Proceedings of the 11th World Congress in Mechanism and Machine Science

August 18~21, 2003, Tianjin, China

China Machinery Press, edited by Tian Huang

Comparison of a different implicit time-integration methods for the numerical solving of contact
problem of the rotor in two dry friction bearings

Roberto Žigulić
Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, Europe
e-mail: zigulic@riteh.hr

Sanjin Braut
Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, Europe
e-mail: sbraut@riteh.hr

Ante Skoblar
Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, Europe
e-mail: askoblar@riteh.hr

Mirko Butković
Faculty of Engineering, University of Rijeka, Vukovarska 58, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, Europe
Polytechnic of Karlovac, Ivana Meštrovića 10, 47000 Karlovac, Croatia, Europe
ALSTOM, Mala Švarča 155, 47000 Karlovac, Croatia, Europe
e-mail: butkovic@riteh.hr

Abstract: In the paper the determination of transient nonlinear
multidisc rotor response, whirling with slip on the vibrating
stator, is shown. Some results and experiences in using HHT α,
WBZ α and generalized α method, for numerical obtaining of
response of run-down rotor during the contact with vibrating
stator in the dry friction bearings, are given. The numerical
stability, and accuracy of these methods is compared. Special
attention is paid to the possibility of using the adaptive time step
calculation. Results of calculations, in the form of rotor
displacement amplitudes in horizontal and vertical directions as
well in the form of whirl orbits is compared with experimental
results obtained on the test rig.
Keywords: Rotordynamics, Generalized α method, Adaptive
time step, Dry friction bearings.
is too dissipative in the low-frequency domain. Different
algorithms are developed from this method that attain the
high-frequency dissipation with little low- frequency
damping such as Hilbert-Hughes-Taylor (HHT α) method
[2], Wood-Bossak-Zienkiewicz (WBZ α) method [3] etc.
Generalized α method [4], consists of the combination of
the HHT α and WBZ α method, and represents the
improvement of these methods in the sense of control of
numerical dissipation by the user. Application of this
method, proved as an optimal algorithm for the
minimization of low-frequency dissipation, is not
sufficiently investigated in the numerical solving of
rotordynamic problems.

2 The generalized α method

1 Introduction
The non-smoothness of contact simulation in
rotordynamics leads to very short time steps to obtain
sufficiently accurate results. Therefore, it is essential to
use adequate numerical methods to enhance numerical
efficiency. Dynamic simulations, by using methods that
are unconditionally stable for linear calculations, may
become unstable for geometrically high nonlinear
problems. Explicit methods are only conditionally stable
and very short steps are mostly necessary. Usage of the
algorithms which contain higher order schemes, may lead
to high computational effort.
The algorithms for the solving of dynamic structural
problems should possess numerical (algorithmic)
damping. Particularly it is desirable that these algorithms
have controllable numerical dissipation in the higher
frequency modes since they damped the spurious high
frequency response and improve the convergence of
highly nonlinear problems. Such method is Newmark
method [1]. This method is only first-order accurate so it
After spatial discretisation a rotordynamic system shown
on the figure 1 can be generally represented by the
following ordinary differential equations:
Mq&& + f (q , q& ) = g (q ,t ) (1)
where M is a inertia matrix, q&& , q& , q are the acceleration,
velocity and displacement vectors and g is a external load
vector. Finally f (q, q& ) is a vector of nonlinear forces, as
consequence of geometrical nonlinearities, which consists
of:
f k (q ) internal elastic forces as a contribution to the
tangent stiffness matrix K,
f c (q& ) internal dissipative and gyroscopic forces as a
contribution to the tangent damping matrix C,
f rub nonlinear contact forces.
 y Y
Driving unit Bearing 1 Bearing 2

-z 2s+δ
v2
Flexible RB
coupling v1 cBX
x
X 0 0B
Rigid Rigid Rigid
disk 1 disk 2 disk 3 u2 0S Ω
u1 kBX
δ
Figure 1 Model of the rotor in dry friction bearings RS N
µN
Contact forces between rotor and stator are nonlinear N
forces consisting of a normal force n and Coulomb µN
friction force t: kBY cBY

