Validation of Combined Analytical Methods To Predict Slip in Cylindrical Rollwe Bearings

Journal Pre-proof
Validation of Combined Analytical Methods to Predict
of
Slip in Cylindrical Roller Bearings
Yi Guoa,∗, Jonathan Kellera
pro
a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 80401, United States
Abstract
This paper presents a combination of models that together calculate the cage
and roller speeds of a cylindrical roller bearing. The models consider elastohy-
re-
drodynamic lubrication and contact elasticity between the roller and raceway,
roller centrifugal forces, hydrodynamic lubrication at the cage pocket, and
frictional forces. Using these models, the predicted cage and roller speeds
and the extent of slip are compared to measurements acquired on cylindrical
roller bearings in a commercial gearbox in steady-state and transient oper-
lP
ating conditions of a wind turbine. In steady-state conditions at low wind
speeds and low lubricant temperatures, cage and roller slip up to 60% occur
in the loaded zone of the bearing. In the unloaded zone, up to 80% roller
slip occurs. Cage and roller slip then decrease as the lubricant temperature
and wind speed increases. In general, the analytical model results match ex-
perimental measurements within 10% for lubricant temperatures above 40◦ C
rna
and wind speeds over 10 meters per second. The analytical model is further
evaluated during a transient start-up event and highly dynamic emergency
stop event and also used to examine changes in the bearing design or lubri-
cant properties. Roller and cage slip in cylindrical bearings is a combined
effect of the bearing design, applied load, shaft speed, and lubricant properties
and temperature, and can be quickly evaluated with the combined analytical
models.
Jou
Keywords: Wind Turbine, Rolling Element Bearing, Slip, Lubrication
∗
Corresponding author
Email address: yi.guo@nrel.gov (Yi Guo)
Preprint submitted to Tribology International March 27, 2020
Pursuant to the DOE Public Access Plan, this document represents the authors' peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript.
The published version of the article is available from the relevant publisher.
Journal Pre-proof
1. Introduction
of
Drivetrain failures have been a primary source of reliability issues for
wind turbines, leading to unplanned maintenance, downtime, and higher
than anticipated operations and maintenance costs [1, 2]. The most com-
pro
mon gearbox failure mode is attributed to white-etching cracks (WECs) in
bearings, which refer to the appearance of the bearing steel microstructure
when a cross section is polished, etched with chemicals, and examined under
reflected light. These cracks often propagate to spalls or lead to a complete
splitting of the inner ring. This mode of failure can occur at 5%–20% of
the predicted design life and has been observed in many bearing types and
applications [3, 4, 5]. Structural stresses and short time overloads, hydrogen
embrittlement, corrosion, electrical currents, the influence of the lubricant
re-
under mixed friction and slip conditions, and a specific time history of ap-
plied contact stress have all been shown to create WECs in material tests
in steel specimens [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. In a wind turbine gearbox, the conditions
leading to WECs are all still highly debated; however, one promising theory
is that they are related to dynamic operating conditions that can result in
high bearing load, stress, and slip of the rolling elements.
lP
Cylindrical roller bearings (CRBs) are widely used in wind turbine gear-
boxes and other industries because of their high capacity, ease of manufac-
turing and assembly, and cost-effectiveness. In a CRB with nominal internal
radial clearance, the applied load is distributed over only a portion of the
bearing circumference, called the load zone. As the rollers orbit the bear-
rna
ing, they experience the highest load in the center of the load zone with
decreasing loads toward the edges of the load zone. Outside the load zone,
the rollers carry no load. This variation in roller load over the orbit typically
results in a similar variation in the rotational speed of the roller. Rollers
reach their maximum rotational speed near the center of the load zone and
decelerate after exiting the load zone. They reach their minimum rotational
speed just prior to reentering the load zone, where they quickly accelerate.
Jou
Depending on the roller load, shaft speed, operating clearance, viscosity of

the lubricant, and a number of other factors, the rollers may be in pure rolling
contact only in a portion of the load zone. In many other cases, the rollers
are in a combination of rolling and sliding contact—a condition commonly
called slipping. The complex nature of the interactions between the bearing
rollers, raceways, cage, and lubricant makes dynamic modeling of bearings
inherently challenging.
Journal Pre-proof
Well-validated models to predict bearing roller loads and stresses are read-
of
ily available, but similar models are not available for bearing slip. Dynamic
modeling of bearings can be categorized generally into three methods: ana-
lytical, multibody, and finite element approaches. Harris [11] developed an
analytical model to calculate the cage speed of CRBs, including friction be-
pro
tween the roller and raceway [12]. Poplawski [13] then extended Harris’s work
to calculate roller speed by including the roller moments. Harris [14] then
developed a more general model to calculate the roller speed for a variety
of roller bearings. The governing equations were derived from equilibrium
in the roller radial, tangential, and rotational directions. These analytical
models require far less computational time than multibody or finite element
methods. Kleckner [15] developed the multibody cylindrical bearing analysis
re-
(CYBEAN) software, including a detailed model of the bearing ring flexibil-
ity; however, the roller speed was calculated considering equilibrium in the
radial and tangential directions only. Gupta [16, 17] developed equations of
motions for each roller and the cage in all six degrees of freedom for CRBs,
later generalized into the advanced dynamics of rolling elements (ADORE)
software. Houpert [18, 19, 20] developed CAGEDYN software, which fo-
lP
cuses on the contact loads between the cage and rollers. Lastly, Stacke and
Fritzson [21] combined contact mechanics, finite elements, heat transfer, and
hydrodynamics techniques to model the dynamic behavior of rolling element
bearings, which contributed to the development of the SKF BEAring Simula-
tion Tool (BEAST) [22]. Other major bearing manufacturers also developed
their own analysis tools [23, 24].
rna
Motivated by the likely significance of bearing slip upon the formation

of WECs and also skidding damage in general [25, 26], this paper combines
previously-developed bearing slip [11, 14] and friction models [27, 28, 29].
The combined models are then validated with bearing cage and roller speed
measurements acquired in a wind turbine gearbox over a range of operating
conditions and also compared to the original model [14] to demonstrate the
improvement in the cage and roller speed predictions.
Jou
2. Experiments
A commercial wind turbine drivetrain, comprising a main bearing, main
shaft and three-stage gearbox, is being used in an ongoing investigation into
drivetrain reliability [30, 31]. This work focuses on the output (i.e., high-
speed shaft [HSS]) of the Winergy PEAB 4410.4 gearbox and two of its
Journal Pre-proof
three support bearings, SKF black-oxide-coated, outer-ring guided NU 2326
of
ECML/L4BC3 and NU 232 ECML/L4BC3 CRBs. Together, these two bear-
ings react the radial load from the high-speed pinion mesh. A QJ 328 four-
point contact ball bearing reacts the axial load from the high-speed pinion
mesh, but is not part of this investigation. The high-speed shaft, the two
pro
CRBs, and the lubrication system were instrumented for factors suspected
of contributing to the formation of WECs [32], as shown in Figure 1. Strain
gages in full-bridge arrangements measure shaft torque and two orthogonal
shaft-bending moments at each of three axial locations along the shaft. An
encoder also measures the shaft speed. A patented SKF inductive coil [33]
measures the rotational speed of a magnetized roller in each CRB. A proxim-
ity switch was also installed to measure the passage of a metal pin inserted
re-
in each CRB cage at the same location as the magnetized roller to determine
the rotational speed of the cage and the location of the roller as it orbits. A
probe installed in the line supplying lubricating oil to the parallel gear stage
measures the temperature and water content of the AMSOIL PTN 320 oil
delivered to the bearings, and additional probes measure the temperature of
the bearing inner and outer rings.
lP
rna
Figure 1: NU 232 ECML/L4BC3 bearing (left), roller speed instrumentation (middle),

