Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Sound and Vibration
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com /locate/jsvi
A systematic study of ball passing frequencies based on dynamic modeling of rolling ball bearings with localized surface defects
Linkai Niu, Hongrui Cao ^{n} , Zhengjia He, Yamin Li
State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xi ’an Jiaotong University, Xi ’ an 710049, PR China
article info
Article history:
Received 4 March 2015 Accepted 6 August 2015 L.G. Tham Available online 24 August 2015
Keywords:
Ball passing frequency Rolling ball bearing Fault diagnosis Dynamic model
abstract
Ball passing frequencies (BPFs) are very important features for condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of rolling ball bearings. The ball passing frequency on outer raceway (BPFO) and the ball passing frequency on inner raceway (BPFI) are usually calculated by two well known kinematics equations. In this paper, a systematic study of BPFs of rolling ball bearings is carried out. A novel method for accurately calculating BPFs based on a complete dynamic model of rolling ball bearings with localized surface defects is proposed. In the used dynamic model, threedimensional motions, relative slippage, cage effects and localized surface defects are all considered. Moreover, localized surface defects are modeled accurately with consideration of the finite size of the ball, the additional clearance due to material absence, and changes of contact force directions. The reason ability of the proposed method for the prediction of dynamic behaviors of actual ball bearings with localized surface defects and for the calculation of BPFs is discussed by investigating the motion characteristics of a ball when it rolls through a defect. Parametric investigation shows that the shaft speed, external loads, the friction coefficient, raceway groove curvature factors, the initial contact angle, and defect sizes have great effects on BPFs. For a loaded ball bearing, the combination of rolling and sliding in contact region occurs, and the BPFs calculated by simple kinematical relationships are inaccurate, especially for high speed, low external load, and large initial contact angle conditions where severe skidding occurs. The hypothesis that the percentage variation of the spacing between impulses in a defective ball bearing was about 1 – 2% reported in previous investigations can be satisfied only for the conditions where the skidding effect in a bearing is slight. Finally, the proposed method is verified with two experiments. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Rolling element bearings are widely used in aeroengines, highspeed spindles and other rotational machinery. Because of material failure and adverse operating conditions, bearing faults often occur during operations, which may lead the whole system to failure. Therefore, condition monitoring and fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings are crucial for the prevention of system failure.
^{n} Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ 86 29 82663689. Email address: chr@mail.xjtu.edu.cn (H. Cao).
0022460X/ & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
208
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
In practice, vibration signals are widely used for the fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings. Fault features are extracted from measured vibration signals with the aid of advanced signal processing techniques. In recent decades, many advanced signal processing techniques have been proposed for extracting bearing fault features from measured vibration signals, such as envelope analysis, wavelet [1 , 2] , multiwavelet [3] , dualtree complex wavelet [4] , empirical mode decomposition [5] , cyclostationarity [6] , spectral kurtosis [7 , 8] , ensemble empirical mode decomposition [9] and stochastic resonance [10] . The most powerful bearing diagnostic techniques depend on detecting and enhancing the impulsiveness of the signals [11] . When the bearing signals are enhanced and separated from other mechanical components and background noise, ball passing frequencies (BPFs) are adopted as key indicators in determining whether a bearing has a fault or not, and where the fault is. As is well known, for a ball bearing with stationary outer raceway, the ball passing frequency on outer raceway (BPFO) and the ball passing frequency on inner raceway (BPFI) are expressed as Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ), respectively [11] .
BPFO ¼ ^{z} ^{f} ^{s}
2
BPFI ¼ ^{z} ^{f} ^{s}
2
1 ^{D}
d
m
1 þ
D
d m
cos α 
(1) 
cos α 
(2) 
where z is the number of rolling elements, f _{s} is the shaft rotation frequency, D is the diameter of rolling element, d _{m} is the pitch diameter of the bearing, and _{α} is the contact angle. Moreover, the BPFs expressed by Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) are widely used to model impulse trains induced by bearing defects. The period between the impulses is the reciprocal of the BPF. The impulse trains are then used to mathematically model vibration responses of defective bearings to predict the signals and to verify the diagnosis techniques. McFadden and Smith [12 , 13] proposed a mathematical model of localized single and multiple point defects in a bearing under radial loads. Tandon and Choudhury [14] proposed an analytical model for predicting the amplitudes of significant frequency components due to localized defects for rolling element bearings. Choudhury and Tandon [15] modeled impact force trains due to localized bearing defects based on BPFs. The impact force trains were used as excitations for a discrete springmass dashpot model of a rotorbearing system to investigate the vibration responses. Stack et al. [16] developed a signal model for inner raceway defects to design an inner raceway fault detection scheme. Cong et al. [17] proposed a signal model of rolling element bearing in a rotorbearing system for fault diagnosis. Cao et al. [18] simulated vibration responses of a machine tool spindle system with localized bearing surface defects. However, Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) are obtained using kinematical relationships based on simple rolling motion and pure rolling assumptions [19] . When a load occurs between a rolling ball and a raceway, a contact surface is formed. When the ball rotates relative to the deformed surface, the simple rolling motion does not occur, rather, a combination of rolling and sliding motions occurs [19] . As a result, the impulse trains are not strictly periodic, but stochastic due to the slip effect [11] . Ho and Randall [20] modeled a series of impulse responses for a bearing, and the model incorporated slight random variations in the time between pulses. Antoni and Randall [21] proposed a bearing diagnosis technique in the presence of strong interfering gear signals by a stochastic impulse train. Later, Antoni and Randall [22] modeled the impact process by stochastic process to provide a better understanding of the recognized “ envelope analysis ” technique. Moreover, Sawalhi and Randall [23 , 24] defined the slippage as a percentage variation of the mean frequency of impact (between 1% and 2%). However, in these papers [20 – 24] , the slippage effect was assumed as random numbers, and the root cause that introduces the slippage were not investigated thoroughly. In a word, the BPFs strongly depend on bearing parameters, operating conditions and lubricant characteristics which play an important role in the contact condition and the relative slippage between a ball and a raceway. Brie [25] pointed out that the assumption of the strict periodicity of the impulse train was questionable because of the complex dynamic phenomena. However, these factors are not taken into account in Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ). Therefore, more complex models without kinematic constraints but considering the relative slippage between bearing elements are necessary for calculating the BPFs exactly, and enhancing the effectiveness of the diagnosis. By now, many complex models of rolling ball bearings have been proposed, and they can be classified into quasistatic model and dynamic model [26] . The quasistatic model was firstly proposed by Jones [27] . In this model, a “ raceway control ” hypothesis (a type of kinematic constraints) which restricts the ball to spin either on the outer raceway or the inner raceway was commonly used. Moreover, force and moment equilibrium equations were given for raceways and rolling elements. These equations include centrifugal forces and gyroscopic moments. Based on the quasistatic model, the effects of distributed faults of bearing raceways on system vibration responses were studied by Jang and Jeong [28] and Bai and Xu [29] . The vibration responses of a spindle with defective ball bearings were studied by Cao et al. [18] based on Jones's model. However, real behaviors of lubricant and relative slippage cannot be investigated by using this model due to its ‘ raceway control ’ hypothesis. In dynamic models, equilibrium equations used in quasistatic models are replaced by differential equations of motion for each bearing component. All transient behaviors and lubrication effects can be simulated by dynamic models. Many researchers [30 – 37] investigated the behaviors of rolling element bearings with localized surface defects using dynamic models in recent years. These investigations were mainly focused on dynamic contact forces [30 – 33, 36] , varying stiffness of a bearing system [31 , 32] , time varying contact stiffness at contacting surfaces [37] , and bearing accelerations [34] when a roller rolls through a defect. Moreover, a dynamic modeling approach for wear evolution was proposed in Ref. [35] .
