Design Optimization of Rolling Element

Bearings Using Advanced Optimization

Technique

R. D. Dandagwhal & V. D. Kalyankar

Arabian Journal for Science and

Engineering

ISSN 2193-567X
Volume 44
Number 9

Arab J Sci Eng (2019) 44:7407-7422

DOI 10.1007/s13369-019-03767-0

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by King Fahd
University of Petroleum & Minerals. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-03767-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Design Optimization of Rolling Element Bearings Using Advanced

Optimization Technique
R. D. Dandagwhal1 · V. D. Kalyankar2

Received: 10 May 2017 / Accepted: 5 February 2019 / Published online: 22 February 2019
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2019

Abstract
This article concentrates on optimization of fatigue life, i.e., dynamic capacity of rolling element bearings by using a novel
optimization approach known as Teaching–Learning-Based optimization. The optimization technique is applied to two cases
of bearing, i.e., deep groove ball bearing and cylindrical roller bearing, by considering a large number of bearings and their
associated constraints. The chosen problems involve around 9 design variables and the optimized result obtained shows
considerable improvement over the previous results, standard catalogues and handbooks. Efforts are also made to validate
the obtained results using finite element analysis approach and the simulated results of contact stress and deformation at
the contact between inner race and roller are found in close agreement with the obtained optimum results. Thus, this article
proves good applicability of proposed optimization approach in bearing design which will be useful to the on field designers
to improve the performance of bearings.

Keywords Deep groove ball bearing · Cylindrical roller bearing · Dynamic capacity · TLBO algorithm · Optimization

List of symbols φ0 Maximum tolerable assembly angle

D Outer diameter of bearing r1 Outer ring chamfering height
d Bore diameter of bearing r2 Outer ring chamfer width
B Width of bearing r3 Inner ring chamfer height
Dm Pitch diameter r4 Inner ring chamfer width
Db Ball diameter le Effective length of roller
fi The inner and outer raceway curva- Dr Mean diameter of the roller
ture radius coefficient λ Reduction factor,
fo The inner and outer raceway curva- ν Factor to account for edge loading
ture radius coefficient bm Factor to put up improvements in
Z Number of rolling elements geometrical accuracies
Cd Dynamic load rating γ Ratio of diameter of rolling ele-
∝ Contact angle ment and pitch diameter
L Life of the bearing d Number of design variables
a Constant defined by Lundberg–Pal- Nn Population size
mgren [2] m1, m2, . . . , mn Mean of population column wise
K D min , K D max , ε, e, β Constraints to basic design vari- TF Teacher factor
ables [9]

B R. D. Dandagwhal 1 Introduction
dandgwhalpes@gmail.com
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, MPSTME, NMIMS, Rolling element bearings (REB) are expansively worn in
Shirpur, India high-speed operations, almost in all industrial sectors. Due to
2 Mechanical Engineering Department, S.V. National Institute their nonlinear, statistically indeterminate behavior, design
of Technology, Surat, India of REB has great importance in all global industries. Any