and high-speed shaft (right). Photos by Jonathan Keller, NREL 40979 and 40982, and
Jou
Mark McDade, NREL 49050
After installation of the drivetrain and commissioning in a General Elec-

tric 1.5-MW SLE wind turbine, as shown in Figure 2, a range of operating
conditions was examined, including power production in normally occur-
ring winds; parked and idling situations; and intentionally induced transient
events, such as startups, shutdowns, emergency stops, and grid events. Mea-
Journal Pre-proof
surements from the gearbox instrumentation were time-synchronized with
of
measurements from existing instrumentation on a meteorological tower in
front of the turbine and on the turbine itself, including air temperature,
pressure, and humidity; wind speed and direction at several heights; rotor
speed and blade pitch angles; main shaft, tower, and blade loads; turbine
pro
power; and other turbine operational parameters [34].
re-
lP
Figure 2: Gearbox swap (left) and installation (right). Photos by Dennis Schroeder, NREL
49408 and 49413
3. Analytical Model
rna
The model of CRB slip described in this work consists of a combination of

two analytical bearing models [11, 14] with models of roller and cage friction
[27] and cage-landing friction [28]. With these models, the equations of
motion are developed for the cage and rollers. By simplifying the equations
of motion, the cage speed can be determined first, followed by the roller
speed. The steps to calculate cage and roller speeds are illustrated in Figure
3. The CRB roller loads are the most important input to the model. They
Jou
are derived from the CRB radial loads, which are estimated from the gear
and shaft geometry and loads. The roller loads, lubricant temperature and
shaft speed are then used to calculate the cage speed, friction between the
cage and raceway, and roller speed for the most highly loaded roller. These
outputs are then used to calculate the friction between the cage and rollers
and, finally, the individual roller speed over its orbit. The analytical model
can be used for both steady-state and dynamic operating conditions.
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
re-
lP
Figure 3: Flowchart of the analytical model
3.1. Equations of Motion

rna
A free-body diagram of a roller in a CRB is shown in Figure 4. Each

roller, j = 1...Z, is subjected to centrifugal force, Fc ; inner and outer raceway
normal contact forces, Qi and Qo ; inner and outer raceway friction forces,
Fi and Fo , and moments, Mi and Mo , resulting from elastohydrodynamic
lubrication shear stresses [12]; and drag forces, Fvi and Fvo , resulting from
interaction with the lubricant. Each roller is also subjected to a normal
force, Qcg , and the resulting friction force, Fcg , between the roller and the
Jou
cage. The direction of these forces depends if the cage is driving the roller,
as shown in Figure 4, or vice versa. These forces and moments determine the
cage speed, ωc , and the speed of the roller, ωr , given the speed of the shaft
and inner ring, ωi . In this formulation, the outer ring is stationary, and the
cage speed is assumed constant for given input conditions. The equations of
motion for each roller in the radial, tangential, and rotational directions are
then
Journal Pre-proof
Qo Outer Raceway
of
Fo Roller j
Mo
Fcg Fc D
Fcg Qcg
Fvo
pro
wr
Qcg Fvi
w θ di m
wc dcl
Roller j
Fi
di
Fcl
Mi
Inner Raceway Qi Cage
re-
Figure 4: Free-body diagram of a roller (left) and cage (right) in a CRB
Qij + Fcj − Qoj + Fcgj − mr g cos θj = 0 (1)

lP
Fij + Fvij − Foj − Fvoj + Qcgj + mr g sin θj = 0 (2)
1 dωrj
Mij − Moj + DFcgj = Jωc (3)
2 dθj
where D, mr , J, and θ are the diameter, mass, mass moment of inertia, and
rna
circumferential position of the roller. Additionally, the forces applied by the

rollers and ring on the cage are balanced in the rotational direction,
Z
X
dm Qcgj + dcl Fcl = 0 (4)
j=1
where dm is the bearing pitch diameter for a roller-centered cage. The cage-
Jou
landing friction force, Fcl , only exists for bearings in which the cage is guided
by either the inner or outer ring. For these type of bearings, this friction
acts at the diameter of the landing point, dcl , between the cage and ring [29].
The result of Equations 1–4 is a system of 3Z+1 equation of motion for the
bearing.
Journal Pre-proof
3.1.1. Centrifugal Force
of
The centrifugal force, Fc , acting on each roller is
1
Fc = mr ωc2 dm (5)
2
pro
3.1.2. Inner Raceway Contact Force
For CRBs with a radial internal operating clearance, Pd , the inner raceway
contact force, Qi , is [29]
109
? 1 − cos (ψj )
Qij = Q 1− , ψj ∈ (−φ, φ) (6)
2
re-
where ψ is the location of the roller within the load zone. The maximum
roller load, Q? , is related to the applied radial load, FR ,
Q? =
5FR
(7)
Z
where the parameter, , is
lP
" #
1 Pd
= 1− (8)
2 2 δR + 21 Pd
and the bearing deflection in the radial direction, δR , is
109
Q?
rna
δR = (9)
K
In this equation, the maximum roller load, Q? , is in units of pounds (lb), and
the contact stiffness between a single roller and the raceway, K, is in units
9
of lb/(in 10 ) [29]
9
K = 8.06 × 104 L 10 (10)
Jou
where the roller length, L, is in units of inches (in). The width of the load
zone, (−φ, φ), is related to the total clearance in the bearing, including the
bearing deflection
" #
−1 Pd
φ = cos (11)
2 δR + 21 Pd
Journal Pre-proof
The total radial load, FR , applied to each bearing, can be estimated from
of
models; or, as described in this work, derived from a force-balance model of
the high-speed shaft and measured shaft torque and bending moments. Such
a model was previously developed for a wind turbine gearbox, in which the
high-speed shaft was supported by a CRB and paired tapered roller bearings
pro
[35]. For the Winergy PEAB 4410.4 gearbox, the model was modified, and
the resulting free-body diagram is shown in Figure 5. Assuming each CRB
supports only a radial load, while the four-point contact ball bearing supports
an axial load and a moment, the orthogonal loads on the rotor-side (RS)
bearing are