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
209
Fig. 1. Interactions between a ball and raceways. The symbols in this figure are for the interaction between a ball and the inner raceway. The interaction between a ball and the outer raceway is similar to that between a ball and the inner raceway as shown in this figure. This figure is a simplified version of the figure which was originally shown in Ref. [39] for investigating the interaction between a ball and a raceway.
However, in most of these investigations, the roller just has plane motions, and cage effects and relative slippage at contacting surfaces, which largely influence the orbital speeds of rollers and BPFs, were not considered. Therefore, more complex dynamic models are needed for predicting behaviors of defective bearings more reasonably and accurately. The first complete threedimensional dynamic model for rolling ball bearings called ADORE was proposed by Gupta [26 , 38 , 39] . This model completely considered threedimensional and timevarying transient motions of each bearing component. The lubrication effect and relative slippage were also included. Based on Gupta's model, Wang et al. [40] investigated vibration responses of a cylindrical roller bearing with localized surface defects, and Li et al. [41] proposed a general dynamic modeling method for ball bearingrotor systems. Niu et al. [42] recently developed a dynamic model for rolling ball bearings with localized surface defects. In this model [42] , the variations when a ball rolls through a defect, i.e., additional clearances due to material absence, changes of Hertzian contact coefficients and contact force directions were all considered, and these characteristics were then integrated into Gupta's model to investigate the vibration responses of rolling ball bearings with localized raceway defects. However, the finite size of a ball, which was recognized as an important factor for the modeling of the interaction between a roller and a defect [33], was not considered in Refs. [40 , 42] . Moreover, the cage effects were also not modeled in Refs. [40 , 42] . In this paper, based on the program ADORE [26] , a novel dynamic model of defective ball bearings is proposed for predicting the dynamic behaviors of defective ball bearings and calculating BPFs more reasonably and accurately. Compared with available models for defective ball bearings [30 – 37 , 40 , 42] , the effect of finite size of a ball, additional clearance at ball/ raceway contact, changes of contact force directions are all considered. By adopting Gupta's model, the relative slippage and cage effects, which are important for the dynamics of a defective ball bearing but were not modeled in Refs. [30 – 37 , 40 , 42] , can also be considered in the proposed model. The proposed model is then used to investigate the dynamic behaviors of defective ball bearings and BPFs systematically. The reasonability of the proposed model for the prediction of dynamic behaviors of actual defective ball bearings is discussed by investigating the motion characteristics of a ball when it rolls through a defect. Parametric studies are conducted to investigate the influences of operating conditions, lubrication characteristics, bearing parameters, and defect sizes on BPFs. The simulation results are validated with two experiments. The rest part of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 , the modeling process of defective ball bearing is introduced. In Section 3.1 , simulations are carried out to discuss the reasonability of the proposed model for the prediction of dynamic behaviors of actual defective ball bearings and for the calculation of BPFs. In Section 3.2 , the influences of operating conditions, bearing parameters and defect sizes on BPFs are investigated parametrically. These factors are shaft speed, external loads, friction coefficient, raceway groove curvature factors, initial contact angle, and defect width. Experiment verification is given in Section 4 . Limitations of the proposed method are discussed in Section 5 . Finally, conclusions are presented in Section 6 .
2. 
Dynamic modeling of rolling ball bearings with localized surface defects 
2.1. 
Dynamic modeling of rolling ball bearings 
In this section, the interactions between bearing components in a ball bearing are calculated based on Gupta's model (ADORE [26] ). Therefore, the basic concept used in ADORE is provided firstly in this section. In ADORE, models for simulating the interactions between bearing components are developed in terms of the geometrical interactions, relative sliding
210
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Fig. 2. Traction model. This figure shows a simplified version of the typical traction curve of lubricant which was adopted by Gupta to investigate the dynamic behaviors of rolling bearings in Ref. [26] .
velocities, and the resulting normal and traction forces. Relative position vectors give the geometrical interactions between two components. Then, the normal contact force can be obtained by using loaddeflection relationship, such as Hertzian contact theory. Similarly, together with the deformed geometry between the two components, the absolute velocities of them will give their relative slip velocities at the contacting surface. By using the obtained relative slip velocity and contact pressure, traction coefficient can be calculated based on the traction model of lubricant. Both the normal force and traction force can now be added to determine the net force vector. The net moment vector is the cross product of the vector that locates the point of interaction relative to the mass center and the net force vector. Finally, based on the obtained force and moment vectors, the dynamic equations of these bearing components can be determined. Integrating the dynamic equations numerically will give positions and velocities at the next time step.
2.1.1. Ball/raceway interactions
Take ball/inner raceway interactions for instance, as shown in Fig. 1 . Similar method can be used to calculate ball/outer raceway interactions. It should be noted that Fig. 1 is a simplified version of the figure which was originally shown in Ref. [39] for investigating the interaction between a ball and a raceway. Three coordinate frames are established in Fig. 1 . Raceway fixed frame O _{r} x _{r} y _{r} z _{r} is established to describe the position of the raceway center in inertial frame O _{i} x _{i} y _{i} z _{i} , and azimuth frame O _{a} x _{a} y _{a} z _{a} is used to determine the radial and orbital positions of the ball in the inertial frame. In order to calculate the interaction between a ball and a raceway, two position vectors, i.e., the position vector locates the center of the raceway and the position vector locates the center of the ball are determined firstly. As shown in Fig. 1 , these two vectors are expressed as r _{r} and r _{b} , respectively. Now, the geometrical interaction between a ball and a raceway can be determined by locating the ball center relative to the raceway center. This vector is denoted by r _{b} _{r} in Fig. 1 and is given as
(3)
r _{b} _{r} ¼ r _{b} r _{r}
The relative position between the raceway groove curvature center and the ball center is given by
(4)
r _{b}_{c} ¼ r _{b}_{r} r _{c}_{r}
where vector r _{c}_{r} locates the raceway groove curvature center relative to the raceway center. Contact angle is an important parameter for a ball bearing. Under unloaded conditions, the raceways have the same contact angle. In this paper, the contact angle of the bearing under unloaded conditions is called ‘ initial contact angle ’ [43] . However, under dynamic conditions, contact angles of raceways are timevarying. Moreover, the contact angle largely depends on operating conditions, such as external loads, shaft speeds, and lubrication characteristics. When the bearing is operated at high speeds, the contact angle of inner raceway is larger than that of outer raceway due to large centrifugal force [19 , 26] . The contact angle of a raceway under dynamic conditions can be determined based on the intersection angle between vector r _{b}_{c} and plane y _{a} z _{a} which is perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation, as shown in Fig. 1 .
