See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270271997

Effect of Geometrical Imperfections of Gears in Large Offshore Wind Turbine

Gear Trains: 0.6–10 MW Case Studies

Conference Paper · January 2012

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1139.1048

CITATIONS READS

4 1,071

2 authors:

Amir R. Nejad Torgeir Moan

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norwegian University of Science and Technology
65 PUBLICATIONS   696 CITATIONS    539 PUBLICATIONS   12,571 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learning from non-failures and success View project

OMAE 2019 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amir R. Nejad on 31 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of Geometrical Imperfections of Gears in Large
Offshore Wind Turbine Gear Trains: 0.6–10 MW Case
Studies
Amir Rasekhi Nejad
IMT, CeSOS, NTNU
Trondheim, Norway
Amir.Nejad@ntnu.no
EWEA 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark
Keywords: Gear geometrical imperfections, large wind turbine gear trains, offshore drivetrains
Abstract
Current wind turbine gear design standards,
such as ISO/IEC 61400-4 [1] and ANSI/AGMA/
AWEA 6006-A03 [2] cover turbines with capacity
up to 2 MW. According to these design codes, gear
geometrical tolerances shall be taken from ISO
1328-1 & 2 [3,4] where gear quality is classified in
grades. For instance based on AWEA wind turbine
design code [2], the maximum quality grade for
carburized external gears shall not be more than 6
in ISO 1328-1 [3] ranking level. However, in
absence of design guidelines for above 2 MW
turbines, selecting right gear quality grade is a
challenge for designers.
In this paper, the effect of gear geometrical
variation in large wind turbines is investigated. In
general gear geometrical imperfections are
classified in two groups of assembly dependent
and assembly independent variations. They
influence gear load sharing, vibration, contact
pattern, contact stress and finally reaction loads
imposed on bearings. Both two groups of
variations are considered in this study and their
effect on contact stress, vibration and bearing load
variation is evaluated through case studies of 0.6
to 10 MW. The outcome presents the effect of gear
quality changes in large wind turbine gear trains
and sensitivity to each category of imperfection.
1. Introduction
Wind is taking the industry further offshore and
deeper water exposing wind turbine machineries to
extreme loads and higher design uncertainties.
Without doubt, current challenges with land based
and fixed offshore wind turbines needs to be well
understood in order to limit uncertainties for future
floating fleets. Particularly for large multi mega
watts offshore wind turbines as blade diameter
increases, the rotational speed decreases, thus,
drive trains with higher ratio are needed.
In this paper, the effect of gear geometrical
quality in large wind turbines is investigated.
Manufacturing deviations create nonlinearity in the
dynamic behaviour of the gears as indicated by
gear researchers [5,6,7]. According to Musial W. et
al [8] some common issues have been observed in
wind turbine drivetrain failures: “most of the
problems with the current fleet of wind turbine
Torgeir Moan
CeSOS, NTNU
Trondheim, Norway
Torgeir.Moan@ntnu.no
 
