3rd International Conference on Production and Industrial Engineering CPIE-2013 Design optimization of rolling element bearing using TLBO

algorithm
R. D. Dandagwhal*, V. D. Kalyankar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, India (*dandgwhalpes@gmail.com)

Abstract - Rolling Element Bearings are extensively used in almost all global industries. Any critical failure of it, would not only affect the overall systems performance but also its reliability, safety, availability and cost-effectiveness. Objectives like long fatigue life i.e. higher dynamic load capacity, rating life need to be achieved collectively in the design of the rolling element bearing. Continuous innovative developments are taking place in the field of advanced optimization techniques. In the given paper, fatigue life of a bearing has been optimized by using a new optimization approach, known as Teaching-Learning-Based optimization (TLBO). Design variables for the bearing include five geometrical parameters: bearing pitch diameter (Dm), ball diameter (Db), the inner and outer raceway curvature radius coefficient (fi & fo), and number of rolling elements (Z) along with five constants that appears in constraint equations. In order to highlight contribution of the advanced optimization techniques, the paper illustrate design optimization of rolling element bearing, results are validated with manufactures data. Keywords - Rolling element bearings, Design

optimization, TLBO. I. INTRODUCTION Machine automation systems have been widely used in manufacturing, and it seems to be more important in future. In general, machine motion for automation system is based on rotational forces that can be provided by means of bearings. Among the other mechanical components, researchers pay great attention to the rolling element bearings due to their unquestionable industrial importance. The term rolling element bearing is used to describe that class of bearings wherein the main load is transferred through elements in rolling contact rather than in sliding contact. Rolling element bearings are very popular because of their low starting torque and kinetic friction, high stiffness and a wide range of load, speed and operating temperature sustainability [1]. Rolling element bearings have wide applications from home appliances to industrial machines such as gear boxes, electric motors, instruments and meters, internal combustion engines, agricultural industries, textile industries, very sophisticated aircraft gas turbine engines and cryogenic turbo pumps that form critical parts of the space shuttle propulsion system, etc. A bearing is not only supports the load but also permits relative motion between two parts, such as shaft and the housing, with minimum friction. Rolling element bearings work under different conditions and frequently

under heavy loadings generated in the machinery and they are subjected to time and space varying dynamic loads. Therefore they have received great attention in the field of design [2]. Also the complexity of the loading mechanism in the bearings shows its effect in the form of local defects. It is important to detect a defect at its initial stage in order to prevent long-term breakdowns or in some cases possible catastrophic failures [3]. According to Yang et al. [4], bearing faults are widely responsible of many loss of production and expense of maintenance in rotational mechanic components. In another study, Mehrjou et al. [5] claimed that the malfunctions for induction motors are about 40 % bearing sourced. A number of researchers adopted various optimization techniques for the design optimization of rolling bearing element. Efficient numerical methods for tribological modeling are also getting developed to facilitate the optimization as well as the other analyses. The design of rolling element bearing is a nonlinear optimization problem with associated constraints. There are many numerical deterministic techniques available for solving nonlinear optimization problem but the problem arises when numbers of design variables are large and these methods had slow convergence along with local optima. Continuous research in the field of optimization techniques and nature-inspired heuristic optimization method provide better solution than deterministic methods and shown a good replacement for classical optimization methods. There are many nature-inspired optimization algorithms, such as genetic algorithm (GA), artificial neural network (ANN), particle swarm optimization (PSO), artificial bee colony (ABC), teaching-learningbased optimization (TLBO), mine blast algorithm (MBA) and water cycle algorithm (WCA), are some of well known and recently developed algorithms. With time, complexity in design optimization has increased and as a consequence, problems related to determination of optimal or near-optimal condition(s) are faced with discrete and continuous parameter spaces with multi-modal, differentiable as well as non-differentiable objective function or response(s). Search for optimal or feasible near-optimal solutions by a suitable optimization techniques based on design optimization for rolling element bearing is a critical and difficult task for researchers and practitioners. GA proposed by Goldberg (1989) [6] is a popular and promising algorithm due to its capability to overcome the problem of local minima (or maxima) among the stochastic optimization techniques. Choi & Yoon [7] used