α ¼ arctan
^{r}
^{r}
bc
bc
1
3
(5)
where subscripts 1 and 3 denote the first and the third components of vector r _{b}_{c} . In Eq. (5) , vector r _{b}_{c} should be described in
azimuth
frame O _{a} x _{a} y _{a} z _{a} , as shown in Fig. 1 .
Next, the elastic deformation between the ball and the raceway can be obtained.
δ ¼ r _{b}_{c} _{3} ð f 0 : 5 Þ D
(6)
where f is the raceway groove curvature factor which is defined as the ratio of the radius of raceway groove to the ball
diameter. In Eq. (6) , vector r _{b}_{c} should be described in
contact frame O _{k} x _{k} y _{k} z _{k} , as shown in Fig. 1 . Contact frame can be
established based on azimuth frame and contact angle. More details can be found in Refs. [26 , 39] .
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
211
Fig. 3. Relative slip velocity u _{r}_{b} at contact ellipse. (a) Two pure rolling points, and (b) one pure rolling point. In this figure, the relative slip velocity is shown only along the major axis of the contact ellipse. Refs. [19 , 26] provide a more detailed description of the relative slip velocity which varies along both the minor and the major axes of the contact ellipse.
Fig. 4. Ball/Cage pocket interaction. This figure is a simplified version of the figure which was originally provided in Ref. [39] for investigating the interaction between a roller and a cage pocket.
The contact force between the ball and the raceway is given by Hertzian point contact theory [43] :
Q ¼
(
K δ ^{1} ^{:} ^{5}
0
δ 4 0 δ r 0
(7)
where K is the Hertzian contact stiffness coefficient which largely depends on the curvature radii of two contacting bodies. Moreover, it can be found from Eqs. (6 ) and ( 7 ) that raceway groove curvature factors have certain effect on the contact force. The friction forces between balls and raceways mainly rely on relative slip velocities. For any point in the contact ellipse between a ball and a raceway, the relative slip velocity can be described as
(8)
^{u} _{r}_{b} ^{¼} ^{u} _{p}_{r} ^{} ^{u} _{p}_{b}
where u _{p}_{r} and u _{p}_{b} are velocities of the raceway and the ball in the contact ellipse, respectively. Friction coefficient can be obtained by the lubricant model.
(9)
μ ¼ μ u _{r}_{b} ; P _{r} ; T Þ
ð
where P _{r} is the contact pressure and T is the temperature. Fig. 2 shows a simplified curve of the typical traction curve of lubricant which was adopted by Gupta to investigate the dynamic behaviors of rolling bearings in Ref. [26] . In this traction model, the friction coefficient depends only on the relative slip velocity. This type of traction curve was adopted by various researchers to study the dynamic performances of rolling bearings [40 – 42 , 44 – 48] . Generally, the contact ellipse is divided into several strips to determine the friction force. The obtained friction coefficient, when multiplied by the incremental normal contact force d Q in a strip, gives the incremental friction force d f _{T} . The incremental force vector d F can be given as
d F ¼ d Q þ d f _{T}
(10)
Then, the incremental moments about mass centers for balls and raceways can be obtained. When the incremental force d F and the incremental moment d M are integrated over the entire contact ellipse, the net force F and the net moment M can be obtained. It can be found from Eqs. (8 ) – ( 10 ) that the friction force, the net force and the net moment largely depend on relative slip velocities, friction coefficients and normal contact forces.
212
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Fig. 5. Model of bearing housing and the numbering of balls. Initially, the orbital position of the first ball (ball 1) is 0 degree with respect to axis z _{i} .
Moreover, for rolling ball bearings, there may exist 0, 1, or 2 pure rolling points in the contact ellipse [19 , 26] . Fig. 3 shows the relative slip velocity in the contact ellipse. This figure is a simplified version of figures in Refs. [19 , 26] in which the relative slip velocity in the contact area was shown along both the major and the minor axes of the contact ellipse. As the contact ellipse is always fairly narrow, the traction force is only determined along the major axis [39] . As shown in Fig. 3 , when the number of pure rolling points is 1 or 2, these pure rolling points will divide the contact ellipse into 2, or 3 sub regions, and the neighboring subregions have opposite relative slip velocities. As a result, the resulting friction forces in these neighboring subregions are also opposite. According to the rolling direction of the ball, some friction forces will lead the ball to accelerate (these forces can be recognized as traction forces), while other opposite friction forces will lead the ball to decelerate.
2.1.2. Ball/cage interactions with raceway guidance
The cage investigated in this paper is assumed to be cylindrical. Similar to the approach used in ball/raceway interaction calculations, the interaction between a cage pocket and a ball is determined by the relative position between the cage pocket center and the ball center. Fig. 4 is a simplified version of the figure which was originally provided in Ref. [39] for investigating the interaction
between a roller and a cage pocket. In Fig. 4 , cage frame O _{c}_{a} x _{c}_{a} y _{c}_{a} z _{c}_{a}
is established to determine the azimuth and the radial
position of the cage in inertial frame O _{i} x _{i} y _{i} z _{i} . As shown in Fig. 4 , position vectors r _{b} , r _{c}_{a} , and r _{c}_{p} are the position vectors
locating the center of the ball in inertial frame O _{i} x _{i} y _{i} z _{i} , the center of the cage in inertial frame O _{i} x _{i} y _{i} z _{i} , and the center of the
cage pocket in cage frame
between the ball center and the cage pocket center
can be given as
(11)
It should be noted that the vectors on the right side of Eq. (11) should be transformed to proper frames before calculating. More details can be found in Ref. [26] . The geometrical interaction between the ball and the cage pocket can be determined on the basis of vector r _{b}_{c}_{p} and ball/ cage pocket clearance δ _{b}_{p} . Next, the contact force between the ball and the cage pocket can be calculated using Hertzian point contact theory. Moreover, the determinations of relative slip velocities, friction forces and moments between the ball and the cage pocket are similar to those discussed in Section 2.1.1 . Additionally, the interaction between the cage and the guiding raceway is modeled as contacts between two cylinders. More details can also be found in Ref. [26] .
r _{b}_{c}_{p} ¼ r _{b} r _{c}_{a} r _{c}_{p}
O _{c}_{a} x _{c}_{a} y _{c}_{a} z _{c}_{a} , respectively. The relative position
2.1.3. Dynamic equations
The translational motion of the mass center of any bearing component (balls, cage, and raceways) can be described by Netwon's law of motion.
(12)
m r ¼ F
where m is the mass of the component, and r is the acceleration vector.
€
€
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
213
Fig. 6. Ball/defect interactions. (a) Interaction shown in plane x _{k} z _{k} , (b) interaction shown in plane y _{k} z _{k} , (c) contact force, and (d) defect size ( w _{d} and h _{d} correspond to the width and the depth, respectively). This schematic is shown for the interaction between a ball and a defect located in outer raceway. The interaction between a ball and a defect located in inner raceway is similar to that shown in this figure.
