Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Multibody modelling of varying complexity for modal behaviour analysis of wind

turbine gearboxes
Jan Helsen a, *, Frederik Vanhollebeke b, Ben Marrant b, Dirk Vandepitte a, Wim Desmet a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Celestijnenlaan 300b, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
b
Hansen Transmissions International nv, De Villermontstraat 9, 2550 Kontich, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the currently booming market of wind turbines, a clear focus is put on the design of reliable and cost-
Received 18 January 2011 effective subsystems, such as the gearbox. A requirement for reliable gearbox design calculations is
Accepted 17 March 2011 sufficient insight in the dynamics of the entire wind turbine drive train. Since traditional wind turbine
Available online 15 April 2011
design codes reduce the drive train to just a few degrees of freedom, considerable research effort is spent
in advanced modelling and simulation techniques to gain more insights in the dynamics at hand. This
Keywords:
work focusses on the gearbox modal behaviour assessment by means of three more complex modelling
Gear dynamics
techniques of varying complexity: the purely torsional-, rigid six degree of freedom with discrete flex-
Drive train
Wind turbine
ibility and flexible multibody technique. Both simulation and experimental results are discussed. Typical
Flexible multibody mode categories for traditional wind turbine gearboxes are defined. Moreover the challenge of the
definition of an accurate approach to condense finite element models for representing the flexible
components in the flexible multibody models is overcome. Furthermore the interaction between the
structural modes of the planet carrier and planetary ring flexibility with the overall gearbox modes is
investigated, resulting in the definition of two new mode categories: the planet carrier modes and
planetary ring modes.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction [7] greatly contributed to the high quality of these modelling

Guaranteeing a robust and reliable wind turbine design under
increasingly demanding conditions requires an expert insight into
dynamic loading effects of the full turbine and its subsystems.
Excessive vibrations is a main cause of turbine standstill [1]. The
operating circumstances are largely determined by wind field
turbulence, electricity grid disturbance and, in the case of an
offshore turbine, sea wave excitation. Traditionally, aeroelastic
codes used to model the wind turbine, represent most relevant
external conditions at the site, including aerodynamic loads [2,3],
gravitational loads, inertial loads and operational loads. The latter
consist of generator torque, loads induced by certain control actions
such as blade pitching, starting up, braking or yawing. As described
by Peeters [4,5], these turbine codes’ outputs consist of time series
describing the load variations. All external conditions are modelled
in detail for operational and fault conditions. Expertise of dedicated
specialists and research groups in the domains of wind loads,
electricity grid, rotor dynamics, generator [6] and control systems
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 16 322587.
E-mail address: jan.helsen@mech.kuleuven.be (J. Helsen).
techniques. However, the wind turbine gearbox is reduced to just
a few degrees of freedom in these models, yielding limited detail in
describing the dynamic behaviour. In general, the simulated
outputs of the traditional wind turbine codes represent the
mechanical loads at the rotor hub, i.e. at the interface between rotor
and gearbox. These loads include load variations at the global level,
but lack detail of drive train dynamics on component level.
According to current industry standards, these global loads at the
rotor hub are processed by the gearbox manufacturer into design
loads in the form of load spectra and equivalent loads at component
level. In this process, safety and application factors, according to
DIN 3990 [8] and DIN ISO 281 [9], are typically used for loads on
gears and bearings. However, limited knowledge of dynamic loads
on component level prevents full assessment of the effect of
unfavorable loading conditions, such as peak loads and load
reversals in terms of fatigue or other component failure modes.
Therefore, insufficient insight in the gearbox dynamics is obtained.
In addition, due to the steadily increasing size of wind turbines, not
only turbine structural flexibility, consisting of tower, nacelle and
rotor is significant. Due to larger forces and moments in multi-
megawatt machines, internal gearbox flexibilities have become of
larger influence on the global dynamic turbine behaviour. It makes

0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.023
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3099

high quality drive train component design based on traditional
calculations impossible and expresses the need for more advanced
numerical simulation techniques.
This article focusses on wind turbine gearbox modal behaviour
assessment and suggests the multibody technique to overcome the
downsides of the traditional models. Multibody models with
different degree of complexity are investigated and can be classified
according to increasing complexity as:
 Purely torsional multibody models
 Six degree of freedom rigid multibody models with discrete
flexibility
 Full flexible multibody models
This work indicates the improvement of the purely torsional
models compared to the traditional models. However, based on the
discussed experimental results, the need for even more advanced
models is shown. Therefore the rigid six degree of freedom (DOF)
and flexible multibody modelling techniques are introduced.
Advantages as well as limitations of each modelling technique are
indicated, whereas challenges related to each modelling technique
are revealed. In conclusion, the flexible multibody modelling
technique is suggested as the best suited for wind turbine gearbox
modelling. However, given the limited literature about full flexible
gearbox modelling quite some challenges remain in accurate flex-
ible gearbox modelling. The definition of accurate coupling struc-
tures which facilitate the condensation of the finite element (FE)
models representing the flexible components and couple these
models with the rigid multibody model. A new approach, the
flexible multipoint constraints (MPCs), is suggested and compared
to the rigid MPC approach described in literature. Moreover the
influence of planet carrier and planet ring flexibility on the gearbox
modal behaviour is investigated.
2. Approach
2.1. Modelling techniques
This section gives a general overview of the discussed modelling
techniques. Table 1 gives an overview of the level of complexity
contained in each modelling approach. The table is divided in two
parts. The first part, einput parameterse, illustrates the differences
in the model components. The second part of the table, eoutputse,
discusses the level of detail of information gathered from each
modelling approach.
2.1.1. Purely torsional multibody models
In this first technique, the gearbox is modelled as an assembly of
torsional DOF bodies connected by one-dimensional spring
systems. This implies that the model can only calculate torsional
eigenfrequencies. The models will be implemented in the software
DRESP [10].
2.1.2. Six DOF rigid multibody models with discrete flexibility
In the second approach all bodies have six DOFs. Therefore more
complicated dynamic component behaviour can be described. Six
DOF spring-damper systems introduce discrete flexibilities into the
system, facilitating a more detailed description of gear mesh and
bearing stiffness. Hansen Transmissions is implementing such
models in the software Simpack [11e14], while KU Leuven is using
Virtual.Lab Motion [15,16].
2.1.3. Full flexible multibody models
In addition to discrete flexibilities, taken into account in the
previous model, a more detailed approach also includes the flexi-
bility of different drive train components. This is achieved by rep-
resenting flexibility of drive train components, such as for example
shafts and planet carriers by means of FE models [17]. This allows to
visualize modal influence of different gearbox subcomponent
flexibilities [18]. Complex geometry and numerical convergence
requirements, however, will result in a significant number of nodal
degrees of freedom for the FE model to accurately describe body
flexibility, which makes the models computationally expensive. To
keep calculation times to a minimum, FE structures will be
condensed by an appropriate model reduction technique. The Craig
Bampton component modes synthesis (CMS) method will be used
as modal reduction technique. In this reduction scheme, the modal
transformation set consists of constrained modes and normal
modes [19].
2.2. Experimental validation
Multibody models can only add value to the design process if
simulation results prove to be representative and reliable, which
requires sufficient experimental validation. Test rig based valida-
tion is performed on a 13 MW test rig, shown in Fig. 1, on which two

