Acceleration of Unbalanced Rotors

Stefan Hubinger ∗ Hubert Gattringer ∗ Hartmut Bremer ∗

Karl Mayrhofer ∗∗
∗
Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Altenbergerstrasse 69 Austria
(e-mail: stefan.hubinger@jku.at, hubert.gattringer@jku.at,
hartmut.bremer@jku.at)
∗∗
Siemens VAI Metals Technology, Linz, Turmstrasse 44 Austria
(e-mail: mayrhofer.karl@siemens.com)

Abstract: A lot of work in rotordynamics is done in the evaluation of the Laval rotor. By
accelerating this type of rotor, described by a single rigid disc centred in the middle of a slim
shaft modelled as spring, one can observe the sticking of the rotational speed at the first bending
eigenfrequency of the system, also named critical speed. This phenomenon only appears when
the rotor is unbalanced and a small external torque accelerates the rotor. Taking a look at higher
critical speeds one will notice that the Laval rotor model is insufficient accurate to take this
eigenfrequencies into account. Therefore the equations of motion are derived using the Projection
Equation in subsystem representation leading to Partial Differential Equations (PDE). Using
the Timoshenko beam theory enables one to include the discs not only as rigid body but as
real elastic part of the beam system. Applying the Transfer-Matrix-Method (TMM) to the
system’s linearized equations delivers adequate shape functions for the nonlinear PDE. The
advantage of using the TMM is the possibility to calculate multidisc rotors and systems where
the border between disc and shaft related to the diameter to length ratio cannot be defined
clearly. Furthermore, the excentricity which is responsible for the unbalance of the rotor, has
to be taken into account. The modeling is again done with the Projection Equation. Numerical
simulation solutions are presented and compared to experimental results.

Keywords: Rotordynamics, Ritz-approach, Transfer-Matrix-Method, Timoshenko beam.

1. INTRODUCTION boundaries of the beams. The benefit using the free-free

The basic mechanisms describing the highly nonlinear phe-
nomenon of the sticking of rotors in the natural frequen-
cies, also called critical speeds, can be found in e.g. Lewis,
F.M. (1932) and Gasch, R., Nordmann, R., and Pfützer,
H. (2005). Unfortunately these authors only deal with the
laval rotor. In the case of multistepped and multidisc rotors
the laval model is not applicable and different approaches
have to be used. One possibility is the Finite Element
Method (FEM). The disadvantage applying FEM is the
use of a high number of local shape functions for the
discretization of the system. This type of shape functions
is highly unsuitable for the description of large rigid body
translations and velocities, as required in the field of rotor-
dynamics. However using this method results in very small
time steps during the system’s numerical time integration
and furthermore in huge calculation times. On the other
hand the classical multibody approach is unusable for cal-
culating small elastic deformations. Hence a floating frame
of reference formulation is worked out to combine the large
rigid body rotation and the small bending and torsional
vibrations as well as the longitudinal displacement of the
rotors. The TMM is an analytical technique to calculate
the eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes for arbitrary beam
systems with diverse boundary conditions, see Pestel, C.,
and Leckie, F.A. (1963). In this paper the eigenfrequencies
and eigenmodes are calculated for free-free beams, imply-
ing the shear force and bending moment to be zero at the
modes as shape functions is that no moving direction is
restricted and the degree of freedom is maximized.
2. TEST BENCH
The test bench is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a circular
shaft, two discs including asymmetric masses and a motor
for the acceleration of the shaft. The mounting is realized
by two self-aligning ball bearings. This type of bearing has
the advantage to be insensitive to angular misalignments
of the shaft relative to the housing. A simple tooth belt
realizes the connection between the motor and the rotor
shaft. This type of mounting was chosen to minimize
the influence of parameter excited vibrations which could
occure when using a gear system for the coupling. A single
screw thread hole in the face of the larger disc acts as
excentricity. Additional masses, for example lining discs,
can easily be applied by a screw to vary the mass of the
excentricity.
3. DYNAMICAL MODELING
The Projection Equation, see e.g. Bremer, H. (2008), is
used to derive the dynamical equations of motion for
spinning Timoshenko beams, leading to PDEs. As describ-
ing velocities ẏ for a mass element dm, the rigid body
rotation α (t), the torsional deflection ϑ (x, t), the longitu-
dinal displacement u (x, t), the elastic bending deflections
 Iz
Rz ϑ (x, t)
mǫ
s

