LATERAL-TORSIONAL VIBRATION OF A SIDE-LOADED

ROTOR WITH ASYMMETRIC SHAFT STIFFNESS

A Thesis

presented to

the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University,

San Luis Obispo

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

by

Clinton Judd

May 14, 2010

 © 2010

Clinton Judd

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
Committee Membership

TITLE: LATERAL-TORSIONAL VIBRATION OF A SIDE-LOADED

ROTOR WITH ASYMMETRIC SHAFT STIFFNESS

AUTHOR: Clinton Judd

DATE SUBMITTED: May 14, 2010

COMMITTEE CHAIR: Xi Wu, Assistant Professor Mechanical Engineering

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Jim Meagher, Professor Mechanical Engineering

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Tom Mase, Professor Mechanical Engineering

iii
Abstract

LATERAL-TORSIONAL VIBRATION OF A SIDE-LOADED ROTOR

WITH ASYMMETRIC SHAFT STIFFNESS

By Clinton Judd

Using energy equations a four degrees of freedom analytical model is developed for a two-disk rotor with

shaft stiffness asymmetry. A radial constant force is applied to the outboard disk to emphasize the effects of

gravity or aerodynamic side loading. Special emphasis is placed on characterizing the lateral and torsional

vibration trends associated with shaft asymmetry which may be used to identify failing shafts in operational

rotor systems. Simulation reveals distinct patterns in lateral and torsional response, with strong

dependencies on the magnitude of the side load, magnitude of the asymmetry and proximity of the lateral

and torsional natural frequencies. Notable interaction is also observed between the lateral and torsional

response. Lateral response peaks are found to correlate to torsional response peaks under some conditions.

An experiment is performed to compare the response of a real system with the simulated model.

iv
Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the faculty and staff of the Mechanical Engineering Department for their strong

support and encouragement throughout his undergraduate and graduate education. He is especially grateful

for the moral support provided during his diagnosis and successive treatment for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

during his last quarter at Cal Poly.

v
Table of Contents

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................. viii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. ix

Chapter I Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

I.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1

I.2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter II Rotor Model .......................................................................................................................... 3

II.1 Definition of System..................................................................................................................... 3

II.2 Lateral Stiffness Model................................................................................................................ 4

II.3 General Equations of Motion ...................................................................................................... 6

II.4 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Only ....................................................................................... 10

II.5 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Only.................................................................................... 11

Chapter III Simulation....................................................................................................................... 13

III.1 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Only ....................................................................................... 13

III.2 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Only.................................................................................... 15

III.3 General Vibration...................................................................................................................... 20

III.4 Trends of Increasing Shaft Asymmetry ...................................................................................... 22

III.5 Effect on Response of the Proximity of ωt to ωn ................................................................... 27

III.6 Effect of Increasing Side Load .................................................................................................. 29

Chapter IV Experiment ..................................................................................................................... 31

IV.1 Overview of Experiment ............................................................................................................ 31

IV.2 Control, Signal Processing and Data Acquisition..................................................................... 36

IV.3 Experimental Results ................................................................................................................. 37

Chapter V Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 43

Bibliography................................................................................................................................................ 46

Appendix A Nomenclature ........................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix B Detailed Calculations ............................................................................................................ 49

vi
 B.1 Lateral stiffness of axis-symmetric shaft ........................................................................................... 49

B.2 Geometric Relationships ................................................................................................................... 51

B.3 Other Relationships & Substitutions ................................................................................................. 51

B.4 Axis-symmetric Shaft Stiffness........................................................................................................... 52

B.5 Detailed Derivation........................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix C Matlab Models....................................................................................................................... 75

C.1 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Matlab Model ................................................................................ 75

C.2 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Matlab Model ............................................................................ 77

PY
C.3 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Matlab Model For Parametric Study Of ε ........................ 79
k

C.4 General Vibration Model .................................................................................................................. 81

C.5 Vibration Model for Increasing Shaft Asymmetry............................................................................. 83

C.6 Vibration Model for Varying Ratios of ωt ωn ................................................................................. 86

C.7 Vibration Model for Increasing Side Load........................................................................................ 88

Appendix D Experiment Trial Notes ........................................................................................................ 91

D.1 Notes on Experimental Trial Apparatus ........................................................................................... 91

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Parameters used for lateral vibration model ................................................................................... 14

Table 2: Parameters used for torsional vibration model ............................................................................... 16

Table 3: Parameters used for torsional vibration model for gravitational loading........................................ 19

Table 4: Parameters used for general vibration model ................................................................................. 21

Table 5: Parameters used in vibration model of rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry.............................. 22

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Rotor system ................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Rotor system model (damping not shown) ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Outboard rotor parameters .............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 4: Lateral vibration amplitudes predicted by model.......................................................................... 14

1
Figure 5: Orbit response at half the lateral natural frequency ( Ω = ωn = 1750rpm ) .................................. 15
2

Figure 6: Orbit response at the lateral natural frequency ( Ω = ωn = 3500rpm ) ............................................ 15

Figure 7: Torsional vibration amplitudes predicted by model...................................................................... 16

PY
Figure 8: Torsional vibration amplitude vs. speed for varying ratios of ε ........................................... 17
k

1
Figure 9: Torsional response at half the torsional natural frequency ( Ω = ωt = 1750rpm )........................ 18
2

Figure 10: Torsional response at the torsional natural frequency ( Ω = ωt = 3500rpm )................................ 18

Figure 11: Torsional vibration amplitude vs. speed for gravitationally loaded rotor ................................... 19

Figure 12: Response amplitudes predicted by general vibration model ....................................................... 21

Figure 13: Vertical vibration amplitudes for rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry................................... 23

Figure 14: Torsional vibration amplitudes for rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry ................................ 23

Figure 15: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0 ............................................................................................. 24

Figure 16: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.05 ........................................................................................ 25

Figure 17: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.10 ........................................................................................ 25

Figure 18: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.15 ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 19: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.20 ........................................................................................ 26

Figure 20: Vertical response for varying ratios of ωt ωn ........................................................................... 27

Figure 21: Torsional response for varying ratios of ωt ωn (3D plot) ......................................................... 28

Figure 22: Torsional response for varying ratios of ωt ωn (2D plot) ......................................................... 28

Figure 23: Lateral response for increasing side load (3D plot)..................................................................... 29

ix
Figure 24: Torsional response for increasing side load (3D plot)................................................................. 30

Figure 25: Bently Nevada RK-4 Rotor Kit configured for a side loaded rotor............................................. 31

Figure 26: Rotor kit configured to minimize torsional natural frequency .................................................... 32

Figure 27: Side load provided by gravity through a pulley system .............................................................. 32

Figure 28: Precision ground flat in shaft to produce asymmetric stiffness................................................... 33

Figure 29: Reluctor wheel for motor speed control...................................................................................... 34

Figure 30: Proximity probes for lateral vibration measurement ................................................................... 34

Figure 31: Torsional transducer consisting of a gear wheel and two proximity probes ............................... 35

Figure 32: Rotor configuration for experimental results .............................................................................. 37

Figure 33: Vertical response, direct & 1X.................................................................................................... 38

Figure 34: Horizontal response, direct & 1X................................................................................................ 38

Figure 35: Vertical response, 2X only.......................................................................................................... 39

Figure 36: Horizontal response, 2X only...................................................................................................... 40

Figure 37: Torsional response of inboard disk, direct & 1X ........................................................................ 41

Figure 38: Torsional response of outboard disk, direct & 1X ...................................................................... 41

Figure 39: Overall rotor torsional response (difference between inboard & outboard), 1X & 2X ............... 42

x
Chapter I Introduction

I.1 Purpose

Modern high speed rotating machinery is constantly driven to the limits of design, materials, and service

life. Equipment failure can be costly and hazardous. Diagnostic tools are increasingly important for early

detection of component failure. One area of potential failure is in the shaft of a rotating machine which may

crack as a result of fatigue. This study aims to model and study the effects of a compromised shaft on

rotordynamic behavior in an effort to identify warning signs that could be used to identify a developing

failure.

I.2 Background

A comprehensive literature survey of various crack modeling techniques and system behavior of cracked

rotor was given by Wauer (1).This paper contains the modeling of the cracked components of the structures

and searches for different detection strategies to diagnose fracture damage. Dimarogonas (2) provided a

comprehensive literature review of the vibration of cracked structures and cites more than 300 papers. The

review is divided into several sections; methods that describe local flexibility due to cracks, nonlinearities

introduced into the system, and local stiffness matrix descriptions of the cracked section. The crack leads to

a coupled system that can be recognized from additional harmonics in the frequency spectrum. The sub-

harmonic resonances at approximately half and one third of the bending critical speed of the rotor are

reported to be the prominent crack indicators by Gasch (3, 4) and Chan (5). By utilizing a single parameter

“hinge” crack model, Gasch, provided an overview of the dynamic behavior of a simple rotor with

transverse crack. He assumed weight dominance and employed a perturbation method into his analysis.

Cross-coupling stiffness and dynamic response terms were not included in his analysis. Mayes model (6) is

more practical for deep cracks than a hinged model. Based on Mayes modified model, Sawicki and Wu et

al. (7, 8) studied the transient vibration response of a cracked Jeffcott rotor under constant acceleration

ratios and under constant external torque. The angle between the crack centerline and the rotor whirl vector

is employed to determine the closing and opening of the crack. This allows one study of the rotor dynamic

1
response with or without the rotor weight dominance assumption by taking non-synchronous whirl into

account. Sawicki and Wu et al.(9) investigated the nonlinear dynamic response of a cracked one-mass

Jeffcott rotor by means of bifurcation plots. When a rotor with the crack depth of 0.4 spins at some speed

ranges, both the lateral and torsional vibration responses sustain periodic, quasi-periodic or chaotic

behavior. Muszynska et al. (10) and Bently et al.(11) discuss rotor coupled lateral and torsional vibrations

due to unbalance, as well as due to shaft anisotropy under a constant radial preload force. Their

experimental results exhibited the existence of significant torsional vibrations due to coupling with the

lateral modes. In Bently and Muszynska’s experiments, an asymmetric shaft was used to simulate the

behavior of a crack.

The current paper extends the research investigation of Bently et al. (11) by using the simpler anisotropic

shaft model to characterize a cracked shaft and employing the methods used by Wu et al. (12) to develop a

vibration model. Using energy equations a four degrees of freedom analytical model is developed for a

two-disk rotor with shaft asymmetry. A radial constant force is applied to the outboard disk to emphasize

the effects of gravity or aerodynamic side loading. As load and stiffness asymmetry increase, the vibration

amplitudes in both lateral and torsional directions increase, resulting in torsional vibration with amplitudes

that may be measured in practical applications. This paper places special emphasis on characterizing the

torsional vibration trends associated with shaft asymmetry which may be used to identify failing shafts in

operational rotor systems.

2
Chapter II Rotor Model

II.1 Definition of System

The system shown in Figure 1 represents a practical rotor system. An electric motor drives a shaft through a

flexible coupling. The shaft is supported by relatively rigid bearings that in turn support two rotors. The

inboard rotor is spanned closely by bearings while the outboard rotor is supported by a wide bearing span.

The outboard rotor is subject to external lateral side loads.

Figure 1: Rotor system

This system is analogous to a modern rotating machine consisting of a turbine driving a compressor. In this

case the inboard rotor and motor represent the driving torque and rotational inertia of a turbine. The

outboard rotor represents a compressor. Side loading at the outboard rotor might represent the side loading

a compressor would undertake due to gravity, aerodynamic loading, or gearbox reactions.

3
 Figure 2: Rotor system model (damping not shown)

Figure 2 shows a vibration model for the physical system depicted by Figure 1. The motor is modeled as a

source of rotational energy providing a constant angular velocity, Ω . The attached coupling acts as both a

torsional damper and torsional spring. The shaft is modeled by multiple elements: a torsional spring

connecting the two rotors, two lateral springs aligned with a fixed X-Y coordinate system, and torsional

and lateral dampers (not shown). Because the inboard rotor is held laterally by close-mounted rigid

bearings, it is modeled with only one rotational degree of freedom, Θ , and no lateral flexibility. The

outboard rotor is allowed to move both rotationally and laterally due to the flexible nature of the shaft, so it

is modeled three degrees of freedom, X, Y and Φ .

II.2 Lateral Stiffness Model

For an axis-symmetric shaft, lateral stiffness is conveniently described in the rotating ξ - η coordinate

system shown in Figure 3. The η -direction is always aligned with the strong direction of the shaft while

the ξ -direction is always aligned with the weak direction of the shaft. This unique coordinate system

exhibits uncoupled stiffness; loads in the η -direction produce displacement only in the η -direction and

loads in the ξ -direction produce displacements only in the ξ -direction.

4
 Figure 3: Outboard rotor parameters

In this special coordinate system, forces exerted by the shaft are described by Eq. II-1. Stiffness is defined

in the strong and weak directions as kξ and kη respectively. The displacements η and ξ are measured

from the geometric bearing centerline to the geometric center of the rotor.

 Fξ   kξ 0  ξ 
F  =  0 kη  η 
 η 

Eq. II-1

The stiffness matrix in the rotating coordinate system ( K R ) is defined by Eq. II-2.

 kξ 0
KR = 
0 kη 

Eq. II-2

In practical applications, it is more convenient to measure displacements in an inertial X-Y coordinate

frame. Shaft loads and displacements in the inertial coordinate system are related by the stiffness matrix,

K I , as shown in Eq. II-3 and Eq. II-4.

 FX   k11 k12   X 
 =  
 FY   k21 k22   Y 

Eq. II-3

5
  k11 k12 
KI =  
 k21 k22 

Eq. II-4

To determine values that appropriately populate the inertial stiffness matrix the following coordinate

transformation can be made.

K I = TK RT −1

Eq. II-5

where

cos Φ − sin Φ 
T = 
 sin Φ cos Φ 

Eq. II-6

kξ + kη kη − kξ
Defining the average stiffness k = and the shaft asymmetry factor q = , Eq. II-5produces
2 2k

the inertial stiffness matrix shown in Eq. II-7.

1 − q cos 2Φ −q sin 2Φ 
KI = k  
 −q sin 2Φ 1 + q cos 2Φ 

Eq. II-7

Given any rotational position Φ and lateral displacement X and Y of the rotor centerline, the inertial

stiffness matrix may be used calculate loads acting on the rotor by the flexible shaft.

