Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Key words: Three types of multibody models are presented for the investigation of the internal dynam-
wind turbine; ics of a drive train in a wind turbine.The first approach is limited to the analysis of torsional
drive train;
gearbox;
vibrations only. Then a rigid multibody model is presented with special focus on the repre-
dynamic loads; sentation of the bearings and gears in the drive train. The generic model implementation
multibody system can be used for parallel as well as planetary gear stages with both helical and spur gears.
Examples for different gear stages describe the use of the presented formulations. Further-
more, the influence of the helix angle and the flexibility of the bearings on the results of
eigenmode calculations are discussed. The eigenmodes of a planetary stage are classified
as rotational, translational or out-of-plane modes.Thirdly, the extension to a flexible multi-
body model is presented as a method to include directly the drive train components flexi-
bilities. Finally, a comparison of two different modelling techniques is discussed for a wind
turbines drive train with a helical parallel gear stage and two planetary gear stages. In
addition, the response calculation for a torque input at the generator demonstrates which
eigenmodes can be excited through this path. Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Traditional design calculations for wind turbines are based on the output of specific aeroelastic simulation
codes as described by Molenaar and Dijkstra.1 The output of these codes gives the mechanical loads on the
wind turbine components caused by external forces such 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 limita-
tion 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 39902 and DIN ISO 2813 are typically used for the processing of the simulated load time
series to loads on the gears and bearings respectively. For existing wind turbines nowadays, this approach
seems acceptable from the point of view that the internal drive train dynamics are in a frequency range well
above the overall wind turbine dynamics. However, this argument does not cover the complete range of phe-
nomena that can occur in the drive train. After all, not only external low-frequency excitation of the drive train
is possible, but also internal excitation at higher frequencies exists. For instance, excitation at gear meshing
frequencies or from generator fault transients might introduce energy in the range of the internal eigenfre-
* Correspondence to: J. L. M. Peeters, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark
Arenberg 41, B-3001 Heverlee (Leuven), Belgium
E-mail: joris.peeters@mech.kuleuven.be
quencies. This indicates the importance of further insight into the internal dynamics of the drive train, which
implies the need for additional numerical simulation methods. Moreover, extra insight from additional analy-
ses might be useful for vibration monitoring and noise radiation calculations.
The multibody simulation technique is a well-established method to analyse in detail the loads on internal
components of drive trains. This article investigates the use of this technique for the dynamic analysis of a
wind turbine drive train with a gearbox. Models with different levels of complexity are analysed in this inves-
tigation and all models are implemented in the multibody software package DADS.4 The first subsection of
section two 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
torsional (multibody) models. The second subsection of section two presents more elaborate models, where
all individual drive train components have six DOFs, further called rigid multibody models. The interactions
between the bodies, which represent the gear and bearing flexibilities, are modelled by linear springs. Their
implementation is based on a synthesis of the work presented by Kahraman5,6 on helical gears and by Parker
and co-workers7,8 on planetary gears. This synthesis makes it possible to analyse a single-stage helical plane-
tary gear set, as already introduced by Kahraman.9 In addition, the formulations presented in this subsection
yield three-dimensional, generic models to simulate the dynamics of complete gearboxes integrated in a wind
turbine drive train. Finally, the third subsection of section two discusses a further extension of the multibody
model to a flexible multibody model in which the drive train components are modelled as finite element
models instead of rigid bodies, adding the possibility of calculating stresses and deformations in the drive train
components continuously in time. Every addition to the model leads to specific 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 the 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 limitations of the different levels of modelling.
Each level can be used as a separate tool in specific design phases to estimate the significance of dynamic
loads.
Section three presents an application of the different modelling techniques on a drive train of a wind turbine
with two planetary gear stages and one parallel helical gear stage. First the parallel stage is analysed separately
as an example of the flexible multibody simulation technique. Then an individual discussion of the high-speed
helical planetary gear stage introduces the out-of-plane modes. These analyses focus mainly on the calcula-
tion of mode shapes and corresponding frequencies. Finally, the complete drive train is implemented as a purely
torsional and as a rigid multibody model. The results of eigenmode calculations for both models are compared
and the use of frequency response function (FRF) calculations in the latter model is demonstrated to estimate
how the individual modes contribute to the response on specific excitations. Section four summarizes the main
conclusions of the presented research and gives an overview of ongoing work.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 143
3. Bearing flexibility. All bearings will deform under load, which is represented as a stiffness between the
bodies and their housing. In this article 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.