)
x, t Ry
w(
rc
α (t)
v (x, t)
Iy

Fig. 2. Excentricity and coordinate systems

Z
Fig. 1. Test bench
Mb = ΨdMΨT (6)
B
 
2I 0 0 0 2IΘT 0 0
v (x, t) , w (x, t) both in the rotating reference frame, see  0 AUUT 0 0 0 0 0 
Fig. 2, the bending angles β (x, t) , γ (x, t) and the beams Z L  −AwV 0 AVVT 0 0 0 0 

curvature given by the previous variables, all on the veloc-  
= ρ  AvW 0 0 AWW 0 T
0 0  dx,
ity level 0  
 2IΘ 0 0 0 2IΘΘ 0 0 
T
   IγB 0
ẏT = α̇ u̇ v̇ ẇ ϑ̇ β̇ γ̇ u̇′ v̇ ′ ẇ′ ϑ̇′ β̇ ′ γ̇ ′ (1) 0 0 0 IBB 0 
T

−IβΓ 0 0 0 0 0 IΓΓT
are used. They are the result of the application of a and Z
differential operator D̄ to the minimal velocities of the
system Gb = ΨdGΨT (7)
  B
 
ṡT = α̇ u̇ v̇ ẇ ϑ̇ β̇ γ̇ , ẏ = D̄ ◦ ṡ. (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
By using a Ritz approach Z L  −AvV 0 0 −2AVWT 0 0 0

 
= α̇ ρ −AwW 0 2AWVT 0 0 0 0dx.
0  0 0
 0 0 0 0 0 
ṡ (x, t) ∼
T
= Φ (x) ẏR (t) (3)  IβB 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0   α̇  IγΓ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 U 0 0 0 0 0   q̇u 
0 0 V 0 0 0 0  
   q̇v  The rotor is characterized by a cross section area A,
:= 
0 0 0 W 0 0 0 · 

q̇w 

density ρ, length L and second moment of inertia I. The
0 0 0 0 Θ 0 0   q̇ 
   ϑ same procedure is used to calculate the matrices for the
0 0 0 0 0 B 0 q̇β excentricity mǫ . This paper deals only with the linear
0 0 0 0 0 0 Γ q̇γ momentum of mass mǫ , therefore the angular momentum
is neglected. The position vector to mǫ , see Fig. 2 again,
the differential operator can be applied to the shape written in the spinning reference frame, is given by
functions " # " #
x+u 0
ẏ ∼
T
= D̄ ◦ Φ (x) ẏR (t) = ΨT ẏR . (4) r
R c,ǫ = v +A RE s . (8)
w x=xǫ E
0
The matrices U, V, W, Θ, B, Γ are the shape functions for |
R
{z }
rc
longitudinal vibration, bending, torsion and the bending
angles, respectively. An evaluation of the Projection Equa- The variable s describes the distance between the beam’s
tion yields the nonlinear ordinary differential equation of rotationsal axis and the mass mǫ and xǫ is the position
motion for the beam in longitudinal direction. Finally ARE denotes the trans-
Z  Z  Z 
formation matrix from the element fixed to the reference
ΨdMΨT ÿR + ΨdGΨT ẏR − ΨdQe = 0. system. It can be linearized to
| B {z } | B {z } | B {z } ARE = I + ϕ̃, (9)
Mb Gb Qb
(5) where I is the identity matrix and ϕ̃ the spin matrix of
the deflection angle
The variables dM, dG and dQ are the mass matrix, the
T
matrix of centrifugal and coriolis terms and the generalized ϕ = [ϑ β γ]x=xǫ . (10)
force vector which contains the elastic restoring forces as
well as the bearing stiffnesses, external forces and torques. Calculating the bodyintegral B yields the nonlinear mass
The nonlinear mass- and gyroscopic matrices are given by matrix for the excentricity
 m 0 0   0
αα 0 mαv mαw mαϑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 0 muu 0 0 0 0 muγ 
 0 kuu 0 0 0 0 0 
 mvα 
 0 mvv 0 0 0  Z L 0 0 kvv 0 0 0 kvγ 
M ǫ = mǫ  0 0 mww mwϑ 0 0   
mwα  K=  0 0 0 kww 0 kwβ 0 
 mϑα 0 0 mϑw mϑϑ 0 0   dx (15)
  0  0 0 0 0 kϑϑ 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0  
0 0 0 kβw 0 kββ 0
0 mγu 0 0 0 0 mγγ x=xǫ 0 0 kγv 0 0 0 kγγ
(11)
2 2 kuu = Y AU′ U′T
mαα = (s + v) + (sϑ + w)
kvv = κGAV′ V′T
mαv = mTvα = − (sϑ + w) VT
kvγ = −κGAV′ ΓT
mαw = mTwα = (s + v) WT