1 T
(Fy )RS = −Mz − (LB − Lp ) sin β (12)
(Fz )RS =
(LB − LRS )
1
(LB − LRS )
re-

−My −
Rb
T
Rb
(LB − Lp ) cos β

(13)
and the orthogonal loads on the generator-side inboard (GS-in) bearing are
T
lP
(Fy )GS−in = − (Fy )RS − sin β (14)
Rb
T
(Fz )GS−in = − (Fz )RS − cos β + Wd (15)
Rb
where T is the measured shaft torque and My and Mz are the orthogonal
rna
bending moments measured a distance, LB , from the end of the shaft. Prop-
erties of the high-speed shaft include the pinion base radius, Rb ; the weight
of the brake disk and coupling, Wd , which connect the shaft to the genera-
tor; and the distance between the shaft end and pinion center, Lp . Lastly,
LRS is the center of the RS bearing, and β is the angle between the gear
meshing line of action and the +z direction. The total radial load applied to
each bearing, FR , is then simply the magnitude of the forces in the y and z
1
directions, FR = (Fy2 + Fz2 ) 2 .
Jou
3.1.3. Friction and Drag Forces

The friction forces, Fn and Fvn , are estimated using Dowson’s semiem-
pirical formulations for mineral oils [12]

0 −0.3 0.7 V̄nj Inj
Fnj = LE Rn − 9.2G Ūnj + (16)
Hnj
Journal Pre-proof
of
pro
(Fz)GS-in (Fz)RS
T/Rb
(Fy)GS-in (Fy)RS

re-
Figure 5: Free-body diagram of the high-speed shaft and bearings

0 −0.3 0.7
Fvnj = LE Rn 18.4(1 + cn γ)G Ūnj (17)
where n = i, o represents either the inner or outer rings with ci = −1 and

lP
co = 1. The parameter, γ, is γ = dDm , and the radius, Rn , is Rn = D2 (1 + cn γ).
E
The parameter, E 0 , is E 0 = 1−σ 2 , where E and σ are Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio of the bearing material. The nondimensional parameter, G,

is G = αE 0 , where α is the pressure-viscosity coefficient of the lubricant
based on the oil supply temperature. The nondimensional fluid entrainment
rna
velocity, Ūn , is
ηUnj
Ūnj = (18)
E 0 D(1 + cn γ)
where η is the absolute viscosity of the lubricant, which is based on the
oil supply temperature. The corresponding dimensional fluid entrainment
velocity, Un , is
Jou
1
Uij = dm (1 − γ)(ωi − ωc ) + γωrj (19)
2
1
Uoj = dm (1 + γ)ωc + γωrj (20)
2
The nondimensional relative velocity between each roller and the raceway,
V̄n , is
10
Journal Pre-proof
of
ηVnj
V̄nj = (21)
E 0 Rn
where the corresponding dimensional relative velocity, Vn , is
1
pro
Vij = dm (1 − γ)(ωi − ωc ) − γωrj (22)
2
1
Voj = dm (1 + γ)ωc − γωrj (23)
2
The friction force integral, In , is
" 2 # 12
Z
where
Inj = 2
0
4q̄nj
re-
e
Gq̄nj 1− w̄
4q̄nj
dw̄ (24)
12
Q̄nj
q̄nj = (25)
lP
2π
w
w̄ = (26)
Rn
and where w is the width of the contact and Q̄n = LEQ0nRn . Finally, the
nondimensional lubricant film thickness can be estimated as
rna
hn 1.6G0.6 Ūn0.7
j
Hnj = = 0.13
(27)
Rn Q̄nj
where hn is the lubricant film thickness.
3.1.4. Inner and Outer Raceway Friction Moments

The friction moments about the roller axis, Mn , are estimated by assum-
Jou
ing the oil lubricating the bearings is a Newtonian fluid. The moments can
then be calculated by discretizing the lubricant film into N equal-width slices
and integrating the product of the friction stress, τ , over the contact area
and the roller diameter
N
X Z 1
Mnj = LD bknj τknj dt (28)
k=1 0
11
Journal Pre-proof
w̄
where t = is the width of each slice, and the friction stress, τn , is
of
N
vknj
τknj = η (29)
hn
and where vn is relative velocity between the roller and raceway at each slice
pro

1 1 2
vknj = ωn dm + cn D + δknj − ωrj D − δknj (30)
2 3 3
The local deflection of the roller, δn , is dependent on the load, Qn ,

Qnj (1 − σ 2 ) πEL2
δnj = 2 log (31)
πEL Qnj (1 − σ 2 )(1 + γ)
bnj =

re-
Finally, the semi-axis, bn , of the contact ellipse is
8Qnj (1 − σ 2 )
πELρn
12
(32)
where the parameter, ρn , is

lP
2
ρn = (33)
D(1 + cn γ)
3.1.5. Cage-Landing Friction Force

The friction force between the cage and ring, Fcl , also called the cage-
landing force, is derived from Petrov’s equation [28, 29]. Assuming the nor-
rna
mal force between the cage and ring is small and the clearance between them
is filled with lubricant, this force can be expressed as
ηwc d2cl (ωc − ωn )

Fcl = (34)
2∆d
where wc is the width of the landing between the cage and the ring and ∆d is
the radial clearance between the cage and the ring. A stationary outer ring
Jou
that guides the cage tends to reduce the cage speed because Fcl opposes the
cage rotation as shown in Figure 4. An inner ring that guides the cage and
rotates faster than the cage tends to increase the cage speed. For a cage that
is not guided by either ring, Fcl is simply zero.
12
Journal Pre-proof
3.2. Cage Speed
of
The solution for the cage speed is enabled by simplifications that can
be made as a result of the differences in interactions between the rollers,
raceways, and cage in the unloaded and the loaded zones [11]. In the unloaded
zone, the rollers are pulled outward by centrifugal force, whereas the inner
pro
ring and shaft move in the opposite direction because of the radial load, FR .
Therefore, it is assumed that there is no contact between the unloaded rollers
and the inner raceway, so Fi = Fvi = 0 and the roller tangential equation of
motion, Eq. 2, reduces to
−(Foj )u − (Fvoj )u + (Qcgj )u = 0 (35)

Substituting Fo from Eq. 16 and Fvo from Eq. 17 into Eq. 35 yields
re- (Qcgj )u
−9.2(1 + 2γ)G−0.3 Ūo0.7 +
LE 0 Ro
j
=0 (36)
All unloaded rollers are also assumed to be in pure rolling contact with the
outer raceway, so Vo = 0 and
lP
1+γ
(ωr )u = ωc (37)
γ
By contrast, in the loaded zone, a different set of simplifying assumptions
can be made. The unloaded rollers are driven by the cage, and the loaded
rollers, in turn, drive the cage. If it is first assumed that the normal forces
rna
are equal across all unloaded rollers and equal across all loaded rollers, then
the equation of motion for the cage, Eq. 4, can be simplified to relate these
two normal forces as
nu dm
(Qcg )l = − (Qcg )u − Fcl (38)
Z − nu dcl (Z − nu )
where nu is the number of unloaded rollers, determined by the width of the
Jou
load zone and the roller spacing. By selecting the most heavily loaded roller
to represent the driving roller, Eq. 2 becomes
nu dm
(Fij )l + (Fvij )l − (Foj )l − (Fvoj )l − (Qcg )u − Fcl = 0 (39)
Z − nu dcl (Z − nu )
Next, the friction moments, Mn , in the loaded zone are assumed to simply
equal the moments resulting from the friction forces, Fn , acting about the
13
Journal Pre-proof
roller radius. The cage pocket friction, Fcg , is also assumed to be small.
of
Finally, as the roller nears the center of the loaded zone, it reaches a constant
speed, so dωr /dθ = 0. With these assumptions, the roller rotational equation
of motion, Eq. 3, becomes simply
pro
di (Fij )l − do (Foj )l = 0 (40)
The resulting system of equations can then be solved simultaneously for the
intermediate terms, (ωr )u , (ωr )l , (Qcg )u , and (Qcg )l , and also the final cage
speed, ωc , which then serve as input to the roller speed solution described in
the next section.
3.3. Roller Speed