II.3 General Equations of Motion

The equations of motion governing the system shown in Figure 2 can be derived using Lagrange’s

equations. The general form of Lagrange’s equations is shown in Eq. II-8, where qi is a generalized

coordinate, Qi is the generalized load(s) in the direction of qi that produce work, T and U are the kinetic

and potential energies of the system, D is the dissipation function of the system, and n is the number of

degrees of freedom.

6
 ∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 − + + = Qi i = 1,..., n
∂t  ∂q&i  ∂qi ∂qi ∂q&i

Eq. II-8

The kinetic energy of the system is described by Eq. II-11below.

T= 1
{
2
IΦ
&2 + 1
2 2
1
&2
I0Θ
3 { & Y& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X& sin ( Φ + δ )  + ε 2 Φ
+ 12 M X& 2 + Y& 2 + 2εΦ
14444444444424444444444  43
&2 }
Outboard Rotor Inboard Rotor
Rotational Kinetic Energy Outboard Rotor Lateral Kinetic Energy
Rotational Kinetic Energy

Eq. II-9

For a non-specific lateral shaft stiffness having k12 = k21 , the potential energy of the system is

U= ( k X + k Y ) + k XY
1
2 11
14444244443
2
22
2
12 + 2 t (
1
14
k Φ − Θ)
4244 3
2

Energy Stored In Shaft Through Lateral Deflection Energy Stored in Shaft Through Torsional Deflection

Eq. II-10

For the axis-symmetric shaft, Eq. II-7 and Eq. II-10 produce Eq. II-11.

U = 12 k (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X 2 + (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y 2  − kq sin 2ΦXY + 12 kt ( Φ − Θ )

2

Eq. II-11

The energy dissipation function can be written as follows

D = 12 CX& 2 + 12 CY& 2 + 12 Ct ( Φ & )2

& −Θ

Eq. II-12

Lagrange’s equations are formulated for this system as follows

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 − + + = − PX
∂t  ∂X&  ∂X ∂X ∂X&

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 − + + = − PY
∂t  ∂Y&  ∂Y ∂Y ∂Y&

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 & − + + =0
∂t  ∂Φ  ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ
&

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 & − + +
&
= −TDR
∂t  ∂Θ  ∂Θ ∂Θ ∂Θ

Eq. II-13

The solutions for Eq. II-12 using Eq. II-9, Eq. II-11, and Eq. II-12 are as follows.

7
 X&& + 2ςωn X& + ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X = εΦ & 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2ΦY − PX
&& sin ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
n
M

Y&& + 2ςωnY& + ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y = −εΦ & 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2ΦX − PY

&& cos ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
n
M

&& + ω 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2ς ω ( Φ
Φ & ) = ε 2ςωn  cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& − sin ( Φ + δ ) X& 
& −Θ
t t t
ρ2  
εωn2 εω 2 q
+ cos ( Φ + δ ) Y − sin ( Φ + δ ) X  + n2  cos ( Φ − δ ) Y − sin ( Φ − δ ) X 
2 
ρ ρ
ε  PY   PX   ωn2 q
+  cos ( Φ + δ ) −  M ( Φ + δ )  + 2  2 cos 2ΦXY − sin 2Φ ( X − Y ) 
2 2
 M  sin
ρ2      ρ

&& − kt ( Φ − Θ ) − Ct ( Φ
Θ & ) = − TDR
& −Θ
I0 I0 I0

Eq. II-14

Assuming that the motor will run at a constant speed and the outboard rotor will vibrate about a static

PX
lateral offset, it is convenient to express Eq. II-14 in terms of vibration coordinates X M = X + ,
k

PY
YM = Y + , ϕ = Φ − Ωt , and θ = Θ − Ωt . Additionally, the motor drive torque can be expressed as a
k

Cc kc
function of the inboard rotor rotational vibration θ and coupling properties CR = and K R = .
Ct kt

Substitution of these terms into Eq. II-14 produces Eq. II-15 below.

( )
X&&M + 2ςωn X& M + ωn2 1 − q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) X M − ωn2 q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) YM = εϕ&& sin ( Ωt + ϕ + δ )
P  P 
+ε ( Ω + ϕ& ) cos ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) −  Y  q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) −  X  q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )
2

 
M M 

( )
Y&&M + 2ςωnY&M + ωn2 1 + q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) YM − ωn2 q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) X M = −εϕ&& cos ( Ωt + ϕ + δ )
P   PY 
+ε ( Ω + ϕ& ) sin ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) −  X  q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) +  M  q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )
2

M   

ε q  PY  P  
ϕ&& + ωt 2 (ϕ − θ ) + 2ς tωt (ϕ& − θ& ) = − 2   cos ( Ωt + ϕ − δ ) −  X  sin ( Ωt + ϕ − δ ) 
ρ  M  M  
q   PY  PX   PX 
2
 PY  
2

+ 
ωn2 ρ 2 
2cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )  M  M  − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )   + sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )   +Γ
   M   M  

8
 ε 2ςωn & − sin ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) X&  + εωn cos ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) Y − sin ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) X 
2
Γ=  cos ( Ωt + ϕ + δ ) Y
ρ2 
M 
ρ2 
M M  M

εωn2 q
+  cos ( Ωt + ϕ − δ ) YM − sin ( Ωt + ϕ − δ ) X M 
ρ2 
2q   P  P    P  P  
+ 2 
cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )  −  Y  X M −  X  YM  − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )   Y  YM −  X  X M  
ρ   M  M    M  M  
ωn2 q
+  2 cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) X M YM − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) X M2 + sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) ) YM2 
ρ2 

θ&& + (1 + CR ) 2ς t ωtθ& + (1 + K R ) ωt2θ = ωt2ϕ + 2ς t ωtϕ&

Eq. II-15

Non-dimensional time τ = ωn t may be introduced for modeling purposes. The chain rule allows simple

d( ) =ω d( ) d2 ( ) = ω 2 d 2 ( ) 1. The result is Eq. II-16 below.

introduction of τ Eq. II-15 since n and n
dt dτ dt 2 dτ 2

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
X M′′ + 2ς X M′ + 1 − q cos  2  τ + ϕ    X M − q sin  2  τ + ϕ   YM = εϕ ′′ sin  τ + ϕ + δ 
    
   ωn      ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω   P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnϕ ′) cos  τ + ϕ + δ  −  Y  2 sin  2  τ + ϕ   −  X  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ  
2
+
ωn    
 ωn   M  ωn   ωn    M  ωn   ωn 

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
YM′′ + 2ς YM′ + 1 + q cos  2  τ + ϕ    YM − q sin  2  τ + ϕ   X M = −εϕ ′′ cos  τ + ϕ + δ 
    
   ωn      ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω   P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnϕ ′ ) sin  τ + ϕ + δ  −  X  2 sin  2  τ + ϕ   +  Y  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ  
2
+
   
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn    M  ωn   ωn 

2
 ωt  2ς t ωt εq  PY  Ω   PX  Ω 
ϕ ′′ +   (ϕ − θ ) + (ϕ ′ − θ ′ ) = − 2 2   cos  ω τ + ϕ − δ  −  M  sin  ω τ + ϕ − δ  
ω
 n ω n ω nρ  M   n     n  
q   Ω    P  P   Ω    PX 
2
 Ω    PY  
2

+ 4 2 
2 cos  2  τ + ϕ    Y  X −  τ + ϕ  +  τ + ϕ      + Γn

 ω    ω
 sin 2 sin 2
 
ωn ρ    ωn    M  M    n  M    n    M  

d( )
1
For notation purposes, non-dimensional time derivatives are expressed as hatch marks (i.e. ( )′ =
dτ

d2 ( ) ).
and ( )′′ =
dτ 2

9
  Ω
ε 2ς  Ω   ε  Ω  Ω  
Γn =  cos  τ + ϕ + δ  YM′ − sin  τ + ϕ + δ  X M′  + 2  cos  τ + ϕ + δ  YM − sin  τ + ϕ + δ  X M 
ρ2
  ωn   ωn   ρ   ωn   ωn  
εq   Ω  Ω  
+ 2 cos  τ + ϕ − δ  YM − sin  τ + ϕ − δ  X M 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
2q    Ω   P  P    Ω  P  P  
+ 2 2 cos  2  τ + ϕ    −  Y  X M −  X  YM  − sin  2  τ + ϕ     Y  YM −  X  X M  
ωn ρ    ωn   M  M     ωn  M  M   
q   Ω   Ω   Ω  
+ 2 
2 cos  2  τ + ϕ   X M YM − sin  2  τ + ϕ   X M2 + sin  2  τ + ϕ   YM2 
ρ   ω   ω   ω 
  n    n    n   
2 2
ωt ω  ω  ω
θ ′′ + (1 + CR ) 2ς t θ ′ + (1 + K R )  t  θ =  t  ϕ + 2ς t t ϕ ′
ωn ω
 n ω
 n ω n

Eq. II-16

While Eq. II-16 provides a complete mathematical description for the system described in section II.1, the

physical interpretation is unclear. In sections II.4 and II.5, special cases are explored to develop a better

understanding of the system.

II.4 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Only

For negligible levels of torsional activity, some simplifications can be made to the general equations of

motion. This might be the case when operating at a speed that is not near a torsional resonance. Assuming a

torsionally rigid system, all elements of the rotor move at a constant rotational velocity Ω such that ϕ = 0

and θ = 0 . Note that the inboard rotor has no vibration influence in this simplified model. For a vertical

side load only ( PX = 0 ) and δ = 0 , Eq. II-16 simplifies to

P 
X&&M + 2ςωn X& M + ωn2 (1 − q cos ( 2Ωt ) ) X M = εΩ2 cos ( Ωt ) −  Y  q sin ( 2Ωt ) + ωn2 q sin ( 2Ωt ) YM
M 

P 
Y&&M + 2ςωnY&M + ωn2 (1 + q cos ( 2Ωt ) ) YM = εΩ2 sin ( Ωt ) +  Y  q cos ( 2Ωt ) + ωn q sin ( 2Ωt ) X M
2

M 

Eq. II-17

1X (once per motor revolution) and 2X (twice per motor revolution) lateral forcing functions are clearly

shown as functions of the unbalance and side loading respectively. 2X variations in stiffness are also

present as well as 2X coupling terms that describe the interaction between the two lateral directions. It

10
should be noted that all 2X components are related to the shaft asymmetry, q. If no asymmetry were

present, q would become zero and Eq. II-17 would reduce to the description of a Jeffcott rotor with a 1X

forcing term due to unbalance.

II.5 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Only

When the rotor is operating at a speed that does not excite significant lateral activity, some simplifications

can be made to the general equations of motion. Side loading produces a static deflection, however the

outboard disk remains in a constant lateral position such that X M = 0 and YM = 0 . For rigid coupling

θ = 0 . Assuming only a vertical side load ( PX = 0 ) and δ = 0 , Eq. II-16 reduces to

2
ε q  PY  q P 
ϕ&& + 2ς t ωtϕ& + ωt 2ϕ = − 2   cos ( Ωt + ϕ ) + 2 2  Y  sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )
ρ  M424444
1444 3
ωn ρ  M 
14444
4244444
3
1X Forcing Term 2X Forcing Term

Eq. II-18

Eq. II-18 resembles a linear oscillator with two forcing terms. The 1X forcing term is linearly proportional

to the side load and unbalance eccentricity. The 2X forcing term is not dependent on the unbalance

eccentricity, but has a quadratic dependency on the side load. Manipulation of Eq. II-18 reveals a

physically significant relationship.

Iϕ&& + Ct ϕ& + kt ϕ = −qPY ε cos ( Ωt + ϕ ) − qPY Y sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ ) )

Eq. II-19

Eq. II-19 shows that the 2X torque amplitude is proportional to the product of the side load ( PY ) and the

static displacement due to the side load ( Y = − PY k ). This highlights an interesting phenomena: a torque

that is proportional to Y results from the load PY acting in the direction of Y . Furthermore, the amplitudes

of the 1X and 2X torsional excitations are proportional to the ratio of unbalance eccentricity to the static

displacement due to side loading respectively.

To predict the conditions under which the 1X and 2X torsional excitations would be equal in magnitude,

the terms are equated:

11
 2
ε q  PY  q  PY 
ρ 2  M  = ω2ρ 2  M 
 n  
PY
ε= 2
ωn M
PY
ε=
k

Eq. II-20

Eq. II-20 predicts that the magnitudes of the 1X and 2X torsional excitations would be equal when the

PY
magnitudes of the eccentricity and average displacement from side loading ( ) are equal.
k

12
Chapter III Simulation

III.1 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Only

For the special case where torsional vibration is considered negligible, ϕ = 0 and θ = 0 . If we consider

only a vertical load on the outboard rotor ( PX = 0 ), assume no initial displacements ( Φ 0 = 0 , Θ0 = 0 ), and

consider the case where unbalance is aligned with the weak axis ( δ = 0 ), the equations of motion reduce to

Eq. II-17. Non-dimensional time τ = ωn t may be introduced for modeling purposes. The chain rule allows

d( ) =ω d( ) d2 ( ) = ω 2 d 2 ( ) . The result is Eq.

simple introduction of τ into Eq. II-17 since n and n
dt dτ dt 2 dτ 2

III-1 below.

  Ω   Ω  ε  Ω  P  q  Ω 
X M′′ + 2ς X M′ + 1 − q cos  2 τ   X M − q sin  2 τ  YM = 2 Ω2 cos  τ  −  Y  2 sin  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 
  Ω   Ω  ε  Ω  P  q  Ω 
YM′′ + 2ς YM′ + 1 + q cos  2 τ   YM − q sin  2 τ  X M = 2 Ω2 sin  τ  +  Y  2 cos  2 τ 
 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

Eq. III-1

For the purpose of numerical modeling, let the states u3 = X M , u4 = X M′ , u5 = YM , u6 = YM′ . This

generates the system of equations described by Eq. III-2.

u3′ = u4

  Ω   Ω  ε  Ω  P  q  Ω 
u4′ = −2ς u4 − 1 − q cos  2 τ   u3 + q sin  2 τ  u5 + 2 Ω2 cos  τ  −  Y  2 sin  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

u5′ = u6

  Ω   Ω  ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
u6′ = −2ς u6 − 1 + q cos  2 τ   u5 + q sin  2 τ  u3 + 2 Ω 2 sin  τ  +  Y  2 cos  2 τ 
 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

Eq. III-2

The solution to this system of equations can be found using computer software, in this case Matlab version

7.1. The function “ode45” is used to solve this system of equations. This solver integrates the series of

13
differential equations and is based on an explicit version of the Runge-Kutta formula, the Dormand-Prince

pair. It is a one-step method that uses initial conditions and solves for conditions at the next time step.

