Master Thesis Static Analysis of Rolling

Bearings Using Finite

Element Method






submitted by
Peng Chunjun
in
May 2009
Institut fr Baustatik und Baudynamik
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff
Baustatik und Baudynamik
Universitt Stuttgart
Universitt Stuttgart




Static Analysis of Rolling Bearings
Using Finite Element Method

November 01 , 2008 May 01 , 2009
st st






Author: Peng Chunjun
Matr. Nr: 2393375
University: University of Stuttgart





Supervisors:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff
Institute of Structural Mechanics
University of Stuttgart
Pfaffenwaldring 7, 70550 Stuttgart/Germany

Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Rauch
CADFEM GmbH
Geshaeftstelle Stuttgart
Leinfelder Str.60
70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen/ Germany








I
II









































II
Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff for allowing
me to write my Master Thesis at CADFEM GmbH.

I am sincerely grateful to my supervisor at CADFEM GmbH (Stuttgart)
Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Rauch for his great guidance and all the other
colleagues from consulting and service department of CADFEM (Stuttgart)
for their valuable suggestions and help.

I would like to thank my university supervisor Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin
Schneider for his valuable advices.

Finally I am indebted to my wife and my family for their huge support for
my study in Germany.














III
Declaration


I, Peng Chunjun, make sure that the Master Thesis Static Analysis of
Rolling Bearing Using Finite Element Method has been completed and no
other sources or documents other than the cited have been used as aids to
this topic.

















________________________ _________________________
Place/Date Signature










IV
Abstract

In this study the static analysis of an angular contact ball bearing using Finite Element
Method is investigated. The main goal is to find the most important influencing
parameters for radial stiffness of the bearing under an axial load. All the results are
based on one specific angular contact ball bearing with the radius of ball around 22 mm
and the inner and outer groove radii around 11mm.


The factors which mostly influence the radial reaction force from the housing to the
outer ring are analyzed. The most important parameter which affects the reaction force
is the curvature of the ball and the raceway of inner and outer ring. An increase of the
ball diameter by 1.3% leads to the increase of reaction force by 27%. A decrease of ball
diameter by 1.3% results in the decrease of reaction force by 9.3%.

With respect to the Finite Element formulation, the next important parameters are the
mesh density and normal contact stiffness factor FKN if Augmented Lagrange is used.
The mesh density affects the contact stiffness and the whole reaction force mostly in
contact region. After the program finds a suitable contact area the mesh density affects
the reaction force only a little. For example if the number of nodes increases by approx.
6 times, the final reaction force increases only 13.8%. For the penetration further
investigation shows that the reaction force has little sensitivity to it. For example, when
the penetration increases from 0 (Pure Lagrange method) to 0.0056 mm (Pure Penalty
method) which is relative large in bearing analysis, the final reaction force decreases by
only 1%.


The second goal of this study is to simplify this angular contact ball bearing using beam
element between the inner and outer ring to reduce the number of nodes and shorten the
calculation time. For this specific ball bearing, it is possible to use a beam star"
structure with 12 beams and the radius of each circular beam is 4.5mm. Although it has
an equivalent stiffness as the bearing with ball, for some other kind of bearing and the
angular contact ball bearing with different geometry size, further investigation should
be carried out.








V
CONTENTS

1 Introduction to Rolling Bearings
1.1 Introductions...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Basic Types of Rolling Bearings................................................................................2
1.3 The Goal of this Study................................................................................................4
1.4 Overview of Each Chapter..........................................................................................9

2 Static Analysis of Angular Contact Ball Bearing
2.1 Introductions..............................................................................................................10
2.2 Construction of the FE Model...................................................................................10
2.3 Simulation of Constructed Model..............................................................................12
2.3.1 Element Type and Material Model..................................................................12
2.3.2 Setting Contact Analysis Parameters..............................................................14
2.3.2.1 Introductions......................................................................................14
2.3.2.2 Choose Contact and Target Surface....................................................15
2.3.2.3 Type of contact...................................................................................15
2.3.2.4 Behavior of Contact...........................................................................16
2.3.2.5 Contact Algorithm..............................................................................16
2.3.2.6 Contact Stiffness Update....................................................................18
2.3.3 Static Structural Analysis Setting....................................................................18
2.3.3.1 Analysis Setting..................................................................................18
2.3.3.2Boundary Conditions and Load...........................................................19
2.3.3.3 Solution Information..........................................................................21
2.4 Factors Influencing the Reaction Force....................................................................22
2.4.1 Introductions...................................................................................................22
2.4.2 Numerical Influencing Factors to the Reaction Force....................................22
2.4.2.1Mesh Density and Reaction Force......................................................22
2.4.2.2 Penetration and Reaction Force.........................................................26
2.4.3 Physical Influencing Factors to the Reaction Force.......................................27
2.4.3.1 Curvature and Reaction Force..........................................................28
2.4.3.2 Friction Coefficient and Reaction Force..........................................29
2.4.3.3 Boundary Condition and Reaction Force.........................................30
2.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................32

3 Contact Analysis
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................33
3.2 Contact Area Type....................................................................................................33
3.3 Behavior of Contact Surface....................................................................................34
3.4 Contact Status...........................................................................................................35
3.5 Contact Algorithms..................................................................................................36
3.5.1 Pure Lagrange Multiplier................................................................................36
3.5.2 Pure Penalty Method.......................................................................................38
VI
VII
3.5.3 Augmented Lagrange Method.........................................................................40
3.5.4 Multipoint Constraints (MPC) .......................................................................40
3.6 Conclusion................................................................................................................41

4 Simulation of Angular Contact Ball Bearing with Simplified Model Using Beam
Element

4.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................42
4.2 The whole Model of Angular Contact Ball Bearing ...............................................42
4.3 Results of Target Model...........................................................................................43
4.4 Possible Ways to Simplify Angular Contact Ball Bearing.......................................44
4.4.1Possible Solution(1) ........................................................................................45
4.4.2 Possible Solution(2) .......................................................................................46
4.4.3 Possible Solution(3) .......................................................................................47
4.5 Test of Final Chosen Way.........................................................................................48
4.5.1 Apply Displacement to the Model..................................................................49
4.5.2 Apply Combined Load to the Model..............................................................51
4.6 Simulation of Angular Contact Ball Bearing with Beam .......................................53
4.6.1 Introductions...................................................................................................53
4.6.2 Original Simplified Model with Beam...........................................................53
4.6.3 Improved Model.............................................................................................55
4.7 Comparison between the Simulation Results with Ball and Beam.........................56
4.7.1 Number of Beams and Reaction Force...........................................................59
4.7.2 Cross Section and Reaction Force..................................................................60
4.8 Conclusions..............................................................................................................62

5 Summary and Prospects ..............................................................................................63
Bibliography
Appendix




Baustatik und Baudynamik
Institut fr Baustatik
und Baudynamik
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. M. Bischoff
Master Thesis
Static Analysis of Roller Bearings

Ball and Roller bearings, generally called rolling bearings, are commonly used machine ele-
ments. Even the geometry might look simple the physical effects to be regarded in a nonlin-
ear FE-analysis are quite complex. Modeling the complete geometry would lead into imprac-
tical model sizes. Different ideas to idealize roller bearings with analogous models exist. The
thesis describes different approaches to model roller bearings and compares their applicabil-
ity.


In particular, the following steps have to be performed:
Literature study of different approaches to model roller bearings
Set-up of a 3-D reference FE-model
Identification of the main sources for the nonlinearity of roller bearings
Define of a simplified bearing model (using beam elements)
Validation and recommendations for the use of simplified bearing models

Supervisors: Rainer Rauch (CADFEM GmbH)
Second Supervisor: Benjamin Schneider (IBB)
1 Introduction to Rolling Bearings

1.1 Introductions

The term rolling bearing includes all forms of roller and ball bearing which permit rotary
motion of a shaft
*
. Normally a whole unit of bearing is sold in the market, which
includes inner ring, outer ring, rolling element (balls or rollers) and the cage which
separates the rolling element from each other.
] 1 [

Rolling bearings are high precision, low cost but commonly used in all kinds of rotary
machine. It takes long time for the human being to develop the bearing from the initial idea
to the modern rolling bearing which can be seen from Fig.1-1.

Fig 1-1 history of bearing
] 1 [

The reason why bearing is used is that first it can transfer moment or force. Secondly and
maybe more important is that it can be interchanged easily and conveniently when its
broken. In the mechanical system shown in Fig.1-2, it is also possible to amount the shaft
directly with housing. However, when this mechanism has some problem, the only
possibility to recover the function of this system is to replace the housing or the shaft. From
the mechanical engineer point of view, both of them are not only very expensive but also
time consuming to manufacture a new housing or shaft with the same parameters.


* The notation with a number in right top square bracket is referred to reference book number.
- 1 -
However when the bearings are used between them, the situation will be different.
Normally there is no relative motion between shaft and inner ring or the outer ring with
housing. So it has less possibility for the shaft or housing to be worn out. Usually the
bearing first cracks and then the shaft or housing is broken. If the above situation happens it
is really easy to figure it out: just buy a new bearing from the market with the same
parameter and replace it. Thats why bearings are so often used.

bearing housing shaft



Fig.1-2 mechanical system

1.2 Basic Types of Rolling Bearings

The following pictures show some common types of rolling bearings--deep groove ball
bearing (Fig.1-2), angular contact ball bearing (Fig.1-3), roller bearing/needle bearing
(Fig.1-4) and so on. Every kind of bearing has its own specific use.

Ball Outer ring
Inner ring
Cage
Fig.1-2 Deep groove ball bearing
] 5 [
- 2 -
Deep groove ball bearing as shown by Fig. 1-2 is the more popular rolling bearing.
Normally, this kind of bearing is used to support only radial load. The deep groove ball
bearing has high load-carrying capacity because it has high osculation and relatively large
ball diameter.

