See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313477674

A Translation Technique: Dimensionless Ratings and Conversion Factors

Between ISO and AGMA Gear Standards

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2016-65123

CITATIONS READS

0 222

2 authors:

Necdet Geren Çağrı Uzay

Cukurova University Cukurova University
100 PUBLICATIONS   204 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ELEKTRİKLİ ARAÇ ŞASİLERİ İÇİN HAFİF SANDVİÇ PANEL GELİŞTİRİLMESİ Çukurova Üniversitesi Proje No: FBA-2016-6610 Bireysel Araştırma Projesi View project

Parametric design of a automotive ball joint View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Necdet Geren on 20 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DRAFT
Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
November 11-17, 2016, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
A TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE: DIMENSIONLESS RATINGS AND CONVERSION
FACTORS BETWEEN ISO AND AGMA GEAR STANDARDS
Necdet Geren
University of Çukurova
Adana, Turkey
ABSTRACT
ISO and AGMA Standards are the most commonly used
accurate approaches while designing a gear. But the most
important gear design outputs that are module (m) and face width
(b) are obtained from both of the approaches always differ from
each other even under the same input parameters. Therefore, gear
designers require detailed knowledge on the relative comparison
of design outputs including cost. And a translation technique
using conversion factors in between the standards are demanded
as a stated need in the literature. Hence, this paper firstly obtains
dimensionless gear rating numbers (GRi) to rate the design
results of spur gears determined from both ISO 6336 and
ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 Standards, and then derives correlation
equations to generate dimensionless conversion factors (CFs) to
convert the design results obtained from ISO to AGMA. The CFs
allow designers to move from one standard to another very
easily. This enables engineering students and designers to meet
the ever changing needs of global market.
Keywords: Gear standards, Spur gear design, Dimensionless
numbers, Gear ratings, Conversion factors
NOMENCLATURE
GRi : Gear rating number
̅̅̅̅m
CF : Mean value of conversion factors for module
̅̅̅̅m
CF : Mean value of conversion factors for face width
σCF̅̅̅̅m : Std. deviation for module conversion factors
σCF̅̅̅̅m : Std. deviation for face width conversion factors
m*ISO : normalized value of module for ISO wrt AGMA
m*ISO : normalized value of face width for ISO wrt AGMA
INTRODUCTION
The most important design outputs are module (m) and face
width (b) while making a gear design theoretically. As the gear
IMECE2016
IMECE2016-65123
Çagri Uzay
University of Çukurova
Adana, Turkey
design process requires iterative calculations, it is challenging
and time consuming [1].
ISO and AGMA Spur Gear Standards are the most
commonly used international and national gear design
approaches respectively. However, the results obtained from
both are different from each other. For this reason, the
differences of the results obtained from different gear standards
have significantly been the subject of investigations for many
researches. Cahala [2] stated that AGMA 2001 and ISO 6336 can
produce significantly different gear ratings for both strength and
pitting resistance. And a translation technique was offered
between ISO and AGMA standards considering the principles of
approaches including material effect, gear quality number
(GQN) and calculation methods. But the above comparisons
were made on a narrow perspective investigating only 6 test
sample units consist of having different gear center distance, face
width and 2 different gear reduction ratios. Beckman and Patel
[3] compared International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) (1996), Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN), American
Petroleum Institute (API) and American Gear Manufacturers
Association (AGMA) for high speed (1998) and low speed
(1997) individual gear design results with each other. They
highlighted the importance of understanding the different rating
systems for the price and reliability of the gearbox. But the
comparison did not consider any dimensionless approach, and
was only limited by the results of few design examples and since
then ISO and AGMA standards were revised. Cahala and Uherek
[4] performed ring gear design by comparing AGMA 6014 and
AGMA 321. However the data requirements for gear design
were mentioned basically. The different kind of gear standards
have also been compared with finite element analysis (FEA). Li
