Received: 1 December 2016 Revised: 12 May 2017 Accepted: 31 May 2017

DOI: 10.1111/ffe.12654

SPECIAL ISSUE CONTRIBUTION

Application of structural integrity assessment procedure on an

axle pin of a wind turbine

N. Gubeljak1 | M. Cvetic2 | Ž. BOŽIĆ3 | J. Predan1

1
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Abstract
University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia
2
Končar‐Generators and Motors Inc.,
The axle pin is one of the most critical components of a wind turbine. Because 2
Zagreb, Croatia bearings are mounted on the axle pin, it is not subjected to torque and is designed
3
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and only to carry bending stresses. The axle is usually made by a casting process, which
Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb,
can induce defects. After casting of the axle pin, radial surface cracks were detected
Zagreb, Croatia
outside by ultrasonic and magnetic particle inspection. The first goal of this paper is
Correspondence to establish defect tolerance in the design of the axle pin, ie, at what critical crack
N Gubeljak, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Maribor, 2000
size can we expect failure of the axle pin? The second aim is assessing the remaining
Maribor, Slovenia. lifetime of the defected axle pin used in operation of a wind turbine. Both issues are
Email: nenad.gubeljak@uni‐mb.si important to prevent unexpected failure and establish a system for on‐line structural
health monitoring. This paper presents a procedure for the structural integrity
assessment of axle pins by considering their material properties and fatigue crack
growth parameters and comparing them with their fatigue design curve.

K EY WO R D S
axle pin in wind turbine, crack's defects, fatigue design, structure integrity assessment

1 | INTRODUCTION plant numbers are increasing even in regions with unstable

Today, wind turbine farms have become a significant source
of renewable electrical energy. They are an alternative to
steam, nuclear, or even hydroelectric power plants, due to
their usability. In spite of the fact that wind power depends
on climate and the geographic configuration, wind power
Nomenclature: a, crack depth; f(Lr), failure assessment curve; E, Young
modulus; E′, E in plane stress; E/(1 − 2) in‐plane strain; J, J integral; Jmat,
crack resistance of critical J integral; KI, linear elastic stress intensity
factor; Kmat, crack resistance of critical K; KIQ, measured fracture
toughness of material on specimen with stable crack extension; Kr, ratio of
applied K to the crack resistance, K/Kmat; Lr, ratio of applied load, F, to
yield load, FY; Lrmax, plastic collapse limit of Lr; MY, bending moment at
yield load; N, strain hardening exponent; Rp0.2, proof strength (materials
without Lüders plateau); Rm, tensile strength (engineering); T, thickness of
wall; β, Surface crack angle °; δ, CTOD (crack tip opening displacement);
ν, Poisson ratio; σb, bending stress; σm, membrane stress; σref, reference
stress; σY, yield strength (general)Abbreviations: CDF, crack driving force;
CTOD, crack tip opening displacement; DLC, design loading case; FAD,
failure assessment diagram; LL, limit load; SF, safe factor
wind conditions. In these regions, wind turbine components
can be exposed to variable wind directions and powers. Con-
sequently, the components of the wind turbine are designed
by using a fatigue loading curve with cumulative numbers
of cycles for wide spectra of stress amplitudes.1 However,
defects present in vital components, such as the axle pin,
can be fatal for the safety and the integrity of the wind
turbine. The first goal of this paper is to ascertain if a design
of the axle pin is defect tolerant, ie, what is the critical crack
size we can expect failure of the axle pin? To determine the
critical crack length in the axle, we performed a full structural
integrity analysis according to the FITNET2 procedure and
discovered that the initial crack defect would not result in
plastification under the maximum projected load during final
assembly. This enables the crack to remain hidden at the start
of standard operation.
The second goal was the assessment of the remaining life-
time, when such an axle pin with a defect is going to be used
in service of a wind‐turbine aggregate. The analysis revealed

