International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Computational assessment of the allowable static contact loading

of a roller-slewing bearing's case-hardened raceway
Peter Göncz n, Miran Ulbin, Srečko Glodež
University of Maribor, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Smetanova 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A computational model for the assessment of the static load capacity of roller-slewing bearings with a
Received 2 December 2014 case-hardened raceway is presented in this paper. The proposed 3D numerical model considers different
Received in revised form influential parameters (arbitrary roller geometry, actual mechanical properties of raceway's material,
2 March 2015
tilted contact between the roller and raceway segment, etc.) on the allowable contact loading between
Accepted 5 March 2015
Available online 14 March 2015
rollers and their raceway. Within this paper, three representative types of roller geometries and their
effect on the static load capacity are investigated: a cylindrical roller (ZR), a logarithmical roller (LN) and
Keywords: a partially crowned roller (ZB). For each type of roller, two different criteria are then used to determine
Roller-slewing bearing the limit contact loading: (i) permanent indentation criterion and (ii) subsurface damage criterion.
Case-hardened bearing
The results of a comprehensive computational analysis have shown that there are significant
Static load capacity
differences between each roller type with regards to limit contact load. The other important influencing
Numerical contact model.
parameters are the case depth of the raceway and the tilt angle, which mainly depends on the bearing
clearance, and the contact loading. The proposed model and results presented here may allow
manufacturers to take into account some particularities of large slewing bearings to improve their
static load capacity.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Slewing bearings are large rolling element bearings used in
different machines and structures (e.g. excavators, cranes, wind
turbines, etc.) for connecting individual construction parts, allow-
ing the controlled relative rotation and transmission of loads
between them. As these bearings differ in many aspects from
conventional (small) rolling bearings (i.e. mainly slewing motion
and eccentric axial loading, structural ring deformations and
clearances, bolted connection of rings to the adjacent structures,
case-hardened raceways, etc.), attention is required to deal with
these specialities when the structural integrity and load capacities
are being computed.
In technical literature dealing with slewing bearings, significant
emphasis is placed on approaches for the computational determi-
nation of the internal contact load distributions in different types
of slewing bearings. Because of the much lower rotational speeds
of slewing bearings during operation, these approaches differ from
analyses of conventional rolling bearings, where the dynamic
loads of rollers on the raceway plays a major role on the size of
n
Corresponding author.Tel.: þ386 2 220 7671.
E-mail address: peter.goncz@um.si (P. Göncz).
the contact pressure [1]. Thus, the first group of approaches for
slewing bearings include analytical (theoretical) methods of dif-
ferent complexities, where the internal contact loads between the
rolling elements and bearing raceways are determined on the
basis of static equilibrium equations. Thus, a number of computa-
tional methods for single- [2–4] and double-row ball-slewing
bearings [5] are already available. Recently, more advanced analy-
tical, computational methods for three-row roller-slewing bearing
have also been published [6,7]. The most accurate of these
computational methods are able to consider arbitrary combination
of external loads (axial force, overturning moment, and radial
force), arbitrary size, number and type of rolling elements in each
row, arbitrary combinations of structural ring deformations and
bearing clearances, etc. However, all of these approaches presume
ideally structurally rigid slewing rings and so do not directly
consider the influence of connecting structure and bolted joint
stiffness. Even more realistic distributions of internal contact loads
can be determined with the finite element analysis of slewing
bearings. With these methods, the structural deformability of
slewing rings [8,9] and the elasticity of pre-stressed bolted joints
[6,10,11] can be considered.
In both analytical and numerical approaches for internal con-
tact force distributions, the actual contacts between the rolling
elements and raceways are substituted with connectors with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2015.03.006
0020-7403/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184
Nomenclature
b [mm] contact half-width
dc [mm] case depth
dr [mm] nominal roller diameter
dt [mm] transition layer thickness
dx,y,z [mm] raceway segment length in coordinate axis direc-
tion (x, y, z)
E [GPa] Young's modulus
HRC [/] Rockwell hardness
K [MPa] strength coefficient
lr[mm] nominal roller length
n [/] strain hardening coefficient
pH [MPa] normal contact pressure
corresponding contact force-contact deflection characteristics.
These characteristics can be determined analytically with approx-
imate expressions for elastic contact of ellipsoidal (ball bearings)
and cylindrical (roller bearings) bodies [12]. In the case of mis-
aligned and/or profile-corrected rollers, advanced analytical mod-
els [7,13] or the use of finite elements analyses [14] are required.
For small (conventional) rolling bearings, through-hardened
bearing rings and rolling elements with minimal hardness of over
58 HRC (e.g. steel 100Cr6), the static load capacity is defined with
maximum contact pressure (pH,max) and corresponding combined
permanent deformation (δpl,max) at the most heavily loaded rolling
element/raceway contact [15]. Therefore, for standardized rolling
bearings it is presumed that the total permanent deformation of
10  4dr at the most loaded contact position on the raceway can be
tolerated in general applications [16]. In case of conventional ball
bearings, this deformation is reached at a maximum contact pre-
ssure of 4200 MPa, and at 4000 MPa in the case of roller bearings.
- depth is sufficient (Fig. 1b), yielding occurs only in the case layer
As shown in a case study [17], an insufficient hardness of a slewing
bearing's raceway can lead to its premature failure and loss of
functionality. Therefore, a reliable assessment of the static load
capacity for case-hardened raceways is necessary. Some authors
dealing with static load capacity determination of slewing bearings
assume in their papers that the load criteria for these types of bearings
are the same as for those standardized through-hardened rolling
bearings [6,18]. Others employ safety factors for consideration of the
reduced hardness of slewing bearing case-hardened raceways when
calculating the limiting contact load [10,14]. However, neither of these
approaches consider the actual combined influence of the finite depth
and reduced hardness of the case-hardened layer of the raceway. This
influence was discussed in [19], in which a computational method for
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of insufficient (a) and sufficient (b) case depth of slewing bearing raceway.
175
Q(lim) [kN] contact force (limit)
R [mm] axial roller profile radius
r [mm] roller end fillet
URx,Ry,Rz [rad] rotation around coordinate axis (x, y, z)
Ux,y,z [mm] translation in coordinate axis direction (x, y, z)
α [rad] roller contact angle
δpl(lim) [mm] permanent contact deformation/ raceway inden-
tation (limit value)
