LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 The Multibody Simulation Technique

In a multibody model of a drive train, each body represents an individual drive train component which can translate in 3 directions and rotate around 3 axes (6 DOFs). The different bodies can be connected using the appropriate joints or stiffnesss. The specific implementation of these links for particular models is discussed in the next paragraphs, but a general overview of the flexibilities in the different models is already given here. 1. Tooth flexibility: all teeth in contact of a gear pair under load exhibit bending deformation, which can be represented as a tooth stiffness between the gears (gear mesh stiffness). 2. Component flexibility: all individual components which transfer torque in a drive train will deform under different load components, such as axial, torsional, shear and bending loads. This can be represented as a stiffness between the bodies or as an integrated stiffness in a flexible multibody model. 3. Bearing flexibility: all bearings will deform under load, which is represented as a stiffness between the bodies and their housing. In this paper, the housing is considered to be rigid. However, flexibility of the gear unit housing may be added in a similar fashion as the component flexibilities.

7.1 A purely torsional multibody model

A first approach in modeling the internal dynamics of a drive train is only focusing on torsional vibrations.In a torsional multibody model, all bodies have exactly one DOF, namely the rotation around their axis ofsymmetry. The 5 other DOFs are fixed; thus, they can be left out of the equations of motion and the couplingof two bodies involves only 2 DOFs (_1, _2). Only the torsional inertia is needed as input for the rigid bodies; furthermore, their torsional stiffness and the gear mesh stiffnesses are the only flexibilities taken into account.Torsional models can be used for the dynamic analysis of the torque in the drive train. No bearing loads, nor other than torsional rotations of the components can be simulated. The torsional flexibility of a shaft 5

(Kshaft) between two bodies is included in the equations of torque as shown in equation 1. Material damping is neglected in this model. T1 = T2 = Kshaft (_2 _1) (1) Gear contact forces between two wheels are modeled by a linear spring acting in the plane of action along the contact line (normal to the tooth surface). This spring couples the 2 DOFs of the wheels and includes the transmission ratio between them. Since the equations of motion for a torsional model are based on torque and rotations, the gear contact forces are written in this form as presented in figure 2. The force on the teeth of both gears (Ftooth contact) is equal in magnitude, resulting in a higher torque on the larger gear. The direction of this force is such that the resulting torque on the driving wheel is always opposite to the input torque. The stiffness value _gear is defined according to DIN 3990 as the normal distributed tooth force in the normal plane causing the deformation of one or more engaging tooth pairs, over a distance of 1 m, normal to the evolvent profile in the normal plane; this deformation results from the bending of the teeth in contact between the two gear wheels of which one is fixed and the other is loaded. In the gear contact model, the time-varying components due to a static transmission error excitation or a fluctuation in the number of tooth pairs in contact are not considered. Furthermore, no damping or friction forces are included. From a

Figure 2: A torsional model for the gear contact forces between a driving pinion and a driven gear wheel. Tdis a positive driving torque applied to the pinion causing a negative reaction torque T1 on the pinion and apositive reaction torque T2 on the gear wheel. physical 6

understanding, it is clear that the presented spring will only work under compression. To ensure that this limitation will not be exceeded during simulation, the following extra assumption is made here. No contact loss between the gears will occur, something that could happen for a system with backlash when the dynamic mesh force becomes larger than the static force transmitted. This assumption is valid for heavily to moderately loaded gears [6]. The modelling approach that is described in this paragraph is considered to be the state of the art for most industrial applications. Flexibility is assumed to be concentrated in shafts and gear teeth. Bearings are considered to be rigid in radial and axial directions. The multibody software package DADS has built-in features to include gear flexibilities in torsional models. The coupling for tooth contact forces in a rigid multibody model will be programmed with userdefined subroutines (cfr. paragraph 2.2). A detailed discussion of the implementation of a torsional model in DADS and the numerical validation of this implementation using the software DRESP is described by Peeters [12]. DRESP is a simulation program of the FVA (Germany) for torsional vibrations only [13].

2.1.2 A rigid multibody model with discrete flexible elements

The extension of a purely torsional model to the so-called rigid multibody model adds the possibility to investigate the influence of bearing stiffnesses on the internal dynamics of the drive train. Furthermore, the analysis can also yield insight in dynamic bearing loads, which are coupled with the displacements of the bodies in their bearings. All drive train components are still treated as rigid bodies, but now have a full set of 6 DOFs instead of only 1. This implies that the linkages in the multibody model, representing the bearing and tooth flexibilities, now need to couple 12 DOFs. The presented modeling techniques are based on a synthesis of the work presented by Kahraman, Lin and Parker [6, 7, 8, 10, 11]. Linear springs are used here to model the bearing and gear mesh stiffnesss. An individual formulation of these models yields two plug-in components, ready to use in a generic modelling approach for the drive train. This means both models are suitable for a rather simple parallel gear stage as well as for a more complex planetary stage with any number and any positioning of the planets. The formulations of the bearing and the gear mesh model are discussed separately in the following paragraphs and a numerical validation is described by Peeters [14]. 2.2.1 Model of the bearing flexibility

