Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Abstract
Recent advances in rolling bearing technology have spawned a urry of activity aimed at reassessing bearing
life prediction algorithms. This has become particularly important for the wind turbine gearbox industry, where
20 years of calculated bearing L10 life is a standard requirement. However, it is a common observation that
numerous, proprietary approaches have evolved to predict bearing life, and these varying methods can provide
signicantly different predictions. In an effort to create an advanced, publicly accessible method of predicting
bearing L10 life that might provide some uniform basis, the Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V. (DIN) has created a
standard utilizing assumptions for what constitutes a typical bearing design, manufacturing process, as well as the
expected damage mechanisms. Validation of the standard was only accomplished to the extent that the member
companies shared test results or comparisons with their prediction algorithms.
To further consider the effectiveness of the DIN algorithms to accurately predict the fatigue life of rolling bearings, this paper compares test data of standard production tapered roller bearings (TRB) from six top manufacturers, including Timken, with the DIN and Timken proprietary algorithms. The test data was selected to include
varying operating conditions in recent test programs; thick and thin lubricant lms, misalignment, variable loading
and debris denting of the raceway surfaces. The results of this investigation show a bearing manufacturers proprietary algorithms, in this case Timken, more accurately predict the actual performance of their products. In fact, the
DIN algorithms tended to over-predict bearing fatigue life for low load and under-predict for debris contaminated
operating conditions.
Introduction
been a large amount of recent activity in the area of predicting bearing performance [1-7]. This has become particularly important for many demanding and highly sophisticated applications, such as the wind turbine gearbox
industry where 20 years of calculated bearing L10 life is a
standard requirement.
All of the tests were conducted in the authors laboratory using a rst-in-four test scheme; See Figure 1. In
this scheme, the center bearings are radially loaded with
a hydraulic cylinder, while the end bearings are loaded
through the reaction with the shaft and housing. The test
is shut down when one bearing has a spall subtending 6
ings are suspended, yielding the L15.91 life for this sample
of four bearings.
methods can vary signicantly causing difculty for engineers selecting bearings, as seemingly identical bearings
can have vastly different predicted lives depending on the
approach used.
In an effort to create an advanced, publicly accessible method of predicting bearing L10 life that might provide some uniform basis, the Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V. (DIN) [5 and 6] has created a standard utilizing
assumptions for what constitutes a typical bearing design,
manufacturing process, as well as the expected damage
mechanisms. As with any standardization activity, validation was only accomplished to the extent that member
companies shared test results or comparisons with their
prediction algorithms. As the DIN 281 Addendum 4 standard is being utilized in a slightly modied fashion for bearing selection within the American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA) Wind Turbine Gearbox standard 6006
[8], an investigation of its accuracy compared to bearing
fatigue test data is desired, and is the aim of this paper.
known for all of the test bearings, as is the case for most
end users, the default proles and nishes built into each
tool were used. The default proles in both algorithms use
some form of a modied (e.g. logarithmic) prole.
ing under a 4448 kN (1000 lb) pure thrust load for 2000
individual bearing test lives within each test set were in-
The nal matrix of selected tests for this study is listed in Table 1. Table 1 represents 48 different sets of bearing tests, consisting of 1228 tapered roller bearings from 6
Figures 2 through 6. Finally, the overall total weighted error (TWE) as dened in [4], Equation 1, was determined for
Timken and the other top manufacturers respectively.
into 5 general categories of operating conditions: thick lubricant lms, thin lubricant lms, misaligned; varied loading and debris.