123
 Author's personal copy
7408
critical failure of it should not only affect on the overall
system efficiency, but also its steadfastness, safety, avail-
ability and overall cost of the system. To withstand the
competitiveness, higher fatigue life is desirable for REB. The
fatigue life is directly proportional with dynamic capacity of
the bearing. For the enhancement of operating life of the
bearing, it is necessary to optimize the internal design vari-
ables of bearing. As the bearing has a complex structure, a
large number of design variables and constraints have been
involved in it. This makes design optimization of the bear-
ing a dedicated job to solve by conventional optimization
method [1].
The term rolling element includes that bearing in which
load is carried out and transferred by rolling element. These
are widely popular due to its important properties like low
starting torque, low kinetic friction, higher stiffness and the
widest available range of load, speed and operating tem-
peratures [2]. A whole unit of the bearings includes inner
ring, outer ring, rolling element and the cage which form a
statically indeterminate system. The bearing, which gener-
ally has several load-transmitting rolling elements, is itself
also a high-grade statically indeterminate spring system [3].
With a minimum friction, a bearing can sense two require-
ments, i.e., supports the load and allows relative motion
between two parts, like in the shaft and the housing [4].
The complexity involved in the loading mechanism of the
bearings is due to the presence of local defects, and to pre-
vent long-term breakdowns or catastrophic failures, it is very
necessary to detect a defect at its initial stage [5]. Accord-
ing to Yang et al. [6], bearing malfunctioning is broadly
responsible for many losses in rotational mechanical com-
ponents. In another study, Mehrjou et al. [7] claimed that
the malfunctions for induction motors are about 40% bear-
ing generated. Hence, optimization of the design variables
of bearings plays a very important role to overcome the said
troubles.
Design of REB is a nonlinear optimization problem with
associated constraints [4]. In the literature, few articles are
reported showing the use of few optimization techniques for
different types of bearings and most of the relevant literatures
among those are summarized here. Choi and Yoon [8] opti-
mized design variables for double row angular contact ball
bearings of an automobile wheel-bearing unit using genetic
algorithm (GA). Chakraborty et al. [9] applied optimized
deep groove ball bearing (DGBB) using GA; however, certain
conditions like assembly angle was kept constant for all pairs
of solutions. Rao and Tiwari [10] attempted a parametric
study on the design variables specified by Chakraborty et al.
[9] and applied bounds to the five constant variables involved
in the constraints. Gupta et al. [11] applied Non-dominated
Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) to a mathematical
model which was a multi-objective function and paramet-
ric study was carried out. Ganesan and Mohankumar [12]
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
shown application potential of NSGA-II to different domain
of research.
Kumar et al. [13] applied Genetic Algorithm (GA) to a
constrained nonlinear design problem of cylindrical roller
bearings (CRB) and chosen four design variables for opti-
mization. In another study, Kumar et al. [14] applied GA
for design optimization of CRB with the logarithmic profile
crowning. NSGA-II on design optimization of high-speed
angular contact ball bearing by considering two objec-
tive functions; spin frictional power loss and rating life on
7007AC bearing used by Wei and Chengzu [15]. Subse-
quently, Kumar et al. [13] attempted for design optimization
on a tapered roller bearing. Waghole and Tiwari [16] success-
fully formulated nonlinear problem of needle roller bearing
and optimized by using hybrid method which involved arti-
ficial bee colony algorithm (ABC) algorithm, differential
search algorithm and grid search method. In another study,
Tiwari and Waghole [17] applied ABC for the design opti-
mization of spherical roller and validation was carried out by
comparing with grid algorithm results.
It is observed from the above literature that relatively
less work is done on the design optimization of the REB.
Many deterministic optimization techniques can be applied
for the nonlinear optimization problem of bearings; however,
the problem arises when numbers of design variables are
more. With continuous research in the field of optimization
techniques, nature-inspired heuristic optimization methods
provide a better solution instead of classical optimization
method. There are many nature-inspired well known and
recently developed optimization algorithms such as Genetic
Algorithm (GA), Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), artificial
neural network (ANN), particle swarm optimization (PSO),
Harmony Search (HS), water cycle algorithm (WCA), mine
blast algorithm (MBA), etc. and many of those proved
their suitability to many engineering optimization problems.
However, some of these advanced optimization techniques
have some limitations due to algorithm specific parame-
ters. In the present work, an attempt has been made to
implement Teaching–learning-based optimization (TLBO)
for optimization of internal geometrical parameters of cylin-
drical roller bearing to determine the dynamic load bearing
capacity and deformation. The TLBO technique, developed
by Rao et al. [18], is one of the recent techniques, becoming
popular in the optimization aspects of various engineering
problems. The objective of the present work is to apply TLBO
technique for design optimization of REB, and working of
the same is explained in next section.
2 Optimization Algorithm
The concept of TLBO algorithm is based on the teaching–
learning process happening in a class between the teacher and
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
students, also referred as learners. The teacher is expected to
attain best accord based on the output of learners within the
class. Objective of the teacher is to enhance the knowledge
level of the class and subsequently, output of the class is
evaluated by the teacher based on the grading system. Apart
from gaining knowledge from teacher, the learners also try to
enhance their knowledge by interacting among themselves.
This basic theory of teaching–learning process is adopted
by Rao et al. [18] to develop this algorithm and the overall
working of this algorithm, as described by them is narrated
below. Like most of the nature-inspired algorithms, this tech-
nique is a population-based and a cluster of learners in a class
is considered as the population, whereas different subjects
offered to the learners are analogous with different design
variables and the result of the learners is considered as the
fitness. It is mainly divided into two phases namely teacher
phase which covers interaction between teacher and learners
and learner phase which covers interaction between learn-
ers.
Teacher in a class is considered as the most knowledge-
able person trying to increase knowledge level of the class
to his or her level. In mathematical way, the teacher moves
the mean of a class to higher level. This follows a random
process depending on many factors. In this phase, the best
solution out of initial population acts as teacher. The teacher
will try to move the mean of class to his level which will act
as a new mean for the iteration. The mathematical approach,
as used by Rao et al. [18] and subsequently experimented and
used in [19–24] is considered here. After updating the results
in teacher phase, fitness value for each learner correspond-
ing to upgraded results is obtained and the superior function
value is considered after comparison with initial solution.
This upgraded result of teacher phase then becomes the input
for learner phase.
Learners can also improve their knowledge level through
the interaction with other learners. During their interaction,
learner learns something new, if a knowledge level of other
learner is high. The mathematical approach compares the
results of learners after interaction with the each other, as
explained by Rao [24], and accepts the superior function
value and moves to the next iteration or stops as per the
termination criteria.
7409
Most of the popular optimization techniques like Genetic
Algorithm (GA), Particle swarm optimization (PSO), Artifi-
cial Bee Colony (ABC), etc., are also a population-based
technique; however, these techniques require appropriate
algorithm specific parameters that affect the performance of
the algorithm [19–21,23,24]. For example, GA requires the
fine tuning of crossover probability, mutation rate, and selec-
tion method. PSO requires fine tuning of inertia weight, social
parameter and cognitive parameter. HS requires the harmony
memory consideration rate, pitch adjusting rate, and number
of improvisations and similar is the case with some other
advanced optimization techniques. However, the TLBO algo-
rithm does not require any algorithm specific parameters to
be tuned, thus making the implementation of TLBO simpler
with better results.
TLBO finds a wide range of application in almost every
field of engineering. Rao and Patel [25] used teaching–
learning-based optimization (TLBO) and artificial bee colony
(ABC) algorithms for determining the optimum operat-
ing conditions of combined Brayton and inverse Brayton
cycles. Maximization of thermal efficiency and specific work
of the system were considered as the objective functions
and treated simultaneously for multi-objective optimization.
Krishnanand et al. [26] applied a multi-objective TLBO
algorithm with non-domination-based sorting to solve the
environmental/economic dispatch problem containing the
incommensurable objectives of best economic dispatch and
least emission dispatch. Togan [27] applied TLBO technique
for the discrete optimization of planer steel frame. The design
algorithm aimed to obtain minimum weight frames sub-
jected to strength and displacement requirements imposed by
the American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). Pawar and Rao [28]
presented the application of the TLBO to find the optimal
combination of process parameters of the various machining
processes. Based on above implementation, basic steps of the
TLBO are summarized as the pseudo code, as follows Rao
et al. [18].
123
 Author's personal copy
7410 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422

123
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422 7411

Subsequently, the TLBO algorithm is modified by various

researchers to make it compatible for a particular situation
[24]. However, the basic version is also equally capable to
handle complicated problems. Hence, to make the approach
easy to understand for the end users, the basic version of
TLBO algorithm is considered in the present work. The
TLBO algorithm is now applied for the design optimization
of two different cases of bearings, deep groove ball bear-
ings (DGBB) and cylindrical roller bearings (CRB), and the
description of the problem along with the result discussion
is presented in next sections.