gearboxes are generic in nature, meaning that the
problems are not specific to a single gear
manufacturer or turbine model. Most gearbox
failures do not begin as gear failures or gear-tooth
design deficiencies”. One of possible failure
reasons highlighted by Musial W. et al [8] is that
the transfer of loads from gears and bearings to
shafts is occurring in non-linear or unpredicted
manner meaning that observed experimental loads
are higher than expected values obtained from
simulations.
Although research works directly addressing
gear trains in wind turbines, to the author’s best
knowledge, are rather limited [9-11], nonlinear
dynamic behaviour of gear trains has been studied
for both spur and helical gears and manufacturing
imperfections are claimed to be important players
in this nonlinear performance [12-17].
Wind turbine geometrical manufacturing
imperfections of gears can be classified in four
general categories:
 Tooth profile deviations (assembly
independent)
 Misalignment (assembly dependent)
 Backlash (assembly dependent)
 Mesh phasing (assembly dependent)
The influence of each category is investigated
in reference [18] but in the current study, first two
groups are assessed.
2. Study method & case studies
There are well established standard
calculation methods for gear contact stress,
transmission error and bearing reaction specified
in design codes like ISO 6336 [19] which are
reflected in gear design tools. In this paper,
imperfection effects are investigated through study
of gear trains in various sizes by means of design
and analysis software, KISSsoft [20]. The gear
parameters are calculated by this program in rated
wind speed.
In accordance with ANSI/AGMA/AWEA 6006-
A03 [2] the gear quality shall follow grading level
listed in table 1 in which the higher grade number
means the larger tolerances and lower quality.
Gear quality grade limits gear tooth tolerances
including profile deviations which are assembly
independent. There are other manufacturing limits
like axial misalignment that are not dictated by the  Bearing reactions: by measuring planet
gear quality grade. bearing force
 Vibration: by measuring transmission error
Table 1: required gear accuracy [2] (TE)
Max. Accuracy per  Contact stress : by measuring contact stress
Gear type Heat treatment
ISO 1328-1
along line of action
External Carburized 6
Internal Carburized 7  Variation of force along the face width: by
7 (with 8 for runout measuring K H  ; face load factor
Internal Nitrided and total cumulative
pitch deviation)
Bearing reaction varies in each gear rotation
Through cycle. Geometrical imperfections influence load
Internal 8 distribution on the bearing which is captured by
hardened
recording the reaction and K H  in each case study.
In this study both groups are considered by Transmission Error (TE) is another important
case studies listed in table 2 and 3. Gear quality factor which is affected by the manufacturing
investigation is carried through R1 and C1 cases. imperfections. Transmission error is the single
R1 reflects the lowest permitted quality in most important factor in the generation of gear
accordance with wind turbine design codes [1,2] vibration and is defined as “the difference between
while gears in C1 are one grade lower than the actual position of the output gear and the
permissible level. It is worthwhile to indicate that position it would occupy if the gear were perfectly
lower quality than C1 case is not possible because conjugate” [21]. Transmission error is the
the tooth thickness tolerances are out of the combination of gear pitch, profile and helix errors
acceptable standard range. together with tooth bending, gear body
deformation and support deflections which give an
Table 2: Assembly independent study cases
overall relative deflection at the meshing point
Gear quality grade
Case # (ISO1328-1)
Wind between the gears and the deviation from the true
speed involute profile. The mean value of TE is not
External Internal
R1 6 7 Rated important in vibration generation as it is due to
C1 7 8 Rated elastic tooth deflection but the varying part is
causing the oscillating acceleration and vibration
Case R2 and C2 in table 3 cover the axial through the system.
misalignment – shown in Fig. 1 – which is an Contact stress is also measured for each case
assembly dependent parameter. The misalignment through the line of action for planet in the middle
values selected for C2 and R2 cases are based on section of face width.
experimental observations [11] and standard The design concept of case studies covers
values of total helix deviations [3]. The axial high ratio gear trains suitable for high speed
misalignment is then applied only on planets as generators with specification listed in table 4 and
the floating sun concept is assumed for all case 5. Besides that, since scope of this study is limited
studies. to the gear quality, shaft and gear train support
deflections are excluded.

Table 4: Rotor speed and generated power

of study cases (rpm/MW)
Capacity(MW) Cut in Rated
0.6 12/0.05 24/0.6
2 9/0.18 15/2
5 7/0.35 12/5
10 5/0.70 12/10
Fig. 1: Axial misalignment
Table 5: Gear trains of study cases
Table 3: Assembly dependent study cases Capacity 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Case (MW) stage stage stage stage
Axial misalignment ( f  ) Wind speed Type P H H
# 0.6
R2 50 Rated Ratio 1:4.07 1:4.00 1:3.77
C2 200 Rated Type P P H
2
Ratio 1:4.03 1:5.06 1:5.09
Type P P P H
It is known that gear geometrical imperfections 5
Ratio 1:4.00 1:4.00 1:4.00 1:1.95
influence contact and root stresses, contact Type P P P H
pattern, support reactions and vibration throughout 10
Ratio 1:4.00 1:4.00 1:4.00 1:1.97
the system. Therefore in order to capture their P: Planetary, H: Parallel Helical
effects, following parameters are calculated for
each case:
2.1. 0.6 MW case study Contact Stress (Mpa)
Fig. 2 presents the schematic of a 0.6 MW 1500

model consisting of one planetary and two helical 1000

1st stage
stages.
500
Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

1400

1200

2nd stage
1000

800

600
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

1400

1200

3rd stage
1000

800
Fig. 2: 0.6 MW, 3 stage gear train 600

400
In Fig. 3 planet bearing, contact stress and TE -20 -15 -10 -5
Rotation Angle(degree)
0 5 10

for cases R1 and C1 is presented. The noticeable Fig. 3-2: 0.6 MW, effect of gear quality on contact
observation is the increase of TE for gear quality of stress
7.
4 Transmission Error (micron)
x 10 Bearing Force (N) -205
Sun/Planet TE 1st stage
9.5
-210
Planet, 1st stage