Table 1
Overview of the modelling techniques used.

Torsional model 6DOF multibody model with Flexible multibody model

discrete flexibility
Input parameters
Gears Constant torsional gear Variable torsional gear mesh stiffness Variable torsional gear mesh stiffness
mesh stiffness Variable axial/radial gear mesh stiffness Variable axial/Radial gear mesh stiffness
Variable tilt gear mesh stiffness Variable tilt gear mesh stiffness
Bearings Constant equivalent torsional Variable axial/radial bearing stiffness Variable axial/radial bearing stiffness
bearing stiffness Variable tilt bearing stiffness Variable tilt bearing stiffness
Shafts Discrete torsional stiffness Discrete torsional stiffness Full finite element representation
Equivalent bending stiffness Discrete bending stiffness
Connections(Splines,keys) Torsional spline connection Discrete torsional stiffness Discrete torsional stiffness
Wedges not included Discrete bending stiffness Discrete bending stiffness
Discrete tilting stiffness Discrete tilting stiffness
Structural components (Planet Represented by equivalent Discrete torsional stiffness Full finite element representation
Carrier, Gearbox housing) torsional stiffness Discrete bending stiffness
Outputs
Torque information x x x
Detailed reaction forces x x
Internal component deformations x
early design stage realistic representation
3100 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

Fig. 1. The concept of the back-to-back gearbox test rig is based on the vision that it is possible to transform wind turbine behaviour into test rig conditions. The gearboxes in this
photo are gearboxes for the REpower 6M turbine. This photo is only used for clarification of the test rig concept. Measurement results from other gearboxes were used for the
research in this paper. (*) represents an optional speed reducer (3:1 gearbox).

gearboxes can be placed in a back-to-back set-up and be subjected
to dynamic load cases representing wind turbine conditions [20].
Analogous to the operation of a wind turbine, the ‘wind’ side of the
test rig is speed controlled, whereas the ‘generator’ side is torque
controlled [7]. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
applies a similar approach for investigating dynamic loads and
improving wind turbine gearbox reliability. Testing is performed on
a dynamometer test rig and in a wind turbine in the field [21,12].
This work experimentally proves the limitations of the purely
torsional models in describing gearbox modal behaviour. Further-
more a verification of a full flexible multibody model with focus on
eigenfrequencies is discussed.
3. Purely torsional multibody modelling
3.1. Modelling approach
A model consisting of the two gearboxes with both planetary
and helical gear stages, as well as the test rig set-up was devel-
oped. Main model inputs are inertias, derived from CAD-geometry
and component stiffness values, calculated based on detailed FE
analyses. Shaft torsional and bending deformation, gear mesh
stiffness and bearing flexibility were calculated analytically.
Planet, planet carrier and planet ring deformations were accoun-
ted for by means of torsional stiffnesses determined on the basis of

Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the test set-up.

 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3101

Table 2 described in Table 3, indicates a significant influence of non-

Overview of identified eigenfrequencies.
Frequency (Hz) Description of Mode
2.25 Torsional rotational mode anti symmetric
around the coupling between GBX1 and GBX2
(this mode is mainly determined by the test rig dimensions)
[0e100] HSS axial mode shape
[0e100] Torsional rotational mode symmetric around
the coupling. Kinetic and potential energy on
high speed side
[100e200] Kinetic energy at low speed side and axial displacements
of ISS and LSS
[100e200] Kinetic energy at low speed side
[600e700] Kinetic energy at axial displacement of HSS and
ISS as well as potential energy at HSS
[700e800] Kinetic energy at ISS shaft
detailed FE analyses. This model was used to calculate torsional
eigenfrequencies.
3.2. Measurements
A measurement campaign was set-up on a back-to-back test rig,
schematically shown in Fig. 2. The main goal was to estimate the
quality of the torsional model to represent physical reality. In this
respect, in addition to torsional displacement measurements, also
axial displacement measurements were made by axial displace-
ment sensors placed on three shafts. Further details are provided in
[22]. If axial mode shapes were to be found within the gearbox
operating range, these could not be characterized using the
torsional model; thereby limiting its value to represent physical
reality. From measurements in a frequency range up to 800 Hz,
seven eigenfrequencies were identified; three of which are only
visible in the axial displacement sensor’s signals and therefore
considered as non-torsional mode shapes. For confidentiality
reasons, exact eigenfrequency values are not reported in this
document. Instead, a frequency range and a description of the
corresponding mode shape are given in Table 2. Axial modes
determined from measured results could not be matched with the
model as the model contains only torsional DOFs. This illustrates
the limitation of purely torsional modelling with regard to repre-
senting physical reality. These limitations will be discussed in more
detail in the following section.
4. Need for more advanced multibody models
Torsional multibody models already allow for a first identifica-
tion of resonance issues, facilitating early design decisions.
However, the presence of axial modes in the measurements
torsional eigenmodes on gearbox dynamics.
Kahraman [23] assessed the ability of strictly torsional models in
describing planetary stage modal behaviour by comparing results
from torsional models to those of three DOF transverse-torsional
models. Kahraman concluded that the transverse-torsional models
provided a more general and accurate means of modelling plane-
tary gear stages. Moreover, Lin and Parker [24,25] investigated
planetary gear modal behaviour, using analytical three DOF planar
lumped parameter models with two translations DOFs and one
rotation. Therefore, tilting motion was not accounted for, nor were
other than radial bearing stiffness values. Gear mesh interactions
were represented by linear springs. Lin and Parker indicate the
existence of significant non-torsional eigenmodes. In addition
Peeters [4,5] has shown similar need for extending dynamic models
with non-strictly torque based information. Using 6DOF multibody
models with discrete flexibility Peeters’ results, contained similar
modal behaviour, as described by Lin and Parker. In addition extra
modal deformation originating from the three extra introduced
DOFs was found. Summarizing torsional models can give first
insights in the early design stages. However both measurements as
well as literature indicate the need for more advanced modelling
techniques.
5. Six DOF multibody models with discrete flexibility
5.1. Modelling approach
In the six DOF multibody with discrete flexibility approach,
flexibilities interconnecting rigid components are modelled in
a discrete fashion using spring-damper relationships. In this
approach, main flexibility contributions are expected to originate
from bearings, splines and gear meshing (cfr. Table 1). Both
a planetary and a helical gear stage shown in exemplary form in
Figs. 3 and 4. Gearbox models of different configurations can be
generically built using these subsystems.
5.1.1. Bearings
Bearing stiffnesses are a first important flexibility in the gearbox
model [26e28]. In gearbox multibody modelling, a single 6  6
spring-damper relationship, linking shaft displacements and rota-
tions to bearing forces and moments is traditionally used. In the
described models a constant bearing stiffness K and damping C are
used. Cross terms are not accounted for. This results in the
following representation:
" #