Δz(x) [mm] axial roller profile function
εp,eq(lim) [/] equivalent plastic strain (limit value)
ν [/] Poisson's ratio
σ1,2,3 [MPa] principal stress component
σMis [MPa] equivalent Mises stress
σy [MPa] yield strength
the determination of the allowable rolling element contact load in a
ball-slewing bearing is presented. The method is based on the
criterion of core yielding, which was also discussed in [20]. In [21],
another calculation method for the static capacity of induction-hard-
ened slewing rings is presented. In this paper, the authors have cons-
idered both the surface permanent indentation criterion and subsur-
face damage criterion while calculating the allowable rolling element
contact load for a ball-slewing bearing.
As it is evident from previous works, two mechanisms of failure
are generally recognised [19–21] for the case-hardened raceways
of rolling bearings (Fig. 1). In the first, when the case depth (dc) is
insufficient (Fig. 1a), core/transition layer yielding occurs before
the permissible permanent indentation of the case layer is
achieved. This can result in core crushing and case layer disin-
tegration, which seriously compromises the structural integrity of
the bearings' raceway and its operational function. Consequently,
this scenario should always be avoided. In contrast, when the case
before the permissible permanent indentation of the raceway is
achieved. Exceeding the permissible permanent indentation depth
on the raceway has a negative effect on the bearing operation,
which can result in increased vibrations, surface failure initiations,
etc. In principle, this failure mechanism is identical as for through-
hardened (standardized) rolling bearings.
In [22] the authors presented their experimental findings reg-
arding the influence of the actual roller design on the rolling con-
tact fatigue life of through hardened cylindrical specimens, includ-
ing the coincidence between the position of flaking initiation and
position of maximum values of equivalent Mises stress (surface or
subsurface originated damage). A similar conclusion can be made
when comparing different statistical life theories [23]. It appears,
176 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184
that the position and value of the maximum subsurface stress is
one of the most influential parameters on the rolling contact
fatigue life. On the basis of these findings it can be concluded, that
a thorough analysis of the contact conditions and subsurface equ-
ivalent stress distribution is necessary when determining the all-
owable contact loading of the bearing raceway.
The aim of this paper is the presentation of a rapid and
straightforward computational assessment method for the numerical
determination of static load capacity (allowable contact load) for
case-hardened raceways of roller-slewing bearings. The method
allows the bearing manufacturer to take into account the particula-
rities both of the roller bearings and of slewing bearings when
computing the limit contact load between the roller and the raceway.
This is achieved by employing a parametrical finite element model of
the 3D contact between the roller and the case-hardened raceway
segment, which allows the consideration of any detailed roller geo-
metry, axial roller profile modification, misaligned contact bet-
ween the roller and raceway, hardness property of the raceway and
case depth. A computational example is presented for practical dem-
onstration of these influences.
2. Numerical model of the roller – raceway segment contact
As it is commonly known, the Hertzian theory of elastic contact
can be used for the analytical calculation of contact pressure and
contact stress distributions between spherical and cylindrical elastic
bodies [12]. However, finite element (FE) analyses have been proven
to be an efficient way of dealing with particularities in contact
problems, such as arbitrary geometries [14,15,22,24,25], misaligned/
tilted roller contacts [7,21], plastic contact deformations [4,21], etc.
In the presented work the Abaqus/CAE commercial software [26]
was employed to deal with the 3D contact between the roller and
the roller-slewing bearing's case-hardened raceway segment. The
main objective of the numerical model was to obtain a straightfor-
ward, yet comprehensive and customizable, engineering tool for the
computational assessment of different influential parameters (e.g.
arbitrary roller geometry, arbitrary actual subsurface mechanical
material property profile, tilted contact between the roller and
raceway segment, etc.) on the static load capacity for case-hardened
raceways of roller-slewing bearings.
As the aim of the herein presented contact model is the
computation of the allowable static contact loading of the case
Fig. 2. Numerical model of the roller-raceway contact: load definition and boundary conditions (a), material properties (b) and FE mesh at the contact region (c).
hardened raceway, a static FE model was constructed. In this
model, both the roller (dr  lr) and the raceway (dx  dy  dz)
segments were modelled as 1/4-symmetry geometries (Fig. 2a),
which allowed a comprehensive, yet time effective analysis of a
single (misaligned) contact between the actual 3D roller and
raceway in a roller slewing bearing. As seen in Fig. 2a, the fixture
and symmetry boundary conditions of the raceway segment were
established by locking the translational degrees of freedom of
corresponding faces in normal directions (Ux ¼0, Uy ¼ 0, Uz ¼0).
The contact loading of the roller segment against the contact
surface of the raceway segment was established through displace-
ment control of reference point RP in z-direction, while other
displacements and rotations remained constrained. This reference
point was kinematically coupled with the upper (x  y) symmetry
plane of the roller. Possible roller misalignments (tilt α), as a result
of non-parallel relative ring displacements of the bearing during
an eccentrical axial loading, were simulated with the rotation of
the reference point RP (URy ¼ α/2). Because of the quasistatic nature
of the problem (no relative transversal motion between the roller
and the raceway), a normal surface-to-surface contact without
friction in tangential directions was defined, while the penalty
method was used as a contact enforcement method.
As seen in Fig. 2b, the model of the raceway segment was
composed of several discreet layers (case, transition layers and
core) for which the corresponding elasto-plastic (EP) materials
properties were defined. This enabled an accurate description the
measured hardness profile and mechanical characteristics of the
induction-hardened raceway of the slewing bearing. It has been
shown in [7] that when the limit plastic deformation of the roller–
raceway contact (δpl,lim) is achieved, no plastic deformation of the
roller takes place. This is because of the much higher typical
hardness and yield strength of the through-hardened rollers (63
HRC; σy ¼2570 MPa) in comparison to the case-hardened raceways
of slewing bearings (56 HRC; σy ¼ 1600 MPa). Due to this, a linear-
elastic (LE) material model was applied for the roller (E ¼207 GPa,
ν ¼ 0.3). This also means, that in the presented application the total
plastic deformation of the roller–raceway contact is equal to the
permanent raceway indentation. However, it should be noted that
such an assumption is not true for the conventional (small)
through-hardened bearings, where there is practically no differ-
ence between the hardness of the rolling elements and rings. In
such applications, only two thirds of the plastic deformation occur
in the ring while one third in the rolling element [15].
 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184 177

