Bok Seong Choe

Center of Urban Energy System Research,

Korea Institute of Science and Technology,
Rotordynamic Behavior
39-1 Hawolgok-dong,
Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 137-791, South Korea
e-mail: bschoe@kist.re.kr
of 225 kW (300 HP) Class
Tae Ho Kim PMS Motor–Generator System
Assistant Professor
School of Mechanical Systems Engineering,
Kookmin University,
Supported by Gas Foil Bearings
77 Jeongneung-ro,
Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-702, South Korea
This paper presents the dynamic behavior of a 225 kW class (300 HP), 60,000 rpm, per-
e-mail: thk@kookmin.ac.kr
manent magnet synchronous (PMS) motor–generator system supported on gas foil bear-
ings (GFBs). The rotor of a 225 kW PMS motor is supported by two identical gas foil
journal bearings (GFJBs) and one pair of gas foil thrust bearings (GFTBs). The total
Chang Ho Kim weight and axial length of the coupled rotors are 272 N and 1042 mm, respectively. Dur-
Center of Urban Energy System Research,
ing the speed-up test to 60,000 rpm, unexpected large subsynchronous rotor motions
Korea Institute of Science and Technology,
appear at around 120–130 Hz above 35,040 rpm. After disassembling the motor, an
39-1 Hawolgok-dong,
inspection of the top foils of the GFJBs reveals significant rotor rubbing. Thus, the
Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 137-791, South Korea
GFJBs are redesigned to have a smaller load capacity by reducing their axial length to
e-mail: kimch@kist.re.kr
45 mm. In addition, three 50 lm thick shims are installed in the GFJBs at 120 deg inter-
vals for reducing the swirl speed of air and producing bearing preloads. The modification
Yong Bok Lee1 delays the onset speed of subsynchronous motions to 43,200 rpm and decreases the
Center of Urban Energy System Research,
amplitude of the subsynchronous motions from 20 to 15 lm. These results indicate that
Korea Institute of Science and Technology, the modification improves the stability margin of the high-speed rotor system with
39-1 Hawolgok-dong, increasing stiffness and damping. In addition, the logarithmic decrement trends are in
Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 137-791, South Korea good agreement with the test results. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4029712]
e-mail: lyb@kist.re.kr

