274 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 41, NO.

1, JANUARY 2005

Rotordynamic Modeling Using Bond Graphs:

Modeling the Jeffcott Rotor
Joaquín Campos, Mark Crawford, and Raul Longoria

Abstract—Visualizing the complex and counterintuitive phe-

nomenology associated with rotordynamics has been problematic
since Rankine first scientifically studied it in the early 1900s. To
address this, a simple model capable of allowing visualization of
the parameters and problematic aspects associated with an imbal-
anced rotor (Jeffcott rotor) will be proposed using bond graphs,
which provide a structured and unified method for modeling a
large class of nonlinear, multienergetic systems. The purpose of
this paper is to provide a high-fidelity, experimentally proven bond
graph model of the Jeffcott rotor to aid in the design and analysis
of high-speed rotational machinery often associated with pulsesd
energy systems. The intent of the model is the ability to use it as
a modular and foundational piece in more complex rotordynamic Fig. 1. Schematic of Jeffcott rotor with flexible shaft.
models.
Index Terms—Bond graph, Jeffcot rotor, pulsed power, rotordy- lematic since Rankine first scientifically studied it in the early
namic models, rotordynamics.
1900s [1]. In order to address this, a simple model capable
of allowing visualization of the parameters and problematic
I. INTRODUCTION aspects associated with a simple imbalanced rotor system
(Jeffcott rotor) will be proposed using a formulation technique
T HE complex interaction between rotordynamics and
electromagnetics has been of considerable interest as
high-speed rotating electrical machines have become the log-
known as bond graphs. This technique inherently allows the
modeler to “see” causality in physical systems, which for
ical choice for mobile pulsed power applications. Due to the the current application greatly aids in understanding system
inherent size and operating speeds of the proposed machines, phenomena. Specifically, the method described in this paper
great care must be put into the design and analysis of both the shows how a Lagrangian formulation can be readily integrated
mechanical and electrical aspects of the machine. In this paper, with the bond graph approach. The analytical formulation
a small portion of the overall analysis problem—the basic followed in a Lagrangian approach is especially useful in this
rotordynamics modeling—will be addressed. The intent is to application where the modular Jeffcott (Lagrangian) model
produce an analytical model that is simple, robust, and can be can be integrated with a bond graph model representing an
used as a modular and foundational piece to the more complex electromechanical drive train.
overall system models.
B. Physical System and Kinematics
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT The system used as a case study is the classical Jeffcott Rotor
A. Dilemma and Approach developed by Jeffcott et al. to study the whirl phenomena of
imbalanced rotors [1]–[3]. The Jeffcott rotor consists of a rigidly
Visualizing the complex and counterintuitive phe-
supported isotropic shaft (free to rotate along its bearing axis)
nomenology associated with rotordynamics has been prob-
with finite elasticity, on which a geometrically symmetrical but
inertially asymmetrical rotor is rigidly fastened (see Fig. 1).
Manuscript received December 19, 2003. The research reported in this work Using a Cartesian coordinate system with an Eulerian angle
was performed in connection with Contract DAAD17-01-D-0001 with the U.S.
Army Research Laboratory. The views and conclusions contained in this doc- description, the following diagram is constructed (Fig. 2),
ument are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as presenting the where the position vector and spin angle initially define the
official policies or position, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Army Re- system’s center of mass with respect to the inertial reference
search Laboratory or the U.S. Government unless so designated by other au-
thorized documents. Citation of manufacturers’ or trade names does not consti- frame.
tute an official endorsement or approval of the use thereof. The U.S. Govern- Breaking the position vector down into its components yields
ment is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon.
J. Campos and M. Crawford are with the Institute for Advanced Technology, (1)
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78759-5316 USA (e-mail:
joaquin_campos@iat.utexas.edu; mark_crawford@iat.utexas.edu). Differentiating the position vector with respect to time yields
R. Longoria is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, The
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0292 USA (e-mail:
the velocity vector