9
-215 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
8.5
-220

8 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6 -225

Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
7.5 -230
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

4
x 10 -210
Pinion/Gear TE 2nd stage

8.5
-212
Gear, 2nd stage

8 -214

-216
7.5
-218

7 -220
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

4
x 10 -165
Pinion/Gear TE 3rd stage

3.6
Gear, 3rd stage

3.4 -170

3.2
-175
3

2.8 -180
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree) Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 3-3: 0.6 MW, effect of gear quality on TE

Fig. 3-1: 0.6 MW, effect of gear quality on bearing
force
In this case as it shown in above figures, the
effect of gear quality is limited to TE variation. The
misalignment effect (R2 and C2 cases) is shown in
Fig. 4-1 to 4-3 with K H  in table 6.
Table 6: 0.6 MW, KH
st nd
CASE # 1 stage 2 stage 3rd stage
R2 1.42 1.34 1.51
C2 2.56 2.29 2.83
 4
Misalignment of 200  m appears too large for
x 10 Bearing Force (N)
8.5
this gear train as the face load distribution factor is
8
too high. Because of large face load factor, the
Planet, 1st stage

7.5

7
load is not distributed equally along the face. Thus,
Blue: misalignment 50 micron
6.5
Green: misalignment 200 micron the bearing force and contact stress obtained from
6
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
middle of the gear is less than the 50  m case.
4
x 10
10.5

10
2.2. 2 MW case study
Gear, 2nd stage

9.5
The 2 MW gear train includes two planetary
9 stages and one parallel helical as shown in Fig. 5.
8.5

8
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

4
x 10
5
Gear, 3rd stage

4.5

3.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 4-1: 0.6 MW, effect of gear misalignment on

bearing force
Contact Stress (Mpa)
1500

1000
1st stage

500
Blue: misalignment 50 micron Fig. 5: 2 MW, 3 stage gear train
Green: misalignment 200 micron
0 5
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 x 10 Bearing Force (N)
2.3
Planet, 1st stage

1500 2.2

2.1
1000
2nd stage

2
Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
500 Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
1.9
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0 4
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 x 10
9.5
Planet, 2nd stage

1500 9

8.5
1000
3rd stage

500
7.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0 4
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 x 10
Rotation Angle(degree) 7.5
Gear, 3rd stage

Fig. 4-2: 0.6 MW, effect of gear misalignment on 7

contact stress
6.5
Transmission Error (micron)
-190
Sun/Planet TE 1st stage

6
-200 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree)
-210
Blue: misalignment 50 micron
Green: misalignment 200 micron
-220
Fig. 6-1: 2 MW, effect of gear quality on bearing
-230
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
force

-190
Pinion/Gear TE 2nd stage

-200

-210

-220

-230
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

-130
Pinion/Gear TE 3rd stage

-140

-150

-160

-170

-180
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 4-3: 0.6 MW, effect of gear misalignment on TE

 Contact Stress (Mpa) 5
Bearing Force (N)
1200 x 10
2.2

Planet, 1st stage

1000 2
1st stage

800 1.8
Blue: misalignment 50 micron
Green: misalignment 200 micron
600 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6 1.6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
400 1.4
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

4
1500 x 10
8

Planet, 2nd stage

1000 7
2nd stage

500 6

0 5
-10 -5 0 5 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

4
1500 x 10
10

Gear, 3rd stage

9
1000
3rd stage

8
500
7

0 6
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree) Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 6-2: 2 MW, effect of gear quality on contact Fig. 7-1: 2 MW, effect of gear misalignment on
stress bearing force
Contact Stress (Mpa)
1500
Transmission Error (micron)
-225
Sun/Planet TE 1st stage

1000
1st stage

-230

-235 500
Blue: misalignment 50 micron
-240 Green: misalignment 200 micron
Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
-245 0
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
-250
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
1500

-196
Sun/Planet TE 2nd stage

1000
2nd stage

-198

-200 500
-202

-204 0
-10 -5 0 5
-206
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
1500

-250
Pinion/Gear TE 3rd stage

1000
3rd stage

-255

-260 500
-265

-270 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
-275 Rotation Angle(degree)
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 7-2: 2 MW, effect of gear misalignment on