r
(a) u transmission ratio 2
r1
= -k gear (r1 ) (q1 - u q 2 )
2
Td positive driving torque applied to the pinion
{ {
{ {
(b) (c)
(a) deformation along the line of contact (>0)
1
T2 = - T1 u = -k gear (r2 ) 2 q 2 - q1 (b) torsional stiffness referred to the pinion
u (c) torsional deformation
(d) (e)
(d) torsional stiffness referred to the gear wheel
(e) torsional deformation
Figure 1. 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
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
144 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
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 kgear 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 mm,
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
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.5
q1 and q2 in Figure 1 are defined as the rotations of the pinion and the gear wheel in their respective refer-
ence frame. For a parallel gear stage these reference frames are fixed to the gearbox housing. However, the
same formulation is valid when the reference frame of a wheel follows the rotation of a component, which
implies a kinematic coupling between the wheel and this component. This makes it also applicable for a plane-
tary gear stage where the reference frame of a planet follows the rotation of the planet carrier. Thus, by keeping
the gear contact formulation independent from the definition of the reference frame, it can be used as a generic
module for all possible gear set-ups. This independence can be implemented straightforwardly in the multi-
body software package DADS, since co-ordinate systems can be created and referenced freely. When using
the formulation for a wheel with internal teeth, the base circle radius should be taken negative. A detailed dis-
cussion of the implementation of a torsional model in DADS and the numerical validation of this implemen-
tation using the software DRESP is described by Peeters et al.10,11 DRESP is a simulation program of the FVA
(Germany) for torsional vibrations only.12
The modelling approach described in this subsection is considered to be the state of the art for most indus-
trial applications. Flexibility is assumed to be concentrated in shafts and gear teeth. Bearings are considered
to be rigid in radial and axial directions. As a conclusion, two simple examples of torsional models are dis-
cussed. Figure 2 shows a parallel gear stage with the necessary input for this model and the results of an eigen-
mode calculation. The same example will be discussed in the next subsection for a rigid multibody approach
and was first presented by Kahraman.5 It is clear that 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 the calculation show that only the second DOF yields a non-zero eigenfrequency. The second
example was first presented by Lin and Parker7 and is a model of a planetary gear stage with three planets as
shown in Figure 3. The three planets are identical as well as all sunplanet and planetring mesh stiffnesses.
Furthermore, the ring wheel is constrained as non-rotating and therefore connected through a torsional spring
with the rigid housing. Again the same example will be discussed in the next subsection for a rigid multibody
approach. Here the eigenmode calculation yields five non-zero eigenfrequencies; two of them form a double
pole, resulting from the symmetry in the planetary stage. The influence of the corresponding mode shapes on
any torque fluctuation is zero and therefore these two modes do not matter in a torsional analysis.
model input
eigenfrequencies
kgear (N/m) 2 108
r1 (mm) 50 (1) 0 Hz
r2 (mm) 50 (2) 2955 Hz
J1 (kg m2) 29 10-3
J2 (kg m2) 29 10-3
Figure 2. A torsional model for a parallel gear stage. Both the input and the output shaft have a free boundary
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 145
model input
Figure 3. A torsional model for a planetary gear stage with three planets and a fixed ring wheel. Both the planet
carrier and the sun have a free boundary
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
146 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
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 for the presented linear analyses can be justified as in subsection one.
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. Coriolis accelerations of gears that are rotating and simultaneously translating (e.g. planets on their carrier)
are neglected and all gyroscopic effects as described by Lin and Parker7 are excluded. These assumptions
are 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 Figure 5.
Co-ordinate systems X1Y1Z1 and X2Y2Z2 are oriented with X along the centreline pointing from gear 1 to gear
2; Z is lying along the axis of rotation. These co-ordinate systems are fixed to the reference frames of the
respective wheels (as introduced in subsection one and Figure 4).
X1Y1Z1 and X2Y2Z2 are fixed to the respective gears and in their starting position they coincide with the cor-
responding XYZ.
ft is the pressure angle of the gear mesh, which is an input parameter. It is defined as the angle measured
from the centreline towards the normal on the contact line in the corresponding XYZ. The sign of this angle
changes when the driving direction of the system changes.
y 1 and y 2 are the angles measured respectively from X1 to X1 and from X2 to X2 along the corresponding Z:
y1 = ft - y 1 and y2 = ft - y 2 .
b is the helix angle, which is positive when the teeth of gear 1 are turned left from a reference position
where b = 0; b > 0 in Figure 5.
