论文部分内容阅读
综述对比DIN方法或AGMA方法的基本计算简图表明,从一个当量圆柱齿轮啮合的共同模式出发,可以选择不同的方法确定其力的作用点及其啮合线。DIN方法较多的依靠当量圆柱齿轮并考虑用修正系数计及锥齿轮的特殊性。AGMA方法由于在当量齿轮上有一个椭圆啮合区的设想而显得特别,因此,其几何计算及计算方法都比较麻烦。关于齿根承载能力的计算,DIN计算的结果比AGMA的结果承受更高的载荷。因此,DIN法也允许较高的强度值。最终结果是按DIN法得到的总的安全系数值大于AGMA的结果。对比实验台实验结果和实际使用结果的计算值表明,按AGMA法计算齿根承载能力是过分保守了。按DIN法计算能给出较好的结果,不过,所需的最低安全系数为1.4似乎太高了。关于抗点蚀能力的计算,按DIN和AGMA法相互对比的结果是相当一致的。特别表现在压应力计算中。不过,在渗碳淬火钢中,按AGMA法计算的强度值位于按DIN
Summary The basic calculation of a comparison between the DIN method and the AGMA method shows that different methods can be used to determine the point of force application and its meshing line from the common mode of equivalent cylindrical gear meshing. The DIN method relies more on equivalent cylindrical gears and considers the particularities of the bevel gears with a correction factor. The AGMA method is special because of the assumption that there is an elliptical mesh on the equivalent gear, so the geometric calculations and calculation methods are cumbersome. With regard to the calculation of the tooth root carrying capacity, the results calculated by DIN are subjected to a higher load than the results of the AGMA. Therefore, the DIN method also allows higher intensity values. The end result is the result of the total safety factor value obtained by the DIN method is greater than the AGMA value. The experimental results of the comparative experiment bench and the calculated values of the actual use results show that it is too conservative to calculate the root bearing capacity according to the AGMA method. The DIN method gives better results, but the minimum required safety factor of 1.4 seems too high. On the calculation of anti-pitting ability, according to DIN and AGMA method of mutual comparison results are quite consistent. In particular in the calculation of compressive stress. However, in carburized hardened steels, the strength values calculated according to the AGMA method are based on DIN