2000, the acceptance and backing by AGMA Table 1 - In-Kind Work Contributed
Foundation enabled members of the HGRC to Donated Items Donator
raise $85,000 of corporate donations (from Bar stock 30,000# Timken
Gleason, Caterpillar, Equilon, Falk, Horsberg & Cutting Hobs Star Cutter
Scott, and Brad-Foote), which were managed by Gear Manufacture 100 sets (less grinding) Merit
the AGMA Foundation for the tests reported Gear Manufacture 110 sets (less grinding) Forest City
herein. In addition, there were considerable Grinding Wheels Kapp
amount of in-kind work contributed, see Table 1. Gear Grinding & Inspection Fairfield
The gear design, material, manufacturing and Test Machines Exxon Mobil
inspection data is contained in Annex III. Test Machines parts Cincinnati Gear
Test slave gears GM Allison
Phase 1 Part 1 (Benchmark) testing was
Testing Kluber
contracted with three laboratories. The testing
Testing Lubrizol
was conducted between January 2001 and May
Test lubricants Lubrizol
2001. Each laboratory conducted eight tests,
four each with an ISO VG 220EP and an ISO VG
220R&O lubricant. The FZG Test Rig was torqued to 300 Nm for each test. See Annex IV for detail test
specifications and data collected. The data was analyzed by the project steering committee and reported
in October 2001 to the project donors, see presentation in Annex V. Presentation feedback, on the
Page 3 of 29
amount of data point separation of the lubricants and some investigations by Steering Committee
members, plus testing by Lubrizol, led to modifications of the test program for Phase 1 Part 2.
Between October 2001 and February 2002 a fourth laboratory conducted the eight tests, in-kind, which
supplied additional data (also in Annex IV) for analysis. However, this data was not used to determine
the modifications of the test program for Phase 1 Part 2. The results of all benchmark tests and
investigations are discussed in Section 4.
All four laboratories conducted various Phase 1 Part 2 tests between February 2002 and March 2004.
Tests included each laboratory using ISO VG 68EP, 68R&O, 220EP, 220R&O, and 460EP lubricants. In
order to attempt to increase the separation of data points the FZG test torque was lowered to 265 Nm.
See Annex VI for detail test specifications and data collected for Phase 1 Part 2. Unfortunately
circumstances limited the amount of data collected, there was insufficient funding ($30,000 pledged by
the AGMA Foundation was not received) and preliminary data indicated a large amount of unexplained
scatter. The limited results and analysis of the Part 2 tests conducted are discussed in Section 5.
During this period the Steering Committee members realized that funding for only a limited number of
tests remained, Part 2 tests were stopped and one laboratory was contracted to do eight modified tests.
Two tests each using ISO VG 68EP, 68R&O, 220EP, and 220R&O lubricants at a FZG test torque of 265
Nm. These tests were conducted between May 2004 and September 2005. The results of these tests,
designated Part 2a, are also included in Annex VI. Discussion of Part 2b tests is in Section 6.
After many attempts to have a report of all tests and analysis by volunteers, a final report was contracted
by the AGMA foundation in July 2007.
3. Prototype evaluation
The AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee (HGRC), in order to develop the test program, convinced
interested companies to donate design time, materials, manufacturing, testing and evaluation of six sets
of prototype test gears. The objectives of the prototype evaluation tests were:
1. Confirm that the prototype gears would operate satisfactorily in a standard FZG test rig;
2. Determine the mode of failure at the maximum torque level (535 Nm) for the test rig;
3. Develop preliminary stress cycle, S-N, curve information on the prototype gears;
4. Characterize the damage modes observed with the prototype gears at various operating
conditions.
The specifics of the prototype gear design are shown in Table 2. In Europe, considerable lubricant
evaluations for micro- and macropitting have tested with gears known as the FZG “C” profile. The HGRC
felt that the geometry of the FZG “C” profile gears was atypical of conventional practice for industrial
gears and developed alternate gear geometry for use with the FZG test rig. The AGMA gears are finer
pitch, with 20 by 30 teeth compared to 16 by 24 for the standard FZG ‘C’ gears. The other key
differences were that the AGMA design gears incorporated tip relief and slight profile crowning to
alleviate the typical interference that occurs with FZG gears under maximum load. The AGMA pinions
also had a high axial crown to increase the surface compressive stress at the center of the face width,
allowing higher stresses to be developed within the torque capacity of the test machine. Six sets of
prototype test gears were given to The Lubrizol Corporation for testing.
The test rig used for the testing was a standard foursquare Strama FZG Test Rig. The test rig shown
schematically in Figure1 consists of a slave gearbox, a split shaft with load clutch, a torsion shaft, and a
test gear box. The unit is driven by a variable speed 11.5 kW DC motor and the test gearbox is fitted
with heating rods and cooling coil to control temperature.
Prior to installation each gear was cleaned, weighed, and visually inspected for damage. The gear teeth
sprayed with machinist’s blue layout marker (Dykem) to provide a record of the contact area for each
Page 4 of 29
load (torque) applied. After the bluing was dry the gears were weighed and recorded to the nearest
milligram.
Table 2 AGMA Tribology Test Gear Design

Dimension Symbol Units Pinion Gear
Number of teeth z - 20 30
Ratio i - 1.50
Center distance a mm 91.5
Module mn mm 3.62857
Tooth width b mm 14 20
Pitch circle diameter dw mm 72.570 108.857
Base circle diameter db mm 68.194 102.293
Tip diameter da mm 82.042 116.713
Pressure angle αn Deg 20.0000
Working pressure angle αwt Deg 21.3107
Helix angle Β Deg 0.0
Addendum modification x - 0.1875 -0.0296
Tip relief
See drawings in Annex I
Lead modification
Contact ratio εα - 1.58
Test Gearbox Slave Gearbox
Gear
Torsion Shaft
Input
Shaft
Pinion
Load Clutch
Figure 1: Schematic of FZG Test Rig
The gears were installed into the test rig by heating and shrink fitting onto the shafts. After assembling
the remainder of the unit 1.25 liters of test oil was added to the sump. The desired torque to the pinion
was applied via a spanner tool and measured as deflection in the torsion shaft. After the desired torque
was obtained the load clutch was locked in place with the eight locking bolts.
Test conditions were set at 1500 rpm motor speed (2150 rpm pinion speed) and 80°C oil sump
temperature. The variable in each of these tests was the applied pinion torque. This particular test rig is
Page 5 of 29
equipped with a control system that allows the test to be brought up to operating speed in discrete
stages. A three-minute program was used to sequence the speed from 250 rpm initially, up to the test
speed of 1500 rpm in 250 rpm increments, approximately every 30 seconds. This was used to prevent
potential scuffing damage to the gears.
Typically, the test was stopped at approximately 24-hour intervals for inspection. The top cover is
removed and each tooth (pinion and gear) is inspected with the aid of a stereomicroscope at
approximately 10x magnification. Estimates are made for the amount of micropitting and macropitting
observed on each tooth; other forms of damage are noted in the comment section of the test record. For
each inspection the amount of micropitting was reported as an average while the macropitting was
summed. The criteria established for termination of a test was any of the following conditions:
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 1% of the total surface area of all the pinion or gear teeth;
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 4% of the surface area of any single tooth;
- 300 hours of running time without meeting the above criteria.
Micropitting by itself was not considered as criteria to stop a test. It was recorded and could be
measured post-test by profile deviation measurements. After the test, the gears were weighed again to
determine the amount of material lost.
With six gearsets available for the prototype tests, there was an opportunity to conduct a total of twelve
tests (one on each flank). The HGRC agreed that the first test would be to run at the highest load
typically used in the test rig, i.e., load stage 12 (ASTM D-5182 test method) at 535 Nm, to determine if
gears were capable of surviving without breaking. This test was to be conducted with ISO VG 460
lubricant with an EP additive. Following that test was a series of tests at different loads with an ISO 220
EP lubricant. The remaining tests were selected to develop some S-N curve information for the test gear
design. Table 3 summarizes the properties of the lubricants used in the prototype tests. Each lubricant
was blended with Group II mineral base components (solvent refined heavy neutral and bright stock) to
meet the viscometrics of the particular viscosity grade. Each blend used the same sulfur-phosphorus (no
zinc) type EP additive package; this was a typical commercially available industrial additive package.
Typical analyses are provided in Table 4.
Table 3 - Preliminary Matrix Test Lubricants

ISO Base Oil Additive Viscosity @
Designation
VG Type Type 40°C [cSt]
M-460-EP 460 Mineral EP 427.9
M-220-RO 220 Mineral R&O 215.5
Table 4- Lubricant Properties