The geometries of both the roller and the raceway segment
were meshed with 8-node hexaeder elements with full integration
(C3D8) (Fig. 2c and d). The appropriate relative mesh size at the
contact position was determined by comparison of the FE contact
model results in elastic deformation region (σeq,max o σy) at given
axial sections with analytically calculated contact stress (pH(y))
and subsurface stress distribution fields (σ1,2,3,23(y,z)) for 2D
Hertzian contact of cylindrical bodies [12]. A good agreement
between the results of these two approaches was achieved, when
a fine structured rectangular shaped homogeneous mesh of app-
roximately 3b was used at the contact line position, while the
number of elements along the contact half-width (b) was approxi-
mately 10. The height of this rectangle area was equal to the case
and transition layer thickness (dc þdt). To deal with the possible
local concentrations of contact stresses at the roller ends, addi-
tional mesh refinement was applied at these positions in the
direction of the x-axis (Fig. 2d). The generation of the 3D cont-
act geometry model in the software was parameterised, enabling
prompt geometry and load changes.
The introduced static FE contact model represents the integral
part of the computational algorithm for determination of the static
limit contact load of the case-hardened raceway (Fig. 3). This
unified procedure allows to take into consideration both of the
discussed static load criterions when computing the limit contact
force (Qlim): permanent indentation criterion and subsurface
damage criterion. The roller segment is in both instances pressed
against the raceway segment by an initial displacement (Uz,0) and
then moved away, which results in a plastically deformed raceway.
A computer script then searches the FE analysis results for the
maximum values of the permanent raceway indentation (δpl,max;
displacement in z-direction along the x-axis (Fig. 2a)) or equivalent
plastic strain (εpl,eq,max; on the x–z plane (Fig. 2a)) in the raceway
segment and compares them with the predefined limit values (δpl,
lim, εpl,eq,lim). If the maximum values and the predefined limit
values are equal, then the analysis results (limit contact force
(Qlim), contact pressure distribution (pH(x)), eq. plastic strain
distribution ((εpl,eq,), etc.) are exported and saved. Otherwise, a
new value for the roller segment displacement (Uz,i þ 1) is set and
the 3D finite analysis is carried out again. For this automated
procedure Newton's method is used with a typical number of
iterations 3–5.
3. Case study
In the scope of this paper, three representative types of roller
geometries and their effect on the static limit rolling element
contact load for case-hardened raceways of roller-slewing bearings
were investigated. The first analysed roller was the cylindrical
roller (Fig. 4a), also known as the ZR type [27]. This roller type is
without any axial profile correction (Δz(x)¼0). For this type of
roller, contact stress concentrations are expected to be present at
the edges [12,15]. However, as demonstrated in [12,15,28] for the
case of through-hardened conventional roller bearings, bearings
with this type of roller have the longest predicted life, if the
middle section of the contact is considered. In contrast, when
taking into account the edge loading, the predicted life can be
reduced by as much as 98%.
To avoid high contact stress concentrations at the roller ends
and their negative consequences (e.g. decreased fatigue life and