The rotational motion of any bearing component (balls, cage, and raceways) can be described using Euler equations of motion:
8
>
<
>
:
I _{1} ω_ _{1} ð I
I _{2} ω_ _{2} ð I
I _{3} ω_ _{3} ð I
2
3
1
I
I
I
3
1
2
Þω _{2} ω _{3} ¼ Þω _{3} ω _{1} ¼
M
M
_{1}
_{2}
Þω _{1} ω _{2} ¼ M _{3}
(13)
3 Þ are the three components of angular velocity vector, and
ð M _{1} ; M _{2} ; M
Moreover, another two translational dofs along y _{i} and z _{i} directions are added to model vibrations of the bearing housing, as shown in Fig. 5 .
where ð I
1
; I
2
; I
3
Þ are the principal moments of inertia, ω _{1} ; ω _{2} ; ω
ð
3 Þ are the three components of applied moment vector.
(
€
m h y _{h} þ c hy
y _{h} þ k _{h}_{y} y _{h} ¼ F _{h}_{y}
_
€
m h z h þ c hz z h þ k hz z h ¼ F hz
_
(14)
where m _{h} is the mass of the housing, y _{h} and z _{h} are the translational displacements, k _{h}_{y} and k _{h}_{z} denote the stiffness, c _{h}_{y} and c _{h}_{z} represent the damping coefficients, and F _{h}_{y} and F _{h}_{z} are the loads acting on the housing.
2.2. Localized surface defect model
When a ball rolls through a defect, two important variations arise, i.e.,
Additional clearance between a ball and a raceway is introduced due to material absence in defect zone ( Section 2.2.1 ). An additional tangential component of the contact force in defect zone is generated compared with original normal conditions due to the change of the direction of contact force ( Section 2.2.2 ).
214
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
2.2.1. Additional clearance introduced by localized surface defect
As a ball rolls through a defect, the contact deformation between the ball and the raceway ( _{δ} _{d} ) is changed due to the additional clearance introduced by the defect. The determination of _{δ} _{d} is important for the calculation of the contact force between the ball and the defect, and correspondingly the vibration responses of the bearing. In most of the available literature [30 – 32 , 34 , 35, 37 , 40 , 42] , the ball is modeled as a point mass, and this results in overestimated contact force between a roller and a defect [33] . A proper way to deal with this problem is to take account of the finite size of the ball as it rolls through the defect [33] . In this paper, the model proposed in Ref. [42] is improved by considering the effect of the finite size of a ball on the basis of Ref. [33]. As shown in Fig. 6 , defect frame O _{d} x _{d} y _{d} z _{d} is established to determine the position of the defect center. The contacting point between a ball and a raceway under normal conditions is O _{k} , and a frame called contact frame O _{k} x _{k} y _{k} z _{k} is established
at this point. The z _{k} axis is along the direction of vector r _{b}_{c} , and the y _{k} axis is along the opposite direction of the orbital speed of the ball. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 6 (a), vector r _{b}_{c} intersects with the raceway axis of rotation at point m , and the position vector locating the raceway groove center c relative to point m is r _{m}_{c} . Based on the geometry property of the
bearing, vector r _{m}_{c} can be described in contact frame O _{k} x _{k} y _{k} z _{k} as
r mc ¼
n
0
0
^{r} cr 3
cos α
o ^{T}
(15)
where r _{c} _{r} _{3} is the third component of vector r _{c}_{r} . In Eq. (15) , vector r _{c}_{r} should be described in azimuth frame O _{a} x _{a} y _{a} z _{a} , as shown in Fig. 6 (a). For any point (such as point p in Fig. 6 (b)) on the surface of a ball, the position vector locating this point relative to ball center b can be described in contact frame O _{k} x _{k} y _{k} z _{k} as
r p ¼
n
0
^{d} sin φ
2
d
2
cos φ
o ^{T}
(16)
where φ is the angle between vector r _{p} and axis z _{k} . Moreover, the position of point p relative to point m can be given as
r _{m}_{p} ¼ r _{m}_{c} 7 r _{b}_{c} þ r _{p}
(17)
where signs “ þ ” and “ ” refer to outer raceway and inner raceway respectively. In Fig. 6 (b), vector r _{m}_{p} intersects with the raceway at point q . The geometrical interaction between the ball and the raceway at point p , _{δ} _{b}_{d} , can be determined based on the length of vector r _{m}_{p} and the geometry property of the raceway:
(18)
^{δ} bd ^{¼} r mp
^{} R
θ
R
^{}
^{} is the length of vector r _{m}_{q} as a function of the angle between vector r _{m}_{p}
and axis z _{d} (i.e., θ _{R} , as shown in Fig. 6 (b)). Eq. (18) should be calculated for every point on the ball in plane y _{k} z _{k} , and the maximum positive _{δ} _{b}_{d} ( _{δ} _{b}_{d} _{þ} ) is adopted as the geometrical interaction between the ball and the defect:
where
r
mp
^{} is the length of vector r _{m}_{p} , and R
θ
R
δ _{d} ¼ max
^{δ} bd _{þ}
^{}
(19)
The contact force between the ball and the defect can be obtained by Hertzian contact theory:
^{Q} bd ^{¼} ^{K} bd ^{δ}
1
d
: 5
(20)
where K _{b}_{d} is the Hertzian contact stiffness coefficient. Here, we assume that K _{b}_{d} is the same as that under normal conditions. Indeed, nonHertzian contact occurs between the ball and the defect due to the geometrical singularity of the defect. The nonHertzian contact characteristic will be investigated in the future.
2.2.2. Changes of directions of contact forces
When the geometrical interaction δ _{d} is determined using Eq. (19) , the corresponding contact force between the ball and the defect, Q _{b}_{d} , can be calculated based on Hertzian point contact theory. However, when the ball interacts with the defect, the direction of contact force Q _{b}_{d} is not coincident with the line which connects the ball center b and the original raceway groove curvature center c , and an additional force Q _{b}_{d} _{1} along axis x _{k} can be decomposed from Q _{b}_{d} . In other words, contact force Q _{b}_{d} can be decomposed into two components, i.e., tangential and normal components ( Q _{b}_{d} _{1} and Q _{b}_{d} _{2} in Fig. 6 (c)) with respect to the original normal raceway. These effects should be considered in the dynamic model to accurately model the behaviors of actual defective ball bearings. Therefore, the contact force is transformed to the original contact frame:
Q
k
bd ^{¼}
n
0
Q _{b}_{d} sin φ ^{}
Q _{b}_{d} cos φ
o ^{T}
(21)
where angle φ should satisfy Eq. (19) . It will be shown in Section 3 that the second component of Q _{b}_{d} largely influences the orbital speed of a ball and the BPFs.
k
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
215
Fig. 7. Orbital positions of a ball and a defect. In this figure, the origin of the inertial frame is assumed at the bearing center. The relationship between the orbital positions can be clearly shown in plane y _{i} z _{i} .
Fig. 8. Flowchart of the numerical simulation.
