Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of Planetary Gear Train Syst - 2023 - Mechanism An

Mechanism and Machine Theory 186 (2023) 105348
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Mechanism and Machine Theory

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt
Dynamic modeling and analysis of planetary gear train system

considering structural flexibility and dynamic multi-teeth
mesh process
Tan Jianjun a, b, c, *, Li Hao a, Tang Hao a, Zhu Caichao a, Song Chaosheng a,
Dong Yehong c, Sun Zhangdong d
a
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China
b
School of electrical engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China
c
CSIC(Chongqing) Haizhuang Windpower Equipment Co., Ltd, Chongqing 401122, China
d
Hubei University of Automotive Technology, Shiyan, Hubei 442002, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The structural flexibility of planetary gear trains (PGTs) is a significant factor that affects tooth
Planetary gear train loads and system vibrations, especially in heavy-duty wind turbine gearboxes. Therefore, it is
Gearbox crucial to investigate the influence mechanisms of complex structural deformations on tooth loads
Flexible ring
and system vibrations. In this work, a dynamic modeling approach is proposed for the complex
Tooth load
Vibration
carrier and ring gear based on the condensation theory of finite elements. The dynamic model of
the sun shaft is modeled using the Euler-Bernoulli beam element, and the planetary gear set is
modeled using the lumped parameter method. Then, the dynamic multi-teeth mesh process is
developed using variable-speed characterization variables and virtual vibration line displace
ments. Lastly, the rigid-flexible coupling dynamic model of PGT is established and validated. The
results indicate that treating components as rigid solids may lead to an underestimation of the
impact of input torque variation on system vibrations. When the input torque remains stable, the
tooth stiffness can be used to assess the overall change trend of tooth loads. However, when the
input torque varies significantly, it is necessary to take into account the comprehensive structural
deformations.
1. Introduction
Wind turbines are developing towards a lower cost of electricity (COE) due to cuts in wind power subsidies [1], and developing
larger megawatt-scale wind turbine gearboxes (WTGs) is becoming one of the main ways to reduce COE. The planetary gear train
Abbreviations: COE, denotes the cost of electricity; WTG, denotes the wind turbine gearbox; PGT, denotes the planetary gear train; LPM, denotes
the lumped parameter method; HMM, denotes the hybrid modeling method; TVMS, denotes the time-varying mesh stiffness; GTF, denotes the
geared Turbofan engine; CMS, denotes the component mode synthesis; DOF, denotes the degrees of freedom; GCS, denotes the global coordinate
system; LCS, denotes the local coordinate system; MPC, denotes the multi-point constraint; RFCDM, denotes the rigid-flexible coupling dynamic
model; PIM, denotes the precise integration method; CMM, denotes the coordinate measuring machine; RM, denotes the rigid model; SD, denotes the
stiffness decomposition.
* Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, China.
E-mail address: jianjuntan@cqu.edu.cn (T. Jianjun).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2023.105348
Received 17 November 2022; Received in revised form 3 April 2023; Accepted 3 April 2023
Available online 8 April 2023
0094-114X/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Jianjun et al. Mechanism and Machine Theory 186 (2023) 105348
Nomenclature
OXYZ denotes the global coordinate system.