Introduction sleeve at 120 deg spacing along the bearing circumference induce
mechanical preloads. Their prediction showed that three shims
GFBs are widely used in high-power-density turbomachinery
increase the direct stiffness and damping coefficients, thus
because they can operate reliably at high speeds in a compact
improving the rotordynamic stability of a simple rotor-GFB sys-
unit. As supports for high speed rotating machinery, GFBs offer
tem test rig. Heshmat and Walton [8,9] first applied GFBs to mul-
greater stability, and load capacity while incurring a lower mainte-
tishaft rotating systems. They analyzed and tested two
nance cost than gas rigid bearings.
combinations of multishaft systems (rigid–rigid and rigid–flexible
Over the last few decades, GFBs have been advanced consider-
coupled shaft) connected using a flexible coupling. They provided
ably through research efforts. Heshmat et al. [1] analyzed GFTBs
considerable insight into the range of stiffness needed for coupling
using the finite difference method. They solved the Reynolds
when used in rigid–flexible coupled rotor systems supported on
equation for a compressible fluid flow and predicted the load
GFBs. Lee et al. [10] conducted speed-up and coast-down tests of
capacity of GFTBs. Agrawal [2] reported the chronological pro-
a coupled motor–compressor shaft system. The two shafts are
gress of the development of GFBs and their applications in turbo-
coupled using a bellows-type flexible coupling for isolating the
machinery. The author insisted that a GFB was one of the
dynamics from each shaft. The test results show that the peak
promising bearings for applications to missile engines in light of
amplitude at the critical speed decreases and the onset speed of the
its many applications particularly to air cycle machines (ACMs).
peak amplitude is delayed slightly with decreasing radial clearance.
Dellacorte and Valco [3] proposed the “Rule of thumb” (ROT) for
Thus far, however, studies have not reported on the rotordynamic
a quick estimation of the GFB load capacity. The authors used
behavior of multiple shaft systems supported on GFBs.
experimental test data obtained by various researchers since 1965
To address this deficiency, the present study develops a rotordy-
to show that the load capacity of GFBs was, in general, linearly
namic model to predict the behavior of a 225 kW motor–generator
proportional to the rotor surface speed. Dellacorte et al. [4] pro-
with multiple rotors supported on GFBs. The natural frequencies
vided a comprehensive review of the design, fabrication, and per-
and mode shapes are analyzed using the rotordynamic model and
formance test of first-(Generation I) and second-(Generation II)
predicted GFB dynamic coefficients. During the experiments, at
generation bump-type GFBs. Heshmat [5] developed double-
speeds of up to 60,000 rpm, corrections and adjustments such as
bump-layer GFBs that offered significantly increased load
multiple shaft alignments and bearing dimension resizing were
capacity. The author reported an ultimate load capacity of 673.5
required for enabling operation at the maximum speed without
kPa (97.7 psi) for test GFB. Kim and San Andres [6] developed a
excessive subsynchronous motions.
simple model for GFBs with upper (soft) and lower (stiffer) bump
layers. The authors predicted larger direct stiffness and damping
coefficients for double-bump-layer GFBs. The authors [7] also
predicted the dynamic performance of GFBs with mechanical pre- Motor–Generator System
loads. They showed that three shims in contact with a bearing
Figure 1 shows a schematic view of the 225 kW (300 HP) class
PMS motor–generator system supported by GFBs. The motor
1
Corresponding author. shaft is radially supported by two identical GFJBs and axially by
Contributed by the Structures and Dynamics Committee of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received
a pair of GFTBs positioned about the thrust collar. On the genera-
December 4, 2014; final manuscript received January 15, 2015; published online tor shaft, similar bearings and an identical arrangement are
February 25, 2015. Editor: David Wisler. employed. To enable torque measurement, the alternator of the

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 092505-1
C 2015 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 225 kW (300 HP) class PMS motor–generator system, maximum speed 5 60,000 rpm
(1000 Hz)

Table 1 Geometries of GFJB and GFTB

(a) GFJB

Bearing radius 35.75 mm

34.75 mm
Bearing length 60.00–45.00 mm
Bearing radial clearance 0.15 mm
Top foil thickness(including MoS2 coating, 0.02 mm) 0.22 mm
Top foil material Inconel X-750
Bump foil thickness 0.20 mm
Bump height 0.62 mm
Fig. 2 GFBs. (a) GFJB and (b) GFTB with six top foils and Bump pitch 5.66 mm
bump layer. Bump half length 2.33 mm
Bump foil material Stainless steel
generator rolls on ball-bearings with the load-arm making rota- (b) GFTB
tional contact against the torque-sensing load-cell. Outer radius 55.00 mm
The D.N. number (bearing diameter (mm)  rotating speed 65.00 mm
(rpm)) of the motor–generator system is very high, being over Inner radius 25.00 mm
4,000,000. Therefore, typical rigid coupling cannot be applied in 27.00 mm
this system. As a result, both the motor and the generator shafts are Bearing axial clearance 0.15 mm
Top foil thickness(including MoS2 coating, 0.02 mm) 0.22 mm
linked by a bellows-type flexible coupling to isolate dynamics from
Top foil material Inconel X-750
either side. The resultant rotor assemblage has a length of 1042 mm Bump foil thickness 0.20 mm
and a weight (or radial load) of 272 N (27.7 kg). This implies that Bump height 0.50 mm
the entire rotor is radially suspended on four identical GFJBs and Bump pitch 5.00 mm
axially secured by two pairs of GFTBs. However, the complete Bump half length 1.30 mm
rotating system consists of the driving PMS motor and the driven Angle of inclined part* 19.5 deg
generator. The cooling fan is installed on the right end of the motor Number of top foils 6
to ensure convective air cooling of the motor coils and its rotor sur- Bump foil material Stainless steel
face. Two orthogonally positioned fiber optic sensors measure the
amplitude of the rotor motions about the flexible coupling.
Figure 2 shows images of the support bearings. Each GFJB has
a length and radius of 60 and 35.75 mm. The GFJBs are all identi-
cal; however, the GFTBs on the motor shaft are slightly larger than
those on the generator shaft. The GFTB on the generator shaft has
an outer and inner radius of 55 and 25 mm, respectively, whereas
that on the shaft has an outer and inner radius of 65 and 27 mm,
respectively. Table 1 shows the structural design parameters of the
GFJBs and GFTBs and Fig. 3, the geometry of their designs.

