ANSI/AGMA 2101- D04

[Metric Edition of
ANSI/AGMA 2001--D04]

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Fundamental Rating Factors and

Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
Helical Gear Teeth
ANSI/AGMA 2101- D04
Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
American Helical Gear Teeth
National ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04
Standard [Metric Edition of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04]
Approval of an American National Standard requires verification by ANSI that the require-
ments for due process, consensus, and other criteria for approval have been met by the
standards developer.
Consensus is established when, in the judgment of the ANSI Board of Standards Review,
substantial agreement has been reached by directly and materially affected interests.
Substantial agreement means much more than a simple majority, but not necessarily una-
nimity. Consensus requires that all views and objections be considered, and that a
concerted effort be made toward their resolution.
The use of American National Standards is completely voluntary; their existence does not
in any respect preclude anyone, whether he has approved the standards or not, from
manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not
conforming to the standards.

The American National Standards Institute does not develop standards and will in no
circumstances give an interpretation of any American National Standard. Moreover, no
person shall have the right or authority to issue an interpretation of an American National
Standard in the name of the American National Standards Institute. Requests for interpre-
tation of this standard should be addressed to the American Gear Manufacturers
Association.

CAUTION NOTICE: AGMA technical publications are subject to constant improvement,

revision, or withdrawal as dictated by experience. Any person who refers to any AGMA
technical publication should be sure that the publication is the latest available from the
Association on the subject matter.

[Tables or other self--supporting sections may be referenced. Citations should read: See
ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Invo-
lute Spur and Helical Gear Teeth, published by the American Gear Manufacturers Asso-
ciation, 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria, Virginia 22314,
http://www.agma.org.]
Approved December 28, 2004
ABSTRACT
This standard specifies a method for rating the pitting resistance and bending strength of spur and helical
involute gear pairs. A detailed discussion of factors influencing gear survival and calculation methods are
provided.
Published by
American Gear Manufacturers Association
500 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Copyright  2004 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--840--8

ii
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Contents
Page
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Normative references, definitions and symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Criteria for tooth capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5 Fundamental rating formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6 Geometry factors, ZI and YJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Transmitted tangential load, Ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Dynamic factor, Kv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9 Overload factor, Ko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10 Service factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11 Safety factors, SH and SF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12 Elastic coefficient, ZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13 Surface condition factor, ZR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14 Hardness ratio factor, ZW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
15 Load distribution factor, KH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16 Allowable stress numbers, sHP and sFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17 Stress cycle factors, ZN and YN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
18 Reliability factor, YZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
19 Temperature factor, Yq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
20 Size factor, Ks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Annexes
A Method for determination of dynamic factor with AGMA 2000--A88 . . . . . . . . 39
B Rim thickness factor, KB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
C Application analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
D Discussion of the analytical face or longitudinal load distribution factor . . . . . 46
E Gear material fatigue life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
F Controlling section size considerations for through hardened gearing . . . . . . 54
Figures
1 Dynamic factor, Kv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Hardness ratio factor, ZW (through hardened) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3 Hardness ratio factor, ZW (surface hardened pinions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Instantaneous contact lines in the plane of action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5 Pinion proportion factor, KHpf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6 Evaluation of S and S1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 Mesh alignment factor, KHma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8 Allowable contact stress number for through hardened steel gears, σHP . . . 24
9 Allowable bending stress number for through hardened steel gears, σFP . . . 25
10 Allowable bending stress numbers for nitrided through hardened steel gears
(i.e., AISI 4140, AISI 4340), σFP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11 Allowable bending stress numbers for nitriding steel gears, σFP . . . . . . . . . . . 27
12 Variations in hardening pattern obtainable on gear teeth with flame or
induction hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
13 Minimum effective case depth for carburized gears, he min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
14 Core hardness coefficient, Uc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
15 -- Minimum total case depth for nitrided gears, hc min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16 Allowable yield strength number for steel gears, σs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved iii

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

17 Pitting resistance stress cycle factor, ZN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

18 Bending strength stress cycle factor, YN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Tables
1 Symbols used in gear rating equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Empirical constants; A, B, and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Allowable contact stress number, σHP, for steel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 Allowable bending stress number, σFP, for steel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 Allowable contact stress number, σHP, for iron and bronze gears . . . . . . . . . . 25
6 Allowable bending stress number, σFP, for iron and bronze gears . . . . . . . . . 26
7 Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress
number, σHP, and allowable bending stress number, σFP, of through
hardened steel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8 Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number,
σHP, and allowable bending stress number, σFP, of flame or induction
hardened steel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9 Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number,
σHP, and allowable bending stress number, σFP, of carburized and hardened
steel gears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10 Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number,
σHP, and allowable bending stress number, σFP, for nitrided steel gears . . . . 31
11 Reliability factors, YZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

iv  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

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 ANSI/AGMA
2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and
Helical Gear Teeth.]
This standard presents general formulas for rating the pitting resistance and bending
strength of spur and helical involute gear teeth using ISO symbology and SI units, and
supersedes AGMA 2101--C95.
The purpose of this standard is to establish a common base for rating various types of gears
for differing applications, and to encourage the maximum practical degree of uniformity and
consistency between rating practices within the gear industry. It provides the basis from
which more detailed AGMA application standards are developed, and provides a basis for
calculation of approximate ratings in the absence of such standards.
The formulas presented in this standard contain factors whose values vary significantly
depending on application, system effects, gear accuracy, manufacturing practice, and
definition of gear failure. Proper evaluation of these factors is essential for realistic ratings.
This standard is intended for use by the experienced gear designer capable of selecting
reasonable values for rating factors and aware of the performance of similar designs
through test results or operating experience.
In AGMA 218.01 the values for Life Factor, ZN and YN, Dynamic Factor, Kv, and Load
Distribution Factor, KH , were revised. Values for factors assigned in standards prior to that
were not applicable to 218.01 nor were the values assigned in 218.01 applicable to previous
standards.
The detailed information on the Geometry Factors, ZI and YJ, were removed from
ANSI/AGMA 2001--B88, the revision of AGMA 218.01. This material was amplified and
moved to AGMA 908--B89, Geometry Factors for Determining the Pitting Resistance and
Bending Strength for Spur, Helical and Herringbone Gear Teeth. The values of ZI and ZJ
have not been changed from previous Standards.
In ANSI/AGMA 2001--B88 the Allowable Stress Number section was expanded.
Metallurgical quality factors for steel materials were defined, establishing minimum quality
control requirements and allowable stress numbers for various steel quality grades.
Additional higher allowable stress numbers for carburized gears were added when made
with high quality steel. A new rim thickness factor, KB, was introduced to reduce allowable
bending loads on gears with thin rims. Material on scuffing (scoring) resistance was added
as an annex. ANSI/AGMA 2001--B88 was first drafted in January, 1986, approved by the
AGMA Membership in May 1988, and approved as an American National Standard on
September 30, 1988.
ANSI/AGMA 2101--C95 was a revision of the rating method described in its superseded
publications. The changes include: the Miner’s rule annex was removed; the analytical
method for load distribution factors, KH, was revised and placed in an annex; nitrided
allowable stress numbers were expanded to cover three grades; nitrided stress cycle
factors were introduced; through hardened allowable stresses were revised; application
factor was replaced by overload factor; safety factors SH and SF were introduced; life factor
was replaced by stress cycle factor and its use with service factor redefined; and the
dynamic factor was redefined as the reciprocal of that used in previous AGMA standards
and was relocated to the denominator of the power equation.
This standard, ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, is a revision of its superseded version. Clause 8
was changed to incorporate ANSI/AGMA 2015--1--A01 and the Kv method using AGMA

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved v

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

2000--A88 was moved to Annex A. References to old Annex A, “Method for Evaluating the
Risk of Scuffing and Wear” were changed to AGMA 925--A03. It also reflects a change to
clause 10, dealing with the relationship between service factor and stress cycle factor.
Editorial corrections were implemented to table 8, figure 14 and table E--1, and style was
updated to latest standards.
This AGMA Standard and related publications are based on typical or average data,
conditions, or applications. The Association intends to continue working to update this
Standard and to incorporate in future revisions the latest acceptable technology from
domestic and international sources.
The first draft of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 was completed in February 2002. It was approved
by the AGMA membership in October 23, 2004. It was approved as an American National
Standard on December 28, 2004.
Suggestions for improvement of this standard will be welcome. They should be sent to the
American Gear Manufacturers Association, 500 Montgomery Street, Suite 350, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.

vi  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

PERSONNEL of the AGMA Helical Gear Rating Committee

Chairman: John V. Lisiecki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Falk Corporation
Vice Chairman: Michael B. Antosiewicz . . . . Falk Corporation

ACTIVE MEMBERS

K.E. Acheson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Works -- Seattle, Inc.

J.B. Amendola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAAG Gear AG
T.A. Beveridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caterpillar, Inc.
M. Broglie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dudley Technical Group
G.A. DeLange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hansen Transmissions
G. Elliott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lufkin Industries, Inc.
R.L. Errichello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEARTECH
R.W. Holzman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Innovative Gearing Solutions LLC
O.A. LaBath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Consulting Services of Cincinnati, LLC
G. Lian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amarillo Gear Company
L. Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lufkin Industries, Inc.
D. McCarthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Products, Inc.
D.R. McVittie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Engineers, Inc.
A.G. Milburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Milburn Engineering, Inc.
G.W. Nagorny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nagorny & Associates
F.C. Uherek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Falk Corporation

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

M. Bartolomeo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rolls--Royce Corporation

E.J. Bodensieck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bodensieck Engineering Company
D.L. Borden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D.L. Borden, Inc.
K.J. Buzdygon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ExxonMobil Research and Engineering
A.B. Cardis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
M.R. Chaplin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contour Hardening, Inc.
J. Chen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Motors Corporation
E. Chermet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CETIM
R.J. Ciszak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GE -- Rail
A.S. Cohen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engranes y Maquinaria Arco, S.A.
S. Copeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Products, Inc.
R.L. Cragg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steward Machine Company, Inc.
T.J. Dansdill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Electric Company AE Marine Engines
F. Eberle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi--Lex Controls, Inc.
J.M. Escanaverino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instituto Superior Politecnico
L. Faure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compagnie Engrenages Et Reducteurs
T. Funk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gear Products, Inc.
M.J. Gardner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
C. Gay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charles E. Gay & Company, Ltd.
T.C. Glasener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xtek, Inc.
G.G. Rey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instituto Superior Politecnico
H. Hagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Gear Corporation
H. Hagiwara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nippon Gear Company, Ltd.
E.C. Hahlbeck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powertrain Engineers, Inc.
R.W. Hankes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A--C Equipment Services Corporation
M.A. Hartman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITW

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved vii

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

J.M. Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rolls--Royce Corporation

G. Henriot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
M. Hirt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renk AG
M.R. Hoeprich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timken Company
R.S. Hyde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timken Company
K.T. Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
J.R. Keough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applied Process, Inc.
H.J. Kim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Motors Corporation
J.G. Kish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sikorsky Aircraft Division
R.H. Klundt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timken Company
I. Laskin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
D.A. Lauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kluber Lubrication North America L.P.
S. Luchetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Gear Corporation
W. Luo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago Gear -- D.O. James Corporation
J.J. Luz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Electric Company AE Marine Engines
J. Maddock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
K. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dana Spicer Off Highway Products
S. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Brown Engineering, Ltd.
H. Minasian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
G.P. Mowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gary P. Mowers, Inc.
R.A. Nay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hamilton Sundstrand
A. Noll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Horsburgh & Scott Company
B. O’Connor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lubrizol Corporation
M. Octrue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CETIM
J.A. Pennell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Newcastle--Upon--Tyne, Design Unit
A.E. Phillips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge (Retired)
A. Piazza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Centro Ricerche Fiat S.p.A.
W.P. Pizzichil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
J.W. Polder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delft University of Technology
S. Rao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Gear Corporation
E. Sandberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Det Norske Veritas
H. Sanderow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management & Engineering Technologies
C.D. Schultz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Gear Company
E.S. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
Y. Sharma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
B.W. Shirley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emerson Power Transmission, Gearing Facility
D.F. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solar Turbines, Inc. Gear Systems
L.J. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consultant
G.L. Snelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Motors Corporation
L. Spiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emerison Power Transmission Corporation
W.T. Sumi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognis Corporation -- Lubricant Technologies
A.A. Swiglo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alion Science and Technology
K. Taliaferro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockwell Automation/Dodge
F.A. Thoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F.A. Thoma, Inc.
D. Townsend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Townsend Engineering
A. von Graefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MAAG Gear AG
H.W. Wallis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognis Corporation -- Lubricant Technologies
C.C. Wang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3E Software & Engineering Consulting
B. Ward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recovery Systems, LLC
R.F. Wasilewski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arrow Gear Company

viii  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

American National Standard -- 1.2 Exceptions

The formulas of this standard are not applicable to
other types of gear tooth deterioration such as plastic
Fundamental Rating yielding, wear, case crushing and welding. They are
also not applicable when vibratory conditions ex-
Factors and Calculation ceed the limits specified for the normal operation of
the gears (see ANSI/AGMA 6000--A88, Specifica-
Methods for Involute tion for Measurement of Lateral Vibration on Gear
Units).
Spur and Helical Gear The formulas of this standard are not applicable

Teeth when any of the following conditions exist:

-- Damaged gear teeth.
-- Spur gears with transverse contact ratio, εa,
less than 1.0.
-- Spur or helical gears with transverse contact
1 Scope ratio, εa, greater than 2.0.
-- Interference exists between tips of teeth and
root fillets.
1.1 Rating formulas
-- Teeth are pointed.
This standard provides a method by which different
-- Backlash is zero.
gear designs can be theoretically rated and
compared. It is not intended to assure the perform- -- Undercut exists in an area above the theoreti-
ance of assembled gear drive systems. cal start of active profile. The effect of this
undercut is to move the highest point of single
These fundamental rating formulas are applicable tooth contact, negating the assumption of this cal-
for rating the pitting resistance and bending strength culation method. However, the reduction in tooth
of internal and external spur and helical involute gear root thickness due to protuberance below the
teeth operating on parallel axes. The formulas active profile is handled correctly by this method.
evaluate gear tooth capacity as influenced by the -- The root profiles are stepped or irregular. The
major factors which affect gear tooth pitting and gear YJ factor calculation uses the stress correction
tooth fracture at the fillet radius. factors developed by Dolan and Broghamer [19].
These factors may not be valid for root forms
The knowledge and judgment required to evaluate which are not smooth curves. For root profiles
the various rating factors come from years of which are stepped or irregular, other stress
accumulated experience in designing, manufactur- correction factors may be more appropriate.
ing, and operating gear units. Empirical factors
-- Where root fillets of the gear teeth are
given in this standard are general in nature. AGMA
produced by a process other than generating.
application standards may use other empirical
factors that are more closely suited to the particular -- The helix angle at the standard (reference)
field of application. This standard is intended for use diameter* is greater than 50 degrees.
by the experienced gear designer, capable of Scuffing criteria are not included in this standard. A
selecting reasonable values for the factors. It is not method to evaluate scuffing risk can be found in
intended for use by the engineering public at large. AGMA 925--A03. This information is provided for

____________________
[ ] Numbers in brackets refer to the reference number listed in the Bibliography.
* Refer to ANSI/AGMA 1012--F90 for further discussion of standard (reference) diameters.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 1

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

evaluation by users of this standard, with the intent to ASTM A48--93a, Specification for Gray Iron
include a scuffing evaluation method in a future Castings.
version of this standard.
ASTM A388--91, Practice for Ultrasonic
Design considerations to prevent fractures emanat- Examination of Heavy Steel Forgings.
ing from stress risers on the tooth profile, tip ASTM A534--90, Specification for Carburizing
chipping, and failures of the gear blank through the Steels for Anti--friction Bearings.
web or hub should be analyzed by general machine
design methods. ASTM A535--85(1992), Specification for Special
Quality Ball and Roller Bearing Steel.
ASTM A536--84 (1993), Specification for Ductile
Iron Castings.
2 Normative references, definitions and
symbols ASTM A609--91, Practice for Castings, Carbon,
Low Alloy, and Martensitic Stainless Steel,
Ultrasonic Examination Thereof.
2.1 Normative references
ASTM A866--92, Specification for Medium Carbon
The following documents contain provisions which, Anti--friction Bearing Steel.
through reference in this text, constitute provisions of
this standard. At the time of development, the ASTM B148--93, Specification for Aluminum --
Bronze Sand Castings.
editions were valid. All publications are subject to
revision, and the users of this standard are encour- ASTM E112--88, Test Methods for Determining
aged to investigate the possibility of applying the Average Grain Size.
most recent editions of the publications listed.
ASTM E428--92, Practice for Fabrication and Con-
AGMA 246.02A, Recommended Procedure for trol of Steel Reference Blocks Used in Ultrasonic
Carburized Aerospace Gearing. Inspection.
AGMA 908--B89, Information Sheet -- Geometry ASTM E709--91, Guide for Magnetic Particle Ex-
Factors for Determining the Pitting Resistance and amination.
Bending Strength for Spur, Helical and Herringbone
2.2 Definitions
Gear Teeth.
AMS 2300G, Steel Cleanliness, Premium Aircraft-- The terms used, wherever applicable, conform to
Quality, Magnetic Particle Inspection Procedure. ANSI/AGMA 1012--F90 and reference [2].

AMS 2301G, Steel Cleanliness, Aircraft -- Quality 2.3 Symbols

Magnetic Particle Inspection Procedure.
The symbols used in this standard are shown in table
ANSI/AGMA 1012--F90, Gear Nomenclature, 1.
Definitions of Terms with Symbols.
NOTE: The symbols and terms contained in this
ANSI/AGMA 2004--B89, Gear Materials and Heat document may vary from those used in other AGMA
Treatment Manual. standards. Users of this standard should assure them-
selves that they are using these symbols and terms in
ANSI/AGMA 2007--B92, Surface Temper Etch
the manner indicated herein.
Inspection After Grinding.
ANSI/AGMA 2015--1--A01, Accuracy Classification
System -- Tangential Measurements for Cylindrical
Gears. 3 Application
ANSI/AGMA 6000--A88, Specification for
Measurement of Lateral Vibration on Gear Units. 3.1 Rating practices
ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88, Standard for Marine Pitting resistance and bending strength rating prac-
Propulsion Gear Units, Part 1, Materials. tices for a particular field of gearing may be
ANSI/AGMA 9005--D94, Industrial Gear established by selecting proper values for the factors
Lubrication. used in the general formulas of clause 5.