3 Design Optimization Problem of Deep

Groove Ball Bearing

3.1 Internal Geometries and Terminology

A brief history of rolling element bearing (REB) published by

Hamrack and Anderson [2] in which internal geometry and
kinematics as well as material and manufacturing process
involved in the bearing manufacturing had been explained.
In DGBB, two rings, i.e., inner and outer ring, enclose the
rolling elements. Raceway is referred as the rolling area of
rollers on the rings. Though, rolling bearing appears as a
simple geometry, its inner geometry is mainly responsible
for the deflections, load distribution and amount of stress.
Figure 1a, b shows the internal geometry and nomenclature
of distinctive REB.
In general, three boundary dimensions can define the bear-
ing geometry that are outer diameter (D), bore diameter (d)
and width (B). Apart from this, the other variables required
to define internal geometry are pitch diameter (Dm ), ball
diameter (Db ), the inner and outer raceway curvature radius
coefficient ( f i and f o ), and number of rolling elements (Z).

3.2 Problem Inception for Bearing

Fig. 1 a Internal geometry of rolling element bearing [2], b sectional
From the literature, it is observed that various objective func- view of bearing races [2]
tions were proposed by different researchers based on various
reasons of failure, such as increased friction, fatigue, vibra-
where as per the Lundberg–Palmgren, value of ‘a’ is 3 and
tion, corrosions, noise and over-heating, etc. But out of these,
10/3 for point contact and line contact respectively. Life of
at normal operating conditions, the foremost reason of fail-
the bearing (L) is the total number of revolutions or, the num-
ure is contact fatigue. Longer the contact fatigue life means
ber of hours at a given constant speed of bearing operations
longer bearing life. Basic aim of the design optimization is
required for the failure criteria to develop [29].
to increase the fatigue life which is directly proportional to
the dynamic load rating (Cd ). The expression for fatigue life
3.3 Objective Function and Constraints
is given by Hamrack and Anderson [2] in Eq. (1)
As explained above, the fatigue life is a function of the
 a
Cd dynamic load rating. In present optimization problem, max-
L= 106 (1) imization of fatigue life is the main objective, similar to
F

123
 Author's personal copy
7412 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422

Table 1 Boundary and design constraints for DGBB

Design variables Constraint range Constraint condition
 
Db ≤ ϕ ϕ0
Number of balls (Z) 2 (Z − 1) sin−1 D 0 g1 (X ) = 
Db
 − Z +1≥0
m 2 sin−1 Dm

ϕ0 = the maximum tolerable assembly angle is depends on the geometry of the bearing
Ball Diameter (Db ) 2 ≤ Db ≤
K Dmin D−d g2 (X ) = 2Db − g3 (X ) = K Dmin (D − d) − 2Db ≥ 0
K Dmax D−d K Dmin (D − d) ≥ 0
2
KDmin and KDmax are unknown constants which decide the possible minimum and
maximum diameter and strength of the rolling element
Pitch Diameter (Dm ) g4 (X ) = Dm − (0.5 − e) (D + d) ≥ 0 g5 (X ) = (0.5 + e) (D + d) − Dm ≥ 0
e is a constant and obtained on the mobility conditions of balls
g6 (X ) = 0.5 (D − Dm − Db ) − ε Db ≥ 0
ε is constant obtained from strength consideration of the outer ring of bearing
Race conformity g7 (X ) = 0.52 ≥ f i ≥ 0.515 g8 (X ) = 0.53 ≥ f o ≥ 0.515

Chakraborty et al. [9], which is represented by Eqs. (2)–(4) remaining variables provide constraints to the basic design
as: variables.

max [ f (X )] = max [Cd] (2) 3.5 Constraint Conditions

⎧

⎪ 2
⎨ max f c Z 3 Db1.8 Db ≤ 25.4 mm
max [ f (X )] =
 The process for obtaining bounds of design variables, which
⎪
⎩ max 3.647 f c Z 23 D 1.4
b Db > 25.4 mm defines more appropriate feasible search space for these vari-
(3) ables, is similar to Chakraborty et al. [9]. These bounds of
design parameters depend on the boundary dimensions of
With each bearing. Table 1 summarizes eight different problem
constraints associated with the problem.
⎡ ⎤
  1.72  0.41  103 −0.3
1 − γ f i (2 f o − 1) 3.6 Results and Discussion
f c = ⎣1 + 1.04 ⎦
1+γ f o (2 f i − 1)
  0.41 The aim of the present work is to optimize all important inter-
γ 0.3 (1 − γ )1.39 2fi
× (4) nal geometrical parameters which affects on the fatigue life.
1
(1 + γ ) 3 2fi −1
For this purpose, five design variables (Db , Z , Dm , f o , f i )
have been considered similar to Chakraborty et al. [9]. Along
Here, γ = DbDCosα
m
, is not an independent variable. For given with five main variables, other five constant parameters have
type of bearing, contact angle ∝ is zero. been used in the constraint equations that are: K D min =
0.5, K D max = 0.8, ε = 0.1, e = 0.1 and φ0 = 4.7124 radi-
3.4 Design Variables ans, which are obtained from the mobility condition, strength
of ball and rings.
From the observation of the Eqs. (1)–(4), design variables After making various trials for the algorithm settings, pop-
of the bearing and some unknown constraint constants, ulation size is considered as 50 for every individual run, and
explained in subsequent section, can be expressed as shown the convergence is attained for 100 generations to all the com-
by Eq. (5) bination of the design variables. The necessary MATLAB
code is prepared for the problem under consideration and
X = [Db , Z , Dm , f o , f i , K D min , K D max , ε, e, β] (5) checked a large number of times for consistency of results.
The optimum results obtained from the TLBO algorithm are
where Db is diameter of the ball, Z is number of balls, Dm tabulated in Table 2.
is pitch diameter, f o and f i is race conformity ratio ( f o = It is found that, as the bearing size increases, the pitch
ro /Db , f i = ri /Db ), r is referred as raceway groove curva- diameter has a propensity to increase in proportion and simi-
ture radius where ‘i’ and ‘o’ used to signify inner and outer, lar with the ball diameter. The numbers of ball are found to be
respectively. Out of the above variables, first five variables are changed in number with bearing. However, for some bearing
required to define the internal geometry of the bearing. The numbers, the converged numbers of balls are found to be the