Matlab programming for this system can be found in the C.1. Using the parameters listed in Table 1,

solutions to Eq. III-2 are generated for a range of rotor speeds. The resulting steady state vibration XM and

YM amplitudes are plotted in Figure 4.

Table 1: Parameters used for lateral vibration model

ωn ς ςt ε ρ Py/M q
2
3500rpm 0.2 0.05 0.005in 1.0in 2700in/sec 0.15

0.035

Horizontal Displacement X
0.03
Vertical Displacement Y
Peak-to-Peak Amplitude (in)

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rotor Speed (rpm)

Figure 4: Lateral vibration amplitudes predicted by model

Figure 4 shows amplitude peaks at the natural frequency ( ωn ) and half the natural frequency ( 12 ωn ) as

expected. These peaks are associated with the 1X unbalance excitation and 2X asymmetry and side load

excitations respectively.

In Figure 5 and Figure 6 the orbit response of the rotor is plotted at the 12 ωn and ωn rotor speeds.

14
 0.012 0.02

0.016

0.008
0.012

0.008

Vertical Dispalcement (in)

Vertical Dispalcement (in)

0.004
0.004

0
0

-0.004

-0.004 -0.008

-0.012

-0.008
-0.016

-0.02
-0.012 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.00 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.02
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012 6 2 8 4
Horizontal Displacem ent (in) Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 5: Orbit response at half the lateral Figure 6: Orbit response at the lateral natural

1 frequency ( Ω = ωn = 3500rpm )
natural frequency ( Ω = ωn = 1750rpm )
2

III.2 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Only

When the rotor operates at a speed that does not excite significant lateral activity, some assumptions and

simplifications can be made to the general equations of motion. It is assumed that side loading produces a

static deflection, however the outboard disk remains in a relatively constant lateral position such that

X M = 0 and YM = 0 . For rigid coupling θ = 0 . Assuming only a vertical side load ( PX = 0 ) and δ = 0 ,

the equations of motion simplify to:

2
ω  2ς ω εq  P  Ω  q  Ω    PY 
2

ϕ ′′ +  t  ϕ + t t ϕ ′ = − 2 2  Y  cos  τ + ϕ  + sin  2
 ω  τ + ϕ  
 
 ωn  ωn ωn ρ  M  ωn  ωn ρ
4 2
   n  M 

Eq. III-3

For the purpose of numerical simulation, let τ = ωn t and the states u1 = ϕ and u2 = ϕ ′ . The equations of

motion become:

u1′ = u2

15
 2
ω  2ς ω εq  P  Ω  q  Ω    PY 
2

u2′ = −  t  u1 − t t u2 − 2 2  Y τ + + τ +
 1   ω 1  
 cos u sin 2 u
ω
 n ω n ωnρ M   ωn  ωn ρ
4 2
  n  M 

Eq. III-4

Matlab is used to find a solution to Eq. III-4 (see Appendix C.2). Peak-to-peak torsional vibration

amplitude is plotted for the parameters in Table 2 in Figure 7.

Table 2: Parameters used for torsional vibration model

PY
ε 2
ωn ωt ς ςt ε ρ Py/M q k
2
10000rpm 3500rpm 0.2 0.05 0.005in 1.0in 2700in/sec 0.15 0.49

0.02

0.018
Peak-to-Peak Amplitude (deg)

0.016 Torsional Displacement

0.014
0.012

0.01
0.008

0.006
0.004

0.002
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rotor Speed (rpm)

Figure 7: Torsional vibration amplitudes predicted by model

Two peaks are observed corresponding to ωt and ½ωt respectively. It is observed that the ratio of the peak

PY
amplitudes at ωt and ½ωt approximates the ratio ε . This phenomenon is explored further through
k

PY
parametric study by varying the value of and plotting the amplitude and speed against the ratio
M

PY P P
2
Ratio ε is calculated from parameters ωn, ee, and Py/M using the relationship Y ε = 2Y ee
k k ω M

16
PY P
ε . The resulting 3D plot using the parameters from Table 2 and increasing values of Y is shown in
k M

Figure 8 below.

PY
Figure 8: Torsional vibration amplitude vs. speed for varying ratios of ε
k

PY
It can be seen in Figure 8 that the ratio ε approximates the ratio of torsional vibration amplitudes at ωt
k

PY
and ½ωt (i.e. where ε = 1 the torsional vibration amplitudes at ωt and ½ωt are approximately equal).
k

This suggests that torsional vibration associated with a shaft stiffness asymmetry (such as a transverse

PY
crack) might be characterized by this ratio. For ε < 1 more torsional vibration activity would be
k

PY
expected at speeds near ωt and for ε > 1 more torsional vibration activity would be expected near ½ωt.
k

Torsional response predicted by the model for the parameters in Table 2 is plotted on a time scale for

½ωt=1750rpm and ωt=3500rpm in Figure 9 and Figure 10 respectively. Near ½ωt, peaks are predicted

every 90 degrees of motor rotation, when the side load is aligned with the strong and weak axes of the

shaft. Near ωt peaks are predicted only when the side load is aligned with the weak axis.

17
 0.01

0.008

Torsional Displacement (deg) 0.006

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.01
3π 2π 5π
0 π /2 π
2 2

Motor Position / Phase (rad)

1
Figure 9: Torsional response at half the torsional natural frequency ( Ω = ωt = 1750rpm )
2

0.01

0.008

0.006
Torsional Displacement (deg)

0.004

0.002

-0.002

-0.004

-0.006

-0.008

-0.01
3π 2π 5π
0 π /2 π
2 2

Motor Position / Phase (rad)

Figure 10: Torsional response at the torsional natural frequency ( Ω = ωt = 3500rpm )

18
The case where gravity is the only source of side loading may be of special interest, as might be the case in

a horizontal turbine with balanced aerodynamic loading. For the case of a gravitationally side loaded rotor

Py/M would be the acceleration due to gravity, generally accepted as 32.17 ft/sec2 or 386.1 in/sec2. Using

the rotor parameters in Table 3, the Matlab model from Appendix C.2 predicts the response shown in

Figure 11. Note the scale of the vertical axis in Figure 11 is the same as in Figure 7 for relative comparison.

Response at ½ωt is insignificant compared with the response at ωt, as might be expected from the low ratio

PY
of ε . Systems with lower lateral natural frequencies may exhibit additional response at ½ωt since the
k

PY
ratio ε would increase, but a general model that considers both lateral and torsional vibration should
k

be used to investigate such a case; the assumption of negligible lateral activity would be invalidated as ωn

approached ωt.

Table 3: Parameters used for torsional vibration model for gravitational loading

PY
ε
ωn ωt ς ςt ε ρ Py/M q k
2
10000rpm 3500rpm 0.2 0.05 0.005in 1.0in 386.1in/sec 0.15 0.07

0.02

0.018
Peak-to-Peak Amplitude (deg)

0.016 Torsional Displacement

0.014
0.012

0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rotor Speed (rpm)

Figure 11: Torsional vibration amplitude vs. speed for gravitationally loaded rotor

19
III.3 General Vibration

A general vibration model is required to consider torsional and lateral vibration interaction. To simplify

simulation, rigid coupling ( θ = 0 ), no horizontal side load ( PX = 0 ), and δ = 0 are assumed. For the

purpose of numerical modeling, let the states u1 = ϕ , u2 = ϕ ′ , u3 = X M , u4 = X M′ , u5 = YM , u6 = YM′ . The

equations of motion Eq. II-16 become:

u1′ = u2

2
ω  2ς ω εq  P  Ω  q  Ω    PY 
2

u2′ = −  t  u1 − t t u2 − 2 2  Y  τ + 1 +  τ + 
 ω 1 
 cos u sin 2 u 
ω
 n ω n ωnρ M   ωn  ωn ρ
4 2
  n  M 
ε 2ς  Ω  Ω   ε (1 + q )   Ω  Ω  
+ cos  τ + u1  u6 − sin  τ + u1  u4  + cos  τ + u1  u5 − sin  τ + u1  u3 
ρ2   ωn  ωn ρ   ωn  ωn
2
     
2q  PY    Ω   Ω  
−
ωn2 ρ 2  M  cos  2  ω τ + u1   u3 + sin  2  ω τ + u1   u5 
    n    n   
q   Ω   Ω  2  Ω  2 
+ 2 cos  2  τ + u1   u3u5 − sin  2  τ + u1   u3 + sin  2  τ + u1   u5 
ρ 2    nω    nω    nω   

u3′ = u4

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
u4′ = −2ς u4 − 1 − q cos  2  τ + u1    u3 + q sin  2  τ + u1   u5 + ε u2′ sin  τ + u1 
   
   ωn   ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnu2 ) cos  τ + u1  −  Y  2 sin  2  τ + u1  
2
+
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

u5′ = u6

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
u6′ = −2ς u6 − 1 + q cos  2  τ + u1    u5 + q sin  2  τ + u1   u3 − ε u2′ cos  τ + u1 
 
   ωn    ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
+ 2 ( Ω + ωn u2 ) sin  τ + u1  +  Y  2 cos  2  τ + u1  
2
 
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

Eq. III-5

The Matlab programming found in Appendix C.4 is used to find a solution to Eq. III-5. The predicted

response amplitudes for the parameters in Table 4 are plotted in Figure 12.

20
 Table 4: Parameters used for general vibration model

PY
ε
ωn ωt ς ςt ε ρ Py/M q k
2
1700rpm 2500rpm 0.2 0.04 0.001in 1.0in 1000in/sec 0.2 31.5

ωn ωt
2 2 ωn ωt

0.04 0.14

0.035 0.12

Torsional Displacement (deg pk-pk)

Lateral Displacement (in pk-pk)

0.03
0.1

0.025
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.015

0.04
0.01

0.005 0.02

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Motor Speed (RPM)

Torsional Horizontal Vertical

Figure 12: Response amplitudes predicted by general vibration model

Lateral response amplitude peaks around 1/ 2ωn and ωn as predicted by the simplified model in II.4.

Torsional response amplitude peaks at1/ 2ωt and ωt as predicted by the simplified model in II.5. However

new peaks appear in the torsional response at 1/ 2ωn and ωn that were not predicted by the simplified

model. These peaks are associated with the interaction between the lateral and torsional vibration

introduced by the shaft asymmetry.

The following chapters will attempt to identify trends in the torsional and lateral vibration.

21
III.4 Trends of Increasing Shaft Asymmetry

The general vibration model developed in III.3 may be useful to understand how a developing shaft

asymmetry affects the vibration of a rotor, for example in the case of a propagating crack. As defined in

II.2, the asymmetry factor, q represents the relative difference in stiffness between the strong and weak

axes of the shaft. q = 0 represents a perfectly symmetric shaft while increasing values of q represent

increasing asymmetry. If the stiffness in the strong direction is assumed constant ( kη = constant ), the

asymmetry factor q would increase as the stiffness in the weak direction ( kξ ) decreases. This would

reduce the average stiffness ( k ) and therefore reduce the lateral natural frequency, ωn .

Based on these assumptions, the decrease in ωn is related to the increase in q as follows

1
ωn = ωn,original
1+ q

Eq. III-6

where ωn,original is the lateral natural frequency before introduction of asymmetry.

For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the source of the lateral stiffness asymmetry does not affect

the torsional stiffness and therefore ωt = constant . The Matlab model show in Appendix C.5 is used to

model a rotor with the parameters in Table 5 and increasing shaft asymmetry factor, q . The resulting

torsional vibration amplitudes are plotted in Figure 13 and Figure 14.

Table 5: Parameters used in vibration model of rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry

ωn,original ωt ς ςt ε ρ Py/M
2
1850rpm 2500rpm 0.2 0.04 0.005in 1.0in 386.1in/sec

22
Figure 13: Vertical vibration amplitudes for rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry

Figure 14: Torsional vibration amplitudes for rotor with increasing shaft asymmetry

23
Figure 13 shows that lateral response at 1/ 2ωn grows with increasing asymmetry, as does the response at

ωn . However there is no apparent lateral response associated with torsional resonances at 1/ 2ωt and ωt .

As indicated by Eq. III-6, increase in q reduces ωn - an effect more apparent in the 2D plot.

It can be seen in Figure 14 that torsional response peaks at 1/ 2ωn , ωn , 1/ 2ωt and ωt grow with

increasing asymmetry. For low values of q , the peak lateral responses at ωn and 1/ 2ωn do not correlate

with significant torsional response, despite proximity in motor speed to ωt and 1/ 2ωt . However Torsional

response at ωt and 1/ 2ωt associated with the unbalance and side load respectively are significant even at

low values of q . Torsional response at 1/ 2ωt appears to grow faster with increasing q than the response

at ωt . For higher values of q , lateral vibration at 1/ 2ωn and ωn is reflected in peaks in torsional response.

The orbit response at 1/ 2ωn is plotted on the same scale for increasing values of q in Figure 15 through

Figure 19. Overall response grows with a characteristic two-loop pattern developing with increasing

asymmetry. This is consistent with the predicted response of the simplified model presented in Figure 5

0.012

0.008
Vertical Dispalcement (in)

0.004

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 15: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0

24
 0.012

0.008

Vertical Dispalcement (in) 0.004

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 16: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.05

0.012

0.008
Vertical Dispalcement (in)

0.004

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 17: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.10

25
 0.012

0.008

Vertical Dispalcement (in)

0.004

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 18: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.15

0.012

0.008
Vertical Dispalcement (in)

0.004

-0.004

-0.008

-0.012
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012
Horizontal Displacem ent (in)

Figure 19: Orbit response at 1/ 2ωn for q = 0.20

26
III.5 Effect on Response of the Proximity of ωt to ωn

To understand how torsional and lateral vibration interact, the model developed in III.3 is employed for

varying ratios of ωt ωn . Parameters from Table 5 are used, ωt is varied and the asymmetry factor is held

constant at q = 0.2 . Matlab programming found in Appendix C.6 is used to predict response, which is

plotted in Figure 20, Figure 21 and Figure 22. Lateral response remains completely unchanged, as indicated

by the overlapping plots in Figure 20. Torsional response at ωt and 1/ 2ωt both peak when ωt ωn = 0.5 ,

when ωt corresponds with 1/ 2ωn . Torsional response is less pronounced for ωt ωn = 1 and decreases as

ωt ωn increases beyond ωt ωn = 1 .