2  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Table 1 -- Symbols used in gear rating equations

First Ref.
Symbol Description Units Used Clause
Av Transmission accuracy level number ---- Eq 22 8.3
a Operating center distance mm Eq 2 5.1.1
b Net face width of narrowest member mm Eq 1 5.1.1
CG Gear ratio factor ---- Eq 6 5.1.4
CSF Service factor for pitting resistance ---- Eq 30 10
de Outside diameter of pinion or gear in Eq 27 8.3.3
dT Tolerance diameter in Eq 25 8.3.3
dw1 Operating pitch diameter of pinion mm Eq 1 5.1.1
E1 Modulus of elasticity for pinion N/mm2 Eq 31 12
E2 Modulus of elasticity for gear N/mm2 Eq 31 12
Fd Incremental dynamic tooth load N Eq 20 8.1
Fmax Maximum peak tangential load N Eq 46 16
Ft Transmitted tangential load N Eq 18 7.1
HB1 Brinell hardness of pinion HB Eq 33 14.1
HB2 Brinell hardness of gear HB Eq 33 14.1
hcmin Minimum total case depth for external nitrided gear mm Eq 45 16.1
teeth
hemax Maximum effective case depth mm Eq 44 16.2
hemin Minimum effective case depth for external mm Eq 43 16.1
carburized and induction hardened gear teeth
ht Gear tooth whole depth mm Eq 17 5.2.5
K Contact load factor for pitting resistance N/mm2 Eq 6 5.1.4
Kaz Allowable contact load factor N/mm2 Eq 9 5.1.4
KB Rim thickness factor ---- Eq 10 5.2.5
Kf Stress correction factor ---- Eq 46 16.4
KH Load distribution factor ---- Eq 1 15.1
KHe Mesh alignment correction factor ---- Eq 38 15.3
KHma Mesh alignment factor ---- Eq 38 15.3
KHmc Lead correction factor ---- Eq 38 15.3
KHpf Pinion proportion factor ---- Eq 38 15.3
KHpm Pinion proportion modifier ---- Eq 38 15.3
KHs Load distribution factor under overload conditions ---- Eq 46 16.4
KHα Transverse load distribution factor ---- Eq 36 15.2
KHβ Face load distribution factor ---- Eq 36 15.3
Ko Overload factor ---- Eq 1 9
Ks Size factor ---- Eq 1 20
KSF Service factor for bending strength ---- Eq 30 10.
Kv Dynamic factor ---- Eq 1 5.2.1
Ky Yield strength factor ---- Eq 46 16.5
L Life hours Eq 47 17.1
mB Back--up ratio ---- Eq 17 5.2.5
mt Transverse metric module mm Eq 10 5.2.1
mn Normal metric module, nominal mm Eq 11 5.2.1

(continued)

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 3

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Table 2 (continued)
First Ref.
Symbol Description Units Used Clause
nL Number of load cycles ---- Fig 17 17
P Transmitted power kW Eq 18 7.1
Pa Allowable transmitted power for gear set kW Eq 30 10
Pay Allowable transmitted power for bending strength kW Eq 14 5.2.3
Payu Allowable transmitted power for bending strength kW Eq 29 10
at unity service factor
Paz Allowable transmitted power for pitting resistance kW Eq 5 5.1.3
Pazu Allowable transmitted power for pitting resistance kW Eq 28 10
at unity service factor
px Axial pitch mm Eq 11 5.2.1
q Number of contacts per revolution ---- Eq 48 17.1
Rz1 Pinion surface finish mm Eq 35 14.2
S Bearing span mm Fig 6 15.3
S1 Pinion offset mm Fig 6 15.3
SF Safety factor -- bending ---- Eq 13 11
SH Safety factor -- pitting ---- Eq 4 11
san Normal tooth thickness at the top land of gear mm Eq 44 16.1
T Transmitted pinion torque Nm Eq 18 7.1
tR Gear rim thickness mm Eq 17 5.2.5
Uay Allowable unit load for bending strength N/mm2 Eq 16 5.2.4
Uc Core hardness coefficient ---- Eq 45 16.1
UH Hardening process factor ---- Eq 43 16.1
UL Unit load for bending strength N/mm2 Eq 15 5.2.4
u Gear ratio (never less than 1.0) ---- Eq 2 5.1.1
vt Pitch line velocity at operating pitch diameter m/s Eq 18 7.1
vtmax Pitch line velocity maximum at operating pitch m/s Eq 24 8.3.2
diameter
v1 Poisson’s ratio for pinion ---- Eq 31 12
v2 Poisson’s ratio for gear ---- Eq 31 12
YJ Geometry factor for bending strength ---- Eq 10 6.2
YN Stress cycle life factor for bending strength ---- Eq 13 17
YZ Reliability factor ---- Eq 4 18
Yθ Temperature factor ---- Eq 4 19
z1 Number of teeth in pinion ---- Eq 7 5.1.4
z2 Number of teeth in gear ---- Eq 7 5.1.4
ZI Geometry factor for pitting resistance ---- Eq 1 6.1
ZE Elastic coefficient [N/mm2]0.5 Eq 1 12.
ZN Stress cycle life factor for pitting resistance ---- Eq 4 17.
ZR Surface condition factor for pitting resistance ---- Eq 1 13.
ZW Hardness ratio factor for pitting resistance ---- Eq 4 17.
αpt Operating transverse pressure angle ---- Eq 43 16.1
β Helix angle at standard pitch diameter ---- Eq 11 5.2.1
βmb Base helix angle ---- Eq 43 16.1

(continued)

4  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Table 2 (continued)
First Ref.
Symbol Description Units Used Clause
σF Bending stress number N/mm2 Eq 10 5.2.1
σH Contact stress number N/mm2 Eq 1 5.1.1
σFP Allowable bending stress number N/mm2 Eq 13 5.2.2
σHP Allowable contact stress number N/mm2 Eq 4 5.1.2
σs Allowable yield stress number N/mm2 Eq 46 16.4
ω Speed rpm Eq 48 17.1
ω1 Pinion speed rpm Eq 5 5.1.3

Where applicable AGMA application standards grinding temper, or tooth root steps may invalidate
exist, they should be used in preference to this calculations of pitting resistance and bending
standard. Consult AGMA Headquarters for current strength.
list of applicable standards. Where no applicable
3.4.1 Geometric quality
AGMA application standard exists, numerical values
may be estimated for the factors in the general The rating formulas of this standard are only valid if
formulas, and the approximate pitting resistance and the gear tooth and gear element support accuracies
bending strength ratings calculated. assumed in the calculations are actually achieved in
manufacture (see clause 8).
3.2 Implied accuracy
Gear tooth accuracy considerations include: invo-
Where empirical values for rating factors are given
lute profile, tooth alignment (lead), tooth spacing and
by curves, curve fitting equations are provided to
tooth finish.
facilitate computer programming. The constants
and coefficients used in curve fitting often have Gear element support considerations include: gear
significant digits in excess of those inferred by the case bore alignment, bearing eccentricities and
reliability of the empirical data. Experimental data shaft runouts.
from actual gear unit measurements are seldom
3.4.2 Metallurgy
repeatable within a plus or minus 10 percent band.
Calculated gear ratings are intended to be conserva- The allowable stress numbers, σHP and σFP, in-
tive, but the scatter in actual results may exceed 20 cluded herein are a function of melting, casting,
percent. forging and heat treating practice. Hardness, tensile
strength, microstructure and cleanliness are some
3.3 Testing
criteria for determining allowable stress numbers.
The preferred method to predict overall system Allowable stress numbers in this standard are based
performance is to test a proposed new design. on 107 cycles, 99 percent reliability and unidirection-
Where sufficient experience is available from similar al loading.
designs, satisfactory results can be obtained by
The allowable stresses are only valid for materials
extrapolation of previous tests or field data.
and conditions listed in this standard (see clause 16).
NOTE: When suitable test results or field data are not For example, materials such as aluminum or stain-
available, values for the rating factors should be chosen less steel may encounter lubrication problems that
conservatively.
invalidate calculations of pitting resistance and
3.4 Manufacturing quality bending strength.
Rating factors should be evaluated on the basis of Variations in microstructure account for some vari-
the expected variation of component parts in the ation in gear capacity. Higher levels of cleanliness
production run. The formulas of this standard are and better metallurgical control permit the use of
only valid for appropriate material quality and higher allowable stress numbers. Conversely, lower
geometric quality that conforms to the manufactur- metallurgical quality levels require the use of lower
ing tolerances. Defects such as surface cracks, allowable stress numbers.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 5

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

3.4.3 Residual stress 3.5.2 Low operating speeds

Any material having a case--core relationship is likely The design of slower gears, from a lubrication
to have residual stresses. If properly managed, standpoint, should be based on application require-
these stresses should be compressive at the surface ments such as hours of life, degree of reliability
and should enhance the bending strength perform- needed, and acceptable increase in noise and
ance of the gear teeth. Shot peening, case vibration as the gear teeth wear or deform. Field
carburizing, nitriding, and induction hardening are experience and test stand experience can be used to
common methods of inducing compressive pre-- select design parameters and lubricant criteria to
stress in the surface of the gear teeth. meet the application.

Grinding the tooth surface after heat treatment may Slower speed gears, with pitch line velocities less
reduce the residual compressive stresses. Grinding than 0.5 m/s, require special design consideration to
the tooth surface and root fillet area may introduce avoid premature failure due to inadequate lubrica-
tensile stresses and possibly cracks in these areas if tion.
incorrectly done. Care must be taken to avoid
At low surface speeds [below 0.5 m/s pitch line
excessive reduction in hardness and changes in
velocity or 20 rpm input speed] the gear designer
microstructure during the grinding process.
may expect some pitting and wear to occur during
3.5 Lubrication the gear life when using these rating practices for
other than surface hardened gearing. Methods and
The ratings determined by these formulas are only limits for determining acceptable wear at low speeds
valid when the gear teeth are operated with a should be based on the field or test experience of the
lubricant of proper viscosity for the load, gear tooth manufacturer. The rating of gear teeth due to wear is
surface finish, temperature, and pitch line velocity. not covered by this standard.

Lubricant recommendations are given in ANSI/ Slow speed gears, with pitch line velocities greater
AGMA 9005--D94, Industrial Gear Lubrication. than 0.5 m/s but less than 5 m/s frequently require
special design considerations, even when the lubri-
3.5.1 Oil film thickness cants used conform to ANSI/AGMA 9005--D94
recommendations. (ANSI/AGMA 9005--D94 does
Field results and laboratory tests have shown that not, at present, cover the complexities of elas-
pitting resistance of gear teeth can also be affected tohydrodynamic oil film thickness and its relation to
by elastohydrodynamic (EHD) oil film thickness, see load rating).
[9] and [18]. This appears to be a nonlinear
relationship where a small change in film thickness in 3.6 Temperature extremes
the critical range makes a large change in pitting
3.6.1 Cold temperature operation
resistance. Oil film thickness depends on viscosity,
load, temperature, and pitch line velocity. AGMA When operating temperatures result in gear
925--A03 provides a method to estimate EHD film temperatures below 0°C, special care must be given
thickness. This standard does not provide a method to select materials which will have adequate impact
to estimate the minimum film thickness required. properties at the operating temperature. Consider-
ation should be given to:
Lubrication problems are not common in industrial
gears in the speed range of 5 to 50 m/s, but show up -- Low temperature Charpy specification.
from time to time in aerospace gearing and in marine
-- Fracture appearance transition or nil ductility
gearing. This may be due to high temperatures,
temperature specification.
inadequate additive package in the oil, size of the
pinion, inadequate oil viscosity, or tooth finish -- Reducing carbon content to less than 0.4 per-
characteristics. cent.
-- Use of higher nickel alloy steels.
The ratings are valid only for those lubrication
conditions which allow the gears to operate without -- Using heating elements to increase lubricant
experiencing appreciable wear. and gear temperatures.

6  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

3.6.2 Hot temperatures 3.9.4 System dynamics

Consideration must be given to the loss of hardness The dynamic response of the system results in
and strength of some materials due to the tempering additional gear tooth loads due to the relative
effect of gear blank temperatures over 150_C. accelerations of the connected masses of the driver
and the driven equipment. The overload factor, Ko,
3.7 Oscillatory motion is intended to account for the operating characteris-
The formulas in this standard are only valid for gears tics of the driving and driven equipment. It must be
that rotate in one direction, or gears that reverse recognized, however, that if the operating roughness
direction with several rotations between reversals, of the driver, gearbox, or driven equipment causes
provided that adequate consideration is given to the an excitation with a frequency that is near to one of
dynamic loads that are developed during reversals. the system’s major natural frequencies, resonant
The formulas are not valid for applications such as vibrations may cause severe overloads which may
robotics or yaw drives where gears are subjected to be several times higher than the nominal load. For
small oscillatory motion. critical service applications, it is recommended that a
vibration analysis be performed. This analysis must
3.8 Non--uniform loading include the total system of driver, gearbox, driven
equipment, couplings, mounting conditions, and
Non--uniform loading may require the use of Miner’s
sources of excitation. Natural frequencies, mode
Rule for analysis (see 7.2).
shapes, and the dynamic response amplitudes
3.9 Other considerations should be calculated. The responsibility for the
vibration analysis of the system rests with the
In addition to the factors considered in this standard purchaser of the gearing. For more information,
which influence pitting resistance and bending refer to ANSI/AGMA 6011--I03, Specification for
strength, other interrelated factors can affect overall High Speed Helical Gear Units, Annex D.
transmission performance. The following factors are
particularly significant. 3.9.5 Corrosion

3.9.1 Service damaged teeth Corrosion of the gear tooth surface can have a
significant detrimental effect on the bending strength
The formulas of this standard are only valid for and pitting resistance of the teeth. Quantification of
undamaged gear teeth. Deterioration such as the effect of corrosion on gear teeth is beyond the
plastic deformation, pitting, micropitting, wear, or scope of this standard.
scuffing invalidate calculations of pitting resistance
and bending strength.

3.9.2 Misalignment and deflection of foundations 4 Criteria for tooth capacity

Many gear systems depend on external supports
such as machinery foundations to maintain align- 4.1 Relationship of pitting resistance and
ment of the gear mesh. If these supports are initially bending strength ratings
misaligned, or are allowed to become misaligned There are two major differences between the pitting
during operation through elastic or thermal deflec- resistance and the bending strength ratings. Pitting
tion, overall gear system performance will be ad- is a function of the Hertzian contact (compressive)
versely affected. stresses between two cylinders and is proportional
to the square root of the applied tooth load. Bending
3.9.3 Deflection due to external loads
strength is measured in terms of the bending
Deflection of gear supporting housings, shafts, and (tensile) stress in a cantilever plate and is directly
bearings due to external overhung, transverse, and proportional to this same load. The difference in
thrust loads affects tooth contact across the mesh. nature of the stresses induced in the tooth surface
Since deflection varies with load, it is difficult to areas and at the tooth root is reflected in a
obtain good tooth contact at different loads. corresponding difference in allowable limits of con-
Generally, deflection due to external loads reduces tact and bending stress numbers for identical
capacity. materials and load intensities.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 7

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

The analysis of the load and stress modifying factors Micropitting is most frequently observed on surface
is similar in each case, so many of these factors have hardened gear teeth, although it can develop on
identical numerical values. through hardened gear teeth as well. Gear sets
operating at moderate pitchline velocities, 4 to 10
The term “gear failure” is itself subjective and a m/s are commonly affected, but micropitting has
source of considerable disagreement. One observ- been seen on gear sets running at other velocities as
er’s failure may be another observer’s wearing--in. well. Micropitting generally occurs in the dedendum
For a more complete discussion, see ANSI/AGMA of a speed reducing pinion, but it can develop
1010--E95 [3]. anywhere along the active profile of a tooth.
4.2 Pitting resistance 4.3.2 Electric discharge pitting
The pitting of gear teeth is considered to be a fatigue Electric discharge pitting is not a gear tooth rating
phenomenon. Initial pitting and progressive pitting problem, however, it is a distressed condition of the
are illustrated and discussed in ANSI/AGMA tooth surface. To the naked eye, the tooth surface
1010--E95. may not be distinguishable from micropitting as the
gear teeth exhibit the same so--called “frosted”
In most industrial practice non--progressive initial
appearance. It is caused by either static or stray
pitting is not deemed serious. Initial pitting is
electricity conducted through the gear mesh due to
characterized by small pits which do not extend over
inappropriate electrical grounding or inappropriate
the entire face width or profile height of the affected
gear motor isolation. If neglected, gear failure can
teeth. The definition of acceptable initial pitting
occur.
varies widely with gear application. Initial pitting
occurs in localized, overstressed areas. It tends to 4.3.3 Wear capacity of gears
redistribute the load by progressively removing high
The wear resistance of mating gears can be a
contact spots. Generally, when the load has been
dictating performance limitation, particularly in low
reduced or redistributed, the pitting stops.
speed, heavily loaded gears. Gear wear is a difficult
The aim of the pitting resistance formula is to phenomenon to predict analytically.
determine a load rating at which progressive pitting
Wear may occur when the oil film that separates the
of the teeth does not occur during their design life.
contacting surfaces of mating gear teeth is not
The ratings for pitting resistance are based on the
adequate (see AGMA 925--A03).
formulas developed by Hertz for contact pressure
between two curved surfaces, modified for the effect Wear in low speed applications may be tolerable.
of load sharing between adjacent teeth. Wear in high speed applications could be cata-
strophic where the magnitude of dynamic loading
4.3 Surface conditions not covered by this that can occur from nonconjugate gear tooth action
standard is excessive.
Conditions such as micropitting, electric discharge 4.3.4 Scuffing
pitting, wear and scuffing are not rated by this
standard but could be a problem. See ANSI/AGMA Scuffing is severe adhesive wear on the flanks of
1010--E95 for more information. gear teeth. The adhesive wear is a welding and
tearing of the metal surface by the flank of the mating
4.3.1 Micropitting gear. It occurs when the oil film thickness is small
enough to allow the flanks of the gear teeth to contact
Micropitting is one type of gear tooth surface fatigue.
and slide against each other.
It is characterized by very small pits on the surface of
the material, usually less than 20 mm deep, that give Scuffing is not a fatigue phenomenon and it may
the gear tooth the appearance of being frosted or occur instantaneously. AGMA 925--A03 provides a
grey in color. This deterioration of the surface of the method of evaluating the risk of a gear set scuffing.
material is generally thought to occur because of This risk is a function of oil viscosity and additives,
excessive Hertzian stresses due to influences from operating bulk temperature of gear blanks, sliding
gear loading, material and its heat treatment, the velocity, surface roughness of teeth, gear materials
type of lubricant, and degree of lubrication. and heat treatments, and surface pressure.