123
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422 7413

Table 2 Optimized design variables for 10 different standard DGBB

Type of bearing Boundary dimensions (Input) Design variables (output) Dynamic capacity
D (mm) d (mm) Dm (mm) Db (mm) fi fo Z Cd (N)

1 30 10 20.5592 7.8673 0.515 0.5157 7 8308.2

2 35 15 25.3202 7.9805 0.515 0.5150 8 10,279.9
3 47 20 34.0396 10.7998 0.515 0.5160 8 17,663.0
4 62 30 46.4499 12.8000 0.515 0.5180 9 27,076.7
5 80 40 61.0646 15.7794 0.515 0.5170 10 42,991.8
6 90 50 69.0237 15.9870 0.515 0.5170 11 47,691.7
7 110 60 86.0582 19.8275 0.515 0.5180 11 70,169.2
8 125 70 98.5332 21.9995 0.515 0.5180 11 84,853.9
9 140 80 111.1583 23.9997 0.515 0.5200 11 99,018.2
10 160 90 127.4944 27.0872 0.515 0.5170 11 128,168.8

of TLBO are around 10% superior to GA. Also, after com-

paring the results with Timken bearings for the light 200 W
series, it is observed that obtained results are 15% better in
average than the exiting bearing catalogue values [29].

4 Design Optimization Problem of

Cylindrical Roller Bearing (CRB)

4.1 Bearing Geometry

Roller bearings are usually used in the high-speed applica-

Fig. 2 Convergence plot for dynamic capacity of DGBB (bearing spec-
ifications: D = 30, d = 10)
same, even though they have different boundary conditions.
Hence, larger number of balls is not always advantageous,
even balls with larger diameter with less in number provided
better fatigue life. The convergence of the result is shown in
Fig. 2 for the first type of bearing (i.e., D = 30 and d = 10).
Convergence rate of the solution with respect to number of
generation and search capability for TLBO is sufficiently
higher.
The obtained results of the TLBO in the present work are
compared with the results obtained by previous researcher
using GA [9], Timken ball bearing catalogue [30] and the
standard values available in books [29]. Comparison on the
basis of dynamic capacity is listed in the Table 3 which clearly
shows that the results of the TLBO have shown considerable
improvement over the previous results.
Results of the TLBO are approximately two times superior
to standard values of Cd , which may be a sign of the best opti-
mality of the solution. Along with the standard values, results
tion and for exceptionally large load-supporting conditions
which is difficult to obtain from ball bearings of same spec-
ifications. Fatigue life of CRB is very much affected by the
internal geometry. At first sight, it appears simple; however,
it has varying effect on the stresses, deformation and load
distribution. CRB encompasses an inner ring, outer ring and
a single or multiple rows of the rollers. Standard boundary
dimensions include the bore diameter (d), outer diameter of
the bearing (D), and the width of the bearing (B) as shown
in Fig. 3. To reduce edge loading, it is necessary to cham-
fer inner and outer raceways. Figure 3 shows the outer ring
chamfering height (r1 ), outer ring chamfer width (r2 ), inner
ring chamfer height (r3 ) and the inner ring chamfer width
(r4 ). The values of these heights and widths of chamfer can
be obtained from standard catalogue with boundary dimen-
sions. In the present problem, standard boundary dimensions
are selected from the SKF general catalogue [31].
4.2 Problem Inception for Design of CRB
From the literature, it is observed that many failure crite-
ria were shortlisted by previous researches such as contact
fatigues, corrosions, over-heating, increased friction, vibra-
tion and noise. Recent research in modern manufacturing
techniques enables production of the bearings with extremely

123
 Author's personal copy
7414 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422

Table 3 Comparison of optimized bearing geometry

Type of bearing Performance comparisons between (input) Dynamic capacities of the bearing (output)
D (mm) d (mm) Cd _std [17] Cd _Timken [26] Cd _GA [12] Cd _TLBO

1 30 10 3580 6800 7306.6 8308.2

2 35 15 5870 8650 9553.7 10,279.9
3 47 20 9430 14,400 16,213.4 17,663.0
4 62 30 14,900 22,200 25,785.0 27,076.7
5 80 40 22,500 36,200 38,979.1 42,991.8
6 90 50 26,900 40,000 45,161.4 47,691.7
7 110 60 40,300 62,100 64,542.3 70,169.2
8 125 70 47,600 69,000 81,701.2 84,853.9
9 140 80 55,600 81,300 95,915.9 99,018.2
10 160 90 73,900 109,000 121,401.9 128,168.8

Fig. 3 A typical cylindrical

roller bearing [12]

accurate internal and external geometries, with smooth where

rolling contact surfaces. Also modern steel-making process
⎡ ⎤ −2
increases outstanding homogeneity with few impurities, and 29    143  2
9 9

lubricants filtration method minimizes the contamination 2 1−γ 27 ⎢ 1−γ 108 ⎥

f c = 207.9λνγ 9 × ⎣1 + 1.04 ⎦ (7)
in rolling contact zones. This considerably reduces many 1+γ 4
1
1+γ
failures as listed above. However, at normal operating con-
ditions, contact fatigue plays important role in defining life and
of the bearings [32,33].
Dr
γ = (8)
Dm
4.3 Objective Functions and Constraints
where i is number of rows of rolling elements, le is effec-
Expressions for dynamic capacity and constraints for the tive length of roller, Z is number of rolling elements, Dr is
design optimization of CRB are similar to Kumar et al. [13] mean diameter of the roller, Dm is pitch diameter of the bear-
and the expression for dynamic capacity is represented by ing. λ is reduction factor, ν is the factor to account for edge
Eqs. (6)–(8), as given by Hamrock and Anderson [2]. loading. The factor bm in the Eq. 6 is to put up improve-
ments in geometrical accuracies. The present problem is of
29
single objective function for maximization of fatigue life of
7 3
Cd = bm f c (ile ) 9 Z 4 Dr27 (6) the bearing.

