Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
KISSsoft AG
Uetzikon 4
8634 Hombrechtikon
Switzerland
www.KISSsoft.ch
1/8
Version: 0
Autor: MR
Date: 1.10.07
Approved: MR
Date: 1.10.08
W:\Artikel-Papers-Konferenzen\050-DMK2007-Wellenberechnung\DMK2007_Raabe_E[2].doc
With dynamic calculations, the Euler-Bernoulli-Beam uses only one linear mass while
Timoshenkos also considers inertia due to rotation. This can also lead to a difference for short,
thick beams.
[9] gives a rule-of-thumb for the validity range, so that the Euler-Bernoulli-Beam is usable for a
shaft length bigger than the quintuple of the beam height, whereas Timoshenkos is adequate up to
a shaft length equal to the beam height.
For shafts, a strength calculation is often produced according to the nominal stress concept. The
beam model supplies the nominal stress concept that, combined with notch factors, allows a
verification according to DIN 743 [5], the FKM-guidelines [6] or other similar methods.
element (ball or pin) is determined from the non-linear stiffness between rotating element and
bearing (inner/outer) ring.
For ball bearings, the normal force Q upon the ball is deduced from the displacement of the ball
by:
3
2
E
i
e
K ( i ) 3 2
+ K ( e ) 3 2
Q = c p 2 with c p =
3
1 + E2
i E ( i )
e E ( e )
The values and emerge from the bearing inner geometry for which, besides the rotating
element diameter and their number also the radius of bearing rings is required.
For roller bearings, the normal force Q on a pin element of length Lwe is given by:
3
10
Figure 1: Models of Ball- and Roller Bearing according to DIN ISO 281, Supplement 4 [1]
With given displacements, the resultant bearing forces and moments can be determined by adding
up the forces in the individual contacts. If these displacements are unknown, but the external load
given, an iterative solution must be found.
For the calculation of the load distribution, it is necessary to consider in addition to the radiuses for
the calculation of the Hertzian pressure also the bearing clearance. Once again, the bearing
clearance will be influenced by the initial bearing clearance, the pressure between the bearing and
the shaft, as well as thermal expansions.
For the shaft system of equations, a non-linear equation emerges for the bearing force:
Fx , Fy , Fz , M x , M z = f (u x , u y , u z , x , z )
Solving this system of equations, for example, with a Newton method, the following stiffness
matrix will be obtained:
T
T
Fx , Fy , Fz , M x , M z = f (u x 0 , u y 0 , u z 0 , x 0 , z 0 ) + C u x , u y , u z , x , z
The stiffness matrix is normally fully populated. A tilting of the radial loaded ball bearing around
the center point, for example, causes an axial force that, because of the axial clearance through the
radial displacement on the load side, will be smaller than on the opposite side. If not calculated
with displacement increments, only a linear calculation can be executed, and the equation can be
rewritten:
T
T
T
Fx , Fy , Fz , M x , M z = f (u x 0 , u y 0 , u z 0 , x 0 , z 0 ) C u x 0 , u y 0 , u z 0 , x 0 , z 0 + C u x , u y , u z , x , z
This way, every algorithm for a shaft calculation that admits a definition of stiffness can be used.
In addition to the stiffness, an external load will be introduced and the system iteratively
calculated. With the solution, it must be noticed that the bearing stiffness in the initial
configuration without displacements is zero and that, with the stiffness calculation for excessively
3/8
big displacements problems could emerge during the iterative solution. If, during the iterations, the
displacement becomes bigger than the rotating element diameter, the equations will deliver
unexpected results.
According to DIN ISO 281, Supplement 4 [1], with the loads on the individual rotating elements
the nominal reference lifetime L10r as well as the modified reference lifetime of Lnmr, can be
calculated. Lnmr also contains the factors a1 and aDIN for the probability of failure and the influence
of the lubrication.
The question is; where does one get the bearing data for the calculation with the inner bearing
geometry now? For individual bearings, one can get this information from the bearing
manufacturers. Since the results with approximate data are still much better than those for stiff
bearings, the data can also be estimated from the catalog data. According to ISO 281 [3] and ISO
76 [4] one has two equations for the load ratings C and C0, from which the two parameters,
number of rotating elements Z and rotating elements diameter Dw, can be determined, if one
assumes the standard values for the radius of the inner/outer rings (see also [11]). For roller
bearings, the rotating element length Lwe is added. Here, only an estimation based on the bearing
width is possible.
case 2, with the bearings in the contact center point, the negative bending moments would be zero,
the shaft shoulders, therefore, free of stress.
A new problem appeared with this third calculation variation. If an angular contact ball bearing
with 40 pressure angle in direction X lays on a shaft shoulder, there will be a relatively big
bending moment on it. As a result, there are partly small calculation safeties for the shaft shoulder.
In reality, the axial force is not set in the center of the bearing but through the inner bearing ring on
the shaft shoulder. The bending moment is therefore introduced exactly at the shoulder without
creating a bending stress condition in the shoulder groove. The calculation with nominal stresses is
actually not possible at this point. It is necessary to carry out an FE calculation for an exact
calculation of this case.