8  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

4.4 Bending strength where

The bending strength of gear teeth is a fatigue
σH is contact stress number, N/mm2;
phenomenon related to the resistance to cracking at
the tooth root fillet in external gears and at the critical
ZE is elastic coefficient, [N/mm2]0.5 (see clause
section in internal gears. Typical cracks and 12);
fractures are illustrated in ANSI/AGMA 1010--E95.
The basic theory employed in this analysis assumes Ft is transmitted tangential load, N (see clause
the gear tooth to be rigidly fixed at its base. If the rim 7);
supporting the gear tooth is thin relative to the size of
Ko is overload factor (see clause 9);
the tooth and the gear pitch diameter, another critical
stress may occur not at the fillet but in the root area.
Kv is dynamic factor (see clause 8);
The rim thickness factor, KB, adjusts the calculated
bending stress number for thin rimmed gears. Ks is size factor (see clause 20);

The user should ensure that the gear blank construc- KH is load distribution factor (see clause15);
tion is representative of the basic theory embodied in
this standard. Gear blank design is beyond the ZR is surface condition factor for pitting resis-
scope of this standard (see 5.2.5). tance (see clause 13);
The bending strength ratings determined by this
b is net face width of narrowest member, mm;
standard are based on plate theory modified to
consider: ZI is geometry factor for pitting resistance (see
-- The compressive stress at tooth roots caused clause 6);
by the radial component of tooth loading.
dw1 is operating pitch diameter of pinion, mm.
-- Non--uniform moment distribution resulting
from the inclined angle of the load lines on the
teeth. d w1 = 2 a for external gears (2)
u+1
-- Stress concentrations at the tooth root fillets.
d w1 = 2 a for internal gears (3)
-- The load sharing between adjacent teeth in u−1
contact.
where
The intent of the AGMA strength rating formula is to
determine the load which can be transmitted for the
a is operating center distance, mm;
design life of the gear drive without causing root fillet
cracking.
u is gear ratio (never less than 1.0).
Occasionally, wear, surface fatigue, or plastic flow
may limit bending strength due to stress concentra- 5.1.2 Allowable contact stress number
tions around large, sharp cornered pits or wear steps
on the tooth surface. The relation of calculated contact stress number to
allowable contact stress number is:

5 Fundamental rating formulas σ Z Z

σ H ≤ HP N W (4)
SH Yθ YZ
5.1 Pitting resistance
where
5.1.1 Fundamental formula
The contact stress number formula for gear teeth is: σHP is allowable contact stress number, N/mm2
(see clause 16);

σ H = ZE  Ft K o Kv K s
KH ZR
d w1 b Z I
(1) ZN is stress cycle factor for pitting resistance
(see clause 17);

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 9

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

ZW is hardness ratio factor for pitting resistance In terms of this standard, the allowable K factor is
(see clause 14); defined as:
SH is safety factor for pitting (see clause 11); 2

Yθ is temperature factor (see clause 19);

K az =
ZI
Zσ S
ZN ZW
HP
E H Yθ YZ
Ko K v K s K H Z R C G
(9)
YZ is reliability factor (see clause 18). Kaz is allowable contact load factor, N/mm2.
The allowable contact load factor, Kaz, is the lowest
5.1.3 Pitting resistance power rating
of the ratings calculated using the different values of
The pitting resistance power rating is: σHP, ZW and ZN for pinion and gear.
2 5.2 Bending strength
P az =
π ω1 b ZI

d w1 σ HP Z N Z W
6 × 10 o v s H R Z E S H Y θ Y Z
7 K K K K Z
 5.2.1 Fundamental formula
(5) The fundamental formula for bending stress number
in a gear tooth is:
where
σ F = F t K o Kv Ks 1 KH K B (10)
Paz is allowable transmitted power for pitting re- b mt YJ
sistance, kW;
where
ω1 is pinion speed, rpm.
σF is bending stress number, N/mm2;
CAUTION: The ratings of both pinion and gear teeth
must be calculated to evaluate differences in material KB is rim thickness factor (see 5.2.5);
properties and the number of tooth contact cycles un- YJ is geometry factor for bending strength (see
der load. The pitting resistance power rating is based clause 6);
on the lowest value of the product σHP ZN ZW for each of
the mating gears. mt is transverse metric module, mm.*;

5.1.4 Contact load factor, K mt is mn for spur gears.

p tan β mn
In some industries, pitting resistance is rated in mt = x π = for helical gears (11)
cos β
terms of K factor.
where
Ft 1
K= (6) mn is normal metric module, mm;
d w1 b C G
px is axial pitch, mm;
where
β is helix angle at standard pitch diameter.
K is contact load factor for pitting resistance,
N/mm2; β = arcsin πpmx n (12)

CG is gear ratio factor. 5.2.2 Allowable bending stress number

u z2 The relation of calculated bending stress number to

CG = or for external gears
u+1 z2 + z 1 (7) allowable bending stress number is:

and σ FP Y N
σF ≤ (13)
SF Y θ YZ
u z2
CG = or z − z 1 for internal gears (8) where
u−1 2
where σFP is allowable bending stress number, N/mm2
(see clause 16);
z2 is number of teeth in gear;
YN is stress cycle factor for bending strength
z1 is number of teeth in pinion. (see clause17);

___________________
* This calculation is based on standard gear hobbing practice, with mt and px given. For a detailed text on geometry,
see AGMA 933--B03, Information Sheet -- Basic Gear Geometry..

10  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

SF is safety factor for bending strength (see gears with smooth bores and no notches or
clause 11). keyways.
5.2.3 Bending strength power rating The rim thickness factor, KB, adjusts the calculated
bending stress number for thin rimmed gears. It is a
The bending strength power rating is:
function of the backup ratio, mB, (see annex B).
π ω 1 d w1 b mt YJ σ FP Y N
P ay = t
6 × 10 7 K K K
Ko K v s H B F Y θ YZ
S mB = R (17)
ht
(14)
where
where
tR is gear rim thickness below the tooth root,
Pay is allowable transmitted power for bending
mm;
strength, kW.
ht is gear tooth whole depth, mm.
CAUTION: The ratings of both pinion and gear teeth
must be calculated to evaluate differences in geometry The effects of webs and stiffeners can be an
factors, number of load cycles, and material properties. improvement but are not accounted for in annex B.
The bending strength power rating is based on the low-
The effect of tapered rims has not been investigated.
est value of the term
When previous experience or detailed analysis
σ FP Y N Y J justifies, lower values of KB may be used.
for each of the mating gears.
KB
KB is applied in addition to the 0.70 reverse loading
5.2.4 Unit load, UL factor where it is applicable (see 16.2).
In some industries, bending strength is rated in terms
of unit load.
Ft 6 Geometry factors, ZI and YJ
UL = (15)
b mn
where 6.1 Pitting resistance geometry factor, ZI

UL is unit load for bending strength, N/mm2. The geometry factor, ZI, evaluates the radii of
curvature of the contacting tooth profiles based on
In terms of this standard the allowable unit load is
tooth geometry. These radii are used to evaluate the
defined as:
Hertzian contact stress in the tooth flank. Effects of
YJ σ FP Y N modified tooth proportions and load sharing are
U ay = (16) considered.
cos β K o K v K s K H K B Y θ Y Z S F
where 6.2 Bending strength geometry factor, YJ
Uay is allowable unit load for bending strength, The geometry factor, YJ, evaluates the shape of the
N/mm2. tooth, the position at which the most damaging load
is applied, and the sharing of the load between
The allowable unit load, Uay, is the lowest of the
oblique lines of contact in helical gears. Both the
ratings calculated using the different values of σFP,
tangential (bending) and radial (compressive) com-
KB, YN and YJ for pinion and gear.
ponents of the tooth load are included.
5.2.5 Rim thickness factor, KB
6.3 Calculation method
Where the rim thickness is not sufficient to provide
It is recommended that the geometry factors, ZI and
full support for the tooth root, the location of bending
YJ, be determined by AGMA 908--B89, Information
fatigue failure may be through the gear rim, rather
Sheet -- Geometry Factors for Determining the
than at the root fillet. Published data [5] suggest the
Pitting Resistance and Bending Strength for Spur,
use of a stress modifying factor, KB, in this case.
Helical and Herringbone Gear Teeth. It includes
The rim thickness factor, KB, is not sufficiently tables for some common tooth forms and the
conservative for components with hoop stresses, analytical method for involute gears with generated
notches or keyways. This data is based on external root fillets.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 11

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

7 Transmitted tangential load, Ft gate meshing action of the gear teeth. Even if the
input torque and speed are constant, significant
In most gear applications the torque is not constant. vibration of the gear masses, and therefore dynamic
Therefore, the transmitted tangential load will vary. tooth forces, can exist. These forces result from the
To obtain values of the operating tangential load, the relative accelerations between the gears as they
designer should use the values of power and speed vibrate in response to an excitation known as
at which the driven device will perform. Ft repre- “transmission error”. Ideally, a gear set would have a
sents the tooth load due to the driven apparatus. uniform velocity ratio between the input and output
rotation. Transmission error is defined as the
Overload factor, Ko (see clause 9), and dynamic departure from uniform relative angular motion of the
factor, Kv (see clause 8), are included in the rating pair of meshing gears. It is influenced by all the
formulas (see clause 5) to account for loads in deviations from the ideal gear tooth form and ideal
excess of Ft. spacing.
7.1 Uniform load The dynamic factor relates the total tooth load
including internal dynamic effects to the transmitted
If the rating is calculated on the basis of uniform load,
the transmitted tangential load is: tangential tooth load.
F + Ft
F t = 1000 P 2000 T = 6 × 10 7 P
(18) Kv = d (20)
vt = d π ω 1 d w1 Ft
w1
where
where
Fd is incremental dynamic tooth load due to the
P is transmitted power, kW; dynamic response of the gear pair to the
T is transmitted pinion torque, Nm; transmission error excitation, not including
the transmitted tangential load, lbs.
vt is pitch line velocity at operating pitch diam-
eter, m/s. 8.1.1 Excitation

π ω 1 d w1 The transmission error is influenced by:

vt = (19)
60 000 -- Manufacturing variations including spacing,
7.2 Non--uniform load profile, lead, and runout.

When the transmitted load is not uniform, considera- -- Gear mesh stiffness variation as the gear
teeth pass through the meshing cycle. This
tion should be given not only to the peak load and its
source of excitation is especially pronounced in
anticipated number of cycles, but also to intermedi-
spur gears without profile modification. Spur
ate loads and their numbers of cycles. This type of
gears with properly designed profile modification,
load is often considered a duty cycle and may be and helical gears with axial contact ratios larger
represented by a load spectrum. In such cases, the than 1.0 have a smaller stiffness variation.
cumulative fatigue effect of the duty cycle is consid-
-- Transmitted load. Since elastic deflections
ered in rating the gear set. A method of calculating
are load dependent, gear tooth profile modifica-
the effect of the loads under these conditions, such tions can be designed to give a uniform velocity
as Miner’s Rule, is given in ISO/TR 10495 [1]. ratio only for one load magnitude. Loads different
from the design load will give increased transmis-
sion error.
8 Dynamic factor, Kv -- Dynamic unbalance of the gears and shafts.
-- Excessive wear and plastic deformation of
CAUTION: Dynamic factor, Kv, has been redefined as the gear tooth profiles that increase the amount of
the reciprocal of that used in previous AGMA transmission error.
standards. It is now greater than 1.0. In earlier AGMA
standards it was less than 1.0. -- Shaft alignment. Gear tooth alignment is in-
fluenced by load and thermal deformations of the
8.1 Dynamic factor considerations gears, shafts, bearings and housings, and by
Dynamic factor, Kv, accounts for internally generated manufacturing variations.
gear tooth loads which are induced by non--conju- -- Tooth friction induced excitation.

12  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

8.1.2 Dynamic response ing. In certain cases, a system may possess a

torsional natural frequency close to an excitation
The dynamic tooth forces are influenced by:
frequency associated with an operating speed.
-- Mass of the gears, shafts, and other major in- Under these resonant conditions, the dynamic gear
ternal components. tooth loads may be very high, and operation near a
-- Stiffness of the gear teeth, gear blanks, system resonance is to be avoided. The dynamic
shafts, bearings, and gear housing. factor, Kv, does not include considerations of the
dynamic tooth loads due to torsional vibration of the
-- Damping. The principal source of coulomb or
viscous damping is the shaft bearings. Generally gear system. These loads must be included with
oil film bearings provide greater damping than other externally applied forces in the overload factor,
rolling element bearings. Other sources of damp- Ko. For critical drives, a separate dynamic analysis
ing include the hysteresis of the gear shafts, and of the entire system is recommended.
viscous damping at sliding interfaces and shaft 8.2.4 Shaft critical speeds
couplings.
Due to the high bending stiffness of gear shafts, the
8.2 Resonance
natural frequencies of lateral vibration of the gear
When an excitation frequency coincides with a shafts are usually much higher than the operating
natural frequency, the resonant response is limited speeds. For high speed gears, however, it is
only by the damping, and high dynamic loads may recommended that the shaft critical speeds be
result. The dynamic factor, Kv, does not apply to analyzed to ensure that they are well removed from
resonance. the operating speed range. The dynamic factor, Kv,
does not account for the dynamic tooth loads due to
8.2.1 Gear pair resonance
this mode of vibration.
If a particular frequency of the transmission error
8.2.5 Nonlinear resonance
excitation is close to the natural frequency of the
gear spring--mass system, or some multiple of the Large cyclical variation in gear mesh stiffness and
natural frequency such as 2 or 3, a resonant vibration impact loads may lead to additional regions of
may cause high dynamic tooth forces due to large resonance and instability. This is primarily a problem
relative displacements of the gear masses. The with lightly--loaded, lightly--damped spur gears
dynamic factor, Kv, does not account for gear pair which do not have profile modifications.
resonance, and operation in this regime is to be 8.3 Approximate dynamic factor, Kv
avoided.
Figure 1 shows dynamic factors which can be used
8.2.2 Gear blank resonance in the absence of specific knowledge of the dynamic
Gear blanks may have natural frequencies within the loads. The curves of figure 1 and the equations
operating speed range. If the gear blank is excited given are based on empirical data, and do not
by a frequency which is close to one of its natural account for resonance.
frequencies, the resonant deflections may cause Due to the approximate nature of the empirical
high dynamic tooth loads. This occurs more curves and the lack of measured tolerance values at
frequently in high speed, light weight gear blanks, the design stage, the dynamic factor curve should be
but can also occur in other thin rimmed or thin selected based on experience with the manufactur-
webbed blanks. The dynamic factor, Kv, does not ing methods and operating considerations of the
account for gear blank resonance. A separate design.
investigation is recommended when these condi-
Choice of curves Av = 6 through Av = 12 and “very
tions occur.
accurate gearing” should be based on transmission
8.2.3 System resonance error.
The gearbox is one component of a system com- The transmission accuracy level number, Av, can be
prised of a power source, gearbox, driven equip- estimated as the appropriate accuracy grade, A, for
ment, and interconnecting shafts and couplings. the expected pitch and profile deviations in accor-
The dynamic response of this system depends on dance with ANSI/AGMA 2015--1--A01. See Annex A
the distribution of the masses, stiffness, and damp- for use with AGMA 2000--A88.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 13

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

2.0
Av = 12
1.9
Av = 11
1.8

1.7 Av = 10
Dynamic factor, Kv

1.6 Av = 9

1.5
Av = 8
1.4
Av = 7
1.3
Av = 6
1.2

1.1
“Very Accurate Gearing”
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pitch line velocity, vt, m/s

Figure 1 -- Dynamic factor, Kv

8.3.1 Very accurate gearing The maximum recommended pitch line velocity for a
given grade Av is determined:
Where gearing is manufactured using process
controls which provide tooth accuracies which 2
[C + (14 − A v)] (24)
correspond to “very accurate gearing”, or where the v t max =
196.85
design and manufacturing techniques ensure a low
where
transmission error which is equivalent to this accu-
racy, values of Kv between 1.02 and 1.11 may be vt max is maximum pitch line velocity at operating
used, depending on the specifier’s experience with pitch diameter (end point of Kv curves on
similar applications and the degree of accuracy figure 1), m/s.
actually achieved. Curves may be extrapolated beyond the end points
To use these values, the gearing must be maintained shown in figure 1 based on experience and careful
in accurate alignment and adequately lubricated so consideration of the factors influencing dynamic
that its accuracy is maintained under the operating load. For purposes of calculation, equation 24
conditions. defines the end points of the curves in figure 1.

8.3.2 Calculating Kv 8.3.3 Estimating Av

Empirical curves labeled Av = 6 through Av = 12 in When Av or A are not available, it is reasonable to

figure 1 are generated by the following equations for refer to the pitch accuracy, and to some extent profile
integer values of Av, such that 6 ± Av ± 12. Av is accuracy, as a representative value to determine the
related to the transmission accuracy grade number. dynamic factor. A slight variation from the selected
“Av” value is not considered significant to the gearset

 
−B
rating.
Kv = C (21)
C + 196.85 v t Av can be approximated using the pitch variation of
the pinion and gear with the following formulas,
where rounded to the next higher integer. Values of Av
C = 50 + 56 (1.0 − B) for 6 ≤ A v ≤ 12 (22) should be calculated for both gear and pinion, and
the higher value should be used for calculating the
0.667
B = 0.25 ( A v − 5.0 ) (23) dynamic factor, Kv.