123
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422 7415

Table 4 Constraint defining bounds for basic design variables of CRB

Design variables Constraint range Constraints
     
Pitch diameter (Dm ) d + 2r3min ≤ Dm ≤ C1 (X ) = Dm − d + 2r3min ≥ 0 C2 (X ) = D + 2r13min − Dm ≥ 0
 
D − 2r1min

Roller diameter (Dr ) Dr L B ≤ Dr ≤ Dr U B where, C3 (X ) = Dr − 268.71 σQcmax ≥ 0  ) =
C4 (X   
max
DrLB = 268.71 σQcmax And
1
2 D − 2r1min − d + 2r3min −
max Dr ≥ 0
Dr UB =   
1
2 D − 2r1min − d + 2r3min
       
π d+2r3min π D−2r1min π d+2r3min π D−2r1min
Number of rollers (Z) DrUB ≤Z≤ DrLB C5 (X ) = Z − DrUB ≥0 C6 (X ) = DrLB −Z ≥0

Table 5 Design constraints for designing of CRB

Constraint no Constraint conditions for design variables

Constraint 7 and 8 K Dmin D−d

2 ≤ Dr ≤ K Dmax D−d
2 0.4 ≤ K Dmin ≤ 0.5
0.6 ≤ K Dmax ≤ 0.7
C7 (X ) = 2Dr − K Dmin (D − d) ≥ 0 C8 (X ) = K Dmax (D − d) − 2Dr ≥ 0
Constraint 9 and 10 C9 = Dm − (0.5 − e) (D + d) ≥ 0 C10 = (0.5 − e) (D + d) − Dm ≥ 0
0.03 ≤ e ≤ 0.08
Constraint 11 C11 (X) = 0.5 (D − Dm − Dr ) − ε Dr ≥ 0 0.3 ≤ ε ≤ 0.4
Constraint 12 C12 (X ) = 1
2 (D − Do ) − 2r1min ≥ 0
Constraint 13 C13 (X ) = 1
2 (Di − d) − 1
2 (D − Do ) ≥ 0
Constraint 14 C14 (X ) = σcsa f e − σclimax ≥0
Constraint 15 C15 (X ) = σcsa f e − σclmax
o
≥0
 
π
Constraint 16 C16 (X ) = 2π − 2Z sin −1 Dr
Dm − Z 180 ≥0
Constraint 17 and 18 C17 = β B − le C18 = (B − le − 2r ) − 2r1 ≥ 0
0.7 ≤ β ≤ 0.85
Constraint 19 C19 = 1
2 (D − Do ) − 3Z static ≥ 0 with Z static = 0.626bo

Table 6 Input parameters used for design of CRB (TIMKEN Ball Bearing Catalog 2011)
Bearing no. D d B Standard boundary dimensions, mm Cd (kN) Limiting speed, rpm
r1min r2min r3min r4min

NU 202 35 15 11 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 12.50 26,000

NU 203 40 17 12 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 17.20 22,000
NU 303 47 17 14 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 24.60 20,000
NU 204 47 20 14 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 25.10 19,000
NU 304 52 20 15 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 35.10 18,000
NU 2205 52 25 18 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 34.10 16,000
NU 305 62 25 17 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 46.50 15,000
NU 2206 62 30 16 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 44.00 14,000
NU 207 72 35 17 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 56.00 12,000

123
 Author's personal copy
7416 Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422

Table 7 Material properties of the bearing steel

Sr. no. Description Values

1. Young’s modulus 210 GPa

2. Poisson’s ratio 0.3
3. Safe contact stress 4000 MPa

4.4 Design Variables

Design variables for the design optimization of CRB are

expressed as:

 
Cd = f Dm , Dr , le , Z , K Dmin , K Dmax , ε, e, β (9)

Fig. 4 Convergence plot of dynamic capacity of CRB (Bearing no. NU

Out off above parameters, first four are independent vari-
ables which need to describe internal geometry of the
bearings. Therefore, these four self-determining variables
(Dm , Dr , le , Z ) are selected as design variables. Other
 than
self-determining  variables, constraints constants K Dmin ,
K Dmax , ε, e, β are also taken as a design variable [13] which
provides constraint to basic design variables.
4.5 Constraints
The constraints involved in the problem reduce the search
domain to feasible search domain. The problem involves
considerable number of constraints which are categorized
and described as below. Constraints 1–6 are associated with
the bounds of the design variables and are summarized in
Table 4, whereas 9–19 are associated with the design of CRB
and those are summarizes in Table 5.
Constraints C1 and C2 : These constraints ensure the space
for chamfering of corners of rings. For this, pitch diameter
must lie between inner and outer diameters of the roller bear-
ing.
202)
Constraints C3 and C4 : Dynamic capacity of the CRB is
directly proportional with mean diameter of the roller. Limits
of the roller mean diameter are obtained by using maximum
compressive stress at the line contact. Least value of the mean
diameter must withstand the Hertz contact stress developed
due to external loads.
Constraints C5 and C6 : Number of rolling elements is
directly appear in the objective functions and has great impor-
tance as it is directly proportional to dynamic load rating.
Lower bound of pitch diameter is used to find lower bound
of the number of rollers and roller mean diameter used to
find the upper limit.
Constraint C7 and C8 : An unknown constant given in
equations decides the upper and lower value of the mean
roller diameter. The bound of constant is given as 0.4 ≤
K Dmin ≤ 0.5, 0.6 ≤ K Dmax ≤ 0.7 which is determined by
the parametric study [11].
Constraint C9 and C10 : These constraints used to ensure
the operational mobility of the bearings where e is unknown

Table 8 Optimized design parameters for CRB obtained through TLBO

Bearings no. Optimized basic design variables CdTLBO CdGA CdSKF
Dm Dr Z le kDmin kDmax e ε β