f rub = n + t = ( n + j t )e jψ = Figure 2 Dry friction bearing finite element

(2)
= n (1 + jµ )e jψ whereof follows the expression for the tangent iteration
(Jacobian) matrix S:
which enter in the discretized finite element model
through the dry friction bearing finite element described in ( ) (
S = 1−α f K + 1−α f ) βγ h C + (1 − α m ) 1
M. (8)
[5], figure 2. Normal contact force is a function of the β h2
contact stiffness kK and contact damping cK as well as the
Here crucial task is to determine relationships
deformation vector δ, deformation velocity vector δ& and between the algorithmic parameters αm , αf , β and γ. With
contact angle ψ: appropriate expressions parameters for β and γ, if αm=0
(
n = k K δ + c K δ& e jψ ) (3)
the algorithm reduces to the HHT α method or to the
WBZ α method, provided αf=0. Finally expression
at which magnitude of deformation vector in contact point αm=αf=0 gives the classical Newmark method.
is, in the case of positive value, defined as From literature [4] generalized α method is, for the linear
systems, second order accurate, provided:
δ = (u1 − u 2 ) cosψ + (v1 − v2 )sinψ − s (4)
1
γ = − αm + α f . (9)
where s is radial clearance in the bearing, and vector δ is a 2
function of the contact angle ψ, calculated from the Also this method is, for linear systems, unconditionally
instantaneous position: stable, provided [4]:
v1 − v2
ψ = Arctan
u1 − u 2
. (5) αm ≤ α f ≤
1
2
, β≥
1 1
+ α f −αm
4 2
( ) (10)

For the numerical solving of system of differential
equations (1) the implicit single-step numerical methods
are used, where the displacements, velocities and
accelerations involved in equation (1) cannot be
considered to be independent since they are linked to one
another by the integration operator. Here the displacement
and velocity update, identical to those of the Newmark
algorithm are chosen:
 1  
q n +1 = q n + h 2   − β q&&n +1 + β q&&n +1 
 2  
q& n +1 = q& n + h((1 − γ )q&&n +1 + γ q&&n )
thereby increase of displacement, velocity and
acceleration vector in the (n+1)-th time step is calculated
through prediction and correction step [6]. In the equation
(6) h represents the length of time step. Usage of the
generalized α method gives a following force balance
equation:
M ((1 − α m )q&&n +1 + α m q&&n ) +
(( ) )
+ C 1 − α f q& n +1 + α f q& n +
+ K ((1 − α f )q n +1 + α f q n ) =
= (1 − α f )g n +1 + α f g n
Unlike the linear vibrational systems, when using the
implicit numerical methods for nonlinear systems
numerical characteristics of the methods such as
convergence criteria and numerical stability are
investigated through so called energetic stability,
calculating whole numerical dissipated energy of the
vibrational system. To obtain only the influence of
numerical damping, physical damping is usually omitted
from the calculation and only the influence of numerical
damping to the change of whole energy of the vibrational
(6) system is observed. Paper [7] shows the results of one
such calculation. Based on this results it is possible to
conclude that generalized α method, unlike a Newmark
method, does not smooth a curves of vibrational response,
whereby a substantial loss of energy is prevented. Hereby
the generalized α method has a significantly higher
accuracy while the accuracy of HHT α and WBZ α is
located somewhere between two earlier considered
methods. Stability of the numerical methods for
calculation of nonlinear response is also obtained on the
basis of energy balance. Numerical method is stable if
additional energy-blow-up due to numerical
(7) characteristics (especially in the case of geometric
nonlinearity), which leads to response divergence, does
not appear. Besides them the numerical increase of total
energy can appear in the case of usage the methods
insufficiently eliminating spurious modes at higher
frequencies. Oscillating with these modes additional
energy is carried into the system inside of instantaneous
time step. Reference [7] also shows the advantages of
generalized α method.
3. Adaptive time-step-control
The accuracy of numerical analysis in the time domain
strongly depends on the length of the time-step. While the
system-response under smooth loading may be determined
with constant steps, systems with no smooth response
should be analyzed with varying time-steps to adapt these
effects and to minimize computing time. For this purpose
an indicator is needed which detects the ranges where the
time-steps have to be reduced or where they may be
enlarged. The local time integration error of a dynamic
analysis can be derived by comparing the differences
between results from the actual calculation and the results
obtained using higher order schemes. It is impractical to
use two different methods in parallel as this would lead to