Fig.1-3 Geometry of angular contact ball bearing
] 1 [

When the mechanical systems are expected to support radial and axial load, then angular
contact ball bearing must be used. The load carrying capacity of angular contact ball
bearing depends on the magnitude of contact angle . The Fig.1-3 shows us the geometry of
angular contact ball bearing. The bearings with large contact angle can support more axial
load. Fig.1-4 exhibits us the angular contact ball bearings with different contact angle .

small contact angle large contact angle

Fig.1-4 angular contact ball bearing with different contact angles
] 1 [

Roller bearings are used for systems which require exceptionally large load-carry capacity
- 3 -
but can not feasibly be obtained by ball bearing. Roller bearings are normally much stiffer
structures than the ball bearing with a comparable geometry size and they can provide
greater fatigue endurance as well. However they are more expansive than the ball bearings
because it is more difficult to manufacture and assemble.


Fig.1-5 roller bearing

1.3 The Goal of this Study

One of the goals of this study is to find the reasonable reference reaction force from the
outer ring to the inner ring by means of FEM simulation. Another goal is, instead of using
ball, to simplify the rolling bearing with some other elements between the inner and outer
ring. The model mainly used to be discussed is angular contact ball bearing.

Complex Reaction Force Distribution under Radial Load
When the inner ring is under radial load Fr, the Fig.1-6 shows us schematically the load
distribution at each ball position. At different position, the load is different. When each load
acts on every ball, the reaction force will be more complex. It is difficult and time
consuming to investigate the reaction force for each ball at every position using FEM
simulation.

Fig.1-6 Rolling element load distribution under external radial load
] 1 [
- 4 -

Simplification of the Whole Bearing under Axial Load

Since it is complicated to investigate the angular contact ball bearing under radial load, then
it is convenient to investigate the model under only axial load. Because it is also time
consuming to simulate the whole model of bearing, what can be done is to do some
simplifications for the whole model under axial load.

* Simplification step 1: whole model to part model (exact geometry with balls) under
axial load

According to the fact that all the balls are distributed evenly at the circumferential direction,
when the bearing is under axial displacement or force* (model (a) shown in Fig1-7), this
load will be the same to all the segment of the bearing. This is called symmetric condition.
Hence one part (model (b) in Fig1-7) of the whole bearing can be used to do the simulation.
On one hand the result from the part model will be sufficient to evaluate the result; On the
other hand the calculation time will not be too long. All the results discussed in chapter 2
are based on part model (b) shown in Fig.1-7.
1


(a)
(b)
Fig.1-7 model simplification

Before doing further simplification of the bearing using FEM, the following two questions
have to be considered when the simulation is going to be carried out:

1. Flexible rings and flexible balls?
2. Flexible rings and rigid balls?

In Fig.1-7(b)_1 the model (a) is segment of the bearing. The reason why the boundary


1 *
In this study, if there is no specification, then the load will be axial displacement on the inner ring. The
magnitude is 0.5mm and direction is shown in Fig.1-7(b).
- 5 -
condition is applied this way will be explained in part 2.3.3.2.

Model (a) in Fig.1-7(b)_1 can be thought of similar to the model (b) when the isotropic
material model is used for all the parts. For model(b) the whole stiffness of the system:
i i total
K K
1 1
3
1

=
= . If rigid ball is used, which means K2 , so: 0
1
2

K
,
then
total
K
1
( +
1
1
K
3
1
K
) which shows that in the whole stiffness, there is no contribution
from the stiffness of the ball. Thats not physical.



(a) (b)
Fig.1-7(b)_1 simplification of model
So the flexible rings and flexible ball have to be used for the simplification.

* Simplification step 2: part model with ball to part model with other element

In order to investigate the possibilities of further simplification of ball, since flexible rings
and flexible components have to be used, there are two possible solutions:

The first idea: use a spring between the inner and outer ring which is shown in
Fig.1-7(b)_2.

Fig.1-7(b)_2 possible simplification
- 6 -
The disadvantage of this model is obvious:
- No large deformation
- No axial force transmission
- No nonlinearity of the reaction force

The second idea: use beam elements between the inner and outer ring which is shown in
Fig.1-7(b)_3.

Fig.1-7(b)_3 possible simplification

The advantages of this model are:
+ Axial and radial force transmission
+ Nonlinear reaction force and displacement
+ Large deformation

Fig.1-7_(c) simplification of the part model


The static structure analysis of the model is the interest.

As shown in Fig.1-8, it is the free body diagram for all the components of the bearing. The
boundary condition is shown in Fig.1-7(b)_2.
- 7 -

The force R_y will be the reaction force which one wants to investigate and find some
reasonable value for it because it can provide a reference force to the design of shaft or
housing. Thats why it is chosen to evaluate all the numerical results.





R_y2
Fig. 1-8 free body diagram


Conclusion:


To do the simulation with the part model of bearing, flexible-flexible model has to be used
for the rings and ball. The model with beams between the inner ring and outer ring will be
used to simplify the angular contact ball bearing. The model is shown in Fig.1-7(c). Finally
all the results will be evaluated by comparing the reaction force from the housing to the
outer ring.












- 8 -





1.4 Overview of Each Chapter


In chapter 2, simulation with exact geometry of ball bearing through basic ANSYS work
flow is performed. Firstly the procedures to create the model are described. Secondly some
basics settings for contact are given. Thirdly the influencing factors which affect the
reaction force are investigated and finally the reasonable reference reaction force for this
angular contact ball bearing is attained.


In chapter 3, the contact analysis is discussed. The meaning of some important contact
items, the behavior of contact and the principle of different contact algorithms are explained.
Some simple but important examples are also given in order to get better understanding
about contact problem.


In chapter 4, the simulation of simplified model is carried out. As shown in Fig.1-7(c), the
ball is simplified with beams between the inner ring and outer ring. Firstly possible or
reasonable solutions to simplify the model are discussed (Even if beam elements are used
between the inner ring and outer ring, there are still several possible solutions). Secondly
solving the simplified model under certain boundary condition is performed. Finally results
of model with beam and with ball are compared. The possible number of beams and the
radius of each beam are figured out as well.
















- 9 -
2 Static Analysis of Angular Contact Ball Bearing

2.1 Introductions

In this chapter, the procedures to create the model* will be introduced and some other
basics about angular contact ball bearing will also be discussed. The CAD model of the
bearing, generation of the mesh and solution of the model are done by ANSYS Workbench.
2

2.2 Construction of the FE Model

In order to determine the geometry of this angular contact ball bearing, the following
parameters firstly are necessary to be figured out.

D. diameter ball
r radius groove outer
r radius groove inner
d diameter raceway outer the
d diameter raceway inner the
o
i
o
i



deep groove ball bearing angular contact ball bearing

Fig.2- 1 geometry of rolling bearing
] 1 [
* Because of lacking of the geometry data from the manufacturer, the geometry data of the model here used is from the
reference book [1].
2
- 10 -
According to the geometry, the following equations hold:
The pitch diameter =1/2*( + ) *
m
d
i
d
o
d
3
The distance between the center of inner groove ( ) and outer groove ( ) A= + -D
i
r
o
r
i
r
o
r
Diametrical clearance = - -2*D
d
P
o
d
i
d
4
* angle contact free the o = ) 2 / 1 ( cos
1
A P
d

With the input:

o i
r r = =11.628 mm
di=102.79mm,
do=147.73mm and
D=22.225mm,
We finally get:

A=1.03124mm
Pd=0.4826mm
o =40


After these values are figured out, then the geometry of the bearing is then fixed, which is
shown in Fig. 2-2.



Fig.2- 2 Geometry of angular contact ball bearing



* The proof of this equation is at the accessory part
3
* This angle is the bearing under no external load. After the load is applied, this angle will change.
4
- 11 -
2.3 Simulation of Constructed Model

After the model is done, then the next will be the simulation. Importing the solid model to
new simulation in ANSYS Workbench and it will generate the mesh automatically.

2.3.1 Element Type and Material Model
Element Type

For inner ring and outer ring and the part of the ball: SOLID 186
SOLID186 is hexahedron, 3-D, 20-node solid element which has quadratic displacement
behavior as is shown in Fig.2-3-1. Every node has three degrees of freedom: translations
in the nodal x, y, and z directions. When the uniform reduced integration is used, it is
helpful to prevent volumetric mesh locking in nearly incompressible cases.

Fig.2-3-1 SOLID 186 geometry
] 6 [

For the center of the ball: SOLID187
Solid187 is tetrahedral, higher order 3-D, 10-node element shown in Fig.2-3-2. Every node
has three degrees of freedom: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. SOLID187 has a
quadratic displacement behavior and is good to model irregular meshes.

Fig.2-3-2 SOLID 187 geometry
] 6 [



- 12 -
For the contact element: CONTA174, 3-D 8-Node Surface-Surface Contact

Fig.2-3-3 Contact element geometry
] 6 [

For the target element: Targe170, 3-D 8-Node surface-surface contact


Fig.2-3-4 target element geometry
] 6 [

As already said that when the model is imported into new analysis in Workbench, then it
generates the mesh automatically, however, normally that mesh is not an ideal or reasonable
one. Mesh sizing can be used in order to generate a reasonable or better mesh. Fig 2-3 is
the mesh automatically generated by the program. As can be seen that the elements for the
balls are Tetrahedral and the inner ring and outer ring are hexahedron elements. Generally
it is good for two bodies to have the same element type in contact region. A little bit more
effort can be done and the new mesh is shown in Fig.2-4.

- 13 -

Fig.2- 3 mesh automatically generated



Fig.2- 4 mesh after modification
Slices have to be done to the ball and then the same element type for the rings and balls can be
generated. It generates the tetrahedral element at the center of the ball automatically. Since
it is not the goal or interest to investigate what happens inside the ball, there is no need to
modify the mesh (tetrahedral) and this part model will be used to do all the following work.