Lube Designation M-460-EP M-220-EP M-220-RO M-068-EP
Base Oil Type Mineral Mineral Mineral Mineral
150 Brt 600N/150 Brt 600N/150 Brt 350N
Additive Type EP EP RO EP
Kinematic Viscosity [cSt] @ 40°C 427.9 211.9 215.5 68.2
@100°C 30.6 18.7 19.0 8.5
Specific Gravity @ 15°C 0.8979 0.8929 0.8914 0.8803
Elemental Composition P [ppm] 240 240 0 238
S [ppm] 9228 9375 4703 5202
N [ppm] 361 347 345 273
Page 6 of 29
A list of the eight prototype test results is shown in Table 5. Bending failures occurred with torques of
475 and 535 Nm (test Numbers 1 and 8). Test Number 2, conducted with a standard FZG ‘C’ profile
gear design failed due to macropitting at 535 Nm. The remaining tests conducted between 250 and 400
Nm with the AGMA prototype gears failed by the macropitting criteria. However, micropitting occurred in
both the dedendum and the addendum of the teeth with the dedendum area generally more intense.
Table 5 - Prototype Summary of results

Duration Wt Damage [mm²]
Test Gear Torque
Lube Loss Total Avg Comments
No Set [Nm] [h] [cycles] [mg] Macro Micro
Bending failure - tooth # 19
1 001-L M-460-EP 535 0.88 1.19E+05 NA 0.00 1.00
C- Single tooth macropit failure

2 M-460-EP 535 8.00 1.08E+06 64 11.50 22.22
1855-R
Estimate 1% damage
3 002-L M-220-EP 300 96.00 1.30E+07 77 40.88 7.10 criteria met at 85.62 h
Single tooth macropit failure
4 003-L M-220-EP 300 90.00 1.22E+07 44 15.70 22.85
5 002-R M-220-EP 400 38.00 5.13E+06 86 10.25 21.03
Estimate 1% damage
6 003-R M-220-EP 250 300.00 4.05E+07 104 16.75 27.70 criteria met at 351 h
Estimate 1% damage
7 004-L M-220-EP 400 58.10 7.84E+06 100 52.15 11.72 criteria met at 47.28 h
Bending failure - pinion
8 004-R M-220-EP 475 1.75 2.40E+05 NA teeth #4, 3, 2
Did not meet failure criteria
9 005-L M-220-RO 300 300.00 4.05E+07 131 6.63 0.47 at 300h
10 005-R M-068-EP 300 36.67 4.95E+06 42 4.75 18.33
Reached 1% fail criteria at
11 006-L M-068-EP 300 91.67 1.24E+07 94 19.58 25.39 92h
12 006-R M-220-RO 300 147.13 1.90E+07 91 13.13 7.78
Individual Test summary sheets for each test with selected photos are in Annex I.
A plot of the first seven prototype

gear set tests contact stress vs. 400 535 Nm, tooth broken (ISO 460 EP oil) 2700
stress cycles is shown here as
ISO 6336 GR. MQ 475 Nm tooth broken
presented at the at the AGMA 1998 350 2400
Fall Technical Meeting, see Annex I. 400 Nm
The plot includes the calculated AGMA GR. 2 2100
300 300 Nm
STRESS, PSI X 1000
pitting life gear ratings in accordance

with AGMA (material grade 2) and
STRESS, N/mm
ISO 6336 (material grade MQ). This 250 Nm 1800

250 PITTING LIFE
plot shows that for the controlled
test, gear design, and manufacturing
the calculated pitting life was much 1500
higher than the standard ratings. In 200
addition, the slope of the stress- 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8
cycle trend for the prototype gears
was similar to rating calculations STRESS CYCLES
Page 7 of 29
with excellent repeatability at 300Nm and 400Nm torque levels. These results were very encouraging for
the promotion of the extended test program.
As indicated in Table 5 there were four additional prototype tests conducted with the last two gear sets.
It was decided to gather preliminary information about the performance of two other lubricants, an ISO
VG 220 R&O and ISO VG 68 EP, since the first eight prototype tests focused on ISO VG 220 EP as a
lubricant. The tests were not meant to be a statistically valid comparison, but a look at the tendency of
selected lubricant parameters (viscosity and additive type).
Discussion of the results from Brian O’Connor of The Lubrizol Corporation provides some interesting
observations:
“Test number 9 using the ISO VG 220 R&O oil with gear set 005-L was the only test to reach the
300 hour no fail criteria. This test was also virtually free of micropitting throughout the entire time.
There was, however, one deviation from the normal test protocol. During the course of the test
(between 111 and 152 test hours) the cooling water used to maintain the test temperature at 80 ±
1.5°C was inadvertently stopped. During this period the test oil temperature reached a maximum
of 110°C. At the 152 hour inspection two pinion teeth and three gear teeth were scuffed.
Although there was scuffing damage on the gear set there was only minimal pitting damage; a
decision was made to continue with the test as is to see what developed. The test proceeded
normally until the 300 hour criterion was reached. At that time it was noted that macropits were
evolving from the base of the scuffed area of the two damaged pinion teeth. The test was
terminated at that time anyway in keeping with the original set of criteria (<1% surface area
damage at 300 hours).”
“The second test with the ISO VG 220 R&O oil (test no. 12 gear set 006-R) was terminated at 141
hours due to a large macropit on a single tooth. There were no other procedural anomalies with
the test. If the test proceeded at the rate of damage occurrence minus the single spall one would
estimate a life of approximately 300 hours. This is simply based on the rate of damage
accumulation in the 70 to 120 hour test duration range. This particular test displayed a low level
of micropitting compared to any of the EP oils, but much more than the first test. This raises the
question of conditioning of the surface by the EP oil. The EP oil (M-068-EP) was run first on the
left flank. The R&O oil (M-220-RO) was run on the back side (right flank) following the test with
M-068-EP. Did the exposure of the right flank to the EP oil influence the results (micro- and/or
macropitting)?”
“The testing with the lower viscosity EP oil (M-068-EP) proceeded as might be expected, i.e.,
shorter life. Both tests exhibited about the same level of micropitting as observed with the ISO
VG 220 EP oil. The first test on gear set 005-R was terminated at 36.7 hours due to single tooth
macropit damage. The second test on gear set 006-L did not exhibit any notable macropitting
until the 65-hour inspection. At 75 hours there were large macropits developing but not
sufficiently large to cause termination. The test was finally terminated at about 92 hours as it
reached the 1% total surface area damage criteria.”
The prototype results were promising. Some significant observations of these prototype tests are:
- Carefully controlled tests, gear design, and manufacturing seemed to result with meaningful and
repeatable data;
- The pitting life stress-cycle trend for the prototype gears was higher than AGMA and ISO rating
calculations with a similar slope;
- Significantly less micropitting was observed with the R&O lubricant as compared to any of the
EP lubricants evaluated.
- Scuffing was observed in test # 9 with the R&O oil when the lubricant temperature inadvertently
reached 110°C (test temperature set at 80°C);
- There appears to be notable differences in gear life due to both viscosity and additive choice.
Page 8 of 29
The prototype tests seemed to verify that a broader study could confirm the findings and establish a
better factor for the lubricant parameter used in gear life estimates. It was recommended that the test
program should be carried out under the auspices of AGMA at multiple laboratories, with a statistically
designed matrix to establish the influence of lubricant parameters, i.e., viscosity, base oil type, and
additive type.
4. Phase 1 Part 1 (Benchmark) testing and evaluations
After developing the resources and funding, Phase 1 of the AGMA Tribology Test Program was initiated
to include a wider representation of test laboratories and generate the desired data. Phase 1 was further
divided into two parts to safeguard against going too far with the program, if the results did not correlate.
The objectives of the first set of tests, Phase 1, Part 1, were:
- Confirm that a larger batch of test gears could be made by a single manufacturer to the
specifications developed by the AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee;
- Confirm the results obtained in the prototype study using the same lubricants and test conditions
with the new batch of test gears;
- Determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the test method;
- From the repeatability and reproducibility data establish the number of tests required per
variable investigated in future phases of the test program.
In order to accomplish these objectives four laboratories were contracted for testing. Two laboratories
were located in Germany, one in the United Kingdom, and one in North America. Two similar lubricants
from the prototype evaluation (M-220-EP and M-220-R&O) were run a minimum of four times each in
each laboratory using the AGMA design test gears in a standard FZG four-square test rig. The test
procedure and conditions were the same as used during the prototype phase of the program, see Annex
IV “Test Specification Phase 1 of Part 1, Develop Repeatability and Reproducibility Data”.
The intent of Phase 1 Part 1 was a benchmarking step with a large sample size and to obtain additional
performance data that could be compared to that observed in the prototype testing phase. Once the
repeatability and reproducibility data was established, the program could address performance of the
other variables stated in the original proposal (lubricant type, lubricant temperature, input torque, etc.).
Thus, the two test lubricants, procedure, and gear design were repeated from the prototype testing. The
test rigs used for the evaluations were standard FZG four-square test machines, see Figure 1 Section 3.
The test gears were the same design as those produced for the prototype tests. However, one hundred
sets were produced to conduct the AGMA Tribology Test Program, designated Batch #1. In addition, a
second batch from the same material of over one hundred sets, designated Batch #2, were produced for
sale in lots of ten for anyone who wished to conduct their own tests. The proceeds from these sales
were then use to support the AGMA Tribology Test Program. Gear design drawings plus details of the,
material, manufacturing and inspection data is contained in Annex III.
Test Lubricants for Part 1 were chosen