Rotordynamic Analysis of Coupled Rotor–Generator

System Supported on GFJBs
Figure 4 shows a finite element (FE) rotordynamic model of the
rotor assemblage. Rotordynamic analysis is performed using an
advanced rotordynamic tool [11] to generate the free–free and
damped eigenvalues of the rotor model. The solution considers Fig. 3 Design geometry of GFBs

092505-2 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 4 FE model of 225 kW (300 HP) coupled motor–generator
system

Fig. 6 Campbell diagram of coupled motor–generator system

(N.F.1–4: rigid mode, N.F.5–6: bending mode)

Fig. 5 Free–free natural frequency analysis and impact test

results of 225 kW (300 HP) coupled motor–generator system

the changes in rotor speed and assumes that the flexible coupling
is isotropic. This assumption essentially simplifies the transfer
matrix and minimizes the computational time while maintaining
the predictive accuracy.
Figure 5 shows the results of the predicted free–free analysis
and experimental data from the impact test. The first and second
natural frequencies (or rigid modes) occur at 27 Hz (1638 rpm)
and 185 Hz (11,114 rpm), respectively. The third and fourth natu-
ral frequencies (first and second flexural modes) are predicted to
occur at 1149 Hz (68,933 rpm) and 1335 Hz (80,081 rpm), respec-
tively. However, test results indicate that the third and fourth natu-
ral frequencies (first and second bending modes) actually occur at
1130 Hz (67,800 rpm) and 1320 Hz (79,200 rpm), respectively.
This gives marginal error values of 11.6% and 8.33%, respec-
tively. This indicates the predictive accuracy of the model. None-
theless, because the rated operating speed of the PMS
motor–generator system is 60,000 rpm (1000 Hz), i.e., 13% criti-
cal margin below the first flexural mode, the rotor assemblage can
be considered rigid–rigid coupling.
Figure 6 shows the Cambell diagram, which is representative of
Fig. 7 (a) Mode shape of coupled motor–generator system
a function of rotating speed and bearing rotordynamic coeffi- for each N.F. (N.F.1–4) and (b) mode shape of coupled motor–
cients. The actual systems include negative stiffness effects of the generator system for each N.F. (N.F.5–6)
permanent magnet motor and generator. It is assumed that these
effects are ignored because negative stiffness effects of the perma-
nent magnet are lesser than those of GFBs. The rotordynamic Figure 7(a) shows the mode of an assembled rotor from the first
coefficients are calculated using an in-house code by the perturba- to the fourth natural frequency. The first four natural frequencies
tion analysis of the Reynolds equation. Damping analysis is per- cause strains of the shafts about the flexible coupling. Actually,
formed using an advanced rotordynamic tool. The plots of these because the rated operating speed of the coupled rotor–generator
against the rotor speed give the Cambell diagrams. The first four system is 60,000 rpm, a driving motor should quickly pass
natural frequencies (152, 159, 185, and 249 Hz) are rigid modes over this region (9000–20,000 rpm) at a speed up velocity of
of each shaft and denote a rigid critical range (9148–14968 rpm). 5000 rpm/s to prevent very large vibrations at the coupling critical

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 092505-3

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 speed. Figure 7(b) shows the predicted bending mode of the two
shafts at natural frequencies of 5–6.