GAs in optimizing the design variables of an automotive wheel-bearing unit of double-row angular contact ball bearing, by considering the maximization of life of the unit as the objective function. Results has shown enhancement in life of wheel-bearing unit. Chakraborty et al. [8] optimized deep groove ball bearing by using GA and results were validated with available standard catalogue available. Rao et al. [9] further improved design optimization problem defined by Chakraborty et al. [8] by applying bound to the five constant parameters involved in the constraints. Optimization process has been done in two stages. In first stage, five constants variables were given optimum bounds and then in second stage, all ten design parameters were optimized. Gupta et al. [10] presented a mathematical model of a problem as a set of objective functions, design parameters and constraints, was optimized by using non-dominated sorting based genetic algorithm (NSGA II). A sensitivity analysis of various design parameters had been performed, to observed changes in the bearing performance parameters. Kumar et al. [11] proposed a constraint non linear problem for the design of a cylindrical roller bearing by considering maximum dynamic capacity as objective with four input parameters. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out to observe the effect of manufacturing tolerances on design variables. In another study, Kumar et al. [12] applied GA for design optimization of cylindrical roller bearings with the logarithmic profile (LP) crowning. Two additional logarithmic profile generation parameters were considered namely the multiplier of a logarithmic profile deviation and the corrective exponent. Yu & Ren [13] applied NSGA-II to optimize the design of high speed angular contact ball bearing (ACBB) with two objectives, namely, rating life and spin frictional power loss on 7007AC bearing. Mendi et al. [14] performed the dimensional optimization of motion and force transmitting components of a gearbox. With the optimization of the gearbox components i.e. rolling element bearing, the design with smallest volume which can carry the system load was obtained. Tiwari et al. [15] performed the same procedure as that of Kumar et al. [11] for design optimization on a tapered roller bearing using the Monte Carlo simulation sensitivity analysis technique for a robustness check due to the manufacturing tolerances. It is observed form the literature that, relatively less work carried out on the design optimization of the rolling element bearing. Out of, some researcher applied GA for the design optimization of the rolling element bearing. But many times GA unable to determine algorithm-specific controlling parameters such as crossover rate and mutation rate which directly affects on optimized values. Relatively very less work was carried on the design optimization of the rolling element bearing by other optimization techniques. The objective of this paper is to apply Teaching-Learning-based optimization (TLBO) technique for design optimization of rolling element bearing. The algorithm under consideration is applied for design optimization of the deep groove ball bearing in the

present work. In subsequent sections, the paper is structured as: (1) Internal geometries and terminology of rolling element bearing, (2) Problem inception, (3) computational procedure of TLBO, (4) Results and discussion, and (5) conclusion. II. INTERNAL GEOMETRIES AND TERMINOLOGY OF ROLLING ELEMENT BEARINGS ASTM's rolling element bearing standards provide the specifications and test methods relevant to the design, property and performance requirements of the rolling element bearing. These rolling element bearing standards allow product manufacturers, industrial plants, and other producers and end-users of such mechanical parts to test ball or roller bearings to ensure acceptability towards safe installation and use. A brief history of rolling element bearing is published by Hamrack and Anderson [1], in which internal geometry and kinematics as well as material and manufacturing process involved in the bearing manufacturing had been explained. A standard rolling-element bearing has two rings, an outer ring and inner ring, which enclose the rolling elements. The rolling areas on the rings are referred to as raceways. Though, rolling bearing appears as simple geometry, but inner geometry mainly responsible for the deflections, load distribution and amount of stress. Fig. 1 and 2 shows the internal geometry and nomenclature of typical rolling bearing.