from the prototype study as ISO M-220-EP
and M-220-RO. These lubricants had Table 6 - Phase 1 Part 1 Lubricants
shown a nominal 2 to 1 life separation
Designations OS 160277 OS 160278
during the prototype gear evaluations on a
M-220-EP M-220-RO
limited number of tests. Also these
Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C [cSt] 213.06 209.60
lubricants are representative of the (ASTM D445) @ 100°C [cSt] 18.68 18.50
viscosity and additive types used in Viscosity Index 97 98
industrial applications. A summary of their Elemental Analysis P [ppm] 226 Nil
physical and chemical properties are shown (ASTM D5185) S [ppm] 9482 4803
in Table 6.
Page 9 of 29
As part of the Phase 1 Part 1 protocol a test sequence was also Table 7 - Test Sequence
used. This was done to address a bias that was thought to be Run
Gear
Flank
Test
possible when testing on the reverse flank of an already tested Set Lubricant
gear set. There could be a carry-over effect from the first lubricant 1 L M-220-EP
1st
on the reverse side of the gears. The reverse flank is not in contact 2 R M-220-RO
during the test owing to sufficient clearance in the design and there 3 L M-220-RO
2nd
is no possibility of coast type action on that flank due to the load 4 R M-220-EP
being locked into the driving side of the pinion. However, chemical 5 rd L M-220-EP
3
6 R M-220-EP
carryover was a possibility since two different additive types were
7 L M-220-RO
to be used in the program. Thus, a protocol was created to 4th
8 R M-220-RO
address this issue as shown in Table 7
During the prototype phase different operating conditions were evaluated to ascertain life response with
selected lubricants. From these preliminary evaluations it was learned that an input torque of 300 Nm
would provide separation of the test lubricants in a reasonable timeframe (100 – 300 hours). Therefore,
the Phase 1 Part 1 conditions were chosen to be; 1500 rpm motor speed (2150 rpm pinion speed), 80°C
oil sump temperature, and an applied pinion torque of 300 Nm.
Each test was to be stopped at approximately 24 hour or shorter intervals for inspection of damage.
Shorter intervals were to be used as a defined failure was approached. At each inspection an estimate
of the amount of micropitting and macropitting observed on each tooth and noted a daily rating sheet.
The criteria established for termination of a test was any of the following conditions:
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 1% of the total surface area of all the pinion or gear teeth
(approximately 20 mm² for the pinion);
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 4% of the surface area of any single tooth (approximately 5
mm²);
- 400 hours of running time without meeting the above criteria;
- Unanticipated gear tooth fracture.
For each inspection the amount of micropitting was to be reported as an average while the macropitting
is summed. Micropitting by itself was not considered as criteria to stop a test. The daily rating sheet for
the Phase 1, Part 1 (Benchmark) tests are in Annex IV.
The test procedure calls for inspections at maximum of 24 hour intervals in order to determine the time to
failure according to the criteria. When evaluating the data this can still leave a margin of error especially
when early (<100 hours) failures are being assessed. A normalized time to failure was created and used
to statistically assess the data developed in the program. The normalized time to failure, Tnorm, is
calculated from the damage observed at the last reading, DE, and the damage at the inspection just prior
to the last reading, D-1. The normalized time is calculated according to the equation below. This makes
an assumption that the failure point follows a linear response between the last two readings. This is
likely not true, but was thought to provide a better interpretation of the results than the raw, end-of-test
(EOT) readings.
Equation for normalized duration, Tnorm is:
A
T norm = 10
⎡ log C − log D ⎤
A = log T +⎢
− 1 ⎢ log D − log D
(
− 1 ⎥ * log T − log T
E −1
)
⎣ E − 1 ⎥⎦
where
Page 10 of 29
C is a constant; 5 for single tooth failure mode, 20 for multi tooth failure mode;
T-1 is number of hours at next to last inspection;
TE is number of hours at last inspection;
D-1 is pitting damage [mm²] at next to last inspection;
DE is pitting damage [mm²] at last inspection.
An example of time-to-failure normalization of the pitting progression observed is shown in Figure 2.
AGMA Test Program - Phase I

Test Oil M-220-RO (Lab E)
30
25
Pitting Damage [mm²]
20
15
10
5
Tnorm
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
Duration [h]
Figure 2: Example of Pitting Progression and Development of Tnorm
Benchmark test data analysis and inspections of test gears were made at various times, in various ways,
and with different amounts of data. The major conclusions are contained here-in, approximately
chronologically. The laboratories involved were kept anonymous by assigning them letters A through E.
As of May 2001, three of the four test laboratories reported complete sets of results, the fourth laboratory
did not have data available, and the participants in the program were anxious for some results. It was
decided to proceed with analysis by the Steering Committee. Additional tests were carried out by The
Lubrizol Corporation as a further check of results compared to those conducted during the prototype
testing. However, the Lubrizol results, like the fourth laboratory were not included in the initial analysis.
A simple analysis and plot of the average normalized time to failure is shown in Figure 3. This clearly
shows that Laboratory B was quite different than the others.
AGMA Tribology Program - Phase 1 Part 1

(Less Laboratory D data)
D
Laboratory
C M-220-RO
M-220-EP
B
A
20 40 60 80 100
Normalized Test Duration [h]
Figure 3 - Time-To-Failure Average Response of Tested Lubricants by Laboratory

Page 11 of 29
A statistical analysis was carried out to determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the time-to-
failure test data. This analysis was based on three laboratories only, A, B, and C. The analysis was
continued within each lubricant type to ascertain the variability of the method overall. The data was
analyzed as a Weibull distribution. Figure 4 is the probability plot for the three laboratories data on the
M-220-EP lubricant. It clearly shows the different response of Laboratory B. Hypothesis testing
indicates that there was not a significant difference in the shape parameter (slope) for the three
laboratories, but there was a significant difference in the scale parameter between the laboratories due to
B. The shape parameter is the time to failure at the characteristic life or the 63.2% probability. The other
distribution characteristics are highlighted in the Table 8.
Probability Plot for TNorm (M-220-EP)

Weibull Distribution - ML Estimates
Complete Data
A
99 A C B B
95
90 C
80
70 Shape Scale AD* F/C
60
50 4.3349 44.834 2.65 4/0
40 3.2753 114.65 2.71 4/0
30
Percent
3.4249 48.385 2.56 4/0

20
10
3
2
10 Time to Failure 100
Figure 4: Time-To-Failure Probability Plot for M-220-EP
Table 8 – Time-To-Failure Test Distribution Characteristics, Reported March 2002

M-220-EP M-220-R&O
Lab Mean Standard 95% Confidence Interval Mean Standard 95% Confidence Interval
Estimate Error Lower Upper Estimate Error Lower Upper
A 40.8 5.3 31.6 52.7 56.1 4.1 48.5 64.8
B 102.8 17.5 73.7 143.4 94.1 18.8 63.7 139.1
C 43.5 7.0 31.6 59.7 46.6 6.4 35.7 61.0
Considering the average estimate of the time-to-failure, again it can be seen that Laboratory B is very
different from Laboratories A & C. The variance or standard error is also large for Laboratory B which
makes the confidence interval band for Laboratory B pretty large compared to Laboratories abs A & C.
In this case, with a sample size of 4, it can be said that with 95% confidence, the average time-to-failure
for Laboratory A would lie between 31.6 and 52.7; for Laboratory C, it would lie between 31.6 and 59.7
and for Laboratory B, it would lie between 73.7 and 143.4.
Test data for the M-220-R&O lubricant showed a similar scenario. In Figure 5 the probability plot shows
now that the shape (slope) parameter for lab B is higher than the other labs, but overall there is no
significant difference in that parameter for all three labs. Again, there is a significant difference in the
Page 12 of 29
scale parameter due to Laboratory B. The other distribution characteristics for the M-220-R&O lubricant
are shown in the Table 8.
Probability Plot for TNorm (M-220-RO)

Weibull Distribution - ML Estimates
Complete Data
A
99
B B
95
90 C
80 C
70 A Shape Scale AD* F/C
60
50 8.1680 59.474 2.85 4/0
40 3.2154 105.03 3.37 3/0
Percent
30 4.1572 51.343 2.69 4/0