very high computational effort. There are some methods
available to avoid this problem. They are based on an
error-indicator e.g. Li/Zeng/Wiberg [8]:
h3
ε LZW = (6 β − 0.5)&q&&t + h − (1.5 − 6 β )&q&&t
12
where 2 indicates the L2 norm of the vectors. For small
time steps the derivative of the acceleration vector &q&& may
be estimated with:
q&&t + h − q&&t
&q&&t + h ≈ 2 − &q&&t .
h
It is also possible to employ the local estimator for
displacements derived in [9] by Zienkiewicz/Xie which is
also of order three:
( )
ε ZX = β − 0.166& h 2 q&&t + h − q&&t .
2
This error-indicator has to be related to a displacement
norm accordingly:
ε disp
ε rel = . (14)
q ref
2
There are different types of reference displacements qref
[7], but norm of instantaneous displacement increment
∆q t + h gives the maximal steady state level of accuracy.
2
The restriction in the usage is that this norm is only useful
in the case of non-zero value of increment.
The step size may be enlarged in regions with a small
local error and it has to be decreased for large errors. A
lower limit εmin and an upper limit εmax are used to control
this procedure. If εrel > εmax, the current step has to be
recalculated with a smaller step size, and if εrel < εmin the
step size may be increased:
ε max
hnew = 3 hold , ε rel > ε max
ε rel
ε αm=0.08) total time is, on the computer PENTIUM III
hnew = 3 min hold , ε rel < ε min
ε rel
4. Numerical example
Usage of the generalized α method as well as its
advantages in relation with other mentioned implicit
methods, in solving of contact of the rotor in the dry
friction bearings, are shown on the following numerical
example.
Rotor shown on figure 1 is made from the steel
material (Young’s modulus E=2.1 1011 Nm-2, mass density
ρ=7800 kgm-3, coefficients of the shaft internal damping
ηV=10-3, ηH=0.) having three disks (D=0.12 m, b=0.02m)
in the middle and flexible coupling (D= 0.024 m, b= 0.029
m) on the left end. Rotor is l=0.33 m long with diameter
d=9.3 mm in the central part and d=15 mm in the journal.
Rigid brass bearings (mass mb=0.2 kg, contact stiffness
KC=2 108 Nm-1) have radial clearance s=50 10-6 m and
they are oiled only by few drops of oil (µ=0.05). Each of
them is mounted on the springs with horizontal kx=5 105
Nm-1and vertical ky=4.5 108 Nm-1 stiffnesses as well as on
the dampers with horizontal and vertical dampings cx= cy
=20 Nsm-1 (figure 2). Rotor is modeled as overhanging
beam and is discretized by 7 finite elements and 8 nodes.
The most essential results of the calculation of rotor’s
nonlinear transient vibrations, at disc No.3, during the
rotor’s run-down (Ω=400-10t rads-1) are shown on figures
(11) 3 to 6. Duration of run-down was t=40 s with ten thousand
2
equal time steps (h=0.004 s) and generalized α method
(αf=0.1 and αm=0.08) is used. Results of calculation,
figures 3 and 4, compared with experimental results [10]
on the figures 7 and 8, show very good agreement. Rotor’s
natural frequencies are obtained as 29.4 Hz (horizontal)
and 32.5 Hz (vertical). Two orthogonal responses can be
(12) assembled in the orbit, figure 6, for example in the case of
horizontal natural frequency. Figure 5 shows contact angle
ψ. On the basis of this diagram it is possible to conclude
that rotor was, almost all the run-down time period, in the
contact with lower part of the dry friction bearing due its
weight (ψ =2700). The motions near the first horizontal
(13) and first vertical natural frequency are quite different in
relation to value of ψ. In the area of first horizontal natural
frequency this angle slowly varies around the value
ψ=2700 which means that rotor is moving only in the
lower part of the vibrating bearing, while in the area of
first vertical natural frequency, angle ψ assumes values
from 0 to 3600 circulating on the vibrating bearing.
For the higher values of αf and αm lower values of
response displacements, figure 9 and figure 10 are
obtained. This can be explained with the nature of
generalized α method which strongly damps the lower
frequencies for higher values of its parameters. For the
higher difference of αf and αm (αf big, αm small) the
response of the rotor falls under the radial clearance and
the earlier mentioned effect near the first vertical natural
frequency disappears.
Other earlier mentioned implicit numerical methods, for
same values of parameters β and γ (equations 9 and 10),
behave different. HHT α method strongly damp lower
frequency modes, Newmark method is low accurate
giving false results and WBZ α method diverges at the
beginning. Durations of whole calculations depend of
accuracy. In the case of higher accuracy (αf=0.1 and
(15)
(733 MHz and 256 Mb RAM), approximately 2h and 30
min. For the lower accuracy (αf=0.15 and αm=0.1) total
 800 600