NU 202 25.00 6.25 11 8 0.4780 0.6347 0.0609 0.3652 0.8361 22.64 18.48 12.50
NU 203 28.50 6.90 12 9 0.4868 0.6991 0.0694 0.3299 0.7789 27.16 23.58 17.20
NU 303 32.00 7.80 12 11 0.4187 0.6106 0.0429 0.3891 0.8083 36.27 31.87 24.60
NU 204 33.50 7.95 13 11 0.4015 0.6796 0.0333 0.3339 0.8123 39.09 32.23 25.10
NU 304 36.00 8.36 14 12 0.4587 0.6211 0.0319 0.3187 0.8442 46.42 45.48 35.50
NU 2205 38.50 7.62 17 14 0.4786 0.6477 0.0576 0.3096 0.7852 44.22 39.75 34.10
NU 305 44.45 8.45 18 12 0.4374 0.6321 0.0781 0.3230 0.7951 54.44 50.39 46.50
NU 2206 46.00 8.25 18 12 0.4017 0.6226 0.0418 0.3980 0.8483 52.46 51.64 44.00
NU 207 53.50 7.81 22 12 0.4007 0.6783 0.0569 0.3314 0.7842 64.60 60.97 56.00

123
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
Fig. 5 Average value of fitness
versus iterations
Fig. 6 Standard deviation
versus iterations
constant whose values are taken as 0.03 ≤ e ≤ 0.08 which
is determined by the parametric study [11].
Constraint C11 : Thickness of the bearing, the outer race-
way of the bearing ring should not be less than ε Db where ε
is constant obtained from strength deliberation of outer ring
of bearing whose value lies between 0.3 ≤ ε ≤ 0.4.
Constraint C12 : To perform chamfering on the outer race,
it should be large enough. Therefore, these constraints keep
restriction on inner diameter of outer ring.
Constraint C13 : In CRB, inner ring is subjected to more
stress due to convex curvature and hence, this constraint is
necessary for the inner ring thickness.
7417
Constraint C14 : In CRB, large amount of force is applied
between rolling elements and raceway develops only small
area of contact between mating members. This results in very
high contact stress which may cause permanent deformation.
However, due to the rigid nature of the rolling members, this
deformation is of very low order, e.g., 0.025 mm or less. The
safe contact stress value is limited to 4000 N/mm2 .
Constraint C15 : As like constraint 14, the contact stress in
the outer ring should be within the safe limit.
Constraint C16 : This constraint will put the limitation on
number of rollers in the bearings. For a smooth rolling of
rollers in the inner and outer race and to avoid collision among
them, a proper spacing is required between rollers. Minimum
123
 Author's personal copy
7418
Fig. 7 Number of iterations
versus fitness value of all 50
iteration for NU202
of one degree angular spacing is to be allowed as in standard
bearing.
Constraint C17 and C18 : In this work, the effective length
of roller is taken to the corresponding standard roller diam-
eter. This constraint limits the effective length of the roller
with respect to width of the bearing. βis unknown constraint
constant and its range is between 0.7 ≤ β ≤ 0.85.
Constraint C19 : For the worst case, outer ring of bear-
ing should be thick enough to withstand maximum dynamic
shear stress that occurs at the center of the ring.
Efforts are made to take into account all these constraints
so as to obtain the realistic design of the bearing.
4.6 Results and Discussion
The aim of the present work is to optimize the 9 design vari-
ables (Dm , Dr , le , Z , K Dmin , K Dmax , ε, e, β) involved in the
design of CRB so as to maximize the dynamic capacity of the
bearing similar to Kumar et al. [13]. Out of the 9 variables,
first four are independent variables and remaining five are
constraint constants which appears in constraint equations.
Numbers of CRBs are selected from the standard catalogue
which is listed in Table 6. Boundary dimensions such as
outer–inner diameters, width, chamfering size and limiting
speed of operation of bearings are taken from the SKF general
catalogue [31]. Standard dynamic capacity (Cd ) is also listed
in the Table 6 and for the calculation purpose, equivalent
radial load assumes to be 60% of the total standard dynamic
capacity. Table 7 shows the necessary material properties like
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and safe contact stress con-
sidered during the design. All the data given in Tables 6 and 7
are used as input for the considered algorithm for the design
optimization of CRB.
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
All the necessary precautions are taken to develop the
MATLAB code for this problem as it involves considerable
number of constraints and large numbers of trials are taken
to check the consistency of results and the results obtained
from TLBO algorithm are tabulated in Table 8. The results
are obtained after 100 generations with the population size
of 50 and all cases of bearings under consideration are run
for 50 times each to check for consistency of the results. The
convergence of fitness value for the first bearing NU 202
(D = 35, d = 15, B = 11) is shown in Fig. 4.
In the manufacturing scenario of bearing, some percentage
of deviation is possible in the values of dependent variables.
For the better evaluation of bearing design, it is necessary to
observe the sensitivity of the variables to obtain performance
measures. After many generation and number of runs, it is
observed that the percentage variation of dynamic capacity
are very small in magnitude. For the better understanding
of converged result, average value and standard deviation of
fitness function of all 50 iterations is shown in Figs. 5 and 6.
Deviation between maximum and minimum average values
of all iterations is less than 4%.
All 50 iterations results also have shown graphically
in Fig. 7. It is observed from the figure, those maximum
solutions lies in 22000 to 22700 ranges which shows the
consistency of the TLBO algorithm. Maximum values of
pitch diameter lie in between 25 and 25.4 mm. Figure 8a
shows the variation of pitch diameter of the best solution
with the number of iterations. The pitch diameter fluctuates
up to 9th generations, then decreases suddenly, and then, it
stabilizes to a value of 25 mm. After that, a slight increment
in the pitch diameter to the value of 25.35 mm takes place
beyond the 20th generations. Sudden step rise in the roller
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
Fig. 8 a Variation of pitch diameter with number of iterations for the
cylindrical roller bearing NU 202, b variation of roller diameter with