216
3. Simulations
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
The defect model discussed in Section 2.2 is integrated into the bearing model provided in Section 2.1 to simulate dynamic performances of defective ball bearings. The general solutions of the dynamic equations (Eqs. (12 ) – ( 14 )) are solved numerically by using fourthorder Runge – Kutta – Fehlberg scheme with stepchanging criterion. In program ADORE [26] , all of the variables were nondimensionalized to enhance the numerical precision and the efficiency of the numerical integration. In this paper, the variables are not nondimensionalized. In the current investigation, the computer program has been coded in FORTRAN 95 language. All of the variables in the program are doubleprecision floatingpoint. The authors think that the numerical precision can be satisfied by the above programming scheme. Moreover, in the numerical integration procedure, the relative orbital position between a ball and the defect is checked to determine whether the ball rolls into the defect or not. As shown in Fig. 7 , the orbital positions of the ball and the defect center are _{θ} _{b} and _{θ} _{d} , respectively. Moreover, in Fig. 7 , θ _{e} is half the angle of the defect in the circumference of the raceway. It can be found that when the difference between θ _{b} and θ _{d} (i.e., θ _{b}_{d} in Fig. 7 ) is smaller than θ _{e} , the ball rolls into the defect. Detailed simulation procedure is given in Fig. 8 . Moreover, the descriptions of _{θ} _{b}_{d} and _{θ} _{e} can be found in Ref. [42] . Then, envelope analysis is carried out on the simulated vibration responses to calculate BPFs. In this paper, the frequency resolution is less than 0.1 Hz. As the time step size is stepchanging in the numerical integration, the vibration response is resampled before the envelope analysis. Moreover, the simulation results obtained by the dynamic model are compared with those obtained by Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) to show the reasonability of the proposed method. The initial contact angle is adopted when Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) are used to calculate BPFs as most usual applications. Here, Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) are used based on the assumption that the raceways have the same contact angle, i.e., the initial contact angle. In Section 3.1 , the reasonability of the dynamic model for the prediction of the behaviors of actual defective ball bearings and for the calculation of BPFs is discussed. In Section 3.2 , parametric studies are carried out to investigate the influences of operating conditions, lubrication characteristics, bearing parameters, and defect sizes on BPFO and BPFI. These factors include shaft speed Ω _{i} , axial load F _{a} , radial load F _{r} , friction coefficient μ _{1} (refer to Fig. 2 ), ball/cage pocket clearance δ _{b}_{p} , raceway groove curvature factors of inner raceway ( f _{i} ) and outer raceway ( f _{o} ), initial contact angle α _{0} , and defect width w _{d} (refer to Fig. 6 (d)). The other geometrical parameters of the simulated bearing are listed in Table 1 . In Table 1 , the ball number, and ball and pitch diameters are the same as those in Ref. [26] for investigating general dynamic motions of rolling ball bearings.
3.1. Reasonability of the proposed model
As mentioned above, compared with available models for defective ball bearings, cage effects and relative slippage at contacting surfaces are considered in the proposed model. Moreover, the effect of the defect on changes of directions of contact force when a ball rolls through the defect is also taken into account. These considerations make the proposed model more reasonable for the dynamic behavior predictions of defective ball bearings. In this section, the reasonability of the proposed model for the prediction of dynamic behaviors of actual defective ball bearings and for the calculation of BPFs is discussed. In ball bearings, every ball exhibits similar motion characteristics when a pure axial load is applied. Therefore, in order to investigate the general motion of defective ball bearings, a pure axial load of 2000 N is applied on the inner raceway. Moreover, in order to demonstrate this issue better, a rectangular shaped defect is located in the outer raceway in this simulation. The raceway groove curvature factors f _{i} and f _{o} are both set as 0.52. Moreover, the initial contact angle is 30 degree, the friction coefficient μ _{1} is 0.08, and the shaft speed is 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} . Besides the friction coefficient μ _{1} , the lubrication parameter u _{m} (refer to Fig. 2 ) is set as 1 m s ^{} ^{1} . The corresponding shaft rotation frequency f _{s} is 250 Hz. The BPFO calculated by Eq. (1) is 1475.04 Hz. The dynamic behaviors of a ball when it rolls through the defect are shown in Fig. 9 . The contact forces of the ball are shown in Fig. 9 (a). Fig. 9 (b) is the enlarged view of Fig. 9 (a). It can be seen that when the ball rolls into the defect (corresponds to the ‘ entry into ’ point in Fig. 9 ), the contact forces decrease gradually due to material absence. However,
Table 1 Parameters of the simulated bearing system.
Number of balls z Pitch diameter d _{m} (m) 
14 

Ball diameter D (m) Radial clearance (m) Guiding raceway/cage clearance (m) 
12.7 10 ^{} ^{3} 70 10 ^{} ^{3} 0 0.25 10 ^{} ^{3} 

Young's modulus (Pa) 
2.0 10 ^{1}^{1} 

Poisson ratio 
0.25 

Density (kg m ^{} ^{3} ) 
7.75 10 ^{3} 

Damping 
coefficient at ball/raceway (N s m ^{} ^{1} ) 
2 0 
Damping coefficients of bearing housing c _{h}_{y} , and c _{h}_{z} (N s m ^{} ^{1} ) 
1800 

Stiffness coefficients of bearing housing k _{h}_{y} , and k _{h}_{z} (N m ^{} ^{1} ) 
15 10 ^{6} 
Orbital speed of a ball (rad s ^{}^{1} )
Orbital speed of a ball (rad s ^{}^{1}
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
50
0
50
100
150
Number of shaft revolutions
217
Fig. 9. Dynamic behaviors of a ball when it rolls through a defect located in outer raceway. (a) Contact force, (b) enlarged view of (a), (c) acceleration of the bearing housing in z _{i} direction, (d) enlarged view of (c), (e) orbital speed of a ball, (f) enlarged view of (e), and (g) schematic view of a ball when it rolls through a defect located in outer raceway ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{a} ¼ 2000 N, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08,
u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 1.0 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm). In
(g), the raceways are spread out for better showing.
although the ball center leaves the front side of the defect, the front side of the defect can also contact with the left side of the ball, as shown in Fig. 9 (g) (The raceways are spread out in Fig. 9 (g) for better showing). As a result, the contact force at ball/outer raceway cannot drop to zero suddenly. As the ball rolls into the defect, a low frequency can be found in accelerations of the bearing housing ( Fig. 9 (c) and (d)). When the ball keeps on moving, the right side of the ball impacts the back side of the defect ( “ impact ” point in Fig. 9 ) although the center of the ball does not reach the back side of the defect, as shown in Fig. 9 (g). This can be attributed to the finite size of the ball [33]. It can be seen that a large contact force at outer raceway is generated when the ball impacts the back side of the defect ( Fig. 9 (a) and (b)), and this force can be recognized as the impact force between the ball and the defect. Moreover, after the ball impacts the back side of the defect, the contact
218
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 10. Dynamic behaviors of a ball when it rolls through a defect located in the inner raceway. (a) Contact force, (b) enlarged view of (a), (c) acceleration of
the bearing housing in z _{i} direction, (d) enlarged view of (c), (e) orbital speed of a ball, (f) enlarged view of (e), and (g) schematic view of a ball when it rolls
through a defect located in
u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 1.0 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm). In (g), the raceways are spread out for better showing.
the inner raceway ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{a} ¼ 2000 N, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08,
forces at outer raceway and inner raceway increase and decrease successively. This shows that the ball jumps between the two raceways after it impacts the defect. Additionally, when the ball jumps between the raceways, a high frequency motion can be found in the acceleration of the bearing housing ( Fig. 9 (c)). These phenomena were also observed experimentally [49 , 50] .