ωn
2 ωn
0.045

0.04

0.035
Lateral Amplitude (in pk-pk)

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Motor Speed (RPM)
ωt
ωn 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

Figure 20: Vertical response for varying ratios of ωt ωn

27
 Figure 21: Torsional response for varying ratios of ωt ωn (3D plot)

ωn
2 ωn
0.25
Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Motor Speed (RPM)
ωt
ωn 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2

Figure 22: Torsional response for varying ratios of ωt ωn (2D plot)

28
III.6 Effect of Increasing Side Load

The general vibration model developed in III.3 may be used to understand how a side load affects the

vibration of an asymmetric shaft rotor. In real systems, side load may vary with aerodynamic or gearbox

loads. Determining how changing loads are reflected in rotor response could help with diagnosis of an

asymmetry. The Matlab model in Appendix C.7 is used to predict rotor response for varying loads and the

response amplitudes are plotted in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Figure 23: Lateral response for increasing side load (3D plot)

Lateral response is primarily affected at 1/ 2ωn where overall response amplitude increases linearly with

side load. Torsional response increases with side load at 1/ 2ωn , 1/ 2ωt and ωt , with the most notable

sensitivity at 1/ 2ωt . Torsional resonances are not reflected in the lateral response.

29
Figure 24: Torsional response for increasing side load (3D plot)

30
Chapter IV Experiment

IV.1 Overview of Experiment

The objectives of the experiment are to provide information for verifying and improving the mathematical

model, and to investigate the practical implications of lateral and torsional vibration measurement as

diagnostic tools. To this aim, the experimental foundation is the Bently Nevada RK-4 Rotor Kit shown in

Figure 25. This assembly allows for a wide range of configurations and is adaptable for the specific needs

of this study. Two disks fixed to a common shaft and supported with plain rigid bearings are driven by an

electric motor through a flexible coupling. A shaft-mounted bearing allows the application of a side load.

The inboard disk is constrained by adjacent bearings to prevent lateral vibration. The outboard disk is

supported by an adjustable bearing span to allow lateral flexibility. Torsional flexibility arises from the

section of shaft connecting the two disks. Proximity probes are used to measure vibration and allow

feedback control of rotor speed.

Figure 25: Bently Nevada RK-4 Rotor Kit configured for a side loaded rotor

Based on estimates from the sizes of disks and shafts used by the RK-4 rotor kit, the bearing span of the

outboard mass can be configured to provide a lateral natural frequency as low as 2,500rpm or a torsional

natural frequency as low as 5,700rpm. Additional disks can be added to further reduce both natural

frequencies. Figure 25 shows the rotor configured for minimum lateral natural frequency while Figure 26

shows a configuration for minimizing the torsional natural frequency.

31
 Figure 26: Rotor kit configured to minimize torsional natural frequency

The pulley system shown in Figure 27 is employed to provide an adjustable side load to the outboard rotor.

Calibrated masses are hung from a string which draws over a pulley and loads a shaft-mounted bearing near

the disk. Additional weights can be added to change loading conditions. Multiple pulleys can be used to

load the shaft either the horizontal or vertical (gravitational) direction. The advantage of this system is

flexibility to run a variety of side loads. However the masses hung have a potentially significant inertial

influence on the rotor that is not modeled by this study. Use of a spring or magnetic load may be more

appropriate to prevent inertial influence.

Figure 27: Side load provided by gravity through a pulley system

32
To generate asymmetric lateral stiffness, four flats are carefully ground into the rotor shaft using a precision

machine tool. These flats are oriented 180 degrees apart in two locations along the shaft. This provides

symmetry about the center of the rotor’s bearing span as well as axis-symmetric lateral stiffness. Varying

flat depths result in varied magnitudes of stiffness asymmetry, as measured by load-deflection testing.

Figure 28: Precision ground flat in shaft to produce asymmetric stiffness

A direct current motor provides rotational power to the inboard end of the rotor system. A Bently Nevada

RK4 Speed Controller uses feedback from a coupling-mounted reluctor wheel (shown in Figure 29) to

control average motor rotational speed. Steady and ramped motor speeds can be achieved with this system.

33
 Figure 29: Reluctor wheel for motor speed control

Lateral vibration is measured directly at the shaft using eddy current proximity probes as shown in Figure

30. The probes are oriented mutually perpendicular to measure vertical and horizontal displacement

respectively. Due to physical constraints and limitations in linear range, these probes may not always be

positioned near a rotor. Instead they are placed along sections of shaft exhibiting acceptable levels of

vibration. This vibration is assumed to be representative of the nearby rotor’s vibration. Measurements

made by these probes are assumed to be proportional to what would be measured at the rotor itself.

Figure 30: Proximity probes for lateral vibration measurement

34
In addition to lateral probes, each disk is equipped with a transducer for measuring torsional vibration. The

primary components are a custom machined gear wheel attached to the shaft and two proximity probes that

are fixed 180 degrees apart in the horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 31.

Figure 31: Torsional transducer consisting of a gear wheel and two proximity probes

The principle of operation of the torsional transducer can be described as follows. As the gear wheel

rotates, proximity probes detect the passage of teeth. The time it takes for teeth to pass can be attributed to

either lateral or torsional motion as follows:

2π R 2π R
∆t L = and ∆t R =
(
N RΩ i + V y ) (
N RΩ i − V y )
Eq. IV-1

where Ωi is the instantaneous rotative speed, Vy is the vertical velocity, R is the radius of the gear wheel,

N is the number of teeth, and ∆t L and ∆t R are the times between pulses generated by the left and right

probes respectively. The lateral component of the vibration signal ( Vy ) can be eliminated from the above

equations and the instantaneous rotative speed can be expressed as

π  ∆t L + ∆t R 
Ωi =  
N  ∆t L ∆t R 

Eq. IV-2

35
In general, the vibration of the disk can be express as

θ = (Ω motor − Ωi )t

Eq. IV-3

where θ is the general vibration angle with respect to the motor and Ω motor is the rotative speed of the

motor.

IV.2 Control, Signal Processing and Data Acquisition

Bently Nevada equipment is widely used in industry for vibration monitoring and diagnostics. For this

project, the RK-4 Rotor Kit is equipped with a motor speed controller to provide steady rotation at the

inboard end of the rotor.

Two Bently Nevada TK17 Torsional Vibration Signal Conditions are employed to simplify measurement of

torsional vibration and reduce post processing. Based on the relationships described in Eq. IV-1, Eq. IV-2

and Eq. IV-3, each signal conditioner processes the two proximity probe outputs of a torsional transducer

into a single output proportional to torsional vibration amplitude.

For data acquisition, a Bently Nevada ADRE 208-P works in unison with a personal computer to store and

process vibration signals in real time, allowing for a wide range of vibration monitoring and data storage.

The 208-P performs many of the same functions of oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, filters, and recording

instruments.

Seven signals are fed to the 208-P. Three signals come from both the inboard rotor and outboard rotor

respectively. These include feedback from a vertical proximity probe, horizontal proximity probe, and

torsional transducer (pre-processed by a TK17). A seventh signal from the rotor kit’s Keyphasor provides a

measurement of motor speed and vibration phase angle.

36
IV.3 Experimental Results

In an attempt to excite torsional activity and lateral-torsional vibration interaction, the rotor kit is

configured as shown in Figure 32 (additional notes regarding this trial can be found in Appendix D.1). Two

disks are used at both the inboard and outboard positions to reduce ωt and ωn . The calculated values

assuming rigid bearings and the dimensions of the rotor kit are ωt = 4,100rpm and ωn = 5,800rpm . A very

Py
heavy side load is applied to achieve = 2,600 in/sec 2 .
M

Figure 32: Rotor configuration for experimental results

The resulting vibration amplitudes as recorded by the ADRE 208-P are shown in the following figures. The

direct and 1X lateral response of the outboard rotor is shown in Figure 33 and Figure 34. A broad 1X

response peak is noted in the horizontal direction near 4,200rpm, but resonant peaks are not obvious in the

vertical response.

37
 Figure 33: Vertical response, direct & 1X

Figure 34: Horizontal response, direct & 1X

38
The 2X filtered lateral response shown in Figure 35 and Figure 36 shows two or more distinctive peaks,

potentially related to the 1X and 2X excitations associated with the unbalance and side-load asymmetry

interaction respectively. 2X response peaks appear to occur at different speeds for the horizontal and

vertical directions. This may be an effect of the mass used for side-loading. It should be noted that this

difference in response was not predicted in simulation.

Figure 35: Vertical response, 2X only

39
 Figure 36: Horizontal response, 2X only

Torsional responses for the inboard and outboard disks separately are shown in Figure 37 and Figure 38.

The difference in the outboard and inboard response is shown in Figure 39. A 1X resonant peak is clearly

shown at 5,400rpm, but no peak is obvious at half this speed, as might be expected from the simulation

Py
considering the high ratio of . Observing the outboard rotor, some broad 1X response peaks also appear
M

at about 900rpm and 3,600rpm, but these do not appear to correlate to either the natural frequency at

5,400rpm or the peaks in lateral response.

40
Figure 37: Torsional response of inboard disk, direct & 1X

Figure 38: Torsional response of outboard disk, direct & 1X

41
 Figure 39: Overall rotor torsional response (difference between inboard & outboard), 1X & 2X

Additional trials were performed, but due to difficulties obtaining data from this apparatus, meaningful

results were not obtained. Future experimentation should be performed to verify or refute the results of the

model and simulation presented in this report.

42
Chapter V Conclusion

The research presented in this paper aims to identify characteristics and trends associated with an

asymmetric shaft rotor system. Understanding the behavior of a compromised rotor system is important for

the early detection of failure. If trends can be identified through carefully correlated simulation, vibration

experts might use those trends to prevent catastrophic, hazardous or costly failures of real machines.

This paper examines a rotor consisting of two disks connected by a torsionally flexible shaft. One disk is

assumed to have rigid lateral support while the other is allowed lateral flexibility. A side load is applied to

the lateral flexible disc and the shaft is considered to have asymmetric stiffness. The model mimics a real

system that might consist of a turbine driving a compressor where gravitational or aerodynamic loading

provides a side load and a transverse crack or similar defect results in shaft stiffness asymmetry.

Energy equations are used to derive the mathematical model proposed to describe the system. The model

accounts for four degrees of freedom: rotation for both disks and translation for one. Parameters used in the

mathematical model such as side loads, stiffness, damping ratios, eccentricity and natural frequencies are

common to the discipline of vibration study.

The shaft stiffness model for this system assumes loads in orthogonal directions along specific axes of the

shaft produce deflection only in those directions, without interaction. This model is a special case that

allows exploration of the effects of reducing stiffness in one of these directions. The asymmetry factor

defines the magnitude of this unidirectional reduction of stiffness. Real systems may exhibit a similar

reduction of stiffness along one direction in the case of a transverse crack, for example. The asymmetry in

stiffness effectively couples the torsional and lateral vibration of the rotor system.

Special cases are identified that allow simplified evaluation of the system. First, torsional vibration is

assumed negligible and lateral vibration is evaluated independently. The equations of motions describing

this case resemble a Jeffcott rotor with additional forcing terms related to the asymmetry. A 1X forcing

43
term associated with imbalance is present along with 2X forcing terms associated with the asymmetry

factor and side load. Computer simulation of this case reveals lateral response peaks at the lateral natural

frequency and half the lateral natural frequency. Orbit response at half the natural frequency displays a

characteristic loop-in-loop as a result of the asymmetry.

Also of interest is the case where lateral vibration is negligible and torsional vibration dominates. The

equations of motion describing this case resemble a simple linear oscillator with two forcing terms. A 1X

forcing term is associated with the unbalance, side load and asymmetry while a 2X forcing term is

associated with the side load and asymmetry only. Computer simulation shows torsional response peaks at

the torsional natural frequency and half the torsional natural frequency. An important characteristic

identified in both the mathematical model and computer simulation is the response at half the torsional

natural frequency grows approximately as the square of the side load while the response at the natural

frequency grows approximately linearly with side load. The response amplitudes are approximately equal

when the imbalance eccentricity and the displacement due to side load are equal.

When both lateral and torsional vibration and their interactions are considered, the equations of motion are

more complex and the system must be characterized through parametric computer simulation. Specific

studies are conducted to determine the effects of shaft asymmetry, side load, and proximity of the torsional

and lateral natural frequencies. By observing changes in the response of the system resulting from changes

in these parameters, conclusions can be made about their effects which may later be compared with real

systems for correlation and eventually diagnosis of failure.

Shaft asymmetry in a side loaded rotor results in torsional response. As the asymmetry factor increases,

torsional amplitude increases around half and one times the torsional natural frequency. Lateral vibration

also begins to influence torsional vibration as the asymmetry factor increases. Simulation predicts

additional torsional response at the lateral and half the lateral natural frequency as asymmetry increases.

Torsional vibration should be monitored at these frequencies to alert the possibility of developing shaft

asymmetry

44
The effect of asymmetry on lateral response is primarily seen at half the lateral natural frequency. Here the

orbit response changes distinctly from a circular to a loop-in-loop shape as asymmetry increases. Overall

lateral vibration amplitude also increases with asymmetry at a higher rate at half the natural frequency than

at the natural frequency. Without shaft asymmetry, no resonance is present at half the natural frequency.

Torsional vibration does not appear to affect lateral vibration as in the opposite case, with no significant

change in lateral response around torsional resonances.

The proximity of the torsional and lateral natural frequencies has a strong influence on the amplitude of

torsional response at the torsional natural frequency. The amplitude of the torsional response at torsional

resonance peaks when it corresponds to the lateral half resonance. Response at half the torsional natural

frequency does not appear to be effected by proximity to lateral resonances.

Side loading impacts both torsional and lateral response. Lateral vibration is primarily affected by the 2X

forcing term associated with side load, which causes increased lateral amplitude near half the resonant

frequency. Side loading produces very little change in response at the resonant speed. Torsional response is

strongly influenced by side load, especially at half the torsional natural frequency. As side load increases,

lateral response at half the lateral natural frequency begins to cause torsional response at that speed as well.