[5] calculated gear stresses by using the standards of Japanese
Gear Manufacturers Association (JGMA) and ISO, Kawalec et
al. [6] and Kawalec and Wictor [7] made comparative analysis
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
of tooth root strength by using ISO and AGMA standards then
compared the results with FEA to verify them.
The literature survey indicates that there is obviously a
need for making a conversion between the ISO and AGMA
Standards. Therefore, the main intention in this paper is not to
explain why the ISO and AGMA Standards differ from each
other but it rates by comparing the design results obtained from
both approaches. And it investigates and finds out a relationship
between them by providing dimensionless conversion factors
(CFs). For this, ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 and ISO 6336
Standards were used to perform a design process for spur gears
based on bending fatigue failure criteria considering the tooth
root failure or breakage which are the major concern for many
industrial applications. And the design outputs, module (m) and
face width (b) were obtained considering the gear speed
reduction ratios and power transmitted values in a wide range
which may cover the most design applications in practice. Then
geometrical rating numbers (GRi) which are dimensionless
quantities were generated by using the combinations of (m) and
(b) in order to investigate the relationship between two
standards. Hence, the useful charts obtained by using GRi
numbers showed that similar trends are available at each gear
speed ratio for certain transmitted power values. And finally
correlation equations were introduced to obtain conversion
factors (CFs) at any gear speed ratio and free from the
transmitted power values.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
Gear design approaches that are given by ANSI/AGMA
2101-D04 [8] and ISO 6336 [9-12] Standards were compared
considering the most important design outputs, module (m) and
face width (b). Although these two approaches are the most
commonly and accurately used gear standards, the design
outputs are differing from each other. This is investigated using
a general systematic approach based on the main intention of this
work. The approach given in Fig. 1 includes two parts.
Figure 1(b) presents the design process for spur gears to
determine the design results as module (m) and face width (b).
As it is seen, this process has been performed iteratively in order
to find these simple outputs since there is one stress equation and
two unknowns (m, b). For this reason module (m) is estimated
considering the input parameters, and face width (b) is found in
a recommended range of 3p≤b≤5p where p (.m) is the circular
pitch dependent on the selected module [13]. In this study, the
design of spur gears were made based on gear bending fatigue
failure criteria for both ISO and AGMA Standards. The
methodology given in Fig. 1 also contains a second part (Fig 1
(a)) where the design outputs obtained from ISO and AGMA can
be rated using a dimensionless quantity which is called as
“Geometric Rating Number”. Then conversion factors are
obtained to convert ISO design outputs to AGMA.
Table 1 shows all input parameters comprehensively and
corresponding values taken into account that should be
determined during a design process. In order to achieve a fair
comparison for two standards, all input parameters were kept
identical. The most common pressure angle of 20 and with
interference-free minimum pinion teeth numbers were selected
for a compact gear design that is commonly used in industry. The
smallest numbers of teeth on the spur pinion without interference
for one to one gear ratio (Np=13) and for higher speed ratios
were calculated using the appropriate formula for the common
pressure angle () of 20 given in [13]. A range of 2:1 to 3:1;
4:1 to 6:1; and 7:1 to 8:1 share the same pinion tooth number as
shown in Table 1. The study considers the precision gears and
standard tooth geometry for the comparison of both standards.
This removes the surface condition effect (GQN) in the
comparison. However, the quality number for gear, given in
Table 1, is 8 and 9 for ISO and AGMA respectively. This is due
to the rule of 17 that was explained by Cahala [2] as the sum of
the AGMA and ISO quality numbers describing the same gear
that is approximately 17.
The allowable range of 1:1 to 8:1 speed ratio (mG) and the
standard electric motor power range [14] of 0,5 kW to 1000 kW
were selected with suitable increments at 111 power transmitted
values. The widely selected speed ratio and transmitted power