14  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

For 5 < dT ≤ 400 mm In determining the overload factor, consideration

should be given to the fact that many prime movers
 
ln f pt − ln 0.3m n + 0.003 d T + 5.2 and driven equipment, individually or in combination,
Av = +5
0.3466 develop momentary peak torques appreciably
(25) greater than those determined by the nominal
ratings of either the prime mover or the driven
(rounded to the next highest integer)
equipment. There are many possible sources of
For 400 < dT ≤ 1000mm overload which should be considered. Some of
these are: system vibrations, acceleration torques,
  
ln f pt − ln 0.3m n + 0.12 d 0.5 + 4
T
 overspeeds, variations in system operation, split
Av = +5 path load sharing among multiple prime movers, and
0.3466
(26) changes in process load conditions.
(rounded to the next highest integer)
where 10 Service factor
ln is natural log, loge;
The service factor has been used in previous AGMA
fpt is single pitch deviation, mm; standards to include the combined effects of over-
mn is normal module, mm, where load, reliability, life, and other application related
1.25 ≤ mn ≤ 50; factors. This standard provides a means to account
for: variations in load (with overload factor),
dT is tolerance diameter, mm; statistical variations in S--N data (with reliability
d T = d e − 2m n (27) factor), and the number of design stress cycles (with
de is outside diameter of pinion or gear, mm. stress cycle factor).
The AGMA service factor as traditionally used in
8.4 Other values
gear applications depends on experience acquired
With specific knowledge of the influencing factors in each specific application. Product application
listed in 8.1 and 8.2, and by using a comprehensive standards can be a good source for the appropriate
dynamic analysis, other dynamic factors can be value of service factor (see annex C for a more
used for specific applications. detailed discussion of application analysis).
8.5 Unity dynamic factor Equations 28 and 29 are used to establish power
ratings for unity service factor to which established
When the known dynamic loads (from analysis or service factors may be applied using equation 30.
experience) are added to the nominal transmitted When this is done, the stress cycle factor is
load, then the dynamic factor can be unity. calculated using the number of cycles equivalent to a
specific number of hours at a specific speed, to
establish power rating for unity service factors.
9 Overload factor, Ko Where specific experience and satisfactory perfor-
mance has been demonstrated by successful use of
established service factors, values of ZN and YN of
The overload factor is intended to make allowance
1.0 may be appropriate.
for all externally applied loads in excess of the
nominal tangential load, Ft, for a particular applica- From equation 5:
tion. Overload factors can only be established after π ω1 b ZI
considerable field experience is gained in a particu- P azu =
6 × 10 7 K v K s K H Z R
lar application. 2

For an overload factor of unity, this rating method

× 
d w1 σ HP Z N Z W
ZE Yθ
 (28)
includes the capacity to sustain a limited number of
and from equation 14:
up to 200% momentary overload cycles (typically
less than four starts in 8 hours, with a peak not π ω 1 d w1 b m t Y J σ FP Y N
P ayu =
exceeding one second duration). Higher or more 6 × 10 7 K v Ks K H KB Yθ
frequent momentary overloads shall be considered (29)
separately. where

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 15

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Pazu is allowable transmitted power for pitting rigorous quality control of dimensions, materials and
resistance at unity service factor processes during manufacture, could have a less
(CSF = 1.0); conservative safety factor than a hoist made in small
quantities to normal commercial practices.
Payu is allowable transmitted power for bending
strength at unity service factor (KSF = 1.0); As design practices become more comprehensive,
some influence factors have been removed from the
CAUTION: Both pinion and gear teeth must be
checked to account for the differences in material prop- unknown area of “safety factor” and introduced as
erties, geometry factors, and the number of cycles un- predictable portions of the design method.
der load. Therefore, the power rating for unity service Safety factors must be established from a thorough
factor should be based on the lowest values of the ex- analysis of the service experience with a particular
pressions for each of the mating gears.
application. A minimum safety factor is normally
σHP ZN ZW for pitting resistance established for the designer by specific agreement
σ HP Y N Y J between manufacturer and purchaser. When spe-
for bending strength cific service experience is not available, a thorough
KB
analytical investigation should be made.
The allowable transmitted power for the gear set, Pa,
is determined:
P azu P ayu 12 Elastic coefficient, ZE
P a = the lesser of and (30)
C SF K SF
where The elastic coefficient, ZE, is defined by the following
equation:
CSF is service factor for pitting resistance;
KSF is service factor for bending strength.

11 Safety factors, SH and SF

ZE =

  π
1−v 21
E1
1

  
+
1−v 22
E2
(31)

where
When Ko and YZ are used for applying ratings an
ZE is elastic coefficient, [N/mm2]0.5;
additional safety factor should be considered to
allow for safety and economic risk considerations v1 and v2 is Poisson’s ratio for pinion and gear,
along with other unquantifiable aspects of the respectively;
specific design and application (variations in manu- E1 and E2 is modulus of elasticity for pinion and
facturing, analysis, etc.). gear, respectively, N/mm2.
The term “factor of safety” has historically been used For example, ZE equals 190 [N/mm2]0.5, for a steel
in mechanical design to describe a general derating pinion and gear with v=0.3 and E=2.05×105 N/mm2
factor to limit the design stress in proportion to the for both members.
material strength. A safety factor is intended to
account for uncertainties or statistical variations in:
13 Surface condition factor, ZR
-- Design analysis;
-- Material characteristics; The surface condition factor, ZR, used only in the
-- Manufacturing tolerances. pitting resistance formula, depends on:
Safety factor also must consider human safety risk -- Surface finish as affected by, but not limited
and the economic consequences of failure. The to, cutting, shaving, lapping, grinding, shot peen-
greater the uncertainties or consequences of these ing;
considerations, the higher the safety factor should -- Residual stress;
be. As the extent of these factors become known
with more certainty, the value of the safety factor can -- Plasticity effects (work hardening).
be more accurately determined. For example, a Standard surface condition factors for gear teeth
product such as an automobile transmission which is have not yet been established for cases where there
subjected to full size, full load prototype testing and is a detrimental surface finish effect. In such cases,

16  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

some surface finish factor greater than unity should Typical values are shown in figure 3, or can be
be used. calculated as follows:

The surface condition factor can be taken as unity Z W = 1.0 + B 450 − H B2 (34)
provided the appropriate surface condition is
where
achieved.
−0.448R z1
B = 0.000 75 (e ) (35)
e is base of natural or Napierian logarithms
= 2.718 28
14 Hardness ratio factor, ZW
Rz1 is surface finish of pinion, micrometers, Ra.

The hardness ratio factor, ZW, depends upon:

-- Gear ratio; 15 Load distribution factor, KH

-- Surface finish of pinion;
The load distribution factor modifies the rating
-- Hardness of pinion and gear. equations to reflect the non--uniform distribution of
The value of CH for the pinion is set at 1.0. The value the load along the lines of contact. The amount of
of CH for the gear is either 1.0 or as outlined in 14.1 or non--uniformity of the load distribution is caused by,
14.2. and is dependent upon, the following influences:
Manufacturing variation of gears
14.1 Through hardened gears
-- Lead, profile, spacing and runout of both the
When the pinion is substantially harder than the pinion and the gear.
gear, the work hardening effect increases the gear
capacity. Typical values of ZW are shown in figure 2. -- Tooth crowning and end relief.
Assembly variations of installed gears
The values from figure 2 can be calculated as
follows: -- Alignment of the axes of rotation of the pitch
cylinders of the pinion and gear as influenced by
Z W = 1.0 + A ( u − 1.0 ) (32) housing accuracy and concentricity of the bear-
where ings.
Deflections due to applied loads
A = 0.008 98  
H B1
H B2
− 0.008 29 (33) -- Elastic deflections of the pinion and gear
teeth.
HB2 is gear Brinell hardness number, HB; -- Elastic deflections of the pinion and gear bo-
dies.
HB1 is pinion Brinell hardness number HB.
-- Elastic deflections of shafts, bearings, hous-
This equation is valid for the range ings and foundations that support the gear ele-
1.2 ≤ HB1/HB2 ≤ 1.7 ments.

For HB1/HB2 < 1.2, A = 0.0 -- Displacements of the pinion or gear due to
HB1/HB2 > 1.7, A = 0.006 98 clearance in the bearings.
Distortions due to thermal and centrifugal effects
14.2 Surface hardened/through hardened
values -- Thermal expansion and distortion of the
gears due to temperature gradients.
When surface hardened pinions (48 HRC or harder)
-- Temperature gradients in the housing
are run with through hardened gears (180 to 400
causing nonparallel shafts.
HB), a work hardening effect is achieved. The ZW
factor varies with the surface finish of the pinion, Rz1, -- Centrifugal distortion of the gears due to high
and the mating gear hardness. speeds.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 17

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

1.14
1.7

1.12
1.6

1.10 1.5

HB1
HB2
Hardness ratio factor, ZW

Calculated hardness ratio,

1.08 1.4

1.3
1.06

1.2
1.04

When
1.02 HB1
< 1.2,
HB2
Use ZW = 1
1.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Single reduction gear ratio
Figure 2 -- Hardness ratio factor, ZW (through hardened)

1.16 Surface finish of pinion, Rz1 in

micrometers, Ra
1.14

1.12 Rz1 = 0.4

Hardness ratio factor, ZW

1.10 Rz1 = 0.8

1.08

Rz1 = 1.6
1.06

1.04

When Rz1 > 1.6

1.02 use ZW = 1.0

1.00
180 200 250 300 350 400
Brinell hardness of the gear, HB
Figure 3 -- Hardness ratio factor, ZW (surface hardened pinions)

18  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

15.1 Values for load distribution factor, KH deflection), regular patterns of undulation, or ran-
dom irregularities in lead, are examples of causes of
The load distribution factor is defined as: the peak
non--uniform load sharing among the contact sur-
load intensity divided by the average, or uniformly
faces of mating teeth across the face width (see
distributed, load intensity; i.e., the ratio of peak to
figure 4(A)).
mean loading. Its magnitude is affected by two
components: For spur gears, where instantaneous contact lines
are parallel to the axes, KHβ is affected primarily by
KHβ is face load distribution factor;
lead and parallelism (see figure 4(B)). In this case,
KHα is transverse load distribution factor. KHα is affected by the transverse contact ratio.
KHβ and KHα can be interrelated depending on the For helical gears having two or less axial overlaps,
form of the instantaneous contact line in the plane of the interaction of lead and profile effects are so
action as shown by figure 4. In functional equation difficult to separate that, for practical purposes, the
form, load distribution subfactors, KHβ and KHα, can be
considered as one factor that reflects the ratio of the

K H = f K Hβ, K Hα  (36)
peak to mean load intensity along the total length of
For helical gears, having three or more axial the instantaneous contact lines (see figure 4(C)).
overlaps, the face load distribution factor, KHβ,
15.2 Transverse load distribution factor, KHα
accounts for the non--uniformity of load sharing
between instantaneous contact lines across the The transverse load distribution factor accounts for
entire face width encompassing all teeth in contact. the non--uniform distribution of load among the gear
It is affected primarily by the correctness of pinion teeth which share the load. It is affected primarily by
and gear leads. Gradual lead deviation (such as the correctness of the profiles of mating teeth: i.e.,
results from helix error, misalignment, or pinion profile modification or profile error or both.

ga

b
(A) Helical gear with three or more axial overlaps

b = Net face width

ga
ga = Length of action,
transverse plane

b
(B) Spur gear

ga

b
(C) Helical gear with two or less axial overlaps
Figure 4 -- Instantaneous contact lines in the plane of action

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 19

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Standard procedures to evaluate the influence of the gear forces to the extent that resultant deflec-
KHα have not been established. Therefore, evalu- tions do not adversely affect the gear contact.
ation of the numeric value of the transverse load Bearing clearances affect the gear contact in the
distribution factor is beyond the scope of this same way as offset straddle mounted pinions.
standard and it can be assumed to be unity. However, gear elements with their overhang to the
Equation 36 therefore, can be modified to: same support side can compound the effect. This
(37) effect is addressed by the pinion proportion modify-
K H = K Hβ
ing factor, KHpm. When deflections or bearing
15.3 Face load distribution factor, KHβ clearances exceed reasonable limits, as determined
The face load distribution factor accounts for the by test or experience, an analytical method must be
non--uniform distribution of load across the gearing used to establish the face load distribution factor.
face width. The magnitude of the face load When the gap in a double helical gear set is other
distribution factor is defined as the peak load than the gap required for tooth manufacture, for
intensity divided by the average load intensity across example in a nested design, each helix should be
the face width. treated as a single helical set.
This factor can be determined empirically or analyti- Designs which have high crowns to centralize tooth
cally. This standard provides an empirical method contact under deflected conditions may not use this
only, but includes a theoretical discussion for analyti- method.
cal analysis in annex D. Either method can be used, This method will give results similar to those
but when using the analytical approach, the calcu- obtained in previous AGMA standards. Designs
lated load capacity of the gears should be compared falling outside the above b/dw1 ranges require
with past experience since it may be necessary to special consideration.
re--evaluate other rating factors to arrive at a rating For relatively stiff gear designs having gears
consistent with past experience. Also see AGMA mounted between bearings (not overhung) and
927--A01. relatively free from externally caused deflections,
the following approximate method may be used:
The empirical method requires a minimum amount
of information. This method is recommended for 
K Hβ = 1.0 + K Hmc K Hpf K Hpm + K Hma K He 
relatively stiff gear designs which meet the following
(38)
requirements:
where
-- Net face width to pinion pitch diameter ratio, KHmc = lead correction factor;
b/dw1, ≤ 2.0. (For double helical gears the gap is KHpf = pinion proportion factor;
not included in the face width). KHpm = pinion proportion modifier;
-- The gear elements are mounted between KHma = mesh alignment factor;
bearings (see following paragraph for overhung KHe = mesh alignment correction factor.
gears). The lead correction factor, KHmc, modifies peak load
-- Face width up to 1020 mm. intensity when crowning or lead modification is
applied.
-- Contact across full face width of narrowest
member when loaded. KHmc = 1.0 for gear with unmodified leads;
CAUTION: If b/dw1 > 2.4 -- 0.29K where K = the contact KHmc = 0.8 for gear with leads properly modified
load factor (see equation 6), the value of KHβ deter- by crowning or lead correction.
mined by the empirical method may not be sufficiently NOTE: For wide face gears, when methods for careful
conservative. In this case, it may be necessary to mod- lead matching or lead corrections to compensate for
ify the lead or profile of the gears to arrive at a satisfac- deflection are employed, it may be desirable to use an
tory result. The empirical method shall not be used analytical approach to determine the load distribution
when analyzing the effect of a momentary overload. factor.
See 16.3. The pinion proportion factor, KHpf, accounts for
When gear elements are overhung, consideration deflections due to load. These deflections are
must be given to shaft deflections and bearing normally higher for wide face widths or higher b/dw1
clearances. Shafts and bearings must be stiff ratios. The pinion proportion factor can be obtained
enough to support the bending moments caused by from figure 5.

20  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

b/dw
ratio
Pinion proportion factor, KHpf

For b/dw1 < 0.5 use curve for

b/dw1 = 0.5

For determining KHpf

See Eqs 39, 40 and 41

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Face width, b, mm

Figure 5 -- Pinion proportion factor, KHpf

For double helical gearing, the pinion proportion KHpm = 1.0 for straddle mounted pinions with
factor should be evaluated by considering b to be the (S1/S) < 0.175;
net face width. KHpm = 1.1 for straddle mounted pinions with
(S1/S) ≥ 0.175.
The values for KHpf as shown in figure 5 can be
determined by the following equations: where

when b ≤ 25 S1 is the offset of the pinion; i.e, the distance

from the bearing span centerline to the
K Hpf = b − 0.025 (39) pinion mid--face, mm (see figure 6);
(10) d w1
S is the bearing span; i.e, the distance
when 25< b ≤ 432
between the bearing center lines, mm (see
b figure 6).
K Hpf = − 0.0375 + 0.000 492 b (40)
(10) d w1
Centerline
of gear face
when 432 < b ≤ 1020
Centerline Centerline
b of bearing of bearing
K Hpf = − 0.1109 + 0.000 815 b
(10) d w1
− 0.000 000 353 b 2 (41)

NOTE: For values of

b less than 0.05, use 0.05
(10) d w1
for this value in equations 39, 40 or 41. S
S1
2
The pinion proportion modifier, KHpm, alters KHpf,
S
based on the location of the pinion relative to its
bearing centerline. Figure 6 -- Evaluation of S and S1

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 21

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

The mesh alignment factor, KHma, accounts for the See table 2 for values of A, B and C.
misalignment of the axes of rotation of the pitch
cylinders of the mating gear elements from all The mesh alignment correction factor is used to
causes other than elastic deformations. The value modify the mesh alignment factor when the manu-
for the mesh alignment factor can be obtained from facturing or assembly techniques improve the effec-
figure 7. The four curves of figure 7 provide tive mesh alignment. The following values are
representative values for KHma based on the accu- suggested for the mesh alignment correction factor:
racy of gearing and misalignment effects which can
be expected for the four classes of gearing shown. KHe = 0.80 when the gearing is adjusted at
assembly;
For double helical gearing, the mesh alignment
factor should be evaluated by considering b to be = 0.80 when the compatibility of the gearing
one half of the net face width. is improved by lapping;

The values for the four curves of figure 7 are defined = 1.0 for all other conditions.
as follows:
When gears are lapped and mountings are adjusted
2
K Hma = A + B (b ) + C (b ) (42) at assembly, the suggested value of KHe is 0.80.

