You are on page 1of 9

TECHNICAL PAPER Structures subjected to

Journal of the South African


Institution of Civil Engineering startup and shutdown
Vol 57 No 1, March 2015, Pages 38–46, Paper 1066
of rotating machinery
PROF ALEX A ELVIN Pr Eng, Member SAICE, A A Elvin, N G Elvin
graduated as a civil engineer from the University
of the Witwatersrand in 1989. Working on
non-destructive evaluation of concrete bridges
he completed his Masters in 1991 at the With the advent of fast computers and easy-to-use software, transient dynamic analysis of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), structures has apparently become easy to perform. The engineer usually enters the entire
and in 1996 obtained his PhD from MIT in structure (even in three dimensions) and produces results and plots that are sophisticated in
numerical modelling of fracture of brittle
appearance. The simulation results are most probably accepted without asking the following
high-temperature materials. He worked in industry and taught several classes
at MIT. From 1998 to 2002 he was a junior faculty member at Harvard Medical questions: “Are the results correct?” and “What is the sensitivity of the results to the various
School doing finite element analysis of implants. He was promoted first to parameters?” The approach in this paper is different and more traditional: the salient behaviour
associate (2007) and then to full professor (2010) in structural mechanics at of transient machinery during startup and shutdown is presented after studying the response of
the University of the Witwatersrand. His research interests are focused on a structure which has been reduced to a single degree of freedom. The two-dimensional forces
theoretical modelling (i.e. numerical modelling), finite element analysis,
generated by rotating machinery during startup/shutdown have been derived analytically.
loading, dynamic simulations, behaviour of structures, instrumentation and
sensor networks in engineering, as well as health monitoring of structures. Normalised curves have been computed to show the maximum response of the structure. A
wide range of damping ratios has been considered. The maximum structural deflections during
Contact details:
startup/shutdown can be significantly greater than the steady-state response and thus cannot
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of the Witwatersrand be ignored. The normalised curves show that common approaches to limit dynamic deflections
Johannesburg by increasing stiffness and/or damping have to be carefully considered during the transient
South Africa regime. Two examples of an unbraced and a braced portal frame have been presented to
T: +27 (0)11 717 7145 demonstrate the practical use of these normalised curves.
E: alex.elvin@wits.ac.za

Prof NIELL G ELVIN graduated as a civil


INTRODUCTION resonance frequency during shutdown. For
engineer from the University of the
Witwatersrand in 1993. He obtained dual An engineer faced with the analysis of a low-tuned structures, the design engineer
Master’s degrees from the Civil and support structure under vibrating machinery commonly considers the steady-state dynam-
Aeronautical-Astronautical Departments, typically needs first to estimate the natural ic response and full resonance dynamic
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in frequency of the structure, either through response; the latter being assumed to be
1995. Working on light fibre sensors and
simplified approaches or through sophisti- the most conservative case. If the design is
non-destructive evaluation he completed his
PhD in 1998 at MIT. He was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School cated computer analysis. When the dynamic adequate under these conditions, no further
and also worked in industry on SMART materials and structures. In 2005 he loading is harmonic (such as from rotating analysis is required. Should this conservative
joined the engineering faculty at Michigan State University as an assistant machinery) these structures are typically approach suggest problems, then startup or
professor where he lectured structural mechanics and dynamics of designed to have their fundamental natural shutdown response is considered.
structures. In 2008 he moved to City College New York as an associate
frequency greater than the loading frequency More sophisticated approaches which
professor. His research interests include dynamic modelling, material
behaviour, instrumentation and SMART materials. of the machine (so-called high-tuning the include full transient dynamic analyses of
structure) or to have their fundamental the structure are often not carried out in
Contact details:
Department of Mechanical Engineering
frequency less than the loading frequency (so- practice, and are not required by current
City College of New York called low-tuning). Some machinery operates building codes, although many project speci-
Steinman Hall T-228 at speeds of greater than 1 000 revolutions per fications include this requirement. It must be
New York minute (rpm), i.e. 16 Hz. The following list emphasised that a full transient analysis in
NY, 10031
gives an indication of operating frequencies: reality is complicated to perform and should
USA
■■ Large mills: 0.3 to 1 Hz be accompanied either with a thorough para-
T: +1 212 650 8468
E: elvin@me.ccny.cuny.edu ■■ Small mills: 1 to 3 Hz metric analysis and result verification. With
■■ Washing machines: 6 to 14 Hz the advent of easy-to-use software, and fast
■■ Electric motors: 10 to 20 Hz computers, the onus has further been shifted
■■ Feeders and screens: 12 to 18 Hz onto the engineer to determine what makes
■■ Electric turbines: 25, 50 or 100 Hz sense and what does not. The whole aim of
Typical structures have their first natural this paper is to develop reader intuition. The
frequency below 10 Hz. Thus, practically approach undertaken is to model the struc-
speaking some structures must be low-tuned. ture as a one-degree-of-freedom system and
For such structures the driving frequency study the transient response.
of the machine during startup must pass Figure 1(a) shows a commercial structure
through the natural frequency of the struc- that supports a vibrating screen. The typical
ture before the final operating frequency is acceleration history response of the struc-
Keywords: startup, shutdown, rotating machinery, dynamics, reached. Similarly the machine’s frequency ture is shown in Figures 1(b) and 1(c). The
normalised analysis curves must also pass through the structure’s former figure shows the machine startup and