1284 © 2017 Wiley Publishing Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ffe Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2017;40:1284–1294.
GUBELJAK ET AL. 1285

that under the projected structural load, over a period of

20 years, the fatigue crack spreads from the initial crack
and reaches critical crack length before the planned end of
life. Both issues are important to prevent unexpected failure
and establish a system for on‐line health monitoring.
Mechanically, the axle pin is the most critical part of the
structure and is subjected to bending rather than torsion. The
axle pin in the middle is connected to the hub with 2 bear-
ings. The radial bearing and the larger axial‐radial bearing
are mounted on the axle pin, at the tip and within the radial
transition region of the axle pin, respectively. Three blades
are mounted to the hub. Torsion is induced between the
hub and the generator's rotor. The generator's stator is fixed
onto the axle pin and the main carrier, as shown in the cross
section of the wind‐turbine housing in Figure 1. The direct
current is induced between the permanent magnets on the
generator's rotor and the stator fixed on the axle pin. There-
fore, the axle pin can be mechanically treated as a bending
loaded part of the wind turbine. The axle is usually made of
cast steel (grade G24CrMn6), cast by the gravity casting
process. Figure 2A shows an axle pin made by the casting
process and painted after thermomechanical treatment. The
design of the axle pin shows changes in wall thicknesses
and reduction of diameters. The reduction of the diameter is
a result of optimization and the design concept approach.3
Structural health monitoring (SHM) technology of wind tur-
bines provides a financial benefit, as it ensures reliability of
operation throughout the expected 20 year lifetime. The term
“health” as we use here encompasses the loading, damage, FIGURE 2 A, The axle pin made by the casting process and painted
and operational capability of the turbine.4 Adams et al4 after thermal and mechanical treatments. B, The surface defects detected
analysed the change of the modal natural frequencies during by magnetic particle inspections. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
operation with respect to the loading conditions and the
sustained damage to the vital component(s).
Structural health monitoring technology is utilized for
wind turbine components manufactured without defect;
however, the possibility of hidden defects needs to be taken
into account. Structural health monitoring technology pre-
sents a global system for tracking wind turbine behaviour,
which reports changes as they occur, in real time. The
fitness‐for‐purpose assessment enables forecasting of the
component behaviour based on the projected operating con-
ditions and allows estimation of the financial usability of
the defected component.
Gravity casting of the 3 tonne axle pin can cause defects
in materials, such as flaws, pores, or inclusions of any
remaining slag. The surface cracks were detected at the radial
surface on the outside of the axle pin by ultrasonic inspection
and by inspection with magnetic particles, as shown in
Figure 2B. To establish a system for on‐line health monitor-
FIGURE 1 Cross section of the nacelle (1, blade; 2, spin; 3, hub; 4, ing, the found defects lead us to consider whether the design
bearings; 5, axle pin; 6, generator; 7, main column; 8, axial bearing; 9, of the axle pin is defect tolerant.
column; 10, nacelle). [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary. The first step before establishing on‐line health monitor-
com] ing is the necessary structural integrity assessment of the axle
1286
for flaws and finding the lifetime of the axle pin from the
detected crack size until the critical crack depth. Per the
FITNET2 structural integrity procedure,5,6 the flaws are
treated as cracks. The structural integrity assessment
procedures are tools for estimating the effect of the crack size
for given loading amplitude. In the past 20 years, different
structural integrity procedures have been developed.2,7,8
The structural integrity assessment of the axle pin should
provide answers to the following issues:
1. the determination of the maximum static loading capac-
ity of the loaded component with an existing crack;
2. determining the maximum allowed crack size for the
given loading conditions; and
3. finding the remaining lifetime as the fatigue crack prop-
agates from the detected crack size to the critical crack
depth for the given design loading amplitude.
Critical crack size is important for the determination of
the fatigue lifetime from an initial detected crack to the
critical crack size. Each loading amplitude has its own
maximum load and therefore its own critical crack length.
If the difference between the crack size in the first and the
second cases is significant, then the period of fatigue crack
propagation can be treated as the service lifetime. If the ser-
vice lifetime is shorter than the required 20 year lifetime of
the wind turbine, then the axle pin containing the detected
flaws is not suitable. The main goal of this paper is to
demonstrate a structural integrity approach containing the
determination of the maximum sustained loading capacity,
the determination of the critical crack length or depth, and
finally, the determination of the remaining lifetime of the
component by using the fatigue design loading curve.
2 | MATERI AL PRO PERT IES OF
CASTING STEEL
2.1 | Tensile properties, chemical composition,
and microstructure
The casting steel G24CrMn6 is a low‐carbon Mn alloyed steel
with the chemical composition shown in Table 1. The grain
size was measured by using the Jaffries Planimetric Method
according to ASTM E‐112.9 The grain size value was
0.075 ± 0.022 mm (4.6 ASTM) with mainly a ferritic and
bainitic microstructure, as shown in Figure 3. During the
solidification process, the nonmetallic inclusions can remain
in the area where the geometry and thickness change. The
TABLE 1 Chemical composition of steel G42CrMn6 (wt%)
C Si (max) Mn S (max) Cr P (max)
0.22 0.6 1.6 0.015 1.5 0.020
GUBELJAK ET AL.
FIGURE 3 The ferritic and bainitic microstructure (etched by Nital
3%), microhardness 250 to 300 HV 0.2. [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
metallographic investigation shows presence of MnS inclu-
sions over 20 μm in size and a cluster of inclusions 100 μm
large, as shown in Figures 4A and 4B. Energy‐dispersive X‐
ray analysis positions the presence of MnS in nonmetallic
inclusions. Changes in wall thicknesses and the reduction of
diameters can cause defects in materials, such as pores, flaws,
or any remaining slag. We used sections of the cast steel slab
for determination of the mechanical properties. Material prop-
erties are obtained by tensile testing prescribed by the ASTM
E8M‐2015 standard.10 The obtained tensile material proper-
ties of the cast steel are given in Table 2. The fracture tough-
ness values were obtained by crack tip opening displacement
testing per the ASTM E‐1820 standard11 and, with conserva-
tive values for the 3 specimens, are listed in Table 2. The
obtained fracture toughness value KIQ = 193 MPa m½ was
obtained as the minimum of that of all 3 specimens,
conforming to the ASTM E‐1820 standard testing.
The design procedure for the wind turbine components,
such as the axle pin, should be performed per the
Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Guidelines12 and the
International standard IEC 61400‐1.13 The design procedures
prescribe design loading conditions of components: the so‐
called fatigue design load with a cumulative number of cycles
that the axle pin should survive in the 20 years of a safe
service lifetime. The loading conditions are prescribed by
the standardized loading cases regarding the wind region
and conditions.12 The axle pin is often equipped by strain
gauges for deformation measurement and piezo sensors for
acceleration measurement. For confirming the local most
deformed area, different approaches can be applied.14-16
2.2 | Fatigue crack growth rate testing
The fatigue limit is designed with respect to the Whöler (S‐N)
curve without a crack, with a safety factor (SF) of 2.
GUBELJAK ET AL. 1287

