0
Research Papers

Loading and Design Parameter Uncertainty in the Dynamics and Performance of High-Speed-Parallel-Helical-Stage of a Wind Turbine Gearbox1

[+] Author and Article Information
Fisseha M. Alemayehu

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX 79409
e-mail: fisseha.alemayehu@ttu.edu

Stephen Ekwaro-Osire

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX 79409
e-mail: stephen.ekwaro-osire@ttu.edu

Part of this paper was presented at the ASME IDETC/CIE 2013, PTG Conference, Aug. 4–7, 2013, Portland, OR.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Power Transmission and Gearing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received October 4, 2013; final manuscript received April 5, 2014; published online June 11, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Qi Fan.

J. Mech. Des 136(9), 091002 (Jun 11, 2014) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-13-1443; doi: 10.1115/1.4027496 History: Received October 04, 2013; Revised April 05, 2014

In operation, wind turbine gearboxes (WTGs) are subjected to variable torsional and nontorsional loads. In addition, the manufacturing and assembly process of these devices results in uncertainty in the design parameters of the system. WTGs are reported to fail in their early life of operation within 3–7 years as opposed to the expected 20 years of operation. Their downtime and maintenance process is the most costly of the failures of any subassembly of wind turbines (WTs). The objective of this work is to perform a probabilistic multibody dynamic analysis (PMBDA) of the high-speed-parallel-helical-stage (HSPHS) of a WTG that considers the uncertainties of generator-side torque-loading and input-shaft speed as well as assembly and design parameter uncertainties. Component reliability (Rc) or probability of failure (Pf) and probabilistic sensitivities of all the input variables toward five performance functions have been measured and conclusions have been drawn. As opposed to the traditional deterministic approach, PMBDA has demonstrated a new aspect of design and installation of WTGs. In addition to revealing Rc or system reliability or underperformance through Pf, the method will also help designers to critically consider certain variables through the probabilistic sensitivity results.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

ADAMS 3D-contact based high-speed-parallel-helical-gear-pair model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Distribution fitting to 40 s loading data: (a) nG and (b) TP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Determination of extreme value (Gumbel) distribution parameters using maximum likelihood evaluation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the 1.5 MW compound WTGs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Component reliability for root bending stress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Probabilistic sensitivity factors of the root bending stress with respect to the (a) mean, μ and (b) the standard deviation, σ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Component reliability for DF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Probabilistic sensitivity factors to DF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Percentage probabilistic importance factors considering DF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Component reliability for surface contact stress

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Probabilistic sensitivity factors of surface compressive stress of (a) pinion and (b) gear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Sensitivity levels for surface compressive stress of (a) level 8 and (b) level 16 for both pinion (red and yellow) and gear (blue and gray)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Reliability using Hertzian stress of rigid-body model (MV: σCG in curve 2 and σCP in curve 4) and flexible model (AMV: σCG in curve 1 and σCP in curve 3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Effect of truncation on component reliability for compressive surface contact stress of the gear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

CDF of DF of a rigid and flexible MBD models using MV and AMV methods

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

CDF of DF of the rigid-body (MV and AMV) and flexible (MV and AMV) MBD models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

CDF of σbP of flexible (using AMV) and rigid-body (using MV and AMV) MBD model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Component reliability for root bending stress of rigid-body model (MV: σbG in curve 3 and σbP in curve 4) and flexible model (AMV: σbG in curve 1 and σbP in curve 2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Probabilistic sensitivity factors of the root bending stress of the pinion with respect to the mean, μ (method used: AMV on a rigid-body gear pair model)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

CDF of σCG of rigid (using MV: curve 2) and flexible (using MV: curve 5 and using LHS of 3k, curve 1; 2k, curve 3; and 1k, curve 4) MBD models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Probabilistic sensitivity levels of component reliability considering compressive surface contact stress of the gear (levels 1 and 15)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In