Experimental Tests: Initial Operating

Figure 8 shows a photograph of the test apparatus. The test
apparatus can be divided into two parts: driving motor and driven
generator. The PMS motor and the generator are water-cooled, in
addition to the fan, because of the need to minimize thermal
growth. The motor cooling fan is attached to the outside end of
the PMS motor. Figure 9 shows the measuring sensors, indicating
the position of the fiber optic sensor around the flexible coupling.
These locations are chosen because of the large displacements
showed by the mode shapes. The fiber optic displacement sensors
(uncertainty: 8%) are calibrated before the test to 750 lm/V for
aluminum. They are used to measure the rotor’s lateral displace-
ments near the flexible coupling. Real time signal monitoring is
performed using two oscilloscopes, and signal recording and post-
processing are performed using an FFT analyzer and an in-house
computer model.
Figures 10(a) and 10(b) show the initial experiment results for
1  synchronous amplitudes at the motor-side coupling. The mean
displacement amplitudes in the horizontal and vertical directions
are 90 and 60 lm, respectively. The driving motor is quickly
accelerated from 8000 to 20,000 rpm at a speed up velocity of
5000 rpm/s to prevent the advent of damaging vibrations at the
coupling critical speed of 12,000 rpm. Above this range, the motor
is accelerated at 1000 rpm/s until the peak speed of 54,000 rpm is
reached.
Fig. 10 1 3 synchronous vibration amplitude of coupling (a)
horizontal and (b) vertical at 0–54,000 rpm—before adjusting
alignment

The target speed of 60,000 rpm could not be attained, initially,

because of the emergence of large subsynchronous signal ampli-
tudes of 120–130 Hz at a rotor speed of 35,040 rpm (584 Hz). The
magnitudes of the same increased with abnormal noise and intense
vibrations as the rotor speed was increased. A post-test inspection
of the top foils of the GFJBs revealed the occurrence of significant
rotor rubbing. Figure 11 shows a waterfall graph of the sync and
subsync signals for the initial test.
Figures 12(a) and 12(b) show the analysis and test results of the
rotor center’s trajectory with variation in the rotor speed, respec-
tively. Before the test, the rotor is adjusted to an equilibrium posi-
tion, considered the origin, using sensors. This point is marked
with a red triangle at the base of the vertical diametrical line of
the encompassing nominal-clearance circle. However, the analyti-
cal minimum film thickness is 34.3 lm at 54,000 rpm, whereas
the actual lifted height is 50% larger than the analysis results.
Furthermore, the analytical value increases smoothly as the rotor
speed increases from 0 to 60,000 rpm. Conversely, the actual lift
Fig. 8 Test apparatus increases dramatically at a rotor speed of 30,000 rpm and remains
almost constant despite further increases in rotor speed.

Rotor Behavior After Shaft Re-Alignment and GFJB

Fig. 9 Measurement sensor (fiber optic, 750 lm/V) for ampli-
tude of rotor vibration and data acquisition device (FFT ana-
lyzer, pulse), oscilloscope
Modification
The rotor supported on the original GFJBs shows a large sub-
synchronous motion for speeds above 35,000 rpm as a result of a
large subharmonic motion and rubbing from other causes. To
solve this unexpected problem, some modifications of the bearings
and rotor are implemented. This study approached this problem
from a variety of approaches. First, the rotor assemblage is
replaced by a single alignment shaft that runs through the motor
and the generator. This modification eliminates the misalignment
at the coupling and reduces the run-out amplitude. Furthermore, it
eliminates the possibility of fatigue failure of the flexible-
coupling, while the lateral displacement amplitudes are attenu-
ated. Figures 13(a) and 13(b) show improved 1  synchronous

092505-4 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 11 Waterfall graph of 1 3 synchronous amplitude at coupling
vertical direction, bearing axial length 5 60 mm (0–54,000 rpm)