FBody;1 qBody;1 q_
¼ Kbearing$ þ Cbearing _ Body;1 (1)
FBody;2 qBody;2 qBody;2
where:

Table 3
Results from verification of natural frequencies from modes with experimental results.

Frequency Range Hz Eigenfrequency Hz Difference % Frequency Range Hz Eigenfrequency Hz Difference %

(0e100) f1 15 (200e300) f12 2
(0e100) f2 / (200e300) f13 2
(0e100) f3 15 (200e300) f14 1
(0e100) f4 4 (300e400) f15 2
(0e100) f5 10 (400e500) f16 4
(0e100) f6 / (400e500) f17 3
(100e200) f7 1 (400e500) f18 4
(100e200) f8 4 (500e600) f19 1
(100e200) f9 0 (500e600) f20 0
(100e200) f10 1 (700e800) f21 3
(200e300) f11 3 (800e900) f22 3
3102 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

Fig. 3. Outline of helical gear stage multibody model with discrete flexibility: (a)Helical gear stage, (b)Multibody implementation including bearings and gear mesh.

h iT resulting stiffness is the mesh stiffness, cg , which is the mean

! stiffness value of all teeth in a mesh.
FBody;1 ¼ FX1 FY1 FZ1 MX1 MY1 MZ1 (2)

h iT 5.1.2.2. Variable gear mesh stiffness. Constant gear mesh stiffness

! approach gives a good first estimate for gear meshing effects under
FBody;2 ¼ FX2 FY2 FZ2 MX2 MY2 MZ2 (3)
the assumption that the gear is moderately or heavily loaded and
not running near resonance [31]. Many authors however suggest
h iT
!
qBody;1 ¼ x1 y1 z1 q1 ry1 rz1 (4) the use of variable gear mesh stiffness. In as early as 1958, Harris
[32] suggested, that there was parametric excitation due to stiffness
variation of the gear teeth. Moreover, Parker, Agashe and Vijayakar
h iT
! [33,34] found this non-linear non-constant mesh stiffness to be
qBody;2 ¼ x2 y2 z2 q2 ry2 rz2 (5)
a significant excitation source within planetary systems based on
with FBody;1 the forces and moments at Body 1 and qBody;1 the a FE contact mechanics model validated with experimental results
projections of the positions and orientations of the gear in its [35]. Their conclusions were compared by Ambarisha and Parker to
reference frame. a different modelling approach: mathematical lumped parameter
2 3 analytical models. In order to result in good convergence with the
kaxial 0 0 0 0 0 previously discussed FE based model [36], these analytical models
6 0 kradial 0 0 0 0 7 needed a varying mesh stiffness. One formulation for a variable
6 7
6 0 0 kradial 0 0 0 7 mesh stiffness function based on the ISO approach is given by Cai
Kbearing ¼ 6
6 0
7 (6)
6 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 [37,38]. Multiple teeth contact and tooth surface errors, such as
4 0 0 0 0 ktilt 0 5 profile error and lead error are considered. The Cai stiffness func-
0 0 0 0 0 ktilt tion is implemented in a 12 by 12 relationship linking forces to
displacements, to describe the meshing of two gears:


 " #
5.1.2. Gear mesh
FBody;1 qBody;1 q_
5.1.2.1. Constant gear mesh stiffness. Gear mesh can be modelled by ¼ KGearMesh$ þ CGearMesh$ _ Body;1 (7)
FBody;2 qBody;2 qBody;2
means of a constraint equation [29] or a 6  6 stiffness matrix with
either constant or variable values. Classic gear mesh stiffness
calculations based on international standards, such as DIN 3990 [8] Another formulation is the Simpack gear contact element, which
and ISO 6336 [30], provide a constant mesh stiffness value. The is an analytical force element built to the DIN 3990 standard,

Fig. 4. Outline of planetary gear stage multibody model with discrete flexibility: (a)Planetary gear stage, (b)Multibody implementation including bearings and gear mesh.
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3103

Fig. 5. Full test rig model.

describing variable tooth stiffness and accounting for backlash, 6. Model implementation
dynamic separation distance, multiple tooth contact and material
properties of both gears [11,39]. 6.1. Full test rig model

5.1.3. Other flexibilities 6.1.1. Model description

Other flexibilities than the ones presented above can be repre-
sented as well. For example, shaft bending stiffness can be calcu-
lated analytically and superposed on the bending stiffness of its
bearings. Based on detailed FE calculations, similar equivalent
torsional and bending stiffness values at bearing locations can be
determined for approximating planet carrier flexibility. This
approach is a simplification, compared to full flexible multibody
modelling. Nevertheless, since calculation times and implementa-
tion times are reduced drastically, it is very valuable for industry.
In order to facilitate accurate comparison and updating of
the multibody model with experimental results from the test rig,
the simulation model should fully represent the dynamics of the
measurement set-up. This implies, that in addition to a detailed
model of two back-to-back gearboxes, a detailed multibody
model of the test rig itself is included as well in the simulations.
This test rig model includes the coupling between the two
gearboxes, the two generators and test rig controller and is
shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 6. Stand alone full gearbox model.