oxyz denotes the local coordinate system.
M denotes the mass matrix.
K denotes the stiffness matrix.
C denotes the damping matrix.
X denotes the generalized displacements of the overall system.
x denotes the generalized displacements of each node.
F denotes the overall force excitation vector.
Ψki , Ψkc denote interface and constrained modal matrices, respectively.
R denotes the transformation matrix.
δ denotes the relative mesh deformation.
u denotes the vector of the translational displacements.
θ denotes the vector of the rotational displacements.
Mc denotes the moving reference point of the contact line.
Mk denotes the position of an arbitrary contact point.
Iη denotes the unit vector of the contact line.
Iη⊥ denotes the unit vector that is perpendicular to the contact line.
e denotes the total initial separation of each sliced gear.
Rb denotes the base circle radius.
Ra denotes the addendum circle radius.
Xrj denotes the coordinate of the j-th ring tooth node.
V denotes the mesh vector.
Λ denotes the location matrix.
K denotes the comprehensive mesh stiffness.
Θ denotes the tooth contact coefficient.
Np denotes the number of planets.
Nr denotes the number of ring teeth.
Nk denotes the number of sliced gears.
Nc denotes the total node number of the carrier.
Ns denotes the total node number of the sun shaft.
ξ denotes the contact ratio.
γ denotes the relative phase.
zp denotes the tooth number of the planet.
Kγ denotes the load-sharing coefficient of ring-planet meshes.
B denotes the active tooth width.
βb denotes the helix angle.
Superscripts
s, r, c, pi, rtj, rhk Denotes the sun gear, ring gear, carrier, the i-th planet, the j-th ring tooth, and the k-th ring hole, respectively.
spi, rpi Denote the i-th sun-planet and the i-th ring-planet meshes, respectively.
l Denotes the l-th meshing tooth.
j Denotes the j-th ring tooth.
J Denotes the serial number of the beam element node.
(PGT) has the capability of multi-planetary power flow and is widely used in WTGs. As the power capacity of PGT increases, the
geometric dimensions of the ring gear and carrier are designed to be larger, and the number of planets is also increasing. However,
these designs cause remarkable vibrations of PGT due to the deformations of the whole system under the stochastic aerodynamic
torques, increasing the risk of gear fatigue failure (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it is significant to gain an in-depth understanding of the
dynamic characteristics of PGT under the consideration of structural flexibility.
The dynamic modeling, natural characteristics, and dynamic responses of the PGT are studied in-depth. Lin et al. [2] used the
lumped parameter method (LPM) to establish a dynamic model of PGT, and then investigated the influences of design parameters such
as bearing support stiffness and gear mesh stiffness on natural frequencies and modal kinetic energies. Eritenel et al. [3] analyzed the
free vibration modes of PGT, and classified these modes into three types of vibration modes, including torsional vibration mode,
translational vibration mode, and planet vibration mode. Guo et al. [4,5] studied the nonlinear vibration characteristics of PGT,
considering the excitations of time-varying parameters, including time-varying mesh stiffness (TVMS), nonlinear tooth contact, and
bearing clearance. Zhai et al. [6] established a dynamic model of a multi-stage PGT and then analyzed its dynamic mesh forces that are
affected by the time-varying carrier assembly error. Ozturk et al. [7] investigated the influences of tooth modifications on the vibration
2
Fig. 1. Contact fatigue of the ring gear in the megawatt-level WTG.
characteristics of PGT using a pure torsional dynamic model of PGT. Wang et al. [8] developed a dynamic model of a GTF (Geared
Turbofan engine) gearbox with TVMS, pressure angles, contact ratios, position angles, and gear backlashes.
In the majority of these models [2–8], gears are modeled as rigid solids using LPM, leading to the limited computed accuracy of
dynamic responses. To improve the computed response accuracy, Parker and Wu [9] regarded ring gear as an elastic continuum,
established an elastic-lumped parameter hybrid dynamic model of PGT, analyzed the influences of the uneven distribution of planets
on natural characteristics, and found the bending vibration mode of ring gear except for the three common vibration modes [3]. Fan
et al. [10] and Guan et al. [11] respectively utilized the shell theory and Timoshenko beam theory to calculate the structural flexibility
of the ring gear, established a shell/beam element-lumped parameter hybrid dynamic model of PGT, and analyzed the dynamic de
formations and natural characteristics of PGT. Kahraman et al. [12] established a quasi-static model of PGT by FEM and analyzed the
influences of structural flexibility of ring gear on dynamic stresses and deformations of components. Wei et al. [13] utilized beam
elements to conduct discrete modeling of the ring gear and carrier, and studied the influences of structural flexibility of ring gear and
carrier on dynamic mesh forces of PGT. Tan et al. [14,15] established a dynamic model of the multistage gear transmission system, in
which the shafts are discrete into beam elements by the Timoshenko beam theory.
Although the shell/beam element theory is widely used in the dynamic modeling of PGT [9–15], it is far more difficult to establish
the high-fidelity dynamic model when the component has complex geometry shapes. Therefore, Velex et al. [16,17] established a
hybrid dynamic model of PGT where the flexible ring gear is modeled by FEM, and the planetary gear set is modeled by the lumped
parameter method. Bettaieb and Guilbert et al. [18,19] introduced the component mode synthesis (CMS) into the dynamic modeling of
the gear transmission system, which effectively improved the computed accuracy and reduced the system degrees of freedom (DOFs).
Wei et al. [20] modeled the gearbox casing as a flexible body by CMS and studied the system-level gearbox TE. Liu et al. [21]
established a FEM-lumped parameter hybrid dynamic model of PGT, in which the carrier and ring gear are modeled by CMS.
Based on the analysis above, the dynamic modeling method of PGT can be roughly divided into LPM [2–8], the hybrid modeling
method (HMM) [9–11,13-21], and FEM [12]. (1) LPM mainly focuses on the preliminary analysis of natural characteristics, excitation
mechanism, and dynamic load distribution, in which the gear, shaft, and bearing are often integrated, and complex deformations of the
elastic shaft are replaced by a linear stiffness-damper unit. However, this method can’t consider elastic deformations of components
themselves, such as ring gear, carrier, and gearbox casing. Its overall computed accuracy is ordinary. (2) HMM consists of the
beam/shell element-lumped parameter hybrid model and the FEM-lumped parameter hybrid model. This method can individually
consider elastic deformations of the ring gear, carrier, and shaft compared with the LPM. Therefore, its overall computed accuracy is
improved. Besides, the FEM-lumped parameter hybrid model can consider the complex geometric shape of the components, so it has
better applicability compared with the other hybrid model. However, in the published literature as the authors know, the FEM-lumped
parameter hybrid model has mostly been used in scenarios where PGT operates stably, and rare studies focus on the variable-speed
dynamic modeling considering structural flexibility. In addition, the majority of dynamic models of PGT established by LPM and
HMM often replace the multi-teeth mesh process with an equivalent single-point mesh using the comprehensive mesh stiffness,
resulting in the calculated accuracy loss of tooth loads. (3) FEM can not only consider the complex geometric shape but also simulate
multi-teeth mesh process to obtain high-fidelity tooth loads, but its system-level modeling is complicated and the calculation burden is
heavy. Therefore, it is generally not suitable for dynamic design. The main contributions of the present work are summarized as
follows.
(1) A rigid-flexible coupling dynamic model (RFCDM) of PGT is established based on the FEM-lumped parameter hybrid modeling
method, which is suitable for variable-speed operations under the time-varying driving torque. The flexibilities of the complex
ring gear and carrier are considered in this model.
(2) The coupling relationships between sun/ring gear-planet meshes and rotation angles of driving gears are established, in which
the dynamic multi-teeth mesh process and the individual tooth load can be computed under the variable-speed operations.
(3) The proposed model is validated by comparing computed results with FEM. Additionally, the coupling deformation mechanisms
affected by operating conditions and structural parameters are further analyzed.
3
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the dynamic modeling of PGT, and the main structural
parameters are given in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the influences of operating conditions and structural parameters on the dynamic
responses of PGT. Section 5 gives the main conclusions.
2. Dynamic modeling of PGT
2.1. Basic description of PGT
Fig. 2 shows the three-dimensional structure of PGT and its transmission schematic diagram. The input torque (Tin) is applied on the
carrier and the load (Tout) is applied on the sun gear. The ring gear elastically connects with the gearbox casing. The dynamic model of
PGT is shown in Fig. 3. OXYZ is the global coordinate system (GCS), which is fixed to the ring gear (r) center. osxsyszs is the GCS and is
fixed to the sun gear (s) center. orxryrzr is the GCS and is fixed to the ring gear center. ortjxrtjyrtjzrtj is the GCS and is fixed to the j-th ring
tooth. orhkxrhkyrhkzrhk is the GCS and is fixed to the k-th ring hole. ocxcyczc is the local coordinate system (LCS) of the carrier (c).
opixpiypizpi is the LCS of the i th planet (pi). ocxcyczc and opixpiypizpi rotate with the carrier. Note, that rotational DOFs of carrier nodes are
described in GCS to make PGT capable of variable-speed operations.
2.2. Modeling of the ring gear and carrier
The actual ring gear and carrier have irregular geometric shapes. Therefore, to obtain flexible models of the ring gear and carrier
that can be coupled into the dynamic model, the Craig-Bampton component mode synthesis method (CBCMS) [22] is utilized to
transform the component’s overall mass matrix (Mg ) and stiffness matrix (Kg ) generated by FEM into condensation matrices (Mr and
Kr ), retaining the first k-order mode accuracy. The corresponding undamped free vibration equation is expressed as
Mr ẍr + K r xr = 0 (1)
where
Mr = χ T Mg χ (2)
Kr = χ T Kg χ (3)
{ }
xi
xr = = χ xg (4)
xb
in Eq. (4), xb denotes the generalized displacements of master nodes, xi denotes the generalized displacements of slave nodes retaining
the first k-order modes, and xg denotes the generalized displacements of overall nodes. χ denotes the modal matrix and is written as
[ ]
Ψki Ψkc
χ= (5)
0 I
in which Ψki and Ψkc are interface and constrained modal matrices, respectively.
The deformation calculation accuracy of the flexible body greatly depends on the choice of master nodes. For the ring gear, tooth-
related master nodes are located at the intersections of the tooth width midpoint and pitch circle (see Fig. 4(c)). Ring hole-related