Fig. 1 Internal geometry of rolling element bearing [1]

Fig. 2 Sectional view of bearing races [19]

In general, three boundary dimensions can define the bearing geometry that are outer diameter (D), bore

3rd International Conference on Production and Industrial Engineering CPIE-2013

diameter (d) and width (B). Along with above, the other parameters required to define internal geometry are pitch diameter (Dm), ball diameter (Db), the inner and outer raceway curvature radius coefficient (fi & fo), and number of rolling elements (Z) III. PROBLEM INCEPTION FOR BEARING DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR OPTIMIZATION From the literature, it is observed that various objective functions were proposed by different researchers based on the various modes of failure, such as fatigues, corrosions, over-heating, increased friction, vibration and noise. But out of these, at normal operating conditions, the main mode of failure is contact fatigue. Longer the contact fatigue life means longer bearing life. Basic aim of the design optimization is to increase the fatigue life which is directly proportional to the dynamic load rating (Cd) of the bearing. The fatigue life of a bearing be expressed as L= ( ) (1)

Here, g = Db cos a/ Dm, is not an independent parameter. For given type of bearing, contact angle a is zero. For given optimization problem, objective function is maximization in nature; so all the variables are positive integers for this kind of problems. The following section gives details about the design variables.

From the observation of the equation (1)-(3), the basic dynamic load capacity is a function of basic internal geometries of the bearing and unknown constraint constants (explained in subsequent section) may be expressed as [ Where Db = diameter of the ball Z = number of balls Dm = pitch diameter fo = ro / Db = race conformity ratio fi = ri / Db ro and ri are outer and inner raceway groove curvature radius, respectively. Out the above parameters, first five parameters are required to define the internal geometry of the bearing. In additional to these, the five constraint constants ( ) are also taken as design variables, providing constraints to the basic design parameters. CONSTRAINT CONDITIONS The present section describe the procedure for obtaining bounds of design parameters, which defines more appropriate feasible search space for these parameters, similar to Chakraborty et al [8]. These bounds help in the faster convergence of the solution. These bounds of design parameters are fixed for a particular bearing number (i.e. depends on the boundary dimensions). This section summarizes the eight problem constraints. Apart from the internal geometrical issues, number of balls also important constraint. For the convenience of the assembly, number of the balls and the diameter of the ball should satisfy following condition. ( ) ( ) (5) Constraint condition become, ( )
( )

(4)

Where a=3 for point contact or 10/3 for line contact [17]. Life of bearing (L) s the total number of revolutions or, the number of hours at a given constant speed, of bearing operations required for the failure criteria to develop [17]. The fatigue life equation (1) is a function of dynamic load capacity (Cd) and equivalent load (F). For the maximum fatigue life, Cd should be maximized. In subsequent subsections, the objective function and constraints will be incepted for the optimum design of the deep groove ball bearing. OBJECTIVE FUNCTION As explained above section, fatigue life is function of the dynamic load rating. From equation (1) it can be known that the fatigue life is directly proportional to dynamic capacity. In present optimization problem, maximization of the fatigue life is the main objective. It is given as, [ ( )] [ ] (2) Where f(X) represents the objective function and X is the design variable vector. * * + + .. (3) With [ { ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ][ ) ) ) ] } ]

[ ( )]

(6)

Where = the maximum tolerable assembly angle is depends on the geometry of the bearing. The diameter of the rolling element must be within certain limits given by (7)

Where KD min and KD max are unknown constants which decide the possible minimum and maximum diameter and strength of the rolling element. Corresponding constraints conditions given by ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ) (8) (9)