3104 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

Fig. 7. Planetary mode shapes: (a)Rotational-axial mode, (b)No modal deformation (reference), (c)Translational-tilting mode.

Fig. 8. Two exemplary Helical mode shapes: (a)Axial translation mode corresponding to eigenfrequency at 562Hz, (b)No modal deformation (reference), (c)Mode of ISS about one of
its’ radial axes corresponding to eigenfrequency at 485Hz.

6.1.2. Model verification with focus on eigenfrequencies by means of intermediate shaft (ISS) (4). On the ISS a high speed wheel is
measurements on dynamic test facility mounted, which makes contact with the teeth on the high speed
The experimental eigenfrequencies determined from test rig shaft (HSS) (5).
measurements can be used to validate the flexible multibody model
describing the test facility including the two back-to-back gear- 6.2. Model results analysis: full gearbox model
boxes. A similar approach as discussed in [35] is used to realize
a systematic and objective comparison. In this approach the In general, the modes of a full gearbox system differ from the
measured and simulated modes corresponding to the different ones of the stand alone gearbox components [40]. Therefore the full
eigenfrequencies are correlated at the measurement sensor loca- gearbox should be modelled. The modes of the full gearbox con-
tions. The results of this eigenfrequency matching are shown in sisting of both planetary and helical stages, can be classified in three
Table 3. For confidentiality reasons the exact eigenfrequencies categories: planet modes, helical modes and global modes.
cannot be presented. Instead, frequency ranges that contain the
found eigenfrequencies (numbered f1 to f22) are indicated. More-
over, the difference percentage in frequency between model and
measurements is indicated. For 17 of the eigenfrequencies the
difference between model and measurements is well below 10%.
Two measured eigenfrequencies could not be matched with the
model. Based on this comparison it can be concluded that the
multibody model shows big potential to describe the dynamic
behaviour of a gearbox. For further model verification the reader is
referred to [35].

6.1.3. Stand alone full gearbox model

This section asses the influence of flexibility on gearbox modal
behaviour. The use of a stand alone free boundary condition
gearbox model seems most appropriate. A generic gearbox similar
to the measured gearbox is used to allow the publication of
numeric results. It consists of three gear stages: one planetary stage
and two helical stages, as shown in Fig. 6. The planetary gear stage
(2) consists of a cage planet carrier with three planets and non-
rotating ring wheel. On the low speed shaft (LSS) (3) the slow wheel Fig. 9. Deformation pattern of two shafts connected by flexible MPCs, where the shafts
is pressed. This wheel makes contact with teeth on the penetrate each other, but interface nodes experience no displacement.
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3105

Fig. 10. Low Speed Shaft (LSS): (a)LSS, (b) Multipoint constraint locations in LSS.

Fig. 11. Displacements for the constraint mode unit translation in Y direction: (a)Rigid multibody constraint set-up, (b)Flexible multibody constraint set-up.

Fig. 12. Auto-FRF of translational DOF in y direction of first interface node.

3106 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113
Fig. 13. Multipoint constraint locations of planet carrier model.
6.2.1. Planetary modes
In planetary modes, the mode shape is mainly manifested in the
planetary stage. Lin and Parker [24,25] showed clear mode types
based on their three DOF lumped parameter models. Recently,
Eritenel and Parker [41] extended the Lin and Parker three DOF
analytical lumped parameter models to six DOF analytical lumped
parameter models. All planetary system components are consid-
ered rigid. Flexibility is situated in gear meshes and bearings. Eri-
tenel and Parker again find well-defined modal behaviour and
define three vibration mode types:
Fig. 14. Planet carrier mode.
 Rotational-axial modes: In these modes, the central members
rotate and move axially, but do not tilt or translate. The modal
deflections of the planets is identical.
 Translational-tilting modes: Central members tilt and translate
in plane, but do not rotate or move axially.
 Planet modes: Only the planets have modal deflection. The
central members do not move. Since these modes only exist for
systems with four or more planets, no planet modes are
expected for the investigated gearbox.
Both Rotational-axial modes as Translational-tilting modes are
shown in Fig. 7. For the investigated gearbox, results are shown in
Table 3.
6.2.2. Helical modes
In helical modes, the mode shapes are predominantly man-
ifested in the helical gear stages of the gearbox and consist of
rotations or axial translations of respectively the high speed shaft,
intermediate speed shaft and/or low speed shaft. These modes are
similar to the modes typically found in helical gear systems. For the
investigated gearbox, eigenfrequencies can be categorized into low
speed helical stage modes and high speed helical stage modes,
according to the helical stage in which they are manifested. Mode
shapes involving the ISS are assigned to both categories. Two of
these modes are visualized in Fig. 8. Eigenfrequencies and corre-
sponding modes are listed in Table 3.
6.2.3. Global modes
The global modes, on the other hand, are manifested in both the
planetary gear stages and the helical gear stages of the gearbox.
Corresponding eigenfrequencies are listed in Table 3.
From the six DOF multibody simulations with discrete flexibility,
it can be concluded that similar mode shapes as in literature can be
found. Apart from global modes, modal behaviour is concentrated
in the respective subcomponents, resulting in separated planetary
and helical mode shapes.
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3107

Table 4
Categorized eigenfrequencies for rigid generic gearbox model.

6 DOF Rigid Multibody Model

Planetary modes Helical Modes Global Mode

Rotational-Axial Translational-Tilting Low Speed High Speed Mode shape description

Modes Modes (m ¼ 2) Helical Stage Helical Stage
81 290 Axial translation of LSS 344
151 382 Axial translation of HSS 468
200 423 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1055
351 424 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
368 453 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
454 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
848 485 485 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
886 487 487 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
944 562 562 Axial translation of ISS
1047 1015 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1027 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1246 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1246 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1408 1102 1102 Rotation of HSS and ISS around one of their radial axes (Tilting)
1316 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1320 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1421 1421 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)
1497 1497 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting)

7. Full flexible multibody models
As shown in the previous section, six DOF models can already
capture complex dynamic behaviour. Nevertheless, it remains
impossible to describe local component flexibilities and the cor-
responding effect of component modes on the global gearbox
behaviour. One possible solution is the use of FE models to repre-
sent structural gearbox components. A detailed description of the
differences in modelling is given in Table 1. Schlecht indicated the
need for the introduction of flexibility of wind turbine structural
components: i.e.bedplate within multibody turbine models [42,43].
From correlation of their flexible multibody model of a wind
turbine to experimental data, Heege et al. show the need for fully
coupled three dimensional models and take flexibility within
turbine and gearbox into account [44]. Moreover, Rigaud indicates
the need for shaft and housing flexibility within gearbox multibody

Table 5
Categorized eigenfrequencies of the full gearbox model with flexible planet carrier.