ANALYSIS INPUT Roller segment Raceway segment

Geometric ▪ dimensions ̶ dx × d y× d z
▪ nominal dimensions ̶ d r × l r ▪ case depth ̶ d c
parameters ▪ profile correction ̶ Δz (x) ▪ transition layer thickness ̶ dt

Material ▪ LE mat. properties ̶ Erace, νrace

parameters ▪ LE mat. properties ̶ E roll, νroll ▪ EP mat. properties ̶ σy, K, n

Contact ▪ contact angle ̶ α /2 (U Ry)

parameters ▪ contact definition

Static limit load criterion (δpl,lim OR εpl,eq,lim) Initial roller load:

displacement ̶ U z,0

Uz,i+1 U z,i+1
FALSE FALSE

δpl,max(i) εpl,eq,max(i)
permanent raceway subsurface =
= criterion
TRUE δ pl,lim indentation criterion damage criterion ε pl,eq,lim TRUE

3D FE contact analysis
δpl,max(i) εpl,eq,max(i)

OUTPUT file
result request result request

RESULTS
▪ limit contact force ̶ Q lim
▪ contact pressure ̶ pH(x)
▪ eq. pl. strain distribution ̶ εp,eq

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the computational algorithm.

178 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184

increased wear), many theoretical axial roller profile corrections
have been developed [15,22,28,29]. Essentially, all of these profile
corrections are mathematically defined with logarithmical func-
tions (hence the name logarithmical roller), which results in a the-
oretically uniform contact stress distribution along the roller axis
at a given nominal contact load (Q) and contact angle (α). In [13],
as an approximation, from nominal contact load independent axial
profile correction function is presented as:
! of the roller – raceway contact in the case of standardized, through
1 hardened roller bearings [16]. For the subsurface damage criterion,
ΔzðxÞ ¼ 3:5 U 10 4
dr ln
2
1  2x=lr
In industry practice, many other roller profile designs are manu-
factured and used; one of the more frequently used roller geo-
metries is the partially crowned roller, also known as the ZB type
(Fig. 4c). This type of roller has a flat middle section and profiled
ends (R), by which the advantageous features of both above-
mentioned roller types are combined into one roller geometry.
In this case study, the nominal diameter (dr) and length (lr) of the
analysed rollers were 25 mm, while standard values [27] for end
fillets (r¼ 0.5 mm) were considered. This corresponds to the roller
dimensions in the carrying row of a three-row roller-slewing bea-
ring with a mean diameter 1500 mm. The value of the maximum
contact angle between the roller axis and the raceway (α ¼
1.6∙10  3 rad) was determined by analysing the internal contact
force distribution in a three-row roller-slewing bearing with a pos-
itive axial clearance (with the computational model presented in
[7]). The axial profile correction for the logarithmical roller type was
calculated according to Eq. (1), while the roller profile radius (R) for
the partially crowned roller was 475 mm. The dimensions of
the raceway segment (dx  dy  dz) used in the preformed num-
erical analyses were 32.5 mm  12.5 mm  12.5 mm. This reflects
the corresponding size of the raceway section loaded by a half roller
in the load carrying row of the given slewing bearing.
In the performed parametrical analyses for the limit contact
load determination of the case-hardened raceway both the per-
manent raceway indentation and subsurface damage criterion
were used. The limiting value for the permanent raceway indenta-
tion on the reference contact length was set as δpl,lim ¼ 10  4dr,
which is in agreement with the limit value for plastic deformation
ð1Þ
the liming value of the equivalent subsurface plastic strain (εp,eq,
lim) was considered 0.2%, which represents a common value for
yield points in high strength steels. These two values have been
used as a target in the iterative computational algorithm used for
determination of limit contact force (Qlim).
In the presented case study, a wide range of different case depths
(dc ¼ 0…5 mm) of the raceway segment were considered. As an
approximation, the total thickness of the transition layers dt
(Fig. 2b) was set as 0.2dc. This value was chosen on the basis of
actual hardness measurements performed on cut out sections of case
hardened raceways with different case depths (dc)  Fig. 5. As it can
be seen, the measured hardness in the case layer is near constant,
while there is a rapid drop of hardness in the transition layer. The
corresponding EP materials properties for the individual raceway
layer hardnesses, used in the numerical model, were previously
experimentally determined [30] and are shown in Table 1. In the
numerical model the true stress (σ) – true plastic strain (εp) curves
were calculated with Hollomon's equation (σ ¼Kεnp).
The FE mesh of the roller and raceway segments was generated
according to the above presented structure of the numerical model
(Section 2). The actual number of finite elements varied depending
on the analysed roller type and case depth of the raceway segment.

