This application claims priority to Chinese patent application no. 201810763824.2 filed on Jul. 12, 2018, the contents of which are fully incorporated herein by reference.
The present invention relates to a one-way snap-in cage, and a deep groove ball bearing using such a cage.
A deep groove ball bearing has the performance qualities of a low frictional torque and a high rotational speed and is therefore widely applied in practice. A one-way snap-in cage has low costs and is convenient to install and has thus become a conventional configuration for a deep groove ball bearing. As shown in
The inherent disadvantages of a snap-in cage are that, as the rotational speed increases, a hanging out portion extends outwards under the effect of a centrifugal force and has an increased diameter, resulting in a so-called umbrella effect. The umbrella effect damages a matching relationship between a pocket and a rolling element, causing increasingly intense friction between the pocket and the rolling element, and, in a severe case, the cage may fall off from the rolling element. Another adverse result of the umbrella effect is that the stress accumulates at the bottom portion of the pocket and the material here is likely to fracture. To resolve the problem, in the prior art, the radial size of the cage in terms of thickness is usually increased to mitigate the umbrella effect.
In a typical solution, as shown in
To resolve the technical problem, the present invention provides a one-way snap-in bearing cage that can adapt to a higher rotational speed. In one embodiment, the ratio Hc/Dw of a radial size Hc of the cage in terms of thickness to the diameter Dw of the rolling element of a bearing satisfies the relation 17.679%≤Hc/Dw≤37.389%. The radial size Hc of the cage is defined as half of the difference between the maximum outer diameter Dc_max and the minimum inner diameter Dc_min of the cage, that is, Hc=(Dc_max−Dc_min)/2. The same technical solution may also be expressed as follows: the ratio Hc/H of the radial size Hc of the cage in terms of thickness to a radial size H of the bearing in terms of thickness satisfies the relation 11.625%≤Hc/H≤23.000%. The radial size H of the bearing in terms of thickness is defined as half of the difference between an outer diameter D and an inner diameter d of the bearing, that is, H=(D−d)/2.
In another embodiment, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and a pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −16.256%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/Dw≤24.384%. The pitch diameter Dp of the bearing is defined as half of the sum of an outer diameter D and an inner diameter d of the bearing, that is, Dp=(D+d)/2. The same technical solution may also be expressed as follows: the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −2.5%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/H≤5%. H is the previously defined radial size of the bearing in terms of thickness.
The preceding two embodiments are different technical solutions of the same inventive concept, and the structural size of the cage is limited in different dimensions to reduce the mass of the cage, so that the mechanism of an umbrella effect is reduced by reducing the mass.
The present invention further provides a deep groove ball bearing using the cage. Apparently, such a deep groove ball bearing can adapt to an application working condition with a higher rotational speed and have a significantly reduced temperature rise effect at the same rotational speed, so that there are huge advantages in terms of rotational speed and excellent application prospects.
Various embodiments and beneficial effects of the present invention are described below in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings.
For ease of description, in the accompanying drawings, a direction shown by an axis (a dot dash line) of a bearing is defined as an “axial direction”, a direction perpendicular to the axis is defined as a “radial direction”, and a virtual plane containing the axis is defined as an “axial section” of the bearing. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all radial sizes herein are radial sizes of specific annular members in terms of thickness rather than radial sizes in terms of the diameters of the annular members. Various embodiments of the present invention are described below in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. The same or similar parts have the same reference numerals.
The present invention has been made based on the knowledge of the umbrella effect of a one-way plug-in cage that differs from the prior art understanding. The inventor believes that the umbrella effect is generally dependent on the mass and stiffness of the cage, but it is not wise to increase the mass of the cage in order to increase its rigidity.
It can be easily understood that, during rotation, a centrifugal force that the cage bears comes from the mass of the cage and is directly correlated to the distribution (radius of gyration) of the mass in the radial direction. Therefore, the key to effective suppression of the umbrella effect is to reduce the mass of the cage and reduce the radius of gyration (the centrifugal force is directly proportional to the radius of gyration) of the cage. Generally, the radial size of the cage in terms of thickness is directly correlated to the mass of the cage.
Therefore, the mass of the cage can be generally reduced by reducing the radial size of the cage in terms of thickness.
