Flexible multibody model of a three-stage planetary gearbox in a wind turbine

J. Peeters, D. Vandepitte, P. Sas K.U.Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kasteelpark Arenberg 41, B-3001, Heverlee, Belgium e-mail: joris.peeters@mech.kuleuven.ac.be

Abstract
Three types of multibody models are presented for the investigation of the internal dynamics of a drive train in a wind turbine. The rst approach is limited to the analysis of torsional vibrations only. Then, a rigid multibody model is presented with special focus on the representation of the bearings and the gears in the drive train. The generic model implementation can be used for parallel as well as for planetary gear stages, both with helical or with spur gears. Thirdly, the extension to a exible multibody model is presented as a method to include directly the drive train components exibilities. Finally, a comparison of the different modelling techniques is discussed for a wind turbines drive train with a helical parallel high speed stage, two planetary stages and a exible rotor. The focus is on the calculation of eigenfrequencies and corresponding mode shapes. Furthermore, the inuence of the helix angle and the bearing stiffnesses on the results of these calculations are discussed and the eigenmodes of the planetary stages are classied as rotational, translational or out-of-plane modes.

Introduction

The wind energy market has been growing rapidly during the past decade. Figure 1 shows how the global installed capacity of wind energy has increased from 2000 megawatts (MW) in 1991 to about 40000 MW at the end of 2003, at an annual growth rate of near 30% [1]. This trend is expected to continue and Europe is acting here as a pioneer with a current capacity of almost three quarters of the worlds total. Furthermore, the wind turbine industry is developing always larger turbines. From a capacity of 25 kW twenty years ago, the average size of turbines increased to 1500 kW in 2003, corresponding to a rotor diameter of 20 m for the former and about 70 m for the latter turbines. Moreover, prototype turbines with a rotor diameter of more than 100 m and a capacity of 5000 kW have already been installed. Nowadays, the development of larger turbines is mainly driven by the growing market for offshore wind power. Although, wind energy is still a relatively young industry, the present commercial wind turbines have become already highly reliable and reach operating availabilities of about 98 %. Traditional design calculations for these wind turbines are based on the output of specic aeroelastic simulation codes as described by Molenaar [2]. The output of these codes gives the mechanical loads on the wind turbine components caused by external forces as the wind, the electricity grid and (for offshore applications) sea waves. Since the focus in the traditional codes lies mainly on the rotor loads and the dynamic behaviour of the overall wind turbine, the model of the drive train in the wind turbine is reduced to only a few degrees of freedom. This means that for the design of the drive train, the simulated load time series need to be further processed to loads on the individual components, such as gears and bearings. Furthermore, the limitation of the model implies that vibrations of these internal drive train components are not taken into account and, as a consequence, dynamic loads on these components cannot be simulated. Instead, application factors according to DIN 3990 [3] and DIN ISO 281 [4] are typically used for the processing of the simulated load time series, to loads on respectively the gears and the bearings. For existing wind turbines nowadays, this approach seemed acceptable
3923