r.longoria@mail.utexas.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMAG.2004.838924 (2)
0018-9464/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
CAMPOS et al.: ROTORDYNAMIC MODELING USING BOND GRAPHS
Fig. 2. End view of Jeffcot rotor with flexible shaft.
Fig. 3. Free body diagram of the shaft-rotor system.
but since the magnitude of the eccentricity does not change
with time the equation becomes
(3)
Differentiating the position vector once more yields the ac-
celeration vector
(4)
for the center of mass of the Jeffcott rotor. Now that the accel-
eration vector has been attained, the free body diagram of the
system can be constructed (Fig. 3).
In this figure, is the deflection of the rotor shaft, is the
shaft input torque, is the stiffness of the rotor shaft, is the
rotational damping, and is the internal damping of the shaft.
III. PHENOMENOLOGY
The principal phenomena to address with the model are those
associated with whirl. There are two types of “whirl,” the first
being the most common form known as “synchronous whirl,”
which produces a forcing function frequency that is the same
as the drive or “spin” frequency. The second form of whirl is
“asynchronous whirl.” This phenomenon is not as common, but
is the most dangerous, since vibrations due to it are exceed-
ingly violent [4] and are usually caused by system instabilities
at very high speeds (a term that is relative to the properties of
the system, i.e., shaft natural frequency).
Synchronous whirl is a very well characterized phenomenon
and has been the subject of numerous papers and journal arti-
cles. As such, there is a great deal of information on the subject
matter [5]. The primary focus of study for synchronous whirl
is the critical speed, which is the speed at which the amplitude
of vibration increases dramatically, a phenomenon often incor-
rectly associated with the natural frequency of the rotor-shaft
system.
Asynchronous whirl, as its name implies, is a vibrational phe-
nomenon that is not synchronous with the spin frequency of
275
Fig. 4. Orthogonal spring and dashpot physical model of Jeffcot rotor.
the rotor. These vibrations usually occur at multiples of the nat-
ural frequency of the shaft-rotor system and are typically at su-
percritical speed (speeds that are usually twice the natural fre-
quency) [6], [7]. This phenomenon and its subphenomena are
investigated analytically, and in a limited form, experimentally.
Due to the high speeds and the size of the rotor-shaft system
that was constructed, experimental testing is kept under super-
critical speed. Thus, the test setup reported in this paper will not
experience any of the phenomena associated with asynchronous
whirl. The analytical results will also be compared to those in
literature to measure the level of fidelity of the proposed model.
IV. PHYSICAL MODEL
The first, most common, and simplest method for the phys-
ical modeling of this system is to construct it by supporting the
imbalanced flywheel at its geometric center by two orthogonal
springs [2], [4] with the same stiffness , each in
parallel with a dashpot, as in Fig. 4 [4].
There are two coordinate sets for this method, one that is
fixed to the flywheel (rotating with it), and the second that is
the inertial frame. If an initial point of view is taken from the in-
ertial frame, the flywheel, when rotating, imparts a sinusoidal
forced vibration on the two orthogonal springs. This method
best describes the case where the supports are much more com-
pliant than the shaft on which the flywheel rotates, which is
not the case in this study. The second and less common method
of modeling this system uses an inertial cylindrical coordinate
system as shown in Fig. 5, in which the compliance is a single
spring–dashpot system that rotates with the body [2], [8].
The loading on the structural member modeled in this system
is constant, as opposed to the above case where the loading
is sinusoidal. This is an important difference that greatly af-
fects the outcome of the models where system damping is con-
cerned. This method is less popular because of the mathemat-
ical complexity introduced by the cylindrical coordinates, but it
has its conceptual advantage as being more realistic to an actual
system, where the supports are much more rigid than the shaft,
as in the current application. In creating the model for this study,
elements from both simplified models will be used to construct
a more appropriate one. In the current case, it is known that the
supporting structure is much more rigid than the shaft, so the
second model is a more viable candidate for application. In order
to simplify the analytical portion of this study, the spring force
276 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 41, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

that uses Lagrange’s equation to construct the state equations.