to ASTM E‐645 by using 4‐point bending specimens with

an automatic design of the da/dN − ΔK curve. Fatigue crack
propagation testing was performed by using the RUMUL
device to determine parameters of the Paris‐Erdogan law
crack growth relationship15:

da
¼ C ðΔK−ΔK th Þm ; (1)
dN

where m and C are material constants, ΔK is the applied

stress intensity factor range during fatigue testing in MPa m½,
and ΔKth is threshold of stress intensity factor range in
MPa m½, as shown in Figure 5, where m = 3.81,
C = 2.03 × 10−9, and ΔKth = 4.84 MPa·m½.
In the fitness‐for‐purpose assessment, the design of the
turbine shaft is safe if the range of the stress intensity factor
for the detected defect is lower than the fatigue threshold
value ΔKth = 4.85 MPa √m (for a loading ratio R = −1).
To ensure that ΔKI is below ΔKth, the corresponding stress
amplitude should be less than 6.4 MPa for the detected
defect, a 2 mm crack.

3 | NUMERICAL STRESS ANALYSIS

A full 3D finite element model (FEM) was used to obtain the

displacement, strain, and stress fields of the axle pin.18 Finite
element analysis has been performed by using the FE code
ABAQUS.19 Figure 6 shows the FEM used and the
FIGURE 4 A, Nonmetallic inclusions of MnS found in
metallographic section. B, The cluster of nonmetallic inclusions found
in metallographic sample section. [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 2 Measured mechanical properties and fracture toughness of

cast steel

Material (Grade G42CrMo4) Cast Steel

Yield stress Rp0:2 549 MPa
Ultimate tensile stress Rm 653 MPa
Young modulus E 185.6 GPa
Poisson ν 0.3
CTOD0.2BL = CTODmat 0.275 mm
J0.2BL = Jmat 185 N/mm