Multibody Model With Flexible Planet Carrier

Planetary modes Helical Modes Global Planet Carrier

Mode Modes
Rotational-Axial Translational-Tilting Low Speed High Speed Mode shape description
Modes Modes (m ¼ 2) Helical Stage Helical Stage
80 290 Axial translation of LSS 350 643
146 382 Axial translation of HSS 502 659
195 423 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1055 672
343 424 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 759
362 454 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 772
643 455 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 819
659 485 485 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 835
759 487 487 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 842
772 562 562 Axial translation of ISS 847
819 1015 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 958
835 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 962
842 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 986
847 1027 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1059
958 1107 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1098
962 1317 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1107
986 1321 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1218
1047 1422 1422 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1239
1059 1497 1497 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1241
1098 1342
1107 1386
1218 1392
1239 1487
1241 1490
1342
1386
1392
1487
1490
3108 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

Fig. 15. Planet Carrier auto-FRF for torsional DOF of condensation node of turbine main shaft planet carrier connection MPC.

modelling [45]. This work will therefore further elaborate the effect structure, the flexible MPC, the coupling between the interface node
of flexibility within multibody gearbox modelling. The assessment and the FE nodes is governed by a weighted average:
of the effect of local flexibilities is divided into two parts. Very little
has been published about the accurate coupling between multi- M$ui $ri
Fi ¼ (8)
body and FE models with regard to force and moment transfer. u1 $r12 þ u2 $r22 þ . þ un $rn2
Therefore in the first part a detailed comparison is made between
where:
the available coupling structures for interconnecting the compo-
nents’ FE models to the global multibody gearbox model. Secondly,
 M ¼ moment at interface node
modal analyses of both the six DOF full gearbox model and of a full
 Fi ¼ force at DOF i
gearbox model with respectively flexible planet carrier and flexible
planetary ring are compared to assess the influence of planet
 ui ¼ weighting factor at DOF i
 ri ¼ radius from interface node to DOF i
carrier flexibility and planetary ring flexibility.
 n ¼ number of interface nodes

7.1. Finite element multibody coupling The main advantage of this approach is that the flexible MPC
does not add any extra stiffness to the FE modelled component.
In order to drastically reduce calculation times, the components’ However, since a weighted average is used, certain displacements
FE models are reduced to just a few degrees of freedom using the of the FE nodes will not result in displacement of the interface node,
Craig Bampton component mode synthesis technique. Main chal-
lenge in doing so, is in finding the right balance between accurately
Table 7
transferring forces and moments onto the component’s FE model
Rigid components of gearbox planet carrier related modes.
and minimizing the kept number of degrees of freedom. Consider
the case of forces and moments transfer between a bearing Rigid components of planetary modes of multibody model with flexible planet
carrier
-modelled as a single spring-damper system in the multibody model
and the shaft’s FE model. In this example, a single force or moment Rotational-Axial Modes Translational-Tilting Modes Global Modes
introduced at the interface node should be distributed over the 643 502
entire contact area between shaft and bearing. Two possibilities are 659 672
759 1055
discussed. In the first, referred to as rigid MPC, the interface node is
772
rigidly connected to the FE nodes. This results in a rigid shell of 819
nodes in which the distance between the different nodes is constant 835
at all times. This drastically stiffens the flexible gearbox component 842
reducing the effect of the flexibility. In the second coupling 847
958
962
Table 6
986
Eigenfrequencies of gearbox structural components.
1047
Structural eigenfrequencies 1059
1098
Planet Carrier Ring wheel with three gear contact multipoint 1107
constraint 1218
800 (m ¼ 2) 70 442 937 1240 1239
950 (m ¼ 2) 70 447 1017 1242 1241
961 143 621 1096 1275 1342
1045 144 632 1107 1302 1386
1140 197 820 1110 1512 1392
1164 200 833 1209 1531 1487
1392 (m ¼ 2) 381 918 1237 1630 1490
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113
as shown in Fig. 9. This implies underestimation of stiffness of the
structure and can cause penetration of the respective interface
surfaces of two coupled structures. Mathematical details of both
MPCs are discussed in [46]. To illustrate the influence of coupling
structures, a FE model of a shaft will be discussed. Multipoint
constraints are used to introduce bearing, gearwheel and spline
forces and are shown in Fig. 10.
A first comparison consists of comparing one of the constraint
modes for the rigid and flexible multipoint coupling, characterizing
shaft behaviour under static deformation, is shown in Fig. 11. Both
differ significantly. However, dynamic behaviour can best be
compared by means of frequency response functions (FRF’s), rep-
resenting the absolute value of amplitude of displacement over
harmonic excitation. Rigid body dynamics are not accounted for, as
in the floating frame of reference technique the reduced model of
the body flexibility should only describe the elastic deformation of
the flexible body [47]. The rigid body motion of the flexible body
should not be taken into account a second time by the modal
representation, as it is already accounted for in the multibody
Fig. 16. Planetary ring MPCs for connecting the planetary ring mesh to the gearbox housing and torque arm of the rigid multibody model.
3109
model. Fig. 12 shows auto-FRF’s, where the interface node most on
the left in Fig. 10 is exited and all other interface nodes are free.
Dynamic behaviour differs significantly. Up to 2000 Hz, the differ-
ence is approximately 18%. The first eigenfrequency in case of rigid
MPCs is 26% higher than for the model with flexible MPCs. There
can be concluded, that the choice of a coupling structure, optimal
for the problem at hand, is of prime importance as it both influ-
ences the static as well as the dynamic behaviour of the full gearbox
model. In this respect, paying special attention to the used MPCs is
suggested, when building up gearbox models.
8. Modal behaviour comparison between full gearbox six DOF
rigid multibody model with discrete flexibility and full
gearbox model with flexible planet carrier
8.1. Model implementation
The rigid model with discrete flexibility of stand alone gearbox,
discussed in Section 4, forms the base for the flexible model. To get
3110 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113

