A comparison investigation of the contact models for contact and vibration features of cylindrical roller bearings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the contact models for contact and vibration features of cylindrical roller bearings (CRBs). CRBs are important parts of rotating machinery. The contact deformation between the roller and the raceway is an essential research topic for the CRBs. The contact deformation between the roller and the raceway can greatly affect vibration characteristics and fatigue life of the CRBs. In this investigation, six different methods are adopted to calculate the contact deformation, contact area width and contact stress between the roller and raceways of a CRB. Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the contact deformations and the contact stiffnesses between the roller and the raceway of a CRB obtained by various well-known empirical methods (Lundberg’s, Palmgren’s, Houpert’s, Cheng’s and Hertzian methods) are directly compared with those by the finite element (FE) method. A two degree-of-freedom (2 DOF) dynamic model of the CRB is applied to investigate the effects of the contact stiffness obtained by different line contact deformation calculation methods on the vibration characteristics, such as the root mean square (RMS), the peak to peak (PTP), the crest factor and the kurtosis of the displacement, velocity and acceleration of the inner raceway. Findings The computational results show that different calculation methods for the contact deformations between rollers and raceways have significant effects on the vibrations of the CRB. It is found that that the differences of computational results obtained by Palmgren’s and Lundberg’s models with respect to the FE method are smaller than those by the other three methods, i.e. Houpert’s, Cheng’s and Hertzain models. The amplitude and peak frequency of the frequency response functions from Palmgren’s method are much more similar to those from the finite element method. The above results indicate that Palmgren’s method is a better calculation method for predicting the contact deformations and dynamics of the CRBs. Originality/value This work adopts six different methods to calculate the contact deformation, contact area width and contact stress between the roller and raceways of a CRB. Moreover, a vibration model of a CRB is used to investigate the effect of contact stiffness obtained by the above methods on the vibrations of the CRB. The works can give some guidance for the accurate analytical method for calculating the contact deformations between rollers and raceways and the vibrations of the CRB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".