master nodes are located at the intersections of the hole width midpoint and its axis (see Fig. 4(d)). For the carrier, master nodes
are located at the positions of the driving torque (see Fig. 5(c)), bearing force elements (see Fig. 5(d) and (e)), and carrier pins (see
Fig. 5(f)), respectively. The flexible multi-point constraint (MPC) [23] that can avoid adding local stiffness by rigid constraint is
Fig. 2. NGW planetary gear train.
4
Fig. 3. Dynamic model of PGT.
adopted to establish the coupling constraints among the master node and the corresponding slave nodes.
As described in Fig. 6, ocmxcmycmzcm (m = 4,…,8) is the LCS that is parallel to ocxcyczc, and is fixed to the carrier pin. Based on Eq. (1),
the condensation mass and stiffness matrices of carrier pins can be calculated and written as Mcm and Kcm , which are described in
ocmxcmycmzcm. To establish the coupling bearing forces between the carrier pin and the corresponding planet, the coordinate systems of
carrier pins should be transformed to comply with planets. Therefore, the condensation mass and stiffness matrices of carrier pins are
Fig. 4. Discrete master nodes of the ring gear.
5
Fig. 5. Discrete master nodes of the carrier.
rewritten as
Mpi = RTcp Mcm Rcp (6)
Kpi = RTcp Kcm Rcp (7)
where
[ ]
Rcm,pi
Rcp = (8)
Rcm,pi
⎡( ) ( ) ( )⎤
cos xcm , xpi cos xcm , ypi cos xcm , zpi
( ) ( ) ( )
Rcm,pi = ⎣ cos( ycm , xpi ) cos ( ycm , ypi ) cos( ycm , zpi ) ⎦ (9)
cos zcm , xpi cos zcm , xpi cos zcm , xpi
2.3. Modeling of gear meshes
To establish the compliance equations of involute helical gear meshes, some assumptions are given as follows. (1) Helical tooth load
distributes on the contact line, and the gear modification is ignored here. (2) A helical tooth is regarded as a series of sliced spur gears
along the tooth face width direction. (3) The positions of contact points on the theoretical base planes are determined by the dynamic
Fig. 6. Coordinate transformation between carrier pins and planets.
6
rotation angles of planets. (4) Planets and sun gear are modeled as rigid solids with 6-DOFs.
Fig. 7(a) shows the schematic of the i th sun-planet meshes. In Fig. 7(b), Mk denotes the position of an arbitrary contact point at the
contact line, Mc denotes the moving reference point to determine the position of the contact line, in which the position of Mk can be
determined once the Mc is calculated. Iη denotes the unit vector of the contact line. Fig. 7(c) shows the corresponding mesh rela
tionship. The relative deformations at any potential contact point (Mk ) is the superposition of rigid-body motions and infinitesimal
generalized displacements. However, the generalized displacements of sun gear are measured in the GCS while those of planets are
measured in the LCS, they can’t be superposed directly as shown in Ref. [24]. Therefore, the virtual vibration line displacement θzc Rbs
is introduced to consider the influences of the planet’s orbital revolution on the relative mesh deformations, as expressed in Eq. (10).
{ [ ( )]}
δspi (Mk ) = [us + θs × (Os T1 + T1 Mc + Mc Mk )] − upi + θpi × Opi T4 + T4 Mc + Mc Mk Iη⊥ + θzc Rbs − espi (Mk ) (10)
where Rbs denotes the base circle radius of the sun gear. u = [x, y, z]T denotes translational displacements, and θ = [θx , θy , θz ]T denotes
rotational displacements (see Fig. 7(c)). Iη⊥ denotes the unit vector that is perpendicular to the contact line. espi denotes the total initial
separation of each sliced gear.
Fig. 8(a) shows the schematic of the i th ring-planet meshes. Fig. 8(b) shows the position of an arbitrary contact point on the base
plane, and Fig. 8(c) shows the corresponding mesh relationship. Similar to Eq. (10), the generalized displacements of the ring tooth are
measured in the GCS while those of planets are measured in the LCS, they can’t be superposed directly as shown in Ref. [24]. Therefore,
the virtual vibration line displacement θzc Rbr is introduced to consider the influences of the planet’s orbital revolution on the relative
mesh deformations, as expressed in Eq. (11).
{[ ( )] [ ( )]}
δrpi (Mk ) = upi + θpi × Opi T2 + T2 Mc + Mc Mk − urtj + θrtj × Or T1 + T1 Mc + Mc Mk − Xrj Iη⊥ + θzc Rbr − erpi (Mk ) (11)
where Rbr denotes the base circle radius of the ring gear. Xrj = [xrj , yrj , zrj ]T denotes the coordinate of the j-th ring tooth node measured
in the orxryrzr. erpi denotes the total initial separation of each sliced gear.
According to Eqs. (10) and (11), the mesh vectors of the contact point (Mk ) corresponding to the L-th meshing tooth in the i th sun-
planet meshes is shown in Eq. (12). The mesh vector of the contact point (Mk ) corresponding to the j-th ring tooth in the i th ring-planet
meshes is shown in Eq. (13). The parametric excitations due to espi , erpi , θzc Rbs , and θzc Rbr are transformed into excitation force vectors,
as shown in Section 2.4.2. The detailed expressions of Eqs. (12) and (13) are listed in Appendix.
{ }
Vs (Mk )|6 × 1
l
Vspi (Mk ) = (12)
Vpi (Mk )|6 × 1
{ }
Vpi (Mk )|6
j
Vrpi (Mk ) = × 1
(13)
Vrj (Mk )|6 × 1
In Refs. [2–15,20,21], the majority of dynamic models of PGT simplify the multi-teeth mesh process of sun/ring-planet meshes as
an equivalent single-point mesh using comprehensive mesh stiffness. The overall mesh stiffness matrices are written as
Fig. 7. Schematic of the i th sun-planet meshes.
7
Fig. 8. Schematic of the i th ring-planet meshes.
Np
∑
Ksp = Λrow T col
spi Kspi Vspi Vspi Λspi (14)
i=1
Np
∑
Krp = Λrow T col
rpi Krpi Vrpi Vrpi Λrpi (15)
i=1
where Np is the number of planets. Λ is the location matrix that extends the local stiffness matrix into the overall stiffness matrix and is
listed in Appendix. Kspi and Krpi are the comprehensive mesh stiffness of the i th sun-planet and ring-planet meshes, respectively. Vspi
and Vrpi are mesh vectors of the i th sun-planet and the i th ring-planet meshes, respectively, and can’t elaborately consider each tooth.
Inspired by the idea of breaking up the whole into parts, based on Eqs. (14) and (15), the comprehensive mesh stiffness (Kspi and
Krpi ) can be decomposed into a series of tooth stiffness first, and then each tooth stiffness can be further refined into a series of sliced
j
gear stiffness (klspi (Mk ) and krpi (Mk )). Similarly, the gear mesh vector of the i th sun-planet meshes (Vspi ) can be decomposed into a series
l
of sliced gear mesh vectors (Vspi (Mk )), and then the tooth contact coefficient Θlspi (Mk ) is introduced to judge the actual contact status of
sliced gears. Analogously but with a difference, to establish the coupling relationships among planets and ring teeth, the i th planet is
initially assumed to be engaged in contact with all ring teeth because each ring tooth has 6-DOFs. Therefore, the gear mesh vector of
l
the i th ring-planet meshes (Vrpi ) can be decomposed into a series of sliced gear mesh vectors (Vrpi (Mk )), and then the tooth contact
j
coefficient Θrpi (Mk ) is introduced to judge the actual contact status of sliced gears. Therefore, Eqs. (14) and (15) are rewritten as
Np ceil
∑ ∑ Nk {
(ξspi ) ∑ ( )T }
Ksp (Mk ) = Λlrow l l l l
spi Θspi kspi (Mk )Vspi Vspi Λlcol
spi (16)
i=1 l=1 k=1
Nk {
( j )T jcol }
Np ∑
∑ Nr ∑
Krp (Mk ) = Λjrow j j j
rpi Θrpi krpi (Mk )Vrpi Vrpi Λrpi
(17)
i=1 j=1 k=1
where Nr denotes the number of ring teeth, and Nk denotes the number of sliced gears. ξ denotes the contact ratio. ceil(⋅) denotes the
rounding towards positive infinity.
j
Here, Θlspi and Θrpi are called variable-speed characterization variables (VSCVs). As the planet is the driving gear in both the sun-
planet and ring-planet meshes, its rotation angle is an appropriate choice to establish the coupling relationships with VSCVs. Addi
tionally, mesh phase differences between sun-planet and ring-planet meshes have dramatic impacts on the dynamic behaviors of PGT
[25]. Therefore, the positions of moving reference points (Mc ) corresponding to the L-th meshing tooth in the i th sun-planet meshes
and to the j-th ring tooth in the i th ring-planet meshes, are respectively expressed as
8
( ( ) ( ) )
2π lspi − 1 ceil ξspi 2π
ulspi = Rbp mod θzpi + γsi + , (18)
zp zp
( ( ) ( ) )
2π lrpi − 1 ceil ξrpi 2π
ujrpi = Rbp mod θzpi + γri + γ sr + , (19)
zp zp
where |T3 Mc | =ulspi (see Fig. 7) and |T4 Mc | =ulrpi (see Fig. 8). lspi and lrpi are integers where lspi ∈ [1, ceil(ξspi )] and lrpi ∈ [1, ceil(ξrpi )]. zp
denotes the number of planet teeth. γsi is the relative phase between the i th sun-planet meshes and the 1st sun-planet meshes, γri is the
relative phase between the i th ring-planet meshes and the 1st ring-planet meshes, and γsr is the relative phase between the 1st ring-
planet meshes and the 1st sun-planet meshes [25].
Based on Eqs. (18) and (19), the variables including T1 Mc , T4 Mc , T2 Mc , and T1 Mc (see Eqs. (10) and (11)) can be derived. For thel-th
meshing tooth in the i th sun-planet meshes,
T1 Mc = T1 T4 − T3 T4 − ulspi Ispi
s
(20)
pi
T4 Mc = T4 T3 + ulspi Ispi (21)
and for the j-th ring tooth in the i th ring-planet meshes,
T2 Mc = T1 T4 − T1 T2 − ujrpi Irpi
pi
(22)
T1 Mc = T1 T4 + ujrpi Irpi
r
(23)
where I denotes the unit vector. In Eqs. (20)–(23), the detailed expressions are listed in Appendix.
The tooth stiffness is equal to the summation of all sliced gear stiffness along the contact line, and the tooth stiffness completes a
change period when the reference point (Mc ) moves from T3 to T2 (see Fig. 7) or T4 to T3 (see Fig. 8). Therefore, based on Eqs. (18) and
j
(19), klspi and krpi are expressed as
( )
( ) ulspi
l l
kspi θzpi = kspi Tspi (24)
ξspi pbt
( )
( ) ulrpi
j
krpi θzpi = j
krpi Trpi (25)
ξrpi pbt
where T is the change period of the tooth stiffness. pbt is the base pitch. θzpi is the rotation angle of the i th planet.
j
Based on Eqs. (18) and (19), Θlspi and Θrpi are derived as
{ [ ]
1 ulspi ∈ 0, ξspi pbt
Θlspi = (26)
0 else
Table 1
Calculation process outline of the ring tooth number engaging in mesh.
PSEUDOCODE FOR CALCULATING THE RING TOOTH NUMBER
INITIALIZE:
SET vti =ZEROS(). wti = ZEROS(). xti = ZEROS(). yti = ZEROS().
ITERATE:
FOR i = 1, 2,…, Np , DO:
FOR l = 1, 2,…, ceil(ξrpi ), DO:
SET vti (l, i) =ulrpi |ti /pbt AND ROUNDED DOWN.
SET xti (l, i)=ujrpi |ti /[ceil(ξrpi )pbt ] AND MOD.
IF xti (l, i) > ξrpi pbt , OVERWRITE xti (l, i)=0.
END DO.
SET wti (:, i) = vti (:, i) AND ASCENDING SORT.
OVERWRITE wti (:, i)=wti (:, i)/zr AND MOD.
FIND k SUCH THAT xti (k, i)~=0 AND OVERWRITE xti (k, i)=1.
SET yti (wti (:, i), i)= xti (:, i).
END DO.
END DO.
9
{ [ ]
1 ujrpi ∈ 0, ξrpi pbt
Θjrpi = (27)
0 else
Each ring tooth has 6-DOFs and the contact conditions of all ring-planet meshes are different due to phase differences. Therefore,
the ring tooth number (j) engaging in contact in the i th ring-planet meshes should be calculated first according to the rotation angle
θzpi , and then kjrpi and Θjrpi can be determined. A calculation process outline of the ring tooth number engaging in contact at the time ti is
given in Table 1. The sequence number of the ‘1′ element in the i th column of yti indicates the ring tooth number engaging in contact in
the i th ring-planet meshes, and it will change with the increasing rotation angle θzpi because each ring tooth will go through engaging
in to out in sequence.
2.4. Modeling of the sun shaft and bearing supporting
2.4.1. Beam elements