the flexible model, rigid planet carrier was replaced by a CMS motion to describe large translations and rotations of the reference
reduced FE model. Meshes of different mesh element size were frame superposed by FE model deformation to represent small
compared to get stabilization of first 15 eigenfrequencies within structural component deformations. Both can be approached sepa-
a range of 1%. The CMS reduction set contained static constraint rately to get an impression of the form of the mode shape found in
modes and flexible modes up to 3000 Hz. Steel was used as planet the rigid multibody model which couples with the structural one of
carier material. Multipoint constraints facilitated coupling between the planet carrier. Table 6 lists descriptions of the rigid parts of the
FE and multibody models as shown in Fig. 13. Both at planet carrier different mode shapes corresponding to the eigenfrequencies of the
bearing interfaces (1) as well as at planet bearing interfaces (2), second range. Helical modes are not listed, as these were hardly
flexible MPCs were preferred. However, to represent the stiffening influenced by planet carrier flexibility. Global modes however are
effect of the turbine’s main shaft at the planet carrier turbine main influenced by component flexibility. In Table 4, a planet carrier mode
shaft coupling (3), the use of rigid MPCs was deemed better to is found at 672 Hz. From Table 3 it is clear, that in the rigid body model
represent this interface. All modelling was performed under free no planet carrier related eigenfrequency existed in the range of
boundary conditions. 672 Hz, whereas Table 6 shows the rigid component of the modes of
the flexible models. It is expected that the first planet carrier struc-
8.2. Simulation results tural mode at 800 Hz has coupled with the global mode at 468 Hz to
result in the found planetary mode at 672 Hz. For the extra found
For the full gearbox model with flexible planet carrier, the same planetary modes, a similar mechanism is expected. The structural
mode categories are found as for the rigid model. However, one planet carrier modes interacted with the translational-tilting modes
category is added: the Planet Carrier modes. These modes are of the rigid planetary system. Table 6 clearly shows that most of the
dominated by local flexible planet carrier displacements. An example planet carrier modes have an underlying translational-tilting rigid
of such a Planet Carrier Mode is shown in Fig. 14. For the gearbox mode. This translational-tilting mode couples with the planet carrier
under investigation, eigenfrequencies for the model with flexible structural modes to result in the observed modal behaviour. This
planet carrier are categorized in Table 4. A first conclusion from significantly increases the number of found eigenfrequencies for the
comparison of the eigenfrequencies listed in Tables 3 and 4 is that system. Previous findings imply that planet carrier flexibility influ-
planet carrier flexibilities have relatively low influence on modes ences a large frequency range and that it should only be accounted for
from the helical modes category. A second finding is the increase in when these frequency range is of interest in the specific gearbox
the number of eigenfrequencies for the model with flexible planet
carrier. This is due to the structural eigenfrequencies of the flexible
planet carrier, listed in Table 5. Moreover, interaction exists between
overall gearbox modes and structural planet carrier modes. Therefore
the frequency range of interest can be divided in two ranges based on
the structural frequencies of the planet carrier: the first range
contains all frequencies well below the lowest eigenfrequency of the
planet carrier; whereas the second range stretches from the end of
the first one to the highest frequency of interest.
In the first range, flexibility of the planet carrier results in
a small decrease of the eigenfrequencies for the Planetary modes.
Given the use of the floating reference frame approach [47] to
create the flexible multibody model, structural component defor-
mation consists of rigid motion to describe large translations and
rotations of the reference frame superposed by FE model defor-
mation to represent small structural component deformations.
Modal behaviour of the FE model can therefore best be described by
means of frequency response functions (FRF’s), representing the
absolute value of amplitude of displacement over harmonic exci-
tation. Rigid body dynamics are not accounted for, as the reduced
model of the body flexibility should only describe the elastic
deformation of the flexible body. Fig. 15 shows the auto-FRF for the
planet carrier, where the interface node at the turbine main shaft
planet carrier connection is excited and all other interface nodes are
free. The first range, indicated in grey in Fig. 15, stretches approx-
imately from 0 Hz to 600 Hz.
The main effect of the flexibility in the first range is a very small
decrease of the eigenfrequencies. Based on these findings it can be
concluded that planet carrier flexibility as such is of less influence in
the lower frequency range. Therefore, if the goal of the gearbox model
is to investigate dynamic behaviour only for this first frequency
range, discrete structural component flexibility representation could
be considered. Such a representation could for example be realized
by discrete springs to represent static bending, torsion and tilting
stiffnesses of the planet carrier. In the second frequency range,
coupling occurs between the structural planet carrier modal behav-
iour and the overall gearbox modal behaviour found in the rigid six
DOF multibody model. Given the use of the floating reference frame Fig. 17. Gear mesh force introduction multipoint constraint that introduces gear
approach, structural component deformation consists of rigid meshing forces in a 120 section of the planetary ring FE model.
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113 3111

Table 8
Categorized eigenfrequencies for generic gearbox with flexible ring wheel with three gear mesh for introduction MPCs.

Multibody Model With Flexible Planet Ring With Three Multipoint Constraints

Planetary modes Helical Modes Global Planet Carrier

Mode Modes
Rotational-Axial Translational-Tilting Low Speed High Speed Mode shape description
Modes Modes (m ¼ 2) Helical Stage Helical Stage
81 290 Axial translation of LSS 376 70
382 Axial translation of HSS 465 142
151 423 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 153
200 424 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 200
351 453 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 241
368 455 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 262
848 485 485 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 370
860 487 487 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 386
871 562 562 Axial translation of ISS 441
882 1015 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 446
908 1027 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 614
924 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 625
945 1047 Rotation of LSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 820
1246 1107 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 832
1246 1317 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 908
1331 1321 Rotation of HSS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 918
1408 1421 1421 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1061
1497 1497 Rotation of ISS around one of its radial axes (Tilting) 1087
1139
1198
1234
1239
1241
1277
1307
1396
1488

operating field. Since the Helical modes, are not influenced by the
introduced flexibility of the planet carrier, this results in a categori-
zation in planet-, planet carrier-, helical and global modes (Table 7).
9. Modal behaviour comparison between full gearbox six DOF
rigid multibody model with discrete flexibility and full
gearbox model with flexible planet ring
However, rim thickness reduction should be implemented with
care as it increases hoop stresses, which can cause catastrophic
failures [49]. Parker et al. extensively investigated the beahaviour of
planetary systems with flexible planetary ring by means of 2-
dimensional models [50e52]. Parker et al. extend their classifica-
tion for two dimensional planetary system modal behaviour to the
following categories:

 Rotational Modes: For these modes translations of the sun and

9.1. Planetary ring significance
carrier and the rigid motion of the ring are zero. All planets
have identical deflections.
Planet ring flexibility is directly linked to planet ring rim
 Translational Mode: For these modes the rotations of sun and
thickness. This is a key parameter in realizing good noise proper-
carrier and the rigid motion of the ring are zero.
ties, power density and load sharing amongst the planets [48].

Fig. 18. Planetary ring auto-FRF in x translational direction for the condensation node of one of the three gear mesh MPCs.
3112 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113
 Planet Modes: These are not important for the gearsystem
under investigation, as these modes only occur for systems
with more than three planets
 Purely Ring Modes: The displacements of the rigid elements is
zero and there is only elastic ring deformation.
This article extends the Parker categories for a three dimen-
sional multibody model with flexible planetary ring in a way that is
consistent with the Eritenel and Parker mode categorization for
rigid three dimensional planetary systems, as discussed in Section
4. The following categorization is suggested:
 Rotational-axial Modes
 Translational-tilting Modes
 Planet Modes
 Planetary Ring Modes
The first three categories are the same as discussed in Section 4.
For the latter category the modes are characterized by zero
displacements for the rigid elements and only planetary ring
deformation occurs.
9.2. Model implementation
Steel was used as planetary ring material. Multipoint constraints
at the rotor and generator side facilitated coupling between the FE
ring model and the gearbox housing and torque arm in the multi-
body model as shown in Fig. 16. Furthermore, gear mesh forces
need to be introduced in the planetary ring FE mesh. A distributed
gear mesh force approach was used introducing the meshing forces
by means of three MPCs each introducing mesh forces over a 120
section of the ring, as shown in Fig. 17. In reality gear mesh forces
are introduced in the planetary ring wheel teeth at three main
location through the meshing gears. A first conclusion from the
comparison of the modal behaviour of flexible ring model listed in
Table 8 with that of the rigid model listed in Table 3 is that similar
mode categories are found as for the rigid model with the extension
of the planetary ring modes, which is consistent with Parker.
Furthermore, it is also again apparent that the Helical modes are
uninfluenced by the flexible planet carrier. Moreover, there is
a significant increase in the number of eigenfrequencies related to
planetary modes. This is due to coupling between the planetary
ring structural modes and the overall gearbox modes in a similar
way as discussed for the flexible planet carrier in the previous
paragraph. However, based on the auto-FRF spectrum shown in
Fig. 18, it is clear that planet ring influence is spread almost over the
full frequency range of interest. This also explains the fact that
planetary modes are found in the full frequency range of interest.
10. Conclusions
This work illustrated the use of multibody modelling techniques
of different levels of complexity for describing modal behaviour of
wind turbine gearboxes.For early design stages, torsional multi-
body models are a suitable fast solution. However, insights in
gearbox modal behaviour by means of these models is very limited.
The full flexible models were found to be the most accurate. It was
shown that the coupling structures between the FE models and the
rest of the multibody model had a significant influence on the
overall gearbox modal behaviour. Frequency ranges of influence of
the planet carrier and planetary ring flexibility were defined by
means of Auto-FRFs. Two new mode categories, compared to
literature, were defined. This resulted in a categorization in Plan-
etary, Planet Carrier, Planetary Ring, Helical and Global Modes.
Acknowledgments
This research was performed in the framework of a research
project supported by the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation
by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT Vlaanderen).
References
[1] Aberrazzaq MA, Hahn B. Analysis of the wind turbine standstill for a grid
connected wind farm (case study). Renewable Energy 2006;33:89e104.
[2] Veers SP. Three-dimensional wind simulation, Technical report
SAND88e0152.UC-261, Sandia.
[3] Mann J. Wind field simulation. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 1998;
13(4):269e82.
[4] Peeters J. Simulation of dynamic drive train loads in a wind turbine, PhD
Thesis. available online. Leuven (Heverlee), Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Division PMA, http://hdl.
handle.net/1979/344; 2006.
[5] Peeters J, Vandepitte D, Sas P. Analysis of internal drive train dynamics in
a wind turbine. Wind Energy Journal 2006;9:141e61.
[6] Hansen AD, Michalke G. Fault ride-through capability of dfig wind turbines.
Renewable Energy 2007;32:1594e610.
[7] Boukhezzar B, Lupu L, Siguerdidjane H, Hand M. Multivariable control strategy
for variable speed, variable pitch wind turbines. Renewable Energy 2007;32:
1273e87.
[8] Calculation of load capacity of cylindrical gears, Deutsches Institut for Nor-
mung DIN 3990.
[9] Rolling bearings: dynamic load ratings and rating life, Deutsches Institut for
Normung DIN ISO 281.
[10] Gold P. Dresp 7.0 documentation, IME-RWTH Aachen, FVA. Germany.
[11] Hauptmann S, Mulski S, Khn M, Mauer L. Advanced drive train modeling in
a virtual wind turbine using the multibody simulation code simpack. In:
Proceedings of the European wind energy conference. Milan; 2007.
[12] Oyague F. Gearbox modelling and load simulation of a baseline 750-kw wind
turbine using state-of-the-art simulation codes, Technical Report NREL/TP-
500e41160.
[13] GmbH I. Simpack v8.805 reference manual. Wessling, Germany.
[14] Hauptmann S, Kaufer D. Wind turbine simulation using a coupled free wake
and multibody system code. Book of Abstracts DWEK; 2008.
[15] GmbH I. Lms virtual lab rev. 8a, online help. Leuven, Belgium.
[16] Lethe G, Cuyper J, Kang J, Furman M. Simulating dynamics, durability and
noise emission of wind turbines in a single cae environment. Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology 2009;23:1089e93.