kww = κGAW′ W′T
mαϑ = mTϑα = s2 + sv ΘT
kwβ = κGAW′ BT
muu = UUT
T
muγ = mTγu = −sUΓT kϑϑ = GId Θ′ Θ′
kβw = κGABW′T
mvv = VVT
T
mww = WWT kββ = κGABBT + Y IB′ B′

mwϑ = mTϑw = sWΘT kγv = −κGAΓV′T

T
mϑϑ = s2 ΘΘT kγγ = κGAΓΓT + Y IΓ′ Γ′ ,
mγγ = s2 ΓΓT , where Y is the Young’s modulus, κ denotes the shear
coefficient and the shear modulus is given by G. In the
and the gyroscopic matrix case of circular cross sections the torsional stiffness Id of
g 0 g gαw gαϑ 0 0 the beam is equal the polar moment of inertia. Due to the
αα αv
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fact that in this paper the external generalized forces are
 gvα 0 0 gvw gvϑ 0  all acting in the inertial frame, but the differential equation
 
Gǫ = mǫ 
gwα 0 gwv 0 0 0 0 (12) of motion is written in the spinning reference system, the
 gϑα 0 gϑv 0 0 0 0 forces have to be transformed to this coordinate system.
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The generalized force vector of the external forces is given
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x=xǫ by

  
gαα = (s + v) v̇ + (sϑ + w) ẇ + sw + s2 ϑ ϑ̇ mx + fz v cos (α)
 
gαv = (s + v) α̇VT  
−fy w cos (α) − fy v sin (α) − fz w sin (α) 
gαw = (sϑ + w) α̇WT Z L
 fx U



 
gαϑ = sw + s2 ϑ α̇ΘT Qc,ex =  fy V cos (α) + fz V sin (α) dx.
  0 
 fz W cos (α) − fy W sin (α)


 
gvα = −V sϑ̇ + ẇ + (s + v) α̇  mx Θ 
 my B cos (α) + mz B sin (α) 
T
gvw = −gwv = −VWT α̇ mz Γ cos (α) − my Γ sin (α)
T
gvϑ = −gϑv = −sVΘT α̇ (16)
gwα = W (v̇ − (sϑ + w) α̇)