As shown in Fig. 9, according to the structural characteristics of the sun shaft, a modified Euler-Bernoulli beam element considering
the shear deformation is applied to establish the motion equation of the sun shaft. The J-th beam element consists of two nodes, each of
which has 6-DOFs, and the generalized displacements of the beam element are defined as
{ }T
xsJ = xsJ , ysJ , zsJ , θxsJ , θysJ , θzsJ , xsJ+1 , ysJ+1 , zsJ+1 , θxsJ+1 , θysJ+1 , θzsJ+1 (28)
The free vibration equation of the J-th beam element can be obtained as
MJ ẍsJ + CJ ẋsJ + K J xsJ = 0 (29)
where mass matrix MJ and stiffness matrix KJ are in Ref. [26]. Rayleigh method is applied to calculate the damping matrix CJ [27]. The
overall motion equation of the sun shaft is obtained by assembling beam elements.
2.4.2. Supporting elements

The PGT in WTG is a typical low-speed and heavy-load transmission system, and the bearing supporting stiffness variation is limited
to affect system responses. Therefore, the mean value of bearing supporting stiffness is utilized in the dynamic model. Based on Eqs. (6)
and (7), the bearing supporting stiffness matrix that connects the planet and carrier pin is written as
[ ]
Kbcm Kbcm− pi
Kcp = (30)
Kbpi− cm Kbpi
pi pi− cm
where Kb is a submatrix that keeps diagonal items. Kcm
b = diag([kpx ,0,kpz ,kθpx ,kθpy ,kθpz ]), Kb = diag([kpx ,kpy ,kpz ,kθpx ,kθpy ,kθpz ]), Kb =
− Kcm
b ,
and Kcm−
= −
b
pi
Kpi
b.
The form of the bearing supporting stiffness matrix of the carrier is the same as Kpi
b.
As shown in Fig. 9, the sun shaft connects the component that belongs to the next gear stage through the spline. This coupling
connection is simplified as isotropic stiffness elements Ks, and the value of the spring element used in this paper is 1 × 108 N/m (1 × 108
Nm/rad). As shown in Fig. 10, the ring hole supporting stiffness is simplified as isotropic stiffness element Kr, and the value of the
spring element used in this paper is 1 × 109 N/m (1 × 109 Nm/rad).
2.5. Excitations of PGT
2.5.1. Gear mesh stiffness

The TVMS is one of the critical internal excitations to excite system vibrations. In the previous studies [28–30], the potential energy
method, whose modeling is convenient and high-efficiency, is wildly utilized to calculate the TVMS of the spur gear or helical gear, and
its effectiveness has been verified by FEM. Therefore, in this study, the TVMS of helical sun/ring-planet meshes is calculated by the
Fig. 9. Beam elements of the sun shaft.
10
Fig. 10. Ring hole supporting stiffness.
potential energy method. At present, the “slice method” is used commonly in analyzing the TVMS of a helical gear pair [28,30], in
which the helical gear is regarded as a series of sliced gears along the tooth face width direction. If the sliced gear is sufficiently narrow,
it can be treated as a sliced spur gear with a constant mesh force acting on it. The TVMS of a helical gear mesh is the summation of all
sliced gear stiffness.
2.5.2. Additional excitations

As mentioned in Eqs. (10) and (11), for the convenience of programming, the time-varying parametric excitations caused by virtual
vibration linear displacements of the sun gear and ring gear are processed as the excitation force vectors (Fsp
θ
(Mk ) and Frp
θ
(Mk )), which
are expressed as
⎧
⎪ ∑Np ceil
∑ (ξspi ) ∑ Nk { }
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
θ
⎪ Fsp (Mk ) = − θ zc R bs Λlrow l l l
spi Θspi kspi Vspi
(31)
i=1 l=1 k=1
⎪
⎪ ∑Np ∑ Nr ∑ Nk { }
⎪ θ
⎪ jrow j j j
⎪
⎩ Frp (Mk ) = − θzc Rbr Λrpi Θrpi krpi Vrpi
i=1 j=1 k=1
In Eqs. (10) and (11), espi and erpi are the typical high-frequency errors caused by gear tooth manufacturing and exhibit periodic
displacement excitations during the multi-teeth mesh process, and they can be measured using CMM (coordinate measuring machine).
Similar to Eq. (31), the time-varying parametric excitations caused by mesh errors are processed as the excitation force vectors (Fsp
e
(Mk )
and Frp
e
(Mk )), which are expressed as
⎧
⎪ Np ceil
∑ ∑ (ξspi ) ∑
Nk { }
⎪
⎪
⎪ e
⎨ Fsp (Mk ) = − espi
⎪ Λlrow l l l
spi Θspi kspi Vspi
(32)
i=1 l=1 k=1
⎪
⎪ Np ∑
∑ Nk {
Nr ∑ }
⎪
⎪
⎪ e
⎩ Frp (Mk ) = − erpi Λjrow j j j
rpi Θrpi krpi Vrpi
i=1 j=1 k=1
2.6. Modeling of PGT
As shown in Fig. 11, according to the DOFs of the sun gear, ring gear, carrier, planets, and sun shaft as well as the coupling re
lationships with each other, the overall generalized displacement vector under themselves coordinates system is defined as
{ }T
X = XcT , XrT , Xp1
T T
, …, XpN p
, XsT , qcq , qrq (33)
11
where Xc = {Xc1 , Xc2 , …, XcNc } , Xr = {Xr1 , Xr2 , …, XrNr } , and Xs = {Xs1 , Xs2 , …, XsN } . Nc and Ns are the total node number of carrier
T T T T T T TT T T T
T
s
c r
and sun shaft, respectively. qq and qq are the modal coordinates of internal nodes of the carrier and ring gear, respectively, in which the
modal orders depend on the specified cut-off frequency which is valued as 1500 Hz here.
According to Eq. (33), the mass matrix, stiffness matrix, and damping matrix of the sun gear, ring gear, carrier, planets, and sun
shaft are assembled, and then the overall dynamic model of PGT, which is suitable for the variable-speed operation, is obtained with a
total of 136 nodes and 120 orders retaining modes of internal nodes.
MẌ + CẊ + KX = F + Fθ + Fe (34)
where M, K, and C are the overall mass, stiffness, and damping matrices, respectively. F is the overall torque load vector including the
driving torque Tin and applied load Tout , in which Tout is interpolated by sun shaft rotation speed based on the speed-torque char
acteristic curve. Fe is the overall mesh error excitation vector. Fθ is the overall displacement excitation vector due to virtual rotations of
the sun gear and ring gear.
Fig. 12 shows the solution scheme of RFCDM. After the driving torque, speed-torque characteristic curve, and basic design pa
rameters are given, Eq. (34) can be solved by the precise integration method (PIM) [31] because the initial solutions can be obtained
when all generalized variables in Eq. (33) are set to zero. The iteration time step is 3 × 10− 5 s.
3. Structure parameters
3.1. Gear and bearing
The gear parameters and bearing supporting stiffness parameters are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
3.2. Internal excitations
There are both external meshes and internal meshes in PGT, therefore, to be capable of considering the gear modification co
efficients and tooth root transition curves conveniently, the tooth profile curves are obtained from KISSsoft [32], and then the TVMS of
PGT is calculated using the potential energy method. Fig. 13 shows the comparisons of the mesh stiffness of an external gear pair, in
which the tooth number z1/z2=20/20, the normal module is 3 mm, the helix angle is 15◦ , the active tooth width is 30 mm, Young’s
modulus is 2.06 × 1011 Pa, and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3.
It can be observed that the calculated result by the proposed method is close to those of Ref. [33] and FEM [33], because the tooth
root transition curves are considered in both models, but it is ignored in Ref. [28] leading to a larger overall amplitude. Fig. 14 shows
the TVMS amplitude of the sun/ring-planet meshes based on the gear parameters in Table 2. It can be observed that the TVMS
amplitude changes periodically with the increasing carrier rotation angle, which indicates the interaction relationships between TVMS
and the rotation angle of the driving gear have been established. espi and erpi can be measured by using CMM but are set as zeros in this
study due to lacking test data.
Fig. 11. Overall dynamic model of PGT.
12
Fig. 12. Solution scheme of RFCDM.
Table 2
Gear parameters.
Items Sun gear Planet Ring gear
Tooth number 32 29 93
Normal module(mm) 24
Helix angle(◦ ) 5
Pressure angle(◦ ) 20
Active tooth width(mm) 500 500 500
Modification coefficient 0.8591 0.836 0.7973
Contact ratio 1.8065 1.9668
Young’s modulus (Pa) 2.06 × 1011
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Table 3
Bearing supporting stiffness parameters.
Items kx (N/m) ky (N/m) kz (N/m) kθx (Nm/rad) kθy (Nm/rad) kθz (Nm/rad)
Upwind bearing of carrier 2.2 × 109 2.2 × 109 2.4 × 109 2.5 × 109 2.5 × 109 –
Downwind bearing of carrier 9.7 × 109 9.7 × 109 2.8 × 109 6.1 × 109 6.1 × 109 –
Planet bearing 1.0 × 1010 1.0 × 1010 2.6 × 109 3.4 × 108 3.4 × 108 –
13
Fig. 13. Mesh stiffness comparisons.
Fig. 14. TVMS of the sun/ring-planet meshes.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Calculation results compared with FEM
4.1.1. Frequencies and modal shapes