The 6 DOFs of the rigid bodies need appropriate constraints in the bearing model. This model is representedby a linear spring and implemented as a 66 stiffness matrix as shown in figure 3. Damping is neglected and all bearings are assumed to have an axisymmetric behaviour without coupling between the individual DOFs. Therefore, all off-diagonal terms are zero and both the radial and tilt stiffnesses are equal. Practically, the bearing component in a multibody model connects one point of a certain body with one point of another body. In the shown example, the gear is connected with its fixed housing. However, the same component can be used between rotating bodies, e.g. for planet bearings. Figure 3: Schematic representation of a bearing model: a linear spring connects one point of the gear with one point of its fixed housing. The spring is modelled by a symmetric 6 6 stiffness matrix and ! F b is the force working on the gear.

2.2.2 Model of the gear mesh stiffness The contact forces working on the teeth of two gears in contact cause bending of the teeth. This deformation is represented in the model by a linear spring acting in the plane of action along the contact line (normal to the tooth surface). This formulation was already introduced for the purely torsional equivalent of the gear mesh model, but now this spring involves a coupling between 12 DOFs instead of only 2. The assumptions postulated for the gear mesh model in

paragraph 2.1 are still valid. For the sake of completeness, they are repeated in the list of assumptions that are made here: 1. The gear mesh model is a linear time-invariant model. Static transmission error excitation is not considered and, therefore, no phasing relationships between gear meshes are included. Furthermore, a variable stiffness caused by a fluctuation in the number of tooth pairs in contact is assumed negligible. The validity of these assumptions is guaranteed for the presented linear analyses. 2. Sliding of teeth in contact and corresponding friction forces are neglected as well as any other possible damping in the system. 3. Occurrence of tooth separation is considered non-existent and, consequently, the modelling of gear backlash is not included. This implies that the spring is always under compression. 4. Gyroscopic effects on gears that are rotating and simultaneously translating (e.g. planets on their carrier) are neglected. This assumption is valid for wind turbine applications, since planetary gear stages in wind turbines are only rarely used as high speed stages.

1. Gear1

is

the

driving wheel (Tinput < 0) 2. m1, I1, J1, r1 3. Gear2 driven wheel 4. m2, I2, J2, r2 5. _gear is the gear mesh defined 6. in paragraph 2.1 Figure stiffness as is the

35 2.3 A flexible multibody model Typically, multibody models consist of rigid bodies which are linked by joints and stiffnesses. The stiffness values can include an equivalent discretised stiffness for the flexibility of the individual components. However, the reduction to an equivalent stiffness and the discretisation method, complicate the modelling, especially for more complex systems. As a result, complex bodies are in practice often assumed to be rigid and no flexibility is further taken into account. Considering the components flexibility as a property of the body would lead to a more realistic understanding of the models. Moreover, it may give further insight in the role of this flexibility in the overall dynamic behaviour. Estimating this influence for non conventional rather flexible parts used today in wind turbines is barely possible with the traditional multibody formulation. Therefore, a flexible multibody formulation is presented, which makes the modelling more complex, but also enables to calculate (dynamic) deformations of a body on top of its motion as a rigid component. In such models, the linkages between the bodies represent only the stiffness of the coupling, such as the gear mesh or the bearing stiffness. The extension to the flexible multibody formulation is no straightforward adaptation of the traditional method. The additional DOFs to represent the deformations of an individual body are introduced by a finite element approach. The direct finite element analysis is typically used on the level of individual components, whereas the multibody simulation technique is on the level of the coupling between individual rigid components. A combination of both methods can be made by including reduced finite element models in the multibody models. These are further called flexible multibody models. For all bodies in a traditional multibody model with an increased level of interest for its flexibility, a finite element model is built, with as much detail as needed. Typically, these models can have a large number of DOFs, in the order of magnitude

of ten thousand up to hundred thousand. The reduction to a smaller set of DOFs, in the order of magnitude of one up to ten, which can be imported in the multibody model is done with the component mode synthesis (CMS) technique [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. The Craig-Bampton method [20] is a well established CMS technique which is supported by DADS and used in the presented research. This reduction involves the creation of a set of static constraint modes and fixed-interface normal modes with their corresponding eigenfrequencies. These modes represent all additional DOFs of the body and the bodys deformation is a linear combination of them. The static modes represent the deformation related to loads and displacements in the bodys interface nodes, whereas the normal modes are related to dynamic deformations. MSC/NASTRAN is used for the calculation of the modes and all finite element models are kept linear. Accurate modelling for this purpose and, especially, the reduction to an appropriate full set of modes requires some modelling experience. The coupling of the reduced finite element models in a multibody model is possible in their interface nodes by using the presented formulations for the gear mesh and bearing stiffnesses. Not only the flexibility of a body is included in this approach, but also its mass distribution is closer to reality, because the analyst has 36 the option of deriving finite element models directly from CAD models with a very realistic representation of geometry. As a result, mass values and other inertial properties are no longer input parameters, but are automatically calculated from the reduced models.