3924

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

MW

Figure 1: Global installed capacity of wind energy by year end. from the point of view that the internal drive train dynamics are in a frequency range well above the overall wind turbine dynamics. However, the continuous growth of wind turbines and the fact that manufacturers are designing turbine drive trains with more integrated functionality, are both expected to cause a decrease in the eigenfrequencies of the drive train towards the external low-frequency excitations. Furthermore, not only external low-frequency excitation of the drive train is possible, but also internal excitation at higher frequencies exists, such as for instance the gear mesh frequencies. Therefore, further insight in the internal dynamics of the drive train is becoming more and more important and the need for additional numerical simulation methods is growing. The multibody simulation technique is a well established method to analyse in detail the loads on internal components of drive trains. This paper starts with a presentation of different types of multibody models for such analysis. Paragraph 2.1 describes the simplest level of modelling, where exactly one degree of freedom (DOF) per drive train component is used to simulate only torsional vibrations in the drive train. These models are further called (purely) torsional (multibody) models and their implementation is straightforward in the multibody software package DADS [5] that is used in the presented research. Paragraph 2.2 presents an extension to multibody models, where all individual drive train components have 6 DOFs, further called rigid multibody models. The interactions between the bodies, which represent the gear and bearing exibilities, are modelled by linear springs. Their implementation is based on a synthesis of the work presented by Kahraman, Lin and Parker [6, 7, 8, 10, 11]. Finally, paragraph 2.3 discusses a further extension of the multibody model to a exible multibody model in which the drive train components are modelled as nite element models instead of rigid bodies, adding the possibility of calculating stresses and deformations in the drive train components continuously in time. In general, the presented techniques can be used for all wind turbines, but the application in this paper is focussed on a non-direct-drive wind turbine with two planetary gear stages and one parallel helical gear stage. The analysis focuses mainly on the calculation of mode shapes and corresponding frequencies and on a comparison between the respective extensions of the drive train model. Every addition to the model leads to specic additional information about the internal dynamics of the drive train, but makes the modelling and simulation more complex. Therefore, depending on the aim of the analysis, a designer has to decide how much detail is required in his models. The presentation of the step by step increase in complexity enables the drive train designer and in particular the gearbox designer, to get an overview of the advantages and the limitations of the different levels of modelling. Each level can be used as a separate tool in specic design phases to estimate the signicance of dynamic loads. The discussion of the application in paragraph 3

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3925

starts with a separate calculation for the individual gear stages. The high speed parallel stage is analysed successively with a torsional, a rigid multibody and a exible multibody model, while the planetary stages only with a torsional and a rigid multibody model. Furthermore, the inuence of the helix angle and the bearing stiffnesses is investigated. Finally, the complete drive train is implemented as a rigid multibody model with a exible rotor. Paragraph 4 summarizes the main conclusions of the presented research and gives an overview of ongoing work.

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 stiffnesses. The specic implementation of these links for particular models is discussed in the next paragraphs, but a general overview of the exibilities in the different models is already given here. 1. Tooth exibility: 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 exibility: 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 exible multibody model. 3. Bearing exibility: 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, exibility of the gear unit housing may be added in a similar fashion as the component exibilities.

2.1

A purely torsional multibody model

A rst approach in modelling 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 of symmetry. The 5 other DOFs are xed; thus, they can be left out of the equations of motion and the coupling of 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 exibilities 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 exibility of a shaft (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 modelled 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 gure 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 dened 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 prole in the normal plane; this deformation results from the bending of the teeth in contact between the two gear wheels of which one is xed and the other is loaded. In the gear contact model, the time-varying components due to a static transmission error excitation or a uctuation in the number of tooth pairs in contact are not considered. Furthermore, no damping or friction forces are included. From a

3926

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

T1 = Ftooth contact r1 = gear (r1 1 r2 2 ) r1 (a) = gear (r1 )2 (1 u 2 ) (b) (c) 1 1 ) u

r1 r2 u Td (a) (b) (c)

radius of pinion radius of gear wheel transmission ratio ( r2 ) r1 positive driving torque applied to the pinion deformation along the line of contact (> 0) torsional stiffness torsional deformation

T2 = T1 = gear (r2 )2 (2

Figure 2: A torsional model for the gear contact forces between a driving pinion and a driven gear wheel. Td is a positive driving torque applied to the pinion causing a negative reaction torque T1 on the pinion and a positive reaction torque T2 on the gear wheel. physical 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 exibilities in torsional models. The coupling for tooth contact forces in a rigid multibody model will be programmed with user-dened 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].

2.2 A rigid multibody model with discrete exible elements

The extension of a purely torsional model to the so-called rigid multibody model adds the possibility to investigate the inuence 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 exibilities, now need to couple 12 DOFs. The presented modelling 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 stiffnesses. An individual formulation of these models yields two plug-in

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3927

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 exibility

The 6 DOFs of the rigid bodies need appropriate constraints in the bearing model. This model is represented by a linear spring and implemented as a 66 stiffness matrix as shown in gure 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 xed housing. However, the same component can be used between rotating bodies, e.g. for planet bearings.
=

kradial1

0 kradial2

.. . kaxial

..