values may cover the most of the design applications in practice
and allow for making reliable conclusions with close
approximations theoretically.
Table 1. Input parameters for spur gear design
Input Parameters Value
Pressure angle,  20°
Interference free involute
Gear tooth geometry (standard)
spur, full depth teeth
Input speed of a power source, rpm 1200
Number of life cycles, N 108
Design factor of safety, nd 2,1
Reliability, % 99,9
Operating temperature, T Moderate or low (120C)
Quality number for gear (GQN) ISO: 8 and AGMA: 9
Material properties of gear pair see Table 2
Working characteristics of driving and
Uniform
driven machines
0,5-1000 kW (@ 111
Selected transmitted power range, kW
values)
Selected gear speed ratio range, mG
1:1 /13, 2:1-3:1 /15,
/Corresponding pinion teeth number
4:1-6:1 /16, 7:1-8:1 /17
(Np)
Design Criteria Based on bending fatigue
Material Selection for Spur Gear Design
In the design of a gear box, the properties of pinion and gear
materials must be in a good agreement for proper design because
the mechanical properties of materials have to satisfy all service
conditions.
The combination of a steel pinion and cast iron gear
represent a well-balanced design for the comparison. Because
cast iron has low cost, ease of casting, good machinability, high
wear resistance, and good noise abatement. Cast iron gears
typically have greater surface fatigue strength than bending
fatigue strength [15]. Table 2 shows the selected material types
used in this study. However, the design of gears under bending
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
fatigue considers only pinion material but not the material of a
meshing gear.
Three different pinion materials were used to verify that the
general systematic approach described in Fig. 1 is generic. Type
I and III which are the materials with lowest and highest
strengths that may cover minimum and maximum strengths
available for the gear design were used to find “Geometric
Rating Numbers” (GRi) to see the effect of material strength.
Type II which is a common pinion material with a strength in
between Type I and Type III was used in all the studies of this
work.
SPUR GEAR DESIGN
Carry out the design process iteratively
considering the all input parameters and
design variables
DATA
COLLECTION
Repeat to obtain design results (m and b)
for all combinations of gear speed reduction ratios
(from 1:1 to 8:1 with and increment of 1) and
power transmissions (from 0,5 to 1000 kW for 111 values)
Obtain GRi NUMBERS
Generate GRISO and GRAGMA numbers to show
the similarities between the standards and to draw
a useful charts for comparison
Obtain CONVERSION
FACTORS (CFs)
Derive correlation equations for obtaining CFs
to convert the design results (m and b)
from ISO to AGMA Standards
(a)
Figure 1. (a) A general systematic approach to obtain CFs; (b) Design process for spur gears
Spur Gear Design
Bending fatigue failure stress and strength expressions of
ISO 6336 and ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 Gear Standards are
obtained from the standards and given in Equations (1) to (5).
Please refer to both standards for remaining symbolic notations.
Face width equations were derived by equating gear stress
equation with fatigue strength of gear member by taking a certain
design factor of safety, SF into account as shown in Table 3.
The designs of spur gears using the expressions of Table 3
are performed based on selecting the module (m), and
determining the face width (b). This is iterative process starts
with an initial estimation of a module and repeated until the face
width reaches in an accepted range as given in Fig. 1b.
Select proper
material types
Estimate a module
depending upon the inputs
Determine the min. teeth
number avoiding interference
Find the force which exerted
to the gear tooth
Repeat iterations until b reaches in a range of (3p, 5p)
Calculate the design variables
affecting the bending stress
Determine the fatigue strength
of the selected material
Define an appropriate design
factor of safety (DFoS)
Find face width, b, based on
analytical methods
Check b, if it is
in the range of
3p≤b≤5p
Stop iteration and use them as
module and face width
(b)
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
AGMA Fatigue Bending Stress; and for the lowest and highest strengths of materials. Hence, a
new dimensionless quantity which may be called as “Geometric
1 KH .KB Rating Number”, GRi, are defined specifically in Eq. (8) to rate
σF =Ft .Ko .KV .KS . . (1)
b.mt YJ the standards.
AGMA Fatigue Strength for Bending; π.mi .bi
mi .bi
GRi = π.mA2 .bA = (8)
σFP .YN mA .bA
σF ≤ (2) 2
SF .Yθ .YZ

