ISO和AGMA标准的齿面损坏计算比较研究

Comparison study on ISO and AGMA standards for gear surface damages

针对ISO 6336与AGMA 925标准关于齿轮齿面胶合、磨损、微点蚀等齿面损坏的计算方法的不同,研究了接触温度和膜厚比的差异。从原理分析、理论计算和试验案例3个方面研究了齿面损坏承载能力的标准,通过多组实例计算,对比2种标准下齿面接触温度、润滑油膜厚度及安全系数等。研究结果表明,由于ISO 6336和AGMA 925标准的齿面载荷计算方法不同,以及摩擦因数拟合的差异,造成了计算结果的差异。AGMA 925使用本体温度计算局部润滑油黏度,ISO 6336-22则用局部滑动系数考虑了闪温对局部润滑油黏度的影响,导致ISO 6336-22计算的油膜厚度在闪温高的点低于AGMA 925标准。采用不同的标准计算会得到不同的风险评估结果,设计校核时应对比各标准的结果,以提高风险预测的准确性。

Aim at the difference between ISO 6336 and AGMA 925 standards on the calculation methods of gear surface damage such as scuffing,wear,micro-pitting and so on,this paper studies the difference of contact temperature and specific lubricant film thickness ratio in detail.The standard on the capacity of gear surface damages is studied from three aspects,including principle analysis,theoretical calculation and experimental cases.The calculation of multiple examples is conducted to compare the contact temperature,lubricant film thickness and safety factors of the gear surface under two different standards.The research results indicate that there are differences in the calculation methods of gear surface load in ISO 6336 and AGMA 925 standards,and differences in the fitting of the friction coefficients,resulting in differences in the calculation results.AGMA 925 uses the bulk temperature to calculate the local lubricant viscosity,while ISO 6336-22 uses the local sliding coefficient to consider the impact of the flash temperature on the local lubricant temperature.Therefore,the oil film thickness calculated by ISO 6336-22 is lower than that by AGMA 925 standard at high flash temperature points.Due to the different risk assessment results calculated by different standards,each standard result should be compared during the design process to improve the accuracy of risk prediction.