Fig. 4. Analysed roller types: cylindrical roller – ZR (a), logarithmical roller – LN (b) and partially crowned roller – ZB (c).

0 0

-1 -1
Ameasurement Cmeasurement
-2 Nizi4
numerical model -2 Nizi4
numerical model
Depth - z [mm]

Depth - z [mm]

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rockwell hardness - HRC Rockwell hardness - HRC
Fig. 5. Comparison between the measured subsurface raceway hardness and the used numerical model – dc ¼ 3.0 mm (a) and dc ¼5.0 mm (b).
 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184 179

In Table 2, the number of generated finite elements for selected
combinations of roller geometries and case depths (dc) are shown.
Depending on the actual roller type and case depth combination,
the computation times were 10–15 min on a typical modern work-
station.
4. Results
4.1. Cylindrical roller
The first analysed roller type was the cylindrical roller (ZR).
Thus, in Fig. 6 the contact pressure (pH) and permanent raceway
indentation (δpl) distributions along the roller-raceway contact
line, with regards to the permanent indentation criterion, are
presented; two case depths and two extreme contact angles were
considered. As can be seen in Fig. 6a, the contact pressure
distributions are, for both case depths and contact angles, linear
along the central part of the roller, while at the roller ends contact
stress concentrations are present (edge effect). Bold lines mark the
reference length on which the maximum contact pressure (Fig. 6a)
and permanent raceway indentation (Fig. 6b) values were con-
sidered. The values outside the reference length (thin lines) were
not taken into account, since these values were attributed to the
numerical error because of singularity and numerically sharp
contact ends. It can be observed that the increase of the case
depth from 1.0 mm to 3.5 mm significantly increases the limit
contact load (55–67%, depending on the contact angle). However,
the misalignment of the roller (at the same case depth) evidently
decreases the limit contact load.
Fig. 7 shows the equivalent Mises stress (σMis) and equivalent
plastic strain (εp,eq) distribution in the raceway at α ¼0 rad. As
shown in Fig. 7a and c, independently from the case depths, high
subsurface stresses are present at the locations below roller edge
contact stress concentrations, which is also reflected in the
equivalent plastic strain distributions at those positions, see
Fig. 7b and d. However, while for the smaller case depth
(Fig. 7b) there are also additional plastic strains present in the
transition region between the case and the core material at the
centre of the roller (representing a possible location for the
damage initiation, which could lead to case disintegration), this
cannot be observed in the case of the bigger case depth (Fig. 7d).
Based on the results, the 3.5 mm case depth can be considered to
be sufficient for this type of roller, while the 1.0 mm case depth
is not.
Table 1
EP material properties of the (sub) surface raceway layers [4].
Layer HRC [/] E [GPa] σy [MPa] K [MPa]
case 56.0 201 1600 3190
Transition - 1 48.8 1360 2615
Transition - 2 41.5 1100 2040
Transition - 3 34.3 760 1470
Core 27.0 740 1435
4.2. Logarithmical roller
Likewise, as for the cylindrical roller above, Fig. 8 shows the
contact pressure and permanent raceway indentation distribu-
tions for the logarithmical roller, when the permanent indentation
criterion is considered at two different case depths and contact
angles. Also for this roller type, a positive influence of the
increased case depth on the limit contact load can be observed;
however, the negative influence of the tilted contact is less
pronounced in comparison to the previous roller type. As can be
seen in Fig. 8a, although the logarithmical roller should give a
theoretically uniform contact pressure distribution along the
entire contact line, the presented distributions are not even.
Additionally, contact pressure concentrations can also be observed
at the roller ends. This can be attributed to the fact that a
generalised axial profile correction function was used for the
roller, which is optimised for lower contact loads. At high contact
loads and at tilted contact, when the chosen permanent contact
indentation of the raceway (Fig. 8b) is achieved, the contact
between the roller edge and raceway can be established, which
results in edge contacts. Similarly as for the cylindrical roller, the
reference contact length is shown with bold lines.
Fig. 9a and c shows the subsurface equivalent Mises stress
distribution for the contact of the logarithmical roller. It can be
seen in Fig. 9a that the region of high subsurface equivalent
stresses for the case depth 1.0 mm coincides with the transition
zone between the case and the core. The negative effect of this is
even clearer in Fig. 9b, where high equivalent plastic strains can be
seen in this region. Once again, the increased case depth (3.5 mm)
turns out to be much more advantageous (Fig. 9d) as no plastic
strains can be observed in the transition zone and core material.
4.3. Partially crowned roller
The contact pressure distributions for partially crowned roller
are shown in Fig. 10a. As the transition from the flat part of the
roller to the profiled section is relatively smooth, only a slight inc-
rease in the contact pressure is present at this location. This can be
observed for both analysed contact angles. Similarly as for the first
two roller types, the increased case depth has a clearly positive
influence on the limit contact load. However, the values for the limit
contact loads are slightly lower than as for the previous roller types,
because of an increased depth of the permanent raceway indenta-
tion in the transition regions at the contact ends (Fig. 10b).
As can be seen from Fig. 11a and c, the subsurface equivalent
Mises stress distribution is for both case depths almost evenly
distributed along the contact length, which is, because of the
pronounced profile correction towards the roller ends, considerably
shorter than the nominal roller length. However, a slight increase is
n [/]
observable at the contact ends. The case depth of 1.0 mm (Fig. 11b)
0.091 again turns out to be insufficient because, while there is almost no
plastic strain present in the case, considerably plastic deformations
are visible in the transition zone and core material. When the case
depth is 3.5 mm (Fig. 11d), all the plastic deformations are in the
case, and the core material remains unaffected.