ISO Fatigue Bending Stress; Where mi and bi are the module and face width obtained from
ISO gear design approach and module, mA and face width, bA are
σF =σF0 .KA .KV .KF .KF ≤σFP (3) obtained from AGMA Standard. Therefore the relative
comparison can be made according to the AGMA Standard.
Ft
σF0 = .YF .YS .Y .YB .YDT (4) Conversion Factors (CFs)
b.mn
As the main aim of this paper is to find out a relationship
ISO Fatigue Strength for Bending; between ISO and AGMA Standards instead of explaining the
differences, conversion factors were generated to convert the
σFlim .YST .YNT module and face width obtained from ISO to AGMA Standard.
σFP = .YδrelT .YRrelT .YX (5)
SFmin Equations 11 to 14 give the conversion approach to obtain the
mean values of conversion factors for module (CF̅̅̅̅ ) and face
m
width (CFb ) together with their standard deviations. ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ CFm and
Geometric Rating Numbers (GRi) ̅̅̅̅b are the mean CFs for ISO Standard, and m*ISO and b*ISO are
CF
After finding the design outputs (m&b), m times b (m.b)
defined as;
results were obtained and combined to form a more like a
geometrical value which may be used as a representative for the
∗ mISO
cross-sectional area at the pitch diameter. This is because half of 𝑚𝐼𝑆𝑂 = (9)
mAGMA
the circular pitch (p/2=π.m/2) approximately equals to tooth
thickness in SI units. The results of “m.b” which will allow to 𝑏ISO
∗
see the total effect of both m and b on the results of ISO and 𝑏𝐼𝑆𝑂 = (10)
bAGMA
AGMA gear designs, were carried out for the allowable range of
speed ratio (1:1 to 8:1) and wide range of power (0,5-1000 kW),