In an attempt to correlate simulation with a real system, an experiment is conducted in which lateral and

torsional vibration is measured for a two disc rotor with an asymmetric shaft and side load. Lateral

vibration is measured with conventional proximity probes while torsional vibration is measured through

gear tooth transducers and special signal processing. Some vibration characteristics are observed to

correlate with simulation, notably the existence of torsional resonance and two peaks in the lateral

amplitude plot. However, verification of trending is not obtained. Further experimentation should be

performed.

45
Bibliography

1. Wauer, J., 1990, “On the Dynamics of Cracked Rotors: A Literature Survey”, Applied Mechanics

Reviews, Vol. 43(1), pp. 13-17.

2. Dimarogonas, A. D., 1996, “Vibration of Cracked Structures: A State of the Art Review,”

Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 55 (5), pp. 831 – 857.

3. Gasch, R., 1976, “Dynamic behavior of a simple rotor with a cross-sectional crack”, Paper

C178/76, I. Mech. E. Conference on Vibrations in Rotating Machinery, pp.123-128.

4. Gasch, R. A, 1993, “Survey of the Dynamic Behavior of a Simple Rotating Shaft with a

Transverse Crack”, Journal of Sound and Vibration Vol. 162, pp313-332.

5. Chan, R. K. C. and Lai, T. C., 1995, “Digital Simulation of a rotating shaft with a transverse

Crack,” Appl. Math. Modelling Vol. 19, July pp. 411-420.

6. Mayes, I. W. and Davies, W. G. R., 1984, “Analysis of the Response of a Multi-Rotor-Bearing

System Containing a Transverse Crack in a Rotor”, ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress,

and Reliability in Design, Vol. 106, pp 139-145.

7. Sawicki, J. T., Wu, X., Baaklini, G.Y. and Gyekenyesi, A., 2003, “Vibration-Based Crack

Diagnosis in Rotating Shafts During Acceleration Through Resonance”, Proceedings of SPIE,

Vol. 5046.

8. Sawicki, J. T., Bently, D. E., Wu, X., Baaklini, G.Y. and Friswell, M. I., 2003, “Dynamic

Behavior of Cracked Flexible Rotor Subjected to Constant Driving Torque”, ISCORMA-2,

Gdańsk, Poland, 4-8, August 2003, pp. 231-241.

9. Sawicki, J.T., Wu, X., Gyekenyesi, A. L. and Baaklini, G. Y., 2005 “Application of Nonlinear

Dynamic Analysis for Diagnosis of Cracked Rotor Vibration Signatures”, submitted to SPIE

International Symposium, San Diego, California USA, March 7-10.

10. Muszynska, A., Goldman, P. and Bently, D. E., 1992, “Torsional/Lateral Cross-Coupled

Responses Due to Shaft Anisotropy: A New Tool in Shaft Crack Detection”, I. Mech. E., C432-

090, Bath, United Kingdom, pp. 257-262.

46
11. Bently, D. E., Goldman, P. and Muszynska, A., 1997, ““Snapping” Torsional Response of an

Anisotropic Radially Loaded Rotor,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol.

119, pp. 397-403.

12. Wu, X., 2005, Doctoral dissertation, “Vibration-based Crack-induced Damage Detection of Shaft-

disk System”, Cleveland State University.

13. Wu, X.; Meagher, J.; 2007, “Characterization of Shaft Cracks and Rotating Asymmetries using

Full Spectrum and Orbit Plots”, ISCORMA-4, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 27-31 August 2007.

14. Wu, X., Meagher, J., Judd, C.; 2007, “Investigation of coupled lateral and torsional vibrations of a

cracked rotor under radial load”, IMAC XXV, Society for Experimental Mechanics, Orlando,

Florida USA, February 19 –22, 2007.

15. Wu, X., Meagher, J., Volume 2008, “A Two-Disk Extended Jeffcott Rotor Model Distinguishing a

Shaft Crack from Other Rotating Asymmetries”, International Journal of Rotating Machinery,

Article ID 846365.

47
Appendix A Nomenclature

Θ = absolute angular displacement of inboard disk

θ = angular displacement of inboard disk with respect to input shaft (vibration angle)
Φ = absolute angular displacement of outboard disk
ϕ = angular displacement of outboard disk with respect to input shaft (vibration angle)
δ = angle between weak axis and mass center
X = absolute horizontal displacement of outboard disk
X M = dynamic horizontal displacement of outboard disk
Y = absolute vertical displacement of outboard disk
YM = dynamic vertical displacement of outboard disk
ε = unbalance eccentricty
Ω = input shaft rotative speed
PX = horizontal load
PY = vertical load
k ξ = lateral shaft stiffness in weak direction
kη = lateral shaft stiffness in strong direction
k = average shaft lateral stiffness
q = stiffness asymetry factor
k t = shaft torsional stiffness
k c = coupling torsional stiffness
I0 = rotational inertia of inboard disk
I = rotational inertia of outboard disk
ρ = radius of gyration
M = mass of outboard disk
ωn = lateral natural frequency
ωt = torsional natural frequency
C = lateral damping coefficient
Ct = shaft torsional damping coefficient
Cc = coupling torsional damping coefficient
ς = lateral damping ratio
ς t = torsional damping ratio

48
Appendix B Detailed Calculations

B.1 Lateral stiffness of axis-symmetric shaft

Shaft stiffness is conveniently described in a rotating coordinate system

 Fξ  kξ 0  ξ 
F  =  0 k   
 η  η  η 

kξ 0 
KR =  
 0 kη 
in an inertial coordinate system, the stiffness matrix would be

 FX   k11 k12   X 
 F  = k  
 Y   21 k22   Y 
k k 
K I =  11 12 
k21 k22 

perform a coordinate transformation to determine the values of the inertial stiffness matrix

K I = TK RT −1
cos Φ − sin Φ   kξ 0   cos Φ sin Φ 
=   
 sin Φ cos Φ   0 kη   − sin Φ cos Φ 
cos Φ − sin Φ   kξ cos Φ kξ sin Φ 
=  
 sin Φ cos Φ   − kη sin Φ kη cos Φ 
k k12 
=  11
 k21 k22 

49
 k11 = kξ cos 2 Φ + kη sin 2 Φ
 1 + cos 2Φ   1 − cos 2Φ 
= kξ   + kη  
 2   2 
 kξ + kη   kη − kξ 
= −  cos 2Φ
 2   2 
= k − kq cos 2Φ
= k (1 − q cos 2Φ )

k12 = kξ cos Φ sin Φ − kη cos Φ sin Φ

 kη − kξ 
= −  sin 2Φ
 2 
= −kq sin 2Φ

k12 = k21

k 22 = kξ sin 2 Φ + kη cos 2 Φ
 1 − cos 2Φ   1 + cos 2Φ 
= kξ   + kη  
 2   2 
 kξ + kη   kη − kξ 
= +  cos 2Φ
 2   2 
= k + kq cos 2Φ
= k (1 + q cos 2Φ )

thus, the stiffness matrix in inertial coordinates is given by

1 − q cos 2Φ −q sin 2Φ 
KI = k  
 −q sin 2Φ 1 + q cos 2Φ 

50
B.2 Geometric Relationships

Φ = Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0
& = Ω + ϕ&
Φ
&& = ϕ&&
Φ

Θ = Ωt + θ − Θ 0
& = Ω + θ&
Θ
&& = θ&&
Θ

xcm = X + ε cos ( Φ + δ )
& sin ( Φ + δ )
x&cm = X& − εΦ

ycm = Y + ε sin ( Φ + δ )
y& = Y& + εΦ& cos ( Φ + δ )
cm

assuming lateral vibration is about the static offset due to side loading
PX
X = XM −
k
1 P 
X = XM − 2  X 
ωn  M 
X& = X& M
X&& = X&& M

PY
Y = YM −
k
1 P 
Y = YM − 2  Y 
ωn  M 
Y& = Y&M
Y&& = Y&&
M

B.3 Other Relationships & Substitutions

51
 kξ + kη kη − kξ k kt C Ct
k= , q= , ωn = , ωt = ,ς = , ςt = , I = ρ M , τ = ωnt
2

2 2k M I kM kt I

B.4 Axis-symmetric Shaft Stiffness

shaft stiffness is conveniently described in a rotating coordinate system

 Fξ  kξ 0  ξ 
F  =  0 k   
 η  η  η 

 kξ 0 
KR =  
 0 kη 

in an inertial coordinate system, the stiffness matrix would be

 FX   k11 k12   X 
 F  = k  
 Y   21 k 22   Y 
k k 
K I =  11 12 
k 21 k 22 

perform a coordinate transformation to determine the values of the inertial stiffness matrix

KI = TKRT −1
cos Φ − sin Φ kξ 0   cos Φ sin Φ 
=   
 sin Φ cos Φ   0 kη  − sin Φ cos Φ
cos Φ − sin Φ  kξ cos Φ kξ sin Φ 
=  
 sin Φ cos Φ  −kη sin Φ kη cos Φ
k k 
=  11 12 
k21 k22 

52
k11 = kξ cos2 Φ + kη sin2 Φ
 1 + cos2Φ   1 − cos2Φ 
= kξ   + kη  
 2   2 
 k +k   k −k 
=  ξ η  −  η ξ  cos2Φ
 2   2 
= k − kq cos 2Φ
= k (1 − q cos2Φ)

k12 = kξ cos Φ sin Φ − kη cos Φ sin Φ

 k −k 
= −  η ξ  sin 2Φ
 2 
= −kq sin 2Φ

k12 = k21

k22 = kξ sin2 Φ + kη cos2 Φ

 1− cos 2Φ   1+ cos 2Φ 
= kξ   + kη  
 2   2 
 k +k   k −k 
=  ξ η  +  η ξ  cos2Φ
 2   2 
= k + kq cos 2Φ
= k (1+ q cos2Φ)

thus, the stiffness matrix in inertial coordinates is given by

1 − q cos 2Φ − q sin 2Φ 
KI = k  
 − q sin 2Φ 1 + q cos 2Φ 

53
B.5 Detailed Derivation

Kinetic Energy of the System

T = 12 I Φ
&2+1I Θ& 2 + 1 Mx& 2 + 1 My& 2
2 0 2 cm 2 cm

= 12 I Φ
& 2 + 1 I 0Θ
2 2 { & sin ( Φ + δ )  + Y& + εΦ
& 2 + 1 M  X& − εΦ 2
 
& cos ( Φ + δ ) 

2
}
= 12 I Φ
&2+1I Θ
2 0 2 { & Y& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X& sin ( Φ + δ )  + ε 2 Φ
& 2 + 1 M X& 2 + Y& 2 + 2εΦ
 
&2 }

Prepare for Lagrange Equations for X, Y, Φ and Θ

∂T
=0
∂X
∂T & sin ( Φ + δ )
= MX& − ε M Φ
∂X&
∂  ∂T 
 = MX − ε M Φ sin ( Φ + δ ) − ε M Φ cos ( Φ + δ )
&& && &2

∂t  ∂X& 

∂T
=0
∂Y
∂T & cos ( Φ + δ )
= MY& + ε M Φ
∂Y&
∂  ∂T 
 &  = MY + ε M Φ cos ( Φ + δ ) − ε M Φ sin ( Φ + δ )
&& && &2
∂t  ∂Y 

∂T
=0
∂Θ
∂T
= I 0Θ&
∂Θ&
∂  ∂T 
 &  = I0Θ
&&
∂t  ∂Θ 

54
∂T &  X& cos ( Φ + δ ) + Y& sin ( Φ + δ ) 
= −ε M Φ  
∂Φ
∂T
= ( I + ε 2M ) Φ & + ε M Y& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X& sin ( Φ + δ ) 
 
∂Φ&
∂  ∂T 
 &  = ( I + ε M ) Φ + ε M (Y − X Φ ) cos ( Φ + δ ) − ( X + Y Φ ) sin ( Φ + δ ) 
2 && && & & && & &
∂t  ∂Φ 

Potential Energy of the System

k k12   X  1
[X Y ]  11 + k (Φ − Θ)
2
U= 1
2
 k21 k22   Y  2 t
k12 = k21
∴U = 1
2 (k
11 X 2 + k22Y 2 ) + k12 XY + 12 kt ( Φ − Θ )
2

for an axis-symmetric shaft

U = 12 k (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X 2 + (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y 2  − kq sin 2ΦXY + 12 kt ( Φ − Θ )

2

Prepare for Lagrange Equations for X, Y, Φ and Θ

∂U
= k (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X − kq sin 2ΦY
∂X

∂U
= k (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y − kq sin 2ΦX
∂Y

∂U
= kq sin 2Φ ( X 2 − Y 2 ) − 2kq cos 2ΦXY + kt ( Φ − Θ )
∂Φ

∂U
= −kt ( Φ − Θ )
∂Θ

55
Dissipation Function of the System

D = 12 CX& 2 + 12 CY& 2 + 12 Ct ( Φ & )2

& −Θ

Prepare for Lagrange Equations for X, Y, Φ and Θ

∂D
= CX&
∂X&

∂D
= CY&
&
∂Y

∂D
= Ct ( Φ &)
& −Θ
∂Φ
&

∂D
= −Ct ( Φ &)
& −Θ
&
∂Θ

Lagrange Equation for X

56
∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 − + + = − PX
∂t  ∂X&  ∂X ∂X ∂X&
&& sin ( Φ + δ ) − ε M Φ
MX&& − ε M Φ & 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) + k (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X − kq sin 2ΦY + CX& = − P
X

& 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X − ω 2 q sin 2ΦY + 2ςω X& = − PX

&& sin ( Φ + δ ) − εΦ
X&& − εΦ n n n
M
X&& + 2ςωn X& + ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X = εΦ & 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2ΦY − PX
&& sin ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
n
M

substituting

1  PX  1 P 
X = XM − Y = YM − 2  Y
ωn2  M  X& = X&
, && &&
M , X = XM , ωn  M 
 , Y& = Y&M , Y&& = Y&&M

 1  P 
X&&M + 2ςωn X& M + ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ )  X M − 2  X 
 ωn  M 

& 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2q sin 2Φ Y − 1  PY  − PX

&& sin ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
= εΦ  M
n
 ωn2  M  M

X&&M + 2ςωn X& M + ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) X M − ωn2 q sin 2ΦYM

& 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) −  PY  q sin 2Φ −  PX

&& sin ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
= εΦ

    q cos 2Φ
M  M 

substituting
Φ = Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 , Φ
& = Ω + ϕ& Φ
,
&& = ϕ&&