DPW
(mm)
K Factor
P/C
48
61
1.5
0.41
59
212
1.3
0.46
135
57
212
1.3
0.46
0.02
134
61
212
1.3
0.46
1.3
0.05
142
59
120
1.3
0.42
Through Hardened
1.5
0.09
138
78
61
1.5
0.41
Through Hardened
1.7
0.22
145
46
109
1.4
0.39
Through Hardened
5.0
0.31
148
45
57
1.5
0.41
Through Hardened
1.1
0.18
155
60
50
1.4
0.45
Through Hardened
0.9
0.31
149
43
57
1.5
0.41
11
Through Hardened
1.4
0.31
140
46
52
1.8
0.44
12
Through Hardened
1.0
0.31
139
48
57
1.5
0.41
13
Through Hardened
2.0
0.51
135
46
62
1.1
0.44
14
Through Hardened
1.2
0.37
140
51
70
1.4
0.38
15
Through Hardened
2.7
0.31
133
40
57
1.5
0.41
16
Case Carburized
1.3
0.80
149
46
45
1.4
0.41
17
Through Hardened
1.6
0.51
128
49
62
1.1
0.44
18
Through Hardened
1.2
0.31
147
48
57
1.5
0.41
19
Case Carburized
0.5
0.17
146
79
47
1.4
0.40
20
Case Carburized
0.4
0.00
144
84
109
1.4
0.38
21
Case Carburized
0.5
1.00
150
77
53
1.6
0.37
Case Carburized
0.5
0.07
135
91
120
1.3
0.42
23
Through Hardened
0.5
0.20
149
96
77
1.4
0.41
24
Through Hardened
0.6
0.07
136
88
120
1.3
0.42
25
Through Hardened
1.6
2.00
135
76
61
1.5
0.41
26
Case Carburized
0.8
2.00
136
86
50
1.1
0.39
27
Case Carburized
0.5
2.00
153
86
47
1.1
0.39
28
Case Carburized
2.7
1.80
144
47
56
1.1
0.40
29
Case Carburized
0.6
2.00
146
78
52
1.8
0.40
Through Hardened
2.3
1.00
144
44
53
1.6
0.39
31
Through Hardened
1.7
0.94
147
48
47
1.1
0.42
32
Through Hardened
2.1
1.21
126
48
56
1.1
0.45
33
Through Hardened
1.7
0.95
152
48
50
1.1
0.44
34
Case Carburized
3.0
1.09
141
43
39
1.6
0.40
35
Case Carburized
0.7
0.94
175
82
63
1.7
0.39
36
Case Carburized
0.7
0.47
170
68
63
1.7
0.20
37
Case Carburized
0.7
0.38
140
67
63
1.7
0.16
38
Case Carburized
0.9
0.90
175
83
43
1.7
0.39
39
Case Carburized
0.9
0.45
165
57
43
1.7
0.20
Heat Treatment
Ratio
Through Hardened
3.7
0.09
135
Case Carburized
1.6
0.02
130
Case Carburized
2.2
0.02
Case Carburized
1.4
Case Carburized
Test Set
10
22
30
40
Thick Film
Thin Film
Misaligned
Case Carburized
0.7
0.18
130
89
94
1.3
0.62
41
Case Carburized
0.7
0.10
130
82
94
1.3
0.36
42
Case Carburized
0.7
0.06
120
74
94
1.3
0.21
43
Case Carburized
0.7
0.04
120
66
94
1.3
0.15
44
Case Carburized
0.4
0.12
150
86
94
1.3
0.41
45
Case Carburized
0.9
0.06
135
68
94
1.3
0.21
46
Case Carburized
1.7
0.51
119
78
62
1.1
0.39
Through Hardened
1.8
0.51
148
56
62
1.1
0.39
Through Hardened
1.3
0.51
151
84
62
1.1
0.39
47
48
Varied Load
Average Cup
Temperature (C)
Debris
3.00
2.50
1.00
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
1.25
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1.00
0.00
Timken
Catalog
Timken
Advanced
DIN 281.1
DIN 281.4
Timken
Catalog
1.75
7.00
1.50
6.00
1.25
5.00
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
DIN 281.1
DIN 281.4
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Timken
Catalog
Timken
Advanced
DIN 281.1
0.00
DIN 281.4
Timken
Catalog
Timken
Advanced
DIN 281.1
DIN 281.4
1.25
1.25
Timken Advanced
DIN 281.4
1.00
Total Weighted Error
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
Timken
Advanced
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
1.50
0.50
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
2.00
Timken
Catalog
Timken
Advanced
DIN 281.1
DIN 281.4
0.00
Timken
Bearings
Other Manufacturers
Bearings
Discussion of Results
these tests are conservative. The test misalignment values varied between 0.94 to 2.00 mrad, while most cata-
dictions were by 57.2% for the DIN 281.1 and 29.7% for
for the DIN 281.1 and 46.1% for the Timken catalog at
the loads are light [9]; See Figure 8D. The DIN algorithms
The misaligned results indicate a general underestimation for all analysis methods. The simple methods do