20
10
3
2
10 100
Time to Failure
Figure 5: Time-To-Failure Probability plot for M-220-R&O
Considering the average estimate of the time-to-failure, again it was seen that Laboratory B was very
different from Labs A & C. The variance or standard deviation was also large for Laboratory B, which
made the confidence interval band for Laboratory B pretty large compared to Laboratories A & C.
Two other items were apparent from the benchmark data. First, the time to failure for both lubricants was
significantly less than the prototype evaluations, and second, the degree of separation between the M-
220-EP and M-220-R&O was reduced. In the prototype evaluation lubricant M-220-EP had failures at 90
and 96 hours while M-220-EP had failures at less than half those hours.
The results for three laboratories, designated A, B, and C that reported time-to-failure data on the two
different test lubricants was summarized as:
- Longer life with the M-220-R&O lubricant was demonstrated, but the absolute values (time to
reach the failure criteria) were approximately one-half those observed during the prototype test
evaluation and data point separation between the lubricants was not sufficient in some tests;
- Laboratory B data was noticeably different than the other two. Limited testing of the two
lubricants at Lubrizol was in line with the results reported from Laboratories A and C. No firm
explanation for the discrepancy of Laboratory B was reported;
- The test results were reproducible between Laboratories A and C for both reference lubricants;
- The test results were repeatable within Laboratories A and C at the 95% confidence level;
- Based on the response observed for Laboratories A and C a sample size of 4 for each test
variable appeared sufficient for further testing.
The preliminary analysis for the three laboratories, designated A, B, and C that was analyzed by the
project steering committee in the third quarter 2001, was reported to the project donors in October 2001,
see presentation in Annex V.
Based on the results reported by Laboratory B, a review of its entire time-to-failure testing process was
made. A report was written and is in Annex IV. The key findings from the report (Process Review -
Laboratory B, Sep 2001) are:
Page 13 of 29
“Of the various potential areas for error covered in the discussion the only one that may have a
bearing on the outcome appears to be that Laboratory B did a complete disassembly after the
first inspection (nominally 24 hours into the test). Disassembling the gearset can potentially
disrupt the contact pattern such that on rebuild the mating surfaces act now as if there was a run
in process conducted on them. A run in or break-in period could potentially have the effect of
extending the life of a gearset based on normal practice.”
“Following the discussion with Laboratory B a single test was conducted using lubricant M-220-
EP where the protocol was strictly adhered. The result was Tnorm = 71.24 hours which was the
lowest value obtained by the lab. However, it was still higher than any result on M-220-EP from
any other lab. One other issue related to Laboratory B was they had a tendency to run their tests
well beyond the time to reach the stated fail criteria (5 mm² for single tooth and 20 mm² for multi
tooth). Although the interim records were available and an assessment of Tnorm could be made it
was suggested they alter their inspection periods to adjust to the rate of damage generation. This
may provide a lower Tnorm overall, but likely not enough to bring it into the same range as the
other laboratories.”
After the initial Phase 1 Part 1 data analysis the difference in results compared to the prototype test
prompted some other side investigations to help understand the results from Laboratories A and C.
Prototype testing showed that lubricant M-220-EP failed at 38 and 58 hours for a torque of 400 Nm.
Laboratories A, C, and E were observing similar lives at 300 Nm. This prompted an investigation for the
reason(s) for the failure times at the lower torque. It was observed that the specified crown that was
achieved on the Phase 1 Part 1 Batch #1 pinions was slightly more than that achieved on the prototype
pinions. An analysis of the contact stress by Caterpillar of the prototype and Batch #1 test gears was
made using the available pinion profile charts. The results show about a 4.5% increase in the contact
stress on the Batch #1 pinions compared to the prototype pinions. This analysis indicated that the torque
would have to be reduced to about 265 Nm (about 12%) to have a contact stress similar to that tested on
prototype pinions. A summary of the calculated stress values is shown Table 9.
Table 9 - Calculated Contact Stress with Actual Pinion Crowns

Pinion Torque Contact Stress Ksi
FZG Load
Stage inch-
Nm Prototype Test Batch
pounds
7 183.4 1623 245 261
8 239.3 2118 269 283
- 265 2345 n/a 293
9 302 2673 292 305
10 372.6 3298 316 327
It was determined that an approximate torque of 265 Nm could be achieved by using the equivalent
weight for load stage 10 at the moment arm of 0.35 m instead of 0.5 m. Lubrizol then carried out one
test each on the M-220-EP and M-220-RO lubricants at the 265 Nm torque and found that the
normalized life for each was in the same range as the original program. The M-220-EP gave a
normalized time to failure of 88.1 hours while the M-220-R&O gave 180.3 hours.
Based on these findings and the data from Laboratories A & C a modified test program was developed
for the follow on Phase 1 Part 2 testing program. This revised program utilized a 265 Nm torque, which
required repeat evaluations of the M-220-EP and M-220-RO lubricants in the testing sequence. Effects
of the Part 1 test sequence was not specifically analyzed, but did not appear significant. Therefore, the
testing sequence for Part 2 was randomized to eliminate bias where possible, see Annex VI.
A complete set of all Phase 1 Part 1 data is in Annex IV and time-to-failure calculations are shown in
Table 10 grouped by laboratory. It includes the time and damage values reported for last and next-to-
Page 14 of 29
last inspections, calculated Tnorm, and the reported type of failure (single or multi-tooth). Lubrizol,
Laboratory E was used as a “check lab” since it carried out the prototype evaluations. This provided
some continuity between the prototype and Phase 1 Part 1 evaluations and was useful in corroborating
laboratory results.
Table 10 - Phase 1 Part 1 Time-To-Failure Data

AGMA Tribology Program – BENCHMARK Data
Test No. Gearset Lubricant Torque Fail Type T-1 TE D-1 DE Tnorm
Flank Nm Multi/S h h mm² mm² h
A1 2L M-220-EP 300 S 28.0 42.0 0.10 7.50 40.43
A2 2R M-220-RO 300 S 42.0 49.0 4.00 5.50 46.79
A3 3L M-220-RO 300 M 63.0 70.0 18.00 30.00 64.38
A4 3R M-220-EP 300 S 42.0 56.0 0.10 5.50 55.62
A5 4L M-220-EP 300 S 28.0 42.0 0.10 5.30 41.75
A6 4R M-220-EP 300 M 14.0 28.0 0.10 54.00 25.10
A7 6L M-220-RO 300 M 42.0 56.0 7.50 50.00 48.74
A8 6R M-220-RO 300 M 63.0 70.0 19.00 31.00 63.70
B1 7L M-220-EP 300 M 64.0 87.0 4.25 64.25 76.25

B2 7R M-220-RO 300 M 65.0 86.0 12.75 94.00 69.23
B3 16L M-220-RO 300 M 64.0 85.0 2.25 165.00 73.94
B4 16R M-220-EP 300 S 81.0 102.0 4.00 11.00 85.23
B5 25L M-220-EP 300 M 143.0 163.0 10.40 24.80 157.80
B6 25R M-220-EP 300 M 61.8 83.3 0.10 72.00 78.55
B7 10L M-220-RO 300 M 127.0 149.0 8.75 42.00 138.16
B8 10R M-220-RO 300 M 102.0 122.0 2.60 69.50 113.99
B9 9L M-220-EP 300 M 65.0 77.0 3.25 93.50 71.24
C1 11L M-220-EP 300 S 24.0 32.3 4.30 13.10 24.98

C2 11R M-220-RO 300 M 44.2 47.2 17.85 24.20 45.30
C3 12L M-220-RO 300 M 24.0 42.6 1.40 56.80 36.23
C4 12R M-220-EP 300 M 53.6 73.7 8.20 49.15 62.79
C5 13L M-220-EP 300 S 24.0 45.3 0.25 30.00 35.69
C6 13R M-220-EP 300 M 48.1 55.7 18.70 25.05 49.78
C7 15L M-220-RO 300 S 48.0 72.0 0.01 14.50 67.85
C8 15R M-220-RO 300 S 23.9 45.5 0.10 16.00 39.24
D1 24L M-220-EP 300 M 24.0 48.0 0.10 48.00 43.51

D2 24R M-220-RO 300 M 48.0 72.0 0.10 115.50 65.09
D3 23L M-220-RO 300 M 48.0 72.0 0.90 37.20 67.29
D4 23R M-220-EP 300 S 24.0 48.0 0.10 5.30 47.51
D5 18L M-220-EP 300 M 48.0 72.0 0.10 72.50 66.51
D6 18R M-220-EP 300 M 24.0 41.5 0.10 36.60 39.24
D7 22L M-220-RO 300 M 72.0 96.0 0.90 36.90 91.55
D8 22R M-220-RO 300 M 72.0 96.0 8.40 65.30 81.32
E1 1L M-220-EP 300 M 25.1 47.7 0.10 33.45 45.04