Figure 2: Bending Moment Distribution for Case 3 (lower line) and 4 (upper line)
The fourth case is the calculation with non-linear stiffnesses at the place of the geometrical support
place. This delivers a bending moment like in case 3, furthermore the pressure angle is loaddependent correctly considered and the stiffness appear automatically. In Fig. 2, the small
deviation of the bending moment distribution between case 3 and 4, is load-dependent and will
increase with the load because the pressure angle changes under load. The same problem as in case
3 arises with the shaft strength calculation; should the pressure center point lie outside the bearing.
Preload
5/8
Figure 3: Radial Bearing Offset for a Contact Angle Ball Bearing 7208E in Dependence of the Preload Force ua
in m.
Fig. 3, shows the dependence of the stiffness on the preload force. The preload will be placed
between the inner and outer rings through an axial offset (ua in m). Now, for the same radial
load, different radial bearing displacements emerge. With a load of 2000N, the bearing
displacement is reduced by 50% when the preload increases from 1 to 20 m. With bigger radial
loads, the Force-/Deviation paths run parallel.
Natural Mode for 1st Frequency
(1717 Hz, with 20 m Preload)
Deviation
Deviation
Figure 4: Natural- Modes and Frequencies of different Bearing Preloads for Contact Angle Ball Bearing 7206B.
(Loads act in the Z-direction; Axis is in the Y-direction).
The stiffness increased through the preload can also be recognized in the natural frequencies. Fig.
4 shows the natural- mode and frequency for the shaft in Fig. 2 for two different preloads. Because
of the strong preload, the frequency has considerably increased and the amount of the axial
movement in the natural mode is reduced a little.
As a whole, the natural mode in Fig. 4 is somewhat uncommon for a classic shaft calculation. The
axial- and the bending oscillations are here coupled. Should the shaft move itself axially on a
bearing, then, it will be forced to move opposite of the load direction due to the inclined bearing
raceway. On the second bearing, the radial backlash increases due to the axial relief and the shaft
can further move in the load direction. So, axial vibrations cause also a tilting movement in the
radial direction.
Figure 5: Bending Moment and Shear Force Distribution for a Spindle Bearing Package calculated considering
the inner Bearing Geometry
The same solution can also be obtained with simple spring elements corresponding to a suitable
selection of bearing stiffnesses, as with the consideration of the inner bearing geometry. Such an
6/8
example can be seen in Fig. 5 with the bending moment and the shear force distribution. However,
the additional effort is that of determining the load-dependent stiffness.
Lifetime
Bending Moment
Angle [ ]
Figure 6: Effect of Tilting on Lifetime and Reaction Moment of a cylindrical Roller Bearing NU226 (Fr=200kN)
The bearing catalog indicates for a cylindrical roller bearing an inclination limit of 2 4 minutes
of angle. Fig. 6 shows almost no reduction of the bearing lifetime for an inclination of 2 minutes of
angle.
Figure 7: Planet Support with Needle Bearing, Bending Moment and Deflection Line
Fig. 7 shows the bending line and bending moment of a planet gear with a needle rim. The Figure
shows again a comparison between the calculation with inner bearing geometry and with the
assumed stiffnesses of a punctual bearing. Since bearings, for the calculation, are still assumed to
be punctual, there is a bending moment jump in the center of the bearing. In reality there is a
trapezoidal-shaped line load. Also the deflection has a minimum at the theoretical bearing position
and presents higher values at the borders. Better results could be achieved considering the bearing
7/8
width in the shaft calculation. However, this also presupposes elastic bearing rings, which exceeds
the calculation according to DIN ISO 281, Supplement 4.
With this calculation at least two important values will result: The bending angle (here barely two
minutes of arc) and the bearing lifetime.
7 Bibliography
[1]
DIN ISO 281, Supplement 4 (2003): Dynamic Load Ratings and nominal Lifetime
Procedures for the Calculation of the modified Reference Lifetime for universally loaded
Bearings
[2] ISO/CD TS 16281, under development,: Rolling Bearing Methods for Calculating the
modified Reference Rating Life for universally loaded Bearings
[3] ISO 281 (2007): Rolling Bearings-Dynamic Load Ratings and Rating Life
[4] ISO 76 (2006): Rolling bearings-Static load ratings
[5] DIN 743 (2000): Load Proof of Capacity for Shafts and Axles
[6] Research Board of Trustees: Mechanical Engineering: Arithmetical Proof of Strength for
Mechanical Engineering Parts; VDMA Publishing House, Frankfurt/Main; 5. Edition 2003
[7] Brndlein, Eschmann, Hasbargen, Weigand: The Bearing Praxis; United Publishing Houses
Ltd., Mainz; 3. Edition 1998
[8] T. A. Harris: Rolling Bearing Analysis; John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York; Fourth Edition
2001
[9] Gross, Hauger, Schnell, Wriggers: Technical Mechanics 4; Jumper Verlag; 4. Edition 2002
[10] KISSsoft INC.: Handbook for the Mechanical Engineering Calculation Software;
www.KISSsoft.ch; 2006
[11] M. Breuer: Theoretical and experimental Regulation of the Bearing Stiffness; Advance
Reports ASSOCIATION OF GERMAN ENGINEERS Series 1, No., 241; Association of
German Engineers Publishing House Ltd. 1994
8/8