Fig. 6-3: 2 MW, effect of gear quality on TE contact stress

Fig.6 presents the effect of gear quality and

Fig. 7 the misalignment influence.
 5
x 10 Bearing Force (N)
Transmission Error (micron) 4

Planet, 1st stage

-200
Sun/Planet TE 1st stage

3.5
-220 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
3
-5 0 5 10 15 20
-240
5
Blue: misalignment 50 micron x 10
1.7

Planet, 2nd stage

Green: misalignment 200 micron
-260
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 1.6

1.5
-160
Pinion/Gear TE 2nd stage

1.4
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-170
4
-180 x 10
7

Planet, 3rd stage

-190
6.5
-200

-210 6
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
4
x 10
-230 6.5
Pinion/Gear TE 3rd stage

Gear, 4th stage

-240
6
-250

-260 5.5
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-270 Rotation Angle(degree)

-280
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Fig. 9-1: 5 MW, effect of gear quality on bearing
Rotation Angle(degree)
force
Contact Stress (Mpa)
Fig. 7-3: 2 MW, effect of gear misalignment on TE 1500

1st stage
1000

Table 7: 2 MW, KH 500

Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
0
st nd rd -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
CASE # 1 stage 2 stage 3 stage
1500
R2 1.30 1.52 1.35
2nd stage

1000
C2 2.19 2.86 2.34
500

The change of gear quality does not have a 0

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

considerable impact on measured parameters 1500

shown in fig. 6, while changes in planet axial

3rd stage

1000

misalignment has increased TE variation, causing 500

loss of contact. The effect of misalignment appears 0

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
to be not the same for each stage. The first stage 1000
Gear, 4th stage

is less sensitive to the misalignment than others. 800

The load reduction observed in bearing reactions, 600

confirms the unequal load distribution along the 400

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
face width. Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 9-2: 5 MW, effect of gear quality on contact

2.3. 5 MW case study stress
The 5 MW example gear train consists of three
planetary stages (Fig. 8) and one helical stage. Transmission Error (micron)
-300
S/P TE 1st stage

-310

-320
Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
-330
-5 0 5 10 15 20

-220
S/P TE 2nd stage

-230

-240

-250
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-200
S/P TE 3rd stage

-205

Fig. 8: 5 MW, 4 stage gear train -210

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-225
TE 4th stage

-230

-235

-240
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 9-3: 5 MW, effect of gear quality on TE

 Table 8: 5 MW, KH Transmission Error (micron)
-280

S/P TE 1st stage

th
st 4
CASE # 1 stage 2nd stage 3rd stage -300
stage -320
R2 1.14 1.19 1.52 1.38 Blue: misalignment 50 micron
Green: misalignment 200 micron
-340
C2 1.78 2.04 2.85 2.44 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-200

S/P TE 2nd stage

-220

5
x 10 Bearing Force (N) -240
4
Planet, 1st stage

Blue: misalignment 50 micron -260

3.5 Green: misalignment 200 micron -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

3 -160

S/P TE 3rd stage

2.5 -180
-5 0 5 10 15 20
5
x 10 -200
1.6
Planet, 2nd stage

-220
1.4 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

1.2 -210

TE 4th stage
1 -220
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
4
x 10 -230
7
Planet, 3rd stage

-240
6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rotation Angle(degree)
5

4
-10
4
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Fig. 10-3: 5 MW, effect of gear misalignment on TE
x 10
8
Gear, 4th stage

7
According to figures 9-1 to 9-3, low gear
quality of 7 has minor influence on the bearing
6
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 reaction, vibration and planet contact stress for 5
MW gear train. In axial misalignment cases, the 1st
Rotation Angle(degree)

and 2nd stage accept more misalignment than the

Fig. 10-1: 5 MW, effect of gear misalignment on
bearing force last two stages. Table 8 shows a decline in face
load factor comparative with the 0.6 and 2 MW
gear trains.
Contact Stress (Mpa)
1500

2.4. 10 MW case study

1st stage

1000

500 Blue: misalignment 50 micron

Green: misalignment 200 micron
The 10 MW gear train includes three stage
0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
planetary with one stage parallel helical gear as
1500
illustrated in Fig. 11. The overall gear ratio of this
gear train is 1:126 which is suitable for high speed
2nd stage