0.90
Open gearing
0.80
Mesh alignment factor, KHma

0.70

0.60 Curve 1 Commercial enclosed gear units

0.50
Curve 2 Precision enclosed gear units
0.40

0.30 Curve 3

0.20 Extra precision enclosed gear units

Curve 4
0.10
For determination of KHma see equation 42
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Face width, b, mm

Figure 7 -- Mesh alignment factor, KHma

Table 2 -- Empirical constants; A, B, and C

Curve A B C
Curve 1 Open gearing 2.47 x 10 --1 0.657 x 10 --3 --1.186 x 10 --7
Curve 2 Commercial enclosed gear units 1.27 x 10 --1 0.622 x 10 --3 --1.69 x 10 --7
Curve 3 Precision enclosed gear units 0.675 x 10 --1 0.504 x 10 --3 --1.44 x 10 --7
Curve 4 Extra precision enclosed gear units 0.380 x 10 --1 0.402 x 10 --3 --1.27 x 10 --7

22  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

16 Allowable stress numbers, σHP and σFP the quality grade must be met in order to use the
stress values for that grade. This can be accom-
plished by specifically certifying each requirement
The allowable stress numbers for gear materials where necessary, or by establishing practices and
vary with items such as material composition, procedures to obtain the requirements on a produc-
cleanliness, residual stress, microstructure, quality, tion basis. It is not the intent of this standard that all
heat treatment, and processing practices. For
requirements for quality grades be certified, but that
materials other than steel, a range is shown, and the
practices and procedures be established for their
lower values should be used for general design
compliance on a production basis. Intermediate
purposes.
values are not classified since the effect of
Allowable stress numbers in this standard (tables 3 deviations from the quality standards cannot be
through 6) are determined or estimated from labora- evaluated easily. When justified by testing or
tory tests and accumulated field experiences. They experience, higher stress levels for any given grade
are based on unity overload factor, 10 million stress may be used. The allowable stress numbers are
cycles, unidirectional loading and 99 percent reliabil- shown in tables 3 through 6, and figures 8 through
ity. The allowable stress numbers are designated as 11.
σHP and σFP, for pitting resistance and bending
strength. For service life other than 10 million cycles,
The grade cleanliness requirements apply only to
the allowable stress numbers are adjusted by the
those portions of the gear material where the teeth
use of stress cycle factors (see clause 17).
will be located, to a distance below the finished tip
Allowable stress numbers for steel gears are estab- diameter of at least two times the tooth depth. On
lished by specific quality control requirements for external gears this portion of the gear blank normally
each material type and grade. All requirements for will be less than 25 percent of the radius.

Table 3 -- Allowable contact stress number, σHP, for steel gears

Minimum Allowable contact stress number2), σHP

Material Heat surface N/mm2
designation treatment hardness1) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Steel3) Through hardened4) see figure 8 see figure 8 see figure 8 ----
Flame5) or induction 50 HRC 1170 1310 ----
h d
hardenedd5) 54 HRC 1205 1345 ----
Carburized & see table 9 1240 1550 1895
hardened5)
Nitrided5) ((through
g 83.5 HR15N 1035 1125 1205
h d
hardened d steels)
t l ) 84.5 HR15N 1070 1160 1240
2.5% Chrome (no Nitrided5) 87.5 HR15N 1070 1185 1305
aluminum)
Nitralloy 135M Nitrided5) 90.0 HR15N 1170 1260 1345
Nitralloy N Nitrided5) 90.0 HR15N 1185 1300 1415
2.5% Chrome Nitrided5) 90.0 HR15N 1215 1350 1490
(no aluminum)
NOTES
1) Hardness to be equivalent to that at the start of active profile in the center of the face width.
2) See tables 7 through 10 for major metallurgical factors for each stress grade of steel gears.
3) The steel selected must be compatible with the heat treatment process selected and hardness required.
4) These materials must be annealed or normalized as a minimum.
5) The allowable stress numbers indicated may be used with the case depths prescribed in 16.1.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 23

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

N/mm2
Metallurgical and quality
1300 control procedures required
Allowable contact stress number, σHP

1200 Grade 2
σHP = 2.41 HB + 237

1100

1000

900

800
Grade 1
700 σHP = 2.22 HB + 200

600

150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Brinell hardness, HB

Figure 8 -- Allowable contact stress number for through hardened steel gears, σHP

Table 4 -- Allowable bending stress number, σFP, for steel gears

Minimum Allowable bending stress number2), σFP

Material Heat surface N/mm2
designation treatment hardness1) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Steel3) Through hardened see figure 9 see figure 9 see figure 9 ----
4)
Flame or induction see table 8 310 380 ----
hardened4) with type
A pattern5)
Flame4) or induction see table 8 150 150 ----
hardened4) with type
B pattern5)
Carburized & see table 9 380 450 or 4856) 515
hardened4)
Nitrided4) 7) (through 83.5 HR15N see figure 10 see figure 10 ----
hardened steels)
Nitralloy 135M, Nitrided4) 7) 87.5 HR15N see figure 11 see figure 11 see figure 11
Nitralloy N, and
2.5% Chrome (no
aluminum)
NOTES
1) Hardness to be equivalent to that at the root diameter in the center of the tooth space and face width.
2) See tables 7 through 10 for major metallurgical factors for each stress grade of steel gears.
3) The steel selected must be compatible with the heat treatment process selected and hardness required.
4) The allowable stress numbers indicated may be used with the case depths prescribed in 16.1.
5) See figure 12 for type A and type B hardness patterns.
6) If bainite and microcracks are limited to Grade 3 levels, 485 N/mm2 may be used.
7) The overload capacity of nitrided gears is low. Since the shape of the effective S--N curve is flat, the sensitivity to
shock should be investigated before proceeding with the design. [7]

24  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

N/mm2
Metallurgical and quality
control procedures required
Grade 2
σFP = 0.703 HB + 113
350
Allowable bending stress number, σFP

300

250

200 Grade 1
σFP = 0.533 HB + 88.3

150

100

150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Brinell hardness, HB

Figure 9 -- Allowable bending stress number for through hardened steel gears, σFP

Table 5 -- Allowable contact stress number, σHP, for iron and bronze gears

Allowable contact
Material Heat Typical minimum stress number3)
Material designation1) treatment surface hardness2) σHP N/mm2
ASTM A48 Gray y Class 20 As cast ---- 345 -- 415
castt iiron Class 30 As cast 174 HB 450 -- 520
Class 40 As cast 201 HB 520 -- 585
ASTM A536 Grade 60--40--18 Annealed 140 HB 530 -- 635
Ductile
D til (nodular)
( d l ) Grade 80--55--06 Quenched & 179 HB 530 -- 635
iron tempered
Grade 100--70--03 Quenched & 229 HB 635 -- 770
tempered
Grade 120--90--02 Quenched & 269 HB 710 -- 870
tempered
Bronze Sand cast Minimum tensile 205
strength 275 N/mm2
ASTM B--148 Heat treated Minimum tensile 450
Alloy 954 strength 620 N/mm2
NOTES
1) See ANSI/AGMA 2004--B89, Gear Materials and Heat Treatment Manual.
2) Hardness to be equivalent to that at the start of active profile in the center of the face width.
3) The lower values should be used for general design purposes. The upper values may be used when:
-- High quality material is used.
-- Section size and design allow maximum response to heat treatment.
-- Proper quality control is effected by adequate inspection.
-- Operating experience justifies their use.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 25

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

N/mm2
Metallurgical and quality
control procedures required
Allowable bending stress number, σFP 500

Grade 2
400 σFP = 0.749 HB + 110

300

200 Grade 1
σFP =0.568 HB + 83.8

100

0
250 275 300 325 350
Core hardness, HB

Figure 10 -- Allowable bending stress numbers for nitrided through hardened steel gears
(i.e., AISI 4140, AISI 4340), σFP

Table 6 -- Allowable bending stress number, σFP, for iron and bronze gears
Allowable bending
Material Heat Typical minimum stress number3)
Material designation1) treatment surface hardness2) σFP N/mm2
ASTM A48 Gray y Class 20 As cast ---- 34.5
castt iiron Class 30 As cast 174 HB 59
Class 40 As cast 201 HB 90
ASTM A536 Grade 60--40--18 Annealed 140 HB 150 -- 230
Ductile
D til (nodular)
( d l ) Grade 80--55--06 Quenched & 179 HB 150 -- 230
iron tempered
Grade 100--70--03 Quenched & 229 HB 185 -- 275
tempered
Grade 120--90--02 Quenched & 269 HB 215 -- 305
tempered
Bronze Sand cast Minimum tensile 39.5
strength 275 N/mm2
ASTM B--148 Heat treated Minimum tensile 165
Alloy 954 strength 620 N/mm2
NOTES
1) See ANSI/AGMA 2004--B89, Gear Materials and Heat Treatment Manual.
2) Measured hardness to be equivalent to that which would be measured at the root diameter in the center of the tooth
space and face width.
3) The lower values should be used for general design purposes. The upper values may be used when:
-- High quality material is used.
-- Section size and design allow maximum response to heat treatment.
-- Proper quality control is effected by adequate inspection.
-- Operating experience justifies their use.

26  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

500 Grade 3 -- 2.5% Chrome

Metallurgical and quality
σFP = 0.7255HB + 201.91

N/mm2
control procedures required

Allowable bending stress number, σFP Grade 2 -- 2.5% Chrome

400 σFP = 0.7255HB + 153.63

Grade 1 -- 2.5% Chrome

σFP= 0.7255HB + 63.98

300 Grade 2 -- Nitralloy

σFP = 0.7848 HB + 114.81

Grade 1 -- Nitralloy
200 σFP =0.594HB + 87.76

100
250 275 300 325 350
Core hardness, HB
Figure 11 -- Allowable bending stress numbers for nitriding steel gears, σFP

Table 7 -- Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number, σHP, and
allowable bending stress number, σFP, of through hardened steel gears1) 2) 3)
Metallurgical factor Grade 1 Grade 2
ASTM E112 grain size Predominantly 5 or finer Predominantly 5 or finer
Upper transformation Not specified Max controlling Max upper
products which primarily section, mm transformation
include bainite and fine (see annex F) products at 400X
pearlite.4) to 254 incl 10%
Over 254 20%
No blocky ferrite (due to improper austenization)
Decarburization and stock Not specified None apparent at 400X, stock removal sufficient
removal to remove any decarburization.
Specified hardness at See figure 8 See figure 8
surface, σHP only
Specified hardness at root, See figure 9 See figure 9
σFP only
Cleanliness5) Not specified AMS 2301 or ASTM A866 for wrought steel
(certification not required). Castings are
permissible with primarily round (Type 1) sulfide
inclusions
Sulfur Not specified 0.025% maximum for wrought
0.040% maximum for castings
NOTES
1)See table 3 for values of σ
HP and table 4 for values of σFP. Criteria for grades 1 & 2 apply to both stress numbers unless
otherwise specified in the metallurgical factor column.
2)All criteria in any given grade must be met to qualify for the stress number in that grade.
3Unless otherwise specified, proper process control with periodic verification is an acceptable method to meet these re-
quirements (see clause 16).
4)The microstructure requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located to a
depth equal to that of 1.2 times the tooth depth.
5)The grade cleanliness requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located
to a distance below the finished tip diameter of at least two times the tooth depth. On external gears, this portion of the
gear blank normally will be less than 25 percent of the radius.
CAUTION: For cold service, below 0° C, see 3.6.1.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 27

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Table 8 -- Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number, σHP, and
allowable bending stress number, σFP, of flame or induction hardened steel gears1) 2) 3)

Metallurgical factor Grade 1 Grade 2

ASTM E112 grain size Predominantly 5 or finer Predominantly 5 or finer
Material composition Not specified Medium carbon alloy steel
Prior structure Not specified Quenched and tempered
Material form Not specified Forgings and wrought steel; castings
with magnetic particle inspection of
gear tooth area
Cleanliness4) Not specified AMS 2301 or ASTM A866 for wrought
steel (certification not required); cast-
ings are permissible with primarily
round (type 1) sulfide inclusions.
Sulfur content Not specified 0.025% maximum for wrought
0.040% maximum for castings
Core hardness, center of tooth at root Not specified 28 HRC minimum
diameter, σHP only
Core hardness, center of tooth at root Not specified Type A -- 28 HRC minimum
diameter, σFP only Type B -- not specified
Non--martensitic transformation Limited by effect on spe- 10% maximum, no free ferrite
products in hardened zone cified hardness
Surface hardness, σHP only See table 3 See table 3
Surface hardness at root, σFP only Type A -- 50 HRC min Type A -- 54 HRC min
Type B -- not specified Type B -- not specified
Hardness pattern (see figure 12), σFP As required per table 4 Type A -- Contour pattern with a ductile
only core
Type B -- not specified
Magnetic particle (method per ASTM Not specified Module Maximum
E709 on teeth)5) mn indication, mm
Magnetic particle (method per ASTM Not specified ≤ 2.5 1.6
E709 on teeth)5) >2.5 to < 8 2.4
≥8 3.2
NOTES
1)See table 3 for values of σ
HP and table 4 for values of σFP. Criteria for grades 1 & 2 apply to both stress numbers unless
otherwise specified in the metallurgical factor column.
2)All criteria in any given grade must be met to qualify for the stress number in that grade.
3)Unless otherwise specified, proper process control with periodic verification is an acceptable method to meet these
requirements (see clause 16).
4)The grade cleanliness requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located
to a distance below the finished tip diameter of at least two times the tooth depth. On external gears, this portion of the
gear blank normally will be less than 25 percent of the radius.
5)No cracks, bursts, seams or laps are permitted in the tooth area of finished gears, regardless of grade. Limits: maximum
of one indication per 25 mm of face width and maximum of five in one tooth flank. No indications allowed below 1/2 working
depth of tooth. Indications smaller than 0.40 mm are not considered. Removal of defects which exceed the stated limits
is acceptable provided the integrity of the gear is not compromised.

28  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Table 9 -- Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number, σHP, and
allowable bending stress number, σFP, of carburized and hardened steel gears1) 2) 3)
Metallurgical factor4) 5) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Surface hardness (HRC or equivalent 55--64 HRC 58--64 HRC 58--64 HRC
on representative surface)
Case hardness 55--64 HRC or 58--64 HRC or equivalent 58--64 HRC or equivalent
equivalent
Limit of carbides in case Semicontinuous Acceptable per AGMA 246.02A or Acceptable per light discontinu-
ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88 ous micro per AGMA 246.02A or
ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88
Tempering Recommended Required Required
Surface temper (per ANSI/AGMA Not specified Class FB3 Class FB2
2007--B92 with swab technique
permitted), σHP only
Cleanliness6) Not specified AMS 2301 or ASTM A534 for AMS 2300 or ASTM A535
wrought steel (certification not re- (certification required)
quired); castings are permissible
which have primarily round (type 1)
sulphide inclusions. Magnetic par-
ticle in the final product to grade 3
levels may be substitute in lieu of
AMS 2301
Ultrasonic inspection (UT) Not specified Specified for wrought per ASTM Specified for wrought per ASTM
A388 and castings per ASTM A388. Castings not applicable7)
A6097) recommended but not re-
quired. Suggested for large diame-
ter parts to detect flaws before the
expense of machining
Magnetic particle (method per ASTM Not specified Maximum Maximum
E709 on teeth)8) Module indication, Module indication,
mn mm mn mm
≤ 2.5 1.6 ≤ 2.5 0.8
> 2.5 to < 8 2.4 > 2.5 to < 8 1.6
≥8 3.2 ≥8 2.4
Decarburization in case (to 0.127 mm Not specified No partial decarb. apparent at No partial decarb. apparent at
depth), σHP only (hardness must 400X, except in unground roots 400X, except in unground roots
be met)
Decarburization in case (to 0.127 mm Not specified
depth), σFP only
Surface carbon in case 0.60 -- 1.10% 0.60 -- 1.10% 0.60 -- 1.00%
Minimum effective case depth at root Not specified 50% of minimum specified case at 66% of minimum specified case
radius, or on representative coupon, 1/2 tooth height recommended at 1/2 tooth height recommended
σFP only
Microcracks in case (cracks across Not specified Not specified 10 maximum per 0.065 mm2 field
more than one platelet)9 at 400X
Secondary transformation products, Not specified 5% maximum at 400X Trace at 400X
(upper bainite) in case along flank
above root, or on representative cou-
pon, to 0.25 mm deep, σHP only
Secondary transformation products, Not specified 10% maximum at 400X 5% maximum at 400X
(upper bainite) in case along flank
above root, or on representative cou-
pon, to 0.25 mm deep, σFP only
Intergranular oxidation (IGO) applica- Not specified Case depth, mm IGO, mm Case depth, mm IGO, mm
ble to unground surface. Determined <0.76 0.018 <0.76 0.013
by metallographic inspection of un- 0.76≤he<1.50 0.025 0.76≤he<1.50 0.020
etched coupon, if used. Limits in 1.50≤he<2.25 0.038 1.50≤he<2.25 0.020
inches to be based on case depth as 2.25≤he<3.00 0.051 2.25≤he<3.00 0.025
follows: ≥3.00 0.061 ≥3.00 0.031
If excessive, salvage is allowed by controlled shotpeening, with the
agreement of the customer.
(continued)