Table 2. Mechanical Properties of Selected Pinion and Gear Materials.

Ultimate
Material Types for Pinion and Yield Brinell Modulus
Tensile Density Poissons’s
Gear / Strength Hardness of
Strength (kg/m3) Ratio
Mechanical Properties (Sy) Number Elasticity
(Sut)
Type I: AISI 1030 Q&T
441 MPa 586 MPa 207 HB 7850 0,3 200 GPa
@650 C
Type II: AISI 4140 oil
Pinion: 1140 MPa 1250 MPa 370 HB 7850 0,3 200 GPa
Q&T @425 C
Type III: AISI 4140 oil
1640 MPa 1770 MPa 510 HB 7850 0,3 200 GPa
Q&T @207 C
Gear: ASTM Duct. iron Q to
621 MPa 827 MPa 400 HB 7850 0,3 170 GPa
bainite, GR.120-90-02

Table 3. Face width equations for design approaches

Design Equation
Face width, b
Approach No.
SF .Ft
ISO b= .Y .Y .Y .Y .Y . K .K .K .K (6)
σFlim .YST .YNT .Yδ rel T .YR rel T .YX .mn F S  B DT A V F F

SF .Ft Yθ .YZ
AGMA b= . .KO .KV .KS .KH .KB (7)
σFP .mt .YJ YN

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1 Results of GRi Numbers for ISO and AGMA Ratings
𝐶𝐹𝑚 = . ∑N
̅̅̅̅ ∗
j=1 𝑚𝐼𝑆𝑂 (11) The work in this paper investigates a translation technique
N
from ISO to AGMA Standard and any possibility of constant
1 relationship in terms of design results obtained from both ISO
𝑁 ∗ ̅̅̅̅
𝐶𝐹𝑚𝑖 = √ . ∑𝑗=1(𝑚𝐼𝑆𝑂,𝑗 − 𝐶𝐹𝑚,𝐼𝑆𝑂 )
𝜎 ̅̅̅̅ (12)
𝑁 and AGMA Standards play major role for conversion factors.
Therefore, radar charts were prepared by using GRi numbers as
̅̅̅̅𝑏 = 1 . ∑N ∗ given in Fig. 2. These charts are useful in two ways:
𝐶𝐹 j=1 𝑏𝐼𝑆𝑂 (13)
N • Firstly the charts show the trend for different speed
ratios under incrementally increased power and for different
1 𝑁 ∗ ̅̅̅̅ pinion materials.
𝐶𝐹𝑏𝑖 = √ . ∑𝑗=1(𝑏𝐼𝑆𝑂,𝑗 − 𝐶𝐹𝑏,𝐼𝑆𝑂 )
𝜎 ̅̅̅̅ (14)
𝑁 • And secondly, it provides a relative comparison of
material volumes used between the two approaches as the
combination of both module and face width determine the size
N is 111 (0,5kW to 1000kW) and m* 𝐼𝑆𝑂,j and b* ISO,j are
of a gear together.
the value of m*ISO and b*ISO at a certain transmitted power. The first is essentially needed to see similarity and
continuity of the charts. The close similarity and continuity is the
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION indicator of establishing conversion factors with good
Design Results as Module and Face Width correlation coefficient, as the second one will show the cost
In this study, the design of pinion, which is the smallest and effective gear design approach.
subjected to higher number of repeated cyclic loading in a The radar charts were made according to the results which
meshing gear couple for the speed ratios greater than 1:1, were were obtained by using material Type I and Type III that may
performed to obtain the design outputs and to make comparison cover minimum and maximum strengths available for the gear
of the results obtained from standards. Using the systematic design.
design process as presented in Fig. 1b, the design results, module Figure 2 and 3 shows that the general trend is very similar
(m) and face width (b) were determined for 8 different gear speed with good continuity of the results for the approaches. As a result
ratio at 111 different power transmitted values. This gives 888 of this, ranking can be achieved for ISO and AGMA ratings.
design results for just one and 1776 design results for both ISO Therefore the average of minimum values of GRi numbers at
and AGMA Standards. These designs were carried out using each speed ratio were taken and given in Table 6. The mean
three different type (I, II and III) of materials, therefore 5328 values of Table 6 indicates that the type of material does not
design results were obtained totally. As expected, the most affect much to the results. This may also mean that the relative
critical speed ratio for module is found to be 1:1 and due to the comparison are very slightly affected by the material properties.
limited space only some of the results of 1:1 speed ratio were
given in Table 5 for Type II material. Table 6. Minimum mean GRi numbers for the design
approaches.
Table 5. Results of design data for module (m) and face width GRi for the Approaches with Two GRi
(b) at 1:1 speed ratio for Type II material Types of Material Type I Type III
AGMA ISO ISO 6336 Standard, GRISO 0,63 0,61
Transmitted Face Face ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 Standard,
Power, kW Module, width, b Module, width, b 1,00 1,00
GRAGMA
m (mm) m (mm)
(mm) (mm)
0,5 1,25 15,61 1 12,59 Conversion Factors (CFs) for Module and Face Width
10 3,25 49,52 2,75 33,51 The radar charts obtained by GRi numbers derived from
55 6 85,79 4,5 67,44
each of the standards have shown that very similar trends are
90 7 105,47 5,5 74,70
110 8 100,81 6 77,20
available between ISO and AGMA Standards. These results have
200 10 122,04 7 101,93 shown the possibility of obtaining CFs with a close
385 12 169,23 9 122,90 approximation. Based on the method that was mentioned before,
530 14 177,12 10 137,94 conversion factors (CFs) were generated for module and face
750 16 198,20 11 161,56 width as listed in Table 7. The standard deviations for module
1000 18 215,32 12 181,85 and face width conversion factors have also been presented. As
it is seen from Table 7, the module and face width that were
When the design results are scrutinized for both ISO and obtained from ISO Standard can easily be converted to AGMA
AGMA Standards, it is seen that the results vary slightly from with a maximum standard deviation of 3,4% for the module and
each other, this is due to the inherited features of the approaches. 6% for the face width. The high rate of deviation in face width
(b) is mostly due to the wider accepted range of b (3p≤b≤5p).
The same pinion numbers gave the same CFs and same standard
deviations as expected.

