Author: Site Editor Publish Time: 10-09-2025 Origin: Site
The difference in efficiency between cylindrical gear reducers and planetary gear reducers is mainly reflected in three aspects: transmission structure, power loss, and application scenarios. The specific comparisons are as follows:
Cylindrical gear reducer
Efficiency range : Single-stage transmission efficiency can reach 98%-99% (straight-tooth cylindrical gears are minimal due to line contact friction), and the multi-stage transmission efficiency is gradually reduced (such as the double-stage efficiency is about 94%-96%)
Source of loss : Mainly due to gear meshing friction and bearing resistance, the helical gear efficiency is slightly lower than that of spur gears (97%-98%)
Planetary gear reducer
Efficiency range : usually 85%-95% , due to the multi-gear meshing shunt power, the energy loss is large
Source of loss : complex meshing between planetary wheels and sun gears/rings, bearing friction and lubrication resistance
Structural Complexity
The cylindrical gear reducer has a simple structure, a direct single-stage transmission path, and low friction loss
Planetary gear reducers need multiple gears to work together, and power shunts lead to energy dispersion loss
Processing Accuracy Requirements
Planetary gears require high-precision grinding teeth (meshing accuracy ≤0.005mm) to reduce vibration losses, but the processing cost is high
Cylindrical gears have relatively low accuracy requirements, and ordinary gear hobbing can meet the needs
Preferential cylindrical gear reducer
Scenarios where are required and space allowshigh efficiency (such as conveyors, mixers)
Single-stage transmission ratio 3-5, multi-stage can reach more than 100 (but the volume is increased)
Preferential planetary gear reducer
Requires compact structure (30%-50% small size) or high torque density (such as robot joints, wind power equipment)
Sacrifice part of the efficiency for space and carrying capacity advantages
Lugraining impact : Both efficiency is affected by lubrication conditions. It is recommended to use L-CKD 320 lubricating oil to reduce friction loss.
Noise comparison : Planetary gears are usually loaded with multiple wheels, and the noise is usually lower than 65dB, which is better than cylindrical gears (75-85dB)
How to judge whether a ZD30-4.5-I soft tooth surface reducer needs to be modified
What are the risks in modifying the ZD40-3.55-I soft tooth surface gear reducer?
What is the normal service life of the WPWDK135-60-A worm gear reducer bearings?
What types of cooling devices are used in the arc gear reducer lubrication and cooling system?
How to correctly install the clamping ring of P2SA29 planetary reducer
How to judge the installation conditions of P2SA30 planetary reducer
How to choose the motor model of WHC120-40-3 worm gear reducer
How to adjust the level of the motor and ZDY160-2-11 reducer
How to maintain the cooling system of ZSC750-34.4-1 gear reducer
What are the characteristics of the oil pool design of ZSC350-17.2-2 gear reducer?
What impact does drying method have on the life of DBY180-6 reducer?
How to optimize the WPDA60-20-0.37KW worm gear reducer lubrication system to reduce vibration
Introduce the working principle of YCJ132-2.2KW -171 reducer
What are the steps to replace the cycloid wheel of BLY reducer?
How to judge whether the abnormal meshing of the worm gear of the reducer is serious
Will oil leakage of P series planetary reducer affect its performance?
How to prevent P series planetary reducer from leaking oil again
How to reduce the vibration value of the NGW52-6 planetary gear reducer base
What are the testing tools for the vibration value of the NGW61-3.15 planetary gear reducer frame?
What are the materials of NGW113-500 planetary gear reducer?
What are the preventive measures for cracking of the NGW11-6.3 planetary gear reducer base?
How to reduce the vibration parameters of WPO80-20-B worm gear reducer
What impact does load stability have on the service life of the WPO60-30-A worm gear reducer?