re-
Contact between the rollers and the cage pocket and resulting friction,
Fcg , has a strong effect on the roller speed, especially in lightly-loaded con-
ditions that often occur in wind turbine operations or in the unloaded zone
of CRBs in general. The friction between the rolling element and the cage
pocket can be approximated as
lP
Fcg = µcg Qcg (41)
where µcg is the friction coefficient between the cage and the rollers. Gener-
ally speaking, the friction coefficient is a function of the normal force, Qcg ,
roller speed, ωr , and lubricant characteristics. A model based on tapered
roller bearing experiments, developed by Bercea [27], approximates it as
rna
3.41ηDVrc 0.74
µcg = 0.5
+ 0.2e−1.56λ (42)
HIRV Qcgm
where Vrc is the relative velocity between the roller and cage, assuming pure
rolling contact between the roller and outer raceway
dm
Vrc = (1 − γ 2 )ωi (43)
Jou
4
and the lubricant film thickness, λ, between the roller and the cage is
DHIRV
λ= (44)
di
The parameter, HIRV , is estimated assuming isoviscous-rigid lubrication [36]
14
Journal Pre-proof
of
4.9ηUrc L
HIRV = (45)
Qcgm
where Urc is the entraining velocity at the roller surface
pro
1
Urc = Vrc (46)
2
and Qcgm is the average magnitude of the normal forces between the cage
and loaded and unloaded rollers (Qcg )l and (Qcg )u . With the friction co-
efficient, µcg , and other calculated parameters, Equations 1–3 can then be
solved simultaneously for the speed of each roller, ωr .
4. Results and Discussion

re-
In this section, the predicted roller and cage speeds from the combination
of analytical models described in this work are compared to the processed ex-
perimental data [34, 37]. Only the behavior of the GS-in bearing is examined
because the behavior of the rotor-side bearing is relatively similar to it. Key
lP
parameters of the Winergy PEAB 4410.4 gearbox high-speed shaft, the SKF
NU 232 ECML/C3 GS-in CRB, and the AMSOIL PTN 320 oil are listed in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 in the Appendix. The extent of cage and roller slip for
the GS-in bearing is examined first in near steady-state turbine operating
conditions, followed by a parametric study of bearing design parameters and
lubricant properties as a means to reduce slip. Lastly, examples of a transient
rna
turbine start-up and emergency stop events are examined. The effect of grid
events on torque and bearing slip have also been examined [34, 38].
4.1. Normal Power Production Operations

The cases examined in this section were gathered when the turbine was
in normal power production operations. The data that were analyzed were
then further limited to a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 revolutions of
Jou
the high-speed shaft, which is typically a duration of 1 to 2 seconds (s), and

to a change in drivetrain speed and power of less than 10% of the average
during that period. The intent of these limitations is to include only the
normal power data sets that can also be considered as reasonably close to
steady-state conditions. A summary of the measured drivetrain speed and
power for these limited cases is shown in Figure 6. The average value within
15
Journal Pre-proof
120 120
C
of
C Mean Mean
100 100
B
Generated Power (%)

80 80
Shaft Speed (%)
pro
60 60
40 40
B
A
20 20 Variation
Variation
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind Speed (m/s) Wind Speed (m/s)
re-
Figure 6: Drivetrain speed (left) and electrical power (right) measured in near steady-state
conditions during normal power production
each limited case and the change within each case are shown to examine the
extent to which the cases can be considered near steady state.
lP
As shown in Figure 6, normal power production occurs when the wind
is between the “cut-in” and “cut-out” speeds. For this turbine, the “cut-in”
wind speed to start-up is 3.5 meters per second (m/s) [39], with a drivetrain
speed as low as 60% of rated. As the wind speed increases, the drivetrain
speed increases until approximately 8 m/s, when the high-speed shaft reaches
rated speed of 1,440 revolutions per minute. As the wind speed continues to
rna
increase, the drivetrain speed remains nearly constant, whereas the torque
and power increase. At 14 m/s, the high-speed shaft reaches its rated torque
of just over 10 kilonewton-meter (kN -m) [32], yielding the rated electric
power of 1,500 kilowatt. Above the “cut-out” wind speed of 25 m/s, the
turbine shuts down. The instantaneous electric power can differ as much
as ±20% from rated [39]. The change in the drivetrain speed and electric
power within each limited case is typically much less than 10% of the average,
Jou
illustrating that the limited cases considered in this paper are reasonably near
steady state. Three particular cases have also been highlighted for further
examination: case A at 60% speed and very low 5% power, case B at more
moderate 73% speed and 22% power, and case C at rated speed and power.
A summary of the average, measured cage speeds and the cage speeds
predicted by the analytical model for selected cases during normal power
production conditions is shown in Figure 7. The cage speeds are presented in
16
Journal Pre-proof
terms of the percentage of slip, in which 0% indicates pure rolling conditions,
of
and 100% indicates pure sliding conditions. The cage speeds have also been
categorized by the lubricant temperature, which ranges from 20◦ C to over
60◦ C.
pro
100 50
Experimental Lubricant Temp
Analytical > 60 C
80 50 to 60 C
Difference in Cage Slip (%)

25 40 to 50 C
30 to 40 C
Lubricant Temp
Cage Slip (%)
20 to 30 C
60 > 60 C
50 to 60 C
0
A 40 to 50 C
40 30 to 40 C A
20 to 30 C B
B
20
0
0 5 10 15
C
Wind Speed (m/s)