Recall the Lagrangian

(6)

where is the Lagrangian, is the kinetic coenergy, and

is the potential energy. The Hamiltonian formulation starts with
the identification of the kinetic and potential energies and forms
the equations of state from the derivative of these two energy
functions [9] in the form of Lagrange’s equation. Since the Jeff-
Fig. 5. Single spring and dashpot physical model of Jeffcot rotor.
cott rotor only has one inertia—the rotor—the formulation will
be mainly the description of its rate of change of motion. The
general form of the Hamiltonian is
is decomposed into its and components to avoid the need
for cylindrical coordinates. This in effect produces two springs (7)
of equivalent stiffness as in the first model above. It is im-
portant at this point to emphasize that, even though the system
looks like the first model, it is still conceptually equivalent to Using the procedure as shown by Vance [10], the following state
the second model. The reason for this is to emphasize that the equations are derived:
internal damping in the system is present in the shaft only
if the shaft is being cyclically loaded and/or has some .
These effects will be seen primarily during acceleration and de-
celeration of the rotor and during whirl, where instabilities are
caused by internal damping. The internal damping affects the
critical speed and the maximum amplitude reached at critical
speed. The rotational or viscous damping is a form of braking
of the flywheel, decreasing the angular velocity and in turn de-
creasing the amplitude of apparent vibration.

V. FORMULATION
Two formulation techniques will be used to construct the
system’s state equations. This will be done to compare and
contrast a commonly used technique known as Hamilton’s
method to the proposed technique of bond graphing.
From the free-body diagram (Fig. 2), the following equations
of motion are derived: (8)

direction: This formulation is particularly tedious for the problem studied.

Albeit a common method for rotordynamics, it would not be
this author’s preferred method for obtaining the system’s state
direction: equations.