mm
500
mm 600
400

Amplitude Y
Amplitude X

400 300
200
200
100

20 30 40 50 1060 20 30 40 10
50 60
Rotational speed n Hz Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 3 Horizontal displacement, αf=0.1, αm=0.08, h=0.004 Figure 4 Vertical displacement, αf=0.1, αm=0.08, h=0.004

6 400

Vertical displ. Y m m
Contact angle y rad

5
200
4
0
3
2 - 200

1 - 400
- 600 - 400 - 200 0 200 400 600
20 30 40 50 10 60 Horizontal displ. X mm
Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 5 Contact angle ψ, αf=0.1, αm=0.08, h=0.004 Figure 6 Orbit at horizontal natural frequency, αf=0.1,
αm=0.08, h=0.004
600
Amplitude Y m m

600
Amplitude X m m

500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100

20 30 40 5010 60 20 30 10 40 50 60
Rotational speed n Hz Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 7 Experimental results, horizontal direction Figure 8 Experimental results, vertical direction

800 600
mm

500
mm

600
400
Amplitude Y
Amplitude X

400 300
200
200
100

10 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rotational speed n Hz Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 9 Horizontal displacement, αf=0.15, αm=0.1, h=0.004 Figure 10 Vertical displacement, αf=0.15, αm=0.1, h=0.004

800 600
mm

500
mm

600 400
Amplitude Y
Amplitude X

400 300
200
200 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rotational speed n Hz Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 11 Horizontal displacement, αf=0.1, αm=0.08, Figure 12 Vertical displacement, αf=0.1, αm=0.08, variable
variable time step time step
 6 0.08
Contact angle y rad
5
4
3 0.04
2
1
0 10 20 30 40
Rotational speed n
Figure 13 Contact angle ψ, αf=0.1, αm=0.08,
variable time step
0.025
0.02
s
h
0.015
time step
0.01
0.005
0 10 20 30 40
Rotational speed n
Figure 15 Time step length, αf=0.1, αm=0.08,
variable time step
time is approximately 2 hours and HHT α is somewhere
in the middle with approximately 2h and 15 min.
On the figures 11 to 15 the results of the calculation with
adapted time step is shown. The Zienkiewicz/Xie local
estimator for displacement εzx is used due to simplicity.
Used scheme is quite sensitive depending on the selection
of the lower εmin and upper εmax limit parameters.
Particularly is essential lower limit parameter and if this
parameter is chosen too low the calculation usually
diverges. On the other hand if this parameter is chosen too
high the lower frequencies have a bigger numerical
damping. Results of calculation, fig. 11 to 13 are very
similar to those obtained by fixed time step. Length of
time step increases with decreasing of rotating speed from
starting (fixed) h=0.004 to final h=0.02 and the final
number of time steps is 6950. Whole duration of
calculation on the computer PENTIUM III (733 MHz and
256 Mb RAM) is approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes
representing a significant savings in the computational
effort.
5. Conclusions
The conclusions can be drawn as follows:
(1) Generalized α method represents a successful tool in
solving of nonlinear contact of the rotor in the dry friction
bearings. This method posses an optimal algorithm for the
minimization of low-frequency dissipation while attain the
high-frequency dissipation improving the convergence of
iterative equation solver.
(2) Optimal parameters of generalized α method obtained
in the paper, for contact problems of rotor in dry friction
bearings, are αf=0.1 and αm=0.08.
(3) Adaptive time step procedure reduces computational
cost and improves its accuracy. The limit parameters for
adaptive time step procedure should be selected very
error-indicator ¶ zx m
0.06
0.02
50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Hz Rotational speed n Hz
Figure 14 Error indicator for displacement, αf=0.1, αm=0.08,
variable time step
carefully to obtain the accurate and true values of
vibrational parameters.
References
[1] Newmark, N. M., A Method of Computation for Structural
Dynamics, Journal of the Engineering Mechanical Division
ASCE, 85:67-94,1959
[2] Hilbert, H. M., Hughes, T. J. R., Taylor, R. L., Improved
Numerical Dissipation for Time Integration Algorithm in
50 60 Structural Dynamics, Earthquake engineering and structural
dynamics, 5:283-292, 1977
Hz
[3] Wood, W. L., Bossak, M., Zienkiewicz, O. C., An Alpha
Modification of Newmark method, International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 15:1562-1566, 1981
[4] Chung, J., Hulbert, G. M., A time Integration Algorithm for
Sructural Dynamics with Improved Numerical Dissipation:
Generalized α method, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 60:370-
375, 1993
[5] Žigulić, R., Butković, M., Braut, S., Nonlinear Dynamics of
Multi-disc Rotor in Dry Friction Bearings, Proceedings of Sixth
International Conference on Rotor Dynamics, Sydney, Australia,
30th September-4th October, Vol. II, 960-967,2002
[6] Belytschko, T., Hughes, J. R., Computational Methods for
Transient Analysis, Chapter 9 by Geradin M., Hooge, M.,
Idelsohn S., Nord Holland, New York, 1983.
[7] Rapolder, M., Parallele Finite-Element-Simulation der
Bauwerk-Boden-Interaktion mit adaptiven Zeit-
integrationsverfahren, Dissertation, Technische Universitaet
Munchen, 2000
[8] Li, X. D., Zeng, L. F., Wiberg, N. E., A simple local error
estimator and an adaptive time-stepping procedure for direct
integration method in dynamic analysis, Communications in
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 9:273-292, 1993
[9] Zienkiewicz, O. C., Xie, Y. M., A simple error estimator and
adaptive time-stepping procedure for dynamic analysis,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 20, 871-887,
1991
[10] Žigulić, R., et al. Influence of bearing dry friction on rotor
nonlinear vibrations, Proceedings of the 18th “Danubia – Adria”
Symposium on Experimental Methods in Solid Mechanics, Steyr,
Austria, September 26th-29th, 163-164, 2001