See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281003784

Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

2 3,697

2 authors, including:

Samroeng - Netpu
S.H.K. Engineering Co., Ltd.
11 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Failure analysis of failed gearbox used in steel industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samroeng - Netpu on 16 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Materials Science and Engineering B 2 (4) (2012) 289-294
D DAVID PUBLISHING

Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a

Steel Rolling Mill

Samroeng Netpu and Panya Srichandr

Division of Materials Technology, School of Energy, Environment and Materials, King Mongkut’s University of Technology
Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Road, Bang Mod, Thung khru, Bangkok, Thailand

Received: February 25, 2012 / Accepted: March 06, 2012 / Published: April 25, 2012.

Abstract: This paper reports the results of an investigation into the premature failure of a helical gear used in a gearbox of a steel mill
in Thailand. The gear failed after about 15,000 h of service which was much shorter than the normal service life of 40,000-50,000 h. It
was concluded the helical gear subsequently failed due to fatigue fracture initiated by surface and subsurface damages resulting from
excessive contact stress. Excessive contact stress at gear tooth surface resulted from the replacement of a new, more powerful motor.
The lesson learned from this case is that one must be careful when replacing key components of machines. The consequences of any
replacements must first be thoroughly analysed before the final decisions are made.

Key words: Helical gear failure, rolling contact fatigue, surface pitting, fatigue failure.

1. Introduction Manufacturing errors could be poor machining or

faulty heat treatment of parts or poor gear system
Helical gears are widely used in numerous
assembly [1].
engineering applications including gearboxes.
Rolling contact fatigue which results in surface
Gearboxes are key components of most heavy duty
pitting and eventual fracture is one of the most
machines and are extensively used in steel industry.
common failure modes of mechanical elements that are
Failure of gears not only results in replacement cost but
subjected to rolling contact fatigue loading such as
also in process downtime. This could have a drastic
gears, bearings etc. This type of fatigue is often a key
consequences on productivity and, more importantly, on
factor that governs the service life of such components
delivery which could possibly result in permanent loss
[2]. The complete contact fatigue process starts with
of customers. For example, in this case the ‘downtime’
micro-pit formation followed by crack initiation, crack
was 12 days and 3,840 metric tonnes of steel output was
growth, and the breakaway of surface material layer [3].
lost before the failed helical gear could be replaced.
Damage due to contact fatigue in gear teeth usually
The causes of gear failure are numerous including
occurs in one of three areas; along the pitch line, in the
faulty design, improper applications, and
addendum, and in the dedendum [4]. The pitting
manufacturing errors. Design errors include such
formed on the surface lead to stress concentrations
things as incorrect gear geometry, incorrect material,
which, in turn, lead to crack initiation [5]. Pitting under
poor material quality, and inadequate lubrication
pure rolling can occur even under proper lubrication
system. Application errors include things such as
conditions, since oil, as an incompressible fluid, will
improper mounting and installation, inadequate
merely transmits the contact load [6]. Most gear tooth
cooling, improper lubrication, and poor maintenance.
fatigue failures occur in the tooth root fillet where
Corresponding author: Samroeng Netpu, research fields:
cyclic stress is much less than the yield strength of the
failure analysis and steel rolling. E-mail: material [7]. The fatigue process leading to pitting is
[email protected].
290 Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill

dependent on the material and operating conditions.

However, it is always manifested with the initiation
and propagation of cracks in the near surface layer,
which eventually results in formation of small surface
pits [8]. Gears that are case hardened by carburizing are
the most susceptible to gear tooth failure by breakage
after pitting [9].
This paper aims at identifying the cause of failure of
a helical gear in a gearbox (used in a steel rolling mill
in Thailand). The knowledge gained from this
Fig. 1 Layout of the gearbox and the location of the failed
investigation would help prevent or minimize the gear.
reoccurrence of similar failures in the future.
3. Investigation Procedure
2. Background
The failed gear was first inspected visually then
The failed helical gear was used in a gearbox driving macroscopically using digital camera. Samples of the
the first rolling stand in a hot re-rolling steel mill in material in the vicinity of the fracture of the failed gear
Samutsakorn, Thailand. The steel mill produces steel were taken and metallographic specimens were
re-bars 6 mm to 12 mm diameter with a capacity of 20 prepared for optical and electron microscopy
metric tonnes per hour. The first stand was initially examination, and for microhardness measurement.
designed for rolling steel billets 100 mm × 100 mm Dye-penetrant technique (DPT) was employed to
square × 6 meters long. Due to supply shortage of the enhance visual inspection of the crack and to fully
required billet size, larger 120 mm × 120 mm square reveal the nature of the crack.
steel billets were used as raw materials. In order to Chemical analysis of the gear material was
increase the power required to roll larger steel billets, performed using a spectrolab spectrophotometer
the original 300 kW electric motor was replaced by a (Model: M8, Type: LAVWA 18A). Standard
more powerful 600 kW one. The change in the motor metallographic specimen preparation procedures were
was done without changing the reduction gearbox. The employed.
average current and voltage when rolling 120 mm × Microhardness across of the gear tooth thickness at
120 mm steel billet were 700 amps and 720 volts, the pitch line was measured using a Vickers hardness
respectively. The gearbox failed after approximately tester (Mitutoyo model MVKH1) with a 300 gm load.
15,000 h which was much lower than the expected Microstructures of the specimens were studied, and
working life of 40,000-50,000 h in continuous running micrographs were taken using an optical microscope
conditions [10]. (LECO: IA32-Image analysis system). Fracture surface
The failed helical gear had 69 teeth, with a face samples were cleaned ultrasonically in acetone. The
width of 128 mm. The module of the gear was 8 mm, samples were examined using a JEOL-JSM 5800
helix angle 13 degrees and the pressure angle (  ) 20 scanning electron microscope.
degrees. The gearbox ratio and input shaft revolutions Applied stress was calculated using the data from
were 15.90 and 400 rpm, respectively. The gear was actual operating conditions. Electrical power (Po) was
designed to transmit the mechanical power of 300 kW, calculated using Eq. (1) [11], transmitted torque (T),
and the safety factor used in the design was 1.75. and tangential load (Wt) were calculated using Eqs. (2)
Relevant layout of the gearbox is shown in Fig. 1. and (3) [12].
 Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill 291

Po  Eo I (1)
 9 , 550 Po  (2)
T  
 N 
 T  (3)
Wt   
D /2
where Po is electrical power in kW, Eo is voltage in
volts, I is current in ampere, T is torque in Nm, N is the
shaft speed in rpm, D is pitch diameter of the gear in
mm, and Wt is tangential load in kN.
The contact stress on the gear surface was calculated
using Eq. (4) [13].
Contact stress  c   PH K a K s K m K v (4)
where, σc is contact stress in MPa, PH is maximum
Hertzian contact pressure in Pa, Ka is over load factor,
Ks is stress factor, Km is load distribution factor, and Kv
is dynamic load factor.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Visual Examination

The appearance of the failed helical gear is shown in

Fig. 2. There were two broken teeth as shown in Fig. 2a.
The initial and final stage pitting on the contact side are
shown in Fig. 2b.

4.2 Dye-Penetration Test Fig. 2 Fracture and pitting occurrence in the failed helical
Cracks were observed in the failed gear teeth and gear tooth a) Fractured gear teeth, b) Initial pitting and final
crack origins were in the pitting zones of the gear teeth. pitting.
The cracks originated at the pitting area, then
propagated towards the root circle of the gear as shown
in Fig. 3. Similar crack paths were often observed in
gear fracture in practice.

4.3 Composition Analysis

The average values of the analysis are shown in

Table 1. The composition indicates that the gear was
made from low alloy steel to JIS-SCM 415 standard
[14], commonly and widely used in making gears [15].
This means that proper material was used for making
the gear.

4.4 Hardness Profile

Fig. 3 Dye-Penetration test of the failed gear teeth showing,
The hardness profile of a gear tooth is shown in crack origins, and course of a crack.
292 Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill

Table 1 Chemical compositions of the failed gear and SCM

415 (%wt).
Material Failed gear SCM 415
C 0.146 0.13-0.18
Si 0.212 0.15-0.35
Mn 0.435 0.60-0.85
S 0.006 0.03 (Max)
P 0.010 0.03 (Max)
Cr 1.182 0.90-1.20
Mo 0.183 0.15-0.30

Fig. 4 Microhardness profile of a gear tooth. Fig. 5 Microstructures of a gear tooth (a) Case (tempered
martensite), (b) Core (mixture of pearlite and ferrite).
Fig. 4. The maximum hardness at the outer surface of
the case and the minimum value at the core were found
to be 713.2 HV (60.7 HRC) and 440.5 HV (44.5 HRC),
respectively. The hardness values in Fig. 4 indicates
that the gear had been case hardened by carburizing
which is common practice for gear heat treatment [16].

4.5 Microstructure Examination

The case microstructure was tempered martensite as

shown in Fig. 5a. The core was a mixture of ferrite and
pearlite as shown in Fig. 5b. The microstructures
indicate that the gear was carburized, quenched, and
tempered which is common practice in heat treatment
of gears [16]. No abnormality was found in the
microstructure.

4.6 Gear Tooth Surface Examination

SEM examination of gear tooth surface revealed that Fig. 6 Spalling of gear surface (a) Developing spalls (b)
there were pitting and spalling areas on the active side Spalling.
of the gear tooth, as shown in Fig. 6a, b. The presence
4.7 Fracture Morphology
of extensive sub-surface cracks and spalling at the
active surface side of the gear tooth was an indication Fracture surface of the failed gear is shown in Fig. 7.
that the gear tooth was subjected to very high contact It can be seen that beach marks, which are one of the
stress with a shear component. typical characteristics of fatigue fracture [9], were
 Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill 293

Ref. [13] the allowable contact stress for the gear

material is 1,550 MPa. The calculated contact stress is
about 1.7 times higher than the allowable stress. Such
extremely high stress results in the formation of pitting
and spalling of gear tooth surfaces leading to fatigue
crack.

5. Conclusions and Recommendation

Fig. 7 Fracture surface of the failed gear showing beach (1) The failure of the helical gear was caused by
marks.
excessive contact stress on the surface of the gear teeth.
clearly visible on the fracture surface. The width of the The calculated contact stress is 1.7 times higher than
beach marks are about 44 µm. the allowable contact stress of gear material. This
excessive stress was the result of the replacement of
4.8 Contact Stress Calculation
original electric motor by a more powerful one.
Using Eqs. (1)-(4) and the values in Table 2, the (2) The fracture starts from pitting area at surface of
calculated contact stress (σc) was 2,613 MPa. This a gear tooth followed by fatigue crack initiation, crack
contact stress value is extremely high, far exceed the growth, and final fracture. The pitting occurred as a
allowable contact stress of gear material. According to result of excessive stress.

Table 2 Parameters and values for calculating contact stress.

Parameters Symbol Values Unit
Power, Eo I Po 504 kW
Voltage Eo 700 V
Current I 720 Amp
Diameteral pitch of pinion gear dp 0.156 m
Diameteral pitch of gear dg 0.567 m
Torque T 12.0 kNm
11
Modulus of elasticity E 2.07 × 10 Pa
Tangential load Wt 155.78 kN
Normal load, W t ,   20 
W 165.77 kN
cos 

Effective modulus of elasticity, E ,   0 .3 E´ 2.2747 × 1011 Pa

1   2

sin 
Effective radius,
2 ( 1 / d )
Rx 0.021 m
p )  (1 / d g

Width teeth bw 0.128 m

W
Dimensionless load, W´ 2.711 × 10-4 -
( E R x b w )
0 .5
Maximum Hertzian contact pressure, E   W   PH 1.4945 × 109 Pa
 2 
Application or overload factor Ka 1.75 Table 14.8 Ref. [13]
Size factor Ks 1.15 Table 14.9 Ref. [13]
Load distribution factor Km 1.38
Dynamic factor Kv 1.1
 294 Failure Analysis of a Helical Gear in a Gearbox Used in a Steel Rolling Mill

(3) Modification of existing machines by replacing prevention, american society for metals, Materials Park,
Ohio 11 (1996) 587-601.
critical components must be done with great care.
[7] B. Errichello, J. Muller, How to analyze gear failures,
Thorough analysis of possible consequences must be http:/www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/150/gear-fail
performed in order to avoid failure. ures.html, access on 17/04/11.
[8] S. Suresh, R.O. Ritchie, Propagation of short fatigue
Acknowledgments cracks, International Metals Reviews (1984) 445-476.
[9] D.W. Dudley, Fatigue and Life Prediction of Gear, ASM
The author thanks Dr. P. Chaengkham, the factory
Handbook, Metal Park, American Society for Metals 19
manager of Thachin Steel Co., Ltd, for providing (1996) 872.
information about the history of the failed gear, and [10] Principals of bearing selection and applications, SKF
allowing the publication of this information. General Catalogue, Germany, 2003, p. 87.
[11] C.L. Erickson, B.M. Jones, Electrical and Electronics
Engineering, Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical
References
Engineers, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill, 1987, pp. 15-3.
[1] Elecon Engineering Co., Ltd, Power transmission & Drive [12] S.H. Loewenthal, Shafts, Couplings, Keys, ETC,
Solution, http:/www.elecon.com/gearworld/dat-gw- Mechanical Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
failure.html, access on 10/01/10. [13] B.J. Hamrock, S.R. Schmind, O.B. Jacobson,
[2] K.J. Abhay, V. Diwakar, Metallurgical analysis of failed Fundamentals of Machine Elements, 2nd ed.,
gear, Eng. Fail. Anal. 9 (3) (2002) 359-365. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005, pp. 640, 678.
[3] K.L. Johnson, The strength of surfaces in rolling contact, [14] Ferrous Materials & Metallurgy I, JIS Handbook, Japan
Mech. Eng. Sci. 203 (3) (1989) 151-163. Standards Association, Tokyo, 2002, p. 1304.
[4] A.L. Alban, Systematic Analysis of Gear Failures, 2nd [15] Bangkok Special Steel Co., Ltd: Machinery Steel,
ed., ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, 1985, pp. URL:http://www.bssteel.co.th/product_en. html, access
86-94. on 17/04/11.
[5] P.J.L. Fernandes, Tooth bending fatigue failure in gears, [16] S.K. Lyu, K. Inoue, G. Deng, M. Kato, Effect of surface
Eng. Fail. Anal. 3 (3) (1996) 219-225. treatments on the strength of carburized gears, Mech. Sci.
[6] A.L. Alban, Failure of gears, failure analysis and Tech. 12 (2) (1998) 206-214.

View publication stats