Kb

. .. . ktilt2

ktilt1

0 . . . . . . . . .

0 Fb = K b q = [x y z x y ]T q where x, y, z, x , y and are the translations and rotations from the gear in the XYZ coordinate system xed to the housing. Figure 3: Schematic representation of a bearing model: a linear spring connects one point of the gear with one point of its xed 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 uctuation 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.

3928

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

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. Formulation of the gear contact forces is based on the model approach shown in gure 4.

Gear1 is the driving wheel (Tinput < 0) m1 , I1 , J1 , r1 Gear2 is the driven wheel m2 , I2 , J2 , r2 gear is the gear mesh stiffness as dened in paragraph 2.1

Figure 4: The gear mesh model of two helical gears in contact. Coordinate systems X1 Y1 Z1 and X2 Y2 Z2 are oriented with X along the centreline pointing from gear 1 to gear 2; Z is lying along the axis of rotation. X1 Y1 Z1 and X2 Y2 Z2 are xed to the respective gears and in their starting position, they coincide with the corresponding XYZ.

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3929

t is the pressure angle of the gear mesh (measured from the centreline towards the normal on the contact line). This angle changes sign when the driving direction of the system changes or when the input position of the driving torque changes from gear. 1 and 2 are the angles measured respectively from X1 to X1 and from X2 to X2 . 1 = t 1 and 2 = t 2 is the helix angle which is positive when the teeth of gear 1 are turned left from a reference position where = 0; > 0 in gure 4. The compression of the linear spring () can be written as a function of the coordinates of the gears in the XYZ systems. Since the spring works always under compression, should be positive. = (x1 sin 1 x2 sin 2 y1 cos 1 + y2 cos 2 u1 u2 ) sign(t ) cos (z1 z2 + wx1 sin 1 + wx2 sin 2 wy1 cos 1 wy2 cos 2 ) sign(t ) sin with wx1 = r1 x1 wx2 = r2 x2 wy1 = r1 y1 wy2 = r2 y2 u 1 = r1 1 u 2 = r2 2 where x , y and are the rotations around respectively X, Y and Z. The stiffness value of the linear spring gear is the same as dened in paragraph 2.1. The spring force causes forces and moments on the gears, which can be projected in the XYZ coordinate systems and, thus, written as: FX1 = gear sin 1 cos sign(t ) FY 1 = gear cos 1 cos sign(t ) FZ1 = gear sin sign(t ) TX1 = gear r1 sin 1 sin sign(t ) TY 1 = gear r1 cos 1 sin sign(t ) TZ1 = gear r1 cos sign(t ) In matrix form, this yields: F1 F2 FX2 = gear sin 2 cos sign(t ) FY 2 = gear cos 2 cos sign(t ) FZ2 = gear sin sign()) TX2 = gear r2 sin 2 sin sign(t ) TY 2 = gear r2 cos 2 sin sign(t ) TZ2 = gear r2 cos sign(t ) k11 k12 k21 k22 q1 q2 (2)

= gear

(3)

q1 q2 F1 , F2 , k11 , k12 , k21 , k2 , and are written as: F1 = [FX1 FY 1 FZ1 TX1 TY 1 TZ1 ]T F2 = [FX2 FY 2 FZ2 TX2 TY 2 TZ2 ]T = [x1 y1 z1 wX1 wY 1 u1 ]T q1 = [x2 y2 z2 wX2 wY 2 u2 ]T q2