( )
X&&M + 2ςωn X& M + ωn2 1 − q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) ) X M − ωn2 q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) ) YM = εϕ&& sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 + δ )
P  P 
+ε ( Ω + ϕ& ) cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 + δ ) −  Y  q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) ) −  X  q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) )
2

M  M 

d( ) d( ) ′ d ( ) = ω 2 d ( ) = ω 2 ( )′′
2 2

τ = ωnt , dt = ω = ω ( )
dτ dτ 2
n n 2 n n
let , dt

57
   Ω   Ω  Ω 
X M′′ + 2ς X M′ + 1 − q cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ0    X M − q sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ0   YM = εϕ ′′ sin  τ + ϕ − Φ0 + δ 
 
   ωn    ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω   P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnϕ ′) cos  τ + ϕ − Φ0 + δ  −  Y  2 sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ0   −  X
2
+  ω 2 cos  2  ω τ + ϕ − Φ0  
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn   M  n   n 

Lagrange Equation for Y

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 − + + = − PY
∂t  ∂Y&  ∂Y ∂Y ∂Y&
&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − ε M Φ
MY&& + ε M Φ & 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) + k (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y − kq sin 2ΦX + CY& = − P
Y

& 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y − ω 2 q sin 2ΦX + 2ςω Y& = − PY

&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − εΦ
Y&& + εΦ n n n
M
Y&& + 2ςωnY& + ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) Y = −εΦ & 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2ΦX − PY
&& cos ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
n
M

substituting

1  PX  1 P 
X = XM − Y = YM − 2  Y
ωn2  M  X& = X&
, && &&
M , X = XM , ωn  M 
 , Y& = Y&M , Y&& = Y&&M

 1 P 
Y&&M + 2ςωnY&M + ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) YM − 2  Y 
 ωn  M 

& 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2Φ  X − 1  PX   − PY

&& cos ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
= −εΦ n

M
ωn2  M   M

Y&&M + 2ςωnY&M + ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) YM − ωn2 q sin 2ΦX M

& 2 sin ( Φ + δ ) −  PX
&& cos ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
= −εΦ
  PY 
  q sin 2Φ +   q cos 2Φ
M  M 

substituting
Φ = Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 , Φ
& = Ω + ϕ& Φ
,
&& = ϕ&&

58
 ( )
Y&&M + 2ςωnY&M + ωn2 1 + q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) YM − ωn2 q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) X M = −εϕ&& cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ )
P  P 
+ε ( Ω + ϕ& ) sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ ) −  X  q sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) +  Y  q cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) )
2

M  M 
d( ) d( ) ′ d ( ) = ω 2 d ( ) = ω 2 ( )′′
2 2

τ = ωnt dt = ω = ω ( )
dτ dτ 2
n n n n
let , dt 2
,

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
YM′′ + 2ς YM′ + 1 + q cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0    YM − q sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0   X M = −εϕ ′′ cos  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ 
    
   ωn      ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω   P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnϕ ′ ) sin  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ  −  X  2 sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0   +  Y  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0  
2
+
   
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn    M  ωn   ωn 

59
Lagrange Equation for Φ

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 & − + + =0
∂t  ∂Φ  ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ
&

( I + ε M ) Φ&& + ε M (Y&& − X& Φ& ) cos ( Φ + δ ) − ( X&& + Y&Φ& ) sin ( Φ + δ )

2

+ε M Φ &  X& cos ( Φ + δ ) + Y& sin ( Φ + δ )  + kq sin 2Φ ( X − Y ) 2 2

 
−2kq cos 2ΦXY + k ( Φ − Θ ) + C ( Φ
t
& −Θ
t
&)=0

 I 2  &&
 + ε  Φ + ε Y cos ( Φ + δ ) − X sin ( Φ + δ )  + ωn q sin 2Φ ( X − Y )
&& && 2 2 2

M 
−2ωn2 q cos 2ΦXY + t ( Φ − Θ ) + t ( Φ − Θ) = 0
k C & &
M M

(ρ 2 && + ε Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X&& sin ( Φ + δ )  + ω 2 q sin 2Φ ( X 2 − Y 2 )

+ε 2 )Φ   n

ρ 2 kt ρ 2Ct & &

−2ω q cos 2ΦXY +
2
n
I
( Φ − Θ) +
I
( Φ − Θ) = 0

(ρ 2 && + ε Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X&& sin ( Φ + δ )  + ω 2 q sin 2Φ ( X 2 − Y 2 )

+ε 2 )Φ   n

−2ωn2 q cos 2ΦXY + ρ 2ωt 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2 ρ 2ς tωt ( Φ &)=0

& −Θ

60
from Lagrange equation for Y,

Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) = −2ςωn cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& − ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) cos ( Φ + δ ) Y

& 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2Φ cos ( Φ + δ ) X − PY cos ( Φ + δ )
&& cos 2 ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
−εΦ n
M

from Lagrange equation for X,

X&& sin ( Φ + δ ) = −2ςωn sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) sin ( Φ + δ ) X

& 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) sin ( Φ + δ ) + ω 2 q sin 2Φ sin ( Φ + δ ) Y − PX sin ( Φ + δ )
&& sin 2 ( Φ + δ ) + εΦ
+εΦ n
M

it follows that

61
Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X&& sin ( Φ + δ ) = 2ςωn sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& 
+ωn2 (1 − q cos 2Φ ) sin ( Φ + δ ) X − ωn2 (1 + q cos 2Φ ) cos ( Φ + δ ) Y
&& + ω 2 q sin 2Φ  cos ( Φ + δ ) X − sin ( Φ + δ ) Y  + PX sin ( Φ + δ ) − PY cos ( Φ + δ )
−εΦ n   M M

Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X&& sin ( Φ + δ ) = 2ςωn sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& 

+ωn2 sin ( Φ + δ ) X − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y 
+ωn2 q sin 2Φ cos ( Φ + δ ) − cos 2Φ sin ( Φ + δ )  X
−ωn2 q  cos 2Φ cos ( Φ + δ ) + sin 2Φ sin ( Φ + δ )  Y
PX P
+ sin ( Φ + δ ) − Y cos ( Φ + δ ) − εΦ
&&
M M

Y&& cos ( Φ + δ ) − X&& sin ( Φ + δ ) = 2ςωn sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& 

+ωn2 sin ( Φ + δ ) X − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y  + ωn2 q sin ( Φ − δ ) X − cos ( Φ − δ ) Y 
PX P
+ sin ( Φ + δ ) − Y cos ( Φ + δ ) − εΦ
&&
M M

62
substituting into Lagrange equation for Φ

(ρ 2
+ε 2 )Φ
&& + ε 2ςω sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& 
n  
+εωn2 sin ( Φ + δ ) X − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y  + εωn2 q sin ( Φ − δ ) X − cos ( Φ − δ ) Y 

+ε
PX P && + ω 2 q sin 2Φ ( X 2 − Y 2 )
sin ( Φ + δ ) − ε Y cos ( Φ + δ ) − ε 2Φ n
M M
−2ωn2 q cos 2ΦXY + ρ 2ωt 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2 ρ 2ς tωt ( Φ
& −Θ &)=0

&& + ε 2ςω sin ( Φ + δ ) X& − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& 

ρ 2Φ n  
+εωn2 sin ( Φ + δ ) X − cos ( Φ + δ ) Y  + εωn2 q sin ( Φ − δ ) X − cos ( Φ − δ ) Y 

sin ( Φ + δ ) − ε Y cos ( Φ + δ ) + ωn2 q sin 2Φ ( X 2 − Y 2 ) − 2 cos 2ΦXY 

PX P
+ε
M M
+ ρ 2ωt 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2 ρ 2ς tωt ( Φ & )=0
& −Θ

&& + ω 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2ς ω ( Φ
Φ & ) = ε 2ςωn cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& − sin ( Φ + δ ) X& 
& −Θ
t t t
ρ2  
εωn2 εωn2 q
+ 2 cos ( Φ + δ ) Y − sin ( Φ + δ ) X  + 2 cos ( Φ − δ ) Y − sin ( Φ − δ ) X 
ρ ρ
ε  P   PX   ωn2 q
+ 2  Y  cos ( Φ + δ ) −   sin ( Φ + δ )  + 2 2 cos 2ΦXY − sin 2Φ ( X − Y ) 
2 2

ρ  M  M   ρ

63
substituting

1  PX  1  PY 
X = XM − Y = Y −
ωn2  M  X& = X&
, && &&
M , X = XM ,
M
ωn2  M 
 , Y& = Y&M , Y&& = Y&&M

&& + ω 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2ς ω ( Φ
Φ & ) = ε 2ςωn cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& − sin ( Φ + δ ) X& 
& −Θ
t t t
ρ2  M M 

εωn2 εωn2 q
+  cos ( Φ + δ ) Y − sin ( Φ + δ ) X  + cos ( Φ − δ ) YM − sin ( Φ − δ ) X M 
ρ2  M M 
ρ2 
ε  PY   PX   ε q  PY   PX  
− 2   cos ( Φ + δ ) −   sin ( Φ + δ )  − 2   cos ( Φ − δ ) −   sin ( Φ − δ ) 
ρ  M  M   ρ  M  M  
ε  P  P  
+ 2  Y  cos ( Φ + δ ) −  X  sin ( Φ + δ ) 
ρ  M  M  
ω 2q   1  P   
2 2
 1  P   1  P  1  P  
+ n2  2cos 2Φ  X M − 2  X   YM − 2  Y   − sin 2Φ   X M − 2  X   −  YM − 2  Y   
ρ   ωn  M   ωn  M    ωn  M    ωn  M   
  

&& + ω 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2ς ω ( Φ
Φ & ) = ε 2ςωn cos ( Φ + δ ) Y& − sin ( Φ + δ ) X& 
& −Θ
t t t
ρ2  M M 

εωn2 εωn2 q
+  cos ( Φ + δ ) M
Y − sin ( Φ + δ ) M
X  + cos ( Φ − δ ) YM − sin ( Φ − δ ) X M 
ρ2  ρ2 
ε q  PY   PX  
− 2   cos ( Φ − δ ) −   sin ( Φ − δ ) 
ρ  M  M  
ω 2q   1  P   
2 2
 1  P   1  P  1  P  
+ n2  2cos 2Φ  X M − 2  X   YM − 2  Y   − sin 2Φ   X M − 2  X   −  YM − 2  Y   
ρ   ωn  M   ωn  M    ωn  M    ωn  M   
  

64
aside

 1 P   1  PY   1  PX
2
  1  PY 
2

2cos 2Φ  X M − 2  X   YM − 2    − sin 2Φ   X M − 2    −  YM − 2   

 ωn  M   ωn  M  ωn  M   ωn  M 
 
 1 P  1 P  1  P  P  
= 2cos 2Φ  X M YM − 2  X  YM − 2  Y  X M + 4  Y  X  
 ωn  M  ωn  M  ωn  M  M  
 2 2  PX  1  PX  
2
 2 2  PY  1  PY  
2

− sin 2Φ  X M − 2   X M + 4    + sin 2Φ  YM − 2   YM + 4   
 ωn  M  ωn  M    ωn  M  ωn  M  
 

 1 P   1  PY   1  PX
2
  1  PY 
2

2cos 2Φ  X M − 2  X   YM − 2    − sin 2Φ   X M − 2    −  YM − 2   

 ωn  M   ωn  M  ωn  M   ωn  M 
 
2   P   PX     PY   PX  
= 2 
cos 2Φ  −  Y  X M −   YM  − sin 2Φ    YM −   X M  
ωn   M  M    M  M  
1   PY  
2 2
 PY  PX   PX 
+ 4 2 cos 2Φ    − sin 2Φ   + sin 2Φ   
ωn   M  M  M   M  
+2 cos 2ΦX M YM − sin 2ΦX M2 + sin 2ΦYM2

65
combining

&& + ω 2 ( Φ − Θ ) + 2ς ω ( Φ & ) = − ε q  PY   PX  
Φ  cos ( Φ − δ ) −   sin ( Φ − δ ) 
& −Θ
t t t
ρ 2  M  M  
q   P  P   PX 
2
 PY  
2

+ 2 2 
2 cos 2Φ  Y  X  − sin 2Φ   + sin 2Φ   +Γ
ωn ρ   M  M  M   M  

where

ε 2ςωn
Γ= cos ( Φ + δ ) Y&M − sin ( Φ + δ ) X& M 
ρ2 
εωn2 εωn2 q
+  cos ( Φ + δ ) Y − sin ( Φ + δ ) X  + cos ( Φ − δ ) YM − sin ( Φ − δ ) X M 
ρ2  M M 
ρ2 
2q   P  P    P   PX  
+ 2 
cos 2Φ  −  Y  X M −  X  YM  − sin 2Φ   Y  YM −   XM 
ρ   M  M    M  M  
ω 2q
+ n2  2 cos 2ΦX M YM − sin 2ΦX M2 + sin 2ΦYM2 
ρ

substituting
Φ = Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 , Φ
& = Ω + ϕ& Φ
,
&& = ϕ&& Θ = Ωt + θ − Θ0 Θ
, ,
& = Ω + θ& Θ
,
&& = θ&&

ε q  PY   PX  
ϕ&& + ωt 2 (ϕ − θ − Φ0 + Θ0 ) + 2ς tωt (ϕ& − θ& ) = − 2   cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ ) −   sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 − δ ) 
ρ  M  M  
q  PY  PX   PX 
2
 PY  
2

+ 2 2  2 cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) )    − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) )   + sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ0 ) )    + Γ

ωn ρ   M  M  M   M  

where

66
 ε 2ςωn
Γ= cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ ) Y&M − sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ ) X& M 
ρ2 
εωn2
+ cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ ) YM − sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ ) X M 
ρ2 
εωn2 q
+ 2 cos ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ ) YM − sin ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ ) X M 
ρ
2q   P  P    P  P  
+ 2 
cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) )  −  Y  X M −  X  YM  − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) )   Y  YM −  X  X M 
ρ   M  M    M  M  
ω 2q
+ n2  2 cos ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) X M YM − sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) X M2 + sin ( 2 ( Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 ) ) YM2 
ρ

67
 d( ) d( ) ′ d2( ) 2 d ( )
2
= ωn = ωn ( ) = ωn = ωn2 ( )′′
let
τ = ω n t , dt dτ , dt 2
d τ 2

