AGMA 925 Effect of Lubrification On Gear Surface

AGMA 925- A03
AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface

Distress
AGMA 925- A03
AGMA INFORMATION SHEET

(This Information Sheet is NOT an AGMA Standard)
American Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface Distress
AGMA 925--A03
Gear
Manufacturers CAUTION NOTICE: AGMA technical publications are subject to constant improvement,
revision or withdrawal as dictated by experience. Any person who refers to any AGMA
Association
technical publication should be sure that the publication is the latest available from the As-
sociation on the subject matter.
[Tables or other self--supporting sections may be quoted or extracted. Credit lines should
read: Extracted from AGMA 925--A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface Distress, with
the permission of the publisher, the American Gear Manufacturers Association, 500 Mont-
gomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.]
Approved March 13, 2003
ABSTRACT
AGMA 925--A03 is an enhancement of annex A of ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95. Various methods of gear surface
distress are included, such as scuffing and wear, and in addition, micro and macropitting. Lubricant viscometric
information has been added, as has Dudley’s regimes of lubrication theory. A flow chart is included in annex A,
Gaussian theory in annex B, a summary of lubricant test rigs in annex C, and an example calculation in annex D.
Published by
American Gear Manufacturers Association

500 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Copyright  2003 by American Gear Manufacturers Association
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic
retrieval system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 1--55589--815--7
ii
AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AGMA 925--A03
Contents
Page
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Symbols and units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Gear information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Lubrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Scuffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 Surface fatigue (micro-- and macropitting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8 Wear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Annexes
A Flow chart for evaluating scuffing risk and oil film thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B Normal or Gaussian probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C Test rig gear data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
D Example calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Figures
1 Distances along the line of action for external gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Transverse relative radius of curvature for external gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Load sharing factor -- unmodified profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Load sharing factor -- pinion driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Load sharing factor -- gear driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6 Load sharing factor -- smooth meshing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7 Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for mineral oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8 Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for PAO--based synthetic
non--VI--improved oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9 Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for PAG--based synthetic oils . . . . . . 15
10 Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for MIL Spec. oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11 Pressure--viscosity coefficient versus dynamic viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12 Example of thermal network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13 Contact temperature along the line of action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14 Plot of regimes of lubrication versus stress cycle factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
15 Probability of wear related distress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Tables
1 Symbols and units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Data for determining viscosity and pressure--viscosity coefficient . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Mean scuffing temperatures for oils and steels typical of the aerospace
industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4 Welding factors, XW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5 Scuffing risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6 Stress cycle factor equations for regimes I, II and III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7 Calculation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
iii
AGMA 925--A03 AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Foreword
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, in this document are provided for
informational purposes only and are not to be construed as a part of AGMA Information
Sheet 925--A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface Distress.]
The purpose of this information sheet is to provide the user with information pertinent to the
lubrication of industrial metal gears for power transmission applications. It is intended that
this document serve as a general guideline and source of information about conventional
lubricants, their properties, and their general tribological behavior in gear contacts. This
information sheet was developed to supplement ANSI/AGMA Standards 2101--C95 and
2001--C95. It has been introduced as an aid to the gear manufacturing and user community.
Accumulation of feedback data will serve to enhance future developments and improved
methods to evaluate lubricant related wear risks.
It was clear from the work initiated on the revision of AGMA Standards 2001--C95 and
2101--C95 (metric version) that supporting information regarding lubricant properties and
general tribological knowledge of contacting surfaces would aid in the understanding of
these standards. The information would also provide the user with more tools to help make
a more informed decision about the performance of a geared system. This information
sheet provides sufficient information about the key lubricant parameters to enable the user
to generate reasonable estimates about scuffing and wear based on the collective
knowledge of theory available for these modes at this time.
In 1937 Harmon Blok published his theory about the relationship between contact
temperature and scuffing. This went largely unnoticed in the U.S. until the early 1950’s
when Bruce Kelley showed that Blok’s method and theories correlated well with
experimental data he had generated on scuffing of gear teeth. The Blok flash temperature
theory began to receive serious consideration as a predictor of scuffing in gears. The
methodology and theories continued to evolve through the 1950’s with notable
contributions from Dudley, Kelley and Benedict in the areas of application rating factors,
surface roughness effects and coefficient of friction. The 1960’s saw the evolution of gear
calculations and understanding continue with computer analysis and factors addressing
load sharing and tip relief issues. The AGMA Aerospace Committee began using all the
available information to produce high quality products and help meet its long--term goal of
manned space flight. R. Errichello introduced the SCORING+ computer program in 1985,
which included all of the advancements made by Blok, Kelley, Dudley and the Aerospace
Committee to that time. It became the basis for annex A of ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95 and
2001--C95 which helped predict the risk of scuffing and wear. In the 1990s, this annex
formed the basis for AGMA’s contribution to ISO 13989--1.
Just as many others took the original Blok theories and expanded them, the Tribology
Subcommittee of the Helical Gear Rating Committee has attempted to expand the original
annex A of ANSI/AGMA 2001--C95 and 2101--C95. Specifically, the subcommittee
targeted the effect lubrication may have on gear surface distress. As discussions evolved, it
became clear that this should be a stand alone document which will hopefully serve many
other gear types. This should be considered a work in progress as more is learned about the
theories and understanding of the various parameters and how they affect the life of the
gear. Some of these principles are also mentioned in ISO/TR 13989--1.
AGMA 925--A03 was was approved by the AGMA Technical Division Executive Committee
on March 13, 2003.
Suggestions for improvement of this document will be welcome. They should be sent to the
American Gear Manufacturers Association, 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.
iv
PERSONNEL of the AGMA Helical Rating Committee and Tribology SubCommittee
Chairman: D. McCarthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dorris Company

Vice Chairman: M. Antosiewicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Falk Corporation
SubCommittee Chairman: H. Hagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cincinnati Gear Company
COMMITTEE ACTIVE MEMBERS
K.E. Acheson . . . The Gear Works--Seattle, Inc. G. Lian . . . . . . . . . Amarillo Gear Company
J.B. Amendola . . MAAG Gear AG J.V. Lisiecki . . . . . The Falk Corporation
T.A. Beveridge . . Caterpillar, Inc. L. Lloyd . . . . . . . . Lufkin Industries, Inc.
M.J. Broglie . . . . . Dudley Technical Group, Inc. J.J. Luz . . . . . . . . General Electric Company
A.B. Cardis . . . . . Exxon Mobil Research D.R. McVittie . . . . Gear Engineers, Inc.
M.F. Dalton . . . . . General Electric Company A.G. Milburn . . . . Milburn Engineering, Inc.
G.A. DeLange . . . Prager, Incorporated G.W. Nagorny . . . Nagorny & Associates
D.W. Dudley . . . . Consultant M.W. Neesley . . . Philadelphia Gear Corp.
R.L. Errichello . . . GEARTECH B. O’Connor . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation
D.R. Gonnella . . . Equilon Lubricants W.P. Pizzichil . . . Philadelphia Gear Corp.
M.R. Hoeprich . . The Timken Company D.F. Smith . . . . . . Solar Turbines, Inc.
O.A. LaBath . . . . The Cincinnati Gear Co. K. Taliaferro . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
COMMITTEE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
M. Bartolomeo . . New Venture Gear, Inc. I. Laskin . . . . . . . . Consultant

A.C. Becker . . . . Nuttall Gear LLC J. Maddock . . . . . The Gear Works -- Seattle, Inc.
E. Berndt . . . . . . . Besco J. Escanaverino . ISPJAE
E.J. Bodensieck . Bodensieck Engineering Co. G.P. Mowers . . . . Consultant
D.L. Borden . . . . D.L. Borden, Inc. R.A. Nay . . . . . . . UTC Pratt & Whitney Aircraft
M.R. Chaplin . . . . Contour Hardening, Inc. M. Octrue . . . . . . CETIM
R.J. Ciszak . . . . . Euclid--Hitachi Heavy Equip. Inc. T. Okamoto . . . . . Nippon Gear Company, Ltd.
A.S. Cohen . . . . . Engranes y Maquinaria Arco SA J.R. Partridge . . . Lufkin Industries, Inc.
S. Copeland . . . . Gear Products, Inc. J.A. Pennell . . . . . Univ. of Newcastle--Upon--Tyne
R.L. Cragg . . . . . Consultant A.E. Phillips . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
T.J. Dansdill . . . . General Electric Company J.W. Polder . . . . . Delft University of Technology
F. Eberle . . . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge E. Sandberg . . . . Det Nordske Veritas
L. Faure . . . . . . . . C.M.D.
C.D. Schultz . . . . Pittsburgh Gear Company
C. Gay . . . . . . . . . Charles E. Gay & Company, Ltd.
E.S. Scott . . . . . . The Alliance Machine Company
J. Gimper . . . . . . Danieli United, Inc.
A. Seireg . . . . . . . University of Wisconsin
T.C. Glasener . . . Xtek, Incorporated
Y. Sharma . . . . . . Philadelphia Gear Corporation
G. Gonzalez Rey ISPJAE
B.W. Shirley . . . . Emerson Power Transmission
M.A. Hartman . . . ITW
J.M. Hawkins . . . Rolls--Royce Corporation L.J. Smith . . . . . . Invincible Gear Company
G. Henriot . . . . . . Consultant L. Spiers . . . . . . . Emerson Power Trans. Corp.
G. Hinton . . . . . . . Xtek, Incorporated A.A. Swiglo . . . . . IIT Research Institute/INFAC
M. Hirt . . . . . . . . . Renk AG J.W. Tellman . . . . Dodge
R.W. Holzman . . Milwaukee Gear Company, Inc. F.A. Thoma . . . . . F.A. Thoma, Inc.
R.S. Hyde . . . . . . The Timken Company D. Townsend . . . . NASA/Lewis Research Center
V. Ivers . . . . . . . . Xtek, Incorporated L. Tzioumis . . . . . Dodge
A. Jackson . . . . . Exxon Mobil F.C. Uherek . . . . . Flender Corporation
H.R. Johnson . . . The Horsburgh & Scott Co. A. Von Graefe . . . MAAG Gear AG
J.G. Kish . . . . . . . Sikorsky Aircraft Division C.C. Wang . . . . . 3E Software & Eng. Consulting
R.H. Klundt . . . . . The Timken Company B. Ward . . . . . . . . Recovery Systems, LLC
J.S. Korossy . . . . The Horsburgh & Scott Co. R.F. Wasilewski . Arrow Gear Company
v
SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVE MEMBERS
K.E. Acheson . . . The Gear Works -- Seattle, Inc. G. Lian . . . . . . . . . Amarillo Gear Company
J.B. Amendola . . MAAG Gear AG D. McCarthy . . . . Dorris Company
T.A. Beveridge . . Caterpillar, Inc. D.R. McVittie . . . . Gear Engineers, Inc.
M.J. Broglie . . . . . Dudley Technical Group, Inc. A.G. Milburn . . . . Milburn Engineering, Inc.
A.B. Cardis . . . . . Exxon Mobil Research G.W. Nagorny . . . Nagorny & Associates
R.L. Errichello . . . GEARTECH B. O’Connor . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation
D.R. Gonnella . . . Equilon Lubricants D.F. Smith . . . . . . Solar Turbines, Inc.
M.R. Hoeprich . . The Timken Company K. Taliaferro . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
vi
American Gear Manufacturers It was clear from the work on the revision of standard
ANSI/AGMA 2001--C95 (ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95,
Association -- metric version) that supporting information regard-
ing lubricant properties and general tribological
understanding of contacting surfaces would aid in
Effect of Lubrication on understanding of the standard and provide the user
with more tools to make an informed decision about
Gear Surface Distress the performance of a geared system. One of the key
parameters is the estimated film thickness. This is
not a trivial calculation, but one that has significant
impact on overall performance of the gear pair. It is
considered in performance issues such as scuffing,
wear, and surface fatigue. This information sheet
1 Scope
provides sufficient information about key lubricant
parameters to enable the user to generate reason-
This information sheet is designed to provide able estimates about surface distress based on the
currently available tribological information pertaining collective knowledge available.
to oil lubrication of industrial gears for power
transmission applications. It is intended to serve as Blok [1] published his contact temperature equation
a general guideline and source of information about in 1937. It went relatively unnoticed in the U.S. until
gear oils, their properties, and their general tribolog- Kelley [2] showed that Blok’s method gave good
ical behavior in gear contacts. Manufacturers and correlation with Kelley’s experimental data. Blok’s
end--users are encouraged, however, to work with equation requires an accurate coefficient of friction.
their lubricant suppliers to address specific concerns Kelley found it necessary to couple the coefficient of
or special issues that may not be covered here (such friction to surface roughness of the gear teeth.
as greases). Kelley recognized the importance of load sharing by
multiple pairs of teeth and gear tooth tip relief, but he
The equations provided herein allow the user to did not offer equations to account for those variables.
calculate specific oil film thickness and instanta-
neous contact (flash) temperature for gears in Dudley [3] modified Kelley’s equation by adding
service. These two parameters are considered derating factors for application, misalignment and
critical in defining areas of operation that may lead to dynamics. He emphasized the need for research on
unwanted surface distress. Surface distress may be effects of tip relief, and recommended applying
scuffing (adhesive wear), fatigue (micropitting and Blok’s method to helical gears.
macropitting), or excessive abrasive wear (scoring). In 1958, Kelley [4] changed his surface roughness
Each of these forms of surface distress may be term slightly.
influenced by the lubricant; the calculations are
offered to help assess the potential risk involved with Benedict and Kelley [5] published their equation for
a given lubricant choice. Flow charts are included as variable coefficient of friction derived from disc tests.
aids to using the equations.
The AGMA Aerospace Committee began investigat-
This information sheet is a supplement to ANSI/ ing scuffing in 1960, and Lemanski [6] published
AGMA 2101--C95 and ANSI/AGMA 2001--C95. It results of a computer analysis that contains data for
has been introduced as an aid to the gear manufac- 90 spur and helical gearsets, and formed the terms
turing and user community. Accumulation of feed- for AGMA 217.01 [7], which was published in 1965.
back data will serve to enhance future developments It used Dudley’s modified Blok/Kelley equation and
and improved methods to evaluate lubricant related included factors accounting for load sharing and tip
surface distress. relief.
1
The SCORING+ computer program [8] was released 2 References

in 1985. It incorporated all advancements made by
Blok, Kelley, Dudley and AGMA 217.01. In addition,
it added several improvements including: The following standards contain provisions which
are referenced in the text of this information sheet.
-- Helical gears were analyzed by resolving the
At the time of publication, the editions indicated were
load in the normal plane and distributing the
valid. All standards are subject to revision, and
normal load over the minimum length of the
parties to agreements based on this document are
contact lines. The semi--width of the Hertzian
encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying
contact band was calculated based on the normal
relative radius of curvature; the most recent editions of the standards indicated.
-- Derating factors for application, misalignment ANSI/AGMA 2001--C95, Fundamental Rating Fac-
and dynamics were explicit input data; tors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
Helical Gear Teeth
-- Options for coefficient of friction were part of
input data, including a constant 0.06 (as pre- ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95, Fundamental Rating Fac-
scribed by Kelley and AGMA 217.01), a constant tors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
under user control, and a variable coefficient Helical Gear Teeth (Metric Edition)
based on the Benedict and Kelley equation.
ANSI/AGMA 1010--E95, Appearance of Gear Teeth
SCORING+ and AGMA 217.01 both use the same -- Terminology of Wear and Failure
value for the thermal contact coefficient of
BM = 16.5 N/[mm⋅s0.5⋅K], and they calculate the ISO 10825:1995, Gears -- Wear and Damage to
same contact temperature for spur gears if all Gear Teeth -- Terminology
derating factors are set to unity.
Annex A of ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95 and ANSI/
AGMA 2001--C95 was based on SCORING+ and 3 Symbols and units
included methods for predicting risk of scuffing
based on contact temperature and risk of wear
based on specific film thickness. The symbols used in this document are shown in
This information sheet expands the information in table 1.
annex A of ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95 and ANSI/AGMA NOTE: The symbols and definitions used in this docu-
2001--C95 to include many aspects of gear tribology. ment may differ from other AGMA standards.
Table 1 -- Symbols and units