An important dynamic performance which largely influences the BPFs is the orbital speed of a ball ( θ _{b} ). The orbital speed
of the ball when it rolls through the defect is shown in Fig. 9 (e). Fig. 9 (f) is the enlarged view of Fig. 9 (e). It can be seen that
_
_
θ _{b} increases slightly after the “ entry into ” point. This can be attributed to the tangential component of Q _{b}_{d} ( Q _{b}_{d} _{1} as shown in
Fig. 9 (g)) when the ball impacts the front side of the defect. The direction of this force is the same as the direction of
which leads the ball to accelerate. However, because the force Q _{b}_{d} is relatively small at this stage, the acceleration is small
θ _{b} ,
_
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Frequency (Hz)
Frequency (Hz)
219
Fig. 11. Effects of the cage. (a) Acceleration of the bearing housing in z _{i} direction, (b) enlarged view of (a), (c) orbital speed of a ball, (d) spacing between
two balls, (e) envelope spectrum, and (f) enlarged μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 1.0 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm).
view of (e) ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{a} ¼ 2000 N, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52,
correspondingly. When the ball keeps on moving, it contacts neither with inner raceway nor outer raceway, and the contact
_
forces of both raceways are all zero ( ‘ hanging ’ stage of the ball). As a result, θ _{b} decreases gradually due to insufficient traction force. When the ball impacts the back side of the defect, a large contact force is generated as discussed before. It can
be seen in Fig. 9 (g) that the tangential component of the contact force ( Q _{b}_{d} _{1} in Fig. 9 (g)) at this stage is along the opposite
_
direction of θ _{b} . This causes the ball to decelerate suddenly. It can be seen that the orbital speed of a ball when it rolls
_
through a defect is rather complex. However, in most of the available models [18 , 28 – 37] , θ _{b} is assumed as a constant. The
results show that the proposed model can reasonably predict the orbital speed of a ball when it rolls through the defect. Fig. 10 shows the dynamic motions of a ball when it rolls through a defect in inner raceway. Similar analysis procedure discussed above can be used to investigate the dynamic motions shown in Fig. 10 . It should be noted that the contact force at outer raceway cannot reduce to zero under this condition due to high centrifugal force ( Fig. 10 (a) and (b)). Moreover, attentions should be paid to the direction of the contact force when the ball rolls through the inner raceway defect ( Fig. 10 (g)) which is different from the condition of outer raceway defect. Another important factor which was not considered in available models [18,28,29,3133,3537,40,42] is the cage. However, the cage has a great influence on dynamic behaviors of a bearing [44] . In actual practice, the spacing between balls is limited by the cage. The relative spacing between balls has some deviations due to the ball/cage pocket clearance, and this is the reason for the random variation in BPFs which is experienced in practice. Similarly, take outer raceway defects for instance. The radial accelerations of the bearing housing when some adjacent balls roll through the defect with and without
220
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Number of shaft revolutions
10
5
0
5
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 12. Vibration responses of a bearing without raceway defects. (a) Ball and cage orbit speeds, (b) ball and cage skidding, and (c) contact angles ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{a} ¼ 2000 N, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} ).
cage are shown in Fig. 11 . It can be seen that there are some deviations between these two conditions ( Fig. 11 (a) and (b)). As
_
shown in Fig. 11 (c), when the cage is considered, θ _{b} has very high frequency oscillations due to excessive impact between
_
the ball and the cage pocket, and the averaged amplitude of θ _{b} is smaller than that when the cage is not considered. Moreover, the spacing between two adjacent balls nearly remains constant when the cage is not considered ( Fig. 11 (d)). However, in actual practice, the impacts between balls and cage pockets are excessive, and the spacing between balls
depends on the ball/cage pocket clearance as shown in Fig. 11 (d). It can be seen that the maximum and the minimum of the spacing between two balls correspond with two extreme relative positions between these two balls. The envelope spectrum is shown in Fig. 11 (e). Fig. 11 (f) is the enlarged view of Fig. 11 (e). It can be found that the BPFO of the bearing without cage is relatively larger than that when the cage is considered, and this deviation may be more severe under other complex operating conditions. Moreover, when the cage is considered, some frequency smearing phenomena can be found in the envelope spectrum ( Fig. 11 (e)) due to the impact between balls and cage pockets. These show the importance of the cage for the prediction of dynamic behaviors of defective bearings. It can be found that the BPFO calculated by Eq. (1) and that obtained by dynamic model are different from each other. The reasons are discussed here. Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) are constructed using kinematical relationships based on simple rolling motion and pure rolling assumptions. However, when a ball rotates relative to the deformed surface, the simple kinematical relationship used in Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) does not occur, rather, a combination of rolling and sliding motions occurs [19] . In the dynamic model, as mentioned in Section 1 , no kinematic constraints and assumptions are used. The dynamic model provides a realtime simulation of bearing performances. The vibration response of a healthy bearing is shown in Fig. 12 for better understanding the skidding effect. As shown in Fig. 12 , after several revolutions, traction forces (these forces are not
_
considered in Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 )) are adequate to produce a stable motion [26] , and the ball orbit speed θ _{b} and the cage orbit
speed θ _{c} are stabilized to a certain value (some oscillations can be found in the stable solution of 687.09 rad s ^{} ^{1} due to the
impact between the ball and the cage pocket, as shown in Fig. 12 (a)). Moreover, for a ball bearing, certain skidding exists
between a ball and a raceway due to relative slippage (this effect is not considered in Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 )). The skidding effect
_
_
_
can be evaluated by Eq. (22) [51] where θ _{p} is the orbital speed calculated on pure rolling assumptions and θ _{d}_{y} is the orbital
speed calculated by the dynamic model considering relative slippage:
Skidding ¼
_
^{θ} dy ^{}
_
θ
p
_
θ p
100 %
(22)
The skidding effect calculated by the dynamic model is shown in Fig. 12 (b). A positive percentage skidding can be found under high speed conditions. This phenomenon was also reported in Ref. [52] . The relative slippage alters the overall
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Number of shaft revolutions
Effects of shaft speed and axial load
221
Fig. 13. Effects of shaft speed when the bearing is loaded by different axial loads. (a) Relative error, and (b) ball skidding ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm).
Radial load (N)
15
10
5
0
5
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 14. Effects of shaft speed when the bearing is loaded by different radial loads. (a) Relative error, and (b) ball skidding ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, F _{a} ¼ 1000 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm).
dynamic characteristics of the bearing, such as the contact angles shown in Fig. 12 (c). It should be noted that different external loads and lubricants will result in different BPFs. In a word, dynamic analysis can provide more reasonable BPFs.