Table 2
Number of generated finite elements.

Roller type dc ¼0.5 mm dc ¼ 2.5 mm dc ¼5.0 mm

Roller Raceway Total Roller Raceway Total Roller Raceway Total

ZR 24,768 110,288 135,056 24,768 126,936 151,704 24,768 145,664 170,432

LN 23,536 91,458 114,994 23,536 105,264 128,800 23,536 120,794 144,330
ZB 20,728 96,838 117,566 20,728 111,456 132,184 20,728 127,900 148,628
180 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184

Fig. 6. Cylindrical roller (ZR): contact pressure (a) and permanent raceway indentation (b) distribution.

Fig. 7. Mises stress (σMis) and equivalent plastic strain (εp,eq) distribution in roller (ZR) – raceway contact (α ¼ 0 rad): dc ¼1.0 mm (a,b) – Qlim ¼ 82.9 kN; dc ¼ 3.5 mm (c,d) –
Qlim ¼ 128.9 kN.

Fig. 8. Logarithmical roller (LN): contact pressure (a) and permanent raceway indentation (b) distribution.
 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184 181

Fig. 9. Mises stress (σMis) and equivalent plastic strain (εp,eq) distribution in roller (LN) – raceway contact (α ¼ 0 rad): dc ¼1.0 mm (a,b) – Qlim ¼77.9 kN; dc ¼ 3.5 mm (c,d) –
Qlim ¼ 124.0 kN.

Fig. 10. Partially crowned roller (ZB): contact pressure (a) and permanent raceway indentation (b) distribution.

4.4. Static limit contact load
Figs. 12–14 demonstrates the numerically computed static limit
contact loads (Qlim) for a case-hardened raceway as a function of the
case depth (dc) for all three analysed roller types. The limit contact
loads at given case depths were determined according to the
permanent indentation and subsurface damage criterion. The results
are shown for both the uniform contact (α ¼ 0 rad) and for the tilted
roller alignment, considering contact angle α ¼1.6∙10  3 rad. As a
quantitative comparison of the computational results, values for
static limit contact load according to the relevant international
standard (ISO [16]) and with consideration of safety factors for
reduced raceway hardness (56 HRC [14]) are shown. These two
values were also used by other authors when determining the static
load capacities of large (roller) slewing bearings. Additionally, the
static limit contact loads were computed according to the perma-
nent indentation criterion with a simplified 2D numerical model,
where the same material properties was used. However, this model
could not consider the axial roller profile corrections, edge effects
and tilted contact loading.
In Fig. 12, the static limit contact load for cylindrical roller as a
function of the case depth is presented. When considering both
the subsurface damage and permanent indentation criteria, an
increase of case depth has a significant influence on the increase of
static limit contact load. This is due to the fact, that a bigger case
thickness prevents the subsurface plasticisation of the core mate-
rial, which has inferior mechanical properties when compared to
the case material (see Figs. 7, 9 and 11) and consequently allows
higher contact loading of the raceway. With bigger case depths,
this influence gradually becomes lesser, and after a certain case
depth (18% dr) it becomes insignificant. The influence of the tilted
roller contact on the decrease of the static limit contact load is
around 15% in comparison to the uniform contact. When compar-
ing the static limit contact load with the value from the ISO
standard, it can be seen that the value from the standard at small
(insufficient) case depths significantly overestimates the actual
182 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184

Fig. 11. Mises stress (σMis) and equivalent plastic strain distribution in roller (ZB) – raceway contact (α ¼0 rad): dc ¼ 1.0 mm (a,b) – Qlim ¼74.2 kN; dc ¼ 3.5 mm (c,d) –
Qlim ¼ 112.7 kN.