Fig. 13 1 3 synchronous vibration amplitude of coupling (a)

horizontal and (b) vertical at 0–60,000 rpm—after adjusting
alignment

vibration signals. With this modification, the horizontal magnitude

Fig. 12 (a) Analysis: trajectory of rotor center, 0–54,000 rpm,
bearing axial length 5 60 mm and (b) experiment: trajectory of
rotor center, 0–54,000 rpm, bearing axial length 5 60 mm
of 1  synchronous vibrations is reduced by 44%, whereas the
vertical component decreases only marginally.
Second, to further reduce subsynchronous vibrations, the
GFJBs are redesigned to have a smaller load capacity by reducing
their axial length to 45 mm. In addition, three 50 lm thick shims
are installed in the GFJBs at 120 deg intervals to provide bearing
preloads. Three shims provide mechanical preloads that enhance
the hydrodynamic stability by minimizing the cross-coupling
effects, while the damping coefficients are better developed.
Accordingly, a static analysis of the GFJBs is conducted to deter-
mine their minimum film thicknesses. Figure 14 shows the

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 092505-5

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 14 Predicted minimum film thickness versus rotor speed Fig. 16 Waterfall graph of 1 3 synchronous amplitude at
for increasing bearing axial length. Designed GFJB with static coupling vertical direction, bearing axial length 5 45 mm
load of 60 N. (0–60,000 rpm)

predicted minimum film thickness versus rotor speed for increas-

ing bearing axial length. The results indicate that the increase in
bearing axial length and rotor speed leads to an increase in the
minimum film thickness. With a bearing axial length of 60 and
45 mm, the bearings have minimum film thicknesses of 15 and
10 lm, respectively, at a rotor speed of 20,000 rpm. Similarly, at
the peak rotor speed of 60,000 rpm (rated operating speed), the
minimum film thicknesses for axial lengths of 60 and 45 mm are
37 and 24 lm, respectively. These results serve to illustrate the
impact of changes in the dimensions and rotor speed on the mini-
mum allowable film thickness.
Figure 15 shows the test and analysis results of the trajectory of
the rotor’s center for different rotor speeds after adjusting the bear-
ing’s axial length to 45 mm (75% of its original value). The analy-
sis result of the minimum film thickness is 23.9 lm at 60,000 rpm,
which is 60% lesser than the test result. Although the disparity in
lift is significant between the measurement and the analysis, the lift-
ing process is gradual and consistent with analysis.
Figure 16 shows a waterfall graph of the vertical displacements
at the coupling for 1  synchronous motion, with a bearing axial
length of 45 mm. During the speed-up test to 60,000 rpm, the
onset speed of subsynchronous motions is delayed to 43,200 rpm
(672 Hz), and the amplitudes of the subsynchronous motions are
reduced from 20 to 15 lm. Furthermore, the growth of subsyn-
chronous motions stops despite the increase in speed. This implies
that the modifications significantly improve the rotordynamic

Fig. 15 (a) Analysis: trajectory of rotor center, 0–60,000 rpm,

bearing axial length 5 45 mm and (b) experiment: trajectory of Fig. 17 Logarithmic decrement analysis versus speed
rotor center, 0–60,000 rpm, bearing axial length 5 45 mm (B.W. 5 bearing width, N.F.4 5 240–250 Hz)

092505-6 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 18 (a) GFJB synchronous direct stiffness coefficient versus speed at the G2 position
(B.W. 5 bearing width), (b) GFJB synchronous cross coupled stiffness coefficient versus
speed at the G2 position (B.W. 5 bearing width), (c) GFJB synchronous direct damping coeffi-
cient versus speed at the G2 position (B.W. 5 bearing width), and (d) GFJB synchronous cross
coupled damping coefficient versus speed at the G2 position (B.W. 5 bearing width)