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 29

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Table 9 (concluded)
Metallurgical factor4) 5) Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Maximum retained austenite in case Not specified 30% maximum 30% maximum
(determined metallographically)10)
Hardenability band Not specified According to H--Band require- According to upper half of H--
ments. Recommended but not Band requirements
required
Core hardness (at center of tooth at Not specified 21 HRC minimum 21 HRC minimum
root diameter or on representative
coupon), σHP only11)
Core hardness (at center of tooth at 21 HRC mini- 25 HRC minimum 30 HRC minimum12)
root diameter or on representative mum
coupon), σFP only11)
ASTM E112 grain size Predominantly 5 Predominantly 5 or finer Predominantly 5 or finer
or finer
Sulfur content Not specified 0.040% maximum 0.015% maximum
Material form Not specified Not specified Steel forgings and bar stock13)
Shot peening, σFP only Not specified Recommended if the root is ground Required in tooth root area
NOTES
1)See table 3 for values of σ , and table 4 for values of σ . Criteria for grades 1, 2, and 3 apply to both stress numbers unless
HP FP
otherwise specified in the metallurgical factor column.
2)All criteria in any given grade must be met to qualify for the stress number in that grade.
3)Unless otherwise specified, proper process control with periodic verification is an acceptable method to meet these requirements
(see clause 16).
4)Microstructure, microhardness and core hardness considerations may be determined from test coupons. Test coupons shall be
from the same alloy steel (not necessarily same heat) as the production parts. Coupon should be sized to produce a similar cooling
rate to that obtained in the gear teeth of the actual gear. Coupon proportions of minimum diameter 6 mn and minimum length 12 mn
are used in ISO 6336--5. Microhardness is to be measured on the test coupon at a depth not more than 0.76 mm below the depth
corresponding to the finished tooth surface.
5)For low temperature service, below 0°C, consider low temperature Charpy V--notch impact strength, fracture appearance
transition temperature (FATT) requirements and use of nickel alloy steel. Consideration must be given to the loss of hardness and
strength of some materials due to the tempering effect of temperatures over 175°C.
6)The grade cleanliness requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located to a distance
below the finished tip diameter of at least two times the tooth depth. On external gears, this portion of the gear blank normally will
be less than 25 percent of the radius.
7)Specified for wrought gearing per ASTM A388, using either the back reflection or reference block technique. Use a 3.18 mm
FBH (8--0400) per ASTM E428 (also described in ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88). A distance amplitude correction curve is not intended.
Inspection is from the O.D. to mid--radius and a 360 degree scan is required. Other UT specifications which ensure the same quality
level are permitted. Specified for cast gears (Grade 2 only) per ASTM A609 Level 1 in Zone 1 (OD to 25 mm below roots) and
Level 2 in Zone 2 (remainder of rim) using 3.18 mm FBH; or approved equivalent using back reflection technique (also described
in ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88).
8)No cracks, bursts, seams or laps are permitted in the tooth area of finished gears, regardless of grade. Limits: maximum of one
indication per 25 mm of face width and maximum of five in one tooth flank. No indications allowed below 1/2 working depth of tooth.
Indications smaller than 0.40 mm are not considered. Removal of defects which exceed the stated limits is acceptable provided
the integrity of the gear is not compromised.
9)Maximum limit of microcracks for Grade 3 gearing may be difficult to achieve with sub--zero treatment to transform retained
austenite level to 30% max.
10)Sub--zero treatment, if required, should be preceded by tempering at 150° C minimum, to minimize formation of microcracks,
followed by retempering. The purpose of the sub--zero treatment should be to pick up an additional one to two Rockwell ‘C’
hardness points. Sub--zero treatment should not be employed to transform large amounts of retained austenite (e.g., 50%) to gain
dramatic improvements in hardness, even with prior tempering, or microcracking may occur.
11)Core hardness requirements for pitting resistance and bending strength are considered independently. The allowable stress
numbers are established for the grade selected based on hardness. Because higher contact stresses are allowed for carburized
and hardened gears, the resulting higher bending stresses must also be accommodated. Therefore, for gearing of this type, higher
core hardnesses are specified for the bending strength. The gear rating may be limited by either pitting resistance or bending
strength for the selected grade and its core hardness requirement.
12)Minimum hardness of 30 HRC for grade 3 may be difficult to achieve on gears coarser than 4.23 m . Therefore, a minimum
n
hardness of 25 HRC is acceptable in such cases.
13)Requires a minimum reduction of 7 to 1 for strand or continuous cast barstock; or minimum reduction of 4 to 1 for forged gears.

30  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Table 10 -- Major metallurgical factors affecting the allowable contact stress number, σHP, and
allowable bending stress number, σFP, for nitrided steel gears1) 2) 3)

Metallurgical factor Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

ASTM E112 grain size Predominantly Predominantly 5 or finer Predominantly 5 or finer
4 or finer
Hardenability H--Band H--Band H--Band
Sulfur content 0.040% maxi- 0.025% maximum 0.015% maximum
mum
Cleanliness4) Not specified AMS 2301 or ASTM A866 (certifica- AMS 2300 or ASTM A866
tion not required) certification required
Surface hardness Per table 3 Per table 3 Per table 3
Core hardness 28 HRC mini- 28 HRC minimum 32 HRC minimum
mum
White layer (maximum) 0.025 mm 0.020 mm 0.012 mm
Upper transformation products Not specified Max controlling Max upper Trace at 400X
which primarily include bainite section, mm transformation
and fine pearlite5) (see annex F) products @ 400X
to 254 inc. 10%
Over 254 20%
No blocky ferrite (due to improper
austenization)
Ultrasonic inspection Not specified Not specified Specified for wrought per
ASTM A3886)
Magnetic particle (method per Not specified Not specified Maximum
ASTM E709 on teeth)7) Module indication,
mn mm
≤2.5 0.8
> 2.5 to < 8 1.6
≥8 2.4
Grinding burns Not specified See note 8 See note 8
NOTES
1)See table 3 for values of σ , and table 4 for values of σ .
HP FP
2)All criteria in any given grade must be met to qualify for the stress number in that grade.
3)Unless otherwise specified, proper process control with periodic verification is an acceptable method to meet these
requirements (see clause 16).
4)The grade cleanliness requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located to a
distance below the finished tip diameter of at least two times the tooth depth. On external gears, this portion of the gear blank
normally will be less than 25 percent of the radius.
5)The microstructure requirements apply only to those portions of the gear material where the teeth will be located to a depth
equal to that of 1.2 times the tooth depth.
6)Specified for wrought gearing per ASTM A388, using either the back reflection or reference block technique. Use a 3.18 mm
FBH (8--0400) per ASTM E428 (also described in ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88). A distance amplitude correction curve is not
intended. Inspection is from the O.D. to mid--radius and a 360 degree scan is required. Other UT specifications which ensure
the same quality level are permitted. Specified for cast gears (Grade 2 only) per ASTM A609 Level 1 in Zone 1 (OD to 25 mm
below roots) and Level 2 in Zone 2 (remainder of rim) using 3.18 mm FBH; or approved equivalent using back reflection
technique (also described in ANSI/AGMA 6033--A88).
7)No cracks, bursts, seams or laps are permitted in the tooth area of finished gears, regardless of grade. Limits: maximum
of one indication per 25 mm of face width and maximum of five in one tooth flank. No indications allowed below 1/2 working
depth of tooth. Indications smaller than 0.40 mm are not considered. Removal of defects which exceed the stated limits is
acceptable provided the integrity of the gear is not compromised.
8)Grinding burns are possible on nitrided materials. The normal inspection methods, as defined in ANSI/AGMA 2007--B92,
are not applicable to nitriding. Care must be taken when grinding nitrided surfaces to ensure that no harmful surface conditions
are produced in the grinding process

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 31

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Spin hardening
Inductor coil Induction coil Induction coil
or flame head or flame head

Type A Type A Type B

(Contour) (Non--contour)
Flank hardening (tooth to tooth)
Inductor or flame head Inductor or flame head

Type B Type B
Flank and root hardening (tooth to tooth)
Inductor or flame head

Type A
NOTE: Type A indicates flanks and roots are hardened, contour or non--contour
pattern. Type B indicates only hardening of flanks extending to the form diameter.
Figure 12 -- Variations in hardening pattern obtainable on gear teeth with flame or induction
hardening
Through hardened gears specified above 400 HB tion, loading, and manufacturing procedures to
may vary widely in endurance strength, depending determine the desirable gradients of hardness,
on the transformation characteristics of the steel, strength, and internal residual stresses throughout
heat treating technique used and the size and shape the tooth.
of the part. The successful use of through hardened The effective case depth for carburized and hard-
parts above 400 HB depends upon experimentally ened gears is defined as the depth below the surface
developing a satisfactory technique for heat treating at which the Rockwell ‘C’ hardness, HRC, has
which will develop both high hardness and high dropped to 50 HRC or equivalent.
fatigue strength.
The effective case depth for induction and flame
16.1 Guide for case depth of surface hardened hardened gears is defined as the depth below the
gears surface at which the hardness is equivalent to 10
Rockwell ‘C’ points below the specified minimum
Surface hardened gear teeth require adequate case
surface hardness.
depth to resist the subsurface shear stresses
developed by tooth contact loads and the tooth root A guide for minimum effective case depth, he min, at
fillet tensile stresses, but depths must not be so great the pitch line for carburized and induction hardened
as to result in brittle teeth tips and high residual external (not internal) teeth based on the depth of
tensile stress in the core. maximum shear from contact loading is given by the
formula [6]:
For gearing requiring maximum performance, espe-
σ H d w1 sin α pt
cially large sizes, coarse pitches, and high contact h e min = CG (43)
stresses, detailed studies must be made of applica- U H cos β mb

32  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

where he max is suggested maximum effective case

depth at pitchline, mm;
he min is minimum effective case depth at
pitchline, mm; san is normal tooth thickness at the top land of
the gear in question, mm.
σH is contact stress number N/mm2. The maxi-
mum value recommended is 1400 N/mm2 If he min from equation 43 (with heat treat tolerance
for this equation; considered) exceeds he max, a careful review of the
proposed design is required. Changing the profile
αpt is operating transverse pressure angle; shift, lowering the operating pressure angle, or using
UH is hardening process factor, N/mm2; a larger module will increase he max.

= 4.4×104 N/mm2 for carburized and hard- For nitrided gears, case depth is specified as total
ened; case depth and is defined as the depth below the
surface at which the hardness has dropped to 110
= 3×104 N/mm2 for tooth--to--tooth induc-
percent of the core hardness.
tion hardened;
A guide for minimum case depth for nitrided external
βmb is base helix angle.
(not internal) teeth based on the depth of maximum
Another guideline for determining case depth is shear from contact loading is given by the formula:
shown in figure 13. These case depths have had a
U c σ H d w1 sin α pt
long history of successful use on carburized gears. h c min = CG (45)
They are not based on equation 43. 1.14 × 10 5 cos β mb

Care should be exercised when choosing case where

depth, such that adequate case depths prevail at the hc minis minimum total case depth for nitrided
tooth root fillet, and that tooth tips are not over gears, mm;
hardened and brittle. A suggested value of maxi-
Uc is core hardness coefficient, from figure 14.
mum effective case depth at the pitch line, he max, is:
If the value of hc min from equation 45 is less than the
h e max = the lesser of 0.4 m n or 0.56 s an (44) value for normal case depth from figure 15, then the
where minimum value from figure 15 should be used.
25 −0.86105 Effective case depth is defined as depth of case
23 h e min = 3.046 349 × 25.4
mn   which has a minimum hardness of 50 HRC.

Total case depth to core carbon is approximate-

21 Normal case depth ly 1.5 x effective case depth.

19

17
Normal module, mn

15
−1.12481
13 
h e min = 6.723 202 × 25.4
mn 
Heavy case depth
11

9 The values and ranges shown on the case depth curves are
to be used as guides. For gearing in which maximum
7 performance is required, detailed studies must be made of
the application, loading, and manufacturing procedures to
5 obtain desirable gradients of both hardness and internal
stress. Furthermore, the method of measuring the case as
3 well as the allowable tolerance in case depth may be a matter
of agreement between the customer and the manufacturer.
1
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Minimum effective case depth, he min, mm
Figure 13 -- Minimum effective case depth for carburized gears, he min

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 33

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Uc = a + bσH + cσH2 + dσH3

Curve No. a b c d
1 --5.542 507 1.425 472¢10--2 --8.658 576¢10--6 2.080 616¢10--9
2 --7.598 668 1.773 498¢10--2 --1.104 475¢10--5 2.577 360¢10--9
3 --9.391 585 2.009 680¢10--2 --1.230 944¢10--5 2.766 216¢10--9
4 --16.02 132 3.247 710¢10--2 --2.035 296¢10--5 4.474 037¢10--9
4.8 5 --40.64 486 8.094 566¢10--2 --5.221 782¢10--5 1.139 691¢10--8
4.4
Core hardness coefficient, Uc

NOTE: Use upper portion of core hardness band (which yields heavier case
4.0 depths) for general design purpose and lower portion for high quality material
(as defined in 16.1). Curve 1

3.6
Curve 2
3.2
2.8 Curve 3

2.4 Curve 4

2.0 Curve 5

1.6

1.2
0.8
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Contact stress number, σH , N/mm2

Figure 14 -- Core hardness coefficient, Uc

The values shown have been successfully used for nitrided gears and can be used as a guide. For
gearing requiring maximum performance, especially large sizes, coarse pitches, and high working
stresses, detailed studies must be made of application, loading, and manufacturing procedures to
determine the desired gradients of hardness, strength, and internal residual stresses throughout the
tooth.
1
h c min = 1.68 − 10.5 34.3 49.0 24.7
mn + m 2 − m3 + m 4
n n n
Heavy case depth
mn

2
Normal module,

3
4
5
6

8
10 Normal case depth
12

h c min = 1.10 − 6.25 19.7 28.3 14.5

mn + m 2 − m3 + m 4
n n n

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.0

Minimum effective case depth, mm

Figure 15 -- Minimum total case depth for nitrided gears, hcmin

34  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

16.2 Reverse loading analyzing overloads. The empirical method of 15.3

shall not be used.
Use 70 percent of the σFP values for idler gears and
16.4 Yield strength
other gears where the teeth are completely reverse
loaded on every cycle. For through hardened gears up to 400 HB the factor
Ky, shown in equation 46, can be applied to the yield
16.3 Momentary overload strength of the material. These values must be
applied at the maximum peak load to which the gears
When the gear is subjected to infrequent (less than are subjected.
100 cycles during the design life) momentary high
F max K Hs
overloads approaching yield, the maximum allow- σs Ky ≥ (46)
able stress is determined by the allowable yield b mt YJ Kf
properties rather than the bending fatigue strength of where
the material. This stress is designated as σs. Figure
σs is allowable yield strength number from fig-
16 shows suggested values for allowable yield
ure 16, N/mm2;
strength for through hardened steel. For case
hardened gears, the core hardness should be used Ky is yield strength factor from the following
in conjunction with figure 16. In these cases, the tabulation;
design should be checked to make certain that the Requirements of application Ky
teeth are not permanently deformed. When yield is Conservative practice 0.50
the governing stress, the stress correction factor, Kf, Industrial practice 0.75
is considered ineffective for ductile materials; hence,
Fmax is maximum peak tangential load, N;
the stress correction factor can be taken as unity.
Kf is stress correction factor (see AGMA
908--B89);
A momentary overload can cause an unusual face
CAUTION: This equation is based on a ductile materi-
load distribution factor which will be influenced by the
al. For purposes of this standard, a material is consid-
gear blank configuration and its bearing support. ered ductile if the tensile elongation of the core material
Special consideration, such as an approach similar is at least 10%. For non--ductile materials, the effects of
to annex D, must be given to this condition when stress concentration should be considered.

1200
N/mm2

Quenched and Tempered (core hardness if case hardened)

1100 Annealed or Normalized

1000
Allowable yield strength number, σs

900

800
σs = 3.324HB -- 226.2
700
600

500
400

300
σs = 0.014HB2 -- 2.069HB + 213.8
200

100
0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Brinell hardness, HB
Figure 16 -- Allowable yield strength number for steel gears, σs

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 35

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

KHs is load distribution factor under overload where

conditions.
nL is the number of stress cycles;
For a straddle mounted gear or pinion in an enclosed
drive, KHs may be calculated from equation 47. L is life (hours);

K Hs = 0.000 567 b + 1.07 (47) ω is speed (rpm);

Equation 47 has been used as a design guide; a q is number of contacts per revolution.
more detailed approach may give more accurate 17.2 Stress cycle factors for steel gears
results.
At the present time there is insufficient data to
For a case hardened gear, the analysis of allowable provide accurate stress cycle curves for all types of
yield properties should include a stress calculation gears and gear applications. Experience, however,
through a cross section of the material. In lieu of a suggests stress cycle curves for pitting resistance
cross section analysis, the use of material core and bending strength of steel gears as shown in
hardness values can be used. For additional figures 17 and 18. These figures stop at 1010 due to
information, see [20]. insufficient data at the time the standard was
developed. Application beyond this point must be
reviewed. These figures do not include data for
17 Stress cycle factors, ZN and YN stainless steel gears. The shaded zones on the
figures represent the influence of such items as pitch
The stress cycle factors, ZN and YN, adjust the line velocity, material cleanliness, ductility and
allowable stress numbers for the required number of fracture toughness. The upper portion is for general
cycles of operation. For the purpose of this standard, applications. The lower portion is typically used for
nL, the number of stress cycles is defined as the critical service where pitting and tooth wear must be
number of mesh contacts, under load, of the gear minimal and low vibration levels are required.
tooth being analyzed. AGMA allowable stress
numbers are established for 107 unidirectional tooth Intermediate values of YN for hardnesses of through
hardened gearing between 1 × 103 and 3 × 106
load cycles at 99 percent reliability. The stress cycle
may be be approximated by first determining the
factor adjusts the allowable stress numbers for
value using logarithmic interpolation at N = 103
design lives other than 107 cycles.
cycles (see figure 18). The second point of a straight
The stress cycle factor accounts for the S--N line for the desired hardness on a log--log plot is at
characteristics of the gear material as well as for the 3 × 106 cycles, where YN = 1.04. Below 1 × 103
gradual increased tooth stress which may occur from cycles, the value is a constant. An equation for the
tooth wear, resulting in increased dynamic effects line between 1 × 103 and 3 × 106 would be of the
and from shifting load distributions which may occur form as shown in the figure. Above 3 × 106 cycles,
during the design life of the gearing. the values within the existing figure are to be used.
When using a service factor, the determination of ZN 17.3 Localized yielding
and YN shall be in accordance with clause 10.
If the product of σFP YN exceeds the allowable yield
17.1 Load cycles stress, σs, of figure 16, localized yielding of the teeth
When evaluating gearing, it is important to know how may occur. In some applications this is not
many stress cycles the individual gears will experi- acceptable. In others where profile and motion
ence during the intended life of the equipment. transmission accuracies are not critical, this may be
Some machines will run twenty four hours per day acceptable for limited life.
and operate for twenty or more years. Other The use of this standard at bending stress levels
machines have gears that have a stress cycle above those permissible for 104 cycles requires
equivalent to a few hours. The gear designer should careful analysis. Stresses in this range may exceed
design for the number of stress cycles that are the elastic limit of the gear tooth in bending stress.
appropriate for the application. The number of stress Depending on the material and the load imposed, a
cycles, nL, is used to determine the stress cycle single stress cycle above the level limit at < 104
factor as follows:
cycles could result in plastic yielding of the gear
n L = 60 L ω q (48) tooth.