The flexible multibody simulation has an extra advantage towards post-processing of the results. When the deformation of a body at a certain moment during simulation is known for the reduced component, this result can be transferred back to the finite element program. Here, it can be further processed into internal stresses and strains for this component, which can for instance be used for strength and fatigue analysis. Baumjohann [21] demonstrated this method for the calculation of stresses in wind turbine blades, but it is not discussed further in this paper. As an example of the flexible multibody formulation, paragraph 3 presents a model of a wind turbines drive train with a flexible rotor and a flexible parallel high speed stage. Conclusions concerning the influence of the additional flexibilities are discussed there.

37 8. Analysis of the Wind Turbines Drive Train

The drive trains in modern non-direct-drive wind turbines typically have a gearbox with up to three gear stages. This paragraph shows an application of the presented methods for a drive train consisting of a generator, a coupling, a helical high speed gear stage, an intermediate helical planetary gear stage, a low speed planetary gear stage and a rotor. The analysis focusses on the calculation of mode shapes and eigenfrequencies. Because of confidentiality, arbitrary input values are used for all model parameters and, therefore, any correlation with real structures is coincidental. However, this does not affect the conclusions of the analysis, since the aim of the presented discussion is to investigate the effect of using the different modeling approaches and of several parameters on the results. 8.1 High speed parallel stage The high speed stage of the gearbox is a helical gear pair. For this stage, three modelling approaches are presented. First, a torsional model is built as shown in figure 5. No shaft, nor bearing flexibilities are included in the model; only the gear mesh stiffness is taken into account. The model parameters are _gear, J1, J2, r1 and r2. There are only two DOFs in the torsional model: on the one hand the coupled rotation of the gears

in their bearings and on the other hand the deformation of the teeth. The results of an eigenmode calculation show that only the second DOF yields a non-zero eigenfrequency. The extension to a rigid multibody model is shown in figure 6. Here, the bearing stiffnesses are also taken into account, but not the shaft flexibilities. For the model implementation the following input is necessary: gear mesh properties: r1, r2, _gear, _t, _ inertial properties: [m1, I1, J1] and [m2, I2, J2] bearing properties: both shafts are mounted in two separate bearings with their axial and radial stiffnesses

Figure 6: Rigid multibody model of the high speed parallel gear stage.

38 The eigenfrequencies shown in figure 6 are calculated for _ = 15_ . The corresponding mode shapes of !411 also have an x-rotation component which is not used for distinguishing between the modes and, therefore, not added to their description. The frequencies !1,5,7,9,11 are constant for varying _. The influence of on the other eigenfrequencies is shown in figure 7. The largest relative change is observed for the second eigenfrequency. However, for values of _ up to -20_ the influence of the helix angle is still rather small; as a result, a simplification of a parallel helical gear system to a spur gear pair can be

justified, when calculating only the eigenfrequencies. The effect of the helix angle on the corresponding mode shapes is shown in figure . A reduction of the number of DOFs for the gears in the presented model can be achieved by constraining them with extremely stiff bearings. Increasing all bearing stiffnesses to infinity yields again the purely torsional equivalent of the model. When this is done by repeatedly increasing the stiffness values, results can be compared for every step. The focus in this analysis is not on the sensitivity of the results to individual bearing stiffnesses and, therefore, an equal stiffness factor is used for the axial and radial stiffnesses. Figure 9 shows how the fourth eigenfrequency !4 (713 Hz; _ = 0_ ) approaches asymptotically the torsional eigenfrequency (1479 Hz) calculated before (cfr. figure 5), while the other eigenfrequencies increase towards infinity. Remarkable is the drop in frequency for the 4th mode as a result of the additional bearing stiffnesses in the rigid multibody model. Users of torsional models are aware of this limitation in their models and, therefore, often use gear mesh stiffness reduction factors based on their experience. The new formulation gives a more accurate description of the internal dynamics related to the gear contact. Furthermore, the results are not limited to the gear contact only. Several new modes appear, which can also lie in the frequency range of interest. This underlines the importance of the rigid multibody approach. Finally, the rigid multibody model is extended to a flexible multibody model by including reduced finite element models for the high speed pinion and the gear. These components automatically represent all mass and inertial properties and, furthermore, the flexibility of the body. However, the bearing properties as well as the gear mesh stiffness are still input parameters. Figure 10(a) shows this model and table 1 compares the results of an eigenmode calculation with those for the other modelling approaches. By adding the components flexibilities in the flexible multibody model, the eigenfrequencies decrease logically. Both shafts are very stiff in longitudinal direction and, therefore, the eigenfrequencies of the axial translation modes (!2, !3) change only slightly. On the other hand, adding the bending flexibility of the rather long and slender high speed pinion, causes a considerable decrease of the eigenfrequencies corresponding to its y-z-rotation modes (!4, !5). Figure 10(b) shows the 4th mode shape with a clear deformation of the pinion. 8.2 The planetary gear stages