38
Elvin AA, Elvin NG. Structures subjected to startup and shutdown of rotating machinery.
J. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 2015;57(1), Art. #1066, 9 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2309-8775/2015/v57n1a4
(a)
(b)
0.2
Startup

0.15

Acceleration (g)
Steady-state
0.10

0.05

0
34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Time (sec)

(c)
0.2

Acceleration (g) 0.15

0.10

0.05
z

0
y 965 970 975 980 985
Time (sec)
x

Figure 1 ( a) Structure subjected to startup and shutdown transient dynamic loading, (b) Acceleration time history in the X direction of the top of the
structure during startup and steady-state, and (c) Acceleration time history for the structure during shutdown; accelerations measured in g
(9.81 m/s2) by a ± 3 g accelerometer u3DPebble (ZeroPoint Technology) sampling at 1 000 Hz (courtesy of Matomo (Pty) Ltd)

steady-state operation, while the latter figure dynamics are presented. This includes esti- The natural frequencies of the structure can
captures the shutdown behaviour. As can mating the unbalanced rotating force function be estimated either through the use of lookup
be seen clearly, the maximum acceleration and the resulting magnitude of the structure’s tables (see for example Arya et al 1979 and
response of the structure during startup response. Next the effect of machine startup Blevins 1979) or through the use of more
and shutdown is significantly greater than and shutdown is quantified, and normalised refined computational methods (typically
the operating or steady-state response. response graphs presented. The slope of the matrix or finite element methods) (Weaver &
Furthermore, the peak response of the struc- ramp startup and shutdown for various damp- Johnston 1987). The damping of the structure
ture is greater during shutdown than during ing ratios is studied. The paper is concluded is estimated either from previously measured
startup. The focus of the present paper is to with two analysis examples that illustrate the results of similar structures or from design
characterise fully the response of a single- importance of considering startup dynamics databases (Regulatory Guide 2007). The load-
degree-of-freedom structure subjected to when designing low-tuned support structures ing amplitude and frequency of the machine
both machine startup and shutdown. under rotating machinery. on the structure should be provided by the
Previous work by Elvin and Elvin manufacturer of the machine.
(2012) introduced the problem of startup Whichever method is used, the funda-
dynamics and presented some preliminary STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS mental ordinary differential equations that
results for the response of simple, typical BACKGROUND have to be solved are of the form:
one-degree-of-freedom structures support- [Note: This background section is included
ing rotating machinery subjected only to for completeness and ease of reading. The Mv̈ + Cv̇ + Kv = f(t)(1)
startup conditions. This paper considers the advanced reader might want to skip to
generalised response of any multi-degree- the end of this section where the machine where M is the equivalent mass of the sys-
of-freedom structure subjected to startup startup and shutdown characteristics are tem, C is the damping, K is the equivalent
and shutdown over a range of damping coef- introduced.] stiffness, f(t) is the applied loading as a
ficients, and abstracts this information into Any structural dynamic analysis requires function of time t, v is the displacement of
normalised curves. an estimation of the natural frequencies, the the structure and t is time. The over-dots
The present paper is organised as follows. damping of the structure and the loading indicate derivatives with respect to time.
First the governing equations of structural amplitude and frequency on the structure. It should be noted that in this paper we

Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015 39
12

Me ζ = 0.02
e 10
Θ ζ = 0.05

8 High-tuned Low-tuned

Xd M
6
Me e
Figure 2 A
 rotating machine which includes an ζ = 0.1
unbalanced mass Me and eccentricity e
4
consider only a single-degree-of-freedom
approximation to the natural frequency of
the structure. This is an adequate approxi- 2
mation provided that the natural frequencies
of the structure are not closely spaced. A full
explanation of this approximation can be 0
found in any standard structural dynamics 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
text such as Chopra (1995). Ω
ω
Equation (1) can be rewritten in the form:
Figure 3 T he normalised magnitude of the response of the structure under harmonic loading for
f(t) various damping ratios
v̈ + 2ζωv̇ + ω2v = (2)
M
Note here that the steady-state displace- ÿ = e[Θ̈cosΘ – (Θ̇)2 sinΘ](10)
where ω is the radial resonant frequency of ment amplitude Xd in Equation (5) has been
the structure, and ζ is the damping coef- normalised and can be plotted for various Note that for the constant angular velocity
ficient, given by: Ω case (Ω = Ωc) Equation (10) reduces to:
driving frequency ratios and damp-
ω
K C ing coefficients (ζ) as shown in Figure 3. ẍ = –eΩc2 cosΩct
ω= = 2πf n ζ = (3)
M 2Mω Resonance can clearly be seen when the
natural frequency approximately matches the
Here f n is the natural frequency of the struc- Ω ÿ = –eΩc2 sinΩct
machine’s operating frequency, i.e.  ≈ 1.
ture (in Hz). ω
The displacement of the structure is Note that in the case of resonance, i.e. which is equivalent to the loading given in
found from solving either Equation (1) or Ω Equation (4).
 = 1 (Chopra 1995):
Equation (2), from which the forces and thus ω Let us now consider the linear startup
stresses can then be calculated. and shutdown angular velocity profiles
Xd M 1 shown in Figure 4.
 ≈  (6)
Estimating the unbalanced Mee 2ζ The linear startup and shutdown
rotating force f(t) rotational speed profiles in Hertz, Φ , are
Given a rotating machine schematically shown For the rotating machine shown in Figure 2, the approximations of the startup dynamics of
in Figure 2, the loading due to the rotation is position [x, y] of the eccentric mass is given by: typical machinery (Wach 2011). The method
well known (Tse et al (1963) and is given by: derived in this paper, however, can be used
[x, y] = [ecosΘ, esinΘ](7) for any general startup profile.
f(t) = MeeΩ2 sin(Ωt)(4) The linear startup profile is analytically
Here Θ is the angle of the eccentric mass to given by:
where Me is the unbalanced mass, e is the the horizontal at any time t and is given by:
eccentricity of the mass from the machines t
Φ(τ) = mτ for 0 < τ < τ f and
rotational center and Ω is the rotating fre- Θ(t) = ∫Ω(τ)dτ(8)
quency of the machine (in radians/second). 0 Φ(τ) = Φf for τ > τ f(11)
The magnitude of the steady-state solution
(i.e. long-term solution) to Equation (2) under where τ is a dummy time variable. This can also be written in terms of machine
this harmonic loading can then be calculated radial frequency (Ω) in rads/sec as:
using standard techniques (Chopra 1995) The unbalanced forces are then given by:
and is shown in Figure 2. Ω(τ) = (2πm)τ for 0 < τ < τ f and
[ fx(t),f y(t)] = –Me[ẍ,ÿ](9)
Ω 2
Ω(τ) = Ωf for
τ > τ f(12)
Xd M ω with
= (5)
Mee Ω 2 2 Ω 2
For the sloping portion, the acceleration com-
1– + 2ζ
ω ω ẍ = –e[Θ̈sinΘ + (Θ̇)2 cosΘ] ponents of the eccentric mass are given by:

40 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015
ẍ = –e[2πmsin(πmt 2) + (2πmt)2 cos(πmt 2)]

ÿ = e[2πmcos(πmt 2) – (2πmt)2 sin(πmt 2)]


(13)
φf φf

EFFECT OF MACHINE STARTUP


AND SHUTDOWN
To obtain the response, Equation (2)
Φ(τ) (Hz)

Φ(τ) (Hz)
is solved numerically subjected to the
forces from Equation (9) and the accelera-
tions from Equation (13). A Runge-Kutta
method (code45 in Matlab®) was used to
m
solve these equations. Figure 5 shows the
normalised time history for a single-degree-
m of-freedom system with three different
ramp-up speeds (m) corresponding to
τf slow, m
­ edium and fast. The time history
is normalised by the natural period Tn
of the system; the natural period is given
τ τ
1
by Tn =  . Note that, as the linear ramp
fn
Figure 4 Linear startup (left) and shutdown (right) profiles slope decreases (bottom plot in Figure 5),

10

2

Xd M
0
Me e


2
–10

0 50 100 150 200

10

2

Xd M
0
Me e


2
–10

0 50 100 150 200

10

2

Xd M
0
Me e


2
–10

0 50 100 150 200

Figure 5 T he normalised displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system subjected to a ramp startup; the system damping is taken as
ζ = 0.05, with fn2/(2m) = 3.125 (top), 25 (middle) and 62.5 (bottom); the final frequency is Φf = 1.2 fn

Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015 41
2ζXdM
 = 1
Mee

1.0 The normalised maximum displacement


ζ = 0.04 responses for various damping ratios are
plotted in Figure 6 for the case of machine
0.8 startup, and in Figure 7 for the case of
ζ = 0.02 machine shutdown.
Note that, as the number of cycles j taken
2ζXdM ζ = 0.01
0.6 to reach the structure’s resonance increases
Me e
(i.e. ramp speed decreases), the normalised
displacement response approaches unity, i.e.
0.4 2ζXdM
 = 1. The smaller the damping the
Mee
more cycles are required to reach resonance.
0.2 Thus, increasing the damping of the system
has two effects. First, as expected, the maxi-
mum response is decreased. Second, for a
0 given startup/shutdown profile, the structure
101 102 103 approaches resonance amplitude at a faster
f2
j= n rate. Consider the case when the ramp-up
2m
speed increases, i.e. as j becomes s­ maller. The
Figure 6 T he normalised maximum displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system X M
difference in the actual response, i.e. d , for
subjected to a ramp startup of a rotating machine for various damping ratios Mee
the high and for the low damping ratio cases
are highly dependent on the ramp speeds.
A numerical example will clarify this point:
X M
at faster speeds where j = 0.5, d  ≈ 7.5
1.0 Mee
Xd M
when ζ = 0.04 and  ≈ 10 when ζ = 0.01,
ζ = 0.04 Mee
0.8 ζ = 0.02 while at very low startup speeds, i.e. when
X M X M
j → ∞ d  → 12.5 for ζ = 0.04 and d  → 50
Mee Mee
2ζXdM
0.6 for ζ = 0.01. This illustrates that increasing the
Me e ζ = 0.01
damping in a structure will reduce the overall
dynamic maximum response, but at the same
0.4 time the response will be strongly ramp-up
speed dependent.

