An FBG-based method for load measurement of a cylindrical rolling element bearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contact forces between raceways and rolling elements of a bearing stand as crucial operational aspects defining the bearing’s performance. While monitoring bearing load through load cells or strain gauges on the shaft or housing is feasible, it may not precisely reflect the distributed load transmitted by the rollers directly to the raceways. This paper introduces a method to calculate these contact forces, relying on a linear assumption correlating the loads to the measured strains on the outer race of a bearing. In our research, we conducted both static and dynamic tests on cylindrical roller bearings through simulations and experiments. We designed an experimental test rig to conduct both static and dynamic experiments and utilized FBG optical fiber sensors for contact force measurement in bearings due to their multiple advantages, including high sensitivity, resistance to corrosion and magnetic interference, and ease of installation on the bearing outer race due to their shape and size. Our findings indicate a consistent linear relationship between contact forces and strains measured on the bearing’s outer race. Furthermore, we calculated the linear coefficient K values from three test groups: static tests under simulation study, static tests under experimental study, and dynamic tests under experimental study. The K values obtained from static tests (simulation and experimental studies) and dynamic tests (experimental study) align consistently. Following this, we calculated contact forces in both static and dynamic experiments by multiplying the measured strains with K . Our calculations resulted in an error percentage of less than 2% for static tests and below 5% for dynamic tests, highlighting the accuracy of our approach in determining these contact forces.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".