As shown in Table 4 and Fig. 15, the first 10-order undamped natural frequencies and modal shapes of the carrier that is generated
by using Eq. (1) are calculated, and these results are compared with FEM. Analogously, the first 12-order undamped natural fre
quencies and modal shapes of the ring gear that is generated by using Eq. (1) are compared in Table 5 and Fig. 16.
It can be observed that the natural frequencies of the carrier agree well with FEM (see Table 4), and computed modal shapes well
describe the illustrated vibration modes of FEM (see Fig. 15), including torsional vibration mode (mode 7), bending vibration modes
(modes 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 8/9) and extensible vibration mode (mode 10). In addition, the illustrated vibration modes of the ring gear,
including torsional vibration modes (modes 3/4 and 9/10) and bending vibration modes (modes 1/2, 5/6, 7/8, and 11/12), are
accordance with FEM (see Fig. 16).
Table 4
Frequency comparisons of the carrier.
Modes (Hz) 1/2 3/4 5/6 7 8/9 10
Items
RFCDM 280.43 384.85 411.81 449.77 590.02 594.26

FEM 280.43 384.85 411.81 449.77 590.02 594.26
14
Fig. 15. Modal shape comparisons of the carrier.
Table 5
Frequency comparisons of the ring gear.
Modes (Hz) 1/2 3/4 5/6 7/8 9/10 11/12
Items
RFCDM 62.30 116.18 172.83 323.50 337.02 508.36

FEM 62.30 116.18 172.83 323.50 337.02 508.36
Fig. 16. Modal shape comparisons of the ring gear.
4.1.2. Carrier deformations

As the rotation angle of the carrier reaches 2π/10 rad and 2π/5 rad, respectively, under the rated input torque (Tin = T0, T0= 4 ×
106 Nm), the transient force balance positions of planets, ring teeth, and sun gear are shown in Fig. 17. Fig. 18 shows the static de
formations of the carrier’s FEM model, in which the master node at the A-A plane is fixed, and the carrier pin nodes are then subjected
to a clockwise tangential force (front view of the B-B plane), simulating the carrier pin deformations that occur when the counter
clockwise driving torque in RFCDM is applied.
As shown in Fig. 18, which is consistent with the results in FEM (see Fig. 17), the tangential deformations of carrier pins are opposed
to the rotation direction of the carrier (counterclockwise rotation). The primary cause is that the planet mainly transfers circumfer
ential torque, leading to a significant force in the tangential direction of carrier pins. In addition, the overall force balance positions of
all ring teeth are in a shape of a pentagram and will rotate counterclockwise with the carrier. This is due to the extrusion deformations
of the ring gear when the ring gear simultaneously contacts five planets. Due to the planets’ radially symmetrical layout, the radial
force balance positions of the sun gear don’t change much.
4.1.3. Tooth loads

The calculation burden of the whole PGT FEM model is heavy, and its computational convergence debugging is extremely time-
15
Fig. 17. Forced balance positions of RFCDM (the deformations are enlarged for a better view).
Fig. 18. Forced balance positions of the carrier in FEM.
consuming. As a result, a simplified FEM model of PGT is established, as shown in Fig. 19. In this FEM model, the driving rotation angle
(θzc ) is applied to the virtual carrier frame to drive planet rotation, the load is applied to the sun gear, and the boundary constraint
condition is consistent with Fig. 10.
The simplified FEM model of PGT is more inclined to be rigid compared with the whole PGT FEM model, but it doesn’t affect the
tooth load calculation to verify the proposed modeling method (see Section 2.3). To make the contrast model closer to the simplified
FEM model of PGT, a degraded RFCDM is established based on the dynamic model of PGT (see Eq. (34)), in which the carrier and ring
gear are modeled as rigid solids, and the dynamic multi-teeth mesh process is retained. The calculated tooth loads are compared in
Fig. 19(b) and (c).
16
Fig. 19. Tooth load comparisons.
It can be observed that the overall change tendency and peak positions of tooth loads calculated by the proposed method are similar
to the FEM model. There are some amplitude differences in results because more comprehensive structural deformations and elaborate
contact simulations can be simulated in the FEM model. However, the calculation of the FEM model is less efficient than the proposed
method. The authors’ computer configuration consists of a CPU AMD 3700X and RAM 32.0 GB. As the virtual carrier frame rotates 0.2
rad, the calculation time in the FEM model is more than 3 h, while the carrier can rotate more than 2π rad in the degraded RFCDM
Fig. 20. Rotation speed changes of the carrier.
17
during the same time.

From the perspectives of modal characteristics, forced deformations, and tooth loads, the compared results demonstrate that the
RFCDM has enough accuracy and applicability to predict dynamic responses of PGT.
4.2. Variable-speed characterization variables
Fig. 20 shows the amplitude changes of the carrier rotation speed (θ̇zc ) under the rated input torque (Tin=1 × T0) and time-varying
input torque (Tin=(1→0.25→1) × T0), respectively. The VSCVs under the rated input torque are described in Fig. 21.
As shown in Fig. 20, the amplitude of θ̇zc initially increases, then reaches a maximum, and then keeps stable vibration (marked by a
solid blue line). However, this stable rotation speed drops when the input torque abruptly decreases (marked by a dotted red line) but
recovers to the original status once the input torque becomes rated.
As shown in Fig. 21, the tooth numbers of the sun gear and ring gear gradually increase as the carrier rotation angle increases,
which indicates that teeth sequentially engage in contact. The initial positions of VSCVs are uniformly distributed along the cir
cumferences of the sun gear and ring gear, respectively, due to the mesh phase differences. Additionally, there are some non-smooth
variations in the curves of VSCVs (see Fig. 21) due to the periodic change of tooth number engaging in contact simultaneously.
Based on the abovementioned results, it can be concluded that the proposed RFCDM is capable of simulating variable-speed
responses.
4.3. Effects of operation conditions on dynamic responses
4.3.1. Stable input torque