IV. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE OF TLBO The TLBO mimics the teachinglearning process in a class between the teacher and the learners. Teacher desires to reach best harmony on the output of learners in a class, which can be obtained through their grades considered as the output. Output is evaluated by means of exam taken by the teacher. Since the teacher is generally considered as a highly learned person who shares his or her knowledge with the learners, the quality of a teacher affects the outcome of the learners. It is obvious that a good teacher trains learners such that they can have better results in terms of their marks or grades. The TLBO is explained in the following which is similar to the work by Rao et al. [16]. Like other natureinspired algorithms, TLBO is also a population-based method that uses a population of solutions to proceed to the global solution. For TLBO, the population is considered as a group of learners or a class of learners. In optimization algorithms, the population consists of different design variables. The process of TLBO is divided into two parts. The first part consists of the Teacher Phase and the second part consists of the Learner Phase. The Teacher Phase means learning from the teacher and the Learner Phase means learning through the interaction between learners. In first step, initial solution (f(X)) has been generated for the given size of population. Solution is treated as fitness value for individual population. Number of teachers is analogous with number of design parameters (Sn), number of students analogous to Population size (Nn) and Number of generation is Mn. The objective function in given problem is maximization of f(X). A. Teacher phase A good teacher is one who brings his learners up to his level in terms of knowledge. But in real practice this is not possible and a teacher can only move the average of a class up to some extent depending on the capability of the class. Mean of the class is given as MD. The best solution act as teacher (Xteacher= Xf(x)=max). Teacher will try to shift the mean from MS towards Xteacher, which will act as a new mean for the iteration. So, Xteacher=MS_new The difference between two means is expressed as Diff,S=ri*(MS_new-TF* MS) (15) This follows a random process which is interfered by factors like teaching factor (TF). The value of TF is selected as 1 or 2. The obtained difference is added to the current solution to update ists valuses using Xnew,S= Xold,S + Diff,S (16) Find fnew(X) by using corresponding values of Xnew,S. Accept, if it gives better function value. Compare values of f(X) and fnew(X), select maximum of these and terminate teacher phase. B. Learner phase

The pitch diameter of the bearing should be selected as that it must lies between the inner and outer diameter of the bearing. It is directly related with the running mobility of the bearings. Therefore, ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) (10) (11)

Where, e is a constant and obtained on the mobility conditions of balls. The inner ring thickness must also be larger than the outer ring thickness. For given type of design optimization problem, pitch diameter should be larger than corresponding average diameter. To ensure this, thickness of the bearing ring at outer raceway should not be less than Db. Where is constant obtained from strength consideration of the outer ring of bearing. ( ) ( ) (12)

Groove curvature radius which is also referred as race conformity is a ratio of curvature radius and ball diameter. It is measure of the geometrical conformity of the race and the ball in a plane passing through the bearing axis, which is a line passing through the center of the bearing perpendicular to its plane and transverse to the race [1]. The coefficient of groove curvature radius at outer race is usually made slightly larger than inner race to compensate for the closer conformity in the plane of the bearing. This tends to equalize the contact stresses at race contacts. The difference should not exceed 0.02. Corresponding constraint condition is given as, ( ) ( ) (13) (14)

In short, given optimization problem under consideration is recapitulation of the objective function (Eq. (2)) and eight inequality constraints (Eqs. 5-14). In next section, computational procedure for the TeachingLearning-Based optimization (TLBO) has been explained and same is used for the optimizing the fatigue life of the bearing.

3rd International Conference on Production and Industrial Engineering CPIE-2013

Learners increase their knowledge by means of two different methods: one through input from the teacher and the other through interaction between themselves. A learner interacts randomly with other learners by the participation in group discussions, formal communications and presentations. As the interaction existed among learners, a learner learns something new if the other learner has more knowledge than him. Randomly select two learners U and V such that fnew(X)U,i fnew(X)V,i. then for N number of populations and S number of parameters, If fnew(X)U,i < fnew(X)V,i, then Xnew,S,i= Xnew,U,i +ri*(Xnew,U,i - Xnew,V,i) If fnew(X)V,i < fnew(X)U,i, then Xnew,S,i= Xnew,U,i +ri*( Xnew,V,i - Xnew,U,i ) 17) Accept Xnew,S,i, if it gives a better function value. At the end of learner phase, new solutions has compared with updated solution obtained at the end of teacher phase. If the new value is superior to previous then it is entertained otherwise solution is continued for the next generation. The overall procedure for solving the discrete optimization problem using TLBO is explained above. Handling of constraints is always a critical issue for the domain of any advanced optimization technique. Given problem have only inequality constraints. Considered TLBO algorithm generated a sequence of the parameters initially in random in the given bounds of the design variables. These randomly generated parameters are compared on the basis of their fitness value and the satisfaction of the constraints. It any value violating constraints, it is infeasible then it has no fitness. This process continued till termination criteria satisfied. V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION With the development in the field of computer many soft computing optimization techniques proved their (16)