2
 ωt  2ς t ωt εq  PY  Ω   PX  Ω 
ϕ ′′ +   (ϕ − θ − Φ 0 + Θ 0 ) + (ϕ ′ − θ ′ ) = − 2 2   cos  ω τ + ϕ − Φ0 − δ  −  M  sin  ω τ + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ  
ω
 n ω n ωnρ  M   n     n  
q   Ω    P  P   Ω    PX 
2
 Ω    PY  
2

+ 4 2 
2cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0    Y  X −  τ + ϕ − Φ  +  τ + ϕ − Φ    + Γn
  0    0 
 sin 2  sin 2
ωn ρ   
  ωn    M  M    ωn  M    ωn    M  

ε 2ς   Ω  Ω  
Γn = 2 
cos  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ  YM′ − sin  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ  X M′ 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
ε  Ω  Ω  
+ cos  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ  YM − sin  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 + δ  X M 
ρ2   ωn   ωn  
εq   Ω  Ω  
+ 2 
cos  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ  YM − sin  τ + ϕ − Φ 0 − δ  X M 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
2q    Ω   P  P    Ω  P  P  
+ 2 2 
cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0    −  Y  X M −  X  YM  − sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0     Y  YM −  X  X M  
ωn ρ    ωn 
  M  M   
  ωn

 M  M   
q   Ω   Ω   Ω  
+ 2  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0   X M YM − sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0   X M2 + sin  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0   YM2 
 ω   ω   
ρ    n    n    ωn   

68
Lagrange Equation for Θ

∂  ∂T  ∂T ∂U ∂D
 & − + + = −TDR
∂t  ∂Θ  ∂Θ ∂Θ ∂Θ &
IΘ&& − k ( Φ − Θ ) − C ( Φ
& −Θ& ) = −T
0 t t DR

&& − kt ( Φ − Θ ) − Ct ( Φ
Θ & ) = − TDR
& −Θ
I0 I0 I0
&& − kt ( Φ − Θ ) − Ct ( Φ
Θ & ) = − kc θ − Cc θ&
& −Θ
I0 I0 I0 I0

substituting
Φ = Ωt + ϕ − Φ 0 , Φ
& = Ω + ϕ& Φ
,
&& = ϕ&& Θ = Ωt + θ − Θ0 Θ
, ,
& = Ω + θ& Θ
,
&& = θ&&

( )
I 0θ&& − kt (ϕ − Φ 0 − θ + Θ0 ) − Ct ϕ& − θ& = − kcθ − Ccθ&
Cc + Ct & kc + kt k C
θ&& + θ+ θ = t (ϕ + Θ0 − Φ 0 ) + t ϕ&
I0 I0 I0 I0

Ct & k k C
θ&& + (1 + CR ) θ + (1 + K R ) t θ = t (ϕ + Θ0 − Φ 0 ) + t ϕ&
I I I I
θ + (1 + CR ) 2ς t ωtθ + (1 + K R ) ωt θ = ωt (ϕ + Θ0 − Φ 0 ) + 2ς t ωtϕ&
&& & 2 2

d( ) d( ) ′ d2( ) 2 d ( )
2
= ω = ω n( ) = ω = ωn2 ( )′′
let
τ = ω t
n , dt
n
dτ , dt
2 n
dτ 2

2 2
ω ω  ω  ω
θ ′′ + (1 + CR ) 2ς t t θ ′ + (1 + K R )  t  θ =  t  ϕ + 2ς t t ϕ ′
ωn  ωn   ωn  ωn

69
Special Case, Torsional Vibration Only

Assume
X M = 0 , YM = 0 , θ = 0

Let
PX = 0 , Φ 0 = 0 , Θ0 = 0 , δ = 0

The torsional equation of motion becomes

2
 ωt  2ς t ωt εq  P  Ω  q  Ω    PY 
2

ϕ ′′ +   ϕ+ ϕ′ = − 2 2  Y  cos  τ + ϕ  + sin
  ω
2 τ + ϕ    
ω
 n ω n ω nρ  M   ωn  ωn ρ
4 2
  n  M 

u1 = ϕ u2 = ϕ ′
Let the states and

u1′ = u2

2
ω  2ς ω εq  P  Ω  q  Ω    PY 
2

u2′ = −  t  u1 − t t u2 − 2 2  Y τ + + τ +
 1   ω 1  
 cos u sin 2 u
ω
 n ω n ωnρ M   ωn  ωn ρ
4 2
  n  M 

70
Special Case, Lateral Vibration Only

Assume
ϕ =0, θ =0

Let
PX = 0 , Φ 0 = 0 , Θ0 = 0 , δ = 0

  Ω   Ω  ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
X M′′ + 2ς X M′ + 1 − q cos  2 τ   X M − q sin  2 τ  YM = 2 Ω2 cos  τ  −  Y  2 sin  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

  Ω   Ω  ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
YM′′ + 2ς YM′ + 1 + q cos  2 τ   YM − q sin  2 τ  X M = 2 Ω2 sin  τ  +  Y  2 cos  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

Let the states

u3 = X M , u4 = X M′ , u5 = YM , u6 = YM′

u3′ = u4

  Ω   Ω  ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
u4′ = −2ς u4 − 1 − q cos  2 τ   u3 + q sin  2 τ  u5 + 2 Ω2 cos  τ  −  Y  2 sin  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 
u5′ = u6

  Ω   Ω  ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
u6′ = −2ς u6 − 1 + q cos  2 τ   u5 + q sin  2 τ  u3 + 2 Ω2 sin  τ  +  Y  2 cos  2 τ 
  ωn    ωn  ωn  ωn   M  ωn  ωn 

71
General Vibration

Let
PX = 0 , Φ 0 = 0 , Θ0 = 0

2
 ωt  2ς tωt εq P Ω 
ϕ ′′ =   (θ − ϕ ) + (θ ′ − ϕ ′) − 2 2  Y 
 cos  τ + ϕ 
 ωn  ωn ωn ρ  M   ωn 
q  Ω  P 
2

+ 4 2 sin  2  τ + ϕ    Y  + Γn
ωn ρ  
  ωn  M 

ε 2ς  Ω  Ω  
Γn = cos  τ + ϕ  YM′ − sin  τ + ϕ  X M′ 
ρ2   ωn   ωn  
ε  Ω  Ω  
+  cos  τ + ϕ  Y − sin  τ + ϕ  X 
ρ 2   ωn  ωn
M M
  
εq   Ω  Ω  
+ 2 
cos  τ + ϕ  YM − sin  τ + ϕ  X M 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
2q  PY   Ω   Ω  
+   − cos  2  τ + ϕ   X M − sin  2  τ + ϕ   YM 
ωn2 ρ 2  M     ωn    ωn   
q   Ω   Ω  2  Ω  2 
+  2 cos 
 
2 τ + ϕ 
 M M
X Y − sin 
 
2 τ + ϕ 
 M
X + sin 
 
2 τ + ϕ   YM 
ρ 2    ωn    ωn    ωn   

2 2
ωt ω  ω  ω
θ ′′ = − (1 + CR ) 2ς t θ ′ − (1 + K R )  t  θ +  t  ϕ + 2ς t t ϕ ′
ωn ω
 n ω
 n ω n

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
X M′′ = −2ς X M′ − 1 − q cos  2  τ + ϕ    X M + q sin  2  τ + ϕ   YM + εϕ ′′ sin  τ + ϕ 
 ω  ω ω
   n    n   n 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnϕ ′) cos  τ + ϕ  −  Y  2 sin  2  τ + ϕ  
2
+
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

72
   Ω   Ω  Ω 
YM′′ = −2ς YM′ − 1 + q cos  2  τ + ϕ    YM + q sin  2  τ + ϕ   X M − εϕ ′′ cos  τ + ϕ 
  ω   ω  ω
   n    n   n 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
+ 2 ( Ω + ωnϕ ′ ) sin  τ + ϕ  +  Y  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0  
2
 
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

Let the states

u1 = ϕ , u2 = ϕ ′ , u3 = X M , u4 = X M′ , u5 = YM , u6 = YM′ , u7 = θ , and u8 = θ ′

u1′ = u2

2
ω  2ς ω εq  P  Ω 
u2′ =  t  ( u7 − u1 ) + t t ( u8 − u2 ) − 2 2  Y  cos  τ + u1 
 ωn  ωn ωn ρ  M   ωn 
q  Ω  P 
2

+ 4 2 sin  2  τ + u1    Y  + Γn
ωn ρ  ω 
  n  M 

 Ω
ε 2ς  Ω  
Γn = cos  τ + u1  u6 − sin  τ + u1  u4 
ρ2
  ωn   ωn  
ε  Ω  Ω  
+ 2 cos  τ + u1  u5 − sin  τ + u1  u3 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
εq   Ω  Ω  
+ 2 cos  τ + u1  u5 − sin  τ + u1  u3 
ρ   ωn   ωn  
2q  P    Ω   Ω  
+ 2 2  Y   − cos  2  τ + u1   u3 − sin  2  τ + u1   u5 
ωn ρ  M     ωn    ωn   
q   Ω   Ω   Ω  
+ 2  2 cos  2  τ + u1   u3u5 − sin  2  τ + u1   u32 + sin  2  τ + u1   u52 
ρ    ωn    ωn    ωn   

2 2
ωt ω  ω  ω
u8′ = − (1 + CR ) 2ς t u8 − (1 + K R )  t  u7 +  t  u1 + 2ς t t u2
ωn  ωn   ωn  ωn

  Ω   Ω  Ω 
u4′ = −2ς u4 − 1 − q cos  2  τ + u1    u3 + q sin  2  τ + u1   u5 + ε u2′ sin  τ + u1 
   
   ωn   ωn   ωn 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
2 (
Ω + ωnu2 ) cos  τ + u1  −  Y  2 sin  2  τ + u1  
2
+
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

73
   Ω   Ω  Ω 
YM′′ = −2ς YM′ − 1 + q cos  2  τ + ϕ    YM + q sin  2  τ + ϕ   X M − εϕ ′′ cos  τ + ϕ 
  ω   ω  ω
   n    n   n 
ε Ω  P  q  Ω 
+ 2 ( Ω + ωnϕ ′ ) sin  τ + ϕ  +  Y  2 cos  2  τ + ϕ − Φ 0  
2
 
ωn  ωn   M  ωn   ωn 

74
Appendix C Matlab Models

C.1 Special Case: Lateral Vibration Matlab Model

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Special Lateral Vibration only

%Filename: asymetric.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/8/08

%Description: Models the lateral vibration of a rotor with an asymetric

%shaft stiffness and a horizontal side load.

%Outside Functions: lateral_fun.m used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

wn=3500*2*pi()/60; %lateral natural frequency (rad/s)

wt=20000*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)
si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.05; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
Py=-2700; %Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)
q=0.15; %asymetry factor
parameters = {'wn (rad/s)', 'wt (rad/s)', 'si', 'sit', 'ee (in)', 'rho
(in)', 'Py (in/sec^2)', 'q'; wn wt si sit ee rho Py q};
xlswrite('result', parameters, 'Parameters', 'A1');

x0=zeros(6,1); %set initial conditions to all zero

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-6,'AbsTol',1e-6);

n=1; %start index for organizing output matrix by speed

%Loop for each speed N (rpm)

for N=[250:50:6500];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@lateral_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,
q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

if omega==0.5*wn
xlswrite('result', t(:,1), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'A1');
xlswrite('result', x(:,:), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'B1');
elseif omega==wn
xlswrite('result', t(:,1), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'A1');
xlswrite('result', x(:,:), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'B1');
end

75
 %Output Data for Amplitude Plot
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed
(rpm)
y(n,2)=max(x(40:end,3))-min(x(40:end,3)); %Amplitude X (in)
y(n,3)=max(x(40:end,5))-min(x(40:end,5)); %Amplitude Y (in)

n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Response
figure(1);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,2),'k.');
plot(y(:,1),y(:,3),'g.');
axis([0 6500 0 1.10*max(y(:,3))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Amplitude (in)');
grid;
end

xlswrite('result', y(:,:), 'Bode Plot', 'A1');

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT ROTOR MODEL: Special Lateral Vibration Only

%Filename: lateral_fun.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 3/16/07

%Description: defines ODEs for lateral vibration model

%Called By: asymetric.m

function dx=lateral_fun(t,x,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,q);

dx(1)=0;
dx(2)=0;
dx(3)=x(4);
dx(4)=-2*si*x(4)-(1-
q*cos(2*omega*t/wn))*x(3)+q*sin(2*omega*t/wn)*x(5)+(ee/wn^2)*omega^2*co
s(omega*t/wn)-Py*(q/wn^2)*sin(2*omega*t/wn);;
dx(5)=x(6);
dx(6)=-2*si*x(6)-
(1+q*cos(2*omega*t/wn))*x(5)+q*sin(2*omega*t/wn)*x(3)+(ee/wn^2)*omega^2
*sin(omega*t/wn)+Py*(q/wn^2)*cos(2*omega*t/wn);

dx=[dx(1) dx(2) dx(3) dx(4) dx(5) dx(6)]';

76
C.2 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Matlab Model

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Torsional Vibration Only

%Filename: asymetric.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 1/28/2008

%Description: Models the torsional vibration of a rotor with an

asymetric
%shaft stiffness and a horizontal side load. Assumes no lateral
vibration

%Outside Functions: torsional_fun used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

wn=10000*2*pi()/60; %lateral natural frequency (rad/s)

wt=3500*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)
si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.05; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
Py=-2700; %Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)
q=0.15; %asymetry factor
parameters = {'wn (rad/s)', 'wt (rad/s)', 'si', 'sit', 'ee (in)', 'rho
(in)', 'Py (in/sec^2)', 'q'; wn wt si sit ee rho Py q};
xlswrite('result', parameters, 'Parameters', 'A1');

x0=zeros(2,1); %initial conditions

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

n=1; %index for organizing output matrix

%Loop for each speed N (rpm)

for N=[250:50:6500];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@torsional_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,P
y,q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

xlswrite('result', t(:,1), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'A1');

xlswrite('result', x(:,:), [int2str(N) ' RPM'], 'B1');

%Output
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed (rpm)
y(n,2)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(end-500:end,1))-min(x(end-
500:end,1))); %Amplitude (deg pk-pk)

77
 n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Response
figure(1);
plot(y(:,1),y(:,2),'k.');
axis([0 5000 0 1.10*max(y(:,2))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
grid;

end

xlswrite('result', y(:,:), 'Bode Plot', 'A1');

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Torsional Vibration Only

%Filename: torsional_fun.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 10/9/06