Moriarty17 claims that the SF required was as large as 1.7 if the

hub thrust loads were considered the dominant design drivers
by applying extrapolation methods for the determination of the
SF while stating that the aim of these simpler techniques is not
a complete replacement of load extrapolation techniques.
To determine the lifetime of a component with a crack, FIGURE 5 Results of the fatigue crack propagation and fracture
fatigue crack growth rate testing was performed according toughness tests. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
1288
FIGURE 6 Finite element 3D model of pin axle for numerical
simulation. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
individual element. Three‐dimensional 8 node linear
hexodron elements are used for a total of 1.3 million
elements.
Finite element model analysis was performed to check if
the highest stress concentration occurs in the detected defect
area of the axle pin. Finite element model was performed to
also check the stress distribution throughout the thickness
of the axle pin wall. The whole part was modelled with the
prescribed boundary conditions at the end where the axle
pin is connected to the tower by screws. Screw holes were
fixed in all 3 dimensions. Loads were defined by the refer-
ence point of an analytic rigid surface at the place where
the second bearing is attached to the axle pin. The reference
point lies in the centre on the y‐axis of the cut surface. The
most critical design loading case (DLC) 7.1c50 was obtained
by the Bladed20 software for wind‐turbine design. The soft-
ware performed calculations of the 12 prescribed load cases
GUBELJAK ET AL.
according to the Germanische Lloyd.12 Bladed20 provides
from all DLC‐only maximum values for the forces and
moments regarding the cross section or the main part.
The design loading case 7.1c50 of the axle pin presents a
case when the critical velocity has been achieved for a short
period of time. It is the maximum external load for the axle
pin and corresponds to a critical wind speed of 180 km/h.
If the wind overcomes this maximum allowed value, the
blades “feather” and the wind freely pass without rotating
the wind turbine.21 Design loading case is defined by the
geometry, the wind conditions (yaw position, pitch position
of blade, etc), and the design situation (power of the wind tur-
bine, start, stop, etc).
The 3 moments and forces were prescribed on the analyt-
ical rigid body at the reference point as follows:
Mx = 514.3 kNm, My = 2064.9 kNm, Mz = −453.9 kNm,
Fx = 101.3 kN, Fy = −34.1 kN, and Fz = −329.5 kN.
The most critical regions in the axle pin were detected
from the stress field after computation. Bending loading
dominates in this loading case. Figure 7 shows the equivalent
von Mises stress field, and 2 profiles of the equivalent von
Mises stress and the longitudinal σ22 are plotted in diagrams,
as shown in Figure 8. Both stress profiles are taken for the
outer surface of the axle pin and are plotted as a function of
the y coordinate. The highest peak of the crack opening stress
appears at 600 mm from the end of the axle pin around the
axial bearing position, as shown in Figure 8. The most critical
sections for crack initiation and propagation are defined from
stress profiles. The highest stress σ22 is 135 MPa on the sur-
face of the axle pin in the region of the detected defects, as
shown in Figure 2B.
The equivalent von Mises stresses are much lower than
the yield stress. Figure 7 shows all the above‐mentioned
stresses and the equivalent von Mises stress field at the
FIGURE 7 The equivalent stress field and
functions of the equivalent and coordinate
stress fields are plotted for the most critical
loading case: Mx = 514.3 kNm,
My = 2064.9 kNm, Mz = −453.9 kNm,
Fx = 101.3 kN, Fy = −34.1 kN, and
Fz = −329.5 kN. [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
GUBELJAK ET AL.
FIGURE 8 The various stress distribution
functions through the wall thickness at the
most critical section. [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
critical location. The most critical crack opening‐bending
stress σ22 appears on the upper surface of the axle pin. The
crack opening stress is 135 MPa on the surface and on the
inner surface −10 MPa in compression; therefore, the total
stress amplitude is 145 MPa. The distribution of the σ22 stress
throughout the thickness represents the crack opening stress
and is relevant for the structural integrity assessment using
the mentioned procedures, such as FITNET.2
3.1 | Description of the applied assessment
procedure
The structural integrity assessment procedure is based on 3
sets of input data. The first set represents the mechanical
properties and the fracture toughness of the cast material,
FIGURE 9 A, The critical section of the axle pin with the position and size of the crack. B, The idealized unique surface crack in the most critical
region
1289
the second set consists of the loading distribution, and the
third set is the position and size of the flaws.
During inspection, the defects are detected within the
region of the geometrical change of the axle pin. The position
and size of the detected crack in the critical section of the axle
pin are schematically shown in Figure 9A. The idealized
unique surface crack in the most critical region, due to con-
servatism, can be considered by the FITNET2 procedure, as
shown in Figure 9B. Per the FITNET2 procedure, it is allow-
able to assume and perform the assessment for the worst‐case
crack geometry. This conservative approach leads to conser-
vative results. An idealization of the crack geometry is shown
in Figure 9B, where a = 20 mm is the crack depth and 150° is
the radial surface crack length. The wind‐power turbine's axle
pin is loaded by bending, as 2 bearings are mounted onto the
pin, shown schematically in Figure 1. Therefore, the bearings
1290 GUBELJAK ET AL.