Material model

The materials for the inner, outer ring and balls are linear isotropic structure steel. Youngs
modulus is 2*10 MPa, Poissons ratio is 0.3.
5

2.3.2 Setting Contact Analysis Parameters

2.3.2.1 Introductions

For the angular contact ball bearing, there exists contact between the ball and inner ring and
outer ring. Contact problem is highly nonlinear structure analysis and it is also a common
phenomenon in the mechanical engineering field because no components of the machine
can work independently from other parts. For example, the driving motor has to transfer the
- 14 -
power through belt or chain to the working mechanism; the gears mesh each other in order
to transfer force. So it is important to investigate what happened between two contact
bodies.

In this section, it is emphasized on how the software ANSYS solves the contact problem
numerically. For the contact theory, details will be explained in Chapter 5. Here just some
basic configurations for contact analysis are given.

2.3.2.2 Choose Contact and Target Surface

*Here the surface--surface contact is chosen between the ball and raceways.

For the surface-surface contact, it is the first step to specify which is contact surface and
which is target surface. They must be chosen as a pair, and they share the same material ID
and the same real constant value. Normally, convex surface is chosen as contact and
concave as target. Also when the size of one body in contact compared to another one is
very small and then the large surface is chosen as target. In the model shown in Fig.2-5,
when the ball surface are chooses as contact, it converges very difficulty. The contact and
target surfaces can be flipped and it works well. The chosen contact and target surfaces are
shown in Fig.2-5.


Target contact

Fig.2- 5 contact and target

2.3.2.3 Type of Contact

There are several kinds of contact used in ANSYS: frictional, frictionless, rough, bonded,
no separation and so on. The difference between them will be explained in chapter 3.

*Here frictional contact between the ball and the raceway are chosen in order to make



- 15 -
the solution converge better and friction coefficient is =0.05. In reality, the friction
between the balls and raceways is very small.

Fig.2-6 type of contact


2.3.2.4 Behavior of Contact

Several types of behavior of contact are given in ANSYS Workbench, which are symmetric,
asymmetric and auto symmetric.











Fig.2-7 contact behavior
Asymmetric contact defines contact element on one surface and target on the other
surface.

Symmetric contact means that there exists both contact and target elements on one surface
i.e. two contact pairs are defined for this two surfaces. This is good for the users who are
not so clear which surface should be defined as contact and which should be target. The
contact pressure from symmetric contact is not accurate because the value is doubled.

*Here asymmetric contact is chosen between two contact surfaces of this model.

2.3.2.5 Contact Algorithm

For different interests and different kinds of problems, different algorithms can be chosen to
solve the model. In ANSYS, there are several kinds of algorithm provided, namely: pure
- 16 -
Lagrange multiplier, Augmented Lagrange, penalty function and so on. Characteristics of
each algorithm are given as following:

Fig.2-8 contact algorithm

The pure Lagrange multiplier method
Almost no penetration produced
Do not need contact stiffness factor FKN (normal) and FKT (tangential)
Long computation time
Easily over constraint (add contact traction to the model as additional degree of
freedom)

Penalty method
Short computational time and fastest among all the algorithms
Need FKN and FKT specified
Large penetration maybe produced


Augmented Lagrangian method
Relatively small penetration
Better conditioning and less sensitive to FKN
Need additional iterations when mesh becomes too distorted

multipoint constraint (MPC)
No contact stiffness (FKN or FKT) is required
Both translational and rotational degrees of freedom can be constrained
Generation of internal MPC is simple

* Here at first the Augmented Lagrange is chosen because it is possible to specify the
maximum penetration tolerance as shown in Fig.4-9. Afterwards in order to compare the
results of different algorithms, some other algorithms are also used.



- 17 -
2.3.2.6 Contact Stiffness Update



Fig.2-9 contact stiffness update

During the process of the solution, material response or the contact area may change and it
will be more efficient to solve the problem if the contact stiffness can be changed. The
change of the contact stiffness depends on the behavior of the solution in last step or last
iteration. For example, in last several iterations, the solution converges well then the
program will update the stiffness in order to make the solution run faster. In another word,
when the solution in last several iterations did not converge well, then the program also
change the stiffness in order to make it converge better.

There are several options available:
* Update contact stiffness at each equilibrium iteration
* Update after each substep
* Never update
Here the option contact stiffness after at each equilibrium iteration is chosen.

In ANSYS Workbench, all the above mentioned parameters can be chosen by click of the
mouse. They can also be specified by command. For example, for contact 174,
keyopt(10)=5 means update contact stiffness at each iteration and keyopt(2)=2 means
using MPC algorithm. These commands are widely used in writing the macro file(APDL).


2.3.3 Static Structural Analysis Setting

Static structural analysis is the last step before solution. It includes analysis setting,
boundary conditions and maybe something else, for example macro files to be executed.

2.3.3.1 Analysis Setting

It is about the load to be applied to the structure, including load steps, load magnitude and
load direction. For one static structure analysis, there can be one or several load steps. For
each load step, several substeps can be set in order to make the solution converge better and
- 18 -
result more accurate. Fig.2-10 shows one example of analysis setting. There are totally 10
steps and for the first step there are initially 10 substeps and it has maximum 100 substeps.

Fig.2-10 analysis setting
For example, here a total displacement of 0.5mm will be applied to the structure. If there
are total 10 steps, then each step 0.05mm will be applied to the structure. In each step,
initially there are 10 substeps, and then 0.005mm will be applied to the structure in each
substep. Finally using Newton Raphson or arc length method the software finds equilibrium
points through several iterations until it converges in this substep. Then the software will
increase the load and calculate next substep until the whole load step converges. This is
how ANSYS applies load to the structure.

2.3.3.2 Boundary Conditions and Load
Boundary condition is of great importance for the structure analysis because under different
kind of boundary condition, the structure will respond differently.

(a) (b)
Fig.2-11 boundary condition

As shown in Fig.2-11, there are two possible boundary conditions applied to the bearing.
Which is reasonable?

- 19 -
For the boundary condition (b), for the outer ring, the free body diagram is shown in
Fig.2-12.

Fig.2-12 free body diagram of outer ring

Because there is no external force to make equilibrium with the inner force generated by the
ball, so it seems a ring load is applied to the raceway of outer ring which results in the
expansion of outer ring in the radial direction. Thats not physical. So (a) is a reasonable
boundary condition. The boundary condition in ANSYS Workbench is depicted in Fig.2-13.

Frictionless support in Fig.2-13 means the body can not move in the normal direction of the
surface but can slide in the tangential direction.



Fig.2-13 boundary condition

Finally is the load. There are many kinds of load as well: displacement, force, moment,
remote displacement and so on. Each of these loads has their own characteristics and
applications in different structures. In this model, the linear displacement of 0.5 mm in X
direction (axial) will be applied onto the inner ring, which can be seen in Fig.2-14.
- 20 -
load
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
step
u
_
x

[
m
m
]
u_x

Fig.2-14 load diagram

After all of these settings, now it is time to solve the model.

2.3.3.3 Solution Information

When the solution is done, it is possible to check all the parameters which we want to
investigate in the solution information, for example, reaction force, strains and stresses,
contact pressure, contact penetration, contact status, etc. The following picture Fig.2-15
shows us one example of the reaction-displacement plot of this model. From this plot, we
can see the high nonlinearity of the angular contact ball bearing.

r_x(mesh_a)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
x


[
N
]
r_x(mesh_a)

Fig.2-15 reaction force r_x
5 *




5 *
In this study, if there is no specification, then the notation r_y in the reaction plot is referred to the reaction force from
housing to the outer ring in the radial direction. r_x is referred to the reaction force from the displacement to the inner ring in
the axial direction. u_x is axial load applied on the inner ring.
- 21 -
2.4 Factors Influencing the Reaction Force

2.4.1 Introductions

Since one is interested to see how the structures response under external load, then it is
necessary to investigate the relation between the reaction force and the displacement. It is
also of great necessity to figure out which factors will influence the reaction force. The
influencing factors can be classified into 2 groups: physical and numerical part. Physical
part includes the geometry, friction coefficient and the boundary conditions. Numerical
parameters are mesh density and penetration. In the following part, the relation between the
reaction force and these parameters will be analyzed.

2.4.2 Numerical Influencing Factors to the Reaction Force

Concerning the numerical aspects using FEM, the influencing factors may be the mesh
density of the finite element model, the penetration caused by the numerical approximation.

2.4.2.1 Mesh Density and Reaction Force

The pictures shown in Fig.2-16 are different meshes of angular contact ball bearing model.
Mesh_(a) exhibits us one coarse mesh because there are only several elements in the
y-direction. The elements in the x-direction are large as well.

Mesh_b is fine but not reasonable because the elements are not so regular and they are
distorted. By means of mesh sizing the element size or the number of division of edges
can be modified so that finer and more reasonable mesh can be attained.

The new mesh is mesh_c. Further refinement of mesh_c is done in order to generate much
finer mesh_d and mesh_e so that it is efficiently to compare the relation between mesh and
reaction force.

mesh_ a mesh_ b
- 22 -

mesh_ c mesh_ d

mesh_ e
Fig.2-16 different mesh density
As explained in the first chapter that it is the interest to investigate the reaction force in y
direction which resulted from the housing to the outer ring because it can also give a
reference value to the designer of the housing. The reaction force in y direction for all the
meshes are shown in Fig.2-17.
mesh density vs reaction force
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y

[
N
]
r_y(mesh_a)
r_y(mesh_b)
r_y(mesh_c)
r_y(mesh_d)
r_y(mesh_e)

Fig.2-17 reaction force comparison

- 23 -
Number of nodes Max. reaction force
x direction[N]
Max. reaction force
y direction [N]
Other parameters
the same
Mesh_a 32636 36210 33956 X
Mesh_b 50817 36380 34062 X
Mesh_c 54963 36397 34175 X
Mesh_d 153726 40381 38598 X
Mesh_e 233666 40406 38639 X

Chart 2-1 statistic data for different meshes

u_x[mm] r_y(mesh_a)[N] r_y(mesh_e)[N] difference(a_e)%
0 0 0 0
5,00E-02 999,76 2976,8 197,75146
0,1 3071,6 5655,4 84,1190259
0,15 5872 8752,5 49,0548365
0,2 9210,1 12390 34,5262266
0,25 12795 16352 27,7999218
0,3 16585 20455 23,3343383
0,35 20595 24669 19,7815004
0,4 24838 29114 17,2155568
0,45 29286 33799 15,4100936
0,5 33956 38639 13,7913771

Chart 2-2 reaction force data

0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r

%
diff. (c_d)%
diff.(a_e)%

Fig.2-18 difference vs displacement
Combining chart 2-1 and 2-2, one can see that the number of nodes increases by approx. 6
times, the final reaction force increases only 13.8%.