36  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

NOTE: The choice of ZN in the shaded zone is

influenced by:
4.0
Lubrication regime
Failure criteria
Smoothness of operation required
3.0 Pitchline velocity
Gear material cleanliness
Material ductility and fracture toughness
Residual stress
Stress cycle factor, ZN

2.0

ZN = 2.466 nL --0.056

ZN = 1.4488 nL --0.023
1.1
1.0 1.0
0.9 Nitrided 0.9
0.8 ZN = 1.249 nL --0.0138 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010
Number of load cycles, nL

Figure 17 -- Pitting resistance stress cycle factor, ZN

NOTE: The choice of YN in the shaded area is
influenced by:
YN = 9.4518 nL --0.148
4.0
400 HB Pitchline velocity
Gear material cleanliness
Residual stress
3.0 CASE CARB. YN = 6.1514 nL --0.1192 Material ductility and fracture toughness
250 HB
YN = 4.9404 nL --0.1045
Stress cycle factor, YN

Nitrided
2.0 YN = 3.517 nL --0.0817
160 HB

YN = 2.3194 nL --0.0538 YN = 1.3558 nL --0.0178

1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 YN = 1.6831 nL --0.0323 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010
Number of load cycles, nL

Figure 18 -- Bending strength stress cycle factor, YN

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 37

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

18 Reliability factor, YZ blank not exceeding 120°C. When operating

temperatures result in gear blank temperatures
The reliability factors account for the effect of the below 0° C, special care must be given, see 3.6.1.
normal statistical distribution of failures found in 19.2 High temperature operation
materials testing. The allowable stress numbers
given in tables 3 through 6 are based upon a When operating at oil or gear blank temperature
statistical probability of one failure in 100 at 107 above 120°C, Yθ is given a value greater than 1.0 to
cycles. Table 11 contains reliability factors which allow for the effect of temperature on oil film and
may be used to modify these allowable stresses to material properties.
change that probability. These numbers are based Consideration must be given to the loss of hardness
upon data developed for bending and pitting failure and strength of some materials due to the tempering
by the U.S. Navy. Other values may be used if effect of temperatures over 150_C.
specific data is available.
When strength rating is based on yield strength, σs,
the values of Ky from 16.4 should be used instead of 20 Size factor, Ks
YZ.
Table 11 -- Reliability factors, YZ 20.1 Size factor
Requirements of application YZ 1)
The size factor reflects non--uniformity of material
Fewer than one failure in 10 000 1.50 properties. It depends primarily on:
Fewer than one failure in 1000 1.25 -- Tooth size
Fewer than one failure in 100 1.00 -- Diameter of parts
Fewer than one failure in 10 0.852) -- Ratio of tooth size to diameter of part
Fewer than one failure in 2 0.702) 3) -- Face width
NOTES
1) Tooth breakage is sometimes considered a greater -- Area of stress pattern
hazard than pitting. In such cases a greater value of YZ -- Ratio of case depth to tooth size
is selected for bending.
2) At this value plastic flow might occur rather than
-- Hardenability and heat treatment of materials
pitting.
3) From test data extrapolation. Standard size factors for gear teeth have not yet
been established for cases where there is a detri-
mental size effect. In such cases, some size factor
greater than unity should be used.
19 Temperature factor, Yθ 20.2 Values for size factor
The size factor may be taken as unity for most gears,
19.1 Moderate and low temperature operation
provided a proper choice of steel is made for the size
The temperature factor is generally taken as unity of the part and its heat treatment and hardening
when gears operate with temperatures of oil or gear process.

38  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Annex A
(informative)
Method for determination of dynamic factor with AGMA 2000--A88
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute
Spur and Helical Gear Teeth.]

A.1 Purpose Due to the approximate nature of the empirical

curves and the lack of measured tolerance values at
The standard method for the determination of the design stage of the job, the dynamic factor curve
dynamic factor is given in clause 8, with the use of should be selected based on experience with the
ANSI/AGMA 2015--1--A01. This annex provides an manufacturing methods and operating consider-
alternative method using the older standard AGMA ations of the design.
2000--A88. A specific geometry, procedure and
operating conditions should result in a comparable Choice of curves Qv = 5 through Qv = 11 and “very
dynamic factor using this annex or clause 8. accurate gearing” should be based on transmission
error. When transmission error is not available, it is
A.2 Approximate dynamic factor, Kv reasonable to refer to the pitch accuracy, and to
some extent profile accuracy, as a representative
Figure A.1 shows dynamic factors which can be value to determine the dynamic factor. “Qv” is
used in the absence of specific knowledge of the related to the transmission accuracy grade number.
dynamic loads. The curves of figure A.1 and the Due to the approximation mentioned above, slight
equations given are based on empirical data, and do variation from the selected “Qv” value is not
not account for resonance. considered significant to the gearset rating.

1.8 Qv = 5 Qv = 6

1.7 Qv = 7

1.6 Qv = 8

1.5
Qv = 9
Dynamic factor, Kv

1.4

Qv = 10
1.3

1.2
Qv = 11

1.1
“Very Accurate Gearing”

1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pitch line velocity, vt, m/s

Figure A.1 -- Dynamic factor, Kv

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 39

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

A.3 Very accurate gearing The profile accuracy for the gearing must be
consistent with the pitch accuracy.
Where gearing is manufactured using process
controls which provide tooth accuracies which Curves may be extrapolated beyond the end points
correspond to “very accurate gearing”, or where the shown in figure A.1 based on experience and careful
design and manufacturing techniques ensure a low consideration of the factors influencing dynamic
transmission error which is equivalent to this accu- load. For purposes of calculation, equation A.4 de-
racy, values of Kv between 1.02 and 1.11 may be fines the end points of the curves in figure A.1.
used, depending on the specifier’s experience with
 
B
similar applications and the degree of accuracy A + 196.85 v t
Kv = (A.1)
actually achieved. A

To use these values, the gearing must be maintained where

in accurate alignment and adequately lubricated so
A = 50 + 56 (1.0 − B) for 5 ≤ Q v ≤ 11
that its accuracy is maintained under the operating (A.2)
conditions. 0.667
B = 0.25 (12 − Q v) (A.3)
A.4 Curves labeled Qv = 5 through Qv = 11 The maximum recommended pitch line velocity for a
given grade Qv is determined:
The empirical curves of figure A.1 are generated by
the following equations for integer values of Qv, such 2
[A + ( Q v − 3 )] (A.4)
that 5 ± Qv ± 11. Qv is related to the transmission v t max =
196.85
accuracy grade number. where
Qv can be estimated as the appropriate quality vt max is maximum pitch line velocity at operating
number for the expected pitch and profile variations pitch diameter (end point of Kv curves on
in accordance with AGMA 2000--A88. figure A.1), m/s.

40  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Annex B
(informative)
Rim thickness factor, KB
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute
Spur and Helical Gear Teeth.]

B.1 Purpose Another concern is press fitting the gear onto a shaft
as this will induce stresses in the gear rim. The
This annex provides a method for considering the
amount of effect of all of these items is beyond the
effects of gear blank rim thickness on the load
scope of this standard.
carrying capacity of the gear tooth. It is based on
Drago’s1 analysis of gear tooth bending fatigue B.2 Rim thickness factor, KB
strength.
Where the rim thickness is not sufficient to provide
This analysis shows that bending stresses in gear full support for the tooth root, the location of bending
teeth are adversely affected when the rim thickness fatigue failure may be through the gear rim, rather
below the tooth root, tR, is relatively thin as compared than at the tooth fillet. In such cases, the use of a
to the tooth height, ht. Drago’s analysis consisted of stress modifying factor, KB, is recommended.
photo elastic models where the resulting curves
were extrapolated from a limited number of test This factor, entitled rim thickness factor, KB, adjusts
samples at backup ratios of 0.5 and 2.0 or greater. the calculated bending stress number for thin
The study also included finite element analysis and rimmed gears. It is a function of the backup ratio, mB,
data points from other research. A backup ratio of or the ratio of the rim thickness below the tooth root,
2.0 indicated no effect on bending stress, but, an tR, as compared to the tooth whole depth.
effect began to occur somewhere between 1.0 and t
2.0. The curve in this annex is based on this mB = R (B.1)
ht
analysis. But in view of the limited data, it is
where
presented as two straight lines with a knee at 1.2.
The knee was established based on experience of tR is rim thickness below the tooth root, mm;
manufacturers who have successfully operated
ht is whole depth, mm.
gears at rated loads with this backup ratio.
Figure B.1 provides recommended values of KB for
The rim thickness factor, KB, is not sufficiently
backup ratios above 0.5. The effects of webs or
conservative for components with notches, hoop
stiffeners can be an improvement but are not
stresses or keyways. This is based on data for
accounted for. The effect of tapered rims has not
external gears with smooth bores and no notches or
been investigated. Ratios less than 0.5 require
keyways.
special analysis and is beyond the scope of this
The concern with notches (such as splines) or standard. When previous experience justifies, lower
keyways in the bore of a gear is an increase in stress values of KB may be used.
concentration which may lead to a fracture through
The rim thickness factor, KB, is applied in addition to
the gear rim. Using large radii in the corners of the
the 0.70 reverse loading factor where it is applicable
keyway (or spline) will help reduce the stress
(see 16.2).
concentration and using a ductile (not brittle)
material with good fracture toughness will also help.

_______________________
1) Drago, R.J., An Improvement in the Conventional Analysis of Gear Tooth Bending Fatigue Strength. AGMA
P229.24, October 1982.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 41

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

For mB < 1.2

2.4
2.2 
K B = 1.6 ln 2.242
mB  ht
2.0
Rim thickness factor, KB

1.8
1.6 tR
1.4 For mB ≥ 1.2 t
KB = 1.0 mB = R
ht
1.2
1.0

0
0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Backup ratio, mB

Figure B.1 -- Rim thickness factor, KB

42  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Annex C
(informative)
Application analysis
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute
Spur and Helical Gear Teeth.]

C.1 Purpose greater the uncertainties or consequences of these

considerations, the higher the factor of safety should
This annex discusses the use of factors of safety,
be. As the extent of these factors become known
overload factors, service factors and other
with more certainty, the value of the factor of safety
considerations for geared systems.
can be more accurately determined. For example, a
C.2 Background product such as an automobile transmission which is
subjected to full size, full load prototype testing and
Many influence factors are used to determine the
rigorous quality control of dimensions, materials and
calculated load capacity of gears to account for
processes during manufacture, could have a more
various designs, manufacturing methods and uses
precise safety factor than a hoist made in small
of gears. Many of these factors have been
quantities to normal commercial practices.
empirically developed from accumulated experi-
ence. Therefore, it is critical that they be used in the As design practices become more comprehensive,
manner originally intended. The influence factors some influence factors have been removed from the
are normally used as modifiers to either a calculated unknown area of “safety factor” and introduced as
stress from part configuration and applied load or to predictable portions of the design method. The
an allowable stress number based on material reliability factor, YZ, is an example.
properties. The gear designer can then compare the NOTE: Factor of safety has also been used historically
modified calculated stress to the modified allowable to account for uncertainties in “applied loading” or un-
stress number for a specific design. In any design it known overloads. In gear design, however, service fac-
is critical to make allowances for unknown variables tors or overload factors have been used for this
uncertainty.
in materials, machining tolerances, loading. etc.
Various terms (factor of safety, service factor, and C.4 Overload factor
overload factor) are used in the gear industry to An overload factor makes allowance for any exter-
describe this important concept. nally applied loads in excess of the nominal transmit-
The designer, manufacturer, buyer, and user must all ted load. Overload factors are established only after
have a clear understanding of the meaning and considerable field experience is gained. In determin-
implications of these terms when comparing gear ing the overload factor, consideration should be
capacity using different standards. The following given to the fact that systems develop momentary
definitions are given to explain the differences peak torques appreciably greater than those deter-
between these terms as applied to gearing: mined by the nominal ratings of the prime mover or
driven equipment. Also, there are many possible
C.3 Factor of safety sources of other overloads that should be consid-
The term “factor of safety” has historically been used ered, such as system vibrations, acceleration
in mechanical design to describe a general derating torques, overspeeds, variations in system operation,
factor to limit the design stress in proportion to the split--path load sharing among multiple prime mov-
material strength. A factor of safety accounts for ers, and changes in process applied load conditions.
uncertainties in: C.5 Service factor
-- Design analysis A service factor is traditionally applied as a multiplier
-- Material characteristics of the nominal application load to determine catalog
selections of pre--designed gear units. In AGMA
-- Manufacturing quality
gear rating the service factor has been used to
Factor of safety also must consider human safety include the combined effects of required life cycles,
risk and the economic consequences of failure. The material reliability, and overload factors in an empiri-

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 43

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

cally determined single influence factor. The specific the system may not be able to transmit the rated
mathematical contribution of each of these items has power without excessive wear and failure.
not been satisfactorily established. In addition, the C.6.3 Non--gear components
term “service factor” has been used when including
human safety or economic risk, which has devel- Every component of a gear unit must allow for the
oped confusion between the terms factor of safety, proper transmission of power, considering both
overload factor, and service factor. internal and external loading. These components,
such as housing supports, shafting, bearings, and
To avoid confusion, it is recommended that the fasteners (bolts, nuts, etc.) must be designed and
overload factor be used as defined -- for external manufactured to maintain the gears in proper
variability in applied loading. A factor of safety position as well as transmit the required power.
should be applied where there is human risk,
C.6.4 Gear quality
economic risk, or remaining uncertainties due to
design, material, or manufacturing quality variation. The term “quality” can have a number of meanings.
In reference to gear manufacture, it is generally used
When an overload factor is used, consideration must to classify the tolerances applied to the gear tooth
be given to the effect of long service life on allowable geometry. Unless the appropriate gear quality level
stress levels. is used to calculate the power rating of a gear system
and that quality level is, in fact, duplicated or
A service factor should be applied only to a gear
exceeded in manufacturing, the unit produced may
assembly and then only in the absence of more
not have the desired life.
specific application load data. In addition, a service
factor is only valid with the calculation method used C.6.5 Variation in manufacture
at the time it was developed. It should not be used In addition to gear geometry, the metallurgical quality
with other gear calculation methods, unless there is of all stressed parts and the geometrical accuracy of
sufficient knowledge and experience to make a all other components of the drive must exceed the
satisfactory conversion between methods. values assumed in the design calculations and test
units.
C.6 Other considerations
These items in particular, and others in general, are
Other important considerations in the design analy- addressed in some standards. Other standards do
sis of gear drive systems which are related to factor not mention these topics or, if mentioned, do not
of safety, overload factor, and service factor cover them thoroughly. It is important to know that
selection are: factors contained within some AGMA standards,
C.6.1 Test and experience such as a service factors, should not be abstracted
and applied to other standard methods of calculating
The proper selection of overload factors and factors gear capacity. Mixing factors from different stan-
of safety for any power transmission system often dards can result in an inadequate design.
are not given enough attention. Without complete C.7 Summary
testing and field experience on each specific design,
the application of gears has many unknowns. In gear design and rating there is a need for the use
Therefore, conservative selection of all gear capac- of factor of safety, service factor, and overload factor.
ity calculation influence factors is recommended These terms must be clearly defined when they are
unless operating experience of an identical design is used. As the uncertainties in design, materials,
known. manufacturing, and loading become known:
-- the factor of safety can be reduced toward
C.6.2 Thermal rating unity;
The thermal power rating of a gear system is defined -- overload factors will represent actual loading
as the power that the unit will transmit continuously or be replaced by a load spectrum analysis, such
without exceeding established temperature limits. as Miner’s Rule;
This important consideration is necessary to main- -- service factors may be replaced with factor of
tain proper lubrication. Excessive temperatures are safety, overload factor, stress cycle and reliability
detrimental to the lubrication of gear teeth, such that factor properly used.

44  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

It must be clearly stated that the gear design or

analysis must properly account for these uncertain-
ties, based on experience. This is the primary
responsibility of the gear engineer.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 45

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Annex D
(informative)
Discussion of the analytical face or longitudinal load distribution factor
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute
Spur and Helical Gear Teeth.]

D.1 Purpose D.4 Influencing parameters

There are many parameters that influence the actual
This annex provides the background information for load distribution across the face width of a gear. The
the development of an accurate assessment of the influencing parameters can be categorized into four
load distribution across the face width of spur or groups, all of which are normal to the manufacturing
helical gears. process but still cause face misalignments of the
mating gear teeth. The groups are listed in clause 15
D.2 Definition of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04.
D.5 Guide to the analysis
The face load distribution factor is defined as the
ratio of the peak load to the average load applied In a complete analysis the expected values for all
across the face width of a gear. The calculation of an basic manufacturing variations of the gearing, hous-
accurate analytical load distribution across the face ings, and bearings can be estimated and used as an
width of a spur or helical gear is a very complex and initial gap across the face width of the gears, see
tedious process with many influencing factors. The figure D.1. In many instances an adjustment feature
calculation lends itself to computer programs that is provided in the gear assembly such that these
are dedicated to the task. A correct analytical variations causing misalignment can be negated.
determination of load distribution across the face Sometimes the gearing is reground after initial
width would yield variations in stress across the pattern checks to correct for the assembly variations.
width of the gear that could be measured with Sometimes the bores of bearings or housing are
properly applied strain gauges. This stress distribu- scraped and sometimes an eccentric cartridge can
tion although analytically and physically correct provide an effective means of obtaining initial
would not be identical to that predicted by the alignment of the mating gears. At this stage the
empirical rating techniques currently utilized in the gears are assumed to be initially parallel with no gap
ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04. if adjustments are planned to be made or the
expected gap is combined with the other factors to
D.3 Empirical versus analytical method be determined.