on the pin ensure rotation of the hub with a direct drive to the stress, considering the crack size and loading manner
direct current generator, while on the axle pin, the stator FITNET.2
generator was fixed, as shown in Figure 1. Reference stress takes into account the bending moment
The stress intensity factor is calculated via Equation 2 at yielding stress defined as
below:
4 ⋅M Y
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  a  σ ref ¼ (7)
K I ¼ σ⋅ π⋅a⋅Y ; β ; (2) T ⋅ π ⋅ ðR o þ R i Þ2
T
where T is the thickness of the axle pin, Y(a/T,β) is the stress
intensity function, a/T is the crack depth ratio, β is the surface 
  
2 βa a
crack length in radians, and σ is the principal opening load, MY ¼ TðRo −Ri Þ ⋅ cos − sin β ⋅σ Y (8)
2T 2T
obtained by FE modelling. The stress intensity function for
a hollow thick tube is available in the compendia of the stress where T = 69.8 mm is the thickness, Ro = 355.05 mm is the
intensity factors for FITNET7 procedure. outside diameter, and Ri = 285.25 mm is the inside diameter
" of the axle pin. Plastic collapse at the base of the FITNET7
a   
a a β 0:565 procedure is obtained by
Y ; β ¼ 1:1 þ −0:09967 þ 5:0057⋅ ⋅
T T T π  
 # 1 R p0:2 þ Rm
Lmax ¼ ⋅ (9)
a β r
2 Rp0:2
−2:8329 ⋅ ⋅ (3)
T π
where Rp0.2 and Rm are the yield stress and the ultimate ten-
The distribution of the crack opening stress along the axle sile stress, respectively (see Table 1). In the FITNET proce-
is shown in Figure 8. This loading corresponds to the highest dure, the failure assessment curve‐FAC is defined for
permitted loading in the design of the wind‐power turbine. materials with continuous hardening by
Figure 8 shows that the highest stresses appear within the  −12 h
1 i
region of detected defects. In structural integrity analysis, fðLr Þ ¼ 1 þ L2r ⋅ 0:3 þ 0:7⋅e−μ⋅Lr for 0 ≤ Lr ≤ 1
6

the relevant stress is the crack's opening stress (mode I) σy. 2

It corresponds to the σ22 stress, as shown in Figure 8. (10)
The stress intensity function KI is normalized by the frac-
ture toughness Kmat of material, to obtain the normalized where
crack driving force Kr 8 9
< 0:001 ⋅ E =
KI μ ¼ min Rp0:2 (11)
Kr ¼ (4) : ;
K mat 0:6

where KI increases by the applied load and crack length and

according to Equation 2. N−1

The fracture toughness of the material f ðLr Þ ¼ f ðLr ¼ 1Þ⋅Lr 2⋅N for 1 ≤ Lr ≤ Lmax
r : (12)
Kmat = KIQ = 193 MPa m½ was obtained as the minimum
The strain hardening exponent N is given by the empirical
of all 3 specimens as prescribed by ASTM E‐1820 standard
term:
testing. In the case of ductile fracture, the fracture toughness
 
