Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Comparison of the
AGMA and FEA
Calculations of Gears
and Gearbox
Components Applied in
the Environment of
Small Gear Company
By Dr. V. Kirov, Bucyrus
International, Inc.
Comparison of the AGMA and FEA Calculations of Gears and
Gearbox Components Applied in the Environment of Small
Gear Company
[The statements and opinions contained herein are those of the author and should not be construed as an
official action or opinion of the American Gear Manufacturers Association.]
Abstract
The current AGMA standards provide a lot of information about the calculations of loose gears and gearbox
components – shafts, splines, keys, etc. These recommendations are based mostly on the “traditional”
methods of mechanical engineering, found in many classical textbooks and research papers. Their accuracy
and reliability have been proven in many years of gearbox design and field tests. They are clear, concise, in
most cases easy to program and apply even by a small gear company with limited resources.
However new methods for calculations of mechanical engineering components like FEA (finite element
analysis) are becoming wide spread. Once these techniques were used only by big companies because of
their complexity and price but with the development of the computer technology they become more and more
accessible to small gear companies which are the majority of participants in the market.
In nowadays gear business even a small gear company is usually in possession of a modern CAD system
which always includes a basic or advanced FEA package. Such CAD systems are most often run by one gear
engineer who makes 3D models, engineering calculations and production drawings. The level of the FEA
packages is such that it allows the gear engineer to be able to do components calculations without deep
knowledge in the FEA itself.
So the question about the effectiveness of the traditional AGMA calculations and the new FEA methods
becomes of vital importance particularly for small firms.
The presented paper compares AGMA with FEA strength and deflection calculations of spur gears and
gearbox components and draws conclusion and recommendations about their effectiveness in the
environment of a small gear company.
Copyright 2010
October 2010
ISBN: 978--1--55589--980--6
Comparison of the AGMA and FEA Calculations of Gears and Gearbox
Components Applied in the Environment of Small Gear Company
Dr. Vanyo Kirov, Bucyrus International, Inc.
3
calculations are not considered due to space AGMA methods and FEA, a simple gearbox is
limitation. designed (Fig. 1) with the following parameters:
one stage spur gears, power – 30 KW, pinion speed
Table 1. Comparison of AGMA and FEA – 1200 rpm, pinion number of teeth – 22, gear num-
capabilities ber of teeth – 55, module – 4mm, face width –
Gearbox Calculation 30 mm, no profile shift, carburized and ground
AGMA FEA
element type gears.
pitting Yes Yes
Gear teeth bending Yes Yes
deflection Limited Yes Gear calculations
stress Yes Yes
Shaft
deflection Yes Yes The AGMA strength calculations of gear teeth are
stress Yes Yes given in ANSI/AGMA 2001-D04. This standard
Splines
deflection No Yes determines the pitting and bending strength of the
stress Yes Yes gear teeth based on empirical formulas. The
Keys
deflection No Yes geometry factors used in this standard are determ-
stress Yes Yes ined based in the information sheet AGMA
Bolts 908-B89. The proper application of this standard
deflection No Yes
stress No Yes requires deep knowledge of the gear misalignment
Housing and dynamics. The bending of the gear teeth and
deflection No Yes
stress No Yes the load distribution factor are discussed in AGMA
Assembly 927-A01 and partly in ANSI/AGMA 6001--E08.
deflection No Yes
There are also some other standards which give in-
formation about the gear teeth strength – ANSI/
Gearbox example AGMA 6002-B93, ANSI/AGMA 6032-A94 and AN-
To compare the calculation done by the traditional SI/AGMA/AWEA 6006-A03.
4
The AGMA gear rating suite [2] is based on ANSI/ see that those high stresses are only in certain small
AGMA 2001-D04. It is used to rate the gearbox. areas, close to the edges of the band of contact.
The results for the pinion are given in Table 2. Definitely this is due to errors in the model, which
repair usually is beyond the knowledge of the gear
The gear geometry must be modeled properly in or- engineer. But looking at the surrounding colors we
der to use FEA for the strength calculations and de- see that the stresses are close to those predicted by
flections of the gear teeth. In the popular gear liter- the AGMA software (Table 2).
ature there are examples showing how to do that
[5]. The most difficult part is the modeling of the
contact area of the two gears. The easiest way is to
calculate the contact band [5] and present it as
planes on the gear teeth, however this calculation is
not given in the AGMA standards. Then these
planes can be easily mated in the CAD software and
the calculations carried out. Figure 2 shows band of
contact equal to 0.3mm.
5
AGMA does not have a procedure for determining
the gear deflections except for the tooth deflection
in the gap analysis of AGMA 927-D07.
Having in mind that AGMA predictions allow for
about 25% scatter of the results we can conclude
that both methods give close results.
Figure 5 shows bending stresses of the pinion
which are very close to the AGMA numbers
(Table 2).
Shaft calculations
The shaft calculations are given in ANSI/AGMA
6001-D97. They are very detailed strength and
deflection calculations. However the deflection
calculations are simplified either for bending or tor-
sion only. In AGMA 927-A01 there are detailed de-
flection calculations for shafts – again separated for
torsion and bending, however this time they are
summed in the approach for the gap analysis. This
gap analysis includes also the tooth modification,
the lead variation and the shaft misalignment which
Figure 4. FEA contact stress of the pinion is beyond the scope for FEA modeling in this paper.
6
A calculation spreadsheet based on ANSI/AGMA Splines
6001-D97 shows the bending deflections of the in-
AGMA does not have a separate standard for
put shaft (Figure 6). The angle of twist calculated
splines. The calculations of the splines are given in
per this standard is 0.0026 rad. Figure 7 and ANSI/AGMA 6123-B06. The splines are rated for
Figure 8 show the deflections in the same location shear, fretting and wear and ring bursting. The
calculated by FEA. shear calculations consider the core hardness of
the splines, while the fretting and wear – the surface
The stresses in the shaft in a given critical sections hardness. The shear calculations assume that the
calculated by ANSI/AGMA 6001-D97 are given in torque is transmitted only through half the splines.
Table 2. Figure 9 shows the stresses in the same For comparison purposes it is assumed that all the
section calculated by FEA and also presented in teeth are carrying the load. The results are
Table 2. presented in Figure 10 and Table 2.
7
Figure 8. FEA bending deflection of the input shaft
8
Figure 10. Spline shear stress