140 140

120 120
Limit contact load - Qlim [kN]

Limit contact load - Qlim [kN]

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Case depth - dc [% dr] Case depth - dc [% dr]

δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr εpl,eq = 0.2 %

(3D; α = 0 rad) (3D; α = 0 rad) δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr εpl,eq = 0.2 %
(3D; α = 0 rad) (3D; α = 0 rad)
δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr εpl,eq = 0.2 %
(3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad) (3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad) δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr εpl,eq = 0.2 %
(3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad) (3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad)
ISO 76
( pH,max = 4000 MPa) δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr
ISO 76 δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr
(2D)
( pH,max = 4000 MPa) (2D)
Kania, 2006
(56 HRC) Kania, 2006
(56 HRC)
Fig. 12. Cylindrical roller (ZR): limit contact load (Qlim) as a function of case depth
(dc). Fig. 13. Logarithmical roller (LN): limit contact load (Qlim) as a function of case
depth (dc).

static limit contact load. Even at bigger case depths (4 20% dr) it HRC) in comparison with the conventional, through-hardened
slightly overestimates the static limit contact load. This can be bearing raceways. In contrast, the consideration of the safety
contributed to a lower hardness of the case-hardened layer (56 factor for reduced raceway hardness severely underestimates the
 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184
140
120
Limit contact load - Qlim [kN]
100
80
60
40
20
0 rotations (tilt) in the case of slewing bearings, the ability to deal
0% 5% 10% 15%
Case depth - dc [% dr]
δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr
(3D; α = 0 rad)
δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr
(3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad)
ISO 76
( pH,max = 4000 MPa)
Kania, 2006
(56 HRC)
Fig. 14. Partially crowned roller (ZB): limit contact load (Qlim) as a function of case
depth (dc).
static limit contact load by more than a factor of 2, when the
permanent indentation criterion is taken into account.
In Fig. 13, the static limit contact load for the logarithmical
roller is presented. Similarly, a clear positive influence of the
increased case depth on the static limit contact load can be obs-
erved. At small case depths, there is almost no negative influence
on the limit contact load due to the tilted contact. At sufficient case
depths, this influence is about 5%, which is less than in the case of
a cylindrical roller. When the permanent indentation criterion is
considered, this roller type has a slightly lower static limit contact
load in comparison to the cylindrical roller. However, when con-
sidering the subsurface damage criterion, the static limit contact
load is substantially higher. This can be attributed to the fact that
the edge stress concentrations and the resulting plastic strains at
roller ends are much lower for this roller. It is also worth men-
tioning that for this roller type, the results of the simplified 2D
numerical model are almost identical to the result of the 3D
numerical model at uniform roller contact (α ¼ 0 rad).
Fig. 14 shows the static limit contact load for the partially
crowned roller. Because of the increased depth of the permanent
raceway indentation at the measured locations (Fig. 10b), this
roller has a lower static limit contact load than the first two types
do. The reduction of the static limit contact load because of the
tilted contact is for this roller about 10%, which in this context
positions this roller type between the cylindrical and logarithmical
types in that aspect. However, when considering the subsurface
damage criterion (subsurface plastic strain), this roller performs
better that the cylindrical roller does.
183
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a numerical approach for the computational
assessment of the allowable static contact loading of a roller-
slewing bearing's case-hardened raceway is presented. Considera-
tion of static load criterions for standardized, through-hardened
bearing rings is at least questionable, mainly because of the case-
hardened raceways of large slewing bearings. Different authors
have addressed this topic, but the published works were mainly
focused on ball-slewing bearings. Roller bearings in general have
larger typical load carrying capabilities at given nominal dia-
meters, which is also true for large roller-slewing bearings.
However, when dealing with the contacts of rollers with bearing
raceways, attention is required for dealing with detailed roller
geometries and their influences on the subsurface stress/strain
distributions. Additionally, because of the relative bearing ring
20% 25%
with the misaligned roller contact is also necessary. The presented
parameterised numerical contact model allows the user to simul-
taneously consider all of these influences, when determining the
εpl,eq = 0.2 % allowable static contact loading of a roller-slewing bearing's case-
(3D; α = 0 rad) hardened raceway.
As was observed when discussing the results of the case study,
εpl,eq = 0.2 % there are noticeable differences between individual roller types in
(3D; α = 1.6∙10-3 rad)
the sense of static limit contact load. However, one important
influencing parameter also turns out to be the relative case depth
δpl,ref = 10-4∙dr
(manufacturing parameter) and tilt angles (depending mainly on
(2D)