of the material is usually expressed in the J integral or the Rp0:2
crack tip opening value crack tip opening displacement = δ: N ¼ 0:3⋅ 1 þ (13)
Rm
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
J mat ⋅E Rp 0:2 ⋅ δmat ⋅E The axle pin is the most critical component within a wind
K mat ¼ ¼ : (5)
1− ν2 1− ν2 turbine regarding safety because a fail‐safe design is not
available. The failure assessment diagram has been plotted
The normalized load Lr for the FITNET procedure is by applying Equation 10 for the failure assessment curve ver-
defined as sus the normalized load Lr (Equation 6). The normalized
M b σ ref crack driving force Kr (Equation 4) increases with applied
Lr ¼ ¼ ; (6) load and crack length by using Equation 2.
MY σY
The critical loading capacity of the idealized crack
where My is the limit of the bending moment when yielding (a = 20, β = 150°) is obtained as the intersection point
the rest of the noncracked ligament and σref is the referenced between the normalized crack driving force Kr and the failure
GUBELJAK ET AL. 1291

assessment curve f(Lr), as shown in Figure 10. The crack TABLE 3 Critical crack surface length regarding to admissable
angle β = 150° is kept constant because the axle pin is bending stress at constant crack depth a ¼ 20 mm
subjected to bending (without rotation); therefore, the crack Surface Surface Crack Maximum Admissable
is going to propagate preferentially in depth, rather than Length Angle Bending Stress
longitudinally. The normalized load contains 1 value at each l (mm) β (°) σx, N/mm2
intersection point. Therefore, the corresponding value of the 5 0.8° 583
applied bending moment Mb is known if the limit bending 40 6.45° 557
moment MY is calculated. 120 19.36° 530
To estimate the remaining load bearing capacity, it is 200 32.27° 507
possible to repeat the same procedure for different crack
400 64.54° 470
sizes. The limit of the bending moment is determined for
600 96° 450
different surface crack lengths, ie, the angle β. Table 3
935 150° 440
shows the values for the maximum carrying capacities
regarding different surface crack lengths for a constant crack
depth of a = 20 mm. crack length is possible to estimate by using the FITNET2
Usually the SF for a wind turbine is 2.10 Per the FITNET procedure by simulation of an increasing crack depth (under
structural integrity procedure, it is possible to estimate the a constant β = 150°). It has been found that the critical crack
maximum bending stress for 2 different crack depths depth is ac = 56.6 mm (a/T = 0.81) for Δσ22 = 145 MPa, as
(a = 20 and 50 mm under a constant crack angle β = 150°). shown in Figure 12. Consequently, by decreasing the stress
Figure 2 shows that for SF = 2, the maximum allowed bend- Δσ22, the critical crack depth increases.
ing stresses are 238 and 88 MPa for crack depths of 20 and Therefore, the results show that the crack can propagate
50 mm, respectively. According to the FITNET structural from an initial size of a = 20 mm up to the critical crack
integrity procedure, we performed at structural integrity depth ac = 56.6 mm under the cyclic stress of
assessment on an axle pin with multiple cracks within a crit- Δσ22 = 145 MPa. The initial crack size of 20 mm is signifi-
ical section. In the DLC 7.1c50, the distribution of stresses cant; however, even such a crack, if it stays hidden, will not
throughout the wall thickness at the most critical section influence the projected static bearing strength of the axle
was obtained and is shown in Figure 8. The maximum bend- pin, as the bearing strength is still more than twice the
ing (crack opening) stress in the detected defect area is projected value. The potential hazard is the formation of a
145 MPa. The found flaws are not critical for the beginning fatigue crack from such a defect, which grows to critical size
of the wind turbine service because the estimated points during operation/loading cycles.
remain in the safe area reduced by the SF = 2, as is shown The design procedures prescribed the design loading con-
in Figure 11. The results also show that the final collapse of ditions of the component, the so‐called fatigue design load
the axle pin appears at a significant fatigue crack size. To fol- with a cumulative number of cycles, which the axle pin
low the SF of present defect, the on‐line monitoring system is should survive in the 20 years of a safe service lifetime.10
recommended for the critical area of an axle pin. The critical The loading conditions in 20 years are prescribed by the