5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 Table 7. Conversion factors for module and face width speed ratio. A fourth order Correlation polynomial (Cp)
Speed ratio and expressions were obtained with a comparably good correlation
corresponding From ISO to AGMA Standard coefficient (R2) and given in Table 8 for desired speed ratios in
teeth number the range of 1:1≤mG≤8:1 with two sets; 0,5 kW to 500 kW and
̅̅̅̅ σ CF ̅̅̅̅ σ CF
500 kW to 1000 kW.
mG Np CFm ̅̅̅̅m CFb ̅̅̅̅b
It is now possible to obtain CFs from ISO to AGMA using
1:1 13 0,746 0,0339 0,750 0,0541 either the interpolation between the two values of Table 7 or the
2:1 15 0,773 0,0340 0,800 0,0608 Cp expressions in Table 8 for the desired speed ratios in the range
3:1 15 0,773 0,0340 0,800 0,0608 of 1:1≤mG≤8:1. As the conversion factors are obtained free from
4:1 16 0,800 0,0326 0,819 0,0483 surface condition during conversion calculations, gear designs
5:1 16 0,800 0,0326 0,819 0,0483 should be carried out by designers including surface condition
6:1 16 0,800 0,0326 0,819 0,0483 factor (GQN) to include it in the converted value.
7:1 17 0,820 0,0343 0,844 0,0455
A case study was carried out to test the universality of CFs
8:1 17 0,820 0,0343 0,844 0,0455
by using Cp expressions as seen in Table 9. The design results
(m and b) were selected randomly from four points that were
In addition to constant CFs at certain speed ratios,
obtained from ISO and AGMA Standards.
correlation equations were derived in order to obtain a CF at any

800 1000 0.5 20 800 1000 0.5 20

630 630 40
40 1.2
500
1.2 500
60 60
480
1.0 480
1.0
80 80
0.8 0.8
460 460
0.6 100 0.6 100

440 0.4 440 0.4

120 120
0.2 0.2
420 420
0.0 140 0.0 140
(aI) (aIII)
400 400
160 160

380 380
180 180
360 360
200 200
340 220 340 220
320 240 320 240
300 280 260 300 280 260

1000 0.5 20
800 1000 0.5 20 630 800
630 40 40
1.2 500
1.2
500 60 60
1.0 480
1.0
480 80
80
0.8 0.8
460 460
0.6 100 0.6 100

440 0.4 440 0.4

120 120
0.2 0.2
420 420
0.0 140 0.0 140
(bI) (bIII)
400 400
160 160

380 380
180 180
360 360
200 200
340 220 340 220
320 240 320 240
300 280 260 300 280 260
Figure 2. Comparison of GRi results for the design approaches at a speed ratio of (a) 1:1 and (b) 3:1 (Subscripts I and III indicate
materials Type I and Type III respectively)

6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 1000 0.5 20 800 1000 0.5 20
630 800 40 630 40
500
1.2 500
1.2
60 60
480
1.0 480
1.0
80 80
0.8 0.8
460 460
0.6 100 0.6 100

440 0.4 440 0.4

120 120
0.2 0.2
420 420
0.0 140 0.0 140
(cI) (cIII)
400 400
160 160

380 380
180 180
360 360
200 200
340 220 340 220
320 240 320 240
300 280 260 300 280 260

800 1000 0.5 20 800 1000 0.5 20

630 40 630 40
500
1.2 500
1.2
60 60
480
1.0 480
1.0
80 80
0.8 0.8
460 460
0.6 100 0.6 100

440 0.4 440 0.4

120 120
0.2 0.2
420 420
0.0 140 0.0 140
(dI) (dIII)
400 400
160 160

380 380
180 180
360 360
200 200
340 220 340 220
320 240 320 240
300 280 260 300 260
280
Figure 3. Comparison of GRi results for the design approaches at a speed ratio of (c) 5:1 and (d) 8:1 (Subscripts I and III indicate
materials Type I and Type III respectively)