20
re- 25
-25
-50
0 5 10 15
Wind Speed (m/s)
20 25
Figure 7: Cage slip (left) and analytical model difference (right) during normal power
lP
production
Nearly 60% cage slip was measured at the lowest wind speeds and oil
temperatures. As either the wind speed or the lubricant temperature in-
crease, the cage slip decreases. Pure rolling conditions are reached above
approximately 8 m/s at warmer lubricant temperatures and above 10 m/s in
rna
any of the measured lubricant conditions. Figure 7 also quantifies the differ-
ence in slip between the analytical model and the experimental data. The
difference is largest for wind speeds below 8 m/s and lubricant temperatures
below 40◦ C. In these conditions, the model overpredicts the slip by as much
as 25%. These differences may be caused by incomplete knowledge of the
real thermal conditions at the contact surfaces. At cold temperatures, the
difference in actual temperature and thus achieved viscosity might be higher
Jou
then anticipated because of viscous heating. The model does not consider
this thermal behavior. Once the lubricant is heated above this point, the
model is typically within 15% of the measured slip. Above a wind speed of
10 m/s, the model matches the experimental data very closely.
Although cage slip is important, roller slip provides far greater insight
into the bearing dynamics and is an important aspect of the bearing design
[40]. As described in Section 1, a roller in a CRB reaches its maximum
17
Journal Pre-proof
rotational speed and minimum slip near the center of the load zone. It
of
then decelerates and reaches its minimum rotational speed and maximum
slip just prior to reentering the load zone. The amount of slip depends on
the drivetrain torque, speed, bearing clearance, viscosity of the lubricant,
and other factors. Examining the minimum and maximum slip provides an
pro
interesting first glance into this behavior. Summaries of the average minimum
and maximum roller slip measured in the test program and predicted using
the analytical model in normal power production conditions are shown in
Figures 8 and 9.
100 50
Experimental Lubricant Temp
Analytical Difference in Minimum Roller Slip (%) > 60 C
80 50 to 60 C
re-
Lubricant Temp
Minimum Roller Slip (%)
25 40 to 50 C
> 60 C 30 to 40 C
50 to 60 C 20 to 30 C
60 40 to 50 C
30 to 40 C
0
20 to 30 C
40 A A B
C
B
-25
20
lP
C
0 -50
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 8: Minimum roller slip (left) and analytical model difference (right) during normal
power production
rna
As expected, the minimum roller slip shown in Figure 8 follows a very

similar pattern as the cage slip. Minimum slip of nearly 60% was measured at
the lowest wind speeds and lubricant temperatures, demonstrating that the
rollers slip in these conditions, even when in the center of the load zone. As
either the wind speed or lubricant temperature increase, the minimum roller
slip decreases. Pure rolling conditions are reached above approximately 8 m/s
Jou
in warmer lubricant conditions and above 10 m/s in any of the measured

lubricant conditions. The difference between the measured and predicted
minimum roller slip shown in Figure 8 also behaves very similarly to the
difference in cage slip. It is highest for the lower wind speeds and colder
lubricant temperature below 40◦ C. Here, the model overpredicts the slip by
up to 30% in a few cases. But once the lubricant is heated above this point,
the model again is typically within 15% of the measured slip. Above a wind
18
Journal Pre-proof
speed of 10 m/s, the model matches the experimental data very closely. The
of
maximum roller slip, shown in Figure 9, was measured up to 80%, near pure
sliding conditions, at the lowest wind speeds and lubricant temperatures. As
the wind speed and lubricant temperature increase, the maximum roller slip
decreases to approximately 30%. The difference in the predicted maximum
pro
roller slip compared to the measured slip is also much larger than either the
cage or the minimum roller slip. In many cases, under 10 m/s wind speed, the
model underpredicts the maximum slip by as much as 35%. Above 10 m/s
wind speed, though, this difference becomes much smaller, as the model
overpredicts the maximum slip by less than 10%.
100 50
A Lubricant Temp
Difference in Maximum Roller Slip (%)
80
> 60 C
re-
50 to 60 C
Maximum Roller Slip (%)
40 to 50 C 25
30 to 40 C
20 to 30 C
60
C 0
40 C
Lubricant Temp
> 60 C
lP
B -25 A 50 to 60 C
20 B 40 to 50 C
Experimental 30 to 40 C
Analytical 20 to 30 C
0 -50
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
rna
Figure 9: Maximum roller slip (left) and analytical model difference (right) during normal
power production
The bearing slip behavior can be described in more detail by examining

the three chosen normal power conditions, A, B, and C, each at an oil temper-
ature of approximately 51◦ C, as shown in Figure 10. The average measured
cage slip and the averaged profile of the roller slip over one complete or-
bit of the roller are shown. The experimental roller slip profile was fitted
Jou
to the measured data through a shape-preserving, piecewise cubic-hermite-

interpolating polynomial. The prediction, using the original Harris model
[14], is also shown for each case. The cage slip predicted by the analytical
model is close to the measured cage slip in each case. The cage slip predicted
by the Harris model, though, does not change significantly between the three
conditions. It is closest to the measured slip in the moderate load and speed
condition B, but it is up to 25% different in conditions A and C. In the roller
19
Journal Pre-proof
slip profile figures, an azimuth of 0 degrees (deg) has been chosen to be at
of
the bottom of the bearing. The roller and cage orbit in the counterclockwise
direction, so an azimuth of 90 deg is aligned with the horizontal, and 180 deg
is at the top of the bearing. In each case, the roller slip behavior during the
orbit is clearly evident. It is at a minimum at the center of the load zone.
pro
Once the roller leaves the load zone, the slip slowly increases until it reenters
the load zone, where it quickly increases. In low-load condition A, the brake
disk and coupling weight do cause the load zone to shift toward the bottom
of the bearing. As the load increases in cases B and C, caused by increasing
torque and gear mesh force acting at an azimuth of 90 deg for this gearbox,
the load zone clearly shifts in this direction. Harris’s model generally un-
derpredicts the roller slip, especially for case A. Even in this low-load case,
re-
the Harris model predicts pure rolling conditions in the center of the load
zone that do not occur in practice. The Harris model also underpredicts the
amount of slip in case B and slightly overpredicts it for case C.
4.2. Design Study

In this section, the effects of bearing design and lubricant parameters on
lP
the predicted bearing roller slip for the aforementioned cases, A, B, and C,
are examined, using the analytical model. For the bearings, radial internal
operating clearance and an alternative, higher-capacity bearing are exam-
ined, whereas oil temperature and an alternative oil with higher viscosity are
examined for the lubricant.
rna
4.2.1. Bearing Parameters

Figure 11 shows the predicted bearing slip for the current NU 232 ECML/C3
GS-in bearing with 20 µm radial internal operating clearance, Pd , compared
to clearances of 0 and 50 µm for load cases A, B, and C. Changing the bear-
ing clearance had an appreciable effect on roller slip for only the low-load
case A. Reducing the clearance reduced the slip by approximately 10% to
15%, whereas increasing the clearance increased it by a similar amount. The
Jou
roller slip behavior for cases B and C is not appreciably different.

Figure 12 shows the predicted roller slip for the current GS-in bearing
compared to a wider, higher capacity NU 2232 ECML/C3 bearing with pa-
rameters listed in Table 2 in the Appendix. For the lowest load case A, the
roller slip increases notably for the NU 2232 ECML/C3 bearing to 80% or
more over the roller orbit. The roller slip increases modestly to approxi-
mately 50% for case B. The maximum roller slip is actually reduced by half
20
Journal Pre-proof
50 100
of
Experimental Experimental
Analytical Analytical
40 80 Harris [14]
Harris
Roller Slip (%)