0.2
COMPARISON OF RAMP STARTUP
WITH SYSTEM AT RESONANCE
0 Consider the transient response of a
101 102 103 structure subjected to a rotating machine
f n2
j= operating at a constant frequency equal
2m
to the resonant frequency of the structure
Figure 7 T he normalised maximum displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system (assume the motor reaches its operating
subjected to a ramp shutdown of a rotating machine for various damping ratios frequency instantaneously). If the structure
is assumed to be initially at rest, the time
the maximum response of the system number of cycles, j, will be used as a non- history response of the structure is shown
approaches the resonant response of the dimensional normalisation parameter. in Figure 8. The envelope of the maximal
1 In order to normalise further the maxi- response (blue lines in Figure 8) is well
system, i.e. ζ.
2 mum displacement response, an updated known and is given by Chopra (1995).
The shutdown case is analogous to the parameter which takes into account the Normalising this envelope produces:
startup case but with modified Equations damping ratio is proposed:
(11) to (13). For brevity these equations are 2ζXdM
= 1 – e–ζωnt = 1 – e–2πjnζ(14)
not presented here. 2ζXdM Mee
Note that for a linear ramp startup Mee ωn
where jn =  is the number of cycles to
profile, the number of cycles to reach the 2π
resonant frequency ( f n) of the single degree Note that now the normalised maximum which the system is subjected. Note that, as
f2 harmonic response when the single-degree- expected, the normalised response approach-
of freedom system is given by j =  n . This
2m of-freedom system is in resonance is: es unity as jn increases.

42 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015
Figure 9 shows the normalised maximal
response of the linear startup profile (blue
1.0
curves) and the maximal response of the
structure subjected to a machine operating
at resonance (green curves) after jn cycles.
Please note that for the machine operating 0.5
at resonance the maximal response is given
at jn cycles, while for the linear ramp startup
profile, the maximal response can occur
2ζXdM
when the machine has passed through reso- 0
Me e
nance. Thus the definitions of the number
of cycles to resonance are different in the
two cases. In the resonant condition, j = jn
is the actual number of cycles the machine –0.5

has made, while for the linear startup profile


f2
j =  n .
2m
–1.0
As can be seen in Figure 9, at fast ramp-
up speeds (i.e. low j), the maximal response
0 5 10 15 20
to the linear machine startup exceeds
t
the startup response of the structure at Tn
resonance. At a higher number of cycles,
the resonant condition reaches maximal Figure 8 N
 ormalised displacement response of a single-degree-of-freedom system starting from
response much sooner than for the ramp rest and subjected to a constant angular rotation speed at the resonant frequency of the
profile. During fast ramp-up speeds, the system; the damping is assumed to be ζ = 0.05
actual maximal response occurs after the
machine has passed through resonance. It is
important to note that startup and shutdown
ζ = 0.04 ζ = 0.04
amplitudes do not exceed the fully developed
resonance amplitudes. Many designers, as a 1.0
simplifying assumption, check the structure’s
ζ = 0.02
response at fully developed resonance.
As expected, Figure 9 clearly shows that 0.8
for slower ramp speeds (i.e. higher j), the
maximal response approaches the theoretical
X M 1 2ζXdM ζ = 0.02
resonance value, i.e. d = ζ. It is interest- Me e
0.6
Mee 2
ing to note that even for very rapid ramp
up speeds (low j) there can be a significant 0.4
maximal response. For example, for the ζ = 0.01
fastest ramp up speed shown in Figure 9, and
assuming a 2% damping ratio, the maximal 0.2
0.2 ζ = 0.01
response is still approximately  = 5, which

