I S 0 6336 VS AGMA 2001 GEAR RATING COMPARISON
for INDUSTRIAL GEAR APPLICATIONS
Glen Cahala
The Falk Corporation
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Abstract- In 1997 the International Standards
Organization (ISO) released the long awaited 6336
I S 0 Calculation of Load Capacity of Spur and Helical
Gears. Through the combined efforts of gear
technical associations representing countries around
the globe, the I S 0 6336 gear rating standard has
emerged to lead international Gear Manufactures into
the new millennium. The load capacity ratings
calculated with the I S 0 6336 standard are often
significantly different than those calculated with the
American Gear Manufactures Association (AGMA)
standard 2001. In today’s global market Gear Users
and OEM’s must, at a minimum, have the knowledge
of how each standard compares to the other. Ideally a
translation code from one standard to the other would
best meet the needs of the Gear User and OEMs for
comparing standards. This paper provides the Gear
User and OEMs with a technique to make such a
comparison. Rating comparisons are performed on
actual manufactured industrial gearing utilizing both
I S 0 and AGMA standards, with a side-by-side
analysis.
I. INTRODUCTION
With numerous differences between the
International Standards Organization (ISO) and
American Gear Manufactures Association (AGMA)
gear rating standards, how can the gear user evaluate
the I S 0 gear rating standard, and quickly and
confidently make a comparison to the more familiar
AGMA? The applicable AGMA and IS0 gear rating
standards of interest are 2001 and 6336, respectively.
While AGMA utilizes many standards to rate various
types and applications of gearing, the IS0 6336
standard is most comparable to the AGMA 200 1. This
paper presents the gear user with valuable insight on
the significant differences in ratings which these two
standards often produce. Rating comparisons are
performed on actual manufactured gearing with a side-
by-side analysis of both standards. A brief comparison
0-7803-5523-7/99/$10.000 1999 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Sydney. Downloaded on November 5, 2008 at 01:18 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of carburized materials grades, and quality levels is
also included. The paper is written for the end users, in
laymen terms for those less familiar with gearing
terminology and rating practices. It is not the intent of
this paper to explain why the AGMA and IS0
standards are different, but only to compare the
differences, and offer a translation technique of the IS0
rating to AGMA.
11. BACKGROUND
The AGMA gear rating standard is predominantly
an empirical calculation method used to predict the
suitability of a gear set for a given application. The
AGMA standards have been developed by industry,
through years of successful operation of manufactured
gearing. The AGMA standards are periodically revised
and edited to reflect the ever changing dynamics in
which gears operate, how they are designed, and
manufacturing technologies. The I S 0 6336 gear rating
standard is also used to predict the suitability of a gear
set for a given application. However, the I S 0 standard
was primarily developed by academics, and utilizes a
theoretical approach. Through the use of formulas and
equations the IS0 standard was produced from the
theories and principles of mechanics. One might say
that the comparison of AGMA 2001 to IS0 6336 is the
empirical approach vs. theoretical approach.
While AGMA 2001 offers only one method of
calculating the gear set rating, I S 0 6336 offers 5
methods which are identified by the letters A to E.
Method A is considered the most comprehensive and
accurate method with the precision of the other
methods descending with the alphabetical notation.
Method A requires precise measurements of actual test
gearing, and usually requires prototyping. Method B
allows for theoretical calculations and is used to rate
the gearing in this paper.
19
 111. TEST DATA
The comparison begins with the selection of a
population sample, or sample test data. What are the
gear meshes which should be evaluated? How many
meshes can be considered representative of all
combinations? With an infinite number of possible
combinations the scope of this paper will certainly need
to be limited. While double, triple, and even quadruple
reduction ratios are commonly used in the cement
industry, the complexity of the rating comparison is
significantly increased as the number of reductions
increase. Therefore, a single reduction ratio has been
chosen to demonstrate the general behavior of both
standards which can be considered adequately
representative of the multiple stage ratios. A complete
product line of single reduction, parallel shaft speed
reducers, consisting of 6 speed reducer sizes has been
evaluated at two nominal ratios of 5.9:l and 4.1:l. All
of the subject gearing is single helical, carburized and
symmetrically mounted between two bearings. The
high speed shaft of the speed reducer is evaluated at
990 rpm for all six reducer sizes and both nominal
ratios. Table I contains gear center distance, face width,
and exact ratios corresponding to the two nominal
ratios.
TABLE I
SAMPLE POPULATION
IV. Quality Level Comparison
Before gear ratings can be calculated a gear quality
level comparison is required to determine what AGMA
quality level corresponds to the equivalent IS0 quality
level. Quality level establishes allowable
manufacturing limits of gear tooth profile, pitch, and
lead. A brief definition of each gear tooth attribute
follows: Projle, is the curve forming the side of the
tooth section. Pitch, is the distance from one point on a
tooth to the same point on the adjacent tooth. Lead, is
20
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Sydney. Downloaded on November 5, 2008 at 01:18 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the axial advance of the helix for one revolution.
Detailed definitions of these gear tooth attributes can be
found in AGMA standard 390.03, Gear Classification,
Materials and Measuring Methods for Unassembled
Gears.
The sample gearing is manufactured to an AGMA
quality level Q-10. The calculated corresponding I S 0
quality level for pitch and profile is I S 0 quality level 7
with lead tolerances equivalent to an IS0 quality 8 or
9. The IS0 quality level used for the 6336 ratings in the
population sample is 4-7, because it represents the
highest quality level for the gear set. It is important to
note that the AGMA tolerance gets tighter with larger
quality levels i.e. a quality level 12 is more stringent
than a quality level 8. For I S 0 just the opposite is true,
an I S 0 quality level 7 is more stringent than a quality
level 9. A general rule of thumb for comparing quality
level is that the sum of the AGMA and IS0 quality
numbers describing the same gear is approximately 17.
This is known as “The rule of 17”.
V. Materials Comparison
The AGMA and I S 0 standards also allow for
varying materials quality. AGMA Grade 2 carburizing
steel is approximately equivalent to I S 0 material
quality MQ. The material quality level is utilized to
establish allowable contact stress (Sac) and allowable
bending stress values (Sat). Table I1 compares these two
materials. The AGMA and I S 0 allowable values are
within 3.6% for contact stress and 3.3% for bending
stress.
TABLE I1
CARBURIZING GRADE MATERIALS COMPARISON
I I AGMA I IS0
I Grade2 I MQ
s,, (Psi) I 70,000 1 72,518
sa, (Psi) 225,000 I 217,556
VI. Rating Comparison
The stage is now set to rate the gearing of the
sample population to both the AGMA and IS0
standards. Gear manufacturers utilize computer
programs to perform these calculations, which can be
extremely complicated and nearly impossible to
perform by hand. AGMA 2001 and IS0 6336 calculate
 two rating attributes for gearing, durability (pitting relatively independent for both ratios, suggesting
resistance) and strength (bending). Figures 1 and 2 are possible inconsistencies in the standard.
the strength and pitting resistance ratings for the entire
population sample plotted with reference to the reducer A note of clarification is required for the 43 inch
center distance. The reducer center distance is center distance data point for both standards and ratios
representative of the size of the unit, typically the larger of Figure 1. The explanation for the spike is that the
the center distance, the larger the speed reducer. As the gear tooth form used for the 43 inch center distance is
physical size of the unit increases so does the cost. of a different fundamental design than the others.
There is more material, more machining, and thus more
cost. The IS0 pitting resistance ratings are also
consistently higher than the AGMA pitting resistance
STRENGTH RATING vs. CENTER DISTANCE
ratings for both ratios, as shown in Figure 2. The rating
8o.m
increase for the IS0 standard ranged from 66% to 7%
-5IS0 6336NOMINAL RATIO4.02 : 1 for the nominal 5.9:l ratio and 98% to 63% for the
-cr ISO NOMINAL mno 5.89 : 1 4.1:1 ratio. Increases of this magnitude must be
-X-AGM42001 NOMINAL RAT104.02: 1 tempered by applying the proper application factor. It
6 5o.m--
I
+AGM42001 NOMINAL RAT105.89 : 1 would appear that higher service or application factors
must be used for gearing rated to ISO, compared to
gearing rated to AGMA. A higher service or
application factor will ensure adequate gear life for
reducers rated to the I S 0 standard.
l o . m -.
OJ
21 26 31 36 41
REWCER CEMER DISTANCE(IN)

Fig. I AGMA and I S 0 Gear strength ratings f o r sample population.

The strength ratings using AGMA 2001 are

substantially less compared to the IS0 6336 strength
ratings. An increase of not less than 42% is achieved
for the entire sample population using the IS0 rating
standard, while several of the reducers have a rating
increase over 80% and as high as 100%. The higher
strength gear ratings of IS0 6336 can potentially lead
to a significant increase in bending failures. In addition,
the I S 0 strength rating will reduce the temporary
overload capacity of the gearing potentially resulting in
Fig. 2 AGMA and I S 0 Gear pitting resistance ratings for sample
permanent plastic deformation, and eventually tooth
population.
breakage. The I S 0 strength ratings are aggressive when
compared to AGMA. Inversely, it could be said that the
AGMA ratings are too conservative. The relatively smooth trend lines of pitting
resistance ratings for both standards and ratio splits,
suggest that a correlation may exist. In an effort to
A direct correlation between AGMA and IS0
develop the conversion factor, the data series was
strength ratings is not yet evident from the data
normalized by a dimensionless parameter to extract the
collected. An important observation fiom Figure 1 is
connection between the two standards. The parameter
that the I S 0 ratings are consistently more aggressive
used is a ratio of face width (b) to center distance (a),
than AGMA. In addition, Figure 1 also demonstrates
or the (b/a) ratio. Table I11 shows the (b/a) ratio for the
the consistencies in the ratings calculated with the
sample population.
AGMA standard, as the data series plots for both ratios
are relatively parallel. The IS0 data series plots appear

21

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Sydney. Downloaded on November 5, 2008 at 01:18 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I11 The translation shown is only an approximation for
SAMPLE POPULATION (b/a) RATIO comparison purposes and applies to this particular
family of reducers which have similar design criteria.
Note, that reducers which have different design criteria
will not demonstrate similar increases in rating as
shown in Figure 3. However, similar graphs can be
developed for additional gear set families.

VII. CONCLUSION

AGMA 2001 and I S 0 6336 can produce

The (b/a) ratio is plotted vs. the percent increase in
pitting resistance rating from AGMA to I S 0 in Figure
3. One of the most noticeable features of Figure 3 is the
effect the ratio has on the percent increase in rating. A
considerable amount of additional rating increase over
AGMA is achieved at the lower nominal ratio of 4.1 :1.
In addition, the plot shows a linear line, which has been
superimposed to represent the best fit curve for each
data series. The best fit curve is the translation needed
for this family of reducers to compare the AGMA
pitting resistance rating to the IS0 pitting resistance
rating, with an accuracy of k 5%. For ratios which fall
in between the two data series, linear estimations can
be applied. For ratios which fall outside the two data
series, no sample data has been analyzed, and caution
should be used if an extrapolation is attempted. In
addition, Figure 3 has been evaluated at varying pinion
speeds which has shown to have little, to no effect on
the percent increase in rating from AGMA to ISO.
RATINGS % CHANGE VS. FACE WIDTH CENTER DISTANCE (RATIO)
PITTING RESISTANCE
100 -
4 90.-
2 80.-
<
I 70 --
60 --
P a--
5 40
-.
+5 89 1 NOMINAL RATIO
-0-4 02 1 NOMINAL RATIO
significantly different gear ratings for both strength and
pitting resistance. For the sample of reducers analyzed
strength ratings have been demonstrated to be
consistently higher with the I S 0 standard. The pitting
resistance ratings have been shown to be ratio
dependent. A relationship has been identified for pitting
resistance rating conversion from one standard to the
other given the ratio of gear face width to center
distance as shown in Figure 3.
Even the quality levels of the two standards are
different, although we have identified a translation for
pitch and profile with the "rule of 17". It is clear that
when comparing these two standards, one should
exercise caution when interpreting the results. Most
importantly beware that significant differences do exist
between the two standards. A reputable gear
manufacture will be capable of providing a comparison
when requested.
What does all this mean to the selection of a speed
reducer for my application? Many factor!$ other than
gearing can potentially rate a gear box, depending on
the application. These include bearings, shaft stresses,
thermal, over hung loads, etc. or a combination of
several of these factors. However, if the gearing is the
rating entity of the reducer, this analysis suggests a
general way to compare the resulting ratings of the two
standards.

039 041 043 045 047 049 051 053

(bla) RATllO

Fig. 3 Ratio of gear face width and centers plotted with the
increase in rating from AGMA 2001 to I S 0 6336.

22

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Sydney. Downloaded on November 5, 2008 at 01:18 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.