3930

k11 =() c2 s2 1 c2 c1 s1 c s s1 r1 c s s2 1 r1 c s c1 s1 r1 c2 s1 c2 s1 s2 c2 c1 s2 c s s2 r1 c s s1 s2 r1 c s c1 s2 r1 c2 s2 c2 s1 s2 c2 c2 s1 c s s1 r2 c s s1 s2 r2 c s c2 s1 r2 c2 s1 c2 s2 2 c2 c2 s2 c s s2 r2 c s s2 2 r2 c s c2 s2 r2 c2 s2 c2 c1 s1 c2 c2 1 c s c1 r1 c s c1 s1 r1 c s c2 1 r1 c2 c1 c2 c2 s1 c2 c1 c2 c s c2 r1 c s c2 s1 r1 c s c1 c2 r1 c2 c2 c2 c1 s2 c2 c1 c2 c s c1 r2 c s c1 s2 r2 c s c1 c2 r2 c2 c1 c2 c2 s2 c2 c2 2 c s c2 r2 c s c2 s2 r2 c s c2 2 r2 c2 c2 c s s1 c s c1 s2 r1 s2 s1 r1 s2 c1 r1 c s c s s1 c s c1 s2 r1 s2 s1 r1 s2 c1 r1 c s c s s2 c s c2 s2 r2 s2 s2 r2 s2 c2 r2 c s c s s2 1 c s c1 s1 s2 s1 r1 s2 s2 1 r1 s2 c1 s1 r1 c s s1 c s s1 s2 c s c1 s2 s2 s2 r1 s2 s1 s2 r1 s2 c1 s2 r1 c s s2 c s s1 s2 c s c2 s1 s2 s1 r2 s2 s1 s2 r2 s2 c2 s1 r2 c s s1

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004
c s c1 s1 c s c2 1 s2 c1 r1 s2 c1 s1 r1 s2 c2 1 r1 c s c1 c s c2 s1 c s c1 c2 s2 c2 r1 s2 c2 s1 r1 s2 c1 c2 r1 c s c2 c s c1 s2 c s c1 c2 s2 c1 r2 s2 c1 s2 r2 s2 c1 c2 r2 c s c1 c2 s1 c2 c1 c s r1 c s s1 r1 c s c1 r1 c2 c2 s1 c2 c1 c s r1 c s s1 r1 c s c1 r1 c2 c2 s2 c2 c2 c s r2 c s s2 r2 c s c2 r2 c2

k12

k21

k22

c s s2 c s c2 s2 r2 s2 s2 r2 s2 c2 r2 c s

c s s2 2 c s c2 s2 s2 s2 r2 s2 s2 2 r2 s2 c2 s2 r2 c s s2

c s c2 s2 c s c2 2 s2 c2 r2 s2 c2 s2 r2 s2 c2 2 r2 c s c2

c2 s2 c2 c2 c s r2 c s s2 r2 c s c2 r2 c2

(*) c = cos; s = sin; c = cos; s = sin. When = 0, it is possible to have no zero components in the kij -matrices. At that moment, all DOFs of both gears are coupled with each other. The implementation of the presented formulation in DADS is done with user-dened subroutines and can be used to couple any two gears of a gear system.

2.3

A exible 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 exibility 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 exibility is further taken into account. Considering the components exibility 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 exibility in the overall dynamic behaviour. Estimating this inuence for non conventional rather exible parts used today in wind turbines is barely possible with the traditional multibody formulation. Therefore, a exible 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 exible 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 nite element approach. The direct nite 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 nite element models in the multibody models. These are further called exible multibody models. For all bodies in a traditional multibody model with an increased level of interest for its exibility, a nite 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 xed-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

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3931

the calculation of the modes and all nite 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 nite 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 exibility of a body is included in this approach, but also its mass distribution is closer to reality, because the analyst has the option of deriving nite 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 exible 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 nite 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 exible multibody formulation, paragraph 3 presents a model of a wind turbines drive train with a exible rotor and a exible parallel high speed stage. Conclusions concerning the inuence of the additional exibilities are discussed there.

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 condentiality, 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 modelling approaches and of several parameters on the results.