Symbol Description Units Where first
used
A Dimensionless constant -- -- Eq 61
aw Operating center distance mm Eq 4
B Dimensionless constant -- -- Eq 61
BM Thermal contact coefficient N/[mm s0.5K] 6.2.3
BM1, BM2 Thermal contact coefficient (pinion, gear) N/[mm s0.5K] Eq 84
b Face width mm Eq 23
bH Semi--width of Hertzian contact band mm Eq 57
 i
CA ... CF Distances along line of action mm 4.1.2
CR Surface roughness constant -- -- Eq 85
avgx
c Parameter for calculating ηo -- -- Eq 69
cM1, cM2 Specific heat per unit mass (pinion, gear) J/[kg K] Eq 89, 90
Di Internal gear inside diameter mm 4.1.2
d Parameter for calculating ηo -- -- Eq 69
(continued)
2
Table 1 (continued)

used
E1, E2 Modulus of elasticity (pinion, gear) N/mm2 Eq 58
Er Reduced modulus of elasticity N/mm2 Eq 57
Ft Actual tangential load N Eq 42
(Ft)nom Nominal tangential load N Eq 40
Fwn Normal operating load N Eq 43
G Materials parameter -- -- Eq 65
g Parameter for calculating ηo -- -- Eq 69
Hc Dimensionless central film thickness -- -- Eq 65
 i
h Thickness of element measured perpendicular to flow m Eq 59
hc Central film thickness mm Eq 75
 i
hmin Minimum film thickness mm Eq 102
K Flash temperature constant -- -- Eq 84
KD Combined derating factor -- -- Eq 41
Km Load distribution factor -- -- Eq 41
Ko Overload factor -- -- Eq 41
Kv Dynamic factor -- -- Eq 41
k Parameter for calculating α -- -- Eq 74
ksump Parameter for calculating θM -- -- Eq 91
Lx Filter cutoff of wavelength x mm Eq 77
Lmin Minimum contact length mm Eq 25
mn Normal module mm Eq 2
n1 Pinion speed rpm Eq 33
N Number of load cycles cycles Fig 14
na Fractional (non--integer) part of εβ -- -- Eq 25
nr Fractional (non--integer) part of εα -- -- Eq 25
P Transmitted power kW Eq 40
P(x) Probability of survival -- -- 8.2.2
p Pressure N/mm2 Eq 64
pbn Normal base pitch mm Eq 10
pbt Transverse base pitch mm Eq 9
px Axial pitch mm Eq 11
Q Tail area of the normal probability function -- -- Eq B.2
Q(x) Probability of failure -- -- 8.2.2
R avgx Average of the average values of pinion and gear roughness mm Eq 87
Ra1x, Ra2x Average surface roughness (pinion, gear) at Lx mm Eq 78
Rqx Root mean square roughness at Lx mm Eq 79
Rqx avg Arithmetic average of Rq1x and Rq2x at Lx mm Eq 99
Rq1x, Rq2x Root mean square roughness at Lx (pinion, gear) mm Eq 99
r1, r2 Standard pitch radius (pinion, gear) mm Eq 2, 3
ra1, ra2 Outside radius (pinion, gear) mm Eq 19, 16
rb1, rb2 Base radius (pinion, gear) mm Eq 6, 7
rw1 Operating pitch radius of pinion mm Eq 4
Sf Contact time ms (sec ¢10--3) Eq 97
s Parameter for calculating α -- -- Eq 74
(continued)
3
Table 1 (continued)

used
T Absolute temperature K Eq 61
U(i) Speed parameter -- -- Eq 65
u Gear ratio (always ≥ 1.0) -- -- Eq 1
v Velocity m/s Eq 59
ve Entraining velocity m/s Eq 39
i
v r1 , v r2 Rolling (tangential) velocity (pinion, gear) m/s Eq 36, 37
 i  i
vs Sliding velocity m/s Eq 38
i
vt Operating pitch line velocity m/s Eq 35
W(i) Load parameter -- -- Eq 65
wn Normal unit load N/mm Eq 44
XW Welding factor -- -- Eq 96
XΓ Load sharing factor -- -- 4.3
(i)
Z Active length of line of action mm Eq 21
ZN Stress cycle factor -- -- 7.5
ZQ Normal probability density function -- -- Eq B.3
z1 Number teeth in pinion -- -- Eq 1
z2 Number teeth in gear (positive) -- -- Eq 1
α Pressure--viscosity coefficient mm2/N Eq 64
αn Normal generating pressure angle degrees Eq 5
αt Transverse generating pressure angle degrees Eq 5
αwn Normal operating pressure angle degrees Eq 14
αwt Transverse operating pressure angle degrees Eq 8
β Helix angle degrees Eq 2
βb Base helix angle degrees Eq 12
βw Operating helix angle degrees Eq 13
ξ(i) Pinion roll angle at point i along the line of action radians Eq 29
ξA ... ξE Pinion roll angle at points A ... E radians Eq 28
εα Transverse contact ratio -- -- Eq 22
εβ Axial contact ratio -- -- Eq 23
η Dynamic viscosity mPa⋅s Eq 59
ηatm Viscosity at atmospheric pressure mPa⋅s Eq 64
ηP Viscosity at pressure P mPa⋅s Eq 64
ηM Dynamic viscosity at gear tooth temperature θM mPa⋅s Eq 67
η1, η2 Dynamic viscosity at temperature θ1, θ2 mPa⋅s Eq 70
η40, η100 Dynamic viscosity at 40°C, 100°C mPa⋅s Eq 71
θB Contact temperature °C Eq 92
 i
θB max Maximum contact temperature °C Eq 93
θ fl Flash temperature °C Eq 84
 i
θfl max Maximum flash temperature °C Eq 91
θfl max, test Maximum flash temperature of test gears °C Eq 96
θM Tooth temperature °C Eq 69
θM, test Tooth temperature of test gears °C Eq 96
(continued)
4
Table 1 (concluded)
used
θoil Oil inlet or sump temperature °C Eq 91
θS Mean scuffing temperature °C Eq 94
θS Method of calculating scuffing temperature, θS -- -- Annex A
met
θ1, θ2 Temperature at which η1, η2 was measured °C Eq 70
λmin Specific film thickness -- -- Eq 104
λ 2b Specific film thickness at point i with a filter cutoff wavelength -- -- Eq 76
H 
i of 2bH
λM1, λM2 Heat conductivity (pinion, gear) N/[s K] Eq 89, 90
λW&H Wellauer and Holloway specific film thickness -- -- Eq 102
my Mean value of random variable y -- -- 6.5.5
mm Mean coefficient of friction -- -- Eq 84
 i
mmet Method for approximating mean coefficient of friction -- -- Annex A
mm const Mean coefficient of friction, constant -- -- Eq 85
mλ min Mean minimum specific film thickness mm Eq 109
ν Kinematic viscosity mm2/s Eq 60
ν1, ν2 Poisson’s ratio (pinion, gear) -- -- Eq 58
ν40, ν100 Kinematic viscosity at 40°C, 100°C mm2/s Eq 62
ρ Density kg/m3 Eq 60
ρM1, ρM2 Density (pinion, gear) kg/m3 Eq 89, 90
ρ1 , ρ2 Transverse radius of curvature (pinion, gear) mm 4.1.5
i i
ρn Normal relative radius of curvature mm Eq 32
i
ρr Transverse relative radius of curvature mm Eq 31
 i
σx Composite surface roughness for filter cutoff wavelength, Lx mm Eq 77
σλ min Standard deviation of the minimum specific film thickness mm Eq 109
σ 2b Composite surface roughness adjusted for a cutoff mm Eq 76
H  wavelength equal to the Hertzian contact width
i
τ Shear stress N/mm2 Eq 59
ω1, ω2 Angular velocity (pinion, gear) rad/s Eq 33, 34
4 Gear information Standard pitch radii

z1 mn
r1 = (2)
4.1 Gear geometry 2 cos β
r2 = r 1 u (3)
This clause gives equations for gear geometry used
to determine flash temperature and elastohydrody- Operating pitch radius of pinion
namic (EHL) film thickness. The following equations aw
apply to both spur and helical gears; spur gearing is a r w1 = (4)
u1
particular case with zero helix angle. Where double Transverse generating pressure angle
signs are used (e.g., ¦), the upper sign applies to
external gears and the lower sign to internal gears.
α t = arctan tancosαβ 
n
(5)
4.1.1 Basic gear geometry
Base radii
Gear ratio
r b1 = r 1 cos α t (6)
z
u = z2 (1) r b2 = r b1 u (7)
1
5
Transverse operating pressure angle

r
α wt = arccos r b1
w1
  (8)
Transverse base pitch

αwt
2 π r b1
p bt = z1 (9) ra2 rb2
Normal base pitch aw

p bn = π m n cos α n HPSTC
(10)
Z
pbt
Axial pitch
π mn pbt EAP
px = (11) LPSTC
sin β E
D
Base helix angle A C
SAP B
p
β b = arccos pbn
bt
  (12) CA
CB ra1
CC
Operating helix angle CD
CE CF
rb1

tan β
β w = arctan cos α b
wt
 (13)
Normal operating pressure angle
α wn = arcsincos β b sin α wt (14)

Figure 1 -- Distances along the line of action for
4.1.2 Distances along the line of action external gears
Figure 1 is the line of action shown in a transverse 4.1.3 Contact ratios
plane. Distances Cj are measured from the interfer- Transverse contact ratio
ence point of the pinion along the line of action.
Distance CA locates the pinion start of active profile ε α = pZ (22)
bt
(SAP) and distance CE locates the pinion end of nr is fractional (non--integer) part of εα.
active profile (EAP). The lowest and highest point of
single--tooth--pair contact (LPSTC and HPSTC) are Axial contact ratio
located by distances CB and CD, respectively. -- for helical gears
Distance CC locates the operating pitch point. CF is
the distance between base circles along the line of ε β = pb (23)
x
action. na is fractional (non--integer) part of εβ.
C F = a w sin α wt (15) -- for spur gears

C A = C F − r 2a2 − r 2b2 
0.5
(16)
ε β = 0.0
Minimum contact length
(24)
D -- for helical gears, case 1, where 1 − n r  ≥ n a

NOTE: For internal gears r a2 = i .
2
ε αb − n a n r p x
CF L min = (25)
CC = (17) cos β b
u1
C D = C A + p bt (18) -- for helical gears, case 2, where 1 − n r  < n a
0.5 ε α b − 1 − n a1 − n r  p x
C E = r 2a1 − r 2b1 (19) L min = (26)
cos β b
C B = C E − p bt (20) -- for spur gears
Z = CE − CA (21) L min = b (27)
6
4.1.4 Roll angles Transverse relative radius of curvature

Pinion roll angles corresponding to the five specific Ã1 Ã2
i i
points along the line of action shown in figure 1 are Ãr =
Ã (31)
 i 2  Ã1
given by: i  i
Cj Normal relative radius of curvature

ξj = r (28)
b1 Ãr
 i
where Ãn = (32)
i cos β b
j = A, B, C, D, E Ãr and Ã n are the equivalent radii of cylinders
 i i
4.1.5 Profile radii of curvature riding on a flat plate that represent the gear pair
Transverse radii of curvature curvatures in contact along the line of action.
Figure 2 shows the transverse radii of curvature, Ã 1 4.2 Gear tooth velocities and loads
i
Rotational (angular) velocities
and Ã 2 , of the gear tooth profiles at a general
i πn 1
contact point defined by the roll angle, ξ(i), where (i) is ω1 = (33)
30
any point on the line of action from A to E (see figure ω1
ω2 = u (34)
1).
Operating pitch line velocity
ω 1 r w1
vt = (35)
1000
Rolling (tangential) velocities
ω1 Ã1
 i
v r1 = (36)
Ã 1 Ã2  i 1000
 i  i
Ãr = ω2 Ã2
i Ã2  Ã 1
 i  i  i
v r2 = (37)
 i 1000
Sliding velocity (absolute value)
Ã1 Ã2
 i i i

v s = v r1 − v r2
i
 (38)
 i
Entraining velocity (absolute value)
r b1
ξ(i) CF
i  i

v e = v r1 + v r2
i
 (39)
Nominal tangential load
F t
nom
= 1000
v
P (40)
t
Figure 2 -- Transverse relative radius of Combined derating factor
curvature for external gears
K D = K o Km Kv (41)
where
Ã 1 = r b1ξ i (29)
i Ko is overload factor;
where Km is load distribution factor;
ξ A ≤ ξ (i) ≤ ξE Kv is dynamic factor.
(30) See ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95 for guidance in
Ã2 = CF  Ã1
i i determining Ko, Km and Kv factors.
7
Actual tangential load For modified tooth profiles
F t = F t nom K D (42) If adequate tip and root relief is designed for high
load capacity, and if the pinion drives the gear (see
Normal operating load figure 4):
Ft
F wn =
Normal unit load

cos α wn cos β w
(43)
XΓ = 6
i 7
 ξ  i − ξ A
ξB − ξ A
 for ξ A ≤ ξ i < ξ B (48)
F wn X Γ = 1 for ξ B ≤ ξ i ≤ ξ D (49)

wn = (44) i
L min
4.3 Load sharing factor
The load sharing factor accounts for load sharing
XΓ = 1 + 6
i 7 7
 ξ E − ξ  i
ξ E − ξD
 for ξ D < ξ i ≤ ξ E
(50)
between succeeding pairs of teeth as influenced by
profile modification, and whether the pinion or gear is
the driving member. By convention, the load sharing 1
factor is represented by a polygonal function on the 6
line of action with magnitude equal to 1.0 between 7
points B and D (see figure 3).
The load sharing factor is strongly influenced by
profile modification of the tooth flanks of both gears.
On the other hand, profile modifications are chosen 1
such that load sharing follows a desired function. 7
The following equations give the load sharing factor A B D E
for unmodified tooth profiles, and for three typical
cases of profile modifications. Figure 4 -- Load sharing factor -- pinion driving
For unmodified tooth profiles
If there is no tip or root relief (see figure 3): If adequate tip and root relief is designed for high
load capacity, and if the pinion is driven by the gear
XΓ = 1 + 1
3 3
 ξ i − ξ A
ξB − ξA
 for ξ A ≤ ξ i < ξ B
(see figure 5):
 
i
(45) ξ i − ξ A
XΓ = 1 + 6 for ξ A ≤ ξ i < ξ B
X Γ = 1 for ξ B ≤ ξ i ≤ ξ D (46) i 7 7 ξB − ξA
i (51)
XΓ = 1 + 1
3 3
 ξ E − ξ  i
ξ E − ξD
 for ξ D < ξ i ≤ ξ E
X Γ = 1 for ξ B ≤ ξ i ≤ ξ D
i (52)
 
i
(47) ξE − ξ i
XΓ = 6 for ξ D < ξ i ≤ ξE (53)
i 7 ξE − ξD
2 1
6
3 7
1
3
1
A B D E 7
A B D E
Figure 3 -- Load sharing factor -- unmodified
profiles Figure 5 -- Load sharing factor -- gear driving
8
For smooth meshing 5 Lubrication