E2 1R M-220-RO 300 M 56.0 69.1 10.63 26.50 64.77
E3 20L M-220-RO 300 M 46.0 70.0 0.10 40.35 66.65
E4 20R M-220-EP 300 S 36.6 46.2 0.10 6.00 45.72
Page 15 of 29
Discussion of Phase 1 Part 1 Data and Additional Investigations:
A June 2002 preliminary estimate of the results with all four contract laboratories included in the
database was conducted. The data was reviewed in three ways; all together, by lubricant, and by
laboratory. The preliminary review did not include the four relevant tests conducted at Laboratory E, but
did lump the seven Laboratory B results with the others. The analysis was run with Statgraphics Plus
version 4, which makes the assumption that the data is from a normal distribution and interactions are
not considered. The actual case is that the data represented fatigue life and should perhaps be
addressed using a Weibull or similar analysis. The conclusions, however, should be the same and are
presented here in tabular and graphical form.
Table of Least Squares Means for Tnorm,

with 95.0 Percent Confidence Intervals
Std. Lower Upper
Level Count Error
Mean Limit Limit
GRAND MEAN 33 63.2015
Lubricant
EP 17 56.9674 5.07802 46.5655 67.3693
RO 16 69.4356 5.22109 58.7407 80.1306
Lab
A 8 48.3137 7.38373 33.1888 63.4387
B 9 96.7360 6.97320 82.4520 111.020
C 8 45.0037 7.38373 29.8788 60.1287
D 8 62.7525 7.38373 47.6276 77.8774
Means and 95.0 Percent LSD Intervals

79 114
74
94
69
Tnorm
64 74
59
54
54
49 34
EP RO A B Lab C D
Oil
The preliminary conclusions for the benchmark tests based on this study given to the AGMA Foundation
Board of Directors were:
“To date the results for two different lubricants run at four different laboratories show the
following:
◊ Although separation has been observed, there is not a significant difference between
Lubricant M-220-EP and M-220-RO at the 95% confidence level.
◊ The absolute values (time to reach the failure criteria) for the two test lubricants are
approximately one-half those observed during the prototype test evaluation. This has
been found to be due to a higher than expected contact stress as a result of minor
differences in tooth geometry.
◊ Laboratory B is significantly different than the other three. To date, no firm explanation for
the discrepancy of Lab B can be found.
◊ The test results are reproducible among Laboratories A, C and D for both reference
lubricants.
Page 16 of 29
◊ The test results are considered repeatable within Laboratories A, C and D at the 95%
confidence level.
◊ Based on the response observed for the results in this phase a sample size of 4 is
sufficient for further testing.”
The data in Table 10 could be analyzed in various ways, as individual laboratories or as one batch.
Since significant analysis has been conducted for Laboratories A, B, C and D lumped, for the purpose of
further investigation, the Phase 1 Part 1 data from Laboratories A, C, D and E are treated as one set.
This discards Laboratory B as being significantly different and adds the relevant tests of Laboratory E.
The Table 11a) through e) is an analysis of twenty eight Phase 1 Part 1 tests from Laboratories A, C, D
and E. The average data values have been rounded to the nearest hour.
Table 11 - Analysis of Phase 1 Part 1 Tests from Laboratories A, C, D and E

a) All test data analyzed for the lubricants, 14 each, independent of Laboratory A, C, D, or E
M-220-EP M-220-R&O Average %
Average Standard Confidence Band Average Standard Confidence Band longer Life of
Life Tnorm, h Deviation Lower Upper Life Tnorm, h Deviation Lower Upper R&O
45 12 33 57 61 16 45 77 36%
b) LEFT flank test data analyzed for the lubricants, 7 tests for each lubricant
43 13 30 56 63 17 46 80 48%
c) RIGHT flank test data analyzed for the lubricants, 7 tests for each lubricant
47 12 35 59 58 15 43 73 25%
d) Tests where the set was not previously tested with a different lubricant, 10 each lubricant.
41 12 29 52 63 17 48 80 52%
e) Tests as in d) with highest and lowest data points deleted for each, 8 tests each lubricant
40 7 33 47 62 13 49 75 55%
The six views of the Phase 1 Part 1 data in Table 11 from Laboratories A, C, D and E were reviewed for
three basic reasons:
- The test protocol was set such that the tests for a given gear set always started with the left
pinion flank loaded;
Page 17 of 29
- A review of the inspection data for the Batch #1 pinions indicated a slight but consistent
difference of the slope deviations between right and left flanks;
- The affect of testing a set with two different lubricants was not analyzed statically during the
previous analysis.
The additional analysis shown in Table 11, without Laboratory B data and including Laboratory E, seems
to indicate:
- Looking at a) vs. b) and c), there is an influence of the left flank vs. right flank. However, the
amount of influence due to it being the first side run, or that there is a difference in slope
deviations between flanks or for some other reason can not be determined from existing data.
- Table 11a) vs. d) and e) seem to indicate contamination of the second test run on a given set
especially with different lubricants. Even with the same lubricant on both flank tests, 6 of 8 sets
tested (including Laboratory B) indicated a reduction in life, Tnorm, on the second flank.
However, an influence of the left flank vs. right flank slope deviations may also be an influence.
- Although test point scatter is observed, with some variables removed separation between
averages indicates that the R&O lubricant results in about a 50% increase in life over the EP
lubricant for the test gear design operating at about 305 Ksi (2089 N/mm2) contact stress.
It should be remembered that all Benchmark tests were conducted at a contact stress 50 to 75% higher
than that of normal industrial gear set operation. This is common practice in gear testing to reduce
fatigue life such that results can be obtained in a reasonable amount of time.
5. Phase 1 Part 2 testing
In February 2002 the testing began for AGMA Tribology Test Program Phase 1 Part 2. In this Part the
objectives of the tests were:
- Include a wider representation of industrial lubricants and generate new data for M-220EP and
M-220R&O at 265 Nm torque;
- Determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the test method;
- From the repeatability and reproducibility data establish the required variables to be investigated
in future phases of the test program.
In order to accomplish these objectives the same laboratories were contracted for testing. The lubricants
to be evaluated were M-068-EP, M-068-R&O, M-220-EP, M-220-R&O, and M-460-EP with a minimum of
four tests each in a standard FZG four-square test rig. The test procedure and conditions were similar to
those used during the Part 1 of the program; see Annex VI “Test Specification Phase 1 of Part 2, Initial
Evaluation of Main Effects”.
The test gears were from the Table 12 - Phase 1 Part 2 Lubricants Added
same batch as those produced Designations OS 171135 OS 171136 OS 171137
for the Benchmark tests. M-460-EP M-068-EP M-068-R&O
Kinematic Viscosity @ 40°C [cSt] 431.82 66.13 66.70
Test lubricants for Part 2 were (ASTM D445) @ 100°C [cSt] 29.53 8.68 8.70
the same as Part 1 with the Viscosity Index 97 103 102
addition of the three new Elemental Analysis P [ppm] 237 224 --
lubricants shown in Table 12 (ASTM D5185) S [%] 1.152 0.927 0.520
added. The table shows a Water [ppm] 50 50 0
summary of physicals and chemicals. These are also representative of the viscosity and additive types
used in industrial applications.
Page 18 of 29
As part of the Phase 1 Part 2 protocol a new test sequence was used. Thus, a protocol was created to
address the lubricants as shown in Table 13.
During the prototype phase different operating conditions were