3.2. Parametric studies
In this section, the influences of operating conditions, lubricant characteristics, bearing parameters and defect sizes on BPFO and BPFI are discussed. The investigated factors include shaft speed _{Ω} _{i} , friction coefficient _{μ} _{1} , axial load F _{a} , radial load F _{r} , ball/cage pocket clearance δ _{b}_{p} , raceway groove curvature factors f _{i} and f _{o} , initial contact angle α _{0} , and defect width w _{d} . In order to evaluate the influences of these factors, the relative error Δ f (Eq. (23) ) between the results calculated by Eqs. (1 ) and ( 2 ) ( f _{p} ) and the results calculated by the proposed model ( f _{d} ) is provided. Large Δ f ^{} ( j U j denotes the absolute value) means that the influence of the parameter is significant:
Δ f ¼ ^{f} ^{d} ^{} ^{f} ^{p} 100 %
f p
(23)
3.2.1. Effects of shaft speed, friction coefficient, and external load
BPFs are mainly dominated by orbital speeds of balls. Moreover, when the shaft speed is fixed, the orbital speeds are
largely determined by the traction forces at contacting surfaces. When traction forces are insufficient, the skidding effect
becomes severe, and
Δ f
Δ
f
^{} becomes large. Additionally, the traction forces are dominated by friction coefficients, contact
forces and relative slip velocities at contacting surfaces. Therefore, shaft speeds, axial loads, radial loads, and friction coefficients are combined together to investigate the effects of operating conditions on BPFs in this section.
Fig. 13 shows the relative errors under different shaft speeds and axial loads. It can be found that when the axial load is fixed,
between a ball and a raceway becomes severe when the shaft speed increases [51,53]. Moreover, it can be seen that when the
shaft speed is fixed,
load is low. To better demonstrate these effects, two extreme conditions in Fig. 13(a) (Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} and F _{a} ¼ 500 N, and
^{} increases with the decrease of axial load, which can be attributed to the severe skidding when the axial
Δ
f
^{} increases with the increase of shaft speed. This phenomenon can be explained that when the axial load is fixed, the skidding
222
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Effects of friction coefficient and shaft speed
Friction coefficient _{μ} _{∞}
Effects of friction coefficient and axial load
Friction coefficient μ _{∞}
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 15. Effects of friction coefficient μ _{1} . (a) Relative errors when the bearing is operated at different shaft speeds ( F _{a} ¼ 1000 N and F _{r} ¼ 0 N), (b) ball skidding of two conditions shown in (a), (c) relative errors when the bearing is loaded by different axial loads ( Ω _{i} ¼ 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} and F _{r} ¼ 0 N), and (d)
ball skidding of
two conditions shown in (c) ( δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, u _{m} ¼ 1 m s ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm).
Ω _{i} ¼ 3000 r min ^{} ^{1} and F _{a} ¼ 2000 N) are adopted to investigate the skidding effect, as shown in Fig. 13(b). The ball skidding is given for healthy bearings in the rest part of this paper for better understanding the skidding effect. It can be found that the ball skidding is relatively slight when Ω _{i} ¼ 3000 r min ^{} ^{1} and F _{a} ¼ 2000 compared with Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} and F _{a} ¼ 500 N. Fig. 13
shows that low axial load and high speed conditions can result in severe skidding and large
^{} . Additionally, it can be seen that
the relative error of BPFI is negative compared with BPFO at relative high speeds, which means that f _{p} (Eq. (23)) is larger than f _{d} when calculating BPFI, while f _{p} is smaller than f _{d} when calculating BPFO. The main reason may be due to the contact angle. The contact angle of inner raceway increases and the contact angle of outer raceway decreases due to high ratio of centrifugal force to contact force under high speed conditions [19,53,54].
The influences of radial load at different shaft speeds can be found in Fig. 14 . It can be found in Fig. 14 (a) that when the
radial load decreases,
small, as shown in Fig. 14 (b). The relationship between ball skidding and radial load was also reported in [55] . Moreover, it
can also be found in Fig. 14 that when the radial load is fixed,
skidding under high speed conditions. Another important factor which influences the traction force between a ball and a raceway is the friction coefficient. For different types of lubricants, the friction coefficient varies in a wide range. For some solid lubricants, the friction coefficient is in the range of about 0.02 – 0.6 [56] . For some oil lubricants, this value ranges approximately from 0.005 to 0.01 [47] , and from 0.05 to 0.1 for boundary lubrication conditions. It should be noted that the friction coefficient largely depends on material properties and operating conditions, and detailed investigation on the lubricant behaviors is beyond the scope of the current analysis. For comparison, four different friction coefficients (0.005, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.08) are chosen in this simulation. The effects of friction coefficient μ _{1} can be found in Fig. 15 . The absolute value of relative error becomes large when the friction coefficient is small and the shaft speed is high ( Fig. 15 (a)). Small μ _{1} results in small friction force, and this will lead to insufficient traction forces and severe skidding [19] . The ball skidding under two extreme conditions in Fig. 15 (a) is shown in Fig. 15 (b). Severe skidding can be found when μ _{1} ¼ 0.005 and Ω _{i} ¼ 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} . Although the relative error becomes severe with the decrease of μ _{1} , the shaft speed also plays the dominant role in the relative error in Fig. 15 (a) due to high ratio of centrifugal force to contact force. Fig. 15 (c) and (d) show that the relative error becomes severe when _{μ} _{1} and axial load are both small. This can also be attributed to insufficient traction forces and severe skidding under small _{μ} _{1} and axial load conditions, as shown in Fig. 15 (d). However, the axial load has a much greater effect than _{μ} _{1} on the skidding and relative error.
Δ f
Δ f
^{} increases correspondingly. This can also be attributed to severe skidding when the radial load is
Δ f
^{} increases with the increase of shaft speed due to severe
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
223
Effects of ball/cage pocket clearance and radial load
Ball/cage pocket clearance
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 16. Effects of ball/cage pocket clearance when the bearing is loaded by different radial loads. (a) Relative error, (b) spacing between two adjacent ball s
when F _{r} ¼ 1000 N, (c) spacing between two adjacent balls u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm).
when F _{r} ¼ 2000 N ( Ω _{i} ¼ 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{a} ¼ 500 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08,
From the above investigations ( Figs. 13 – 15 ), it can be found that the shaft speeds and the external loads are the dominant operating parameters which largely influence BPFs. These parameters largely affect traction forces and skidding of a ball. When the skidding effect of the investigated bearing is severe (shaft speed is larger than 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , and axial and
radial loads are less than 500 N),
9.53% for BPFI, respectively. When the shaft speed is low (less than 3000 r min ^{} ^{1} ), and the external load is high (larger than
2000 N), the skidding in the investigated bearing becomes slight, and
Additionally,
^{} of BPFO is larger than that of BPFI. It should be noted that different bearings will exhibit different skidding
characteristics, and the effects of these factors should be determined for different bearings specially.
^{} is about less than 1% for both BPFO and BPFI.
Δ f
^{} are in the range of about 4.65 – 13.76% for BPFO and are in the range of about 2.24 –
Δ f
Δ
f
3.2.2. Effects of ball/cage pocket clearance
The ball/cage pocket clearance δ _{b}_{p} plays an important role in cage instability. When the ratio of δ _{b}_{p} to cage/guiding raceway clearance is larger than one, the cage may exhibit certain instability which leads the cage to failure [44] . In this paper, the cage/guiding raceway clearance is set as 0.25 mm, and three different _{δ} _{b}_{p} (0.1 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.45 mm) are chosen to investigate the effects of δ _{b}_{p} . Generally, the spacing between two adjacent balls are limited by the cage, and the interaction at ball/cage pocket becomes more severe when a bearing is loaded by both axial and radial loads where orbital speeds of balls are periodic with the rotation of the bearing. Therefore, in this section, the effects of _{δ} _{b}_{p} on BPFs are
investigated when the bearing is loaded by different radial loads.
