AGMA 2000 A88 PDF

Log In. Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action. Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Author:Vusida Fenrigor
Country:Oman
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Sex
Published (Last):7 May 2015
Pages:230
PDF File Size:7.75 Mb
ePub File Size:3.52 Mb
ISBN:957-3-56645-356-1
Downloads:45646
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Vishura



Log In. Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action. Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Already a Member? Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community. It's easy to join and it's free. Register now while it's still free! Already a member? Close this window and log in. Are you an Engineering professional? Join Eng-Tips Forums! Join Us! By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail. Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden. Students Click Here. Related Projects. You had to specify dimensions over pins yourself because the AGMA spec doesn't give it.

The AGMA only deals with the variations on the base gear dimensions but not the base dimensions. To calculate the maximum dimension over pins you had to use the TTCE, the tooth thickness tolerance Y and tooth thinning to achieve minimum backlash. Therefore, it is more natural to define the Minimum and Maximum testing radius because it check the whole gear in one roll test against a master gear.

If you insist on the dimensions over pins then you have to measure all the teeth. Therefore, if the gear has teeth for example, you need to do 50 tests for each gear to get the TTCE and the TCE which is a time consuming process.

That is why my OP was asking the question? According to this standard it should Element Method or Composite Method. I see what you mean. I mainly use fine pitch gears therefore, I always use the composite method because it takes all the factors of tooth and gear variations in one roll test which make it easier, cheaper, and faster. Even though the manufacturer can select the measuring method as you mentioned, the gear has to conform to all AGMA requirements. Therefore, even if he used the Element Method you can ask and probably pay for the composite method and may even find that the gear will not pass even though with the element method it passed.

To my opinion there is no way to actually touch the tooth at all points using a ball or cylinder, therefore this type of test may miss high or low points and give less accurate results.

Therefore, where a composite method can be used I prefer to use it. Israelkk I agree that a compsite method is better. I wanted more opinions on this issue. I am disapointed there not that many responces. Starr for you Israelkk for taking your valuable time to respond to my question.

Take care. A class 8 gear generally permits element or composite methods. However, I do have a relevant question for you. If you or your customer are ISO or AS , I believe you are required to use the latest version of a particular spec. Does your customer's documentation specify the quality class in accordance with AGMA A88, or are you just assuming that?

And the quality classes in the new spec are different ie. Hope that helps. It is mainly based on it but with some differences. Our customers have Index specifications that specifies if the specification has been superseded or not.

In fact, AGMA will still sell the standard to those requesting it. It is completely new and self standing and is to be used only if specified either by specification number or by quality class "A" or "C" class as opposed to the "Q" classes of AGMA A Note - stating simply AGMA Class "10" for example is ambiguous becasue it does not identify the applicable standard to be used. By the same token, AGMA has some mandatory elemental inspection tolerances and also some optional ones.

If any optional ones are desired, they must be clear understanding between the supplier and purchaser of this. AGMA only requires total composite and tooth to tooth composite to be measured. What most people also do not realize but is clearly spelled out in all of these standards is that there is no "magic" co-relation between the specified tolerances of a given quality class. For example, in AGMA A88 just because a part is specified Q10, it does not mean that a particular manufacturing process should be able to deliver a Q10 quality level for every parameter with the same level of effort or dificulty.

Further to this, it may be easier to meet Q10 on tooth to tooth error than composite, or on Lead then on Profile. This dis-connect is even more apparent in the standards. For example in , it may be easy for a particular gear to pass a C9 level for total composite error, but more likely that a tooth to tooth composite error can only meet C11 requirments.

In , the same thing can be said for the profile and helix callouts where once may meet a A9 quality class while the other is better at an A7. Sound confusing It is! The standards were developed to allow for use of nice linear equations as opposed to comply with a particular manufacturing process or part application.

That is why AGMA in all of these standards also clearly spells out that you need not specify a single quality class for each paramater. In my opinion, the best method is to explicity state on your drawings what you want measured and state the explicit tolerance. Avoid others from having to look it up and avoid painting every characteristic with a single brush stroke. This begs the question.. This is a very very very very good question that you all should put to AGMA.

There is some sort of feeling that people want standards about this, but quite frankly there is absolutly no guidance given by AGMA on how to use them because they really dont want to tell people what to put on thier drawings. My suggestion is that you make your frustrations known to AGMA by sending them an email outlining your frustrations.

You should tell them your concerns and experiences with the new and -2 standards. If enough people complain - you will be heard. I think if you do not have a master pinion to check out TCE then you would have to default to the element method of checking the gear. If you have many parts and you can afford a master pinion, you are probably better off using the tce check method.

I would prefer the tce method as it probably gives you a better feel as to how it would mate with its pinion in the application. For certain if you need to control a special element of the standard, it should be specified. Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework. Asset lifecycles of capital assets like manufacturing or utility plants are decades-long.

But economic shifts and trade policy disruption mean executives must make rapid adjustment to asset portfolios. Download Now. Traceability is increasingly important in the food and beverage sector due to strict regulations and rising consumer demand for corporate social responsibility. Because it's all about project manufacturing and project accounting.

Early Supplier Involvement has long been a strategy employed by manufacturers to produce innovative products. Now, it almost seems like a necessity. Because decisions made in the design phase can positively affect product quality and costs, this can help add value to OEM bottom lines. Close Box. Students Click Here Join Us! Posting Guidelines Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Resources Asset lifecycles of capital assets like manufacturing or utility plants are decades-long. Download Now Traceability is increasingly important in the food and beverage sector due to strict regulations and rising consumer demand for corporate social responsibility. Download Now Early Supplier Involvement has long been a strategy employed by manufacturers to produce innovative products.

KAKURO COMBINATION PDF

Ansi Agma 2000 a88

Correlates gear quality levels with gear tooth tolerances. Provides information on manufacturing procedures, master gears, measuring methods and practices. Appendix material provides guidance on specifying levels and information on additional methods of gear inspection. Partial replacement of AGMA Your Alert Profile lists the documents that will be monitored.

LIVRO ANTIGONA EM PDF

New ANSI-AGMA Accuracy Standards for Gears

.

Related Articles