effectiveness over classical optimization techniques. Classical techniques were unable to handle more variables for the reason of complexity involved. Aim of the present work is to optimize all important internal geometrical parameters which effects on the fatigue life of the bearing. For the purpose, five design parameters (i.e. D m, Db, Z, fi and fo) has been considered similar to Chakraborty et al [8]. Along with five main variables, other five constant parameters have been used in the constraint equations that are: KD min= 0.5, KD max= 0.8, e=0.1, =0.1 and 0=4.7124 radians, which are obtained from the mobility condition, strength of ball and rings. Population size was set on 50 for all the runs, and the convergence was achieved by the end of the 100th generation for all the combination of the design variables. Results obtained from the TLBO, are tabulated in table 1. Given results are obtained after 100 generation with the population size of 50 and all cases of bearings under consideration are sun 30 times each to check for consistency of the result. It is observed that as the bearing size increases the pitch diameter has a tendency to increase in proportion and same with the ball diameter. The numbers of ball were found to be changed in number with bearing. However, for some bearing numbers, the converged numbers of balls are found to be the same, even though they have different boundary conditions. Hence, it is not necessary that larger number of balls is always advantageous, even balls with larger diameter with certain less in number provided better fatigue life. The convergence study of the fitness value shows that convergence is fast. Figure 3 shows the variation of the solution with the number of generations for the first type of bearing (i.e. D=30 and d=10). Convergence rate of the solution with respect to number of generation and search capability for TLBO is sufficiently higher.

Table 1 Optimized design parameters and internal geometric variables for 10 different standard deep groove ball bearings Type of Boundary Dimensions Design variables Dynamic bearing (Input) (Output) Capacity D (mm) d (mm) Dm (mm) Db (mm) fi fo Z Cd(N) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30 35 47 62 80 90 110 125 140 160 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 20.5592 25.3202 34.0396 46.4499 61.0646 69.0237 86.0582 98.5332 111.1583 127.4944 7.8673 7.9805 10.7998 12.8000 15.7794 15.9870 19.8275 21.9995 23.9997 27.0872 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.5157 0.5150 0.5160 0.5180 0.5170 0.5170 0.5180 0.5180 0.5200 0.5170 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 8308.2 10279.9 17663.0 27076.7 42991.8 47691.7 70169.2 84853.9 99018.2 128168.8

optimization is carried out by using new TeachingLearning-based optimization approach. The objective function involved in this work is maximization of fatigue life and constraints are formulated on the basis of internal geometry and strength consideration. Superior results obtained by using five design parameters. A convergence study has been carried out to ensure the global optimum point in the design. The framework for application of design optimization by TLBO could be considered as a step toward design optimization of rolling element bearing to provide a single, unified, and systematic approach to determine optimal or near-optimal design parameters. REFERENCES
Fig. 3 Convergence plot between number of generation and dynamic capacity. Bearing specifications: D=30, d=10. 1] 2] 3] 4]

The obtained results of the TLBO in the present work are compared with the results obtained by previous researcher using GA [8], Timken ball bearing catalogue and the standard values available in books [17]. Comparison on the basis of Dynamic capacity is listed in the table 2. It is observed that, the results of the TLBO have shown considerable improvement over the previous results.
Table 2. Comparison of optimized bearing geometry with standard results, Timken light 200W series and Genetic algorithm results Type of Performance comparisons between Dynamic capacities bearing (input) (output) D (mm) d (mm) Cd_std Cd_Timken [17] [18] 30 10 3580 6800 35 15 5870 8650 47 20 9430 14400 62 30 14900 22200 80 40 22500 36200 90 50 26900 40000 110 60 40300 62100 125 70 47600 69000 140 80 55600 81300 160 90 73900 109000 Cd_GA Cd_TLBO [8] 7306.6 8308.2 9553.7 10279.9 16213.4 17663.0 25785.0 27076.7 38979.1 42991.8 45161.4 47691.7 64542.3 70169.2 81701.2 84853.9 95915.9 99018.2 121401.9 128168.8