As shown in the Fig.2-17, the most nonlinear region for the reaction force is between the
- 24 -
region u =[0, 0.2] and it is in this region that there exists big reaction force difference
between coarse and fine mesh. In the region u = [0, 0.2], maybe the contact stiffness plays
a dominant role in the whole stiffness of the structure. When mesh density for contact and
target surfaces increases dramatically, the contact stiffness increase as well. Thats why at
this region, there exists big difference between coarse mesh and fine mesh.
x
x
In the region u =[0.2, 0.5], the program already finds the contact and the contact stiffness
does not play an important role in the whole stiffness any more, but the stiffness of solid
element of the rings and the ball. For the solid element, when the mesh density increases
dramatically, there is not too much difference between coarse and fine mesh. Thats why in
this region the reaction force increases only a little bit which can be proven from the
following example.
x

Coarse mesh fine mesh
Fig.2-19 mesh density of test model
Fig.2-19 shows one model with two meshescoarse and fine mesh. One end of the block is
fixed and the load is applied on the other end. The load is linear displacement of 0.5mm, in
the Z direction which is shown in Fig.2-20.


Fig.2-20 boundary condition of test model

From the chart 2-3, it is obvious that the reaction force from the fixed side in Z direction
changes slightly between coarse and fine mesh. That means there is no too much difference
for the solid element with fine or coarse meshes.
- 25 -


Displacement[mm] Reaction force_coarse mesh[N] Reaction force_fine mesh[N]
-0.1 52762 52723
-0.2 1,0552e+005 1,0545e+005
-0.3 1,5829e+005 1,5817e+005
-0.4 2,1105e+005 2,1089e+005
-0.5 2,6381e+005 2,6362e+005

Chart 2-3 reaction force data for test model
Conclusion
For the angular contact ball bearing, the mesh density in the contact region affects the
contact stiffness and plays a dominant role in the whole stiffness of the structure before the
program detects the contact. As soon as the program finds the contact between two surfaces,
then the mesh density does not affect the reaction force too much because the mesh density
of solid element does not affect the stiffness of the structure significantly.

Considering all the possible mesh densities, the final reference reaction force for this part
model can be chosen in this region[33000N , 38700N] and the reference element size in the
contact region is maximum 0.5mm.

2.4.2.2 Penetration and Reaction Force


Fig.2-21 penetration distance
] 6 [
Penetration (distance) is one of the most important parameters used in the contact analysis.
When the penalty based contact algorithms (Pure Penalty and Augmented Lagrange) are
used to solve the contact problem, the penetration will be generated more or less. For the
surface-surface contact 174, the default contact detection point is located in Gauss
integration point. As soon as the contact points are detected and the solution converges as
well, then the program measures the distance from the integration point to the target surface
in the normal direction as is shown in Fig.2-21. This distance is penetration.

Penetration is a key parameter to evaluate the results of simulation in contact analysis. The
ideal amount for contact penetration is zero. However, when the numerical approximation is
used to simulate the model, the penetration will be produced more or less. It is also a task
for the engineer to take different measures to minimize contact penetration.

Fig.2-22 plots the relation between the reaction force and different amount of maximum
penetration. Fig.2-22 shows the difference between the solution without penetration and the
- 26 -
solution with a relative large amount of penetration.
penetration vs reaction force
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y


[
N
]
r_y(pene=0)
r_y(pene0,002493mm)
r_y(pene0,0056536mm)


Fig.2-22 penetration and reaction force
reaction force difference
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r

%
difference (0_0.0056536)

Fig.2-23 error vs displacement

Combining the above two graphs one can see that the penetration affects the reaction force
not so much. For the same model the reaction force difference between the result without
penetration and with relatively large penetration(0.0056mm) is maximum 8.5% and the
final difference is less than 1%. Under the conditions of good convergence behavior and not
so long computation time, the customer can choose the FKN as large as possible. Here the
FKN is chosen 0.1.

2.4.3 Physical Influencing Factors to the Reaction Force

With respect to the physical parameters for the model which may affect the reaction force,
there are the curvature of the ball and the raceways of inner and outer ring, the friction
coefficient (if the frictional contact is chosen) and boundary condition.

- 27 -
2.4.3.1 Curvature and Reaction Force

When the diameter of the ball is increased or decreased, the curvature sum (equation (2-1))
of the total contact pair is changed as well.


Fig.2-24 two bodies in contact
] 1 [

Curvature sum
2 1 2 1
1 1 1 1
II II I I
r r r r
+ + + = o (2-1)

Two cases will be investigated.

The first situation is that the diameter of the ball is increased by 0.3mm. Fig.2-25 shows the
reaction force plot, from which it can be found that the nonlinearity of the reaction force is
not so obvious as before.

The second case is: decrease the diameter of the ball by 0.3mm. The curve will be more
nonlinear which can be seen from Fig.2-22.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y

[
N
]
r_y(d+0,3)
r_y(d)
r_y(d-0,3)

Fig. 2-25 change of ball diameter and the reaction force

The reason for this phenomenon is probably that when the diameter is decreased, more area
of the ball will be in contact with the inner ring and outer ring. Because contact formulation
- 28 -
is always nonlinear, thats probably the reason why the nonlinear region is longer than the
ball with small region. Meanwhile the contact stiffness with small ball is smaller than the
stiffness with large ball. If the same displacement is reached, for the small ball it needs not
so much force. Thats why the curve of reaction force for the model with small ball is under
than the model with large ball.

Conclusion

From Fig.2-22, one can find that the curvature of ball influences the reaction force
dramatically. It is essential to make the FE model as accurate as possible. An increase of the
ball diameter by 1.3% leads to the increase of reaction force by 27%. A decrease of ball
diameter by 1.3% results in the decrease of reaction force by 9.3%. Another phenomenon
one can see is that increase the diameter of ball, the reaction force will be larger and the
nonlinearity becomes not so obviously. The structure becomes stiffer than the structure with
small ball diameter as well.

2.4.3.2 Friction Coefficient and Reaction Force

In the last two sections, the affection of reaction force by curvature and the mesh is
discussed. Another possible factor affecting the reaction force is friction coefficient. The
statistic data are shown in chart 2-4.

Friction
coefficient :
Max. Contact
penetration [mm]
Max. Contact
pressure[MPa]
Max. total
Reaction force[N]
0.02 0,0025788 16753 40265
0.05 0,002493 16350 40385
0.08 0,0024835 16236 40488
0.1 0,0029179 15660 40546
Chart 2-4 friction coefficient and reaction force

friction coefficient vs reaction force
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y
[
N
]
r_x(=0.02)
r_x(=0.05)
r_x(=0.08)
r_x(=0.1)

Fig. 2-26 friction coefficient and reaction force

- 29 -
From the Fig.2-26, it can be seen that the friction coefficient almost does not affect the
reaction force.

2.4.3.3 Boundary Condition and Reaction Force

When the same load is applied, but the boundary conditions are different, then the structure
will have different response and different reaction force as well.

Fig. 2-27 shows us the boundary condition which is used for all the above calculations. The
outer ring is totally fixed and there is no degree of freedom left. The inner ring can only
move in the x direction. When the displacement is applied, the upper ring can not move.

Fig.2-27 boundary condition_1

In contrast to the boundary condition shown in Fig.2-27, Fig.2-28 describes another
boundary condition, where the outer ring is not fixed and free to move in the y direction
which is the plot (b) in Fig.2-11.


Fig.2-28 boundary condition_2
Compared to the structure shown in Fig.2-27, the stiffness of structure shown in Fig.2-28 in
- 30 -
the radial direction is not so large which can be seen from Fig.2-29.
boundary condition vs reaction force
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
x

[
N
]
r_x(top_frictionless)
r_x(top_FREE)


Fig.2-29 boundary condition and reaction force

In this section, the relation between the reaction force and the boundary condition has been
discussed. It is very important to investigate this because the structure reacts differently
under different boundary conditions. In order to study the real physical response of structure,
it is essential to apply reasonable boundary condition. Sometimes, even if the solution
converges and everything is OK, however, the result is totally wrong. Thats also the
problem with the simulation. Before doing the simulation, it is better to have some idea
about the behavior of the structure first and then simulate it. When the result is available, it
is possible to compare the simulation results with the real or experimental results and find
the problem. To this point, the experience of engineer is very important because it can save
much time for the preparation of the simulation and the interpretation of the result.














- 31 -
2.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, the main job is to find the reference reaction force from the housing to the
outer ring of angular contact ball bearing under axial load.

Here different influencing factors including physical and numerical aspect for the reaction
force from the housing to the outer ring by solving FE model of this specific angular contact
ball bearing are gained as well.

The curvature of the ball or the inner ring and outer ring affects the reaction force
dramatically and plays a vital role in the nonlinear analysis. When the FE model is
constructed, the diameter of ball and raceway should be as accurate as possible.

Mesh density in the contact region should be fine enough. The element size in that region
probably smaller than approx.2% of the diameter of ball can generate good result.

The boundary condition is also a key factor which must be considered before the model is
solved. When one segment of the FE model is used to simulate, the boundary condition
mentioned in this part have to be used , for instance the surface of outer ring must choose
frictionless support.

If the penalty based algorithms are used for the contact formulation, the penetration affects
the final reaction force a little. Under the condition of good convergence behavior of
solution and also not too long calculation time, the normal contact stiffness factor FKN can
choose as large as possible.

