AMR GearboxAMRGearbox
Hybrid Tool + Evidence Report

2 Stage Spur Gear Gearbox Supplier: Screening Checker + Evidence-Bound Decision Guide

Run an immediately usable two-stage sizing screen, then move through evidence-backed boundaries, trade-offs, and RFQ actions in one page. This URL is intentionally tool-first and decision-focused.

Run CheckerView Sources
Evidence pack: 10 traceable sources. Last evidence refresh: 2026-05-04. Core references include ISO, AGMA/MPMA, NIST, eCFR, EIA, and current supplier technical pages.

Tool Layer: Two-Stage Screening Input

Deterministic pre-RFQ checker with explicit boundary logic and uncertainty disclosure.

Input Block
Defaults use an industrial screening baseline. Adjust to your duty profile before running.
Hard boundaries: motor ≤ 3600 rpm, output speed within 5-700 rpm, torque ≤ 5000 Nm, duty ≤ 24 h/day, total ratio ≤ 300:1, and per-stage efficiency within 85-99.9%. Outside this range the tool enters boundary mode and recommends an alternate path.
Result Block
Output is always accompanied by interpretation, boundary state, and next action.
Empty state: run the checker to generate ratio split, loss estimate, risk grade, and RFQ action path.

Key Conclusions With Traceable Evidence

Two-stage windows are broad but not unlimited.
Updated: 2026-05-04

Public vendor data for industrial parallel-axis families shows two-/three-stage products commonly cover wide ratio windows (for example i up to 289.74 in one family), but extreme reductions may require compound or alternate architectures.

Boundary: This is a product-family reference, not a universal market maximum for all suppliers or all spur-only designs.

Sources: S5

Every added stage usually costs efficiency.
Updated: 2026-05-04

A current industrial benchmark reports roughly 98% (1-stage), 97% (2-stage), and 96% (3-stage), so stage count changes OPEX and thermal load, not only ratio availability.

Boundary: These values are directional benchmarks from one manufacturer context; final RFQ decisions need model-level test definitions.

Sources: S4

Strength calculations are necessary but insufficient.
Updated: 2026-05-04

ISO 6336 and AGMA 2101 are rating frameworks for pitting/bending capacity and factor handling; they do not by themselves validate assembled drivetrain behavior in your exact duty profile.

Boundary: Thermal, NVH, lubrication, and system integration still require supplier test data and acceptance criteria.

Sources: S1, S3

Tolerance and backlash claims need explicit test language.
Updated: 2026-05-04

Supplier “precision” statements should be tied to flank tolerance class terminology and backlash measurement method, not just marketing labels.

Boundary: Cross-supplier comparisons are weak if class definitions, temperature state, and load state are missing.

Sources: S2, S5

Energy-price assumptions materially change total-cost ranking.
Updated: 2026-05-04

Current EIA references show U.S. industrial electricity at 8.95 cents/kWh (2026-02 monthly) versus 8.62 cents/kWh (2025 annual average), so the same loss power maps to materially different annual cost outcomes.

Boundary: Energy price is location- and contract-dependent; this checker is a screening estimate, not a financial guarantee.

Sources: S8, S9

Method, Boundaries, And Open Data Gaps

Method Snapshot
Screening formulae are explicit; final acceptance is supplier-test driven.

1. Total ratio i = motor rpm / output rpm.

2. Stage split estimate uses √i for quick two-stage distribution.

3. Output power uses P(kW)=T(Nm)×n(rpm)/9550.

4. Total efficiency estimate multiplies per-stage efficiency assumptions.

5. Annual loss cost = loss power × duty × 365 × electricity price.

This method intentionally avoids fake precision: where public evidence is weak, outputs are labeled as screening-only and escalated to verification tasks.

Boundary And Caveat Table
QuestionKnown from sourcesWhat you still must verify
Strength calculation methodISO 6336 / AGMA 2101 are core rating frameworks.Assembly-level thermal/NVH and application factors.
Two-stage ratio and structure availabilityPublic product families show broad two-/three-stage windows.Your target ratio, footprint, and gearbox envelope compatibility.
EfficiencyCurrent benchmark example: 98/97/96 by stage count.Supplier-specific test method and load-point curve.
Life and reliabilityISO 281 defines 90% reliability basic rating life basis.Bearing selection details, lubricant contamination, duty transients.
Open Gap Register (Do Not Fabricate)
Evidence-deficient items are explicitly labeled and linked to minimal executable actions.
TopicStatusImpactMinimum action
Cross-brand two-stage spur efficiency distribution (same test method)待确认（暂无统一公开数据库）如果直接横向比目录效率，容易把测试口径差异当成产品差异，导致选型偏差。在 RFQ 中强制要求：测试工况、效率测点、油温、负载区间、测量不确定度。
细分行业的公开失效率/返修率（按齿轮级数）暂无可靠公开数据无法用公开均值直接预测你的项目故障概率。改为索取供应商历史失效模式、8D 案例、保内返修口径与样本量。
供应商交付周期公开样本（按地区与规格）待确认（公开样本不足）采购排期风险难以在公开数据层面准确量化。把最晚可交付日写入询价条款，并在首样、试产、量产三个阶段分别锁交期。