B. Bond Graph Formulation

direction:
(5)
This set of equations of motion will be the starting point from
which the comparative methods of modeling will be con-
structed. Each equation of motion will be verified using each of
the formulations methods proposed. These equations of motion
should be reproduced by the integration of the state equations,
to be derived by the methods described above. So they will be
used as checks on the formulation techniques.
A. Hamiltonian Formulation
The most common analytical technique used to develop
the system’s state equations in rotordynamics is known as
Hamilton’s method. This technique is an energy formulation
The bond graph has an advantage. Besides being a formu-
lation technique, it acts as a conceptual aid enabling the user
to view the flow of power and track its effects—a tool that is
very useful for the subject of rotordynamics, where there are so
many counterintuitive phenomena [4]. There does not appear to
be a great deal of work in open literature on the subject of mod-
eling rotordynamics using bond graphs other than the notes by
Beaman and Paynter [11], text by Karnopp et al. [12], and one
reference for explicit bond graph modeling of rotordynamics,
from Hubbard [13].
The bond graph technique that will be used in this paper will
be the Lagrangian bond graph technique as laid out by Beaman
and Paynter [14]. The basic structure of the Lagrangian bond
graph is as a multiport capacitive element; although it represents
storage of both kinetic and potential energies, all the energy is
CAMPOS et al.: ROTORDYNAMIC MODELING USING BOND GRAPHS
Fig. 6. Basic Langrangian bond graph of Jeffcot rotor.
Fig. 7. Initial condition input bond graph.
representatively stored in the capacitive element ( ). The for-
mulation is similar to Lagrange’s method, only the equations of
motion are expressed in the form of first-order ordinary differen-
tial equations (ODEs). The bond graph structure for the system
under study will have the general structure of the bond graph in
Fig. 6.
The transformation matrix, , in this case, is an identity ma-
trix, and the inputs to the Lagrangian are the generalized mo-
ments , , and . The generalized conservative efforts, ,
, and are the causal outputs for which the Lagrangian re-
turns the flows , , and . The nonconservative inputs to the
system are , , and . eter of 300 mm. Controlled eccentricity of the center of mass
In order to account for the losses in the system (nonconser-
vative forces) and to account for the transformation of the input
torque (effort) into three different flows in the three directions—
, , and spin—the structure shown in Fig. 7 is needed.
Putting the entire bond graph together gives Fig. 8.
Using the same notation as Beaman and Paynter [14], the
general form of the Lagrange equation is
(9)
where is the generalized flow variable, is the generalized
velocity, is the Lagrangian, is the kinetic
coenergy function, and is the potential energy function. The
procedure used for the Lagrangian bond graph generally fol-
lowed that presented by Beaman and Paynter [14], which gives
the following state equations:
(10)
277
Fig. 8. Final bond graph model of Jeffcot rotor.
TABLE I
MATERIAL PROPERTIES FOR THE SHAFT AND THE ROTOR
VI. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experimental setup for this study was constructed as an
instrumented Jeffcott-like rotor. Although great care was put
into the design and the construction of the test device, it is dif-
ficult to produce an ideal Jeffcott rotor, and any test setup will
have inconsistencies and imperfections in the shaft-rotor system
as well as the supporting structure. The test setup is a simple
shaft-rotor system suspended on rigid bearings and whose rotor
accommodates eccentric placement of mass in order to precisely
control the position of the center of mass of the rotor, so that
an imbalance can be induced. Table I shows the material prop-
erties for the shaft and the rotor. The rotor is constructed of
6061-T6 aluminum, using 19-mm plate stock, and has a diam-
is accomplished by means of three rows of 1/4-20 tapped holes
spaced 20 mm apart and symmetrically located 180 on either
side of the center of the rotor. The tapped holes provide a consis-
tent mechanism for introducing an eccentric mass by means of
either 1-in-long 1/4-20 steel hex screws having an average mass
of 6.03 g each, or 0.6-in-long 1/4-20 steel hex screws, having an
average mass of 4.96 g each. The rotor shaft is 303 stainless steel
with a 0.50-in diameter. The shaft length is 15.96 in, of which
only 12.25 in is used as the supporting length of the rotor.
The rotor was driven by a Kollmorgen servo motor that was
limited to 5000 rpm. Measurement of the rotor lateral position
was done via an orthogonal pair of position-sensitive laser diode
pairs from LMI/Selcom that were mounted on a rigid structure
surrounding the rotor (see Fig. 9). A total of 88 tests were con-
ducted with two variants of the above setup.
VII. ANALYSIS
Using the data gathered from experiments, a comparison will
be made between actual and simulated data. Three representa-
tive transient (spin-up) cases will be presented for comparison
with the bond graph simulation data.
A. Formulation Comparison
To gain confidence in the formulation procedures, the two
modeling techniques are compared using an identical set of ini-
