the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Rolling contact fatigue calculation of a three-row roller pitch bearing in a wind turbine
Abstract. Rolling contact fatigue calculations of wind turbine pitch bearings have to consider the oscillating operation and the complex, dynamic load distribution in the bearing. The present work proposes a methodology to calculate the life of a pitch bearing that is a roller bearing, specifically a three-row roller bearing. Previous publications in this field have discussed the life calculation of ball pitch bearings. Methodologies applicable to any pitch rolling bearing are partly improved upon in the present work. Several aspects not applicable to roller bearings are re-thought. In comparison to ball bearings, the calculation of roller bearings adds another level of complexity, since they have a long contact which is typically discretized if strong deformation is present, leading to significantly more degrees of freedom. Exemplary calculations are carried out using an extensively validated FE model of a three-row roller bearing of a wind turbine. For this paper, the bearing is modified slightly. The results of the life calculation are put in relation to an accelerated fatigue test on a pitch bearing test rig. Since some of the results can nonetheless not be shown for reasons of confidentiality, the focus of this paper is on the methodology used.
- Preprint
(8239 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Aug 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-53', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Jul 2025
reply
Comments
Overall remarks
It is a well-written paper with enough material to form a substantial contribution to the pitch bearing literature, particularly as there is a dearth of papers about three row roller bearings. As it is a methodology paper, it should be relatively easy to follow the procedure adopted which it is. The flow of the methodology has been clearly illuminated by the well-separated chapters. The reasoning for the methodology has been illuminated properly with enough validation done for each aspect of the method. There are some minor issues which need to be corrected highlighted in the next section. Since the authors validated this method with its relevant assumptions for a specific wind turbine, it may also be good to describe or postulate if this method will work in general for wind turbines with three row roller bearings as well (as much as possible within the limits of confidentiality).
Specific comments
- Line 7: The modification of the bearing is mentioned but never discussed further (except in the conclusion). Please either include a line or so in the main text about this. Even if it is confidential, possibly mention this.
- Line 81: The choice of 21 slices for the FEM model is not explained. Why was this value chosen? Is it standard within the extension?
- Line 83: “contacting roller and raceway” may be a better formulation.
- Line 88: Unless confidential, possibly mention if the split happens in the inner or outer ring and approximate location. I see a split in Figure 1; this could be highlighted there, too.
- Line 198: The reference “Stammler et al.”: Please date these references as there are multiple from the same author.
- Line 316-318: It is mentioned that the Reusner algorithm gives a more accurate load distribution than the FE simulation. It is mentioned later on about it being due to the Hertzian nature of contact algorithm (“For these 72 simulations, the contact pressures of all rollers were determined using a non-Hertzian contact algorithm based on Reusner (1977). Unlike the Hertzian rolling elements used in FE, the non-Hertzian algorithm allows for detection of edge stresses and is more accurate in general.”). To make it clearer, the hertzian nature of the FEM model can be explained before this part of the text.
- Line 517: About the bending moment and resulting structural deformation playing a larger role in the loading of the radial row than the radial load itself: How exactly does structural deformation happen in this case? What is a possible reason for this? Can there be numbers put to this (if possible)?
- Line 527: By a simplified approach like in Eq. 21, do you mean to say that only the axial load (ignoring the Fr mentioned in Eq.21) is to be considered here? Also, it could also be clarified then that since it is a roller bearing, the 10/3 exponent is to be used. Also, for the sake of clarity, is Ca of a single axial row to be used for life?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2025-53-RC1 -
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-53', Jonathan Keller, 01 Aug 2025
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2025-53/wes-2025-53-CC1-supplement.pdfDisclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
144 | 32 | 28 | 204 | 10 | 16 |
- HTML: 144
- PDF: 32
- XML: 28
- Total: 204
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1