The compression of the linear spring (d) can be written as a function of the vectors q1 and q2 as introduced in
Figure 4. Since the spring works always under compression, d should be positive.
d = (x1 sin y 1 - x 2 sin y 2 - y1 cos y 1 + y2 cos y 2 - u1 - u2 ) sign(f t ) cos b
-(z1 - z2 + w X1 sin y 1 + w X 2 sin y 2 - y Y 1 cos y 1 - y Y 2 cos y 2 ) sign(f t ) sin b (2)
with
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 147
[ x1 y1 z1 w X1 w Y1 u1 ] = diag(1, 1, 1, r1 , r1 , r1 ,)q1
[ x 2 y2 z2 w X2 w Y2 u2 ] = diag(1, 1, 1, r2 , r2 , r2 ,)q2
The stiffness value of the linear spring, kgear, is the same as defined in subsection one, namely the ratio of the
contact force on a tooth over the resulting displacement of the contact point. The spring force causes forces
and moments on the gears, which can be projected in the XYZ co-ordinate systems and thus written as
FX1 = -dk gear sin y 1 cosb sign(f t ) FX 2 = dk gear sin y 2 cosb sign(f t )
FY 1 = dk gear cos y 1 cosb sign(f t ) FY 2 = -dk gear cos y 2 cosb sign(f t )
FZ1 = dk gear sinb sign(f t ) FZ 2 = -dk gear sinb sign(f t )
TX1 = dk gear r1 siny 1 sinb sign(f t ) TX 2 = dk gear r2 sin y 2 sinb sign(f t )
TY 1 = -dk gear r1 cos y 1 sinb sign(f t ) TY 2 = -dk gear r2 cos y 2 sinb sign(f t )
TZ1 = dk gear r1 cosb sign(f t ) TZ 2 = dk gear r2 cosb sign(f t )
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
148 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
By writing the force components and the compression d in the XYZ systems, the gear contact formulation is a
generic module. Its implementation in DADS is a user-defined subroutine which can be used to couple any
two gears in all possible gear set-ups, keeping in mind that a wheel with internal teeth is given a negative
radius. The formulation of the gear forces in matrix form yields
F1 = k k 11 k 12 q1 (3)
F2 gear
k 21 k 22 q2
where
with cb = cos b, sb = sin b, cy = cos y and sy = sin y. When b 0, it is possible to have no zero components
in the k ij matrices. At that moment, all DOFs of both gears are coupled with each other. The application of
this method is given below in an example of a parallel and a planetary gear stage.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 149
model input
Figure 6. Helical gear system. The two bearings supporting each of the shafts are represented by one stiffness matrix
per shaft with equivalent radial (kbrad), axial (kbax) and tilt (kbtilt) stiffness values. The helix angle b is varied through the
analysis and both the input and the output shaft are free at their boundaries
Table I. Eigenfrequencies (Hz) for the model of the helical gear pair in Figure 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
b = 0 0 1125 1125 1566 2105 2105 2105 2202 2202 2202 2202 3972
b = 20 0 1058 1125 1519 2105 2105 2105 2173 2202 2202 2202 4150
D (%) -60 0 -30 0 0 0 -13 0 0 0 +45
Influence of the Helix Angle b. Table I shows the eigenfrequencies calculated for the helical gear pair in
Figure 6 for b = 0 and 20. These values match almost perfectly with the results calculated by Kahraman,5
which proves the validity of the model implementation in the frictionless case. Figure 7(a) shows how the
eigenfrequencies change with changing b. Only w2, w4, w8 and w12 are influenced and the largest relative change
is observed for w2, which is only 6% for b = 20 (Table I). Thus the influence of the helix angle is rather small;
as a result, a simplification of a parallel helical gear system to a spur gear pair can be justified when calculat-
ing only the eigenfrequencies. The effect of the helix angle on the corresponding mode shapes is shown in
Figure 8 for w2, w4, w8 and w12.
