Failure analysis of helical gear
Download as DOCX, PDF1 like347 views
This document summarizes the failure analysis of a helical gear used in a steel mill reducer gearbox. Visual examination found two broken teeth with pitting on the contact side. Investigation found the gear material was a low alloy steel and fractography showed brittle fracture from excessive contact stress. The failure was caused by replacing the original motor with a more powerful one, increasing stress over 3 times higher than allowable for the gear material and leading to pitting, crack initiation and growth, and final fracture.
![Investigation procedure
The failed gear was first inspected visually and macroscopically. The material in the
vicinity of the fracture of the failed gear was then taken as
samples and metallographic specimens were prepared for optical microscopy
examination and microhardness measurement. Chemical analysis of the gear material
was performed in order to identify
the type of steel used.
Fracture morphologies
The fracture surfaces and tooth surfaces of the failed gear were examined with using
SEM in order to identify the type of fracture. SEM examination indicated that although
there hardness at the case and minimum at the core were found to be 713.2 HV (60.7
HRC) and 440.5 HV (44.5 HRC), respectively. Fig. 5 indicated that the gear had been
case hardened by carburization which is normal practice for gear heat treatment.
Hardness profile
The microhardness distribution across of the gear tooth thickness at the pitch line was
measured using a Vickers hardness tester (Mitutoyo model MVKH1) with 300 gm load.
Composition analysis
Chemical composition of the gear material was analysed using a spectrophotometer.
The average values of the analysis are, The compositions indicate that the gear was
made from low alloy steel to JIS- SCM415 standard [9], commonly and widely used in
making gears.
Microstructure examination
Specimens from the failed gear tooth were metallographically prepared and
examined under an optical microscope (LECO).
‘Overload
• Brittle Fracture • Ductile Fracture • Mixed Mode Fracture • Plastic Deformation
Bending Fatigue
• Low-Cycle Fatigue • High-Cycle Fatigue Hertzian Fatigue • Macropitting • Micropitting
• Subcase Fatigue • Micropitting • Subcase Fatigue
wear
• Adhesion • Abrasion • Corrosion • Fretting Corrosion • Polishing
• Electric Discharge • Cavitation • Erosion
Scuffing
Cracking
• Hardening Cracks](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/failureanalysisofhelicalgear-190127141055/85/Failure-analysis-of-helical-gear-2-320.jpg)
Failure analysis of helical gear
- 1. Failure Analysis of Helical Gear Introduction Helical gears are extensively used in numerous engineering applications including gearboxes. Gearboxes are key components of machines and are extensively used in steel industry. Failures of gears not only result in replacement cost but also in process downtime. This could have a drastic consequences on productivity and, more importantly, late delivery. The causes of gear failure are numerous including faulty designs, improper applications and manufacturing errors. Design errors include such things as improper gear geometry,improper materials, poor material quality, inappropriate lubrication system. Background The failed helical gear was used in a reducer gearbox at the first stand in a hot rolling steel mill in Thailand. The mill produced steel re-bars sized 6-12 mm diameter with the capacity of 20 tons/hour. The first stand was designed for rolling billets with cross-section of 100 mm square and 6 m long. The failed helical gear has 69 teeth, and the face width of 128 mm. The module of the gear is 8 mm, the helix angle 13 degrees and the pressure angle 20 degrees. The reducer gearbox ratio and input shaft revolution are 15.90 and 400 rpm, respectively. The mechanical power is 300 kW and the safety factor is 1.75. Visual examination The appearance of the failed helical gear is as shown in Fig. 2. Visual examination of the gear revealed two broken teeth as shown in Fig. 2a. The arrows in showed the initial pitting and final pitting on the contact side. Fig.2
- 2. Investigation procedure The failed gear was first inspected visually and macroscopically. The material in the vicinity of the fracture of the failed gear was then taken as samples and metallographic specimens were prepared for optical microscopy examination and microhardness measurement. Chemical analysis of the gear material was performed in order to identify the type of steel used. Fracture morphologies The fracture surfaces and tooth surfaces of the failed gear were examined with using SEM in order to identify the type of fracture. SEM examination indicated that although there hardness at the case and minimum at the core were found to be 713.2 HV (60.7 HRC) and 440.5 HV (44.5 HRC), respectively. Fig. 5 indicated that the gear had been case hardened by carburization which is normal practice for gear heat treatment. Hardness profile The microhardness distribution across of the gear tooth thickness at the pitch line was measured using a Vickers hardness tester (Mitutoyo model MVKH1) with 300 gm load. Composition analysis Chemical composition of the gear material was analysed using a spectrophotometer. The average values of the analysis are, The compositions indicate that the gear was made from low alloy steel to JIS- SCM415 standard [9], commonly and widely used in making gears. Microstructure examination Specimens from the failed gear tooth were metallographically prepared and examined under an optical microscope (LECO). ‘Overload • Brittle Fracture • Ductile Fracture • Mixed Mode Fracture • Plastic Deformation Bending Fatigue • Low-Cycle Fatigue • High-Cycle Fatigue Hertzian Fatigue • Macropitting • Micropitting • Subcase Fatigue • Micropitting • Subcase Fatigue wear • Adhesion • Abrasion • Corrosion • Fretting Corrosion • Polishing • Electric Discharge • Cavitation • Erosion Scuffing Cracking • Hardening Cracks
- 3. • Grinding Cracks • Rim and Web Cracks • Case/Core Separation parameters Symbol Values Unit Maximum Hertzian contract pressure (pH= E′( W′/2π)1/2) pH 1.33617x109 Pa overload Size factor Ks 1.15 Load distribution factor Km 1.38 Dynamic factor Kv 1.1 Geometry correction factor Conclusions The helical gear failure was caused by excessive stress on the surface of gear teeth,some 3.2 times higher than the allowable contact stress of gear material. Excessive stress was due to the replacement of original motor by a more powerful one. The fracture starts from pitting at surface of a gear tooth followed by fatigue crack initiation, crack growth, and final fracture.The pitting occurred as a result of excessive stress.