Comparison And Risk Trade-offs

Architecture Comparison
Use this table to avoid “single-metric” supplier decisions.
OptionUseful ratio windowEfficiency referenceStrongest use caseMain riskEvidence status
Two-stage spur/helical parallel-axis常见中高比速，常见公开窗口可到 i≈289.74（具体系列）约 97%（阶段基准示例）希望在效率、结构复杂度、成本之间保持均衡。如果工况边界未定义，供应商间参数不可比。有公开产品族数据，但跨品牌同口径数据不足。
Three-stage spur/helical更高总体减速比，适合低速高扭输出方向约 96%（阶段基准示例）当两级方案在比例或热负载上不能同时满足。额外级数带来效率与热管理压力。有公开阶段效率基准，仍需型号级确认。
Worm-dominant architecture单级可获得较高减速比（取决于系列）公开资料差异较大，需型号测得数据空间受限且对自锁行为有明确工程需求。热损失和润滑窗口可能成为主风险。公开数据分散，跨品牌口径一致性弱。
Planetary hybrid path在高比速与高功率密度需求场景常见取决于级数与结构，需供应商曲线当体积约束与扭矩密度优先级更高。采购成本与制造公差控制要求更高。可获得产品资料，统一试验对比仍不足。
Risk Matrix
Low impactHigh impactMed probabilityHigh probabilityProbability →Impact →
Risk Cards

边界误用风险

High/High

把筛选工具结果直接当最终采购结论，未做热、噪声、寿命验证。

Mitigation: 把本页结果限定为 pre-RFQ 过滤，并强制进入验证矩阵。

成本错配风险

High/Medium

只比较采购单价，不比较损耗电费与维护窗口。

Mitigation: 用月度电价基线计算损耗成本，并做年度敏感性区间。

场景失配风险

Medium/Medium

高冲击工况沿用轻载参数，导致服务系数不足。

Mitigation: 在 RFQ 明确冲击等级、工作制和服务系数来源。

证据口径风险

High/Medium

效率、背隙、寿命指标来自不同温度/负载/测试定义，横向对比失真。

Mitigation: 所有核心指标附带测试方法和边界条件，不满足则判为不可比。

Decision Handoff And Related Engineering Pages

Keep this page as the canonical screening entry, then move to RFQ actions and adjacent architecture pages for full feasibility closure.

Move To RFQ ChecklistContact Engineering
Related Pages
Use semantic internal links to keep procurement decisions in one connected cluster.

3 stage spur gearbox checker for when two stages cannot meet the ratio, thermal, or pinion-strength limit

3 stage spur gear gearbox supplier screening checker for high-ratio sourcing decisions

Worm gearbox boundary checker (1:1 alias handling)

Bevel gearbox fit page for right-angle trade-offs

Brushless motor with gearbox sizing and risk controls

Scenario Demonstrations

Scenario A: 1500 rpm motor, 60 rpm output, 220 Nm

Assumptions: 服务系数 1.35，2-stage efficiency 97%，16 h/day，工业电价 8.95 c/kWh。

Process: 总比速 i=25，按两级近似均分，每级约 5:1。

Result: 可形成可执行供应商筛选输入，但仍需热平衡与背隙试验闭环。

Scenario B: ratio target above 300

Assumptions: 同等功率下尝试两级覆盖超高总比速。

Process: 工具触发边界态，提示需要三级或混合结构复核。

Result: 避免把超边界结果误用为可直接下单的方案。

Scenario C: two suppliers with equal torque rating

Assumptions: 名义扭矩相同，但测试口径未披露。

Process: 风险区标记为“不可比”，并给出最小补数清单。

Result: 把争议从价格拉回到证据完整性与风险可控性。

FAQ: Decision Questions

Intent And Scope

Technical Decisions

Procurement And Risk

Action Layer: Minimum RFQ Checklist

Must-have technical pack

1. Continuous torque and efficiency curves with declared test method.

2. Thermal boundaries (oil temperature, housing temperature, duty definition).

3. Backlash/tolerance class with measurement condition and acceptance method.

4. Bearing-life evidence and lubrication assumptions tied to duty cycle.

Commercial and risk clauses

1. Separate lead time commitments for sample, pilot, and production lots.

2. Warranty and failure-mode reporting scope with data cut definition.

3. Non-conformance workflow and response SLA (8D or equivalent).

4. Change-control obligation for material, process, or tolerance updates.

Sources And Verification Timestamps

Core conclusions are linked to traceable sources. If evidence is weak or unavailable, the page labels it as “待确认/暂无可靠公开数据” instead of inventing certainty. Review cadence: every 6 months or earlier when standards/data are updated.