3.1 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 gure 5. No shaft, nor bearing exibilities 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. eigenfrequencies (1) (2) 0 Hz 1479 Hz

Figure 5: Torsional model of the high speed parallel gear stage. The extension to a rigid multibody model is shown in gure 6. Here, the bearing stiffnesses are also taken into account, but not the shaft exibilities. 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 ]

3932

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

bearing properties: both shafts are mounted in two separate bearings with their axial and radial stiffnesses eigenfrequencies (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 0 400 511 703 755 761 775 801 821 1002 1197 1949 corresponding mode shape rigid-body mode x-translation pinion x-translation gear y-z-rotation pinion y-z-rotation gear y-z-translation gear y-z-translation pinion x-rotation pinion & gear

Z 6 1 Y @ X R @

Figure 6: Rigid multibody model of the high speed parallel gear stage. The eigenfrequencies shown in gure 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 inuence of on the other eigenfrequencies is shown in gure 7. The largest relative change is observed for the second eigenfrequency. However, for values of up to -20 the inuence of the helix angle is still rather small; as a result, a simplication of a parallel helical gear system to a spur gear pair can be justied, when calculating only the eigenfrequencies. The effect of the helix angle on the corresponding mode shapes is shown in gure 8.

12

Hz 10 8 3 4 6 2 ( ) Figure 7: The effect of the helix angle on the eigenfrequencies of a helical gear pair.

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3933

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 innity 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. gure 5), while the other eigenfrequencies increase towards innity. 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 exible multibody model by including reduced nite element models for the high speed pinion and the gear. These components automatically represent all mass and inertial properties and, furthermore, the exibility 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 exibilities in the exible 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 exibility 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. Torsional model (Hz) 0 1479 Rigid mbm (Hz) 0 400 511 703 755 761 775 801 821 1002 1197 1949 Flexible mbm (Hz) 0 396 497 518 519 635 696 702 718 848 1012 1636 corresponding mode shape

nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

rigid-body mode x-translation pinion x-translation gear y-z-rotation pinion y-z-rotation gear y-z-translation gear y-z-translation pinion x-rotation pinion & gear

Table 1: Comparison of the eigenfrequencies of the helical gear pair ( = 15 ) calculated with a torsional model, with a rigid multibody model (mbm) and with a exible multibody model.

3934

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

= 0 2 = 405 Hz

= 0 3 = 513 Hz

= 0 4 = 713 Hz

= 15 2 = 400 Hz (a) Mode 2

= 15 3 = 511 Hz (b) Mode 3

= 15 4 = 703 Hz (c) Mode 4

= 0 8 = 799 Hz

= 0 10 = 993 Hz

= 0 12 = 1972 Hz

= 15 8 = 801 Hz (d) Mode 8

= 15 10 = 1002 Hz (e) Mode 10

= 15 12 = 1949 Hz (f) Mode 12

Figure 8: Natural mode shapes for the rigid multibody model of the helical gear pair (wireframe: undeformed; solid: deformed).

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3935

510  3

12 11 Hz

Stiffness factor Figure 9: The effect of multiplying the axial and radial bearing stiffnesses with an equal factor on the eigenfrequencies of the helical gear pair ( = 0 ).

(a) model

(b) 4th mode shape (solid: undeformed; wireframe: deformed; )

Figure 10: Flexible multibody model of the high speed parallel gear stage.

3936

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

3.2 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 classication by Lin and Parker [8] is used for categorising the results of the latter model. They distinguished three categories of modes for planetary systems with N planets, satisfying equation (4) for the positioning around the sun [9]. sin N = cos N = 0 (4)

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 classication of Lin and Parker is based on a model approach in which all out-of-plane motions are xed. But, these motions are included in the presented analysis and, therefore, an extra category of out-of-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 xed ring wheel; the sun is oating 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 xed 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 xed 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.

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3937

nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Torsional model (Hz) 0 1397 (2) 1044 2292

Rigid mbm model (Hz) rotational translational out-of-plane mode (m=1) mode (m=2) mode 0 140 147 187 437 535 570 (2) 602 728 1067 1143 1318 1524 1545 2265 2617 (2) 2947 2962 (2) 2977 3100 (2)

The high speed helical planetary gear stage with a xed ring wheel and a oating sun.

Table 2: Comparison of the eigenfrequencies for a torsional and a rigid multibody model.

nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Torsional model (Hz) 0 861 (2) 573 1469

Rigid mbm model (Hz) rotational translational out-of-plane mode (m=1) mode (m=2) mode 0 33 252 253 364 399 402 407 (2) 488 782 801 808 (6) 1007 1045 1217 1565 > 4000

Table 3: Comparison of the eigenfrequencies of the low speed planetary gear stage for a torsional and a rigid multibody model.