The current rating practice of ANSI/AGMA GAP

2101--D04 is as much empirical as it is analytical.
Rating parameters were developed based on exten-
sive testing of gears in service and in test applica-
tions. The techniques utilized in the empirical
approach for load distribution of ANSI/AGMA Figure D.1 -- Gap due to manufacturing or
2101--D04 are consistent with this empirical ap- installation errors
proach, to rating gears. A rigorous analytical
approach as will be described later in this annex, can Now the elastic deflections, due to loading, must be
in extreme cases yield results that dramatically dealt with. Two important notes on deflections are
derate the capacity of gears as currently rated by that they will be different for each load condition
ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04. As the basic rating stan- applied to the gears and that the gears can have
dard evolves to a more correct analytical and leads that are intentionally modified to correct for
physical assessment, the analytical technique to be elastic deflections. Ideally this modification would
described will be compatible with this type of overall create a lead that is the mirror image of the deflected
analysis. gear, see figure D.2. Normally the worst loading

46  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

case is analyzed which will give the greatest the initial mismatch. Severely misaligned gears
mismatch between mating gear elements. The would show an extremely localized contact in a no
torsional and bending deflections can be calculated load soft blue type of contact check.
by normal strength of material techniques for each
rotor. These deflections or gaps can be combined by A major problem occurs in the calculation of the
superposition techniques with the initial misali- deflections. The load distribution curve is needed to
gnment gaps if they haven’t been corrected by final calculate the actual deflections but this curve cannot
adjustment. Centrifugal and thermal distortion be calculated accurately until the deflection is
should be determined similarly and also combined to known. The best solution to this problem is to make
give the final total distortion or gap between the an estimate of the load distribution and use this to
mating gear flanks. If the gear teeth were infinitely calculate the actual deflection and iterate on this
stiff contact would occur at the intersection of the technique until the assumed load distribution curve
high point of the mating members causing an and the actual agree within some reasonable
exceedingly high localized load. However, as load is tolerance. The final values are plotted and KH is
applied, cantilever bending deflection of the gear calculated. This technique is presented in refer-
tooth as well as Hertzian deflection occurs and this ences [1] and [2]. Tooth stiffness values in the range
localized contact is spread across some percentage of 1.0×104 to 2.1×104 N/mm2 are typically used for
of the active face width. The amount that the contact determining the actual load distribution by this
spreads and the load variation across the face technique. This iterative type of solution is well
depends on the applied load, the tooth stiffness and suited to computer analysis.

1 Dudley Darle W. -- Practical Gear Design

2 MAAG Gear Handbook, January 1990.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 47

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

A1 lL B1

bL
bL/3

w′ = constant

Disposition

di
dl
L

Bending deflection fb bx
ftot

ft

Torsional deflection

bx

Bending and torsion

fb + ft
ftot

Total deformation bx

Longitudinal modification
ftot

Figure D.2 -- Elastic deformation of the pinion [3]

3 MAAG Gear Handbook, January 1990, reproduction of figure 3.07

48  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

Annex E
(informative)
Gear material fatigue life
This annex is for information only and should not be construed to be a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental rating
factors and calculation methods for involute spur and helical gear teeth.

E.1 Purpose and AISI 9310 Spur Gears, ASME , J. Mech Design,
Paper 80--C2/DET--58, San Francisco, August
This annex provides additional and abstracted
1980 (figure 11).
information concerning the assessment of fatigue
life for spur or helical gears using various materials,
material quality, heat treatments and criteria for

Statistical percent of gear systems failed

defining life.
CAUTION: This information is for reference only -- do
not extract any data from the figures without first con-
sulting the appropriate reference literature from which
it was taken.
E.2 Variation of fatigue life
In addition to empirical data, gear literature contains
test data on the effects on the fatigue life of gears
and gear steels due to a various number of items. A
collected sample of this data indicates the variability
in values that can be used for capacity calculation of
life factors.
Gear system life revolutions
E.3 Variation with materials Figure 11 -- Surface pitting fatigue lives of
CVM modified VASCO X--2 spur gears heat
This clause gives three references and selected fig- treated to different specifications. (note AISI
ures from each, which illustrate variations in fatigue 9310)
life due to different steel alloys. E.3.3 Faure, L., Vasseur, J. L., and LeFleche, C.
E.3.1 Vukovich, D., Pierman, R., and Matovina, M. Comparison of the Pitting Resistance of Several
Laboratory Evaluation of New Low Alloy Gear Steels Used in Case Carburized Gears, Trans.
Steels. Reprinted with permission from SAE Paper MPT’91 JSME Inter. Conf., pp 849--854, Hiroshima,
No. 770416 1977, SAE, Inc. (figure 9). November 1991 (figures 5, 6 and 7).
Nominal root stress x 103 psi

Stress

Fatigue Life, Cycles

Figure 9 -- Median S--N curves for carburized
low alloy steel gears Cycles
E.3.2 Townsend, D. P., Endurance and Failure Figure 5 -- Endurance curve to superficial
Characteristics of Modified Vasco X--2, CBS 600 pressure obtained with 20MC5 steel

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 49

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

E.3.4 Table 1 gives a list of alternate international

gear steels from: Duszak, D. Alternate Overseas
Gear Steels, ASME Gear Research Institute Trans-
missions Vol. VI. No 1 May 1989.
E.4 Material quality variations
Stress (N/mm2 )

This clause gives two references and a figure from

each, which illustrates microstructure variations in
fatigue life.
E.4.1 Parrish G. The Influence of Microstructure on
the Properties of Case--Carburized Components,
Heat Treatment of Metals 1976.3 pp 73--79 (figure
7).
Cycles

Figure 6 -- Endurance curve to superficial

pressure obtained with XC18 steel

Stress, kg/mm2

Stress, N/mm2
Stress (N/mm2 )

Cycles
Figure 7 -- The contact fatigue strength of
carburized 25Kh2GHTA steel12
Cycles E.4.2 Kern, R. F. Controlling Carburizing for Top
Figure 7 -- Endurance curve to superficial Quality Gears, Gear Technology, pp 16--21 March/
pressure obtained with 16NC6 steel April 1993 (figure 6).
Table 1 -- Alternate Overseas Gear Steels
NORTH AMERICA FRANCE GERMANY JAPAN UNITED KINGDOM
9310H -- -- -- 832H133)
4118H, PS54H, PS64 -- -- 5Cr415H3) 527H173)
5CM415H2) 805H174)
4620H -- -- -- 665H201)
4820H 18CD45), 8CD45) 5CrNi6 5) -- 708H205) 815H175)
20MC55), 20MC65), 20MnCr5 5)
8620H, PS15H, PS64 16MC53) 16MnCr53) SCM415H4) 637H173)
SCM418H4) 805H201)
20MoCr4 4) SNCM220HJ1)
4140H 40NCD37) 41CrMo46) SCM440H6) 708H376)
41CrMo4 6)

(refer to original paper for notes on materials in this table)

50  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

How Bainite Affects Pitting Life permission from SAE Paper No. 780773 1978,
SAE, Inc. (figure 2).
Approximate contact stress capability
to put in 10 cycles, ksi

Percent failure
Percent upper transformation products
(pearlite/bainite)
Figure 6 -- Bainite, also called quenching
pearlite, is soft, and deleterious to pitting life.
E.5 Variation with material heat treatment Cycles
This clause gives four references and selected fig- Figure 2 -- Weibull probability paper
ures from each, which illustrate variations in fatigue E.5.3 Kern, R. F. and Suess, M. E., Steel Selection,
life due to heat treatments. a guide for improving performance and profits,
chapter 10, Selection of Steel for Carburized Gears,
E.5.1 Sheehan, J. P., and Howes, M. A. H., The Ef-
pp 181--205, John Wiley & Sons, New York 1979
fect of Case Carbon Content and Heat Treatment
(figure 10.13).
on the Pitting Fatigue of 8620 Steel. Reprinted with
permission from SAE Paper No. 720268 1972,
SAE, Inc. (figure 6).
Maximum normal stress, ksi
Log stress in ksi

Cycles to failure
Figure 10.13 -- Bending fatigue properties of
4820 steel. Sample A received standard heat
Number of Cycles treatment, while B was refrigerated at --1000F
Figure 6 -- Log S--log N plot of fatigue data for E.5.4 Cohen, R. E., Haagensen, J. P., Matlock, D.
SAE 8620H steel carburized to 0.72 and 0.95% K., and Krauss, G., Assessment of Bending Fatigue
carbon Limits for Carburized Steel. Reprinted with permis-
E.5.2 Rice, S. L., Pitting Resistance of Some High sion from SAE Paper No. 910140 1991, SAE, Inc.
Temperature Carburized Cases. Reprinted with (figure 6).

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 51

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Gear Life in millions of revolutions

Maxmum stress, Smax, MPa

Tangential load, Wt/f (N/M)

Figure 5 -- Load life relationship for (VAR) AISI

9310 steel spur gears speed 10,000 rpm,
lubricant naphtenic mineral oil

E.6.2 Nagamura, K., Terauchi, Y., and Martowibo-

wo, S. Y., Reliability Estimation of Bending Fatigue
Strength of Super Carburizing Steel Spur Gears,
Trans. MPT’91 JSME Inter. Conf., pp 795--799,
Fatigue Life, N, cycles
Hiroshima, November1991 (figure 6).

Figure 6 -- Bending fatigue curves for SAE

True stress at tooth root fillet, MPa

8719 steel. The higher pair of curves

corresponds to transgranular crack initiation
and the lower pair corresponds to
intergranular crack initiation

E.6 Failure definition variation

Number of cycles N
This clause gives three references, where selected
Figure 6 -- S--N curve of MAC14
figures illustrate variations in fatigue life due to
different definitions or analysis of failure.

E.6.3. Faure, L., Vasseur, J. L., and LeFleche, C.

Comparison of the Pitting Resistance of Several
E.6.1 Townsend, D. P., Coy, J. J., and Zaretsky, E. Steels used in Case Carburized Gears, American
V., Experimental and Analytical Load--Life Relation Gear Manufacturers Association, AGMA, Technical
for AISI 9310 Steel Spur Gears, Transactions of the Paper 92 FTM6, October 1992 (figures 6, 7, 8 and
ASME , Vol. 100, pp 54--59, January 1978 (figure 5). 9).

52  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

The following four figures presents up--dated analy-

sis of data presented in clause E3.3. This, also, il-
lustrates variations in calculations which could
result from the different presentation of data.

Stress
Stress

Cycles

Figure 9 -- 18NCD6 Test results

E.7 Other considerations and summary

Cycles The illustrated variations in fatigue life are only a

Figure 6 -- 16NC6 m=10 Test results sample of the data available. Those presented are
used to show many of the considerations which may
vary on each application. Other items such shot
peening can also affect fatigue life.

E.7.1 Hatano, A,, and Namiki, K., Application of

Hard Shot Peening to Automotive Transmission
Gears. Reprinted with permission from SAE Paper
No. 920760 1992, SAE, Inc. (figure 14).
Stress

Tooth root bending stress (MPa)

Cycles
Figure 7 -- 16NC6 m=12 Test results

Number of cycles
Stress

Figure 14 -- Comparison of fatigue properties

for gears shot peened by conventional and
newly developed media
E.7.2 Summary
This annex illustrates that variations in fatigue life
are influenced by a great many factors. Therefore,
Cycles only an experienced engineer should apply knowl-
Figure 8 -- 17CrNiMo6 Test results edge of S--N curves to gear calculations.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 53

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Annex F
(informative)
Controlling section size considerations for through hardened gearing
[The foreword, footnotes and annexes, if any, are provided for informational purposes only and should not be
construed as a part of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute
Spur and Helical Gear Teeth.]

F.1 Purpose from the quenching property of the equivalent round

bar having a diameter equal to the controlling section
This annex presents approximate maximum control-
size. The maximum controlling section size for a
ling section size considerations for through hard-
steel is based principally on hardenability, specified
ened (quench and tempered) gearing. Also
hardness, depth of desired hardness, quench rate
presented are factors which affect maximum control-
and tempering temperature.
ling size, illustrations as to how maximum controlling
section size is determined for gearing, and recom- F.3 Illustrations
mended maximum controlling section sizes for some
Figure F.1 illustrates controlling sections for
low alloy steels.
quenched gear configurations whose teeth are
F.2 Definition machined after heat treatment.

The controlling section of a part is defined as that NOTE: Evaluation of the controlling section size for the
selection of an appropriate type of steel and specified
section which has the greatest effect on the rate of
hardness need not include consideration of standard
cooling during quenching at the location (section) rough stock machining allowances. Other special
where the specified mechanical properties (hard- stock allowances such as those used to minimize dis-
ness) are required. The alloy for the part is chosen tortion during heat treatment must be considered.

Teeth Teeth

40 mm 250 mm
200 mm

50 mm
150 mm

Controlling section: 200 mm diameter Controlling section: 50 mm facewidth

100
mm Teeth
Teeth

100 200 800 900

mm mm mm mm

300 mm 50 mm

Controlling section: 50 mm wall thickness (if the 50 mm

bore diameter is less than 20% of the length of the Controlling section: 50 mm rim thickness
bore, then the outside diameter)

Figure F.1 -- Illustrations of controlling section size

54  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04

F.4 Recommendations ness of Quenched Round Bars from Jominy Test

Results” published in Practical Data for Metallurgists
Figure F.2 provides approximate recommended
by Timken Steel Co., and published tempering
maximum controlling section sizes for oil quenched
response/hardenability data.
and tempered gearing (Grossman quench severity
value H = 0.5) of low alloy steels based on specified Maximum controlling section sizes for rounds great-
hardness range, normal stock allowance before er than 200 mm O.D. generally require in--house
hardening, minimum tempering temperature of heat treat experiments of larger sections followed by
480°C, and obtaining minimum hardness at the roots sectioning and transverse hardness testing.
of teeth.
Normalized and tempered gearing may require a
F.5 General comments
higher hardenability if the design does not permit
Maximum controlling section sizes versus specified liquid quenching. Hardnesses obtainable by
hardness for section sizes to 200 mm diameter normalize and temper are lower than those obtained
rounds can also be approximated by use of the by quench and temper. Normalized and tempered/
”Chart Predicting Approximate Cross Section Hard- hardness testing experiments are required.

363[] 3.2

341[
44 HRC at J50
(E4340H)
321 3.4
Minimum brinell hardness, HB

Brinell impression, mm

302

285 3.6

269
40 HRC at J18
(4140H) JOMINY, J DISTANCE, mm
255 3.8

241

229 4.0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Recommended maximum controlling section size, mm

Figure F.2 -- Controlling section size for two 0.40% carbon alloy steels*

NOTES:
*Maximum controlling section sizes higher than those above can be recommended when substantiated by test data (heat
treat practice).
[480°C minimum temper may be required to meet these hardness specifications.
]Higher specified hardnesses (e.g., 375--415 HB, 388--421 HB and 401--444 HB) are used for special gearing, but costs
should be evaluated due to reduced machinability.

 AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved 55

ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04 AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Bibliography

The following documents are either referenced in the text of ANSI/AGMA 2101--D04, Fundamental Rating
Factors and Calculation Methods for Involute Spur and Helical Gear Teeth, or indicated for additional
information.

1. ISO/TR 10495, Calculation of Service Life 14. Ichimaru, K., Nakajimi, A. and Hirano, F., Effect
under Variable Load. of Asperity Interaction on Pitting in Rollers and
Gears, ASME Paper 80--C2/DET--36, August,
2. American National Standards Institute -- ANSI
1980.
Y12.3--1968, Letter Symbols for Quantities Used in
Mechanics of Solids. 15. ASTM A148--83, Specifications for Steel Cast-
3. American Gear Manufacturers Association -- ings for High Strength Stuctural Purposes.
ANSI/AGMA 1010--E95, Appearance of Gear Teeth
16. ASTM A291--82, Specification for Carbon and
-- Terminology of Wear and Failure.
Alloy Steel Forgings for Pinions and Gears for
4. American Gear Manufacturers Association -- Reduction Gears.
AGMA 933--B03, Basic Gear Geometry
17. ASTM A356--83, Specifications for Steel Cast-
5. Drago, R. J., AGMA P229.24, An Improvement ings, Carbon and Low Alloy, Heavy--Walled, for
in the Conventional Analysis of Gear Tooth Bending Steam Turbines.
Fatigue Strength, October 1982.
18. Massey, C., Reeves C. and Shipley, E.E., The
6. Kron, H. O., Gear Teeth Sub--Surface Stress
Influence of Lubrication on the Onset of Surface
Analysis, International Symposium on Gearing,
Pitting in Machinable Hardness Gear Teeth, AGMA
Paris, France, June 23, 1977.
Paper 91FTM17.
7. Winter, H., and Weiss, T., Some Factors
Influencing the Pitting, Micro--Pitting (Frosted 19. Dolan T.J. and Broghamer E.L., A Photoelastic
Areas) and Slow Speed Wear of Surface Hardened Study of the Stresses in Gear Tooth Fillets, Univer-
Gears, ASME Paper No. 80--C2/Det--89. sity of Illinois, Engineering Experiment Station,
Bulletin No. 335, 1942.
8. Dudley, Darle. W., Handbook of Practical Gear
Design, McGraw--Hill, New York, 1984. 20. Kern, R.F., and Suess, M.E., Steel Selection a
Guide for improving Performance and Profits, John
9. Dudley, Darle. W., Characteristics of Regimes
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979.
of Gear Lubrication, International Symposium on
Gearing and Power Transmissions, Tokyo, 1981. AGMA 2000--A88, Gear Classification and Inspec-
10. Dudley, Darle. W., Elastohydrodynamic Behav- tion Handbook -- Tolerances and Measuring Meth-
ior Observed in Gear Tooth Action, Institution of ods for Unassembled Spur and Helical Gears
Mechanical Engineers, Leeds, England, Septem- (Including Metric Equivalents).
ber 1965. AGMA 427.01, Information Sheet -- Systems Con-
11. Bowen, C. W., The Practical Significance of siderations for Critical Service Gear Drives.
Designing to Gear Pitting Fatigue Life Criteria,
AGMA 925--A03, Effect of Lubrication on Gear
ASME Paper 77--DET--122, September 1977.
Surface Distress
12. Peterson, M. B. and Winer, W. O., Wear Control
Handbook, ASME, New York, 1980. AGMA 927--A01, Load Distribution Factors -- Ana-
lytical Methods for Cylindrical Gears
13. Ishibashi, A. and Tanaka, S., Effects of Hunting
Gear Ratio Upon Surface Durability of Gear Teeth, ANSI/AGMA 6011--I03, Specification for High
ASME Paper 80--C2/DET--35, August, 1980. Speed Helical Gear Units

56  AGMA 2004 ---- All rights reserved

PUBLISHED BY
AMERICAN GEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
500 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 350, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314