behavior of the test apparatus and facilitate the successful attain-
ment of the design speed (60,000 rpm).
d ¼ lnfxðtÞ=xðt þ nTÞg=n
Figures 16 and 17 show that the frequency of the subsynchro-
nous motion is one-half of N.F.4 (fourth critical speed). Further-
more, the one-half frequency of N.F.4 results from the
supersynchronous excitation (2). Therefore, the subsynchronous
motion in the waterfall graph is associated with N.F.4. Figure 17
shows the logarithmic decrement graph of the system for different
rotor speeds. Equation (1) defines the logarithmic decrement. The
initial GFJB (bearing width ¼ 60 mm, without three shims) shows
significant subsynchronous motions at excitation frequencies with
peak amplitudes near 120–130 Hz at a rotor speed of 35,040 rpm
(584 Hz) for a logarithmic decrement of 0.158. For the modified
GFJB with a bearing width of 45 mm, the onset of subsynchronous
motions is delayed to 43,200 rpm (672 Hz) and the amplitude of the
logarithmic decrement similar to that for a rotor speed of 35,040 rpm
(584 Hz) of the initial GFJB. Furthermore, the analysis result of the
logarithmic decrement increases from 0.158 to 0.201 at 35,040 rpm,
which is 21.4% larger than the initial GFJB. Furthermore, the loga-
rithmic decrement increases from 0.106 to 0.151 at 43,200 rpm.
are calculated using an in-house code based on the perturbation
analysis of film reaction forces by the Reynolds equations. The
predictions indicate that the force coefficients of the three
shimmed GFJBs are consistently larger than those of the original.
This is evidently true from the reduction in film clearance. How-
ever, their disparities become progressively smaller with increas-
ing journal speed. Moreover, the magnitude of the direct spring
force (Kxx) that acts in the static load (or rotor weight) direction is
larger and more responsive to changes in journal speed than the
coefficient (Kyy) in the normal direction. Although the cross-
couple stiffness (Kxy, Kyx) of the three shimmed GFJBs are
higher than those of the original, their destabilizing strength is suf-
ficiently minimized by the corresponding larger direct damping
coefficients (Cxx, Cyy). The synergic effects of improved damping
and the comparatively higher direct stiffness of the modified
GFJB enable the test machine to operate at the rated speed with
enhanced stability. Quantitatively speaking, the modification
improves the values of Cxx and Cyy by 33.05% and 42% of the
original GFJB at 35,040 rpm, respectively. This improvement in
damping delays the onset speed of subsynchronous motions and
reinforces rotordynamic stability. Note that the stiffness and
damping effects of the force fields generated by the PMS motor
and generator are one order of magnitude smaller than those of
the bearing; and therefore, they are considered negligible.

Rotordynamic Coefficients for GFJBs

Having characterized the rotor’s dynamic behavior and success-
fully achieved the design speed, a data comparison of the rotordy-
namic force coefficients of the original against the modified
GFJBs is performed. Figures 18(a)–18(d) contain show the force
parameters of the original and the three shimmed GFJBs. These
graphs are generated through analyses, and their values are used
as inputs for the rotor’s dynamics. The rotordynamic coefficients
Conclusions
In this study, the dynamic performance of a 225 kW (300 HP)
class high-speed PMS motor with a coupled motor–generator is
improved. The assembled shaft is connected by two rigid rotors
and a flexible coupling. The total length of the assembled rotor is
1042 mm and the total mass is 27.705 kg. Each rotor is supported
by two journal bearings and a pair of thrust bearings. The