Influence of the Bearing Stiffness Values (kbax, kbrad, kbtilt). The fourth mode shape in Figure 8 (for b = 0)
corresponds to the eigenmode that was calculated with a torsional multibody model in Figure 2 and which has
the biggest impact on the torque. Remarkable is the drop in frequency (2955 1566 Hz) for this mode as a
result of adding realistic bearing flexibilities in the rigid multibody model, which were lacking in the torsional
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. However, the new formulation gives directly more accu-
rate predictions for the torque dynamics. In addition, the results are no longer limited to the torque DOF only.
Several new modes appear which lie in the same frequency range (Table I). This underlines the importance of
the rigid multibody approach.
Figure 7(b) demonstrates the statement that increasing all bearing stiffnesses for the helical gear system to
infinity yields a purely torsional equivalent of the model. For this purpose the real bearing stiffnesses are mul-
tiplied by a stiffness factor, which is taken equal for kbax, kbrad and kbtilt, since the focus is not on the individual
sensitivity of these values. All eigenfrequencies increase towards infinity, except for w4 (1566 Hz); this fre-
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
150 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
(a) The effect of the helix angle b on the (b) The effect of multiplying kbax, kbrad and kbtilt with an
eigenfrequencies. equal stiffness factor on the eigenfrequencies (b = 0)
quency approaches asymptotically the torsional eigenfrequency (2955 Hz), which corresponds to the conclu-
sions above.
1. Six rotational modes always have multiplicity m = 1 for various numbers of planets N. The mode shapes
( R1-6) 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 ,b -6a ,b) have pure translation of the carrier, ring and sun.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 151
b = 0 w2 = 1125 Hz b = 0 w4 = 1566 Hz
b = 20 w2 = 1058 Hz b = 20 w4 = 1519 Hz
(a) Mode 2 (b) Mode 4
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
152 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
Figure 9. Planetary gear systems introduced by Lin and Parker.7 In all systems the planet carrier and the sun are free
at their boundaries
Table II. Eigenfrequencies (Hz) for the planetary gear systems with respectively
three, four and five planets as introduced by Lin and Parker7
N
Mode
shape 3 4 5
m=1 R1 0 0 0
R2 1425 1496 1538
R3 2032 2060 2082
R4 2644 2611 2602
R5 7500 7800 8086
R6 11744 13050 14237
3. Three planet modes exist for N > 3 and have multiplicity m = N - 3. The carrier, ring and sun have no rota-
tion or translation in the corresponding mode shapes ( P1-3).
Figure 10 shows an example of a mode shape for each category. The classification of the DADS results is
based on animations of the mode shapes, and the corresponding eigenfrequencies were validated with those
from Lin and Parker. They correlated well, which further enhances the confidence in the use of the formula-
tion for the planetary gear systems used in wind turbines.
Influence of the Bearing Stiffness Values (krad). The difference between the torsional model of the
three-planet system in subsection one and the model presented here is the addition of a realistic radial bearing
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 153
Figure 10. Different types of mode shapes for a planetary gear system with four planets
rigid multibody torsional
model model
(Hz) (Hz)
1 0 ( R1) 0
2 770 ( T 1) 2227
3 1101 ( T 2) 6192
R4
4 1425 ( R 2)
6442
5 1989 ( T 3) 6442
6 2032 ( R 3) 11210
7 2238 ( T 4)
R3 8 2644 ( R 4)
T1a,b R2 9 7060 ( T 5)
10 7500 ( R 5)
11 9582 ( T 6)
12 11744 ( R 6)
R1
(b)
(a)
(a) The effect of multiplying the radial bearing stiffnesses with a factor.
(b) Comparison of the eigenfrequencies calculated with a rigid multibody model and with a torsional model. ( R ) are the
rotational modes (m = 1); ( T ) are the translational modes (m = 2). The arrows indicate how the eigenfrequencies
shift from the rigid model results to the torsional model results when the radial bearing stiffness values are increased
towards infinity.
Figure 11. Influence of the bearing stiffness values on the eigenfrequencies of the planetary gear model with three planets
flexibility for the sun, the planets, the carrier and the ring wheel. This addition has a major impact on the
results, which is demonstrated in Figure 11(a). For a stiffness factor of unity the curves give the eigenfre-
quencies of the rigid multibody model. The higher stiffness factors correspond to a gradual increase in the
radial bearing stiffnesses. The eigenfrequencies corresponding to the first four rotational modes and the first
translational double mode approach asymptotically the results from the torsional model when the stiffness
values approach infinity. This phenomenon is numerically shown in Figure 11(b), where the eigenfrequencies
calculated with a rigid multibody model are compared with the results for a torsional model. Again the remark-
able difference and, furthermore, the additional modes found with the former model underline the importance
of this approach.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
154 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 155
slightly modified owing to confidentiality. The results are still representative for a drive train in a wind turbine.