If adequate tip and root relief is designed for smooth
meshing (see figure 6): 5.1 Viscometric information
ξ  i − ξ A Lubricants are commonly referred to by their base

XΓ = for ξ A ≤ ξ i < ξ B (54) type, for example mineral or synthetic, and their
i ξB − ξA
viscosity, usually in relation to a defined viscosity
X Γ = 1 for ξ B ≤ ξ i ≤ ξ D (55) grade. Viscosity is one of the basic and very
i
important properties of a lubricant and is used
ξ E − ξ i extensively in tribological calculations. Viscosity is a
XΓ = for ξ D < ξ i ≤ ξ E (56)
i ξE − ξ D bulk property of a fluid, semi--fluid or semi--solid
substance that causes it to resist flow. In addition to
the basic composition and structure of the material,
1 viscosity decreases with increasing temperature
and increases with increasing pressure.
For a liquid under shear, the rate of deformation or
shear rate is proportional to the shearing stress. This
relationship is Newton’s law, which essentially states
that the ratio of the stress to the shear rate is a
constant. That constant is viscosity. Dynamic
viscosity, η, sometimes referred to as absolute
A B D E viscosity, is defined by equation 59.
Figure 6 -- Load sharing factor -- smooth η = 10 9 τ (59)
meshing  
dv
dh
where:
4.4 Hertzian contact band η is dynamic viscosity, mPa•s;
The semi--width of the rectangular contact band is τ is shear stress, N/mm2;
given by:
v is velocity, m/s;
0.5
8 XΓi wn Ãni h is thickness of an element measured per-
b H =  (57) pendicular to the flow, m;
 i
 π Er  dh
dv is known as the rate of shear [s --1] and
where
sometimes listed as γ.
XΓ is load sharing factor (see 4.3); Lubricants used in industry today, however, have
i
their viscosity measured by capillary viscometers
wn is normal unit load, N/mm (see equation 44); which provide a kinematic viscosity. Kinematic
Ãn is normal relative radius of curvature, mm viscosity, ν, is the ratio of dynamic viscosity, η, to the
i
density, ρ, at a specified temperature and pressure
(see equation 32);
(see equation 60).
Er is reduced modulus of elasticity given by: η
ν = 10 3 Ã (60)
 
−1
1 − ν 21 1 − ν 22
Er = 2 + (58) where:
E1 E2
ν is kinematic viscosity, mm2/s;
where
ρ is density, kg/m3.
ν1, ν2 is Poisson’s ratio (pinion, gear); ASTM D445 [9] is the most widely used method for
E1, E2 is modulus of elasticity, N/mm2 (pinion, measuring the kinematic viscosity of lubricants for
gear). many different applications. The most commonly
9
used temperatures are 40°C and 100°C; these then

measurements are generally made at atmospheric
A = log 10 log 10ν 40 + 0.7 + B × log 10(313.15)
pressure.
(63)
Under Newton’s law, viscosity is independent of Another common numeric designation that provides
shear rate. Fluids such as these are referred to as information about the viscosity--temperature rela-
Newtonian fluids. Most conventional, single grade tionship of a fluid is the viscosity index or VI. The
lubricants made with a relatively low molecular viscosity index of a fluid can be calculated by ASTM
weight base stock (non--polymeric) are considered method D2270 [11]. This arbitrary measure gives a
Newtonian fluids. However, there are fluids that do relative viscosity--temperature sensitivity for a given
not exhibit this ideal behavior because their viscosity oil. The higher the value the less change in viscosity
is not independent of shear rate. These are usually with temperature.
finished blends containing higher molecular weight
polymers (viscosity modifiers or viscosity index 5.1.2 Viscosity--pressure relationship
improvers, as well as pour point depressants) that Equally important to temperature on the fluid
are sensitive to shear rate. Some exhibit shear viscosity is the pressure acting on it. This is
thinning, whereas others result in shear thickening. especially important in highly loaded contacts such
It is more common in gear lubricant applications to as gears and rolling element bearings where pres-
find shear thinning relationships due to the nature of sures can easily exceed 1 GPa. The viscosity of
the polymers typically used in these formulations. lubricant trapped in a concentrated contact in-
This shear thinning translates into lower effective creases exponentially with pressure. In 1893, C.
viscosities in the contact region under operation than Barus established an empirical equation to describe
might be expected from a non--polymer blend of the isothermal viscosity--pressure relationship for a
similar viscosity. given liquid as shown in equation 64.
5.1.1 Viscosity – temperature relationship η P = η atm e α p (64)
where
Lubricant viscosity varies inversely with tempera-
ture. A truly ideal fluid would have a viscosity that is ηP is viscosity at pressure, p, mPa•s;
constant over all temperature. ASTM method D341 ηatm is viscosity at atmospheric pressure,
[10] can be used to obtain the viscosity--temperature mPa•s;
relationship. A simplified form can be used to α is pressure--viscosity coefficient, mm2/N.
estimate the kinematic viscosity of a fluid at a given
temperature if there is some viscometric information Today the model continues to be refined. So and
Klaus [12] provided a comparison of the many
available for the fluid at two other temperatures (see
models developed since the Barus equation was first
equation 61).
introduced. The continued research aided by the
log 10 log 10(ν + 0.7) = A − B × log 10 T (61) development of high pressure rheology techniques
to generate empirical information have shown that
where: the viscosity--pressure response of a fluid is also
related to its chemical structure [13, 14, 15]. This can
T is absolute temperature, K; have a profound effect on the film forming capabili-
ν is kinematic viscosity, mm2/s; ties of the fluid in question and the overall life of the
component involved.
A, B are dimensionless constants. 5.2 Film thickness equation
A and B can be determined by solving equation 61 Dowson, Higginson and Toyoda have authored
simultaneously with equations 62 and 63, using the various papers on EHL film thickness [16, 17, 18,
kinematic viscosity of the fluid measured at standard 19]. The film thickness equations given in these
temperatures of 40°C and 100°C. papers account for the exponential increase of
lubricant viscosity with pressure, tooth geometry,
log 10 log 10ν 40 + 0.7 − log 10 log 10ν 100 + 0.7 velocity of the gear teeth, material elastic properties
B= and the transmitted load. The film thickness
log 10(373.15) − log10(313.15)
(62) determines the operating regime of the gearset and
10
has been found to be a useful index of wear related η1 is dynamic viscosity at temperature θ1,
distress probability. Wellauer and Holloway [20] also mPa•s;
found that specific film thickness could be correlated
η2 is dynamic viscosity at temperature θ2,
with the probability of tooth surface distress. The
mPa•s;
Dowson and Toyoda [19] equation for line contact
central EHL film thickness will be used as shown θ1 is temperature at which η1 was determined,
below. °C;
Dimensionless central film thickness: θ2 is temperature at which η2 was determined,
G 0.56U 0.69 °C.
 i
H c = 3.06
 i W  i
0.10
(65)

log 10
log 10η 2+0.9
log 10η 1+0.9

where d= (70)
(i) (as a subscript) defines a point on the line of log 10 2 
θ +273.15
θ 1+273.15

action,
and the dimensionless parameters G, U(i) and W(i) when θ1 = 40°C and θ2 = 100°C,
 
are defined below:
log 10η 100 + 0.9
materials parameter, G d = 13.13525 log 10 (71)
log 10η 40 + 0.9
G = α Er (66)
speed parameter, U(i)
ηM ve c = log 10 log 10η 1 + 0.9
 i
U  i = × 10 −6 (67) − d log 10 θ 1 + 273.15) (72)
2E r Ã n
i
when θ1 = 40°C and θ2 = 100°C,
load parameter, W(i)
XΓ wn 
c = log 10 log 10η 40 + 0.9 − 2.495752 d
 i (73)
W i = (68)
Er Ãn α is pressure--viscosity coefficient, mm2/N.
 i
Values range from 0.725 ¢ 10 --2 mm2/N to
where 2.9 ¢ 10 --2 mm2/N for typical gear lubri-
ηM is dynamic viscosity at the gear tooth cants. Values for pressure--viscosity
temperature, mPa•s. coefficients vs. dynamic viscosity can be
obtained from equation 74.
η M = 10 g − 0.9 (69)
α = k η sM (74)
where
d
Table 2 contains viscosity information for mineral
g = 10 cθ M + 273.15 oils, MIL--L spec. oils, polyalphaolefin (PAO) based
synthetic oils (which contain ester) and polyalkylene
θM is tooth temperature, °C (see 6.3).
glycol (PAG) based synthetic oils, as well as
The parameters c and d required for calculating ηM constants c, d, k and s for use in the equations 69
can either be taken from table 2 or calculated with through 74. These values were obtained from the
equations 70 and 72, respectively. Equations 70 and data shown in figures 7 through 11 [22]. It is
72, derived from a modification of the Walther important that the film thickness is calculated with
equation [10], will yield the parameters c and d if two values of viscosity and pressure--viscosity coeffi-
dynamic viscosities, η1 and η2, are known at two cient for the gear tooth temperature, θM, (see 6.3).
corresponding temperatures, θ1 and θ2. The central film thickness at a given point is:
Since dynamic viscosity is generally available at
h c = H c Ã n × 10 3 (75)
40°C and 100°C, equations 70 and 72 are modified  i i  i
in equations 71 and 73 to incorporate terms
(see clause 4 for Ã n ).
corresponding to those temperatures. i
11
Table 2 -- Data for determining viscosity and pressure--viscosity coefficient
Lubricant ISO VG1) η40 η100 c d k s

Mineral oil 32 27.17816 4.294182 10.20076 --4.02279 0.010471 0.1348
46 39.35879 5.440514 10.07933 --3.95628 0.010471 0.1348
68 58.64514 7.059163 9.90355 --3.86833 0.010471 0.1348
100 86.91484 9.251199 9.65708 --3.75377 0.010471 0.1348
150 131.4335 12.27588 9.42526 --3.64563 0.010471 0.1348
220 194.2414 15.98296 9.24059 --3.55832 0.010471 0.1348
320 284.6312 20.60709 9.09300 --3.48706 0.010471 0.1348
460 412.0824 26.34104 8.96420 --3.42445 0.010471 0.1348
680 613.8288 34.24003 8.84572 --3.36585 0.010471 0.1348
1000 909.4836 38.56783 9.25943 --3.52128 0.010471 0.1348
1500 1374.931 49.58728 9.19946 --3.48702 0.010471 0.1348
2200 2031.417 62.69805 9.15646 --3.46064 0.010471 0.1348
3200 2975.954 78.56109 9.13012 --3.44157 0.010471 0.1348
PAO -- based 150 128.5772 16.17971 7.99428 --3.07304 0.010326 0.0507
synthetic non-- 220 189.9828 21.60933 7.79927 --2.98154 0.010326 0.0507
VI improved oil 320 278.3370 28.66405 7.63035 --2.90169 0.010326 0.0507
460 402.8943 37.54020 7.49799 --2.83762 0.010326 0.0507
680 600.0179 53.20423 7.16434 --2.69277 0.010326 0.0507
1000 868.1710 68.60767 7.12008 --2.66528 0.010326 0.0507
1500 1310.350 91.03300 7.07678 --2.63766 0.010326 0.0507
2200 1933.070 118.0509 7.06113 --2.62221 0.010326 0.0507
3200 2827.726 151.2132 7.06594 --2.61561 0.010326 0.0507
6800 6077.362 244.5559 7.11907 --2.62091 0.010326 0.0507
PAG -- based 100 102.630 19.560 6.42534 --2.45259 0.0047 0.1572
synthetic2) 150 153.950 27.380 6.19586 --2.34616 0.0047 0.1572
220 225.790 40.090 5.76552 --2.16105 0.0047 0.1572
320 328.430 56.710 5.49394 --2.04065 0.0047 0.1572
460 472.130 77.250 5.35027 --1.97254 0.0047 0.1572
680 697.920 113.43 5.06011 --1.84558 0.0047 0.1572
1000 1026.37 163.30 4.85075 --1.75175 0.0047 0.1572
MIL--L--7808K 12 11.35364 2.701402 9.58596 --3.82619 0.005492 0.25472
Grade 3
MIL--L--7808K 17 16.09154 3.609883 9.08217 --3.60300 0.005492 0.25472
Grade 4
MIL--L--23699E 23 22.56448 4.591235 8.91638 --3.51779 0.006515 0.16530
NOTES:
1) ν (mm2/s)
40
2) Copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide in 50% weight ratio.
The specific film thickness is the ratio of film shown in equation 76.
thickness divided by the composite roughness of the
contacting gear teeth and can be used to assess hc
 i
performance. λ 2b =σ (76)
H  2b
i H 
To determine this ratio, the cutoff wavelength for the i
composite surface roughness measurement (σx)
should be comparable to the width of the Hertzian This may not be practical because many surface
contact, 2b H . This results in σx becoming σ 2b as measuring instruments have a fixed cutoff wave-
 i H 
i length (usually 0.8 mm).
12
1 000 000
ISO VG
3200
2200
100 000 1500
1000
680
460
10 000
320
220
Dynamic viscosity (mPa⋅s)
150
100
1000 68
46
32
100
10
1
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Temperature (K)
Figure 7 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for mineral oils
Following the concepts in [21], equation 76 can be where

approximated by:
λ 2b is specific film thickness at point i with a
H 
0.5 i
hc  Lx  i filter cutoff wavelength of 2bH;
σ x 2b 
λ 2b = (77)
H 
i  Hi Lx is filter cutoff wavelength used in measuring
surface roughness, mm. Any cutoff length,
0.5 Lx, can be used (for example, L0.8 = 0.8 mm
σ x = Ra 21x + Ra 22x (78)
cutoff);
13
σx is composite surface roughness for filter Rq 2x ∝ L x (79)

cutoff wavelength Lx, mm;
where
Ra1x is pinion average surface roughness for Lx,
Rqx2 is variance or square of the root mean
mm;
square roughness, mm.
Ra2x is gear average surface roughness for Lx, also [25]:
mm.
Use of the radical term in equation 77 for roughness Ra x = 2π Rqx (80)
adjustment is developed below. From equations 79 and 80:
From Gaussian statistics [24], it is seen that: Ra x ∝ L 0.5

x (81)
1 000 000
ISO VG
6800
100 000
3200
2200
1500
1000
10 000 680
460
320
220
150
1000
100
10
1
300200 250
350 400 450 500
Temperature (K)
Figure 8 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for PAO--based synthetic non--VI--improved oils
14
Hence, for a 0.8 mm cutoff length, 0.5
0.5
σ 0.8 = Ra 2 2 
10.8 + Ra 2 0.8 yields equation 83
 i
2b H
which is equation 77 developed for a 0.8 mm cutoff
Ra 2b = Ra 0.8  L0.8  (82)
length.
H 
i  
Substitute equation 82 into equation 78 once 0.5
i L 
hc
each for Ra1x and for Ra2x to obtain σ 2b .
H  λ 2b = σ  0.8  (83)
i 0.8 2b H
Using this in equation 76, noting that
H 
i  i
1010000000
000 000
1000000
1 000 000
100 000
100000
1010000
000
1000
1000
100
100
ISO VG
1000
680
460
320
10
10 220
150
100
11
200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
Temperature (K)
Figure 9 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for PAG--based synthetic oils
15
1000
MIL--L--23699E
MIL--L--7808K Grade 4
100
MIL--L--7808K Grade 3
10
0.1
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Temperature (K)
Figure 10 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for MIL Spec. oils
Mineral oil
MIL--L--7808K
Pressure--viscosity coefficient (mm2/N)
MIL--L--23699E
Synthetic oil (PAO)
0.1 Synthetic oil (PAG)
0.01
0.001
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 1 000 000
Figure 11 -- Pressure--viscosity coefficient versus dynamic viscosity
16
6 Scuffing Prediction of the probability of scuffing is possible by