not consider the geometric stress concentration (GSC)
damage mode, Figure 8C, which is typical of misalignment. This leads to an assumption that the test results
had other factors causing this under-prediction. In fact,
most of the tests also had thick lm conditions occurring, which led to a general under-prediction in the results
in Figure 2. The advanced methods, for this condition,
also under-predict the test results. As the thick lm results were accurate for these methods, it appears their
consideration for the extreme values of misalignment in
ic capacity based on one million cycles (P/C). The Timken advanced method is close to one for all relative load
levels, while the DIN 281.4 factor tended to increasingly
over-predict with decreasing load ratio. In relation to the
AGMA standard, the lowered limit of the maximum effective life factor was not a consideration, as all of the values
were below 10. Thus, the AGMA standard is identical to
the DIN 281.4 in these conditions.
A) INCLUSION
B) PSO
C) GSC
D) PEELING
7
Timken Advanced
DIN 281.4
6
L15.91-Predicted / L15.91-Test
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
P/C
FIGURE 9. LIFE PREDICTION RATIOS VS. LOAD RATIO
in the results, was expected. The Timken advanced algorithm utilized Debris Signature AnalysisSM (DSA) [1, 2
and 10], so the dent geometries associated with the size,
shape and type of debris were considered. Using this
methodology, the 90% condence bands overlapped unity. The DIN methods, however, both under-predict the
debris damaged test results by 48.5% for DIN 281.1 and
31.0% for DIN281.4 at the upper value of the 90% condence band. The ISO 4406 cleanliness levels were created for hydraulic uids to prevent erosive and abrasive
damage. As such, they do not effectively account for the
different types of debris materials (e.g. hard ductile, soft
ductile or hard brittle) that can occur in a bearing system
[2 and 9]. Thus, to best handle the different types of bear-
Overall TWE are shown in Figure 7 for Timken advanced algorithms and DIN 281.4 predicting fatigue performance for Timken products and the other top manufacturers respectively. As can be seen, the Timken algorithm
predicts fatigue performance for Timken products much
better than the DIN 281.4 standard. However, the DIN
281.4 methodology predicts the fatigue performance of
the other top manufacturers product better than the Timken algorithms. This should be expected, as each manufacturer has inherently included the steel specications,
manufacturing processes and design attributes associated to their products built into their prediction methodologies. As such, Timken algorithms predict the fatigue
products.
5. DIN ISO 281 Beiblatt 1 (April, 2003), Rolling Bearings - Dynamic Load Ratings and Rating Life - Life Modi-
Conclusions
The overall TWE comparison for the 48 different test
groups shows that Timken algorithms are better at predicting fatigue for Timken products, and the DIN standard
was only slightly better at predicting fatigue for the remaining top manufacturers. Also, when considering each
References
10. Nixon, H., Ai, X., Cogdell, J., and Fox, G. (1999),
197-204.
2. Ai, X, and Nixon, H. (2000), Fatigue Life Reduction of Roller Bearings due to Debris Denting: Part II Experimental Validation, Tribology Transactions, v. 43, n. 2,
pp. 311-7.
3. Harris, T., and McCool, J. (1996), On the Accuracy
of Rolling Bearing Fatigue Life Prediction, Transactions of
the ASME, Journal of Tribology, v.118, n. 2, pp. 297-310.
NOTES