The input torque variations will change component deformations, especially of the flexible body. These influences can be reflected
in the vibration displacements of components. Therefore, the vibration displacements of gear components are investigated as shown in
Figs. 22–25. These responses are calculated by RFCDM and rigid model (RM), respectively. Thereinto, all components in RM are
modeled as rigid solids, and the dynamic multi-teeth mesh process (see Section 2.3) is retained.
As shown in Figs. 22–24, the vibration displacement amplitudes calculated by RFCDM are larger than those of RM, and these
differences are gradually enlarged with the increment of input torque because the linear stiffness-damper units utilized in RM can’t
calculate the nonlinear structural deformations. These differences are significantly reflected in the ring tooth (see Fig. 24), then in the
planet (see Fig. 23), and then in the sun gear (see Fig. 22).
As shown in Fig. 24, the vibration displacements of the ring tooth behave the superposition characteristics with the low-frequency
large-amplitude fluctuations and high-frequency vibrations. The former fluctuations are caused by the alternating planet-ring meshes,
therefore, there are five peaks (Np = 5) as the carrier rotates 2π rad. The latter vibrations are due to the inner excitations caused by the
time-varying mesh parameters.
As shown in Fig. 25, the vibration displacement amplitudes of the ring hole show periodic fluctuations, which is similar to the
results in Fig. 24. It indicates that the gear mesh excitations will be transferred to the ring holes and affects its dynamic loads.
The influences of input torque on the dynamic mesh parameters of the sun/ring-planet meshes are shown in Fig. 26. Thereinto, the
mesh load is the summation of all tooth loads at the same time, and the tooth load is the summation of all discrete contact loads along
the contact line. As the carrier rotates counterclockwise, the position of Mc at the base plane of the sun-planet meshes moves from point
T3 to T2 (see Fig. 7), which coincides with the increasing tendency of T4 Mc (see Fig. 26(a)). Similarly, the position of Mc at the base
plane of the ring-planet meshes moves from point T4 to T3 (see Fig. 8), which is consistent with the decreasing tendency of T2 Mc (see
Fig. 21. VSCVs under the rated input torque (No.i denotes the i th planet).
18
Fig. 22. Vibration displacements of the sun gear.
Fig. 23. Vibration displacements of the 1st planet.
Fig. 24. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring tooth.
19
Fig. 25. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring hole.
Fig. 26. Dynamic mesh parameters of the 1st sun/ring-planet meshes.
Fig. 26(b)). Under the comprehensive influences of the time-varying contact point position, TVMS, and structural deformations, the
tooth load shape in sun-planet meshes behaves as narrow and tall, and the tooth load shape in ring-planet meshes behaves as wide and
short, which is similar to the results of FEM (see Fig.(19)).
Fig. 27 shows the influences of three modeling methods, namely RFCDM, RM, and SD, on the tooth loads of the sun/ring-planet
20
Fig. 26. (continued).
Fig. 27. Dynamic tooth loads under the rated input torque.
21
meshes. Thereinto, SD denotes the stiffness decomposition, in which the tooth loads are decomposed from the mesh loads of RFCDM
based on TVMS.
⎧ ∑ceil(ξspi ) ∑Nk { }
⃒ l
⎪
⎪ Fspi (Mk ) ( )
⎪ l ⃒ l=1 k=1 l l
⎪ Fspi ⃒SD = ∑ceil(ξspi ) ∑Nk {
⎪
⎪ } Θspi kspi
⎪
⎨ Θlspi kspi
l
(35)
l=1 k=1
⎪
⎪ ∑Nr ∑Nk { j }
⎪
⎪ F (M
⎪ ⃒ rpi k) ( )
⎪ j=1 k=1
⎩ Frpi ⃒SD = ∑Nr ∑Nk { j j } Θrpi krpi
⎪ j j j
j=1 k=1
Θ rpi krpi
l j
where Fspi |SD denotes the l-th meshing tooth load in the i-th sun-planet meshes, and Frpi |SD denotes the j-th ring tooth load in the i-th
ring-planet meshes.
The tooth loads calculated by RM are more similar to those of SD, and the tooth load changes in RFCDM behave irregularly due to
the comprehensive influences of structural deformations. As a whole, the tooth loads calculated by those three methods are relatively
similar.
To describe the load-sharing performance among planets in PGT affected by dynamic excitations, such as external load variations,
structural deformations, and TVMS, the load-sharing coefficient is calculated based on tooth loads of ring-planet meshes, which is
written as
(∑ ∑ { } ∑Nr ∑Nk { j })
Nr Nk j
Np ⋅ max j=1 k=1 Frp1 (Mk ) , …, j=1 k=1 FrpNp (Mk )
Kγ (θzc ) = ∑Np ∑Nr ∑Nk { j } (36)
i=1 j=1 k=1 Frpi (Mk )
As shown in Fig. 28, under the comprehensive influences of the mesh phase differences and structural deformations, the dynamic
mesh parameters of the sun/ring-planet meshes such as TVMS and relative mesh deformations are different from each other, which
disturbs the ideal mesh status among planets and causes the load-sharing coefficient larger than 1. The load-sharing coefficient of
RFCDM is higher than that of RM. This is because the ring gear and carrier in RM are simplified as rigid solids, leading to the forced
deformations of the carrier itself, and the extrusion deformations of the ring gear itself caused by planet tooth loads being not
calculated. Consequently, the vibration displacement amplitudes of each component in RM are relatively small (see Figs. 22–24),
behaving with the relatively ideal tooth load distributions in ring-planet meshes.
4.3.2. Variable input torque

Under the stochastic wind speed, the input torque of PGT is usually time-varying, leading to its long-term variable-speed opera
tions. Therefore, the vibration displacements, tooth loads, and load-sharing coefficient are investigated under the input torque vari
ation. Figs. 29–32 show the influences of the time-varying input torque on the vibration displacements of gear components. Figs. 33
and 34 show the tooth loads, and Fig. 35 shows the load-sharing coefficient.
As shown in Figs. 29–33, the abrupt decrease in the input torque reduces the vibration displacement amplitudes of each component
as well as the tooth loads in gear meshes. Those changes are more remarkably reflected in RFCDM than in RM.
As shown in Fig. 34, when the input torque drops from 1 × T0 to 0.01 × T0, the transient tooth loads in the ring-planet meshes are
below zero at some time, which indicates the meshing tooth is in the loss of contact. Besides, those tooth loads vary most significantly
in RFCDM than in RM and SD. As shown in Fig. 35, the abrupt decrease in the input torque will sharply enlarge the load-sharing
coefficient of the ring-planet meshes because the original force balances in gear meshes are broken. According to the studied
Fig. 28. Load-sharing coefficient under the rated input torque.
22
Fig. 29. Vibration displacements of the sun gear.
Fig. 30. Vibration displacements of the 1st planet.
Fig. 31. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring tooth.
23
Fig. 32. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring hole.
Fig. 33. Dynamic mesh parameters of the 1st sun/ring-planet meshes.
results above, it can be concluded that when the input torque occurs large variations, considering the structural flexibility and multi-
teeth mesh process contributes to computing more realistic tooth contact status.
4.4. Influences of ring supporting stiffness on dynamic responses
Ring-hole supporting stiffness is an important design parameter to affect the dynamic load-sharing performance of PGT [34,35].
Besides, due to the numerous ring holes and long-term operations, there are ineluctable stiffness differences among all ring holes, such
as ring-hole loosening and failures. Therefore, there are three cases A, B, and C are investigated as listed in Table 6. Thereinto, case A
denotes the consistent stiffness change of all ring holes. Case B denotes the consistent stiffness change of ring holes that locate in a
specific region. Case C denotes the local stiffness change of the specific ring hole. Fig. 36 shows the RMS values of the comprehensive
24
Fig. 34. Dynamic mesh loads under the time-varying input torque.
Fig. 35. Load-sharing coefficient under the time-varying input torque (Tin=(1→0.25→1) × T0).
Table 6
Three cases of the ring-hole supporting stiffness.
Case Decreasing ring-hole supporting Case Ring-hole loosening Case Ring-hole failure
symbol stiffness symbol symbol
A0 1 × Kr for all holes B0 1 × Kr for all holes C0 1× Kr for all holes