the roller clearances and loading) of the roller. In order to
determine the actual importance of each of these influencing
parameters in practice, extensive experimental testing must be
carried out. Thus, the presented numerical approach can serve as
an assistance in this.
Acknowledgements
The presented work is a result an operation financed by the
European Union (European Social Fund) and Slovenian Ministry of
Education, Science and Sport (Researchers at the Beginning of
Their Careers-2013-UM FS-739).
References
[1] Ye Z, Wang L, Gu L, Zhang C. Effects of tilted misalignment on loading
characteristics of cylindrical roller bearings. Mech Mach Theory
2013;69:153–67.
[2] Zupan S, Prebil I. Carrying angle and carrying capacity of a large single row ball
bearing as a function of geometry parameters of the rolling contact and the
supporting structure stiffness. Mech Mach Theory 2001;36:1087–103.
[3] Ignacio Amasorrain J. Load distribution in a four contact-point slewing
bearing. Mech Mach Theory 2003;38:479–96.
[4] Glodež S, Potočnik R, Flašker J. Computational model for calculation of static
capacity and lifetime of large slewing bearing's raceway. Mech Mach Theory
2012;47:16–30.
[5] Potočnik R, Göncz P, Glodež S. Static capacity of a large double row slewing
ball bearing with predefined irregular geometry. Mech Mach Theory
2013;64:67–79.
[6] Aguirrebeitia J, Abasolo M, Aviles R, de Bustos IF. General static load-carrying
capacity for the design and selection of four contact point slewing bearings:
finite element calculations and theoretical model validation. Finite Elem Anal
Des 2012;55:23–30.
[7] Göncz P, Potočnik R, Glodež S. Computational model for determination of
static load capacity of three-row roller slewing bearings with arbitrary
clearances and predefined raceway deformations. Int J Mech Sci
2013;73:82–92.
[8] Smolnicki T, Derlukiewicz D, Stanco M. Evaluation of load distribution in the
superstructure rotation joint of single-bucket caterpillar excavators. Autom
Constr 2008;17:218–23.
184 P. Göncz et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 94-95 (2015) 174–184
[9] Göncz P, Drobne M, Glodež S. Computational model for determination of
dynamic load capacity of large three-row roller slewing bearings. Eng Fail Anal
2013;32:44–53.
[10] Kania L, Krynke M, Mazanek E. A catalogue capacity of slewing bearings. Mech
Mach Theory 2012;58:29–45.
[11] Vadean A, Leray D, Guillot J. Bolted joints for very large bearings–numerical
model development. Finite Elem Anal Des 2006;42:298–313.
[12] Johnson KL. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge Cambridgeshire; New York: Cam-
bridge University Press; 1985.
[13] ISO/TS 16281 .Rolling bearings - methods for calculating the modified
reference rating life for universally loaded bearings. In: Proceedings of the
international organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
[14] Kania L. Modelling of rollers in calculation of slewing bearing with the use of
finite elements. Mech Mach Theory 2006;41:1359–76.
[15] Harris TA, Kotzalas MN. Rolling Bearing Analysis. 5th ed.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/
Taylor & Francis; 2007.
[16] ISO 76 .Rolling bearings - static load ratings, In: Proceedings of the Interna-
tional organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
[17] Ost W, De Baets P, De Waele W. Failure of a large ball bearing of a dockside
crane. Eng Fail Anal 2004;11:335–53.
[18] Aguirrebeitia J. Theoretical calculation of general static load-carrying capacity
for the design and selection of three row roller slewing bearings. Mech Mach
Theory 2012;48:52–61.
[19] Pallini RA, Sague JE. Computing core-yield limits for case-hardened rolling
bearings. Asle Trans 1985;28:91–6.
[20] Harris T, Rumbarger JH, Butterfield CP. National Renewable Energy Labarotary
(Technical Report with number NREL/TP-500-42362 Wind turbine design
guideline DG03 yaw and pitch rolling bearing life /http://www.nrel.gov/
wind/pdfs/42362.pdfS; 2009.
[21] Lai J, Ovize P, Kuijpers H, Bacchetto A, Ioannides E. Case depth and static
capacity of surface induction-hardened rings. J ASTM Int 2009;6:16.
[22] Fujiwara H, Kobayashi T, Kawase T, Yamauchi K. Optimized logarithmic roller
crowning design of cylindrical roller bearings and its experimental demon-
stration. Tribol Trans 2010;53:909–16.
[23] Poplawski JV, Peters SM, Zaretsky EV. Effect of roller profile on cylindrical
roller bearing life prediction–part I: comparison of bearing life theories. Tribol
Trans 2001;44:339–50.
[24] Vo KD, Tieu AK, Zhu HT, Kosasih PB. A 3D dynamic model to investigate
wheel–rail contact under high and low adhesion. Int J Mech Sci
2014;85:63–75.
[25] Patil SS, Karuppanan S, Atanasovska I, Wahab AA. Contact stress analysis of
helical gear pairs, including frictional coefficients. Int J Mech Sci
2014;85:205–11.
[26] Abaqus/CAE User's Manual (ver. 6.12). Dassault Systemes. 2012.
[27] DIN 5402-1. Rolling bearings; parts of rolling bearings; cylindrical rollers.
Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V.; 1993.
[28] Poplawski JV, Peters SM, Zaretsky EV. Effect of roller profile on cylindrical
roller bearing life prediction–part II: comparison of roller profiles. Tribol Trans
2001;44:417–27.
[29] Reusner H. Logarithmic roller profile–the key to superior performance of
cylindrical and taper roller bearings. Ball Bear J 1987;230:2–10.
[30] Potočnik R. Static capacity and lifetime of large double-row slewing ball
bearings [Ph. D. thesis]. Maribor, Slovenia: Universty of Maribor, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering; 2010 [in Slovene].