The section starts with an application of two methods which have been presented but not yet applied in this
article. Subsection one discusses the implementation of the flexible multibody method for the high-speed par-
allel stage. Subsection two investigates the application of the rigid multibody methods for the high-speed plan-
etary stage, which has helical teeth. This leads to the introduction of a fourth category of mode shapes. Finally,
subsection three describes two models of the complete drive train: a purely torsional and a rigid multibody
model.
Z
Y
X
(a) Torsional model (b) Rigid multibody model (c) Flexible multibody model
Figure 12. High-speed parallel gear stage
Table III. Comparison of the eigenfrequencies (Hz) of the helical gear pair cal-
culated with a torsional model, a rigid multibody model (MBM) and a flexible
multibody model
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
156 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
Table IV. Rigid multibody model of the high-speed helical planetary gear stage and the results of an eigenmode
calculation: the eigenfrequencies (Hz) are divided into three categories based on their corresponding mode shapes
0 728 1067 1524 2265 147 187 535 1143 1318 1545
Out-of-plane mode
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O9
(m = 2) (m = 2) (m = 2) (m = 2)
bending flexibility of the rather long and slender high-speed pinion causes a considerable decrease in the eigen-
frequencies corresponding to its yz-rotation modes (w4, w5). This example shows how the flexible multibody
technique makes it possible to evaluate the effect of the components flexibilities without reducing them to dis-
crete stiffnesses. Furthermore, the eigenmodes of the components are also taken into account, which is impos-
sible in a rigid multibody model.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 157
1 0
2 86
3 83
4 630
5 733
6 861
7 861
8 1368
9 1397
10 1397
11 1514
12 1780
13 7982
The eigenfrequencies are categorized according to the location of the nodes in the corresponding mode shapes;
several modes cannot be classified in this way and are called global. The same categorization is used in Table
VI for the eigenfrequencies calculated for the rigid multibody model. In addition, these frequencies are ordered
according to the type of the corresponding mode shapes. A comparison of both table yields the following
conclusions.
1. The impact of the bearing flexibilities on the torque dynamics cannot be neglected, since the corresponding
eigenfrequencies shift considerably when they are taken into account. The rigid multibody approach gives
a straightforward method to include these flexibilities.
2. A consideration of more than only the torsional DOFs gives more insight into the dynamic behaviour of the
drive train. Extra modes are found in the same frequency range and could e.g. be excited by radial or axial
loads in the gear contact.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
158 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
Table VI. The eigenfrequencies (Hz) calculated for a rigid multibody model of the complete drive train, which are cate-
gorized according to the location of the nodes in the corresponding mode shapes and their type
1 0 18 401
2 7 23 511
5 77 30 706
14 261 31 755
29 634 32 761
44 811 33 775
61 1835 37 801
63 2349 45 821
46 1006
53 1197
62 1950
6 140 3, 4 33
7, 8 147 11 252
9, 10 187 12, 13 253
21 451 15 364
24, 25 535 16, 17 399
26, 27 570 (2) 19, 20 407 (2)
28 601 22 488
50 1071 34 782
51, 52 1143 35, 36 801
56, 57 1318 3843 808 (6)
58 1527 47, 48 1007
59, 60 1545 49 1060
64, 65 2617 54, 55 1217
66 2947 72, 73 >4000
67, 68 2962
69 2978
70, 71 3100
Only those modes which influence the loads in the drive train are of importance. This means that in one
way or another there should be a coupling with an excitation. This can be an internal local excitation (e.g. gear
mesh frequency) or an external excitation (e.g. the wind spectrum or as a result of a generator fault transient).