4. MECHANICAL SYSTEM
gϑα = Θ sv̇ − sw + s2 ϑ α̇ .
The rotor is modelled as a multistepped Timoshenko beam
By assembling the beam and the excentricity, one can with circular cross sections. It is supported by four linear
compute the equations of motion for the entire system springs representing the bearings in y− and z− direction.
(Mb + Mǫ ) ÿR + (Gb + Gǫ ) ẏR − Qb = 0. (13) The Timoshenko beam theory is used because it is more
general than the Bernoulli Euler theory and the simulation
The generalized force vector Qb can be split in linear is no restricted to a small diameter to length ratio of the
elastic terms Qc,elastic , and terms resulting from external rotorsections. The mechanical model is sketched in Fig. 3.
forces and torques Qc,ex . Furthermore the elastic parts can
be written as The geometric and mechanical properties are shown in
Qc,elastic = −K yR (14) table 1.
where K denotes the stiffness matrix. This seperation has Applying the Transfer- Matrix- Method, see Pestel, C.,
the advantage that the stiffness matrix is constant and can and Leckie, F.A. (1963) and Pilkey, W.D., and Chang,
be calculated in advance. The resulting matrix K is given P.Y. (1978), to the unbounded linearized rotor yields the
by eigenfrequencies of the system. These frequencies are used
 the beam at constant speed. The filtered result of this test
is shown in Fig. 6.
Using the speed controller accelerating the rotor with a
constant slope, see Fig. 7, one can notice the amplification
of the driving torque at t = 10.5s and t = 17.5s in Fig. 8.
Obviously, at this time steps the critical speeds of the rotor
are passed by. A verification can be done by comparing the
rotational speeds with the eigenfrequencies in table 2.
Fig. 3. Mechanical model
5.1 Acceleration with constant torque

To observe the typical sticking in the areas of the critical

Fig. 4. Eigenmode 1, bending z- direction
speeds the speed controller cannot be used because it gen-
erates a torque that is dependent on the velocity error. Due
to the this error, the controller output, namely the driving
torque, is enlarged, see again Fig. 8. Finally this problem
is solved by the implementation of a torque controller. In

0.06

Friction torque Mf (Nm) 0.055

Fig. 5. Eigenmode 2, bending z- direction 0.05

to calculate the eigenmodes which serve as shape functions
for the nonlinear Partial Differential Equation of motion. 0.045
The first eight eigenfrequencies of the nonrotating rotor
are presented in table 2. 0.04

Due to the symmetry of the rotor and the foundation it is 0.035

obvious that the bending eigenfrequencies occure in pairs
and result in the same eigenmode. 0.03

5. MEASUREMENT 0.025

A Bernecker & Rainer automation system is used for 0.02

measurment and acceleration of the rotor. Because of the 0 20 40 60 80 100
small dimensions of the test bench it is assumed that Rotational speed α̇ (1/s)
damping and friction, in particular the friction of the
driving belt and in the bearings, will play a major roll Fig. 6. Friction torque for constant rotational speeds, the
when accelerating the rotor. To proof this assumption the dots represent the measured speeds
rotor was driven at different rotational speeds and the
motor torque was measured. For this analysis a controller
has to be implemented in the automation system to run 70

Table 1. Parameters of the rotor 60

Rotational speed α̇ (1/s)

Sectionnr. 1 2 3
Length l in m 0.02 0.81 0.025 50
Radius r in m 0.04 0.006 0.025
N
Young’s module Y in m2
2.1E11 2.1E11 2.1E11
Poisson ratio µ 0.3 0.3 0.3 40
Shear coefficient κ 0.9 0.9 0.9
30
Table 2. Calculated eigenfrequencies of the
rotor
20
Nr. Frequency in Hz Type
1 0.0 rigid body rotation
2 28.64 bending y- direction 10
3 28.64 bending z- direction see. Fig. 4
4 47.61 bending y- direction 0
5 47.61 bending z- direction see. Fig. 5 0 5 10 15 20
6 175.7 bending y- direction Time t (s)
7 175.7 bending z- direction
8 225.7 torsion Fig. 7. Constant acceleration using a PI velocity controller
the following different run ups with variable but fix driving
torques are measured and calculated. Starting with a driv- 30
ing torque mx = 0.05Nm one can see in Fig. 9, that the Measurment
rotor cannot accelerate through the first eigenfrequency. Simulation
All the driving power is transformed to bending vibration 25
and not to acceleration. In the simulation the rotor fulfills