60
Cage Slip (%)
30
pro
40
20
Entry Center Exit
20
10 Load Zone
0
0 -180 -90 0 90 180
A B C Azimuth Angle (degree)
100 100
80
Experimental
Analytical
Harris [14]
Load Zone
re- 80
Experimental
Analytical
Harris [14]
Load Zone
Roller Slip (%)
Roller Slip (%)
60 60
Entry Center Exit Entry Center Exit
40 40
lP
20 20
0 0
-180 -90 0 90 180 -180 -90 0 90 180
Azimuth Angle (degree) Azimuth Angle (degree)
Figure 10: Cage slip (top left) and roller slip profiles for normal power production cases
rna
A (top right), B (bottom left), and C (bottom right)
for the highest load case C. Because the diameters of the rollers and rings are
very similar, these differences are primarily because of the increased roller
inertia, J, from the increased roller length. Figure 12 also examines the ef-
fect of cage-guiding by comparing the difference in roller slip between the
outer-ring guided NU 2232 ECML/C3 bearing and the inner-ring guided N
Jou
2232 ECML/C3 bearing. The frictional force between the cage rail and the
rotating inner ring tends to reduce the amount of roller slip compared to a
stationary outer ring, because the inner ring is moving faster than the cage.
However, the figure shows that this effect is small. For the lowest load case
A, there is less than 0.7% difference in roller slip between the two bearings.
For load cases B and C, the difference in roller slip is negligible.
21
Journal Pre-proof
100 100
20 µm
of
0 µm
80 80
A A
Roller Slip (%)
Roller Slip (%)

60 60
pro
40 40
B B
20 20
C 20 µm C
50 µm
0 0
-180 -90 0 90 180 -180 -90 0 90 180
NU 232 ECML/C3
A
re-
Figure 11: Effect of reducing (left) and increasing (right) bearing clearance on roller slip
100 1
80 NU 2232 ECML/C3 0.8

Difference in Roller Slip (%)
lP
A
Roller Slip (%)
60 0.6
40
B 0.4
20 0.2
C B
rna
C
0 0
-180 -90 0 90 180 -180 -90 0 90 180
Figure 12: Effect of bearing size (left) and cage-guiding (right) on roller slip
4.2.2. Lubricant Parameters

The effect of lubricant temperature and viscosity on roller slip for the
Jou
three cases is also illustrated in Figure 13. The roller slip increases slightly
for the colder 40◦ C lubricant temperature because it becomes more viscous
and causes increased lubricant drag and friction forces. It is clear from the
earlier figures and Figure 13 that raising the minimum lubricant temperature,
especially for the coldest cases, is an effective method of reducing bearing
slip. Also shown in Figure 13 is the effect of higher viscosity 390-grade
22
Journal Pre-proof
AMSOIL PTENX lubricant with parameters listed in Table 3. There is
of
only a minimal increase in the roller slip, caused by the increased viscosity.
Selecting appropriate bearing design parameters and optimizing the lubricant
temperature range and viscosity can be effective approaches to control roller
slip.
pro
4.3. Start-up Operation
During a start-up, the drivetrain speed and power are governed by the
turbine controller. The measured electrical power, main shaft torque, and
drivetrain speed are shown in Figure 14 during a start-up that was initiated
while the wind speed was approximately 10 m/s, well above the “cut-in”
wind speed for the turbine. The period from idle to rated speed and power
re-
took just under 180 s and proceeded in three phases. In the first phase, the
drivetrain speed increases from idle to approximately 70% under no appre-
ciable load in approximately 60 s. In the second phase, the turbine maintains
this speed until the generator connects at 130 s, and the drivetrain transmits
torque and generates electrical power. If the winds are strong enough, the
third phase will begin, in which the drivetrain torque increases and acceler-
lP
ates to its rated speed. In Figure 14, an additional 120 s of normal operation
is included for comparison purposes, in which the dynamic nature of the
wind speed is evident. During this period, the drivetrain torque and power
actually fell from rated to approximately 50%, caused by a gradual drop in
the wind speed; however, the drivetrain speed remained essentially constant
rna
100 100
50 oC
40 oC
80
A 80
A
Roller Slip (%)
Roller Slip (%)
60 60
40 40
B
Jou
20 20
C C
PTN 320
PTENX 390
0 0
-180 -90 0 90 180 -180 -90 0 90 180
Figure 13: Effect of lubricant temperature (left) and viscosity (right) on roller slip
23
Journal Pre-proof
125 15 100
of
Power Experimental
HSS speed Analytical
100 Wind Speed 80
Power and Speed (%)
Wind Speed (m/s)
Roller Slip (%)

75 60
10
pro
Maximum
50 40
25 20
Minimum
0 5 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (s) Time (s)
re-
Figure 14: Operational conditions (left) and roller slip (right) during a start-up
during this period. The minimum and maximum roller slip over each orbit of
the roller throughout the start-up are also shown in Figure 14. Prior to the
generator connection at 130 s, the maximum roller slip is near fully sliding
conditions. After the generator connects, the minimum roller slip quickly
lP
reaches pure rolling conditions. Overall, the analytical predictions for the
cage and roller speeds correlate with experiments reasonably well.
4.4. Emergency Stop Operation

An emergency stop operation was induced when the drivetrain was op-
erating at rated speed and 38% power, as shown in Figure 15. When the
rna
emergency stop is initiated at 15 s, the generator disconnects from the elec-

trical grid. The driven load is lost, and the high-speed-shaft torque drops
quickly (note: a slower data-refresh rate of the measured electrical power
causes it to lag in time behind the point at which the actual mechanical load
is lost), resulting in a quick increase in roller slip. The hydraulic brake on the
output section of the gearbox then quickly engages with the disk mounted to
the end of the high-speed shaft, resulting in the braking torque and an addi-
Jou
tional 20 kN of applied radial force, resulting in a quick decrease in the roller

slip. The drivetrain then rapidly decelerates and comes to a full stop after
approximately 10 s, during which there are multiple, large-torque oscillations
in the high-speed shaft.
24
Journal Pre-proof
125 200 100

Experimental
of
HSS speed
Power Analytical
100 Torque 150 80
Power and Speed (%)
Roller Slip (%)

Torque (%)
75 100 60
pro
Maximum
50 50 40
25 0 20
Minimum
0 -50 0
10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25
Time (s) Time (s)
re-
Figure 15: Operational conditions (left) and roller slip (right) during an emergency stop
5. Conclusions
In this study, previously developed models for slip in cylindrical roller
bearings have been improved by combining them and including the effect of
lP
friction between the cage and rollers and cage-landing friction. These fric-
tional forces incorporate influences of the lubricant temperature, drivetrain
speed, and load that are constantly changing during wind turbine opera-
tions. The combination of models quickly estimates the bearing roller and
cage speeds, compared to higher fidelity models.
Bearing cage and roller speed predictions from the combined analytical
rna
models were then compared to measurements acquired in an instrumented,

commercial gearbox installed in a wind turbine. The predicted cage and
roller slip compared to the measured results with reasonable accuracy across a
wide range of near steady-state operating conditions and transient events. At
its best, the analytical model predictions match experimental measurements
within 10% for lubricant temperatures above 40◦ C and wind speeds over 10
m/s. The combined analytical models were also shown to be more accurate
Jou
than one of the previously developed analytical models alone.