5]

6] 7]

8]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9]

10]

11]

12]

Results of the TLBO are one and half to two times superior than standard values of Cd, which may be an indication of the global optimality of the solution. Along with the standard values, results of TLBO are superior to GA on an average of 10% more. Also after results were comparing with Timken bearings for the light 200W series and it is observed that obtained results are 15% better in average than the exiting bearing catalogue values [18]. Although mean of 30 generations obtained from TLBO for each bearing number are 8127.5, 10190.57, 17401, 26657, 42.13.2, 47171, 66776, 83568, 96951 and 121623 respectively, which are also superior to the results from GA. VI. CONCLUSION In the present work, a procedure for the optimum design of the ball bearing has been proposed. Design

13]

14]

15]

16]

17] 18]

Hamrock B. J. and Anderson W. J., Rolling-elements bearing, NASA reference publication 1105, June 1983. Changsen W., Analysis of Rolling Element Bearings, Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd, 1991. Gupta P. K., Current Status of and Future Innovations in Rolling Bearing Modeling, Tribology Transactions, 54:3, 394-403, 2011. Yang H., Mathew J, Ma L, Fault diagnosis of rolling element bearings using basis pursuit, Mechanical System Signal Process, 19:341356, 2005. Mehrjou M. R., Mariun N., Marhaban M. H., Misron N., Rotor fault condition monitoring techniques for squirrel-cage induction machine-A review, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 25:28272848, 2011. Goldberg D. E., Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989. Choi D.H., Yoon K.C.; A design method of an automotive wheelbearing unit with discrete design variables using genetic algorithms; Journal of Tribology; ASME; 123, 181-187, 2001. Chakraborty I., Kumar V., Nair S.B., Tiwari R., Rolling Element Bearing design through Genetic Algorithms, Engineering Optimization, 35:6, 649659, 2003. Rao B.R., Tiwari R., Optimum design of rolling element bearings using genetic algorithms, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 42:233250, 2007. Gupta S., Tiwari R., Nair S.B., Multi-objective design optimization of rolling bearings using genetic algorithm, Mechanism and Machine Theory 42:14181443, 2007. Kumar K.S., Tiwari R., Reddy R. S., Development of an Optimum Design Methodology of Cylindrical Roller Bearings Using Genetic Algorithms, International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, 9:6, 321-341, 2008. Kumar K.S., Tiwari R., Prasad P.V.V.N., An Optimum Design of Crowned Cylindrical Roller Bearings Using Genetic Algorithms, Journal of Mechanical Design, ASME, 131 / 051011-1, 2009. Wei Y., Chengzu R., Optimal Design of High Speed Angular Contact Ball Bearing Using a Multiobjective Evolution Algorithm, International Conference on Computing, Control and Industrial Engineering, IEEE, 978-0-7695-4026-9/10, 2010. Mendi F., Tamer B., Boran K., Boran F. E., Optimization of module, shaft diameter and rolling bearing for spur gear through genetic algorithm, Expert Systems with Applications, 37:8058 8064, 2010. Tiwari R., Kumar K.S., Reddy R.S., An Optimal Design Methodology of Tapered Roller Bearings Using Genetic Algorithms, International Journal for Computational Methods in Engineering Science and Mechanics, 13:2, 108-127, 2012. Rao R.V., Savsani V.J., Vakharia D.P., Teachinglearning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems, Computer-Aided Design, 43:303315, 2011. Shigley J. E., Mechanical Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 2011. TIMKEN ball bearing catalog, 2011.