number of iterations for cylindrical roller bearing, NU 202, c variation
of number of roller with number of iterations
diameter is due to the discrete nature of the standard pitch
diameter.
Figure 8b shows the variation of roller diameter with num-
ber of generations. It can be observed that value of roller
diameter lies in between 6 and 6.25 mm. All the values
in between above-mentioned range satisfy all the constraint
related to roller diameter. Maximum value of dynamic capac-
ity is obtained at value which is near to 6.25 mm. Similar to
pitch diameter, sudden step rise and down the value of roller
diameter is due to discrete nature of given variable.
It can be observed that the number of rollers in given
problem, settled at 11 throughout the simulation shown in
7419
Fig. 8c. It is due to new approach of constraint handling used
in the programming in which a special loop is inserted at
the initial step of algorithm which only allowed constraint
satisfying value for the next step. This has an advantage that
it automatically satisfies the concept of duplicate removal
and penalty functioning. Figure 9a–e shows the variation of
constraint constants with the number of generations.
Similar to NU 202, the same procedure is carried out for all
the selected bearing series and the results obtained for inter-
nal geometries of the bearings are summarized in Table 8.
The obtained results of the TLBO in the present work are
compared with the results obtained by previous researcher
using GA, SKF cylindrical roller bearing catalogue values.
It is observed that results of TLBO have shown considerable
improvement over the previous results.
5 Result Validation
Efforts are also made to validate the optimum results obtained
from the TLBO so as to make the approach more realistic.
For this purpose, the well-developed approach of FEA is con-
sidered by using the ANSYS tool. Similar approach related
to design simulation of bearings using FEA is reported in the
literature and few important among those are summarized
here. In design of CRB, Poplawski et al. [32,33] used four
rolling element theories to predict and compare the dynamic
capacity and life of the bearings, by considering stress and
life analysis in FEA. Cavallaro et al. [34] presented a sys-
tematic method to account for the structural deformation in
REB ring and housing based on Roark’s formulas and defor-
mations were compared with those obtained with the FEA.
Stress and displacement distributions of rings of CRB using
FEA investigated by Demirhan and Kanber [35]. A work
on the crowned CRB by considering three profiles that are
standard, modified partially crowned and logarithmic roller
crowing proposed by Fujiwara et al. [36]. Lostado et al. [37]
applied multiple repose optimization combined with FEA for
the design optimization of tapered roller bearings.
Thus, the validation of bearing design using FEA approach
is a well-established practice, and hence, in this article, the
same approach is used to validate the obtained optimum
design setting. Out of the various bearings, CRB NU 202
is chosen for validation purpose, as it is more complicated
compared to DGBB. By considering the corresponding bear-
ing contact and total deformation, a 3D model is developed
using ANSYS and subsequently the contact conditions are
analyzed.
ANSYS supports two surface contact elements like rigid–
flexible or flexible–flexible and in the present case, type
contact element considered is flexible–flexible and type of
contact is line contact. By using fine meshing type, the
whole model has 318,048 nodes and 194755 elements. All
123
 Author's personal copy
7420
Fig. 9 Variation of constraint constants with number of iterations for,
a K Dmin , which decides the lower bound of pitch diameter, b K Dmax ,
which decides upper bound of pitch diameter, c e, which ensure the run-
Table 9 Comparison between theoretical and analytical results
Sr, no.
1. Total maximum contact stress on inner ring
2. Total maximum contact stress on outer ring
3. Total deformation on roller and ring contact
the obtained results for Hertz contact stress and total defor-
mation is tabulated in Table 9 and Fig. 10a–g illustrates the
approach used for FEA starting from development of model
to end results.
The optimum output design variables obtained by TLBO
are checked by means of FEA simulation for contact stress,
deformation and fatigue life for inner and outer ring of the
bearing so as to validate the results. The obtained FEA sim-
ulation results are shown in Table 9 which clearly indicates
that both results are very near to each other, thereby closely
validating the optimum results presented in this work.
6 Conclusions
In the present work, optimum methodology for the design
of DGBB and CRB is proposed by considering a large
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
ning mobility of bearings, d ε, which maintain the thickness of outer
ring, e β, which apply the constraint on length of roller
Theoretical value by TLBO Analytical value by ANSYS
3399 MPa 3531 MPa
2633 MPa 2688 MPa
0.023 mm 0.02268 mm
number of bearings involving relevant constraints. A latest
optimization approach known as Teaching–Learning-based
optimization approach is considered to obtain the optimum
design of the chosen bearings. The dynamics capacity of
DGBB has been found to be increased by approximately two
times than the standard values available in the data book. The
results are also 10% superior to the values obtained from GA
and 15% better on average than existing bearing catalogue
values.
In case of optimal design of CRB, which involves a large
number of constraints, TLBO shows considerable improve-
ment over the previous results of GA and SKF standard
catalogue. Efforts are also made to validate the obtained
results of CRB using FEA approach of ANSYS which
shows close agreement with the obtained theoretical solu-
tions. Convergence study ensured the comprehensive point
in the design.
 Author's personal copy
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422 7421

Fig. 10 a Model development, b geometry meshing, c boundary conditions, d stress distribution on whole body, e total stress distribution on inner
ring, f total maximum contact stress on outer ring, g total deformation on inner and outer race