FIGURE 10 Failure assessment diagram

plot for the axle with a crack a ¼ 20 mm and
a surface crack length β = 150°. [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
1292
loading cases regarding wind region and conditions.10 This
curve is shown in Figure 13 by the black step line, where
the highest number of cycles to survive corresponds to a min-
imum stress amplitude Δσ22 = 10 MPa for a loading ratio of
R = −1 and the maximum stress amplitude does not over-
come Δσ22 = 205 MPa (R = −1). Consequently, the number
of survived cycles for a shorter lifetime is proportional to the
number of cycles, while the stress amplitude remains the
same. For an example, see the 6 year survival curve in red,
shown in Figure 13.
The parameters of the fatigue crack growth rate in the
form of the Paris‐Erdogan relationship are experimentally
determined, as shown in Figure 5.
To determine the number of cycles to failure for different
amplitude crack opening stresses, the integration of the
Paris‐Erdogan relationship (Equation 1) was performed.
The integration is based on the individual constant stress
GUBELJAK ET AL.
FIGURE 11 Change variation of the
loading curve as a function of increasing
crack depth from a = 20 to 50 mm for a
constant crack angle β = 150°. [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 12 Determination of the critical
crack depth ac (under constant surface crack
length β = 150°) and the constant crack
opening stress Δσ22 = 145 MPa. [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
loading amplitude (with a loading ratio of R = −1). The
structural integrity damage curve was obtained by consider-
ing a cumulative number of cycles to failure. Therefore, the
structural integrity damage curve was obtained in the same
manner as the design loading curve. The design loading
curve consists of a cumulative number of cycles for the cor-
responding stress amplitude and represents the required
number of cycles for 20 year survival. The yellow dot points
in Figure 13 represent the result of the integrated cumulative
number of cycles. The points of the maximum number of
cycles do not reach the design line for a 20 year lifetime.
Because the red line crosses the points, it corresponds to a
lifetime limit of the axle pin with the detected defects. It
was found that, in the region of a stress amplitude of
σ22 = 50 to 70 MPa, the design line for 6 years of operation
time will be necessary that the crack grows from the detected
size to the critical depth.
GUBELJAK ET AL.
FIGURE 13 The design loading curve
with the required number of loading cycles
for a 20 year lifetime versus the estimated
number of cycles to critical crack depth for
different loading amplitudes Δσ22 (with a
loading rate R = −1). [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
4 | CONCLUSION
In the present paper, we demonstrate a structural integrity
approach incorporating the determination of the maximum
sustained loading capacity, the determination of the critical
crack length or depth, and the remaining lifetime of the com-
ponent by using the fatigue design loading curve. Experimen-
tally obtained mechanical properties have been used to find
the maximum loading capacity and critical crack depth
(under a constant surface crack angle β = 150°) because the
axle pin is exposed to bending stress(es) and the crack prefer-
entially propagates through depth rather than along the sur-
face. The results of the analysis show that the maximum
static loading capacity of the loaded component with an
existing crack is higher than the maximum design load. The
obtained results show that the detected flaw sizes are still
acceptable regarding the integrity of the structure. Even the
estimated points remain in the region determined by an SF
of 2. The results also show that a maximum critical crack size
of ac = 56.6 mm for a stress loading amplitude
Δσ22 = 145 MPa and loading ratio R = −1 is significant com-
pared with the detected defect size a = 20 mm, which means
that fatigue crack growth analysis can be applied.
The results of the remaining lifetime are based on
experimentally obtained fatigue crack growth parameters22,
consider the design loading amplitude, and show that the
design lifetime is reduced to 6 years. Additionally, it has been
found that the critical crack length will be achieved for a
design load amplitude of Δσ22 = 50 to 70 MPa (with a load-
ing ratio R = −1).
Because the service lifetime is shorter than the required
20 year lifetime of a wind turbine, the axle pin containing
1293