Both the planetary gear stages in the drive train have three planets. They are further separately analysed with a torsional and a rigid multibody model. The respective results are compared and the classification by Lin and Parker [8] is used for categorising the results of the latter model. They distinguished three categories of 39 modes for planetary systems with N planets, satisfying equation (4) for the positioning around the sun [9]. 1. Six rotational modes always have multiplicity m = 1 for various numbers of planets N. The mode shapes (! R 16) have pure rotation of the carrier, ring and sun and all planets have the same motion in phase. 2. Six translational modes always have multiplicity m = 2 for different N. Here, the six mode shape pairs (! T 1a,b6a,b) have pure translation of the carrier, ring and sun. 3. Three planet modes exist for N > 3 and have multiplicity m = N 3. The carrier, ring and sun have no rotation, nor translation in the corresponding mode shapes (! P 13). Since the presented planetary stages only have three planets, no planet modes occur here. The classification of Lin and Parker is based on a model approach in which all out-of-plane motions are fixed. But, these motions are included in the presented analysis and, therefore, an extra category of outof-plane modes is introduced here. 3.2.1 High speed planetary stage The high speed planetary gear stage in the wind turbine consists of three identical planets with helical teeth and a fixed ring wheel; the sun is floating in radial direction. Table 2 shows the results of an eigenmode

calculation for a torsional model where only the gear mesh stiffnesses are included. Furthermore, these results are compared with the results of the shown rigid multibody model, where all bearing stiffnesses are included. Since the ring wheel is fixed and not connected through a spring with its housing, only 5 rotational modes are found. The difference between the results of both models is again remarkable. 3.2.2 Low speed planetary stage The low speed planetary gear stage consists of three planets and a fixed ring wheel. The helix angle is zero and the sun is mounted rigidly in radial bearings. The large inertia of the wind turbines rotor is added to the inertia of the planet carrier. Table 3 shows a comparison of the calculated eigenfrequencies for a torsional and for a rigid multibody model. Again, the results of the former model are placed next to the corresponding results from the latter model, which are categorized. Figure 11 shows a mode shape for the three categories.

(a) rotational mode (! R 2:402 Hz)

40

(b) translational mode (! T 2a:253 Hz)

(c) out-of-plane mode(808 Hz)

41

8.3 Model of the complete drive train Figure 12 shows how the parallel gear stage and the two planetary gear stages are coupled and integrated in the gearbox. The high speed pinion is coupled with the generator. The model is implemented as a purely torsional and as a rigid multibody model and all extra couplings between these stages are modelled by torsional springs. Tables 4 and 5 show the results of an eigenmode calculation for both models with a rigid rotor. The eigenmodes are categorized according to the location and representation of the corresponding mode shapes. Several modes cannot be classified this way and are called global. A comparison of the results for the complete drive train with those of the individual stages (cfr. tables 1, 2 and 3), yields the following conclusions.

1. Only the double modes of respectively the high speed and the low speed planetary stage appear with an unchanged eigenfrequency in the torsional model of the complete drive train. These mode pairs correspond to the respective translational mode pairs in the rigid multibody model. 2. All modes calculated for the rigid multibody models of the individual stages are present in the results of an analysis for the complete drive train with a quasi equal

eigenfrequency, except for the second and fifth rotational modes of the high speed and low speed planetary stage, which are, therefore, classified as global. Furthermore, only one rigid-body mode is left and three extra eigenmodes correspond to the couplings between the individual stages. The presented rigid multibody model is further extended with a flexible rotor. This rotor is modelled using NASTRANs CBEAM elements and only the first and second flap- and edgewise eigenmodes are included in the set of normal modes. For this wind turbine, these modes lie in a frequency range below 6 Hz and, therefore, they do not affect the internal dynamics except for the first drive train mode (7.0 Hz) that decreases slightly. Further extension of the present model with more flexible components is part of the ongoing research.