123
 Author's personal copy
7422
References
1. He, S.; Prempain, E.; Wu, Q.H.: An improved particle swarm opti-
mizer for mechanical design optimization problems. Eng. Optim.
36(5), 585–605 (2004)
2. Hamrock, B.J.; Anderson, W.J.: Rolling-elements bearing. NASA
reference publication. 1105 (1983)
3. Harris, T.A.: Rolling Bearing Analysis, 4th edn. Wiley, New York
(2001)
4. Changsen, W.: Analysis of Rolling Element Bearings. Mechanical
Engineering Publications Ltd., London (1991)
5. Gupta, P.K.: Current status of and future innovations in rolling
bearing modeling. Tribol. Trans. 54(3), 394–403 (2011)
6. Yang, H.; Mathew, J.; Ma, L.: Fault diagnosis of rolling element
bearings using basis pursuit. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 19, 341–
356 (2005)
7. Mehrjou, M.R.; Mariun, N.; Marhaban, M.H.; Misron, N.: Rotor
fault condition monitoring techniques for squirrel-cage induction
machine-A review. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25(8), 2827–2848
(2011)
8. Choi, D.H.; Yoon, K.C.: A design method of an automotive
wheel-bearing unit with discrete design variables using genetic
algorithms. J. Tribol. 123, 181–187 (2001)
9. Chakraborty, I.; Kumar, V.; Nair, S.B.; Tiwari, R.: Rolling element
bearing design through genetic algorithms. Eng. Optim. 35(6),
649–659 (2003)
10. Rao, B.R.; Tiwari, R.: Optimum design of rolling element bearings
using genetic algorithms. Mech. Mach. Theory 42, 233–250 (2007)
11. Gupta, S.; Tiwari, R.; Nair, S.B.: Multi-objective design optimiza-
tion of rolling bearings using genetic algorithm. Mech. Mach.
Theory 42, 1418–1443 (2007)
12. Ganesan, H.; Mohankumar, G.: Optimization of machining tech-
niques in CNC turning centre using genetic algorithm. Arab. J. Sci.
Eng. 38, 1529–1538 (2013)
13. Kumar, K.S.; Tiwari, R.; Reddy, R.S.: “Development of an opti-
mum design methodology of cylindrical roller bearings using
genetic algorithms. Int. J. Comput. Methods Eng. Sci. Mech. 9(6),
321–341 (2008)
14. Kumar, K.S.; Tiwari, R.; Prasad, P.V.V.N.: An Optimum design
of crowned cylindrical roller bearings using genetic algorithms. J.
Mech. Des. 131(5), 051011 (2009)
15. Wei, Y., Chengzu, R.: Optimal design of high speed angular contact
ball bearing using a multi-objective evolution algorithm. In: Paper
presented at the International Conference on Computing. Control
and Industrial Engineering. IEEE, Wuhan, June 5–6 (2010)
16. Waghole, V.; Tiwari, R.: Optimization of needle roller bearing
design using novel hybrid methods. Mech. Mach. Theory 72, 71–85
(2014)
17. Tiwari, R.; Waghole, V.: Optimization of spherical roller bearing
design using artificial bee colony algorithm and grid search method.
Int. J. Comput. Methods Eng. Sci. Mech. 16(4), 221–233 (2015)
18. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D.P.: Teaching-learning-based
optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems. Comput. Aided Des. 43, 303–315 (2011)
19. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Balic, J.: Teaching-learning-based
optimization algorithm for unconstrained and constrained real-
parameter optimization problems. Eng. Optim. 44(12), 1447–1462
(2012)
123
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2019) 44:7407–7422
20. Rao, R.V.; Patel, V.: An elitist teaching–learning-based opti-
mization algorithm for solving complex constrained optimization
problems. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 3(4), 535–560 (2012)
21. Rao, R.V.; Patel, V.: Comparative performance of an eli-
tist teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm for solving
unconstrained optimization problems. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput.
4, 29–50 (2013)
22. Rao, R.V.; Kalyankar, V.D.: Parameter optimization of modern
machining processes using teaching–learning-based optimization
algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26, 524–531 (2013)
23. Rao, R.V.: Teaching Learning Based Optimization and its Engi-
neering Applications. Springer, London (2015)
24. Rao, R.V.: Review of applications of TLBO algorithm and a tutorial
for beginners to solve the unconstrained and constrained optimiza-
tion problems. Decis. Sci. Lett. 5, 1–30 (2016)
25. Rao, R.V.; Patel, V.: Multi-objective optimization of combined
Brayton and inverse Brayton cycles using advanced optimiza-
tion algorithms. Eng. Optim. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/
0305215X.2011.624183
26. Krishnanand, K. R.; Panigrahi, B. K.; Rout, P. K.; Mohapatra, A.;
Application of multi-objective teaching–learning-based algorithm
to an economic load dispatch problem with in commensurable
objectives. In: Swarm, Evolutionary, and Memetic Computing,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7076. Springer, Berlin
(2011)
27. Togan, V.: Design of planar steel frames using Teaching–Learning
based optimization. Eng. Struct. 34, 225–232 (2012)
28. Pawar, P.J.; Rao, R.V.: Parameter optimization of machining pro-
cesses using teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67(5–8), 995–1006 (2013)
29. Shigley, J.E.: Mechanical Engineering Design. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York (2011)
30. TIMKEN: Ball Bearing Catalog (2011)
31. SKF: General Catalogue. Germany (2005)
32. Poplawski, J.V.; Peters, S.M.; Zaretsky, E.V.: Effect of roller profile
on cylindrical roller bearing life prediction–Part I: comparison of
bearing life theories. Tribol. Trans. 44(3), 339–350 (2001a)
33. Poplawski, J.V.; Peters, S.M.; Zaretsky, E.V.: Effect of roller profile
on cylindrical roller bearing life prediction–Part II: comparison of
roller profiles. Tribol. Trans. 44(3), 417–427 (2001b)
34. Cavallaro, G.; Nelias, D.; Bon, F.: Analysis of high-speed inter
shaft cylindrical roller bearing with flexible rings. Tribol. Trans.
48(2), 154–164 (2005)
35. Demirhan, N.; Kanber, B.: Stress and displacement distributions
on cylindrical roller bearing rings using FEM. Mech. Based Des.
Struct. Mach. Int. J. 36, 86–102 (2008)
36. Fujiwara, H.; Kobayashi, T.; Kawase, T.; Yamauchi, K.: Optimized
logarithmic roller crowning design of cylindrical roller bearings
and its experimental demonstration. Tribol. Trans. 53(6), 909–916
(2010)
37. Lostado, R.; Garcia, R.E.; Martinez, R.F.: Optimization of operat-
ing conditions for a double-row tapered roller bearing. Int. J. Mech.
Mater. Des. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10999-015-9311-4