Table 13 – Part 2 Sequence
evaluated to ascertain life response with selected lubricants. The crown
Run Order Test Lubricant
affected contact evaluations determined that an input torque of 265 Nm 1 M220RO
should provide better separation and be more comparable to the initial 2 M460EP
prototype tests. Phase 1 Part 2 operating conditions were also chosen 3 M460EP
to be; 1500 rpm motor speed (2150 rpm pinion speed), 80°C oil sump 4 M068EP
temperature. In addition, four tests were added for the M220EP 5 M220RO
lubricant to operate at 120°C. 6 M220RO
7 HI TEMP
As with Part 1 each test was to be stopped at approximately 24 hour or 8 M220RO
shorter intervals for inspection of damage. Shorter intervals were to be 9 M220EP
used as a defined failure was approached. At each inspection an 10 M068RO
estimate of the amount of micropitting and macropitting observed on 11 M460EP
each tooth and noted a daily rating sheet. The criteria established for 12 M068EP
termination of a test was any of the following conditions: 13 M068EP
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 1% of the total surface area 14 M068RO
of all the pinion or gear teeth (approximately 20 mm² for the 15 M220EP
pinion); 16 M068RO
17 HI TEMP
- Macropitting damage that exceeds 4% of the surface area of
18 HI TEMP
any single tooth (approximately 5 mm²);
19 M068RO
- 400 hours of running time without meeting the above criteria; 20 M220EP
- Unanticipated gear tooth fracture. 21 M460EP
22 M220EP
For each inspection the amount of micropitting was to be reported as an 23 HI TEMP
average while the macropitting is summed. Micropitting by itself was not 24 M068EP
considered as criteria to stop a test. The daily rating sheet for the Phase Note: HI TEMP refers to M-220-
1, Part 2 tests are in Annex VI. EP tested at 120°C temperature, all
others at 80°C; all tests conducted
at 265 Nm pinion torque
Again to avoid going too far with the program, only the first twelve tests
were contracted Laboratories A, B, and C. This turned out to be appropriate as the initial results
indicated excessive scatter of data points and the additional funding from the AGMA Foundation was not
received.
All Phase 1 Part 2 tests and data collected are shown in Annex VI from Laboratories A, B, C, D and E. A
set of all time-to-failure data collected is shown in Table 14 grouped by laboratory. It includes the time
and damage values reported for last and next-to-last inspections, calculated Tnorm, and the type of failure
(single or multi-tooth).
At the time of data analysis it was discovered that the T -1 and D-1 data was not received from
Laboratory D, for their eight tests. Only the final daily rating sheets, at the end of the tests were supplied,
which prevented the calculation of Tnorm and comparison with the other laboratories. Attempts to
recovery this data over two years after the tests were conducted failed to discover the data. Laboratory
D was performing in-kind tests and correspondence did not establish that their test torque was 265 Nm
during their Phase 1 Part 2 tests.
Because the analysis of Part 1 data indicated that there could be a carry-over effect from the first
lubricant on the reverse side of the gears with the second lubricant. The possibility of coast side
chemical carryover or thermal reaction was a possibility from the first test flank on the second test flank.
Unfortunately, this realization was not discovered until the Part 2 tests in Table 14 were complete.
Page 19 of 29
Table 14 - AGMA Tribology Program - Phase 1 Part 2 Results
Test No. Gearset Lubricant Torque Fail Type T-1 TE D-1 DE Tnorm
A1 40L M220RO 265 M 112 126 16.50 24.90 118.34
A2 40R M460EP 265 M 84 98 15.00 27.78 90.27
A3 41L M460EP 265 M 294 308 0.75 0.77 308.00
A4 45R M068EP 265 M 294 308 7.30 8.80 308.00
A5 42L M220RO 265 S 84 96 0.01 8.00 95.10
A6 42R M220RO 265 M 70 84 17.60 30.30 73.07
A7 43L HI TEMP 265 S 14 28 0.01 6.80 27.10
A8 43R M220RO 265 M 126 140 12.40 29.50 133.54
A9 47L M220EP 265 S 98 112 2.10 5.00 112.00
A10 44R M068RO 265 S 56 70 0.01 13.50 67.88
A11 45L M460EP 265 S 84 98 4.00 5.80 92.15
A14 47R M068RO 265 M 294 308 1.50 1.51 308.00
A15 44L M220EP 265 S 28 42 4.10 8.30 31.38
B1 57L M220RO 265 M 93.0 97.0 15.70 22.75 95.59

B2 57R M460EP 265 M 164.0 170.0 19.70 25.30 164.36
B3 54L M460EP 265 M 88.0 110.0 8.10 24.70 105.45
B4 54R M068EP 265 M 167 175 16.90 20.50 173.96
B5 56L M220RO 265 M 195.0 215.0 16.15 20.15 214.29
B6 56R M220RO 265 M 103 124 10.50 26.90 116.96
B7 68L HI TEMP 265 M 42 60 2.90 44.30 54.07
B8 68R M220RO 265 M 102 122 10.00 29.40 114.44
C1 28L M220RO 265 M 72.0 96.0 1.40 21.90 95.09

C2 28R M460EP 265 M 73.8 78.1 16.80 25.00 75.67
C3 29L M460EP 265 M 96.0 121.0 6.30 27.60 115.02
C4 29R M068EP 265 S 20.35 48.0 0.01 6.00 46.84
C5 30L M220RO 265 S 48.97 72.48 0.01 13.00 68.79
C6 30R M220RO 265 S 48 72.08 3.00 6.00 64.77
C7 31L HI TEMP 265 M 1 24 0.01 128.00 12.86
C8 31R M220RO 265 S 70.52 86.12 1.00 15.00 79.41
C9 32L M220EP 265 S 288 312 0.01 6.50 310.99
C10 32R M068RO 265 S 120.1 143.47 2.00 6.00 139.30
C11 33L M460EP 265 M 384 400 7.55 8.30 400.00
C12 33R M068EP 265 S 52 80.0 0.01 14.00 75.25
D5 70L M220RO M - 96.00 - 41.80

D6 70R M460EP M - 120.00 - 123.24
D3 71L M460EP M - 72.00 - 39.09
D4 71R M068EP S - 96.00 - 14.89
D1 66L M220RO M - 60.00 - 24.97
D2 66R M220RO S - 84.00 - 6.03
D9 69L M220EP M - 96.00 - 25.58
D10 69R M068RO M - 127.00 - 0.00
E5 26L M-220-EP 265 S 67.1 90 0.18 6.50 88.09

E6 26R M-220-RO 265 S 164.1 188.1 4.18 5.43 180.18
Page 20 of 29
During the Phase 1 Part 2 program period, a total of fifty four tests were conducted on five different
lubricants in five different laboratories, see Tables 14 and 17. The lubricants included three viscosity
grades (68, 200, and 460) and two additive systems (R&O and EP). Although each of the four
contracted laboratories was scheduled to run twenty four tests at a torque of 265 Nm (293 Ksi contact
stress) using the run order outlined in Table 13, it became clear about half way through Part 2 testing
that there were inconsistencies with the reported data. It was expected that differences would be
observable among the lubricants in relation to their viscosities. Expectations were based on experience
and general theories for fatigue performance as a function of viscosity. Consistent fatigue life data with
respect to viscosity did not appear to be occurring. Table 15 shows a summary of the single or average
results by lubricant and laboratory, but even within a given laboratory there were inconsistencies.
Table 15 - Part 2 Tests Averaged by Laboratory, at 265Nm & 80º

Lubricant A B C D* E
M068EP 308 174 61 96 -
M068RO 188 - 139 127 -
M220EP 72 - 311 96 88
M220RO 105 135 77 80 180
M460EP 163 135 197 96 -
* Not normalized, may not have been at 265Nm Incomplete test
The results have been looked at in a variety of ways to see if there was anything to be learned from the
information generated. These included analysis of:
o variances for all five lubricants
o variance by viscosity and additive level
o variance for four lubricants w/o M460EP
o variance by viscosity and additive level for four lubricants w/o M460EP
o Weibull analysis for all five lubricants
A report of these analyses by Brian O’Connor is given in Annex VI. This report indicates no consistent
performance difference among the lubricants by viscosity or additive type. Since this data is for fatigue
life evaluations, a Weibull statistical analysis has been the traditional method for analyzing the data.
Figure 6 is a Weibull Plot by lubricant of the Part 2 data.
Figure 6 - Weibull Plot of the Five Lubricants
The variations between and within laboratories could be considered the largest factor in not being able to
see the expected results. However, all the possible reasons for data scatter discussed Phase 1 Part 1
still apply, plus perhaps more laboratory scatter at the lower torque.
Page 21 of 29
Table 16 is an analysis of the Part 2 M-220-R&O
Table 16 – Part 2 tests where the set was not
previously tested with a different lubricant, with test data in the same manner as conducted in
Table 11e). It seems to indicate an average life
highest and lowest data points deleted, 8 tests
M-220-R&O
61% longer at the reduced contact stress without
Average Life Standard Confidence Band a confidence band overlap with Table 11e). The
Tnorm, h Deviation Lower Upper eight tests analyzed in Table 16 include two from
100 22 78 122 Laboratory B. If these were not included, the
remaining six indicate a 56% longer life with only
a three hour overlap in confidence band. There was insufficient M-220-EP test data to substantiate that
the difference in performance with that of the M-220-R&O lubricant.
The specific lubricant viscosity effect on gear life could not be established due to insufficient data, the
data scatter, and suspected contamination of the second test run on a gear set. In addition, the churning
affects on contact temperatures in the FZG Test Rig, between low and high viscosity lubricants have not
been considered.
During the period that the Part 2 tests were being conducted the preliminary data scatter initiated some
discussion by the Steering Committee and thoughts of additional investigations for causes developed. A
series of special tests and investigations to understand the variations were conducted.
Additional Investigations
A detailed post-mortem, including tooth flank measurements and metallurgical examinations, of the some
of the tested gears and a re-check of the Batch #1 vs. Prototype gears added significant knowledge.
A Nital etch test (see ANSI/AGMA 2007) of tested pinions with pitting found evidence of tempering in the
damage area of high contact stress during the test but not in the other areas of the teeth. One pinion
had only been run on one side, so it was possible to show that the un-run side did not etch dark, i.e.
show any signs of tempering. A similar inspection of three unused gears showed no evidence of
tempering damage. Where tempering was found, there was also lower than expected surface hardness
in the areas around the damage. Nital etch of the unused gears showed no evidence of tempering. It is
believed that the tempering was a result of the test run. This was new information in the area of gear
failure analysis.
The steering committee, consisting of Tom Beveridge (Caterpillar), Bill Bradley (AGMA), Mike Hoeprich
(Timken), Louis Lloyd (Lufkin), Don McVittie (Gear Engineers) and Brian O’Connor (Lubrizol) met again
in San Antonio on January 30 to try to understand the reasons for the test scatter. Prior to the meeting,
Tom Beveridge, with some input from the rest of the steering committee, did an extensive stress
analysis, flank measurement, and metallurgical examination of several failed gears from each of the
Batch #1 and Prototype tests. The results showed that:
The failure mode at 300 Nm and higher torques is different from that at lower torques. At high
torque, the local stress at first contact (where the start of tip relief on the pinion touches the
flank of the gear during approach) is potentially causing some early wear, which could affect
the profile of the gear and the load distribution during the involute portion of the contact.
There were four distinct identifiable failure modes in these gears:

- Addendum and dedendum micropitting wear on the pinion leading to a high spot at the
pitchline and macropitting near the pitchline.
- Dedendum micropitting wear with little addendum micropitting and with macropitting
originating in the dedendum micropitted area. These first two modes were observed
primarily in the Prototype test gears.
- Polishing wear and macropitting originating in the dedendum without associated
micropitting. This was the primary failure mode observed on Phase 1 Part 1 gears at a
nominal contact stress of 305Ksi.
Page 22 of 29
- Dedendum micropitting wear on both pinion and gear with little addendum micropitting
leading to a stress concentration at the pitch line and subsequent macropitting around the
pitch line. This was the primary failure mode observed on Phase 1 Part 2 gears at a
nominal contact stress of 290Ksi.
In addition to these familiar failure modes, there were areas of very shallow surface re-
hardening in some teeth, primarily in Phase 1 Part 1 tests that were run at 300 Nm. The cause
was possibly due to frictional heat in the mesh at these high contact stresses This damage
was not present on the teeth before the test runs. It was a previously unknown (or at least
unpublished) damage mode. If this damage occurred early in the tests it may have been the
cause of early failures at 300Nm torque. This damage would not have been detectable without
the excellent laboratory work done at Caterpillar. In most laboratories the damage layer would
not be visible, due to loss of the edges in polishing the mounted specimen. Micrographs of two
instances of this damage are show in Figures 7, 8, 9, and 10. It looks like grinding damage,
but it was shallower than the damage caused by abusive grinding.
There was no detectable metallurgical difference between test gears in the three batches.
There was some geometric difference in the Prototype test gears and in the Batch #1 test
gears (Phase 1, Part 1 and Part 2). The Batch #1 pinions have a small amount of additional
crown and a change in the involute profile at the ends of the teeth, which is slightly more as a
result of the additional crown and plunging the wheel to accomplish that crown. Also the
surface finish on the Prototype gears is slightly better than the surface finish on the Batch #1
group.
The full reports of the additional investigations are shown in Annex VI.
It was suspected that the high loads required to achieve short test times were introducing damage to the
gear teeth, which overrode the lubricant related damage that was trying to be measure. Therefore, the
Part 2 program was stopped in February 2003 on all but ISO 220 lubricants until the relationship between
test loads, test lubricants and test damage criteria can be better understood.
root tip
Figure 7 – Re-hardening at the edge of a spall at 100X
Page 23 of 29
root tip
Figure 8 – Re-hardening at the edge of a spall at 500X
Figure 9 – Re-hardening in an apparently undamaged flank area,

section taken parallel to the pitch line – pinion 11 at 500X
Page 24 of 29
Figure 10 - Section taken perpendicular to the pitch line of the same tooth– pinion 11, 500X
As a result of the steering committee meeting additional experiments were planned to help understand
the cause of the failures described. A group of three gear sets (six tests using both sides of the teeth)
were tested at Laboratory E to evaluate when during the test the tempering occurred. An ISO 220 R&O
lubricant was used to test each flank at loads of 300, 265 and 183 Nm twice. The tests were stopped at
shorter than normal intervals for a full inspection of the damage progression to evaluate the effects of
torque level and test duration on this damage. It was learned that the re-hardening tooth damage is
probably not a primary failure mode, but an effect of running the damaged teeth at high load.
The additional investigations emphasized the value of performing detailed stress analysis, metallurgical
examinations, and measurements of the tested gear teeth to determine the progression and mode of
wear and failure. Measurements of involute profile or tooth lengthwise crown before and after testing are
significance in determining micropitting wear and subsequent load redistribution leading to macropitting
and reduced gear life.
6. Part 2B evaluations
The last effort was additional pilot testing at slightly reduced load to see if the reduction would do a better
job of separating the results with different lubricants.
These tests had a revised test matrix that was hoped to be statistically significant to indicate proper
separation of lubricant type and viscosity results. The steering committee contacted Laboratory C, who
agreed to run 12 additional tests based on the new parameters with the original test lubricants.
Each test was carried out using the following test conditions:
- Motor speed at 1500 rpm (pinion speed = 2150 rpm)
- Pinion torque at 239 Nm (equals LS 8 on the loading arm at 0.5 m distance from shaft center)
- Oil temperature at 80°C ± 1.5°C
- Oil volume of 1.25 Liters
- The test oils were; M-68-EP (OS 171136), M-68-R&O (OS 171137), M-220-R&O (OS 160278),
and M-220-EP (OS 160277)
Page 25 of 29
The test data collected is shown in Annex VI and the results listed in Table 17.
Table 17 - AGMA Tribology Program - Phase 1 Part 2b Results