The effect of δ _{b}_{p} on BPFs is shown in Fig. 16 . It can be seen that when the radial load is zero, the relative error is barely
affected by δ _{b}_{p} . When the radial load increases, such as 1000 N in Fig. 16 (a), Δ f ^{} increases slightly with the increase of δ _{b}_{p} .
When δ _{b}_{p} are 0.1 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.45 mm, the corresponding Δ f ^{} are 0.63%, 1.26%, and 1.83% for BPFO, and are 0.48%, 0.92%, and 1.36% for BPFI. However, when the radial load increases up to 2000 N, the relative error does not affected by _{δ} _{b}_{p} when δ _{b}_{p} increases to a certain value (0.25 mm). When δ _{b}_{p} are 0.1 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.45 mm, the corresponding Δ f ^{} are 0.552%, 0.33%, and 0.33% for BPFO, and are 0.4%, 0.26%, and 0.26% for BPFI. This shows that when the traction forces are sufficient to weaken the skidding effect, the influences of _{δ} _{b}_{p} on BPFs become insignificant. An important issue which was investigated by previous researchers [11 – 13 , 20 – 25] is the impulse train of force generated in defective bearings. Most of the researchers [11 , 20 – 25] realized that the spacing between the impulses in a defective bearing is not strictly periodic because of the slippage at contacting surfaces. Sawalhi and Randall [23 , 24] reported that the variation in the spacing is about 1 – 2%. In this section, variations in the spacing between impulses are studied by investigating the spacing between two adjacent balls in a defective ball bearing. The spacing between two adjacent balls can
224
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Effects of raceway groove curvature factors and axial load
Raceway groove curvature factors (f _{i} _{a}_{n}_{d} _{f} _{o} _{)}
Fig. 17. Effects of raceway groove curvature factors when the bearing is operated by different axial loads ( Ω _{i} ¼ 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm, δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm).
Effects of initial conact angle and axial load
Initial contact angle (degree)
Initial contact angle (degree)
15
10
5
0
Number of shaft revolutions
Fig. 18. Effects of initial contact angle. (a) Relative errors when the bearing is loaded by different axial loads ( F _{r} ¼ 0 N), (b) ball skidding of two conditions in (a), (c) relative errors when the bearing is loaded by different radial loads ( F _{a} ¼ 500 N), and (d) ball skidding of two conditions in (c) ( Ω _{i} ¼ 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , w _{d} ¼ 0.5 mm, h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm, δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm).
be investigated by the difference between orbital positions of these two balls ( θ _{b} _{2} θ _{b} _{1} in Fig. 16 , where θ _{b} _{1} and θ _{b} _{2} are the orbital positions of the first and the second balls, respectively. The numbering of balls in the bearing is shown in Fig. 5 ). As shown in Fig. 16 (b), when the radial load is 1000 N, the percentage deviations of _{θ} _{b} _{2} _{θ} _{b} _{1} from their mean values for the three different δ _{b}_{p} are about 7 1.4%, 7 2.5%, and 7 3.3%, respectively. However, when the radial load increased to 2000 N as shown in Fig. 16 (c), the percentage deviations of θ _{b} _{2} θ _{b} _{1} from their mean values for the three δ _{b}_{p} are about 7 1.3%, 7 1.9%, and 7 0.4%, respectively. This shows that the spacing between two adjacent balls largely depends on the operating conditions and δ _{b}_{p} . Additionally, from the discussions in Section 3.2.1 , it can be found that the relative error of BPFs is smaller than 2% only when the skidding effect in the bearing is slight. As a result, the hypothesis of 1 – 2% can be satisfied only when the skidding effect is insignificant.
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Defect width (mm)
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
15
10
5
0
5
10
Number of shaft revolutions
Number of shaft revolutions
225
Fig. 19. Effects of defect width. (a) Relative errors when the shaft speeds are 3000 r min ^{} ^{1} and 6000 r min ^{} ^{1} , (b) relative errors when the shaft speeds are 10,000 r min ^{} ^{1} and 15,000 r min ^{} ^{1} , (c) ball orbit speeds when the ball rolls through a defect located in outer raceway, (d) contact forces at ball/outer raceway when the ball rolls through a defect located in outer raceway, (e) ball orbital speed when the ball rolls through a defect located in inner raceway, and (f) contact forces at ball/inner raceway when the ball rolls through a defect located in inner raceway ( F _{a} ¼ 1000 N, F _{r} ¼ 0 N, α _{0} ¼ 30 degree, f _{i} ¼ 0.52, f _{o} ¼ 0.52, μ _{1} ¼ 0.08, u _{m} ¼ 1ms ^{} ^{1} , h _{d} ¼ 0.1 mm, δ _{b}_{p} ¼ 0.1 mm). In (d) and (f), the maximum contact force is recognized as the impact force between the ball and the defect.
3.2.3. Effects of raceway groove curvature factors
The raceway groove curvature factor is between about 0.515 and 0.53 for the most single row deep groove ball bearings and is between about 0.52 and 0.53 for the most single row angular contact ball bearings [43] . However, this value will between 0.54 and 0.58 in other special applications [57] . As a result, five different raceway groove curvature factors (0.51, 0.52, 0.53, 0.54, and 0.55) are chosen in this simulation. Moreover, raceway groove curvature factors mainly affect the contact forces. Although the external load is fixed, the contact forces at ball/raceways vary with the change of raceway groove curvature factors. As a result, the effect of raceway groove curvature factor is investigated when the bearing is loaded by different axial loads. The influences of raceway groove curvature factors are shown in Fig. 17 . It can be seen from Fig. 17 that when raceway
groove curvature factors increase,
^{} increases correspondingly. As mentioned in Section 2.1 that the raceway groove
curvature factor plays an important role in calculating the contact force (Eqs. (6 ) and ( 7 )). The contact force influences the
friction forces in contact zones, and also the skidding effect. As a result, the calculated BPFs change according to different raceway groove curvature factors.
Δ f
226
L. Niu et al. / Journal of Sound and Vibration 357 (2015) 207 – 232
Table 2 Effects of defect width at different shaft speeds.
Ω _{i} (r min ^{} ^{1} ) 
w _{d} (mm) 
BPFO (Hz) 
BPFI (Hz) 

Dynamic model 
Calculated by Eq. (1) 
Dynamic model 
Calculated by Eq. (2) 

3,000 
0.5 
295.82 
295.01 
404.14 
404.99 
3,000 
1.5 
295.68 
295.01 
404.14 
404.99 
3,000 
3.5 
295.61 
295.01 
404.15 
404.99 
3,000 
5.0 
295.75 
295.01 
404.08 
404.99 
6,000 
0.5 
596.05 
590.02 
803.86 
809.99 
6,000 
1.5 
595.83 
590.02 
803.95 
809.99 
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.