3938

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

(a) rotational 402 Hz)

mode

( R 2:

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

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

Figure 11: Mode shapes for the low speed planetary gear system, calculated with a rigid multibody model.

3.3 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 classied 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 fth rotational modes of the high speed and low speed planetary stage, which are, therefore, classied 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 exible rotor. This rotor is modelled using NASTRANs CBEAM elements and only the rst and second ap- 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 rst drive train mode (7.0 Hz) that decreases slightly. Further extension of the present model with more exible components is part of the ongoing research.

4 Conclusions
The analysis of internal drive train dynamics is discussed for different multibody modelling approaches. A purely torsional model has only one DOF per drive train component and only the torsional exibilities, such as the gear mesh stiffness and the components torsion, are directly included. The torsional analysis gives

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

global mode (Hz) 0 8.6 83 parallel stage (Hz) high speed planetary stage (Hz)

3939
low speed planetary stage (Hz)

nr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

630 733 861 861 1368 1397 1397 1514 1780 7982

Figure 12: Rigid multibody model of the complete drive train.

Table 4: The eigenfrequencies calculated for a torsional multibody model of the complete drive train.

insight in the dynamic torque variations in the drive train. Here, the inuence of the bearing stiffnesses is difcult to assess and the bearing loads are excluded from the results. More accurate modelling of the bearings is included in the presented rigid multibody model, where all bodies have six DOFs and where the bearings and gear meshes are modelled by linear springs. A generic implementation of this approach in DADS makes it applicable for parallel as well as for planetary gear stages. The exible multibody model is presented as a further extension in which the components exibilities are taken into account through a nite element approach. Finite element models of individual drive train components are reduced using the component mode synthesis technique according to Craig and Bampton and can replace the rigid bodies in a multibody model. The three modelling approaches are applied on a wind turbines drive train with a high speed helical gear stage and two planetary gear stages. Individual analysis of the former stage shows that the inuence of the helix angle on the eigenfrequencies is rather small. Further investigation on increasing the bearing stiffnesses towards innity yields insight in the differences between the torsional and the rigid multibody approach, where the former model corresponds to innitely stiff (xed) bearings. The additional exibilities in the latter model cause a remarkable drop in eigenfrequencies and, furthermore, several other modes are found, which underlines the importance of this approach. Investigation of this high speed parallel gear stage with a exible multibody model shows how some eigenfrequencies decrease only slightly in comparison with the results for a rigid model, where other modes are affected much more. The calculated eigenmodes for the individual planetary gear stages are classied as rotational, translational and out-of-plane modes on the basis of their mode shapes. The same classication is used for the analysis of the results for a rigid multibody model of the complete drive train. All eigenmodes calculated for the three individual stages are again found here at the same frequencies, except for two rotational modes in both the planetary stages. Adding the rotors exibility with a nite element model reduced to its rst two ap- and edgewise eigenmodes does not affect the drive trains internal eigenfrequencies. Further research on adding drive train components exibilities to the models and varying parameter values is part of ongoing work. Furthermore, an experimental validation of the presented methodology applied on a modern wind turbine is in progress. The rst validation will be based on the measured eigenfrequencies. Afterwards, results of transient analyses can be compared with measured time series. However, the calculation of these transients requires further model extensions, such as including the static transmission error, damping and other possible non-linear effects in the drive train.