Rotational speed α̇ (1/s)

a vibration around the critical speed, cf. Gasch, R., Nord-
mann, R., and Pfützer, H. (2005). Due to the facts that the 20
rotational speed is not measured directly and the rotor is
affected by damping, this vibration is not observed in the
15
experiment. In the second test the accelerating torque is
increased to mx = 0.055Nm. Figure 10 shows the run up.
One can notice an acceleration throught the first critical 10
speed but also the incapability of running faster than the
second critical speed. Considering the area around the
first critical speed a small decrease of the acceleration is 5
observable, both in the simulation and the experiment.
The last speed up is performed with a driving torque of
mx = 0.06Nm. Again the lessening of the acceleration can 0
0 5 10 15 20
be seen, but the torque is large enough to let the rotor
pass the first and second critical speed. Time t (s)
Fig. 9. Constant motor torque mx = 0.05Nm
6. CONCLUSION

In this paper the Partial Differential Equation of motion 50

of Timoshenko beams and excentricities is derived using Measurment
the Projection Equation. A direct Ritz approach leads Simulation
to a nonlinear system of ordinary differential equations. 40
Rotational speed α̇ (1/s)

Applying the analytical TMM to the linearized system

yields the eigenmodes of the system, resulting in a good
set of global shape functions for the nonlinear equations.
Avoiding numerical approximations, compared to the Fi- 30
nite Element Method, has major benefits regarding the size
of the mathematical system and calculation time as well
as convergence. Using a PI velocity controller facilitates 20
the identification of the friction in the rotor system. For
this purpose the rotor is driven at constant speed and the
controller output, namely the driving torque, is measured. 10
Three numerical simulations are carried out and validated
by experiments. Comparing the calculated results to the
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.08
Time t (s)
0.07
Fig. 10. Constant motor torque mx = 0.055Nm
0.06 measured quantities a good correlation is observable. A
possible extension is the examination of rotors without
Torque mx (Nm)

0.05 excentricity but with external loadings, again inducing

instabilities in the areas of the critical speeds.
0.04
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
0.03
Support of the present work in the framework of the peer-
0.02 reviewed Austrian Center of Competence in Mechatronics
(ACCM) is gratefully acknowledged.
0.01

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time t (s)
Fig. 8. Motor torque for constant acceleration
 70
Measurment
Simulation
60
Rotational speed α̇ (1/s)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time t (s)
Fig. 11. Constant motor torque mx = 0.06Nm
REFERENCES
Bremer, H. (2008). Elastic Multibody Dynamics. Springer.
ISBN 978-1-4020-8679-3.
Demirdag, O. (2007). Free vibration analysis of elastically
supported timoshenko columns with attached masses by
transfer matrix and finite element methods. Technical
report, Pamukkale University, Civil Engineering Depart-
ment, Turkey.
Dresig, H., and Holzweißig, F. (2004). Maschinendynamik.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York. 5. Auflage, ISBN
3-540-01362-8.
Egle, D.M. (1969). An approximate theory for trans-
verse shear deformation and rotatory inertia effects in
vibrating beams. Technical Report NASA CR-1317,
University of Oklahoma.
Gasch, R., Nordmann, R., and Pfützer, H. (2005). Ro-
tordynamik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York. 2.
Auflage, ISBN 3-540-41240-9.
Gattringer, H. (2011). Starr-elastische Robotersysteme.
Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-22827-8.
Hubinger, S., Gattringer, H., Bremer, H., and Mayrhofer,
K. (2010). Nonlinear Vibration Analysis of Discontinu-
ous Coupled, spinning Timoshenko Beams. In Proceed-
ings of the 8th IFToMM International Conference on
Rotor Dynamics, 948–955.
Lewis, F.M. (1932). Vibration During Acceleration
Through a Critical Speed. ASME J. Appl. Mech, 54,
253–261.
Pestel, C., and Leckie, F.A. (1963). Matrix Methods in
Elastomechanics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. ISBN
07-049520-3.
Pilkey, W.D., and Chang, P.Y. (1978). Modern Formulas
for Statics and Dynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
ISBN 0-07-049998-5.
Seto, W. (1964). Mechanical Vibrations. McGraw-Hill
Book Company. ISBN 07-056327-6.