is significantly greater than the expected 0
normalised value of approximately 1 for a 10 0 101 102 103
machine designed for low-tuned operation jn or j
in Figure 3. Typically a low-tuned structure
would be designed with a low enough Figure 9 C
 omparison of the peak normalised displacement as a function of the number of cycles
X M (j) to reach the resonant frequency of the structure at various damping ratios, both for
natural frequency so that d  ≈ 1, i.e. the
Mee the linear ramp-up rotational speed (blue) and for a structure starting from rest and
structure’s frequency is well away from the instantaneously subject to the natural frequency of the structure (green)
operating frequency of the motor. However,
Figure 9 shows that increasing motor ramp- loading at the resonance of the structure. resonance jn increases, the response given by
up speed can still lead to significant transient In this case the normalised response can be 2ζXdM
tends to 1.0, i.e. full resonance.
effects greater than resonance startup estimated from Equation (14) to be: Mee
response and should thus not be neglected
–πfn2 ζ
during the design of the structure. 2ζXdM m
=1–e (15)
A very rough estimate of the maximal Mee EXAMPLES
response during startup dynamics can be The use of the graphs in Figure 6 will be
made by using the analytical expression for The full resonance response is given in demonstrated via an example of a pinned
the response of a single-degree-of-freedom Figure 9 for values on the vertical axis equal steel portal frame shown in Figure 10(a) that
structure subjected to a constant harmonic to 1.0. Thus, as the number of cycles at supports a machine of mass 600 kg rotating at

Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015 43
Table 1 P
 roperties for the structures shown in Figure 10; those in the shaded row are only 1 800 rpm (i.e. 30 Hz). An initial modal analy-
applicable to the braced structure shown in Figure 10(b) sis, with parameters shown in Table 1, has been
performed and yields a first natural frequency
Property Value
of 4.20 Hz, with the first vibration mode shape
Length: 6 m shown in Figure 11(a). The structure is thus
Section area: 6.46×10 -3m 2 low-tuned. The connections in the structure
356x171x51UB
Beam:
2nd Moment of area: 1.42×10 -4m4
are a combination of welded and bolted joints;
Mass: 304.27 kg
a 2% damping ratio for the first two modes is
Length: 5 m assumed. As is common in dynamic analysis,
Section area: 5.70×10 -3m 2 Rayleigh (also known as proportional) damping
356x171x45UB
Columns:
2nd Moment of area: 1.21×10 -4m4 is assumed for the structure.
Mass: 223.73 kg (each) Two types of analyses are performed on
Length: 5.83 m the structure, the first being a simple one-
Section area: 1.06×10 -3m 2 degree-of-freedom analysis, and the second
70x70x8L
Bracing: a full transient matrix method analysis. The
2nd Moment of area: 0.48×10 -6m4
Mass: 48.52 kg (each) results are then compared.

Mass: 600.00 kg
One-degree-of-freedom
Operating frequency (Φ f ): 30 Hz
Machine: approximation
Linear startup speed (m): 1 Hz/second
The one-degree-of-freedom analysis can be
Eccentric moment (Mee): 6 kg∙m
performed by estimating (a) the lateral stiffness

(a) (b)

5.0 5.0

4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 10 (a) Pinned portal frame geometry, and (b) K-braced portal frame geometry supporting a motor of mass 600 kg

(a) (b)

5.0 5.0

4.5 4.5

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 11 (a) Pinned portal frame’s first mode shape; natural frequency is 4.20 Hz; (b) K-braced portal frame’s first mode shape; natural frequency is 20.91 Hz

44 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015
of the structure (K), and (b) the vibrating mass 0.2
(M). The estimation of the stiffness can be (a)
Maximal response
performed in a number of ways. For example, during startup
using the simplified analysis approximation of 0.1

Displacement (m)
Silva and Badie (2008) of a pinned rectangular
Steady-state response
portal frame, the lateral stiffness is given by: 0

24EIc Lb Ib
K≈ and κ ≈ and α ≈
2κ Lc Ic –0.1
Lc3 4 +
α
–0.2
where E is the elastic modulus, I is the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
second moment of area and L is length. The Time (s)
subscripts b and c correspond to the beam 0.2
and column respectively. (b)
The stiffness of the structure in the Maximal response
during startup
lateral direction can also be calculated using 0.1
Displacement (m)

the stiffness method and performing a static


Steady-state response
analysis with a unit load applied in the lateral 0
direction at the position of the motor; after
finding the lateral deflection (∆), the static
1 –0.1
stiffness (K) is given by K = .