comparing the calculated contact temperature with
limiting scuffing temperature. The limiting scuffing
6.1 General temperature can be calculated from an appropriate
gear scuffing test, or can be provided by field
The term scuffing as used in this information sheet is
investigations.
defined as localized damage caused by solid--phase
welding between surfaces in relative motion. It is For non--additive mineral oils, each combination of
accompanied by transfer of metal from one surface oil and gear materials has a limiting scuffing
to another due to welding and subsequent tearing, temperature that is constant regardless of the
and may occur in any highly loaded contact where operating conditions. It is believed that the limiting
the oil film is too thin to adequately separate the scuffing temperature is not constant for synthetic
surfaces. Scuffing appears as a matte, rough finish and high--additive EP lubricants, and it must be
due to the microscopic tearing at the surface. It determined from tests that closely simulate the
occurs most commonly at extreme end regions of the operating condition of the gearset.
contact path or near points of single tooth contact.
6.2 Flash temperature
Scuffing is also known generically as severe
adhesive wear. The flash temperature is the calculated increase in
gear tooth surface temperature at a given point along
Scoring was a term commonly used in the U.S. to
the line of action resulting from the combined effects
describe the same phenomenon now defined as
scuffing (welding and tearing of mating surfaces). of gear tooth geometry, load, friction, velocity and
See ANSI/AGMA 1010--E95 or ISO 10825:1995. material properties during operation.
6.1.1 Mechanism of scuffing 6.2.1 Fundamental formula for flash

temperature, θ fl
i
The basic mechanism of scuffing is caused by
intense frictional heat generated by a combination of The fundamental formula is based on Blok’s [1]
high sliding velocity and high contact stress. equation.
Scuffing occurs under thin film, boundary lubrication
conditions and can be affected by physical and XΓ wn
 i
chemical properties of the lubricant, nature of the θ fl = 31.62 K m m
 i 0.5
 
 i
oxide films, and gear material.
bH
When gear teeth are separated by a thick lubricant  i
film, contact between surface asperities is mini-

mized and there is usually no scuffing. As lubricant  v r1 − v r2
 i  i

film thickness decreases, asperity contact increases × (84)
0.5 0.5
and scuffing becomes more probable. A very thin
film, such as in boundary lubrication, together with a
high contact temperature suggests a high probability
 
B M1 v r1
 i
+ B M2 v r2  
 i
of scuffing is possible in the absence of antiscuff where

additives in the lubricant.
K is 0.80, numerical factor valid for a semi--
6.1.2 Probability of scuffing elliptic (Hertzian) distribution of frictional
Blok’s [1] contact temperature theory states that heat over the instantaneous width, 2 bH, of
scuffing will occur in gear teeth that are sliding under the rectangular contact band;
boundary--lubricated conditions, when the maxi- mm is mean coefficient of friction (see 6.2.2);
 i
mum contact temperature reaches a critical
magnitude. The contact temperature is the sum of XΓ is load sharing factor (see 4.3);
two components: the flash temperature and the i
tooth temperature. See 6.4. wn is normal unit load, N/mm (see equation 44);
Scuffing most commonly occurs at one of the two v r1 is rolling tangential velocity of the pinion, m/s
extreme end regions of the contact path or near the  i
points of single tooth contact. (see equation 36);
17
v r2 is rolling tangential velocity of the gear, m/s boundary lubricated gears where mm may be higher
 i
than 0.2, or too high for gears operating in the
(see equation 37); full--film regime where mm may be less than 0.01.
BM1 is thermal contact coefficient of the pinion The surface roughness is taken as an average of the
material, N/[mm s0.5K] (see 6.2.3); average values:
BM2 is thermal contact coefficient of the gear Ra + Ra 2x
R avgx = 1x (87)
material, N/[mm s0.5K] (see 6.2.3); 2
bH is semi--width of Hertzian contact band, mm where
 i
Ra1x is pinion average surface roughness for filter
(see equation 57); cutoff length, Lx, mm;
i (as a subscript) defines a point on the line of Ra2x is gear average surface roughness for filter
action. cutoff length, Lx, mm.
In this equation, the coefficient of friction may be 6.2.2.2 Empirical equation
approximated by different expressions, for instance An empirical equation for a variable coefficient of
as proposed by Kelley [2, 4] and AGMA 217.01 [7]. friction is the Benedict and Kelley [5] equation,
The influence of surface roughness is incorporated supplemented with the influence of roughness:
in the approximation of the coefficient of friction.
29 700 XΓiwn
6.2.2 Mean coefficient of friction, m m
i 
m m = 0.0127 C R log 10 2 
avgx
 ηMvsivei 
 i
The mean coefficient of friction is an approximation (88)

of the actual coefficient of friction on the tooth flank,
where the surface roughness expression is taken in
which is an instantaneous and local value depending
accordance with equations 86 and 87. Equation 88
on several properties of the oil, surface roughness,
is not valid at or near the operating pitch point, as vs
lay of the surface irregularities like grinding marks,
goes to zero.
material properties, tangential velocities, forces and
dimensions. where
Three methods may be used to determine the value ηM is dynamic viscosity of the oil at gear tooth
of m m to be used in equation 84. temperature, θM, mPa•s;
 i
vs is sliding velocity, m/s (see equation 38);
i
-- input a value based upon experience, which
is a constant; ve is entraining velocity, m/s (see equation 39).
i
-- input a value from equation 85, which is also 6.2.3 Thermal contact coefficient, BM
a constant; The thermal contact coefficient accounts for the
-- input a value from equation 88, which varies influence of the material properties of pinion and
along the line of action. gear:
6.2.2.1 Approximation by a constant 0.5
B M1 = λ M1 × Ã M1 × c M1 (89)
A constant coefficient of friction along the line of 0.5
action has been assumed by AGMA 217.01 [7] and B M2 = λ M2 × Ã M2 × c M2 (90)
Kelley [2]: For martensitic steels the range of heat conductivity,
m m = m m const = 0.06 × C R (85) λM , is 41 to 52 N/[s K] and the product of density
 i avg x times the specific heat per unit mass, ρM ¢ cM is
The surface roughness constant, C R , is limited about 3.8 N/[mm2K], so that the use of the average
avgx value BM = 13.6 N/[mm s0.5 K] for such steels will not
to a maximum value of 3.0: introduce a large error when the thermal contact
1.13 coefficient is unknown.
1.0 ≤ C R = ≤ 3.0 (86)
avgx 1.13 − R avgx 6.2.4 Maximum flash temperature
Equation 85 gives a typical value for gears operating To locate and determine the maximum flash tem-
in the partial EHL regime. It may be too low for perature, the flash temperature should be calculated
18
at a sufficient number of points (for example, 25 to tion, an accurate value of the gear tooth temperature
50) on the line of action. Calculate flash tempera- be used for the analysis.
tures at points between SAP and LPSTC during
6.3.2 Measurement and experience
double tooth contact, at LPSTC and HPSTC for
single tooth contact, and between HPSTC and EAP The tooth temperature can be measured by testing,
during double tooth contact. or determined according to experience.
If the contact temperature (see 6.4) is greater than 6.3.3 Thermal network
the mean scuffing temperature (see 6.5) for the
The tooth temperature can be calculated from a
lubricant being used, there is a potential risk for
thermal network analysis [43] (see figure 12).
scuffing (see 6.5.5).
The tooth temperature is determined by the heat flow
6.3 Tooth temperature
balance in the gearbox. There are several sources
The tooth temperature, θM, is the equilibrium tem- of frictional heat, of which the most important ones
perature of the surface of the gear teeth before they are the tooth friction and the bearing friction. Other
enter the contact zone. In some cases [26], the tooth heat sources, like seals and oil flow, may also
temperature may be significantly higher than the contribute. For gear pitchline velocities above 80
temperature of the oil supplied to the gear mesh. m/s, churning loss, expulsion of oil between meshing
teeth, and windage loss become important heat
6.3.1 Rough approximation sources that should be considered. Heat is con-
For a very rough approximation, the tooth tempera- ducted and transferred to the environment by
ture may be estimated by the sum of the oil conduction, convection and radiation.
temperature, taking into account some impediment 6.4 Contact temperature
in heat transfer for spray lubrication if applicable, and
a portion that depends mainly on the flash tempera- 6.4.1 Contact temperature at any point
ture, for which the maximum value is taken: At any point on the line of action (see figure 13) the
θ M = k sump θ oil + 0.56 θ fl max (91) contact temperature is:
where θ B = θ M + θ fl (92)
 i i
ksump = 1.0 if splash lube; 1.2 if spray lube; where
θoil is oil supply or sump temperature, ° C; θM is tooth temperature, °C (see 6.3);
θfl max is maximum flash temperature, ° C, see θ fl is flash temperature, °C (see 6.2).
6.2.  i
However, for a reliable evaluation of the scuffing risk, i (as a subscript) defines a point on the line of
it is important that instead of the rough approxima- action.
Pinion Oil
Case
Friction power Air
Bearings
Gear Shafts
Friction
power
Figure 12 -- Example of thermal network
19
θB θB max machines. The mean scuffing temperature was

 i derived from data published by Blok [27].
Equation 94 gives the scuffing temperature for
θ fl θfl max
 i
non--antiscuff mineral oils (R&O in accordance with
ANSI/AGMA 9005--E02 [28]).
θ S = 63 + 33 ln ν 40 (94)
where
ν40 is kinematic viscosity at 40° C, mm2/s (table
θM 2).
Equation 95 gives the scuffing temperature for
antiscuff mineral oils (EP gear oil in accordance with
ANSI/AGMA 9005--E02).
A B C D E θ S = 118 + 33 ln ν 40 (95)
6.5.2 Mean scuffing temperature for oils and
Figure 13 -- Contact temperature along the line steels typical of aerospace industry
of action
Table 3 gives the mean scuffing temperature for oils
with steels typical of the aerospace industry.
6.4.2 Maximum contact temperature

Table 3 -- Mean scuffing temperatures for oils
The maximum contact temperature is: and steels typical of the aerospace industry
θ B max = θ M + θ fl max (93) Mean scuffing
Lubricant temperature, ° C
where
MIL--L--7808 205
θfl max is maximum flash temperature, °C (see MIL--L--23699 220
6.2).
DERD2487 225
6.5 Scuffing temperature DERD2497 240
The scuffing temperature is the temperature in the DOD--L--85734 260
tooth contact zone at which scuffing is likely to occur ISO VG 32 PAO 280
with the chosen combination of lubricant and gear DexronR II1) 290
materials. The scuffing temperature is assumed to NOTE:
1) DexronR is a registered trademark of General
be a characteristic value for the material--lubricant
Motors Corporation.
system of a gear pair, to be determined by gear tests
with the same material--lubricant system.
When θB max (see figure 13) reaches the scuffing 6.5.3 Extension of test gear scuffing temperature
temperature of the system, scuffing is likely. The for one steel to other steels
mean scuffing temperature is the temperature at The scuffing temperature determined from test
which there is a 50% chance of scuffing. gears with low--additive mineral oils may be ex-
6.5.1 Mean scuffing temperature for mineral oils tended to different gear steels, heat treatments or
surface treatments by introducing an empirical
Scuffing temperatures for mineral oils with low welding factor.
concentrations of antiscuff additives are indepen-
θ S = X Wθ fl max, test + θ M, test (96)
dent of operating conditions. Viscosity grade is a
convenient index of oil composition, and thus of where
scuffing temperature. XW is welding factor (see table 4);
Equations 94 and 95 are approximate guides for θfl max, test is maximum flash temperature of test
mineral oils and steels typical of IAE and FZG test gears, °C;
20
θM, test is tooth temperature of test gears, °C. proposed which may support the gear geometry and
rotor dimensions most suitable to the gear applica-
6.5.4 Scuffing temperature for oils used in
tion. Gear drives cover a wide field of operating
hypoid gear application
conditions from relatively low pitch line velocities
Scuffing temperature for high--additive oils (hypoid with high specific tooth loads, to very high pitch line
gear oil) may be dependent on operating conditions. velocities and moderate specific tooth loads.
Therefore, the scuffing temperature should be Lubricants vary, as well, between mineral oils with
obtained from tests that closely simulate operating little or no additives to antiscuff lubricants with
conditions of the gears. substantial additives.
The flash temperature method described in 6.2
Table 4 -- Welding factors, XW through 6.5 is based on Blok’s contact temperature
Material XW theory. The flash temperature, θfl, must be added to
the steady gear tooth temperature, θM, to give the
Through hardened steel 1.00
total contact temperature, θB. The value of the
Phosphated steel 1.25 contact temperature for every point in the contact
Copper--plated steel 1.50 zone must be less than the mean scuffing tempera-
Bath or gas nitrided steel 1.50 ture of the material--lubricant system or scuffing may
Hardened carburized steel occur.
-- Less than 20% retained austenite 1.15 6.6.1 Integral temperature method
-- 20 to 30% retained austenite 1.00
The integral temperature method [29] has been
-- Greater than 30% retained austenite 0.85
proposed as an alternative to the flash temperature
Austenite steel (stainless steel) 0.45
method by which the influence of the gear geometry
imposes a critical energy level based on the
6.5.5 Scuffing risk integrated temperature distribution (for example,
numerically integrating using Simpson’s rule) along
Scuffing risk can be calculated from a Gaussian a path of contact and adopting a steady gear tooth
distribution of scuffing temperature about the mean temperature. This method involves the calculation of
value. Typically, the coefficient of variation is at least a scuffing load basically independent of speed, but
15%. Therefore, use the procedure of annex B to controlled by gear geometry. Application requires
calculate the probability of scuffing: comparison of the proposed gearset based on a test
where rig result to a known test rig gearset and tested oil.
y = θB max A comparison of the flash temperature method and

integral temperature method has shown the
my = θs
following:
σy = 0.15 θs
-- Blok’s method and the integral temperature
Table 5 gives the evaluation of scuffing risk based on method give essentially the same assessment of
the probability of scuffing [7]. scuffing risk for most gearsets;
-- Blok’s method and the integral temperature
Table 5 -- Scuffing risk method give different assessments of scuffing
risk for those cases where there are local
Probability of scuffing Scuffing risk
temperature peaks. These cases usually occur in
<10% Low gearsets that have low contact ratio, contact near
10 to 30% Moderate the base circle, or other sensitive geometries;
>30% High -- Blok’s method is sensitive to local tempera-
ture peaks because it is concerned with the
maximum instantaneous temperature, whereas
6.6 Alternative scuffing risk evaluation
the integral temperature method is insensitive to
The calculation of the scuffing load capacity is a very these peaks because it averages the temperature
complex problem. Several alternative methods are distribution.
21
6.6.2 Other scuffing methods 7 Surface fatigue (micro-- and macropitting)
6.6.2.1 PVT Method

7.1 General information
Almen [30] popularized the PVT method for Surface fatigue, commonly referred to as pitting or
predicting scuffing where: spalling, is a wear mode that results in loss of
material as a result of repeated stress cycles acting
P is Hertzian pressure; on the surface. There are two major sub--groups
V is sliding velocity; under surface fatigue known as micro-- and macro-
pitting. As their names imply, the type of pitting is
T is distance along line of action. related to the size of the pit. Macropits usually can be
seen with the naked eye as irregular shaped cavities
PVT was used during World War II by designers in in the surface of the tooth. Damage beginning on the
automotive and aircraft industries. It worked well for order of 0.5 to 1.0 mm in diameter is considered to be
a narrow range of gear designs, but was unreliable a macropit.
when extrapolated to other gear applications.
The number of stress cycles occurring before failure
6.6.2.2 Borsoff scoring factor method is referred to as the fatigue life of the component.
The surface fatigue life of a gear is inversely
Borsoff [31, 32, 33, 34] conducted many scuffing proportional to the contact stress applied. Although
tests during the 1950’s and found scuffing resistance contact stress is probably the major factor governing
increased when test gears were run at high speeds. life, there are many others that influence life. These
Borsoff introduced a scoring factor, Sf: include design factors such as tip relief and crown-
ing, surface roughness, physical and chemical
2b
Sf = v H (97) properties of the lubricant and its additive system,
s
and external contaminants such as water and hard
where particulate matter.
7.2 Micropitting
Sf is contact time, ms (sec ¢ 10 --3);
Micropitting is a fatigue phenomenon that occurs in
bH is semi--width of Hertzian contact band, mm;
Hertzian contacts that operate in elastohydrody-
vs is sliding velocity, m/s. namic or boundary lubrication regimes and have
combined rolling and sliding. Besides operating
Sf is the time required for a point on one tooth to conditions such as load, speed, sliding, temperature
traverse the Hertzian band of the mating tooth. and specific film thickness, the chemical composi-
Borsoff’s test data showed a linear relationship tion of a lubricant strongly influences micropitting.
between scuffing load and scoring factor, Sf. Borsoff Damage can start during the first 105 to 106 stress
recommended that a number of considerations cycles with generation of numerous surface cracks.
should be made before using his method for specific The cracks grow at a shallow angle to the surface
applications. forming micropits that are about 10 – 20 mm deep by
about 25 -- 100 mm long and 10 – 20 mm wide. The
6.6.2.3 Simplified scuffing criteria for high speed micropits coalesce to produce a continuous frac-
gears tured surface which appears as a dull, matte surface
to the observer.
Annex B of ANSI/AGMA 6011--H98 [35] has been
used to evaluate scuffing risk of high speed gear Micropitting is the preferred name for this mode of
applications. damage, but it has also been referred to as grey
staining, grey flecking, frosting, and peeling. Al-
There are other methods for evaluating scuffing of though micropitting generally occurs with heavily
gear teeth not mentioned here. Other methods may loaded, carburized gears, it also occurs with nitrided,
also have application merit. Most importantly, the induction hardened and through--hardened gears.
gear designer should recognize scuffing as a gear Micropitting may arrest after running--in. If micropit-
design criteria. ting continues to progress, however, it may result in
22
reduced gear tooth accuracy, increased dynamic turning or branching back to the surface. Eventually,
loads and noise. Eventually, it can progress to material will dislodge from the surface forming a pit,
macropitting and gear failure. an irregular shaped cavity in the surface of the
material. With gears the origin of the crack is more
7.2.1 Micropitting risk evaluation
likely surface initiated because lubricant film thick-
Factors that influence micropitting are gear tooth ness is low resulting in a high amount of asperity or
geometry, surface roughness, lubricant viscosity, metal--to--metal contact. For high--speed gears with
coefficient of friction, load, tangential speed, oil smooth surface finishes, film thickness is larger and
temperature and lubricant additives. Common sub--surface initiated crack formation may dominate.
methods suggested for reducing the probability of In these cases an inclusion or small void in the
micropitting include: material is a source for stress concentration.
-- reduce surface roughness; Laboratory testing commonly uses a 1% limit on
-- increase film thickness; tooth surface area damage as a criteria to stop a test.
However, for field service applications one should
-- use higher viscosity oil;
always abide by the equipment manufacturer’s
-- reduce coefficient of friction; recommendations or guidelines for acceptable limits
-- run at higher speeds if possible; of damage to any gear or supporting component.
-- reduce oil temperature; 7.4 Regimes of lubrication

-- use additives with demonstrated micropitting 7.4.1 Introduction to regimes of lubrication
resistance; Gear rating standards have progressed and been
-- protect gear teeth during run--in with suitable refined to take into account many of the major
coatings, such as manganese phosphate, copper variables that affect gear life. With respect to
or silver plating. calculated stress numbers, variables such as load
CAUTION: Silver or copper plating of carburized gear distribution, internally induced dynamic loading and
elements will cause hydrogen embrittlement, which externally induced dynamic loading are accounted
could result in a reduction in bending strength and fa- for by derating factors. Variables such as material
tigue life. Thermal treatment shortly after plating may quality, cycle life and reliability are accounted for by
reduce this effect.
allowable stress numbers, stress cycle factors and
Surface roughness strongly influences the tendency reliability factors.
to micropit. Gears finished to a mirrorlike finish have
Along with these influences, it has been recognized
been reported to eliminate micropitting [36, 37, 38].
that adequate lubrication is necessary for gears to
Gear teeth have maximum micropitting resistance
realize their calculated capacity. Indeed, AGMA
when the teeth of the high speed member are harder
gearing standards have acknowledged this fact by
than the mating teeth and are as smooth as possible
stating this need as a requirement in order to apply
[39].
the various rating methods.
Currently there is no standard test for determining
Much of the groundwork for lubrication theory came
micropitting resistance of lubricants. However, FVA
about in the 1960’s and 1970’s. This period saw the
Information Sheet 54/IV describes a test that uses
advent and proliferation of jet travel, space travel,
the FZG C--GF type gears to rank micropitting
advanced manufacturing processes and advanced
performance of oils [40]. At present, the influence of
power needs. These technological and industrial
lubricant additives is unresolved. Therefore, the
developments led to the need for better gear rating
micropitting resistance of a lubricant should be
methods which, in turn, resulted in rapid progress in
determined by field testing on actual gears or by
industrial, vehicle and aerospace gearing standards.
laboratory tests.
High speed gearing was coming into greater use, but
7.3 Macropitting
it was not as well understood as the industry would
Macropitting is also a fatigue phenomenon. Cracks have liked. To compensate, designs tended to focus
can initiate either at or near the surface of a gear on making higher speed stages of gearing more
tooth. The crack usually propagates for a short successful, sometimes to the detriment of slower
distance at a shallow angle to the surface before speed stages. This is how the gearing industry
23
started to get its first glimpses into the importance of defined the three regimes of lubrication at the
lubrication on the life of gearing. operating pitch diameter as follows:
It was not uncommon to see a three (3) stage -- Regime III: Full EHL oil film is developed and
industrial gear drive with problems as follows: a high separates the asperities of gear flanks in motion
speed set of gears that looked relatively undam- relative to one another;
aged, an intermediate speed set of gears that was -- Regime II: Partial EHL oil film is developed
experiencing initial pitting, and a slow speed set of and there is occasional contact of the asperities of
gears that was experiencing advanced pitting and gear flanks in motion relative to one another;
tooth breakage. In the event that all three stages -- Regime I: Only boundary lubrication exists
were designed to have similar load intensity factors with essentially no EHL film and contact of the
(K--factors and unit loads) the problem could be asperities of gear flanks in motion relative to one
particularly puzzling. Rating theory at the time another is pronounced.
indicated that with all other things equal, the higher The implementation of this theory involves what is
speed stages of gearing should have been failing currently referred to as the stress cycle factor for the
sooner than the lower speed stages, due to greater surface durability of gears, ZN, (this used to be called
stress cycles. the life factor for surface durability). Keeping in mind
At issue was the tribological condition between that regime of lubrication depends ultimately on the
surfaces of two mating teeth. Elastohydrodynamic degree of separation between asperities, Dudley
lubrication (EHL) theory showed that factors like proposed that the effect could be quantified by
relative surface velocity and local oil viscosity at the making proper adjustments to the curves that
contact area directly affected thickness of the EHL oil determine the stress cycle factor. Thus, we have as
film that separated asperities on surfaces of two follows:
mating gear teeth. For a multiple stage gear reducer, 7.4.2 Regime III
higher speed stages of gearing, with higher surface This regime of lubrication, characterized by full EHL
velocities, tended to produce thicker EHL oil films, oil film development, occurs mainly when gears have
better capable of separating asperities on mating relatively high pitch line velocity, good care is taken
teeth. Lower speed stages, with lower surface to ensure that an adequate supply of clean, cool oil is
velocities, tended to produce thinner EHL oil films, available (of adequate viscosity and formulation),
less capable of separating asperities on mating and good surface finishes are achieved on the
teeth. gearing. As such, aerospace gearing, high speed
Through the years, a great many researchers and marine gearing, and good quality industrial gear
companies inside and outside of the gear industry drives tend to have gears that operate within regime
have sought to quantify the effects of EHL oil film III. Thus, stress cycle factor curves that appear in
theory on the life of gearing. There are many ways in standards for these gears are the basis for rating
which one could hypothesize the effects of inade- gears that operate within regime III.
quate oil films on degradation of gear tooth surfaces 7.4.3 Regime II
and its results on the life of gearing. Indeed, a
This regime of lubrication, characterized by partial
comprehensive treatment of this subject could fill
EHL oil film development, occurs mainly when gears
many volumes. Added to this is the fact that this is
have moderate pitch line velocities, moderate care is
still a very active area of gear research. With this in
taken to ensure that an adequate supply of clean,
mind, it is still useful to put forth a simplified
cool oil is available (of adequate viscosity and
description of how inadequate oil films can lead to
formulation), and moderately good surface finishes
decreased life of gears. So, very simply put, thinner
are achieved on the gearing. As such, vehicle
oil films lead to a greater chance of more frequent
gearing is very characteristic of gears that operate
and more detrimental degree of contact between
within regime II. Dudley uses information from the
asperities on mating gear teeth. The more severe
stress cycle factor curves in vehicle standards to
this is, the more likely it will lead to pitting, a
create a branch from the regime III curve for cycles
recognized form of surface fatigue in gearing.
greater than 100 000. It is felt that effects of
The effects of this phenomenon on the fatigue life of operation within regime II on fatigue life will not begin
gearing were introduced by Bowen [41]. Dudley [42] to be realized until this point in the life of a gear.
24
7.4.4 Regime I cycles, load capacity of a bearing drops off by a

factor of 2.0. Thus, a stress curve for Hertzian
This regime of lubrication, characterized by bound-
contact would drop off by about a factor of 1.41
ary lubrication, occurs mainly when gears have low
(square root of 2.0). Bearings back in the 1940’s
pitch line velocities, little care is taken to ensure that
commonly had surface finishes and oil films very
an adequate supply of clean, cool oil is available (of
analogous to gears operating in regime I. This
adequate viscosity and formulation), and relatively
information is used to create a branch from the
rough surface finishes are achieved on the gearing.
regime III curve at cycles greater than 100 000.
Many types of gearing can fall into this range of
operation, including all types mentioned above. Figure 14 shows the curves that result from Dudley’s
Dudley used fatigue curves generated for ball and method of regimes of lubrication. Below, the method
roller bearings as a basis for regime I stress cycle is described in fuller detail and calculations are given
factor curves. These curves, first developed in the to show how one assesses which regime of lubrica-
1940’s, indicated that with a ten--fold increase in tion should be applied to a given set of gears.
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.90 Regime III
0.80
Stress cycle factor, ZN
0.70
0.60
0.50 Regime II
0.40
0.30
Regime I
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012
Number of load cycles, N
Figure 14 -- Plot of regimes of lubrication versus stress cycle factor
Table 6 -- Stress cycle factor equations for regimes I, II and III

Regime of lubrication Stress cycle factor for surface durability
Regime III Z N = 1.47 for N < 10 000 cycles
Z N = 2.46604 × N −0.056 for N ≥ 10 000 cycles

Regime II ZN = 3.83441 × N −0.094 for N ≥ 100 000 cycles
Regime I ZN = 7.82078 × N −0.156 for N ≥ 100 000 cycles
25
7.5 Estimating life with respect to surface the lubricant or embedded in flanks of mating teeth.
durability The choice of lubricant usually does not have any
direct effect on abrasive wear. Abrasive particles can
After calculating the minimum EHL film thickness be present, however, as debris from other forms of
based on 5.2, one must calculate the specific film wear such as fatigue pitting and adhesion. The
thickness. In figure 14, specific film thicknesses lubricant should not react with any systemic materi-
greater than or equal to 1.0 indicate the beginning of als or with any contaminants. Products of these
regime III and the end of regime II lubrication. reactions can be abrasive. In large open gears, the
Specific film thicknesses between 0.4 and 1.0 film thickness of highly viscous lubricants may
indicate operation within regime II and specific film prevent three--body abrasion from small particles.
thicknesses less than or equal to 0.4 indicate
regime I.
8.2 Wear risk evaluation
Once the regime of lubrication is determined, one
can calculate the stress cycle factor, ZN, shown in The boundary lubrication regime consists of exceed-
figure 14. ZN is used to calculate gear rating in ingly complex interactions between additives in the
ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95. lubricant, metal, and atmosphere making it impossi-
ble to assess accurately the chance of wear or
scuffing from a single parameter such as specific film
thickness. However, empirical data of figure 15 have
8 Wear been used as an approximate guide to the probability
of wear related distress. Figure 15 is based on data
published by Wellauer and Holloway [20] that were
Wear is a term describing change to a gear tooth obtained from several hundred laboratory tests and
surface involving removal or displacement of materi- field applications. The curves of figure 15 apply to
al, due to mechanical, chemical or electrical action. through--hardened steel gears ranging in size from
25 mm to 4600 mm in diameter that were lubricated
In the boundary lubrication regime, some wear is
with mineral--based, non--EP gear lubricants. The
inevitable. Many gears, because of practical limits on
authors [20] defined tooth flank surface distress as
lubricant viscosity, speed and temperature, must
surface pitting or wear that might be destructive or
operate under boundary lubricated conditions.
could shorten the gear life. Most of the data of figure
Mild wear occurs during running--in and usually 15 pertain to gears that experienced lives in excess
subsides with time, resulting in a tolerable wear rate of 10 million cycles.
and a satisfactory lifetime for the gearset. Wear that
occurs during running--in may be beneficial if it 8.2.1 Adjustments to the surface distress and
smoothes tooth surfaces (increasing specific film specific film thickness curves
thickness) and increases the area of contact by
removing minor imperfections through local wear. The surface distress and specific film thickness
The amount of wear that is tolerable depends on the curves (figure 15) were derived from the Wellauer
expected lifetime for the gearset, and on require- and Holloway curves. The curves are adjusted to
ments for noise and vibration. Wear rate may account for different definitions of composite surface
become excessive if tooth profiles are worn to the roughness and specific film thickness.
extent that high dynamic loads are encountered.
Excessive wear may also be caused by contamina- 8.2.1.1 Average surface roughness adjustment
tion of the lubricant by abrasive particles. When wear
becomes aggressive and is not preempted by Reference [20] used root mean square surface
scuffing or bending fatigue, wear and pitting will likely roughness. This information sheet uses average
compete for the predominate failure mode. surface roughness. The relationship between root
mean square and average surface roughness varies
8.1 Abrasive wear
with the machining process. Typically,
Abrasive wear is removal or displacement of materi-
al due to the presence of hard particles suspended in Rq x ≅ 1.11 Ra x (98)
26
10
5%
40%
1 80%
Specific film thickness, λ
0.1
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Pitch line velocity (m/s)
Figure 15 -- Probability of wear related distress
8.2.1.2 Composite surface roughness h c , of equation 75, provides film thickness values
 i
adjustment
1.316 times the Dowson and Higginson [17] mini-
Reference [20] used an arithmetic average for the mum film thickness, hmin, used by the Wellauer and
composite surface roughness: Holloway paper [20].
Rq1x + Rq 2x Specific film thickness adjustment factor is derived

Rq x avg = (99)
2 as follows:
Wellauer and Holloway [20] defined λ as:
where
h min
Rq1x, Rq2x is root mean square surface rough- λ W&H = (102)
Rqx avg
ness, pinion and gear respectively, for
filter cutoff length, Lx, mm. This information sheet uses h c and σx defined by
 i
Composite surface roughness used in this informa- equations 75 and 100:
tion sheet is root mean square average of average
hc
surface roughness, see equation 78.  i (103)
λ  i = σ
x
If Rq1x = Rq2x and Ra1x = Ra2x (similar surface
Substituting adjustment factors into the equation for
roughnesses),
λ gives:
σ x = 2 Ra1x = 2 Ra 2x (100)
1.316 (1.11)h min
Rq x avg = Rq 1x = Rq 2x λ min = (104)
(101) 2 Rq
x avg
8.2.1.3 Specific film thickness adjustment λ min = 1.033 λ W&H (105)
The curves of figure 15 were also adjusted for and is used to adjust the specific film thickness
different definitions of film thickness. The Dowson provided by Wellauer and Holloway. This vertical
and Toyoda equation for central film thickness [19], axis adjustment is now reflected in figure 15.
27
Finally, the units of pitch line velocity, vt, were Q (x) = 80%
adjusted from feet per minute to meters per second. P (x) = 20%
Note that specific film thickness is dimensionless.
x 80% = − 0.84163389
8.2.2 Wear risk probability
Use several film thickness values from figure 15 to
The curves of figure 15 can be fitted with the find how mean minimum specific film thickness,
following equations: mλ min, and standard deviation of the minimum
−1 specific film thickness, σλ min, vary with pitch line

λ 5% = 2.68863
vt + 0.47767  (106) velocity. An example is shown below:
−1
v t = 5 m∕s

λ 40% = 4.90179
vt + 0.64585  (107) λ 5% = 0.9849
−1 λ 40% = 0.6149

λ 80% = 9.29210
vt + 0.95507  (108)
This gives the following equations that are solved for
σλ min:
Using the following definition, the mean minimum
specific film thickness, mλ min, and the standard
deviation, σλ min, can be calculated by simultaneous
1.6449 = 0.9849 − m λ min
σ λ min 
solution (two equations in two unknowns) using any
two of the adjusted Wellauer and Holloway curves
(5% and 40%, 40% and 80%, or 5% and 80%):
0.2534 = 0.6149 − m λ min
σ λ min 
1.6449 σ λ min = 0.9849 − m λ min
λ min − m λ min (109)
x= σ λ min (ref [24]) 0.2534 σ λ min = 0.6149 − m λ min
where Subtracting the bottom equation from the upper

equation yields:
x is value of the standard normal variable
determined by probability; 1.3915 σ λ min = 0.3700
λmin is specific film thickness (equation 105); σ λ min = 0.3700 = 0.2659

1.3915
mλ min is mean minimum specific film thickness; Using σλ min in the first equation, mλ min is found:
σλ min is standard deviation of the minimum
0.9849 − m λ min
specific film thickness. 1.6449 =
0.2659
Figure 15 and equations 106 through 108 are listed
m λ min = 0.9849 − 1.6449 (0.2659)
in the percent failure mode, Q(x). This must first be
converted to a percent survival mode, P(x), by the m λ min = 0.5475
equation P (x) = 1 − Q (x). With P(x) known, the value This process was repeated for all data points along
“x” may be determined from the table “Normal the curves in the following combinations: 5%--40%,
Probability Function and Derivatives” of reference 40%--80% and 5%--80%. Results of these calcula-
[24]. tions were averaged and the values are shown in
table 7.
λ5%:
Q (x) = 5% Curve--fitting the inverse of the mean, m 1 , and the
λ min
P (x) = 95%
inverse of the standard deviation, σ 1 , versus the
x 5% = 1.64491438 λ min
1
inverse of the pitch line velocity, v , results in the
λ40%: t
Q (x) = 40% following:
P (x) = 60% for vt ≤ 5 m/s

x 40% = 0.25335825 −1
λ80%:

m λ min = 5.43389
vt + 0.71012  (110)
28
Table 7 -- Calculation results

 
−1
σ λ min = 0.01525 + 9.43942 + 2.06085

vt vt (m/s) mλ min σλ min
v 2t
0.25 0.04455408 0.02496302
(111) 0.50 0.08636353 0.04757665
1.00 0.16271966 0.08689583
1.50 0.23073618 0.11982298
for vt > 5 m/s: 2.00 0.29172511 0.14771523
2.50 0.34673387 0.17158123
−1

m λ min = 5.47432
vt + 0.70153  (112) 3.00
3.50
0.39660952
0.44204486
0.19218459
0.21011292
4.00 0.48361240 0.22582491
4.50 0.52178951 0.23968331
 
−1
σ λ min = 9.7849 + 6.19681 + 2.34174 5.00 0.55697759 0.25197825

v 2t vt
10.00 0.80016431 0.32484801
(113) 15.00 0.93691698 0.35693985
20.00 1.02464932 0.37431229
25.00 1.08573704 0.38496185
Association of a mean and standard deviation with
each pitch line velocity allows the probability of wear 30.00 1.13072662 0.39205782
distress to be assigned given specific EHL operating 35.00 1.16524421 0.39707727
conditions using the procedure of annex B and 40.00 1.19256659 0.40079104
using: 45.00 1.21473204 0.40363655
50.00 1.23307514 0.40587858
y = λ min 100.00 1.32309469 0.41541491
150.00 1.35614631 0.41831071
m y = m λ min 200.00 1.37331023 0.41968741
σ y = σ λ min 250.00 1.38382249 0.42048785
29
(This page is intentionally left blank.)
30
Annex A
(informative)
Flow chart for evaluating scuffing risk and oil film thickness
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of AGMA 925--A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface Distress.]
START
z1, z2, mn, β, aw, αn, ra1, ra2, b, n1,

P, Ko, Km, Kv, E1, E2, ν1, ν2, Ra1x,
Ra2x, nop, Tip, Driver, mmet, θM,
BM1, BM2, θoil, ksump, ηM, α, Lx,
 Get Input Data
θM,test, XW, ν40, θfl max, test,

θ S met
P1
Tip profile modification mmet method for approximating mean

0 = none coefficient of friction
1 = modified for high load capacity 1 = Kelley and AGMA 217.01 method
2 = modified for smooth meshing (constant)
Driver driving member 2 = Benedict and Kelley method (variable)
1 = pinion Other = enter own value for mm (constant)
2 = gear
nop number of calculation points along the line θM gear tooth temperature (°C)
of action (25 recommended) 0 = program calculates with equation 91
¸ 0 ! input own value
ηM dynamic viscosity (mPa⋅s) at gear tooth
temperature, θM
θS met method of calculating scuffing
0 = calculate using table 2 and equation 69
temperature, θs
¸ 0 ! input own value (must also input α)
0 = from test gears (need to also input
α pressure viscosity coefficient (mm2/N) θfl max, test, θM, test and XW from table 4
0 = calculate using table 2 and equation 74 1 = R&O mineral oil
¸ 0 ! input own value (must also input ηM) 2 = EP mineral oil
ksump = 1.0 if splash lube Other = enter own value of θs (°C), (see
= 1.2 if spray lube table 3)
31
P1
u (Eq 1) εβ (Eq 23)

r1 (Eq 2) na = fractional part of εβ
r2 (Eq 3)
rw1 (Eq 4)
αt (Eq 5)
rb1 (Eq 6)
rb2 (Eq 7) (1 − n r) ≥ n a no
αwt (Eq 8)
pbt (Eq 9)
pbn (Eq 10) yes
px (Eq 11)
βb (Eq 12) Lmin (Eq 25) Lmin (Eq 26)
βw (Eq 13)
αwn (Eq 14)
ω1 (Eq 33)
CF (Eq 15) ω2 (Eq 34)
CA (Eq 16) vt (Eq 35)
CC (Eq 17) (Ft)nom (Eq 40)
CD (Eq 18) KD (Eq 41)
CE (Eq 19) Ft (Eq 42)
CB (Eq 20) Fwn (Eq 43)
Z (Eq 21) wn (Eq 44)
Er (Eq 58)
R avg (Eq 87)
x
εα (Eq 22) CR (Eq 86)
avgx
nr = fractional part of εα m m const (Eq 85)
σx (Eq 78)
β=0 no
helical gear
P2
yes
spur gear
εβ (Eq 24)
Lmin (Eq 27)
32
P2
C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 = CA, CB, CC, CD, CE
ξ1, ξ2, ξ3, ξ4, ξ5 (Eq 28)
ξA, ξB, ξC, ξD, ξE = ξ1, ξ2, ξ3, ξ4, ξ5
i=1
XΓi (Eq 45)

i>5 XΓi (Eq 46)
XΓi (Eq 47)
yes
XΓi (Eq 54)

no ξE − ξA XΓi (Eq 55)
ξ i = ξ A + (i − 6 )
(nop − 1) XΓi (Eq 56)
XΓi (Eq 48)

XΓi (Eq 49)
yes XΓi (Eq 50)
Ã1i (Eq 29) no
Ã2i (Eq 30)
Ãri (Eq 31) XΓi (Eq 51)
Ãni (Eq 32) XΓi (Eq 52)
vr1i (Eq 36) yes XΓi (Eq 53)
vr2i (Eq 37)
vsi (Eq 38)
vei (Eq 39)
bH1 (eq 57)
yes
Tip = 0
i = i+ 1
no
Tip = 2
i = nop + 6
no
yes
Driver = 1
P3
no
33
P3
K = 0.8
yes
θM = 0 yes
no
mmet = 2
(θM input) no
no (ηM & α input)
ηM = 0
ηM = 0
yes mmet = 1 yes
yes
no mm const (Eq 85)
no ηM* (Eq 69)
mm const (Eq 85) mm const = mmet (ηM & α
input) α* (Eq 74)
Call subroutine
Max_Flash_Temp
θfl max
Call subroutine
Max_Flash_Temp Call subroutine
θfl max θM (Eq 91)
Max_Flash_Temp
θfl max
P3A
yes θM1 = θM
θM = 0
no
θM (Eq 91) (θM input) Call subroutine ηM* (Eq 69)
Max_Flash_Temp
α* (Eq 74)
θfl max
yes ηM = 0 mm const = 0
P3A
ηM (Eq 69)
no
(εo & α input) same
α (Eq 74) Call subroutine
page
Max_Flash_Temp
θfl max
θM (Eq 91)
P4 yes |θM1 -- θM| < 0.01 no
* See table 2 for constants in these equations calculated per 71 and 73.
34
P4
G (Eq 66)
hmin = 100
λmin > λ2bH(i)

λmin = 100
yes
no
λmin = λ2bH(i)
i=1
i=i+1
U(i) (Eq 67)
no
W(i) (Eq 68) i = nop + 6
yes
Hc(i) (Eq 65)
θ B max (eq 93)
hc(i) (Eq 75)

P5
hmin > hc(i)
yes
no
hmin = hc(i)
λ2bH(i) (Eq 77)
35
P5
yes
P scuff < 0.10
Srisk = low
no
yes
θ S met = 0
yes
P scuff ≤ 0.30
θS (eq 96)
Srisk = moderate
no test gears no
(need θfl max, test, S risk = high
θM test & XW input)
yes
θ S met = 1
Rq1x (Eq 98)
θS (eq 94) Rq2x (Eq 98)
no
Rqx avg (Eq 99)
R&O Mineral Oil
λmin (Eq 105)
yes
θ S met = 2
no
no θS (Eq 95) v t ≤ 5 m∕s
θ s = θ S met EP Mineral Oil yes

mλ min (Eq 110)
Enter own value of θs
σλ min (Eq 111)
y = θ B max mλ min (Eq 112)

my = θs σλ min (Eq 113)
σ y = 0.15 θ s
y = λ min
Call subroutine m y = m λ min
“Probability”
σ y = σ λ min
Return POF Call subroutine “Probability”
Return POF
Pscuff = POF
36
Subroutine “Probability”
y, m y, σ y input
x (eq B.1)
yes
|x| > 1.6448
Q = 0.05
no
t (eq B.4)
ZQ (eq B.3)
Q (eq B.2)
yes
x>0
no POF = 1.0 -- Q
POF = Q
Return POF
POF = Probability of failure
37
Subroutine “Max_Flash_Temp
i=1
θfl max = 0
no mm const = 0
yes
mm is a (given) constant
or calculated by equation
85 (AGMA 217.01 and νs(i) or XΓ(i)
yes
Kelley) < εmach**
no
mm(i) (Eq 88)

mm(i) = mm const mm(i) = 0
(Benedict and Kelley)
yes
yes mm(i) or bH(i)

< εmach**
no
mm(i) = 0 no
θfl(i) = 0 θfl(i) (Eq 84)

no
yes θfl(i) > θfl max
θfl max = θfl(i) no
i=i+ 1
i = nop + 6
yes
Return
**Eq 88 is not valid at vs(i) = 0 or XΓ(i) = 0 or near zero, and Eq 84 is not valid at bH(i) = 0 or near zero.
εmach is a small finite number (e.g., 10 --10). In case the calculated mm(i) < 0, set mm(i) = 0.
38
Annex B
(informative)
Normal or Gaussian probability
B.1 Normal or Gaussian probability where
For random variables that follow normal (Gaussian) Q is the tail area of the normal probability
distributions, the following procedure [24] can be function;
used to calculate probabilities of failure in the range ZQ is the normal probability density function.
of 5% to 95%:
Probability of failure:
y − m y  (B.1) if x > 0, then:
x= σy
probability of failure = 1 -- Q;
where else
x is the standard normal variable; probability of failure = Q
y is the random variable; where
my is the mean value of random variable y;

ZQ = 0.3989422804 e
 −0.5(x ) 
2
(B.3)
σy is the standard deviation of random variable
b 1 = 0.319381530
y.
b 2 = − 0.356563782
Evaluation of Q:
b 3 = 1.781477937
if x > 1.6448, then: b 4 = − 1.821255978
Q = 0.05; b 5 = 1.330274429
else p = 0.2316419
t= 1 (B.4)
Q = Z Q b 1t + b 2t 2 + b 3t 3 + b 4t 4 + b 5t 5 1 + p|x|
(B.2) are constants given in reference [24].
39
(This page is intentionally left blank.)
40
Annex C
(informative)
Test rig gear data
C.1 Test rig gear data
Table C.1 provides a summary of gear data for

several back to back test rigs that have been used for
gear lubrication rating and research.
41
Table C.1 -- Summary of gear data for lubricant testing
FZG
Symbol Units FZG “A” FZG “A10” FZG “C” NASA Ryder AGMA IAE
“C -- GF”
Primary wear Scuffing Scuffing Pitting (micro Micropitting Pitting Scuffing Pitting (micro Scuffing
assessment & macro) & macro)
a mm 91.5 91.5 91.5 91.5 88.9 88.9 91.5 82.55
mn mm 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.175 3.175 3.629 5.08
αn deg 20 20 20 20 20 22.5 20 20
β deg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
αwt deg 22.44 22.44 22.44 22.44 20 22.5 21.31 26.25
z1 -- -- 16 16 16 16 28 28 20 15
z2 -- -- 24 24 24 24 28 28 30 16
b mm 20 10 14 14 6.35/2.8 6.35 14 4.76
ra1 mm 44.385 44.385 41.23 41.23 47.625 47.22 40.82 45.02
ra2 mm 56.25 56.25 59.18 59.18 47.625 47.22 58.18 47.69
x1 -- -- 0.8635 0.8635 0.1817 0.1817 0 0 0.2231 0.3625
x2 -- -- -- 0.5103 --0.5103 0.1715 0.1715 0 0 0.0006 0.3875
Quality number -- -- 5 5 5 5 13 13 12--13 5
Quality standard ISO 1328 ISO 1328 DIN 3962 DIN 3962 AGMA 2000 AGMA 2000 AGMA 2000 ISO 1328
Ra1 mm 0.3 -- 0.7 0.3 -- 0.7 0.3 -- 0.5 0.4 -- 0.6 0.3 -- 0.4 0.46 -- 0.64 0.5 -- 0.8 0.3 -- 0.8
Ra2 mm 0.3 -- 0.7 0.3 -- 0.7 0.3 -- 0.5 0.4 -- 0.6 0.3 -- 0.4 0.46 -- 0.64 0.5 -- 0.8 0.3 -- 0.8
n1 rpm 2170 2170 2250 2250 10000 10000 2250 4K -- 6K
θoil deg C 90--140 90--120 90--120 90 49 -- 77 74 80 70 -- 110
Ref document -- -- ISO 14635--1 ISO/WD FVA Info FVA Info NASA ASTM -- -- IP166/77
ASTM 14635--2 Sheet Sheet TP -- 2047 D1947--83 (1992)
D5182--97 54/7 54/I--IV (1982) (1984)
CEC
L--07--A--95
Pinion torque Nm 3.3 -- 534.5 3.3--534.5 135 -- 376 28 -- 265 0 -- 100 0 -- 270 250 -- 400 20 -- 407
range
42
Annex D
(informative)
Example calculations
******************************************************************************
SCUFFING AND WEAR RISK ANALYSIS ver 1.0.9 -- AGMA925--A03
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
******************************************************************************
***** GENERAL AND GEOMETRY INPUT DATA *****
SCORING+ EX.#1
Input unit (=1 SI, =2 Inch) (iInputUnit) 1.000000
Output unit (=1 SI, =2 Inch) (iOutputUnit) 1.000000
Gear type (=1 external, =2 internal) (iType) 1.000000
Driving member (=1 pinion, =2 gear) (iDriver) 2.000000
Number of pinion teeth (z1) 21.000000
Number of gear teeth (z2) 26.000000
Normal module (mn) 4.000000 mm
Helix angle (Beta) 0.000000 deg
Operating center distance (aw) 96.000000 mm
Normal generating pressure angle (Alphan) 20.000000 deg
Standard outside radius, pinion (ra1) 46.570900 mm
Standard outside radius, gear (ra2) 57.277000 mm
Face width (b) 66.040000 mm
Profile mod (=0 none, =1 hi load, =2 smooth) (iTip) 1.000000
***** Material input data *****
Modulus of elasticity, pinion (E1) 206842.718795 N/mm^2
Modulus of elasticity, gear (E2) 206842.718795 N/mm^2
Poisson’s ratio, pinion (Nu1) 0.300000
Poisson’s ratio, gear (Nu2) 0.300000
Average surface roughness at Lx, pinion (Ra1x) 0.508000 mu m
Average surface roughness at Lx, gear (Ra2x) 0.508000 mu m
Filter cutoff of wavelength x (Lx) 0.800000 mm
Method for approximate mean coef. friction (Mumet) 1.000000
Welding factor (Xw) 1.000000
***** Load data *****
Pinion speed (n1) 308.570000 rpm
Transmitted power (P) 20.619440 kW
Overload factor (Ko) 1.000000
Load distribution factor (Km) 1.400000
Dynamic factor (Kv) 1.063830
***** Lubrication data *****
Lubricant type (=1 Mineral, =2 Synthetic,
=3 MIL--L--7808K, =4 MIL--L--23699E) (iLubeType) 1.000000
ISO viscosity grade number (nIsoVG) 460.000000
Kinematic viscosity at 40 deg C (Nu40) 407.000000 mm^2/s
***** Input temperature data *****
Tooth temperature (ThetaM) 82.222222 deg C
Thermal contact coefficient, pinion (BM1) 16.533725 N/[mm s^.5K]
Thermal contact coefficient, gear (BM2) 16.533725 N/[mm s^.5K]
Oil inlet or sump temperature (Thetaoil) 71.111111 deg C
Parameter for calculating tooth temperature (ksump) 1.000000
Dynamic viscosity at gear tooth temperature (EtaM) 43.000000 mPa⋅s
Pressure--viscosity coefficient (Alpha) 0.022045 mm^2/N
Method of calculating scuffing temperature (Thetasmet) 2.000000
Maximum flash temperatrue of test gears (Thetaflmaxtest) 0.000000
Tooth temperature of test gear (ThetaMtest) 0.000000
Number of calculation points (nNop) 25.000000
43
******************************************************************************
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
******************************************************************************
***** GEOMETRY CALCULATION *****
Gear ratio (u) 1.238095
Standard pitch radius, pinion (r1) 42.000000 mm
Standard pitch radius, gear (r2) 52.000000 mm
Pinion operating pitch radius (rw1) 42.893617 mm
Transverse generating pressure angle (Alphat) 20.000000 deg
Base radius, pinion (rb1) 39.467090 mm
Base radius, gear (rb2) 48.864016 mm
Transverse operating pressure angle (Alphawt) 23.056999 deg
Transverse base pitch (pbt) 11.808526 mm
Normal base pitch (pbn) 11.808526 mm
Axial pitch (px) ----------------
Base helix angle (Betab) 0.000000 deg
Operating helix angle (Betaw) 0.000000 deg
Normal operating pressure angle (Alphawn) 23.056999 deg
Distance along line of action -- Point A (CA) 7.715600 mm
Distance along line of action -- Point B (CB) 12.913884 mm
Distance along line of action -- Point C (CC) 16.799142 mm
Distance along line of action -- Point D (CD) 19.524126 mm
Distance along line of action -- Point E (CE) 24.722409 mm
Distance along line of action -- Point F (CF) 37.598080 mm
Active length of line of action (Z) 17.006810 mm
Transverse contact ratio (EpsAlpha) 1.440214
Fractional part of EpsAlpha (nr) 0.440214
Axial contact ratio (EpsBeta) 0.000000
Fractional part of EpsBeta (na) 0.000000
Minimum contact length (Lmin) 66.040000 mm
***** GEAR TOOTH VELOCITY AND LOADS *****

Rotational (angular) velocity, pinion (Omega1) 32.313375 rad/s
Rotational (angular) velocity, gear (Omega2) 26.099264 rad/s
Operating pitch line velocity (vt) 1.386038 m/s
Nominal tangential load (Ftnom) 14876.538066 N
Combined derating factor (KD) 1.489362
Actual tangential load (Ft) 22156.550486 N
Normal operating load (Fwn) 24080.178937 N
Normal unit load (wn) 364.630208 N/mm
***** MATERIAL PROPERTY AND TOOTH SURFACE FINISH *****

Reduced modulus of elasticity (Er) 227299.690984 N/mm^2
Average of pinion and gear average roughness (Ravgx) 0.508000 mu m
Surface roughness constant (CRavgx) 1.816720
Composite surface roughness at filter cuttoff (Sigmax) 0.718420 mu m
44
**********************************************************************************
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
**********************************************************************************
***** LOAD SHARING RATIO AND bH *****
Roll
Index Ang(rad) XGamma Rhon(mm) bH Index
(A) 0.19549 0.14286 6.13226 0.05982 (A)
(B) 0.32721 1.00000 8.47833 0.18610 (B)
(C) 0.42565 1.00000 9.29314 0.19484 (C)
(D) 0.49469 1.00000 9.38554 0.19581 (D)
(E) 0.62641 0.00000 8.46633 0.00000 (E)
( 1) 0.19549 0.14286 6.13226 0.05982 ( 1)

( 2) 0.21345 0.25970 6.53669 0.08327 ( 2)
( 3) 0.23140 0.37654 6.91441 0.10313 ( 3)
( 4) 0.24936 0.49339 7.26541 0.12101 ( 4)
( 5) 0.26731 0.61023 7.58971 0.13755 ( 5)
( 6) 0.28527 0.72708 7.88729 0.15306 ( 6)

( 7) 0.30322 0.84392 8.15816 0.16770 ( 7)
( 8) 0.32118 0.96076 8.40233 0.18160 ( 8)
( 9) 0.33913 1.00000 8.61978 0.18765 ( 9)
( 10) 0.35709 1.00000 8.81052 0.18971 ( 10)
( 11) 0.37504 1.00000 8.97455 0.19147 ( 11)
( 12) 0.39300 1.00000 9.11187 0.19293 ( 12)
( 13) 0.41095 1.00000 9.22247 0.19410 ( 13)
( 14) 0.42890 1.00000 9.30637 0.19498 ( 14)
( 15) 0.44686 1.00000 9.36356 0.19558 ( 15)
( 16) 0.46481 1.00000 9.39403 0.19589 ( 16)

( 17) 0.48277 1.00000 9.39780 0.19593 ( 17)
( 18) 0.50072 0.81791 9.37485 0.17698 ( 18)
( 19) 0.51868 0.70106 9.32520 0.16342 ( 19)
( 20) 0.53663 0.58422 9.24883 0.14857 ( 20)
( 21) 0.55459 0.46737 9.14575 0.13214 ( 21)

( 22) 0.57254 0.35053 9.01596 0.11362 ( 22)
( 23) 0.59050 0.23369 8.85946 0.09196 ( 23)
( 24) 0.60845 0.11684 8.67625 0.06435 ( 24)
( 25) 0.62641 0.00000 8.46633 0.00000 ( 25)
**** P3 -- Calculate flash temperature ****
Dynamic viscosity at 40 deg C (Eta40C) 412.082400 mPa⋅s
Dynamic viscosity at 100 deg C (Eta100C) 26.341040 mPa⋅s
Factor c (c_coef) 8.964201
Factor d (d_coef) --3.424449
Factor k (k_coef) 0.010471
Factor s (s_coef) 0.134800
Mumet -- use Kelley and AGMA 217.01 (Mumet) 1.000000
Surface roughness constant (CRavgx) 1.816720
Mean coef. of friction, const. (Eq 85) (Mumconst) 0.109003
45
**********************************************************************************
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
**********************************************************************************
**** Calculate flash temperature ****
Index K Mum XGamma bH (mm) vs (m/s) vr1 (m/s) vr2 (m/s) Thetafl (C) Index
(A) 0.80 0.1090 0.1429 0.059822 0.5306 0.2493 0.7799 13.6320 (A)
(B) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.186102 0.2269 0.4173 0.6442 22.0835 (B)
(C) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.194840 0.0000 0.5428 0.5428 0.0000 (C)
(D) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.195806 0.1592 0.6309 0.4717 14.7688 (D)
(E) 0.80 0.0000 0.0000 0.000000 0.4628 0.7989 0.3360 0.0000 (E)
( 1) 0.80 0.1090 0.1429 0.059822 0.5306 0.2493 0.7799 13.6320 ( 1)

( 2) 0.80 0.1090 0.2597 0.083275 0.4892 0.2722 0.7614 19.2004 ( 2)
( 3) 0.80 0.1090 0.3765 0.103129 0.4478 0.2951 0.7429 22.7228 ( 3)
( 4) 0.80 0.1090 0.4934 0.121010 0.4064 0.3180 0.7244 24.7713 ( 4)
( 5) 0.80 0.1090 0.6102 0.137549 0.3650 0.3409 0.7059 25.6466 ( 5)
( 6) 0.80 0.1090 0.7271 0.153056 0.3236 0.3638 0.6874 25.5359 ( 6)

( 7) 0.80 0.1090 0.8439 0.167704 0.2822 0.3867 0.6689 24.5661 ( 7)
( 8) 0.80 0.1090 0.9608 0.181595 0.2408 0.4096 0.6505 22.8276 ( 8)
( 9) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.187648 0.1995 0.4325 0.6320 19.2753 ( 9)
( 10) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.189713 0.1581 0.4554 0.6135 15.1349 ( 10)
( 11) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.191471 0.1167 0.4783 0.5950 11.0832 ( 11)
( 12) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.192930 0.0753 0.5012 0.5765 7.1033 ( 12)
( 13) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.194098 0.0339 0.5241 0.5580 3.1799 ( 13)
( 14) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.194979 0.0075 0.5470 0.5395 0.7011 ( 14)
( 15) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.195577 0.0489 0.5699 0.5210 4.5531 ( 15)
( 16) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.195895 0.0903 0.5928 0.5025 8.3886 ( 16)
( 17) 0.80 0.1090 1.0000 0.195934 0.1317 0.6157 0.4840 12.2201 ( 17)
( 18) 0.80 0.1090 0.8179 0.176983 0.1731 0.6386 0.4655 13.8125 ( 18)
( 19) 0.80 0.1090 0.7011 0.163420 0.2145 0.6615 0.4470 15.2621 ( 19)
( 20) 0.80 0.1090 0.5842 0.148569 0.2559 0.6844 0.4285 15.9136 ( 20)
( 21) 0.80 0.1090 0.4674 0.132141 0.2973 0.7073 0.4100 15.6888 ( 21)
( 22) 0.80 0.1090 0.3505 0.113623 0.3386 0.7302 0.3915 14.4671 ( 22)
( 23) 0.80 0.1090 0.2337 0.091964 0.3800 0.7531 0.3730 12.0443 ( 23)
( 24) 0.80 0.1090 0.1168 0.064352 0.4214 0.7760 0.3545 7.9953 ( 24)
( 25) 0.80 0.0000 0.0000 0.000000 0.4628 0.7989 0.3360 0.0000 ( 25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The max. flash temp. occurs at point (10) (Thetaflmax) 25.646608 deg C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic viscosity at the gear tooth temperature (EtaM) 43.000000 mPa⋅s
Pressure--viscosity coefficient (Alpha) 0.022045 mm^2/N
46
**********************************************************************************
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
**********************************************************************************
********** P4 -- Specific film thickness **********
Material parameter (eq 66) (G) 5010.821688
Index U W Hc hc (mu m) Lambda2bH Index

(A) 1.587561e--11 0.000037 3.539329e--05 0.217041 0.781203 (A)
(B) 1.184300e--11 0.000189 2.458469e--05 0.208437 0.425354 (B)
(C) 1.105036e--11 0.000173 2.365326e--05 0.219813 0.438395 (C)
(D) 1.111223e--11 0.000171 2.376807e--05 0.223076 0.443804 (D)
(E) 1.267961e--11 0.000000 0.000000e+00 0.000000 0.000000 (E)
( 1) 1.587561e--11 0.000037 3.539329e--05 0.217041 0.781203 ( 1)

( 2) 1.495710e--11 0.000064 3.220166e--05 0.210492 0.642142 ( 2)
( 3) 1.420027e--11 0.000087 3.010396e--05 0.208151 0.570609 ( 3)
( 4) 1.357156e--11 0.000109 2.854084e--05 0.207361 0.524768 ( 4)
( 5) 1.304655e--11 0.000129 2.730927e--05 0.207269 0.491992 ( 5)
( 6) 1.260712e--11 0.000148 2.630903e--05 0.207507 0.466937 ( 6)