1000

500
generators.
0
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

1500
3rd stage

1000

500

0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

1000
4th stage

500

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 10-2: 5 MW, effect of gear misalignment on

contact stress

Fig. 11: 10 MW, 4 stage gear train

 5

7
x 10 Bearing Force (N)
Table 9: 10 MW, KH
Planet, 1st stage

Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6

4th
6.5
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
6 CASE # 1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage
stage
5.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 R2 1.20 1.30 1.46 1.27
5

2.8
x 10
C2 1.78 2.19 2.70 2.07
Planet, 2nd stage

2.6

2.4
5
2.2 x 10 Bearing Force (N)
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 7

Planet, 1st stage

4
x 10 6
11
Planet, 3rd stage

5
10

9 4
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
5
8 x 10
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 3

Planet, 2nd stage

4 Blue: misalignment 50 micron
x 10 2.5 Green: misalignment 200 micron
10.5
Gear, 4th stage

2
10

9.5 1.5
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
4
9 x 10
-5 0 5 10 15 20 10

Planet, 3rd stage

Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 12-1: 10 MW, effect of gear quality on bearing

6
force -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
5
x 10
1.4

Gear, 4th stage

Contact Stress (Mpa)
1500
1.2
1st stage

1000 1

500 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6 0.8

Green: Gear Quality Grade 7 -5 0 5 10 15 20
0 Rotation Angle(degree)
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

1500
Fig. 13-1: 10 MW, effect of gear misalignment on
bearing force
2nd stage

1000
Contact Stress (Mpa)
500 1500
1st stage

0 1000
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
500 Blue: misalignment 50 micron
1500 Green: misalignment 200 micron
0
3rd stage

1000 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

500 1500
2nd stage

0 1000
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
500
1500
Gear, 4th stage

0
1000 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

500 1500
3rd stage

0 1000
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Rotation Angle(degree) 500

0
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Fig. 12-2: 10 MW, effect of gear quality on contact 1500
stress
4th stage

1000

Transmission Error (micron) 500

-310
S/P TE 1st stage

0
-315 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Rotation Angle(degree)
-320 Blue: Gear Quality Grade 6

-325
Green: Gear Quality Grade 7
Fig. 13-2: 10 MW, effect of gear misalignment on
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
contact stress
-280
S/P TE 2nd stage

-285

-290

-295
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-200
S/P TE 3rd stage

-205

-210

-215
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-240
TE 4th stage

-250
-260
-270

-280
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Rotation Angle(degree)

Fig. 12-3: 10 MW, effect of gear quality on TE

 -300
Transmission Error (micron)
3. Comparison
S/P TE 1st stage

-310
In above case studies, planet bearing force,
-320 Blue: misalignment 50 micron
Green: misalignment 200 micron
transmission error, face load factor and contact
-330
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 stress were measured for two groups of gear
-270 grades and axial misalignment. In Fig. 14 and 15,
S/P TE 2nd stage

-280 the mean value of these parameters among the

-290 stages are drawn and compared. For bearing
-300 force, relative maximum variations are considered
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

-180
in comparison while for TE, standard deviations
are compared. In contact stress, the maximum
S/P TE 3rd stage

-200 values are considered.

-220
From Fig. 14 and 15 it is observed that
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
misalignment holds stronger influence than gear
-220
quality on gear load sharing, vibration and contact
TE 4th stage

-240
stress variation. As the gear train capacity goes
-260
higher to 10 MW, the face load factor ( K H  )
-280
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Rotation Angle(degree) declines, but it still remains in the range above 2
Fig. 13-3: 10 MW, effect of gear misalignment on TE for 200  m misalignment which is not an
acceptable value. The same trend is observed for
From Fig. 12 it is observed that change of gear transmission error and contact stress in 200  m
quality, does not affect the 10 MW gear train
for 10 MW gear train.
considerably. Similar to 5 MW case, 1st and 2nd
stages are less sensitive to the misalignment
shown in Fig. 13.