The friction coefficient almost does not affect the reaction force.


Mesh density Curvature of
ball
coefficient of
Friction
Boundary
conditions
penetration
Reaction force x
Chart 4-5 influencing factors for reaction force of angular contact ball bearing











- 32 -
3 Contact Analysis

3.1 Introduction

Generally there are two contact classes: rigid-flexible and flexible-flexible. In rigid-flexible
contact, one or more of the contacting surfaces are treated as rigid (i.e., it has a much higher
stiffness compared to the deformable body it contacts). The other class flexible-flexible
contact is the more common type. In this case, all contacting bodies are deformable (i.e.,
have similar stiffness).

Contact analysis is highly nonlinear structure analysis. The nonlinearity of structure maybe
comes from the following aspects.

- Geometry nonlinearity: structures experiences large deformations or rotations. The
changing geometric configuration can cause the structure to respond nonlinearly.

- Material nonlinearity: Nonlinear stress-strain relationships are a common cause of
nonlinear structural behavior. Many reasons are responsible for the material
nonlinearity, for example: loading history, environment condition and so on.

- Changing status: structures respond nonlinearly depending on the status. A tension
only cable is either slack or taut; a roller support is either in contact or not in
contact.

It is interesting to investigate how much pressure generated during contact, the penetration
between two parts or some other aspects. All of these points or results are coming from the
contact analysis.

In this chapter, first some detailed information used for contact problem will be introduced
and then the different algorithms will be discussed and their characteristics are also
explained.


3.2 Contact Area Type

According to the contact area shape (under no external load), there are point contact and
line contact. It is obvious that after load applied line contact will become rectangle contact
and point contact will be an ellipse contact area. Fig. 3-1 shows us the contact area type. For
the bearing, initially the point contact happens between the ball and raceways under no
external load. After the loaddisplacement or force is applied, the point will become an
area contact.

In the numerical formulation, there are two groups of contact: point-surface contact and
- 33 -
surface-surface contact.


Fig. 3-1 contact area type
] 1 [


In ANSYS, the contact is generated by pair. For the point-surface contact, the `point` is
contact and the `surface` is target. For surface-surface contact, both contact and target are
surfaces and they have to be specified which surface is contact and which is target. No
matter its point-surface contact or surface-surface contact, as soon as they are identified,
they are then one pair. One can not exist without the other.

In the following part of this chapter, all the discussions are based on the surface-surface
contact.

3.3 Behavior of Contact Surface

Contact surface has different types of behavior according to different characteristics of
contact. Normally there are frictional, no separation, bonded and so on.
A
B
(a) (b)
Fig.3-2 frictional contact
- 34 -
Frictional contact: The contact body can slide on the target surface in the tangential
direction shown in Fig.3-2 (a) and also can translate in the normal direction shown in
Fig.3-2(b). This behavior can simulate the contact opens and closes.

Rough contact: As shown in Fig.3-3 the friction coefficient tends to be infinite and the
body A can not move in the tangential direction because nodes in contact are glued on the
target surface in tangential direction.
A

B
Fig.3-3 rough contact

No separation contact: Once the contact is detected, then the target and contact surface are
tied up for the rest of the analysis. Slide is possible, but the nodes in contact are bonded to
the target surface in normal direction. That means in Fig.3-2, case (a) can happen but (b)
can not.

Bonded contact: As soon as the contact is detected, then the nodes in contact are bonded in
all directions and all the degrees of freedom are constrained. Not any relative movement
between each other in the rest of analysis is possible. They look like one body. In Fig.3-2,
neither case (a) nor (b) can happen.

The above mentioned are normally used contact behavior. There are also some other kinds
of contact behaviors, for instance bonded always, no separation always and so on.

3.4 Contact Status
There are four status of contact: far, near, sliding and sticking.
Fn
Ft
Fn sliding Ft
sticking

u




Fig. 3-4 diagram of friction model
- 35 -
Far means the elements from contact and target do not touch each other.
Near means the elements are almost touching each other.
Sliding means the contact elements slide on the surface of target surface.
Sticking means the contact elements can not move and penetration happens.

In Fig.3-4, the Fn is the normal force and Ft are external load in the tangential direction on
the upper body. The status condition for the contact is:

<
>
sticking Fn, Ft
sliding Fn, Ft

3.5 Contact Algorithm

There are several contact algorithms for contact problem:
Pure Lagrange multiplier (on contact normal and tangential direction)
Pure Penalty method
Augmented Lagrange
Multipoint constraint (MPC)

In order to understand how these algorithms work, the following points are necessary.

The weak form for all the FEM formulation is reading as below:
0
T
= = H
} } }
udA t udV f dV
A V V
o o oc o o (3-1)
Principally the internal energy minus external energy should be zero then the solution can
find the equilibrium point and converges. For the contact problem within the contact area,
just an additional term is added at the end of the equation, which reads as follows:
0 ' '
T
= + = H
} } }
m contactter udA t udV f dV
A V V
o o oc o o (3-2)

Different contact terms in equation (3-2) result in different contact algorithms.

3.5.1 Pure Lagrange Multiplier

For the Pure Lagrange method, the contact term in equ.(3-2) will be:
Contact term (3-3) dA g g
T T
A
N N
) ( o o + =
}
Where,
N
,
T
are the Lagrange multiplier in the normal and tangential direction
respectively and they are denoted as contact force in the contact analysis.
- 36 -

Inserting equation. (3-3) into (3-2), then the system of equation is got as follows:

.
0(
(
(

T
g
g K
=
(

u
(

0 g
f
(3-4)
Where:

bodies contacting o between tw n penetratio or gab initial is g0

vector load external is f
multiplier Lagrange is
nt vector displaceme the is u
status contact the defining vector direction the is g
matrix stiffness the is K

From equation (3-4) the contact condition can be determined as follows:
g=
T
g . u +g0 (3-5)

=
>
<
happens contact 0, g
contact no 0, g
happens n penetratio 0, g



In order to have a better understanding about contact, as shown in Fig.3-5, there is an
example and see what contact actually means. These two springs represents two isotropic
material bodies.

f1
k1 u1 u2 k2
go=1


Fig.3-5 contact example
The conditions given are: the stiffness of both springs is k1=k2=2,
The force acting on spring 1 is f1=5, initial gab between two springs is g0=1.

Question: what will be the contact status for two springs?

Solution:
From Hooks Law: f=k*x
yields: u1=f1/k1=2.5
since the initial distance between the two springs are 1, so penetration will happen. The
amount of it is: pene=u1-go=2.5-1=1.5
- 37 -
in the matrix notation, reads :
Stiffness matrix: K = = , force vector = =
(

2 0
0 1
k
k
(

2 0
0 2

f
(

0
1 f
(

0
5
Since , so
=

= u K f

= f K u
1
= , which means u1=2.5, u2=0.
(

0
5 . 2
So the penetration is : pene=2.5-1=1.5

Using Pure Lagrange method and determine under what conditions the contact will
happen?

Insertion K and g =| and | 1 , 1 f into equation (5-4) and let
g=
T
g . u +g0 =0
yields the following results :
u = , =3.5,
(

75 . 0
75 . 1
int
F =
(

5 . 1
5 . 3
Which means that k1 is tension and k2 is compression at amount of u1=1.75 and
u2=0.71then the exact contact between two bodies will happen.

From above, some basic idea about how the Lagrange algorithm works is gained. Now the
application characteristics of normal Lagrange multiplier method are given as follows.

Advantages:
Good accuracy, almost no penetration generated
. No problems with ill conditioned matrices
. No contact stiffness needed, no trial and error

Disadvantage
. Extra degree of freedom for each contact element added
. System of equations blows up when the model has too many degrees of freedom
. The fast iterative PCG solver not available because the diagonal elements are zero
. Over constraint may happen

3.5.2Pure Penalty Method

For the penalty method, Lagrange multiplier is not needed but the contact stiffness in
normal direction
N
c and tangential direction
T
c will be used. The contact term in equation
(3-2) followed as following term:
- 38 -
Contact term (3-6) dA g g g g
T T T
A
N N N
) ( o c o c + =
}
Insertion (3-6) into (3-2) yields the system of equation in the following matrix form:
[ K +c g
T
g ] u = f (3-7)
Solve the equation (3-7) in the normal direction yields:
u1=
N
N
c
c
4 4
5 10
+
+
, u2=
N
N
c
c
4 4
5
+
, g=
N
c 4 4
5
+

+g0 (3-8)
From equation (3-8), it can be seen that the final results depends on the parameter (contact
stiffness)
N
c , which is a kind of ill-conditioned solution.

iteration n iteration n+1
Fig.3-6 numerical iteration

Fig.3-6 shows how pure penalty method works. The normal contact stiffness factor FKN
plays an important role in the solution. The spring represents FKN. When the stiffness of
spring is two large, after the iteration n, the upper part moves upwards because of the large
reaction force between these two bodies. Then both parts can not touch each other and the
program can not find the equilibrium position and contact points. So finally it doesnt
converge. On the other hand, when the contact stiffness is too small, the upper body can
move downwards easily and even penetrate into the target body. Then too much penetration
will be generated.

Application characteristics for pure penalty method:

+ System of equation doesnt blow up
+ Fastest method in ANSYS
+ Large model (>300.000 Dofs) can be handled well
+ All solvers are available
- Convergence behavior and accuracy depend on the contact stiffness
- Large contact stiffness may result in ill conditioned matrices

- 39 -
Conclusion:

The contact stiffness plays an important role in the penalty algorithm. It is necessary to find
an appropriate value of contact stiffness with which the solution not only converges well
but also the penetration will be within the criterion user defined.

3.5.3 Augmented Lagrange Method

In the last two sections, basic principles for Normal Lagrange multiplier method and
penalty method are discussed. Both algorithms have their own advantages and
disadvantages. Now a new algorithm which combines both namely Augmented Lagrange
will be presented.

