Hello all,
I want to construct a differential system which is supported by two tapered roller bearing on both the sides.
As we all know that in tapered roller bearing the forces are distributed in axial and radial direction depending upon the angle of the taper.
Is there any possibility of creating a parameter which would represent as tapered roller bearing in the system and transfer the forces further in the gearbox housing accordingly.
I am attaching a basic image which would give you the idea of forces and constraints but the transfer of force is through a bearing where the forces further applied on the housing linearly without any effect of taper roller bearing and this is creating some unwanted results which does not represent any comparable stresses and displacement done in the Real static torsion test on the model.
Sorry, I think the question is not clear. Also, getting correlation to a real test on this assembly might be beyond what the community can assist with. The details and time involved will be extensive and complex. There are many questions to pursue.
A more specific question might be "How to model a taper bearing constraint?"
Creo is challenged with a taper bearing constraint because it is not a nodal based method, whereas many other FEA programs are nodal based. My first approach might be to model not as a constraint but as a non-uniform load using an equation so the force vector is normal to the taper. (free body method with possible inertia relief) As a second approach, If I really needed to model the taper using displacement constraints instead of loads, I would do as follows.
Separate the bearing surface into many smaller surface regions with coordinate systems for each surface region pointing in the correct direction for constraining that local surface. This is essentially similar to how it would be done in a nodal based FEA system, where each node would have its own unique local coordinate system to define the direction for its displacement constraint. The main difference is in Creo, for a 3D model, surfaces need to be used because a point constraint makes a singularity.
Note that there needs to be a band of unconstrained surface between each region, otherwise it will be over-constrained at the shared edge. In my quick example the unconstrained bands are the same size as the constrained ones, but this should be adjusted.
In order to test that the bearing is free in rotation I performed a simulation with torque applied as this image shows.
As you can see in the next image, the bearing surfaces can rotate with a torque applied, however they are distorted. This can be improved by dividing into more regions and reducing the size of the unconstrained areas between regions.
As yet another option, a complex but probably more accurate model would use contacts at the taper bearing instead of a constraint or load. The mating component(s) would be needed.
Finally, in the most simple case, I would think in many models the movement along the taper is negligible due to the taper bearing preload. So a simple constraint based on a cylindrical coordinate system would work (with R and Z , held, theta free.)
Maybe someone could ask the Creo developers if they can add "tapered pin" as a constraint type in addition to "planar" "pin" and "ball", or more generically "normal to surface constraint"???
Hallo skunks,
Es geht schon für mich
Danke
Can you put some light for these two images?
What should be the stiffness of the springs in the first image?
Also, i do not understand
what is defined in the second image?
the circles
what is its importnace?
Danke Skunks!
Ich verstehe auch ein bisschen Deutsch
...and there is always google translate. 
I was contemplating how to keep those bearings from flying around.
Here the iterations are 49
And
Residual norm tolerance: 1.00000e-12
So this model is corverged 100%
??
No but i have preload with fuction
And in the second step i have
it was a 8 step calculation and in the 8th step it is showing 1