In another aspect, the stiffness of a one-way snap-in cage depends on a backbone portion of the cage. The stiffness of the backbone portion of the annular structure depends on an empirical formula S=EI/Dm3. S is the stiffness of an annular part. E is the elasticity modulus of the material. I is an area moment of inertia of the annular part. When the annular part has a rectangular section, I=bt3/12, where b is the (axial) width of the annular part, and t is the (radial) wall thickness of the annular part. Dm is the medium diameter of the annular part and is equal in value to half of the sum of the inner diameter and the outer diameter of the annular part, that is, Dm=(D+d)/2. As can be seen from the preceding formula, if other conditions are kept the same, S∝t3, that is, the stiffness of the backbone portion is directly proportional to the third power of the wall thickness of the backbone portion. This means that, for a backbone portion with a single-layer structure, the stiffness of the backbone portion can be effectively increased by increasing the wall thickness of the backbone portion.
Moreover, an annular part having a single layer structure has an advantage that the double layer part does not have in rigidity characteristics. Let's assume there is a backbone portion (not shown) having a single-layer structure, a radial size Hb in terms of thickness (equal to the wall thickness in the simplest case) of which is 1.5 times the single-layer wall thickness t of the double-layer backbone portion 10 shown in
Specifically, the present invention requires that the radial size Hc of the cage be only equal to 17.679% to 37.389% of the diameter Dw of a rolling element of a bearing. Mathematically, the ratio Hc/Dw of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the diameter Dw of the rolling element of the bearing satisfies the relation 17.679%≤Hc/Dw≤37.389%. In a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hc/Dw of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the diameter Dw of the rolling element of the bearing further satisfies the relation 19.711%≤Hc/Dw≤33.325%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hc/Dw of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the diameter Dw of the rolling element of the bearing satisfies the relation 20.523%≤Hc/Dw≤31.293%.
In the preceding definition of the range of the radial size Hc of the cage, the diameter Dw of the rolling element of the bearing is used as a comparison basis (denominator). Optionally, a radial size H of the bearing may be used as a reference for defining the radial size Hc of the cage. Herein, the radial size H of the bearing is the radial size of the bearing in terms of thickness, and is equal in value to half of the difference between an outer diameter D and an inner diameter d of the bearing, that is, H=(D−d)/2. In this case, the present invention requires that the radial size Hc of the cage be equal to 10.875% to 23% of the radial size H of the bearing. Mathematically, the ratio Hc/H of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the radial size H of the bearing satisfies the relation 10.875%≤Hc/H≤23%. In a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hc/H of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the radial size H of the bearing further satisfies the relation 12.25%≤Hc/H≤20.5%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hc/H of the radial size Hc of the cage in the present invention to the radial size H of the bearing satisfies the relation 16.125%≤Hc/H≤19.125%.
It can be easily understood that the preceding two limitation manners are consistent in the intention of determining the range of the radial size Hc of the cage. However, because bearing series have a large size range span, a parameter that changes approximately proportionally with the radial size Hc of the cage needs to be used as a comparison basis (denominator). In this aspect, the diameter Dw of the rolling element and the radial size H of the bearing both satisfy the requirement and are therefore chosen as references to respectively define the protection scope of the present invention. Although different references cause differences in the eventual protection scope, it is indubitable that the two solutions are in fact derived from the same inventive concept.
As can further be seen from the formula S=EI/Dm3, S∝1/Dm3, that is, the stiffness S is inversely proportional to the third power of the medium diameter Dm. It can be seen that, if other conditions are kept unchanged, when the medium diameter of the backbone portion is smaller, the stiffness is higher. In addition, the increase in stiffness further grows geometrically with the decrease in the medium diameter. Therefore, it is an effective measure to decrease the diameter of the cage to improve the stiffness of the cage. The maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage is used to limit the medium diameter size Dm of the cage below.
Similar to the preceding case, first, a pitch diameter Dp of the bearing and the diameter Dw of the rolling element are used as references to describe the scope that the present invention seeks to protect. The maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage in the present invention and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −16.256%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/Dw≤24.384%. The pitch diameter Dp is defined as half of the sum of an outer diameter D and an inner diameter d of the bearing, that is, Dp=(D+d)/2. In a further preferred embodiment, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing further satisfy the relation −8.128%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/Dw≤16.256%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −8.128%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/Dw≤8.128%.
If the radial size H of the bearing is used as a reference, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage in the present invention and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −5%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/H≤7.5%. In a further preferred embodiment, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing further satisfy the relation −2.5%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/H≤5%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage and the pitch diameter Dp of the bearing satisfy the relation −2.5%≤(Dc_max−Dp)/H≤2.5%.
It can be easily understood that the preceding two limitation manners are consistent in the intention of limiting the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage, except that the chosen comparison basis is the diameter Dw of the rolling element and the radial size H of the bearing, respectively. Therefore, the two limitation manners are in fact two technical solutions derived from the same inventive concept.