The contact term in equation (3-2) reads as following:

Contact term (3-9) dA g g g g
T T T T
A
N N N N
) ) ( ) (( o c o c + + + =
}
Where:
N
,
T
are Lagrange multiplier in normal and tangential direction

N
c ,
T
c are the contact stiffness in normal and tangential direction

Augmented Lagrange augments the Lagrange part by penalty terms. When the program is
processed with Augmented Lagrange, the program first uses penalty method to find the
equilibrium point and then use Lagrange part to minimize the penetration. The user can also
specify the penetration tolerance for the final solution. ( One thing to mention is that after
each equilibrium point the solver eliminates penetration 3 times but no matter how much it
will be at the end).Also the system doesnt blow up and all the solvers can be used.
However, it needs more calculation time and ill-conditioned matrices may result in large
contact stiffness.

3.5.4 Multipoint Constraints(MPC)

The internal multipoint constraint (MPC) approach is combined with certain bonded and no
separation contact definitions to define various contact assemblies and kinematics
constraints.
The internal MPC approach can overcome the drawbacks of the traditional contact
algorithms and other multipoint constraint tools available in ANSYS. For example:
- Degrees of freedom of the contact surface nodes are eliminated
- No contact stiffness is required as input.
- Both translational and rotational degrees of freedom can be constrained.
- Generation of internal MPC is simple because it uses contact pair definitions.
- 40 -
Application:

* Connection of dissimilar meshes, like solid-shell (shown in Fig.3-7), or shell-shell, or
solid-solid.
* apply remote displacement, shown in Fig.3-8, load can be applied on pilot node (one
single node), the rotation can be applied as well.


Fig.3-7 connection of shell-solid element




Fig. 3-8 load applied on pilot node


3.6 Conclusions

In this chapter, the basics about contact problem are given: contact algorithm, contact
behavior, contact types and so on. Of course there are some other quantities like contact
status, contact pressure to evaluate the result of contact problem. Relevant information can
be found from some reference books and here are not discussed.
- 41 -
4 Simulation of Angular Contact Ball Bearing with Simplified Model Using
Beam Element

4.1 Introduction

In chapter 2 simulation using balls between inner and outer ring has be analyzed and the
reaction force can be got from the result, which is our interest because it gives a reference
for the design of housing. Now in this chapter the simulation using simplified modelwith
beam between the inner ring and outer ring will be performed. Finally the comparison
between the simulation results with ball and beam will be also discussed.

4.2 The Whole Model of Angular Contact Ball Bearing

Fig. 4-1 shows the model of inner ring and outer ring which can be done in ANSYS
Workbench simply suppressing all the balls. The simplified model will also use this
geometry to do the calculation, so the influence from the geometry of inner ring and outer
ring is the same as that to the exact model. All the effort will be put on the influences of
beams to the structure in order to finally make the difference between the solution with ball
and beam as small as possible.


Fig.4-1 inner and outer ring for the simplified model

It has been explained in chapter 1 that a part of the whole model can be used for the
calculation, which is shown in Fig. 4-2.

To make the model in Fig.4-2 converge is not so easy because of the initial geometrical gab
between balls and inner ring and outer ring and the rotation of the two balls, which makes
the program not so easy to find the contact points and also the rotation of the two balls. The
trick to these is to apply some constraints on both balls to prevent the translation in Z
direction shown in Fig. 4-2. In order to solve the initial gab, at first step, it is possible to
solve only the contact gab and then from second step on load will be applied. This is a very
convenience way to solve convergence problem because of initial gab or penetration.
- 42 -

Fig. 4-2 part model for the calculation and mesh
As the solid element does not affect the reaction force too much, one can see that in Fig.4-2,
the element for the inner and outer ring is relatively large compared to the elements in
contact region. The material model and parameter is the same to that in chapter 2.3.1

4.3 Result of Target Model
Solving the model shown in Fig.4-2, the solution can be attained.
r_y(ball)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y

[
N
]
r_y(ball)

Fig.4-3 reaction force of the model with 2 balls

Fig.4-4 contact status
- 43 -
The force reaction is plotted in Fig.4-3 and contact status and penetration are shown in
Fig.4-4 and 4-5 respectively.


Fig. 4-5 contact penetration
This penetration is small enough and this reaction force plot will be used as the target plot
and finally the solution of simplified model with beam between the inner and outer ring will
be compared with this plot.




4.4 Possible Ways to Simplify Angular Contact Ball Bearing
a 5 *

Now the simplified model with beam is going to be created.

Procedures to generate the simplified model:

Firstly, the ball in the model shown in Fig.4-2 will be suppressed. The mesh of the rings
will not be changed at all.

Secondly, the macro file which will generate the beam element between the inner and outer
ring will be inserted into the Workbench operating tree and ANSYS Workbench will read it
automatically.

Finally all the boundary conditions for the model with ball are exactly the same to the
model with beam elements. The analysis settings are also the same. The outline comparison
between these two is shown in Fig.4-5-1.






a 5 *
Here beam element will be used between the inner and outer ring to simplify this angular contact ball bearing.
- 44 -

Fig.4-5-1 outline comparison

There may be several possible ways to generate beam between inner and outer ring. First
lets discuss the possible solutions using beam elements and compare which way is
reasonable to simplify the bearing.

4.4.1 Possible Solution (1)

As shown in Fig.4-6, this is one possible simplified model to simulate the ball bearing.
Two parts of beams are used to replace one ball. Between these two parts, point-point
contact will be used. This model is already applied by the customer.
Advantages and Disadvantages:
+ Easy to use
+ Short calculation time
- No large deformation (no rotation available)
- Limited meshing (fit for only regular geometry )
Beam elements Outer ring



inner ring point- point contact
Fig:4-6 possible solution_1
- 45 -

Conclusion:

This solution is not a reasonable one because when large deformation is applied this model
will crack. The main reason is the point to point contact between two beams. It is very
difficult to keep two points in contact when large deformation is applied and also it has high
requirement for the geometry of inner and outer ring.


4.4.2 Possible Solution (2)

As shown in Fig.4-7, it is another possible solution to simplify this model: use one beam
between the inner ring and outer ring. The process to generate beam elements is: first the
nodes on the surfaces of outer ring and inner ring are generated. Then two nodes from the
inner and outer ring will be connected by beams of beam elements. Not any contact is
defined in this model.

Pros and cons :
+ beam element, easy to use
+ short calculation time
- no nonlinearity
- limited meshing
Beam element

Fig. 4-7 possible solution_2

Conclusions
This model is not a reasonable one because:
At one hand it can not simulate the nonlinearity of the angular contact ball bearing, which is
fatal. At the other hand, it does not have the contact between the beam and the raceway,
which makes it difficult to investigate the contact pressure and the penetration between the
beam and the raceways. So this model is also useless.
- 46 -
4.4.3 Possible Solution (3)

Combing the possible solution (1) and (2), another possible simplified model can be gained.
As shown in Fig. 4-8, node-surface contact is defined. At one side of the beam, bonded
contact is used for the node and outer ring surface and at the other side frictional contact is
applied. The generation of the beam element is similar to that in possible solution (2).

Pros and Cons

+ Easy to use
+ Short calculation time
+ Nonlinearity of the force and displacement curve
+ large deformation
+ no meshing limitation


frictional contact
Bonded
Contact Fig. 4-8 possible solution_3




Conclusion

This model is a possible model to simplify the ball bearing. In the following part, the
simulation using this model will be carried out.





- 47 -
4.5 Test of Final Chosen Way

In section 4.4, all the possible solutions to simplify the model of the ball bearing have been
discussed. Now the verification of this idea will be investigated using roller bearing and see
whether this model works or not.


Fig.4-9 original model of roller bearing

The model of roller bearing is shown in Fig.4-9. What will be done is to use only the
geometry of the inner ring and outer ring and beam element in between to test this model.
As shown in Fig.4-10, 9 paralleled beams are used to simplify one roller and the number of
beams is a parameter and can be changed as well.


Fig.4-10 simplified model of roller bearing


Generation of the beam is done by APDL, which is a short term of ANSYS Parametric
Design Language and actually it is macro file. This macro file will be added in the
accessory part of the thesis.



- 48 -
Relevant Parameters:

* Node-surface contact CONT175 and target 170 are used for the contact pair
* MPC bonded contact between the beam and surface of outer ring
* Frictional contact for beam and surface of inner ring
* Beam element 188, circular solid

The contact photos are shown in Fig. 4-12.





4.5.1 Applied Displacement to the Model

In order to test whether this model can support large deformation and rotation, in this
section the displacement with different direction and magnitude will be applied. In section
4.5.2, both rotation and displacement will be applied so that the further test can be
investigated.

One thing to mention is that here only the simulation of the model with beam is done and
not any comparison between the real roller bearing and FEM results with beam. The
purpose of this section is just to see whether the idea explained in section 6.5 works or not.

The displacement will be applied on the inner ring. From 0 to 90, totally 5 steps will be
applied on the structure and the angle between each step load vector is 22.5. The diagram
of load vector is shown in Fig.4-11.

0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
step
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
u_x
u_y

Fig.4-11 load diagram
- 49 -

Fig.4-12 contact



- 50 -


Fig. 4-14 minimum principle stress of the outer surface of inner ring
The minimum principle stress which means the least positive principle stress can be
interpreted here as the contact pressure between the beam and the surface of the inner ring
and it is plotted in the picture 4-14. From the animation of the min. principle stress (shown
in presentation) it can be seen that with the direction change of the load vector, the
maximum pressure also moves. It means when the load is applied, the force can be
transmitted through the beam to the outer ring and the model does not crack.
] 3 [


4.5.2 Apply Combined Load to the Model

Now the combined loadsdisplacement plus rotation shown in chart 4-1 will be applied
onto the inner ring and see whether this model still works.

step u_y Rotation z
1 0.2 0
2 0 5
3 0 10
4 0 15
5 0 20
Chart 4-1 mixed load magnitude

As shown in Fig. 4-15, the minimum principle stress on the surface of the inner ring can
also rotate as the rotation of the load, which means that the model can simplify the roller
bearing and can support large deformation and rotation. Further job using this idea will be
done to simplify the angular contact ball bearing and make further comparison between the
simplified model with ball and the model with beam between.
- 51 -





Fig.4-15 minimum principle stress of outer surface of inner ring under combined load



- 52 -

4.6 Simulation of Angular Contact Ball Baring with Beam

4.6.1 Introductions

Now the way mentioned in section 4.5 will be used to simplify the ball bearing. A little bit
changes will be made in the macro file in order to generate different styles of the beam.