%Description: defines ODEs for torsional vibration model

%Called By: asymetric.m

function dx=torsional_fun(t,x,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,q);

dx(1)=x(2);
dx(2)=-x(1)*(wt/wn)^2-(2*sit*wt/wn)*x(2)-
(ee*q/(wn*rho)^2)*Py*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(1))+(q/(wn^4*rho^2))*sin(2*((om
ega/wn)*t+x(1)))*Py^2;

dx=[dx(1) dx(2)]';

78
 PY
C.3 Special Case: Torsional Vibration Matlab Model For Parametric Study Of ε
k

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Torsional Vibration Only

%Filename: torsionalparametric.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/17/2010

%Description: Models the torsional vibration of a rotor with an

asymetric
%shaft stiffness and a horizontal side load. Assumes no lateral
vibration

%Outside Functions: torsional_fun used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

wn=10000*2*pi()/60; %lateral natural frequency (rad/s)

wt=3500*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)
si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.05; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
q=0.15; %asymetry factor

x0=zeros(2,1); %initial conditions

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

n=1; %index for organizing output matrix

%Loop for each Py/M
for Py=[-1371,-2742,-4112,-5483,-6854,-8225,-9595,-10966];
%Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)
Pyke=-(Py/wn^2)/ee;
%Loop for each speed N (rpm)
for N=[250:50:1600,1610:10:1900,1950:50:3350,
3360:10:3650,3700:50:6000];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@torsional_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,P
y,q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

%Output
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed (rpm)
y(n,2)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(end-500:end,1))-min(x(end-
500:end,1))); %Amplitude (deg pk-pk)

79
 y(n,3)=Pyke; %Ratio Py/M
n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Response
figure(1);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,3),y(:,2),'b.');
title('Asymetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
ylabel('Ratio (Py/k)/(ee)');
grid;

end
end

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Torsional Vibration Only

%Filename: torsional_fun.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 10/9/06

%Description: defines ODEs for torsional vibration model

%Called By: asymetric.m

function dx=torsional_fun(t,x,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,q);

dx(1)=x(2);
dx(2)=-x(1)*(wt/wn)^2-(2*sit*wt/wn)*x(2)-
(ee*q/(wn*rho)^2)*Py*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(1))+(q/(wn^4*rho^2))*sin(2*((om
ega/wn)*t+x(1)))*Py^2;

dx=[dx(1) dx(2)]';

80
C.4 General Vibration Model

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Torsional Vibration Only

%Filename: torsionalparametric.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/17/2010

%Description: Models the torsional vibration of a rotor with an

asymetric
%shaft stiffness and a horizontal side load. Assumes no lateral
vibration

%Outside Functions: torsional_fun used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

wn=10000*2*pi()/60; %lateral natural frequency (rad/s)

wt=3500*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)
si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.05; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
q=0.15; %asymetry factor

x0=zeros(2,1); %initial conditions

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

n=1; %index for organizing output matrix

%Loop for each Py/M
for Py=[-1371,-2742,-4112,-5483,-6854,-8225,-9595,-10966];
%Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)
Pyke=-(Py/wn^2)/ee;
%Loop for each speed N (rpm)
for N=[250:50:1600,1610:10:1900,1950:50:3350,
3360:10:3650,3700:50:6000];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@torsional_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,P
y,q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

%Output
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed (rpm)
y(n,2)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(end-500:end,1))-min(x(end-
500:end,1))); %Amplitude (deg pk-pk)
y(n,3)=Pyke; %Ratio Py/M
n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Response

81
 figure(1);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,3),y(:,2),'b.');
title('Asymetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
ylabel('Ratio (Py/k)/(ee)');
grid;

end
end

%ASYMETRIC SHAFT ROTOR MODEL: General vibration

%Filename: general_fun.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/24/2010

%Description: defines ODEs for general vibration model

%Called By: asymetric_gen.m

function dx=general_fun(t,x,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,q);

dx(1)=x(2);
dx(2)=-x(1)*(wt/wn)^2-(2*sit*wt/wn)*x(2)-
(ee*q/(wn*rho)^2)*Py*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(1))+(q/(wn^4*rho^2))*sin(2*((om
ega/wn)*t+x(1)))*Py^2+(ee*2*si/rho^2)*(x(6)*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(1))-
x(4)*sin((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))+(ee*(1+q)/rho^2)*(x(5)*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(
1))-x(3)*sin((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))-
(2*q*Py/(wn*rho)^2)*(x(3)*cos(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))+x(5)*sin(2*((omega
/wn)*t+x(1))))+(q/rho^2)*(2*x(3)*x(5)*cos(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))-
x(3)^2*sin(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))+x(5)^2*sin(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1))));
dx(3)=x(4);
dx(4)=-2*si*x(4)-(1-
q*cos(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1))))*x(3)+q*sin(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))*x(5)+ee
*dx(2)*sin((omega/wn)*t+x(1))+(ee/wn^2)*(omega+wn*x(2))^2*cos((omega/wn
)*t+x(1))-Py*(q/wn^2)*sin(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)));
dx(5)=x(6);
dx(6)=-2*si*x(6)-
(1+q*cos(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1))))*x(5)+q*sin(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)))*x(3)
-
ee*dx(2)*cos((omega/wn)*t+x(1))+(ee/wn^2)*(omega+wn*x(2))^2*sin((omega/
wn)*t+x(1))+Py*(q/wn^2)*cos(2*((omega/wn)*t+x(1)));

dx=[dx(1) dx(2) dx(3) dx(4) dx(5) dx(6)]';

82
C.5 Vibration Model for Increasing Shaft Asymmetry

%ASYMMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Special Lateral Vibration only

%Filename: asymetric_gen_q.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/2010

%Description: Models the lateral vibration of a rotor with an

increasingly
%asymmetric shaft stiffness and a horizontal side load.

%Outside Functions: general_fun.m used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

for q=[0:0.02:0.2];

wnorig=1850*2*pi()/60; %original lateral natural frequency (rad/s)

wn=(1/(1+q))^0.5*wnorig; %lateral natural frequency after asymetry
(rad/s)

wt=2500*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)

si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.04; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
Py=-386.1; %Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)

parameters = {'wn (rad/s)', 'wt (rad/s)', 'si', 'sit', 'ee (in)', 'rho
(in)', 'Py (in/sec^2)', 'q'; wn wt si sit ee rho Py q};
xlswrite('result', parameters, 'Parameters', 'A1');

x0=zeros(6,1); %set initial conditions to all zero

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

n=1; %start index for organizing output matrix by speed

%Loop for each speed N (rpm)

for N=[250:25:4000];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@general_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,
q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

%Output Data for Amplitude Plot

83
 y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed
(rpm)
y(n,2)=max(x(2*wn:end,3))-min(x(2*wn:end,3)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude X
(in)
y(n,3)=max(x(2*wn:end,5))-min(x(2*wn:end,5)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude Y
(in)
y(n,4)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(2*wn:end,1))-min(x(2*wn:end,1)));
%Pk-Pk Amplitude torsional (deg)
y(n,5)=q;

n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Lateral Response

figure(1);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,2),'k.');
plot(y(:,1),y(:,3),'g.');
axis([0 4500 0 1.10*max(y(:,3))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Amplitude (in pk-pk)');
grid;

%Plot Torsional Response

figure(2);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,4),'k.');
axis([0 4500 0 1.10*max(y(:,4))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
grid;

%Plot Response
figure(3);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,5),y(:,4),'b.');
title('Asymmetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
ylabel('Asymmetry Factor, q');
grid;
hold on;

%Plot Response
figure(4);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,5),y(:,3),'b.');
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Vertical Amplitude (in pk-pk)');
ylabel('Asymmetry Factor, q');
grid;
hold on;

84
 xlswrite('result', y(:,:), ['Bode Plot q=' int2str(q)], 'A1');
end

end

85
C.6 Vibration Model for Varying Ratios of ωt ωn

%ASYMMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Special Lateral Vibration only

%Filename: asymetric_gen_w.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 2/2010

%Description: Models the lateral vibration of a rotor with varying

%torsional natural frequency

%Outside Functions: general_fun.m used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

n=1; %start index for organizing output matrix by speed

for wtwn=[0.25:0.25:2];

q=0.2; %asymetry factor

wnorig=1850*2*pi()/60; %original lateral natural frequency (rad/s)
wn=(1/(1+q))^0.5*wnorig; %lateral natural frequency after asymetry
(rad/s)

wt=wn*wtwn; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)

si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.04; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
Py=-386.1; %Py/M, vertical load ratio (in/sec^2)

parameters = {'wn (rad/s)', 'wt (rad/s)', 'si', 'sit', 'ee (in)', 'rho
(in)', 'Py (in/sec^2)', 'q'; wn wt si sit ee rho Py q};
xlswrite('result', parameters, 'Parameters', 'A1');

x0=zeros(6,1); %set initial conditions to all zero

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

%Loop for each speed N (rpm)

for N=[250:25:4000];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@general_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,
q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

86
 %Output Data for Amplitude Plot
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed
(rpm)
y(n,2)=max(x(2*wn:end,3))-min(x(2*wn:end,3)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude X
(in)
y(n,3)=max(x(2*wn:end,5))-min(x(2*wn:end,5)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude Y
(in)
y(n,4)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(2*wn:end,1))-min(x(2*wn:end,1)));
%Pk-Pk Amplitude torsional (deg)
y(n,5)=wtwn;

n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Lateral Response

figure(1);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,2),'k.');
plot(y(:,1),y(:,3),'g.');
axis([0 4500 0 1.10*max(y(:,3))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Amplitude (in pk-pk)');
grid;

%Plot Response
figure(3);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,5),y(:,4),'b.');
title('Asymmetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
ylabel('wt/wn');
grid;
hold on;

end

end

xlswrite('result', y(:,:), ['Bode Plot'], 'A1');

87
C.7 Vibration Model for Increasing Side Load

%ASYMMETRIC SHAFT MODEL: Special Lateral Vibration only

%Filename: asymetric_gen_p.m
%By Clinton Judd
%Last Updated 3/2010

%Description: Models the lateral vibration of a rotor with an

%asymmetric shaft stiffness and increasing side load.

%Outside Functions: general_fun.m used to define ODEs

clear all;
close all;

for Pyke=[1,5,10,15,20]; %Py/M, vertical load ratio

(in/sec^2)

q=0.2;
wnorig=1850*2*pi()/60; %original lateral natural frequency (rad/s)
wn=(1/(1+q))^0.5*wnorig; %lateral natural frequency after asymetry
(rad/s)

wt=2500*2*pi()/60; %torsional natural frequency (rad/s)

si=0.2; %lateral damping ratio
sit=0.04; %torsional damping ratio
ee=0.005; %unbalance eccentricity (in)
rho=1.00; %radius of gyration (in)
Py=-Pyke*ee*wn^2;

parameters = {'wn (rad/s)', 'wt (rad/s)', 'si', 'sit', 'ee (in)', 'rho
(in)', 'Py (in/sec^2)', 'q'; wn wt si sit ee rho Py q};
xlswrite('result', parameters, 'Parameters', 'A1');

x0=zeros(6,1); %set initial conditions to all zero

tf=4*wn; %solution timespan (sec*wn)

tspan=0:tf; %solution timespan (dimensionless)

options=odeset('RelTol',1e-7,'AbsTol',1e-7);

n=1; %start index for organizing output matrix by speed

%Loop for each speed N (rpm)

for N=[250:25:4000];
omega=N*2*pi()/60; %motor speed (rad/s)

[t,x]=ode45(@general_fun,tspan,x0,options,omega,wn,wt,si,sit,ee,rho,Py,
q);
x0=x(end,:)'; %use results from last iteration for new
initial cond.

88
 %Output Data for Amplitude Plot
y(n,1)=omega*60/(2*pi()); %Speed
(rpm)
y(n,2)=max(x(2*wn:end,3))-min(x(2*wn:end,3)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude X
(in)
y(n,3)=max(x(2*wn:end,5))-min(x(2*wn:end,5)); %Pk-Pk Amplitude Y
(in)
y(n,4)=(360/(2*pi()))*(max(x(2*wn:end,1))-min(x(2*wn:end,1)));
%Pk-Pk Amplitude torsional (deg)
y(n,5)=Pyke;

n=n+1; %increase index for organizing output matrix

%Plot Lateral Response

figure(1);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,2),'k.');
plot(y(:,1),y(:,3),'g.');
axis([0 4500 0 1.10*max(y(:,3))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Amplitude (in pk-pk)');
grid;

%Plot Torsional Response

figure(2);
hold on;
plot(y(:,1),y(:,4),'k.');
axis([0 4500 0 1.10*max(y(:,4))]);
title('Asymetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
ylabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
grid;

%Plot Response
figure(3);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,5),y(:,4),'b.');
title('Asymmetric Shaft Torsional Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Torsional Amplitude (deg pk-pk)');
ylabel('Ratio (Py/k)/(ee)');
grid;
hold on;

%Plot Response
figure(4);
plot3(y(:,1),y(:,5),y(:,3),'b.');
title('Asymetric Shaft Lateral Vibration');
xlabel('Motor Speed(rpm)');
zlabel('Vertical Amplitude (in pk-pk)');
ylabel('Ratio (Py/k)/(ee)');
grid;
hold on;

89
 if omega==0.5*wn
xlswrite('result', y(:,:), ['Pyke' int2str(Pyke) ' '
int2str(N)], 'A1');
elseif omega==wn
xlswrite('result', y(:,:), ['Pyke' int2str(Pyke) ' '
int2str(N)], 'A1');
end
end

end

90
Appendix D Experiment Trial Notes

D.1 Notes on Experimental Trial Apparatus

System consists of two 800g disks as an inboard rotor and two 800g disks as an outboard rotor.

Inboard rotor supported closely by bearings.

Outboard rotor has bearing span of 7.75in

Outboard rotor has asymmetry with 1.5" long flats ground on either side of rotor.

Flats reduce diameter to a 0.230in thickness.

Shaft length between rotors is 14in.

Outboard rotor has vertical loading system (pulleys) with masses hung to produce vertical side load.

Prox-probes for lateral vibration measurement near bearings (inboard / outboard)

Gear wheels at each end for torsional measurement (TK17 inboard / outboard)

Calculated wn = 5,800rpm and wt= 4,100rpm wt/wn = 0.707

20lb hung for side loading (Py/M = 6.7g’s = 2600 in/sec^2)

91