the detected flaws is not appropriate without an established
SHM system.
In this work, we show that the standard procedure of
determining the maximum load capacity and the critical
crack length estimate the initial defect as acceptable. When
additionally considering the fatigue design curve and the
spectra of different dynamic loading amplitudes, we obtain
a lifetime much shorter than projected. Our comprehensive
approach shows that, for ensuring structural integrity, the
determination of critical crack lengths and numbers of cycles
must be performed for different loading amplitudes, as the
maximum loading amplitude is not necessarily critical for
the service lifetime if an SHM system will be applied.
REF ER ENCES
1. Brglez Š, Dolšak B. A necessity‐based method for product requirement
elicitation and classification. Trans FAMENA. 2016;40(1): 87–110.
2. FITNET, European fitness‐for‐service network, Proposal No.
GTC1‐2001‐43049, Contract No. GIRT‐CT‐2001‐05071, www.
eurofitnet.org
3. Kegl M, Harl B. Topology optimization using nonlinear finite ele-
ments and control‐point‐based parameterization. Int J Nonlinear
Sci Numer Simul. 14(5):275–283. ISSN 1565‐1339, July 2013,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnsns‐2012‐0041
4. Adams D, White J, Rumsey M, Farrar C. Structural health moni-
toring of wind turbines: method and application to a HAWT.
Wind Energ. 2011;14:603–623, Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.437
5. Nenad Gubeljak: »Celovitost konstrukcij«, University of Maribor,
Faculty of Mech. Eng. University of Maribor, Maribor, 2006
1294
6. SINTAP: Structural integrity assessment procedure for European
industry. Final procedure, Britte‐Euram Project No., BE95‐1426,
British Steel, 1999
7. British Standard BS 7910: ‘Guide on methods for assessing the
acceptability of flaws in metallic structures’, 2000
8. API 579. Recommended Practice for Fitness‐For‐Service. 1st Edi-
tion March ed. American Petroleum Institute; 2000.
9. ASTM E‐112‐2015. Standard Test Methods for Determining Aver-
age Grain Size Using Semiautomatic and Automatic Image
Analysis, Volume. 03.01 W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM Interna-
tional; 2015.
10. ASTM E8M‐2015. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of
Metallic Materials, Volume. 03.01 W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International; 2015.
11. ASTM E‐1820:15. Standard Test Method or Measurement of Frac-
ture Toughness, Volume. 03.01 W. Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International; 2004.
12. Germanischer Lloyd Rules and Guidelines; guideline for the certifi-
cation of wind turbines, Edition 2003
13. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD; IEC 61400‐1, Wind turbines—
part 1: design requirements, Third edition 2005‐08
14. Detiček E. Kastrevc M.: Design of Lyapunov based nonlinear posi-
tion control of electrohydraulc servo systems: Strojniški vestnik
ISSN 0039‐2480, Mar. 2016, vol. 62 Nr.3 str. 163‐170, doi:
https://doi.org/10.5545/sv‐jme.2015.2921
15. Božić Ž, Mikota M, Schmauder S. Application of the K, J and
ΔCTOD parameters in fatigue crack growth modelling. Tech Gaz.
2011;18(3): 459–466.
GUBELJAK ET AL.
16. Slavković R, Veg A, Dučić N, Slavković N, Baralić J, Miličevič I.
Rigid body dynamics in optimization of the machine tool
vibroisolation. Tech Gaz. 2015;22(1): 87–94.
17. Moriarty P. Safety‐factor calibration for wind turbine extreme loads.
Wind Energy. 2008;11:601–612, Wiley Interscience (www.
interscience.wiley.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.306
18. Tadic B, Todorovic P, Novkinic B, et al. Fixture layout design
based on a single‐surface clamping with local deformation. Int J
of Simul Model. 2015;14(3):379–391. https://doi.org/10.2507/
IJSIMM14(3)1.280
19. ABAQUS 6.13 Solver, Dessault Systems Samulia 2016
20. GL Garrad Hassan; GH Bladed; Theory manual and user manual,
Version 4.2; 2011
21. Cvetić M, Gubeljak N. Determination of stresses in the axle pin
based on the wind model in the wind turbine. Trans FAMENA.
2017;41(1). https://doi.org/10.21278/TOF.41103
22. Erdogan PP, Paris P, Erdogan F. A critical analysis of crack propa-
gation Laws. J Basic Eng. 1963, pp;528–534.
How to cite this article: Gubeljak N, Cvetic M,
BOŽIĆ Ž, Predan J. Application of structural integrity
assessment procedure on an axle pin of a wind turbine.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2017;40:1284–1294.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12654
Copyright of Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.