4.6.2 Original Simplified Model with Beam

For the roller bearing, several parallel beams shown in Fig.4-10 can be used to replace one
roller, which is possible and reasonable because the roller bearing can only support the load
in the normal direction and no load in the axial direction can be applied. The parallel beams
can also support normal direction load. So the simplified model works well.

However, for the angular contact ball bearing, it has a different geometry and should be able
to support the load in both axial and radial directions. If paralleled beams are generated to
replace ball, these beams have no stiffness in the axial direction. That is the problem. What
can be done is to use a beam star to replace one ball. The model is shown in Fig.4-16,
where all the contact nodes are connected to the centre node. This model can support axial
and radial load.

The parameters for the simplified model:
- Beam element188, circular solid, Timoshenko beam
- Node-surface contact , frictional and bonded contact
- Initially number of beam is 9 and radius of beam is 10 mm for each beam



Fig.4-16 beam star
- 53 -
The simplified model is shown in Fig.4-17. One beam star represents one ball. For one
beam star, the number of beams is a parameter and can be changed by the input of the
customer. The radius of the beam is also changeable.


Fig.4-17 original simplified model

There is one problem with this model. As shown in Fig.4-18 when the displacement in the
x(axial) direction is applied, there are large deflections of these beams in the
y(circumferential) direction.

Large displacement of beam




Fig.4-18 deflection of the beam in the y direction

It can be seen that the model can not support any more load because the beams are flying
- 54 -
away from their initial positions. Fig.4-19 can be an indirect proof to the above conclusion.
It plots the reaction force v.s. displacement. The total displacement is 0.4mm, but after
0.1mm, the model has almost cracked and can not support any more axial load.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4 0,45
u_x[mm]
r
_
x

[
N
]
r_x

Fig.4-19 reaction force


4.6.3 Improved Model

As described in section 4.6.2, the beam stars have too much deflection in the y direction,
which makes the model can not support too much load. The reason is that the structure does
not have enough stiffness in the circumferential direction. The measure that all the central
nodes of the beam star are connected by using beams can be taken, which can prevent too
much deflection in the circumferential direction. The improved model is shown in Fig.4-20.


Fig.4-20 improved model

After the change it works well. The displacement of the model in the direction of y
direction is shown in Fig.4-21, which is much less compared to the model shown in Fig.
- 55 -
4-18. This model may be reasonable to simplify the angular contact ball bearing.

Small displacement in y direction


Fig.4-21 displacement after updating

4.7 Comparison between the Simulation Results with Ball and Beam
6
*

For the first calculation, 9 beams are used and radius of every beam is 10mm. The reaction
force in y direction is plotted in Fig.4-22.

reaction force comparison
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x[mm]
r
_
y
[
N
]
r_y(ball)
r_y 9beams

Fig.4-22 reaction force comparison


6
* The material model of every beam is the same. All the beam parameters here used are the same to that
used in roller bearing.
- 56 -
From 4-22 one can clearly see that the reaction force of simplified model with beam
element is similar to that using ball between the raceways. In order to compare the result in
quantity, the error is plotted in Fig.4-23. From Fig.4-24, it can be seen that at the beginning
for the displacement between [0 0.2], the difference between the model with ball and beam
is very larger. After this region, the difference decreases dramatically until finally the error
is approx.13%, which is a little bit large. The value of error in each step is shown in
chart4-2



error %
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r

%
error %
error %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r

%
error %

Fig.4-23 error vs displacement
7
*


u_x [mm] Difference %
0
5.00E-02 352.031516
0.1 106.873368
0.15 58.7101677
0.2 40.9098718
0.25 30.7559374
0.3 24.6700333
0.35 20.4422123
0.4 17.7326835
0.45 15.6337555
0.5 13.0811126
Chart 4-2 simulation result difference between the ball and beam solution

When the displacement is in the region [0, 0.2], as is explained in chapter 2.4.2 that the
contact stiffness plays a dominant role in the whole stiffness of the structure. From chart 4-2,
one can also find that it is also in this region that the simplified model has big error which
maybe means the simplified model can not simulate the contact properly.


7
* The number of beams is 9 and the radius of one beam is 10mm

- 57 -
In Fig.4-24, the ellipse represents the contact region of angular contact ball bearing with
ball schematically. One point in this picture represents one beam contact point. For the
simplified model with beam, point-surface contact is used. The contact area for point is so
small that the contact stiffness is huge at the beginning which results in the higher reaction
force than the model with ball. That may be the reason for the big error at the beginning.


Fig.4-24 contact region


With more displacement applied, the contact stiffness does not play an important role in the
whole stiffness of the structure but the stiffness of the beam and the solid element of inner
and outer ring. As the beam has similar capability to the ball (when slice is done to the ball,
each slice can be thought of a beam), the error decreases and the finally error is 13%.

This error is large and it is not so satisfying. Further work should be done in order to
decrease it. What can be changed for the beam stars are:

- the radius of each beam
- the number of beams in one beam star
- the Youngs modulus for one beam

Because here all the materials of bearing, no matter the inner and outer ring and rolling
element, are structure steel and it is generally a constant which is 2.0* MPa. So here
the change of Youngs modulus will not be considered. The focus will be on the change of
radius and the number of beam.
5
10

It is obvious that the more beams in one beam star, the stiffer the structure will be. Also the
large radius for one beam, the stiffer the structure will be. In the following 2 sections, the se
two parameters will be changed and the comparison will be done between the results with
ball and with beam solution:


* The radius constant, the number will be the changed
* Number of beams constant, radius will be changed



- 58 -
4.7.1 Number of Beams and Reaction Force

In this section, the radius for all the beams is 10mm and the number of beams will be
changed. The reaction force plot is shown in Fig. 4-25.

reaction force comparison
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y

[
N
]
r_y(ball)
r_y(9 beams)
r_y(11beams)
r_y(21beams)

Fig.4-25 reaction force with different beams

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r
%
diff. 9beams
diff. 11beams
diff. 21beams

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
u_x [mm]
e
r
r
o
r

%
diff. 9beams
diff. 11beams
diff. 21beams

Fig.4-26 number of beams and error

From Fig.4-25, it can be seen that the number of beams in one beam star played an
important role in the reaction force. When there are more beams in one beam star, the
structure will be stiffer and the reaction will be larger as well which is in accordance with
the engineers general knowledge. This phenomenon can also be seen from Fig.4-26, which
plots the difference between the ball solution and the beam solutions with different number
of beams. It is obvious that decreasing the number of beams can minimize the relative
difference between the ball solution and beam solution.

- 59 -
4.7.2 Cross Section and Reaction Force

It can be seen in Fig. 4-25 that all these models with the radius of each beam 10mm have
larger reaction force at every displacement which means that they are all stiffer than the
model with ball.

From Fig.4-24, one already finds that the node-surface contact can not simulate the
surface-surface contact properly, however it is true that more points(beams) will have better
results than less point to simulate the contact.

Considering it is not so easy for the beam element to converge with small cross section area,
what will done will be: a relatively large number of beam will be used and the radius of
each beam is not too small.

In this part the number of beams as constant (12 beams) and the radius of the beam will be
changed.

reaction force with different beam radius
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
r
_
y
[
N
]
r_y(ball)
r_y(r_4)
r_y(r_4,5)
r_y(r_8)

Fig. 4-27 reaction force comparison with different beam radius
8
*

From Fig.4-27 it can be found that decreasing the radius of beam, i.e. decrease the area of
cross section of beam, can decrease the stiffness of the structure which complies with the
general knowledge.

It is obvious from Fig.4-27 also that with the radius of 4.5mm for each beam can generate a
better result than the simulation with some other radius.




8
* the notation`r_4`means the radius for each beam is 4mm.
- 60 -
It can be seen that the final error is approx.5%, which is small enough for the simulation. In
reality, maybe the accumulated error for the real bearing is approx.2%. For the bearing,
there exist imperfections in every procedure: manufacture deviation of each part of the
bearing, assembly difference from different staffs, manufacture deviation from other parts
which are assembled together with bearing to work as one mechanism and so on. So the
result is acceptable.

difference between beam and ball solution
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

%
difference

difference between beam and ball solution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6
u_x [mm]
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

%
difference

Fig.4-28 difference plot
u_x [mm] Difference(9_10)% Difference(12_4.5)%
0
5,00E-0 352.031516 325,183748 2
0,1 106.873368 90,3454613
0,15 58.7101677 50,5781445
0,2 40.9098718 33,0206508
0,25 30.7559374 23,2410013
0,3 24.6700333 17,4547611
0,35 20.4422123 13,0440191
0,4 17.7326835 10,7825587
0,45 15.6337555 8,5251597
0,5 13.0811126 5,0184789
Chart 4-3 data difference comparison
- 61 -
- 62 -
Chart 4-3 lists the differe umber and radii of beam
.8 Conclusion
he final conclusion for this chapter may be drawn: it is possible to use beam to simplify
owever, if one is interested in investigating the contact issue inside the bearing, for
nce of two solutions with different n
element in contrast to the solution with ball between the inner and outer ring. It can be seen
that at each displacement, the model with 12 beams and radius of each beam is 4.5 mm has
small error than the solution with 9 beams and radius of beam is 10mm.

4

T
the roller bearing. But for the angular contact ball bearing, the ball is possible to be replaced
by beam if and only if the interest is to compare or investigate the final reaction force. For
this bearing, 12 beams in one beam star and radius of each beam 4.5 mm can have a similar
stiffness of one ball.