tial conditions for a simulated experiment of the experimental
rotor spinning up through its critical speed. As can be noted, the
278
Fig. 9. Photograph of final test setup.
TABLE II
SIMULATION INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR MODEL COMPARISON
Fig. 10. Plot of center position trace versus time of both Hamiltonian and bond
graph simulations.
state equations resulting from the Hamiltonian derivation and
the Lagrangian bond graph derivation are slightly different from
each other. The following simulation comparison should serve
to verify these derivations. The conditions in Table II were used
in the simulation comparison.
The following results show the Hamiltonian simulation re-
sults plotted with the Lagrangian bond graph model results. The
first plot (Fig. 10) is of the trace of the rotor center. The second
plot (Fig. 11) is of the radial displacement as seen rotating with
the rotor.
The simulation results are almost identical. Computed values
are approximately 0.2% of each other. So, even if the formula-
tion produced state equations that may have seemed different,
they are in fact similar and produce similar results for the same
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 41, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
Fig. 11. Plot of radial deflection of shaft versus time of both Hamiltonian and
bond graph model simulations.
TABLE III
3600-RPM TEST
Fig. 12. Plot of experimental versus simulation data of x-center position for
3600 rpm test.
physics. This provides verification for both techniques, giving a
check on the respective model formulations.
B. Comparison With Experimental Data
The first case presented, spin-up to 3600 rpm, is the only
spin-up test presented that is conducted at subcritical speed.
Table III shows the conditions for this test, and Fig. 12 plots
the results.
The lighter color is the bond graph simulation data and the
darker is the experimental. There are three main differences be-
tween the test and simulation results. The main and most ob-
vious difference is the amplitude of vibration. There seems to be
a resonance at about 3500 rpm that does not match the bump-test
resonance for the direction of the experimental rotor, but is
close to the resonant frequency of the direction, which is
3540 rpm. It is possible that the resonant amplitude of vibra-
tion is coupling into the direction from the direction, and the
fact that the resonant peaks are occurring roughly at the orthog-
onal direction resonance is evidence. This test is a good example
of how the ideal case and the actual case differ because of the as-
sumption of a symmetric system. The third difference between
CAMPOS et al.: ROTORDYNAMIC MODELING USING BOND GRAPHS
TABLE IV
4200-RPM TEST INITIAL CONDITIONS
Fig. 13. Plot of experimental versus simulation data of y -center position for
4200 rpm test.
the simulation and the experiment is that the start-up vibration
amplitudes are very different. The simulation shows hardly any
start-up displacement amplitude, whereas the experiment shows
comparatively large displacement amplitude. It is hypothesized
that this is due to the supporting structure giving during rapid
acceleration of the offset mass. The simulation assumes an in-
finitely stiff supporting structure, so start-up displacement am-
plitudes due to high accelerations cannot occur. Since the differ-
ences in amplitude for this test were so different from the sim-
ulation data, it is only presented as a qualitative comparison.
The next studied test took place at speed of 4200 rpm, which
was just above the critical speed of the shaft-rotor system in the
direction ( 64 Hz or 3840 rpm). This test gave an op-
portunity to observe transition through critical speed and to ob-
serve the qualitative shape of the amplitude envelope. Table IV
contains conditions for the 4200-rpm test, and Fig. 13 plots the
results.
There was a 1.768-s delay ( ) between when the data input
was initiated and when motion began in the flywheel for the ex-
periment, so the data had to be shifted in time by in order
to compare with the of the simulated data. The results were
typical of those that crossed the critical speed with a character-
istic envelope shape. The shape and amplitude was found to be
highly sensitive to the damping ratio and the stiffness. This was
observed while varying the values of the stiffness and damping
coefficient in the model. The experimental data shows an enve-
lope that precedes the predicted critical speed of 64 Hz. This
envelope appears to be centered at about 54 Hz. This phenom-
enon is due to one of two things; either it is a coupling in the
shaft displacement amplitude from the direction, as discussed
previously, due to the asymmetric nature of the stiffnesses, or
something in the supporting structure has a resonance at this par-
ticular speed. Excluding this precritical-speed amplitude peak,
the simulation generally follows the shape and form of the crit-
ical-speed amplitude envelope. There is some slight difference
in the drop-off and in the transition between envelopes in the
experiment which does not exist in the simulation. The overall
performance, given adjusted values, gave a 7% difference be-
tween measured and adjusted values of stiffness and a 38% dif-
279
Fig. 14. Plot of experimental versus simulation data of x-center position for
4400 rpm test.
TABLE V
