All
The Old AGMA 2000-A88 is a withdrawn standard by AGMA. It has been replaced by AGMA 2015-1 for elemental inspection and AGMA 2015-2 for composite inspection.
Just because AGMA has withdrawn 2000-A88 does not mean that it cannot be used or cited. In fact, AGMA will still sell the standard to those requesting it.
However, to be clear, AGMA 2015-1 or -2 is not a "latest revision" to 2000-A88. 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 2000-A88. Note - stating simply AGMA Class "10" for example is ambiguous becasue it does not identify the applicable standard to be used.
As was stated in an earlier post, use of AGMA 2000-A88 allows for EITHER elemental OR composite inspection but does not require both.
By the same token, AGMA 2015-1 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 2015-2 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 2000-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. i.e. some tolerances may be easier to achieve for Q10 than others. 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 2015 standards. For example in 2015-2, 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 2015-1, 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.
On top of this, there is also absolutely no co-relation between for example a A7 quality class in AGMA 2015-1 and a C7 quality class of AGMA 2015-2.
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. You can specify C9 for Total Composite Error and C11 for Tooth to tooth composite error and A7 for profile slope error.
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..why have a standard at all if the standard has no co-relation between the tolerances. 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 2015-1 and -2 standards. If enough people complain - you will be heard.