The coupling with such an excitation source can be estimated from a detailed interpretation of the mode shapes,
although this is not straightforward. An easier method is to calculate a frequency response function (FRF)
between the input of an excitation and a specific load in the drive train. This is demonstrated for the torque in
three positions of the drive train. The torque at the generator is used as input and the torque in the two suns
and in the high-speed pinion as outputs. The input torque is a multisine with a frequency range from 1 to
2000 Hz with a spectrum as shown in Figure 14(a). This range should cover all possible internal excitations,
since 1000 Hz can generally be considered as a maximum for the gear mesh excitation frequencies. Further-
more, the output time series can only be calculated with a certain amount of damping, which defines the ampli-
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 159
(a) Power spectrum of the multisine input (b) FRF from the generator torque to the torque
signal at the high-speed pinion.
(c) FRF from the generator torque to the torque (d) FRF from the generator torque to the torque
at the high speed sun. at the low-speed sun.
tudes of the response, especially at the eigenfrequencies. The determination of the damping values is not within
the scope of this article and therefore the responses are only considered qualitatively in this analysis. Figure
14 shows the FRFs from the generator input to the respective torque signals. Focusing on the results above
10 Hz, for reasons which are explained below, leads to the following conclusions.
1. For the high-speed pinion it is mainly the global mode at 77 Hz which is excited by a torque input at the
generator. Locally, the modes at 706 and 1006 Hz are dominant.
2. For the high-speed planetary stage the global mode at 77 Hz is less dominating. It is the local modes at 147,
187, 535 and 570 Hz that are clearly excited.
3. For the low-speed planetary stage, mainly the global modes at 77 and 261 Hz determine the dynamic
response.
The presented results describe the behaviour of the drive train in a wind turbine without detailed consider-
ation of its boundaries. For example, the flexibilities of the rotor and the tower, which are known to be deter-
mining for the dynamic behaviour in a frequency range below 10 Hz, are not included. Furthermore, the
generator controller is simplified as a free boundary, which is not always a valid assumption. The analysis of
these limitations needs further model extensions and is still part of ongoing research. However, from a com-
parison of the presented results with those calculated for the individual stages separately (which was part of a
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
160 J. L. M. Peeters, D. Vandepitte and P. Sas
more in-depth analysis not further elaborated in this article), an interesting insight is concluded. All modes cal-
culated 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
planetary stages, which become global modes. This means that the internal eigenfrequencies for the gearbox,
global modes excluded, are hardly influenced by its boundaries and can be predicted locally.
Conclusions
Certain phenomena in wind turbine drive trains can occur in a higher frequency range than traditionally sim-
ulated. This article describes how a drive train can be modelled when further insight into its internal dynam-
ics is needed. The multibody simulation technique is presented, which implies a split of the drive train into
different parts: the bearings, the gear contacts and the drive train components all need individual considera-
tion. Furthermore, different modelling approaches for a multibody model are investigated. A purely torsional
model has only one DOF per drive train component and only the torsional flexibilities, such as the gear mesh
stiffness and the components torsion, are directly included. The torsional analysis gives insight into the
dynamic torque variations in the drive train. Here the influence of the bearing flexibilities is difficult to assess
and bearing loads can only be derived by further processing the torque. More accurate modelling of the bear-
ings is included in the presented rigid multibody model, where all bodies have six DOFs and where the bear-
ings and gear meshes are modelled by linear springs. A generic implementation of this approach in DADS
makes it applicable for parallel and planetary gear stages as well as for complete gearboxes with several gear
stages. Application of this implementation for a parallel and a planetary gear stage shows the use of the pre-
sented techniques. In addition, a sensitivity analysis for the helical parallel gear stage indicates the minor influ-
ence of the helix angle on the eigenfrequencies. In contrast, two other sensitivity analyses clearly demonstrate
the big impact of the bearing flexibilities on the results for the parallel and the planetary gear stage. Taking
into account the realistic flexibility of all bearings causes a remarkable drop in eigenfrequencies and, further-
more, several other modes in the same frequency range are found by considering the extra DOFs. This under-
lines the importance of the rigid multibody approach, which still has the limitation that no internal stresses and
strains of the drive train components can be calculated. Therefore the flexible multibody model is presented as
a further extension in which the components flexibilities are taken into account through a finite element
approach. Finite element models of individual drive train components are reduced using the component mode
synthesis technique according to Craig and Bampton19 and can replace the rigid bodies in a multibody model.