A1 0.5 × Kr for all holes B1 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,5] C1 0× Kr for the 3rd hole
A2 0.1 × Kr for all holes B2 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,10] C2 0× Kr for the 3rd and 4th holes
A3 0.05 × Kr for all holes B3 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,5] and [11, C3 0× Kr for the 3rd and 5th holes
15]
A4 0.01 × Kr for all holes B4 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,15] C4 0 × Kr for the 1st, 3rd, and 5th
holes
B5 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,5] and [11,
20]
B6 0.01 × Kr when Nhole∈ [1,20]
9
Note: Kr=1 × 10 N/m for the translational and rotational DOFs.
25
Fig. 36. RMS values of vibration displacements.
vibration displacements of gear components, which are calculated by Eq. (37). Fig. 37 shows the corresponding load-sharing
comparisons.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ueq = x2 + y2 + z2 (37)
where x, y, and z denote the displacement in horizontal, vertical, and axial directions in the general coordinate.
26
Fig. 37. Load-sharing comparisons.
In the case of A, it can be found that as the ring-hole supporting stiffness decreases, the RMS values of the component’s vibration
displacement are gradually reduced as well as the load-sharing coefficient. It indicates that decreasing ring-hole supporting stiffness is
an effective method for uniformizing tooth load distribution. In the case of B, it can be observed that the RMS values of the compo
nent’s vibration displacement as well as the load-sharing coefficient in cases B2 and B4 are, respectively, larger than in cases B3 and B5,
and the worst occurs in case B6. It indicates that the ring-hole loosening in the adjacent quadrant easily causes larger system vibrations
than that in the interval quadrant. In the case of C, it can be observed that any ring-hole failure aggravates system vibrations and
degrades the original load-sharing performance, such as in case C1, and this increased vibration will spread to adjacent ring teeth and
ring holes. Besides, the adjacent ring-hole failures cause slightly larger system vibrations than the interval ring-hole failures, such as in
cases C2 and C3.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the multi-teeth mesh process, including the sun/ring-planet meshes, is established for the complex planetary gear
train, in which the mesh phase difference due to circumferentially distributed planets are considered. By introducing variable-speed
characterization variables and virtual vibration line displacements, the mapping relationships between the driving gear rotation angles
and multi-teeth mesh process are constructed. Combining with the FEM models of the carrier and ring, the lumped parameter models
of the planet and sun gear, and the beam element model of the sun shaft, a dynamic model of the planetary gear train is established and
then validated. The vibration displacements, tooth loads, and load-sharing coefficient affected by the input torque and structural
parameters are further investigated. The major conclusions are summarized as follows:
(1) The structural flexibility enlarges the vibration displacement amplitudes of each component. The vibration displacements of the
ring tooth present superposition characteristics of the low-frequency large-amplitude fluctuations and high-frequency vibra
tions. Taking the components as rigid solids gains the potential risks of underestimating the influences of the input torque
variation on system vibrations.
(2) When the input torque is stable, the overall change tendency of tooth loads can be evaluated by the tooth stiffness, but it should
consider the comprehensive structural deformations when the input torque is in a large variation. The input torque abrupt
variations will reduce load-sharing performance among planets.
(3) The proper reduction of the overall ring-hole supporting stiffness contributes to decreasing system vibrations. Both ring-hole
loosening and failure will enlarge system vibrations and decrease load-sharing performance. Thereinto, ring-hole loosenings
or failures occurring in the adjacent regions will cause larger system vibrations and worse load-sharing performance than in the
interval regions.
This work aims to extend the hybrid modeling method to be capable of individually calculating the tooth load in the planetary gear
train, especially under time-varying operation conditions. Furthermore, the proposed modeling method can be utilized in simulation
scenarios where the one-tooth parameter is different from the other teeth in the sun/ring-planet meshes, such as the profile error, tooth
profile wear, and tooth crack. Based on the proposed dynamic model, future work will focus on the unbalanced load-distributed
mechanism of the planetary gear train due to the structural deformations under heavy-duty operating conditions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
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.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
27
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2020YFB1506600), the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No.52105050), the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (Grant
No.2021B0101230002), and Special Grade of Financial Support from Chongqing Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant
No.2021XM1030).
Appendix A
① Gear mesh vectors
In Eqs. (12) and (13), the mesh vectors of the l-th meshing tooth in the i-th sun-planet meshes and the j-th ring tooth in the i-th ring-
planet meshes are respectively expressed as
( )
sin ϕspi + θzc cosβb
( )
− cos ϕspi + θzc cosβb
⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪ − a ⋅ sinβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( ) [( ) ( ) ( )] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ηspi cos ϕspi + θzc (cosβb ) + a ⋅ |T1 Mc | + a ⋅ ηspi sinβb cos ϕspi + θzc − Rbs sin ϕspi + θzc sinβb ⎪
2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( ) [( ) ( ) ( )] ⎪
⎪
⎪ ηspi sin ϕspi + θzc (cosβb ) + a ⋅ |T1 Mc | + a ⋅ ηspi sinβb sin ϕspi + θzc + Rbs cos ϕspi + θzc sinβb ⎪
⎪ 2
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − R cosβ ⎪
⎪
{ } ⎪⎨ bs b ⎪
⎬
l V s (Mk )|6 × 1
V spi (Mk ) = = − sin α spi cosβ
V pi (Mk )|6 × 1 ⎪
⎪
b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ cos α spi cosβ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ a ⋅ sinβ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 [ ( ) ] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − ηspi cosαspi (cosβb ) − a ⋅ Rbp sinαspi − T4 Mc − a ⋅ ηspi sinβb cosαspi sinβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ [ ( ) ] ⎪
⎭
2
− ηspi sinαspi (cosβb ) + a ⋅ Rbp cosαspi + T4 Mc − a ⋅ ηspi sinβb sinαspi sinβb
− Rbp cosβb
(A.1)
{ }
V pi (Mk )|6 × 1
V jrpi (Mk ) =
V jr (Mk )|6 × 1
⎧ ⎫
⎪ sinαrpi cosβb ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ cosαrpi cosβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ − a ⋅ sinβ( b ) ] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − ηrpi cosαrpi (cosβb ) + a ⋅ Rbp sinαrpi − T2 Mc + a ⋅ ηrpi sinβb cosαrpi sinβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ( ) ] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2
ηrpi sinαrpi (cosβb ) + a ⋅ Rbp cosαrpi + T2 Mc + a ⋅ ηrpi sinβb sinαrpi sinβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎨ R cosβ ⎬
(A.2)
( bp )
b
= sin ϕ + θ cosβ
⎪
⎪ ( rpi zc
) b ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ − cos ϕrpi + θzc cosβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( ) [ ( a ⋅ sinβ
) b ( ) ( )] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ηrpi cos ϕrpi + θzc (cosβb ) + a ⋅ Rbr sin ϕrpi + θzc − yrj + T1 Mc + a ⋅ ηrpi sinβb cos ϕrpi + θzc sinβb ⎪
2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( ) 2 [ ( ) ( ) ( )] ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ηrpi sin ϕrpi + θzc (cosβb ) [+ a ⋅ ( xrj − Rbr cos ϕrpi + θzc + T1 Mc + a ⋅ ηrpi sinβb sin ϕrpi + θzc sinβb ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ ) ( )] ⎪
⎭
xrj cos ϕrpi + θzc − Rbr + yrj sin ϕrpi + θzc cosβb
where ϕspi = Φspi + αspi and ϕrpi = Φrpi − αrpi . αspi and αrpi are transverse pressure angles of the i-th sun-planet and the i-th ring-planet
meshes, respectively. Φspi and Φrpi are position angles of the i-th planet in sun/ring-planet meshes, respectively. βb is the base helix
angle. a=1 when the driving gear is left-hand teeth, while a=− 1 when the driving gear is right-hand teeth.
② Location matrix
28
⎡ ⎤
0 0 0
⎢⋮ ⋯ ⋮⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0 ⋯ 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢1 ⋯ 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
Λrow =⎢
⎢⋮ ⋯ ⋮⎥⎥ (A.3)
⎢1 ⋯ 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0 ⋯ 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⋮ ⋯ ⋮⎦
0 0 0 Dim s × Dim m row
⎡ ⎤
0 ⋯ 0 1 ⋯ 1 0 ⋯ 0
Λ col
= ⎣0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ 0⎦ (A.4)
0 ⋯ 0 1 ⋯ 1 0 ⋯ 0 Dim m column × Dim s
T T
where Dim s = size(M,1), Dim m row = size(Vm Vm ,1), Dim m column = size(Vm Vm ,2). The position of the ‘1′ element in Eqs.(A.3)
l j
and (A.4) depends on the ordering of Vm (Vm =Vspi or Vrpi ) in X (see Eq. (33)).
③ Contact point position on the base plane
For the i th sun-planet meshes,

⃒ ⃒ ( (( )/⃒ ⃒))
|T1 T4 | = ⃒Os Opi ⃒sin acos Rbs + Rbp ⃒Os Opi ⃒ (A.5)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Bspi
|T3 T4 | = |T1 T4 | − R2as − R2bs − tanβb (A.6)
2
and for the i th ring-planet meshes,