Gearset Torque Fail Type T-1 TE D-1 DE Tnorm
Test No. Lubricant
C2b-1 34R M068RO 239 M 72 96 16.7 27.1 80.14
C2b-2 35L M220RO 239 M 96 120 14.20 26.50 108.51
C2b-3 35R M068EP 239 M 120 144 11.75 21.30 141.25
C2b-4 36L M068RO 239 M 96 120 14.30 37.90 103.66
C2b-5 36R M220EP 239 M 96 120 11.90 38.90 105.86
C2b-6 37L M220RO 239 M 120 144 6.10 25.45 139.64
C2b-7 37R M220EP 239 M 120 144 16.17 44.70 124.66
C2b-8 38R M068RO 239 S 72 96 4 23 74.69
By Lubricant M-220-R&O
35L M220RO 239 M 96 120 14.20 26.50 108.51
37L M220RO 239 M 120 144 6.10 25.45 139.64
Averages 108.00 132.00 10.15 25.98 124.07
By Lubricant M-220-EP
36R M220EP 239 M 96 120 11.90 38.90 105.86
37R M220EP 239 M 120 144 16.17 44.70 124.66
Averages 108.00 132.00 14.04 41.80 115.26
By Lubricant M-068-R&O
34R M068RO 239 M 72 96 16.7 27.1 80.14
36L M068RO 239 M 96 120 14.30 37.90 103.66
38R M068RO 239 S 72 96 4 23 74.69
Averages 80.00 104.00 11.67 29.33 86.17
Std Dev 13.86 13.86 6.75 7.70 15.40
By Lubricant M-068-EP
35R M068EP 239 M 120 144 11.75 21.30 141.25
Data shown in Table 17 is insufficient to develop a valid statistical analysis for comparisons.
The M-220-R&O and M-220-EP Part 2a data seems to indicate a slight advantage to the M-220-R&O.
However, the reduction in load did not give the proportional increase in life as shown in the comparison
of Table 16 with Table 11e). Also, the single M-068-EP test shows a significant increase in life over the
three M-068-R&O test, but this EP test ran on a gear set that previously was run with M-220-R&O.
………
All of the tests that were conducted during Phase 1 Part 2 (apart from those with M-220-R&O) and the
Phase 1 Part 2a tests require additional tests and data to develop valid statistical analysis. The gear
sets are available to perform the tests, but the funds or in-kind test time is needed.
Page 26 of 29
7. Results and Knowledge Gained
The main objective, to develop a lubricant factor that could be used in calculations for gear performance,
was not successfully achieved. This is attributed to the inability to develop sufficient data for valid
analysis, partly due to the lack of sufficient funding and some of the procedures used. The program,
however, did validate a standard test by using test machines available in most lubricant research
laboratories and test gears, which can be produced from publicly available drawings.
Prototype testing showed that the test gear design could scuff, or micropit, or macropit, and break
depending on the lubricant, operating temperature, and test load. The Phase 1 testing validated that any
lubricant could be evaluated for use as an industrial gear lubricant, or compared to existing or previously
tested lubricant. The main benefits of the AGMA Tribology Test Program were that a committee
generated and supervised test program could develop significant results and advance the knowledge on
industrial gear lubrication. The results are listed here in two groups; those that may be influenced by the
test parameters, and those that appear valid and indicative of gear operation, lubricants, and failure
modes.
Program results that may be influenced by the test parameters:
- The 220 R&O lubricant performed significantly better than the 220 EP lube at 300 Ksi and
higher contact stresses. At lower contact stresses, scatter made it difficult to determine if this
occurs or even if the trend tends to reverse;
- There is large scatter in lubricant tests performed on the FZG Test Rig, which may not be
unreasonable for contact fatigue at the loads tested;
◦ Test laboratories have different results with the all the specific reasons undetermined;
◦ Limited number of tests affect the amount scatter
- High test loads push toward surface initiated failures vs. subsurface origin. There were four
distinct identifiable failure modes on the gears investigated:
◦ Addendum and dedendum micropitting wear on pinion resulting in a high spot and
macropitting near the pitchline;
◦ Dedendum micropitting wear on pinion with little addendum micropitting, with macropitting
originating in the dedendum micropitted area;
◦ Polishing wear and macropitting originating on the pinion dedendum without associated
micropitting;
◦ Dedendum micropitting wear on both members with little addendum micropitting leading to
a stress concentration at the pitch line and subsequent macropitting around the pitch line.
The occurrences of these failure modes varied with gear geometry, surface finish, loading and
lubricants.
- There seemed to be an indication of some contamination of the results on the second test run
on a given set of test gears, especially with different lubricants;
- Carefully controlled tests, gear design, and manufacturing can result with meaningful and
repeatable test data;
- A test program to achieve significant data on the affect of lubricants on gear life requires tests
that duplicate actual operation, which appears to require duplication of surface features,
contact pressures, rolling-sliding velocities, and operating temperatures. This normally
requires extended fatigue lives and many hours of testing;
Page 27 of 29
- The AGMA Tribology Test Program effort has influenced other areas of testing and
evaluation, e.g., modes of standardized testing by others throughout the world, see Annex
VIII, 2006FTM07.
Program results that appears valid and indicative of gear operation, lubricants, and failure modes:
- Material properties can be controlled, such that they do not influence test results or premature
failures;
- Surface finish and profile modification really matter. The finish, flank form, design geometry,
and manufactured geometry all affect the performance with a given lubricant;
- Wear induced profile changes are important. The initial failure mode at a test load of 290 Ksi
and higher contact stresses are different from that at lower loads. At high loads, the local
stress at first contact can cause early wear that changes the profile and load distribution during
involute contact.
- Typical failures of highly loaded carburized gears in service today can be duplicated with the
gears tested;
- In addition to the familiar failure modes, there were areas of very shallow surface re-hardening
on some tested teeth, due to frictional heat in the mesh at high contact stresses. This was a
previously unknown (or at least unpublished) gear damage mode. It was learned that the re-
hardening tooth damage was probably not a primary failure mode, but an effect of running the
damaged (micropitted) teeth at high loads.
In addition, the AGMA test gears have been used to perform a number of studies separate from the
AGMA Tribology Test Program efforts. Some of these have been reported in AGMA FTM papers;
04FTM07 - A Short Procedure to Evaluate Micropitting Using the New AGMA Designed Gears by Dr.
Kevin J. Buzdygon and Dr. Angeline B. Cardis, Exxon-Mobil Research and Engineering Company, and
06FTM08 - An Evaluation of FZG Micropitting Test Procedures and Results for the Crowned AGMA Test
Gears by Dr. Donald R. Houser, Sam Shon, and Jonny Harianto, The Ohio State University. These
papers are in Annex VIII for reference.
Another by-product of the AGMA program occurred when there was a proposal to adopt an international
standard procedure for a micropitting gear rating, see Annex VIII, 2004FTM05 and 2006FTM06. The
knowledgeable persons of the program steering committee were of significant help in assisting the US
TAG to ISO/TC 60 in developing an appropriate response based on the AGMA test program results.
………
Acknowledgements are given to members of the AGMA Foundation, AGMA Headquarters Staff,
the AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee, especially the program Steering Committee, and the
individual contributors to this program. Without everyone’s efforts, this knowledge and industry
advancements would not have been achieved. It is sincerely desired that the remaining test
gear sets are used to gain further knowledge of industrial gear lubrication.
Page 28 of 29
Annexes (available separately from the AGMA Foundation)
Annex I – Prototype Test Data
Test Gears Drawings
Test Gears Finish Data
Surface Roughness Study
Test Summary Sheets (Excel)
Prototype Test Photos
October 19 98 FTM Presentation
Annex II – AGMA Test Program Proposal (1999)
Annex III – Manufacturing Data:
Drawings and Tolerance Specification Sheets
Material Certification
Heat Treat Reports Batch #1
Heat Treat Reports Batch #2
Grinding Wheel Tolerances
Inspection Data:
Pinions (Part No 401) Batch #1
Gears (Part No 402) Batch #1
Pinions (Part No 401) Batch #2
Gears (Part No 402) Batch #2
Annex IV – Benchmark Tests
Detailed Test Specifications
Benchmark Test Data with Photos:
Lab A Data Part 1 Phase 1
Lab B Data Part 1 Phase 1
Lab C Data Part 1 Phase 1
Lab D Data Part 1 Phase 1
Visit Report Laboratory B September 2001
Annex V – Progress Report Slide Show Presented October 2001
Annex VI – Phase 1 Part 2 Tests and Additional Investigations
Detailed Test Specifications
Phase 1 Part 2 Test Data with Photos:
Lab A Data Part 1 Phase 2
Lab B Data Part 1 Phase 2
Lab C Data Part 1 Phase 2
Lab D Data Part 1 Phase 2
Additional Investigations:
Prototype Photos Nov02
Phase1 Part1 Photos SN11 Nov02
Phase1 Part2 Photos SN40 Nov02
Pinion SN40 Check Nov02
Pinion SN41 Check Nov02
Additional Checks on Tested Gears
SN 75 Re-Check
Report MM57250-51-52 Analysis Dec02
Report MM57250-51-52 Analysis Jan03
Analysis for San Antonio Meeting Jan03
Lab C Data Part 2b with Photos
Analysis of Part 2 Data by Brian O’Connor
Annex VII - Spreadsheet Data for Additional Studies
Benchmark Summary (Excel)
Part 2 Data Summary (Excel)
Annex VIII - Related FTM Papers
2004FTM05
2004FTM07
2006FTM06
2006FTM07
2006FTM08
Page 29 of 29

AGMA Tribology Test Report Provides Insights on Gear Lubrication Testing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGMA Tribology Test Report Provides Insights on Gear Lubrication Testing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGMA Tribology Test Report

American Gear Manufacturers Association

2. Scope and Objectives of the program

Table 2 AGMA Tribology Test Gear Design

Test Gearbox Slave Gearbox

Figure 1: Schematic of FZG Test Rig

Table 3 - Preliminary Matrix Test Lubricants

M-220-EP 220 Mineral EP 211.9

M-220-RO 220 Mineral R&O 215.5

M-068-EP 68 Mineral EP 66.1

Table 4- Lubricant Properties

Table 5 - Prototype Summary of results

C- Single tooth macropit failure

A plot of the first seven prototype

pitting life gear ratings in accordance

ISO 6336 (material grade MQ). This 250 Nm 1800

4. Phase 1 Part 1 (Benchmark) testing and evaluations

Test Lubricants for Part 1 were chosen

Equation for normalized duration, Tnorm is:

An example of time-to-failure normalization of the pitting progression observed is shown in Figure 2.

AGMA Test Program - Phase I

Figure 2: Example of Pitting Progression and Development of Tnorm

AGMA Tribology Program - Phase 1 Part 1

Figure 3 - Time-To-Failure Average Response of Tested Lubricants by Laboratory

Probability Plot for TNorm (M-220-EP)

3.4249 48.385 2.56 4/0

10 Time to Failure 100

Figure 4: Time-To-Failure Probability Plot for M-220-EP

Table 8 – Time-To-Failure Test Distribution Characteristics, Reported March 2002

Probability Plot for TNorm (M-220-RO)

30 4.1572 51.343 2.69 4/0

Table 9 - Calculated Contact Stress with Actual Pinion Crowns

Table 10 - Phase 1 Part 1 Time-To-Failure Data

B1 7L M-220-EP 300 M 64.0 87.0 4.25 64.25 76.25

C1 11L M-220-EP 300 S 24.0 32.3 4.30 13.10 24.98

D1 24L M-220-EP 300 M 24.0 48.0 0.10 48.00 43.51

E1 1L M-220-EP 300 M 25.1 47.7 0.10 33.45 45.04

Table of Least Squares Means for Tnorm,

Means and 95.0 Percent LSD Intervals

Table 11 - Analysis of Phase 1 Part 1 Tests from Laboratories A, C, D and E

5. Phase 1 Part 2 testing

During the prototype phase different operating conditions were

B1 57L M220RO 265 M 93.0 97.0 15.70 22.75 95.59

C1 28L M220RO 265 M 72.0 96.0 1.40 21.90 95.09

D5 70L M220RO M - 96.00 - 41.80

E5 26L M-220-EP 265 S 67.1 90 0.18 6.50 88.09

Table 15 - Part 2 Tests Averaged by Laboratory, at 265Nm & 80º

Figure 6 - Weibull Plot of the Five Lubricants

 There were four distinct identifiable failure modes in these gears:

Figure 7 – Re-hardening at the edge of a spall at 100X

Figure 8 – Re-hardening at the edge of a spall at 500X

Figure 9 – Re-hardening in an apparently undamaged flank area,

Table 17 - AGMA Tribology Program - Phase 1 Part 2b Results

Program results that may be influenced by the test parameters:

You might also like

There were four distinct identifiable failure modes in these gears: