Complete calendar for November/December 1994.

With all the heated debate and hoopla surrounding ISO 9000 certification, everyone seems to have an opinion about whether to sign up. Executives in the gear industry are flooded with information and ideas that often seem at odds. Gear Technology asked AGMA executive director Joe T. Franklin, Jr. to give an industry perspective on the pros and cons of ISO 9000 certification.

Could the tip chamfer that manufacturing people usually use on the tips of gear teeth be the cause of vibration in the gear set? The set in question is spur, of 2.25 DP, with 20 degrees pressure angle. The pinion has 14 teeth and the mating gear, 63 teeth. The pinion turns at 535 rpm maximum. Could a chamfer a little over 1/64" cause a vibration problem?

Many CAD (Computer Aided Design) systems have been developed and implemented to produce a superior quality design and to increase the design productivity in the gear industry. In general, it is true that a major portion of design tasks can be performed by CAD systems currently available. However, they can only address the computational aspects of gear design that typically require decision-making as well. In most industrial gear design practices, the initial design is the critical task that significantly effects the final results. However, the decisions about estimating or changing gear size parameters must be made by a gear design expert.

"God is in the details," says the philosopher. What he meant was that on the scale of the universe, it's not just the galaxies, the planets, the mountain ranges, or the major rivers that are important. So are the subatomic particles and the genes. It's the little things that make all the difference.

A few months ago at the AGMA management seminar, I was surprised by the feverish note taking that went on at a presentation on marketing. The sight reminded me that while many of us in the gear industry are good engineers, designers, and mangers, we are often not as familiar - or comfortable - with less concrete concepts, such as marketing.

Five years of effort by AGMA came to fruition in January with the publishing of a report from the Department of Commerce. This "National Security Assessment of the U.S. Gear Industry" indicates that if serious measures are not taken, the gear industry's future is in jeopardy. It also sets the tone for confronting major challenges now looming large in our industry.

In Part I differences in pitting ratings between AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436:1986 were examined. In this part bending strength ratings are compared. All the standards base the bending strength on the Lewis equation; the ratings differ in the use and number of modification factors. A comprehensive design survey is carried out to examine practical differences between the rating methods presented in the standards, and the results are shown in graphical form.

The authors of last issue's article comparing AGMA, ISO and BS methods for Pitting Resistance Ratings are commended. Trying to compare various methods of rating gears is like hitting a moving target in a thick forest. The use of different symbols, presentations, terminology, and definitions in these standards makes it very difficult. But the greatest problem lies with the authors' use of older versions of these documents. ISO drafts and AGMA standards have evolved at the same time their work was accomplished and edited.

A study of AGMA 218, the draft ISO standard 6336, and BS 436: 1986 methods for rating gear tooth strength and surface durability for metallic spur and helical gears is presented. A comparison of the standards mainly focuses on fundamental formula and influence factors, such as the load distribution factor, geometry factor, and others. No attempt is made to qualify or judge the standards other than to comment on the facilities or lack of them in each standard reviewed. In Part I a comparison of pitting resistance ratings is made, and in the subsequent issue, Part II will deal with bending stress ratings and comparisons of designs.