( 7) 1.223958e--11 0.000166 2.548198e--05 0.207886 0.446895 ( 7)
( 8) 1.193348e--11 0.000183 2.479093e--05 0.208301 0.430320 ( 8)
( 9) 1.168076e--11 0.000186 2.439213e--05 0.210255 0.427292 ( 9)
( 10) 1.147515e--11 0.000182 2.414785e--05 0.212755 0.430014 ( 10)
( 11) 1.131183e--11 0.000179 2.395433e--05 0.214979 0.432510 ( 11)

( 12) 1.118707e--11 0.000176 2.380784e--05 0.216934 0.434789 ( 12)
( 13) 1.109806e--11 0.000174 2.370556e--05 0.218624 0.436856 ( 13)
( 14) 1.104277e--11 0.000172 2.364541e--05 0.220053 0.438717 ( 14)
( 15) 1.101981e--11 0.000171 2.362595e--05 0.221223 0.440375 ( 15)
( 16) 1.102840e--11 0.000171 2.364633e--05 0.222134 0.441830 ( 16)

( 17) 1.106830e--11 0.000171 2.370628e--05 0.222787 0.443084 ( 17)
( 18) 1.113982e--11 0.000140 2.428942e--05 0.227710 0.476505 ( 18)
( 19) 1.124380e--11 0.000121 2.481221e--05 0.231379 0.503875 ( 19)
( 20) 1.138168e--11 0.000101 2.546118e--05 0.235486 0.537840 ( 20)
( 21) 1.155550e--11 0.000082 2.627996e--05 0.240350 0.582071 ( 21)

( 22) 1.176804e--11 0.000062 2.735014e--05 0.246588 0.644006 ( 22)
( 23) 1.202294e--11 0.000042 2.885557e--05 0.255645 0.742128 ( 23)
( 24) 1.232482e--11 0.000022 3.139471e--05 0.272388 0.945273 ( 24)
( 25) 1.267961e--11 0.000000 0.000000e+00 0.000000 0.000000 ( 25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum film thickness found at point(5) (hmin) 0.207269 mu m
Min. specific film thk. found at point (B) (LambdaMin) 0.425354
Tooth temperature (ThetaM) 82.222222 deg C
Max. flash temperature (Thetaflmax) 25.646608 deg C
Minimum film thickness (hmin) 0.207269 mu m
Maximum contact temperature (ThetaBmax) 107.868830 deg C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47
**********************************************************************************
SCORING+ EX.#1
DATE:2002/04/18 TIME:08:08:23
**********************************************************************************
**** P5 -- Calculate risk of scuffing and wear ****
***** Risk of scuffing *****

Method of calculating scuffing temperature (Thetasmet) 2.000000
Mean scuffing temperature (Thetas) 316.290835 deg C
***** Probability of scuffing *****

Maximum contact temperature (y) 107.868830 deg C
Mean scuffing temperature (Muy) 316.290835 deg C
Approx. standard deviation of scuffing temp. (Sigmay) 47.443625 deg C
Standard normal variable, x = ((y--muy)/Sigmay) --4.393046
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability of scuffing Pscuff = 5% or lower
Based on AGMA925--A03 Table 5, scuffing risk is low
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Risk of wear ****

Average surface roughness, pinion (Ra1x) 0.508000 mu m
Average surface roughness, gear (Ra2x) 0.508000 mu m
Average surface roughness (rms), pinion (Rq1x) 0.563880 mu m
Average surface roughness (rms), gear (Rq2x) 0.563880 mu m
Arithmetic average of rms roughness (Rqxavg) 0.563880 mu m
Minimum specific film thickness (Lambdamin) 0.425354
Pitchline velocity is less than 5 m/s (vt) 1.386038 m/s
Mean min. specific film thk. (eq. 110) (MuLambdaMin) 0.215956
Std. dev. of min. spec. film thk. (eq. 111) (SigmaLambdaMin) 0.112623
***** Probability of wear *****

Minimum specific film thickness (y) 0.425354
Mean minimum specific film thickness (muy) 0.215956
Standard deviation of the min. specific film (Sigmay) 0.112623
Standard normal variable, x = ((y--muy)/Sigmay) 1.859273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability of wear Pwear = 5% or lower
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48
Bibliography
The following documents are either referenced in the text of AGMA 925--A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear
Surface Distress, or indicated for additional information.
1. Blok, H., Les Températures de Surface dans les Conditions de Graissage sans Pression Extrême,
Second World Petroleum Congress, Paris, June, 1937.
2. Kelley, B.W., A New Look at the Scoring Phenomena of Gears, SAE transactions, Vol. 61, 1953,
pp. 175--188.
3. Dudley, D.W., Practical Gear Design, McGraw--Hill, New York, 1954.
4. Kelley, B.W., The Importance of Surface Temperature to Surface Damage, Chapter in Engineering
Approach to Surface Damage, Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1958.
5. Benedict, G. H. and Kelley, B. W., Instantaneous Coefficients of Gear Tooth Friction, ASLE transactions,
Vol. 4, 1961, pp. 59--70.
6. Lemanski, A.J., “AGMA Aerospace Gear Committee Gear Scoring Project”, March 1962.
7. AGMA 217.01, AGMA Information Sheet -- Gear Scoring Design for Aerospace Spur and Helical Power
Gears, October, 1965.
8. SCORING+, computer program, GEARTECH Software, Inc., 1985.
9. ASTM D445--97, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (the
Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity).
10. ASTM D341--93(1998), Standard Viscosity -- Temperature Charts for Liquid Petroleum Products.
11. ASTM D2270--93(1998), Standard Practice for Calculating Viscosity Index From Kinematic Viscosity at
40 and 100°C.
12. So, B. Y. C. and Klaus, E. E., Viscosity--Pressure Correlation of Liquids, ASLE Transactions, Vol. 23, 4,
409--421, 1979.
13. Novak, J. D. and Winer, W. O., Some Measurements of High Pressure Lubricant Rheology, Journal of
Lubricant Technology, Transactions of the ASME, Series F, Vol. 90, No. 3, July 1968, pp. 580 – 591.
14. Jones, W. R., Johnson, R. L., Winer, W. O. and Sanborn, D. M., Pressure--Viscosity Measurements for
Several Lubricants to 5.5x10 8 N/m 2 (8x10 4 psi) and 149°C (300°F), ASLE Transactions, 18, pp. 249 – 262,
1975.
15. Brooks, F. C. and Hopkins, V., Viscosity and Density Characteristics of Five Lubricant Base Stocks at
Elevated Pressures and Temperatures, Preprint number 75--LC--3D--1, presented at the ASLE/ASME
Lubrication Conference, Miami Beach, FL, October 21 – 23, 1975.
16. Dowson, D. and Higginson, G. R., New Roller -- Bearing Lubrication Formula, Engineering, (London),
Vol. 192, 1961, pp. 158--159.
17. Dowson, D. and Higginson, G.R., Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication -- The Fundamentals of Roller and
Gear Lubrication, Pergamon Press (London), 1966.
18. Dowson, D., Elastohydrodynamics, Paper No. 10, Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., Vol. 182, Pt. 3A, 1967,
pp. 151--167.
19. Dowson, D. and Toyoda, S., A Central Film Thickness Formula for Elastohydrodynamic Line Contacts,
5th Leeds--Lyon Symposium Proceedings, Paper 11 (VII), 1978, pp. 60--65.
49
20. Wellauer, E. J. and Holloway, G.A., Application of EHD Oil Film Theory to Industrial Gear Drives,
Transactions of ASME, J. Eng., Ind., Vol. 98., series B, No 2, May 1976, pp. 626--634.
21. Moyer, C. A. and Bahney, L.L., Modifying the Lambda Ratio to Functional Line Contacts, STLE Trib.
Trans. Vol. 33 (No. 4), 1990, pp. 535--542.
22. Viscosity and pressure -- viscosity data supplied by Mobil Technology Company and Kluber Lubrication.
23. Sayles, R.S. and Thomas, T.R., Surface Topography as a Nonstationary Random Process, Nature, 271,
pp. 431--434, February 1978.
24. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau of Standards (NIST), U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1964.
25. Rough Surfaces, edited by Thomas, T.R., Longman, Inc., New York, 1982, p. 92.
26. Errichello, R., Friction, Lubrication and Wear of Gears, ASM Handbook, Vol. 18, Oct. 1992, pp. 535--545.
27. Blok, H., The Postulate About the Constancy of Scoring Temperature, Interdisciplinary Approach to the
Lubrication of Concentrated Contacts, NASA SP--237, 1970, pp. 153--248.
28. ANSI/AGMA 9005--E02, Industrial Gear Lubrication.
29. Winter, H. and Michaelis, K., Scoring Load Capacity of Gears Lubricated with EP--Oils, AGMA Paper No.
P219.17, October, 1983.
30. Almen, J.O., Dimensional Value of Lubricants in Gear Design, SAE Journal, Sept. 1942, pp. 373--380.
31. Borsoff, V.N., Fundamentals of Gear Lubrication, Summary Report for Period March 1953 to May 1954,
Bureau of Aeronautics, Shell Development Company, Contract No. 53--356c, p. 12.
32. Borsoff, V.N., On the Mechanism of Gear Lubrication, ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, Vol. 81,
pp. 79--93, 1959.
33. Borsoff, V.N. and Godet, M.R., A Scoring Factor for Gears, ASLE Transactions, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1963,
pp. 147--153.
34. Borsoff, V.N., Predicting the Scoring of Gears, Machine Design, January 7, 1965, pp. 132--136.
35. ANSI/AGMA 6011--H98, Specification for High Speed Helical Gear Units.
36. Nakanishi, T. and Ariura, Y., Effect of Surface--Finishing on Surface Durability of Surface--Hardened
Gears, MPT ‘91, JSME International Conference on Motion and Power Transmissions, 1991, pp. 828--833.
37. Tanaka, S., et al, Appreciable Increases in Surface Durability of Gear Pairs with Mirror--Like Finish,
ASME Paper No. 84--DET--223, 1984, pp. 1--8.
38. Ueno, T., et al, Surface Durability of Case--Carburized Gears on a Phenomenon of ‘Gray Staining’ of
Tooth Surface, ASME Paper No. 80--C2/DET--27, 1980, pp. 1--8.
39. Olver, A.V., Micropitting of Gear Teeth -- Design Solutions, presented at Aerotech 1995, NEC
Birmingham, October 1995, published by I. Mech. E., 1995.
40. FVA Information Sheet “Micropitting”, No. 54/7 (July, 1993) Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik e.V.,
Lyoner Strasse 18, D--60528, Frankfurt/Main.
41. Bowen, C. W., The Practical Significance of Designing to Gear Pitting Fatigue Life Criteria, ASME Paper
77--DET--122, September 1977.
42. Dudley, D.W., Characteristics of Regimes of Gear Lubrication, International Symposium on Gearing and
Power Transmissions, Tokyo, Japan, 1981.
43. Blok, H., The Thermal--Network Method for Predicting Bulk Temperatures in Gear Transmissions, Proc.
7th Round Table Discussion on Marine Reduction Gears held in Finspong, Sweden, 9--10 September 1969.
44. Blok, H., Thermo--Tribology -- Fifty Years On, keynote address to the Int. Conf. Tribology; Friction,
Lubrication and Wear -- 50 Years On, Inst. Mech. Engrs., London, 1--3 July 1987, Paper No. C 248/87.
50
45. Ku, P.M. and Baber, B.B., The Effect of Lubricants on Gear Tooth Scuffing, ASLE Transactions, Vol. 2,
No. 2, 1960, pp. 184--194.
46. Winter, H., Michaelis, K. and Collenberg, H.F., Investigations on the Scuffing Resistance of High--Speed
Gears, AGMA Fall Technical Meeting Paper 90FTM8, 1990.
47. ANSI/AGMA 6002--B93, Design Guide for Vehicle Spur and Helical Gears.
48. Barish, T., How Sliding Affects Life of Rolling Surfaces, Machine Design, 1960.
49. Massey, C., Reeves, C. and Shipley, E.E., The Influence of Lubrication on the Onset of Surface Pitting in
Machinable Hardness Gear Teeth, AGMA Technical Paper 91FTM17, 1991.
51
PUBLISHED BY
AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
1500 KING STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

AGMA 925 Effect of Lubrification On Gear Surface

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AGMA 925 Effect of Lubrification On Gear Surface

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AGMA 925- A03

AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Effect of Lubrication on Gear Surface

AGMA INFORMATION SHEET

American Gear Manufacturers Association

PERSONNEL of the AGMA Helical Rating Committee and Tribology SubCommittee

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

COMMITTEE ACTIVE MEMBERS

COMMITTEE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

M. Bartolomeo . . New Venture Gear, Inc. I. Laskin . . . . . . . . Consultant

SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVE MEMBERS

The SCORING+ computer program [8] was released 2 References

Table 1 -- Symbols and units

Symbol Description Units Where first

Symbol Description Units Where first

4 Gear information Standard pitch radii

Transverse operating pressure angle

Transverse base pitch

Normal base pitch aw

Normal operating pressure angle

α wn = arcsincos β b sin α wt (14)

D -- for helical gears, case 1, where 1 − n r  ≥ n a

4.1.4 Roll angles Transverse relative radius of curvature

Cj Normal relative radius of curvature

Nominal tangential load

Actual tangential load For modified tooth profiles

Normal unit load

F wn X Γ = 1 for ξ B ≤ ξ i ≤ ξ D (49)

For smooth meshing 5 Lubrication

ξ  i − ξ A Lubricants are commonly referred to by their base

used temperatures are 40°C and 100°C; these then

5.1.1 Viscosity – temperature relationship η P = η atm e α p (64)

Table 2 -- Data for determining viscosity and pressure--viscosity coefficient

Lubricant ISO VG1) η40 η100 c d k s

100 000 1500

Figure 7 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for mineral oils

Following the concepts in [21], equation 76 can be where

σx is composite surface roughness for filter Rq 2x ∝ L x (79)

From Gaussian statistics [24], it is seen that: Ra x ∝ L 0.5

Hence, for a 0.8 mm cutoff length, 0.5

Figure 9 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for PAG--based synthetic oils

Figure 10 -- Dynamic viscosity versus temperature for MIL Spec. oils

6 Scuffing Prediction of the probability of scuffing is possible by

6.1.1 Mechanism of scuffing 6.2.1 Fundamental formula for flash

film, contact between surface asperities is mini-

of scuffing is possible in the absence of antiscuff where

The mean coefficient of friction is an approximation (88)

θB θB max machines. The mean scuffing temperature was

6.4.2 Maximum contact temperature

y = θB max A comparison of the flash temperature method and

6.6.2 Other scuffing methods 7 Surface fatigue (micro-- and macropitting)

6.6.2.1 PVT Method

-- reduce oil temperature; 7.4 Regimes of lubrication

7.4.4 Regime I cycles, load capacity of a bearing drops off by a

Figure 14 -- Plot of regimes of lubrication versus stress cycle factor

Table 6 -- Stress cycle factor equations for regimes I, II and III

Z N = 2.46604 × N −0.056 for N ≥ 10 000 cycles

Figure 15 -- Probability of wear related distress

Rq1x + Rq 2x Specific film thickness adjustment factor is derived

where Subtracting the bottom equation from the upper

λmin is specific film thickness (equation 105); σ λ min = 0.3700 = 0.2659

P (x) = 60% for vt ≤ 5 m/s

Table 7 -- Calculation results

* GEAR TOOTH VELOCITY AND LOADS *

* MATERIAL PROPERTY AND TOOTH SURFACE FINISH *

P5 -- Calculate risk of scuffing and wear

* Risk of scuffing *

* Probability of scuffing *

Risk of wear

* Probability of wear *