The dynamic stiffness can be found by –0.2
extracting the first natural frequency of the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
structure solving the eigenvalue problem as Time (s)
performed in Figure 11(a). The dynamic stiff-
ness can then be found using Equation (3). Figure 12 F ull transient analysis of the horizontal displacement at the motor position during
For a pinned portal frame, the vibrating startup dynamics for the (a) unbraced portal frame and for the (b) braced portal frame
mass can be estimated as the sum of the
motor mass, the beam mass, and 50% of the Full transient analysis transient computer analysis solution shown
mass of each of the columns. The full transient analysis of the portal in Figure 12(b) gives a maximum lateral
The three different approaches yield frame is performed using standard beam deflection at the motor of Xd = 0.1175 m and
similar results. The equivalent one-degree-of- elements and assuming an applied load a steady-state response of Xd,ss = 0.0097 m.
freedom stiffness of the structure is approxi- given by Equations (9) and (13) in the The ­simplified approach presented in
mately K ≈ 770 kN/m. The effective mass is centre of the beam. The full transient and this paper gives an error of only 2%. The
approximately M ≈ 1 130 kg. By Equation (3) steady‑state response for the horizontal maximum startup response is now 12 times
the first natural mode is then fn ≈ 4.15 Hz, deflection at the motor is shown in greater than the maximum steady-state
which is only 1% different to the natural fre- Figure 12(a). The peak deflection and amplitude.
quency found from the eigenvalue analysis. steady-state amplitude are simulated to be One of the options a structural designer
For the startup speed given in Table 1, Xd = 0.0639 m and Xd,ss = 0.0055 m. These can use to limit deflections under dynamic
f2 results are at most 2.2% different when loading is to stiffen the structure (in this
j =  n  = 8.82 cycles; for a damping ratio
2m compared to the one-degree-of-freedom example with K-bracing) (see for example
of ζ = 0.02, the normalised response from analysis. The accuracy of the results versus Bachmann & Ammann 1987).  However, in
Figure 6 is: the simplicity of the one-degree-of-freedom this case stiffening the structure increases
2ζXdM analysis must be noted. both the steady-state and maximal startup
 ≈ 0.47. This corresponds to a
Mee deflections. The increase in the steady-state
maximum lateral deflection of Xd = 0.0625 m. Bracing the portal frame response of the structure is due to the fact
It should be noted that if startup dynamics In order to limit the maximal deflection that the resonance of the structure is now
were not considered, the maximum steady- during startup and steady-state operation, a closer to the operating frequency than for
state deflection under the dynamic load would design engineer might be tempted to intro- the unbraced structure. The increase in
correspond to Xd,ss = 0.0055 m as can be duce K-bracing into the structure as shown in maximal response during startup is due
found from Equation (5). Figure 10(b) with properties given in Table 1. f2
to the fact that j =  n (i.e. the number
Thus, considering only the steady-state The analysis would follow the same procedure 2m
response would under-predict the deflection as described for the unbraced frame above. of cycles to reach the resonant frequency
during startup by a factor of 11.4. The fundamental frequency in this case of the structure) has also significantly
The conservative practice of calculating increases from 4.20 to 20.91 Hz. Note in this increased (from 8.8 cycles for the unbraced
the full resonance response instead of the case 50% of each bracing element should be case to 218.6 cycles for the braced case)
2ζXdM added to the effective mass of the structure. which, from Figure 6, increases the
actual startup i.e.  = 1.0 would lead
Mee The single-degree-of-freedom analysis 2ζXdM
normalised response, i.e. from
to an over-prediction of approximately twice using Figure 6 would give a maximum Mee
2ζXdM response of Xd = 0.1180 m and a steady- 0.47 for the unbraced case to 0.93 for the
the transient response  ≈ 0.47 .
Mee state response of Xd,ss = 0.0099 m. The full braced case.

Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015 45
CONCLUSION during startup for fast ramp-up speeds, and REFERENCES
The effect of startup and shutdown on to overestimate the response for slow ramp- Arya, S C, O’Neill, M W & Pincus, G 1979. Design of
low-tuned structures subjected to rotating up speeds (Figure 9). Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines.
loads has been discussed in this paper over It must be emphasised that the deflection Houston, TX, US: Gulf Publishing Co.
a relatively wide range of startup speeds and during startup/shutdown can be significantly Bachmann, H & Ammann, W J 1987. Vibrations
damping coefficients. The maximum deflec- greater than the steady-state response, and in structures – Induced by man and
tion results have been normalised to produce thus cannot be ignored. This point has been machines. Structural Engineering Documents,
generalised response curves. The curves can illustrated by two example problems which Vol 3e, Zürich: International Association of Bridge
be used in simplified one-degree-of-freedom analysed an unbraced and braced low-tuned and Structural Engineering (IABSE).
analyses to predict accurately these maxi- portal frame subjected to loading from an Blevins, R D 1979. Formulas for Natural Frequency and
mum deflections, thus obviating the neces- unbalanced rotating machine. The results Mode Shape. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
sity to perform computationally intensive show that the transient deflection can be Chopra, A K 1995. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
transient analyses. an order of magnitude greater than the Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Englewood
Assuming the same ramp slope, the steady-state response. Bracing the portal Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice Hall.
responses of the structure to startup versus structure significantly stiffens the structure Elvin, A & Elvin, N 2012. Structural response to startup
shutdown are similar but not exactly the and increases its natural frequency. However, of rotating machinery. Proceedings, Conference
same, as can be seen from the normalised both the maximum steady-state and tran- on Structures for Mining and Related Materials
graphs (Figures 6 versus 7). Ignoring the sient deflections also increased. The steady- Handling, SMMH2012, hosted by the SAISC,
transient response during machine startup/ state response increased since the braced Section 6.3.2, pp 105–114.
shutdown can greatly under-predict the structure’s resonant frequency was closer Regulatory Guide 1.61: Damping Values for Seismic
dynamic response of low-tuned structures, to the operating frequency of the machine. Design of Nuclear Power Plants. 2007. US Nuclear
even though the logic behind ignoring the The maximal startup deflection increased Regulatory Commission, March.
transient response is that the structure is since the structure took more cycles to Silva, P & Badie, S 2008. Optimum beam-to-column
only subject to resonant-frequency forcing reach its resonance. One potential method stiffness ratio of portal frames under lateral loads.
load for a short duration. On the other hand, of decreasing the deflection during startup Available at: http://www.structuremag.org/article.
this paper has shown that the conservative is to high-tune the structure but this might aspx?articleID=736#ArticlePDF
practice of assuming full resonant behaviour require a very stiff structure, which might Tse, F S, Morse I E & Hinkle R T 1963. Mechanical
in lieu of the actual transient response not be practical or economical. Vibrations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.
can significantly over-predict maximum Future work will concentrate on experi- Wach, P 2011. Dynamics and Control of Electrical
displacements, and hence stresses. The mental validation of the results presented in Drives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
transient response is a function of both the this paper. Different startup and shutdown Weaver, W & Johnston, R P 1987. Structural Dynamics
motor ramp-up (or -down) speeds, as well profiles should also be investigated. The by Finite Elements. Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall
as the damping of the structure. In general effect of startup and shutdown transients International Series in Civil Engineering and
both increasing the damping and increasing should be studied in the case when the oper- Engineering Mechanics.
the ramp-up speed decrease the transient ating frequency of the rotating machine is
deflections. However, damping has a signifi- greater than higher structural resonances.
cantly greater effect in limiting the overall
structural response at slower speeds than at
faster ramp-up speeds. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A rough estimate of the maximal tran- The authors would like to thank the
sient response of the system during startup Southern African Institute of Steel
has been derived in this paper (Equation Construction for funding this work. Matomo
(15)). This estimate was shown to under- (Pty) Ltd is also thanked for allowing the use
estimate the maximum transient response of their acceleration data.

46 Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering  •  Volume 57  Number 1  March 2015