The eigenmode calculation for a flexible multibody model of the helical parallel gear stage in the wind turbine
shows how some eigenfrequencies decrease only slightly in comparison with the results for a rigid model,
where other modes are affected much more. The gearbox in this wind turbine has an additional high-speed
planetary stage with helical gears. The axial forces in such a stage imply out-of-plane translations and rota-
tions, which leads to the introduction of out-of-plane modes, next to the rotational and translational modes in
a planetary stage.
The presented formulations and examples give an overview of the advantages, limitations and modelling
consequences of the different multibody approaches. The application on the complete drive train emphasizes
the importance of the bearing flexibilities for an accurate prediction of the eigenfrequencies. Furthermore, the
use of FRFs demonstrates how the response for a certain input can be calculated. For the torque in the para-
llel and the low-speed planetary stage the modes identified as global modes dominate the response for a torque
input at the generator. In contrast, the same input excites mainly the internal modes of the high-speed plane-
tary stage. These analyses lead to qualitative conclusions only, since damping is not considered in this article
but only applied for numerical reasons. Other limitations of the presented formulations are the exclusion of
the static transmission error (i.e. a variable gear mesh stiffness), non-linear stiffnesses, friction and other pos-
sible non-linear effects in the drive train. The investigation of the effect of each individual issue is part of
ongoing research. In addition, further analyses examine the influence of the generator controller and the flexi-
ble rotor and tower on the (low-frequency) dynamics of the drive train.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we
Internal Drive Train Dynamics 161
References
1. Molenaar D-P, Dijkstra S. State of the art of wind turbine design codes: main features overview for cost-effective gen-
eration. Wind Engineering 1999; 23: 295311.
2. Deutsches Institut fr Normung. Calculation of Load Capacity of Cylindrical Gears. DIN 3990, 1987.
3. Deutsches Institut fr Normung. Rolling Bearings: Dynamic Load Ratings and Rating Life. DIN ISO 281, 1990.
4. DADS Revision 9.6 Documentation. LMS International Leuven, 2000.
5. Kahraman A. Effect of axial vibrations on the dynamics of a helical gear pair. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 1993;
115: 3339.
6. Kahraman A. Dynamic analysis of a multi-mesh helical gear train. Journal of Mechanical Design 1994; 116: 706712.
7. Lin J, Parker RG. Analytical characterization of the unique properties of planetary gear free vibration. Journal of Vibra-
tion and Acoustics 1999; 121: 316321.
8. Parker RG, Agashe V, Vijayakar SM. Dynamic response of a planetary gear system using a finite/contact mechanics
model. Journal of Mechanical Design 1994; 122: 304310.
9. Kahraman A. Planetary gear train dynamics. Journal of Mechanical Design 1994; 116: 713720.
10. Peeters J, Vandepitte D, Sas P, Lammens S. Comparison of analysis techniques for the dynamic behaviour of an inte-
grated drive train in a wind turbine. Proceedings of the International Conference on Noise & Vibration Engineering
ISMA2002. Leuven, 2002; 13971406.
11. Peeters J, Vandepitte D, Sas P. Dynamic analysis of an integrated drive train in a wind turbine. Proceedings of the
European Wind Energy Conference EWEC2003. Madrid, 2003. (CD-ROM).
12. Gold PW. DRESP 7.0 Documentation. IME-RWTH Aachen/FVA: Aachen, 1998.
13. Lin J, Parker RG. Structured vibration characteristics of planetary gears with unequally spaced planets. Journal of
Sound and Vibration 2000; 233: 921928.
14. Hurty WC, Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes. AIAA Journal 1965; 3: 678685.
15. Craig Jr RR. Structural Dynamics. Wiley: New York, 1981.
16. Craig Jr RR. A review of time-domain and frequency-domain component-mode synthesis methods. International
Journal of Analytical and Experimental Model Analysis 1987; 2: 5972.
17. Craig Jr RR. Substructure methods in vibration. Journal of Mechanical Design 1994; 117: 207213.
18. Spanos JT, Tsuha WS. Selection of component modes for flexible multibody simulation. Journal of Guidance Control
and Dynamics 1991; 14: 278286.
19. Craig Jr RR, Bampton MCC. Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA Journal 1968; 6: 13131319.
20. Baumjohann F, Hermanski M, Diekmann R, Kroning J. 3D-multi body simulation of wind turbines with flexible com-
ponents. DEWI Magazin 2002; 21: 6366.
Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wind Energ. 2006; 9:141161
DOI: 10.1002/we