[S1] ISO 6336-1:2019 Calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears
ISO · Published: 2019-11 (confirmed current in 2025) · Verified: 2026-05-04

ISO 6336 is a rating method for spur/helical gears, not a guarantee of assembled drive-system performance.

https://www.iso.org/standard/63819.html
[S2] ISO 1328-1:2013 Cylindrical gears — flank tolerance classification
ISO · Published: 2013-09 (confirmed current in 2024) · Verified: 2026-05-04

Defines tolerance class structure and allowable flank deviation values for cylindrical involute gears.

https://www.iso.org/standard/45309.html
[S3] MPMA Technical Publications Catalog (ANSI/AGMA 2101-E25 listing)
MPMA / AGMA · Published: 2026-03 · Verified: 2026-05-04

Lists ANSI/AGMA 2101-E25 (published 2025-07-31) and records ANSI/AGMA 2001-D04 as replaced by 2101-E25.

https://www.agma.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/MPMA_Publications_Catalog.pdf
[S4] SEW-EURODRIVE R/F/K gear units efficiency by stage count
SEW-EURODRIVE · Published: Edition 02/2026 · Verified: 2026-05-04

Shows stage-dependent gearing efficiency benchmark: 98% (1-stage), 97% (2-stage), 96% (3-stage).

https://download.sew-eurodrive.com/download/html/33346739/en-EN/891277287548168610059.html
[S5] SEW R series helical gear units: ratio range and stage variants
SEW-EURODRIVE · Published: Page snapshot accessed 2026-05-04 · Verified: 2026-05-04

Documents 6 single-stage and 15 two-/three-stage sizes, i=1.30–289.74, and reduced-backlash availability.

https://www.sew-eurodrive.com.co/products/gear_units/standard_gear_units/helical_gear_units_r/helical_gear_units_r.html
[S6] NIST SI Appendix B.8 conversion factors
NIST · Published: NIST SP 811 Appendix B.8 · Verified: 2026-05-04

Gives horsepower conversion used in sizing checks: 1 hp = 745.6999 W.

https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-811/nist-guide-si-appendix-b-conversion-factors/nist-guide-si-appendix-b8
[S7] 29 CFR 1910.95 Occupational noise exposure
eCFR / U.S. Department of Labor · Published: Current eCFR (up to date as of 2026-04-30) · Verified: 2026-05-04

Provides enforceable thresholds used in plant risk reviews: Table G-16 (90 dBA at 8 h) and 85 dBA action level.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-G/section-1910.95
[S8] EIA Electric Power Monthly Table 5.6.A (average electricity price by sector)
U.S. Energy Information Administration · Published: Data month: 2026-02 · Verified: 2026-05-04

Reports U.S. industrial electricity price at 8.95 cents/kWh for February 2026 (release date 2026-04-23).

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
[S9] EIA Electric Power Monthly Table 5.3 (U.S. average electricity price by sector)
U.S. Energy Information Administration · Published: Data through 2026-02 (release 2026-04-23) · Verified: 2026-05-04

Shows U.S. industrial average electricity price at 8.62 cents/kWh (2025 annual value) and 8.95 cents/kWh (February 2026 monthly value).

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_5_03
[S10] ISO 281:2007 Rolling bearings — Dynamic load ratings and rating life
ISO · Published: 2007-02 (confirmed current in 2021) · Verified: 2026-05-04

Defines basic rating life at 90% reliability and scope boundaries, relevant for supplier bearing-life evidence requests.

https://www.iso.org/standard/38102.html
Conclusion-to-Source Map

C1. Two-stage windows are broad but not unlimited.

S5

C2. Every added stage usually costs efficiency.

S4

C3. Strength calculations are necessary but insufficient.

S1S3

C4. Tolerance and backlash claims need explicit test language.

S2S5

C5. Energy-price assumptions materially change total-cost ranking.

S8S9

Final Step: Start Supplier Validation

Keep this result as screening evidence, then launch RFQ validation with thermal, backlash, lifecycle, and delivery commitments.

Start RFQ ValidationTalk To Engineering

This page is an engineering screening aid, not legal/compliance advice and not a substitute for supplier validation. For safety-critical or regulated deployments, escalate to certified design review and machine-level risk assessment.