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 092505-7

Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 rotordynamic stability analysis is performed by the FE predictive
tool and verified experimentally. A transfer matrix based on a
rotordynamic tool is used to predict the free–free and the damped
eigenvalues of the rotordynamic model for increasing rotor speed.
The first four natural frequencies lie in the range of
9148–14,968 rpm. Because the rated operating speed of the
coupled motor–generator system is 60,000 rpm and the flexural
critical speed of the flexible coupling is 12,000 rpm, a quick pass
over the region of 9000–20,000 rpm is imperative to avoid
dangerous vibrations. During the speed-up test to 60,000 rpm,
unexpected large subsynchronous rotor motions appeared at
around 120–130 Hz. These were attenuated by using a single
alignment shaft and enforcing a bearing preload. The alignment
shaft eliminates misalignment, improves rotor rigidity, defers flex-
ural critical speed, minimizes vibration amplitudes, and prevents
fatigue failure of the flexible coupling.
First, an alignment shaft was produced to solve the alignment
problem, resulting in a 45% reduction of the horizontal
1  synchronous vibration of the coupling from 90 to 50 lm. To
reduce subsynchronous vibrations, the GFJBs are redesigned
to have a smaller load capacity by reducing their axial length to
45 mm. In addition, three 50 lm thick shims are installed in the
GFJBs at 120 deg intervals for providing bearing preloads. Subse-
quently, the trajectory test results (bearing axial length: 45 mm)
were increased such that they were as smooth as those in the pre-
vious tests (bearing axial length: 60 mm) at 0–60,000 rpm.
In addition, the actual lifted height was reduced by 15% in
comparison with the previous tests. During the speed-up test to
60,000 rpm, the modification delayed the onset speed of subsyn-
chronous motions to 43,200 rpm (672 Hz) and decreased the
amplitude of the subsynchronous motions from 20 to 15 lm. Fur-
thermore, the subsynchronous motion stopped increasing.
Experimental tests demonstrate that the subsynchronous signal
due to an overly large minimum film thickness with increasing
bearing width. In addition, test results show that the shimmed
GFJB reduces subsynchronous motions with increasing stiffness
and damping coefficients. Furthermore, the logarithmic decrement
trends show that the onset speed of subsynchronous signals
increases owing to the damping coefficient. The experimental
results are in good agreement with the analysis results.
092505-8 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015
Downloaded From: http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/29/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Acknowledgment
This material is based upon works supported by the Korea Insti-
tute of Science and Technology (KIST) Research Projects: R&D
on the development of fundamental energy conversion technolo-
gies for efficient electricity consumption in a metropolis.
Nomenclature
ln ¼ natural logarithm
n¼ integer number of successive, positive peaks
T¼ period
x(t) ¼ amplitude at time t
x(t þ nT) ¼ amplitude of the peak n periods
d¼ logarithmic decrement
References
[1] Heshmat, H., Walowit, J. A., and Pinkus, O., 1983, “Analysis of Gas Lubricated
Compliant Thrust Bearings,” ASME J. Tribol., 105(4), pp. 638–646.
[2] Agrawal, G. L., 1997, “Foil Air/Gas Bearing Technology—An Overview,”
ASME Paper No. 97-GT-347.
[3] Dellacorte, C., and Valco, M. J., 2000, “Load Capacity Estimation of Foil Air
Journal Bearings for Oil-Free Turbomachinery Applications,” STLE Tribol.
Trans., 43(4), pp. 795–801.
[4] DellaCorte, C., Radil, K., Bruckner, R., and Howard, S., 2007, “Design, Fabri-
cation and Performance of Open Source Generation I and II Compliant Hydro-
dynamic Gas Foil Bearings,” NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, OH,
Report No. NASA/TM-2007-214691.
[5] Heshmat, H., 1994, “Advancements in the Performance of Aerodynamic Foil
Journal Bearings: High Speed and Load Capacity,” ASME J. Tribol., 116(2),
pp. 287–294.
[6] Kim, T. H., and San Andres, L., 2007, “Analysis of Advanced Gas Foil Bearings
With Piecewise Linear Elastic Supports,” Tribol. Int., 40(8), pp. 1239–1245.
[7] Kim, T. H., and San Andres,L., 2009, “Effects of a Mechanical Preload on the
Dynamic Force Response of Gas Foil Bearings: Measurements and Model Pre-
dictions,” STLE Tribol. Trans., 52(4), pp. 569–580.
[8] Heshmat, H., and Walton, J. F., 2007, “On the Coupling of Foil Bearing Sup-
ported Rotors: Part 1—Analysis,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27821.
[9] Heshmat, H., and Walton, J. F., 2007, “On the Coupling of Foil Bearing Sup-
ported Rotors: Part 2—Experiment,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27825.
[10] Lee, Y. B., Jo, S. B., Kim, T. Y., Kim, C. H., and Kim, T. H., 2010,
“Rotordynamic Performance Measurement of an Oil-Free Turbocompressor
Supported on Gas Foil Bearings,” IFToMM 8th International Conference on
Rotor Dynamics, Seoul, South Korea, Sept. 12–15, pp. 372–378.
[11] Axis, 2010, Rapp User Manual, Axis Communications AB, Lund, Sweden,
http://www.nongnu.org/rapp/doc/rapp/, last accessed Nov. 14, 2011.
Transactions of the ASME