Cage and roller slip routinely occurred in the examined application, which
should be considered during the design of the drivetrain, bearings, lubricant
selection, and turbine controller. In steady-state conditions at low wind
speeds and low lubricant temperatures, cage and roller slip up to 60% occur
in the loaded zone of the bearing, indicating that none of the rollers even
come close to pure rolling conditions. In the unloaded zone, up to 80% roller
25
Journal Pre-proof
slip occurs. Cage and roller slip then decrease as the lubricant temperature
of
and wind speed increases. Depending on the wind speeds and lubricant tem-
perature, these conditions could occur for extended periods in both normal
operations and start-up conditions. Bearing slip is exacerbated by low oil
temperatures that might more frequently occur in colder climates. The im-
pro
plication of roller slip on bearing white-etching cracks and bearing life in
general is the subject of ongoing investigation.
Author Statement
Yi Guo: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft;
Jonathan Keller: Conceptualization, Instrumentation, Experimentation, Writing-
Review/Editing
Acknowledgments
re-
This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided
lP
by U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Wind Energy
Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government retains
and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that
the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide
rna
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow

others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. This work was also made
possible by the contributions of SKF GmbH under Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA) CRD-16-608, Flender Corporation under
CRADA CRD-17-694, and AMSOIL Incorporated.
References
Jou
[1] Keller, J., Sheng, S., Cotrell, J., and Greco, A., 2016. Wind turbine
drivetrain reliability collaborative workshop: a recap. Report DOE/GO-
102016-4878, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
[2] Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., and Lantz, E., 2019. “Assessing wind power
operating costs in the United States: results from a survey of wind
industry experts”. Renewable Energy Focus, 30(00), pp. 46–57.
26
Journal Pre-proof
[3] Greco, A., Sheng, S., Keller, J., and Erdemir, A., 2013. “Material wear
of
and fatigue in wind turbine systems”. Wear, 302(1), pp. 1583–1591.
[4] Evans, M. H., 2016. “An updated review: white etching cracks (WECs)
and axial cracks in wind turbine gearbox bearings”. Materials Science
pro
and Technology, 32(11), pp. 1133–1169.
[5] Gould, B., Greco, A., Stadler, K., and Xiao, X., 2017. “An analysis
of premature cracking associated with microstructural alterations in an
AISI 52100 failed wind turbine bearing using x-ray tomography”. Ma-
terials and Design, 117, p. 417429.
[6] Gould, B., and Greco, A., 2015. “The influence of sliding and contact
60, pp. 1–13. re-

severity on the generation of white etching cracks”. Tribology Letters,
[7] Gould, B., and Greco, A., 2016. “Investigating the process of white
etching crack initiation in bearing steel”. Tribology Letters, 62(2).
[8] Stadler, K., Vegter, E., Ersson, M., and Vaes, D., 2016. “White etching
lP
cracks - a symptom of bearing failures”. In World Conference, FVA
Bearing, pp. 245–263.
[9] Stadler, K., Vegter, R. H., and Vaes, D., 2018. “White etching cracks -
a consequence, not a root cause of bearing failure”. Evolution, 1.
rna
[10] Manieri, F., Stadler, K., Morales-Espejel, G. E., and Kadiric, A., 2019.
“The origins of white etching cracks and their significance to rolling
bearing failures”. International Journal of Fatigue, 120, pp. 107–133.
[11] Harris, T. A., 1966. “An analytical method to predict skidding in high
speed roller bearings”. ASLE Transactions, 9(3), pp. 229–241.
[12] Dowson, D., and Higginson, G. R., 1960. “The effect of material prop-
Jou
erties on the lubrication of elastic rollers”. Journal of Mech. Eng. Sci.,

2(3), pp. 188–194.
[13] Poplawski, J. V., 1972. “Slip and cage forces in a high-speed roller
bearing”. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 94(2), pp. 143–150.
[14] Harris, T. A., and Mindel, M. H., 1973. “Rolling element bearing dy-
namics”. Wear, 23(3), pp. 311–337.
27
Journal Pre-proof
[15] Kleckner, R. J., Pirvics, J., and Castelli, V., 1980. “High speed cylin-
of
drical rolling element bearing analysis “CYBEAN” - analytical formu-
lation”. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 102, pp. 380–388.
[16] Gupta, P. K., 1979. “Dynamics of rolling-element bearings part I: cylin-
pro
drical roller bearing analysis”. Journal of Lubrication Technology, 101,
pp. 293–302.
[17] Gupta, P. K., 1979. “Dynamics of rolling-element bearings part II:

Cylindrical roller bearing results”. Journal of Lubrication Technology,
101, pp. 305–311.
[18] Houpert, L., 2010. “CAGEDYN: a contribution to rolling bearing dy-
tion, 53, pp. 1–9.

re-
namic calculations part I: basic tribology concepts”. Tribology Transac-

namic calculations part II: Description of the numerical tool and its
outputs”. Tribology Transaction, 53, pp. 10–11.
lP
namic calculations part III: Experimental validation”. Tribology Trans-
action, 53, pp. 848–859.
[21] Stacke, L.-E., Fritzson, D., and Nordling, P., 1999. “BEAST - a rolling
bearing simulation tool”. Proceedings of the institution of mechanical
rna
engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-Body Dynamics, 213(2), pp. 63–71.
[22] Ioannides, E., Stacke, L.-E., Fritzson, D., and Nakhimovski, I., 2005.
“Multibody rolling bearing calculations: computer program BEAST”.
World Tribology Congress III, 1(WTC2005-64337), pp. 903–904.
[23] Shaeffler. Calculation. https://www.schaeffler.us/content.schaeffler.us/us/products-

and-solutions/industrial/calculation-and-advice/calculation/. Accessed:
Jou
2019-08-01.
[24] Rhodes, J., and Clever, K. High-performance spher-