H
example, contact penetration or contact pressure, then it is not a good idea to use beam to
represent the ball between the inner and outer ring. Perhaps it is very necessary to use the
ball itself to compare the simulation results with the experiment data.



























5 Summary and Prospects

In this study the static analysis of rolling bearing especially one specific angular
contact ball bearing using FEM has been performed.

Important physical and numerical affecting factors of the mechanical system of
rolling bearing have been analyzed. Two modeling ways were constructed: full FE
model with ball and FE simplified model where balls are replaced by a kind of
specific beam structure beam star. The factors like curvature of ball and raceways,
the boundary condition, mesh density and penetration are investigated. The most
important parameter which affects the reaction force is the geometrical curvature of
the ball and the raceway of inner and outer ring. A very small change of the ball
diameter (increased by 1.3%) can lead to large variation of the final reaction force
(increased by 27%). One can find relevant investigation in Chapter 2. So if the FE
model of angular contact ball bearing is constructed, the radii of ball and raceways
should be as accurate as possible.

If the numerical aspects are considered, mesh density and normal contact stiffness
factor FKN (if Augmented Lagrange is used) are the two important parameters. The
contact stiffness and the reaction force are sensitive to the mesh density mainly in the
region where the structure behaves most nonlinearly. In other words, beyond that
region, the mesh density affects the reaction force only a little. For instance when the
number of nodes increases by approx. 6 times, the final reaction force increases only
13.8%. It is suggested that for the single element size it should be less than approx.2%
of ball diameter (here ball diameter is approx.22mm).

For the penetration further investigation shows that the radial reaction force is not so
sensitive to it. For example, when the penetration increases from 0 (Pure Lagrange
method) to 0.0056 mm (Pure Penalty method), the final reaction force decreases only
approx.1%, but in the most nonlinear behavior region, the reaction force decreases
maximally 8.5%. It is advised that under the conditions of good convergence behavior
and not so long computation time, the customer can choose the FKN as large as
possible (if Augmented Lagrange or Pure Penalty method is used). One can find this
information in Chapter 2.

With respect to the simplification of rolling bearing with beam elements, it is possible
to use beams between the inner and outer ring to simplify the roller bearing.

Through the investigation of the beam star, one finds that the stiffness of the structure
is sensitive to the number of beam and the radius of beam. For this specific angular
contact ball bearing, twelve beams in one beam star can have a similar stiffness to the
ball. However, for the contact part, the beam star can not simulate the real situation of
contact inside the angular contact ball at all. So for the angular contact ball bearing, it
- 63 -
is not an ideal plan to replace the ball by beam elements.
All the mentioned results are based on the specific angular contact ball bearing with a
ball diameter around 22mm and the inner and outer raceways diameter around 11mm.
For other geometrical sizes of this kind of angular contact ball bearing, the number of
beams or the radius of the beam in one beam star is still unknown and further
investigation must be carried out.

These two reasons lead to the final conclusion that for the angular contact ball bearing
the beam star is not a good simplification model.

For the static analysis this FE model of angular contact ball bearing is from the
literature and the static real bearing testing results about it is still missing. As soon as
one gets relevant experimental data, it is possible to verify these numerical results
further.

For the future study it is also very important to simulate the dynamic behavior of
rolling bearing using FEM. Generally many rolling bearings are used in high speed
machines. For the high speed machinery, the vibration and noise are two challenging
problems which are normally from the bearing. Hence in the future it is of great
importance to investigate the dynamic behavior of rolling bearing so that one can
predict the system vibration responses and minimize the noise level.












- 64 -
Bibliography

[1]Tedric A. Harris; Rlling Baring Aalysis, John Wiley& Sons, Inc.1967

[2] Tedric A. Harris; Rlling Baring Aalysis, John Wiley& Sons, Inc., fourth
edition,2001

[3]Vince Adams and Abraham Askenazi; Bilding Btter Poducts with Finite Element
Analysis; on world press,1998

[4]T.Stolarski Y.Nakasone. S.Yoshimoto; Engineering analysis with ANSYS software;
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2006

[5]http://www.kmlbearing.cn/common/catalog_data/01/0101/010101/01010101/image
_01010101_b.gif

[6] Release 11.0 Documentation for ANSYS

[7]Dr.-Ing.GnterMller/Dipl.-Ing.Clemens Groth; FEM fr Praktiker, 4.aktualisierte
Auflage 1999; expert-Verlag

[8] http://www.promshop.info/cataloguespdf/a005-011.pdf

[9]http://www.skf.com/skf/productcatalogue/jsp/viewers/productTableViewer.jsp?&la
ng=de&tableName=1_3_1&presentationType=3&startnum=14

[10]Lothar Issler Hans Ruo Peter Hfele; Festigkeitslehre Grundlagen,
2.Auflage; Springer

[11] Nadellager Zylinderrollenlager Katalog 307; INA Wlzlager Schaeffler
Ohg;2000

[12]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040016066_2004008347.pd
f









- 65 -
Appendix (1)
APDL generating simplified model of the angular contact ball bearing

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! user input file!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

number_balls = 6
diameter = 22.225
rb = diameter/2
distance = 10
radius_beam =4
sec_max=1
angle_degree_int=21

/prep7
*GET,et_max,ETYP,0, num, max
*GET, r_max, RCON, 0, num, max
*get,mat_max,mat,0,num,max

et_beam_id = et_max+1
tagetid = et_max+2
cidb= et_max+3 !bonded contact
cidf= et_max+4 !frictional contact

et,et_beam_id,188 ! beam 188
et,tagetid,170 ! target 170
et,cidb,175 ! node-surface contact 175
et,cidf,175 ! node-surface contact 175

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!key options for bonded contact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keyopt,cidb,2,2 !mpc keyopt,5,2,2
keyopt,cidb,12,5 !bonded contact
keyopt,cidb,10,5 !update stiffness each iteration
keyopt,cidb,5,4



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!key options for friction contact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keyopt,cidf,12,0 !standard contact
keyopt,cidf,2,4 !Pure Lagrange
keyopt,cidf,10,5 !!stiffness update

- 66 -
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!real constant setting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
r,r_max+9
r,r_max+7 !r,5
r,r_max+8 !r,6
r,cidf,,,0.2 ! FKN=0.2

!!!!!!!!!parameters for beam element!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sectype,sec_max+1,beam,csolid !circular solid beam
secdata,radius_beam
mp,ex,et_beam_id,200000 !Youngs Modulus 2e5MPa
mp,prxy,et_beam_id,0.3 !Poisons ratio 0.3

mp,mu,cidf,0.05 !!!!!!! friction coefficient!!!!!!!


!*********************generate beam element*******************!
csys,20
*AFUN, deg
mat,cidb
type,tagetid
real,r_max+7
cmsel,s,inner_outerring
esurf
allsel

mat,cidf
type,tagetid
real,r_max+8
cmsel,s,outer_innerring
esurf
allsel

!!!!!!!!define array for storage of centre node!!!!!!!!!!!!!
n=1
*dim,centre_node,array,5,1,1

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*do,j,90,111,angle_degree_int
*GET, max_node, NODE, 0, num, maxd

!!!!!!!generate local coordinate at each ball centre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
csys,20
- 67 -
k,100+50*j,62.6364,j,15.816 !the keypoints defining centre
!of the local coordinate !sys.
k,100+50*j+1, 62.6364,j, 15.816+22.225/2 !define the keypoint of positive x-axis
k,100+50*j+2, 62.6364+(22.225/2)*sin (50),j, 15.816+(22.225/2)* cos (50)
cskp,1000+50*j,1,100+50*j, 100+50*j+1,100+50*j+2

!!!!!!!!generate beams at outer ring !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
csys,1000+50*j
n, max_node+1 , 0,0,0
centre_node(n,1,1)=max_node+1
*do,i,30, 90, distance !i is the number of beams
mat,mat_max+1
type,et_beam_id
secnum,sec_max+1
real,r_max+9
!csys,1000+50*j

n, max_node+i+j, rb,i,0
e, max_node+i+j, max_node+1
*enddo

!!!!!!!generate contact at outer ring!!!!!!!!
*do,i,30, 90, distance !i is the number of beams
type,cidb
real,r_max+7
e, max_node+i+j
*enddo
!!!!!!!!!!generate beams at inner ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*do,l,210, 270, distance
mat,mat_max+1
type,et_beam_id
secnum,sec_max+1
real,r_max+9

n, max_node+l+j, rb,l,0
e, max_node+l+j, max_node+1
*enddo

!!!!!!!!!!generate contact at inner ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*do,l,210, 270, distance !i is the number of beams
type,cidf
real,r_max+8
e, max_node+l+j
*enddo
- 68 -

n=n+1
*enddo
!!!!!!!!!!!!generate beam between centre nodes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
n=1
mat,mat_max+1
type,et_beam_id
secnum,sec_max+1
real,r_max+9
e,centre_node(n,1,1),centre_node(n+1,1,1)

!***********************generate beam finished****************!
































- 69 -
Appendix(2)
The proof of equation ) (
2
1
o i m
d d d in angular contact ball bearing

Geometry of angular contact ball bearing

From the geometry one can get:
2
1
=
m
d
2
1
x d
i
2
1
A Cos()
i.e. =
m
d x d
i
2 A Cos()
=
2
1
( + +4x+ 2A Cos()) (1)
i
d
i
d
In order to prove ) (
2
1
o i m
d d d (2)
Comparing (1) and (2), one has to prove:
+4x+ 2A Cos() (3)
o
d
!

i
d

From the geometry one can get directly the following equation:

2
1
=
o
d
2
1
o i
r x d
i.e. =
o
d
o i
r x d 2 2 (4)

comparing (3) and (4), one has to prove:
- 70 -
4x+ 2A Cos()
o
r x 2 2
!

i.e. x -A Cos() (5)

!

o
r
From the geometry, one can get :
x -A Cos() (6)
i
r

Comparing (5) and (6), if and only if = , then the equation (2) holds.
i
r
o
r

- 71 -