Table 8. Conversion factors for module and face width obtained from regression at any speed ratio.
R2
Transmitted Power (from ISO to AGMA) Cp Expressions for CFm
value
0,5 kW – 500 kW ̅̅̅̅m,ISO =-6E-05(mG )4 +0,0013(mG )3 -0,0103(mG )2 + 0,0434(mG ) + 0,7153
CF 0,9427

500 kW – 1000 kW ̅̅̅̅m,ISO =-0,0002(mG )4 +0,0046(mG )3 -0,0348(mG )2 + 0,1171(mG ) + 0,635

CF 0,9607

(from ISO to AGMA) Cp Expressions for CFb

0,5 kW – 500 kW ̅̅̅̅b,ISO =-0,0003(mG )4 +0,0067(mG )3 -0,0483(mG )2 + 0,151(mG ) + 0,6395

CF 0,9638

500 kW – 1000 kW ̅̅̅̅b,ISO =-5E-05(mG )4 +0,0009(mG )3 -0,0056(mG )2 + 0,0212(mG ) + 0,7435

CF 0,9247

Table 9. Testing the conversion factors by using Cp expressions

mi and bi Converted to mc.AGMA and bc.AGMA
Case: mG,
(mb) m b
Power mi bi mAGMA bAGMA ̅̅̅̅m mc. ̅̅̅̅F (mb)c. GVe
AGMA CF Error CF bc. AGMA Error
(kW) AGMA AGMA (%)
(%) (%)
(2,4:1), 10 2,5 36,3 3 45,8 137,4 0,776 3,22 7,37 0,806 45,02 -1,77 145,01 5,47
(4,2:1), 100 5,5 72,7 6,35 97,2 616,9 0,794 6,93 9,15 0,825 88,15 -9,26 610,97 -0,96
(5,4:1), 375 4,5 68,4 5,5 82,4 453,4 0,803 5,60 1,89 0,846 80,91 -1,87 453,41 -0,01
(3,6:1), 750 11 140,0 14 174,5 2443,2 0,787 13,98 -0,11 0,781 179,38 2,79 2508,61 2,68