ical roller bearings: Meeting today’s greater demands.
https://www.timken.com/resources/high-performance-srb-technical-
white-paper/. Accessed: 2019-08-01.
28
Journal Pre-proof
[25] Tassone, B. A., 1975. “Roller bearing slip and skidding damage”. Jour-
of
nal of Aircraft, 12(4), pp. 281–287.
[26] Fingerle, T., Greib, K., and Sauer, B., 2016. “An experimental approach
on slip behaviour of tapered roller bearings”. In Proceedings of the 1st
pro
Bearing World Conference, FVA, pp. 29–47.
[27] Bercea, I., Cretu, S., Bercea, M., and Olaru, D., 1998. “Simulating roller
- cage pocket friction in a tapered roller bearing”. European Journal of
Mechanical and Environmental Engineering, 43(4), pp. 189–194.
[28] Petrov, N., 1883. Friction in machines and the effect of the lubricant.
Report, Inzh. Zh., St. Petersburg.
re-
[29] Harris, T. A., and Kotzalas, M. N., 2007. Essential Concepts of Bearing
Technology, 5 ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
[30] Keller, J., Gould, B., and Greco, A., 2017. Investigation of bear-
ing axial cracking: benchtop and full-scale test results. Technical re-
port NREL/TP-5000-67523, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
lP
Golden, CO.
[31] Keller, J., 2018. Investigating main and high-speed shaft bearing relia-
bility through uptower testing. Technical report NREL/PR-5000-70958,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
rna
[32] Keller, J., and Lambert, S., 2018. Gearbox instrumentation for the
investigation of bearing axial cracking. Technical report NREL/TP-
5000-70639, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
[33] Volkmuth, M., Stadler, K., and Heemskerk, R., 2009. “Slippage mea-
surements in roller bearings”. In Proceedings of the Antriebstechnis-
ches Kolloquium, Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technol-
ogy University Library, pp. 161–177.
Jou
[34] Keller, J., Guo, Y., and Sethuraman, L., 2019. Uptower investiga-
tion of main and high-speed shaft bearing reliability. Technical re-
port NREL/TP-5000-71529, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO.
29
Journal Pre-proof
[35] Guo, Y., and Keller, J., 2017. “Investigation of high-speed shaft bearing
of
loads in wind turbine gearboxes through dynamometer testing”. Wind
Energy, 21(2), pp. 139–150.
[36] Martin, H. M., 1916. “The lubrication of gear teeth”. Engineering, 102,
pro
pp. 109–121.
[37] Vaes, D., Guo, Y., Tesini, P., and Keller, J., 2019. Investigation of roller
sliding in wind turbine gearbox high-speed shaft bearings. Technical
report NREL/TP-5000-73286, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO.
[38] Duda, T., Jacobs, G., and Bosse, D., 2018. “Investigation of dynamic
re-
drivetrain behaviour of a wind turbine during a power converter fault”.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1037(052031), pp. 1–7.
[39] Santos, R., and van Dam, J., 2015. Mechanical loads test report for
the U.S. Department of Energy 1.5-megawatt wind turbine. Technical
report NREL/TP-5000-63679, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
lP
Golden, CO.
[40] Vaes, D., Clement, P., and Stadler, K., 2017. “How does the application
of actual standards & guidelines contribute to robust bearing solution
in multi-MW wind turbine gearboxes?”. In Proceedings of the 3rd Con-
ference for Wind Power Drives, Books on Demand, pp. 43–59.
rna
Jou
30
Journal Pre-proof
Appendix
of
PEAB
Quantity Symbol 4410.4
pro
Strain gage location from RS-end (mm) LB 384
Pinion center from RS-end (mm) Lp 282
RS bearing center from RS-end (mm) LRS 56.5
Pinion base diameter (mm) Rb 87.4
Pinion meshing angle (deg) β 89.6
Brake disk weight (kN ) Wd 3.45
Quantity
re-
Table 1: Winergy gearbox high-speed-shaft parameters
Symbol
NU 232
ECML/C3
NU 2232
ECML/C3
Number of rollers Z 19 18
Roller mass (kg) mr 0.19 0.38
lP
Roller diameter (mm) D 32 34
Roller length (mm) L 30 56
Roller mass moment of inertia (kg-mm2 ) J 25 47
Inner ring raceway diameter (mm) di 195 193
Pitch diameter (mm) dm 227 227
Outer ring raceway diameter (mm) do 259 261
rna
Radial internal operating clearance (µm) Pd 20 20

Young’s modulus (GP a) E 200 200
Poisson’s ratio σ 0.3 0.3
Table 2: SKF bearing parameters
PTN PTENX
Quantity Symbol 320 390
Jou
Absolute viscosity at 40◦ C (P a-s) η 0.28 0.33

Absolute viscosity at 100◦ C (P a-s) η 0.028 0.032
Pressure-viscosity coefficient at 30◦ C (GP a−1 ) α 15.6 15.6*
Pressure-viscosity coefficient at 60◦ C (GP a−1 ) α 9.5 9.5*
* assumed value
Table 3: AMSOIL lubricant parameters
31
Journal Pre-proof
 This paper presents a combination of analytical models that together calculate the cage
and roller speeds of a cylindrical roller bearing;
 Predicted cage and roller slip compared well with measurements acquired on a
commercial gearbox bearing for a variety of operating conditions of a wind turbine;
Roller and cage slip in cylindrical bearings regularly occur during wind turbine
of

operations;
 Roller slip is a combined effect of bearing design, applied load, speed, and lubricant
properties and temperature.
pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
Yi Guo: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft;
Jonathan Keller: Conceptualization, Instrumentation, Experimentation, Writing- Review/Editing
of
pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou
Journal Pre-proof
Declaration of interests
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
of
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
pro
re-
lP
rna
Jou

Validation of Combined Analytical Methods To Predict Slip in Cylindrical Rollwe Bearings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Validation of Combined Analytical Methods To Predict Slip in Cylindrical Rollwe Bearings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Validation of Combined Analytical Methods to Predict

Keywords: Wind Turbine, Rolling Element Bearing, Slip, Lubrication

Preprint submitted to Tribology International March 27, 2020

Depending on the roller load, shaft speed, operating clearance, viscosity of

Motivated by the likely significance of bearing slip upon the formation

three support bearings, SKF black-oxide-coated, outer-ring guided NU 2326

Figure 1: NU 232 ECML/L4BC3 bearing (left), roller speed instrumentation (middle),

Mark McDade, NREL 49050

After installation of the drivetrain and commissioning in a General Elec-

surements from the gearbox instrumentation were time-synchronized with

The model of CRB slip described in this work consists of a combination of

3.1. Equations of Motion

A free-body diagram of a roller in a CRB is shown in Figure 4. Each

Qij + Fcj − Qoj + Fcgj − mr g cos θj = 0 (1)

circumferential position of the roller. Additionally, the forces applied by the

3.1.1. Centrifugal Force

3.1.3. Friction and Drag Forces

where n = i, o represents either the inner or outer rings with ci = −1 and

Poisson’s ratio of the bearing material. The nondimensional parameter, G,

3.1.4. Inner and Outer Raceway Friction Moments

where the parameter, ρn , is

3.1.5. Cage-Landing Friction Force

ηwc d2cl (ωc − ωn )

3.2. Cage Speed

−(Foj )u − (Fvoj )u + (Qcgj )u = 0 (35)

3.3. Roller Speed

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Normal Power Production Operations

the high-speed shaft, which is typically a duration of 1 to 2 seconds (s), and

Generated Power (%)

terms of the percentage of slip, in which 0% indicates pure rolling conditions,

Difference in Cage Slip (%)

Wind Speed (m/s)

As expected, the minimum roller slip shown in Figure 8 follows a very

in warmer lubricant conditions and above 10 m/s in any of the measured

The bearing slip behavior can be described in more detail by examining

to the measured data through a shape-preserving, piecewise cubic-hermite-

slip profile figures, an azimuth of 0 degrees (deg) has been chosen to be at

4.2. Design Study

4.2.1. Bearing Parameters

roller slip behavior for cases B and C is not appreciably different.

Roller Slip (%)

Roller Slip (%)

A (top right), B (bottom left), and C (bottom right)

Roller Slip (%)

80 NU 2232 ECML/C3 0.8

4.2.2. Lubricant Parameters

AMSOIL PTENX lubricant with parameters listed in Table 3. There is

Roller Slip (%)

Wind Speed (m/s)

Roller Slip (%)

4.4. Emergency Stop Operation

emergency stop is initiated at 15 s, the generator disconnects from the elec-

tional 20 kN of applied radial force, resulting in a quick decrease in the roller

125 200 100

Roller Slip (%)

models were then compared to measurements acquired in an instrumented,

than one of the previously developed analytical models alone.

license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow

60, pp. 1–13. re-

erties on the lubrication of elastic rollers”. Journal of Mech. Eng. Sci.,