In reality, the minimum inner diameter Dc_min of the cage is limited by the size of an inner ring of the bearing and cannot be reduced infinitely to improve the stiffness of the cage. In addition, the snap-in cage is guided by the rolling element of the bearing, and a pocket (a hanging out portion) of the cage should match the rolling element in radial height. The factors in the preceding two aspects restrict an inner diameter (the minimum value Dc_min) of the cage from decreasing infinitely, and therefore, the inner diameter of the cage usually has a lower limit value. In view of the radial size of the cage Hc=(Dc_max−Dc_min)/2, the limitation on the maximum outer diameter Dc_max of the cage in fact constitutes a limitation on the radial size Hc of the cage in terms of thickness, thereby constituting a limitation on the mass of the cage. In this sense, the limitation on outer diameter size Dc_max of the cage and the limitation on the radial size Hc of the cage in terms of thickness may be understood as two different embodiments of the same inventive concept.
As can further be seen from the foregoing deduction S∝t3, when the wall thickness of the backbone portion is increased, the stiffness of the backbone portion can be greatly improved. For the backbone portion of a single-layer structure, the wall thickness of the backbone portion larger than the conventional size, especially larger than the single-layer wall thickness of the prior art double-layer cage structure, is an important feature of the present invention that is different from the existing cages. However, an excessively thick and heavy backbone portion not only increases the mass of the cage but also makes the center of mass of the cage deviate towards one side of the backbone portion, and, as a result, the cage is likely to fall off from the rolling element during high-speed rotation. Therefore, the thickness of the backbone portion should be designed to be within a suitable interval instead of being excessively large or small.
Experiments show that it is appropriate if the ratio Hb/Dw of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion in terms of thickness to a radial size Dw of the rolling element of the bearing preferably satisfies the relation 10.16%≤Hb/Dw≤28.448%. The radial size Hb is defined as half of the difference between the maximum outer diameter Db_max and the minimum inner diameter Db_min of the backbone portion, that is, Hb=(Db_max−Db_min)/2. The radial dimension Hb in the above range, while achieving sufficient rigidity of the backbone portion, is also significantly smaller than that of the prior art two-layer structure backbone portion, which obviously contributes to the maximum attenuation of the umbrella effect of the cage. In a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hb/Dw of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion in terms of thickness to the radial size Dw of the rolling element of the bearing may further satisfy the relation 11.786%≤Hb/Dw≤24.384%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hb/Dw of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion in terms of thickness to the radial size Dw of the rolling element of the bearing may satisfy the relation 13.411%≤Hb/Dw≤20.32%.
In another limitation manner, if the radial size H of the bearing in terms of thickness is used as a reference, in this case, the ratio Hb/H of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion in terms of thickness to the radial size H of the bearing should satisfy the relation 5%≤Hb/H≤15%. In a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hb/H of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion to the radial size H of the bearing should further satisfy the relation 5.75%≤Hb/H≤12.5%. In yet a further preferred embodiment, the ratio Hb/H of the radial size Hb of the backbone portion to the radial size H of the bearing should satisfy the relation 6.25%≤Hb/H≤10%, so as to achieve an optimal technical effect.
As can be seen from
As can further be seen from the previous formulae S=EI/Dm3 and I=bt3/12, S∝b, that is, the stiffness of an annular structure is directly proportional to the (axial) width of the annular structure. Therefore, when the backbone portion is wider, the stiffness of the backbone portion can be improved. As shown in
Optionally, for any of the preceding embodiments, the radial size Hb of the backbone portion 10 is preferably greater than or equal to each of the thicknesses t1, t2, t3 of the axial rib 24 and the radial rib 25 at different positions, that is, Hb≥t1, Hb≥t2, and Hb≥t3, as shown in
The various technical features of the present invention, including the size ranges disclosed above, are completely applicable to all deep groove ball bearings of the diameter series of 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the current international standard ISO 15. In practice, high speed bearings are generally not large in size and generally have an outer diameter of no more than 420 mm. The present invention is especially advantageous for application to deep groove ball bearings with a high rotational speed within this size range.
A person skilled in the art may easily understand that various technical features of the present invention that are described above may be implemented independently or used in combination without being limited by specific embodiments. Any variation or improvement made to the above cage and deep groove ball bearing using the cage falls within the protection scope of the present invention provided such variation or improvement conforms to the limitations in the appended claims.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2018 1 0763824 | Jul 2018 | CN | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6540405 | Kobayashi | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6843604 | Hiramatsu | Jan 2005 | B2 |
20020006238 | Kobayashi | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20070297705 | Hosoya | Dec 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2005083406 | Mar 2005 | JP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200018351 A1 | Jan 2020 | US |