4400-RPM TEST INITIAL CONDITIONS
ference between the average measured and adjusted values for
the damping coefficient. It should be noted that this adjusted
value of the damping coefficient was still within the range of
measured values—between 0.01 and 0.001.
The final case to be studied as representative of the series was
conducted at 4400 rpm (see Fig. 14), the highest speed tested.
Testing conditions were as follows in Table V.
There was a 1.563-s delay ( ) between when the data input
was initiated and when motion began in the flywheel for the
experiment. Again, the data had to be shifted in time by in
order to compare with the simulated data. As in the 4200-rpm
test, there is good agreement between the model and the exper-
iment. Again, we do not have the pre-critical-speed envelope
centered at the same rpm as in the 4200-rpm case, which was
54 Hz 2 Hz. The transition between envelopes also occurs at
about the same rpm as in the previous case. The overall per-
formance for the given adjusted values gave a 6% difference
between measured and adjusted values of stiffness and again
a 38% difference between the average measured and adjusted
values for the damping coefficient, keeping in mind the previous
case’s discussion on the value of damping coefficient.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The primary goal of this study was to create an experimen-
tally validated bond graph model of the Jeffcott rotor. This was
done successfully. Three main points on the performance of the
Lagrangian Bond Graph model are as follows.
• There is excellent agreement ( 99.8 ) between the
Hamiltonian model and the Lagrangian bond graph
model.
• The transient case for subcritical speeds shows poor agree-
ment with the experimental data, but is due to modeling as-
sumption of ideal Jeffcott rotor conditions, i.e., structural
resonances not accounted for in the supporting structure.
• The transient case for the spin-up through critical speed
shows very good agreement ( 97 ) between the exper-
iment and simulation in the amplitude and shape of the
resonant amplitude envelope if the resonant envelope that
280
does not exist in the simulated data is excluded. Recalling
again that the assumption of an ideal Jeffcott rotor is used
for the model, which is being compared to a “nonideal”
simple shaft-rotor system.
The major modeling issue to come out of this study is that
using the Hamiltonian method to analytically model this system
proved extremely tedious, which indicates that there could have
been a better approach chosen as the baseline to the bond graph
model. It should also be noted that most rotor/shaft systems of
greater than two degrees of freedom will act like the two-de-
grees-of-freedom case (i.e., the Jeffcott rotor) as observed by
Dimentberg [15] in his canonical text on flexural vibrations of
rotating shafts. So, it should be concluded that the bond graph
model constructed should readily be able to describe rotor sys-
tems of greater degrees of freedom. Because of the bond graph’s
innate ability to connect systems and multiple energy domains,
the current bond graph model is well suited for use in more com-
plex systems, thus making it a robust and adaptable element for
modeling larger systems where multiple energy domains and
multiple systems are interacting.
REFERENCES
[1] J. M. Vance, Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery. New York: Wiley,
1988, pp. 3–6.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, VOL. 41, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
[2] R. G. Loewy and V. J. Piarulli, [SVM-4] Dynamics of Rotating
Shafts. Washington, D.C.: The Shock and Vibration Information
Center, U.S. Department of Defense, 1969, pp. 1–4.
[3] D. Childs, Turbomachinery Rotordynamics—Phenomena, Modeling,
and Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1993, pp. 2–8.
[4] R. G. Loewy and V. J. Piarulli, [SVM-4] Dynamics of Rotating
Shafts. Washington, D.C.: The Shock and Vibration Information
Center, U.S. Department of Defense, 1969, pp. 6–10.
[5] , [SVM-4] Dynamics of Rotating Shafts. Washington, D.C.: The
Shock and Vibration Information Center, U.S. Department of Defense,
1969, p. 2.
[6] J. M. Vance, Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery. New York: Wiley,
1988, p. 17.
[7] R. G. Loewy and V. J. Piarulli, [SVM-4] Dynamics of Rotating
Shafts. Washington, D.C.: The Shock and Vibration Information
Center, U.S. Department of Defense, 1969, pp. 31–34.
[8] J. M. Vance, Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery. New York: Wiley,
1988, p. 21.
[9] R. Neptune, “Class Notes on Hamilton’s Method,” Dept. Mech. Eng.,
The University of Texas at Austin, 2003.
[10] J. M. Vance, Rotordynamics of Turbomachinery. New York: Wiley,
1988, p. 295.
[11] J. J. Beaman and H. M. Paynter, Modeling of Physical Systems, 1993,
unpublished, pp. 3.69–3.71.
[12] D. C. Karnopp, D. L. Margolis, and R. C. Rosenberg, System Dynamics:
A Unified Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1990, pp. 316–317.
[13] M. Hubbard, “Whirl dynamics of pendulous flywheels using bond
graphs,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 308, no. 4, pp. 505–421, Oct. 1979.
[14] J. J. Beaman and H. M. Paynter, Modeling of Physical Systems, 1993,
unpublished, pp. 6.22–6.35.
[15] F. M. Dimentburg, Flexural Vibrations of Rotating Shafts. London,
U.K.: Buttersworth, 1961, p. 43.