ALBERT

Description: Tests were performed on two spiral bevel gear sets in the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Test Rig to simulate the fielded failures of spiral bevel gears installed in a helicopter. Gear sets were tested until damage initiated and progressed on two or more gear or pinion teeth. During testing, gear health monitoring data was collected with two different health monitoring systems. Operational parameters were measured with a third data acquisition system. Tooth damage progression was documented with photographs taken at inspection intervals throughout the test. A software tool was developed for fusing the operational data and the vibration based gear condition indicator (CI) data collected from the two health monitoring systems. Results of this study illustrate the benefits of combining the data from all three systems to indicate progression of damage for spiral bevel gears. The tool also enabled evaluation of the effectiveness of each CI with respect to operational conditions and fault mode.

Description: This paper details analyses of condition indicator performance for the helicopter nose gearbox within the U.S. Army's Condition-Based Maintenance Program. Ten nose gearbox data sets underwent two specific analyses. A mean condition indicator level analysis was performed where condition indicator performance was based on a 'batting average' measured before and after part replacement. Two specific condition indicators, Diagnostic Algorithm 1 and Sideband Index, were found to perform well for the data sets studied. A condition indicator versus gear wear analysis was also performed, where gear wear photographs and descriptions from Army tear-down analyses were categorized based on ANSI/AGMA 1010-E95 standards. Seven nose gearbox data sets were analyzed and correlated with condition indicators Diagnostic Algorithm 1 and Sideband Index. Both were found to be most responsive to gear wear cases of micropitting and spalling. Input pinion nose gear box condition indicators were found to be more responsive to part replacement during overhaul than their corresponding output gear nose gear box condition indicators.

Description: This report presents the analysis of gear condition indicator data collected on a helicopter when damage occurred in spiral bevel gears. The purpose of the data analysis was to use existing in-service helicopter HUMS flight data from faulted spiral bevel gears as a Case Study, to better understand the differences between HUMS data response in a helicopter and a component test rig, the NASA Glenn Spiral Bevel Gear Fatigue Rig. The reason spiral bevel gear sets were chosen to demonstrate differences in response between both systems was the availability of the helicopter data and the availability of a test rig that was capable of testing spiral bevel gear sets to failure. The objective of the analysis presented in this paper was to re-process helicopter HUMS data with the same analysis techniques applied to the spiral bevel rig test data. The damage modes experienced in the field were mapped to the failure modes created in the test rig. A total of forty helicopters were evaluated. Twenty helicopters, or tails, experienced damage to the spiral bevel gears in the nose gearbox. Vibration based gear condition indicators data was available before and after replacement. The other twenty tails had no known anomalies in the nose gearbox within the time frame of the datasets. These twenty tails were considered the baseline dataset. The HUMS gear condition indicators evaluated included gear condition indicators (CI) Figure of Merit 4 (FM4), Root Mean Square (RMS) or Diagnostic Algorithm 1 (DA1) and +/- 3 Sideband Index (SI3). Three additional condition indicators, not currently calculated on-board, were calculated from the archived data. These three indicators were +/- 1 Sideband Index (SI1), the DA1 of the difference signal (DiffDA1) and the peak-to-peak of the difference signal (DP2P). Results found the CI DP2P, not currently available in the on-board HUMS, performed the best, responding to varying levels of damage on thirteen of the fourteen helicopters evaluated. Two additional CIs also not in the on-board system, DiffDA1and SI1, also performed well responding to twelve and ten of the fourteen helicopters evaluated respectively. Of the three CIs currently available in the MSPU, DA1, FM4 and SI3, SI3, responded to eight, DA1 responded to six and FM4 responded to four of the fourteen helicopters evaluated. FM4, the poorest performing CI, was not as responsive to damage as the other five CIs. Conversely, when compared to the other two, it was the only CI that responded to damage on two helicopters. CI response could not be correlated to specific failure modes due to limited pictures and subjective descriptions found within the TDA. Flight regime did affect CI response to some gear faults. Due to the range of operating conditions for each regime, more studies are required to determine their sensitivity to regimes.

Description: The U.S. Army is currently expanding its fleet of Health Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) equipped aircraft at significant rates, to now include over 1,000 rotorcraft. Two different on-board HUMS, the Honeywell Modern Signal Processing Unit (MSPU) and the Goodrich Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS), are collecting vibration health data on aircraft that include the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, and Kiowa Warrior. The objective of this paper is to recommend the most effective gear condition indicators for fleet use based on both a theoretical foundation and field data. Gear diagnostics with better performance will be recommended based on both a theoretical foundation and results of in-fleet use. In order to evaluate the gear condition indicator performance on rotorcraft fleets, results of more than five years of health monitoring for gear faults in the entire HUMS equipped Army helicopter fleet will be presented. More than ten examples of gear faults indicated by the gear CI have been compiled and each reviewed for accuracy. False alarms indications will also be discussed. Performance data from test rigs and seeded fault tests will also be presented. The results of the fleet analysis will be discussed, and a performance metric assigned to each of the competing algorithms. Gear fault diagnostic algorithms that are compliant with ADS-79A will be recommended for future use and development. The performance of gear algorithms used in the commercial units and the effectiveness of the gear CI as a fault identifier will be assessed using the criteria outlined in the standards in ADS-79A-HDBK, an Army handbook that outlines the conversion from Reliability Centered Maintenance to the On-Condition status of Condition Based Maintenance.