3940

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004

global mode nr (Hz) 1 0 2 7.0 77 5 14 261 634 29 44 811 1835 61 63 2349

parallel stage nr (Hz) 18 401 23 511 30 707 755 31 32 761 33 775 801 37 45 821 1005 46 53 1197 1952 62

nr 6 7,8 9,10 21 24,25 26,27 28 50 51,52 56,57 58 59,60 64,65 66 67,68 69 70,71

High speed planetary stage rotational translational mode (m=1; Hz) mode (m=2; Hz) 147 187

out-of-plane mode (Hz) 140

451 535 570 (2) 601 1071 1143 1318 1527 1545 2617 2947 2962 2978 3100 Low speed planetary stage rotational translational mode (m=1; Hz) mode (m=2; Hz) 33 253 364 399 407 (2) 488 782 801 808 (6) 1007 1060 1217 434066

nr 3,4 11 12,13 15 16,17 19,20 22 34 35,36 38-43 47,48 49 54,55 72,73

out-of-plane mode (Hz) 252

Table 5: The eigenfrequencies calculated for a rigid multibody model of the complete drive train.

W IND TURBINE DYNAMICS

3941

References
[1] European Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy: The Facts, May 2004. [2] D.-P. Molenaar, S. Dijkstra, State of the Art of Wind Turbine Design Codes: main features overview for cost-effective generation, Wind Engineering, 1999, 23(5), 295-311 [3] DIN 3990, Calculation of load capacity of cylindrical gears, Deutsches Institut f r Normung e.V., 1987. u [4] DIN ISO 281, Rolling bearings: dynamic load ratings and rating life, Deutsches Institut f r Normung u e.V., 1990. [5] DADS Revision 9.6 Documentation, LMS International, Belgium, 2000. [6] A. Kahraman, Effect of Axial Vibrations on the Dynamics of a Helical Gear Pair, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 1993, 115, 33-39 [7] A. Kahraman, Dynamic Analysis of a Multi-Mesh Helical Gear Train, Journal of Mechanical Design, 1994, 116, 706-712 [8] J. Lin, R.G. Parker, Analytical Characterization of the Unique Properties of Planetary Gear Free Vibration, Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 1999, 121, 316-321 [9] J. Lin, R.G. Parker, Structured vibration characteristics of planetary gears with unequally spaced planets, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2000, 233(5), 921-928 [10] A. Kahraman, Planetary Gear Train Dynamics, Journal of Mechanical Design, 1994, 116, 713-720 [11] R.G. Parker, V. Agashe, S.M. Vijayakar, Dynamic Response of a Planetary Gear System using a Finite/Contact Mechanics Model, Journal of Mechanical Design, 1994, 122, 304-310 [12] J. Peeters, D. Vandepitte, P. Sas, S. Lammens, Comparison of analysis techniques for the dynamic behaviour of an integrated drive train in a wind turbine, Proceedings of The International Conference on Noise & Vibration Engineering ISMA2002, Leuven, Belgium, 2002 September 16-18, 1397-1406 [13] P.W. Gold, DRESP 7.0 Documentation, IME-RWTH Aachen, Forschungsvereinigung Antriebstechnik e.V. (FVA), Germany. [14] J. Peeters, D. Vandepitte, P. Sas, Internal dynamics of an integrated drive train in a wind turbine, Proceedings of The European Wind Energy Conference EWEC2004, London, UK, 2004 November 2225 [15] W.C. Hurty, Dynamic Analysis of Structural Systems Using Component Modes, AIAA Journal, 1965, 3(4), 678-685 [16] R.R. Craig Jr., Structural Dynamics,John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1981 [17] R.R. Craig Jr., A review of time-domain and frequency-domain component-mode synthesis methods, Int. Journal of Analytical and Experimental Model Analysis, 1987, 2(2), 59-72 [18] R.R. Craig Jr., Substructure Methods in Vibration, Journal of Mechanical Design, 1994, 117, 207213 [19] J.T. Spanos, W.S. Tsuha, Selection of Component Modes for Flexible Multibody Simulation, Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, 1991, 14(2), 278-286 [20] R.R. Craig Jr., M.C.C. Bampton, Coupling of substructures for Dynamic Analyses, AIAA Journal, 1968, 6(7), 1313-1319 [21] F. Baumjohann, M. Hermanski, R. Diekmann, 3D-Multi Body Simulation of Wind Turbines with Flexible Components, Proceedings of the German Wind Energy Conference DEWEK2002, Wilhelmshaven, Germany, 2002 Oktober 23-24

3942

P ROCEEDINGS OF ISMA2004