7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

 A case study was carried out to test the universality of CFs
by using Cp expressions as seen in Table 9. The design results
(m and b) were selected randomly from four points that were
obtained from ISO and AGMA Standards.
𝑚
̅̅̅̅m = 𝐼𝑆𝑂⁄𝑚 𝑏
̅̅̅̅𝑏 = 𝐼𝑆𝑂⁄
CF and CF 𝑏𝑐.𝐴𝐺𝑀𝐴 expressions are
𝑐.𝐴𝐺𝑀𝐴
used to obtain converted values of mc.AGMA, bc.AGMA respectively.
Table 9 gives mISO, bISO, converted (mc.AGMA, bc.AGMA) and design
(mAGMA, bAGMA) modules and face widths respectively, and ̅̅̅̅ CFm
and ̅̅̅̅
CFb values together with the corresponding percentage
errors. Then total error considering converted m times b
((mxb)c.AGMA) and design m times b ((mxb)AGMA)) values of
AGMA were obtained using a Gear Volume error (GVe)
expression ((mxb)c.AGMA – (mxb)AGMA )/((mxb)AGMA )).100), and
the results are given at the last column in Table 9. The maximum
total GVe was below 6%. Some of the errors are associated with
the accuracy of polynomial regression analysis.
CONCLUSION
A systematic methodology which relies on dimensionless
numbers called as GRi and CFs, has been described and proposed
to rate both ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 and ISO 6336 gear design
standards based on bending fatigue failure. Although the results
of two design approaches differ from each other, good similarity
and continuity of the charts were found out. This allowed to
obtain CFs between the standards. Now, these two approaches
can be converted to each other with minimum of error. Beyond
the investigations already available in the literature, following
conclusions can be drawn in this study;
• Dimensionless conversion factors (CFs) were generated to
convert the design results (m & b) of ISO Standard into AGMA
with a minor error.
• Two methods are now available to obtain CFs. One can be
made by linear interpolation from Table 7. Secondly, Cp
expressions can be used for any desired speed ratio from Table
8.
• Universality of CFs were verified by case studies and
worked reasonably well. As seen in Table 6 there is 37 to 39%
difference between ISO and AGMA whereas the maximum total
Gear Volume error (GVe) was found as 5,74% with the aid of
CFs.
• Radar charts presented in Fig. 2 provide to make a relative
comparison between ISO and AGMA Standards. ISO Standard
give the GRi results 37% to 39% (GRAGMA-GRISO = (1-0,63) to
(1-0,61)) less than that of AGMA Standard. Besides
investigating the trends of the approaches, GRi numbers allow
designers to aware of the loss or gain on the cost and failure or
success of the design as it considers the gear tooth volume. Thus,
ISO Standard provide to design a spur gear with relatively
smaller volume. Actually any gear design based on the bending
View publication stats
fatigue failure criteria should use ISO gear standard when the
main aim is gear tooth volume or weight reduction.
REFERENCES
[1] Uzay, C., 2014, A Comparison of Approaches to Involute
Spur Gear Design, M.Sc. Thesis, Çukurova University, Institute
of Natural and Applied Science, Adana, Turkey.
[2] Cahala, G., 1999, “ISO 6336 Vs AGMA 2001 Gear Rating
Comparison for Industrial Gear Applications”, 1999 IEEE-
IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference, pp. 19-22.
[3] Beckman, K.O., and Patel, V.P., 2000, “Review of API versus
AGMA Gear Standards – Ratings, Data Sheet Completion, and
Gear Selection Guidelines”, Proceedings of the 29th
Turbomachinery Symposium, pp. 191-204.
[4] Cahala, G., and Uherek, F.C., 2007, “Gear Rating Impact of
AGMA 6014 Gear Ratings for Mill and Kiln Service”, 2007
IEEE Cement Industry Technical Conference, pp. 207-213.
[5] Li, S., 2007, “Finite Element Analyses For Contact Strength
and Bending Strength of A Pair of Spur Gears With Machining
Errors, Assembly Errors and Tooth Modifications”, Mechanism
and Machine Theory, 42, pp. 88–114.
[6] Kawalec, A., Wiktor, J., and Ceglarek, D., 2006,
“Comparative Analysis of Tooth-Root Strength Using ISO and
AGMA Standards in Spur and Helical Gears With FEM-based
Verification”, Journal of Mechanical Design, 128 (5), pp. 1141-
1158.
[7] Kawalec, A., and Wiktor, J., 2008, “Tooth Root Strength of
Spur and Helical Gears Manufactured with Gear-Shaper
Cutters”, Journal of Mechanical Design, 130, pp. 1-5.
[8] ANSI/AGMA 2101-D04 Standard, 2004, Fundamental rating
factors and calculation methods for involute spur and helical gear
teeth, Virginia, USA.
[9] ISO 6336 Standard – Part 1, 2006, Calculation of load
capacity of spur and helical gears – Basic principles, introduction
and general influence factors, Switzerland.
[10] ISO 6336 Standard – Part 3, 2006, Calculation of load
capacity of spur and helical gears – Calculation of tooth bending
strength, London, UK.
[11] ISO 6336 Standard – Part 5, 2003, Calculation of load
capacity of spur and helical gears – Strength and quality of
materials, Switzerland.
[12] ISO 6336 Standard – Part 6, 2004, Calculation of load
capacity of spur and helical gears – Calculation of service life
under variable load, Switzerland.
[13] Budynas, R.G., and Nisbett, J.K., 2011, Shigley's
Mechanical Engineering Design. Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
[14] Icarus Reference, 1998, Chapter 4, 3rd Edition, Icarus
Corporation, USA.
[15] Ugural, A.C., 2003, Mechanical Design an Integrated
Approach, 1st Edition, McGraw Hill, New York.
8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME