NASA NTRS2015
This is the final of three reports published on the results of this project. In the first report, results were presented on nineteen tests performed in the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Test Rig on spiral bevel gear sets designed to simulate helicopter fielded failures. In the second report, fielded helicopter HUMS data from forty helicopters were processed with the same techniques that were applied to spiral bevel rig test data. Twenty of the forty helicopters experienced damage to the spiral bevel gears, while the other twenty helicopters had no known anomalies within the time frame of the datasets. In this report, results from the rig and helicopter data analysis will be compared for differences and similarities in condition indicator (CI) response. Observations and findings using sub-scale rig failure progression tests to validate helicopter gear condition indicators will be presented. In the helicopter, gear health monitoring data was measured when damage occurred and after the gear sets were replaced at two helicopter regimes. For the helicopters or tails, data was taken in the flat pitch ground 101 rotor speed (FPG101) regime. For nine tails, data was also taken at 120 knots true airspeed (120KTA) regime. In the test rig, gear sets were tested until damage initiated and progressed while gear health monitoring data and operational parameters were measured and tooth damage progression documented. For the rig tests, the gear speed was maintained at 3500RPM, a one hour run-in was performed at 4000 in-lb gear torque, than the torque was increased to 8000 in-lbs. The HUMS gear condition indicator data evaluated included Figure of Merit 4 (FM4), Root Mean Square (RMS) or Diagnostic Algorithm 1(DA1), + 3 Sideband Index (SI3) and + 1 Sideband Index (SI1). These were selected based on their sensitivity in detecting contact fatigue damage modes from analytical, experimental and historical helicopter data. For this report, the helicopter dataset was reduced to fourteen tails and the test rig data set was reduced to eight tested gear sets. The damage modes compared were separated into three cases. For case one, both the gear and pinion showed signs of contact fatigue or scuffing damage. For case two, only the pinion showed signs of contact fatigue damage or scuffing. Case three was limited to the gear tests when scuffing occurred immediately after the gear run-in. Results of this investigation highlighted the importance of understanding the complete monitored systems, for both the helicopter and test rig, before interpreting health monitoring data. Further work is required to better define these two systems that include better state awareness of the fielded systems, new sensing technologies, new experimental methods or models that quantify the effect of system design on CI response and new methods for setting thresholds that take into consideration the variance of each system.