⃒ ⃒ ( (( )/⃒ ⃒))
|T1 T2 | = ⃒Or Opi ⃒sin acos Rbr − Rbp ⃒Or Opi ⃒ (A.7)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ B
(A.8)
rpi
|T1 T4 | = |T1 T2 | + R2ap − R2bp + tanβb
2
References
[1] X. Xu, D. Niu, B. Xiao, et al., Policy analysis for grid parity of wind power generation in China, Energy Policy 138 (2020), 111225.
[2] J. Lin, R.G Parker, Sensitivity of planetary gear natural frequencies and vibration modes to model parameters, J. Sound Vib. 228 (1) (1999) 109–128.
[3] T. Eritenel, R.G Parker, Modal properties of three-dimensional helical planetary gears, J. Sound Vib. 325 (1–2) (2009) 397–420.
[4] Y. Guo, R.G Parker, Dynamic analysis of planetary gears with bearing clearance, J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 7 (4) (2012).
[5] Y. Guo, J. Keller, R.G Parker, Nonlinear dynamics and stability of wind turbine planetary gear sets under gravity effects, Eur. J. Mech.A Solids 47 (2014) 45–57.
[6] H. Zhai, C. Zhu, C. Song, et al., Influences of carrier assembly errors on the dynamic characteristics for wind turbine gearbox, Mech. Mach. Theory 103 (2016)
138–147.
[7] V.Y. Öztürk, E. Cigeroglu, H.N Özgüven, Ideal tooth profile modifications for improving nonlinear dynamic response of planetary gear trains, J. Sound Vib. 500
(2021), 116007.
[8] S. Wang, R Zhu, Theoretical investigation of the improved nonlinear dynamic model for star gearing system in GTF gearbox based on dynamic meshing
parameters, Mech. Mach. Theory 156 (2021), 104108.
[9] R.G. Parker, X. Wu, Vibration modes of planetary gears with unequally spaced planets and an elastic ring gear, J. Sound Vib. 329 (11) (2010) 2265–2275.
[10] Z. Fan, C. Zhu, C. Song, Dynamic analysis of planetary gear transmission system considering the flexibility of internal ring gear, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans.
Mech. Eng. 44 (3) (2020) 695–706.
[11] X. Guan, J. Tang, Z. Hu, et al., A new dynamic model of light-weight spur gear transmission system considering the elasticity of the shaft and gear body, Mech.
Mach. Theory 170 (2022), 104689.
[12] A. Kahraman, A.A. Kharazi, M. Umrani, A deformable body dynamic analysis of planetary gears with thin rims, J. Sound Vib. 262 (3) (2003) 752–768.
[13] J. Wei, A. Zhang, D. Qin, et al., A coupling dynamics analysis method for a multistage planetary gear system, Mech. Mach. Theory 110 (2017) 27–49.
[14] J. Tan, C. Zhu, C. Song, et al., Dynamic modeling and analysis of wind turbine drivetrain considering platform motion, Mech. Mach. Theory 140 (2019)
781–808.
[15] J. Tan, C. Zhu, C. Song, et al., Study on the dynamic modeling and natural characteristics of wind turbine drivetrain considering electromagnetic stiffness, Mech.
Mach. Theory 134 (2019) 541–561.
[16] V. Abousleiman, P. Velex, S. Becquerelle, Modeling of spur and helical gear planetary drives with flexible ring gears and planet carriers, J. Mech. Des. 129
(2007) 95–106.
[17] S. Portron, P. Velex, V. Abousleiman, A hybrid model to study the effect of tooth lead modifications on the dynamic behavior of double helical planetary gears,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 233 (21–22) (2019) 7224–7235.
[18] M.N. Bettaïeb, P. Velex, M. Ajmi, A static and dynamic model of geared transmissions by combining substructures and elastic foundations—Applications to thin-
rimmed gears, J. Mech. Des. 129 (2007) 184–194.
29
[19] B. Guilbert, P. Velex, D. Dureisseix, et al., A mortar-based mesh interface for hybrid finite-element/lumped-parameter gear dynamic models—applications to
thin-rimmed geared systems, J. Mech. Des. 138 (12) (2016).
[20] T. Duan, J. Wei, A. Zhang, et al., Transmission error investigation of gearbox using rigid-flexible coupling dynamic model: theoretical analysis and experiments,
Mech. Mach. Theory 157 (2021), 104213.
[21] C. Liu, X. Yin, Y. Liao, et al., Hybrid dynamic modeling and analysis of the electric vehicle planetary gear system, Mech. Mach. Theory 150 (2020), 103860.
[22] D. Krattiger, L. Wu, M. Zacharczuk, et al., Interface reduction for hurty/craig-bampton substructured models: review and improvements, Mech. Syst. Signal
Process 114 (2019) 579–603.
[23] J. Helsen, F. Vanhollebeke, B. Marrant, et al., Multibody modelling of varying complexity for modal behaviour analysis of wind turbine gearboxes, Renew.
Energy 36 (11) (2011) 3098–3113.
[24] V. Abousleiman, P. Velex, A hybrid 3D finite element/lumped parameter model for quasi-static and dynamic analyses of planetary/epicyclic gear sets, Mech.
Mach. Theory 41 (6) (2006) 725–748.
[25] R.G. Parker, J. Lin, Mesh phasing relationships in planetary and epicyclic gears, J. Mech. Des. 126 (2) (2004) 365–370.
[26] C. Zhang, J. Wei, F. Wang, et al., Dynamic model and load sharing performance of planetary gear system with journal bearing, Mech. Mach. Theory 151 (2020),
103898.
[27] T. Ouyang, Z. Su, S. Li, et al., Experimental and numerical investigations on dynamic characteristics of gear-roller-bearing system, Mech. Mach. Theory 140
(2019) 730–746.
[28] Z. Wan, H. Cao, Y. Zi, et al., Mesh stiffness calculation using an accumulated integral potential energy method and dynamic analysis of helical gears, Mech.
Mach. Theory 92 (2015) 447–463.
[29] C. Natali, M. Battarra, G. Dalpiaz, et al., A critical review on FE-based methods for mesh stiffness estimation in spur gears, Mech. Mach. Theory 161 (2021),
104319.
[30] K. Chen, H. Ma, L. Che, et al., Comparison of meshing characteristics of helical gears with spalling fault using analytical and finite-element methods, Mech. Syst.
Signal Process 121 (2019) 279–298.
[31] Z. Wan-Xie, On precise integration method, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 163 (1) (2004) 59–78.
[32] KISSsoft Release 2019 User Manual, KissSoft, 2019.
[33] L.I.U. Wen, L.I. Rui, Z. Jihong, et al., Study on correction algorithm of time-varying mesh stiffness of helical gears and its influencing factors, J. Hunan Univ. Nat.
Sci. 45 (2) (2018).
[34] Z. Chen, Y. Shao, D. Su, Dynamic simulation of planetary gear set with flexible spur ring gear, J. Sound Vib. 332 (26) (2013) 7191–7204.
[35] Y. Luo, L. Cui, J. Ma, Effect of bolt constraint of ring gear on the vibration response of the planetary gearbox, Mech. Mach. Theory 159 (2021), 104260.
30

Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of Planetary Gear Train Syst - 2023 - Mechanism An

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of Planetary Gear Train Syst - 2023 - Mechanism An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanism and Machine Theory 186 (2023) 105348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

Dynamic modeling and analysis of planetary gear train system

OXYZ denotes the global coordinate system.

Fig. 1. Contact fatigue of the ring gear in the megawatt-level WTG.

2. Dynamic modeling of PGT

2.1. Basic description of PGT

2.2. Modeling of the ring gear and carrier

Fig. 2. NGW planetary gear train.

Fig. 3. Dynamic model of PGT.

Fig. 4. Discrete master nodes of the ring gear.

Fig. 5. Discrete master nodes of the carrier.

Mpi = RTcp Mcm Rcp (6)

Kpi = RTcp Kcm Rcp (7)

2.3. Modeling of gear meshes

Fig. 6. Coordinate transformation between carrier pins and planets.

Fig. 7. Schematic of the i th sun-planet meshes.

Fig. 8. Schematic of the i th ring-planet meshes.

and for the j-th ring tooth in the i th ring-planet meshes,

2.4. Modeling of the sun shaft and bearing supporting

2.4.1. Beam elements

2.4.2. Supporting elements

2.5. Excitations of PGT

2.5.1. Gear mesh stiffness

Fig. 9. Beam elements of the sun shaft.

Fig. 10. Ring hole supporting stiffness.

2.5.2. Additional excitations

2.6. Modeling of PGT

MẌ + CẊ + KX = F + Fθ + Fe (34)

3.1. Gear and bearing

3.2. Internal excitations

Fig. 11. Overall dynamic model of PGT.

Fig. 12. Solution scheme of RFCDM.

Fig. 13. Mesh stiffness comparisons.

Fig. 14. TVMS of the sun/ring-planet meshes.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Calculation results compared with FEM

4.1.1. Frequencies and modal shapes

RFCDM 280.43 384.85 411.81 449.77 590.02 594.26

Fig. 15. Modal shape comparisons of the carrier.

RFCDM 62.30 116.18 172.83 323.50 337.02 508.36

Fig. 16. Modal shape comparisons of the ring gear.

4.1.2. Carrier deformations

4.1.3. Tooth loads

Fig. 18. Forced balance positions of the carrier in FEM.

Fig. 19. Tooth load comparisons.

Fig. 20. Rotation speed changes of the carrier.

during the same time.

4.2. Variable-speed characterization variables

4.3. Effects of operation conditions on dynamic responses

4.3.1. Stable input torque

Fig. 22. Vibration displacements of the sun gear.

Fig. 23. Vibration displacements of the 1st planet.

Fig. 24. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring tooth.

Fig. 25. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring hole.

Fig. 26. Dynamic mesh parameters of the 1st sun/ring-planet meshes.

Fig. 26. (continued).

4.3.2. Variable input torque

Fig. 28. Load-sharing coefficient under the rated input torque.

Fig. 29. Vibration displacements of the sun gear.

Fig. 30. Vibration displacements of the 1st planet.

Fig. 31. Vibration displacements of the 1st ring tooth.