[17] Geradin M, Cardona A. Flexible multibody dynamics: a finite element
approach. J. Wiley and Sons; 2001.
[18] Shabana AA. Dynamics of multibody systems. Cambridge University Press; 2005.
[19] Craig R. A review of time domain and frequency domain component mode
synthesis methods. In: Proceedings of the joint mechanics conference. Albu-
querque, USA; 1985.
[20] Peeters J, Leimann D, Huijskens R, Coninck F. First results of hansen’s 13mw
test facility for wind turbine gearboxes. In: Proceedings of the European
offshore wind conference. Stockholm; 2009.
[21] Musial W, Butterfield S, McNiff B. Improving wind turbine gearbox reliability.
In: Proceedings of the European wind energy conference. Milan; 2007.
[22] Peeters J, Goris S, Vanhollebeke F, Marrant B, Meeusen W. A need for advanced
and validated multibody models as a basis for more accurate dynamic load
prediction in multi-megawatt wind turbine gearboxes. In: Proceedings of the
International conference on noise and vibration engineering ISMA. Leuven; 2008.
[23] Kahraman A. Natural modes of planetary gear trains. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 173(1).
[24] Lin J, Parker RG. Analytical characterization of the unique properties of
planetary gear free vibrations, Journal of Vibrations and Acoustics ASME;121.
[25] Lin J, Parker RG. Structured vibration characteristics of planetary gears with
unequally spaced planets, Journal of Sound and Vibration;233(5).
[26] Wensing J. On the dynamics of ball bearings, PhD thesis: University of Twente.
Enschede, The Netherlands; 1998.
[27] Sarangi M, Majumdar B, Sekhar A. Stiffness and damping characteristics of
lubricated ball bearings considering the surface roughness effect. part 1:
theoretical formulation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engi-
neers. Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology 2004;218(6):529e38.
[28] Sarangi M, Majumdar B, Sekhar A. Stiffness and damping characteristics of
lubricated ball bearings considering the surface roughness effect. part 2:
numerical results and application. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechan-
ical Engineers. Part J: Journal of Engineering Tribology 2004;218(6):539e47.
[29] Cardona A. Three-dimensional gears modelling in multibody system analysis.
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1997;40(2):359e81.
[30] ISO, International standard iso 6336-1 second edition 2006-09-01 corrected
version 2007-04-01: calculation of load capacity of spur and helical gears.
[31] Kahraman A. Effect of axial vibrations on the dynamics of a helical gear train.
Journal of Vibration and Acoustics 1993;105:33e9.
[32] Harris SL. Dynamic loads on the teeth of spur gears: Institute of Mechanical
Engineers.
 J. Helsen et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 3098e3113
[33] Parker RG, Agashe V, Vijayakar SM. Dynamic response of a planetary gear
system using a fe/contact mechanics model. Journal of Mechanical Design
2000;122:304e10.
[34] Parker RG. Nonlinear gear dynamics in real world applications. In: 10th
international conference on recent advances in structural dynamics. South-
ampton; 2010.
[35] Helsen J, Vanhollebeke F, De Coninck F, Vandepitte D, Desmet W. Insights in
wind turbine drive train dynamics by validating advanced models on a newly
developed 13.2mw dynamically controlled test-rig. Mechatronics, in press,
doi: 10.1016/j.mechatronics 2010.11.005.
[36] Ambarisha VK, Parker RG. Nonlinear dynamics of planetary gears using analytical
and finite element models. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2007;302:577e95.
[37] Cai Y, Hayashi T. The linear approximated equation of vibration of a pair of spur
gears (theory and experiment). Journal of Mechanical Design 1994;116:558e64.
[38] Cai Y. Simulation on the rotational vibration of helical gears in consideration
of the tooth separation phenomena (a new stiffness function of helical invo-
lute tooth pair). Journal of Mechanical Design 1995;117:460e9.
[39] Eberahimi S, Eberhard P. Rigid-elastic modelling of meshing gear wheels in
multibody systems. Multibody Sytem Dynamics 2007;16:55e71.
[40] Qin D, Wang J, Lim T. Flexible multibody dynamic modelling of a horizontal
wind turbine drive train system. Journal of Mechanical Design 2009;131(11):
114501-1e114501-8.
[41] Eritenel T, Parker RG. Modal properties of three-dimensional helical gears.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 2009;325:397e420.
[42] Schlecht B, Schulze T. Analysis of dynamic loads in multi-megawatt-drive-
trains. In: Proceedings of the international conference on noise and vibration
engineering ISMA. Leuven; 2006.
3113
[43] Schlecht B, Rosenlcher T, Schulze T. Strategy for user orientated simulation of
large drive trains to calculate realistic load conditions. Warsaw: Proceedings
of ECCOMAS Multibody Dynamics; 2009.
[44] Heege A, Betran J, Radovcic Y. Fatigue load computation of wind turbine
gearboxes by coupled finite element, multibody system and aerodynamic
loads. Wind Energy 2007;10:395e413.
[45] Rigaud E, Sabot J. Effect of elasticity of shafts, bearings, casing and couplings
on the critical rotational speeds of a gearbox. VDI Berichte 2007;1230:
833e45.
[46] Heirman GHK, Desmet W. Interface reduction of flexible bodies for efficient
modeling of body flexibility in multibody dynamics. Multibody Syst Dyn
2010;24(2):219e34.
[47] Wasfy T, Noor A. Computational strategies for flexible multibody systems.
Applied Mechanics Reviews 2003;56:553e613.
[48] Kahraman A, Ligata H, Singh A. Influence of ring gear rim thickness on
planetary gear set behaviour. Journal of Mechanical Design 2010;132:021002-
1e021002-8.
[49] Seager DL. Load sharing among planet gears, SAE paper No.700178.
[50] Wu X, Parker RG. Modal properties of planetary gears with an elastic
continuum ring gear. Journal of Applied Mechanics 2008;75:031014-
1e031014-12.
[51] Parker RG. Vibration of planetary gears with elastically deformable ring gears
parametrically excited by mesh stiffness fluctuations. In: Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 IDETC/CIE. San Diego; 2009.
[52] Parker RG, Wu X. Vibration modes of planetary gears with unequally spaced
planets and an elastic ring gear. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2010;329:
2265e75.