Fig. 14: Effect of gear quality grade, 0.6 to 10 MW

Fig. 15: Effect of misalignment, 0.6 to 10 MW

are measured for each case study with varying

4. Conclusion gear quality and planet axial misalignment. In large
The effect of gear quality grade and axial gear trains such as 5 and 10 MW it is found that
misalignment for a range of medium to large wind the gear quality of 7 for external gear and 8 for
turbine gear trains are investigated. Bearing internal do not affect the measured parameters
reaction force, face load distribution factor, considerably even though they are one grade
transmission error and maximum contact stress lower than permitted level. Transmission Error is
the only parameter changes but within a small
 range. However, larger TE variation can influence
the load sharing behaviour of planets especially
under low speed.
For assembly dependent imperfections like
axial misalignment although a negative trend is
observed for face load factor and contact stress
toward larger wind turbines for large misalignment,
they are found still not within acceptable range.
Therefore, the assembly dependent tolerances still
remain crucial even for large gear trains. This
shows that the special consideration shall be taken
in design of large turbines to accommodate the
assembly imperfections or load dependent
deformations because they are not less sensitive
than small turbines to the misalignments.
It is also observed that each stage behave
different than others to the misalignment. For
instance the first two stages in 5 and 10 MW gear
trains can hold larger misalignment than the other
stages.
This study is conducted in rated wind speed
for all the cases. Since the transmission error
variation is higher in low wind speed, it is required
to evaluate all cases in both low and rated wind
speeds to confirm the results which are carried
further in reference [18].
Acknowledgement
The first author would like to thank KISSsoft
AG, Switzerland and Dr. Stefan Beermann for
providing KISSsoft and KISSsys programs.
References
[1] ISO/IEC 61400-4, Design and Specification of
Wind Turbine Gearboxes, 2012
[2] ANSI/AGMA/AWEA 6006-A03, Standard for
Design and Specifications of Gearboxes for Wind
Turbines, 2010
[3] ISO 1328‐1, Cylindrical gears – ISO system of
accuracy – part 1: definitions and allowable values
of deviations relevant to corresponding flanks of
gear teeth, first edition, 1995
[4] ISO 1328‐2, Cylindrical gears – ISO system of
accuracy – part 2: definitions and allowable values
of deviations relevant to radial composite
deviations and runout information, first edition,
1997
[5] Kahraman A., Singh R., Non-linear dynamics of
spur gear pair, Journal of sound and vibration;
1990: 142(1), 49-75
[6] Litvin F. L., Fuentes A., Gear geometry and
applied theory, second edition, 2004, Cambridge
Press
[7] Smith J. D., helical gear vibration excitation with
misalignment, Proceeding of Institute
Mechanical Engineers; 1994: 208, 71-79
[8] Musial W. et al, Improving wind turbine gear
train reliability, proceeding of European Wind
Energy Annual Conference, EWEA 7-10 May
2007, Milan, Italy
View publication stats
[9] Peeters J., Vandepitte D., Sas P., Analysis of
internal drive train dynamics in a wind turbine,
Wind Energy; 2006: 9, 141-161
[10] Heege A., Betran J., Radovcic Y., Fatigue
load computation of wind turbine gearboxes by
coupled finite element, multi-body system and
aerodynamic analysis, Wind Energy; 2007: 10,
395-413
[11] Crowther A. et al, Sources of time-varying
contact stress and misalignments in wind turbine
planetary sets, Wind Energy; 2011: 14, 637-651
[12] Parker R. G. et al, Non-linear dynamic
response of a spur gear pair: modelling and
experimental comparisons, Journal of Sound and
Vibration; 2000: 237(3), 435-455
[13] Comparin R. J., Singh R., Non-linear
frequency response characteristics of an impact
pair, Journal of sound and vibration; 1989: 134(2),
259-290
[14] Singh R., Xie H., Comparin R. J., Analysis of
automotive neutral gear rattle, Journal of sound
and vibration; 1989: 131 (2), 177-196
[15] Guo Y., Parker R. G., Purely rotational model
and vibration modes of compound planetary gears,
Mechanism and Machine Theory; 2010: 45, 365–
377
[16] Parker R. G., Agashe V., Vijayakar S. M.,
Dynamic response of a planetary gear system
using a finite element / contact mechanics model,
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design; 2000: 122,
304-310
[17] Litak G., Friswell M. , Vibration in gear
systems, Chaos Solutions & Fractals; 2003: 16,
795-800
[18] Rasekhi Nejad A, Moan T., Gear geometrical
imperfections in large wind turbine drivetrains,
Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Engineering Manufacture,
submitted 2012
[19] ISO 6336-1, Calculation of load capacity of
spur and helical gears – part 1: basic principles,
introduction and general influence factors, 2006
[20] KISSsoft version 03/2011, KISSsoft AG,
Switzerland
[21] Smith J. D., Gear noise and vibration, second
edition, 2003, Marcel Dekker Inc.
of